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

[Elok]

Nonpartisan and factual. I see. So, if I were to remark that the letters in "Oerdin" are all found in the phrases "Ted Bundy, serial killer," "rodentish" and "inner demons," which is perfectly true, that would constitute a fair report on you?

[Winston]

Speaking of Ted Bundy, Florida's worst serial killer in recent years, Danny Rolling, is about to be executed in, oh, 40 minutes for killing, raping and mutilating 5 college students in Gainesville in 1990.

Carry on.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Elok

[Arrian]

Oerdin, damn man, you've lost it. I understand the fury that has apparently resulted in a breakdown for you, realy I do, but this is getting absurd. You cannot assert that the article you posted is non-partisan. If you do, I have no recourse but to consider you insane.

-Arrian

[Thue]

Originally posted by Arrian
Oerdin, damn man, you've lost it. I understand the fury that has apparently resulted in a breakdown for you, realy I do, but this is getting absurd. You cannot assert that the article you posted is non-partisan. If you do, I have no recourse but to consider you insane.

-Arrian

I am not convinced - just because an article makes allegations against the people in power does not make the article partisan. IMO the article only becomes partisan of the allegations are exaggerated or deliberately omits mitigating facts; it is your job to point out why they are exaggerated before declaring the article partisan. As the article says the Republicans have used their majority to exclude the Democrats from any power, the fact that the article mostly criticizes the Republicans does not necessarily make the article partisan.

If a group of people in power is bad enough, then a balanced article can seem one-sided, without actually being partisan. Imagine for example how one-sided a fairly written article about the ethics of Adolf Hitler would seem.

I sometimes get the feeling that the USians scream "liberal bias" and ignore the facts each time a newspaper reports facts which go against the Republicans. Reporting unpleasant facts are a part of good journalism.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
tldr

I love it.

You lambast Oerdin as a partisan hack when he trolls about the Republicans. But when he provides a long article (which supposedly backs his claims he made in other threads), you don't bother actually to read it. Pretty easy posture you're into.

Now, before you smartassedly ask whether I read his article (answer: I didn't), let me remind you that I have never called him names because of his anti-Republican stance.

If you continue to call him names because of his definitive anti Republican stance, which is apparently unbacked in most threads, you could at least do the effort of reading the material he provides when he backs his arguments.

[Kuciwalker]

I'd be happy to if it didn't consist of... (counts) 15! pages of text. I read all the stuff Verto excerpted. And I don't think Oerdin is a troll, I think he is sincerely outraged that the Republicans even exist. I'm just bored to tears of the same damn thread being posted over and over again, just like aneeshm. This is especially true when the stuff of his that I have read looks like he saw something criticizing Republicans and immediately had to share it with the rest of us without doing a little fact-checking or even reading his own article! In the most extreme case his thread title and opening paragraph/rant was directly contradicted by the subtitle of the news article he quoted.

[Dinner]

The definition of partisan is that you advocate one side over the other and often engage in hypocracy. I.E. cryout when one side does something but staying quiet when the other side does the same thing.

The rolling stone article isn't doing that. Sure, it comes out against clear ongoing current government abuses and highlights those abuses but it isn't endorsing the other side or excusing the Democrats when they do something wrong. Instead it is simply pointing out abuses which the current congressional leadership is engaged in. That's simply not partisan.

BTW How come our usual crop of Republican supporters/psychophants won't discuse the meat of the article? Can it be they know the Congressional leadership is in the wrong and instead prefer to play word games to actually admitting and dealing with abuses in their own party?

[Dinner]

BTW I'm not outraged that the Republicans even exist. I'm outraged about the corruption, the sale of legislation to the highest bidder, the anti-science stance, the demogogery, and the general asshattary the current crop of Republican politicians have perfected.

[Kuciwalker]

The definition of partisan is that you advocate one side over the other

Check.

and often engage in hypocracy.

No, that's not quite necessary.

par‧ti‧san1
–noun
1. an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.
2. Military. a member of a party of light or irregular troops engaged in harassing an enemy, esp. a member of a guerrilla band engaged in fighting or sabotage against an occupying army.

I'd tend to call myself partisan, simply because I support the Democrats as a group rather than just candidates individually. I don't know if that quite qualifies by the definition above. You, however, are quite clearly partisan. Not that that's really a bad thing, but you are very excessively so.

The rolling stone article isn't doing that. Sure, it comes out against clear ongoing current government abuses and highlights those abuses but it isn't endorsing the other side or excusing the Democrats when they do something wrong. Instead it is simply pointing out abuses which the current congressional leadership is engaged in. That's simply not partisan.

That can easily be partisan, and moreover partisan be partisan hackery. The facts someone chooses to present can and usually does introduce bias just as much as falsifying things entirely.

[Dinner]

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.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

...

[Dinner]

Yes, Kuci. One thread per event. If you think the event is happening to often then that's a whole other issue.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Winston
Speaking of Ted Bundy, Florida's worst serial killer in recent years, Danny Rolling, is about to be executed in, oh, 40 minutes for killing, raping and mutilating 5 college students in Gainesville in 1990.

Carry on.

Bundy wasn't recent or the worst. This guy was worse than both of them in Florida (TB killing people all across the country). He was a cab driver in Jacksonville, FL. He drove me and my wife home twice.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok
Nonpartisan and factual. I see. So, if I were to remark that the letters in "Oerdin" are all found in the phrases "Ted Bundy, serial killer," "rodentish" and "inner demons," which is perfectly true, that would constitute a fair report on you?

What factual statements in the piece are inaccurate?

Did Sensenbrenner not turn out the lights? Did Congress work more than 100 days? Has the Republican congress held a single investigation into the Bush White House?

Fine, you guys are in a boring tizzy about thje fact that a Rolling Stones author insulted Republicans..OH, GOODNESS ME! Why, NEVER! GOSH DARN! Yeah, yeah, who cares...Verto made things simpler: care to discount, explain, or excuse any of the things Verto reposted?