Olbermann - "Republicans are acting like terrorists"

[niss]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for posting another inflammatory rhetoric link thread with no/little discussion of your own to back its assertions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're just being silly.

[Brainwalter]

Wow whiskey you must really hate republicans!

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for posting another inflammatory rhetoric link thread with no/little discussion of your own to back its assertions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're just being silly.

[/ QUOTE ]


How so? Let's look at highlights from whiskey's short paragraph of inflammatory gibberish:

"Republicans are acting like terrorists"

"McCarthyism"

"Osama Bin Laden is the face of Republicanism"

"the Republicans are the second greatest instigators of terrorism in the United States"


All of the above is just an exercise in trollishness, by making an inflammatory statement(s) without any analysis or reasoning to back it up. There is nothing wrong with giving excerpts of stories and links to same. But when such stories are nothing other than propaganda, and the poster doesn't even bother to defend its conclusions, then such posts have no business in this forum. An occasional such post as sarcasm or a joke would be fine, but a perpetual train of such posts isn't.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for posting another inflammatory rhetoric link thread with no/little discussion of your own to back its assertions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're just being silly.

[/ QUOTE ]


How so? Let's look at highlights from whiskey's short paragraph of inflammatory gibberish:

"Republicans are acting like terrorists"

"McCarthyism"

"Osama Bin Laden is the face of Republicanism"

"the Republicans are the second greatest instigators of terrorism in the United States"


All of the above is just an exercise in trollishness, by making an inflammatory statement(s) without any analysis or reasoning to back it up. There is nothing wrong with giving excerpts of stories and links to same. But when such stories are nothing other than propaganda, and the poster doesn't even bother to defend its conclusions, then such posts have no business in this forum. An occasional such post as sarcasm or a joke would be fine, but a perpetual train of such posts isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

[niss]

Then similarly the post that linked to Rush Limbaugh's prattle against Michael J. Fox should be objectionable to you. Again, it is nothing more than propoganda, and the poster simply linked to it without supporting its conclusions that, for example, Fox is "acting" in the ad, and that he is "allowing" his illness to be "exploited". Shall I post in that thread on your behalf, or will you?

Of course, I don't agree that there is any problem with adios linking to Rush Limbaugh's opinion, and I cannot for the life of me understand the objection to whiskey linking to whatever it is he posted. Unless of course our objections should be based upon whether we agree or disagree with the original post and/or its links, which certainly seems to be part of your motivation.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Then similarly the post that linked to Rush Limbaugh's prattle against Michael J. Fox should be objectionable to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean presenting both sides of a controversy is prattle? I see.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, it is nothing more than propoganda, and the poster simply linked to it without supporting its conclusions that, for example, Fox is "acting" in the ad, and that he is "allowing" his illness to be "exploited". Shall I post in that thread on your behalf, or will you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't make the original post. I only replied to it and suggested that the OP change his title to:

Limbaugh: Valid Point or Personal Attack

People can read the link and make their own judgement. If the OP thought the subject to be worthy of discussion why not at least post a link that posts what Limbaugh stated in full?

[niss]

adios, did you read my whole post? There's a whole paragraph about why I think Bluff's position is wrong and why my using your post as an example did not mean that there was something wrong with it.

[adios]

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Then similarly the post that linked to Rush Limbaugh's prattle against Michael J. Fox should be objectionable to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not similar on several different levels:

1) I didn't make the original post about Limbaugh.

2) I was pointing out that there is another aspect to the controversy the original post I responded to mentioned.

3) I was presenting the other side of the controversy.

Yeah I read your post and I'd really like you to answer my question to you as to why presenting the other side of a controversy is propaganda? I'll reiterate:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, it is nothing more than propoganda, and the poster simply linked to it without supporting its conclusions that, for example, Fox is "acting" in the ad, and that he is "allowing" his illness to be "exploited". Shall I post in that thread on your behalf, or will you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't make the original post. I only replied to it and suggested that the OP change his title to:

Limbaugh: Valid Point or Personal Attack

People can read the link and make their own judgement. If the OP thought the subject to be worthy of discussion why not at least post a link that posts what Limbaugh stated in full?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't think I'll get a direct answer anytime soon.

[niss]

adios, I think we may not be connecting. There's nothing wrong with your post. I'm simply using it to illustrate that the "rules" Bluff set earlier in this thread are silly. Presenting the other side of an issue is not "propoganda" ... except under Bluff's "rules".

[BluffTHIS!]

niss,

My objections are not based on whether I agree with a poster's views or not re inflammatory rhetoric. I have in the past also called out conservative posters on this including one who subsequently got banned for same. The point I am making is that if you are going to give a link or exerpt to an statement that basically assumes the truth of that statement, and also fail to argue why it is true, then all a poster is doing is trolling.

Note that whiskey could have titled this thread "Are the repubs acting like terrorists?", gave that link and an excerpt, and then given his reasons to support an affirmative answer to that question, which would be a legitimate way of fostering honest debate, setting aside for the moment the extremist label of "terrorist". Instead he just spouted some rhetorical highly inflammatory catch phrases and offered no reasons that such were true.

This is also similar to the difference between idiot congressman of either party making propagandistic speeches to empty galleries for the benefit of constituents back home, and making similar statements before their full body when they know they will have to actually defend such arguements in a real debate.

The day in day out tactic of the OP and others in this forum is to drop a rhetoric bomb, whether of their own making or cribbed from another source, and then leave and seldom return to their own thread to back up those assertions. Indeed if they return and post again it is usually just to sprinkle in some more rhetoric without reasons for same.