• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

It's Official Jon Stewart & Colbert will host a rally on October 30th in DC

"His desire to destroy America"??? Really, you have some nerve doing the very thing you are calling me out for. :rolleyes:

...

I'm saying that I've criticized people on the right for saying ridiculous things, such as that Obama wants to destroy the country. I'm not saying that I think he wants to destroy the country.
 
...

I'm saying that I've criticized people on the right for saying ridiculous things, such as that Obama wants to destroy the country. I'm not saying that I think he wants to destroy the country.
My mistake, I misunderstood you. Okay so you criticize people on the right for saying ridiculous things, but I haven't seen it. Instead I've only seen you insult me, twist my words, take them out of context and put your own meaning to them so that everything I say will look ridiculous to your little following. That's what I see, RightinNYC. And I don't think I"m the only one because I've seen you do it to others as well. I don't want to say anything more that might be misconstrued or get me into trouble because you obviously have the upper hand here since I can't tell if you're debating or moderating me. So maybe we should continue this conversation in private.
 
My mistake, I misunderstood you. Okay so you criticize people on the right for saying ridiculous things, but I haven't seen it.

Then I don't think you're looking very hard, as I argue with extreme partisans on the right about as often as I argue with those on the left. Recently it's been more of the left, due to an influx of threads complaining about every little thing involving anyone remotely related to the tea party. Prior to that, there was a flood of threads attacking Obama for everything that any person related to his administration did. Before that, there was a whole bunch of hyperbole about how the republicans were destroying the country by voting against everything. Before that, the forum was enthralled with the concept of death panels. The forum moves in waves - when there are more dumb conservative things being said, there's more to criticize on that side and vice versa.

Instead I've only seen you insult me, twist my words, take them out of context and put your own meaning to them so that everything I say will look ridiculous to your little following. That's what I see, RightinNYC. And I don't think I"m the only one because I've seen you do it to others as well.

This is a debate forum where people come to debate politics. If you want to make inflammatory or otherwise unsupportable statements, you should expect that people will challenge you on them. If that debate makes your statements look ridiculous, look to your statements before blaming others.

I don't want to say anything more that might be misconstrued or get me into trouble because you obviously have the upper hand here since I can't tell if you're debating or moderating me.

I don't give out infractions in threads I'm participating in, so that's not something you have to worry about. As a general rule of thumb, unless something is in a

Moderator's Warning:
mod box


we're posters, not mods.
 
Then I don't think you're looking very hard, as I argue with extreme partisans on the right about as often as I argue with those on the left. Recently it's been more of the left, due to an influx of threads complaining about every little thing involving anyone remotely related to the tea party. Prior to that, there was a flood of threads attacking Obama for everything that any person related to his administration did. Before that, there was a whole bunch of hyperbole about how the republicans were destroying the country by voting against everything. Before that, the forum was enthralled with the concept of death panels. The forum moves in waves - when there are more dumb conservative things being said, there's more to criticize on that side and vice versa.
Then please provide a few links of you criticizing those on the right in the same manner you do me, so that I may see for myself if there is any truth in what you say.

This is a debate forum where people come to debate politics. If you want to make inflammatory or otherwise unsupportable statements, you should expect that people will challenge you on them. If that debate makes your statements look ridiculous, look to your statements before blaming others.
Then you should expect the same to your inflammatory, unsupportable, fallacious, statements as well. I am perfectly capable of defending my arguments and I blame no one for what I write. I wouldn't even be having this discussion if you weren't hijacking this thread to make the discussion about me and blame me for what you percieve as (a summation of your words) "that's ridiculous, that's irrelevant, that's ignorant, you're wrong, you don't understand anything, where did I say that, can you read, what are you talking about (ignores point made), look it up in the dictionary, what does that have to do with the anything (ignores topic), you're arguing that____(get it all wrong), here's me, here's you, that has nothing to do with what I said (hijacks thread), I never said that,", and now your latest fallicious ad hominem trick is to accuse me of fear mongering. That would be very funny if you weren't so serious.

I don't give out infractions in threads I'm participating in, so that's not something you have to worry about. As a general rule of thumb, unless something is in a

Moderator's Warning:
mod box


we're posters, not mods.
Well thats all well and good but if I behaved like you do, I would get a warning for hijacking, baiting, flaming, trolling, or worse. Check your PM

So no, I don't believe it is possible to have a fair, honest or legitimate debate with you because you will always have the upper hand and can behave how ever you want. The rest of us have to be very careful what we say to you and not get the same respect in return.
 
Then please provide a few links of you criticizing those on the right in the same manner you do me, so that I may see for myself if there is any truth in what you say.

I'm not your research assistant, nor do I care what you think about me, so I'll pass.

Then you should expect the same to your inflammatory, unsupportable, fallacious, statements as well.

Good. That's debate.

Well thats all well and good but if I behaved like you do, I would get a warning for hijacking, baiting, flaming, trolling, or worse. Check your PM

So no, I don't believe it is possible to have a fair, honest or legitimate debate with you because you will always have the upper hand and can behave how ever you want. The rest of us have to be very careful what we say to you and not get the same respect in return.

I've explained the difference between moderating and posting. If you think that I'm breaking the rules, you're more than welcome to report my posts. Don't use the fact that I'm a moderator as an excuse.
 
I'm not your research assistant, nor do I care what you think about me, so I'll pass.
That's what I thought.

Good. That's debate.
That's debatable.

I've explained the difference between moderating and posting. If you think that I'm breaking the rules, you're more than welcome to report my posts. Don't use the fact that I'm a moderator as an excuse
Good, I will keep that in mind.
 
Im sure the right wing media is gonna be able to find left wing nutjobs just like the vice versa of the tea party rally.
 
Are the Communists and Socialists sponsoring this one too?
 
Be serious - do you actually think that saying "the right wing is a threat to the country" is productive and mature debate?

If credible, sure. Truth doesn't need a coat of sugar.

What would you think about someone who told you that "the left wing is a threat to the country"?

See above.

I think fearmongering is dumb no matter where it comes from.

True only if you're operating on the premise that any blanket criticism of party strategy is fear-mongering. Credible arguments can apply.
 
Then you should expect the same to your inflammatory, unsupportable, fallacious, statements as well. I am perfectly capable of defending my arguments and I blame no one for what I write. I wouldn't even be having this discussion if you weren't hijacking this thread to make the discussion about me and blame me for what you percieve as (a summation of your words) "that's ridiculous, that's irrelevant, that's ignorant, you're wrong, you don't understand anything, where did I say that, can you read, what are you talking about (ignores point made), look it up in the dictionary, what does that have to do with the anything (ignores topic), you're arguing that____(get it all wrong), here's me, here's you, that has nothing to do with what I said (hijacks thread), I never said that,", and now your latest fallicious ad hominem trick is to accuse me of fear mongering. That would be very funny if you weren't so serious.

Two things:
1. That is one long ass sentence
2. If you don't want to have the discussion you're having, stop posting about it. Let it go and lets keep this thread on topic. I'm sick of seeing these personal attacks.:peace
 
If credible, sure. Truth doesn't need a coat of sugar.

See above.

True only if you're operating on the premise that any blanket criticism of party strategy is fear-mongering. Credible arguments can apply.

Labeling a huge swath of the population as a "danger to the country" is not credible, period.
 
Labeling a huge swath of the population as a "danger to the country" is not credible, period.

A huge swath of voters pave way for elected officials, who (via legislative procedures) establish criteria that stands to pose as a "danger to the country"... very credible.
 
Two things:
1. That is one long ass sentence
2. If you don't want to have the discussion you're having, stop posting about it. Let it go and lets keep this thread on topic. I'm sick of seeing these personal attacks.:peace
Well, gee, since our discussion was already over and personal attacks make you so sick, then why did you feel the need to add to the discussion by making a personal attack? :roll:
 
Last edited:
A huge swath of voters pave way for elected officials, who (via legislative procedures) establish criteria that stands to pose as a "danger to the country"... very credible.

If we use your argument, then it's reasonable for pretty much everyone to say that the opposing party is a danger to the country. If Republicans think that voting for Obama would lead to policies that would make the country less secure or would otherwise damage the country's situation, then that would make all Democrats a "danger to the country."

I guess I just have a different threshold for what I view as rising to the level of "danger to the country."
 
Last edited:
I guess I just have a different threshold for what I view as rising to the level of "danger to the country."

I should think assassination threads would top the list.
 
I should think assassination threads would top the list.

I'd say calls for violent revolts would be a step above that.
 
Aaaaand that was supposed to say 'threats', not 'threads'.
 
If we use your argument, then it's reasonable for pretty much everyone to say that the opposing party is a danger to the country. If Republicans think that voting for Obama would lead to policies that would make the country less secure or would otherwise damage the country's situation, then that would make all Democrats a "danger to the country."

I guess I just have a different threshold for what I view as rising to the level of "danger to the country."

Sounds like your run-of-the-mill partisan hackery found on talk radio and television, to me. Every 2-4 years the sky is falling, ladies and gentlemen.
 
I should think assassination threads would top the list.

...

And there's a difference between labeling individual nutjobs who threaten the president as "dangerous" and labeling an entire swath of the populace who just happens to disagree with you as "dangerous."
 
...

And there's a difference between labeling individual nutjobs who threaten the president as "dangerous" and labeling an entire swath of the populace who just happens to disagree with you as "dangerous."
Tell that to the Jews, Cambodians, Serbs, Tutsis, Bosnians, and Armenians and see if they would agree with your assessment that entire swaths of the populace can't be labeled as dangerous. I seriously doubt they would.
 
Tell that to the Jews, Cambodians, Serbs, Tutsis, Bosnians, and Armenians and see if they would agree with your assessment that entire swaths of the populace can't be labeled as dangerous. I seriously doubt they would.

Again, if you think that today's political situation is remotely analogous to any of those, then there's no point in continuing this conversation.
 
Again, if you think that today's political situation is remotely analogous to any of those, then there's no point in continuing this conversation.
Well, you know, these things don't just happen in a vacume. First it starts out slowly with the hate propaganda that constantly harranges the populus over the head with buzzwords like "communist, socialist, and anti-government" rhetoric. Then the propaganda attracts a following and grows into a swath of the populus and then it doesn't take long before the propaganda turns into nationalism and the populace start to target a minority to demonize, which is usually people ethnicity in the community. Then as the populus gets all worked up in a nationalist frenzy, soon they want to change the government to fit their new faux ideology and if not stopped the next you know there is oppression, fascism or worse. And quite frankly, we're at the point where the nationalist are trying to take over the government. So you see, you can label large swaths of the populace as dangerous.
 
Tell that to the Jews, Cambodians, Serbs, Tutsis, Bosnians, and Armenians and see if they would agree with your assessment that entire swaths of the populace can't be labeled as dangerous. I seriously doubt they would.

When I alluded to assassination, I was referring to the people who made the threat.
 
Ah, good ol' Antisemitism...

We read your bigotry loud and clear.

:bravo:

Strange... how I could do business with Jewish folks, listen to Mark Levin... a Jew... who is the one I learned his last name from.

Nice try... you go back on your pony and keep searching.

.
 
Of course not. I was just commenting on how crappy the lawn will look from all the lazy people throwing their trash on the ground.

I think the event will just be a circus .... making fun of our country and its citizens in the midst of the giants who made this country great. Making fun of an event (Restoring Honor) that was nothing but inspirational singing, great speakers and honoring those who do good things in our country. Making fun of that won't resonate with the majority of the people in America. I think most people will find it stupid and maybe even disrespectful.

And that's the beauty of it a couple days before the election.

It could gain status in some dictionaries as an example of "backfire".

Even so, you were absolutely right, the right wing is a threat to the country.

You were close... let me edit your post for you; it should read:

Even so, you were absolutely right, the right wing is a threat to Amerika.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom