And it just so happens that today is the third anniversary of said event. I don’t think I have ever laughed so hard, especially when the old man apologized to Cheney afterwards.
Despite Secretary Duncan’s assertion that any adult that hit a kid would be fired, less than 5% actually were. So I think you’re safe. Have fun!
So we have a tax cheat at Treasury, and someone who condoned illegal corporal punishment at Education. What’s next, Osama bin Laden for Homeland Security?
I personally think Gregg quit under pressure from the party. The repubs are clearly doing their best to hold together as a big repub anchor to sink every Obama program. They are voting in mass against the stimulus. I do not believe they all have come to the conclusion that the package is a bad idea.
I’m not asking you to apologize for insults; I’m looking to see if you will admit and apologize for wht can’t be characterized as anything but lies. You forcefully accused me several times of behavior that I’ve not engaged in. That forcefulness belies the uncertainty of an honest mistake and therefore can’t be construed as anything but a lie. (Or outright stupidity born of confusing me with someone else or attributing me comments that exist only in your own head. Take your pick: lies or stupidity; either way an apology is clearly in order.
I’m not the one hiding behind a screen of disingenuousness, chum. You accused me upthread of being disingenuous regarding Obama, and now that I’ve proven you wrong you accuse me of disingenuousness again.
Perhaps you don’t know what the word means.
You didn’t ‘interpret’ my comments; you flatly stated, with no proof whatsoever either then or now, that I was not taking a wait and see attitude about Obama. You further stated unequivocally that I “continually post this tripe”, but you have thus far failed to demonstrate just what ‘tripe’ it is that I ‘continually’ post or where I continually post it.
If you had followed the detailed instructions I gave you as to where to find my posts about Obama you would have a definitive answer, with no ‘suspecting’ required.
And here you’re so quick to accuse Shodan of being a liar. :rolleyes:
You said:
How is this ‘deliberately’ misreading your post? You clearly intended to imply that I was getting my comments about Obama from Hannity and Beck, and what’s laughable about that is that I never said them in the first place! 
Undoubtedly. Still, I thought it was the practice around here that when a poster accuses another poster of lying and/or disingenuousness, those accusations were to be retracted and apologies offered when they were clearly proven to be wrong.
I’m sure you’ll pardon me if that capital has somehow flown over my head. You’ve largely treated me respectfully and I’ve tried to do the same with you, even though we rarely agree on things. In this case however, you blatantly and forcefully attributed a posting pattern to me that I clearly do not have – and demonstrably so – and you then accused me of disingenuousness when I rightfully denied it.
I provided cites to show where I’d made positive remarks about Obama, and to show that I had made no remarks that could rightly be considered critical of him since he’s won the election (and for that matter, I was largely complimentary of him prior to the election as well – though obviously I would have preferred that he had lost).
So that makes two instances where you were blatanly wrong, and in fact so forcefully wrong that I have a had time assigning your motives to mere disingenuousness rather than lies. I gave you the opportunity to man up and admit you were wrong and I got nothing but thinly veiled excuses and vague comments about using up your good will.
Well, this isn’t about excuses and it isn’t about good will; it’s about integrity and intellectual honesty, and you have shown yourself to be morally bankrupt in both.
Congratulations.
According to Sen. Specter, they haven’t.
You’ll be happy to know that Bill O. and other “pundits” are already turning on him Specter, but he’s not wilting (watch the vid). Bill O. says he’s scared. Yeah, right Bill. That sounded scared alright. :rolleyes:
Secretary LaHood seems suspicious as well. He said on Rachel Maddow last night that Gregg approached the White House about a position in the cabinet, just as the president said.
According to Spector they have. The article says some repunbs who actually wanted to vote for the program because it was the right idea, or was needed, didn’t have the nerve to vote their conscience . They went along with the party, even though they felt the bill might help the country. They would be brought up as RINOs and have to fight to get the party nomination next time. The repubs run the party with an iron Nazilike fist.
This is pretty clearly false. Here is the exchange:
Further, the President’s middle name is not a right-wing racist’s appellation; it is his middle name, and given to him by his father.
So, please clarify - is calling the President by his middle name trolling - yes, or no?
If yes, is it trolling when posters call Bush Dubya? If no, why did you falsely accuse Stephe96 of trolling?
You are alleging that I do not participate in GD, which is even more ridiculous.
The actual translation of the above is that you are combing desperately thru my posts to find or manufacture a reason to warn me, since you are irritated that I pointed out a left-wing poster’s violation of the rules of GD.
So, now a troll is a troll if he habitually trolls. However -
(Emphasis added).
[habitual
Adjective
- done regularly and repeatedly: habitual behaviour patterns
- by habit: a habitual criminal
habitually adv](Habitual - definition of habitual by The Free Dictionary)
So apparently it is OK to troll as long as you do so repeatedly, but not if you do so habitually. Then I will require that you rescind the warning you gave me in GD (cite available on request) since I do not troll either repeatedly or habitually.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, that’s pretty much what I meant when I said that they haven’t. Meaning: they don’t think the bill per se is a bad idea, but that them voting for it is a bad idea if they want to keep their seats. I agree with you, though, that it’s mostly a partisan move and, interestingly, it may very well backfire on them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26402-2004Jun8?language=printer The repubs from Reagan onward have been espousing the "deficits don’t matter’ while they are in power ,yet are crucial when they are out. The debt will kill us today. The last 8 years it just did not matter. It was a good thing then.
The contradictions are too soon not to be obvious.
What? 
I refuse to stick my hand in the crazy, but I need you to know that you truly did not understand my post. Here is an explanation:
Both political parties have made use of the “we don’t like X and in fact think this is a horrible, dangerous, awful thing, but we do not have the votes to counter X, so we will sit and wring our hands and deplore our opposition who is ruining America, baseball and apple pie”.
The Reps just happen to be better at it. I think they enjoy it. All of the pleasure of being bastards and bullies and none of the responsibility of actual work. It’s a win win for them.
While I agree that it was trolling, you are way off here. The logic is pretty simple:
A: That’s a right-wing racist appelation!
B: But it’s not racist.
A: Yes it is!!!
B: No. It’s possible it might be anti-muslim. However, that is a religion, and clearly not a race.
A: Well, it’s anti-Arab then!
B: Still no. Not all muslims are Arabs, and not all Arabs are muslims. It’s quite simple, really.
A: Fine. It’s anti-Muslim then! It’s still bad.
B: Well, no. See, his entire name is Muslim sounding, and it’s not anti-muslim to call him Obama or Barack. How is Hussein any different?
A: But Hussein was a horrible dictator who killed lots of people! You are trying to link him to Saddam because they share a name!
B: Yes, Hussein was a horrible dictator. But it’s also a very common name. It might be rather unfortunate to share a name with him, but hardly uncommon when he was born. Unfortunately, it became a bad name due to the dictator. Kinda like that kid who got a middle name of Adolf Hitler. The one that New Jersey took away from his parents.
A: Then why do you always pick on him?
B: Well, it all started with the primaries. Liberals tend to be super sensistive about stuff like that. They started this whole grand scheme where the media wasn’t suppose to mention his middle name, they wouldn’t let his picture be taken with Muslims. That kinda stuff.
A: And?
B: Well, just like immature teenagers, if you find your opponent is super sensitive about something, that’s what you pick on. If he’s a got a tiny little zit on his forehead that he’s always trying to cover up, you call him Zitface. And that’s why it’s trolling.
A: But we aren’t super sensitive to that stuff!
B: Oh yeah, have you read this thread?
Out of morbid curiosity and a free half hour, I’ve read all of Starving Artist’s potentially relevant posts going back to November.
It is fair to conclude that he has said very little negative about Obama, and has had more praise than criticism.
So while it is possible to conclude that Starving Artist was being disingenuous with the wait-and-see rhetoric, it is not evident in his posting habits from Nov.-Now.
I happen to think that the “see” part of wait-and-see has been largely colored by partisan bias, but I don’t think that’s evidence that SA wasn’t being insincere in saying he would have an open mind.
I can’t believe that there’s a multi-page argument over how calling President Obama “Hussein” isn’t anything other than bigoted trolling. You fuckers aren’t fooling anyone. Just stop.
For clarification stop trying to defend yourself against the accusations. You can continue calling the POTUS “Hussein”, so the rest of the posters know exactly what they’re dealing with when they respond to you.
It’s puerile, at any rate.
And about par for the course for Stephe96.
If I pay for a room for you and Stephe96, will you promise not to procreate?
Shodan, I can’t believe you made that post with a straight face, when your protestations were addressed by several posts in the thread already.
Liberal’s can crack me up at times.
You all just cant consider the possibility that Gregg simply realized that he and Obama just wont see eye to eye on many of the important situations facing America and this alone would be a distraction for the administration. I would consider this an admirable quality and add to that he’s the only candidate that isn’t stepping down under a cloud of suspicion. Perhaps something embarrassing will come out on him which would justify him stepping down but w/out a shred of evidence of impropriety I think it’s absurd to claim he’s the one with ‘egg on his face’.
Lastly, I think it’s very hypocritical to accuse the 'pubs of being “partisan and obstructionists” because they all think this stimulus plan is bound for failure. In fact, Hillary herself said, “I’m sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
It’s unfortunate that Hope and Change has turned into Fear and Crisis.
-Van
What an utter load of CRAP.
How fucking stupid are you asking us to believe Gregg is, by excusing his reprehensible backing out as “simply realiz[ing] that he and Obama just wont see eye to eye on many of the important situations facing America”? Did he just wake up one day and say, “OH! MY! G-D! My opinions differ from the new administration! HOLY SHIT! :eek:!”? Are you honestly contending that he didn’t know this before he asked to be considered for this post?
And there’s not a single person here who thinks debate and disagreement about the stimulus plan is wrong or unpatriotic, especially those in Congress. For Og’s sake, they’ve been open to debate and discussion and have made a lot of concessions and changes based on that debate and discussion! The Republicans in Congress don’t want debate, they simply want to obstruct – en masse. Did you not even read the quote provided by Brown Eyed Girl just above? Here, let me make it more obvious so you don’t miss it this time:
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who broke with his party to support President Obama’s stimulus package last week, said before the final vote Friday that more of his colleagues would have joined were they not afraid of the political consequences. Bunch of fucking pussies. Including Gregg.
First of all…well said, VanLandry!
I’d say that attempting to “obstruct” an incredibly stupid plan like Obama’s Hogzilla stimulus package is a very good idea. I’m glad to see some Democrats joining the opposition…er, I mean the “obstruction.”
Funny how when Bush was in office the hysterical libs called their opposition “speaking truth to power.” I guess now it’s just considered “obstruction.” :rolleyes: