Campaign 2008

[At Home 0]

Yeah fuck that nigger.

[Firestarter 0]

Yeah fuck that nigger.

Basically, yes.

[At Home 0]

Right, what did i say

[Firestarter 0]

Ah don't quite recall, but Ah'm quite sure that whatever it was was jes' fahn with me, hon.

[At Home 0]

wanna kiss

[Firestarter 0]

wanna kiss

Always.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

Saw Marney's name and was expecting mucho bloodshed. What a let down

[SuperJerk 0]

No, he absolutely misinterpreted my post, his points are completely one-sided (the "Republicans think they're the 'holy' party" line does not salvage the other paragraphs), and I don't know how to defend myself against allegations that I don't want to hear the other people's side BESIDES using examples from this thread (I've been critical of Jerk and JotW, to name a few), and other real-life instances that prove that I'm MORE interested in hearing everyone else's opinions other than my own? I'm sorry if you feel the fact that me saying that gives me a holier-than-thou mentality (it doesn't), but if you can come up with a more effective way to defend myself, then please, chime in.

 

Are we talking about my opinions, or my methods?

 

If you want to criticize my opinions, that's what I actually want.

 

If your criticism is of my methods is because you don't get where I'm coming from.

 

Its not that I don't want to hear other people's side. I just expect people to be able to defend their side when I dare to question it. The fact that I constantly try to poke holes in every else's arguments is an open invitation for the opposition to elaborate and attempt to disprove me in return. I want my ideas to be scrutinized and challenged, because the only way to know if an idea is any good is it it stands up to scrutiny.

 

I used to be a very staunch Republican, but little by little, my ideas were refuted by someone else's argument or the presentation of more accurate facts, and my views shifted more to the left.

 

I'll give an example:

 

I initially supported Evan Bayh for president, based on the premise he was the most experienced candidate and had the superior chance of winning based on that. Then someone, I think it was Snuffbox, made an argument (on this very thread) that superior experience means nothing if that experience led to bad decisions, like initially supporting the Iraq War. And I thought about it. And I thought about it. And then I decided he was right, and I was wrong. By the time Obama made his official announcement, I was at a point where I was convinced that judgment was more valuable than experience, and it was natural to support him from that point on. But it is possible that if Snuffbox hadn't said we he did, there's a chance I'd have ended up supporting Bill Richardson, or Joe Biden, or Hillary Clinton because they had more experience.

 

I know I'm wrong sometimes, I just don't know I'm wrong at the time, otherwise I wouldn't be wrong anymore. So, I throw all my ideas out there in the hopes than someone can either refute me and change my mind, or present a chance for my idea to withstand scrutiny and be reinforced. And I scrutinize other people's opinions with the same goal in mind, that they will present a strong enough case that either their idea will change my mind through their defense, or my idea will be reinforced.

[At Home 0]

Are we talking about my opinions, or my methods?

 

No, Matt's.

[SuperJerk 0]

I meant in reference to your reference to me.

[SuperJerk 0]

<eyes thread wryly> I find it funny that I am now, probably, the most anti-McCain person on this board.

 

Although I'd still vote for his sorry wrinkled dumb old ass over B.O. Hussein.

 

Just what we need...more glib comments that offer no factual, persuasive, or actually humorous content.

 

Okay....here comes my obligatory attempt to appeal to Marney's sense of reason....

 

Other than attacking his parentage, which is irrelevant, is there anything you can to say to back your negative opinion up with?

 

Maybe you could start with explaining why his policies are wrong or why he's isn't capable of handling the job of being president, and sticking to relevant and factual information.

 

Is that too much to ask?

[Nightwing 0]

Right, it's trolling. I got the word wrong. My mistake. From what I can understand, it's sincere on his behalf. He talked about rising above all the hub-bub and, gasp, SWINGING BACK TO UNDECIDED. So, that's what I'll go on: his points and how he decides to present them.

 

And talking about how you "play devil's advocate in International Relations class" is any better? He might be trolling, but then your response is only fueling that, and I think you realized it after you posted. It came off as self-righteous, and I wanted to say it was a bad response to what he was talking about. You proved his point... at least, as much as he had one.

 

Good way to paint me in that color. Did you make a piggy face when you typed that "OMG" bit?

 

I'm sorry, your little rant about your international relations class sort of did that to you. It sounded exactly like his "I'm back to undecided" speech.

 

How can I interpret this as other than something along the lines of this?: "Democrats today want everyone to have an equal say in matters, until it comes to people whom they disagree with, which they want to shut out entirely." That's wanting to stifle debate. I don't know how he also can say that only Democrats do this. Both parties are somewhat guilty of doing it.

 

I didn't say that he was completely right. I just thought your post was bad because you essentially proved his point.

 

No, he absolutely misinterpreted my post, his points are completely one-sided (the "Republicans think they're the 'holy' party" line does not salvage the other paragraphs), and I don't know how to defend myself against allegations that I don't want to hear the other people's side BESIDES using examples from this thread (I've been critical of Jerk and JotW, to name a few), and other real-life instances that prove that I'm MORE interested in hearing everyone else's opinions other than my own? I'm sorry if you feel the fact that me saying that gives me a holier-than-thou mentality (it doesn't), but if you can come up with a more effective way to defend myself, then please, chime in.

 

The more effective way of doing it would be to simply explaining your position correctly, rather than going on some rant about how you play devil's advocate in International Relations class. I don't even understand why you did it, because it completely undermines what you're trying to say. It's not like he's made some incredible observation; I quickly dismantled most of it. Is it truly that hard to point out how one-dimensional his observation is without preceding it with a weird rant?

 

But whatever. It's not like I disagree with you on the actual point, anyways.

 

And who the hell is B.O. Hussein?

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

It's already fooled us twice and 270 electoral votes worth of Americans simply couldn't be THAT stupid this time.

Sadly, I'd have to take that bet.

[Brett Favre 0]

And who the hell is B.O. Hussein?

 

Barrack Obama. Did you know his middle name is Hussein? That shit is crazy.

[SuperJerk 0]

This interview clip puts Palin in a much better light than previous ones...

 

[Firestarter 0]

Okay....here comes my obligatory attempt to appeal to Marney's sense of reason....

 

Other than attacking his parentage, which is irrelevant, is there anything you can to say to back your negative opinion up with?

 

Maybe you could start with explaining why his policies are wrong or why he's isn't capable of handling the job of being president, and sticking to relevant and factual information.

 

Is that too much to ask?

Rezko Ayers Wright

Liberal liberal liberal

Talk to Iran

Dismantle our nukes

No "weaponizing" space, ignoring the fact that China's doing it already

Cutting back on DARPA funding

Cutting back on all defense funding

Being... welll... B.O. Hussein

[Firestarter 0]

McCain is just the lesser evil.

 

But he betrayed us on amnesty. stem cells. Torture. Judges. The First Amendment. The SNL guys got it absolutely right:

 

***

 

ARMISEN as Senator OBAMA: "John, the fact is, the 'surge' was itself a remedy for a series of failed military policies by this Administration, policies you initially supported. As you have supported this President 90 percent of the time."

 

HAMMOND as Senator McCAIN: "Jim, my opponent knows that's not true. I've never supported President Bush. I have undermined President Bush. Just ask any Republican. I have always been disloyal to this President, a disloyal, unreliable, untrustworthy renegade, who has abandoned my Party whenever it most needed me. The fact is, you simply can't count on John McCain."

 

***

 

Yeah, well, excuse my language, but... no fucking shit? Is this supposed to be a surprise to me?

 

McCain's an asshole who's spent most of his life looking for Newsweek or Time covers. McCain has made a career out of mocking, ridiculing, and denigrating me and other Christians, Republicans, and true conservatives.

 

Does anyone remember amnesty for illegals? Stem cells ripped out of murdered babies? Opposition to the perfectly justified torture of Mohammedan assholes trying to fucking MURDER us all? Restricting the First Amendment with his idiotic CFR limits? Opposing drilling in ANWR to, I don't know, save the fucking mosquitoes?!

 

Fuck a whole bunch of John McCain. I want Sarah Palin on... um... top.

 

<blushes faintly>

[Firestarter 0]

Highland said: Yeah, the CE folder there has been compared to DailyKos.

 

Sarah Kerrigan says (1:26 AM): DailyKos though on occasion gets yanked back in because the idiot MSM thinks they're important enough to recognize even as they're scared to death of acknowledging the fact that the get all their "news" from the website's rabid posters. TSM doesn't even rank that. Its individual posters certainly don't. Although I'm sure they'd all be lining up to suck Olbermann's asshole.

 

(I'd say "cock," but I don't believe that toupeed shithead has one.)

[SuperJerk 0]

I'll save my rebuttal for comments that are actually...coherent.

 

Rezko Ayers Wright

Liberal liberal liberal

Talk to Iran

Dismantle our nukes

No "weaponizing" space, ignoring the fact that China's doing it already

Cutting back on DARPA funding

Cutting back on all defense funding

Being... welll... B.O. Hussein

 

1. Rezko: Guilt by association isn't a rational argument. Every policitian probably knows some crooks.

Bill Ayers never hurt anyone and disavowed the damage he caused years ago....and that happened when Obama was 6 years old and he's never, ever condoned what Ayers did.

Wright: It is possible to know someone, even be close with them, and not agree with everything they say.

 

2. Argumentum ad hominem.

 

3. We need to talk to Iran. No, not talk to President Ahmadinejad. Yes, he's because he's a nut, but also because he has no authority over foreign policy, the military, or nuclear policy.

 

4. I don't know what you're referring to.

 

5. If China's really doing this, it needs to be dealt with by getting Chiuna to stop, instead of adding to the danger.

 

6. Conservatives have argued for years against just blindly throwing money at things and reducing government spending. Is every dollar being spent in this area really necessary, or is the budget for DARPA another way politicians can add money to the Defense budget in order to look tough for their constiuents?

 

7. We won't need as big of a defense budget once we get most of our troops out of Iraq. We don't want to be there. The Iraqi people don't want us there. The Iraqi government doesn't want us there. Our presence there in its current form only created the problems we're now trying to fix.

 

8. Barack Obama's first and last intials are "B" and "O." "B.O." is also an abbreviation for "body odor." Yeah, that's hardly a caliber of wit that rises above 9th grade gym class, I'm afraid.

Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein. Saddam Hussein's middle name was Hussein. OMG CONSPIRACY~!!!!!111

[Firestarter 0]

do shush, dearheart.

 

1. All politicians do, probably, yes, but B.O. Hussein can be directly tied to THIS crook by virtue of having his first kickoff at Ayers' house. And like serving with him on the CAC board. But why am I bothering? You'll believe what you believe, I'll believe what I'll believe, and the only real poll that matters is on November 4th.

 

2. "Argumentum ad hominem" - In the case of the little Obama child, I'd say that's questionable.

 

3. "We need to talk to Iran." Really? I was thinking we could just nuke them.

 

"No, not talk to President Ahmadinejad."

 

Really? But Ahmawhateveradinjaadadad thinks it's his divine mission to "wipe Israel off the map." You think there's a compromise we should negotiate there?

 

"Yes, he's because he's a nut, but also because he has no authority over foreign policy, the military, or nuclear policy."

 

Um. He seems to be doing all right with everything else to me. And to like gay guys getting crushed under stone walls and women learning how to read and children not wanting to get married before they're 7.

 

4. "I don't know what you're referring to."

 

This does not surprise me.

 

5. "If China's really ["weaponizing space"], it needs to be dealt with by getting Chiuna to stop, instead of adding to the danger."

 

bwahahahahahahahaha

 

Yeah, we should call a UN council meeting right away.

 

 

 

...anyway, and so on.

[Firestarter 0]

Well what the heck, I'm bored...

 

6. Conservatives have argued for years against just blindly throwing money at things and reducing government spending. Is every dollar being spent in this area really necessary, or is the budget for DARPA another way politicians can add money to the Defense budget in order to look tough for their constiuents?

 

Screw you guys, I'm goin' home!

 

Explain to me how your constituents are well-served by any socialist program when they're all, well, dead.

 

7. We won't need as big of a defense budget once we get most of our troops out of Iraq. We don't want to be there. The Iraqi people don't want us there. The Iraqi government doesn't want us there. Our presence there in its current form only created the problems we're now trying to fix.

 

Yeah. Everyone hates us just because we're in Iraq.

 

Um, please tell me that not even the Democrats believe that.

 

8. Barack Obama's first and last intials are "B" and "O." "B.O." is also an abbreviation for "body odor." Yeah, that's hardly a caliber of wit that rises above 9th grade gym class, I'm afraid.

Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein. Saddam Hussein's middle name was Hussein. OMG CONSPIRACY~!!!!!111

 

Nah... I just call him that to mock him. You're the ones who take it as a serious attack. About whom does that say more?

[SuperJerk 0]

Are you here to have a discussion or to make jokes? Because nothing you said after your first point made any sense. And I don't understand your McCain-like obsession with centering ALL discussion of Iran on its president instead of the people who are actually in charge. That seems like a diversionary tactic to avoid admitting you don't know what you're talking about.

 

You've been back for like, what, two hours? And I'm already tired of you again. Say what you want about MarvinisaLunatic, at least he tries to have an actual discussion and persuade people instead of just resorting to cliched retorts and insults.

 

I mean, really now...

 

"In the case of the little Obama child, I'd say that's questionable."

 

"Really? I was thinking we could just nuke them."

 

"bwahahahahahahahaha"

 

Is that really the best you can do?

 

 

Sarah Kerrigan says (1:26 AM): DailyKos though on occasion gets yanked back in because the idiot MSM thinks they're important enough to recognize even as they're scared to death of acknowledging the fact that the get all their "news" from the website's rabid posters. TSM doesn't even rank that. Its individual posters certainly don't. Although I'm sure they'd all be lining up to suck Olbermann's asshole.

 

(I'd say "cock," but I don't believe that toupeed shithead has one.)

 

Grow up.

 

Also, I googled the name "Sarah Kerrigan" and apparently its a Starcraft character, and not an Air Force Colonel and member of the RNC Steering Committee.

[SuperJerk 0]

Well what the heck, I'm bored...

 

6. Conservatives have argued for years against just blindly throwing money at things and reducing government spending. Is every dollar being spent in this area really necessary, or is the budget for DARPA another way politicians can add money to the Defense budget in order to look tough for their constiuents?

 

Screw you guys, I'm goin' home!

 

Explain to me how your constituents are well-served by any socialist program when they're all, well, dead.

 

Fund DARPA to your preference level or die? Are you sure those are the only two choices?

 

7. We won't need as big of a defense budget once we get most of our troops out of Iraq. We don't want to be there. The Iraqi people don't want us there. The Iraqi government doesn't want us there. Our presence there in its current form only created the problems we're now trying to fix.

 

Yeah. Everyone hates us just because we're in Iraq.

 

A lot of Iraqis hate us because we're in Iraq. And like I said, neither Iraq's people, nor its new government we helped install, still want us there.

 

8. Barack Obama's first and last intials are "B" and "O." "B.O." is also an abbreviation for "body odor." Yeah, that's hardly a caliber of wit that rises above 9th grade gym class, I'm afraid.

Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein. Saddam Hussein's middle name was Hussein. OMG CONSPIRACY~!!!!!111

 

Nah... I just call him that to mock him. You're the ones who take it as a serious attack. About whom does that say more?

 

Trust me, no one thinks that's a serious attack. We know it's just a half-ass attempt at wit by an inferior mind.

[Firestarter 0]

Are you here to have a discussion or to make jokes? Because nothing you said after your first point made any sense. And I don't understand your McCain-like obsession with centering ALL discussion of Iran on its president

umm... point one... you really won't find anyone who hates McCain more than me on this whole damn board. I promise you that. If you do I will sign off permanently tomorrow. I pledge you that irrevocably.

 

Two: you're only repeating the Obama camp's talking about Amhamahdaingnaindahajajdadnad not being the central authority in Iran to demonstrate your OH SO PRECIOUS understanding of Mohammedan culture... which is to say... rather tedious at best. The fact is that the President of Iran commands the military forces of Iran. The fact that the successor of the Ayatollah Khomeini (whom I once met, by the way) could, technically, assert his authority over the President of Iran is immaterial because Khamenei AGREES with everything Ahmedingianghahginahdjaad is doing right now. So would you kindly shut your half-educated mouth and sit in the corner over there, please?

 

"Grow up."

 

Dear... we could, and have had a civil conversation in the past, in private... there's no need to posture in public.

[BUTT 0]

Also, I googled the name "Sarah Kerrigan" and apparently its a Starcraft character, and not an Air Force Colonel and member of the RNC Steering Committee.

Yeah, well I googled the name "SuperJerk" and I got Sebastian Bach lyrics!

[Firestarter 0]

Yeah, well I googled the name "SuperJerk" and I got Sebastian Bach lyrics!

Do be quiet about that. He doesn't like Bach. No one with an education does.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Democrats today cry for everyone to have an equal voice (i.e. womens' rights with abortion, gay marriage with homosexuality), up until it comes to people that differ from their opinion.

 

Of course, Republicans think they're the "holy" party, which is another issue altogether...

We are still tied down to the civil rights era in some respects, and the Democrats have little interest in populism when it comes to civil rights. Segregation ended without popular support, and a lot has been achieved via creative intepretations of the constitution and the act of occasionally pulling a new right out of a judge's ass to help society keep with the times.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I didn't say that he was completely right. I just thought your post was bad because you essentially proved his point.

There's few arguments that I hold less respect for than "if tolerant people were really so tolerant, they'd tolerate the intolerant people!" It's completely circular logic.

 

McCain's an asshole who's spent most of his life looking for Newsweek or Time covers. McCain has made a career out of mocking, ridiculing, and denigrating me and other Christians, Republicans, and true conservatives.

Is anyone voting for McCain now? It's funny that you bring up this unique viewpoint (and I stress unique), since here I am on the other end tired of listening to an old man who has been on the public dole for his health insurance since the radio era tell me about how collective bargaining is unamerican.

 

John McCain is the expert in 'socialized medicine' since nobody has been taking advantage of it for as long as he has.

 

I wish you'd get your act together and realize that Goldwater Conservatism is closer to Reagan Conservatism than Alan Keyes conservatism is. But at least we all get to bash away together this year.

 

Does anyone remember amnesty for illegals?

He still seems to have no interest in going after the companies that hire them.

 

Stem cells ripped out of murdered babies?

That's dishonest and you know it. Frist made legislation to outlaw harvesting.

 

Opposition to the perfectly justified torture

Flip flopped. His current position is seriously close to the Onion's writeup of "doesn't support anything he couldn't handle."

 

But Ahmawhateveradinjaadadad thinks it's his divine mission to "wipe Israel off the map."

 

Kruschev said in no uncertain terms that we were to be buried. And yet he's buried and his legacy to us is the Cuban missile crisis and a request that he get to meet John Wayne.

 

5. "If China's really ["weaponizing space"], it needs to be dealt with by getting Chiuna to stop, instead of adding to the danger."

 

bwahahahahahahahaha

 

Yeah, we should call a UN council meeting right away.

I think we aren't going to see it, simply because the other two players in the space game are US and Russia, and it would cause them to forget about the whole shield kerfluffle and take a stand. China has much more to benefit from keeping Russia and the US unhappy with each other than cooperative.

[EricMM 0]

Hmmm...

 

Well there's a thing.

 

Lets see if it lasts a week...

 

Also, super excited about the upcoming debates. Except its not a debate, its apparently going to be more like side by side interviews. I don't think there will be much interaction between Biden and Palin.

[Nightwing 0]

And who the hell is B.O. Hussein?

 

Barrack Obama. Did you know his middle name is Hussein? That shit is crazy.

 

I know his middle name. The problem is, she didn't place it in the middle.

 

There's few arguments that I hold less respect for than "if tolerant people were really so tolerant, they'd tolerate the intolerant people!" It's completely circular logic.

 

*Slaps forehead*

 

First off, what he said wasn't intolerant. It's not like we are talking about an unabashed racist or something; he was making a point that, while incomplete and one-dimensional, was still a point that could be taken care of quickly. It's not like he was saying "All gays are evil" or something like that. It can actually be addressed, like I did.

 

Secondly, At Home shouldn't have gone on some sort of rant how he can't be called into question on the topic because he plays devil's advocate and such. That's a shitty defense (being completely anecdotal and off-topic) and made him come off as holier-than-though to me (And yes, it was). He didn't even address what the original post was about (Though the original post wasn't really on-topic, either).

 

Simply put, all he needed to say was "All parties treat outsiders with some level of condescension, so it's unfair to single out the Democrats on it. More to the point, Obama isn't being condescending, as evidenced by his demeanor at the debate. If anyone is being "elitist", it's McCain for constantly saying he 'Doesn't understand' how things work." Is it really too much to expect something like that?