Hillary's response to Obama's SD lead! (Ode to Heretic) - Page 19

winthrop · 05-15-2008, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsmeeeeeee

well, at least you seem to be ADMITTING that "your ox being gored" is clouding your judgment on this issue...

Ummm...are you going to play the word twisting game with me? I have stated,
and will continue to state, without concern for who believes what, that my "ox" is the
Democratic nominee. If Mr. Obama was compared to Hitler, "satire" or not, you would be
apoplectic in your outrage and correctly so. I have criticized other comparisons to Hitler,
without concerns as to whether the one comparing was trying to be funny or clever,
regardless of the subject.
I do not even sanction comparisons of Bush to Hitler, and rest long and well assured
Mr. Bush is not my "ox" on any imaginary farm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsmeeeeeee

because the TRUTH is there IS a TREMENDOUS difference between satire and serious comment.

What truth? Mr. Danton stated Mr. Obama was a great speaker. He is. He claimed Hitler
was a great speaker. I suppose he was. The comparison is still ridiculous and inappropriate.
What is the comparison here? Ms. Clinton cannot accept defeat? That is apparently true.
Hitler could not accept defeat? That, too, is true. But the comparison of Mr. Obama and
Ms. Clinton for whatever reason, to make whatever point
to one of the most notorious and universally acknowledged evils of history
is still ridiculous and inappropriate, and is, or in my opinion, should be offensive certainly
to anyone whose family or own life was affected by such a monster.

Now, tasteless humor is a time tested method of art, and I do not seek to keep it from
being utilized for whatever purpose one would use it. I am not happy the video exists, but
I would not attempt to remove it or keep it from being celebrated by those amused by it,
and I have not attempted to do that here. What I have done is point out the hypocrisy
of denouncing the ridiculous and in appropriate comparison to Hitler in one context and celebrating
it in another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsmeeeeeee

please make note that no matter how you cut it, my friend, to be a warrior for TRUTH entails consistency. to continue to attempt to assert that there ISN'T a difference between the two is, at best, very disingenuous - and that pretty much blows your "cred" on this particular issue.

Again, what "truth" is being presented? That Ms. Clinton is a bad loser? See above...
the video's creators used Hitler as their metaphor and are celebrated (because they are "clever"?).
A board participant supporting Ms. Clinton compares Mr. Obama's public speaking prowess to Hitler's
and he is roundly criticized, I suppose because he was not "clever".

As to my consistency, if you believe I have none, I can live with that, although at least one
participant, DRS, has said I do, I suspect there are more, if the subject is even worth
investigating, which I doubt it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsmeeeeeee

just saying is all...

Just standing your ground is all...does not mean you are right, but I again praise the effort,
even if doing so annoys a couple of your more inflammatory sisters-in-arms.

itsmeeeeeee · 05-15-2008, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winthrop

Ummm...are you going to play the word twisting game with me? I have stated,
and will continue to state, without concern for who believes what, that my "ox" is the
Democratic nominee. If Mr. Obama was compared to Hitler, "satire" or not, you would be
apoplectic in your outrage and correctly so. I have criticized other comparisons to Hitler,
without concerns as to whether the one comparing was trying to be funny or clever,
regardless of the subject.
I do not even sanction comparisons of Bush to Hitler, and rest long and well assured
Mr. Bush is not my "ox" on any imaginary farm.

What truth? Mr. Danton stated Mr. Obama was a great speaker. He is. He claimed Hitler
was a great speaker. I suppose he was. The comparison is still ridiculous and inappropriate.
What is the comparison here? Ms. Clinton cannot accept defeat? That is apparently true.
Hitler could not accept defeat? That, too, is true. But the comparison of Mr. Obama and
Ms. Clinton for whatever reason, to make whatever point
to one of the most notorious and universally acknowledged evils of history
is still ridiculous and inappropriate, and is, or in my opinion, should be offensive certainly
to anyone whose family or own life was affected by such a monster.

Now, tasteless humor is a time tested method of art, and I do not seek to keep it from
being utilized for whatever purpose one would use it. I am not happy the video exists, but
I would not attempt to remove it or keep it from being celebrated by those amused by it,
and I have not attempted to do that here. What I have done is point out the hypocrisy
of denouncing the ridiculous and in appropriate comparison to Hitler in one context and celebrating
it in another.

Again, what "truth" is being presented? That Ms. Clinton is a bad loser? See above...
the video's creators used Hitler as their metaphor and are celebrated (because they are "clever"?).
A board participant supporting Ms. Clinton compares Mr. Obama's public speaking prowess to Hitler's
and he is roundly criticized, I suppose because he was not "clever".

As to my consistency, if you believe I have none, I can live with that, although at least one
participant, DRS, has said I do, I suspect there are more, if the subject is even worth
investigating, which I doubt it is.

Just standing your ground is all...does not mean you are right, but I again praise the effort,
even if doing so annoys a couple of your more inflammatory sisters-in-arms.

you know what? i'm not even going to address 90% of what you said here, because to ME, it seems that YOU are the one playing games, now.

the ONLY "truth" i was CLEARLY referring to is the "truth" that there's a tremendous difference between "satire" and "serious comment"...

look it up in a dictionary, if need be.

so if you're honest with me, i think you'll find i AM right in asserting, and continuing to stubbornly assert, that there IS a tremendous difference between the two by definition.

to assert otherwise in an insult in not only my, but your, intelligence. period.

i will never concede otherwise.

winthrop · 05-15-2008, 08:44 AM

Of course there is a "difference" between "satire" and "serious comment". So what?
In this case one example makes fun of someone you hate, and the other makes a
specious point about someone you admire.

There is a difference between how a bee stings and how a wasp stings, but to say one
is a pleasant sensation and the other terrible because one prefers bees to wasps
is hypocritical.
It is hypocritical regardless of what you concede.

itsmeeeeeee · 05-15-2008, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winthrop

Of course there is a "difference" between "satire" and "serious comment". So what?
In this case one example makes fun of someone you hate, and the other makes a
specious point about someone you admire.

There is a difference between how a bee stings and how a wasp stings, but to say one
is a pleasant sensation and the other terrible because one prefers bees to wasps
is hypocritical.
It is hypocritical regardless of what you concede.

bee stings, wasp stings? good god, what a load of bullshit.
concede my point, or don't.

you're being completely obtuse, now.
so there's obviously no point in continuing this discussion.

winthrop · 05-15-2008, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsmeeeeeee

bee stings, wasp stings? good god, what a load of bullshit.

No "bullshit", it is a metaphor. If you truly do not understand its point, and truly want to understand it,
I will try to make it more clear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsmeeeeeee

concede my point, or don't.

What point? That there is a difference between satire and seriousness? I have acknowledged that,
what I do not acknowledge is the lack of hypocrisy in celebrating one when you agree with its assertions
and denouncing the other when you do not agree.
To use, perhaps with no more success, my metaphor again, bees and wasps both sting,
using different methods. One who has hates wasps will denounce the wasp sting, but if one who loves bees
claims the bee sting does not hurt because it was a bee doing the stinging one is being a hypocrite.
They both sting and both hurt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsmeeeeeee

you're being completely obtuse, now.
so there's obviously no point in continuing this discussion.

I am not being "obtuse", I am trying to get you to understand the "difference" between
satire and seriousness is irrelevant in this case, and your insistence on making the distinction
is based on your approval of this "satire's" message and your disapproval of the "serious"
example's message.

itsmeeeeeee · 05-15-2008, 09:14 AM

like i said, either concede my point or don't.
but let me point out that if you have the balls to concede my point, it over-rides yours.

YOU were the one dissing people for not finding cosmic's hick talk humorous last week. did you forget THAT? so if anyone's being hypocritical here, it's YOU.

but either way, don't expect me to continue this discussion.
i'm done wasting my time on this one.

winthrop · 05-15-2008, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsmeeeeeee

like i said, either concede my point or don't.
but let me point out that if you have the balls to concede my point, it over-rides yours.

YOU were the one dissing people for not finding cosmic's hick talk humorous last week. did you forget THAT? so if anyone's being hypocritical here, it's YOU.

but either way, don't expect me to continue this discussion.
i'm done wasting my time on this one.

As you wish, but you are missing the point, perhaps intentionally so.

The humor of the video is not relevant. If I had "dissed" anyone for "missing" Mr. Rocker's humor
and then expressed outrage that anyone found humor in this video, you would have a point.
But that is not the case. The hypocrisy, for the nth time, is in celebrating one comparison to Hitler
while denouncing another, and that is what I am pointing out.

I do not care if anyone finds the humor funny or not funny.
It was posted by someone (who even now lies and claims I
supported JDanton's Hitler comparison) expressing outrage about
a Hitler comparison in a different context.

If your point is there is a difference in being funny and being serious, "balls" are hardly require to
concede that.

05-15-2008, 08:44 AM	#183 (permalink)
winthrop Mediator for the Messes Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2,283 Thanks: 34 Thanked 90 Times in 69 Posts	Of course there is a "difference" between "satire" and "serious comment". So what? In this case one example makes fun of someone you hate, and the other makes a specious point about someone you admire. There is a difference between how a bee stings and how a wasp stings, but to say one is a pleasant sensation and the other terrible because one prefers bees to wasps is hypocritical. It is hypocritical regardless of what you concede. __________________ Countdown to The Great Bush-Out... Meanwhile, panem et circenses!
	Top

05-15-2008, 09:14 AM	#186 (permalink)
itsmeeeeeee punk nun Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: 53 miles west of venus Posts: 3,822 My Mood: Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 215 Thanked 715 Times in 428 Posts	like i said, either concede my point or don't. but let me point out that if you have the balls to concede my point, it over-rides yours. YOU were the one dissing people for not finding cosmic's hick talk humorous last week. did you forget THAT? so if anyone's being hypocritical here, it's YOU. but either way, don't expect me to continue this discussion. i'm done wasting my time on this one. __________________ "NEVER underestimate the Democrat's ability to snatch DEFEAT from the jaws of victory."
	Top

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode