Obama: Even Worse Than Poll Numbers

[PoliticalChic]

Fuck you and the high horse you rode in on. I wasn't calling the writer of the article a hack. I'm calling you a hack for how quickly to change positions to keep up your attack. It's not my fault you're too ignorant to understand that.

I think your language shows you've been caught with your - horrifying thought that it is- you pants down!

You are clearly lying in " I wasn't calling the writer of the article a hack. I'm calling you a hack."

The entire post was made up of the words of Professor Adjami.

Your only comment was that it was 'hackery.'

It could only apply to the author.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Oh, but it seems you are.

Salter language isn't an indication of anything other than I'm not trying to put up some big front. You're equally rude in your responses You think because you write a lot of paragraphs that are high on word count, but low on substance that you should be viewed as an intellectual. You're a bullshitter from the word go. You're a massive hack and you got pissed off that you were called out on it, so you want to pretend I called the writer of the column a hack. I don't know the guy well enough to know if he is or is not. I surely know your posts well enough though to know you are.

So, this is your fourth attempted retraction?

 

[drsmith1072]

Fuck you and the high horse you rode in on. I wasn't calling the writer of the article a hack. I'm calling you a hack for how quickly to change positions to keep up your attack. It's not my fault you're too ignorant to understand that.

I think your language shows you've been caught with your - horrifying thought that it is- you pants down!

You are clearly lying in " I wasn't calling the writer of the article a hack. I'm calling you a hack."

The entire post was made up of the words of Professor Adjami.

Your only comment was that it was 'hackery.'

It could only apply to the author.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Oh, but it seems you are.

Salter language isn't an indication of anything other than I'm not trying to put up some big front. You're equally rude in your responses You think because you write a lot of paragraphs that are high on word count, but low on substance that you should be viewed as an intellectual. You're a bullshitter from the word go. You're a massive hack and you got pissed off that you were called out on it, so you want to pretend I called the writer of the column a hack. I don't know the guy well enough to know if he is or is not. I surely know your posts well enough though to know you are.

LOL Not that I wish to try and interpret what or whom polk was referring to I do find it quite interesting that politicalchic assumes that polk was responding to the OP when polk does not specify what he is referring to as chic ignores the fact that polk could very well be responding to any of the posts that occured between polk's post and the OP.
Why does politicalchic assume that she knows for a fact what polk was referring to better than polk does?

The funniest thing of all is that chic accuses polk of lying because he states that he was not referring to the article in the OP while she BELIEVES that he was. LOL

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think your language shows you've been caught with your - horrifying thought that it is- you pants down!

You are clearly lying in " I wasn't calling the writer of the article a hack. I'm calling you a hack."

The entire post was made up of the words of Professor Adjami.

Your only comment was that it was 'hackery.'

It could only apply to the author.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Oh, but it seems you are.

Salter language isn't an indication of anything other than I'm not trying to put up some big front. You're equally rude in your responses You think because you write a lot of paragraphs that are high on word count, but low on substance that you should be viewed as an intellectual. You're a bullshitter from the word go. You're a massive hack and you got pissed off that you were called out on it, so you want to pretend I called the writer of the column a hack. I don't know the guy well enough to know if he is or is not. I surely know your posts well enough though to know you are.

LOL Not that I wish to try and interpret what or whom polk was referring to I do find it quite interesting that politicalchic assumes that polk was responding to the OP when polk does not specify what he is referring to as chic ignores the fact that polk could very well be responding to any of the posts that occured between polk's post and the OP.
Why does politicalchic assume that she knows for a fact what polk was referring to better than polk does?

The funniest thing of all is that chic accuses polk of lying because he states that he was not referring to the article in the OP while she BELIEVES that he was. LOL

The first post by the Polkster in this thread, #12 is as follows:

"I love the smell of hackery in the morning."

Nothing else.

So, due to the proximity, can one interpret the comment as applying to other than the OP?

So, he read the OP, which contains only the words of Professor Adjami, and wrote his post.

"I love the smell of hackery in the morning."

Since then, he has tried to deflect from his silly post, some four times by my count.

But I keep calling him on it, and he clearlly doesn't like it.

So I'll keep doing it.

 

[drsmith1072]

You are forgetting the rules.

If you knock Barry, you have to be a 'hack.'

Actually the rule is the same for everyone. If you present an article and wish to be taken seriously and not be percieved as a hack, then present ALL of the facts so the reader can make an informed decision. Where as the auther of this op-ed presented some of the info while leaving out vital data and then drew unsubstantiated conclusions based on incomplete info. That is why it is a hack op-ed.

Ah, the mark of a public school grad!

"... present ALL of the facts so the reader ..."

Did someone hold your hand and help you to compose this post?

imagine that, an attack laced post lacking of any factual arguments.

BTW in case you missed it, demanding all of the facts so the reader can make an infomred decision is the direct opposite of providing incomplete data and then presenting an unsubstantiated opinion as if it were fact to be swallowed whole and then later regurgitated by the mindless righty who can't think for themselves.

'cause there is something counterintuitive about my posting the operative sections of the article, and posting the link to the actual article, and then you begging for me to post all of the article...

LOL i am not referring to you only posting an excerpt of the article as not providing all of the facts. I am clearly referring to the author of the article only presenting SOME of the info and drawing inciomplete conclusions that cannot be supported with the limited info that he provided. That makes him a HACK.

The funny thing is that you attack others for lack of reading comprehension skills when you have none yourself. LOL

And if you are complaining about Professor Adjami not doing your homework for you, at least he can spell 'author'... "Where as the auther..."

oh if it isn't the last act of desperate hack (you) which is to try and attack someone for a typo as you try to grasp at straws to CYA. LOL So let me get this straight. You are defending his dishonesty and how he left out vital facts by attacking me for a typo?? LOL

I can't quite put my finger on the exact psychosis from which you are suffering, but I'm certain that it is serious.

"... present ALL of the facts ..." ???

It's an op-ed, you boob!

Demanding to be spoon fed is bad enough...but to ask the Prof to chew it for you identifies you as a kindergarten drop-out.

Read the darn thing!

OMG

So when I ask to see proof and all of the facts I am asking to be spoon fed and yet when you ask others for links or op-eds you are not asking for the same?? LOL

Oh and thanks for admitting that the author is only presenting his OPINION. Since it is only an OPINION it should be taken as that and discarded as baseless and unsubstantiated because he chose not to provide all of the facts in a dishonest attempt to spoon feed you righties something he chewed for you. He presented a half truth and told you what to think about it and how to think about it. You did just what you were told to do. Imagine that.

 

[drsmith1072]

Salter language isn't an indication of anything other than I'm not trying to put up some big front. You're equally rude in your responses You think because you write a lot of paragraphs that are high on word count, but low on substance that you should be viewed as an intellectual. You're a bullshitter from the word go. You're a massive hack and you got pissed off that you were called out on it, so you want to pretend I called the writer of the column a hack. I don't know the guy well enough to know if he is or is not. I surely know your posts well enough though to know you are.

LOL Not that I wish to try and interpret what or whom polk was referring to I do find it quite interesting that politicalchic assumes that polk was responding to the OP when polk does not specify what he is referring to as chic ignores the fact that polk could very well be responding to any of the posts that occured between polk's post and the OP.
Why does politicalchic assume that she knows for a fact what polk was referring to better than polk does?

The funniest thing of all is that chic accuses polk of lying because he states that he was not referring to the article in the OP while she BELIEVES that he was. LOL

The first post by the Polkster in this thread, #12 is as follows:

"I love the smell of hackery in the morning."

Nothing else.

So, due to the proximity, can one interpret the comment as applying to other than the OP?

IF you were honest then you could admit that one could also interpret that it could very well have been a response to a few of the posts that came before it.

So, he read the OP, which contains only the words of Professor Adjami, and wrote his post.

That is merely your ASSUMPTION and nothing more. However, you claimed polk was lying based on your OPINION. Sorry but I require a higher standard of proof that mere assumption and opinion

"I love the smell of hackery in the morning."

Since then, he has tried to deflect from his silly post, some four times by my count.

But I keep calling him on it, and he clearlly doesn't like it.

So I'll keep doing it.

Polk says it wasn't directed at the author of the article and you can't PROVE otherwise. All you can do is ASSUME but that doesn't make it so.

 

[PoliticalChic]

LOL Not that I wish to try and interpret what or whom polk was referring to I do find it quite interesting that politicalchic assumes that polk was responding to the OP when polk does not specify what he is referring to as chic ignores the fact that polk could very well be responding to any of the posts that occured between polk's post and the OP.
Why does politicalchic assume that she knows for a fact what polk was referring to better than polk does?

The funniest thing of all is that chic accuses polk of lying because he states that he was not referring to the article in the OP while she BELIEVES that he was. LOL

The first post by the Polkster in this thread, #12 is as follows:

"I love the smell of hackery in the morning."

Nothing else.

So, due to the proximity, can one interpret the comment as applying to other than the OP?

IF you were honest then you could admit that one could also interpret that it could very well have been a response to a few of the posts that came before it.


That is merely your ASSUMPTION and nothing more. However, you claimed polk was lying based on your OPINION. Sorry but I require a higher standard of proof that mere assumption and opinion







Polk says it wasn't directed at the author of the article and you can't PROVE otherwise. All you can do is ASSUME but that doesn't make it so.

Tell me the truth-

are you married to the Polkster?

or just engaged?

 

[drsmith1072]

The first post by the Polkster in this thread, #12 is as follows:

"I love the smell of hackery in the morning."

Nothing else.

So, due to the proximity, can one interpret the comment as applying to other than the OP?

IF you were honest then you could admit that one could also interpret that it could very well have been a response to a few of the posts that came before it.


That is merely your ASSUMPTION and nothing more. However, you claimed polk was lying based on your OPINION. Sorry but I require a higher standard of proof that mere assumption and opinion







Polk says it wasn't directed at the author of the article and you can't PROVE otherwise. All you can do is ASSUME but that doesn't make it so.

Tell me the truth-

are you married to the Polkster?

or just engaged?

I will tell you the same thing that I tell other dishonest posters on the right after they get personal for being shown to be less than honest.

Attacking me won't change the facts.
You assumed that you know what polk was referring to better than polk did. Your assumption doesn't make it so.

 

[Polk]

All she can do is attack you, just like all she can do is attack me. She can't make a post with substance, because the facts aren't on her side.

 

[saveliberty]

All she can do is attack you, just like all she can do is attack me. She can't make a post with substance, because the facts aren't on her side.

Attacking is part of your methodology Polk, so I'm not surprised you saw things that way. PoliticalChic almost always states her opinion and offers supporting facts. Dr. Smith is such a hack, I don't even bother to read him (he's on ignore). You on the other hand can be interesting and offer up a good fact or two. Please consider taking this route over that of character asassin.

 

[Meister]

All she can do is attack you, just like all she can do is attack me. She can't make a post with substance, because the facts aren't on her side.

Attacking is part of your methodology Polk, so I'm not surprised you saw things that way. PoliticalChic almost always states her opinion and offers supporting facts. Dr. Smith is such a hack, I don't even bother to read him (he's on ignore). You on the other hand can be interesting and offer up a good fact or two. Please consider taking this route over that of character asassin.

Yep, Polk offers up support to back up his claims, not that I agree with him very often. Drsmith is just a wordy troll, and never supports his claims...he mostly just flames the poster.

 

[drsmith1072]

All she can do is attack you, just like all she can do is attack me. She can't make a post with substance, because the facts aren't on her side.

Attacking is part of your methodology Polk, so I'm not surprised you saw things that way. PoliticalChic almost always states her opinion and offers supporting facts. Dr. Smith is such a hack, I don't even bother to read him (he's on ignore). You on the other hand can be interesting and offer up a good fact or two. Please consider taking this route over that of character asassin.

And yet your spin is NOT supported by what happened in this thread. Did you even bother reading the thread or are you still so pissed that I showed you to be a dishonest hack that you are still attacking me while hiding behind ignore like a child sticking your fingers in your ears asyou whine "nah nah nah nah nah nah? LOL

In this thread chic made ASSUMPTIONS not supported by the facts and then started attacking when she got called out for it. Those are the facts and this is just another in long line of threads where she fails to substanitate her spin and then cuts and runs after she can't spin anymore.

 

[drsmith1072]

All she can do is attack you, just like all she can do is attack me. She can't make a post with substance, because the facts aren't on her side.

Attacking is part of your methodology Polk, so I'm not surprised you saw things that way. PoliticalChic almost always states her opinion and offers supporting facts. Dr. Smith is such a hack, I don't even bother to read him (he's on ignore). You on the other hand can be interesting and offer up a good fact or two. Please consider taking this route over that of character asassin.

Yep, Polk offers up support to back up his claims, not that I agree with him very often. Drsmith is just a wordy troll, and never supports his claims...he mostly just flames the poster.

Wow if it isn't another one of my stalker trolls. LOL Funny thing is that I presented a valid counter argument in this thread and yet, instead of addressing the argument you do exactly what you accuse me of doing. You chime in offering NOTHING to the debate as you try oh so desperately to "flame" the poster.

 

[PoliticalChic]

All she can do is attack you, just like all she can do is attack me. She can't make a post with substance, because the facts aren't on her side.

Ah, don't sulk.

Remember, 'you only hurt the ones you love.'

 

[drsmith1072]

All she can do is attack you, just like all she can do is attack me. She can't make a post with substance, because the facts aren't on her side.

Ah, don't sulk.

Remember, 'you only hurt the ones you love.'

Imagine that. All personal attacks and still you offer nothing to substantiate your spin. LOL

 

[Meister]

Attacking is part of your methodology Polk, so I'm not surprised you saw things that way. PoliticalChic almost always states her opinion and offers supporting facts. Dr. Smith is such a hack, I don't even bother to read him (he's on ignore). You on the other hand can be interesting and offer up a good fact or two. Please consider taking this route over that of character asassin.

Yep, Polk offers up support to back up his claims, not that I agree with him very often. Drsmith is just a wordy troll, and never supports his claims...he mostly just flames the poster.

Wow if it isn't another one of my stalker trolls. LOL Funny thing is that I presented a valid counter argument in this thread and yet, instead of addressing the argument you do exactly what you accuse me of doing. You chime in offering NOTHING to the debate as you try oh so desperately to "flame" the poster.

You present nothing smith. I was talking about you, and not too you, twit. You again prove what I stated.

 

[PoliticalChic]

All she can do is attack you, just like all she can do is attack me. She can't make a post with substance, because the facts aren't on her side.

Ah, don't sulk.

Remember, 'you only hurt the ones you love.'

Imagine that. All personal attacks and still you offer nothing to substantiate your spin. LOL

In your case, I hurt you 'cause it feels good.

 

[drsmith1072]

Yep, Polk offers up support to back up his claims, not that I agree with him very often. Drsmith is just a wordy troll, and never supports his claims...he mostly just flames the poster.

Wow if it isn't another one of my stalker trolls. LOL Funny thing is that I presented a valid counter argument in this thread and yet, instead of addressing the argument you do exactly what you accuse me of doing. You chime in offering NOTHING to the debate as you try oh so desperately to "flame" the poster.

You present nothing smith. I was talking about you, and not too you, twit. You again prove what I stated.

LOL So by calling you out for doing exactly what you FALSELY accused me of doing, I somehow prove your baseless attack to be true???? I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense at all.
You trolled as you tried to attack me claiming I was a troll and are pissed because I called you out for you hypocrisy.
Run along now, I am waiting to see if the poster who started this thread has anything real to offer and since you don't have anything real to offer you are not worth the time.

 

[drsmith1072]

Ah, don't sulk.

Remember, 'you only hurt the ones you love.'

Imagine that. All personal attacks and still you offer nothing to substantiate your spin. LOL

In your case, I hurt you 'cause it feels good.

LOL you think way too highly of yourself. You hurt no one and only make yourself look foolish and inept as you spew out partisan propaganda and then run to hide behind personal attacks as you try to get a rise out other people so you can try to avoid the fact that you lost the debate.

Fact is that you made claims not supported by facts and then when asked to provide the same burden of proof that you hold others to you cut and ran.

For instance you claimed that obama provided a "lack of effect" and yet when asked for proof you failed to provide any and told me that I had to look it up. Yet that isn't the standard applied on this board. The burden of proof is on YOU.

Then you made this claim "So, Professor Adjami explains, with examples, how fraudulent Candidate Obama's supporters, such as yourself, were in claiming that this 'transformational' reformer would 'reinstate America to an elevated position in the world.'"
which is countered by the fact that the article only refers to arabs NOT the whole world. So how does adjami show how fraudulent obama supporters are when adjami is talking about a different topic than is refered to by the statement that you attribute to obama supporters?

I dealt with some of your other spin in post #38 but instead of responding to them you chose to cut and run from the debate as you attacked me personally. You attacked polk and got the profanity laced response that you were hoping for so you could attack him for that and use that as an excuse to claim that he lost the debate but such childish tactics won't work on me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Imagine that. All personal attacks and still you offer nothing to substantiate your spin. LOL

In your case, I hurt you 'cause it feels good.

LOL you think way too highly of yourself. You hurt no one and only make yourself look foolish and inept as you spew out partisan propaganda and then run to hide behind personal attacks as you try to get a rise out other people so you can try to avoid the fact that you lost the debate.

Fact is that you made claims not supported by facts and then when asked to provide the same burden of proof that you hold others to you cut and ran.

For instance you claimed that obama provided a "lack of effect" and yet when asked for proof you failed to provide any and told me that I had to look it up. Yet that isn't the standard applied on this board. The burden of proof is on YOU.

Then you made this claim "So, Professor Adjami explains, with examples, how fraudulent Candidate Obama's supporters, such as yourself, were in claiming that this 'transformational' reformer would 'reinstate America to an elevated position in the world.'"
which is countered by the fact that the article only refers to arabs NOT the whole world. So how does adjami show how fraudulent obama supporters are when adjami is talking about a different topic than is refered to by the statement that you attribute to obama supporters?

I dealt with some of your other spin in post #38 but instead of responding to them you chose to cut and run from the debate as you attacked me personally. You attacked polk and got the profanity laced response that you were hoping for so you could attack him for that and use that as an excuse to claim that he lost the debate but such childish tactics won't work on me.

So, it took five paragraphs to say "You hurt no one ..."?

 

[drsmith1072]

In your case, I hurt you 'cause it feels good.

LOL you think way too highly of yourself. You hurt no one and only make yourself look foolish and inept as you spew out partisan propaganda and then run to hide behind personal attacks as you try to get a rise out other people so you can try to avoid the fact that you lost the debate.

Fact is that you made claims not supported by facts and then when asked to provide the same burden of proof that you hold others to you cut and ran.

For instance you claimed that obama provided a "lack of effect" and yet when asked for proof you failed to provide any and told me that I had to look it up. Yet that isn't the standard applied on this board. The burden of proof is on YOU.

Then you made this claim "So, Professor Adjami explains, with examples, how fraudulent Candidate Obama's supporters, such as yourself, were in claiming that this 'transformational' reformer would 'reinstate America to an elevated position in the world.'"
which is countered by the fact that the article only refers to arabs NOT the whole world. So how does adjami show how fraudulent obama supporters are when adjami is talking about a different topic than is refered to by the statement that you attribute to obama supporters?

I dealt with some of your other spin in post #38 but instead of responding to them you chose to cut and run from the debate as you attacked me personally. You attacked polk and got the profanity laced response that you were hoping for so you could attack him for that and use that as an excuse to claim that he lost the debate but such childish tactics won't work on me.

So, it took five paragraphs to say "You hurt no one ..."?

LOL once again you cut and run from the FACTS. How typical and expected. LOL Oh and actually if you could read it took a few words to say that you hurt no one. The rest is just a refresher for YOUR benefit on how I countered some of your spin and how you run from the facts instead of being honest and admitting when you are wrong.
Face it you lost the debate but you just don't have the integrity to admit it. LOL