Who's the elitist?

cardinal5150 wrote:

meta4 wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:In this thread (politics).. I'll take being on a filtered list by you as a compliment. The only people I've called idiots I've stated why I believe they are and typically have done so by using pretty clear reasons and support.

I'm still waiting for you to make a valid argument over in the dow thread since you seem to believe I don't know what I'm talking about other there as well... as opposed to the typical bman response of "oh, you must be a genius" when you realize that you can't argue with logic and facts over there.

You're a complete moron. I paraphrased HERE (on Page 1) everything you expounded on in your chastisement post on Page 3 HERE. I didn't feel the need to run off at the mouth with specifics that are known, but don't lend anything useful to the discussion.

It's like me running off at the mouth about CAS latency times for PC3200 SDRAM. WGFF (Who Gives a Flying Flapjack?)

And I added that McCain's 'reform' is standing at his front door, knocking. He talks all about reform because he knows he needs to clean up his own shit. Hehe, don't ask me which house... his servants answer the door anyways.

Good to know that apparently I said the same thing you did and as a result.. i'm an idiot. Guess that would make you first idiot and me second?

And if the specifics were known to everyone, then apparently your buddy bman doesn't believe in actually reading anything because it's clear he doesn't understand what's actually happening in the world around him. So maybe that makes him first idiot, you second and me third? I'm not really sure, I'll leave that up to you since clearly you're more qualified than I.

I guess I missed that memo that all economist now subscribe to the same trickle down belief that Card does. I thought there was still a difference of opinions on economics. Interesting ... Card enlightens me everyday.

By the way, I happened to be at the airport when Michelle Obama flew in to Fort Wayne to give her speech. The place was abuzz. A perfect opportunity to get people excited about her husband's candidacy. So how did she arrive? She got her own runway far away from the "normal" terminals, got off the plane and straight into a car that sped away. That was that.

Markwes wrote:By the way, I happened to be at the airport when Michelle Obama flew in to Fort Wayne to give her speech. The place was abuzz. A perfect opportunity to get people excited about her husband's candidacy. So how did she arrive? She got her own runway far away from the "normal" terminals, got off the plane and straight into a car that sped away. That was that.

Was she in a ford escort? or whatever it is they drive?

Markwes wrote:By the way, I happened to be at the airport when Michelle Obama flew in to Fort Wayne to give her speech. The place was abuzz. A perfect opportunity to get people excited about her husband's candidacy. So how did she arrive? She got her own runway far away from the "normal" terminals, got off the plane and straight into a car that sped away. That was that.

Probably for security purposes...

Bman wrote:

FAIL ...

That was NOT an attempt at humor ... that is the first time I have heard that spin. lol

"How 'bout... oh.. 5 Million. (laughs...) No, but seriously"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q2sAFH7zj0

Maybe you should actually view the clip rather than listening to what your leader tells you is in the clip...

Bman wrote:

Markwes wrote:

meta4 wrote:McCain - uhm, well, ah. $5M

That's called humor, or at least McCain's attempt, as in "You want me to throw a number out there, so here is one". It was a dumb question, based on income alone, so he gave an appropriate response.

And Bman, are you seriously going to use Obama's Ford Escape as an example of how he can relate to us? You don't want to mention the fact that he replace his gas guzzling Chrysler with it last year after being criticized? Good to know he can bow to pressure.

FAIL ...

That was NOT an attempt at humor ... that is the first time I have heard that spin. lol

Really, did you read it?

MCCAIN: Some of the richest people I’ve ever known in my life are the most unhappy. I think that rich should be defined by a home, a good job, an education and the ability to hand to our children a more prosperous and safer world than the one that we inherited.

...So, I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million?

(LAUGHTER)

But seriously, I don’t think you can - I don’t think seriously that - the point is that I’m trying to make here, seriously — and I’m sure that comment will be distorted — but the point is that we want to keep people’s taxes low and increase revenues.

Whoever transcribed it apparently thought it got a laugh.

Markwes wrote:

meta4 wrote:McCain - uhm, well, ah. $5M

That's called humor, or at least McCain's attempt, as in "You want me to throw a number out there, so here is one". It was a dumb question, based on income alone, so he gave an appropriate response.

And Bman, are you seriously going to use Obama's Ford Escape as an example of how he can relate to us? You don't want to mention the fact that he replace his gas guzzling Chrysler with it last year after being criticized? Good to know he can bow to pressure.

Humor - FAIL
Evading a simple question - SCORE

If McCain wanted to exemplify how little he knows about the average American he succeeded in sending that message. It's too bad he (seriously) can't take a question from Rick Warren (seriously) enough to answer the question (serously).

Markwes wrote:

Bman wrote:

Markwes wrote:

meta4 wrote:McCain - uhm, well, ah. $5M

That's called humor, or at least McCain's attempt, as in "You want me to throw a number out there, so here is one". It was a dumb question, based on income alone, so he gave an appropriate response.

And Bman, are you seriously going to use Obama's Ford Escape as an example of how he can relate to us? You don't want to mention the fact that he replace his gas guzzling Chrysler with it last year after being criticized? Good to know he can bow to pressure.

FAIL ...

That was NOT an attempt at humor ... that is the first time I have heard that spin. lol

Really, did you read it?

MCCAIN: Some of the richest people I’ve ever known in my life are the most unhappy. I think that rich should be defined by a home, a good job, an education and the ability to hand to our children a more prosperous and safer world than the one that we inherited.

...So, I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million?

(LAUGHTER)

But seriously, I don’t think you can - I don’t think seriously that - the point is that I’m trying to make here, seriously — and I’m sure that comment will be distorted — but the point is that we want to keep people’s taxes low and increase revenues.

Whoever transcribed it apparently thought it got a laugh.

I watched the forum live ... it was more like a gasp and laughter did he just say that ... That is why John made the comment that this comment will be distorted. Distorted ... really? Kind of like his distortion of Obama supporting sex education for kindergarten? It was "stranger danger" ... now that was a distortion.

cardinal5150 wrote:

Bman wrote:

FAIL ...

That was NOT an attempt at humor ... that is the first time I have heard that spin. lol

"How 'bout... oh.. 5 Million. (laughs...) No, but seriously"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q2sAFH7zj0

Maybe you should actually view the clip rather than listening to what your leader tells you is in the clip...

I look at this clip and he says "so I - I - think if you're just talkin' about income ... how 'bout five million." (immediate laughter erupts from host Rick Warren and crowd, but McCain is stone faced)
"so... no... but seriously..."

Yep, seriously, you're right. That's seriously, some funny shit.

meta4 wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:

Bman wrote:

FAIL ...

That was NOT an attempt at humor ... that is the first time I have heard that spin. lol

"How 'bout... oh.. 5 Million. (laughs...) No, but seriously"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q2sAFH7zj0

Maybe you should actually view the clip rather than listening to what your leader tells you is in the clip...

I look at this clip and he says "so I - I - think if you're just talkin' about income ... how 'bout five million." (immediate laughter erupts from host Rick Warren and crowd, but McCain is stone faced)
"so... no... but seriously..."

Yep, seriously, you're right. That's seriously, some funny shit.

I hate to ask the obvious.. but did you even bother looking at the video?

Since you know... the camera is actually at the back of his head when he says $5M.. I guess I'm not sure where you get the "stone faced" image from. Well, I take that back.. I think I know where you get it from, I'm just not sure how you can actually justify it as reality.

cardinal5150 wrote:

I hate to ask the obvious.. but did you even bother looking at the video?

Since you know... the camera is actually at the back of his head when he says $5M.. I guess I'm not sure where you get the "stone faced" image from. Well, I take that back.. I think I know where you get it from, I'm just not sure how you can actually justify it as reality.

I don't expect you to understand. You cannot remember one day's posts the next day, in the same thread, and in your subject matter of specialization. Who would (seriously) assume you would be able to remember 3-4 posts prior, in the current thread? I swear I have less trouble talking to my 8 year old about reading comprehension.

Now, I should let you know I suspect you and Markwes aren't above dodging the explanation or splitting hairs over meaningless periphery. It's amusing watching you two half-ass attempts at ex-palin-ing McCain's platform for the 'common' folk.

I suppose a majority of people will not care about McCain's lame attempt to throw out a joke after being asked a straightforward question like this. If it was humor, he dodged the question. If it was serious, the joke is on him.

meta4 wrote:I don't expect you to understand. You cannot remember one day's posts the next day, in the same thread, and in your subject matter of specialization. Who would (seriously) assume you would be able to remember 3-4 posts prior, in the current thread? I swear I have less trouble talking to my 8 year old about reading comprehension.

Now, I should let you know I suspect you and Markwes aren't above dodging the explanation or splitting hairs over meaningless periphery. It's amusing watching you two half-ass attempts at ex-palin-ing McCain's platform for the 'common' folk.

I suppose a majority of people will not care about McCain's lame attempt to throw out a joke after being asked a straightforward question like this. If it was humor, he dodged the question. If it was serious, the joke is on him.

The old double standard response again eh? I suppose the "straightforward question" of when does life begin? and the response of "above my pay grade" was BHO's attempt at humor then. Maybe that question was just meaningless, I say it was a "half-ass attempt" at dodging the question.

meta4 wrote:I don't expect you to understand. You cannot remember one day's posts the next day, in the same thread, and in your subject matter of specialization. Who would (seriously) assume you would be able to remember 3-4 posts prior, in the current thread? I swear I have less trouble talking to my 8 year old about reading comprehension.

Now, I should let you know I suspect you and Markwes aren't above dodging the explanation or splitting hairs over meaningless periphery. It's amusing watching you two half-ass attempts at ex-palin-ing McCain's platform for the 'common' folk.

I suppose a majority of people will not care about McCain's lame attempt to throw out a joke after being asked a straightforward question like this. If it was humor, he dodged the question. If it was serious, the joke is on him.

Speaking of not being able to recall 3 or 4 posts prior, you seemed to ignore my statement that, simple or not, it was a dumb question, therefore not worthy of a serious answer. Are you going to tell me there is a magical income of which above is considered "rich"? Married or single doesn't enter into the equation? 5 kids or none? Being born into a wealthy family? Hey, maybe Paris Hilton can be deemed poor.

Markwes wrote:
Speaking of not being able to recall 3 or 4 posts prior, you seemed to ignore my statement that, simple or not, it was a dumb question, therefore not worthy of a serious answer. Are you going to tell me there is a magical income of which above is considered "rich"? Married or single doesn't enter into the equation? 5 kids or none? Being born into a wealthy family? Hey, maybe Paris Hilton can be deemed poor.

That prior comment is a perfect example. I could be wrong, but I think you guys are pitching underhand to me because you want McCain to look like an idiot. I ignored it because I thought I'd let you figger that one out on your own. I just saw that as your 'dodge'. Apparently, (and I am not surprised in the slightest) when you get a tough question, it's not that you don't have an answer... the QUESTION is dumb.

And you want to try to convince anyone reading that McCain is not an elitist? I thought you were trying to argue that McCain is NOT an elitist. Interesting, he accepts an invitation to be interviewed, but he's under no obligation to answer Rick Warren's question, because it's "dumb". Fascinating. Seriously fascinating...

LTRT wrote:The old double standard response again eh? I suppose the "straightforward question" of when does life begin? and the response of "above my pay grade" was BHO's attempt at humor then. Maybe that question was just meaningless, I say it was a "half-ass attempt" at dodging the question.

I understand what you're saying but I feel you're stretching outside the current topic. A double standard response would be appropriate when we're comparing statements. ie. First you'd have to make a statement about Obama, then I make a statement about McCain (or vice versa) which you could use to highlight a double standard.

Did I miss something in between the thread topic and the context of our discussion, or do you just want to tangent into comparing the quality of answers across two completely different topics discussed the Warren interview? Have the doctor lower your dosage already...

If it wasn't plainly obvious by his answer, I'll admit, that was a dodge by Obama. He took a straightforward question, dodged, and gave a good reason... the Abortion debate is forked. It has both a moral standard, and a legal definition, he felt it should be decided by moral leaders, the judiciary.

The "rich" question was straightforward.

Rick Warren/John McCain wrote:Ok, on taxes, define “rich.” Everybody talks about taxing the rich, but not the poor, the middle class. At what point - give me a number, give me a specific number - where do you move from middle class to rich?

Is it $100,000, is it $50,000, is it $200,000? How does anybody know if we don’t know what the standards are?

meta4 wrote:I don't expect you to understand. You cannot remember one day's posts the next day, in the same thread, and in your subject matter of specialization. Who would (seriously) assume you would be able to remember 3-4 posts prior, in the current thread? I swear I have less trouble talking to my 8 year old about reading comprehension.

Simple question.... how can you see he was "stone faced" without seeing his face? Please, I want to know. You said it.. it's black and white... quit avoiding and simply answer. Do you have some fancy technology the rest of us don't? Or are you simply following bman's lead and refusing to acknowledge that your take on this interview" is completely wrong from how it actually went down?

Now, I should let you know I suspect you and Markwes aren't above dodging the explanation or splitting hairs over meaningless periphery. It's amusing watching you two half-ass attempts at ex-palin-ing McCain's platform for the 'common' folk.

I suppose a majority of people will not care about McCain's lame attempt to throw out a joke after being asked a straightforward question like this. If it was humor, he dodged the question. If it was serious, the joke is on him.

McCain did answer the question, there's no need for Mark or myself, or anyone else to repeat it, but apparently you must not have speakers on your computer for that video, so I'll repeat his answer.... he doesn't judge in terms of $$. Call it cheesy, that was his answer. I think it's cheesy, but more importantly, I don't think you can put a dollar figure down and say above is rich, below is not.

If you were to make $100K here you'd be rich. Move to NYC or even Chicago and you're not Rich. Hell, I know a girl who just moved to NYC, out of college is making $58K/year and is considered so poor she has to get a co-signer to guarantee her $1200/month rent payment on her studio apartment. If I were to get $58K out of college in FW I'd be feeling pretty damn wealthy.

So again... just because you didn't like his answer, doesn't mean he didn't answer it.

meta4 wrote:
The "rich" question was straightforward.

So what do you feel is an accurate #?

meta4 wrote:[And you want to try to convince anyone reading that McCain is not an elitist? I thought you were trying to argue that McCain is NOT an elitist.

Nope, speaking for myself, that's incorrect. Let me summarize. This started as an inference that McCain is an elitist because he owns 13 cars or whatever. I stated the definition of an elitist and how the mere possession of wealth does not fit the category, and then asked for an example that does fit it. You mentioned the "rich" question during the Warren interview, and I have yet to see how his answer makes him an elitist. I'm amazed at how often we follow the same steps in these debates, where I ask for examples, you give a wishy-washy example at best, and then claim victory and tell those who argue with you how a 5 year old should be able to understand. In reality, I can't see in any way, shape, or form how someone can view his answer as being serious. *shrugs shoulders*

I think it's a great question. It asked McCain to "DEFINE" for us, and he would not do it. I suppose someone would have to have a concept of 'definite' in order to understand the question. McCain can handle the ambiguous gray areas just fine... no argument there.

This allowed us to see (in Obama's example) that he can be asked a straightforward question and answer it definitely (the middle class upper limit is at $150K). McCain has to stumble-sculpt the answer to protect the fact that he's completely out of touch, and utterly unconcerned with knowing what life is like for the $50K to $150K or $300K household.

Ok, on taxes, define “rich.” Everybody talks about taxing the rich, but not the poor, the middle class. At what point - give me a number, give me a specific number - where do you move from middle class to rich?

Markwes wrote:According to American Heritage,

Elitism - The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

At what point did the definition change to "having the most material possessions"?

I'd say around about the time the phrase rhetoric came to mean lies. Also, in fairness to Mr Webster, I believe that material posessions would seem to indicate a largess of financial resources.

meta4 wrote:...the Abortion debate is forked. It has both a moral standard, and a legal definition, he felt it should be decided by moral leaders, the judiciary.

TSIW

Markwes wrote: I'm amazed at how often we follow the same steps in these debates, where I ask for examples, you give a wishy-washy example at best, and then claim victory and tell those who argue with you how a 5 year old should be able to understand. In reality, I can't see in any way, shape, or form how someone can view his answer as being serious. *shrugs shoulders*

Well, for starters, you're making a general observation about my generalized comments. I'm not concerned with whether or not you like the quality of my answers. You rarely ask for clarification on things you do not understand, and you know what they say about "assumptions". I'm focusing my comments on the current topic, and applying the candidates answers to meet the requirements of SAID topic.

"how someone can view his answer as being serious" I don't know what to say about that you cannot read, and you cannot comprehend plain English, or else you think people like your bullshit.

But seriously, I don’t think you can - I don’t think seriously that - the point is that I’m trying to make here, seriously — and I’m sure that comment will be distorted — but the point is that we want to keep people’s taxes low and increase revenues.

Is that his final answer?

Honestly, no spin here from me. McCain was asked an easy question, when is a person deemed rich. He could have given a populist answer and said a lower number but he went with his gut instinct and that was $5M a year. Yep ... he was right, that is rich.

Obama was asked a question about "when does life begin" ... fuck, scientist can't answer this but you guys want Obama too, he gave an honest answer .. he does not know and either do you or the fucking scientist.

meta4 wrote:Well, for starters, you're making a general observation about my generalized comments. I'm not concerned with whether or not you like the quality of my answers. You rarely ask for clarification on things you do not understand, and you know what they say about "assumptions". I'm focusing my comments on the current topic, and applying the candidates answers to meet the requirements of SAID topic.

"how someone can view his answer as being serious" I don't know what to say about that you cannot read, and you cannot comprehend plain English, or else you think people like your bullshit.

Kind of like how you made a general observation on my use of use of hyperbole in another thread. Six of one...

When I brought up your debating style, I guess I forgot the step where you question our ability to comprehend English. That must be it. I can't comprehend plain English. Card and LTRT can't comprehend plain English. It should all be so clear for us to see things like Meta4 does.

Markwes wrote:

meta4 wrote:Well, for starters, you're making a general observation about my generalized comments. I'm not concerned with whether or not you like the quality of my answers. You rarely ask for clarification on things you do not understand, and you know what they say about "assumptions". I'm focusing my comments on the current topic, and applying the candidates answers to meet the requirements of SAID topic.

"how someone can view his answer as being serious" I don't know what to say about that you cannot read, and you cannot comprehend plain English, or else you think people like your bullshit.

Kind of like how you made a general observation on my use of use of hyperbole in another thread. Six of one...

When I brought up your debating style, I guess I forgot the step where you question our ability to comprehend English. That must be it. I can't comprehend plain English. Card and LTRT can't comprehend plain English. It should all be so clear for us to see things like Meta4 does.

Apparently you cannot. I only inferred that YOU cannot comprehend English. You go on to then transpose that to Card and LTRT? Friggin' brilliant.