ATWT Discussion Group

Topic: Original thoughts (for Dolphina)

I have started a new post because the other was getting unwieldy.

I am interested in your ''orginal thoughts'' which you put so much emphasis on about the performance of Obama so far.  You said you would inform us IF you had time and IF you wanted to.  You did, however, ''have time'' to discuss with MM, in depth, my intelligence or lack thereof.

It may come as a surprise to you that very few of us have ''original'' thoughts on subjects.  For instance, you did not spring from the womb knowing the Obama was perfect.  You got that idea from what you read, what you saw and what you heard.  I have not heard one original thought of yours on any subject actually.  By original, of course, I mean a way of thinking about a subject that no one has thought of before.  Your constant harping on original thoughts must have come from somewhere else, too, perhaps dandyfop, as he/she mentioned my shortcomings in that area.  The fact is that the received wisdom has come down to you through your liberal media and you were primed to swallow it all evidently.  An original thinker might see, for example, that there are good and bad ideas on both sides and that there is no virtue in being an ideologue.

As to you big objection, which actually makes no sense, to my copying and pasting, as I said before, if I agree with something what is the point in going to the trouble of rephrasing it just so people like you won't beat me over the head with accusations of non-original thought.  What the first post I made said (one more time) was: ''would you approve" of various scenarios.  In my second post, I saw no way of conveying Michelle's picture without copyinig and pasting it.  If you can think of a way, please let me know it. 

I would bet that you have run roughshod over lots of people here on the board who might dare to espouse a different view than yours and they are probably silently delighted that someone has finally stood up to you.

An original thinker might see, for example, that there are good and bad ideas on both sides and that there is no virtue in being an ideologue.

Yes, please  expand on this. So far, all you have posted are regurgitated chain emails.

My *received wisdom* such as it is, is my own, a product of my own thought, based on what I see and hear, left, right and middle-  which does not rely on a liberal media.  That idea in itself is funny. The media was not liberal back when Bush could do no wrong, it was not liberal when it flayed Bill Clinton alive for a bj-  it is apparently only liberal when its not your team at bat.  The media exist to entertain rather than inform- and they know on which side their bread is buttered. They knew it during Bush's first term- they knew when the tide  turned it was okay to jump him for all the things they sat on those first four years- they knew when it was time to hitch their buggy to Obama. When the tide turns for him look for all any dirt they swept under the rug to come out. It is a game.

Fox news is rather unique in that it favors creating outrage and a sense of fear at the expense of rationality. Pure propaganda, it is in a class by itself. The others at least pretend to be unbiased.

If you can't be bothered to type out your own thinking about something, you really don't wish to discuss it. You are looking for a reaction and nothing more. 

Replies: (list all replies)

Dandy, I know I am being picky, but I'm puzzled by you stating that Fox News is ''RATHER unique.'' I always thought that something was unique or it wasn't and that there are no degrees of uniqueness./mm

True on both counts mm- but I bet you took my meaning in any case./ dandyfop

how typical of people who challenge every word other posters say! when they use imprecise language, well, you took their meaning anyway, didn't you? lord, how they hate to admit they're wrong!

Actually, Dandy did admit she/he was wrong and I respect her for it. I have idealogical diferences with Dandy and Dolphina, but respect them as intelligent individuals. That's why I had the chutzpa to point out the incorrect use of ''unique.'' I don't usually comment on such things, but I know Dandy would take it in the spirit it was given./mm

I have an ultra-conservative friend who, on Friday night, sent me links to conservative bastions Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, yapping about how the dreaded *mainstream media* wouldn't dare to mention the shooter was Muslim because of liberal *political correctness.* Meantime, earlier that day two arguably liberal-biased news outlets - CBS news and the Washington Post - had both reported he was Muslim. If someone wants to talk about *typical,* this is what's really typical - Fox News viewers who are fooled into thinking they *know* something dastardly about the rest of the media but don't have a clue what they're talking about and can't be bothered to find out. They lead their viewers around by the nose. eom/D

mm, i would agree with you if he/she had stopped with the first sentence but dandyfop felt compelled to mitigate it by saying, in effect, ''well, you knew what i meant''. dandy and miss dolphina seem very much inclined to only drop into the board to ''correct'' our thinking on politics, thus you found no posts that d. initiated. I mean, wow, what a noble cause! trying to set all the rest of straight on how we should think! altruistic, to say the least.

Glad to be of help, anon. eom/D

but surely it must be a disappointment that your arguments are so lame that they change no minds? just because people go back into their shell after your blitzes doesn't mean minds are changed. perhaps if you weren't so positive that you are right, were willing to listen to another viewpoint, might that come nearer to accomplishing what you are evidently trying to do?

I imagine listening to other viewpoints is a specialty of yours, right? eom/D

oh, please! don't model yourself on me! you do the right thing and listen to the veiwpoint of others while I go my intolerant way!

I think Lyrica has a point that Dolphina does seem lacking in original thought, but is really good at shooting down the original thoughts of others. Also, D, are you really chiding Lyrica becauses no one's mind was changed by his/her posts? Your ideas are so entrenched and you refuse to see anyone else's POV. It is so much easier to find fault with those who try to start an interesting discussion here./mm

mm, I really don't want to argue with you. You have a brain in your head and you use it. But..... please note it wasn't me who *chided* anyone about not changing minds. That was our friend anon, not me. Also, I'm finding it hard to believe that you're actually characterizing these two posts of Lyrica's as *interesting.* No, I don't initiate inflammatory posts here. However, I am fairly easily inflamed by utter garbage masquerading as *interesting discussion.* Finally, when someone - a new poster at that (or at least, someone posting with a new name) - undertakes to call out another poster by name in a brand new topic, I'm inclined to think that's the poster who's earned a rebuke. Maybe I should start a new insulting topic naming Lyrica or anon or perhaps even you in the subject line. Would you find that acceptable? Is that what you think qualifies as original thought? I promise I wouldn't copy and paste a mass email. eom/D

D, I guess I have a higher tolerance for what is acceptable. I don't think it was the wisest thing to do knowing how you love a scrap. And as far as Lyrica's other posts, I think she had a right to post them. Pretty sure I said that I didn't find them all that relevant. In fact I admitted that I didn't read all of the first post until you shamed me into it. I read the first couple and then realized they weren't something I was interested in reading. I've enjoyed this board for a long time. We talked about different authors we liked, why we couldn't find any good places to buy clothes. We gave each other tips on how to solve our everyday simple problems. I was the one who started the post about Sarah Palin and brought a whole bunch of ''new people'' onto the board, so I can't complain about how the tenor of the board changed. But still I

But still I'd like to see a little less antagonism and a little more sharing of ''original'' thoughts. Sometimes I just throw things out just to see what other people think. The problem is when other people read things in my posts other than what I intended are quick to tack labels on me./mm

Of course Lyrica has a *right* to post anything she chooses (within the bounds of the law and the established rules of this board). Glenn Beck has a right to equate Obama to a Nazi too, I guess, although I'm sure I'm not the only person who is deeply offended by such egregious diminishing of the horror of the Holocaust and what its victims were subjected to, and equally offended by any bobbleheaded idiot who gives him an audience. My right to pick holes in Lyrica's posts and strenuously object is protected as well, last time I checked. eom/D

D, I think this might be a good example of misdirection. I don't watch Glen Beck but it looks like you do. LOL/mm

It's an extreme example of the right to free speech. I think I've mentioned before that I make a habit of exposing myself to a variety of the news media in at least limited doses. I can't stomach much Glenn Beck, though. eom/D

Well, I guess I don't get your point, D./mm

What's not to get? You stated that Lyrica had a right to publish her first two posts (perhaps even this third one). I agree, as evidenced by the fact that just about anyone gets to say just about anything, no matter how ignorant, offensive and dishonest it might be. eom/D

Oh yeah, like publishing a book which attributes an extremely inflmmatory remark to a person who has served his country for many years and citing as proof ANONYMOUS sources. And also citing as proof that the allegation wasn't denied. I get it now./mm

I'm just going to make one quick point in this discussion....I have NEVER watched Glen Beck and never will, however, I heard his Obama/Nazi comment quite a few times on a couple different talk radio shows. And I will say I was totally offended by it...the man obviously is a first class idiot!

I don't think I've purposely watched Glen Beck but may have seen snippets while channel surfing. HOwever, the other day, Jon Stewart did a take off on him that was absolutely hilarious./mm

You're right, mm. The point about McCain's allegedly abusive remark to his wife wasn't confirmed sufficiently and was therefore a stretch. eom/D

mm and I understood each other anon, but thanks for your concern. As far as dropping by to correct your political thinking- firstly- I don't care about your political thinking and second- I don't believe I have seen you post anything approaching a complete thought about something other than how I and/or Dolphina post. Everyone else you see in these threads don't seem to have any problems posting how they feel- and quite often there is disagreement. You, however, don't even have the stones to post any of your opinions under your screen name. So far, you have done nothing but snipe at those who do express opinions that apparently don't mimic your own./dandyfop

First you say I don't have any opinions and then you say I snipe at people who don't mimic my opinions. That's rich. You are absolutely the master at sniping./mm

DAndy, I must apologize for pointing out your mis-use of the adjective ''unique.'' I realize now that I was wrong in putting you in the same class as Dolphina who would appreciate me doing so. You are definitely not in the same class as Dolphina. I really think your post above is hardly articulate. You must have had a bad day. Or maybe you have just been stewing for 24 hours. Again, my apologies and I certanily won't do it again. And BTW, should someone have the ''stones'' to say what you really mean reather than using the euphanism?/mm

Ummm..... maggimae, I believe dandyfop was addressing *anon* in that last post. eom/D

Well, I

I am looking for a rock to crawl under. Glad I was wrong about Dandy. Hope she will forgive me./mm

It is not a problem mm./ dandyfop

---

Posted by: dolphina
Date posted: Mon Nov 9 10:26:34 2009
Message:
My mailbox fills up with forwarded emails that get sent around to every name in peoples' address books too. Sometimes the contents are attributed to some celebrity or other who never said any of the things inside; frequently there's very little truth in them at all. Copying and pasting is indeed common practice on a board like this, but one would hope the source material was a few cuts above one of those lame-ass emails. Not in your case, apparently. Despite all the misleading and in some cases outright false material in that email, you deemed it worth regurgitating. So you still maintain that you agree with all of it? Then there's only one possible conclusion to draw about you.

There's one thing you can take to the bank, Lyrica - even if all those silly points had been supportive of my personal views, I still would have called bullsh*t on it if it had contained demonstratively false information. When someone or something is bad enough (I think Bush, you think Obama), it shouldn't be necessary to fabricate stuff to prove the point. All you do is dilute your own case.

Evidently you have little concern for real issues of any importance, and no resources to even engage in a debate of any interest, so why should I waste any effort explaining to you what I feel Obama's mistakes have been? If I ever see him wearing mis-matched socks I'll be sure to let you know.

Replies: (list all replies)

WHAT?? You are not, after all, going to share all your original thoughts on Obama's mistakes?? I am SO surprised! LOL! But do let us know when he appears in those mis-matched socks! I will be sure to copy and paste it on another board. (P. S. When all else fails, you have it down pat: insult the intelligence of anyone who thinks differently than you do. Congratulations on that ''original'' tactic! )

And you STILL have no comments to make about your first dumb post, even though MANY of us called you out on it. Tell you what - when you respond with something resembling valid information, I'll take the time to give you my views on Obama's mistakes. Fair is fair. That's how most people I know operate, at least. eom/D

In case any other misguided poster is wasting their time reading this exchange, what Dolphina just did was called the art of misdirection. Any time I make a comment that she doesn't want to address, she harks back to the first post I made. Once again, each scenario said ''would you approve'' and I can answer to each and every one, no, I would not approve. Some of the things listed were true of Obama, some misconstrued. As you would know if you listened to other than liberal media, you can find so-called ''facts'' that ''prove'' many different views of the same event. It is obvious that BOTH parties view what Obama has done through their individual biases and leanings. As for your schoolyard challenge that ''I am not going to do this until you do that, nyah, nyah, nyah'' and ''fair is fair'', that sounds more juvenile than I took you to be. Why not just admit that you don't think Obama HAS made any mis-steps? It is obvious to anyone reading your posts.

That's hilarious, considering that every single response you've given has been a misdirection away from your introductory post. Exactly what did you hope to prove with it, as filled with nonsense as it is? I'll repeat my first comment on it - it reminds me of that old trick question *When did you stop beating your wife?* In other words, it's a lot of blatant accusations twisted into foolish questions. You evidently thought it was the height of cleverness, or surely you wouldn't have posted it. eom/D

So, if I understand you correctly, no one is ever allowed to move on to other subjects until YOU say it is time? That's pretty much what I thought. Did you, or did you not, read this above: ''Some of the things listed were true of Obama, some misconstrued. As you would know if you listened to other than liberal media, you can find so-called ''facts'' that ''prove'' many different views of the same event''? What else is it that you wish to hear? As for thinking it the height of cleverness or I wouldn't have posted it, do you consider that every single one of YOUR posts is the height of cleverness? (Well, YOU probably do, come to think of it). A post is a post is a post......get over it. We don't seem to be progressing since you just will hark back to the other post so let's just call it a day, shall we?

If you look over this board, you'll find that I don't initiate provocative topics with the intention of stirring controversy and then duck out when it follows, so what I might find to be the height of cleverness isn't an issue around here. Nice try, though. eom/D

Well, darn if I didn't look over the board and see that Dolphina did not initiate any inflamatory topics. As a matter of fact, she didn't initiate ANY topics./mm

Lyrica, I didn't see anything wrong with your much-mentioned 'first post'. I read over it and had heard about some of these. I heard about them mostly from FOX NEWS, a program that Dolphina does not watch, so of course she knows nothing about any misdeeds Obama may possibly be guilty of because the liberal media does not report these things. She probably keeps harping about it because she hasn't heard about any of it. MSNBC does not dare give out negative info about BO to it's liberal viewers! Roxie

Roxie, perhaps before you make such comments, you could glance at my responses to the post in question. You might realize that it isn't a case of my never having heard of these things or that I'm saying none of them are true. Some of them are outright lies, but for the most part it's a matter of true things being put into a preposterous, convoluted context. There's a difference, you know. eom/D

And speaking of media bias, I've noticed that the incident at Fort Hood has been labled a shooting or an attack but not a massacre. What's with that? More evidence that the press is manipulating the viewers at the behest of SOMEONE. Not sure who. BTW, I don't watch Fox News. The reason is that it pretty much admits its bias. Of course I know that the other channels have their bias, but are not so open about it./mm

This is on CNN's website this morning - *Fort Hood, Texas (CNN) -- Investigators believe the suspected gunman in last week's massacre at Fort Hood acted alone, but his communications had been flagged by U.S. intelligence agencies in late 2008, the FBI said Monday.* It doesn't get much more mainstream than CNN. eom/D

Yes, D, in the past few days, they have been calling it a massacre. I think someone must have pointed out to them that this is indeed what it was. Too bad someone had to point that out./mm

---

---