Grade Obama

[Neil]

Let's face it:  I'm the only one on Languish who can be absolutely objective.

[Eddie Teach]

My comment was about Shielbh's "lies & deception" claim.

How do you know when a politician is lying? His lips are moving. 

[DGuller]

No, it is because it is true, and you decided to drag me into the conversation because you expected me to let you talk your normal personal bullshit unchallenged.

You don't need any help from me to come across as a partisan hack - you manage that all by yourself.

I just brought up your name because your name is a very succinct shorthand for someone who's using presumed non-partisanship and "maverickness" as a stick to beat other posters so that their arguments wouldn't need to be a addressed.  KRonn really pissed me off when he did it, so I mentioned your name just to let him know how low I thought it was.  There are two things I'm very proud of:  my integrity, and my ability and willingness to think originally.  I get really pissed off when people question those just to score a point in debate.

[Razgovory]

The funny thing is that you project all this on everyone.  IT's you who can't be objective.  You never have been, never will be.  You engage in tribalism more then most.

What's even funnier is that *you* apparently seem to think you're objective in some way.

Not really.  I know I'm not particularly objective.  Most of us aren't.  I don't pretend to be something I'm not.

[Sheilbh]

You think they aren't trying to kill the bill?

I haven't seen much to support the allegation that Republicans are trying to kill the bill.

What do you think they're doing and the goal is?

My comment was about Shielbh's "lies & deception" claim.

I'm a lefty but I don't think I'm unfair.  It's patently untrue that the Democrat bill has anything to do with a 'death panel'.

I think the 'death panel' thing isn't just untrue but a pretty unpleasant thing to suggest as well.

[Berkut]

No, it is because it is true, and you decided to drag me into the conversation because you expected me to let you talk your normal personal bullshit unchallenged.

You don't need any help from me to come across as a partisan hack - you manage that all by yourself.

I just brought up your name because your name is a very succinct shorthand for someone who's using presumed non-partisanship and "maverickness" as a stick to beat other posters so that their arguments wouldn't need to be a addressed. 

No, my name, for you, is very succint shorthand for someone who you cannot intimidate, so you pretend not to read my posts while slavishly doing so in emorage constantly. It isn't really the same at all.

Your constant and almost immediate retreat to ad hom anytime you muster the courage to respond is rather clear evidence of that.

KRonn really pissed me off when he did it, so I mentioned your name just to let him know how low I thought it was.

Yes, I can see how this is excellent evidence of your objective and "original" thinking.

Berkut == bad, so slandering kronn must be a fine example of your "integrity".

There are two things I'm very proud of:  my integrity,

You think "integrity" is defined by slandering others and engaging in personal attacks on posters you pretend to refuse to acknowledge? You have a rather odd definition of the term, I suspect.

and my ability and willingness to think originally.  I get really pissed off when people question those just to score a point in debate.

Nobody questions those to score any points - they question them because you have rarely, if ever, evidence that they exist.

"Integrity" is not about drive by slandering of other people, or lying about their views DG. "Original" thinking is not evidenced by regurgitating the party line and engaging in incessant and petulant partisan politics. In fact, that is exactly the opposite of original thinking.

If your "thinking" involves reactionary "Republicans are all evil!" responses to nearly all topics, even those that have nothing to do with them, it isn't really "thinking" at all, much less original thinking.

For someone who spends so much time worrying about other peoples integrity and such, you could do a lot more to improve the overall level of discourse by reforming your own posting and thinking habits, rather than anyone elses - much less kronns.

[Berkut]

The funny thing is that you project all this on everyone.  IT's you who can't be objective.  You never have been, never will be.  You engage in tribalism more then most.

What's even funnier is that *you* apparently seem to think you're objective in some way.

Not really.  I know I'm not particularly objective.  Most of us aren't.  I don't pretend to be something I'm not.

It is funny how people make objectivity into some kind of impossible to achieve ideal so they can excuse their lack of it.

It really isn't that hard, nor is it any kind of binary condition wherby if you are not perfectly objective, then you might as well just be a partisan hack unwilling to think for oneself.

What is really sad is when people go so far as to embrace their own intolerance and narrow mindedness and hold onto it as though it were something valuable and cherished, and actually use others attempt at rational and objective thinking as some kind of stigma to be mocked.

It is so very emo.

[Berkut]

ON a more general note, it is interesting that once again DG and Co. have managed to turn a thread that has any hint of criticism of Obama into yet another of their personal flame wars.

Well played!

[Ed Anger]

I'm about to grade everybody. Many notes are going to be sent home to parents.

[DGuller]

Nobody questions those to score any points - they question them because you have rarely, if ever, evidence that they exist.

That's your interpretation of it.  Then again, before you were calling me partisan Democrat, you were calling me a Jesus freak who lied about being an atheist, back when I was into abortion debates.  Needless to say, your ability to classify posters accurately doesn't have an enviable track record.

No, my name, for you, is very succint shorthand for someone who you cannot intimidate, so you pretend not to read my posts while slavishly doing so in emorage constantly.

See, what's even more annoying about you than being verbally abusive is being very dense, and reading what you want them to write rather than what other people actually wrote, even when there is no room for subjectivity.  After a while it gets tiring just trying to establish what I'm actually typing, because somewhere between your screen and your brain words get jumbled. 

In this particular case, I never said that I would not be reading your posts.  What I said is that I would not be responding to your posts, which is different from not reading them.  I've done that very successfully, with only a handful of exceptions, and I'll continue doing that after this brief intermission to rebutt made up attacks on me.  The downside of debating you far outstrips the rather limited upside.

[Berkut]

The downside of debating you far outstrips the rather limited upside.

Of course it does - for you, "winning" is what this is all about, so the downside of "debating" me (which you do not do, btw - getting all emo and stomping away in a rage because someone challenges your revealed Pravda isn't really debate, you know), is certainly very high, since you consistently fail to defend your position and resort instead to personal attacks and whining.

And I would love to see the post where I called you a "jesus freak". Please cite. Or is this another example of you "getting the words jumbled" and a "made up attack on me"?

[Eddie Teach]

And I would love to see the post where I called you a "jesus freak". Please cite. Or is this another example of you "getting the words jumbled" and a "made up attack on me"?

I certainly remember you questioning his atheism, though not what words were used. Obviously, he can't search for posts from the old board.

[DGuller]

Of course it does - for you, "winning" is what this is all about,

LOL, holy projection!!!  You're not being an original thinker even when attacking someone, you're just copying verbatim my own stated problem with you and grumbler.

And I would love to see the post where I called you a "jesus freak". Please cite. Or is this another example of you "getting the words jumbled" and a "made up attack on me"?

Can't quote something from 2004-2005, duh.  However, I'm sure plenty of posters remember you not merely doubting my atheism, but actually even going further and calling me a liar about it.

[Razgovory]

Oh, Berkut.  This is really silly.

[Berkut]

And I would love to see the post where I called you a "jesus freak". Please cite. Or is this another example of you "getting the words jumbled" and a "made up attack on me"?

I certainly remember you questioning his atheism, though not what words were used. Obviously, he can't search for posts from the old board.

I may very well have - it certainly would come as no surprise if I did - I rather doubt I called him a "jesus freak though".

And of course he cannot search for posts from the old board - if he did, he would never make such a claim to begin with.