The Stoopid should not attempt to reason. What I meant by ’embrace our president’ was ‘accept the basic reality that Obama is our president.’ I did not mean ‘grab his ass and shove your tongue down his throat.’ When I said that I would have had difficulty embracing Hillary as our president, I didn’t mean that I couldn’t wrap my arms around her, I meant that I had some degree of sympathy for the PUMA’s because I could imagine (a little bit) how they feel.
This is a stoopid thread.
Why do you even pay a moment’s attention to that loon?
cuz he puts the ‘a’ in moran.
Listen to the woman: there is simply too much real work to be done to waste time on the stoopids.
Hils is kind of cute. I’m weird, I know.
I have to admit – when I originally read your post that Lambert criticizes, I thought it was PUMA-troll bait. I thought you might regret some of the words you used. The PUMA-trolls have such sensitive feelings, but you wouldn’t understand…
Move along. Don’t respond to the stoopid.
regret? Nah. I haven’t seen anyone acting trollish, and even if someone did, we know how to deal with that.
I must be REALLY naive, because I had no idea this stuff was still lingering.
They must sit at their computers thinking ‘Ya, but Hillary would have done that better’.
Just imagine if Obama had not made her a key part of his administration. That alone should prove he at least has flashes of brilliance.
nalbar
There are still Scotsmen and -women out there drinking toasts to “The King over the Water”, and that’s 250 years on.
Give ’em time.
Just a quick note for Lambert’s benefit:
A google search for embrace reality renders 31,800 hits. Maybe Lambert should meditate on the matter as he struggles to learn to think.
Well, for everybody’s benefit, here’s what Merriam-Webster has to say of “embrace”:
To be fair, Boo … the weakest of the relevant meanings seems to include the notion of welcoming.
That accords with my own sense of the word. I would always say that I “accepted the basic reality” that Reagan was president … and George Herbert Walker … and so on … but I certainly never “embraced” those presidencies.
I’m not denying those folks are idiots, but in this case I think they’re on firmer grounds regarding the relevant semantics. Embracing is certainly more than accepting (which can be done in a begrudging manner), while it can just as certainly be less than, you know, what you said.
Sorry; forgot attribution.
MLA Style
“embrace.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009.
Merriam-Webster Online. 8 June 2009
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/embrace>
APA Style
embrace. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Retrieved June 8, 2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/embrace
Taking a word, assuming a different meaning than context indicates, and then using that to make an argument against the wrong meaning: this is the very essence of childish attempts at humor and dispute. It’s why teachers have quit quoting “there is no frigate like a book” to their 6th-graders, why they dare not ever mention the blue-footed booby when discussing birds.
I can only assume that the “writer” in question is so smitten as to project his/her own erotic obsession onto any mention of a president. Which would explain much about the dead-enders of that ilk. I wonder if the “writer” is assaulted by similar wet-dream fodder when someone speaks of embracing justice. Ah, the tragic pain of coupling with a stone-cold being wearing a blindfold.
I would never say I “embraced” Reagan’s sleepover either. The difference is that the folks in question claim to be Democrats, apparently. Anyway, it’s just a word, which is always the last refuge for the terminally petty. It is the fuel the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity run on. Strange little confluence of interest, eh?
Most evident in the hypocrisy charge.
He read what I wrote as contradictory because I criticized them for not embracing the president while admitting that, in their place, I would have difficulty doing so.
Never mind that my point was that I understood to a certain degree their emotional state. I made clear that the odd thing about the site was not their reluctance to embrace the president, but their outright hostility and even hatred of him.
There isn’t anything contradictory in what I wrote.
But anyone who could read that and come to the conclusion that I expected them to act like Evan Thomas is too stoopid to live.
you forget that these people are (or were) Democrats. A Democratic president ought to be something they could welcome, however reluctantly.
And that it really the normal meaning of ’embrace reality’. It’s normally used as an imperative for someone who is bemoaning or lamenting something to accept and embrace that which they cannot change.
President Evan Bayh?
President Joe Lieberman? (Came really close to that one)
President Terry McAwful?
Looks like Lambert is still over the primaries.