• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

I'm no "Birther" but Obama IS a ...

Tucker

Lion Rampant
Sure, they just mentioned in a discussion on MSNBC not ten minutes ago that the President believes in Keynesian theory. He's also a shameless heterosexual, my sources tell me.
------
Okay, now I'm watching it and I get the bit. Pretty funny stuff.
 
Last edited:

Sim

Registered Member
:lol:

That's hilarious!

It's funny sometimes to see what random people answer on the street. A while back, I saw a comedy on tv where random people were asked whether they are "heterosexual". Quite a few angrily denied that, especially elder guys with their wives. :lol:
 

Tucker

Lion Rampant
I mentioned the word "heterosexual" because it actually was used once in faux pejorative fashion by a candidate for office in a rural part of the American South. Naturally, after accusing his bemused opponent of such a heinous-sounding lifestyle choice and getting no denial, he won the contest with relative ease.
 

Sim

Registered Member
I mentioned the word "heterosexual" because it actually was used once in faux pejorative fashion by a candidate for office in a rural part of the American South. Naturally, after accusing his bemused opponent of such a heinous-sounding lifestyle choice and getting no denial, he won the contest with relative ease.
It's frightening this apparently worked. Where was the media? Did they not "explain" this joke to the "confused" part of the electorate?
 

icegoat63

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
I saw it at first.. I mean hell 3 semesters of Economics I'm fairly familiar Mr. Maynard Keynes...

But after watching the video within the first Minute or Two I started getting really confused and second guessing myself. :hah:

It is pretty sad how sheepish people can be. Push 'em in the right direction and its a piece of cake to drive 'em off the cliff willingly. And wow, that LSU lady was pissed :hah:
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
Wow, just simply wow. I don't even know what to say after watching that, other than it was hilarious:lol:
 

Tucker

Lion Rampant
It's frightening this apparently worked. Where was the media? Did they not "explain" this joke to the "confused" part of the electorate?
Good question, Sim. I really don't know. Here's a telling of the incident from the book The Age of Segregation: Race Relations In The South, 1890-1945:

In Florida, George Smathers turned on his old mentor, Claude Pepper, with a savage blend of new-style McCarthyism and old-style racism. Early in the campaign he had dubbed his opponent the "Red Pepper" and repeatedly linked the new Deal-Fair Deal senator with Communist front organizations and any group which smacked of "un-American socialism." During the campaign, Smathers' supporters published a vicious pamphlet entitled "The Red Record of Senator Claude Pepper" that was scurrilous even by the rather lax standards of the early 1950s. This was also the campaign where Smathers allegedly made use of the explosive charge that Pepper's wife had been a practicing "thespian" before their marriage; that his father was a self-acknowledged "philatelist"; and that the Florida senator himself was a well-known heterosexual who practiced celibacy before his marriage.
In 1970 Mad Magazine got into the act with its classic "Guaranteed Effective All-Occasion Non-Slanderous Political Smear Speech." This is really long, but it's a hoot:

My fellow citizens, it is an honor and a pleasure to be here today. My opponent has openly admitted he feels an affinity toward your city, but I happen to like this area. It might be a salubrious place to him, but to me it is one of the nation's most delightful garden spots.
When I embarked upon this political campaign, I hoped that it could be conducted on a high level and that my opponent would be willing to stick to the issues. Unfortunately, he has decided to be tractable instead—to indulge in unequivocal language, to eschew the use of outright lies in his speeches, and even to make repeated veracious statements about me.
At first I tried to ignore these scrupulous, unvarnished fidelities. Now I will do so no longer. If my opponent wants a fight, he's going to get one!
It might be instructive to start with his background. My friends, have you ever accidentally dislodged a rock on the ground and seen what was underneath? Well, exploring my opponent's background is dissimilar. All the slime and filth and corruption you can possibly imagine, even in your wildest dreams, are glaringly nonexistent in this man's life. And even in his childhood!
Let us take a very quick look at that childhood: It is a known fact that, on a number of occasions, he emulated older boys at a certain playground. It is also known that his parents not only permitted him to masticate in their presence, but even urged him to do so. Most explicable of all, this man who poses as a paragon of virtue exacerbated his own sister when they were both teenagers!
I ask you, my fellow Americans: is this the kind of person we want in public office to set an example for our youth?
Of course, it's not surprising that he should have such a typically pristine background—no, not when you consider the other members of his family:
His female relatives put on a constant pose of purity and innocence, and claim they are inscrutable, yet every one of them has taken part in hortatory activities.
The men in the family are likewise completely amenable to moral suasion.
My opponent's uncle was a flagrant heterosexual.
His sister, who has always been obsessed by sects, once worked as a proselyte outside a church.
His father was secretly chagrined at least a dozen times by matters of a pecuniary nature.
His youngest brother wrote an essay extolling the virtues of being a homo sapien.
His great-aunt expired from a degenerative disease.
His nephew subscribes to a phonographic magazine.
His wife was a thespian before their marriage and even performed the act in front of paying customers.
And his own mother had to resign from a women's organization in her later years because she was an admitted sexagenarian.
Now what shall we say about the man himself?
I can tell you in solemn truth that he is the very antithesis of political radicalism, economic irresponsibility and personal depravity. His own record proves that he has frequently discountenanced treasonable, un-American philosophies and has perpetrated many overt acts as well.
He perambulated his infant on the street.
He practiced nepotism with his uncle and first cousin.
He attempted to interest a 13-year-old girl in philately.
He participated in a seance at a private residence where, among other odd goings-on, there was incense.
He has declared himself in favor of more homogeneity on college campuses.
He has advocated social intercourse in mixed company - and has taken part in such gatherings himself.
He has been deliberately averse to crime in our city streets.
He has urged our Protestant and Jewish citizens to develop more catholic tastes.
Last summer he committed a piscatorial act on a boat that was flying the U.S. flag.
Finally, at a time when we must be on our guard against all foreign isms, he has cooly announced his belief in altruism - and his fervent hope that some day this entire nation will be altruistic!
I beg you, my friends, to oppose this man whose life and work and ideas are so openly and avowedly compatible with our American way of life. A vote for him would be a vote for the perpetuation of everything we hold dear.
The facts are clear; the record speaks for itself. Do your duty.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
I dont know why this thread was moved to humor, apparently it is funny that "restoring sanity" (or fear) has nothing to do with having intelligence. Maybe there should be a rally to improve knowledge and understanding, but since those on the left think they already know it all and can decide for the rest of us, there would be no point.

At least no one here will refute Obama's status as another useless Keynesian. Maybe that should be a new requirement for future presidents: no keynesians allowed! We would all be better off without their kind in any position of power.

Really, it is NOT funny!
 
Last edited:

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with you, SS. I find it hard to comprehend how this is subtalk material. This shouldn't have been moved, in my opinion.
 
Top