@fmf saidanother one that can't separate.
You can call me whatever names you like. And that's basically what you chose to do, instead of addressing my posts. I oppose anyone being given the "right" to censor other posters' posts, least of all a poster with your demeanor and temperament. You can call me "small minded" to your heart's content. But it won't make your case any stronger.
You could have expressed your opinion *without* the vitriol and be done with it long ago. All that dancing, useless.
you are clearly not an issue oriented person.
@earl-of-trumps [i]said[/iNo poster should have the power to censor or delete other posters' posts, least of all a poster like you. See? I AM issue-oriented AND my perspective is rooted in the reality of this community, as well.
you are clearly not an issue oriented person.
It's completely ridiculous that a poster like you is proposing that posters should have the power to censor or delete other posters' posts.
@earl-of-trumps saidI have been on this site for 15 years. When or where did I ever quote or write anything that would qualify me as a "radical left wing Democrat"? I take issue with your posts when you condemn all Democrats (including those of us who are centrists) for no valid reason.
PS: Andy, you come with the reputation of being a radical left wing DEMOCRAT. I can separate and discuss issues with you.
@fmf saidagain, the vitriol, the taking it to t personal level.
No poster should have the power to censor or delete other posters' posts, least of all a poster like you. See? I AM issue-oriented AND my perspective is rooted in the reality of this community, as well.
It's completely ridiculous that a poster like you is proposing that posters should have the power to censor or delete other posters' posts.
you're a loozer.
@handyandy saidI) It was tit-for-tat, Andy. You said I had a reputation of being a radical right-winger, or some such words.
I have been on this site for 15 years. When or where did I ever quote or write anything that would qualify me as a "radical left wing Democrat"? I take issue with your posts when you condemn all Democrats (including those of us who are centrists) for no valid reason.
II) I was a democrat until age 28. Now, I'm a born-again non democrat and I am preaching to y'all to get the hell out of that criminal organization.
@earl-of-trumps saidIt's always the ones who have some kind of epiphany while listening to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity that I can't trust. My values can't be swayed by snake-oil salesmen, that is why nothing could get me to vote for Plastic Trump. It is those whose values are so loose they would follow demagogues that scare me, like the dimwit militia types who stormed the Capitol. The Q-anon morons.
I) It was tit-for-tat, Andy. You said I had a reputation of being a radical right-winger, or some such words.
II) I was a democrat until age 28. Now, I'm a born-again non democrat and I am preaching to y'all to get the hell out of that criminal organization.
@earl-of-trumps saidYou keep pretending that I am not sticking to the topic.
again, the vitriol, the taking it to t personal level.
you're a loozer.
@earl-of-trumps saidYou've made little else but crude personal remarks since I started dismantling your censorship proposal. You may think you are dealing in an example of the OP's "ideas", but in fact you're not.
again, the vitriol, the taking it to t personal level.
@suzianne saidIt's interesting though how, in terms of your own demeanour, your tabloidesque smackdown rhetotic, your insults and constant "outrage" and tireless narcissistic anger, you're every bit as Trumpian and just as much of a creature of the toxic Trumpian public domain as any of the people you are ideologically opposed to.
It's always the ones who have some kind of epiphany while listening to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity that I can't trust. My values can't be swayed by snake-oil salesmen, that is why nothing could get me to vote for Plastic Trump. It is those whose values are so loose they would follow demagogues that scare me, like the dimwit militia types who stormed the Capitol. The Q-anon morons.
@earl-of-trumps saidAnd best of all, you didn't have to waste any time dealing with facts.
I) It was tit-for-tat, Andy. You said I had a reputation of being a radical right-winger, or some such words.
II) I was a democrat until age 28. Now, I'm a born-again non democrat and I am preaching to y'all to get the hell out of that criminal organization.
@fmf saidHere we go.
It's interesting though how, in terms of your own demeanour, your tabloidesque smackdown rhetotic, your insults and constant "outrage" and tireless narcissistic anger, you're every bit as Trumpian and just as much of a creature of the toxic Trumpian public domain as any of the people you are ideologically opposed to.
Just because Earl peed in your Cheerios is no reason to take it out on me. I know you seem to think I'm a soft target, but you have missed your target by a mile, here. Please, take your tired old canned responses to me and shove it. Thanks.
@suzianne saidI don't expect you to agree with me and your 'banter' type retort suggests you may have missed my point.
Here we go.
Just because Earl peed in your Cheerios is no reason to take it out on me. I know you seem to think I'm a soft target, but you have missed your target by a mile, here. Please, take your tired old canned responses to me and shove it. Thanks.
Regardless of whether you and I agree on how a country should be governed, when people talk about the toxic, polarized state of public discourse in the U.S., I think people like you are just as much a part of that problem as are people like Earl of Trumps.
This isn't about whether you or he has the right ideas about how your country should be run. It's about the nature of the discourse, the depth of the scorn, the sweeping generalizations, the angry insults, and the hyperbolic rhetoric etc.
This is not a "canned response". Indeed, if you truly think it is, then I think you perhaps just don't understand how much you and many of your Trumpist opponents have in common in the Trumpian discursive dystopia that you contribute to.
1 edit
@suzianne saidIt's not about "taking [something] out on" you. And, if you think Earl of Trumps "peed in [my] Cheerios", then that's a matter for you and your perception of debates here.
Just because Earl peed in your Cheerios is no reason to take it out on me.
As it happens, I think he crumbled easily and I dealt with him calmly and incisively. If you characterize that as someone "peeing in someone's Cheerios", then all I can say is: you are who you are, Suzianne, and - here, anyway - you are what you post.
My observation about the American public domain - and your position in it - is, if anything, rather substantiated by your ignore-the-point-you-are-ostensibly-replying-to and just make a few scornful remarks in lieu of a genuine response instead: the standard fare of the Trumpian public domain.
@handyandy saidthey're aren't many to discuss, are there?
And best of all, you didn't have to waste any time dealing with facts.
I gave you my opinion of the party democratic. You, a democrat, took the heat.
No biggie. 😴 😴 😴 😴 😴