If I Had A Father He Would Look Like Barak Obama

For want of a hammer.

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Please don't provide full and accurate qoutes...it limits the ability to discount truth and makes it more difficult to idealogically masterbate....please...the truth is irrelevant when it does not support one's sacred world view.

Sure, let's pretend like the full and accurate quote vindicated Obama's imprudence, and while we're at it, let's pretend like only those you disagree with are ideologically masturbating while your ideology is chaste and pure.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Well, I’m the head of the executive branch, and the Attorney General reports to me so I’ve got to be careful about my statements to make sure that we’re not impairing any investigation that’s taking place right now.

That right there would have been perfect. Not another word and if reporters kept pushing a simple assertion that any other statements would be inappropriate at this time would have been Presidential and admirable. Sadly, this is not what happened.

You can include amongst your ommissions that the statement "if I had a son" was directed to Trayvon's parents as consolation. It is only in a cynical and idealogically biased view reaching for poltical opportunism that would spin it any other way.

But my main message,” he added, “is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon. And, you know, I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves and that we’re going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.”

Beyond that consolation to the boy's parents he did not make statments infering guilt, only a call for an investigation and justice...to pretend otherwise is dishonest.

And he was not the only one to do so...

“I think that Americans can recognize that while this is a tragedy, and it is a tragedy, that we’re going to relentlessly seek justice. And I think that’s the right thing to do."
- Newt Gingrich

'What happened to Trayvon Martin is a tragedy. There needs to be a thorough investigation that reassures the public that justice is carried out with impartiality and integrity.
- Mitt Romney

"It's a horrible case, and it's chilling to hear what happened," "And of course the fact that law enforcement didn't immediately go after and prosecute this case is another chilling example of horrible decisions made by people in this process. I think it's pretty clear the problems we're seeing in this case, and hopefully the state Attorney General and local community is reacting and responding, and hopefully this matter will be an example of what law enforcement has to do in a case like this."'
- Santorum

Called the death of Trayvon Martin a tragedy and says it's appropriate for federal and state officials to investigate the killing.
- John Boehner

“It is an incredible tragedy of huge proportions,” “I’m glad it’s being investigated and we’ll take a look at it as the investigation moves along.”
- Mitch McConnel

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


a star for you :-)

Obtuseness is not a color that compliments you, friend.

I just love insulting compliments - they're the best

thanks :-)

here's one for you: cynicism - not exactly the prettiest frock in your closet Jean Paul

Sure, let's pretend that the President of the United States was rising above all the pseudo intellectual puffery and simply starting at a "fair" place instead of recognizing the shameful exploitation of a young mans death to further his own political career. Let's pretend that's real and genuine intellectualism that looks like outrage's gold fish.

it's easy to take shots at the POTUS - and we all do it from time to time...

but the death of this young man got to a lot of us

so, why not our president then?

reply to post by Indigo5

Beyond that consolation to the boy's parents he did not make statments infering guilt, only a call for an investigation and justice...to pretend otherwise is dishonest.

There is a joke amongst lawyers, both for the prosecution and the defense, that goes: If the facts of the case work against you, then argue the law. If the law works against you then argue the facts. If both the facts and the law work against you then scream for justice!

Here you are in this thread, red in the face screaming for justice. To hell with the facts. To hell with the law. You would prefer to scream for justice and rather than take any calm and critical approach you would like to keep pushing the emotional buttons of people, apparently assuming their knees jerk just as high as yours.

As to Gingrich, Romney and all those other clowns, I defy to find one single post of mine in any thread in this site where I have ever offered up any support or admiration for these people. Your rage has imbalanced you and your confirmation bias is as thick as peanut butter.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

it's easy to take shots at the POTUS - and we all do it from time to time... but the death of this young man got to a lot of us so, why not our president then?

When it suits your purposes Obama is a "leader", a word you have used quite liberally in this thread, but when leadership is expected of Obama, suddenly he is merely a president with a lower case p. Is this my cynicism that notices that, or is it your obtuseness?

P.S. Star for you too! I am more than grateful to have your contributions in this thread.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

while we're at it, let's pretend like only those you disagree with are ideologically masturbating while your ideology is chaste and pure.

Whatever bias my opinions reflect, those opinions are premised on unmolested facts and substance.

While at the same time the far right celebrates weekly thier willingness to ignore facts or distort them as needed.

This thread is a pointed example...You look to debate a single phrase spun in the most convenient way, while others look for the full qoute and context.

Both sides of the debate will have varying degrees of natural bias, but one side begins with a foundation of full and accurate facts, while the other builds their arguments upon the head of a pin.

There is a reason that the far right has made a campaign to discredit the media, because thier role in our democratic process is to referee the facts.

Put another way...
To the far right...Facts have a left wing, liberal bias and any media outlet that dares to present the facts is the "Liberal Media".

It is the natural consequence of an idealogy who looks to Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and Fox News as thier touchstones for truth.

reply to post by Indigo5


Okay, now you've gone way past pretense and moved into full blown fraud. If you were, as you claim, premising your bias on unmolested facts and substance then why are you so disingenuously claiming that this thread is merely about an imprudent remark the President made?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Beyond that consolation to the boy's parents he did not make statments infering guilt, only a call for an investigation and justice...to pretend otherwise is dishonest.

There is a joke amongst lawyers, both for the prosecution and the defense, that goes: If the facts of the case work against you, then argue the law. If the law works against you then argue the facts. If both the facts and then scream for justice!

Actually the adage goes...

When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law.
When both are against you, call the other lawyer names (ad Hominem)

There seems to be a theme of tweaking quotes for rhetorical convenience?

Here you are in this thread, red in the face screaming for justice. To hell with the facts. To hell with the law. You would prefer to scream

Now you have jumped the shark. A whole lot of assigning emotion to my posts for the sake of dishonesty...I am niether red in the face, nor screaming, nor asking for the law to be disregarded....where might you have gotten those ideas beyond your convenient imagination?

I sure would like to see the case thoroughly investigated, which was not occuring until the national uproar. Wherever that investigation leads is fine with me, as long as it is investigated...and deriding people who call for "justice"?? Not sure where to begin with that...

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Indigo5

 

If you were, as you claim, premising your bias on unmolested facts and substance then why are you so disingenuously claiming that this thread is merely about an imprudent remark the President made?

I don't know...maybe because of the thread title and the entire abasing OP that followed?

And while you seem to be a fan of the word "imprudent" I hesitate to point it out lest I frustrate you, but you have failed to provide any argument what-so-ever as to why offering Trayvon's parents that consolatory statement was "imprudent"

reply to post by Indigo5

When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, call the other lawyer names (ad Hominem)

There seems to be a theme of tweaking quotes for rhetorical convenience?

You sure like sticking your foot in your mouth after that knee jerks don't you. I was not quoting anyone in particular, and was merely repeating a joke I have often heard from lawyers. You on the other hand managed to mangle this quote by R. Rinkle:

When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, attack the plaintiff.

Take a breath, calm down.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Well, I’m the head of the executive branch, and the Attorney General reports to me so I’ve got to be careful about my statements to make sure that we’re not impairing any investigation that’s taking place right now.

That right there would have been perfect. Not another word and if reporters kept pushing a simple assertion that any other statements would be inappropriate at this time would have been Presidential and admirable. Sadly, this is not what happened.

And I feel like that would have been increadibly dismissive and dodging the question.

What is this fantasy people have that the President shouldn't have an opinion on the current events in his own country???

The fact is no matter what he said, around 50% wouldn't like what he said and around 50% would like it.

I think the people complaining about Obama's comments really need to get their priorities straight and really think about what they are complaining about.

reply to post by Indigo5

I don't know...maybe because of the thread title and the entire abasing OP that followed?

This is precisely the deceit I am calling you on, and you still insist on lying and insisting that no criticism was offered of Sandra Fluke, Geraldo Revera, who by the way made imprudent remarks about hoodies, prohibition, the demise of the American Dream, inflation and fiat currency, and the 99%. All of this you could not see in the O.P. because of your blind rage.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

 

it's easy to take shots at the POTUS - and we all do it from time to time... but the death of this young man got to a lot of us so, why not our president then?

When it suits your purposes Obama is a "leader", a word you have used quite liberally in this thread, but when leadership is expected of Obama, suddenly he is merely a president with a lower case p. Is this my cynicism that notices that, or is it your obtuseness?

P.S. Star for you too! I am more than grateful to have your contributions in this thread.

golly - I hate to ruin such a nice moment - so I won't

Obtuseness - if it makes you happy. If anything can make you happy :-)

(I often spell God - with a lower case g. What do you make of that I wonder?)

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

And I feel like that would have been increadibly dismissive and dodging the question.

The question itself was inappropriate and should have been treated as such. If you want to get all emotional about young children who were tragically killed how is it you're okay with dismissal of all the other children in this nation that were killed on the same day as young Trevor Martin, or that week, or that month? It was a loaded question that demanded a Presidential response, not an emotional response that could not possibly appease the parents of Trevor Martin, but could surely offend those parents whose children have been recently killed.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Bravo!



If I had freedom,I would trade it in for slavery.

Oh wait...

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

(I often spell God - with a lower case g. What do you make of that I wonder?)

I often use the lower case g for God too, only there is a dammit that follows...but that's the Irish in me.

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Please don't provide full and accurate qoutes...it limits the ability to discount truth and makes it more difficult to idealogically masterbate....please...the truth is irrelevant when it does not support one's sacred world view.

NBC and the vast majority of the mainstream media who have been acting like race whores should also follow that advice. As well as those who buy into it because it fulfills their own ideologically driven masturbatory indecencies....

@Jean Paul: It's "Trayvon", not "Trevor". Unless this is a purposeful misspelling for a reason I have yet to figure out. Can never tell with you (I will not insult you with a smiley emoticon right here)

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I don't know...maybe because of the thread title and the entire abasing OP that followed?

This is precisely the deceit I am calling you on, and you still insist on lying and insisting that no criticism was offered of Sandra Fluke, Geraldo Revera, who by the way made imprudent remarks about hoodies, prohibition, the demise of the American Dream, inflation and fiat currency, and the 99%. All of this you could not see in the O.P. because of your blind rage.

You are amusing me with this "rage" bit. Perhaps a bit of projection?

If truth be known I worried for a moment that I might have gotten bored with your OP and not read the entire thing, but I just read it again to be sure...I still don't see the part refering to Geraldo Revera or "Hoodies" or "Fiat Currency"...but honestly I have not listened to Geraldo Rivera since he opened Capone's safe....so maybe you were aiming at some cleverness that did not find traction in a non-Fox viewer?

Either way...assigning me "rage" and "deciet" ??? What was the last part of that quote again?

When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, attack the plaintiff.

The unconscious irony of your posts has me smiling

reply to post by Indigo5

If truth be known I worried for a moment that I might have gotten bored with your OP and not read the entire thing, but I just read it again to be sure...I still don't see the part refering to Geraldo Revera or "Hoodies" or "Fiat Currency"...but honestly I have listened to Geraldo Rivera since he opened Capone's safe....so maybe you were aiming at some cleverness that did not find traction in a non-Fox viewer?

Nor did you read anywhere where I made mention of Obama saying if he had a son he would look like Trevor Martin in the O.P.. You extrapolated that from the title then your skills of extrapolation went limp as your rage took over. If you cannot be honest with yourself it makes sense you will not be honest in this thread.