http://www.plime.com/politics/You can use this XML spec to create a desktop widget or other application (i.e. Flash visualization). Please share it with us in our forum and we'll link it here!en-us68691http://www.plime.com/politics/l/68691/1/13527/14/2008 9:13:02 AM2008-07-14T09:13:02+01:00

comments (13)   related   share   edit history (0)

< 1 >

289697http://www.plime.com/politics/l/68691/1/xml_widget.rss#q14
If you don't like what people are posting on Plime you have several options: downvote what you don't like, post content that is more aligned with your own agenda, or only read those posts that you find acceptable to your tastes. Attacking others isn't on the list.

Your tone has been overtly nasty and hateful as well as insulting. You might want to move out of that glass house. :(]]>7/15/2008 8:04:44 AM2008-07-15T08:04:44+01:00289668http://www.plime.com/politics/l/68691/1/xml_widget.rss#q13« Rowangrey : You know, I was wondering which Plimate was going to be offended first. I'm actually a little surprised that it's you, Imnotblue.I don't know why you're surprised. I've been railing against articles from such overtly biased, political advocacy websites for a while. In fact, this is the second article I've had this debate about, over two days time.

As I have said before, the nasty tone, the insulting language used, and the excessive name calling, do nothing to further any legitimate argument, and simply serve to further divide the public. There is no need to be so mean and disrespectful... and it does not provide an opportunity to debate or discuss, only to participate in the shouting match this article is trying to promote.

First: relax. My submission of this link was not a personal attack on you or your beliefs.

I assure you, I did not take his as an attack on mine (or anyone else’s beliefs)… at least, not from you. The article, however, is most certainly an attack (and a particularly nasty one, at that) on people who do not agree with a left-wing point-of-view, or who support John McCain, or who value actual debate and discussion over name calling.

Second: no, I never claimed that Top 10 was an unbiased, bi-partisan fact finding mission. That doesn't make it un-Plime worthy. *I* think it's funny, therefore it qualifies.

No, what makes it “un-Plime worthy” is the overt nastiness and hate this article promotes. And simply because you have not labeled this as “unbiased,” does not make it okay. I know what the “Democratic Underground” website is… but does everyone else? Is it fair to post this without some sort of disclaimer, saying, “Hey, this is from a left-wing, partisan, advocacy, anti-non-left-wing website,” instead of just assuming people will figure it out. There are many different categories on Plime… but no, “Propaganda”… perhaps there should be. But until that time, I think it only fair to provide such a disclaimer, as to help frame the debate.

Third (and just to pick nits): no part of your Wiki definition of "blog" applies to Plime. I think you're confused on that issue.

Well, that what would you call it? A user submitted news aggregator, with option user commentary? That’s kind of a mouthful, no? I’ll stick with blog. It allows people to post items (like a blog), for other’s to see (like a blog), and to provide comments (like a blog) for feedback and discussion (like a blog). Seems pretty blog-y to me.]]>7/15/2008 3:05:28 AM2008-07-15T03:05:28+01:00289664http://www.plime.com/politics/l/68691/1/xml_widget.rss#q12« DerAlt : It seems to annoy you to an incredible extent that many Plimers don't share your knee jerk responses to anything that states facts of the downside of the Bush administration.Well, I'm more annoyed that you continually ascribe this "knee jerk" reaction to me. That is blatantly false, and you'd know that if you read what I wrote on these subjects.

It's stuff that's non-Republican that annoys me, and it's not even stuff that's anti-Republican (there's a difference). It's the stuff that is thoughtless and insulting, instead of thoughtful and engaging.

Articles like this, as well as others I have complained about, are hit pieces. They grab a little actual fact or information, and then use it in the nastiest and meanest way possible. They don't serve to further a debate, just shout (in print) over or at one's opponent.

I get annoyed that the discourse has gotten to this level... and that some seem to find it acceptable.

The facts are there for anyone with an open mind. Books and articles by former staff and officials state their own experiences within the administration. There are those who just dismiss the evidence by claiming spin, out of context etc. The usual stuff but no real substance.

This article has very little to do with the current administration... it's just a McCain attack. And if you're annoyed by a lack of "substance," I fail to see how this article doesn't annoy you. In other words, the lack of substance is okay... just as long as it slanders the right people.

I have no hate for the man, I hate what this administration has done to our country, I think he can't help himself, he has a long record of incompetance.

Which "this man?" McCain or Bush? And while there are many examples of incompetence that I would agree with you on, such mean-spiritedness makes it hard to see this as a serious argument. It's a child in the schoolyard, yelling at the other children, calling everyone else names. It's not a discussion, at best it's shouting contest... at worst, just an attempt to bully some, while confusing others.

I have no intention of continuing to encourage further rants so I'm finished with this thread.

That’s a shame. I’d like you to tell me what part of this article you like, and/or approve of. How do YOU feel about the tone? The derogatory words and phrases used? Are they okay? Do they make the point? How does this article “help” Plime? Should we start speaking like this to each other too?]]>7/15/2008 2:51:53 AM2008-07-15T02:51:53+01:00289534http://www.plime.com/politics/l/68691/1/xml_widget.rss#q11« ImNotBlue:Fine, here we go:

1- Out of context, not actually said by McCain.
2- Biased and misleading, provides little argument against said Economic plan, just name calling.
3- Humorless and hypocritical. Take a joke out of context, to portray someone negatively, but fiercley defend it if someone on "your side" made a similar joke.
4- Instead of making a valid point, resorts to more childish name calling, and insults.
5- Attacks McCain, while ignoring other candidates (especially Democratic candidates) who have similar policies. Uses this as an attempt to connect to Bush.
6- Weak, at best.
7- Misleading, misrepresentation, and attacking without providing any background or a coherent argument.
8- Based all on hypothetical’s, and "snips" out the actual argument, so it can continue name calling.
9- Nit picking... trying to make small errors (while of course ignoring errors across the isle) into big issues... even when it's clear they're not.
10- Attack, attack, attack.

The article is nothing more than personal attacks, name calling, out of context quotes, and fairly obvious attempts to smear someone who does not exactly think the same as the writer.

The article is juvenile, foolish, and insulting... as well as a poor representation of the truth. It also proudly ignores negatives of it's own candidate (Obama), own representatives (Democrats), and spins spins spins.

If you can't see that... and don't understand why posts like this, from sources like this, than I feel sorry for you. You must be so mired in your hate, that you can't spot even the most blatant of biased, mean spirited, and false propaganda around.It seems to annoy you to an incredible extent that many Plimers don't share your knee jerk responses to anything that states facts of the downside of the Bush administration.

The facts are there for anyone with an open mind. Books and articles by former staff and officials state their own experiences within the administration. There are those who just dismiss the evidence by claiming spin, out of context etc. The usual stuff but no real substance.

I have no hate for the man, I hate what this administration has done to our country, I think he can't help himself, he has a long record of incompetance.

I have no intention of continuing to encourage further rants so I'm finished with this thread.]]>7/14/2008 9:19:55 PM2008-07-14T21:19:55+01:00289470http://www.plime.com/politics/l/68691/1/xml_widget.rss#q10
First: relax. My submission of this link was not a personal attack on you or your beliefs.
Second: no, I never claimed that Top 10 was an unbiased, bi-partisan fact finding mission. That doesn't make it un-Plime worthy. *I* think it's funny, therefore it qualifies.

Third (and just to pick nits): no part of your Wiki definition of "blog" applies to Plime. I think you're confused on that issue.]]>7/14/2008 6:25:28 PM2008-07-14T18:25:28+01:00289320http://www.plime.com/politics/l/68691/1/xml_widget.rss#q9« Rowangrey : Plime is not a blog in any sense of the word, so this statement confuses me.Yes it is a "blog."

(From Wikipedia)

A blog (an abridgment of the term web log) is a website, usually maintained by an individual, with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or video. Entries are commonly displayed in reverse chronological order. "Blog" can also be used as a verb, meaning to maintain or add content to a blog.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog

But if the word "blog" is what's holding you up... you're not paying attention.]]>7/14/2008 4:10:20 PM2008-07-14T16:10:20+01:00289317http://www.plime.com/politics/l/68691/1/xml_widget.rss#q8« DerAlt : Well, I'm still waiting for someone to point out
which of the statements, if any, are false.

Having a bias in some direction is not any reason for editing, providing the data is essentially true. In which case it's a news item like it or not.Fine, here we go:

1- Out of context, not actually said by McCain.
2- Biased and misleading, provides little argument against said Economic plan, just name calling.
3- Humorless and hypocritical. Take a joke out of context, to portray someone negatively, but fiercley defend it if someone on "your side" made a similar joke.
4- Instead of making a valid point, resorts to more childish name calling, and insults.
5- Attacks McCain, while ignoring other candidates (especially Democratic candidates) who have similar policies. Uses this as an attempt to connect to Bush.
6- Weak, at best.
7- Misleading, misrepresentation, and attacking without providing any background or a coherent argument.
8- Based all on hypothetical’s, and "snips" out the actual argument, so it can continue name calling.
9- Nit picking... trying to make small errors (while of course ignoring errors across the isle) into big issues... even when it's clear they're not.
10- Attack, attack, attack.

The article is nothing more than personal attacks, name calling, out of context quotes, and fairly obvious attempts to smear someone who does not exactly think the same as the writer.

The article is juvenile, foolish, and insulting... as well as a poor representation of the truth. It also proudly ignores negatives of it's own candidate (Obama), own representatives (Democrats), and spins spins spins.

If you can't see that... and don't understand why posts like this, from sources like this, than I feel sorry for you. You must be so mired in your hate, that you can't spot even the most blatant of biased, mean spirited, and false propaganda around.]]>7/14/2008 4:07:35 PM2008-07-14T16:07:35+01:00289313http://www.plime.com/politics/l/68691/1/xml_widget.rss#q77/14/2008 4:02:23 PM2008-07-14T16:02:23+01:00289291http://www.plime.com/politics/l/68691/1/xml_widget.rss#q6which of the statements, if any, are false.

Having a bias in some direction is not any reason for editing, providing the data is essentially true. In which case it's a news item like it or not.]]>7/14/2008 3:37:39 PM2008-07-14T15:37:39+01:00289262http://www.plime.com/politics/l/68691/1/xml_widget.rss#q5« ImNotBlue : Plime is starting to take a really nasty turn.

I hope this is not the direction this blog is headed.Plime is not a blog in any sense of the word, so this statement confuses me.]]>7/14/2008 2:54:48 PM2008-07-14T14:54:48+01:00289211http://www.plime.com/politics/l/68691/1/xml_widget.rss#q4

EDIT: Hmm, got a downvote or two for this comment.

Looks like Plime ISN'T getting paid. Well, I hope SOMEONE around here is.]]>7/14/2008 12:57:18 PM2008-07-14T12:57:18+01:00289198http://www.plime.com/politics/l/68691/1/xml_widget.rss#q37/14/2008 12:16:06 PM2008-07-14T12:16:06+01:00289195http://www.plime.com/politics/l/68691/1/xml_widget.rss#q2
I hope this is not the direction this blog is headed.]]>7/14/2008 12:12:44 PM2008-07-14T12:12:44+01:00