Pages
1 reine.de.tout  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 7:13:58pm

I saw something about this on Fox this morning. Actually, I saw this actual interview this morning.

But Killgore - do you really think the usual suspects are going to be outrageously outraged about something that may have happened to Hillary Clinton?

2 freetoken  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 7:36:00pm

re: #1 reine.de.tout


But Killgore - do you really think the usual suspects are going to be outrageously outraged about something that may have happened to Hillary Clinton?

Hillary will be incidental to the outrage. The whole point of the outrage-machine and their daily nontroversies is to try and delegitimize B.H. Obama's claim to being a President of the United States.

3 Buck  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 7:37:36pm

I think you should at least see the whole film BEFORE you dismiss it.

I think they would have lead with the big accusation, but it looks they are going to release it slowly.

Although, I am sure it will be edited, and we all know what that means. Anything edited MUST be a lie.

4 Stanghazi  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 7:41:36pm

Ah Buck. What's your impeachment plan?

5 Buck  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 7:57:28pm

That is not the case Stanley...

Don't put words in my mouth,

BUT also don't find yourself defending someone until you know the whole story.

I decided to check out the website
[Link: wewillnotbesilenced2008.com...]

Interesting reading at [Link: wewillnotbesilenced2008.com...]

6 BARACK THE VOTE  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 8:07:53pm

re: #4 Stanley Sea

Ah Buck. What's your impeachment plan?

Impeachment on the installment plan!/ NoMoNeY DoWn!

7 Gus  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 8:11:44pm

Pathetic. If you have a complaint you file it with the FEC. What a crock of shit.

8 Gus  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 8:13:10pm

This stupid film is from 2008 as well. Holy cow talk about digging up the dead. What a joke.

9 Stanghazi  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 8:15:53pm

re: #8 Gus 802

This stupid film is from 2008 as well. Holy cow talk about digging up the dead. What a joke.

You are either with us, or against us.

10 BARACK THE VOTE  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 8:16:24pm

re: #9 Stanley Sea

You are either with us, or against us.

Crackpot links alert as well.

11 Gus  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 8:17:20pm

re: #10 iceweasel

Crackpot links alert as well.

"I'm only asking questions."

12 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 8:28:19pm

re: #1 reine.de.tout

I saw something about this on Fox this morning. Actually, I saw this actual interview this morning.

But Killgore - do you really think the usual suspects are going to be outrageously outraged about something that may have happened to Hillary Clinton?

Probably. Fox is tying it in with the black panther case so it advances their narrative.

13 Gus  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 8:31:26pm

re: #12 Killgore Trout

Probably. Fox is tying it in with the black panther case so it advances their narrative.

Watching Fox News has become akin to watching Entertainment Tonight. Or worse. It's almost pure sensationalism. It truly reflects the trashy style of the Murdoch tabloid news empire.

14 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 8:35:24pm

re: #13 Gus 802

Watching Fox News has become akin to watching Entertainment Tonight. Or worse. It's almost pure sensationalism. It truly reflects the trashy style of the Murdoch tabloid news empire.

It's also a litmus test for me. When Fox, and nobody else is pushing a story like this, it almost certainly bogus.

15 Gus  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 8:36:04pm

re: #12 Killgore Trout

Probably. Fox is tying it in with the black panther case so it advances their narrative.

It's already up in Hot Air's Greenroom.

Desperation.

16 Buck  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 8:36:49pm

re: #14 Killgore Trout

It's also a litmus test for me. When Fox, and nobody else is pushing a story like this, it almost certainly bogus.

or makes Obama look bad.

17 Gus  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 8:37:00pm

re: #14 Killgore Trout

It's also a litmus test for me. When Fox, and nobody else is pushing a story like this, it almost certainly bogus.

Yep. Like I said if it was legitimate they would have taken it to the FEC or elsewhere. Instead, this is just another sensationalist film.

18 Buck  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 8:40:42pm

re: #17 Gus 802

Yep. Like I said if it was legitimate they would have taken it to the FEC or elsewhere. Instead, this is just another sensationalist film.

Who did they take it to?

I mean do you really know everything about this story?

I know they took it to the Democratic party, which is proper for Caucus irregularities. Maybe they did more. I don't know,,, yet.

19 Gus  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 8:44:41pm

re: #18 Buck

Who did they take it to?

I mean do you really know everything about this story?

I know they took it to the Democratic party, which is proper for Caucus irregularities. Maybe they did more. I don't know,,, yet.

It's not my job to show where they took these allegations. However, if I were in Fox News's place I would at least have asked that question of the person making those allegations beyond a verbal claim that she, they, took it to the DNC. That would also require supporting documentation. Otherwise, this is a fluff piece only rekindled in order to provide a bookend for their hysteria regarding the one (1) black panther incident in Philly.

20 Buck  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 8:51:59pm

re: #19 Gus 802

..... allegations beyond a verbal claim that she, they, took it to the DNC. That would also require supporting documentation. .....

Did you look at the supporting documents ? Along with the documents that show that they took it to the DNC?

You should at least check out the film, and the supporting documents they provide. I posted the link.

Don't be afraid to read it all before you dismiss it

21 Gus  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 8:56:42pm

re: #20 Buck

Did you look at the supporting documents ? Along with the documents that show that they took it to the DNC?

You should at least check out the film, and the supporting documents they provide. I posted the link.

Don't be afraid to read it all before you dismiss it

Here. I'll make it simple using another angle.

They're talking about the 2008 Democratic primary in Texas right?

Well, Hillary Clinton won the 2008 Democratic primary in Texas.

She also won the Nevada primary.

22 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 9:00:21pm

re: #21 Gus 802

Here. I'll make it simple using another angle.

They're talking about the 2008 Democratic primary in Texas right?

Well, Hillary Clinton won the 2008 Democratic primary in Texas.

She also won the Nevada primary.

OMG! Outrageous outrage! Konspiracy!

23 Gus  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 9:01:41pm

re: #22 Killgore Trout

OMG! Outrageous outrage! Konspiracy!

Yep. So much for that theory. Yeah, Obama "stole" the Texas and Nevada primaries by losing in those states. Makes sense dunnit?

/

24 BARACK THE VOTE  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 9:01:51pm

re: #21 Gus 802

Here. I'll make it simple using another angle.

They're talking about the 2008 Democratic primary in Texas right?

Well, Hillary Clinton won the 2008 Democratic primary in Texas.

She also won the Nevada primary.

ITS A TRICK!/

25 Gus  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 9:02:48pm

re: #24 iceweasel

ITS A TRICK!/

Ah but she won in those states so there has to be something else to this story. I mean. Otherwise it wouldn't be on Fox News if there wasn't something there!!11ty

/

26 BARACK THE VOTE  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 9:05:28pm

re: #25 Gus 802

Ah but she won in those states so there has to be something else to this story. I mean. Otherwise it wouldn't be on Fox News if there wasn't something there!!11ty

/

Once again, you're killing me tonight.

Why, oh why won't Fox take the red pill? Is it because red=commie?

27 Gus  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 9:10:31pm

re: #26 iceweasel

Once again, you're killing me tonight.

Why, oh why won't Fox take the red pill? Is it because red=commie?

Yeah, the red-pill of Fox News "just asking question" and digging up dead stories from 2008. Drudge tried bringing up that dead story about Obama cheating from some gossip rag a couple of months ago. It went away. Again.

28 Buck  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 9:13:52pm

re: #21 Gus 802

Here. I'll make it simple using another angle.

They're talking about the 2008 Democratic primary in Texas right?

Well, Hillary Clinton won the 2008 Democratic primary in Texas.

She also won the Nevada primary.

Actually in the end, in Texas, Obama won 5 more pledged delegates than Clinton. She had more votes, certainly, but somehow less delegates. It is in the documentation they provided (example 2 of 2008 Caucus Injustices Part 2 I think...)

Remember the DKOS survey math problem? Well.... once again I am taking a hit, while being nice, and pointing out there might be more to the story.

29 Gus  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 9:17:37pm

re: #28 Buck

Actually in the end, in Texas, Obama won 5 more pledged delegates than Clinton. She had more votes, certainly, but somehow less delegates. It is in the documentation they provided (example 2 of 2008 Caucus Injustices Part 2 I think...)

Remember the DKOS survey math problem? Well... once again I am taking a hit, while being nice, and pointing out there might be more to the story.

It was all legitimate. Now you're saying the delegate count was fraudulent? Where does this end.

Obama won. End of story.

30 BARACK THE VOTE  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 9:20:11pm

re: #29 Gus 802

It was all legitimate. Now you're saying the delegate count was fraudulent? Where does this end.

Obama won. End of story.

I hear it ends with an explosive tape in which Michelle Obama raves about 'whitey'. I've been assured that it's forthcoming.

Also, African press International has an exclusive interview with Barack proving the allegations are all true!1!

31 Buck  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 9:20:26pm

re: #29 Gus 802

It was all legitimate. Now you're saying the delegate count was fraudulent? Where does this end.

Obama won. End of story.

I said no such thing. I said get the whole story before you defend someone, and that there might be more to the story.

I say read the documentation BEFORE you say there is none.

That is all.

32 Gus  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 9:24:33pm

re: #31 Buck

I said no such thing. I said get the whole story before you defend someone, and that there might be more to the story.

I say read the documentation BEFORE you say there is none.

That is all.

I'm still not finding any documentation at the FEC. I only found a letter from Clinton's attorney. The vote was on the level and the caucus decisions were made after the election in the caucuses. It's how things are done in Texas. If you want to change that move to Texas and join the Texas Democratic party.

33 Varek Raith  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 9:30:59pm

Lol, good grief.

34 Four More Tears  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 9:32:00pm

re: #1 reine.de.tout

I saw something about this on Fox this morning. Actually, I saw this actual interview this morning.

But Killgore - do you really think the usual suspects are going to be outrageously outraged about something that may have happened to Hillary Clinton?

Wait...

You were watching Fox?

/

35 Flavia  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 9:51:57pm

He didn't have to steal the election; Howard dean gave it to him.

36 BARACK THE VOTE  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 9:54:14pm

re: #34 JasonA

Wait...

You were watching Fox?

/

Every morning the Faux news outrageous outrage links get posted. Not by reine though, I don't think.

It's kind of fun, since fox is generally a few days behind normal news cycles. Definitely like someone feeding you slowball after slowball while you slam em out of the park. :D

37 BARACK THE VOTE  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 10:00:22pm

re: #15 Gus 802

It's already up in Hot Air's Greenroom.

Desperation.

Desperado...
won't you come to your senses;
you're out building fences
along the border and mo'

Oh yer a wingnut--
But i know that
you got your reasons--
These things that are pleasin you
are gonna hurt you somehow.

38 simoom  Mon, Jul 12, 2010 2:28:19am

A number of these documentaries made the rounds on the PUMA blogs during the election. It's somewhat disheartening if FOX plans on filling airtime resurrecting (uncritically) '08 PUMA allegations. Like Orly Taitz and her reams of thinly sourced conspiracies, the PUMA folks produced many a day for the duration of the election, so FOX could easily spend the rest of the year covering their sore loser blather.

39 simoom  Mon, Jul 12, 2010 3:13:56am

re: #30 iceweasel

I hear it ends with an explosive tape in which Michelle Obama raves about 'whitey'. I've been assured that it's forthcoming.

Also, African press International has an exclusive interview with Barack proving the allegations are all true!1!

Ugg, now you've got me picturing Larry Johnson as a future Fox News contributer. :P

40 Romantic Heretic  Mon, Jul 12, 2010 7:43:40am

Yet another reason added to my list that makes me call Fox News 'The Ministry of Truth.'

We have always been at war with EastAsia.

41 Vambo  Mon, Jul 12, 2010 8:26:24am

re: #31 Buck

I said no such thing. I said get the whole story before you defend someone, and that there might be more to the story.

I admire your level-headedness. What is with all these damn libs pretending there is nothing going on just because there's no evidence? Don't they know you're supposed to ATTACK first, and stay in attack mode at all times... until you have the whole story. Then and only then, can you start with a defense.

42 lostlakehiker  Mon, Jul 12, 2010 9:20:33am

re: #21 Gus 802

Here. I'll make it simple using another angle.

They're talking about the 2008 Democratic primary in Texas right?

Well, Hillary Clinton won the 2008 Democratic primary in Texas.

She also won the Nevada primary.

The Texas situation is complicated and lends itself to all sorts of kvetching. Texas holds both a primary and a caucus. The caucus is restricted to persons who voted (earlier that day) in the Democratic primary. Whoever does better in the one setting than the other can complain that the other setting wasn't a fair measure of voter support. Caucuses lend themselves to arguments; what about social pressures? Can that be deemed intimidation? What about the difficulty that some people have finding time to attend caucuses? What about the all but inevitable cheating? The ad-hoc and decentralized authority structure of caucuses makes it hard to prevent ad-hoc and decentralized cheating.

The story was all over TX newspapers after the vote, and the general conclusion was that whatever cheating there was was about evenly split between the two camps, and that in any case it was on the margins. Since TX was not a winner-take-all state, only a few delegates would have moved from one camp to the other if some court had intervened to award one side or the other its whole wish-list of rulings.

The other conclusion was that the Obama camp had simply outplayed Hillary's team at the caucuses. More organizers, better planning, better get-out-the-vote effort. Just like everywhere else.

43 lostlakehiker  Mon, Jul 12, 2010 9:25:16am

re: #28 Buck

Actually in the end, in Texas, Obama won 5 more pledged delegates than Clinton. She had more votes, certainly, but somehow less delegates. It is in the documentation they provided (example 2 of 2008 Caucus Injustices Part 2 I think...)

Remember the DKOS survey math problem? Well... once again I am taking a hit, while being nice, and pointing out there might be more to the story.

You do realize that they way a system is set up can make it possible, without any laws being broken, for one team to get more votes but lose anyhow? Consider: suppose everyone in CA votes for a Democrat senator, and everyone in WY, as well as everyone in ND, votes for a Republican. Two Republicans and one Democrat elected, even though there were far more Senate votes for Democrats than for Republicans.

Now, the Texas caucus+primary system invites this kind of anomaly. The side with more fervent support will prevail over the side with wide but lukewarm support, because the fervent supporters will attend the caucuses.

44 webevintage  Mon, Jul 12, 2010 10:29:06am

Man, those PUMA's are a bitter group.

Shit like this is why it will suck if the R's are in charge of The House.
We will spend the next 2 years (or 6) with the President fighting one BS investigation after another and Issa coming up with a new "impeachable" offense every month.

(I can't believe the faux outrage is over a freaking primary. Personally I could give a shit what happens in primaries that involve caucuses. it is a stupid way to pick a nominee.)

45 Lidane  Mon, Jul 12, 2010 11:38:57am

re: #33 Varek Raith

Lol, good grief.

Yeah, this.

46 Lidane  Mon, Jul 12, 2010 11:42:01am

re: #44 webevintage

Man, those PUMA's are a bitter group.

God, they were intolerable during the primaries. I still remember their basic outrage-- that Obama had somehow "forgotten his place" and was being mean by winning primaries over Hillary, because for some reason, a woman had to be elected President before a minority candidate.

47 erraticsphinx  Mon, Jul 12, 2010 5:22:04pm

re: #46 Lidane

Youtube Video

Sums it up.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Ranked-Choice Voting Has Challenged the Status Quo. Its Popularity Will Be Tested in November. JUNEAU — Alaska’s new election system — with open primaries and ranked voting — has been a model for those in other states who are frustrated by political polarization and a sense that voters lack real choice at the ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 84 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0