http://gamingtrend.com
September 21, 2014, 12:23:20 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why did obama have a list of reporters & the order in which he would call them?  (Read 4431 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3620


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: February 12, 2009, 01:07:54 AM »

Quote from: whiteboyskim on February 11, 2009, 09:47:21 PM

Quote from: Autistic Angel on February 11, 2009, 07:46:07 PM

Quote from: whiteboyskim on February 11, 2009, 05:46:05 PM

I wouldn't cry unfair. I'd argue that he needs to pick up the pace. 13 answers in an hour? Zero needs to learn to keep the answers shorter so he can work the room better.

Are you being incredibly ironic, or are you actually frustrated that Barack Obama offers considered responses to complex questions rather than responding in sound bites and catch phrases?

-Autistic Angel

There's considered responses, which are good, and there's reaching the point then continuing on and on and on and on and on and on like a Stephen King novel. At the end of which (and yes I watched his conference) I came to the conclusion that he absolutely has no clue what he's doing, will say anything if he thinks it will sound good regardless of whether it was in stark contrast to something he said just a few weeks prior, and is making it up as he goes along. So if the fact that he "sounds good" is all it takes for a president to amaze you, then might I suggest you need to raise the bar a little higher? Sure he's eloquent. But he speaks pure drivel. But oh, it sounds so divine! saywhat

"Zero" he shall henceforth be called.

All right: if you believe name calling is going to elevate the level of your discourse -- or boost the image of the website you represent as an official staff member -- go right ahead. 

If I encounter someone who suggests that a person who "sounds good" is all it takes to qualify as an amazing president, I'll be sure to pass along your advice about raising the bar.  Until you find a post where where I make such a claim, however, you might want to think carefully on whether or not conjuring up fictional quotes and opinions is also an effective way to boost the credibility of your argument.

In the meantime, perhaps you could cite a few of the responses that proved to you that Obama has no idea what he's doing, contradicted something he said just a few weeks prior, and is making it up as he goes along.  Those are some pretty bold claims, and I'm interested in hearing more about the basis for your opinion.

-Autistic Angel
Logged
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: February 12, 2009, 01:32:31 AM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on February 12, 2009, 01:07:54 AM

Quote from: whiteboyskim on February 11, 2009, 09:47:21 PM

Quote from: Autistic Angel on February 11, 2009, 07:46:07 PM

Quote from: whiteboyskim on February 11, 2009, 05:46:05 PM

I wouldn't cry unfair. I'd argue that he needs to pick up the pace. 13 answers in an hour? Zero needs to learn to keep the answers shorter so he can work the room better.

Are you being incredibly ironic, or are you actually frustrated that Barack Obama offers considered responses to complex questions rather than responding in sound bites and catch phrases?

-Autistic Angel

There's considered responses, which are good, and there's reaching the point then continuing on and on and on and on and on and on like a Stephen King novel. At the end of which (and yes I watched his conference) I came to the conclusion that he absolutely has no clue what he's doing, will say anything if he thinks it will sound good regardless of whether it was in stark contrast to something he said just a few weeks prior, and is making it up as he goes along. So if the fact that he "sounds good" is all it takes for a president to amaze you, then might I suggest you need to raise the bar a little higher? Sure he's eloquent. But he speaks pure drivel. But oh, it sounds so divine! saywhat

"Zero" he shall henceforth be called.

All right: if you believe name calling is going to elevate the level of your discourse -- or boost the image of the website you represent as an official staff member -- go right ahead. 

If I encounter someone who suggests that a person who "sounds good" is all it takes to qualify as an amazing president, I'll be sure to pass along your advice about raising the bar.  Until you find a post where where I make such a claim, however, you might want to think carefully on whether or not conjuring up fictional quotes and opinions is also an effective way to boost the credibility of your argument.

In the meantime, perhaps you could cite a few of the responses that proved to you that Obama has no idea what he's doing, contradicted something he said just a few weeks prior, and is making it up as he goes along.  Those are some pretty bold claims, and I'm interested in hearing more about the basis for your opinion.

-Autistic Angel

Yes im sure there was no name calling from your side for the past 8 years.   I dont think there is a big enough rolley eyes in the world for anyone from your side complaining about name calling towards President Obama.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: February 12, 2009, 03:29:55 AM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on February 12, 2009, 01:07:54 AM

All right: if you believe name calling is going to elevate the level of your discourse -- or boost the image of the website you represent as an official staff member -- go right ahead. 
Hah! He pulled the moderator card! Beware, Whiteboyskim! You will drag this site into the mud with your scandalous opinions!

What an underhanded, weasel-y way to try to silence someone, dude. You expect certain behavior from site staff, of course - they should follow the rules and be civil, whatever - but to bitch at him for having an opinion that you don't agree with simply because he's staff is just about the lowest of the low. If you're so worried about this site's image, perhaps you should argue intelligently with someone, rather than trying to shame them into silence like some college hippie shouting down the opposition.
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #43 on: February 12, 2009, 02:12:49 PM »

Quote from: whiteboyskim on February 11, 2009, 09:47:21 PM

Quote from: Autistic Angel on February 11, 2009, 07:46:07 PM

Quote from: whiteboyskim on February 11, 2009, 05:46:05 PM

I wouldn't cry unfair. I'd argue that he needs to pick up the pace. 13 answers in an hour? Zero needs to learn to keep the answers shorter so he can work the room better.

Are you being incredibly ironic, or are you actually frustrated that Barack Obama offers considered responses to complex questions rather than responding in sound bites and catch phrases?

-Autistic Angel

There's considered responses, which are good, and there's reaching the point then continuing on and on and on and on and on and on like a Stephen King novel. At the end of which (and yes I watched his conference) I came to the conclusion that he absolutely has no clue what he's doing, will say anything if he thinks it will sound good regardless of whether it was in stark contrast to something he said just a few weeks prior, and is making it up as he goes along. So if the fact that he "sounds good" is all it takes for a president to amaze you, then might I suggest you need to raise the bar a little higher? Sure he's eloquent. But he speaks pure drivel. But oh, it sounds so divine! saywhat

"Zero" he shall henceforth be called.

Or maybe it's far more likely you just don't have the intellectual capacity to understand the answers...
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15431


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: February 12, 2009, 02:39:12 PM »

Quote
"Zero" he shall henceforth be called.

I find that to be a terrible nickname. I prefer Obamarama- though I guess that's not decidedly negative...

Quote from: Blackadar on February 12, 2009, 02:12:49 PM

Or maybe it's far more likely you just don't have the intellectual capacity to understand the answers...

This is probably true. I think we've all lost 10% of our IQ's listening to GWB talk.

Quote
What an underhanded, weasel-y way to try to silence someone, dude.

Agreed.

Quote
In the meantime, perhaps you could cite a few of the responses that proved to you that Obama has no idea what he's doing, contradicted something he said just a few weeks prior, and is making it up as he goes along.  Those are some pretty bold claims, and I'm interested in hearing more about the basis for your opinion.

Because the sweeping allegations against GW 'Kasier Soze' B were ever supported by more than just heresay and anti Republican pablum...
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: February 12, 2009, 03:17:56 PM »

Quote from: SensuousLettuce on February 12, 2009, 02:39:12 PM

Because the sweeping allegations against GW 'Kasier Soze' B were ever supported by more than just heresay and anti Republican pablum...

Solely in the context of this thread about press conferences, how is the Jeff Gannon controversy "heresay [sic] and anti Republican pablum [sic]"?  It seems pretty conclusively established to me.
Logged
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15431


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: February 12, 2009, 04:10:09 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on February 12, 2009, 03:17:56 PM

Quote from: SensuousLettuce on February 12, 2009, 02:39:12 PM

Because the sweeping allegations against GW 'Kasier Soze' B were ever supported by more than just heresay and anti Republican pablum...

Solely in the context of this thread about press conferences, how is the Jeff Gannon controversy "heresay [sic] and anti Republican pablum [sic]"?  It seems pretty conclusively established to me.

Why limit it to the one choice that is convenient for you? GWB was accused and blamed for every wrong doing that occured in his term. Should the same awesome standard not apply to obama? 

I mean why are there no threads dedicated to all the nominees he vetted who don't know how to pay taxes? Obviously, he has no judgement in who he trusts and is in fact retroactively responsible for those individuals not paying their taxes.   Perhaps we should just skip to impeachment now?  I mean he is responsible for everyone in the world who is in his admin, works for the government or is in the military right?

Hmm. Or maybe...  since they didn't pay their taxes during GWB's term it was a diabolical plan of Dick Cheney's?! He made daschle and the others not pay taxes so the Obama Administration would get it's first black eye.  The fiendishness of it all. The brilliance! 

Surely, Obama is doomed when faced with the all seeing all knowing power of Cheney and GWB! 
Logged
pr0ner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5357


Go Flames go!


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: February 12, 2009, 04:27:10 PM »

Quote from: SensuousLettuce on February 12, 2009, 04:10:09 PM

Quote from: Brendan on February 12, 2009, 03:17:56 PM

Quote from: SensuousLettuce on February 12, 2009, 02:39:12 PM

Because the sweeping allegations against GW 'Kasier Soze' B were ever supported by more than just heresay and anti Republican pablum...

Solely in the context of this thread about press conferences, how is the Jeff Gannon controversy "heresay [sic] and anti Republican pablum [sic]"?  It seems pretty conclusively established to me.

Why limit it to the one choice that is convenient for you? GWB was accused and blamed for every wrong doing that occured in his term. Should the same awesome standard not apply to obama? 

I mean why are there no threads dedicated to all the nominees he vetted who don't know how to pay taxes? Obviously, he has no judgement in who he trusts and is in fact retroactively responsible for those individuals not paying their taxes.   Perhaps we should just skip to impeachment now?  I mean he is responsible for everyone in the world who is in his admin, works for the government or is in the military right?

Hmm. Or maybe...  since they didn't pay their taxes during GWB's term it was a diabolical plan of Dick Cheney's?! He made daschle and the others not pay taxes so the Obama Administration would get it's first black eye.  The fiendishness of it all. The brilliance! 

Surely, Obama is doomed when faced with the all seeing all knowing power of Cheney and GWB! 

 retard
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: Pr0ner
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3391



View Profile WWW
« Reply #48 on: February 12, 2009, 04:28:22 PM »

Quote from: SensuousLettuce on February 12, 2009, 02:39:12 PM

Quote
"Zero" he shall henceforth be called.

I find that to be a terrible nickname. I prefer Obamarama- though I guess that's not decidedly negative...


"Obama-lama-dingdong" has the flair you're looking for.
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: February 12, 2009, 04:28:52 PM »

Quote from: SensuousLettuce on February 12, 2009, 04:10:09 PM

Quote from: Brendan on February 12, 2009, 03:17:56 PM

Solely in the context of this thread about press conferences, how is the Jeff Gannon controversy "heresay [sic] and anti Republican pablum [sic]"?  It seems pretty conclusively established to me.

Why limit it to the one choice that is convenient for you? GWB was accused and blamed for every wrong doing that occured in his term. Should the same awesome standard not apply to obama?

What're you talking about?  You created this thread about press conference behavior.  Autistic Angel asked for a clarification from whiteboyskim about an assertion he made that, y'know, can itself be fact-checked.   In response to AA's completely reasonable request, you had a verbal spasm about how liberals never provided anything other than hearsay or pabulum regarding Bush administration misdeeds.

Now, that's a pretty stupid statement, as there are thousands of well-researched and well-documented articles and books that expose misdeeds by the previous administration.  Where there's any debate, it's typically only because the administration maintained such a veil of secrecy that we do not even know how much wrongdoing they've engaged in.  Instead, we've had to rely on lucky breaks, like with Brandon Mayfield, or foreign intercession, like with poor Maher Arar.  Acknowledging the truth of these things requires much less faith than you exhibit daily in your religious practices.

Consequently, I chose to focus on the topic that you introduced in this thread rather than descend into the rabbit hole.

Do you dispute any of the generally acknowledged facts about Jeff Gannon/Guckert?  Was his inclusion in the White House press corps just a vetting mistake?
Logged
Scuzz
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1700



View Profile
« Reply #50 on: February 12, 2009, 04:44:18 PM »

Hey,

I'm not taking sides here (not yet anyway) but I think answers in a  press conference are often heard based on the biases of the listener (you know, the old beauty is in the eye of the beholder stuff.

You can't fact-check opinion in my opinion. You can fact check facts, but most press conference answers don't employ facts, they simply employ statements.
Logged
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3620


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: February 12, 2009, 04:50:28 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on February 12, 2009, 02:12:49 PM

Quote from: whiteboyskim on February 11, 2009, 09:47:21 PM

Quote from: Autistic Angel on February 11, 2009, 07:46:07 PM

Quote from: whiteboyskim on February 11, 2009, 05:46:05 PM

I wouldn't cry unfair. I'd argue that he needs to pick up the pace. 13 answers in an hour? Zero needs to learn to keep the answers shorter so he can work the room better.

Are you being incredibly ironic, or are you actually frustrated that Barack Obama offers considered responses to complex questions rather than responding in sound bites and catch phrases?

-Autistic Angel

There's considered responses, which are good, and there's reaching the point then continuing on and on and on and on and on and on like a Stephen King novel. At the end of which (and yes I watched his conference) I came to the conclusion that he absolutely has no clue what he's doing, will say anything if he thinks it will sound good regardless of whether it was in stark contrast to something he said just a few weeks prior, and is making it up as he goes along. So if the fact that he "sounds good" is all it takes for a president to amaze you, then might I suggest you need to raise the bar a little higher? Sure he's eloquent. But he speaks pure drivel. But oh, it sounds so divine! saywhat

"Zero" he shall henceforth be called.

Or maybe it's far more likely you just don't have the intellectual capacity to understand the answers...

Hold on: we can question whiteboyskim's unfortunate choice of presentation -- the name calling and the rebuttal to the "sounds good" comment that no one made -- but I don't think we can impugn the basis of his opinion until we at least hear what it is.  If whiteboyskim can back up his claims that Barack Obama is routinely contradicting himself because he has no idea what he's saying, I'd like to hear it.

Quote from: SensuousLettuce on February 12, 2009, 02:39:12 PM


Quote
What an underhanded, weasel-y way to try to silence someone, dude.

Agreed.

"Silence someone"?  What would make you believe that I have either the power or the inclination?  As I explicitly stated in my post, if whiteboyskim believes that entering a thread and actually calling for an increase in personal insults is a good idea, he'll get no complaints from me.  The less thought he puts into his writing, the more he voluntarily undermines his own credibility, then the less consideration his ideas will deserve.

Reminding someone that their position of authority bears an added responsibility is not the same thing as trying to silence them; it's encouraging them to come up with a better way to express themselves.

Somehow, in all the years that this forum has allowed political discussion, staff members like Knightshade Dragon, th'FOOL, and Purge have managed to participate without resorting to childish behavior, and my sense is that the first two would identify themselves primarily as conservatives.  How is it that they've all managed voice dissenting opinions *and* uphold a standard of decorum for the rest of the community, but whiteboyskim couldn't think of a way to complain about Obama's Q&A session without perpetuating an insulting nickname?

The answer, of course, it that whiteboyskim can take this opportunity to restate his opinion, substituting the name calling for a little reasoned substance, and this topic will be better off for it.  I hope he does.

-Autistic Angel
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: February 12, 2009, 05:25:45 PM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on February 12, 2009, 04:50:28 PM

Reminding someone that their position of authority bears an added responsibility is not the same thing as trying to silence them; it's encouraging them to come up with a better way to express themselves.
Dude. That's awful. How about you just argue against him instead of trying to encourage him to change his argument with some puppies reminder that if he disagrees with you he'll bring the site's image down?

He could post a picture of himself killing a kitten in a blender in R&P and it wouldn't bring this site's image down. There are maybe 2 dozen people who read R&P daily.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2009, 05:27:23 PM by cheeba » Logged
whiteboyskim
Senior Staff Writer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7848


Hard partier


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: February 12, 2009, 08:09:37 PM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on February 12, 2009, 04:50:28 PM

Quote from: Blackadar on February 12, 2009, 02:12:49 PM

Quote from: whiteboyskim on February 11, 2009, 09:47:21 PM

Quote from: Autistic Angel on February 11, 2009, 07:46:07 PM

Quote from: whiteboyskim on February 11, 2009, 05:46:05 PM

I wouldn't cry unfair. I'd argue that he needs to pick up the pace. 13 answers in an hour? Zero needs to learn to keep the answers shorter so he can work the room better.

Are you being incredibly ironic, or are you actually frustrated that Barack Obama offers considered responses to complex questions rather than responding in sound bites and catch phrases?

-Autistic Angel

There's considered responses, which are good, and there's reaching the point then continuing on and on and on and on and on and on like a Stephen King novel. At the end of which (and yes I watched his conference) I came to the conclusion that he absolutely has no clue what he's doing, will say anything if he thinks it will sound good regardless of whether it was in stark contrast to something he said just a few weeks prior, and is making it up as he goes along. So if the fact that he "sounds good" is all it takes for a president to amaze you, then might I suggest you need to raise the bar a little higher? Sure he's eloquent. But he speaks pure drivel. But oh, it sounds so divine! saywhat

"Zero" he shall henceforth be called.

Or maybe it's far more likely you just don't have the intellectual capacity to understand the answers...

Hold on: we can question whiteboyskim's unfortunate choice of presentation -- the name calling and the rebuttal to the "sounds good" comment that no one made -- but I don't think we can impugn the basis of his opinion until we at least hear what it is.  If whiteboyskim can back up his claims that Barack Obama is routinely contradicting himself because he has no idea what he's saying, I'd like to hear it.

Quote from: SensuousLettuce on February 12, 2009, 02:39:12 PM


Quote
What an underhanded, weasel-y way to try to silence someone, dude.

Agreed.

"Silence someone"?  What would make you believe that I have either the power or the inclination?  As I explicitly stated in my post, if whiteboyskim believes that entering a thread and actually calling for an increase in personal insults is a good idea, he'll get no complaints from me.  The less thought he puts into his writing, the more he voluntarily undermines his own credibility, then the less consideration his ideas will deserve.

Reminding someone that their position of authority bears an added responsibility is not the same thing as trying to silence them; it's encouraging them to come up with a better way to express themselves.

Somehow, in all the years that this forum has allowed political discussion, staff members like Knightshade Dragon, th'FOOL, and Purge have managed to participate without resorting to childish behavior, and my sense is that the first two would identify themselves primarily as conservatives.  How is it that they've all managed voice dissenting opinions *and* uphold a standard of decorum for the rest of the community, but whiteboyskim couldn't think of a way to complain about Obama's Q&A session without perpetuating an insulting nickname?

The answer, of course, it that whiteboyskim can take this opportunity to restate his opinion, substituting the name calling for a little reasoned substance, and this topic will be better off for it.  I hope he does.

-Autistic Angel

Oy.

First off, let's get some mockery of Bush going here:

Quote from: Jeff on May 02, 2008, 03:37:57 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/01/bush.poll/index.html

"A new poll suggests that President Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history."

http://www.bushslastday.com/
1-20-09
The End of an Era Error.

Quote from: Brendan on May 03, 2008, 02:41:59 AM

Why would anyone guffaw?  This presidency has created tens of thousands of tragedies.  There's nothing funny about that.

Then go here and any one of those topics has plenty of mockery of Bush included.

Now, that being said, I shall address forthwith AA. I am well known to be opinionated about pretty much everything and if I like something I'll praise it and if I think something sucks I'll lambast it. I'm also incredibly ironic especially when it comes to mockery. My favorite regarding Bush was the phrase "Shrub" which was handily adopted by plenty of people outright hating Bush. Ergo, by way of putting the shoe on the other foot, I dub Obama "Zero" since he ran around with a giant "O" everywhere. My sense of humor turns that to a "0" instead. I'm actually a pretty open minded guy (believe it or not) which is why I felt myself literally stunned to find I agreed with that harridan Ann Coulter when she argued that we should show this president exactly the same level of respect the left showed the previous president, i.e. none. I laughed at the time, but then as now I don't hate the man personally. Don't know him. Don't care to. All I see are his policies and they should be fought tooth and nail every step of the way because I believe they are bad for America. As most right minded Republicans, I was hiding under a desk the last couple years but primarily the last six months which found me screaming at the TV for the White House to stop everything it was doing.

Regarding whether my statements reflect poorly on the site, oh hey, guess what, I have an opinion too and am damn well free to express it. Just because it is counter to your belief and knocks your choice for president is irrelevant. You have your views. Express them. I have mine. I shall express them as well. Am I writing anti-Obama stuff into my reviews? Nope. Doesn't belong there at all. Am I slagging him in the R&P forum? You betcha.

Now, regarding contradictions, let's cue up a few.

We'll start with an oldie but goldie: Obama talking about Rev. Wright.

Now for more current ones:

This compilation spells out more than a few specifically about trade.

Right on Obama's own website he lists massive ethics reforms in the White House. And yet:

The head of the IRS would be a tax evader who was not dropped from the vetting. Further mockery of him is below.
Also, let us not forget Tom Daschle, who ironically enough I don't believe dropped out for tax evasion. He dropped out because he made so much money peddling influence for a DC law firm? The irony here? Peddling influence and getting paid large sums of money is perfectly legal and well within his rights as an American citizen to do. I laugh at this because it's not what's illegal in DC, it's what is legal that screws you.

Also, Nancy Killefer had to withdraw for tax issues. So I guess this means that if you don't pay taxes and are an innocent like Joe the Plumber, it's all over World News Tonight and Nightline. Yet get appointed to Obama's cabinet, and you skate by until the last second when it's reveal you didn't pay your taxes. All these people dropped yet the TREASURY SECRETARY stayed on? Whoo-hoo!

USA Today also reports that 21 other administration members are former lobbyists, yet it says most have not done so in the past two years. So 24 months is the statute of limitations is what I'm to infer from this?

As for whether the markets actually think Obama et al know what they're doing, the answer would be a resounding NO.

The saddest part of all this? We're not even a full month into his administration. WHOO-HOO!!
« Last Edit: February 12, 2009, 09:55:02 PM by whiteboyskim » Logged

Behold the glory of my new blog!
Filmmaking is vision plus faith plus balls, all 3 of which Hollywood knows little about.
whiteboyskim
Senior Staff Writer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7848


Hard partier


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: February 12, 2009, 08:11:03 PM »

Quote from: cheeba on February 12, 2009, 05:25:45 PM

Quote from: Autistic Angel on February 12, 2009, 04:50:28 PM

Reminding someone that their position of authority bears an added responsibility is not the same thing as trying to silence them; it's encouraging them to come up with a better way to express themselves.
Dude. That's awful. How about you just argue against him instead of trying to encourage him to change his argument with some puppies reminder that if he disagrees with you he'll bring the site's image down?

Logged

Behold the glory of my new blog!
Filmmaking is vision plus faith plus balls, all 3 of which Hollywood knows little about.
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15431


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: February 12, 2009, 08:59:03 PM »

Quote from: whiteboyskim on February 12, 2009, 08:09:37 PM

Quote from: Autistic Angel on February 12, 2009, 04:50:28 PM

Quote from: Blackadar on February 12, 2009, 02:12:49 PM

Quote from: whiteboyskim on February 11, 2009, 09:47:21 PM

Quote from: Autistic Angel on February 11, 2009, 07:46:07 PM

Quote from: whiteboyskim on February 11, 2009, 05:46:05 PM

I wouldn't cry unfair. I'd argue that he needs to pick up the pace. 13 answers in an hour? Zero needs to learn to keep the answers shorter so he can work the room better.

Are you being incredibly ironic, or are you actually frustrated that Barack Obama offers considered responses to complex questions rather than responding in sound bites and catch phrases?

-Autistic Angel

There's considered responses, which are good, and there's reaching the point then continuing on and on and on and on and on and on like a Stephen King novel. At the end of which (and yes I watched his conference) I came to the conclusion that he absolutely has no clue what he's doing, will say anything if he thinks it will sound good regardless of whether it was in stark contrast to something he said just a few weeks prior, and is making it up as he goes along. So if the fact that he "sounds good" is all it takes for a president to amaze you, then might I suggest you need to raise the bar a little higher? Sure he's eloquent. But he speaks pure drivel. But oh, it sounds so divine! saywhat

"Zero" he shall henceforth be called.

Or maybe it's far more likely you just don't have the intellectual capacity to understand the answers...

Hold on: we can question whiteboyskim's unfortunate choice of presentation -- the name calling and the rebuttal to the "sounds good" comment that no one made -- but I don't think we can impugn the basis of his opinion until we at least hear what it is.  If whiteboyskim can back up his claims that Barack Obama is routinely contradicting himself because he has no idea what he's saying, I'd like to hear it.

Quote from: SensuousLettuce on February 12, 2009, 02:39:12 PM


Quote
What an underhanded, weasel-y way to try to silence someone, dude.

Agreed.

"Silence someone"?  What would make you believe that I have either the power or the inclination?  As I explicitly stated in my post, if whiteboyskim believes that entering a thread and actually calling for an increase in personal insults is a good idea, he'll get no complaints from me.  The less thought he puts into his writing, the more he voluntarily undermines his own credibility, then the less consideration his ideas will deserve.

Reminding someone that their position of authority bears an added responsibility is not the same thing as trying to silence them; it's encouraging them to come up with a better way to express themselves.

Somehow, in all the years that this forum has allowed political discussion, staff members like Knightshade Dragon, th'FOOL, and Purge have managed to participate without resorting to childish behavior, and my sense is that the first two would identify themselves primarily as conservatives.  How is it that they've all managed voice dissenting opinions *and* uphold a standard of decorum for the rest of the community, but whiteboyskim couldn't think of a way to complain about Obama's Q&A session without perpetuating an insulting nickname?

The answer, of course, it that whiteboyskim can take this opportunity to restate his opinion, substituting the name calling for a little reasoned substance, and this topic will be better off for it.  I hope he does.

-Autistic Angel

Oy.

First off, let's get some mockery of Bush going here:

Quote from: Jeff on May 02, 2008, 03:37:57 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/01/bush.poll/index.html

"A new poll suggests that President Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history."

http://www.bushslastday.com/
1-20-09
The End of an Era Error.

Quote from: Brendan on May 03, 2008, 02:41:59 AM

Why would anyone guffaw?  This presidency has created tens of thousands of tragedies.  There's nothing funny about that.

Then go here and any one of those topics has plenty of mockery of Bush included.

Now, that being said, I shall address forthwith AA. I am well known to be opinionated about pretty much everything and if I like something I'll praise it and if I think something sucks I'll lambast it. I'm also incredibly ironic especially when it comes to mockery. My favorite regarding Bush was the phrase "Shrub" which was handily adopted by plenty of people outright hating Bush. Ergo, by way of putting the shoe on the other foot, I dub Obama "Zero" since he ran around with a giant "O" everywhere. My sense of humor turns that to a "0" instead. I'm actually a pretty open minded guy (believe it or not) which is why I felt myself literally stunned to find I agreed with that harridan Ann Coulter when she argued that we should show this president exactly the same level of respect the left showed the previous president, i.e. none. I laughed at the time, but then as now I don't hate the man personally. Don't know him. Don't care to. All I see are his policies and they should be fought tooth and nail every step of the way because I believe they are bad for America. As most right minded Republicans, I was hiding under a desk the last couple years but primarily the last six months which found me screaming at the TV for the White House to stop everything it was doing.

Regarding whether my statements reflect poorly on the site, oh hey, guess what, I have an opinion too and am damn well free to express it. Just because it is counter to your belief and knocks your choice for president is irrelevant. You have your views. Express them. I have mine. I shall express them as well. Am I writing anti-Obama stuff into my reviews? Nope. Doesn't belong there at all. Am I slagging him in the R&P forum? You betcha.

Now, regarding contradictions, let's cue up a few.

We'll start with an oldie but goldie: Obama talking about Rev. Wright.

Now for more current ones:

This compilation spells out more than a few specifically about trade.

Right on Obama's own website he massive ethics reforms in the White House. And yet:

The head of the IRS would be a tax evader who was not dropped from the vetting. Further mockery of him is below.
Also, let us not forget Tom Daschle, who ironically enough I don't believe dropped out for tax evasion. He dropped out because he made so much money peddling influence for a DC law firm? The irony here? Peddling influence and getting paid large sums of money is perfectly legal and well within his rights as an American citizen to do. I laugh at this because it's not what's illegal in DC, it's what is legal that screws you.

Also, Nancy Killefer had to withdraw for tax issues. So I guess this means that if you don't pay taxes and are an innocent like Joe the Plumber, it's all over World News Tonight and Nightline. Yet get appointed to Obama's cabinet, and you skate by until the last second when it's reveal you didn't pay your taxes. All these people dropped yet the TREASURY SECRETARY stayed on? Whoo-hoo!

USA Today also reports that 21 other administration members are former lobbyists, yet it says most have not done so in the past two years. So 24 months is the statute of limitations is what I'm to infer from this?

As for whether the markets actually think Obama et al know what they're doing, the answer would be a resounding NO.

The saddest part of all this? We're not even a full month into his administration. WHOO-HOO!!

Basically what I said with lots of links that took a lot of effort slywink. Hang on tight for the irrational and one sided rebuttal that A) exonerates Obama B) implicates Bush C) demeans you as a human being D) contains lots of googled information.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: February 12, 2009, 09:57:50 PM »

Few people realize I know Barack Obama. I was talking to him earlier and had him read this thread. I taped it over the phone. This is what he says about whiteboyskim calling him Zero. (NSFW)
Logged
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3620


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: February 12, 2009, 11:07:31 PM »

Quote from: whiteboyskim on February 12, 2009, 08:09:37 PM

I'm also incredibly ironic especially when it comes to mockery. My favorite regarding Bush was the phrase "Shrub" which was handily adopted by plenty of people outright hating Bush.

Okay.

I may be as troubled by the many disastrous policies of the Bush administration as anyone here, yet I can't remember an occasion where I referenced the President himself by anything other than his name or title.  It seems to me that when we're talking about major issues that directly affect people's lives -- insufficient body armor, appalling conditions at Walter Reed, Hurricane Katrina, etc. -- trotting out silly nicknames is just a childish tactic to draw attention away from the facts.

If you have the facts on your side, why resort to name calling?  And if you don't, shouldn't you be funneling your energy into figuring out why you're still on that side?  (And I mean "you" in a universal sort of way.)

Quote from: whiteboyskim on February 12, 2009, 08:09:37 PM

I'm actually a pretty open minded guy (believe it or not) which is why I felt myself literally stunned to find I agreed with that harridan Ann Coulter when she argued that we should show this president exactly the same level of respect the left showed the previous president, i.e. none.

One of the better myths passed around about George W. Bush's presidency is that a significant percentage of the country inexplicably decided in advance that he was intolerable, and simply opposed the pursuit of the Iraq War, the warrantless wiretapping, the politicization of the Justice Department, the institution of torture, and the rest because they were convenient excuses to give him a hard time.

The truth is that Bush's nationwide approval ratings remained incredibly high in the months following 9/11 and then trended downward through the remainder of his presidency, not due to "disrespect," but because his policies so frequently achieved the opposite of his stated goals.

Barack Obama has inherited genuine, immediate crises on a number of fronts, and just as I did with Bush, I'm willing to give his style of governance some time to settle in so I can gauge the results.

Quote from: whiteboyskim on February 12, 2009, 08:09:37 PM

Regarding whether my statements reflect poorly on the site, oh hey, guess what, I have an opinion too and am damn well free to express it. Just because it is counter to your belief and knocks your choice for president is irrelevant. You have your views. Express them. I have mine. I shall express them as well.

Are you pretending not to understand the difference between a personal opinion and a personal insult, or would you like me to explain it?  Here's a primer:

"I support a global ban on all abortions!" = opinion

"...and anyone who doesn't is a douche bag!" = insult

Is it really so mysterious which one is a simple expression of a personal view, and which one lowers the level of discourse at the cost of personal and professional credibility?

Quote from: whiteboyskim on February 12, 2009, 08:09:37 PM

We'll start with an oldie but goldie: Obama talking about Rev. Wright.....

I'm sorry: you originally specified that watching Obama's press conference revealed to you that his long-winded answers were just a cover for his contradictions and general cluelessness about the economic situation.  Is your presentation of YouTube clips about Jeremiah Wright and pretending that unqualified support for NAFTA is the one and only definition of "pro-free trade" effectively an admission that you can't back that up?

-Autistic Angel
Logged
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1612


View Profile WWW
« Reply #58 on: February 13, 2009, 04:39:22 PM »

Here's something that's good to see: Obama's first press conference answers were spoken using English that was 3 full grade levels higher than Bush's first press conference. It's so refreshing to have a President who can express himself clearly, and who clearly has some sense of what he's talking about.

Also, much of the first half of the conference was a prepared statement, so saying that he took "13 questions in an hour" is a bit of an overstatement -- he took 13 questions in the remaining portion of the hour after his prepared statement.
Logged

ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15431


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: February 13, 2009, 06:38:57 PM »

Quote from: Fireball1244 on February 13, 2009, 04:39:22 PM

Here's something that's good to see: Obama's first press conference answers were spoken using English that was 3 full grade levels higher than Bush's first press conference. It's so refreshing to have a President who can express himself clearly, and who clearly has some sense of what he's talking about.



Ha ha. They both only speak as well as children. I'm smrtr than the presidentz!
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.24 seconds with 63 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.067s, 2q)