Speakeasy forum

General discussion


So DaveK, what were the myriad posts calling Americans idiots for electing Bush then?


Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: WOW!
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: WOW!
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
(NT) Equal time LOL

In reply to: WOW!

Collapse -
We need censorship..

In reply to: WOW!

because there's always the danger of something being said.

Note that THEY claimed victory, but WE may not talk about it.

Collapse -
It was interesting...

In reply to: WOW!

The new official rule was interesting. I made a point of making a screenshot of it. I like screenshots, they don't suddenly go bye-bye.

Collapse -
It's not a new rule at all, J.

In reply to: It was interesting...

It's renewed enforcement of the long-standing rule against personal attacks. Disagreement is one thing -- messages implying or stating that certain groups of people are traitors, un-American, etc. have no business on the CNet forums. If that's what you want to read and post, the Town Hall forums are always open to you... (Interestingly, in a previous incarnation, I suspect before those forums existed, this forum was known as ZDNet's Town Hall!)

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Not personal attacks...

In reply to: It's not a new rule at all, J.

that is waaaayyy too long a stretch. The truth of the matter is that certain jihadist spokesmen have claimed the Democratic victory as their victory also. This was predicted by some here. Saying it cannot be a TOS violation.

You routinely allow very objectionable commentary form the side YOU favor. Bush supporters have been called all kinds of names here, with impunity.

Collapse -
(NT) Please don't confuse DK with facts!

In reply to: Not personal attacks...

Collapse -
but we all have seen dks the special mod

In reply to: Not personal attacks...

power trip for him

Collapse -
I'm happy right here, Dave...

In reply to: It's not a new rule at all, J.

Dave, I'm quite happy right here. You said "If that's what you want to read and post" relating to calling certain groups of people being traitors. So I did a search on my posts and found but 5 of them where the word trator was used at all. In only one of them did I consider two people to be a traitor and my words were "Robert Hanssen (the FBI agent who passed classified info to the KGB) or John Walker and son (who did the same for Navy codes and other classified).".
Your saying what you did implied that I frequently use that word outside of that case I just mentioned is not true and I publically call you out on that accusation.

Collapse -
I guess then that we should hit the offensive post button

In reply to: It's not a new rule at all, J.

when someone claims the Republicans stole the 2000 and 2004 elections and other posts of that type.

I'll keep that in mind.

Collapse -
Too funny

In reply to: It's not a new rule at all, J.

Yes it is a new rule. Or a rule you haven't bothered to implement for years.

How about all of your Christian mocking posts? You know. The ones that mocked John Ashcroft as a bluenose? The list could go ON and ON and ON.

Oh ... and STILL waiting for hte citations from the Nazi court that even come close to any rulings of the late Justice Rehnquist.

Collapse -

In reply to: Too funny

in the "CAFE" folder

Collapse -
Waiting for a Southern Jury ...

In reply to: It's

... to rule I suppose.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Let me see if I can explain this to you...

In reply to: It's not a new rule at all, J.

...Using a little Plain Geometry logic:

Fact A: The terrorist wanted the Democrats/Liberals/Left to win the elections. That is a publicly stated objective of the Terrorists/Jehadists(sp)

Fact B: You wanted the Democrats/Liberals/Left to win the elections.

Therefore: You support the Terrorists in this persuasion.

Is that simple enough for you??

Collapse -
Simple, but plainly and simply incorrect.

In reply to: Let me see if I can explain this to you...

From across the pond...........

So, being a UK citizen and living here in the UK, I profess to know nothing about US politics. In fact, I am still unable to understand the difference between the Senate and the House of Representatives. I know I could read up on it, but I'm not really a political animal and frankly I prefer to leave politics to the politicians.

I tend to shy away from "free thinking" discussions and forums like SE. They have a tendancy to be nothing like free thinking, as contributors to such discussions appear to me to be anything but free thinkers. They are usually set in their ways, unmovable, and unwilling to think outside of their own spheres. I don't say I am any different, and I am sure I am not. In fact, writing this I can feel the old prejudiced and narrow-minded thinking surfacing in my mind, and I am fighting it back down to the deeps, (I really don't want to go down there!).

However, sometimes I feel the need to paddle in the shark-infested and murky waters of SE, and risk getting my legs torn off. This is one of those times. I fear for my safety and well-being.

Jack, you're using "Plain Geometric logic". In reality it's more "Linear" logic, eg one fact follows another, so the result is something else. A+B=C

But your post really isn't logical is it. What you are doing is stating two unrelated facts, and applying a result that fits your own view of the situation. Both of your facts are flawed, and your conclusion, flawed in itself, is therefore an assumption and inference that is in error.

Working through your geometry;

1) Fact A: The terrorist wanted the Democrats/Liberals/Left to win the elections. That is a publicly stated objective of the Terrorists/Jehadists(sp)

It is more likely a fact that these religious fanatics want their Jihad, (often incorrectly interpreted by western observers), to be seen as a holy war against all Americans. They want to kill all Americans. In fact, many of these holy war terrorists want to kill all Westerners. So, it is unsurprising that they would support anything that they see as de-stabalising in the west, and they see elections as de-stabalising. Of course they are mistaken, because elections stand at the very core of the west's democracy. To say that the terrorists have a stated aim for the Democrats to win the US elections is to distort what their aims and intentions are.

2) Fact B: You wanted the Democrats/Liberals/Left to win the elections.

This is what it means to be part of a democratic civilisation. Some people want the Democrats to win, some want the Republicans to win.

You seem to be grouping democrats, liberals, the left, into the same basket as if it is a crime. But remember this, the US's greatest ally at this time is Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of the government of the UK who is Labour, (Labor in the US), leader, traditionally considered by observers to be on the left. Whether he is a successful and popular leader is a separate matter.

3) Therefore: You support the Terrorists in this persuasion.

Now now. By that conclusion you would seem to be inferring the following;

a} The Republican Party, traditionally seen as on the right of the political spectrum in the US would have supported Hitler's Nazi Party, a far right political party who's stated aim was to take over the world with an Aryan race, removing, (killing), all non-whites, all Jews, all people who are not physically perfect, and all other people who disagreed with them.

b} John F Kennedy, a Democrat President, was secretly a Communist, and the Cuban Missile crisis was a sham.

Clearly neither of those is right, and I would imagine that is not what you mean to infer. Therefore your own "Therefore" is suspect, and is drawn from muddled thinking.

When making comparisons, statements and conclusions, we really need to be clear and precise, and accurate in what we say and allude to. I believe your own facts, statements and conclusions are not clear, precise, or accurate.

I'm leaving now!


Collapse -

In reply to: Simple, but plainly and simply incorrect.

House of Lords (US Senate) House of Commons (Us Reps)

Collapse -
Not really

In reply to: Easy

That's how it started and that's how it should have remained with Senators
being appointed, instead of elected at large, but an amendment destroyed that.
Now we have the Representatives which are from the people, and the Senators who
were supposed to be there as brakes on democracy running amok also as Representatives
of the people instead of serving their function of making sure a welfare state
didn't evolve by protecting the rights of the upper class too. The current setup
makes the US weaker toward socialism than before and undermines the republican form
of government in which both poor and rich were to have equal representation.

Collapse -
It's the same logic the Liberals are using

In reply to: Simple, but plainly and simply incorrect.

The Patriot Act has potential to be abused, therefore George Bush is committing war crimes.

Collapse -
I would comment on your idea Jack, but any agreement with

In reply to: Let me see if I can explain this to you...

you might be construed as a TOS violation. I certainly wouldn't want to do that. The Democrats might be offended if I did do that.

Collapse -

In reply to: I would comment on your idea Jack, but any agreement with

Email me please

Collapse -
Yes it is a new rule...

In reply to: It's not a new rule at all, J.

as YOU YOURSELF have "defended" your calling conservatives Nazis and Facists on the "grounds" that it is not a "personal attack" but a generalization and a statement of "opinion".

Then every time someone else makes a similar generalization or statement of "opinion" you come unglued if that statement is counter to your personal beliefs and preferences.

If necessary I would be happy to link you to a few of the posts you have made with that thesis.

As far as saying that liberals are aiding terrorists, it is a fact that is not only evident but is receiving praise from terrorists in Iraq. http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=webalqaida10&date=20061110
Al-Qaida in Iraq taunts Bush in new tape

Pretty much like Giap thanked Kerry, Fonda, and the pinko protestors for their aid during the Vietnam conflict, Abu Ayyub al-Masri is happy with their aid and support right now in Iraq.

DK excusing his "zingers".

Popular Forums

Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


This one tip will help you sleep better tonight

A few seconds are all you need to get a better night's rest.