Say Anything Blog

Obama’s one skill is being a great speaker.  This excuse isn’t going to fly.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Rob:

That sounds like a very clear and concise statement from a very articulate person to me.

That’s my problem too.  Obama is too well spoken for that to have come out by accident.

He meant what he said, but he didn’t mean for us to hear it. He was playing to an urban elitist crowd, and the best argument you can make on his behalf is he really didn’t mean it and he was just pandering to the crowd.

Aww Robby, you still can’t admit that I solved your pet puzzle.

Let’s review the argument you ran away from, because you were loosing it.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obama_fires_back_on_bitter_comments_says_it_was_just_clumsy_talking/P100/

The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life. Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of “God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag” while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet. But this election cycle showed an electorate that intends to hold government leaders accountable for allowing every American a fair opportunity to succeed.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009246

Strange, but it sounds like Web said the same thing Obama has been over the last week. Web indicates that when voters dont think they can change the economic situation, they focus on emotional issues.

You know.....issues that you are emotional about.

So when Obama offers better context to his statement, that just so happen to line up exactly with Webbs....Rob ignores it.  Because long standing Democratic interpretations don’t matter.  It doesn’t matter to Rob that Dems have been thinking this way for years.

And when Obama is talking to people, like me, who know this concept, his statements aren’t offensive, because we know what he meant.

and the best argument you can make on his behalf is he really didn’t mean it and he was just pandering to the crowd.

Yes, I am sure that fits nicely within your hateful ambitions to distort in order to tear down your political opponents.  But why don’t you take a bite of reality sandwich by clicking the link above and see how Rob is pretending he doesn’t know of an alternative explanation.

The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and
divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the
deterioration of their way of life.

Playing class politics again I see.  Is that the only card liberals have left?

Yes, I am sure that fits nicely within your hateful ambitions to distort in order to tear down your political opponents.

Sorry, but it’s the just the way I see it, and I do think he was pandering to the crowd.  In any case, just because the truth is politically inconvenient for you, doesn’t make it hateful.

If Obama had been the person he claimed he was at the start, I might have considered voting for him.  He just doesn’t pull wool over my eyes as easily as people like yourself, who want to believe in him, it appears.

Also see this, which addresses the the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the
deterioration of their way of life bullshit.

Sorry, but it’s the just the way I see it, and I do think he was pandering to the crowd.  In any case, just because the truth is politically inconvenient for you, doesn’t make it hateful.

So then you dont think he meant it?  Just a few seconds ago you said he didnt mean it and was pandering.  Or, are you saying that he did mean it, and was pandering?

How can you pander to the crow by saying something you meant?

Get your story straight Carrick, cuz youre just looking dishonest at this point.

Or, did you mangle your argument with poor syntax?

No, its perfectly obvious that you too are too willing to ignore the fact that Obama was just saying something that Liberals think.........that some voters wont vote on economic issues because they are frustrated that they can change them.

So they cling and vote on issues that matter to them.

It’s all to obvious and simple.

Let me try that again....I mangled it.  It happens.  Although Rob would like to pretend it doesn’t.

Sorry, but it’s the just the way I see it, and I do think he was pandering to the crowd. In any case, just because the truth is politically inconvenient for you, doesn’t make it hateful.

So then you dont think he meant it?  Just a few seconds ago you said he didnt mean it and was pandering.  Or, are you saying that he did mean it, and was pandering?

How can you pander to the crowd by saying something you meant?

Get your story straight Carrick, cuz youre just looking dishonest at this point.

Or, did you mangle your argument with poor syntax?

No, its perfectly obvious that you too are too willing to ignore the fact that Obama was just saying something that Liberals think.........that some voters wont vote on economic issues because they are frustrated that they can not change them.

So they cling and vote on issues that matter to them and that they think they can actually change.

It’s all to obvious and simple.

If Obama had been the person he claimed he was at the start, I might have considered voting for him.  He just doesn’t pull wool over my eyes as easily as people like yourself, who want to believe in him, it appears.

Oh yeah, Im sure you would have C.  Because you know, you are so open minded.  It’s not like you could never give a guy a break and put things in context after you put some thought into it.  That would be closed minded.

I mean, I am sure you are very principled and hold Bush accountable when he says things like were fighting a crusade against Islam.  Right?  Or when he says OBGYNs can’t practice there love with patients all over the country?

Or, did you manage to let someone pull the wool over your eyes on those issues?

Your not fooling anyone but yourself Carrick.

Hannitized,

Let’s review the argument you ran away from, because you were loosing it.

It’d help if your arguments were relevant to the issue at hand.  Nobody is saying that guns, religion, immigration, trade, etc. aren’t emotional issues that are routinely exploited by various politicians.  The problem is that Obama said rural Americans feel a certain way about those issues because they’re bitter.

What you’re offering is a specious, irrelevant argument.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

It’d help if your arguments were relevant to the issue at hand.

Youre going to make me repeat myself, arent you?  Because you just can’t stand it that your argument is dead.

Obama said nothing wrong...because Webb said something similar?

How is that an exoneration of Obama instead of an indictment of Webb? - Rob

Because you claimed Obama said “X”, and I claimed he meant “Y”.  I supported my evidence by quoting him saying “Y” in another speech. That subsequently put the other comment (x) in proper context.  I then backed up the idea that Obama meant “Y” by showing another respected and prominent Dem (Webb) who also says “Y”.  This demonstrates an active and long standing thought process in our party, one of which many of us subscribe.

Go back and read Bats comments.  He claims Obamas other statements are damage control and nothing more.  I proved that wrong by showing an established line of thinking over several years.

Now, you are trying to say “X” and “Y” are the same thing in order to indict Webb.  That is just more of your dishonest crud.

X = People cling to Guns and Religion out of bitterness becaues they aren’t making money like they used to

Y = People vote on issues like Guns and Religion because they feel they can make a difference on those issues and because they are emotional issues that have been rallied.

But “Y” isn’t what Obama actually said no matter how much you try and spin it.

Obama said people cling to their religion, guns, hatred of people not like them because they’re bitter.

If he didn’t mean that, why did he say it?

See Rob.  This is why I love you.  I had to deliberately use X and Y in order to condense the issues to their purest form.  And you still try to spin it.

X is X, no matter how hard you spin it.  Y is Y.

Obama said X one day...because he spoke clumsily in a room full of people who knew what he was talking about.  But then said X the next day to clarify what he meant.  This was also stated by Webb in 2006.  Showing that this is a constant line of thinking in our party.

What Obama said one day was nothing more than mangled words that were meant to represent Y.  “Y” is a long-standing position that Dems see as a way to win votes.  (See Jim Webbs success)

Rob,

We hicks in the fly-over country aren’t supposed to be sophisticated enough to determine whether Obama’s remarks were intentional or not.  Heck, our small, bitter, gun-obsessed, religion-addled, racist brains are supposed to shut down at the mere mention of high-falutin’ words like “syntax”.

Hannitized, Obama said people like me like guns and go to church and stuff because we’re bitter.

That’s an insult.  I don’t love my guns and oppose illegal immigration because I’m bitter.  I do those because I’m an intelligent citizen capable of making informed determinations on those issues.

For Obama to suggest that I’m “clinging” to these issues because I’m “bitter” is, in fact, an insult.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

H:

I mean, I am sure you are very principled and hold Bush accountable when he says things like were fighting a crusade against Islam.  Right?  Or when he says OBGYNs can’t practice there love with patients all over the country?

This isn’t anything but another one of your many non sequitors.

I’m not particularly a fan of Bush in any case, and the only reason I voted for him last time (and the only time) was because of the war on terror, even though I thought then and now that he had horribly bungled the occupation of Iraq.

But it’s true, if Barack were the centrist “uniter not divider politicians” that he plays on TV, I would consider voting for him.  But he’s not, he’s an extreme leftist.  Whether that is a good thing or not depends on one’s reference frame, but if you think that he’s anything besides that, given his voting record and personal history, you’re just fooling yourself.

Rob:

For Obama to suggest that I’m “clinging” to these issues because I’m “bitter” is, in fact, an insult.

Just as trying to suggest that we’re too slow to understand what he meant is an insult.

Now the central theme of Barack and Webb, that we’re just too pathetic to understand how bad off we are, that’s just a shit-head thing to say.

Hannitized, Obama said people like me like guns and go to church and stuff because we’re bitter.

Rob, you are deliberately ignoring my argument and reducing yours to a simple misinterpretation.  A misinterpretation on your part.

This is why I said you and I could never have an honest debate.  Because you don’t want one, you can’t handle one and you are deliberately dishonest and ignorant so you can cling to your argument.

Obama didn’t say that or mean it.  You can’t provide a sentence that says what you say he said.  You can only claim he implied it, and we have gone over and over what the real context was meant to be.  You wont accept it because you are a dishonest propagandist.

That’s an insult. 

No, its a straw-man.  Look up the word cling.  If you have the stones.

This isn’t anything but another one of your many non sequitors.

Its predictable that you ignore the challenge of your previous statement, that Obama was pandering.  THAT was no non sequitur.

You ignored the argument I made, that was no non sequitur.

Even after all of this, you pick the one issue you think you can conquer but still fail to answer it.

I’m not particularly a fan of Bush in any case, and the only reason I voted for him last time (and the only time) was because of the war on terror, even though I thought then and now that he had horribly bungled the occupation of Iraq.

But did you grant Bush a pass for his statements or what?  Yes, you did.

if Barack were the centrist “uniter not divider politicians” that he plays on TV, I would consider voting for him.  But he’s not, he’s an extreme leftist.

If you have other reasons to believe this, fine.  But because he said something similar to Webb, does not make him a leftist.  It makes him someone who says things that apply to people he is trying to identify with.

Just as trying to suggest that we’re too slow to understand what he meant is an insult.

He never used those words, your just being dishonest, again.

But the fact that people can’t accept his word doesn’t make them stupid, it makes them stubborn.  The fact that people could easily find correct context by looking at Webbs comments doesn’t make them stupid, it makes them closed minded.  The fact that people take the wrong meaning can be interpreted as stupid.  But you always have a choice to find true context if you are honest enough.

Now the central theme of Barack and Webb, that we’re just too pathetic to understand how bad off we are, that’s just a shit-head thing to say.

NOW?  Webb said that in 2006.  And once again you are mischaracterizing what Webb and Obama said, on purpose.  That is a just a shit-head thing to do.

Spin mode, talk about being a propagandist. It’s like Barry’s big speech on race, it wasn’t a speech to heal, it was 100mph spin mode to try and cover Rev. Wright damage. Obama thought he was in a room full of people just like him (elitist bigots), and thought that what he said to his people would stay with his people. Sorry, Mr. Speech is getting shown for what he is. Could you imagine what would happen if a Republican came out and said those urban folks stick to government programs so they can sit on their ass and have babies out of wedlock because it’s easier than working.

Later, gotta run to Whole Foods to get some urugula (God, have you seen the prices).

""That’s the problem with you lefties, you’re not willing to get your hands dirty. I’d suggest you roll up your sleeves.”

-Jack Bauer

Gentlemen: Please don’t feed the peevish, whiny-ass, little bitch trolls!

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

But did you grant Bush a pass for his statements or what?  Yes, you did.

I don’t give him a free pass on anything.  Period.  If he says something stupid, it’s duly noted.  And if you came on and tried to defend it, I would smack you down for that too.

Its predictable that you ignore the challenge of your previous statement, that Obama was pandering.  THAT was no non sequitur.

That means you don’t know what a non sequitur is, then, because ascribing his motivation for uttering the relevant words is entire ly apropos to the discussion, what Bush says or didn’t say is not.

In any case, Webb is not a synonym for Obama, and I tend to remember that when I interpret their words.  Both use class identity politics, but I would never mistake Webb for a socialist.

You’re just trying to spin for your elitist socialist presidential candidate.  That’s what this amounts to, and you’re not fooling anybody.

I don’t give him a free pass on anything.  Period.  If he says something stupid, it’s duly noted.  And if you came on and tried to defend it, I would smack you down for that too.

So then you really think George Bush literally meant that were fighting a Crusade?  Good on ya mate!

Crusade: Any of the military expeditions undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries for the recovery of the Holy Land from the Muslims.

See, the difference between you and I is that I am open minded and intellectually honest enough to look at the situation and make a reasonable conclusion.

If you are going to “smack me down” for defending Bush on that, then I have to say that you are a few fries short of a happy meal.  But....oh well.  You are showing that you are violent and out of touch with most calm, rational people who don’t resort to violence to settle a debate.

That means you don’t know what a non sequitur is, then, because ascribing his motivation for uttering the relevant words is entire ly apropos to the discussion,

How can Obama be “pandering” for saying what he meant?  Why is saying what you mean to people pandering and not simply talking to them?

You wont answer that because you know that you were off on so many levels you don’t wan’t to go stepping on all the land mines you dropped.  And I don’t mean land mines in the traditional sense.  I mean the kind that are left steaming after you squatted and dropped them on this poopy post.

Another well respected blogger from this site said something interesting today.  He reminded us of the importance of context and how deceitful it is to “cherry-pick” sentences in order to misconstrue the true context.  His word for that type of behavior was “liar”.

I think I am going to let Robert108’s words speak to Rob.  Here you go Rob;

That’s how you always lie; you attempt to cherry-pick and quote others out of context,

Indeed Robert, indeed.

Syntax?

Sounds more like PEBMAC.

IT joke explanation, PEBMAC = Problem Exists Between Microphone and Curtain (on the back of the stage).

I think you can figure it out :o)

H:

So then you really think George Bush literally meant that were fighting a Crusade? Good on ya mate!

I never said any such thing.  I’m not familiar with the quote that you paraphrased, but that is irrelevant.  If he said it, then it’s a stupid thing for him to say.  So what? 

Nice try deflecting attention from what Obama said and meant, though.  But it is a shallow effort and easily seen through.

How can Obama be “pandering” for saying what he meant?  Why is saying what you mean to people pandering and not simply talking to them?

My God, you get confused so easily.  My words again as an obviously needed refresher:

He meant what he said, but he didn’t mean for us to hear it. He was playing to an urban elitist crowd, and the best argument you can make on his behalf is he really didn’t mean it and he was just pandering to the crowd.

My point is he meant what he said (it wasn’t misstated he claims), not that he “said what he meant” ("believed to be true").  And to remind you, the passage in question is well to constructed for it to be explained away as clumsy language or poor word choice, which is why I reject the mangled language excuse.

Although I never said he believed it, I allow that as a possibility, and regard that as the “worst case” scenario.  The best case scenario is he didn’t believe it ("he didn’t mean it"), in which case he was obviously pandering to the local crowd.

I never said any such thing.  I’m not familiar with the quote that you paraphrased, but that is irrelevant.  If he said it, then it’s a stupid thing for him to say.  So what?

Nice try deflecting attention from what Obama said and meant, though.  But it is a shallow effort and easily seen through.

It’s worth noting that Bush coming up with the wrong word to describe a situation ("crusade" for our actions in the middle east, “love” for what OBGYN’s practice with their patients), while stupid, is not the same as what Obama did.

Obama said exactly what he meant, and said it in such a concise and well-constructed way that anyone believing it was a clumsy statement is a moron.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

My point is he meant what he said (it wasn’t misstated he claims), not that he “said what he meant” ("believed to be true").  And to remind you, the passage in question is well to constructed for it to be explained away as clumsy language or poor word choice, which is why I reject the mangled language excuse.

Although I never said he believed it, I allow that as a possibility, and regard that as the “worst case” scenario.  The best case scenario is he didn’t believe it ("he didn’t mean it"), in which case he was obviously pandering to the local crowd.

Dude,

That is the most convoluted thing I have ever heard from you.  Keep it simple, just say he “meant what he said” (it wasn’t misstated) but that he didn’t believe what he said.  There is no distinction between “saying what you meant” and “meaning what you say”.

The fallibility in your argument is everywhere.  I will start with your conclusion that he was pandering to an urban elitist crowd.  How do you know what the crowd thinks?  Where is the data that gives you the ability to conclude they think people cling to religion out of bitterness?  Where is the evidence that these people cling to guns out of bitterness?  What makes you believe people in SF think this way?  Your tummy?

Where do you think I was born and raised?  Hint: San Francisco.

I knew what Obama was talking about when he said those words, because I knew of this line of thought years ago.  Jim Webb articulated this and Democrats seized on it as a way to lead a victory in some states.  I provided that evidence as an example of Democratic thought.  You ignored it.

I like guns.  I have several.  I hunt, I kill for sport.  Obama didn’t insult me for saying what he said because we knew what he meant and he cleared it up.

What you offer is a series of ridiculous conclusions.

1) Obama was pandering to a bunch of people who think Religious people, who have guns are only interested in their passions out of bitterness.  Because all SFers think this way??

2) Obama implied something, and there can only be one implication.  There can not possibly be another implication.

3) The long standing Democratic argument that people are no longer voting on Economic issues and instead are voting on emotional ones, like GUNS, RELIGION, GAY MARRIAGE and others is a non argument.  Because.....because it isn’t.

4) Obama quickly came up with another explanation, that matched a long-standing Democratic line of thought by accident and coincidence.

So we have to accept all of your ridiculous ideas in order to accept your conclusion.  The most simplist explaination is usually the most reasonable.  And you are running away from reason like a fox runs from a foxhound.

Hannitized,

I guess Chris Matthews is “can’t accept [Obama’s] word” and is therefor “stubborn.” Perhaps he couldn’t find some obscure reference to some politician named Webb to “easily find correct context” and is therefor “closed minded.” Perhaps because he “[took] the wrong meaning” might make him “stupid.” “But [he] always have a choice to find true context if [he is] honest enough.”

Which, I guess, means that Chris Matthews, noted right wing wacko, is just as dishonest as Rob in your world right?

Obama said exactly what he meant, and said it in such a concise and well-constructed way that anyone believing it was a clumsy statement is a moron.

Way to elevate the debate dipshit.

I have been laying out a logical and reasonable argument for you to ignore for two days.  In return I get “if you don’t agree with me, youre a moron”.

Your such a typical right-wing, propagandist asshat it isn’t even funny.

This is why I usually don’t bother with responding properly.  You don’t deserve it.

Youre a putz Rob.

Kibble,

Matthews didn’t say that he thinks Obama believes people cling to guns and religion because they are bitter.  Did he?  Of course not.

I can’t help that Matthews isn’t aware of this line of thinking anymore than you can say all Republicans are all up to snuff on every neo-con idea that has been elaborated on in the past.

You are stretching.

Out of thirty posts so far, some of how Hannitized has contributed to the “honest” debate:

You wont (sic) answer that because you know that you were off on so many levels you don’t wan’t (sic) to go stepping on all the land mines you dropped.  And I don’t mean land mines in the traditional sense.  I mean the kind that are left steaming after you squatted and dropped them on this poopy post.

See, the difference between you and I is that I am open minded and intellectually honest (in some alternative universe) enough to look at the situation and make a reasonable conclusion.

That is a just a shit-head thing to do.

But you always have a choice to find true context if you are honest enough.

If you have the stones.

This is why I said you and I could never have an honest debate.  Because you don’t want one, you can’t handle one and you are deliberately dishonest and ignorant so you can cling to your argument.

Youre going to make me repeat myself, arent (sic) you?  Because you just can’t stand it that your argument is dead.

Let me try that again....I mangled it.  It happens.  Although Rob would like to pretend it doesn’t.

Yes, I am sure that fits nicely within your hateful ambitions to distort in order to tear down your political opponents.  But why don’t you take a bite of reality sandwich by clicking the link above and see how Rob is pretending he doesn’t know of an alternative explanation.

Aww Robby, you still can’t admit that I solved your pet puzzle. Let’s review the argument you ran away from, because you were loosing (sic) it.

Way to elevate the debate dipshit.
Your such a typical right-wing, propagandist asshat it isn’t even funny.
This is why I usually don’t bother with responding properly.  You don’t deserve it.
Youre (sic) a putz Rob.

And not to think that he is fixated on Rob in any way shape or form:

Rob ignores it
It doesn’t matter to Rob
Robby, you still can’t admit
Rob is pretending
Rob would like to pretend
Rob, you are deliberately ignoring my argument\
Youre a putz Rob.

Gentlemen: Please don’t feed the peevish, whiny-ass, little bitch trolls!

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

Hannitized:  I know you won’t like this, but check out http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/obama_unwittingly_reveals_the_liberal_mindset

My take on the senator’s slow, downward sslide.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

“As a conservative, I will not be overly enthusiastic about voting for John McCain on November 4 - but I will be sprinting to the polling place to do so!”
Matthew May, conservative commentator, The American Spectator

Iona Knipl? This Bud’s for you!

Proof on April 9, 2008 at 04:39 pm

Yes it is a bad name! She probably owns two!

Proof on April 9, 2008 at 04:35 pm

WOOF: I look at you, I see a pattern of self abuse!

Proof on April 9, 2008 at 10:33 pm

lulz: (I always thought it was spelled “klutz”! )
You were probably just “banned” from any room with sharp objects!

Proof on April 10, 2008 at 10:34 am

...Laxative lattes, butt beans...gluteus grind! Maxwell’s Out house?

Proof on April 11, 2008 at 09:22 am

Someone call the wahhhmbulance! Little man is cranky and needs his nap!

Proof on April 11, 2008 at 03:46 pm

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

I never said any such thing.  I’m not familiar with the quote that you paraphrased, but that is irrelevant.  If he said it, then it’s a stupid thing for him to say.  So what?

Nice try deflecting attention from what Obama said and meant, though.  But it is a shallow effort and easily seen through.

Geez Carrick,

Are you using the “I wasn’t aware the day the President said this” excuse?  Gee, I can’t imagine why you would think that excuse would fly?  But regardless, it isn’t a “so what” moment.  Either he misspoke or he meant it.  If I was a dishonest sack of turd like Rob, I would claim he meant it.  Since you know, God told him to go to war and all.

But I am not like Rob.  I am a better man than Rob because I can be intellectually honest with my political opponents.  I can seek reason, where reason exists.  For what ever cause, a lack of intelligence, a lack of intellectual dishonesty, a lack of principles, my opponents can not do the same.

Suggesting that context is always an issue is not deflecting attention away from Obama.  Nor is it shallow.  It is a clear cut example of the double standards that exist on your side and a clear cut example of the mock outrage you guys are playing on this issue, that is not an issue.

It’s amazing to me the levels you will go to continue to believe this simple minded interpretation.

Hannitized, Obama privately admitted to his aides that he doesn’t understand why those in PA are angry from his comments…

Don’t you think that right there is a failure of understanding?

That this is a gap he can’t bridge?

His stereotypical, general comments reflect an elitist and closed mind, and the fact that he doesn’t realize why people are angry confirms this.

First Hannitized says this:

If I was a dishonest sack of turd like Rob, I would claim he meant it.  Since you know, God told him to go to war and all.

Then he says this:

But I am not like Rob.  I am a better man than Rob because I can be intellectually honest with my political opponents.

Right.  Because calling someone you disagree with a “sack of turd” is intellectually honest.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Nevermind, your last post reflects that you are of the same mind of Obama:
You don’t realize why it’s an issue.

You can’t gap the bridge between your mind and another’s mind.

Egotism, with the lack of affection, can do that.  Rural pleasantries and social communities that are “bitter” even god-fearing as he implies, may actually be good lovely places.

If you were a simple citizen in a lovely town in PA, wouldn’t you want an apology?

Pparets,

While I am sure you are proud of your post.  I can only say while imaginative, its really lacking something very important.  Logic.

Even if you ignore the fact that he didn’t use your words, didn’t do anything more that imply a conclusion that you guys are all to willing to jump to, what is the point of him saying this?

Why would Obama need to say that?  On so many facets this argument falls short.  From the most basic, to the most convoluted, you guys have not made a logical argument why your argument is logical.  It’s not.

H:

Are you using the “I wasn’t aware the day the President said this” excuse?  Gee, I can’t imagine why you would think that excuse would fly?  But regardless, it isn’t a “so what” moment.  Either he misspoke or he meant it.  If I was a dishonest sack of turd like Rob, I would claim he meant it.  Since you know, God told him to go to war and all.

If Bush said it, it’s a stupid thing for him to say.  But it’s dishonest for you to suggest simply because I wasn’t familiar with the supposed quote that some how I was excusing it.

What a shallow way to try and deflect attention from Obama in any case..

I am a better man than Rob because I can be intellectually honest with my political opponents.

Yeah, right.  You’re incapable of an honest discussion with anybody.

You are the least of anybody that is on this blog.

Hannitized, Obama privately admitted to his aides that he doesn’t understand why those in PA are angry from his comments…

Don’t you think that right there is a failure of understanding?

They are angry because they don’t understand what he really meant and instead cling to the simplistic interpretation that is being fed to them by guys like Rob who take the worst possible meaning from something they believe was implied.

Hannitized, I took the meaning of Obama’s actual words at face value.  If you want to fault me for that go right ahead, but you’re wrong to do so.

Also, do you really think this personal fixation on me is helping your cause at all?  Clearly I’m not the only one in the country, or even on this blog, who sees this issue with Obama the way I see it.  Calling me a “sack of turd,” and using all the other invective you’ve tossed my way, isn’t going to change that.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

If you were a simple citizen in a lovely town in PA, wouldn’t you want an apology?

That would hold water if it wasn’t for the fact that Jim Webb was elected on the mantra Obama tried to deliver, that he has reiterated and that is being ignored.

Jim Webb, aside from not being Barack Obama or even from Pennsylvania, never said anyone liked guns or hated immigrants because they were “bitter.”

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

It holds water because that is what those Pennsylvanians FEEL now.  Their feelings is irrefutable.

Jim Webb didn’t have a controversial pastor for the last 20 years, Obama did and is under a keen public eye.

It’s not a media conspiracy that triggered the repulsion of Obama’s comments in PA, but the growing conclusion that more and more Americans feel Obama is not their “fellow” American.

Carrick,

If Bush said it, it’s a stupid thing for him to say.

Bush did say it, and it was stupid.  The absolute worst choice of words to describe a military action in the middle east.

But, as you point out, Bush’s comment has nothing to do with Obama’s comments.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Hannitized, I took the meaning of Obama’s actual words at face value.  If you want to fault me for that go right ahead, but you’re wrong to do so.

Yeah, but you are also ignoring his other speeches and explanation and taking the worst possible interpretation out of some thing that was barely IMPLIED.  I am not wrong to criticize you and people like you who are doing this.

Also, do you really think this personal fixation on me is helping your cause at all?  Clearly I’m not the only one in the country, or even on this blog, who sees this issue with Obama the way I see it.

Oh I now that other people are doing the same.  This is what the Obama campaign is putting out in response to this no sense.

A few days ago, Barack spoke about the frustrations that working people in this country are feeling and said what we all know is true: that many people are bitter and angry because they believe their government isn’t listening to them.

You and I both know that the hope of changing that reality is what drives the unprecedented support for this campaign from ordinary people in every part of the country.

But our opponents have been spinning the media and peddling fake outrage around the clock. John McCain’s campaign, which will continue the George Bush economic policies that have devastated the middle class, called Barack out of touch and elitist. And Hillary Clinton, who is the candidate who said lobbyists represent real people, didn’t just echo the Republican candidate’s talking points: she actually used the very same words to pile on with more attacks.

These comments show just how out of touch Senator McCain and Senator Clinton are with the reality of what’s happening in this election.

We’ve built the broadest campaign of ordinary people in the history of presidential politics—and more people across this country have voted for Barack Obama than either one of them.

Well said, I would say.

Calling me a “sack of turd,” and using all the other invective you’ve tossed my way, isn’t going to change that.

I don’t think I called “you” a sack-o-turd”...i called your post on this issue a “sack-o-turd”...and it is.

H:  I don’t take ‘pride’ in any post.  That would be kind of creepy.  I simply describe what i believe the case to be.

With your permission, let me pose this question to you.

If Senator Obama did not say what he meant, or did not mean what he said, then what do you think he meant when he said it?

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

“As a conservative, I will not be overly enthusiastic about voting for John McCain on November 4 - but I will be sprinting to the polling place to do so!”
Matthew May, conservative commentator, The American Spectator

Hannitized,

I don’t think I called “you” a sack-o-turd”...i called your post on this issue a “sack-o-turd”...and it is.

No wonder you don’t get it on this Obama thing.  You can’t even comprehend your own comments made within minutes of each other on the same internet thread.

This is what you actually said in a comment above:

Are you using the “I wasn’t aware the day the President said this” excuse?  Gee, I can’t imagine why you would think that excuse would fly?  But regardless, it isn’t a “so what” moment.  Either he misspoke or he meant it.  If I was a dishonest sack of turd like Rob, I would claim he meant it. Since you know, God told him to go to war and all.

But I am not like Rob.  I am a better man than Rob because I can be intellectually honest with my political opponents.

Now you’re saying this:

I don’t think I called “you” a sack-o-turd”...i called your post on this issue a “sack-o-turd”...and it is.

This would be funny if you weren’t devolving into such a sad caricature of the average internet troll.

Try thinking a little harder next time.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

New Gallup national numbers after Obamas’ gaffe

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

worst possible interpretation out of some thing that was barely IMPLIED.  I am not wrong to criticize you and people like you who are doing this.

Hannitized: What you say is definitely plausible, along with the media spin…

I think his great speeches are just empty words...and I think those empty words are substantiated by his publicy toned-down stances of economics and war--which are FAR left, as many democrats in the Senate and House won’t deny. (Lieberman)

And it’s not just one slip, but a couple.

Rev. Wright…

Rob beat me to the punch.

“Sack of turd like Obama”

vs.

“I don’t think I called “you” a sack-o-turd”...i called your post”

But that’s besides the issue.  P poses a good question.

"Sack of turd like Rob"*

Doh....

rbb:  The only poll numbers that will matter in the next five days are from Pennsylvania.  You know… the place where people cling to their guns, their religion and their xenophobia out of bitterness. 

I suspect that Senator Obama is going to get his butt handed to him in that state’s primary.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

“As a conservative, I will not be overly enthusiastic about voting for John McCain on November 4 - but I will be sprinting to the polling place to do so!”
Matthew May, conservative commentator, The American Spectator

Thanks for proving your irrelevance, boob! You had to garner statements from three different days, five different threads, one of which was a lighthearted look at strange names people give their kids.

The examples I gave above from your fellow traveler Han-job, were all from one thread on one day! Every other comment from the peevish, whiny, little bitch Hannitized were insulting to Rob.
Every
other
comment.
Give it a rest, peevish, whiny, little bitch!
Oh, and you too, Hannitized!

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

It kinda proves you are irrelevant everyday, day after day.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

But I am not like Rob.  I am a better man than Rob because I can be intellectually honest with my political opponents.  I can seek reason, where reason exists.  For what ever cause, a lack of intelligence, a lack of intellectual dishonesty, a lack of principles, my opponents can not do the same.

Translation: Blah! Blah! Blah! Wah!

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

H, give it a rest already.  We all know you want us to read Obama’s comments differently.  Problem is, it reads plainly.  We know what Obama and other liberal elites think of us, we have for some time now.  We just don’t really care except for the fact that he is so plainly saying it that it cannot be denied even by one as committed doing so as you are.  You would do well to step back and think about how many more times you are going to have to try and take BO’s foot out of his mouth before Novemeber.  Then acknowledging the daunting task ahead of you, let this one rest.

It kinda proves you are irrelevant everyday, day after day.

Left wing nutters crack me up!

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

Her formerly double-digit lead is now just a five-point margin in Pennsylvania, survey finds. The reduced margin makes a win for her there less significant. She trails Obama among Hoosiers.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

You’ll all noticed that Hannitized has suddenly disappeared from this thread.

Fitting.

Boob, I don’t think Obama’s scandals are hitting him very hard because we’re still in the primary season and the polls are all polling Democrats.

Once Obama is in the general election Wright, “bitter” and all this other stuff is going to eat him alive.

He’s toast.  You liberals just don’t know it yet.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I look forward to the debates – my frriiiieeenndsssss

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Hey rube…are a McCainennite now?

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

You’ll all noticed that Hannitized has suddenly disappeared from this thread.

I like how the insignificant pissant incessantly stands atop his pile of dung and declares himself the only honest man here. Don’t believe it? Just ask him!
What a maroon!

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

If Bush said it, it’s a stupid thing for him to say.  But it’s dishonest for you to suggest simply because I wasn’t familiar with the supposed quote that some how I was excusing it.

After you said you never heard it, I asked you a question.  Are you going to “slap me down” for defending Bush on statement he made that could be taken out of context, yes or no?

You said you would slap me down for defending something stupid.  It may have been stupid, but it could also be dangerous.  Do you think Bush meant what he said?  Forget about the stupid part.

What a shallow way to try and deflect attention from Obama in any case..

It aint shallow to check for consistency.’

Why are you so aggressive and hostile?  Why would you “slap me down” for defending Bush?

Jim Webb, aside from not being Barack Obama or even from Pennsylvania, never said anyone liked guns or hated immigrants because they were “bitter.

You are brilliant.

Where did Barack Obama say people liked guns “because” they were bitter?  Hint: he didn’t you think he implied it and ran with it to take him out of context, on purpose.

Also, Webb said that people are something very close to bitter, and that they are left feeling that they can make a difference on emotional issues.  It is essentially the same thing.

Jim Webb didn’t have a controversial pastor for the last 20 years, Obama did and is under a keen public eye.

Where does it say this matters to the voters in relation to this argument?  Or, are you changing the subject on purpose?

It’s not a media conspiracy that triggered the repulsion of Obama’s comments in PA, but the growing conclusion that more and more Americans feel Obama is not their “fellow” American.

What evidence do you have, aside from your tummy, that gives you reason to conclude this?  Or, are you just being some sort of name we can’t call you, that you typically ascribe to us?

Bush did say it, and it was stupid.  The absolute worst choice of words to describe a military action in the middle east.

But, as you point out, Bush’s comment has nothing to do with Obama’s comments.

Way to avoid the point Rob.

Did Bush say it on purpose or not?  Because it was spoken clearly and we know Bush never talks without someone having to re-read his speeches to him, right?

If Senator Obama did not say what he meant, or did not mean what he said, then what do you think he meant when he said it?

PPARETS,

I think he tried to say what he meant.  He just mangled the words.  I don’t need to explain what I thought he tried to say, because Obama himself provided that clarity the next day....or a couple days later in several speeches.  You know this.

This is what you actually said in a comment above:

Sorry, I did call you as sack of turd.  I forgot, you got me.

This would be funny if you weren’t devolving into such a sad caricature of the average internet troll.

Try thinking a little harder next time.

Spare me.

I think his great speeches are just empty words...and I think those empty words are substantiated by his publicy toned-down stances of economics and war--which are FAR left, as many democrats in the Senate and House won’t deny. (Lieberman)

OK.  I don’t take exception to logical arguments.  We can disagree on if his policies are good or bad for the country.  But I am not going to let people dishonestly spin an innocent mistake for the sake of playing cheap politics.

And it’s not just one slip, but a couple.

I don’t know where you were going here.  You seemed to contradict yourself.  What what I said a plausible possibility or not?

H, give it a rest already.  We all know you want us to read Obama’s comments differently.  Problem is, it reads plainly. 

HG, give it a rest already.  We all know you want us to misinterpret Obamas’s comments like you do.  Problem is it reads plainly.

We know what Obama and other liberal elites think of us, we have for some time now. 

Yes, that voters are frustrated and bitter about their economic situation and so they vote on issues that they feel they can control, guns and fags.

We just don’t really care except for the fact that he is so plainly saying it that it cannot be denied even by one as committed doing so as you are.  You would do well to step back and think about how many more times you are going to have to try and take BO’s foot out of his mouth before Novemeber.  Then acknowledging the daunting task ahead of you, let this one rest.

The amazing part of this is that you expect me to take you seriously.  You aren’t exactly showing your intellectual superiority here HG.