Obama is to leadership like Jeffrey Dahmer is to cooking

[Sonichu]

Can you not DC what is wrong with that question?!

1] It's "DC" because it's a "District"... Not a city or state, let alone a country.

2] As I believe has already been posted in this thread, the President has Congress (among others) affecting his decisions/actions & the way they are expressed to the people.

Well wouldn't the Pope be more like an Emperor if he's from the Holy Roman Empire?

 

[phrodeau]

Not just a post; the whole thread is anti-Obama. He is so inept it's easy to say bad things about him.

Bullshit. You can't come up with a single thing that Obama was inept about.

 

[Mr_Jon_Thon]

Bullshit. You can't come up with a single thing that Obama was inept about.

Have you seen him bowl?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Bullshit. You can't come up with a single thing that Obama was inept about.

How about being caught in all the lies he told about Obamacare? Or his boast that Al Qaeda was "decimated" and "on the run?" Or his failure to do anything about the growing genocide in Iraq? Or the abandonment of Iraq and Afghanistan? Or his blunder in telling the world who took out Bin Ladin, thereby putting targets on their backs? Or his failure to keep any of his campaign promises?

 

[phrodeau]

Have you seen him bowl?

Is he better or worse than Gerald Ford was?

 

[Mr_Jon_Thon]

Is he better or worse than Gerald Ford was?

He might be able to beat Ford now, but I'm sure someone will debate that.

 

[phrodeau]

How about being caught in all the lies he told about Obamacare?

Congress made sure that we didn't get what Obama promised.

Or his boast that Al Qaeda was "decimated" and "on the run?"

How was that wrong?

Or his failure to do anything about the growing genocide in Iraq?

Not our problem.

Or the abandonment of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Not our problem.

Or his blunder in telling the world who took out Bin Ladin, thereby putting targets on their backs?

Biden, not Obama.

Or his failure to keep any of his campaign promises?

Here they are. Now tell us which of these you prefer he would have kept.

 

[rippitydoo]

How about being caught in all the lies he told about Obamacare?

For what (admittedly little) I know about that, much of the problem was with the site, not the 'care itself... Blame that on the death of Silicon Valley, &/or Chinese hackers, &/or both. (I think the Chinese government should take responsibility for their citizenry; When they steal credit-card info & other things via Target & other American businesses, all the money in those accounts gets subtracted from the total our country owes theirs.)

Or his blunder in telling the world who took out Bin Ladin

We'll call that one even, due to your inability to even spell the very-famous name.

Or his failure to keep any of his campaign promises?

I'm a lifelong American who believes it'd be more surprising if any politician who wins the office they run for actually keeps the majority.

 

[Boxlicker101]

For what (admittedly little) I know about that, much of the problem was with the site, not the 'care itself... Blame that on the death of Silicon Valley, &/or Chinese hackers, &/or both. (I think the Chinese government should take responsibility for their citizenry; When they steal credit-card info & other things via Target & other American businesses, all the money in those accounts gets subtracted from the total our country owes theirs.)

I don't know what you're nattering about, but I was referring to the lies about paying less for medical insurance and about people keeping their own insurers. That last big lie was repeated frequently and earned him four Pinocchios.

We'll call that one even, due to your inability to even spell the very-famous name.

There's more than one way to spell that very famous name.

I'm a lifelong American who believes it'd be more surprising if any politician who wins the office they run for actually keeps the majority.

It's true that politicians lie a lot but I believe The Big O is the biggest liar of the bunch.

 

[miles]

Originally Posted by phrodeau View Post
Bullshit. You can't come up with a single thing that Obama was inept about.

Phro, you so funny!

 

[ElleryQueen]

For what (admittedly little) I know about that

That explains why you didn't play that card.

Since you admit to being uninformed, allow me to teach you:

Obamacare's main priorities are increasing the quality of minimum essential coverage, ensuring people can't be turned down due to pre-existing conditions, and reducing the price. The first problem is these points contradict; increasing the standards for health insurance and allowing sick people coverage means the price has to increase. In order to counteract this, Obama created additional government subsidies for the insurance companies, the cost-effective nature of which is debatable. Funding these required an increase in taxes which generally targets the rich, but the individual mandate (which forces people to obtain plans that meet the minimum essential coverage or pay a penalty after three months of no coverage) and the employer mandate (which forces businesses with more than 50 full-time equivalent employees to provide a healthcare plan with minimum essential coverage for full-time employees) can impact the middle class; and in order to counter the latter, business began downsizing to skate under the employer mandate and effect negative change in unemployment.

As Boxlicker101 stated, a large number of citizens lost their previous plans and had to choose a new one, though some plans (not all of them) are less expensive due to the government subsidies. With the change in coverage, their options for doctors may change as well. In spite of this, there's no actual change to the value of healthcare coverage, the decrease only exists in these cases because the government is paying a larger share of the fees than before. In order to genuinely reduce the cost, Obama would have to cast his net wider. He'd have to crack down on doctors (the largest percent of the insurance costs) to ensure the quacks who never should have been licensed are no longer part of the system - allowing everyone the coverage Obama intended - and the remainder bring their prices down. The latter is going to be tricky, because most people fail to recognize doctors generally personify one of the reasons that "capitalism" was a bad word about 100 years ago.

And the subsidies are a huge complaint for the fiscally minded of us. Putting aside the cost-effective debate, Obama funded them through tax increases, when the economically smarter option would have been to downsize the federal government and demand the state governments follow - there is gross overemployment in government jobs, due in great part to elected officials creating government jobs for their friends and family, jobs from which they can only be fired if the government chooses to eliminate this position during a downsize. In other words, most (if not all) of the money necessary to fund Obamacare was already in the government, but Obama decided that taking steps towards fixing the economy while mending healthcare was lunacy, and instead took steps that placed the country even deeper in debt.

Overall, while Obamacare is shaping up, the biggest problems with healthcare remain unchanged, and the program is placing additional, unnecessary burdens on the economy. If the economy fails again, Obamacare's subsidies (if not the entire thing) and downsizing of the government are the most logical choices for budget cuts, and no President is going to cut jobs when the economy tanks.

Personally, while I like many of the changes provided by Obamacare, I think the program is setup for failure, and is going to take most of the country with it.

 

[rippitydoo]

I don't know what you're nattering about, but I was referring to the lies about paying less for medical insurance and about people keeping their own insurers. That last big lie was repeated frequently and earned him four Pinocchios.

I don't know if you were in fact referring to what you now claim you were, but I was making honest statements & points, whereas it is clear to all you (if either of us) were simply "nattering".

There's more than one way to spell that very famous name.

Just like every word in that sentence, but only one is correct since you were referring to 1 specific person/corpse.

It's true that politicians lie a lot but I believe The Big O is the biggest liar of the bunch.

Regardless of the President, everyone has a right to their opinion. However, none of us have the right to choose the facts. I for one would rather Obama lie every time he spoke (thinking of Jon Gnarr, who admitted early he would break all his campaign promises than be like George W. Bush, honest (perhaps) but stupid & bad for the country (certainly).

Also, Ellery, waste of time & space... Lack of knowledge was not the reason I never "played" any "card", & you are one who needs teaching far more than I do.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

obama care is shit, fucked over the working American


ps nothing in life is free ... you obama slaves need to get jobs and pay your fair share

 

[rippitydoo]

obama care is shit, fucked over the working American


ps nothing in life is free ... you obama slaves need to get jobs and pay your fair share

NEM's posts are shit, jealous of legal, employed Americans (including Obama)

Lots of things in life are free (went through some time where if a pamphlet or something said, "Take one", I did, regardless of need).... You need to get a house instead of using some place's free Wi-Fi, so you can have a mailing address & realize what country you live in & who its leader is.

 

[ElleryQueen]

I look through this topic, and I notice that of the 39 posts the precede this one, only 3 state actual facts, 2 of which were mine. Does anyone else actually care to state reasons, or are we simply relying on ad hominem and bigotry?

If the latter, I'll join in the fun. On that note:

You need to get a house instead of using some place's free Wi-Fi

You're not one to talk, Mr. Still-lives-with-his-mom-without-paying-rent-and-uses-her-Wi-Fi-for-free-because-he's-never-had-a-job.

Of course, if you'd rather I play it straight with facts and substance:

you obama slaves need to get jobs and pay your fair share

Have you seen the situation in Detroit? How many businesses were delinquent on their water bills simply because they knew the companies wouldn't foreclose and force all those people out of a job, as well as figured Obama would bail them out if it got out of hand? Or do you notice subsidies are paid to Koch Industries and other big businesses so that they don't have to take a loss when they produce their products, regardless of cash surpluses that render any loss irrelevant and the undue burden to tax payers needed to fund those subsidies?

So remind me, who are the Obama slaves who need to pay their fair share?

so you can have a mailing address & realize what country you live in & who its leader is.

I'm remind of a few quotes:

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the President or anyone else." - Theodore Roosevelt

“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.” - Edward Abbey

“I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.” - James Baldwin

“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it.” - Mark Twain

With this in mind, why do you defend Obama while admitting to knowing virtually nothing about his only actual work in the nation with posts that have no actual substance and thereby imply you're as much a bigot as NeverEndingMe, the latter of which was greatly supported when you recited the bigotry formula in a post?

 

[rippitydoo]

I look through this topic, and I notice that of the 39 posts the precede this one, only 3 state actual facts, 2 of which were mine...

Well, that for sure is an opinion, as many other posts by other folks have stated as many facts as you have, if not more.

You're not one to talk, Mr. Still-lives-with-his-mom-without-paying-rent-and-uses-her-Wi-Fi-for-free-because-he's-never-had-a-job.

That only ends with a fact (never had a job, not due to lack of applying/want/qualifications). I pay rent, & only use others' Wi-Fi while I wait for mine to be fixed by the self-proclaimed "Best Buy" (the first time, & only for us, because you'll be bringing the faulty thing back for us to fix at your own expense at least once a month).

Of course, if you'd rather I play it straight with facts and substance:

Save the substance & the playing; Post facts for a change.

Have you seen the situation in Detroit?...

Have you seen the situation in this thread?! Have you formed an opinion on one side or the other?! Clearly not. So save us all the wasted time & space, & only post your opinion, & facts that support it (no need for the "quotes" at all) once you have decided what your opinion/side is.

I'm remind of a few quotes:

I'm reminded of proper English, which both NEM & I seem to use. I see you have chosen to "Dare to be different." Then, we will fail to understand you, which then makes us look stupid... Outside of the your viewable inability to choose sides of the debate or express it properly in the common language, which proves you the fool.

With this in mind, why do you defend Obama while admitting to knowing virtually nothing about his only actual work in the nation with posts that have no actual substance and thereby imply you're as much a bigot as NeverEndingMe, the latter of which was greatly supported when you recited the bigotry formula in a post?

I defend Obama because what I know (which seems like a great deal compared to the posts I have read by others, yourself included) makes me feel (note: I admit to it being an opinion) that he deserves defending, especially against posts that are just as void of facts as those by NeverEndingMe, most of which seem to be largely full of attacks on me, & largely void of attacks on Obama or any of his actions (perhaps admittances by NEM he has no ability/right to make such attacks, &/or statements to back them up).

Also, my posts (unlike yours about me, Obama, or anyone else) are largely full of substance & lacking bigotry.

 

[ElleryQueen]

Oh goodie, I get to switch between substance and shallow again.

Well, that for sure is an opinion, as many other posts by other folks have stated as many facts as you have, if not more.

One is not many. The only posts in this topic that have facts are my two, one by Boxlicker101, and one from phrodeau. Beyond that, it's been nothing but opinions and misconceptions.

On that note, phrodeau, I'm sorry I failed to count your post. I started from the bottom, and failed to notice much beyond the closer, which asks a question instead of stating a fact.

That only ends with a fact (never had a job, not due to lack of applying/want/qualifications). I pay rent, & only use others' Wi-Fi while I wait for mine to be fixed by the self-proclaimed "Best Buy"

Your blog (which Sonichu was nice enough to link to) says you have no job because you choose to "live improv" and don't try to look for a job outside that realm, that you pay no rent, and use someone else's Wi-Fi all the time. Even if we ignore this, how can you afford rent and Wi-Fi and you don't have a job?

(the first time, & only for us, because you'll be bringing the faulty thing back for us to fix at your own expense at least once a month).

I'll respond to this when it makes sense.

Save the substance & the playing; Post facts for a change.

I do post facts.

Individual mandate of Obamacare - Fact.
Employer mandate of Obamacare - Fact.
Government Subsidies funding Koch Industries and Obamacare - Fact.
Reinstated 98% of the Bush Tax Cuts - Fact.
Businesses delinquent on their water bills - Fact.
Debt nearly tripled under Obama if not already there - Fact.
Gross number of government jobs burdening the economy and tax payers - Fact.
Reinvolving the United States in Middle Eastern conflicts - Fact.

And there's plenty more where those came from.

Have you seen the situation in this thread?!

Yes, ad hominem and bigotry running amok. Facts few and far between. What does this have to do with my point on the rich being Obama slaves who don't pay their fair share?

Have you formed an opinion on one side or the other?! Clearly not.

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. I've made it clear I dislike Obama because he's done nothing to address the debt, and instead makes decisions that compound the problem and accomplish very little. I've also made it clear that Obamacare adds a few details that would be useful for healthcare, but the program itself is structured so poorly that I think it'll do more harm than good. I've made it clear I hate government subsidies in all forms since it's just another form of welfare, and abhor businesses exploiting the general dependence we have in them to force someone else to pay for them (like the businesses in Detroit did with their water bill).

So save us all the wasted time & space, & only post your opinion, & facts that support it (no need for the "quotes" at all) once you have decided what your opinion/side is.

Just because you don't like my opinion doesn't mean it's not there.

Just because you don't like the fact that support them doesn't mean they're not there.

I'm reminded of proper English, which both NEM & I seem to use. I see you have chosen to "Dare to be different."

The ampersand in the context you used is not proper English. Switching between British-English and American-English as you do is not proper English. Failing to capitalise the O in "Obama" and "Obamacare" as NeverEndingMe has done is not proper English. The difference? NeverEndingMe and I can call "typo", which is spot on in my case. You cannot.

Then, we will fail to understand you, which then makes us look stupid

First of all, don't speak for NeverEndingMe unless you happen to be a mind reader.

Second, if you can't employ common sense to a typo and understand the proper intent, then that's not me making you look stupid. You'd just be stupid.

Outside of the your viewable inability to choose sides of the debate or express it properly in the common language, which proves you the fool.

Not picking a side doesn't make someone foolish, nor does my stance along side Jack Kirby. Picking a side without understanding why, as you and NeverEndingMe have clearly done, is what proves someone foolish. Failure to recognise someone's opinion is what proves someone foolish.

I defend Obama because what I know (which seems like a great deal compared to the posts I have read by others, yourself included)

By your admission, you know very little. In fact, you know so little that you believed the only problems with Obamacare were with the website. On the other hand, I know where the funding came from, the priorities of the program, and the consequences they wrought.

On that alone, we can see a clear lie from you.

makes me feel (note: I admit to it being an opinion) that he deserves defending

And you've still yet to post an actual reason for defending him. You say you have reasons, but failed to post any.

especially against posts that are just as void of facts as those by NeverEndingMe most of which seem to be largely full of attacks on me, & largely void of attacks on Obama or any of his actions (perhaps admittances by NEM he has no ability/right to make such attacks, &/or statements to back them up).

That would include your posts. The only fact you've posted is you have an opinion, which is exactly the same fact NeverEndingMe has posted. Similarly, you're only other points have been to attack anyone who disagrees with you. You're no different than NeverEndingMe, yet you dislike its posts.

Also, my posts (unlike yours about me, Obama, or anyone else) are largely full of substance

Harping on someone's typos and striking with ad hominem while ignoring the actual content on the post is not substance. That's the complete absence of substance. Ergo, your posts have no substance.

Prior to this decision to conform, and even in the midst of it I maintain some of this habit, I've used facts to support my opinion and only dealt with facts and the actual arguments for or against Obama while avoiding personal jabs at a person's character. That's substance.

& lacking bigotry.

You've attacked the character of everyone who disagrees with you while failing to provide a single way in which they're wrong. That's already a warning sign of bigotry. After all, Merriam Webster defines a bigot as:

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

It omits political bigotry, but then so does society. Beyond that, you've already recited the bigotry formula. If you don't know what formula is, I'll teach you:

"If someone is [Blank 1], then they could be [Blank 2]. If this someone doesn't make it clear they are not [Blank 2], then it is okay to say that they are [Blank 2]."

While it comes in many forms, they all follow this chain and have the same blanks. All you have to do is pick and chose two related terms to fill in the blanks, and perhaps a preposition. For example:

"If someone is a man, then it could be a rapist. If this someone doesn't make it clear it is not a rapist, then it is okay to say that it is a rapist."

"If someone is a woman, then it could be a misandrist. If this someone doesn't make it clear it is not a misandrist, then it is okay to say that it is a misandrist."

"If someone is black, then it could be a thug. If this someone doesn't make it clear it is not a thug, then it is okay to say that it is a thug."

"If someone is Anti-Obama, then it could be Pro-Bush. If this someone doesn't make it clear it is not Pro-Bush, then it is okay to say that it is Pro-Bush."

Does that last one seem familiar? It should. You said it in another form, you bigot. Don't tell me you're posts and position aren't bigoted, you've already ousted yourself.

On the other hand, I've cast my opinion with facts supporting it. I may not have changed my opinion, but that's because the only person to confront my opinion has been you, and you've said nothing of substance. Furthermore, you've contradicted yourself again. You claim I have no opinion, yet call me a bigot in spite of the formal definition requiring an opinion of some kind. If I have no opinion, I can't be a bigot as I'll have nothing to adhere to.

 

[rippitydoo]

Oh goodie, I get to switch between substance & shallow again.

If you like switching so much, maybe try only posting facts (such as admitting I & others have posted some).

One is not many.

You know this from counting your brain cell?!

The only posts in this topic that have facts are my 2, 1 by Boxlicker101, & 1 from phrodeau.

Subtract yours.

Beyond that, it's been nothing but opinions & misconceptions.

That may be your opinion, but is certainly not a fact.

On that note, phrodeau, I'm sorry I failed to count your post. I started from the bottom, & failed to notice much beyond the closer, which asks a question instead of stating a fact.

You apologized for making a mistake! When will the rest of us get ours for even having to deal with your BS posts & attacks?!

Your blog (which Sonichu was nice enough to link to) says you have no job because you choose to "live improv" & don't try to look for a job outside that realm, that you pay no rent, & use someone else's Wi-Fi all the time. Even if we ignore this, how can you afford rent & Wi-Fi & you don't have a job?

There is no reason to ignore or mention any of that... Since much of it is not what my blog says, & the rest simply is untrue (much the same as the statements you've made here & falsely claimed as facts).

I'll respond to this when it makes sense.

It does to anyone with more than one brain cell... But those people know the difference between facts & opinions/distorted observations.

I do post facts.

Individual mandate of Obamacare - Fact.
Employer mandate of Obamacare - Fact.
Government Subsidies funding Koch Industries & Obamacare - Fact.
Reinstated 98% of the Bush Tax Cuts - Fact.
Businesses delinquent on their water bills - Fact.
Debt nearly tripled under Obama if not already there - Fact.
Gross number of government jobs burdening the economy & tax payers - Fact.
Reinvolving the United States in Middle Eastern conflicts - Fact.

And there's plenty more where those came from.

You mean that big hole in your head?! Some of those are indeed facts, but some couldn't be more false/distorted if you told me they came from a Tooth Fairy.

Yes, ad hominem & bigotry running amok. Facts few & far between. What does this have to do with my point on the rich being Obama slaves who don't pay their fair share?

You mean besides the fact that none of those three things are facts?!... Wait; There is some ad hominem & bigotry, but not nearly as much of that nor as few statements of facts as you claim (let alone by the people you claim stated them).

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about.

How can I possibly assume you've picked a side when you start a section posting a statement that should be directed at/into yourself.

I've also made it clear that Obamacare adds a few details that would be useful for healthcare, but the program itself is structured so poorly that I think it'll do more harm than good.

Boldfaced & separated from the rest due to the fact it proves my point you express opinions both for & against him/his work. In addition, italicized the last part due to clear-cut & obvious statement of opinion, not fact.

Just because you don't like my opinion doesn't mean it's not there.

I never said it wasn't... Quite the contrary, I've factually stated (& shown proof) you have stated 2 self-contradictory opinions.

Just because you don't like the fact that support them doesn't mean they're not there.

Just because you state you're the only one stating facts doesn't make that statement itself a fact... Nor does it give you the right to claim in the same sentence you are both stating "the fact that" supports something, & that I am denying "they're" there.

The ampersand in the context you used is not proper English. Switching between British-English & American-English as you do is not proper English. Failing to capitalise the O in "Obama" & "Obamacare" as NeverEndingMe has done is not proper English. The difference? NeverEndingMe & I can call "typo", which is spot on in my case. You cannot.

The ampersand the way I used it is proper English, whether you like it or not. Regardless, you then go on to state it's improper to switch between the two English languages, even though you then go on to have words flagged by my PC's spell-checker due to your choice to do that exact thing. I wouldn't attempt to falsely call "typo", as I am not trying to lie (the way you, & perhaps NME, is/are); I am simply switching, since I don't know what country my readers come from, & was attempting to use both in case the other spelling made it easier for them to understand. (Thank you so much for correcting this; I now understand your comprehension problem is due to possessing a high level of idiocy, which isn't something I can change.)

First of all, don't speak for NeverEndingMe unless you happen to be a mind reader.

Why does that matter, as many posters in many of his threads have suggested beliefs he is a troll, toddler-age, or both.

Second, if you can't employ common sense to a typo & understand the proper intent, then that's not me making you look stupid. You'd just be stupid.

Agree with all of that. However, since none of that is the case, the actual facts are you have written certain things in a way that (with good reason) show you to be stupid.

Not picking a side doesn't make someone foolish, nor does my stance alongside Jack Kirby. Picking a side without understanding why, as you & NeverEndingMe have clearly done, is what proves someone foolish. Failure to recognise someone's opinion is what proves someone foolish.

I have clearly done no such thing, whereas you have quite-foolishly & repeatedly posted in an area meant for opinions, when your posts repeatedly show you have yet to completely hold/support a single opinion.

By your admission, you know very little. In fact, you know so little that you believed the only problems with Obamacare were with the website. On the other hand, I know where the funding came from, the priorities of the program, & the consequences they wrought.

I said they were the only problem(s) I was aware of. I never ruled-out others existing.

On that alone, we can see a clear lie from you.

Likewise, we see clear lies from you, as you claim to know all these things about it (earlier in this post, if no place else). However, we have no proof of that. Furthermore, you claim to have read this thread, & only seen facts posted by you & a few others. You yourself admitted to this being a lie, as you went on to apologize to someone for not mentioning their name in a previous list, as well as stating things that are known to be opinions/distorted views, & claiming them to be facts right alongside everything else you've posted.

And you've still yet to post an actual reason for defending him. You say you have reasons, but failed to post any.

It is not a failure to, but a choice not to. (Not to mention I have done so very little compared to NeverEnding's innumerable anti-Obama threads.... I didn't say "posts in 1 thread", but several individual threads stating the same opinions.)

That would include your posts. The only fact you've posted is you have an opinion, which is exactly the same fact NeverEndingMe has posted. Similarly, you're only other points have been to attack anyone who disagrees with you. You're no different than NeverEndingMe, yet you dislike its posts.

I've posted many facts, as have you. However, you have also posted apologies & corrections for not listing other fact-posters among your original list (without the apology others of us remain due), & claimed in these same posts you are one of the few fact-posters, despite the fact I have several times posted with proof you post things that are not facts, alongside claims these same things are the facts we know them not to be.

Harping on someone's typos & striking with ad hominem while ignoring the actual content on the post is not substance. That's the complete absence of substance. Ergo, your posts have no substance.

Claiming someone's posts have no substance & repeatedly pointing-out the places they posted anything other than facts is not honesty. Claiming you post facts & they do not while posting opinions you claim to be facts & ignoring the facts they post is also dishonest. Ergo, I post facts & you post lies.

Prior to this decision to conform, & even in the midst of it I maintain some of this habit, I've used facts to support my opinion & only dealt with facts & the actual arguments for or against Obama while avoiding personal jabs at a person's character.]...

That's substance.

It maybe, but it's not a factual description of what you've done (same as your false descriptions of what other posters & I have/haven't done), while it is quite a run-on sentence. (Perhaps that's justification to ignore your claims of knowing proper English.)

You've attacked the character of everyone who disagrees with you while failing to provide a single way in which they're wrong.

Yet again, you fail to give me credit for posting facts, including the ways people disagreeing with me have been wrong. You also post (therefore-)false claims about what I've posted.

That's already a warning sign of bigotry. After all, Merriam Webster defines a bigot as:

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions & prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred & intolerance

It omits political bigotry, but then so does society. Beyond that, you've already recited the bigotry formula. If you don't know what formula is, I'll teach you:

"If someone is [Blank 1], then they could be [Blank 2]. If this someone doesn't make it clear they are not [Blank 2], then it is okay to say that they are [Blank 2]."

A big bunch of nothing... Seriously, it is a "formula" (may not even be in actual existence outside of your family/social circles), along with what you admit is Webster's definition of a word (perhaps the only way you could claim that whole post had any facts in it, while I am sure you will reply by saying that post "had fact in it", refusing as you always have to admit mine did as well, or that the majority of yours was clearly not facts).

Does that last one seem familiar? It should. You said it in another form, you bigot. Don't tell me you're posts & position aren't bigoted, you've already ousted yourself.

Don't repeat to me what I've posted; If I posted it, I know I did. (Same as if you read it, you know who posted it, & that any post of mine you read most-likely had facts in it, whereas I admit your posts have facts in them, but not as many as you claim.) On the other hand, don't claim I am a bigot, let alone that I have admitted so, as both of those claims (like 90% of each of your posts) are untrue.

Oh, & let's knock-out any idea you know anything I don't, &/or are smarter or better-off than me, when you now prove you don't know (I'm sure they teach this in English classes) which version of "your" to use for the possessive (such as the fact you're out of your league in this discussion, & seem to prefer quoting things I've posted for myself to read again, as well as posting 1 fact surrounded by opinions in the same post, & then claiming you are the main fact-poster in the thread).

On the other hand, I've cast my opinion with facts supporting it. I may not have changed my opinion, but that's because the only person to confront my opinion has been you, & you've said nothing of substance. Furthermore, you've contradicted yourself again. You claim I have no opinion, yet call me a bigot in spite of the formal definition requiring an opinion of some kind. If I have no opinion, I can't be a bigot as I'll have nothing to adhere to.

Actually, you've cast your opinion not only with facts to support it, but simultaneously claiming it to be fact, all the while knowing it to be an opinion. Furthermore, you go on to state the opposite opinion, with the same amount of facts to support that one.

I have said plenty of things of substance & fact. Since you can't refute them, you have denied their substance & status as true facts.

Also, I see that you (actually Webster's) definition of bigotry requires an opinion, so it would be true (another fact) that you couldn't be one if you lacked an opinion. However, as I have stated several times, the opposite is actually true: You have repeatedly stated & supported both sides.

Perhaps I'll leave this topic, & let you argue both sides on your own.

 

[1sickbastard]

I look through this topic, and I notice that of the 39 posts the precede this one, only 3 state actual facts, 2 of which were mine. Does anyone else actually care to state reasons, or are we simply relying on ad hominem and bigotry?

NeverEndingMe is part of the usual suspect who have nothing but ad hominem attacks & bigotry.
And when I say usual suspects, I mean mostly the RWNJ crowd, but there are several on the left who also qualify.

Facts seem to be considered a waste of time as acknowledging a verifiable fact is often perceived as losing what passed for debate. Some do a pretty good job at building cases based on facts. Not many though.

Nice to see someone else make the effort, so thank you for that.

 

[rippitydoo]

NeverEndingMe is part of the usual suspect who have nothing but ad hominem attacks & bigotry.
And when I say usual suspects, I mean mostly the RWNJ crowd, but there are several on the left who also qualify.

Facts seem to be considered a waste of time as acknowledging a verifiable fact is often perceived as losing what passed for debate. Some do a pretty good job at building cases based on facts. Not many though.

Nice to see someone else make the effort, so thank you for that.

You're very welcome.

...Oh; Did you mean Ellery?! How is that possible when it is a repeatedly-proven fact she posts facts, but rarely (as though by mistake), & surrounding them with/using them to support her stated opinions, which she incorrectly states as though they are facts &/or as though they are her opinions, even though they are constantly self-contradictory?!

 

[ElleryQueen]

Facts seem to be considered a waste of time as acknowledging a verifiable fact is often perceived as losing what passed for debate. Some do a pretty good job at building cases based on facts. Not many though.

Nice to see someone else make the effort, so thank you for that.

And this little bit makes it all worth the trouble.

Thank you for showing me someone actually took the time to read posts without prejudice.

How is that possible when it is a repeatedly-proven fact she posts facts, but rarely (as though by mistake)

Your opinion is not a fact. No matter how much you dislike hearing me talk negatively about Obama, it doesn't change his screw ups.

& surrounding them with/using them to support her stated opinions

Weren't you the one demanding I post an opinion and facts to support - thereby continually demonstrating your denial? You're in no position to accuse me of being inconsistent.

which she incorrectly states as though they are facts

This is what's been termed, "The pot calling the kettle black".

&/or as though they are her opinions, even though they are constantly self-contradictory?!

They're not self-contradictory, they only seem to be because you have a very narrow scope of patriotism. Someone must agree with you absolutely to be a patriot, and must disagree with you absolutely to be a non-patriot. Since I stand in favor for the priorities of Obamacare yet cringe at the program that fails to properly execute these priorities and remain appalled at how it was funded, you can't place the location as either allied to you or opposed, preventing you from comprehending it.

Of course, that's assuming you're not simply spouting nonsense to discredit anyone who disagrees with you or belittles you even slightly. Since you've yet to contribute any facts to the topic, instead harping on typos that you're guilty of while demonstrating you don't understand how to use an ampersand, it's very hard to tell anything beyond the fact that you're a petulant child growing into a bigot.

And to stop you from humiliating yourself any further on at least one subject, I'm a male. Since you couldn't tell off my username, I'll assume you've never heard of the great Ellery Queen and couldn't draw the male conclusion that way (even though the rules of the internet should have led you to the correct conclusion anyway).

 

[rippitydoo]

Thank you for showing me someone actually took the time to read posts without prejudice.

Sometimes, you thank someone for something & they say, "Don't mention it." I say there is no need to thank them for this... Simply prove you have (unlike your prior responses to me show) learned how to do the same.

Your opinion is not a fact. No matter how much you dislike hearing me talk negatively about Obama, it doesn't change his screw ups.

No. It also doesn't change the fact that the portion of my post you quoted was not stating anything about my own posts or Obama, proving you were just taking another chance at attacking/correcting something I didn't say.

Weren't you the one demanding I post an opinion & facts to support - thereby continually demonstrating your denial? You're in no position to accuse me of being inconsistent.

I was the one asking (not "demanding") you to do something, but that request of you does not show anything about me. Also, anyone who joins the Forums while I am typing this, or me, or any other member who cares to, can "accuse" you of being inconsistent, & do so with plenty of instances in your own posts to prove/support the "accusation".

This is what's been termed, "The pot calling the kettle black".

No. This is what's called, "stating facts". You've done it before, & that's great. The rest of us that post in the thread simply ask you to post facts & opinions, along with proof you know which are which.

They're not self-contradictory, they only seem to be because you have a very narrow scope of patriotism.

Nothing is wrong with the scope of my patriotism, & that is a fact. You see your posts as not being self-contradictory, & that is neither a fact nor an opinion, as anyone who reads them can see that statement as being untrue.

Someone must agree with you absolutely to be a patriot, & must disagree with you absolutely to be a non-patriot.

I'm not asking anyone to be "absolutely" on either side. However, you have claimed at different times (often in the same post) to be "absolutely" (albeit never using that term, that I can recall) on both sides, & I don't see it as being wrong for me or anyone else to ask you to choose one or the other.

Also, I have admitted several times I don't have all the facts in one area or the other, while simultaneously admitting my stated opinion is based on the admittedly-incomplete set of facts I do have. You have then responded telling me my "facts" (which I have always admitted were opinions) are incorrect, & that for me to state them as either facts or opinions makes it also a fact that I am stupid. Once again, no part of the statement you've made is a fact or opinion.

Since I stand in favor for the priorities of Obamacare yet cringe at the program that fails to properly execute these priorities & remain appalled at how it was funded, you can't place the location as either allied to you or opposed, preventing you from comprehending it.

I don't have any problem comprehending it. Once again, you are attempting to attack me in a sentence that begins with you stating a fully-understandable opinion, which is something you have (as I repeatedly stated previously) failed to do on previous occasions, thereby (as proven in your final phrase) making me appear stupid for being unable to comprehend it, when the truth is I comprehend it the second you post it that way, but you rarely are able to do so.

Of course, that's assuming you're not simply spouting nonsense to discredit anyone who disagrees with you or belittles you even slightly.

I am not spouting nonsense in an attempt to discredit anyone; If I did, there'd be nothing left for you to do in any posts (except to continue claiming "facts" about grammar & Obama that we both know are actually not, or post "facts" that are & support your stated holding of 2 opinions on a matter that clearly contradict each other).

Since you've yet to contribute any facts to the topic, instead harping on typos that you're guilty of while demonstrating you don't understand how to use an ampersand, it's very hard to tell anything beyond the fact that you're a petulant child growing into a bigot.

I have contributed facts, & would greatly appreciate it if you gave me the credit for doing so as I have credited you (earlier in this same post) for the times when you have done so. You then claim I have harped on typos I have made, when the reality is I think we should all be able to agree there is no reason anyone would harp on their own mistakes. The reality also is you probably meant I have harped on your typos, which I admit to. However, I see no problem with doing so, just the same way you have continually harped on my incorrect stating of facts, which you do after quoting a section of my post I claimed in the same area was perhaps an opinion but (regardless of that) certainly never claimed was a fact.

Also, you continue to go off of what is clearly the thread topic (perhaps due to your inability to choose which side/opinion you are on), claiming I am unable to correctly use grammar, & am a petulant child & becoming a bigot. Outside of this all being off-topic (as I already stated here), little of it is possibly proven as a fact, & some of it is actually easily-proven to be neither fact nor opinion.

And to stop you from humiliating yourself any further on at least one subject, I'm a male. Since you couldn't tell off my username, I'll assume you've never heard of the great Ellery Queen & couldn't draw the male conclusion that way (even though the rules of the internet should have led you to the correct conclusion anyway).

I actually heard of the famous fictional Ellery Queen once before. (I remain a great fan of the now-complete series "Leverage", & there was an episode where cast member Timothy Hutton, offspring of "Queen" portrayer Jim, appeared at an event dressed as the character. I remember many sites that discussed the show going crazy about that.) However, I have read on this same Internet that one of the Marvel heroes is soon to change gender, so nothing [including what you claim to be "the rules of the Internet" (which I doubt even exist, at least not some of the ones you appear to be referring to) should have led me to any sort of conclusion regarding your gender.