I'm supprised at the lack of arguing about Obama on this board

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,392
1
0
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: jbourne77
any attempt to scrutinize Obama ? even the slightest ? is met with rabid hatred and contempt

And this is why you started and ended on a fail. Your premise is just incorrect.

Demanding to know the college grades of the editor in chief of the Harvard Law Review who graduated magna cum laude is met with derision, because if the goal is to determine academic acumen, the question is closed.

Asking why Obama wants to teach kindergartners sex ed is met with derision, because it's facially ridiculous.

Asking why Obama didn't wear a flag pin on his lapel is met with derision, because a person's patriotism isn't measured by his accessories and the "issue" is merely a disguised character attack.

If a thoughful and logical criticism of Obama or his policies is made, it will be answered in kind. Try making one and proving your thesis.

First of all, you're the one choosing the topics here in order to more easily justify the derision and defend a particular stance... I'm speaking, for example, about the questions regarding Obama's relationships with questionable characters. Attempts to discuss this are met with the contempt I spoke of. At best, the AT left simply diverts to McCain and Keating. I'm the last person you'll hear defend McCain on that front, but then again, I'm not a stubborn ass blindly defending a party line. If people want to discuss Keating, take it to a proper discussion; but using it to deflect justifiable questions about Obama is nothing more than smoke screening.

When I read the OP's post - which occurred the same day that said smoke screening was in force - I assumed he was making a reference to that subject (and possibly others). I agree with him in that regard. Anyone failing to recognize such bias is failing the most basic test of objectivity.

If you folks applied the same filters to the topics on McCain and Palin as you do Obama and Biden, I would spot you a shred of credibility. On the contrary...

Or perhaps you are in the rather small minority that does, but recognize that the vast majority of your fellow party members do not.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
The majority of people on this forum look down on people of faith and look up to people that hate America.

I stand behind what I said, I bet the radical left here such as : Vic, Moonbean (the representative of San Francisco values), Red Dawn & Eskimospy (sorry to the radical left that I didn't mention) would vote for Bill Ayers/Bernardine Dohrn before they would vote for McCain/Palin.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Budmantom
The majority of people on this forum look down on people of faith and look up to people that hate America.

I stand behind what I said, I bet the radical left here such as : Vic, Moonbean (the representative of San Francisco values), Red Dawn & Eskimospy (sorry to the radical left that I didn't mention) would vote for Bill Ayers/Bernardine Dohrn before they would vote for McCain/Palin.
I bet you'd vote for Charles Keating before you voted for a Democrat. Well if you voted for McCain before you already have. BTW I doubt you'd stand behind anything you say if you had to say it in person.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: jbourne77

Son, the entire premise of your argument here is that I responded to a guy's post without reading his other posts or the entire thread. That's your trump card? That's your ace in the hole? That's why you've been arguing with me for two days? In all actuality, you're simply backpedaling after realizing you misunderstood something, but rather than choosing to man-up and admit it, you want to argue over something as stupid and insignificant as this.

Here's the deal: A guy said something I wholeheartedly agree with; reading the rest of the thread has no bearing on that whatsoever, even if said individual later says something I disagree with. His two posts are mutually exclusive, and I am certainly entitled to responding to one of his thoughts without being aware of his others.

Your problem is that you're one of those characters who, when lacking substance (or when faced with your own shortcomings), defers to arguing about arguing, semantics, and parsed words. When all else fails, you fire off a one-liner, retreat, and pat yourself on the back for a perceived job well done.

Get the fuck out of here :laugh:

[edit]

I'm going to help you out one last time, and then I'm finished with you - permanently, because people like you are too set in their ways to waste much time with.

Here's where you went wrong:

Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: jbourne77

I didn?t see that, but if he said that, it?s stupid. Regardless, it doesn?t change the fact that any attempt to scrutinize Obama ? even the slightest ? is met with rabid hatred and contempt. Besides, according to your fellow Dems, guilt by association is out.:

Originally posted by: Rainsford, excusing Obama's association with AyersI think people are defined by their behavior, not the behavior of others

So you admit that what he wrote was stupid, but people calling it stupid is somehow evidence that legitimate criticism of Obama isn't allowed. That's rich.

Wow... you fail at logic, reading comprehension, cause and effect, ... should I continue?

You FAILED because you tried to tie two thoughts of the OP together in order to discredit BOTH with a single statement I made. I said I thought one of his thoughts was stupid, so you took it out of context and tried to bundle everything attributable to the OP in one neat little package for yourself. Maybe oversimplifying things like that helps you cope with more complex issues, but you neglect to realize that, in your simplifications, crucial details are lost.

On that note, good riddance.

I stand behind everything I said. I guess I gave you too much credit for actually reading. Even if you had missed that point, your idea that any criticism of Obama is met with 'rabid hatred and contempt' is every bit as dumb and deserving of derision all on its own. I would have worded it slightly differently and called you stupid for slightly different reasons, but my premise would have been the same. Your point was that all criticism of Obama, 'even the slightest' is met with 'rabid hatred'. That is clearly a moronic statement.

You are certainly entitled to respond to someone's post without reading the others in the thread, you should just be prepared to look dumb when you make blanket statements on little evidence. That's what happened here.

Finally, it's pretty hypocritical of you to try and attack me for a lack of substance when all your quoted posts of mine erased my requests for you to post some criticism of Obama that had some substance. Instead you've decided to flail around in defense of your ridiculous opinion. You're more than welcome to do so, but just expect me to tear you up again when you do. Or, you can take your toy and go home. That's fine too!
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: Budmantom
The majority of people on this forum look down on people of faith and look up to people that hate America.

Haha, you get that bullshit out of a crackerjack box, moran?

Well, he probably pulled it from your sig. ;)

Budmantom's problem is not that he's wrong, but that his perspective is skewed. Times have changed, he hasn't changed with them. This year, it's the religious right who are supporting the secular candidate from the party that has been putting ideology ahead of country.

Haha... :laugh:

To be fair, there's quite a bit more depth to my signature than that.

You are a prime example of what the left thinks.... you are a bit more vocal about it.

...And what does the "left" think, exactly? You're one of those people who thinks there are only two sides, aren't you?

It's in your sig.

No not only two (the right has a few ideas) but the radical left thinks McSame.

 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: jbourne77
any attempt to scrutinize Obama ? even the slightest ? is met with rabid hatred and contempt

And this is why you started and ended on a fail. Your premise is just incorrect.

Demanding to know the college grades of the editor in chief of the Harvard Law Review who graduated magna cum laude is met with derision, because if the goal is to determine academic acumen, the question is closed.

Asking why Obama wants to teach kindergartners sex ed is met with derision, because it's facially ridiculous.

Asking why Obama didn't wear a flag pin on his lapel is met with derision, because a person's patriotism isn't measured by his accessories and the "issue" is merely a disguised character attack.

If a thoughful and logical criticism of Obama or his policies is made, it will be answered in kind. Try making one and proving your thesis.

First of all, you're the one choosing the topics here in order to more easily justify the derision and defend a particular stance... I'm speaking, for example, about the questions regarding Obama's relationships with questionable characters. Attempts to discuss this are met with the contempt I spoke of. At best, the AT left simply diverts to McCain and Keating. I'm the last person you'll hear defend McCain on that front, but then again, I'm not a stubborn ass blindly defending a party line. If people want to discuss Keating, take it to a proper discussion; but using it to deflect justifiable questions about Obama is nothing more than smoke screening.

When I read the OP's post - which occurred the same day that said smoke screening was in force - I assumed he was making a reference to that subject (and possibly others). I agree with him in that regard. Anyone failing to recognize such bias is failing the most basic test of objectivity.

If you folks applied the same filters to the topics on McCain and Palin as you do Obama and Biden, I would spot you a shred of credibility. On the contrary...

Or perhaps you are in the rather small minority that does, but recognize that the vast majority of your fellow party members do not.
This place is filled with partisan hacks (I estimate 80% Left and 20% Right) who have little regard for objectivity. They constantly apply double standards and rationalize their illogic or divert the subject when confronted. There's actually a few intelligent people around here if you're patient enough to wade through the crap. You just got to be careful who you dialog with and you'll learn who's actually open to honest discussion after a while. But I guess I'm not telling you anything you haven't figured out by now.

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
This place is filled with partisan hacks (I estimate 80% Left and 20% Right) who have little regard for objectivity. They constantly apply double standards and rationalize their illogic or divert the subject when confronted. There's actually a few intelligent people around here if you're patient enough to wade through the crap. You just got to be careful who you dialog with and you'll learn who's actually open to honest discussion after a while. But I guess I'm not telling you anything you haven't figured out by now.

It's funny how often the accusation that this forum is filled with partisan hacks (it is) flies around but yet no one thinks they're in that group.

BTW, partisan != partisan hack
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Budmantom
The majority of people on this forum look down on people of faith and look up to people that hate America.

I stand behind what I said, I bet the radical left here such as : Vic, Moonbean (the representative of San Francisco values), Red Dawn & Eskimospy (sorry to the radical left that I didn't mention) would vote for Bill Ayers/Bernardine Dohrn before they would vote for McCain/Palin.

You're just ridiculous man. You honestly think that I admire people who hate America when I spent seven years in the military and almost a year in and around Iraq fighting for it? Really?
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
This place is filled with partisan hacks (I estimate 80% Left and 20% Right) who have little regard for objectivity. They constantly apply double standards and rationalize their illogic or divert the subject when confronted. There's actually a few intelligent people around here if you're patient enough to wade through the crap. You just got to be careful who you dialog with and you'll learn who's actually open to honest discussion after a while. But I guess I'm not telling you anything you haven't figured out by now.

It's funny how often the accusation that this forum is filled with partisan hacks (it is) flies around but yet no one thinks they're in that group.

BTW, partisan != partisan hack
Is this your way of making a personal confession? ;)
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
This place is filled with partisan hacks (I estimate 80% Left and 20% Right) who have little regard for objectivity. They constantly apply double standards and rationalize their illogic or divert the subject when confronted. There's actually a few intelligent people around here if you're patient enough to wade through the crap. You just got to be careful who you dialog with and you'll learn who's actually open to honest discussion after a while. But I guess I'm not telling you anything you haven't figured out by now.

It's funny how often the accusation that this forum is filled with partisan hacks (it is) flies around but yet no one thinks they're in that group.

BTW, partisan != partisan hack
Is this your way of making a personal confession? ;)
No he's addressing you Mr. Kettle

 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
This place is filled with partisan hacks (I estimate 80% Left and 20% Right) who have little regard for objectivity. They constantly apply double standards and rationalize their illogic or divert the subject when confronted. There's actually a few intelligent people around here if you're patient enough to wade through the crap. You just got to be careful who you dialog with and you'll learn who's actually open to honest discussion after a while. But I guess I'm not telling you anything you haven't figured out by now.

It's funny how often the accusation that this forum is filled with partisan hacks (it is) flies around but yet no one thinks they're in that group.

BTW, partisan != partisan hack
Is this your way of making a personal confession? ;)
No he's addressing you Mr. Kettle
Lol...was I talking to you?
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Budmantom
The majority of people on this forum look down on people of faith and look up to people that hate America.

I stand behind what I said, I bet the radical left here such as : Vic, Moonbean (the representative of San Francisco values), Red Dawn & Eskimospy (sorry to the radical left that I didn't mention) would vote for Bill Ayers/Bernardine Dohrn before they would vote for McCain/Palin.

You're just ridiculous man. You honestly think that I admire people who hate America when I spent seven years in the military and almost a year in and around Iraq fighting for it? Really?

To these social dinosaurs, if you think something needs fixing and you're willing to be vocal about it, that makes you the enemy.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Budmantom
The majority of people on this forum look down on people of faith and look up to people that hate America.

I stand behind what I said, I bet the radical left here such as : Vic, Moonbean (the representative of San Francisco values), Red Dawn & Eskimospy (sorry to the radical left that I didn't mention) would vote for Bill Ayers/Bernardine Dohrn before they would vote for McCain/Palin.

You're just ridiculous man. You honestly think that I admire people who hate America when I spent seven years in the military and almost a year in and around Iraq fighting for it? Really?

To these social dinosaurs, if you think something needs fixing and you're willing to be vocal about it, that makes you the enemy.
Makes you wonder who really hates America. Guys like Budmantom support Bush and his clone McCain and all they've done over the last 7+ years is to do great harm to our country and then Budmantom has the nerve to label those who complain about it unAmerican. Seems to me he's not Pro American at all.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,235
6,338
126
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Budmantom
The majority of people on this forum look down on people of faith and look up to people that hate America.

I stand behind what I said, I bet the radical left here such as : Vic, Moonbean (the representative of San Francisco values), Red Dawn & Eskimospy (sorry to the radical left that I didn't mention) would vote for Bill Ayers/Bernardine Dohrn before they would vote for McCain/Palin.
I bet you'd vote for Charles Keating before you voted for a Democrat. Well if you voted for McCain before you already have. BTW I doubt you'd stand behind anything you say if you had to say it in person.

Oh, Ouch, you hurt my feelings. That's the last time I'm going to defend your values.
 

Jschmuck2

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,623
3
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Budmantom
The majority of people on this forum look down on people of faith and look up to people that hate America.

I stand behind what I said, I bet the radical left here such as : Vic, Moonbean (the representative of San Francisco values), Red Dawn & Eskimospy (sorry to the radical left that I didn't mention) would vote for Bill Ayers/Bernardine Dohrn before they would vote for McCain/Palin.
I bet you'd vote for Charles Keating before you voted for a Democrat. Well if you voted for McCain before you already have. BTW I doubt you'd stand behind anything you say if you had to say it in person.

Oh, Ouch, you hurt my feelings. That's the last time I'm going to defend your values.

"San Francisco Values"

What the fuck does that mean?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Budmantom
The majority of people on this forum look down on people of faith and look up to people that hate America.

I stand behind what I said, I bet the radical left here such as : Vic, Moonbean (the representative of San Francisco values), Red Dawn & Eskimospy (sorry to the radical left that I didn't mention) would vote for Bill Ayers/Bernardine Dohrn before they would vote for McCain/Palin.

Because I was called out...

I am not a radical leftist, and I have a considerable post history here debating religious studies and supporting absolute freedom of belief. (edit: BTW, let me know whenever you want to discuss/debate the Bible chapter-and-verse, it's one of my favorite intellectual challenges).

I also don't live (and have never lived) in San Francisco, and don't support their value system (whatever that even is).

What I am is a staunch believer in liberty. I may not particularly like or agree with what you say or believe, but I will defend your right to say it or believe it. That doesn't mean I won't question (or occasionally even ridicule) your words or beliefs.

I am intensely patriotic. I believe that the philosophy of liberty that created America is the greatest form of government ever conceived of by humankind. I also believe that America is the greatest land on earth populated by the greatest people on earth.

I would never vote for any person who used unjust violence or other immoral methods for the promotion of their political agenda, regardless of that political agenda, left, right, whatever.

There's a reason I don't like you, Budmantom, and call you a troll. You assume wrongly that it has something to do with your extremist political views. The truth is that it is because you are an idiot and a liar, whose only contribution to this forum is to intentionally and blatantly misrepresent the views of others in order to forward your own. This tactic is IMO despicable and immoral, which is why I call you on it.

To be fair though, I understand that you don't necessarily do this on purpose or with malicious intent. You're just closed-minded and one-sided. You only see the harm done to you, and not the harm you do to others. So, for example, you see clearly when others try to restrict your freedoms, but not when you (directly or indirectly) try to restrict the freedoms of others. This is a malady that afflicts both the left and right sides of the political spectrum. But when 4 years ago, it was the left whining the loudest, this year, it's the right. Welcome to democracy.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
This place is filled with partisan hacks (I estimate 80% Left and 20% Right) who have little regard for objectivity. They constantly apply double standards and rationalize their illogic or divert the subject when confronted. There's actually a few intelligent people around here if you're patient enough to wade through the crap. You just got to be careful who you dialog with and you'll learn who's actually open to honest discussion after a while. But I guess I'm not telling you anything you haven't figured out by now.

It's funny how often the accusation that this forum is filled with partisan hacks (it is) flies around but yet no one thinks they're in that group.

BTW, partisan != partisan hack
Is this your way of making a personal confession? ;)
No he's addressing you Mr. Kettle

Eh, not so quick shoving the words in my mouth. I wasn't accusing anyone in particular, just making an observation. As to me confessing, I am absolutely partisan. You know what countries didn't or still do not have partisans? China. Nazi Germany. Saudi Arabia. Iraq under Saddam. Partisan means you take a side, which is hard to do when there is only one side. If you choose a side because of thoughtful consideration of the issues as you prioritize them, then there is nothing hackish about it.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,235
6,338
126
Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Budmantom
The majority of people on this forum look down on people of faith and look up to people that hate America.

I stand behind what I said, I bet the radical left here such as : Vic, Moonbean (the representative of San Francisco values), Red Dawn & Eskimospy (sorry to the radical left that I didn't mention) would vote for Bill Ayers/Bernardine Dohrn before they would vote for McCain/Palin.
I bet you'd vote for Charles Keating before you voted for a Democrat. Well if you voted for McCain before you already have. BTW I doubt you'd stand behind anything you say if you had to say it in person.

Oh, Ouch, you hurt my feelings. That's the last time I'm going to defend your values.

"San Francisco Values"

What the fuck does that mean?

According to Wikipedia it means:

"While no single definition exists of "San Francisco values," it is often used to describe elements of a secular progressive culture commonly associated with San Francisco. Among other things, the term has been associated with same-sex marriage, anti-war activism, pro-choice philosophy, marijuana decriminalization, secularism, open-door immigration policies, and a more socialist government.[1] "San Francisco values" is primarily used in a pejorative sense, employed by conservative members of the media."

The kicker, of course, is that San Francisco and it contiguous environs are incredible places to live as reflected in property values. One of the finest cities in the world, in other words.

But the real meaning is that he wants to slander me by saying I'm gay. I am not gay and it would not be an insult if I were so the bottom line is that he's a bigot.
 

digiram

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2004
3,991
172
106
Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Budmantom
The majority of people on this forum look down on people of faith and look up to people that hate America.

I stand behind what I said, I bet the radical left here such as : Vic, Moonbean (the representative of San Francisco values), Red Dawn & Eskimospy (sorry to the radical left that I didn't mention) would vote for Bill Ayers/Bernardine Dohrn before they would vote for McCain/Palin.
I bet you'd vote for Charles Keating before you voted for a Democrat. Well if you voted for McCain before you already have. BTW I doubt you'd stand behind anything you say if you had to say it in person.

Oh, Ouch, you hurt my feelings. That's the last time I'm going to defend your values.

"San Francisco Values"

What the fuck does that mean?


No shit!!! These people act like LA, SF, Chi, Bos, NY, et al. aren't a part of America or something.

Do they really think that the country would be better off with out these major cities?
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Budmantom
The majority of people on this forum look down on people of faith and look up to people that hate America.

I stand behind what I said, I bet the radical left here such as : Vic, Moonbean (the representative of San Francisco values), Red Dawn & Eskimospy (sorry to the radical left that I didn't mention) would vote for Bill Ayers/Bernardine Dohrn before they would vote for McCain/Palin.
I bet you'd vote for Charles Keating before you voted for a Democrat. Well if you voted for McCain before you already have. BTW I doubt you'd stand behind anything you say if you had to say it in person.

Oh, Ouch, you hurt my feelings. That's the last time I'm going to defend your values.

"San Francisco Values"

What the fuck does that mean?

According to Wikipedia it means:

"While no single definition exists of "San Francisco values," it is often used to describe elements of a secular progressive culture commonly associated with San Francisco. Among other things, the term has been associated with same-sex marriage, anti-war activism, pro-choice philosophy, marijuana decriminalization, secularism, open-door immigration policies, and a more socialist government.[1] "San Francisco values" is primarily used in a pejorative sense, employed by conservative members of the media."

The kicker, of course, is that San Francisco and it contiguous environs are incredible places to live as reflected in property values. One of the finest cities in the world, in other words.

But the real meaning is that he wants to slander me by saying I'm gay. I am not gay and it would not be an insult if I were so the bottom line is that he's a bigot.

It's great that you had to look in Wiki, and I'm not saying that you are gay, you may be ;) but I'm not saying that. I think that the Wiki definitions describes you quite well, don't you agree?

Vic, feel free to read and comprehend my very short post, I put a comma between you and Moonbean and used the word representative (singular) if I had put an "s" after representative that would mean that you were included.

 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,392
1
0
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: jbourne77
any attempt to scrutinize Obama ? even the slightest ? is met with rabid hatred and contempt

And this is why you started and ended on a fail. Your premise is just incorrect.

Demanding to know the college grades of the editor in chief of the Harvard Law Review who graduated magna cum laude is met with derision, because if the goal is to determine academic acumen, the question is closed.

Asking why Obama wants to teach kindergartners sex ed is met with derision, because it's facially ridiculous.

Asking why Obama didn't wear a flag pin on his lapel is met with derision, because a person's patriotism isn't measured by his accessories and the "issue" is merely a disguised character attack.

If a thoughful and logical criticism of Obama or his policies is made, it will be answered in kind. Try making one and proving your thesis.

First of all, you're the one choosing the topics here in order to more easily justify the derision and defend a particular stance... I'm speaking, for example, about the questions regarding Obama's relationships with questionable characters. Attempts to discuss this are met with the contempt I spoke of. At best, the AT left simply diverts to McCain and Keating. I'm the last person you'll hear defend McCain on that front, but then again, I'm not a stubborn ass blindly defending a party line. If people want to discuss Keating, take it to a proper discussion; but using it to deflect justifiable questions about Obama is nothing more than smoke screening.

When I read the OP's post - which occurred the same day that said smoke screening was in force - I assumed he was making a reference to that subject (and possibly others). I agree with him in that regard. Anyone failing to recognize such bias is failing the most basic test of objectivity.

If you folks applied the same filters to the topics on McCain and Palin as you do Obama and Biden, I would spot you a shred of credibility. On the contrary...

Or perhaps you are in the rather small minority that does, but recognize that the vast majority of your fellow party members do not.
This place is filled with partisan hacks (I estimate 80% Left and 20% Right) who have little regard for objectivity. They constantly apply double standards and rationalize their illogic or divert the subject when confronted. There's actually a few intelligent people around here if you're patient enough to wade through the crap. You just got to be careful who you dialog with and you'll learn who's actually open to honest discussion after a while. But I guess I'm not telling you anything you haven't figured out by now.

Good post, and that's pretty much been my take, as well... the "careful who you dialogue with" is good advice. Of course, we're all entitled to our own opinions, but the people who defend them at all costs - probably because they've come here for some form of validation and sense of self worth - are hacks, regardless of what party they associate with.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Onceler
such as Wright, Aryes, his name, his record
The fact that this guy is endorsed by terrorist states and Farakahn
This guy seems absolutly anti American to me.

That's because you're stupid. Go back under your bridge.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,235
6,338
126
Buttmadtom: "and I'm not saying that you are gay, you may be but I'm not saying that."

There is a reason Vic called you a liar.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Budmantom
The majority of people on this forum look down on people of faith and look up to people that hate America.

Another troll. Shocking.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Buttmadtom: "and I'm not saying that you are gay, you may be but I'm not saying that."

There is a reason Vic called you a liar.

because you are gay and I'm not saying it.......? I don't get what you are saying and more importantly I don't care.