I'm with stupid

[cali]

Unfortunately when you post on GD-P, you ARE with stupid a lot of the time.

Here's what stupid frequently says:

Obama is an empty suit.

Hillary is a war monger.

Obama just copies Hillary.

Hillary is shrill.

Obama is a vicious liar.

Hillary is a vicious liar.

Obama is splitting the party.

Hillary is splitting the party.

And variations on the above themes.

And it's stupid. Deeply, truly, stupid. It's one dimensional, binary "thinking". And it's a bore.

That is all.

[Bicoastal]

1. The "splitting the party" stuff cracks me up...

How willfully ignorant can people be on both sides?

[Bucky]

23. I must respond to this. Someone on teh internet said something WRONG!

hee hee

[Forkboy]

2. Black and white thinking rules the day here.

[Mike03]

3. Right on, Cali, as usual.

You see through this, but why don't more people renounce and repudiate that sort of diatribe? And why don't more people encourage the discourse of people who see the good in both candidates but simply prefer one over the other, without demonetizing the opponent? It seems so simple, yet it is apparently a mysterious puzzle to many people here.

First Rec!

[BuyingThyme]

5. It doesn't count unless you reject it.

[mama]

4. Amen!!! I remember when I came here for intelligent conversation

[bunnies]

6. rec'd. nt

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. 1000 words (or 3)

[Bucky]

24. !

it's perfect! I'm stealing it!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. Cali, You Haven't Exactly Been The Most Fair Minded Poster Yourself, Ya Know.

Just sayin...

[Forkboy]

9. Actually, cali has been far fairer than most.

Cali has both defended and attacked all the candidates.

[cali]

10. Really? Let me suggest that you're wrong

I have never called Clinton a war monger or shrill. I have written post after post defending her. I have repeatedly criticized Obama for McClurkin and other things. Please put up or well, you know. Post links to any post of mine where I have unfairly criticized Clinton. Unlike YOU, with your faux nonsense about supporting both candidates when you've bashed Obama repeatedly, I have not bashed Clinton. Your post of last night stands as testimony to that.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. Show Me One Time I've Bashed Obama. Thanks.

[cali]

12. I'll show you mine if you show me yours

YOU made the first accusation. YOU should post the links to where I've bashed Hillary. Then I'll show you where you've bashed Obama. Thanks.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. Tell Me... Have You Ever Seen Me Patronize Him By Calling Him Obamy Wamy Or Something?

I could show you post after post of your patronizing 'hilly' crap. Complete lack of respect for a fellow candidate.

Now show me ANYWHERE I've even gotten to that minimal level of putdown against Obama. Go for it.

I have NEVER shown Obama disrespect towards character or tried to undermine him or what he's doing (except maybe to just irritate someone I was trying to piss the fuck out of, but even then I don't think I did).

Show me a post where I've patronized him, attacked him, denigrated him, or otherwise showed him disrespect. Thanks.

[cali]

18. Last night's passive agressive bull about how YOU the all knowing

OMC, claims that YOU know that Obama would have voted for the war. A real piece of passive agressive work. And sorry, referring to Hillary as Hilly, is not doing any of the things in I listed.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

20. BZZZZZTTTTTT. You Fail. Try Again.

Bringing up a completely reasonable and valid point as to why I think it's RIDICULOUS for his more rabid supporters to claim as if THEY'RE all knowing that he WOULDN'T have voted for it, is not anywhere NEAR 'bashing' Obama. I didn't BASH him whatsoever. Not even close. I didn't denigrate him, mock him, or otherwise attack him. I made a quite reasonable point to show that he CAN be prone to having a different mindset once IN the senate, than he might have OUTSIDE of it. It was to show quite clearly that even in his own words, he sometimes can take a position that he otherwise should've KNOWN was wrong, based solely on being in the heat of the moment so to speak. There was not a thing wrong with that post. Furthermore, I NEVER said in that post that I KNOW. I said I believed.

Your first attempt was a failure. Care to try again? :hi:

And on edit: Calling her 'Hilly' is a COMPLETE sign of disrespect for a fellow Dem candidate and immature to boot. Furthermore, you have shown blatant hatred in my opinion towards her and have used quite strong terms in relation to her campaign, such as hoping her campaign is killed, that her campaign is pathetic, etc etc. Personally, I find tones of hatred and belittling towards a fellow Dem who is honorable in her own right and DAMN GOOD in her own right to be more irritating to me then the whole shrill crap. But to each their own with that. Still, you can't find ANY post of mine that is 1. Angry towards Obama. 2. Belittling towards him. 3. Disrespectful of him. 4. Aggressively toned as it relates to his dropping out. 5. Construed as being resentful of him.

Again. Your turn. Find me ONE post that per your words, shows me BASHING Obama. I mean, after all, you said I REPEATEDLY have done so. Can you show ONE example? Not repeated examples, but ONE? Course, even one would be a far cry from REPEATED, but I'd like to see if you can find even ONE.

[Westegg]

13. I marvel that you get to determine what's "stupid"...

...considering that you've covered a tremendous amount of ground here. Thus: If Clinton or Obama is to lie, and we are to point it out, then, Q.E.D.: We are stupid?

I don't get it.

Further: "One dimensional...'thinking'" (sic) and "binary 'thinking'" are two different things. If you meant that in an "Either/Or" Kierkegaardian sense, well, I missed that.

Even so.

I don't get it.

[cali]

15. I think it's pretty obvious and that I spelled it out quite clearly

Sorry, it went over your head, and no I wasn't thinking Kierkegaard, and yes I obviously know that binary thinking is not the same thing as one dimensional thinking. Thanks for the pretentious reference, though.

[Westegg]

21. Yet you wrote what you wrote!...

...and as your reader, I am telling you that you did not, in fact, spell it out "quite clearly." My previous post began to suggest the ways in which you did not. Do you simply disregard all criticism as a matter of course? Are you here to inform and communicate, or just to belittle? Your retort-- that it's all over my head-- is such defensive posturing that I sense no further dialogue is likely. I am struck, sir or madame, by your anger overall. It will carry me through to bed-time tonight. If that was your goal, then you have won. I can't imagine why that would please you, though I suspect that it does.

I'll only add that I don't see how a mention of Kierkegaard is "pretentious." Why? How? I wonder what you would consider to be a non-pretentious reference.

You have shown me nothing of your true self. I don't know why that matters to me, but it does.

[whatchamacallit]

19. They used to give me chocolate milk in Kierkegaardian

I liked that...

[Westegg]

27. Happy the man...

..."When the child has grown big and must be weaned, the mother virginally hides her breast, so the child has no more a mother. Happy the child which did not in another way lose its mother."
---"Fear and Trembling"

[sniffa]

14. You forgot Joo baiting

[cali]

17. oops.

thanks for adding that.

[grantcart]

22. my favorite is quoting a source without googling them to see

who they are or might they just be a lunatic

[blondie58]

25. well said, Cali

and I thought that this was going to be one of those funny pictures of Shrub with Cheney or MacClain or Condi........

[Hoof Hearted]

26. I'll K&R this Cali. Excellent post.