posted
I think you have it backwards Blayne...Star Wars isn't a fan of George Lucus.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there some history here that isn't apparent? Because one sarcastic "classy" hardly seems worth all the fall out.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keep on shuckin', Ron. You must realize that no one here is taking you seriously, though, right?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, the people who do not take me seriously do not matter. They only hurt themselves. Wisdom is known of her children.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
*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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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."
posted
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.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
