Obama '08?

excellent avoidence Finn, perhaps I should buy a baseball cap to meet your political criteria.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

nor yours finn, care to comment on the hat I wear? You seem particularily adroid at judging others by the hat they wear.

Am I adroit or android at judging others?

Judging others...this is, of course, something in which you never ever indulge.

But to the point --- Your hat.

Hhmmmmn...

Resembles perhaps the hat of Hoss Cartwright. You're not a hulking simpleton are you?

No, not quite a Hoss hat, more like a 70's counter culture version of a Stetson. Some quasi-Western, ur-cowboy hat.

I don't know, it's tough to judge you simply by your hat (or that icon of a smirking desert geezer). I prefer the much more easy task of judging you by what you post on A2K.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

excellent avoidence Finn, perhaps I should buy a baseball cap to meet your political criteria.

Wow Gabby Hayes, do you really think that if I don't respond to your posts within 5 minutes I am guilty of avoidance?

It is flattering however that you have such a keen focus on my posts.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
nor yours finn, care to comment on the hat I wear? You seem particularily adroid at judging others by the hat they wear.

Am I adroit or android at judging others?

Judging others...this is, of course, something in which you never ever indulge.

But to the point --- Your hat.

Hhmmmmn...

Resembles perhaps the hat of Hoss Cartwright. You're not a hulking simpleton are you?

No, not quite a Hoss hat, more like a 70's counter culture version of a Stetson. Some quasi-Western, ur-cowboy hat.

I don't know, it's tough to judge you simply by your hat (or that icon of a smirking desert geezer). I prefer the much more easy task of judging you by what you post on A2K.

No, you make assumptions based on trivial idiocy whih is your wont, your thoughts are trivial as are your judgements, in simple terms your, are a an idiot.

0 Replies

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I don't like partisan crap either, especially when it takes the side opposite mine--but sometimes, there are facts buried amid the caterwauling.

Problem is that if its partisan crap, how do I know the "facts" it claims carry any credence? I'd rather wait for some more serious source befor spending much thought on it.

Lash wrote:

Do you think it was intentionally misleading to refer to his father as one who herds goats, rather than a wealthy scion?

Probably (awaiting further info).

Typical politician stuff tho. Not saying that makes it ok, more like saying, doesnt make him worse than anyone else. Surely no worse than Bush playing the real Western cowboy card, never mind the wealthy scion of Northeastern American aristocracy that he is.

But yes, thats not saying much, that someone is no better than Bush, for sure.

Lash wrote:

Do you think it was ok for him to falsely claim a position at Harvard?

If true, no, definitely not OK.

Lash wrote:

Is his anti-same-sex marriage stance ok with you?

Yep. I think anti same-sex marriage stances are wrong and backward, but I wouldnt let my vote depend on it. People who are religious will usually (if not always!) disagree with gay marriage. So be it. If Obama'd end up discussing the issue on A2K I'd take him up on it, but as he's not, whatever.

Lash wrote:

btw, I'm sure you do see the meat of the accusation in the article. Don't fall in line with your buds. Come on. Be real.

Falling in line with my buds? I was the first one to even comment on the article, and the only one so far, I think, to note that I dont see what the meat of the accusation is. So "falling in line with my buds"? Come on.

No, I really dont see what the meat of this guy's accusation is. What he's actually got to bear regarding the main issue he raises, Obama's Christianity.

The closest I get, as mentioned, is that he resents Obama for 'acting like he's Christian and stuff' when to his criteria, he's not a real Christian at all, because, well, he supports legal abortion and the division of Church and state.

Err? Sounds like a non-sequitur. 'If he doesnt share my interpretation of Christianity, he's not a real Christian, and therefore, when he acts like he is, he's contradicting himself, he's a liar'. That's not even a serious argument, and surely doesnt show up any "truth impediment" on the part of Obama.

What am I missing?

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
nor yours finn, care to comment on the hat I wear? You seem particularily adroid at judging others by the hat they wear.

Am I adroit or android at judging others?

Judging others...this is, of course, something in which you never ever indulge.

But to the point --- Your hat.

Hhmmmmn...

Resembles perhaps the hat of Hoss Cartwright. You're not a hulking simpleton are you?

No, not quite a Hoss hat, more like a 70's counter culture version of a Stetson. Some quasi-Western, ur-cowboy hat.

I don't know, it's tough to judge you simply by your hat (or that icon of a smirking desert geezer). I prefer the much more easy task of judging you by what you post on A2K.
No, you make assumptions based on trivial idiocy whih is your wont, your thoughts are trivial as are your judgements, in simple terms your, are a an idiot.

It seems that I have placed an irresistible burr under the saddle of the Anarchistic Geezer of the West, and broken his legendary calm.

A dubious achievement, yes but one that someone needed to strive for lest Good Ole Dys continue to enjoy his false A2K personae.

I may be many things Gabby, but I am hardly an idiot. Whereas you my frontier friend are ... well, I'm not sure what Good Ole Dys is Obviously he is unique, but above ad hominem attacks? Obviously not.

Happy Trails Good Ole Dys.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Lash wrote:
I don't like partisan crap either, especially when it takes the side opposite mine--but sometimes, there are facts buried amid the caterwauling.

Problem is that if its partisan crap, how do I know the "facts" it claims carry any credence? I'd rather wait for some more serious source befor spending much thought on it.

Lash wrote:
Do you think it was intentionally misleading to refer to his father as one who herds goats, rather than a wealthy scion?

Probably (awaiting further info).

Typical politician stuff tho. Not saying that makes it ok, more like saying, doesnt make him worse than anyone else. Surely no worse than Bush playing the real Western cowboy card, never mind the wealthy scion of Northeastern American aristocracy that he is.

But yes, thats not saying much, that someone is no better than Bush, for sure.

Lash wrote:
Do you think it was ok for him to falsely claim a position at Harvard?

If true, no, definitely not OK.

Lash wrote:
Is his anti-same-sex marriage stance ok with you?

Yep. I think anti same-sex marriage stances are wrong and backward, but I wouldnt let my vote depend on it. People who are religious will usually (if not always!) disagree with gay marriage. So be it. If Obama'd end up discussing the issue on A2K I'd take him up on it, but as he's not, whatever.

Lash wrote:
btw, I'm sure you do see the meat of the accusation in the article. Don't fall in line with your buds. Come on. Be real.

Falling in line with my buds? I was the first one to even comment on the article, and the only one so far, I think, to note that I dont see what the meat of the accusation is. So "falling in line with my buds"? Come on.

No, I really dont see what the meat of this guy's accusation is. What he's actually got to bear regarding the main issue he raises, Obama's Christianity.

The closest I get, as mentioned, is that he resents Obama for 'acting like he's Christian and stuff' when to his criteria, he's not a real Christian at all, because, well, he supports legal abortion and the division of Church and state.

Err? Sounds like a non-sequitur. 'If he doesnt share my interpretation of Christianity, he's not a real Christian, and therefore, when he acts like he is, he's contradicting himself, he's a liar'. That's not even a serious argument, and surely doesnt show up any "truth impediment" on the part of Obama.

What am I missing?

Not much. You had the same opinions I had, except it seems you got hung up on the Christian thing in a completely different way. That had nothing to do with my criticisms.

The facts I referred to were his father's wealth, (Not opinion. He intentionally misled.) his actual position at Harvard v the one he claimed (could have been a momentary thing he regretted later, but he should have cleared it up. It was a lie.)---these two balling up to look like a truth impediment---, and his anti-gay rights stance (I have held my nose and voted for people, who have differing social opinions, too.)

I applaud your ability to acknowledge it.

I do have a deeper, continuing dislike for his dual purposes re Christianity. I'll be interested to see how he handles that in the future---and to see if his rhetoric changes. It's not about his particular beliefs, or his personal brand of Christianity-- It's about accusing others of doing what you are actively doing yourself. That cuts deeply into credibility, to me.

Thank you for responding.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

It seems that I have placed an irresistible burr under the saddle of the Anarchistic Geezer of the West, and broken his legendary calm.

Dont flatter yourself - he sounded perfectly calm to me ... just plainly laying out the facts Mr. Green

Rather Churchill-like, as calmly-levelled nukes of insults go, actually ;-)

0 Replies

I think I'll wait til factcheck.org chimes in on this. I'm not sure I trust anyone else anymore.

0 Replies

Yeah. Jury's out.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
It seems that I have placed an irresistible burr under the saddle of the Anarchistic Geezer of the West, and broken his legendary calm.

Dont flatter yourself - he sounded perfectly calm to me ... just plainly laying out the facts

Rather Churchill-like, as calmly-levelled nukes of insults go, actually ;-)

Oh no, insulted now by nimh a member of the Euro-block of A2K Liberals!

Nimh is a european and therefore we must accept his comparison of the Dys' "You are an idiot" insult to the wickedly sophisticated barbs of Winston Churchill.

How can I endure this onslaught of bile?

First salt of the earth Dys and now smug Euro Trash nimh.

What's next? Finishing blows from agnostic Frank and Poet Laureate Edgar?

No wait, the big guns will be soon brought to bear ---blatham and Walter!

Ayyeeee-ayeeee, I must flee - even if it is to a cyber cave.

(No emoticon required)

0 Replies

Heh. Not bad. Its a testy night out tonight innit?

I aint no liberal though. And somehow I have no doubt that you'll have little trouble enduring any onslaught of bile...

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Heh. Not bad. Its a testy night out tonight innit?

I aint no liberal though. And somehow I have no doubt that you'll have little trouble enduring any onslaught of bile...

You ain't no liberal? Could have fooled me, but why is that so?

I'm all ears --- please explain.

You're right though, I will not have much trouble enduring a barrage of leftist bile.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

You ain't no liberal? Could have fooled me, but why is that so?

Nimh always had said, his parents were left, soical-democrat-like, and is a Green.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
You ain't no liberal? Could have fooled me, but why is that so?

Nimh always had said, his parents were left, soical-democrat-like, and is a Green.

And therefore he's not a Liberal?

0 Replies

Certainly not - liberal and green is a contradiction qua definitionem.

0 Replies

Pretty much. In Europe and most elsewhere in the world, liberal means pro-free market, as well as what you'd call liberal on values issues. Kinda like what you'd call libertarian, if with a small l.

I know Americans use "liberal" in a different way than everybody else, but even American liberals, to a European's eyes, look centrist and wishy-washy when it comes to socio-economic policies.

I'm a leftist.

0 Replies

Look here to find out what kind of parties are associated with liberal for the rest of the world population: http://www.liberal-international.org

I think only the English place their liberal party roughly in the same position where you'd place liberals in your country (eg, as the leftmost group) - and even there only since about ten years.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

blatham wrote:
Quote:
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is unelectable.

Gratuitous slime. Does your mother find you offensive too?

Last night, Hardball had a segment labeled "Obama for President?". I didn't get to hear more than a sentence or two, but noted the raised profile of this possibility.

As soz knows, I've been hoping/clamoring for this candidacy for a while now. Obama is a truly exceptional political figure with the potential to turn American political discourse in a much needed positive direction (the need being evidenced by the slime above).

Barack Hussein Obama Jr is unelectable.

Obviously this is nonsense since he has been elected, but gratuitous slime? Seems a bit over the top.

Grover Norquist unelectable - gratuitous slime?

Eric Rudolph unelectable - gratuitious slime?

Tammy Faye Baker unelectable - gratuitous slime?

Gore Vidal unelectable - gratuitous slime?

Cindy Meehan unelectable - gratuitous slime?

Teddy "Splash" Kennedy unelectable to the presidency - gratuitous slime?

Does you mother find you an overly emotional pisspot from time to time?

Well I guess since you have placed a stake in the ground that you are all for an Obama candidacy, then any naysayer must be guilty of gratuitous slime.

Not your best effort blatham.

Uh...duh. The point was the gratuitous inclusion of the middle name "Hussein", not the merely silly notion that he was "unelectable". Of course, had you taken time to read the related posts, that would have been evident. As I noted, Sierra Song doesn't demonstrate some scholarly carefulness in consistent inclusion of persons' middle names when referring to such persons in her posts here. It was a slime move - an attempt to position or suggest some similarity/connection between the man and Saddam and yucky Muslims.

But we can predict that, as Obama's profile raises and as he becomes a greater electoral threat, folks like Sierra Song will play this intellectually vacuous and morally repugnant game.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know