Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » R. Debate (Page 0)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: R. Debate
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not relevant to this thread, but since I have no comment about Carson today (feel the Ben!), I figured I'd add this other bit of irrelevant news.

A poll asked people if they approve of Obama pardoning two turkeys for Thanksgiving instead of the usual one. 11% of self-identified Republicans said yes compared to 59% of Democrats.

The man can't get a break.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And if Bush junior had did this, how do you reckon the poll would have run? [Smile]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One hopes it would have been determined by how relieved the turkey looked when it got word.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I lifted this from another thread, as my comments are more relevant here:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AI Wessex:
I don't believe he thinks there is a difference. Conservatives (and some liberals, but fewer) don't make such fine distinctions, else why would 89% of Republicans disapprove of Obama "pardoning" a second turkey?

Because it's wasteful, entirely lacking in creativity, and conveys no message to the American people other than Obama is bigger than Jesus. Of course those that already believe in the Obasiah like the gesture and those that don't dont
I read a lot of news and commentary about American domestic politics, governance and foreign policy. Upon reflection, Pete's response to my post comes about as close to a Palin-esque disdain for Obama (and by extension, any Democrat or liberal who aligns with him on ideas or policies) as I've seen anywhere. If you're slipping behind on your Palin intake, catch the video of her recent appearance on Seth Meyers' show and try to parse what she says. You can't possibly reason with someone who believes what Pete wrote, and it's clear that there are millions of conservative Republicans who would nod their heads in solid agreement with him.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For hell'sake, Al, you are the one making noise about how awful conservatives are for not creaming in their pants over Barry pardoning an extra turkey. I only got a turkey this year by forgoing half my meds for the month, since federal policy denies me insurance until 2017. Pray tell why should I be happy about Barry "pardoning" 2 turkeys rather than one?

If this gesture ticked you let them eat cake lefties in your Lilly white gated communities, consider that not all share your privileges.

You have seen me strongly defend Obama on a number of incidents and policies, praise his leadership as to some specific incidents. But because I don't treat Barry like the Messiah, and disdain folks that reverence him like the god of hope and change, you me with Sarah Palin.

Al Wessex, may you get stuck with Palin on a desert Island.

[ November 26, 2015, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[You seem to have deleted the post I'm responding to here, but the replacement post isn't much better. Back to the sexual imagery, I see. BTW, if you keep editing the post to layer on new outrage, I won't know exactly what to respond to.]
----
Original post: My apologies, but I thought you said that by pardoning a second turkey Obama conveys a message to the American people that he is bigger than Jesus. Wait -- you *did* say that. Perhaps you meant Jesus Alou or you don't believe what you said??? Calling your comments Palin-esque addresses the odd juxtaposition of the reasons you gave to object to what he did. Where does the Reagan comparison come into this? Using Obama's baby name doesn't demean or diminish him, does it?

[ November 26, 2015, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al, why are you trolling Pete? He obviously meant that it's a pure PR move and means nothing, and those who don't like him obviously won't be interested in nursery rhyme propaganda (look how kind he is to the turkeys). Incidentally I see the tradition of pardoning a turkey when millions of chickens are eaten daily to be some kind of really dark humor.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al. I cannot say why Barry's minions attributed that bigger than Jesus move to Barry, but do you really think that's something this President came up with? I give Barry more credit than that. Clinton might spend days taking this sort of crap over with advisors but Barry spend his nonessential time with his wife and children. Because while he's a middling president, he is a good man.

"Using Obama's baby name doesn't demean or diminish him, does it?"

I don't think it does. Not unless you think that it demeans a president for citizens to suppose that president is accountable to them.

[ November 26, 2015, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Back to the sexual imagery, I see.

I had to reread my own post and can only guess at what you thought was a sexual image. Assuming you don't have a thing for turkeys, I can only think you meant Sarah Palin. And you were the one who brought her up. When I cursed you to isolation with Sarah Palin, sex was the last thing on my Ming. If the idea of sharing Geography with Palin is a sexual image for you, that says more about you than it does me.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Al, why are you trolling Pete? He obviously meant that it's a pure PR move and means nothing, and those who don't like him obviously won't be interested in nursery rhyme propaganda (look how kind he is to the turkeys). Incidentally I see the tradition of pardoning a turkey when millions of chickens are eaten daily to be some kind of really dark humor.

Trolling? I'd say directly challenging. Who really imagines that Obama is responding to his faithful minions by pardoning a second turkey? FWIW, the tongue-in-cheek tradition of giving a Presidential pardon to a turkey at Thanksgiving goes back to Lincoln and has been performed as a mock tribute at the WH since at least Truman's days, if not going back to the late 1800's. I wouldn't have imagined anyone would raise the political correctness objection, but we live in strange times.
quote:
I had to reread my own post and can only guess at what you thought was a sexual image.
You said something like "creaming in their pants" to describe somebody's reaction. Sexual, no?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Quite right. Apologies.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't raise the objection. You provided the fact, and then cited some sort of push survey that shoved the fact in voter faces and solicited a reaction. Then you judged them for how they felt when the privacy of their homes was invaded with a push poll about pardoning a second turkey.

L
Lincoln wasn't trying to start a "tradition." He was trying to divert Americans from judging condemning and hating each other. Which is the exact opposite of what these PR schlepped did when they concocted this better than Jesus ritual, accompanied by a push poll to prove that, gasp, lefties ate nicer people than conservatives. Lincoln Wept.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Then you judged them for how they felt when the privacy of their homes was invaded with a push poll about pardoning a second turkey.
Then why didn't Democrats in the same poll react with the same disdain? (Hint: You don't need a hint)
quote:
Lincoln wasn't trying to start a "tradition." He was trying to divert Americans from judging condemning and hating each other. Which is the exact opposite of what these PR schlepped did when they concocted this better than Jesus ritual, accompanied by a push poll to prove that, gasp, lefties ate nicer people than conservatives. Lincoln Wept.
No one who does something in response to a specific circumstance is likely to think of themselves as starting a significant tradition that requires all of his successors to play along. I don't think the "tradition" began with Lincoln, but he was the first to make that kind of gesture. It was actually popularized by a turkey farmer who delivered turkeys to the WH every year for a couple of decades. Then it fell out of fashion until Truman came along. I think he was presented with two turkeys, which he cooked and ate. The first time Kennedy pardoned a turkey it had a sign around its neck that said "Good Eating, Mr. President", and he decided to let it go. Maybe he was too squeamish to look his dinner in the eye before it felt the rapture. Maybe that's the religious connection you're looking for.

I don't get where the Jesus connection comes from and why you keep bringing it up. Thanksgiving is *the* secular holiday virtually everyone in the country recognizes and celebrates. It's like claiming that if Obama honored mothers on Mother's Day he's usurping Mary's privilege.

[ November 27, 2015, 08:26 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What Jesus conbection? "Bigger than Jesus" is an allusion to Beatlemania. Did you sleep through the 60s and 70s?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK, I'll buy that. Wasn't obvious or clear on reflection, but I'm able to go to my reserves and make that leap [Smile] .
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:

"Using Obama's baby name doesn't demean or diminish him, does it?"

I don't think it does. Not unless you think that it demeans a president for citizens to suppose that president is accountable to them.

That's a total non sequitur. You don't have to be rude to someone to hold them accountable.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Look. It's trying to think.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
**^ that is the sort of thing I say when I am being rude.

Me calling the president of my country by the version of his name that sounds best in my language is called "familiarization" and only sounds rude to people with a pickle up their --

-- never mind. No need to be rude.

Calling Barry Barry is no more rude than me calling George W Bush "Bush Junior", which I do, and don't recall you ever objecting.

So stop punching down, Pyr. Barry does not need your worship or your knee jerk enforcement from the likes of me. Stop beating off a dead horse. You have had your say about my usage of the name Barry long ago and your reputation of a frightful bore.

[ November 30, 2015, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cell typo on that last line. "Reputation" was not what I typed. I meant the reputation, not Pyr, is a frightful bore. Not Pyr himself. Sorry for failed proofing
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Calling Barry Barry is no more rude than me calling George W Bush "Bush Junior", which I do, and don't recall you ever objecting.
To be on record, I do object, if that's not the name he chooses to go by. Calling people by the names they ask to be called by is basic fundamental respect. Asserting the you have the power and privilege to assign them whatever name you chose is demeaning.

quote:
Barry does not need your worship or your knee jerk enforcement from the likes of me
What worship? Asking for basic respect is not worship.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The GOP primary race objectives are shifting in a way that has never happened before. There's a saying that Republicans choose their candidate from the heart and Democrats choose from the head. Ultimately, on either side you have to choose someone you can be passionate about who will win the election. In 2012 they settled on Romney, but he wasn't from the heart. Obama won easily due to what GOP analysts said afterward was tepid support for Romney from the Party loyalists.

They are going through the same issue now, but instead of either choosing from the heart or trying to choose from the head, the focus is shifting to find a candidate who draws less heart and passion, but doesn't have that "other Party" feel.

Arguably the three most popular choices today are Trump, Carson and Cruz. All are pulling people who are almost (or actually) fanatically attached to them. They have plenty of appeal at the state level, but none of them are liked within the national GOP establishment of sitting Senators or Party leaders. They are ideologues (iconoclasts) who rally their supporters with firebrand rhetoric and populist messaging.

The GOP itself is beginning to get scared now. It's not a matter of which one of them Party leaders would support, but which one, if any, they could tolerate in the election. Which one won't destroy the Party's legitimacy and cost them seats and support in the House or Senate, in other words.

Recent stories talk about derailing Trump, but that would likely lead to a transfer of support to Cruz. Eliminating Carson would also help Cruz and redistribute support even-handedly to others further down-polling. Bush has already absorbed all the mega-donor funding he's likely to get, so he's now being seen as potentially the next dropout, even before Fiorina or Huckabee.

But the Party focus right now is to get rid of those top three and then sort out who is least worst among those who remain. The problem there is that they won't completely go away, so the three of them together will probably hold onto about 50% of voters through the first set of caucuses and primary ballots. That means that one of the other contenders will have to surge with enough appeal to win the heart of the eventual voters.

Most of the other candidates are as absurd and extreme as the top three, but they are niche players. I look to the Party and donors to start moving in Rubio's direction over the next month in order to position him to steal the deal and save the Party. If not him, then it may have to be Bush after all, or maybe a convention draft...like Romney.

[ December 02, 2015, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some friends and I were just talking about this, though focusing on Trump specifically. The 3 theories we came up with are these.

Trump is in it for the publicity. He doesn't want to be president but will turn this publicity into more cash and come out ahead.

The GOP is encouraging Trump and the other extreme right rhetoric going on and has written off this election already. The spectacular failure they predict in the primaries will be the leverage they need to silence the tea party and more contentious elements within their own party. They will rebrand themselves as the new (old?) Republican party who is seen as the responsible counter to the Democrat policies.

And lastly that Trump wants to be Lex Luthor.

So to your point AI, I think the GOP would be worried, if they thought they were going to take the Whitehouse.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Calling Barry Barry is no more rude than me calling George W Bush "Bush Junior", which I do, and don't recall you ever objecting.
To be on record, I do object, if that's not the name he chooses to go by. Calling people by the names they ask to be called by is basic fundamental respect. Asserting the you have the power and privilege to assign them whatever name you chose is demeaning.

quote:
Barry does not need your worship or your knee jerk enforcement from the likes of me
What worship? Asking for basic respect is not worship.

Barry has never, to my knowledge, asked the general public to not call him Barry.

Giving one's political leaders names is a right older than "Alexander the Great"

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think it's pretty obvious what his preferred name is. Refusing to use it in favour of a diminutive nickname has connotations. I don't think familiarization is one of them.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think you should go with Brak from Space Ghost Coast to Coast. I don't see how Barry is short hand for Barack. Then again, as much as I like that character, it may be just as if not more disrespectful...
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Some friends and I were just talking about this, though focusing on Trump specifically. The 3 theories we came up with are these.

There's also one that lies somewhere between performance art and self-aggrandizement.

Trump is applying his understanding of marketing and media power to play to win without any real principles behind his approach. He'll say exactly what he needs to say to win support at and given time and play on research of exactly what it is that people want to hear to gain the most support. He's effectively actually being what people accused President Clinton of.

It's possible that he's doing it just because he wants to win for his own ego, or that he's doing it to outright demonstrate how badly broken our political and media environment are.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've been curious for awhile that he may get right up to the finish line and then scold all his supporters. Seems unlikely though. The, "they should pay me to do the debates" was an amusing touch. (He was suggesting to use the money for veteran charities I believe.)
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Barry has never, to my knowledge, asked the general public to not call him Barry.
Can you find any examples where Obama asked people not to call him a Muslim, terrorist, traitor, gay, Indonesian, Kenyan or Communist? If he was asked why he doesn't push back I would imagine because he thinks it says a lot about the person demeaning him and nothing about himself.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Most of the other candidates are as absurd and extreme as the top three, but they are niche players.

Maybe to you, but I see very few of them as absurd or extreme. I mean your chosen candidate (I think) is a criminal and repeated liar, how exactly is that less absurd?

On the turkey issue, can you explain why anyone on either party should approve of pardoning a turkey? Honestly, approval implies that you believe this was a worthy act, the best I can come up with is that it would be just as stupid to disapprove of it, or really to have any opinion on it all. It's not like he's forgoeing serving or eating turkey, so you can't even turn it into a vegan/vegetarian political statement, heck in the modern world you could construe it as insensitive and mocking of vegetarians and vegans to engage in the pardoning while still eating turkey.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
I've been curious for awhile that he may get right up to the finish line and then scold all his supporters. Seems unlikely though. The, "they should pay me to do the debates" was an amusing touch. (He was suggesting to use the money for veteran charities I believe.)

There's no question that he's a narcissistic egomaniac who revels in attention. I think he'll do whatever it takes to keep his face in all of ours right up to the bitter end. I also don't think he's given much thought at all to what he would do if he were actually elected (which he won't be), because even he doesn't expect it to happen.

It will be interesting if he raises the 3rd Party option again. He does love to rock the rocky boat because, well, he can. What a waste of good hair.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Maybe to you, but I see very few of them as absurd or extreme. I mean your chosen candidate (I think) is a criminal and repeated liar, how exactly is that less absurd?
Yes, of course she is, of course she is. Yesterday Pete pointed out that she's murdered more people than any other candidate. Yes, of course she has, of course. Being a "repeated liar" unique to her?

By saying they are not extreme or absurd, would you be willing to respond to specific statements they have made that I will dredge up from the toxic archives? I won't waste my time if you're going to handwave their crazy talk as just what candidates do. Repeated lying is a very popular feature in this election cycle.
quote:
On the turkey issue, can you explain why anyone on either party should approve of pardoning a turkey?
Um, because he's a Muslim anti-Christ (bigger than Jesus, according to Pete), Vegan terrorist? Why else would he do such a thing? BTW, Kasich issued an Executive order banning maize and/or blue pants last Saturday. He must be a very reasonable person, in contrast.

[ December 02, 2015, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Please stop repeating that foul misreprentation, Al. I already corrected you on this twice, and the last time you said you understood.

".bigger than Jesus" is an obvious reference to Beatlemania. Unless you think the Beatles were the Antichrist, only a fool would take that phrase as saying Obama himself thinks he's bigger than jesus. And only a person like you or G3 would repeat the misrepresentation after being corrected and acknowledge in the correction. (To be fair, I haven't seen g4 do this in his Rafi incarnation.

[ December 02, 2015, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I also don't think that Barry is a Muslim and so I don't appreciate you putting that lie in my mouth. I have repeatedly said that I think Barry is a more devout Christian than any Pres since Jimmy Carter.

I sometimes call him Barry because that's a Christian name rather than the Muslim name which technically would paint him as a Muslim apostate.

[ December 02, 2015, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Obama is not an Antichrist since he does not fit the simple definition laid out in John's epistles.

nd for your basic education, there is no such thing as "the AntiChrist.". That idiotic singularity is the product of fundamentalist illiterates and dread by ... Well no offense, Al but spread by people like you.you are to Christianity what Fox News is to Islam.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al,

That doesn't answer my question about why anyone should 'approve' of a meaningless pardon to a turkey. I really don't see any reason why anyone should care one way or the other. I don't think it implies anything that less Republicans approve, be interested if a majority of them disapproved though as that would be nonsensical bias.

If you really want to pull up specific absurd quotes, knock yourself out. That's just a derivation of the typical media strategy to highlight random absurd statements (which every single human makes) as more significant than the overall policy positions. On the absurd scale, I think Trump is probably the winner, with Rand Paul coming in second, both by intentional policy and style choices. I don't find gaffes to be great evidence of absurdity (unless, you're say also re-writing President Obama on his old 57 states claim?), they're just evidence of human slip ups.

On the extremist side, really Huckabee is out there by himself on many issues. A bunch of them are out there on abortion issues. Christie is out there on privacy issues. And Rand is out on several Constitutional/operational issues. But almost none of them are terrible extreme across all or even a majority of issues (neither by the way is Clinton - at least as she's choosing to present herself this time).

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Yesterday Pete pointed out that she's murdered more people than any other candidate."

Closer to not being a lie. I said she and bill have a murderous blue fairy godmother. That doesn't make her culpable or even necessarily knowing. Powerful people are invested in Clinton wins. Hence the plane crashes and other unlikely deaths of inconvenient persons. Last I counted was jfk junior's plane going down a week after he announced candidacy.

I didn't say this to try to discredit Clinton herself. Quite the contrary, it's important to realize that all this talk of other candidates is just an academic exercise.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What I said was that I could not understand the point of the day PR stunt where the White House "pardoned" two turkeys instead of one, and that the only point I could envision, was to protest Obama as "bigger than Jesus". Al never suggested anything else that the PR stunt might mean, which might explain his bitterness with me and eagerness to distort what I said.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I thought it was blitheringly obvious, but I'll say it anyway. It's just a joke. Every President since Kennedy has pardoned a turkey. For whatever humorous reason made him think to do it, Obama decided to pardon two. Here's why he does it at all:
quote:
"It is a little puzzling that I do this every year," Obama said, "but I will say that I enjoy it, because with all the tough stuff that swirls around in this office, it's nice once in a while to just say, 'Happy Thanksgiving.' "
As to approving or disapproving of him doing it, the question itself is fairly stupid, but the answer *is* interesting. One of the allowed responses was "Not sure". Why be sure it was a bad idea, then? The answer to that is because you will take any opportunity to disapprove of him if given the chance. And you will most likely be a conservative white Christian Republican. Such is the gap between partisanship and respect for the Office.

Just so you can take a rounder view of this contentious issue, Reagan was the first to officially "pardon" the turkey; before him they just decided to let it live. The story is that in the middle of the Iran-Contra scandal he was asked if he would pardon any of the people who were involved. He dodged the question and pardoned the turkey instead.
quote:
I also don't think that Barry is a Muslim and so I don't appreciate you putting that lie in my mouth. I have repeatedly said that I think Barry is a more devout Christian than any Pres since Jimmy Carter
Pete, I don't attribute every foul statement about Obama to you, only the ones I can think of that you've reiterated for our consideration. I don't recall you calling him a Muslim, but you've maligned him and impugned his motives quite often.
quote:
I sometimes call him Barry because that's a Christian name rather than the Muslim name which technically would paint him as a Muslim apostate.
It's a Christian name, but it's not his. It's infantalizing that you do it, since you've been told time and again that that was his baby nickname that he rejected when he grew up. I imagine that you and Rafi G are literally sneering as you type it.
quote:
".bigger than Jesus" is an obvious reference to Beatlemania.
Yes, you said that, and I recall it took you several passes before you came up with that explanation. It would have been much better if you had said that right away.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
As to approving or disapproving of him doing it, the question itself is fairly stupid, but the answer *is* interesting. One of the allowed responses was "Not sure". Why be sure it was a bad idea, then? The answer to that is because you will take any opportunity to disapprove of him if given the chance.

If that was your claim you cited to the wrong statistics, you cited to approval not disapproval. And you imputed that because only 11% of Republicans took the ridiculous step of approving his pardon, they were acting partisan. The stat you need to show that is the disapproval rate. All the approval rates show is that the Democrats engaged in partisan support of a stupid topic.
quote:
And you will most likely be a conservative white Christian Republican. Such is the gap between partisanship and respect for the Office.
Not really. I see no way in which not approving of the blatantly silly act of pardoning
a turkey conveys disrespect for the office of the President. It could be argued that the pardon itself is what does so, but really only by the utterly humorless.

What shows partisanship is getting worked up because the otherside doesn't "approve" of an even sillier aggrandizement of a silly tradition.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
All the approval rates show is that the Democrats engaged in partisan support of a stupid topic.
Yes, it was outrageous.
quote:
Not really. I see no way in which not approving of the blatantly silly act of pardoning
a turkey conveys disrespect for the office of the President. It could be argued that the pardon itself is what does so, but really only by the utterly humorless.

I agree that some people appear to be utterly humorless.
quote:
What shows partisanship is getting worked up because the otherside doesn't "approve" of an even sillier aggrandizement of a silly tradition.
I suppose that's because any recognition of weirdness of certain groups of people is partisan. If you did read the report containing the survey results, you know that that is the only question that had a significant partisan divide; it was also the only question that asked about something Obama did or said. For instance, Democrats and Republicans are pretty evenly split on whether to call it "stuffing" or "dressing" (half are wrong!) and in agreement that Christmas music is played way too far in advance of the holiday.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1