which was obviously to RisR

Sure,Corky. Keep telling yourself that. Thanks for the laugh. heh heh

-Mencken, you mean? Or was that your submission for the self-retort of the day?

#30 | Posted by rightisright

-Check the post tags again before you make yet ANOTHER ignorant comment.

The Self-retorting. They just keep coming, folks. You couldn't make up this level of ineptness.

#36 | Posted by Corky at 2008-09-14 06:33 PM

Yes, Corky. You are proving incredibly inept.

Notice that in your very own quote above, it is RightIsRight that corrected your spelling, which you then turn around and blame on me. Hint: I am MoomanFL.... not RightIsRight.

Then in your stupidity (and hilarious irony) turn around and call me inept and self-retorting when I attempt to point it out to you... all the while self-retorting yourself by even including the name of the original spelling cop in your reply to me and not noticing it.

You just can't make this shit up. I am had trouble catching my breath from laughing so hard at that one.

CC, you are either very sheltered or you are acting dumb. Using monkeys/apes in racist/stereotype attacks against blacks has been around along time. I don't think you've got to be a race baiter to point this out. To not recognize this is to ignore the history of racism.

Johnny, you are missing Chris' point, or being dishonest in your reply.

Chris didn't suggest that it should be ok to portray Obama as an ape/monkey/etc.

What Chris was talking about was the exaggeration of actual features common in caricature. Exaggerating his actual prominent features is hardly racist since for it to be so it would have to be different treatment that someone from another race would get.

Ok... a couple of things here:

Tax cuts don't increase tax revenues, unless a) you're unclear on the concept, and b) you are so stupid you wouldn't pass an Econ 101 midterm.

Lets see... I guess you just failed Econ 101.

Less taxes on corporations means more profits.

More profits mean more expansion (since that is the goal of all success driven companies in order to get more profit).

More expansion means more jobs and more corporate taxable revenue.

More employed people means more taxable income.

More taxable revenue... well, that is pretty self-explanitory.

Conversely, higher taxes mean less profit and expansion, can cause corporate cutbacks (job loss), and lowering of taxable revenue as the hard times hit and people start saving money against losing their employment rather than pumping their dollars into the economy.

The fact is, there have already been studies that have proven the concept. If you had passed Econ 101 you might have known that. If Obama was competent on economic matters he wouldn't have been surprised to hear it himself.

On the subject of the article:

I find it the height of hypocrisy on the left that they would complain of racism over the "community organizer" thing and the "capital gains tax increase" thing... then turn around and blast McCain for this.

Personally, both sides have been wrong on these things.

Johnny,

He is taking contradictory positions.

First of all, lets make clear that in "Family Values" we are talking about.... values. Not laws. In other words, things that we should strive for.

He has demonstrated several things by his arguments:

1) He either,

a) Feels that the Right is somehow wrong in supporting a "divorced adulterer". If he didn't think that it was wrong then he would simply commend them for their stance of forgiveness. To do otherwise points out a lie in his contention that he is forgiving of peoples faults and foibles.

Or....

b) He feels the Right are hypocrites. To feel that way, the idea that they simply forgive the "divorced adulterer" or don't feel it is relevant to the subject at hand, has to be willfully ignored. That would be a lie on his part whether to us or to himself (or both).

2) He has shown that he seriously has no clue as to what drives the Right or where they are really coming from as much as he thinks he does. It suggests that he has pegged them all wrong.

The upshot of this is that this line of attack against the Right is now, and always has been, a loser for the Dems. People as a whole are too smart not to see the contradictions and don't take kindly to being treated as if they were stupid enough to fall for that kind of argument.

Ah, the spelling Nazi lives! Well, if it's the best ya got, it's the best ya got.

What the Sam Hill are you talking about, Corky? I said nothing about your spelling. I said something about your logic. Check the post tags again before you make yet ANOTHER ignorant comment.

Your clear inference, idiotic as it was, was that if only Obama knew what you did, he would not hold the same opinions that he does

Funny, that isn't the same argument you were making before. Before you were claiming that I suggested he would agree with me.

Yes, I think Obama's position is the wrong one. Disagreement doesn't make a person arrogant else we could claim the same thing about you vs. McCain.

RIR,

Apart from the "Osama" crack.... well said.

Let's take two contradictory statements from you:

Since this groups main purpose is to promote "Family Values" and sanctity of marriage and all that crap, why do they support a divorced adulterer over a staunch family man?

You say this as if it is a bad thing. As if what they should do is not forgive him or realize humans are prone to error. That they are in fact hypocrites instead of simply forgiving.

Then you turn around and say this:

Dems accept peoples' faults and foibles...

Now, were you lying in suggesting that the "divorced adulterer" should be treated harshly, or were you lying when you said you were accepting of peoples faults and foibles?

Don't worry, no matter which one was your lie I forgive you.

The opposite of his opinions are yours.

Wow, Corky. I didn't know the number of ideas in the world were so limited that there were only two that could be spared for how to handle foreign affairs (or any other situation). Go figure. I had no clue that his solution, and McCain's solution were the only two possible that a reasonably intelligent person could come up with.

Again... In my opinion: if he had a firmer grasp on the situation I think he would come to a different conclusion. Not necessarily McCain's conclusion, but at least a different one.

You really ARE pretty dim to have not seen what I was saying all this time, aren't you?

Yea, but we already know the Dems have no family values, right?

Promoting the values and claiming perfection are two different things.

Adherence to the truth is a pretty universal value to uphold. Have you been perfect in your life in upholding it? Not even a "little white lie" to spare someone's feelings?

That is where you are going wrong on this issue. You expect perfection or else the value must be a lie. You hold other people to a standard higher than you yourself could achieve with your own values just as a product of being human.

All that argument does is make you look petty and unreasonable and throws doubt upon other arguments you make.

I don't think that Dems are absent of family values. I think we share many values but disagree with level of importance on some of them, and disagree with how best to realize those values, etc.

Argumentum ad populum.

Null,

Corky's argument was hardly a shining example of logical debate either.

Pathetic doesn't cover it.

Yes, pathetic that you keep trying to knock down the same strawman over and over again. Where did I say he would agree with me?

"You infer that if he had the same grasp on world affairs as you or Ms Palin, then he, and everyone else, would necessarily have to agree with your conclusions."

No, I don't. No matter how many times you try to erect that strawman it just doesn't work.

I simply infer that he wouldn't have the same conclusions that he currently does. We all have our opinions. The difference is, I know that this is a matter of my opinion where as you try to push your opinion as fact.

"You infer that if he had the same grasp on world affairs as you or Ms Palin, then he, and everyone else, would necessarily have to agree with your conclusions."

You mean all the stammering, stuttering, and halting speach when not given softball interviews like the one he got on MSNBC? I wasn't exactly impressed.

Sooooo, if everyone had as thorough a grasp of world affairs as you and Palin and the rest of the GOP do, then we would all agree?

It is the most unpatriotic thing McCain has ever done.

Oh... the faux outrage. As if you wouldn't be coming to the same conclusions no matter who he picked short of Hillary herself. We all know where you would have come down on the issue if it had been her.

The fact is, Palin is more qualified that Obama. So, using your same logic: voting for Obama is the most unpatriotic thing the country could do since he would DEFINITELY be in the #1 spot if he won instead of just a "maybe" with Palin.

Remember people, Corky's brand of logic says you are unpatriotic if you vote Obama.

Sooooo, if everyone had as thorough a grasp of world affairs as you and Palin and the rest of the GOP do, then we would all agree?

Strawman. I never suggested that we would all agree, but disagreeing doesn't mean it is for partisan reasons. It just means that I don't agree with his conclusions and other people don't as well.

Don't speak of my logic until you can display some of your own. Hint: Puting up non sequiturs and strawmen doesn't count as logic.

To admit that because you don't agree with some one's conclusions means, in fact, that they have no understanding of a subject, would be laughable were it not so creepy/scary.

You are stretching to make your point, and just not quite managing to do it.

I believe he is wrong in his conclusions. I believe the REASON he is wrong is because he doesn't have as thorough a grasp as you want people to believe.

That Obama has a well-informed and substantive worldview and that Palin most obviously does not

In your opinion anyway.

The problem for Obama being: Palin isn't at the top of the ticket... Obama IS.

Maybe they should concentrate on McCain's divorce or Palin's pregnant teenage daughter if they want to focus on "Family Values".

Why? The Dems already do enough of that.

While the product is in poor taste (pun accepted but not intended), their explanation for how they came up with the idea was far from racist.

BTW, since when are waffles considered just a black thing? My family and I LOVE waffles. I never knew black people had a corner on the waffle market.

If it had been chicken and waffles that would be a bit more specific, but just waffles is a bit of a stretch considering that the name of the product "Obama Waffles" can also be made into a statement:

"Obama waffles."

waffle
verb (used without object)

1. to speak or write equivocally: to waffle on an important issue.
verb (used with object)
2. to speak or write equivocally about: to waffle a campaign promise.
noun
3. waffling language.

Obama has a thorough understanding of world affairs; Palin, not so much.

Sorry, Corky... but your conclusion is a non sequitur.

People don't become "blinded by partisanship" just because they don't agree with you. There are Independent voters that have come to McCain's camp after Palin's pick as VP as well as quite a few Dems.

No, I don't agree that Obama has a thorough understanding since I don't agree with many of his conclusions.

The problem is, he is less experienced than Palin, but he WILL be President if his ticket is elected and she only MIGHT be President if her's is elected. It doesn't look good for Obama that he is rightfully perceived to be the least experienced person on both tickets.

Well then Corky, that doesn't say much for Obama.

The problem for Obama here is that people also feel Palin is more qualified than Obama.

If the Dem ticket succeeds, Obama (the less qualified person in the public's opinion) WILL be President.

If the Republican ticket succeeds, Palin (more qualified than the #1 slot on the Dem ticket in the public opinion) MIGHT be President.

Chances are, due to the youth of Obama that Biden's experience would never come into play.

So, where are the polls comparing experience levels of Obama and McCain?

My guess is that McCain would win on that one too... which would create a bigger problem for Obama. Namely an opposing ticket where both candidates are seen as being more experienced than he is.

Yeah, Null... that was kind of my point.

glad to see we can agree on something though.

The NAU papers have already been signed, dumbass.

Sure they have. When can I expect my new currency? You know... the ones they showed on the internet that were already debunked a while ago.

What do you expect from someone that sees goblins.

I heard dumb-fuck palin saying that iraq was related to the 911 attacks.

No, liar. You heard her tie Al Qaeda to Iraq in the present time since that is some of who our troops have been fighting there.

You talk about scholarship and intellectual study and you can't even get THAT right. Ironic, that.

The way you spout your opinion as fact

Forgot your meds today, Prozacboi? Why don't you enlighten me which of the statements you quoted was opinion and not fact.

So far the facts seem to suggest otherwise.

Obama keeps going down in the polls, McCain keeps going up. Hell, even the Dems in Congress are slipping. All in all the election is trending towards the Dems getting REAL pissed off in November. The funny thing is, per the other article I submitted, they just don't get why that is.

Either way though, I still feel that sexist or racist voting is the way to go.

Correction (per my previous statement on the subject):

...is NOT the way to go.

Sorry, but while Ron Paul is a small government person that is about his only resemblance to "true conservatism". The man is a nut case that supports "9/11 Truthers", and helps propagate the whole NAU conspiracy bullshit as well.

The idea that he is a "true conservative" is just a bunch of hooey.

One last thing to explain the Palin phenomena to the crowd that doesn't get it and think it was a cynical move (aka, just doesn't get it):

That Palin was a woman was the factor that pricked conservative America's ears and got them to pay attention.

Her record as a conservative is what got them to cheer.

You can try and spin her record all you want, but at the end of the day that spin isn't coming to much at all.