Personally your original comment, while it gave a nod to the democrats doing similar thing your writing seemed to give them more of a break. On Jul 19, 2013 3:11 PM, "Scott Stroz" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Regardless, should my perception change simply because some people (not > > > > > even a majority of people) disagree with me? > > > > > > > It show's an uniformed bias. That's all. > > > > How is it 'biased'? I never said I think the Republican party is more > dominated by extremists than the Democratic party - which seems to be the > question to which you are referring. Nor did I said the Republican party is > 'dominated by extremists' I said that Republicans seem to ignore the > extremists, which could be perceived as approval. > > The difference in the pols is 7% and given the margin of error could be as > little as 4% difference. > > And, finally, as much as you think it does, it still has nothing to do with > what I said. All joking aside, I am really starting to think you have a > reading comprehension problem. > > > > > You are taking a stance that republicans don't handle nut jobs but I'm > > > showing you most people think the Dems do a worse job than the GOP. I'm > > > saying you're point is based on an ill informed opinion and I have a > > study > > > to back me up. > > > > > > > 'Study'? it was a poll. Polls are not studies. That little detail aside, > > > can't view any of the information the poll supposedly presents due to a > > 404 > > > error. Given the fact that the link you posted does not work, I'd be > > > willing to bet you did not even read the poll. If you did, can you > please > > > post a working link to it? > > > > > > > > > > > There's a little box that says "Search TheHill.com" You should try it. > > > > > http://thehill.com/polls/thehill-poll-week-2/124177-the-hill-poll-swing-district-voters-more-likely-to-see-dems-as-dominated-by-extremists- > > > Silly me, from now on when I want to post to links that seem to support my > position, I will simply post a link to http://google.com and tell you to > search for it. That seems to be acceptable. > > > > > > > > But the Republican Party did attack Todd Akin. Did the dems attack the > > huy > > > with cash in his freezer? What about the guy that had sex with a very > > young > > > page? He got promoted repeatedly. A republican has sex with a page and > > he's > > > forced out of office. So what are you talking about? > > > > > > > They did not 'attack' Todd Akin, or any of the other idiots who thought > > > they could talk about rape, etc. last year. > > > > > > > > > > JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. Rep. Todd Akin defied the nation's top Republicans > > Tuesday to forge ahead with his besieged Senate campaign, declaring that > > GOP leaders were overreacting by abandoning him because of comments that > > women's bodies can prevent pregnancies in cases of "legitimate rape." > > ... > > Sen. Roy Blunt issued a joint statement Tuesday with all four of > Missouri's > > living former Republican senators John Ashcroft, Kit Bond, Jim Talent > and > > John Danforth saying "it serves the national interest" for Akin to step > > aside. > > > > Pointing to the group, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said > > the congressman should "accept their counsel." > > Read more: Todd Akin defies GOP leaders to stay in Missouri Senate race - > > The Denver Post > > > > > http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_21362714/deadline-intensifies-pressure-todd-akin-after-legitimate-rape#ixzz2ZW3McbHg > > > > And he did lose the election. > > > > Meh - I am talking about publicly calling the guy out, not 'advising > against running'. The Democratic party should have called Hank Johnson as > idiot for thinking Guam would tip over. I do not recall any Democrat > speaking out against that. the Republican party should have said that Akin > was also a moron. Neither did. Both are guilty of allowing these idiots to > overshadow their party. > > > > > > > > > > 'Forced out of office'? Who was that? How were they forced out of > office? > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley_congressional_page_incident > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Congressional_page_sex_scandal > > Studd was re-elected six more times > > > > Foley resigned, how was that being 'forced out' > > If Studd was re-elected, that is on the people who elected him. The > republicans could not find a candidate that could beat a guy who had sex > with a minor? That is a sad testament to the candidates that they chose. > > > > > > > You really are purposely obtuse sometimes. I can;t believe I feel the > need > > > to say this, but, no, I do not let my children talk like that, but if > by > > > chance they did, and I said nothing about it, people would perceive > that > > as > > > their approving of his behavior. > > > > > > > Approve of or no control, either way not good. > > > > You really are dense or are being purposely obtuse. Either way, not good. > > > > > > > > I explained how the republican party's reactions to some of the things > > > their members has said and done (and the democratic party as well) is > > > perceived by me. I was not arguing...you were. > > > > > > > > Now you're saying the are equal? Your entire rant was R's don't speak up. > > Now you changed your tune? > > > > My 'rant' was in response to your post about republicans being perceived as > anti-science, etc. why would I bring up how I felt about Democrats? I was > responding to your post about republicans. > > > > > > > > What do you consider 'balanced' news? I am so sick of having to read any > > > news through a liberal (MSNBC, CNN, etc) filter or a conservative > > (FoxNews, > > > etc) filter. I get most of my news from the BBC, they seem to be less > > > sensationalized (though I bet you will say they are 'left leaning'). > > > Typically, I will read the same story on Fox and CNN and try to figure > > out > > > where in between both stories the truth lies. It is hard sometimes. > Must > > be > > > nice to just devour anything on FoxNews, or whatever 'balanced' news > > outlet > > > you get your news from, and assume it is gospel. > > > > > > BBC has a liberal bias. > > > > > > Just spread it out and remember everything Larry posts here comes from > a > > > site called rightwingwatch or something obviously biased > > > > If you think so low of me that you feel the need to point out that a web > site named 'right wing watch' is biased, I am not sure there is any need to > further this discussion. Just like I need to pass most links you post > through my 'conservative filter', I pass links form Larry through my > 'liberal filter' > > > > > > > > You attack everything that is not extreme right, hell you attack > anything > > > that is not even mildly leaning right. Your political scale must be all > > > sorts of messed up if you think I am 'extreme left'. I tend to disagree > > > with the extreme left and the extreme right..tells me I may be on the > > right > > > track. > > > > > > > > > What attacks? I am pointing out the fact that you are attacking the > right. > > How did you turn that into me attacking the left? > > > > I did not 'attack' the right. I was merely replying to your comment about > republicans. > > > > > > > > > I did notice after the fact backtracking but often? No. > > > > > > > > > > > What you call 'backtracking' I consider explaining it better so you can > > > understand. Sometimes, it is really hard for me to understand if the > > > problem is that I poorly explain my position or you are just dense. > > > > > > > It that you change positions so often you get dizzy > > You attacked the GOP for not speaking up. A few messages later you said > > it's not a problem for the democrats. Now suddenly it's an equal problem. > > > > You should maybe keep notes. > > > > > I did not 'attack' the right for not speaking up, nor have I changed my > position. It was a criticism, admittedly, based on my perception. If that > is an 'attack' in your mind, then you have 'attacked' pretty much > everything not decidedly 'conservative'. > > You frequently use hyperbole like this to try and make your point, or twist > someones words or meaning, It rarely, if ever, works and serves no real > purpose that to perpetuate your reputation as someone who dislikes others > with varying opinions who resorts to name calling and distorting facts when > they have nothing left to support their position. > > > -- > Scott Stroz > --------------- > You can make things happen, you can watch things happen or you can wonder > what the f*&k happened. - Cpt. Phil Harris > > http://xkcd.com/386 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:365671 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
