motherfucker.
Palin didn’t suck.
The polls are going to flatten out. By election time they’ll be close enough that the vote fixing can be hidden in the chaos of small sample sizes.
I was actually starting to get some hope, too.
sigh.
|
 |
Palin didn’t suck.
The polls are going to flatten out. By election time they’ll be close enough that the vote fixing can be hidden in the chaos of small sample sizes.
I was actually starting to get some hope, too.
sigh.
October 2nd, 2008 23:11
No, they won’t. Not much. VP debates are consequential only when someone blows it. Chin up, Buckaroo.
October 3rd, 2008 05:48
Sorry spinn…got a month to go…it will be fine…thought she let Sen Biden go a few times but that conservative media will polish things up…
Hope? You have the audacity of hope candidate!
IMO, she was positive…he was very negative. I think people are getting tired of negative things.
October 3rd, 2008 07:12
We’re not going to see any significant movement as a result of the debates. The only way that will happen is if one candidate makes a soundbyte-friendly slam on the other. Thus far, that hasn’t happened. And while Palin was able to speak in complete sentences, Biden came across as much more competent.
I don’t expect the McCain campaign to see more than about a 2 point gain from this, if any. I don’t think too many independents were swayed. Dems just hate her more. And Repubs are a bit more excited and energized. SO I really don’t predict much of a net gain - or at least any lasting gain.
Besides, we have two more debates. Unfortunately, both of those debates are Obama’s to lose and not McCain’s to win.
————–
Incidentally, I think someone needs to write a webpage script that ‘Palinizes’ text. Something that adds all of her damn floksy little phrases, gosh darnit!
October 3rd, 2008 08:18
Well, what a huge disappointment. I was hoping for some darned good television, but they both kept it together pretty well. I would have been better off watching the Canadian debate… also because then I might then have an idea of who I’m going to vote for in two weeks. Oh well.
If the Sarah Palin we saw last night was the one who had appeared from the beginning, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. Sure, there would still be people decrying her lack of experience and her positions on this and that, but there would be nowhere near the level of fear and outrage at the prospect of her becoming president as there has been.
October 3rd, 2008 08:23
Hey MikeG, make up some entertaining crap to justify McCain pulling out of Michigan. Face it, the guy blinked. Read up a bit on spiral of silence, and see what it does to your election chances to be the candidate who’s perceived as being behind.
And do get around to making up the entertaining crap. You just slay me when you get going.
October 3rd, 2008 11:00
But Anonymous, McCain doesn’t need to be in Michigan.
We’re where we were at this point in ‘04. Democrats and liberals (and I note that I’m well to the left, not the right, of that group) are full of hubris, a cheerful confidence over the inevitable win, oblivious to the well-rehearsed, well-oiled chaos that the GOP will create on election day. McCain’s operation has done all it can in Michigan; it’s up to the state’s GOP operation to prevent them from voting. McCain’s resources are better spent elsewhere at this point.
October 3rd, 2008 11:34
“There ya go, pointin’ fingers again, you betcha!”
What I really wanted Biden to say on this point: of course you don’t want me pointing fingers to the past, because it’s your party that did it.
I don’t see a problem with Biden being negative. The state of America right now is pretty damn negative. I don’t think saying that hockey moms gotta pull t’gether ‘n fix up this crazy thing really explains how, exactly, hockey moms are supposed to do that. I think to address a problem you can’t ignore it. And if he sounds negative when he does that, then so be it. Not that he touched on this, but I think if you’re going to say “we have to stop torturing people” the correct response to that is not “c’mon now, fella, we gotta let bygones be bygones [wink].”
Mike: Ha ha ha ha you made a funny about the “audacity of hope” thing.
I am also surprised when people say “the VP debate doesn’t matter”. Before Bush, people have said the VP doesn’t really matter, but obviously Cheney (and Bush’s willingness to let someone else deal with things) has mattered. The Republicans simply have not been excited about McCain, and the Palin pick changed that. And just when they were getting depressed about their ticket, Palin held back the tide last night. The only reason liberals think the debate went well is because it was a debate that went well on their terms.
Swifty: there’s probably a Donald Rumsfeld tool somewhere that could be repurposed for that.
October 3rd, 2008 11:38
Gawain…I think the Gov Palin we saw last night was the same one from the convention (despite the many deriding comments about having someone else write her speech…as if no other politician has speech writers and then the follow on laughter about her experience)…but I do admit the Katie Couric interview did not look good but thank God the conservative media kept the lid on that one and then hammered Sen Obama on his ‘my muslim faith..oops’ comment and Sen Biden on his ‘FDR was president during the stock market crash’ comment. Oh wait…it was the other way around….hmmmm.
Anonymous…first of all, find a name…second, Michigan has voted Democratic since 1992 and was considered a possible Republican pickup…makes sense to put resources in Ohio and Pennsylvania which are still in play.
October 3rd, 2008 11:47
Wow. Just wow. Just when I thought you could not get any stupider. Are you seriously telling people that you think Obama is a closet Muslim? Do you actually believe those emails that get sent to you and 50 of your friends? Were your parents siblings?
You are dumber than a pile of nail clippings.
October 3rd, 2008 11:55
I am actually surprised that CBS dribbled out the Palin interviews in a slow drip. But I think they did that for ratings more than a liberal beatdown, because Palin’s a hot item, ratings-wise, at the moment.
I don’t think I said we had a conservative media. I said the idea we have a liberal media is demonstrably false. And the sort of thing that the media likes to put out is more conducive to the way conservatives put out their message.
But anyway I’m getting pretty tired of your snark. I’m too unhappy with things to deal with it this morning.
October 3rd, 2008 12:39
Mike, you point out the flaw in your own argument. Reading a speech is indeed a much different thing than speaking extemporaneously, which is what she has been criticized for. It doesn’t matter who wrote the speech, or whether other people also read speeches. The criticism has been that any time she tries to think on her feet or answer a question of any depth, she either speaks in verbal train-wrecks that no one can parse or says something that goes against her party and running-mate’s position. Not just once or twice, but almost continuously over the past month. Simply by not stepping all over her tongue last night, she pole-vaulted over the expectation she herself had established.
And you can keep parroting the media bias line, but I heard all about Biden’s “FDR on television during the stock market” line. He gives us seven or eight more of those in the next two weeks, and he might begin get a reputation similar to Palin’s. And the “Muslim faith” line wasn’t a slip at all when you read it in context, so either you don’t know the context or you do know it and you’re trying to misrepresent it… which is it? Either way, it’s not surprising it didn’t get a lot of air time. So yeah, we’re still waiting to hear your damning examples of how the media is covering up for the Democrats.
October 3rd, 2008 13:01
Does it chap anyone else’s ass that the electoral college is still in effect? It may have served a purpose at one time in this nation, but it’s dangerously obsolete. Remember the popular vote getting overturned in 2000 that lead to this god-awful administration’s rise to inexplicable power? We’re now in a hole so deep that neither Obama nor McFossil can singlehandedly save this federation.
It is up to us. Mark my words: Whoever wins this election WILL NOT bring about the change we are severely needing, even if it’s Barack. I’m just one poor man with no major media platform to rile up the masses… but hear me now, when your next president fails you, prepare for an uprising of epic proportions.
October 3rd, 2008 18:48
Joe…no, I don’t believe he is Muslim but he has been educated in its traditions. I was pointing out how it did not become an issue. (And here we go again…attack me personally, instead of the issue.)
Spinn…why am I snarky but this post begins with motherf*cker and ends with you being unhappy…cheer up cuz.
Gawain…I guess we are just upset that she is not as polished as the other three with their senatorial experience…maybe we need someone who doesn’t just spout things that are not true then grins at the end. I do know the context of what I stated.
People will be more apt to vote for someone who is positive, than against someone because of a negative. Just saying.
October 3rd, 2008 19:50
Yeah, the American people do tend to prefer a pleasing illusion than an unpleasant truth. You’re absolutely right.
So let’s all talk ponies and rainbows and about how Global Warming doesn’t exist and Iraqis will greet us with a rain of flower petals and we’ll get elected! No reason to decry stupidity when you can embrace and celebrate it! Santa Claus for president! Adorable Puppy for vice president! Every day’s my birthday!
October 3rd, 2008 19:56
Oh, and here’s another way in which you’re totally right, by the way: Believing in anything other than Christianity is as worthy of condemnation and derision as demonstrating a complete intellectual ineptitude and an ability to answer a straight question about things like whether working for a company while serving in a political position and dealing with matters pertaining to such a company is conflict of interest or not.
Gah.
October 3rd, 2008 21:47
Ah, so you do know the context and are misrepresenting it as something the media “kept the lid on”, rather than as the perfectly legitimate and reasonable statement that it was. Thanks.
October 4th, 2008 16:58
“People will be more apt to vote for someone who is positive, than against someone because of a negative. Just saying.”
The apples to oranges comparison aside, I call bullshit. Leiberman’s stance on censorship (he’s a big part of the reason all my good CDs came with an “Explicit Lyrics” sticker) was enough of a negative for me to refuse to vote for his running mate back in 2000.
Whether a candidate has a positive attitude or not, I think there’s a lot of deal-breaker issues for a lot of voters. Gay marriage for many social conservatives, say. Nationalized health care for libertarians. Abortion for feminists. Being Irish Catholic for turn of the century voters. If the office-seeker has a “negative” stance, they might find themselves up against a wall.
October 5th, 2008 18:00
Actually, he wasn’t really educated in its traditions, that wasn’t a madrassah and he was raised a christian by his grandmother. So yes, thank you for answering my question, that you believe every talking point that comes across emails without verifying any of its accuracy or really its truthfulness at all. I’m not attacking you, I’m writing you off as a waste of perfectly good oxygen. I sincerely appreciate the confirmation.
October 5th, 2008 18:02
Actually I should amend that slightly, you believe them when they are useful to you or fit into your preconceived notions of what is correct in that stalagmite-infested cavern you call a cranium. I admit, I’m a little tired and should have clarified. Amazing how much jamming ones hand into pregnant women’s vaginas and tearing out their fetuses will take out of you. But on the upside I get to make a tasty lasagna.
October 6th, 2008 07:57
For the polls to be close in a month they’d have to not just flatten out, they’d have to change direction screamingly. And all the polling I’ve seen says that Palin achieved nothing. Despair ye not!
October 6th, 2008 13:04
sharper…really? A little sticker that warns of explicit lyrics bothered you that much? I guess the ratings on TV and movies must just make your mind explode. By the way, censorship would mean that those CDs would not have been able to be produced..but they were.
Joe…personal attacks again…ad hominem.
October 6th, 2008 13:24
Woot, I’m apparently not even worthy of a response!
Or… is it just that you can’t provide an adequate rebuttal, because you’re wrong as all fuck-out?
October 6th, 2008 13:32
By the way, while that little sticker might not be overtly censorship, consider the fact that that was undoubtedly a compromise of some sort, and that the efforts by the censorship proponents in Congress go far beyond that.
Hell, we already have people like Max Hardcore getting arrested for having sex with consensual adults dressed as underaged girls. It’s not like there isn’t a much broader censorship and “obscenity law” enforcement effort underway.
If people like Lieberman had their way, we’d likely have a system in place much like Australia’s, where media would have to be either revised or forbidden if it had “objectionable” content.
October 6th, 2008 14:49
Mike, if you’re so interested in civil discourse as you initially claimed, why do you continue to refuse to address the actual points people are making and instead keep focusing on the least relevant portion of people’s comments?
You claimed to me that you were aware of the context of Obama’s (in your words) “my muslim faith… oops” comment when you said it should have been “hammered” by the media, yet in context there is no “oops” to be had. So please explain to me what you feel the “oops” is and why you feel it should have gotten a lot of media attention.
Your disappointment at Joe’s personal attacks would carry more weight if it wasn’t the only part of his posts that you chose to respond to. You claimed that Obama was “educated in Muslim traditions”. He challenged that claim. What then is the evidence on which you base your claim, and would prove Joe wrong? When doing so, please define your terms — do you mean he was raised as a Muslim, or simply that he learned about their traditions. Also, whatever you mean, please explain why you feel it is a bad thing that should be expounded upon in the media.
You focus on sharper’s hatred of the CD stickers rather than address the point he was actually making, which is that he believes people will quite easily vote against somebody because of a negative. But rather than continue to debate and discuss the very point you brought up, you would rather sidetrack the conversation and get into a mudfight over ratings and the definition of censorship.
Care to take one last try at an intelligent and substantive rebuttal to any of these points before we all just write you off as yet another tiresome talking-point parrot without a brain of your own?
October 6th, 2008 14:55
MikeG, to misrepresent me that badly, you have to be trying. I outright said that I have a dealbreaker issue, and I contended that I’m probably not alone in having a such an issue (a contention you failed to respond to, I’ll note). Simply put: Lieberman’s position on state censorship is one that made me incapable of voting for a ticket he is part of. My parenthetical reference to the Explicit Lyrics label is not the sum total of what I find objectionable, just a minor example of it. Crowley expands it well.
For what it’s worth, I’m against mandatory state- or state-sanctioned ratings bodies for any media because of the chilling effect that can have on producers and because I do not think there is any act of media that should be dangerous to a free and intelligent people. We can discuss that if you want to stop juking like Jim Brown every time someone brings up a valid argument.
October 6th, 2008 14:57
Well, fuck, Gawain. If I’d known you were writing that, I’d've yielded the floor.
October 6th, 2008 16:46
Can’t answer all of you … would take too much of my precious time.
J…you said I was right…I stopped reading after that (actually I did read it but it made no sense, so I deferred any comments about it)
Gawain…the topic was religion and not bringing it up in the election…so why would one misspeak with ‘Muslim’ if it is not on his mind, especially when prefaced with ‘my’. He did not have to say ‘oops’, he was corrected by George quick enough.
Read this for some details on his upbringing…
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5544
I think the truth lies in the middle, he was on the path to being a muslim but did not follow through. But to say he never learned the faith is false. It was a part of his family and early upbringing.
As for talking points and following emails, well, you don’t know me, so I will probably not be able to convince you but I am a thinker, not a political entity. I am an engineer so logic is important to me. I read what I can to understand all sides but when I question anyone here (except a few), I get personally attacked (intelligence, neaderthal, stupid, etc). Refute the argument, not the person.
sharper…having your personal experience to refute my statement does not invalidate it…the question is…did you not vote at all then or did you vote for Pres Bush? Also, as I recall, this thread was discussing Palin versus Biden…that is what my statement was tied to.
October 6th, 2008 17:16
Because he didn’t misspeak. Of course ‘Muslim’ was on his mind, it was the specific thing being discussed, vis-a-vis people accusing him of being one. That was the specific topic at the time of that sentence: not whether religion should or should not be brought up in an election, but that Republicans in general, and in the McCain camp specifically, had been saying he was Muslim.
George quickly stepped on him, and rightly so, insisting that John McCain himself had never said nor implied any such thing.
Obama’s response, the so-called “oops” in question: “You’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith.”
At that point Stephanopoulos mistakenly tried to correct him by interjecting “Christian faith”. Obama repeated this seemingly reflexively, but immediately carried on to clarify: “Well, what I am saying is that he hasn’t suggested that I’m a Muslim.” Which, again, if you read the transcript or watch the video, is indeed what he was saying.
The “alleged” or “supposed” in front of “my Muslim faith” is assumed by the context of the conversation up until that point. How strange how the majority of the clips being propagated around the net seem to leave out everything before the remark, and cut out immediately after he repeats “Christian faith”, making it look like he did indeed misspeak. But in the context of the conversation up until that point, it makes no sense for him have intended to say anything other than what he said — that John McCain himself had not accused him of being of Muslim faith.
In spite of the massive media conspiracy to cover this up, the transcript is freely available with a quick web search. Though admittedly most of the sites that it turns up on are still insisting that this proves he is a secret Muslim. The mind just boggles.
October 6th, 2008 18:14
Fine, fine, I’ll go clause by clause in the part of your most recent statement directed to me.
1) My personal experience shows that it is possible for a voter to vote one way or another based on a single issue (in my case, against a candidate I disagreed with). I then offered some other possible examples for that phenomenon as a direct contradiction to your assertion that “People will be more apt to vote for someone who is positive, than against someone because of a negative.” I cast my vote in 2000 because of a negative despite the candidate’s positive outlook, and I am likely not alone.
2) I did not vote for either Gore or Bush (though without Lieberman, I might have gone Gore). I understood that the third-party candidate I voted for had zero chance of winning, but I cast my vote as a measure of electoral support for that candidate’s political stances.
How I voted, however, is merely an example in favor of my position, not “the question” itself. The question is whether it’s possible for a voter to side against a candidate with a positive outlook (Palin, from context) because of a stance or trait the voter finds unfavorable. I argued yes and supplied some personal experience and other suggestions, you tried to change the question.
3) This thread started about Palin/Biden, and that was the context for your comment. I made my counter-assertion, and you ignored it to put forth a suggestion that I’d be mentally incapacitated by the existence of media ratings bodies.
If you want me to refute your arguments and not you personally, you’ve got to play ball, man. How is it impossible for voters to vote against a candidate (however sunny their outlook) they disagree with?
October 6th, 2008 18:22
Gawain…but that is the point…for some reason, he denies anything to do with being a Muslim at any point in his life. He got tripped up by Stephanopoulos and his interjections and said ‘my Muslim faith’.
It is the same thing as saying that I am not Catholic even though my parents baptized me. Just like he was a Muslim because his father was a Muslim. So, is he a Muslim? Not now but perhaps in his past he was some form of it. So what concerns me is why hide it? Why not just say that you were considered Muslim at some point but upon adulthood chose Christianity.
If anything, having the Muslim background could greatly improve relations with the Muslim world.
October 6th, 2008 22:52
I don’t know how much clearer I can make it. He did not get tripped up by Stephanopoulos. He did not misspeak. He did not say something he did not mean to say. Read the transcripts. He said, “…John McCain has not talked about my [supposed] Muslim faith [the way others have done].”. The bracketed words are supplied by way of the context of the conversation leading up to that point. It’s the only reasonable interpretation given the statements that preceded it. To remove or disregard that context as you continue to do is to drastically alter the meaning of what he said, as much as if he had spoken those bracketed words aloud and you left them out when you repeated the quote.
None of this speaks to whether he is actually a Muslim or not, whether he is hiding it or not, or whether he should or not. That is a different topic of conversation. I’m speaking directly of this particular quote, which you brought up as an example of media bias, and which was clearly nothing of the sort as there was nothing there to cover up in the first place.
His father, incidentally, was a confirmed atheist by the time he met his mother. But I suspect you probably already knew that and simply choose to ignore it as inconvenient to your position, much as you have now ignored *for the third time* the very clear fact that Obama did not misspeak in the quote you cited.
October 7th, 2008 00:46
MikeG, sigh.
My grandparents on my father’s side are both Protestant. My father’s older sister became Episcopal when she got married, his younger sister is agnostic. He believes in God but not organized religion.
On my mom’s side she was raised Protestant by her single mother. Her birth father has been a born-again non-denominational minister for about a decade or so. Her step-father is Roman Catholic. In the 1970’s my mother and grandmother became Jehovah’s Witnesses. However my mother was disfellowshipped for the first half of my life, and has been inactive for significant periods of time since being reinstated.
Religion is not genetic. When I’m asked what my religion is, I don’t mention what my family members are, or how I was raised. I mention what I am now. I tell people my personal beliefs. I don’t consider myself Protestant. My parents were married in the church my father attended as a child, but I’ve never been in a Protestant church. I know very little about them specifically. If anyone were to suggest I was raised Protestant or even simply exposed to their beliefs they would be grossly flawed in that assumption. So why should we assume Obama knows squat about the religion practiced by his father, who (as I understand it) he barely knew, before his parents met?
This prolly coulda been more concise but it’s quarter to 2. I refuse to edit.
October 7th, 2008 08:14
Yeah, you know what Mike? On second thought in the light of day, just forget it. If I could edit, I’d go back and erase my last post. Clearly you know what I am saying, but for whatever reason refuse to acknowledge it.
This is the third time I’ve not even been able to find a common point of reality with you to begin to debate from (the second time I saw it right off and didn’t even bother to post). I don’t believe things are going to get any better so I’ll just leave it at that, on this and any other topic.
October 7th, 2008 10:20
33 Comments! This MikeG’s got the ruffiani all riled up around here. You’d think we were having an argument about politics or reli-… oh.
October 7th, 2008 11:29
Actually, the way I read Mike’s original “people vote for positive, not negative” business was more along the lines of “Joe Biden focuses too much on negative, whereas Palin focuses on positive.” It doesn’t work either way, of course:
A) Nobody in their right mind could claim that Palin and McCain tend to be more upbeat about things than Obama and Biden, or that they tend to focus more on positive issues than dire ones — especially with the “Obama met a few times over the course of a decade with a former suspected terrorist from forty years ago who is now a college professor while they were both working to improve the educational system of Illinois” bullshit;
B) Taking the other interpretation (voting against negatives/positives), I think there are a greater number of Americans who would vote against the myriad McCain/Palin policies they feel are “negative” or “deal-breakers” than there are who would vote for anything they might consider “positive” put forth by the same.
But yeah, if it’s all about who puts forward the most “positive” image, or focuses on the most “positive” issues, why don’t we just elect Santa Claus and a puppy, was the point I was making, Mike, since it apparently wasn’t clear enough.
October 7th, 2008 12:23
Which leaves us with the Muslim thing: Mike, I think I can see what you might be trying to argue — that Obama slipped up and said “my Muslim faith” when maybe he meant “my Christian faith” or “my Muslim upbringing” or something, and that the conclusion you feel can be drawn from this is that either it indicates Obama’s some kind of crypto-Muslim who’s been lying about his beliefs this whole while, or that it’s some kind of spectacular flub that you feel is worthy of the same level of derision by the press as a woman who can’t even name a single major news publication that exists anywhere in the world when asked to give an example of a paper or magazine or even a website she might read.
So let’s analyze these two possible conclusions:
A) Obama the crypto-Muslim. Well, shit, this is a really serious accusation, considering no politician has ever lied about their religious beliefs or anything. We can all trust that George W. Bush is a Christian even though nearly everything he seems to have ever done is so self-serving that it would make Jesus roll over in his gra… er, on the right hand of his father. And hey, it’s not like Americans tend to have any kind of irrational religious bias or anything that would immediately kill the chances of any non-Christian.
There’s nothing wrong with being a Muslim, and maybe you agree. Shame there’s so much of a bias against it that anyone who even admits to having read the Quran is basically automatically disqualified from office. Does it really matter, though, as long as he does a good job as president? Considering every politician is guaranteed to lie about their religious beliefs in one direction or another, it’s like getting all upset because Obama breathes air.
B) What a flub! It’s… not, really, unless you’re thinking it’s awesome to take advantage of and incite American bigotry over a slip-up.
I’d still like to know why you don’t see any difference between the typical fuckups people make when cameras are on them nearly constantly, and someone looking like a total moron on nearly every of the rare occasions when they actually open their mouth in public. Sure, she did all right in the debate (not spectacular, but all right), but it’s clear that well-articulated, well-reasoned, intelligent answers seem to be the exception and not the rule for her.
Please actually respond to me this time instead of cherry-picking whatever point is easiest to guffaw at and railing on it like a rabid chimpanzee, or getting all “you make no sense” over something that anyone with a basic reading comprehension could parse; otherwise, I’m afraid I’m going to have to resort to ad hominem attacks which, while entirely non-conducive to debate, are at least an amusing way of eliciting the same dismissal from you.
October 7th, 2008 12:46
Gawain…you feel that Sen Obama MEANT to say something, I just question what he DID say and what was he thinking…and then I lead you to facts about his background from a source that I find credible and worthy of quote.
Going back to my point, please show me where the MSM has done any detail into his life…do NOT show me a quote from the stop the smears website, but from an independent entity.
I do not believe Sen Obama is a Muslim. He is now a Christian and I am glad for that. However, I am concerned that despite quotes in his book about this, evidence that he was listed as Muslim in Indonesia, and his father being a Muslim, he still will not just say or explain the confusion. That would end it. Saying that you are not Muslim, is technically true…NOW, but not saying that you were raised in its ways or were related to this faith in some regard just makes things muddled.
October 7th, 2008 12:50
Mikki…in the Muslim faith, the son takes the religion of the father…and he was with his father for some period of time…but, I agree, his father was not a devout Muslim but family members state that Sen Obama was involved in their faith. Do I disregard his family’s statements?
Plus I never said he was a Muslim, just raised with its traditions at some point in his life. He acts like he NEVER did anything remotely related to the Muslim faith. Why?
I do not care what his religion is…I am concerned about his efforts to muddy the waters.
October 7th, 2008 12:54
J Crowley…the reason I don’t debate you is that you have clearly found your answer and all challenges to it threaten you, so you are left with nothing more than personal attacks or absurd comments.
October 7th, 2008 13:18
J Crowley: “Mike, I think I can see what you might be trying to argue — that Obama slipped up and said “my Muslim faith” when maybe he meant “my Christian faith” or “my Muslim upbringing” or something”
And I could easily see that as well, if either of those things made any sense at all in the context of the conversation, which they don’t. But I’m done trying to explain that to Mike.
October 7th, 2008 13:36
What bothers me the most about politicians and news media in general is what they intentionally leave out of their comments or story. That might have worked before when there were so few sources of information but in this day there are just too many other credible sources.
Of course, now the credible of the source becomes the question.
October 7th, 2008 13:53
Awesome, you found yet another stock reason for dismissing someone out of hand without bothering to address any of the well-reasoned points they made, shifting the focus from your own apparent bigotry against the hated wog, and onto another person being “inflexible” or whatever.
Touché. Particularly cutting coming from someone who so clearly has everything figured out that they don’t even need to be bothered with attempting to justify or explain it when called on it, instead pulling a “NO, U!!!” and dancing back behind the blackout curtain surrounding your comfortable little universe, satisfied that you won’t actually be forced into the kind of self-examination that comes only from actually confronting others and allowing their questions, concerns, and even insults to pull and probe at your beliefs and ideals, examining them and by interacting with them causing some level of modification, either strengthening or weakening. And if you’re expecting changes to others’ opinions to come instantaneously, perhaps you should pack it in and not even bother attempting to argue with anyone.
Anyway, thanks for doing precisely what I anticipated you would do. Since you have no actual response aside from the kind of finger pointing one might expect from PeeWee Herman for any of the thoughtful points I brought up earlier, how about you just pretend I slung a bunch of creative insults at you and we’ll just call it a day.
Be seeing you!
October 7th, 2008 13:58
I think we’re all forgetting what’s important here. Amusing.org is not being updated.
October 8th, 2008 14:38
I’ve been trying to solve The Riddle of The Sphincter for months now. Mentally, of course… yeah, that’s the ticket…