After Being Eviscerated By Jon Stewart, Cramer Skips Morning Show Appearance
After Being Eviscerated By Jon Stewart, Cramer Skips Morning Show Appearance
Last night, CNBC’s Jim Cramer had a brutal face-off with The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart. “I understand that you want to make finance entertaining, but it’s not a f*cking game,” Stewart told Cramer. Cramer also agreed to do one show with more serious, level-headed commentary.
There has been almost universal acknowledgment that Stewart humiliated Cramer. Jim Fallows called it a “slaughter,” and the Huffington Post has a gigantic headline reading, “Jon Stewart eviscerates Jim Cramer and CNBC.” Even Fox and Friends host Steve Doocy said that Stewart “rightfully” attacked Cramer: “Jim Cramer, on his show, has made many — has said ‘buy this stock because it’s going to go up,’ and then it tanks. He told people to buy Bear Stearns and hold it, just before it completely went to zero.”
As Michael Calderone notes, yesterday on Twitter, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough wrote that he would have the “exclusive Jim Cramer interview tomorrow morning to discuss tonight’s war with Jon Stewart.” But after the rough night, Scarborough wrote this morning that Cramer was a no-show:
No Cramer. Perhaps another example of oversleeping. Guess he had a late night. That is too bad. Producers told he was only talking to us.
Cramer did get one defender this morning: CNN anchor Rob Marciano. Marciano — who is also a weather anchor — said that he sympathized with Cramer: “Anytime you’ve got a guy forecasting the future, and you do it on tv — kind of like a weather forecaster — I mean, you’re going to get into trouble sometimes.” His co-anchor then quipped, “But you’re not rooting for one hurricane over another, are you?” He ended the segment by saying, “Hey, we’re all adults, and you listen to who you want to listen to, and then you make your own decisions.” Watch it:
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
After Being Eviscerated By Jon Stewart, Cramer Skips Morning Show Appearance
– - Stewart aired his own version of To Catch A Predator.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:26 amSomeone should go check on him.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:29 amI almost felt bad for Cramer, but Stewart took himself to another level last night. He was stunning.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:32 amDon’t feel bad for Cramer. He had this, and more, coming.
Any loudmouthed ass that thinks other people’s money is something to play or laugh about deserves humiliation.
Jimmy is also a chickenshit, too girlie-boy to even face the music the next day with Smok’n Joe.
The msm won’t focus on this because it’s about THEM…
March 13th, 2009 at 10:37 amDid any of these folks watch the interview? As Jon said in the interview “as Carly Simon said “This isn’t about you”". This wasn’t about Cramer making bad stock picks, it was about the all financial networks knowing what the Wall Street companies were doing and the networks idly sitting by while they knew the CEO’s were lying to them but not doing anything to hold them accountable for their actions.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:39 amDo not in the least have any sympathy for this Cramer criminal. this is a must read:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/3/5/16720/74815/703/705113
March 13th, 2009 at 10:39 amThere could have been any number of reasons why Cramer didn’t show for Morning Joe, but considering the beating he took last night, Cramer needs to come up with some legitimate justification for his absence — otherwise we go with the obvious.
Plus — it’s just plain rude to commit to being on a show and then not showing up without a d*mn good excuse. Not to mention having consequences. Look what happened to McCain when he blew off David Letterman, and Sick Rantelli when he canceled out on Jon Stewart at the last minute.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:39 amRob Marciano says: “Hey, we’re all adults, and you listen to who you want to listen to, and then you make your own decisions.”
Yes except that it’s a show about investing on a supposedly respected station devoted to investing. I hadn’t seen one second of Cramer’s show until I saw the clips on The Daily Show and I can’t see ANY adults watching it. What a piece of crap show. If you want business and investing advise from TV, stick to Nightly Business Report on PBS.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:40 amLast night Jon Stewart said “Tell Doucheboro that it’s not supposed to be fair.”
March 13th, 2009 at 10:41 amiamwhoiam Says:
I almost felt bad for Cramer, but Stewart took himself to another level last night. He was stunning.
– - We saw something sorely lacking in today’s MSM; it’s called journalism.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:44 amCramer is a diuche, no two ways about it.
Notice how he starts to cry in the second DAILY SHOW clip @ 4:40.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:45 amAre you listening Mr Santelli? Any and all of the financial experts on CNBC could have been called out. Cramer for some reason took the bait and paid the price. Santelli, who was probably most responsible for putting the bulls eye on CNBC, has chosen to crawl under a rock along with Larry Kudlow and everyone else from that network in their collective effort to avoid further scrutiny. Cramer reminded me of someone chosen for public execution who goes to gallows with a final plea for forgiveness as the sentence is carried out. It would be just to see Kudlow and Santelli put their heads on the block as well.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:46 ammisshusseinmolly Says:
Look what happened to McCain when he blew off David Letterman, and Sick Rantelli when he canceled out on Jon Stewart at the last minute.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:39 am
__________
I don’t think the trouncing of Santelli and CNBC that started all this was a consequence of him cancelling – the Daily Show staff had already put that piece together, and were planning to air it whether Santelli showed up or not.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:47 amI doubt Marciano actually saw the interview. If he did, he would have known that Stewart avoided calling Cramer on any of his actual stock predictions. I thought it was very smart of Stewart to avoid an actual nitpicky laundry list of bum prediction by Cramer. He kept it focused on the larger issue of credibility. For this fool at CNN to make it about this stock pick or that one, shows what a tool he is.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:47 amThe problem I see is that Cramer, like most, is down in the weeds talking about bit twiddling while Stewart is talking at a higher level of the whole big picture. This collapse happened over a ten year period of time and it is a systemic problem with the way news is reported and an absence of investigative journalism.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:48 amHe ended the segment by saying, “Hey, we’re all adults, and you listen to who you want to listen to, and then you make your own decisions.”
So now, it’s “Hey, don’t blame us if you listen to…us.
Caveat Empt-y
March 13th, 2009 at 10:49 amlivelongandprosper Says
March 13th, 2009 at 10:40 am
I hadn’t seen one second of Cramer’s show until I saw the clips on The Daily Show and I can’t see ANY adults watching it. What a piece of crap show.
____________________________________________________________
I have never seen Cramer’s show either, and all I’ve seen of it are the clips aired by Jon Stewart.
Gotta question for those of you who may have seen the actual show a few times — were the Daily Show clips a fair representation of the show? Is the show really that much of a circus? Or was the picture Stewart painted somewhat inaccurate?
March 13th, 2009 at 10:50 amI loved the interview!!! Rachel you need to get John on your show.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:50 amThere’s another point:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:51 amStewart’s original point (one of them) was that it’s completely unfair to call people ‘losers’ and bellow indignation at helping them.
On the one hand, the pundits and finance people, in order to justify themselves, run around saying nobody predicted this–but when anybody proposes helping out ordinary people in this catastrophe–why, then it’s ‘losers’ and ‘encouraging bad behavior’.
Unfortunately, Cramer succeeded in blunting that point by making it a spat about him. Fortunately, we see him eviscerated–but he’s taken a bullet for the cause, since the larger point is obscured.
13. hussein toasterhead Says: I don’t think the trouncing of Santelli and CNBC that started all this was a consequence of him cancelling – the Daily Show staff had already put that piece together, and were planning to air it whether Santelli showed up or not.
Yah…it was a consequence of Santelli selling phony outrage as some Gordon Gecko impression of a Howard Beal moment.
Bet Coward Santelli won’t be making an appearance on the Daily Show anytime soon.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:54 ampbg Says:
There’s another point:
Stewart’s original point (one of them) was that it’s completely unfair to call people ‘losers’ and bellow indignation at helping them.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:51 am
__________
It’s a good point, and it brings up another point that I don’t think Stewart mentioned – what were the CNBC folks saying about real estate during the bubble? Were they urging caution with variable rate mortgages, or were they telling people “buy low, sell high?”
Even if CNBC wasn’t pushing the housing bubble, there wre plenty of “Flip This House” shows that were.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:55 amI think that someone needs to investigate Cramer’s personal stock trading activities to see if his sells coincided with his “buy this stock” advice, like with Bear Sterns.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:56 amThe people at CNBC, especially Cramer, should make their stock portfolios public, including trades they’ve made.
For someone to have the power to go on the air and tell people what to buy and sell, and have the power to personally, and behalf of others, purchase stocks and options (calls/puts) is organized crime at its worst.
There is a reason that sports figures aren’t allowed to bet on games. Pete Rose, the Chicago White Sox in 1919?
PEACE
March 13th, 2009 at 10:56 amBilbo, you beat me to it!
PEACE
March 13th, 2009 at 10:56 amIn all seriousness, is someone keeping a suicide watch on Cramer? I thought he deserved what he got, but that was a DEVASTATING interview. Personally, I’d never want to be seen in public again.
Yeesh.
On the level of concern about the public good – it’s right that these guys are forced to face the music. On a personal level, that must have been a world of pain. Especially for a guy who is used to having people hang reverently on his every word.
http://obamalondon.blogspot.com/2009/03/john-stewart-rocks-my-world.html
March 13th, 2009 at 11:00 amI’m not a lawyer or a legal expert, but when watching the You Tube interview excerpts from 2006 that were shown last night, and were at Daily Kos the night before, I’m left with the impression that Cramer implicated himself in criminal wrongdoing. Or do I have it all wrong?
March 13th, 2009 at 11:01 amI hope that Cramer actually sticks with the deal that he made at the end of the show. He is actually in a very powerful situation where he could make a big difference if he gets the balls to start really questioning these CEO’s and holding them accountable for what they’ve done. So does he have a new show on tonight? I think I will actually tune in to watch if he does because I don’t think he can call in sick to his own show.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:03 amCramer’s Hedge Fund engaged in IPO Laddering
“But Nicholas Maier, who was syndicate manager of the Wall Street firm Cramer & Co. from 1996 to 1998, told SEC investigators in the spring that Goldman Sachs routinely forced him to buy stocks at inflated prices if he wanted to purchase shares of an initial public offering (IPO).”
March 13th, 2009 at 11:04 amI really think the only way forward for Cramer is to live up to the standards Stewart set for him last night. His career as we’ve known it is over.
http://www.pufferfishblog.com/
March 13th, 2009 at 11:04 amI saw this and for some reason the weatherman was very defensive as if he gave no credibility to Stewart. It was like “it is easy to go back after the fact and find things that were wrong…” Typical winger attitude. The still don’t understand video recording and YouTube. If he had listened to what was said he would know it was not about speculations by Cramer. It was about the absence of intelligent investigative reporting while there was a bubble happening in the markets.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:05 amI hope Stewart keeps this up. Exposing this show, and all the financial shows for what they are: Ways to manipulate the market. A damning clip is Cramer talking about Apple from 2006 and how he can say something on the air to make the stock take a dive. It is just flat-out fraud and the FCC should start fining and revoking licenses for this kind of crap. The SEC should also investigate guys like Cramer to see if they used these shows to drive the market. If he short sold Apple after coming out with one of these lies on the air, he should go to prison. Stewart may be on the just hitting the tip of the iceberg. It is sad that the only real journalism on TV regarding this financial mess is coming from a comedian.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:05 amstewart did such a fantastic job because he was so cool, calm and collected, if you will… he simply used the facts, and the audio/visual evidence, to do most of the work…
and, to have held his temper and composure during that interview, now THAT was an amazing feat.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:05 am17. misshusseinmolly Says: Gotta question for those of you who may have seen the actual show a few times — were the Daily Show clips a fair representation of the show? Is the show really that much of a circus? Or was the picture Stewart painted somewhat inaccurate?
It’s accurate. Serious dialogue is backburnered for the sake of fast-patter histrionics of a disk jockey/salesman. Cramer talks both rapidly and familiarly to give the impression of knowing veteran, punctuated by sound effects to disrupt substantive scrutiny. It’s a different version of corporate shorthand: “Don’t think, shut up and just listen to us.”
The corporations use another method: the ‘trusted spokesman’: From Rachel Ray on down to ‘Ty.’ The media creates an icon, then sticks them to the bilge water they want to sell. After that current face peters out, they create another, and so on.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:06 amI wonder if the reason Cramer didn’t show up on Morning Joe is because he had a loooong talk with his lawyer last night about the clips that aired during the interview. I wonder.
PEACE
March 13th, 2009 at 11:08 amI was a little surprised that he was willing to be seen in public after Bear Sterns tanked just days after he told his audience they were fine.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:10 amRob Marciano says: “Hey, we’re all adults, and you listen to who you want to listen to, and then you make your own decisions.”
Except here’s the problem with that, Marciano: relying on bad financial forecasting like Cramer’s has a far more serious adverse outcome than relying on bad weather forecasting like yours. If I relied on Cramer’s bad financial forecasting and invested my life savings in Bear Stearns, I’m homeless right now; if I listened to Marciano’s bad weather forecasting and forgot my umbrella today, my head just gets wet…
Oh, and Archie? STFU.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:11 amArchieB:
Panties, meet wad.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:11 amJon Stewert was dead on right. The folks on Wall Street were playing with our 401k plans and other investments. They made tons of money, and we are all in the tank. Honestly, what Wall Street has done should be criminal. Jon was calling them out on it, and saying that Cramer was the stooge of Wall Street just jumping to “help” them, but not regular Americans.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:12 amCramer blew it and he knows it. Jon is the American patriot here. He is standing up for us, and most of the time, he is funny in the process. What has happened, however, is anything but funny.
Archie B is a sad, stupid little troll, isn’t he?
But he’s well-enough trained to work in George Soros just minutes after attacking the messenger. Archie knows what he supposed to do. He’s just not very good at it.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:12 amWhile Cramer got what he deserved the fact is he’s simply the public face of the problem. Cramer did on television what all the free market rocket scientists did behind closed doors. They bet, gambled, made absurded assumptions and got it all wrong. Cramer didn’t sink the market, thousands of investors and financiers who thought like him did.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:14 amDr. Hussein Matt Says:
I wish Stewart handled Man-on-Dog Ricky and the rest of the wing-nuts the same way he handled Cramer last night.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:01 am
_____________
He does, though. Even though all the hype is about Stewart “eviscerating” Cramer, I honestly didn’t see that last night. What I saw was Jon treating Cramer with his usual style of level-headed respect for his guest. It’s something I admire about Jon – no matter how much he disagrees with his guest or has a fundamental disdain for his guest’s worldview, he’s still respectful and never lets the interview degrade to a name-calling, mike-cutting shoutfest. He just challenges them with the facts.
The facts may have eviscerated Cramer, but Jon Stewart didn’t.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:14 amAre you listening Rick Santelli? This started with you whining about having to help the less fortunate keep their homes. Stewart helped expose how you Wall Street crooks have time and again manipulated the markets culminating in the mess we’re in now. Free markets my a$$.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:15 amArchie B Says:
The comedian is a real tough guy, now, huh? He can joke about 9/11, people getting their heads chopped off and now he thinks he’s the authority on who can joke about what? Sure thing, little funny man. Btw, your headline is a lie.
Archie B has a tough time with the truth, don’t you buddy?
Just curious, let’s see the evidence of Stewart’s jokes about 9/11 and decapitation. I double dare ya, you schmuck.
Carroll O’Connor is rolling over in his grave because your posting name, btw.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:21 amAnd now these CNBC people like Erin Burnett are all over the news shows. She was on Bill Maher last week and all they can do is talk about how President Obama shouldn’t be worrying about things like health care and education because he needs to focus on banking. These jerks all still have their jobs and houses and insurance so they think the President should only fix their problem and ignore the rest of the country. Selfish bastards.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:22 amI think after the shock wave at CNBC dissipates, the corporate chiefs will call in Mr Santelli for a chat about how his self serving act of outrage and false macho posturing, has cost them dearly. I think its curtains for Santelli.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:23 amArchie B Says:
The comedian is a real tough guy, now, huh?
___________
Anybody here understand what this idiot is muttering about?
And if he even starts to open that trench coat, taz him, immediately.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:26 amDisagree all you want, arch… won’t change a thing.
Santelli and his staged rant have bee outed.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:27 amBTW, Archie… Stewart slapping Cramer down is the topic of the thread…
March 13th, 2009 at 11:29 amAnd Archie watches CNBC trying to figure out where to invest his trolling nickels. He’s the expert.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:29 amYes Archie,we know you disagree.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:30 am!@#
Ar Ar Binks, issa yousa more spaking widout thinky thinky? Mesa tells yousa gonna findsa bigga troubly troubly and maka yousaself looksa lika doodoo plop.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:31 amarchie must be looking furiously for that evidence that Tweedster asked for…
waiting patiently…
March 13th, 2009 at 11:34 amI don’t think I’ve ever seen Stewart sharper than he was last night.
Fantastic slap down of a man who richly deserved it.
You KNEW Cramer was scared Cheneyeless right from the start when his voice was so squeaky and tight.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:35 amArchie B Says:
I think its curtains for Santelli.
—————
I strongly disagree.
Big whoop. So where are those links to Stewart’s jokes about 9/11 and decapitation?
March 13th, 2009 at 11:36 amkaty Says:
archie must be looking furiously for that evidence that Tweedster asked for…
waiting patiently…
I think we all know the outcome here. Spineless trolls like Archie B throw around accusations and shrink from the argument when they are called on their BS. ::sigh::
March 13th, 2009 at 11:37 am!@#
Okie dokie, Ar Ar, mesa warned yousa. Tweedster ready to gives yousa troubly troubly and yousa gonna be in deep deep doo doo plop. Mesa gonna getta poppop cornies.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:40 amI can only begin to speculate what the B in Archie’s handle stands for, and I’m positive it ain’t for Bunker.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:41 amPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
!@#
Okie dokie, Ar Ar, mesa warned yousa. Tweedster ready to gives yousa troubly troubly and yousa gonna be in deep deep doo doo plop. Mesa gonna getta poppop cornies.
Jar Jar Binks, is that you? LOL
March 13th, 2009 at 11:41 amTweedster, mesa sorry…errr, I’m sorry but I recently learned Gungan and it appears that using Archie’s natural language is most effective in getting him to shut up and go away.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:44 amTweedster has cast the Posting Holy Water onto Archie the Troll: Factual Verification.
I can smell the sulfur from here…
March 13th, 2009 at 11:48 amThe Gungan text actually appears to be more coherent than Archie’s posts.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:48 amTweedster Says:
I think we all know the outcome here. Spineless trolls like Archie B throw around accusations and shrink from the argument when they are called on their BS. ::sigh::
___________
I’ve warned archie about that… every time the poor li’l feller tries using “facts” in one of his screeds, he hurts himself. Every time. He needs to stick w/ the breathy, shrill hyperbole for his own well being. It’s no where near as effective as a balanced, articulate opinion supported w/ real information (like what Stewart did last night…), but every time archie tries going alll “facty’ on us, it blows up in his face. Very entertaining, though…
March 13th, 2009 at 11:48 am“I almost felt bad for Cramer, but Stewart took himself to another level last night. He was stunning.”
I think Stewart was pissed. He was speaking for a lot of people who tried to do the right thing and save some money in their 401K’s only to see it disappear right before their eyes.
Cramer got caught in the crossfire, but as Stewart reminded him “Joni Mitchell said this song is not about you.”
March 13th, 2009 at 11:49 am62. Tweedster Says: I can only begin to speculate what the B in Archie’s handle stands for, and I’m positive it ain’t for Bunker.
Actually, it probably does stand for Bunker, which makes everyone who corrects him the De-Bunkers.
Archie stands for bunk. We, de-bunk.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:51 amSorry… should be Carly Simon.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:53 amI’m still waiting for that spineless weasel Rick Santelli to show up on the Daily Show.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:54 amHey, I too can post accusations without backing them up!
Oxybreath blows goats.
SavageWeiner sacrifices small domesticated farm animals.
Benn Gleck wears a tutu.
George W Bush is an inarticulate, mindless, puppet who is nothing short of a mucking foron.
Wait, scratch that last one. It has been documented.
Archie Bhead, care to stay on topic now?
March 13th, 2009 at 11:57 amArchie B Says:
I think soros has the market cornered when it comes to insider trading.
You gotta love these “one trick ponies”. Soros..Soros..Clinton..Clinton..Liberal Media..Liberal Media
BTW Archie, when was Soros convicted of insider trading? Actually, when was he ever accused of insider trading? Waiting for your answer.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:58 amWas it Cramer that said to sell stocks in Stark Industry?
March 13th, 2009 at 11:59 amAfter watching Jon Stewart’s brilliant interview and seeing the clips over the past week, it begs the question “Where is the mainstream media on this issue?”
The issue is that CNBC was supposed to have all these “financial gurus” giving advice to millions of Americans and that advice was, at the least, bogus.
The entire family of NBC shows are silent on this issue. At the very least, there should more questions and following up on what Jon Stewart started, but no, because that would be AGAINST the damn system as a whole.
Once again, the mainstream media is only going to tell the American public what the corporations want us to know. What a shame, journalists got the opening via Stewart and they are going to let it alone.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:00 pmCramer is a fall guy and the wrong one at that. The CEOs of AIG, WaMu, Citibank, BoA and others should be subjected to the same scrutiny and opprobrium. Who is going to do it, Congress?
I hate that Cramer is held up for us to hate, to satisfy our two minute hate. He’s not anywhere near as culpable as CEOs of banks and insurance companies.
It is a sad commentary when the only one asking the questions that Congress should ask if they would is a comedian, a smart one, but still a comedian. It reminds me of the old Soviet Union where the only commentators capable of telling the truth were comedians.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:01 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
BTW Archie, when was Soros convicted of insider trading? Actually, when was he ever accused of insider trading? Waiting for your answer.
__________
Psst/ Bilbo? Google it (think France…).
March 13th, 2009 at 12:01 pmKlatu Says:
_____________
My fellow TPers… won’t you please join me in FLAGGING this one out of here, NOW???
March 13th, 2009 at 12:05 pmMon Dieu! Tres mal! Monsieur Archie, merci. So that makes him ….who… Martha Stewart?
March 13th, 2009 at 12:08 pm!@#
Ar Ar Binks, iffn yousa dun wid yousa Soros bit, issa yousa ready to spake bout Tweedster’s question to yousa?
March 13th, 2009 at 12:09 pmArchie B Says:
Can’t take the truth?
___________
The truth about what?
March 13th, 2009 at 12:09 pmstewarjt The ÇEOs are sort of a different issue. They deserve their own J. Stewart show.
The first time I watched this guy on TV, after five minutes I knew I would never take his advice. He was all buy buy buy, and we have all heard that from Wall St forever. What serious investor paid attention to him?
I found my own ways, not even original, to lose all my retirement money.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:12 pmArchibald,
Morning PeachyCheeks. That was quite the night we had.
I know your sore, but…
Come give us some LOVIN!
March 13th, 2009 at 12:12 pmTweedster Says:
I can only begin to speculate what the B in Archie’s handle stands for, and I’m positive it ain’t for Bunker.
There was a cockroach named archy who wrote by bouncing from one typewriter key to another (and thus couldn’t use the shift key or punctuation), but he was a wise and funny observer of the world whose best friend was a cat. This Archie is clearly not archy, but may well be a cockroach.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:13 pm**ppsstt. TRoS, “the truth” is a Gungan term for a lobotomy. It actually makes some Gungans smarter.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:14 pmArchie Bhead,
March 13th, 2009 at 12:15 pmAre you a Christian?
Archie B Says:
Mr Soros is no stranger to controversy.
He is widely known as the man who broke the pound, after helping force sterling out of Europe’s exchange rate mechanism in 1992.
Plagiarizing again, Archie? You surely don’t want to provide a link to where you stole that, especially given the last paragraph:
March 13th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Klatu Says:
Truth kinda hurts don’t it.
_________
What truth? Be more specific.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:15 pmI have a feeling Archie is setting up to pwn himself again.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:16 pmShhhh… ralph…
Be vewwy vewwy quiet…
March 13th, 2009 at 12:17 pmKlatu, you must be Gungan also. Wesa welcomes yousa but yousa gotta knows that wesa spects yousa to earn yousa respects round heresa, jussa lika in Gungan.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:18 pmCramer has been a corporate tool and now that that has been pointed out he does not like it so much.
Thanks Jon for pointing this out to the public who were taken in by this fascist.
Archie Blowsgoats, I see you are still blowing goats (Jake)
March 13th, 2009 at 12:18 pmAs far as the whole idea of comedians here, I am 100% behind Stewart for doing what he did. It’s public information, and he has the right to use it to lambast causes out there. If Fox can laugh and joke about gaffes, Stewart can laugh and joke about financial mismanagement.
If Stewart were to make mistakes like Cramer, and someone were to hoist him by the petard for it, I would have no qualms behind it either, as long as the beefs are backed up well, and that is exactly what Stewart did last night.
Roll 210!
Roll 212!
March 13th, 2009 at 12:19 pmI can’t remember ever caring about Soros. Am I alone here?
March 13th, 2009 at 12:20 pmArchie B Says:
TP is doing their best to play the diversion card.
…says the guy bringing up George Soros.
Roll 210!
Roll 212!
March 13th, 2009 at 12:20 pmI can’t help but think that the Scarboy canceled Cramer’s appearance himself. Joe may be a smarmy putz but, he ain’t totally stupid. And even Joe knows there’s no way to polish the Cramer turd.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:21 pmArchie, stop the presses.
Tweedster Says: So where are those links to Stewart’s jokes about 9/11 and decapitation?
‘Nuff said.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:21 pmwiley Says:
I can’t remember ever caring about Soros. Am I alone here?
__________
If I’m not mistaken, Soros’ money helps fund TP, amongst other projects.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:21 pmNo you’re not alone, but not caring about George Soros definitely paints you as Not a Troll, since they seem to care passionately for George Soros. He seems to dominate their thoughts, for some reason. They do love them some boogeymen, those righties.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:22 pmBill O’Reilly also seems to be hurrying to Jim Cramer’s aid?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200903120021
March 13th, 2009 at 12:23 pmYou already posted that youtube link once today, archie, and it’s about something else.
What truth can’t I take?
March 13th, 2009 at 12:23 pmArchie, the CEOs deserve justice but Cramer and his cohorts spent their time rubbing elbows with those white collar criminals and are complicit in promoting the falsehoods that were given to them. They made it easy for the robber-barons to do their smoke and mirrors acts. Then,the CNBC crowd was myopic in not sensing the growing outrage of the middle class. They all deserve the public’s scorn as well as a day in court.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:24 pmArchie thinks introducing irrelevant distractions is “shooting fish in a barrel”.
I guess he’s right about that — it seems pretty easy for trolls. Almost second nature.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:24 pmBuckie Boy,
Archie = Jake??
March 13th, 2009 at 12:24 pmI’d forgotten about THAT one. Of course, I don’t remember most trolls very long.
Archie – You don’t realize that you are the Jim Cramer on this show, do you?
That’s precious. And slow.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:24 pmArchie says we can’t take the truth, when in reality he is unable to give any. Tweedster is still waiting.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:28 pmAnd cheers to Ms or Mr. Klatu, for injecting a whole new flavor of crazy on today’s threads.
Ragin’ Righty Raspberry, anyone?
ooowww – brainfreeze!!!!
mmmm….that’s a cold, bold blast of berry flavor!!!!
March 13th, 2009 at 12:28 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
Buckie Boy,
Archie = Jake??
I’d forgotten about THAT one. Of course, I don’t remember most trolls very long.
Archie does appear to have an “ignore list.”
March 13th, 2009 at 12:28 pmgunmitch Says:
Archie does appear to have an “ignore list.”
And the propensity to cut and paste others work as his own.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:30 pmJon Stewart tore Cramer’s spine out along with his guts last night!
Archie B – I see you haven’t had enough of getting your guts being ripped out on TP have you? You must enjoy this in a twisted sort of way! LOL
March 13th, 2009 at 12:31 pmgummitch Says:
Archie does appear to have an “ignore list.”
__________
I don’t know about that. archie is too awkward to be Jake.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:33 pmgummitch
Archie does appear to have an “ignore list.
Yeah, I think I hit the nail on the head, his posts do appear to be very “Jake like”, and he does ignore posts from certain people…like me…the Blowsgoats gets to him.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:33 pmWhen archie uses “for the record” for the first time…
March 13th, 2009 at 12:33 pmJake as Archie…?
I can see that. Same kind of blinkered conviction, same propensity to charge forward completely unaware of his flopping shoelace…
You guys might be on to something.
Y’know, one o’ these days I’m gonna take a course in Troll Forensics. I think it would be fascinating.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:36 pmHey, ralphie…
I did see what Keltoi said about us yesterday…
“The John Stockton and Karl Malone of troll baiting”?
***A deeply moved TRoS fights back tears…***
What can I say? Sniff… I’m truly touched…
***TRoS wipes tear away***
Oh well. back at it! HEY!!! YOU!!!
Yeah, you… the troll in the corner… BITE ME!!!
March 13th, 2009 at 12:41 pmAnd exactly what odes that prove, archie?
March 13th, 2009 at 12:52 pmTweedster Says: So where are those links to Stewart’s jokes about 9/11 and decapitation?
Archie??
March 13th, 2009 at 12:53 pmarchie make link
link show moonbat wrong
lib don’t get truth
archie get truth good
archie good libs bad
archie laugh at moonbat
him so more smarter.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:55 pmGeorge Soros helps fund TP?!?!
Still don’t care.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:05 pmFish in a barrel…
—
March 13th, 2009 at 1:08 pmAncestral ketchup?
So Archie B when are we gonna have that talk or should I just start pummelling you again. We both know that I can say and do anything I want with you and you know what it will take to make it stop…
Can anyone explain what Archie’s motivation was in providing that link?
I watched the whole segment and I still don’t understand. What was the point Archie thought he was making?
Archie?
Anyone?
March 13th, 2009 at 1:13 pmwiley Says:
George Soros helps fund TP?!?!
________
Yep… he do, indeed.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:14 pmWhen Rick Santelli whined about being afraid after his stunt in Chicago, it was just plain silly. Now however, I would advise Mr Santelli to start worrying. Worry about your air time, worry about your job, worry about your career. Your colleagues will eventually blame you for bringing down justified wrath and close scrutiny to that house of cards, CNBC. Rick, seriously, start worrying.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:14 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Can anyone explain what Archie’s motivation was in providing that link?
__________
Apparently not even archie can explain archie’s point…
March 13th, 2009 at 1:14 pmY’know, TRoS, sometimes Archie seems like a kid who’s just seen a magic show. He wants to do magic, and he knows that he’s got to wave his arms around a lot, but he doesn’t know why or what it’s supposed to accomplish.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:19 pmArchie make link,
dumb libs not get why-
archie laugh, make helmet shake on head.
(can’t picture Archie without a turtleneck with a big A sewn on the front)
Mooooo-ooomm – more juice for Archie!!!
March 13th, 2009 at 1:23 pmArchie so thirsty right now!!!
Mooooo-ooooooooommm!!!!
chat
March 13th, 2009 at 1:24 pmben seni . . oy ver
thanks you
I hope Cramer appreciates being compared to a weather ‘reporter’…another dubious profession that can be accomplished with a crawl at he bottom of our screens. Methinks Marciano has some insecurities of his own.
Plus who cares what he says? Shouldn’t he be wishing old ladies ‘Happy 100th Birthday’ or something? Oh, wait that’s the weatherman people have heard of, the one with a personality.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:32 pmArchie, you’re selling yourself short.
You could be like biranda and make big money linking to porn sites, along with the nickel a post you get from the RNC. Apparently, like the RNC, porn spammers are not at all particular about the content of your posts.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:36 pmIt’s rude to call your mom by her first name Archie.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:36 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Y’know, TRoS, sometimes Archie seems like a kid who’s just seen a magic show.
_________
I know what you mean,ralphie.
And sometimes he seems like a kid who’s visiting an uncle’s farm and just got caught in a compromising position out behind the barn w/ one of sheep…
Hence the phrase.. EWWWWWWWWWWWWE…
March 13th, 2009 at 1:44 pmSo, Archie, can you explain what your link to Dennis Miller’s appearance on The Daily Show was supposed to demonstrate?
Or are you just going to pretend that no one asked you about it?
March 13th, 2009 at 1:52 pmYour point?
Oh, I get it — that Jon Stewart will challenge anyone who abuses the public trust, regardless of their expressed ideology?
Thanks for that.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:55 pmSo, basically, you’ve all given this Archie guy exactly what he wants: attention. I thought this post was about last night’s Daily Show, not the Unabomber (ok, I had to join in).
March 13th, 2009 at 1:57 pmArchie Bhead Says:
Cramer=life long democrat that voted for obama.
OH NO YOU DON’T! You’re original post was:
Archie B Says:
The comedian is a real tough guy, now, huh? He can joke about 9/11, people getting their heads chopped off and now he thinks he’s the authority on who can joke about what? Sure thing, little funny man. Btw, your headline is a lie.
Anyone not on the Ignore List care to clarify this for me?
March 13th, 2009 at 1:58 pmAnyone not on the Ignore List care to explain to Archie Bhead that “con” can also mean a “con artist”, as in one who swindles money from unsuspecting fools?
In far rightie mumbo jumbo?
And am still waiting on the Stewart’s jokes regarding 9/11 and decapitations?
March 13th, 2009 at 2:04 pmAnyone?
Anyone?
The Republic of Stupidity Says:
Yep… he do, indeed.
wehell! news to me, and a bout damn time!
now what we need is for soros to buy up some radio stations!
please and thank you, mr. soros!
March 13th, 2009 at 2:08 pmHey, Arch, what is it about Soros that leads you to fixate on him?
I’m curious.
March 13th, 2009 at 2:10 pmArchie B Says:
Lacking in facts tried to claim Cramer was a “con” which is “neocon” in far left mumbo jumbo.
________
Actually, “con” can mean several different things in standard mumbo jumbo…
It can be short for “conservative”
Or, “the opposite side of an argument”, as in “pros and cons”
Or, “confidence man”, as in “he’s a con”
Or, “convict”, as in “Jack Abramoff will be an ex-con, once he gets out…”
Admittedly, several of those meanings have become synonymous w/ “GOOPer” the last last few years…
March 13th, 2009 at 2:11 pmkaty Says:
wehell! news to me, and a bout damn time!
now what we need is for soros to buy up some radio stations!
please and thank you, mr. soros!
__________
Yeah… just google “Soros” + “Center For American Progress”.
March 13th, 2009 at 2:12 pmrhf,
March 13th, 2009 at 2:14 pmYou do realize that asking a straight forward question to Archie Bhead results in no response, so your anatomical reference to his evasiveness is spot on!
ralph the wonder llama Says:
Hey, Arch, what is it about Soros that leads you to fixate on him?
___________
And don’t forget Michael Moore in there, ralphie. Soros and Moore… the evil Frick and Frack of the Libiverse…
Kinda like the lefty equivalent of Richard Mellon Scaife, or the Mars family, or the Coors family…
March 13th, 2009 at 2:16 pmNever forget that all Wall Street analyists are mouthpieces for the criminal rich.
March 13th, 2009 at 2:17 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Hey, Arch, what is it about Soros that leads you to fixate on him?
I’m curious.
March 13th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
__________
George Soros is an extremely wealthy man who leans to the left politically and doesn’t support the free-market, corporofascist agenda of most others in his tax bracket. The sheer cognitive dissonance of this gives Archie massive headaches.
Poor Archie. He just wants the pain to stop… :(
March 13th, 2009 at 2:22 pm9/11 and decapitation jokes, please?
March 13th, 2009 at 2:22 pmArchie B Says:
So, when’s the trial?
March 13th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
___________
Still waiting for all those Daily Show decapitation jokes. Have you managed to Google that yet?
March 13th, 2009 at 2:24 pmhussein toasterhead Says:
Still waiting for all those Daily Show decapitation jokes. Have you managed to Google that yet?
Once again the thread turned into an archie/RHF slapfest. Don’t expect a response — but, of course, you were never getting one anyway. This just makes for a better excuse.
March 13th, 2009 at 2:28 pmArchie, maybe Cramer is a Democrat who sold his soul but when push came to shove ,he maned up and threw himself on the grenade for all of his Republican pals at CNBC who are now burrowing as deep as possible to avoid the same fate.
March 13th, 2009 at 2:28 pmHey DRxJ, it looks like you’re off the Ignore List™ but I’m on it now.
March 13th, 2009 at 2:29 pmYou can always count on Archie to offer the most absurd cut-and-pastes (without links, natch) to try to distract when he’s getting the “Jim-Cramer-on-Daily-Show” treatment here at TP.
March 13th, 2009 at 2:30 pmCan anyone NOT on the Ignore List please inform Archie Bhead that this is the only joke I could find resembling anything regarding 9/11 or decapitation and Jon Stewart:
“You know if I had nickel for every time Bush has mentioned 9/11, I could raise enough reward money to go after Bin Laden.” –Jon Stewart
I know I should give Archie Bhead at least partial credit, except the fact that Jon Stewart was joking about THEN PRESIDENT BUSH!!!
So far, 0/2 for Arch. Kinda like his love life!
March 13th, 2009 at 2:31 pmArchie, that’s called bird walking.
March 13th, 2009 at 2:33 pmCan someone inform Archie Bhead that it’s usually better to link a source then to claim it as your own?
NY POST?
March 13th, 2009 at 2:36 pmOct. 2008?
That’s all Archie Bhead can come up with?
WTF?
DRxJ, I’ve been asking the little troll to stop plagiarizing on a regular basis, but it’s either too lazy, too dishonest, or too stupid to do so.
I’ve noticed, however, that this kind of plagiarization is a convenient technique for cherry-picking. Without a link or credit, most people won’t bother to dig for the obvious plagiarism and determine the true content of the referenced article. All those paragraphs that directly contradict archie’s contention (Tracy uses the identical technique), get left behind.
March 13th, 2009 at 2:47 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
If Archie is going to sh!t everywhere, I’m going to rub his nose in it. It’s how you housetrain a b**ch!
Oh, I wasn’t criticizing. I’m just amazed at how long these sessions can go on.
March 13th, 2009 at 2:49 pmAgreed gummitch.
And what Archie Bhead failed to plagiarize was the fact that Lindeman did serve his time (albeit for a horrific crime), and changed his ways once released, instead of forging down the path of criminal activity.
Not only that, but he’s helped hundreds (if not thousands) do the same thing.
No, he’s no saint, that’s for sure. At one point, he was an inhumane savage. But he changed. And now he helps others.
March 13th, 2009 at 2:53 pmIsn’t that what the religious right believe?
i find it amusing when Archie thinks he’s made a point, when it’s perfectly obvious to anyone with a working brain that he’s confused.
Sometimes it’s so bad that he pwns himself. That’s when it’s really entertaining.
March 13th, 2009 at 2:54 pmCan someone inform Archie Bhead that just because Soros “helps” fund TP, that does not mean he is the sole proprietor?
March 13th, 2009 at 2:56 pmAs was proven by rhf post.
Arrrrchieeee, Tweedster Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 2:59 pmBig whoop. So where are those links to Stewart’s jokes about 9/11 and decapitation?
Archie B Says:
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU—-
Rage harder dude.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:04 pmIt looks like this thread has degenerated further into a simple slapfight between Archie and RHF, so we won’t be getting Archie to pay attention to any other points or questions. All his attention is focused on covering up his vulnerable spots, swinging wildly and cringing when RHF lands a solid punch.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:07 pmThe problem is far bigger than Cramer
Glenn Greenwald: (read the rest too)
March 13th, 2009 at 3:30 pm“What he did and the excuses he offered are ones that are embraced as gospel to this day by most of our establishment press corps, and to know that this is true, just look at what they do and say about their roles.”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
Did anyone else notice that Morning Joe-k seem to try to make it all about himself? How pathetic is that??
March 13th, 2009 at 3:31 pmArchie, you still haven’t responded:
Tweedster Says: Big whoop. So where are those links to Stewart’s jokes about 9/11 and decapitation?
And if you’re comment about italics was for me, please note that I cited Tweedster as the source. I just have the same question as he does.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:48 pmArchie, you must be lonely here on this thread all by your self. Want to start a conversation:
Tweedster Says: Big whoop. So where are those links to Stewart’s jokes about 9/11 and decapitation?
March 13th, 2009 at 4:32 pmThat’s kind of you, PLC, but it appears that Archie is perfectly content trying out his delivery of irrelevant talking point distractions by himself.
I think it makes him nervous if others watch while he practices. Let’s leave him alone…
March 13th, 2009 at 4:38 pmAnyone who makes financial decisions based on what is on TV is a fool. I love Stewart but he is living in fantasyland if he expects to get reality from television. Note also that Cramer’s show has a DISCLAIMER during the show which advises NOT to use his show as an endall for your financing.
March 13th, 2009 at 6:14 pmthat ol’Archie sure is a desperate s.o.b.
hurts to be on the outs, don’t it Archie…
call up dogwash – he’ll make ya feel better, k?
March 13th, 2009 at 7:05 pmnot quite agile enough, Mr. 234.
try the yoga, or some hacky-sack
March 13th, 2009 at 7:07 pmArchie B Says:
rhf, 5 posts in a row trying to spin the fact obama is worse than bush is a sheer sign of desperation. LOL!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are a worthless ignorant punk. YOU think Obama is worse than Bush. It is a different time perhaps he at this point isnt as POPULAR as Bush was at this point which isnt long enough to have done much. That doesnt make him WORSE. Get back to us AFTER Obama lies to take us to a needless war. Lies about major legislation and pretty much everything else. Trashes the constitution and destroys the economy. You really are the stupidest piece of garbage imaginable
March 13th, 2009 at 7:14 pmwhy do the archie’s of the world want the country to fail?
March 13th, 2009 at 7:15 pmArchie- Do you write for the Wall Street Journal? Did you write that?
Citations are nice when quoting from other sources… ’cause when you read them you can discover that the WSJ bases it’s claim on Obama’s net approval… which means more Republican’s are expressing a ’strongly negative’ opinion of Obama than Democrats expressed a ’strongly negative’ opinion of Bush at the ‘analogous period in 2001.’
Obama’s approval rating for March 2009: 56%
Bush approval rating for March 2001: 53%
So, contrary to Conservative Mythology, what your data points out is that Democrat’s were MORE willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt and that Republican’s are not willing to return the courtesy… surprise, surprise…
What was that nonsense about BDS again?
March 13th, 2009 at 7:15 pmArchie’s case of ODS has already set in….
What is remarkable is that Bush managed to turn the HIGHEST approval ratings EVER into some of the LOWEST and all it took was two failed wars and a wrecked economy… Way to go W., talk about a fall from grace!
March 13th, 2009 at 7:18 pmI felt like Jon Stewart was my advocate. Although he didn’t use much humor last night, I don’t understand why that should reduce his credibility anyway.
I hope he inspires a new generation of reporting in this country. It is long overdue.
Bravo, Jon!
March 13th, 2009 at 10:08 pmUpthread ..”Jon Stewart is just a comedian.” I think he is the most brilliant political interviewer I have ever seen. Barbara Walters can say ,”If you were a tree , which one would you be?” or whatever…How hard is it to get entertainers to talk about themselves.Have you noticed Jon Stewart commands respect because he is brilliant? And seems to have a moral compass? I don’t see a lot of that consistently in the MSM.
March 14th, 2009 at 12:59 amCan someone like Jon go off on most of the major news media?
March 14th, 2009 at 1:49 amEvery actor has to feel his role. I imagine he just has to regroup after so clearly being told he should get on stage wearing a clown nose.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:49 amrepublicans hate facts Says:
Archie you also forgot the part about Bush LOSING the General Election in 2000 by a HALF MILLION VOTES and having to be APPOINTED to the job by his CRONIES on the SCOTUS which left him kinda unpopular. OOPS!! ;)
Compare that to NOW where Obama scores in the high 60s/low 70s WITHOUT having to create a TERRORIST ATTACK to boost his numbers! ;)
Would you please show me where GW was behind in the count please, sockpuppet troll rhf?
March 14th, 2009 at 11:19 amrepublicans hate facts Says:
Is this going to be like me having to educate “jay” on the use of ablative absolute grammar in the Second Amendment? You know, if you AREN’T LITERATE, just PRETENDING the WORLD IS WRONG only makes you look MORE STUPID THERE RUBE! ;)
Maybe you could start by learning what “National Socialism (NSDP)is and what Conservatism is” You seem confused sockpuppet troll racist rtf. You are a stalker aren’t you? Here you are bringing up my name again. Sicko rtf sockpuppet. People who use big words are just trying to hide their own ignorance.
March 14th, 2009 at 11:27 amrepublicans hate facts Says:
Compare that to NOW where Obama scores in the high 60s/low 70s WITHOUT having to create a TERRORIST ATTACK to boost his numbers! ;)
Obama’s poll numbers right now are just where Bush’s were at the same time in his Presidency. Don’t worry sockpuppet racist troll rtf, they will change. We have time and we’re not going anywhere.
March 14th, 2009 at 11:31 amrepublicans hate facts Says:
Archie, it took Bush IGNORING the WARNINGS of 911 and FALSELY CLAIMING it WASN’T HIS FAULT before his approval rating went up! OOOPS! ;)
And your facts for this stupid statement can be found where? More hateful garbage from a sockpuppet recist troll.
Tell me how many liberals it takes to form a militia sockpuppet?
March 14th, 2009 at 11:35 amDepending on the poll you choose, this may be accurate.
And if Obama invades a country that neither attacked us nor was a threat, and if he presides over an economy that loses its wheels like Bush did, then his approval rating will probably suffer the same fate.
If, on the other hand, Obama’s steady hand guides the economy to a recovery and renewed American prosperity, despite the best efforts of Republicans to help him fail, then Obama’s numbers will probably remain high, like the last Democratic president.
March 14th, 2009 at 11:36 amWhat’s a “militia sockpuppet”?
And BTW, anyone who insists that “People who use big words are just trying to hide their own ignorance” really shouldn’t be criticizing others for “stupid statements”.
Just a thought.
March 14th, 2009 at 11:40 amGeorge Soros was a Nazi collaborator as a child. He also “Is a convicted Felon” and is not a “Libertarian” as an uninformed idiot insists that he is. Hell, George Soros isn’t even his real name.
Research sometimes sets the ignorant free but in this case I doubt it.
March 14th, 2009 at 11:51 amralph the wonder llama Says:
What’s a “militia sockpuppet”?
And BTW, anyone who insists that “People who use big words are just trying to hide their own ignorance” really shouldn’t be criticizing others for “stupid statements”.
Just a thought.
You only have one thought sockpuppet troll racist rtf. You re post your bigotry over and over and over and over, oh you know what I mean.
Hey, how many liberals does it take to for a militia.
March 14th, 2009 at 11:54 amCan you please explain this obsession with George Soros you guys all seem to have? No right-winger has ever been willing to explain it, yet you all use the name “George Soros” as if it were some magic talisman that destroys demonic liberals at its very utterance.
I don’t get it.
March 14th, 2009 at 11:55 amI still have no idea what this means.
What does a militia have to do with anything?
Are you suggesting that I’m RHF?
Or are you just having trouble expressing your thoughts clearly this morning?
March 14th, 2009 at 11:56 am#
ralph the wonder llama Says:
jay Says:
Obama’s poll numbers right now are just where Bush’s were at the same time in his Presidency.
Depending on the poll you choose, this may be accurate.
And if Obama invades a country that neither attacked us nor was a threat, and if he presides over an economy that loses its wheels like Bush did, then his approval rating will probably suffer the same fate.
If, on the other hand, Obama’s steady hand guides the economy to a recovery and renewed American prosperity, despite the best efforts of Republicans to help him fail, then Obama’s numbers will probably remain high, like the last Democratic president.
And if Obama invades a country that neither attacked us nor was a threat, and if he presides over an economy that loses its wheels like Bush did, then his approval rating will probably suffer the same fate.
No he will just commit 50 thousand troops to Iraq for the next 100 years and increase the amount of troops in Afghanistan to 70 thousand, escalating things there. Soon the invasion of Pakistan like he promised on the campaign trail.
Hey I heard it from the man himself. As far as the economy goes, we will see. He has spent more money in 50 days than any other person in the history of mankind and the banks are still failing. Sure he got 25 cops a new job. 25 down, 4 million to go.
March 14th, 2009 at 12:01 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
jay Says:
You only have one thought sockpuppet troll racist rtf. You re post your bigotry over and over and over and over, oh you know what I mean.
Hey, how many liberals does it take to for a militia.
I still have no idea what this means.
What does a militia have to do with anything?
Are you suggesting that I’m RHF?
Or are you just having trouble expressing your thoughts clearly this morning?
The person that it was posted to knows. No I’m not suggesting that you’re rhf. Why, do you think you’re rhf?
March 14th, 2009 at 12:03 pmYour rather scattershot screed notwithstanding, my point still stands. If Obama performs as poorly as his predecessor, his approval rating will suffer the same fate as Bush’s did. If he performs well and the economy rebounds, he will likely leave office with the same kind of approval ratings as the previous Democratic president.
March 14th, 2009 at 12:06 pmThen why did you quote my comment and then reply to RHF?
Can you understand my confusion?
March 14th, 2009 at 12:07 pmYour rather scattershot screed notwithstanding, my point still stands. If Obama performs as poorly as his predecessor, his approval rating will suffer the same fate as Bush’s did. If he performs well and the economy rebounds, he will likely leave office with the same kind of approval ratings as the previous Democratic president.
On that we agree. But on the other hand he may be setting himself up for as a one term President. The election in two years will show the direction the country will be heading in.
Only four times in the history of the US has a mid term election favored the ruling party. It didn’t favor Clinton and it didn’t favor GW.
March 14th, 2009 at 12:12 pmOh, and a couple more points, jay:
I don’t think Obama has the authority to commit troops anywhere for the next hundred years, and if you think that on the campaign trail you heard Obama promise an invasion of Pakistan, then that speaks volumes about your judgment, credibility and/or language comprehension.
March 14th, 2009 at 12:13 pmAnd yet both won a second term the following cycle. Go figure. And from there, their paths and legacies diverged.
March 14th, 2009 at 12:15 pmCan you understand my confusion?
I understand. The comment was directed to the sockpuppet and not to you. My apologies.
The Soros statements are not an obsession of mine they are an obsession of sockpuppet trolls and her insistence that Soros is a Libertarian. He’s definatly not a Libertarian by any means.
March 14th, 2009 at 12:19 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Oh, and a couple more points, jay:
I don’t think Obama has the authority to commit troops anywhere for the next hundred years, and if you think that on the campaign trail you heard Obama promise an invasion of Pakistan, then that speaks volumes about your judgment, credibility and/or language comprehension.
He was asked in one of the debates about Pakistan and he said that he would enter Pakistan to get at Al qaeda terrorists., so I’m not wrong there.
You say that the President doesn’t have the authority to commit troops for 100 years but during the campaign all the liberals were yelling that “McCain wants troops in Iraq for the next 100 years” which was a bunch of crap. He never said any such thing but now it’s Obama’s war right? 50 thousand troops will remain and who knows for how long they will be there.
Hell Clinton’s troops are still in the Baltic and how long has that been now?
March 14th, 2009 at 12:25 pmRalph, it is certainly going to be interesting times. I can’t wait to see how it turns out one way or the other. One thing I do know is that the American people are resilient and will work things out.
People like rtf, sockpuppet troll, are not helping bring the country together. No, not at all. She has become in herself what she hates in others.
March 14th, 2009 at 12:29 pmYou are wrong to claim that as a “promise to invade Pakistan”. Obama used very limited and deliberate language to affirm his willingness to authorize precision strikes, based on sound intelligence, to attack Al Qeada bases within Pakistan if the Pakistanis refused to act.
It’s either dishonest or an appallingly bad misreading to equate this statement with a “promise” to recreate Bush’s invasion of Iraq in Pakistan.
You’re wrong to claim that Obama (or McCain, had that come to pass) would have the authority to commit anyone for a hundred years. Obama’s authority to commit troops lasts for his term of office.
Are you suggesting that Bush was powerless to remove those troops had he so wished?
March 14th, 2009 at 12:38 pmYou are wrong to claim that as a “promise to invade Pakistan”. Obama used very limited and deliberate language to affirm his willingness to authorize precision strikes, based on sound intelligence, to attack Al Qeada bases within Pakistan if the Pakistanis refused to act.
It’s either dishonest or an appallingly bad misreading to equate this statement with a “promise” to recreate Bush’s invasion of Iraq in Pakistan.
Now Ralph, I did no such thing. I didn’t equate it with the invasion of Iraq at all. Obama did say that if Pakistan wouldn’t rid it’s borders of Al Qaeda he would have no problem with doing it himself. Said it more than once.
You’re wrong to claim that Obama (or McCain, had that come to pass) would have the authority to commit anyone for a hundred years. Obama’s authority to commit troops lasts for his term of office.
No I’m not wrong at all. You go google McCain 100 years and read what ALL the liberals were saying about something that McCain said about keeping troops in countries as long as they were need and asked for. I’m just using the lefts words. Not mine. Now Obama is going to do what McCain suggested be done but now there is no problem with it because it’s Obama doing it. Kinda a double standard, don’t you think?
Are you suggesting that Bush was powerless to remove those troops had he so wished?
Not at all. You shouldn’t make assumptions about what people are saying, should you? The President is CIC and can pretty much do what they need to do.
March 14th, 2009 at 12:49 pmBack on post 247 Jay says “Would you please show me where GW was behind in the count please, sockpuppet troll rhf?”
Seems he’s a bit off topic and shows his intent on what appears to be his first post. Amazingly similar to Kevin1.
Go for it if your having fun, but don’t expect any real results. Out.
March 14th, 2009 at 12:57 pmNo one is saying that Obama is going to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years. He doesn’t have the power to do that except by treaty between the two Governments. In that respect he does have the power as long as the treaty holds.
It’s kinda a double edge sword. We have such a treaty with Germany and there are still troops there. How long Now has it been? Not quite 100 years yet but over 50 for sure. We will stay there as long as the Germans want us there or the treaty is nullified. What President signed that treaty? I think it was Eisenhower but don’t hold me to that.
March 14th, 2009 at 12:59 pmRich H Says:
Back on post 247 Jay says “Would you please show me where GW was behind in the count please, sockpuppet troll rhf?”
Go for it if your having fun, but don’t expect any real results. Out.
I’m just asking for clarification from another post. That’s all. You have some kind of problem with someone asking to clarify a statement?
Seems he’s a bit off topic and shows his intent on what appears to be his first post. Amazingly similar to Kevin1.
Off topic. It sure was. Why did rtf post it then?
March 14th, 2009 at 1:03 pmjay, we all have to make assumptions about what people are saying. It’s the inherent nature of language. Better writers communicate more effectively because their word choices better convey the meaning of their thoughts to others.
You claimed Obama “promised to invade Pakistan”. That all you said. No qualifiers, no limitations to your claim. As stated plainly, it’s inaccurate, and probably dishonest — meant to cast the candidate’s words in the worst possible light, rather than in the light best suited to illuminate true intent. Bush DID invade Iraq, in the true sense of the term. Therefore, it’s not a stretch to conclude you meant to imply the same ambition for Obama.
As for your point about the hundred years, again, you claimed that Obama “will just commit 50 thousand troops to Iraq for the next 100 years”. I pointed out that this is impossible, as a president’s authority to commit troops does not extend beyond his term of office. What you claim “ALL the liberals were saying” about McCain does not change that fact.
And your claim of a double standard is wrong because McCain DID mention a hundred years. I don’t believe Obama has ever said anything like that. unless of course, you have a link from a reputable source.
And when you said ” The President is CIC and can pretty much do what they need to do.” you pretty much demolished what ever was left of your argument that Obama could commit troops for a hundred years.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:04 pmThen, less than an hour later,
You really should try to keep better track of what you post, jay.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:07 pmOh Rich. It’s not my first post here. I have my own thread here and have had one for weeks now. Ralph knows me. We have talked before. Sorry Rich but you should join in the discussion instead of trying to disrupt it. Who knows, sometimes we get beyond the rhetoric and actually discuss things like normal people.
OBTW I don’t get emotional like others do.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:07 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
at 12:01, jay Says:
he (Obama) will just commit 50 thousand troops to Iraq for the next 100 years
Then, less than an hour later,
at 12:59, jay Says:
No one is saying that Obama is going to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years.
You really should try to keep better track of what you post, jay.
Looks bad doesn’t it? When you take snippets from a post and re post it doesn’t it?
If the left can say that McCain is going to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years then Obama says he is going to keep troops in Iraq for as long as they are needed(like McCain said) then I have to think it might be for 100 years. It’s your own Liberal logic.
No one is saying that Obama is going to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years.
I thought that we both agreed that the President don’t have that power, or did we. Snippets taken out of context Ralph. I thought you were bigger than that but I guess you’re not.
Sarcasm Ralph. Using the past words of you liberals to make a point. Oh well.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:14 pmObama “will just commit 50 thousand troops to Iraq for the next 100 years”.
Ralph. You did post this in #272 didn’t you”?
March 14th, 2009 at 1:18 pmjay Says:
republicans hate facts Says:
Archie you also forgot the part about Bush LOSING the General Election in 2000 by a HALF MILLION VOTES and having to be APPOINTED to the job by his CRONIES on the SCOTUS which left him kinda unpopular. OOPS!! ;)
Compare that to NOW where Obama scores in the high 60s/low 70s WITHOUT having to create a TERRORIST ATTACK to boost his numbers! ;)
Would you please show me where GW was behind in the count please, sockpuppet troll rhf?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are you kidding? Is this another of your troll work where you demand he show the sky is blue? Are you SERIOUSLY telling me you didnt KNOW that Bush got 540,000 LESS votes in the general election than Gore did? REALLY? If this is true why do you bother to even come to a political site. You dont have even the most basic political knowlege. You dont seem to know anything. Were you in a cave in Sri Lanka in 2000 or is this just your MO. You just pretend you dont know anything at all? Is ignorance appealing to you?
March 14th, 2009 at 1:23 pmAnd your claim of a double standard is wrong because McCain DID mention a hundred years. I don’t believe Obama has ever said anything like that. unless of course, you have a link from a reputable source.
Ralph, you know and I know that the President can’t do that but in all the Liberal press you heard “McCain wants to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years”. Google has hundreds of sites saying that he did say it. All taken out of context.
Now are they just dumber than us or were they out to promote their agenda? I suggest the latter, why would they say something like that when it was taken out of context as they obviously knew it was and that McCain wouldn’t have the power to any such thing, right???????
March 14th, 2009 at 1:24 pm#
EugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
republicans hate facts Says:
Archie you also forgot the part about Bush LOSING the General Election in 2000 by a HALF MILLION VOTES and having to be APPOINTED to the job by his CRONIES on the SCOTUS which left him kinda unpopular. OOPS!! ;)
Compare that to NOW where Obama scores in the high 60s/low 70s WITHOUT having to create a TERRORIST ATTACK to boost his numbers! ;)
Would you please show me where GW was behind in the count please, sockpuppet troll rhf?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are you kidding? Is this another of your troll work where you demand he show the sky is blue? Are you SERIOUSLY telling me you didnt KNOW that Bush got 540,000 LESS votes in the general election than Gore did? REALLY? If this is true why do you bother to even come to a political site. You dont have even the most basic political knowlege. You dont seem to know anything. Were you in a cave in Sri Lanka in 2000 or is this just your MO. You just pretend you dont know anything at all?
March 14th, 2009 at 1:23 pm Add Karma Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
I was just asking for the person who made a stupid statement to back it up.
OBTW is the sky blue or is it just a reflected illusion? Can you back up your assumption Eugene?
Is ignorance appealing to you?
Not really, how about you?
March 14th, 2009 at 1:27 pmAh, yes… the “taken out of context” defense.
Employed with the “it was only a joke” formation.
Well done.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:31 pmI think you are the TROLL. That is why you’re here right? TROLLING for people who disagree with you?
You are what you claim others of being. I’m a member here and I AIN’T gowin nowhere.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:32 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Ah, yes… the “taken out of context” defense.
Employed with the “it was only a joke” formation.
Well done.
You use the tactic well Ralph. As many of you do here.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:33 pmJ
I see more of your ignorant passive aggressive idiocy. Liberal logic? THAT would be known as logic. As opposed to what you conservatives replace it with which is known as stupidity. No John McCain saying we may need to keep troops there for 100 years is NOT the same as Obama saying as long as necessary because between the two statments something happened. Now Rush may not have told you to believe it so perhaps you missed it but the Iraq Security agreement WHICH WE SIGNED obligates us to leave Iraq entirely by the end of 2011. So Obamas statement would be within that context. As long as necessary but we are out of there by 2011 which is, you know, LESS than a hundred years from now. You really never know what you are talking about do you?
March 14th, 2009 at 1:33 pmNo. I posted, “you claimed that Obama “will just commit 50 thousand troops to Iraq for the next 100 years”.
I see what you’re trying to do, but it’s not really working. See, when I quoted your original words, I didn’t leave anything out of the sentence that would alter the meaning, as you did.
As a demonstration, here is the full quote:
No he will just commit 50 thousand troops to Iraq for the next 100 years and increase the amount of troops in Afghanistan to 70 thousand, escalating things there. Soon the invasion of Pakistan like he promised on the campaign trail.
Hey I heard it from the man himself.
There is nothing in there that materially alters your evident intent. Perhaps you were being “sarcastic” as you later tried to claim, but if so, there is no clear division between sarcasm and the apparent earnestness with which you raise the “promise” of invading pakistan. Your subsequent defense of this assertion makes clear that you were not being sarcastic.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:36 pmjay Says:
No you are not. You are being a jerk and a troll. No one demands people back up statements that are common knowlege. You DO apparantly enjoy your ignorance. You enjoy being a jerk. You arent trying to have a conversation. You just want to push our buttons. Good luck with the being REALLY stupid thing. Let me know how that works out for ya.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:36 pmjay Says:
I think you are the TROLL. That is why you’re here right? TROLLING for people who disagree with you?
You are what you claim others of being. I’m a member here and I AIN’T gowin nowhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So who cares. Go. Stay. Dress up like Ann Coulter and scare small children. We can slap you around with ease while you play your little games. Showing how stupid you are and demanding people prove to you that two plus two equals four because you are so stupid you dont know ANYTHING. It certainly doesnt matter to me.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:38 pmEugeneDebs Says:
J
I see more of your ignorant passive aggressive idiocy. Liberal logic? THAT would be known as logic. As opposed to what you conservatives replace it with which is known as stupidity. No John McCain saying we may need to keep troops there for 100 years is NOT the same as Obama saying as long as necessary because between the two statments something happened. Now Rush may not have told you to believe it so perhaps you missed it but the Iraq Security agreement WHICH WE SIGNED obligates us to leave Iraq entirely by the end of 2011. So Obamas statement would be within that context. As long as necessary but we are out of there by 2011 which is, you know, LESS than a hundred years from now. You really never know what you are talking about do you?
You’re still stuck in the Rush trap hey? Your post is more nonsense. Obama said that he was going to keep troops in Iraq for as long as they are needed. 5 years, 10 years, 50, years, who knows right now, maybe 100 years? Keeping 50 thousand soldiers in harms way is not a withdrawal of troops no matter how you look at it. Well maybe if you are trying to make excuses for Obama it might be.
That’s more troops then are currently deplored in Afghanistan right now.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:39 pmIt wasn’t “out of context”. The context was that McCain stated flatly that “100 years would be fine” with him. As a meaningful policy initiative, this is meaningless. But as an illustration of the candidate’s approach to the issue it’s enormously revealing. The fact that it clashed with the desires of the majority of the electorate made it a potent campaign issue, and rightly so.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:40 pm#
#
EugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
I think you are the TROLL. That is why you’re here right? TROLLING for people who disagree with you?
You are what you claim others of being. I’m a member here and I AIN’T gowin nowhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So who cares. Go. Stay. Dress up like Ann Coulter and scare small children. We can slap you around with ease while you play your little games. Showing how stupid you are and demanding people prove to you that two plus two equals four because you are so stupid you dont know ANYTHING. It certainly doesnt matter to me.
Ah yes. The name calling. How many posts did it take to resort to that tactic? Four.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:41 pmI was just asking for the person who made a stupid statement to back it up.
I missed this Jay how in the world is that a stupid statement? It is an absolute FACT no one in the world disputes. Bush got more than half a million LESS votes than Bush did in 2000. It doesnt become a stupid statement because you dont like it. Especially when it is indisputable
March 14th, 2009 at 1:41 pmRight-wingers really need to brush up on their understanding of “out of context”.
“Out of context” doesn’t mean that something is simply excerpted from a larger body of text.
“Out of context” means presented in a way that materially alters its meaning in in its original context.
For instance, if I said to jay, “you claimed that Obama “will just commit 50 thousand troops to Iraq for the next 100 years”, and then he tried to claim that I said “Obama “will just commit 50 thousand troops to Iraq for the next 100 years”, that is stripping a comment of its context in order to dramatically change the impression of the words.
On the other hand, if jay said, “No he will just commit 50 thousand troops to Iraq for the next 100 years and increase the amount of troops in Afghanistan to 70 thousand, escalating things there. Soon the invasion of Pakistan like he promised on the campaign trail.” and I subsequently shortened this quote to “he (Obama) will just commit 50 thousand troops to Iraq for the next 100 years” I have not left a different impression than was originally intended of the statement. Thus I have not quoted anything “out of context”.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:46 pmEugeneDebs Says:
I was just asking for the person who made a stupid statement to back it up.
I missed this Jay how in the world is that a stupid statement? It is an absolute FACT no one in the world disputes. Bush got more than half a million LESS votes than Bush did in 2000. It doesnt become a stupid statement because you dont like it. Especially when it is indisputable
Then it wouldn’t be that hard to back it up now would it? Hey, it might be right but back it up.
I don’t recall Bush ever being behind in the count in Fla, and that’s all that mattered. It what was being discussed at the time. I asked her to back it up with facts.
republicans hate facts Says:
Archie you also forgot the part about Bush LOSING the General Election in 2000 by a HALF MILLION VOTES and having to be APPOINTED to the job by his CRONIES on the SCOTUS which left him kinda unpopular. OOPS!! ;)
OOOPS, I guess you missed that.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:46 pmThen, less than an hour later,
THEN, at 1:39, jay flops back:
Impressive troll work, jay. Really impressive.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:49 pmjay Says:
You’re still stuck in the Rush trap hey?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It really isnt my fault you morons just regurgitate the really stupid things rightwing screechmonkeys tell you to think even when they aer ludicrous.
Your post is more nonsense. Obama said that he was going to keep troops in Iraq for as long as they are needed. 5 years, 10 years, 50, years, who knows right now, maybe 100 years? Keeping 50 thousand soldiers in harms way is not a withdrawal of troops no matter how you look at it.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
No one knows? Actually anyone with basic political knowlege knows. Now clearly that doesnt include YOU. It isnt nonsense just because you are too stupid to know what you are talking about. Keep embarassing yourself by parading your ignorance by all means. I LOVE a free clown show.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/04/iraq.security/index.html
The agreement, reached after months of negotiations, sets June 30, 2009, as the deadline for U.S. combat troops to withdraw from all Iraqi cities and towns. The date for all U.S. troops to leave Iraq is December 31, 2011.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So we have already agreed in a TREATY with Iraq that all our troops WILL be gone at the end of 2011 so Obamas comment is in THAT context. You just flat never know what you are talking about. It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to post your ignorance and remove all doubt.
Well maybe if you are trying to make excuses for Obama it might be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is much more likely that you are just a bone ignorant moron without the slightest clue what you are talking about
March 14th, 2009 at 1:49 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Right-wingers really need to brush up on their understanding of “out of context”.
“Out of context” doesn’t mean that something is simply excerpted from a larger body of text.
“Out of context” means presented in a way that materially alters its meaning in in its original context.
For instance, if I said to jay, “you claimed that Obama “will just commit 50 thousand troops to Iraq for the next 100 years”, and then he tried to claim that I said “Obama “will just commit 50 thousand troops to Iraq for the next 100 years”, that is stripping a comment of its context in order to dramatically change the impression of the words.
On the other hand, if jay said, “No he will just commit 50 thousand troops to Iraq for the next 100 years and increase the amount of troops in Afghanistan to 70 thousand, escalating things there. Soon the invasion of Pakistan like he promised on the campaign trail.” and I subsequently shortened this quote to “he (Obama) will just commit 50 thousand troops to Iraq for the next 100 years” I have not left a different impression than was originally intended of the statement. Thus I have not quoted anything “out of context”.
It’s just what you did by not posting the complete statement of mine. Same thing and same result.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:50 pmJay
Yes my namecalling and honest hostility as opposed to your trolling, nasty derisive behind the hand comments about our liberal logic and maybe I am just appologizing for Obama and someones stupid statement that you cant even DENY was absolutly FACTUAL? Your false mask of civility hiding your contempt isnt more palatable than my honest hostility its just more dishonest. You are a punk and you are ignorant those two things are obvious to anyone that can read.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:53 pm#
ralph the wonder llama Says:
at 12:01, jay Says:
he (Obama) will just commit 50 thousand troops to Iraq for the next 100 years
Then, less than an hour later,
at 12:59, jay Says:
No one is saying that Obama is going to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years.
THEN, at 1:39, jay flops back:
Obama said that he was going to keep troops in Iraq for as long as they are needed. 5 years, 10 years, 50, years, who knows right now, maybe 100 years?
Impressive troll work, jay. Really impressive.
You stick to that tactic Ralph. It doesn’t impress me. Ive seen the nonsense before. Post the complete context of the post because if you don’t you’re being dishonest. I don’t care one way or the other. Who are you trying to convince? Me. Sorry, I’m the one who posted it and I already know what I meant. I’m not falling for the nonsense.
I’m not a child and you can’t bully me like you do with others.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:55 pmEugeneDebs Says:
Jay
Yes my namecalling and honest hostility as opposed to your trolling, nasty derisive behind the hand comments about our liberal logic and maybe I am just appologizing for Obama and someones stupid statement that you cant even DENY was absolutly FACTUAL? Your false mask of civility hiding your contempt isnt more palatable than my honest hostility its just more dishonest. You are a punk and you are ignorant those two things are obvious to anyone that can read.
Right. You keep those thoughts eugene. I will always be civil to everyone. Even those who really don’t deserve it.
Sorry that you’re unable to do the same but that’s not really my problem, now is it?
March 14th, 2009 at 1:57 pmJay are you stupid or really this dishonest? The statement we are talking about is THIS
Archie you also forgot the part about Bush LOSING the General Election in 2000 by a HALF MILLION VOTES
Half a million votes in the general election that is without dispute. You CHANGE the statement by talking about whether he was ahead in Florida. There is no way to dispute THAT STATEMENT which hardly makes it stupid
March 14th, 2009 at 1:59 pmExcept you are NOT civil. Your civility is a false mask. It is NOT civil to come here and just screw with us. To tell us true statements are stupid talk about liberal logic, make us research OBVIOUS statements NO ONE disputes of common knowlege. You are being a troll. A dishonest troll. We arent that stupid. It is clear what is being done. You PRETEND to civility while heaping contempt on us.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:02 pmEugeneDebs Says:
Jay are you stupid or really this dishonest? The statement we are talking about is THIS
Archie you also forgot the part about Bush LOSING the General Election in 2000 by a HALF MILLION VOTES
Half a million votes in the general election that is without dispute. You CHANGE the statement by talking about whether he was ahead in Florida. There is no way to dispute THAT STATEMENT which hardly makes it stupid
I guess you can’t read Eugene. I posted the statement that I was responding to. Sockpuppet rhf mentioned SCOTUS and the only SCOTUS decision was in the Fla election.
So you can’t read. That’s OK. It seems that many here jump to conclusions.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:04 pmEugeneDebs Says:
Except you are NOT civil. Your civility is a false mask.
So you say Eugene. It’s common for you to make judgments of people who don’t agree with you. Then the name calling as many of you do here.
Hey, I’m a member here just as you are and I AIN”T goin no whar.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:07 pmYou obviously missed the whole “example” thing I included to demonstrate the key difference:
One quote changed the meaning of the original.
The other quote didn’t.
“Out of context” refers to the former, not the latter. Thus, not the same thing, and NOT THE SAME RESULT.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:11 pm#
#
ralph the wonder llama Says:
jay Says:
ralph the wonder llama Says:
Right-wingers really need to brush up on their understanding of “out of context”.
“Out of context” doesn’t mean that something is simply excerpted from a larger body of text.
“Out of context” means presented in a way that materially alters its meaning in in its original context.
It’s just what you did by not posting the complete statement of mine. Same thing and same result.
You obviously missed the whole “example” thing I included to demonstrate the key difference:
One quote changed the meaning of the original.
The other quote didn’t.
“Out of context” refers to the former, not the latter. Thus, not the same thing, and NOT THE SAME RESULT.
Right. I can read. Like I said Ralph, are you trying to make me change my mind about what I posted? I already know what I meant.
You go on and do what you think is best. You’re waiting your time though.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:14 pmJay
OK so it is clear you ARE stupid. Gore won the GENERAL ELECTION by more than half a million votes. What he obviously meant was the Supreme Court STOPPED the counting. That count WAS however eventually done and if all valid votes were counted Gore won BY ANY COUNTING STANDARD scroll down to page 8 of the NORC data and see
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf
Standard set by each canvassing board Gore won by 171
Fully punched card limited mark on optical ballot Gore won by 115
Any dimple or mark on optical ballong Gore won by 107
One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore won by 60
THAT is what he meant it is hard to have a conversation with someone as stupid as you. You just dont have the basic knowlege necessary. You just flat have no idea what you are talking about. Gore WON the general election by more than half a million votes JUST like he said. SCOTUS stopping the recount MOST LIKELY stopped Gore from winning Florida. We cant be CERTAIN they would have included the overvotes though the judge running the recount was preparing to but they MIGHT have been excluded but if all valid votes were counted Gore got more votes in Florida by ANY COUNTING STANDARD this is also NOT IN DISPUTE.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:16 pmjay, you seem committed to sticking with this idea that posting an excerpt of a statement, whether representative or not, is dishonest. (It’s not, but if you need a towel behind which to hide your nakedness, I guess you’d be satisfied with a washcloth if that was all that was available.)
Therefore, if you’re going to be consistent, I suggest you refrain from doing likewise. As you did in post 264, 276, 278… I assume you have a valid explanation for each of these instances of blatant dishonesty?
March 14th, 2009 at 2:16 pmYou go on and do what you think is best. You’re waiting your time though.
OOOPs a typo. rhf sockpuppet troll usually proofreads my stuff but I’ll correct this one on my own.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:17 pmwasting
Not to mention post 302, when this is all you quoted of Eugene:
when in reality he wrote:
How is this not dishonest, by your own standards?
March 14th, 2009 at 2:18 pmjay Says:
Except you are NOT civil. Your civility is a false mask.
So you say Eugene. It’s common for you to make judgments of people who don’t agree with you. Then the name calling as many of you do here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are a liar. I am often civil to those trying to have a real conversation just not trolls. I am rarely rude to backup or Keltoi I LIKE people who disagree WHEN they want to talk about the issues and leave the trolling behind. YOU are a troll
Hey, I’m a member here just as you are and I AIN”T goin no whar.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I couldnt care less. Stay. Leave. Dress up in drag and dance a jig. It means nothing to me. I like the free clown show. I can mop the floor with you till the end of time. Its just pathetic to read your whining and snivelling about me being so mean to the troll weasel who is just here to screw with us and doesnt even TRY to have a real conversation. Who demands we back up the sky is blue statements who talks about the Democrat party. Who plays stupid either because he IS stupid or it is a more efficient way to push our buttons. Do you REALLY think you are fooling anyone?
March 14th, 2009 at 2:21 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
jay, you seem committed to sticking with this idea that posting an excerpt of a statement, whether representative or not, is dishonest. (It’s not, but if you need a towel behind which to hide your nakedness, I guess you’d be satisfied with a washcloth if that was all that was available.)
Therefore, if you’re going to be consistent, I suggest you refrain from doing likewise. As you did in post 264, 276, 278… I assume you have a valid explanation for each of these instances of blatant dishonesty?
No Ralph it was your attempt to convince me that I didn’t know what I meant when I made a post. I know what I meant and your nonsense is just a waste of time.
264 was a mistake and I apologized for it.(something many here never do)
276 was an example of what you were attempting to do.
278 was a factual statement about the point I was making.
So. Next attempt to change my mind about what I meant.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:24 pmHow do you explain your naked dishonesty in quoting EugeneDebs “out of context” in post 302?
March 14th, 2009 at 2:25 pmDoesn’t matter. By your own standards, you quoted me “out of context” and that’s dishonest. Right?
March 14th, 2009 at 2:26 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
Except you are NOT civil. Your civility is a false mask.
So you say Eugene. It’s common for you to make judgments of people who don’t agree with you. Then the name calling as many of you do here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are a liar. I am often civil to those trying to have a real conversation just not trolls. I am rarely rude to backup or Keltoi I LIKE people who disagree WHEN they want to talk about the issues and leave the trolling behind. YOU are a troll
Hey, I’m a member here just as you are and I AIN”T goin no whar.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I couldnt care less. Stay. Leave. Dress up in drag and dance a jig. It means nothing to me. I like the free clown show. I can mop the floor with you till the end of time. Its just pathetic to read your whining and snivelling about me being so mean to the troll weasel who is just here to screw with us and doesnt even TRY to have a real conversation. Who demands we back up the sky is blue statements who talks about the Democrat party. Who plays stupid either because he IS stupid or it is a more efficient way to push our buttons. Do you REALLY think you are fooling anyone?
Right! Where is your attempt at a conversation. I fail to see it. Just name calling and making judgments of another member of the site. I’m a member here and I AIN’t a gowin no whar.
OBTW, Bush was never behind in the count in FLA. He carried the state.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:27 pmIn ALL of them you left out the context of the Iraqi Security Agreement in place when Obama made HIS statement which is a clear treaty obligation to leave by the end of 2011
March 14th, 2009 at 2:28 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
jay Says:
278 was a factual statement about the point I was making.
Doesn’t matter. By your own standards, you quoted me “out of context” and that’s dishonest. Right?
As you did me. Sorry.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:28 pmBut I don’t recognize the same definition of “out of context” as you claim to follow. I don’t excerpt statements if it changes the original meaning.
You claim that anything less than full context is dishonest. Yet you have shown a willingness to do so.
Says a lot.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:31 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
How do you explain your naked dishonesty in quoting EugeneDebs “out of context” in post 302?
What Ralph. Wasn’t that exactly what he said and what he meant???
March 14th, 2009 at 2:31 pm#
ralph the wonder llama Says:
jay Says:
ralph the wonder llama Says:
jay Says:
278 was a factual statement about the point I was making.
Doesn’t matter. By your own standards, you quoted me “out of context” and that’s dishonest. Right?
As you did me. Sorry.
But I don’t recognize the same definition of “out of context” as you claim to follow. I don’t excerpt statements if it changes the original meaning.
You claim that anything less than full context is dishonest. Yet you have shown a willingness to do so.
Says a lot.
Ya, Ya, Ya, so you keep saying. Anything important to say?
If not, then you’re beating a dead horse. You never post snippets of a conversation do you? Wait a minute, you do!
March 14th, 2009 at 2:33 pmJay again you are a LIAR. I did call you names returning your troll contempt but I also made actual POINTS. Yes Bush was never behind in the count BECAUSE THE SCOTUS STOPPED THE RECOUNT. That is the only reason as I showed. THAT is what was meant when he said Bush was appointed by the SCOTUS. The statement we are talking about and in no way a stupid statement. It can be argued but there is a very factual and rational reason to make the statement. You keep saying you arent going anywhere. Why in the WORLD would I care? Did you get banned under another name and feel insecure about this? Stay. Leave. Keep entertaining us with the free clown show. It means less to me than the price of ping pong balls in Guatemala
March 14th, 2009 at 2:34 pmjay Says: 318
Yes he does because he doesnt have some arbitrary and frankly ignorant definition of out of context. It is plainly stupid to claim you have to post an entire conversation to show context. It is kind of like saying when someone makes the obvious and never disputed assertion of common knowlege that the Democratic Party is the largest political party in America it needs a link to back it up. Its stupid. Its meant to obfuscate and derail conversation. It is BEING A TROLL.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:38 pmEugeneDebs Says:
Jay again you are a LIAR. I did call you names returning your troll contempt but I also made actual POINTS. Yes Bush was never behind in the count BECAUSE THE SCOTUS STOPPED THE RECOUNT. That is the only reason as I showed. THAT is what was meant when he said Bush was appointed by the SCOTUS. The statement we are talking about and in no way a stupid statement. It can be argued but there is a very factual and rational reason to make the statement. You keep saying you arent going anywhere. Why in the WORLD would I care? Did you get banned under another name and feel insecure about this? Stay. Leave. Keep entertaining us with the free clown show. It means less to me than the price of ping pong balls in Guatemala
How many times was Bush behind in the count? You could go on counting punch cards in Democratic precincts and eventually get the result you were trying to get. So why wasn’t the complete state being re-counted? The nonsense was stopped by none other than good OL’ Al.
Nonsense. that’s all.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:39 pmSo now you’re adopting MY definition of “out of context”? That’s what it sounds like.
I recommend it, by the way. It’s a much more useful way of understanding language and conducting debate.
It’s not so useful if you want a shield behind which to hide your foolish statements, but hey, everything’s a trade-off.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:40 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says: 318
Yes he does because he doesnt have some arbitrary and frankly ignorant definition of out of context. It is plainly stupid to claim you have to post an entire conversation to show context. It is kind of like saying when someone makes the obvious and never disputed assertion of common knowlege that the Democratic Party is the largest political party in America it needs a link to back it up. Its stupid. Its meant to obfuscate and derail conversation. It is BEING A TROLL.
So you say. Next!!! At least I know how to spell “knowledge”. I learned that tactic from rhf sockpuppet liberal troll.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:41 pmYour post of 321 is stupid and evades the FACT that all the votes in Florida WERE COUNTED. Not just in Democratic counties but STATEWIDE. When all valid votes were counted which is just what Florida was about to do when the SC stopped the counting GORE HAD MORE VOTES BY ANY COUNTING STANDARD. That is why Bush was never behind in the count because ALL the valid votes were NEVER COUNTED
March 14th, 2009 at 2:43 pm#
ralph the wonder llama Says:
jay Says:
ralph the wonder llama Says:
How do you explain your naked dishonesty in quoting EugeneDebs “out of context” in post 302?
What Ralph. Wasn’t that exactly what he said and what he meant???
So now you’re adopting MY definition of “out of context”? That’s what it sounds like.
I recommend it, by the way. It’s a much more useful way of understanding language and conducting debate.
It’s not so useful if you want a shield behind which to hide your foolish statements, but hey, everything’s a trade-off.
I could care less about your whole liberal attack. I’m a big boy. I can handle it but you just keep on doing what you’re doing if it makes you feel better. Smoke and mirrors to deflect from the conversation. It’s what you people do, isn’t it?
March 14th, 2009 at 2:44 pmYeah so do I. I am not that bad at spelling just an extremely poor typist. NONE of which changes the FACT your definition of out of context is flat out ludicrous
March 14th, 2009 at 2:46 pmBoy, for someone who professes to require the entirety of a statement to render legitimate a response to single piece of it, you sure seem to miss a lot.
Of course I post snippets of conversations. I find it a useful way to reference the words of others.
I don’t find it dishonest unless it is done in such a way that it presents a false or altered meaning to the excerpt.
You, on the other hand, made the case that if anything was left out of the quote, that was “out of context” and dishonest, even if the meaning remained intact.
Yet I’ve demonstrated several instances where you’ve done this, just in the last few hours. In fact, you’ve even done it with Eugene since describing your personal standard for “out of context”.
All I’m trying to show is that “out of context” is only a valid criticism if the excerpt changes the meaning the speaker intended. Otherwise, the practice is a perfectly acceptable use of language in debate, research or reporting.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:46 pmEugeneDebs Says:
Your post of 321 is stupid and evades the FACT that all the votes in Florida WERE COUNTED. Not just in Democratic counties but STATEWIDE. When all valid votes were counted which is just what Florida was about to do when the SC stopped the counting GORE HAD MORE VOTES BY ANY COUNTING STANDARD. That is why Bush was never behind in the count because ALL the valid votes were NEVER COUNTED
The recount was in Democratic precincts only. Why wasn’t the absentee ballots from the military counted if, as you say, all the votes should be counted? Hypocritical arguments in history.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:47 pmJay what a hypocrite you are smoke and mirrors to deflect from the conversation is your stock and trade. Calling you on your hypocrisy and frank dishonesty is NOT deflecting anything.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:48 pm#
#
EugeneDebs Says:
Yeah so do I. I am not that bad at spelling just an extremely poor typist. NONE of which changes the FACT your definition of out of context is flat out ludicrous
That doesn’t hold up according to rhf sockpuppet troll. I used that one myself.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:49 pmEugeneDebs Says:
Jay what a hypocrite you are smoke and mirrors to deflect from the conversation is your stock and trade. Calling you on your hypocrisy and frank dishonesty is NOT deflecting anything.
Right! Nothing important to add?
March 14th, 2009 at 2:50 pmDo you have some sort of support for this explicit claim?
March 14th, 2009 at 2:50 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
jay Says:
EugeneDebs Says:
Your post of 321 is stupid and evades the FACT that all the votes in Florida WERE COUNTED. Not just in Democratic counties but STATEWIDE. When all valid votes were counted which is just what Florida was about to do when the SC stopped the counting GORE HAD MORE VOTES BY ANY COUNTING STANDARD. That is why Bush was never behind in the count because ALL the valid votes were NEVER COUNTED
The recount was in Democratic precincts only.
Do you have some sort of support for this explicit claim?
To quote eugene “is the sky blue”?
March 14th, 2009 at 2:51 pmjay Says:
The recount was in Democratic precincts only. Why wasn’t the absentee ballots from the military counted if, as you say, all the votes should be counted? Hypocritical arguments in history.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
They WERE counted my GOD you are ignorant. You flat out NEVER know what you are talking about. The state of Florida was preparing for a STATEWIDE RECOUNT you moron. The SC stopped that. They werent only going to count Democratic counties. That was an original demand because Florida didnt have a mechanism for a statewide recount and that is the rule not the exception. In the end however Gore ASKED for a statewide recount. Florida was about to begin a statewide recount and the SC stopped it. Had that recount taken place and had ALL VALID VOTES BEEN COUNTED Gore would have won no matter WHAT the counting standard. What part of this is too complicated for you to understand? It really is hard to discuss anything with someone as uninformed as you are.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:53 pmMiami Dade county only.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:54 pmjay Says: 321
Right get back to me when you EVER add anything to a discussion other than debunked talking points. Blatant stupidity and attempted derailments of the discussion. YOU define projection
March 14th, 2009 at 2:55 pmRight Eugene. You keep telling yourself that.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:55 pmJay 331
The difference is your claim is patently FALSE. That was the FIRST call for a recount. The recount the SC stopped was a statewide recount. You just never know what you are talking about.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:57 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
The recount was in Democratic precincts only. Why wasn’t the absentee ballots from the military counted if, as you say, all the votes should be counted? Hypocritical arguments in history.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
They WERE counted my GOD you are ignorant. You flat out NEVER know what you are talking about. The state of Florida was preparing for a STATEWIDE RECOUNT you moron. The SC stopped that. They werent only going to count Democratic counties. That was an original demand because Florida didnt have a mechanism for a statewide recount and that is the rule not the exception. In the end however Gore ASKED for a statewide recount. Florida was about to begin a statewide recount and the SC stopped it. Had that recount taken place and had ALL VALID VOTES BEEN COUNTED Gore would have won no matter WHAT the counting standard. What part of this is too complicated for you to understand? It really is hard to discuss anything with someone as uninformed as you are.
You keep telling yourself that. History Eugene. Wouda, couda, shuda.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:58 pmIs that a “No”?
March 14th, 2009 at 2:58 pmEugeneDebs Says:
Jay 331
The difference is your claim is patently FALSE. That was the FIRST call for a recount. The recount the SC stopped was a statewide recount. You just never know what you are talking about.
Right.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:58 pmjay Says:
Miami Dade county only.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
This is patently FALSE. Even the first call for a recount was for FOUR counties. The recount the SC stopped was a statewide recount. You are the most uninformed and ignorant poster imaginable.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:59 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
jay Says:
The recount was in Democratic precincts only.
Do you have some sort of support for this explicit claim?
To quote eugene “is the sky blue”?
Is that a “No”? Dade county only Ralph. Is the sky blue?
March 14th, 2009 at 3:00 pmjay Says:
Right Eugene. You keep telling yourself that.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Right Jay you keep being an ignorant troll
March 14th, 2009 at 3:00 pmSo you still have no support?
No link? No authoritative source?
That’s what I was looking for, not simply a reassertion from you. I don’t really trust you or your interpretation of objective reality. I’m sure you understand.
March 14th, 2009 at 3:02 pmjay Says:
You keep telling yourself that. History Eugene. Wouda, couda, shuda.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is why you are an ignorant troll. This conversation started because YOU called the claim the SC appointed Bush stupid. I PLAINLY PROVED it had factual backup. I know what the history is. Bush got very lucky and had a partisan SC and became the president but the original statement was NOT stupid and had a good factual basis AS I PROVED.
March 14th, 2009 at 3:03 pmjay Says: 341
Right
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So then you ADMIT making a patently FALSE statement. OK
March 14th, 2009 at 3:04 pmJay, Gee, I just checked back in and I see your still wasting everyones time. Go for it. You’ve got a good thread going, just don’t keep contradicting yourself it makes everyone confused.
And as for not joining in the fun. I’ve had fun like this before and it simply aint.
March 14th, 2009 at 3:12 pmI stand corrected. The counties selected were Broward, Miami Dade, Palm beach, Valusia, all Democratic counties and Duval, a Republican county.
So I was wrong but it didn’t make a bit of difference. Bush was still never behind in the recount.
March 14th, 2009 at 3:16 pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000
March 14th, 2009 at 3:16 pmRich H Says:
Jay, Gee, I just checked back in and I see your still wasting everyones time. Go for it. You’ve got a good thread going, just don’t keep contradicting yourself it makes everyone confused.
And as for not joining in the fun. I’ve had fun like this before and it simply aint.
Hey Rich. I’m here, Ralph is here, Eugene is here and you’re here. Peoples time is their own right. The difference is that I’m not intimidated by liberal tactics.
It’s all smoke and mirrors from you guys.
March 14th, 2009 at 3:20 pm#
#
EugeneDebs Says:
jay Says: 341
Right
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So then you ADMIT making a patently FALSE statement. OK
Nope.
March 14th, 2009 at 3:21 pmLooks like I was wise to doubt the veracity of your claims.
March 14th, 2009 at 3:21 pmjay Says:
So I was wrong but it didn’t make a bit of difference. Bush was still never behind in the recount.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You keep saying that as if it made a difference to the discussion we were having. No one argued that Bush didnt become president. YOU said the statement the SC appointed Bush was stupid. It wasnt. I proved that. The ONLY reason he was never behind is because the SC stopped the STATEWIDE MANUAL RECOUNT. It is POSSIBLE that overvotes would have been excluded though the judge in charge was preparing to include them but IF ALL VALID VOTES HAD BEEN COUNTED Gore would have won by any counting standard. Therefore the original statement clearly WASNT stupid.
March 14th, 2009 at 3:21 pmYou mean, liberal tactics like using facts and logic?
Clearly, you’re not intimidated by those liberal tactics.
March 14th, 2009 at 3:22 pmjay Says:
351
And all stupidity and uninformed idiocy from YOU.
March 14th, 2009 at 3:22 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
jay Says:
I stand corrected. The counties selected were Broward, Miami Dade, Palm beach, Valusia, all Democratic counties and Duval, a Republican county.
Looks like I was wise to doubt the veracity of your claims.
I checked it out and admitted my error. I never said I was perfect, how about you Ralph?
When I find that I made a mistake I correct it. It’s called “character” and civility, and a bit of humility thrown in. Like I said, I’m not perfect. Are you?
March 14th, 2009 at 3:24 pmJay 352
Nope
>>>>>>>
Then you are a LIAR. THIS from your own citation of Wiki
At 4:00 p.m. EST on December 8, the Florida Supreme Court, by a 4 to 3 vote, ordered a manual recount, under the supervision of the Leon County Circuit Court and Leon County Elections Supervisor Ion Sancho, of disputed ballots in all Florida counties and the portion of Miami-Dade county in which such a recount was not already complete
March 14th, 2009 at 3:25 pm#
#
EugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
351
And all stupidity and uninformed idiocy from YOU.
Right.
March 14th, 2009 at 3:26 pm#
EugeneDebs Says:
Jay 352
Nope
>>>>>>>
Then you are a LIAR. THIS from your own citation of Wiki
At 4:00 p.m. EST on December 8, the Florida Supreme Court, by a 4 to 3 vote, ordered a manual recount, under the supervision of the Leon County Circuit Court and Leon County Elections Supervisor Ion Sancho, of disputed ballots in all Florida counties and the portion of Miami-Dade county in which such a recount was not already complete
So what does this prove? You need to get a grip on yourself.
You’re losing it.
March 14th, 2009 at 3:28 pmJay 359
So its ok for YOU to say its all smoke and mirrors from us while we simply DIMANTLE you with the FACTS but MY statement was out of bounds? You do realize what a snivelling punk you are right?
March 14th, 2009 at 3:30 pmjay Says:
So what does this prove? You need to get a grip on yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My GOD you are ignorant. Do you even remember the discussion you are having? YOU claimed the recount was only of Democratic counties that the overseas military vote wasnt counted and it was a hypocritical argument BECAUSE of that. I mopped up the floor with that ignorant argument and NOW you say it doesnt prove anything? It proves that A) you were wrong and B) You have no idea what you are talking about since you are just an uninformed moron.
You’re losing it.
March 14th, 2009 at 3:32 pm<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
YOU never had it. Unless the IT we are talking about is abject stupidity
ralph the wonder llama Says:
jay Says:
Hey Rich. I’m here, Ralph is here, Eugene is here and you’re here. Peoples time is their own right. The difference is that I’m not intimidated by liberal tactics.
You mean, liberal tactics like using facts and logic?
Clearly, you’re not intimidated by those liberal tactics.
You didn’t correct anything Ralph. I found my own mistake and corrected it.
So what’s your point other than intimidation. Like I said, I’m not intimidated by people like you. I just learned something new from my own research. I enjoy learning things. That’s one of the reasons I’m here. It certainly isn’t to change Liberal minds. Of course you wouldn’t understand that would you? Myopic thought on your part, I would say.
March 14th, 2009 at 3:33 pmjay Says: 363
So you just learned it all on your own and it didnt have anything to do with me pointing out your original claim was idiotic and even the ORIGINAL recount demand was of four democratic counties? Sure.
March 14th, 2009 at 3:35 pmNor did I say I was perfect.
But neither did I make an explicit claim of fact on this thread that I later had to retract.
You’ve given me reason to doubt your claims. I have not yet given you reason to doubt mine, other than any difference of opinion you might have with me.
March 14th, 2009 at 3:39 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
So what does this prove? You need to get a grip on yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My GOD you are ignorant. Do you even remember the discussion you are having? that the overseas military vote wasnt counted and it was a hypocritical argument BECAUSE of that. I mopped up the floor with that ignorant argument and NOW you say it doesnt prove anything? It proves that A) you were wrong and B) You have no idea what you are talking about since you are just an uninformed moron.
You’re losing it.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
YOU never had it. Unless the IT we are talking about is abject stupidity
YOU claimed the recount was only of Democratic counties
There was one Republican county. I corrected that already.
that the overseas military vote wasnt counted
Most were not at first. They were discarded but were ordered to be counted by the US district court.. That’s a fact.
Only arguments that are ignorant are those that don’t agree with yours. You’re a good little Liberal Eugene. You keep it up.
March 14th, 2009 at 3:40 pmI didn’t claim to correct anything. However, you have to admit that I pressed you for verification, which led you to realize your own mistake.
No intimidation intended. I saw what seemed like an overstatement (at best) on your part and asked for support. It’s part of dialogue — keeping each other honest. Even though I’ve found you less than completely honest at times, I’ll still generally give you the opportunity to support a claim that sounds dubious.
Your conclusion that I “wouldn’t understand” how someone could come here to learn is a little bit under-informed, I’d say. Seems to me like a judgment based on prejudice rather than on actual experience and interaction.
March 14th, 2009 at 3:44 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
jay Says:
I checked it out and admitted my error. I never said I was perfect, how about you Ralph?
When I find that I made a mistake I correct it. It’s called “character” and civility, and a bit of humility thrown in. Like I said, I’m not perfect. Are you?
Nor did I say I was perfect.
But neither did I make an explicit claim of fact on this thread that I later had to retract.
You’ve given me reason to doubt your claims. I have not yet given you reason to doubt mine, other than any difference of opinion you might have with me.
I could really care about what you doubt. I’m not here to please you Ralph. You’re going to believe what you’re going to believe as you always do. So what? Like I said, I’m not perfect and when I make a mistake I correct it.
I’m here for conversation and you’re here for confrontation. It’s in your posts. You are what you are. Nothing I will ever have to say will change that. Eugene is what he is.
You don’t foster conversations by always being confrontational as many here are. It’s not my flaw but theirs.
March 14th, 2009 at 3:45 pmI think if you only see confrontation in my posts, you’re either seeing a small, unrepresentative sample of threads, or you’re seeing what you want to see.
I freely admit to regular troll-whacking, but when a conservative shows up who’s willing to discuss issues without resorting to dishonest tactics like strawman arguments, moving goal posts or making claims of fact without backing them up, I’m eager to engage in conversation.
You’re not one of those conservatives, jay. You’re not here for “conversation” any more than you believe I am.
It’s admirable that you’re willing to admit a mistake and correct yourself. So few of your ideological brethren do. But your willingness to assume that I’m going to believe what i believe (implying, I guess, a certain ideological rigidity) strikes me as nothing more than a lazy way for you to avoid recognizing that your arguments simply weren’t convincing.
March 14th, 2009 at 3:58 pmYour conclusion that I “wouldn’t understand” how someone could come here to learn is a little bit under-informed, I’d say. Seems to me like a judgment based on prejudice rather than on actual experience and interaction.
No prejudice Ralph. I don’t have a prejudice bone in my body.
When being told that I’m a troll by people here I just let it roll off my back. You did create an argument about how I post and did try to convince me that what I meant wasn’t really what I meant (that was pretty stupid) and all that was out of context. Then you argued about what “out of context” meant for what purpose I’ll never know. You tried to do that Ralph, not me. And for what purpose????
Then I have to listen to Eugen’s nonsense and name calling. What’s with that? I’ve been more than tolerant to everyone I have met here. I understand that I’m a Conservative in a Leftist site. How is anyone going to learn things if they surround themselves with “Like minded thinkers” like most do here?
I’m a big boy and I can take it. We have met before here. It seems that I have been wrong about who I thought you were.
March 14th, 2009 at 3:58 pmAs for you Eugene, I take your comments with a grain of salt. I’ve met people like you before.
I’m a member here and I’m not going anywhere. Sorry but you won’t drive me off like trajan thought he could. Like rhf sockpuppet has been trying to do for the past 3 days. I won’t take part in another inquisition like what Trollspotter tried to put me through.
Sorry everyone, I’m here to stay. I like it here and will remain a member, and yes I will be civil to most of you, upbringing you know.
March 14th, 2009 at 4:06 pmHow proud you seem of that fact. I, on the other hand, recognize that we ALL have prejudices. It’s hard-wired into us as sentient creatures in a competitive world. But that’s beside the point. Congratulations on your complete lack of prejudicial bones.
Please explain how I “tried to convince (you) that what (you) meant really wasn’t what (you) meant”?
Let me try to be clear: what i was explaining when it came to the “out of context” thing was that I didn’t change the meaning of your words by excerpting them. If you meant sarcasm, as I explained, it wasn’t clear from either the context or the phrasing you chose.
I would never try to convince someone what they really meant. That would be stupid. No, what i was trying to do was point out what the words you chose actually said, and the meaning they conveyed to a reader.
If you assumed I was trying to explain to you what you really meant, then you either have less than no respect for whatever intellect I’ve displayed here today, you have some reading comprehension difficulties or you were trying to make a dishonest argument.
I like Eugene, but he and I have different styles of discourse. His is a little more confrontational than mine. He makes good arguments but sometimes buries them beneath mountains of abuse. I don’t take responsibility for his comments any more than I ask him to take responsibility for mine. And as for surrounding onesself with ‘like-minded thinkers”, you may have noticed that TP doesn’t ban people who express conservative ideas. They will ban people for abusing the forum, but conservatives are welcome here to discuss things. They just shouldn’t expect to do so without getting any push-back.
I don’t recall any exchanges with you in the past, unless maybe you were here under another name. Maybe it’s slipped my memory, i don’t know. Anyway, as such, I only have this thread to go on to judge your character, and you seem pretty trollish to me in it. Maybe I caught you on the tail end of a confrontational exchange with RHF (which can be enough to put anyone in a foul mood) but your posts didn’t live up to your professed desire to “learn” here. They seemed pretty confrontational as well.
March 14th, 2009 at 4:22 pmSorry Ralph. I’m not going to rehash that last 3 hours with you. You know what you were trying to do. You, like most people I have met here get some strange enjoyment from backing people into the corner.
I’m not playing. You want to discuss something relevant to what’s going on in the country then lets start over.
If not, then I guess we’re done. It’s up to you.
I hope I was clear enough in what I posted. Seems clear to me but ????????
March 14th, 2009 at 4:35 pmYes, I do know what i was trying to do. I hope that, after explaining it to you, you have some idea of what I was trying to do as well, an idea that somewhat coincides with mine.
If someone says something stupid, I do enjoy finding ways to expose it, since most people I have met here who say foolish things seem to get some strange enjoyment from denying that their statements are foolish or even from denying that they said them.
It’s just Whack-A-Troll™, that’s all. I can understand if it’s not pleasant to have foolish things you’ve said pointed out to you. i can see how that would foster resentment. I apologize if it bothered you.
No, we’re done. Maybe sometime along the way we’ll meet again, you’ll be in a better mood and I’ll discover that you really are capable of the reasonable discussion that you say you seek.
For my part, as far as making posts clear, my default setting is this: when someone doesn’t understand what i’ve said, it was my own fault for expressing it badly. (Of course, that default setting gets overridden when the subject is a proven troll with a history of misreading and manipulating statements to his own ends. Not saying you fit that description, mind you.)
March 14th, 2009 at 4:46 pmjay Says:
YOU claimed the recount was only of Democratic counties
There was one Republican county. I corrected that already.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is also factually incorrect. The ones discarded were the ones that didnt have the proper documentation that is the date to show it was sent BEFORE the election or a proper postmark. Then by mutal agreement they just took ALL military ballots. Either you are lying or once again you just dont know what you are talking about. Even so it is IRRELEVANT to what we are disucssing. You keep changing the argument. YOU called the claim that the SC appointed Bush stupid. When I talked about the RECOUNT THAT WAS STOPPED you made ignorant and spurious arguments long ago debunked favored by the brainwashed that get their information from propagandistic screechmonkeys. I said when all valid votes were counted Gore got more votes by any counting standard. THEN you claimed they DIDNT count the military votes and went on a fantasy about ONLY democratic counties. It is all hogwash. The oversead votes WERE counted and it was a statewide recount the SC stopped. Therefore the statement was NOT STUPID
Only arguments that are ignorant are those that don’t agree with yours. You’re a good little Liberal Eugene. You keep it up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not so but your arguments are CLEARLY ignorant. You flat out dont know what you are talking about and cant seem to even remember the discussion you are having. You are either playing the fool or you ARE a fool. To me there isnt enough difference between the two to matter.
March 14th, 2009 at 4:47 pmOBTW Ralph. I only have one name here which is another thing people like rhf (who is a sockpuppet) and trajan (another sockpuppet, once removed) keep lying about. It seems that whenever I stand up for myself here I’m accused of being a sock.
Just another tactic. It gets old. Lame too.
March 14th, 2009 at 4:48 pmjay Says:
Again with the really stupid you arent going to drive me off strawman argument what is that the fifth time you repeated it? When did I tell you to leave and never return? I couldnt care less what you do. You barely exist in my universe. You are just a stupid troll that tries to pretend to civility and is just flat bone ignorant of the facts you are trying to argue. That makes you dime a dozen. IF I snapped my fingers and you disappeared three more just like you would show up within a week. I really dont care one way or another what you do. I just respond to posts. Even ones from posters as uninformed as you are.
March 14th, 2009 at 4:51 pmjay Says:
I understand that I’m a Conservative in a Leftist site. How is anyone going to learn things if they surround themselves with “Like minded thinkers” like most do here?
I was able to post one message on “FreeRepublic.com” and 10 minutes later, my membership was revoked. It seems as though all “Right Wingnut Web Sites” are personally controlled and manipulated by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.
At least you’re allowed freedom of speech here. Welcome to the way America was intended to be.
March 14th, 2009 at 4:51 pmdelafield Says:
jay Says:
I understand that I’m a Conservative in a Leftist site. How is anyone going to learn things if they surround themselves with “Like minded thinkers” like most do here?
I was able to post one message on “FreeRepublic.com” and 10 minutes later, my membership was revoked. It seems as though all “Right Wingnut Web Sites” are personally controlled and manipulated by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.
At least you’re allowed freedom of speech here. Welcome to the way America was intended to be.
I can only speak for myself delefield. I appreciate it that they let me hang out here as long as I don’t break the rules. That’s why I like it here. Thanks for the comment.
March 14th, 2009 at 4:57 pm#
#
EugeneDebs Says:
Again with the really stupid you arent going to drive me off strawman argument what is that the fifth time you repeated it? When did I tell you to leave and never return? I couldnt care less what you do. You barely exist in my universe. You are just a stupid troll that tries to pretend to civility and is just flat bone ignorant of the facts you are trying to argue. That makes you dime a dozen. IF I snapped my fingers and you disappeared three more just like you would show up within a week. I really dont care one way or another what you do. I just respond to posts. Even ones from posters as uninformed as you are.
Great. Thanks for making my point Eugene. You go about your business now, after all I’m just a dime a dozen. No need to post to me ever again, right?
March 14th, 2009 at 5:00 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
jay Says:
Sorry Ralph. I’m not going to rehash that last 3 hours with you. You know what you were trying to do.
Yes, I do know what i was trying to do. I hope that, after explaining it to you, you have some idea of what I was trying to do as well, an idea that somewhat coincides with mine.
You, like most people I have met here get some strange enjoyment from backing people into the corner.
If someone says something stupid, I do enjoy finding ways to expose it, since most people I have met here who say foolish things seem to get some strange enjoyment from denying that their statements are foolish or even from denying that they said them.
It’s just Whack-A-Troll™, that’s all. I can understand if it’s not pleasant to have foolish things you’ve said pointed out to you. i can see how that would foster resentment. I apologize if it bothered you.
I’m not playing. You want to discuss something relevant to what’s going on in the country then lets start over.
If not, then I guess we’re done. It’s up to you.
I hope I was clear enough in what I posted. Seems clear to me but ????????
No, we’re done. Maybe sometime along the way we’ll meet again, you’ll be in a better mood and I’ll discover that you really are capable of the reasonable discussion that you say you seek.
For my part, as far as making posts clear, my default setting is this: when someone doesn’t understand what i’ve said, it was my own fault for expressing it badly. (Of course, that default setting gets overridden when the subject is a proven troll with a history of misreading and manipulating statements to his own ends. Not saying you fit that description, mind you.)
March 14th, 2009 at 5:05 pmRight.
Thanks for finally acknowledging that I was right, jay.
Shows class.
March 14th, 2009 at 5:13 pmpost #375.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15627
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount#Results
http://www.pushback.com/justice/votefraud/MiamiDadeRecountFraud.html
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/recount/
March 14th, 2009 at 5:22 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Thanks for finally acknowledging that I was right, jay.
Shows class.
Right.
March 14th, 2009 at 5:23 pmI stand by my posts Ralph. Even the ones I took it upon myself to correct.
March 14th, 2009 at 5:25 pmYou may prove to be a decent sort after all, jay.
Time will tell.
(By the way, it’s always a good move to lead off a list of links with WorldNutDaily. Tells everyone that you mean business, with a source everyone respects. Nice one.)
March 14th, 2009 at 5:26 pmDidn’t I post enough URL’s? I don’t live by them you know. They can be made to say anything a person wants both Pro and Con. All sites were Googled, so I don’t care if you don’t like worldnetdaily. I don’t like any of them but some here live by them. So be it.
March 14th, 2009 at 5:31 pmjay Says:
delafield Says:
jay Says:
I understand that I’m a Conservative in a Leftist site. How is anyone going to learn things if they surround themselves with “Like minded thinkers” like most do here?
I was able to post one message on “FreeRepublic.com” and 10 minutes later, my membership was revoked. It seems as though all “Right Wingnut Web Sites” are personally controlled and manipulated by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.
You don’t really believe that do you?
March 14th, 2009 at 5:37 pmjay, jay jay… I’m trying to work with you here. If you truly are here to “learn” and to find reasonable conversations, you’re shooting yourself in the foot when you link to wingnut sites.
Think about it… what do you hope to accomplish here?
Do you wish to be taken seriously as someone with ideas worth paying attention to?
You say, “They can be made to say anything a person wants both Pro and Con.”. Well, not if they’re fact-based. They can only be used to establish facts. What one draws from those facts can be subjective, but the facts themselves should not be disputable. If the facts are disputable, then you have no basis for a conversation, because there’s no common ground.
If you know me from this blog, you know that I never use partisan sources to back up a serious point or claim of fact. I will use wikipedia on occasion, but only because it is convenient and generally reliable. I don’t depend on it to establish incontrovertible fact.
I don’t use partisan sources because I know that they weaken any credibility I have to make a persuasive argument. And when others use partisan sources, I find their credibility weakened.
Let’s face it, jay, in this kind of adversarial environment, if we want to build a convincing case for anything, we need all the credibility we can muster.
Of course, there’s always the chance that you don’t care about making a persuasive argument, in which case I have to ask “then what are you doing here? Why are you wasting time posting links if you don’t intend to accomplish anything with them?”
March 14th, 2009 at 5:46 pmOne correction: I will on occasion use a partisan source to bolster an argument — but only when that source is known to be right-leaning, and I expect the target of the argument would find it credible.
March 14th, 2009 at 5:49 pmRalph. I’m surprised you let this statement of delafield slip past you unchallenged.
It seems as though all “Right Wingnut Web Sites” are personally controlled and manipulated by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.
March 14th, 2009 at 5:50 pmjay Says: 380
YOU dont tell me what to do Jay. You arent my boss nor my mother. I will post to whomever I choose. You just flat dont have anything to say about it.
March 14th, 2009 at 5:56 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
One correction: I will on occasion use a partisan source to bolster an argument — but only when that source is known to be right-leaning, and I expect the target of the argument would find it credible.
Ralph, all it takes is for the URL to agree with what you want to say. They are truthful if they support your argument. You know that? They are lies if they don’t. That is why I don’t like to use them.
You say, “They can be made to say anything a person wants both Pro and Con.”. Well, not if they’re fact-based. They can only be used to establish facts. What one draws from those facts can be subjective, but the facts themselves should not be disputable. If the facts are disputable, then you have no basis for a conversation, because there’s no common ground.
If you know me from this blog, you know that I never use partisan sources to back up a serious point or claim of fact. I will use wikipedia on occasion, but only because it is convenient and generally reliable. I don’t depend on it to establish incontrovertible fact.
I don’t use partisan sources because I know that they weaken any credibility I have to make a persuasive argument. And when others use partisan sources, I find their credibility weakened.
Let’s face it, jay, in this kind of adversarial environment, if we want to build a convincing case for anything, we need all the credibility we can muster.
Of course, there’s always the chance that you don’t care about making a persuasive argument, in which case I have to ask “then what are you doing here? Why are you wasting time posting links if you don’t intend to accomplish anything with them?”
But Ralph, eugene relies on them and I did post a number of them so he could judge for himself. I use Wikipedia myself because they are somewhat neutral on things but even they sometimes put a slant on things and omit facts also.
March 14th, 2009 at 5:58 pmjay Says: 383
I dont know what you are trying to prove. WorldNUTdaily is a rightwing propaganda site and only a MORON would even pretend they are credible. Broder can claim whatever he wants it doesnt change the raw numbers WHICH I SHOWED. Again the point isnt that Bush wasnt president but that it is NOT stupid to claim the SC appointed Bush. The argument can be made either way because we will never know IF the overvotes would have been included since Florida law says if the intent of the ballot is clear it is a valid vote. It is NOT a stupid claim to make either way it is arguable so you were as usual just flat out wrong and as usual you just dont know what you are talking about what is NOT IN DISPUTE is that if all valid votes HAD been counted Gore would have won by any counting scenario
March 14th, 2009 at 6:02 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says: 380
YOU dont tell me what to do Jay. You arent my boss nor my mother. I will post to whomever I choose. You just flat dont have anything to say about it.
I thought you weren’t going to waste your time on me. I’m a dime a dozen. Were you lying? I don’t care who your boss is. I wouldn’t want to be your boss. You wouldn’t last long.
You can keep posting to me if you like but that would make you a liar.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:02 pmjay Says:
I stand by my posts Ralph. Even the ones I took it upon myself to correct.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You stand by your posts even the ones PROVEN wrong. OK. World Class ignorance on display. Good luck with that
March 14th, 2009 at 6:02 pmEugeneDebs Says:
I dont know what you are trying to prove. WorldNUTdaily is a rightwing propaganda site and only a MORON would even pretend they are credible. Broder can claim whatever he wants it doesnt change the raw numbers WHICH I SHOWED. Again the point isnt that Bush wasnt president but that it is NOT stupid to claim the SC appointed Bush. The argument can be made either way because we will never know IF the overvotes would have been included since Florida law says if the intent of the ballot is clear it is a valid vote. It is NOT a stupid claim to make either way it is arguable so you were as usual just flat out wrong and as usual you just dont know what you are talking about what is NOT IN DISPUTE is that if all valid votes HAD been counted Gore would have won by any counting scenario
It doesn’t really matter. I’m a dime a dozen and you could care less about what I say. Why are you posting to me?
March 14th, 2009 at 6:04 pmjay Says: 393
Again you are a LIAR. Cough up an example of me using partisan sources. I also only use wikipedia when it is convienient and I am citing a FACT from it that isnt in dispute. Why do you lie so much?
March 14th, 2009 at 6:08 pmUnlike you, jay, I sensed some hyperbole in the statement. I didn’t really take it at face value as you seem to have done.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:09 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says: 393
Again you are a LIAR. Cough up an example of me using partisan sources. I also only use wikipedia when it is convienient and I am citing a FACT from it that isnt in dispute. Why do you lie so much?
Is that what you read in my post to Ralph. You had better go back and read it again. This time take your time. One word at a time and read the whole posts.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:10 pmjay Says:
——————————————————————————–
EugeneDebs Says:
jay Says: 380
I thought you weren’t going to waste your time on me. I’m a dime a dozen. Were you lying? I don’t care who your boss is. I wouldn’t want to be your boss. You wouldn’t last long.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I said no such thing. My GOD you are ignorant. I said if you disappeared three more would take your place. You are CLEARLY dime a dozen and that is me being KIND. I said I didnt care about you and respond to posts even from posters as uninformed as you are.
You can keep posting to me if you like but that would make you a liar.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
No it wouldnt. Cough up where I said I wasnt going to post to you anymore. It makes YOU a moron with the reading comprehension of a gerbil
March 14th, 2009 at 6:11 pmjay Says:
It doesn’t really matter. I’m a dime a dozen and you could care less about what I say. Why are you posting to me?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes you are dime a dozen. I am posting to you because I choose to. You are easy to mop the floor with as this series of postings proves beyond a shadow of a doubt. You really dont get how absolutly easy you are?
March 14th, 2009 at 6:13 pmjay Says:
Is that what you read in my post to Ralph. You had better go back and read it again. This time take your time. One word at a time and read the whole posts.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
OK I read it again. The discussion was about using partisan sources and how it effects credibility. My reading was certainly a reasonable one if you MEANT something else it certainly isnt clear.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:16 pmEugeneDebs Says:
Again with the really stupid you arent going to drive me off strawman argument what is that the fifth time you repeated it? When did I tell you to leave and never return? I couldnt care less what you do. You barely exist in my universe. You are just a stupid troll that tries to pretend to civility and is just flat bone ignorant of the facts you are trying to argue. That makes you dime a dozen. IF I snapped my fingers and you disappeared three more just like you would show up within a week. I really dont care one way or another what you do. I just respond to posts. Even ones from posters as uninformed as you are.
So why are you here if you don’t care what I do? Or maybe you do. If you do then your a liar because you said that you don’t care what I do?
Vicious circle eugene. Either you do care or you don’t. I just said that if you don’t care what I do and that I’m a dime a dozen then there’s no need to post to me anymore. Do you care (and admit that you were lying about not caring) or don’t you care?
March 14th, 2009 at 6:18 pmI don’t really know what you’re saying here. Are you accusing me of holding this view? That “all it takes is for the URL to agree with what (I) want to say”?
If so, you’re mistaken. And you didn’t read what I wrote above. I know WND is a right-wing site, prone to exaggerations and misrepresentations, like all partisan sources. That’s why i don’t rely on them. I wouldn’t rely on a ThinkProgress article to prove any statement of fact to you or any other conservative. I wouldn’t expect you to accept it.
Is that clear now?
Look, you can justify it to yourself, but all I’m saying is, don’t expect anyone here to take seriously a link to WND or pushback.com or any other right-wing sites.
Maybe that works in your favor; maybe it gives you a chance to claim that you provided a link but closed-minded libs don’t want to hear anything they don’t agree with. The fact that you should have known in advance that such a link would be rejected might somehow get lost. I’ve seen it happen before with other conservatives.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:18 pmYou’re right, Eugen, it did sound like jay was saying you “rely on partisan links”. It’s possible that he was just trying to say you rely on links, but I agree, it isn’t clear.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:21 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
jay Says:
Ralph, all it takes is for the URL to agree with what you want to say. They are truthful if they support your argument. You know that? They are lies if they don’t. That is why I don’t like to use them.
I don’t really know what you’re saying here. Are you accusing me of holding this view? That “all it takes is for the URL to agree with what (I) want to say”?
Sorry Ralph. I’m not playing.
People use URL’s to justify their argument. That makes them truthful to that person.
To the opposition they are not truthful because they can produce a URL that contradicts the first one.
C’mon Ralph. Plain English.
No games Pal. I’m not playing. I thought you were better than that.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:22 pmjay Says:
So why are you here if you don’t care what I do? Or maybe you do. If you do then your a liar because you said that you don’t care what I do?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I dont care what you do. Go. Stay. Keep making a fool out of yourself none of this matters to me. For me its about the POSTS. I will respond to the ones I choose. AGAIN. The FACT you are so stupid you apparantly dont know how to read doesnt make me a liar. It just shows your lack of reading comprehension.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:23 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
You’re right, Eugen, it did sound like jay was saying you “rely on partisan links”. It’s possible that he was just trying to say you rely on links, but I agree, it isn’t clear.
A person has to be able to read. You did come to the right conclusion the second time you read it didn’t you?
Be more careful the first time and consider the conversation and not just a few lines. It works better that way.
More games.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:26 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
So why are you here if you don’t care what I do? Or maybe you do. If you do then your a liar because you said that you don’t care what I do?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I dont care what you do. Go. Stay. Keep making a fool out of yourself none of this matters to me. For me its about the POSTS. I will respond to the ones I choose. AGAIN. The FACT you are so stupid you apparantly dont know how to read doesnt make me a liar. It just shows your lack of reading comprehension.
Your the one with the reading problem Or maybe just the comprehension part eugene but according to your rules it does make you a liar.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:28 pmjay Says:
People use URL’s to justify their argument. That makes them truthful to that person.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That would only make sense IF there were no such thing as objective FACTS. You act like ALL there is are opinions. That is stupid. So NO if you link to an OPINION that would be a valid argument but FACTS are FACTS. Some partisan sites just lie and make them up like WorldNUTdaily has been PROVEN to do like when they ran the story about Kerry having an affair with a woman who he met with who wanted a job. That was shown to be basless. So a link to FACTS not from a partisan site is compelling like when I linked to the site that showed ONLY NORCs data. FACTS not opinions.
The rest of your post was plain stupidity. If you arent playing then you are very dumb
March 14th, 2009 at 6:30 pmjay Says:
Your the one with the reading problem Or maybe just the comprehension part eugene but according to your rules it does make you a liar.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
No I am not and NO it doesnt it makes you exceedingly stupid and apparantly unable to understand the English language
March 14th, 2009 at 6:32 pmRalph said:
If so, you’re mistaken. And you didn’t read what I wrote above. I know WND is a right-wing site, prone to exaggerations and misrepresentations, like all partisan sources. That’s why i don’t rely on them. I wouldn’t rely on a ThinkProgress article to prove any statement of fact to you or any other conservative. I wouldn’t expect you to accept it.
I completely understand that Ralph. I just didn’t post one site either. I posted a number of sites. I don’t use URL’s because most are bias one way or another. I think I said that already. I said it again because you seem to have a problem reading what I post.
No more useless post on meaningless subjects.
Trying to back me in the corner again Ralph…
Just games. I can understand eugene doing it because that is what he thinks this site is for, but you Ralph?
March 14th, 2009 at 6:36 pmEugeneDebs Says:
No I am not and NO it doesnt it makes you exceedingly stupid and apparantly unable to understand the English language
OK Who are you posting to? Not the person that you don’t care about is it? I guess you do.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:38 pmjay Says:
Just games. I can understand eugene doing it because that is what he thinks this site is for, but you Ralph?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Let me translate from wingnutese WWWWAHHHHHHHHH its ok when I act like a jerk but its terrible when others are mean to me WWWAAAHHHHHHHH why does Eugene destroy my arguments and make me look like the moron I am WWWWWAAAHHHHHHHH. You are a punk Jay. A very stupid punk. You dont LIKE being messed with but you send me on a wild goose chase to find a link to something you ADMITTED you knew was a FACT like eveyone else over 12 years old would. You talk about ‘liberal logic’ as if it were invalid the Democrat party which is petty and stupid then when we treat YOU less than respectfully its WWWWAWAAHHHHHHHHHHHH. You are a waste of precious oxygen
March 14th, 2009 at 6:40 pmjay Says:
OK Who are you posting to? Not the person that you don’t care about is it? I guess you do.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
How would that follow logically. You DO know what the word logic means dont you? That because I dont care about you or more accuratly whether you stay or go then I would have no reason to respond to POSTS. HOW in the world does that follow logically? Does it mean? That unless we are going to take long walks in the moonlight I am obligated to let any stupid thing you post pass without comment? I care about what is POSTED. Whether that is you or not is neither here nor there. Is that REALLY too complicated for you to understand?
March 14th, 2009 at 6:44 pmWell, jay, I took you at your word that you were here to “learn”. That seems to be my mistake.
The “dueling links” phenomenon you describe is precisely the reason to rely only on reputable sources. It’s exactly why I don’t use the kind of partisan links you use.
If I produce a link that backs up a fact that I’ve claimed, and the source is authoritative and trustworthy, that makes it so much more difficult for someone to produce a link of equal reputation that says the opposite.
For instance, a while back a conservative friend and I were discussing health policy. I mentioned the commonly accepted number of 42 million uninsured. (this was two or three years ago). He disputed that, claiming that the real number was only about 5 million.
I asked him where he got his figure, because I got mine from the US Census Bureau. I sent him a link to that source.
I never heard back from him on a source for his number.
Now, if I had sent him instead a link to TP or DKos, he would have felt justified in sending back a link that supported his contention from, say WorldNetDaily or Rush. That’s what you’re talking about.
I’m talking about avoiding that by relying on sources that can be trusted by most reasonable people to get the facts correct and to tell the story straight.
You don’t seem to be getting that. Must be the way I’m explaining it. If you still don’t get it, let me know and I’ll try to explain it another way.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:44 pm. Some partisan sites just lie and make them up like WorldNUTdaily has been PROVEN to do like when they ran the story about Kerry having an affair with a woman who he met with who wanted a job.
Strange, the New york Times and the Huffington Post both made up lies about McCain having an affair. So everything they say frome that point on is just lies also I guess. Stupid argument.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:47 pmNo, it’s not “games” jay, unless you’re only seeking to avoid taking responsibility for communicating your thoughts clearly.
Ideally, a reader should get it correct the first time. If he’s got to read it again, and gets a different reading, then it wasn’t composed clearly in the first place. Plus there’s an element of ambiguity introduced. Usually ambiguity is an enemy of clarity, unless you’re writing poetry or talking about God.
But as I said, maybe the game is that you feel a certain measure of comfort being able to credibly claim any of a number of interpretations as the one you meant. Certainly seems plausible, given the games you seem to be playing.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:47 pmWell, jay, I took you at your word that you were here to “learn”. That seems to be my mistake.
Ralph, you go on and believe what you want.
I’m not playing your game.
Now, once again if you want to discuss relevant subjects that have something to do with the country, then fine.
If not then we are done.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:49 pmjay Says:
Strange, the New york Times and the Huffington Post both made up lies about McCain having an affair. So everything they say frome that point on is just lies also I guess. Stupid argument.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Huffpo would be one of those partisan sites but cough up the documentation that the NYTimes made up lies or even CLAIMED that McCain had an affair. The way I remember it they wrote an article about his CONNECTION to a lobbyist and RUMORS of an affair. NOT the same thing . IF you saw me using Huffpo as a source you WOULD have had your very first actual point. I never have so you HAVE NO POINT. No it isnt a stupid argument. Here is a clue. It isnt a stupid argument just because YOU are too stupid to understand it. Since YOU are too stupid to understand virtually anything that would make ALL arguments stupid. No its just YOU that is stupid
March 14th, 2009 at 6:52 pmIdeally, a reader should get it correct the first time.
I agree Ralph but then again it depends on the level of the person who is reading the info, right?
I’m done Pal. Unless you have something else to say.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:52 pmIt is a stupid argument, because you take it too far. There’s no logical reason why a single fraudulent report would prove that everything written was a lie (your stated position).
But there is a logical reason to view every subsequent report with suspicion.
For instance, your contention that the New York Times “made up lies about McCain having an affair”. If you have evidence that the report originated with a New York Times reporter, and wasn’t just reported from a source who misled the reporter, I’d be grateful if you produced it. In the absence of such proof, however, it makes sense for me to assume that you’re making charges that you can’t back up, simply to cast an unfavorable light on an otherwise trusted source of reporting that right-wingers happen to loathe. Thus I view your claim and any arguments based on it with suspicion.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:54 pmThe POINT Jay leaving the hostility behind here. Is there ARE facts. Some sites are about FACTS. Llamas point about the Census bureau is a perfect example. It is about the FACTS all it does is compile them. A partisan site is a completely different animal and that is what was wrong with your argument it presupposes that there is no such thing as FACTS only this opinion and that opinion
March 14th, 2009 at 6:56 pmHuffpo would be one of those partisan sites but cough up the documentation that the NYTimes made up lies or even CLAIMED that McCain had an affair.
New York Times. CBS News. Did you miss that one eugene. Is the sky blue?
March 14th, 2009 at 6:56 pmThanks for your permission, jay. I’ll go on and believe what my analysis of your language and statements tell me to believe about you and your intentions.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:56 pmWell said, Eugene.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:58 pmjay Says:
I agree Ralph but then again it depends on the level of the person who is reading the info, right?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
It sometimes depends on the level of the person WRITING it. Your post was ambiguous at BEST. My reading was definitly a reasonable one. When I reread it I could SEE the ambiguity but it is far from clear you meant anything else. If you think it was clear the problem is yours not mine.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:58 pmRalph, don’t yell at me, yell at eugene. Post # 411.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:59 pmIt is a stupid argument, because you take it too far. There’s no logical reason why a single fraudulent report would prove that everything written was a lie (your stated position).
It’s not my assumption Ralph. It was from eugnes comments in post # 411.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:59 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
I agree Ralph but then again it depends on the level of the person who is reading the info, right?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
It sometimes depends on the level of the person WRITING it. Your post was ambiguous at BEST. My reading was definitly a reasonable one. When I reread it I could SEE the ambiguity but it is far from clear you meant anything else. If you think it was clear the problem is yours not mine.
So what you are saying is that you might of been wrong when you first read the post.
Thanks.
March 14th, 2009 at 7:02 pmjay Says:
New York Times. CBS News. Did you miss that one eugene. Is the sky blue?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I didnt miss anything Jay are you a MORON? Well of course you are but that is another discussion. So for instance the NYTimes was Broder and someone else giving THEIR opinion OF the facts and THEIR interpretation OF the facts. I said all along it could reasonably be argued either way you idiot. My point all along is that YOUR assertion that the original claim was stupid could NOT be supported since a DIFFERENT interpretation of the FACTS could easily be made. There are some FACTS not in dispute one of them is if ALL VALID VOTES IN FLORIDA WERE COUNTED Gore won by any counting scenario. Broder is entitled to his opinion and interpretation and the author of the original point is entitled to his and niether of them are stupid. My GOD you are dumb
March 14th, 2009 at 7:03 pmIt sometimes depends on the level of the person WRITING it. Your post was ambiguous at BEST. My reading was definitly a reasonable one. When I reread it I could SEE the ambiguity but it is far from clear you meant anything else. If you think it was clear the problem is yours not mine.
Next time read my posts instead of just looking for zingers. It’s called having an open mind eugene.
March 14th, 2009 at 7:03 pm#
#
EugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
New York Times. CBS News. Did you miss that one eugene. Is the sky blue?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I didnt miss anything Jay are you a MORON? Well of course you are but that is another discussion. So for instance the NYTimes was Broder and someone else giving THEIR opinion OF the facts and THEIR interpretation OF the facts. I said all along it could reasonably be argued either way you idiot. My point all along is that YOUR assertion that the original claim was stupid could NOT be supported since a DIFFERENT interpretation of the FACTS could easily be made. There are some FACTS not in dispute one of them is if ALL VALID VOTES IN FLORIDA WERE COUNTED Gore won by any counting scenario. Broder is entitled to his opinion and interpretation and the author of the original point is entitled to his and niether of them are stupid. My GOD you are dumb
And you regress eugene.
Bye.
March 14th, 2009 at 7:04 pmjay Says:
So what you are saying is that you might of been wrong when you first read the post.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
What I am saying is your post was ambiguous and could be read either way. I have no obligation to read your mind to find out what you MEANT. YOU didnt make it clear enough to take me to task for misreading your INTENT.
March 14th, 2009 at 7:06 pmjay Says:
Next time read my posts instead of just looking for zingers. It’s called having an open mind eugene.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I read your post MORON. Next time make your post clear enough that what you MEAN is clear.
March 14th, 2009 at 7:07 pmjay Says:
So your snarky is the sky blue is all well and good but my honest hostility is beyond the pale? Again with the WWWWWAAAHHHHHHH. Grow up
March 14th, 2009 at 7:08 pmAgain leaving the hostility out how can you not see the ambiguity of your post? The subject of Llamas post was partisan sites. You did NOTHING to change the context and said I relied on them. How in the world was I to get you only meant links in general?
March 14th, 2009 at 7:10 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
So what you are saying is that you might of been wrong when you first read the post.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
What I am saying is your post was ambiguous and could be read either way. EugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
So what you are saying is that you might of been wrong when you first read the post.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
What I am saying is your post was ambiguous and could be read either way. I have no obligation to read your mind to find out what you MEANT. YOU didnt make it clear enough to take me to task for misreading your INTENT. YOU didnt make it clear enough to take me to task for misreading your INTENT.
Right Eugene. You could never admit that you were wrong about anything can you.
A weakness on your part. So sad.
I have no obligation to read your mind to find out what you MEANT.
None at all unless you were trying to understand what was being said but you were just looking for something to argue about. It’s you eugene. You are what you are.
March 14th, 2009 at 7:10 pmEugeneDebs Says:
So your snarky is the sky blue is all well and good but my honest hostility is beyond the pale? Again with the WWWWWAAAHHHHHHH. Grow up
I have no hostility towards you eugene. I know exactly where you are coming from. I knew that in the first post you made to me 2 1/2 weeks ago.
And you are telling me to “grow up”. Isn’t that Republican dodge according to you?
March 14th, 2009 at 7:14 pmEugeneDebs Says:
Again leaving the hostility out how can you not see the ambiguity of your post? The subject of Llamas post was partisan sites. You did NOTHING to change the context and said I relied on them. How in the world was I to get you only meant links in general?
You go read it again and this time concentrate.
March 14th, 2009 at 7:16 pmJay
Right Eugene. You could never admit that you were wrong about anything can you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
YOU are a liar. I can and do admit WHEN I am wrong. YOU are trying to imply a mistake on MY part because YOU werent clear in YOUR post.
A weakness on your part. So sad.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What is that supposed to even MEAN? That I DO have an obligation to read your mind if I want to understand what you said? If THAT isnt what you meant that assertion made no sense. Llamas post was ABOUT partisan sites. YOU made no distinction or changed the context in ANY way and now are trying to blame ME that I didnt get that you MEANT only links in general
It’s you eugene. You are what you are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you are what you are. A stupid snivelling punk troll
March 14th, 2009 at 7:16 pmjay Says:
I have no hostility towards you eugene. I know exactly where you are coming from. I knew that in the first post you made to me 2 1/2 weeks ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sure on hostility snarky nastiness is just your way. Why else do you do it? My FIRST post to you was completely reasonable two or three days ago. I WIll return hostility to trolls. Only after you went with the again snarky and petty Democrat Party thing I showed my hostility.
And you are telling me to “grow up”. Isn’t that Republican dodge according to you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not in my opinion. To me it is said to those who need to grow up. I never said any such thing.
March 14th, 2009 at 7:19 pmYOU are a liar. I can and do admit WHEN I am wrong. YOU are trying to imply a mistake on MY part because YOU werent clear in YOUR post.
You are always implying that I’m saying things that I’m not. You do that to most people you post to who you disagree with. I’ve read hundreds of posts of your where you do that.
Now don’t go asking me to write down all the posts you have done that on. I don’t have a couple of months of free time.
Is the “sky blue”, as you are always saying?
March 14th, 2009 at 7:20 pmJay ok I read it again. Llama was talking about partisan sites you said THIS.
But Ralph, eugene relies on them and I did post a number of them so he could judge for himself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Them and them. Never showing you had basically changed the subject from partisan sites to links in general. What I am supposed to get here? Wasnt your point that ALL sites are partisan one way or another and just expressed the truth as we each see it? NOTHING here shows a change of subject from what Llama was talking about
March 14th, 2009 at 7:25 pmNow don’t go asking me to write down all the posts you have done that on. I don’t have a couple of months of free time.
–
March 14th, 2009 at 7:26 pmThen how will I know that there are hundreds of such posts? Seems you set up apremise that you want accepted but you do not wish to defend
jay Says:
——————————————————————————–
You are always implying that I’m saying things that I’m not. You do that to most people you post to who you disagree with. I’ve read hundreds of posts of your where you do that.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
So you just make a baseless assertion and we are supposed to take you at your word? PLEASE.
Now don’t go asking me to write down all the posts you have done that on. I don’t have a couple of months of free time.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You also dont have the reading comprehension of a reasonably bright ten year old.
Is the “sky blue”, as you are always saying?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
See more snarky BS from you. Look you are a moron that isnt my fault.
March 14th, 2009 at 7:28 pmJust a few today. 239,277,283,286,294,296.
March 14th, 2009 at 7:44 pmIs the “sky blue”, as you are always saying?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
See more snarky BS from you. Look you are a moron that isnt my fault.
When you say it it’s fine but when I say it, it’s “snarky BS”.
Is snarkey really a word? I don’t think so but then again you are so precise in what you post, right? I’m the ambiguous one.
March 14th, 2009 at 7:48 pmdbadass Says:
Now don’t go asking me to write down all the posts you have done that on. I don’t have a couple of months of free time.
–
Then how will I know that there are hundreds of such posts? Seems you set up apremise that you want accepted but you do not wish to defend
Why don’t you and eugene get together and discuss it?
March 14th, 2009 at 7:50 pmI don’t need to back up well known facts. Eugene says it’s a waste of time. “The sky is blue” so to speak.
You’re boring.
Bye.
March 14th, 2009 at 8:00 pmhttp://www.cnn.com/ 2008/ WORLD/ meast/ 12/ 04/ iraq.security/ index.html
The agreement, reached after months of negotiations, sets June 30, 2009, as the deadline for U.S. combat troops to withdraw from all Iraqi cities and towns. The date for all U.S. troops to leave Iraq is December 31, 2011.
Thanks for the post #294 eugene. I wouldn’t of guessed you would ever give George Bush credit for ending the war so to speak. Even if Obama is going to keep 50 thousand troops in Iraq for an undetermined period of time beyond that date.
March 14th, 2009 at 8:16 pmYou’re not boring, jay.
As a self-professed student of language, I find you fascinating. I’m always intrigued by those who seem of reasonable intelligence, yet exhibit signs of being completely incapable of digesting certain concepts.
It’s a puzzle. What is the cause? Is there a trick to opening that window? Is it psychological? Developmental? Ideological?
March 14th, 2009 at 8:54 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
jay Says:
You’re boring.
Bye.
You’re not boring, jay.
As a self-professed student of language, I find you fascinating. I’m always intrigued by those who seem of reasonable intelligence, yet exhibit signs of being completely incapable of digesting certain concepts.
It’s a puzzle. What is the cause? Is there a trick to opening that window? Is it psychological? Developmental? Ideological?
No games Ralph. What about eugene giving George Bush the credit for ending the Iraq war? Wasn’t that something?
March 14th, 2009 at 9:28 pm“No games”?
What do you call What about eugene giving George Bush the credit for ending the Iraq war?
Is that intended as as erious question?
‘Cause it sure seems like what you might consider a “game” to me.
Still fascinating, though.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:44 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
jay Says:
No games Ralph. What about eugene giving George Bush the credit for ending the Iraq war? Wasn’t that something?
“No games”?
What do you call What about eugene giving George Bush the credit for ending the Iraq war?
Is that intended as as erious question?
‘Cause it sure seems like what you might consider a “game” to me.
Still fascinating, though.
No Ralph. He did. I just wanted your opinion of it. I thought it was quite nice of him to do it. I was surprised.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:50 pmMy opinion of it, jay, is that you are playing the same kind of “game” that you have spent hours decrying here. Seems a bit beneath you. Or maybe not.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:58 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
My opinion of it, jay, is that you are playing the same kind of “game” that you have spent hours decrying here. Seems a bit beneath you. Or maybe not.
No way Ralph. Post # 294. Hey I was shocked by it. No game really.
March 14th, 2009 at 10:00 pmNo games Ralph. I was rereading the posts of the days conversation trying to learn how I could be more specific and clear in what I post and I came across post # 294. While reading it I noticed the URL from him.
I read it and that’s what it said. I was kinda shocked but there it was.
March 14th, 2009 at 10:08 pmOh, I see, jay. Rather than recognize the fallacy of your oft-repeated claim that “Obama said that he was going to keep troops in Iraq for as long as they are needed. 5 years, 10 years, 50, years, who knows right now, maybe 100 years? “ you decided to try to cast Eugene’s link debunking your talking point as a triumph of Bush.
Good thing you don’t play “games”. I was a little worried about you for a minute there.
March 14th, 2009 at 10:12 pmI thought it was nice of him, don’t you think. I still think that there will be troops in Iraq for quite a while though. How long will be left up to history.
But the war will be over right?
March 14th, 2009 at 10:17 pmIt was Bush who signed the agreement that eugene is using to make his point, isn’t it? I kinda remember something like that happening last year didn’t you?
March 14th, 2009 at 10:21 pm#
#
ralph the wonder llama Says:
Oh, I see, jay. Rather than recognize the fallacy of your oft-repeated claim that “Obama said that he was going to keep troops in Iraq for as long as they are needed.
He did say that didn’t he? He said as many as 50 thousand troops. Nancy Pelosi said she only wanted 21 thousand troops left behind but Obama is the President.
March 14th, 2009 at 10:26 pmNow that’s an interesting twist, jay… earlier today, you were objecting to me taking your quotes “out of context” because I did not include your entire comment, even though what I selected did not change the meaning of hat you said.
Now here you are, taking yourself out of context in the same way (by truncating a quote of yours that i had cited), but this time actually changing the meaning by eliminating the objectionable elements of 5 years, 10 years, 50, years, who knows right now, maybe 100 years? Remarkable effort,e specially in light of your earlier forceful stance.
You are a fascinating case study, jay. I must say.
Good thing you’re not into “games”.
March 14th, 2009 at 10:35 pm50,000 combat troops to remain in Iraq after “withdrawal”
Submitted by WW4 Report on Thu, 02/26/2009 – 20:44.
Some US forces likely to remain in Iraq after President Barack Obama fulfills his pledge to “withdraw combat troops” would still have a combat role, unnamed Pentagon officials told the New York Times. Obama plans to announce his withdrawal strategy this week, and is expected to choose a compromise 19-month plan that leaves behind as many as 50,000 troops for clean-up and protection operations—potentially for years to come.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfhdtLK0aTM
March 14th, 2009 at 10:42 pmSo the subject offers no response to my point about such a staunch opponent of “taking things out of context” committing a blatant offense of the very same act.
Strange. It’s almost as if his previous declaration of “no games” was a ruse.
Remarkable case study. I may have to bring my colleague dbadass in to consult on this one. I know he’ll be interested.
March 14th, 2009 at 10:47 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
jay Says:
ralph the wonder llama Says:
Oh, I see, jay. Rather than recognize the fallacy of your oft-repeated claim that “Obama said that he was going to keep troops in Iraq for as long as they are needed.
He did say that didn’t he? He said as many as 50 thousand troops. Nancy Pelosi said she only wanted 21 thousand troops left behind but Obama is the President.
Now that’s an interesting twist, jay… earlier today, you were objecting to me taking your quotes “out of context” because I did not include your entire comment, even though what I selected did not change the meaning of hat you said.
Now here you are, taking yourself out of context in the same way (by truncating a quote of yours that i had cited), but this time actually changing the meaning by eliminating the objectionable elements of 5 years, 10 years, 50, years, who knows right now, maybe 100 years? Remarkable effort,e specially in light of your earlier forceful stance.
You are a fascinating case study, jay. I must say.
Good thing you’re not into “games”.
Not interested in a discussion Ralph. Fine. Just say so.
March 14th, 2009 at 10:47 pmSee ya.
Yes, you’ve made that quite clear. So be it. A researcher should never try to force a study subject to do anything. It can skew the resulting research.
Just do whatever feels natural at this point. I’ll observe.
March 14th, 2009 at 10:50 pmNow that’s an interesting twist, jay… earlier today, you were objecting to me taking your quotes “out of context” because I did not include your entire comment, even though what I selected did not change the meaning of hat you said.
Now here you are, taking yourself out of context in the same way (by truncating a quote of yours that i had cited), but this time actually changing the meaning by eliminating the objectionable elements of 5 years, 10 years, 50, years, who knows right now, maybe 100 years? Remarkable effort,e specially in light of your earlier forceful stance.
Total nonsense Ralph. Starting another argument about nothing. Strange. You are a person who should be studied a little more though. Always going back to an argument that has nothing to do with the present discussion. I’ll check for a psychosis that might explain that reaction.
I’ll study on it.
March 14th, 2009 at 10:54 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
jay Says:
Not interested in a discussion Ralph.
Yes, you’ve made that quite clear. So be it. A researcher should never try to force a study subject to do anything. It can skew the resulting research.
Just do whatever feels natural at this point. I’ll observe.
Cop out Ralph. Did I quote you correctly Ralph?
March 14th, 2009 at 10:55 pm(Note: as the subject’s inconsistency is pointed out to him, subject reacts badly, accuses researcher of “starting another argument about nothing”, rather than acknowledging the inconsistency.
Perhaps best to refrain from pointing out subject’s inconsistencies in the future. Just smile and play along. That seems to keep the subject more docile. When challenged, subject seems to adopt behavior characteristics modeled by researcher. This could seriously derail the study.)
Yes, jay, you’re absolutely right, my friend.
Would you like another raisin bagel?
March 14th, 2009 at 11:08 pmSo, jay… what would you like to discuss?
Pay no attention to that tape recorder… it’s not even on.
March 14th, 2009 at 11:11 pmNow here you are, taking yourself out of context in the same way (by truncating a quote of yours that i had cited), but this time actually changing the meaning by eliminating the objectionable elements of 5 years, 10 years, 50, years, who knows right now, maybe 100 years? Remarkable effort,e specially in light of your earlier forceful stance.
I can do anything I want with my own statements. They are mine and the right is only mine. My opinion hasn’t changed. We will see how long troops stay in Iraq. Only history will tell.
You however keep trying your games on me and I don’t play games. You’re just another person with a phobia like Gnusiophoia or Eremophobia or Eremiphobia. Maybe not but you do have something.
March 14th, 2009 at 11:24 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
So, jay… what would you like to discuss?
Pay no attention to that tape recorder… it’s not even on.
We will never have a conversation where you won’t try to back me into a corner.
Sorry Ralph. I thought we could but you have proven that you can’t. What ever is driving you Ralph, I truly hope you get over it. You seem like a nice guy to me but a conversation is not possible between us.
See ya.
March 14th, 2009 at 11:28 pmYou’re right, jay… I was playing games, and you clearly don’t ever play games.
it was rude of me to suggest that you were playing games.
You weren’t even inconsistent. That was more of me playing games. You were absolutely dead-on consistent with everything you said about yourself, your standards and your beliefs.
You clearly don’t play games. Not with me, not with Eugene, not with anyone. It’s completely understandable that you would object to others playing games, when anyone can see you don’t.
Now… how about that bagel?
March 14th, 2009 at 11:31 pmgreat
sikis
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:23 pmporno izle
porno videolar
porn videos