The Washington Post "shivs" Obama!

[Yonivore]

Hard to have debate when most of the conservatives on here run away from it. Yoni feels no need to back up anything he says, CC plays the "I was just trolling!" card, and DarrinS can't keep focused on a topic for more than two seconds without whipping out a race card or non sequitur.

God, you're a ing whiner. Ever think it's because the threads devolve into a nit-picking argument (usually between two posters) about sexual proclivities, and totally gets away from the premise, making it hard -- particularly when you step away from the forum for a couple of hours or days -- to come back and just pick up a debate where you left it off?

What do you want me to back up whiney-diddle?

[LnGrrrR]

God, you're a ing whiner. Ever think it's because the threads devolve into a nit-picking argument (usually between two posters) about sexual proclivities, and totally gets away from the premise, making it hard -- particularly when you step away from the forum for a couple of hours or days -- to come back and just pick up a debate where you left it off?

What do you want me to back up whiney-diddle?

You're whining about me whining. Nice.

Several posters asked you to back up your claims of reading intelligence blogs. You chose not to, and whined when people gave you a hard time about it.

Then, of course, the fact that you post threads about articles you haven't even read, then dismiss others with a "It's a message board, I don't have to back myself up" story.

Myself, I find it relatively easy to skip over the "useless" posts to get to the ones I find interesting.

I'm always up for a good debate; there's been a few on here. Not my fault that a majority of posters want to just spew vitriol or nonsense.

[CosmicCowboy]

Hard to have debate when most of the conservatives on here run away from it. Yoni feels no need to back up anything he says, CC plays the "I was just trolling!" card, and DarrinS can't keep focused on a topic for more than two seconds without whipping out a race card or non sequitur.

I've had plenty of spirited and articulate debates in here. The fact was that I WAS trolling about the Chinese missile just for fun.

You want to debate something substantial, bring your A game. I'm your huckleberry.

[LnGrrrR]

I've had plenty of spirited and articulate debates in here. The fact was that I WAS trolling about the Chinese missile just for fun.

You want to debate something substantial, bring your A game. I'm your huckleberry.

I know you've had decent debates here CC, but it's not very fair to turn around and play the "I was trolling" card when you get called out. It's hard over the internet to determine the difference between an "I was trolling!" post and an "I'm dumb and here's a dumb statement to prove it!" post.

[CosmicCowboy]

I know you've had decent debates here CC, but it's not very fair to turn around and play the "I was trolling" card when you get called out. It's hard over the internet to determine the difference between an "I was trolling!" post and an "I'm dumb and here's a dumb statement to prove it!" post.

fair? meh. I usually come to this place for amusement and links to stories (both left and right)...If I want serious debates with serious intellects this is hardly the place to look...too much static

[Yonivore]

You're whining about me whining. Nice.

Several posters asked you to back up your claims of reading intelligence blogs. You chose not to, and whined when people gave you a hard time about it.

So, I list the intelligence blogs I read and then, there's several pages of; "Well, Yonivore knows how to google 'Intelligence Blog'."

It's a no-win way to side-track a thread over meaningless nonsense.

Then, of course, the fact that you post threads about articles you haven't even read, then dismiss others with a "It's a message board, I don't have to back myself up" story.

I don't recall ever taking that defense as a reason for not responding.

Myself, I find it relatively easy to skip over the "useless" posts to get to the ones I find interesting.

I'm always up for a good debate; there's been a few on here. Not my fault that a majority of posters want to just spew vitriol or nonsense.

My preferences have the board come up newest to oldest post, I'll scroll back and if it looks like the topic has gone awry -- even if it was something I was interested in -- I usually drop the thread.

[LnGrrrR]

So, I list the intelligence blogs I read and then, there's several pages of; "Well, Yonivore knows how to google 'Intelligence Blog'."

It's a no-win way to side-track a thread over meaningless nonsense.

Perhaps, but getting ridiculed over what blogs you're reading seems to give you better reliability than refusing to name the blogs in the first place. After all, if you're sharing info from them, then you assume that they are credible. If they are credible, then I don't see why you're worried you'd get ridiculed for reading them.