Obama takes one step forward
-
Uh, this is so tiresome.
Your claim was that I was drinking the Obama Kool-Aid, and that I swooned and fell for everything he said. And when pressed, you couldn't find an example of me doing that. Not one.
But you can find me noting that people are inspired by Obama, which is clearly true and hardly controversial. So now that's your evidence that I'm swooning - because I noted that some people find him inspiring. Even though they're two different things.
And then you think you've won something.
Well, congratulations.
And then we pretend that you've somehow poked all sorts of holes in the arguments for a cap and trade system by presenting bizarre scenarios that have no real world application and make no point. Then you suggest it's some big offense that I admitted that I don't know what the particulars of the administration's plan will turn out to be. Maybe that's because the plan is still being drawn up and considered, and no one knows what shape it will take. Maybe that's because we're arguing the broad strokes. Maybe if you'd read any of the reports in the thread that Tupa started, or the one I started a few weeks ago, you'd see me disagreeing with one approach that the Obama administration is currently considering, which I think will be a disaster. But you don't, because those reports are long and involved and seemingly over your head.
So congrats again on showing me up on cap and trade. I really hope this is doing wonders for your ego.
Then come the slurs: I hate Christians (I should inform my wife and family), Obama's camp is racist. And I'm not aware of one political hack appointment, or evidence of cronyism, in the Obama administration. It doesn't seem like you know what the terms mean. Much like "quota." And I don't know who these appointments are who are supposedly dismantling the Constitution. Where are you getting this, from T? Rush?
There's not a single thing you just wrote that's honest or thoughtful. It's all animus. And all your evidence of me supposedly shilling is baseless, and all your suppositions are wrong.
But again, congrats.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to hate Christians and remind Tupa what a bigot he is because he doesn't agree with me on gay marriage. And that I hate his Christian ass too.
-
Note to Heck:
I posted a very legit response, and challenged your analogy about Obama lying about what he
really believes to get elected (which you clearly said you agreed with) -
And you smart off to Steve and you run and hide.
And THAT, is the problem. With all the put downs from you,
Steve and I have tried to get you to explain yourself, and
all that times is "ad hominem" or "Why do I bother to try"...
Trrrrrry to talk about the issues, and trrrrrrry to answer questions instead
of dishing out more slightly veiled putdowns referring to your imagined
superiority in the discussion.
We could actually converse about real substance. Try it, really, it works.
-
Cal, what I wrote wasn't an ad hominem attack. It was a personal attack. It was my opinion. They're two different things.
And I've learned long ago that having a discussion with you about issues is a complete waste of time. Plus, I answered your question. You wanted an example of where I disagreed with Obama and I gave you one. You wanted an example of me agreeing with Bush. Well, I didn't agree with Bush very often because he was a really lousy president who shared virtually none of my views. But I did have a bunch of posts on his good work in Africa, and with AIDS in Africa, which I remember you posting on. He set aside two enormous marine sanctuaries, one off the coast of Hawaii and another off the Marianas, that I was very happy about. I thought the first few weeks of the war in Afghanistan were executed very well. I liked his appointment of Robert Gates. I can think of some others, but mostly I thought his decisions ranged somewhere from poorly-considered to ill-advised to tragically inept an even un-American. I think he was a really shitty president, and left the nation in a sizeable hole when he left.
-
As for Steve, I'd like to know which appointments Obama has made are "un vetted political hacks" and examples of cronyism. You know, since you accused me of ignoring all of them because I'm so partisan.
Maybe it's that I think Bush appointed a bunch, and as of yet I don't see any evidence that Obama has. Maybe it's because I believe these two unlike things are not the same.
So names please. Who are these crony appointments and hacks in the Obama administration?
-
Okay, Heck. I'll grant you the Bush agreements, but I really didn't remember any.
As far as putting me down for wasting time "discussing" with me -
I don't think Al and I were "wasting our time" talking about the Mideast.
Perhaps you should try being legitimately responsive more often.
You know... communication is a two way street.
And, you divert to "ad hominem" complaints in avoiding legit questions.
That is what I said. What I meant.
But, you once again ignore the truth - you don't disagree with Obama on
anything. You give an example of disagreeing with his saying what he believes about
"gay marriage", but you agree that he said it because it's good to lie to get
elected if your favorite politician lies.
So, in affect, you agree with Obama again, regardless.
Trying to get you to stop skirting around pointed questions that
you just change the subject in avoiding... is a waste of time.
But, a challenge none the less.
BTW, ad hominem whining doesn't make you look like you answered the
posts by others. Just so ya know (my helpful hint for the day)
-
Who are these hacks in the Obama administration? Heck
**********************************************
ROF,LMAO !!!! For the first time Heck was hilarious !!!!!!!!!
(or... was it unintentional..... hmmm....)
-
Name one.
-
Trinity United or St John's? (But like I said I;'m willing to accept your argument that Obama's merely a power hungry liar.)
Also, they have the same positions of gay rights. Got that too.
Sorry. What gay rights are being denied?
Thanks for clearing that up. Where would we all be without this insight?
And thanks again for mischaracterizing a comment when you are unable to respond.
And thanks for proving once again you're nothing more than a flack.
And where would the conversation be without me?
It'd be you shilling for the empty suit ad infinitum.
Glad to help.
WSS
Everyone once in a while you say something intelligent and I begin to think, maybe Steve's not just a blubbering vagina moron.
Then you post something like this.
xxxxing idiot
-
Note to Heck:
I posted a very legit response, and challenged your analogy about Obama lying about what he
really believes to get elected (which you clearly said you agreed with) -
And you smart off to Steve and you run and hide.
And THAT, is the problem. With all the put downs from you,
Steve and I have tried to get you to explain yourself, and
all that times is "ad hominem" or "Why do I bother to try"...
Trrrrrry to talk about the issues, and trrrrrrry to answer questions instead
of dishing out more slightly veiled putdowns referring to your imagined
superiority in the discussion.
We could actually converse about real substance. Try it, really, it works.
We could actually converse about real substance. Try it, really, it works.
Reading this over and over used to make me chuckle. Then it made me angry. Now it just makes me sad.
CAL - as heck said and as I've been saying for awhile now, there is a reason nobody actually "converses about real substance" with you.
-
Okay, Heck. I'll grant you the Bush agreements, but I really didn't remember any.
As far as putting me down for wasting time "discussing" with me -
I don't think Al and I were "wasting our time" talking about the Mideast.
Perhaps you should try being legitimately responsive more often.
You know... communication is a two way street.
And, you divert to "ad hominem" complaints in avoiding legit questions.
That is what I said. What I meant.
But, you once again ignore the truth - you don't disagree with Obama on
anything. You give an example of disagreeing with his saying what he believes about
"gay marriage", but you agree that he said it because it's good to lie to get
elected if your favorite politician lies.
So, in affect, you agree with Obama again, regardless.
Trying to get you to stop skirting around pointed questions that
you just change the subject in avoiding... is a waste of time.
But, a challenge none the less.
BTW, ad hominem whining doesn't make you look like you answered the
posts by others. Just so ya know (my helpful hint for the day)
Okay, Heck. I'll grant you the Bush agreements, but I really didn't remember any.
As far as putting me down for wasting time "discussing" with me -
I don't think Al and I were "wasting our time" talking about the Mideast.
Perhaps you should try being legitimately responsive more often.
You know... communication is a two way street.
And, you divert to "ad hominem" complaints in avoiding legit questions.
That is what I said. What I meant.
But, you once again ignore the truth - you don't disagree with Obama on
anything. You give an example of disagreeing with his saying what he believes about
"gay marriage", but you agree that he said it because it's good to lie to get
elected if your favorite politician lies.
So, in affect, you agree with Obama again, regardless.
Trying to get you to stop skirting around pointed questions that
you just change the subject in avoiding... is a waste of time.
But, a challenge none the less.
BTW, ad hominem whining doesn't make you look like you answered the
posts by others. Just so ya know (my helpful hint for the day)
Cal, do you realize that every one of your posts starts out with getting your ass handed to you, and instead of admitting it.... you "don't remember"
How the hell do you people even survive day to day
-
I don't remember. How long ago was it?
I just asked the question. He didn't answer, then he did.
What is it about liberals acting like a bunch of
attack pack animals?
But Heck totally was wrong about his disagreement with Obama.
He agreed with Obama's lie to get elected.
So, he does't really disagree with Obama.
It proves my point - he doesn't/won't/can't really find fault with Obama's posturing.
So, Adimwit, do you have anything intelligent to add to this board?
I've yet to see you have any intelligent opinion on anything.
Heck has you beat by 20 light years.
-
Everyone once in a while you say something intelligent and I begin to think, maybe Steve's not just a blubbering vagina moron.
Then you post something like this.
xxxxing idiot
Well said ahh dumb.
Let's say I've yet to be surprised by any of your posts.
WSS
-
Uh, this is so tiresome.
Your claim was that I was drinking the Obama Kool-Aid, and that I swooned and fell for everything he said. And when pressed, you couldn't find an example of me doing that. Not one.
But you can find me noting that people are inspired by Obama, which is clearly true and hardly controversial. So now that's your evidence that I'm swooning - because I noted that some people find him inspiring. Even though they're two different things.
And then you think you've won something.
Well, congratulations.
And then we pretend that you've somehow poked all sorts of holes in the arguments for a cap and trade system by presenting bizarre scenarios that have no real world application and make no point. Then you suggest it's some big offense that I admitted that I don't know what the particulars of the administration's plan will turn out to be. Maybe that's because the plan is still being drawn up and considered, and no one knows what shape it will take. Maybe that's because we're arguing the broad strokes. Maybe if you'd read any of the reports in the thread that Tupa started, or the one I started a few weeks ago, you'd see me disagreeing with one approach that the Obama administration is currently considering, which I think will be a disaster. But you don't, because those reports are long and involved and seemingly over your head.
So congrats again on showing me up on cap and trade. I really hope this is doing wonders for your ego.
Then come the slurs: I hate Christians (I should inform my wife and family), Obama's camp is racist. And I'm not aware of one political hack appointment, or evidence of cronyism, in the Obama administration. It doesn't seem like you know what the terms mean. Much like "quota." And I don't know who these appointments are who are supposedly dismantling the Constitution. Where are you getting this, from T? Rush?
There's not a single thing you just wrote that's honest or thoughtful. It's all animus. And all your evidence of me supposedly shilling is baseless, and all your suppositions are wrong.
But again, congrats.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to hate Christians and remind Tupa what a bigot he is because he doesn't agree with me on gay marriage. And that I hate his Christian ass too.
Uh, this is so tiresome.
Well, congratulations.
And then we pretend that you've somehow poked all sorts of holes in the arguments for a cap and trade system by presenting bizarre scenarios that have no real world application and make no point.
You're kidding about that right?
All you've done is
A mischaracterize
and
B Refuse to refute em.
Then you suggest it's some big offense that I admitted that I don't know what the particulars of the administration's plan will turn out to be. Maybe that's because the plan is still being drawn up and considered, and no one knows what shape it will take. Maybe that's because we're arguing the broad strokes. Maybe if you'd read any of the reports in the thread that Tupa started, or the one I started a few weeks ago, you'd see me disagreeing with one approach that the Obama administration is currently considering, which I think will be a disaster. But you don't, because those reports are long and involved and seemingly over your head.
But as you admit, you're still free of clue.
The ones most recently admit you were blindsided by some news today.
Yeah Heck.
You know what's what.
So congrats again on showing me up on cap and trade. I really hope this is doing wonders for your ego.
And still........?
Then come the slurs: I hate Christians (I should inform my wife and family), Obama's camp is racist. And I'm not aware of one political hack appointment, or evidence of cronyism, in the Obama administration. It doesn't seem like you know what the terms mean. Much like "quota." And I don't know who these appointments are who are supposedly dismantling the Constitution. Where are you getting this, from T? Rush?
Heck you've given your opinion of those who believe the basics of Christianity as being superstitious idiots.
You're free to amend that now. Go ahead.
And are you now saying Obama did NOT join Trinity United to pander to a particular racial group?
Hey hge might just a superstitious idiot.
Just pick one.
Or keep up the tiresome denials.
Why is is so hard for you?
You're a genius right?
WSS
-
No, it's not my opinion that Obama joined that church to pander to a particular racial group. Or that he's a superstitious idiot.
Once again, you present two choices, neither of which makes sense to me, and ask me to pick one. It's another example of a logical fallacy. This one is called "False dilemma" and you might even use it more often than you use "ad hominem."
Here's an example for you:
"Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12.
It is not the case that 1+1=4.
Therefore 1+1=12."
You should stop doing that. It embarrasses you.
You have bizarre opinions, usually based firmly in your resentment of liberals and blacks. I don't share those opinions, nor do I share your resentments. And picking which two of your poorly reasoned ideas is true is a waste of my time.
As for laughing at your suggestion that we deal with global warming by banning leisure travel, I laugh at it because it's laughable. What do you want me to do, take it seriously?
Because it was another example of a false dilemma: either you're willing to ban leisure travel or you're not serious about global warming.
Stop embarrassing yourself. You're like a logical fallacy clinic for undergrads.
-
If you need a reminder:
"Fact is banning leisure travel would do a lot for the environment.
But
It would be extemely inconvenient annd bad for the economy in many ways.
So we must assume global warming is not enough of a threat to bother with it.
Tell me which part is wrong Heck."
-
No, it's not my opinion that Obama joined that church to pander to a particular racial group. Or that he's a superstitious idiot.
Once again, you present two choices, neither of which makes sense to me, and ask me to pick one. It's another example of a logical fallacy. This one is called "False dilemma" and you might even use it more often than you use "ad hominem."
Here's an example for you:
"Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12.
It is not the case that 1+1=4.
Therefore 1+1=12."
You should stop doing that. It embarrasses you.
You have bizarre opinions, usually based firmly in your resentment of liberals and blacks. I don't share those opinions, nor do I share your resentments. And picking which two of your poorly reasoned ideas is true is a waste of my time.
As for laughing at your suggestion that we deal with global warming by banning leisure travel, I laugh at it because it's laughable. What do you want me to do, take it seriously?
Because it was another example of a false dilemma: either you're willing to ban leisure travel or you're not serious about global warming.
Stop embarrassing yourself. You're like a logical fallacy clinic for undergrads.
No, it's not my opinion that Obama joined that church to pander to a particular racial group. Or that he's a superstitious idiot.
So to avoid embarrassment tell me.
Since you've stated that belief in Christianity is silly superstition at best AND that you believe Obama was at least somewhat disingenuous in his anti gay rights statement explain to me the conversion to a strongly afro-centric Christian organization.
He's either faking for political position or he believes it AFAIK.
If you have another reasonable explaination I'm glad to hear it.
And I'mm make iteasy on you.
If anyone else can explain to me why my statements that doubt the projected benefits of a carbon tax can tell me where I'm wrong I'll be glad to listen.
And I'd be happy with a "well we're really not shure but we hope that's how it will shake out."
Then you can hop up and down and yell "You see??!!"
(ps as you know the extreme measures I gave were just to force you to admit you don't care that much about GW. You can pretend otherwise but...)
WSS
-
Steve, will you at least acknowledge the logical fallacy(ies) you've been employing since the board started? Will you ever say, "Okay, my bad?"
Or will you pull another "I know you are but what am I?" like a child, and instead insist that I'm the one who is embarrassing himself?
I'm telling you - you're providing textbook examples of this stuff. I just cut and pasted one. Do you still think that's a valid line of reasoning?
-
HECK - will you at least acknowledge the logical fallacy(ies) you've been employing since the board started? Will you ever say, "Okay, my bad?"
Or will you pull another "I know you are but what am I?" like a child, and instead insist that I'm the one who is embarrassing himself?
I'm telling you - you're providing textbook examples of this stuff. I just cut and pasted one. Do you still think that's a valid line of reasoning?
************************
*** FIXED ***
-
Steve, will you at least acknowledge the logical fallacy(ies) you've been employing since the board started? Will you ever say, "Okay, my bad?"
Or will you pull another "I know you are but what am I?" like a child, and instead insist that I'm the one who is embarrassing himself?
I'm telling you - you're providing textbook examples of this stuff. I just cut and pasted one. Do you still think that's a valid line of reasoning?
Steve, will you at least acknowledge the logical fallacy(ies) you've been employing since the board started? Will you ever say, "Okay, my bad?"
Or will you pull another "I know you are but what am I?" like a child, and instead insist that I'm the one who is embarrassing himself?
I'm telling you - you're providing textbook examples of this stuff. I just cut and pasted one. Do you still think that's a valid line of reasoning?
List them and we'll see.
But I try to make things easy and still you refuse to answer honestly.
You say it need not be A or B. Fine. Give me a reasonable C.
You're discussling in the manner of a lawyer or debater who isn't interested in an idea but to confuse the jury.
WSS
-
If you need a reminder:
"Fact is banning leisure travel would do a lot for the environment.
But
It would be extemely inconvenient annd bad for the economy in many ways.
So we must assume global warming is not enough of a threat to bother with it.
Tell me which part is wrong Heck."
If you need a reminder:
"Fact is banning leisure travel would do a lot for the environment.
But
It would be extemely inconvenient annd bad for the economy in many ways.
So we must assume global warming is not enough of a threat to bother with it.
Tell me which part is wrong Heck."
So what do you want me to say?
It underscores thge fact that you, and most others here don't really take Global warming serioulsly enough to do anything simple but drastic.
Again can you tell me where I'm wrong?
This could have been over long ago.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login