Pity for the Impotent Dick - Page 2

skippy3481 · #21 06-25-2007, 10:43 PM

GR,
I understand what your saying and you post is precisely what I mean. I want to read posts that are least rationale, but it irrates me to no end to see someone just post a link just regurgitate what the article said. I can read, what im interested in is the posters original thoughts are on the subject. If i just wanted to read the news I would. I don't agree with a good a deal of what you and dts say, but that doesn't mean I enjoy reading your viewpoints. People who have differing viewpoints help to refine how i view a problem or situation. My point is this, come up with something original to a situation. Great discussion happens when people of opposing viewpoints can share viewpoints in a civil and meaningful way. Making light of a topic or the overt usage satire are not always the best weapons. In the future, I'll just ignore his posts, I was merely trying to generate an actual discussion on what I deem to be an interesting topic.

timmgirvan · #22 06-25-2007, 10:45 PM

The Democrats can't get out of the way of themselves,much less do something positive in Congress!

GenuineRisk · #23 06-26-2007, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Did they vote on this or did Dick Cheney illegally order it?

How long since Katrina? And how does New Orleans look these days? And we're supposed to be the richest and most powerful nation in the world and we can't rebuild one darn city?

This administration has proved beyond a doubt that when you put people who have open contempt for government in charge, they will do a crummy job running it.

GenuineRisk · #24 06-26-2007, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

The Democrats can't get out of the way of themselves,much less do something positive in Congress!

Ah, Timm, one can always count on you to toss out regurgitated Rush Limbaugh with nothing to back it up. I'll go check the Margaret Sanger thread since I think you've posted on it since then.

GenuineRisk · #25 06-26-2007, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skippy3481

GR,
I understand what your saying and you post is precisely what I mean. I want to read posts that are least rationale, but it irrates me to no end to see someone just post a link just regurgitate what the article said. I can read, what im interested in is the posters original thoughts are on the subject. If i just wanted to read the news I would. I don't agree with a good a deal of what you and dts say, but that doesn't mean I enjoy reading your viewpoints. People who have differing viewpoints help to refine how i view a problem or situation. My point is this, come up with something original to a situation. Great discussion happens when people of opposing viewpoints can share viewpoints in a civil and meaningful way. Making light of a topic or the overt usage satire are not always the best weapons. In the future, I'll just ignore his posts, I was merely trying to generate an actual discussion on what I deem to be an interesting topic.

I think though, the posting of links is to attempt to give some credence to what one is saying- it's all well and good for me to say "Cheney supports torture" but if I can't back it up with facts, it's just me yammering, much like right-wingers who scream about Hillary being a lesbian (how someone's sexual preferences, true or not, became a criticism of character, I don't know, but they sure like to throw that rumor around a lot without any backup). Admittedly, I don't see the point in posting someone else's commentary, unless it says something funnier or more eloquently than I can (and lots of people say lots of things funnier or more eloquently than I can; it's why those people get paid to do it).

I like to read most of the links posted, though, and I think it's worth taking a look at opposing views, because many times, if the writer is any good, he or she will have some points to make. And if I disagree with the viewpoint, I need to be able to articulate why (a good example is the article condemning the HPV vaccine that Timm posted a while back- read the article thoroughly and it was clear it was playing fast and loose with the facts, but I had to read it through a few times to figure out what was not ringing true, and that improved my critical thinking skills, so thanks for that, Timm. Seriously.

).

What I find irritating, honestly, is people attacking someone's points without reading the links the person has posted to support them. It's like they're so terrified they'll find something to change their minds they won't look at it. Read the link. Or don't comment on it. Whatever. Not so hard. Lord knows I'm not perfect in that respect myself, but at least I try.

Downthestretch55 · #26 06-26-2007, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I think though, the posting of links is to attempt to give some credence to what one is saying- it's all well and good for me to say "Cheney supports torture" but if I can't back it up with facts, it's just me yammering, much like right-wingers who scream about Hillary being a lesbian (how someone's sexual preferences, true or not, became a criticism of character, I don't know, but they sure like to throw that rumor around a lot without any backup). Admittedly, I don't see the point in posting someone else's commentary, unless it says something funnier or more eloquently than I can (and lots of people say lots of things funnier or more eloquently than I can; it's why those people get paid to do it).

I like to read most of the links posted, though, and I think it's worth taking a look at opposing views, because many times, if the writer is any good, he or she will have some points to make. And if I disagree with the viewpoint, I need to be able to articulate why (a good example is the article condemning the HPV vaccine that Timm posted a while back- read the article thoroughly and it was clear it was playing fast and loose with the facts, but I had to read it through a few times to figure out what was not ringing true, and that improved my critical thinking skills, so thanks for that, Timm. Seriously.

).

What I find irritating, honestly, is people attacking someone's points without reading the links the person has posted to support them. It's like they're so terrified they'll find something to change their minds they won't look at it. Read the link. Or don't comment on it. Whatever. Not so hard. Lord knows I'm not perfect in that respect myself, but at least I try.

You said that in a more respectful manner than I would have. Thanks.

Cannon Shell · #27 06-26-2007, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

How long since Katrina? And how does New Orleans look these days? And we're supposed to be the richest and most powerful nation in the world and we can't rebuild one darn city?

You are kidding right? You cant be serious?

GenuineRisk · #28 06-26-2007, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

I won't speak for skippy, but the problem seems to be that most of the links posted are by someone who seems incapable of fully understanding, let alone defending or explaining, anything written by the acutal authors. Partisan hackiness is really irritating, and I think that is where many of the comments and satire come from re the posting of links. I mean, if you think about it, how many people here get ribbed for posting links? Most of the time, the poster gets thanked for the link. So, there must be a reason besides the posting of links for the ribbing...

Right, but then just don't comment on it. Because it makes the respondant look dumb, and depending on the tone of the responding post, also angry and mean to say, "That's a stupid link I didn't read." A lot of the responses aren't so much funny as they are just mean (and I've seen this on both sides, so I'm not pointing fingers at just one side) and that makes me think less of the person responding. It's easy to call names and throw out what one thinks are witty bon mots but in fact are just schoolyard-level bullying. Address the issue or don't. The issue. Must remember that myself.

kenny p · #29 06-26-2007, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

How will the dems have any shot with the top 3 they currently have? Do you honestly think that someone as polarizing as Hillary has a shot? Obama? Sadly the south isn't ready for that, and the muslim deal will get beat into the ground. Edwards? Maybe, but Hillary and Obama aren't helping his chances of getting the nomination.

Watch and see what happens. We'll have another actor turned politician in the White House.

You might have faith in our fellow americans, I don't.

Next president= Hillary

SentToStud · #30 06-26-2007, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

People are being seized out of suburbia on a daily basis!!

They're certainly being seized out of suburban Baghdad daily.

#31 06-26-2007, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

How long since Katrina? And how does New Orleans look these days? And we're supposed to be the richest and most powerful nation in the world and we can't rebuild one darn city?

This administration has proved beyond a doubt that when you put people who have open contempt for government in charge, they will do a crummy job running it.

GR with all due respect New Orleans needs to be rebuilt in a place other than a river delta. Building a city next to an ocean that is 15 ft below sea level is just plain stupid. The Corps of Engineers knows this. You can levy, and canal all you want, and it will not help the situation when the right storm strikes again, which will most certainly happen.

Off topic. Sorry. Back to Cheney. And that rounds it off to 2,540 posts. Laters.

SentToStud · #32 06-26-2007, 01:36 PM

Hopefully Bloomberg can turn $500 Million into a win and we'll have a president who actually accomplished something while being held accountable.

Congress right now is a total joke. Congressmen have to start running for reelection as soon as they are voted in and forget about the Senate. Senators are the crown princes of our society. There is actually very little incentive for Senators to do anything other than worry about being reelected.

People dislike the republicans for their religious connection and the current administration, not so much for their flaunting power -- since they all do it -- but there certainly appears to be an almost measurable smugness as they go about it.

It's really too bad for Bush. He has no chance for being remembered during the next 20 years for anything other than Iraq.

And screw the Democrats. Their campaigning on earmark reform was a sham as they almost all recently declined to publish their own earmarks, choosing to now call it 'legislatively-directed spending' instead of pork. And while everyone agrees immigration reform is needed, the Democrats will fight to the death before allowing something to pass. It's obvious they do not want a solution. They want the issue.

Screw 'em all.

#33 06-26-2007, 01:41 PM

Vote none of the above!!

Downthestretch55 · #34 06-26-2007, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Right, but then just don't comment on it. Because it makes the respondant look dumb, and depending on the tone of the responding post, also angry and mean to say, "That's a stupid link I didn't read." A lot of the responses aren't so much funny as they are just mean (and I've seen this on both sides, so I'm not pointing fingers at just one side) and that makes me think less of the person responding. It's easy to call names and throw out what one thinks are witty bon mots but in fact are just schoolyard-level bullying. Address the issue or don't. The issue. Must remember that myself.

Genuine Risk,
Does it surprise you that those that complain about links regarding Cheney, despite not having read them, have yet to post a comment concerning Cheney? Disagreeing with views seems ok to me, but childish attacks on the person that posts those differing views shows the bankruptcy of "thought".
Back to discussion of the vice president, please.

Danzig · #35 06-26-2007, 02:10 PM

i really wonder tho how much of an open mind people have--if you are far left, or far right, or dyed in the wool conservative or republican, you won't change your mind one whit based on any link anyone posts. if you read it and disagree ( and chances are you will) exactly what have you accomplished by reading it? or the link posted will face accusations by one side of being biased for the other. seems also that one side is all for using such an argument, as long as the other side is the one being swayed to what is right and true!

yeah, dick cheney is what he is. not as bad as some say, or as good as others. he's your typical pol, the R version of harry reid, who is what he is as well. they are party members who toe the party line for ever and ever amen. now pass the collection basket.

SentToStud · #36 06-26-2007, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Here! Here!

STS for Prez!

lol. ... and if elected, I will not serve. But here is my platform.

Free Health Insurance for Everyone! Go to f---ing Britain where it's free. Free after a 8% tax to employees and a similar payroll tax on employers. Then go f---ing wait for 6 months to see a doctor for anything not life threatening. And no offense, but the English have got to be the a ss-ugliest looking people who ever were. I guess 2000 years of isolation on an island gave them few options.

Immigration: Stop worrying about a few fish in the Rio Grande. I say build a f---ing moat. If I can put invisible dog fencing around 1 acre in 5 hours to keep my dog in, I KNOW I can build a moat in a few weeks.

Overspending: Cut 10% of government jobs today. If you are an agency head and open your mouth, you're first to go. Corporations do it every f---ing day.

Campaign Reform: You want to run for PResident, fine. But you quit your Senate job to do it. Then you won't have f---ing idiots like Kerry throwing the election because he's scared to swing at the pitch since he had so much to lose. If you lose, go make some f---ing money and if we miss you that much, come back in 6 years.

that's what I would do.