Jules Is Still A Horses Ass

Nick Fury (Jeez, how could they do that to such a sacred story?) must have been asleep these last four years, another elitist rich person devoid of reality. Another Hollywood liberal (least he didn’t call him a black Muslim) still spooning with the president, yeah, like water is wet.

The strategy was clear from the beginning, they can’t focus on the record, bad news keeps coming down the pike, better to lie about your opponent. Oh, and everyone just loves a foul mouthed child, what, no animals around to abuse?

Hey Sam, SHIELD is calling, you’ve been demoted.

Comments are closed.

  1. Seattle Outcast

    Further proof that most celebrities aren’t all that interesting/smart in real life. Actually, I think most of them tend toward stupid….

    Thumb up 2

  2. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  3. grady

    Companies, just man-up and pay your people more? That’s your solution to income levels dropping? Even Obama doesn’t believe that or he wouldn’t have had the Federal employees on zero cost of living increases for the last 2 years.

    If companies paid higher in labor, they would usually have to raise their rates on their customers for whatever product or service they provide. If they are in any kind of competitive market, they could lose market share. There is a balance that every company has to decide on for labor. Pay as much as you have to for good people but keep your costs down to be competitive. Your competitors will steal your people if you don’t compensate them enough, so the best and brightest are still doing well. Unskilled labor at high turnover positions still pays minimum wage. Blaming the private labor market is barking up the wrong tree.

    Those big profit times? They rarely last. Companies don’t always make big money and the owners shoulder the loss when the times are bad. Cover the bad times with the surplus of the good times and they survive as companies.

    Larger corporations don’t always fit the above bill when you start to include government assistance in subsidies and stimulus saves, but I think it is a fair description of what small businesses have to go through.

    Loss of full time or high paying positions hurts the median household income. So does increased energy costs and all the other aspects of inflation. Increased regulations on the economy will increase the costs on small businesses, so I don’t think a larger government is any help, I think it hurts. But folks like Samuel Jackson don’t want to have the government any smaller. Every scare tactic line he used was some sort of “you’re gonna lose …” In my opinion, a lot of those government payouts should not be there at all as a Federal benefit, or should be at a State level, or whatever I think. Samuel Jackson just told us to vote for Obama & the free stuff will continue.

    Thumb up 6

  4. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  5. grady

    CM – After all of the words in the two posts, it seems we both are looking for the middle and lower classes to do better. I really think that Obama’s direction will get us more of the same going in the wrong direction) and I don’t think there is anything being offered to help in his future plans.

    You don’t like the wealthiest Americans still doing well? I can’t say it bugs me until I see they have cheated me (we know lots of folks are cheating, but the government should have the smallest role in that). Government covering for big business losses? It pisses me off. I’m all for ending the corporate and big business welfare in subsides also. If they are big business, they shouldn’t need help anymore. Lots of Dems and Repubs out there that are keeping the business interests of their states in the federal gravy train. I just want to reduce the size of the train. Cutting budgets isn’t sexy though.

    I just went back and watched the video again. Lots of free stuff (safety net, school loans, planned parenthood, & medicare – I throw “he doesn’t care about the poor” in with free stuff). Gay marriage, jobs to China and voter suppression were the only other things I heard. I think gay marriage should be a State issue (kudos to Obama on don’t ask don’t tell). Jobs are going to China as long as it is profitable to do so. I don’t see Obama doing a lot about it. Voter suppression? I’m calling this scare tactics. If you think that providing an ID is voter suppression, then I am guilty as well.

    I heard a lot in that video about free stuff.

    Thumb up 6

  6. Hal_10000

    CM, the points he is making — Romney will destroy the social safety net, gut students loans, etc. — are just pure liberal pap. Romney has no plans to do anything like that. The biggest reason I could never be a Democrat is this hysterical shit we get every election about how Republicans are going to turn everyone into the streets and poison the water. There’s a lot I disagree with the GOP about, but Romney is not an insane or evil person.

    Thumb up 8

  7. Xetrov

    My main issue here is how do we get more money into the hands into the low and middle class, without it being Govt tax money.

    Is it the Government’s job to get more money into the hands of the low and middle class? Or any class for that matter?

    Thumb up 6

  8. Mississippi Yankee

    Yes, because holding a different political opinion to you isn’t smart or interesting but stupid.

    Actor Samuel L. Jackson has admitted that he became a supporter of Barack Obama in 2008 because of his race.

    In an interview for Ebony magazine’s March issue, the Oscar-nominated screen legend says his decision to vote for Mr Obama was nothing to do with his political beliefs.

    ‘I voted for Barack because he was black. ‘Cuz that’s why other folks vote for other people — because they look like them,’ Mr Jackson told the magazine, according to the New York Post.

    ‘That’s American politics, pure and simple,’ he said. [Obama’s] message didn’t mean **** to me. In the end, he’s a politician. I just hoped he would do some of what he said he was gonna do.

    ‘I know politicians say ****; they lie. ‘Cuz they want to get elected.’

    I repeat NIGGA PLEASE!

    Thumb up 4

  9. Iconoclast

    Yes, because holding a different political opinion to you isn’t smart or interesting but stupid.

    What I find interesting is that you seemed rather incensed that Obama’s “You didn’t build that” was “taken out of context” and was allegedly used to misrepresent Obama’s position, but in this video, Samuel Jackson is completely misrepresenting Romney’s position on several issues, yet that doesn’t seem to bother you at all…

    Thumb up 12

  10. Iconoclast

    Wake the f*ck up!

    Actually, I agree with this sentiment — people should wake the f*ck up about what Obama is doing to this country.

    Thumb up 11

  11. Kimpost

    Actually, I agree with this sentiment — people should wake the f*ck up about what Obama is doing to this country.

    Destroying it beyond human comprehension?

    Thumb up 1

  12. Iconoclast

    Apparently, this is a question that bears repeating…

    “Do you go to a special school to learn how to be so patently absurd?”

    What does your question actually even mean, anyway???

    Thumb up 1

  13. CM

    CM – After all of the words in the two posts, it seems we both are looking for the middle and lower classes to do better.

    To me this seems to be the main problem (the more I look at it, the more it looks like a structural problem with the system).

    I really think that Obama’s direction will get us more of the same going in the wrong direction) and I don’t think there is anything being offered to help in his future plans.

    Obama’s policies will even further reduce the real wages of the poor and middle class, and those at the top will continue to see an increase? How? I can certainly see how Romney’s policies would do that, but how does Obama’s? I mean beyond in reality, I don’t need to read the same vague pure ideology yet again.

    You don’t like the wealthiest Americans still doing well?

    Honestly, that’s the type of comment that makes me bang my head on the desk.

    CM, the points he is making — Romney will destroy the social safety net, gut students loans, etc. — are just pure liberal pap. Romney has no plans to do anything like that. The biggest reason I could never be a Democrat is this hysterical shit we get every election about how Republicans are going to turn everyone into the streets and poison the water. There’s a lot I disagree with the GOP about, but Romney is not an insane or evil person.

    I totally agree – the video is a pile of shit. I’d be embarrassed by it.

    Is it the Government’s job to get more money into the hands of the low and middle class? Or any class for that matter?

    Of course this is a crux of the matter. If the ‘market’ is amoral and inherently equal and just, then I guess the result (i.e. the reality) is irrelevant. IMHO that’s the problem with ideology (in any shape or form). It puts principle and theory first, and results and reality…..well, nowhere. They’re irrelevant.
    IMHO results and reality matter a great deal.

    What I find interesting is that you seemed rather incensed that Obama’s “You didn’t build that” was “taken out of context” and was allegedly used to misrepresent Obama’s position, but in this video, Samuel Jackson is completely misrepresenting Romney’s position on several issues, yet that doesn’t seem to bother you at all…

    Sorry, I took it as a given that the Jackson video was a load of shit.
    I love how you put “taken out of context” in quotes, as if it were a point of contention.
    Also, don’t see how Jackson and Obama are a good comparison.

    Thumb up 0

  14. Iconoclast

    Sorry, I took it as a given that the Jackson video was a load of shit.

    I don’t see how that’s relevant. After all, I take it as a given that Obama’s speeches are a load of shit, yet some people still get indignant over how the speeches are taken…

    I love how you put “taken out of context” in quotes, as if it were a point of contention.

    I put it in quotes because it’s ultimately irrelevant; Obama wrote that, during the brief time he was in the private sector, he felt like he was “behind enemy lines”. When someone considers private-sector business owners to be the “enemy”, it simply doesn’t matter whether “you didn’t build that” refers to infrastructure or to the business itself; it’s patently obvious that Obama disdains private business and entrepreneurship, cheap lip service to “individual effort” notwithstanding.

    Also, don’t see how Jackson and Obama are a good comparison.

    They’re both black, they’re both hip celebrities, they’re both flaming liberals, neither one knows anything about governing or leadership, they’re both whiners, what more do you need?

    Thumb up 3

  15. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  16. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  17. Iconoclast

    So it would be hard for it to “bother me” in the same way, because I don’t see the relationship between the two examples.

    <shrug> So I was right, then…

    I don’t really buy that.

    Not at all surprising.

    I think it’s much much more likely that he was talking about his own personal circumstances and what he wanted to do. Seems quite a stretch to infer that he “disdains private business and entrepreneurship” and doesn’t believe in individual effort.

    You ain’t living under his policies, his “rulership”. I am.

    Suggesting that Obama “knows anything about governing or leadership” certainly illustrates how far out on the fringe you live though.

    I presume you actually meant something along the lines of “Suggesting that Obama is not one who “knows anything about governing or leadership” blah blah blah”…

    Like I said, I am the one suffering his policies, not you. From my vantage point, his lack of both leadership and interest in actually governing is crystal clear, your apparent unwillingness to see it notwithstanding.

    The results of November 6th will illustrate just how “fringe” my point of view is. It may very well show up your own POV as fringe.

    Thumb up 9

  18. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  19. Seattle Outcast

    Non sequitor.

    Not in the slightest, but it’s quite revealing to see how far you’d go in your attempt to back that up.

    Thumb up 5

  20. Iconoclast

    Is there some reason why this is erased from history?

    Well, obviously, it isn’t “erased from history”, as you were able to access it easily enough. However, it is insignificant. The firm he was working for “specializ[ed] in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development”, which simply suggests that it gave Obama less to whine about, as it seemed to dovetail with his community organizer ambitions. Also, after a three-year stint as a full-timer, he worked part time at the firm while continuing his lecturing at the University of Chicago Law School and pursuing a career as an Illinois State Senator.

    Did you bother reading the entire Breitbart piece? Here’s an expanded excerpt:

    In what his mother characterized as ‘a rather mumbled telephone conversation’ with him over the long-distance lines between New York and Jakarta, he described his job to her. He calls it working for the enemy because some of the reports are written for commercial firms that want to invest in [Third World] countries; Ann reported in a letter to her mentor back in Honolulu, Alice Dewey. Later, when he wrote those few paragraphs about B.I. in his memoir, he repeated that idea: Like a spy behind enemy lines, I arrived every day at my mid-Manhattan office and sat at my computer terminal, checking the Reuters machine that blinked bright emerald messages from across the globe.

    So, depending on how much we want to deconstruct this, it looks as if he considers those “Third World” countries, the ones the firm he was working for wanted to invest in, to be his true friends and home, while his Manhattan office was “behind enemy lines”. So maybe it isn’t the American private sector he disdains so much as it is America herself he disdains.

    But you’ll merely dismiss this as a “stretch”, I’m sure. Regardless, he clearly appears to view those with whom he worked to be the “enemy” at some level.

    Clearly you were just wanting to pick a fight, even if it was an incredibly inept one.

    Nope, just making amusing observations which happened to be correct; you merely justified your position, and did not refute my assessment of it.

    Ah I see. I’m unqualified to comment. Fine.

    That’s never stopped you before. Besides, the overall attitude you seem to project is that we who actually live here are “unqualified to comment” — hence the “fringe” dismissals.

    It’s a big call to make, suggesting that someone can get all the way to be President and have no leadership ability or interest in governing. It’s…way out there…

    It is indeed a sad commentary on our electorate, agreed, but his record clearly shows more interest in campaigning and fund-raising than actually doing the gritty work of governing and leading. Failing to heed warnings about Benghazi, lying to the public about what happened there and why, then jetting off to play golf ain’t leadership and it ain’t governance.

    Non sequitor. People vote for candidates for all sorts of reasons. Loads of people voting for Romney won’t hold fringe views / ODS. Likewise, many people voting for Obama won’t hold fringe views either…

    Ironic. You accuse me of issuing a non sequitur (when I have not), and then follow up with non sequiturs of your own.

    My view is that Obama is a lousy President. If he loses in November by a wide enough margin, that would suggest that my viewpoint represents a plurality if not an outright majority (many discouraged voters might not bother voting, hence “plurality”). Pluralities are rarely “fringe”.

    Thumb up 10

  21. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  22. Iconoclast

    Deconstructing is right, and much of it is going to be speculation, and most of that is going to depend what your political leanings are and your existing opinion of Obama.

    Said opinion being shaped by what I read, see and experience first hand. Contrary to what you seem to believe, my view isn’t “fringe”, but based on analysis of Obama’s record.

    I think you were hoping I’d defend the Jackson video.

    Nope, wasn’t really “hoping” anything, one way or the other…

    No, I think people on the fringe are always qualified to comment. Why wouldn’t they be?

    Dismissing them as “fringe” does have the effect of diminishing their viewpoint, “interesting” or not. “Fringe” suggests something abnormal, an outlier, anomaly, something not quite “right”.

    So the record you’re looking at includes all the actual day to day nitty gritty work too does it?

    What little there is, yes.

    Failing to heed warnings about Benghazi, lying to the public about what happened there and why, then jetting off to play golf ain’t leadership and it ain’t governance.

    Yeah, and Bush just played golf and went on vacation too. (I never bought into that either – these days people can be kept informed and make decisions from just about anywhere)

    I am talking about a specific sequence of events surrounding a tragedy, your response is boilerplate narrative. Apples and oranges. Whether Obama played more golf and took more vacations than Bush is a separate issue, as is your buying or not buying of narratives. Benghazi was a terrorist attack on the anniversary of the original 9/11 attacks. It was not a “protest” against some lame-ass video, regardless of how much the Obama Administration wanted to milk that lie. Yet they perpetuated that lie at a memorial homecoming event when the bodies were returned, in front of a TV audience.

    You can’t infer the extent of ‘fringeness’…

    I’m not the one calling people “fringe”. You are.

    Clearly it’s possible for people to vote for Romney while disagreeing with you that Obama has “no leadership ability or interest in governing”.

    Clearly. But then, that’s also hardly relevant. My assessment of Obama’s “leadership” are based on readings and observation. He clearly didn’t take a leadership role going back to one of the first crises on his watch, the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. His lack of leadership has been an ongoing spectacle, his preoccupation with continuous campaigning likewise. Based on what I’ve been reading, Obama was never really interested in governing (typically voting “present” during Senate vote counts, etc.), but seemed more interested in making speeches (i.e. bloviating) on the Senate floor.

    I sure didn’t vote for current Prime Minister but I wouldn’t for a second claim anything exaggerated like that about him.

    You merely assume I’m exaggerating; just because you personally “don’t buy” something, that doesn’t mean it isn’t the truth.

    Thumb up 5

  23. CM

    …your response is boilerplate narrative….

    Says the guy who posted “jetting off to play golf ain’t leadership and it ain’t governance”. It simply doesn’t get more “boilerplate narrative” than that.

    Anyway your response is entirely irrelevant to how “the results of November 6th will illustrate just how “fringe” my point of view is. It may very well show up your own POV as fringe“.
    Again, how will it do either of those things?
    Your claim that “If he loses in November by a wide enough margin, that would suggest that my viewpoint represents a plurality if not an outright majority” doesn’t work, because you can’t discern specific viewpoints by the way people use a single vote. Even if Romney wins handsomely, it doesn’t suggest (let alone illustrate) that a plurality believe Obama has “no leadership ability or interest in governing”.

    Thumb up 0

  24. Iconoclast

    Says the guy who posted “jetting off to play golf ain’t leadership and it ain’t governance”. It simply doesn’t get more “boilerplate narrative” than that.

    By quoting only part of what I said, you are being almost pathologically misleading. What I said was:

    Failing to heed warnings about Benghazi, lying to the public about what happened there and why, then jetting off to play golf ain’t leadership and it ain’t governance.

    You see that part about “failing to heed warnings about Benghazi”?? That’s pretty damned significant, yet you ignore it entirely. Ditto with “lying to the public about what happened there and why”. Obama and his Administration held to the lie that it was simply a protest of some damned video, but it was an orchestrated anniversary attack backed by al Qaeda.

    After delivering more lies at the homecoming service of the four slain Americans, Obama did return to the campaign trail, so yes, I stand corrected, he didn’t jet off to play golf.

    This time.

    But he does indeed play a lot of golf. Call it a “narrative” if you like, but that is simply a fact.

    President Obama ties George W. Bush on golf

    President Barack Obama has only been in office for just over nine months, but he’s already hit the links as much as President Bush did in over two years.

    Barack Obama plays golf eight more times than George W Bush

    President Barack Obama has played golf 32 times since he took office, eight more than his predecessor George W. Bush – who was mocked by the Left for his fondness for the game – did in his entire presidency.

    That article is from April of 2010 — a mere 16 months into Obama’s first term, yet he surpassed Bush’s eight years of golf games, by eight games. So far, in just one term, Obama has played over 100 rounds. Like I said, you can call that a “narrative” if you like — I personally couldn’t care less.

    Again, how will it do either of those things?

    I concede that, from your vantage point, it probably cannot do either one. Nevertheless, I have read books and articles which go into the issue with great detail. Such books include “The Brief Against Obama” and “The Amateur”. If you can refute those books, fine, but I suspect that many people have/will read them, and that many of those people will be influenced by them. Your job, should you choose to accept it, it to prove that they represent the “fringe”.

    Thumb up 2

  25. CM

    By quoting only part of what I said, you are being almost pathologically misleading.

    Apologies, I didn’t word that correctly. I did not intend to be misleading.
    But my point was that if the same arguments about Bush and his golf and vacations are made about Obama, then I lose interest because they are equally super-lame. Bush was also accused of playing golf and going on vacation after horribly making bad calls, including lying to the world about Iraq.
    The fact is – Presidents are humans, not robots, and need down-time to function even semi-normally. Secondly, these days they can be informed and make decisions from pretty much anywhere.

    I personally couldn’t care less.

    Using it as a specific way of demonstrating that Obama has gone AWOL on the Presidency suggests the opposite. You’re saying he fucked up, he fucked up, he fucked up, and then he just went and played golf. Which is exactly what the narrative provided for Bush.
    I think the ‘fucked up’ examples stand on their own, and are only weakened by the golf thing. The fact that you then talked about a ‘boiler plate narrative’ was then too good to ignore.

    I concede that, from your vantage point, it probably cannot do either one. Nevertheless, I have read books and articles which go into the issue with great detail. Such books include “The Brief Against Obama” and “The Amateur”. If you can refute those books, fine, but I suspect that many people have/will read them, and that many of those people will be influenced by them. Your job, should you choose to accept it, it to prove that they represent the “fringe”.

    The landscape is now littered with these sorts of books. More and more come out every week. They all claim to be the ‘definitive’ ‘inside-view’ and ‘truth’ about whoever the target is. They’re all arguing a narrative and (from what I’ve seen and read) have no intention of being even-handed or balanced. They’re simply written for the politically-partisan target market which is always hungry to validate their existing beliefs. They ‘already know’, and these books confirm it. After all, it’s in a published book, so it inherently somehow carries some additional weight.
    Similarly, there are ‘books’ full of the craziest most ridiculous anti-science climate-change-denialism you can find on the blogs. But it’s in books, so a lot of people assume it can be relied on.

    Nevertheless – if you want to bring some specific examples (the detail) to the table, I’d be interested in doing some research and engaging in a discussion on whatever it is. I know I’ll learn something.

    Thumb up 0

  26. Iconoclast

    Using it as a specific way of demonstrating that Obama has gone AWOL on the Presidency suggests the opposite.

    The fact that I corrected myself by replacing “golf” with “campaign trail” suggests the opposite of the opposite.

    You’re saying he fucked up, he fucked up, he fucked up, and then he just went and played golf.

    It’s interesting that you generalize the “fucked up” parts but fail to generalize the AWOL part. The point is that he did indeed go back to a decidedly non-governing, non-leadership activity after lying about the events that took place at Benghazi. Schmoozing with donors at fund-raising events may be Obama’s comfort zone, but it ain’t governance, especially considering the previous events.

    The landscape is now littered with these sorts of books.

    “Littered”??? If I didn’t know better, I’d say you were dismissing the books I mentioned as “garbage”. That is what “litter” is, after all, but this doesn’t surprise me in the least…

    Like I said, if you can actually refute the books I mentioned, more power to you, but dismissal is not refutation. Your attempt at guilt-by-assocoation (“…there are ‘books’ full of the craziest most ridiculous anti-science climate-change-denialism…”) is an epic fail — either you can show that the books I mentioned are not true, or you can not. Your obvious disdain for them illustrates nothing beyond your obvious disdain, and again, the real point is that you have substantial work to do if you are going to substantiate your claim that “Obama has no leadership ability or interest in governing” represents a “fringe” viewpoint. Like I said earlier, I am in all likelihood not the only person to read these books, and it’s quite possible that these books will sway many people.

    They’re simply written for the politically-partisan target market which is always hungry to validate their existing beliefs. They ‘already know’, and these books confirm it.

    Doesn’t that rather undermine your “fringe” claims, then? After all, it seems unlikely that such books would be published if there wasn’t a sizable market for them.

    if you want to bring some specific examples (the detail) to the table, I’d be interested in doing some research and engaging in a discussion on whatever it is…

    Well, why not look at the Benghazi incident, then? See if you can determine just what the Obama Administration knew and when they knew it, versus what they told the public.

    Thumb up 1

  27. CM

    The point is that he did indeed go back to a decidedly non-governing, non-leadership activity after lying about the events that took place at Benghazi. Schmoozing with donors at fund-raising events may be Obama’s comfort zone, but it ain’t governance, especially considering the previous events.

    In your view, what would have been the appropriate action to take? What action would have said to you “I’m governing here”?

    “Littered”??? If I didn’t know better, I’d say you were dismissing the books I mentioned as “garbage”. That is what “litter” is, after all, but this doesn’t surprise me in the least…

    I’ve tried to read a few. I got about a couple of chapters in before I couldn’t read anymore. They were just so lame and desperate. So yeah, ‘garbage’. Reading the descriptions of the books you mention (“The Brief Against Obama: The Rise, Fall & Epic Fail of the Hope & Change Presidency” and “The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House”), they sound no different. But I haven’t read them and so I’m just speculating.

    Like I said, if you can actually refute the books I mentioned, more power to you, but dismissal is not refutation.

    I’m fully aware of that.

    Your attempt at guilt-by-assocoation (“…there are ‘books’ full of the craziest most ridiculous anti-science climate-change-denialism…”) is an epic fail — either you can show that the books I mentioned are not true, or you can not.

    I haven’t read them, and I haven’t pretended otherwise. That’s why I said “Nevertheless – if you want to bring some specific examples (the detail) to the table, I’d be interested in doing some research and engaging in a discussion on whatever it is. I know I’ll learn something.”

    Your obvious disdain for them illustrates nothing beyond your obvious disdain, and again, the real point is that you have substantial work to do if you are going to substantiate your claim that “Obama has no leadership ability or interest in governing” represents a “fringe” viewpoint.

    I don’t really much interest in ‘substantiating’ it. I’m sure it would be a pointless exercise.

    Doesn’t that rather undermine your “fringe” claims, then? After all, it seems unlikely that such books would be published if there wasn’t a sizable market for them.

    Fringe can still mean sizeable. With the US population a 311 million, even just 5% is still 15.5 million. That’s immediately 2.7 times the entire population of NZ, and we have a book market. There is always market for ‘fringe’.

    Well, why not look at the Benghazi incident, then? See if you can determine just what the Obama Administration knew and when they knew it, versus what they told the public.

    I’ve looked into it some. That’s a hard one though, as so little information is public. It leads to speculation (people immediately make assumptions that fit their existing narrative).
    I was meaning some examples in those books.

    Thumb up 0

  28. Iconoclast

    In your view, what would have been the appropriate action to take? What action would have said to you “I’m governing here”?

    You cannot be serious. I have to explain to you what qualifies as leadership? Seriously???

    How about leveling with the American public for starters??? How about admitting that this was an al Qaeda-backed terrorist attack instead of lamely trying to blame a YouTube video?? Of course, doing that might be seen as an admission of abject failure on the part of Obama’s “foreign policy”, so better to cover it up, I guess, pretend that it was just a “protest”. Gotta blame someone other than the President, don’cha see?

    After telling the truth about what happened, that could have been followed up by returning to Washington (you know, where his “job” is), and trying to get to the bottom of who was specifically responsible, coordinate with Libyan officials, you know, display leadership. Frankly, it kills me that I actually have to explain this to you.

    I’ve tried to read a few. I got about a couple of chapters in before I couldn’t read anymore. They were just so lame and desperate. So yeah, ‘garbage’.

    “Yes, because holding a different political opinion to you isn’t smart or interesting but” garbage — got it.

    Let’s be clear, make no mistake, we are discussing your personal opinion, here, not objective fact.

    But I haven’t read them and so I’m just speculating.

    Thank you for the up-front admission.

    I don’t really much interest in ‘substantiating’ it. I’m sure it would be a pointless exercise.

    Well, then, we have no need to take it seriously then, do we? I mean, I try to substantiate my claims to the best of my ability, even though I am likewise convinced of the futility of the effort. I just don’t let that stop me.

    Fringe can still mean sizeable. With the US population a 311 million, even just 5% is still 15.5 million. That’s immediately 2.7 times the entire population of NZ, and we have a book market. There is always market for ‘fringe’.

    That rather suggests that we can dismiss the entire population of NZ as “fringe”, n’est-pas? At least, in regards to internal US politics. After all, that population is less that half the size of our own, home-grown “fringe” element.

    Thumb up 0

  29. Iconoclast

    Fringe can still mean sizeable. With the US population a 311 million, even just 5% is still 15.5 million.

    Frankly, I am hard-pressed to buy into the notion that an opinion held by literally millions of people can be dismissed as “fringe”, but I guess we can redefine things any way we want to support our arguments. Besides, it’s you who’s slapping the label on a group, so the onus is on you to show that it’s deserved. My observation is simply that a decisive victory on Romney’s part would seriously undermine your efforts to do so. Even if the majority of those who voted for him don’t hold to the view that “Obama lacks leadership skills and an interest in actually governing”, that still doesn’t mean that those who do hold that view are “fringe”. And regardless, it would suggest that the majority of the electorate does indeed believe that Obama lacks leadership skills at some level, hence the election of a new leader.

    Thumb up 0

  30. balthazar

    Iconoclast, why do you bother?

    CM, as demonstrated by his idiotic framing of all opinions but his own here as fringe just leads more credence to the down vote effort that he gets religiously.

    Kim doesnt get automatic down votes, he gets down voted, yes, but people actually read what he posts. With CM, hardly anyone even reads his partisan “I’m smarter and better than you” drivel and just downvote him because hes a useless pile of hackery.

    Thumb up 0

  31. samsgran1948

    Hi, guys!

    Looking at the names of the posters, I assume this is where to find the old MooreWatch Forum people.

    Are we limited to this one thread, or do we have more going? Is there a link that will lead me to a single site dedicated to the old MooreWatch forums?

    Thanks in advance!.

    Thumb up 0

  32. CM

    Hey samsgran, hope you and your family are well. Do you still have the shop? I hope it has survived the recession.

    Yes, a few of us are here – me, Kimpost, balthazar, Xetrov, very occasionally Tripper will throw a comment in, and BluesStringer (posting as CzarChasm) was here for a while but I suspect might have gone now. There may be a couple of other less-permanent MW forum members I’ve forgotten.

    If you go to http://right-thinking.com/ you’ll see the most recent threads.

    You cannot be serious. I have to explain to you what qualifies as leadership? Seriously???

    *sigh* I was simply asking for your personal thoughts. Sheesh.

    How about leveling with the American public for starters??? How about admitting that this was an al Qaeda-backed terrorist attack instead of lamely trying to blame a YouTube video?? Of course, doing that might be seen as an admission of abject failure on the part of Obama’s “foreign policy”, so better to cover it up, I guess, pretend that it was just a “protest”. Gotta blame someone other than the President, don’cha see?

    I don’t really see how that was ever going to work (to try and blame the video and nothing but the video). I have no idea why they held onto that argument for that long. I don’t see that acknowledging that it was an al Qaeda-backed terrorist attack is any sort of foreign policy failure. But it would potentially show up some carelessness in security arrangements, so perhaps that was sufficient. If that’s the reason they stuck with their rationale, it was a stupid decision. Too stupid, which makes me wonder if something else wasn’t going on (i.e. they stuck with that rationale because it bought them a greater ability to investigate behind the scenes). I don’t know. It just seems too stupid.

    After telling the truth about what happened, that could have been followed up by returning to Washington (you know, where his “job” is), and trying to get to the bottom of who was specifically responsible, coordinate with Libyan officials, you know, display leadership. Frankly, it kills me that I actually have to explain this to you.

    Given the ability of leaders to lead from pretty much anywhere, I assume you believe the symbolic aspect of being in Washington is important. Because I don’t think Obama not being in Washington means that nothing is being done on those points.

    “Yes, because holding a different political opinion to you isn’t smart or interesting but” garbage — got it.

    Nice try, but I’m referring to the quality of those books. The blatant cherry-picking, the sprinkling of just enough facts to make it sound plausible (but when you unravel it, the same facts could just as easily make the opposite argument). These books aren’t written as if they simpoly express a ‘different political opinion’, they’re put out there as the definitive account. They purport to show ‘the truth’.

    Let’s be clear, make no mistake, we are discussing your personal opinion, here, not objective fact.

    So you do get it. Good.

    Well, then, we have no need to take it seriously then, do we?

    I’m under no illusion that you or others would ever take it seriously.

    I mean, I try to substantiate my claims to the best of my ability, even though I am likewise convinced of the futility of the effort. I just don’t let that stop me.

    That applies to me almost without exception. I constantly get personal abuse hurled at me for doing so.

    That rather suggests that we can dismiss the entire population of NZ as “fringe”, n’est-pas? At least, in regards to internal US politics. After all, that population is less that half the size of our own, home-grown “fringe” element.

    I’m sorry, but I think that is a nonsense argument. It’s all relative to the size of the relevant whole. For example if only 5% of a population believe something, I would consider that to be fringe. Also, ‘fringe’ is a relative term too – there’s a spectrum of ‘fringe’. But now I’m starting to sound like Rumsfeld – “there’s fringe fringe and then there’s……”.

    Thumb up 0

  33. CM

    Frankly, I am hard-pressed to buy into the notion that an opinion held by literally millions of people can be dismissed as “fringe”, but I guess we can redefine things any way we want to support our arguments.

    Would you consider the idea that Obama is a Muslim to be ‘fringe’? How about 9/11 Truthers? Or those Birthers?
    IMHO ‘fringe’ isn’t only about numbers, it’s also about the absurdity of the narrative/opinion.

    Besides, it’s you who’s slapping the label on a group, so the onus is on you to show that it’s deserved.

    Yep fair enough.

    My observation is simply that a decisive victory on Romney’s part would seriously undermine your efforts to do so. Even if the majority of those who voted for him don’t hold to the view that “Obama lacks leadership skills and an interest in actually governing”, that still doesn’t mean that those who do hold that view are “fringe”. And regardless, it would suggest that the majority of the electorate does indeed believe that Obama lacks leadership skills at some level, hence the election of a new leader.

    I don’t think a decisive victory on Romney’s part would make any difference to it. The additional votes to put him over the top and give him that decisive victory are going to be from moderates/independents who aren’t close to the fringe. The people out on the fringe are already voting for him, or are already so far gone that they’re not voting at all because they’re living in a bunker in case Obama wins a second term and the Socialist Flag is raised.

    Thumb up 0

  34. Iconoclast

    I don’t really see how that was ever going to work (to try and blame the video and nothing but the video)…. I don’t know. It just seems too stupid.

    Maybe you’re starting to see the light. Stupid or not, it’s exactly what they did.

    I don’t see that acknowledging that it was an al Qaeda-backed terrorist attack is any sort of foreign policy failure.

    Well, maybe because that isn’t what I said. What I said was that acknowledging it to be an orchestrated terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 “might be seen as an admission of abject failure on the part of Obama’s ‘foreign policy’…”

    Obama’s foreign policy was supposed to fix all of the mistakes that the moronic cowboy George W Bush made. 9/11 was his fault, he “allowed it to happen, and it was provoked by our American ways anyway, so we pretty much deserved it”, yadda yadda yadda. Obama was suppose to go around the world and assure everybody that America was “better now” because he is in charge. Besides, didn’t Obama personally kill Osama bin Laden?? How can there be an al Qaeda with ObL gone???

    Given the ability of leaders to lead from pretty much anywhere, I assume you believe the symbolic aspect of being in Washington is important. Because I don’t think Obama not being in Washington means that nothing is being done on those points.

    You just don’t get it, do you? This ain’t about “symbolism”, it’s about LEADERSHIP, and the utter lack thereof in this Administration. You ASKED FOR MY VIEWPOINT, so I gave you an example, and now you dismiss it as “symbolism”??? I see why people lose patience with you, you can be an obtuse turd when it suits you.

    The point is that what he did do was go to LAS VEGAS of all places on the planet to go to, because he had a fund-raiser to attend. Lying to the public about what happened in Benghazi while at a memorial homecoming ceremony WITH THE DEAD BODIES JUST A FEW FEET AWAY IN CASKETS, and then jetting off to Vegas afterward might seem like leadership to you, because you are a leftist after all, but it certainly doesn’t look like leadership to me.

    So call me “fringe” again and be done with it…

    Nice try, but I’m referring to the quality of those books

    I’d be interested in seeing the titles of these books so I can assess their “quality” for myself.

    I’m under no illusion that you or others would ever take it seriously.

    Whether you think your under an illusion is irrelevant. Your admission that you aren’t interested in substantiating your claims is what’s relevant.

    I’m sorry, but I think that is a nonsense argument.

    Of course you do…

    It’s all relative to the size of the relevant whole.

    The relevant whole being the US population. You yourself claimed that NZ population was less than half of 5% of the US population, and you claimed that 5% qualifies as “fringe”. Of course, you didn’t substantiate that last claim, but then you aren’t interested in that…

    Would you consider the idea that Obama is a Muslim to be ‘fringe’? How about 9/11 Truthers? Or those Birthers?

    So you want me to slap the “fringe” label on a group? Sorry, not gonna happen. That’s something you leftists seem to have a forte in, but I choose to address a person’s unique blend of viewpoints as an individual, not as a member of some nefarious “group”.

    Now sure, I do refer to “leftists”, so I guess I am guilty at some level, but this is a political forum and it would be senseless to not acknowledge the political spectrum, and sometimes group labeling cannot be avoided. But that doesn’t mean it should be indulged in.

    I don’t think a decisive victory on Romney’s part would make any difference to it.

    Of course, not, but that really doesn’t matter. Like I said before, from your vantage point, convincing you that Obama’s lack of leadership and lack of interest in actual governing isn’t necessarily a “fringe” view may very well be impossible. And that may very well be to your obtuse recalcitrance, your claims of open-minded inquiry and discussion notwithstanding.

    Thumb up 1

  35. CM

    Maybe you’re starting to see the light. Stupid or not, it’s exactly what they did.

    I don’t see the internal logic though. At this level there’s always some sort of internal logic.

    Well, maybe because that isn’t what I said. What I said was that acknowledging it to be an orchestrated terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 “might be seen as an admission of abject failure on the part of Obama’s ‘foreign policy’…”

    Oh ok, sorry.
    Perhaps, but that strikes me as being very light/weak to instead pursue a policy of trying to pretend it was ALL about the video.

    Obama’s foreign policy was supposed to fix all of the mistakes that the moronic cowboy George W Bush made.

    I doubt anyone claimed that Obama would or could “fix all the mistakes” made by Bush. It would be impossible. You can’t un-invade Iraq for example.

    9/11 was his fault, he “allowed it to happen, and it was provoked by our American ways anyway, so we pretty much deserved it”, yadda yadda yadda.

    That’s a very fringe view.

    Obama was suppose to go around the world and assure everybody that America was “better now” because he is in charge. Besides, didn’t Obama personally kill Osama bin Laden?? How can there be an al Qaeda with ObL gone???

    Come on now, you know full well that that’s just silly. as well No need to pretend you’re an idiot to make a point. You’re obviously not an idiot.

    You just don’t get it, do you? This ain’t about “symbolism”, it’s about LEADERSHIP, and the utter lack thereof in this Administration.

    IMHO being back in Washington, when all the communications and directives can be given from anyway (and when he can video-conference with anyone), is mostly symbolism. Don’t get me wrong though, I kinda agree – I would personally want to be seen back in Washington with my hands on all the controls.

    You ASKED FOR MY VIEWPOINT, so I gave you an example, and now you dismiss it as “symbolism”??? I see why people lose patience with you, you can be an obtuse turd when it suits you.

    Clearly I’m not understanding what you mean about him not being in Washington. Aside from the symbolism of being in control from the place of control, what else is there that’s different. If communications and the ability to direct and lead is pretty much the same no matter where he is in the US, what am I missing?
    I’m not intentionally trying to be an obtuse turd.

    Lying to the public about what happened in Benghazi while at a memorial homecoming ceremony WITH THE DEAD BODIES JUST A FEW FEET AWAY IN CASKETS, and then jetting off to Vegas afterward might seem like leadership to you, because you are a leftist after all, but it certainly doesn’t look like leadership to me.

    I was specifically referring to your comment about him not returning to Washington. Nice switcharoo there.

    Just to clarify though, “Lying to the public about what happened in Benghazi while at a memorial homecoming ceremony WITH THE DEAD BODIES JUST A FEW FEET AWAY IN CASKETS, and then jetting off to Vegas afterward” does not seem like leadership to me. Although I don’t think the administration saying it was video-related-terrorists rather than general-terrorists is all that relevant to the distance the President is from one of the dead bodies.

    So call me “fringe” again and be done with it…

    I think some of the ideas you’ve got are fringe, yeah.

    I’d be interested in seeing the titles of these books so I can assess their “quality” for myself.

    One was ‘Bush’s Brain’.
    Anyway, I’ve read the Amazon description of yours and they sound like the usual fare. No attempt to be objective. The authors have an opinion, so they’re just laying out as many dots as they can in the shape of what they want to draw, and then doing what they can to link them up.

    Your admission that you aren’t interested in substantiating your claims is what’s relevant.

    Right.

    Of course you do…

    Wow, that’s useful. If you read a little further you’d see I didn’t just leave it at that. And I don’t just disagree with everything for the sake of it either. So really, what was the point of that?

    The relevant whole being the US population. You yourself claimed that NZ population was less than half of 5% of the US population, and you claimed that 5% qualifies as “fringe”. Of course, you didn’t substantiate that last claim, but then you aren’t interested in that…

    Again, it’s not just about numbers. If only 5% of NZ’ers held a certain viewpoint (perhaps that the Erebus air disaster was an inside job), that might be considered ‘fringe’.

    So you want me to slap the “fringe” label on a group? Sorry, not gonna happen.

    What difference does it make whether you want to define them as a ‘group’ or not?
    Just answer the questions.

    That’s something you leftists seem to have a forte in,

    You mean like the group of Americans who don’t pay federal income tax?
    Who knew Romney was such a closest leftist!

    but I choose to address a person’s unique blend of viewpoints as an individual, not as a member of some nefarious “group”.

    Avoidance.

    Thumb up 0

  36. CM

    Now sure, I do refer to “leftists”, so I guess I am guilty at some level,

    Oh i’m positive you can up with a way of excusing it.

    but this is a political forum and it would be senseless to not acknowledge the political spectrum, and sometimes group labeling cannot be avoided. But that doesn’t mean it should be indulged in.

    I’m positive you can do better than that. ;-)

    Of course, not, but that really doesn’t matter. Like I said before, from your vantage point, convincing you that Obama’s lack of leadership and lack of interest in actual governing isn’t necessarily a “fringe” view may very well be impossible. And that may very well be to your obtuse recalcitrance, your claims of open-minded inquiry and discussion notwithstanding.

    More likely that would be at least as difficult for you to prove it’s not ‘fringe’ than for me to prove that it is. I wouldn’t be making up silly rules about ‘groups’ though, that’s for sure.

    Thumb up 0

  37. Iconoclast

    At this level there’s always some sort of internal logic.

    If you say so, but then again, perhaps that “internal logic” refers to something you’d rather not see, such as an admission of foreign policy failure, or a cover up of negligence (the Ambassador requested beefed-up security prior to the attack but was denied).

    I doubt anyone claimed that Obama would or could “fix all the mistakes” made by Bush.

    Well, sure, perhaps nobody officially explicitly stated that, but such was the implication relentlessly made by all of the narratives we were hammered with during the 2008 campaign. Just look at the ridiculously soaring rhetoric of his 2008 nomination acceptance speech, where he outlines several things Bush did, and that McCain would allegedly keep doing, but that Obama would change. To this day, Obama continues to blame our current problems on Bush’s policies “that got us into this mess in the first place”. If I had a nickel for every time I heard him utter that phrase…

    That’s a very fringe view

    Again, if you say so, but it was part of the narrative we were hammered with during the campaign.

    Come on now, you know full well that that’s just silly. as well No need to pretend you’re an idiot to make a point. You’re obviously not an idiot.

    Thanks, but I was exaggerating for effect. Nevertheless, we were continually bombarded with the notion that the world would somehow like us better just because Obama was in charge, and Obama has been rather relentless in taking credit for ObL’s demise. Granted, he does deserve credit, but he’s making it a campaign talking point, alleging that, if Romney were in charge, it simply would not have happened. And the real point of this is that ObL’s death obviously didn’t prevent the attack in Benghazi. Hell, it may have inspired it, for all we know. So while it may be a valid feather in Obama’s cap, let’s not get carried away with it, shall we?

    IMHO being back in Washington, when all the communications and directives can be given from anyway (and when he can video-conference with anyone), is mostly symbolism

    Well, if you’re gonna be that way about it, then his jetting of to Vegas is also symbolic — in a decidedly negative way.

    The point is, he lied about what happened in Benghazi while speaking at a memorial that was supposed to honor the fallen Americans, but how does lying through your teeth about the circumstances of their death honor them? And how does leaving them and going go to Vegas to shmooze with campaign donors honor them, or show leadership at any level? You asked me what he could have done to display leadership, and I could have come up with a million possible responses, all of which would involve him not going to Vegas to hobnob with wealthy people (whom he would otherwise demonize). I simply chose going to DC because it was the most obvious. Had I known that you would flippantly dismiss that as “symbolism”, I suppose I would have chosen differently. But any choice I would have made would NOT have been Las Vegas, and that is the point you keep avoiding.

    And if you’re gonna keep hammering on the “symbolism” card, then yeah, perhaps at some level, leadership does involve some symbolism. And again, lying and schmoozing instead of telling the truth and leading is itself symbolic.

    Clearly I’m not understanding what you mean about him not being in Washington.

    Clearly.

    Aside from the symbolism of being in control from the place of control, what else is there that’s different. If communications and the ability to direct and lead is pretty much the same no matter where he is in the US, what am I missing?

    How about the fact that it’s hard to be in a leadership role of any kind if you are schmoozing with wealthy people at a fund-raising event, instead of organizing an effort to determine who specifically is responsible for the Benghazi incident. Sure, he could have done that in Vegas as well as anywhere else (so you claim, anyway), but he didn’t do that, and that’s the point you seem hell-bent on not getting.

    Although I don’t think the administration saying it was video-related-terrorists rather than general-terrorists is all that relevant to the distance the President is from one of the dead bodies.

    Of course you don’t. Perhaps being at what amounts to a funeral, when you and your policies are at least partly responsible for the deaths, and lying through your teeth about why they died with the dead corpses just a few feet away doesn’t mean anything to you, but perhaps that’s just you. Or maybe it’s a liberal thang.

    I think some of the ideas you’ve got are fringe, yeah.

    Well, that’s your problem, not mine.

    No attempt to be objective. The authors have an opinion, so they’re just laying out as many dots as they can in the shape of what they want to draw, and then doing what they can to link them up.

    Are the books claiming to be “objective”? What does “objective” even mean, anyway? As far as “laying out as many dots as they can in the shape of what they want to draw, and then doing what they can to link them up” is concerned, some people might call that “building a case” or “building an argument”. As long as the “dots” are factual, what do you care? Like I said, if you can REFUTE the books, great, but again, dismissal is not refutation. And yes, I am aware that you are aware of that, but I am repeating it anyway.

    Just answer the questions.

    What part of “not gonna happen” do you not understand?

    More likely that would be at least as difficult for you to prove it’s not ‘fringe’ than for me to prove that it is.

    Again, the onus is on you, not me.

    Thumb up 0

  38. Poosh

    Iconoclast, you are wasting your time and effort on someone who probably cannot even understand the paragraphs you write. Why bother? You cannot argue with a fool who lacks reasoning tools.

    Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.

    – Ayn Rand

    Thumb up 0