Fact filled article on why the current Congress is the worst ever.

[Kuciwalker]

What factual statements in the piece are inaccurate?

You completely missed his point. A collection of true statements can be partisan or biased.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

What factual statements in the piece are inaccurate?

You completely missed his point. A collection of true statements can be partisan or biased.

SO ****ING WHAT!!

Oh, I see, how you guys were all heartbroken to see Oerdin say something wasn't biased, but obviously the writer hates Republicans...OH, what a horrid, horrid thing to do!!! :shock: GASP!

And all the while this pitiful, idiotic, worthless, boring, inane, plainly moronic "outrage" allows all the usual characters to ignore all the factual statements, which in and of themselves far more damming than the names the writer calls the Republicans. HOw convinient. How pitiful and sad and petty.

Oerdin posted an article full of damming facts against a do nothing Congress writen by a guy who doesn;t like Republicans. Maybe we should be discussing those factual statements, nicely condensed for your lazy eyes by Verto, instead of wasting yet another thread on worthless "outrage" at the incredible notion that posters in Poly may have a political opinion! FOR SHAME!

Well, you know what, Oerdin is a partisan Democrat, Oggie is a partisan Republican, you rarely post anything of worth, and the article still makes valid points worth discussing in a thread.

Does that settle the matter?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Lastly, I most certainly do not make the same thread over and over. I make only one thread on each case of corruption, abuse, or other political type event. I do enjoy politics so I do make a fair number of political threads but they are ALWAYS on a new topic or scandal. Unfortunately for Kuci, this Congress has had scandal after scandal after scandal so there end up being a lot of threads about the corruption and scandals of the Congress.

Even so, as amply shown earlier today, 10-13 of my last 27 threads have been about politics but 14-17 have not been about politics. The claim that I just keep repeating the same thing over and over is fabricated by some hacks who can't actually argue with any of the facts and so simply try to attack my character. I make a large effort to cite everything and I normally post an article with links yet and in response the right wingers here just respond with the type of asshattery we see in this thread and in several others.

Can someone be so kind as to quote this as Oerdin has me apparantly on ignore. If he would be so kind as to provide his claims in the same format as I did complete with thread title and his idea as to calssification of said threads (i.e. whether the threads are or are not political in nature) that might go a bit to substantiating his "amply shown earlier comment" which has neither been shown amply or otherwise. Otherwise the proof he claims is merely another BAM. I put all 20 of his last threads out there complete with how they looked to me wrt politcal or apolitical. It was cut and dried. 13 of 20. (I took a little fun jab saying 3 didn't even deserve to be mentioned as they were spam.

Now in the effort of fairness I went back through the threads for myself and found myself with a grand total of 1 thread started, shame on me for being a slacker when contributing to OT. That one was

Truthiness - Why isn't Bush and Co. dealing with the real threats? - Spam/Political

So I guess I bat 1.000 when it comes to one trick pony threads. Who gives a flip? )

His strawman contention that there are any number of Republican mouthpieces is actually somewhat humorous as most of the people simply respond to the same old same old inanity of the likes of Oerdin moreso than actually defend Repugs. But I suppose refuting inane comments these days is allying yourself with GOP.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap

Oggie is a partisan Republican,

Oggie may be whoever he is. Ogie is not a republican and has not been in over 8 years. Ogie is a staunch conservative that departed ways from the Republicans back in the Clinton impeachment days. Ogie despises Dems and has mild antipathy for Repugs.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe



Oggie may be whoever he is. Ogie is not a republican and has not been in over 8 years. Ogie is a staunch conservative that departed ways from the Republicans back in the Clinton impeachment days. Ogie despises Dems and has mild antipathy for Repugs.

Oh, I am sorry for mislabelling your biases.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
SO ****ING WHAT!!

So Oerdin's defense of "It's all true!" is rather beside the point.

Oh, I see, how you guys were all heartbroken to see Oerdin say something wasn't biased, but obviously the writer hates Republicans...OH, what a horrid, horrid thing to do!!! :shock: GASP!

Oerdin's pulled the "looked an independent/right wing source criticizes the Republicans! They're doomed now!" trick a few times already. Last time it turned out he was quoting from a thoroughly left-wing publication, which kinda dilutes his argument.

And all the while this pitiful, idiotic, worthless, boring, inane, plainly moronic "outrage" allows all the usual characters to ignore all the factual statements, which in and of themselves far more damming than the names the writer calls the Republicans. HOw convinient. How pitiful and sad and petty.

A lot, possibly most, of the people dismissing Oerdin are Democrats or are voting Democrat. It's not as if we're defending the Republican implicated in whatever his OP's say. Why would we bother to challenge these factual statements?

Oerdin posted an article full of damming facts against a do nothing Congress writen by a guy who doesn;t like Republicans. Maybe we should be discussing those factual statements, nicely condensed for your lazy eyes by Verto, instead of wasting yet another thread on worthless "outrage" at the incredible notion that posters in Poly may have a political opinion! FOR SHAME!

Maybe everyone is bored to death of Oerdin's threads? Notice the range of people who have started to dismiss Oerdin's threads on sight, from Ogie to che. He's been spamming the forum with "OMG SCANDAL" threads for a long time now.

Well, you know what, Oerdin is a partisan Democrat, Oggie is a partisan Republican, you rarely post anything of worth, and the article still makes valid points worth discussing in a thread.

If they were worth discussing, don't you think people would be discussing them? Instead, you've got an overwhelming response of "not again."

Here's a hint: something isn't worth discussing if it's important, it's worth discussing if people want to discuss it. This forum's purpose is entertainment.

[Kuciwalker]

Anyway, GePap, there is one statement in the OP that's false: that the rest of the piece is unbiased. Happy?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Oerdin's pulled the "looked an independent/right wing source criticizes the Republicans! They're doomed now!" trick a few times already. Last time it turned out he was quoting from a thoroughly left-wing publication, which kinda dilutes his argument.

Arguements can only be diluted if you can find factual or logical errors. Political bias in and of itself, as you noted, does not mean it isn't true. Discounting an arguement because of the source is sheer laziness, nothing more.

A lot, possibly most, of the people dismissing Oerdin are Democrats or are voting Democrat. It's not as if we're defending the Republican implicated in whatever his OP's say. Why would we bother to challenge these factual statements?

Then don't. Just don't waste space.

Maybe everyone is bored to death of Oerdin's threads? Notice the range of people who have started to dismiss Oerdin's threads on sight, from Ogie to che. He's been spamming the forum with "OMG SCANDAL" threads for a long time now.

Wow, did any of you think of just IGNORING them? You know, like maybe open them, read fo two second, then move on without posting. I recommend it, IT WORKS!

If they were worth discussing, don't you think people would be discussing them? Instead, you've got an overwhelming response of "not again."

Here's a hint: something isn't worth discussing if it's important, it's worth discussing if people want to discuss it. This forum's purpose is entertainment.

What different people label entertainment differs. Some people find NASCAR entertaining, I think it boring except for the crashes. So what?

Again, maybe all the whinners can simply ignore threads they have no interest in. If the thread is trully not interesting, it will sink down, far, far down, were no one will see it. And if it is interesting to others, so save bandwith by not creating useless clutter.

So if you really find this thread uninteresting, stop posting in it like you cared.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Arguements can only be diluted if you can find factual or logical errors. Political bias in and of itself, as you noted, does not mean it isn't true. Discounting an arguement because of the source is sheer laziness, nothing more.

When his argument is of the form "even conservatives don't like the Republicans!" and it turns out his source isn't a conservative, yes it does dilute his argument.

Then don't. Just don't waste space.

That's what we're asking Oerdin to do.

Wow, did any of you think of just IGNORING them? You know, like maybe open them, read fo two second, then move on without posting. I recommend it, IT WORKS!

Back at ya.

What different people label entertainment differs. Some people find NASCAR entertaining, I think it boring except for the crashes. So what?

The NASCAR fans have their thread. They don't have 10.

[Elok]

No; as a matter of principle, if Oerdin is going to pester us with his shocked-gasms this way, we at least get to give him honest feedback. To remain silent might give him the false impression that we assent to his festive fanaticism, or disagree but are powerless to refute his awesomeness, as opposed to the truth, that everybody knows this country's leadership is crooked and incompetent and we don't need to be told anymore. Not only will I not pay $8.50 to see a Michael Moore film, I don't want his junk filling up the forums I frequent.

I can't make any politicians less corrupt, greedy, stupid or weak no matter how many times I post here. Nor is there anything new to be said on the subject. What I can accomplish, at least in theory, is to let Oerdin know that he is doing his faction a great disservice by posting ****e like this and touting it as a model of journalistic evenhandedness.

[GePap]

Wow, so ignoring a thread is just so damned hard! I mean, the little link just drags you helpless mouse over itself, and then, powerless to stop your fingers, you click on it! OH MY GOD! There was nothing you could possibly do, right? I mean, its ten threads, isn't it! How could one ignore ten threads! Its just plain too hard....

[Kuciwalker]

As I mentioned, this will make it easier to scroll past my posts.

Oh, and what Elok said.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok
No; as a matter of principle, if Oerdin is going to pester us with his shocked-gasms this way, we at least get to give him honest feedback. To remain silent might give him the false impression that we assent to his festive fanaticism, or disagree but are powerless to refute his awesomeness, as opposed to the truth, that everybody knows this country's leadership is crooked and incompetent and we don't need to be told anymore. Not only will I not pay $8.50 to see a Michael Moore film, I don't want his junk filling up the forums I frequent.

What principles? Pester you? How?
Anyone forced you to open his threads? What, he has people hold guns to your head?


And if you don't like people posting politically liberal things, then a politically diverse forum isn't really the place to be, isn it?

I can't make any politicians less corrupt, greedy, stupid or weak no matter how many times I post here. Nor is there anything new to be said on the subject. What I can accomplish, at least in theory, is to let Oerdin know that he is doing his faction a great disservice by posting ****e like this and touting it as a model of journalistic evenhandedness.

Did you even read the article? Its quite informative, and I found the insults against Republicans funny. Overall it was entertaining.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
As I mentioned, this will make it easier to scroll past my posts.

Oh, and what Elok said.

Cute trick, but I have enough will power to be able to ignore what I want to ignore without extra aides.

[Kuciwalker]

Cute trick, but I have enough will power to be able to ignore what I want to ignore without extra aides.

Apparently not.