Conservatives use this technique quite often. Someone pushes an idea, somebody else writes about it, then the original writer cites the derivative work as proof of his original idea. Then they complain that the media is covering up the story. The story they made up.
Indeed:
Just a reminder of the monsters in the previous administration. Never fucking forget.
Circular cyber-firing squad? Any cyber takers? (Yes, I’m anti-violence unlike many rightists.)
Speak & Spell Bircher edition
I don’t know why they even bother. A quick perusal of wingnut sites like Freerepublic reveal that any bizarre theory about Obama (or Democrats in general) becomes fact within days (with the original post apparently evidence enough), even if it conflicts with earlier bizarre theories.
One of the more entertaining recent threads was one about Texas secession that devolved into a discussion about whether the U.S. Military would stand by while the Russian and Chinese troops Obama was planning to send in to squash secession were killing Americans. Obama’s plans to use foreign military in such an event went from conjecture to accepted fact in the minds of these people in a matter of minutes.
Look over here, Indeed.
Kids4Change: Singing to Dear Leader
School kids taught to praise Obama
Just a reminder of the techniques used by Leftists. Bash conservatives who questioned Obama’s motives in speaking to school children for being dumbasses afraid of the his message to stay in school, as if that’s all it was. Then when confronted with stark and embarrassing video of the cult of Obama indoctrination of our young children in schools, completely ignore it and pretend it doesn’t exist.
MoveOn along. Nothing to see here.
More reminder of the right wing’s circular confirmation bamboozlery:
Dennis, I agree, that’s pretty odious. Almost as bad as this.
Hey, some common ground besides reciprocating saws, Wilbur.
So now having established that, of the two, which one is currently president?
More right-wing circular confirmation. Spooky.
(previous post got eated)
That’s known as “Pulling a Dick”, isn’t it?
It’s pretty clear that SaveFarris is ghostwriting Dennis’ posts.
Dennis: Obama, but I don’t recall liberals getting all redfaced about that earlier video. Did you buy one of those saws, helping the American economy as well as your home renovation projects?
Oh, for Pete’s sake. They’ve gotten it all backwards. The analysis shows the textual similarity because Obama wrote all of Ayers’ stuff!
Dennis: Hey, some common ground besides reciprocating saws, Wilbur.
So now having established that, of the two, which one is currently president?
So even as you acknowledge there is common ground, you are compelled to claim the other side’s ground is actually worse.
All pigs are equal, right?
A very clear exposition of an obviously bogus hypothesis (that Ayers ghost wrote Pres Obama).
But the right does it all the time?
I don’t see that anywhere.
Frank DiSalle: I don’t see that anywhere.
That’s okay, Frank. You’ve already shown that you can’t see anything other than what you want to see.
That was almost clever, Sean. Vacuous and meaningless, but almost clever. I suppose asking you to provide an example or two of this having happened before would be too much?
Dennis’ first post: that was off-topic to epic levels! You should be grateful some liberals accept to play your game, maybe they pity you.
Thanks for bringing up the kids, Dennis:
Link
Look over here, Indeed.
Kids4Change: Singing to Dear Leader
Must be kinda tough to write this objectively when you have to stay a minimum of a 1000 feet from elementary schools..
maybe they pity you.
You have no idea.
Zero and thirty, Duros.
World record.
You own it.
The flip side of circular confirmation, circular dis-confirmation (or whatever):
Frank DiSalle: I suppose asking you to provide an example or two of this having happened before would be too much?
I realize you see requests that someone back up their words with support as out of line. It explains why you rarely do it. But I’d be happy to provide an example or two, but then you’d whine at me about bringing back up stuff you want forgotten and I’ve seen my quota of Frank whines for the week. Ask again on Monday.
Frank DiSalle: I suppose asking you to provide an example or two of this having happened before would be too much?
Oh, what the hell. It’s a slow morning and I don’t have to go to far for examples. Three in a single comment, no less.
- “my own position, which I have seen reflected in sermons. demonstrations, and speeches for years”
You see what limited views you expose yourself to as reflections of your view, and (with your own personal “circular confirmation” feedback loop) use those to reinforce your own views that the world thinks the same.
- You insist:
– nobody ever picks on anyone else,
– unwed teens are better of becoming single mothers,
despite numerous daily examples to the contrary from people who’ve examined abuse or have made a choice as a teen mom.
School kids taught to praise Obama
Just a reminder of the techniques used by Leftists. Bash conservatives who questioned Obama’s motives in speaking to school children for being dumbasses afraid of the his message to stay in school, as if that’s all it was. Then when confronted with stark and embarrassing video of the cult of Obama indoctrination of our young children in schools, completely ignore it and pretend it doesn’t exist.
Hi Dennis. Do you care to let us know how this is Obama’s doing? Did he go to the school board and tell them to “sing his praises”? Oh wait – that never happened? Oh wait – Obama delivered a speech to children that was apolitical in nature, and told them to focus on school and to work hard, and that’s a very bad thing because it directly leads to these schoolchildren being brainwashed into the cult of Obama? Riiiiiiight.
For the record, I don’t think it’s a bad thing to teach young students about their president, and to highlight positive qualities about him. This is similar to how people teach their children about respect: e.g., “Respect your elders.” Clearly, people who are older than you are not necessarily worthy of your respect (HI FRANK!), but for a young kid it’s a good approximation. Plus, it’s not like they can’t figure things out for themselves later, and realize that Frank is an idiot, or decide that liberals are eeeeevil, or what have you.
I just don’t necessarily think it’s a positive thing to teach them from a very early age that their political leaders are the enemy, or at the very least, not their ally. I do occasionally tire of this conception of the U.S., where the other side of the aisle is “the enemy.” Ostensibly, we’re all trying to better the country, and want it to thrive and prosper. Of course, that truth gets lost when you have some idiots howling about how their president wants to destroy the country and how one side of the aisle is evil.
Hi mambo. First, I don’t think this is Obama’s direct doing. Rereading my statement gives that appearance, but that’s not what I meant. This site has put forth a myriad of ways the conservatives and Republican politicians put forth subtle messages that are not direct statements, so I would think you’d be somewhat well-versed in those tactics they are accused of so much here; dog whistles, smirks, code words, Glenn Beck mind-control, the infamous Lee Atwater quote that Indeed and Mr. ed print here every day. Why would you think Obama or his advisors would be incapable of using anything similar, if not more effective, that wouldn’t be so direct?
I had no problem with Obama making the speech. The timing was poor in our county as it was the first day back to school, so they didn’t broadcast it. And our school superintendant is an African-American.
I agree with most of the rest of what you said. My oldest daughter voted for Obama in her first time ever eligible to vote. But I can tell you this as honestly as I can, that I know of many conservatives who also think Obama is a good and decent man and are not embarrassed or afraid to say that around other conservatives, but I’ve spent a lot of time personally and on liberal blogs the last four years, but I’ve rarely heard any liberal say one positive think about Bush.
If you could search this blog for the rest of the day and find one liberal’s post that was positive about Bush, I would be impressed. And surprised.
Zero and thirty, Duros.
Fuck you, Dennis.
How’s that for on-topic?
Schmidt?
Concern Troll: so concerned.
You’re only zero and five so far on this thread, though.
You could always banish me from the blog, Dennis. Oh, wait, no you can’t.
I’m not playing dick-swinging with you anymore, Britney, sorry
Duros, wait, I’ll apologize if you could just give me a tip on how you keep your glass house clean? Tons of windex? Ammonia? Vinegar? Or do you just hire someone to come in do the whole house a couple times a year? I have a lot of windows and I’d really love to know you manage to do it.
Cashill quotes Andersen quoting Cashill. A new “known fact” is born.
This seems like as good a place as any for Your Weekly Chuck:
Thanks, Chuck. Never fucking forget.
Dennis: But I can tell you this as honestly as I can, that I know of many conservatives who also think Obama is a good and decent man and are not embarrassed or afraid to say that around other conservatives, but I’ve spent a lot of time personally and on liberal blogs the last four years, but I’ve rarely heard any liberal say one positive think about Bush.
If you could search this blog for the rest of the day and find one liberal’s post that was positive about Bush, I would be impressed. And surprised.
I’d be hard pressed to find a one liberal’s (or conservative’s for that matter) post that was positive about Hitler, for example. Yeah, I know I’ve just gone Godwin, but I choose the admitedly extreme case to make the point clear. Many on the liberal side do indeed find it difficult to find anything positive to say about Bush becuase they honestly find little that is good that he’s done. And they do cite documented actions, specific policies and actual quotes to show why they believe that.
May of the folks here on the left side have also criticised Obama for things he has done or failed to do. Continuing warrantless wiretapping or not having as open a gov’t as promised are just two examples. And I could counter your “liberals say nothing positive about Bush” with a “conservatives say nothing negative about Bush”. So in the 2×2 matrix we could draw of whether folks criticise their own side or praise the other liberals and conservatives would both get one Yes and one No.
But in the final analysis to draw such tidy boxes ignores that it isn’t, nor should it be, a tit-for-tat I’ve-said-good-things-about-your-guy-so-you-should-say-good-about-mine situation. Whichever side they are on, does ______ deserve praise or condemnation based on what they’ve done, not on the (R) or (D) after their name. And on that basis, admitting my left-leaning bias, I can cite more things Bush has done that are bad than are good and, thus far, vice versa for Obama.
I certainly can’t fault President Bush’s increase in aid to Africa, for what it’s worth. Nor food aid to North Korea.
Yet more circular confirmation:
I wonder where Senator Inhofe gets his Science. Dude’s a freakin’ Senator! Stand proud, Sooner State.
Oh my:
Who could have predicted?
Dennis – “I have a lot of windows … .”
Dennis’ glass menagerie … as brittle as they come.
Stockton school officials said they believe theirs will be the first school in the nation named for the president.
Oh good, they found a spot for Bush’s Presidential library.
Inhofe is just a horrible excuse for a Senator. The guy is just too stupid for words.
Dennis – “I have a lot of windows …
Pray your healthcare agenda works. God forbid socialized cataract surgery in your neck of the woods.
A very clear exposition of an obviously bogus hypothesis (that Ayers ghost wrote Pres Obama).
But the right does it all the time?
I don’t see that anywhere.
*cough*
More Obama indoctrination.
Another Obama Song
3rd Graders Sing Praises to Dear Leader
Cute kids.
But talk about indoctrinating children.
Also.
Teachers, Wilbur.
Public school teachers.
Indoctrinating public school kids.
Cute kids, yes. But innocent. And impressionable.
Very creepy.
“mmm, mmmm, mm.”
And the same hero worship many here advocate.
I agree Dennis, it only takes one song for full indoctrination. That Obama sure is evil.
I actually think adults who watch FOX, which is on 24/7, are more easily indoctrinated then children could ever be. I mean look at all the meat heads out there who get all their “news” from FOX and company. It will be interesting to hear how the fox fuck nuts respond to Obama’s recent comments on Iran and how he was able to form a real coalition of Western powers against a nuclear build up there. Nothing like reality based diplomacy. Nothing like having friends, eh.
My point in bringing this up on a thread about right-wing circular logic in the first place was how just earlier this month you were calling anyone skeptical of Obama’s motives for speaking to young schoolchildren in a nationally broadcast speech to them was pure craziness. Now that you’ve seen a couple videos to add on to the ones we saw earlier this year of indoctrination going on in our public schools, you guys are all either silent or vehemently defensive.
Isn’t it ironic, canadian bacon, don’t you think?
A little too ironic….
Yeah, I really do think.
Now that you’ve seen a couple videos to add on to the ones we saw earlier this year of indoctrination going on in our public schools, you guys are all either silent or vehemently defensive.
How many videos were there of “the ones we saw earlier this year”?
2,3,10,50?
Get a blog, little Dennis. Your daughter might hate you a little less.
And the same hero worship many here advocate.
Who here has advocated hero worship?
As I said, Dennis, I’m not particularly down with the idea of teachers having students engage in encomia for sitting politicians, but nor do I see a scattered incident here and there cause for much concern – either now or when it happened under Bush. On top of that it’s far from clear to me what the context of your first video is – were they preparing for a visit by the president? Was it an official school activity or an after-school club of some sort? The second video was taken right after the election, when an overwhelming majority of the country was at least a bit happy about the results – if not because they voted for Obama then because of the precedent his election set in the history of race relations. And the content of that video was not so much “all hail Lord and Master Obama” but “you inspire me to think that someday I may reach great heights if I apply myself like you did.” It’s pretty small-minded and ungenerous of you to equate that to some sort of Hitlerjugend spiel.
What you’re providing here, Dennis, is a perfect example of the unscrupulous willingness on the right to inflate, exaggerate and inflame the most inocuous little thing into a huge bruhaha. You embarrass yourself.
Wilbur, I believe that the ‘term of art’ in the case of Dennis that you’re describing is WATB.
Now, Wilbur. It’s been a while so your memory might be a little clouded, but think back a long time ago to that thread on Sen. Roy Blunt and his story on the golf course in India and the monkeys who threw golf balls back on the course that he had told many times before, even back in 2006. Do you remember that one, by chance? Remember how even the liberals came on there to say calling that racism was very likely erroneous? Yet you persisting in saying it was, even claiming you had proof because of a smirk. THAT, my friend, was the perfect example of unscrupulous willingness to inflate and inflame the most innocuous little think into a huge brouhaha, and you did embarrass yourself.
You guys do it every time there’s something on race. You do it every time there’s something on violence you can tie to conservatism or the Republican party.
Every time.
Look in the mirror, Wilbur. You may not like what you see, but it’s a good exercise nonetheless.
You guys do it every time there’s something on race. You do it every time there’s something on violence you can tie to conservatism or the Republican party.
So, it was a liberal who phoned in a threat to the school, Dennis?
I might add that Glen Beck was called a killer, because a Census Bureau was found hanged (or maybe not) with a “fed” scrawled on his chest (or maybe not).
Is it unrealistic to suggest that Pres Obama, having made a speech directly aimed at schoolchildren, did not expect it to be discussed in class?
And would it be unreasonable to assume that given the support he received from the Teachers’ Unions, that he would (and we should) expect that his speech would be viewed favorably, when discussed?
And for MY gratuitous, off-topic insult: Anyone with real reasoning abilities (not you, of course, Mambo) would have to agree that these questions should be answered in the affirmative.
Children’s minds are fertile grounds for authoritative implantation. They have not yet acquired the sorry state of a closed mind due to limited, linear, “scientific method” type thinking (HI, MAMBO).
BTW, Dark Avenger, it is not the number of videos that really matters, but the number of views.
Even worse than that, Frank, they mocked anyone who held those reservations about Obama’s speech to schoolchildren, as if something like this could and would never happen.
Circular logic of the Leftists.
Dennis, for fuck’s sake….
you were calling anyone skeptical of Obama’s motives for speaking to young schoolchildren in a nationally broadcast speech to them was pure craziness. Now that you’ve seen a couple videos to add on to the ones we saw earlier this year of indoctrination going on in our public schools, you guys are all either silent or vehemently defensive.
Obama’s “motives”? What the fuck? I thought that we agreed that this has nothing to do with, and in no way can be be blamed, on Obama himself. He delivered an apolitical speech telling students to work hard and study. He has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with these videos of “schoolchildren singing his praises.” If you don’t like these videos, if you think that “indoctrination” is occurring, throw the blame where it belongs. This isn’t Obama’s fault. Goddamn.
His motives… seriously?…
When I was in the third grade, I got an academic award, endorsed by the then-president George H.W. Bush. I forget exactly what it was called – something like “The Presidential Academic Excellence Award” or something like that. Was Bush I overstepping his bounds? Was it not a good idea for him to support academic achievement in schoolchildren? Did he need any “motives” greater than wanting the future generation of working Americans to succeed?
You guys are ridiculous.
Children’s minds are fertile grounds for authoritative implantation.
Frank, the word your feeble mush brain was desperately searching for here was “authoritarian.”
Clearly, the minds of adult conservatives, on the other hand, are entirely resistant to authoritative information.
Is it unrealistic to suggest that Pres Obama, having made a speech directly aimed at schoolchildren, did not expect it to be discussed in class?
I’m sure that anyone would expect it to be discussed in class. So what?
And would it be unreasonable to assume that given the support he received from the Teachers’ Unions, that he would (and we should) expect that his speech would be viewed favorably, when discussed?
I don’t know if the support he had from teacher’s unions means anything. Your presumption has little backing. I think that it’s reasonable that his speech would be viewed favorably because he was telling kids to work hard and study and make the most of their fucking education, Frank! What the fuck do you have against this message? Holy fucking shit.
Children’s minds are fertile grounds for authoritative implantation. They have not yet acquired the sorry state of a closed mind due to limited, linear, “scientific method” type thinking (HI, MAMBO).
Hi Frank. You’re the biggest idiot on this blog, by far. You’re the one with the closed mind, Frank. You refuse to believe anything that doesn’t fit into your already-decided worldview. Presented with counter-evidence, you just hold onto your beliefs tighter. Scientific thinking, skepticism – this is the way to keep your mind open to new possibilities while also being appropriately wary of new information. If the evidence is there that I was wrong, I will change my fucking mind. You, on the other hand, will not. Who’s the fucking closed-minded one here, Frank?
Example: Like a lot of people, I used to think that playing small ball helped teams win games. Move the runner over, bunt, hit-and-run, steal bases… these were important aspects of the game of baseball in my eyes. Teams that did these things well, the “fundamentals”, won. Turns out, statistics have demonstrated that it false – the most efficient and successful way to build an offensive attack is to get your lineup loaded with guys that walk a lot, and guys that hit homeruns. Bunting is usually a horrible idea. Given that information, I’ve changed my views on the “correct” way to play baseball.
And you still think the mound should be 50 feet away from the plate and the ball delivered underhand.
You fucking idiot.
mambo,
Again, my whole point is that this site mocked mercilessly all conservatives who had any reservations about the speech, and for the most part are silent now.
I’ve said before and here on this thread that I had no problem with the speech. My wife works for a school that is about 100% minorities teaching kids with learning difficulties. I thought the speech would’ve been nice, but as I said before, it was a very bad time being the very first day of school, so they didn’t broadcast it in our county. In late August when Obama was vacationing in Martha’s Vineyard, one of my wife’s co-workers that also teaches ED at her school happened to be up there too seeing her sister and somehow met I think Michelle’s sister, and was asked to drive one of the cars for them when they went somewhere in the motorcade. Pres Obama heard about her working with kids with learning disablilities and told her to please tell every one back at her school how much he values and appreciates what they do and that he was committed to do everything he could to help these kids. There were 5 teachers at the school doing that, and they were all pretty impressed to get that message. So yeah, I had no problem with the speech, but I did with the way liberals and liberal bloggers mocked people who did have reservations with the speech. Especially given how everything Bush ever did was mocked. Even the time he stopped by on a trip to congratulate the autistic kid who drained 7 three point shots in a high school basket ball game one time that made national news. Liberals even mocked him for that. The comments are down from that thread, but I remember it well, and they were ugly. Typically ugly.
Dennis, okay, but you’re not expressing yourself well. You make it sound at a couple locations like Obama should be blamed for this kind of activity that’s happening on these tapes (i.e., kids singing about him). Now I realize that you might have been talking about conservatives being concerned about what Obama would say in that speech.
In which case, then, all those conservatives that worried about the speech, in particular, were completely and utterly wrong anyway and deserve to still be mocked about this. The issue, if there is one, has to do with how a few teachers (and a principal, I think) have handled their classrooms. I don’t remember any conservatives being worried about THAT. All I remember is them freaking out about Obama’s mind-control abilities on their children. Which is complete bullshit.
So, okay, you can perhaps say that conservatives were correct to be concerned, but they were totally wrong in what they ought to have been concerned about.
Taking everything isolated, maybe you’re right, mambo. But you can’t argue that Obama’s mind-control abilities on children is bullshit while at the same time everyone on here yammers on about Glenn Beck’s mind-control abilities on potential murderers.
Frank DiSalle: And would it be unreasonable to assume that given the support he received from the Teachers’ Unions, that he would (and we should) expect that his speech would be viewed favorably, when discussed?
I would expect, given that his speech was about working hard and staying in school, that he would expect his speech to be viwed favorably by teachers when discussed.
But don’t let that stop you from seeing an ominous conspiracy in everything.
And for MY gratuitous, off-topic insult:
You’re classy as always, Frank.
…Anyone with real reasoning abilities … would have to agree that these questions should be answered in the affirmative.
Anyone with real reasoning abilities would have to agree that you’re so unreasoningly opposed to Obama that you cook up conspiracies and see nefarious plans where none exist.
I still cannot get over what an idiot you are, Frank. I mean, goddamn, it’s incredible. I can hardly believe you live on the same planet as me. I do not understand how you’ve managed to live to be 152 years old. Can’t you fall down a long flight of stairs or something? Make the world a better place, Frank. Kill yourself.
Frank DiSalle: BTW, Dark Avenger, it is not the number of videos that really matters, but the number of views.
Yeah. Something has to happen just once for it to be a vast left-wing conspiracy.
But you can’t argue that Obama’s mind-control abilities on children is bullshit while at the same time everyone on here yammers on about Glenn Beck’s mind-control abilities on potential murderers.
I’ve never said anything about Beck’s “mind control” abilities. I do think that he’s an idiot, and a liar, and a hypocrite, and a douchebag. I do think that he is irresponsible with his media platform, and I think that already-unhinged people may latch onto his words and do awful things. Which is not to say that Beck is “to blame” for it.
Frank DiSalle: They have not yet acquired the sorry state of a closed mind due to limited, linear, “scientific method” type thinking
Demonstrating with the consistency he’s become famous for that Frank doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about. That his beliefs and views have absolutely NOTHING to do with reality.
The “scientific method” type of thinking is anything BUT closed minded, Frank. Science, true Science (as opposed to that Creationist/ID crap) constantly and repeatedly puts itself up for examination. It stands up and says “Here’s what I think. Now take your best shot on proving me wrong. Make me defend myself. Make me prove that what I say is true with hard evidence and verifiable, repeatable facts. Bring me some new piece of evidence and I will show how it fits in with my belief or, if it does not, I will adjust to incorporate the new facts.”
It’s conservative, wingnut, fundamentalist type “thinking” that says “Don’t question. Accept what I say just because I say it. Show me something that contradicts what I say and I’ll reject it out of hand. Keep your mind firmly closed to other possibilities.”
I worded that so that I wasn’t accusing you of making those idiotic, irresponsible and completely fabricated charges against Glenn Beck like Indeed and many other Eliminationists goofballs do here.
Again, my whole point is that this site mocked mercilessly all conservatives who had any reservations about the speech, and for the most part are silent now.
The people who were screeching that Obama was trying to “indoctrinate” school children by telling them that they should study hard, stay in school and that anyone could succeed in America, deserved to be mocked. They were/are idiots.
Kids being orchestrated to sing songs about Obama is a little creepy to me, but it doesn’t change the fact that Obama is not trying to indoctrinate the children of America to become fascist socialist muslims and his speech to school children was nothing of the sort. Those who feared it would be, again, deserved to be mocked then and the deserve to be mocked now.
And Dennis, if you’re to link to a liberal mocking Bush for visiting with Jason McElwain, you’re going to have to do better than this from Crooks and Liars:
Whatever the comments in the thread were, C&L is clearly not mocking Bush. Indeed, they are defending Bush against critics of the visit.
Dennis: Again, my whole point is that this site mocked mercilessly all conservatives who had any reservations about the speech, and for the most part are silent now.
Your claim that folks are silent on it now doesn’t hold up. Scrolling back over the numerous comments folks have made to you in just this thread shows that.
Why is it folks on the right keep declaring as fact things that are so easily shown to be wrong?
And, please, show what part of the messages in Obama’s speech, specifically, do you object to? That kids should stay in school? That they should work hard? That they should set goals and work toward them?
Yes, we mock the conservatives who had reservations about the speech because they are idiots. If you want to comment on what individual teachers have done that have crossed a line public teachers shouldn’t cross in terms of what they are having their students do, fine. But don’t claim that’s something Obama did in his speech. And don’t ignore the examples of conservative teachers doing similar things as if it was solely a liberal failing.
But you can’t argue that Obama’s mind-control abilities on children is bullshit while at the same time everyone on here yammers on about Glenn Beck’s mind-control abilities on potential murderers.
Dennis, it isn’t the influence that’s really at issue. It’s the message.
Telling children to stay in school and study hard is not the same thing as telling mush brained adults that Obama is the single greatest threat to America’s survival EVER.
That’s not what they were screeching about, fafaroo, and you’re a dishonest poster for saying that.
And C&L no longer keeps comments on threads from that long ago, but I fought with several people there then for mocking Bush for what he did. I remember it very well. I don’t expect you to believe me, such is your nature, but I’m not lying. And while I believe the blog owner there was sincere in what he posted, he also knows full well that when he starts it with “Some people are saying it’s a photo-op for Bush because his poll numbers are so low”…, he was well aware that the commenters would likely focus on that, and they did.
The “scientific method” type of thinking is anything BUT closed minded, Frank. Science, true Science (as opposed to that Creationist/ID crap) constantly and repeatedly puts itself up for examination. It stands up and says “Here’s what I think. Now take your best shot on proving me wrong. Make me defend myself. Make me prove that what I say is true with hard evidence and verifiable, repeatable facts. Bring me some new piece of evidence and I will show how it fits in with my belief or, if it does not, I will adjust to incorporate the new facts.”
Or, you could just believe what is written in a really old, old storybook. That sounds easier.
Dennis: So yeah, I had no problem with the speech, but I did with the way liberals and liberal bloggers mocked people who did have reservations with the speech.
But what was there in the speech for them to have reservations about?
They were/are mocked because they were ridiculous in their reservations. “Obama’s going to indoctrinate our kids into socialism and Islam with a single speech urging them to work hard in school!” They deserve to be mocked.
Somebody does something demonstrably stupid. Someone else points it out. And your only reaction is to complain that it was pointed out.
Dennis: But you can’t argue that Obama’s mind-control abilities on children is bullshit while at the same time everyone on here yammers on about Glenn Beck’s mind-control abilities on potential murderers.
Obama: Work hard, stay in school, play well with others.
Beck: They’re out to get you and your kids. We have to take this country back from “them”.
Yeah, if either of those folks is actually able to influence others, it’s pretty clear to me which message I’d like getting thru.
Sean, we could play that game all day long. It’s a double standard you guys employ and you can equivocate about it all you want, but that’s exactly what it is.
That’s not what they were screeching about, fafaroo, and you’re a dishonest poster for saying that.
Uh, yes Dennis they were. When Obama first announced the speech and its topic he said this:
He said that in August to 11-year-old student reporter Damon Weaver.
So right from the beginning Obama said he was going to talk about staying in school and getting a good education.
The typical conservative response is noted here:
http://www.tboblogs.com/index.php/news/story/obama-speech-indoctrinating-children/
So, Dennis, the importance of getting a good education had been announced as the subject of the speech and conservatives STILL flipped the fuck out about indoctrinating kids to be socialists.
You’re a moron.
Some people are saying it’s a photo-op for Bush because his poll numbers are so low, (he couldn’t remember where he saw the clip) but I’m really proud of Jason and this had to make him feel special. It might raise public awareness on autism in general.
Also, fafaroo, in the same vein, that’s almost identical to what some of the skepticism for Obama’s speech at the time, since he too had just come off a very bad month (now two in a row) and his poll numbers were tanking. Did you hear much screeching after the speech, btw?
Neither did I.
Looks from those videos that indoctrination wariness was justified, fafaroo.
Moron.
Like I told Sean D. Martin, fafaroo, we can do this all day long, but there’s no doubt this is just another of your double standards in a very long list of liberal double standards.
Did you hear much screeching after the speech, btw?
Uh, Dennis, that’s because the speech proved to be utterly innocuous making conservatives look like the wild-eyed lunatics they are.
Looks from those videos that indoctrination wariness was justified, fafaroo.
Dennis, within a matter a few posts you’ve managed to argue both that conservatives did not complain that Oabam’s speech about education amounted to socialist indoctrination and that conservatives were justified in complaining that that Oabam’s speech about education amounted to socialist indoctrination.
Nice work.
Like I told Sean D. Martin, fafaroo, we can do this all day long, but there’s no doubt this is just another of your double standards in a very long list of liberal double standards.
Complaining about double standards when you’ve just argued in favor of two completely opposite positions?
Yes, Dennis, I have no doubt that with such internal consistency you could indeed go on and on all day.
fafaroo, you’ve just done what you mock Save Farris for; you posted a link to a story that confirmed my point and impugned yours.
I call those ‘fafaroos’ from now on.
Moron.
I don’t think that was what the majority of skeptics had issues with, fafaroo, not that someone didn’t complain about that. Again, you are a dishonest poster, fafaroo.
Increasingly dishonest. When I first started posting here you weren’t that way. You seemed to me one of the more honest brokers. You’re not anymore.
You’ve done a Benjamin Button.
fafaroo, you’ve just done what you mock Save Farris for; you posted a link to a story that confirmed my point and impugned yours.
Would you care to actually provide evidence of this, Dennis?
I don’t think that was what the majority of skeptics had issues with, fafaroo, …
What? Really? If they weren’t skeptical that Obama was going to use his education speech to indoctrinate children to be good little socialists, what, exactly, were the skeptical of?
I don’t think that was what the majority of skeptics had issues with
Actually Dennis, that’s exactly what I remember the majority of the “skeptics” having an issue with.
And please don’t use that term (”skeptics”) to describe those people who thought that the speech was going to be akin to indoctrination. Skepticism is based in logic and reason. The people in question would be more aptly described as nutjobs.
Already did, fafaroo.
Obama will be “usurping the rights of parents” and “indoctrinating American’s youngest children.”
Parents angry over Obama song at NJ elementary school
Scrutiny rises over NJ kids singing Obama song
You mock what you don’t understand. And contrary to the impression you have of yourself, there’s quite a bit you don’t.
mambo,
By then, unlike February, there was broader mistrust of Obama, particularly over his health insurance overhaul plans. Concerns that he would use his speech to students as a political tool grew partly because the White House initially released a lesson plan encouraging students to “help the president.”
The plan was revised and the message to students was not overtly political.
Also for fafaroo. Again, there’s that change by a Democrat of language that only the lying and nutjob conservatives had an issue with, so why the change?
Sarah Palin didn’t complain about this on her Facebook page, did she?
Of course Obama changed it.
Of course he did.
fafaroo, again, you FAIL.
You mock what you don’t understand.
Dennis, you accused me of posting a link that actually contradicted what I said but then you haven’t actually said which link (i’ve posted two) and where the contradiction lies.
Then you post two more random links to complaints about songs when we’ve been talking about the conservative reception to Obama’s school speech.
So, yeah, Dennis, at this point it’s safe to say I have no idea what you’re talking about.
But neither, I think, do you.
Sarah Palin didn’t complain about this on her Facebook page, did she?
Ah yes, the old Dennis logic: If a lie succeeds, that means it must be true!
fafaroo,
Your link had this statement.
Obama will be “usurping the rights of parents” and “indoctrinating American’s youngest children.”
Those were a couple of the issues parents had with Obama’s speech in September. Now after video comes out at a school in NJ showing school teachers doing exactly that, parents are upset about it. That confirms that that kind of thing is going on in our schools. So parents were justified somewhat in being uneasy about what Obama would be saying in his speech and just exactly what his motivations were. Yet you mocked them, and continue to do so. And for the most part, liberal blogs are silent on the creepy aspect of this.
Why do Democrats change things they claim are Republican lies with so much regularity, fafaroo?
Can you please explain this to me, only this time with some honesty?
It’s not just simple weakness on your party’s part. It’s just that they must’ve been caught at something they tried to slip through the cracks. So the Alinsky tactic is to mock the other side, then quietly make the change, and do it on a Friday night or Saturday.
Dennis,
Obama will be “usurping the rights of parents” and “indoctrinating American’s youngest children.”
Except, of course, he didn’t.
White House initially released a lesson plan encouraging students to “help the president.”
I’d like to read what the language actually was in this lesson plan. Because what you provide isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Help the President do what? Improve the country? Lead the world in innovation, technology, science? Make the world a better place? What exactly were the students supposed to “help” Obama do?
Oh, BTW, it doesn’t necessarily mean anything that they then took the language out. They might have just realized that lunatics would misunderstand or misrepresent their message and decided to not give them the chance.
So parents were justified somewhat in being uneasy about what Obama would be saying in his speech and just exactly what his motivations were.
No, no, no, no, no! No they weren’t! The parents were NOT justified. They were being really fucking stupid.
They were concerned that Event A would happen. It didn’t. But an unforeseen Event B happened, which they didn’t like either. Therefore, they were right to be worried about Event A? No, they were not. They were fucking stupid.
That’s like saying…
1) I am worried about getting into an airplane crash, so I don’t ever fly.
2) Since I don’t fly, I drive everywhere. I get into a car crash.
3) My initial fears about air travel were justified by the car accident.
You see why that doesn’t work, Dennis?
Food for thought ( for those who might actually be capable of thought, and capable of digesting it ):
Marjorie Grene: “… Darwinism … is a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly holds, and holds men’s minds” Encounter, Nov 1959
John Eccles : “Now many biologists are realizing that a kind of pseudo – religion, Darwinism, is being foisted on us.” Facing Reality 1970
Alfred North Whitehead : “Apart from God, there would be no actual world.” *
Some people think , and some people think they think.
and this :
A nonequivalent control group design was employed to test the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary course on the scientific method in increasing students’ skepticism toward the paranormal. The course explored legitimate methods of scientific inquiry and compared them to faulty, and often fraudulent, methods of pseudosciences. Topics included elementary logic, logical fallacies, statistics, probability, the scientific method, characteristics of pseudosciences, and the prevalence and persistence of pseudoscientific theories and beliefs. Students enrolled in a psychology and law class served as a control group for the “Science and Pseudoscience” class (the treatment group). At the start of the term, students in both groups completed the Belief in the Paranormal Scale (Jones, Russell, and Nickel, 1977) and a measure of beliefs in their own psychic powers. At the end of the semester, students completed these same measures. Results demonstrated that while there were no initial differences between the control and treatment groups in their belief in the paranormal, students in the “Science and Pseudoscience” class demonstrated substantially reduced belief in the paranormal relative to the control class. There were no changes in students’ beliefs in their own paranormal powers. Implications for science education and research on teaching thinking are discussed.
* Cites are from Evolution and Other Fairy Tales by Professor Emeritus Larry Azar, a philosopher who undertook an in – depth analysis of Darwinism as a philosophy as opposed to a science.
Marjorie Grene: “… Darwinism … is a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly holds, and holds men’s minds” Encounter, Nov 1959
John Eccles : “Now many biologists are realizing that a kind of pseudo – religion, Darwinism, is being foisted on us.” Facing Reality 1970
Alfred North Whitehead : “Apart from God, there would be no actual world.” *
Now tell me, Frank, why I should give a shit about any of these quotes? Quotes aren’t “evidence”, Frank. And Mr. Whitehead’s quote is remarkably stupid.
First off, I reject the use of the term “Darwinism.” That makes it sound like a belief structure, like any other unsupported “ism” out there. It’s not. The theory of evolution by natural selection is supported by mountains of evidence, you ignorant fuck.
And I don’t know what the hell you’re trying to convey with your pasting of that abstract, Frank. I’d really like to know how this supports you or refutes me in any way.
Did you start drinking again? Put the bottle down, man, it’s not worth it.
Those were a couple of the issues parents had with Obama’s speech in September.
Right. Issues entirely unfounded and unhinged at the time which are no less unfounded and unhinged.
Obama isn’t doing anything to America’s school children, Dennis. Why do you keep insisting that he is?
Quotes aren’t evidence
So I guess words in print aren’t evidence.
So I guess until I have seen the videotape of a creature evolving (forget about actually witnessing it), I can call you a superstitious believer in fairy tales, as well.
And “your” book is not nearly as old as “my” book.
“Put that the bottle down”
Unoriginal, insensitive, indelicate and based on a false assumption. Not very scientific of you, Mr.Science Man! Your limbic brain is showing…
You reject the term “Darwinis”? Why, because you can’t face the FACT that belief in evolution requires faith? Without successfully defining the term, “species”, and without being able to untie the Gordian Knot which passes for taxonomy, you claim to know their origin?
You’re the one believing the fairy tale called science.
You’re the one believing the fairy tale called science.
Now here’s a quote that’s evidence of something.
You’re an idiot, Frank.
So I guess words in print aren’t evidence.
Dumbass. Quotes from random people who state their idiotic view of evolutionary theory aren’t evidence. Sorry, I forgot that I had to spell it out for you to this degree. Quotes from scientific literature, citing facts and data… yeah, those are still good evidence.
So I guess until I have seen the videotape of a creature evolving (forget about actually witnessing it), I can call you a superstitious believer in fairy tales, as well.
You’re funny, Frank. Like Bozo was funny. I laughed at him too.
Show me strong scientific evidence that evolutionary theory is fundamentally wrong, and I am open to changing my mind. Do it, Frank, and you win. (But you can’t do it, can you? Because at this point in time it’s not fucking possible to scientifically refute evolutionary theory.)
And “your” book is not nearly as old as “my” book.
You say this like it’s supporting your view. It’s not. It’s actually an indication that you’re a fucking moron, Frank. Believing in a storybook, written thousands of years ago by stupid sand people is not better than believing in a modern theory of biodiversity that has mountains of corroborating evidence to support it. Or do you think that believing in alchemy is better than chemistry, you stupid drunk?
Why, because you can’t face the FACT that belief in evolution requires faith?
Except it doesn’t. It really doesn’t. You’re a fucking moron. Acceptance of evolution is supported by the fossil record and by DNA evidence, Frank. If you want to call that “believing in fairy tales,” okay. It just indicates that you have no fucking idea what you’re talking about, when scientific theory is somehow fictional while the Bible is the factual word of God.
Without successfully defining the term, “species”, and without being able to untie the Gordian Knot which passes for taxonomy, you claim to know their origin?
Um… who cannot successfully define the term “species”? What? I’m pretty sure I can. Can you, Frank? And yes, it is possible to trace back the evolutionary linkages to discover when species emerged, and from what common ancestors, etc. So yes, the origin of species is potentially knowable. It’s not hard to learn about this stuff, Frank.
You’re the one believing the fairy tale called science.
One of the dumbest things written about anything in the history of the universe. Congratulations.
Put the bottle down and kill yourself already.
yammers on about Glenn Beck’s mind-control abilities on potential murderers.
Yes, just because Beck has made jokes about poisoning Nanci Pelosi, we shouldn’t be concerned that anyone would take that raving as seriously as his other ignorant rants on a variety of subjects…………..
Dennis, AO, or Frank haven’t responded to my comment about the death threat made to the school, why is that?
Is that because even in their wacky world, they can’t blame it on a Leftist or a liberal or even an Obamabot?
I might add that Glen Beck was called a killer, because a Census Bureau was found hanged (or maybe not) with a “fed” scrawled on his chest (or maybe not).
It’s a bit worse than you think.
Children’s minds are fertile grounds for authoritative implantation. They have not yet acquired the sorry state of a closed mind due to limited, linear, “scientific method” type thinking
Once again, the conservative meme of “children are stupid” comes to light. Frank, there are MANY adults that are stupider than children.
Quotes aren’t evidence
Not scientific evidence, no.
And “your” book is not nearly as old as “my” book.
Who cares how old your book is? Hinduism is older than Christianity. By your logic, Hinduism must be the true religion.
You’re the one believing the fairy tale called science.
So, gravity, electricity, and germ theory (for starters) are myths?
Frank, watch this video, it might help you understand evolution.
How in the Sam Hill did we get onto evolution again?
Dennis, I stand by what I said about congressman Blunt and about Beck, but for the purposes of argument, let’s posit that I was hasty in my allegations.
a) Does that legitimize your hasty allegations?
b) Let’s examine the cases side by side: in the case of Blunt, we were dealing with a prominent national representative of a party whose history of race-baiting is unquestionable. In the case of Beck we have a history of inflammatory and fabricated OLIGARHY rhetoric by a major national media figure who is documented as having inspired the twisted passions of at least two crazed killers. In other words, there is a history. There is a context (that word again!). There is a documented track rhetoric of deliberate, provocative and divisive agitation.
And on your side you have… two videos, one seven months old the other over ten months old – both long before Obama’s mind-control broadcast – one in the immediate aftermath of the election, celebrating the rising of a self-made member of a long-downtrodden minority to the presidency, the other in the context (!) of Black History Month celebrating the most admired living African-American at the time.
Neither video has anything to do with a program of indoctrination, and you know it. Neither represents an unprecedented amount of hero worship of a sitting president, and you know it. And nobody would have thought twice about either – indeed nobody did think twice about either in the several months that passed after each incident until the feverish right wing found in them a opening in their desperate campaign to fling any piece of poo at the president that they can.
There’s no campaign of indoctrination, no hero worship. The only damage that will be suffered by the children in those videos will be as a result of the hailstorm of media attention caused by rabid right-wing flame-fanners. It’s really contemptible.
Honestly, Dennis, I don’t know why I bother. For some reason I keep thinking that maybe somewhere beneath that steaming pile of sophistic rhetoric, and that repulsive willingness to hawk any bullshit line of argument that you think will do damage to the opposition, there’s at least a miniscule shred of decency in you. Perhaps I’m wrong.
So parents were justified somewhat in being uneasy about what Obama would be saying in his speech and just exactly what his motivations were.
Dennis, you cited the actions of school teachers in New Jersey that upset some parents as an example of why they had reason to be afraid of Obama’s motivations and actions?
Doesn’t that seem just a bit illogical?
Another flashback: Students taught to sing praises of Bush, Jr.’s Katrina Response
In case you missed it Yipes. Again.
Missed this one the first time around.
Blackwashing.
Colbert is spot on here. Watch the whole thing. The “Dissent = Racism” bullshitters ought to take notice.
Via.
Also good.
Indeed. History and context matter. The Colbet video is way funnier though.
“the fairy tale called science”
Man, as much as the dancing wing-nuts here provide me with endless amusement, I do have moments where I suspect they’re this close to swallowing a shotgun barrel or going postal. Just fucking insanity. It’s funny, I’ll admit, but it’s not always pretty.
Dennis: Sean, we could play that game all day long.
I’m not playing a game, Dennis. But I do notice the one you’re playing.
As soon as someone posts a reasoned reply that makes a point you just don’t want to have to deal with, you start accusing folks of “playing games”.
Dennis: Like I told Sean D. Martin, fafaroo, we can do this all day long,
Yep, we can. We’ll keep posting facts and links to places that show we’re right when we say the had baseless freakouts about Obama’s speech, and you’ll keep saying “Did not, did not, did not. nyah nyah.”
Frank DiSalle: Quotes aren’t evidence
So I guess words in print aren’t evidence.
And, as regular as clockwork, Frank shows that he doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about and is incapable of anything resembling rational thought.
He equates quotes, opinions people say, with things like peer reviewed articles which contain copious amounts of duplicatable evidence to back up their conclusions.
In Frank’s world view, someone writing “The world was made by God because the Bible says so.” has as much scientific validity as someone publishing a detailed description of their experiments and explaining their conclusions. And if you’re going to discount the first then you have to totally discount the second.
In Frank’s world view, if you’re going to claim a book of the Norse legends of Thor is just untrue myths, then all books on weather are just untrue myths, too.
Dennis: fafaroo, you’ve just done what you mock Save Farris for; you posted a link to a story that confirmed my point and impugned yours.
fafaroo: Would you care to actually provide evidence of this, Dennis?
Dennis: fafaroo, Your link had this statement.
Obama will be “usurping the rights of parents” and “indoctrinating American’s youngest children.”
Oh, Dennis. You are either and idiot and don’t understand what you read, or you are intentionally deceitful AND an idiot for thinking we won’t notice when you take a snippet out of context and claim it means something it absolutely doesn’t.
Let’s look at the surrounding text from the article fafaroo linked to in his comment at 3:41 pm:
That’s right. The article did NOT say “Obama will be doing indoctrinating kids.” which is what you claim. It says, quite clearly, that Republican’s are claiming that’s what Obama will do.
And if you go on to actually, y’know, read the entire article rather than just scanning for phrases you can take out of context, it continues by pointing out what the speech will actually do (”challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning”) and explain where the Repubs got their bizarre notion.
Here’s a short sentence, Dennis. Go ahead and quote from it out of context: You are one of the most amazing posters here because you are so blatant in showing off your stupidity.
Yes, I said “You are one of the most amazing posters here”. Clearly I think you’re a great guy, right?
This from the guy who couldn’t find a job as a teacher and sold his old Civic and left the country; vowing not to return until ‘things get better back here’.
Talk about funny and endlessly amusing wingnut insanity, Jaims. That one is Pure Comedy Gold.
Oh, Dennis. You are either and idiot and don’t understand what you read, or you are intentionally deceitful AND an idiot for thinking we won’t notice when you take a snippet out of context and claim it means something it absolutely doesn’t.
–Sean D. Martin
No, Sean, you just came late to the party and you didn’t take the time to go back and read what the discussion was about. You started at the tail end and then drew conclusions; conclusions drawn on the biases you had when you walked in.
The contention was that fafaroo was being dishonest and or disingenuous when he argued on this premise:
<blockquote"The people who were screeching that Obama was trying to “indoctrinate” school children by telling them that they should study hard, stay in school and that anyone could succeed in America, deserved to be mocked. They were/are idiots.
If that was what some parents argued, then that isolated contention is idiotic, but that’s not what the overwhelming uneasiness with the speech by most people was, as fafaroo depicts, dishonestly.
I can provide you links if you prefer of the teacher in Asheville browbeating a kid because he liked John McCain and she was praising Barack Obama in front of her school kids. Or the Demi Moore/ Ashton Kutcher “I Pledge” video that was shown in public schools. Or the fact that many of Obama’s radical friends are in the education field, like William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. Or again the videos I’ve shown with parent’s unease about the lengths some teachers are going to hero-worship Barack Obama without those parent’s consent or knowledge. So the quote I took from fafaroo’s link was not taken out of context, and it did bolster my response to fafaroo, that the main objections to Obama’s speech were not his message of staying in school and working hard. That was ridiculous of fafaroo. It very much was that parent’s rights were being usurped and that there is a definite pattern of Obama indoctrination going on.
No problem coming late to a meeting, Sean. But you’d do well to try to get caught up before you start blabbering away all half-cocked.
And why don’t you start telling fafaroo to put away the bottle too, Sean. If you’re going to be an asshole, why not be an equal-opportunity asshole?
“I took an oath to The President”
Never fucking forget.
Jesus Camp. Also.
Sometimes, teachers bring politics into classrooms with students too young to be discerning. This is neither news, conservative, liberal, or a grand conspiracy involving “the president’s radical friends in the education field.”
I grew up in a small more-or-less town where my teachers threw out cracks about Clinton all the time, and the sky didn’t fall down. The amount of pearl-clutching going on here is bewildering.
parent’s unease about the lengths some teachers are going to hero-worship Barack Obama without those parent’s consent or knowledge.
I’m curious how they felt about George W. Bush Middle School.
“more-or-less” = “more-or-less conservative”
The amount of pearl-clutching going on here is
bewilderingstandard operating procedure for Team Wingnut.Parthenon-
Again, the point was that fafaroo’s statement was erroneous and dishonest on his part.
As to how people felt about the school being named after Bush, I don’t know. It was hard to discern from all the other screaming liberals were doing every day about anything and everything they could think of.
An elemtary school in New York named their school after Barack Obama before he was even elected.
New York Elementary School Renamed After Barack Obama
And here’s List of places named after Barack Obama
And I’m sure you haven’t forgotten that wacky libs in San Francisco (ordinary citizens to the people living there) wanted to name a sewage plant after George Bush.
I’m sure Sean D. Martin will square that circle of liberal logic by once again comparing Bush to Hitler and Obama to the wonderful man that he is, but surely you get the idea of where the indoctrination charges come from.
Yes, ed, the pearl-clutching, it burns.
See, Blunt, Roy; ‘False Accusations of Racism at Far left-wing Oliverwillis.com’.
Also, see:
Beck, Glenn; ‘Leftist liberal bloggers do touchdown dance over the death of a census worker in Kentucky, Accuse Beck of mutliple murders’.
Jesus Camp.
More from before:
Also, more reminder:
Also.
But seriously: Jesus Camp, dude. Jesus Camp.
Right, Indeed, Jesus Camp. You guys went ballistic. Still are going ballistic.
Obama indoctrination, creepy hero-worship, likening Obama to Jesus and a Messiah figure…not so much.
My whole point here of Left-wing circular logic and double standards.
Like fafaroo, you prove my point.
Go ahead, Indeed. Square up nutroots pearl-clutching over Jesus Camps with your total obliviousness to example after example of nearly identical behavior with Obama hero-worship.
Did conservative blogs picture Bush as a Superman? Or run videos of a hundred pictures of him smiling? Or repeatedly picture him with the caption ‘ChillthefuckoutIgotthis’ like you sycophants here love to see?
I don’t think so, dude.
You guys are getting batty.
Jesus Camp.
Also, more reminder:
“I Will Follow Him”: Obama As My Personal Jesus
Also:
Obama Army? Obama Youth Junior Fraternity Regiment Video
Creepiness.
OW.com/Indeed-led liberals: “MoveOn along. Nothing to see here. Revert to Jesus Camps links to distract.”
O-bot Indeed cannot defend his hero-worship.
No, Dennis, conservative blogs pictured Bush in full flight suit and codpiece, squinting victoriously in his manly way with a bajillion American flags proudly waving behind him. And repeatedly ran essays speculating on how he must have been chosen by God to lead this country through 9/11’s aftermath. And circulated emails about what a great American he was because he prayed with some dude who visited the White House or some such shit. Not batty at all.
I think both are batty, Bruce. Been my point this whole thread.
Crickets from the hero-worshipping O-bots on the latest revelations, though. Their only defense, like Indeed here keeps repeating:
“but, but, but, but, but, ….Jesus Camps. What about Jesus Camps? Waah, waah.”
Or the Demi Moore/ Ashton Kutcher “I Pledge” video that was shown in public schools.
See, here’s a perfect example of the right-wing Circular Confimation freakshow. One teacher in Utah shows an eight-month old video to students (and then apologizes when some parents object). Screamers like Malkin and newsbusters pick up on it and do what they do: scream. It propagates throughout the diseased nether reaches of the wingnut blogosphere and quickly morphs into a video that was “shown in public schools” (your words, Dennis), as if on a regular and widespread basis. Add a ten-month-old video of kids celebrating Obama’s election, add a seven-month-old video kids celebrating a successful African-American during Black History month, add the obligatory Bill Ayers innuendo, and suddenly you’ve got a self-confirming story about an insidious Obama-jugend campaign that, supposedly, is more of a threat to the body politic than lingering racism and the Beck-Limbaugh axis giving daily high-exposure validation and encouragement to yahoos who bring assault rifles to political meetings and who talk smack about revolution (to say nothing of psycho killers).
Spectacular, Dennis. Don’t think twice about the feelings of those kids who you and your wingnut pals are trying to make into a media sensation in a decidedly not-good way. Holy wars always have some unfortunate innocent casualties.
You’re fooling nobody with what you’re doing in your most recent posts here: you can’t defend yourself on the major issue so you’re trying to make the conversation about what you perceive as fafaroo’s unfair characterization of the opposition to Obama’s speech. Sorry, it isn’t.
And as a side-note, if you’re going to get all hot and bothered about fafaroo’s rhetorical excesses, you might think about policing your own language a bit. “liberals push Obama worship”, “liberals accuse Beck of multiple murders”, etc. are equally invidious distortions.
Wilbur, check Oliver’s headline on the census worker and tell me if ‘Another Beck Murder?’ is not calling him a murderer as the premise, and is this simply another one.
How is that not an accusation of multiple murders on his part, or at least one before that and questioning if this wasn’t another one.
That’s not rhetorical excess on my part, my friend.
False equivalence, dude. False equivalence.
Never fucking forget.
Oh, and Jesus Camp. Also.
Dennis, if the shotgun is in your mouth right now, don’t do it.
You’re an unemployed loser and a waste on many levels, but don’t do it.
Please. You’re a failure at life, but don’t end it this way. I look forward to you starting your own blog.
Wilbur, check Oliver’s headline on the census worker and tell me if ‘Another Beck Murder?’ is not calling him a murderer as the premise, and is this simply another one.
Classic Dennis: when you’re losing…
a) ignore the main point
b) pick one point, however miniscule, where you think you can get a rhetorical foothold.
c) pretend that is what the argument is about.
rinse and repeat.
Sorry, Dennis, not biting.
Don’t worry, Jaims. Step one would likely entail unemployment. Step two would be leaving the country. Step three would be blogging back in the United States with the same “I hate liberals. Ha Ha, you liberals suck.” meme like you do here every day. Maybe Step 4 would be the shotgun, but even then, I doubt it. It’s not as easy for me as it is for you. I have family who needs me.
Is this a cry for help from you or something? A piece to a puzzle that after you’ve done it, we can go back and put it together and say “yes, he was trying to tell us something.”, like a CSI episode?
I’m not losing, Wilbur. You’re the one who keeps asking himself why he bothers with me.
And yet again, here you are.
Ask yourself why.
Then you can rinse and repeat.
It very much was that parent’s rights were being usurped and that there is a definite pattern of Obama indoctrination going on.
Dennis, you’re a moron. Obama announced he was going to talk to kids about education and the right started screaming indocrination. The quote you pulled was from the link was a quote from the Republican Party of Florida, you moron. Not some parents group and they didn’t just say what you quoted. They also said:
Obama intends to “use … taxpayer dollars to indoctrinate America’s children to his socialist agenda.”
The article I linked to concluded:
In other words, conservatives were making claims and freaking out about shit that was entirely unfounded and untrue.
The Obama administration is not orchestrating a campaign to indocrinate school children. Only a crazy fucking nutjob would think this was true and only a complete fucking moron would sit here trying to defend that position.
Revert to Jesus Camps links to distract.”
As in: What you would like to paint as some vast Obama orchestrated campaign to create a youth corps of indoctrinated socialist/fascist(!) robots is, no matter how creepy it is, nothing we haven’t seen countless times before on the conservative/republican side and no one on your side of the debate said shit. So pack it in, Dennis. You’re a hack.
Ask yourself why.
I did, and came up with a tentative answer, which I stated above: For some reason I keep thinking that maybe somewhere beneath that steaming pile of sophistic rhetoric, and that repulsive willingness to hawk any bullshit line of argument that you think will do damage to the opposition, there’s at least a miniscule shred of decency in you. Perhaps I’m wrong.
Oh, and Dennis, none of this:
Is evidence of the Obama administration doing anything to indoctrinate school children. (But but but HE KNOWS BILL AYERS!!!!)
If you think it is, please tells what you would call this:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/04/17/out-of-the-mouths-of-babes/
You’re a moron, Dennis.
fafaroo,
It’s you who’s the moron. You’re a liar and a distorter and a dishonest debater. You started it off by fabricating why there was skepticism of Obama’s speech by saying people ‘were screeching that Obama was trying to “indoctrinate” school children by telling them that they should study hard, stay in school and that anyone could succeed in America, deserved to be mocked. They were/are idiots.’
I showed you how and why that was a dishonest statement and a gross distortion of what the skepticism was. So all you basically do to counter that is make up more stuff about what my original point was and call me a moron three times, like you’re in competition with Jaim or something.
Critics Decry Obama’s ‘Indoctrination’ Plan for Students
You never mentioned the lesson plan that Obama changed, or why. You’re too dishonest to do that.
But in advance of the address, the Department of Education has offered educators “classroom activities” to coincide with Obama’s message.
Students in grades pre-K-6, for example, are encouraged to “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.”
Teachers are also given guidance to tell students to “build background knowledge about the president of the United States by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama.”
During the speech, “teachers can ask students to write down key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful.”
For grades 7-12, the Department of Education suggests teachers prepare by excerpting quotes from Obama’s speeches on education for their students to contemplate — and ask as questions such as “Why does President Obama want to speak with us today? How will he inspire us? How will he challenge us?”
Activities suggested for after the speech include asking students “what resonated with you from President Obama’s speech? What lines/phrase do you remember?”
—”In general, I don’t think there’s a problem if the president uses the bully pulpit to tell kids to work hard, study hard and things like that. But there are some troubling hints in this, both educationally and politically,” said Neal McCluskey, associate director of Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom.
Among the concerns, McCluskey said, is the notion that students who do not support Obama or his educational policies will begin the school year “behind the eight ball,” or somehow academically trailing their peers.
“It essentially tries to force kids to say the president and the presidency is inspiring, and that’s very problematic,” McCluskey said. “It’s very concerning that you would do that.”
Parents of public school students would also have to pay for that “indoctrination,” regardless of their political background, he said.
“That’s the fundamental problem. They could easily be funding the indoctrination of their children.”
—-
These are all legitimate concerns, fafaroo, and you’re too much of a dishonest asshole to debate this issue on honest terms. Instead you argue from the standpoint that if anyone has questions about Obama’s motives and those of his advisors, then they are all morons. It’s how you think, and it’s how you debate.
Instead, you phrase it as “Obama was trying to “indoctrinate” school children by telling them that they should study hard, stay in school and that anyone could succeed in America,…“, and that’s not at all what people had their issues with. Now when videos come out showing indoctrination by teachers, not only do liberal blogs say next to nothing, they defend it by saying “Well, Jesus Camps”, or “Well, what about that one school they named after Bush”. It’s bullshit and you know it. You screech about Bush for eight years and then when your Dear Leader does the same things or worse, you justify it by saying Obama really has nothing to do with it. Did Bush orchestrate the Jesus Camps, fafaroo? Please answer that if nothing else.
For the record, Dennis, I don’t see any problem with anything in this whole section you copied and pasted. And it’s not only because I am liberal and support Obama. It’s that everything you cite here is completely innocuous. And McCluskey reads like he’s very paranoid or intellectually dishonest.
I am not trying to be difficult, Dennis, but I would really like to know what you think is in there that is so horrible or concerning. Don’t you think that students should know about their president? What sorts of “help” do you think they were going to be encouraged to give? Is it bad that Obama is “challenging” schoolchildren, or trying to inspire them? Is it wrong to ask high schoolers what they remembered from the speech, or if anything Obama said resonated with them?
“Troubling hints”, huh? Oooooh scary! In other words, the denotation of the language was completely innocuous, but the invisible undercurrent was clearly malicious and ill-motivated. Yes, McCluskey is a fucking paranoid delusional.
“build background knowledge about the president of the United States by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama.”
Ack! Hero worship! We should never ask students to learn about presidents! Particularly current presidents! Particularly current presidents I don’t agree with!!
Students in grades pre-K-6, for example, are encouraged to “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.
Asking 4-11 year olds to think about how they could help the president of the United States! Horrible! Unpatriotic!
“Why does President Obama want to speak with us today? How will he inspire us? How will he challenge us?”
Asking students to analyze how a speech designed to inspire and challenge them to do well in school actually inspires and challenges them! Brainwashing! Indoctrination!
“what resonated with you from President Obama’s speech? What lines/phrase do you remember?”
Asking students to write down the main points of the speech they hear! Unheard of! Mind control!!!!
But there are some troubling hints in this, both educationally and politically,” said Neal McCluskey, associate director of Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom.
Someone from a right-wing think tank, who was silent about similar issues for the eight years of the Bush presidency, says now that this is something to be concerned about! Whoda thunkit?? Blow me down!!
The adjective “screaming” is a good description of all of this, and it’s a wonderful example of right-wing circular fever-mongering. fafaroo may not have been literally precise about what the fearmongerers were complaining about, but in essence his point stands: they’re trying to turn something beneficial and inocuous into a cog in a nefarious indoctrination campaign.
Now this is the point where Dennis will say “but they changed the lesson plan!!!” as if that change were a tacit agreement that there was some ulterior plan afoot. All it is, though, is a desire (futile, misdirected desire in my opinion) to keep what was supposed to be something good for all students from becoming a pissing match with crazed wingnuts.
Keep posting, Dennis, while the rest of the world grapples with issues that are really important. With every word you make yourself appear more and more unhinged.
The imagery in this song by the Violent Femmes is what comes to mind when I read so many of the conservative posts –
“I had me a wife, I had me some daughters.
I tried so hard, I never knew still waters.
Nothing to eat and nothing to drink.
Nothing for a man to do but sit around and think.
Nothing for a man to do but sit around and think.
Well, Im a thinkin and thinkin, till theres nothin I aint thunk.
Breathing in the stink, till finally I stunk.
It was at that time, I swear I lost my mind.
I started making plans to kill my own kind.
I started making plans to kill my own kind.”
Dennis: Again, the point was that fafaroo’s statement was erroneous and dishonest on his part.
fafaroo’s statement, as you’ve quoted it, being:
Sraightforward enough that even you should be able to understand it, Dennis. Those who thought Obama was trying to indoctinate kids are mock-worthy idiots.
And, apparently, you DID understand that. You even agreed with it: “If that was what some parents argued, then that isolated contention is idiotic…“.
But then you go on to twist it, to complain that there were others who did not have mock-worth concerns about the speech. And you’ve yet to clarify just what those supposedly “valid” criticism were beyond the White House provided a supporting teaching aids that asked kids to (horrors!) “help the President”.
Dennis: I can provide you links if you prefer of the teacher in Asheville… [et al]
And of all those things you mention exactly none have anything to do with Obama pushing politics int the classroom or using his speech to do so. Just a bunch of “Look, Over there! And only at Democrats!”
Did Bush orchestrate the Jesus Camps, fafaroo? Please answer that if nothing else.
No. He didn’t. Now maybe you can tell us whether the Bush admin organized 100 children to sing the praises of FEMA to the First Lady on the White House lawn.
The Obama admin hasn’t organized any of the videos of children singing that you keep linking too.
Mission Accomplished, dude. Mission Accomplished.
Nothing is scarier than Jesus Camp, however. Sure, there were White House advisers who pledged allegiance to George Bush, Jr. instead of Teh Constitution, and The Mission Accomplished Situation, and Clear Channel actually posting eerily 1984esque billboards (”Our Leader”–{shudder}). All of this is frightening enough, but nothing will ever top Jesus Camp.
Nothing is scarier than Jesus Camp, however.
For real. That scene where the leader points out the birth rate in Muslim nations as a signal that ‘our side’ needs to make more babies still gives me chills.
Oh BTW, for anyone who I’m making exaggerated rhetorical claims, I’m really not. I simply don’t see any difference between “obama’s speech is indoctrination” (which clearly was a central assertion by the right) and “obama’s speech is designed/intended to open the doors to indocrination.” Dennis seems to think there’s a fundamental, functional difference between the two. There isn’t. They’re both paranoid, conspiritorial nonsense.
And when the Bush admin itsel actually had children sing Bush’s praises on the White House lawn, The same screeching morons didn’t say shit. So let’s quit pretending your complaints have anything to do with honesty or principles, Dennis.
We’ve really reached the point where it’s controversial to ask children to listen to, respect the words of and perhaps also ponder how they can help the president improve the country. Logical extension of thermonuclear ‘radicalcommiefascistsocialistjerkass’ rhetoric, I guess.
And I’m sure you haven’t forgotten that wacky libs in San Francisco (ordinary citizens to the people living there) wanted to name a sewage plant after George Bush.
I’d never known about that. Really nothing should be named for anybody until they’ve been out of office at least 25 years. Maybe 50. Presidential HoF, so to speak.
Indeed:
Video and links there are worthwhile too.
You never mentioned the lesson plan that Obama changed
The President writes lesson plans? Really? Since when?
And Dennis, those plans read as pretty standard academic fair, addressing the appropriate learning goals and standards at each grade level. For example, a quick search found the following lesson plans for Partners of the Heart, a documentary about the partnership between Vivien Thomas and Alfred Blaylock, two early pioneers of open heart surgery:
-What is the primary message of the video?
-How did the video impact your feelings regarding segregation?
-What did you learn from the video?
-How did each main character show examples of philanthropy?
-In what ways were Blalock and Thomas heroes.
-Have students write interview questions for Thomas and Blalock.
Now how is this lesson plan substantively different in any way from the one that was distributed before Obama’s speech?
We’ve really reached the point where it’s controversial to ask children to listen to, respect the words of and perhaps also ponder how they can help the president improve the country.
Pretty sick, huh Parthy? Just gross.
Dennis thinks he knows something about education. How adorable.
Simply imagine that this very same speech, with accompanying lesson plans, and outlines for school use , had been given by Pres Bush in Sep of 2008, and then try to fool yourselves (lefties) that you would view the speech, as impartial and innocuous.
If hypocrisy were nickels, liberal Democrats would be millionaires.
Frank DiSalle: Simply imagine that this very same speech, with accompanying lesson plans, and outlines for school use , had been given by Pres Bush in Sep of 2008, and then try to fool yourselves (lefties) that you would view the speech, as impartial and innocuous.
Translation: I’ve go no legitimate response to the valid criticism that right-wingnuts were idiots about Obama’s speech so, like the kindergartner I am, I’ll just claim arbitrarily that liberals would have done the same. So nyah!
Translation: I’ve go no legitimate response to the valid criticism that right-wingnuts were idiots about Obama’s speech so, like the kindergartner I am, I’ll just claim arbitrarily that liberals would have done the same. So nyah!
Translation addendum: After being so throughly beaten on the evolution issue, I wish to pretend it never happened, rather than acknowledge my error.
Simply imagine that the Bush administration had children from the Gulf Coast sing the praises of the President, Congress and FEMA in a song performed on the White House lawn in front of the First Lady…
Oh wait, we don’t have to imagine it. That actually happened. What we have to imagine is the right wing outrage over “indoctrination” of children to support one of Bush’s failed policies. Because no one on the right said shit about it at the time.
You’re an idiot Frank.
fafaroo: Perhaps you find it difficult to see a difference between one group of children singing to the President ( and excuse me if I do not believe they were singing a song of praise to FEMA ), and the President’s addressing ALL the nation’s school children.
That is not my problem.
Martin: That is not like anything like what I intended to convey. Perhaps your inability to use simple English prevents you from understanding it.
What that comment was meant to convey was that what the President originally intended to do – include in the speech the idea that all the schoolchildren in America should study and do their homework, so they can help the President put forth his agenda* – was changed , and removed. To say, NOW, that the speech was harmless, is disingenuous , even hypocritical.
My point was that you lefties would have been outraged by a speech given by Pres Bush to “the schoolchildren of America” suggesting that they do well in school so they can help the President reduce taxes, or privatize social security, or in the war on terror.
* And I do not wish to argue whether his original did indeed contain that message. It was believed that it did contain such a message, and it was modified so that people were persuaded that it no longer contained that message.
…( and excuse me if I do not believe they were singing a song of praise to FEMA ) …
Uh, Frank, check the link above to the WSJ post including the lyrics of the song.
Your problem is that you’re an idiot. When Bush was having kids sing the praises of his failed response to Katrina, no one on the right said shit.
If two teachers working at two separate schools months apart entirely independent of the Obama administration, have their kids sing songs about Obama, the right shits itself with rage.
As to this:
* And I do not wish to argue whether his original did indeed contain that message. It was believed that it did contain such a message, and it was modified so that people were persuaded that it no longer contained that message.
oh man, Frank. You just blew Dennis’ ridiculous dodge out of the water. You’re all a bunch of paranoid morons.
fafaroo: Perhaps you find it difficult to see a difference between one group of children singing to the President ( and excuse me if I do not believe they were singing a song of praise to FEMA ), and the President’s addressing ALL the nation’s school children.
Hey Frank, word of advice. Maybe you should try to email Dennis offline, as it were, and get you’re talking points straight.
Because apparently to Dennis, conservatives didn’t care about the speech, but children singing about a sitting president (as long its a black democrat) is like worse than Stalin and Hitler combined.
The point being, I do see the difference between the two, Frank, but you have no idea what you’re talking about.
fafaroo, why don’t you try to say something, instead of telling me to compare notes with Dennis, who has his own keyboard (and unlike you lefties who have been assimilated into to the MSNBC Borg) , and his own mind.
I am getting a little sick of you jerkoffs tossing around insults as if they arguments, when you haven’t got a goddamed thing to say.
“I am getting a little sick of you jerkoffs tossing around insults as if they arguments, when you haven’t got a goddamed thing to say.”
I’m sorry we say such mean things to you on your personal website, Frank.
MO, Jaim, you’re the expert. Or former expert, I guess. Sidwell friends, UVA….still can’t find a job teaching, leave the country, bitch about half of all Americans. What a great example you set for not only children, but you’re the poster boy for liberal blog posters here.
Valid points for discussion, Southern Quaker. The point I was making was that fafaroo was too dishonest to even bring it up or mention them when he described all opposition to Obama’s speech as
“screeching that Obama was trying to “indoctrinate” school children by telling them that they should study hard, stay in school and that anyone could succeed in America, deserved to be mocked. They were/are idiots.”
If he was an honest broker, he’d have mentioned this, stated that he felt this was an invalid complaint, and then argued my prior point. That’s not what he did, SQ. He’s lying.
Jaim, you can say whatever you want, and I can say that it continually provides me with evidence that you have no original thought.
So, again, Indeed goes to his Eliminationists hero, who praises, of all people, Infamous Stalker Mike Stark, the idiot loon who camped out on Bill O’Reilly’s front yard to stalk him when he came out to get the paper in the morning, and left flyers in his neighborhood. Even Keith Olbermann mocked chastised him for that…. WPitW.
The blog’s opinion where Indeed’s hero blogs? “Well, you win some, you lose some. Our buddy, Mike Stark was featured in Countdown’s WPitW segment, although you could see that it pained Keith Olbermann to include him–and to defend Bill O’Reilly.”
I agree with KO. You should never act like Bill O’Reilly, even if you’re doing it against Bill O’Reilly.
If you go back and check prior posts, I said I didn’t have a problem with the speech; but I did with how liberals argued it, and their subsequent relative silence on the videos of teachers clearly participating in Obama indoctrination and hero worship, mambo. And I included that link and those concerns because fafaroo was not honest enough to say that those were what the concerns were. I’ve stated this point several times, mambo.
(1) Liberals mocked conservatives by breaking it down dishonestly, and
(2) fafaroo was dishonest when he said conservatives screeched about Obama telling kids to work hard and stay in school.
So when Parthy does the same thing and says
“We’ve really reached the point where it’s controversial to ask children to listen to, respect the words of and perhaps also ponder how they can help the president improve the country.”
And you reply:
…
That’s not at all what I was arguing, nor was it what the majority of conservatives on the whole had concerns with, and it’s a dishonest premise.
That’s the other point I made above, mambochicken. That there are more than a few idiots here who make the EXACT same reasoning to accuse Glenn Beck of multiple murders.
This whole thread is a veritable Petri dish of liberal double standards and hypocrisy, isn’t it?
And so do I, in that case, Parthy. And I congratulate you for saying that. But that wasn’t the opinion of the blogger that I linked to where Indeed’s hero blogs, nor was it the opinion of the overwhelming majority of posters on that comment thread. More liberal hypocrisy/double standards.
OT: Pres Obama finally does something I agree with, and Oliver doesn’t write it up…
I would like to see teachers teach one 10 one month blocks a year, and the parents and children can pick which two months to take off. That makes more sense than sending every child in America from June to September.
That’s not at all what I was arguing, nor was it what the majority of conservatives on the whole had concerns with, and it’s a dishonest premise.
Hang on a second. Ever conservative blogger took issue with the ‘how can I help the president’ phrase. How is that dishonest to then say we’ve reached the point where it’s controversial?
Parthy,
From the link I provided way above:
For grades 7-12, the Department of Education suggests teachers prepare by excerpting quotes from Obama’s speeches on education for their students to contemplate — and ask as questions such as “Why does President Obama want to speak with us today? How will he inspire us? How will he challenge us?”
Activities suggested for after the speech include asking students “what resonated with you from President Obama’s speech? What lines/phrase do you remember?”
Suppose you had a kid in high school and you knew his teacher was a stark-raving mad lunatic Bush follower and Bush announced he was going to make a speech to schoolchildren with that lesson plan and subsequent assignment by that teacher. Let’s say you disagreed with Bush’s politics, and so does your child. Let’s say that teacher knows that about your child already. Let’s say your kid was honest about what he wrote as part of the assignment the teacher gave out as he was instructed to do by Bush in his original intentions.
Would you as a parent feel comfortable with that?
Do you think you’d believe your kid was going to get a fair evaluation from that teacher the rest of the school year?
Valid points for discussion, Southern Quaker.
And yet you avoid discussing them entirely.
The controversy started when it was learned that Obama was to give a speech to the nation’s school children.
The reaction from the right was, “He’s trying to convince our children to support his socialist health care plan!”
To which most sane folks responded, “Uh, what? No, he’s going to tell them to work hard and stay in school.”
“But, but … look at the lesson plans! Teachers might read a book about the President before hand! And students are going to be asked to write letters to the President. That’s indoctrination!”
Don’t pretend that wasn’t the argument, because it was. Now, I ask you again, what in those lesson plans is so atypical
that it justifies the hysterical fear mongering from the right? Or can you admit, just this once, that the “controversy” was conveniently manufactured to support the right’s agenda against so-called “socialized” medicine? If not, why not?
The original speech included elements that suggested that with hard work and study, young heads full of mush would instead be filled with ideas to help the President with his “plans” .
That part, the part that supposedly was inoffensive , was removed .
“Why does President Obama Bush want to speak with us today? How will he inspire us? How will he challenge us?”
“what resonated with you from President Obama’s Bush’s speech? What lines/phrase do you remember?”
If Bush gave the same speech Obama did I wouldn’t have any problem with it. My eldest is well aware of our opinions of Bush, but I would expect him to listen respectfully to the President of the United States. And I would have no problem with him answering the questions as posed, assuming Bush’s speech were about the value of education and hard work.
arrgh. There’s supposed to be a slash through Obama’s name. Why doesn’t work?
Southern Quaker, it’s not that I’m avoiding anything, it’s that you misconstrued what my point was to fafaroo in the very beginning. He didn’t depict the concerns as being anything remotely like the way you described. He described it as the right screeching because Obama wanted to tell them to work hard and stay in school, and my point was that was bullshit.
And I think I gave an example to Parthenon of just why any discerning parent might have a problem with the lesson plan as originally presented.
You’re a teacher and I think a parent too. How would you have felt if Bush was going to be making a speech to school kids right before the vote to go to war with Iraq, and you and your high school age (hypothetically) child were against going to war in a big way. Let’s say the teacher was a huge Bush fan, thought the war was vital to our long-term security and that Saddam Hussein was a threat to our security. How do you think you’d feel if you knew your kid was going to disagree with Bush on that, was going to disagree with just about everything he might’ve said in the speech. Do you think you’d feel comfortable with that scenario, and trusted that any teacher at the public high school where your kid attended would get a fair shake the rest of the way?
I think the parents in that school in New Jersey might feel a little differently than you if you did.
southern Quaker it’s
and then” , then “
dang I can’t show it to you , just use strike instead of “i” or “b”
I was typing while you were posting the above post and I didn’t see it. You may feel comfortable with your child, and the teacher, but there are a lot of liberals who wouldn’t have been in that scenario.
I just went to my daughter’s ‘back to school night’ at her high school. Her AP World History teacher had about a hundred magazine covers of world leaders and popular politicians from world events up tacked up on the walls. I started glancing at them all and how they were arranged. There were over 90% of them from Democrats; both Clintons, all kinds of Obama’s pictures, Kerry, Gore. The only Republicans were a couple of Bush and Rumsfeld and Rice, all of them in negative lights.
I’d be comforatble with my kid writing about Obama too, because I don’t talk negatively about him around her, but I wouldn’t be comfortable with that teacher if someone’s kid did write something negatively about Obama,and I wouldn’t fault them if they were concerned. Certainly I wouldn’t think they were moron parents screeching about nothing, like fafaroo depicted them. And I wouldn’t think liberals were screeching about nothing if they expressed concerns about the scenario I depicted above about Bush.
More lovely circular confirmation–of a sort.
Extra KKKlassy edition!
Er, I meant here for the extra KKKlassy edition.
Excellent, Indeed. You do exactly what you guys cluck about gleefully that you claim Save Farris does; you link to an article that damages your case.
Here we have the dishonest blogger Steve Benen partaking in the same precise lie that fafaroo told:
Except that’s not what the outrage was, was it, as everyone here seems to be in agreement about.
Liberals can’t seem to make a point without having to be dishonest. There’s a distinct pattern here. Indeed was kind enough to verify it, too.
Thank you, Indeed.
Another hilarious aspect to that link to the bullshit Benen article, Indeed, is that your Eliminationists hero already does monitor Glenn Beck….daily….. and look where his book sales are….your hero’s, not Beck’s. Come to think of it, maybe you should look at where Beck’s book sales are. And his cover on Time Mag-Mag. And his interview with Katie Couric. Benen sounds like he’s whining about the injustice of it all.
“Foser reminds us”, the pure lol comedy of that 3-word phrase makes my ribs hurt.
From the extra KKKlassy link, your modern Party of Lincoln:
Who could have predicted this?
Funny, and you recently posted a link to your hero (again) of a white guy yelling at a black person who he said had represented themselves as ACORN advocates carrying signs, at which your hero headlined the post saying ACORN is a handy substitute for the ‘n word’. Only curiously, no one ever used the ‘n word’ in that video, nor do we have video of anyone using that word.
Why does your hero hype this as a hate crime, but faults Limbaugh for exactly the same thing. Only in the case of Limbaugh, we actually do have a white guy getting the shit beat out of him, and the rest of the predominately black passengers are all cheering it on.
More delicious examples of liberal double standards and liberal hypocrisy.
Again, Indeed, thank you.
It appears is if Indeed/Mr. ed has been caught red-handed in his own circular confirmation.
I wouldn’t be comfortable with that teacher if someone’s kid did write something negatively about Obama,and I wouldn’t fault them if they were concerned.
Which has everything to do with that teacher, and nothing to do with Obama or the speech he gave. (Or the curriculum suggested by the DOE, for that matter.)
How do you think you’d feel if you knew your kid was going to disagree with Bush on that, was going to disagree with just about everything he might’ve said in the speech.
I’d object to a blatantly political speech. Which is not what Obama gave. Nor was there ever any evidence that the speech he intended to give was anything but a “stay in school, kids” speech.
Your modern GOP: The Mensa Party.
Videos revealing some typical shit from Team Wingnut. Klassy as ever.
Frank DiSalle: Perhaps you find it difficult to see a difference between one group of children singing to the President ( and excuse me if I do not believe they were singing a song of praise to FEMA ), and the President’s addressing ALL the nation’s school children.
That is not my problem.
Google “children sing to praise FEMA” and you’ll find plenty of evidence that it did happen, Frank. But, I know, that doesn’t mesh with your world view so you’ll just follow your typical route and choose to “not believe” that it happened.
That is you problem, Frank.
But most telling of all is this:
I’m going to let pass for the moment your already discredited claim that Obama’s motivation for getting students to study and do thier homework was so that they could then push his political agenda. Putting aside that blatant lie (which you essentially acknowledge as a lie in your * footnote) what you are saying is that it didn’t matter what Obama actually was going to do but rather what people believed he was going to do. That Obama is responsible for the mis-conceptions people dream up.
That’s like saying you’re responsible for my supposed “inability to use simple English” which prevents me from understanding your comments.
Frank DiSalle: I am getting a little sick of you jerkoffs tossing around insults as if they arguments, when you haven’t got a goddamed thing to say.
The irony, hypocrisy and complete lack of self-awareness in that comment is what we’ve come to expect from Frank.
Dennis, you’re not defending the white supremacists here, are you?
30 people showed up to protest Beck’s Seattle speech attended by 7000 people, and your hero was one of the 30, Indeed. Not to mention that he blogs about him every single day.
Dude needs to get a life, wouldn’t you say? I know you’re fond of stalking and such, but creepy doesn’t even begin to describe it.
Dennis: So, again, Indeed goes to his Eliminationists hero, who praises, of all people, Infamous Stalker Mike Stark, the idiot loon who camped out on Bill O’Reilly’s front yard to stalk him when he came out to get the paper in the morning, and left flyers in his neighborhood.
IOW, did exactly to O’Reilly what O’Reilly has done to numerous other folks. Which O’Reilly, and folks like you, complain was mean and unfair. Which was exactly the point Stark was making.
Who are these white supremacists of which you speak, Quibner?
Dennis: (2) fafaroo was dishonest when he said conservatives screeched about Obama telling kids to work hard and stay in school.
And you keep missing the point. It wasn’t that wingnuts screeched about Obama telling kids to work hard and stay in school. Of course nodby is going to stand up and say “He’s telling kids to work hard. And that’s wrong!!”
But they didn’t object to what Obama was actually going to say. They made up shit. They said he’s going to make it a political speech and convince kids to push his socialist/Marxist/voodoo political agenda. And it is that bullshit that is mocked.
Conservative wingnuts DID screech about Obama telling kids to support his political agenda.
Stark is a stalker. Indeed’s hero blogs at a blog that hates stalking, yet condoned Stark’s stalking. Go figure, Sean.
It would be like saying you’d like to see Dick Cheney waterboarded to get him to tell the truth about what he knew about the decision to go to war and who he told to waterboard terrorists they had in custody.
Oh wait…..they did that too.
Frank DiSalle: I would like to see teachers teach one 10 one month blocks a year, and the parents and children can pick which two months to take off. That makes more sense than sending every child in America from June to September.
I agree the school year should be longer. But even where we agree on something Frank comes up with an unnessecarily complicated and entirely unworkable way to do it.
Everyone gets to pick which two months they get off? Great! I’ll take January and August. And my neighbors will take March-April while the family down the street takes October and February.
And explain to me how the teacher manages to make any progress in class, what with a significant chunk of the students out the month that fractions are taught. Going to make her re-teach that unit the following month when the vacationing kids return?
I don’t miss that point at all, Sean it’s just not what fafaroo said, and that was never the point I made, either. And you can see from the Benen article that that is still how liberals depict the controversy. If you read his article, here’s what he said:
Benen was being dishonestt, fafaroo was being and is dishonest, and now you are pretending that liberals didn’t depict it that way, when they did, and apparently still do.
Dennis: Suppose you had a kid in high school and you knew his teacher was a stark-raving mad lunatic Bush follower and Bush announced he was going to make a speech to schoolchildren with that lesson plan and subsequent assignment by that teacher. Let’s say you disagreed with Bush’s politics, and so does your child. Let’s say that teacher knows that about your child already. Let’s say your kid was honest about what he wrote as part of the assignment the teacher gave out as he was instructed to do by Bush in his original intentions.
Would you as a parent feel comfortable with that?
Absolutely.
Do you think you’d believe your kid was going to get a fair evaluation from that teacher the rest of the school year?
Ah, but that’s a different thing.
Yes, I’d have objections if the “stark-raving mad lunatic Bush follower” brought their politics into the classroom and made their instruction partisan. Or grading student’s work based on political beliefs.
But I would not have any problem with them listening to speech by Bush in which he urged students to work hard in school and then discussing it/writing about it afterward.
Frank DiSalle: The original speech included elements that suggested that with hard work and study, young heads full of mush would instead be filled with ideas to help the President with his “plans” .
I call bullshit. You are again making things up. Show us a copy of the original speech where that or anything like it was said.
Dennis: I just went to my daughter’s ‘back to school night’ at her high school. Her AP World History teacher had about a hundred magazine covers of world leaders and popular politicians from world events up tacked up on the walls. I started glancing at them all and how they were arranged. There were over 90% of them from Democrats; both Clintons, all kinds of Obama’s pictures, Kerry, Gore. The only Republicans were a couple of Bush and Rumsfeld and Rice, all of them in negative lights.
And what did you do when you saw this? Did you talk with the teacher about your concerns? Bring the issue up with the Principal? Get involved in your child’s education?
Or just make a note of it so you had something to complain about?
The only Republicans were a couple of Bush and Rumsfeld and Rice, all of them in negative lights.
Noted without comment.
Dennis: Dude needs to get a life, wouldn’t you say?
Says the guy who has posted to this thread 15 times in the past 4 1/2 hours. Not to mention 32 times over the weekend.
Dennis: It would be like saying you’d like to see Dick Cheney waterboarded to get him to tell the truth about what he knew about the decision to go to war and who he told to waterboard terrorists they had in custody.
I actually find I wouldn’t have a problem with that. After all, waterboarding isn’t torture, right?
Why do you ask me so many questions, then, Sean? I’ve got three computers at my desk with two proprietary systems and six monitors following my markets, and about fifteen screens up at any one time. It’s not that difficult when things slow down for me to check here and quickly type something. It doesn’t mean I’m staring at this screen all weekend and all day. And you’d have a valid point if I posted about one guy every single day and then went to his speech with a video camera to interview people who went there to see him. To each his own, I guess.
You tell me, is it?
The people who were calling for it to be done to him think it is, that is for sure.
Who are these white supremacists of which you speak, Quibner?
The ones marching for “white civil rights,” clueless.
Sean, you are in favor of waterboarding Dick Cheney, but not Khalid Sheik Mohammed?
Even in a ticking time bomb scenario?
Hence, the lesson plan was not the greatest of ideas and the questions were legitimate ones to ask.
No, no, a thousand times NO! IF a teacher is bringing his or her political beliefs into the classroom in an inappropriate manner, then that is a matter for the parents to raise with the teacher, the principal and/or local school board. It is no more Obama or the DOEs fault than if a local teacher in my kids’ school system started teaching ID along with evolution. Or holocaust denialism during a lesson on WWII.
The original lesson plan developed by the DOE included very TYPICAL questions that one might ask after watching a video presentation on civics, history, or any number of subjects. Please refer, once again, to the lesson plan developed for the documentary Partners of the Heart and tell me how those questions differed, in any substantial way, from the questions the DOE suggested might be discussed after Obama’s speech.
SQ, the lesson plan was against federal statute.
White House Withdraws Call for Students to ‘Help’ Obama
Also,
There were reasonable gripes, Southern Quaker. Not all people who had them were morons, either. But that’s not how fafaroo and Steve Benen describe them, is it?
Dennis: Sean, you are in favor of waterboarding Dick Cheney, but not Khalid Sheik Mohammed?
Even in a ticking time bomb scenario?
Yes, not only does the right have no sense of irony or shame, but no sense of sarcasm either.
Dennis: Even in a ticking time bomb scenario?
And there is never any such thing in the real world. It exists only in the fantasies of 24 viewers.
Dennis: In fact, had the White House skipped the study guide and simply released the speech from the beginning, it seems unlikely that this would have created much controversy at all.
Given the kinds of things folks have reacted to and complained about, I find that very difficult to believe.
Of course you find it difficult to believe, Sean. So much easier to believe they freaked out because Obama only wanted to tell them they should stay in school and study hard, isn’t it?
It is for fafaroo, obviously, but you too?
You’re for waterboarding Dick Cheney but not Khalid Sheik Mohammed, but you want to lecture me on irrational thought coming from the right?
That is so you.
So much easier to believe they freaked out because Obama only wanted to tell them they should stay in school and study hard, isn’t it?
Dennis, just stop it. Obama announced he was going to give a speech on education and the immediate, typical right wing reaction was similar to this, from the Hot Air link you supplied:
See, Dennis, this moron is specifically paranoid about the speech itself, noting that lesson plans don’t give any indication to set his paranoid mind at ease about the actual speech.
And here’s Malkin on the subject:
So Malkin is specifically freaking out about the content of the speech, not the lesson plan. Then she turns around and says that the content of the speech doesn’t even matter because simply the fact that Obama is speaking to school kids (OH MY GOD!!!) will open the floodgates of indoctrination.
There is no point in making any distinction between what these people were screeching about for days on end when they were clearly freaking out about the simple fact that Obama had dared to speak to kids about anything!
Now Dennis, you have yet to respond to the fact that the Bush administration had orchestrated a children’s choir to sing the praises of the president and FEMA on the White House lawn in front of the First Lady.
There is absolutely no link between the Obama administration and the few incidents of kids singing songs about Obama in school– except, of course, in the fevered brain of morons such as yourself and Michelle Malkin.
But the Bush administration played a definite and active role in orchestrating such an event in praise of Bush on the White House lawn.
Would you care to characterize that event in any way? I highly doubt you will.
Not all people who had them were morons, either.
Dennis, Ed Morrissey is a moron.
fafaroo, ’tis you that’s the moron, my friend.
Again, you’re being dishonest. How does your rant just now and the quotes you highlighted of HA and MM square with your statement that they freaked out over Obama telling them to stay in school and study hard, because you don’t mention it, and nor do they say that, do they? But that’s how you depicted them earlier.
A little inconvenient truth about how you debate.
Douche.
But that’s how you depicted them earlier.
Dennis, for goddsakes, Obama announced he was giving a speech on education and staying in school and the right freaked out. This is undeniable, Dennis, and that’s what I said and that’s what I meant.
And once again, no comment from you about the pro-Bush children’s choir organized by the Bush administration itself. As expected.
THIS is what you said, fafaroo
Just who was it that screeched that telling them they should study hard, stay in school and that anyone could succeed in America was how Obama was trying to indoctrinate them?
Beacause one followed the other does not mean one caused the other for the reasons you stated, fafaroo.
Dishonest douche.
According to Think Progress, which does neither, and Zsa Zsa’s Huff Po, it’s not known who wrote the song, it was to 100 kids, and Bush wasn’t there when they sang it. Other than that, gosh fafaroo, I guess it is the same thing as speaking to the whole nation’s school children and having them do write-ups to hand in to their teachers about how they can help Obama.
Now, if you would, kindly take the time to read the comments at TP and tell me what the typical liberal reaction was to this small gathering of people.
Was it, ‘Ah, no big deal. What he’s saying is a good thing’?
Was it “Hey, we’d be morons to screech about this.”?
And please tell me just why it is I’m supposed to be railing against it, or I guess, why I should have been doing that 3 years ago for some kids in front of Laura Bush, and just how it’s comparable to Barack Obama speaking to all the kids in school all across America and having them do a lesson plan on how they can help him.
Just a heads up, fafaroo, that’s why you should never rely on Indeed/ Mr ed’s links. They seldom do what he intends them to do, and they are never vetted.
Do your own research.
Like Obama should’ve done on his speech, when a significant portion of schools were not even in session at that point.
235 posts?! Holy shit, that has to be a record.
having them do a lesson plan on how they can help him.
Help him DO WHAT, Dennis? An important fucking detail. All those parents who were worried about Obama delivering a partisan political speech to their 9-year-olds are fucking retarded. End of story. I don’t know how much clearer it needs to be. The tapes that have surfaced recently have nothing to do with this. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
This is idiotic.
More circular confirmation:
Vetted (per usual)
According to Think Progress, which does neither, and Zsa Zsa’s Huff Po, it’s not known who wrote the song, it was to 100 kids, and Bush wasn’t there when they sang it.
This is so awesome, Dennis. Really, just so awesome.
The song was sung on the White House lawn as part of an official White House event in front of the First Lady.
So the question we now have before us is: Are you actually going to retract all of your bullshit complaints about Obama songs (which were also, not written by Bush or performed in front of the president by much, much less than 100 children) or are you completely okay with being a hypocritical moron?
Unless you want to now argue that the Bush administration and the First Lady were really surprised when a 100 kids showed up at the White House to sing the praises of FEMA unannounced.
That would be just the kind of insane turn I would expect you to take now. But don’t do it, Dennis!
I’m sure even you would regret squandering the last smidgen of dignity you have left on such a desperate gambit.
More of the same.
The hits just keep on coming, and libs just keep on denying, even when its right there in front of them.
Liberal Indoctrination Camp
Wow. Just wow.
Nothing to see here. Move along. No cause and effect. No sirree.
Fafaroo, what is this, like, about eight such videos of weird, creepy kids paying homage to Obama? This is just the shit that’s on tape.
At a freaking PTA meeting, no less.
And how do you want to blame this on Obama, Dennis? Whose fault is this?
Fafaroo, what is this, like, about eight such videos of weird, creepy kids paying homage to Obama? This is just the shit that’s on tape.
Dennis, could you please stop pretending you really care about this as you clearly have no problem whatsoever with children singing the praises of Bush and FEMA on the White House lawn as part of an official White House event before the First Lady.
Jesus Camp, people.
At a freaking PTA meeting, no less.
Dennis, you do know that the PTA is not a government organization, right?
The person that titled that video “Welcome to Government School” clearly seems to be confused on that point.
I guess if I really wanted to I’d just follow you guys’ gameplan for how you accuse Glenn Beck of multiple murders, mambo. But I’m not doing that. I’m just saying there is a correlation between why people had issues with Obama’s speech to school kids as originally announced and these vidoes, and that fafaroo is too dishonest to describe why people had issues with any sense of accuracy.
That’s been my thesis from the very beginning, mambo.
Oh my:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-september-28-2009/america–target-america
Dennis: Of course you find it difficult to believe, Sean. So much easier to believe they freaked out because Obama only wanted to tell them they should stay in school and study hard, isn’t it?
Wow. Dennis. Just wow. You keep harping that fafaroo was mis-representing things and then you insist on repeatedly saying exactly what you’re bitching he’s wrong about.
It’a an almost Frank-level of hypocrisy.
Yes, they freaked out because Obama wanted to talk to school kids. No, they didn’t say “Arggh! He want’s to tell them to study hard!” Never said the content of his speech is what they freaked out about. They quickly claimed he’d be saying things that he never planned to say and then freaked out over those things they made up.
So, yes, I find it easy to believe that, given it was fantasy that they were freaking out over, that they wuld have found something to be raving against no matter what Obama had said and no matter what materials were or were not provided.
You’re for waterboarding Dick Cheney but not Khalid Sheik Mohammed,
Show me where I gave any opinion on Mohammed. Can’t, right? So stop claiming I’ve said something just so you can object to it. You’re the Obama-speech-freakers in miniature. Making shit up so that you can rant about something that never existed.
Dennis: How does your rant just now and the quotes you highlighted of HA and MM square with your statement that they freaked out over Obama telling them to stay in school and study hard, because you don’t mention it, and nor do they say that, do they? But that’s how you depicted them earlier
Wilbur: Classic Dennis: when you’re losing…
a) ignore the main point
b) pick one point, however miniscule, where you think you can get a rhetorical foothold.
c) pretend that is what the argument is about.
rinse and repeat.
Amen.
Indeed: Oh my:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-september-28-2009/america–target-america
Yes, lyrics were cleared with the parents ahead of time. Clearly those parents are unfit and should be locked up. Right, Dennis?
Here, Sean
—-
Dennis: Sean, you are in favor of waterboarding Dick Cheney, but not Khalid Sheik Mohammed?
Even in a ticking time bomb scenario?
Yes, not only does the right have no sense of irony or shame, but no sense of sarcasm either.
—
Maybe east is east and west is west and I’m interpreting you wrong, but when I asked the question and you answered yes, silly me, but I assumed ‘yes’ meant ‘yes’.
I tend to shy away from watching videos here. Summarize for me what’s on there and I’ll try to respond to your question. As it is, I have no idea what you’re asking.
–SDM
Sorry, Sean, but as I’ve said a few times here already, what I wrote has been my contention all along, and what fafaroo and I have been arguing about, and now it’s a 250+ comment thread. But just because you came along and decided to take issue with ancillary points and I didn’t address them to your liking, doesn’t mean I’m doing what Wilbur claimed. There must be something I’m doing right to capture your fascination because you seem to have joined the Jason Brigade here of those who keep coming back.
Indeed: Oh my:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-september-28-2009/america–target-america
Yes, lyrics were cleared with the parents ahead of time. Clearly those parents are unfit and should be locked up. Right, Dennis?
As with Facts, Funny has a well-known Liberal Bias. But put the two together, as J-Stew does on a regular basis, and, well, now you’re talkin’. Good times. Stewart/Colbert ‘12.
I’m just saying there is a correlation between why people had issues with Obama’s speech to school kids as originally announced and these vidoes, and that fafaroo is too dishonest to describe why people had issues with any sense of accuracy.
Dennis. I’m the moron right went bat shit crazy over Obama giving a speech on education to school children.
You’re telling me I’ma liar because you think they had a reason to go bat shit crazy over Obama giving a speech on education to school children.
Yeah, well, Dennis, they didn’t. They’re morons. Same as you.
And nice dodge with the “Wha, uh? I have no idea what you’re talking about Sean when you say the parents of the children in that video approved of the song and their children’s participation in it. Why on earth would that mean anything to me?”
Such a moron.
And Sean, your continued obsession and stalking of Frank is weird in its own right, but please don’t try to substitute it with me and think you’ve made gains in trying to cure yourself, much like fafaroo has substituted one indulgence for another.
That’s just kicking the can down the road.
That’s just kicking the can down the road.
You’re too much, Dennis. Just too much freaking mush headed hilarity.
…
You missed a word or two or something in your first sentence and I have no idea what your point was. I’d try to piece it together into what I think you said, but you’d probably take issue with my interpretation and call me a moron for the tenth time now on this thread alone.
And I haven’t seen the Jon Stewart video that my other stalker Indeed linked to and I won’t open it up here. It’s not a dodge, fafaroo, it’s more of an FU. If you need Jon Stewart to do your bidding, you’re in sad shape. When Indeed links there, I picture him in the audience with his coat over his lap wanking and cheering every time Stewart tells a joke.
fafaroo,
You said you were leaving and you gave it a good effort, though you still lurked. Three weeks went by. That was good.
But you failed.
You can’t quit me.
If I’m keeping you from going back to your former bad habits, then I’m fine with that. But if I’m driving you back to them, I really don’t want to be a part of it.
Please let me know where I stand. Am I helping or hurting you?
Dennis, why don’t you try to address the fact that the parents in one of the videos you’ve been screeching about approved the song, approved their kids participation in it and, oh yeah, was not at all planned or orchestrated by Obama?
Can you do that? Is your sense of self so fragile that so desperately fear stepping outside your Fox inflated bubble?
Desperate Dennis. The name fits.
Little bitch, I mean little Dennis, why don’t you start your own blog? Really, why not?
You do realize you’re trolling a librul blog four hours a day, correct? And you think having an E*trade account is the same as a career?
Hmm. Punk bitch whose daughters hate him. I wonder.
Off to scratch my chin.
Hey, here’s Flip, from Whiteboyz!
Wazzz-uppppp, dawg?
——-
What do you do if you’re a white guy in a white town who happens to love impressing black bloggers? Flip (Danny Hoch) is a middle-class kid from Northern Virginia prep schools, but he doesn’t think of himself as just another guy from the ‘burbs. Flip loves hip-hop, and he longs to be respected as a hard-core rapper. But a white guy from Sidwell Friends who drops mad rhymes looks weird.
<a href="Uh oh, more circular confirmation:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/30219673/the_lie_machine/print
Jaim-dawg, ‘just chillaxin’ wit’ ma hommies’.
Dennis: Maybe east is east and west is west and I’m interpreting you wrong, but when I asked the question and you answered yes, silly me, but I assumed ‘yes’ meant ‘yes’.
Yes, Dennis, East is East. And West is west. And you are interpreting me wrong.
My “Yes” in the comment you quoted clearly was me saying “Yes, the right has no sense of sarcasm”.
Nice try. Thanks for playing. But you won’t be around for our Final round.
Which is it, then, Sean. Were you also being sarcastic when you said you would support the waterboarding of Dick Cheney?
Here, I’ll make this easy, this time from the top, no sarcasm:
Dick Cheney waterboarded. For, or again’ it?
Khalid Sheik Mohammed. For, or again’ it?
Here, I’ll make this easy, this time from the top, no sarcasm:
Here’s a better question Dennis: Why do you support torture?
I support having waterboarded KSM to save untold American lives, fafaroo, maybe yours, maybe mine, maybe my family’s, but definitely other Americans and their family’s lives.
I’m funny that way.
I still don’t know if Sean agrees with that, or not. Or if he would like to see Dick Cheney waterboarded or not, either.
Dennis: I tend to shy away from watching videos here. Summarize for me what’s on there and I’ll try to respond to your question.
No, Dennis. I won’t do your work for you.
Dennis: your continued obsession and stalking of Frank
Oh, please. He comments here, I reply to his comments. As I do to those of many others. And this is stalking?
Or is it your definition of stalking is “pointing out when someone is being a hypocrite”. In which case, yeah, guilty as charged.
Dennis: Dick Cheney waterboarded. For, or again’ it?
That I have been clear on before, Dennis. “I actually find I wouldn’t have a problem with that. After all, waterboarding isn’t torture, right?”
Short declarative sentences a problem for you?
Dennis: I support having waterboarded KSM to save untold American lives, fafaroo, maybe yours, maybe mine, maybe my family’s, but definitely other Americans and their family’s lives.
And if it didn’t? Still support it?
Do you support the torturing of those who were not KSM?
Do you actually believe the “ticking bomb scenario” exists?
(If you answer yes to that last one, it pretty much shows your lack of understanding of the realities of the situation and invalidates any answers you might give to the earlier ones.)
Dennis: I still don’t know if Sean agrees with that, or not. Or if he would like to see Dick Cheney waterboarded or not, either.
“I actually find I wouldn’t have a problem with that.”
Can’t be much more simply stated. Of course, if you make note of what has actually been said to you then you can’t continue to complain about it, and that would just kill 90% of what you comments are, wouldn’t it?
Then don’t taunt me for not having a reply because I’m not going to watch that video here at work with all his little sycophants in the audience squeeling with glee at every deadpan facial expression he makes. Sorry.
Or taunt me if you want, I don’t really care, just don’t expect a reply on a Jon Stewart video from me.
Unless he’s roasting ACORN.
Let’s just say it’s getting past the point of just simple back and forth and a little veering toward the weird side, Sean. Not becoming of you. You’re one of the few guys here that every once in a while makes some sense.
In all honesty, the above comment to this one here is a much better example of stalking, Sean.
Guy’s a psycho.
Certifiable.
I’m funny that way.
Funny in the way that you can’t answer a simple question.
Why do you support torture?
I believe it existed on the morning of September 11 in the year 2001, yes, Sean.
We had somebody in custody on Sept. 10 with knowledge of an impending attack, and we were aware of their knowledge?
Or is the ticking time bomb still just fodder for freshmen ethics?
First, fafaroo, I’d like to know why you don’t badger Sean the way you did over his stance on the despicable acts of Professor Gates for his condoning the possibility of waterboarding Dick Cheney.
Then you and I can go at it on the subject.
Or taunt me if you want, I don’t really care, just don’t expect a reply on a Jon Stewart video from me.
Well, in that case, I’m going to taunt you. Dennis, the John Stewart Show found out what none of the screeching right-wing morons, including yourself, bothered to: They asked the parents and teachers about the song and who approved it. Guess what? The parents knew about the lyrics and approved their children’s participation before hand.
This is what Tucker Carlson, as seen in the video, referred to as “Khmer Rouge” tactics.
I’d say you should be embarrassed for yourself but you’ve clearly long since passed the possibility for that.
When it was pointed out to you that the Bush administration arranged for a children’s choir to sing the praises of Bush and FEMA on the white house lawn you dodged that.
When it was pointed out to you that the PTA/O has absolutely nothing to do with the government as an independent non-profit advocacy group you ignored that.
Now, you’re even refusing to educate yourself with basic facts when given the opportunity.
Dennis, if Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh et al don’t tell you what to think, how on earth do you get through the day?
Then you and I can go at it on the subject.
Or you could just answer the question straight.
Well, in that case, I’m going to taunt you.
Dude, he already watched the video. Prolly multiple times. No feedie trollie.
Prior to 9/11 earlier in that year we had Moussaoui, Parthy. It’s very possible we could’ve had the ticking time bomb scenario, yes. What is your point? Sean asked me if it was possible the scenario could exist. I believe there was a ticking time bomb scenario and if we had had someone in custody then with knowledge of 9/11 and we thought we had reasonable intelligence that something was about to go down, I wouldn’t lose sleep if someone waterboarded him to get him to talk and save 3,000 American lives.
Ha ha ha, Indeed, you so funny. You stalk me obsessively and then tell someone else not to feed me.
Douche. A funny douche, but a douche nonetheless.
fafaroo, look how freaking many posts I have responded to over the past three days. Go back and look. Don’t whine like a little baby if I don’t respond to every one; you’re just being a hypocrite too, because you don’t respond to every one of mine. No one here does. I asked you to tell me why there were over 100 posts on the Think Progress blog post of the Easter Egg roll where the singing to Laura Bush took place that were doing the same kind of bitching about that as conservatives are now that you call morons.
Were those people morons?
Had Oliver posted about the story here, what do you suppose the typical response would’ve been from the peanut gallery if OW had called it indoctrination like Think Progress and their peanut gallery did?
And let me get back to you on that once I get my faxes in.
Were those people morons?
I haven’t read any of the comments but I’m going to say no. They were not.
The reason being is that it is entirely different for the administration of a sitting president to organize a children’s choir to sing it’s own praises than it is for random teachers and parent-teacher advocacy groups to act independently to celebrate whatever the fuck they want in whatever way they see fit.
You clearly do not see the difference which is why you’re a moron.
The fact that you have not vigorously condemned the Bush administration for doing what it did with these children, in the same manner with which you’ve attacked Obama for doing nothing of the sort, is all the evidence anyone needs of your utterly bankrupt hackery.
Oh, plus you support torture. Which speaks more to the emptiness of your soul.
Had Oliver posted about the story here, what do you suppose the typical response would’ve been from the peanut gallery if OW had called it indoctrination like Think Progress and their peanut gallery did?
It’s fun to live i hypothetical fantasy land, isn’t it Dennis? It’s a lot like getting all your news from Fox, I’ll bet.
More confirmation:
I heard from a very reliable source that David Weigel is overweight and has poor complexion.
You’re still devolving, fafaroo.
How many links have I posted here and how many of them were from Fox? How many links from Dims posted from the usual liberal sources here have I read and commented on? By the time I get home and dinner and working out and then sit down to watch, most of what they’re saying is just a rehash of what’s been on the blogs during the day. And I can’t stand commercials, either, so I’m constantly going back and forth between Fox, MSNBC and occasionally CNN, even though that station bores the bejeesus out of me.
We had somebody in custody on Sept. 10 with knowledge of an impending attack, and we were aware of their knowledge?
Well, yeah, except for that part, it’s just like that.
Why, thank you, Indeed. You can be reliable too when you want to be. Just not when you’re getting your info from Fair.org and Snopes.
Oh, and Excitable Andy, too. Best to stay away from him until being a conservative is back in vogue.
And Indeed, since you’re obviously posting from that same blog for my benefit and to save you the time and effort that you could better spend on more important things like the health care bill and Iranian nukes and losing in Afghanistan, I will have always been there and read it well before you get it on here.
You’re still devolving, fafaroo.
And you’re getting really defensive. Giving us your daily schedule, Dennis? Me thinks you protest too much.
I have a challenge for you Duros. Try to come up with something more boring than that.
Just a dare. C’mon, it’ll be fun. Give it a go.
It’s just a stupid assertion that everyone whoever posts on a liberal blog always says. “Ha. I bet you get all your information from Fox!”
I expect that from Duros and Zython, not you, fafaroo.
At least I didn’t used to.
I’m not sure I know what a soul is, fafaroo. I’m pretty sure Khalid Sheik Mohammed doesn’t have one, nor did the other 19 hijackers, nor does Osama bin Ladin. They want to kill me and my kids and they want to kill you and your kids someday if you have them. I don’t give a shit about them. I do give a shit about Americans, including you and yours. Again, I’m funny that way.
I believe there was a ticking time bomb scenario and if we had had someone in custody then with knowledge of 9/11 and we thought we had reasonable intelligence that something was about to go down, I wouldn’t lose sleep if someone waterboarded him to get him to talk and save 3,000 American lives.
We did and we did. Then we let him go. See, real life ain’t like “24.”
You know what’s funny? David Weigel! He’s overweight and has poor complexion!! Get it? That’s why his reporting is so totally false!! Get it?
I have a challenge for you Duros. Try to come up with something more boring than that.
Fuck you, Dennis. How’s that?
Uh oh, more confirmation:
Spooky video at the link.
But maybe we should question the source, you know, because he has poor complexion and could stand to lose a few pounds.
Dennis: Or taunt me if you want, I don’t really care, just don’t expect a reply on a Jon Stewart video from me.
Unless he’s roasting ACORN.
Translation: I only look at things that support my view and will refuse to look at things that don’t.
Gosh, you’re becoming more Frank-like by the hour.
Dennis: I believe it existed on the morning of September 11 in the year 2001, yes, Sean.
No, it did not. You’re typically narrowing things done to a very small aspect in order to see things as you want to see them rather than as they are.
To be clear, the “ticking time bomb” scenario doesn’t just mean an attack is imminent. As it has always been presented it means:
– an attack is imminent
AND
– the authorities KNOW a an attack is imminent
– the authorities have a person who has knowledge of that attack in custody
– the authorities KNOW that the person in custody has the key info
– the bad guys don’t know their key person is in custody so no changes to plans or contingencies are used.
In other words, that the cops know nearly all specific information about the event except the where. And that dramatic need for information so that an attack can be prevented at the last moment, while a staple of 24, espionage novels and James Bond movies, just doesn’t happen in real life.
Dennis: I have a challenge for you Duros. Try to come up with something more boring than that.
Sorry reality and facts bore you, Dennis.
Again, I’m funny that way.
I wonder why you can’t just come out and say it Dennis. You support torture so just type it, Dennis. Type the words “I support torture.”
Then tell us how that makes you feel.
Oh, Good Lord, Sean, lighten up, willya. I put a smiley face thingy on at the end of that but it didn’t take.
And seriously, work on that obsession thing you got going for Frank. It’s disturbing and creepy.
Think about it, Sean. Would I be here jerking your chain if I didn’t give a shit about other viewpoints. Would you guys be here feeding me the mostly bullshit that you do if you didn’t think some of it would sink in? Why else do you do it, if not? Bravado to the other few Dim posters who might venture down to this five day old thread? Delusions that you might somehow get a chink in my armor?
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909290042
More confirmation:
I wonder if I should remark on Mr. Perry’s weight or appearance.
Ruh-roh:
I wonder if the person who wrote that is not as attractive as, say, a Fox News talking head.
Dennis: Think about it, Sean. Would I be here jerking your chain if I didn’t give a shit about other viewpoints.
Yes.
Well, you’re wrong. And if you remember, I emailed you one time to tell you I appreciated your take on things here, well before you surprised me with your views on Professor Gates.
That was then.
Dennis: Think about it, Sean. Would I be here jerking your chain if I didn’t give a shit about other viewpoints.
Yes.
Are the questions gonna get harder? Do weight and appearance count?
Dennis: Think about it, Sean. Would I be here jerking your chain if I didn’t give a shit about other viewpoints?
But for the most part, you don’t. You belittle, disparage and marginalize.
Return fire, Duros. And a quick look in the mirror along with a bit of soul searching wouldn’t hurt you one bit, either.
You belittle, disparage and marginalize.
And a quick look in the mirror along with a bit of soul searching wouldn’t hurt you one bit, either.
Projectomundo. Indeed.
Again, Indeed, return fire. I’m not the one complaining. You are.
Like Oliver said, you don’t want it, don’t give it. Or words to that effect. I think in general he’s not a fan of stalking, either, but you might want to email him for clarification on that.
Again, Indeed, return fire. I’m not the one complaining. You are.
Noted without comment.
Your comment is also noted without comment.
Dennis: Like Oliver said, you don’t want it, don’t give it.
No, what Oliver said, and pretty clearly, was simply don’t give it. He didn’t say it was okay as long as the other guy did it first.
My point to Duros still applies regardless, Sean. Duros gives it, then tries to play the guilt game on me because I give it back.
Wanna have some fun, Sean. Hit Control F or whatever method you use to find a word on a page and search for the word ‘Fuck’. Twice Duros said FU to me on just this thread alone. But count how many times someone used that word on me. Don’t care, doesn’t bother me, but it’s interesting to note in that Duros seems to thing there’s only one culprit here.
My point to Duros still applies regardless, Sean.
Classic.
My point to Duros still applies regardless, Sean.
Classic.
Wow. In the past two days we’ve seen a textbook “Michael Moore is fat” defense and now a perfectly executed “Jonah Goldberg.” Although I’m not sure if Goldberg gets royalties for using his patented, pathetic defense. Someone should look into that.
Stalk-ers
Dennis: My point to Duros still applies regardless, Sean. Duros gives it, then tries to play the guilt game on me because I give it back.
Trying to refrain from ad hominems, given Oliver’s recent request/demand, but you’re talking about what people have or haven’t done so addressing what you do seems fair. And I have never seen anyone so insistent that others are wrong for doing exactly what they are doing themselves while refusing to apply the same standard to themselves.
I could continue, but you’ve made it painfully clear, despite any claims you make to the contrary, that you in fact do not “give a shit about other viewpoints”.
327 comments so far. Must be a record. Certainly is more than enough. And I’ve grown tired of the game. I leave it to Dennis to claim he’s accomplished or won something.