Obama Wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize - Page 7

Mumbo, repetition doesn't make one right nor does an array of strawmen and shifting goalposts.


There isn't an iota of truth in that statement. I didn't object to anything you claimed. I wasn't a part of anything. I never said that these "things" didn't happen or that a few conservative didn't celebrate.

All this nonsense is about your trying to claim that plural and group are the same. We all know that they aren't. Everyone understands that being able say two and sixty million are not the same. You declared numbers don't matter and that quantitative labels aren't necessary.

You also claim there that cartoons represent absolute truth. Spin it any way you want later. The reasoning is so absurd that I am done with it. You turned around and tried to claim I was attempting to use cartoons as factual proof when the thread noted they were not at all for that but for humor.

You repeat yourself each time adding more sorrys, embarassings, humiliations, etc. There isn't any reasoning there and since I have an intellect, I am above such bullying. I feel sorry for those around you in real life though because obviously name calling and bullying is how you attempt to influence and control people. Never the less anyone reading this will draw the right conclusions and all your nonsense won't influence them a bit.

Enjoy the last word.



One last time here is the cartoon again. I'll be happy to entertain myself listening to you defend the reality of World War III breaking out (when it hasn't) instead of admitting it is intentionally distorting for comedic effect.

Excellent. I suppose I "win."

I have presented arguments, and you have not made a successful case for yours. You have resorted to ad hominem attacks, and obscurity, statistics, and syntax, and I have proven that conservatives celebrated when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected.

To use a device of yours, I am like a great avalanche of snow and rock burying you as you weep and pee and poop your Ayn Rand jumpsuit.

And yet... you are still dishonest, and still intentionally misrepresenting my words, and I am obliged to give my contempt letters.


Now. You see. The good thing about the modern computer GUI is that one can 'copy and paste'. This will save me time, right now, when I copy and paste the words I wrote yesterday and quoted for a second time this morning, which make it very clear that when you write this you are wrong (which is very embarrassing for you!)


So you see. I do not believe it represents 'absolute truth.' This is something you have made up to win an argument on the internet. No, I believe it is a parodic, comic reflection of real events.

These real events are that conservatives celebrated when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected. I have proven that conservatives did, indeed, celebrate when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected.

You tried to argue that conservatives did not.

You used semantics, by introducing mass nouns (which you sweetly called 'count nouns', rather like a thirteen-year-old), and statistical outliers, and sample numbers, and whatnot. But all your shifting of the goalposts and obscuring tactics were unsuccessful. They could not be successful. Your argument was absurd, and impossible to support, and now you have realised this. But still, you do not have the courage to admit it.

I will enjoy the last word. Thank you. And thank you for posting the cartoon again.

In the square on the top right, you will see Republican elephants cheering when the games go to Rio de Janeiro. (They are not real elephants; real elephants do not wear clothes.)

If you click on the link to the Americans for Prosperity video I posted you will see Republicans cheering when they hear news that the games go to Rio de Janeiro.

It is almost as if the cartoon is a distorted, parodic reflection of real events, is it not?

Yes. It is. And that is why it is funny.

But most of all, it's an excellent, excellent cartoon because you dislike it so much. And you dislike it so much because you recognise that it is a reflection of the truth.

World War III hasn't broken out, you silly.

It is a cartoon. It is only a parodic, distorted reflection of reality.

You are such a silly billy.

good one!

Who knows? Maybe 2024?

I know, Jimmac!

Imagine. You try and deny that conservatives celebrated when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected! It's not as if it was a secret that they celebrated!

And then you try and use grammar, and statistics and invent your own definitions of English nouns, to argue that it never happened!

It's kind of like they hate logic and the truth ( in this instance ). The reality is the tables have turned now. The shoe is on the other foot in a way it hasn't been for a long time and they can't stand it. They're trying to remake their party and yet they still don't get ( or are unwilling to admit ) the mistakes they've been making. Sometime in the future they'll come to that realization and have to do something about it. We're just not there yet.

Oh well.

Well deserved Obama!!!!

Hi.

I'm bumping this thread at the invitation of the member trumptman.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=163

I had thought that the matter was closed, but it appears that it isn't, and it's an interesting topic that deserves resolution.

To recap, there were conservatives who celebrated when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected. I made mention of them.



Trumptman said that they didn't exist.



So I posted this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVSDEOVkcOI

which was a meeting of the Americans for Prosperity 'think'tank, which showed that there were conservatives who celebrated, and Fox News broadcast it for the world to see.



And trumptman said that no, it didn't show that there were conservatives who celebrated.



So I posted these links from RedState members:






And trumptman said that, no, this did not prove that there were conservatives who celebrated.



So I posted these recordings of the conservatives Rush Limbuagh and Glenn Beck celebrating the loss of Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCsPAsz-gp4



And trumptman said that, no, this was not proof that there were conservatives who celebrated when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected.



Now, I thought this had been resolved, but it seems that trumptman still has doubts, so I'm restarting this thread in order to resolve this once and for all.

So, trumptman, do you still believe that no conservatives celebrated when Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected?

If you are going to discuss what trumptman said, try the quote function. Then we can work off my words, and not your strawman caricatures.

It really will be my pleasure.










Now.

Is it still your belief that the most popular and visible conservative media stars in America, conservative activists on television and members of conservative blogs (let’s call this group... ‘conservatives’, say, since that is what they are) did not celebrate when Barack Obama’s pitch to the IOC was rejected?

First and foremost, not a word up there you quoted matched your strawmen. You should apologize for that just like you should apologize for claiming I celebrated and couldn't find proof of that either.

Let's not call it conservatives. Let's understand English instead. Let's use quantifiers since that is why they exist and let's stop playing word games. Let's understand that you present all my very well thought out reasoning up there and then proceed to demand that we ignore how English works.

No one in this thread ever claimed that the celebration of Obama failing in his bid to get the Olympics was limited to a single conservative person in the entire United States.

If that claim does exist, please find and quote it for me in the thread. If you cannot, then you are railing against a strawman.

Find it and quote it or give it up. The rest is just some little attempt to get off on word play. When you declare __________ said. Prove it.

BTW, did you find my wonderful easter egg in the sig yet full of Ann Rand goodness?

I did apologise for making the terrible mistake of saying that you celebrated when you heard the news that Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected. Weeks ago. In this thread. You don't read a damn thing I write, do you?

Anyway. I'm not getting through to you. I'll try another tack.

Watch this video.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVSDEOVkcOI

Does this video, or does it not, show a room full of conservative people ('conservatives', let's call them) celebrating when they heard the news that Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected?

Yeah, yeah, but that's "a room full of conservatives". It's not "conservatives". It's an outlier.

The other posts were just Beck and Limbaugh having a laugh... a couple of conservatives that don't represent the general thoughts of the majority of the group. They are outliers.

Yeah... that's the ticket!

Yeah, sure, I did a little dance in my seat here in front of the computer when I heard the news too, but I'm not "conservatives" either. I'm an outliar, too!

Er... outlier.

Yeah. That's it. That's the ticket!!!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVSDEOVkcOI

Does this video, or does it not, show a room full of conservative people ('conservatives', let's call them) celebrating when they heard the news that Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected?

Dude, the amount of nonsense you spew is really not worth tracking.



I cut the first instance of it since you just copy/pasted it twice. I'm going to break down the sentence for you and show the problem with both what you want to do and the reasoning behind it. If you don't care to understand it this time then again, that is your own business.

Your statement above contains a quantifier, the very thing I've said you need when discussing this matter, and then in the middle, you ask everyone to ignore your own qualifier.

Does this video, or does it not, show a room full of conservative people

The underlined phrase is a quantifier. It would work the same if you said a room full of conservative people or a room full of conservatives. You then say, let's just call them conservatives aka, let's just remove the quantifier. In otherwords you ask everyone to do that which even YOU do not do so you can play a little word game. Quantifiers are words or phrases that modify the counting or non-counting nouns. You just did it there yourself and asked us to ignore it right after you did it.

The reason why you don't write the phrase without the quantifier is because then the sentence wouldn't make much sense.

If we took this outside of this topic you would consider anyone is attempting to claim what you are to be ridiculously rude, stupid and possibly racist, sexist, hateful or at a minimum ignorantly stereotypical because they would sound ridiculous.

They would write sentences like this.

Black people commit crimes.

Everyone would be up in arms (as they should be) and then the clueless person would add a quantifier.

Very few black people commit crimes.

It doesn't stop being hateful or stereotypical just because you change the noun to conservatives instead of a group people are prone to be more sensitive about when thinking about generalizations and making conclusions.

So you've proven my point yourself. Even when you ask us to ignore it right in the middle of you making it. When you write, you add the quantifier, "a room full of" instead of just using the word conservatives because you want your writing to be clear.

When you want your conclusions to be as clear as your writing, you'll stop the word games and just think and write lucidly. You're already halfway there.

Outlier!!!!

Yes, it contains a quantifier. 'Room full of' is a quantifier.

Watch this video.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVSDEOVkcOI

Does this video, or does it not, show a room full of conservatives celebrating when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected?

Round and round we go.

So you've proven my point yourself. Even when you ask us to ignore it right in the middle of you making it. When you write, you add the quantifier, "a room full of" instead of just using the word conservatives because you want your writing to be clear.

When you want your conclusions to be as clear as your writing, you'll stop the word games and just think and write lucidly. You're already halfway there.

Again, a lesson in Logic 101 is needed.

"Black people commit crimes."

That is a fact.

"Conservatives celebrated when the US lost the Olympics."

That is also a fact.

It does not mean the same thing as "ALL Conservatives celebrated when the US lost the Olympics," which is what Trumptman claims MJ to have meant. In fact, it means exactly the same thing as "Some conservatives celebrated when the US lost the Olympics."

But when presented with that second fact, Trumptman said, "No, they didn't," which was an erroneous statement. He was properly corrected.

That's great trumptman, but you haven't answered my question.

Please watch this video.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVSDEOVkcOI

Does this video, or does it not, show a room full of conservatives celebrating when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected?

Yes or no would be nice.

The fact is if you made such a comment in a room full of black people, you'd immediately be challenged to clarify it with a quantifier lest you be accused of implicating the entire group.


Liberals lack the capacity use reason, logic or to write in a lucid manner. Of course I only meant two liberals in that sentence but I do so enjoy implicating the whole group with my imprecise writing.

I'd be more than happy to have you prove that with real quotes as opposed to your made up quotes.


You ignore my study. You ignore your own use of quantifiers nor do you explain why you use them for your own points, but are excused from them when accusing others and wait.. you want me to play your little game with you?

Clean up your mess before you make demands of others. Explain yourself and your language use before you try your gotcha games again.

It would help me to 'clean up my mess' if you would answer this embarrassingly simple question.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVSDEOVkcOI

Does this video, or does it not, show a room full of conservatives celebrating when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected?

It shows exactly what the quantifier says it does and nothing more. Any associations or removal of the quantifier invalidates claims related to what it shows. In otherwords, any attempt afterwards to say.. "Let's just call it..........." are bullshit.

However I'm curious Mumbo. This was brought up by the evil Bill O'Reilly on Fox News. How can we believe him when according to you it is a racist and appalling channel that is not to be trusted?

How do we know that ol'Bill and Faux News aren't just "making shit up" to trick folk like yourself?

Found that in another thread on here that doesn't exist implicating the right and entire organizations using the exception. The irony of asking me to now trust a source you consider untrustworthy is hilarious.

BTW, do all the searches you want on here. I've never had anything good to say about talking heads nor even cable news.

Fox promotes racial purity.
Fox isn't a news channel.
Oh HEY GUYZ FOX GOT TO GOODZ I WANNA SHOW U!

Hilarious.

Um... maybe your point would make more sense if you used a statement in the same verb tense.

You are making an imperative. "Conservatives celebrated" is in the past tense.

The fact is implied quantifiers are vastly different depending on what tense you use.

Excellent. Thank you for helping me to clear up my mess and to avoid playing games with words.

You agree, then, that the video shows that a room full of conservatives did indeed celebrate when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected.

Do you also agree, then, that this clip shows Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, two of the most prominent figureheads of the American conservative movement, celebrated when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCsPAsz-gp4

Mumbo, I'm not going to wander through your crap one item at a time. You've not done what I asked and found a statement where anyone on these forums ever contended that only a singular conservative celebrated. No one has disputed that a plural number of conservative celebrated. Your language clearly desires to implicate the entire group and that has been disputed and you have been asked to use quantifiers to clarify your statements. You want to play games instead. Go ahead and play them. In the meantime you get no more answers until you can produce a single statement in this thread either contending that a singular conservative celebrated or disputing that plural conservatives celebrated.

Also note that when you quantify your statements, there is no dispute.

Finally when asking me in an annoying manner, item by item, to agree with you, please show I ever disagreed. You've claimed this dozens of times and never provided proof. I've always accepted those items at face value but never for conclusions beyond that face value. You also claimed I celebrated and had to withdraw that claim. You claimed I objected to the peace prize and had to withdraw that claim.

The last claim to withdraw is in declaring I ignored your links. I haven't in fact here is what I said and I believe you even quoted it somewhere else.

Why would I accept that I am wrong when you continually engage in bad reasoning. The exception never proves the rule. Produce evidence that this was an action engaged in by the majority of the group and if you can't, then stop alleging things about the group. Hold individuals for their actions and hold groups responsible for their actions and stop confusing the two. Perhaps if one stepped away from the cable news, the forums and the liberal blogs, a person could begin to properly reason again.

I have never, ever claimed that certain individuals or small group exceptions did not celebrate. NEVER. Find me the quote. It is exactly like the first two claims, false. I simply said hold those individuals responsible for their actions and do not judge the group.

My point stands in that without the quantifier, the implied meaning is the entire group. When you desire to go through the items one by one and add back in exactly what I asked for in the first place, quantifiers, and naming the individuals rather than implying the group, you are doing exactly what I asked for in the first place.

When you do what I ask, there isn't a disagreement.

I am trying to show you that, yes, conservatives did indeed celebrate when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected.


And this was all I wanted to hear you say. Yes, indeed, conservatives ('a plural number of conservative', as you so elegantly put it) did celebrate when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected.

An analogous construction might be 'Human beings reached the American continent about 12,000 years ago.'

All human beings? No. Just some. But the statement is still true, since 'a plural number of human being', as you might put it, did indeed arrive in the American continent about 12,000 years ago.

Conservatives celebrated when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected.

All of them? No. Just some. Just perhaps the most visible, prominent ones, and hundreds of contributors to some blogs.

Thank you.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

The last claim to withdraw is in declaring I ignored your links. I haven't in fact here is what I said and I believe you even quoted it somewhere else.

I'm still waiting. You cannot find proof I ever disputed the veracity of your links. Withdraw the accusations as you had to do with the two other false claims.

My point stands in that without the quantifier, the implied meaning is the entire group. When you desire to go through the items one by one and add back in exactly what I asked for in the first place, quantifiers, and naming the individuals rather than implying the group, you are doing exactly what I asked for in the first place.


So let me see if I understand you correctly so I can calibrate my Mumbo Jumbo-otron. When you make statements like above, while most people would be referring to humans as a species, you want us to understand you that you mean two humans reached the American continent and thus no ramifications about that need be applied to the species. In future writings you want us to understand that while for most people the implied meaning of an unquantified statement is the whole group, for you it is merely the plural. Also with regard to count and non-count nouns you want strict plural and singular reasoning applied with no quantifiers.

Thus a statement such as this...

Talk radio is spreading hate of minorities into communities.

You want us to understand this as one radio in one house spreading one instance of hate about two minority members into two communities.

Understood and for future reference, while other people attempt to draw conclusions, come to realizations or perhaps formulate understandings, you speak only in exceptions because you do not desire to have the implicit quantifier seen as applying to the entire group but only two as you have stated. Thus when you write, everyone should note you are only throwing out exceptions and not conclusions and thus treat them as such.

Have a nice day MJ or perhaps I should say have multiple nice instances across this day so you don't misunderstand that to mean only one nice moment within this day.

"Conservatives celebrated when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected."

"'A plural number of conservative' celebrated when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected."

These two sentences mean exactly the same thing.

In the same way:

"Human beings arrived in the American continent about 12,000 years ago"

"'A plural number of human being' arrived in the American continent about 12,000 years ago."

These two sentences mean exactly the same thing.

I think the problem is yours, trumptman.

I'm clear what I mean.

The sentences mean the same thing.

Conservatives celebrated when Obama's pitch the IOC was rejected.

All of them?

No.

But conservatives celebrated when Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected.

Don't be obtuse. Don't play word games. Don't put words into my mouth. This is a perfectly standard, grammatically correct, coherent English sentence understandable to anyone who isn't desperate to win an argument on the internet.

So as long as I can find at least 2 people who call themselves "liberal" that celebrated the 9/11 attacks, I can say "liberals celebrated the 9/11 attacks", expect people to understand without a quantifier, and actually try to defend such a ridiculous statement when I'm called out on it?

I suppose you could. The interesting question would be who those liberals were.

If you could find footage of liberal activists cheering and exchanging high fives when news of the attacks came in, and posts from hundreds of liberals on left wing blogs with comments like "The Twin Towers have fallen! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" and "HOORAY! TERRORISM!", and footage of extremely left wing media stars whose shows gather audiences of between two and three million people remarking "Oh, this is sweet!" and "I've got great news for you: two jet liners have been flown into the Twin Towers and they've fallen down!" then you might not be laughed at when you made the statement.

Sounds like you did mean to paint all conservatives with the same brush, then.

No.

It is a fact that conservatives celebrated when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected, though.

If you don't believe me, look at these links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVSDEOVkcOI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCsPAsz-gp4

They show conservatives celebrating when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected.

I'm not putting them into your mouth at all. Your explanation is more than sufficient.


Well let's hold him to his word. In the future all of his statements must be treated as literally only speaking about the plural and thus the exception rather than the group. He is never attempting to help people come to conclusions and instead is simply noting the exceptions.

Well, if you have to resort to making shit up about what I actually wrote and to intentionally misrepresenting me in order to "win", that's a sort of failure on your behalf too.

I'll just as happily ask you to clarify if you mean "every single liberal alive" every single time you make your grossly hypocritical attacks on evil liberal bastards.



In the meantime, look at these links. They show conservatives celebrating when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVSDEOVkcOI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCsPAsz-gp4

Wow. Conservatives celebrated when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected! Who knew?

I'm interested to hear your explanation as to why conservatives (not all, but some) celebrated Obama's IOC rejection.

It's a good question why some conservatives (not all, but some) celebrated Barack Obama's rejection from the IOC, particularly those that chose to do it on television and on the radio, as publicly as they could. I think it's probably because they're determined to diminish their president so he has less chance of being re-elected.

They hate Obama more than they love their country.

Interesting. I disagree. In my case, I love my country more than I love Obama.

But I felt that Brazil was the better location all around, and that Chicago was not. Obviously the IOC did, too.

I was also upset that the Obamas thought they could fly in (on 2 separate planes at taxpayer expense) and persuade the IOC by their mere presence. It was extremely arrogant of them.