Obama Expresses his Opinion on Small Towns

[Mabus]

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said.
"And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not."

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
__________________________________________________ _______________
Nice to see that we "cling" to guns and religion, in his view.

Glad also to see that he has feelings about how those that believe in fair-trade are anti-trade.

Those comments may have played well for a CA fundraiser, but they certainly will not in most of the USA.

[Daniel]

You don't like Obama.

Got it. Move on.

[Parkbandit]

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said.
"And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not."

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
__________________________________________________ _______________
Nice to see that we "cling" to guns and religion, in his view.

Glad also to see that he has feelings about how those that believe in fair-trade are anti-trade.

Those comments may have played well for a CA fundraiser, but they certainly will not in most of the USA.


I don't have a problem with anything he said here. I grew up in upstate NY, which is pretty much the same as rural PA, and he's pretty much right.

Come on, there are far more concerning things to point out about Obama.. this isn't one of them imo.

[Parkbandit]

Here.. if you want something to go "WTF" about, how about this quote from Michelle Obama...


"If we don't wake up as a nation with a new kind of leadership...for how we want this country to work, then we won't get universal health care," she said.

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."

[Keller]

I always say that if there are two bastions of competent public service in America they are health care and education.

How could they possibly get any better?

[Mabus]

You don't like Obama.
This is the guy that is going to bring us all together, correct? The fella that is all about "hope"?

I don't "cling" to my guns. I have a right to own them guarenteed by the United States Constitution.

Saying people "cling" to religion should make one wonder why the hell he was in a church anyway, was he "clinging"? Or was he "bitter", and found solace in the words of hate being spoken there?

His statement shows a definate lack of judgement, and casts doubt on his ability to lead this diverse nation.

You like Obama, I get it.

[Keller]

His statement shows a definate lack of judgement.


Our other choice is a dude who sang, "Bomb, bomb, bomb; Bomb, bomb Iran."

And our current leader, after being attacked by a Islamic terrorist organization, declared a "crusade".

Lack of political judgment is not a fight you want to pick at this point. Sorry.

[Fallen]

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more." >>

Well, atleast Obama didn't say this.

[Mabus]

Our other choice is a dude who sang, "Bomb, bomb, bomb; Bomb, bomb Iran."

And our current leader, after being attacked by a Islamic terrorist organization, declared a "crusade".

Lack of political judgment is not a fight you want to pick at this point. Sorry.
We can go on about the gaffs, mistakes and other various negatives about GW for more time then we collectively have to read. He is not the issue here, as he cannot run again. The republic has survived.

McCain jokingly singing about bombing Iran is certainly not one of his brightest spots. War is not a joke. Threatening a nation, even in jest, is not a joking matter. His forgetting the Shite/Sunni distinctions in recent weeks has also brought some doubt to his leadership.

Clinton has her problems too. The constant rationalizing of her change in stance about the war and her failure to remember events accurately (or even lie about them) are certainly a couple concerns.

Obama made these references in order to garner favor with the elitists for monetary gain for his run for president. Putting down the values, beliefs and lifestyles of a majority of Americans shows a lack of judgement.

[Parkbandit]

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more." >>

Well, atleast Obama didn't say this.

Actually, an Obama did. It was his wife.

And I find it extremely unlikely that her husband doesn't share the same views, given his extremely liberal voting record.

[Fallen]

Yeah, that statement really rubbed me the wrong way. I understand to a point the thought process behind it, but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Enough of my pie is already given to others.

[Keller]

Yeah, that statement really rubbed me the wrong way. I understand to a point the thought process behind it, but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Enough of my pie is already given to others.

Who?

[Fallen]

See taxes.

[TheEschaton]

By the by, people in small towns who've lost these jobs for 25 years are anti-trade for a reason - because globalization has created a race to the bottom, where companies have come to realize it is easier to make a product in a place with little to no regulation and rights for workers, and ship it back to the U.S. whose free trade agreements require them not to put protectionist tariffs on them. This is due to an inability (and probable inviability) of a comprehensive global system of governance which could enforce these kind of regulations/rights. Unless the U.S. suddenly drops its standards to that of MExico, it cannot compete, and if the U.S. does do that, suddenly we have a lot more problems than losing jobs.

I find it hilarious that being anti-free trade is somehow not the most liberal of ideas, and that Obama can't recognize that. NAFTA was pushed through by a largely Republican backing.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

Oh, and Michelle Obama is completely right. Classic neo-liberal economics would love you to believe that wealth is potentially unlimited, but reality has shown that it is not. When the rich get richer, the poor get poorer - and for there to be more equality, there must be movement, in both directions. It can be attributed to wanting larger profit margins, or that creating wealth involves exploiting workers, but the way capitalism is set up, it is not in a corporation's best interest to create wealth for everyone in it.

-TheE-

[Keller]

See taxes.

Oh, the question was "Who?" not "what?"

[Warriorbird]

Your anti Obama posts remind me of Hillary dismissing every state that voted for him.

That said, however, I'd have considered voting for Bloomberg if he'd seriously intended to run.

[Fallen]

Oh, the question was "Who?" not "what?"

Those that benefit from tax funded programs other than myself. If you have some sort of point you're trying to get to with this line of question, lets get on with it. Yes. I am a white, middle-class man bitching about taxes. I believe enough of my money goes towards helping others. Does this somehow offend you?

[Drew]

Does this somehow offend you?


Here are the problem areas:


Yes. I am... white

[radamanthys]

When the rich get richer, the poor get poorer

Since we are the richest country... wouldn't that mean that our poor would be truly starving?

And those people in developing nations... their rich, in comparison, really don't have much, so their poor should be doing pretty well, right?


A large rich-poor divide doesn't necessarily mean that the lowest earners are doing poorly. Most (92%) people in this country that are under the "poverty line" have a color television. It seems that a good chunk of the issue in this country is "he's got more than me".

If we really had a poverty problem, it'd be quite a bit more apparent.

My personal opinion is that from the outside-in... people with money look happy. Everybody wants to be that happy. However- success, not wealth, breeds happiness.

Practically- we're all just as miserable as eachother.

[Parkbandit]

Those that benefit from tax funded programs other than myself. If you have some sort of point you're trying to get to with this line of question, lets get on with it. Yes. I am a white, middle-class man bitching about taxes. I believe enough of my money goes towards helping others. Does this somehow offend you?

Oh stop.. clearly you have enough pie to share with those still on the couch. Stop bitching and get back to work.

[Gan]

NAFTA was pushed through by a largely Republican backing.

-TheE-
And Bill Clinton.

[Gan]

Oh, and Michelle Obama is completely right. Classic neo-liberal economics would love you to believe that wealth is potentially unlimited, but reality has shown that it is not. When the rich get richer, the poor get poorer - and for there to be more equality, there must be movement, in both directions. It can be attributed to wanting larger profit margins, or that creating wealth involves exploiting workers, but the way capitalism is set up, it is not in a corporation's best interest to create wealth for everyone in it.

-TheE-

Are you quoting straight out of The Communist Manifesto now?
:wtf:

[TheEschaton]

And Bill Clinton, in what many liberals considered his biggest betrayal of the left ever.

[Gan]

It amazes me that the populist idealism (liberal idealism) has such deep roots in change and adaptation and yet politically is tied to the unadaptability and resistant to change mentality (conservative mentality)of people who continue to live in places where industry adapted and moved whereas the residents have not.

Nothing in life is guaranteed. Especially jobs. Failure to adapt has more to blame on the individual than on the industry, economy, or politics.

[TheEschaton]

The liberal idealist is not rooted in "change and adaptation", it is rooted in progress, which often includes change, but also often includes self-betterment, where the self is one's own body, one's community, one's country. In other words - the common good!

[Warriorbird]

Focusing on "the people" over the individual is more the push of socialism and communism. Being liberal doesn't deny individualism.

[Back]

Nice to see that we "cling" to guns and religion, in his view.

Glad also to see that he has feelings about how those that believe in fair-trade are anti-trade.

Those comments may have played well for a CA fundraiser, but they certainly will not in most of the USA.

You can parse it out all you want. Try taking it all in context.

[Gan]

The liberal idealist is not rooted in "change and adaptation", it is rooted in progress, which often includes change, but also often includes self-betterment, where the self is one's own body, one's community, one's country. In other words - the common good!

Let me know when you give away your portfolio and your inheritance for the common good. ;)

[Jesuit]

Let me know when you give away your portfolio and your inheritance for the common good. ;)


Only white people should distribute their wealth for the common good. You know that Gan.

[Mabus]

You can parse it out all you want. Try taking it all in context.

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

What context is that taken out of then? Are these not his own words?

Are you stating that Obama is for gun rights?

[Clove]

And Bill Clinton, in what many liberals considered his biggest betrayal of the left ever.But you won't have to worry about that sort of thing from Hillary. After all, Bill was mostly a straight-shooter and besides he's just Hillary's husband. She's her own woman and it's not as if Bill was pastor of her church or anything.

[Parkbandit]

And Bill Clinton, in what many liberals considered his biggest betrayal of the left ever.

Actually, I think welfare reform was.

[Warriorbird]

I liked quite a few of Clinton's economic ideas. I guess that makes me evil to the socialist/communist contingent.

[Latrinsorm]

“I didn’t say it as well as I should have, because the truth is these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation, those are important,” Obama said in Muncie, Ind., minutes before Clinton jumped in and called his remarks “elitist.”

“But what is absolutely true is that people want to feel like they’re being listened to. And so they pray, and they count on each other and they count on their families,” Obama continued.

...

“It’s interesting, right? Lately there’s been a typical sort of political fight. Because I said something that everybody knows is true — which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois, who are bitter. They are angry. They feel like they’ve been left behind. They feel like folks aren’t paying attention to what they’re doing here,” he said Saturday.

“So I said, ‘Well, you know, when you’re bitter you turn to what you can count on.’ So people, they vote about guns. Or they take comfort from their faith, and their family and their community. And they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming into this country. Or they get frustrated about, you know, how things have changed. That’s a natural response.”

[Mabus]

“So I said, ‘Well, you know, when you’re bitter you turn to what you can count on.’ .”
That is the root of his problem.

He has a belief that citizens that believe in the right to own guns guaranteed by the US Constitution do so because they are "bitter". The 2nd Amendment, and other rights, are at the core of our Constitution. If elected president he would have to swear an oath to "...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". If he does swear this oath will it only be because he is "bitter"?

He believes that people are "bitter", so they turn to religion. This is an oversimplification of a very complex social system. There are many reasons a person might turn to religion. He joined Wright's church to gain votes for his political career, for instance.

He believes that citizens that call for immigration reform that focuses on the rule of law are "bitter". Does this mean he also feels that anyone that is for the rule of law outside of the immigration debate only does so because they are "bitter"? I would like to ask him that.

He believes that fair trade advocates are all "bitter". We know that he sent his advisor up to Canada to assure them that he was only posturing (in other words, lying to the voters for votes) about NAFTA changes, Or as his aide said, "more reflective of political maneuvering than policy." I am sure he was "bitter" that news of the meeting was released.

The latest statements in question are what he said when he was pumping the San Francisco elitists for money. Now that he is after the votes of the same citizens he was stereotyping in his comments, his tune changes.

I would suggest that his tune changed because he was "bitter" that the truth came out, and he is turning to what he can count on, more political maneuvering and double-speak.

[Latrinsorm]

What you've done is known as "affirming the consequent", Mabus. Your quotes suggest Sen. Obama holds the position "X people became bitter and therefore embraced guns", while your most recent post claims he holds "all people who embrace guns do so out of bitterness". Put in its most basic form, you're trying (comically) to warp the claim "if A then B" into "if B then A", which really speaks more to your personal biases than Senator Obama's.

[Tisket]

Can you make a point without using algebraic analogies? Geek.

[Clove]

That is the root of his problem.

He has a belief that citizens that believe in the right to own guns guaranteed by the US Constitution do so because they are "bitter".Stop right there. He didn't say that at all. He said there are many bitter people in our country today. He said that bitter people tend to reach out towards things that comfort them (make them feel secure) and that one example is (the empowerment of owning) guns.

He never claimed that as a group people who believe strongly in our rights to own guns were bitter. He said many could be. I think he also implied the opinion (and I'm not sure I agree) that more contented people would be less interested in owning firearms (in general). But that is NOT the same as saying "you advocate gun rights therefore you are a bitter, angry American."

[Latrinsorm]

Can you make a point without using algebraic analogies? Geek.1. Suppose I can't.
2. Therefore, no.

QED :D

[Mabus]

What you've done is known as "affirming the consequent", Mabus. Your quotes suggest Sen. Obama holds the position "X people became bitter and therefore embraced guns", while your most recent post claims he holds "all people who embrace guns do so out of bitterness". Put in its most basic form, you're trying (comically) to warp the claim "if A then B" into "if B then A", which really speaks more to your personal biases than Senator Obama's.

.
What Obama was doing (not so comically) was pandering.

Obama was playing on the stereotypical beliefs of an elitist, liberal, anti-gun crowd for monetary gain for political power. A fine measure of reverse-populism, but it may work against him with actual voters.

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." -Obama

From this you do not see that he stated people "cling to guns or religion" as a way to handle ther "bitter"-ness or "frustrations"?

The premise of the argument based on the statement he made, and its conclusions, stand.

Prove that Obama supports gun rights, and maybe you will have an argument. Prove that he did not make the statement, and you have one.

Prove that the conclusion is false, other then an attempted fallicy argument that does not disprove the premise.

[Latrinsorm]

Sen. Obama said CERTAIN people became bitter; namely, the people abandoned (or betrayed) by the government. The blinding desperation with which you're trying to frame this as Senator Obama talking about everyone is all the "proof" I need.

[Parkbandit]

.
What Obama was doing (not so comically) was pandering.


Show me a politician that doesn't pander for votes. They all do it, he's no different.

Much to do about nothing. Hillary is trying to make this out to being more than what it is. She's desperate.. and rightfully so.

[Back]

Show me a politician that doesn't pander for votes. They all do it, he's no different.

Much to do about nothing. Hillary is trying to make this out to being more than what it is. She's desperate.. and rightfully so.

^^^ What he said.

And before anyone thinks the space time continuum is about to implode on itself because I agree with PB... its not the first, nor the last I expect, that this has happened.

[Mabus]

Sen. Obama said CERTAIN people became bitter; namely, the people abandoned (or betrayed) by the government. The blinding desperation with which you're trying to frame this as Senator Obama talking about everyone is all the "proof" I need.
He framed the the statement using "these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest", not some general "CERTAIN people".

There are a lot of small towns in the Midwest.

It will cost votes.

Oh, "blinding desperation", nice and flowery. Just thought I would say I appreciate the use. Good job!

[Parkbandit]

Man.. Clinton is really trying to drive this home...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24094636#24094636

[Daniel]

It will cost votes.



Wanna bet?

[Back]

Man.. Clinton is really trying to drive this home...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24094636#24094636

Are her moves as a fighter attractive to potential voters I wonder? Or is this just ugly?

[Gan]

Wanna bet?

Eh, I wouldnt bet the farm. I'm guessing that it will cost some votes, but probably not enough to compensate for the amount of votes Hillary loses on a daily basis.

I would definately expect to see this resurface in the General Election. And belive me, the last thing the Dems want at this point is to continue to be viewed as disengenuous.

[Daniel]

I was watching meet the press the other day and the weird looking republican guy made a really good comment about this. People kept going on and on about how Obama was so out of touch and how he his ignorance was showing and that was gonna cost him. So, he said you know..Mccain said alot of ridiculous things about the economy, and practically refused to believe that that there was a problem. It may take Obama some time to get over this, but guarantee he'll learn how to do that faster then McCain can learn economics.

I thought it was hilarious myself.

[Daniel]

MR. CARVILLE: Let me, let me, let me--first of all, and I don't think Bob is right. I think, I think this is, is something that he's going to have to explain. You think that, that John McCain is not going to have to explain the fact that he said the economy was fundamentally sound? Or John McCain is not going to have to explain the fact that he says that people's economic struggles are psychological? Oh, yeah. Can I tell you something? It's going to come again and again and again. And, and, and Barack Obama can get up to speed a lot faster on some of the sort of history--cultural history of this country than John McCain can get up on economics, I promise you that.

[Gan]

Given the hope that McCain's lack of economic experience would lend to him keeping his nose out of fiscal policy, thats something I would favor.

I would equate McCain's 'lack' of economic experience (even though he's demonstrated fiscal constraint with his gang of 14) about as worrisome as Obama's lack of actual experience (including foreign policy).

[Daniel]

I think there's a difference between lack of experience and saying the current problems are not real but "psychological"

[Gan]

Perception. Its all in the eye of the beholder.

A politicians statements can be perceived numerous ways. Wouldnt you agree?

[Daniel]

Yea, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with what I just said.

There's a difference between good natured ignorance and ignorant condemnation.

[Gan]

Perception. Its all in the eye of the beholder.

A politicians statements can be perceived numerous ways. Wouldnt you agree?


Yea, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with what I just said.

There's a difference between good natured ignorance and ignorant condemnation.

See the bolded part.

[Daniel]

Lol. Whatever works for you man. If you really think the current economic problems are psychological then more power to you.

[Gan]

Whatever works for those who vote. ;)

[Daniel]

Yea. I'm doubting many Americans will be sympathetic to a man whose married to a woman worth 100 million bucks saying their problems are psychological

[Gan]

Much like many Americans will have sympathy for another Democrat elitist who says that when folks get bitter they cling to guns, religion, or antipathy for those not like them as a way to explain their frustration.

Much like many Americans will have sympathy for a candidate where race, even denounced by the candidate (or at least after his story changes), seems to bubble up from those surrounding his inner circle.

Much like many Americans will have sympathy for a candidate who made a song about of bombing another country.

Much like many Americans will have sympathy for a candidate who openly supports an openly socialist minded fellow congressman.

Much like many Americans will have sympathy for a candidate who shifts her story every time its exposed to be a lie, half-truth, or inflated exageration.


Perception, a powerful thing. People will hear what they want to hear and see what they want to see. No matter how you spin it.

[Gan]

April 14, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
The Mask Slips

By WILLIAM KRISTOL (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/william_kristol/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
I haven’t read much Karl Marx since the early 1980s, when I taught political philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania. Still, it didn’t take me long this weekend to find my copy of “The Marx-Engels Reader,” edited by Robert C. Tucker — a book that was assigned in thousands of college courses in the 1970s and 80s, and that now must lie, unopened and un-remarked upon, on an awful lot of rec-room bookshelves.

My occasion for spending a little time once again with the old Communist was Barack Obama’s now-famous comment at an April 6 San Francisco fund-raiser. Obama was explaining his trouble winning over small-town, working-class voters: “It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

This sent me to Marx’s famous statement about religion in the introduction to his “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”:

“Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of a soulless condition. It is the opium of the people.”

Or, more succinctly, and in the original German in which Marx somehow always sounds better: “Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes.”

Now, this is a point of view with a long intellectual pedigree prior to Marx, and many vocal adherents continuing into the 21st century. I don’t believe the claim is true, but it’s certainly worth considering, in college classrooms and beyond.

But it’s one thing for a German thinker to assert that “religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature.” It’s another thing for an American presidential candidate to claim that we “cling to ... religion” out of economic frustration.

And it’s a particularly odd claim for Barack Obama to make. After all, in his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, he emphasized with pride that blue-state Americans, too, “worship an awesome God.”

What’s more, he’s written eloquently in his memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” of his own religious awakening upon hearing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s “Audacity of Hope” sermon, and of the complexity of his religious commitment. You’d think he’d do other believers the courtesy of assuming they’ve also thought about their religious beliefs.

But Obama in San Francisco does no courtesy to his fellow Americans. Look at the other claims he makes about those small-town voters.

Obama ascribes their anti-trade sentiment to economic frustration — as if there are no respectable arguments against more free-trade agreements. This is particularly cynical, since he himself has been making those arguments, exploiting and fanning this sentiment that he decries. Aren’t we then entitled to assume Obama’s opposition to Nafta and the Colombian trade pact is merely cynical pandering to frustrated Americans?

Then there’s what Obama calls “anti-immigrant sentiment.” Has Obama done anything to address it? It was John McCain, not Obama, who took political risks to try to resolve the issue of illegal immigration by putting his weight behind an attempt at immigration reform.

Furthermore, some concerns about unchecked and unmonitored illegal immigration are surely legitimate. Obama voted in 2006 (to take just one example) for the Secure Fence Act, which was intended to control the Mexican border through various means, including hundreds of miles of border fence. Was Obama then just accommodating bigotry?

As for small-town Americans’ alleged “antipathy to people who aren’t like them”: During what Obama considers the terrible Clinton-Bush years of economic frustration, by any measurement of public opinion polling or observed behavior, Americans have become far more tolerant and respectful of minorities who are not “like them.” Surely Obama knows this. Was he simply flattering his wealthy San Francisco donors by casting aspersions on the idiocy of small-town life?

That leaves us with guns. Gun ownership has been around for an awfully long time. And people may have good reasons to, and in any case have a constitutional right to, own guns — as Obama himself has been acknowledging on the campaign trail, when he presents himself as more sympathetic to gun owners than a typical Democrat.

What does this mean for Obama’s presidential prospects? He’s disdainful of small-town America — one might say, of bourgeois America. He’s usually good at disguising this. But in San Francisco the mask slipped. And it’s not so easy to get elected by a citizenry you patronize.

And what are the grounds for his supercilious disdain? If he were a war hero, if he had a career of remarkable civic achievement or public service — then he could perhaps be excused an unattractive but in a sense understandable hauteur. But what has Barack Obama accomplished that entitles him to look down on his fellow Americans?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/opinion/14kristol.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

[Parkbandit]

Lol. Whatever works for you man. If you really think the current economic problems are psychological then more power to you.


What do you think "Consumer Confidence" is based upon..

And I'm with Gan on this... keep the fucking Government out of this economic downtrend. THEY are what made the damn thing so steep to begin with. Do you really believe the billions of dollars they are going to send out in a month or two will really help anything? Do you really believe that we, the tax payers, should bail out stupid people who speculated on housing and interest rates?

[Daniel]

What do you think "Consumer Confidence" is based upon..

And I'm with Gan on this... keep the fucking Government out of this economic downtrend. THEY are what made the damn thing so steep to begin with. Do you really believe the billions of dollars they are going to send out in a month or two will really help anything? Do you really believe that we, the tax payers, should bail out stupid people who speculated on housing and interest rates?

Considering A) I never said that I didn't agree with Gan about the government in the economy and B) I wasn't talking about anything else you went on a rant on I'd have to say that your answer should be pretty clear.

[Daniel]

And what are the grounds for his supercilious disdain? If he were a war hero, if he had a career of remarkable civic achievement or public service — then he could perhaps be excused an unattractive but in a sense understandable hauteur. But what has Barack Obama accomplished that entitles him to look down on his fellow Americans?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/opinion/14kristol.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print


Gotta love willful ignorance. The guy was a community activist lawyer.

[TheEschaton]

I saw "By William Kristol", read the first paragraph where he mentioned Marx (Is there a Godwin equivalent dealing with Communism/Marx?) and then skipped over the rest of it.

[Gan]

I saw "By William Kristol", read the first paragraph where he mentioned Marx (Is there a Godwin equivalent dealing with Communism/Marx?) and then skipped over the rest of it.

You should read it. It really reflects on how you come across here on the boards. But yea, I can understand how you can dismiss something based on source rather than actually refuting the content - since you do it all the time. ;)

[TheEschaton]

William Kristol continues to support the current President. The End. He couldn't be more biased if he was Dana Perrino or whatever the hell her name is.

-TheE-

P.S. I am religious, believe the right to own a firearm is protected by the 2nd Amendment for defense purposes - IE, not for machine guns, and am also frustrated with trade agreements. After all, I come from the Rust Belt, yanno. But I'm still liberal-er than all those fools in San Fran. I believe in sacrifice for my beliefs, as soon as someone required them to get their hands dirty they'd up and run. About the only thing I agreed with Obama's statement is small town anti-immigrant ideas, but I think it stems from a more natural human instinct to be wary of "other", and a potential lack of exposure to how positive "other" can be. Not frustration with the loss of jobs.

[Gan]

William Kristol continues to support the current President. The End. He couldn't be more biased if he was Dana Perrino or whatever the hell her name is.
So in other words, you really cant' refute what he's said in the article.

check.

[Parkbandit]

Considering A) I never said that I didn't agree with Gan about the government in the economy and B) I wasn't talking about anything else you went on a rant on I'd have to say that your answer should be pretty clear.


The answer is crystal clear.. you are an idiot.

[Daniel]

You forgot :rofl:

[Latrinsorm]

April 14, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
The Mask SlipsKarl Marx was one of the first sociologists. This doesn't make every sociologist agree with Marx, though I'm sure that distinction is lost on someone like Mr. Kristol who insists (repeatedly) upon the same fallacy Mabus made in this thread.

I have a solution to this in the form of a hypothetical that I believe will strike a chord in one way or another for everyone here: Suppose you know someone that is not especially religious or even actively anti-religious. Suppose further that this someone experiences the death of a loved one, for instance a parent. How often do we see people like this someone attend a funeral, go to church, go to temple, say a prayer, etc.?

Does this mean that grievous loss illuminates the Divine Truth in our lives, or is it more likely that a person wants comfort after grievous loss (for instance becoming indefinitely unemployed after 20 years of service), and comfort often takes the form of shared ideology? What sort of ideologies are shared in areas most affected by international outsourcing? Is it an insult to say people are human?

[Gan]

I have a solution to this in the form of a hypothetical that I believe will strike a chord in one way or another for everyone here:

Suppose Latrin stopped making stupid hypotheticals.

[Parkbandit]

I have a solution to this in the form of a hypothetical that I believe will strike a chord in one way or another for everyone here:

Suppose Latrin stopped making stupid hypotheticals.

:rofl: @ you for reading most of his posts.

[Gan]

:rofl: @ you for reading most of his posts.

LOL, I almost pulled a TheE.



I saw "by Latrinsorm", read the first paragraph... and then skipped over the rest of it.

:lol:

[Mabus]

Karl Marx was one of the first sociologists. This doesn't make every sociologist agree with Marx, though I'm sure that distinction is lost on someone like Mr. Kristol who insists (repeatedly) upon the same fallacy Mabus made in this thread.

I posted what Obama said. I posted my thoughts about what he said. It seems that many others agree with me about what both his intentions and meaning were in his statement. While that certainly does not mean that they and I are correct, it does not prove us as incorrect.

If you state "clinging to guns and religion" how is that supposed to be interpreted?

So try to state that what I posted was a logical fallacy all you want, it does not make it so, nor does it refute the point that Obama did make the statement.

I can understand wanting to suddenly turn to logic as a method or argument when you cannot refute the facts. Is it strange that it is done when the facts are against the people that posit that the opinion is a fallacy? Of course not. It is one of their only recourses when they have no facts to back up their position.

Face it, the real Obama came out at the fundraiser. Now he will try to spin his mistake of allowing the truth of how he feels about small town America to come out. Understandable, but it does not change what he did say.

Nor will it change the commercials carrying his statements during the general election.

[Clove]

No matter how you interpret what he said, it was a foolish way to express himself and he's going to feel pain from it.

[Parkbandit]

This story had bigger legs than I thought it would. Sad part is.. most of what he said is true.. but in this politically correct world, it's stupid it say it.

[Daniel]

You guys might not be aware, but Obama's pastor is racist.

[Latrinsorm]

It seems that many others agree with me about what both his intentions and meaning were in his statement.Even if everyone in the world agreed with you, you'd all still be wrong. That's the nice thing about logic: it doesn't care about how many people believe something and it certainly doesn't care about what you insist "the facts" are. There is only truth - handy!

[Gan]

Even if everyone in the world agreed with you, you'd all still be wrong. That's the nice thing about logic: it doesn't care about how many people believe something and it certainly doesn't care about what you insist "the facts" are. There is only truth - handy!

Take the Bible for instance...

[Clove]

Take the Bible for instance...Nice.

[Clove]

This story had bigger legs than I thought it would. Sad part is.. most of what he said is true.. but in this politically correct world, it's stupid it say it.At least he's being accused for his own words.

I think discontented people DO tend to reach out for things that represent security; and religion, family, weapons are examples of these types of things. Religion CAN be an opiate. Firearms CAN be a crutch for the insecure. That doesn't imply all religious people, or all firearm advocates are amongst the discontented. It implies that those camps tend to swell with the rise of angry, bitter people. Except for connecting discontent with small-town America (I don't think it's localized there) he didn't say anything I don't agree with.

Unfortunately it was a stupid way to express himself and he's going to have to face up to it.

[Gan]

http://atworkandbored.com/jokes-inc/fun-pics/foot-in-mouth-1199.jpeg

[Parkbandit]

You guys might not be aware, but Obama's pastor is racist.

No he's not. Some guy on the internet forum I post on once posted that he KNOWS he's not.

Good enough for me.. those video clips were obviously fake.

[Daniel]

No he's not. Some guy on the internet forum I post on once posted that he KNOWS he's not.

Good enough for me.. those video clips were obviously fake.

Stop making excuses for black people. You must not have a job.

[Mabus]

Even if everyone in the world agreed with you, you'd all still be wrong.
So...
1) Obama never said what he said?
2) You interpret his statements differently?
3) Everyone that does not agree with you is wrong?

And because of one of those three (Or make up a few of your own. Why not? You can make up "facts" pretty well) anyone that disagrees with you would "still be wrong".


That's the nice thing about logic: it doesn't care about how many people believe something and it certainly doesn't care about what you insist "the facts" are. There is only truth - handy!

Since "it" is not a living being I agree "it" would not "care".

When I see you post a purely logical argument dealing with the current topic, and hold all others that post in this forum to purely logical arguments, I might give a damn about your attempted diversion into "logic".

I posted Obama's quote where he stereotyped Americans living in small towns. I then offered an opinion that has plausibility. I did not go through and attempt to logically debate why I offered the opinion, it was my own.

You did not attempt to debate why the opinion was false. Instead you skipped plausibility and opinion, and dove into an attempt to divert from the posted facts by use of pointing at possible logical fallacies, when the opinion was not based on debate but instead was just opinion.

You have not refuted the fact that Obama did say what was quoted. You have proven nothing.

[Daniel]

So...
1) Obama never said what he said?
2) You interpret his statements differently?
3) Everyone that does not agree with you is wrong?

And because of one of those three (Or make up a few of your own. Why not? You can make up "facts" pretty well) anyone that disagrees with you would "still be wrong".


Actually. No. the problem is that you stretched his words to mean something that they did not say. As clove pointed out earlier.


Stop right there. He didn't say that at all. He said there are many bitter people in our country today. He said that bitter people tend to reach out towards things that comfort them (make them feel secure) and that one example is (the empowerment of owning) guns.

He never claimed that as a group people who believe strongly in our rights to own guns were bitter. He said many could be. I think he also implied the opinion (and I'm not sure I agree) that more contented people would be less interested in owning firearms (in general). But that is NOT the same as saying "you advocate gun rights therefore you are a bitter, angry American."



Continuing on..



You did not attempt to debate why the opinion was false. Instead you skipped plausibility and opinion, and dove into an attempt to divert from the posted facts by use of pointing at possible logical fallacies, when the opinion was not based on debate but instead was just opinion.

You have not refuted the fact that Obama did say what was quoted. You have proven nothing.

This doesn't even make since. He did attempt to debate why the opinion was false BY putting out the logical fallacy in what you were saying. It's called an argumentation technique.

You really need to work on your reading ability.

[Keller]

You forgot :rofl:


I lol'd, because I was going to post the exact same thing. Good times.

[Latrinsorm]

1) Obama never said what he said?Obama never said what you said he said.
2) You interpret his statements differently?Yes, I interpret them as saying what they say rather than what my bias demands they say.
3) Everyone that does not agree with you is wrong?In this instance: yes, verifiably so.

I will agree with you as far as one point: I have not proved anything, because to do so supposes a group of people holding a common set of premises. For instance, I choose to hold the set of premises that include basic logic while you are willing to discard it for the purposes of rhetoric. This, incidentally, is why I used quotation marks around the word "proof" in a previous post - it's a meaningless word in this context.

[Daniel]

I lol'd, because I was going to post the exact same thing. Good times.

Stop making excuses for black people. You must not have a job.

[Mabus]

Actually. No. the problem is that you stretched his words to mean something that they did not say.
So we agree Obama did say what I posted. We can call the quotes factual.

So exactly what did he "mean" to say?

Maybe he meant "people in small towns do not cling to guns and religion", but if that is what he meant he should have said that. He did not.

[Daniel]

[QUOTE=Mabus;713488]So we agree Obama did say what I posted. We can call the quotes factual.

So exactly what did he "mean" to say?

[QUOTE]

Um. No.

I believe I already answered that.

[Mabus]

Obama never said what you said he said.
I quoted him accurately, and gave an opinion. My opinion stands.


Yes, I interpret them as saying what they say
So you agree he did state that people in small towns cling to guns and religion.


I will agree with you as far as one point: I have not proved anything,
We can agree on that.


I choose to hold the set of premises that include basic logic
I could agree with that, if you finished the statement with the truth, that you hold to logic when it suits you.

I have debated philosphy with people who demanded that all statements within the debates fell within the tenets of logical argument. Even they allowed opinions with plausibility when the opinions were stated as opinions.

You seem to skip that, when it is convenient to do so.

[Mabus]

Um. No.

I believe I already answered that.
So you believe Obama quotes meant to say that :
1) I did not like him
2) it would not cost him votes
3) Wanna bet?

Or would it be where you were attempting to portray your version of a "racist white man"?

Have a link to the post in this thread where you "answered" what Obama really meant?

[Parkbandit]

Stop making excuses for black people. You must not have a job.


I can't get a job, I'm too busy stealing shit from people and going to jail.. which is bullshit because there are 7 times as many blacks in prison for no reason other than rich white folks hating on us blacks.

[Parkbandit]

So you believe Obama quotes meant to say that :
1) I did not like him
2) it would not cost him votes
3) Wanna bet?

Or would it be where you were attempting to portray your version of a "racist white man"?

Have a link to the post in this thread where you "answered" what Obama really meant?


Trying to have an intelligent conversation with Daniel is pointless... especially about race. When trying to prove a point, he'll usually fabricate posts you make in order to 'prove' he's right. When all else fails, he will label you a racist to try and shut you down.

[Mabus]

When trying to prove a point, he'll usually fabricate posts you make in order to 'prove' he's right.
In this case he may be fabricating his own posts.

Other then a post where he points to a post made by another I do not see his explanation of what Obama really meant in the quotes in the OP. I looked before I asked him to post a link, but maybe I missed it, or the boards do not like him.

[Daniel]

Trying to have an intelligent conversation with Daniel is pointless... especially about race. When trying to prove a point, he'll usually fabricate posts you make in order to 'prove' he's right. When all else fails, he will label you a racist to try and shut you down.

Yea, like a 7 to 1 sentencing disparity, which you STILL can't seem to grasp. Months later.

It's like basic education failed you and you spent the rest of your life bitter and with no purpose except to troll a message board.

[Daniel]

In this case he may be fabricating his own posts.

Other then a post where he points to a post made by another I do not see his explanation of what Obama really meant in the quotes in the OP. I looked before I asked him to post a link, but maybe I missed it, or the boards do not like him.

Exactly. Other then the post WHERE HE SAYS WHAT HE SAID, I don't see any other post by him that says what he claimed to say. Therefore, he is making stuff up.

Stellar deduction there. No wonder you believe the things you do.

[Mabus]

Exactly. Other then the post WHERE HE SAYS WHAT HE SAID, I don't see any other post by him that says what he claimed to say. Therefore, he is making stuff up.

Stellar deduction there. No wonder you believe the things you do.
You said you had posted what Obama really meant earlier.

The only post that can be remotely related to anything about what Obama meant that you posted would be the line:
"As clove pointed out earlier. "

Pointing toward what another poster believes Obama meant is not the same as you posting what Obama meant, which you sad you believed you had done. You were wrong.

So looking over Clove's posts previous to that you agree with Clove on:
"No matter how you interpret what he said, it was a foolish way to express himself and he's going to feel pain from it."

Is that correct?

If not, then what do you believe Obama meant, which you said you had already posted.

[Daniel]

Pointing toward what another poster believes Obama meant is not the same as you posting what Obama meant, which you sad you believed you had done. You were wrong.



Uh no. Sorry.

[Mabus]

Uh no. Sorry.
Apology accepted.

[Parkbandit]

Apology accepted.

Didn't I tell you?

[Parkbandit]

Yea, like a 7 to 1 sentencing disparity, which you STILL can't seem to grasp. Months later.

It's like basic education failed you and you spent the rest of your life bitter and with no purpose except to troll a message board.

If by 'grasp' you mean to accept your notion that the only reason there is such a disparity is because of racism.. you are correct.

And my education far exceeds yours.. you know.. since I'm a rich white man and you are nothing but a poor black man.

[Daniel]

Apology accepted.

Sorry. You once again fail to comprehend what you read. No one apology was extended. If you wish to be disingenuous that is your choice, but you'll still be an idiot.

Now if you want to refute the poi ts made then feel free. However, I expect you'll pull the same routine and stop posting when you get shown to be retarded only to start a thread a couple days later like nothing ever happened.

[Latrinsorm]

Even they allowed opinions with plausibility when the opinions were stated as opinions.See, I misunderstood. I thought that with all the hullabaloo you were making about "facts" you were actually interested in factual claims. If we attach the proviso of "the statements contained herein in no way refer to reality" to all your posts, I have no problems with them - they're just "opinions"! I think it would avoid misunderstanding in the future if you either stated that explicitly or used a device like talking about "Senator Obama" as opposed to Senator Obama. I don't have any way of applying logic to whatever you want to say about "Senator Obama" - the guy doesn't even exist! For instance:
So you agree he did state that people in small towns cling to guns and religion. I absolutely agree that "Senator Obama" stated that. Senator Obama, on the other hand, did not say that but if he was misunderstood via a certain logical fallacy would seem to have said that.

[Daniel]

If by 'grasp' you mean to accept your notion that the only reason there is such a disparity is because of racism.. you are correct.

And my education far exceeds yours.. you know.. since I'm a rich white man and you are nothing but a poor black man.

No. I mean grasp as in understand what is being said. Either way, we know: there is no racism in the world except that from Jesse Jackson and nelson mandela

[Parkbandit]

No. I mean grasp as in understand what is being said. Either way, we know: there is no racism in the world except that from Jesse Jackson and nelson mandela


I understand what you are posting Daniel, there's just very little of it based on fact. Then again, you've never let that stand in the way, have you.

[Peanut Butter Jelly Time]

Why do the same pissy nobodies fight over the same dumb bs every day on the same message board? Something original plz kthx.

[Back]

:ultimate:

[Keller]

Why do the same pissy nobodies fight over the same dumb bs every day on the same message board? Something original plz kthx.

The funny part is that if we took one person out of the mix I think the cancer would clean itself up.

I'm just sayin' . . .

[Mabus]

Sorry.
You already apologized for lying about you having posted what you believed Obama meant. It was accepted. No need to aplogize again (sheesh, no one gets Colbert humor...)

Either actually post what you believe he meant, show the post where you posted what Obama meant or be the idiot you claim others to be.

[Mabus]

See, I misunderstood.
Yes, I agree. You misunderstand what the subject is, and cannot refute what has been posted. So you divert.

I thought that with all the hullabaloo you were making about "facts" you were actually interested in factual claims.
I am interested in facts. You are interested in argument without facts. While argument about how to argue is a fine pursuit it is only a diversion from what was originally posted.

Obama stereotyped Americans living in small town America. He did so at a fundraiser.

Since you cannot truthfully deny those facts, you attempt to argue about how to argue.

You either are unable or unwilling , possibly both, to rebut those facts, or being unable to your move is to divert from the topic by stating that a "logical fallacy" exists.

So you check every post for what you believe are logical fallacies then, correct? Every post?

You have never posted in the politics folder without checking your post for them, nor always pointing them out when you believe they exist in others' posts.

Every one.

Or just the ones where you have no facts?

For your sake let's look at where you claim the fallacy lies:

What you've done is known as "affirming the consequent", Mabus.
Incorrect.

In order for this fallacy to exist I would have had to take the fact #1 and fact#2, restate fact #2 without evidence that fact #1 was still involved and then state that fact #2 alone implies fact #1.

Example:
That dog is hungry and has fleas. (fact #1 and fact #2)
That dog has fleas (fact #2)
Therefore that dog is hungry.

That did not happen. Perhaps you should choose another fallacy from your list?


Your quotes suggest Sen. Obama holds the position "X people became bitter and therefore embraced guns",
I posted Obama's quote. I then gave a set of opinions on his quote.

Let's look at it again:
"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." -Obama

Is he not stating that people get bitter and cling to guns and religion?

while your most recent post claims he holds "all people who embrace guns do so out of bitterness".
His quote again, contained the word word "bitter".

The quote of mine I think you are referencing here could be:
"He has a belief that citizens that believe in the right to own guns guaranteed by the US Constitution do so because they are "bitter"."

As anyone can see I never said "all people", as you had posted. Good to misquote when attempting to debate for you, but not for what we were speaking.

Even if you took "people" in my statement to be only those made "bitter" according to Obama's statement, which part would be untrue?


Put in its most basic form, you're trying (comically) to warp the claim "if A then B" into "if B then A", which really speaks more to your personal biases than Senator Obama's

And there is where you not only misrepresent the accused fallacy, but also inject personal bias into the discussion.

Great job!

[Parkbandit]

Why do the same pissy nobodies fight over the same dumb bs every day on the same message board? Something original plz kthx.

Why do the same pissy nobodies post the same mindless bs everyday on the same message board.

Something intelligent plz kthx.

[Daniel]

I understand what you are posting Daniel, t.

Talk about a fantasy world.

[Daniel]

You already apologized for lying about you having posted what you believed Obama meant. It was accepted. No need to aplogize again (sheesh, no one gets Colbert humor...)

Either actually post what you believe he meant, show the post where you posted what Obama meant or be the idiot you claim others to be.

Why would I report something that is right there for you? Clove's response adequately sums up what I would have said. Since you seem unable to respond to that post I'll take that as your acknowledgement that you are talking out of your ass.

[Mabus]

Why would I report something that is right there for you?
So you did not post what you thought Obama meant. Glad you finally admit it, even if you have to do so with hostility.

[Daniel]

So you did not post what you thought Obama meant. Glad you finally admit it, even if you have to do so with hostility.

You really gotta take what you can get huh? It must be a rough life you live.

[Parkbandit]

Talk about a fantasy world.

L2quote, dipshit. I'm not interested in being your fantasy world, btw.

[Keller]

L2quote, dipshit. I'm not interested in being your fantasy world, btw.

(You forgot :rofl:)

[Daniel]

(You forgot :rofl:)

^

[Latrinsorm]

That did not happen.This, incidentally, is why I "cannot refute" your "facts": for whatever reason, you are incapable of observing the facts of the matter. I could repeat everything I've said before, but it would be senseless to do so. I can only show things to those who can see, you know?

[Mabus]

This, incidentally, is why I "cannot refute" your "facts": for whatever reason, you are incapable of observing the facts of the matter. I could repeat everything I've said before, but it would be senseless to do so. I can only show things to those who can see, you know?

So now that your assumption of a logical fallacy was shown to be false, and left with no facts to back you up, you attack. Understandable.

Sad, but understandable.

Just don't get bitter and cling to guns and religion over it, or you could end up supporting Obama.

[Daniel]

Lol. Whatever makes you think you're making a difference.

[Mabus]

Lol. Whatever makes you think you're making a difference.
I can only hope to change things. ;)

About the quotes I origninally posted in tis thread even Obama now says:

"I may have made a mistake last week in the words that I chose..."

and:

"The problem was that I just mangled it, which happens sometimes,"

Notice he does not say that he does not believe that people "cling to guns and religion", just that the "words" he "chose" may have been a "mistake". That will not be lost on the GOP media preps nor the 527's.

One quote Obama made that I found particullary funny:

""Hillary Clinton is out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday. She's packing a six-shooter."

It seems pretty obvious Obama has never hunted duck in his life. If he has, and used a "six shooter" and actually bagged a duck, I would vote or him.

Now that would be a sportsman!

[Parkbandit]

One quote Obama made that I found particullary funny:

""Hillary Clinton is out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday. She's packing a six-shooter."

It seems pretty obvious Obama has never hunted duck in his life. If he has, and used a "six shooter" and actually bagged a duck, I would vote or him.

Now that would be a sportsman!

He bowled a 37... I doubt he's much of a sportsman

[CrystalTears]

About the quotes I origninally posted in tis thread even Obama now says:

"I may have made a mistake last week in the words that I chose..."

and:

"The problem was that I just mangled it, which happens sometimes,"

Notice he does not say that he does not believe that people "cling to guns and religion", just that the "words" he "chose" may have been a "mistake". That will not be lost on the GOP media preps nor the 527's.
I feel he was wrong to generalized small towns which is, what I feel, where he failed, and maybe what he means by using the wrong words.

Had he not focused on stating this happens in small towns, it wouldn't be this big of a deal, imo.

[Gan]

Just don't get bitter and cling to guns and religion over it, or you could end up supporting Obama.

Are you kidding?

Daniel is from Chicago. He KNOWS folks who know Obama. With all the self identity we've seen lately, there was even a conspiracy floating around the PC that Daniel WAS Obama.

:whistle:

[Clove]

Are you kidding?

Daniel is from Chicago. He KNOWS folks who know Obama. With all the self identity we've seen lately, there was even a conspiracy floating around the PC that Daniel WAS Obama.

:whistle:I'm not convinced he isn't Obama yet.

[Mabus]

I'm not convinced he isn't Obama yet.
Daniel spent time in the military. I even went to his blog a while back.

Obama never served in the military.

[Gan]

sarchasm... someone post Nien's sig.

[Daniel]

I'm not convinced he isn't Obama yet.

Are you trying to say all black people look alike?

[Clove]

Are you trying to say all black people look alike?Yes.

[Daniel]

It's okay. At least I can dance.

[Mabus]

It's okay. At least I can dance.

Sir Nose, Deviod of Funk. You cannot dance!

[Daniel]

I've been known to cut a lil rug in my day.

[Snapp]

I've been known to cut a lil rug in my day.

I thought I had seen you at the Hippo before!

[Daniel]

????

[Peanut Butter Jelly Time]

I've been known to cut a lil rug in my day.

I always wondered what a cheerleader-turned-GS nerd did for a living. Cut and lay carpetting, sweet!

[Snapp]

????

Gay club in DC.

I lose.

[Daniel]

Lol. Sorry, not up on the "scene"

[Tsa`ah]

I can only hope to change things. ;)

About the quotes I origninally posted in tis thread even Obama now says:

"I may have made a mistake last week in the words that I chose..."

and:

"The problem was that I just mangled it, which happens sometimes,"

Notice he does not say that he does not believe that people "cling to guns and religion", just that the "words" he "chose" may have been a "mistake". That will not be lost on the GOP media preps nor the 527's.

Why wouldn't you believe something that is true .... or rather has a great deal of truth?

My home town had nearly five thousand people in it when I graduated from high school. The two main employers in my town moved shop within a year of Clinton passing NAFTA. The two larger towns of twenty to thirty thousand lost eleven big employers collectively.

The result?

My home town barely has two thousand people, property values prior to 2007 dropped by two thirds.

The smaller towns (seven total) with populations under two thousand prior to NAFTA have fewer than five hundred people each.

The two larger towns that supported the county have lost half of their population and more than half of their property values.

Who is left in these small towns? Mainly church goers. The pews creak under the weight .... congregations swell every time some new adversity decides to roost.

Small towns mean a different lifestyle that normally includes hunting. These people don't want to give up their lifestyle (or can't afford to), dignity, or pride and take jobs in the cities their kids used to fill in high school in.

Can you guess what these people are in light of all that's happened to them ... bitter .... very fucking bitter.


One quote Obama made that I found particullary funny:

""Hillary Clinton is out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday. She's packing a six-shooter."

It seems pretty obvious Obama has never hunted duck in his life. If he has, and used a "six shooter" and actually bagged a duck, I would vote or him.

Now that would be a sportsman!

Kind of pathetic that you focus on the choice of arms and not the bullshit he pointed out.

[Daniel]

Kind of pathetic that you focus on the choice of arms and not the bullshit he pointed out.

It's even worse when you consider that he purposefully misquoted his words to make his point.

[Parkbandit]

It's even worse when you consider that he purposefully misquoted his words to make his point.

The only thing worse would be if someone were to completely make up something to make a point.

[Daniel]

Like black people commit 7 times more crimes then whites?

[Parkbandit]

Like black people commit 7 times more crimes then whites?

More like the only reason why there are 7x more black people in jail than whites is racism.

[Daniel]

Except there aren't 7x more blacks in jail then whites.

Comprehension ftl.

[Parkbandit]

I'm lik 100% positive you said 7x more blacks in prison than whites. Don't call me out on this, or I'll just post the 'Internet r serious business' poster.

[Mabus]

It's even worse when you consider that he purposefully misquoted his words to make his point.
Where is Obama "misquoted" in my post?

[Mabus]

Why wouldn't you believe something that is true .... or rather has a great deal of truth?
Because religion to many people has nothing to do with bittnerness or frustration. It is a spiritual journey to enlightenment, a sense of thankfulness for life and all it brings, to many people.

Gun ownership does not come from frustration with a government, but from a constitutional right. A president swears to uphold the Constitution when they take office.

Why would you believe that these issues come from bitterness for everyone in a small town that chooses to own a gun or follow a religion? Why choose the word "cling", which gave it a negative connotation? Poor judgemet, or a belief that his true feelings would not make it out to the rabble of the general public.

Can you guess what these people are in light of all that's happened to them ... bitter .... very fucking bitter.
You may be. Perhaps all the people you know are bitter. It would be fine for you to then state that "I, and everyone I know from small towns, feel bitterness."

Obama stereotyped small town America in his statement, and did it for political and monetary gain. That is wrong.

Kind of pathetic that you focus on the choice of arms and not the bullshit he pointed out.
I hunt. I own guns. I am neither frustrated nor bitter. Anyone that does hunt would likely get a chuckle out of hunting ducks with a "six shooter". If any of the hunters I know showed up with only a revolver to go on a duck hunt we would likely make them the retriever. We would definately have a very good laugh at them.

What is pathetic is Obama attempting to act like he knows what it is to be a responsible gun owner, a sportsman and a hunter.

Perhaps John Kerry could take Obama out on a hunt before the general election.

[Keller]

He used "cling" because it expresses a sense of security, not desparation. Kind of like when you were a kid and your father touched you in the naughty place and you cried into your blankie.

[Daniel]

I'm lik 100% positive you said 7x more blacks in prison than whites. Don't call me out on this, or I'll just post the 'Internet r serious business' poster.

Nope.

Like I said, even after all these months you still fail to comprehend what is said.

It's rather telling and the reason why you're such a joke.

[Daniel]

Where is Obama "misquoted" in my post?

The part where you take out the reference to Annie Oakley, making the six shooter bit make sense.

[Gan]

Perhaps John Kerry could take Obama out on a hunt before the general election.

Or Dick Cheney...

[Parkbandit]

Nope.

Like I said, even after all these months you still fail to comprehend what is said.

It's rather telling and the reason why you're such a joke.

Look in the mirror pal. I knew exactly what you said... and it was as stupid as you have become here.

[Mabus]

The part where you take out the reference to Annie Oakley, making the six shooter bit make sense.
That could be called "Taking a quote out of context", but then I guess you misssed the ellipsis in one quote and the comma at the end of the other on purpose.

It is not misquoting to quote accurately when you ensure that the reader knows that there is more to the quoted text. If I would have somehow insisted that what was quoted was all that was said then a case could have been made. That, however, was not the case.

So I know that you will now admit you were wrong on stating I misquoted Obama. Right...

The Annie Oakley comment makes about as much sense as the duck hunting, as Oakely was mostly known for using her prowess with a .22 caliber rifle, not a "six shooter".

Good try.

[Mabus]

Or Dick Cheney...
One can only hope.

[Daniel]

Look in the mirror pal. I knew exactly what you said... and it was as stupid as you have become here.

Lol. You still have no idea what is being talked about.

A verified fact by the USG government is stupid?

Sorry. Not gonna buy that.

[Daniel]

That could be called "Taking a quote out of context", but then I guess you misssed the ellipsis in one quote and the comma at the end of the other on purpose.

It is not misquoting to quote accurately when you ensure that the reader knows that there is more to the quoted text. If I would have somehow insisted that what was quoted was all that was said then a case could have been made. That, however, was not the case.

So I know that you will now admit you were wrong on stating I misquoted Obama. Right...

The Annie Oakley comment makes about as much sense as the duck hunting, as Oakely was mostly known for using her prowess with a .22 caliber rifle, not a "six shooter".

Good try.


Riiiight.

[Kefka]

That could be called "Taking a quote out of context", but then I guess you misssed the ellipsis in one quote and the comma at the end of the other on purpose.

It is not misquoting to quote accurately when you ensure that the reader knows that there is more to the quoted text. If I would have somehow insisted that what was quoted was all that was said then a case could have been made. That, however, was not the case.

So I know that you will now admit you were wrong on stating I misquoted Obama. Right...

The Annie Oakley comment makes about as much sense as the duck hunting, as Oakely was mostly known for using her prowess with a .22 caliber rifle, not a "six shooter".

Good try.

Annie Oakley was an American sharpshooter and exhibition shooter.

"Exhibition shooting or trick shooting is a sport in which a marksman performs various feats of skill, frequently using non-traditional targets. Exhibition shooting tends to stress both speed and accuracy, often with elements of danger added."

Amazing talent if she can pull that off with a rifle. :wow:

[Mabus]

Amazing talent if she can pull that off with a rifle. :wow:
She certainly was amazing.

She was not only a sharpshooter, but also a staunch advocate for women's rights, including asking President McKinley for women to be allowed combat duty (even volunteering a force of 50 female sharpshooters for service if he accepted).

Her life story makes a damn good read. Perhaps Obama should have read about it before he tried to use her good name in a slur toward Clinton.

[Mabus]

Riiiight.
I actually expected more from you on this.

You accused me of misquoting Obama, I defended the quotes. You were wrong but refuse to admit it.

You then bring up Annie Oakley to support Obama's "six shooter" comment. I post facts surrounding her life, and could post even more, but you will not admit the possibility that you, or he, could be wrong.

I guess I will have to accept that you went from a once thought provoking poster that attempted to stick to facts to one that now posts for the quick laugh without care for discussion.

Sad.

What posting about Obama has shown me, on this board and others, is that the same people that would attempt to post facts about GW, and then scream when the rabid Bush supporters would not listen are now doing the same thing with Obama; Defend at all costs, even allowing truth to fall.

You have become those you once detested.

[Kefka]

She certainly was amazing.

She was not only a sharpshooter, but also a staunch advocate for women's rights, including asking President McKinley for women to be allowed combat duty (even volunteering a force of 50 female sharpshooters for service if he accepted).

Her life story makes a damn good read. Perhaps Obama should have read about it before he tried to use her good name in a slur toward Clinton.

To be honest, I never heard of her. That's why we have wikipedia! :)

So how is it a slur to make a comparison in jest?

[Parkbandit]

I actually expected more from you on this.

You accused me of misquoting Obama, I defended the quotes. You were wrong but refuse to admit it.

You then bring up Annie Oakley to support Obama's "six shooter" comment. I post facts surrounding her life, and could post even more, but you will not admit the possibility that you, or he, could be wrong.

I guess I will have to accept that you went from a once thought provoking poster that attempted to stick to facts to one that now posts for the quick laugh without care for discussion.

Sad.

What posting about Obama has shown me, on this board and others, is that the same people that would attempt to post facts about GW, and then scream when the rabid Bush supporters would not listen are now doing the same thing with Obama; Defend at all costs, even allowing truth to fall.

You have become those you once detested.

You expected more from Daniel? Really? Why? This is a classic Daniel response. He also has "Woosh", "You forgot :rofl:" and my favorite "Teh Internet r Serious business"

[Daniel]

I actually expected more from you on this.

You accused me of misquoting Obama, I defended the quotes. You were wrong but refuse to admit it.


Actually, no. I just thought it wasn't forth responding to your claims that I was wrong when you verified what I said in your very post.

It's pretty apparent what I was getting at and your pedantic attempt to argue semantics don't change anything.



What posting about Obama has shown me, on this board and others, is that the same people that would attempt to post facts about GW, and then scream when the rabid Bush supporters would not listen are now doing the same thing with Obama; Defend at all costs, even allowing truth to fall.

The problem is that you've posted very little about Obama himself and have instead tried to conjure up problems with those who he has associated with.

Then you make wild ass logical leaps that make absolutely no sense and marvel when people don't buy them.

For instance, A bulletin from the Church Obama attends: "Israel is not good towards Palestinians"

You: OMG This is proof that Obama is racist and anti-semitic.

riiight


Feel free to level your complaint when you actually have more then this to prove your point.

[Daniel]

You expected more from Daniel? Really? Why? This is a classic Daniel response. He also has "Woosh", "You forgot :rofl:" and my favorite "Teh Internet r Serious business"

At least you finally got woosh right.

P.s. My offer to shit my pants whenever you post something of substance still stands.

[Mabus]

Actually, no. I just thought it wasn't forth responding to your claims that I was wrong when you verified what I said in your very post.
I disproved the "misquoted" comment. If you feel I did not then point to the "misquote" and discuss why it is one.


The problem is that you've posted very little about Obama himself and have instead tried to conjure up problems with those who he has associated with.
Judgement and associations are part of a candidate's ability to lead. If Obama associates with racists and terrorists his judgement is in question and it is about him.


For instance, A bulletin from the Church Obama attends: "Israel is not good towards Palestinians"
You are refering to the anti-Israel rant posted at Obama's church's website, the one written by a member of Hamas?

Isn't Hamas currently listed as a terrorist organization by several nations (including our own), and even banned in the Arab state of Jordan?


You: OMG This is proof that Obama is racist and anti-semitic.
First, you are misquoting me again.

Secondly, I never stated Obama was a racist.

He is associated with Wright and Farakhan, and both have made some pretty wildly racist and anti-semitic rants. Or perhaps you feel they haven't. That is likely more telling about your beliefs then about Obama's.


riiight
Perhaps it is best you stick with the attempts at wit. I would suggest practicing them in a text editor first, and getting some new material.
;)

[Daniel]

I disproved the "misquoted" comment. If you feel I did not then point to the "misquote" and discuss why it is one.

Actually, you affirmed what I said you did. You "misquoted" Obama in that you purposefully left out relevant portions of his quote in an attempt to critique his statement.

If you feel that purposefully altering a quote to suit your own agenda is not "misquoting" ... fine.

It's a silly semantic argument with no relevance to what was said.




You are refering to the anti-Israel rant posted at Obama's church's website, the one written by a member of Hamas?


Yes. I am referring to the article you posted here that A) Was not written by a member of Hamas and B) not what you represented it to be.

Feel free to take up the issue in one of the other three threads where you have brought it up and you've ignored the points.



He is associated with Wright, [who] have made some pretty wildly racist and anti-semitic rants. Or perhaps you feel they haven't. That is likely more telling about your beliefs then about Obama's.


We've already had this discussion. Essentially your argument (which once again revolved around silly semantics) was that Wright's statements were racist IF you didn't believe that White people had the preponderous of control over the United States.

It's a stupid argument and any objective measure of the word "control" would tell you it is.

Oh..and By the way.. How is Obama associated with Farakhan?

[Parkbandit]

At least you finally got woosh right.

P.s. My offer to shit my pants whenever you post something of substance still stands.


Riiiiight.

If your posts are a benchmark of substance.. then I've far, far surpased that. Shit away boy.

W00sh.

[Daniel]

Riiiiight.

If your posts are a benchmark of substance.. then I've far, far surpased that. Shit away boy.

W00sh.

I know you are but what am I.

[Parkbandit]

I know you are but what am I.

Another well thought out post with substance.

Thank you for making my point.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/hypocrite1.jpg

[Daniel]

Uh oh. You busted out the pictures. It's only a matter of time before you photoshop my face into that button. Then you will have really pwned me.

[Mabus]

Actually, you affirmed what I said you did. You "misquoted" Obama in that you purposefully left out relevant portions of his quote in an attempt to critique his statement. [/QUOTE]
Accurately quoting portions of text is not misquoting. If the text was altered (words added, punctuation added or changed to alter meaning) then you would be correct.

No words were added. Punctuation was not altered to change meaning. Both quotes stand. No "relevant" portions were removed.


If you feel that purposefully altering a quote to suit your own agenda is not "misquoting" ... fine.
I do not feel that way.

You, on the other hand, have misquoted me. I suppose to you that is "fine".



Was not written by a member of Hamas
I was not calling Ali Baghdadi a member of Hamas. He certainly has some wild conspiracy theories, and it is shameful that Wright would use his church's newsletter to further this insane man's rants. Ali shares Wright's beliefs that Israel is working with racists to build a bomb to kill Arabs and blacks. Do you believe this as well?

While the Ali Baghdadi article was certainly distasteful, and clearly anti-semitic, that is not the one I am refering to.

"In his July 22, 2007, church bulletin, Wright reprinted an article by Mousa Abu Marzook (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mousa_Mohammed_Abu_Marzook), identified in the newsletter as a “deputy of the political bureau of Hamas."

And here is the article I was refering to, still on Trinity United Church of Christ's Own Website (http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_july22.pdf).

How do your words taste?

[Mabus]

"In his July 22, 2007, church bulletin, Wright reprinted an article by Mousa Abu Marzook (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mousa_Mohammed_Abu_Marzook), identified in the newsletter as a “deputy of the political bureau of Hamas."

And here is the article I was refering to, still on Trinity United Church of Christ's Own Website (http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_july22.pdf).

How do your words taste?

For those that do not want to read through the whole bulletin, the Hamas portion is on page 11, and carries this as the author:

"MOUSA ABU MARZOOK is the deputy of the
political bureau of Hamas, the Islamic Resistance
Movement"

Perhaps Daniel feels Wright is lying in his own church newsletter. Who knows?

[Parkbandit]

Uh oh. You busted out the pictures. It's only a matter of time before you photoshop my face into that button. Then you will have really pwned me.


Pictures are the last ditch effort to get through to you. We've tried words.. but clearly you have trouble with the big ones.

[Daniel]

quoted" Obama in that you purposefully left out relevant portions of his quote in an attempt to critique his statement.



Accurately quoting portions of text is not misquoting. If the text was altered (words added, punctuation added or changed to alter meaning) then you would be correct.

Yet, you did change his meaning. You implied that he said that Hillary was hunting with a six shooter. However, he obviously meant that comment in reference to her being like Annie Oakley.

Hence the misquote.

For someone who loves to play ridiculous semantic games...you really suck at it.






I do not feel that way.


Well. I guess that's open to interpretation.




How do your words taste?


Like nothing?

Thank you for posting something new, but that does not change my characterization of what you have said earlier.

Unfortunately, that's the first time you have posted that link and what I said earlier is still true. It also doesn't say anything that is anti-semitic or otherwise hateful. It's the elucidation of the positon of Hamas. Hence the title "A fresh view of the Palestinian Struggle".

IF you want to discuss this, I'm more then willing to point out how desperately you are trying to make a logical leap by suggesting that this (and the previous) article is anti semitic.

Also..How is Obama linked to Farakhan? You missed that question.

[Daniel]

Pictures are the last ditch effort to get through to you. We've tried words.. but clearly you have trouble with the big ones.

Really? I thought pictures were the last ditch effort of your desperation to seem intelligent.

[Drisco]

This is the guy that is going to bring us all together, correct? The fella that is all about "hope"?

I don't "cling" to my guns. I have a right to own them guarenteed by the United States Constitution.

Saying people "cling" to religion should make one wonder why the hell he was in a church anyway, was he "clinging"? Or was he "bitter", and found solace in the words of hate being spoken there?

His statement shows a definate lack of judgment, and casts doubt on his ability to lead this diverse nation.

You like Obama, I get it.



I didn't read anything besides this post and everything behind it. Just want to point out that the "Right to Bear Arms" in the constitution is such bull shit, that has been taken out of context from the time it was originally wrote.

Thats all... Go Clinton!...

[Keller]

Daniel fucking owned Mabus re omitting parts of a quote.

Backlash, :crickets: incoming!

[Parkbandit]

I didn't read anything besides this post and everything behind it. Just want to point out that the "Right to Bear Arms" in the constitution is such bull shit, that has been taken out of context from the time it was originally wrote.


Except for the part where it clearly states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[Parkbandit]

Really? I thought pictures were the last ditch effort of your desperation to seem intelligent.

I bolded the part where you failed miserably.

[TheEschaton]

PB, the unhighlighted part is a rather important modifier. Using English grammar, the first part can only be seen as a limitation on how and why we can have a "right" to bear arms, which makes it a conditional right, not an absolute one.

And that's not a controversial thing - the right to speech, assembly, and so on, and so forth...all the "rights" enumerated in the Amendments have exceptions and limitations. Except for maybe the 3rd, but no one's ever bothered to litigate it.

[Parkbandit]

PB, the unhighlighted part is a rather important modifier. Using English grammar, the first part can only be seen as a limitation on how and why we can have a "right" to bear arms, which makes it a conditional right, not an absolute one.

And that's not a controversial thing - the right to speech, assembly, and so on, and so forth...all the "rights" enumerated in the Amendments have exceptions and limitations. Except for maybe the 3rd, but no one's ever bothered to litigate it.

While I realize you are almost a lawyer and you know everything there is to know about law.. I'm pretty sure the court system agrees with my interpretation of it and not yours.

I'm also pretty sure that when the US Supreme Court overturns the DC weapon ban.. we can finally put this question to rest.

[Keller]

While I realize you are almost a lawyer and you know everything there is to know about law.. I'm pretty sure the court system agrees with my interpretation of it and not yours.

I'm also pretty sure that when the US Supreme Court overturns the DC weapon ban.. we can finally put this question to rest.

lik 100% sure?

[Daniel]

I sux cocks


Oh okay..

Whatever makes you feel good about yourself.

[Gan]

:(
lame

[Parkbandit]

Oh okay..

Whatever makes you feel good about yourself.

Wow.. is this what you've had to sink to? I seriously didn't think you could possibly be more pathetic and sad.. yet, you could be.

[Parkbandit]

:(
lame


It's what happens when you become intellectually bankrupt... not that his account ever had much in it. He kept asking what NSF meant.

[TheEschaton]

There's only ever been one 2nd Amendment case before SCOTUS ever, PB, and it didn't decide anything. Not to mention that the Circuit court below are split between whether the first clause modifies the second, or if they stand separately.

That's why even granting cert on this decision was a big deal, because the court doesn't usually interfere with how the states/circuit courts rule on gun laws. Of course, the D.C. law will be struck down because it effectively prevents you from owning a gun EVER, but it'll be interesting to see if they go even further and talk about if/when the right is restricted at all.

I know my soon-to-be-lawyerness bothers you something immense, but please don't make spurious claims you can't back up about the law..........O WAIT, TOO LATE.

[Gan]

There's only ever been one 2nd Amendment case before SCOTUS ever, PB, and it didn't decide anything.

Actually 3 cases. You either suck at counting or suck at your SCOTUS history.


US v. Miller (1935)

US v. Cruikshank (1875)

Presser v. Illinois (1886)

[Parkbandit]

I know my soon-to-be-lawyerness bothers you something immense, but please don't make spurious claims you can't back up about the law..........O WAIT, TOO LATE.

OH WAIT, TOO LATE to edit this post.. since you were clearly wrong.

Hey, it's not a total loss though. You can still be right in your Fantasy Island.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/133310__tattoo_l.jpg

[Keller]

PB is pulling out the photoshop. TROLL PANIC ALERT LEVEL RED!!!!!

But seriously. I am going to institute the PB Troll Panic Advisory System and give periodic updates as to the threat level. We're definately at red atm. He's been the target for a few weeks now and the stress of trying to troll and engage in self-defense is obviously getting to him.

[Keller]

Actually 3 cases. You either suck at counting or suck at your SCOTUS history.


US v. Miller (1935)

US v. Cruikshank (1875)

Presser v. Illinois (1886)

US v. Miller is the only case to deal with it at any depth. The other two, which both came before incorporation, just affirm the states rights approach. And since SCOTUS hasn't granted cert in 72 years, I think TheE's point that PB was talking out of his ass ("I think the court system agrees with me . . .") is still correct.

[Gan]

US v. Miller is the only case to deal with it at any depth. The other two, which both came before incorporation, just affirm the states rights approach. And since SCOTUS hasn't granted cert in 72 years, I think TheE's point that PB was talking out of his ass ("I think the court system agrees with me . . .") is still correct.


There's only ever been one 2nd Amendment case before SCOTUS ever, PB, and it didn't decide anything.

Yea, my bad for taking his post literally. /sarcasm.

[Parkbandit]

Lawyer wannabe's UNITE!

Seriously.. I would never, ever hire either one of them, as they have both exhibited tremendous stupidity over the years. One though, fits the mold of scumbag lawyer. He should do well... just because of his commitment to being an asshole.. not because of any law skill.

[Daniel]

It's what happens when you become intellectually bankrupt...

Lol. Says the man who busts out with the leet photoshop skills when things don't go his way.

[Daniel]

PB is pulling out the photoshop. TROLL PANIC ALERT LEVEL RED!!!!!

But seriously. I am going to institute the PB Troll Panic Advisory System and give periodic updates as to the threat level. We're definately at red atm. He's been the target for a few weeks now and the stress of trying to troll and engage in self-defense is obviously getting to him.

Rofl.

[Parkbandit]

Lol. Says the man who busts out with the leet photoshop skills when things don't go his way.

Better than having to resort to fabrication and outright lying. But, then again.. it goes to the type of person you obviously are.

No wonder you and Keller get along like giggling little sisters... once again proving the adage "Birds of a feather"

[Daniel]

Oh right. I have no job. I forgot

[Parkbandit]

Oh right. I have no job. I forgot

Lying pieces of shit are all unemployed? How did you make that leap genius?

OR WAIT, IS THIS BACK TO YOU BEING BLACK!?

[Keller]

Yea, my bad for taking his post literally. /sarcasm.

True. I didn't remember the "ever" language. That was pretty lazy.

[Keller]

Lawyer wannabe's UNITE!

Seriously.. I would never, ever hire either one of them, as they have both exhibited tremendous stupidity over the years. One though, fits the mold of scumbag lawyer. He should do well... just because of his commitment to being an asshole.. not because of any law skill.


Do you feel better about yourself yet? Are you over it?

[Gan]

True. I didn't remember the "ever" language. That was pretty lazy.

For those of us who regularly call him out on his 'laziness', we're used to it.


Lazy=idiotic=fantastically crazy=insane=inane=monumentally retarded.

[Keller]

For those of us who regularly call him out on his 'laziness', we're used to it.


Lazy=idiotic=fantastically crazy=insane=inane=monumentally retarded.

I meant it was lazy of me.

[Gan]

TheE's rubbing off on you then. :(

[Keller]

TheE's rubbing off on you then. :(

I think he's a fucking crazy liberal, but I generally find he adds depth to the discourse. So I'm not sure I take that as an insult.

The message board would be boring if it wasn't for the diversity of opinions.

[Daniel]

Lying pieces of shit are all unemployed? How did you make that leap genius?

OR WAIT, IS THIS BACK TO YOU BEING BLACK!?

Wow.

[Gan]

I think he's a fucking crazy liberal, but I generally find he adds depth to the discourse. So I'm not sure I take that as an insult.
He certainly adds flavor. I'll give him that.



The message board would be boring if it wasn't for the diversity of opinions.
Very true. It would be kind of one sided or boring if we didnt have folks like Backlash and TheE around. Then we would just sit around and make fun of folks like Nelek and Tsin. :(

[Mabus]

Yet, you did change his meaning. You implied that he said that Hillary was hunting with a six shooter. However, he obviously meant that comment in reference to her being like Annie Oakley.

Hence the misquote.

His meaning is his meaning. The words he uses are his own.

One more time, for you, and let's fully quote him so that your little meandering around is mute:

"She's running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment, she's talking like she's Annie Oakley! Hillary Clinton's out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday, she's packin' a six shooter! C'mon! She knows better. That's some politics being played by Hillary Clinton. I want to see that picture of her out there in the duck blinds."

There is the whole quote. Now, let's look at it.

"Hillary Clinton's out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday, she's packin' a six shooter! "

Now prove to me that he was refering to Annie Oakley in that full quote and was not talking about hunting ducks from a "duck blind" with a "six shooter", or be the misquoting, ineffective debater that you already know you are for everyone to see.


Daniel fucking owned Mabus re omitting parts of a quote.
I guess that makes you "owned".

You cannot debate accurately, so you attack the poster. When that fails, brown-nose another person that cannot defend their position.

Typical.

[TheEschaton]

Ever was a mistake, then. ;) Funny though, if I equivocate on other threads, you say I'm a wishy-washy lawyer who reads too much into everything. If I make definitive statements (and happen to be wrong) then shit breaks loose for me being a liar. Good stuff, I'm learning a lot on crazy tactics for ignoring the issue at hand, which is WHAT IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT?

There's only been one case which is relevant, and, like Keller said, it's been over 70 years since it was decided. PB's assertion that the interpretation is on his side is still not true.

-TheE-

[Keller]

He certainly adds flavor. I'll give him that.


Very true. It would be kind of one sided or boring if we didnt have folks like Backlash and TheE around. Then we would just sit around and make fun of folks like Nelek and Tsin. :(

And ParkBandit, Mabus, and ClydeR. For every unreasonably liberal poster, we've got a rapid conservative to balance.

[Daniel]

Now prove to me that he was refering to Annie Oakley in that full quote and was not talking about hunting ducks from a "duck blind" with a "six shooter", or be the misquoting, ineffective debater that you already know you are for everyone to see.

.

I can't "prove" your interpretation. You chose to leave those parts out because A) You knew you were being disingenous and knew that including them would make your little comment moot, or B) You are so blinded by your dislike of Obama so much that you by instinct take anything he says and see it in the worse light, regardless of how ridiculous it makes you look in the process.

[Keller]

I guess that makes you "owned".

You cannot debate accurately, so you attack the poster. When that fails, brown-nose another person that cannot defend their position.

Typical.

Why would I debate with you? There is nothing to debate. You've got an agenda and it's clear you're going to pursue it. I'll just read your drivel and chuckle to myself.

And you're a hypocrite. In one case, you demand textual accuracy, and in another you cannot see the forest for the trees. Did Annie Oakley use a six-shooter?

[Mabus]

I can't "prove" your interpretation.
The only thing you have proven is that you were wrong. There was no misquote, and you know it.

You said the six shooter comment was directly about Annie Oakley.

One more time, in case you "forgot" what you said:

Yet, you did change his meaning. You implied that he said that Hillary was hunting with a six shooter. However, he obviously meant that comment in reference to her being like Annie Oakley.

And the full quote from Obama:
"She's running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment, she's talking like she's Annie Oakley! Hillary Clinton's out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday, she's packin' a six shooter! C'mon! She knows better. That's some politics being played by Hillary Clinton. I want to see that picture of her out there in the duck blinds."

Now show me where I "implied that he said Hillary was hunting with a six shooter", and was not merely showing the truth of what he said.

You cannot, as you were wrong.

Then show me how Obama "obviously meant that comment in reference to her being like Annie Oakley".

Again, you were wrong.

The little brown-noser afterwards then used your incorrect post as some sort of flame against me, showing that he was wrong as well. Whether he was wrong for believing that you are always right, forum politics, some sort of party affinity or just a general lack of being able to understand facts is not my concern.

You both were wrong. Be men. Admit it.



You are so blinded by your dislike of Obama so much that you by instinct take anything he says and see it in the worse light, regardless of how ridiculous it makes you look in the process.
Let's see, you misquote me twice, then accuse me of misquoting Obama.

I show that I did not misquote Obama, but instead of acccepting that you were wrong you then say I look ridiculous because you misquote me and were wrong about me misquoting Obama. And now this is all because of a "dislike" I have for Obama.

That's some intellectual argument, Einstein.


Obama-maniacs like you believe he can do no wrong. They cheer and faint at his every uttering, and any attempt to pose any question is seen as an assault on what they believe he represents, which they cannot really define as a complete unit. Each piece believes he is speaking exactly to their needs, wants and hopes. That is more a factor of "good speech writing and charisma" then some shining knight come to save us all.


A simple question:
Can Obama do anything wrong?

If you believe any politician, of whatever party, is above mistakes you may have joined a cult of personality and not a true political movement.

I have no issues with people supporting a candidate for what they can do for this country, no matter what political affiliation the supporter or politician may be. I call bullshit where I see it, and Obama has just as much bullshit as the rest of the politicians.

Can you see any of it, or are you blinded to the possibility that he may have done, or can do, something wrong.

That is a question you will have to answer for yourself, Daniel.

[Mabus]

Why would I debate with you?
You posting an attempt at a lame flame is not debate. You have been shown to have been incorrect in your assumption that Daniel was correct. You have been "owned", to borrow from you.

Feel free to ignore my posts, as you ignore the facts anyway.

"When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff."

What you, and others do, is nothing new in discussion.

[Warriorbird]

So what exactly are you adding? More rationalized racism?

[Keller]

Mabus: Why didn't you include the language about Annie Oakley?

[Keller]

Feel free to ignore my posts, as you ignore the facts anyway.


Why would I ignore your posts? Everyone needs a good laugh to pick them up throughout the day.

[Mabus]

So what exactly are you adding? More rationalized racism?
Am I caucasoid when I question Obama and negroid when I question Bush?

[Mabus]

Mabus: Why didn't you include the language about Annie Oakley?
Do you include every statement from a speech with every quote? Does anyone? Should I have included his opening statements and thanking of the local politicians?

I even gave Daniel the option of saving face when I suggested he could say I took the quote out of context. Daniel decided to stick to "misquoting", and was shown to be wrong.

My original post on this tangent:


One quote Obama made that I found particullary funny:

""Hillary Clinton is out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday. She's packing a six-shooter."

Daniel's accusation:

It's even worse when you consider that he purposefully misquoted his words to make his point.

I then checked several online resources looking for variations on the quote, in case my original quoting was incorrect. Only punctuation varied between the news sources that reported the quotes, which is understandable when transcribing spoken words.

Annie Oakley was not at issue in what I found funny about duck hunting with a six shooter. I never said "here is the full text of an Obama speech", nor misquoted Obama.

You were both incorrect, and any decent person would admit that they were.

[Clove]

Am I caucasoid when I question Obama and negroid when I question Bush?Your race isn't what determines racist behavior. Try again.

[Mabus]

Your race isn't what determines racist behavior. Try again.
Posing questions about a politician and their judgement is not racially oriented or racist.

If you want to hear racial slurs and lies read a few of Wright's sermons.

Try again.

[Clove]

Posing questions about a politician and their judgement is not racially oriented or racist.

If you want to hear racial slurs and lies read a few of Wright's sermons.

Try again.That would have been a more germane comment than your previous one. Try again, and get your own lines.

[Keller]

racial slurs ... Wright's sermons.

Got any examples?

[Keller]

Do you include every statement from a speech with every quote? Does anyone? Should I have included his opening statements and thanking of the local politicians?

Do you answer questions with questions often?

Why did you exclude the prior sentence? Was it because it might jeopardize the integrity of your criticism? (That's rhetorical, you don't need to pose a question back to me in response)

[Mabus]

That would have been a more germane comment than your previous one. Try again, and get your own lines.
So what are your questions, oh great Clove of the two word copyrighted "Try again"?

You made a statement:
"Your race isn't what determines racist behavior. Try again."

Racism denotes a belief in superiority or difference based purely on genetic and/or cultural differences of race. I have never stated, nor proposed, that Obama was inferior, or superior, based on his race.

Therefore there was no racism in my posts.

If you would like to accuse me of it, feel free. You would be wrong, but that would not matter to someone that had no method of sticking to the topic, nor ability to present a counter argument to the actual topic of a thread.

This thread, in case you have forgotten, was about Obama stereotyping small towns. It has degenerated into rabid Obama-maniacs "clinging" to invalid arguments, incorrectly claiming misquoting and now has degenerated to the point of trying to label someone as racist (without even knowing their race, background or beliefs).

Bill me the $.02 for the usage, but "Try again."

[Mabus]

Do you answer questions with questions often?

Why did you exclude the prior sentence? Was it because it might jeopardize the integrity of your criticism? (That's rhetorical, you don't need to pose a question back to me in response)

Strange that you answered a question with a question, and now post two more as an answer to a post.

Your question was answered in the post.

You, nor anyone else, when posting a quote from a speech, article, book, movie or other method of communication is required to post the whole book, movie or speech.

The "Annie Oakley" was not relevant to the quote, nor to how it made me feel. It was a side issue that Daniel attempted (succeeded, apparently) to derail the thread with.

So now that you realize you are wrong you can attack my posting style instead of admitting the mistake. If it makes you feel better join the other poster that is trying to state that I am a racist for questioning a politician's judgement and associations.

[Mabus]

Got any examples?
Ask Daniel. He has been defending the statements long enough to have the links bookmarked.

[Daniel]

It was a side issue that Daniel attempted (succeeded, apparently) to derail the thread with.



The delicious irony.

You are a joke my friend.

[Keller]

I don't know if you're a racist. I do know you're an idiot. The simple claim, which you've chose to attack semantically, is that he included "six-shooter" in reference to the prior sentence (which you omitted) about Annie Oakley. It was not because he thought you hunt ducks with a pistol. And, in my opinion, that's why you omitted it. Not because it was superfluous, but because it directly impacted the credibility of your criticism.

[Mabus]

The delicious irony.

You are a joke my friend.
And you, sir, are a liar. You accused someone of misquoting when they did not. Admit the mistake or stay a liar.

But why stop now? Lie for them, Danny. Lie for them some more. Make up witty comments and misquote people.That might make them laugh, and maybe, just maybe, like you more.

;)

[Clove]

So what are your questions, oh great Clove of the two word copyrighted "Try again"?

Am I caucasoid when I question Obama and negroid when I question Bush?
WTF your race had to do with you being accused of racism. Focus. If you can't read, you shouldn't participate in text-based forum. I didn't accuse you of racism, I accused you of not answering the fucking question. It was a nice deflection, but you made a bullshit point. Try again. I'll let you have it for free if it's really such a challenge to come up with your own style. Imitation is after all the sincerest form of flattery.

[Keller]

Ask Daniel. He has been defending the statements long enough to have the links bookmarked.

Oh, I asked you.
Could you support your claim?

[Mabus]

I don't know if you're a racist. I do know you're an idiot.

Let's look at your idiotic statements then that you are using to still attempt to divert from the fact that you and Daniel wrere wrong.


The simple claim, which you've chose to attack semantically, is that he included "six-shooter" in reference to the prior sentence (which you omitted) about Annie Oakley.

"She's running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment, she's talking like she's Annie Oakley!"

The statement ends. No "six shooter" is included.


It was not because he thought you hunt ducks with a pistol.
"Hillary Clinton's out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday, she's packin' a six shooter!"

There is no "Annie Oakley" in that sentence.


And, in my opinion, that's why you omitted it.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts."

If I had no defense for being wrong (as you do not) and did not want to admit the wrong (as you do not) I might search for anything to avoid admitting the mistake (as you are doing).

The facts are against you.


Not because it was superfluous, but because it directly impacted the credibility of your criticism.

I said I found it funny. I did find it funny. That you did not find it funny is not a basis for agreeing with Daniel's lie about misquoting.

[Mabus]

Oh, I asked you.
Could you support your claim?
Google:

Obama Wright sermon racist

That should give about 381,000 hits. Pick the sources you believe, though I prefered to watch him rant on YouTube, as that is straight from his mouth and hard to "misquote".

You can do it! I have faith that you can!

[Daniel]

And you, sir, are a liar. You accused someone of misquoting when they did not. Admit the mistake or stay a liar.

But why stop now? Lie for them, Danny. Lie for them some more. Make up witty comments and misquote people.That might make them laugh, and maybe, just maybe, like you more.

;)

Hey Man,

Whatever helps you deal with the fact that an African American has a pretty good shot at winning the presidency. I can only imagine how bad it'll be if he actually wins.

[Mabus]

Hey Man,

Whatever helps you deal with the fact that an African American has a pretty good shot at winning the presidency. I can only imagine how bad it'll be if he actually wins.
I voted for Jesse Jackson in the 1988 presidential primary in Ohio. He won in my district.

Glad to see you are joining the "if you do not support Obama you are a racist" club. It will make your comments easier to ignore.

[Daniel]

That's funny that you decry the relationship between Obama and Louis Farakhan, which doesn't exist and yet didn't seem to care about the relationship between Jesse Jackson and Louis Farakhan, which does.

[Keller]

I must be in the minority. I generally look to the surrounding sentences for context. I guess the correct method of reading comprehension is to take each sentence on it's face. My bad.

[Mabus]

That's funny that you decry the relationship between Obama and Louis Farakhan, which doesn't exist and yet didn't seem to care about the relationship between Jesse Jackson and Louis Farakhan, which does.
By 1988 Jackson had already distanced himself from Farrakhan stating that his remarks were "reprehensible and morally indefensible".

Obama's church gave Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award, and Wright, Obama's spiritual mentor, is a longtime friend of Farrakhan's. The award is called "Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer Award", and was given in December of 2007.

[Daniel]

And yet nothing on the non existence of a link between Obama and Farrakhan?

[Mabus]

And yet nothing on the non existence of a link between Obama and Farrakhan?
So once I show that my vote is not racially biased we move to debate Farrakhan again.

Good job!

How about admitting you were wrong on accusing me of misquoting, and very wrong for attempting to portray me as a racist, first.

Hell, start a "Farrakhan Supports Obama" thread and I will gladly discuss it with you there.

[Daniel]

I think the nature of your character is pretty apparent to anyone who has been reading this thread.

[Parkbandit]

I think the nature of your character is pretty apparent to anyone who has been reading this thread.

I'm still amazed you would even have the lack of self respect to even post this. It's like you want people to make fun of you.

Are you that starved for attention, that even negative attention will do?

One thing for sure.. the nature of your character (or really.. lack of) has never been in question.

[Daniel]

I'm still amazed that you even bother typing towards me anymore. You'd think you'd get the point after being continually shown how ridiculous and ignorant you are.

[Parkbandit]

I'm still amazed that you even bother typing towards me anymore. You'd think you'd get the point after being continually shown how ridiculous and ignorant you are.

Something you've yet to do.

But please.. continue to show everyone here how much of a lying piece of hypocritical shit you are. I'll be on the sidelines, enjoying every moment of it.

[Daniel]

I guess that's easier then putting me on ignore when your feelings get hurt.

[Parkbandit]

You're entertaining. It's like watching a retard fall down. Sure you know it's something you should stop.. but you can't help but laugh.

[Daniel]

Aww. Touch a nerve?

[Keller]

PB Troll Alert Level Orange.

We've yet to encounter a single photoshop today.