Reply With Quote
Calling somebody a , for example.
Simple name-calling, with obvious, loaded emotional content. Personal slander.
I would say the recent brew-ha-ha has a fair amount of material:
http://www.examiner.com/liberal-in-b...ponsors-so-far
I could've sworn we were talking about Romney...then we moved to all right wingers....then we moved to Limbaugh. I really have no idea where we're going next.
As far as genous thought is concerned, really? Let me get this straight...the base motivators of the right (The "things", as you inelegantly stated), encourage homegenousness and uniform thinking (redundancy alert!), and furthermore, this is a phenomenon of the right?
You've got to be ting me.
That's complete bull .
Calling somebody a , for example.
Simple name-calling, with obvious, loaded emotional content. Personal slander.
I would say the recent brew-ha-ha has a fair amount of material:
http://www.examiner.com/liberal-in-b...ponsors-so-far
Another poster that leans left on here who has a good brain starting political hack bull posts and losing my respect.
Ok...finally we get something specific. About ing time, RG.
Nasty personal attacks.
Does by proxy count? *geore soros move on/daily kos * *cough-cough*.
And Maddow is waaay smarter than Limbaugh tbh.
I would offer up Moore instead.
yep, you're incorrectI could be incorrect here.
The point is that what cons utes your attack is very open to interpretation. For instance, personally, I could give two s about being called a name. On the other hand, I find thinly veiled insults to my intelligence FAR more offensive and there are definitely people out there who know how to do this. Rachal Maddow definitely seems smart enough to be one of those people.
@ boutons: I know english is your second language, so I'll give you a pass.
Have you lost the ability to form your own sentences?
Not going to watch it. Let us know what you mean by calling Rachel Maddow a snuff queen.
Pretty close tbh.
LOL
She is a snarky lesbian with a very limited audience that cares what she says. Satisfied?
Chump. you need to get laid. Don't call Rachel.
I'm satisfied you have nothing of substance to post regarding her actual reporting or commentary and are just making up .
Again.
Hey! Personal attack!Chump. you need to get laid. Don't call Rachel.
Right on time!
I call it like I see it.
Quite frankly it is an expression of an increasing sense of exasperation when dealing with right leaning people in this country.
I will go out and agree with any fair criticism of Obama, or any Democrat.
What I see though, is a very disturbing lack of similar criticism in the public domain of Republican candidates.
Anyhoo... I have to get back to reading boring, lengthy contracts. Dinner break is over, and those reviews won't do themselves.
you are such a ing tool.
You asked about the snuff queen reference and I delivered.
You really are a pathetic piece of .
Don't get all hysterical on us. Your emotions are getting the better of you.
I also asked you this:You completely failed to deliver on that.
If you weren't such a lazy you could easily find them on your own.
Google is your friend. Meanwhile I'm going outside to get some done. Chao.
So your solution is demagoguery? Let me fill you in on a little secret... SpursTalk Political Forum isn't exactly the greatest place to talk with a rational ideological opponent, as I'm sure you are aware. Why just throw more on the pile? Why not just come here and laugh at idiots and crazies like the other 3 sane people?
So you want me to back up your claim and I'm the lazy one?
My claim is you're a pompous, insecure, small-minded bigot.
Now you use the search function to find examples of your laughable behavior.
We'll wait.
Misspelled.Chao.
No charges or fines. I figure people might want to know. I would.
Surely not! I'm sure your typo corrector has never even corrected a typo'd "there" into "their".
I'm sure it has, just as I have been corrected on these boards. I thank the person, edit and don't whine about it -- for myself or on behalf of someone else.
I want that coffee cup.
Every person who mentions minor spelling or grammatical mistakes in a flame war needs one. It's like lack of originality 101.
Relevant?
Redundant.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
