posted
Ok, so we know Romney is the most intelligent, most qualified, most exporiented, most virtuous candidate ever to run for President of the United States in this and any parallel universes, except the ones where America is bad since Mitt would then be the heroic resistance leader.
My question is, what else is Mitt the best at? Best cook? Best tailor? Best ballroom dancer?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, Six was awfully emotional whether it helped or not. And Data had all that stuff about consistent ethics and honesty. So he would beat Six easily, but not Data unless you meant robot to mean robotic qualities and not robotic decency.
Best Tour Guide of his many home states.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I don't know, Six was awfully emotional whether it helped or not. And Data had all that stuff about consistent ethics and honesty. So he would beat Six easily, but not Data unless you meant robot to mean robotic qualities and not robotic decency.
Best Tour Guide of his many home states.
Best Republican Robot.
We all know Johnny 5 was the best robot ever, but he was an immigrant.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Johnny Five was built in the USA.
True, but he wast a naturalized citizen. But as we all saw at the end of Short Circuit 2, Johnny 5 needed to pass a citizenship exam along with Ben. The need to get citizenship makes him an immigrant.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Only because Caprica Six helped engineer an interplanetary genocide. She passed the Turing Test much more convincingly. Romney just barely squeaks by.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was surprised when no one else in this forum had started a thread about the Republican National Convention the day after it closed. Maybe it's my journalistic background, but I felt an obligation to start such a thread.
Is anyone here going to start a thread about the Democratic National Convention? Or is everyone else so apathetic and politically brain dead that they don't want to be bothered? I can see why most of the left buffalo wings here would not be terribly enthused about Obama any more. He has had the worst presidency in history. And so far he has mounted the most unconvincing, blatantly dishonest, and mean-spirited campaign in history, where they have gone so far as to accuse Romney of being a murderer and a felon. (I don't remember the details of the felon charge, but as for the murderer charge, it was an Obama bundler who closed the steel plant that caused the man to lose his health insurance so his wife died three years later of cancer--after Bain capital had tried to save that steel plant.)
C'mon, surely someone here will start a thread on the Democratic National Convention after it begins or at least as soon as it ends. Start one before it begins, if you want. If I have to start it, you know I will have a lot of negative comments about the convention.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron: We already have two threads, one for Republican Primary News, and the other for Democratic News. You could of used one of them.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, can we get another Ron Lambert lie on record by getting you to clarify that if someone does start such a thread (and without your prideful poking, I wouldn't think such a thing unlikely anyway), you won't have negative comments?
Anyway, not only is Romney the best in categories conceivable and inconceivable it seems, now Obama is the worst! Wow.
I especially liked the part where he betrayed America with Obamacare, pissing on the Founding Fathers and apple pie, not at all like Romney did when he was governor. Totally different.
I think my favorite thing about Romney is how clearly written the label is. He's got big plans, by God, and they're complicated to deal with complicated problems. His consistency is top-notch, too. He consistently says, "I'll go into that later, maybe," when asked about his taxes and the economy!
Oh, that reminds me. Remember how you posed a false equivalency between Romney's taxed and Obama's transcripts, and Rabbit demonstrated how fundamentally ignorant you were again and thus, once more, what a tedious liar? I sure do, it was neat!
Seriously, though, one of my actual favorite parts of the convention was even among the die-hard party faithful, they were only able to muster up...what, a line? Two? In regards to SSM, with a few head fakes here and there.
That was neat. Are you ready for that, Ron? 'That' being America continuing its ongoing acceptance of SSM, along with an ongoing not bursting into flames or being devoured by earthquake ghost zombies? Along with the GOP's matching gradual (and this is the part I know you, a spineless liar, will appreciate) abandonment of this supposedly vital issue as it proves more and more politically untenable?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am pretty amused that someone could honestly convince themselves that obama's is the worst presidency ever. Ron, care to explain why Obama is having a worse presidency than, say, Buchanan, Pierce, Fillmore?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sam, what do you know about Buchanan, Pierce, and Fillmore? I am surprised you did not mention Grover Cleveland.
Has Obama delivered on any of his promises? Has he given America hope? Has he given America any real change? Has he given you any hope? What he has done is run up the biggest debt in American history. The current national debt (by the time of the DNC) will be 16 trillion dollars. That is $16,000,000,000,000! Link: http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html
That is far more of a debt than George W. Bush ran up, so Obama can't blame that on Bush.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. The president creates the debt? The president is racking up more debt at a higher rate than the last president under a plan he would have if ideally congress would let him?
2. Obamacare isn't 'real change?' I'm confused as to whether or not it is a radical terrible change or not a change at all. It can't be both so please let me know if I'm supposed to be afraid of Obamacare's radical change, or if I am supposed to dismiss him as having not accomplished anything.
3. I know plenty about Buchanan, Pierce, and Fillmore. Cleveland, as well. Grant, Johnson, and Harding especially. I don't really know why you mention Cleveland since I wouldn't put him in a dismal presidential category. Nearly nobody at all with any historical understanding does. But that's irrelevant; I asked you if you could explain why Obama is having a worse presidency than Buchanan, Pierce, and Fillmore and you haven't answered the question.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got to admit, Obama did an impressive job ratcheting up that debt with no help from anyone else, completely by himself, as a President of a system which has for decades viewed that sort of thing as ordinary.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to say that, yes, Obama has given me hope. And change. He has not given me as much as I would have liked, partly because he has not pursued initiatives I would have prioritized and partly because some of those initiatives he did pursue that I liked best were stymied by opponents who were not in favor of that sort of change.
I would like more hope and change. I do not believe this (namely, greater hope for the future and change in a positive direction) will happen in an America with Romney as president.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find myself curious, BlackBlade. At what point does Ron stop being a liar and annoying to most of the board (well, most of the board that responds to him, anyway) and move into the realm of "troll"?
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, it's more than just being a liar. He routinely, when called to substantiate what turn out almost invariably to be proven lies or gross exaggerrations, to resort to personal attacks.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: I find myself curious, BlackBlade. At what point does Ron stop being a liar and annoying to most of the board (well, most of the board that responds to him, anyway) and move into the realm of "troll"?
Yeah, it would be terrible to have anyone on this forum with an entrenched political ideology that they stubbornly defend with assertions instead of arguments.
Luckily Ron Lambert is the only person here like that! Just get the moderator to take action against him and everything will be keen.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Defend with assertions instead of arguments is one thing. Routinely make plainly worded statements of supposed fact, be proven wrong, and then outright saying on more than one occasion that detractors hate America, are lazy or stupid, or themselves dishonest for having the audacity to actually examine his pronouncements is quite another.
...or we could just pretend there's some sort of equivalence. I suppose that's progress, of a sort.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
First of all, because I think there are leftist posters on Hatrack that are notably worse than Ron when posting on political issues. So, not equivalent.
Second (and most important) of all, because I'm much more concerned with the idea that such people ought to be in some way moderated to remove their offensive ideas from our bubble.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That you phrase it that way just demonstrates that you're missing the point. His ideas, however often stupid and offensive they are, are welcome. And yeah, I don't feel any reluctance saying that to the guy who told me to die and believes most of us will justly be tortured forever in He'll.
What's not welcome is the bald-faced habit of lying, compounded by personal insult when called on it. I don't know how familiar you are with Ron's history around here. Seems another case of a relative newcomer seeing someone being scorned and concluding that it must be unjustified.
But anyway, I'd love to hear which leftist posters behave 'notably worse' than Ron on politics. You clearly have an idea, but if you're reluctant to name names, by all means which political issues then? Because I'm remembering the most well known case with Ron lately, that of the Birther lying. He claimed it had been proven Obama was born in Kenya based on what he claimed was said by Obama's grandmother. When this was looked at in detail here on Hatrack, this was proven as it has been elsewhere to be flat-out wrong.
Not only did he never admit he was wrong, he stuck to the claim in the face of contrary factual evidence and also outright stated what lazy, stupid Americans people were who didn't agree.
So I'd love to hear who or what issues are worse than that. I am highly skeptical that you can offer anything like that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Second (and most important) of all, because I'm much more concerned with the idea that such people ought to be in some way moderated to remove their offensive ideas from our bubble.
You are silly if you think the problem is his ideas, or that this forum doesn't moderate to remove offensive ideas already.
But if you would like to go find a nonworrisome forum that doesn't moderate offensive ideas I would like to see how well that works out.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That you phrase it that way just demonstrates that you're missing the point. His ideas, however often stupid and offensive they are, are welcome. And yeah, I don't feel any reluctance saying that to the guy who told me to die and believes most of us will justly be tortured forever in He'll.
What's not welcome is the bald-faced habit of lying, compounded by personal insult when called on it. I don't know how familiar you are with Ron's history around here. Seems another case of a relative newcomer seeing someone being scorned and concluding that it must be unjustified.
But anyway, I'd love to hear which leftist posters behave 'notably worse' than Ron on politics. You clearly have an idea, but if you're reluctant to name names, by all means which political issues then? Because I'm remembering the most well known case with Ron lately, that of the Birther lying. He claimed it had been proven Obama was born in Kenya based on what he claimed was said by Obama's grandmother. When this was looked at in detail here on Hatrack, this was proven as it has been elsewhere to be flat-out wrong.
Not only did he never admit he was wrong, he stuck to the claim in the face of contrary factual evidence and also outright stated what lazy, stupid Americans people were who didn't agree.
So I'd love to hear who or what issues are worse than that. I am highly skeptical that you can offer anything like that.
I honestly can't think of any way to answer this question without effectively naming names (mentioning the issues would, I think, be too obvious). And you're right that I'd rather not do that.
But you're also right that I may be underestimating Ron. I haven't paid as much attention to him as you have, for certain.
So, I think we'll have to leave it there, unless you have any other suggestions. Not trying to be evasive, I just can't think of any way I'm comfortable proceeding.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: I find myself curious, BlackBlade. At what point does Ron stop being a liar and annoying to most of the board (well, most of the board that responds to him, anyway) and move into the realm of "troll"?
When he stops believing the things he's posting.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: I find myself curious, BlackBlade. At what point does Ron stop being a liar and annoying to most of the board (well, most of the board that responds to him, anyway) and move into the realm of "troll"?
That is far more of a debt than George W. Bush ran up, so Obama can't blame that on Bush.
Why not? The level of debt is almost *entirely* due to spending commitments and revenue shortfalls made by George W. Bush- commitments and shortfalls Obama was powerless to erase. Everyone knew that would happen in the 2000s, when Bush was running up the debt, and spending money like a drunken sailor- but you Republicans just didn't care.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No no, they cared-later. Now even many Republicans are unhappy with Dubya's spending, and I guess it's just handy that that unhappiness coincides with an election with which we need to elevate a politician to rein in the spending. Strange that it's simultaneous with a Democratic incumbent, though. One might almost think that the Republican base and establishment are, as a whole, fundamentally unprincipled or something.
As for Ron, sure, he believes what he says, I think. I didn't realize belief in the things he says and the way he says them was such a good defense against consequence, but as it turns out it's pretty good.
------
Dan,
*snort* Sure. Your case is well made for Ron being better than some unnamed 'leftists' around here. Also your point that Ron elicits such hostility because of his ideas of themselves, and not anything else.
posted
If Ron is representative of even a tiny fraction of people in this country, I'm honestly scared shitless about our immediate future.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* Politicized evangelicals, not as a group as bad as Ron's blatant dishonesty and irrationality, are still a powerful force in Republican primaries and have been for at least a generation now. One of my long-term hopes is that, if Obama wins, the rest of the GOP, the part that like most Americans doesn't pay attention to primaries, realizes that the control their base is exercising is hurting their chances, and deals with it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lots of people are predicting that the GOP go into the philosophical wilderness if they lose.
I think they'll double down and spend four more years demonizing Obama. If they've proven anything in the last four years, it's that they care far more about simply winning than they do governing, and that ideological heresy is punished most severely.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for Ron, sure, he believes what he says, I think. I didn't realize belief in the things he says and the way he says them was such a good defense against consequence, but as it turns out it's pretty good.
That is not what I said. I was asked what would put him over the edge into troll territory, and I responded.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the definition of a troll is inherently bound up in what they believe, and not how they behave?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think BlackBlade is saying that Ron isn't a troll because he's ignorant and delusional, instead of dishonest.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: So the definition of a troll is inherently bound up in what they believe, and not how they behave?
No, one could be like steve and believe Hatrack should be destroyed, and actively try to bring the forum down by instigating arguments, and irking people all by only saying things they might really believe.
In Ron's particular case, if I believed that he, even in part, disbelieved the things he was saying, I would treat him like a troll.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Lots of people are predicting that the GOP go into the philosophical wilderness if they lose.
I think they'll double down and spend four more years demonizing Obama. If they've proven anything in the last four years, it's that they care far more about simply winning than they do governing, and that ideological heresy is punished most severely.
I thought the last four years *were* the double down.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is not what I said. I was asked what would put him over the edge into troll territory, and I responded.
To clarify: I didn't mean it served as a defense against accusations of being a troll. I don't think he is one, for the reasons you describe.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're probably right, Lyrhawn. I hope for what I described, but don't expect it. I don't think losing the election would be enough in any event, because they can still point to Congressional and state government wins.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Lots of people are predicting that the GOP go into the philosophical wilderness if they lose.
I think they'll double down and spend four more years demonizing Obama. If they've proven anything in the last four years, it's that they care far more about simply winning than they do governing, and that ideological heresy is punished most severely.
I thought the last four years *were* the double down.
No, the last four years were the first part of an experiment.
The premise of course being something you're well familiar with: If we grind the gears of government to a halt, can we then blame Obama for not doing anything and then win an election based on that?
That's a new strategy. This will be the first presidential election based on that strategy. If they lose despite that strategy, will they rethink it, or double down?
I think they'll double down and we'll have four more years of relative gridlock on new legislation.
----
And I'll add, if Romney wins, and especially if he captures the Senate...I think the Democrats need to filibuster EVERYTHING that passes their desks.
And I don't mean that because I don't want GOP policy made into law (although I don't). But if that strategy actually works, and then Democrats roll over, they'll prove that it's highly effective, and all they have to do is throw a tantrum every time a Dem wins in order to get power back.
The only way to discredit the strategy is either to beat them at the polls or shove it right back in their faces to show it's the political version of MAD.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, I think that however justified that would be, Democrats lack the guts and organization to implement such a strategy and make it stick. It's a hell of a lot easier to peel off Democrats from the edges than it is Republicans, and Republicans are also more likely to be able to sell people given their cohesion that the Democrats would be playing unfairly.
I hate this. It used to be, for me at least, that I was a registered Independent and I actually DID swing to one side or the other, particularly on social issues and foreign policy. But it's rare that I find an opportunity to do that anymore.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know. Part of it will depend on how Romney plays it and tries to work with them.
But if they try to run roughshod over the Dems, Harry Reid has shown a surprising backbone this past year. Between that and anonymous holds, they might be able to at least halt the big stuff, the stuff that really matters, big ticket items.
I think even for Democrats, the situation has changed from where it was a few years ago, and dramatically different from how the Dems acted during the Bush years.
I've never had to register for a party. I find the idea pretty abhorrent, and if forced to, I'd either register Independent every time, or find some way to protest.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
*snort* Sure. Your case is well made for Ron being better than some unnamed 'leftists' around here. Also your point that Ron elicits such hostility because of his ideas of themselves, and not anything else.
Wait, a second...
What? No it's not. I freely admitted that I wasn't willing to make my case, and conceded. You won, man. Are you just incapable of accepting the high ground, or what? What's bringing on this spate of smarmy jackassery?
Besides, it occurs to me that even if I did name names, it wouldn't really prove anything. The best I could probably hope to wring from you would be an admission of not-quite-equivalence (i.e. "yeah that person is stubborn and wrong but not at the level of Ron"). Because I'm pretty sure the depth to which we consider such intransigence and imperviousness to argument a serious failing is directly proportional to how off-base we consider the wrong person in question to be.
Otherwise I'm pretty sure you'd have already thought of some of the topics I'm refraining from mentioning.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Sure. Your case is well made for Ron being better than some unnamed 'leftists' around here.
I want to find the unnamed leftists which say you are an evil pawn of satan for contradicting them enough.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What? No it's not. I freely admitted that I wasn't willing to make my case, and conceded. You won, man. Are you just incapable of accepting the high ground, or what? What's bringing on this spate of smarmy jackassery?
Besides, it occurs to me that even if I did name names, it wouldn't really prove anything. The best I could probably hope to wring from you would be an admission of not-quite-equivalence (i.e. "yeah that person is stubborn and wrong but not at the level of Ron"). Because I'm pretty sure the depth to which we consider such intransigence and imperviousness to argument a serious failing is directly proportional to how off-base we consider the wrong person in question to be.
Otherwise I'm pretty sure you'd have already thought of some of the topics I'm refraining from mentioning.
What brought it on was the suggestion that not only is there equivalence, but that Ron isn't the worst and is in fact better than unnamed 'leftists' on unnamed issues. It made me pretty pissy, in fact, given how Ron has actually behaved.
This might simply be because, as you said, you're not aware of the things I'm talking about. It certainly appears to be the case, since you refer repeatedly to 'bad ideas' and 'imperviousness'. That's not the problem.
I'm not talking about being unwilling to admit one is wrong on a question of politics or opinion-I'm talking about making factual statements (his grandmother says he was born in Kenya, Democrats will never support spending cuts, records from Obama's college days aren't available and that's unusual) and then even when proven-and I don't use that word often around here-proven wrong, insists he is right and then insults the honesty, patriotism, and fundamental decency of the people who gave him the lie.
Those are all things he's done, in some cases just in the past week. Perhaps you aren't aware of them. If that's the case, maybe say that instead of saying that not only is Ron not that bad, but there are leftists around here that are worse. It's not a question of thinking his ideas are bad, though I do. I think plenty of ideas are bad, and don't make a habit (nor do others around here) of calling their proponents liars.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Elephant in the room that Dan doesn't want to mention is probably BB who does make a habit of flipping out and swearing at opponents. Speaking for myself, Ron's delusions are at least highly entertaining and preferable to Blayne's uncreative swearing.
I hardly blame anyone for not wanting to proceed into that quagmire of a discussion either.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Reality called, something about how you missed the part of those exchanges of where I'm usually goaded into it by admitted trolls. The most consistent commentary over at Sakeriver is usually along the lines how until I lose control I generally possess the moral highground, I doubt Ron has similar people out in the wood work here or at Sakeriver who can claim the same.
Also those exchanges being regarding the left-right political spectrum has been virtually never so again it would not be an accurate comparison and I'm deeply insulted that you would think it remotely fitting.
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
