President Hussaine's Website Says, "Join the Fight." Why is Hussaine endorsing violence!

[Malcolm Wright]

You guys are in denial. That's OK, I understand. If you voted for him, supported him, and stood by to defend him time and time again over the last few years, I can understand how difficult it would be to ever admit you were wrong. Wrong about his character or his agenda. Understandable.

I do have a lot of respect for the Dems here who HAVE not only woken up but have been honest enough to admit "I was wrong about him, he is yet another corporatist phony."

I'm not saying you're being dishonest, Malcolm. Since you just got back here recently, I wasn't even aware that you were still supporting Obama. I assumed you weren't by now, but maybe I was wrong? Or you maybe you don't support his policies anymore but still defend his character? I don't want to guess, so you can clear up how you feel about him. Anyway, my point still stands that it can be hard for one to admit that they backed the wrong guy and made a mistake. Hopefully more people will put truth above pride or partisanship.

You might find later, should you stumble upon other posts of mine since I came back, that I don't plan on voting for him again.
In your mind, somehow defending Obama from an unearned title of Great Divider means I still support him. I guess that's some indication of how you think.

Obama's many flaws don't mean it is ok to twist his words, and run away with your imagination, creating from your own mind someone who is fanning the flames of racism and discord. Why is it not enough to simply dislike the man's policies? Sure, find him arrogant too if you want to. But The Great Divider? I am certain it comes from the same part of your nature that leads you to need to believe in The Great Savior (Jesus), and The Great Evil (Satan). In fact I should recognize the probability that you have successfully struggled against a subconscious urge to consider Obama as Satan. I'll give you credit for not having done that. You settled instead for a similarly dramatic and absolutist title: The Great Divider but a notch down from Satan.

I consider it a sickness to need to exaggerate to extremes in this way, Lily. Don't take that too harshly - I guess we're all sick in some way or another. But do try to work on it. It is ugly, and unfair towards those people your absolutism turns against. Obama is not The Great Divider - pure and simple, and the sooner you are able to maturely assess and describe him without resorting to ridiculous extremes, the better you will be able to feel about your ability to assess the world around you with balance.

M

[Pho King]

You might find later, should you stumble upon other posts of mine since I came back, that I don't plan on voting for him again.
In your mind, somehow defending Obama from an unearned title of Great Divider means I still support him. I guess that's some indication of how you think.

Obama's many flaws don't mean it is ok to twist his words, and run away with your imagination, creating from your own mind someone who is fanning the flames of racism and discord. Why is it not enough to simply dislike the man's policies? Sure, find him arrogant too if you want to. But The Great Divider? I am certain it comes from the same part of your nature that leads you the need to believe in The Great Savior (Jesus), and The Great Evil (Satan). In fact I should recognize the probability that you have successfully struggled against a subconscious urge to consider Obama as Satan. I'll give you credit for not having done that. You settled instead for a similarly dramatic and absolutist title: The Great Divider but a notch down from Satan.

I consider it a sickness to need to exaggerate to extremes in this way, Lily. Don't take that too harshly - I guess we're all sick in some way or another. But do try to work on it. It is ugly, and unfair towards those people your absolutism turns against. Obama is not The Great Divider - pure and simple, and the sooner you are able to maturely assess and describe him without resorting to ridiculous extremes, the better you will be able to feel about your ability to assess the world around you with balance.

M

You take speech classes from Cornel west?

[Malcolm Wright]

You take speech classes from Cornel west?

I'm curious? Why Cornel West?

M

[Pho King]

I'm curious? Why Cornel West?

M

Because the one thing that does not come through in written form is inflection. But the absurd, smug, self-adulation is there.

P

[Malcolm Wright]

Because the one thing that does not come through in written form is inflection. But the absurd, smug, self-adulation is there.

P

Ah I see. Thanks for clearing that up. I'm now curious about what section exactly points to absurdity, smugness, or self-adulation. Evidence?

M

[Pho King]

Ah I see. Thanks for clearing that up. I'm now curious about what section exactly points to absurdity, smugness, or self-adulation. Evidence?

M

Start with post 41 and work backwards. Its all there in abundance.

P

[Malcolm Wright]

Start with post 41 and work backwards. Its all there in abundance.

P

Contribute, Pho. Instead of forcing people to reread themselves. Contrary to your claim I suffer from self-adulation, I have no desire to reread my posts just because you're too lazy to construct a solid argument.

But beware, this is a trap of sorts: remember its supposed to be a debate about the thread subject, not about the posters. Unless you're making a point about the thread topic itself, I'd drop it if I were you. You're not having a good run of contributing anything constructive today - and there's only so much DA will tolerate in terms of trolling.

If you really have some issues to resolve by attacking people here, I suggest you make a thread in the whine cellar and whine to your heart's content.

M

[lily]

You might find later, should you stumble upon other posts of mine since I came back, that I don't plan on voting for him again.
In your mind, somehow defending Obama from an unearned title of Great Divider means I still support him. I guess that's some indication of how you think.

Obama's many flaws don't mean it is ok to twist his words, and run away with your imagination, creating from your own mind someone who is fanning the flames of racism and discord. Why is it not enough to simply dislike the man's policies? Sure, find him arrogant too if you want to. But The Great Divider? I am certain it comes from the same part of your nature that leads you to need to believe in The Great Savior (Jesus), and The Great Evil (Satan). In fact I should recognize the probability that you have successfully struggled against a subconscious urge to consider Obama as Satan. I'll give you credit for not having done that. You settled instead for a similarly dramatic and absolutist title: The Great Divider but a notch down from Satan.

I consider it a sickness to need to exaggerate to extremes in this way, Lily. Don't take that too harshly - I guess we're all sick in some way or another. But do try to work on it. It is ugly, and unfair towards those people your absolutism turns against. Obama is not The Great Divider - pure and simple, and the sooner you are able to maturely assess and describe him without resorting to ridiculous extremes, the better you will be able to feel about your ability to assess the world around you with balance.

M

Malcolm, I think it's ironic that you're telling me I'm exaggerating, because I see you doing that. I must've said at least 3 or 4 times, "Don't get me wrong, it's not like he's the only politician who does stuff like this, many of them do." Yet I apparently touched a nerve with you, and caused you to be angry, for daring to question his character!

Look, for me it's more than simply disagreeing with his policies. I thought you understood what was going on, because on another thread you were talking about how we are heading toward fascism. (not in those exact words, but the discussion was about our government and the corruption and agenda in that direction.)

So for me (and I'm not the only one, so please, enough with the portrayal of me as the lone dissenter here and the presumptuous psycho-analyzing) it is not a mere disagreement on his policies. It IS his character that I have a problem with, and the fact that he is a puppet for certain powerful people who have a subversive agenda. That is the problem, that he isn't what he presented himself to be. And the "divisiveness" that we have been talking about here is not surprising, once you understand his character and that he's part of the globalist establishment.

I like you and I usually like how you debate (calm and civil) but I don't like when you assume or try to analyze me and say things like, "this must be part of your nature that leads you to need to believe in The Great Savior." Um, hello? Do you realize how that sounds, that comment is chock full of presumptions and subtle (but still arrogant) implications. It sounds like something that would come out of the mouth of a hardcore atheist, and the type that likes to say Christians are insane. But I didn't think you were an atheist, or anti-christian, so coming from you it is a bit unexpected.

So, I don't always speak in extremes, I don't have a need for "absolutes." The fact of the matter is, I have realized, along with TONS of other people, which apparently you haven't noticed, that Obama (and not only Obama, as I stated repeatedly) is not what he presented himself to be, and he is bad news for this country. So is Romney, btw, and most of the GOP candidates, so please don't try to accuse me of partisanship.

[lily]

Also, I didn't twist his words. I just saw his words as divisive and you didn't... which I find amazing, btw.

[Malcolm Wright]

Malcolm, I think it's ironic that you're telling me I'm exaggerating, because I see you doing that. I must've said at least 3 or 4 times, "Don't get me wrong, it's not like he's the only politician who does stuff like this, many of them do." Yet I apparently touched a nerve with you, and caused you to be angry, for daring to question his character!

I'm not angry. Not sure what makes you think I am.
Your attempts to soften what is your core claim and the reason for our discussion are not flying. Saying he's doing the same thing as other politicians automatically invalidates your claim that he is The Great Divider. No Lily, you are singling him out and applying you absolutist modes of perception to him. Unless you can began to become aware of that, there's no hope of us having any meeting of the minds. I'm redirecting my energies elsewhere in the meantime!

M

[Malcolm Wright]

Also, I didn't twist his words. I just saw his words as divisive and you didn't... which I find amazing, btw.

I've shown you exactly where you twisted his words. You 'translated' what he actually said into what you wanted to hear, then tried to hide behind excuses of that being what Obama implied, all the while ignoring that what you felt he implied were specific racial stereotypes (dumbness and laziness) that conveniently fit into your agenda of depicting him as The Great Divider. When compare the words Obama used: apathy rather than laziness, and amnesia rather than dumbness, you find that his meaning has been twisted by your 'interpretation'. You never tried to defend how you could imply what you did from what Obama said. How could you? You just content yourself with saying that's what Obama was implying.

That's twisting his words Lily. If you like, I'll start doing the same with you and see how you like it. Every statement you make, I'll swap some words in that change your meaning, and tell you that's what you were implying. Sound fair?

M

[lily]

I'm not angry. Not sure what makes you think I am.
Your attempts to soften what is your core claim and the reason for our discussion are not flying. Saying he's doing the same thing as other politicians automatically invalidates your claim that he is The Great Divider. No Lily, you are singling him out and applying you absolutist modes of perception to him. Unless you can began to become aware of that, there's no hope of us having any meeting of the minds. I'm redirecting my energies elsewhere in the meantime!

M

You say you're not angry, but clearly there IS a strong reaction there, or you wouldn't have resorted to long post after post trying to scold me for saying he's divisive! And btw, I know you'll say again that I'm "softening" this, but Snouter and I were joking. Yes, I DO think Obama is divisive, but this whole conversation started with me laughing at Snouter's initial comment (The Great Divider) which everyone knows is simply Snouter's style - he gives funny nicknames to people. It's not like it is some huge, serious thing. Yet 2 pages later, apparently it is, to give a nickname like that to our Leader!

And no, I haven't singled him out, I don't know how many times I have to say that I think ALL of the current major party candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul are bad news. The only reason we're talking solely about Obama now is because that was the topic in the OP.

[Malcolm Wright]

You say you're not angry, but clearly there IS a strong reaction there, or you wouldn't have resorted to long post after post trying to scold me for saying he's divisive! And btw, I know you'll say again that I'm "softening" this, but Snouter and I were joking. Yes, I DO think Obama is divisive, but this whole conversation started with me laughing at Snouter's initial comment (The Great Divider) which everyone knows is simply Snouter's style - he gives funny nicknames to people. It's not like it is some huge, serious thing. Yet 2 pages later, apparently it is, to give a nickname like that to our Leader!

And no, I haven't singled him out, I don't know how many times I have to say that I think ALL of the current major party candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul are bad news. The only reason we're talking solely about Obama now is because that was the topic in the OP.

You've singled him out as fanning the flames of racial hatred and other such exaggerations.
Sorry Lily but my recollection of how this started is a little different.

"The Great Divider", I love that because it's so true!

I then asked you what you would present as a CV to demonstrate the title of The Great Divider (I was quite precise in my wording).

You then posted not one, but 6 videos to make your case. You're the one who made this a high volume exchange. And now you're trying to rewrite the books and make it sound like you were just joking around

And please don't be foolish enough to mistake my long posts for anger - if people who have a lot to say are angry to you, no wonder you have problems understanding the intentions of politicians.

M

[lily]

I've shown you exactly where you twisted his words. You 'translated' what he actually said into what you wanted to hear, then tried to hide behind excuses of that being what Obama implied, all the while ignoring that what you felt he implied were specific racial stereotypes (dumbness and laziness) that conveniently fit into your agenda of depicting him as The Great Divider. When compare the words Obama used: apathy rather than laziness, and amnesia rather than dumbness, you find that his meaning has been twisted by your 'interpretation'. You never tried to defend how you could imply what you did from what Obama said. How could you? You just content yourself with saying that's what Obama was implying.

That's twisting his words Lily. If you like, I'll start doing the same with you and see how you like it. Every statement you make, I'll swap some words in that change your meaning, and tell you that's what you were implying. Sound fair?

M

We already went over this. When someone says something, people can have two different reactions to the same comment or speech. Obviously you took his words (like "punish our enemies") in the most positive way. I did not, because I see no need to tell Latinos they have "enemies". You took that as political opponents, IIRC? Even if you were right and there was no racial element to it whatsoever, he would still be saying that one's political opponents are "enemies". That is an example of divisiveness, no matter how hard you try to deny it (in light of his claim to put "ugly partisanship behind us" and bring people together). I don't consider Democrats or even honest lefties to be my "enemies." Anyway, you seem hell-bent on sticking to your accusation that I "twisted his words." Believe what you want, but it really comes down to simply having a different perspective or reaction to his words.

[Malcolm Wright]

We already went over this. When someone says something, people can have two different reactions to the same comment or speech. Obviously you took his words (like "punish our enemies") in the most positive way. I did not, because I see no need to tell Latinos they have "enemies". You took that as political opponents, IIRC? Even if you were right and there was no racial element to it whatsoever, he would still be saying that one's political opponents are "enemies". That is an example of divisiveness, no matter how hard you try to deny it (in light of his claim to put "ugly partisanship behind us" and bring people together). I don't consider Democrats or even honest lefties to be my "enemies." Anyway, you seem hell-bent on sticking to your accusation that I "twisted his words." Believe what you want, but it really comes down to simply having a different perspective or reaction to his words.

Actually I was referring to the other video (we're confused here because you posted 6 of them, and yet now want to portray me as the one who got long-winded over this). I thought I made that clear when I mentioned that you twisted amnesia into dumbness, and apathy into laziness. Was that not clear enough to indicate which video I was referring to?

Can you face it please?

M

[lily]

You then posted not one, but 6 videos to make your case. You're the one who made this a high volume exchange. And now you're trying to rewrite the books and make it sound like you were just joking around

M

Yes, I did post a lot of videos, but it Ganja and you who started those lengthy, point by point replies. And I WAS joking, initially, when I laughed at Snouter's comment. Later, it turned into debating.

[Malcolm Wright]

Yes, I did post a lot of videos, but it Ganja and you who started those lengthy, point by point replies. And I WAS joking, initially, when I laughed at Snouter's comment. Later, it turned into debating.

Can you please take responsibility for your primary role in turning it into debating, instead of trying to pass it off as you being all light and merry, and others taking you too seriously?

My request for a curriculum vitae was a one line request. You responded with 6 videos, all containing a lot of material. Suggesting that our point by point responses were over kill means you expect to be able to say a lot, but not receive a lot of comment in return? Be responsible and recognize that if you were just joking or wanted to keep it all light and fun, you wouldn't have posted 6 videos. Nobody forced you to do that.

It would also be nice if you recognized that contrary to your claim that you were joking about The Great Divider title, when asked simply to back up those precise words, you went and found 6 videos in an attempt to do so. If you had been joking, that would have been the moment to say so instead of going to all that effort, and triggering all this debate. Its a little bit too easy for you to try to claim you were joking after the fact, and more than a little dishonest to try to portray others as having blown anything out of proportion.

In essence, it would appear you are backtracking to hide behind what you now want to call a joke... perhaps because you dimly see that you've failed to back it up.

M

[Malcolm Wright]

Yes, I did post a lot of videos, but it Ganja and you who started those lengthy, point by point replies. And I WAS joking, initially, when I laughed at Snouter's comment. Later, it turned into debating.

So when you said it was funny because its so TRUE, you didn't actually mean it?
And when asked to document how he deserves the title of The Great Divider, you posted 6 videos, but really didn't believe he deserved the title at all - it was just a joke?
Is that the root misunderstanding here?

M

[lily]

Actually I was referring to the other video (we're confused here because you posted 6 of them, and yet now want to portray me as the one who got long-winded over this). I thought I made that clear when I mentioned that you twisted amnesia into dumbness, and apathy into laziness. Was that not clear enough to indicate which video I was referring to?

Can you face it please?

M

I know you were referring to that other video. I brought up the other one just to show how two different people can have different reactions to the same speech.

As for the video that you seem to have the biggest problem with.... To be honest, I wasn't focusing that much on the particular words he used. It was the overall feel I got from him, the "preachin" /getting people emotional/getting them angry, so they remember to go vote! I didn't even remember the exact words he used, I just remembered that his message was demagogic and anger-inspiring. When you tell someone that your opponent thinks you're going to stay home instead of vote, do you not see how that could be interpreted in numerous ways? I just watched it again, and he said, "...and black folks staying at home." Unnecessary. And could easily be interpreted as something like, "Your political enemies (white conservatives?) think you're ______ (insert negative word here.)" I can't believe we're still arguing this. Why don't we just agree to disagree?

[lily]

Can you please take responsibility for your primary role in turning it into debating, instead of trying to pass it off as you being all light and merry, and others taking you too seriously?

My request for a curriculum vitae was a one line request. You responded with 6 videos, all containing a lot of material. Suggesting that our point by point responses were over kill means you expect to be able to say a lot, but not receive a lot of comment in return? Be responsible and recognize that if you were just joking or wanted to keep it all light and fun, you wouldn't have posted 6 videos. Nobody forced you to do that.

It would also be nice if you recognized that contrary to your claim that you were joking about The Great Divider title, when asked simply to back up those precise words, you went and found 6 videos in an attempt to do so. If you had been joking, that would have been the moment to say so instead of going to all that effort, and triggering all this debate. Its a little bit too easy for you to try to claim you were joking after the fact, and more than a little dishonest to try to portray others as having blown anything out of proportion.

In essence, it would appear you are backtracking to hide behind what you now want to call a joke... perhaps because you dimly see that you've failed to back it up.

M

Do you not think it's possible to joke about something, yet at the same time see truth in it?

So when you said it was funny because its so TRUE, you didn't actually mean it?
And when asked to document how he deserves the title of The Great Divider, you posted 6 videos, but really didn't believe he deserved the title at all - it was just a joke?
Is that the root misunderstanding here?

M

Yes (again) I do think he is divisive, but obviously it's a silly nick-name. Do you want to argue about "Ohbummer" next"? Or "Obombya"? Malcolm, this has gotten ridiculous.

And btw, I think you should consider getting into law. Because it seems you really love to argue.