And “you guys” were pulling your puds and talking crap, as usual.
Careful! If you accidently overstep the mark and flash a box cutter instead iof a box knife, well then you’d be a terrorist.
HG
Hey, can I get in on the “you guys” generalizations too? “You guys” were so bummed about the election result that you guys ran rampant all over the Southern “red state” zone committing hate crimes against African Americans and trying to recruit new members into your shadowy sheet-wearing organizations. Of course, that depends on what “you guys” I’m referring to.
Another group of “you guys” could also fit into this characterization: “You guys” were so bummed about the election result that you guys cried into your soup so hard that you didn’t need to add salt.
Yet another: “You guys” were so bummed by the election result that you guys glumly swore to write a kind note of thanks to Obama for the gracious and respectful victory speech that he made shortly after McCain’s own gracious and respectful concession speech.
I look upon Joe as more of a ‘plumber’s helper’ whose job it was to unclog the McCain campaign. Unfortunately he wasn’t able to dislodge Sarah Palin from the drainpipe of public opinion in time and the rest is history.
The real question in my mind though is why he called himself ‘Joe’ if his real name is Sam.
[quote]I look upon Joe as more of a ‘plumber’s helper’ whose job it was to unclog the McCain campaign. Unfortunately he wasn’t able to dislodge Sarah Palin from the drainpipe in time and the rest is history.
The real question in my mind is why he called himself ‘Joe’ if his real name was Sam.[/quote]
:roflmao:
However, I think Tigerman did answer your second question. Some people do go by their middle names. As for my claim above that “Joe” was a tool of the McCain campaign, it turns out I’ve embarrassed myself. I took what someone told me for fact without verifying it, and for that I humbly and sincerely apologize. However, everything else I said to Okami above and about Rush in general stands.
Perfect reason why I think talking to any left winger is hopeless and ultimately futile. No matter if you argue in good faith, you will get straw men arguments against you and the general disgust, not for anything you did but for the opinions you have. If you do it in person, they either start screaming at you or threatening you with bodily harm.
Look at any conservative commentator and how they are portrayed, It’s inhuman, demeaning and brutal, no liberal commentator ever bears the demeaning attacks that a conservative does. You dehumanize them as a means of disregarding their views without even thinking of them. Think, Rush Limbaugh will not being taken off the air except by a gov’t act or retirement, The Fairness Doctrine. The democrats want it, but I don’t believe they will over reach that far.
Good to see you’ve kept an open mind, Okami. 
Yep, that’s pretty much all liberals do – threaten people who disagree with bodily harm. 
Yawn. Whatever, Okami. Tell us when you return to reality.
Well, no.
I’ve already showed that you guys are wrong about what JTP said to Obama and that the press and libs distorted/lied/misrepresented the same. Can you (any of you) tell me why, when the facts are clear now, that so many of you continue to post lies about what he said? What purpose does it serve now?
I understand that before the election it was helpful to attack him and distort his question and illegally look into his records. But, why keep up the distortion/lie now?
Actually, if you look back, you’ll see that my comments were not as you suggest. But that’s alright. “you guys” always do that shit, so I aint biting.
HG
[quote=“tigerman”]I’ve already showed that you guys are wrong about what JTP said to Obama and that the press and libs distorted/lied/misrepresented the same. Can you (any of you) tell me [color=#BF00FF]why, when the facts are clear now, that so many of you continue to post lies about what he said?[/color] What purpose does it serve now?
I understand that before the election it was helpful to attack him and distort his question and illegally look into his records. But, [color=#8000FF]why keep up the distortion/lie now?[/color][/quote]
Of course they were. [url=Rush Limbaugh: The man who's always Right - #52 by Huang_Guang_Chen is what you posted above in this thread[/url]:
There it is in [color=#0000FF]bold blue letters[/color]. JTP never stated that he was earning US$ 200,000 and thus at risk of the higher taxes Obama proposed.
Here is what Joe the Plumber said to Obama:
You see? JTP did not suggest that he is currently earning US$ 200,000 to US$ 250,000.
So why do you guys keep posting this distortion/lie?
That was a wind up, and pretty obvious given what you’d said a post or two prior, I would have thought.
Look back to when Joe became news. I said something about concentrating on what Obama said in reply rather than beating up on Joe. However, now that Joe the fraud has milked this for all it’s worth, he’s stepped baldly into the path of righteous criticism.
Are you possibly the last person on the planet still defending Joe?
HG
You’ll have to excuse me for not remembering that post, especially in light of your subsequent posting of the distortion of what was said by JTP when he met Obama.
[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]However, now that Joe the fraud has milked this for all it’s worth, he’s stepped baldly into the path of righteous criticism.
Are you possibly the last person on the planet still defending Joe?[/quote]
I think he was foolish to go further than his initial statement/question, of course. If you look, you will see that I haven’t defended any of his statements subsequent the one he made to Obama.
I do not, however, think that being foolish makes him a fraud. We’re all foolish at times. That doesn’t make us frauds.
Nor does his subsequent foolishness justify a deliberate distortion of his statement made to Obama, or the abuse of power committed by several Democrats in Ohio looking into his personal data.
Call me crazy?
I wonder how many people voted against Obama because they really believe that someday they will earn more than 250 thousand dollars a year. Poor deluded morons.
[quote=“Okami”]Perfect reason why I think talking to any left winger is hopeless and ultimately futile. No matter if you argue in good faith, you will get straw men arguments against you and the general disgust, not for anything you did but for the opinions you have. If you do it in person, they either start screaming at you or threatening you with bodily harm.
Look at any conservative commentator and how they are portrayed, It’s inhuman, demeaning and brutal, no liberal commentator ever bears the demeaning attacks that a conservative does. You dehumanize them as a means of disregarding their views without even thinking of them. Think, Rush Limbaugh will not being taken off the air except by a gov’t act or retirement, The Fairness Doctrine. The democrats want it, but I don’t believe they will over reach that far.[/quote]
Oh eat me. Limbaugh dehumanizes people ALL the TIME. Every hear him do his whiny Liberal boo-hoo-hoo routine? Ever hear him call us “traitors”, “socialists”, “terrorist coddlers”? I sure have.
Also, I referred you to information that very clearly demonstrates - with NUMEROUS examples - Rush making erroneous, distorted, or outright fabricated claims. Did you listen? Or did you just sit there, smug in your knowledge that you’re right? And you claim talking to US is futile, when you refuse to even HEAR evidence to the contrary of what you believe?
See, that’s the difference between us. You already KNOW you’re right. I, however, am forced to consider the evidence and draw the most reasonable conclusions. Sometimes, due to pre-dispositions, I accept as things as “evidence” too easily, and am thus forced to alter my views when it turns out I was taken in. That’s what happened in this case. It’s the curse of being a Liberal, I suppose, that - not knowing things “from our gut” as George Bush does - we must occasionally change our views (see the Doonesbury cartoon below) to encompass new information.
As for “Joe” the plumber, he was one tiny bit of what I was talking about. When Tigerman questioned what I thought I knew about it, I double-checked and found out I was wrong. Any comment on Obama’s citizenship (and his grandmother)? Or his “palling with terrorists”? Those are claims Rush still holds to. Any thoughts about what I said regarding “socialing” medicine? Or the fact that Right-winger use to dominate this forum and bully dissenters, just as you feel you’re being bullied now?
Moreover, I have checked my facts, admitted my error and apologized. Have you ever done likewise? I’ve caught people out on things dozens of times. Check the thread on “Clinton tears into Fox News” for a very clear and obvious example of where I proved TC and Fred Smith DEAD WRONG, then suddenly things got very quiet. No admition of error. Likewise with Tigerman on the “white phosphorous” thread. Likewise with Fred Smith in the thead on Republicans using the Patriot Act to axe federal prosecutors who were prosecuting Republicans.
Okay, the fact that there was some mis-representation of what “Joe” said in no way changes the fact that he was a little distraction that the McCain frantically clung to and attempted to turn into the banner-bearer for his non-movement. Obama gave “Joe” a thoughtful and intelligent answer that McCain couldn’t have done off the cuff in his wildest dreams. McCain then took one line from his response and tried to base his whole campaign on it, because the fact is he really never had a platform to begin with.
The director who illegally got info on “Joe” was not connected to Obama, has received a HUGE roasting in the press, and has been punished. End of story on that.
Also, the McCain campaign grab on to the whole “re-destribution” issue was a massive red herring. Progressive taxes have been used since when? Is that “socialism”? Well what about social security, the minimum wage, labor safety laws, medicare? Is all that socialism too? If McCain and the rest of you think so, you’d better just come right out and say that we need to get rid of those things - and see where it gets you with the public. The same will become true of nationalized health care - if we’re ever lucky enough to get it. The bottom line in Obama’s “tax hikes” was a 4% increase in the taxes of those making over $250 grand a year. Not exactly the median wage, is it?
But of course, GOP supporters never admit what it is they REALLY want, which is to take the country back to the McKinley era - the “Golden Age” of “market fundamentalism”. No environmental protections. No worker safety rules. No right to organize. No unemployment insurance. All those things that did so much to “devastate” our economy after they were implemented under FDR and post-WW2 Democrats - and under whom incidentally, we had some of the highest economic times ever, and when we put men on the moon.
Moreover, back to the Obama/“Joe” converstaion, McCain and Palin, in expanding on their lie that Obama’s comments to “Joe” entailed him being a socialist, were again dishonest in saying that Obama had “lamented” that the courts did not do more about “redistribution”, when in fact he had said the very opposite. (Oh, and Rush parroted them on this point, naturally - or maybe they were parroting HIM!) If you don’t believe me, please refer (again) to this factcheck.org article:
factcheck.org/elections-2008 … ccain.html
So let’s not get too caught up in this whole “Joe” thing too much, shall we? Playing it up was a lame ploy on McCain’s part to start with.
It’s getting ugly in here as our neoconservative fellows work their way lugubriously through the 7 Stages of Post-Smackdown Grief. I thought Stage 1, Thumb-sucking Shock, was going to last forever and after a few recent doses of Stage 2, Whining Self-Pity, I almost wish it had.
:no-no: Okay, there’s that meanness we talked about. Let’s not be snobby winners, shall we? Besides, Obama’s not exactly in the most enviable position as president (elect) at this particular time, especially when Repubs will probably frustrate and hound him every chance they get, just as with Clinton. And if he fails, thanks to the the GOP’s propaganda machine, the way our country’s collective memory treats Carter (and forgets FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton - except for the Monica thing) will be nothing compared to the way it treats him.
Well, if the Republicans had continued with their kind of “fiscal prudence”, then it would take $250,000 just to buy a loaf of bread.
I saw this interesting article in the American Thinker, in which the writer defines what is an intellectual, and then explains how he believes Rush Limbaugh is one.
Why Rush Limbaugh is a leading American intellectual
[quote]…
The words “intellect” and “intellectual” deserve to be rescued from the myth-makers of the Left, which has decided in its amazing arrogance that it really owns those words. But that is just another sign of its narrow-minded cultism. The Left shuts out competing voices, like any other cult, and then becomes outraged when independent thinkers don’t agree with its “smelly little orthodoxies” — as George Orwell famously called them. (Orwell started as a Leftist and then figured out the scam.)
…
All high civilizations have been built by conservatives. You can’t accumulate the cultural capital needed to build any high civilization if you try to destroy the past, as the Left constantly tries to do. You can’t build a chariot if you have to reinvent the wheel every generation. The batty idea that kids have the real answers in life is just a modern delusion. It is just ignorant.
Conservatism builds. Leftism overthrows. That is the meaning of that pop word “revolution.” The all-destroying revolution is an adolescent fantasy, and the Left hangs on to those fantasies a lot longer than conservatives do
…[/quote]
[quote=“jotham”]I saw this interesting article in the American Thinker, in which the writer defines what is an intellectual, and then explains how he believes Rush Limbaugh is one.
Why Rush Limbaugh is a leading American intellectual
[quote]…
The words “intellect” and “intellectual” deserve to be rescued from the myth-makers of the Left, which has decided in its amazing arrogance that it really owns those words. But that is just another sign of its narrow-minded cultism. The Left shuts out competing voices, like any other cult, and then becomes outraged when independent thinkers don’t agree with its “smelly little orthodoxies” — as George Orwell famously called them. (Orwell started as a Leftist and then figured out the scam.)
…
All high civilizations have been built by conservatives. You can’t accumulate the cultural capital needed to build any high civilization if you try to destroy the past, as the Left constantly tries to do. You can’t build a chariot if you have to reinvent the wheel every generation. The batty idea that kids have the real answers in life is just a modern delusion. It is just ignorant.
Conservatism builds. Leftism overthrows. That is the meaning of that pop word “revolution.” The all-destroying revolution is an adolescent fantasy, and the Left hangs on to those fantasies a lot longer than conservatives do
…[/quote][/quote]
How about in 1776? Was that an “adolescent fantasy”? I’m being facetious, but while much of what the writer says is specious twaddle, he actually manages, accidentally, to make a good point. North America and the world would have been far, far better off had the rebels lost and if some sort of independent country had eventually evolved in North America a la the Canadian model. Think about how very civilized things would have been.
Maybe there wouldn’t be monster truck races, for a start. And no American “football.” Slavery in North America would have been outlawed in 1808, or maybe even earlier. The mind reels at the possibilities.
Rush Limbaugh is a leading American pseudo intellectual – which befits his position as one of America’s leading pseudo-conservatives.
I know it’s mean to say that but it’s justified by the fact that it’s both true and his portrayal of his blathering, self-righteous extremism as conservatism besmirches us true conservatives.
Are you kidding? The first pilgrims came here to get away from tyrannical Europe and build a new civilization. And then power-hungry liberals and dictators couldn’t get their grubby hands off. Just like leftist China claim Taiwan; and Leftist Russia claimed many satellite countries to form the USSR. The American Revolution just reasserted our independence from those dictators, which freedom we had in the first place.
Moreover, conservative statesmen in Great Britain, like Edmund Burke – who’s considered the Father of Conservatism – supported the American Revolution. The American Revolution was a reassertion of their traditional rights as freemen. The French Revolution, on the other hand, was a social experiment by liberals and ended up bringing more tyranny upon themselves, which is inevitable.
Edmund Burke, 1729-1797
[quote]In Burke’s view, current society is a robust organism that emerged piecemeal and slowly over history. For this reason, Burke never trusted abstract “grand plans” for radical political, economic and/or social reorganization of society. This has led him to be celebrated as the father of Conservatism.
However, Burke wasn’t exactly an apologist of the current order either. Tyrannical kings and parliaments, no less than tyrannical mobs, were an anathema to Burke. It is for this reason that he defended the American Revolution (since, in his view, they were merely “reclaiming” their traditional rights as freeborn Englishmen) and condemned the French Revolution (which, in his view, was based on a rationalist experiment).[/quote]
Slavery would never have been in North America were it not for the liberal British. They instituted it here and made the engine go. It’s true conservatism finally saw the light of day earlier in Great Britain. Nevertheless, had she outlawed slavery in the States, the Civil War would have been fought with British soldiers and ended up with an independent, evil Southern United States (and with slavery lasting possibly into the 1900s). They would have fought for their tyrannical lifestyles in 1807 just as they did in 1861.