Say Anything Blog

As I’ve said before Obama will be a disaster for the USA.  That should probably be expanded to the world.

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

Evidence of anti=Israel statements
by the Obama?

Rob does his NYT impression again.

By attempting to quote Obama second hand and then criticizing him for those “supposed” statements, is lame.  To then criticize him further because his record contradicts the accuser is incredibly lame.

But if being lame wasn’t your bag baby, what would you have to do with yourself?

and just plain lazy, on rob’s part.  He simply parrots what others say with little regard for the truth or the facts of the situation.

Like you liberal morons parrot the DNC talking points?  I doubt that any of you have ever had an completely uninfluenced private thought.

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

is that the best you got doc?

Of course that is all he’s got.  If you haven’t noticed, all we get is ad hominems when we discuss the facts.

He simply parrots what others say with little regard for the truth or the facts of the situation.

And the ad hominems are from whom?

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

An ad hominem isn’t complete unless it lacks a counter argument.  To state that there are no facts or quotes to support Rob’s claim and to state that this post states clearly what Baracks position is today is separate from the claim, IS an argument and IS eveidence. 

Therefore, it is not a ad hominem.

That Hannitized! He simply parrots what others say with little regard for the truth or the facts of the situation. (Not an ad hominem attack, per Hannitized!)

Since 90% of this post was simply quoting what Ralph Nader said about Obama, how is what either of you turds said anything but an ad hominem attack against Rob? (Or do the NYT and Washington Post “simply parrot what others say” when they publish their papers?)

For the dim and slow among us, that gray box constitutes a “quote”. Rob’s contribution in its entirety:

Obama Gets Called Out On His Pro-Palestinian Past By Ralph Nader. Senator Obama’s past - from his connections to the Weather Underground terrorists to his flirtations with anti-Jewish activists - is a lot less mainstream than voters have been led to believe.

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Again.
Evidence of anti-Israel statements
by the Obama?

Still got nothing?

Also note the story has Ralph Nader as a byline while it is completely the work of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

The guys who took GW on his first trip to Israel on their dime.

Also note the story has Ralph Nader as a byline

At first glance, I made that mistake, too! Then I noticed that Rob had intended it as part of the headline for the post, as in: Obama Gets Called Out On His Pro-Palestinian Past By Ralph Nader.

Rob probably should have set it off the pause with three dots to help clarify the meaning…

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Amazing H,

You get all that from one sentence.

Your psychic powers are phenomenal.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

If you haven’t noticed, all we get is ad hominems when we discuss the facts.

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

Proof,

Because you need me to explain it to you, I will.

An ad hominem is not complete if it contains information addressing the substance of the argument.

Robs article provides no evidence, as stated by all of us.  That was the first thing we said that addresses the substance.  The second thing we stated was that Rob also points out that Obama does not feel this way today, compared to the “claim” that was provided with no evidence.

It doesn’t matter if I said Rob chews gum out his ass afterwards, it can not be an ad hominem if we addressed the substance of the argument first.  PERIOD.

Rob is merely pulling another rumor stunt.  The same thing that the NYT did to McCain, and that Rob complained about.

It is why I call Rob a hypocrite.  He apparently lacks principles to boot.

No evidence, no proof, no story.  Capice?

It doesn’t matter if I said Rob chews gum out his ass afterwards, it can not be an ad hominem if we addressed the substance of the argument first.  PERIOD.

An ad hominim is an attack on the person. So even if you address the argument afterwards, it’s still an ad hominim. If I say you’re a faggot and your argument sucks...I still called you a faggot. A factual point doesn’t nullify an insult.

No evidence, no proof, no story.  Capice?

Except the story cites a former comment made by Obama:

Sen. Obama has caught criticism for pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel statements and sentiments before. In March 2007, Sen. Obama was criticized for saying that “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinians.” Obama has also been criticized for stocking his campaign with several controversial advisors including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Malley, Samantha Power and Susan Rice.

Not to mention the fact that Nader is claiming they feel the same.

So Rob quotes a story that may be incorrect, but that uses a quote from Obama and other evidence (albeit shaky) to make it’s claim. Not only did Rob not make an adhominim (quoting others doesn’t qualify), but the original story isn’t without evidence.

Your claims are false.

Han’job: Please feel free to finish whatever remedial classes you are in before commenting!

and just plain lazy, on rob’s part.  He simply parrots what others say with little regard for the truth or the facts of the situation.

So, Han’job, in that quote what “information addresses the substance of the argument”?

An ad hominem isn’t complete unless it lacks a counter argument.  To state that there are no facts or quotes to support Rob’s claim and to state that this post states clearly what Baracks position is today is separate from the claim, IS an argument and IS eveidence. (sic)

Here’s where your reading comprehension reaches an all time low:

...Rob’s claim and to state that this post states clearly what Baracks position is today

Senator Obama’s past…

Do you see the subtle difference between the smear of a talentless, brain dead slacker like yourself (not apparently an ad hominem according to Hannitized because I reference his complete lack of attention to details, facts and common courtesy ) and an honest commenter who can read and comprehend the difference between “present” and “past”? (Who does that make ”just plain lazy”? Who here has “little regard for the truth”? If you were old enough to shave, you’d see his face in the mirror every morning!)

Why do you have such a hard on for Rob? He gives you opportunity to express yourself freely (ad nauseum, actually!) and you return his kindness by seeking out opportunities to defame him unjustly, only because you don’t have the reading abilities of a third grader?

Do you know of anyone over the age of nine who can’t tell you the difference between “past” and “present”?
And even if a political blog links to a purely opinion piece (Newsflash! As blogs have been known to do!), why is the onus on Rob to prove every point in the story?

And clearly, since your comments are riddled with lies, distortions of facts, innuendo and downright bullshit, why should we then not conclude that your attacks are anything but ad hominem?

attacking… the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim

Homework assignment for Han’job:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
past /pæst, pɑst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[past, pahst] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1.  gone by or elapsed in time: It was a bad time, but it’s all past now.
2.  of, having existed in, or having occurred during a time previous to the present; bygone: the past glories of the Incas.
3.  gone by just before the present time; just passed: during the past year.
4.  ago: six days past.
5.  having formerly been or served as; previous; earlier: three past presidents of the club.
6.  Grammar. designating a tense, or other verb formation or construction, that refers to events or states in time gone by.
–noun
7.  the time gone by: He could remember events far back in the past.
8.  the history of a person, nation, etc.: our country’s glorious past.
9.  what has existed or has happened at some earlier time: Try to forget the past, now that your troubles are over.
10.  the events, phenomena, conditions, etc., that characterized an earlier historical period: That hat is something out of the past.
11.  an earlier period of a person’s life, career, etc., that is thought to be of a shameful or embarrassing nature: When he left prison, he put his past behind him.
12.  Grammar.
a.  the past tense, as he ate, he smoked.
b.  another verb formation or construction with past meaning.
c.  a form in the past tense.

Pay attention, numbskull! There’ll be a quiz later! (i.e. not the present! )

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Oh, and Han’job, lest we forget, He said it TWICE! Headline:

Obama Gets Called Out On His Pro-Palestinian Past

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Not your usual one-liner, proof.

But thoroughly enjoyable all the same! Thanks.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

Not your usual one-liner...But thoroughly enjoyable all the same!

Thanks! I prefer the rapier to the cudgel, myself. But when dealing with the shallower end of the gene pool, one must needs become more pedantic, particularly when dealing with the mind-numbingly ignorant!

In the words of William F. Buckley, Jr.

I am lapidary but not eristic when I use big words.

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Though I might add...a cudgel when pendant will leave no doubt from where the source of the lesion came, whilst the rapier, scholarly applied is oft missed.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

Ah! The unkindest cut of all, as it were!

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

An ad hominim is an attack on the person. So even if you address the argument afterwards, it’s still an ad hominim. If I say you’re a faggot and your argument sucks...I still called you a faggot. A factual point doesn’t nullify an insult.

Kenny,

Re-read the definition of Ad Hominen.  What you are talking about is an insult, NOT an ad hominem.

Debating with you over this fact is becoming as silly as your argument.

Except the story cites a former comment made by Obama:

Hey Kenny, the article says he was criticized for being ANTI-Israeli, but they didnt provide that quote.  They only provided one sentence with no link that could mean 3 different things.  Saying people suffered isn’t being pro anything.

I know people in jail suffer and I know they suffer from being raped and all sorts of things, but it doesn’t mean I sympathize with them or that I am against the prison guards.  You simply aren’t up to the challenge for thinking critically.

Not to mention the fact that Nader is claiming they feel the same.

Nader quoting Obman second hand means NOTHING.  As stated earlier.  You are going nowhere, fast.

Not only did Rob not make an adhominim (quoting others doesn’t qualify), but the original story isn’t without evidence.
Your claims are false.

ITS WITHOUT EVIDENCE, THAT SUPPORTS ITS CLAIM.  Where is the evidence that Obma is ANTI Israel and PRO Palestinian?

Still having trouble with the concept of “past” and “present” Han? Or are you saving your ”I was mind-numbingly stupid” apology for later?

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

So, Han’job, in that quote what “information addresses the substance of the argument”?

Hey Genius, you see that word “AND”?????????  What does it mean and how does it relate to what I said?  He is merely continuing from where I left off. 

Do you get it?  Its the same thing Rob does when he writes post that supports another persons comments or article.  By adding onto someone’s argument, you are thereby making the same one.

Are you REALLY this slow?

Where does Rob (or anyone other than the little voices in your head) say that this “states clearly” Obama’s position?

I said post, not Rob, genius.  Here you go:

During his interview on “Meet the Press,” Nader said that Sen. Obama had reversed his positions on Israel.

Why do you have such a hard on for Rob? He gives you opportunity to express yourself freely (ad nauseum, actually!) and you return his kindness by seeking out opportunities to defame him unjustly,

I am coming down on Rob because this post states Obama was ANTI-ISREAL and PRO Palestinian, BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE PROVIDED TO SUPPORT THAT CLAIM!!!!!

DO YOU GET IT NOW?????  Boy wonder.

If H is looking for a fight with Kenny...it better bring its first aid kit.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

And in regards to your childish claim that I dont know the difference between past and present, lets settle that score too, while were at it.

If I am asking for evidence that shows Obama received criticism at the time of his comment, would the article be speaking in the present or the past?  Think about it now, boy wonder.

Therefore, when I ask for evidence that sates Obama IS pro palestinian, and it provides quotes from Obama that state such, would they write their article based on what he would feel in the future, or felt at the time????

The only evidence I could find references second hand interpretations of his positions, no quotes.

Ali Abunimah, a Hyde Park Palestinian-American activist, said that until a few years ago, Obama was “quite frank that the U.S. needed to be more evenhanded, that it leaned too much toward Israel.”

So in your mind, i am sure being “fair”, or not PRO-Isreal is the same thing as being ANTI Israel, right?  Idiot.

Oh my!

Spittle and phlegm spattering hannitized offers:

your childish claim that I dont know the difference between past and present

Sirrah, most of the sane members here are far from convinced you know your ass from your elbow, let alone past from present from future.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Persia delenda est.
Latin: “Persia (modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

Han’job: You got pwned and still can’t own up to it! No surprise there!
Yes, you said “post”, moron and what it the title of the post, you dimwitted excuse for a human being?

Obama Gets Called Out On His Pro-Palestinian Past

A full twelve and a half percent of the title is the word PAST. DO YOU GET IT NOW????? No! Because you are a lying, intellectually dishonest, hypocritical piece of human debris!
Did I mention that you were a hypocrite? Did I mention that it is projection that causes you to see your hypocrisy in others?

I am coming down on Rob

Coming? or going?

By adding onto someone’s argument, you are thereby making the same one.

You are full of shit, brown eyes! The title of the post was about Obama’s PAST. The part that Rob added on, was about Obama’s PAST. You in the present are such a shallow, intellectually dishonest piece of human debris, that you cannot even admit when you are mind-numbingly wrong about this post, which should be obvious to anyone who understands simple English.

Oh, and Han’job? And the horse you rode in on!

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Idiot.

Thanks for signing your name at the end of the post, Han’job! That way, we know the nonsense is all yours!

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Han’job: I love your 12:28 post: It rebuts nothing that I have said and attempts to obfuscate the issue.

Deal
with
what
Rob
actually
said.
Not
the
little
voices
in
your
head!

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

most of the sane members here are far from convinced you know your ass from your elbow, let alone past from present from future

Not true. Further, an insult coming from someone who thinks Zawahiri was in Iraq shouldn’t draw attention to their knowledge of anything.

Yes, you said “post”, moron and what it the title of the post, you dimwitted excuse for a human being?

Its fun watching you loose your cool and sanity over this.  First, I wasn’t talking about this post when I made that statement. It was a generalization, moron.

Further, even if I did apply that comment to this post, what in THE HELL does it have to do with the word past?

My whole argument, you idiot, is that there is no evidence that supports ANY claim that Obama was Pro or Anti anything.

You are seriously making no sense and when you do, your arguments are proven wrong and juvenile.

Having pwned you once again, I shall retire for the evening. Feel free to brag that the lack of my immediate response for the next seven or eight hours is due to your staggering intellect (or lack thereof!)
You can admit the intellectual bankruptcy of your position, or you can continue to spin a web of obfuscation which denies What Rob Actually Said.
Here! Your ADD may prevent you from remembering that far back. Rob’s commentary IN ITS ENTIRETY:

Obama Gets Called Out On His Pro-Palestinian Past By Ralph Nader. Senator Obama’s past - from his connections to the Weather Underground terrorists to his flirtations with anti-Jewish activists - is a lot less mainstream than voters have been led to believe.

Spin your little fairy tales off that!

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Having pwned you once again, I shall retire for the evening. Feel free to brag that the lack of my immediate response for the next seven or eight hours is due to your staggering intellect (or lack thereof!)

Hahahaha.  Dude, you are still ranting about nothing.  I still have no idea what you are talking about.  You keep focusing on the word past, as if you built an argument around it.  I still havent seen it dude.

Further, I took the day off today and went surfing.  The North Shore was pumping.  Jackos was 8-10ft Hawaiian (triple over head) and open like indo.  Pipe was also open and perfect, not that I surf pipe...but.

You can admit the intellectual bankruptcy of your position, or you can continue to spin a web of obfuscation which denies What Rob Actually Said.

Um....i still don’t know what you are talking about dude.  I already adressed the argument that there is no evidence that shows Obama is/was Pro or Anti anything.

You enjoy your imagined victory.  I am going to swing some clubs at the driving range than get some pizza.

It was a generalization, moron.

Like when we credit you for any intelligence whatsoever?

My whole argument, you idiot, is that there is no evidence that supports ANY claim that Obama was Pro or Anti anything.

Which is why you accused Rob of being (this may take a while)

...lame...a hypocrite.  ...lacks principles…

Further, even if I did apply that comment to this post, what in THE HELL does it have to do with the word past?

Something some dimwitted moron kept harping on over and over.Wait a minute! It was you!

...Rob’s claim and to state that this post states clearly what Baracks position is today

I will try to use small words. You said ”today” Rob said ”past”. Today is NOT the past.
Repeat that to yourself ten times until it sinks in. (We can only hope !)

Today is NOT the past.

What you said was either a lie or mind-numbingly stupid. Which do you want to own up to?

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

I still have no idea what you are talking about

Such is our sad lament.
Good night, Han’job!

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Nader wants attention.
Obama wants blow jobs in the oval office.
I want a southern mansion with gas-power lamps lining the drive…

I will try to use small words. You said ”today” Rob said ”past”. Today is NOT the past.
Repeat that to yourself ten times until it sinks in.

Oh brother, is THAT your argument??  Are you seriously going to hang your hat on that?

Re-read what I said....

To state that there are no facts or quotes to support Rob’s claim and to state that this post states clearly what Baracks position is today is separate from the claim, IS an argument and IS eveidence.

Q: What is the claim?
A: That Obama was Pro P and Anti I

Q: What does the POST state that is SEPARATE from the claim?
A:  That is is now not Pro P and Anti I.

Evidence:

Obama had reversed his positions on Israel. Nader said Sen. Obama’s “better instincts and his knowledge have been censored by himself” ...... and if Sen. Obama has only reversed his positions to run for president,

There....get it now????  Please tell me you think you won something....please.  It will make me enjoy my beer that much more.

Aloha

haoli

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Persia delenda est.
Latin: “Persia (modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

Kama’aina brah…

Re-read what I said…

I have. And selectively quoting (or misquoting) yourself will not excuse your miserable non-excuse for dumping on Rob for what you alleged that he said.
I reprinted what Rob said in its entirety. Twice. YOU said (by YOU, I mean the small minded, apparently dense, dishonest commenter) that ROB was saying that this post represented what Obama thinks in the here and now (hereafter referred to as the “present").
Anyone will a room temperature IQ (Han’job apparently excepted) who understands plain English will note that you (dishonest troll or mind-numbingly dumb and/or dishonest commenter) disparaged ROB who clearly (as opposed to what the dishonest troll calls clearly) stated twice that this was a part of Obama’s past.

That is why I belabored the point of you not knowing past from present! Had I known that it was not simple ignorance, but rampant dishonesty on your part to run away from your own words...(or is this another instance where you will claim that you did not even bother to read what you had posted and therefore should not be held accountable for it?)...I would have spared you the pedantry on “past” and “present”!

Note to the sane: I am beginning to believe that if “Hannitized” is not suffering from multiple personalty disorder, where one of his personalities writes something and then the rest are too dishonest or stupid to own up to it, then he may be a franchise of stupidity, where for a small fee, any number of stupid and dishonest people may blog under the “Hannitized” brand. Because quite honestly, it’s extremely hard to believe that any one person could be that dishonest and/or stupid. Hard, but not impossible.

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

YOU said that ROB was saying that this post represented what Obama thinks in the here and now

Oh my god.  You are quite possibly the single most stupid person I have ever had the displeasure of debating with.  Let me explain it to you again, because you are THAT dumb.

I still call Rob a hypocrite because he is doing the same thing the NYT did and you know it.  Second I said THE POST STATES CLEARLY what Baracks position is today. 

...Rob’s claim and to state that this post states clearly what Baracks position is today

Rob did talk about Obamas past.  But I take issue with that.  I am criticizing Rob for what he is saying about Obama’s past, you idiot.

There IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SPEAKS TO OBAMA’S PAST as being a Pro P or Anti I.  Is there?  Show it to me.

Where is Robs evidence of what Obama thought in the past.  Where is an article that stated Obama was getting criticized AT THE TIME, or present, about the past?

You cant have someone today talk about what Obama thought in the past, without providing that evidence, you moron.

For some incredibly stupid reason, you are obessed with the word past.  As if it meant something or changed my complaint. 

Here is a hint, you complete boob.  IT DOESNT. 

Nothing you have offered changes my criticism of Rob one iota.

Deal with it.

And here is the real interesting point. It is you who is so obessed with defending your lil buddy. 

I am merely criticizing him fairly, everytime he posts something stupid.  I don’t attack every post, because sometimes he makes a good argument.  But here is the hint, you drooling baboon, I only criticize Rob when he deserves it.

The fact that you can’t understand that criticism, because you are too busy spitting on his nob, is of no relevance to my complaint.  You clearly lack the brain capacity to understand the complaints.

Even Kenny understood the argument, he just missed the mark. 

Debating you is like debating a two year old.  They just have no idea what you are talking about because I am too frickin smart for them to understand. 

I can’t help you develop a brain proof.  But I will continue to respond to your idiotic challenges, because it just makes you look stupid.

If I were you, I would cut the insults and start talking like an adult, or I am just going to T off on you in the similar way.  And because I T off on Rob, shouldnt justify in your mind that I am fair game for an attack from you.

But, have it your way.  If you want to draw attention to yourself with your monkey brained arguments, by all means, continue.

The haoli is still howling I see.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Persia delenda est.
Latin: “Persia (modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

Rodney,

Stop using words that you do not understand.

1.  houle

a racist term used for white people who are in hawaii, originally meaning “stranger”, it is now only used for white people, used profusely by the other races since in hawaii the white people are usually the minority.it comes from the time when the americans came over here and stole this island from the natives, which they always do, like the native indians. they held the queen of hawaii at gunpoint with battle ships and made her sign over the islands, but not before killing off thousands and thousands of hawaiins with the white mans disease.

I am not “white”....I am Hispanic and Italian and Native American.  My father is white, but his father was dark, so I came out dark...for various reason I guess.  But I have never been to as a Houle.

If you are trying to be racist with me, I don’t understand the need to go there.

hannitzed,

I’d urge you to stop using words you manifestly don’t understand, and on subjects you manifestly don’t understand, but that would leave you nothing to say.  Come to think of it, that’s a good ideaI

As regards haoli (or haole), it is applied to all non-pacific islanders resident in the 50th state.  It is also said to relate to “howling” as regards the efforts of some of the early (and not so early) missionaries, which ties in ever so nicely to your spittle and phlegm soaked all caps diatribes here.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Persia delenda est.
Latin: “Persia (modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

No, once again Rodney, you demonstrate your profound ignorance on a subject you pretend to know.

Your interpretation refers to a tourist, not someone who is brown-skinned who adopts the Hawaiian Culture.

Trust me braddah, I lived in Makaha in 95.  I had my own business importing marine aquarium fish, I caught them all along the west side with my friends who were born and raised West Side Boys....I surf Makaha/Ma’ile/Ka’os/Sewers and many west side secrets spots.

Cars don’t drive down the road honk their horn at you and throw the shaka if you are a haole.  Construction workers don’t tell you “catch some gooood ones braddah” if you are a haoule.  Trust me, you don’t know what you are talking about if you think I am referred to as a haoule.

http://members.cox.net/arniesdca/pidgin.htm

http://bad.eserver.org/issues/2006/76/haole.html

The development of haoleness obviously took place in relation to the plantation economy and emerging ‘local’ identities, but it also emerged out of the context of missionary work and national philosophies being developed on the mainland. Missionaries and their children became government advisors and plantation owners, forming a white elite in Hawai‘i and constructions of haole that emerged in the nineteenth century reflected their Puritan values of capital accumulation, lack of cultural sensitivity and an unequal distribution of power. In the twentieth century, constructions of haole developed in new ways as a result of increased US tourism, initially elite and then more popular following statehood. Based on encounters with these missionary and tourist haoles, Judy Rohrer argues in her dissertation, ‘Haole Matters: Interrogating Whiteness in Hawai‘i,’ that, ‘Haole in local discourse is generally arrogant, aggressive, ignorant of island culture(s) and histories, greedy, loud, and rude. Haole stubbornly continues to be ‘foreign;’ will not or cannot adapt to the island environment and culture.’ As one University of Hawaii professor quoted by Rohrer put it to a white, American student frustrated at being racialized as haole, ‘you can be a haole, a dumb haole, or a dumb fucking haole, the choice is yours.’

As the far as the rest of your tripe, you would make an argument if you could.

Sit down and put your hands in your lap if that’s all youve got.

...it is applied to all non-pacific islanders resident in the 50th state.

Hahaha.  Well, if that is the case, any black person who moved from the mainland is a Haole then?

Hahaha.

Ok, why don’t you fly here and come over and ask any local who that haole is and point to a black person.

Please take some video of that scene, I would pay money for it.

hannitized,

Thank you most kindly for the report on racism in that bastion of democRAT machine politics known as Hawaii.  We’ll be keeping that on file for future reference and use.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Persia delenda est.
Latin: “Persia (modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

You are quite possibly the single most stupid person I have ever had the displeasure of debating with.

once again Rodney, you demonstrate your profound ignorance on a subject you pretend to know.

This from a guy who admits:

I still have no idea what you are talking about

And everybody else is stupid and ignorant? Meh.

I still call Rob a hypocrite because he is doing the same thing the NYT did

No, you call Rob a hypocrite, because you seldom read the posts carefully enough to fully understand them. Hell! You post things you haven’t even read yourself, why should we expect better here?

Second I said THE POST STATES CLEARLY what Baracks position is today.

The post entitled

Obama Gets Called Out On His Pro-Palestinian Past

Yeah, monkey brain! I can see where that would confuse YOU!

I am merely criticizing him fairly, everytime he posts something stupid.

Wrong. You take cheap shots, calling him names for things only the little voices in your head have done.

Debating you is like debating a two year old.

Man, I wish I had that intelligent of an opponent!

If I were you, I would cut the insults and start talking like an adult

And I like the way he interjects all of his faux surfing experiences to try to change the subject away from his incredibly dishonest or mind-numbingly stupid statements from before. Hang eleven, Big Kahuna!

I am just going to T off on you in the similar way.

Oh, no! Gidget goes Berserk! Someone save me from the midget!

Bottom line: Rob published something uncomplimentary to Obama. Your knee jerked and you attacked Rob because, well because your knee isn’t the only thing that comes to mind about you when I think “jerk”!
You said some incredibly dishonest or incredibly stupid things in defense of your knee jerk condemnation of Rob. And because you’re a dishonest troll, you’ll keep inventing new spin on what you said until everyone gets tired of your whining spew.

BTW, Rodney: Getting called ignorant by Hannitized is like getting called ugly by a warthog.  It’s usually good for a laugh!

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

You are quite possibly the single most stupid person I have ever had the displeasure of debating with.

Thou shalt not attack the Crown Prince of Punsters! Blasphemer!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Hannitized’s definition of a “stupid person”:

One who quotes him correctly!

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Thank you most kindly for the report on racism in that bastion of democRAT machine politics known as Hawaii.  We’ll be keeping that on file for future reference and use.

We have a Republican Governor.

Further why do you assume that the racists are democrats?

And it’s only the racists that use it as a racist term.  It is very popular to be Happa-haoule.  If you score a Hoppa-houle babe...youve done well.

Again, houle merely identifies a person by skin color, they same way we use the word black.  Only a racists uses the term despairingly.

You are as smart as a box of rocks.  I gave you all that information earlier, you merely needed to read it.

bottom line: Rob published something uncomplimentary to Obama. Your knee jerked and you attacked Rob because, well because your knee isn’t the only thing that comes to mind about you when I think “jerk”!

You said some incredibly dishonest or incredibly stupid things in defense of your knee jerk condemnation of Rob. And because you’re a dishonest troll, you’ll keep inventing new spin on what you said until everyone gets tired of your whining spew.

Name one thing I said that was either dishonest or stupid. 

The funny thing is, you still don’t get it.  You are a hysterical dunce.  Re-read what I wrote....waaaay back when....before you went mental.

Robs article provides no evidence, as stated by all of us.  That was the first thing we said that addresses the substance.  The second thing we stated was that Rob also points out that Obama does not feel this way today, compared to the “claim” that was provided with no evidence.

It doesn’t matter if I said Rob chews gum out his ass afterwards, it can not be an ad hominem if we addressed the substance of the argument first.  PERIOD.

Hannitized on February 27, 2008 at 10:21 pm

So again:

Does Robs article provide any evidence that he was at the time, Pro I and Anti I?  No.

Does Robs article point out that Obama doesn’t feel this way today?  Yes.

Does using the words “Compared to the claim” suggest that I am talking about what Rob accuses Obama of, from the PAST?????  YES, you complete moron.

Seriously, you are just making yourself look stupid.  But by all means continue.

I am having WAY, WAY too much fun waiting to see how long it takes you to get it.

And I like the way he interjects all of his faux surfing experiences to try to change the subject away from his incredibly dishonest or mind-numbingly stupid statements from before. Hang eleven, Big Kahuna! 

Faux surfing experiences?  I like that you now challenge me on that.  Because it says that you don’t believe me, and that attitude to deny me that must mean that you admire surfing and/or people who surf.  Therefore, it must get under your skin that I am a to-the-bone surfer. 

What is a shooter?  Go ahead, try to find out.  Google it.  Is there two terms for a shooter, yes or no?  What does each mean?

What’s a quiver?  I’m replacing out mine at the moment and have many a board on sale at Craigs List Honolulu....care to see any?  Just let me know I can post quite a few on there...im selling more.  Would you know the difference between board types?  Would you know what types of boards surf what types of wave?  If so, my quiver says it all.

Check out this link. It’s a photo of me surfing OB Nor-Cal before I moved to HI.  I’m surfing a 6’4” John Bradbury at Sloat Street during winter.  That was after a take off on a double overhead peaky winter wall.  Have any idea what it takes to drop in and surf a wave that size on a 6’4” on a rounded pin that is a bit wide in the tail?

I can post many more....i can keep em coming.  Don’t have more than one photo surfing Hawaii because nobody has a lens that can go out that far, that I know.

http://www.wavewatch.com/Live-Surf-Cams-Region.php?CamID=19&RegionID=4&up=1

H,

Name one thing I said that was either dishonest or stupid. 

Surely you jest. Nobody has that much free time on their hands.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

Name one thing I said that was either dishonest or stupid.

Surely you jest. Nobody has that much free time on their hands.

What she said.

Faux surfing experiences?  I like that you now challenge me on that.

I really don’t give a flying fuck what you do in your spare time. The fact that you bring it up in this thread in lieu of argument or apology shows that you like to fill the space with words that are off topic, and thus a diversion from the argument (which you lost with your mind-numbingly dumb or dishonest answers) and essentially meaningless. Like most your posts!
(You can go play in traffic now!)

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Name one thing I said that was either dishonest or stupid.

Seems like this request was itself pretty stupid!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

I really don’t give a flying fuck what you do in your spare time.

Oh you give a flying fuck alright.  Otherwise, you wouldn’t of made the “faux surfing” statement.  That’s a sure sign of someone who is trying to wish away reality.

Admit it, you clicked on the link.

And of course you ignored the main points as always and merely provide insults.  Youre as interesting as a pile of dirt.  Cmon dude, admit it.  My entire complaint about Robs stupid post was about the claim of what Obama thought in the past.  Yet for some strange reason, you couldn’t figure it out.

As always, this is WAY too easy.  Where are the big guns?

Seems like this request was itself pretty stupid!

I said nothing dishonest, and Proofypants knows it.

His argument is the only thing that is stupid.  Patently stupid.

Admit it, you clicked on the link.

Unlike you, I’m not given to lying, so, no I didn’t click on the link!

And of course you ignored the main points as always and merely provide insults.

The main point, once more for the retarded surfer wannabees:

...Rob’s claim and to state that this post states clearly what Baracks position is today -Han’job

Second I said THE POST STATES CLEARLY what Baracks position is today.-Han’job

The post (maybe I need to define “post” for this moron?) begins with the title:

Obama Gets Called Out On His Pro-Palestinian Past

Rob ends the post by saying:

Senator Obama’s past...is a lot less mainstream than voters have been led to believe.

Name one thing I said that was either dishonest or stupid.

Stare at this one post as if it were orange juice and it said “concentrate”! Rob begins the post talking about Obama’s past. Rob ends the post talking about Obama’s past. YOU, dipshit surfer wannabee and dishonest troll, say that Rob is a hypocrite for...are you ready for this? Watch for it! It’s kind of tricky! You said:

I said THE POST STATES CLEARLY what Baracks position is today.

So, in the world according to Han’job, Rob is a hypocrite because he said something was in the past that you say is Barack’s position today. In other words, he is a hypocrite because you lied about what he said! Your choice: Dishonest? Or stupid? (I suppose both is still a possibility!)

Patently stupid.

Again, thanks Hannitized for signing your work! It makes it much easier to track your lunacy!

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.