|
|
#71
08-18-2007, 06:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ QUOTE ]
This wouldnt be a [censored] issue if the primary system wasnt so gd broken. EVERY state has ChristaNazis, SC and Iowa especially. Republicans need to remember they can win national elections without totally pandering. Giuliani is their best run-off guy as is. Is it worth all that time for Visa and Viagra commercials? Would be great to have a moderate wing REFUSE to rally behind any panderer. Bush isn't a Christian in the least, but he has "honoured' the deal he made with the devil to get elected, and governs for them. Bush knew he owed them, and paid. You can't jsut move away in politics and expect nothing to happen. [/ QUOTE ] Isn't this exactly the kind of post that is supposed to earn a quick 24-hour ban from 4_2_it? I can't even pick out a few examples to bold-face or italicize. This is just 100% unacceptable - it's a pure unadulterated, troll-raving partisan junk rant. This post has no merit, and it contributes nothing to this forum or this thread. |
|
#72
08-18-2007, 07:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't this exactly the kind of post that is supposed to earn a quick 24-hour ban from 4_2_it? [/ QUOTE ] No. |
|
#73
08-18-2007, 07:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Isn't this exactly the kind of post that is supposed to earn a quick 24-hour ban from 4_2_it? [/ QUOTE ] No. [/ QUOTE ] "No"? Not exactly a deep analysis, is it? That's not typical of the thought you usually put into your posts! [ QUOTE ] I am not afraid of politics encroaching in this forum. There is a natural overlap, but there is no need for partisan rants or Clinton bashing... [/ QUOTE ] |
|
#74
08-18-2007, 07:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Isn't this exactly the kind of post that is supposed to earn a quick 24-hour ban from 4_2_it? [/ QUOTE ] No. [/ QUOTE ] "No"? Not exactly a deep analysis, is it? That's not typical of the thought you usually put into your posts! [ QUOTE ] I am not afraid of politics encroaching in this forum. There is a natural overlap, but there is no need for partisan rants or Clinton bashing... [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] His issue concerns specific candidates, not politics in general. If we couldn't discuss politics, it wouldn't be much of a Legislative forum. |
|
#75
08-18-2007, 08:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Isn't this exactly the kind of post that is supposed to earn a quick 24-hour ban from 4_2_it? [/ QUOTE ] No. [/ QUOTE ] "No"? Not exactly a deep analysis, is it? That's not typical of the thought you usually put into your posts! [ QUOTE ] I am not afraid of politics encroaching in this forum. There is a natural overlap, but there is no need for partisan rants or Clinton bashing... [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] His issue concerns specific candidates, not politics in general. If we couldn't discuss politics, it wouldn't be much of a Legislative forum. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] This is the final warning to keep any Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Romney, Giuliani or McCain bashing/supporting out of here (unless you tie it directly to the OP's subject). If you must, just head to politics......... [/ QUOTE ] It's partisan, it's bashing, it's directed at an individual, and it's not at all tied to the OP's post. It doesn't even have any intelligible content. On the other hand, it is directed at the Republicans, but that shouldn't matter (should it?). |
|
#76
08-18-2007, 08:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ QUOTE ]
It's partisan, it's bashing, it's directed at an individual, and it's not at all tied to the OP's post. It doesn't even have any intelligible content. On the other hand, it is directed at the Republicans, but that shouldn't matter (should it?). [/ QUOTE ] You sound angry. I guess we'll see what 4_2 thinks. |
|
#77
08-18-2007, 08:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It's partisan, it's bashing, it's directed at an individual, and it's not at all tied to the OP's post. It doesn't even have any intelligible content. On the other hand, it is directed at the Republicans, but that shouldn't matter (should it?). [/ QUOTE ] You sound angry. I guess we'll see what 4_2 thinks. [/ QUOTE ] "You sound angry."? Engineer - In the long run, it's better that the rules apply to the people we agree with just as much as the people we disagree with. Think about it, and as you consider it, try not to be limited by your own viewpoint. It could just as easily work the other way someday, and you wouldn't like that. |
|
#78
08-18-2007, 08:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
It's got nothing to do with my viewpoint. I simply thought the post in question was fine.
|
|
#79
08-18-2007, 08:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ QUOTE ]
It's got nothing to do with my viewpoint. I simply thought the post in question was fine. [/ QUOTE ] Your own posts contradict your statement - the atypical no-analysis response, followed by the personalization and the gratuitous insult. That's not you. It's tough to step beyond your own viewpoint. Few people can, but it's worth the attempt. |
|
#80
08-18-2007, 09:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It's got nothing to do with my viewpoint. I simply thought the post in question was fine. [/ QUOTE ] Your own posts contradict your statement - the atypical no-analysis response, followed by the personalization and the gratuitous insult. That's not you. It's tough to step beyond your own viewpoint. Few people can, but it's worth the attempt. [/ QUOTE ] I don't share his viewpint here, but I think his comment adds value to the discussion. It doesn't merit censoring IMHO. |
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
