GOP'ish candidates

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

If you're not accusing me of making the comparison, then what does the obama/hitler comparison have to do with anything? It's not me or something I said, and it's not the video -there's no obama/hitler comparison at all in the video. If you can show how the random fact that some people somewhere carry signs of Obama made to look like Adolf Hitler has anything to do with a Hitler spoof video made to look like Obama ate Hitler's dog then I'll answer your question. Otherwise you're trying to derail the discussion again. And no, I'm not dodging. I'm not going to answer every random inflammatory, extraneous, off-topic remark you make. The Obama/Hitler comparison has nothing to do with the video. You're just flinging crap to see what sticks.

This is a thread about GOP candidates, every one of whom during the primary season kowtowed to the Tea Party. At Tea Party rallies, these comparisons have been made through signs carried. No candidate has disavowed this. It is a legitimate discussion for the thread.

Your continued refusal to answer the question and your continued effort to suggest that it has been posted illegitimately or that it is "random" or "extraneous" or whatever speaks volumes. Your accusation that I am "just flinging crap to see what sticks" is not only untrue, but it is an insult to everyone who reads this thread, because it suggests that they are stupid and even, perhaps, functionally illiterate.

You should take a lesson from tslust, who more often than not agrees with your political positions. tslust didn't see the point as extraneous, but instead turned the question back at me. We both thus had an opportunity to repudiate these comparisons.

The only defense you seem to have left, as stated in this latest post, is that what you posted is extraneous itself, and has nothing to do with anything relevant to the thread. No one believes that. You're just saying that because you're too much of a coward to own up to the facts as stated in my earlier post and your own responsibility in derailing this thread, which you cynically sought to assign to me.

[GRH]

I've pretty much tuned out this entire Hitler back-and-forth. But for what it's worth, Tracy, you DO have a pretty well established history of dodging the meat and potatoes of a post and trying to change the topic. Presumably this is because you don't have a substantive argument to back up your beliefs.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

This is a thread about GOP candidates, every one of whom during the primary season kowtowed to the Tea Party. At Tea Party rallies, these comparisons have been made through signs carried. No candidate has disavowed this. It is a legitimate discussion for the thread.

Impressive associative reasoning, no doubt invented right before you wrote the above post, but you made the link. A tenuous one, but a link, so I'll indulge you some more.

So are you saying you're asking my thoughts about the Obama/Hitler comparison because this is a GOP candidates thread, and the Hitler video reminded you that some supporters of the tea party, a political movement that the GOP candidates gave varying degrees of lip service to, have made Obama/Hitler comparisons? And not because the video itself compares Obama to Hitler in any way?

Originally Posted by GRH

I've pretty much tuned out this entire Hitler back-and-forth. But for what it's worth, Tracy, you DO have a pretty well established history of dodging the meat and potatoes of a post and trying to change the topic. Presumably this is because you don't have a substantive argument to back up your beliefs.

In other words, you haven't read this post, but you're going to say because you've seen me dodge smc in the past I have no point now. Yes, I've dodged him in the past when he's used administrative measures to settle an argument. He's doing better now so I'm indulging his attempts to derail the topic. I don't know if you've noticed, but I've always done my best to answer your posts to me. I know smc has a habit of answering for you, as he does for other people, so maybe you think me avoiding him and his attempts to derail topics equates to me avoiding answering you. But as far as I know, I have always responded to you. I don't expect you to notice every nuance between smc and me, because frankly, most if it is pretty juvenile, so I cut you slack for your perception of me, and your rude posts to me and answer calmly and to the best of my ability because you seem like an intelligent person that I'd like to have a conversation with if you know who wouldn't keep getting in the middle of it.

prediction: smc will now accuse me of wanting private conversations. I am not though. It would just be nice to have a conversation with other people on this forum without being interrupted by the same person every single time.

[smc]

^^^ NOTICE ABOVE that TracyCoxx continues to post justifications for what can now only be construed as troll-like behavior (as generally defined with respect to Internet forums) rather than address the questions posed to him about politics in a political thread. NOTICE ABOVE how TracyCoxx tries to denigrate GRH with his inferences and charges (and especially by trying to tie her to me in a scurrilous way). NOTICE ABOVE that TracyCoxx once again seems to reserve some right to post one-to-one conversations on this Forum, in public threads, and by inference wants anyone who TracyCoxx doesn't agree with to be denied the right to participate in those public conversations. And finally, NOTICE ABOVE that TracyCoxx is still dodging the substantive political issue raised in this discussion that TracyCoxx provoked.

[TracyCoxx]

uh oh... smc is using font size 3 now. This must be serious! I'd hate to get him up to font size 4

Originally Posted by smc

NOTICE ABOVE how TracyCoxx tries to denigrate GRH with his inferences and charges (and especially by trying to tie her to me in a scurrilous way).

Careful GRH, you wouldn't want to read my response to you without being properly framed by smc. smc, you are denigrating GRH and everyone else here you answer for by presuming they cannot think for themselves.

And did I nail it or what?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

prediction: smc will now accuse me of wanting private conversations. I am not though. It would just be nice to have a conversation with other people on this forum without being interrupted by the same person every single time.

more font size 3 stuff...

Originally Posted by smc

NOTICE ABOVE that TracyCoxx once again seems to reserve some right to post one-to-one conversations on this Forum, in public threads, and by inference wants anyone who TracyCoxx doesn't agree with to be denied the right to participate in those public conversations.

LOL it shouldn't amuse me so much to predict the oh so predictable. But seriously... I'm not saying conversations have to be private at all, but after 4-5 years on here I just wonder what it's like to talk to someone without being interrupted by the moderator. Just wondering... Can I wonder?

Originally Posted by smc

And finally, NOTICE ABOVE that TracyCoxx is still dodging the substantive political issue raised in this discussion that TracyCoxx provoked.

No, now hold on. I'm going to have to get you on that one. You said:

Originally Posted by smc

This is a thread about GOP candidates, every one of whom during the primary season kowtowed to the Tea Party. At Tea Party rallies, these comparisons have been made through signs carried. No candidate has disavowed this. It is a legitimate discussion for the thread.

So in your round-about reasoning this is a legitimate discussion for the thread. Fine, you go and discuss it. I still don't see how this is a discussion I provoked.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Careful GRH, you wouldn't want to read my response to you without being properly framed by smc. smc, you are denigrating GRH and everyone else here you answer for by presuming they cannot think for themselves.

Dodge and dissemble. Your name must be Tracy D. Coxx.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

And did I nail it or what?

Sure, it looks like you did since you use the time-honored trick of doing something, calling it something else, and then making a big issue of it as the "something else" every time you're called on doing the "something" it really is.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

LOL it shouldn't amuse me so much to predict the oh so predictable. But seriously... I'm not saying conversations have to be private at all, but after 4-5 years on here I just wonder what it's like to talk to someone without being interrupted by the moderator. Just wondering... Can I wonder?

More dodge and dissemble. You just don't want to have to answer when you can't ... just as GRH wrote in her response to you above.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

So in your round-about reasoning this is a legitimate discussion for the thread. Fine, you go and discuss it. I still don't see how this is a discussion I provoked.

Of course you "don't see" because you choose not to see, and because doing so requires that you answer the simple question I posed, and that tslust saw as a simple question, and that the two of us were able to answer to each other quite easily. I've lost track of how many times you've dodged the question now.

By the way, where's your post excoriating tslust for intervening in the discussion?

[smc]

^ Come to think of it, I think we can conclude that because Tracy Coxx will not answer the question about Hitler, the Tea Party, and GOP candidates, we have to assume that Tracy Coxx is unwilling to repudiate the comparisons that others draw. I can think of no other reason not to answer the question. No one put on the spot would be likely to say that she or he legitimizes these comparisons (except maybe someone at a Tea Party rally or on Fox "News"), and only Tracy Coxx seems to think the question is illegitimate (in Tracy Coxx's case, though, we don't really know if that's an honest opinion or just an excuse for not having to answer).

Process of elimination can sometimes be a powerful thing in finding the truth.

[GRH]

Tracy, you've put words in my mouth. I was making no statement about whether you have a point in this current conversation...Only pointing out prior behavior and how it perhaps inflames this whole back-and-forth. Admittedly, you have done a better (perhaps not perfect...but who's perfect?) job of addressing my points/conversations. The whole dynamic between you and smc...It's comical at times. I will admit my own bias in that I share political disposition with smc on more topics than with you, so perhaps I'm drawn to taking his side more often than not. That said...You do come across as a troll quite often.

Quite frankly, I think you're both acting a bit childish. I'm so over this current conversation that I'm going to tune this thread out until it meanders into a discussion that I once again care to follow.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Of course you "don't see" because you choose not to see, and because doing so requires that you answer the simple question I posed

smc...

Originally Posted by smc

I know you're not stupid, so why do you keep pretending to be?

I posted a hitler spoof video, and then you asked me if I repudiate all of my ideological cothinkers on so many issues who have made such comparisons (between obama & hitler).

You have not pointed out any comparison in the video between obama and hitler. You've certainly agreed that I never said anything like that. It's really odd that you would suddenly blurt out such an off topic and inflamatory question. The only reason you've given is this:

Originally Posted by smc

This is a thread about GOP candidates, every one of whom during the primary season kowtowed to the Tea Party. At Tea Party rallies, these comparisons have been made through signs carried. No candidate has disavowed this. It is a legitimate discussion for the thread.

Which is a general statement that because you think GOP candidates sympathize with the Tea Party, they must automatically agree with Tea Party supporters who carry obama/hitler signs. That may be a subject for this thread, in your own twisted reasoning, but it still does not explain what it has to do with the hitler spoof video I posted that makes no such comparison. With these off topic inflamatory remarks of your, I'd say you're trolling again.

Originally Posted by smc

By the way, where's your post excoriating tslust for intervening in the discussion?

Why, do you think I would have any reason to say the following about tslust:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

It would just be nice to have a conversation with other people on this forum without being interrupted by [tslust] every single time.

You're not making any sense again.