:kicks Oakminster: Having more money than God doesn’t cure stupid.
Oh, I understand; having been touching-close to a few horses in that class, having watched them do their thing, oh, my – well, have you ever seen a world-class athlete in action, up close? Breath-taking, innit?
Not that I would actually buy one myself, mind you, even if I could; there are far better uses I could put that kind of money to; but, yeh, I do understand why.
Some people need to take their phony sympathy, condescencion, smug attitudes and shove IT ALL BACK INTO their shiny, waxed, bleached, addicted to colonics, assholes.
I don’t think it’s a tu quoque.
I take the OP’s argument to be, “Only Republicans, the supporters of the rich, would garner a supporter who would opine that the opposition was too stupid to vote for their own self-interest.”
If that’s a fair summary, then pointing out how Democrats also accuse people of being too stupid to vote for their own self-interest is not a tu quoque fallacy. It’s a relevant refutation of a key portion of the argument.
You will have an uphill climb trying to claim that the actual argument is simply that the practice is bad, no matter who does it – which is what the original argument would need to be forth is to be a tu quoque.
Right?
LOONEY LEFTY: Republicans in the Senate should be ashamed of themselves for using earmarks!
OPPONENT: But Democrats also use earmarks!
LL: Tu quoque! Tu quoque!
sigh
No.
One thing that gets me about this woman is that she is so smugly confident in her intellectual and educational superiority, while in reality being so clueless that she actually said these things to a reporter.
Did she not realize that the reporter is a “common person” and that reporters actually report things and that they report those things in places where other “common persons” would read them?
We’ve seen Romney’s cluelessness, and now we’re seeing the same thing in his biggest financial supporters.
She’s so clueless that she doesn’t realize the potential damage she’s doing to her candidate.
Maybe we just need to find a way to give people like her a platform and let them show their true selves.
Wrong. Her attitude is fundamentally different from what you’re talking about seeing on the left. Her attitude is clearly that her money and “breeding” makes her “uncommon”.
The smugness in some on the left (and yes, it does exist) isn’t, for the most part, based on class.
Of course it isn’t a fair summary. Neither the word “Only” or “Republicans” appears in the OP. Pointing out a specific person’s obnoxiousness neither indicts an entire party, nor claims that any other party is not obnoxious. As such, trying to refute it with pointing out another party’s obnoxiousness is the very essence of a tu quoque.
Fuck them commoners!! They have no idear how ta save for the bright future!
I just got $38.28 from the Coinstar machine down the road. And I was happy to pay the American company 9 cents per dollar ta count it fer me! USA! USA!!
There was a debate offered by the OP?
Looked like a rant, and I guess the mods thought so, too.
Oh, is it fundraising season in the Hamptons again? What a great excuse to party while donating money [del]to get your photo in the New York Times[/del] for worthy causes.
Fear not, Obama seems to be scoring well in the Hamptons, better even than Romney.
There’s a joke in here about clinging to something or other, but it escapes me right now.
I wish Lovey Howell had explained how Obama is hurting the nail ladies. She came across as an entitled condescending twat and that’s exactly what she is. So the little people may not vote to promote the interests of the moneyed class. Boo fucking hoo.
Nope. That’s why I posted it in Elections rather than Great Debates. The mods then moved it from Elections to the Pit. It was never intended to be a debate and it was never in GD.
Gotta love the posters who have to get in the fact that Obama also has fundraisers in the Hamptons. Everything’s equivalent don’t you know.
Of course that misses the whole point of this thread. The OP wasn’t a swipe at wealthy people in general. It was a swipe at the attitude of people like the woman in the OP.
Somehow I don’t think you’ll run into too many people like that woman at an Obama fundraiser. If you have any examples, then they also deserve a pitting.
So a discussion about a candidate’s fundraiser for an election does not belong in a forum called “Elections.”
Makes a lot of sense.
I think the mods don’t want to turn that forum into a blog where people post every snippet of a news article they come across. Contrary to what the OP thinks, that forum is for debates, not rants. Think of it as a sub-forum of GD devoted exclusively to electoral issues.
There’s a bridge north of where I live you might be interested in.
Oh but we do. He hurts us so good, see. We deserves it. We saucy slatterns.
Cut her some slack, so she slipped up, on two little words;
As in;
"they just don’t get how the system works - FOR ME!