http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-gop-censures-mccain-39-liberal-39-record-211326730--election.html
:hmm:
QuoteThe Arizona Republican Party formally censured Sen. John McCain on Saturday, citing a voting record they say is insufficiently conservative.
The resolution to censure McCain was approved by a voice-vote during a meeting of state committee members in Tempe, state party spokesman Tim Sifert said. It needed signatures from at least 20 percent of state committee members to reach the floor for debate.
Sifert said no further action was expected.
McCain spokesman Brian Rogers declined to comment on the censure. But former three-term Sen. Jon Kyl told The Arizona Republic (http://bit.ly/1mIyKyy ) that the move was "wacky."
"I've gone to dozens of these meetings and every now and then some wacky resolution gets passed," Kyl told the newspaper on Saturday. "But most people realize it does not represent the majority of the vast numbers of Republicans."
Kyl also said McCain's voting record was "very conservative."
McCain isn't up for re-election until 2016, when will turn 80. He announced in October that he was considering running for a sixth term.
According to the resolution, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee has campaigned as a conservative but has lent his support to issues "associated with liberal Democrats," such as immigration reform and funding the federal health care law.
Several Republican county committees recently censured McCain.
Timothy Schwartz, the Legislative District 30 Republican chairman who helped write the resolution, said the censure showed that McCain was losing support from his own party.
"We would gladly embrace Sen. McCain if he stood behind us and represented us," Schwartz said.
Fred DuVal, a Democrat who plans to run for Arizona governor, called the censure an "outrageous response to the good work Sen. McCain did crafting a reasonable solution to fix our broken immigration system."
McCain has been dogged by conservatives objecting to his views on immigration and campaign finance, among other issues, since he first ran for Congress in 1982. Republican activists were also turned off by his moderate stances in the 2000 presidential race.
McCain was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982 and won his Senate seat in 1986.
:bleeding:
Don't judge Arizona too harshly. It is hard to be rational with all that sun and all those old people.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 26, 2014, 11:00:53 AM
Don't judge Arizona too harshly. It is hard to be rational with all that sun and all those old people.
Then explain the crazies primarying people in other parts of the country. The GOP at the grass roots level is off the fucking rails these days.
Political parties with insane people will always eat their own. Look at the Democrats in '68 and '72.
This could actually be a good thing. This brings us one step closer to a big enough fissure in the Republican Party to spawn a legit third party; in fact, I'm convinced it's going to happen- it's just going to be whether the Tea Partiers or the moderates split from the GOP.
That'd be good news for me, since I'm too conservative for the democrats, and too liberal for the GOP the way it is now.
So carry on, GOP. Eventually, somebody's going to get sick enough of you alienating the saner members.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2014, 11:04:09 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 26, 2014, 11:00:53 AM
Don't judge Arizona too harshly. It is hard to be rational with all that sun and all those old people.
Then explain the crazies primarying people in other parts of the country. The GOP at the grass roots level is off the fucking rails these days.
Political parties with insane people will always eat their own. Look at the Democrats in '68 and '72.
In this case I think they are barking up the right tree for the wrong reasons. We really should stop electing 80 year olds to the Senate.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 26, 2014, 11:11:31 AM
In this case I think they are barking up the right tree for the wrong reasons. We really should stop electing 80 year olds to the Senate.
Seriously. If administrators can be subject to mandatory retirement, why not legislators? Neither seems particularly physically demanding, and both show similar degrees of required cogency.
In the confirmation hearings for the "next ambassador" to norway were basically mccain skewering the hotel executive sent for confirmation for his complete lack of basic knowledge about the norwegian political system, as if he hand't read a single thing on the topic before the hearing. Pa' Hilton might have traced his origins to the farm of Hilton in Telemark, but working for a company founded by a norwegian american isn't enough to be ambassador.
Mccain got the guy for being incompetent and not having done his homework. A senate full of partisan hacks would be just as incompetent idiot who didn't know who was in the government of the country he was going to be ambassador to all the while making comments about the norwegian government directly at odds with US policy towards norway and norwegian parties.
He'll be replaced by a tea party idiot.
V, could you work on your sentence structure? ;)
Was it liberal to shoot up that carrier?
Quote from: Viking on January 26, 2014, 11:28:31 AM
In the confirmation hearings for the "next ambassador" to norway were basically mccain skewering the hotel executive sent for confirmation for his complete lack of basic knowledge about the norwegian political system, as if he hand't read a single thing on the topic before the hearing. Pa' Hilton might have traced his origins to the farm of Hilton in Telemark, but working for a company founded by a norwegian american isn't enough to be ambassador.
Mccain got the guy for being incompetent and not having done his homework. A senate full of partisan hacks would be just as incompetent idiot who didn't know who was in the government of the country he was going to be ambassador to all the while making comments about the norwegian government directly at odds with US policy towards norway and norwegian parties.
He'll be replaced by a tea party idiot.
Who cares about the next ambassador to Norway?
For better or worse, with the exception of a handful of countries we have sensitive relationships with for one reason or another, ambassadorships are patronage positions. Most of our ambassadors are probably unqualified to handle important stuff.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 26, 2014, 11:07:49 AM
This could actually be a good thing. This brings us one step closer to a big enough fissure in the Republican Party to spawn a legit third party; in fact, I'm convinced it's going to happen- it's just going to be whether the Tea Partiers or the moderates split from the GOP.
i don't think the dispute within the republican party will bring about a third party. the extreme elements will probably just lose influence over time, especially if the republicans keep losing national elections
There would need to be competing agendas. "Moderate" Republicans agree with the party the majority of the time and don't always agree with each other.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 26, 2014, 12:22:12 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 26, 2014, 11:28:31 AM
In the confirmation hearings for the "next ambassador" to norway were basically mccain skewering the hotel executive sent for confirmation for his complete lack of basic knowledge about the norwegian political system, as if he hand't read a single thing on the topic before the hearing. Pa' Hilton might have traced his origins to the farm of Hilton in Telemark, but working for a company founded by a norwegian american isn't enough to be ambassador.
Mccain got the guy for being incompetent and not having done his homework. A senate full of partisan hacks would be just as incompetent idiot who didn't know who was in the government of the country he was going to be ambassador to all the while making comments about the norwegian government directly at odds with US policy towards norway and norwegian parties.
He'll be replaced by a tea party idiot.
Who cares about the next ambassador to Norway?
For better or worse, with the exception of a handful of countries we have sensitive relationships with for one reason or another, ambassadorships are patronage positions. Most of our ambassadors are probably unqualified to handle important stuff.
Apparently one of then senate's jobs is to make sure that the president isn't sending mouth breathers to represent the republic.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 26, 2014, 11:11:31 AM
In this case I think they are barking up the right tree for the wrong reasons. We really should stop electing 80 year olds to the Senate.
If that's what you are doing, and you don't want to do it any more, then just stop. If other people want to do that, let them.
It is dangerous to democracy to have some bureaucrats deciding who gets to run for office.
Quote from: grumbler on January 26, 2014, 02:42:02 PM
It is dangerous to democracy to have some bureaucrats deciding who gets to run for office.
Doesn't the constitution set an age restriction on one bound?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 26, 2014, 11:13:32 AM
Seriously. If administrators can be subject to mandatory retirement, why not legislators? Neither seems particularly physically demanding, and both show similar degrees of required cogency.
Same reason that term limits don't fly. Unconstitutional.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 26, 2014, 01:50:58 PM
There would need to be competing agendas. "Moderate" Republicans agree with the party the majority of the time and don't always agree with each other.
Moderate rapublicans make me poke.
Those are demoncrats afraid to show theyre truth colours.
My truth color is mauve.
Quote from: Siege on January 26, 2014, 05:01:36 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 26, 2014, 01:50:58 PM
There would need to be competing agendas. "Moderate" Republicans agree with the party the majority of the time and don't always agree with each other.
Moderate rapublicans make me poke.
Those are demoncrats afraid to show theyre truth colours.
I show my true colors everyday.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 26, 2014, 04:19:47 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 26, 2014, 11:13:32 AM
Seriously. If administrators can be subject to mandatory retirement, why not legislators? Neither seems particularly physically demanding, and both show similar degrees of required cogency.
Same reason that term limits don't fly. Unconstitutional.
If it's good for the goose it's good for the president?
Quote from: Siege on January 26, 2014, 05:01:36 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 26, 2014, 01:50:58 PM
There would need to be competing agendas. "Moderate" Republicans agree with the party the majority of the time and don't always agree with each other.
Moderate rapublicans make me poke.
Those are demoncrats afraid to show theyre truth colours.
Who are you going to poke?
Quote from: Siege on January 26, 2014, 05:01:36 PM
Moderate rapublicans make me poke.
Those are demoncrats afraid to show theyre truth colours.
What are the truth colours of a demoncrat?
Quote from: garbon on January 26, 2014, 03:05:26 PM
Doesn't the constitution set an age restriction on one bound?
Yes, and it would require an amendment to the Constitution to establish a bound at the other, IMO.
Quote from: Siege on January 26, 2014, 05:01:36 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 26, 2014, 01:50:58 PM
There would need to be competing agendas. "Moderate" Republicans agree with the party the majority of the time and don't always agree with each other.
Moderate rapublicans make me poke.
Those are demoncrats afraid to show theyre truth colours.
Usually I don't agree with Siege, but he's basically right; moderate Republicans, such as there are, are basically moderate Democrats. And I sure as fuck don't want them in my party, either. <_<
Moderate Republicans are what mainstream Republicans were 10 years ago.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 26, 2014, 06:20:34 PM
Usually I don't agree with Siege, but he's basically right; moderate Republicans, such as there are, are basically moderate Democrats. And I sure as fuck don't want them in my party, either. <_<
It's not really *your* party.
Yeah, well, Eugene V. Debs never got enough votes, so I take what I can get.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 26, 2014, 06:34:43 PM
Yeah, well, Eugene V. Debs never got enough votes,
Maybe you should reflect on that when contemplating rejecting voters from the Democrats. :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 26, 2014, 06:59:15 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 26, 2014, 06:34:43 PM
Yeah, well, Eugene V. Debs never got enough votes,
Maybe you should reflect on that when contemplating rejecting voters from the Democrats. :P
That's certainly what the Democrats think when they dispute having anything to do with Ide. He's a one-man "Democratic" party, distinct from the Democratic Party that actually does shit instead of just talking.
Well yes that is an issue. I'd hope they would do more than shit. :(
Btw, while Ide claims to agree with Siege, I expect he has a slightly different take on what those voters' truth colours are. :hmm:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 26, 2014, 06:25:36 PM
Moderate Republicans are what mainstream Republicans were 10 years ago.
No.
In the past few weeks, I've learned that several of my friends are closet Republicans. :hmm:
Quote from: alfred russel on January 26, 2014, 11:11:31 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2014, 11:04:09 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 26, 2014, 11:00:53 AM
Don't judge Arizona too harshly. It is hard to be rational with all that sun and all those old people.
Then explain the crazies primarying people in other parts of the country. The GOP at the grass roots level is off the fucking rails these days.
Political parties with insane people will always eat their own. Look at the Democrats in '68 and '72.
In this case I think they are barking up the right tree for the wrong reasons. We really should stop electing 80 year olds to the Senate.
used to be that you'd had to be nearly geriatric before you were allowed into the senate....
o tempora, o mores :p
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 27, 2014, 10:17:28 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 26, 2014, 11:11:31 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2014, 11:04:09 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 26, 2014, 11:00:53 AM
Don't judge Arizona too harshly. It is hard to be rational with all that sun and all those old people.
Then explain the crazies primarying people in other parts of the country. The GOP at the grass roots level is off the fucking rails these days.
Political parties with insane people will always eat their own. Look at the Democrats in '68 and '72.
In this case I think they are barking up the right tree for the wrong reasons. We really should stop electing 80 year olds to the Senate.
used to be that you'd had to be nearly geriatric before you were allowed into the senate....
o tempora, o mores :p
We're talking about the US here. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 26, 2014, 04:19:47 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 26, 2014, 11:13:32 AM
Seriously. If administrators can be subject to mandatory retirement, why not legislators? Neither seems particularly physically demanding, and both show similar degrees of required cogency.
Same reason that term limits don't fly. Unconstitutional.
Well obviously it would have to be an amendment to the Constitution like the Presidential term limit.
Quote from: Valmy on January 27, 2014, 10:33:30 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 26, 2014, 04:19:47 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 26, 2014, 11:13:32 AM
Seriously. If administrators can be subject to mandatory retirement, why not legislators? Neither seems particularly physically demanding, and both show similar degrees of required cogency.
Same reason that term limits don't fly. Unconstitutional.
Well obviously it would have to be an amendment to the Constitution like the Presidential term limit.
DSB* wasn't talking about an amendment, though. He was comparing legislators to administrators. Mandatory retirement for administrators didn't come about due to constitutional amendments.
*yes, I know, it's DSB so it is moronic, and he himself notes that you can't take anything he says seriously, but that's where the discussion started.
Quote from: grumbler on January 27, 2014, 11:57:26 AM*yes, I know, it's DSB so it is moronic, and he himself notes that you can't take anything he says seriously, but that's where the discussion started.
Look, g, we all know that trolling and pointless
ad hominem attacks is just "what you do" around here, but is this really necessary?
Actually DSB did say that we take his posting too seriously.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 27, 2014, 12:01:49 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 27, 2014, 11:57:26 AM*yes, I know, it's DSB so it is moronic, and he himself notes that you can't take anything he says seriously, but that's where the discussion started.
Look, g, we all know that trolling and pointless ad hominem attacks is just "what you do" around here, but is this really necessary?
Look, CM, we all know that trolling and pointless
ad hominem attacks is just "what you do" around here, but could you actually cite examples of others trolling or engaging in ad hominem attacks before you troll and and launch
ad hominem attacks?
Say what you will about grumbler's age, but he's still very young at heart when it comes to "I know you are, but what am I" counter-arguments.
"Dogpile" :w00t:
Quote from: DGuller on January 27, 2014, 12:43:46 PM
Say what you will about grumbler's age, but he's still very young at heart when it comes to "I know you are, but what am I" counter-arguments.
:lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 26, 2014, 06:25:36 PM
Moderate Republicans are what mainstream Republicans were 10 years ago.
Disagree. Moderate republicans are what mainstream democrats were 10 years ago.
The democrat party has been kidnapped by the far left loonies.
This not JFK's party, with low taxes and resistance to communism.
Quote from: grumbler on January 27, 2014, 12:19:43 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 27, 2014, 12:01:49 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 27, 2014, 11:57:26 AM*yes, I know, it's DSB so it is moronic, and he himself notes that you can't take anything he says seriously, but that's where the discussion started.
Look, g, we all know that trolling and pointless ad hominem attacks is just "what you do" around here, but is this really necessary?
Look, CM, we all know that trolling and pointless ad hominem attacks is just "what you do" around here, but could you actually cite examples of others trolling or engaging in ad hominem attacks before you troll and and launch ad hominem attacks?
Quote from: Siege on January 27, 2014, 12:54:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 26, 2014, 06:25:36 PM
Moderate Republicans are what mainstream Republicans were 10 years ago.
Disagree. Moderate republicans are what mainstream democrats were 10 years ago.
The democrat party has been kidnapped by the far left loonies.
This not JFK's party, with low taxes and resistance to communism.
JFK lowered taxes from like 90%. They were still higher than they are now. It's the whole "40% top rate = SOCIALISM :o" that is a new development.
CM's cottage cheese just curdled when Grumbler turned his gaze upon him.
Quote from: derspiess on January 27, 2014, 09:39:29 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 26, 2014, 06:25:36 PM
Moderate Republicans are what mainstream Republicans were 10 years ago.
No.
Yes. Romney having to repudiate his own program is evidence of that.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 27, 2014, 12:57:49 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 27, 2014, 12:19:43 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 27, 2014, 12:01:49 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 27, 2014, 11:57:26 AM*yes, I know, it's DSB so it is moronic, and he himself notes that you can't take anything he says seriously, but that's where the discussion started.
Look, g, we all know that trolling and pointless ad hominem attacks is just "what you do" around here, but is this really necessary?
Look, CM, we all know that trolling and pointless ad hominem attacks is just "what you do" around here, but could you actually cite examples of others trolling or engaging in ad hominem attacks before you troll and and launch ad hominem attacks?
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 27, 2014, 01:32:24 PM
CM's cottage cheese just curdled when Grumbler turned his gaze upon him.
*Takes a drink*
Quote from: DGuller on January 27, 2014, 12:43:46 PM
Say what you will about grumbler's age, but he's still very young at heart when it comes to "I know you are, but what am I" counter-arguments.
*Takes a drink*
Btw, how many posters *take a drink* whenever someone *takes a drink*?
Quote from: Siege on January 27, 2014, 12:54:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 26, 2014, 06:25:36 PM
Moderate Republicans are what mainstream Republicans were 10 years ago.
Disagree. Moderate republicans are what mainstream democrats were 10 years ago.
The democrat party has been kidnapped by the far left loonies.
This not JFK's party, with low taxes and resistance to communism.
That is hilarious. The Democrats could not be more soulless, wimpy, or bigger sell outs. Far left loonies? The Democrats don't have a radical bone in their body.
Quote from: Valmy on January 27, 2014, 03:30:18 PM
That is hilarious. The Democrats could not be more soulless, wimpy, or bigger sell outs. Far left loonies? The Democrats don't have a radical bone in their body.
If your tribe is far enough to the right, you don't have enough perspective to tell the left from the far left. The opposite applies to the far-left tribes, of course.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 26, 2014, 06:31:19 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 26, 2014, 06:20:34 PM
Usually I don't agree with Siege, but he's basically right; moderate Republicans, such as there are, are basically moderate Democrats. And I sure as fuck don't want them in my party, either. <_<
It's not really *your* party.
He'll still cry if he wants to.
Quote from: The Brain on January 27, 2014, 03:30:03 PM
Btw, how many posters *take a drink* whenever someone *takes a drink*?
My liver would be shot.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 27, 2014, 12:01:49 PMLook, g, we all know that trolling and pointless ad hominem attacks is just "what you do" around here, but is this really necessary?
but that wasn't an ad hominem
Quote from: LaCroix on January 27, 2014, 06:51:37 PM
but that wasn't an ad hominem
Agreed. There is a difference between making an ad hom argument and being a pointlessly rude fuck.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 27, 2014, 06:55:45 PMAgreed. There is a difference between making an ad hom argument and being a pointlessly rude fuck.
i dunno, there are posters here that use offensive language toward others, but they're (usually) not considered "being pointlessly rude fuck
"
Quote from: LaCroix on January 27, 2014, 06:51:37 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 27, 2014, 12:01:49 PMLook, g, we all know that trolling and pointless ad hominem attacks is just "what you do" around here, but is this really necessary?
but that wasn't an ad hominem
But it was though, I think -- 'the argument belongs to DSB; therefore, it is moronic.'
Quote from: LaCroix on January 27, 2014, 07:03:51 PM
i dunno, there are posters here that use offensive language toward others, but they're (usually) not considered "being pointlessly rude fuck"
What's your point? Are you taking exception to my implication that grumbler is a pointlessly rude fuck?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 27, 2014, 07:05:05 PMBut it was though, I think -- 'the argument belongs to DSB; therefore, it is moronic.'
he didn't rest his point against dsb through the "moronic" statement. that was more a tacked on comment
Quote from: LaCroix on January 27, 2014, 07:13:40 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 27, 2014, 07:05:05 PMBut it was though, I think -- 'the argument belongs to DSB; therefore, it is moronic.'
he didn't rest his point against dsb through the "moronic" statement. that was more a tacked on comment
Ah.
Quote from: grumbler on January 27, 2014, 08:25:44 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 26, 2014, 06:59:15 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 26, 2014, 06:34:43 PM
Yeah, well, Eugene V. Debs never got enough votes,
Maybe you should reflect on that when contemplating rejecting voters from the Democrats. :P
That's certainly what the Democrats think when they dispute having anything to do with Ide. He's a one-man "Democratic" party, distinct from the Democratic Party that actually does shit instead of just talking.
Hey, if you're more influential than me, it's only because someone fucked up and gave you a position of authority over children. And tenure.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 27, 2014, 07:10:53 PMAre you taking exception to my implication that grumbler is a pointlessly rude fuck?
that depends. if a community directs certain language at each other fairly often and offense isn't taken by that language, then why would grumbler (a member of the community) be singled out for being rude (offensive) for using that same language?
Quote from: LaCroix on January 27, 2014, 07:21:02 PM
that depends. if a community directs certain language at each other fairly often and offense isn't taken by that language, then why would grumbler (a member of the community) be singled out for being rude (offensive) for using that same language?
You almost have the answer in your question. If you ponder it a bit more, you may figure it out.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 27, 2014, 06:55:45 PM
Agreed. There is a difference between making an ad hom argument and being a pointlessly rude fuck.
Exactly, as you would be in a position to know; that's why, I think, I seldom see you make ad homs.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 27, 2014, 07:10:53 PM
What's your point? Are you taking exception to my implication that grumbler is a pointlessly rude fuck?
That you fail to see the point doesn't make my "rude" statement pointless.
Quote from: Jacob on January 27, 2014, 07:24:02 PMYou almost have the answer in your question. If you ponder it a bit more, you may figure it out.
you're right, i probably should have used "offensive attitude" instead of "offensive language" :P
Quote from: LaCroix on January 27, 2014, 07:21:02 PM
that depends. if a community directs certain language at each other fairly often and offense isn't taken by that language, then why would grumbler (a member of the community) be singled out for being rude (offensive) for using that same language?
The feedback loop. If I call you a dickhead, and you cry like a baby, I shouldn't do it any more. If I persist, after you've made it clear that you're not enjoying the intended joke, then I'm being a pointlessly rude fuck.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 27, 2014, 07:05:05 PM
But it was though, I think -- 'the argument belongs to DSB; therefore, it is moronic.'
that's not at all what an ad hom is, though, as I pointed out earlier.
An ad hom goes like this (not an actual example from languish):
Minsky: "Making rich people poorer doesn't make poor people richer."
Ide: "You only say that because you are rich."
Insulting someone isn't an ad hom, it is an insult. Claiming that someone says moronic things, and when called out simply argues that you were foolish for taking him seriously, isn't an ad hom, it is an insult (if even that).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 27, 2014, 07:31:50 PMThe feedback loop. If I call you a dickhead, and you cry like a baby, I shouldn't do it any more. If I persist, after you've made it clear that you're not enjoying the intended joke, then I'm being a pointlessly rude fuck.
has dsb cried like a baby?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 27, 2014, 07:31:50 PM
The feedback loop. If I call you a dickhead, and you cry like a baby, I shouldn't do it any more. If I persist, after you've made it clear that you're not enjoying the intended joke, then I'm being a pointlessly rude fuck.
So, being a pointlessly rude fuck requires that dsb object to my statement, and then I repeat it?
Why on earth would you call me a pointlessly rude fuck, then? Your own conditions are not met.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 27, 2014, 07:35:11 PM
has dsb cried like a baby?
Virtually every poster on Languish has, at some point or another, objected to grumbler's posting style.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 27, 2014, 07:39:59 PMVirtually every poster on Languish has, at some point or another, objected to grumbler's posting style.
but has dsb? :hmm:
Quote from: LaCroix on January 27, 2014, 07:41:21 PM
but has dsb? :hmm:
Not relevant. The question being discussed is whether grumbler is a pointlessly rude fuck, not whether that particular post was a demonstration of pointlessly rude fuckedness.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 27, 2014, 07:41:21 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 27, 2014, 07:39:59 PMVirtually every poster on Languish has, at some point or another, objected to grumbler's posting style.
but has dsb? :hmm:
How is this:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 10, 2009, 11:59:18 AM
DG, just give it up. The ad hom is to Berk what the strawman is to grumbler; it's a catchall, and if you wait long enough, your words will be twisted for the sake of the complaint.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 27, 2014, 07:44:03 PMNot relevant. The question being discussed is whether grumbler is a pointlessly rude fuck, not whether that particular post was a demonstration of pointlessly rude fuckedness.
but your original post that started this conversation implied that you were calling grumbler a pointlessly rude fuck for his comment toward dsb
Quote from: Admiral Yiand being a pointlessly rude fuck.
Quote from: garbon on January 27, 2014, 07:44:52 PMHow is this:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 10, 2009, 11:59:18 AM
DG, just give it up. The ad hom is to Berk what the strawman is to grumbler; it's a catchall, and if you wait long enough, your words will be twisted for the sake of the complaint.
depends on the definition of crying :hmm:edit: actually, that's already been defined as "objected to posting style"!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 27, 2014, 07:39:59 PM
Virtually every poster on Languish has, at some point or another, objected to grumbler's posting style.
Virtually every poster on Languish has, at some point or another, objected to your posting style. Do you concede to being a pointlessly rude fuck, by your standards?
You are drawing a judgement from Yi's use of "pointlessly rude fuck" that he might not have intended.
I humbly withdraw my assertions. :sleep: Unpleasantness for its own sake, it must be admitted, is neither necessarily pointless nor does it confine itself to the logical strictures of ad hominem argument.
Quote from: PDH on January 27, 2014, 07:48:29 PMYou are drawing a judgement from Yi's use of "pointlessly rude fuck" that he might not have intended.
hey, hey, i only said it implied!
Quote from: PDH on January 27, 2014, 07:48:29 PM
You are drawing a judgement from Yi's use of "pointlessly rude fuck" that he might not have intended.
So, you are saying that his rude use of the word "fuck" may have, in fact, been pointless? :P
Quote from: LaCroix on January 27, 2014, 07:46:36 PM
but your original post that started this conversation implied that you were calling grumbler a pointlessly rude fuck for his comment toward dsb
Point taken. I would expect that, over the course of 10 years, Bananarama has at least once objected to grumbler's posting style.
Be careful guys, if you keep this up Grumbler may punish you be ceasing to post rude comments directed at you altogether. It happened to me, it could happen to you. :(
Oh no. I am with George Carlin on this one. The use of "fuck" can never be pointless or rude.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2014, 07:53:27 PM
Be careful guys, if you keep this up Grumbler may punish you be ceasing to post rude comments directed at you altogether. It happened to me, it could happen to you. :(
There, there. I'll give you a hug. :hug:
Feel better now?
Yes. :)
Quote from: PDH on January 27, 2014, 07:53:46 PM
Oh no. I am with George Carlin on this one. The use of "fuck" can never be pointless or rude.
You've convinced me.