Obama's "bitter" remark

thrust: heh.

[quote name='Heavy Hitter'](especially not surprising if you consider Wikipedia's slant in the first place)[/QUOTE]

Wow. Just...wow. wikipedia is never a perfect resource due to its nature, but its nature of democratically created information with equal opportunity for editing by any and all being claimed to have a bias (which we presume, given your use of it as a negative point if the site, to be a "left-leaning bias") shows how desperately you cling to your ideologies.

What *doesn't* have a left-leaning bias? The way y'all have reacted over the past few weeks (and years in many cases), the following are all insidious merchants and compatriots of the vast left-wing conspiracy:

The entire news media
All scientific research that doesn't support conservative ideology
Online databases that can be edited by anyone

...what's left at this point? What *doesn't* have a liberal bias? At what point might you look at the world around you, see information that contradicts your worldview, and stop criticizing the world for failing to meet *your* needs?
 
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']So you have nothing useful to back up what you say? Interesting since you've tried to chide others for the same.[/QUOTE]

I guess you do not hear much news under your bridge.

Are you capable of doing a google search? You should not whine because you are completely ignorant and no one will do your homework for you.
 
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']You're calling me a troll while you engage in trollery. That'd be brilliant if it wasn't completely stupid.[/QUOTE]

Pointing out an ignoramus is not trolling.
 
Heavy Hitter, you remind me that no matter what I support I should remember not to do it as blindly as you do. For that, I thank you.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']thrust: heh.



Wow. Just...wow. wikipedia is never a perfect resource due to its nature, but its nature of democratically created information with equal opportunity for editing by any and all being claimed to have a bias (which we presume, given your use of it as a negative point if the site, to be a "left-leaning bias") shows how desperately you cling to your ideologies.

What *doesn't* have a left-leaning bias? The way y'all have reacted over the past few weeks (and years in many cases), the following are all insidious merchants and compatriots of the vast left-wing conspiracy:

The entire news media
All scientific research that doesn't support conservative ideology
Online databases that can be edited by anyone

...what's left at this point? What *doesn't* have a liberal bias? At what point might you look at the world around you, see information that contradicts your worldview, and stop criticizing the world for failing to meet *your* needs?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I'd say Wiki has a Leftist slant. Guess you'd say otherwise.

As far as the rest of what you wrote, you're taking 2 other sources I listed (which are Leftist no matter how you slice it), and then making blanket statements that no one said.

As far as your last paragraph goes, I appreciate the heartfelt advice. Maybe you're right. Maybe I can change. Or maybe you're just talking out of your ass. I'll have to think about it.
 
*sigh* I'll follow along with your rambling changing of subjects while you evade defeat of each prior talking point of yours (you never did, after all, provide anything of substance, whether talking about SWFT, Obama, wiki bias, unless you consider the claim of NYT liberal bias a taken-for-granted conclusion - which it is not, outside of the editorial page).

Explain to me HOW wiki can be biased based on its very nature? If something is worded in a way you find incorrect, then edit it! That's wikipedia! The very IDEA that it is irrevocably biased is blind stupidity; wikipedia can be changed, shaped, and formed more than any individual. It's the most useful tool if you want to influence people via a neutral resource. But instead of changing it (or realizing that your worldview is slanted because you get hot n' bothered that People for the American Way are described as "progressive" instead of "liberal"), you bitch and throw a fit, and claim that, instead of your ideology being wrongheaded and idiotic, the world is against you.

That's like the ol' Republican tautology when they're in power. They get elected because people don't trust government to take care of things, and when the Republicans catastrophically fuck things up the way only Republicans can, they cite this as evidence that the government can't be trusted and Republicans must be elected to make sure that doesn't happen!
 
The remark didn't bother me, but it was a poor choice of words that gave his opposition some ammo. A lot of truth in them, but lumping it with the gun and religion card (though again I agree--but I'm also definitely a bit of an elitist) isn't politically smart.

Though another story said Hillary got Jeered for bringing it up today or yesterday, so these negative attacks could be backfiring strongly on her.
 
[quote name='mykevermin'] don't doubt the Democrat party's stupidity.[/quote]

Well said.

The Republicans are evil, and have no fucking clue how to run a 7-11 nevermind a country, but they are evil and now how to spin shit.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']*sigh* I'll follow along with your rambling changing of subjects while you evade defeat of each prior talking point of yours (you never did, after all, provide anything of substance, whether talking about SWFT, Obama, wiki bias, unless you consider the claim of NYT liberal bias a taken-for-granted conclusion - which it is not, outside of the editorial page).

Explain to me HOW wiki can be biased based on its very nature? If something is worded in a way you find incorrect, then edit it! That's wikipedia! The very IDEA that it is irrevocably biased is blind stupidity; wikipedia can be changed, shaped, and formed more than any individual. It's the most useful tool if you want to influence people via a neutral resource. But instead of changing it (or realizing that your worldview is slanted because you get hot n' bothered that People for the American Way are described as "progressive" instead of "liberal"), you bitch and throw a fit, and claim that, instead of your ideology being wrongheaded and idiotic, the world is against you.

That's like the ol' Republican tautology when they're in power. They get elected because people don't trust government to take care of things, and when the Republicans catastrophically fuck things up the way only Republicans can, they cite this as evidence that the government can't be trusted and Republicans must be elected to make sure that doesn't happen![/QUOTE]

It's a nice idea that anyone can edit anything they want in Wikipedia, but the true power (and therefore content) is in the hands of the handpicked Admins.

Am I happy with the Republican party these days? No, and I've said as much before. I don't know what's going on at the RNC and further up, but someone should remind them to properly represent their base.

And the only one bitching and throwing a fit is you. You blow everything out of proportion and name-call.
 
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']It's a nice idea that anyone can edit anything they want in Wikipedia, but the true power (and therefore content) is in the hands of the handpicked Admins.

Am I happy with the Republican party these days? No, and I've said as much before. I don't know what's going on at the RNC and further up, but someone should remind them to properly represent their base.

And the only one bitching and throwing a fit is you. You blow everything out of proportion and name-call.[/QUOTE]

Is there anything that you do know?

Anyhoo the Republicans are certainly doing what their base wants such as continuing to support torture etc.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Is there anything that you do know?

Anyhoo the Republicans are certainly doing what their base wants such as continuing to support torture etc.[/QUOTE]

:roll: If your going to drive-by fire bomb such silly dailykos talking points....

And Democrats continue to do what their base wants, such as unwanted babies, theological assassination, globalization, and eternally increasing government interference of our lives.

Touche.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']:roll: If your going to drive-by fire bomb such silly dailykos talking points....

And Democrats continue to do what their base wants, such as unwanted babies, theological assassination, globalization, and eternally increasing government interference of our lives.

Touche.[/quote]You realize that every political party plays to their base, thats kinda the point. Otherwise we wouldn't even have parties.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket'] If you are going to drive-by fire bomb such silly dailykos talking points....[/QUOTE]

I know that facts and well reality is not your forte but Bush knew about and allowed illegal torture.

You can whine and act even more like a moron than usual but that is the truth.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I know that facts and well reality is not your forte but Bush knew about and allowed illegal torture.[/quote]

And Bill Clinton knew about and furthered the cause of killing unborn humans. So does that make all Democrats guilty of that particular moral view? See how stupid generalizations make you look foolish yet?

Not everyone considers a techniques that every military and CIA intelligence officer must endure through in training, torture. Some people consider being yelled at torture.

But that's another discussion. And one we've had here, that goes in circles forever.

The point is, to make a blanket statement generalization that the majority of a political party all feel the same on one issue, automatically makes you fail on this topic.

Your reality seems to more and more only exist by the engine of generalization.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']You realize that every political party plays to their base, thats kinda the point. Otherwise we wouldn't even have parties.[/QUOTE]

Of course I realize that. But saying that the republican base loves torture, without further explanation, is beyond moronic.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']See how stupid generalizations make you look foolish yet?[/QUOTE]

I see a whole lot of stupid and quite a bit of foolishness.

Not everyone considers a techniques that every military and CIA intelligence officer must endure through in training, torture.
Click to expand...

Do you care about the rule of law, can you even begin to understand what that means?

It does not matter what "not everyone" thinks, and the issue has more to it than just waterboarding as horrible as that is.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Of course I realize that. But saying that the republican base loves torture, without further explanation, is beyond moronic.[/QUOTE]

The majority of them support it McCain flip flopped on the matter and most have defended it.

You can call it whatever you wish "love" or whatever but you are just being an idiot again.
 
[quote name='Msut77']
Do you care about the rule of law, can you even begin to understand what that means?[/quote]
I only care about the rule of law when I believe it's right. Especially international law.
Do you care about the rule of law in most states where gay marriage is illegal?

The majority of them support it McCain flip flopped on the matter and most have defended it.
Click to expand...

The majority of republicans DON'T LIKE McCAIN. They feel cornered into voting for what they perceive is the lesser of the evils.

You can call it whatever you wish "love" or whatever but you are just being an idiot again.
Click to expand...

I'm starting to see why so many CAG's have put you on ignore. It's obvious, because I am the one "idiot" enough to keep responding to you. Thinking about putting you on ignore myself.

Always such thought provoking, philosophical, party-line-towing, canned response. It's such a pleasure to continue to be called names and read your next generalization. I disagree with a lot of CAG's in this forum, but at least most of them can carry on a civil conversation.

You remind me of the kid in the schoolyard running around saying "my daddy can beat up your daddy".
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I only care about the rule of law when I believe it's right.[/QUOTE]

I am sorry I can no longer tell when cons are being serious or not.

The majority of republicans DON'T LIKE McCAIN
Click to expand...

They liked him more than any of the other Republicans out there.

You remind me of the kid in the schoolyard running around saying "my daddy can beat up your daddy".
Click to expand...

You are quite the whiny little dunce aren't you? I am picking on you because I do not go after assorted strawmen, red herrings and ridiculous equivcation?
 
[quote name='Msut77']I am sorry I can no longer tell when cons are being serious or not.[/quote]

Again with the labels.

What is a con? It's obviously meant in a derogatory manor. Please give me examples of these "con's" you associate me with.
What makes you better than them?
And please diagram out for me why you classify me as one.

They liked him more than any of the other Republicans out there.
Click to expand...

I guess maybe where I am getting the confusion is that I keep thinking conservatives. You did say Republican.
Conservatives don't like him. And the republican party hasn't been conservative, nor had a real conservative candidate, for nearly two decades.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']What is a con? It's obviously meant in a derogatory manner.[/QUOTE]

Conservative. Or so called Conservatives as it were.

What makes you better than them?
Click to expand...

The current and some what recent batch?

Basically everything. Especially considering the astonishing admission that you do not give a darn about the rule of law (assuming that you were not joking). It is not astonishing that you feel that way because it is fairly common among reps and cons it is just amazing how you come out and admitted it.
 
Obama already came off as the "I am better than you" person before this bitter remark. It's interesting that people accused Gore and Kerry of acting like elitists, but I never felt that way about them. But with Obama, I can totally feel that way without anyone bringing it up. It might be due to Obama talking like he's the next Messiah that we all need to worship, though that comes off more as delusional or sinister.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Conservative. Or so called Conservatives as it were.[/quote]

I don't consider myself conservative. Most likely, much more conservative than you. But that doesn't mean I'm conservative, it might just mean you are extremely liberal.

But I know many people that consider themselves conservatives that I do not agree with.


Basically everything. Especially considering the astonishing admission that you do not give a darn about the rule of law (assuming that you were not joking). It is not astonishing that you feel that way because it is fairly common among reps and cons it is just amazing how you come out and admitted it.
Click to expand...

Ok, let me try and be more clear. I do not agree with rule of law, when the law is wrong. In that sense, no I do not give a darn about it. That isn't to say that I believe it should be broken or disregarded.

You never answered my question about gay marriage law. I am assuming, by your ultra-leftist views, that you disagree with many laws in this country. Then it could be said you don't give a darn about those laws either. That doesn't make you a law breaker either.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I don't consider myself conservative. Most likely, much more conservative than you. But that doesn't mean I'm conservative, it might just mean you are extremely liberal.[/quote]

I am not that liberal, do you mean to tell you consider yourself a centrist or a moderate etc.?

But I know many people that consider themselves conservatives that I do not agree with.
Click to expand...

You do not have to agree with every single conservative ever to be considered a conservative.

I cannot believe this has to be explained to you.

I will agree that Liberal and Conservative are very broad labels but the alternative is to list every single possible issue so for the most part people recognize they tend to fall into one camp and not the other.

IMHO recently most independent/moderates/centrists tend to be right wingers that are just horribly ashamed.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I am not that liberal, do you mean to tell you consider yourself a centrist or a moderate etc.?[/quote]

If you can't tell, I'm anti-label. I try not to label myself. But if forced to, yes I will admit I'm of a conservative leaning on many things (small government, more power to local governments, abolishing many Federal agencies).

But I also don't believe in a strong foreign policy or presence. I don't believe the government should interfere with people's lives in most cases - unless it's life or death. I don't believe it's governments job to attempt to "make things fair", in most cases.

The only guarantee the government should give is "the right to pursue happiness". Meaning, the right to pursue whatever we want, as long as it doesn't harm others, and we do it self-sufficiently. IMHO, recently they mostly interfere with that, when they should stay out of the way to allow it.

I also don't believe it's governments job to push morality. I am very anti censorship. I strongly believe in being open to ideas that progress society. I believe very much in tolerance and open-mindedness. I am somewhat of an environmentalist, I want to conserve nature in a smart way and reduce pollution. I am very much for equality and civil rights, and I get behind anything that promotes making skin color/sexual orientation/religious beliefs not matter to a society (unlike all mainstream media).

So I guess now you can decide for yourself what I am. If the above makes me a neo-con, so be it.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']If you can't tell, I'm anti-label. I try not to label myself. But if forced to, yes I will admit I'm of a conservative leaning on many things (small government, more power to local governments, abolishing many Federal agencies).

But I also don't believe in a strong foreign policy or presence. I don't believe the government should interfere with people's lives in most cases - unless it's life or death. I don't believe it's governments job to attempt to "make things fair", in most cases.

The only guarantee the government should give is "the right to pursue happiness". Meaning, the right to pursue whatever we want, as long as it doesn't harm others, and we do it self-sufficiently. IMHO, recently they mostly interfere with that, when they should stay out of the way to allow it.

I also don't believe it's governments job to push morality. I am very anti censorship. I strongly believe in being open to ideas that progress society. I believe very much in tolerance and open-mindedness. I am somewhat of an environmentalist, I want to conserve nature in a smart way and reduce pollution. I am very much for equality and civil rights, and I get behind anything that promotes making skin color/sexual orientation/religious beliefs not matter to a society (unlike all mainstream media).

So I guess now you can decide for yourself what I am. If the above makes me a neo-con, so be it.[/QUOTE]

You have heard about the Libertarian movement correct?
 
[quote name='Msut77']You have heard about the Libertarian movement correct?[/QUOTE]

Yes, and I agree with them on many things. I have a friend that quit his job to go work for Ron Paul, and he was always trying to recruit me.

There are some things about them though, that just don't sit right. Mostly with foreign policy - they tend to be a little too extreme.

That being said, I'm probably much more likely to vote for a libertarian than the current crop of dem and reps.
 
[quote name='Msut77']You have heard about the Libertarian movement correct?[/quote]

Do you really need to pigeonhole him to have a debate with him?
 
[quote name='looploop']Do you really need to pigeonhole him to have a debate with him?[/QUOTE]

Not really, but what he said was pretty standard libertarian boilerplate.

Got anymore stupid questions?
 
"You know, he [Bush] wants to divide us over race. I'm from the South. I understand this. This quota deal they're gonna pull in the next election is the same old scam they've been pulling on us for decade after decade after decade. When their economic policies fail, when the country's coming apart rather than coming together, what do they do? They find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them. They know if they can keep us looking at each other across a racial divide, if I can look at Bobby Rush and think, Bobby wants my job, my promotion, then neither of us can look at George Bush and say, 'What happened to everybody's job? What happened to everybody's income? What ... have ... you ... done ... to ... our ... country?'"

Bill Clinton 1991
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']"You know, he [Bush] wants to divide us over race. I'm from the South. I understand this. This quota deal they're gonna pull in the next election is the same old scam they've been pulling on us for decade after decade after decade. When their economic policies fail, when the country's coming apart rather than coming together, what do they do? They find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them. They know if they can keep us looking at each other across a racial divide, if I can look at Bobby Rush and think, Bobby wants my job, my promotion, then neither of us can look at George Bush and say, 'What happened to everybody's job? What happened to everybody's income? What ... have ... you ... done ... to ... our ... country?'"

Bill Clinton 1991[/QUOTE]

Both sides of the aisle are very guilty of racial division for political gain. But from what I've seen, it's been far more of a tool used by the Democrats the past year or two.

Oh and it doesn't help that media has everything to gain by conflict and perpetuation of division.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
Oh and it doesn't help that media has everything to gain by conflict and perpetuation of division.[/quote]



I am in 100% agreement with this, they have 24 hours of news coverage they need to fill, so they dig for stories that stick and beat the life out of them
 
so just to stir the pot a little bit... i noticed a lot of people say they agree with obama. but whats wrong with "clinging" to religion or being bitter about illegal immigration?
 
It's ignoring the larger structural and power-based causes of our current economic woes?

Clinging to God is just fine; being bitter is just fine; IMO, misguided aggression is damaging and does nothing to solve the issues causing problems in the first place (economic stratification).
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I only care about the rule of law when I believe it's right. [/quote]

That's very Che of you. I can see why you changed your avatar.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']That's very Che of you. I can see why you changed your avatar.[/QUOTE]

I guess you must have missed the part where I explained that even if you don't agree with law, it's no reason to disregard it.

When I disagree with law or policy I don't go round up those that disagree with me and execute them. So I fail to see your analogy.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I guess you must have missed the part where I explained that even if you don't agree with law, it's no reason to disregard it.

When I disagree with law or policy I don't go round up those that disagree with me and execute them. So I fail to see your analogy.[/quote]

If you go against a law, aren't you a rebel?

Wasn't Che a rebel?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If you go against a law, aren't you a rebel?

Wasn't Che a rebel?[/QUOTE]

There is still a difference. I am sure there are laws you disagree with, it doesn't make you a rebel.

Acting out violently against laws you disagree with, makes you a rebel.
 
I'm still amazed at how legions of voters can swayed against their economic self-interests to vote republican each election. (I realize this is a gross oversimplification, but. . . ) If 60% of this country's wealth is held by just five percent of the population, how does the less economically fortunate majority of their voting pool justify continuing to vote for tax cuts for the wealthy? There are only so many laws they can enact against gay, flag-burning abortionists.
 
[quote name='MaxBiaggi3']I'm still amazed at how legions of voters can swayed against their economic self-interests to vote republican each election. (I realize this is a gross oversimplification, but. . . ) If 60% of this country's wealth is held by just five percent of the population, how does the less economically fortunate majority of their voting pool justify continuing to vote for tax cuts for the wealthy? There are only so many laws they can enact against gay, flag-burning abortionists.[/QUOTE]

I don't know any middle-class person that votes republican because they want to give tax cuts to the rich (except the rich). They vote republican (economically) because they are afraid of wealth redistribution forced upon everyone but those in poverty.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I don't know any middle-class person that votes republican because they want to give tax cuts to the rich (except the rich). They vote republican (economically) because they are afraid of wealth redistribution forced upon everyone but those in poverty.[/quote]


yes they prefer redistribution of wealth upward as it has been for the past 8 years
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I don't know any middle-class person that votes republican because they want to give tax cuts to the rich (except the rich). They vote republican (economically) because they are afraid of wealth redistribution forced upon everyone but those in poverty.[/QUOTE]

That's it for some.

But a lot of people (in both parties) don't even think about those types of issues and just vote on the hot button moral issues like abortion, capitol punishment, or vote republican as they think that person will be tougher on terrorism etc. etc.

And many more just vote straight party lines without even looking at where the candidates stand on any particular issues.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']yes they prefer redistribution of wealth upward as it has been for the past 8 years[/QUOTE]

That's a huge generalization. The top 5% of rich people pay over half of all income tax. The top 1% pay 19% of all income tax. Where would you be happy exactly? You want the top 5% to pay 75%? 90%? 100%?

Combine this with the shrinking middle class almost directionally proportional to the growing upper class, and what would you like to "fix" exactly?

I am a proponent of the government only facilitating "the pursuit of happiness" as long as it doesn't hurt others. If it makes someone happy to work hard and become rich, then let them. Don't punish them. Don't put programs and policies in place to hamper it any more than we already have.

When Democrats promise to force government to stay out of the "pursuit of happiness" as far as economics go, then I'll start to take them seriously.



[quote name='dmaul1114']That's it for some.

But a lot of people (in both parties) don't even think about those types of issues and just vote on the hot button moral issues like abortion, capitol punishment, or vote republican as they think that person will be tougher on terrorism etc. etc.

And many more just vote straight party lines without even looking at where the candidates stand on any particular issues.[/QUOTE]

This is very true. And a tragedy. If more people were educated about both parties, the higher chance we'd have in getting some new blood on the ballots after people learn why they should be disgusted in Republicats and Democuns.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Combine this with the shrinking middle class almost directionally proportional to the growing upper class, and what would you like to "fix" exactly?[/QUOTE]

I know you like to make claims instead of actually finding facts or sources, but I implore you to source this for me. Because I don't believe it one fuckin' bit.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I know you like to make claims instead of actually finding facts or sources, but I implore you to source this for me. Because I don't believe it one fuckin' bit.[/QUOTE]

Of course you don't believe it. Big surprise. That's one of the most popular Liberal/Democrat talking points, and one you fully embrace.

And the reason I rarely supply you with sources is because much like like pundits like Bill O'Rielly, if you disagree with a claim, your next step is to attack the source and pick it apart, regardless of the source. Your mind is already made up on 99% of all issues. You've made that clear. And you certainly are not going to have your mind changed by some dude on a video game forum. Hell or high water, you'll make sure the sources provided get crushed. Ultimately you only believe the sources that agree with your agenda though, so it's circular.

That being said, I'll test this theory and fall for your ploy this once.

Here is a Washington Post article.

Here is an article by an economist named Stephen Rose, who works(worked?) for a liberal think tank.

Now I'll stand back, as your source hammer comes out, and watch the sparks. Oh, and don't bother to inundate me with your barrage of links to information showing the opposite. I believe you. There are sources out there for every agenda. That's why there are agendas in the first place, all over the spectrum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top