So Donald Trump is planning on running for President. He's all but announced already. The only reason he's waiting is that he doesn't want to screw NBC over by making them pull his show, which would be the case if he announces.
He was on the Today Show this morning, and he had a lot of good things to say. He's tied for second place among Republican potential candidates, and he's leading the Tea Party potentials.
For all of his faults, the guy knows business. He's more likely to be able to deal with the country's economic problems than Obama. As he pointed out, Obama doesn't know how to get people to work together. He didn't point out that Obama almost never compromises on anything, but it's true.
This is going to be a very interesting ride.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:For all of his faults, the guy knows business.
He knows how to fail them while profiting personally, if that's what you mean.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
He's a joke candidate who's servicing his own ego and giving the media something to exclaim about. He's also a social liberal who's on his 4th way too young trophy wife, and even if the Tea Party can overlook that the rest of the Republican party won't.
This is kinda like when you thought Ron Paul had a chance in hell, Lisa.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: He knows how to fail them while profiting personally, if that's what you mean.
So he IS qualified! Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
I'm of two minds on this.
On one hand, at least with other candidates the ties to big business aren't so blatant and out in the open.
On the other hand, he's rich enough to not be beholden to anyone (theoretically).
I'd rather have Trump than Palin, though. But at this point, that's still a choice between two turds.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: For all of his faults, the guy knows business. He's more likely to be able to deal with the
Yes, he's the special kind of businessman it takes to succesfully bankrupt a casino.
What I'm really looking for in a president is someone who managed to waste loads of capital egregiously and get himself to be worth millions of dollars less than the average homeless person.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Maybe a presidential campaign would finally get him to change his hairdo. That alone would be worth it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lisa, this will sound like a shot but I really don't mean it that way. But reading your praise of Trump, it made me think that it's pretty impressive what people will overlook when someone says the kinds of things they like. Because I could be wrong, but if someone who wasn't saying a bunch of things you liked but nevertheless had identical business qualifications as Trump...well, I just very much doubt you'd be saying 'he knows business'.
---------
This is a bit more of a shot, because it's really a pretty silly remark you made: you're absolutely right that Obama almost never compromises. His base, for example, particularly from the campaign, is thrilled with the way he's absolutely stuck to his guns on issues across the board.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
On Trump: "The last thing this country needs is a showboat, I would hope we could get serious candidates who could shake things up by not saying provocative things, just by stating the truth of what's going on." - Glenn Beck
Man, if you're too out there for Glenn Beck...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: He's a joke candidate who's servicing his own ego and giving the media something to exclaim about.
Bingo.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A joke candidate servicing his own ego polls second among republicans.
Good news for the republicans, though: if you understand polls beyond a superficial level, you know these polls might as well be considered a glorified name recognition test.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Trump would make a terrible president, I'm skeptical that he has any experience with the constitution or even views it with anything less than contempt as an obstacle to his own profits.
That and his blatant tea party pandering like asking for Obama's birth certificate despite it being a dead horse trope at this point makes me believe he lacks the substance to carry on a campaign based on the issues or public trust.
I still tentatively have high hopes for Mitt Romney (we both like Battlefield Earth!!!) as he has the same "business credentials" but less of the pompous baggage.
He even looks presidential. Trump looks like a banana republic dictator with a bad hair day.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:asking for Obama's birth certificate despite it being a dead horse trope at this point
It's a dead horse, unless you're wallowing in the general insanity of the conservative core.
Birtherism is alive and well within the GOP ranks, and their 2012 nominee preferences tell a story about the difficulty Mitt Romney faces in trying to appeal to an electorate that's a whole lot further out there than he is.
Birthers make a majority among those voters who say they're likely to participate in a Republican primary next year. 51% say they don't think Barack Obama was born in the United States to just 28% who firmly believe that he was and 21% who are unsure. The GOP birther majority is a new development. The last time PPP tested this question nationally, in August of 2009, only 44% of Republicans said they thought Obama was born outside the country while 36% said that he definitely was born in the United States. If anything, birtherism is on the rise.
How does this impact Romney? Well, among the 49% of GOP primary voters who either think Obama was born in the United States or aren't sure, Romney's the first choice to be the 2012 nominee by a good amount, getting 23% to 16% for Mike Huckabee, 11% for Sarah Palin, and 10% for Newt Gingrich. But with the birther majority he's in a distant fourth place at 11%, with Mike Huckabee at 24%, Sarah Palin at 19%, and Newt Gingrich at 14% all ahead of him. That pushes him into a second place finish overall at 17% with Mike Huckabee again leading the way this month at 20%. Palin's third with 15%, followed by Gingrich at 12%, Ron Paul at 8%, Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty at 4%, and John Thune at 1%.
There is really a remarkable divide in how the birther and non-birther wings of the GOP view Sarah Palin. With the birthers she is a beloved figure, scoring an 83/12 favorability rating. Non-birthers are almost evenly divided on her with 47% rating her positively and 40% unfavorably.
This is yet another poll where we find Palin with the highest favorability among Republican primary voters but still lagging in the horse race. 65% have a positive opinion of her compared to 58% for Huckabee and 55% for Romney and Gingrich. Her problem is that even though they like her, few GOP voters think Palin's qualified to be President. Asked whether she's more qualified to be President or Vice President, only 29% of voters place her in the top spot compared to 46% who say she'd be a more appropriate number 2.
On the President/Vice President qualification question only Romney reaches a majority on the qualified to be President card with 50% saying he's most equipped for that position to 24% who think he'd make a better Vice President. Huckabee has 44% who think he's suited to be President to 28% who think he'd fit more in the VP slot, and Gingrich has 27% who consider him more Presidential to 37% that think he's more Vice Presidential.
It's a clear sign of weakness for the GOP field that only one of its leading potential candidates is considered to be Presidential material even by a majority of the party base.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:For all of his faults, the guy knows business.
He knows how to fail them while profiting personally, if that's what you mean.
This man speaks the truth.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Trump is old money. It is easy to make millions when you start from millions. He is entirely trumped (get it?) by people half his age (the Google guys Brin and Page) etc.
He is, completely, a mediocre businessman at best. The NYC real estate market was a gem at the time and he still managed to hurrrrrrrrrrr his way down to being the holder of tens of millions of dollars of debt.
Yes, EXACTLY what I'm looking for in my new corporate overlords.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: So Donald Trump is planning on running for President. He's all but announced already. The only reason he's waiting is that he doesn't want to screw NBC over by making them pull his show, which would be the case if he announces.
He was on the Today Show this morning, and he had a lot of good things to say. He's tied for second place among Republican potential candidates, and he's leading the Tea Party potentials.
For all of his faults, the guy knows business. He's more likely to be able to deal with the country's economic problems than Obama. As he pointed out, Obama doesn't know how to get people to work together. He didn't point out that Obama almost never compromises on anything, but it's true.
This is going to be a very interesting ride.
Is this ride you are talking about the ride of you coming to understand that trump has a 0% chance of winning?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The good news about Republican primary voters (I think and I hope) is that it's a self-correcting problem. By that I mean that the situation as it stands right now-the primary voters being just wacky as hell overall in significant numbers-puts me in mind of the film Other People's Money, and Danny Devito's character's speech at the end. The relevant quote, "What's the best way to go broke? Get an ever-increasing share of a shrinking market."
Voters get LESS far right and wacky over time, usually. So this brand of the problem solves itself.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Maybe its self correcting in that the conservative base that powers the gop candidates into office is growing really, really old.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Exactly.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
I'm hoping that Trump doesn't get the nod - I want it to go to Palin.
Yes, Palin.
I want her to get so trounced in the Obama/Palin race that she's never taken seriously again. Heck, I think I'll even vote Obama if she does (as an anyone but Palin vote).
The Republicans are full of rotten wood that needs to be culled, for the good of the party and the nation.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I would pay to see a Trump/Palin debate, though.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
What about a Trump/Palin ticket?
Though my personal favorite would be Bachman/Palin, so I can wear my Bachman-Palin Overdrive shirt.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I want one of those shirts.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Between catchy campaign slogans like "takin care of business" and "you aint seen nothing yet" it's like it was meant to be!
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
A Trump/Palin debate would make a fantastic drinking game.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Wow. And here I thought there might be some intelligent or mature responses. I guess I should have known better.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
In a thread about Donald Trump!? Mr "Why hasn't Obama showed his birth certificate?"
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: A Trump/Palin debate would make a fantastic drinking game.
Oh dear god, yes. Let's make this happen, people.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Wow. And here I thought there might be some intelligent or mature responses. I guess I should have known better.
You got plenty of intelligent responses. And they approach your original post with about all the maturity you've earned.
Do all your political threads follow the same theme? Do you really believe trump is going to be a serious contender who can win the nomination?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I used to think that being a businessman was a great preparation for being president. My 6th grade class voted Ross Perot president in our mock election, and I was one of his supporters.
Now that I'm a bit older, I think that at best it is a neutral qualifier. I don't think the federal government should be run like a business in most respects. So I think having lots of experience in business management may actually work against someone being a good president.
The list of past presidents by occupation shows that only Bush I and II have had a primarily business background, and both of them had previous government experience that were presented as their primary qualifications.
Looking over the list, it seems that being a lawyer is the best way to get elected president, though both good leaders and bad were such. I'm a little shocked at how many of them have a background as such, I would have guessed much lower.
This is of course ignoring the fact that Trump really isn't a very good businessman, as others have alluded to. The federal government can't very well declare bankruptcy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lisa, your primary two points - that Trump 'knows business' and that Obama never compromises - are about as close to factually inactivate as an opinion question in politics can get, and judging by your lack of response to those points when you're usually quite willing to go head to head in spite of all sorts of direct unpleasantness (to or from you), it really looks like you know it, but don't want to admit it.
I could be wrong, but that would involve somehow demonstrating what a good businemann Trump is, and how Obama almost never compromises. Rather than simply stating it and getting huffy when people respond with laughter.
To a Republican candidate liked by the Tea Party that *Glenn Beck* thinks is bad. You're right-when people laugh at at that, theyre being immature.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Trump is, as the moment, being a painfully stereotypical Republican. He's tacking hard to the right - really hard to the right given that he's courting birthers - and then once he wins the primary, he'll pretend that none of it ever happened to try and court Hispanics and centrists.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I'd like to question the entire premise that a candidate who "knows business" would make a good choice for president.
It's an assumption of a sort I've seen made all over the place. For example, some of my friends who've been successful in business treat their success as a marker of understanding about the economy as a whole.
In fact, running one successful business won't teach you all that much about a system as large and complicated as the US economy. Instead, what you get is a very small (and therefore most likely very biased) sample of observations of economic activity. Really, you become good at running your business and dealing with the good and bad fortunes that have arisen for that particular business. This is not reliable information about the whole economic system.
To say that a successful business person must "understand the economy" is kind of like saying that a healthy person must understand medicine. For my part, although I have concerns about some aspects of economics, I'd much sooner trust a trained economist who's studied the big picture than a business person who's likely to generalize from a very limited set of experiences.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
to be sure, there's a degree of understanding in law and business (not to mention, of course, politics) which is pretty vital to being a competent representative, but this doesn't have to be paired with actually being a business owner or lawyer, or anything of the sort. In the case of persons like Trump or GWB, their business history and the 'acumen' it presents through example are more like a warning flag. A demonstration of why not to elect them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Wow. And here I thought there might be some intelligent or mature responses. I guess I should have known better.
This is ridiculous. Expected of you, I guess, but ridiculous. You have plenty of intelligent responses. They include good countercharges to your propositions that you apparently want to shy away from.
quote:The list of past presidents by occupation shows that only Bush I and II have had a primarily business background, and both of them had previous government experience that were presented as their primary qualifications.
Bush's business history was ... remarkably terrible, when you look at it. Arbusto, Spectrum 7 Energy Corp., Harken Energy — man, check out what happened.
[ April 08, 2011, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: The list of past presidents by occupation shows that only Bush I and II have had a primarily business background, and both of them had previous government experience that were presented as their primary qualifications.
What about Coolidge and Hoover?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Coolidge's history is much more of a nod to the importance of law/lawyering. Hoover, for all his experience, came off poorly in trying to handle the economic crisis.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
He felt Rugged Individualism could solve the depression!
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Part of me thinks Trump is just talking about running to give himself a popularity boost. Fighting with Rosie O'Donnell worked, so why not try to run for president? I don't really believe he thinks he could win.
If President Obama wins a second term I don't think it will because he has led well, it will be because the Republicans couldn't find someone better. None of the candidates have the charisma or swagger that Obama does, and like it or not that matters.
I wouldn't mind seeing Paul Ryan as a VP candidate though. I haven't read his budget yet, but I have to give him credit for actually putting in the work to write his proposal up and present it.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I think Trump IS serious about running. But I also think he realizes he's going to have a tough time selling the Republican base, particularly the religious right. So what he's doing is actually a very smart move...embrace the tea party and ride it for all it's worth. Whether he actually believes all the birther nonsense I'm not sure, but he's certainly playing it up well.
Posted by Ghost of Xavier (Member # 2852) on :
I agree Strider, but either way I think he is scum.
This morning I was trying to determine whether I would think worse of him for being an idiot, or to pandering to idiots.
When the majority of likely Republican primary voters are stupid, this is a smart move.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A poster named Ratiocinative presented this theory, which at least deserves some discussion (even if it can't necessarily be perfectly verified):
quote: Trump is filling a vital role right now for the Republicans. He is serving as the "belligerent candidate" - the guy who can stir up dissent by directly appealing to the ignorance that permeates the lowest common denominator base of the party, doing so while at the same time isolating himself from the other Republican candidates who may actually have a chance of winning.
Notice how Trump has become the birther mouthpiece now? That is all by design. The reason he is doing that is because his task as a candidate is not to win the election. His job is to appeal directly to the racist beliefs that a large portion of the Republican demographic suffer from by further selling the idea that Obama is an African muslim non-American.
You see, the Republicans need someone right now who they know is not going to win the election for them but who will still stand there in front the cameras and pander to the idiots out there and enforce their inherent prejudices about Obama. This is not something that a real viable Republican candidate could typically get away with, so instead, Trump is filling that role for them. His task is to do exactly what he is doing - keeping the birther conspiracy front and center. The Republican party knows that if they want to beat Obama, they are going to have to really push the racist agenda to stir up their voter base and get people to the polls, but they have to tread carefully when doing so, lest they risk it backfiring on them. Trump, who they know is not going to win, is perfect for the task, because not only is he an arrogant loudmouth, he is also enough of an outsider that the other Republican candidates can appear to separate themselves from his racist birther rhetoric while at the same time still capitalizing on the dissent that rhetoric stirs amongst their base.
It is all a game. This is how upper echelon politics works. Trump is a patsy - there to say the shit that the later more viable candidates cannot say.
combine this with the musings of public policy polling above (the difficulty Mitt Romney faces in trying to appeal to an electorate that's a whole lot further out there than he is) and it really creates something for thought.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
They can't seem to find their butt with both hands - this may be a bit past their ability. I won't say it's past their ethics, though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, while they still might be the the best laid schemes of mice and men, it still seems a possible scheme.
Or Trump is just egoboatin' uselessly, whatever
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:They can't seem to find their butt with both hands...
I wouldn't say that. Republican strategists have proven very, very good at the long game.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
How long are we talking? I guess I base a lot of that "meh" on the recent elections. The national Republican party didn't seem to know what to do.
Posted by Graeme (Member # 12543) on :
It's always effective to attribute racism to a political position; many people won't want to have that kind of accusation apply to them, so they will often abandon the position as a result. I'm sure many birthers hold their position out of a deep dislike for president Obama, whether because they are actually racists or because they disagree with his politics. However, questioning where the president was born is not in itself a trivial manner, to be dismissed out of hand. It all depends on the evidence. I haven't researched the matter myself much, but it seems any legitimate questioning of the president's birth country would be ended by the presentation of an actual birth certificate. Trump, for example, believes there is an important distinction between a birth certificate and a certificate of live birth. Any legal mavens here know if there is an important distinction?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Trump, for example, believes there is an important distinction between a birth certificate and a certificate of live birth. Any legal mavens here know if there is an important distinction?
No, there is no legal distinction. It's just arbitrary nomenclature. A state may keep an original record (but is no obligation to do so) or they may just keep an electronic record. All that legally matters is the document produced when requesting proof of birth from the state.
The document produced by Obama is what any normal citizen would get if they asked for their birth certificate and meets any sane standard (and ALL legal standards) of evidence for his Hawaiian birth.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Wow. And here I thought there might be some intelligent or mature responses. I guess I should have known better.
Lisa: Why do you feel he could handle our economic issues?
I think the fact he has had to declare bankruptcy thrice, as well as indicating that he wouldn't pay back a loan Deutsche Bank gave him because the 2008 financial crisis was an "act of God", as good enough reasons to doubt his technical skill when it comes to economics, and suspect his early success (and a rich father), coupled with a lot of charisma and name recognition has allowed him to go as far as he has.
Note, I'm not trying to defend Obama's economic credentials, merely indicate that Trump is not somebody I would see especially desireable when it comes to managing a government as a business. I think Mitt Romney is far stronger when it comes to that sort of business acumen.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
And Romney likes Battlefield Earth, he'ld get my vote if Obama wasn't the Dem candidate.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:However, questioning where the president was born is not in itself a trivial manner, to be dismissed out of hand.
See, I dispute this. I think it is trivial.
The point of the "natural born" restriction was, at the time of the founding of the country, intended to prevent people whose allegiance was owed to one of the many larger foreign powers from moving to America and essentially handing the government over -- in spirit or in practice -- to the nation of their birth. We were at that time a small country beholden to the European powers, and wanted to keep ourselves free from their influence -- something that was driven home again and again in the early years, and which was made crucially important by the influx of European immigrants who brought with them the culture and political leanings of their home country.
But now? Does anyone here really think that, even if Obama were actually born in Kenya or Indonesia, that he is in some way more loyal to Kenya or Indonesia than to America? What possible reason might someone have to believe this?
The "natural-born" requirement might be said to be non-trivial for those people who immigrated here as adults, who might be legitimately considered to have strong sympathies for their original homeland -- but do we believe for a moment that John McCain thinks of himself as first and foremost someone born in Panama?
It's a ridiculous conceit, and I think we do the Birthers an enormous favor by even pretending otherwise.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Natural-born doesn't even require a person be born on US soil, only that they be a citizen from birth, which Obama is even if he were born outside the US. Making the whole thing even sillier than it was before.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Natural-born doesn't even require a person be born on US soil, only that they be a citizen from birth, which Obama is even if he were born outside the US.
That's part of the dispute, neh? (The second half about Obama, not the first half about what natural-born means.)
Posted by Graeme (Member # 12543) on :
quote:See, I dispute this. I think it is trivial.
I agree that this requirement for president should be changed, for all the reasons you mentioned, Tom. As it stands right now, it is a part of the constitution, and as such it isn't a trivial matter. The process of amendment is the only legitimate -- and legal -- way to deviate from the document.
Which brings me to my own theory as to who's behind the birther issue...
Who stands the most to gain from the birther controversy? Who will benefit most from Americans realizing how silly is the antiquated requirement of being born in the United States?
That's right. He may be gone from politics for now. But he'll be back.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Graeme: Who will benefit most from Americans realizing how silly is the antiquated requirement of being born in the United States?
That's right. He may be gone from politics for now. But he'll be back.
Interesting theory.
Posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask (Member # 1546) on :
Trump sounds better than anything else the GOP is offering. Palin is too hated by the left. Mitt Romney is a liberal in Republican clothing.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Mitt Romney is a liberal in Republican clothing.
To me, it looks more like he's a classic Reagan-esque Republican in contemporary hard-right Republican clothing.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:However, questioning where the president was born is not in itself a trivial manner, to be dismissed out of hand.
See, I dispute this. I think it is trivial.
And it was not dismissed out of hand when it was raised. His birth records satisfied inquiries from the state department, two federal judges, the Hawaii Department of Health, the FBI, and every major newspaper in America.
"THEY'RE NOT CHECKING INTO THIS!" EGADS! Because when they checked into it, everything checked out. It's like the birthers have some weird collective form of obsessive compulsive disorder: "Check now... maybe it's different now... you didn't check it all the way, you need to check it again... if you don't something TERRIBLE WILL HAPPEN!"
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Natural-born doesn't even require a person be born on US soil, only that they be a citizen from birth, which Obama is even if he were born outside the US.
That's part of the dispute, neh?
What dispute? Of what dispute do you speak? By what reasonable measure would you consider this issue to be in dispute? Because personally I don't think it's good enough just to say: "some people think." That's not a dispute, that's a delusion- and it's one politicians are far too keen to take advantage of. They might as well campaign against elf-invasions, because some people out there probably think such a thing is likely to happen. Come to think, a whole hell of a lot of campaigning seems to be based on the nurturing of comfortable delusion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It pounds on the idea that Pres. Obama is different from real Americans. It is obvious that he is Not Like Us. Of course it makes perfect sense that he is Not From Here.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
That is word for word what they on the hard right believe.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Mitt Romney is a liberal in Republican clothing.
To me, it looks more like he's a classic Reagan-esque Republican in contemporary hard-right Republican clothing.
I would never have imagined that I would live to see the day when Reagan's politics would be viewed as liberal.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: That is word for word what they on the hard right believe.
I don't know what is believed, but I think that it is useful for the Republican party.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I think it is a little ridiculous that this birther issue keeps popping up. That being said, I can see why some would still have issues with it.
Some of the more popular arguments:
His own grandmother is on video saying that she remembers his birth in Kenya.
Hawaii has given certificates of live birth to other people not born in Hawaii.
His mother did not fulfill the 5 year residency requirement for her son to be a US citizen.
His school records in Indonesia have his nationality listed as Indonesian. (Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship at the time, and you had to be an Indonesian citizen to attend school)
His adopted father was an Indonesian citizen, which according to Indonesian law at the time makes him a natural Indonesian citizen.
That is a few of the arguments. PLEASE NOTE I am not agreeing with any of them, just pointing them out.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Mitt Romney is a liberal in Republican clothing.
To me, it looks more like he's a classic Reagan-esque Republican in contemporary hard-right Republican clothing.
To me, he seems more like a businessman. He does his market research, figures out what people want, and then sells it to them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The problem with taking those arguments seriously, and with crediting those who take them seriously as honest* people, Geraine, is that many of those arguments even on casual examination are simply bunk.
Hawaii has given birth certificates to people not born in Hawaii-so we should take that as evidence that because he has one, he's not born in Hawaii? No.
It doesn't matter what Indonesia says about what sort of citizen Obama was when he attended school. Mars could say he's a Martian[/i] citizen, that doesn't somehow obliviate American citizenship. And so on and so forth. The only argument in favor of this birther nonsense is, "I really, really don't want him to be my President, and look! He might not be an American at all!"
It's just nonsense. We should stop pretending these arguments are motivated by, at best, blatant partisanship and at worst many other unpleasant things such as jingoism, racism, and Islamaphobia.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: ...just pointing them out.
That is a whole hell of a long way from a good enough reason to bring them up. Every time you do, despite the innumerable times that each has been satisfactorily dismissed, you get the opportunity to let them *not* be heard again. This lends them legitimacy. This is why no matter how closed the case is ( though it was *never* in doubt), there will be those who keep harping. You are not doing anyone any favors, and it's fairly lame of you to pretend like you are.
And I stress, Geraine, *satisfactorily* resolved and dismissed. Though each is already a non-issue, extensive research has gone into debunking every single one. And you post them as if this is not true. Not okay.
Posted by Graeme (Member # 12543) on :
Trump seems to be taking on the Reagan mantle of Defender of American Pride. As in Reagan's "It's Morning in America", Trump asserts the need to reclaim America's mojo. (Paraphrase of Trump: "They [other nations] are laughing at us. They won't laugh at us if I'm president.") It's on this issue, confidence and pride, that will garner him the greatest support, IMO.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't think it's quite clear that's what Geraine did, Orincoro-that he posted as though they hadn't been debunked. He did say it was ridiculous they keep getting brought up, but then went on to list a bunch of arguments as to why without context. I think overall the tone of his post was ambiguous, not 'posted as if they hadn't been debunked'.
But, y'know, listen-you shouldn't let that possibility stop you from getting borderline personally insulting or anything, and ratcheting up the nastiness in the discussion.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Graeme: Trump seems to be taking on the Reagan mantle of Defender of American Pride. As in Reagan's "It's Morning in America", Trump asserts the need to reclaim America's mojo. (Paraphrase of Trump: "They [other nations] are laughing at us. They won't laugh at us if I'm president.") It's on this issue, confidence and pride, that will garner him the greatest support, IMO.
He's delusional. The entire world will be laughing at us if we elect Trump.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Fact Check on Trump's accusations (and some of Germaine's questions)
quote: He claims the president’s grandmother says Obama was born in Kenya. In fact, the recording to which he refers shows Sarah Obama repeatedly saying through a translator: "He was born in America."
He claims that no hospital in Hawaii has a record of Obama’s birth. Hospital records are confidential under federal law, but Honolulu’s Kapi’olani Medical Center has published a letter from Obama calling it "the place of my birth," thus publicly confirming it as his birthplace.
He insists that the official "Certification of Live Birth" that Obama produced in 2008 is "not a birth certificate." That’s wrong. The U.S. Department of State uses "birth certificate" as a generic term to include the official Hawaii document, which satisfies legal requirements for proving citizenship and obtaining a passport.
He claims that there’s no signature or certification number on the document released by Obama. Wrong again. Photos of the document, which we posted in 2008, clearly show those details.
He says newspaper announcements of Obama’s birth that appeared in Hawaii newspapers in 1961 "probably" were placed there fraudulently by his now-deceased American grandparents. Actually, a state health department official and a former managing editor of one of the newspapers said the information came straight from the state health department.
He claims "nobody knew" Obama when he was growing up and "nobody ever comes forward" who knew him as a child. "If I ever decide to run, you may go back and interview people from my kindergarten," Trump said. Well, two retired kindergarten teachers in a 2009 news story fondly recall teaching a young Barack Obama.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I don't think it's quite clear that's what Geraine did, Orincoro-that he posted as though they hadn't been debunked. He did say it was ridiculous they keep getting brought up, but then went on to list a bunch of arguments as to why without context. I think overall the tone of his post was ambiguous, not 'posted as if they hadn't been debunked'.
The post left a bad taste in my mouth too. It's like someone posting a bunch of the arguments claiming the moon landing was a hoax and saying "though I'm not saying I agree with these".
Then why post them? We already know what all the arguments are, and they've ALL been thoroughly debunked.
If you keep claiming to believe in something despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you are either ignorant, an idiot, a fraud, or insane.
This is true whether you are a birther, a moon hoaxer, a 911 truther, or some other brand of this same phenomenon.
That 51% of likely Republican primary voters buy into the nonsense makes me very sad for our country, and that's not rhetoric or hyperbole.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I agree that it was bad on, y'know, honest politics grounds. I just don't agree that it was as bad as was suggested. It wasn't a slam dunk 'you get the sneering dripping-with-disdain' response, particularly since it opened up with a mixed message stating that the whole thing was a bit ridiculous.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Agreed. Overreaction is something of a known problem for Orincoro, though that shouldn't excuse the behavior.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: If you keep claiming to believe in something despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you are either ignorant, an idiot, a fraud, or insane.
I don't think so. I think that one can just be really, really invested in whatever it is they believe or conditioned to believe it.
Posted by Graeme (Member # 12543) on :
quote:The entire world will be laughing at us if we elect Trump.
Many will. And, as the Graemlin in your post demonstrates, many Americans will be laughing along with them.
But I think many Americans have a bruised ego. The explosive growth of China's economy, the lengthy wars in the middle east, the international berating brought on by the Bush administration, and especially the financial crisis have left many Americans doubting their strength and importance. Trump hopes to tap into this discontent and prove that he, a successful* billionaire, can get tough and make America great again.
*(I understand many dispute this. But the man is a billionaire, and, lest we forget, a celebrity. That is sufficient for many people, though obviously not for most Hatrackers.)
P.S. Can anyone tell me how to include a poster's name within the Quote, as in "originally posted by X"? I can only find the button for creating an indented quote by itself. Thanks.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
The little quote marks image over every post, to the right of the timestamp. Click that, and you'll go to reply mode with the post in the proper quote tags.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Graeme: P.S. Can anyone tell me how to include a poster's name within the Quote, as in "originally posted by X"? I can only find the button for creating an indented quote by itself. Thanks.
Click on the quotation marks that are at the end header line for the post of interest. It will insert the entire post into your reply box with the header "Originally posted by". I then edit out anything I don't want to quote.
Posted by Graeme (Member # 12543) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: The little quote marks image over every post, to the right of the timestamp. Click that, and you'll go to reply mode with the post in the proper quote tags.
Ahh, I see. Thank you, AFR. Now I feel like a real hatracker.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I thought you weren't a real Hatracker until you were eaten by Slash the Berzerker.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
By that logic I'm not a real Hatracker and I've been moderating the place. Uh oh...
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I don't think it's quite clear that's what Geraine did, Orincoro-that he posted as though they hadn't been debunked. He did say it was ridiculous they keep getting brought up, but then went on to list a bunch of arguments as to why without context. I think overall the tone of his post was ambiguous, not 'posted as if they hadn't been debunked'.
But, y'know, listen-you shouldn't let that possibility stop you from getting borderline personally insulting or anything, and ratcheting up the nastiness in the discussion.
I was actually reponding to the other posters that made it seem like the only thing the birthers were harping on was the "Born in America" argument. I was simply pointing out that their arguments go beyond that. I didn't bring up the birther issue in the first place so frankly I don't understand the dogpile.
As for Orincoro, I'm used to it. I feel like I could copy a post he wrote word for word and present it as my own and he'd still find something wrong with it. (Besides plagiarism of course!)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: That is word for word what they on the hard right believe.
I don't know what is believed, but I think that it is useful for the Republican party.
I mean what some actual people believe, may or may not overlap with the Republican leadership but certainly their more extreme supports.
The same people who use the words "Obamination" with a straight face.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:But I think many Americans have a bruised ego.
Our collective ego needed bruising. We've overextended ourselves in so many ways, and to such an extent, that it will take profound change to correct course.
Of course, that's not going to happen.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:But I think many Americans have a bruised ego.
Our collective ego needed bruising. We've overextended ourselves in so many ways, and to such an extent, that it will take profound change to correct course.
Of course, that's not going to happen.
Well, inevitably it will have to happen because we can't actually do that which we do not have the ability to accomplish.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I thought you weren't a real Hatracker until you were eaten by Slash the Berzerker.
No, you have to meet two real Hatrackers, both of whom can trace their realness back to Slash.
So you are correct about the source, but incorrect about the vector.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
He also does a reasonable job of owning Romneycare while still condemning national HCR. Personally I think he'd get more traction with the view that he moderated the Massachusetts health care law significantly from what the Democratic legislature wanted to approve, and would have approved over his veto (which, from my perspective in MA, is exactly the case). His line of "it was a localized experiment that was taken, without learning lessons or collecting data, and forced onto an unwilling nation" seems less nuanced, but is a nice rejoinder to the several Democrats who are loudly proclaiming their gratitude to Romney for his authorship of Health Care Reform in a (IMO) clumsy attempt to poison his primary candidacy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hm. This makes the whole "Trump is a poison pill" conspiracy theory actually seem much more likely to me.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: No, you have to meet two real Hatrackers, both of whom can trace their realness back to Slash.
So you are correct about the source, but incorrect about the vector.
Ah, right. I'm confusing the newbie initiation ritual with the method of confirming realness.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Precisely.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Hm. This makes the whole "Trump is a poison pill" conspiracy theory actually seem much more likely to me.
Recent polls have Trump polling even with Huckabee for the top spot, with Romney fourth behind Palin.
What do you do when the shill is more popular than the 'reasonable' choice? You don't think Trump would jump at it if he really thought he could get it?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What do you do when the shill is more popular than the 'reasonable' choice?
Observe that it must be just over a year 'til the election.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
He'll run, get the base fired up, then the GOP will find a way to disqualify him.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What do you do when the shill is more popular than the 'reasonable' choice?
More popular, in this case, being measured by a positive name recognition/association poll of the likely primary voters, a year before the election.
Trump stands next to no chance of winning the republican primaries, but if I thought there was a serious way to get him or Gingrich or some other schmuck to steal the republican primary, I would pursue this option with gusto.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Because clearly what would outrage you and be considered grossly unethical if your opponent does, that's what you should do, because you don't like 'em and they've got it coming.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Hm. This makes the whole "Trump is a poison pill" conspiracy theory actually seem much more likely to me.
If so, do you think he is a willing conspirator, or is the party leadership using him as a useful idiot?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Because clearly what would outrage you and be considered grossly unethical if your opponent does, that's what you should do, because you don't like 'em and they've got it coming.
I'd do the same thing to the democrats if they were pulling the same spoilers on themselves to appease a wantonly ignorant base. I want to cut the deadwood out, because it does us no good to have one of america's two viable parties be wantonly toxic.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
I was actually reponding to the other posters that made it seem like the only thing the birthers were harping on was the "Born in America" argument. I was simply pointing out that their arguments go beyond that. I didn't bring up the birther issue in the first place so frankly I don't understand the dogpile. [/QUOTE]
You were not simply pointing that out. Simply pointing that out consists of simply pointing it out. Listing the arguments is different. Listing the arguments demands, or at least invites, a response. And these were items which have all been responded to, in depth, and with a great degree of certainty, in the past and on the public record. Now, I understand how it seemed to you that people were only addressing the one argument about "Born in America." This is not because they think there is only one specific argument, but because they *understand* that there is only one general argument, and the details, fluid as they are, are not very important. The whole birther issue is *one* issue, and not a class of issues. The different claims are discreet only in that they are based on different sets of information and different leading interpretations of those sets of information. The interpretations lead to only one base claim, and that base claim is always the same, and generated for the same reason. See where we're going? Everybody else already got there. It's like we're having an argument about racism (this is a race related issue after all), and you need to go back and say, "hold on a sec, racists don't just hate black people for being genetically inferior, they hate them for being poor, stupid, dirty, and drug addicted as well." We got it. All those claims are bound up in the same bias, so as long as we understand, in this discussion, what that bias is, we understand all the claims and their motivations.
quote: As for Orincoro, I'm used to it. I feel like I could copy a post he wrote word for word and present it as my own and he'd still find something wrong with it. (Besides plagiarism of course!)
Try it. Go back into my posting history, and give it a shot. Never mind that the contexts will be different in such a way as to completely nullify your point. Do it! Make your point, even though it makes no sense. It shows what you really know about me. Anybody should feel free to disagree with me on this, but I would characterize myself, in this regard, as being quite consistent. I appreciate quality thinking, and while perhaps I don't acknowledge it enough when I see it, I don't argue in the same way with people whom I believe are thinking reasonably. I am dismissive of you because you seldom present anything I would term as quality thinking. On the contrary, though a lot of people do a lot of non-quality thinking a lot of the time, you often do worse. This recent post is an example (and again I think anybody could tell you I'm consistent in this regard), of what I see as fairly poor reasoning. Not only did you jump into the discussion to correct an assumption that was not being made (at least not to my eyes), but you didn't really know why you were doing it, did you? Why was making that list important to you? Did you feel it would enlighten others as to the depth of the issue? This is the problem, you don't seem to get where the depth of the issue actually is. You get the surface stuff- there are a bunch of people arguing about something- but what are they arguing about? Because making that list, again, invites responses to those points, and it brings the discussion to the level where people who made up those lists in the first place want it to be: "address me, acknowledge my concerns, and in so doing, acknowledge me and my feelings about this." It's feelings. The birthers want to be heard, and because what they want to say -what is in their hearts- is something that they have been trained never to reveal or even to acknowledge, they need to be acknowledged in this way. Children argue over petty details and inversions and restatements of the same arguments because they think that somehow, in engaging continually in the same debate, they will somehow by will alone overcome the grief of being denied what they want. In the five stages of grief, birthers are stuck somewhere between Anger and Bargaining. These claims and related claims and restatements of old claims, and reshuffling of the standards of evidence and what is or isn't common knowledge or official record is *bargaining.* And they get you involved in it too, unwittingly, by continuing to insist that they aren't being *properly* heard, and that they aren't being *fairly* addressed, because that's what you do when you are coping with loss.
See, here's the thing. I have a fairly evolved reason for disliking what you posted, and I won't be surprised now if you insist that it's just me being mean, and even use this post as evidence of me just being a big ol' meany, because I'm tough on you. But I have my reasons, and they go beyond not liking you- I don't know you, and my feelings about you are ambiguous, mostly because you are ambiguous and thin in a lot of what you have to say, all of which I read when it is addressed to me.
I imagine you think that because I came down so hard on you when you first starting posting political drivel that I disagreed with so much, I was only posting because I disagreed with your opinions. And now that you are not expressing opinions (at least you are being vague and coy and ambiguous about your opinions), you think I ought to leave you alone. But the thinking is the same. You're the same mind, and while I could forgive everything you've ever been wrong about, this is harder to forgive. Now, that you think me such a fool as to not recognize the same sort of thinking when you aren't actually claiming any position on an issue is just insulting. But I understand, you ignore me whenever you can.
Since you've already stated that you aren't liable to read my posts at all if you feel overwhelmed by my terrible invective, I'd say you don't have much of a right to claim my reasons for posting. I can always state my own reasons. Can you?
[ April 13, 2011, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: The same people who use the words "Obamination" with a straight face.
Do you remember when people actually argued, on this forum, that the term was not racially evocative?
To be fair, I can't remember whether they didn't believe it was being used that way, or whether it was intended to be used that way. Either way, maaaannn, that's a steep sort of denial.
Hell, I think a few people even claimed that the word Obamanation was somehow not referencing "abomination," or its meaning at all... Am i remembering correctly?
It's sort of like starting an opinion piece with the title: "Obama is Niggard," and then claiming that you were just pointing out that Obama is a parsimonious and ungenerous person, and that that was just the best word for it. I know they teach communication in colleges, but I feel like nobody understands semiotics at all. Or they think everyone is just so painfully stupid that it doesn't matter oh crass you are.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I don't quite recall that, only that Ron had never heard of the time which I found surprising.
The conservatives who've I've met (on a different terrible place) more or less always say the same thing; that he is clueless, idiotic, narcassistic, not enough like Bush, too much like Bush (whenever Bush is shown to be a moderate), UnAmerican, Not One of Us, a liberal, "community organizer" always as a term of disparagation, A Muslem Marxist Commie Nazi and that the whole birther controversy is one conspiracy actually originated by President Obama as some way of appealing to above aforementioned narcissism as a political ploy to gain sympathy.
"Islamophobe armchair generalissimos" indeed.
When I said "Well great to see respect for the office is going strong." I of course was chewed out for saying "that is the most asinine thing you've ever said." I got banned eventually.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Do you remember when people actually argued, on this forum, that the term was not racially evocative?
To be fair, I can't remember whether they didn't believe it was being used that way, or whether it was intended to be used that way. Either way, maaaannn, that's a steep sort of denial.
Interesting. I've never remotely associated the term with racism. An abomination is "anything greatly disliked or abhorred". And the people who use the term "Obamination" certainly feel that way. I'm an Obama supporter and sometimes I think it gets a little silly how quick people are to claim racism. Do people not remember how vile and despicable Republicans thought Clinton was at the time? I think assuming racism instead of the more apparent extreme partisanship tinged with fanaticism is somewhat dishonest.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
For the record:
"abomination |əˌbäməˈnā sh ən| noun a thing that causes disgust or hatred : the Pharisees regarded Gentiles as an abomination to God | informal concrete abominations masquerading as hotels. • a feeling of hatred : their abomination of indulgence."
First of all, racially evocative language and "racism," are not the same. One is a political tool, the other a false ideology. However, more to the point: I was not quick about claiming racism. This has been 3 years of persistent harping and rumor about the black president not being a real American, with no factual support whatsoever. That has its basis in appeals to racism. That is not an unreasonable claim to make at this point. I am not being dishonest here. I let the bullshit about this float around for quite a while before I started attributing it to racism. It also has the benefit of being accurate. And don't compare it to the hatred of Willy Clinton. They hated him for his politics, but they didn't have a race angle. They do here, and they use it. The language being used in regards to Obama is racially evocative, plain and simple.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: You were not simply pointing that out. Simply pointing that out consists of simply pointing it out. Listing the arguments is different. Listing the arguments demands, or at least invites, a response. And these were items which have all been responded to, in depth, and with a great degree of certainty, in the past and on the public record. Now, I understand how it seemed to you that people were only addressing the one argument about "Born in America." This is not because they think there is only one specific argument, but because they *understand* that there is only one general argument, and the details, fluid as they are, are not very important. The whole birther issue is *one* issue, and not a class of issues. The different claims are discreet only in that they are based on different sets of information and different leading interpretations of those sets of information. The interpretations lead to only one base claim, and that base claim is always the same, and generated for the same reason. See where we're going? Everybody else already got there. It's like we're having an argument about racism (this is a race related issue after all), and you need to go back and say, "hold on a sec, racists don't just hate black people for being genetically inferior, they hate them for being poor, stupid, dirty, and drug addicted as well." We got it. All those claims are bound up in the same bias, so as long as we understand, in this discussion, what that bias is, we understand all the claims and their motivations.
Nice opinion. I stated my reasons, but you just dismiss them because OBVIOUSLY you know what I was trying to get at and I wasn't. You seem to know what my intentions were more than I did. Amazing!
The discussion was focusing on one detail of the birther issue. I simply pointed out that there was more to the birther issue than that one detail. If you already knew those other facets of the issue then good for you. Others may not have known that there was more to the issue than that one part. If you did, then great! Give yourself a pat on the back, you are an informed individual!
quote: Try it. Go back into my posting history, and give it a shot. Never mind that the contexts will be different in such a way as to completely nullify your point. Do it! Make your point, even though it makes no sense. It shows what you really know about me. Anybody should feel free to disagree with me on this, but I would characterize myself, in this regard, as being quite consistent. I appreciate quality thinking, and while perhaps I don't acknowledge it enough when I see it, I don't argue in the same way with people whom I believe are thinking reasonably. I am dismissive of you because you seldom present anything I would term as quality thinking. On the contrary, though a lot of people do a lot of non-quality thinking a lot of the time, you often do worse. This recent post is an example (and again I think anybody could tell you I'm consistent in this regard), of what I see as fairly poor reasoning. Not only did you jump into the discussion to correct an assumption that was not being made (at least not to my eyes), but you didn't really know why you were doing it, did you? Why was making that list important to you? Did you feel it would enlighten others as to the depth of the issue? This is the problem, you don't seem to get where the depth of the issue actually is. You get the surface stuff- there are a bunch of people arguing about something- but what are they arguing about? Because making that list, again, invites responses to those points, and it brings the discussion to the level where people who made up those lists in the first place want it to be: "address me, acknowledge my concerns, and in so doing, acknowledge me and my feelings about this." It's feelings. The birthers want to be heard, and because what they want to say -what is in their hearts- is something that they have been trained never to reveal or even to acknowledge, they need to be acknowledged in this way. Children argue over petty details and inversions and restatements of the same arguments because they think that somehow, in engaging continually in the same debate, they will somehow by will alone overcome the grief of being denied what they want. In the five stages of grief, birthers are stuck somewhere between Anger and Bargaining. These claims and related claims and restatements of old claims, and reshuffling of the standards of evidence and what is or isn't common knowledge or official record is *bargaining.* And they get you involved in it too, unwittingly, by continuing to insist that they aren't being *properly* heard, and that they aren't being *fairly* addressed, because that's what you do when you are coping with loss.
See, here's the thing. I have a fairly evolved reason for disliking what you posted, and I won't be surprised now if you insist that it's just me being mean, and even use this post as evidence of me just being a big ol' meany, because I'm tough on you. But I have my reasons, and they go beyond not liking you- I don't know you, and my feelings about you are ambiguous, mostly because you are ambiguous and thin in a lot of what you have to say, all of which I read when it is addressed to me.
I imagine you think that because I came down so hard on you when you first starting posting political drivel that I disagreed with so much, I was only posting because I disagreed with your opinions. And now that you are not expressing opinions (at least you are being vague and coy and ambiguous about your opinions), you think I ought to leave you alone. But the thinking is the same. You're the same mind, and while I could forgive everything you've ever been wrong about, this is harder to forgive. Now, that you think me such a fool as to not recognize the same sort of thinking when you aren't actually claiming any position on an issue is just insulting. But I understand, you ignore me whenever you can.
Since you've already stated that you aren't liable to read my posts at all if you feel overwhelmed by my terrible invective, I'd say you don't have much of a right to claim my reasons for posting. I can always state my own reasons. Can you? [/QB]
Orincoro, it is one thing to disagree with someone, it is another to completely berate and dismiss what someone posts, simply because you do not agree with them. You say you appreciate quality thinking, but it seems like you only appreciate it if your views are in line with the person doing the thinking. If their view differs from yours, it is not quality thinking.
I don't ignore your posts because I feel overwhelmed by you. Sometimes I ignore your posts (even if they are in response to someone else) because of your posting style. I can appreciate the passion you show in your posts though we almost always disagree. When you disagree with someone though your posts often read like you are angry and cannot fathom how someone could think the way they do.
You didn't even try to have a conversation in this thread. You just went straight for the personal attacks.
edit: cleaned up the quotes
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're not going to get anywhere engaging Orincoro on personal attacks in his posting style, Geraine. People who are completely not engaged directly with him and who don't strongly disagree with him politically have tried, without much impact that I can remember. It is, as has been noted, an ongoing thing of his.
That said, do you see why some of us - him included - are really just exasperated with this notion of lending anything other than, "OK-this whole birther thing is a bunch of conspiracy theory crap and ought to be rejected as anything worth serious consideration whenever it comes up, by all sources!"
Because listen, I'm sure there are birthers and people who know birthers who think they're well-meaning. Who don't realize, "Hey-this is a bunch of garbage. I don't actually have any credible evidence for it that hasn't been soundly, and I killed dead and then thrown into the sun which then goes nova and coalesces into a black hole, rebutted." But just because they don't realize it doesn't mean the stuff they believe in, or tread lightly around, isn't a bunch of nonsense.
And pretty much anyone who goes looking into the topic with something other than, "Proof that Obama isn't a citizen" as their Google prompt is going to realize that if he really shouldn't be a US citizen...they have no way of knowing it. That is to say if this is some massive conspiracy that the 'Obimination' has pulled on America, we don't have any evidence of it. The world looks the same as it would if he hadn't pulled off some big conspiracy and was, in fact, a rightful US citizen from birth.
Which relegates this whole issue to sandwich board wearing conspiracy theory Truther territory. As far as actual evidence is concerned, that's where it is more or less. But you probably wouldn't, if some Truther (that's someone who thinks 9-11 was a conspiracy by Jews, the Feds, Jews and the Feds, aliens, never actually happened at all, whatever) started going off on their rants, say, "Look, I think it's kinda ridiculous, but they've got some arguments and I can see why they think that way."
There simply are no honest, rigorous ways to think that way. If there were, any one of the hundreds of expert, very thorough people who would've seen quite a payday and much glory to yield such discoveries would've found it already. It's a non-issue. That's bad enough. What makes it worse is that it's a non-issue that is so often really thinly veiled in racism, jingoism, and Islamophobia.
Forget Orincoro's style of posting: can you see why people just get all, "Ugh!" and throw up their hands whenever someone throws in a, "Well, but..." to this birther nonsense?
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: You were not simply pointing that out. Simply pointing that out consists of simply pointing it out. Listing the arguments is different. Listing the arguments demands, or at least invites, a response. And these were items which have all been responded to, in depth, and with a great degree of certainty, in the past and on the public record. Now, I understand how it seemed to you that people were only addressing the one argument about "Born in America." This is not because they think there is only one specific argument, but because they *understand* that there is only one general argument, and the details, fluid as they are, are not very important. The whole birther issue is *one* issue, and not a class of issues. The different claims are discreet only in that they are based on different sets of information and different leading interpretations of those sets of information. The interpretations lead to only one base claim, and that base claim is always the same, and generated for the same reason. See where we're going? Everybody else already got there. It's like we're having an argument about racism (this is a race related issue after all), and you need to go back and say, "hold on a sec, racists don't just hate black people for being genetically inferior, they hate them for being poor, stupid, dirty, and drug addicted as well." We got it. All those claims are bound up in the same bias, so as long as we understand, in this discussion, what that bias is, we understand all the claims and their motivations.
Nice opinion. I stated my reasons, but you just dismiss them because OBVIOUSLY you know what I was trying to get at and I wasn't. You seem to know what my intentions were more than I did. Amazing!
The discussion was focusing on one detail of the birther issue. I simply pointed out that there was more to the birther issue than that one detail. If you already knew those other facets of the issue then good for you. Others may not have known that there was more to the issue than that one part. If you did, then great! Give yourself a pat on the back, you are an informed individual!
Once again, you were not "simply pointing out" anything. You made a list. I told you the real effect of that list. I don't know your intentions, but I know what making that list does. You need to differentiate between the observed effects of your actions, and your personal motivations. This is exactly what I'm talking about with you- you don't even seem to understand what saying the things that you say even means. If you didn't have a good reason for making a list, why did you make it? Because informing people that there are other birther claims smacks, frankly, of complete B.S. And if it isn't, and you don't understand why listing them makes you look a certain way, then you're really just clueless. You need to understand all this- it would really enhance your ability to express yourself if you did.
Posted by Ghost of Xavier (Member # 2852) on :
I think it is a little ridiculous that this moon landing hoax issue keeps popping up. That being said, I can see why some would still have issues with it.
Some of the more popular arguments:
In some photos, crosshairs appear to be behind objects.
There are identical backgrounds in photos which, according to their captions, were taken miles apart. This suggests that a painted background was used.
The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt and galactic ambient radiation.
The flag placed on the surface by the astronauts fluttered despite there being no wind on the Moon.
There are no stars in any of the photos; the Apollo 11 astronauts also claimed in a post-mission press conference to not remember seeing any stars.
The Moon landers made no blast craters or any sign of dust scatter
That is a few of the arguments. PLEASE NOTE I am not agreeing with any of them, just pointing them out.
------------------------------------------------
Just for fun. PLEASE NOTE all of these arguments are crap.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: For the record:
"abomination |əˌbäməˈnā sh ən| noun a thing that causes disgust or hatred : the Pharisees regarded Gentiles as an abomination to God | informal concrete abominations masquerading as hotels. • a feeling of hatred : their abomination of indulgence."
First of all, racially evocative language and "racism," are not the same. One is a political tool, the other a false ideology. However, more to the point: I was not quick about claiming racism. This has been 3 years of persistent harping and rumor about the black president not being a real American, with no factual support whatsoever. That has its basis in appeals to racism. That is not an unreasonable claim to make at this point. I am not being dishonest here. I let the bullshit about this float around for quite a while before I started attributing it to racism. It also has the benefit of being accurate. And don't compare it to the hatred of Willy Clinton. They hated him for his politics, but they didn't have a race angle. They do here, and they use it. The language being used in regards to Obama is racially evocative, plain and simple.
I thought it was just an inevitable play on his name. It's a pretty easy one to come up with. If his name rhymed with "stupid" I'm sure they'd be using that. It being racially evocative hadn't occurred to me until you brought it up. Doubtless some use it deliberately for its racial overtones; I'm sure many do not.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I don't know. How inevitable is such a play on the name?
More importantly, how culpable are those who don't appreciate racial implications in using the word? Are they just ignorant? Because the word 'abomination" appears most often in collocation with religious references to homosexuality or race. It is religiously significant, in that it's one of those words preserved largely as part of a biblical lexicon. So for those who don't appreciate these factors, why are they using the word? What does it mean to them?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: For the record:
"abomination |əˌbäməˈnā sh ən| noun a thing that causes disgust or hatred : the Pharisees regarded Gentiles as an abomination to God | informal concrete abominations masquerading as hotels. • a feeling of hatred : their abomination of indulgence."
First of all, racially evocative language and "racism," are not the same. One is a political tool, the other a false ideology. However, more to the point: I was not quick about claiming racism. This has been 3 years of persistent harping and rumor about the black president not being a real American, with no factual support whatsoever. That has its basis in appeals to racism. That is not an unreasonable claim to make at this point. I am not being dishonest here. I let the bullshit about this float around for quite a while before I started attributing it to racism. It also has the benefit of being accurate. And don't compare it to the hatred of Willy Clinton. They hated him for his politics, but they didn't have a race angle. They do here, and they use it. The language being used in regards to Obama is racially evocative, plain and simple.
I thought it was just an inevitable play on his name. It's a pretty easy one to come up with. If his name rhymed with "stupid" I'm sure they'd be using that. It being racially evocative hadn't occurred to me until you brought it up. Doubtless some use it deliberately for its racial overtones; I'm sure many do not.
Whenever I've heard it, I've always replied with, "Yes, we are living in Obama's nation." Seems to drive those people nuts.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Abomination Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:"We must have universal healthcare," wrote Trump. "I'm a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one. We should not hear so many stories of families ruined by healthcare expenses." The goal of health care reform, wrote Trump, should be a system that looks a lot like Canada. "Doctors might be paid less than they are now, as is the case in Canada, but they would be able to treat more patients because of the reduction in their paperwork," he writes.
quote:In The America We Deserve, Trump proposed a one-time 14.25 percent tax on individuals and trusts "with a net worth of over $10 million." He predicted that it would raise $5.7 trillion, "which we would use to pay off the national debt" and pay for Social Security. (The first part of this seems quaint now.) "By imposing a one-time 14.25 percent net-worth tax on the richest individuals and trusts," he explained, "we can put America on sound financial footing for the next century." Like basically every other Trump idea, this one came with a story of epiphany and self-sacrifice. "The plan would cost me $700 million personally in the short term, but it would be worth it." This is what a swath of people were angry about or panicked about in 1999. They were worried about campaign finance reform, so Trump sided with them. "If I were drawing a political cartoon to represent the situation," he wrote, while not actually drawing the cartoon, "it would include a very large guy with a huge bag of money. On that bag would be written one word: soft. Soft money is the bane of the current system and we need to get rid of it." How far can this schtick take you? In 2000, not very far. That was when a lonely nation cried out for blandness, and demanded candidates with smart ideas of how to spend budget surpluses. There was none of the anger and immediacy that there was in 1992 or 2010. And Trump's success, such as it is, is coming because he will say anything that fed-up people are thinking. Here's an example that's more recent than his book. In 2008, after George W. Bush's party lost, Trump made a critique of the Iraq war predicated on the idea that Bush was a lousy president.* "He'd go into a country," said Trump, "attack Iraq, which had nothing to do with the World Trade Center, and just do it because he wanted to do it." When he said that, that's what people thought about Bush and Iraq. Smash-cut to this month, when Trump sat down with the Wall Street Journal for one of many interviews with baffled reporters. He went at Iraq from another direction. "I always heard that when we went into Iraq," he said, "we went in for the oil. I said, 'Eh, that sounds smart.' "
derp
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Trump has my vote so far, so long as he can do what he says.... but all politicians speak out their ass and rarely deliver what they campaign.
Big problem is you can't see if they can deliver what they say unless they make it in, and since our government is set up in a corruptish way (bad politicians playing musical chairs with positions), even if said electee tried to change something it might not fly with the other guys....
Funny money.... President makes $400K a year plus very generous bonuses Vice President makes $230,700 a year (Bonuses??) Cabinet(15) makes $191,300 a year (average??, and bonuses??) Totaling $2,869,500 House(435)and Senate(100) makes $169,300 a year (Bonuses??)Totaling $90,575,500 a year I believe Supreme Court(chief #??) makes $195,138 a year (Bonuses??) Supreme Court(not chief #??) makes $189,620 a year (bonuses??)
Believe they are all being payed rather generously, neh?
School teachers questionably* make around 50k a year (bonuses??) *varies considerably Police officer make $51,410 a year (averaged, and bonuses??) Doctors make ?????? a year(bonuses??) get payed too much, NOT talking about surgeons here..... Dentists make ????? a year(bonuses??)can't find a good average, they all seem low despite the costs.. Construction worker make $50k a year (averaged, and bonuses??) VERY low, in my opinion /:
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Trump has my vote so far, so long as he can do what he says....
Please don't be a fool.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: Funny money.... President makes $400K a year plus very generous bonuses Vice President makes $230,700 a year (Bonuses??) Cabinet(15) makes $191,300 a year (average??, and bonuses??) Totaling $2,869,500 House(435)and Senate(100) makes $169,300 a year (Bonuses??)Totaling $90,575,500 a year I believe Supreme Court(chief #??) makes $195,138 a year (Bonuses??) Supreme Court(not chief #??) makes $189,620 a year (bonuses??)
Believe they are all being payed rather generously, neh?
School teachers questionably* make around 50k a year (bonuses??) *varies considerably Police officer make $51,410 a year (averaged, and bonuses??) Doctors make ?????? a year(bonuses??) get payed too much, NOT talking about surgeons here..... Dentists make ????? a year(bonuses??)can't find a good average, they all seem low despite the costs.. Construction worker make $50k a year (averaged, and bonuses??) VERY low, in my opinion /:
I guess people get vague* number figures (perhaps other things???????)(Bonuses??????) *and it varies
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tom, you're boring.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Ghost, I know you said you didn't agree but I have looked into those very things. If you go to NASA's website they address all of those issues you mentioned and Mythbusters did a special on it too Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Ghost, I know you said you didn't agree but I have looked into those very things. If you go to NASA's website they address all of those issues you mentioned and Mythbusters did a special on it too
Well, of course they do. They can claim all they want, but that's just flimsy evidence. They seem peculiarly unwilling to take a simple step like flying me to the moon to give us actual proof.
edit: Am I saying that there is no proof? Not necessarily, but it seems strange that they are putting so much effort into not providing it.
[ April 19, 2011, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Well, of course they do. But they can claim all they want. But that's just flimsy evidence. They seem peculiarly unwilling to take a simple step like flying me to the moon to give us actual proof.
I never thought of it that way... Those sneaky so and so's!!! How hard could it be to take a few of us there so we can see for ourselves!!?!?
Posted by Ghost of Xavier (Member # 2852) on :
quote:Ghost, I know you said you didn't agree but I have looked into those very things. If you go to NASA's website they address all of those issues you mentioned and Mythbusters did a special on it too
My post was a parody. I was using it to show just how ridiculous it is to post a list of thoroughly refuted statements and then say "I'm not saying I agree with these, but they are out there".
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
For the record, I got it. Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Today, Trump is telling everyone that Reagan is the president he admired most. But at the end of Reagan's presidency Trump wrote that Reagan was a con man who "couldn't deliver the goods."
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
most people get a little wisdom with age...
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Trump is trolling America. That's the only explanation that makes sense.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Maybe he's a double agent for the Dems?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Maybe he's a double agent for the Dems?
You are giving the Dems way too much credit for intelligence.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Tom, you're boring.
If anything deserves a shoulder shrugging dismissal, it is support for Donald Trump.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Foust, you are boring too...
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Trump is trolling America. That's the only explanation that makes sense.
Scott Adams agrees with you:
quote:Scott Adams' Blog: Trump is smart enough to never admit that his presidential aspirations are no more than marketing. To admit the trick would damage his brand. But he has no need to ever expose the prank. Trump, the magnificent bastard, has figured out a way to have his cake and eat it too. The people who are in on the joke find it entertaining. The people who will never know it's a joke have raised their opinion of him so much that he's the leading Republican presidential contender. And his TV ratings are up, so from a marketing standpoint it's working.
Expecting "intelligent and mature responses" on this subject is like expecting a child raised on gristle and potato peelings to grow up to be an olympic sprinter. This subject is being treated with all the respect it deserves.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I heard this on...was it Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me? I can't remember.
Trump primary slogan:
Richer than Romney; Whiter than Huckabee; Crazier than Bachman.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
And less qualified than Palin.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
That the joke candidate is saying roughly the same crap as the other real serious candidates is what we should fine worrying.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Expecting "intelligent and mature responses" on this subject is like expecting a child raised on gristle and potato peelings to grow up to be an olympic sprinter. This subject is being treated with all the respect it deserves.
Here's the response it deserves: if you were guileless enough to take Trump's presidential aspirations seriously, hang up your politics hat. You're done.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Yes, that's the proper response. If you get trolled, quit. You can't learn anything from being trolled, such as how to look out for it in the future. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:if you were guileless enough to take Trump's presidential aspirations seriously, hang up your politics hat. You're done.
Guileless? You mean 'naive?'
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:if you were guileless enough to take Trump's presidential aspirations seriously, hang up your politics hat. You're done.
Guileless? You mean 'naive?'
I think Samp was saying that only somebody with no sense of guile whatsoever (so guileless) would be unable to recognize Trump's ploy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: Yes, that's the proper response. If you get trolled, quit. You can't learn anything from being trolled, such as how to look out for it in the future.
That's what you have to do. You have to go back to the magical world of learning. preferably first about yourself and where you filter your information and perspectives in from. You aren't ready to be in the woods yet.
paying attention, rawrain?
quote:Guileless? You mean 'naive?'
synonym away!
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
God, you're such a badass, Samp. Every time I think you can't get any cooler, you go and be just that much more badass and prove me wrong. You're like what would happen if John McClane got really bored and started spending too much time on the internet.
The verbal smackdowns you deliver onto your intellectual inferiors are so impressive, and they must make you feel good too. You are awesome.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You're like what would happen if John McClane got really bored and started spending too much time on the internet.
I know this probably isn't what you want to hear, jebus, but I loved this turn of phrase. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: God, you're such a badass, Samp. Every time I think you can't get any cooler, you go and be just that much more badass and prove me wrong. You're like what would happen if John McClane got really bored and started spending too much time on the internet.
The verbal smackdowns you deliver onto your intellectual inferiors are so impressive, and they must make you feel good too. You are awesome.
thanks dude!!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Next up: samprimary mcclane guest stars on 24, defends freedom and the american way by torturing the truth out of some terrorists.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
The terrorists are quickly reduced to breaking point by his self-obsession and irregular use of capitalisation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Capitalization. What are you, a communist?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
No, the letter zed may be the coolest in America, but around here we don't pay much attention to it.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
I'm paying some attention, trump wouldn't be that bad if he would lay off the damn birth certificate crap .____. , I was skeptical about Obama too, but his mom was fully American, from that point it doesn't matter if Obama was born in Iran, he would still be American, so after seeing that much I realized how big of an idiot Trump is making himself look..
I also noticed he only likes to say things people want to hear /: and he's really taking the spotlight off all the other candidates WHICH I hear absolutely nothing about, all I hear and read about is about Trump and Charlie... ---- Someone fill me in, on the candidates- don't use the words democrat or republican or tea-party crap, that tells me absolutely nothing about them..
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I will repeat: please don't be a fool. Right now, you are being a fool. Learn more (ideally by doing something besides asking random strangers on the Internet to sum things up for you), and then form opinions.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Calling me a fool?
Trump lost my vote on the birth certificate matter.
The only place where I can get enough information to make judgements IS on the internet since the government channels I have on TV with "professionals" talking seem only interested in Trump, my internet speed prevents me from researching myself. If I hear fool derogatory towards my end Trump will get my vote.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not being derogatory towards your end; I'm being derogatory towards your head.
Stop making excuses. I mean, seriously, why would Trump have your vote if not for the whole birther crap? What about him suggests presidential material to you?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:If I hear fool derogatory towards my end Trump will get my vote.
That would be foolish.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
I'm still waiting to hear about these other candidates....
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: I'm still waiting to hear about these other candidates....
You'll be waiting a long time. Even with a slow connection speed you can do your own research.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: The terrorists are quickly reduced to breaking point by his self-obsession and irregular use of capitalisation.
*patpat*
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: Calling me a fool?
Yes? You just are completely being one and love to reinforce my openly patronizing attitude towards you. You are seriously saying here you would give trump a vote just because you're being chided for being politically silly.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Huh. I was under the impression that Rawrain was 16-17ish. Is he old enough to vote?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: Huh. I was under the impression that Rawrain was 16-17ish. Is he old enough to vote?
That old? Wow my guess was way off.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I mean, seriously, why would Trump have your vote if not for the whole birther crap? What about him suggests presidential material to you?
Let me make a list:
The Hair Approach to diplomacy (as demonstrated on his shows) Business acumen (If GWB was great and ran one business into the ground, Trump must be even Greatah!) Executive experience
What could possibly go wrong? Trump would bring us such glory as hasn't been seen since the Bush era!!!!
ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOHAIR
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: The terrorists are quickly reduced to breaking point by his self-obsession and irregular use of capitalisation.
*patpat*
::snort:: Enjoy being internet cool guy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
sure thing bro!
(you know, by now, what makes it so rewarding for moi: the people who can't help but jump in and boyishly wrassle with me)
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Well you gotta get your kicks where you can, I suppose.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Well you gotta get your kicks where you can, I suppose.
MORE PLACES TO GET KICKS
- Dan Harmon, creator of Community, doing an AMA at Reddit
I'm really not sure if you were intending to be ironic with that criticism or not, jebus, since you too go the cool Internet guy route in your style of posting. But you don't post nearly as often as Samprimary, so of course it doesn't happen as often either.
If it was ironic, well done I suppose? But very meta. If it was a serious complaint, it was quite silly.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Haha. I enjoyed it Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Oh my god Samp that CSI/Second Life clip was mind-bogglingly painful. I... I don't even... wow. I sort of doubted it was real, but... I guess it's real.
That's just... sigh.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Oh my god Samp that CSI/Second Life clip was mind-bogglingly painful. I... I don't even... wow. I sort of doubted it was real, but... I guess it's real.
That's just... sigh.
"This guy is a really good hacker, we better beat him by having two people type on the same keyboard"
if you keep magnifying we can eventually determine the killer is a carrier for sickle cell anemia i mean my god Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
But how did they... never mind.
The sad thing is that that classic CSI:NY moment is nowhere near the most ridiculous thing they've done. And that's not even getting close to the heights of crazy that CSI:Miami has reached in the last ten years.
Their episode with the ice-sculpture impaling identical killer triplets is up there with that episode of Voyager where Janeway and Paris become little geckos and have weird little gecko babies together in the true, must-see classics of bad TV.
Or, on that subject, you could just watch 'Spock's Brain'. Because 'Brain! What is brain?' is also all I can say after watching CSI:Miami. Or watching anyone saying that they would vote Trump.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Oh my god Samp that CSI/Second Life clip was mind-bogglingly painful. I... I don't even... wow. I sort of doubted it was real, but... I guess it's real.
That's just... sigh.
"This guy is a really good hacker, we better beat him by having two people type on the same keyboard"
if you keep magnifying we can eventually determine the killer is a carrier for sickle cell anemia i mean my god
These are amazing. If you know of any more, please share them. I just spent waaay too long poking around Youtube watching similar clips.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I might be being unfair to the show, is this person depicted as a combination Scarlet Witch / The Flash for coding?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
How exceptionally bad!
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm really not sure if you were intending to be ironic with that criticism or not, jebus, since you too go the cool Internet guy route in your style of posting. But you don't post nearly as often as Samprimary, so of course it doesn't happen as often either.
If it was ironic, well done I suppose? But very meta. If it was a serious complaint, it was quite silly.
Heh, that would indeed be very meta, and I'd hate to break the illusion of making posts that convoluted.
Samp's posts have an embarrassing way of showing the self-satisfied smirk he's wearing on the other-side of the computer screen. It's the value he derives from being cool on the internet I was mocking.
And that's about as much effort as I'm willing to devote to something so silly. So I leave the last word to Samp, which I have no doubt will be swift.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
hi
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the last word is actually "marginalia" \ mahr-juh-NEY-lee-uh \, noun; Notes in the margin of a book, manuscript, or letter.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Oh, forgot this:
I might be being unfair to the show, is this person depicted as a combination Scarlet Witch / The Flash for coding?
Yeah I finally found the Cracked article that had all of these, and this one honestly seems the most ridiculous. I loved this comment in particular...
quote:Originally posted by Cracked: This line of dialogue is exactly like saying, "The suspect is getting away! I'll go build an internal combustion engine and mount it on a four-wheeled vehicle to see if I can converge on his location."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I couldn't find a video of it but this is apparently also real:
quote:[INT. CSI - HALLWAY TO A/V LAB -- DAY]
(Grissom and Sara walk through the hallway.)
SARA: Acoustic archeology?
GRISSOM: In the '60s, experiments were done on clay pots and painted canvas. Scientists were able to ferret out sounds that were captured during the creative process in the clay and the paint.
(They step into the A/V Lab. Sofia Curtis is there with the pottery piece on a turntable.)
SARA: Trippy.
SOFIA CURTIS: It's actually not that out there. (As she talks, she flips the turntable on.) In the old days, the first gramophone recordings were made by taking the vibrations of sound and cutting them into wax cylinders while they were turning.
(Quick flash to: A woman plays the cello sitting next to an old fashioned gramophone.)
SOFIA CURTIS: (v.o.) Based on the frequency and intensity of the sound, the stylus cut into the wax, creating distinct variances of depth and width.
(Camera zooms in through the gramophone down to the stylus as it cuts through the wax on the cylinder.)
(End of flashback. Resume to pottery.)
SOFIA CURTIS: For playback, a mechanical transducer vibrated along a groove, generating a current which, when amplified, turned into sound.
GRISSOM: When the art therapist told me that there'd been an argument while Adam was on the wheel, I thought, well, maybe we can pull some sound off his pot.
(Sofia flips a switch and a red light appears on the side of the turning pottery.)
SARA: Doppler laser. Optical transducer.
SOFIA CURTIS: We've come a long way.
GRISSOM: Baby.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
:-O
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: [
Samp's posts have an embarrassing way of showing the self-satisfied smirk he's wearing on the other-side of the computer screen. It's the value he derives from being cool on the internet I was mocking.
You know the one who usually hates the snarker the most? The second rate snarker.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: [
Samp's posts have an embarrassing way of showing the self-satisfied smirk he's wearing on the other-side of the computer screen. It's the value he derives from being cool on the internet I was mocking.
You know the one who usually hates the snarker the most? The second rate snarker.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Eeeexxaactly.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: [
Samp's posts have an embarrassing way of showing the self-satisfied smirk he's wearing on the other-side of the computer screen. It's the value he derives from being cool on the internet I was mocking.
You know the one who usually hates the snarker the most? The second rate snarker.
Lmao.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
WHOA THERE, SMIRKFESTERS
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I couldn't find a video of it but this is apparently also real:
quote:[INT. CSI - HALLWAY TO A/V LAB -- DAY]
(Grissom and Sara walk through the hallway.)
SARA: Acoustic archeology?
GRISSOM: In the '60s, experiments were done on clay pots and painted canvas. Scientists were able to ferret out sounds that were captured during the creative process in the clay and the paint.
(They step into the A/V Lab. Sofia Curtis is there with the pottery piece on a turntable.)
SARA: Trippy.
SOFIA CURTIS: It's actually not that out there. (As she talks, she flips the turntable on.) In the old days, the first gramophone recordings were made by taking the vibrations of sound and cutting them into wax cylinders while they were turning.
(Quick flash to: A woman plays the cello sitting next to an old fashioned gramophone.)
SOFIA CURTIS: (v.o.) Based on the frequency and intensity of the sound, the stylus cut into the wax, creating distinct variances of depth and width.
(Camera zooms in through the gramophone down to the stylus as it cuts through the wax on the cylinder.)
(End of flashback. Resume to pottery.)
SOFIA CURTIS: For playback, a mechanical transducer vibrated along a groove, generating a current which, when amplified, turned into sound.
GRISSOM: When the art therapist told me that there'd been an argument while Adam was on the wheel, I thought, well, maybe we can pull some sound off his pot.
(Sofia flips a switch and a red light appears on the side of the turning pottery.)
SARA: Doppler laser. Optical transducer.
SOFIA CURTIS: We've come a long way.
GRISSOM: Baby.
They also had something like this on the last season of Fringe, and as you know everything they talk about on Fringe is real science. Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
If Dr. Who used his magic screwdriver to do something like that you'ld think it was the coolest thing ever.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I doubt that Donald Trump is a serious candidate. I think he just likes the attention. Having his own TV show just whetted his appetite. Now that people think he is going to run for president, he gets invited to all kinds of talk shows, and the news media is always ready to get sound bites from him. Let's see if his name is actually on the ballot in any primaries or caucuses.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: If Dr. Who used his magic screwdriver to do something like that you'ld think it was the coolest thing ever.
So many things wrong... must correct... derp!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It seems to me that if even if Trump isn't a serious candidate and just likes the publicity, he would still apply to get on the ballot. Even Colbert applied IIRC.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Mucus, Trump is a rich man. Rich men seldom are willing to waste their money, even the relatively small amount it would take to get on the ballot. Of course, you also have to get a minimum number of signatures on a petition to get your name placed on a ballot, so Trump would have to hire some people to gather them.
And even if he did put his name on the ballot, he would at some point have to put out a lot of money for advertising if he seriously wants to compete.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... Trump is a rich man. Rich men seldom are willing to waste their money ...
Meanwhile ...
quote:Until recently he thought that Barack Obama was born in America too, but now he is not so sure. Mr Trump has sent a team of investigators to Hawaii to look into the issue.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: If Dr. Who used his magic screwdriver to do something like that you'ld think it was the coolest thing ever.
I hate you with every fibre of my being.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Until recently he thought that Barack Obama was born in America too, but now he is not so sure. Mr Trump has sent a team of investigators to Hawaii to look into the issue.
>_<
[ April 28, 2011, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: If Dr. Who used his magic screwdriver to do something like that you'ld think it was the coolest thing ever.
I hate you with every fibre of my being.
Some people here like Dr. Who and appreciate the reference.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Sure, but you wouldn't talk about "Dark Vader's laser sword", right? You'd reference "Darth Vader's lightsaber."
The correct reference is "The Doctor's sonic screwdriver."
:-P
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: Sure, but you wouldn't talk about "Dark Vader's laser sword", right? You'd reference "Darth Vader's lightsaber."
The correct reference is "The Doctor's sonic screwdriver."
:-P
Actually I think I've heard Lucas refer to it precisely as "Darth Vader's laser sword", I'll have to do some digging.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: Sure, but you wouldn't talk about "Dark Vader's laser sword", right? You'd reference "Darth Vader's lightsaber."
The correct reference is "The Doctor's sonic screwdriver."
:-P
Actually I think I've heard Lucas refer to it precisely as "Darth Vader's laser sword", I'll have to do some digging.
One of the Red Letter Media Star Wars reviews has a clip of Lucas saying just this.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: Sure, but you wouldn't talk about "Dark Vader's laser sword", right? You'd reference "Darth Vader's lightsaber."
The correct reference is "The Doctor's sonic screwdriver."
:-P
Actually I think I've heard Lucas refer to it precisely as "Darth Vader's laser sword", I'll have to do some digging.
But George Lucus isn't a fan of starwars however.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I think you have it backwards Blayne...Star Wars isn't a fan of George Lucus.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
To Lucus, it is his creation, it is something that makes him money and for as long as it continues to be his, and to make him money he will continue to manage it and prune it etc. He *likes* it, its his work, he put alot of effort into it, but I doubt he is a *fan* of it to the same degree say, Steven Moffat is a fan of Doctor Who.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
welp, rerailing
Obama rails trump and the birthers at the correspondents dinner.
He made fun of himself as well. It's tradition.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The important thing here, capax, is to not take note of the context here, that it's the Correspondent's Dinner, and that this kind of thing is exactly in line with what goes on there.
The important thing is to not take note of that, and instead to sneer and criticize in a gutless, partisan way like you just did. Score points, y'know?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The important thing here, capax, is to not take note of the context here, that it's the Correspondent's Dinner, and that this kind of thing is exactly in line with what goes on there.
The important thing is to not take note of that, and instead to sneer and criticize in a gutless, partisan way like you just did. Score points, y'know?
Gutless? Wow. Uh, the important thing here is to not overreact just because my one word post didn't take into account the feelings of bleeding heart liberals.
I understand the context, but at this time in our country, we don't need a campaigning clown doing stand up comedy at a dinner for high rollers. We don't need a president out 'scoring points' instead of leading the country, y'know?
*queue the 'BUT BUSH..!!!' comments*
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You know I've never really gotten that argument. Both sides do it, though I think one side is worse obviously. But this idea that Presidents have to spend 24 hours a day focused on a few specific problems, and that they aren't suppose to, at any point, do ANYTHING but focus on war and the budget is a pretty silly idea to me. Not only would that be a waste of time, since God knows Congress doesn't spend nearly that much time on the same problems, but do you really want a president that NEVER enjoys himself? I imagine he'd burn out fast.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Its gutless (also dishonest) not because it doesn't take liberals into account, but because you wouldn't hold a non-Democratic President to remotely the same standard, that's all. It's gutless because it's a little one-off snipe attack without looking at the larger picture.
You suggested it wasn't classy. Classy is a question of context. In this context, it wasn't objectionable because it's an old tradition-when it comes to class. So your suggestion and attack was weak.
Your complaint that the dinner itself shouldn't exist is, well, a different discussion and a nice attempt to change the topic from your initial trite attack.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Is there some history here that isn't apparent? Because one sarcastic "classy" hardly seems worth all the fall out.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The important thing here, capax, is to not take note of the context here, that it's the Correspondent's Dinner, and that this kind of thing is exactly in line with what goes on there.
The important thing is to not take note of that, and instead to sneer and criticize in a gutless, partisan way like you just did. Score points, y'know?
Gutless? Wow. Uh, the important thing here is to not overreact just because my one word post didn't take into account the feelings of bleeding heart liberals.
I understand the context, but at this time in our country, we don't need a campaigning clown doing stand up comedy at a dinner for high rollers. We don't need a president out 'scoring points' instead of leading the country, y'know?
*queue the 'BUT BUSH..!!!' comments*
When ever is a good time?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Parkour, you asked what is Obama hiding. According to the latest document to be tossed into the fray, his mother's first name was "Stanley." (Curious that it was inserted in handwriting.) And his own full name is "Barack Hussein Obama II." I'd never heard of the "II" before. Could these be the things he's been trying to hide for three years?
Or--maybe it took three years to come up with a fake document that looked good enough. Will he allow a truly independent forensics lab to examine the document and determine how old it actually is, or will he stonewall that for another three years? Most people are not willing to believe that he might be so devious. But what if he is that devious?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Wow. You make straw-grasping look good.
Do you seriously not know that "II" and "Jr." mean the same thing?
The rest of your post doesn't even rise to the level of laughable.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Or--maybe it took three years to come up with a fake document that looked good enough. Will he allow a truly independent forensics lab to examine the document and determine how old it actually is, or will he stonewall that for another three years? Most people are not willing to believe that he might be so devious. But what if he is that devious?
If it's a fake document it's piss-poor job of forgery as lots of scanning/filtering artifacts are present which look incriminating to untrained analysts. The original is not in Obama's possession and never was - he was given a photocopy (or perhaps an electronic copy) from the Hawaii Department of Vital records. It's doubtful that they would allow forensic analysis of the original which they have already certified as authentic.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ok, so the answer is: nothing. There is NO evidence which you'll consider sufficient to put this thing to bed, Ron. *Anything* could have been forged. Once you grant the possibility if vast, powerful conspiracy, nothing is ever, ever certain. So there really is nothing that will persuade you. You're dishonest when you claim otherwise.
That said, how do we KNOW the CIA didn't invent AIDS to kill black people? Surely they're that devious. How do we know the Weathermen weren't framed? It's been done. You can't prove they weren't framed. You need to be a responsible American and admit that the the question of AIDS being a CIA made race plague hasn't been put to bed. I confidently await God's judgment.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Oh wow.
Insanity knows no bounds.
edit: emu'ed.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rivka, a previous pastor of my church was named David Glenn II. His son was named David Glenn III. Which one was "Jr."?
My question about the "II" was not a serious one. Who cares whether he is part of a dynastic pretense on the part of his father? It is certainly nothing that needs to be kept secret. The fact that his mother's first name was Stanley is curious, but not really an issue. I have known of a few perverse parents who gave boys' names to their daughters, and girls' names to their sons.
Maybe there was some concern about his mother giving birth to him when she was only 18, suggesting that she may have been impregnated before she was 18, which would constitute statutory rape in many states of the U.S. But that is not true everywhere, and certainly not in many other countries. Even if she got pregnant before she got married, that is hardly an uncommon occurrence.
My actual point is that there was no good reason for Obama not to release his complete birth certificate long ago--especially when some states were demanding to see it when he wanted to put his name on the ballot. I understand that several states are now enacting laws requiring that a complete, long-form birth certificate must be supplied by any presidential candidate or else his name will not be allowed on the ballot. It is surely in the legitimate interests of the states to make sure that Article II, Section I, Paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution be followed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Keep on shuckin', Ron. You must realize that no one here is taking you seriously, though, right?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rivka, a previous pastor of my church was named David Glenn II. His son was named David Glenn III. Which one was "Jr."?
I think it is clear that you know the answer to this, as well as to every other beyond-ridiculous question you have raised in this thread.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Its gutless (also dishonest) not because it doesn't take liberals into account, but because you wouldn't hold a non-Democratic President to remotely the same standard, that's all. It's gutless because it's a little one-off snipe attack without looking at the larger picture.
You suggested it wasn't classy. Classy is a question of context. In this context, it wasn't objectionable because it's an old tradition-when it comes to class. So your suggestion and attack was weak.
Your complaint that the dinner itself shouldn't exist is, well, a different discussion and a nice attempt to change the topic from your initial trite attack.
I didn't take into account the possibility of a bleeding heart liberal responding to my simple post with such contempt and disgust. My comment was to take the piss out of your brash response and was largely irrelevant to the actual discussion.
As you say, classy is a question of context and I feel it is very unclassy when the president bitches about the partisan squabbling and lack of concessions over debt reduction, bombs a foreign nation without the approval of congress and without declaring war, and then delivers a self-assertive campaign speech mocking citizens of his own county who hold differing views or who, God forbid, raise important questions about the direction of the country, all the while being conscience of the polarized and partisan atmosphere we currently enjoy in this nation. I can't think of of a time, location, or audience in which this would be appropriate behavior from the president.
Since when does traditions make something acceptable? i thought you were a progressive..
I think it's you who are guilty of ignoring the bigger picture. The dinner itself is entirely relevant to the discussion. It's not changing the subject unless someone unduly highlights it, as you did. It's simply a fact worth noting because the president should act like a leader no matter who he is addressing.
And don't tell me my views because I wouldn't support this nonsense from any president, regardless of ideology.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, the people who do not take me seriously do not matter. They only hurt themselves. Wisdom is known of her children.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Trump deserves all the ridicule he can get. In fact, I think we should all take a moment each day to make fun of him.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Tom, the people who do not take me seriously do not matter. They only hurt themselves. Wisdom is known of her children.
Wow...I finally get where Rakeesh was coming from about banning you.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Who *does* take you seriously, Ron? Are they on an undercover mission, and that's why none can know who they are?
Anyway, I'm not asking for him to be banned-I'm asking if certain behaviors he routinely engages in can be moderated officially. I *think* that would lead to an eventual banning, because even unfettered the guy has a martyr hero complex.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Who *does* take you seriously, Ron?
There is another forum I am on where he would be "one of the guys". All but two people would be in lockstep with him.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ornery?
quote: I didn't take into account the possibility of a bleeding heart liberal responding to my simple post with such contempt and disgust. My comment was to take the piss out of your brash response and was largely irrelevant to the actual discussion.
As you say, classy is a question of context and I feel it is very unclassy when the president bitches about the partisan squabbling and lack of concessions over debt reduction, bombs a foreign nation without the approval of congress and without declaring war, and then delivers a self-assertive campaign speech mocking citizens of his own county who hold differing views or who, God forbid, raise important questions about the direction of the country, all the while being conscience of the polarized and partisan atmosphere we currently enjoy in this nation. I can't think of of a time, location, or audience in which this would be appropriate behavior from the president.
Since when does traditions make something acceptable? i thought you were a progressive..
I think it's you who are guilty of ignoring the bigger picture. The dinner itself is entirely relevant to the discussion. It's not changing the subject unless someone unduly highlights it, as you did. It's simply a fact worth noting because the president should act like a leader no matter who he is addressing.
And don't tell me my views because I wouldn't support this nonsense from any president, regardless of ideology.
This is a joke post right?
FYI; I'm a Marxist and a Monarchist. I like having the Queen as our head of state.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: This is a joke post right?
Blayne, I'm sure you can produce a better argument than that. Comments like this simply open you up to condescending and snarky remarks.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Well Poe's Law does make it an honest question. I would make a new more indepth post later to try to respond but its 3 am and someone else will probably reply a more indepth and elegant post by the time I wake.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I'm just amazed that Ron didn't know that Obama's mother's first name was Stanley. People everywhere in the world have been talking about her name for three years.
I guess sometimes hatred gets in the way of general knowledge.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Gutless? Wow. Uh, the important thing here is to not overreact just because my one word post didn't take into account the feelings of bleeding heart liberals.
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: I didn't take into account the possibility of a bleeding heart liberal responding to my simple post with such contempt and disgust. My comment was to take the piss out of your brash response and was largely irrelevant to the actual discussion.
See, guys? Capaxinfiniti is the classiest. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: I understand the context, but at this time in our country, we don't need a campaigning clown doing stand up comedy at a dinner for high rollers. We don't need a president out 'scoring points' instead of leading the country, y'know?
Also, I understand this might be a little bit over your head, but perhaps — perhaps — it's possible to hold the dinner without neglecting the whole 'leading the country' thing?
Think about it. Like, really put your noodle to work on it.
You should know about things being over one's head, mentus minimus! Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*laugh* Oh, Ron, you're darling when you try to be insulting.
Seriously, don't you understand that you can't do that and be holier-than-thou at the same time? It's not possible. The one undermines the other, and over time makes both postures laughable.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You should know about things being over one's head, mentus minimus!
"You should know I do not engage in namecalling and insults." - Ron Lambert, back when saying this was convenient to him. Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: See, guys? Capaxinfiniti is the classiest.
Also, I understand this might be a little bit over your head, but perhaps — perhaps — it's possible to hold the dinner without neglecting the whole 'leading the country' thing?
Think about it. Like, really put your noodle to work on it.
You know, you don't always have to be an asshole. Instead of feeding your ego with childish comments, it would be great if you would contribute to the discussion in a less dickish way.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Gutless? Wow. Uh, the important thing here is to not overreact just because my one word post didn't take into account the feelings of bleeding heart liberals.
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: I didn't take into account the possibility of a bleeding heart liberal responding to my simple post with such contempt and disgust. My comment was to take the piss out of your brash response and was largely irrelevant to the actual discussion.
You know, you don't always have to be an asshole. Instead of feeding your ego with childish comments, it would be great if you would contribute to the discussion in a less dickish way.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
OK Sam, I shouldn't have resorted to use of a blatant insult. This is not typical of the way that I debate people, but you have long passed the point where I respect you at all as an intelligent debater.
As you can see, I was making a pun on your insulting remark that something was over capaxinfiniti's head. In all honesty, your intellect is very limited, and your self-discipline is almost non-existant. It is obvious that you compensate for your intellectual shortcomings with insult and derision. This is what you ALWAYS do. This is a true and accurate description of your attempts at debate.
Even though I did give you what you were asking for, I was much more restrained about it than capaxinfiniti. Though I must heartily agree with him.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I thought it was classy that Obama didn't go for the low-hanging fruit of mocking Trump's appearance. The main speaker (wossname from Saturday Night Live) had this whole routine about Trump. The people at his table shouldn't worry about their leftovers, because the fox on Trump's head would eat them. That sort of thing.
***
About birth certificates... I worked for the federal government for nearly a decade, handling and authenticating documents was a part of the job, among other things.
So, really, I find the Birther stuff as amusing as the "9/11 was an inside job" folks, young earth creationists and holocaust deniers.
There is really no more point in engaging such people than there was in constantly correcting my grandma when she mistook me for her daughter and kept forgetting who her husband was. Both activities just make me feel tired and accomplish nothing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: OK Sam, I shouldn't have resorted to use of a blatant insult. This is not typical of the way that I debate people, but you have long passed the point where I respect you at all as an intelligent debater.
As you can see, I was making a pun on your insulting remark that something was over capaxinfiniti's head. In all honesty, your intellect is very limited, and your self-discipline is almost non-existant. It is obvious that you compensate for your intellectual shortcomings with insult and derision. This is what you ALWAYS do. This is a true and accurate description of your attempts at debate.
'I shouldn't have resorted to use of a blatant insult. So here's several blatant insults in succession. You know, because I obviously learned from this.' - Ron Lambert, outclassying everyone.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ron. You're posting regularly on Hatrack right the past couple of hours. You're even posting regularly this past day on a Donald Trump thread.
Yet, strangely, you're not posting over on the thread where it's been proven (except for the possibility of huge unprovable conspiracy) that your claims were a bunch of bunk. People have challenged you on this repeatedly for days now, specifically, with links, on multiple specific occasions.
That is what you always do.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:n all honesty, your intellect is very limited, and your self-discipline is almost non-existant. It is obvious that you compensate for your intellectual shortcomings with insult and derision. This is what you ALWAYS do.
I've had my run ins with samp, and at times strongly dislike his snarky ways, but seriously, Ron, you are not accomplishing anything but moving more and more people to the "we hate Ron" camp.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Not true Rakeesh. It is only in your own mind that you think you or anyone else has "proven" that anything I said was "a bunch of bunk." I answered you; you just refuse to let my answers register fairly. That is why I do not respect you as a debater.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It is only in your own mind that you think you or anyone else has "proven" that anything I said was "a bunch of bunk."
To be fair, it's also in my mind.
For that matter, let's throw it open to the crowd: anyone here who doesn't think that Rakeesh or anyone else has proven that anything (if not everything) Ron has said was a bunch of bunk, please let us know you exist.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Stone_Wolf_, I would prefer that there be a sharp divide between the people with sense who listen to me and appreciate what I have to say, and those who resist wisdom and try to mislead others. In the Judgment, I am not the one who will have to apologize to God. My conscience is clear.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: It is only in your own mind that you think you or anyone else has "proven" that anything I said was "a bunch of bunk."
I don't understand. Anyone with eyes can see that when the sound clip "Barack nate dhalani" plays in the video you linked us to, Sarah Obama is not on the screen. This means what you said here,
quote:There is a point about 2/3 through the video where you can see and hear Obama's grandmother say "Barack nate dhalani."
Tom, you have almost made a career out of lying about me and mischaracterizing me. What you have to say has no weight or impact. I stopped caring what you say about anything long ago.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Ron, you claimed that Obama's grandmother could be seen saying the thing you say she said. Several people have pointed out that this is incorrect. When that phrase is said, the video consists only of a static family portrait. Please go back to the thread where this was discussed and either show how you are not mistaken on this or own up to the error.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Destineer and MattP, denying evidence when it is plainly given to you is the worst sort of hishonesty imaginable. She is on screen, the words are understandable, you can see her lips move. What is the matter with you?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And yet you keep replying, as if what I said mattered to you.
Let me point out, though, that "any particular thing Ron said was proven to be a bunch of bunk" is, I suspect, in far more minds than Rakeesh's, and perhaps the only mind who has not entertained that possibility is your own. No doubt anyone with the intellectual honesty and sincere forthrightness that you claim is necessary to understand the rightness of your positions will be stepping forward soon to defend you from our vile calumnies.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:She is on screen, the words are understandable, you can see her lips move.
quote:When that phrase is said, the video consists only of a static family portrait.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Tom is one of the most fair and caring people on this board, and again, you are not making any friends.
Plus this whole messiah complex you seem to be sporting is so ridiculous as to become funny.
quote:In the Judgment, I am not the one who will have to apologize to God.
And what if you are wrong? Will the words from God's own lips convince you? I'm seriously asking you. If there is a Judgment day and God Himself says to you, "Ron my son, you are wrong." will you accept it?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
No, Ron. When she says the words translated as "Barack was born in this village"* a family picture is on screen. Sarah Obama is then shown on the screen saying something that's translated as "Even now, he still asks after me."
*As Samp has established in the other thread, the words "Barack nate dhalani" don't actually mean this.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ron, could you link again to the thread you think we're all looking at? I want to make sure it's the same link to the same video you originally provided this forum. Because in the video you gave us, it's ABSOLUTELY apparent that you are not SEEING her say the words "Barack nate dhalani"
And, hey, I want to hope that this isn't just you being outright and painfully deluded.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I watched the video, and honestly, I think Ron might be imagining/hallucinating her lips moving in the family portrait.
It's the explanation that makes the most sense to me right now.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Your answer was, "She said he was born here." People said, and pointed to proof that she didn't say that. You utterly refused, over and over and over again, to examine it. Here, we'll try again, just for fun.
You claim the video shows her saying one thing, and that is evidence, and nothing has been put forward to dispute that, right? And that 'one thing' is specifically that Obama's grandmother claims he was born in Kenya? That is precisely what you're claiming, yes? That she said, at that time, that he was born in Kenya?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: It's the explanation that makes the most sense to me right now.
I'm just granting that the other potential explanation is that he's got some other video and his memory's hazy enough that he just doesn't realize that he's not watching the video that he linked to Hatrack.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I suspect that what happened is that Ron first posted a video he'd seen several times, but hadn't watched recently. He mistakenly remembered the video as containing footage of Sarah saying his favorite line, because he was so convinced by the video. Such false memories are a pretty natural occurrence.
On the basis of his memory, he then claimed that she was speaking on the screen when the sound clip plays, without first going back to double-check that he was right. Now I suspect he just doesn't want to admit being wrong.
Obviously speculation, but I'd bet money on it.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Outside of whether Obama's granny even said this...
Actually, having looked at that video again, they go through a kind of tortured process to even get to 'born in this village'.
The original video clearly says 'is a son of this village' - well yes, he obviously is if his dad came from there. But they've overlaid this subtitle with their own. 'was born (in) this village'.
To explain this, they first say 'or using the English cognate 'is a native of this village'. Then they go on 'The Indic root 'nate' is easy to recognize, as in natural, nativity or pre-natal - it refers specifically to birth.'
Well, maybe. But considering that we have no idea of the other usages of this word, or the idiomatic or familiar usages of this word, she might be using 'ñate' to mean belonging to this village, or at home in this village, or native, meaning that his family live in this village. Or that she considers it to be his ancestral hometown. Or any number of things.
That's even supposing that 'ñate' means what they think it means and comes from the source they suggest. I mean, in Spanish the word 'nata' means cream. It doesn't have much of anything to do with being born, even though it sounds a lot like 'natal'.
[ May 02, 2011, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Bella Bee ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ahhh, I love all of you.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Thanks, man.
What, in particular, prompted this expression of your love?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The frenzied albeit practiced communal response to a pile of sanctimonious waffling and lies
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Am I included in the lovefest too?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Sure but you have to quit wanting to punch out rivka, then knife-fight mossad agents.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
How about half...I won't punch rivka, but the knife fight is still on?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: That's even supposing that 'ñate' means what they think it means and comes from the source they suggest. I mean, in Spanish the word 'nata' means cream. It doesn't have much of anything to do with being born, even though it sounds a lot like 'natal'.
Well, no, let's not go crazy with that idea. Natal, nativo, nacido, nación, and etc, are all evolved from the same latin root natus meaning "to be born" or "to be made." And if you understand a few things about Spanish language phonology and history, you know that the c/t/th sounds are historically linked. a few centuries ago, "nacio" would have been pronounced with a "t" sound in many Spanish dialects.
The root is also common in other indo-european language trees, such as proto-Slavic (narod, and other related terms, or possibly later absorbed into Slavic from Latin). Similar words exist in a number of languages.
Still, that alone says pretty much nothing about what the woman was saying. I know nothing about Swahili, but I do know that it's extremely contorted and faulty logic to suggest that knowledge of Latin or Spanish would actually clue you in, in any helpful way, with the meaning of one word in a specific context. Not only are there nearly 600 Bantu languages in which the word might mean something, there could well be very few people in the world, and even fewer Americans or native English speakers who could even offer a very faithful translation, depending on exactly what dialect she happened to be speaking in or even referencing at the particular moment, *if* she even ever said that. And she may not even speak Swahili as her first language- a great many speakers don't. So, while one can cobble together a vaguely plausible claim about the intended meaning of a word in a totally different language group, I won't be convinced that easily.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well, now that delusion happy hour ($1 bottomless kool-aid) is over, how about trump, eh?
quote:A recent CBS News/New York Times Poll, conducted April 15-20, finds that while Republicans hold positive opinions of the former speaker of the House, they are not especially enthusiastic about his candidacy.
When Republican voters in the poll were asked if they felt enthusiastic about any of the potential presidential candidates, just 5 percent volunteered Newt Gingrich, trailing Mitt Romney (9 percent), Mike Huckabee (8 percent), and Donald Trump (7 percent). But at this early stage in the campaign, most Republican voters aren't particularly excited about anyone - 56 percent were not enthusiastic about any of the potential candidates.
quote:The fact that no [Rep candidate] consistently scores above 20 percent [in the polls] doesn't tell you that Trump is a leading candidate. It tells you that Republicans are very dissatisfied with their choices," says Mr. Ayres. "It tells you that this nomination battle is totally wide open, and there is an opportunity for a serious and credible candidate to catch fire and make a run. That serious and credible candidate is not Donald Trump."
...
In the end, general-election voters suggest that Trump is just plain unelectable. A majority of Americans – 58 percent – say they "would never vote for" Trump, according to the Quinnipiac poll. The only other potential candidate who scored a majority in the "never vote for" column was Ms. Palin, also at 58 percent.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
So on the one hand, I don't get why my party likes Gingrich. I personally hold him responsible for the destruction of civil political discourse in this country.
On the other, it's nice to see that he and Palin are both unelectable. That does make me feel a little better.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Sounds like your party doesn't much like Gingrich, actually.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, they just 'like' him in the vague sense that there's nobody present as a potential candidate that the republicans are that much more enthusiastic about.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Yes, and if 5% of support is the threshold for a group liking something then that's pretty scary.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Trump has supposedly announced that he's not running after all.
On one hand, probably just as well. But on the other hand, Stewart and Colbert are going to be so disappointed.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:After a roller-coaster flirtation with a presidential bid, Donald Trump bowed out of the 2012 contest in true Trump fashion on Monday, saying that while he would not be a candidate this year, if he had run, he would have been able to win the primary and the general election.
"I maintain the strong conviction that if I were to run, I would be able to win the primary and ultimately, the general election," Trump said in a statement on Monday.
"I already won, I just don't want to be president." - A joke candidate for idiots Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)