Can we get an "I am Grasper -- Please do not offer me straws" banner for Steve?
And here I thought the thread had descended into playful humor?
For those who appear to be ignorant of the rules of playful humor when one drops a line such as "Obama respirates oxygen! Methane breathers outraged!" without including some sort of image of the methane breathers in question it is only to be expected that someone would call out the person making such a statement as a methane breather. For it is quite clear that by not showing what methane breather is outraged the obvious methane breather must be the one leaving such a comment as no other example is given.
Steve, the bullshit you just wrote here doesn't make a lick of sense.
The statement "Can we get an 'I am Grasper -- Please do not offer me straws'" and the statement "Obama respirates oxygen! Methane breathers outraged!" both refer back to your stupid posts about Obama bowing to the Emperor of Japan. Those statements were not meant to be playful humor. They were made with the intent of calling attention to the fact that you are an idiot. That wasn't a playful statement either. You are an idiot. Seriously - not the "playful humor" type of idiot, but the "there's something seriously wrong with him" type of idiot. I'm surprised that you even graduated from high school. Just for clarification - that statement wasn't meant to be playful either. I am beginning to wonder if what you actually did was get a GED. Quite frankly, I'm not even sure if passing a GED is within your capabilities, considering the stupidity you've shown on this forum. No, that's not playful humor either. I honestly think that you are very, very stupid, and I belive that many, if not most, people who read this forum agree with me.
I'm surprised that you even graduated from high school. Just for clarification - that statement wasn't meant to be playful either. I am beginning to wonder if what you actually did was get a GED. Quite frankly, I'm not even sure if passing a GED is within your capabilities, considering the stupidity you've shown on this forum. No, that's not playful humor either. I honestly think that you are very, very stupid, and I belive that many, if not most, people who read this forum agree with me.
And I'm the caustic one. See the double standard here?
K, I usually take a lot of heat when I answer Steve like that, but sometimes I just can't resist. The difference between you and me is that I'm not an asshole ALL of the time to EVERYONE. Also, on those occasions when I do resort to assholery, I don't sound like I have an actual, diagnosable, bat- shit crazy, mental disorder. You often do, quite frankly, and I think your internet experience would improve if you sought some help for what are obviously some deep problems in your personal life. I'm not saying that to be sarcastic or "caustic." I'm saying it because I'm genuinely concerned for your mental health. Honestly, you're lately sounding more and more like you're one missed med away from going on a postal-style rampage. If CNN ever reports on a guy going postal in an office in Vermont, I'm sure everyone here will be thinking of you.
Even then, I don't think anyone despises you so much for your obsessive "HATE JOE, HATE JOE, HATE JOE" comments or even your obsessive "HATE OBAMA, HATE OBAMA, HATE OBAMA" comments so much as they despise you for your stupid overuse of "woops", "moving the goalposts", "counting chickens" sayings that you misapply to situations where they are not called for and your nearly constant "I predicted X", "Kilarney +100 for Integrity/Ingenuity/Courage/Strength of Character/Beauty etc." Your obsessive "I'm right and everyone else here is wrong and you'll all be sorry when you see I'm right but I don't care whether I'm right or not" comments don't help much either.
Taboo? Where did that come from? Isn't the bow-handshake combo a way of each culture acknowledging and respecting the other?
I googled "handshake while bowing Japanese taboo" to make sure. Many results came up describing this combo as customary, particularly with American-Japanese interaction. It is a show of mutual cultural respect. That is not what came up as taboo. Although, apparently doing this with the other hand in your pocket is taboo. Obama doesn't have his hand in his pocket.
Yes, this is true. This is actually a common practice in business situations, and sometimes you will see Japanese businessmen doing it when they meet their American counterparts. I highly doubt that the emperor was horribly offended by this. Instead of doing American custom all the way, they meet in the middle, mixing the two greetings. If I thought the combo was weird, or I had not seen people do that mix before, I would have remarked on it. Sure, it's not 100% the true way you are supposed to bow, but I think Obama did not make the cultural faux pas you seem to have attributed to him. Also:
"Since coming to Japan, Obama's popularity here has risen even more. There were many people moved by his tolerant and charismatic character. This is a good thing. Obama, thank you for meeting the emperor the way you did.
As President Obama decides whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, we should remember that most of the conventional pessimism about Afghanistan is only half-truth. --snip-- We have experienced soldiers and military leadership, a just cause and Western unity. In other words, we have everything we need to defeat the Taliban — except a commander-in-chief as confident about fighting and winning as he once was as a candidate.
I believe he gets most of the background absolutely correct. Especially his comments on 'ungovernable' Afghanistan and its status as 'graveyard of Empires'. Thoughts?
As President Obama decides whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, we should remember that most of the conventional pessimism about Afghanistan is only half-truth. --snip-- We have experienced soldiers and military leadership, a just cause and Western unity. In other words, we have everything we need to defeat the Taliban — except a commander-in-chief as confident about fighting and winning as he once was as a candidate.
I believe he gets most of the background absolutely correct. Especially his comments on 'ungovernable' Afghanistan and its status as 'graveyard of Empires'. Thoughts?
Get ready to be shocked everyone: V.D. Hanson, the article's writer, was a huge Bush supporter and worked for the National Review. Why don't you just post what O'Riely or Limbaugh said about the war to try and make a point?
>Get ready to be shocked everyone: V.D. Hanson, the article's writer, was a huge Bush supporter andworked for the National Review.Why don't you just post what O'Riely or Limbaugh said about the war to try and make a point?
I am shocked. I never figured you would go for the ad hominem first.
Can anyone square this with what we know about Obama?
“First of all, let me say that I have never used Twitter. I notice that young people – you know, they’re very busy with all these electronics. My thumbs are too clumsy to type in things on the phone."
>Get ready to be shocked everyone: V.D. Hanson, the article's writer, was a huge Bush supporter andworked for the National Review.Why don't you just post what O'Riely or Limbaugh said about the war to try and make a point?
I am shocked. I never figured you would go for the ad hominem first.
How is pointing out previous work that carries with it a large bias an ad hominem?
>Get ready to be shocked everyone: V.D. Hanson, the article's writer, was a huge Bush supporter andworked for the National Review.Why don't you just post what O'Riely or Limbaugh said about the war to try and make a point?
I am shocked. I never figured you would go for the ad hominem first.
How is pointing out previous work that carries with it a large bias an ad hominem?
Actually, discrediting an argument based on bias without responding to its content is pretty much the definition of ad hominem circumstantial.
Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source.
Citing O'Reilly and Limbaugh definitely constitutes discrediting V.D. Hanson.
While I can see your point, knowing the background of a person that is writing a political opinion piece does and can inform you of their pre-existing bias. This should not discredit a person, but it can inform one to their past political leanings and give some insight into their current political opinions.
As for likening him to O'Riely and Limbaugh, you most certainly are correct.
I work in educational technology, for a living. I have never used twitter.
You'd better let my boss know so he can fire me. At least I'm not the president. How can Obama make plans to meet Chinese President Hu Jintao tomorow if he can't use twitter?
Because he can constantly check his email, look at his schedule, and all those other business organizing things? You know how many middle aged business people I see on the NYC train looking at their Blackberries, men who I highly doubt have ever used it to Tweet?
And please, just admit you were wrong on the bowing thing. I want to know that you actually looked it up and learned about the Japanese custom.
Can anyone square this with what we know about Obama?
First of all, let me say that I have never used Twitter. I notice that young people you know, theyre very busy with all these electronics. My thumbs are too clumsy to type in things on the phone."
I thought he was the hippest (tech-wise) guy ever to sit in the oval office?Neverused twitter? Why does he have a Blackberry if he can't use it?
Isn't that one of those evil ad hominems you are so sensitive to, Steve?
Citing predisposition bias may cost you points in high school debate team, but people use it in the real world all the time to obtain correct results. If a person is known to have a poor character for truthfulness, a bias, or if they are simply not very smart, we may take that into account when determining their credibility.
Like this thread where you suggested that Thais had no credibility? This is why it's best to stick with proper debate tactics.
And just to show that you pick and choose rules when convenient, you said this in that thread: "Thanks for the ad hominem attack. I guess that's what you do when you're on the losing side of an argument."
So when you engage in an ad hominem attack it's fine, but when your opponent does it's an admission of defeat. You are inconsistent indeed. That alone diminishes your credibility.
And I suppose that you ignored everything you read at the Huffington Post that pertained to Bush? Oh, wait. You didn't. Just another example of your moving goalposts.
And please, just admit you were wrong on the bowing thing. I want to know that you actually looked it up and learned about the Japanese custom.
I'll meet you half way and offer this article in response.
"This picture shows two things," my friend writes.
"1) The 'right' is wrong about Obama's bow.
"2) The 'left' is wrong about Obama's bow.
"His bow is neither (1) unprecedented nor (2) a sign of cultural understanding.
"At their 1971 meeting in Alaska, the first visit of a Japanese Emperor to America, President Nixon bowed and referred to Emperor Hirohito and his wife repeatedly as 'Your Imperial Majesties.'"
"Yet, (and?) Nixon gets the bow right. Slight arch from the waist hands at his side.
"Obama's handshake/forward lurch was so jarring and inappropriate it recalls Bush's back-rub of Merkel.
"Kyodo News is running his appropriate and reciprocated nod and shake with the Empress, certainly to show the president as dignified, and not in the form of a first year English teacher trying to impress with Karate Kid-level knowledge of Japanese customs.
"The bow as he performed did not just display weakness in Red State terms, but evoked weakness in Japanese terms....The last thing the Japanese want or need is a weak looking American president and, again, in all ways, he unintentionally played that part.
"BTW, Obama's bow at Suntory Hall was much better. Correct angle, slight bow. His hands were wrong but the physical tone was correct and appropriate.
"But if Obama can get the dollar to stop bowing to the Yen I take it all back."
This is why we don't get good people running for political office. Anyone who wants to run for office has to understand that, if they win, idiots like Steve will criticize even the most trivial thing they do.
This is why we don't get good people running for political office. Anyone who wants to run for office has to understand that, if they win, idiots like Steve will criticize even the most trivial thing they do.
Unlike blind followers such as Joe who will never say anything bad about a politician that follows his ideology.
If I'm such an idiot and you are so smart why do you waste your time answering my posts?
Comments
The statement "Can we get an 'I am Grasper -- Please do not offer me straws'" and the statement "Obama respirates oxygen! Methane breathers outraged!" both refer back to your stupid posts about Obama bowing to the Emperor of Japan. Those statements were not meant to be playful humor. They were made with the intent of calling attention to the fact that you are an idiot. That wasn't a playful statement either. You are an idiot. Seriously - not the "playful humor" type of idiot, but the "there's something seriously wrong with him" type of idiot. I'm surprised that you even graduated from high school. Just for clarification - that statement wasn't meant to be playful either. I am beginning to wonder if what you actually did was get a GED. Quite frankly, I'm not even sure if passing a GED is within your capabilities, considering the stupidity you've shown on this forum. No, that's not playful humor either. I honestly think that you are very, very stupid, and I belive that many, if not most, people who read this forum agree with me.
Even then, I don't think anyone despises you so much for your obsessive "HATE JOE, HATE JOE, HATE JOE" comments or even your obsessive "HATE OBAMA, HATE OBAMA, HATE OBAMA" comments so much as they despise you for your stupid overuse of "woops", "moving the goalposts", "counting chickens" sayings that you misapply to situations where they are not called for and your nearly constant "I predicted X", "Kilarney +100 for Integrity/Ingenuity/Courage/Strength of Character/Beauty etc." Your obsessive "I'm right and everyone else here is wrong and you'll all be sorry when you see I'm right but I don't care whether I'm right or not" comments don't help much either.
Also: "Since coming to Japan, Obama's popularity here has risen even more. There were many people moved by his tolerant and charismatic character. This is a good thing. Obama, thank you for meeting the emperor the way you did.
Ya'll got told, Steve.
I believe he gets most of the background absolutely correct. Especially his comments on 'ungovernable' Afghanistan and its status as 'graveyard of Empires'. Thoughts?
V.D. Hanson, the article's writer, was a huge Bush supporter and worked for the National Review. Why don't you just post what O'Riely or Limbaugh said about the war to try and make a point?
I thought he was the hippest (tech-wise) guy ever to sit in the oval office? Never used twitter? Why does he have a Blackberry if he can't use it?
As for likening him to O'Riely and Limbaugh, you most certainly are correct.
I swear, even if you had used this kind of crap against Bush I'd think you were an idiot.
I have never used twitter.
You'd better let my boss know so he can fire me. At least I'm not the president. How can Obama make plans to meet Chinese President Hu Jintao tomorow if he can't use twitter?
And please, just admit you were wrong on the bowing thing. I want to know that you actually looked it up and learned about the Japanese custom.
Citing predisposition bias may cost you points in high school debate team, but people use it in the real world all the time to obtain
correct results. If a person is known to have a poor character for truthfulness, a bias, or if they are simply not very smart, we may take that into account when determining their credibility.
And just to show that you pick and choose rules when convenient, you said this in that thread:
"Thanks for the ad hominem attack. I guess that's what you do when you're on the losing side of an argument."
So when you engage in an ad hominem attack it's fine, but when your opponent does it's an admission of defeat. You are inconsistent indeed. That alone diminishes your credibility.
And I suppose that you ignored everything you read at the Huffington Post that pertained to Bush? Oh, wait. You didn't. Just another example of your moving goalposts.
If I'm such an idiot and you are so smart why do you waste your time answering my posts?