Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

PanamaG wrote:

dogma wrote:

PanamaG wrote:

EDIT: Dogma - trust me, people who are comforted by all the above listed things are America haters to begin with and are in a huge minority.

I have nothing but disdain for this statement. You could not be more ignorant. The relative majority/minority of the opinion is arguable. The rest is trash.

I couldnt disagree more and that is your opinion.

Its all about perspective and context. Most people who vote and will vote have my perspective.

And dont give me "the kiddies are coming." True unbiased polls have shown ages 18-24 making no more of a show this year then ever before.

Yes, it is about perspective and opinion. But there is certainly a difference between an opinion which is informed and another which is not. Selectively ignoring information because you don't like the source is wholly foolish.

In any case, the polls you claim as 'unbiased' are generally put out by media organizations. The polls puts out be reputable (as in they profit from their statistical accuracy) sources, like Gallup tend to account for a general shift in the cultural climate.

But what do I know, I'm only 22 and have a dissenting opinion. I can't possibly have anything reasonable to add to the conversation. :S

PanamaG wrote:

lord_sutekh wrote:Ayers: proven over and over a non-issue FOR ME; also see Keating five
Wright: again, non-issue; FOR ME see also McCain's actual religious backers
Michelle's open mouth: whatever you mean by that, you don't want to throw Mrs. Obama up against Mrs. McCain in a virtue throwdown IN MY OPINION
ACORN: nice try, but no relation IN MY OPINION
The lapel pin: Oh noes, changing wardrobe choices! (Shows a whole lot about his character)
The pledge of allegiance: what about it? I don't put my hand up either... and neither do most of the people I know, Repub or Dem (When everyone else there does, you do. Its just patriotic, and shows a lot)
The bitter clingers: ummm, wth are you talking about? (The comment he made about how people cling to guns and religion, where have you been?)

Fixed and commented.

"Shows a whole lot about his character" Comedy gold.

you'll note that the first 5 of your "answers" work just as well as rebuttals to your, and let's be generous here, "points" as well.

Nice try though.

On the heels of PanamaG.

I think this topic is sexist. Why must the woman do the laundry anyway?

Smaller feet you see, so they can get closer to the sink.

reds8n wrote:Smaller feet you see, so they can get closer to the sink.

That reminds me of a photoshop...

Very good.


EDIT : No idea why it's loaded like that ! Sorry.

dogma wrote:[
Yes, it is about perspective and opinion. But there is certainly a difference between an opinion which is informed and another which is not.

Whether an opinion is "informed" or not is also an opinion, you know. I think your opinions are blind to reality. There is my opinion

dogma wrote:On the heels of PanamaG.

Wow a snide sarcastic article from some pissy journalist at the LA times. Never seen that before!

I got to the "Um Yeah" and realized I wasnt reading reputable journalism.

Hi PanamaG. I'm a liberal independent voter. I don't like either the Democratic or Republican parties. I think both are full of cronyism and corruption, and that their priorities are frequently screwed up and misdirected by lobbyists and special interests.

I liked John McCain in 2000. Some of my friends here in NH voted for him in our primary (where he won), before Karl Rove's Bush campaign machine butchered McCain in the race. A significant part of why McCain lost his party's nomination was the Bush campaign's shrewd used of the same hateful, racist, divisive arguments that McCain and his campaign have now stooped to.

When you stop talking issues, and start trying to claim that a party's nominee, a guy vetted in the harsh light of public opinion and selected by a party that represents a substantial percentage of Americans, HATES AMERICA or IS A TERRORIST, you have lost all moral high ground and intellectual integrity.

Personally I think those items are a factor actually. However, it gets to the point where you have to stop and decide "Mussolini isn't running so which candidate is more likely to make the trains run on time" and vote for that candidate. If in your opinion, those points factor into that decision, then its relevant. If its not it doesn't. thats all predicated on their not being a Mussolini on the ticket...

"Il Duce!"

Mannahnin wrote:Hi PanamaG. I'm a liberal independent voter. I don't like either the Democratic or Republican parties. I think both are full of cronyism and corruption, and that their priorities are frequently screwed up and misdirected by lobbyists and special interests.

I liked John McCain in 2000. Some of my friends here in NH voted for him in our primary (where he won), before Karl Rove's Bush campaign machine butchered McCain in the race. A significant part of why McCain lost his party's nomination was the Bush campaign's shrewd used of the same hateful, racist, divisive arguments that McCain and his campaign have now stooped to.

When you stop talking issues, and start trying to claim that a party's nominee, a guy vetted in the harsh light of public opinion and selected by a party that represents a substantial percentage of Americans, HATES AMERICA or IS A TERRORIST, you have lost all moral high ground and intellectual integrity.

1. I never siad HE was a terrorist or hated america.

2. I relate to your first paragraph 100%, except I used to support Obama when he first hit the scene.

3. Its not that I like McCain, I really dont care if he wins, I just despise Obama, his way of thinking, his policies, and te attitudes of most of his followers, such as the LA Times feminazi.

Better not to vote for him then.

PanamaG wrote:
Whether an opinion is "informed" or not is also an opinion, you know. I think your opinions are blind to reality. There is my opinion

Yep, and you can make your case by making a rational argument. As opposed to saying a given person hates America.

PanamaG wrote:

3. ...I just despise Obama, his way of thinking, his policies, and te attitudes of most of his followers, such as the LA Times feminazi.

Why? Please give as detailed a response as you are able.

PanamaG wrote:1. I never siad HE was a terrorist or hated america.

No, that's just what other people on your side are saying. If you think Ayers matters, you clearly think guilt by association is a legitimate concept.

PanamaG wrote:3. Its not that I like McCain, I really dont care if he wins, I just despise Obama, his way of thinking, his policies, and te attitudes of most of his followers, such as the LA Times feminazi.

Here's where, to me, you start sounding like a space alien. What has Obama ever said that you could possibly find despicable? What policy of his is do you despise?

There are godawful people following both candidates. But honestly, the majority of people on both sides are decent, reasonable human beings.

PanamaG wrote:Abused and ignored in my ignorance of anything but what I want to believe.

Fixed for you.

Honestly, if you can find a non-biased source that actually thinks that these are Important Issues (and neither you nor your immediate cronies count, sorry), I'll call it a win for you. I await with 'bated breath... actually, no I don't, because I'd suffocate, because it's all Republican smear points.

dogma wrote:

The fact that you believe journalism's reputability is measured by its neutrality

Not neutrality, she could go that far right as well and it would be equally sickening.

No, it's not what side, its maturity, its professionalism, neither of which she shows in that article.

Don't throw out assumptions so quickly.

Yes, and you're equating maturity and professionalism to not taking a side. Remember, even choosing to be 'undecided' is, in effect, making a decision. It is possible to be a neutral extremist. Just look at Lou Dobbs.

PanamaG wrote:Awesome, this is what, number three of things people have dug up on her, compared to how many MUCH worse and telling things on obama?

Ayers
Wright
Michelle's open mouth.
ACORN
The lapel pin
The pledge of allegiance
The bitter clingers

So government malfeasance is not an issue, but a lapel pin is. Or having been on a board with a guy that attempted domestic terrorism 30 years. Seriously? This is your idea of judging candidates?

I love this thread because it's the first time in about a year I've heard the term 'feminazi' without irony. Beautiful stuff.