[QUOTE=Lightnin’]
I really, really wish this thread was in The Pit so I could explain it to you the way I feel you deserve. It’s been explained multiple times in this thread already- if you’re not seeing it, it’s either because you’re as dense as you claim to be, or you’re just itching for a fight. Which is it?
For the record, here we go again- Obama said that gas prices would’ve been a lot more tolerable if they hadn’t gone up as fast as they did. Yes, it would still hurt, but if it had happened over the course of, say a decade, we would’ve had time to adapt and you “bitter clingers” wouldn’t have been hit as hard, as infrastructure would’ve had time to adjust. There- is that difficult?
[/QUOTE]
Oh my!
I sense a little antipathy toward someone who isn’t like you.
[QUOTE=What the … !!!]
Oh my!
I sense a little antipathy toward someone who isn’t like you.
[/QUOTE]
I think it’s toward an unreasonable irrational argument and a pattern of same.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I think it’s toward an unreasonable irrational argument and a pattern of same.
[/QUOTE]
It may seem unreasonable when up against liberal biases. There is nothing unreasonable for a liberal like Obama to be content with high gas prices in order to promote conservation to a degree that he thinks is appropriate.
Quick quiz: Name two factual errors in Obama’s first paragraph. Of course he get’s away with thos too.
[QUOTE=What the … !!!]
Quick quiz: Name two factual errors in Obama’s first paragraph. Of course he get’s away with thos too.
[/QUOTE]
Fire! Wolves! Somebody, change the subject quick!
[QUOTE=What the … !!!]
It may seem unreasonable when up against liberal biases. There is nothing unreasonable for a liberal like Obama to be content with high gas prices in order to promote conservation to a degree that he thinks is appropriate.
Quick quiz: Name two factual errors in Obama’s first paragraph. Of course he get’s away with thos too.
[/QUOTE]
It’s no liberal bias when people point out that his statement doesn’t say what you’re claiming it’s says. Bias would be interpreting his statement with the intent to find fault rather than to try and understand what he is actually trying to say. Bias is insisting it means something it doesn’t actually say.
Bias blinds people to the faults of thier own chosen team while making them unrealistically critical of thier opponents. It doesn’t help the nation solve it’s problems.
Both sides are guilty of this on occasion, but in this particular case, it isn’t the liberals.
[QUOTE=What the … !!!]
It may seem unreasonable when up against liberal biases. There is nothing unreasonable for a liberal like Obama to be content with high gas prices in order to promote conservation to a degree that he thinks is appropriate.
Quick quiz: Name two factual errors in Obama’s first paragraph. Of course he get’s away with thos too.
[/QUOTE]
Thread summary so far:
“Why are you being mean to me just because I’m a good Gawd-Fearing Conservative?”
“We’re not. We’re being mean to you for being a disingenuous person that is making crap up and deliberately misinterpreting statements that would be completely obvious to a mentally deficient turtle.”
“LIBRUL MEDIA! LIBRUL MEDIA! 9/11! CLINTON BLOWJOB! Chappaquiddick!!!”
Man, I don’t know why people are so mean to you.
-Joe
Dammit, Joe, why must you be so unfair to mentally deficient turtles?
[QUOTE=Merijeek]
Thread summary so far:
“Why are you being mean to me just because I’m a good Gawd-Fearing Conservative?”
“We’re not. We’re being mean to you for being a disingenuous person that is making crap up and deliberately misinterpreting statements that would be completely obvious to a mentally deficient turtle.”
“LIBRUL MEDIA! LIBRUL MEDIA! 9/11! CLINTON BLOWJOB! Chappaquiddick!!!”
Man, I don’t know why people are so mean to you.
-Joe
[/QUOTE]
Mean? Why would you mischaracterize me like that after expressing such disdain for my supposed mischaracterizations. Maybe you didn’t get the antipathy reference??
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
It’s no liberal bias when people point out that his statement doesn’t say what you’re claiming it’s says. Bias would be interpreting his statement with the intent to find fault rather than to try and understand what he is actually trying to say. Bias is insisting it means something it doesn’t actually say.
Bias blinds people to the faults of thier own chosen team while making them unrealistically critical of thier opponents. It doesn’t help the nation solve it’s problems.
Both sides are guilty of this on occasion, but in this particular case, it isn’t the liberals.
[/QUOTE]
In the spirit of trying to understand what he is really trying to say …
The first paragraph says nothing about price.
The first sentence of the next says that he’d prefer a gradual adjustment… not no adjustment just more gradual.
Why? Because it’s a shock to American pocketbooks. Why is the shock bad but not the increase. Perhaps because the average american is less inclined to accept it. Maybe he’ll want to drill instead of save the poor little caribou. Maybe?
[QUOTE=What the … !!!]
In the spirit of trying to understand what he is really trying to say …
The first paragraph says nothing about price.
The first sentence of the next says that he’d prefer a gradual adjustment… not no adjustment just more gradual.
[/QUOTE]
Given the history of our fuel consumption and the rise in gas orices in the past do you think **no adjustment ** is even reasonable? Had he said gas prices shouldn’t go up at all would we be critisizing him for being out of touch in another direction?
You interpreted it as
and what’s been pointed out to you is that he didn’t say that.
the context was
indicating that we can’t suck up disproportionate amounts of the world’s energy sources like there’s no consequences. That happens to be an obvious truth right?
So pricies rising and us feeling the pinch is a result of the years we have ignored the inevitable. It’s simply the logical result of us not addressing the problem sooner, and accents the need to deal with it. So, if it’s inevitable based on our past choices he prefers the less painful gradual increase for the citizens.
It’s simply common sense that you’re working too dam hard to find a problem with. That’s the definition of bias friend. I noticed you never commented on our current POTUS surprise at $4.00 gas. How out of touch would you say that was?
I think I’ve answered that but the I’ll add that a sudden drastic increase hurts more for working people with tight budgets and he recognizes that. A more gradual increase might have hurt less and given us more time to make adjustments and address the issue.
[QUOTE=What the … !!!]
The first sentence of the next says that he’d prefer a gradual adjustment… not no adjustment just more gradual.
[/QUOTE]
“No adjustment” would be impossible. Obama understands that, and I think you do too.
Thanks for all the reasoned debate. So I’ll sum it up ala** Merrygeek**…
Harwood says “help”
I think “help” = good
I say “not so bad” which is kind of like good
And I get raked over the coals for an anti-Obama spin on his comments… maybe you guys are mean to us poor o’ Conservatives 
[QUOTE=What the … !!!]
Thanks for all the reasoned debate. So I’ll sum it up ala** Merrygeek**…
Harwood says “help”
I think “help” = good
I say “not so bad” which is kind of like good
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and I assume you noticed that you said Obama implied “not so bad” while it was* Harwood* who mentioned help, and that was a question which Obama never answered with a yes. So, your negative Obama spin was pretty bogus.
Only the ones who flaunt their bias. 
[QUOTE=What the … !!!]
Thanks for all the reasoned debate. So I’ll sum it up ala** Merrygeek**…
[/QUOTE]
Might want to check what forum you’re in, genius. Manipulating quotes from Obama, deliberately trying to contort their meaning to fit your “libruls are mean and want to raise taxes” AND calling people names?
Tsk tsk.
-Joe
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Yeah, and I assume you noticed that you said Obama implied “not so bad” while it was* Harwood* who mentioned help, and that was a question which Obama never answered with a yes. So, your negative Obama spin was pretty bogus.
Only the ones who flaunt their bias.
[/QUOTE]
I like to think that I am honest with my biases.
Harwood asked about high gas prices “helping” something and Obama said nothing at all to contradict that or suggest in any way that he didn’t agree.
Yet my analysis is “bogus” or “unreasonable” or “manipulating” ??
[QUOTE=What the … !!!]
I like to think that I am honest with my biases.
[/QUOTE]
Only in the sense that you do not conceal them; that’s a start, but only a start. You still need to learn to avoid making dishonest arguments.
[QUOTE=What the … !!!]
So I’ll sum it up ala** Merrygeek**…
[/QUOTE]
Personal insults, and changing people’s handles to make insults, is not allowed outside the Pit. Please don’t do this again.
[QUOTE=What the … !!!]
I like to think that I am honest with my biases.
[/QUOTE]
That’s an interesting way of putting it. I think it’s the nature of bias to affect our honesty in the sense that it skews how we view what’s before us. If someone believes Muslims are evil, or blacks are lazy, what is it that allows them to embrace something so obviously false? Are those things unreasonable and bogus?
Bias can be more subtle but no less bogus. Can we feel we are being honest when in fact we intellectually know better? It takes a focused effort to separate how much of our conclusions are based on emotion rather than an honest examination of the facts.
Nor did he clearly agree with Harwood’s choice of words. Yet you felt justified in deciding he must agree and proceeded to put words in Obama’s mouth.
If a liberal did that to a conservative what would you call it?
Yes it clearly was. YMMV simply doesn’t cut it.
I want to be clear and acknowledge that bias is a human trait affects the majority of us to various degrees. Our efforts to recognize it and to try and minimize it’s effect in communication can only help our efforts to resolve the problems that are facing us.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Personal insults, and changing people’s handles to make insults, is not allowed outside the Pit. Please don’t do this again.
[/QUOTE]
Can I change a handle if it isn’t an insult. If not, where is that rule outlined?
Is geek an insult? Tell that to Bill Gates.
BTW … he referred to me as a turtle of some sort first.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Only in the sense that you do not conceal them; that’s a start, but only a start. You still need to learn to avoid making dishonest arguments.
[/QUOTE]
Brainy G (hopefully that isn’t an insult… I use it only in its most endearing sense)… I don’t think it is in the least bit dishonest to suggest that Obama is content, happy, satisfied (whatever you want to call it) with gas prices at this level or higher in order to further his energy/environmental goals. He had a chance to say it wasn’t “helping” and he didn’t.
BTW, it’s not nice to change the subject like you tend to do. When can we get into Obama’s mentor the Rev. Wright some more like you wanted to do??