[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Huh? I have a complex because I point out that you are a failure as a blogger? No - just making sure you have a realistic view of your written work.
[/quote]
No, you are petty and small because you are trying to be malicious in a more personal way than is called for. When I start claiming I’m a blogger of import, feel free to try to knock me down a peg.
They’ve been argued many many times, why should we have to argue it again. I am not going to take the time to refute and argue the same shit hundreds of times. As with yourself, I am too lazy to be bothered…
LOL.
LOL. Look, your antics are tiring and make you look like a clown. Really, try that mirror out. The Iraq war was not central to the election in terms of ratifying the war.
Your characterization is simplistic and silly, much like yourself. You are the one claiming it was a ratification, perhaps you should actually back up such a claim so that we can see your thinking and not just assume you are regurgitating someone elses thinking or “spin”.
In general, if something you say is called spin, you can show it isn’t spin by presenting it to show it isn’t simply a one sided characterization of events based on a political stance. Or you can cry and whine about having your crud called spin because you haven’t taken the time to argue the merits and show it isn’t.
This is no way implies a ratification of the war, it implies that during a war situation they decided to elect the man that had acted strongly after 9/11 to continue the war. It has nothing to do with whether or not the Iraq war should have been started. It is the infamous “you break it you buy it situation”.
See, this is where I point out that my view sometimes is the same as the right wing view. Such that your point is incorrect, and we both know it. You can pretend you don’t understand the purpose of presenting my ability to cross party lines, but this is pretty much it. I have and I do. Spin isn’t just leaning in one direction or the other, it is playing games with language to characterize things in a certain way for political purposes.
Surely you know that?
If your position isn’t spin then surely you have some original thinking of your own that shows how and why what you are claiming is in fact the case? We don’t just have to believe you because it is you saying it.
While there was no bigger issue, the election wasn’t about whether or not the war was an appropriate action to undertake in the first place. Even so, without all the information present at that time, the public wouldn’t be informed to make such a judgment. The war was indeed an issue, an ongoing issue, and the public had to decide who made them feel safer.
There’s instigating and then going out and being an utter bastard. I don’t have a problem with it, but it does show your character.
It’s generally not appropriate to go outside of the forums to direct an attack at someone for a forum issue. I realize there is no hard and fast rule, but it’s how things are done…
Laughing at you is not tough talk. Surprised you don’t realize that tough guy. I get a lot of humor out of the politics forum, I really do!
Dude, it’s the same as when a liberal quotes a righty who is going against the flow. Nobody really takes much heed to such things. It doesn’t mean that the viewpoint is in fact mainstream at all.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Just for fun, here is Vroom’s idea of what it means to toe “the” Republican line, apparently (quoting myself):
"1. [Bush] has not been the leader we need during a serious war against Islamism.
[Bush] has presided over a government of bad laws - regardless of their substance, it’s like he and the Republican Congress will pass any piece of trash presented. That is bad stewardship, regardless of party.
…And, something else that needs to reiterated - should the GOP lose the House or even the 2008 election, there is absolutely no one else to blame other than the GOP itself."
Let’s see, I am not sure - is what I posted above ‘spin’, ‘talking points’, or ‘Kool-Aid’?
Sometimes it is just plain hard to know.[/quote]
Dude, grow up. Perhaps the issues I’m complaining about are not those?
No, you are petty and small because you are trying to be malicious in a more personal way than is called for. When I start claiming I’m a blogger of import, feel free to try to knock me down a peg.[/quote]
I frankly don’t care for degenerating debates into personal attacks. But rest assured, Vroom - despite your current whimpering, it is you that degenerates it.
Do I have to spell it our for you? After an exchange between the two of us, one in which we disagreed, you stated:
So spare me your sniveling about making personal attacks - it is you that wants to attack people like an insufferable, arrogant prick, but you want everyone else to observe the Marquis of Queensberry rules.
Don’t like personal attacks? Don’t start them. Got it?
If the issue is central to the point and you say I am wrong, we should just all take your word for it? Nope.
If you don’t want to cover old ground, fine - but if you are going to say “you’re wrong”, you will be expected at a bare minimum to say why.
In one sense you are correct - the ratification for the decision to go to war came before any 2004 election with Congressional approval. Exit polls at the 2004 election stated that 51% of the people approved the decision to go to war. A small majority? Yep - but one nonetheless.
Ideas and opinions certainly change over time - I suspect that poll would look a lot different now. But, at the time of the election, Bush was going to win or lose in large part based on Iraq.
Odd - this is a standard you don’t even hold yourself to.
But, I have made arguments, and been more than willing to share ‘my thinking’. In fact, that is all I have done. All my comments are my own.
No, you just keep harping that somehow because my view happens to coincide with one that you don’t agree with that somehow I am not thinking ‘independently’. I am, but you’ll never admit it, because it is easier to claim I am not and skitter away so you don’t have to engage.
This is just more jibberish. You are just blathering now, with nothing substantive, all because I engaged you.
Well, I don’t actually need to qualify and overcome some threshold of ‘spin’ in order to have my arguments validated. Most assuredly, you are not the arbiter of such a thing anyway. I bring up the ridiculous ‘spin’ nonsense largely to alert you to the fact it is just plain awful and weak.
Secondly, even if this were true, do I get to use it on you? You don’t hold yourself to that standard - why does Vroom get an exemption?
Laughable, Vroom. You think I don’t make arguments on their merits? Make your case.
Look at it this way - if Americans thought Iraq was a big mistake, they would likely vote for the man that would focus on getting us out of Iraq. But why would Americans vote for the guy who made the mistake in order to reverse it?
Here is the thing, let’s use your spin ridiculousness - you keep saying it wasn’t a ‘ratification’ of the war. Why not? You never say - are you guilty of spin?
Yeah, Vroom - I know exactly what political spin is. It means presenting information to put the best possible spin on it so as to make your guy look good.
That’s why it is so stupid for you to accuse me of using spin - why would I be spinning? Who am I trying to make look good? I don’t work for the GOP. I have already made clear my criticisms of Bush and the GOP. Seriously - who am I trying to make look good?
Nor do I expect anyone to - but you are seriously claiming I don’t produce support for the arguments I make? Have you been here long?
No one has to agree with my viewpoints, that is fine - but claiming I don’t present my thinking or give support to my arguments? Seriously, Vroom - now you are just flailing.
Oh no? Then produce evidence to that effect, or else, by your standards, you’re just spinning.
Aw, poor Vroom - you want to be a snarling Internet tough guy with your constant personal attacks (not just on me), but when someone else hits a tender spot, you want to cry foul?
As I said above - I really don’t like the debates around here getting into personal attacks. I have always advocated that you go after the argument, not the person. I have made that clear and spoke against making personal comments. But once you make it personal with your comments, folks are going to respond.
My character is not in question - you just don’t get to have a separate set of rules for yourself.
Let’s see - you want to call everyone you disagree with every awful name you can think of, including ‘fucking retard’ - and now you want to whine about what is appropriate and what is not?
I have an idea, Vroom - stop starting in with personal attacks and you won’t have to worry your head about it. So pull the bottom lip back in and buck up, little fella - if you want people to observe a civil tone in debates, start with yourself.
Well, since Beinart’s book has raised a ton of interest, including discussion at the Kos festival and a recent article in the New Yorker, your claim that ‘no one is taking an interest in such things’ is foolish and erroenous. Here is the thing - you say no one is taking an interest in the idea, but you simply don’t even know if they are or aren’t. This, by your own measurement, is nothing but pure spin.
See, this encapsulates perfectly what you do - you make a conclusory, smug statement as a refutation of someone’s point with absolutely no knowledge of what the issue is.
My original point - that the Left will have to get backs to its liberal internationalism roots before it can be trusted with national security as those affiliated with it currently cannot be trusted - is not all that crazy or radical.
You seem to imply - ignorantly - that such a viewpoint is completely impossible. And yet - the world of information regarding it is passing you by, despite your insistence you know what you are talking about.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote: “Maybe if you could peel off differing layers of the onion, instead of branding everyone to the left of yourself as some sinister kumba-ya singing limp-wristed lefty, perhaps you wouldn’t sound like such a fucking idiot.”
So spare me your sniveling about making personal attacks - it is you that wants to attack people like an insufferable, arrogant prick, but you want everyone else to observe the Marquis of Queensberry rules.
Don’t like personal attacks? Don’t start them. Got it?
[/quote]
Sure thing boss, but you are still a fucking idiot!
Notice the generity of that attack. LOL. Look, I couldn’t give a shit, hate me, attack me, worse has been done, you are but an amateur in the world of insult.
If you must display your character, then go for it. Woohoo! More power to you for sinking to the lowest levels available.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
sactown1 wrote:
Lets talk about the war on terror, you know what i am tired of is that bush supporters always invoke the “war on terrorism” to justify any overreach in power by the president, if the president does have these so-called “emergency powers” which are at the best questionable, where do we draw the line how much power does the president have?
President Bush said that the war on terror “will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” The question is when will this war end, or will it ever end. If this war never ends will the president have indefinate emergency powers, which means almost any action taken by the president is justified because we are at war. the president contends that his war powers cannot be restrained by any law because he is the “commander-in-chief” and he needs to protect us from the terrorists.
After the Reichstag fire Hitler also declared a state of emergency and told the people of germany that the communists were taking over and effectively used the threat of communism to transform Germany from a democracy into a dictatorship. What is common in between these two leaders is that both of them use fear to justify more and more consolidation of power. Now I am not saying that George Bush wants to use the war on terror to create a perpetual state of emergency to become a dictator, but there is always a threat there, because this perpetual war on terror has been declared we must be very cautious in the amount of power we give to any leader whoever it may be a conservative or a liberal.
Don’t like your Nazi analogy, that’s MoveOn/Michael Moore hysteria territory, but you’re absolutely right in your broader point.
No he is not. It is utter nonsense. Our system of checks and balances is alive and well and working.
Really? Have you read some of the John Yoo and Justice Department memos on torture and the President’s right to detain “enemy combatants,” even when they’re US citizens?
Are you aware of recent Supreme Court rulings?
Checks and balances are in place.
Trying to minimize the war on terror as sactowwn has done by pretending it is simply a power grab by the executive branch is foolish and completely inaccurate.[/quote]
That is not at all what I said, I am simply saying that our War on Terror SHOULD NOT be used as a power grab for the executive branch. I did not say the basis of the war was a power grab, but rather that it could be used as a power grab. President Bush bases his executive powers off the Unitary Executive Theory, His interpretation of this doctrine basically undermines the system of checks and balances, this theory denies the authority of Congress, the Supreme Court, or anything else to interfere with the Presidents performance of the presidents functions, The president can determine what interfere’s and what does not.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
sactown1 wrote:
Lets talk about the war on terror, you know what i am tired of is that bush supporters always invoke the “war on terrorism” to justify any overreach in power by the president, if the president does have these so-called “emergency powers” which are at the best questionable, where do we draw the line how much power does the president have?
President Bush said that the war on terror “will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” The question is when will this war end, or will it ever end. If this war never ends will the president have indefinate emergency powers, which means almost any action taken by the president is justified because we are at war. the president contends that his war powers cannot be restrained by any law because he is the “commander-in-chief” and he needs to protect us from the terrorists.
After the Reichstag fire Hitler also declared a state of emergency and told the people of germany that the communists were taking over and effectively used the threat of communism to transform Germany from a democracy into a dictatorship. What is common in between these two leaders is that both of them use fear to justify more and more consolidation of power. Now I am not saying that George Bush wants to use the war on terror to create a perpetual state of emergency to become a dictator, but there is always a threat there, because this perpetual war on terror has been declared we must be very cautious in the amount of power we give to any leader whoever it may be a conservative or a liberal.
Don’t like your Nazi analogy, that’s MoveOn/Michael Moore hysteria territory, but you’re absolutely right in your broader point.
No he is not. It is utter nonsense. Our system of checks and balances is alive and well and working.
Really? Have you read some of the John Yoo and Justice Department memos on torture and the President’s right to detain “enemy combatants,” even when they’re US citizens?
Are you aware of recent Supreme Court rulings?
Checks and balances are in place.
Trying to minimize the war on terror as sactowwn has done by pretending it is simply a power grab by the executive branch is foolish and completely inaccurate.[/quote]
I have heard some Bush supporters say that the President should ignore the Ruling because he has power to do so, I believe it was Sean Hannity on Hannity and Colmes.
Bush isn’t the most horrible thing to ever happen. Given the shitstorm he’s gone through in his two terms, he’s doing pretty good for a former addict, I’d say. We’d be hard-pressed to find a president who has faced weirder challenges during his administration.
As a show of support, I’ll give him one thumb up, but not two.
[quote]sactown1 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
sactown1 wrote:
Lets talk about the war on terror, you know what i am tired of is that bush supporters always invoke the “war on terrorism” to justify any overreach in power by the president, if the president does have these so-called “emergency powers” which are at the best questionable, where do we draw the line how much power does the president have?
President Bush said that the war on terror “will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” The question is when will this war end, or will it ever end. If this war never ends will the president have indefinate emergency powers, which means almost any action taken by the president is justified because we are at war. the president contends that his war powers cannot be restrained by any law because he is the “commander-in-chief” and he needs to protect us from the terrorists.
After the Reichstag fire Hitler also declared a state of emergency and told the people of germany that the communists were taking over and effectively used the threat of communism to transform Germany from a democracy into a dictatorship. What is common in between these two leaders is that both of them use fear to justify more and more consolidation of power. Now I am not saying that George Bush wants to use the war on terror to create a perpetual state of emergency to become a dictator, but there is always a threat there, because this perpetual war on terror has been declared we must be very cautious in the amount of power we give to any leader whoever it may be a conservative or a liberal.
Don’t like your Nazi analogy, that’s MoveOn/Michael Moore hysteria territory, but you’re absolutely right in your broader point.
No he is not. It is utter nonsense. Our system of checks and balances is alive and well and working.
Really? Have you read some of the John Yoo and Justice Department memos on torture and the President’s right to detain “enemy combatants,” even when they’re US citizens?
Are you aware of recent Supreme Court rulings?
Checks and balances are in place.
Trying to minimize the war on terror as sactowwn has done by pretending it is simply a power grab by the executive branch is foolish and completely inaccurate.
I have heard some Bush supporters say that the President should ignore the Ruling because he has power to do so, I believe it was Sean Hannity on Hannity and Colmes.
[/quote]
That’s almost chilling, even if it’s coming from one of the usual TV assholes.
I have heard some Bush supporters say that the President should ignore the Ruling because he has power to do so, I believe it was Sean Hannity on Hannity and Colmes.
That’s almost chilling, even if it’s coming from one of the usual TV assholes.[/quote]
I don’t take anything Hannity says seriously and neither should you.
Bush is not going to ignore Supreme Court rulings.
He may try to stretch the law where he feels it is important but he isnot setting himself up as a dictator or any of that other nonsense.
I don’t feel embarassed inthe slightest to lecture dumbasses such as yourself.
Well, you should - and try the dumbass line somewhere else. After all, I am not dumb enough to try meth, so don’t be fool enough to claim any intellectual superiority over me.
I especialy love how you ignore my main argument, which is that the right’s contstamt drumbeat refrain that liberals “hate america” and want the terroritists to win is retarded, pure and simple…
If that was your main argument, then state it as such. I addressed what you wrote.
…and instead whine about how you don’t listen to right-wing radio.
I certainly didn’t ‘whine’ - you, like other lazy Lefties, can usually do no better than to duck away by suggesting I get all my information from right-wing media. My response was merely a polite explanation that I don’t listen to right-wing radio, and you aren’t gonna be able to get out of it that easily.
I bring up that we’re creating terror by invading Iraq and turning a country in a chaotic sandbox, and you mention that Afghanistan was a good idea.
Nope - I qualified that the war in Iraq has to be measured by some other statistic than by ‘how many terrorists it was creating’, because there are many other factors to consider, same as Afghanistan.
Many people thought breaking the back of the Taliban was a good idea years ago. Dubya thought it would be a good idea to meet with them in Texas.
You trying to peddle this internet lie? Give it up - this is old news. The Taliban came into Texas under the authority of the Department of State - a Governor Bush could not have authorized them to arrive. So who was President when this occurred? Whose State Department authorized the Taliban to come into the US to discuss the pipeline?
Embarrassing.[/quote]
Y’know, it’s almost funny how full of shit you are.
You posted this somewhere else in this thread:
I frankly don’t care for degenerating debates into personal attacks. But rest assured, Vroom - despite your current whimpering, it is you that degenerates it.
But, yet…
Ah, fuck it.
Personal attacks are all you have. I usd to be a drug addict? Well then, I must be an idiot; there have never been any smart drug addicts, have there?
(Don’t look on your bookshelf or CD rack if you want to keep to your stupid point.)
But, of course, you like generalities: all liberals are the same–crazy or loony or whatever the fuck FauxNews says we are, right?
what other way are measuring the War in Iraq? By how many Americans have died for this bullshit? How many Iraqis dead? Raped?
But, you’ll keep making personal attacks, even though you know nothing about me.
(Except my name. I use my real name here, because I thought it would be childish to use some ‘tough-guy’ moniker. Like thunderbolt or something.)
I was done with this thread, but a quick reply to Harris.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Y’know, it’s almost funny how full of shit you are. [/quote]
Is it now.
[quote]You posted this somewhere else in this thread:
I frankly don’t care for degenerating debates into personal attacks. But rest assured, Vroom - despite your current whimpering, it is you that degenerates it. [/quote]
And still exactly right.
Clearly, that is not correct.
I have no idea, but let’s do a recap.
You swing into these forums as a troll, rarely offering anything other than invective and insults. Check.
You call me a dumbass for taking a right-wing viewpoint. Check.
I call you a dumbass back for trying meth. Check.
So, your insult wasn’t a personal attack, but mine was? You get to arrive and spew nothing but invective, but when it comes to you, we are all expected to act with sensitivity and compassion?
Stop wasting my time. If you don’t like personal invective, don’t invite it upon yourself.
I am dead serious when I say I don’t like arguments degenerating into personal attacks. My point in doing it recently was to do nothing more than show the rank hypocrisy of the “can dish it, but can’t take it” crowd.
Weak. Read the last four pages and you’d see that isn’t correct.
But - why would it be a bad thing if it were? Your only move is to come in and spew garbage about conservatives - wouldn’t I get the same privilege?
If you read my stuff, you’d know I have more liberal friends than conservative ones. Oh, and as an FYI - I don’t watch FoxNews. Ever. I really don’t. But of course, the great irony is that you just did exactly what you claimed was bad character on my part by brainlessly generalizing.
Your silliness aside, this is a good question that can be honestly debated by opposing sides. But it would have to be taken up with someone else - you’re not up for it.
I have no interest in attacking people personally. I miss the days when in these political forums, we could have a good, knock-down-drag-out fight and keep the mindless ad hominem to a minimum. But rest assured, people are likely to respond in-kind on occasion to your invective, and you might not be up for it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Stop wasting my time. If you don’t like personal invective, don’t invite it upon yourself.
I am dead serious when I say I don’t like arguments degenerating into personal attacks. My point in doing it recently was to do nothing more than show the rank hypocrisy of the “can dish it, but can’t take it” crowd.
[/quote]
You are pretty full of yourself aren’t you. Care to let us know who can’t take it? I haven’t seen anyone cry uncle yet ego boy.
[quote]
I have no interest in attacking people personally. I miss the days when in these political forums, we could have a good, knock-down-drag-out fight and keep the mindless ad hominem to a minimum. But rest assured, people are likely to respond in-kind on occasion to your invective, and you might not be up for it.[/quote]
LOL. Dude, you aren’t the first person to not quite understand the difference between a generic attack and a not-from-the-forum attack.
However, what’s funny is you’ve yourself convinced you’ve achieved something. I guess you must be a legend in your own mind.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I was done with this thread, but a quick reply to Harris.
harris447 wrote:
Y’know, it’s almost funny how full of shit you are.
Is it now.
You posted this somewhere else in this thread:
I frankly don’t care for degenerating debates into personal attacks. But rest assured, Vroom - despite your current whimpering, it is you that degenerates it.
And still exactly right.
Personal attacks are all you have.
Clearly, that is not correct.
I usd to be a drug addict? Well then, I must be an idiot; there have never been any smart drug addicts, have there?
I have no idea, but let’s do a recap.
You swing into these forums as a troll, rarely offering anything other than invective and insults. Check.
You call me a dumbass for taking a right-wing viewpoint. Check.
I call you a dumbass back for trying meth. Check.
So, your insult wasn’t a personal attack, but mine was? You get to arrive and spew nothing but invective, but when it comes to you, we are all expected to act with sensitivity and compassion?
Stop wasting my time. If you don’t like personal invective, don’t invite it upon yourself.
I am dead serious when I say I don’t like arguments degenerating into personal attacks. My point in doing it recently was to do nothing more than show the rank hypocrisy of the “can dish it, but can’t take it” crowd.
But, of course, you like generalities: all liberals are the same–crazy or loony or whatever the fuck FauxNews says we are, right?
Weak. Read the last four pages and you’d see that isn’t correct.
But - why would it be a bad thing if it were? Your only move is to come in and spew garbage about conservatives - wouldn’t I get the same privilege?
If you read my stuff, you’d know I have more liberal friends than conservative ones. Oh, and as an FYI - I don’t watch FoxNews. Ever. I really don’t. But of course, the great irony is that you just did exactly what you claimed was bad character on my part by brainlessly generalizing.
what other way are measuring the War in Iraq? By how many Americans have died for this bullshit? How many Iraqis dead? Raped?
Your silliness aside, this is a good question that can be honestly debated by opposing sides. But it would have to be taken up with someone else - you’re not up for it.
But, you’ll keep making personal attacks, even though you know nothing about me.
I have no interest in attacking people personally. I miss the days when in these political forums, we could have a good, knock-down-drag-out fight and keep the mindless ad hominem to a minimum. But rest assured, people are likely to respond in-kind on occasion to your invective, and you might not be up for it.[/quote]
Ah, yes. when all else fails, just call someone a troll.
Or crazy.
Or a lunatic.
Or attack them personally, and then (and this is my favorite part) whine for two pages that you hate making personal attacks and you wish the forum coud go back to the old days..
You are pretty full of yourself aren’t you. Care to let us know who can’t take it? I haven’t seen anyone cry uncle yet ego boy.[/quote]
Full of myself? For explaining why I did what I did? You’re not even making sense when you try to insult me now.
Me not being the first person to ‘understand the difference’? Is that even an attempted insult? It doesn’t make any sense.
And this taxonomy you have regarding appropriate personal attacks and inappropriate personal attacks - only you know the difference, and I suspect, much like your definition of ‘spin’, etc., it subjectively lets Vroom off the hook but expects everyone else to keep on the straight and narrow.
No thanks - I’d rather just stick to substantive arguments and keep all personal attacks to the margin as much as possible.
I realize that adhering to that rule would completely wipe out 90% of your posts, but you should consider it.
Yeah, I really haven’t, Vroom. Just because you say it and you want it to stick because you have gotten all twitchy at me doesn’t mean it is true. All I did was provoke a predictable response from those who love to attack but get hyper-sniffly when they get attacked. Anyone could have accomplished that.
Besides, even if I was acting all ‘legendary’ and proud, why would you care? You’ve cornered the forum market on preening about as a pompous, smug dilettante - how could you possibly be mad at someone else for enjoying the same fruits of self-delusion as you do?
Ah, yes. when all else fails, just call someone a troll.[/quote]
Well, Harris - you are a troll. Your posts are typically worthless, usually just some blathering about ‘neocons’ and how stupid Bush is.
Oh, and on that note, when all else fails, call someone a ‘neocon’?
Seriously - if you are gonna complain about cheap namecalling, then don’t throw stones when you live in the proverbial glass house.
Poor Harris - sucks when the invective flies back on you, aye? Anyway, I never whined - and I still don’t like personal attacks. But call someone a dumbass and you will likely be called one back, and you really shouldn’t complain.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Full of myself? For explaining why I did what I did? You’re not even making sense when you try to insult me now.
Me not being the first person to ‘understand the difference’? Is that even an attempted insult? It doesn’t make any sense.[/quote]
Thunder, you’ve got some kind of “I’m always right” thinking going on or something. I’m not exactly sure what is is, but you are completely missing what I’m saying.
I wasn’t “insulting” you, per se, other than referring to your apparent ego.
I can tell you don’t see it. That’s what I’ve been saying. It’s simply this…
Most people, generally, refrain from dredging things up out in real life to create discussion attacks. Why? Because the forums are generally a form of entertainment.
We don’t need to go out into the real world to dredge up shit to attack people, because it is a completely different thing than calling someone an “ass” because their post or their argument sucks.
You’ve shown yourself to have zero class in this regard. Congratulations to you!
[quote]No thanks - I’d rather just stick to substantive arguments and keep all personal attacks to the margin as much as possible.
I realize that adhering to that rule would completely wipe out 90% of your posts, but you should consider it.[/quote]
You are such a hypocrite. As pointed out by Harris, you’ve spent the last several days doing your damnded to show you are the baddest badass personal attacker on the board.
I’ll say it again, because eventually you’ll have to try it. Look in a mirror buddy, you might see yourself in what you claim of others.
Nobody has been hyper-sniffly here except yourself Nancy.
[quote]Besides, even if I was acting all ‘legendary’ and proud, why would you care? You’ve cornered the forum market on preening about as a pompous, smug dilettante - how could you possibly be mad at someone else for enjoying the same fruits of self-delusion as you do?
That would be selfish of you, Vroom.[/quote]
LOL. Now, that was funny! Good job, there might be hope for your pompous holier than thou egotistical preening idiot self yet.
Now, if you haven’t noticed, I have been finding this amusing. Do you want to know why? Apparently, because I take it much less seriously than you do.
I’ll say again, fire away man, you just contradict yourself and look a fool because you can’t seem to avoid taking things way too seriously.
Thunder, you’ve got some kind of “I’m always right” thinking going on or something. I’m not exactly sure what is is, but you are completely missing what I’m saying.[/quote]
No, I literally didn’t get what you were saying. That isn’t a function of thinking I am right - it is a function of me not getting what you wrote.
And Vroom, let’s have a moment of realization - you are one of the most openly arrogant posters on this forum. Everyone knows it. And forget that I have said it - others have said so. If anyone on this board has an “I’m always right” attitude, it is you.
I think I am right, yes, we all do - but don’t preach at me as though you are the picture of humility. You are one of the worst offenders.
[quote]Most people, generally, refrain from dredging things up out in real life to create discussion attacks. Why? Because the forums are generally a form of entertainment.
We don’t need to go out into the real world to dredge up shit to attack people, because it is a completely different thing that calling someone an “ass” because they post or their argument sucks.[/quote]
Interesting. Does that include suggesting that telling someone it is frightening that someone is a school teacher based on their points of view?
Does it include berating posters about whether or not they actually lift weights in real life?
Ordinarily, I would agree with you - I’d have to, I don’t even like most of the basic namecalling here, let alone going ‘outside the forum’. But, my point was to see how well you liked the other end of personal attacks.
Not all that well, from the looks.
Nope - I have spent that time responding in kind. That is correct, Vroom - responding. Not initiating. Once you decided to step outside substantive arguments, I decided you needed a dose of your own medicine. I have no agenda to attack someone personally outright, unless they start the namecalling first.
Hypocrisy? No - I don’t care for personal attacks. It is not my usual tact to call anyone a “fucking idiot” or a “fucktard” as part of our discussion - unlike yourself.
I had only one agenda with these recent posts - to provoke you and expose the fact that you love to dish, but you can’t take. It worked.
Nonsense, but you keep trying. I have stated my preference over and over for keeping the insults to a minimum. I am no angel - but I can fairly say I keep them to a minimum. You, on the other hand, specialize in namecalling - and I had grown weary of it.
Well, based on the last several posts, you have mastered the “I know you are but what am I?” technique of trying to insult and carbon copy my language - but seriously.
And, again, the tough talk is lost on you. You calling someone ‘Nancy’ is just not convincing.
Wow, if imitation is the most sincerest form of flattery, then I am flattered. Once again, you merely grab something I wrote and try to insult me with it.
Seriously, at the very least, I ask that you be original.
Fantastic for you - I left this forum days ago. I dropped a quick reply in to Harris, and I expected to be done and moving on to other things. Clearly, I am not all that serious about it - but you can’t seem to let it go.
I, too, found it amusing, as you have have been very predictable - but now I am just bored.
Poor Vroom. I had already walked away from this days ago, but you still have your panties in a twist.
Let me guess - you’re next post will say “no, you’ve got your pompous panties in a twist, Nancy!” - so don’t bother.
I don’t take this seriously, despite your odd hope that I do. You have, for a while, been hell-bent on insulting everyone rather than debating with them. No problem, but it was time someone responded in the same way. I did.
As for contradicting myself, nope. Had you never initiated the insults, I never would have stated what I did. I said what I said expressly as a response to namecalling levied at me. No more, no less.