President-Elect John McCain's Lead Widens, GOP finally opening up....

[Maturin]

Originally Posted by LetsPlayYourWay

hah...good luck with that. Any mod who can see IP's, access times, etc will prove you wrong again.

Actually, the mods can't see any of these things. That ability was removed long ago. The admins might be able to; not sure really.

Also, lay off the personal attacks, people. This thread is getting too snarky for its own good.

Finally, I'll also say that Sofisticated is someone's alt. Not LPWY's, but someone's. In the first 18 months he/she posted a total of 4 times, and now this sudden flurry of posts in the past week, with a knowing and familiar attitude of how the place works.......dead givaway.

[LetsPlayYourWay]

Originally Posted by Maturin

Actually, the mods can't see any of these things. That ability was removed long ago. The admins might be able to; not sure really.

Also, lay off the personal attacks, people. This thread is getting too snarky for its own good.

Finally, I'll also say that Sofisticated is someone's alt. Not LPWY's, but someone's. In the first 18 months he/she posted a total of 4 times, and now this sudden flurry of posts in the past week, with a knowing and familiar attitude of how the place works.......dead givaway.

look at my first posts as OOTF i had a familiarity with how the place works because i used to visit the board for over a year before joining. That doesn't mean it's an alt.

[Sofisticated]

I joined the forum a while back to ask a question about high enhancement. Over the last little bit, I started reading posts in this specific section and frankly felt I had to say something. IPs aren't the only way to tell people apart. Try matching writing syntax or tone.

I assure you, I'm no one's alt. I had a friend who introduced me to this forum, and I'm not even in contact with that guy anymore because of personal reasons. Furthermore, the suggestion that I am an 'alt' and that this somehow nullifies any of my points is ridiculous.

I will tone down the snarkiness when certain posters around here tone down their irrationality. I see nothing noble in staying silent when I feel strongly about saying something. America used to be like that, too.

Again, please attack the specific issues and ideas I raise. Attacking me because you are unwilling to accept different ideas reflects a lot more on you. Shall I strike a deal with everyone? I'll play nice and not call anyone names, but as soon as someone makes claims that I am a conspiracy theorist or that I embrace terrorism because I disagree with them, WATCH THE FUCK OUT.

So far the major issue here is that I disagree with Snownuts a lot, as well as Dubstyle. Dubs is apparently a mod. As far as I'm concerned, that IS NOT AN ISSUE. Oh, and pretty please to Dubstyle or whatever mod is involved, I would really like to be able to edit my own posts when I have to add an idea or fix a spelling error.

[Snownuts]

Originally Posted by Sofisticated

Don't put words in my mouth, you indoctrinated moron..

hmmm... follow your own advice much?

[Sofisticated]

Originally Posted by Snownuts

hmmm... follow your own advice much?

You are indoctrinated. Most people here recognize that. Hate to break that to you.

I don't put words in your mouth. Your assumptions about the world are obvious because of where you stand on issues, and how you support them.

What did I say about you that wasn't true? I will retract anything I've said about you that I can't back up by quoting your posts. Let's really open up some scrutiny here. I'm an open book. Let's look back on mine and Snownuts' posts and see if we can't find some patterns.

I clearly state what I am for and what I am against. You are a snake.

EDIT: Also, can anyone in the know give me a list of Snownuts' suspected or confirmed alts?

[Snownuts]

um maybe because this thread is about JOHN MCCAIN WINNING THE PRESIDENCY.,

telling me im a snake and other ad hominem attacks havent semed to dry up the support for mccain, so my question is, when will your ineffective technique change or will u be calling me a snake until 2012 and then hope someone listens along the way...?

its amazing how fast people with no point resort to personal attacks, or how people with absurd points get all angry when people look at them like their crazy as i do to u now.

[Terry]

Originally Posted by Snownuts

second, you support ron paul for president, so your opinion is about as worthwhile, eh, maybe a little less worthwile, than a pile of dog droppings.

Man you don't have to hate on a person just because of the candidate they support, especially considering Ron Paul is consistent in his beliefs (unlike John Mccain) and sticks to his values rather than changing them whenever the wind blows.

[Snownuts]

come on man, u gotta look at the whole conversation before you pass judgement on me. at least i would expect someone like u to terry, not many of the idiots on here who just want to slaughter me and ignore my points.

u really think ron paul is ingenuous? OR that hes consistant? or that he 'sticks to his values' - lol come on, how come all of a sudden hes the champion of the constitution this election cycle? i dont seem to have heard a peep out him ever before now, so when compared to someone like mccain who has been in the public spotlight for 40 years of course if u dont know as much about the positions he takes u can say he is more consistant.

is barack consistent or just inexperienced?

[Sofisticated]

Originally Posted by Snownuts

um maybe because this thread is about JOHN MCCAIN WINNING THE PRESIDENCY.,

telling me im a snake and other ad hominem attacks havent semed to dry up the support for mccain, so my question is, when will your ineffective technique change or will u be calling me a snake until 2012 and then hope someone listens along the way...?

its amazing how fast people with no point resort to personal attacks, or how people with absurd points get all angry when people look at them like their crazy as i do to u now.

Crazy, man? Crazy implies no rationality and no sense of reality. You fit that description perfectly. You defended the Bush Administration. Crazy.

When confronted with facts, you rely on insults. I rely on insults when met with poorly-constructed arguments, or when it is suggested that I would 'ruin America' by questioning the government. Essentially, I don't like unsubstantiated opinions or incoherent insults, Snowy.

ad ho·mi·nem /æd ˈhɒmənəm‑ˌnɛm, ɑd-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ad hom-uh-nuhm‑nem, ahd-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.

Your candidate (though not the only one) relies on ad hominem attacks. I won't deny I don't like you man. We can keep arguing, and trust me you won't wear me out. I really want you to consider the idea that your posts are often incoherent, and that just because you have an opinion, it doesn't mean it deserves respect. I realize that people may disagree with me, so I try to back up my convictions with rational discussion and cold hard realities of what is going on in the world - not just what CNN and Fox say.

From your complete lack of disregard towards spelling, grammar, it is obvious your ideas are not well constructed.

Again, please convince me of McCain's superiority with statistics. Iraq statistics have already been discussed and they are a joke. Violence is down because of ethnic cleansing, and it's really only down to levels of a few years ago - still higher than before you started a war. Even Christian fundamentalists should realize from the Good Book that Iraq was not a just war. Furthermore, McCain's suggested policies encourage more spending, ballooning your nation's debt.

If you really want to talk about McCain, then you can't shirk away from the discussion when someone presents facts that prove you wrong.

[Terry]

I don't mind it when a candidate changes his mind but Mccain takes it way too far. He was against action in somalia simply because a Democrat ordered it and he wanted to bolster his poll ratings.

But he was for Iraq, a war that was done for anything BUT moral reasons, simply because Bushy boy was in his party.

I'm not a Paul supporter, but it seems obvious to me Paul's the only person running who doesn't say things for his own political gain, but says things because he believes it. For good or ill, he sticks to his principles, which is more than I can say for most politicians.

Wasn't trying to hate on you J, this thread has turned into a bitchfest like so many A&P discussions, and we're all a little bit responsible.

[Sofisticated]

Originally Posted by Snownuts

come on man, u gotta look at the whole conversation before you pass judgement on me. at least i would expect someone like u to terry, not many of the idiots on here who just want to slaughter me and ignore my points.

u really think ron paul is ingenuous? OR that hes consistant? or that he 'sticks to his values' - lol come on, how come all of a sudden hes the champion of the constitution this election cycle? i dont seem to have heard a peep out him ever before now, so when compared to someone like mccain who has been in the public spotlight for 40 years of course if u dont know as much about the positions he takes u can say he is more consistant.

is barack consistent or just inexperienced?

Again, use your brain, if possible. His voting record is on file, and isn't something he fabricated. HE IS CONSISTENT. The reason you haven't really heard of him before is that he has consistently opposed ridiculous policies of administrations for the last few decades. People who do that usually aren't darlings of the Bushes and Clintons, nor would they be idolized like McCain or Hillary in your precious American media.

[Snownuts]

...dude i have never seen another yahookan quote the dictionary other than OOTF,letsplayyourway ,psyopsking,sofistic ated.


you also seem to do similar things to him- aka say that "your opinion" is facts, and "your opinion" is objective. furthermore, your assertions , despire their forcefulness, do not bear any relation to the fact that mccain is beating ron paul by about 6 to 1 in the polls. other than to conclude that other people are forming their opinions based on "lies" but your opinions are apparently based on "objective facts" which u cant direct us towards,. other than posting the definition for "fact" out of the dictionary, and hurling further insults.


coincidence? maybe but if all your doing is copying his idiotry then its not worth my time to fight 2 ootfs....

ps u dont seem to see how the media is totally shitting on mccain this cycle? if anything this proves how INEFFECTIVE the media is at controlling opinions....fox news has been shoving romney down peoples throats for 2 weeks now, and NO ONE is biting. not even your average fox news viewer, which really says something about how pathetic their attempt to mold opinion in one way is.

[Snownuts]

Originally Posted by Terry

but it seems obvious to me Paul's the only person running who doesn't say things for his own political gain, but says things because he believes it. .

mccain has said twofold.

1. hes been for the surge from the very beginning, in early 2007 this caused his national poll numbers to be in the low single digits....he maintained that this was the right way to go if america had any hope of "making lemonade out of lemons". (insert other metaphor if this doesnt suit you). he now is the champion of a VINDICATED position as evidenced by the democrats no longer speaking of withdrawing all troops by such and such a date- John Edwards called them both on it- THEY BOTH (HIL AND OB) SAID THEY WOULD KEEP TROOPS THEIR TO PROTECT OUR ASSETS (our assets arent going to be gone in 5 years, ergo by their own logic, neither will all the troops...) McCain agreed with the surge to the deteriment of his poll numbers (populariy) for nearly a year before people began to conclude that his forsight (actually General Petreus' forsight, and Bush's in firing ol'Rummey) may well have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat..... how is that not speaking your mind when u know whats right even if it costs u politically?

2. he was against many of the far -right wing things, (immigration reform, campaign finance lack of reform, etc) this is at a time when the gop controlled both houses and hawkish neo conservatives ran the show- Mccain took a line AGAINST those people, and again, took political flack for it....and if he doesnt win now, it will be because he took so much flack from the hard right wing that they shot themselves in the foot.....

3. Mccain is the oldest candidate, he obviously is the only one to have been in combat, the only one (of any president in history) to have been a PRISONER OF WAR for 7 YEARS.....the only one with any claim that this win is for something other than his/her big fucking ego...


..... so there is some substance for ya terry (hopefully ootfs alt will respond to substance as well but i doubt it).... do u really think mccain has said what is politically convenient in the past? I think hes the most selfless candidate by objective measures (1-3 above) of any candidate and id challenge someone to show me otherwise with as much substance as ive shown here...

[Sofisticated]

Originally Posted by Snownuts

mccain has said twofold.

1. hes been for the surge from the very beginning, in early 2007 this caused his national poll numbers to be in the low single digits....he maintained that this was the right way to go if america had any hope of "making lemonade out of lemons". (insert other metaphor if this doesnt suit you). he now is the champion of a VINDICATED position as evidenced by the democrats no longer speaking of withdrawing all troops by such and such a date- John Edwards called them both on it- THEY BOTH (HIL AND OB) SAID THEY WOULD KEEP TROOPS THEIR TO PROTECT OUR ASSETS (our assets arent going to gone in 5 years, ergo by their own logic, neither will all the troops...) McCain agreed with the surge to the deteriment of his poll numbers (populariy) for nearly a year before people began to conclude that his forsight may well have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat..... how is that not speaking your mind when u know whats right even if it costs u politically?

2. he was against many of the far -right wing things, (immigration reform, campaign finance lack of reform, etc) this is at a time when the gop controlled both houses and hawkish neo conservatives ran the show- Mccain took a line AGAINST those people, and again, took political flack for it....and if he doesnt win now, it will be because he took so much flack from the hard right wing that they shot themselves in the foot.....

3. Mccain is the oldest candidate, he obviously is the only one to have been in combat, the only one (of any president in history) to have been a PRISONER OF WAR for 7 YEARS.....the only one with any claim that this win is for something other than his/her big fucking ego...


..... so there is some substance for ya terry (hopefully ootfs alt will respond to substance as well but i doubt it).... do u really think mccain has said what is politically convenient in the past? I think hes the most selfless candidate by objective measures (1-3 above) of any candidate and id challenge someone to show me otherwise with as much substance as ive shown here...

Hey bud. McCain being FOR THE SURGE ALL ALONG IS A REASON HE SHOULDN'T BE PRESIDENT. I respect that he held out as a POW for 7 years. However, if this meant anything then the military would by and large be supporting him. They are not supporting him. In fact, Ron Paul has the most military backing financially.

Just being against "some right-wing" is anything substantive. He's not against the RIGHT things, which are actually hurting your country in a big way. (IRAQ, BIG GOVERNMENT SPENDING, THE WAR ON DRUGS, THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION)

There. Responded with substance. Again, you disregard the facts that Iraq has caused more violence. You, my good man are the one who rarely responds with substance.

Furthermore, you can't use the terms "sunk cost" and "ad hominem" without contradicting yourself. This necessitates a peek at the old dictionary. Apparently, this makes you uncomfortable as someone who doesn't like captilization of proper nouns or apostrophes in general.

Furthermore, if you would look up the words "syntax" and "tone" as I suggested, you may be able to differentiate myself and some others.

Again, you've said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE. AGAIN YOU HAVE JUST IGNORED INDISPUTABLE FACTS AND REAL DEFINITIONS OF WORDS IN ORDER TO KEEP THINKING YOU ARE RIGHT.

However, you keep posting. I told you man. I'm just as persistent as you, the only difference is I think things out. I know it's scary to take a look at oneself.

[Snownuts]

Furthermore, if you would look up the words "syntax" and "tone" as I suggested, you may be able to differentiate myself and some others.

=
clearly, but u go back and forth.... sometimes ur pretty intelligent souding, others it seems like ur trying to emulate that professor of lizard aliens at the univ. of toronto letsplayyourway

[Sofisticated]

Originally Posted by Snownuts

Furthermore, if you would look up the words "syntax" and "tone" as I suggested, you may be able to differentiate myself and some others.

=
clearly, but u go back and forth.... sometimes ur pretty intelligent souding, others it seems like ur trying to emulate that professor of lizard aliens at the univ. of toronto letsplayyourway

That is an innately human characteristic, no? Sometimes cool and rational, yet incited to hotness by issues that one feels strongly about. However, I always try to present something rational. Really, if anything my swearing builds on my frustration that no one looks at the issues without prejudice.

Yet again, I make no apologies about my sometimes scathing tone or strong words. Words are all we have on here, anyway.

[LetsPlayYourWay]

Originally Posted by Snownuts

...dude i have never seen another yahookan quote the dictionary other than OOTF,letsplayyourway ,psyopsking,sofistic ated.


you also seem to do similar things to him- aka say that "your opinion" is facts, and "your opinion" is objective. furthermore, your assertions , despire their forcefulness, do not bear any relation to the fact that mccain is beating ron paul by about 6 to 1 in the polls. other than to conclude that other people are forming their opinions based on "lies" but your opinions are apparently based on "objective facts" which u cant direct us towards,. other than posting the definition for "fact" out of the dictionary, and hurling further insults.


coincidence? maybe but if all your doing is copying his idiotry then its not worth my time to fight 2 ootfs....

ps u dont seem to see how the m