2008 U.S. Presidential Election Mega thread

[Samurai]

McCain ad about Obama hitting the gym wasn't factual (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec08/attacksads_07-30.html).

Obama didn't cancel a trip to see wounded because cameras weren't allowed. Cameras aren't ever allowed. Like on Obama's previous visits to wounded troops.

Obama's campaign staff wouldn't be allowed in. That includes a former general. Trying to keep funding between Senate staffing and campaign staffing clear, the Senate staff was sent home by this point.

Why was it so crucial that his campaign adviser be there with him? Why was Obama unable to go alone, if he sent his Senate staff home?

And his whole trip was just 1 propaganda photo-op after another... I think the fact that cameras would not be allowed did play a factor in Obama's refusal to go, at least as much if not more than 1 staffer not being allowed in, no matter how Obama tries to spin it.

[Nyarlathotep]

I think the fact that cameras would not be allowed did play a factor in Obama's refusal to go

Do you have a sane reason for this? Because he visited other military in other places without cameras allowed. Did he decide he hated the troops that day or something?

[rick]

And his whole trip was just 1 propaganda photo-op after another... I think the fact that cameras would not be allowed did play a factor in Obama's refusal to go, at least as much if not more than 1 staffer not being allowed in, no matter how Obama tries to spin it.


Ah Sam, it’s like I said a few days ago, you guys really shouldn’t be such bad sports.

It was McCain who challenged Obama to make the overseas trip, and you guys are just going to have to live with the fact that Obama not only took up the challenge, but he also turned the trip into a major political success.

I find it highly interesting that reporter and wife of Alan Greenspan, Andrea Mitchell, who has been highly critical of Obama on a couple of occasions, but who was on the Obama press pool, has straight out stated that not only did Obama go without reporters to visit wounded troops in the Green Zone and had informed the press that they would not be allowed to accompany him on his planned visit to troops in Germany, but that John McCain’s attacks on the subject are flat out lies.

So you guys go ahead and keep up that approach, it doesn’t hurt Obama and it just makes McCain look more and more like just another Republican.

[rick]

Do you have a sane reason for this? Because he visited other military in other places without cameras allowed. Did he decide he hated the troops that day or something?


Get used to it.

Sam is a nice enough guy, but he is completely a creature of ideology.

[FalconX2000]

Get used to it.

Sam is a nice enough guy, but he is completely a creature of ideology.

He's probably the kind of sports fan professional teams dream about.

A big part of what people don't understand about oil production is that it's not just about how many barrels you can actually get out of the ground. There's also EROEI to be considered -- the Energy Return On Energy Invested.

In brief, when the U.S. started the modern oil industry in the 1850s, oil was found in pools on the ground in Pennsylvania. If you invested about 1 barrel's worth of energy on exploration, extraction, refinement and transportation to your market, you would get back about 100 barrels worth of energy in return. By the 1930s (the Great Depression) one barrel would get you about 30 barrels.

Today... well, you'll see slightly different numbers, but essentially one barrel of oil will provide you with 4, 5 or 6 barrels in return, on average. This is a major reason why Saudi Arabia and her superfield, Ghawar, are so important. Ghawar not only provided the Saudis with about half their oil, but it's the archetypal Saudi field -- a place that once gushed vast supplies of easily extracted, 'light sweet crude' (requiring little refinement).

Of course, these days they're apparently injecting massive amounts of seawater into Ghawar to keep the oil flowing -- thus lowering the EROEI -- and there are other signs that the entire field may be moving into (or already in) terminal decline. Saudi figures are very closely guarded data, however, and we mainly know what we do by looking at past reports by Saudi engineers on their innovations in dealing with particular problems (reports that revealing about the state of major fields and which can thus be counted on to be far more opaque in the future).

(On the positive side, Ghawar probably isn't crashing as badly as Cantarell, the Mexican superfield that until recently was providing 2/3 of Mexico's production. Cantarell is plummeting at a rate that is truly catastrophic...)

The Saudis can still extract a great deal of oil very cheaply from their fields, whether or not the country's oil production has already peaked. The EROEI on the much-lauded tar sands of Canada, on the other hand, is almost 1 to 1, and the EROEI of America's oil shale is actually negative. Why? Because you extract petroleum from the oil sands by blasting them with huge amounts of steam (derived from freshwater) a process taking great amounts of energy as well as being ecologically devastating. You extract petroleum from U.S. oil shale by heating it to hundreds of degrees to free the hydrocarbons.

Incidentally, that form of shale oil should not be confused with the Bakken oil reserves, which are actual conventional oil deposits found in shale. Shale is an extremely problematic rock to drill for oil, as it tends to break apart into many tiny sub-fields in which you can sometimes extract 10% of the oil, and sometimes 1%.

Great post. And an intriguing read.:smile:

McCain ad about Obama hitting the gym wasn't factual (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec08/attacksads_07-30.html).

Obama didn't cancel a trip to see wounded because cameras weren't allowed. Cameras aren't ever allowed. Like on Obama's previous visits to wounded troops.

Obama's campaign staff wouldn't be allowed in. That includes a former general. Trying to keep funding between Senate staffing and campaign staffing clear, the Senate staff was sent home by this point.

I'm pleased negative McCain coverage for his problems is finally getting more than a day of minor coverage.

[FalconX2000]

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16342.html

The McCain campaign has declared their candidate doesn't speak for them.

Ok, the actual statement is wrong for different reasons, but the headline is hilarious. The article is about McCain's tax policies according to his campaign andd McCain's positions according to the candidate himself differ in deficit by $2.8 trillion.

[Samurai]

Ah Sam, it’s like I said a few days ago, you guys really shouldn’t be such bad sports.

It was McCain who challenged Obama to make the overseas trip, and you guys are just going to have to live with the fact that Obama not only took up the challenge, but he also turned the trip into a major political success.

I find it highly interesting that reporter and wife of Alan Greenspan, Andrea Mitchell, who has been highly critical of Obama on a couple of occasions, but who was on the Obama press pool, has straight out stated that not only did Obama go without reporters to visit wounded troops in the Green Zone and had informed the press that they would not be allowed to accompany him on his planned visit to troops in Germany, but that John McCain’s attacks on the subject are flat out lies.

So you guys go ahead and keep up that approach, it doesn’t hurt Obama and it just makes McCain look more and more like just another Republican.
But you didn't answer the question... If the campaign adviser was the make or break aspect, as Obama claims, why was it so vitally important that he accompany him? So important that since he couldn't go, Obama refused to go? Do you have an answer for that?

[FalconX2000]

But you didn't answer the question... If the campaign adviser was the make or break aspect, as Obama claims, why was it so vitally important that he accompany him? So important that since he couldn't go, Obama refused to go? Do you have an answer for that?

That's because you're asking the wrong question and emphasising the wrong points.

As evidenced by the Obama camp's statements on the matter as well as its actions earlier in the tour, the campaign looked at the email from the Pentagon, highlighted the words that said it would be treated as a political event and decided to err on the side of caution. It is true that the Obama campaign either misunderstood or exaggerated when it said in one statement that they were forbidden to go, but the vibe they got was that they were being discouraged and they didn't a political firestorm about forcing a campaign into a military camp.

The advisor thing was one small part of the larger point: treated as political event.

[Charles RB]

I think the fact that cameras would not be allowed did play a factor in Obama's refusal to go

You're saying this in reply to a post that says cameras weren't allowed in previous visits he made.

What the FUCK.

[Typo Lad]

Got a link on that rick? It'd be helpful.

[KevinTBrown]

Why was it so crucial that his campaign adviser be there with him? Why was Obama unable to go alone, if he sent his Senate staff home?

And his whole trip was just 1 propaganda photo-op after another... I think the fact that cameras would not be allowed did play a factor in Obama's refusal to go, at least as much if not more than 1 staffer not being allowed in, no matter how Obama tries to spin it.

You're saying this in reply to a post that says cameras weren't allowed in previous visits he made.

What the FUCK.

Unfortunately, Sam's not alone in that thinking.........

McCain vs. truth: Ad it up

F.C., a Vernon Hills reader, writes:

"How come you're not pointing out that B. Hussein Obama, the so called "messiah," did not go to see wounded troops on his photo-op campaign trip?"

You are mimicking, among other things, the John McCain TV ad that darkly accuses Barack Obama of not respecting our wounded soldiers except as photo props:

"Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras . . ."

The McCain campaign knows this isn't true -- that Obama, in fact, has visited privately with wounded soldiers in Iraq and the United States.

There are two explanations for such TV ads.

The first is that McCain is not a particularly honorable man.

The second is that he is so old he tends to become confused about his facts and surroundings.

QT will leave it to you to choose one.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/quicktakes/1083630,CST-NWS-qt31.article

[TCJohnson]

Got a link on that rick? It'd be helpful.

MSNBC reporter Andrea Mitchell, who was part of the traveling press corps, confirmed that in an on-air interview with Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C.

"The point is that Obama had no intention of bringing any cameras with him," Ms. Mitchell said. "I was there. I can vouch for that."



http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/topstories/stories/073108dnpolfactcheck.1a2b2fec.html

[KevinTBrown]

A study has shown that one-third of McCain's ads are now negative: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080731/ap_on_el_pr/angry_mccain

I'm surprised at that.


It's only one-third?

[Nyarlathotep]

McCain is getting absurdly desparate:

http://washingtonindependent.com/view/britney-spears-paris

Aboard the Obama campaign bus from Springfield to Rolla, Mo. -- Sen. Barack Obama's been compared to a lot of folks during the course of this campaign. John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Icarus and, in jest, Jesus. Now, the McCain campaign has found a new parallel figure: K-Fed's ex, Britney Spears.

"Barack Obama is the biggest celebrity in the world," wrote campaign manager Rick Davis in a memo circulated by spokesman Brian Rogers, "comparable to Tom Cruise, Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. As he told congressional Democrats yesterday, he has become the 'symbol' for the world's aspirations for America and that we are now at 'the moment … that the world is waiting for.'"

Davis went on to write: "Only celebrities like Barack Obama go to the gym three times a day, demand "MET-RX chocolate roasted-peanut protein bars and bottles of a hard-to-find organic brew -- Black Forest Berry Honest Tea" and worry about the price of arugula."

Normally in this slot I'd come with a witty comment, usually involving Bengals quarterback Carson Palmer or Reds rookie outfielder Jay Bruce. But I'll just leave you with the image of Us Weekly editor Janice Min deciding who to put on its cover--Paris Hilton falling-down drunk outside a nightclub or Obama speaking to 200,000 people in Berlin. Dude, seriously, there are no words.


These knobs really need to pick a message and stick with it. Either he's a white hating black panther revolutionist, or an America hating secret terrorist Islamic fundamentalist, or an arrogant North East academic liberal elitist, or a vapid Hollywood celebrity liberal elitist. He can't more than one of those at a time.

[the4thpip]

McCain is getting absurdly desparate:



These knobs really need to pick a message and stick with it. Either he's a white hating black panther revolutionist, or an America hating secret terrorist Islamic fundamentalist, or an arrogant North East academic liberal elitist, or a vapid Hollywood celebrity liberal elitist. He can't more than one of those at a time.

Next McCain ad: Obama is a group of Skrulls.

[Infra-Man]

McCain is getting absurdly desparate:

The best part of this celebrity ad is that they use very flattering images of Obama throughout. He's speaking before 200k appreciative, enthusiastic people waving American flags. Even the final image at the end is of a beaming, smiling, charming Barack Obama basking under the glow of a white light.

Call me crazy, but they could have at least picked some, I dunno, unflattering images of him if they are doing an attack ad.

Then there's this from former McCain strategist and confidant John Weaver

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/weaver_mccains_former_strategi.php

Weaver, McCain's Former Strategist, Calls "Celeb" Ad "Childish"
John Weaver, for years one of John McCain's closest friends and confidants, has been in exile since his resignation from McCain's presidential campaign last year. With the exception of an occasional interview, he has, by his own account, bit his tongue as McCain's campaign has adopted a strategy that Weaver believes "diminishes John McCain."

With the release today of a McCain television ad blasting Obama for celebrity preening while gas prices rise, and a memo that accuses Obama of putting his own aggrandizement before the country, Weaver said he's had "enough."

The ad's premise, he said, is "childish."

"John's been a celebrity ever since he was shot down," Weaver said. "Whatever that means. And I recall Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush going overseas and all those waving American flags."

Weaver remains in contact with senior McCain strategists and, for a while early this year, regularly talked to McCain.

The strategy of driving up Obama's negatives "reduces McCain on the stage," Weaver said.

"For McCain to win in such troubled times, he needs to begin telling the American people how he intends to lead us. That McCain exists. He can inspire the country to greatness."

He added: "There is legitimate mockery of a political campaign now, and it isn't at Obama's. For McCain's sake, this tomfoolery needs to stop."

On a conference call with reporters, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said the ad "addresses a unique facet in Barack Obama's campaign that is unlikenbsp; any other campaign we've seen in modern history: a campaign that is focused on the development of an enormous image of celebrity status." Davis and Weaver do not get along, and the campaign's operations chief, Steve Schmidt,was reportedly upset that Weaver told the New York Times that the campaign "lost" the week that Obama went overseas.

Obama, speaking to reporters outside a diner in Lebanon, MO, at first did not answer a question about the ad. Then he said,.

"You know, I don't pay attention to John McCain's ads, although I do notice he doesn't seem to have anything to say very positive about himself. He seems to only be talking about me. You need to ask John McCain what he's for and not just what he's against," he said.

[the4thpip]

Vote Both, a group that was formed to press Barack Obama to pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate, is closing shop, USA Today reports. The group's founders, both former Clinton staffers, say they made the decision after coming to the conclusion that there will not be an Obama-Clinton ticket.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/07/31/vote_both/index.html

[Royal]

Next McCain ad: Obama is a group of Skrulls.

And then have it proven by pundits that Obama has Kree blood.

[Nyarlathotep]

Barack Obama: The evil mastermind behind Final Crisis?

See, the question mark makes it a legitimate question. Let's have 10 minutes of pundits talk about it to show "both sides" of the issue.

[the4thpip]

Barack Obama: The evil mastermind behind Final Crisis?

See, the question mark makes it a legitimate question. Let's have 10 minutes of pundits talk about it to show "both sides" of the issue.

I see that your questions fails to mention that Obama is a shape shifting alien spy (or 6 of them). Your probama-bias is showing!

[Nyarlathotep]

Just in case anyone mistakes CNN for journalism, look at the poll thy've put up: http://edition.cnn.com/

Do you believe, as John McCain's latest advert claims, that there are similarities between Barack Obama, Britney Spears and Paris Hilton?


Yes, he's in it for the celebrity
Yes, he can't hold a tune either
No, this is muckraking


Newsflash: Muckraking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muckraker) is what you should be doing while you're busy covering celebrity blondes gone wild.

[the4thpip]

Just in case anyone mistakes CNN for journalism, look at the poll thy've put up: http://edition.cnn.com/



Newsflash: Muckraking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muckraker) is what you should be doing while you're busy covering celebrity blondes gone wild.

I just pray that creating those polls is the job of interns. :eek:

[TCJohnson]

At least they got a sense of humor.

[Infra-Man]

Next McCain ad: Obama is a group of Skrulls.

And then have it proven by pundits that Obama has Kree blood.

Barack Obama: The evil mastermind behind Final Crisis?

Barackree Husskrull Didiobamorrison?

[KevinTBrown]

Face. Palm.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080731/ap_on_el_pr/obama

[FalconX2000]

I see that your questions fails to mention that Obama is a shape shifting alien spy (or 6 of them). Your probama-bias is showing!

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/4482/mibelectioncr1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Those are just your implanted memories.

[Typo Lad]

To be fair, while the McCain people are jumping on it like a teenage boy on a willing girl... it was a bone dumb thing to say.

[Nyarlathotep]

To be fair, while the McCain people are jumping on it like a teenage boy on a willing girl... it was a bone dumb thing to say.

If by "dumb" you mean the completely dishonest McCain campaign will twist it and use it like they will any and everything Obama says from now until November, then yes.

If by "dumb" you mean it's not true, I'd have to disagree. I didn't take the comment as race related though and more like, "I'm not an old crabby bitch like McCain and they'll try to scare you with that."

[Typo Lad]

If by "dumb" you mean the completely dishonest McCain campaign will twist it and use it like they will any and everything Obama says from now until November, then yes.

If by "dumb" you mean it's not true, I'd have to disagree. I didn't take the comment as race related though and more like, "I'm not an old crabby bitch like McCain and they'll try to scare you with that."
I did indeed mean "dumb" as in "Why in the world would you give an opening like that?"

[rick]

But you didn't answer the question... If the campaign adviser was the make or break aspect, as Obama claims, why was it so vitally important that he accompany him? So important that since he couldn't go, Obama refused to go? Do you have an answer for that?


I don't actually have the answer to that question, however it really isn't relevent when you take into account that the whole argument is bogus to begin with.

Obama did visit with injured troops during his trip.

He did it without cameras or press.

Attempting to make a case that he wasn't interested in visiting the troops simply ignores the reality of that simple little fact.

[Dreadstar]

I did indeed mean "dumb" as in "Why in the world would you give an opening like that?"

That's kind of a typical political ploy: attempt to defuse a talking point of the opposition by voicing it first.

Ala:

"Now my esteemed opponents will say I'm a communist. They will attempt to play on your fear of communism by relating me to it."

It's a bit of strawmanning, to be honest, but it's intended to prevent the other guys by setting up both an "I told you so" and inuring the people you're addressing to the message.

The bad thing here is that Obama used this particular political ploy in regards to race. Is that "playing the race card?" Depends on which side of the political divide you're standing, I guess.

Basically, you're right. Why even *go* there to begin with?

[rick]

Got a link on that rick? It'd be helpful.

Sure.

Andrea Mitchell Debunks McCain Attack Ad (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/30/andrea-mitchell-debunks-mccains-attack-ads-on-obamas-european-trip/)

[Typo Lad]

Basically, you're right.

I will treasure those three little words for years to come.

Well, the next ten minutes at least.

[Dreadstar]

I will treasure those three little words for years to come.

Well, the next ten minutes at least.

Don't let it go to your yarmulke.

[Nyarlathotep]

I did indeed mean "dumb" as in "Why in the world would you give an opening like that?"

At this point, it doesn't really matter what he says. I mean, they attempted to turn the fact that people across the world actually like him into a bad thing.

I wish Obama got a clue and grew a pair about this. Nothing he does or says is off limits to these guys. This notion that he can't give them any openings is the same reason he made himself a liar betrayed much of his base by voting for Telecom immunity. Because voting as if he cared about the constitution would have given McCain an opening to say, "Obama NO fight terror. ARrgh!!"

[patrick r]

I'm waiting for the day that we have a presidential candidate that says something similar to, "Quit taking what I say out of context, quit lying, quit filling in the blanks with what you think I will say and let the past go because we all have done things we are not proud of but that doesn't equate to the person we are today. Focus on the issues at hand facing our county, citizens and world position. If I hear one more piece of bullshit come out of your mouth or those of your supporters, I am going step out from behind this lectern and we are going to settle this a whole different way.

Maybe I watched too much John Wayne growing up but this person would get my vote.

[Nyarlathotep]

I'm waiting for the day that we have a presidential candidate that says something similar to, "Quit taking what I say out of context, quit lying, quit filling in the blanks with what you think I will say and let the past go because we all have done things we are not proud of but that doesn't equate to the person we are today. Focus on the issues at hand facing our county, citizens and world position. If I hear one more piece of bullshit come out of your mouth or those of your supporters, I am going step out from behind this lectern and we are going to settle this a whole different way.

Maybe I watched too much John Wayne growing up but this person would get my vote.

I have that daydream about once a day, but McCain being disabled sort of screws it up.

[Charles RB]

Attempting to make a case that he wasn't interested in visiting the troops simply ignores the reality of that simple little fact.

I sometimes wonder if the troops want all these politicians coming in to visit them. They might be trying to get some rest or do the crossword or something.

[LtMarvel]

Why was it so crucial that his campaign adviser be there with him? Why was Obama unable to go alone, if he sent his Senate staff home?

And his whole trip was just 1 propaganda photo-op after another... I think the fact that cameras would not be allowed did play a factor in Obama's refusal to go, at least as much if not more than 1 staffer not being allowed in, no matter how Obama tries to spin it.
Pay attention:

Cameras are never allowed. Not even when Obama has visited them stateside. The Obama campaign states there wasn't even a plan to take a small just-in-case group of journalists (who would only be with Obama outside the hospital..their job is to report on Obama if some big news event happened).

So the "camera" clause the McCain campaign and you are shouting about is blatenly false.

[section 8]

I'm waiting for the day that we have a presidential candidate that says something similar to, "Quit taking what I say out of context, quit lying, quit filling in the blanks with what you think I will say and let the past go because we all have done things we are not proud of but that doesn't equate to the person we are today. Focus on the issues at hand facing our county, citizens and world position. If I hear one more piece of bullshit come out of your mouth or those of your supporters, I am going step out from behind this lectern and we are going to settle this a whole different way.

Maybe I watched too much John Wayne growing up but this person would get my vote.

i feel the same way, but a politician that doesn't condescend, or blow smoke?

Such a soul would probably never be elected, too scary for the ignorant masses.
Not to mention the ones he/she will need to fund his her campaign

[FalconX2000]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/31/obama_campaign_launches_low_ro.html

The Low Road Express. lol.

[FalconX2000]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121755336096303089.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Just some light funny fluff about Obama's skinniness, his eating habits and how his physique may affect voters

[Infra-Man]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121755336096303089.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Just some light funny fluff about Obama's skinniness, his eating habits and how his physique may affect voters

FTA:

But in a nation in which 66% of the voting-age population is overweight and 32% is obese, could Sen. Obama's skinniness be a liability?

Amy Chozick, what you've just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent article were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone who read this article is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[FalconX2000]

FTA:



Amy Chozick, what you've just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent article were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone who read this article is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

You're taking the article too seriously. :tongue: Whether she means what she's writing is irrelevant to me, I just found the content funny.

[Infra-Man]

You're taking the article too seriously. :tongue: Whether she means what she's writing is irrelevant to me, I just found the content funny.

I think it'd be funny if it wasn't in the Wall Street Journal (man, is this what the paper's going to be like now that News Corp acquired ownership? oy vey) and was written by someone who's a hardcore history/politics/news appreciator and wit, like Sarah Vowell or Mo Rocca.

[tranquill]

Many Israeli officials argued against the Iraqi war. Like Shoher here: http://samsonblinded.org/blog/iraq

[Infra-Man]

After seeing Rick Davis (John McCain's campaign manager) in recent media appearances, I have a question:

Is it just me or is Rick Davis a total fucking dingleberry?

[Royal]

After seeing Rick Davis (John McCain's campaign manager) in recent media appearances, I have a question:

Is it just me or is Rick Davis a total fucking dingleberry?

Nonsense! The German people LOVE Paris Hilton!

[GozertheGozarian]

Amy Chozick, what you've just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent article were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone who read this article is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Just finish watching Billy Madison?

[Royal]

Chill! Chill The Fuck Out! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Jl9zSQtNCM)

It's a bad fucking ad. No left or right about it. It's A BAD AD!!!!

Shit! If you got some talking points going on, Learn To Adapt Them To The Fucking Situation! Don't go down the fucking LIST!!

Dammit!

[Infra-Man]

Just finish watching Billy Madison?

Hehe, it's my stock response whenever I hear or read something I think is incredibly stupid.

[Buzz Dixon]

FTA:



Amy Chozick, what you've just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent article were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone who read this article is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.I think she just wants to make sure the voters know Obama is different from other presidential candidates and he doesn't look like them because he's different you know and perhaps people aren't interested in voting for someone who looks DIFFERENT from them.

In other words (to quote Mel Brooks' BLAZING SADDLES):

"THE NEW SHERIFF
IS A N[BONG!]!"

Sorry, Karl, I don't think it's gonna play this year...

[FalconX2000]

I think it'd be funny if it wasn't in the Wall Street Journal (man, is this what the paper's going to be like now that News Corp acquired ownership? oy vey) and was written by someone who's a hardcore history/politics/news appreciator and wit, like Sarah Vowell or Mo Rocca.

That was the Wall Street Journal?:eek: Lol. I picked it on google, so I didn't really pay attention. Yup, they really let their standards slip on that one.

After seeing Rick Davis (John McCain's campaign manager) in recent media appearances, I have a question:

Is it just me or is Rick Davis a total fucking dingleberry?

I haven't been watching him. Is he worse than Terry McAuliffe?

[FalconX2000]

Chill! Chill The Fuck Out! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Jl9zSQtNCM)

It's a bad fucking ad. No left or right about it. It's A BAD AD!!!!

Shit! If you got some talking points going on, Learn To Adapt Them To The Fucking Situation! Don't go down the fucking LIST!!

Dammit!

McCain finally got the media attention he wanted. Let's see him burn under the magnifying glass.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/usPoliticsNews/idUKN0144970820080801

Obama has modified his $1000 tax cut plan for those making below $150000 a year. It's a tax rebate now, meaning you get it immediately.

[LtMarvel]

First, The Daily Show (http://www.hulu.com)pointed out that McCain campaign recieved the maximum donation from the parents of Paris Hilton, and then dumped on their daughter in the campaign ad. Nice.

Second, someone posted Sen. Obama's town hall meeting in Rolla, MO (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/597529)(his closest appearence to me). I believe this is where he announced his $1000 rebate for working families.

Side information on the introductions:

The Carnahans (who live in Rolla) are the wife and daughter of the late Mel Carnahan, who famously defeated John Ashcroft after dying in a plane crash.

US Senator McCaskill was one of the first to endorse (and the first woman from the Senate) to endorse Obama. Her name has been thrown around as vp candidate by the press early on (I don't think she has the experience).

"Killer B" Govenor Blunt, one termer who suprised his party and the state by announcing he wasn't running for reelection this year; he's embattled in legal problems and is the son of long time US Rep Roy Blunt.

[Stressfactor]

The Carnahans (who live in Rolla) are the wife and daughter of the late Mel Carnahan, who famously defeated John Ashcroft after dying in a plane crash.

I'm pretty sure I'll be going to hell for this one BUT -- back when Carnahan sadly passed away I was living in St. Louis at the time and came up with the following "campaign song" (sung to the tune of the "Mister Ed" Theme Song)

A corpse is a corpse
of course, of course
and no one can vote for a corpse, of course
unless that corpse just happens to me the amazing Mr. Mel.

For the record, when I mentioned to my co-worker that most people who went ahead and voted for Carnahan knew that what they were actually doing was voting for his wife, Jean Carnahan, to serve in his stead my co-worker responded: "Not me! I voted for the dead guy! I'm serious -- even a corpse would be better than Ashcroft!"

[Stressfactor]

Eh it's Friday and even ICanHasCheezburger is getting itno the political act.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/funny-pictures-cat-makes-political-statement.jpg

[Infra-Man]

That was the Wall Street Journal?:eek: Lol. I picked it on google, so I didn't really pay attention. Yup, they really let their standards slip on that one.

Yeah, I think that was my main issue with the article. If it was just a magazine fluff piece, that'd be fine, but damn, they published that in The Wall Street Journal.

I haven't been watching him. Is he worse than Terry McAuliffe?

He's not as annoying as Terry McAuliffe, but he's a much bigger douchebag.

[Infra-Man]

More McCain campaign douchebaggery.

New McCain Ad: Obama May Be "The One" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/01/new-mccain-ad-obama-may-b_n_116384.html) (in which McCain mockingly compares Obama to Moses)

In one ad, McCain claimed Obama was the reason we have high gas prices

In an online ad, McCain compared Obama to David Hasselhoff

In a recent TV ad, McCain compared Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears

And now this


So much for no negative campaigning from McCain, huh?

[Nyarlathotep]

So much for no negative campaigning from McCain, huh?

So much for anyone having a legitimate argument that McCain is fit to serve as President. That ad shows that he is completely incapable of even running a campaign for a month. Hell, most of the ad looks pro-Obama. The way he said he was "proud" of the Britney/Paris ad should tell everyone, even republicans, that he has completely lost his mind.

[Charles RB]

More McCain campaign douchebaggery.

New McCain Ad: Obama May Be "The One" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/01/new-mccain-ad-obama-may-b_n_116384.html) (in which McCain mockingly compares Obama to Moses)

That's the third most pathetic political ad I've ever seen, beaten only by the Conservative's doing posters of Tony Blair with demonic eyes and Labour's "Dave The Chameleon" ads against David Cameron.

That second one had a bit insinuating Cameron is insincere by having Dave the Chameleon ask people to call him Dave instead of David.

Quoth Ian Hislop: "Yes, altering your name to be more populist is a dodgy tactic, isn't it Anthony."

[KevinTBrown]

Well, supposedly the Obama campaign received 100,000 donations yesterday because of the recent flurry of negativity by McCain: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Plouffe_McCain_attacks_helped_our_campaign_moneywi se.html

[Sabrinaset]

In a recent TV ad, McCain compared Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears

So he's saying Obama doesn't wear panties? :eek:

[FalconX2000]

First, The Daily Show (http://www.hulu.com)pointed out that McCain campaign recieved the maximum donation from the parents of Paris Hilton, and then dumped on their daughter in the campaign ad. Nice.

LOL.:biggrin:

I have nothing against dumping on Paris Hilton in itself, but besides the lousy ad that's pretty dumb.

More McCain campaign douchebaggery.

New McCain Ad: Obama May Be "The One" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/01/new-mccain-ad-obama-may-b_n_116384.html) (in which McCain mockingly compares Obama to Moses)

In one ad, McCain claimed Obama was the reason we have high gas prices

In an online ad, McCain compared Obama to David Hasselhoff

In a recent TV ad, McCain compared Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears

And now this


So much for no negative campaigning from McCain, huh?

Dammit that ad is so funny.:biggrin:

I winced at the "a light will shine down" part (it's actually a joke he made, I know), but besides that I don't see how this would negatively influence even the low info voters.

[FalconX2000]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/29/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4303192.shtml

Obama's campaign and the DNC have launched a $20 million effort to court, register and get out the Latino vote.

While I personally favour Joe Biden as VP (followed by Tim Kaine, then Evan Bayh), this does seem to point a bit towards Kaine being the choice.

Well, supposedly the Obama campaign received 100,000 donations yesterday because of the recent flurry of negativity by McCain: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Plouffe_McCain_attacks_helped_our_campaign_moneywi se.html

Some days I see so many things that make me want to give up hope in humanity...then some days something comes along to lift me up again.

[Samurai]

LOL.:biggrin:

I have nothing against dumping on Paris Hilton in itself, but besides the lousy ad that's pretty dumb.



Dammit that ad is so funny.:biggrin:

I winced at the "a light will shine down" part, but besides that I don't see how this would negatively influence even the low info voters.

Exactly, it's meant to be sarcastic and funny, playing off the whole "Obamessiah" meme, because he has so many devout worshipers that bow and scrape at his feet.

[FalconX2000]

Exactly, it's meant to be sarcastic and funny, playing off the whole "Obamessiah" meme, because he has so many devout worshipers that bow and scrape at his feet.

That has always been the best way to make fun of Barack. I remember seeing a comic of him running on water to escape a huge Reverend Wright Shark below, done like a Jaws poster.

As I said earlier, I don't think it's effective (I think low info voters will take it with a grain of salt, but would become more interested in the election), but it did make my day for political humour.

[Michael P]

Exactly, it's meant to be sarcastic and funny, playing off the whole "Obamessiah" meme, because he has so many devout worshipers that bow and scrape at his feet.

This has to be my favorite form of logical fallacy. "A large number of people disagree with me, so obviously they must all be brainwashed, latter-day Jonesboroans without an uncritical bone in their precious little bodies, because no one could honestly and sincerely hold an opinion which differs from mine."

A lot of people like Obama because he reflects their values (yes, liberals do have them!) and has a lot of charisma. Deal with it.

[Samurai]

This has to be my favorite form of logical fallacy. "A large number of people disagree with me, so obviously they must all be brainwashed, latter-day Jonesboroans without an uncritical bone in their precious little bodies, because no one could honestly and sincerely hold an opinion which differs from mine."

A lot of people like Obama because he reflects their values (yes, liberals do have them!) and has a lot of charisma. Deal with it.

Geee, isn't that the exact description I've been hearing of Republicans who voted for Bush, especially the 2nd time? Pot, meet kettle...

Obama can't reflect anyone's values, he's a blank slate, talking about "hope and change" by voting for him, not because he has solid ideas and values... he doesn't, and the few positions he has enumerated he has since flip flopped on (like getting out of Iraq completely in 16 months, no matter what). People are projecting their own beliefs onto his tabula rasa, nothing more.

[PatrickG]

Geee, isn't that the exact description I've been hearing of Republicans who voted for Bush, especially the 2nd time? Pot, meet kettle...

Obama can't reflect anyone's values, he's a blank slate, talking about "hope and change" by voting for him, not because he has solid ideas and values... he doesn't, and the few positions he has enumerated he has since flip flopped on (like getting out of Iraq completely in 16 months, no matter what). People are projecting their own beliefs onto his tabula rasa, nothing more.

You voted for Bush the second time, Sam?

I mean, I knew you swung right hard but as even someone who voted for Alan Keyes in 2000 and campaigned for Pat Buchanan as a teenager and had a Rush Limbaugh birthday cake one year... I don't get it.

I think the sooner we accept that many elected Republican officials have betrayed their party at best and committed treason at worst, the sooner we can actually have a legitimate Republican Party again.

I mean, we're already at a point where Godwin's Law probably needs to be amended to refer to Bush instead of Hitler and the man isn't even out of office yet!

I hate the idea of a minimum wage hike. I'm not sold on universal healthcare.

But I'm honestly at a point where about half of the bad stuff in my life is something I can pin on an elected Republican.

Things could get worse under a Democrat and I'd at least be thankful it wasn't the same guys screwing me over.

[PatrickG]

Geee, isn't that the exact description I've been hearing of Republicans who voted for Bush, especially the 2nd time? Pot, meet kettle...

Obama can't reflect anyone's values, he's a blank slate, talking about "hope and change" by voting for him, not because he has solid ideas and values... he doesn't, and the few positions he has enumerated he has since flip flopped on (like getting out of Iraq completely in 16 months, no matter what). People are projecting their own beliefs onto his tabula rasa, nothing more.

I find flipflops refreshing after 8 years of myopic stubbornness.

Personally, flipflops reflect my values.

[Royal]

Exactly, it's meant to be sarcastic and funny, playing off the whole "Obamessiah" meme, because he has so many devout worshipers that bow and scrape at his feet.

except the whole meme wasn't there in the first place...until it was made by the McCain party.

If and when we see "I Believe In Barack Obama", then we'll talk.

[Samurai]

You voted for Bush the second time, Sam?

I mean, I knew you swung right hard but as even someone who voted for Alan Keyes in 2000 and campaigned for Pat Buchanan as a teenager and had a Rush Limbaugh birthday cake one year... I don't get it.

I think the sooner we accept that many elected Republican officials have betrayed their party at best and committed treason at worst, the sooner we can actually have a legitimate Republican Party again.

I mean, we're already at a point where Godwin's Law probably needs to be amended to refer to Bush instead of Hitler and the man isn't even out of office yet!

I hate the idea of a minimum wage hike. I'm not sold on universal healthcare.

But I'm honestly at a point where about half of the bad stuff in my life is something I can pin on an elected Republican.

Things could get worse under a Democrat and I'd at least be thankful it wasn't the same guys screwing me over.

Yes, I voted for Bush both times. But at least I never campaigned for Buchanan or had a Rush birthday cake! :wink:

Honestly, I felt that Kerry would have been worse, and while I wasn't happy with Bush completely, I felt he had the guts to keep us on the offensive in the war on terror.

I don't know if half of the bad stuff in your life could be Republicans fault, but if it is, doesn't that mean the other half is the Democrats' fault? Like refusing to drill for more domestic oil or build any refineries. The Republicans filibustered the issue today, and the Democrats flat out refused to increase the domestic oil supply. The Reps decided to see if there was any limit to their reticence, and offered to tie the bill to the national price of a gallon of gas. The Dems refused at $4.50, $5, $7.50, and even $10 per gallon! Then Pelosi ordered that all lights and microphones be shut off, ordered the room cleared of reporters and guests, and left. The Dems WANT gas to go ever higher... they think the issue helps them in the election, so screw the American people, let them suffer, if they believe it means more Dems in power...

[Samurai]

except the whole meme wasn't there in the first place...until it was made by the McCain party.

If and when we see "I Believe In Barack Obama", then we'll talk.

You probably don't see it at your sites, be believe me, the Obamessiah / God complex / "I think I already am President, aren't I?" meme has been around a long time on the Republican side of the aisle... McCain didn't create it, and he hasn't even addressed it or alluded to it till now.

[FalconX2000]

On this point I agree with Sam. I feel dirty


Obama does, consciously or unconsciously, project the aura of a charismatic guy who's all the more 'perfect' because his confidence doesn't necessarily come off as arrogance. There's a reason why comedians find it so hard to make fun of Obama in a directly detrimental way: there's just about nothing that suggests comical stupidity or fallacy.

This 'perfection aura', also known as charisma, has plenty of positives. There are, however, some unfortunate side effects. People who don't keep their expectations in check can get disapointed badly whenever Obama fails or compromises in some way they don't like. It also, combined with his newness, has the reverse psychological effect of making people dismiss him as 'an empty suit' despite not knowing much about him. Of course his opponents will want to exploit such prevalent logical loopholes.

I remember undergoing this effect when I dismissed the game Counter Strike without ever playing it. I eventually did and found it to be a great game.

[Nyarlathotep]

Exactly, it's meant to be sarcastic and funny, playing off the whole "Obamessiah" meme, because he has so many devout worshipers that bow and scrape at his feet.

It's not funny. It's stupid and pathetic. You should be embarrassed to even try and defend it. I'm sure you are, but you have some weird sense of loyalty to these buffoons. Any self respecting Republican should just find an excuse to stay home in November at this point.

PatrickG, I think it's actually at best Treason and at worst war crimes for Bush and Co. I always say if you're a conservative you should be twice as angry as any liberal about all the horrible things they've done, and how much they played you. And Pat Buchanan became somewhat sane over the years,

[Charles RB]

Exactly, it's meant to be sarcastic and funny

Well it fucked that one up, didn't it.

[LtMarvel]

Yes, I voted for Bush both times. But at least I never campaigned for Buchanan or had a Rush birthday cake! :wink:

Honestly, I felt that Kerry would have been worse, and while I wasn't happy with Bush completely, I felt he had the guts to keep us on the offensive in the war on terror.

I don't know if half of the bad stuff in your life could be Republicans fault, but if it is, doesn't that mean the other half is the Democrats' fault? Like refusing to drill for more domestic oil or build any refineries. The Republicans filibustered the issue today, and the Democrats flat out refused to increase the domestic oil supply. The Reps decided to see if there was any limit to their reticence, and offered to tie the bill to the national price of a gallon of gas. The Dems refused at $4.50, $5, $7.50, and even $10 per gallon! Then Pelosi ordered that all lights and microphones be shut off, ordered the room cleared of reporters and guests, and left. The Dems WANT gas to go ever higher... they think the issue helps them in the election, so screw the American people, let them suffer, if they believe it means more Dems in power...
Gee, could that have anything to do with the fact that the drilling would have neglible effect on the price of gas, and then only after my 2nd grade daughter should be ready for college?

[Samurai]

Gee, could that have anything to do with the fact that the drilling would have neglible effect on the price of gas, and then only after my 2nd grade daughter should be ready for college?

Wrong... it would have a definite impact on the price of gas IF additional refineries are built to handle the increased production. It wouldn't send it down to $2 a gallon or anything, but it would still be a noticable effect over what the price would be without it.

And it would have at least a minor effect quickly by dampening the speculators, and telling the market that new production is on its way. Part of the problem with the speculative prices is the fact that demand (especially in India and China) are rapidly increasing, and supply isn't. More people competeing for the same amount of oil production = higher prices. Increase supply, even if you can't keep up with demand in those countries, and you'll help lower the price, and also help lower the expected price. But it could be up and running within 7 years, less if some red tape were removed and more resources dedicated to making it happen, and increasing more and more after that as more rigs and refineries come online.

Think about this: If 7 years ago they'd been able to get this passed, gas wouldn't be as expensive as it is today. It is very likely that gas will be even more expensive, perhaps vastly more, 7 years from now. Saying "Oh, but it'll take 7 years to get going, so no reason to do anything..." means that in 7 years, when we might REALLY want this increased supply, nothing will have been done, and it will still take 7 years to get it going. (At which point they'll repeat the whole process again). The Dems are pathetically short-sighted not to take the steps now that will help us just because it's going to be a while till it comes online.

[LtMarvel]

Wrongo.. Effects on the market by increased drilling takes over a decade. (Even the White House agrees on this!) So even the 7 year ago hypothetical wouldn't be felt by the market until closer to the 2012 election.

Speculators? Why not undo the Enron loophole the former McCain campaign head Gramm snuck into a law? Wouldn't that be a more immidiate effect?

[Samurai]

Wrongo.. Effects on the market by increased drilling takes over a decade. (Even the White House agrees on this!) So even the 7 year ago hypothetical wouldn't be felt by the market until closer to the 2012 election.

Speculators? Why not undo the Enron loophole the former McCain campaign head Gramm snuck into a law? Wouldn't that be a more immidiate effect?

Sure, close it, but it won't have any real effect, it won't stop oil speculation, and it definitely won't increase the supply of oil, which is what we need in order to bring down the price. It's very simply economics... supply and demand.

[LtMarvel]

The people who testified before congress stated that 1/4 to 1/2 the current price of oil was due to speculators.

[FalconX2000]

I'm nipping this one in the bud in case Sam decides to harp on it, even though the media seems to have conveyed a balanced impression on it:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aPzPz.br6VbU&refer=home

-- Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said he's willing to support an expansion of offshore oil drilling that's part of an $84 billion Senate plan aimed at increasing domestic energy production.

Obama, who has opposed more drilling off the nation's coastlines, said that while he ``remains skeptical'' about the idea, he would compromise because the proposal offers a ``careful and responsible'' drilling agenda. It also calls for other measures to wean the country off its dependence on imported oil.

Basically, it's a "I think it's a stupid idea, but the price is acceptable if it means you're willing to push all the energy stuff I want" approach.

Sure, close it, but it won't have any real effect, it won't stop oil speculation, and it definitely won't increase the supply of oil, which is what we need in order to bring down the price. It's very simply economics... supply and demand.

You obviously either didn't see or chose to ignore this:

Section 8's confusing might stem from the fact that the supply/demand model is a little too simple to explain oil prices.

http://images.salon.com/comics/boll/2008/07/24/boll/story.gif

[Alex Scott]

The people who testified before congress stated that 1/4 to 1/2 the current price of oil was due to speculators.
What's funny is, even the BP I went to the other day had an anti-oil-speculation ad.

[Alex Scott]

Basically, it's a "I think it's a stupid idea, but the price is acceptable if it means you're willing to push all the energy stuff I want" approach.You know, when you put it like that, I suddenly feel better about his FISA vote.

That's the thing: when I think of flip-flops, I think of something like the whole "We have always been at war with Eurasia... er, Eastasia" thing in 1984. It's not just any change in your position, it's changing your position and pretending that it was always your position.

And that isn't what Obama's doing. What he's doing is (a) compromising with his opponents--which is irksome, but I can deal with it; and (b) being willing to learn, and adjust his opinion when it disagrees with that little thing we call reality--and I can't remember Bush ever attempting to do that. Like when Obama said he might adjust after his trip to Iraq: for all the media harped on him appearing to "flip flop," it really expressed a desire to be correct rather than just trying to seem that way.

Then it turned out Maliki agreed more with him anyway.

[Briareos]

I can't believe we might let 7 of 9 choose our next president. Jeri Ryan (7 of 9 on Star Trek Voyager) was married to the republican candidate for senate against Obama. Obama was behind in the polls and it looked pretty sure he was going to lose. Then Ryan filed for divorce and said that her husband tried to take her to a sex club. That ended his campign and Alan Keys was thrown in at the last minute so Obama won by default.

[Briareos]

You know, when you put it like that, I suddenly feel better about his FISA vote.

That's the thing: when I think of flip-flops, I think of something like the whole "We have always been at war with Eurasia... er, Eastasia" thing in 1984. It's not just any change in your position, it's changing your position and pretending that it was always your position.

And that isn't what Obama's doing. What he's doing is (a) compromising with his opponents--which is irksome, but I can deal with it; and (b) being willing to learn, and adjust his opinion when it disagrees with that little thing we call reality--and I can't remember Bush ever attempting to do that. Like when Obama said he might adjust after his trip to Iraq: for all the media harped on him appearing to "flip flop," it really expressed a desire to be correct rather than just trying to seem that way.

Then it turned out Maliki agreed more with him anyway.


Which is why every other day Obama has to scrub his website clean of a previous position he held to pretend that he always agreed to his new opposite one....

[Buzz Dixon]

BTW, the Republicans have been going around claiming Obama has fathered two black babies... :wink: :rolleyes: :tongue: :biggrin:

[Nyarlathotep]

You know, when you put it like that, I suddenly feel better about his FISA vote.

Don't. Don't. Obama was absolutely, positively lying about that. He absolutely caved in on that. He absolutely helped Bush cover up his crimes merely because he was afraid it would hurt him in the election. Don't you dare fall for it. The drilling might be a compromise, but FISA was a roll over. They gave Bush everything he wanted and got nothing back.

[Charles RB]

I can't believe we might let 7 of 9 choose our next president.

The story you recount has fuck all to do with Obama getting the presidential candidacy.

Which is why every other day Obama has to scrub his website clean of a previous position he held to pretend that he always agreed to his new opposite one....

Got proof?

[KevinTBrown]

I can't believe we might let 7 of 9 choose our next president. Jeri Ryan (7 of 9 on Star Trek Voyager) was married to the republican candidate for senate against Obama. Obama was behind in the polls and it looked pretty sure he was going to lose. Then Ryan filed for divorce and said that her husband tried to take her to a sex club. That ended his campign and Alan Keys was thrown in at the last minute so Obama won by default.

Despite the fact that, at the time it all came out, Obama had a relatively commanding lead over Ryan (20+%) in the polls? So instead of winning with 60% of the vote, he ended up with a 72% win.... ooooo....

Know your facts before you blather about like that.

[FalconX2000]

Don't. Don't. Obama was absolutely, positively lying about that. He absolutely caved in on that. He absolutely helped Bush cover up his crimes merely because he was afraid it would hurt him in the election. Don't you dare fall for it. The drilling might be a compromise, but FISA was a roll over. They gave Bush everything he wanted and got nothing back.

I agree. There wasn't anything in the FISA bill that warranted his support of it despite its huge civil rights infringements (the worst of which was the ability of the government to wiretap illegally for 6 days without a warrant, then use the info as legitimate even if the wiretap proved illegal). I'm not any champion of personal privacy, in fact I don't see any huge logical problems with it, but dammit if you say you're gonna respect and protect the constitution then it's a giant flip flop. Obama doesn't have that many such flops, but that's one of them.

[Royal]

btw...

Arugula seed is 1.30 for two packets at Parkseed (http://www.parkseed.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/StoreCatalogDisplay?storeId=10101&catalogId=10101&langId=-1&mainPage=prod2working&ItemId=3912&cid=ppp000195)
1.95 at Johnny's (http://www.johnnyseeds.com/catalog/product.aspx?category=1&subcategory=399&source=googlee_arugula_seed&ct=hg&gclid=CLTb2abp8JQCFQWVFQodzWifqQ&item=2263)
3.65 certified at Burpee's (http://www.johnnyseeds.com/catalog/product.aspx?category=1&subcategory=399&source=googlee_arugula_seed&ct=hg&gclid=CLTb2abp8JQCFQWVFQodzWifqQ&item=2263) controlled organic.

At my local plant shop...Arugula seed is 1.25

One packet yields at least two and a half bushels. Depending how much you harvest and how long. It's popular in Michigan because it is resistant to cold and keeps growing in the fall.

I must be an elitist.

[Sabrinaset]

btw...

Arugula seed is 1.30 for two packets at Parkseed (http://www.parkseed.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/StoreCatalogDisplay?storeId=10101&catalogId=10101&langId=-1&mainPage=prod2working&ItemId=3912&cid=ppp000195)
1.95 at Johnny's (http://www.johnnyseeds.com/catalog/product.aspx?category=1&subcategory=399&source=googlee_arugula_seed&ct=hg&gclid=CLTb2abp8JQCFQWVFQodzWifqQ&item=2263)
3.65 certified at Burpee's (http://www.johnnyseeds.com/catalog/product.aspx?category=1&subcategory=399&source=googlee_arugula_seed&ct=hg&gclid=CLTb2abp8JQCFQWVFQodzWifqQ&item=2263) controlled organic.

At my local plant shop...Arugula seed is 1.25

One packet yields at least two and a half bushels. Depending how much you harvest and how long. It's popular in Michigan because it is resistant to cold and keeps growing in the fall.

I must be an elitist.

Did I miss something on the election, or is this a form of thread derailment even I couldn't top?

[Nick Soapdish]

Wrong... it would have a definite impact on the price of gas IF additional refineries are built to handle the increased production. It wouldn't send it down to $2 a gallon or anything, but it would still be a noticable effect over what the price would be without it.

And it would have at least a minor effect quickly by dampening the speculators, and telling the market that new production is on its way. Part of the problem with the speculative prices is the fact that demand (especially in India and China) are rapidly increasing, and supply isn't. More people competeing for the same amount of oil production = higher prices. Increase supply, even if you can't keep up with demand in those countries, and you'll help lower the price, and also help lower the expected price. But it could be up and running within 7 years, less if some red tape were removed and more resources dedicated to making it happen, and increasing more and more after that as more rigs and refineries come online.

Think about this: If 7 years ago they'd been able to get this passed, gas wouldn't be as expensive as it is today. It is very likely that gas will be even more expensive, perhaps vastly more, 7 years from now. Saying "Oh, but it'll take 7 years to get going, so no reason to do anything..." means that in 7 years, when we might REALLY want this increased supply, nothing will have been done, and it will still take 7 years to get it going. (At which point they'll repeat the whole process again). The Dems are pathetically short-sighted not to take the steps now that will help us just because it's going to be a while till it comes online.

Are you suggesting that the US government get in the business of building refineries or that we subsidize oil companies even more for that? They clearly aren't interested.

BTW, the permitted area of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico was expanded in 1999 and again in 2006. Since 1999, domestic drilling has increased by 66%. I guess we're starting to see the effects of that first expansion right about now?

Seven years is the most optimistic timeframe that I've heard for seeing an effect of an expansion of drilling in the Gulf. Other estimates range up to 12 years and even more. The US Energy Energy Administration Office estimates that it wouldn't have a dramatic impact on domestic oil production until 2030.

But the more important detail is how much oil we'll be getting.

The oil industry estimates that we'll get about 2 billion barrels a year which is 10% of our demand. And unless we force them to sell it only in the US, it means that it's about 2.5% of the world demand. Unless the world demand goes up. Or the oil industry actually estimated too high. (Other estimates are that we'll be only able to extract 1 billion barrels a year.)

There are a lot of things that we could do that would have a more meaningful effect and faster (by addressing demand). However, they require that we actually look for solutions besides "find more oil".

Expanding the world supply of oil by 2% (I do assume that world demand will go up) is merely a drop in the bucket. It's virtually pointless unless you try to look for a real solution.

And as a Floridian that actually does value the tourists, I don't think it's worth the risk to our coasts. Oil rigs spilled millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf because of hurricanes. Unfortunately, they don't just happen during disasters. They're routine. And they dump tons of other toxins (mostly heavy metals) into the waters. Our beaches are under enough pressure from the huge number of people that we have on the coast. I don't think we should add another bale of hay to this camel's back.

And if you want to talk about short-sighted, how about calling conservation un-American?

[Michael P]

And if you want to talk about short-sighted, how about calling conservation un-American?

I know Teddy Roosevelt would have some choice words to say about that.

[Royal]

Did I miss something on the election, or is this a form of thread derailment even I couldn't top?

the new attack is that Obama is an "Arugula eating, fancy berry tea drinking elitist."

I'd also would refrain from eating specialty salads from everyday fine dining establishments. Most of them uses a variety of arugula in it's vegitation.

Wouldn't want you to become a milk sipping liberal and all.

[Paul McEnery]

Despite the fact that, at the time it all came out, Obama had a relatively commanding lead over Ryan (20+%) in the polls? So instead of winning with 60% of the vote, he ended up with a 72% win.... ooooo....

Know your facts before you blather about like that.

No no. Let him blather.

Although of course it had nothing to do with 7 of 9, and everything to do with the fact that the Republican candidate was a repulsive and corrupt douche, and Obama was a good candidate.

So, no change there, then.

[Nyarlathotep]

Remember what Obama said about the dollar bill thing? That McCain thought was just playing the race card of out of nowhere? Well, turns out there was an ad before that comment with Obama's face on, you guessed it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDTJDv4hevU

[Briareos]

The story you recount has fuck all to do with Obama getting the presidential candidacy.



Got proof?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/07/14/2008-07-14_barack_obama_purges_web_site_critique_of.html

[Sabrinaset]

the new attack is that Obama is an "Arugula eating, fancy berry tea drinking elitist."

I'd also would refrain from eating specialty salads from everyday fine dining establishments. Most of them uses a variety of arugula in it's vegitation.

Wouldn't want you to become a milk sipping liberal and all.

Well, that ain't gunna happen, and that's coming from someone who'd been a mostly vegan until her doctor told her to start eating meat.

Anyways, here's some more articles ...

Obama calls McCain campaign cynical but not racist. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080802/D92A6KKG1.html)

Obama says he opposes slavery reparations, apology. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080802/D92A5GCG0.html)

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama opposes offering reparations to the descendants of slaves, putting him at odds with some black groups and leaders.

The man with a serious chance to become the nation's first black president argues that government should instead combat the legacy of slavery by improving schools, health care and the economy for all.

"I have said in the past - and I'll repeat again - that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed," the Illinois Democrat said recently.

Some two dozen members of Congress are co-sponsors of legislation to create a commission that would study reparations - that is, payments and programs to make up for the damage done by slavery.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People supports the legislation, too. Cities around the country, including Obama's home of Chicago, have endorsed the idea, and so has a major union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

Obama has worked to be seen as someone who will bring people together, not divide them into various interest groups with checklists of demands. Supporting reparations could undermine that image and make him appear to be pandering to black voters.

"Let's not be naive. Sen. Obama is running for president of the United States, and so he is in a constant battle to save his political life," said Kibibi Tyehimba, co-chair of the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America. "In light of the demographics of this country, I don't think it's realistic to expect him to do anything other than what he's done."

Obama backs away from McCain's debate challenge. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080803/D92AFT400.html)

Democratic candidate Barack Obama on Saturday backed away from rival John McCain's challenge for a series of joint appearances, agreeing only to the standard three debates in the fall.

In May, when a McCain adviser proposed a series of pre-convention appearances at town hall meetings, Obama said, "I think that's a great idea." In summer stumping on the campaign trail, McCain has often noted that Obama had not followed through and joined him in any events.

Obama's reversal on town hall debates is part of a play-it-safe strategy he's adopted since claiming the nomination and grabbing a lead in national polls. Advisers to the Illinois senator, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss strategy, say Obama is reluctant to take chances or give McCain a high-profile stage now that Obama's the front-runner.

[Charles RB]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/07/14/2008-07-14_barack_obama_purges_web_site_critique_of.html

And I note on that article:

Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is "not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events."

And that's ONE time he's done that, ONE, when you said he does that "every other day", which is quite different from one.

[rick]

I can't believe we might let 7 of 9 choose our next president. Jeri Ryan (7 of 9 on Star Trek Voyager) was married to the republican candidate for senate against Obama. Obama was behind in the polls and it looked pretty sure he was going to lose. Then Ryan filed for divorce and said that her husband tried to take her to a sex club. That ended his campign and Alan Keys was thrown in at the last minute so Obama won by default.


For the record the "story" about the sex club turned out to be true.

So you might not like it, but Ryan self-destructed.

And yes, running against Alan Keyes does pretty much guarantee that you will win almost by default.

[Samurai]

And I note on that article:



And that's ONE time he's done that, ONE, when you said he does that "every other day", which is quite different from one.

The people who manage his website do do it every other day. The right-wing blogs have made a point of combing through Obama's website and pointing out all the crazy on there, recording it for posterity's sake, and whenever they do, it's "down the memory hole" within a day or 2.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30478_Another_Inconvenient_Obama_Blogger_Down_the_ Memory_Hole
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30443_Obama_Community_Blogs_Being_Sanitized
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30375_At_the_Official_Obama_Site-_Too_Much_Crazy_to_Clean_Up
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30300_Obama_Campaign_Throws_More_Hate_Blogs_Down_t he_Memory_Hole_-_Update-_Obama_Supporters_Read_the_Riot_Act_to_Webmasters
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30271_Watch_the_MyObama_Posts_Go_Down_the_Memory_H ole
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30258_Obama_Campaign_Throws_A_Whole_Lot_of_Stuff_D own_the_Memory_Hole
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30257_Obama_Campaign_Throws_Another_Group_Down_the _Memory_Hole
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29729_Michelle_Obamas_Name_Removed_from_Terrorist_ Fundraisers_Web_Page_-_Update-_Terror_Fundraisers_Page_Disappears!

[Paul McEnery]

Well, that ain't gunna happen, and that's coming from someone who'd been a mostly vegan until her doctor told her to start eating meat.

Anyways, here's some more articles ...

Obama calls McCain campaign cynical but not racist. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080802/D92A6KKG1.html)

You know, one of the most disheartening things about America is that you can't call people out on racism without there being hell to pay.

A reminder: "racist" does NOT mean what a person is in themselves; "racist" DOES mean a discriminatory ACT.

If the ACT discriminates by race, or if it heightens prejudice, it IS racist.

And McCain's campaign has already been racist, and is only going to get worse.

[Nyarlathotep]

The people who manage his website do do it every other day. The right-wing blogs have made a point of combing through Obama's website and pointing out all the crazy on there, recording it for posterity's sake, and whenever they do, it's "down the memory hole" within a day or 2.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30478_Another_Inconvenient_Obama_Blogger_Down_the_ Memory_Hole
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30443_Obama_Community_Blogs_Being_Sanitized
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30375_At_the_Official_Obama_Site-_Too_Much_Crazy_to_Clean_Up
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30300_Obama_Campaign_Throws_More_Hate_Blogs_Down_t he_Memory_Hole_-_Update-_Obama_Supporters_Read_the_Riot_Act_to_Webmasters
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30271_Watch_the_MyObama_Posts_Go_Down_the_Memory_H ole
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30258_Obama_Campaign_Throws_A_Whole_Lot_of_Stuff_D own_the_Memory_Hole
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30257_Obama_Campaign_Throws_Another_Group_Down_the _Memory_Hole
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29729_Michelle_Obamas_Name_Removed_from_Terrorist_ Fundraisers_Web_Page_-_Update-_Terror_Fundraisers_Page_Disappears!

You're bad at this. The first two links are stuff about blogs that people started, on a site where anyone (even you) can start a blog. I'm going to go start blogs for Hitler, Macolm X, and Damien from the movie "The Omen." I'm going to send the links to right wing blogs, then allow them to make a story out of it when it's taken down.

I'm sure there's something actually worth reading if I read through the next 80 links you posted, but next time start with the good stuff. Thanks.

[Royal]

The people who manage his website do do it every other day. The right-wing blogs have made a point of combing through Obama's website and pointing out all the crazy on there, recording it for posterity's sake, and whenever they do, it's "down the memory hole" within a day or 2.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30478_Another_Inconvenient_Obama_Blogger_Down_the_ Memory_Hole
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30443_Obama_Community_Blogs_Being_Sanitized
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30375_At_the_Official_Obama_Site-_Too_Much_Crazy_to_Clean_Up
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30300_Obama_Campaign_Throws_More_Hate_Blogs_Down_t he_Memory_Hole_-_Update-_Obama_Supporters_Read_the_Riot_Act_to_Webmasters
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30271_Watch_the_MyObama_Posts_Go_Down_the_Memory_H ole
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30258_Obama_Campaign_Throws_A_Whole_Lot_of_Stuff_D own_the_Memory_Hole
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30257_Obama_Campaign_Throws_Another_Group_Down_the _Memory_Hole
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29729_Michelle_Obamas_Name_Removed_from_Terrorist_ Fundraisers_Web_Page_-_Update-_Terror_Fundraisers_Page_Disappears!

How about credible sources?

[KevinTBrown]

How about credible sources?

Good luck in getting those.

[section 8]

You're bad at this. The first two links are stuff about blogs that people started, on a site where anyone (even you) can start a blog. I'm going to go start blogs for Hitler, Macolm X, and Damien from the movie "The Omen." I'm going to send the links to right wing blogs, then allow them to make a story out of it when it's taken down.

I'm sure there's something actually worth reading if I read through the next 80 links you posted, but next time start with the good stuff. Thanks.

I am not disagreeing with you, but in Sam's defense that happens here frequently.
Many people on this and other political threads also offer "iffy" links.

[Paul McEnery]

I am not disagreeing with you, but in Sam's defense that happens here frequently.
Many people on this and other political threads also offer "iffy" links.

Oh yeah? Aside from Briareos, who posts exactly the same iffy links, name one.

[section 8]

Am I to give the names, dates, location, of poster as well?
Sorry my entire life isnt focused exclusivly on arguing with faceless text on a cpu screen.

but i do recall several people have on several occasions posted links to Wikapidia, a site where the general population has access to the editorial seat.

[Paul McEnery]

Am I to give the names, dates, location, of poster as well?
Sorry my entire life isnt focused exclusivly on arguing with faceless text on a cpu screen.

but i do recall several people have on several occasions posted links to Wikapidia, a site where the general population has access to the editorial seat.

Ah, so you were talking bollocks, then.

Because obviously referring to Wikipedia, which has actual editorial control and is rated to be as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britanica (once the dust has settled), is the same as linking to far right disinformation, bigotry, and lies.

[Samurai]

How about credible sources?

Much of the time he posts screen shots of what the page used to look like, before it was changed. And maybe something like the Wayback Machine can recreate the page as it used to be. But what sources other than right-wing sites are going to dare point out all this junk on Obama's website, and then take note when it is quickly and quietly dumped down the memory hole afterwards? Surely you don't think the mainstream media would do anything other than total fluff pieces on him. They won't ask him why, when he flip flops publicly on an issue, his people change his website to match his new position, as if it had always been his position.

They won't ask why his website is so full of blogs by terrorists, terrorist supports, racists, and bigots, and they went undisturbed there for many, many months until someone else noticed, and then they are erased like they never existed. It shows that the moderators are there and very active, since the pages disappear within hours of being noticed. However, they do nothing at all to remove horribly offensive blogs or bloggers who are terrorist supporters until and unless LGF or some other right-wing site points it out specifically. Then it vanishes. So it is very clearly not the ideas and comments they have a problem with, but the bad publicity that could result from it...

Also, they haven't given an official explanation of this phenomenon, but if they were to claim that they don't agree with those statements and bloggers and are only allowing them free speech, it should be disturbing how quickly and easily that are willing to revoke their free speech if they want to.

Finally, at least 1 of the bloggers, Hatem al-Hady, had Michelle Obama under his "friends" list. That means that Michelle had to send him a request to be his "friend", and he accepted her request. Hatem al-Hady was a terrorist fundraiser with the Kindhearts Charity, which had been shut down for funding the Palestinian Intifada and Hamas. His blogs were virulently anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli. But something he wrote apparently made Michelle Obama request to be his friend...

[section 8]

Ah, so you were talking bollocks, then.

Because obviously referring to Wikipedia, which has actual editorial control and is rated to be as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britanica (once the dust has settled), is the same as linking to far right disinformation, bigotry, and lies.

riight anyway Paul I am not Defending amurai Merely pointing out that he is not the first to do this.

But i keep forgetting how eager to argue you are paul, if i wished you a good morning you'd likely sabotage yourself to have a shitty one, just to prove me wrong

Paul, i do not do this often, (Fuck i have never done this) but you are going on ignore

Have a nice life!:biggrin:

[Paul McEnery]

I think we all understand how the friends idea works, and that it doesn't work like that.















Then again, some of us actually have friends.

[Paul McEnery]

riight anyway Paul I am not Defending amurai Merely pointing out that he is not the first to do this.

But i keep forgetting how eager to argue you are paul, if i wished you a good morning you'd likely sabotage yourself to have a shitty one, just to prove me wrong

Paul, i do not do this often, (Fuck i have never done this) but you are going on ignore

Have a nice life!:biggrin:

Oh noes. How sad I am.

[Nightcrawler]

Then again, some of us actually have friends.

The ever-witty Paul McEnery, folks.

[FalconX2000]

Section 8, While I do think Paul is oftentimes too confrontational to the point of not helping himself or his argument, you're putting him on ignore while keeping Samurais' posts coming?:eek:

[Samurai]

Section 8, While I do think Paul is oftentimes too confrontational to the point of not helping himself or his argument, you're putting him on ignore while keeping Samurais' posts coming?:eek:

Paul attacks and insults people and constantly acts like the world has pissed in his cornflakes and called it yellow milk.

I may have some unpopular opinions, but I'm friendly, witty, and reasonable and I don't attack people out of the blue.

No mystery to me why Paul'd be on ignore and not me. The only reason to put me on ignore is if you can't stand to hear opinions you might not agree with (and that's not an unknown affliction...)

[FalconX2000]

Paul attacks and insults people and constantly acts like the world has pissed in his cornflakes and called it yellow milk.

I may have some unpopular opinions, but I'm friendly, witty, and reasonable and I don't attack people out of the blue.

No mystery to me why Paul'd be on ignore and not me. The only reason to put me on ignore is if you can't stand to hear opinions you might not agree with (and that's not an unknown affliction...)

I am pretty sure Paul is more honest than you. I'd rank you above Brareos, but that's about it. The reason I don't keep you on ignore is because you're too dangerous to leave alone. Like a nice talking Rush Limbaugh.

[Charles RB]

I may have some unpopular opinions

Like being pro-torture as long as your guys are doing it.

Though that's less "unpopular" and more "immoral", "unethical", "evil" and so forth.

[FalconX2000]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/08/03/2008-08-03_paris_hiltons_mother_calls_john_mccain_c.html

Not unexpectedly, Mama Hilton is royally pissed at McCain for taking a dump on her daughter after she, her husband and her father in law gave his campaign $2300 each.

[rick]

As annoying as Paul is capable of being, he at least more often then not has the truth on his side.

Something that nobody who uses "Little Green Footballs" as a source is ever going to be able to say.

[KevinTBrown]

And, once again, McCain is going to wait for Obama's move. This time, he's going to wait to see who Obama selects as VP: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080804/pl_politico/12271

[Arkaengel]

I may have some unpopular opinions, but I'm friendly, witty, and reasonable and I don't attack people out of the blue.
Hahaha. Nice to see you still have the same idiosyncratic sense of humour. You are, after all, the person whose greatest hits on another messageboard include such golden oldies as "Dude, Your Wife Looks Like A Man", "NAMBLA Is A Gay Advocacy Organisation" and "Queers All Just Wanna Fuck Kids And Animals".

And you're still trotting out LGF as a source? Truly, you're like the platonic ideal of the chronically misinformed American right-winger.

Hello to all other users, BTW. Been reading this forum for some time, but this particular comment drove me to register - some lies cannot pass unchallenged.

[rick]

Hahaha. Nice to see you still have the same idiosyncratic sense of humour. You are, after all, the person whose greatest hits on another messageboard include such golden oldies as "Dude, Your Wife Looks Like A Man", "NAMBLA Is A Gay Advocacy Organisation" and "Queers All Just Wanna Fuck Kids And Animals".

And you're still trotting out LGF as a source? Truly, you're like the platonic ideal of the chronically misinformed American right-winger.

Hello to all other users, BTW. Been reading this forum for some time, but this particular comment drove me to register - some lies cannot pass unchallenged.


Not meaning to jump to Sam's defense and all, but care to back that up?

[Buzz Dixon]

misfire...

[Arkaengel]

Not meaning to jump to Sam's defense and all, but care to back that up?
It's a registration-only forum whose search function has been broken for some time and that has now purged all posts made before 2007, by which time Samurai had been permabanned. RachelEvil and Evan Waters know the forum, though, and should be able to verify the incidents in question.

Thing is, even if Samurai weren't a thoroughly disagreeable person, he'd still not be worth arguing politics with - he treats politics as a team sport where his worth as a person is directly proportional to how well "his team" did. What this means is that anything that confirms his particular biases must be true, because it has to be true, because Samurai's team has to win. Now I don't have the world's highest opinion of conservative politics, and especially not of US-style conservative politics, but I recognise that there are people of conservative orientation who are not completely intellectually bankrupt, can construct a proper argument, and who don't automatically attempt to disregard anything that clashes with their worldview while cherry-picking dodgy sources to back their position; these people generally used thought to arrive at their opinion, and while I may think their opinions are a load of bollocks, I can have a meaningful discussion with these people nonetheless. Others, who take the "What Drudge tells me three times is true" approach to separating fact from fiction, are not worth having a discussion with.

[Charles RB]

It's a registration-only forum whose search function has been broken for some time and that has now purged all posts made before 2007, by which time Samurai had been permabanned. RachelEvil and Evan Waters know the forum, though, and should be able to verify the incidents in question.

That's not exactly the best evidence in the world - we are going to need them to verify before we can believe it (Samurai never seemed _that_ blatant).

[Samurai]

As annoying as Paul is capable of being, he at least more often then not has the truth on his side.

Something that nobody who uses "Little Green Footballs" as a source is ever going to be able to say.

I only use LGF as a source when no other option is available, and they back it up with solid evidence. You know that LGF is the site that discovered Dan Rather's fake memos were fake? And the Iranian fauxtography of adding a 4th missile firing off instead of being a dud. And the faked pictures from Reuters with the massive black smoke being added to make it seem like the city was burning when it wasn't. They have a very good track record with the truth.

In this case, links to Obama's site were included in the initial postings, which I and many others followed and viewed first hand. Screenshots were taken, and a day later when they were scrubbed off Obama's site, those screenshots were posted so that everyone can see the before and after.

[Samurai]

Hahaha. Nice to see you still have the same idiosyncratic sense of humour. You are, after all, the person whose greatest hits on another messageboard include such golden oldies as "Dude, Your Wife Looks Like A Man", "NAMBLA Is A Gay Advocacy Organisation" and "Queers All Just Wanna Fuck Kids And Animals".

And you're still trotting out LGF as a source? Truly, you're like the platonic ideal of the chronically misinformed American right-winger.

Hello to all other users, BTW. Been reading this forum for some time, but this particular comment drove me to register - some lies cannot pass unchallenged.

Yeah, how convenient for you that can just spout BS and have nothing at all to back it up, all while criticizing my sources that include links and screenshots?

I should just say "prove it!", but in the interest of coming clean, here's what really happened:

"Dude, Your Wife Looks Like A Man" - Someone posted a bunch of pictures from a con and the dinner afterwards, and everyone was joking and laughing about them. "Man, that guy looks completely drunk or stoned", "Look at the shirt on that geek", kind of stuff. None of the pictures were labeled or anything, and getting in the spirit of the thing, I made a 1 line post about a rotund and extremely androgynous figure in one of the pictures... "Is that a guy or a girl, in that shot there?" (and threw in a smilie afterwards). Just my luck, it turned out that was the wife of one of the board's moderators! I honestly didn't know that beforehand, and I apologized both publicly and by PM, but was temp banned for it anyway (one of many, MANY cases where the mods abused their power on the board, banning people who simply offended them or they didn't care for despite no board rules being broken).

"NAMBLA Is A Gay Advocacy Organisation" - This one is closest to a true statement on your part, and it came up in a thread on the topic that someone else started but I joined in. There were many connections historically between NAMBLA and the gay movement groups such as Stonewall, and I documented them with links and quotes. They used to work rather closely together and shared some members, and NAMBLA marched and supported gay rights. However, I also pointed out that today, the gay movement has tried very hard to separate itself from NAMBLA, and has banned them from some meetings, parades, etc. So "NAMBLA was a gay advocacy group" would be more accurate.

"Queers All Just Wanna Fuck Kids And Animals" - A total lie that makes no sense at all. I never use the term "queers", and I've never said anything like that. Probably something you just made up, or are completely misremembering.

[king mob]

Like being pro-torture as long as your guys are doing it.

Though that's less "unpopular" and more "immoral", "unethical", "evil" and so forth.

Yes, but he says he's a nice guy.....

[section 8]

Section 8, While I do think Paul is oftentimes too confrontational to the point of not helping himself or his argument, you're putting him on ignore while keeping Samurais' posts coming?:eek:

without Samurai things might get boring.:biggrin:


i should also add, there are several people i am actively ignoring, without putting them on the ignore list.

[king mob]

It's a registration-only forum whose search function has been broken for some time and that has now purged all posts made before 2007, by which time Samurai had been permabanned. RachelEvil and Evan Waters know the forum, though, and should be able to verify the incidents in question.

I'm not in the slightest trying to defend Samurai, he's a dangerous bigot, but you're going to have to expand upon this, though Samurai does seem to support some of what you say.

Thing is, even if Samurai weren't a thoroughly disagreeable person, he'd still not be worth arguing politics with - he treats politics as a team sport where his worth as a person is directly proportional to how well "his team" did. What this means is that anything that confirms his particular biases must be true, because it has to be true, because Samurai's team has to win. Now I don't have the world's highest opinion of conservative politics, and especially not of US-style conservative politics, but I recognise that there are people of conservative orientation who are not completely intellectually bankrupt, can construct a proper argument, and who don't automatically attempt to disregard anything that clashes with their worldview while cherry-picking dodgy sources to back their position; these people generally used thought to arrive at their opinion, and while I may think their opinions are a load of bollocks, I can have a meaningful discussion with these people nonetheless. Others, who take the "What Drudge tells me three times is true" approach to separating fact from fiction, are not worth having a discussion with.

That's a fairy accurate description of him & one a lot of people here will probably share.

[Samurai]

Like being pro-torture as long as your guys are doing it.

Though that's less "unpopular" and more "immoral", "unethical", "evil" and so forth.

There's a vast difference between something that is highly regrettable and should only be used in the most extreme and rare cases, and being "pro-" something. I'm also for a patient's right to die/physician-assisted suicide if they are in pain and have an incurable disease. That doesn't mean doctors should kill everyone with a head cold.

[Charles RB]

There's a vast difference between something that is highly regrettable and should only be used in the most extreme and rare cases

You're doing it again! You're being pro-torture again! Stop it!

[Sabrinaset]

Am I to give the names, dates, location, of poster as well?
Sorry my entire life isnt focused exclusivly on arguing with faceless text on a cpu screen.


O-3!

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f336/sabrinaset/20060405bingo.png

Oh noes. How sad I am.

Welcome to the club, Paul! But you can't say you didn't see the writing on the wall on this one.

Hahaha. Nice to see you still have the same idiosyncratic sense of humour. You are, after all, the person whose greatest hits on another messageboard include such golden oldies as "Dude, Your Wife Looks Like A Man", "NAMBLA Is A Gay Advocacy Organisation" and "Queers All Just Wanna Fuck Kids And Animals".

"Dude, Your Wife Looks Like A Man" looks like a typical YABS thread.

[section 8]

Y'know Bree, if you were not a lesbian, i'd swear you were stalking me.


(and i still may)

[Sabrinaset]

Y'know Bree, if you were not a lesbian, i'd swear you were stalking me.

(and i still may)

In fact, up until just now and one other post, I've acted as if you didn't exist since your decision to (twice) lecture me on medical ethics, so your statement is false. Since then, Paul has talked to you far more than I have.

Of course, I'd ask you to back up your claim, but we know where that will go ...

[Sabrinaset]

And now, for more election stories!

Obama assails McCain as tool of Big Oil in ad. (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0230158220080804?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true)

Rasmussen says McCain now a point ahead? (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)

Not a smooth move. (http://floridacapitalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080802/CAPITOLNEWS/808020312)

Steinem supports Obama (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0a3012de-5f5a-11dd-91c0-000077b07658.html)

...as does Paltrow. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2497142/Gwyneth-Paltrow-films-ad-for-Barack-Obama.html)

Dark horses emerge in Obama-McCain VP stakes (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080803173215.tqhwkp1g&show_article=1)

[section 8]

In fact, up until just now and one other post, I've acted as if you didn't exist since your decision to (twice) lecture me on medical ethics, so your statement is false. Since then, Paul has talked to you far more than I have.

Of course, I'd ask you to back up your claim, but we know where that will go ...

Actually the first post you are referring to was a QUESTION, hardly a lecture.
the second indeed was a lecture , but on the burden of command, not medical ethics. (i doubt they take away Medical licenses for being whiney)

If memory serves Bree, you specifically asked me not to acknowledge you as well, i adhered, yet here we are again.

[Sabrinaset]

If memory serves Bree, you specifically asked me not to acknowledge you as well, i adhered, yet here we are again.

You not backing up a statement when called out on it (AGAIN) was just too good to pass up.

Feel free to put me on ignore too. Personally, I find you too hilarious to do so!

[section 8]

and yet, when i ask if illegally obtaining photos from a patients medical records (which was what you claimed to have done) was a HIPPA violation, that laughing turned to crying, you cried to a Mod, as a matter of fact.

So what is this?
you can call me on something, but if i do the same you take it up with a Mod?

That sounds like good ol' fashioned hypocrisy in my book.

[Sabrinaset]

blah blah blah

I answered why it wasn't a HIPPA violation right after your post in a modded thread.

This is an un-modded thread. And that was after the second time you did it.

Tell you what, instead of doing your darndest to change the subject, howzabout you answer Paul's question? Or my old one about Carter? Or back up the stalking comment? Can you do that?

[KevinTBrown]

I answered why it wasn't a HIPPA violation right after your post in a modded thread.

This is an un-modded thread. And that was after the second time you did it.

Tell you what, instead of doing your darndest to change the subject, howzabout you answer Paul's question? Or my old one about Carter? Or back up the stalking comment? Can you do that?

http://www.clipartof.com/images/thumbnail/1947.gif

[Sabrinaset]

http://www.clipartof.com/images/thumbnail/1947.gif

Yeah, I know, I know ... I broke my own rule of talking to this guy, when we should just leave him alone. My bad. Sorry, guys!

[Nyarlathotep]

I am not disagreeing with you, but in Sam's defense that happens here frequently.
Many people on this and other political threads also offer "iffy" links.

It's not about his links being iffy. It's the fact that even if they weren't from a shit site they don't exactly make much of a point. He implied that things that came directly from Obama's camp were being scrubbed from the site, as opposed to people registering shit which anyone is allowed to do. Even if that claim where true it's not a big deal, but the fact is he failed miserably at even making a non-point.

PSA

Look, I know as a diehard Republican it takes a lot of effort to defend these idiots without wanting to make a noose out of your "Support the Troops" yellow ribbons for yourself. You can just stop. It's Okay. No one will look down on you for it. Stay home on election day then pretend to be shocked and disappointed when Obama wins. Your party hasn't rejoined the human race yet, and a McCain win will only delay it.

[LtMarvel]

And now, for more election stories!

Dark horses emerge in Obama-McCain VP stakes (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080803173215.tqhwkp1g&show_article=1)That seems only fair, as IDW is doing the Presidential candidates....

:biggrin: :biggrin:

[section 8]

"Blah Blah Blah"?
I'm sorry, is this the third grade?

so you dragged it into a un-modded thread? bad idea Bree, even for you.
If your alleged answer was so sound why get so defensive hmmm?
after all it was intended as a joke.

BTW
I answered Paul's Question, and he responded.

But that doesn't work for you does it? i mean if you acknowledge my answer you can't go around making posts about me refusing to answer questions,or back up claims. ( and that would ruin your weekend)
So you ignore it, and continue to bud in to any conversation i might try to have, not posting anything constructive just lashing out at me for whatever reason.

tell me Bree is Ignorance really bliss? you seem to be the right person to ask.

[section 8]

It's not about his links being iffy. It's the fact that even if they weren't from a shit site they don't exactly make much of a point. He implied that things that came directly from Obama's camp were being scrubbed from the site, as opposed to people registering shit which anyone is allowed to do. Even if that claim where true it's not a big deal, but the fact is he failed miserably at even making a non-point.

PSA

Look, I know as a diehard Republican it takes a lot of effort to defend these idiots without wanting to make a noose out of your "Support the Troops" yellow ribbons for yourself. You can just stop. It's Okay. No one will look down on you for it. Stay home on election day then pretend to be shocked and disappointed when Obama wins. Your party hasn't rejoined the human race yet, and a McCain win will only delay it.

Fair enough, but i am more of a democrat.

[Sabrinaset]

BTW I answered Paul's Question, and he responded.

We'll try it one more time ...

I am not disagreeing with you, but in Sam's defense that happens here frequently.
Many people on this and other political threads also offer "iffy" links.

Oh yeah? Aside from Briareos, who posts exactly the same iffy links, name one.

Where did you name one? Link to that post. Please try to keep it on topic this time, shall we?

[Nyarlathotep]

We'll try it one more time ...





Where did you name one? Link to that post. Please try to keep it on topic this time, shall we?

Aren't there links one page back to the New York Daily News? Hell, anything from any of the major mainstream sources on issues requiring any level of nuisance, intergrity, or balls to report has to be met with skepticism. Take a look at this shite from an AP article you posted:

"Obama has worked to be seen as someone who will bring people together, not divide them into various interest groups with checklists of demands. Supporting reparations could undermine that image and make him appear to be pandering to black voters."

WTF? I wouldn't believe you if you told me that was an AP article. I would believe you if you told me it was from LGF.

[section 8]

Oh! i see how it works here, sorry i'm new to the whole Forum thing.

Peron A: "oh yeah? can you post a link to back that up"

Person B: (posts link)

Person A: you're posting links form That site? get the fuck outta here!!

Or
Person A: (asks Question)
Person B: (answers)
Person A: that isn't an answer!


PSA

When someone says "to back that up" they might mean "to disregard and probably use against you"

[Sabrinaset]

Aren't there links one page back to the New York Daily News? Hell, anything from any of the major mainstream sources on issues requiring any level of nuisance, intergrity, or balls to report has to be met with skepticism. Take a look at this shite from an AP article you posted:

"Obama has worked to be seen as someone who will bring people together, not divide them into various interest groups with checklists of demands. Supporting reparations could undermine that image and make him appear to be pandering to black voters."

WTF? I wouldn't believe you if you told me that was an AP article. I would believe you if you told me it was from LGF.

The problem is, Paul called him out and asked him to "Name one", and he didn't. And now he's saying he answered the question, when he didn't.

Going back further, this has happened before. He's only been here ... maybe three months? But it's happened time and time again. And when someone calls him out on a statement, we start hearing the sound of crickets chirping and wheels backpedaling. I shouldn't have even brought it up again because you're seeing him dig in his heels, changing the subject, doing anything except answer the question, but it was irresistable. And you know, everyone here has screwed up. I've been called out jillions of times too, I'll admit to that. But this is ridiculous. Paul's question was simple. "Name one" We've gotten everything EXCEPT that.

And I agree with you on your last sentence. I've said it before, the reason I have problems with the press isn't because they're liberal, it's that they're incompetant. CBS doesn't have the investigative moxie God gave a blogger. Reuters and AP have an editorial system that's so pathetic, they make Didio and Quesada look like Diogenes. And the NYT ... meh, too easy! But you know, I'll bet there IS useful information on LGF although I haven't visited it in awhile ... just as there's relevent information over at the DU, which I have. Here's the question: Is it a true story? Some people are WAY too dismissive of the facts because of where they come from. And as much as I love to rag on the NYT, even I have been using them as news/editorial sources for the past few months or so ... because what they had to say seemed informative on some level.

[Nyarlathotep]

And as much as I love to rag on the NYT, even I have been using them as news/editorial sources for the past few months or so ... because what they had to say seemed informative on some level.

Well they've gotten the stench of Judith Miller, Bush administration stooge, out for the most part. Granted, all the people dead because they helped spread the lies instead of challenging won't be coming back, but it was a start.

[section 8]

The problem is, Paul called him out and asked him to "Name one", and he didn't. And now he's saying he answered the question, when he didn't.

Going back further, this has happened before. He's only been here ... maybe three months? But it's happened time and time again. And when someone calls him out on a statement, we start hearing the sound of crickets chirping and wheels backpedaling. I shouldn't have even brought it up again because you're seeing him dig in his heels, changing the subject, doing anything except answer the question, but it was irresistable. And you know, everyone here has screwed up. I've been called out jillions of times too, I'll admit to that. But this is ridiculous. Paul's question was simple. "Name one" We've gotten everything EXCEPT that.
Wait you bud into a conversation with no other motive than attacking me, you bring up old shit, and shit from other threads, and then you say I'M changing the subject? NICE!!

I mentioned that there were several examples, and that i wasn't about to waste time going back twenty pages to find one just to have someone piss it.

( but now that think about it there was an an entire thread based soley on an artical from the enquirer the ENQUIRER!!)

see question answered, problem solved. we can end this little back and forth before you get racist on me...again.

i bet dollars to donuts the enquirer thread won't "count" though

[Sabrinaset]

Wait you bud into a conversation with no other motive than attacking me, you bring up old shit, and shit from other threads, and then you say I'M changing the subject? NICE!!

From this thread. Paul asked for a name. "Name one." was his question.

Name one, Section.

[section 8]

i bet dollars to donuts the enquirer thread won't "count" though

From this thread. Paul asked for a name. "Name one." was his question.

Name one, Section.

I WIN!!

also my original post was...
I am not disagreeing with you, but in Sam's defense that happens here frequently.
Many people on this and other political threads also offer "iffy" links.
to which Paul replied...
Oh yeah? Aside from Briareos, who posts exactly the same iffy links, name one.

So Bree aside from you, who asked for an example exclusively "from this thread"? go ahead...name one, bree.

(or you could move that goal post one more again).

[Matt Doc Martin]

I WIN!!


No. No, you don't.

[section 8]

No. No, you don't.

Can you offer any links to back that up?:biggrin:

[Matt Doc Martin]

Can you offer any links to back that up?:biggrin:

I think you can just use your post.

[section 8]

hey i bet the goal post would move and it did, Bree's call not mine, i just knew what was coming.

[Sabrinaset]

...

In other words, when Paul asked for a name for who posts using iffy links, i.e., "besides Briarreos," you don't have one? Clearly, he's asking for the name of a poster. Just as clearly, you don't have any such name. You're almost going out of your way NOT to provide one. So I mean ... you saying "I WIN!" when it's not even some kind of contest, simply a question which you're just not answering, is just bizarre.

You know, Paul flies off the handle so much, it isn't funny. And it's true, a lot of the time, he does his arguments no favors. One of the very first posts I remember reading about him years ago was someone saying it takes five years to agree with him, which is somewhat exaggerated, but you get the point. He'll throw wild accusations everywhere and hope some of them will stick. I'm still not happy with him attacking Sam's father. But on the other hand, he'll (almost always) back up some opinion of his when called on it with a copious amount of links. I may need to call in Adam or Gilda to explain them, but he'll do it. You don't. Or won't.

Now, Paul's far from perfect. I'm far from perfect as well. But the both of us have been able to back up what we believe in more often than not, or we've admitted we were wrong. And I know Paul and I have apologized to each other in the past because of that too. But in your case, I'm having a hard time remembering when you were able to back up something when called on it at all, and when someone calls you out on it, you do something like putting Paul on ignore or doing anything, ANYTHING, but answer the question. And you've been called on this before, but you just don't seem to get it.

If you really want to be taken seriously here, maybe you should start taking what we're saying seriously as well. Until then ... well, it's fun to keep pointing out when you make the same mistake over and over again. I dunno if I'll be the one to do it next time, maybe someone else will. But as long as you toss out arguments you can't back up the second you're questioned on them, it will happen. So deal with it, or go to Comm. Or Rumbles.

And your "Goal Posts" moving comments are sorta sad. There's no goal posts being moved. You said "Many people offer iffy links" Paul said "Name one", and I'm asking you to name one. Explain how that's moving a goal post. It's asking you to back up your statement. But you'll do anything to avoid that, it seems.

[section 8]

"I win" meant the bet, pay attention

And the goal post moves again ladies and gentlemen

if i want to be taken seriously here i should walk away from your crooked little game right now.

You gonna answer MY question Bree?

[Royal]

I WIN!!


http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/billelzebub/724you_win_the_prize.jpg

[section 8]

i wanted donuts...Krispy Kream

[KevinTBrown]

I WIN!!

also my original post was...

to which Paul replied...


So Bree aside from you, who asked for an example exclusively "from this thread"? go ahead...name one, bree.

(or you could move that goal post one more again).

http://www.fstdt.com/winace/pics/backpedaling.gif

[section 8]

try reading the thread Kevin,

i don't expect you to do anything but antagonize, but you could at least get your facts straight.

[Sabrinaset]

"I win" meant the bet, pay attention

And the goal post moves again ladies and gentlemen

if i want to be taken seriously here i should walk away from your crooked little game right now.

You gonna answer MY question Bree?

You said you didn't want stuff from other threads brought up here. That's what I was referring to. So I said okay, from this thread, meaning there was one question asked of you within this thread, and ignoring anything else that happened elsewhere on another thread. The same one Paul asked. From THIS thread.

I don't even know what your question is. I didn't post that people are supplying iffy links. You did that. I wasn't called to name a name of who was doing so. You were.

If you want to be taken seriously, when you make a statement, be prepared to back it up. Paul asked you to, and you can't, or won't, do it.

[section 8]

I WIN!!

So Bree aside from you, who asked for an example exclusively "from this thread"? go ahead...name one, bree.

(or you could move that goal post one more again).

I love your selective memory Bree.

[the4thpip]

Sure, close it, but it won't have any real effect, it won't stop oil speculation, and it definitely won't increase the supply of oil, which is what we need in order to bring down the price. It's very simply economics... supply and demand.


No it's fucking not.

http://images.salon.com/comics/boll/2008/07/24/boll/story.gif

[section 8]

No it's fucking not.

http://images.salon.com/comics/boll/2008/07/24/boll/story.gif
LOL
(that never gets old)

[CutterMike]

Not wanting to derail the thread or anything, but I'm beginning to think that we should LET McCain win, so that, when Bush's chickens come home to roost (http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/08/04/sloan_deficit/), it's on the head of of a Republican administration

[Sabrinaset]

Okay Section. I'll just take it as a given that you do NOT have a name. That's all you had to say. Paul asked you for a name for who was posting iffy links. You are not supplying a name.

Please get back to us when you have one.

[section 8]

Not wanting to derail the thread or anything, but I'm beginning to think that we should LET McCain win, so that, when Bush's chickens come home to roost (http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/08/04/sloan_deficit/), it's on the head of of a Republican administration

hmmmm
Nah too many more "chickens" will be let loose in the meantime

[section 8]

Okay Section. I'll just take it as a given that you do NOT have a name. That's all you had to say. Paul asked you for a name for who was posting iffy links. You are not supplying a name.

Please get back to us when you have one.


First i had to give an example,
once i did i had to give an example "From this thread"
i called you on that flavor of BS. and now i have to give a name?

how can i answer a question if you keep changing what the question is?
Fuck!! You are like Lucy with the foot ball, gonna call me a "blockhead" cuz i cant kick the damn thing?
What's next? will the answer need to be in the form of a question?

you didn't answer my question which unlike yours is absolute, and unshifting.
Please get back to me when you can.

[Sabrinaset]

First i had to give an example,
once i did i had to give an example "From this thread"


You're being willfully obtuse.

You complained that I was bringing up stuff from other threads, correct? Yes, you did. So I stopped referring to any issues you and I have had outside of this thread. FROM THIS THREAD means there's no other issues except the one FROM THIS THREAD. And the only issue FROM THIS THREAD is the one question Paul asked you which you are not answering. One name.

[section 8]

You're being willfully obtuse.

You complained that I was bringing up stuff from other threads, correct? Yes, you did. So I stopped referring to any issues you and I have had outside of this thread. FROM THIS THREAD means there's no other issues except the one FROM THIS THREAD. And the only issue FROM THIS THREAD is the one question Paul asked you which you are not answering. One name.

I mentioned the you brought up stuff (un related, and about me ) from other threads (in a futher attept to demonize) and yet accused me of "changing the subject" i pointed out he hypocrisy of it, that's all.
(Un-Modded thread remember?)

when Paul "Called me out" on saying many people in this AND OTHER THREADS did the same thing Samurai did.

He asked me to name one, i handed over an entire thread as an example ("the John Edwards is a scumbag" thread) and yet i'm still being told i didn't answer the question.

in summation, your kidding right?

[section 8]

...:biggrin:

Peron A: "oh yeah? can you post a link to back that up"

Person B: (posts link)

Person A: you're posting links form That site? get the fuck outta here!!

Or
Person A: (asks Question)
Person B: (answers)
Person A: that isn't an answer!


PSA

When someone says "to back that up" they might mean "to disregard and probably use against you"

[Charles RB]

No it's fucking not.

http://images.salon.com/comics/boll/2008/07/24/boll/story.gif

I fucking love that thing.

[king mob]

I mentioned the you brought up stuff (un related, and about me ) from other threads (in a futher attept to demonize) and yet accused me of "changing the subject" i pointed out he hypocrisy of it, that's all.
(Un-Modded thread remember?)

when Paul "Called me out" on saying many people in this AND OTHER THREADS did the same thing Samurai did.

He asked me to name one, i handed over an entire thread as an example ("the John Edwards is a scumbag" thread) and yet i'm still being told i didn't answer the question.

in summation, your kidding right?

No she's not. Your being obtuse to the point of making yourself look like a cock. You can at least give Bree a decent answer without throwing your toys out the pram.

[Samurai]

You're being willfully obtuse.

You complained that I was bringing up stuff from other threads, correct? Yes, you did. So I stopped referring to any issues you and I have had outside of this thread. FROM THIS THREAD means there's no other issues except the one FROM THIS THREAD. And the only issue FROM THIS THREAD is the one question Paul asked you which you are not answering. One name.

Ok, I'm going to step in for Section 8 here. How about the fact that Pip just used a "Tom the Dancing Bug" cartoon as if it were a credible source for the way oil markets work, including such obvious BS as "defense contractors", "wars to ensure oil supply", "global warming", "policies encouraging fuel inefficiency"?

And, without the artificial and unreasonable constraint of "in this thread", what about all the folks who have cited Huffington Post, Democratic Underground, or Daily Kos?

People like Cyke: http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=7240830&postcount=481

Typo Lad: http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=7184869&postcount=3232

Dedagda: http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=7010557&postcount=60

Crowley: http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=6747533&postcount=8

Royal: http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=6745629&postcount=7022

Alix: http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=6516712&postcount=46

Magneto X: http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=3452778&postcount=6349

And what's more Sabrina, you KNOW this... here is what you said before:

Mr. McEnery! *shaking finger* We've had people citing the Democratic Underground as sources here and there, and that place makes Cynthia McKinney look sane. http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=3524209&postcount=6485

So, you aren't asking Section 8 to "name a name" because you honestly don't know of anyone posting dodgy sources around here. You KNOW it happens all the time, you said so for years. You're doing it to either make him jump through hoops using the search feature, or as a cheap debating tactic hoping he won't take the time to go out and prove what you already know to be a fact. Honestly Bree, you're better than that...

[Paul McEnery]

The challenge was to find someone linking to obvious lies and propaganda, not to reputable sources that were reporting the truth.

[Samurai]

The challenge was to find someone linking to obvious lies and propaganda, not to reputable sources that were reporting the truth.
I'll let Bree answer for me...
Mr. McEnery! *shaking finger* We've had people citing the Democratic Underground as sources here and there, and that place makes Cynthia McKinney look sane.

[Royal]

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=6745629&postcount=7022[/url]


Do you read in tag clouds or something.

First of all, a friend of mine was at the actual scene, so I had first hand knowledge. Second of all, The MSM was aslep at the fucking whel. The only ones to have caught the tidbit was the blogosphere, which I'm super reluctant to quote unless it's something that isn't coveredf by the MSM like MMA. Which is why I prefaced the entry with and I quote...

I hate doing this, but it seems the only press that caught this was Huffington.

I certainly wasn't going to quote, KOS, Move On or Jimmy Joe Bob's Blog. I quoted Huffington because to me. IMO, they would seem less bias. Still, I didn't like using the link, BUT THEY WERE THE ONLY ONE WHO COVERED IT AND CONFIRMED FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE.

Jesus fuck, read the post before you set it.

[Nyarlathotep]

Do you read in tag clouds or something.

First of all, a friend of mine was at the actual scene, so I had first hand knowledge. Second of all, The MSM was aslep at the fucking whel. The only ones to have caught the tidbit was the blogosphere, which I'm super reluctant to quote unless it's something that isn't coveredf by the MSM like MMA. Which is why I prefaced the entry with and I quote...



I certainly wasn't going to quote, KOS, Move On or Jimmy Joe Bob's Blog. I quoted Huffington because to me. IMO, they would seem less bias. Still, I didn't like using the link, BUT THEY WERE THE ONLY ONE WHO COVERED IT AND CONFIRMED FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE.

Jesus fuck, read the post before you set it.

Dude plays "liberalmediabloggerboogyman" card on you, straight from Fox News, and this is the response? Come on guys, man up. There's nothing wrong with HuffPo and if we're going to get on the defensive on every recycled right wing talking point well, then that's a sign we need to read more Huffington Post.

[Samurai]

Do you read in tag clouds or something.

First of all, a friend of mine was at the actual scene, so I had first hand knowledge. Second of all, The MSM was aslep at the fucking whel. The only ones to have caught the tidbit was the blogosphere, which I'm super reluctant to quote unless it's something that isn't coveredf by the MSM like MMA. Which is why I prefaced the entry with and I quote...



I certainly wasn't going to quote, KOS, Move On or Jimmy Joe Bob's Blog. I quoted Huffington because to me. IMO, they would seem less bias. Still, I didn't like using the link, BUT THEY WERE THE ONLY ONE WHO COVERED IT AND CONFIRMED FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE.

Jesus fuck, read the post before you set it.

How is that in any way different than the MSM being asleep at the wheel now, such that LGF and other right-wing blogs are the only ones reporting on the Obama site's numerous changes, and backing that story up with links and copious screenshots to prove the point? I try to quote other sources when possible, as do you, but sometimes the mainstream just won't report on a story and you have a choice of either a source with some admitted bias, or no source cited at all... I didn't say you liked using that source, or it was your 1st choice. (Though Magneto X used to love to post threads with 5 or 6 Democratic Underground stories in them, and did it frequently.) But Sabrina wanted names of people who ever dared to post a biased source, and your post came up in the search.

[LtMarvel]

The websites being discussed are not equal in terms of factual information. The conservative links turn out more often to be discussion points and editorials, not actual news links. Democratic Underground (at least the links I've seen being used here) actually connect to news stories.

With facts and everything.

Don't fall into Sam's trap, an old conservative trick, that two sides of the argument must be represented to be fair. I don't need to hear from the Flat Earth Society to decide what shape our planet is.

[Sabrinaset]

Ok, I'm going to step in for Section 8 here. How about the fact that Pip just used a "Tom the Dancing Bug" cartoon as if it were a credible source for the way oil markets work, including such obvious BS as "defense contractors", "wars to ensure oil supply", "global warming", "policies encouraging fuel inefficiency"?...


I'm fairly sure everyone here knows the cartoon is meant half in jest. I mean, I'm no economist, but right off the top of my head, I know that farming subsidies should be another arrow or so in the oranges part, and that a great deal of the reason that prices are going down is because people are driving less...something I had links to in a post awhile ago. People are driving less, so prices are coming down. Something else Section said the opposite of too IIRC, that prices were going up, or staying the same. I simply posted the links to three stories disputing his opinion, but didn't bother calling him out on it because I knew something like this would be the result. He can't handle being called out on his opinions when they're wrong, or even being called out at all. And geez, I'm a freaking drama queen, and I can handle it.

Now Sam, go ahead and make excuses for him, I'm not upset about that. But the fact remains, he can't back up his own arguments. And it's not the first time. Heck, how many times has it been anyways? And furthermore, you know that the "In this thread" was referring to not bringing up other past issues between us from other threads, which was something he was whining about. So just stop it.

It still boiled down to this. Paul asked him for one other name, and he COULDN'T DO IT. No, I'll go one step further ... he WOULDN'T. Instead, he went off on a tantrum and put Paul on ignore. That's a lot easier than actually answering the question. It's a pattern we've seen before. If you're going to be his enabler, go ahead, but I'm telling you, you're going to be in for a HUGE fall because of it and you know it.

[Samurai]

The websites being discussed are not equal in terms of factual information. The conservative links turn out more often to be discussion points and editorials, not actual news links. Democratic Underground (at least the links I've seen being used here) actually connect to news stories.

With facts and everything.

Don't fall into Sam's trap, an old conservative trick, that two sides of the argument must be represented to be fair. I don't need to hear from the Flat Earth Society to decide what shape our planet is.

Actually, LGF is a far more credible source than the raving lunatics at DU, Daily Kos, or Huffington. LGF usually points to other news stories. And you might also be surprised at some of the issues they support. For instance, Charles Johnson is a strong supporter of evolution and frequently points out stories about it or attempts by the religious right to get ID/Creationism into schools. Here are some of his articles on it: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/lgf-search.php?searchString=evolution

He is also a very strong foe of Vlaams Belang and other Eurofascists, as he calls them, and frequently takes them to task. There have been large online feuds between LGF and some right-wing European sites such as Lionheart, Gates of Vienna, and Brussels Journal: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/lgf-search.php?searchWith=lgf&searchWhat=entries&maxPerPage=25&therange=&searchString=Vlaams+Belang

But you probably don't know anything about that, because your view of LGF is a simplistic caricature.

[Samurai]

I'm fairly sure everyone here knows the cartoon is meant half in jest. I mean, I'm no economist, but right off the top of my head, I know that farming subsidies should be another arrow or so in the oranges part, and that a great deal of the reason that prices are going down is because people are driving less...something I had links to in a post awhile ago. People are driving less, so prices are coming down. Something else Section said the opposite of too IIRC, that prices were going up, or staying the same. I simply posted the links to three stories disputing his opinion, but didn't bother calling him out on it because I knew something like this would be the result. He can't handle being called out on his opinions when they're wrong, or even being called out at all. And geez, I'm a freaking drama queen, and I can handle it.

Now Sam, go ahead and make excuses for him, I'm not upset about that. But the fact remains, he can't back up his own arguments. And it's not the first time. Heck, how many times has it been anyways? And furthermore, you know that the "In this thread" was referring to not bringing up other past issues between us from other threads, which was something he was whining about. So just stop it.

It still boiled down to this. Paul asked him for one other name, and he COULDN'T DO IT. No, I'll go one step further ... he WOULDN'T. Instead, he went off on a tantrum and put Paul on ignore. That's a lot easier than actually answering the question. It's a pattern we've seen before. If you're going to be his enabler, go ahead, but I'm telling you, you're going to be in for a HUGE fall because of it and you know it.
I sat back for a long time, hoping one of you 2 would drop it, or that he'd use the search feature as I did and meet your challenge. Maybe he doesn't know how to use it, or more likely, he didn't feel like indulging someone asking him to prove something they already know full well to be true. It's like someone asking you to take the time to cite sources to prove that water evaporates on a hot, sunny day. Yeah, you could take the time to research it, compile a post, and jump through the hoops laid before you, all the while knowing that the other person knows full well that water evaporates on a hot day. They are probably laughing at how much time you spent and wasted answering such an obvious point, and wondering what other obvious things can they ask you until they finally tire of it. It's a silly game of "gotcha!"

[Paul McEnery]

Do you read in tag clouds or something.

First of all, a friend of mine was at the actual scene, so I had first hand knowledge. Second of all, The MSM was aslep at the fucking whel. The only ones to have caught the tidbit was the blogosphere, which I'm super reluctant to quote unless it's something that isn't coveredf by the MSM like MMA. Which is why I prefaced the entry with and I quote...



I certainly wasn't going to quote, KOS, Move On or Jimmy Joe Bob's Blog. I quoted Huffington because to me. IMO, they would seem less bias. Still, I didn't like using the link, BUT THEY WERE THE ONLY ONE WHO COVERED IT AND CONFIRMED FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE.

Jesus fuck, read the post before you set it.

And IIRC, HuffPo was reprinting the Boston Globe.

[Sabrinaset]

Sam, if your point is that the argument was relatively minor in the overall scheme of things, sure, you're right there. You're still missing the bigger point. He can't argue his way out of a paper bag, and he needs someone else to do it for him when he's stuck, which is often ... and before someone tries to bail him out, all he can do is backpedal and attempt to change the subject. I'm not terribly worried, he'll do it again soon, and we'll let you defend him.

The other point I was trying to make ... well, maybe I didn't make it completely clear, but frankly, with as many times as he's done this, it's fun to do so. Now sure, there's a certain amout of cruelty in doing this to him, I mean, I sometimes felt like a cat toying with a helpless lil mouse, but hey, you gotta take your cheap thrills where you can get them.

[Paul McEnery]

I'll let Bree answer for me...

No, what you'll do is lie and misdirect, since the posters you cited where quoting the Huffington Post, which to a large extent aggregates its news and commentary; and each of those articles you cited were actually truthful. So, full of crap again.

For that matter, the citation of stuff I've seen here through the Democratic Underground has almost always clicked through to a reputable source, whereas LGF either makes things up wholesale, or links through to someone making stuff up wholesale.

Truth isn't a team sport.

[Samurai]

No, what you'll do is lie and misdirect, since the posters you cited where quoting the Huffington Post, which to a large extent aggregates its news and commentary; and each of those articles you cited were actually truthful. So, full of crap again.

For that matter, the citation of stuff I've seen here through the Democratic Underground has almost always clicked through to a reputable source, whereas LGF either makes things up wholesale, or links through to someone making stuff up wholesale.

Truth isn't a team sport.

Prove it. Cite your sources for this claim.


(Let's see if this is as fun as Bree says...)

[KevinTBrown]

try reading the thread Kevin,

i don't expect you to do anything but antagonize, but you could at least get your facts straight.

MY facts are straight. You're the one who constantly has problems with keeping things straight or proving your points......

As Bree points out quite well here:
Sam, if your point is that the argument was relatively minor in the overall scheme of things, sure, you're right there. You're still missing the bigger point. He can't argue his way out of a paper bag, and he needs someone else to do it for him when he's stuck, which is often ... and before someone tries to bail him out, all he can do is backpedal and attempt to change the subject. I'm not terribly worried, he'll do it again soon, and we'll let you defend him.

The other point I was trying to make ... well, maybe I didn't make it completely clear, but frankly, with as many times as he's done this, it's fun to do so. Now sure, there's a certain amout of cruelty in doing this to him, I mean, I sometimes felt like a cat toying with a helpless lil mouse, but hey, you gotta take your cheap thrills where you can get them.



BACK on topic: I dislike that people will accuse Obama of flip-flopping, but he's right to change his position slightly. Especially when it's for the probably best in the long run. He's actually formulating a PLAN to do so, too! Something I've yet to see McCain do.... So far, he's all sound bytes and negativity.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080805/ap_on_el_pr/obama_energy

[BnL]

Prove it. Cite your sources for this claim.


(Let's see if this is as fun as Bree says...)

So then you're admitting that you know what Paul said is true, but are just making him jump through hoops, like you accused Bree of doing?

[Samurai]

So then you're admitting that you know what Paul said is true, but are just making him jump through hoops, like you accused Bree of doing?

Well, not quite. In this case, I know that Paul isn't telling the truth, and I highly doubt he'll take the time to even try to post anything in support of it. I visit LGF daily, I know what the site is about, what's there, and Paul's just flat out wrong.

But when he can't/won't back up his claim, I can just keep on demanding he prove it, why won't he prove it, etc, etc.

So, since this is a somewhat different case, I guess we can't coin the term "pulling a Sabrinaset" on him... :wink:

[Paul McEnery]

So then you're admitting that you know what Paul said is true, but are just making him jump through hoops, like you accused Bree of doing?

Given that we've been over this time and again with this time-wasting fool, I wouldn't have thought it was exactly necessary.

[Paul McEnery]

I visit LGF daily, I know what the site is about, what's there, and Paul's just flat out wrong.:

Exactly. You go there, you post stuff you found there here, it gets seven shades of shit ripped out of it, you go back and find some more lies and hatespeech to post.

Happens pretty much daily.

[Sabrinaset]

So, since this is a somewhat different case, I guess we can't coin the term "pulling a Sabrinaset" on him... :wink:

"Pulling a Bree" could have a whole new meaning for you, I think.

[Samurai]

Exactly. You go there, you post stuff you found there here, it gets seven shades of shit ripped out of it, you go back and find some more lies and hatespeech to post.

Happens pretty much daily.

I'm still waiting for you to prove your claim, with citations...

[Samurai]

"Pulling a Bree" could have a whole new meaning for you, I think.

Somehow, I imagine the alternate definition is similar to "pulling a tiger's tail"... :biggrin:

[rick]

I'm still waiting for you to prove your claim, with citations...


Should I point out that you've got a lot of damm gall demanding citations considering some of the sources you use.

You know, like Little Green Footballs.

I’d take that guys word on photography and bikes, but politics, I don’t think so.

[section 8]

Ok, I'm going to step in for Section 8 here. How about the fact that Pip just used a "Tom the Dancing Bug" cartoon as if it were a credible source for the way oil markets work, including such obvious BS as "defense contractors", "wars to ensure oil supply", "global warming", "policies encouraging fuel inefficiency"?

And, without the artificial and unreasonable constraint of "in this thread", what about all the folks who have cited Huffington Post, Democratic Underground, or Daily Kos?

People like Cyke: http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=7240830&postcount=481

Typo Lad: http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=7184869&postcount=3232

Dedagda: http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=7010557&postcount=60

Crowley: http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=6747533&postcount=8

Royal: http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=6745629&postcount=7022

Alix: http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=6516712&postcount=46

Magneto X: http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=3452778&postcount=6349

And what's more Sabrina, you KNOW this... here is what you said before:

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=3524209&postcount=6485

So, you aren't asking Section 8 to "name a name" because you honestly don't know of anyone posting dodgy sources around here. You KNOW it happens all the time, you said so for years. You're doing it to either make him jump through hoops using the search feature, or as a cheap debating tactic hoping he won't take the time to go out and prove what you already know to be a fact. Honestly Bree, you're better than that...


apparently not,

the point wasn't getting me to back up a claim, it was never about that (okay maybe it was Paul's intent)

it was really about giving me shit.

and consantly changing the "meaning" of a question so they can say i never answered, no matter how many times i do so.

[Samurai]

Should I point out that you've got a lot of damm gall demanding citations considering some of the sources you use.

You know, like Little Green Footballs.

I’d take that guys word on photography and bikes, but politics, I don’t think so.

We disagree on that. However, like I told Royal, I still go out of my way to avoid posting links to it except when there is no other option. Not because I disbelieve the LGF story, but for the sake of others reading it who I know would prefer a source with less known/obvious bias, and in order to cite the original source, since LGF is mostly links to other stories, not stories of their own.

However, that consideration has to go both ways. I often see links to Huffington Post, DU, and Daily Kos, as I cited above. While they sometimes have a legitimate story on them, they are extremely biased sites, and people would do well to avoid them as much as possible if they are then "have the gall", to use your terminology, to turn around and complain about the occasional LGF link.

In the end, it's the story that should be judged on its own, more than the site it comes from.

[section 8]

Sam, if your point is that the argument was relatively minor in the overall scheme of things, sure, you're right there. You're still missing the bigger point. He can't argue his way out of a paper bag, and he needs someone else to do it for him when he's stuck, which is often ... and before someone tries to bail him out, all he can do is backpedal and attempt to change the subject. I'm not terribly worried, he'll do it again soon, and we'll let you defend him.

The other point I was trying to make ... well, maybe I didn't make it completely clear, but frankly, with as many times as he's done this, it's fun to do so. Now sure, there's a certain amout of cruelty in doing this to him, I mean, I sometimes felt like a cat toying with a helpless lil mouse, but hey, you gotta take your cheap thrills where you can get them.

Well Bree, we can agree on something, i'm not good at arguing, and even worse at bullshit,

you on the other hand are skilled at the former, and an expert in the latter

so you admit my argument was minor, and my point has been proven valid?
and the only reason you even you give me shit is because you can?

don't you have better things to do?

Or is attacking people and drawing goofy cartoons the only things you have to live for?

[Samurai]

apparently not,

the point wasn't getting me to back up a claim, it was never about that (okay maybe it was Paul's intent)

it was really about giving me shit.

and consantly changing the "meaning" of a question so they can say i never answered, no matter how many times i do so.

Yes, I know. I get it all the time as well. It's a cheap tactic that people use for shits and giggles when they don't feel like debating real issues. Sometimes it takes giving people a dose of their own medicine before they realize what it feels like...

So Paul, I'm still waiting for you to prove that claim about LGF, or are you going to admit you just made that up off the top of your head?

[Sabrinaset]

Or is attacking people and drawing goofy cartoons the only things you have to live for?

N-4!

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f336/sabrinaset/20060405bingo.png

[section 8]

Case....in.....point

now go draw a picture of it.

[section 8]

Yes, I know. I get it all the time as well. It's a cheap tactic that people use for shits and giggles when they don't feel like debating real issues. Sometimes it takes giving people a dose of their own medicine before they realize what it feels like...
then i'd be brought down to her level, it would be like fighting racism with more racism (something else Bree has resorted to in the past btw)

it only escalates, nothing is resolved.

[Sabrinaset]

then i'd be brought down to her level, it would be like fighting racism with more racism (something else Bree has resorted to in the past btw)

it only escalates, nothing is resolved.

LOL! For the record, the post that gets your panties in a twist is here. (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=7129140&postcount=13280) You somehow keep seeing "I didn't know (nor do I care) if he's a Native American or not." as racism, when in fact a racist WOULD care. The only thing I'm guilty of is forgetting that I had previously commented on you being a self-described Indian Redneck. Your race is still irrelevent. Your posts would be awful no matter what race you are.

[section 8]

you also lied about not knowing my race, convenient.

oh no your comment wasn't racist. it just happened to be one of two major racial stereotypes, coincidence sheer coincidence. nothing more. of all the slander you could have thrown my way that is what you happened to choose. next you'll pull that "some of my best friends" line out your ass

anyway yes i drink occasionally, and when i post under the influence i see it as a responsibility (look it up) to mention it right away so nothing is taken too far, or out of context.

but you slipped for a second, and showed your true colors. Never mind the skinheads at least i know what they are and to stay away, but people like you who make racist comments subtle enough that you can still deny it,
people who pretend to have no bias, but retreat to the privacy of their homes and then use racial slurs. though you would never admit such prejudice, you are just as bad as any skinhead Nazi, or what ever.

[Sabrinaset]

you also lied about not knowing my race, convenient.

oh no your comment wasn't racist. it just happened to be one of two major racial stereotypes, coincidence sheer coincidence. nothing more. of all the slander you could have thrown my way that is what you happened to choose. next you'll pull that "some of my best friends" line out your ass

I'm goping to try this one more time, then I think I'm done with you.

Your posting style is why myself, Pip, and Algren on three different occasions thought you were drunk. Gimme a break, if you can read the posts by you I quoted here (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=6988304&postcount=1164)and think it was made by someone sober ...

None of us care what race you are. We only care about what you post.

So give the victimology a rest. It ain't working.

[BnL]

you also lied about not knowing my race, convenient.

oh no your comment wasn't racist. it just happened to be one of two major racial stereotypes, coincidence sheer coincidence. nothing more. of all the slander you could have thrown my way that is what you happened to choose. next you'll pull that "some of my best friends" line out your ass

anyway yes i drink occasionally, and when i post under the influence i see it as a responsibility (look it up) to mention it right away so nothing is taken too far, or out of context.

but you slipped for a second, and showed your true colors. Never mind the skinheads at least i know what they are and to stay away, but people like you who make racist comments subtle enough that you can still deny it,
people who pretend to have no bias, but retreat to the privacy of their homes and then use racial slurs. though you would never admit such prejudice, you are just as bad as any skinhead Nazi, or what ever.

I think you're letting your beef with Bree on other issues get carried away here. Her comment about drinking was not racially charged, and it just makes you look silly to claim that. You've admitted to having posted while drunk before, and "have you been drinking/smoking crack/etc" is a common response to general wtf-ness. That's all it was. It doesn't help anyone to make that accusation.

And don't think I'm just blithely dismissing a claim of racism out of hand. Such a comment COULD be genuinely racist, but it just doesn't line up that way in this case, for a variety of reasons.

[section 8]

Do not drag Pip and Algren into this.

Pip is from Germany, having been to Meinz, i can tell you there is little if any racism there (ironic, i know, but true)

and i do not know if Algren knew my racial status.

But i'll make it easy for you Bree, do you harass Everyone on YABS or only Native Americans?

[section 8]

I think you're letting your beef with Bree on other issues get carried away here. Her comment about drinking was not racially charged, and it just makes you look silly to claim that. You've admitted to having posted while drunk before, and "have you been drinking/smoking crack/etc" is a common response to general wtf-ness. That's all it was. It doesn't help anyone to make that accusation.

And don't think I'm just blithely dismissing a claim of racism out of hand. Such a comment COULD be genuinely racist, but it just doesn't line up that way in this case, for a variety of reasons.

um, bullshit
if it were another race and another stereotype this would not be up for debate.

but plausible deniabilty is Bree's only defense
It's like calling a minority "Articulate" or calling a black guy "boy"
the offending party can always step back when confronted and say "oh i didn't mean it like that"

it isn't quite a burning cross, and looks innocent on the outside but with the right skin color you easily pick up what is being put down.

Passive aggressive racism is just as mush a plague on our society as full blown hatred, and bigotry

[rick]

We disagree on that. However, like I told Royal, I still go out of my way to avoid posting links to it except when there is no other option. Not because I disbelieve the LGF story, but for the sake of others reading it who I know would prefer a source with less known/obvious bias, and in order to cite the original source, since LGF is mostly links to other stories, not stories of their own.

However, that consideration has to go both ways. I often see links to Huffington Post, DU, and Daily Kos, as I cited above. While they sometimes have a legitimate story on them, they are extremely biased sites, and people would do well to avoid them as much as possible if they are then "have the gall", to use your terminology, to turn around and complain about the occasional LGF link.

In the end, it's the story that should be judged on its own, more than the site it comes from.

Actually Sam, I don't get too worked up about links to actual news stories, it's their overt usage of blog postings and editorials presented as news that bugs me about LGF.

A problem I also have with KOS, but not with either Huffington or Drudge.

That clarify a bit?

[Sabrinaset]

I have a problem with people who post so badly it makes my brain hurt. And as far as Pip and Algren, they've made the same accusations. Deal with it.

You know, I'll go this far for you. I'll tell you honestly, you race is completely irrelevent to me. BnL pretty much was spot-on. I'll apologize for using the word drunk regarding your posting style. I still find your posts irrational. I still find you can't back up your arguments with anything substantive. But if the drunk thing bothers you, then I'm sorry for that.

[rick]

But i'll make it easy for you Bree, do you harass Everyone on YABS or only Native Americans?

I doubt that Bree has the slightest idea that you are Native American, she probably just thinks that you're something of an asshole.

Certainly in the short time you’ve been posting, it’s the opinion I’ve gotten of you.

[Sabrinaset]

I doubt that Bree has the slightest idea that you are Native American, she probably just thinks that you're something of an asshole.

Certainly in the short time you’ve been posting, it’s the opinion I’ve gotten of you.

Actually, I read and commented on it when KevinTBrown was comenting on how he had several races ... then forgot about it. (It's not particularly important, after all.) He sees something more sinister in that. I think my first post on him being drunk preceeded that by a few days though.

But I guess I should mention this ...

Pip is from Germany, having been to Meinz, i can tell you there is little if any racism there (ironic, i know, but true)

and i do not know if Algren knew my racial status.

But I might as well add THIS (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=7143344&postcount=13349) ...

It is interesting that the first place you and Bree went was (by astronomical coincidence) also the one popular racial stereotype against my people.

when it comes to him accusing Pip of being a racist, and THIS (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=7143968&postcount=13351)when it comes to Matt being accused of racism.

But i'm sure this is just a coincidence
go ahead, tell me abut "some of your best friends"

... so we got him playing the race/victim card every chance he gets.

[section 8]

I doubt that Bree has the slightest idea that you are Native American, she probably just thinks that you're something of an asshole.

Certainly in the short time you’ve been posting, it’s the opinion I’ve gotten of you.

no it was established long ago Rick,

and thank you
i do not mind being called an asshole so much as the other.
right now i'll take "asshole" as more courteous label

[rick]

no it was established long ago Rick,

and thank you
i do not mind being called an asshole so much as the other.
right now i'll take "asshole" as more courteous label


Now that's the right reaction to have.

And it's cool, I'm an asshole too.


But seriously man, you need to relax a little and not take everything that these folks say quite so personally.

They are mostly a nice enough lot, even Sam and even Paul and you are making a mistake treating this all like a duel.

[BnL]

um, bullshit
if it were another race and another stereotype this would not be up for debate.

but plausible deniabilty is Bree's only defense
It's like calling a minority "Articulate" or calling a black guy "boy"
the offending party can always step back when confronted and say "oh i didn't mean it like that"

it isn't quite a burning cross, and looks innocent on the outside but with the right skin color you easily pick up what is being put down.

Passive aggressive racism is just as mush a plague on our society as full blown hatred, and bigotry

Are you assuming that because you're Indian and not black that no one is taking what you're saying seriously? Being so quick to jump to such accusations does not make you look very good. I'm judging the situation based solely on what I've observed.

I agree with you about subtle racism being alive and well, and even acceptable and/or deniable, but I just don't see it in this case. If you could point to even one other instance of Bree being racist in all her time posting here, that would help your claim. If you hadn't admitted to posting on the boards while drunk, that would also help your claim. Your posting style has improved a lot since you first started posting, but in the beginning, it was very hard to understand, which is going to illicit responses like, "Wtf? Is this guy drunk?"

With all that being the case, it just does not add up to a racist attack.

[section 8]

... so we got him playing the race/victim card every chance he gets.

ok who had "race card" in the pool ( i shouldn't say that, people will likely take it as the go ahead for Indian Gambling comments)

If i had said something sexist, would calling me on it be the "gender" card?

i bet not.

I've been called every thing but the messiah wile on YABS, and have had more than my share of debates, if i "pulled the race card at every opportunity" it would be obvious, by now.

Don't worry Bree by the looks of things you are indeed getting away with it.

[section 8]

Now that's the right reaction to have.

And it's cool, I'm an asshole too.


But seriously man, you need to relax a little and not take everything that these folks say quite so personally.

They are mostly a nice enough lot, even Sam and even Paul and you are making a mistake treating this all like a duel.

I have had a few disagreements with Sam (mostly on the topic of Homosexuality) but we kept it civil.

and i admit i was still pissed at Paul over a previous argument and perhaps over reacted at the first sign of hostility.

[Sabrinaset]

ok who had "race card" in the pool ( i shouldn't say that, people will likely take it as the go ahead for Indian Gambling comments)

Okay. I'll try this one more time with you, then I'm moving on. And you know what ... I'll try being nice to you about this. No snark this time. Please listen.

Three different people on three different occasions thought you were posting drunk, and this was based on what you posted. Now, there's two ways to look at it. You can say, "Hey, these guys have a point, it's my fault, I AM posting incoherently, and yes, it does looks like I'm posting drunk." That's a difficult thing to do, because now it means you have to acknowlege your shortcomings and work upon them. The OTHER way is to blame everyone else, which is pretty easy, because not only do you NOT need to change yourself, you also get to be the hero in your own story because everyone else is out to get you. "They" are now the villains. And now you get to use racism as an excuse for your posts being what they are, and that's what it is, just an excuse. It's because everyone here who calls you out on your posting style, why, "they" must be bigots. And we're not. You've accused all three of us of this, and it looks like you're just blaming the messengers. And let's face it, if it happens three times, that's a clear pattern. Three people asked/said you were posting drunk, and three times you accused us of racism. You can't deny that this has happened. But here's the thing ... if lightning doesn't strike twice, it sure won't do so three times. Yet it has with you. So maybe the problem isn't with the three of us ... maybe it has to do with the way you post? Do you think that there's a possibility that this could be the case? Do you think it's at least possible that you're using racism as an excuse if you've used it on three different people who have nothing in common with each other save the fact that they post on CBR and have commented on you?

Now BnL is correct, your posts have been getting more coherent the past few weeks, give or take. But you're still not backing up your statements. If you're going to post here, you'd better expect that, and be called on it. Believe me, I've been called on a lot myself, and I've been wrong plenty of times myself. I'd like to think I grew because of it. Maybe not as fast as I should have, but I have.

So stop playing the victim, and start growing as a poster.

[section 8]

I appreciate the earnest and sincere tone of the previous post, i will try to return the favor.

However
I have noted on several occasions that Typing, and by extension posting, is not my strongest quality, could be mental illness, or simply stupidity (i have also mentioned that I'm not bright), or yes it could be inebriation. Even after admitting this as a short-coming, i am still scrutinized frequently.

But lets switch places for a sec, if while arguing i said something about or even implied the "angry lesbian" stereotype, ( i never would, but for the sake of making my point i'm using it as an example) then you'd probably be as offended if not moreso as i was and am now.

And a group chanting the same rhetoric doesn't make it right.

Thank you for acknowledging my efforts to improve my posts, i have worked hard to do so.

I HAVE backed up my earlier statement that people in this as well as other political threads post links to "iffy" sources, (the "john Edwards is a scumbag" thread) others have also posted examples of this, but i somehow do not see you asking me to "name one" of those.

Again i've been in several arguments myself, and do not "play the race card at every opportunity" as you have claimed, nor have i provoked most people i've disagreed with to harass me for "a cheap thrill" as you have admitted to doing.

the sad thing is Bree, i've read your posts noticed your interests and in another place and time i actually could see us as friends.

i will take your advise to the best of my ability, but keep in mind that growth is that much more unlikely when under constant attack.

[FalconX2000]

I answered why it wasn't a HIPPA violation right after your post in a modded thread.

This is an un-modded thread. And that was after the second time you did it.

Tell you what, instead of doing your darndest to change the subject, howzabout you answer Paul's question? Or my old one about Carter? Or back up the stalking comment? Can you do that?

It sounds like he was being pontifical in those medical posts, which can be annoying, but that hardly seems worthy of ignoring everything else they say.:confused:

And while I think he's being an ass about his argument with Paul, I'm pretty sure you're taking his stalking comment way too seriously. It looked like a joke to me.

[Sabrinaset]

It sounds like he was being pontifical in those medical posts, which can be annoying, but that hardly seems worthy of ignoring everything else they say.:confused:

And while I think he's being an ass about his argument with Paul, I'm pretty sure you're taking his stalking comment way too seriously. It looked like a joke to me.

It's settled. We're dropping it, or this will go on forever! Where's Beetlebum? We need a smilie on a Moebius Strip!

[section 8]

agreed, perhaps we should return to our respective corners and go back to not talking to or about one another, at least until we can do so in a more civil manner.

[Paul McEnery]

I'm still waiting for you to prove your claim, with citations...

No, you're not.

Every piece of propaganda you have ever posted has been promptly refuted.

That IS the proof.

[kingdom2000]

I have this desire to take whatever section 8 is saying and running with it just to annoy Sab...but it would require me to read too many of the last few pages to bother. Sigh, laziness can be such a curse to entertainment.

On a political note, probably to the surprise of no one, McCain's attack ads are working as a new poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll) is showing a virtual tie between the two. There is a reason that Repubs hit that well over and over and its because it works. I mean damn, they have people labeling Obama a flip flopper and he hasn't "flopped" on even a tiny fraction of the crap that McCain has bounced around on. Pathetic for it proves why the rest of the world has so little respect for American intelligence, but impressive from a campaign perspective. Wish it wasn't that way but that's how it is. Now if only the Democrat party would grow a pair. Being nice just gets your ass kicked. There is a reason they say nice guys finish last...because its simply true.

[Samurai]

No, you're not.

Every piece of propaganda you have ever posted has been promptly refuted.

That IS the proof.

So you are admitting you are unable or unwilling to support your outlandish claim, which hasn't a shred of evidence?

Oh, and not all of my "propaganda", as you so charmingly call it, is from LGF. And practically all of your so-called refutations were merely your opinion, backed with as little real evidence as you are citing now... in other words, none.

Your say so isn't, and has never been, and never will be, "proof".

[king mob]

Oh, and not all of my "propaganda", as you so charmingly call it, is from LGF.

No, you sometimes use the Daily Mail.

[the4thpip]

you also lied about not knowing my race, convenient.



The thing is: Sabrina, like me, just hadn't memorized it. You are one of the less memorable posters here for me. Your posts usually contain that little substance that I browse over them and tend to forget them next. Yes, my first boyfriend was a Lakota Sioux and also a drunk. No, I did not remember you saying you were native American a few weeks earlier when your incoherent posts made me guess that you were drunk.

All clear now?

[FalconX2000]

Now that's the right reaction to have.

And it's cool, I'm an asshole too.


But seriously man, you need to relax a little and not take everything that these folks say quite so personally.

They are mostly a nice enough lot, even Sam and even Paul and you are making a mistake treating this all like a duel.

No! This is war, you here me?!WAR!!!! Now where's my spinnerbait?

http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/35/nukefishingxa2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[KevinTBrown]

Obama's been ridiculed for suggesting that people keep their tires inflated and maintain their vehicle properly as a way to decrease oil and gas usage. But, you know what? He's right:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1829354,00.html?cnn=yes



And I would think Time is a very credible source. :wink:

[Arkaengel]

"Dude, Your Wife Looks Like A Man" - Someone posted a bunch of pictures from a con and the dinner afterwards, and everyone was joking and laughing about them. "Man, that guy looks completely drunk or stoned", "Look at the shirt on that geek", kind of stuff. None of the pictures were labeled or anything, and getting in the spirit of the thing, I made a 1 line post about a rotund and extremely androgynous figure in one of the pictures... "Is that a guy or a girl, in that shot there?" (and threw in a smilie afterwards). Just my luck, it turned out that was the wife of one of the board's moderators!
Actually, it wasn't one of the mod's wives. It was the wife of a poster whom you had frequently attempted to argue politics with - with, I may add, your usual success.
"NAMBLA Is A Gay Advocacy Organisation" - This one is closest to a true statement on your part, and it came up in a thread on the topic that someone else started but I joined in. There were many connections historically between NAMBLA and the gay movement groups such as Stonewall, and I documented them with links and quotes. They used to work rather closely together and shared some members, and NAMBLA marched and supported gay rights. However, I also pointed out that today, the gay movement has tried very hard to separate itself from NAMBLA, and has banned them from some meetings, parades, etc. So "NAMBLA was a gay advocacy group" would be more accurate.
You were bringing up NAMBLA in pretty much every single thread that discussed gay rights and gay issues, and then expanded your repertoire by claiming that, as the ACLU had defended NAMBLA, the ACLU should be viewed as a pro-pedophile organisation. You kept this up to the point where moderation policy for the board was changed to ban attacks against groups of people.
"Queers All Just Wanna Fuck Kids And Animals" - A total lie that makes no sense at all. I never use the term "queers", and I've never said anything like that. Probably something you just made up, or are completely misremembering.
No, that's basically just the subtext of your incessant attempts to conflate homosexuality, bestiality, and pedophilia. Not that you were ever quite ballsy enough to come straight out and say exactly what you meant.

But enough of the past. Let's see if you've actually grown a political stance in the interim. Presumably you intend voting for McCain; it'd be in character for you. Now what I'd like you to do is present me and the rest of this thread with five reasons for this, and (and here's the tricky part) I'd like these five reasons to be based on McCain's stated policies. I'd like you to construct a positive political argument, without recycling the usual load of anti-Obama or anti-Democrat talking points, that indicates that you have in fact sat down and looked at the issues, compared one candidate's policies against the other candidate's, and made a rational decision based on facts as opposed to propaganda.

I mean, I very much doubt that you can. So this is your chance to prove me wrong.

[Typo Lad]

Obama's been ridiculed for suggesting that people keep their tires inflated and maintain their vehicle properly as a way to decrease oil and gas usage. But, you know what? He's right:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1829354,00.html?cnn=yes



And I would think Time is a very credible source. :wink:
Really? Where are people taking issue with this? I see it in all the magazines. Heck, it was in Reader's Digest.

[AllisterH]

You know, I was just reading the recent LitG spiel and he was talking about a couple of charity drives for comic book people.

So, not knowing the names, I clinked on the link and this redhead comes up and I start reading her webpost.

I got to the bandages and how they will itemize and actually ask you how many you want to spend and my mouth dropped...


You Americans REALLY are fucked, you know that right?:eek:

[Nyarlathotep]

Really? Where are people taking issue with this? I see it in all the magazines. Heck, it was in Reader's Digest.

McCain tried to mock Obama on this and handed out air pumps to press.

[Michael P]

You know, I was just reading the recent LitG spiel and he was talking about a couple of charity drives for comic book people.

So, not knowing the names, I clinked on the link and this redhead comes up and I start reading her webpost.

I got to the bandages and how they will itemize and actually ask you how many you want to spend and my mouth dropped...


You Americans REALLY are fucked, you know that right?:eek:

Hi, my name's Michael. I currently pay $836 a month for the privilege of not going crazy.

[Rik Levins]

Really? Where are people taking issue with this? I see it in all the magazines. Heck, it was in Reader's Digest.

The McCaine campaign is handing out these:

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p50/rik_levins/mccaintiregauge.jpg

Actually, I shouldn't say "handing out". They're charging $29.99 for them. (You can get one--without the inscription--for $.89 at Pep Boys.)

[Royal]

The McCaine campaign is handing out these:

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p50/rik_levins/mccaintiregauge.jpg

Actually, I shouldn't say "handing out". They're charging $29.99 for them. (You can get one--without the inscription--for $.89 at Pep Boys.)

$30??

I know a guy who'd do that kinda work for $10.

[king mob]

Hi, my name's Michael. I currently pay $836 a month for the privilege of not going crazy.

I'm off work ill right now. My visit to my GP involved a 20 minute wait before being sent to Bristol Royal Infirmary for an X-ray and then to the chemist to pick up my prescription.

I'll be paid my full wage, the X-ray cost nothing and my prescription cost five quid. I pay on average £130 a month National Insurance which helps fund what's left of our welfare state and the NHS. I don't begrudge paying a penny of it because I know the alternatives are much, much worse.

[Buzz Dixon]

Hi, my name's Michael. I currently pay $836 a month for the privilege of not going crazy.You're being cheated.:wink:

[Tetsuo_man]

Really? Where are people taking issue with this? I see it in all the magazines. Heck, it was in Reader's Digest.

Heck Nascar suggests the things Obama is suggesting so as to save gas. Nascar which i doubt have allot of liberals watching...

[kingdom2000]

The McCaine campaign is handing out these:

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p50/rik_levins/mccaintiregauge.jpg

Actually, I shouldn't say "handing out". They're charging $29.99 for them. (You can get one--without the inscription--for $.89 at Pep Boys.)

When your rich like McSame, $30 isn't much for a pressure gauge.

[Charles RB]

I don't begrudge paying a penny of it because I know the alternatives are much, much worse.

I saw someone on the Occasional Superheroine blog outright say they didn't want universal healthcare because they don't want to pay for someone else's health.

They got a response pointing out that's what they're doing anyway if they pay health insurance,