Posted on 01/21/2016 8:01:44 AM PST by Isara
I think that's a "yes" or "no" question. :)
I mean, if they're not obnoxious, then I'll take it back.
I think all the evidence is to the contrary. :)
"Typical trumpster...limited intelligence..."
That is an unverified opinion, with much evidence to the contrary.
Pretty much a personal attack.
I wouldn't fault him if he had called me "obnoxious". That's a pretty obvious truism.
That is a tough one. Since personal attack has not been defined, I am starting with what seems to be most blatant
It may well be that any comment that strays past engaging the content of what a poster actually says and wanders off into any not complimentary words is a personal attack. In that case, "displaying immaturity" would be a personal attack
What do you think?
Obviously, you haven’t read the thread.
I don’t get to come to FR often anymore, and in response to my posts today the Trump supporters have called me stupid. All I did was verify for them that Trump DID donate to Weiner. Then I got attacked for supporting Cruz in that same response, and when I pointed out that my post had nothing to do with Cruz, the response was “I don’t care about your stupid opinion.”
Now, reading this thread shows pure insanity. The few reasonable folks on both sides are getting nothing but DU treatment. This site has degraded, and your blaming me is nothing but more of the same.
Pledge thread?
I'm known for taunting posters who bash Trump with accusations of "The Tee Dee Ess". I'm open and notorious about it.
I didn't go after what are termed by some "the Cruzers", or Ted Cruz himself until today.
I actually posted supportive things about Ted Cruz. All of that is available in my posting history.
I'm a dreaded "Trumpkin". I've heard elsewhere that Trump donated to Weiner.
Why would someone call you "stupid" over something that's true?
Not impressive.
I do not know if "they" (how many are we dealing with here?) are obnoxious or not. So I lack information needed to answer yes or no.
I think it would be fair to observe that "your comment about_____ is obnoxious to me because_____)"
See the difference?
I think it would be fair to observe that "you [the Trump-basher] weren't obnoxious the first 5 or 6 times you made that same comment. The last 15 or 20 times, yeah, it was obnoxious."
I can set you up with the history of certain posters, if you desire.
You & I are well-acquainted with a certain poster who is obsessed with the Waco threads, for example.
Fortunately, there aren't that many Waco threads. :)
That is an interesting and intriguing idea and I like it. I think there may have been something like it posted - not sure.
For it to have any force or traction, The Boss would really need to chime in. We are talking of his rules in his house. I commented on his thread yesterday that I think the no attack rule had been ignored too much way before now. And the current whirlwind is a consequence of that.
Poor Jim. I bet he be getting slap wore out from the pings.
Yeah, I think I saw that post.
Someone was talking about a donation to the forum in the name of Trump or of Cruz thread.
Oh yeah. I read the thread. Did you? Or maybe you’re so blinded by your bias that you can’t see where the vitriol begins.
*I* didn’t attack you about Weiner. I don’t even know what you’re talking about. I missed that one. I’m pretty sure I’ve never said ‘I don’t care about your stupid opinion’ to anyone. But if the shoe fits. Truth told, I probably don’t, but I’m not rude enough to say it out loud. Cruz people do that kind of stuff, though.
Pure insanity? You got that right! This is like a barroom brawl.
Reading comprehension, CSM, please. You said something to the effect that this place was getting like DU. I agreed with you &- since you are apparently a Cruz supporter, said ‘You’re the oneS (plural) who are causing (or whatever) all the drama & conflict. And I stand by that. But I did not blame you, PERSONALLY, & to say that I did is just twisting my words.
REASONABLE FReepers keep trying to appeal for a truce. And what’s the first thing that happens? Some Cruz supporter just as good as tells them to stuff it. And starts right in again.
Look at this thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3386775/posts
What do you see- first reply?
Look at the first 3 pages of posts. 8 posts trying to stir up crap with Trump supporters. There is ONLY ONE post that could REMOTELY be construed as
anti-Cruz & that is the one about one of Cruz’s staffers jumping ship to Trump.
Y’ALL- All of y’all (you, too) need to settle down. We’re not starting it, but we’ll sure as the devil not put up with it if you do.
LOL Oh shut up. Don’t y’all ever get tired? Or eat? Obviously, you don’t have spouses or families to tend to.
“Oh yeah. I read the thread. Did you? Or maybe you’re so blinded by your bias that you can’t see where the vitriol begins.”
Yes, I did read it and I DID acknowledge that the vitriol on BOTH sides is out of control. I don’t see that as biased.
“*I* didn’t attack you about Weiner.”
I never claimed that you did! I was using it as an example. My point was that there is very little discussion about the actual issues and facts. Instead FR is degrading to mudslinging, hence the DU reference.
“Pure insanity? You got that right! This is like a barroom brawl.”
On that we have complete agreement.
“Reading comprehension, CSM, please.”
That clearly needs to take place in both directions.
“you are apparently a Cruz supporter, said ‘You’re the oneS (plural) who are causing (or whatever) all the drama & conflict. And I stand by that.”
Well, obviously it is not ALL of the drama. Which is precisely why I provided the specific example for you.
“Y’ALL- All of y’all (you, too) need to settle down. We’re not starting it, but we’ll sure as the devil not put up with it if you do.”
Well, if you actually consider the article that led to this thread, it WAS started by Trump himself. If he is attacking a Conservative from the Left, then it merits a reply.
I have no issues having disagreements on policy, proposals, etc. However, Trump himself has stooped to a level of mudslinging that is only destructive to Conservatism and YES it is fair to address his leftist attacks.
He should get back to discussing the issues in an effort to convince the electorate that he IS truly convinced of Conservative principles.
Well, you guys just want to argue. And I have neither the inclination or the time to do that today. Maybe some other day.
Have a nice weekend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.