The Myth of "Choice"

[Alyosha]

Why I'm a libertarian and not a Democrat


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwejQBIyjow

I'm pro choice about everything about everything pro choice, but as long as the choices have good outcomes...

LOL...just LOL



The successful marketing campaign of the Democrats should be emulated. They can preach "Pro-Choice" as a label, without fully owning what that means.

It turns into, "I'm pro choice about things I believe we should have choice about and anti-choice about those things I don't think you should have a choice in."

And the world let's them get away with this.

I think we libertarians should have a bullshit tag too: We Are the Legalize Pot Party

We'll win hands down.

[GrassrootsConservative]

As long as it's reasonable to them, you can choose to do it and they won't hang you for it.

[Mister D]

:laugh:

[jillian]

Why I'm a libertarian and not a Democrat


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwejQBIyjow

I'm pro choice about everything about everything pro choice, but as long as the choices have good outcomes...

LOL...just LOL



The successful marketing campaign of the Democrats should be emulated. They can preach "Pro-Choice" as a label, without fully owning what that means.

It turns into, "I'm pro choice about things I believe we should have choice about and anti-choice about those things I don't think you should have a choice in."

And the world let's them get away with this.

I think we libertarians should have a bullshit tag too: We Are the Legalize Pot Party

We'll win hands down.

i think most democrats are ok with legalizing pot.

but to be fair, is the "choice" thing any different than pretend "small government" types who hate government unless it's legislating people's morality? i'd say most people have issues on which they're not totally consistent. you come closer than most to consistency... but it's unusual because we all have things that offend us.

[Mister D]

Well this is hardly surprising. I don't think it even qualifies as hypocrisy. That entails a level of self-awareness obviously lacking in this case.

[Mister D]

i think most democrats are ok with legalizing pot.

but to be fair, is the "choice" thing any different than pretend "small government" types who hate government unless it's legislating people's morality? i'd say most people have issues on which they're not totally consistent. you come closer than most to consistency... but it's unusual because we all have things that offend us.

A tu quoque is not performed in the interest of fairness. It's purpose is to avoid discussion of the issue at hand. If you need help I'll explain it to you. The issue here is the utter inconsistency of progressives who parrot this "choice" slogan while not actually living it.

[Cthulhu]

It would seem that the faux nobility are excusing themselves of responsibility, yet again.

[Mister D]

It would seem that the faux nobility are excusing themselves of responsibility, yet again.

Or rather a coherent worldview.

[Chris]

Why I'm a libertarian and not a Democrat


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwejQBIyjow

I'm pro choice about everything about everything pro choice, but as long as the choices have good outcomes...

LOL...just LOL



The successful marketing campaign of the Democrats should be emulated. They can preach "Pro-Choice" as a label, without fully owning what that means.

It turns into, "I'm pro choice about things I believe we should have choice about and anti-choice about those things I don't think you should have a choice in."

And the world let's them get away with this.

I think we libertarians should have a bullshit tag too: We Are the Legalize Pot Party

We'll win hands down.



Funny, toward the end, the one woman is pro-choice everything but only if informed and government should have a role. Even on the single issue she proclaims to be pro-choice it's choice based on information and law government issues.

I find most liberals insist the as long as the ends are good then any means are justified. The let's attack Iraq to spread democracy or let's attack Syria to spread humanity.

I'm a firm believer that justified means will result in just ends. Liberty to pursue happiness in cooperation will result in social prosperity.

Legalizing pot isn't high on my priorities--oops, pun unintended.

[Alyosha]

i think most democrats are ok with legalizing pot.

but to be fair, is the "choice" thing any different than pretend "small government" types who hate government unless it's legislating people's morality? i'd say most people have issues on which they're not totally consistent. you come closer than most to consistency... but it's unusual because we all have things that offend us.

I have things that offend me, but I recognize they are my hangups.

My world view is such that while I think I may know what comes after death...I don't really. It is the undiscovered country. Therefore, if this life is all that we know we have, then not I, nor anyone else have a right to make choices for anyone else on this planet.

I don't care if my intention is good and to help you, you have to be you and live your life to the fullest.

And...if I am right about the next life, then it is even more imperative because how can we justify who we are without choice?
@jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719)


This is how I feel:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCrILFP1vc0


Daddy wherever you are right now. ^^^ That's for you. Kocham cie!

[Chris]

i think most democrats are ok with legalizing pot.

but to be fair, is the "choice" thing any different than pretend "small government" types who hate government unless it's legislating people's morality? i'd say most people have issues on which they're not totally consistent. you come closer than most to consistency... but it's unusual because we all have things that offend us.


I find if you listen to people, not what you want to hear but what they say, and you get to know their principles, where they're coming from, how they make their choices, that most people are fairly consistent. You, for example, are predictably partisan, no surprises, mostly repetition. Alyosha is fairly consistent but is at time surprising, but I'm just getting to know her.

[Alyosha]

I find if you listen to people, not what you want to hear but what they say, and you get to know their principles, where they're coming from, how they make their choices, that most people are fairly consistent. You, for example, are predictably partisan, no surprises, mostly repetition. Alyosha is fairly consistent but is at time surprising, but I'm just getting to know her.

I'm surprising? I think I'm consistent. :) Care to share when I've surprised you. I like the sound of being ruddy mysterious.

[Mister D]

I'm surprising? I think I'm consistent. :) Care to share when I've surprised you. I like the sound of being ruddy mysterious.

I think you're consistent and willing to accept where your arguments/beliefs logically lead.

[Chris]

I'm surprising? I think I'm consistent. :) Care to share when I've surprised you. I like the sound of being ruddy mysterious.

I meant it in a positive way. I think I said mostly consistent, with surprises. Here for instance you say you're libertarian, but elsewhere you also say you're communitarian, and I'm not sure how libertarianism, of the classical liberal sort, and more individualistic, fits with communitarianism, which places, as I understand it, more emphasis on society, the individual being defined by society. I can see both, a sort of symbiotic relationship between individual and society (see, for instance, Brains Are Automatic, But People Are Free (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/15674-Brains-Are-Automatic-But-People-Are-Free?highlight=Gazzaniga)). This is why I asked if some time you could start a thread on your communitarian views. It piques my interest.

"ruddy mysterious"??? Red, bloody mysterious???

[Alyosha]

I meant it in a positive way. I think I said mostly consistent, with surprises. Here for instance you say you're libertarian, but elsewhere you also say you're communitarian, and I'm not sure how libertarianism, of the classical liberal sort, and more individualistic, fits with communitarianism, which places, as I understand it, more emphasis on society, the individual being defined by society. I can see both, a sort of symbiotic relationship between individual and society (see, for instance, Brains Are Automatic, But People Are Free (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/15674-Brains-Are-Automatic-But-People-Are-Free?highlight=Gazzaniga)). This is why I asked if some time you could start a thread on your communitarian views. It piques my interest.

"ruddy mysterious"??? Red, bloody mysterious???

Ahhh, I see what you mean. Okay, I'll start one.

[jillian]

I find if you listen to people, not what you want to hear but what they say, and you get to know their principles, where they're coming from, how they make their choices, that most people are fairly consistent. You, for example, are predictably partisan, no surprises, mostly repetition. Alyosha is fairly consistent but is at time surprising, but I'm just getting to know her.

take the mote out of your own eye

someone who claims to be a libertarian but thinks it's ok for government to forcibly subject a woman to penetration without her consent has no business talking about anyone else's consistency

[Mister D]

take the mote out of your own eye

someone who claims to be a libertarian but thinks it's ok for government to forcibly subject a woman to penetration without her consent has no business talking about anyone else's consistency

Who are you talking about?

[KC]

take the mote out of your own eye

someone who claims to be a libertarian but thinks it's ok for government to forcibly subject a woman to penetration without her consent has no business talking about anyone else's consistency

Who wants "government to forcibly subject a woman to penetration without her consent"? Aren't lawyers supposed to be trained in logic?

[jillian]

Who wants "government to forcibly subject a woman to penetration without her consent"? Aren't lawyers supposed to be trained in logic?

if someone is a libertarian they don't believe in government interfering in people's private choices
and forcing a woman to be subjected to a vaginal ultrasound against her will (forced penetration) is government interfering in people's private choices
then someone who thinks such a law is any kind of acceptable is not a libertarian.

now THAT is called a syllogism.

okie dokie?

[GrassrootsConservative]

if someone is a libertarian they don't believe in government interfering in people's private choices
and forcing a woman to be subjected to a vaginal ultrasound against her will (forced penetration) is government interfering in people's private choices
then someone who thinks such a law is any kind of acceptable is not a libertarian.

now THAT is called a syllogism.

okie dokie?


Who

Was the question he was asking.

In fact, both posts above you asked who?

Why did you avoid the questions asked?

[Mister D]

if someone is a libertarian they don't believe in government interfering in people's private choices
and forcing a woman to be subjected to a vaginal ultrasound against her will (forced penetration) is government interfering in people's private choices
then someone who thinks such a law is any kind of acceptable is not a libertarian.

now THAT is called a syllogism.

okie dokie?

You didn't answer his question.

[GrassrootsConservative]

:clock:

[Chris]

take the mote out of your own eye

someone who claims to be a libertarian but thinks it's ok for government to forcibly subject a woman to penetration without her consent has no business talking about anyone else's consistency


Agree. But who are you talking about and what did you comment have to do with what I posted?

[Chris]

if someone is a libertarian they don't believe in government interfering in people's private choices
and forcing a woman to be subjected to a vaginal ultrasound against her will (forced penetration) is government interfering in people's private choices
then someone who thinks such a law is any kind of acceptable is not a libertarian.

now THAT is called a syllogism.

okie dokie?


In form it's valid, in content, lacking.

[Adelaide]

I don't really think there are many people who are going to be outwardly consistent in their views according to others when you cross different issues. The best example I can think of is capital punishment and abortion. Most pro-choice (abortion) individuals tend to be anti-capital punishment (most liberals I've met/spoken with) which often seems inconsistent to conservatives but often has to do with how "life" is being defined. And vice versa, often there is the argument that being pro-life (abortion) but pro-capital punishment doesn't make sense because if life is so precious why is it okay to kill anyone? It comes down to a difference in viewpoints and opinions that, by the opposite side of the debate, is seen as hypocritical. It's always going to seem hypocritical, unless you agree.

[Alyosha]

I don't really think there are many people who are going to be outwardly consistent in their views according to others when you cross different issues. The best example I can think of is capital punishment and abortion. Most pro-choice (abortion) individuals tend to be anti-capital punishment (most liberals I've met/spoken with) which often seems inconsistent to conservatives but often has to do with how "life" is being defined. And vice versa, often there is the argument that being pro-life (abortion) but pro-capital punishment doesn't make sense because if life is so precious why is it okay to kill anyone? It comes down to a difference in viewpoints and opinions that, by the opposite side of the debate, is seen as hypocritical. It's always going to seem hypocritical, unless you agree.

That's sort of apples to oranges insofar as "choice" is concerned. Choice is about the law. What you're talking about is the definition of life. When you are defining life it is a scientific and emotional call, not a legal one. To people that believe all life is precious they ought to be consistent about the death penalty and abortion.

I am rabidly against the DP and abortion, but I am also rabidly against the government doing what communities and individuals should do. Choice is about do you believe individuals have the right to make choices with their bodies. Yes or no.

[AmazonTania]

Who wants "government to forcibly subject a woman to penetration without her consent"? Aren't lawyers supposed to be trained in logic?

Well, no one ever claimed that you had to be good at it to become a lawyer...

During all my times at court, I often wonder if I would have done a better job if I had simply defended myself.

[Mr Happy]

Was the question he was asking.

In fact, both posts above you asked who?

Why did you avoid the questions asked?

Are you all that thick? Who was she addressing in her post? Do I need to hold everybody's hand through this??

[Mr Happy]

Well, no one ever claimed that you had to be good at it to become a lawyer...

During all my times at court, I often wonder if I would have done a better job if I had simply defended myself.

Maybe you should have. After all you are brilliant at everything. How do I know? You keep on telling us...

[patrickt]

Maybe you should have. After all you are brilliant at everything. How do I know? You keep on telling us...

She can't be even middlin smart. She isn't a self-appoint elite.

I am pro-choice for schools. I am pro-choice for healthcare. I am pro-choice for private property. I am pro-choice for almost everything except killing. You should not have the choice to kill someone else because you want to.

[Mr Happy]

She can't be even middlin smart. She isn't a self-appoint elite.

I am pro-choice for schools. I am pro-choice for healthcare. I am pro-choice for private property. I am pro-choice for almost everything except killing. You should not have the choice to kill someone else because you want to.

You for or against the DP?
I am anti abortion but also believe in the right of the mother/father to make their own choices in the matter.

[patrickt]

I support the death penalty. Not for small totally innocent children though. And certainly not for people who oppose Obamacare. I am sometimes amazed at the vitriol from people who presumably oppose the death penalty but want Sen. Cruz and VP Cheney killed.

None of us are absolutely consistent but I would never say, "I oppose the death penalty but believe others have the right to kill if they really want to."

And I am quite pro-choice but it isn't my defining characteristic.

[jillian]

Agree. But who are you talking about and what did you comment have to do with what I posted?

are you not capable of telling who i was answering, chris?

it has everything to do with your hypocrisy

[Mainecoons]

I think this liberal woman exhibits another characteristic of liberals--they have replaced faith in God with faith in government. That's why so many of them worship Obama like Christ and see nothing wrong with anything he does no matter how thuggish or dishonest.

What can you say about people who think that Obama's behavior towards the veterans was perfectly OK?

Nothing.

[countryboy]

Name one issue where liberal demoncats are truly, "pro-choice". Just one. Aaaaaaand GO! C'mon, the clock's tickin'. Tick tock tick tock.

[Mainecoons]

They believe in the right of free choice with speech---so long as it is their speech.

Libertarians believe in the freedom of choice. Liberals believe in government, the great killer of freedom.

:rofl:

[countryboy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhiCFdWeQfA

[Chris]

Are you all that thick? Who was she addressing in her post? Do I need to hold everybody's hand through this??



I think jillian needs a hand answering simple questions.

[Chris]

are you not capable of telling who i was answering, chris?

it has everything to do with your hypocrisy



No, jillian, could you answer the question. What hypocrisy, jillian. Do you mean the lies you tell about me?

[Kabuki Joe]

if someone is a libertarian they don't believe in government interfering in people's private choices
and forcing a woman to be subjected to a vaginal ultrasound against her will (forced penetration) is government interfering in people's private choices
then someone who thinks such a law is any kind of acceptable is not a libertarian.

now THAT is called a syllogism.

okie dokie?


...you consistently fight for the victim even when there isn't one...

[Kabuki Joe]

I don't really think there are many people who are going to be outwardly consistent in their views according to others when you cross different issues. The best example I can think of is capital punishment and abortion. Most pro-choice (abortion) individuals tend to be anti-capital punishment (most liberals I've met/spoken with) which often seems inconsistent to conservatives but often has to do with how "life" is being defined. And vice versa, often there is the argument that being pro-life (abortion) but pro-capital punishment doesn't make sense because if life is so precious why is it okay to kill anyone? It comes down to a difference in viewpoints and opinions that, by the opposite side of the debate, is seen as hypocritical. It's always going to seem hypocritical, unless you agree.


...there is a difference between abortion and capital punishment...capital punishment is when you take the life of someone that has done a horrible crime, abortion is when you kill someone for being there...one chooses to commit a crime, the other has no choice...they are different...

[Kabuki Joe]

Maybe you should have. After all you are brilliant at everything. How do I know? You keep on telling us...

...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...look at the liberal pointing fingers at someone else...

[Mr Happy]

I think jillian needs a hand answering simple questions.

Maybe you shouldn't think. Maybe you should deny and call her out. You all looked stupid...

[Mr Happy]

...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...look at the liberal pointing fingers at someone else...

HAHAHAHA...If I was a liberal you might be right..

[zelmo1234]

You for or against the DP?
I am anti abortion but also believe in the right of the mother/father to make their own choices in the matter.

So you are for the killing of others. that is like saying that I am anti murder, but support the right of angry people to make their own choices?

[zelmo1234]

HAHAHAHA...If I was a liberal you might be right..

Sorry Happy but in this country you are not only a liberal but a flaming liberal! In you country No you would not be a liberal

[Mr Happy]

So you are for the killing of others. that is like saying that I am anti murder, but support the right of angry people to make their own choices?

No. That is not what I said.

[Mr Happy]

Sorry Happy but in this country you are not only a liberal but a flaming liberal! In you country No you would not be a liberal

But I am not in your country...

[jillian]

Sorry Happy but in this country you are not only a liberal but a flaming liberal! In you country No you would not be a liberal

no. it's that you're so far right you haven't a clue what normal is.

[Agravan]

no. it's that you're so far right you haven't a clue what normal is.

No, jillian, just because you think that being a far leftwing nutbar is "normal" does not mean that that is the real definition of normal.

[jillian]

No, jillian, just because you think that being a far leftwing nutbar is "normal" does not mean that that is the real definition of normal.

except i'm left, but not "far left".

the fact is, you've lost two national elections. you got 5 million fewer votes in the presidential election and one million fewer votes even in the house. 20% of the population agreed with the rightwingnut shutdown....

you haven't a clue what "mainstream" is.

but feel free to tell me what's "extreme" in what i believe.... since you're so busy raging at anyone who disagrees with you that i doubt you have a clue.

[Agravan]

except i'm left, but not "far left".

the fact is, you've lost two national elections. you got 5 million fewer votes in the presidential election and one million fewer votes even in the house. 20% of the population agreed with the rightwingnut shutdown....

you haven't a clue what "mainstream" is.

but feel free to tell me what's "extreme" in what i believe.... since you're so busy raging at anyone who disagrees with you that i doubt you have a clue.
Elections run in cycles. So we lost 2 elections, so what? You guys lost 3 in a row, did that signal the deathnell of the Democrat party? Your propaganda arm is better than the Repubs...oh wait, the Repubs don't have one...
Keep beating your chest over your 2 election victory, you guys think you have a lock on power and are hoping for a permanent majority. it won't happen, Repubs will win elections, maybe not this next one, but they will because people get tired of one party rule and will, again, vote for "change".

[jillian]

Elections run in cycles. So we lost 2 elections, so what? You guys lost 3 in a row, did that signal the deathnell of the Democratic party? Your propaganda arm is better than the Repubs...oh wait, the Repubs don't have one...
Keep beating your chest over your 2 election victory, you guys think you have a lock on power and are hoping for a permanent majority. it won't happen, Repubs will win elections, maybe not this next one, but they will because people get tired of one party rule and will, again, vote for "change".

again, what views of mine SPECIFICALLY are extreme? you're as far right as a person can be. you think everyone who isn't you is "extreme".

nice rant... and yes, elections run in cycles... but not where the party in question keeps doing self-destructive things like shut down the government to feed the ego of one rightwingnut senator.... out of political pique.

now answer my question....

[Chris]

Maybe you shouldn't think. Maybe you should deny and call her out. You all looked stupid...

We look stupid because jillian can't answer a simple question?

[countryboy]

except i'm left, but not "far left".

the fact is, you've lost two national elections. you got 5 million fewer votes in the presidential election and one million fewer votes even in the house. 20% of the population agreed with the rightwingnut shutdown....

you haven't a clue what "mainstream" is.

but feel free to tell me what's "extreme" in what i believe.... since you're so busy raging at anyone who disagrees with you that i doubt you have a clue.
Oh puh-leeze. You are to the left of Mao Tse Tung. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-rolleyes008.gif

[Chris]

again, what views of mine SPECIFICALLY are extreme? you're as far right as a person can be. you think everyone who isn't you is "extreme".

nice rant... and yes, elections run in cycles... but not where the party in question keeps doing self-destructive things like shut down the government to feed the ego of one rightwingnut senator.... out of political pique.

now answer my question....


That's funny, in a thread where people are trying to get you to answer a question, you demand what you refuse to do.


I would agree that you're not a left wing liberal. Politics for you is not principled, it's partisan. As evidenced in post after post after post, you're not a thinker, you're a mere repeater.

[jillian]

That's funny, in a thread where people are trying to get you to answer a question, you demand what you refuse to do.


I would agree that you're not a left wing liberal. Politics for you is not principled, it's partisan. As evidenced in post after post after post, you're not a thinker, you're a mere repeater.

nice opportunity for yet another of your continual stream of ad homs.

your question was answered. you didn't like the answer. tough.

as for the rest of your rant... again, take the mote out of your own eye.

[Agravan]

again, what views of mine SPECIFICALLY are extreme? you're as far right as a person can be. you think everyone who isn't you is "extreme".

nice rant... and yes, elections run in cycles... but not where the party in question keeps doing self-destructive things like shut down the government to feed the ego of one rightwingnut senator.... out of political pique.

now answer my question....

everything you stand for is extreme, jillian. From your idiotic stance on abortion "rights', to your mindless subservience to your party ideology. you consider ANYONE that does not agree with you to be "extreme". Cruz did not shutdown the government, that was YOUR party that refused to negotiate on ANYTHING. But your propaganda arm is extremely efficient in shifting the blame for anything that the Democrat party does unto the republican party. It was people like YOU that are comparing Tea Party members with terrorists, extortionists, arsonists, hostage takers, etc. Now THAT is were your extremism comes in. One man did shut down the government, and that was the man who refused to even look at any proposals to fund the government that did not give the Democrats EVERYTHING they wanted, and that was your messiah.

[jillian]

everything you stand for is extreme, jillian. From your idiotic stance on abortion "rights', to your mindless subservience to your party ideology. you consider ANYONE that does not agree with you to be "extreme". Cruz did not shutdown the government, that was YOUR party that refused to negotiate on ANYTHING. But your propaganda arm is extremely efficient in shifting the blame for anything that the Democrat party does unto the republican party. It was people like YOU that are comparing Tea Party members with terrorists, extortionists, arsonists, hostage takers, etc. Now THAT is were your extremism comes in. One man did shut down the government, and that was the man who refused to even look at any proposals to fund the government that did not give the Democrats EVERYTHING they wanted, and that was your messiah.

everything i believe was voted for by more than half the country.

so far all you've said is i don't agree with your rightwingnut ideology, that's true,

now what SPECIFICALLY is extreme in what i believe (you know, again, given that you lost the presidential election by 5 million and got one million fewer votes in the house even though you were able to keep it because of gerrymandering.

i'll wait.

btw, thanks for mentioning your rightwingnut shutdown.... again, no one was ever going to negotiate with extortionists. the president was never going to give you the ACA which you couldnt get rid of after 42 votes and a supreme court victory. if the rightwing extremists wanted to "discuss" actual issues, they'd have allowed the senate and house to conference... which they didn't, because they thought if they extorted the country, the president would cave.

and 80% of the country thinks your party has gone nuts.

so which of us is extreme?

[Agravan]

everything i believe was voted for by more than half the country.

so far all you've said is i don't agree with your rightwingnut ideology, that's true,

now what SPECIFICALLY is extreme in what i believe (you know, again, given that you lost the presidential election by 5 million and got one million fewer votes in the house even though you were able to keep it because of gerrymandering.

i'll wait.

No, jillian, everything you believe in, racism, child murder, redistribution of wealth, universal healthcare, was NOT voted in by more than half of the country. It was voted in by half of the people that voted, including dead people, but not half of the country. The majority of the eligible voters did not vote for anyone.
As for the "5 million more votes", ok. So when the next Repub gets in the White House (and he will, despite your contention that the Repub party is dead because they lost 2 elections), will you be supportive of their policies because they won the majority vote? Or will you oppose them? Gerrymandering, eh? I suppose the Democrats don't gerrymander their districts, do they? Or is that strictly a Republican phenomenon?
As for your extremism, I have already pointed out your racism, your hatred of all that are not like you, your hatred of Christians, your hatred of the rich (yeah, I know, you're one of the 1%), your wealth distribution, your love of government, or, more specifically, Barack Hussein Obama. Oh and did I mention your extreme, virulent racism? And then there's your excusing everything your government does regardless of the way it tramples the Constitution. More??

[Chris]

nice opportunity for yet another of your continual stream of ad homs.

your question was answered. you didn't like the answer. tough.

as for the rest of your rant... again, take the mote out of your own eye.


Where's the ad hom? Please point it out. Pointing out your hypocrisy is not ad hom, it's pointing out your actions, refusing to answer questions but in turn demanding other do what you refuse.

[Mr Happy]

We look stupid because jillian can't answer a simple question?

No, you look stupid because she was answering your post and then people asked "who is she talking to?" It was obvious. It's like if Obama walked into the room, and somebody comes up to me and goes "is that Obama?" Duh...

[Chris]

No, you look stupid because she was answering your post and then people asked "who is she talking to?" It was obvious. It's like if Obama walked into the room, and somebody comes up to me and goes "is that Obama?" Duh...

Insults aside, she never answered.

[Mr Happy]

Insults aside, she never answered.

Which part of "it was obvious" don't you understand?