• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

It is time...

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
1
0
And of course you use that as an excuse to avoid addressing the actual point. And of course you cry about the personal attacks when you were the first to use one in this thread.
Wrong. You were the first. I said you were being a dick, not that you are one. The difference is the former is temporary and the latter is permanent.

I just found it funny that that was the best example of hyperbole you could find for Romney. If you hadn't said you could think of examples comparable to the hyperbole throw around about Obama (of course without providing a single example, haha), I would have dropped it.
No you wouldn't... because anything that is critical of Obama must be responded to.

Nice tries. Claiming Romney made his money off of failed companies and downsizing isn't hyperbole, it is just how it is. Of course you think that I only think that because to you I am a partisan hack. Sorry, but repeating how Romeny actually made his millions is just stating fact, not hyperbole. As for the second example, that is an example of slight hyperbole. An example of major hyperbole would be something like "Obama wants to implement Sharia law." Try to think of an example that compares to that magnitude of nonsense.
The hyperbole about how Romney made his money isn't how, it's that he doesn't care about "the little people"... that he has no moral or ethical problem destroying people's livelihoods.

You've already demonstrated that you won't believe what's staring you in the face, so by all means.. continue to showcase your stupidity.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
27,341
8,552
136
Wrong. You were the first. I said you were being a dick, not that you are one. The difference is the former is temporary and the latter is permanent.
A personal attack is a personal attack, regardless if the accusation is "temporary," as you put it. Not sure if you are actually stupid enough to think it makes a difference, or think the rest of us are stupid enough to think it does.

No you wouldn't... because anything that is critical of Obama must be responded to.
Yup, you got me. I have responded to every single critical statement of Obama in this forum. Glad to see you are actually engaging in hyperbole in your own thread complaining about hyperbole. Thanks for the huge laugh.

The hyperbole about how Romney made his money isn't how, it's that he doesn't care about "the little people"... that he has no moral or ethical problem destroying people's livelihoods.
Well, let's see. He made money by liquidating companies. That means he either didn't have any moral problems with destroying people's livelihoods, or he does and did it anyway. Assuming the former is the case is actually giving him the benefit of the doubt, not hyperbole.

You've already demonstrated that you won't believe what's staring you in the face, so by all means.. continue to showcase your stupidity.
I know I know, anyone who disagrees with you must be a stupid, blind partisan hack. It couldn't possibly be that you have no clue what you are talking about. Speaking of not believing what's staring you in the face, I'll refer you to the post calling you out for using semantical squirming so transparent it is looked upon as equivalent to cybrsage's antics, yet you still tried to squirm out of it in this very post. Then I'll also point out how even in your reply to the accusation, you didn't actually address that part of call out, but rather the low hanging fruit of a joke that you might be "his disciple." It is quite obvious to anyone reading this thread that you did that because you could not address the actual accusation. Thanks for even more laughs. You should tighten up your game quite a bit before you start calling other people stupid.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,848
1
0
A personal attack is a personal attack, regardless if the accusation is "temporary," as you put it. Not sure if you are actually stupid enough to think it makes a difference, or think the rest of us are stupid enough to think it does.
You don't speak for the rest of us.

There is a difference. If you don't see it then it's a problem with your comprehension. In some languages there is even to forms of the verb to be related to this issue.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
26,429
11,653
136


All the various conspiracies are coming home to roost: Obama is a communist, Muslim, socialist peacenik who loves debt and wants people to be unemployed. Romney can't find his way to a consistent viewpoint on his breakfast order, much less affairs of state. Paul Ryan wants to pull the plug on grandma and grandpa. Obama is secretly working to turn America into a Muslim state and takes his orders from Iran. He also has secret plans to bomb Israel.

All the partisan hyperbole in P&N is correct: depending on which side you more closely align with, either Romney/Ryan or Obama/Biden will bring about the end of America as we know it.

The spidey07s and Phokus' of the forum are telling the truth; it really and truly is midnight in America if their candidate doesn't win.
The real conspiracy is you are supporting Gary Johnson!
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
And you have sexual fantasies of prepubescent children.


You need to be incarcerated.
Please stop projecting your desires onto others. You project rather quickly when you realize you have been handily dismissed in a thread.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
27,341
8,552
136
You don't speak for the rest of us.

There is a difference. If you don't see it then it's a problem with your comprehension. In some languages there is even to forms of the verb to be related to this issue.
"You are a dick" and "you are being a dick" are both personal attacks. There is a difference, but the difference has nothing to do with whether or not they are personal attacks. I speak for the rational minded. Feel free to join us if you want.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
"You are a dick" is a personal insult while "you are being a dick" is just an insult. In the second, the person is not being insulted but rather the action performed is being insulted, which means it is no longer a personal insult. An insult was still made, but just not a personal one.

To be a personal insult, the person must be insulted. At least this is how I understand the difference. Maybe you can have this guy explain it to you:

A smart person can make a stupid argument, which is why you can call an argument stupid without implying that the person arguing it is stupid.
You could also ask this guy:

Poster XYZ said:
Poster ABC said:
I think Rick Santorum is awesome
That's a fucking stupid position to take.
^ Directing the attack towards the position in the post, not attacking the poster.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
1
0
A personal attack is a personal attack, regardless if the accusation is "temporary," as you put it. Not sure if you are actually stupid enough to think it makes a difference, or think the rest of us are stupid enough to think it does.
I'm not stupid, whether you think I am or not. I don't think anyone here (aside from you) would assert that I'm stupid, either.

Yup, you got me. I have responded to every single critical statement of Obama in this forum. Glad to see you are actually engaging in hyperbole in your own thread complaining about hyperbole. Thanks for the huge laugh.
I enjoy keeping you off-balance. It makes me laugh.

Well, let's see. He made money by liquidating companies. That means he either didn't have any moral problems with destroying people's livelihoods, or he does and did it anyway. Assuming the former is the case is actually giving him the benefit of the doubt, not hyperbole.
Hyperbole is also that he enjoyed it; that it was all about the money and screw everything and everyone else... and I've seen that claim made quite often about him.

I know I know, anyone who disagrees with you must be a stupid, blind partisan hack.
Everyone who thinks that their guy is good and the other guy is evil, yes, is a partisan hack. They may or may not be stupid.

It couldn't possibly be that you have no clue what you are talking about.
Correct, it could not possibly be that.

Speaking of not believing what's staring you in the face, I'll refer you to the post calling you out for using semantical squirming so transparent it is looked upon as equivalent to cybrsage's antics, yet you still tried to squirm out of it in this very post. Then I'll also point out how even in your reply to the accusation, you didn't actually address that part of call out, but rather the low hanging fruit of a joke that you might be "his disciple." It is quite obvious to anyone reading this thread that you did that because you could not address the actual accusation. Thanks for even more laughs. You should tighten up your game quite a bit before you start calling other people stupid.
You're a leader with no followers. Otherwise known as "just a guy taking a walk". Have fun.
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,392
31
91
"You are a dick" is a personal insult while "you are being a dick" is just an insult. In the second, the person is not being insulted but rather the action performed is being insulted, which means it is no longer a personal insult. An insult was still made, but just not a personal one.
LOL. Cybrsage tries to troll, but gets pwned by the definition of the word "dick."
Sure is grade school in here.

inb4 wild flailing because he can't connect the dots that are above him.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,033
64
91
As for the OP, I certainly don't think a Romney presidency would bring about the end of the world as we know it, but it is most definitely true that he is a comprehensively dishonest man when it comes to what he claims are his deeply-held views on matters of substance. I have come to be of the opinion that it would be risky to elect him because he seems to stand for nothing and willing to say anything. I find that unsettling.
 
Last edited:

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
27,341
8,552
136
I'm not stupid, whether you think I am or not. I don't think anyone here (aside from you) would assert that I'm stupid, either.
Wow, you avoided the point being made entirely.



I enjoy keeping you off-balance. It makes me laugh.
Wow, you avoided the point being made entirely.



Hyperbole is also that he enjoyed it; that it was all about the money and screw everything and everyone else... and I've seen that claim made quite often about him.
It was all about the money. :confused: What else do you think it was about?



Everyone who thinks that their guy is good and the other guy is evil, yes, is a partisan hack. They may or may not be stupid.
Using sweeping generalizations like this makes you look like an idiot.



Correct, it could not possibly be that.
Nope. Not possible. :whiste:



You're a leader with no followers. Otherwise known as "just a guy taking a walk". Have fun.
Wow, you avoided the point being made entirely.



You avoid points like a politician. No wonder you have a hard time figuring out which ones are worse. Much easier for you to just say they are all bad and call it a day.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
1
0
Using sweeping generalizations like this makes you look like an idiot.
It's not a sweeping generalization.

Nope. Not possible.
Correct. You're catching on.

You avoid points like a politician. No wonder you have a hard time figuring out which ones are worse. Much easier for you to just say they are all bad and call it a day.
You obsess over differences that, in the aggregate, are minor. They are all bad, and if you think one group is significantly less or more bad than the other you aren't paying attention and are letting bias cloud your objectivity.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
27,341
8,552
136
It's not a sweeping generalization.


Correct. You're catching on.
:rolleyes::rolleyes:



You obsess over differences that, in the aggregate, are minor. They are all bad, and if you think one group is significantly less or more bad than the other you aren't paying attention and are letting bias cloud your objectivity.
Yup. All bad in the same way that a papercut and a gunshot wound to the head are both bad. Keep thinking Democrats are just as bad but don't start crying when the GOP passes anti-gay legislation.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
1
0
Yup. All bad in the same way that a papercut and a gunshot wound to the head are both bad. Keep thinking Democrats are just as bad but don't start crying when the GOP passes anti-gay legislation.
Democrats love government, taxes, and regulation. The GOP loves legislating Christian morality. I have never been pleased with either of those things. Both are abuses of the limited role the federal government is constitutionally permitted to play, and I'm not at all convinced that one is worse than the other.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
27,341
8,552
136
Democrats love government, taxes, and regulation. The GOP loves legislating Christian morality. I have never been pleased with either of those things. Both are abuses of the limited role the federal government is constitutionally permitted to play, and I'm not at all convinced that one is worse than the other.
That's fine. Fight Democrats equally. People like you help the GOP regain power. Then maybe someday the GOP can make it so you don't have to pay taxes, don't have any government, and there won't be any regulations keeping corporations from fucking you sideways. Let us all know how that works out for you.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
Democrats love government, taxes, and regulation. The GOP loves legislating Christian morality. I have never been pleased with either of those things. Both are abuses of the limited role the federal government is constitutionally permitted to play, and I'm not at all convinced that one is worse than the other.
I believe Romney is generally pro-Gay. I don't think you have anything to fear if he gets elected.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
1
0
I believe Romney is generally pro-Gay. I don't think you have anything to fear if he gets elected.
That has never been my concern with merely Romney as president. If the GOP gets a senate majority along with Romney as president, we'll see anti-gay legislation that Romney will not be willing to buck his own party and veto.

Aside from gay issues, though, I simply don't see any evidence that Romney is any significantly less of a big-spender than Obama.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
That has never been my concern with merely Romney as president. If the GOP gets a senate majority along with Romney as president, we'll see anti-gay legislation that Romney will not be willing to buck his own party and veto.

Aside from gay issues, though, I simply don't see any evidence that Romney is any significantly less of a big-spender than Obama.
Romney is a RINO and has been bucking his own party for some time now. I don't think he'll have any trouble whatsoever vetoing anti-gay legislation. The Republican Party needs to move left on social issues and he will help that movement. You should vote for him.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
1
0
Romney is a RINO and has been bucking his own party for some time now. I don't think he'll have any trouble whatsoever vetoing anti-gay legislation. The Republican Party needs to move left on social issues and he will help that movement. You should vote for him.
As a governor of a liberal state he had to be what would nowadays be considered a RINO. As president, though, he faces different political pressures. I don't think he will have any reason whatsoever to veto anti-gay legislation.

I agree the GOP needs to move left on social issues, but it won't get there with Romney.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
As a governor of a liberal state he had to be what would nowadays be considered a RINO. As president, though, he faces different political pressures. I don't think he will have any reason whatsoever to veto anti-gay legislation.

I agree the GOP needs to move left on social issues, but it won't get there with Romney.
The party needs more Log Cabin Republicans. You should vote for him.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
Why? He's iffy, at best, on gay issues and iffy on lowering spending/taxes/regulation significantly.
I've always thought of you as a closet Republican when it comes to most issues other than gay rights. Conservative gays are needed in the party to change it from within. Romney is far from perfect...but he will likely be very focused on our fiscal/regulatory issues if elected. Obama has already shown us that he is a weak and ineffective leader in these areas. Time for a change.
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I'd rather not vote in the presidential race and vote Democratic and Republican in any state/local/congressional races.
Fair enough, but previously you said you would prefer to have Congress and the Presidency held by different parties. If you vote dem for Congress, you should vote rep for President to help accomplish this goal.

Up to you, though, I honestly not care if you do not vote for the president...the local election are far more important to your daily life anyway.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY