Trumpt. you're confusing running a campaign with hypocrisy.
He criticises the other candidates on the issues... the other candidates
did nothing to stop Bush's push for war. And weakly fought his $87 billion no question asked bill.
Calling him unelectable... isn't an issue... it's an attack.
He's been saying that we're now getting screwed by nafta because parts of it are not being enforced... mainly workers right and environmental laws. Just because you sign a treaty doesn't mean it can't ever be re-evaluated... especially after millions of jobs have left the country.
I don't see anything in the conference calls that mentions running ads.
They were suggesting ideas for HOW Bradley should endorse Dean what he should say to put him in the best light during the press interviews and the announcement.
He even apologized to Edwards at the end of the IOWA debate for something he said about him that he found out was false.
And he also said he would support whatever candidate is nominated.
So slam Dean all you want... his support is truly grassroots... and the Draft Clark campaign (that's been essentially ditched) was inspired by the national network of Dean supporters. The average donation to the campaign is $77,
Trumpt. you're confusing running a campaign with hypocrisy.
He criticises the other candidates on the issues... the other candidates
did nothing to stop Bush's push for war. And weakly fought his $87 billion no question asked bill.
Calling him unelectable... isn't an issue... it's an attack.
He's been saying that we're now getting screwed by nafta because parts of it are not being enforced... mainly workers right and environmental laws. Just because you sign a treaty doesn't mean it can't ever be re-evaluated... especially after millions of jobs have left the country.
I don't see anything in the conference calls that mentions running ads.
They were suggesting ideas for HOW Bradley should endorse Dean what he should say to put him in the best light during the press interviews and the announcement.
He even apologized to Edwards at the end of the IOWA debate for something he said about him that he found out was false.
And he also said he would support whatever candidate is nominated.
So slam Dean all you want... his support is truly grassroots... and the Draft Clark campaign (that's been essentially ditched) was inspired by the national network of Dean supporters. The average donation to the campaign is $77,
Real issues? Stop drinking the kool-aid. The article mentions labels the campaign was going to pin on Clark from polls. "Indecisive" how is that a policy? How about "Republican-lite" or as mentioned in the article, "Real Democrat." Still waiting for the policy attacks.
As for NAFTA, again why does he give himself the benefit of hindsight while attacking others? (I mentioned this hypocracy in the nuclear plant thread as well) Hey, I'm Gov. Dean, Bush was wrong to act unilaterally withint U.N. consent. However I will gladly act unilaterally against our allies and the world when I ignore and fight the WTO. I have "modified" my position on NAFTA and that is good. My opponents have modified their position on their war votes and of course that is wrong.....because... well because I'm Howard Dean.
You are right the call didn't mention ads. It mentions talking points and attacks made by the Dean campaign and surrogates over the next several days. Whenever they were talking about Clark, they would mention the "indecisive" talking point. Not because they thought Clark was indecisive, but because Dean had polled badly on that word and so they were going to frame Clark as the "worse of two evils" to the voters in that regard.
From the article..
Quote:
Another staffer indicated that in a survey of voters Monday by telephone, people expressed concern that "this guy (Dean) is indecisive" and Bradley, a former Hall of Fame player in the National Basketball Association and a three-term senator from New Jersey, could help counter that.
"The Bradley message could be, like, (Dean) knew where he stood on the war, is still a Democrat, takes . . . positions, blah, blah, blah," the staffer said.
The next day, the speaker said, "surrogates" for Dean, both local and national, could "then hit Clark on the flip side of the argument: that he's indecisive, didn't know what party he's with, doesn't know his position on the war," she said.
That is label politics. If Dean wants to use it to get past Bush, I suppose someone like you who supports him could claim he had to do wrong to get to where he could do right. But this is against his own party.
I guess you missed Bill Maher on CNN last night saying he likes Dean...
MAHER: Absolutely. That's one reason I'm glad I'm not a politician and why I always say I never would be. It's because you can be ambivalent. When you're a politician, you can't be.
And look at Howard Dean. You can't even be angry. I think being angry is a wonderful thing, especially in this country, when there's so much to be angry about. But, apparently, when Howard Dean gets angry, they say, come on, you're getting away from the party's core principles of spineless lethargy. Let's have a little compassionate complacency among the Democrats.
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: Well, but the concern is that perhaps he doesn't have the temperament for the job good.
MAHER: What does that mean? You can't win.
You know what? If you don't have some passion, then you're a soulless automaton like Al Gore. He didn't have enough passion.
BROWN: Right.
MAHER: But if you have some anger, like Dean does, which is what I like -- it's what I looked about McCain in the year 2000. They said the same thing about him, too angry to be president. He's cranky. Well, you know what? Maybe 5 1/2 years in a box in Vietnam makes you a little cranky. I'm glad he was cranky. He's a guy who is forcing some issues we need to see forced in this country. I think angry people do that.
BROWN: Are you interested in the way the campaign is being covered? Do you think it's -- has it been -- is it just tedious to you?
MAHER: It's infuriating, because it's always about the horse race.
I watched the debate the other day and a lot of the questions were, you're in single digits in the polls. Why is that? Why don't you get out of the race? How come more people aren't voting for you? Well, maybe it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Maybe it's because you guys in the media constantly focus on that. So it's never about the ideas that somebody is presenting.
BROWN: But is it not fair to say that, if you say -- if you ask some really interesting and thoughtful question on Social Security, what you get is a very standard, rehearsed response?
MAHER: That's true, too.
BROWN: Yes.
MAHER: So I don't know where you win there.
BROWN: Right. I guess you just run 30-second ads.
MAHER: But then, if you get the passionate response, you're too angry.
(LAUGHTER)
MAHER: And we can't have the angry people here. Only cows can be mad in this country.
I guess you missed Bill Maher on CNN last night saying he likes Dean...
MAHER: Absolutely. That's one reason I'm glad I'm not a politician and why I always say I never would be. It's because you can be ambivalent. When you're a politician, you can't be.
And look at Howard Dean. You can't even be angry. I think being angry is a wonderful thing, especially in this country, when there's so much to be angry about. But, apparently, when Howard Dean gets angry, they say, come on, you're getting away from the party's core principles of spineless lethargy. Let's have a little compassionate complacency among the Democrats.
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: Well, but the concern is that perhaps he doesn't have the temperament for the job good.
MAHER: What does that mean? You can't win.
You know what? If you don't have some passion, then you're a soulless automaton like Al Gore. He didn't have enough passion.
BROWN: Right.
MAHER: But if you have some anger, like Dean does, which is what I like -- it's what I looked about McCain in the year 2000. They said the same thing about him, too angry to be president. He's cranky. Well, you know what? Maybe 5 1/2 years in a box in Vietnam makes you a little cranky. I'm glad he was cranky. He's a guy who is forcing some issues we need to see forced in this country. I think angry people do that.
BROWN: Are you interested in the way the campaign is being covered? Do you think it's -- has it been -- is it just tedious to you?
MAHER: It's infuriating, because it's always about the horse race.
I watched the debate the other day and a lot of the questions were, you're in single digits in the polls. Why is that? Why don't you get out of the race? How come more people aren't voting for you? Well, maybe it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Maybe it's because you guys in the media constantly focus on that. So it's never about the ideas that somebody is presenting.
BROWN: But is it not fair to say that, if you say -- if you ask some really interesting and thoughtful question on Social Security, what you get is a very standard, rehearsed response?
MAHER: That's true, too.
BROWN: Yes.
MAHER: So I don't know where you win there.
BROWN: Right. I guess you just run 30-second ads.
MAHER: But then, if you get the passionate response, you're too angry.
(LAUGHTER)
MAHER: And we can't have the angry people here. Only cows can be mad in this country.
Thanks for the quote because I do enjoy Maher's humor. However this just seems a nice bit about why it is okay to express passion/anger in politics. I don't see a Dean endorsement in there.
Thanks for the quote because I do enjoy Maher's humor. However this just seems a nice bit about why it is okay to express passion/anger in politics. I don't see a Dean endorsement in there.
I'm sorry bunge. I don't mean to scare you with big words. I'll go back to kindergarten and only say "like."
I don't see where he said he "liked" Dean. Just that this just seems a nice bit about why it is okay to express passion/anger in politics.
Attention all, no synonyms, especially if bunge doesn't understand/like them. That is all.
Nick
Attack me because I stymied your point? It's a sad state of affairs. Why don't you just argue honestly so you don't have to resort to personal attacks when your points are proven to be false?
Attack me because I stymied your point? It's a sad state of affairs. Why don't you just argue honestly so you don't have to resort to personal attacks when your points are proven to be false?
You are insane. I restated it with the kindergarten word and it was no more wrong than before.
Find for me where Maher says he like Dean oh parsemaster. You can't because he says he likes anger. He liked Dean being able to show it and like McCain for it too.
Quote:
MAHER: But if you have some anger, like Dean does, which is what I like -- it's what I looked about McCain in the year 2000. They said the same thing about him, too angry to be president. He's cranky. Well, you know what? Maybe 5 1/2 years in a box in Vietnam makes you a little cranky. I'm glad he was cranky. He's a guy who is forcing some issues we need to see forced in this country. I think angry people do that.
Your hypocracy is astounding. When people give approval to a politician, it is said that they "endorse" them. I'm sorry if you don't enjoy conventional understanding of English. I'm further sorry that I can't speak like a 6 year old and use appropriate language "I like Dean. Dean good guy. Dean my friend."
So go find where Maher said he even "liked" Dean oh master hypocrite.
But it was obvious that he liked the guy. He also mentions McCain basically in the same breath and he's said in the past that he likes him.
It's not exactly a leap of faith to think that Maher acutally likes the guy. God forbid.
Sure it is a leap. I even quoted the part of the transcript where you made that leap. You attributed (oh I'm sorry ummm...gave) like to Dean, when the subject was anger. Anger was what Dean and McCain brought to the political process and what Maher liked. He likes that characteristic, not that person.
You are insane. I restated it with the kindergarten word and it was no more wrong than before.
Find for me where Maher says he like Dean oh parsemaster. You can't because he says he likes anger. He liked Dean being able to show it and like McCain for it too.
Attack me because you're wrong and you don't like to hear it? That's big of you.
I'm sorry bunge. I don't mean to scare you with big words. I'll go back to kindergarten and only say "like."
Attention all, no synonyms, especially if bunge doesn't understand/like them. That is all.
Nick
Nick it would seem you are being corrected for what you jumped all over ShawnJ about in his "Will the French Indict Cheney?" thread when he used the word "notorious". You were very very very hard on ShawnJ for the use of the word in his thread in fact here are some snipsOh, in true Shawn fashion I'll declare myself right through all the replies since you made up the word notorious and lied about the subcontractor. ((BUT)) I see you above mention the bit about synonyms in your own personal frustration that bunge called you on. I may like various qualities about a given politician but that is not to say I endorse them. I think this is a simple correction in terms. Bunge did not go at you personally and attack you. You on the other hand went on a hay day of mocking ShawnJ in a personal way as to tag him the "parser of posts" as you stated when you said: "Well since Hassan, doesn?t like my humor, I?ll act like someone else he appreciates. I?ll become Shawn the parser of posts." In that last statement you seem to be upset at Hassan because he does not like your humor, you are upset with ShawnJ for his useage of a word in the thread and now you hurl personal attack at bunge saying things like: "I'm sorry bunge. I don't mean to scare you with big words. I'll go back to kindergarten and only say "like."
I hope you see how this is not respectful to any of the members. I tell you this because I do respect you and it is sad to see this kind of personal statements directed to to many here from you.
I respect you Nick I just hope you see what I am saying with this post.
Look Chu, I'll give you a break because honestly, I'm not the type that likes thrashing people over one word. (Only when I feel like hitting on Shawn with his own tactics.)
I do think that Maher respects Dean for his passion. I think he also respected McCain for this. It is obvious that while you claim he doesn't like Bush (not hard to imagine) that he also knocks Gore for a lack of passion.
Either way Maher is a funny man, but wouldn't influence my vote.
Attack me because you're wrong and you don't like to hear it? That's big of you.
Find for me where Maher says he like Dean oh parsemaster. You can't because he says he likes anger. He liked Dean being able to show it and like McCain for it too.
Interesting, because the only time these 'parse' arguments come up is in discussions with you--in fact *every* discussion with you and *none* without you.
So maybe you should step back and reflect on why that might be. However, somehow I'm sure you'll figure out a way to convince yourself it's everyone elses fault.
[B]Nick it would seem you are being corrected for what you jumped all over ShawnJ about in his "Will the French Indict Cheney?" thread when he used the word "notorious". You were very very very hard on ShawnJ for the use of the word in his thread in fact here are some snipsOh, in true Shawn fashion I'll declare myself right through all the replies since you made up the word notorious and lied about the subcontractor.
What I am trying to put across Fellowship is that using a word for normal speech is not a lie. I demonstrated this behavior in Shawn's thread because Shawn is rather infamous about this.
As you noted, and have chastized me about, I don't normally demonstrate this behavior. You are 100% right in that regard. Likewise you are correct that many times the person who does demonstrate that type of behavior also includes a personal attack or two. The point is that I have INTENTIONALLY reflected back this behavior in that thread (and again inconsistant from how I normally post) to show how ridiculous that behavior looks.
Spending 10 posts discussing whether Halliburton is "notorous" is silly. I fully agree with that point. However think about how many threads on here are tossed off-base and turned into garbage because of such nonsense.
There are people on here who disparage everything about someone they disagree with. They complain about the thread titles, the sources/links, their jokes, and then even make assumptions about their backgrounds, etc. All of these things constitute personal attacks in my book. I just figured I would give the main practitioner a dose of his own medicine.
Quote:
I see you above mention the bit about synonyms in your own personal frustration that bunge called you on. I may like various qualities about a given politician but that is not to say I endorse them. I think this is a simple correction in terms. Bunge did not go at you personally and attack you.
You are right that Bunge did not go at me personally or attack me via name calling. But he did demonstrate the same behavior via the "your point is wrong because I don't like your word." I did knock him a bit harder for it, but only because he so often demonstrates discourse that is so much better than that. Bunge (in my view) is much better than the dismissive one line comments or inferential questions.
So to Bunge. I'm sorry I attacked you.
Quote:
You on the other hand went on a hay day of mocking ShawnJ in a personal way as to tag him the "parser of posts" as you stated when you said: "Well since Hassan, doesn?t like my humor, I?ll act like someone else he appreciates. I?ll become Shawn the parser of posts." In that last statement you seem to be upset at Hassan because he does not like your humor, you are upset with ShawnJ for his useage of a word in the thread and now you hurl personal attack at bunge saying things like: "I'm sorry bunge. I don't mean to scare you with big words. I'll go back to kindergarten and only say "like."
I gave Bunge the apology and he deserves it. I wasn't upset at Hassan regarding my humor. It was because of his hypocracy, an issue I have acknowleged as a personal pet peeve. We see people drop links in threads all the time. Hassan was showing a double standard. If I were giant dropping off a Bush is a fascist link, he wouldn't complain about the link or the humor. So his double standard was just being exposed.
Interesting, because the only time these 'parse' arguments come up is in discussions with you--in fact *every* discussion with you and *none* without you.
So maybe you should step back and reflect on why that might be. However, somehow I'm sure you'll figure out a way to convince yourself it's everyone elses fault.
Every discussion with me, and none with out. What a nice generalization you have made. Actually people around here do this often, I am just the one calling them on it. Not everyone has the presence to point out the cheap tactics being used here. It takes knowledge not only of your own view but understanding of the opposing view as well. For example say someone claimed Bush cut education. I might post an article shows the real number of dollars went up, even exceeded inflation, but did not meet the Democratic demands for education and thus labeled him as having ?cut? education funding.
They would then want to argue and debate why it is still a ?cut? even when the monetary amount went up accounting for people, and inflation.
This type of discussion isn?t going to occur though if someone didn?t fire back with real facts, figures, and the knowledge as to why the other side was calling it a ?cut? in the first place.
So I would say this happens with me more since I actually dig into the minutia of not only one side, but of both sides of an argument. I would know in the hypothetical above what the Democratic demands were for education and know they were calling the lack of meeting them a ?cut.?
It happens with others on here as well. Jimmac and SDW2001 for example are rather famous for discussing what constitutes ?growth? in the economy. They couldn?t go round and round with facts, figures their interpretations and predictions based off of them if they brought no facts, figures or understand to the discussion.
Secondly, you have a strange habit of assuming a handful of people on these forums constitute "everyone." You demontrate this popularity fallacy often. (Note when you later complain that this only comes up in threads with me, it is again because I point it out and catch you in your fallacy)
Do you have an answer as to why you employ this fallacy over and over? Do you honestly believe that what is popular is always true or right? Using your reasoning, Britney Spears is the "best" singer.
So you have your answer, and I suppose now a need to find a new fallacy to employ.
Comments
He criticises the other candidates on the issues... the other candidates
did nothing to stop Bush's push for war. And weakly fought his $87 billion no question asked bill.
Calling him unelectable... isn't an issue... it's an attack.
He's been saying that we're now getting screwed by nafta because parts of it are not being enforced... mainly workers right and environmental laws. Just because you sign a treaty doesn't mean it can't ever be re-evaluated... especially after millions of jobs have left the country.
I don't see anything in the conference calls that mentions running ads.
They were suggesting ideas for HOW Bradley should endorse Dean what he should say to put him in the best light during the press interviews and the announcement.
He even apologized to Edwards at the end of the IOWA debate for something he said about him that he found out was false.
And he also said he would support whatever candidate is nominated.
So slam Dean all you want... his support is truly grassroots... and the Draft Clark campaign (that's been essentially ditched) was inspired by the national network of Dean supporters. The average donation to the campaign is $77,
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Trumpt. you're confusing running a campaign with hypocrisy.
He criticises the other candidates on the issues... the other candidates
did nothing to stop Bush's push for war. And weakly fought his $87 billion no question asked bill.
Calling him unelectable... isn't an issue... it's an attack.
He's been saying that we're now getting screwed by nafta because parts of it are not being enforced... mainly workers right and environmental laws. Just because you sign a treaty doesn't mean it can't ever be re-evaluated... especially after millions of jobs have left the country.
I don't see anything in the conference calls that mentions running ads.
They were suggesting ideas for HOW Bradley should endorse Dean what he should say to put him in the best light during the press interviews and the announcement.
He even apologized to Edwards at the end of the IOWA debate for something he said about him that he found out was false.
And he also said he would support whatever candidate is nominated.
So slam Dean all you want... his support is truly grassroots... and the Draft Clark campaign (that's been essentially ditched) was inspired by the national network of Dean supporters. The average donation to the campaign is $77,
Real issues? Stop drinking the kool-aid. The article mentions labels the campaign was going to pin on Clark from polls. "Indecisive" how is that a policy? How about "Republican-lite" or as mentioned in the article, "Real Democrat." Still waiting for the policy attacks.
As for NAFTA, again why does he give himself the benefit of hindsight while attacking others? (I mentioned this hypocracy in the nuclear plant thread as well) Hey, I'm Gov. Dean, Bush was wrong to act unilaterally withint U.N. consent. However I will gladly act unilaterally against our allies and the world when I ignore and fight the WTO. I have "modified" my position on NAFTA and that is good. My opponents have modified their position on their war votes and of course that is wrong.....because... well because I'm Howard Dean.
You are right the call didn't mention ads. It mentions talking points and attacks made by the Dean campaign and surrogates over the next several days. Whenever they were talking about Clark, they would mention the "indecisive" talking point. Not because they thought Clark was indecisive, but because Dean had polled badly on that word and so they were going to frame Clark as the "worse of two evils" to the voters in that regard.
From the article..
Another staffer indicated that in a survey of voters Monday by telephone, people expressed concern that "this guy (Dean) is indecisive" and Bradley, a former Hall of Fame player in the National Basketball Association and a three-term senator from New Jersey, could help counter that.
"The Bradley message could be, like, (Dean) knew where he stood on the war, is still a Democrat, takes . . . positions, blah, blah, blah," the staffer said.
The next day, the speaker said, "surrogates" for Dean, both local and national, could "then hit Clark on the flip side of the argument: that he's indecisive, didn't know what party he's with, doesn't know his position on the war," she said.
That is label politics. If Dean wants to use it to get past Bush, I suppose someone like you who supports him could claim he had to do wrong to get to where he could do right. But this is against his own party.
Nick
It's like complaining about rain.
It's all a matter a of degrees.
And you support a President whose campaign LIED about it's opposition and then called him a liar.
So post your daily diatribes against Dean.
They're transparent and become more like static everyday.
MAHER: Absolutely. That's one reason I'm glad I'm not a politician and why I always say I never would be. It's because you can be ambivalent. When you're a politician, you can't be.
And look at Howard Dean. You can't even be angry. I think being angry is a wonderful thing, especially in this country, when there's so much to be angry about. But, apparently, when Howard Dean gets angry, they say, come on, you're getting away from the party's core principles of spineless lethargy. Let's have a little compassionate complacency among the Democrats.
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: Well, but the concern is that perhaps he doesn't have the temperament for the job good.
MAHER: What does that mean? You can't win.
You know what? If you don't have some passion, then you're a soulless automaton like Al Gore. He didn't have enough passion.
BROWN: Right.
MAHER: But if you have some anger, like Dean does, which is what I like -- it's what I looked about McCain in the year 2000. They said the same thing about him, too angry to be president. He's cranky. Well, you know what? Maybe 5 1/2 years in a box in Vietnam makes you a little cranky. I'm glad he was cranky. He's a guy who is forcing some issues we need to see forced in this country. I think angry people do that.
BROWN: Are you interested in the way the campaign is being covered? Do you think it's -- has it been -- is it just tedious to you?
MAHER: It's infuriating, because it's always about the horse race.
I watched the debate the other day and a lot of the questions were, you're in single digits in the polls. Why is that? Why don't you get out of the race? How come more people aren't voting for you? Well, maybe it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Maybe it's because you guys in the media constantly focus on that. So it's never about the ideas that somebody is presenting.
BROWN: But is it not fair to say that, if you say -- if you ask some really interesting and thoughtful question on Social Security, what you get is a very standard, rehearsed response?
MAHER: That's true, too.
BROWN: Yes.
MAHER: So I don't know where you win there.
BROWN: Right. I guess you just run 30-second ads.
MAHER: But then, if you get the passionate response, you're too angry.
(LAUGHTER)
MAHER: And we can't have the angry people here. Only cows can be mad in this country.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I guess you missed Bill Maher on CNN last night saying he likes Dean...
MAHER: Absolutely. That's one reason I'm glad I'm not a politician and why I always say I never would be. It's because you can be ambivalent. When you're a politician, you can't be.
And look at Howard Dean. You can't even be angry. I think being angry is a wonderful thing, especially in this country, when there's so much to be angry about. But, apparently, when Howard Dean gets angry, they say, come on, you're getting away from the party's core principles of spineless lethargy. Let's have a little compassionate complacency among the Democrats.
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: Well, but the concern is that perhaps he doesn't have the temperament for the job good.
MAHER: What does that mean? You can't win.
You know what? If you don't have some passion, then you're a soulless automaton like Al Gore. He didn't have enough passion.
BROWN: Right.
MAHER: But if you have some anger, like Dean does, which is what I like -- it's what I looked about McCain in the year 2000. They said the same thing about him, too angry to be president. He's cranky. Well, you know what? Maybe 5 1/2 years in a box in Vietnam makes you a little cranky. I'm glad he was cranky. He's a guy who is forcing some issues we need to see forced in this country. I think angry people do that.
BROWN: Are you interested in the way the campaign is being covered? Do you think it's -- has it been -- is it just tedious to you?
MAHER: It's infuriating, because it's always about the horse race.
I watched the debate the other day and a lot of the questions were, you're in single digits in the polls. Why is that? Why don't you get out of the race? How come more people aren't voting for you? Well, maybe it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Maybe it's because you guys in the media constantly focus on that. So it's never about the ideas that somebody is presenting.
BROWN: But is it not fair to say that, if you say -- if you ask some really interesting and thoughtful question on Social Security, what you get is a very standard, rehearsed response?
MAHER: That's true, too.
BROWN: Yes.
MAHER: So I don't know where you win there.
BROWN: Right. I guess you just run 30-second ads.
MAHER: But then, if you get the passionate response, you're too angry.
(LAUGHTER)
MAHER: And we can't have the angry people here. Only cows can be mad in this country.
Thanks for the quote because I do enjoy Maher's humor. However this just seems a nice bit about why it is okay to express passion/anger in politics. I don't see a Dean endorsement in there.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Thanks for the quote because I do enjoy Maher's humor. However this just seems a nice bit about why it is okay to express passion/anger in politics. I don't see a Dean endorsement in there.
Nick
Did chu_bakka say Maher endorsed Dean?
Originally posted by bunge
Did chu_bakka say Maher endorsed Dean?
I'm sorry bunge. I don't mean to scare you with big words. I'll go back to kindergarten and only say "like."
I don't see where he said he "liked" Dean. Just that this just seems a nice bit about why it is okay to express passion/anger in politics.
Attention all, no synonyms, especially if bunge doesn't understand/like them. That is all.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I'm sorry bunge. I don't mean to scare you with big words. I'll go back to kindergarten and only say "like."
I don't see where he said he "liked" Dean. Just that this just seems a nice bit about why it is okay to express passion/anger in politics.
Attention all, no synonyms, especially if bunge doesn't understand/like them. That is all.
Nick
Attack me because I stymied your point? It's a sad state of affairs. Why don't you just argue honestly so you don't have to resort to personal attacks when your points are proven to be false?
Originally posted by bunge
Attack me because I stymied your point? It's a sad state of affairs. Why don't you just argue honestly so you don't have to resort to personal attacks when your points are proven to be false?
You are insane. I restated it with the kindergarten word and it was no more wrong than before.
Find for me where Maher says he like Dean oh parsemaster. You can't because he says he likes anger. He liked Dean being able to show it and like McCain for it too.
MAHER: But if you have some anger, like Dean does, which is what I like -- it's what I looked about McCain in the year 2000. They said the same thing about him, too angry to be president. He's cranky. Well, you know what? Maybe 5 1/2 years in a box in Vietnam makes you a little cranky. I'm glad he was cranky. He's a guy who is forcing some issues we need to see forced in this country. I think angry people do that.
Your hypocracy is astounding. When people give approval to a politician, it is said that they "endorse" them. I'm sorry if you don't enjoy conventional understanding of English. I'm further sorry that I can't speak like a 6 year old and use appropriate language "I like Dean. Dean good guy. Dean my friend."
So go find where Maher said he even "liked" Dean oh master hypocrite.
Nick
No Maher did not endorse Dean.
But it was obvious that he liked the guy. He also mentions McCain basically in the same breath and he's said in the past that he likes him.
It's not exactly a leap of faith to think that Maher acutally likes the guy. God forbid.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Damn. I saw the fricking interview!
No Maher did not endorse Dean.
But it was obvious that he liked the guy. He also mentions McCain basically in the same breath and he's said in the past that he likes him.
It's not exactly a leap of faith to think that Maher acutally likes the guy. God forbid.
Sure it is a leap. I even quoted the part of the transcript where you made that leap. You attributed (oh I'm sorry ummm...gave) like to Dean, when the subject was anger. Anger was what Dean and McCain brought to the political process and what Maher liked. He likes that characteristic, not that person.
Nick
Did he say he doesn't like Dean?
You do notice that he's defending Dean.
Why defend someone you don't like?
The transcript doesn't convey his demeanor
during the appearance.
I say he likes him.
Nothing in the appearance indicated he doesn't.
He's also said he DOESN'T like Bush.
Originally posted by trumptman
You are insane. I restated it with the kindergarten word and it was no more wrong than before.
Find for me where Maher says he like Dean oh parsemaster. You can't because he says he likes anger. He liked Dean being able to show it and like McCain for it too.
Attack me because you're wrong and you don't like to hear it? That's big of you.
Originally posted by trumptman
I'm sorry bunge. I don't mean to scare you with big words. I'll go back to kindergarten and only say "like."
Attention all, no synonyms, especially if bunge doesn't understand/like them. That is all.
Nick
Nick it would seem you are being corrected for what you jumped all over ShawnJ about in his "Will the French Indict Cheney?" thread when he used the word "notorious". You were very very very hard on ShawnJ for the use of the word in his thread in fact here are some snipsOh, in true Shawn fashion I'll declare myself right through all the replies since you made up the word notorious and lied about the subcontractor. ((BUT)) I see you above mention the bit about synonyms in your own personal frustration that bunge called you on. I may like various qualities about a given politician but that is not to say I endorse them. I think this is a simple correction in terms. Bunge did not go at you personally and attack you. You on the other hand went on a hay day of mocking ShawnJ in a personal way as to tag him the "parser of posts" as you stated when you said: "Well since Hassan, doesn?t like my humor, I?ll act like someone else he appreciates. I?ll become Shawn the parser of posts." In that last statement you seem to be upset at Hassan because he does not like your humor, you are upset with ShawnJ for his useage of a word in the thread and now you hurl personal attack at bunge saying things like: "I'm sorry bunge. I don't mean to scare you with big words. I'll go back to kindergarten and only say "like."
I hope you see how this is not respectful to any of the members. I tell you this because I do respect you and it is sad to see this kind of personal statements directed to to many here from you.
I respect you Nick I just hope you see what I am saying with this post.
Fellowship
Originally posted by chu_bakka
He's said he likes McCain.
Did he say he doesn't like Dean?
You do notice that he's defending Dean.
Why defend someone you don't like?
The transcript doesn't convey his demeanor
during the appearance.
I say he likes him.
Nothing in the appearance indicated he doesn't.
He's also said he DOESN'T like Bush.
Look Chu, I'll give you a break because honestly, I'm not the type that likes thrashing people over one word. (Only when I feel like hitting on Shawn with his own tactics.)
I do think that Maher respects Dean for his passion. I think he also respected McCain for this. It is obvious that while you claim he doesn't like Bush (not hard to imagine) that he also knocks Gore for a lack of passion.
Either way Maher is a funny man, but wouldn't influence my vote.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
Attack me because you're wrong and you don't like to hear it? That's big of you.
Find for me where Maher says he like Dean oh parsemaster. You can't because he says he likes anger. He liked Dean being able to show it and like McCain for it too.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
parsemaster.
Interesting, because the only time these 'parse' arguments come up is in discussions with you--in fact *every* discussion with you and *none* without you.
So maybe you should step back and reflect on why that might be. However, somehow I'm sure you'll figure out a way to convince yourself it's everyone elses fault.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
[B]Nick it would seem you are being corrected for what you jumped all over ShawnJ about in his "Will the French Indict Cheney?" thread when he used the word "notorious". You were very very very hard on ShawnJ for the use of the word in his thread in fact here are some snipsOh, in true Shawn fashion I'll declare myself right through all the replies since you made up the word notorious and lied about the subcontractor.
What I am trying to put across Fellowship is that using a word for normal speech is not a lie. I demonstrated this behavior in Shawn's thread because Shawn is rather infamous about this.
As you noted, and have chastized me about, I don't normally demonstrate this behavior. You are 100% right in that regard. Likewise you are correct that many times the person who does demonstrate that type of behavior also includes a personal attack or two. The point is that I have INTENTIONALLY reflected back this behavior in that thread (and again inconsistant from how I normally post) to show how ridiculous that behavior looks.
Spending 10 posts discussing whether Halliburton is "notorous" is silly. I fully agree with that point. However think about how many threads on here are tossed off-base and turned into garbage because of such nonsense.
There are people on here who disparage everything about someone they disagree with. They complain about the thread titles, the sources/links, their jokes, and then even make assumptions about their backgrounds, etc. All of these things constitute personal attacks in my book. I just figured I would give the main practitioner a dose of his own medicine.
I see you above mention the bit about synonyms in your own personal frustration that bunge called you on. I may like various qualities about a given politician but that is not to say I endorse them. I think this is a simple correction in terms. Bunge did not go at you personally and attack you.
You are right that Bunge did not go at me personally or attack me via name calling. But he did demonstrate the same behavior via the "your point is wrong because I don't like your word." I did knock him a bit harder for it, but only because he so often demonstrates discourse that is so much better than that. Bunge (in my view) is much better than the dismissive one line comments or inferential questions.
So to Bunge. I'm sorry I attacked you.
You on the other hand went on a hay day of mocking ShawnJ in a personal way as to tag him the "parser of posts" as you stated when you said: "Well since Hassan, doesn?t like my humor, I?ll act like someone else he appreciates. I?ll become Shawn the parser of posts." In that last statement you seem to be upset at Hassan because he does not like your humor, you are upset with ShawnJ for his useage of a word in the thread and now you hurl personal attack at bunge saying things like: "I'm sorry bunge. I don't mean to scare you with big words. I'll go back to kindergarten and only say "like."
I gave Bunge the apology and he deserves it. I wasn't upset at Hassan regarding my humor. It was because of his hypocracy, an issue I have acknowleged as a personal pet peeve. We see people drop links in threads all the time. Hassan was showing a double standard. If I were giant dropping off a Bush is a fascist link, he wouldn't complain about the link or the humor. So his double standard was just being exposed.
Hope that clears this up for you.
Nick
Originally posted by giant
Interesting, because the only time these 'parse' arguments come up is in discussions with you--in fact *every* discussion with you and *none* without you.
So maybe you should step back and reflect on why that might be. However, somehow I'm sure you'll figure out a way to convince yourself it's everyone elses fault.
Every discussion with me, and none with out. What a nice generalization you have made. Actually people around here do this often, I am just the one calling them on it. Not everyone has the presence to point out the cheap tactics being used here. It takes knowledge not only of your own view but understanding of the opposing view as well. For example say someone claimed Bush cut education. I might post an article shows the real number of dollars went up, even exceeded inflation, but did not meet the Democratic demands for education and thus labeled him as having ?cut? education funding.
They would then want to argue and debate why it is still a ?cut? even when the monetary amount went up accounting for people, and inflation.
This type of discussion isn?t going to occur though if someone didn?t fire back with real facts, figures, and the knowledge as to why the other side was calling it a ?cut? in the first place.
So I would say this happens with me more since I actually dig into the minutia of not only one side, but of both sides of an argument. I would know in the hypothetical above what the Democratic demands were for education and know they were calling the lack of meeting them a ?cut.?
It happens with others on here as well. Jimmac and SDW2001 for example are rather famous for discussing what constitutes ?growth? in the economy. They couldn?t go round and round with facts, figures their interpretations and predictions based off of them if they brought no facts, figures or understand to the discussion.
Secondly, you have a strange habit of assuming a handful of people on these forums constitute "everyone." You demontrate this popularity fallacy often. (Note when you later complain that this only comes up in threads with me, it is again because I point it out and catch you in your fallacy)
Do you have an answer as to why you employ this fallacy over and over? Do you honestly believe that what is popular is always true or right? Using your reasoning, Britney Spears is the "best" singer.
So you have your answer, and I suppose now a need to find a new fallacy to employ.
Nick