Friday, August 01, 2008

More Fun and Games with My Favorite Obama Apologist

Once again, I have to ring the bell, because school is back in session for DJ due to his mind-numbing defense of Obama at the Rott.

The thread was about Obama's less than sly implication that anyone who doesn't vote for him is just a dirty racist. My first comment was:

I don’t hate him because he’s, you know, Blackeautiful(tm). I hate him because he is an arrogant, self-inflated, sub-retarded mouthpiece for all the factions on the Left who hate this country, and who will not stop until they have their way and you hate it too.

I am more qualified then this this strutting, messianic popinjay…but then I have had a real job for a much longer…

Of course, Deej felt compelled to respond:

Dammit… I shouldn’t have looked. Now I have to respond to:

BisW @ 24:

I hate him because he is an arrogant, self-inflated, sub-retarded mouthpiece for all the factions on the Left who hate this country, and who will not stop until they have their way and you hate it too. [Emphasis mine]

I notice the word of the day is “Arrogant“. Maybe you should read what John Ridley had to say about it.

Okay NOW I am done. Gotta drive to Portland in six hours.

Which compelled me to respond as follows:

Crimney Jicket, Deej. All the postings that actually deserved a response from you, and this is what you choose to comment on???

I read the link. I can’t speak for Karl. There are too many moonbats being perpetually jerked around like puppets on strings by his EVIL ROVIAN MINDCONTROL RAYS ™ who are more than happy to presume to speak for him, and provide comic relief in doing so.

However, I found the article predictable. A criticism, one justified by observable behavior and words tumbling from the lips of the Anointed One Himself(TM) is automatically equated with racism (and yes, that is a fair conclusion when it is one of the tags that that the guy put on the article by Mr. Ridley himself). And oh yeah, I have to accept that this very different of the word than that I intended, simply because that is the perception by a person of color? Two words: PISS.OFF.

You see Deej, I make my living with words. I get paid to be precise, and I always endeavor to use the right word to convey the meaning or gist of the idea I am trying to express, because words have meaning and names have power. An imprecise word, one that is close, but not quite right, can keep you from swaying a jury, or allow an alternate interpretation of a contract, which might mean that even though my client is right, they lose.

I think that “Arrogant” is fairly descriptive. But don’t take my word for it. There is a reason we have dictionaries.

from the Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language:

ar-ro-gant (ae’e gent), adj. 1. making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearing; assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.
2. characterized or proceeding from arrogance: arrogant claims.
-syn. 1. presumptuous, haughty, imperious, brazen. See proud. -ant. 1. meek. 2. modest, humble.

In this instance, I have to ask, how do you refer to a first-term junior senator who has barely worked at a real job, but has written two books, (one about himself), who, before he even has his party’s nomination, let alone the Presidency, attempts to speak at a venue made famous for speeches of incredible political significance by two Presidents of enormous stature[making pretensions to superior importance certainly comes to mind]? Who is constantly talking down to the same people who would be his constituency, telling them everything they can’t do or expect for themselves because we didn’t get the world’s permission to act that way or to have those things[overbearing and brazen-check]? And who puts his wife on the campaign trail to stump for him, but gets outraged and declares her immune from criticism for the things she says when she is taken to task for it[imperious seems to get it done]?

Arrogant, as is defined by the Dictionary, and not by a columnist clearly toting a chip on his shoulder, is the exact word.

Surprisingly, the same word seems to be appropriate for Mr. Ridley, keeping in mind the assumption he makes about the meaning of the word when it is applied Mr. Obama. Funny how that works.

You may wonder about this response. I’ll keep the explanation simple. I refuse to let leftist malcontents and the perpetually outraged keep trying to redefine words the words we use so they no longer have the meanings that they have been given, simply because they understand that by controlling the meaning of words, they control the dialogue. Not here. Not on my watch. Mr. Obama’s entire candidacy is a national tragedy. Instead of being offered a candidate of extraordinary character, wisdom, experience, and judgment, the Democrats will select a very young, very inexperienced, very clueless individual, who wouldn’t even be a blip on the radar if he were a white man. A candidate who knows how to invoke race guilt in people silly enough to believe that they should suffer from it, all the while implying racism leveled against him. The very picture of a dangerous man.

Yeah, I know it isn't something specifically written for here, but frankly, it needs to be said and bears repeating. So sue me.