USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Obama 6(...66)
- Thread starter geezer
- Start date
- Status
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama 6(...66)
That's brilliant!
(I'd love to see others, though. Burkina Faso. What's the lowest a credit score can be?)
That's brilliant!
(I'd love to see others, though. Burkina Faso. What's the lowest a credit score can be?)
Re: Obama 6(...66)
OK, I definitely need to clarify. I would never ask it if I'm having a healthy debate on specific topics of substance. The only time I've ever asked this is when the conversation has degenerated into a useless squabble over liberalism and conservatism in general. So just to be clear, if it's a civil and constructive banter, such as in your example, I would never be so blunt. You know what I mean, it's on here all the time, my initial post came from just such a thing. I guess what I'm trying to say is I wouldn't ask the question until the conversation had already sunk way below a very simple "gotcha" question.
That being said.... You're making alot of assumptions about me based on your own opinions of all conservatives - I think that's something you dressed down someone else on here, by the way. Where in the heck did I mention a single thing about "my country, right or wrong?" I think you might be stereotyping me, buddy. Or perhaps you misread my question because it certainly wasn't, "But do you love your country and stand behind every single thing it has done for the past 230 years?"
I'm also kind of confused why you're talk about principles being on the line. It's not a question of your principles or mine. It's a question of how you feel about America and its founding principles. (Although if you were somehow saying our founding principles are on the line these days, I would be in complete agreement with you.) You're spot on about it be about patriotism, but you're dead wrong about it being an accusation - it's a question.
You are also correct about the reaction to my question, at least partially. Hesitation and anger are not at all uncommon reactions from either side of the fence. The difference is between a "how dare you insult me like that" and a "that was a dirty trick, how dare you ask me something like that" kind of anger - and it's really not that hard to tell the difference, so let's not get into that debate. And regardless of initial emotional reaction, it's almost 100% of the time the liberal that's the one throwing in qualifiers while answering a general question about their patriotism.
I'm not making any claims against all liberals, or even most. I'm just saying that when I put someone on the spot and ask them how patriotic they are, those who do hedge or qualify or squirm are very nearly always liberals. Maybe I'm just randomly asking the wrong people so I have skewed results, do you think? I don't think so at all. I bet if I asked this as a stand alone question to 1000 random people, not as part of some political conversation, the results would be pretty much the same.
If you think occasionally pointing out that I love my country and the principles it was founded upon is "fetishizing The Nation" then I'd really enjoy hearing you put a fair an honest characterization of the Obama idolatry into words. Also, you better tell those liberal celebrities Bruce Springsteen and John Mellencamp to apologize for "fetishizing" with those patriotic songs of theirs, those jerks. Long story short, I'm sure you'll agree that calling it "fetishizing" is just a wee bit of an embellishment.
As far as not taking the path of least resistance and bringing the country back to its principles in the face of loud and angry opposition goes.... hmmmm, let's see....
A president who is fawned over by the far left; who has more power with his brigade of unelected, unvetted radical left czars surrounding him; who has already nationalized large chunks of the auto and financial industries; who now has his sights on nationalizing the health care industry; and who has the leaders of both houses of a filibuster-proof Congress in his pocket. All major networks except one are leaning slightly left to, in the case of MSNBC, completely ignorant left. And all major newpaper media is leaning squarely left.
So yeah... I'm a vocal proponent of bringing America closer to its founding principles - but I must say I think I'm more of the garden variety patriot, not the highest form of patriot. But thank you so much for the compliment anyway, Kepler!
OK, I definitely need to clarify. I would never ask it if I'm having a healthy debate on specific topics of substance. The only time I've ever asked this is when the conversation has degenerated into a useless squabble over liberalism and conservatism in general. So just to be clear, if it's a civil and constructive banter, such as in your example, I would never be so blunt. You know what I mean, it's on here all the time, my initial post came from just such a thing. I guess what I'm trying to say is I wouldn't ask the question until the conversation had already sunk way below a very simple "gotcha" question.
That being said.... You're making alot of assumptions about me based on your own opinions of all conservatives - I think that's something you dressed down someone else on here, by the way. Where in the heck did I mention a single thing about "my country, right or wrong?" I think you might be stereotyping me, buddy. Or perhaps you misread my question because it certainly wasn't, "But do you love your country and stand behind every single thing it has done for the past 230 years?"
I'm also kind of confused why you're talk about principles being on the line. It's not a question of your principles or mine. It's a question of how you feel about America and its founding principles. (Although if you were somehow saying our founding principles are on the line these days, I would be in complete agreement with you.) You're spot on about it be about patriotism, but you're dead wrong about it being an accusation - it's a question.
You are also correct about the reaction to my question, at least partially. Hesitation and anger are not at all uncommon reactions from either side of the fence. The difference is between a "how dare you insult me like that" and a "that was a dirty trick, how dare you ask me something like that" kind of anger - and it's really not that hard to tell the difference, so let's not get into that debate. And regardless of initial emotional reaction, it's almost 100% of the time the liberal that's the one throwing in qualifiers while answering a general question about their patriotism.
I'm not making any claims against all liberals, or even most. I'm just saying that when I put someone on the spot and ask them how patriotic they are, those who do hedge or qualify or squirm are very nearly always liberals. Maybe I'm just randomly asking the wrong people so I have skewed results, do you think? I don't think so at all. I bet if I asked this as a stand alone question to 1000 random people, not as part of some political conversation, the results would be pretty much the same.
If you think occasionally pointing out that I love my country and the principles it was founded upon is "fetishizing The Nation" then I'd really enjoy hearing you put a fair an honest characterization of the Obama idolatry into words. Also, you better tell those liberal celebrities Bruce Springsteen and John Mellencamp to apologize for "fetishizing" with those patriotic songs of theirs, those jerks. Long story short, I'm sure you'll agree that calling it "fetishizing" is just a wee bit of an embellishment.
As far as not taking the path of least resistance and bringing the country back to its principles in the face of loud and angry opposition goes.... hmmmm, let's see....
A president who is fawned over by the far left; who has more power with his brigade of unelected, unvetted radical left czars surrounding him; who has already nationalized large chunks of the auto and financial industries; who now has his sights on nationalizing the health care industry; and who has the leaders of both houses of a filibuster-proof Congress in his pocket. All major networks except one are leaning slightly left to, in the case of MSNBC, completely ignorant left. And all major newpaper media is leaning squarely left.
So yeah... I'm a vocal proponent of bringing America closer to its founding principles - but I must say I think I'm more of the garden variety patriot, not the highest form of patriot. But thank you so much for the compliment anyway, Kepler!
Re: Obama 6(...66)
I'd like to believe that's true - unfortunately it's my perception that the minority of liberals that don't are the ones that are running for office and the ones that are the most active at the local level. Assuming you can agree that 99% of ACORN employees are liberals, where would you think they stand on their feelings for America?
Fair enough. I try to phrase the question as disarmingly as possible. Maybe you can help me word the question in such a manner that a liberal will view it as a simple question of patriotism and principles.
(Because I sure as heck can't figure out how a liberal's mind works. Joke!
)
This guy does lead quite the jetsetting lifestyle these days, doesn't he? He does a better job living like a movie star than Reagan did while he was still in Hollywood.
I think you're being too hard on him though. The floundering economy and the war Obama's losing aren't nearly so important as using the influence of the Presidency to get the Olympics to his hometown.
I'd like to believe that's true - unfortunately it's my perception that the minority of liberals that don't are the ones that are running for office and the ones that are the most active at the local level. Assuming you can agree that 99% of ACORN employees are liberals, where would you think they stand on their feelings for America?
Fair enough. I try to phrase the question as disarmingly as possible. Maybe you can help me word the question in such a manner that a liberal will view it as a simple question of patriotism and principles.
(Because I sure as heck can't figure out how a liberal's mind works. Joke!
)This guy does lead quite the jetsetting lifestyle these days, doesn't he? He does a better job living like a movie star than Reagan did while he was still in Hollywood.
I think you're being too hard on him though. The floundering economy and the war Obama's losing aren't nearly so important as using the influence of the Presidency to get the Olympics to his hometown.
French Rage
NICKERSON HAS [CENSORED]
Re: Obama 6(...66)
Wow, woosh. Read that again, I say it would not be trustable before Murdoch took over, and as someone a bit on the left clearly I mean that for real because I would hold Murdoch organizations to such a high journalistic standard. It's in no way a sarcasm or anything.
Seriously, did anyone else here not get that?
(Oh and the first paragraph there was sarcastic in and of itself too, to help you decipher it.)
I find it hard to believe that for any appearance for members of the first family (and that includes this administration too) that they don't schedule and triple-check the plans and intentions of everyone in attendance, so while you may be right that they didn't come up with the idea themselves they certainly had to know about it and at the very least green-lighted it. And my point on this being, that's alot more involvement than some elementrary school teacher or prinicipal doing something on his/her own without knowledge by the administration.
Overall this stuff is stupid, irresponsible, and a bit scary regardless of which side is doing it and should not be done. But all administrations, being PR whores and realizing that personality images get them voters, do crap like this, so while people doing it for the current administration are incredibly stupid, it is the usual crap and not the start of some Stalinist cult of personality totalitarian state like some being are made to believe.
Wow, woosh. Read that again, I say it would not be trustable before Murdoch took over, and as someone a bit on the left clearly I mean that for real because I would hold Murdoch organizations to such a high journalistic standard. It's in no way a sarcasm or anything.
Seriously, did anyone else here not get that?
(Oh and the first paragraph there was sarcastic in and of itself too, to help you decipher it.)
I find it hard to believe that for any appearance for members of the first family (and that includes this administration too) that they don't schedule and triple-check the plans and intentions of everyone in attendance, so while you may be right that they didn't come up with the idea themselves they certainly had to know about it and at the very least green-lighted it. And my point on this being, that's alot more involvement than some elementrary school teacher or prinicipal doing something on his/her own without knowledge by the administration.
Overall this stuff is stupid, irresponsible, and a bit scary regardless of which side is doing it and should not be done. But all administrations, being PR whores and realizing that personality images get them voters, do crap like this, so while people doing it for the current administration are incredibly stupid, it is the usual crap and not the start of some Stalinist cult of personality totalitarian state like some being are made to believe.
dropthatpuck
In Vino Veritas
Re: Obama 6(...66)
Frenchy....we both agree why this shouldn't be done, but to compare the two is utter insanity. One wasn't even on the radar up until the leftist rags needed something to apologize for Obama....and his own (designed by the school principal) was pure idolatry and mentioned nothing about other national leadership or other people helping - a la 1930's der Führer.
Hence, apple meet peanut.
Frenchy....we both agree why this shouldn't be done, but to compare the two is utter insanity. One wasn't even on the radar up until the leftist rags needed something to apologize for Obama....and his own (designed by the school principal) was pure idolatry and mentioned nothing about other national leadership or other people helping - a la 1930's der Führer.
Hence, apple meet peanut.
French Rage
NICKERSON HAS [CENSORED]
Re: Obama 6(...66)
Do you have specific evidence that they don't love the country? Let's take the voter registration drive. Ignoring the fake registrations done by employees that the organization itself flagged, registering more people to participate in the nation's electoral process is in itself a good thing for the country. Sure, you and I may question that education of those registered to vote, but the Constiution still allows for them to vote if they are the right age (and not disqualified due to being felons, etc.), so at its most basic that is attempting to uphold a right given to those people. I think people can say a lot by the actions they do in these cases then by whether in some interview they recite some laundry list of things they love that honestly don't mean as much if they're just words. I mean yeah like any organization there are probably quite a few *******s in their but if they hated America and wanted to bring it down, then registering people to vote and protecting people from predatory lending seem like odd ways to go.
Do you have specific evidence that they don't love the country? Let's take the voter registration drive. Ignoring the fake registrations done by employees that the organization itself flagged, registering more people to participate in the nation's electoral process is in itself a good thing for the country. Sure, you and I may question that education of those registered to vote, but the Constiution still allows for them to vote if they are the right age (and not disqualified due to being felons, etc.), so at its most basic that is attempting to uphold a right given to those people. I think people can say a lot by the actions they do in these cases then by whether in some interview they recite some laundry list of things they love that honestly don't mean as much if they're just words. I mean yeah like any organization there are probably quite a few *******s in their but if they hated America and wanted to bring it down, then registering people to vote and protecting people from predatory lending seem like odd ways to go.
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Re: Obama 6(...66)
Now watch this drive.
This guy does lead quite the jetsetting lifestyle these days, doesn't he? He does a better job living like a movie star than Reagan did while he was still in Hollywood.
I think you're being too hard on him though. The floundering economy and the war Obama's losing aren't nearly so important as using the influence of the Presidency to get the Olympics to his hometown.
Now watch this drive.
dropthatpuck
In Vino Veritas
French Rage
NICKERSON HAS [CENSORED]
Re: Obama 6(...66)
I'll definitely give you that the Obama one doesn't even bother to mention any accomplishments and is worse content-wise (though does praising Bush for Katrina really make sense accomplishmentwise? ), but for the Bush one the administration more opportunities to stop it whereas as far as I can tell the Obama one was someone acting on their own, so I'd say the Bush one is worse involvement-wise. (Heck, we may find out they got orders from on high but I don't see that happening, but if we do I'm more than willing to retract.)
I'll definitely give you that the Obama one doesn't even bother to mention any accomplishments and is worse content-wise (though does praising Bush for Katrina really make sense accomplishmentwise?
), but for the Bush one the administration more opportunities to stop it whereas as far as I can tell the Obama one was someone acting on their own, so I'd say the Bush one is worse involvement-wise. (Heck, we may find out they got orders from on high but I don't see that happening, but if we do I'm more than willing to retract.)
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama 6(...66)
That's my point, though. "You DO love apple pie, don't you?!" becomes something very different when it's at the end of an argument that's degenerated.
As for the rest, much of it seems to be predicated on assumptions I wasn't making that you're simply a blind patriot. I was saying precisely that since you are NOT a blind patriot you can see that working to hold a country to its principles is a patriotic act.
As for the various fetishes of the left and right, pointing out one doesn't disregard the other. Personally I think all the talk about a supposed liberal fetish for Obama is either silly or ignores that the right has had a blue-veiner for Reagan for 30 years -- well beyond the warnings when you are supposed to consult your doctor.
The left's comparable fetish to the right's militaristic worship of "The Nation" is an utterly un-reflective guilt-ridden worship of either "The Underprivileged" when they want to be paternalistic (welfare, health care) or "Humanity" when they want a slice of that pie (the arts, environmentalism, feminism, gay rights).
A funny shared fetish is "The Working Man." When a righty says this he really means "The Tax Payer," and he's including Ken Lay. When a lefty says it he's really saying "The Proletariat" (though you can't say that outside of a sociology class without having your house egged).
Obviously both sides are equally full of BS and hypocrisy. We're all just part of "Humanity," after all.
That's my point, though. "You DO love apple pie, don't you?!" becomes something very different when it's at the end of an argument that's degenerated.
As for the rest, much of it seems to be predicated on assumptions I wasn't making that you're simply a blind patriot. I was saying precisely that since you are NOT a blind patriot you can see that working to hold a country to its principles is a patriotic act.
As for the various fetishes of the left and right, pointing out one doesn't disregard the other. Personally I think all the talk about a supposed liberal fetish for Obama is either silly or ignores that the right has had a blue-veiner for Reagan for 30 years -- well beyond the warnings when you are supposed to consult your doctor.
The left's comparable fetish to the right's militaristic worship of "The Nation" is an utterly un-reflective guilt-ridden worship of either "The Underprivileged" when they want to be paternalistic (welfare, health care) or "Humanity" when they want a slice of that pie (the arts, environmentalism, feminism, gay rights).
A funny shared fetish is "The Working Man." When a righty says this he really means "The Tax Payer," and he's including Ken Lay. When a lefty says it he's really saying "The Proletariat" (though you can't say that outside of a sociology class without having your house egged).
Obviously both sides are equally full of BS and hypocrisy. We're all just part of "Humanity," after all.
Last edited:
French Rage
NICKERSON HAS [CENSORED]
Re: Obama 6(...66)
No, I know it's all a front for implanting mind-control fillings in our teeth that get activated by the RFID chips in the census forms they were going to give us.
No, I know it's all a front for implanting mind-control fillings in our teeth that get activated by the RFID chips in the census forms they were going to give us.
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Re: Obama 6(...66)
I'm not referring to stereotypes, I'm referring to specific policies. As I noted, I have problems with plenty of policies either proposed or enacted at the hands of Democrats, but I was responding to a non-specific blanket statement.
It's similar to Tim Pawlenty's right hand man calling out former Republican governor Arne Carlson by tossing two supposed negative facts about MinnesotaCarethat were nothing but facts - all because Carlson had the audacity to criticize Palwenty for being a no-show in the state for months running. It was in essence a pavlovian, knee-jerk reaction all in order to further keep alive an, "us vs. them" mentality.
But back to the stereotypes thingie - I've given it the same thought. Yet on that note, are you equally willing to accept the less than flattering stereotypes some have waged toward conservatives? If you're not sure what they are, I'm sure Rover could name some.
I'm not referring to stereotypes, I'm referring to specific policies. As I noted, I have problems with plenty of policies either proposed or enacted at the hands of Democrats, but I was responding to a non-specific blanket statement.
It's similar to Tim Pawlenty's right hand man calling out former Republican governor Arne Carlson by tossing two supposed negative facts about MinnesotaCarethat were nothing but facts - all because Carlson had the audacity to criticize Palwenty for being a no-show in the state for months running. It was in essence a pavlovian, knee-jerk reaction all in order to further keep alive an, "us vs. them" mentality.
But back to the stereotypes thingie - I've given it the same thought. Yet on that note, are you equally willing to accept the less than flattering stereotypes some have waged toward conservatives? If you're not sure what they are, I'm sure Rover could name some.
Last edited:
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama 6(...66)
Yeah because blowing off a couple national 5-alarm fires to take a couple days to inappropriately use the Presidency to hook up his hometown buddies with the Olympiad and do some Danish sightseeing isn't newsworthy at all. How petty for us to point out the indulgences of The One. Good point, buddy.
There's a phone on the desk in the Oval Office, I saw it in a picture. Why can't the clown just make a call?
I am fortunate enough to not even have an ACORN office in my state, so I have zero evidence Frenchy.... Other than the video proof that they aid in committing tax fraud and abet the trafficking of illegal immigrant children into the country, perhaps you're aware of that? Maybe they do love America and want to build it up but assisting in the breaking of federal laws seems like an odd way to go, don't you think?
And I was also dimly aware that it was one's right to vote, thanks for the reminder. But it's a pretty desparate stretch to offer voter registration assistance as proof of love of one's country. Being motivated to round up votes for your guy certainly doesn't prove anything the way I see it, except for that you're motivated for your guy. I'd wager Van Jones encouraged people to vote on more than one occasion - it's tough to spin him as having a love for America. What about Reverand Wright? Do you think he didn't encourage people to vote for his boy? And I would hope you're not going to debate me on his feelings toward his country. And then there's the first few words of your argument..... Ignoring the voter fraud - no way, I cannot in good conscience ignore voter fraud Frenchy, and I'm quite frankly surprised that you can. Engaging in voter fraud (and pretty rampant voter fraud as an organization, at that) shows complete and utter disdain for that keystone principle of American democracy. The fraud is such a serious travesty against the American people that it totally outweighs your argument and once again shows a contempt for America's founding principles.
Anyway, my entire thing that you responded to was a rhetorical question. I really am curious what the results would be if you went into an ACORN office and asked everyone my question....
EDIT: And "like any organization" is not a phrase that should be included in comments about ACORN. It's getting to the tipping point now where one has to wonder if the honest person is the exception and not the rule in that organization.
Yeah because blowing off a couple national 5-alarm fires to take a couple days to inappropriately use the Presidency to hook up his hometown buddies with the Olympiad and do some Danish sightseeing isn't newsworthy at all. How petty for us to point out the indulgences of The One. Good point, buddy.
There's a phone on the desk in the Oval Office, I saw it in a picture. Why can't the clown just make a call?
I am fortunate enough to not even have an ACORN office in my state, so I have zero evidence Frenchy.... Other than the video proof that they aid in committing tax fraud and abet the trafficking of illegal immigrant children into the country, perhaps you're aware of that? Maybe they do love America and want to build it up but assisting in the breaking of federal laws seems like an odd way to go, don't you think?
And I was also dimly aware that it was one's right to vote, thanks for the reminder. But it's a pretty desparate stretch to offer voter registration assistance as proof of love of one's country. Being motivated to round up votes for your guy certainly doesn't prove anything the way I see it, except for that you're motivated for your guy. I'd wager Van Jones encouraged people to vote on more than one occasion - it's tough to spin him as having a love for America. What about Reverand Wright? Do you think he didn't encourage people to vote for his boy? And I would hope you're not going to debate me on his feelings toward his country. And then there's the first few words of your argument..... Ignoring the voter fraud - no way, I cannot in good conscience ignore voter fraud Frenchy, and I'm quite frankly surprised that you can. Engaging in voter fraud (and pretty rampant voter fraud as an organization, at that) shows complete and utter disdain for that keystone principle of American democracy. The fraud is such a serious travesty against the American people that it totally outweighs your argument and once again shows a contempt for America's founding principles.
Anyway, my entire thing that you responded to was a rhetorical question. I really am curious what the results would be if you went into an ACORN office and asked everyone my question....
EDIT: And "like any organization" is not a phrase that should be included in comments about ACORN. It's getting to the tipping point now where one has to wonder if the honest person is the exception and not the rule in that organization.
Last edited:
French Rage
NICKERSON HAS [CENSORED]
Re: Obama 6(...66)
Yeah I believe I mentioned that the presence of quite a few *******s in their organization, but I somehow missed where that stuff became part of their central mission.
I'd say encouraging people to participate in the democratic process in a pretty good thing. Is it the whole solution, of course not, but it's definitely a step in the right direction. Yes, groups (on both sides of the aisle) that register people are usually going to target those more likely to vote for their side, but it's in no way a gaurantee and it's not something that they can (legally) force a person to do. So while the groups that do such a thing may have additional motives, I'd say it benefits the country as a whole to have more people plugged into the process.
I don't recall those two somehow being part of the discussion.
I in no way said we should ignore the fraud, I said it should be ignored for the purposes of that conversation because it was done by a bunch of employees who did it for their own financial gain, and in was in no way part of some direction from higher up, it started and ended with those employees. That's why ACORN itself flagged those registrations, turned them over, and fired the people. (Yes, paying people to get registrations is probably not the best way to avoid fraud, but the organization itself was able to catch the fraudulent forms). So it was not some organization-wide conspiracy that nullifies the point of a registration drive.
All of this was clear in what I said and I do not appreciate you attempting to misrepresent in for some gotcha moment.
I am fortunate enough to not even have an ACORN office in my state, so I have zero evidence Frenchy.... Other than the video proof that they aid in committing tax fraud and abet the trafficking of illegal immigrant children into the country, perhaps you're aware of that? Maybe they do love America and want to build it up but assisting in the breaking of federal laws seems like an odd way to go, don't you think?
Yeah I believe I mentioned that the presence of quite a few *******s in their organization, but I somehow missed where that stuff became part of their central mission.
I'd say encouraging people to participate in the democratic process in a pretty good thing. Is it the whole solution, of course not, but it's definitely a step in the right direction. Yes, groups (on both sides of the aisle) that register people are usually going to target those more likely to vote for their side, but it's in no way a gaurantee and it's not something that they can (legally) force a person to do. So while the groups that do such a thing may have additional motives, I'd say it benefits the country as a whole to have more people plugged into the process.
I don't recall those two somehow being part of the discussion.
I in no way said we should ignore the fraud, I said it should be ignored for the purposes of that conversation because it was done by a bunch of employees who did it for their own financial gain, and in was in no way part of some direction from higher up, it started and ended with those employees. That's why ACORN itself flagged those registrations, turned them over, and fired the people. (Yes, paying people to get registrations is probably not the best way to avoid fraud, but the organization itself was able to catch the fraudulent forms). So it was not some organization-wide conspiracy that nullifies the point of a registration drive.
All of this was clear in what I said and I do not appreciate you attempting to misrepresent in for some gotcha moment.
Last edited:
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Obama 6(...66)
Not according to Bill O'Reilly. According to Bill (thus the right) Acorn is at the center of the universe of Evil.
Not according to Bill O'Reilly. According to Bill (thus the right) Acorn is at the center of the universe of Evil.
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Re: Obama 6(...66)
For someone that claims to be so keen on constructive dialogue, you have a curious propensity for using divisive terminology. I suppose your response is that you didn’t start it, but I was so sure you’d simply be someone to not respond altogether.
Of course, you’re the same poster that admonished everyone for failing to read Obama’s healthcare proposal while you yourself were incapable of citing one written word from the document yourself. Not sure if you were the one doing the same thing with the pro-flat tax being touted round these parts.
I doubt your ability to know what these supposedly random people think deep down and I find your approach strangely curious. I can’t remember the last time I got into a political exchange with someone that lasted very long. Most people I know (including people firm on both sides of the aisle) believe what they believe and understand that the majority of political dialogue is fruitless when confronted by those that seem intent on indoctrination.
But if we’re going to go with stereotypes, let’s just assign this one to the supposed liberal hem and hawers you're so often in contact with – perhaps they find the question loaded, without context and completely sophomoric without additional thought and aren’t willing to blindly genuflect and the sound of your voice?
For someone that claims to be so keen on constructive dialogue, you have a curious propensity for using divisive terminology. I suppose your response is that you didn’t start it, but I was so sure you’d simply be someone to not respond altogether.
…to inappropriately use the Presidency to hook up his hometown buddies with the Olympiad and do some Danish sightseeing isn't newsworthy at all.
How petty for us to point out the indulgences of The One. Good point, buddy.
There's a phone on the desk in the Oval Office, I saw it in a picture. Why can't the clown just make a call?
What about Reverand Wright? Do you think he didn't encourage people to vote for his boy?
Of course, you’re the same poster that admonished everyone for failing to read Obama’s healthcare proposal while you yourself were incapable of citing one written word from the document yourself. Not sure if you were the one doing the same thing with the pro-flat tax being touted round these parts.
I doubt your ability to know what these supposedly random people think deep down and I find your approach strangely curious. I can’t remember the last time I got into a political exchange with someone that lasted very long. Most people I know (including people firm on both sides of the aisle) believe what they believe and understand that the majority of political dialogue is fruitless when confronted by those that seem intent on indoctrination.
But if we’re going to go with stereotypes, let’s just assign this one to the supposed liberal hem and hawers you're so often in contact with – perhaps they find the question loaded, without context and completely sophomoric without additional thought and aren’t willing to blindly genuflect and the sound of your voice?
Last edited:
Re: Obama 6(...66)
My post things you responded to had nothing to do with the mission of the ACORN organization, it had to do with their employees. Two completely different things. The one comment about ACORN's mission I will make is that apparently their mission has nothing to do with having a workforce with high character and any semblence of integrity.
Other than that, I continue to have no interest in ACORN's mission. If you would like to address what I was actually talking about, you may try again at any point.
You're talking about ACORN's mission here. See above.
I'm allowed to bring up my own points right? You see, they became part of the discussion when I used them as a comparison to ACORN employees. So don't worry, you didn't miss anything.
And once again.... I have been talking about the employees from the outset as opposed to ACORN's mission or voter registration drives in general or whatever it is that you're talking about. That's where your confusion lies. Knowing that, I'm sure you now understand why voter registration fraud cannot be ignored in any way about a discussion of ACORN's employees. HARDLY a "gotcha" moment when you're actually addressing what I'm talking about. (And I do believe I know what the label du jour is for me. )
Simmer down Frenchy, it's not my fault your responding to my posts and not addressing what the post had to say.
EDIT: And I do sincerely thank you for editing out that diatribe there, with the name calling and accusations of screaming and whatnot....
My post things you responded to had nothing to do with the mission of the ACORN organization, it had to do with their employees. Two completely different things. The one comment about ACORN's mission I will make is that apparently their mission has nothing to do with having a workforce with high character and any semblence of integrity.
Other than that, I continue to have no interest in ACORN's mission. If you would like to address what I was actually talking about, you may try again at any point.
You're talking about ACORN's mission here. See above.
I'm allowed to bring up my own points right? You see, they became part of the discussion when I used them as a comparison to ACORN employees. So don't worry, you didn't miss anything.
And once again.... I have been talking about the employees from the outset as opposed to ACORN's mission or voter registration drives in general or whatever it is that you're talking about. That's where your confusion lies. Knowing that, I'm sure you now understand why voter registration fraud cannot be ignored in any way about a discussion of ACORN's employees. HARDLY a "gotcha" moment when you're actually addressing what I'm talking about. (And I do believe I know what the label du jour is for me.
)Simmer down Frenchy, it's not my fault your responding to my posts and not addressing what the post had to say.
EDIT: And I do sincerely thank you for editing out that diatribe there, with the name calling and accusations of screaming and whatnot....
Last edited:
- Status