What, really, you
have to ask?
"By the way, you like my new look, avatar and all?"
I mean, what do you want us to tell you? That you've never looked more delusionally queer? It's absolutely fabulous? It would be a good idea, next time you decide to spend the weekend eating butt, to wipe the shit off your lip before having your picture taken?
You're just trying to be an obnoxious priss, and after the last couple rounds, I don't think anyone's up for your kind of circle jerk.
You can make whatever dumbassed excuses you want—
—but there's no reason for people to actually believe you. And if they believe instead that, like LaRouche, you're just a nutty old closet case stringing out his last wank, that's enough of a connection.
See, we actually do have rules against deliberate goading, but since you're aiming after Obama and taking a conservative viewpoint, your fact-free, "because I say so" logic, combined with Nazi invocations and pathetic attempts at provocation are specially protected under the current WE&P standard. And so are you. People simply are not allowed to speculate at the connection between the character you play and the offensive stupidity of the posts you write. After all, that would be undignified. Indeed, anything suggesting
anything untoward about this sort of uneducated, intentionally provocative bullshit thread you've started is unsuitable for public discussion, according to the standing rules enforced at WE&P.
In other words, you're protected because you're special.
I can't speak for Joe, but what you get here is about as straightforward a translation of myself as I can fashion in such limited dimensions. Don't worry, I've long since stopped expecting the same presentation of other people. I would hate to think you're actually like the part you play here.
But, yes, many people find me obnoxious. Especially dishonest thugs. So as you might imagine, conservatives find me quite annoying.
That's the thing, though. See, I have to start taking a couple of pieces of advice. One of my colleagues suggests the average age of Sciforums posting members is somewhere around fourteen. To the one, he may be correct, and it may signify a decline, as I can remember a time when people knew what a primary source document was. To the other, though, it could be that he is overestimating people's genuine character and underestimating their naîveté. It is very nearly shocking, in the virtual world, the number of mundane, even observable realities that we must set aside as extraordinary in order to lend a veneer of legitimacy to ahistorical and ascientific rantings. Like your gasoline price thread. In the first place, I can remember when gas crossed $1.00/g°, and also when it crossed $2.00/g. In both cases, people were incensed. It never did really recover below a dollar, though. But I can tell you from experience in this decade that the first time it crossed $2.00/g, people were upset, and talked about it a lot. Then it fell, and when it climbed past $2.00/g again, people just made a note and dealt with it.
The next benchmark is $5.00/g. We heard about it at one point, but maybe only about a hundred people in the nation have actually seen it. When that happens, Obama's political worries grow exponentially. Until then, though, it's just a bit of heat, much as I described in the B&E version of the thread.
This is observable to anyone who has paid attention. So when people open threads going after President Obama that overlooks such aspects, I really do wonder who they are and why they're posting. Perhaps one really is fourteen, which would make him four or five when gasoline began its present price cycle. In that case, though, the complaint doesn't make sense because there is nothing unusual about the price of gasoline in that cycle. Thus, the outrage we're supposed to feel is based on a longer and more complex historical consideration. Except, of course, for reality being too complicated for the outraged.
And this thread as well. With over a hundred occasions to examine in which the executive has ordered our troops to combat, there are only
five declarations of war. That a president can deploy troops, advise Congress afterward, and expect to be done in sixty to ninety days is the
mundane view of history and the Constitution. That a president following a mundane course of action is somehow impeachable is the
extraordinary assertion, and one that needs some better argument than, "Because someone dedicated to hating Barack Obama says so."
So we start out with an extraordinary, unsupported assertion, mix that with a Godwin violation, add a market research question ... and at what point is anyone supposed to take you seriously?
The only obligation I have to take you seriously is to remind that portion of our community that is young and inexperienced that this sort of thread is not something to be respected, emulated, or otherwise deemed useful.
Useful, I might specify, in any sense of academia or integrity. I'm quite sure a Republican will have a different view of such endeavors, but the requisite dishonesty is one of the reasons I've never been able to be a conservative.
____________________
Notes:
° when gas crossed $1.00/g — I remember pumping gas as low as $0.899, but I've never purchased gas any lower than $1.019. And we're talking about the day when you could borrow two bucks from a nun and that would get you around fifty miles on the road—with a straight six under the hood, at that. At least since I started paying attention to the domestic "gas wars", I think $0.749 is probably the lowest I ever saw gasoline.
