The echo chamber

[heckofajobbrownie]

Of course. But this is comical:

 

"#2 - you are being dumb again - "negative document" refers to what the exact quote was

meaning. Say, can you show me where I said it was an EXACT QUOTE? don't think so."

 

I can't even tell what that means. Maybe I'm just being dumb, but what quote are you talking about Cal? You used quotation marks around the words "negative document." In the real world, that's the same as saying it's an "EXACT QUOTE".

 

Can you find when Obama said the Constitution was a "negative document"? Or do you want to admit he didn't say that.

 

I'll happily admit that you might have mentioned the Honduran coup before, since I don't always read your posts and can't imagine you know anything about Central American politics.

[shoot]

I really dont give wikipedia a whole lot of credit as a reference point, try handing in a paper in college with wikipedia as one of your sources. Even your profs will tell you that anyone can write whats in wiki. For all we know that was written by heckles.

 

Except it's a basic concept in politics/political theory? I'm just using wikipedia as an easy reference point, the idea of positive and negative liberty has been discussed in about every significant political text in one way or another since Hobbes/Locke/Rousseau/etc... it's not something some dude on the internet dreamed up.

 

As far as web sources go, here's the Stanford philosophy website, and a paper by Berlin discussing the subject. Saying the constitution is a charter of negative liberties has a very specific (not to mention correct) meaning.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-...tive/#TwoConLib

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/pap...twoconcepts.pdf

 

And for Obama studying constitutional law, Im sure he took a class in it. Doesn't mean that he passed. (grades were never disclosed) I can remember how everyone was told that Obama was a constituinal lawyer and that is his belief, when on the other hand we here in the youtube video with his own words that he believes in a living constitution and that it is flawed because african-americans (hyphenated american again) were not made part of the process. Well I think he is a racist. And we shall see how he governs. I would say obama is a case study lawyer. meaning that we can change the law case by case.

 

You don't believe the original Constitution was flawed and racist towards blacks? I'm not sure what to say if you can't accept that... AAs had no rights under the original document, and certainly were not made "part of the process." I'm not sure how you can construe Obama as a racist from a factual statement like that.

[shoot]

#2 - you are being dumb again - "negative document" refers to what the exact quote was

meaning. Say, can you show me where I said it was an EXACT QUOTE? don't think so.

 

see my above post. This is an example of what I meant in my other post earlier. When someone doesn't have a grasp on a concept like "negative liberty" and goes off the rocker when they hear someone they don't like (Obama) describing something they do like (the Constitution) as "negative" without even a full understanding of what "negative" in that context even means, it's hard to argue with them.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Ha. Welcome to the nuthouse, Shoot. Enjoy banging your head against the wall.

[heckofajobbrownie]

These are two great posts to get you used to how things roll in here.

 

First, you have Cal pulling a quote out of his ass, getting called on it, even having the actual quote read back to him, then claiming that his use of quotation marks wasn't meant to be an actual quote, and then calling me dumb for thinking that when you quote someone it means you ...quote someone. And no admission that he's wrong, and that Obama never said what Cal likes to imagine that he said.

 

Then you have T saying that negative liberty doesn't mean what you think negative liberty means because you linked him to the Wiki page on negative liberty, even though there's nothing wrong with the Wiki page on negative liberty. Nor does he have an alternative definition for what negative liberty means. He just knows it doesn't mean what you think it means, even though he doesn't know what it means.

 

Then he tries to deny that Obama was a Constitutional law professor, and instead says that, "Im sure he took a class in it. Doesn't mean that he passed." It doesn't seem matter that Obama was employed as a professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.

 

And he can't seem to understand the very simple ideas Obama is expressing in that YouTube video, even though they're entirely uncontroversial.

 

So welcome to the alternative reality of the lunatic fringe. Trust me, you've never seen anything quite like it. It'll be quite an eye-opener for you, I'm sure.

[calfoxwc]

Actually, I used to be a speech major, English minor in secondary education back in the day...

 

The use of quotation marks, Mr, Jellybean, is more versatile that you childishly suggest.

 

As in, "there you go again", making a twisted point to make you feel intelligent,

 

then I kick your ego to the curb until you whimper and come back for more.

 

Follow this link, Heck, and learn about quotation marks. It does NOT simply imply "exact quote".

 

Wow. What an infantile way to try to "win" a discussion.

 

Shoot probably doesn't want to be like you, unless he's been here before with another signon ...

 

Here, Mr. Jellybean, learn something for a change:

 

I "sneer" and "sneeze" in your direction, but I hope I didn't "scare" you.

 

The "irony" is, Heck, your arrogance is most certainly, "embarrassingly unjustfied".

 

***************************************

ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark

 

Irony

 

Main article: Scare quotes

 

Another common use of quotation marks is to indicate or call attention to ironic or apologetic words:

 

He shared his "wisdom" with me.

 

The lunch lady plopped a glob of "food" onto my tray.

 

To avoid the potential for confusion between ironic quotes and direct quotations, some style guides specify single quotation marks for this usage, and double quotation marks for verbatim speech. Quotes indicating irony, or other special use, are sometimes called scare, sneer, shock, distance, or horror quotes. They are sometimes gestured in oral speech using air quotes.

[calfoxwc]

Yeah, you don't want to trust Heck for much, Shoot.

 

He keeps "shooting" himself in the foot.

 

(OH GOSH< I USED QUOTATION MARKS AGAIN IN IRONY)

[heckofajobbrownie]

Hysterical. So let me get this straight - you were quoting something you claimed Obama said, but what you really were doing was quoting something he didn't say, but something scary you made up?

 

That's rich. We believe you. Really, we do.

 

So if Obama didn't say that, and you knew that when you wrote that, what was your point of alleging that Obama thinks the Constitution is a "negative document", and that this should cause us worry, like we're heading towards Nazi Germany?

 

If you knew all he was speaking of was "negative liberty", why would we have any reason to be concerned?

 

And again, why do I bother talking with someone as ridiculous as you?

[calfoxwc]

You WERE stunned stupid?

 

That's the only way I can figure you being

 

totally drenched in Egypt.

 

I don't think Shoot is toally drenched in Egypt.

 

But you, yeah, I think you are very, very soaked in Egypt.

 

Water-logged, and profoundly wetted.

 

Irony. go back and read the post, follow the little itsy bitsy linkie,

 

Jellybeanie, and let us know when you grow up, and are man enough to

 

say you're sorry.

[Mr. T]

Except it's a basic concept in politics/political theory? I'm just using wikipedia as an easy reference point, the idea of positive and negative liberty has been discussed in about every significant political text in one way or another since Hobbes/Locke/Rousseau/etc... it's not something some dude on the internet dreamed up.

 

As far as web sources go, here's the Stanford philosophy website, and a paper by Berlin discussing the subject. Saying the constitution is a charter of negative liberties has a very specific (not to mention correct) meaning.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-...tive/#TwoConLib

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/pap...twoconcepts.pdf

 

 

 

You don't believe the original Constitution was flawed and racist towards blacks? I'm not sure what to say if you can't accept that... AAs had no rights under the original document, and certainly were not made "part of the process." I'm not sure how you can construe Obama as a racist from a factual statement like that.

 

 

He is a racist, whenever one wants to be an "hyphenated american" they want to be seperated from the rest. Due to their own prejudices. I have not seen one action out of his time in politics that have shown anything different, he tramples on the poor for his own gain. How many campiagn promises has he kept, without trampling all over the constitution?

 

Case and point, many modern day liberals want to destroy the constitution, they dont like that it places limits on the authority of the government. When it was written, and if you are true to it, you cannot deny that the constitution is a fundamentally sound document.

 

To get a good perspective on what liberals are after you should read this article.

What Liberals Want

A progressive conference on the Constitution sheds light on the real stakes involved with the judiciary.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Cal, come on now. Here's what you wrote: "Obama has SAID he thinks our Constitution is a "negative document"."

 

Clearly, you're saying Obama said that. You used the words "Obama" and "said", and then used quotes around what you said that he said. Except that he never said that.

 

Everyone else can tell you had this wrong, but you simply won't admit it. You're going through this long and tortured explanation of how when you used quotes after saying Obama said something, you weren't actually quoting what he said.

 

Just admit he didn't say what you said he said, because he didn't. It's going to be okay. We all get things wrong from time to time.

[calfoxwc]

No, not clearly. I am quoting myself, in irony, as a paraphrase of what Obama has said..

 

he spoke in negative terms in complaining about our Constitution.

 

that's all.

 

No more. No less. I didn't remember or care about the exact quote,

 

so I excepted the phrase as my own, but ironically, was referring to

 

how Obama referred to our Constitution negatively.

 

Come on, now. Should I be honored that you are quibbling over punctuation and the like,

 

like you do Steve?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Okay, let's set aside the fact that you're completely full of shit for now. You're literally arguing that when you say someone said something, and then use quotation marks when describing what was said, you're not really saying what they said, but you're quoting yourself.

 

Here's you then: "Obama has SAID he thinks our Constitution is a "negative document"."

 

Here's you now: "I am quoting myself, in irony..."

 

You expect people to buy this? Really?

 

But whatever. I can't spend another minute of my day on this without hating myself.

[calfoxwc]

It doesn't matter that you don't buy it.

 

What the hell is your point ?

 

That Obamao really sucks, is totally unqualifed to be pres,

 

that he has lied/"reversed himself" on most of his major

 

campaign promises and his approval rating, even with

 

staunch Dems, is plummeting, he is making us MORE hated

 

around the world, EVEN in INDONESIA,

 

his admin is officially more corrupt than any other pres admin

 

in our entire history, people who grew up in Nazi Germany

 

WORRY and are saying some of the EXACT SAME THINGS

 

I am saying about him, and the "slaughter solution which IS UNConstitutional,

 

and the health care bill(s) that is not wanted by most of the AMERICANS

 

who this pres couldn't care less about, and the Dem plan to cut 500 billion

 

out of Medicare, and all you have to hang on to is personal insults, ignorance is bliss

 

ignoring of all the above issues...

 

Say, did I mention that the Obamao admin is the most unfriendly admin in decades

 

... worse than Jimmy Carter ?

 

Yeah. I can see why you want to argue about quotation marks, and definitions of what "is" is.

 

But very sad that you can't, or won't try to do better.

 

You seem to get spoonfed talking points, and you never have any of your own opinions.

 

Must really suck to have the intelligence to know you are a very sad American who doesn't care

 

about anything, but your belonging to the progressive part of the Dem party.