wow..
you seriously can't do it can you? You simply can't go against anything (R) .. there is something fundamentally broken within you..you will extract any single word you can to either claim some victory of correctness or turn the thread, like you did with the title, and now the word 'laughter'.. of course we can hear the laughter, we're not deaf or so deluded that we tune things like that out, the question is, how can you not hear the applause and the 'yeah's' spoken in agreement with what he hopes for Americans everywhere?
Huck did not get up and give his speech like a Baptist preacher giving a sermon on hell fire and damnation, with shouting and spittle flying after each syllable .. he gave a professional,well-rehearsed, dignified speech that used a little levity on something he felt deeply about.. Was there laughter? Yes, was he any less serious about his wish No. Was the crowd was in agreement, which they voiced with their applause and the 'yeah's' heard? Absolutely .. All you have to do is watch the 30 minute interview with Huck to see just how serious he is about this Barton guy, but hey, you don't watch these internet video's do you? Just in case they make you see or hear that which you'd rather ignore..
it's impossible to miss or misunderstand.. so what beside him being an '(R) so he gets your full support no matter what, what is your reason for the faux ignorance and this defense of this? I had hopes of with a new webboard, you would take on a different new persona that had grown into being able to look at his party, party leaders and their ideas and speak freely against them when they were off-the-charts fucked up.. I see that is not the case, while I can say what I wish about Obama, you still can not even hear applause when it is so abundantly there for anyone else to hear if they push the 'play' button..
Yesterday Obama said "And without even looking at a poll, my finely honed political skills tell me that almost no one believes they should be paying higher taxes."
let me guess, you didn't get that while he was being jovial instead of being bombastic, he was also being serious about a very heated topic..
Howie wants a civil discourse here.. I respect that, and simply have to back out of this topic from here on out. I cannot sit here and watch you "Kazzy-bot" another topic..by picking and choosing the words you've elected as your 'buzz-win-words' so you can avoid the issue all together while still claiming some 'just as you thought'.. 'win'.
Howie, we all heard what Huck said.. we heard the crowd's applause and 'yeah's' in agreement with him on his vision of the Sainted David and his indoctrination of America.... it's fucked up, highly fucked up.. But he's not Obama and he's not a Lib so no one but a handful of us will care.. it's that simple.. move on..
In a way, I share your disappointment. Not with the absurd inaccuracies that Howey posted. That’s par for the course for him and honestly, he doesn’t really care about accuracy in these sort of stories so that is no surprise. Nor was there any surprise that you joined in with Howey at celebrating a bullshit story. Certainly you took the comment of Huckabee’s seriously about holding a gun to every child’s head in your first post in this thread. You say NOW of course you heard the laughter… I’m thinking no. I’m thinking you heard what Think Progress told you to hear. Otherwise this story and thread would have been over before it even got started. The applause? Was that for Huckabee’s gunpoint comment or after? You know the answer but you won’t say it.
So what I’ve been told in this thread:
-That Barton is Huckabee’s preacher.
-That Barton is in fact a Preacher.
These two seem to be pretty much bullshit
-That Huckabee wants to hold children at gunpoint
This, which you regarded as the meat of the matter, turns out to be a joke, which was easy to discern after listening and watching the clip. Whether Huckabee is a fan of Barton or not, or whether Barton is a kook (which I’ve already conceded) doesn’t matter unless you really really think that Huckabee wants every child in the country to actually be indoctrinated at gunpoint.
This isn’t nitpicking. This is the basis of your argument. Joke or not? If it’s not a joke, then this would be a MUCH bigger story; national news coverage story. This isn’t a comment like growing up in Kenya, which DID get national press. This would be much bigger than that.
If you really think he’s dead serious about that as goal, then yes, this is a big story. If it’s a joke, then it’s nothing.
It’s a joke. It’s clearly a joke.
So this is your Porterhouse?
I would have to say that this isn’t even a dinner roll. I mean, I’ve addressed your entrée, found it extremely wanting, and therefore you come to the conclusion that I can’t go against anything that has an R in it. You can’t bring yourself to admit this was an extremely weak story from the get go.
I don’t expect you to agree with my positions. In a decade I’ve never managed to change your mind on a single thing. That’s fine, but the idea that I have to agree with you on something as idiotic as this is or I can only inflexibly defend “R’s” is frankly absurd.
I like discussing and arguing policy, and once upon a time, you did too. Now the type of stories you like are stories like these, where you can take something out of context to try to slander someone. As I’ve mentioned, I’ve no love for Huckabee and since he is the absolute opposite type of Republican that I like, I have no special interest in him or in protecting him. In fact, I wouldn’t mind something coming up that would invalidate an opportunity for him to run for President again. But the left is in love with this type of bullshit story and as a consequence, so are you.
Constantly with you guys, it’s a never ending parade of bullshit stories like these. Policy? What’s that? Huckabee wants to hold children hostage at gun point! And the fact that you have to reach so far for a “story” shows how weak it is. How can you even pretend to be interested in civil discourse when you spend pages trying to defend something like this?
And it sounds all the more absurd because I really can’t believe you are falling for this, at least at this point. You really don’t seem to care about facts or evidence, and when I point them out to you, it just makes you stick to your guns even more. I didn’t do any research to speak of on this. I just asked a few questions and the bulk of the story fell apart. And then the item that you thought of as the “meat?” All I had to do was listen to the YouTube and hear the line in context, and how it was delivered. Quite a bit different from the way Think Progress wrote it up.
Yes, I’m disappointed. I really thought that after so long a cool off time we could go back to arguing in a way that we both used to enjoy, but I think I was wrong about that. You used to enjoy actually discussing policy. Now, it’s all stories like this, and the worst of them are these types which are taken out of context. And THIS of all things, is what you draw a line in the sand about. Not Policy, not Principle, and not even a factual personal attack story. No, it’s one that is so based on spin that even the lefty TV attack dogs are not wasting their time with it.
You’ve changed quite a bit in the past few years. You’ve gotten less and less interested in doing your own research, from real news articles, and just resort to prepackaged smears like this that don’t even have the benefit of being factual.
