Barack without his teleprompter

LoL. The good ole' "you only post this/that!" rant.

I rarely if ever post outside the political forum here, that is true. The vast majority of the time I "take a shot", is in retaliation. You'll notice the "Obama/Clinton/Any Democrat is a *insert negative*" trend here, hell, Monster is making them daily.

I initially didn't have anything seriously negative to say about Bush (didn't vote for him either) and you'll notice, I have yet to say anything seriously negative about McCain, unless you call "I'm voting for Obama" as taking a shot at McCain. Please feel free to point out my massive insultings of McCain, surely if it is that bad, you should have no problem. Proceed.

Don't point the finger at someone for something you do yourself; it makes you look like a hypocrite. Just an FYI.

How can you say "the good old I post this / that rant" when it's in Black and White?

Why would you change the subject of my post...to play a "shell game"? I never said you posted anything about McCain?

And then lets put the attention back on me...I'm a hypocrite? For what, because I pointed out that you lean towards the left and then say [I]"I'll be judging him by his actions/inactions, not because he's a Democrat or Liberal. Will you still be saying he's a terrible president if he scoops the country out of the frying pan, simply because he's a Dem/Lib?"[/I]

You're a funny guy!
 
You did say:

"41 threads started on these boards (40 of them being political) mostly taking shots at the Republicans or President Bush are we to believe you would be judging someone like McCain the same way as you would judge Obama?"

and I did mention that I have yet to bash McCain, which clearly would point that I don't have (or it's possible that I don't) a negative opinion of him solidified.

If your only point was to say "you lean to the left", then sure, you're right, Holmes.
 
You did say:

"41 threads started on these boards (40 of them being political) mostly taking shots at the Republicans or President Bush are we to believe you would be judging someone like McCain the same way as you would judge Obama?"

and I did mention that I have yet to bash McCain, which clearly would point that I don't have (or it's possible that I don't) a negative opinion of him solidified.

If your only point was to say "you lean to the left", then sure, you're right, Holmes.

If you did bash McCain would you also be at will to bash Obama?

I'm pretty sure it's obvious which way you lean.

I on the other hand will admit when I don't feel either candidate is a great choice...while you will continue to lean.

At this time I really don't care for either candidate...but I believe McCain to be the lesser of two evils...Chief.
 
No, I'll be judging him by his actions/inactions, not because he's a Democrat or Liberal. Will you still be saying he's a terrible president if he scoops the country out of the frying pan, simply because he's a Dem/Lib?
You'll judge him by his actions/inactions? What are you judging him by at the moment? Can you name anything that he's accomplished without looking it up?
 
I rarely if ever post outside the political forum here, that is true. The vast majority of the time I "take a shot", is in retaliation

the shots Tricky-dick was talking were not the shots you take at the republicans on this board, as you were talkin about. The republicans he was talking about were those in the news that are part of the topic of discussion. There is no way that your "shots" at the republicans he is talking about are in retaliation, as those republicans never post on this board. More mischaracterization and misdirection on your part it seems.

If you are talking about the republicans posting on this board (which are the only ones it is even possible to need to retaliate to) , then this obviously has to be a joke, too. You often take cheap shots here as a dishonest means of debating. You wrongly accuse people of hypocracy and attempt to marginalize them all the time, as in post #11 in this thread:
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=42900


The only way your shots are retaliation most of the time is in retaliation to someone countering or discrediting your argument. You work to discredit them through marginalizing them; not discrediting their argument (which you have a bad habit of mischaracterizing). Your shots are not usually in retaliation to someone first taking a cheap shot at you.

Please feel free to point out my massive insultings of McCain, surely if it is that bad, you should have no problem. Proceed.

Tricky-dick never said anything about insulting McCain here, you are mischaracterizing him and attempting to raise the burden of proof. He pointed out that it is rather obvious you have a double standard when it comes to Republicans.
For someone with 41 threads started on these boards (40 of them being political) mostly taking shots at the Republicans or President Bush are we to believe you would be judging someone like McCain the same way as you would judge Obama?
There is no way you can get "insulting McCain" from that. Try countering his argument, not mischaracterizing it to set up a straw-man and then knock that straw-man down.
 
You'll judge him by his actions/inactions? What are you judging him by at the moment? Can you name anything that he's accomplished without looking it up?

Good point.
 
Since we're predicting what Obama will or will not do, I'll throw in my own little tidbit:

Senate Democrats Want Trillions in New Taxes
Monday, June 9, 2008 8:30 AM

By: Newsmax Staff

The spending plan approved by the Senate last week fails to extend President Bush’s tax cuts — and could lead to the largest tax increase in U.S. history.

“Make no mistake: This tax hike is gargantuan,” the Investor’s Business Daily states in an editorial.

“Simply by not making Bush’s tax cuts permanent, taxes will rise by a minimum of $2.8 trillion between now and 2018.”

The IBD says that if the tax cuts are allowed to expire in 2010:


Spending will rise by half a trillion dollars over the next five years. And the Democrats will pay for it by raising taxes by $683 billion — “the biggest such increase ever.”


About 48 million married couples — “the heart of the middle class that Democrats say they want to help” — will see an average annual tax increase of $3,007.


The tax bill for the elderly will rise $2,181 a year on average.


A single parent with two children earning $30,000 a year will see a tax hike of $1,600.


A family of four earning $50,000 a year will be hit with a tax increase of 191 percent.


The 2009 budget for the first time ever spends $1 trillion on discretionary items — non-defense, non-entitlement.


“This is a foretaste of future fiscal recklessness under a Barack Obama presidency (he voted for the bill),” the IBD observes.

Noting that the budget would weaken the economy and kill job growth, the IBD concludes: “This is supply-side economics in reverse — creating massive disincentives to work, save and invest, and shrinking the pie.”
 
As Bill Adama once said, "Context matters"...

From ‘Dreams of my Father: “In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school” “I studied the Koran..”
And the full quote:
In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school, two years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies. My mother wasn't overly concerned. 'Be respectful,' she'd said. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I would pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and thirty brown children, muttering words. Sometimes the nun would catch me, and her stern look would force my lids back shut.​
Sounds like a typical kid who's bored in religion classes. A far cry from what your isolated quote tries to suggest.

From ‘Audacity of Hope: “Lolo (Obama’s step father) followed a brand of Islam ….”I looked to Lolo for guidance”.

Like many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths...

The world was violent, I was learning, unpredictable and often cruel. My grandparents knew nothing about such a world, I decided; there was no point in disturbing them with questions they couldn't answer. Sometimes, when my mother came home from work, I would tell her the things I had seen or heard, snd she would stroke my forehead, listening intently, trying her best to explain what she could, and I always appreciated the attention--her voice, the touch of her hand, defined all that was secure. But her knowledge of [Indonesian] floods and exorcisms and cockfights left much to be desired. Everything was as new to her as it was to me, and I would leave such conversations feeling that my questions had only given her unnecessary cause for concern. So it was to Lolo I turned for guidance and instruction.​

First, Obama mentions that his father belonged to a Islamic sect that was open to other religious views, then several paragraphs later he talks about how he turned to his father for questions about the world and the land he was living in. Again, just like ANY kid would do. What's wrong with that?

From ‘The Audacity Of Hope: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
This is the most despicable deception of all your quotes.

In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.

Obama is assuring American Muslims that he will not allow their FREEDOMS to be taken away as they were for many in the aftermath of 9/11. Those are core AMERICAN values in case you weren't aware. Your quote suggests that once something happens he'll turn the country over to the Jihadists. Which is complete and utter BS.

Under Islamic law: You are a Muslim if you are the son of a Muslim.
Setting aside ignorant right-wingers who need to believe that, there may indeed be Muslims who believe it too. But it doesn't matter what anyone else believes because he has stated unequivocally that he is a Christian. Islam doesn't allow for being a "secret" Muslim.

Obama has never renounced the religion he was born into. Hummmmmmm.
Why the hell should he?
 
As Bill Adama once said, "Context matters"...

Ahh the Battlestar Galactica reference!! Gotta love it. Can't wait until the midseason cliffhanger this friday. Now FRAK OFF! :D
 
In all seriousness, I have a hard time buying the idea that Obama is a sleeper agent for a terrorist organization, but certain elements in his past should raise some red flags for most Americans, considering the context of the war on terror. He should be forced to address those concerns if he is aspiring for the highest office in the land. If the media were doin its job as political watchdog, he would have to address them. Instead he gets away without addressing these issues, because the media is in the tank for Obama and attacks anyone who brings these issues up.
 
Doesn't ANYTHING have to be better than the status quo? I don't understand HOW it could get any worse. I don't personally know anyone who has prospered with the Bush administration in office. I know alot of people who's 401K's have gone down the :q:q:q:qter, though. What are we left to choose from, and how can any of the candidates running actually make a difference? Dirty bombs...please, (sounds like scare tactics, and it doesn't work). I seriously doubt if they'd get one within 1500 miles of MY home, if they did come up with the technology. I'd choose "None of the above" if Brewster was running.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ahh the Battlestar Galactica reference!! Gotta love it. Can't wait until the midseason cliffhanger this friday. Now FRAK OFF! :D
Yeah it's been a strange season so far, but still better than anything else on TV. Looks like Earth is on the horizon next week, going by the previews.

But I digress...
 
the shots Tricky-dick was talking were not the shots you take at the republicans on this board, as you were talkin about. The republicans he was talking about were those in the news that are part of the topic of discussion. There is no way that your "shots" at the republicans he is talking about are in retaliation, as those republicans never post on this board. More mischaracterization and misdirection on your part it seems.

If you are talking about the republicans posting on this board (which are the only ones it is even possible to need to retaliate to) , then this obviously has to be a joke, too. You often take cheap shots here as a dishonest means of debating. You wrongly accuse people of hypocracy and attempt to marginalize them all the time, as in post #11 in this thread:
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=42900


The only way your shots are retaliation most of the time is in retaliation to someone countering or discrediting your argument. You work to discredit them through marginalizing them; not discrediting their argument (which you have a bad habit of mischaracterizing). Your shots are not usually in retaliation to someone first taking a cheap shot at you.



Tricky-dick never said anything about insulting McCain here, you are mischaracterizing him and attempting to raise the burden of proof. He pointed out that it is rather obvious you have a double standard when it comes to Republicans.
For someone with 41 threads started on these boards (40 of them being political) mostly taking shots at the Republicans or President Bush are we to believe you would be judging someone like McCain the same way as you would judge Obama?
There is no way you can get "insulting McCain" from that. Try countering his argument, not mischaracterizing it to set up a straw-man and then knock that straw-man down.

Do you ever stop with all your bullsh!t?

I was talking about taking shots at Republicans (eg Bush, Cheney, McCain etc), in return for shots taken at the Democrats on similar subjects. You'll notice that I don't spend my time making "Republicans are evil bastard" threads, unlike the numerous "Democrats are evil bastards" threads that litter this board.

As far as me personally insulting people in here, again, I rarely do, if I do, it's usually in retaliation. The majority of the time, I brush it off. I've received more than my share of personal insults, from my wife to my children, yet I rarely if ever dip that low.

LoL, still sore that I pointed out your hypocrisy? Let it go, champ.
 
You'll judge him by his actions/inactions? What are you judging him by at the moment? Can you name anything that he's accomplished without looking it up?

Yes, once (if) he's in office, I'll judge him by what he does, not simply "he's a Dem, he can do no wrong" approach. My point.

I've agreed he has little experience. Given the two viable choices though, I'm voting for him instead of McCain.
 
Yes, once (if) he's in office, I'll judge him by what he does, not simply "he's a Dem, he can do no wrong" approach. My point.

I've agreed he has little experience. Given the two viable choices though, I'm voting for him instead of McCain.
Listen to yourself. "I admit that he has no experience, and so I have nothing to base my judgment on, but I'll vote for him anyway, and judge him after the fact."

What logic.
 
So far his greatest achievement has been winning the Democratic nomination.
 
Nobody wants McCain to be a teleprompter queen. We want sound fiscal policy and firm deplomacy out of him. That, and close the borders and give us a couple of judges that will fairly interpret the law, not make it. That's all.

Oh, and drill wherever necessary, and God forbid, do not fall for the stupid global warming 'steal from the rich and give to the poor' shell game.
 
LoL, still sore that I pointed out your hypocrisy? Let it go, champ.

You didn't point out any hypocrisy on my part. You tend to mischaracterize someones argument (set up a straw man) then accuse them of hypocrisy. There really isn't much foundation in your claims though. It is nothing but an underhanded attempt to change the focus of the debate to the person making the debate; ad hominem reasoning.
 
I think history has demonstrated that experience doesn't always equate to competence.
That's pretty weak, Tommy. You really look at Obama and think he'll be a competent President? This guy is a neophyte. His gaffes are more ludicrous than Bush's. Remember when he said he'd invade Pakistan? At least Bush knows how many states are in the union.
 
Listen to yourself. "I admit that he has no experience, and so I have nothing to base my judgment on, but I'll vote for him anyway, and judge him after the fact."

What logic.

I said "little experience", not "no experience", it's not like Toby McGuire is running and people are voting for him.

For a guy who's utterly disenfranchised with America and can't stand either candidate, you sure do point the finger a lot.

So, given the Obama or McCain choice, who will you vote for and why, using your logic?
 
You didn't point out any hypocrisy on my part. You tend to mischaracterize someones argument (set up a straw man) then accuse them of hypocrisy. There really isn't much foundation in your claims though. It is nothing but an underhanded attempt to change the focus of the debate to the person making the debate; ad hominem reasoning.

Glad you got that off your chest.
 
I said "little experience", not "no experience", it's not like Toby McGuire is running and people are voting for him.
It doesn't matter. You have nothing to judge him by currently, yet you're going to vote for him and then find out later how well you did. That's illogical and irresponsible.

For a guy who's utterly disenfranchised with America and can't stand either candidate, you sure do point the finger a lot.
"Disenfranchised with America" is a nonsense phrase. Perhaps you meant "disenchanted?" Either way, your premise is wrong. And pointing the finger is exactly what a disillusioned or disenchanted person would do, so what is your point?

So, given the Obama or McCain choice, who will you vote for and why, using your logic?
I've already answered this, I will not vote for either, as neither is qualified to run the country. Using my logic.
 
Some might say that not voting is both "illogical and irresponsible", they're probably just stupid though.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top