First he takes our National Day of Prayer, and now this! What's next, Independence Day? Christmas?! That muslim will NOT take MY Christmas away!!
Ahem...
edit: Before it's brought up, no I'm not insinuating. I've seen and heard this exact sentiment a few times already today.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
It is hard to pin down what Obama is really for. What he says means nothing, and never has. The only safe thing is to say that he is definitely NOT pro-American. And that is unforgiveable in a president. Some of us saw this going in, and that is why we did not vote for him. But now increasing numbers of people who did vote for him, are suffering "buyer's remorse." Too bad it came so late!
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
And no.
I am still proud to have voted for Obama. I don't like everything he has done, but that's not surprising. Politics is dirty and mired in closed-door deals and compromise. I like his attitude, his speeches, his actions, and his interactions with the other people of this planet, for the most part.
He makes me feel proud to be an American. Bush never did that. I felt ashamed most of the time.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Making a tradition out of Clinton's grandstanding Arlington visits was a bad idea. I'm glad Obama's discontinuing it.
Another "tradition" I'd like to see die: saying "the state of the Union is strong" or the equivalent. Heck, if you're going to do that, just put a dashboard graphic on WhiteHouse.gov labeled "State of the Union," with an arrow permanently pointing to "strong." That gives you, like, twenty extra seconds to actually say something meaningful.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
"I hate America. And I'm going to spend years of my life as a public servant to it, with dreams of one day becoming the president of this country I hate so much!"
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Strider, that sounds more like Michelle than Barack. She said she only was able to be proud of America for the first time when her husband was elected. Despite all the advantages they both had, free-rides academically, help with writing papers, political patronage and mentoring, etc.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Ron, you never cease to bring on the funny.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Is it history that is funny, or the inability of some people to admit the facts of history?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
A friend told me a story once, about an elderly man who lived to well past 100 years old and never had any health problems.
The man was being interviewed and the interviewer asked him what his secret was.
The man said, "I never argue with anybody." "Never?" the interviewer asked. "Never," the man responded.
The interviewer said, "I don't believe it." To which the man replied, "you're right!"
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Is it history that is funny, or the inability of some people to admit the facts of history?
Hehe.
Both, actually.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ron Lambert you are worse then anything Orwell had ever wrote about, you are worse then those who would rewrite history, you simply ignore it.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Is it history that is funny, or the inability of some people to admit the facts of history?
Oh, definitely the latter.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ron -
Academic free rides? Weren't both Barack and Michelle still paying off their law school loans until his second book was published? Even so, the vast majority of their wealth has come from his book writing, etc. What natural advantages have they had? I don't necessarily buy into some of the rhetoric and image-creation that Obama has done for his own history, but Michelle appears to have had a fairly regular middle class upbringing, and Obama's upbringing doesn't appear to be particularly advantaged, or disadvantaged. Their success appears to be largely of their own making.
Furthermore, specific to this Memorial Day thing. Let's look at how we're weighting this thing. On the one side, we have his actual performance as Commander-in-Chief, his strategic decisions, his handling of the military, his choices in the Defense Department and his work with Congress on defense appropriations bills....and on the other hand we have him not attending a photo op on Memorial Day.
And I'm supposed to vilify him for it? I know America tends to obsess over some ridiculously stupid things, but are we seriously to the point where substance is totally disregarded, and all we care about are a series of empty gestures? Please tell me you aren't that easily manipulated.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Is it history that is funny, or the inability of some people to admit the facts of history?
Add me to the list of people who think this is hi-LARIOUS.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Maybe he doesn't hate the military. It's a coincidence he's the first president in a very long time to walk away from the ceremonies at Arlington,...on Veteran's Memorial Day. Sorry...to be PC...Memorial Day.
I can't say he hates the military for going against the will of the vast majority of military members by opposing "Don't Ask Don't Tell". He has a habit of going against the will of the American people.... health care, stimulus, AZ immigration law.
The only successes this president can claim are things against the will of the majority of Americans. He knows he isn't going to be reelected and Dems are going to lose the congress in the fall. They fooled the people with promises of hope and change...now they defy the people's will for an agenda.....while they are in control. Maybe he can make Puerto Rico a state and grant amnesty to illegals prior to his next election....that'll give him a fighting chance.
I'm glad to hear Obama state he has been in charge of the oil spill, "since day one" and the white house lawyers have decided the Sestack job offer was fine. (people forget, it's the white house lawyers job to defend the administration...we aren't going to accept the defense lawyer's assurances without an impartial investigation). Blago and Obama are two peas in a pod.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Obama hates the military!
I think you just misheard him, what he actually said is that hates theater troops. Theater.
Hobbes Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Aw for shame. Misrepresentations and untruths.
First off, more than 70% of Americans are okay with ending DADT. Second, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the SecDef are okay with ending DADT. Third, there aren't a lot of hard and fast numbers on what the rank-and-file military soldier thinks. That's part of the what the review is supposed to ascertain over the next several months. So, you're wrong on the national view, wrong on the view of the brass, and I guess making stuff up about the military at large. Besides, the military said the same things about black people and women. Maybe we shouldn't blindly go about protecting the status quo when the status quo is wrong.
As far as Memorial Day goes, near as I can tell the tradition started in the 1990s. Oh no! Obama is defiling a tradition that's began like 18 years ago! Sacrilege! It's not a tradition that Reagan or GHWB followed. It started with ::gasp!:: a Democrat! Clinton! The guy who used the military to cover-up and divert attention away from his sex scandals! Bush sent Cheney to one of the Veteran's Day ceremonies, he must hate the troops too!
By the way, after Bush woefully underfunded a VA that was found to be rife with poor care and mismanagement, Obama was the one who took up the issue to try and fix it, appropriating a lot of new money to make sure veterans get the care they need. What matters more to you, actually taking care of living veterans, or not going to a photo op to smile and take some pictures at the graves of those now dead in order to score political points? Maybe he's honoring them more by not using dead soldiers as political fodder. And yes, despite the waving the bloody shirt rhetoric of the right, I would defend a Republican president on those same grounds for the same offense.
By the by, what do you actually know about the history of Puerto Rico? Puerto Rico hasn't become a state, or spun off into an independent country thus far because they've chosen not to in public elections. I don't think Obama has a vested interest in getting them admitted one way or the other, but even if he did, I suspect he'd have zero influence in doing so.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
This is the perfect example of how the Progressive agenda works. When I was a kid, we had "Veteran's Memorial Day"....now we have "Memorial Day". Two decades ago it was a day to reflect on the vets who gave their lives. Now it's a day to remember those who have died and our president no longer visits Arlington.
Subtle shifts, the frog in the pan of water. Veteran's Memorial Day is a lot younger than the Constitution of The United States.
Is there a difference between "Veteran's Memorial Day" and "Memorial Day"? President's don't visit Arlington on "Memorial Day" but no president would skip Arlington on "Veteran's Memorial Day". Is there a difference between "Illegal Aliens" and "Undocumented Workers"? Yes, there is a difference and Progressive's are the masters of semantics. It takes years to redefine reality and Progressives are very patient. Now, the constitution is dead and we're taught our founders were atheist.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Actually we have both...
Veteran's Day is in November.
Memorial Day is in May.
So your complaint is that "Progressives" are better at reading a calendar than you are?
By the by, I've always understood the difference to be that Memorial Day is for honoring the dead, and Veteran's Day is for honoring the living.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
"Memorial Day is a United States federal holiday observed on the last Monday of May (May 31 in 2010). Formerly known as Decoration Day, it commemorates U.S. men and women who died while in the military service."
I apologize for my local slang...Veteran's Memorial Day.
Does this sound like a federal holiday when the president should visit Arlington?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think it should be required, no. But then, I hate most perfunctory presidential actions. I think a lot of them are a waste of time that are demanded because if they fail to follow in the rituals they'll suffer needless political retribution. I think presidents have far better things to do with their times, like actually fix the problems in the VA, rather than spending two hours on a photo op.
It's ridiculous that we often give presidents credit for attendance but not for the actual work they do while on the job.
Seriously, if Obama changes his mind and decides to go, I expect to wake up this weekend and find southern protesters demonstrating in front of the White House with the stars and bars waving, complaining that Obama is being disrespectful to the south because Arlington was built on land stolen from General Lee as a swipe at him during the war. This kind of crap is useless and counterproductive.
Do you seriously think that not honoring a tradition that is less than 20 years old is indicative of his hatred for the military?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Bush was thrashed for playing golf once a month. This president plays more than once per week, in between white house basketball, Wednesday parties and visits on the ESPN and the Jay Leno show. It's mighty fine of him to spend three hours in Louisiana when one golf game is five hours......without a single mention of a 500 year flood in Tennessee. (no video of looting an riots in Nashville) Of course, looting and riots are justified rage for the oppressed and disadvantaged in our society.
To quote you: "Do you seriously think that not honoring a tradition that is less than 20 years old is indicative of his hatred for the military?"
No, he doesn't hate the military. Nor does he hate this country. At the same time he wants to "fundamentally transform it" and is perfectly willing to ignore a 200 year old constitution. I'm not surprised a 20 year presidential tradition is meaningless...our founding principles of 200 years ago are meaningless. The constitution is an obstruction to this man.
Anyone who can ignore our founding fathers can easily brush off a 20 year old holiday to honor American soldiers who died in battle.
I might be out of line. I'm not pious enough to have written an autobiography in my twenties, before anyone knew who I was. Obama has always known he was special, even before the rest of the world knew how special he was. Maybe he'll give another press conference, in another 300 days.
I'm going to tell my wife "I love you but I want to fundamentally transform you"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:No, he doesn't hate the military. Nor does he hate this country.
Thank you for answering the question. You could have left out the boilerplate.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:No, he doesn't hate the military. Nor does he hate this country.
Thank you for answering the question. You could have left out the boilerplate.
I love my wife and children but am considering "fundamentally transforming them". They are the best but I can make them better. I wrote an autobiography in my twenties, before accomplishing anything. I know I have the best in the world but I can make it better.
He doesn't hate the best military in the world. He doesn't hate the best country in the world. He can make them better....by making them weaker. He loves America but he's misguided and ignorant.
How's that nice talk working out? Did you know 2009 had the more terrorist attacks in US borders than any other year in US history? How are things going with Iran? Obama's so good,... N. Korea is falling in line...right?
Hey, he won a Nobel Peace Prize. Maybe he can give a speech and Kim Jong Il wont sink another S Korean ship.
If we still had Bush....46 S. Korean Sailors would still be alive and Iran would be many more steps short of having nuclear weapons.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
::Considers walking away...realizes he has nothing better to do...gets sucked back in::
Well, first of all, your analogy is silly. You don't enter your marriage with an agenda of things you want to fix, do you? Presidential candidates always run on a platform of things they want to do to make America better, whether they're conservative or liberal, it's a function of presidential politics and the modern presidency.
"Listen honey, I think you should marry me because I want to make you a better person than you are right now. I mean, you're great and all, that's why I want to fix you so much, cause you could be so much better! Marry me, and in four years I'll have made you the best person you could possibly be!"
I hear wedding bells!
Dreams from My Father was first published in 1995, and since Obama was born in 1961. That makes him 34, not in his twenties.
And yeah, Bush was great at getting North Korea to toe the line. China has a cutoff switch for most of their power, provides most of their food, and has more influence on them than anyone in the world, and even THEY can't get N. Korea to toe behave. They're the most unpredictable country in the world, and you think Bush, the nation's worst diplomat in chief in recent memory, was what was keeping them in check? And actually, things are going better in Iran than when Bush was in charge. Iran just agreed to a material swap with Turkey and Brazil, and Obama has Russia and China closer to signing on to sanctions than Bush ever was. Diplomacy does have limits. If Iran really wants one, they'll get a nuclear weapon. Unless we invade, it will happen.
This is fun, it's like some sort of political smear machine grab bag. You never know what new and totally unrelated issue you'll bring up next! It's an exercise in taking the shotgun approach to arguing. Instead of detailing a single criticism, you just throw a dozen things out there and figure one of them has to hit something. We started on the military, then you tossed in the oil spill, and somehow even Puerto Rico got in there, and now we're talking about golf, North Korea, and ESPN!
Oh, I forgot to mention, if you want to carp on Obama for playing golf, you might take notice of the fact that Obama took fewer vacation days in his first year than Bush by a pretty dramatic number. Obama: 26 full or partial days. Bush: 69 full or partial days. He also took fewer trips to Camp David, and had more "working" vacations that split time between public appearances and free time.
In fact, going back to Carter, all Democrats have taken fewer vacation days in the first year than all Republicans going back to 1977. Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
You're right, I have nothing better to do. My infrequency makes me a troll. The rest of the week I'm working 12+ hours a day to "pay my fair share". "First Published" isn't time written. Even by your first published standard, he was still nothing. His beloved aunt from that heart felt book is still living in the projects. Obama never believed in Black Liberation Theology but he went to that church to get votes and learn how to speak. Obama loves America but thinks he knows better than the founders.
I've seriously considered walking away from Hatrack. There's nothing I can say that is more convincing than the reality around us. I'm wasting my time arguing with cult members. Not necessarily the cult of Obama but the cult that gave us Obama. Follow Pelosi's advice if you're an artist, quit your job....the government will take care of you.
Sorry,....your time has come. The great awakening is happening. The majority of Americans are against the bailouts and for the AZ laws. The majority of Americans are against Obama. All the debate doesn't matter....time will dictate the winner of this debate. People like me don't have to lie to win votes. Deceivers can win elections but their rule show's the truth. Many people have apologized to me for voting for Obama and arguing with me prior to the election.
Enjoy it while it lasts. You have a few more months.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I was making fun of myself there, not you.
But either way, you think Obama wrote it, stuck it in a drawer for a decade, then published it? Have you ever read the book? I haven't, but I'd be surprised if the contents of the book cut off when he was in his twenties.
Hell, I love America, and I think the Founders' theories and ideas don't apply to a lot of what we have to deal with in the 21st century. Is that really a surprise, that a document written when parchment was the written medium of choice, and the steam engine hadn't even been invented yet? The Founders wrote slavery into the Constitution, and no rights for women. They were wrong. They were wrong about a lot of stuff. A lot of stuff they made provisions for no longer apply, and a lot of stuff that is important to us today didn't even exist back then. The writers of the Constitution got a lot of stuff right, and left a lot of stuff vague for us to figure out later. They are called framers for a reason. They framed an unfinished picture that we had to create long after they were gone. They gave us an outline, but we have to fill in the details. We do that on a yearly, sometimes daily basis. They might have disagreed with his, but the Framers weren't prophets or gods, they were fallible, they were men, and they were wrong about a lot of stuff.
For all the accusations you have about people following the Cult of Obama, it sounds like you follow the Cult of the Founders (which I admit has a cooler name).
There aren't many, or really any Obama Cultists around here. I'm not 100% happy with Obama. But when I think about what McCain wanted to do, and what Republicans in general would have continued to do if they hadn't been ousted in 2006, I still feel good for voting for Obama. I'm not a Democrat, and generally dislike Democrats, but I am a liberal, with a few "conservative" quirks here and there. There are a lot of what you would call radical changes that I'd be pleased as punch to see happen to America.
I'm for doing what makes sense to help the most people in the most effective and efficient way possible. Pragmatism is the only dogma I bow to, rather than ideological tenets that box people into "small government" or "big government" mantras, and whatever other ideological liberal vs. conservative binary you want to apply to the situation. I've never cast a vote for a candidate that I agree with 100%, and I likely never will.
You know, if you actually check polling data on the bailouts, I think you'll find there is a different between people not liking the bailouts, and people thinking they shouldn't have happened. I didn't like them either, but I think without them, we'd have been in a far worse mess than we are now. And if you follow the actual paper trail, most of that money appears on track to be paid back. And for that matter, most of that was done under BUSH, not OBAMA.
As far as immigration goes, what do you want to do? Round up 11 million people and send them home? Literally round them all up and deport them? Not only is it likely impossible, and a logistical nightmare, it would be cost prohibitive.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Yeah, some times I can't resist the argument either.
I'm not coming at this from a Pro-President point of view or a pro-liberal point of view. I am from a pro-fact point of view.
First fact, when you give your title a viscous over-the-top name like "Obama Hates The Military" and back it up with one piece of news about him skipping one ceremony, you destroy your credibility.
When you add to that an outright lie, well, only people who already agree with you will take you seriously.
The lie being that the President stole your "National Day of Prayer." He did no such thing. When a group of Atheists challenged it in court President Obama sent a legal team to defend it. He is for prayer, and Christian prayer at that.
If you disagree with the President's policies--for example you believe that bombing Iran would convince them that they don't need a nuclear weapon for their own defense, or that the US should never use diplomacy without it including superior military force, fine, bring on the facts and we discuss.
But if all you are going to do is throw out accusations and claim victory, well, I am not impressed.
Each accusation that Mal has brought up are serious and should be considered in depth. However, Mal's arguments are not done in depth. Instead he jumps from accusation to accusation, defending one by bringing in another. This is great for media-masters to confuse the issues, but it is not a discussion.
Finally, I'm in my mid-40's and as far back as I can remember it has always been called Memorial Day, and the Memorial is and has always been to remember those who have given their lives to defend this country.
I don't know of a single person who has ever suggested that this holiday be for some generic, "Remember the dead" day. It is a day for cleaning veterans graves, laying flowers on them, or flags, or what ever is in your heart.
The Hatrack community has lost a couple members to the wars in Irag and Afghanistan. Later this weekend I will start a thread so that we can remember all our war dead, if someone else doesn't beat me to it.
Do me a favor. Don't disrespect those who have died for our country by bringing in politics to that thread.
Thank you.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Yeah, some times I can't resist the argument either.
I'm not coming at this from a Pro-President point of view or a pro-liberal point of view. I am from a pro-fact point of view.
First fact, when you give your title a viscous over-the-top name like "Obama Hates The Military" and back it up with one piece of news about him skipping one ceremony, you destroy your credibility.
When you add to that an outright lie, well, only people who already agree with you will take you seriously.
The lie being that the President stole your "National Day of Prayer." He did no such thing. When a group of Atheists challenged it in court President Obama sent a legal team to defend it. He is for prayer, and Christian prayer at that.
If you disagree with the President's policies--for example you believe that bombing Iran would convince them that they don't need a nuclear weapon for their own defense, or that the US should never use diplomacy without it including superior military force, fine, bring on the facts and we discuss.
But if all you are going to do is throw out accusations and claim victory, well, I am not impressed.
Each accusation that Mal has brought up are serious and should be considered in depth. However, Mal's arguments are not done in depth. Instead he jumps from accusation to accusation, defending one by bringing in another. This is great for media-masters to confuse the issues, but it is not a discussion.
Finally, I'm in my mid-40's and as far back as I can remember it has always been called Memorial Day, and the Memorial is and has always been to remember those who have given their lives to defend this country.
I don't know of a single person who has ever suggested that this holiday be for some generic, "Remember the dead" day. It is a day for cleaning veterans graves, laying flowers on them, or flags, or what ever is in your heart.
The Hatrack community has lost a couple members to the wars in Irag and Afghanistan. Later this weekend I will start a thread so that we can remember all our war dead, if someone else doesn't beat me to it.
Do me a favor. Don't disrespect those who have died for our country by bringing in politics to that thread.
Thank you.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Maybe he doesn't hate the military. It's a coincidence he's the first president in a very long time to walk away from the ceremonies at Arlington,...on Veteran's Memorial Day. Sorry...to be PC...Memorial Day.
G.W Bush didn't attend memorial day ceremonies at Arlington in 2002. G.H.W. Bush didn't attend memorial day ceremonies at Arlington in 1989,1990,1991,or 1992. Reagan didn't attend memorial day ceremonies at Arlington in 1981,1983,1987 or 1988.
Is it a coincidence that neither you nor the right wing cared about whether or not the President was in Arlington on memorial day until the President was a democrat?
Is it a coincidence that you are repeating this easily disproved lie without bother to check the facts or are you part of the group that disdains the fact based reality in favor of one you make up?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Bush was thrashed for playing golf once a month. This president plays more than once per week,
Source Please. And is that an average? Meaning he has played gold over 75 times during his presidency at this point? Is that what you're claiming? You expect this to be believed?
ETA: Oh no... oh dear me... the telegraph puts the number at 32 in April. That's rather less than "more than once a week" during his presidency. That's around twice a month.
You're a liar mal. You are a liar. You are a shameless, bald-faced liar. And everyone here knows that you are.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
It really bugs me when people politicize things like observance of memorial day or the flag. If patriotism has any value, it is in its ability to unite people. Franklin coined the term American, to unite people. Its supposed to remind us that all of us are Americans. We may be liberals or conservatives, rich or poor, south or north, easterners or westerners, red staters or blue staters, religious or non-religious, urban or rural, but we are ALL Americans. Belonging to one of those groups vs the other doesn't make a person any more or less American or patriotic. Those who use the symbols of patriotism to divide the nation rather than unite it, have destroyed any value in patriotism.
There is a certain amount of wisdom in having a head of state who is not head of government (as is the case in most other democratic nations). That way the head of state, who has few if any official government duties and is a non-partisan, non-political figure head can do things like put flowers on graves. Its a potent symbol that somethings about a country transcend political lines. That way the country can feel united rather than divided by displays of patriotism and the government leaders can tend to the business of governing rather than putting on media shows to prove they are more American than the opposition.
[ May 29, 2010, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mal:
quote:You're right, I have nothing better to do. My infrequency makes me a troll. The rest of the week I'm working 12+ hours a day to "pay my fair share".
Two things.
1: Drop the martyr complex, nobody around here is going to tie you up, flay you alive, and lynch you for having opinions. So stop acting like you are back against the wall fighting for the very existence of this country and maybe even your life.
2: You being busy working a job and taking care of a family is admirable, I doubt anybody here would criticize that. You are called a troll because you are intentionally obtuse, and say things explicitly in such a manner as to maximize an emotional response. You are exactly as Lyrhawn described you. You take a shotgun, squeeze off a shell, and hope one of the pellets penetrates. Never mind people keep explaining in an often perfectly calm and direct manner where you are going wrong.
You could easily admit that you were mistaken about Obama breaking some sort of time honored American tradition by going to Arlington on Memorial Day. If you did, people would listen to some of your more salient points. Because you don't, you're regarded as the village mad man who throws his feces at everybody. You could have acknowledged the research others did that clearly show that statistics are not on your side. Heck you could even argue that you believe these other presidents who didn't go to Arlington were also doing their serviceman a disservice. That argument might actually gain traction. Instead, you will probably ignore this whole post and pretend I never wrote it, along with everybody else, except for the blurbs you can quote, twist, and regurgitate into some strange form bearing no resemblance to the original point, or other regurgitations except that they smell.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Just wanted to point out, Obama is going to a graveyard on memorial day and honoring dead veterans- just not the standard Arlington ones. Don't all our dead deserve to be honored, not just the famous ones?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: He makes me feel proud to be an American. Bush never did that. I felt ashamed most of the time.
That's exactly how I felt after spending several months in the jungles of Costa Rica, only to come back to the the Abu Ghraib issue of Time sitting on newsstands in Costa Rica's capital, San Jose. Yay, everybody! I'm an American! We believe in human rights!
The Bush/Cheney legacy is the gift that just keeps on giving. It's kind of like an STD that way.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:The Bush/Cheney legacy is the gift that just keeps on giving. It's kind of like an STD that way.
Fantastic quote from Jon Stewart a couple of weeks ago: "It's crazy. It's like no matter what happens during the Obama Administration, there's the perfect Bush f*** up for the occasion."
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Obama doesn't "hate the military" ... He hates dead people! Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
bush gave us national herpes?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: First fact, when you give your title a viscous over-the-top name like "Obama Hates The Military" and back it up with one piece of news about him skipping one ceremony, you destroy your credibility.
Wait...what?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think somewhere along the way, DM forgot that the OP was ironic.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lyrhawn, it has been remarked at length by others that literary evidence suggests that William Ayers wrote Obama's books. There may have been some effort on the part of the extreme left wing patrons to hide their footprints in the cultivation and prepping of Obama. But they can still be found. Every step of Obama's political career has been orchestrated by people who have proven themselves to be decidedly unAmerican. Like William Ayers, who planted bombs and killed people, in expression of his left-wing rage. Obama came to politics in the unusually corrupt cauldron of Chicago politics. He made deals with people like Tony Rezko. But of course it is all explained away as innocent coincidence. William Ayers was "just a guy who lived down the street." The Irreverend Wright, who preached hateful anti-American diatribes for 20 years at Obama's church, was just "an embarassing uncle" whose treasonous extremism he never noticed or censured throughout those 20 years.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Just off the top of my head:
1. Show me the literary evidence.
2. Ayers was never proven to have been involved in any attacks that killed or harmed people. In fact, that's something he supposedly prided himself on. I consider the destruction of property and the murder of innocents to be on two entirely different levels. I don't know about you. I'm not excusing what he's admitted to have done, but if you're going to vilify him, you lose credibility by tacking on extra goodies.
2b. His left-wing rage? He formed a Communist based terrorist group. That's not the left wing, that's the ultra, uber far left extreme. I'm on the left. Ayers is about a millions to the left of me.
2c. I haven't seen any concrete evidence that Ayers and Obama were ever close allies. They worked together for Chicago schools IIRC, but any political alliances I've seen them accused of have been a product of the right-wing smear machine more than anything. If you have evidence, I'll read it.
3. "People like Tony Rezko." All I remember is him buying some land from Rezko. Feel free to expand on that. And feel free to tell me who these "people" are, or are you just making that up?
4. Wright is a curious figure, and I remember knowing more about this back when the controversy was big in the news, but some of what Wright was attacked for saying didn't surprise me, or offend me at all coming from an inner-city black minister. His history is different from yours, as it his experience, and I'd suggest that some of the anti-Americanism you paint him with is the aspect of Americanism that keeps minorities in America from achieving the same status that whites have had for generations. But that's a complicated topic.
Either way, nice job throwing a half dozen attacks totally unrelated to anything we've talked about in this thread into the mix. Palin would be proud.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lyrhawn, it has been remarked at length by others that literary evidence suggests that William Ayers wrote Obama's books.
It has been remarked at length that the earth is flat and that Obama was born in Kenya and is a secret muslim.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
PS.. Snopes has the history of Memorial Day visits by the past few Presidents: right here Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Just wanted to point out, Obama is going to a graveyard on memorial day and honoring dead veterans- just not the standard Arlington ones. Don't all our dead deserve to be honored, not just the famous ones?
Don't ruin a good rant with FACTS.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It is hard to pin down what Obama is really for. What he says means nothing, and never has. The only safe thing is to say that he is definitely NOT pro-American. And that is unforgiveable in a president. Some of us saw this going in, and that is why we did not vote for him. But now increasing numbers of people who did vote for him, are suffering "buyer's remorse." Too bad it came so late!
Bullsh#t
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
I've seriously considered walking away from Hatrack.
Unilaterally? Or just this alt?
LOL
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
What does Pro-American mean?
President Theodore Roosevelt said we must "Speak softly, but carry a big stick." I see President Obama doing just that, speaking softly and humbly which is an American virtue. I see the President's increase in troops in Afghanistan and his continued expansion of the drone attacks in Pakistan as firmly using his big stick.
However I get the feeling that anything short of bombing Iran and nuking North Korea, as well as the same Cowboy Style Bluster and "Your with us or against us--Unilateral plus whoever we can force or bribe policies of President Bush will be seen as weak.
Or perhaps its that he is pro-American but not Pro-Wealthy American, or Pro-Business that people see as not being Pro-American.
I am confused.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Speaking softly and carrying a big stick? Obama certainly speaks softly but our enemies know he doesn't carry any kind of a stick. If speaking softly is a virtue, Obama is a saint. He goes beyond speaking softly, he travels the world apologizing for America.
Obama self flagellates and the only stick he carries is the one he's using to flagellate America.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
So sending thousands of troops to Afghanistan doesn't count for anything?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Afghanistan is easy. Afghanistan isn't a country, it's a lawless land. Obama will go against a non-nation. Afghanistan doesn't have allies. There really isn't a nation of Afghanistan, it's the wild-wild west. No risk of pissing off the Chinese in Afghanistan.
How's he doing with North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela? These countries have governments with allies who are our enemies. Afghanistan has no allies, it isn't a nation. In Afghanistan, there is no political risk.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Afghanistan in 2001 was a sovereign nation with a government that arguably had some kind of plurality of control over its tribes, Afghanistan today is also still a sovereign nation with a different government that is ostensibly our ally (despite biting the hand remarks by its President) that happens to only control land we have troops occupying.
Regardless of whether it qualifies as a failed state it is however still a state with national boundaries that no one can just waltz in and annex without violating international law.
Also Afghanistan does border China and the Chinese ostensibly do have an interest in keeping American forces out of its backyard that at this moment doesn't outweigh its interest in not having said lawless backwater existing in its backyard while letting America bleed white trying to fix it while giving "moral" support.
How is Cuba your enemy? Why would we need to do anything regarding Venezuela? Its president doesn't like us yes (for some pretty justifiable reasons) but it isn't supporting terrorism or developing WMD's and letting Russia station some badgers in its territory is just brinksmanship on par with us trying to put Radar stations and intercepter missiles in Poland nothing out of the ordinary here that deserves your uninformed amateur opinion.
As for North Korea it is actually China's long term goal and interests to have North Korea implode peacefully without fanfare and have it Unify with South Korea because this would mean the removal of American forces from the Korean peninsula as China and South Korea are big trading partners and both dislike Japan's rising militerism.
What China doesn't want is North Korea exploding catastrophically as that would destabilize the region (understatement) and hurt trade and its economy and increase tensions with the United States who would undoubtably station probably around 3 Carrier battle Groups in the region for the duration of the crisis.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I'm quite sure I've received briefings about the region that you have not. Afghanistan may have an official government with "sovereign" borders but this isn't the reality of the situation. There are large portions of Pakistan that are lawless as the tribes that live there also live in Afghanistan. The warlords and tribal leaders of that nation do not draw a line in the sand to equate a border. Although the map shows a national line, large portions of Pakistan are without Pakistani government authority. Afghanistan has a border on a map but the people that live there do not recognize your borders, nor do they recognize a central government.
If Obama want's to display his big stick with Afghanistan, he's the biggest bully in the world. No nation is Afghanistan's ally.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:If we still had Bush....46 S. Korean Sailors would still be alive
I just showed this to my Korean friends. They're still chuckling.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust:
quote:If we still had Bush....46 S. Korean Sailors would still be alive
I just showed this to my Korean friends. They're still chuckling.
Are those like Mal's Jamaican friends?
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
I've lived in SK for two and a half years.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
But Foust... Mal lives next to Jamaicans. So, pretty much that's a wash.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: I see President Obama doing just that, speaking softly and humbly which is an American virtue.
It's a virtue, but what makes it an American virtue? I mean, is it distinctly American? Does it even match the reality? Sometimes I think Americans are the only people in the world allowed to talk as if they invented positive personality traits. Does it being an American virtue make it uniquely American? Are there virtues which are decidedly not American, but still virtuous? I'm interested in how this statement functions- as exclusive or inclusive, and what your intent is in making it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm quite sure I've received briefings about the region that you have not. Afghanistan may have an official government with "sovereign" borders but this isn't the reality of the situation. There are large portions of Pakistan that are lawless as the tribes that live there also live in Afghanistan. The warlords and tribal leaders of that nation do not draw a line in the sand to equate a border. Although the map shows a national line, large portions of Pakistan are without Pakistani government authority. Afghanistan has a border on a map but the people that live there do not recognize your borders, nor do they recognize a central government.
If Obama want's to display his big stick with Afghanistan, he's the biggest bully in the world. No nation is Afghanistan's ally.
I'm pretty sure that by virtue of being Canadian I am better informed on this issue then you are or the average American soldier since they recruit anyone apparantly these days.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm quite sure I've received briefings about the region that you have not.
You are not allowed to bring to this conversation authority that you are unable to demonstrate through your analysis, or by reference to sources. Allowed, you understand, in the loose sense of the word- by doing what is not allowed, you lose the argument. This means, specifically, that it is not necessary to allude to your access to information directly when it is not being challenged. It is not appropriate to allude to information you cannot share and claim that as relevant to the discussion, which means you can source and cite every piece of information you *do* share, because it sure as hell isn't coming from you. Analysis is the same- either it's yours, and its quality can be judged on its own, or it isn't yours, and it has a source. Either way, "I've seen things man, I've been to briefings, don't even get me started bro" is weak sauce. Especially considering that I know you well enough to know you're using whatever trivial piece of information you picked up in whatever "briefing" you attended and eliding that with your broad suppositions, falsely believing that this somehow makes them true, or unassailable, which is why you don't provide a source- because the source either isn't real, or doesn't say what you are claiming, or would clearly show your embellishment to be highly impeachable.
It all fits your sad pattern. I'm actually happy to be so good at recognizing it. It comforts me to know I'm not susceptible to your filth.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm quite sure I've received briefings about the region that you have not.
You are not allowed to bring to this conversation authority that you are unable to demonstrate through your analysis, or by reference to sources
I agree whole-heartedly with this. Which is why I rolled my eyes when Foust talked about his Korean friends, as if that makes him an expert on the opinions of most/all of South Korea. And why I roll my eyes at you, when you talk about your friends in Eastern Europe (was it the Czech Republic, or somewhere else? I admit, I forget precisely where you live now) as if that makes you an expert on Russia. Or when Rabbit says she works in climate science, and X specific topic is too complicated to explain the details but we should just go ahead and trust her.
Arguing from authority is a bad way to argue, but the fact is a lot of people here do it when an argument goes into a specific area they feel they know a lot in. Sometimes it's hard to separate demonstrating your expertise from simply expecting people to believe you because you're an authority. I think it's probably something we could all improve at.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Would have helped if you had rolled your eyes a little more publicly when he was bashing me for not having access to his apparent network of foreign friends rather then focusing on my anger for being condescended to for 'playing video games'.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Argument from personal experience doesn't necessarily deserve an eye roll. It just, on its own, has little to no evidential value.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm quite sure I've received briefings about the region that you have not.
If you did, it was a complete waste of time on their part.
(I'm also pretty sure I've received briefings about the region that you have not, so, whatever)
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Back to the initial topic, Obama cancelled his cemetery speech today. So, there was a massive storm and lightning warnings and he spent that time meeting with military families. He should have had everyone stand outside in the rain, risking lightning strikes and delivered that speech dang it. If he loved the troops, he would have.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Clearly God was pissed. Speak in Arlington or not at all, dammit.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I agree whole-heartedly with this. Which is why I rolled my eyes when Foust talked about his Korean friends, as if that makes him an expert on the opinions of most/all of South Korea. And why I roll my eyes at you, when you talk about your friends in Eastern Europe (was it the Czech Republic, or somewhere else? I admit, I forget precisely where you live now) as if that makes you an expert on Russia. Or when Rabbit says she works in climate science, and X specific topic is too complicated to explain the details but we should just go ahead and trust her.
Arguing from authority is a bad way to argue, but the fact is a lot of people here do it when an argument goes into a specific area they feel they know a lot in. Sometimes it's hard to separate demonstrating your expertise from simply expecting people to believe you because you're an authority. I think it's probably something we could all improve at.
The issue with argument from authority is when it is used as a mechanism to try to prop up arguments which cannot substantiate themselves. A common mistake is to assume that any argument from authority is inviable. Rabbit's would be a case where it is perfectly viable. So, this contention comes off as more than a little silly.
/
like seriously, there's something way different between your doctor saying "I'm more informed on leg fractures, I'm an ER doctor" versus blayne's "I'm more informed on this, I'm a Canadian"
[ May 31, 2010, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Back to the initial topic, Obama cancelled his cemetery speech today. So, there was a massive storm and lightning warnings and he spent that time meeting with military families. He should have had everyone stand outside in the rain, risking lightning strikes and delivered that speech dang it. If he loved the troops, he would have.
Callin it now, posts by freepers saying that this was a show of displeasure by God
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:G.W Bush didn't attend memorial day ceremonies at Arlington in 2002. G.H.W. Bush didn't attend memorial day ceremonies at Arlington in 1989,1990,1991,or 1992. Reagan didn't attend memorial day ceremonies at Arlington in 1981,1983,1987 or 1988.
Hey Rabbit, where did you get these specifics?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Or when Rabbit says she works in climate science, and X specific topic is too complicated to explain the details but we should just go ahead and trust her.
1. This is a very poor description of what I've done. Over the years I have linked people to dozens, possibly hundreds of scientific papers and reviews so they can see what leading authorities in the areas have to say. CT even compiled a thread linking all of my comments and the references I've used.
2. It is a logical fallacy to claim that an expert's opinion should not be trusted above the opinion of those who lack expertise.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm:
quote:G.W Bush didn't attend memorial day ceremonies at Arlington in 2002. G.H.W. Bush didn't attend memorial day ceremonies at Arlington in 1989,1990,1991,or 1992. Reagan didn't attend memorial day ceremonies at Arlington in 1981,1983,1987 or 1988.
Hey Rabbit, where did you get these specifics?
I got them from snopes.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Thanks.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Or when Rabbit says she works in climate science, and X specific topic is too complicated to explain the details but we should just go ahead and trust her.
1. This is a very poor description of what I've done. Over the years I have linked people to dozens, possibly hundreds of scientific papers and reviews so they can see what leading authorities in the areas have to say. CT even compiled a thread linking all of my comments and the references I've used.
He also totally misconstrued what I had to say about Russia, which mainly had to do with the fact that Blayne has no idea what he's talking about, not asserting that I *do* know what I'm talking about, because I really don't- I just know enough to know who else doesn't.
It's a bit frustrating, really, to spend your time arguing against a false appeal to authority only for someone to claim that's exactly what *you're* doing, even when all you've tried to do is shed light on the falseness of the appeal by comparing it to one of your own. Like if I responded every time to Mal and his Jamaican neighbors with the bombshell that one of my uncles is black- but only to show how absurd the idea is that having a black uncle puts you in touch with black culture, and how *even more* absurd the idea is that having Jamaican neighbors, racist ones to boot, who are not even Americans, makes you an expert.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Sorry for the offenses given, guys. I probably shouldn't have called anyone out by name, as that can (understandably) be taken as a sort of personal attack.
First of all: Rabbit, that's a fair point, you have cited sources and given plenty of legitimate arguments over the years. I was vaguely remembering a couple of instances where I did get a very strong vibe of "I'm a scientist who studies this and you aren't so you shouldn't even be arguing this with me" from you. I don't know if I could find the instances if I tried searching, and I don't remember how many years ago it was, so you'd be well within your rights to assume my memory is just faulty. Even if I remember clearly, it could well have been a situation where you were tired of rehashing the same arguments with someone over and over, rather than you just trying to shut down discussion.
In any event, I apologize.
Orincoro: That is also a good point. I'm just going to straight up agree that I misremembered, and therefore mischaracterized, your comments about Russia. You have my apologies.
The only other person I named in my post was Foust, and only with regards to the one comment made earlier in this thread. I think I'm going to stand by that one... just because you live in South Korea, and you have friends who laughed at Mal's comment, doesn't, ipso facto, prove that Mal's comment is laughable to a majority of Koreans. Mal's comment may do that on its own...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
But .. Foust made no claim other than that the koreans he showed the comment to had a laugh over it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I should say I definitely know people who are bona-fide experts on Russia, but man, that is so not a subject I can get myself into. First of all I dislike virtually every Russian I meet, and second, the absurdities of that country are like the absurdities of my host country multiplied by the absurdities of my home country rendered in drunken and unsubtitled soup of despair. Experts on the Russian world are often experts in absorbing barbarous absurdities.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm quite sure I've received briefings about the region that you have not.
You are not allowed to bring to this conversation authority that you are unable to demonstrate through your analysis, or by reference to sources. Allowed, you understand, in the loose sense of the word- by doing what is not allowed, you lose the argument. This means, specifically, that it is not necessary to allude to your access to information directly when it is not being challenged. It is not appropriate to allude to information you cannot share and claim that as relevant to the discussion, which means you can source and cite every piece of information you *do* share, because it sure as hell isn't coming from you. Analysis is the same- either it's yours, and its quality can be judged on its own, or it isn't yours, and it has a source. Either way, "I've seen things man, I've been to briefings, don't even get me started bro" is weak sauce. Especially considering that I know you well enough to know you're using whatever trivial piece of information you picked up in whatever "briefing" you attended and eliding that with your broad suppositions, falsely believing that this somehow makes them true, or unassailable, which is why you don't provide a source- because the source either isn't real, or doesn't say what you are claiming, or would clearly show your embellishment to be highly impeachable.
It all fits your sad pattern. I'm actually happy to be so good at recognizing it. It comforts me to know I'm not susceptible to your filth.
Mal's not completely wrong, he just used magically wrong words. I think the idea was that he's probably better informed than everyone else because he was sat down and had this stuff explained to him like he was a twelve year old idiot. What's the use of those briefings if you can't feel like you're an expert on the subject briefed upon completion of the briefing?
Also, I'm better informed than....everyone, really. So there. *Blows raspberry*
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I should say I definitely know people who are bona-fide experts on Russia, but man, that is so not a subject I can get myself into. First of all I dislike virtually every Russian I meet, and second, the absurdities of that country are like the absurdities of my host country multiplied by the absurdities of my home country rendered in drunken and unsubtitled soup of despair. Experts on the Russian world are often experts in absorbing barbarous absurdities.
quote:He also totally misconstrued what I had to say about Russia, which mainly had to do with the fact that Blayne has no idea what he's talking about, not asserting that I *do* know what I'm talking about, because I really don't- I just know enough to know who else doesn't.
Except I do know and you have absolutely zero credibility or proof because of a) your own resorting to ad hominid rather then structured debate and b) your own arguments that you did venture forth were so ridden with holes from fallacies and refuge in absurdities that it sinks in the calmest waters of logical debate.
You put words in my mouth, assumed every wrong interpretation of whatever view you think I had and was a condescending pillock who couldn't admit you were wrong and resorted to absolutely savage attacks on my character rather then the argument itself which you ignored with a 300 mile away detour.
And no don't go running away and claiming "I started it" I attacked your initial condescending attitude and you ultimately have the higher obligation to not escalate it, something you proved yourself inherently unable to do.
Your statement also seems to shoot your argument in the foot, you 'not liking the russians you met' is hardly an informative opinion that you can generalize to apply to all russians or even so much as credibly give you the ability to make as a baseling informed political commentary of their government in excess of myself, essentially in brief your opinion is no more credible or authoritative then my own which makes both your condescension, your arrogance and your hubris egregious failures.
Your cannot use your experiences in the Czech Republic or the 'few Russians' you've met as something greater authoritative standing then my own. (Since I actually have met immigrant and russian nationals as well)
Maybe when you learn to not immediately resort to reductio ad venatio arguments you can come back and argue whatever argument you were trying to make inbetween of making an ass of yourself.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i like the idea of an ad homimid
quote:and your hubris egregious failures.
boy you really have to stop peppering your rants with vocabulary that's above your writing level
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
That was Opera's auto spell check, and as for missing the proper conjunctions whatever, however you are still committing an important fallacy by attacking my grammar (which is readable) instead of actually arguing the point which you are doing to boost your own ego rather then to be anything approaching constructive.
Of course I could just go back to using vulgar obscenities so I would figure the accident isolated incidents of bad grammar in the context of a perfectly readable text to be preferably step in the right direction when I have a complaint.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too, you complained when I reacted inappropriately and now your complaining when I am trying to be more expressive but far more appropriate manner that better substantiates my position but you still complain because you'ld rather I not post at all regardless (at least I avoided saying 'irregardless') of content.
So in short, shut your goddamn trap.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: That was Oprah's auto spell check ...
Sweet.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I meant 'Opera', you can shut it for once as well.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: That was Opera's auto spell check, and as for missing the proper conjunctions whatever, however you are still committing an important fallacy by attacking my grammar (which is readable) instead of actually arguing the point which you are doing to boost your own ego rather then to be anything approaching constructive.
What point? I didn't argue anything short of the fact that you shouldn't try using fancy sounding words that you absolutely and consistently do not know how to arrange in a way which is not grammatically incorrect and incredibly confusing.
I'm not criticizing your argument about orincoro, I'm criticizing your presentation. Because it sucks. And one of the reasons why it sucks (besides your massive failure to be mature or control your anger, of course) is because you try to inject lots of fancy sounding crap into it (remember "de facto or de jure" ..?) and it is painfully obvious that it's not vocabulary you actually know how to use.
At this point I don't bother trying not to fulfill your expectations of what would be 'constructive' for me to post because they're incredibly irrelevant to your general maturity level. It's because you sperg and flame and can't grow up.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: That was Opera's auto spell check, and as for missing the proper conjunctions whatever, however you are still committing an important fallacy by attacking my grammar (which is readable) instead of actually arguing the point which you are doing to boost your own ego rather then to be anything approaching constructive.
Of course I could just go back to using vulgar obscenities so I would figure the accident isolated incidents of bad grammar in the context of a perfectly readable text to be preferably step in the right direction when I have a complaint.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too, you complained when I reacted inappropriately and now your complaining when I am trying to be more expressive but far more appropriate manner that better substantiates my position but you still complain because you'ld rather I not post at all regardless (at least I avoided saying 'irregardless') of content.
So in short, shut your goddamn trap.
I honestly think part I bolded has been debatable in the last couple posts, dude. To make your point, and show you really mean it you don't need to toss in incomprehensible grammatically incorrect uses of big words, any more than you need to toss in gratuitous insults or profanity.
You can just calmly and clearly state your case, read it back to yourself to make sure it's coherent, and post it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I meant 'Opera' ...
Really? Because I was sincerely under the impression that Oprah was hovering over your shoulder and vainly trying to point out all the spelling mistakes.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
You're a liar.
But I really was wondering if Oprah had released her own web browser. And whether or not it was any good.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: You can just calmly and clearly state your case, read it back to yourself to make sure it's coherent, and post it.
I was talking to my wife about this recently. I am absolutely astounded by the amount of people who just don't proofread anything before they post/publish/submit it. Granted, I'm unnecessarily anal about it (I double-check everything before I post it and often once more afterward), but a quick look over (especially if you know you're prone to grammar or spelling errors) just seems like common sense to me. Apparently it's not, though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Charlie: Look buddy, I know a lot about the law and various other lawyerings, uh, I'm well educated, well versed. I know that situations like this, real-estate wise, are complex. Lawyer: Actually, they're pretty simple. The forms are all standard boiler-plate. Charlie: Okay. Well we're all hungry. We'll get to our hot-plates soon enough. Let's talk about the contract here. Lawyer: I'm sorry, I forgot. Where did you go to law school again? Charlie: Well I could ask you that very same question. Lawyer: I went to Harvard. Charlie: Ah, mhm. Lawyer: How about you? Hm? Uh? Charlie: I'm pleading the fifth, sir. Lawyer: I'd advise that you do that. Charlie: And I'll take that advice into cooperation, alright? Now what say you and I go toe-to-toe on bird-law and see how comes out the victor? Lawyer: You know, I don't think I'm going to do anything close to that and I can see clearly you know nothing about the law. It seems like you have a tenuous grasp of the English language in general. Charlie: (said as fly flies past his head) I, uh, well, filibuster! Lawyer: Do you.. Do you know what that word means? Charlie: Ah-yup! Lawyer: Yeah, whats that mean? Charlie: uhhhhhhh. AHHHHHHH!!!(proceeds to slam through the door)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmm, maybe I do need a sarcasm sign Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: That was Opera's auto spell check, and as for missing the proper conjunctions whatever, however you are still committing an important fallacy by attacking my grammar (which is readable) instead of actually arguing the point which you are doing to boost your own ego rather then to be anything approaching constructive.
What point? I didn't argue anything short of the fact that you shouldn't try using fancy sounding words that you absolutely and consistently do not know how to arrange in a way which is not grammatically incorrect and incredibly confusing.
I'm not criticizing your argument about orincoro, I'm criticizing your presentation. Because it sucks. And one of the reasons why it sucks (besides your massive failure to be mature or control your anger, of course) is because you try to inject lots of fancy sounding crap into it (remember "de facto or de jure" ..?) and it is painfully obvious that it's not vocabulary you actually know how to use.
At this point I don't bother trying not to fulfill your expectations of what would be 'constructive' for me to post because they're incredibly irrelevant to your general maturity level. It's because you sperg and flame and can't grow up.
Except your completely wrong as I did use the words correctly albeit forgetting a key conjunction, Orincolo was arrogant and hubris is a form of arrogance, the only word I looked up was venatio which is latin for 'game'. The word I forgot to but in was 'are' as in 'are egregious failures' and the usage of egregious is also correct.
Your not only completely wrong but also overbearingly anal and using it as a springboard to attack me over trivialities that apparently have your panties in a twist.
It is absolutely hypocritical of you to accuse me of immaturity when it flies in the face of absolutely ridiculous extenuating circumstances (people being douchebags to me) or your own immaturity in dealing with my perceived immaturity which is you increasingly going out of your way to provoke me just to retroactively prove you right.
So come back when you have a shred credibility and aren't an agent provocateur.
To reiterate, there isn't a single word I used that was used incorrectly within the english language.
So you are wrong.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Which is why I rolled my eyes when Foust talked about his Korean friends, as if that makes him an expert on the opinions of most/all of South Korea.
Um, I did no such thing. I assume you agree that it's a dumb idea that Bush would have stopped the sinking of the Cheonan, especially given how murky the circumstances surrounding the incident are?
It's election season here in SK, and the incumbents always try and use fears of NK to boost their own re-election chances.
American party politics do not dictate the course of world events.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Except your completely wrong as I did use the words correctly albeit forgetting a key conjunction
"I used the words correctly, except I forgot a key conjunction"
"I used the words correctly, except I didn't use the words correctly"
Also: My completely wrong what?
quote:Your not only completely wrong but also overbearingly anal and using it as a springboard to attack me over trivialities
The fact that you are incorrigibly immature and inappropriately hostile at the slightest provocation is not a triviality. It's actually pretty big. It's why as a poster you are a detriment and an embarrassment to the community and why you need to learn to own up to your issues.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I mean seriously, "and your hubris egregious failures" is not even ambiguously incorrect grammar. It's profoundly incorrect grammar. While I expected you blaming your actions and complete loss of temper on others (as well as just generally going into a tantrum) I didn't expect you actually trying to pull an insistence that what you said wasn't problematic insofar as the english language was concerned.
Entertaining, but .. baffling. I mean, really?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust:
quote:Which is why I rolled my eyes when Foust talked about his Korean friends, as if that makes him an expert on the opinions of most/all of South Korea.
Um, I did no such thing. I assume you agree that it's a dumb idea that Bush would have stopped the sinking of the Cheonan, especially given how murky the circumstances surrounding the incident are?
It's election season here in SK, and the incumbents always try and use fears of NK to boost their own re-election chances.
American party politics do not dictate the course of world events.
Alright, I stand corrected yet again. Clearly I read more into your post than intended. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
"To reiterate, there isn't a single word I used that was used incorrectly within the english language."
Blayne, I realize that your lack of understanding of the English language (capitalized, fyi) leads you to believe that you can be as loose with words you looked up in the dictionary 5 minutes ago as with facts you read on wikipedia last week, but I'm afraid on this score, you're an even more obvious fraud. I mean, honestly, I could pick any of the sentences in just your last post and go to town on how many mistakes you make, how unclear your meaning actually is, and *why*. But I've done that so many times I should start charging you for it. Besides, when you improve thanks to my and other people's sound advice, you'll pretend that you just taught yourself, and none of our help did any good at all. You've never thanked anyone on this forum for helping you improve your English- which, I recall quite clearly, was so poor when you started here that I believed you were a Chinese high school student who had immigrated to Canada.
quote: I didn't expect you actually trying to pull an insistence that what you said wasn't problematic insofar as the english language was concerned.
No Samp, what he said was that all the words were correct in usage. Apparently that means that they don't have to be in the right order, connected to each other, make sense in the context of the argument, or be used correctly. So I suppose all that is needed for them to be correct is that they are spelled correctly... which is a tall enough order for Blayne nine times out of ten.
ETA: also
quote: a) your own resorting to ad hominid
You cannot make this stuff up. It's just too good.
[ June 01, 2010, 06:00 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Regarding the Reverend Wright, it occurred to me that an analogy for understanding President Obama's loyalty to Trinity UCC is the loyalty that people have to OSC even as his views get more hateful and extreme. Can you imagine what folks would think about fans of OSC if all the got were some snippets from his most racist or homophobic columns?
Not only was the Reverend Wright "American" enough to have served in the Marines, but he made Trinity a real power for good in Chicago. Neighborhood programs that have truly followed the Gospel in service to the poor and sick.
As he had gotten older, his views have become more extreme - a not-unusual phenomenon. He stepped down as pastor from Trinity shortly before all the controversy.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
That's a good analogy kmbboots, I've had a devil of a time convincing a few people I know to read Ender's Game, because their only familiarity with OSC is through his political writings.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Hell, I love America, and I think the Founders' theories and ideas don't apply to a lot of what we have to deal with in the 21st century. Is that really a surprise, that a document written when parchment was the written medium of choice, and the steam engine hadn't even been invented yet? The Founders wrote slavery into the Constitution, and no rights for women. They were wrong. They were wrong about a lot of stuff. A lot of stuff they made provisions for no longer apply, and a lot of stuff that is important to us today didn't even exist back then. The writers of the Constitution got a lot of stuff right, and left a lot of stuff vague for us to figure out later. They are called framers for a reason. They framed an unfinished picture that we had to create long after they were gone. They gave us an outline, but we have to fill in the details. We do that on a yearly, sometimes daily basis. They might have disagreed with his, but the Framers weren't prophets or gods, they were fallible, they were men, and they were wrong about a lot of stuff.
Wait...Let me get this straight.You think the Constitution is an aged document and that we should just "make it up as we go along"?
Isn't that what amendments are for? If the government should have power to change, grant, or revoke certain rights or responsibilities of the government and it's people, then do it through an amendment.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: That's a good analogy kmbboots, I've had a devil of a time convincing a few people I know to read Ender's Game, because their only familiarity with OSC is through his political writings.
I hate that. I tell people to just read it. Let the work stand on its own; you get more out of it by not tying the work of fiction down by things the author said and did in life afterwards.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Samp, if Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh wrote a fiction novel, and I recommended it to you, would you put aside your dislike for their ideas and personality and read it, letting the work stand on its own? Or would you not bother reading the work of someone you know to espouse vial social and political ideologies?
The people I'm talking about specifically are mostly progressive liberals. It's helpful that it's me recommending the book to them, as opposed to someone else. They know me and my reading tastes and trust me, and they're STILL having a tough time getting past what they know of OSC. Imagine if a mal or Ron Lambert type was doing the recommending.
I should say, it's a pretty small minority that are actually familiar with OSCs political writing and belief system. The vast majority of people I've recommended Ender's Game to have read it and loved it (and continued with the series). I've gotten one of my liberal activist friends to read it, and she's helping to put pressure on some of the other readers to give it a chance.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Orincoro: There's no need to be so aggressive towards Blayne. As somebody who has to frequently go back and correct posts for misspellings, grammar, and syntax, I know I greatly appreciate kinda correction rather than folks making light of my imperfections, and pressing their advantage.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Regarding the Reverend Wright, it occurred to me that an analogy for understanding President Obama's loyalty to Trinity UCC is the loyalty that people have to OSC even as his views get more hateful and extreme. Can you imagine what folks would think about fans of OSC if all the got were some snippets from his most racist or homophobic columns?
Not only was the Reverend Wright "American" enough to have served in the Marines, but he made Trinity a real power for good in Chicago. Neighborhood programs that have truly followed the Gospel in service to the poor and sick.
As he had gotten older, his views have become more extreme - a not-unusual phenomenon. He stepped down as pastor from Trinity shortly before all the controversy.
This does have the ring of truth.
There's a meme in academia that old professors should grant their grad students power of attorney in the likely event that they become crackpots with age.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Um, I did no such thing. I assume you agree that it's a dumb idea that Bush would have stopped the sinking of the Cheonan, especially given how murky the circumstances surrounding the incident are?
Hmm...But didn't Bush cause Hurricane Katrina? If he has the power to summon a huge storm, you would think he could stop a boat from sinking. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Editing my post as the message I wanted to say has been said, but shall still state that Orincolo should still take the first express one way plane ticket to hell asap.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Bullshit, I could say the same to you that you don't actually live in Czech republic but is probably some 60 year old fat transsexual who spends his evenings watching Will and Grace there is nothing substantial about your argument its just bullshit grasping at straws. ... you die and go to hell where you and your entire family belongs. ... You are a blind deliberately obtuse cunt.
Blayne, shut up and get the hell off this forum.
/edited to save even better portions
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Make me.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Heh. You know, that's probably the only obscenity that makes me cringe. I'm not even sure why exactly. It just feels so dirty.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Make me.
Not while you're so emotionally fragile. Maybe in time. Till then, someone should just get a hold of PJ personally and tell them Blayne's gone off the deep end and is spewing filth all over the place.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Make me.
Not while you're so emotionally fragile. Maybe in time. Till then, someone should just get a hold of PJ personally and tell them Blayne's gone off the deep end and is spewing filth all over the place.
I've done worse before and I'm still here and there's no way you could make me without sacrificing your own claims to want to fix this forum so go right ahead and try or forever hold your peace you coward.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Heh. That makes no sense.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Samprimary, Orincoro, is it such good fun to bait Blayne? You know that he is basically like a 12 year-old with no impulse control. What sport is that?
Blayne, could you try to consider the rest of us and work on some impulse control instead of like a four-year-old having a tantrum?
Please?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Orincoro: There's no need to be so aggressive towards Blayne. As somebody who has to frequently go back and correct posts for misspellings, grammar, and syntax, I know I greatly appreciate kinda correction rather than folks making light of my imperfections, and pressing their advantage.
Guilty of pressing my advantage, but we're talking about somebody who has a particular problem with understanding appropriateness of language and register in his writing, on both ends of the spectrum. We all make grammatical mistakes, but we do not all try to write above our ability. Our mistakes are a product of inattention, not a fundamentally unsound idea of how to express ourselves.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Um, I did no such thing. I assume you agree that it's a dumb idea that Bush would have stopped the sinking of the Cheonan, especially given how murky the circumstances surrounding the incident are?
Hmm...But didn't Bush cause Hurricane Katrina? If he has the power to summon a huge storm, you would think he could stop a boat from sinking.
Great, now I have an image of George Bush in a sheet, holding a trident and commanding the waves to rise up and obey his commands.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Bullshit, I could say the same to you that you don't actually live in Czech republic but is probably some 60 year old fat transsexual who spends his evenings watching Will and Grace there is nothing substantial about your argument its just bullshit grasping at straws. ... you die and go to hell where you and your entire family belongs. ... You are a blind deliberately obtuse cunt.
Blayne, shut up and get the hell off this forum.
Heh. I didn't catch the full context of this comment because it's apparently gone, but if I *do* know what it refers to... Blayne, I didn't say that I thought you were lying about being a student from China, I was saying that your English really *was* bad enough to cause me to believe that you were. You obviously don't remember that there was a time when you were unable to construct the simplest sentence in your native language. You claimed then that it was laziness that kept you from "spell-checking," as if your spelling was the main issue. The incredible improvements you've made have been thanks to your participation here and at Sake, and I'm sure other places. Don't bother to thank all those people who helped you over the years, only to see you become (remain) the tragic emotional wreck that you are today, mostly through your own actions. You can lie, but you can't fool.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Orincoro, Have you considered that pressing this advantage against someone who has an autism spectrum disorder reflects poorly on your judgement and your own impulse control?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't see how you could possibly lay the blame for Blayne's bad behavior at the foot of an autism spectrum disorder.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I don't see how you could possibly lay the blame for Blayne's bad behavior at the foot of an autism spectrum disorder.
Well he has been diagnosed with one and will soon be recognized by his University as needing special assistance. I don't know the details of his particular diagnosis, but it could definitely explain a lot of his behavior. Inappropriate social behavior, weak communication ability and poor impulse control are common to many types of autism. Why do you think its such an unlikely explanation?
It certainly doesn't justify his bad behavior, but I was referring specifically to Orincoro's statement
quote:Guilty of pressing my advantage, but we're talking about somebody who has a particular problem with understanding appropriateness of language and register in his writing, on both ends of the spectrum. We all make grammatical mistakes, but we do not all try to write above our ability.
Those particular problems really do scream ASD.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I don't know if Blayne has talked about these issues publicly on the forum, I don't follow many of his threads, but if he hasn't I'd think these kinds of discussions are out line. If he has, then I guess it's fair game.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I don't believe Blayne gets a free pass for having that sort of disorder. But I have sensed that he responds well to politeness, whereas if you hand him negative energy he amplifies it.
He's a good person, albeit with faults just like anybody else. He just needs people to applaud his goodness, and help him see where his faults fail to get him what he wants.
edit: That's certainly what I'd want as a person when I converse with others.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Bullshit, I could say the same to you that you don't actually live in Czech republic but is probably some 60 year old fat transsexual who spends his evenings watching Will and Grace there is nothing substantial about your argument its just bullshit grasping at straws. ... you die and go to hell where you and your entire family belongs. ... You are a blind deliberately obtuse cunt.
Blayne, shut up and get the hell off this forum.
Heh. I didn't catch the full context of this comment because it's apparently gone, but if I *do* know what it refers to... Blayne, I didn't say that I thought you were lying about being a student from China, I was saying that your English really *was* bad enough to cause me to believe that you were. You obviously don't remember that there was a time when you were unable to construct the simplest sentence in your native language. You claimed then that it was laziness that kept you from "spell-checking," as if your spelling was the main issue. The incredible improvements you've made have been thanks to your participation here and at Sake, and I'm sure other places. Don't bother to thank all those people who helped you over the years, only to see you become (remain) the tragic emotional wreck that you are today, mostly through your own actions. You can lie, but you can't fool.
This is wrong on so many levels.
First off I am not an emotional wreck that is your own imagination and delusions in your continued efforts to demonize myself and is entirely hyperbole, secondly as for 'writing above your ability' like it is some kind of crime is the height of your argumentative retardation (and I mean this figuratively) and is a part of a proven track record by you in regards to me as I recall your equally insipid "advice" sarcastic air quotes in regards to my novel brain storming thread which amounted to "don't bother trying" no one can in theory ever get anywhere without first trying to reach above whatever ability it is; Secondly I am not writing above my ability but perfectly within it laziness/tiredness notwithstanding.
I also challenge your memory of events as self-serving, biased, and selective if not outright fabrications of your damaged mind.
Any improvements I have made from when I registered in 2004 to now have been through the kind and constructive efforts of those who genuinely care here and at Sake not the efforts of the unwashed jerkasses whose idea of 'help' is to push someone in the direction of speeding traffic.
Your 'help' is not appreciated and you can seek your thanks elsewhere, preferably Chernobyl.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's an explanation. It's not an excuse. Unless the forum wants to make special accommodations for a poster needing special assistance and monitoring, the same rules that apply to the rest of us still apply to him, and as long as he's willfully not going to follow those rules* then Orincoro, or anyone else here for that matter, is perfectly allowed to restate their opposition to Blayne's characterization of them. Especially when it's so obscene.
*this is for the moment assuming that there is still some sort of intent to have someone enforcing rules around here.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
If by opposition you mean treating me like crap and more or less acting as bad to me as I have sure get along with that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: I don't know if Blayne has talked about these issues publicly on the forum, I don't follow many of his threads, but if he hasn't I'd think these kinds of discussions are out line. If he has, then I guess it's fair game.
He has definitely talked about the issue publically, that's how I know about it. The only contact I have with Blayne is on public forums. I'm not positive it was posted here, it may have been at sakeriver but the overlap between the 2 forums is large enough I doubt he'd post about it there if he wanted it kept secret here. If he has not discussed it here and did not want it discussed here, then I apologize.
I'm not suggesting that he be given a free pass to misbehave but there is quite a big difference between a free pass and "pressing your advantage" against someone with a disability.
[ June 01, 2010, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sure. It isn't an excuse. And perhaps Blayne isn't mature enough to be allowed to post here. In the meantime, practically and for the sake of the rest of us, couldn't you just ignore him instead of inciting him? Pretend he is the age he acts and that you are an adult.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The most I've said on the matter is "Except I am autistic" when one of them described me as acting like one. Open secret kind of thing.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
No it's not. I've seen you say more than that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Blayne, As I mentioned before, I don't remember if you posted it here or on sakeriver, but you have definitely said quite more than an occasional "except I am autistic".
As a friendly reminder (to you and everyone else here), after a couple weeks, I can't keep track of what was posted here and what was posted on sakeriver. I suspect I'm not alone.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Orincoro, Have you considered that pressing this advantage against someone who has an autism spectrum disorder reflects poorly on your judgement and your own impulse control?
Yes, I've considered it. I don't know what I should be expected to do in order to accommodate it. I don't feel particularly guilty or responsible for treating him like I would treat anybody who imposes himself on me and other people in inappropriate ways.
Blayne:
quote: no one can in theory ever get anywhere without first trying to reach above whatever ability it is
Granted. I was asserting that you were doing this not as a means to self-improvement, but as a means to self-aggrandizement. I am correct, by the way. If you were actually trying to improve your grasp of language, you would show the slightest interest in whatever productive process might enable you to do so. Faking it, and then pitching a fit when everybody notices your fakery is not that process. It is certainly *a* process, but one that fits rather neatly with your other need to inconvenience and agitate others in order to inflate your sense of importance.
quote: I also challenge your memory of events as self-serving, biased, and selective if not outright fabrications of your damaged mind.
I'm finding it difficult to search your posts of 5 years ago as you seem to have started over 300 threads in the last 18 months. If anyone has a way of finding some of the "essays" you posted here around your initial involvement in the forum, the facts will be quite clear.
quote: The most I've said on the matter is "Except I am autistic" when one of them described me as acting like one. Open secret kind of thing.
No, you have spoken about it at greater length and you have attempted to use it as an excuse for your inappropriate behavior, until you were cowed into stopping. Now it's a subtext of all your interactions, because aside from your having this problem, you are incorrigibly lazy, and this excuse allows you to ignore any rules you don't particularly care to follow, because the consequences for you have been lessened by the forbearance of kind-hearted people. Or else you are actively attempting to get yourself banned because your internet addiction has caused such massive problems in your life. I would bet on a combination of those factors.
quote: *this is for the moment assuming that there is still some sort of intent to have someone enforcing rules around here.
I am acting on the assumption that this is not the case. Else, I don't see how Blayne's behavior could not reasonably result in a ban.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Orincoro, Have you considered that pressing this advantage against someone who has an autism spectrum disorder reflects poorly on your judgement and your own impulse control?
Yes, I've considered it. I don't know what I should be expected to do in order to accommodate it. I don't feel particularly guilty or responsible for treating him like I would treat anybody who imposes himself on me and other people in inappropriate ways.
What do you think this will accomplish?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Yes, I've considered it. I don't know what I should be expected to do in order to accommodate it. I don't feel particularly guilty or responsible for treating him like I would treat anybody who imposes himself on me and other people in inappropriate ways
Ignore him. Recognize that what you are doing is totally counterproductive and actually provokes some of Blayne's worst outbursts. Stop provoking him.
You already admitted that you are guilty of pressing your advantage. There comes a point when one person's advantage over another is so great that pressing it is bullying. You are way past that point with Blayne.
He's an easy target. Be mature enough to recognize that your not scoring any points shooting at him.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
We *are* talking about an adult here. Perhaps an adult leach with no means of contributing to society, nor any desire to do so, but still an adult. It's charming that you treat him like he's still 15 and will grow up one day, but I'm not sanguine about that. I would rather he get frustrated and go away. Alternatively, I would rather he get so angry at me and my vastly superior intellect that he might actually *try* to become an adult, if only to join us, being unable to win against us.
What are you going to do, put his scribbled Maoist rants printed in creepy block lettering on sandwich paper on the refrigerator with a smiley-face magnet until he's 30? You think that's good for you?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: We *are* talking about an adult here. Perhaps an adult leach with no means of contributing to society, nor any desire to do so, but still an adult. It's charming that you treat him like he's still 15 and will grow up one day, but I'm not sanguine about that.
I know we are talking about an adult, but we are talking about an adult who seems incapable of acting like an adult. You are capable of acting like an adult but haven't been doing it lately.
quote:I would rather he get frustrated and go away. Alternatively, I would rather he get so angry at me and my vastly superior intellect that he might actually *try* to become an adult, if only to join us, being unable to win against us.
I think its more likely that Ron Lambert will convert KoM. Be realistic. Right now, you're just provoking him and thereby contributing to making this forum a far more unpleasant place.
quote:What are you going to do, put his scribbled Maoist rants printed in creepy block lettering on sandwich paper on the refrigerator with a smiley-face magnet until he's 30? You think that's good for you? [/QB]
I already told you what I do, I ignore him. I don't have to read his diatribes, I don't have to respond to him in anyway. Neither do you. Its called impulse control and its a sign of maturity.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We are talking about a developmentally disabled* adult. Have you seen any evidence that your hoped-for outcomes are at all likely? There is plenty of evidence that it just makes him worse and annoys many of the rest of us.
*Or at least challenged.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
There's an overarching issue here with the whole 'don't provoke' idea. blayne is not just subject to provocations in a vacuum. generally, he starts with his own fair share of provocations.
In a situation where he inserts himself into a conversation and fanatically disregards points of view different from his own on a subject he is obsessing on, often times succumbing to initial rudeness, he is then fired back upon. then he gets angrier and angrier and then holds feuds and short-fuses on people consistently. Then, some time later, has set this cycle in motion multiple times and people are exasperated with his consistent rudeness and apparent unwillingness or inability to change for the better. He invites and provokes, so that makes the issue of his own 'provocation' very, very muddy. And, 99 times out of 100, Blayne is the severe escalator.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I see, I care more about him than you two do. Must be why he hates me so much.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:There's an overarching issue here with the whole 'don't provoke' idea. blayne is not just subject to provocations in a vacuum. generally, he starts with his own fair share of provocations.
I don't care who starts it. Its easy to ignore Blayne and his diatribes. Its much harder to ignore half a dozen of you involved in a brawl. I'm not going after Blayne for his bad behavior because its pointless. I have some hope that you and Orincoro are mature enough to recognize that your behavior is contributing to the problem and to modify your own behavior.
But I've said that enough times already. So I won't mention it again.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I see, I care more about him than you two do. Must be why he hates me so much.
I care about him, I'm simply don't believe that my engaging him is likely to have any productive effect.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samp:
quote:In a situation where he inserts himself into a conversation and fanatically disregards points of view different from his own on a subject he is obsessing on, often times succumbing to initial rudeness, he is then fired back upon. then he gets angrier and angrier and then holds feuds and short-fuses on people consistently.
So don't fire back, the whole sequence changes when you stop it back at that step. I've seen many threads about religion where Blayne suddenly interjects a comment along the lines of religion being some phony baloney belief system that accepts the existence of superman. I could easily be snide and tell myself that I'm giving Blayne a taste of his own medicine. At my worst I tell him it bugged me that he did that, and that I wish he'd treat my beliefs with more respect. I've yet to see him rub my face in it when I approach him in that vein.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
I've been watching this for a long time. I wonder why Blayne keeps getting a free pass- is it his age? His immaturity? Some perceived parental attitude Hatrackers have toward him? All it does in embolden him to believe that his rude behavior and name calling are tolerated and justified in the face of provocation. Just a few posts up he says:
quote: I've done worse before and I'm still here and there's no way you could make me [leave] without sacrificing your own claims to want to fix this forum so go right ahead and try or forever hold your peace you coward. (edit mine)
Which, in my mind, amounts to "I got away with it before and nothing happened, so it must be ok." Regardless of the 'provocation' (and I use that word very loosely since most of the time I don't see provocation, but instead observation, advice and correction of Blayne's posts) this kind of behavior is ridiculous. The answer always comes down to "well, you made me say it!"
I don't remember anyone ever being called a c*nt on Hatrack before- ever. Let alone nothing happen when it was done. Nor do I remember anyone seriously challenging a fellow Hatracker to pistols at dawn (KoM to Ron, despite how deliberately obtuse Ron is.)
Why did Baldar get banned again? Or Cedrios?
Oh well... <goes back to lurking>
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Sometimes it's hard to separate demonstrating your expertise from simply expecting people to believe you because you're an authority. I think it's probably something we could all improve at.
Just for the record, I'd like to take this opportunity to observe that this is actually something I'm very good at. I have mastered this technique by not appearing to have any expertise at all.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Samp:
quote:In a situation where he inserts himself into a conversation and fanatically disregards points of view different from his own on a subject he is obsessing on, often times succumbing to initial rudeness, he is then fired back upon. then he gets angrier and angrier and then holds feuds and short-fuses on people consistently.
So don't fire back, the whole sequence changes when you stop it back at that step.
This only works if everyone universally adopts an official "Do not respond to blayne" policy. Not only is that not going to happen because he WILL sleight someone invariably when it comes to disagreement over issues like, say, China, or Russia, or "blayne, could you please stop cluttering the front page with so many threads" and it's suddenly 'provocation."
The responsibility for blayne not flaming out and hurling invective and swear words and malicious insults and hatred at the rest of the forum lies with Blayne and nobody else. If he cannot handle "provocation," he should not be here.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by IanO: Some perceived parental attitude Hatrackers have toward him?
Yes, there's been a lot of that. It wanes every time he flames out, but you get a big sense of those who stick with the whole notion that the entire forum needs to 'play nice' with him.
quote:Regardless of the 'provocation' (and I use that word very loosely since most of the time I don't see provocation, but instead observation, advice and correction of Blayne's posts) this kind of behavior is ridiculous. The answer always comes down to "well, you made me say it!"
I don't remember anyone ever being called a c*nt on Hatrack before- ever. Let alone nothing happen when it was done. Nor do I remember anyone seriously challenging a fellow Hatracker to pistols at dawn (KoM to Ron, despite how deliberately obtuse Ron is.)
Why did Baldar get banned again? Or Cedrios?
Oh well... <goes back to lurking>
^^^^^^^^^^^^
What this dude said x1000
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Hell, I love America, and I think the Founders' theories and ideas don't apply to a lot of what we have to deal with in the 21st century. Is that really a surprise, that a document written when parchment was the written medium of choice, and the steam engine hadn't even been invented yet? The Founders wrote slavery into the Constitution, and no rights for women. They were wrong. They were wrong about a lot of stuff. A lot of stuff they made provisions for no longer apply, and a lot of stuff that is important to us today didn't even exist back then. The writers of the Constitution got a lot of stuff right, and left a lot of stuff vague for us to figure out later. They are called framers for a reason. They framed an unfinished picture that we had to create long after they were gone. They gave us an outline, but we have to fill in the details. We do that on a yearly, sometimes daily basis. They might have disagreed with his, but the Framers weren't prophets or gods, they were fallible, they were men, and they were wrong about a lot of stuff.
Wait...Let me get this straight.You think the Constitution is an aged document and that we should just "make it up as we go along"?
Isn't that what amendments are for? If the government should have power to change, grant, or revoke certain rights or responsibilities of the government and it's people, then do it through an amendment.
Yes, and sort of. I'm actually not sure why you put "make it up as we go along" in quotations, since nowhere in the quote block do I actually say that. But really, what do you think the Supreme Court does in a daily basis? If we all knew exactly how to apply the Constitution in every situation, SCOTUS wouldn't exit. The Founders created an extremely vague document in a lot of areas, and really had little idea as to how it would actually be applied in real life. Other than maybe Hamilton, I'd be willing to bet that most of the Founders wouldn't have either anticipated or readily welcomed how Chief Justice Marshall formed the power of the federal government in the first couple decades of America's existence.
So yes, we made up a LOT of stuff as we went along. We didn't do it without some pretty defined guidelines, but a lot of what is judge-made law was not specifically codified.
The amendment process was intentionally made to be extremely difficult, and it has only become more difficult as national growth has exploded. If the government had to specifically have an amendment passed to back-up every judgment made by SCOTUS, we would have only a fraction of the legal protections that we enjoy today.
How do you view the Constitution? You seem to take serious issue with the basic construction of the document, and at the same time are trying to defend it against what you perceive to be attacks, but are really just realities.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I would rather he get frustrated and go away. Alternatively, I would rather he get so angry at me and my vastly superior intellect that he might actually *try* to become an adult, if only to join us, being unable to win against us.
I think its more likely that Ron Lambert will convert KoM. Be realistic. Right now, you're just provoking him and thereby contributing to making this forum a far more unpleasant place.
Theoretically, I think p(Blayne going away) >> ( p(Ron converting KoM) ~= p(Blayne becoming an adult) given that Blayne is already fairly frustrated on a regular basis anyways.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Its easy to ignore Blayne and his diatribes. Its much harder to ignore half a dozen of you involved in a brawl.
It is easy for one person to walk on eggshells around Blayne. I find it highly unlikely that given the number of posters on Hatrack that everyone will manage to walk on eggshells to the extent that we don't get regular injections of swearing and whatnot from Blayne (as you seem to concede actually).
It all depends on how you weight the difficulty of ignoring Blayne for a very long time against ignoring much of Hatrack for a short time.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)