If I may-

 

Let me start by saying I come here to try to understand other perspectives and I enjoy defending my beliefs. I have no real problem with the some of the threads that RTS creates about Obama. I think he should be criticized and analyzed. That said, I don't really mind all the threads on Obama (I counted, RTS had started nearly 40 about him since late-January), I just find some of them silly and ridiculously partisan. Discussing economic, environmental and immigration policies? Great! Starting threads about "Is Obama Bipolar?" and threads taking one Obama quote out of context (Obama Opens up About Relationship With Rudd) seems a bit excessive.

 

I just like to think that everyone can see both sides of an issue. I'd like to see RTS (or anyone else) jump on Glenn Beck when he says something stupid or offensive. And I think there's an attitude there, as evidenced by the title of this thread, that really turns me off. It's kind of my business because I pay to be here. I don't mind defending my ideas, but I hate sometimes having to wade through the muck to get there.

You sure I started those? If I did I'm having trouble remembering those and apologize for my memory lapse.

 

Are you serious about Glenn Beck? I think I've made myself clear many, many times that I can't stand Beck and have said on several occasions that he and Limbaugh hurt Conservatism more than they help it.

 

You've been pretty fair with me for the most part, I hope I've been the same with you.

If you people are not interested in a little playground tactics, shouting matches and childish comments that cements posters into defensive postures, you're a bunch of fuddy duddys. If we can't laugh at and needle each other over politics we have problems, and should close P&R down. There's a few on here that can really get under my skin and as soon as I can no longer laugh about it is when I sign out for good. Lighten up!

 

Take your shot ACE, see if you can make me NOT laugh.

As Ace mentioned, what business is it of yours how people respond to your threads?

This thread is kind of like the tv show that Jerry and George came up with on the Seinfeld series.

As to the number of threads, as TBAS says above, I think that only hurts you because you do start to look like the boy who cried wolf. Anyone who is not on the tea party/right wing bandwagon will begin to recognize your strong bias and discredit your opinion because of it. Total partisanship and being closed minded don't do anyone any good. That is a big part of the problem in our government today.

 

I was going to post something similar to the above quote. Not only RTS, but anyone who seems to be a person who starts the majority of negative threads, the above quote is what anyone from the other party or neutral person will end up seeing.

 

I do not come in this forum much so I really don't pay attention to how many treads were started by people, until I just looked now. If a Democrat during the Bush years would start as many negative threads at the same rate, the same would be said about them, almost like they are looking at anything and everything to discredit the sitting politician, and posting anything they get their hands on, and not caring where they get their information from at all.

 

I worked for the Kerry campaign in 2004, and the Hillary campaign starting in 2007, I posted in here during those times, but I don't recall starting many threads.

 

This forum isn't what is was like a few years ago, and more of the good posters have left this forum as well for the same reasons.

As Ace mentioned, what business is it of yours how people respond to your threads?

 

:confused:

:confused:

 

Pretty self-explainatory...RTS wants to know why people care what or how many threads he starts, but the same could be said about why he cares how people respond to them....No reason for confusion.

After all, if you’re right, you should be able to prove it fairly easily, trying to insult the poster instead just means you can’t do that.

 

Can you really? One example, to over-simplify a bit, is capitalism, trickle down economics vs. big government, spreading the wealth. Those are two distinct beliefs. It's a debate that pre-dates us, I imagine. Can one be "proven" right?

 

The point being, some of the arguments cannot be "proven" right or wrong because they are opposing world views. But, I agree with your sentiment. We should listen to other views, instead of ridiculing someone for their belief. I've always found it helps me argue my own point if I take the time to see where the other person is coming from.

As Ace mentioned, what business is it of yours how people respond to your threads?

He can respond however he wants. If he wants to follow your lead and sink to true pettiness by whining about the number of threads, it's his prerogative.

 

You seem to have, once again, lost the point of the thread. Let me say it again so it's a little clearer. If you're so bothered by the number of threads (and you're one that complained) about Obama, why read them. Seriously, you take this stuff too personal anymore, you never used to, I have no clue what happened to change that.

Edited June 11, 201016 yr by Run To State

Pretty self-explainatory...RTS wants to know why people care what or how many threads he starts, but the same could be said about why he cares how people respond to them....No reason for confusion.

I understand why he's confused, because I never said I cared how they respond to them, just that it made no sense to me to read something that bothers you. You're going out of your way to pick an argument with me it seems, we used to get along pretty well. It's as if you've had some bone of contention (other than what's been discussed) with me for a while. PM me, I'll give you my cell number and we can get at the root of what's really up.

I'm pretty sure you have in the past, I know you've complained about the amount of Obama threads just like I know you think I hate poor people because I don't like Section Eight Housing.

 

I am sure that I haven't. I don't think you hate poor people, i just dont think you actually know very many so you have formed an opinion (the wrong one I might add) based on limited reactions.

I understand why he's confused, because I never said I cared how they respond to them, just that it made no sense to me to read something that bothers you. You're going out of your way to pick an argument with me it seems, we used to get along pretty well. It's as if you've had some bone of contention (other than what's been discussed) with me for a while. PM me, I'll give you my cell number and we can get at the root of what's really up.

 

The title of the thread implies something else.

Can you really? One example, to over-simplify a bit, is capitalism, trickle down economics vs. big government, spreading the wealth. Those are two distinct beliefs. It's a debate that pre-dates us, I imagine. Can one be "proven" right?

 

No and that's not what my intention was. I mean to say that if a person believes those things they should have a reason to and thus it can be debated on the merits of the available evidence rather than simple insults. I don't believe there is an objective or absolute answer to every issue.

I am sure that I haven't. I don't think you hate poor people, i just dont think you actually know very many so you have formed an opinion (the wrong one I might add) based on limited reactions.

If I'm wrong I apologize, but I thought you were one of them for sure.

You actually said I hate poor people, I remember that one distinctly.

How do you know how many poor people I know?

Wrong to you doesn't equal being wrong.

The title of the thread implies something else.

It implies it's not up to anyone how many threads I start about Obama, nothing more.