Thanks for the advice. I’ll take it under advisement.

To suggest this is a personal thing - about you is, well, too self serving for my taste. See, - I believe, as others have pointed out, that you are on the wring side of this specific discussion. For those late to the conversation - the wrong side is calling voters you ultimately trying to court - morons or by extension, letting comments like that stand.

I have agreed with other comments you have made (even in this post) so it is certainly not you - it is simply the moron comment is incorrect. You certainly can believe it. I’m just trying to point out it doesn’t get you want you ultimately want.

You want to take this off line - you have my email.

Otherwise, I believe we are done with this discussion.

Telling people who they are for or against after they said it is not he best way to foster people to be involved with this blog, just a word of advice. Just hope you are not making this moron thing a personal thing against me…that would be very sad.

reread all comments.

I’ll have more on all of this later.

I rest my case. As further evidence, this entry at dictionary.com:

mawr-on, mohr-] –noun
1. a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.
2. Psychology. a person of borderline intelligence in a former classification of mental retardation, having an intelligence quotient of 50 to 69.
3. John R. “Randy” Kuhl, Jr. (R-NY)

OK, so I made #3 up - sue me. I’m with GOM on this one. Sweetland’s been to the JRK School of Politics, graduating with a GWB degree in strategery. How powerful is a man who thinks he can scare OPEC into lowering the price of a barrel of oil with his meaningless words? Probably about as powerful as the man who spends tens of thousands of dollars to go to Brazil to learn how to turn woodchips and switchgrass into nuclear power we can use to fuel our spaceships and head for Uranus.

*Sigh* Maybe now we can take it a step further and find out how many “non-intelligent” types buy into either of these two mawr-on’s theories. After all, we’re paying them for the pleasure, aren’t we?

So maybe we’re all mawr-on’s too? Nah - we’ve got November!

MassaForCongress.com

“Get out of the way and let a real man do the job”

This is not about legitimizing RT to ANYONE. What this is about is “Getting To Yes”. How does calling a bunch of people morons get them to vote for Massa? Doesn’t it instead make them say “Moron, eh? Fine then, I’ll keep voting for Kuhl.”

You are a smart guy– I mean that in all sincerity. What is your ultimate goal and how does calling 29th voters “morons” get you closer to that goal?

I find it hard to believe that name calling on the path of persuasion.

Sure sometimes it gets the best of us - I suspect a deep search on this blog may find me using words in the heat of writing.

There is a difference between the heat of writing and the objectivity of hindsight.

Give it up.

People objected to YOU Mr. Ghost calling an entire group of people morons. Now that’s different than calling a specific person a moron for a specific thing he said. Do you see the difference, Mr. Ghost?

I don’t see any change, and there are no “standards” anyway, there are just people’s opinions on what is and is not acceptable.

So what was your point again?

Now I understand the background behind GhostofMurrow’s comment. So when GhostofMurrow says

except if you call him a moron, as I found out the hard way, people on this blog get really offended

GhostofMurrow is factually incorrect. People got upset when GhostofMurrow called a group of people morons, but apparently no one has yet gotten upset when someone calls an individual candidate a moron. And I can see that there is a difference between calling a group of people morons, and calling an individual candidate a moron for a specific comment he made.

This is much clearer now. To me, anyway. Is it clear to you, GhostofMurrow?

Ghost - I’m guessing you still disagree since you brought it up smiley face and all.

if anyone needs background on the reference? Here you go.