"Poet" invited to White House

#76
#76
volinbham said:
Who's selling a narrative here? Common is deep, thoughtful - Palin is a moron.

Please. You dislike Palin so you attribute all sorts of meaning to her comments that weren't there and call her irresponsible. You like Common (maybe Obama) so you call him deep and suggest anyone seeing irresponsibility in his words is a dupe, right wing loony or just incapable of seeing art.

Real open minded of you.
Click to expand...

Oh please, if you think Palin is capable of creating anything remotely close to what Common has done lyrically, then you are a hopeless cause. As far as Common, I am fairly indifferent, but it's not really that hard to see his use of metaphor.

As for the last line, spare me. Lines like that are the last refuge for lost arguments.
 
#78
#78
Unimane said:
As far as Common, I am fairly indifferent, but it's not really that hard to see his use of metaphor..
Click to expand...

and you seriosuly are wondering why i asked the question i did when you say crap like that? i'd say palins metaphor was a hell of a lot easier to understand than some horsecrap about an uzi being a heart or whatever.
 
#79
#79
Unimane said:
Oh please, if you think Palin is capable of creating anything remotely close to what Common has done lyrically, then you are a hopeless cause. As far as Common, I am fairly indifferent, but it's not really that hard to see his use of metaphor.

As for the last line, spare me. Lines like that are the last refuge for lost arguments.
Click to expand...

The point stands - both used metaphor. One is considered perfectly fine by you and the other considered careless and irresponsible. We are supposed to believe that your ability to discern artist and linguistic abilities is how you've objectively reached this conclusion.

This is made particularly ironic by your condescending view of anyone that doesn't see the real meaning of one yet you somehow believe that the other (Palins) was irresponsible presumably since people wouldn't recognize it as metaphor.

Then you bring the lulz by labeling it all as part of a narrative.

Solid work.
 
#80
#80
droski said:
and you seriosuly are wondering why i asked the question i did when you say crap like that? i'd say palins metaphor was a hell of a lot easier to understand than some horsecrap about an uzi being a heart or whatever.
Click to expand...

Yep - even if equally easy to see as metaphor both would be equally responsible or irresponsible.

For some reason only the person he disagrees with politically was irresponsible. Hmmmm.
 
#81
#81
droski said:
and you seriosuly are wondering why i asked the question i did when you say crap like that? i'd say palins metaphor was a hell of a lot easier to understand than some horsecrap about an uzi being a heart or whatever.
Click to expand...

Well, for one, the uzi was an example, but not related to anything regarding a shooting. Secondly, "burning a bush" isn't anything clearly saying "kill the President", but a crosshair is quite a bit more direct. Only an idiot would think she wanted her to be shot, but it's akin to a rapper saying something along the lines of "someone needs to take out Bush". Both are irresponsible.
 
#82
#82
therealUT said:
Guilt by association: a common and reoccurring theme weaved throughout our Constitution and the earliest legislation in America.
Click to expand...

It's hardly just guilt by association when there are this many anti-American characters in his circle.
 
#85
#85
Unimane said:
Well, for one, the uzi was an example, but not related to anything regarding a shooting. Secondly, "burning a bush" isn't anything clearly saying "kill the President", but a crosshair is quite a bit more direct. Only an idiot would think she wanted her to be shot, but it's akin to a rapper saying something along the lines of "someone needs to take out Bush". Both are irresponsible.
Click to expand...

Disagree with bolded. Both are expressions but neither is more direct.

Put another way, no one is more likely in either case to kill the president or kill a candidate. Both are metaphors. People who don't like Palin jumped all over her and people that don't like rappers or Obama jumped all over the other.

Neither should be a big deal.
 
#87
#87
volfanjustin said:
You continue to ignore the point and change the subject. You do that on every issue.
Click to expand...

Not at all. You say these people are anti-American; therefore, I am asking for what your definition regarding this is. I asked you to define a positive as opposed to a negative.

You use terms and I want to make sure that I understand what you mean when you use them.
 
#88
#88
volfanjustin said:
I will say, when someones says "damn America" or tries to blow up government buildings you are anti-American
Click to expand...

Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers. Got it. Common does not fit into your definition, though.

Of course, now you will expand your definition.
 
#89
#89
volinbham said:
Disagree with bolded. Both are expressions but neither is more direct.

Put another way, no one is more likely in either case to kill the president or kill a candidate. Both are metaphors. People who don't like Palin jumped all over her and people that don't like rappers or Obama jumped all over the other.

Neither should be a big deal.
Click to expand...

I didn't think the Palin thing was a big deal, either, just irresponsible, whereas the Common thing is more of a reach. Jaywalking is also irresponsible, but I don't get my panties in a bind over it.
 
Last edited:
#90
#90
therealUT said:
Not at all. You say these people are anti-American; therefore, I am asking for what your definition regarding this is. I asked you to define a positive as opposed to a negative.

You use terms and I want to make sure that I understand what you mean when you use them.
Click to expand...

I would define pro-American as and this is just for starters. Someone who loves this country as it were set up to operate, traditional values. Who values and upholds the Constitution and not as a living document. This is kind of hard to answer because and I hate to use a John Edwards statement but I see 2 Americas, what is was designed to be and what it has become.
 
#91
#91
Unimane said:
I didn't think the Palin thing was a big deal, either, just irresponsible, whereas the Common thing is more of a reach. So is jaywalking, but I don't get my panties in a bind.
Click to expand...

But you began with your panties in a wad about the whole poet thing.

In the end, you think Palin's comments were irresponsible. Others think Common's are, some don't think either are and some think both are.

Why label the one you disagree with a "narrative" but imply yours is not also a narrative?
 
#92
#92
volfanjustin said:
I would define pro-American as and this is just for starters. Someone who loves this country as it were set up to operate, traditional values. Who values and upholds the Constitution and not as a living document. This is kind of hard to answer because and I hate to use a John Edwards statement but I see 2 Americas, what is was designed to be and what it has become.
Click to expand...

So, you are essentially saying that you don't like America because it has become something else today? Also, this is such a self-serving definition of being "pro-American" to suit your own political views. I may have different political views than a lot of a people, but I don't question their "Americanness" because they don't interpret the meaning of the Constitution as I do.
 
#93
#93
volinbham said:
But you began with your panties in a wad about the whole poet thing.

In the end, you think Palin's comments were irresponsible. Others think Common's are, some don't think either are and some think both are.

Why label the one you disagree with a "narrative" but imply yours is not also a narrative?
Click to expand...

Because the issue with Common for me was one regarding an obscure poem 4 years ago, done with a lot of research to "find something" on the guy, then found something flimsy and made an obvious hit job on Obama.

I never brought up Palin in comparison, that was done by someone else. I didn't equate the two. Plus, nobody cared about Palin's crosshairs until someone got shot.
 
Last edited:
#94
#94
Unimane said:
I never brought up Palin in comparison, that was done by someone else. I didn't equate the two. Plus, nobody cared about Palin's crosshairs until someone got shot.
Click to expand...

Not true. The crosshairs thing was immediately used against Palin by those who don't like her - just like the Common thing.

When Giffords was shot it went into full-lunatic overdrive and was completely and utterly unconnected but still used by her opponents.

Look, I really wish Palin would go away. She's a disaster of a politician. But what's happening with Common is no different than what happened with her. Hate the game.
 
#96
#96
volfanjustin said:
I would define pro-American as and this is just for starters. Someone who loves this country as it were set up to operate, traditional values. Who values and upholds the Constitution and not as a living document. This is kind of hard to answer because and I hate to use a John Edwards statement but I see 2 Americas, what is was designed to be and what it has become.
Click to expand...

So, in your estimation, someone who is pro-American would believe that African-Americans are chattel that should only count for 3/5th of their worth?

Or, someone who loves this country as it were set up to operate would be someone who feels that only property owning, white individuals should be allowed to vote? And then, their vote should only be for their Congressional Representative, not their Senator nor the President.

Or, someone who loves this country and sees that the underlying premise was rooted in the enlightenment, in the eternal rights of man, in free speech, liberty, freedom to do, speak, and worship as one feels as long as these do not directly and physically infringe upon another's ability to do the same?

Of course, you are against having a Mosque in Murfreesboro, therefore, I cannot imagine that you would agree with the last sentiment; that is, unless you define yourself as anti-American.
 
#97
#97
therealUT said:
So, in your estimation, someone who is pro-American would believe that African-Americans are chattel that should only count for 3/5th of their worth?

Or, someone who loves this country as it were set up to operate would be someone who feels that only property owning, white individuals should be allowed to vote? And then, their vote should only be for their Congressional Representative, not their Senator nor the President.

Or, someone who loves this country and sees that the underlying premise was rooted in the enlightenment, in the eternal rights of man, in free speech, liberty, freedom to do, speak, and worship as one feels as long as these do not directly and physically infringe upon another's ability to do the same?

Of course, you are against having a Mosque in Murfreesboro, therefore, I cannot imagine that you would agree with the last sentiment; that is, unless you define yourself as anti-American.
Click to expand...

Figured it would not take you long to play the race card. Show me where in the Constitution it states slavery is ok. Leave the playing of the race card to LG.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top