• 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"

rhinefire said:
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.
Click to expand...

typical right wing comeback relex which is uncontrollable

Bush - Obama
Glen Beck - Keith Olbermann
Sarah Palin - Nancy Pelosi
Koch Brothers - George Soros

its as predictable as a doctor hitting your knee with that little rubber hammer.
 
haymarket said:
typical right wing comeback relex which is uncontrollable

Bush - Obama
Glen Beck - Keith Olbermann
Sarah Palin - Nancy Pelosi
Koch Brothers - George Soros

its as predictable as a doctor hitting your knee with that little rubber hammer.
Click to expand...




True believers will often attribute the actions of one individual to the entire group all while ignoring his sides simmilar behavior.
 
Grant said:
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?
Click to expand...

Hey, if the rules discouraged that, you wouldn't be here.
 
Grant said:
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,
Click to expand...

Having nothing to do with convictions, Grant. You're the one that brought it up, man. Own it. You and your hyper-partisan buddies tried to have a field day over an honest mistake, and CC called you on it. I do wish you'd stop whining, as I have a headache.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
True believers will often attribute the actions of one individual to the entire group all while ignoring his sides simmilar behavior.
Click to expand...

Excellent rev. You as a resident right wing tea party libertarian True Believer do that here quite a bit. Bet you were looking in a mirror when you wrote that.
 
haymarket said:
Excellent rev. You as a resident right wing tea party libertarian True Believer do that here quite a bit. Bet you were looking in a mirror when you wrote that.
Click to expand...



True believers will often lie about thier enemy, this is a prime example. As one who points out that both sides are guilty of many things, even to the true believer here, he ignores it and pretends that I am exactly how he pictures anyone who does not follow his exact ideology.


In this thread it's a prime example, The Good Reverend's first post was "So What". Indicating that the Good Reverend doesn not think this is an issue one should worry about, but instead of acknowledging this, the true believer chooses to lump the Good Reverend in with the stereotype the true believer has made for all of his "enemies"
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
True believers will often lie about thier enemy, this is a prime example. As one who points out that both sides are guilty of many things, even to the true believer here, he ignores it and pretends that I am exactly how he pictures anyone who does not follow his exact ideology.


In this thread it's a prime example, The Good Reverend's first post was "So What". Indicating that the Good Reverend doesn not think this is an issue one should worry about, but instead of acknowledging this, the true believer chooses to lump the Good Reverend in with the stereotype the true believer has made for all of his "enemies"
Click to expand...

What a line of malarkey.

My post #501 was not directed to you and did not mention you at all. But you saw fit to copy it and go into your ersatz rue believer nonsense just the same. Nobody lumped you in pal. Nobody, especially me.

This is a perfect indication of how every attack on the far right has to somehow someway be about YOU. You simply want to fight and this is how you pick one like responding to post 501 like it had your name on it.
 
haymarket said:
What a line of malarkey.

My post #501 was not directed to you and did not mention you at all. But you saw fit to copy it and go into your ersatz rue believer nonsense just the same. Nobody lumped you in pal. Nobody, especially me.

This is a perfect indication of how every attack on the far right has to somehow someway be about YOU. You simply want to fight and this is how you pick one like responding to post 501 like it had your name on it.
Click to expand...



Meh, it's a public discussion board, when The Good Reverend sees someone engaging in bigotry or stereoyping as you are so oft to do, The Good Reverend will respond to it at his pleasure.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Meh, it's a public discussion board, when The Good Reverend sees someone engaging in bigotry or stereoyping as you are so oft to do, The Good Reverend will respond to it at his pleasure.
Click to expand...

You mean that you make it about you because you identify with the far right sort of lunacy being described and have to come to what you perceive as your own defense.

Most of us figured that out a very long time ago.

And in this case with post #501 - you opted to make it about you. Thanks for proving it.

Indicating that the Good Reverend doesn not think this is an issue one should worry about, but instead of acknowledging this, the true believer chooses to lump the Good Reverend in with the stereotype the true believer has made for all of his "enemies"
Click to expand...

Nobody but YOURSELF lumped you in with anything.

You fit your statement about the True Believer to a tee in a blind desire to attack me as the "enemy" when I did not even mention you. And then you lie about being lumped in. Thanks again for the perfect illustration.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
You mean that you make it about you because you identify with the far right sort of lunacy being described and have to come to what you perceive as your own defense.

Most of us figured that out a very long time ago.

And in this case with post #501 - you opted to make it about you. Thanks for proving it.
Click to expand...




then why was my first post defending Obama?

Put that in your true believer pipe.......
 
haymarket said:
Only you can describe what goes on in your own mind.
Click to expand...



The Good Reverend understands why you can not answer that question, the true believer only has his groupthink and anything outside of that group think you must discard.
 
Grant said:
Then why are you still trolling here with something that is completely unrelated to the theme of the thread?
Click to expand...

Its okay he is a mod they can do anything they want
 
haymarket said:
typical right wing comeback relex which is uncontrollable

Bush - Obama
Glen Beck - Keith Olbermann
Sarah Palin - Nancy Pelosi
Koch Brothers - George Soros

its as predictable as a doctor hitting your knee with that little rubber hammer.
Click to expand...

But it is true. You have a double standard
 
Grant said:
The rules "discourage" me? Hardly.

I just believe that they should be applied equally for everyone.

Do you?
Click to expand...

I didn't mean they'd discourage you. I meant if they enforced the rules preventing that which you've accused CC of, you'd be banned.
 
BDBoop said:
Having nothing to do with convictions, Grant. You're the one that brought it up, man. Own it. You and your hyper-partisan buddies tried to have a field day over an honest mistake, and CC called you on it. I do wish you'd stop whining, as I have a headache.
Click to expand...

There are other threads.
 
CC's been here five years. When is the deterioration scheduled to take place?
 
BDBoop said:
I didn't mean they'd discourage you. I meant if they enforced the rules preventing that which you've accused CC of, you'd be banned.
Click to expand...

If you didn't mean it why did you use the word?

Perhaps you should consider what you're saying before you post.
 
BDBoop said:
CC's been here five years. When is the deterioration scheduled to take place?
Click to expand...

It seems to be taking place now. Perhaps its time you moved on to another thread, given your headache.
 
Grant said:
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?
Click to expand...

BDBoop said:
Hey, if the rules discouraged that, you wouldn't be here.
Click to expand...

BDBoop said:
I didn't mean they'd discourage you. I meant if they enforced the rules preventing that which you've accused CC of, you'd be banned.
Click to expand...

Grant said:
If you didn't mean it why did you use the word?

Perhaps you should consider what you're saying before you post.
Click to expand...

But - TADA! I didn't say it. You misunderstood. I said if the rules discouraged that form of trolling, YOU wouldn't be here.
 
BDBoop said:
CC's been here five years. When is the deterioration scheduled to take place?
Click to expand...

Every one he gets on he trolls and baits. Yet he is never punished the way he punishes others
 
Grant said:
Then why are you still trolling here with something that is completely unrelated to the theme of the thread?
Click to expand...

I already answered your question in post #491.
 
Grant said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've defined them quite well. You don't like my definitions because you fit in them.

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?
Click to expand...

See, you are running. The topic was presented. Some folks think it was legitimate. Some think it was stupid. So, the latter group explored why the former group thinks the topic is legitimate. I think we've come to some quite accurate conclusions. I suspect that the former group doesn't like being called out on these conclusions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom