On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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. > It's biased because you claimed only the Republicans do nothing about extremist in the party. Then later you mumbled maybe others bla bla > The difference in the pols is 7% and given the margin of error could be as > little as 4% difference. > That would still mean there is no difference yet your are stating it's a GOP problem. If everyone has the problem why are we discussing it? Because of bias. 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. Flattery will get you nowhere. BTW, are you going to start taking notes so I won't have to remind you of what you said? > > > 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. > > Yeah, that won't work. You see the article you were looking for was on theHill.com so that's where you would search. To search google would bring back way too many hits. > 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. > > Calling someone a moron publicly is a better approach then telling them they should resign or drop out of a race. I don't see where that would make any sense. > > > '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' > > Do you know what resigned means? Do you think he woke up one day and said I'm tired of working? He was pressured to resign by Republicans, translation: 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.> > Do you live in Bizzaro world? So the GOP can't do anything right in your world. Do you still blame Bush for everything? > > > 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. My post was about how the media misled the masses about the republicans and you turned around and agreed with the corrupted message. You're attack on the GOP makes no sense if you felt the same about the DNC. Might as well just say politicians in general. > > 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' Hmmm, now I'm confused. You back up everything Larry ever posts. You attack an comment slightly to the right of Larry and now you're claiming you're neutral? I missed something. But, it's good to have you back. > 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. Check your notes. > > 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'. Semantics. 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. You just described yourself. Not only that but you confessed to doing that a few weeks back. . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:365681 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
