Flip Flops

[greg3564]

Well, golfhobo, I wish you would have studied the variances of the english language a little more than the extent that your 8th grade teacher taught you. You might have learned about the many variances in the written word. Fortunatly for me, I didn't test out of english in college; I chose it as a major. I am confident my sentence structure and word usage would pass any of my former professor's expectations. By the way, if you want to be the grammar police, you probably shouldn't post sentences like this:

Acutally, thanks to you, be both LOST

I don't know if it is eubonics, or simply misspelled, but either way it is wrong. This will be the last time I bother to correct you, as I feel that when one resorts to spelling or grammar corrections in a post, they obviously have nothing to add to the post. This is as bad as offering an olive branch that has obviously already been lit. Both are a waste of time.

Move on already.

[Part Time Dweller]

And you are??? :?

[golfhobo]

Acutally, thanks to you, be both LOST.

Uhm.... that would be: "Actually" and "we".
Don't you just hate it when that happens ? :P

Yeah, I do! Sorry, I had company at the time and I wasn't monitoring what I was typing well enough. Of course there's a big difference between making a typo, and not knowing how or when to use which form of certain words.

[golfhobo]

Well, golfhobo, I wish you would have studied the variances of the english language a little more than the extent that your 8th grade teacher taught you. You might have learned about the many variances in the written word.

Oh, I assure you I HAVE. That is partly how I know that choosing the correct form of who or whom is so difficult. I never said I quit studying or taking English after the 8th grade. I said I learned all I needed to know about English (GRAMMAR) by that time.

Fortunatly for me, I didn't test out of english in college; I chose it as a major. I am confident my sentence structure and word usage would pass any of my former professor's expectations.

Actually, I didn't test out of it either, or not intentionally. And, I suppose I should have been more specific. I was only exempted from English grammar courses. I still needed, and took other English classes and electives.

You are quite well spoken, so your studies, at least, weren't a complete waste. But, your use of whom in your first post was still incorrect. Take it back to any of your teachers and, I assure you, they will tell you it is wrong.

By the way, if you want to be the grammar police, you probably shouldn't post sentences like this:

Acutally, thanks to you, be both LOST

Ha, Ha. You're right. That was bad of me to not proofread my post. I don't always watch what I'm typing, eyes are getting bad, too!

I don't know if it is eubonics, or simply misspelled, but either way it is wrong. This will be the last time I bother to correct you, as I feel that when one resorts to spelling or grammar corrections in a post, they obviously have nothing to add to the post.

And you felt that your first post here added something to the thread or previous posts? I did not merely "correct" your grammar, I used it as an example to question your intelligence.

This is as bad as offering an olive branch that has obviously already been lit. Both are a waste of time.

Not lit, but still very close to the fire, yes.

Back to the debate that started all of this. If you had the capability to watch the youtube clip, you would see that it was aimed at party leaders. Actually, most intelligent people realized that most such comments are usually aimed at the party leaders.

As for the commentary in the original post... I still disagree with you. As for the content of the youtube clips, I again remind you that I had no comment on THEM.

Taking umbrage at such a comment, and saying that it attacks all people of the democrat party shows either a lack of knowledge, or sheer hypocracy.

Okay, English major, explain how doing so, and saying so has anything to do with being hypocritical. I think you're playing with big words again, Junior.

It ranks right up there with calling party beliefs political slogans, talking points, or prejudices. Any belief of any party predictably will become all of the above, as it is what the party believes. I am constantly amazed at peoples ability to tell when a person is spouting talking points instead of discussing one's beliefs.

Hmm..... I've never had a problem doing it. Ann Coulter jumps to mind. Sean Hannity is another.

That ranks right up there with the ability to tell that one news outfit only broadcasts the party line. In essence, these amazing powers of discernment are usually a front for a lack of knowledge.

If one actually had these, as you say, amazing powers of discernment, I can hardly see how that would be a front for a lack of knowledge. You're again just using big words, and talking in circles.

This brings us full circle to the fact that if you cannot see the subject of a post, you probably should not comment on it, as it makes you look kind of silly.

Not as silly as one who has to be told for the umpteenth time that I was NOT commenting on the subject matter of the original post. I was commenting on the EDITORIAL comment that introduced the subject matter! I think it is YOU who needs to improve his reading comprehension. I was, you guessed it, "exempted" from it.

:wink:

[Rockjockey]

Hypocrisy is the act of condemning another person, where the stated basis for the criticism is the breach of a rule which also applies to the critic and of which the critic is in breach to a similar or greater extent.

Your hypocrisy was the fact that you claim to think that PTD was aiming this at all democrats (even though if you had watched the video, your claim of attcking only the rhetoric would not have stood). The breach occurs in the content of the rest of your posts, where you claim to consider many sources for your information. If you are so well sourced (as I stated before, brings to mind reading comprehension again), you would realize that 99% of the people claiming a dislike for a party actually mean the leaders and policy of that party. Usually, when one uses the belittling tone and name calling tactics you resort to, my hypocrisy meter goes off.

[golfhobo]

Hypocrisy is the act of condemning another person, where the stated basis for the criticism is the breach of a rule which also applies to the critic and of which the critic is in breach to a similar or greater extent.

Your arguement ONLY holds true, if "I" have said something like "All Republicans are Warmongers" or, "No wonder the Republicans are known as the Elitist Party."

Your hypocrisy was the fact that you claim to think that PTD was aiming this at all democrats (even though if you had watched the video, your claim of attcking only the rhetoric would not have stood).

PTD said: "No wonder the Democrat Party is known as the party of cut and run!"

This is "editorial content" and has nothing to do with the clips PTD linked to. The fact that the videos might have only shown party leaders, does not change the fact that we are ALL part of the Democratic Party, and as such were covered by the original comment. In fact, if you remember, the first few days during which this phrase was "resurrected" it was used in conjunction with Cindy Sheehan and her party of "cut and run."

Do not forget that this is a "representative" form of government. Our party leaders are supposed to represent the will of their respective electorate! If you want to say, "no wonder so and so, believes in such a way, you might could be considered attacking THAT politician. But, when you say "Democrats are the Party of" you are attacking the electorate.

Regardless, the fact that I stated I had not viewed the clips, makes the part of your post that I highlighted moot. I have said over and over, that I was attacking ONLY the editorial comment. What I might should have viewed but didn't, cannot be a basis for saying my statements were hypocritical.

The breach occurs in the content of the rest of your posts, where you claim to consider many sources for your information.

You are changing the rules now, to fit your need to explain yourself. YOU said:

Taking umbrage at such a comment, and saying that it attacks all people of the democrat party shows either a lack of knowledge, or sheer hypocracy.

I most certainly DID take umbrage at the comment. And I implied or said that I believe it includes all in the party. Now... what part of that is a hypocritical statement? I can ONLY see how it would be hypocritical if I said ALL Republicans were.... fill in the slogan of your choice.... and STILL condemned PTD for his/her statement. As for my other posts, again, the only basis you could use is if I slammed the entire party for the deeds of a few, and would have NOTHING to do with whether I claimed to use, or used, multiple sources to form my opinions.

If you are so well sourced (as I stated before, brings to mind reading comprehension again), you would realize that 99% of the people claiming a dislike for a party actually mean the leaders and policy of that party.

This may have some truth to it, but it is NOT what I'm seeing around the country today. Democratic anti-war protestors are spit on and called cowards, commies, and cut and runs! Even President BUSH had to quit using the phrase, after being counselled by his advisors, because it was perceived throughout the country that he was saying that ALL citizens who supported the party beliefs, were somehow "unpatriotic."

Now, for what it's worth... go back and read my first post. The examples I gave were ALSO "party leaders," so your whole argument is unfounded.

Usually, when one uses the belittling tone and name calling tactics you resort to, my hypocrisy meter goes off.

And when one uses the "canned" slogans and "talking points" as PTD did, my Bullsh$t and Koolaid drinker meter goes off.

Perhaps, a chill pill will ease BOTH of our conditions. Again, I don't know how much you may have "lurked" on other threads before you jumped into this one, but how about you getting to know me a bit better before calling me a hypocrit.... and I'll try to make sure I don't say things that ACTUALLY might prove me to BE one!

[Aligator]

I still needed, and took other English classes and electives.

I dunno.......I don't think that comma should be in there.

[Fozzy]