Attacks w/o Citations

[Wakie]

Am I the only one who thinks that if you are going to attack someone you should be able, if asked, to provide at least 1 incident which substantiates your attack?

It seems that this phenomenon is happening at an alarming rate on this forum and as we go into the election I fear it will happen even more.  Quite often we see pointless jabs such as:

"Person X is an idiot and a scumbag."
"Person X uses dirty campaign tactics."
"Person X doesn't care about Issue Y."

So, in an appeal for us to try and have reasonable dialogue, I'd like to ask anyone who plans on launching such attacks to be able to provide specifics examples of WHY you feel the way you do.  This really shouldn't be too difficult to do.  If you can't explain why you feel a certain way then you really shouldn't be voting or trying to influence other voters.

[J. J.]

Am I the only one who thinks that if you are going to attack someone you should be able, if asked, to provide at least 1 incident which substantiates your attack?

It seems that this phenomenon is happening at an alarming rate on this forum and as we go into the election I fear it will happen even more.  Quite often we see pointless jabs such as:

"Person X is an idiot and a scumbag."
"Person X uses dirty campaign tactics."
"Person X doesn't care about Issue Y."

So, in an appeal for us to try and have reasonable dialogue, I'd like to ask anyone who plans on launching such attacks to be able to provide specifics examples of WHY you feel the way you do.  This really shouldn't be too difficult to do.  If you can't explain why you feel a certain way then you really shouldn't be voting or trying to influence other voters.

This is politics.  What does "reasonable dialog" have to do with it? 






Seriously, I see your point.

[bgwah]

You only care about citations and evidence when someone states an opinion that is contrary to your own.

For example, I could easily blast you with your own logic on this recent post of yours:

I tend to agree with this assessment.  It would be a hard fought campaign but the Bush family made an art form of the dirty campaign.

What would be an EXTREMELY dirty campaign though would be Obama vs Huckabee.

You're essentially saying that Obama and Huckabee would wage "EXTREMELY" dirty campaigns against each other. Do you offer any evidence or citations to back your claim up? No. You're a bit hypocritical, IMO.

Now, if someone else had said this about say, Hillary Clinton, you would be criticizing them for their lack of citations.

For example, what if I called Bill Clinton a liar? You, being the Clintonista that you are, would probably start demanding EVIDENCE! Now, I would think that hey, this is a forum about American politics... Just about everybody is going to know why I would call Bill Clinton a liar. But you would seize the opportunity to demand citations to discredit those who dislike Clinton--those who differ from you! Of course most people aren't going to fall for your shallow ploy, but I doubt you realize this.

I doubt you're fooling many people with this latest charade, Wakie. You're being a poor sport because Hillary Clinton is not popular among the vast majority of forumers, and it is pretty obvious.

Now, no offense, and this is just my personal opinion, but ever since your "Until this AM" thread, I have not taken you at all seriously. In my opinion, you've shown yourself to be little more than a Clintonista hack. I don't think your posts have very much substance and quite frankly, every time I read one of your awful posts I feel like my IQ drops. I tend to just skip over your posts now, as they are not at all interesting.  So if you feel like people are ignoring your demands for citations, it probably isn't the case. People are probably just not paying attention to you, period. I sure know I usually don't! But when someone makes a stupid thread like this, I just have to respond.

[Wakie]

bgwah, no one ASKED for a citation in the example you cite but I can easily explain it.  An Obama-Huckabee election would be so dirty because the two are extremely opposite.  Liberals would be terrified of the prospect of a hardcore Christian Conservative like Huckabee getting into office.  Conservatives would be terrified of getting the most liberal of the Big 3 Dems.  Hence, it would get really nasty.

Now lets address the rest of your commentary.  You blatantly reject an appeal for civil discourse.  Amazing.  I mean why the heck would we possibly want people to explain why they hold certain beliefs?  They might have to actually think about the issues.

You are completely entitled to view me as a "Clintonista hack" or to believe my posts are "awful".  Frankly, I don't care.  By all means, please DO disagree with me.  But DO NOT become one of the retarded masses who brainlessly bleets out the line being fed to them from the campaign they've blindly decided to follow because Oprah, Chuck Norris, or Wilfred Brimley said so.

You say I'm a "poor sport".  No, I'm a frustrated American.  8 years ago I was involved in the Gore campaign and I watched my country elect a guy who basically ZERO experience because he had "charisma" and because hard lefties in my party thought that by voting for Ralph Nader they would somehow improve America.  4 years ago I was sure we wouldn't make the same mistake but we did ... and that was largely because people listened to attacks without citations.  People refused to question their thinking.

So now here we are .... 2008.  The economy is heading towards a recession.  The military is overextended on two fronts.  Healthcare in our country is headed for a crunch.  The general state of the nation is, well, disaster.  And I'm seeing people making the same mistakes all over again.  So .... yeah, I guess that makes me a "poor sport".

[Ebowed]

Wakie, his point is clearly that you are demanding citations for things that don't benefit your political outlook.  But for some reason, they aren't necessary when attacking Obama.

The very fact that you don't feel Fmr. Pres. Clinton hasn't done anything "shameless" in his race baiting is disturbing.

[Wakie]

Wakie, his point is clearly that you are demanding citations for things that don't benefit your political outlook.  But for some reason, they aren't necessary when attacking Obama.

The very fact that you don't feel Fmr. Pres. Clinton hasn't done anything "shameless" in his race baiting is disturbing.

Well, first off I don't actually attack Obama.  I will admit that I attack the people who follow him who have launched attacks on Clinton, Biden, Edwards, or Richardson (all of whom I prefer).  In fact if you can dig up an attack I've launched on Obama directly please do so.  I'm more than willing to provide citations.

Secondly I don't feel that Clinton has done any "race baiting".  The only example I've even heard on here is that he "compared the Obama SC win to the Jackson SC win".  Ummm ... yeah .... considering that Jackson was the last Dem to win SC in the primary but to not get the nom, that is fair comparison.  What other "race baiting" has he done?

Seriously, this is your chance to voice your complaints.  Say 'em loud and proud.  You talk as though there are tons of examples so it shouldn't be hard.

[bgwah]

I’m blatantly rejecting an appeal for civil discourse? How so?

Oh my, zero experience!? Obama=Bush? Is that your point?

But ah, you just want to discuss the issues! How noble! Yet you still make unexplained one liners, and then claim that it is okay if no one demands your evidence and/or reasoning? Sorry, but that’s not intelligent discussion.

Retarded masses following Oprah and crew? LOL! Hillary Clinton has far more of these types of supporters than any other candidate---they’re the retards blindly backing Hillary because of her husband.

Hard lefties voting for Nader? Does that bother you? How dare someone vote for who they think is the best candidate! Amusing that you seem to care about winning, yet have chosen the candidate who will not only lose “lefties” (again) but also make few if any gains among independents and Republicans.

Bush’s presidency was a mistake? Our military is overextended? Yes, I will agree. However, I must strongly disagree that supporting a candidate who, as a Senator, supported the Iraq War (and is thus part of the problem) will bring us change. A Hillary Clinton presidency will just be another huge mistake.

[Wakie]

I’m blatantly rejecting an appeal for civil discourse? How so?

You said, "when someone makes a stupid thread like this I have to respond".  I didn't ask you to not attack the candidates.  I just asked you (and everyone else) to explain their attacks.  You took umbrage took my request.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am suggesting that job experience counts.  People gave Bush's lack of experience a pass.  People are giving Obama's lack of experience a pass.  Does this mean Obama=Bush?  No.  But lack of experience DOES count.  Do you disagree?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Question any unfair statements you feel I have made.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oddly enough I think that Bill Clinton will have more influence on a Hillary Presidency than Oprah will have on an Obama Presidency.  And even odder, I think Bill is a better adviser than Oprah.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People who voted Nader in states Gore was certain to win (such as CA or MA) do not bother me.  But people who did it in OH or FL do bother me.  Nader wasn't going to win.  It was obvious.  2000 was a very tight election.  It was obvious it would be a tight race.  It was one of those moments in history when people really should have voted with their heads and not their hearts.  Too much was at stake.  Now, we have a screwed up country.  We have a Supreme Court packed with hardcore conservatives.  The damage is done.  And all because instead of looking at the consequences of hedging their bets they decided to be spoiled stupid stupid stupid children we are now in the situation we're in.

Hey, if you voted Nader in 2000 you really forfeited the right to EVER complain about the Bush Presidency.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hmmm .... so really don't think that Obama would have done the same if HE had been in the Senate in 2003?  I realize he had the political convenience of not being in office at the time but considering he has subsequently voted to continued funding of the war isn't it hypocritical of him to attacks other Dems for doing the same?

[bgwah]

You said, "when someone makes a stupid thread like this I have to respond".  I didn't ask you to not attack the candidates.  I just asked you (and everyone else) to explain their attacks.  You took umbrage took my request.

I merely stated your real intentions, and I'm sure most people would agree with  me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps, but Obama has more than enough experience. And I don't think Bush's "lack of experience" had anything to do with his poor performance as President. I don't think it would've mattered if he had been Governor of Texas for five terms. George Bush is just retarded.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That wasn't the point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, so you just want a third term for Bill Clinton. And I must have missed the part where Oprah (or Obama for that matter) claimed she would have influence over Obama's presidency or act as one of his advisers, but thanks for enlightening me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hahaha, spoiled children? You're the spoiled child with your "THEY SHOULD HAVE VOTED FOR MY CANDIDATE " trash.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I supported Gore, and even if I had voted for Nader, I would still have the right to complain because I voted--and not for George Bush. Only people who do not vote should not complain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I do not think he would have voted for the war had he been in the Senate in 2003. Many Democrats in the Senate did not--only cowards like Hillary Clinton did. But we're there now, and I don't see any problem with making sure our troops have adequate equipment and what not.

But why am I still talking to you? With your "PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH ME ARE MINDLESS RETARDS AND SPOILED STUPID STUPID STUPID CHILDREN AND DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO COMPLAIN IF THEY VOTE A DIFFERENT WAY FROM ME!" sh**t is really lame. You've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are not to be taken seriously.

[Wakie]

I merely stated your real intentions, and I'm sure most people would agree with  me.

You're a mind reader?  Wow.  You've been around here long enough to know that I've been asking people to provide citations for 5 years .... long before Hillary was a candidate.  And there have been times in the past when you and I have been on the same side of the argument.  Granted, you had a messianic complex back then ....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think we both agree that Bush is an imbecile who would have failed even if he had 30 years in the Senate.  I think we will disagree though on Obama's experience.  I like the man and I think he has enormous potential.  But he's only been in the Senate for 3 years, the last 1 of which he's spent campaigning for the White House.  The last President with such little experience was Jimmy Carter (and even he a full term as Governor of Georgia under his belt).  Prior to that you have to go back to Woodrow Wilson.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You know ... maybe you're right.  Maybe it is juvenile of me to feel that the choice between Bush and Gore was obvious.  Maybe it is juvenile of me to think that voters would grasp the concept of consequences in the 2000 race.  Maybe, instead of trying to convince people not to make mistakes I believe they've made before, I should just let them make them again and again.  Maybe once we lose abortion, the minimum wage, and the draft comes back ... yeah, maybe then they'll figure it out.  I'm not a woman, I make well above min wage, and I'm beyond draft age ... so why not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You conveniently forget that a few days prior to the vote about 75 Senators were told in a closed session that Hussein had the means of attacking the US eastern seaboard with bio and chemical weapons.  If you were a US Senator would you really expect the Executive Branch to lie to you to get you to vote for war???  Maybe you are a good enough judge of character to see through those lies, but personally I would not have expected it.

Now lets go a step further.

In 2004, while campaigning for the Senate Obama said he was willing to support more troops in Iraq and said that withdrawal would be 'a slap in the face' to the troops fighting there. (Google Christopher Wills 9/19/04 article "Obama Willing To Support More Troops In Iraq").

In 2005 Senator Obama said in a speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations "I believe that US forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq."  He suggested that he wanted to reduce the number of troops but not fully withdraw them.  He even drew attention to it saying, "Notice that I say 'reduce,' and not 'fully withdraw'."

In 2006 Senator Obama OPPOSED Senator Kerry's amendment to withdraw troops!  He voted against it!

Heck, Dennis Kucinich blasted Obama for being "too little, too late" in his opposition to the war.  For these reasons I doubt Obama would have voted any differently.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People who voted Nader are stupid children.  Especially when they complain about the state of the nation and fail to understand that they are a great cause of the problem.