Obama calls Hillary "Bush-Cheney Light"

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Breathe, everyone...BREATHE.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Gary - I think you're sadly lacking a sense of perspective.

BTW - I'm not a "Dem"

My perspective is very good thank you. From everything I see the dems have no perspective other than their own narrow view of they are the only ones that have any valid point. When faced with someone with a different view we get personal attacks like Dev's and then the rest stick up for that attack. Say what you want, I made no personal attack but Dev made a vicious personal attack. Saying someone is politicly gullible isn't a personal attack. But calling anyone from the middle of the country uneducated homophobic boobs certainly qualifies as a personal attack. Your smart enough to see the difference.

Maybe your not a "dem" but the views you state in your post align more towards the dems than anything else.

Therein lies the problem - you 'assume' and therefore characterise me according to the only political labels you have in front of you.

I really think you should give this up - if you see a (implied rather than overt - she didn't say "you are...") personal attack in the post you quoted then it stands to reason that you have to see one in what you wrote (about city dwellers being not 'real' Americans and being 'gullible'. Both posts dealt in generalisations - that's about as far as it goes. As I said - you've lost your sense of perspective over this, suggested as much as anything by the way you keep banging on about it. So keep making a stink over it - it doesn't change the facts or others' reasonable interpretation of the exchange.

As to my 'Democratic affiliations', I am not registered with the Democratic party, and I cannot vote for any political candidate. As far as my views - whatever ideological similarities I might share with certain politicians I'm less than convinced that they are sincere about those views and are capable of adequately representing. Hence I’ve said numerous times that I don’t support Hillary (mainly on the basis that I just don't trust her) - yet somehow you need only support a certain idea and you apparently become her 'bosom buddy'.

But this is all by the by really. Perhaps you might consider for instance that perceived my affiliation comes less from genuine agreement with them specific issues than with a general level of disgust at the current state of political conversation. I can’t speak about the US before the 2000 election (first time I visited) – but certainly ‘vicious mudslinging’ criticism from the party in office (and who until recently held a sizeable majority) seemed to me to be overwhelmingly sided, so if defending others from that sort of nastiness makes me a Dem in your eyes then so be it. It doesn’t of course… I’ve yet to make up my mind as to who I think will be the best choice to lead the country in 2008, though I have to say I’m not altogether impressed by any of the candidates.

Edited July 27, 2007 by Number 6

[GaryC 7]

Gary - I think you're sadly lacking a sense of perspective.

BTW - I'm not a "Dem"

My perspective is very good thank you. From everything I see the dems have no perspective other than their own narrow view of they are the only ones that have any valid point. When faced with someone with a different view we get personal attacks like Dev's and then the rest stick up for that attack. Say what you want, I made no personal attack but Dev made a vicious personal attack. Saying someone is politicly gullible isn't a personal attack. But calling anyone from the middle of the country uneducated homophobic boobs certainly qualifies as a personal attack. Your smart enough to see the difference.

Maybe your not a "dem" but the views you state in your post align more towards the dems than anything else.

Oh, now it's a "vicious personal attack"? Good grief, Gary. When I have some time, I think I'll put together a thread called, "Gary's insulting, sweeping generalizations of liberals/democrats". I'm sure it won't take too long.

It seems you can dish it out, but you can't take it.

Go right ahead. I think you will see the left attacks are a lot more frequent than anything I say. When I express my views I get the chorus of the lefts attacks and how bad anyone that has my views are. It may be a ####### for tat that I am guilty of but you must see that the attacks on Dev's side were way bigger than anything I said. And how do you figure calling anyone from fly-over country uneducated, homophobic, ignorant to the world blind sheep anything other than a personal attack?

Never mind. I know that I will never crack your sides self important elitist way of thinking. It's just fun to draw your side out and show you for what you really are. I do thank you all for being consistent.

Gary, you're being very hurtful, honestly. And it's quite discouraging that you find it "fun". But now that you've "shown me for what I really am", could you please clarify exactly what that is? I've asked you 3 times I think now. If you mean that you've shown I am a self-important, elitist, then I have to ask you how you've shown that exactly? What have I done besides point out that there were insults thrown *both* ways? How does that reveal me as a self-important elitist.

Allright, I am going to back off now. What Dev said really got under my skin and it pizzed me off to be quite honest. The stereotypes of people from rural areas is a common one and it makes my blood boil. I made a playful political jab and got a face full of insults in return.

[no name 1]

Never mind. I know that I will never crack your sides self important elitist way of thinking. It's just fun to draw your side out and show you for what you really are. I do thank you all for being consistent.

Right back at ya!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Never mind. I know that I will never crack your sides self important elitist way of thinking. It's just fun to draw your side out and show you for what you really are. I do thank you all for being consistent.

The only thing I think that's being drawn out here - is you making yourself a public laughing stock with your one-size-fits-all / square-peg-in-round-hole interpretation of people who disagree with you.

[no name 1]

Allright, I am going to back off now. What Dev said really got under my skin and it pizzed me off to be quite honest. The stereotypes of people from rural areas is a common one and it makes my blood boil. I made a playful political jab and got a face full of insults in return.

and what about the big city stereotypes you made?

Just saying...

BTW, I am from the Midwest, I do base most of that on fact.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Allright, I am going to back off now. What Dev said really got under my skin and it pizzed me off to be quite honest. The stereotypes of people from rural areas is a common one and it makes my blood boil. I made a playful political jab and got a face full of insults in return.

But... they weren't explicitly directed at you. If you think they were then you have to look at your post being interpreted in the same way. Again - have a sense of perspective here.

[Jenn! 918]

Gary - I think you're sadly lacking a sense of perspective.

BTW - I'm not a "Dem"

My perspective is very good thank you. From everything I see the dems have no perspective other than their own narrow view of they are the only ones that have any valid point. When faced with someone with a different view we get personal attacks like Dev's and then the rest stick up for that attack. Say what you want, I made no personal attack but Dev made a vicious personal attack. Saying someone is politicly gullible isn't a personal attack. But calling anyone from the middle of the country uneducated homophobic boobs certainly qualifies as a personal attack. Your smart enough to see the difference.

Maybe your not a "dem" but the views you state in your post align more towards the dems than anything else.

Oh, now it's a "vicious personal attack"? Good grief, Gary. When I have some time, I think I'll put together a thread called, "Gary's insulting, sweeping generalizations of liberals/democrats". I'm sure it won't take too long.

It seems you can dish it out, but you can't take it.

Go right ahead. I think you will see the left attacks are a lot more frequent than anything I say. When I express my views I get the chorus of the lefts attacks and how bad anyone that has my views are. It may be a ####### for tat that I am guilty of but you must see that the attacks on Dev's side were way bigger than anything I said. And how do you figure calling anyone from fly-over country uneducated, homophobic, ignorant to the world blind sheep anything other than a personal attack?

Never mind. I know that I will never crack your sides self important elitist way of thinking. It's just fun to draw your side out and show you for what you really are. I do thank you all for being consistent.

Gary, you're being very hurtful, honestly. And it's quite discouraging that you find it "fun". But now that you've "shown me for what I really am", could you please clarify exactly what that is? I've asked you 3 times I think now. If you mean that you've shown I am a self-important, elitist, then I have to ask you how you've shown that exactly? What have I done besides point out that there were insults thrown *both* ways? How does that reveal me as a self-important elitist.

Allright, I am going to back off now. What Dev said really got under my skin and it pizzed me off to be quite honest. The stereotypes of people from rural areas is a common one and it makes my blood boil. I made a playful political jab and got a face full of insults in return.

Thank you. To be honest, I probably would have been pissed off too. Just remember though that it's just as easy to make someone else's blood boil (i.e. mine!) as it is to have it done to you. Nobody likes to be insulted.

ETA: I do agree that just because someone didn't direct something at you that you won't necessarily take it personally.

Edited July 27, 2007 by jenn3539

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

ETA: I do agree that just because someone didn't direct something at you that you won't necessarily take it personally.

Surely that goes both ways however? Specifically that the post that Devilette wrote might well have been motivated (certainly coloured) by similar offense caused by Gary's generalisation of 'city folk'.

[Jenn! 918]

ETA: I do agree that just because someone didn't direct something at you that you won't necessarily take it personally.

Surely that goes both ways however? Specifically that the post that Devilette wrote might well have been motivated (certainly coloured) by similar offense caused by Gary's generalisation of 'city folk'.

Yes, of course it goes both ways!

I'm just saying that if I'm wearing a red shirt and someone says, "Anyone who wears red shirts is stupid", claiming that it wasn't an attack against me is kind of silly. If one identifies with the generalized group that is being insulted, then I think it qualifies as a personal attack.

[mawilson 2,133]

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

ETA: I do agree that just because someone didn't direct something at you that you won't necessarily take it personally.

Surely that goes both ways however? Specifically that the post that Devilette wrote might well have been motivated (certainly coloured) by similar offense caused by Gary's generalisation of 'city folk'.

Yes, of course it goes both ways!

I'm just saying that if I'm wearing a red shirt and someone says, "Anyone who wears red shirts is stupid", claiming that it wasn't an attack against me is kind of silly. If one identifies with the generalized group that is being insulted, then I think it qualifies as a personal attack.

Well that's a fair point, but in this case however it amounts to being offended by someone saying that "Anyone who wears red shirts is stupid", but being unable to see the offense in a similar sweeping statement about 'blue shirts'. That's blatantly hypocritical.

[Jenn! 918]

ETA: I do agree that just because someone didn't direct something at you that you won't necessarily take it personally.

Surely that goes both ways however? Specifically that the post that Devilette wrote might well have been motivated (certainly coloured) by similar offense caused by Gary's generalisation of 'city folk'.

Yes, of course it goes both ways!

I'm just saying that if I'm wearing a red shirt and someone says, "Anyone who wears red shirts is stupid", claiming that it wasn't an attack against me is kind of silly. If one identifies with the generalized group that is being insulted, then I think it qualifies as a personal attack.

Well that's a fair point, but in this case however it amounts to being offended by someone saying that "Anyone who wears red shirts is stupid", but being unable to see the offense in a similar sweeping statement about 'blue shirts'. That's blatantly hypocritical.

Yes, agreed. And I think that's exactly what went on here.

[GaryC 7]

ETA: I do agree that just because someone didn't direct something at you that you won't necessarily take it personally.

Surely that goes both ways however? Specifically that the post that Devilette wrote might well have been motivated (certainly coloured) by similar offense caused by Gary's generalisation of 'city folk'.

Yes, of course it goes both ways!

I'm just saying that if I'm wearing a red shirt and someone says, "Anyone who wears red shirts is stupid", claiming that it wasn't an attack against me is kind of silly. If one identifies with the generalized group that is being insulted, then I think it qualifies as a personal attack.

Well that's a fair point, but in this case however it amounts to being offended by someone saying that "Anyone who wears red shirts is stupid", but being unable to see the offense in a similar sweeping statement about 'blue shirts'. That's blatantly hypocritical.

Yes, agreed. And I think that's exactly what went on here.

Ok, one further clarification and then I am done. I said that city dwelling dem voters were gullible. Yes that may seem insulting to those that live in cities and vote dem. It wasn't meant as anything but a political jab in the spirit of the preceding posts. What Dev did was kick it up several notches and it spilled over into a personal insult. While both can be considered "insults" I would say calling everyone from fly-over country uneducated, homophobic and fat to be a bit more provocative. I discount the crack about "following a dictator" as a political jab and a response in kind to my gullible remark. The rest goes over the top and that is what I objected to.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

ETA: I do agree that just because someone didn't direct something at you that you won't necessarily take it personally.

Surely that goes both ways however? Specifically that the post that Devilette wrote might well have been motivated (certainly coloured) by similar offense caused by Gary's generalisation of 'city folk'.

Yes, of course it goes both ways!

I'm just saying that if I'm wearing a red shirt and someone says, "Anyone who wears red shirts is stupid", claiming that it wasn't an attack against me is kind of silly. If one identifies with the generalized group that is being insulted, then I think it qualifies as a personal attack.

Well that's a fair point, but in this case however it amounts to being offended by someone saying that "Anyone who wears red shirts is stupid", but being unable to see the offense in a similar sweeping statement about 'blue shirts'. That's blatantly hypocritical.

Yes, agreed. And I think that's exactly what went on here.

Ok, one further clarification and then I am done. I said that city dwelling dem voters were gullible. Yes that may seem insulting to those that live in cities and vote dem. It wasn't meant as anything but a political jab in the spirit of the preceding posts. What Dev did was kick it up several notches and it spilled over into a personal insult. While both can be considered "insults" I would say calling everyone from fly-over country uneducated, homophobic and fat to be a bit more provocative. I discount the crack about "following a dictator" as a political jab and a response in kind to my gullible remark. The rest goes over the top and that is what I objected to.

Generally if someone is insulted by something - the tendency is to respond to it with something more 'extreme'. Standard rules of escalation.