To me, The idea of a plant asking a question is less important then the question that they are asking. When a little girl asks obama about his healthcare plan, that's odd but not really that bad. When a grown man asks bush about how he will deal with the democrats now that they've totally divorced themselves from reality, that's pretty fucking bad.
I dunno about the other guys (maybe actually give them a chance to respond before patting each other on the back after a few hours?) but _J_ clearly started this thread based on the assumption that the girl was a plant, so I was arguing with him over the implications that spring from that, not whether it was true or not. It doesn't matter now anyway since I've been waylaid by the other stuff.
I dunno about the other guys (maybe actually give them a chance to respond before patting each other on the back after a few hours?) but _J_ clearly started this thread based on the assumption that the girl was a plant, so I was arguing with him over the implications that spring from that, not whether it was true or not. It doesn't matter now anyway since I've been waylaid by the other stuff.
Why should we be treating the OP's assumption as though it was gospel?
I dunno about the other guys (maybe actually give them a chance to respond before patting each other on the back after a few hours?) but _J_ clearly started this thread based on the assumption that the girl was a plant, so I was arguing with him over the implications that spring from that, not whether it was true or not. It doesn't matter now anyway since I've been waylaid by the other stuff.
Why should we be treating the OP's assumption as though it was gospel?
Because the thread is about the implications of the plant if it's true, not about whether it's true in the first place. Obviously if it isn't then the OP should be updated with an actual example of a plant, but until then there's no reason not to respond to his questions. I'm not telling you to stop saying "but it's not true", just that you should be directed it at the OP, not the arguments that sprung from it.
I dunno about the other guys (maybe actually give them a chance to respond before patting each other on the back after a few hours?) but _J_ clearly started this thread based on the assumption that the girl was a plant, so I was arguing with him over the implications that spring from that, not whether it was true or not. It doesn't matter now anyway since I've been waylaid by the other stuff.
Why should we be treating the OP's assumption as though it was gospel?
Because the thread is about the implications of the plant if it's true, not about whether it's true in the first place. Obviously if it isn't then the OP should be updated with an actual example of a plant, but until then there's no reason not to respond to his questions. I'm not telling you to stop saying "but it's not true", just that you should be directed it at the OP, not the arguments that sprung from it.
Wow, that is the most twisted reasoning for Obama-bashing that I've heard yet.
I dunno about the other guys (maybe actually give them a chance to respond before patting each other on the back after a few hours?) but _J_ clearly started this thread based on the assumption that the girl was a plant, so I was arguing with him over the implications that spring from that, not whether it was true or not. It doesn't matter now anyway since I've been waylaid by the other stuff.
Why should we be treating the OP's assumption as though it was gospel?
Because the thread is about the implications of the plant if it's true, not about whether it's true in the first place. Obviously if it isn't then the OP should be updated with an actual example of a plant, but until then there's no reason not to respond to his questions. I'm not telling you to stop saying "but it's not true", just that you should be directed it at the OP, not the arguments that sprung from it.
I dunno about the other guys (maybe actually give them a chance to respond before patting each other on the back after a few hours?) but _J_ clearly started this thread based on the assumption that the girl was a plant, so I was arguing with him over the implications that spring from that, not whether it was true or not. It doesn't matter now anyway since I've been waylaid by the other stuff.
Why should we be treating the OP's assumption as though it was gospel?
Because the thread is about the implications of the plant if it's true, not about whether it's true in the first place. Obviously if it isn't then the OP should be updated with an actual example of a plant, but until then there's no reason not to respond to his questions. I'm not telling you to stop saying "but it's not true", just that you should be directed it at the OP, not the arguments that sprung from it.
My question is, if Ed321 fornicates with goats, where does that leave this discussion? If true, that would render all the rest of us descending to the same level as a goatfucker, and, really, who wants that?
Since I have no evidence that you make sweet love to horned mammals down by the fire, isn't the entire suggestion pretty disingenuous? I mean, we could just assume that my question is valid, which creates a false legitimacy to the argument, or we could not accept the bullshit hypotheticals that lead us to scrape the bottom of the barrel of public discourse.
Only a goatfucker would continue to pursue such line of reasoning without evidence, so...
I dunno about the other guys (maybe actually give them a chance to respond before patting each other on the back after a few hours?) but _J_ clearly started this thread based on the assumption that the girl was a plant, so I was arguing with him over the implications that spring from that, not whether it was true or not. It doesn't matter now anyway since I've been waylaid by the other stuff.
Why should we be treating the OP's assumption as though it was gospel?
Because the thread is about the implications of the plant if it's true, not about whether it's true in the first place. Obviously if it isn't then the OP should be updated with an actual example of a plant, but until then there's no reason not to respond to his questions. I'm not telling you to stop saying "but it's not true", just that you should be directed it at the OP, not the arguments that sprung from it.
My question is, if Ed321 fornicates with goats, where does that leave this discussion? If true, that would render all the rest of us descending to the same level as a goatfucker, and, really, who wants that?
Since I have no evidence that you make sweet love to horned mammals down by the fire, isn't the entire suggestion pretty disingenuous? I mean, we could just assume that my question is valid, which creates a false legitimacy to the argument, or we could not accept the bullshit hypotheticals that lead us to scrape the bottom of the barrel of public discourse.
Only a goatfucker would continue to pursue such line of reasoning without evidence, so...
edit: My question is, if Dracomicron is a fucking imbecile who posts smarmy teenage...no you know what? I fell into this trap with Tube way back in the prototype thread. Grow the fuck up.
My question is, if Ed321 fornicates with goats, where does that leave this discussion? If true, that would render all the rest of us descending to the same level as a goatfucker, and, really, who wants that?
Since I have no evidence that you make sweet love to horned mammals down by the fire, isn't the entire suggestion pretty disingenuous?
I think however the OP was pointing out that he was struck by how an action, in the context of one president, would be (to him) offensive --but not in the context of another president who he supported. And I gather this disturbed the OP, as it generally does to anyone who posits a question to themselves that forces self examination.
Which is just an example of bias, and everyone has it. Yeah, if you're some hardcore democrat, you're going to be a bit untrustworthy of anything a republican says. And vice versa.
That's why it's best to be above partisan bullshit and just address issues as issues rather than addressing issues as party issues. Because yeah, deceptive politicking is wrong, whoever might be doing it.
To give an example that I've talked about recently in the UHC thread:
The term 'Obamacare' causes an immediate association between health care reform and Obama. For a democrat that's a positive bias, for a republican it's a negative bias, but either way it's a bias. Which makes it a fucking stupid term to use because all it does is give people a push to line up on one side or the other, on an issue that would be important regardless of what parties make up your government.
To me, The idea of a plant asking a question is less important then the question that they are asking. When a little girl asks obama about his healthcare plan, that's odd but not really that bad. When a grown man asks bush about how he will deal with the democrats now that they've totally divorced themselves from reality, that's pretty fucking bad.
I'd still say a plant is pretty disappointing. Unless we're talking about thick in the weeds wonkishness being asked to the point where you have to bust out fractional percentages to answer the question. Even then.
The only screening that should go on for this kind of event involves magnetometers. Plus having a lot of cops nearby to remove any screamers that are disrupting the event ala Code Pink or some of the more egregious assholes in the recent town halls.
moniker on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited August 2009
*Does it not logically make sense that Obama's stauncher supporters will be closer to him physically?
*Does it not also make sense that Obama is more likely to call on those physically closer to him? Maybe not front row, but close enough to where he can see who he's calling on and describe which person the microphone needs to go to.
*Does it not logically follow that, sooner rather than later, he's going to call on a supporter?
And when the supporter- shock of shocks- happens to have a child present, and the child, shock of shocks, would like to ask something of the President... OH MY GOD PLANT PLANT
This is why you have a hard time getting people involved in politics.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
My question is, if Ed321 fornicates with goats, where does that leave this discussion? If true, that would render all the rest of us descending to the same level as a goatfucker, and, really, who wants that?
Since I have no evidence that you make sweet love to horned mammals down by the fire, isn't the entire suggestion pretty disingenuous?
I think however the OP was pointing out that he was struck by how an action, in the context of one president, would be (to him) offensive --but not in the context of another president who he supported. And I gather this disturbed the OP, as it generally does to anyone who posits a question to themselves that forces self examination.
Which is just an example of bias, and everyone has it. Yeah, if you're some hardcore democrat, you're going to be a bit untrustworthy of anything a republican says. And vice versa.
That's why it's best to be above partisan bullshit and just address issues as issues rather than addressing issues as party issues. Because yeah, deceptive politicking is wrong, whoever might be doing it.
To give an example that I've talked about recently in the UHC thread:
The term 'Obamacare' causes an immediate association between health care reform and Obama. For a democrat that's a positive bias, for a republican it's a negative bias, but either way it's a bias. Which makes it a fucking stupid term to use because all it does is give people a push to line up on one side or the other, on an issue that would be important regardless of what parties make up your government.
Yeah, but there's no way to stop it from happening or even really discouraging it since it has nothing to do with the legislation itself. We definitely need to try and outlaw 'short titles' on bills, though, so you don't get any more bullshit 'Puppies Are Adorable Act of 2009' that has to be discussed. What's wrong with just going HR 3200?
What _J_ is surely struggling with is his innate feeling that the ends justify the means. When Obama does something shady (not this instance, apparently), he can justify it to himself with "eh, it's for a good cause". When Bush did shady things, there wasn't that "justification".
My question is, if Ed321 fornicates with goats, where does that leave this discussion? If true, that would render all the rest of us descending to the same level as a goatfucker, and, really, who wants that?
Since I have no evidence that you make sweet love to horned mammals down by the fire, isn't the entire suggestion pretty disingenuous? I mean, we could just assume that my question is valid, which creates a false legitimacy to the argument, or we could not accept the bullshit hypotheticals that lead us to scrape the bottom of the barrel of public discourse.
Only a goatfucker would continue to pursue such line of reasoning without evidence, so...
edit: My question is, if Dracomicron is a fucking imbecile who posts smarmy teenage...no you know what? I fell into this trap with Tube way back in the prototype thread. Grow the fuck up.
Grownups shouldn't argue under false pretenses or give credibilty to unfounded bullshit, but they do it anyway, as this all this deather nonsense has shown us. If the thread were about taking on people at town halls yelling that Obama's going to have old people executed when they're no longer productive members of society, then you might have something, but no, it's targetting one of the guys who is trying to have an honest debate.
An Obama Supporter set up their kid to ask the question most of Obama's Supporters want to ask "What the fuck is wrong with you morons who are yelling at Town Halls?".
This wasn't a plant. It was a mom feeding her kid a question. (which you may not like, but it has nothing to do with Obama).
I love this because if I go to an Obama rally and ask a question that makes his position look favorable I will be a plant, because I was a campaign contributor.
Fantastic.
Incidently does anyone have a clip of the event in question
What _J_ is surely struggling with is his innate feeling that the ends justify the means. When Obama does something shady (not this instance, apparently), he can justify it to himself with "eh, it's for a good cause". When Bush did shady things, there wasn't that "justification".
We all think like that a little bit.
The problem is that we've got people talking about hypocrisy that hasn't happened yet as if it's marring Obama's presidency.
Yes, we're more likely to look the other way when people we agree with do shady things. The problem is that this discussion is giving equal weight to unproven hypotheticals and reality.
I love this because if I go to an Obama rally and ask a question that makes his position look favorable I will be a plant, because I was a campaign contributor.
Fantastic.
Incidently does anyone have a clip of the event in question
The Montana one was more interesting. Plus he fielded some, well not exactly hard hitting questions but one guy asked him how they were going to afford to pay for Medicare and expanding coverage without raising taxes for instance.
My question is, if Ed321 fornicates with goats, where does that leave this discussion? If true, that would render all the rest of us descending to the same level as a goatfucker, and, really, who wants that?
Since I have no evidence that you make sweet love to horned mammals down by the fire, isn't the entire suggestion pretty disingenuous? I mean, we could just assume that my question is valid, which creates a false legitimacy to the argument, or we could not accept the bullshit hypotheticals that lead us to scrape the bottom of the barrel of public discourse.
Only a goatfucker would continue to pursue such line of reasoning without evidence, so...
edit: My question is, if Dracomicron is a fucking imbecile who posts smarmy teenage...no you know what? I fell into this trap with Tube way back in the prototype thread. Grow the fuck up.
Grownups shouldn't argue under false pretenses or give credibilty to unfounded bullshit, but they do it anyway, as this all this deather nonsense has shown us. If the thread were about taking on people at town halls yelling that Obama's going to have old people executed when they're no longer productive members of society, then you might have something, but no, it's targetting one of the guys who is trying to have an honest debate.
Ok how complex is this for you:
_J_ starts off with 'ok I hate michelle malkin and republicans etc. etc. but this kid was planted or whatever'.
_J_ goes on to say 'Now if Bush had done this I'd complain, but if Obama does this I'm cool with it'.
Finally _J_ says 'Does this make me a hypocrite?'.
Ed says 'Yeah sorry but it does'.
Ed goes on to talk about other related things.
But some other posters go 'dudes this wasn't a plant'.
Zed repeats this.
Ed thinks Zed is attacking him and goes 'hey I'm talking about the implications of thinking it's cool for Obama to use plants but not Bush, take it up with the OP man'.
Zed points out that's exactly what he did.
Dracomicron attempts to bury the crippling self-loathing his loveless childhood cursed him with, and implies Ed321 fucks goats.
The Montana one was more interesting. Plus he fielded some, well not exactly hard hitting questions but one guy asked him how they were going to afford to pay for Medicare and expanding coverage without raising taxes for instance.
I just youtubed for "obama townhall plant" and picked the result that seemed most overtly antagonistic to Obama. I figured that would be the "this is a plant and the video proves it" if there was going to be one.
The Montana one was more interesting. Plus he fielded some, well not exactly hard hitting questions but one guy asked him how they were going to afford to pay for Medicare and expanding coverage without raising taxes for instance.
I just youtubed for "obama townhall plant" and picked the result that seemed most overtly antagonistic to Obama. I figured that would be the "this is a plant and the video proves it" if there was going to be one.
Which there seemingly isn't, since it wasn't.
I meant the Montana Town Hall. As in overall the town hall was more interesting than the New Hampshire one.
My question is, if Ed321 fornicates with goats, where does that leave this discussion? If true, that would render all the rest of us descending to the same level as a goatfucker, and, really, who wants that?
Since I have no evidence that you make sweet love to horned mammals down by the fire, isn't the entire suggestion pretty disingenuous? I mean, we could just assume that my question is valid, which creates a false legitimacy to the argument, or we could not accept the bullshit hypotheticals that lead us to scrape the bottom of the barrel of public discourse.
Only a goatfucker would continue to pursue such line of reasoning without evidence, so...
edit: My question is, if Dracomicron is a fucking imbecile who posts smarmy teenage...no you know what? I fell into this trap with Tube way back in the prototype thread. Grow the fuck up.
Grownups shouldn't argue under false pretenses or give credibilty to unfounded bullshit, but they do it anyway, as this all this deather nonsense has shown us. If the thread were about taking on people at town halls yelling that Obama's going to have old people executed when they're no longer productive members of society, then you might have something, but no, it's targetting one of the guys who is trying to have an honest debate.
Ok how complex is this for you:
_J_ starts off with 'ok I hate michelle malkin and republicans etc. etc. but this kid was planted or whatever'.
_J_ goes on to say 'Now if Bush had done this I'd complain, but if Obama does this I'm cool with it'.
Finally _J_ says 'Does this make me a hypocrite?'.
Ed says 'Yeah sorry but it does'.
Ed goes on to talk about other related things.
But some other posters go 'dudes this wasn't a plant'.
Zed repeats this.
Ed thinks Zed is attacking him and goes 'hey I'm talking about the implications of thinking it's cool for Obama to use plants but not Bush, take it up with the OP man'.
Zed points out that's exactly what he did.
Dracomicron attempts to bury the crippling self-loathing his loveless childhood cursed him with, and implies Ed321 fucks goats.
I didn't imply that you fuck goats. I was talking about the implications, if you do fuck goats. But then explained that the idea was bullshit, because there's no evidence. The only way you could possibly take offense at that is if you assign credibilty to _J_'s corresponding argument in the first place. Which you were apparently doing. Sorry?
The Montana one was more interesting. Plus he fielded some, well not exactly hard hitting questions but one guy asked him how they were going to afford to pay for Medicare and expanding coverage without raising taxes for instance.
I just youtubed for "obama townhall plant" and picked the result that seemed most overtly antagonistic to Obama. I figured that would be the "this is a plant and the video proves it" if there was going to be one.
Which there seemingly isn't, since it wasn't.
I meant the Montana Town Hall. As in overall the town hall was more interesting than the New Hampshire one.
Ah. I heard the Montana one was interesting.
That's kind of a risky state for the Black Democrat Chief Executive to be heading to, town hall or otherwise.
The Montana one was more interesting. Plus he fielded some, well not exactly hard hitting questions but one guy asked him how they were going to afford to pay for Medicare and expanding coverage without raising taxes for instance.
I just youtubed for "obama townhall plant" and picked the result that seemed most overtly antagonistic to Obama. I figured that would be the "this is a plant and the video proves it" if there was going to be one.
Which there seemingly isn't, since it wasn't.
I meant the Montana Town Hall. As in overall the town hall was more interesting than the New Hampshire one.
Ah. I heard the Montana one was interesting.
That's kind of a risky state for the Black Democrat Chief Executive to be heading to, town hall or otherwise.
...
For one he only lost it by 12,000 votes (3%) and for two, o_O. It's Montana.
For one he only lost it by 12,000 votes (3%) and for two, o_O. It's Montana.
Montana is Libertarian militia country.
Probably the highest per capita concentration of armed people who dislike Obama and are already involved in militant organizing of any state in the country.
My question is, if Ed321 fornicates with goats, where does that leave this discussion? If true, that would render all the rest of us descending to the same level as a goatfucker, and, really, who wants that?
Since I have no evidence that you make sweet love to horned mammals down by the fire, isn't the entire suggestion pretty disingenuous? I mean, we could just assume that my question is valid, which creates a false legitimacy to the argument, or we could not accept the bullshit hypotheticals that lead us to scrape the bottom of the barrel of public discourse.
Only a goatfucker would continue to pursue such line of reasoning without evidence, so...
edit: My question is, if Dracomicron is a fucking imbecile who posts smarmy teenage...no you know what? I fell into this trap with Tube way back in the prototype thread. Grow the fuck up.
Grownups shouldn't argue under false pretenses or give credibilty to unfounded bullshit, but they do it anyway, as this all this deather nonsense has shown us. If the thread were about taking on people at town halls yelling that Obama's going to have old people executed when they're no longer productive members of society, then you might have something, but no, it's targetting one of the guys who is trying to have an honest debate.
Ok how complex is this for you:
_J_ starts off with 'ok I hate michelle malkin and republicans etc. etc. but this kid was planted or whatever'.
_J_ goes on to say 'Now if Bush had done this I'd complain, but if Obama does this I'm cool with it'.
Finally _J_ says 'Does this make me a hypocrite?'.
Ed says 'Yeah sorry but it does'.
Ed goes on to talk about other related things.
But some other posters go 'dudes this wasn't a plant'.
Zed repeats this.
Ed thinks Zed is attacking him and goes 'hey I'm talking about the implications of thinking it's cool for Obama to use plants but not Bush, take it up with the OP man'.
Zed points out that's exactly what he did.
Dracomicron attempts to bury the crippling self-loathing his loveless childhood cursed him with, and implies Ed321 fucks goats.
I didn't imply that you fuck goats. I was talking about the implications, if you do fuck goats. But then explained that the idea was bullshit, because there's no evidence. The only way you could possibly take offense at that is if you assign credibilty to _J_'s corresponding argument in the first place. Which you were apparently doing. Sorry?
You just pulled "fucking goats" out of your magic hat of ideas, as if by some fortuitous coincidence - out of all the possible examples one might use - you ended up having to use the image of the guy you're arguing with fucking a goat to make your point? That's some luck. I can't believe I have to explain this again:
If someone believes their favourite politician uses plants, and thinks that's okay, but doesn't think it's okay for the other guy to use plants? That's hypocrisy. Whether said politician actually used a plant or not is irrelevent - that the OP believed he did is enough to merit arguing - as _J_ asked us to do - about whether the OP's belief was in fact hypocritical. Pointing out that there was no plant doesn't mean _J_ is suddenly no longer being hypocritical in holding that belief.
I'm sorry if you and Zoolander see this as too much, but it wasn't at all complicated even when I first tried explaining it to Zed.
Can we start a separate thread to discuss the ethics of Ed321's Goat-centric Fornicating?
Yeah, I actually think it's reasonable for me to defend arguing about whether the OP was being hypocritical in a thread where the OP says "Am I being hypocritical?".
If someone believes their favourite politician uses plants, and thinks that's okay, but doesn't think it's okay for the other guy to use plants? That's hypocrisy.
I think you're over-simplifying. Who the plants were and the context in which they are used are important as well, and those facts allow me to be annoyed by what GWB is known to have done but indifferent to what Obama is alleged to have done without considering myself a hypocrite.
If someone believes their favourite politician uses plants, and thinks that's okay, but doesn't think it's okay for the other guy to use plants? That's hypocrisy.
I think you're over-simplifying. Who the plants were and the context in which they are used are important as well, and those facts allow me to be annoyed by what GWB is known to have done but indifferent to what Obama is alleged to have done without considering myself a hypocrite.
Sure, which was where people were originally going with the "Bush's plants were supposed to be journalists/Bush's plants had more dire consequences".
If someone believes their favourite politician uses plants, and thinks that's okay, but doesn't think it's okay for the other guy to use plants? That's hypocrisy.
I think you're over-simplifying. Who the plants were and the context in which they are used are important as well, and those facts allow me to be annoyed by what GWB is known to have done but indifferent to what Obama is alleged to have done without considering myself a hypocrite.
Posts
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I think you answered your own question there.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Edit: I totally biffed the Quote/Edit distinction here.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Because the thread is about the implications of the plant if it's true, not about whether it's true in the first place. Obviously if it isn't then the OP should be updated with an actual example of a plant, but until then there's no reason not to respond to his questions. I'm not telling you to stop saying "but it's not true", just that you should be directed it at the OP, not the arguments that sprung from it.
Wow, that is the most twisted reasoning for Obama-bashing that I've heard yet.
What's the problem here, again?
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
My question is, if Ed321 fornicates with goats, where does that leave this discussion? If true, that would render all the rest of us descending to the same level as a goatfucker, and, really, who wants that?
Since I have no evidence that you make sweet love to horned mammals down by the fire, isn't the entire suggestion pretty disingenuous? I mean, we could just assume that my question is valid, which creates a false legitimacy to the argument, or we could not accept the bullshit hypotheticals that lead us to scrape the bottom of the barrel of public discourse.
Only a goatfucker would continue to pursue such line of reasoning without evidence, so...
Ah, I thought you were directing that at us, rather than the op. My bad
edit: My question is, if Dracomicron is a fucking imbecile who posts smarmy teenage...no you know what? I fell into this trap with Tube way back in the prototype thread. Grow the fuck up.
I think however the OP was pointing out that he was struck by how an action, in the context of one president, would be (to him) offensive --but not in the context of another president who he supported. And I gather this disturbed the OP, as it generally does to anyone who posits a question to themselves that forces self examination.
Which is just an example of bias, and everyone has it. Yeah, if you're some hardcore democrat, you're going to be a bit untrustworthy of anything a republican says. And vice versa.
That's why it's best to be above partisan bullshit and just address issues as issues rather than addressing issues as party issues. Because yeah, deceptive politicking is wrong, whoever might be doing it.
To give an example that I've talked about recently in the UHC thread:
The term 'Obamacare' causes an immediate association between health care reform and Obama. For a democrat that's a positive bias, for a republican it's a negative bias, but either way it's a bias. Which makes it a fucking stupid term to use because all it does is give people a push to line up on one side or the other, on an issue that would be important regardless of what parties make up your government.
I'd still say a plant is pretty disappointing. Unless we're talking about thick in the weeds wonkishness being asked to the point where you have to bust out fractional percentages to answer the question. Even then.
The only screening that should go on for this kind of event involves magnetometers. Plus having a lot of cops nearby to remove any screamers that are disrupting the event ala Code Pink or some of the more egregious assholes in the recent town halls.
*Does it not also make sense that Obama is more likely to call on those physically closer to him? Maybe not front row, but close enough to where he can see who he's calling on and describe which person the microphone needs to go to.
*Does it not logically follow that, sooner rather than later, he's going to call on a supporter?
And when the supporter- shock of shocks- happens to have a child present, and the child, shock of shocks, would like to ask something of the President... OH MY GOD PLANT PLANT
This is why you have a hard time getting people involved in politics.
Yeah, but there's no way to stop it from happening or even really discouraging it since it has nothing to do with the legislation itself. We definitely need to try and outlaw 'short titles' on bills, though, so you don't get any more bullshit 'Puppies Are Adorable Act of 2009' that has to be discussed. What's wrong with just going HR 3200?
We all think like that a little bit.
Grownups shouldn't argue under false pretenses or give credibilty to unfounded bullshit, but they do it anyway, as this all this deather nonsense has shown us. If the thread were about taking on people at town halls yelling that Obama's going to have old people executed when they're no longer productive members of society, then you might have something, but no, it's targetting one of the guys who is trying to have an honest debate.
An Obama Supporter set up their kid to ask the question most of Obama's Supporters want to ask "What the fuck is wrong with you morons who are yelling at Town Halls?".
This wasn't a plant. It was a mom feeding her kid a question. (which you may not like, but it has nothing to do with Obama).
Fantastic.
Incidently does anyone have a clip of the event in question
The problem is that we've got people talking about hypocrisy that hasn't happened yet as if it's marring Obama's presidency.
Yes, we're more likely to look the other way when people we agree with do shady things. The problem is that this discussion is giving equal weight to unproven hypotheticals and reality.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I think this is it.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Ok how complex is this for you:
_J_ goes on to say 'Now if Bush had done this I'd complain, but if Obama does this I'm cool with it'.
Finally _J_ says 'Does this make me a hypocrite?'.
Ed says 'Yeah sorry but it does'.
Ed goes on to talk about other related things.
But some other posters go 'dudes this wasn't a plant'.
Zed repeats this.
Ed thinks Zed is attacking him and goes 'hey I'm talking about the implications of thinking it's cool for Obama to use plants but not Bush, take it up with the OP man'.
Zed points out that's exactly what he did.
Dracomicron attempts to bury the crippling self-loathing his loveless childhood cursed him with, and implies Ed321 fucks goats.
This has shattered my entire worldview
Is this because everyone knows I fuck goats, and thus by denying it I'm going against the norm?
I'm sure it's a lot smarter than that.
I just youtubed for "obama townhall plant" and picked the result that seemed most overtly antagonistic to Obama. I figured that would be the "this is a plant and the video proves it" if there was going to be one.
Which there seemingly isn't, since it wasn't.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Your location.
Eh?
I meant the Montana Town Hall. As in overall the town hall was more interesting than the New Hampshire one.
I didn't imply that you fuck goats. I was talking about the implications, if you do fuck goats. But then explained that the idea was bullshit, because there's no evidence. The only way you could possibly take offense at that is if you assign credibilty to _J_'s corresponding argument in the first place. Which you were apparently doing. Sorry?
That's kind of a risky state for the Black Democrat Chief Executive to be heading to, town hall or otherwise.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
...
For one he only lost it by 12,000 votes (3%) and for two, o_O. It's Montana.
Probably the highest per capita concentration of armed people who dislike Obama and are already involved in militant organizing of any state in the country.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
You just pulled "fucking goats" out of your magic hat of ideas, as if by some fortuitous coincidence - out of all the possible examples one might use - you ended up having to use the image of the guy you're arguing with fucking a goat to make your point? That's some luck. I can't believe I have to explain this again:
If someone believes their favourite politician uses plants, and thinks that's okay, but doesn't think it's okay for the other guy to use plants? That's hypocrisy. Whether said politician actually used a plant or not is irrelevent - that the OP believed he did is enough to merit arguing - as _J_ asked us to do - about whether the OP's belief was in fact hypocritical. Pointing out that there was no plant doesn't mean _J_ is suddenly no longer being hypocritical in holding that belief.
I'm sorry if you and Zoolander see this as too much, but it wasn't at all complicated even when I first tried explaining it to Zed.
Yeah, I actually think it's reasonable for me to defend arguing about whether the OP was being hypocritical in a thread where the OP says "Am I being hypocritical?".
I think you're over-simplifying. Who the plants were and the context in which they are used are important as well, and those facts allow me to be annoyed by what GWB is known to have done but indifferent to what Obama is alleged to have done without considering myself a hypocrite.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Sure, which was where people were originally going with the "Bush's plants were supposed to be journalists/Bush's plants had more dire consequences".
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation