Journal pudge's Journal: Obama and Touch 28
How completely out of touch do you have to be, to assume that just because a terrorist is a professor in Chicago, that he has been rehabilitated?
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Obama and Touch
Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker
Perhaps so out of touch (Score:2)
That you have a Dish network channel?
That you have video of kids singing hymns to you in circulation?
I'm still trying to frame an Obama administration as the Second Coming of Carter, in my mind.
Yet bits of queasiness drift up from the stomach...
The meaning of is is... (Score:2)
Wait, did anyone bother to ask what he meant by "rehabilitated?" We already know that he doesn't understand the words "tax cut."
"That's not the word I knew..."
So then are you saying... (Score:2)
Because if you do believe that it is possible (for someone who hasn't been convicted of criminal acts) to be rehabilitated, then please tell us what criteria would lead you to to agree with them being rehabilitated.
Re: (Score:2)
... that you don't believe in rehabilitation at all?
Of course not. I never said anything that remotely implies any such thing. I have no idea where you get that impression from.
Because if you do believe that it is possible (for someone who hasn't been convicted of criminal acts) to be rehabilitated, then please tell us what criteria would lead you to to agree with them being rehabilitated.
No, I will not.
I am not under an obligation to say what DOES pass as evidence of rehabilitation simply because I am pointing out what does NOT.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not under an obligation to say what DOES pass as evidence of rehabilitation simply because I am pointing out what does NOT.
Actually all you have stated is what you feel does not. You haven't actually given any basis to your opinion being a good candidate for a gold standard for such judgment.
If you could be so kind to us as to tell us what you would consider rehabilitated, then at least you would show that you are willing to discuss the issue. Otherwise you are just ranting that you dislike Ayers when you are not willing to suggest a scenario where you would consider him rehabilitated.
For that matter, if you simply feel
Re: (Score:2)
Actually all you have stated is what you feel does not.
Incorrect. I said nothing about any feelings.
You haven't actually given any basis to your opinion being a good candidate for a gold standard for such judgment.
I never said anything about gold standards," whatever you think that means in this context.
And I figured the people reading this web site would be smart enough that I would not have to explain that self-evident truth that being a university professor is not a sign of rehabilitation.
If you could be so kind to us as to tell us what you would consider rehabilitated
Are you learning impaired? I said I would not.
Otherwise you are just ranting that you dislike Ayers
Not at all. My point had nothing to do with Ayers, but with Obama's baseless assumption.
For that matter, if you simply feel that Ayers is such a terrible excuse for a human being that you could never consider him to be rehabilitated
If I thought that, I would say it.
You have only stated that you don't see Ayers as rehabilitated.
You're lying.
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. I said nothing about any feelings.
If you really want to get into semantics we could say that instead of you stating how you feel about Ayers, you stated your opinion of Ayers. Either way you provided nothing to back up your claim.
Are you learning impaired? I said I would not.
That is a cute way to dodge my question, while simultaneously allowing your hatred towards Obama and any you can associate with him to label Ayers as a monster that you never have to acknowledge as human.
being a university professor is not a sign of rehabilitation.
Do you honestly think that was the one and only reason why Obama was willing to talk with Ayers? Do you hon
Re: (Score:2)
If you really want to get into semantics we could say that instead of you stating how you feel about Ayers, you stated your opinion of Ayers. Either way you provided nothing to back up your claim.
What I said about him is a matter of fact and public record.
That is a cute way to dodge my question
False. I answered it directly, by saying I would not.
being a university professor is not a sign of rehabilitation.
Do you honestly think that was the one and only reason why Obama was willing to talk with Ayers?
Damn, you simply can't read, can you? I said nothing about his reasons for talking with Ayers, I was speaking only of his reason -- the one reason HE STATED -- for believing that Ayers was rehabilitated.
Do you honestly feel that you, having never met Ayers, are better qualified to judge him?
I didn't judge him in any way. I only stated three facts: Ayers was a terrorist, Obama said that he assumed Ayers was rehabilitated because he was a professor, and being a professor is not a ma
Re: (Score:2)
a matter of fact
It is fact that he was associated with domestic terrorism, 20+ years ago. It is also fact that he has denounced those activities several times.
and public record
Public record should contain trials and convictions. Can you find any? If his public record has them, you should have no trouble finding them.
answered it directly, by saying I would not
So why are you not willing to provide an answer to the question? Why not just come forward and admit that you would never consider Ayers to be rehabilitated under any circumstances if you feel that way?
Ayers was a terrorist
He was never conv
Re: (Score:2)
You are having a really tough time sticking to my point, so I am going to ignore everything you wrote which is unrelated to my point. If I did not respond to a point you made, it is because it is irrelevant to what I am saying.
So this will be a short comment.
Obama said that he assumed Ayers was rehabilitated because he was a professor
I have never heard that statement. Do you have a source for it?
Posted in another comment.
Well, you started this journal entry by stating that you don't feel he is rehabilitated.
You're lying. I never said any such thing. I never talked about feelings, and I never implied he has not been rehabilitated.
Wow, flinging insults rather than answering questions. That is truly classy.
When you continue to grossly misrepresent me -- falsely accusing me of saying he has not been rehabi
Re: (Score:2)
How completely out of touch do you have to be, to assume that just because a terrorist is a professor in Chicago, that he has been rehabilitated?
That pretty clearly states that you disagree with people who claim Ayers to be rehabilitated.
If you feel otherwise, then say so. Stop beating around the bush. Do you feel Ayers is rehabilitated or not? Everything you have said has pointed towards not.
it is because it is irrelevant to what I am saying.
I see your classiness continues here. You will be the ultimate arbiter of truth and reason in this conversation and drop anything that you disagree with.
Posted in another comment.
Not sure why you couldn't be bothered to post it here, but
Re: (Score:2)
New policy. First lie I get to, I stop reading. Next time you post a lie, I ban you from posting in my journal.
Allow me to remind you of what you said:
How completely out of touch do you have to be, to assume that just because a terrorist is a professor in Chicago, that he has been rehabilitated?
That pretty clearly states that you disagree with people who claim Ayers to be rehabilitated.
You're clearly lying. I am clearly stating that the reason Obama gave is insufficient cause to assume he has been rehabilitated, NOT that he has not been rehabilitated. You can tell this, because it is actually what I said.
I have no idea what the rest of your comment says. I won't read it.
One more lie and you're gone.
Re: (Score:2)
actually what I said.
Then do us all a favor and answer my question, please.
Do you, or do you not, feel that Ayers is rehabilitated?
One more lie
Please show factual evidence of these lies that bother you so much. Your repetition doesn't create truth on its own.
you're gone
You don't seem to be reading what I say anyways. If you want to make a difference you should answer the questions instead of hurling insults and threats. If I couldn't post replies to your journal entries it would only leave you with fewer replies to not fully respond to anyway
Re: (Score:2)
actually what I said.
Then do us all a favor and answer my question, please.
After you tell me whether you stopped beating your mother.
One more lie
Please show factual evidence of these lies that bother you so much. Your repetition doesn't create truth on its own.
Um. You said I said something that I clearly did not say. I showed this was the case. Your implication that this is not factual evidence you are lying is itself another lie.
I will not read the rest of your comment, and you are hereby Foed.
Re: (Score:1)
Better to just kick them with a steel toed boot.
Re: (Score:2)
You're clearly lying. I am clearly stating that the reason Obama gave is insufficient cause to assume he has been rehabilitated, NOT that he has not been rehabilitated.
Is he? Given the passage you quoted:
Re: (Score:2)
If you were in Obama's position, what kind of additional evidence would you have demanded ...
Um. There WAS no evidence that he had been rehabilitated. Nothing you mentioned was evidence of rehabilitation, at all. This is obviously true, and it is unsurprising you don't understand this.
You're just as much of an idiot as ever.
So, I've always wanted to ask you...you called Boxer a liar on the 19th of January because, as you say, 90% isn't good enough.
You're an idiot. She said the only reason we went to war was WMD. The Congressional authorization said otherwise. She lied. It's quite simple for people who aren't idiots.
However, six days later, you talked [slashdot.org] about the Social Security "trust fund" was in a crisis because the fund was being raided.
You're an idiot. I said no such thing. There is no raiding of the Trust Fund, there is an investmen
Re: (Score:2)
O.J. Simpson was never convicted of murder, but that doesn't mean he isn't a murderer. It only means he beat the rap.
Perhaps you could remind us once again who said the following on his acquittal: "Guilty as sin, free as a bird -- what a country, America."
Re: (Score:2)
This is an excellent example of how we get two very different perspectives on the constitution. One side that reads the text as it is written, with the very grown up assumption that if they meant something more or different they would have said so, and if some aspect is outdated or otherwise needs modification, there is a clearly outlined amendment process to do so...And the other side...which is wrong. :)
That said, pudge, a link to a quote or statement of some sort from Obama supporting your assertion th
Re: (Score:2)
pudge, a link to a quote or statement of some sort from Obama supporting your assertion that he does believe this would be helpful.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/obama-i-assumed.html [abcnews.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So Obama assumed that Ayers had been rehabilitated, but not because he was a professor.
That's not how I read it. He said he met him while he was a professor.
Could you point at somewhere where Obama has said he thinks Ayers is rehabilitated because Ayers is a college professor
I did.
rather than one where Obama assumed Ayers was rehabilitated because Ayers was working on a well respected project with people who certainly wouldn't hang around with an unrehabilitated terrorist?
If that is what you think Obama said, fine: now defend THAT idiotic assumption, which is no better. You are, of course, committing the question-begging fallacy by saying these "people" "certainly" would not "hang around" with an unrehabilitated terrorist. How could you possibly know that, and why would you make such an obviously illogical assumption?
Re: (Score:1)
So close (much closer than pudge got it) but still wrong. It absolutely is because he was a professor. Just not exclusively that -- it's the entire context of respectability in which Obama first met and knew of Ayers, including his being a professor. I see no reason to think that in Obama's mind he downplays his being a professor as leading to his assumption (which
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this is what I am basically saying ... it's all the same thing. He's a professor, and all that comes with it. And assuming he is rehabilitated because of this is utter nonsense. And this is proven by the fact that Ayers was NOT rehabilitated, that after 9/11, he says what he did back then was justified, and wasn't "horrendous" or "awful."
Note that he does not think it is horrendous or awful that they bombed a NYPD HQ, the Capitol, and the Pentagon.
So this is, of course, proof that Obama had poor ju
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, this is what I am basically saying ...
It may be basically what you are saying, or basically what you are saying now, or even what you meant to say, but it's *not* what you said. You said it's being out of touch to assume that a terrorist is rehabilitated just because he's a professor in Chicago. After you posted the two paragraphs of what Obama said, it became clear that yours either was a misimpression or a misrepresentation. Hence the very specific challenges you received to this.
He's a professor, a
Re: (Score:1)
After you posted the two paragraphs of what Obama said, it became clear that yours either was a misimpression or a misrepresentation.
Incorrect. Try again.
So if that is all Obama had based his assumption on ... then I'm out of touch as well
Yes, you are. Very much so.
Re: (Score:1)
:) You can tell when your ego is bruised from being shown to be wrong -- you start speaking in characteristically *really* short sentences. Here, maybe this will turn that frown upside-down: It occurs to me that I have some crow eating to do, in front of you -- I said in a JE that Obama was not going to get the nomination, that he was going to be "Howard Dean'ed" by his party, and as I recall you disagreed. Well, you were right.
See, I survived that.
Re: (Score:2)
:) You can tell when your ego is bruised from being shown to be wrong -- you start speaking in characteristically *really* short sentences.
Incorrect. I get that way when the discussion becomes tiresome, for whatever reason. Nice try at ad hominem though.