Who does this remind you of

[No Limit]

No, I am not saying that at all. My point is that Bush doesn't endorse these people like leading democrats do.

Really? You drink too much Kool aid. Why did Bush do an interview with Rush if he doesn't endorse what Rush says? Also, I have a quote somewhere of Bush complimenting Rush; let me see if I can find it.

So are you admitting Rush is a liar and a hypocrite and is no better than Moore?

Why am I supposed to bring up any point the article made when my first post in this thread was in response to Kirovman's post? Then you butted in to what I said to him

Yes, and then instead of addressing how similar the policies of Bush are to the rising Hitler's were you attacked me by saying I was comparing Bush to Hitler. Of course I don't think Bush is anywhere near Hitler; however, many of their policies are similar.

Congress gave the president the ability to make war after 9/11. Until then he could only send in the marines for up to two weeks. Anythign else has to be approved by congress.

So would we have attacked Iraq if Bush didn't want to? Do you honestly believe Bush has little power like you implied?

When Whoopie goldberg made the crass jokes about Bush and then soon after Kerry comes out and says that "Everyone here tonight is the heart and soul of the democratic party.(it could have been heart and soul of the US)" Kerry apologized for it and said he didn't mean stuff like what whoopie goldberg siad. I guess it just goes to show how bad his judgement is.

Now that you have an example it makes more sense. He was clearly talking about the audiance and the people that support him; he wasn't endorsing what she said. Although I think it was idiotic for him to appear on that stage it hardly means what you are trying to make it mean.


BTW: My apologies for my bad grammar and spelling, I am rushing everything I type as I feel like shit today and have absolutely no energy to proof read.

 

[Bodacious]

Really? You drink too much Kool aid. Why did Bush do an interview with Rush if he doesn't endorse what Rush says? Also, I have a quote somewhere of Bush complimenting Rush; let me see if I can find it.

But Rush wasn't in Bush's presidential box, was he?

So are you admitting Rush is a liar and a hypocrite and is no better than Moore?

It would be pretty dumb not to think that. But you only showed 10 or so links, from media matters, that Rush lied, from an entire career starting in 1988. Almost 60 deceits can be shown of MM efforts in unders 2 hours of film.

Rush might not be better than moore, but in my opinion Moore is far more deceitful than Rush.

Yes, and then instead of addressing how similar the policies of Bush are to the rising Hitler's were you attacked me by saying I was comparing Bush to Hitler. Of course I don't think Bush is anywhere near Hitler; however, many of their policies are similar.

Like I said, my initial post was in response to something Kirovman said. I don't care if Bush's policies are like hitler's or not. I don't think they are. The freedoms removed by hitler are a far stretch from the freedoms removed by the patriot act.

So would we have attacked Iraq if Bush didn't want to? Do you honestly believe Bush has little power like you implied?

Bush wouldn't have a leg to stand on if congress didn't prop him up. That is my point. Noting more.

Now that you have an example it makes more sense. He was clearly talking about the audiance and the people that support him; he wasn't endorsing what she said. Although I think it was idiotic for him to appear on that stage it hardly means what you are trying to make it mean.

Find some articles about the event. I am not the only one that thought that way. Obviously a lot of people cared otherwise he wouldn't have had to apologize for the remark. I will find some of what he said if I can find some time.

 

[No Limit]

But Rush wasn't in Bush's presidential box, was he?

No, but Bush clearly endorsed him by being on his show and saying that Rush's show was good.

It would be pretty dumb not to think that. But you only showed 10 or so links, from media matters, that Rush lied, from an entire career starting in 1988. Almost 60 deceits can be shown of MM efforts in unders 2 hours of film.

Rush might not be better than moore, but in my opinion Moore is far more deceitful than Rush.

I don't need to get in to that (I have a lot more than 10 links and can cite an example of a lie in almost every show), all I wanted was for you to admit he is a liar and as bad as Moore. You think Moore is more deceitful than Rush and I think Rush is worse than Moore; this is just based on our bias and doesn't matter as long as you admit Rush is a liar. With that said I don't know why you would listen to him (I'm guessing you do) nor do I understand why you would quote him in your sig as I pointed out many times. It tells me something about your character and how you don't care if it is a lie or if it is hypocritical, as long as it fits your agenda.

Bush wouldn't have a leg to stand on if congress didn't prop him up. That is my point. Noting more.

And my point is Bush sets the agenda for congress disproving your point that he has no power. Simple as that.

Find some articles about the event. I am not the only one that thought that way. Obviously a lot of people cared otherwise he wouldn't have had to apologize for the remark. I will find some of what he said if I can find some time.

Come on, lets not play this game; I am trying to be as civil with you as possible. You know he was talking about his supporters and thanking them. Yes, the way he did it was idiotic and I agree with that as it looked like he was endorsing what Whoopi said which is why he needed to apologize. However, any sane person knows he was not doing this. If you can post the apology from him, I can gurantee you he addresses this.

 

[GhostFox]

Also, if this was just a mistake why hasn't he done a retraction?

I thought he followed it up with a statement about how FDR didn't want privitization to be the only source.

these is no way even you conservatives

Sorry to dissapoint you, I consider myself a centrist, but I am much closer to a liberatarian then a conservative. Just because someone thinks that Bush isn't a nazi doesn't make them a conservative. Rational is the term usually used.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Three pages, and people have hardly even adressed the actual article in question.
Way to go, Bod and Ghost. This is why I rarely post here anymore.

 

[GhostFox]

Three pages, and no-one has even adressed a single point of the actual article in question.

A good debate should continue into other points brought up during the discussion. The initial topic was discussed in the first few posts. There is nothing wrong with moving on. There would be nothing to talk for 3 pages simply from the first topic. If people still have something to add to the original topic, they are free too.

I find this obsession with "staying on topic" utterly perplexing. If every new debate required a new thread there would be hundreds of threads an hour.

 

[gh0st]

It will be a cold day in hell before people realize that conversation evolves, when you speak to somebody you dont talk about the same thing for hours, you go from topic to topic. Creating a new thread for each new thing that comes up is rediculous. Dont go on your moral supremacy trip here mechagodzilla, its pointless.

I have no opinion on that article. Frankly I got through about half of it, looked at the banner and saw the word "Progressive". Modern day progressivism is rediculous. However with respect to what No Limit babbling on about Rush: Just because you have somebody on your show doesnt make them this way or that. I've seen republicans on the Daily Show, I've seen democrats on Michael Savage. The whole idea is to open things up to debate and argument. Basing a show on what guest they have on is rediculous. The conservative show I wake up to every morning had the state democrat chairman, and republican chairman on at the same time. What does that make them? Dont use that as an argument, its totally flawed.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

The entire article had about a dozen points, and then after less than one page of discussion about whether or not Bush is questioned enough, the topic is lost when once again Michael Moore is brought into the fray, and the same old response of "Well, it is reprehensible, but look! A democrat/liberal/communist did it too!"
And Fox news is brought in, Kerry, and the whole thing is off track.

I know a topic can change, and follow different trains of thought. I'm not as stupid and arrogant as you might imply.
But can you honestly look back on this thread and say that the article has been addressed with anything more than a superficial nature?
It was just "I'd say Bush is kinda questioned.... but, Michael Moore and John Kerry are much worse! Ann Coulter is good by comparison." Etc.
Kerry and Moore have been debated endlessly in the past, and the concensus is that Kerry is 'meh' and Moore does much more harm than good with his style-over-substance narrative. End of debate.
Fox news is still being debated in a dozen other threads that actually have Fox as the topic, and even then it's the same old stuff. "Fox is pretty biased, as shown here." "Well, sure Fox news is fairly biased... but John Kerry and Michael Moore are much worse!"

You, gh0st, didn't even bother to read the article. Kerebros had to be pushed on track before he even began to address it.

I came into this thread to read an article, then post my views on it and keep things clear. But it's already been muddied beyond recognition.
If I were to say "I agree with the overall point of the article, but the writer was very much strained in some of his comparisons. The overall critique of the doctrine of pre-emptive strike and use of patriotism as compliance incentive were on key though," chances are the response would be "what article?"

This is why I don't post here anymore. Any new point is drowned out by the same old pointless stuff. If this is what I came here to read. I would have dredged up a thread from 2004 when Kerry and Moore were actually relevant to anything. The 'debate' would be just as fresh then as it is now. There are many threads already out there for debating the validity of FOX news, and I'm going to look at them instead. With luck, the topic will not have shifted to Ballistic Missile Defense by the time I get there.

 

[seinfeldrules]

This is why I don't post here anymore. Any new point is drowned out by the same old pointless stuff. If this is what I came here to read. I would have dredged up a thread from 2004 when Kerry and Moore were actually relevant to anything. The 'debate' would be just as fresh then as it is now. There are many threads already out there for debating the validity of FOX news, and I'm going to look at them instead. With luck, the topic will not have shifted to Ballistic Missile Defense by the time I get there.

And you think you're doing any better by whining about how vastly a shift of conversation has affected you?

 

[Kangy]

Every topic ends up shifting topic, Seinfeldrules. If there's any topic that seems to be hinging upon perhaps, I dunno, making some honest criticism of the conservative values, the entire thread seems to take a quantum shift into Moore or Kerry.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Every topic ends up shifting topic, Seinfeldrules.

And its my fault?

If there's any topic that seems to be hinging upon perhaps, I dunno, making some honest criticism of the conservative values, the entire thread seems to take a quantum shift into Moore or Kerry.

Huh?

1. Kerry is old news.
2. Where do you think a thread would end up if it embarked upon 'honest liberal values' (according to an extremist conservative website)?

 

[bliink]

And its my fault?

Are you trying to say that you never play any part in shifting threads OT?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

And you think you're doing any better by whining about how vastly a shift of conversation has affected you?

I saw that SR had posted in the thread, so it was safe to assume that he was addressing me directly. Responses as follow:

You'll find I am very willing to add to any conversation or debate that stays on topic. I've also regrettably participated wholeheartedly in many off-topic disasters like this thread here. Which is why, as I've said, I am posting more sparingly and am warning others to be more cautious as well

I don't think you read my post thoroughly though, because all your concerns have already been addressed.
For example, as Kangy perceptively noted, I am not critiquing merely a shift in conversation, but a shift towards an endless debate that has been played out to no resolution.

Secondly, I'd already anticipated that the thread was not going to get any better under the 'is Moore or Fox news worse' morass, and that it was not going to regain its original topic, so I saw no harm in shifting the conversation towards the fact that the ruined thread was indeed ruined.
So, as you are in defence of these 'shifts in conversation,' I would have expected people to be happy that, not only had I acheived that end, I had in fact improved the level of debate in the process by touching on a subject that is altogether new.

Thirdly, I don't know what part of my post indicated that I was 'vastly affected' by this disagreeable state of affairs, but i can assure you that i am merely voicing my displeasure that nearly half the threads in this forum are virtually indistinguishable in terms of content. If not posting on a forum as often is a 'vast affectation,' then I suppose you could indeed be considered to an extent correct.

And as for 'whining' well, I suppose that's just your opinion. And it does indeed prove that timeless comparison to 'assholes' most apt.

1. Kerry is old news.
2. Where do you think a thread would end up if it embarked upon 'honest liberal values' (according to an extremist conservative website)?

1. Exactly my point! I'm glad to see that your opinion so closely resembles my own 'whining.'
2. I hate to answer for kangy, but it would seem that he is agreement with me that any such thread would more likely than not turn to the topic of Michael Moore, John Kerry and the staff at Fox news, which is the problem elucidated in said 'whining.'

Hope that clears things up!

-MechaG

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Are you trying to say that you never play any part in shifting threads OT?

He usually does'nt Bliink; everyone else he addresses takes it off topic because they know Seinfeld will catch the brunt.

Seinfeld does'nt antagonize threads going off-topic; infact, he practically is the best at staying on-topic ... well, besides MechaGodzilla.

 

[Bodacious]

No, but Bush clearly endorsed him by being on his show and saying that Rush's show was good.

There is a large gap between Bush appearing on Rush's show and Kerry having Moore sit in the presidential box.

I don't need to get in to that (I have a lot more than 10 links and can cite an example of a lie in almost every show), all I wanted was for you to admit he is a liar and as bad as Moore. You think Moore is more deceitful than Rush and I think Rush is worse than Moore; this is just based on our bias and doesn't matter as long as you admit Rush is a liar. With that said I don't know why you would listen to him (I'm guessing you do) nor do I understand why you would quote him in your sig as I pointed out many times. It tells me something about your character and how you don't care if it is a lie or if it is hypocritical, as long as it fits your agenda.

Same thing for you. I am willing to bet you place a lot of hatred for Bush based on stuff from F9/11. You don't have to admit Moore is a liar because I know he is. It tells me something about your character and how you don't care if it is a lie or if it is hypocritical, as long as it fits your agenda.

And my point is Bush sets the agenda for congress disproving your point that he has no power. Simple as that.

And my point is that even though Bush sets the agenda congress does whatever they want, disproving your point that Bush has ultimate power. Simple as that.

 

[No Limit]

I thought he followed it up with a statement about how FDR didn't want privitization to be the only source.

As far as I know he is still denying he lied. If you have a transcript of a retraction please post it. I hope you will now admit that fox has a strong conservative bias; I showed you historical fraud on the part of one of their news anchors that was trying to promote a conservative agenda. There is no way of getting around this.

Sorry to dissapoint you, I consider myself a centrist, but I am much closer to a liberatarian then a conservative. Just because someone thinks that Bush isn't a nazi doesn't make them a conservative. Rational is the term usually used.

Me saying I'm a centrist doesn't make me a centrist .

I have no opinion on that article. Frankly I got through about half of it, looked at the banner and saw the word "Progressive". Modern day progressivism is rediculous. However with respect to what No Limit babbling on about Rush: Just because you have somebody on your show doesnt make them this way or that. I've seen republicans on the Daily Show, I've seen democrats on Michael Savage. The whole idea is to open things up to debate and argument. Basing a show on what guest they have on is rediculous. The conservative show I wake up to every morning had the state democrat chairman, and republican chairman on at the same time. What does that make them? Dont use that as an argument, its totally flawed.

I don't really know what you are talking about; I was not saying anything about Rush's guests. I was saying he is a liar and fraud.

 

[No Limit]

There is a large gap between Bush appearing on Rush's show and Kerry having Moore sit in the presidential box.

Kerry wasn't in charge of who sat where; the DNC was.

Same thing for you. I am willing to bet you place a lot of hatred for Bush based on stuff from F9/11. You don't have to admit Moore is a liar because I know he is. It tells me something about your character and how you don't care if it is a lie or if it is hypocritical, as long as it fits your agenda.

I'm sorry but that is total crap and just proves you will lie over everything. You know damn well I have called Moore an idiot because I've done it in a reply directly to you; if you can find me one example of me quoting anything from Moore I will not come back on this message board.

And my point is that even though Bush sets the agenda congress does whatever they want, disproving your point that Bush has ultimate power. Simple as that.

Can you show me an example of where I say he has total power? I said he has a lot of power to dispute the claim you made that he had no power. Stop spinning this already; my head hurts. You always have to have the last word; no matter how idiotic the response is.

On a side note, Rush is still in your signature.

 

[Absinthe]

Same thing for you. I am willing to bet you place a lot of hatred for Bush based on stuff from F9/11. You don't have to admit Moore is a liar because I know he is. It tells me something about your character and how you don't care if it is a lie or if it is hypocritical, as long as it fits your agenda.

Says the man that has Rush Limbaugh in his sig.

But whatever. You don't need to admit that Rush is a liar because I know he is.

 

[Bodacious]

Come on, lets not play this game; I am trying to be as civil with you as possible. You know he was talking about his supporters and thanking them. Yes, the way he did it was idiotic and I agree with that as it looked like he was endorsing what Whoopi said which is why he needed to apologize. However, any sane person knows he was not doing this. If you can post the apology from him, I can gurantee you he addresses this.

Ok I researched this.

Here is the link that proves the NYT ran the article.

Here is the link with the article's text.

I was wrong about what Kerry said. His words:

Mr. Kerry, inviting his and Mr. Edwards's adult children onstage for a sing-along of "This Land Is Your Land," told the crowd that "every single performer" on the bill had "conveyed to you the heart and soul of our country."

So no, he wasn't talking about the crowd, was he?

 

[Bodacious]

Kerry wasn't in charge of who sat where; the DNC was.

Kerry didn't do anything to stop it. More mainstream democrats support ultra left wing demagauges than mainstream republicans that support right wing crazies.

I'm sorry but that is total crap and just proves you will lie over everything. You know damn well I have called Moore an idiot because I've done it in a reply directly to you; if you can find me one example of me quoting anything from Moore I will not come back on this message board.

Oh no, no limit thinks I am a liar. You spew Moore talking points left and right, though, even if he is an idiot or not. I spew Rush talking points and am labeled terrible things. You spew Moore talking points and somehow you think you are better than me. Whatever.

Can you show me an example of where I say he has total power? I said he has a lot of power to dispute the claim you made that he had no power. Stop spinning this already; my head hurts. You always have to have the last word; no matter how idiotic the response is.

Can you show me an example where I say Bush has no power? I said he has little power to dispute the claim you made that he had little power. Stop spinning this already; my head hurts. You always have to have the last word; the last of this is truncated because I don't want to be insulting to another poster, at least I have that much dignity I don't have to resort to insulting others.

 

[No Limit]

More mainstream democrats support ultra left wing demagauges than mainstream republicans that support right wing crazies.

Do you realize that you have a quote from Rush Limbaugh in your sig? Find me any liberal memeber on this board that has a quote from Moore or another lefty in their sig. With that said you sound like a total hypocrite.

Oh no, no limit thinks I am a liar. You spew Moore talking points left and right, though, even if he is an idiot or not. I spew Rush talking points and am labeled terrible things. You spew Moore talking points and somehow you think you are better than me. Whatever.

Which Moore talking points? Again, can you even cite one example (I gurantee you can't).

Can you show me an example where I say Bush has no power? I said he has little power to dispute the claim you made that he had little power. Stop spinning this already; my head hurts. You always have to have the last word; the last of this is truncated because I don't want to be insulting to another poster, at least I have that much dignity I don't have to resort to insulting others.

This has been spun way too much. I'll just leave it at the fact that Bush has a lot of power to influance policies in this country which was my point originally.

I will address your previous post later, I need to get back to work.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Are you trying to say that you never play any part in shifting threads OT?

No more so than anyone else, but it seems like people love complaining whenever I partake in debates that are slightly OT. I think because people dont agree with what I say, they deem it OT.

Oh and a 'liberal honesty' thread would end up at:

A. FOX News is evil
B. Bush is a moron
C. Rush is dumber than Moore.

And I suppose stuff like this will really help clean up the forum Mecha:

And it does indeed prove that timeless comparison to 'assholes' most apt.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

And I suppose stuff like this will really help clean up the forum Mecha:

Well, considering that you formed an opinion about my post without even reading it clearly, I think I was fair in dismissing your opinion as nothing more than your personal interpretation of very little substantial fact.
Also, the saying I referenced has seen common usage with no real objection until now. It would seem odd though, that you would say that this is evidence of some hypocracy, as nowhere in my post did I 'whine' that there were 'too many similies', or 'too many mild curse-words'. Further evidence that you really weren't paying attention in the first place.

So again you have proven my argument correct. When presented with a full post of various points, you only addressed a single one, and it was the most superficial throwaway of the lot. You also clearly were not engaged enough to bother to fully comprehend what I had posted in the first place, making your one throwaway response inaccurate in and of itself.

So, I uphold my assertion that the politics forum is being mired in the posts of those quick to react, but unwilling to commit to the burden of paying attention to what they are reacting to.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Well, considering that you formed an opinion about my post without even reading it clearly, I think I was fair in dismissing your opinion as nothing more than your personal interpretation of very little substantial fact.

My reading comprehension is fine, thanks for asking.

I think I was fair in dismissing your opinion as nothing more than your personal interpretation of very little substantial fact.

You dismissed me by calling me an asshole...

Also, the saying I referenced has seen common usage with no real objection until now.

I have always objected to being called an asshole. Just because your buddies on here get away with it doesnt mean it should happen all the time.

It would seem odd though, that you would say that this is evidence of some hypocracy, as nowhere in my post did I 'whine' that there were too many similies, or too many mild curse-words.

It was more of an indirect jab. If I had said such a thing I would have been put on trial and shot.

So again you have proven my argument correct. When presented with a full post of various points, you only addressed a single one

I'm sorry I didnt respond to a rant, because that is all it was. If you really are better than us, then leave. No need to draw it out for so long.

 

[CptStern]

ah seinfeldrules: Hl2.net's resident political thread saboteur

 

[seinfeldrules]

ah seinfeldrules: Hl2.net's resident political thread saboteur

If you look back, Mecha is actually the one who started this tangent. Of course, it is much easier for you to blame me than performing even a minimal amount of 'research'.

 

[Absinthe]

If you look back, Mecha is actually the one who started this tangent. Of course, it is much easier for you to blame me than performing even a minimal amount of 'research'.

Mecha brought up a problem that I think we can all recognize. And then you proceeded to antagonize him.

I think his "asshole" response was only appropriate when you dismissed his post as whining.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Mecha brought up a problem that I think we can all recognize. And then you proceeded to antagonize him.

Its not as drastic as you guys make it out to be. You just cry OT when a topic is not going the way you want. I mean hell, it wasnt even a conservative who brought up FOX news, yet you blame us.

Ever watched Fox News? They have their own 'news' channel whose sole purpose is to character assassinate any liberal who gets too loud. Much of the information on that channel is misrepresented, and I assure you they have made rude jokes about Kerry, and they practically worship Bush as a god.

I think his "asshole" response was only appropriate when you dismissed his post as whining.

I dont care what his reasons were, I didnt go out of my way to insult him.

 

[No Limit]

Ok threads go off topic, no more discussion needs to go in to it. Getting back on track.

So no, he wasn't talking about the crowd, was he?

First off I agree that even having Whoopi there was idiotic on his part. Personally what I think happened was that he didn't know she was going to be that obsense; you have to remember there were many more people on that stage. He thanked those people and along with that statement he had to thank Whoopi. So yes, I agree that it was dumb. Were you able to find the apology; I searched a bit and couldn't come up with anything.

 

[Absinthe]

Its not as drastic as you guys make it out to be. You just cry OT when a topic is not going the way you want. I mean hell, it wasnt even a conservative who brought up FOX news, yet you blame us.

De-railing into off-topic discussion is something I've seen on both "sides", seinfeld. I don't point the finger at anybody when it comes to that.

The fact of the matter is that the left vs. right bullshit has permeated far too many topics on the Politics forum and it's getting tiresome. It will almost always shift into "Coalition against Insurgents", "Left-wing pundits against right-wing pundits", or "Bush against the world", while altogether completely failing to properly address the actual topic. Hell, just today I read a topic about the separation of the church and state and somebody was trying to make it into an Iraq issue on the very first page!

It was whining.

If you view it as that, fine. I thought it was an observation of this forum choking on dead horses from yester-year.

 

[seinfeldrules]

De-railing into off-topic discussion is something I've seen on both "sides", seinfeld. I don't point the finger at anybody when it comes to that.

And I commend you for that, it doesnt seem everyone shares your objectivity.

 

[No Limit]

Ok threads go off topic, no more discussion needs to go in to it. Getting back on track.

--------