Mike Pence on how presidents should behave

[Sparko]

I actually showed you he is not living up to his standard. Cutting that away and calling me judgmental and hateful is not going to help your case. You cannot just make things up like that though it is what the supporters of "alternative facts" and "truth isn't truth" would like you to believe. I provided two videos showing how he does not live up to his standards. Now, if you want to discuss the subject, comment on those and on my comments on them instead of going for the ad hominem.

You whine a lot, Charles. "Oh poor me, everyone attacks me, you bad people!" while doing the same thing yourself and not saying anything when Tassman or JimL does it. How come you aren't condemning yourself for being a hypocrite?

[Charles]

You whine a lot, Charles. "Oh poor me, everyone attacks me, you bad people!" while doing the same thing yourself and not saying anything when Tassman or JimL does it. How come you aren't condemning yourself for being a hypocrite?

How do you know I don't?

I actually don't whine. I know perfectly well why CP goes for the ad hominem. I see it as rather good evidence that he (and you) has got nothing of substance.

[Cow Poke]

How do you know I don't?

I actually don't whine. I know perfectly well why CP goes for the ad hominem.

Try actually answering a question instead of being such a crybaby.

[Charles]

Try actually answering a question instead of being such a crybaby.

You missed the important part: "I see it as rather good evidence that he (and you) has got nothing of substance." This adresses your post.

[Cow Poke]

You missed the important part: "I see it as rather good evidence that he (and you) has got nothing of substance."

I ignored that, just like you ignored my question, Charles.

This adresses your post.

No, Charles, it's just more of you being a crybaby.

[Sparko]

How do you know I don't?

Because you haven't.

I actually don't whine. I know perfectly well why CP goes for the ad hominem. I see it as rather good evidence that he (and you) has got nothing of substance.

And there we go with the ad homs from Mr. Hypocrite.

[Sparko]

You missed the important part: "I see it as rather good evidence that he (and you) has got nothing of substance." This adresses your post.

That's an insult, not an answer, Mr. Ad Hom.

[Charles]

Because you haven't.

I actually have.

And there we go with the ad homs from Mr. Hypocrite.

It is not an ad hominem. I simply point to the fact that CP has not answered to the content of my posts but gone for the idea that I am hateful instead of adressing the issue. It is a fact he did this and refused to discuss the content provided. I allow myself to see that as rather good evidence that he has got nothing of substance. I have repeatedly asked him to provide what he may have. And I do so once again.

[Sparko]

I actually have.



It is not an ad hominem. I simply point to the fact that CP has not answered to the content of my posts but gone for the idea that I am hateful instead of adressing the issue. It is a fact he did this and refused to discuss the content provided. I allow myself to see that as rather good evidence that he has got nothing of substance. I have repeatedly asked him to provide what he may have. And I do so once again.

Claiming he has nothing of substance is an insult and not true. You are using an insult about him as an argument to dismiss what he says, which is the very definition of "Ad Hominem" -- look it up.

[Charles]

Claiming he has nothing of substance is an insult and not true. You are using an insult about him as an argument to dismiss what he says, which is the very definition of "Ad Hominem" -- look it up.

Nope. It is not an insult when it is a fact that he called me hateful instead of answering my posts. He did not say anything that did adress my point so what I say is not an insult.

[Sparko]

Nope. It is not an insult when it is a fact that he called me hateful instead of answering my posts. He did not say anything that did adress my point so what I say is not an insult.

Yes you did use ad hom. You do it all the time. I admit I do too, but then I don't deny it and then do it like you do. And you never pounce on Tassman, JimL or Starlight when they do it. In fact, you have gotten a reputation around here as someone who doesn't do anything constructive, you just snipe at Christians and conservatives from the sidelines. A heckler. And ironically, a heckler who is constantly heckling about other people using ad homs.

[JimL]

Yes you did use ad hom. You do it all the time. I admit I do too, but then I don't deny it and then do it like you do. And you never pounce on Tassman, JimL or Starlight when they do it. In fact, you have gotten a reputation around here as someone who doesn't do anything constructive, you just snipe at Christians and conservatives from the sidelines. A heckler. And ironically, a heckler who is constantly heckling about other people using ad homs.

Charles gets the same reputation from the right that all of us on the left get from ya'll. You never pounce on CP, rogue or anyone else on the right either so stop with the obvious hypocrisy, will ya!

[Sparko]

Charles gets the same reputation from the right that all of us on the left get from ya'll. You never pounce on CP, rogue or anyone else on the right either so stop with the obvious hypocrisy, will ya!

Because I don't pounce on anyone for tossing out insults unless they do so hypocritically like Chuck. Chuck has taken it upon himself to be a thread nanny, telling me and others that we are using insults and being rude, while at the same time Chuck tosses out insults and is rude and never says a word to you or Tassman who are just as rude if not more.

Let me post the tweb manual on it:

Many areas of our forum are designated for debates, which at times can get aggressive. Our open debate forums, in which persons holding opposing worldviews are encouraged to participate, are not designed for persons who are easily offended or insist upon Moderator-enforced politeness at all costs. While we strongly ask that our members use discretion and tailor their responses appropriately, we recognize that the nature of spirited debate may include the use of satire, humor, and strong statements of position or faith that may at times offend some.

Strongly inflammatory characterizations, such as allegations of criminal conduct or severe moral turpitude, must be backed up as to the truth of the matter at the time of the assertion. This includes accusations of egregious behavior such as pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, objectophilia, and similar vulgar claims. Such posts may be edited in full at moderator discretion until such substantiation is provided.

So if you or Chuck or CP want to be rude, then that is fine, we don't expect overly civil discussions on theologyweb. But don't go around trying to nanny other people while doing the very same thing yourself (Charles).

[JimL]

Because I don't pounce on anyone for tossing out insults unless they do so hypocritically like Chuck. Chuck has taken it upon himself to be a thread nanny, telling me and others that we are using insults and being rude, while at the same time Chuck tosses out insults and is rude and never says a word to you or Tassman who are just as rude if not more.

Let me post the tweb manual on it:

Many areas of our forum are designated for debates, which at times can get aggressive. Our open debate forums, in which persons holding opposing worldviews are encouraged to participate, are not designed for persons who are easily offended or insist upon Moderator-enforced politeness at all costs. While we strongly ask that our members use discretion and tailor their responses appropriately, we recognize that the nature of spirited debate may include the use of satire, humor, and strong statements of position or faith that may at times offend some.

Strongly inflammatory characterizations, such as allegations of criminal conduct or severe moral turpitude, must be backed up as to the truth of the matter at the time of the assertion. This includes accusations of egregious behavior such as pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, objectophilia, and similar vulgar claims. Such posts may be edited in full at moderator discretion until such substantiation is provided.

So if you or Chuck or CP want to be rude, then that is fine, we don't expect overly civil discussions on theologyweb. But don't go around trying to nanny other people while doing the very same thing yourself (Charles).

The point is that you don't pounce on anybody on your side for doing the same thing that you accuse Charles of doing. Hypocrisy pure and simple.

[Sparko]

The point is that you don't pounce on anybody on your side for doing the same thing that you accuse Charles of doing. Hypocrisy pure and simple.

I don't pounce on you for being a moronic, insulting prig . Or Tassman. Because I am just as insulting to you as you are to me. But Chuck wants to play "holier than thou" while doing the same thing. That is what is hypocritical.