I’ve always wondered, is it hard lugging those goalposts all over the field? They’re awfully tall, do you need a crane or something? You said “can you give me an example from these boards wherin you do that?”. I said sure, and gave an example. You respond with this diatribe. I’m assuming this means…you got nuthin’.
No, it means your one paltry little example (where the subject isn’t even a poster from here - it’s easy to point and laugh at Phelpsian folk from afar) from several years ago does nothing to balance out the routine tirades you subject us to.
Now that I think about it, I believe that “Barack” is a middle-Arabic word from 14th century Tunisia that is more properly translated into modern Aabic as “burqa”. It was also common, at during the 14th century, to shout: Burqa Burga, whenever you met someone with that name. So, a better rendering of his name in English would be:
Burqa Burqa Mohammed Jihad Hussein abu Osama al Africani.
Correct and factual aren’t exactly synonyms.
Rama Lama Ding Dong Poppa Oom Mow Mow.
Wait, is he a Nietzschean? Now I know I’ll vote for him!
(Yes, I loved the scary-erudite Nietzscheans on Andromeda. Though to be fair, a normal Nietzschean would only be named, say, Temujin de Bolivar. Well, Temujin de Bolivar of Auk Pride, out of Clytemnestra by Suharto. But yeah.)
Do you know of any facts that are not correct?
And he has diamonds on the sole of his shoes…blood diamonds!!
And the sound of silencers…from his illegal firearm!!
Honestly, who cares about the writer’s strike when you get this kind of entertainment here for free!!
Oh, not to mention that Obama likes to:
LIE lie-LIE
LIE lie-lie lie lie lie lie lie
LIE lie-LIE
lie lie-LIE lie lie lie lie lie-lie-lie lie lie
One thing that might be helpful in compiling your e-mail is heeding some social psychology research that turned up a few months ago (yeah, I’ll dig it up if I have to, I think it was BBC) indicating that people have an interesting habit of misremembering information and attributing the (wrong) information to a credible source.
To use an example, say a liberal political organization printed in a newspaper (Oh, say New York Times): ‘‘Such and such percentage of people believe that Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for the 9-11 attacks. But that is not true, in fact… (blah blah blah)’’
This study indicated that such approaches of ‘‘refutation’’ actually have the opposite effect. In the above case, it would be more likely for people to say that Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for the 9-11 attacks and they know it’s true because they read it in the New York Times. So rather than weakening the belief, this kind of refutation reinforces it as ‘‘true’’ and associates it with the reputable source that refuted the lie.
So maybe it would be better for you, considering that, to scrap the whole e-mail and write your own, not with direct refutations, but with truths that insidiously nullify the original arguments.
(another example: A suspected rapist who repeatedly says, ‘‘I did not rape that woman’’ is more likely to be associated with the act of rape than one who responds along the lines of, ‘‘That night, I was at the bar all night until 2am playing pool.’’)
I’m not attacking the OP – but it was a study that seemed relevant, if you were interested in disseminating your own bit of true information.
BBL, hopefully with cite.
He is I-Raq. He is an island.
You forgot Mugabe Frankenstein.
Columbus discovered America.
Lemmings are so stupid they’ll jump off cliffs.
Turkeys are so stupid they’ll drown during a rainstorm.
A duck’s quack doesn’t echo.
Seriously though. I’ll grant you that in common usage “factual” usually means “factually correct.” But in many uses it means something which can be shown to be either true or false - something that’s empirical, not based on opinion. The sky is green is a factual statement, although it’s false. I think that usage is mainly restricted to philosophy though, so I’ll admit I was probably being too nitpicky.
Don’t know where you come from, but I call all these myths, not facts.
To the OP: I guess you’re trying to fight misconceptions in kind, as it were, but it’s simply not true that Barack Obama has always been a Christian.
foolsguinea writes:
> To the OP: I guess you’re trying to fight misconceptions in kind, as it were, but
> it’s simply not true that Barack Obama has always been a Christian.
Um, yeah, and if you’ll notice I explained this back in post #20.
Meanwhile, just when you think no greater depths of dumbth can be plumbed, Tom Delay calls Obama a Marxist:
If you’ll note, it says that in the text of the email, only. It is not any part of what I addressed to my fellow dopers. Pleas re-read the OP if you are unsure.
The reason those words are in the email recipients’ section of the text only is that it follows essentially the same plea by the shithead original author to do that, too, but to his original audience.
I frankly don’t see anything wrong there at all as far as what it says to we Dopers. Do you?
And the third category I’ve now elucidated several times? The literal excluded middle?
That’s the audience my rebuttal is hoping to address, and I still very strongly believe they are open to being corrected. I’m plenty cynical, too, but apparently not nearly so much as many others here. What’s that old, overused old line? It may be overused, but it’s quite apropos in this instance:
I find it unfortunate to find such a very high level of cynicism from so many here, and against such a worthwhile goal that requires such a minor effort – or none at all! – but I guess this is the Pit.