Hawaii verifies Obama birth records to Arizona

[Razgovory]

For what it's worth DGuller, I find Berkut and grumbler's characterization of you and your posts pretty inaccurate.

Agreed.

That may be accurate, but DGuller's characterization of Berkut's position is even more off base.

Explain.

[Sheilbh]

Did the Fabians ever produce prose as lofty and insightful as "General Betray-Us?"

The Fabians did far more stupid things like lofty prose in support of eugenics or G.B. Shaw's insane phonetic alphabet. 

[merithyn]

For what it's worth DGuller, I find Berkut and grumbler's characterization of you and your posts pretty inaccurate.

Agreed.

So when he cuts out the portion of my posts where I state the exact opposite of what he proceeds to rail on me about, you think that is pretty much all cool?

I'm staying out that whole mess. I simply said that I believe he's being mischaracterized.

It happens here a lot based on one post or one comment. When one takes ALL of that person's posts and comments into account, however, they tend to be someone entirely different. One person says one thing and they're branded with that "opinion" forever, and any other posts or comments are torn apart or disregarded based on the first comment. As if a person can't ever change their mind or even clarify what was meant rather than what was perceived.

So, yeah, I agree with what Jacob says. DGuller has, overall, come across as a level-headed, upright kind of guy.

[mongers]

For what it's worth DGuller, I find Berkut and grumbler's characterization of you and your posts pretty inaccurate.

I'm staying out that whole mess. I simply said that I believe he's being mischaracterized.

It happens here a lot based on one post or one comment. When one takes ALL of that person's posts and comments into account, however, they tend to be someone entirely different. One person says one thing and they're branded with that "opinion" forever, and any other posts or comments are torn apart or disregarded based on the first comment. As if a person can't ever change their mind or even clarify what was meant rather than what was perceived.

So, yeah, I agree with what Jacob says. DGuller has, overall, come across as a level-headed, upright kind of guy.

God grief woman, you're being generous; I'd say it represents at least 50% of the content here.

Not that I disagree with both yours and Jacob's sentiment.

[PDH]

Mongers, that is the worst job of quoting I have ever seen.

[katmai]

And he's seen  a lot.

[mongers]

Mongers, that is the worst job of quoting I have ever seen.

Yeah, it's probably a good idea to look at what one posts.   

[dps]

For what it's worth DGuller, I find Berkut and grumbler's characterization of you and your posts pretty inaccurate.

Agreed.

That may be accurate, but DGuller's characterization of Berkut's position is even more off base.

Explain.

Berkut's not particularly partisan, just stubborn.

[Darth Wagtaros]

 

[merithyn]

God grief woman, you're being generous; I'd say it represents at least 50% of the content here.

Not that I disagree with both yours and Jacob's sentiment.

Yes, it does. I was actually TRYING to be generous.

[merithyn]

Berkut's not particularly partisan, just stubborn.

And typically very fucking intelligent with his arguments. One of the many reason I enjoy reading his posts. He's just not always right, even if he thinks he is.

[Razgovory]

Berkut's not particularly partisan, just stubborn.

That's because he happens to agree with you on a lot of issues.

[Berkut]

For what it's worth DGuller, I find Berkut and grumbler's characterization of you and your posts pretty inaccurate.

Agreed.

So when he cuts out the portion of my posts where I state the exact opposite of what he proceeds to rail on me about, you think that is pretty much all cool?

I'm staying out that whole mess. I simply said that I believe he's being mischaracterized.

You can't have it both ways - how can you say he is being mischaracterized without saying atthe same time that I am somehow mistaken in my characterization, which requires you to evaluate said characterization.

There is no doubt about what he did, and this is far from the first time he has done something like this when the subject becomes about politics.

It happens here a lot based on one post or one comment. When one takes ALL of that person's posts and comments into account, however, they tend to be someone entirely different.

When one takes the entirety of DGullers posts into account, he is rather clearly an extremely partisan left wing Democrat. Maybe you can debate whether or not he is REALLY extreme, or just kind of extreme, but he is on the record as stating that in his views moderate Democrats are not Democrats at all, but really Republicans. And not just one or two, but lots of them. If that isn't extreme, then there are no extremes at all.

I can buy the argument that my characterization of him as just as extreme as the Tea Baggers is too much...but only just at best.

His track record of creative editing of posts and stating things about me that he knows full well is simply not true is well established, sadly. That is a separate issue.

One person says one thing and they're branded with that "opinion" forever, and any other posts or comments are torn apart or disregarded based on the first comment. As if a person can't ever change their mind or even clarify what was meant rather than what was perceived.

You must be talking about some other DG. He doesn't ever change his mind on political matters - they are a matter of great faith to him.

So, yeah, I agree with what Jacob says. DGuller has, overall, come across as a level-headed, upright kind of guy.

I think overall, DG is a level headed, upright kind of guy...outside of politics.

Then he has a very established track record of not being nearly so level headed, and definitely not "upright".

Someone who is mostly very honest who has been shown to be very much dishonest at times is both things. You can't just pretend the dishonesty didn't happen because most of the time he is honest, or a nice guy.

At the end of the day, your support for someone whose basic point is that

A) Republican opposition/"backlash" against Obama is significantly motivated by racism (rather than simply party politics, ideology, etc., etc), and
B) He is upset that people question his motives, and thinks that is not really very fair.

The irony that he is so concerned about anyone questioning a particular posters motives (for which we have ample actual evidence), while he is perfectly content to impunge the motives of millions based on their membership in the "other" party (with zero evidence at all, except his "common sense") appears to be completely lost on him. Which is rather perfectly normal...for extremists.

[Berkut]

Berkut's not particularly partisan, just stubborn.

And typically very fucking intelligent with his arguments. One of the many reason I enjoy reading his posts. He's just not always right, even if he thinks he is.

That is rather disappointing. I am perfectly capable of recognizing that I am not always right, and have changed my mind on many occasions on Languish. My bouncing around the political spectrum alone is pretty freaking bizarre, in fact, all evidenced on Languish.

But you are correct that I do think I am right when I am willing to be the person standing up and saying "Yeah, I don't think it is fair to just constantly call millions of people racists because they question the black guy. And it is really unfair to then extend that accusation of racism to the larger group they happen to be a subset of...and when you do it in the cause of furthering your political agenda, race baiting is not just a shitty move, it is borderline racist itself".

Go back and read this thread Meri. Lots of people jumping up and down and calling millions of other racists. And not one single shred of actual evidence provided except appeals to "it is obvious" and "common sense" or even you must be "pretty delusional" not to see this rampant racism.

Sorry, but you can color me "pretty delusional". I refuse to level an accusation of racism without something more than the demand that we take a bunch of Dems at their gut feeling that the Republicans are racists because some of them don't like Obama. YMMV of course, but IMO anyone willing to play use race in such a way like that is much more contemptible than even the idiots who care about Obama's birth certificate.

[Jaron]

I think your arguments are both intelligent and sound, Berkut. I have never known you to be a man to shy away from admitting when you're wrong - it just doesn't happen very often since you don't tend to take up crazy positions.