I’m a bit under the weather. Check back mid-morning.
Thanks.
56 Comments
Get well, Celeste. It’s this weather. It’s supposed to be spring and it’s ally windy and cold and fucked up.
That’s just like a liberal! Claim you’re a little sick and skip work, probably because of partying at the “brunch” too late last night. Why don’t you just blame Bush? Hey, blame that Marxist Obama, too, for delaying the implementation of his socialized medicine program another four years! Ronald Reagan was shot, but he kept running the nation. It’s a good thing that conservatives are working today. Someone has to pay the taxes to cover liberal waste and feel-good programs.
Sorry about your condition. Hope you feel better soon. Maybe this raised your blood pressure sufficiently to get you moving.
Celeste – I think it was the Commies who were spotted flying some black helicopters spraying some evil mist over Topanga Canyon.
Normal may refer to:
Normality (behavior), conformance to an average
Norm (sociology), social norms, expected patterns of behavior studied within the context of sociology.
If you go the Dr. Celeste and the Dr. tells you your blood pressure is “normal” or your heart rate is “normal” be sure and ask she/he to completely explain themselves, because this term can be highly offensive.
Of course the above definition is from Wiki. Anybody could have looked it up before they took me to task for stating that what the 90% do is the NORM.
LOL.
They could have taken this into account before calling me a bigot, and then going off on a immature and uninformed tantrum. Just think. If we all interpret words the way we want to instead of the standard accepted definition we can just start calling people vile names for any reason at all. That’s the way to a civil society. LOL.
Case closed.
Once again, Wikipedia’s definition.
Normal may refer to:
Normality (behavior), conformance to an average
Norm (sociology), social norms, expected patterns of behavior studied within the context of sociology.
Here’s what I said:
Scientifically speaking, what the 90% do is the NORM.
And that gets me called a bigot.
No apology. No retraction by reg. No statement that it was possible that he/she might have jumped the gun and misinterpreted what I said. No. None of that. Name calling and mudslinging.
Is it REALLY any wonder why this blog turns into a free for all?
I simply point out a fact that doesn’t sit right with the way reg sees things and the vile names start flying. I explain myself and let him know I did not mean it the way he interpreted it. Still no good. No acceptance of a logical explanation. NO TOLERANCE for the use of language that doesn’t fit reg’s qualifications of acceptable and non-offensive. EVEN IF THE LANGUAGE FITS THE ACCEPTED STANDARD DEFINITION.
I’ll be awaiting an apology reg.
Does waiting on an apology from reg imply that one believes that he could possibly be normal?
ATQ, I looked up “Normal” on wikipedia, and they had a picture of RuPaul. You’ve been debunked. It’s over. Let it go.
Is Obama normal? He got a record number of votes two years ago. Maybe America isn’t normal. Ever think of that?
In the interest of peace and goodwill I have an idea.
What if: When analyzing a statement by someone else we took what they said verbatim and didn’t pollute their their statement with our own ionterpretation?
What if: When analyzing somebody else’s statement we didn’t look for a reason to find offense in said statement?
What if: When analyzing somebody else’s statement we approached it without our own predispositions?
Wow. What a novel idea.
Celeste,
I’m trying to get along. Trying to spread goodwill and cheer.
I’m also trying to participate on this blog without being called vile offensive names as soon as somebody is made uncomfortable by what I say.
What’s the difference between a right-wing conservative who throws out the “commie” insult as soon as somebody disagrees with them….and the left-wing liberal who throws out the “bigot” insult as soon as somebody disagrees with them?
Answer: Absolutely nothing.
Is Obama normal?
Of course.
He got a record number of votes two years ago.
He got 53% of the vote.
Maybe America isn’t normal.
Well, if Obama’s normal, and he got a record number of votes, wouldn’t that make America normal? Silly question.
Ever think of that?
No. It wouldn’t make any sense unless of course you thought Obama wasn’t normal. To say Obama’s normal, and he got a record number of votes from Americans…and then turn around and say America isn’t normal flies in the face of your own statement. In trying to be argumentative and antagonistic, you’ve contradicted yourself. As usual.
AtQ, I’m not sure that you can apply the term “normal” to politics.
Sure you can Woody. It was normal in November of 2008 to vote for Obama. That’s the way 3% above the average voted. That would make it normal.
Just barely though. If it was 50-50, there wouldn’t be a normal vote. On the other hand, if 90% of the people voted for Obama, that would make it as normal as normal could get. LOL.
You have to be careful though when attaching normal to anything that is under the 60% mark. Because of changes in social behavior and what is accepted socially, there tend to be fluctuations.
ATQ, why didn’t you question how many Americans actually participated in the poll Woody just posted? Huh? Why do you dissect my claim that Obama got a record number of votes, pointing out how it still wasn’t that many people over all, yet you won’t do the same with Woody’s poll? What is the difference between someone trying to pass off Obama’s vote tally as the vast majority and someone trying to pass off a negative polling of Obama as the vast majority? Answer: Absolutely Nothing.
You downplay my insinuation that most Americans wanted Obama to be president.
But then there’s this:
# Woody Says:
April 12th, 2010 at 11:03 am
But now: Gallup: Obama Hits New Low
AtQ, I’m not sure that you can apply the term “normal†to politics.
Not a word. Yet you’re offended by what I said.
A little bit selective in the outrage category aren’t you? LOL. Now go ahead and explain how Woody’s comment isn’t an attempt to pass off Obama’s criticism as coming from the majority of Americans, and why you didn’t find it offensive, yet my statements were.
LOL. You’re pathetic.
Have you heard of this latest website/movement called “Crash the Tea Party”? …The website claims to represent “a nationwide network of Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are all sick and tired of the loose affiliation of racists, homophobes and morons; who constitute the fake grassroots movement, which calls itself ‘the Tea Party.'”
Here is the stated purpose of these Tea Party Crashers … “To dismantle and demolish the Tea Party by any non-violent means necessary.” Their tactic? Infiltrate the tea parties and exaggerate their “least-appealing qualities.” For example, they will misspell signs to make tea parties look unintelligent or they will do TV interviews claiming extreme views, or shout things during rallies that the media could construe as racist or homophobic.
Is this normal? The left should be good at looking stupid without trying.
Maybe they’re the ones whom Rep. Lewis said shouted “nigger” at him and for which Andrew Breitbart said that he would pay $100,000 if someone produced a video of that, if it happened.
Woody, you need to stop trying to pass Obama’s criticism off as coming from the majority of Americans. ATQ is going to get upset with you and deconstruct your numbers to show that they really don’t represent the majority, because obviously, most Americans don’t actually participate in polls. I mean, isn’t he? He sure did that to me. Hmmm. Selective outrage.
First “normal” is da bomb, the word for the day/use it in everyway, then the segue to the Prez. I feel normal, I voted for the man but something’s missing. Oh yes its the wkly gaffes and stumbles from the Bush crew. All I get now is catcalls and jeers from sore losers in soggy diapers (Depends).. Speaking of “da bomb”, Tina Fey was alla dat on SNL… Ya gotsta admit all you movie buffs, lovers of good social comedy- there’s nuthin Plain about Palin (letter-play)… She’s like a new Borat for the mensa folk.. I love the gal. Echinacea, Celeste, and mega-C. Nevermind the “squirts”. It’s all good.
Case closed ?
LOL !
I don’t think ATQ’s obsession with his own righteousness is normal. 90% of the population would have quit blowing hard about this after posting “Case Closed” But you won’t see me out on a street corner holding a sign demanding that the abnormally insecure be denied equal rights.
This is one of the dumbest acts of absurdist persistence and faux outrage I’ve ever witnessed here. And that’s saying a lot.
Hey ATQ – I posted an additional comment in the prior thread addressed to you, but you began this open thread carrying your ranting into the next set of comments. Maybe we could have come to some more satisfactory settlement of the questions raised by both of our comments if you weren’t dead set on acting like a dick.
“Normal” is not a synonym for “majority”. Normal is what is predictable and consistent. Just because something happens 10% of the time, doesn’t make it “abnormal”, or unnatural. Nature has tendencies and statistical distributions–just because certain distributions are below 50% doesn’t make them invalid, illegitimate, or otherwise vanish* from existence. 2-10% of human organisms consistently form homosexual bonds. A small but predictable percentage of other animal organisms do the same. A small but predictable percentage of human organisms are left-handed. A small but predictable percentage of humans are not left hemisphere language-dominant. Stats is stats. Facts is facts.
*Evolution may reduce to zero some of these distributions through natural selection, but it looks like homosexuality is rather robust, all things considered. A case can be made, in fact, that homosexuality benefits species, and is not hanging around by sheer “accident”:
Homosexuals give women some nicely dressed friends with whom they can go to plays in clean cars with no beer cans on the floor and with no worries about being groped. Also, the distinction takes them out of sports bars and gives the rest of us more room there.
Rob,
I pointed out that 53% of the populus voted for Obama. How is that deconstructing anything?
Maybe this will make you feel better.
A record number of people did in fact vote for Obama. Is that better? You ok now? I would think you would recognize that as being redundant, since you had already stated it. You didn’t get any disagreement from me.
I only added to your comment by stating the actual percentage. Am I wrong?
Then you open your mouth and stick your foot in it by trying to be the cute, witty antagonistic smart-ass. So I point out to you how you contradicted yourself. That’s all. Hey Rob, I voted for Obama.
Woody, that all indeed may be true! Nature abhors a vacuum, and those non-sports bars and clubs need to be filled. And you can thank the gays for marginally less mate competition–er, unless you have to compete with a lesbian, of course.
ATQ, I agree with you. I was wrong in trying to give the impression that the majority of the country voted for Obama. Yet, Woody did the same thing. He’s using a poll to give the impression that the majority of the country is against Obama. I expected you, the true ombudsmen of selective outrage, to scan your watchful eye in Woody’s direction and question his disingenuous tactics. What is the difference between your lack of outrage at Woody and Reg’s lack of outrage at me over the gay jokes? Answer: Nothing.
This is one of the dumbest acts of absurdist persistence and faux outrage I’ve ever witnessed here. And that’s saying a lot.
Is that right? Maybe if you hadn’t been so persistent in calling me a bigot we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Maybe your persistence in being outraged about my correct definition, and proper use of the word normal in regards to context we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
You’re the one who was outraged enough to start throwing out the personal insults and name calling pal/pal(ette).
Now when you get it shoved up your ass you try to deflect responsibilty and play it off as though I’m in the wrong.
Maybe if you weren’t searching for a reason to be so self righteous and the PC and word police you wouldn’t end up looking like a fucking idiot and you wouldn’t be making a further dick of yourself by making lame ass excuses.
Maybe if you just apologized we could move on.
You’ll get all the fight you want here. Of course, if you don’t want to fight that’s all good too. However, I won’t stand by and let anybody hurl those vile insults at me without demanding a retraction and clearing my name.. Especially and specifically when it’s uncalled for.
All you have to do is admit:
You don’t me, so to insinuate that I meant something other than what I said and call me a bigot was wrong on your part.
Now I ask you reg, what kind of human being would not be offended at being called a bigot or racist?
That’s right. I wouldn’t want to be associated with anybody that was able to just sluff that off like it wasn’t an indictment of their character.
If they weren’t pissed, wouldn’t you have to ask yourself why?
Uh huh. Oops. You fucked up. Say you’re sorry and we’ll move on. Live and let live. Everybody makes mistakes.
But don’t come back at me with more bullshit about how it shouldn’t bother me.
Then we can move on.
Would somebody please introduce Woody to the concept of closet homosexuality? Oh, who am I kidding? Introduce? I’m sure he’s quite familiar with it.
Line 20 of my above statement should read
You don’t know me.
ATQ, you’re slipping back into it. You had it together this morning. Maybe you need a little more sleep.
“line 20”. LOL.
Rob,
Woody posted a poll. Big deal. If he posted some poll taken by some right wing fringe group I categorically state that he was trying to misrepresent how the American people feel.
Last time I checked, Gallup wasn’t a right wing wacko hack.
I already told you I voted for Obama. What more are you searching for?
Maybe the majority of Americans aren’t happy with the president’s performance up to now. You want me to say the polls aren’t accurate? What is it that you’re searching so hard for me to say?
Or are you just trying to pick a snippy little fight because I pointed out how silly and contradictory your post #10 was?
reg,
I’m quite sure you can understand how I feel. I mean after all, to get called a bigot, racist, sexist, homophobe or child molester would piss anybody off. Right?
I mean hey, we’ve seen your reaction to Woody’s insult of you. We’ve seen your indignation and demand for an apology. We’ve seen how you cut him no slack.
Yet you expect me to just shrug it off when you call me a vile name?
Think about it. Then get back to me.
How do I end up dragged into the middle of arguments between AtQ, Rob, and reg, when I’ve stayed out of them?
Reg has been singing that tune for a long time. He needs a new accusation to throw at people, the child molester rap is played out.
Simple Woody, reg says you called him a child molester. We’ve seen his reaction. You say you didn’t. I wouldn’t know. I’ve been here less than a month.
My point was that reg obviously isn’t ready to move on…and rightfully so if you called him a child molester and haven’t apologized.
He won’t move on without an apology or retraction for an insult. He above all people on this blog should understand my position and see the similarity.
Yet I’m just supposed to move on without an apology or retraction.
I guess reg sees it differently when he’s doing the insulting.
I surmise reg is a male from other’s use of the pronoun “he” when referring to this person. I wasn’t aware of reg’s gender until now. That’s why my use of non-specific pronouns up to this point. No offense intended by the use of indeterminate pronouns.
RobThomas Says:
April 12th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
ATQ, you’re slipping back into it. You had it together this morning. Maybe you need a little more sleep.
Rob, I could slip back to about my 10th grade level of intelligence and I’d still be two steps ahead of you.
Maybe you need a little more education.
Well there it is. ATQ is not going to criticize woody for disingenuously trying to make it seem as if the majority of the country is against Obama, based on a poll, as if ALL Americans were polled, while, on the other hand, he promptly pointed out that Obama’s record number of votes means nothing considering the percentage of voters, when I brought that up…
So, will ATQ finally stop hissing and pouting at Reg for being mad at him for arguing that gays aren’t normal, while Reg isn’t mad at me about my gay jokes? Because it seems ATQ practices in “selective outrage” just as much as Reg does.
Of course you’re smarter than me, ATQ. You use words like “surmise”.
Keep in mind Rob that this (on my end anyway) banter back and forth between us is ALL in the spirit of good fun. You know, locker room type back and forth bullshit just for fun.
Unbelievable. This thread started out with a sense of humor (and thank you to all for the good wishes, home remedy advice, et al). Sadly, it has devolved.
ATQ, I thought you said that you simply needed to defend yourself, and then you would let things go. But you haven’t. Instead you’re bringing past fights on to this thread.
You seem like a bright person with a lot to say, so I’d hate to block you. But right now you’re the one holding on to a past squabble and deliberately trying to stir things up.
I’m really at the end of my tether on this, ATQ. Consider that a friendly warning.
RobThomas Says:
April 12th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
“Well there it is. ATQ is not going to criticize woody”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Uh, Rob, to criticize Woody’s post I would be criticizing the Gallup Poll. Not Woody. Woody simply cited the poll
“for disingenuously trying to make it seem as if the majority of the country is against Obama,”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
disengenously? Are you disputing the Gallup Poll? Like I said, if he cited some right wing hack’s poll, like say, a poll taken by Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity I would criticize him.
“based on a poll, as if ALL Americans were polled,”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Of course ALL Americans aren’t polled. Never have been. Never will be. But both parties use them as barometers.
“on the other hand, he promptly pointed out that Obama’s record number of votes means nothing considering the percentage of voters”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I simply pointed out he got 53% of the vote. Am I incorrect?
I also said it was in fact a record number of votes. I never said “it means nothing”. In your weak pathetic attempt to grasp at straws, you’re flat out lying and making shit up as you go along.
“when I brought that up”…
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Check post 26. I said: A record number of people did in fact vote for Obama. It’s there. read it. Comprehension problems?
So, will ATQ finally stop hissing and pouting at Reg for being mad at him
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
He called me a bigot. It’s not about him being mad at me.
“for arguing that gays aren’t normal”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I specifically stated that I was referring to their sexuality. Nothing else. Again Rob, check the definition of the word normal. It seems you have a beef with Wikipedia’s and Webster’s definiton of the word normal, much like you have a beef with the Gallup Poll.
“while Reg isn’t mad at me about my gay jokes?”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My point exactly. Thanks.
“Because it seems ATQ practices in “selective outrage†just as much as Reg does”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I guess it seems that way to you. Of course, a lot of things “seem” different in others people’s perspective. The posts are there. Anybody can read them. He called me a bigot. I called him no names. If it “seems” that way to you, it would “seem” to anybody with any intelligence that you’re full of shit and just looking to argue.
Celeste,
I got called a bigot. AM I NOT SUPPOSED TO DEFEND MY HONOR?
Celeste,
With ALL due respect, it takes two to Tango. LOL.
Me an Rob are engaged in a debate. Why am I the only one threatened with censorship?
Celeste,
I’ll move on. I apologize for any inconvenience or frustration.
“I got called a bigot. AM I NOT SUPPOSED TO DEFEND MY HONOR?”
ATQ, You did. On the last thread. Repeatedly. You had no cause whatsoever to bring that fight to this thread. Yet you chose to do so.
I will not engage with you about this any more.
******************************
And reg, on the last thread you have also done what I’ve repeatedly asked you not to do.
I don’t see you telling everyone in sight to shove it—whatever it may be—up their ass on Marc Cooper’s site.
Why, then, do you bring that approach here? I like you and consider you a (cyber) friend. But this unwillingness to consider my requests at all feels like a kind of disrespect that I cannot understand or countenance.
******************
TO ALL OF YOU: I DO NOT PHYSICALLY HAVE THE TIME TO RUN A BLOG ALONG WITH TEACHING, WRITING AND RESEARCHING A BOOK, AND SEEING TO MY OTHER PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATIONS—-WHILE ALSO BEING A PLAYGROUND MONITOR.
And I won’t do it. Not any more.
ATQ,
I threatened you because you started things on this particular thread. But from here on out, you may consider everyone threatened.
“Me an Rob are engaged in a debate.”
*************
I believe it’s called de-bait.
Well, ATQ, it’s fun for me. Considering some of the melt downs you’ve had the past couple of days, I don’t know if it’s been that fun for you. But I’m glad you’re trying.
It’s all about ATQ defending his honor, Celeste, not your blog and your take on social injustices. We should rename the blog to, “Defending ATQ’s honor!”.
It’s been a blast for me Rob.
Well, I’d like to think so. But when you talk about things like defending your honor in here, your honor, on a blog, it really doesn’t sound like you’re having much fun. But you know, they say that the secret to having fun is to tell yourself you’re having fun. So more power to you.
Wow, 55 comments on a thread about literally nothing – Woody “started it” right @ #2 with his lame “joke” accusing Celeste of faking being sick as a typical cop-out by lazy liberals who don’t want to work, and then some commie plot nonsense. He KNOWS that’s not the case with a woman who’s a single mom & teachers at 2 schools in 2 different counties etc. so I know it’s meant as a sort of back-handed compliment but still — what if Woody just waiting until he had something to SAY, and if the others ignored his (and others’) random comments instead of being compelled to tell him where to go or what orifice to redirect his hot air to, on down the line OR jump in with their own whining like AQM… When you have children who take up all the space in the room because they either didn’t get enough attention from their mothers OR because they got too much, thinking their every word is brilliant, that usually works to shut them up. Eventually. Instead of requiring comment moderation for everyone. Just a thought.
Get well, Celeste. It’s this weather. It’s supposed to be spring and it’s ally windy and cold and fucked up.
That’s just like a liberal! Claim you’re a little sick and skip work, probably because of partying at the “brunch” too late last night. Why don’t you just blame Bush? Hey, blame that Marxist Obama, too, for delaying the implementation of his socialized medicine program another four years! Ronald Reagan was shot, but he kept running the nation. It’s a good thing that conservatives are working today. Someone has to pay the taxes to cover liberal waste and feel-good programs.
Sorry about your condition. Hope you feel better soon. Maybe this raised your blood pressure sufficiently to get you moving.
Celeste – I think it was the Commies who were spotted flying some black helicopters spraying some evil mist over Topanga Canyon.
Normal may refer to:
Normality (behavior), conformance to an average
Norm (sociology), social norms, expected patterns of behavior studied within the context of sociology.
If you go the Dr. Celeste and the Dr. tells you your blood pressure is “normal” or your heart rate is “normal” be sure and ask she/he to completely explain themselves, because this term can be highly offensive.
Of course the above definition is from Wiki. Anybody could have looked it up before they took me to task for stating that what the 90% do is the NORM.
LOL.
They could have taken this into account before calling me a bigot, and then going off on a immature and uninformed tantrum. Just think. If we all interpret words the way we want to instead of the standard accepted definition we can just start calling people vile names for any reason at all. That’s the way to a civil society. LOL.
Case closed.
Once again, Wikipedia’s definition.
Normal may refer to:
Normality (behavior), conformance to an average
Norm (sociology), social norms, expected patterns of behavior studied within the context of sociology.
Here’s what I said:
Scientifically speaking, what the 90% do is the NORM.
And that gets me called a bigot.
No apology. No retraction by reg. No statement that it was possible that he/she might have jumped the gun and misinterpreted what I said. No. None of that. Name calling and mudslinging.
Is it REALLY any wonder why this blog turns into a free for all?
I simply point out a fact that doesn’t sit right with the way reg sees things and the vile names start flying. I explain myself and let him know I did not mean it the way he interpreted it. Still no good. No acceptance of a logical explanation. NO TOLERANCE for the use of language that doesn’t fit reg’s qualifications of acceptable and non-offensive. EVEN IF THE LANGUAGE FITS THE ACCEPTED STANDARD DEFINITION.
I’ll be awaiting an apology reg.
Does waiting on an apology from reg imply that one believes that he could possibly be normal?
ATQ, I looked up “Normal” on wikipedia, and they had a picture of RuPaul. You’ve been debunked. It’s over. Let it go.
Is Obama normal? He got a record number of votes two years ago. Maybe America isn’t normal. Ever think of that?
In the interest of peace and goodwill I have an idea.
What if: When analyzing a statement by someone else we took what they said verbatim and didn’t pollute their their statement with our own ionterpretation?
What if: When analyzing somebody else’s statement we didn’t look for a reason to find offense in said statement?
What if: When analyzing somebody else’s statement we approached it without our own predispositions?
Wow. What a novel idea.
Celeste,
I’m trying to get along. Trying to spread goodwill and cheer.
I’m also trying to participate on this blog without being called vile offensive names as soon as somebody is made uncomfortable by what I say.
What’s the difference between a right-wing conservative who throws out the “commie” insult as soon as somebody disagrees with them….and the left-wing liberal who throws out the “bigot” insult as soon as somebody disagrees with them?
Answer: Absolutely nothing.
Is Obama normal?
Of course.
He got a record number of votes two years ago.
He got 53% of the vote.
Maybe America isn’t normal.
Well, if Obama’s normal, and he got a record number of votes, wouldn’t that make America normal? Silly question.
Ever think of that?
No. It wouldn’t make any sense unless of course you thought Obama wasn’t normal. To say Obama’s normal, and he got a record number of votes from Americans…and then turn around and say America isn’t normal flies in the face of your own statement. In trying to be argumentative and antagonistic, you’ve contradicted yourself. As usual.
Any other questions?
But now: Gallup: Obama Hits New Low
AtQ, I’m not sure that you can apply the term “normal” to politics.
Sure you can Woody. It was normal in November of 2008 to vote for Obama. That’s the way 3% above the average voted. That would make it normal.
Just barely though. If it was 50-50, there wouldn’t be a normal vote. On the other hand, if 90% of the people voted for Obama, that would make it as normal as normal could get. LOL.
You have to be careful though when attaching normal to anything that is under the 60% mark. Because of changes in social behavior and what is accepted socially, there tend to be fluctuations.
ATQ, why didn’t you question how many Americans actually participated in the poll Woody just posted? Huh? Why do you dissect my claim that Obama got a record number of votes, pointing out how it still wasn’t that many people over all, yet you won’t do the same with Woody’s poll? What is the difference between someone trying to pass off Obama’s vote tally as the vast majority and someone trying to pass off a negative polling of Obama as the vast majority? Answer: Absolutely Nothing.
You downplay my insinuation that most Americans wanted Obama to be president.
But then there’s this:
# Woody Says:
April 12th, 2010 at 11:03 am
But now: Gallup: Obama Hits New Low
AtQ, I’m not sure that you can apply the term “normal†to politics.
Not a word. Yet you’re offended by what I said.
A little bit selective in the outrage category aren’t you? LOL. Now go ahead and explain how Woody’s comment isn’t an attempt to pass off Obama’s criticism as coming from the majority of Americans, and why you didn’t find it offensive, yet my statements were.
LOL. You’re pathetic.
Is this normal? The left should be good at looking stupid without trying.
Maybe they’re the ones whom Rep. Lewis said shouted “nigger” at him and for which Andrew Breitbart said that he would pay $100,000 if someone produced a video of that, if it happened.
Woody, you need to stop trying to pass Obama’s criticism off as coming from the majority of Americans. ATQ is going to get upset with you and deconstruct your numbers to show that they really don’t represent the majority, because obviously, most Americans don’t actually participate in polls. I mean, isn’t he? He sure did that to me. Hmmm. Selective outrage.
First “normal” is da bomb, the word for the day/use it in everyway, then the segue to the Prez. I feel normal, I voted for the man but something’s missing. Oh yes its the wkly gaffes and stumbles from the Bush crew. All I get now is catcalls and jeers from sore losers in soggy diapers (Depends).. Speaking of “da bomb”, Tina Fey was alla dat on SNL… Ya gotsta admit all you movie buffs, lovers of good social comedy- there’s nuthin Plain about Palin (letter-play)… She’s like a new Borat for the mensa folk.. I love the gal. Echinacea, Celeste, and mega-C. Nevermind the “squirts”. It’s all good.
Case closed ?
LOL !
I don’t think ATQ’s obsession with his own righteousness is normal. 90% of the population would have quit blowing hard about this after posting “Case Closed” But you won’t see me out on a street corner holding a sign demanding that the abnormally insecure be denied equal rights.
This is one of the dumbest acts of absurdist persistence and faux outrage I’ve ever witnessed here. And that’s saying a lot.
Hey ATQ – I posted an additional comment in the prior thread addressed to you, but you began this open thread carrying your ranting into the next set of comments. Maybe we could have come to some more satisfactory settlement of the questions raised by both of our comments if you weren’t dead set on acting like a dick.
“Normal” is not a synonym for “majority”. Normal is what is predictable and consistent. Just because something happens 10% of the time, doesn’t make it “abnormal”, or unnatural. Nature has tendencies and statistical distributions–just because certain distributions are below 50% doesn’t make them invalid, illegitimate, or otherwise vanish* from existence. 2-10% of human organisms consistently form homosexual bonds. A small but predictable percentage of other animal organisms do the same. A small but predictable percentage of human organisms are left-handed. A small but predictable percentage of humans are not left hemisphere language-dominant. Stats is stats. Facts is facts.
*Evolution may reduce to zero some of these distributions through natural selection, but it looks like homosexuality is rather robust, all things considered. A case can be made, in fact, that homosexuality benefits species, and is not hanging around by sheer “accident”:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html
How homosexuality benefits the species:
Homosexuals give women some nicely dressed friends with whom they can go to plays in clean cars with no beer cans on the floor and with no worries about being groped. Also, the distinction takes them out of sports bars and gives the rest of us more room there.
Rob,
I pointed out that 53% of the populus voted for Obama. How is that deconstructing anything?
Maybe this will make you feel better.
A record number of people did in fact vote for Obama. Is that better? You ok now? I would think you would recognize that as being redundant, since you had already stated it. You didn’t get any disagreement from me.
I only added to your comment by stating the actual percentage. Am I wrong?
Then you open your mouth and stick your foot in it by trying to be the cute, witty antagonistic smart-ass. So I point out to you how you contradicted yourself. That’s all. Hey Rob, I voted for Obama.
Woody, that all indeed may be true! Nature abhors a vacuum, and those non-sports bars and clubs need to be filled. And you can thank the gays for marginally less mate competition–er, unless you have to compete with a lesbian, of course.
ATQ, I agree with you. I was wrong in trying to give the impression that the majority of the country voted for Obama. Yet, Woody did the same thing. He’s using a poll to give the impression that the majority of the country is against Obama. I expected you, the true ombudsmen of selective outrage, to scan your watchful eye in Woody’s direction and question his disingenuous tactics. What is the difference between your lack of outrage at Woody and Reg’s lack of outrage at me over the gay jokes? Answer: Nothing.
This is one of the dumbest acts of absurdist persistence and faux outrage I’ve ever witnessed here. And that’s saying a lot.
Is that right? Maybe if you hadn’t been so persistent in calling me a bigot we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Maybe your persistence in being outraged about my correct definition, and proper use of the word normal in regards to context we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
You’re the one who was outraged enough to start throwing out the personal insults and name calling pal/pal(ette).
Now when you get it shoved up your ass you try to deflect responsibilty and play it off as though I’m in the wrong.
Maybe if you weren’t searching for a reason to be so self righteous and the PC and word police you wouldn’t end up looking like a fucking idiot and you wouldn’t be making a further dick of yourself by making lame ass excuses.
Maybe if you just apologized we could move on.
You’ll get all the fight you want here. Of course, if you don’t want to fight that’s all good too. However, I won’t stand by and let anybody hurl those vile insults at me without demanding a retraction and clearing my name.. Especially and specifically when it’s uncalled for.
All you have to do is admit:
You don’t me, so to insinuate that I meant something other than what I said and call me a bigot was wrong on your part.
Now I ask you reg, what kind of human being would not be offended at being called a bigot or racist?
That’s right. I wouldn’t want to be associated with anybody that was able to just sluff that off like it wasn’t an indictment of their character.
If they weren’t pissed, wouldn’t you have to ask yourself why?
Uh huh. Oops. You fucked up. Say you’re sorry and we’ll move on. Live and let live. Everybody makes mistakes.
But don’t come back at me with more bullshit about how it shouldn’t bother me.
Then we can move on.
Would somebody please introduce Woody to the concept of closet homosexuality? Oh, who am I kidding? Introduce? I’m sure he’s quite familiar with it.
Line 20 of my above statement should read
You don’t know me.
ATQ, you’re slipping back into it. You had it together this morning. Maybe you need a little more sleep.
“line 20”. LOL.
Rob,
Woody posted a poll. Big deal. If he posted some poll taken by some right wing fringe group I categorically state that he was trying to misrepresent how the American people feel.
Last time I checked, Gallup wasn’t a right wing wacko hack.
I already told you I voted for Obama. What more are you searching for?
Maybe the majority of Americans aren’t happy with the president’s performance up to now. You want me to say the polls aren’t accurate? What is it that you’re searching so hard for me to say?
Or are you just trying to pick a snippy little fight because I pointed out how silly and contradictory your post #10 was?
reg,
I’m quite sure you can understand how I feel. I mean after all, to get called a bigot, racist, sexist, homophobe or child molester would piss anybody off. Right?
I mean hey, we’ve seen your reaction to Woody’s insult of you. We’ve seen your indignation and demand for an apology. We’ve seen how you cut him no slack.
Yet you expect me to just shrug it off when you call me a vile name?
Think about it. Then get back to me.
How do I end up dragged into the middle of arguments between AtQ, Rob, and reg, when I’ve stayed out of them?
Reg has been singing that tune for a long time. He needs a new accusation to throw at people, the child molester rap is played out.
Simple Woody, reg says you called him a child molester. We’ve seen his reaction. You say you didn’t. I wouldn’t know. I’ve been here less than a month.
My point was that reg obviously isn’t ready to move on…and rightfully so if you called him a child molester and haven’t apologized.
He won’t move on without an apology or retraction for an insult. He above all people on this blog should understand my position and see the similarity.
Yet I’m just supposed to move on without an apology or retraction.
I guess reg sees it differently when he’s doing the insulting.
I surmise reg is a male from other’s use of the pronoun “he” when referring to this person. I wasn’t aware of reg’s gender until now. That’s why my use of non-specific pronouns up to this point. No offense intended by the use of indeterminate pronouns.
RobThomas Says:
April 12th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
ATQ, you’re slipping back into it. You had it together this morning. Maybe you need a little more sleep.
Rob, I could slip back to about my 10th grade level of intelligence and I’d still be two steps ahead of you.
Maybe you need a little more education.
Well there it is. ATQ is not going to criticize woody for disingenuously trying to make it seem as if the majority of the country is against Obama, based on a poll, as if ALL Americans were polled, while, on the other hand, he promptly pointed out that Obama’s record number of votes means nothing considering the percentage of voters, when I brought that up…
So, will ATQ finally stop hissing and pouting at Reg for being mad at him for arguing that gays aren’t normal, while Reg isn’t mad at me about my gay jokes? Because it seems ATQ practices in “selective outrage” just as much as Reg does.
Of course you’re smarter than me, ATQ. You use words like “surmise”.
Keep in mind Rob that this (on my end anyway) banter back and forth between us is ALL in the spirit of good fun. You know, locker room type back and forth bullshit just for fun.
Unbelievable. This thread started out with a sense of humor (and thank you to all for the good wishes, home remedy advice, et al). Sadly, it has devolved.
ATQ, I thought you said that you simply needed to defend yourself, and then you would let things go. But you haven’t. Instead you’re bringing past fights on to this thread.
You seem like a bright person with a lot to say, so I’d hate to block you. But right now you’re the one holding on to a past squabble and deliberately trying to stir things up.
I’m really at the end of my tether on this, ATQ. Consider that a friendly warning.
RobThomas Says:
April 12th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
“Well there it is. ATQ is not going to criticize woody”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Uh, Rob, to criticize Woody’s post I would be criticizing the Gallup Poll. Not Woody. Woody simply cited the poll
“for disingenuously trying to make it seem as if the majority of the country is against Obama,”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
disengenously? Are you disputing the Gallup Poll? Like I said, if he cited some right wing hack’s poll, like say, a poll taken by Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity I would criticize him.
“based on a poll, as if ALL Americans were polled,”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Of course ALL Americans aren’t polled. Never have been. Never will be. But both parties use them as barometers.
“on the other hand, he promptly pointed out that Obama’s record number of votes means nothing considering the percentage of voters”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I simply pointed out he got 53% of the vote. Am I incorrect?
I also said it was in fact a record number of votes. I never said “it means nothing”. In your weak pathetic attempt to grasp at straws, you’re flat out lying and making shit up as you go along.
“when I brought that up”…
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Check post 26. I said: A record number of people did in fact vote for Obama. It’s there. read it. Comprehension problems?
So, will ATQ finally stop hissing and pouting at Reg for being mad at him
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
He called me a bigot. It’s not about him being mad at me.
“for arguing that gays aren’t normal”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I specifically stated that I was referring to their sexuality. Nothing else. Again Rob, check the definition of the word normal. It seems you have a beef with Wikipedia’s and Webster’s definiton of the word normal, much like you have a beef with the Gallup Poll.
“while Reg isn’t mad at me about my gay jokes?”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My point exactly. Thanks.
“Because it seems ATQ practices in “selective outrage†just as much as Reg does”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I guess it seems that way to you. Of course, a lot of things “seem” different in others people’s perspective. The posts are there. Anybody can read them. He called me a bigot. I called him no names. If it “seems” that way to you, it would “seem” to anybody with any intelligence that you’re full of shit and just looking to argue.
Celeste,
I got called a bigot. AM I NOT SUPPOSED TO DEFEND MY HONOR?
Celeste,
With ALL due respect, it takes two to Tango. LOL.
Me an Rob are engaged in a debate. Why am I the only one threatened with censorship?
Celeste,
I’ll move on. I apologize for any inconvenience or frustration.
“I got called a bigot. AM I NOT SUPPOSED TO DEFEND MY HONOR?”
ATQ, You did. On the last thread. Repeatedly. You had no cause whatsoever to bring that fight to this thread. Yet you chose to do so.
I will not engage with you about this any more.
******************************
And reg, on the last thread you have also done what I’ve repeatedly asked you not to do.
I don’t see you telling everyone in sight to shove it—whatever it may be—up their ass on Marc Cooper’s site.
Why, then, do you bring that approach here? I like you and consider you a (cyber) friend. But this unwillingness to consider my requests at all feels like a kind of disrespect that I cannot understand or countenance.
******************
TO ALL OF YOU: I DO NOT PHYSICALLY HAVE THE TIME TO RUN A BLOG ALONG WITH TEACHING, WRITING AND RESEARCHING A BOOK, AND SEEING TO MY OTHER PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATIONS—-WHILE ALSO BEING A PLAYGROUND MONITOR.
And I won’t do it. Not any more.
ATQ,
I threatened you because you started things on this particular thread. But from here on out, you may consider everyone threatened.
“Me an Rob are engaged in a debate.”
*************
I believe it’s called de-bait.
Well, ATQ, it’s fun for me. Considering some of the melt downs you’ve had the past couple of days, I don’t know if it’s been that fun for you. But I’m glad you’re trying.
It’s all about ATQ defending his honor, Celeste, not your blog and your take on social injustices. We should rename the blog to, “Defending ATQ’s honor!”.
It’s been a blast for me Rob.
Well, I’d like to think so. But when you talk about things like defending your honor in here, your honor, on a blog, it really doesn’t sound like you’re having much fun. But you know, they say that the secret to having fun is to tell yourself you’re having fun. So more power to you.
Wow, 55 comments on a thread about literally nothing – Woody “started it” right @ #2 with his lame “joke” accusing Celeste of faking being sick as a typical cop-out by lazy liberals who don’t want to work, and then some commie plot nonsense. He KNOWS that’s not the case with a woman who’s a single mom & teachers at 2 schools in 2 different counties etc. so I know it’s meant as a sort of back-handed compliment but still — what if Woody just waiting until he had something to SAY, and if the others ignored his (and others’) random comments instead of being compelled to tell him where to go or what orifice to redirect his hot air to, on down the line OR jump in with their own whining like AQM… When you have children who take up all the space in the room because they either didn’t get enough attention from their mothers OR because they got too much, thinking their every word is brilliant, that usually works to shut them up. Eventually. Instead of requiring comment moderation for everyone. Just a thought.