Bill Clinton Fires up Democrats at Convention

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Willian
Gore......That guy is a mental case waiting to explode. He spews anti-social behavior, Very unstable person.

(Willan got so he could spot 'em from three beds away during his long stay at the institution.)

Wait'll the poor bastard who was supposed to be released last week finds out "Wiggy Willan from Ward 3" got mistakenly released in his stead. You'd have thought the drool bucket would have been a dead giveaway. but nooooo . . . :shocked:

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Originally posted by: Willian

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: joshw10
Willian: How old are you? 17?

Just ignore the child. It wants attention. Without attention it will whither and die.

Conjur, You really are an idiot....lol

Pardon me for saying so, my friend. But your brief posting history hasn't exactly painted -you- in the best light.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Willian
Gore......That guy is a mental case waiting to explode. He spews anti-social behavior, Very unstable person.

(Willan got so he could spot 'em from three beds away during his long stay at the institution.)

Wait'll the poor bastard who was supposed to be released last week finds out "Wiggy Willan from Ward 3" got mistakenly released in his stead. You'd have thought the drool bucket would have been a dead giveaway. but nooooo . . . :shocked:

I thought attacking members wasn't allowed?

Oh well... here's a cookie
*tosses cookie in the middle of the room*

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Willian
Gore......That guy is a mental case waiting to explode. He spews anti-social behavior, Very unstable person.

Funny, I was going to say the same about you. Hmmm.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

In regards to the trolls Rip and Willian, ignoring them is proving to be the best solution. Nobody has really responded to Willian at all, and this thread hasn't gotten sidetracked yet. Let them continue to say what the want, they only want to generate a reaction out of you.

In regards to the Clinton speech, it was very good. He is an amazing public speaker, not since Reagan have I heard such great speeches. Clinton really knows how to pull people together with his speeches, say what you want, but the overall message I got was the America needs to be united and that the Democratic party can provide that unity for the vast majority of Americans. Whether or not this is true is entirely subjective, but he was able to communicate this point quite eloquently.

Best line from the speech was without a doubt:

"They need a divided America, we don't."

I think if Kerry can deliver a knockout speech like Clinton's and CLEARLY and SPECIFICALLY layout his plan he will be a sure winner.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I thought attacking members wasn't allowed?

Oh well... here's a cookie
*tosses cookie in the middle of the room*

CkG

I think you misdirected your cookie.

Originally posted by: Willian
Conjur, You really are an idiot....lol

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
In regards to the trolls Rip and Willian, ignoring them is proving to be the best solution. Nobody has really responded to Willian at all, and this thread hasn't gotten sidetracked yet. Let them continue to say what the want, they only want to generate a reaction out of you.

In regards to the Clinton speech, it was very good. He is an amazing public speaker, not since Reagan have I heard such great speeches. Clinton really knows how to pull people together with his speeches, say what you want, but the overall message I got was the America needs to be united and that the Democratic party can provide that unity for the vast majority of Americans. Whether or not this is true is entirely subjective, but he was able to communicate this point quite eloquently.

Best line from the speech was without a doubt:

"They need a divided America, we don't."

I think if Kerry can deliver a knockout speech like Clinton's and CLEARLY and SPECIFICALLY layout his plan he will be a sure winner.

:beer::beer::beer::beer: (made 4 good points)

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

CAD, do you even bother to read these posts before you defend trolls like Riprorin and Willian? Or is it because they are Rep. that you automatically assume us "liberals" are bashing them for no apparent reason?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I thought attacking members wasn't allowed?

Oh well... here's a cookie
*tosses cookie in the middle of the room*

CkG

I think you misdirected your cookie.

Originally posted by: Willian
Conjur, You really are an idiot....lol

No, the cookie was for the "other" part of the thread - not to feed the troll. I should have made that more clear though.

*tosses cookie in the middle of the room that has people standing in a ring*

William's comments do not absolve Perknose of his attack. Perk has been around and is "elite". He should know better yet decided to attack anyway. William may be considered a troll by some standards but attacking him like that is inexcusable by any standards here on the forum.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
CAD, do you even bother to read these posts before you defend trolls like Riprorin and Willian? Or is it because they are Rep. that you automatically assume us "liberals" are bashing them for no apparent reason?

"defend"? Hardly.
There is no excuse for personally attacking him like was done by members who should know better. You assume(wrongly) that pointing out their attack on a person means I'm defending the target's stance/statement. I don't defend what William says(said) but there was no reason for the personal attacks - by ANYONE(you know...since it's the rules and all )

CkG

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
"defend"? Hardly.
There is no excuse for personally attacking him like was done by members who should know better. You assume(wrongly) that pointing out their attack on a person means I'm defending the target's stance/statement. I don't defend what William says(said) but there was no reason for the personal attacks - by ANYONE(you know...since it's the rules and all )

CkG

Are you consistent in your oppostition to personal attacks? I have never seen you express even the slightest outrage at any of the many personal attacks carried out here by posters whose political views you agree with. Not once, not ever. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Your studiously selective outrage does not seem to be based on principle, CAD. It seems to be more tactical -- it seems to be your less straightforward, subtly sideways, and less forthright way of attacking those you don't like.

 

[DealMonkey]

Sometimes Cad, you have to bash a troll over the head a few times. They certainly deserve no less.

*tosses cookie in the middle of the room that has people standing in a ring*

And see, this makes it sound like you're calling this a lib circle jerk (which it might be), but then you go on to imply somehow there's trollish behavior associated with it. Hence the cookie. I don't know Cad, you're throwing out mixed signals here.

Frankly, I simply think people are reacting to Clinton's speech. There's nothing "trollish" about it.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
"defend"? Hardly.
There is no excuse for personally attacking him like was done by members who should know better. You assume(wrongly) that pointing out their attack on a person means I'm defending the target's stance/statement. I don't defend what William says(said) but there was no reason for the personal attacks - by ANYONE(you know...since it's the rules and all )

CkG

Are you consistent in your oppostition to personal attacks? I have never seen you express even the slightest outrage at any of the many personal attacks carried out here by posters whose political views you agree with. Not once, not ever. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Your studiously selective outrage does not seem to be based on principle, CAD. It seems to be more tactical -- it seems to be your less straightforward, subtly sideways, and less forthright way of attacking those you don't like.

Exactly. Your outrage to personal attacks seem to be entirely selective. Keep in mind that Willian threw the first punch here.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
"defend"? Hardly.
There is no excuse for personally attacking him like was done by members who should know better. You assume(wrongly) that pointing out their attack on a person means I'm defending the target's stance/statement. I don't defend what William says(said) but there was no reason for the personal attacks - by ANYONE(you know...since it's the rules and all )

CkG

Are you consistent in your oppostition to personal attacks? I have never seen you express even the slightest outrage at any of the many personal attacks carried out here by posters whose political views you agree with. Not once, not ever. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Your studiously selective outrage does not seem to be based on principle, CAD. It seems to be more tactical -- it seems to be your less straightforward, subtly sideways, and less forthright way of attacking those you don't like.

It's the same reason he only bitches when R's/Conservatives get vacations or threads locked. Total partisanship.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
"defend"? Hardly.
There is no excuse for personally attacking him like was done by members who should know better. You assume(wrongly) that pointing out their attack on a person means I'm defending the target's stance/statement. I don't defend what William says(said) but there was no reason for the personal attacks - by ANYONE(you know...since it's the rules and all )

CkG

Are you consistent in your oppostition to personal attacks? I have never seen you express even the slightest outrage at any of the many personal attacks carried out here by posters whose political views you agree with. Not once, not ever. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Your studiously selective outrage does not seem to be based on principle, CAD. It seems to be more tactical -- it seems to be your less straightforward, subtly sideways, and less forthright way of attacking those you don't like.

Does what you say change what you did? Does you trying to turn the tables and refocus the spotlight on me somehow absolve you of what I pointed out?
NO, No it doesn't
You can sit there and claim what you wish but you knew better and did it anyway, no amount of obfuscation/diversion changes the fact you broke the rules.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Sometimes Cad, you have to bash a troll over the head a few times. They certainly deserve no less.

*tosses cookie in the middle of the room that has people standing in a ring*

And see, this makes it sound like you're calling this a lib circle jerk (which it might be), but then you go on to imply somehow there's trollish behavior associated with it. Hence the cookie. I don't know Cad, you're throwing out mixed signals here.

Frankly, I simply think people are reacting to Clinton's speech. There's nothing "trollish" about it.

No, there is no "trollish" behaviour regarding the "circle jerk"(your words ) - I was merely providing you all with a target

Anyway, sure a troll needs to get bashed on the head a few times but that still doesn't change the fact that there were personal attacks.

CkG

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Actually it was Crimson who brought it up (in this thread). Can't say as I'd argue with him as I'm one of the folks looking back on the charismatic president with nostalgia. Circle jerk it may be, but there's a good degree of basis for it, imho.

I'd also say Perk's "attack" on Willie was on a higher level. Or, I guess in basest terms, it wasn't a one-line "slap". The guy put a bit of effort into it with a bit of sarcasm. I'll give some credit there.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's the same reason he only bitches when R's/Conservatives get vacations or threads locked. Total partisanship.

I am not a moderator and I don't have to be "consistent" overall with how I dole out public statements. Just because I point out the times people break the rules on the "other side" does not mean I condone similar action from "my side". You and Sudheer Anne seem to think that is the case but it is not. But FWIW I have taken an occasion or two to make note of people who are on "my side" - you may have missed it or maybe it wasn't done publicly for you all to see.

But again trying to challenge me on this issue doesn't absolve those who broke the rules -especially those who should know better.

CkG

 

[Willian]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
"defend"? Hardly.
There is no excuse for personally attacking him like was done by members who should know better. You assume(wrongly) that pointing out their attack on a person means I'm defending the target's stance/statement. I don't defend what William says(said) but there was no reason for the personal attacks - by ANYONE(you know...since it's the rules and all )

CkG

Are you consistent in your oppostition to personal attacks? I have never seen you express even the slightest outrage at any of the many personal attacks carried out here by posters whose political views you agree with. Not once, not ever. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Your studiously selective outrage does not seem to be based on principle, CAD. It seems to be more tactical -- it seems to be your less straightforward, subtly sideways, and less forthright way of attacking those you don't like.

Exactly. Your outrage to personal attacks seem to be entirely selective. Keep in mind that Willian threw the first punch here.

Blame it on the right wing wacko, Liberals never attack 1st thats why this country is DOOMED! Pretty easy to see that really. I apologize for the personal attack, But as Dr.Savage said "When this country goes down he'll be the last angry man out the door to shut the lights off"

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's the same reason he only bitches when R's/Conservatives get vacations or threads locked. Total partisanship.

I am not a moderator and I don't have to be "consistent" overall with how I dole out public statements. Just because I point out the times people break the rules on the "other side" does not mean I condone similar action from "my side". You and Sudheer Anne seem to think that is the case but it is not. But FWIW I have taken an occasion or two to make note of people who are on "my side" - you may have missed it or maybe it wasn't done publicly for you all to see.

But again trying to challenge me on this issue doesn't absolve those who broke the rules -especially those who should know better.

CkG

Nobody is condoning a personal attack of any kind, kind of funny how you choose the high and mighty act when you want to though. Didn't see this side of you when Willian was calling conjur an idiot?

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Perknose
Are you consistent in your oppostition to personal attacks? I have never seen you express even the slightest outrage at any of the many personal attacks carried out here by posters whose political views you agree with. Not once, not ever. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Your studiously selective outrage does not seem to be based on principle, CAD. It seems to be more tactical -- it seems to be your less straightforward, subtly sideways, and less forthright way of attacking those you don't like.

Does what you say change what you did? Does you trying to turn the tables and refocus the spotlight on me somehow absolve you of what I pointed out?
NO, No it doesn't
You can sit there and claim what you wish but you knew better and did it anyway, no amount of obfuscation/diversion changes the fact you broke the rules.

CkG

I broke the rules? Stop the presses! The same rules broken by 40 plus posters this very day, the one broken by five or six posters in this very thread?

Spare me your BS drama queen faux outrage, CAD, your selective phony outrage game has been exposed for the cynical political tactic that it is. You hide behind the "rules" like some frustrated librarian, hall monitor or rent-a-cop -- all badge and blather but no gun -- it's your fundamentally phony and essentially cowardly way of getting your digs in.

Your true concern for the sanctity of these rules is starkly underscored by the fact that you have never once shown the integrity to speak out against transgressions thereof by someone you politically agree with. Your faux conern is really a manipulative tactic -- cover under which you feel safe to attack those you don't like.

Willan is an unseasoned "troll in the making" just beginning to pollute P&N with his ill considered idiocy and needs and deserves some corrective smackdowns. Maybe he'll calm down, but meanwhile, someone has to point out he's spitting in the soup, farting in a small room, and acting the fool.

I did the same with Infohawk, the leftist "logical fallacy" guy, when he first started, and he finally turned into quite a positively contributing poster. I told him in a pm at the time that he was bright but coming on way too strong and a month later he pm'ed me back to thank me and say I was exactly right.

And you're right, you're not a moderator, so why don't you leave the job of moderation to them. Speaking of the Mods, apparently they TOO are on to your phony act, as shown by their sharp response to the totally dishonest pose you took here:

Yeah, I stocked up for this exact occasion. I figured Perknose forgot about that little thread but it wasn't my fight - it was Crimson's. I have no real issues with Perknose(except for one we can't talk about ) but I do feel he stepped over the line with his tirade against Crimson. As for the link that showed where Perknose basically was calling me a troll - I just chalk that up to having a bad day and him getting offended for something that was actually a compliment and a sign of trust. Oh well...

CkG

"Not your fight"? "No real issues with Perknose"? Your FIVE loooooong, insistent pm's to us urging Perknose's banning hint otherwise. Heck, Crimson only sent us three.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Perknose
Are you consistent in your oppostition to personal attacks? I have never seen you express even the slightest outrage at any of the many personal attacks carried out here by posters whose political views you agree with. Not once, not ever. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Your studiously selective outrage does not seem to be based on principle, CAD. It seems to be more tactical -- it seems to be your less straightforward, subtly sideways, and less forthright way of attacking those you don't like.

Does what you say change what you did? Does you trying to turn the tables and refocus the spotlight on me somehow absolve you of what I pointed out?
NO, No it doesn't
You can sit there and claim what you wish but you knew better and did it anyway, no amount of obfuscation/diversion changes the fact you broke the rules.

CkG

I broke the rules? Stop the presses! The same rules broken by 40 plus posters this very day, the one broken by five or six posters in this very thread?

Spare me your BS drama queen faux outrage, CAD, your selective phony outrage game has been exposed for the cynical political tactic that it is. You hide behind the "rules" like some frustrated librarian, hall monitor or rent-a-cop -- all badge and blather but no gun -- it's your fundamentally phony and essentially cowardly way of getting your digs in.

Your true concern for the sanctity of these rules is starkly underscored by the fact that you have never once shown the integrity to speak out against transgressions thereof by someone you politically agree with. Your faux conern is really a manipulative tactic -- cover under which you feel safe to attack those you don't like.

Willan is an unseasoned "troll in the making" just beginning to pollute P&N with his ill considered idiocy and needs and deserves some corrective smackdowns. Maybe he'll calm down, but meanwhile, someone has to point out he's spitting in the soup, farting in a small room, and acting the fool.

I did the same with Infohawk, the leftist "logical fallacy" guy, when he first started, and he finally turned into quite a positively contributing poster. I told him in a pm at the time that he was bright but coming on way too strong and a month later he pm'ed me back to thank me and say I was exactly right.

And you're right, you're not a moderator, so why don't you leave the job of moderation to them. Speaking of the Mods, apparently they TOO are on to your phony act, as shown by their sharp response to the totally dishonest pose you took here:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: alchemize
This thread could be fun, if it isn't locked

/me grabs some popcorn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yeah, I stocked up for this exact occasion. I figured Perknose forgot about that little thread but it wasn't my fight - it was Crimson's. I have no real issues with Perknose(except for one we can't talk about ) but I do feel he stepped over the line with his tirade against Crimson. As for the link that showed where Perknose basically was calling me a troll - I just chalk that up to having a bad day and him getting offended for something that was actually a compliment and a sign of trust. Oh well...

CkG

"Not your fight"? "No real issues with Perknose"? Your FIVE loooooong, insistent pm's to us urging Perknose's banning hint otherwise. Heck, Crimson only sent us three.

wow.....you sent the mods 5 pms to get Perknose banned? Can't recall Perknose having said or done anything that warrants a banning.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
In regards to the trolls Rip and Willian, ignoring them is proving to be the best solution. Nobody has really responded to Willian at all, and this thread hasn't gotten sidetracked yet. Let them continue to say what the want, they only want to generate a reaction out of you.

In regards to the Clinton speech, it was very good. He is an amazing public speaker, not since Reagan have I heard such great speeches. Clinton really knows how to pull people together with his speeches, say what you want, but the overall message I got was the America needs to be united and that the Democratic party can provide that unity for the vast majority of Americans. Whether or not this is true is entirely subjective, but he was able to communicate this point quite eloquently.

Best line from the speech was without a doubt:

"They need a divided America, we don't."

I think if Kerry can deliver a knockout speech like Clinton's and CLEARLY and SPECIFICALLY layout his plan he will be a sure winner.

Clinton couldn't hold Reagan's jock.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
In regards to the trolls Rip and Willian, ignoring them is proving to be the best solution. Nobody has really responded to Willian at all, and this thread hasn't gotten sidetracked yet. Let them continue to say what the want, they only want to generate a reaction out of you.

In regards to the Clinton speech, it was very good. He is an amazing public speaker, not since Reagan have I heard such great speeches. Clinton really knows how to pull people together with his speeches, say what you want, but the overall message I got was the America needs to be united and that the Democratic party can provide that unity for the vast majority of Americans. Whether or not this is true is entirely subjective, but he was able to communicate this point quite eloquently.

Best line from the speech was without a doubt:

"They need a divided America, we don't."

I think if Kerry can deliver a knockout speech like Clinton's and CLEARLY and SPECIFICALLY layout his plan he will be a sure winner.

Clinton couldn't hold Reagan's jock.

Hehe....I'm not so sure he'd want to

 

[Painman]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
In regards to the trolls Rip and Willian, ignoring them is proving to be the best solution. Nobody has really responded to Willian at all, and this thread hasn't gotten sidetracked yet. Let them continue to say what the want, they only want to generate a reaction out of you.

In regards to the Clinton speech, it was very good. He is an amazing public speaker, not since Reagan have I heard such great speeches. Clinton really knows how to pull people together with his speeches, say what you want, but the overall message I got was the America needs to be united and that the Democratic party can provide that unity for the vast majority of Americans. Whether or not this is true is entirely subjective, but he was able to communicate this point quite eloquently.

Best line from the speech was without a doubt:

"They need a divided America, we don't."

I think if Kerry can deliver a knockout speech like Clinton's and CLEARLY and SPECIFICALLY layout his plan he will be a sure winner.

Clinton couldn't hold Reagan's jock.

Hehe....I'm not so sure he'd want to

No doubt, some of Reagan's laundry is pretty filthy

I thought Bill made a great speech, despite the fact that I harbor some animosity towards the man for his quasi-authoritarian leanings and show of disrespect towards the integrity of the office.

Slightly OT, but I thought it was interesting how the strongest indictments of the current admin came from elder statesman Carter. Having them come from an octogenarian Nobel Peace Prize winner, in a way, makes sense strategically.