I’m not sure where to even start with this guy. He has got to be one of the more exasperating new posters we have currently on the board. On par with FXM for pedantry and exasperation. In his two most recent thread, here and especially here, you can see a variety of different posters trying to get through his thick skull…all to no avail, and he constantly shifts the goal posts or digresses into stupid semantic discussions about the meanings of words and when, exactly a scandal becomes a scandal…and what a CT is and why his thread on the IRS incident is a CT, etc etc, blah blah blah. Ironically, some of the folks who seem most exasperated with him are actually nominally on his side…many are Obama supporters and loyal Democrats. Few are actually opposed to his broader view about Bush and the Iraqi war, yet he seems impervious to this and just bulls ahead with his views on things even when he’s been shown to be wrong, or when folks point out the CT aspects of his thread and how ridiculous it is.
At any rate, just wanted to let off a bit of steam about this guy here before I blow up in GD and get Mod smacked. I realize that this board has a pretty steep learning curve and that this guy doesn’t seem to get it or want to get it, even though broadly his views are politically in line with the boards overall corporate culture. He COULD fit in, but thus far he doesn’t seem to want too, and instead seems to want to butt heads with folks even nominally on his side.
I’ve met God.
What exactly is a God?
I’ve met God.
How do you know it was a God?
I’ve met God.
How many people have to say it’s a God for it to be a God?
I’ve met God.
Maybe it was an IRS employee pretending to be God.
I’ve met God.
Hook a generator to 'em and provide power to all of Utah.
It takes a special kind of talent to start a thread to deflect criticism away from Obama, on a messageboard like this one, and still have people hating your guts. But he has what it takes.
Or one to criticize Bush and the Iraq war and have folks arguing with your points. Now THAT takes some doing around here, where pretty much universally and across the political spectrum Bush isn’t exactly held in high regard.
Which is actually a credit to the Dope. It may take an extreme buffoon like NotFooledbyWeality, but there is a point where partisanship drops off and “get off my side you idiot - you are making us look bad” kicks in.
He reminds me of old gonzomax - same sort of pigheaded cluelessness. Although old gonzo wasn’t dishonest - just out of his depth. (Although when my dog pees on the fire hydrant, he creates an environment where gonzo would have been out of his depth.)
I wonder how long NotFooledbyW is going to last around here. I could spare him - he isn’t entertaining enough to want to keep, and too transparent to be fun to slap around.
The current thread in which we learn that anything bad anyone ever thinks Obama has done is just “scandal monger lies” seems to have become a magnet for many other kool-aid drinkers. This particular one seems legitimately dumb, but I don’t know whether being a smart person who* chooses* to buy into the Messiah mythology is better or worse than being NotFooledByW.
Link to Scandal Monger thread. It’s only two pages so a bit easier to read and digest. CR will have to explain who is the kool-aide drinkers in the thread…there are some digression arguments going on in the thread that probably are what he’s talking about though.
I assume when you say “Messiah mythology” you are referring to the mythology that anyone on the left actually treats Obama like the Messiah, and by “kool-aide drinkers” who “buy into this mythology” you are referring to yourself.
Oh. I guess they’re probably the ones arguing that historically, presidential approval poll positives drop in a second term. Why they’re bothering, I can’t imagine. I come down firmly on the, “Who cares?” side of that argument. Not all presidents can be as universally beloved as Bill Clinton.
I could have the wrong interpretation, though; none of them are referring to Obama as the Messiah.
I forgot to mention, in my post above, and in deference to the actual OP of this thread, that I find NotfooledbyW’s posts to be mostly unreadable and entirely uninteresting.
Good that you mentioned FXMastermind too, indeed NotfooledbyW and FXM are like a pair from mirror universes, But in this case it does not matter who has the goatee.
On one of the threads I’m participating I’m only point out at exaggerations from the other side and the lack of perspective, but I should tell NotfooledbyW, that that does not means that I agree with his/her “creative” definitions that like FXM are really stupid.
I find him more mockable than exasperating, personally. It’s Condescending Robot who’s taken the opportunity to demonstrate his willful stupidity of late.
I was sensibly and factually refuting an Iraq invasion supporter when you butted in basically taking sides with the supporter’s myth that Bush supporters typically cite as the excuse that Bush uses to this day to justify deciding to invade.
Your contention is as false as the rightwinger’s argument and when you get challenged you dropped out.
I’ll summarize it for all to see on the Bush library thread.
As for the definition of scandal; if I must accept that a scandal is a scandal when public mass reaches a certain point whether the target of the scandal had done wrong or not, to liked here, no thanks.
If anyone here can defend what XT has claimed to be fact on the Bush library thread then I’d like to see you try.
It is ultimately an argument that SH didn’t cooperate enough in the final round if inspections immediately enough so Bush had a justifiable reason to kick
inspectors out and start the war.
Coming from one who obviously opposes the war should boggle the mind.
Why does XT unwillingly make the case that lets Bush off the hook for making a bad decision?
It would be interesting to find out why XT sides with Adaher and not my totally factually supported view that SH’s cooperation prior to the invasion was sufficient to keep inspections going for a few more months to completion.
That view according to polling in February 2003 wanting Bush to continue inspections instead of starting a war was close to six out of ten in favor of inspections.
I’d bet XT was in favor if inspections at that time.
The argument that SH did not cooperate so Bush had a right to decide to invade is preposterous.
Why must I defend myself for pointing out that preposterous Bush crony argument against people who do not support the invasion of Iraq and never did?
It boggles the mind.
And I’m the one out of line or out of touch here?
Now THAT takes some doing around here, where pretty much universally and across the political spectrum Bush isn’t exactly held in high regard.
