2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: punaperson on April 20, 2017, 07:36:01 AM
-
I'm posting this in "Political" because I believe it is clearly a political statement:
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18034328_1435530073187731_6341058135661438488_n.jpg?oh=e7405994ead4b7dec61a7c4fc163e0e0&oe=59801A23)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/20/sarah-palin-kid-rock-ted-nugent-visit-president-trump-at-white-house.html
-
(http://i.imgur.com/3coQTRe.jpg?1)
-
Pretty cool to see Ted Nugent there. That's positive for 2a. :thumbsup:
-
Good to see some humans in the white house.
Years of Democrats wore very thin.
-
Anyone interested in seeing more photos of the evening can see some on Palin's website:
http://www.sarahpalin.com/behind-scenes-photos-awesome-evening-white-house/
Including this one with White House tour guide Donald Trump:
(http://www.sarahpalin.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/22-768x1024.jpg)
-
Sorry, but the Nuge is a giant ass, regardless of his views on 2a or whatever good music he made. He's right up there in Mel Gibson idiot/crazy territory.
Sad to see him in the White House. Republicans everywhere would be good to get rid of these idiots rather than giving them a free pass just because they have some conservative viewpoints.
Come to think of it, Palin is another one that I have to wonder why the hell she is still around?
-
Sorry, but the Nuge is a giant ass, regardless of his views on 2a or whatever good music he made. He's right up there in Mel Gibson idiot/crazy territory.
Sad to see him in the White House. Republicans everywhere would be good to get rid of these idiots rather than giving them a free pass just because they have some conservative viewpoints.
Come to think of it, Palin is another one that I have to wonder why the hell she is still around?
Perhaps this came closer to meeting your standards:
(https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/rappers-at-the-white-house.jpg?quality=100&w=650)
-
Perhaps this came closer to meeting your standards:
Without calling you names, do you really think that's an intelligent response?
You represent exactly what's wrong with the Republican party if we want to strengthen and move forward. You can't just go total moron anytime anyone criticizes the party for things they should be criticized for. Nugent is a idiot, a racist, never did anything other than music, and other things that personally I don't want in the White House.
-
Without calling you names, do you really think that's an intelligent response?
You represent exactly what's wrong with the Republican party if we want to strengthen and move forward. You can't just go total moron anytime anyone criticizes the party for things they should be criticized for. Nugent is a idiot, a racist, never did anything other than music, and other things that personally I don't want in the White House.
Can you elaborate on Ted Nugent being a racist idiot? He is extremely outspoken and no doubt very vocal but I'm interested in more specifics. He is very close with many black musicians and has been since the Amboy Dukes (1960s). I grew up there and the guy has done a lot for many, many people and Detroit. Without a doubt he is a very strong 2a proponent and has been for a long time. Some things he has done or said are questionable for sure but make no mistake, the guy is a diehard 2a advocate and is always fighting for our rights. Most of these musician types are just a lot of hot air but he actually advocates for our 2a rights, whether you think he is a idiot of not. He is well educated on the subject and continually fighting for our 2a rights. Again, just curious why you say he is a racist idiot? BTW...seen him in the 70s many times and his concerts were awesome!
-
Without calling you names, do you really think that's an intelligent response?
I wouldn't make that judgment because I have no idea what your definition of "intelligent response" is, so I wouldn't venture a guess, but I do know that you are the person who responded to the original post, which was just a photo, by claiming that one of the people in the photo was "a giant ass", "crazy" and in "idiot/crazy territory". Was that an "intelligent response"? Feel free to include me in your name-calling intelligent responses.
You represent exactly what's wrong with the Republican party if we want to strengthen and move forward. You can't just go total moron anytime anyone criticizes the party for things they should be criticized for. Nugent is a idiot, a racist, never did anything other than music, and other things that personally I don't want in the White House.
Ha ha. That's totally laughable. Not because it took you two more sentences to contradict your first sentence "Without calling you names" by calling me a "moron", but because there is no one on these threads that has criticized the Republican party as hypocrites on numerous issues more than me. Am I right or what, Rocky? I'm not a Republican. I'm more of a libertarian, but not a Libertarian (William Weld? Totally absurd mockery of the very concept of libertarianism!). I posted that original photo not because I am a "fan" of any of those people (I'm actually not at all, except for Nugent's outspoken views on some 2A issues, but certainly not on his endorsement of "immigration reform" advocate Grover Norquist for NRA board of directors), but because I found it extremely amusing/ironic that those people were in the White House and posing in front of the official portrait of Hillary Clinton. I was imagining the Dem splodey heads. I look forward to your citations of the evidence of Nugent's racism. I'd also like to hear more about the details of the plan for the Republican party "to strengthen and move forward"... you mean like the group from Oahu (touted by Rocky) that the state GOP organization has declared is a fraud?
-
Can you elaborate on Ted Nugent being a racist idiot? He is extremely outspoken and no doubt very vocal but I'm interested in more specifics. He is very close with many black musicians and has been since the Amboy Dukes (1960s). I grew up there and the guy has done a lot for many, many people and Detroit. Without a doubt he is a very strong 2a proponent and has been for a long time. Some things he has done or said are questionable for sure but make no mistake, the guy is a diehard 2a advocate and is always fighting for our rights. Most of these musician types are just a lot of hot air but he actually advocates for our 2a rights, whether you think he is a idiot of not. He is well educated on the subject and continually fighting for our 2a rights. Again, just curious why you say he is a racist idiot? BTW...seen him in the 70s many times and his concerts were awesome!
Ya, its too bad, his music and shows were probably awesome.
Anyhow, he's called Blacks "greasy mongrels," and said that there isn't one "true" Black American. Blames Jews for everything wrong in the world (at least thats not because of the Blacks and other "mongrels") and openly posts on Facebook about supporting the Holocaust. There is a long list of similar things he's said. As for being an idiot, I guess that's purely a personal evaluation, but a pretty easy one to make after hearing him speak. He's just a loudmouth.
Lastly, I really, really, despise people like him who go on and on about "our troops" etc. yet he never served and dodged Vietnam by shitting his pants. All in all, I think every indication I have is of someone that imo should be distanced from any President of this country.
-
1) Sorry if I wasn't clear, but "you" in my post is just in general. I guess I should have said "a person"
.
2) I'm not Rocky and don't have any connections to any group on Oahu. Sorry, but I don't even know who Rocky is.
3) You directly criticized me in a totally asinine way, by stating that if I didn't like Nugent in the White House, then I must like a bunch of rappers instead. That's ridiculous, and I called you on it. End of story.
-
Ya, its too bad, his music and shows were probably awesome.
Anyhow, he's called Blacks "greasy mongrels," and said that there isn't one "true" Black American. Blames Jews for everything wrong in the world (at least thats not because of the Blacks and other "mongrels") and openly posts on Facebook about supporting the Holocaust. There is a long list of similar things he's said. As for being an idiot, I guess that's purely a personal evaluation, but a pretty easy one to make after hearing him speak. He's just a loudmouth.
Lastly, I really, really, despise people like him who go on and on about "our troops" etc. yet he never served and dodged Vietnam by shitting his pants. All in all, I think every indication I have is of someone that imo should be distanced from any President of this country.
So, in your mind, no one is allowed to praise the military unless they have served as well? Getting out of serving in no way implies they don't respect the military. We've had many who did volunteer yet refused to deploy to the Middle East because they disagreed with the mission and politics of civilians ordering them to deploy, not because they hate the military. Are those types also to be despised if they praise "our troops"?
Your rationale for despising Nugent's patriotism is illogical. People who refused to go to Vietnam were flocking to Canada to escape the draft. That doesn't mean they didn't love their country .... just that they disagreed with the war even more.
Is it more patriotic to die for a cause you don't believe in just because the government forces you to join and fight?
-
Anyhow, he's called Blacks "greasy mongrels," and said that there isn't one "true" Black American. Blames Jews for everything wrong in the world (at least thats not because of the Blacks and other "mongrels") and openly posts on Facebook about supporting the Holocaust. There is a long list of similar things he's said. As for being an idiot, I guess that's purely a personal evaluation, but a pretty easy one to make after hearing him speak. He's just a loudmouth.
Can you please provide links to the documents that would substantiate your claims about Nugent's statements?
-
1) Sorry if I wasn't clear, but "you" in my post is just in general. I guess I should have said "a person"
No, that wasn't "clear" at all. You quote me [Quote from: punaperson on April 21, 2017, 12:26:41 PM]: "Perhaps this came closer to meeting your standards:", and then you write: "Without calling you names, do you really think that's an intelligent response?". So now you're (you specifically, not "a person" "in general") saying what you really meant was ""Without calling a person names, do[es] a person really think that's an intelligent response?" Yeah, that makes sense.
And then you (and I mean "you", not "a person") write: "You represent exactly what's wrong with the Republican party if we want to strengthen and move forward. You can't just go total moron anytime anyone criticizes the party for things they should be criticized for.", which you now claim really meant "A person represent(s) exactly what's wrong with the Republican party if we want to strengthen and move forward. A person can't just go total moron anytime anyone criticizes the party for things they should be criticized for."
For some reason I'm having a hard time believing you.
2) I'm not Rocky and don't have any connections to any group on Oahu. Sorry, but I don't even know who Rocky is.
That was directed at Rocky, (who could verify my "criticism" of the Republican party) who has posted recently about the "new" Republican party/direction and who they are and what they are doing. I responded to several of his posts on that thread providing evidence of the agenda of the people leading and promoting that "change". They are "fundamentalist christians" who assert that government must be based upon the teachings of the bible (as they interpret them, of course)(perhaps that's what you also mean by "strengthen and move forward"). You seem to be unfamiliar with my postings re the Republican party and the amount of hypocrisy therein, and was simply seeking confirmation from Rocky, as he is well aware of it. So your assumption that I am not critical of that political party is simply wrong.
3) You directly criticized me in a totally asinine way, by stating that if I didn't like Nugent in the White House, then I must like a bunch of rappers instead. That's ridiculous, and I called you on it. End of story.
There you go again... "totally asinine", but... whatever., I guess I now have a better idea of what you consider "an intelligent response". Please provide the quote wherein I state "that if [you] didn't like Nugent in the White House, then [you] must like a bunch of rappers instead".
What I actually wrote was "Perhaps this came closer to meeting your standards: [photo]". I suppose I could have included a question mark, but I thought that would be grammatically incorrect: "Perhaps this came closer to meeting your standards?: [photo]" It was intended as a question to get you to state clearly what your criteria are for "allowing" the President to invite people to the White House. Maybe you could provide us with that list of criteria now? and perhaps you could give us your judgment on which of the people from the following list "should" be "allowed", by invitation, to be in the White House: [Dems] Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Lois Lerner, [Repubs] David Petraeus, Dennis Hastert, Michael Grimm, Trey Radel, Rick Renzi.
-
None of the people in that WH photo are there for official purposes -- unless Trump is getting a feel for a new cabinet member.
All three are US citizens, have contributed to the US in some significant way, and were invited the White House just as the Super Bowl Champs or any other celebrity might be.
You don't have to like the people. But you do have to learn to deal with things you might not like in an adult fashion. Saying "sad to see him in the White House" shows how you use personal feelings to make your point -- nothing to do with anything he's actually done in real life.
Words and opinions are protected under the Constitution. Nugent is free to think and express any opinion he wants inside of certain limitations.
You're also free to express your opinion about Uncle Ted. But, just because someone disagrees with you in no way makes them summarily wrong.
-
Dear Davg,
I'm only jumping i here because my name was mentioned plus I was asked to confirm if poster was correct.
1) "claiming that one of the people in the photo was "a giant ass", "crazy" and in "idiot/crazy territory"
Is your personal opinion and you are entitled to it via 1a :worship:
2) Poster states "there is no one on these threads that has criticized the Republican party as hypocrites on numerous issues more than me."
I cannot confirm or deny this is true as I have not read EVERY SINGLE THREAD ON THIS BOARD and would again be chastised by the poster who would read EVERY SINGLE THREAD ON THIS BOARD to dispute me but the ones I have personally posted have been HIGHLY CRITICIZED :rofl:by the poster in question whether I was right or wrong , just my opinion or even tried to agree with this poster.
FYI: I am not a "fundamentalist christian" , do not assert that government must be based upon the teachings of the bible and have not been a lifetime Republican, but rather a "convert" who has seen what is wrong with the party and is GETTING INVOLVED TO CHANGE WHAT IS WRONG instead of sitting back on a keyboard whining about how bad something is. :'(
To get a 2 party race at a MINIMUM with Republican Candidates that represents my side of the issues positively is my goal so that our present situation here in Hawaii brought on by a total Democrat representation (INCLUDING RINO's) can be corrected.
Actually, due to recent action by those with similar feelings and goals as myself, the party has had great leaps and bounds as recently as the past 72 hrs. :thumbsup:
Furthermore, I have stopped communicating with this poster as the poster does not/will not listen or does not/cannot comprehend that I am trying to help what is wrong in the Republican Party here in Hawaii and since my involvement, I have seen positive changes.
I hope that answers your questions,.
ps.
Davg, we look forward to seeing you at our monthly group meeting here on Oahu. :wave:
-
Hey Rocky,
It's been nearly 72 hours now since the official Hawaii Republican Party sent out this email regarding Mr. Kulbis: "GOP State Chair's Statement on Unauthorized "oahugop.com" Website".
I was hoping you'd post about it, but haven't seen anything. Could you direct me to a post you may have made that I've missed? Perhaps it's nothing more than a slight misunderstanding?
I may start a thread later and provide the entire email so people can see how things are going with the new and improved Oahu Republican organization that you support, and the response of the official state party.
:stopjack:
-
So, in your mind, no one is allowed to praise the military unless they have served as well?
Is it more patriotic to die for a cause you don't believe in just because the government forces you to join and fight?
No, that's not it. Its great when people are patriotic; its also great if people disagree with the government for sensible reasons. But in the case of Nugent, he frequently calls on communists and socialists to be killed, so Vietnam would have been right up his ideological alley. Then he takes it to another level like he made some personal sacrifice somehow, for example frequently wearing bdu's and bringing up the service of his family members in WWII as if that somehow reflected on him. He has never done jack-poop for this country. Period.
In my mind people who are quick and loud to say, "kill them all!" etc., and have no idea of what war, killing, etc. are, and are unwilling to risk their lives to do said killing, are jackasses (this includes politicians too). He's a coward, who like so many of his kind, hides behind a big mouth. In anything real he'd be crying. I'd bet this guy wouldn't even get his skinny ass into a fist fight without running away. He was a musician and nothing else, ever.
Anyhow, here are some quotes (which you apparently just don't want to see since you are just ignoring them in previous posts):
"My being there (South Africa) isn’t going to affect any political structure. Besides, apartheid isn’t that cut-and-dry. All men are not created equal."
"…Yeah they love me (in Japan) — they’re still assholes. These people they don’t know what life is. I don’t have a following, they need me; they don’t like me they need me… Foreigners are a******s; foreigners are scum; I don’t like ‘em; I don’t want ‘em in this country; I don’t want ‘em selling me doughnuts; I don’t want ‘em pumping my gas; I don’t want ‘em downwind of my life-OK? So anyhow, and I’m dead serious…" 1990, Detroit Free Press Interview.
" [black rappers] are greasy mongrels" MTV interview 1993.
Straight from his own mouth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1e4L_ghwjU
Honestly, just look at any interview of him. He can't criticize people he doesn't agree with without making them into non-hygenic sub-human animals that deserve to be slaughtered.
Also, patronizing people as if you are on some psychoanalytical high ground, while being incorrect at the same time, is unbecoming. Expressing my opinion and saying I'm sad that Trump invited this fool to the White House is in no way an inability to deal with things I disagree with. I disagree with him for specific reasons based on things he says and has said (none of that is emotional). If you can't put this together, maybe some reflection on your own personal ability to reason and engage in an "adult" discussion is in hand?
The real problem here is your and Punaperson's inability to get past a reactionary, "If you don't agree with us 100%, then you are totally against us." Its impossible to have a discussion with people like that, so I guess I'm out. Peace.
-
Punaperson -
Your post was exactly "If you don't like this, then you must like X." There was no gray area there. Anyhow, like I said in another post, no sense in having a discussion with people who see things in absolutes, so, peace.
-
If you can't put this together, maybe some reflection on your own personal ability to reason and engage in an "adult" discussion is in hand?
The real problem here is your and Punaperson's inability to get past a reactionary, "If you don't agree with us 100%, then you are totally against us." Its impossible to have a discussion with people like that, so I guess I'm out. Peace.
In your response, above, quoting Flapp_Jackson you claim that I have uttered/written "a reactionary, "If you don't agree with us 100%, then you are totally against us."" Please provide me with that quote(s) from me, especially given that you assert that "[my] own personal ability to reason" is defective. I want to assess the condition of your ability to reason, based upon what I actually wrote and what you claim I wrote. This should be good, as I never wrote anything remotely resembling that, and don't believe anything remotely resembling that. Maybe someone hacked my account?
What is your definition of "racism'? Typically it means "bias or prejudice based solely upon race or ethnicity". So you claim Nugent is racist, yet in the very audio interview you post (though hard to discern clearly in parts) Nugent praises and expresses admiration for musicians James Brown and Wilson Pickett, and clearly makes known that he is aware of their race. That doesn't seem like something a "racist" would do, given the general dictionary definition, so I'd like to hear your definition that accounts for the apparent contradiction.
As someone wrote, "If you can't put this together... ", oh, never mind...
-
Punaperson -
Your post was exactly "If you don't like this, then you must like X." There was no gray area there. Anyhow, like I said in another post, no sense in having a discussion with people who see things in absolutes, so, peace.
You're either a liar or don't understand the English language or have no capacity for reasoning and critical thinking. But that's fine, it's not a criticism, just an explanatory hypothesis as to how you can continue to make up false quotations that you ascribe to me.
"Your post was exactly "If you don't like this, then you must like X."" No it wasn't. I didn't use one single one of those words, much less those words in that order. It's exactly the opposite of "exactly". Not anything even remotely like that. But you don't seem to want to post the actual words I wrote, only your fallacious "interpretation" of them. Which you are certainly free to do. As am I free to point out your false misattribution and faulty logic.
I see you haven't responded to my request that you post your criteria for who a President ought be allowed to invite to the White House, and/or who on the list I provided you would find "acceptable". Why no response? Lemme guess: "[N]o sense in having a discussion with people who" ask simple questions? It would clarify whatever it is is the point you are trying to make. I suspect, and again, it's not an accusation or a claim of fact, but just a hypothesis, you haven't responded with your list of criteria because when you distill it down to its essence it is: "No one should be allowed in the White House who I disagree with". Prove me wrong. Let's see your list of "objective criteria" (and please don't use weasel-words like "racist", "sexist", "misogynist", "homophobe", "xenophobe", "islamophobe", "irredeemable", "deplorable", etc.).
-
You're either a liar or don't understand the English language or have no capacity for reasoning and critical thinking. But that's fine, it's not a criticism, just an explanatory hypothesis as to how you can continue to make up false quotations that you ascribe to me.
"Your post was exactly "If you don't like this, then you must like X."" No it wasn't. I didn't use one single one of those words, much less those words in that order. It's exactly the opposite of "exactly". Not anything even remotely like that. But you don't seem to want to post the actual words I wrote, only your fallacious "interpretation" of them. Which you are certainly free to do. As am I free to point out your false misattribution and faulty logic.
I see you haven't responded to my request that you post your criteria for who a President ought be allowed to invite to the White House, and/or who on the list I provided you would find "acceptable". Why no response? Lemme guess: "[N]o sense in having a discussion with people who" ask simple questions? It would clarify whatever it is is the point you are trying to make. I suspect, and again, it's not an accusation or a claim of fact, but just a hypothesis, you haven't responded with your list of criteria because when you distill it down to its essence it is: "No one should be allowed in the White House who I disagree with". Prove me wrong. Let's see your list of "objective criteria" (and please don't use weasel-words like "racist", "sexist", "misogynist", "homophobe", "xenophobe", "islamophobe", "irredeemable", "deplorable", etc.).
Lol, Here is the copy/paste of what I wrote. I never said anything was "unacceptable" or they shouldn't be allowed. I said it was "sad to see him in the White House." Man, you are being really thick.
"Sorry, but the Nuge is a giant ass, regardless of his views on 2a or whatever good music he made. He's right up there in Mel Gibson idiot/crazy territory.
Sad to see him in the White House. Republicans everywhere would be good to get rid of these idiots rather than giving them a free pass just because they have some conservative viewpoints.
Come to think of it, Palin is another one that I have to wonder why the hell she is still around?"
It's a question of what beliefs and personality traits are associated with the highest office in the entire world. Like I said before, I don't think racism and anti-antisemitism should be part of what any president or leader is associated with (just like I would say about many other people, not just the Nuge). That's my belief. If you want neo-Nazis, or serial killers, or rapists (actually Nugent was with a 12 year old too, but I'm sure you have some rationale for that as well) or whoever else in the White House, fine, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, just like my opinion is that I don't want those people there. . Not sure how else I can explain it to get through your apparent psychosis on the matter.
Also, the old, "I'm not racist, I have friends that are X," is the typical BS response of countless racists. Just because he can appreciate good music doesn't change it otherwise. You asked for quotes, etc. I gave them. You just won't accept or hear any other point of view other than your own. Fine, great, have a great day and keep on keepin' on in your own little world, just don't try and drag me into it please. :wacko:
-
Lol, Here is the copy/paste of what I wrote. I never said anything was "unacceptable" or they shouldn't be allowed. I said it was "sad to see him in the White House." Man, you are being really thick.
"Sorry, but the Nuge is a giant ass, regardless of his views on 2a or whatever good music he made. He's right up there in Mel Gibson idiot/crazy territory.
Sad to see him in the White House. Republicans everywhere would be good to get rid of these idiots rather than giving them a free pass just because they have some conservative viewpoints.
Come to think of it, Palin is another one that I have to wonder why the hell she is still around?"
It's a question of what beliefs and personality traits are associated with the highest office in the entire world. Like I said before, I don't think racism and anti-antisemitism should be part of what any president or leader is associated with (just like I would say about many other people, not just the Nuge). That's my belief. If you want neo-Nazis, or serial killers, or rapists (actually Nugent was with a 12 year old too, but I'm sure you have some rationale for that as well) or whoever else in the White House, fine, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, just like my opinion is that I don't want those people there. . Not sure how else I can explain it to get through your apparent psychosis on the matter.
Also, the old, "I'm not racist, I have friends that are X," is the typical BS response of countless racists. Just because he can appreciate good music doesn't change it otherwise. You asked for quotes, etc. I gave them. You just won't accept or hear any other point of view other than your own. Fine, great, have a great day and keep on keepin' on in your own little world, just don't try and drag me into it please. :wacko:
Were you also sad to see Palin in the White House? Or merely idly wondering why she was "still around"? What about a person in the White House who has stated he "grabs them by the pussy"? Not exactly "anti-antisemitism" (who'd you have in mind?) or racism or neo-Nazi or serial killer or rapist (but certainly someone who numerous women have claimed sexually harassed them), but wondering if that qualifies as someone you'd be "sad to see in the White House"?
I asked for links, not quotes without the ability to verify them: "Can you please provide links to the documents that would substantiate your claims about Nugent's statements?" You still haven't provided those. Also you changed one of the (unlinked) claimed quotes as applying first to "Blacks" and then later to "black rappers". Which was it? Or is it something else entirely? Where's the link so I can see for myself, both the quote and the source (and the context)? Are you sure he didn't just say "rappers", without mentioning race? Or are you just making stuff up (again)?
-
Oh brother, not worth responding to you anymore. Too bad this forum doesn't have an ignore feature. :wave:
-
Oh brother, not worth responding to you anymore. Too bad this forum doesn't have an ignore feature. :wave:
You and another newcomer liberal would be a good use for it.
-
Oh brother, not worth responding to you anymore. Too bad this forum doesn't have an ignore feature. :wave:
Yeah, I understand that it's not "worth" it to you to post the simple answers to simple questions that would clarify specifically what makes you "sad" about who might be invited to the White House. (Were you sad, or not, to see Palin there? What about the New England Patriots ("Deflategate")?).
What your non-answers, name-calling ("moron", "psychosis", etc.), and other avoidances/diversions do clarify, however, is what you meant by "intelligent response" and "adult conversation".
Thanks for the insight.
-
...Too bad this forum doesn't have an ignore feature. :wave:
This forum does have an ignore feature and I have used it. It's not great but it does work as designed. Go into your profile and click the "Buddies/Ignore List" link.
-
This forum does have an ignore feature and I have used it. It's not great but it does work as designed. Go into your profile and click the "Buddies/Ignore List" link.
There is also the SCROLL FEATURE on your mouse, trackpad or phone. See something you want to ignore? Just scroll on by!
-
You and another newcomer liberal would be a good use for it.
:-*
Illustrating my points regarding inability to accept any criticism to the T, thanks.
-
This forum does have an ignore feature and I have used it. It's not great but it does work as designed. Go into your profile and click the "Buddies/Ignore List" link.
Thankfully ignoring someone on an online forum is a freedom that I exercise often. . . Takes me less than a second to see the screen name and scroll on.
-
:-*
Illustrating my points regarding inability to accept any criticism to the T, thanks.
Uh, YOU'RE the one who brought up YOUR desire for an ignore option because (?) you don't like to get questioned about your statements that seem ambiguous, contradictory, or clearly false, etc., which perhaps you take as criticism (I suspect so since using name-calling and ad hominems (moron, psychosis, etc.) are usually an indication of someone who is uncomfortable simply providing an "intelligent response" in an "adult conversation").
Pot, meet kettle.
But I guess you won't ever see this now that you have permanently ignored me. Glad that's over. :geekdanc:
-
:-*
Illustrating my points regarding inability to accept any criticism to the T, thanks.
Constructive criticism is welcome. Saying "You represent exactly what's wrong with the Republican party" is not even close to constructive.
The following is your first comment in this topic. Please point out the part that's "criticism" versus an ad hominem insult?
Sorry, but the Nuge is a giant ass, regardless of his views on 2a or whatever good music he made. He's right up there in Mel Gibson idiot/crazy territory.
Sad to see him in the White House. Republicans everywhere would be good to get rid of these idiots rather than giving them a free pass just because they have some conservative viewpoints.
Come to think of it, Palin is another one that I have to wonder why the hell she is still around?
ad ho·mi·nem
/ad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem
1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"
-
SNIP
ad ho·mi·nem
/ad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem
1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"
Thanks. I was just going to Google that. I was pretty sure I knew what it meant, but I wanted to be sure. Us public school Oahu kids need help sometimes. . . ;D
-
BTW, Palin is still around because every time she opens her mouth, the Liberals lose their bloody minds! It keeps her relevant since so many people give her their attention
--- just like you did! :thumbsup:
-
Constructive criticism is welcome. Saying "You represent exactly what's wrong with the Republican party" is not even close to constructive.
The following is your first comment in this topic. Please point out the part that's "criticism" versus an ad hominem insult?
ad ho·mi·nem
/ad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem
1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"
Honestly, if you don't understand my criticism as outlined in my first post which you quote, and later with specific quotes and audio from Nugent in the rest of the thread, then I can't explain it anymore.
Same goes for punaperson and why I won't be reading or commenting on his posts anymore. Psychosis could certainly be an adhominem attack, but if the person refuses or is incapable of reading or understanding simple facts, logic and reason, then in my opinion its not an ad hominem, its simply an observation. I provided plenty of specific references, including audio direct from Nugent. (I'm sorry, but I don't have the time nor inclination to go find microfiche articles for the all important sir. Even then I'm sure he would just go to the next level and say he wanted actual newspaper clippings.) Frankly from what I've read from his other posts, he immediately jumps to calling people liars if they don't agree with him, so no big loss. Anyhow....
As for robtmc, he did illustrate exactly the point, by outright saying that because of my criticism of Nugent being welcomed with open arms in the White House, that I must be a liberal. Same as punaperson, that if I didn't like Nugent, then I must like Obama and a bunch of rappers. Its really, really, painfully obvious. All you have to do is have some basic reading comprehension. Again, can't explain it anymore.
Since we're going to talk logical fallacies here, that's called a false dilemma, pretty old logical fallacy here. Later my criticism is passed over through a red herring and getting into ad nasueam by calling endlessly into play for proof.
Whether or not anybody agrees or disagrees, it's a personal opinion, which I described as sad, obviously a personal opinion. I would/did/do say the same of Soros, David Duke, Al Sharpton, Black Panthers, KKK, neo-Nazis, and a host of others in the White House. Frankly I don't want to see them in the White House for any reason, even if they happen to support 2A or other conservative viewpoint. If you don't like MY opinion on that, fine great grand, but no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. My opinion is that a few good points doesn't negate many bad ones.
Apparently many feel the other way. It seems your motto is, "Like 2A? Great, do whatever the hell you want and we'll still love you unconditionally." Fine, if you want to be "100% with us or 100% against us" that's your prerogative. However, that's not my viewpoint. Sorry to cause you spasm and palpitations.
As for "reacting" to Palin, I would hardly say that I lost "my bloody mind", I just don't see what purpose she serves anymore. Politicians, like all others, need to learn when its time to call it quits.
Ok, have a great day everyone, I have some pigs that I have to go teach to sing now.
-
Honestly, if you don't understand my criticism as outlined in my first post which you quote, and later with specific quotes and audio from Nugent in the rest of the thread, then I can't explain it anymore.
Same goes for punaperson and why I won't be reading or commenting on his posts anymore. Psychosis could certainly be an adhominem attack, but if the person refuses or is incapable of reading or understanding simple facts, logic and reason, then in my opinion its not an ad hominem, its simply an observation. I provided plenty of specific references, including audio direct from Nugent. (I'm sorry, but I don't have the time nor inclination to go find microfiche articles for the all important sir. Even then I'm sure he would just go to the next level and say he wanted actual newspaper clippings.) Frankly from what I've read from his other posts, he immediately jumps to calling people liars if they don't agree with him, so no big loss. Anyhow....
As for robtmc, he did illustrate exactly the point, by outright saying that because of my criticism of Nugent being welcomed with open arms in the White House, that I must be a liberal. Same as punaperson, that if I didn't like Nugent, then I must like Obama and a bunch of rappers. Its really, really, painfully obvious. All you have to do is have some basic reading comprehension. Again, can't explain it anymore.
Since we're going to talk logical fallacies here, that's called a false dilemma, pretty old logical fallacy here. Later my criticism is passed over through a red herring and getting into ad nasueam by calling endlessly into play for proof.
Whether or not anybody agrees or disagrees, it's a personal opinion, which I described as sad, obviously a personal opinion. I would/did/do say the same of Soros, David Duke, Al Sharpton, Black Panthers, KKK, neo-Nazis, and a host of others in the White House. Frankly I don't want to see them in the White House for any reason, even if they happen to support 2A or other conservative viewpoint. If you don't like MY opinion on that, fine great grand, but no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. My opinion is that a few good points doesn't negate many bad ones.
Apparently many feel the other way. It seems your motto is, "Like 2A? Great, do whatever the hell you want and we'll still love you unconditionally." Fine, if you want to be "100% with us or 100% against us" that's your prerogative. However, that's not my viewpoint. Sorry to cause you spasm and palpitations.
As for "reacting" to Palin, I would hardly say that I lost "my bloody mind", I just don't see what purpose she serves anymore. Politicians, like all others, need to learn when its time to call it quits.
Ok, have a great day everyone, I have some pigs that I have to go teach to sing now.
It's okay to have personal opinions and share them. But don't pretend they are meant as criticisms (meaning analysis and judgement based on the merits) after the way you began with nothing but insults and personal attacks on Nugent and Palin -- and we can include Mel Gibson there.
Maybe in your mind, you can cut to the chase and just give the short caption of how you FEEL. But, don't get defensive when called on it and then try to find ways to justify your comments. Facts go a long way toward expressing an opinion more so than feelings. Don't apologize for your feelings, but you should feel responsible for stirring up this topic by the way you lead off with insults, smears and personal attacks.
-
Honestly, if you don't understand my criticism as outlined in my first post which you quote, and later with specific quotes and audio from Nugent in the rest of the thread, then I can't explain it anymore.
Same goes for punaperson and why I won't be reading or commenting on his posts anymore. Psychosis could certainly be an adhominem attack, but if the person refuses or is incapable of reading or understanding simple facts, logic and reason, then in my opinion its not an ad hominem, its simply an observation. I provided plenty of specific references, including audio direct from Nugent. (I'm sorry, but I don't have the time nor inclination to go find microfiche articles for the all important sir. Even then I'm sure he would just go to the next level and say he wanted actual newspaper clippings.) Frankly from what I've read from his other posts, he immediately jumps to calling people liars if they don't agree with him, so no big loss. Anyhow....
As for robtmc, he did illustrate exactly the point, by outright saying that because of my criticism of Nugent being welcomed with open arms in the White House, that I must be a liberal. Same as punaperson, that if I didn't like Nugent, then I must like Obama and a bunch of rappers. Its really, really, painfully obvious. All you have to do is have some basic reading comprehension. Again, can't explain it anymore.
Since we're going to talk logical fallacies here, that's called a false dilemma, pretty old logical fallacy here. Later my criticism is passed over through a red herring and getting into ad nasueam by calling endlessly into play for proof.
Whether or not anybody agrees or disagrees, it's a personal opinion, which I described as sad, obviously a personal opinion. I would/did/do say the same of Soros, David Duke, Al Sharpton, Black Panthers, KKK, neo-Nazis, and a host of others in the White House. Frankly I don't want to see them in the White House for any reason, even if they happen to support 2A or other conservative viewpoint. If you don't like MY opinion on that, fine great grand, but no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. My opinion is that a few good points doesn't negate many bad ones.
Apparently many feel the other way. It seems your motto is, "Like 2A? Great, do whatever the hell you want and we'll still love you unconditionally." Fine, if you want to be "100% with us or 100% against us" that's your prerogative. However, that's not my viewpoint. Sorry to cause you spasm and palpitations.
As for "reacting" to Palin, I would hardly say that I lost "my bloody mind", I just don't see what purpose she serves anymore. Politicians, like all others, need to learn when its time to call it quits.
Ok, have a great day everyone, I have some pigs that I have to go teach to sing now.
(http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)