• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama flubs in guest book, dates visit "2008"

Mayor Snorkum said:
The Left only uses the term "hyper-partisan" to describe a person speaking effectvely against whatever left-wing lunacy they're bein told to defend this week, but can't.
Click to expand...

No, one uses the term "hyperpartisan" for someone who is hypocritical in their presentation and so wedded to their ideology that they are unable to address the issue, objectively... and one who's sole focus is beating up on the opposite ideology, regards of whether it hurts America in the big picture. From what I see, the Mayor is a good example of this definition.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
The Mayor has demonstrated that he is not for America. The Mayor has demonstrated that his main focus is beating the other guy. That is more important to the Mayor... and all the other hacks, left and right, than American is.

The Mayor also demonstrates that he has no idea what the term "un-American" means, but that is not surprising. Like other terms, the Mayor uses them based on his own absurd ideology, not on what they really mean.
Click to expand...

You fail to realize beating the other guy, the misguided Leftists, is being for America and its future.

And Sanders, an avowed Socialist who votes 98% of the time with the Libs, in his answers about what he supports revealed he's your typical Dem. But you can't call Dems Socialists... ROTFLOL. Only if your brain is constipated.

Like Obama and so many Dems, he's for single payer... but he knows it will take time for the lies and deceit train to roll into the station, like so much of their agenda. Like I said, Dems are like vermin... they patiently nibble away, and when they can (like never waste a crisis), they'll happily take whole bites.

The UnAmericans... those to be defeated.


CC... you folks not only aim to rewrite history, you aim to rewrite the dictionary...ROTFLOL... and it all started with calling yourselves Liberals.

.
 
Just read the OP. Sadly pathetic in the extreme. Just when you think that the Obama haters have hit the bottom of the barrel, you discover that some of them are furiously digging a new basement under it.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, one uses the term "hyperpartisan" for someone who is hypocritical in their presentation and so wedded to their ideology that they are unable to address the issue, objectively
Click to expand...


Oh.

Well that does explain why the term "hyper-partisan" is never applied to anyone on the Left, no matter how ridiculous wrong they are proven to be.
 
haymarket said:
Just read the OP. Sadly pathetic in the extreme. Just when you think that the Obama haters have hit the bottom of the barrel, you discover that some of them are furiously digging a new basement under it.
Click to expand...

No, I'll tell you what's pathetic, Haymarket.

It's when adults whine and complain about their hurt feelings rather than dealing with the political issues. If you have a problem with anything on this thread tackle the case directly rather that accusing others of 'hyperpartisanship', as CC complains about, or feeling 'sad'. That's pathetic.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
Oh.

Well that does explain why the term "hyper-partisan" is never applied to anyone on the Left, no matter how ridiculous wrong they are proven to be.
Click to expand...

Nope. It is certainly applied to the left when they say something ridiculous. Of course, the Mayor seems to not be able to see when the right says something ridiculous. Good definition of hyperpartisan.
 
zimmer said:
You fail to realize beating the other guy, the misguided Leftists, is being for America and its future.

And Sanders, an avowed Socialist who votes 98% of the time with the Libs, in his answers about what he supports revealed he's your typical Dem. But you can't call Dems Socialists... ROTFLOL. Only if your brain is constipated.

Like Obama and so many Dems, he's for single payer... but he knows it will take time for the lies and deceit train to roll into the station, like so much of their agenda. Like I said, Dems are like vermin... they patiently nibble away, and when they can (like never waste a crisis), they'll happily take whole bites.

The UnAmericans... those to be defeated.


CC... you folks not only aim to rewrite history, you aim to rewrite the dictionary...ROTFLOL... and it all started with calling yourselves Liberals.

.
Click to expand...


Poor zim... still hasn't read the dictionary. Let me know when you have figured out how to define terms.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
The Mayor has demonstrated that he is not for America. The Mayor has demonstrated that his main focus is beating the other guy. That is more important to the Mayor... and all the other hacks, left and right, than American is.

The Mayor also demonstrates that he has no idea what the term "un-American" means, but that is not surprising. Like other terms, the Mayor uses them based on his own absurd ideology, not on what they really mean.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the DP Board be more interesting if we attacked the issues rather than the poster?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
So, Barb... I guess an apology is in order, right?
Click to expand...

I don't think so... but it's been a while. Didn't I say I'd apologize if you had ever taken a liberal to task for doing the same thing the OP did? (posting something so dumb about the other side). You didn't show me where you chastised someone for posting the N. Korea Palin thing or anything similar. Seems you just don't like people making fun of Obama.
 
Grant said:
Wouldn't the DP Board be more interesting if we attacked the issues rather than the poster?
Click to expand...

There is no issue here. That's the point.
 
Barbbtx said:
I don't think so... but it's been a while. Didn't I say I'd apologize if you had ever taken a liberal to task for doing the same thing the OP did? (posting something so dumb about the other side). You didn't show me where you chastised someone for posting the N. Korea Palin thing or anything similar. Seems you just don't like people making fun of Obama.
Click to expand...

No... you said the Palin/N.Korea thing and I said I paid no attention to the issue and didn't post on any of the threads. Now, if you are expanding to include taking ANY liberal to task for saying something stupid about someone on the right, that's easy.

And I don't care if someone makes fun of Obama. I do care if someone acts like an extremist hack and tries to make something out of nothing.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Nope. It is certainly applied to the left when they say something ridiculous. Of course, the Mayor seems to not be able to see when the right says something ridiculous. Good definition of hyperpartisan.
Click to expand...

Do you have any examples of what the Left might say that could be classed as "hyper-partisan"?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
There is no issue here. That's the point.
Click to expand...

Then why all this debate about "hyper-partisan" instead of discussing what was said?

In fact, why use the term in the first place?

Surely any sort of partisanship would always be viewed through the eyes of the beholder, which shouldn't come as a shock to anyone familiar with political discussions.

What you call 'hyper-partisanship' might be called 'courage of convictions' by someone else.

It's a useless term and an obvious waste of time and space.
 
Barbbtx said:
You didn't show me where you chastised someone for posting the N. Korea Palin thing or anything similar. Seems you just don't like people making fun of Obama.
Click to expand...

I just posted a link to a thread where plenty of liberals said "it was just a simple mistake" or "she got her words mixed up." Everything you say after this point is moot because everything you post on this board goes back to one overarching theme... You hate that which you have no understanding of. You make up all of these wrongs in your head. You act as though all of these liberals on this board attacked palin for that and in reality I couldn't find any liberals that attacked her over it or thought she meant what she said. After going through all of this it just reconfirms my previous assessment of you. You don't care about different views, you don't care to learn what others think, you only care to be a conservative mouthpiece that sounds off to talking points fed to you by your selected media.
 
Grant said:
Then why all this debate about "hyper-partisan" instead of discussing what was said?
Click to expand...

Because what was said was hyperpartisan.

In fact, why use the term in the first place?
Click to expand...

Because it's accurate.

Surely any sort of partisanship would always be viewed through the eyes of the beholder, which shouldn't come as a shock to anyone familiar with political discussions.

What you call 'hyper-partisanship' might be called 'courage of convictions' by someone else.

It's a useless term and an obvious waste of time and space.
Click to expand...

No. It points out hypocrisy and demonization. Issues like this add nothing. I would certainly hope that bringing up an issue as irrelevant as this does not make you think of "courage of convictions".
 
Grant said:
Do you have any examples of what the Left might say that could be classed as "hyper-partisan"?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Calling Bush a war criminal, saying Bush lied about WMDs, making fun of Palin for "seeing Russia", amongst some.
 
Grant said:
What you call 'hyper-partisanship' might be called 'courage of convictions' by someone else.

It's a useless term and an obvious waste of time and space.
Click to expand...

If a person's "courage of their convictions" go to someone writing an accidental date (because that's what it boils down to), then I'm going with "They need new convictions. Bigger, more important ones."
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Because what was said was hyperpartisan.



Because it's accurate.



No. It points out hypocrisy and demonization. Issues like this add nothing. I would certainly hope that bringing up an issue as irrelevant as this does not make you think of "courage of convictions".
Click to expand...

It is not up to you to define "demonization" or what is "hyperpartisan". You have the right to your views but you lack the intellect and depth of character to create or define either of these terms.

The subject is "Obama flubs in guest book, dates visit "2008".

Why can't you stick to subject?

Are there no rules on this forum which would discourage this sort of trolling?
 
BDBoop said:
If a person's "courage of their convictions" go to someone writing an accidental date (because that's what it boils down to), then I'm going with "They need new convictions. Bigger, more important ones."
Click to expand...

It's only the trolling of the ironically named Captain Courtesy which is keeping this thread going. The subject of Obama's flub has been worn out long ago,
 
Grant said:
No, I'll tell you what's pathetic, Haymarket.

It's when adults whine and complain about their hurt feelings rather than dealing with the political issues. If you have a problem with anything on this thread tackle the case directly rather that accusing others of 'hyperpartisanship', as CC complains about, or feeling 'sad'. That's pathetic.
Click to expand...

You objected to my characterization of the OP as simply more right wingers digging a basement under what we believed to be the bottom of the barrel. Fine - that is your right. But as one of those who eagerly participate in that exercise, you seem motivated more by hurt feelings of the characterization than anything else.

You admonish me to discuss "the political issues". That is the point. There is no issue here to discuss. Fifty pages of 500 posts supposedly built on the idea that President Obama put the wrong date down on a guestbook. The word absurd does not even begin to approach the ridiculousness of the entire idea.

from the OP

President Obama slipped up when he signed the guest book at Westminster Abbey in London today.

Perhaps reminiscing over more exciting times for him, the president mistakenly wrote the date as "24 May 2008."
Click to expand...

Shakespeare wrote a play titled MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING. It fits this to a tee.
 
Had GWB done this every liberal newscast and comedy show would have had this as the lead story and do not deny it. FACT: We have all gotten the year wrong at the first month of a new year but to go back THREE years is troubling. Add to him spitting on British protocal by flapping his yap and toasting when he cannot see that no one is looking at him before the traditional playing of the Queens song is equally sto-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-pid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom