Obama is smooth...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Still no explanation from the racist why eating dog makes one morally inferior. I see you know how to avoid a question, but you certainly don't know how to answer one.

---

Not taking a side either way but I'd like to join the discussion. :2cent

If I've learned a few basic lessons in earning my degree in biology and philosophy it's that without an objective, external right/wrong/morality (whether God, the "uncaused cause", or whatever other explanation one could come up with) morality is a very tricky, evanescent concept that very quickly breaks down even before symbolic logic is applied.

Stated simply, without an external source of rules, it's not an easy task to explain that such a thing a right/wrong exists at all. Without a concept such as God (and I'm not proselytizing any particular faith or spiritual tradition) it seems to break down to pleasure/pain/tradition, and utilitarian considerations.

One can of course have pragmatist, utilitarian etc. foundations for morality. But I would claim that given a foundation of his choice, mildcigar commits what logicians call a category mistake. He asserts quite explicitly a few pages back in this that both Obama and a large number of individual Indonesians are morally inferior for eating dog. For Indonesians dog is an occasional source of protein. For Obama, he was a six year visitor sampling the cuisine. So the inferiority stems not from their motivations but from the consumption itself. When asked to explain how it can be the eating dog makes one morally inferior midlcigar is at a loss. So he changes the discussion to one of culture, claiming one culture can be inferior to another. Cultures and individuals are distinct categories. Even if (and that's a big "if") one culture could be inferior to another, it doesn't follow an individual from the lesser culture is morally inferior to an individual of the the greater culture. Even if (another big "if") the culture of Indonesia were inferior to the culture of redneck Alabama, it doesn't follow that rednecks are morally superior to Indonesian medical doctors. Moreover, none of this talk about morally comparative cultures has anything to do with Obama who was raised with Western values, largely in the U.S. and who epitomizes western values. He's obviously in no way Indonesian. Of course to mildcigar and other conservative, Obama is The Other, and it is in their interests to paint him as The Other at every opportunity.

Next question, does driving long distances on a family vacation with the family dog strapped to the roof, sick and vomiting, make you a) morally inferior; b) an unfeeling idiot or c) out of touch with dogs?

This whole debate about eating dog is just another excuse for an attack on President Obama to suggest he is 'not one of us', an 'other' as Trish has said before. If anything, it suggests to me your Commander-in-Chef has more bottle than most Americans.

Starving people have eaten rats, grass, the bark of trees.

I once knew an Italian who was amazed I had never eaten horsemeat or donkey meat, and as amazed that I should be disgusted by it.

Anyway there are dogs and dogs, and isn't it the case that puppies are the tastiest when roasted? Just thought I would throw that in on a Sunday lunchtime...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

One can of course have pragmatist, utilitarian etc. foundations for morality. But I would claim that given a foundation of his choice, mildcigar commits what logicians call a category mistake. He asserts quite explicitly a few pages back in this that both Obama and a large number of individual Indonesians are morally inferior for eating dog. For Indonesians dog is an occasional source of protein. For Obama, he was a six year visitor sampling the cuisine. So the inferiority stems not from their motivations but from the consumption itself. When asked to explain how it can be the eating dog makes one morally inferior midlcigar is at a loss. So he changes the discussion to one of culture, claiming one culture can be inferior to another. Cultures and individuals are distinct categories. Even if (and that's a big "if") one culture could be inferior to another, it doesn't follow an individual from the lesser culture is morally inferior to an individual of the the greater culture. Even if (another big "if") the culture of Indonesia were inferior to the culture of redneck Alabama, it doesn't follow that rednecks are morally superior to Indonesian medical doctors. Moreover, none of this talk about morally comparative cultures has anything to do with Obama who was raised with Western values, largely in the U.S. and who epitomizes western values. He's obviously in no way Indonesian. Of course to mildcigar and other conservative, Obama is The Other, and it is in their interests to paint him as The Other at every opportunity.

Next question, does driving long distances on a family vacation with the family dog strapped to the roof, sick and vomiting, make you a) morally inferior; b) an unfeeling idiot or c) out of touch with dogs?

---

I don't know Trish.....why don't we ask the dogs ? One made it after a bout with car sickness, and one met with an untimely demise. LMAO

Look...the entire conversation is a diversion, and a new way for the sycophants in here to be even more creative in defense of their dear leader...I don't care if he ate raw kangaroo while camping in the outback with uncle Oyango and his aunt Zeituni , but it's worthy of some comedic attention. Do you think if the instances were reversed it wouldn't be fodder for Stewart, Letterman, Rock and Maher? My goodness....imagine the press releases from PETA had it been someone other than Obama. Betty White might never recover !!!!!!! Most Americans will find the practice a bit odd.....and it will rekindle that quieted flame of racism in all of us....right? There...I've explained it away. See how easy it was? This blue print can be used for just about any disagreement one might have with Obama,...even for those who set aside their chronic racism and voted for him in '08. I personally find Colombian hookers, and lavish Vegas parties much more "juicy" but that's just me. So until the next scandal, or misuse of taxpayer money by this administration breaks, mind if we have a little fun with the whole doggie thing.....or is humor only funny when it's aimed at folks you despise and coming from folks you agree with ?
OK...so in conclusion....... we know he can snap out an Al Green tune, dine with the locals on exotic cuisine, play some golf and enjoys vacationing with his 1% friends, and those things seem to endear him to most of you..........the question is....in addition to all those weighty attributes, is ...............can and will he govern?

I think now would be the time to insert some cartoon humor about the entire episode, but it seems suddenly everyone's sensibilities seem to be so razor thin, I wouldn't want to offend anyone with some canine humor....so this will do for now...but stay tuned !

The instances already go both ways. Gail Collins makes fun of Romney's Dog-On-The-Roof incident in every column. But she never drew mildcigar's conclusion that Romney was morally inferior. The liberal line has been that Romney is simply not very connected, not very sympathetic and rather self-contained.

Obama eats dog and what conclusions does the right draw? He morally inferior. He is prone to the anti-colonialist attitudes that are rampant in Kanya. Proves he wasn't born in America. In a whisper: he's BLACK.

The difference is that progressives aren't afraid of racial, cultural or religious differences. In comparison you guys are simpering cowards.

Speaking of religious differences, it's Sunday morning and you're a good Christian posting his hatred again in a porn forum. Doesn't that strike you as .... sinful???

Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter both had rabidly conservative fathers who were Judges......think about it.

Cigar doesn't care if the American Indians we slaughtered ate dog. He just wants to be on the winning end of the joke, for a change.

I thought Stavros was from London.

It doesn't matter if zulusierra understands better than anyone the motives and behavior of everyone in the USA. That still leaves 300 million who don't.

The same hard times that made people eat dog made people own slaves.

Buddha actually finished reading the book of life 2500 years ago, all the way through to the end. But we're all blind men looking at the elephant from different angles.

Obama was sent down from Heaven to save the WORLD.word to your mother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

I thought Stavros was from London.

---

? Don't see the relevance of this comment. I wasn't born in London and haven't lived there for 25 years. And I have not eaten dogs, puppies, donkeys, horses, or insects. I have tried soya milk, which is disgusting. I like all kinds of food, but I am not particularly courageous with stuff I don't know about.

Which, as I suggested before, makes your Commander-in-Chef a more adventurous and gung-go eater than most Americans who come to Europe and think the food in France is crap, and end up in McDonalds more often than the local brasserie.

All you need now is a President who likes...mushrooms...

I didn't know the full story. Obama was 6 or 7. Possibly 9. The so-called controversy is kinda silly. I mean, I ate rabbit when I was a kid. I regret it now.
Obama revealed it 8 years ago. In his book Dreams from my Father. Why is it surfacing now? Does it have anything to do with how Mitt mistreated his dog? And this is a counterattack? It's petty politics. And TAKES AWAY from real issues.

'Obama Ate Dog' Attacks - YouTube

[QUOTE=Stavros;1129496]This whole debate about eating dog is just another excuse for an attack on President Obama to suggest he is 'not one of us', an 'other' as Trish has said before. If anything, it suggests to me your Commander-in-Chef has more bottle than most Americans.

QUOTE]


Hey wait...there's only space for one smartest man in the room title, and it's not you.....

That's a nice fantasy you've laid on us, but it has more to do with conjecture and your own biases and ignorance, than anything factual or evidentiary. The gullible in here will gladly lap up your racism charges, but that's fairly obvious.... it's what they revel in...So let me enlighten the so called enlightened....

The story of Obama eating canine has been around for quite some time. In fact he narrated it from his own book a decade ago, and one would think if there was a political opportunity to be had, those racist right wingers would have used it by now...it's widely known. The fact of the matter is, the Romeny story was kept alive by Obama campaign chairman, David Axle douche. He began tweeting it as far back as January of this year after a picture of Barry and Bo in the limo surfaced saying that's how dog lovers treat thier dogs. I urge you to google it and get informed. Of course it was picked up by late night comics, MSNBC, and they went off and running with it. Not a problem....all's fair in love and politics. But in attempt to keep the Romney story alive and continue to paint his as a cold hearted inhumane animal hater, Axle douche kept on Tweeting. It was picked up by other liberal politicians who I named in another post, and just last week Axlerod referred to it again. It was then that the Romney campaign and other right wing bloggers pointed out the reality in a humorous way....that is Romney may have put the dog on top of the family car, but Obama dined on it. They certainly weren't responding with anything untrue, and if it was fair and fun for the Obama campaign to continue to talk about the Romney incident, why would it be the same for the Obama episode? I'm sure you guys thought the jokes about the dog on the family car were hilarious, but you've suddenly lost your sense of humor. You all tend to do that...along with your objectivity when the subject is Obama. I'd say this blew up in Axle douche's face, but when you're attempting to deflect voters attention with doggie stories, you run that risk. So now you know the rest of the story, but once again....you're entitled to your opinion no matter how uninformed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Next question, does driving long distances on a family vacation with the family dog strapped to the roof, sick and vomiting, make you a) morally inferior; b) an unfeeling idiot or c) out of touch with dogs?

---

Most definitely "b" and "c", not sure I'd go quite as far as "a" (not for that reason alone, but he may have other traits that make "a" a correct answer as well).