lawyerliz_IHB
New member
A friend of mine in West Va, also a close state voted for Nader, and is still hearing about it from her hub.
Watch out for scammers in Irvine
- Thread starter ABC123_IHB
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Trooper_IHB
New member
<p><em>voted for Nader, and is still hearing about it from her hub.</em> </p>
<p>Give me her number so she can hear it from me too ! </p>
<p>Give me her number so she can hear it from me too ! </p>
irvine123_IHB
New member
A correction to my previous post: I was referring to Ray Nagin, the New Orlean Major, not "Nader". Sorry for the typo.
EvaLSeraphim_IHB
New member
<p class="MsoNormal">Nude – I sincerely believed that you were a Bush supporter got from your political posts. As you have now noted, I was mistaken, and I am sorry if you took it as a personal insult that I characterized you as a Bush supporter. I thought it was a truthful description. Apparently not.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In responding to Trooper you dug up an old post of yours, but that post doesn’t actually say what you say it says. “on 9/28 in the headlines thread: ‘...there are real, valid, true reasons <em style="">for you</em> to hate Bush; no one needs to invent new ones that aren't true as it's just confusing an already complicated issue.’ –Nude” (Emphasis added.) By using the phrase “for you,” you excluded yourself. Had you used “you and me” or “us,” you would have included yourself, but you did not.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The reason I have been asking you for cites of late is because I felt you were erecting strawmen (or women) and attributing the purported beliefs to Democrats – or as you would say, “perpetuating an internet meme or oversimplifying a very complex issue or flat-out lying or presenting opinion as fact.” That’s all. I did not believe that your attributions were correct and wanted the back-up. It was possible that I missed something, and wanted to be educated if I did.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I continue to be intrigued by your flogging of a throwaway comment of mine from September 28<sup>th</sup> (or 29<sup>th</sup>, I can’t recall). For the sake of getting along I let you define the interpretation thereof (which was not what meant) and I backed away from the statement promptly and publicly upon you showing me the error of my ways. Yet you keep bringing it up. If I had insulted you, I could see you being hurt and wanting to resurrect it time and again. This, however, I don’t understand.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think the tone of your response to me is wholly disproportionate to what I said. I don’t tolerate people who tell me to shut up (or the more forceful alternative you chose) in “real life” and I’m not going to tolerate it here either.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Pop some champagne and construct some Democratic strawmen. Ding dong, the witch is dead.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">All the best.</p>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In responding to Trooper you dug up an old post of yours, but that post doesn’t actually say what you say it says. “on 9/28 in the headlines thread: ‘...there are real, valid, true reasons <em style="">for you</em> to hate Bush; no one needs to invent new ones that aren't true as it's just confusing an already complicated issue.’ –Nude” (Emphasis added.) By using the phrase “for you,” you excluded yourself. Had you used “you and me” or “us,” you would have included yourself, but you did not.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The reason I have been asking you for cites of late is because I felt you were erecting strawmen (or women) and attributing the purported beliefs to Democrats – or as you would say, “perpetuating an internet meme or oversimplifying a very complex issue or flat-out lying or presenting opinion as fact.” That’s all. I did not believe that your attributions were correct and wanted the back-up. It was possible that I missed something, and wanted to be educated if I did.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I continue to be intrigued by your flogging of a throwaway comment of mine from September 28<sup>th</sup> (or 29<sup>th</sup>, I can’t recall). For the sake of getting along I let you define the interpretation thereof (which was not what meant) and I backed away from the statement promptly and publicly upon you showing me the error of my ways. Yet you keep bringing it up. If I had insulted you, I could see you being hurt and wanting to resurrect it time and again. This, however, I don’t understand.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think the tone of your response to me is wholly disproportionate to what I said. I don’t tolerate people who tell me to shut up (or the more forceful alternative you chose) in “real life” and I’m not going to tolerate it here either.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Pop some champagne and construct some Democratic strawmen. Ding dong, the witch is dead.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">All the best.</p>
IrvineRenter_IHB
New member
Perhaps we can start a political thread? I lack the energy for a continuing debate (sorry.)
I would note that partisans tend to see what they want to see in the candidates from their party. I have witnessed failures from both parties in my lifetime, and I have witnessed successes. Failure: Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Bush II. Success: Reagan, Clinton. Neutral: Ford, Bush I. So far, our current president is the worst I have witnessed in my lifetime, although Carter was a close second. Carter was basically ineffective. Bush was effective and incompetent. I think the latter is worse.
I would note that partisans tend to see what they want to see in the candidates from their party. I have witnessed failures from both parties in my lifetime, and I have witnessed successes. Failure: Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Bush II. Success: Reagan, Clinton. Neutral: Ford, Bush I. So far, our current president is the worst I have witnessed in my lifetime, although Carter was a close second. Carter was basically ineffective. Bush was effective and incompetent. I think the latter is worse.
Nude_IHB
New member
<p>IR-</p>
<p>I think a seperate section would be better, as we will soon be in the thick of an election season and the BS will be freely flowing through every pipe on the intarwebs </p>
<p>Eva-</p>
<p>The comment you refer to can be found <a href="http://forums.irvinehousingblog.com/discussion/128/17/headlines/">here.</a> Given that you immediately left for Japan, you probably missed the rest of my posts, but I'd suggest you read through it again. What I don't see in that thread is support for your claim that you "backed away from the statement promptly and publicly upon you showing me the error of my ways". Maybe you can link it for me?</p>
<p>If you think my comments are a reaction to that one post you are mistaken. In the two posts where we have clashed, it has been my reaction to your attempts to assign the blame for some budgetary/fiscal issues on Bush. You do so with sarcasm and humor, but your intention is still to cast it as Bush's fault. You call this raising a strawman, but I am only responding to the implication and misunderstanding your comments foster. It seems to me that this is intentional on your part, so I respond in kind.</p>
<p>Yes, I took it personally and as an insult. How else am I supposed to take it when I am clearly <a href="http://forums.irvinehousingblog.com/discussion/128/19/headlines/">on record</a> as not supporting him. You demand cites, quotes, and accuse me of misconstruing your position and at the same time you make claims that aren't supported by fact, claim to have admitted things that you haven't, and completely defame my reputation; yet, you have the gall to complain about my tone? What's next, calling me a sexist?</p>
<p>If you took my comments as personal attacks, so be it. I'm not going to apologize for calling things as I see them. But I was responding to what you said, not who you are, and my comments were only "personal" insofar as being directed to the person making them. On the other hand, your original comment in this thread was personal, and I don't see any other way to take it.</p>
<p>Ding dong, indeed.</p>
<p>I think a seperate section would be better, as we will soon be in the thick of an election season and the BS will be freely flowing through every pipe on the intarwebs </p>
<p>Eva-</p>
<p>The comment you refer to can be found <a href="http://forums.irvinehousingblog.com/discussion/128/17/headlines/">here.</a> Given that you immediately left for Japan, you probably missed the rest of my posts, but I'd suggest you read through it again. What I don't see in that thread is support for your claim that you "backed away from the statement promptly and publicly upon you showing me the error of my ways". Maybe you can link it for me?</p>
<p>If you think my comments are a reaction to that one post you are mistaken. In the two posts where we have clashed, it has been my reaction to your attempts to assign the blame for some budgetary/fiscal issues on Bush. You do so with sarcasm and humor, but your intention is still to cast it as Bush's fault. You call this raising a strawman, but I am only responding to the implication and misunderstanding your comments foster. It seems to me that this is intentional on your part, so I respond in kind.</p>
<p>Yes, I took it personally and as an insult. How else am I supposed to take it when I am clearly <a href="http://forums.irvinehousingblog.com/discussion/128/19/headlines/">on record</a> as not supporting him. You demand cites, quotes, and accuse me of misconstruing your position and at the same time you make claims that aren't supported by fact, claim to have admitted things that you haven't, and completely defame my reputation; yet, you have the gall to complain about my tone? What's next, calling me a sexist?</p>
<p>If you took my comments as personal attacks, so be it. I'm not going to apologize for calling things as I see them. But I was responding to what you said, not who you are, and my comments were only "personal" insofar as being directed to the person making them. On the other hand, your original comment in this thread was personal, and I don't see any other way to take it.</p>
<p>Ding dong, indeed.</p>