That's what he specializes in.
Wow, the personal crap continues.
That's what he specializes in.
Strongbow.
Who seems happier about this guy's election? The Democrats or Republicans?
Implying that Democrats are eager to nominate felonious, unemployed individuals is a cheap argument.
Cute.
Bingo.
Wow, the personal crap continues.
Oh, that's right . My mistake then, I apologize to 2861U2 for that. Thank you for correcting me.
But from what you've shared there, my argument still seems to stand overall regarding DeMint, so...
I do still watch his show, because there are things he says I do agree with (I could very easily relate to his rants about the healthcare system-when his dad was suffering, I knew full well what he was dealing with and could sympathize), but yes, he definitely has his biases, too, no argument there, and I don't always agree with everything he says. Like this issue, for instance, as stated.
I don't dislike the guy at all, just what he has turned into regarding tactics, taking things out of context, unfair shots, etc. Don't get me wrong, he may be getting close to as biased as Hannity and Rush, but he does not come close to even the tamest conservative talking head in terms of bending the facts. That is the difference. Maybe MSNBC is biased, maybe it even annoys this Democrat writing sometimes. But fast and loose with the facts like Fox? No. Olbermann has never been caught in a lie, O'Reilly averages one per half second. MSNBC looks through a certain lens and tilts a certain way, Fox is a flat out propaganda network.
I agree with what you said and didn't mean to suggest he lacked sincerity. The relation of the Health Care debate to his father's suffering was very, very personal, sincere and heartfelt. I think Olbermann genuinely cares about people and a lot of his outrage is not manufactured in the least bit.
I think his show was spectacular around 2007/2008.
I guess what really turned me off to his ways was his "Scott Brown is a homophobic, sexist, racist, etc" rant. Yes, Brown said some stupid things about Obama's parents that reflected an elitist attitude, but to draw the conclusion that he is racist? I didn't vote for the guy, but be fair, Keith.
I dunno if I'd say Maddow's lumped into that category, she generally seems pretty calm to me. Sure, she's had her argumentative moments, but I wouldn't say she's abrasive to listen to. But that's just me.
She's calm and easily one of the smartest people on TV. The woman is flat out brilliant, even if she sits to the left of me by a good deal.
I guess with her, its more of a blatant biased issue(major network pulls from liberal talk radio for a Prime time anchor slot) that screams "FOX." She is calm and reasoned, sure, but to me, she is very uncompromising. The Rick Warren debate and the public option come to mind. A lot of times, the perfect is the enemy of the good with her, and the President, already (wrongly) perceived as a socialist, needs to move to the left. No, Barack Obama does not need to commit political suicide. A moderate means to achieving progressive goals worked fine with Clinton, it will work for Obama as the economy improves.
Again, remember, she is, like Olbermann, still worlds apart from the flat out lying Fox people.
LOL. That's an excellent point, though, yes, that's definitely an option, too. The voters should use the "write-in" option. Would be interesting to see what came of that.
The write in is one of my most used options when I go to the voting booth!
Its true.
Can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
When you dish out absurdities, what do you expect to get back?
Not like I am the only one to notice your absurdity here on many things. Its not your views, its how you present things.
Personally attacking other members of the forum is unacceptable and may result in an individual warning to the members in question, which may ultimately lead to banishment from the forum.
From the Faq/rules section of this forum which YOU agreed to abide by when you registered as a member here:
http://www.u2interference.com/forums/misc.php?do=sknetwork&page=rules
Saying you use cheap arguments is not a personal attack, it has to do with your posting style and habits.
:
Anything that is a personal attack (by personal attack, we also include yawns, rolleyes, etc. that are directly intended to annoy, or used excessively).
Its true.
Can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
When you dish out absurdities, what do you expect to get back?
The mods have told you that you are wrong here as well, so keep racking up the stupid comments.
You probably have the interference all time record for those.
I'm sorry, but Republican plant or not, that this imbecile would win the Democratic primary in South Carolina really has to be put at the feet of the Democratic voters in that state. (I'm assuming they don't have an open primary?). They should be held accountable for failing to do their homework.
Yes.
What does this have to do with the OP, Strongbow? Greene's win is not newsworthy?
(And I'm certainly not addressing you here, Sean)
Strongbow
Just so you know what the forum rules consider to be a "personal attack" can include the following:
http://www.u2interference.com/forums/misc.php?do=sknetwork&page=rules
With that broad an interpertation, its rather obvious that unnecessary negative comments about other forum members would be included and they have been in the past.
Funny thing is, you already acknowledged that it was personal when you responded to my comment about more personal crap with this:
More importantly, why do you insist on talking about other forum members posting styles and habbits? What does that have to do with the thread topic?
One mod has said something along those lines. But this forum has had multiple mods over the years that would never be supportive of this negative behavior.
Why would any mod be supportive of NEGATIVE comments made about other forum members that obviously have nothing to do with the topic?
The best threads are ones that don't involve immature negative comments about other forum members that contribute nothing to the discussion or one's position on the issue being discussed.
Believe it or not, its possible to disagree with another forum member on an issue without having to say something negative about that forum member.
Sigh, we have been over this before.
Pointing out that the way you frame things and argue about ISSUES is not a personal attack.
A personal attack would be something like Sting is a........(fill in the blank)
.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...k&sa=X&ei=iwEdTJOfGYG0lQfWvsXiDA&ved=0CBIQkAEDefinitions of Personal attack on the Web:
•An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person"), is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_attack
•Making of an abusive remark instead of providing evidence when examining another person's claims or comments
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/personal_attack
Many here have told you that your interpretation of the rules is wrong.
You use cheap arguments.
That is not a personal attack, that just is.
Its related to the discussion of the issues in here.
Taking facts out of context and outright lying like you often do has everything to do with the thread topic.
Many have pointed this out.
Thats not what my comments are.
This from the person who has never contributed anything of value to the discussion at interference and is widely known as a running joke.
Your the only one here I have ever had a real problem with.
From the Faq/rules section of this forum which YOU agreed to abide by when you registered as a member here:
http://www.u2interference.com/forums/misc.php?do=sknetwork&page=rules
Really? So what would be an example of a personal attack?
Just so you know what the forum rules consider to be a "personal attack" can include the following:
http://www.u2interference.com/forums/misc.php?do=sknetwork&page=rules
One mod has said something along those lines. But this forum has had multiple mods over the years that would never be supportive of this negative behavior.
...
One person has. At the same time, I have been posting in this forum longer than 99% of the people here. If need be, I can bring up old threads which clearly demonstrate Mods addressing others who are engaged in actions that are considered "personal attacks" similar to what you consistently do in most threads.
Sigh, we have been over this before.
sting, i don't like having to repeat myself, but apparently i must: It is not your place to enforce the rules of this forum or tell other members how they should be conducting themselves. If you find a post to be offensive or feel that it breaks the forum rules, report the post.
And that one person is a mod, lest you forget. And that one person has also previously told you that it is not your place to chastise and lecture others when they break the rules, and that you instead need to start reporting posts if you find they've broken rules rather than appointing yourself forum policy monitor. I would find your dismissal of my opinion insulting if i actually cared what your opinion of me was. However, as a reminder to you, sting, it is also against the forum rules to ignore a mod's warnings and continue with the same type of behavior that brought about the warning in the first place, so i wouldn't be so quick to casually dismiss my comments. And touting your length of time posting here, while quite impressive, is irrelevant.
So, for the last time, i will repeat and make myself perfectly clear: it is not your place, duty and/or obligation to lecture other forum members on the rules of this forum. in fact the mod team would really quite prefer it if you didn't. If you find a post offensive or feel it breaks the rules, report it. mods are not every at once, and we will not catch every instance of rule-breaking on our own. Use the report feature, do not engage the poster in an argument over who is breaking the rules and lecture them on how and why they are breaking the rules, move on and stick to the topic at hand.
Clear?
Yes, we have. I've talked to you before about getting personal with Sting. Since it seems you can't resist taking digs at Sting, I highly suggest you add him to your ignore list, because continuing to derail the thread(s) to attack his posting style seems like harassment to me. Ignore him, stick to it, and stick to the topic at hand.
Clear?