FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Repubs Spent 1.4 Million dollars on their failure website





handfleisch
More of the serious meltdown of the Republican party in the USA. Their new 1.4 million dollar website did not even work right when launched, and when you clicked on future party leaders, you got an error message.

Quote:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34992_GOP_Spent_More_Than_a_Million_Dollars_to_Launch_a_Disastrous_Website

GOP Spent More Than a Million Dollars to Launch a Disastrous Website

Politics | Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 7:15:22 pm PDT

Unbelievable. The Republican Party’s pathetically inept new website actually cost them more than a million dollars to set up: Entering digital age an expensive proposition for GOP.

And for that $1.4 million, they got a website that crashed continuously on its launch day, had almost no real content, was mocked across the blogosphere, allowed trolls and Ron Paul idiots to post antisemitic images, and violated several basic principles of good web design. Excellent work, GOP.
deanhills
I checked up on the report by typing the title in both Google and Yahoo Search Boxes. I found only one link about the Republican Website launch story. Can you give us an alternative bona fide link from the news media to verify the little green footballs story, specifically with regard to the cost of the Website?

As far as I can see the Website link works quite well:
http://www.gop.com/
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
I checked up on the report by typing the title in both Google and Yahoo Search Boxes. I found only one link about the Republican Website launch story. Can you give us an alternative bona fide link from the news media to verify the little green footballs story, specifically with regard to the cost of the Website?

As far as I can see the Website link works quite well:
http://www.gop.com/


With your internet skills, you could get a job at GOP.com...

New Republican Party site crashes hours after launch | csmonitor.com
http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/10/13/new-republican-party-site-crashes-hours-after-launch/

New RNC website stumbles out of gate
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28253.html

Here was what you got when you clicked on "future leaders"
ocalhoun
This seems to be the fault of a web-design company, rather than the party...
Really, who charges more than a million dollars to design and implement a website, and then screws it up?

As for how much they paid for it... How much do democrats spend on websites? We need some comparison here.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
With your internet skills, you could get a job at GOP.com...
.... thanks for the compliment Handfleisch ... Twisted Evil to me you've just given me more "sleaze" links. To convince me I would have liked to see at least some reports from CNN, Reuters, Associated Press, BBC, ABC or any like bona fide news agencies.

This is obviously part of smear tactics, and I would have thought you were pretty much above that kind of stuff, in view of all your criticism of FOX News and the Tea Baggers?
jwellsy
Oh the irony of rightous indignation.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/18m-being-spent-to-redesign-recoverygov-web-site.html

Quote:

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: For those concerned about stimulus spending, the General Services Administration sends word tonight that $18 million in additional funds are being spent to redesign the Recovery.gov Web site.

The new Web site promises to give taxpayers more information about where their money is going than the current version of the site.

“Recovery.gov 2.0 will use innovative and interactive technologies to help taxpayers see where their dollars are being spent,” James A. Williams, commissioner of GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service, says in a press release announcing the contract awarded to Maryland-based Smartronix Inc. “Armed with easy access to this information, taxpayers can make government more accountable for its decisions.”

The contract calls for spending $9.5 million through January, and as much as $18 million through 2014, according to the GSA press release.

“We are pleased that another major milestone has been achieved," Earl E. Devaney, chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, says in the press release. “We thank the GSA for its assistance and look forward to working with Smartronix."

UPDATE: The RNC has released a new web ad mocking the Obama administration's decision to allocate additional funds to the redesign of the Recovery.gov Web site.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
With your internet skills, you could get a job at GOP.com...
.... thanks for the compliment Handfleisch ... :twisted: to me you've just given me more "sleaze" links. To convince me I would have liked to see at least some reports from CNN, Reuters, Associated Press, BBC, ABC or any like bona fide news agencies.

This is obviously part of smear tactics, and I would have thought you were pretty much above that kind of stuff, in view of all your criticism of FOX News and the Tea Baggers?


The CS Monitor is a sleaze link? You really are out of touch. Sorry I cannot be your personal google, but your isolation must be why you have no idea that this was a leading feature story recently, that the ineptitude and unintentional humor of the new Republican website was a rather entertaining subject for several days, though now everyone has moved on (though the symbolic nature of this failure is still reverberating).

It's really silly to try to call this a smear tactic -- the Republicans publicly embarrassed themselves, voluntarily. Read the articles fer krissakes -- for example, check out how the head of the GOP changed the name of his column after a couple days because it was so dumb.
jmi256
jwellsy wrote:
Oh the irony of rightous indignation.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/18m-being-spent-to-redesign-recoverygov-web-site.html

Quote:

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: For those concerned about stimulus spending, the General Services Administration sends word tonight that $18 million in additional funds are being spent to redesign the Recovery.gov Web site.

The new Web site promises to give taxpayers more information about where their money is going than the current version of the site.

“Recovery.gov 2.0 will use innovative and interactive technologies to help taxpayers see where their dollars are being spent,” James A. Williams, commissioner of GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service, says in a press release announcing the contract awarded to Maryland-based Smartronix Inc. “Armed with easy access to this information, taxpayers can make government more accountable for its decisions.”

The contract calls for spending $9.5 million through January, and as much as $18 million through 2014, according to the GSA press release.

“We are pleased that another major milestone has been achieved," Earl E. Devaney, chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, says in the press release. “We thank the GSA for its assistance and look forward to working with Smartronix."

UPDATE: The RNC has released a new web ad mocking the Obama administration's decision to allocate additional funds to the redesign of the Recovery.gov Web site.


LOL. So using 1.4 million of private money is ridiculed, but using 18 million (over 10x more) of taxpayer money to show where else Obama is wasting taxpayer money is lauded. Funny.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Sorry I cannot be your personal google
If it had been "bona fide" and credible news, all I had to do was put key words in a search box and it should have come up with at least a full page of links from Reuters, from Associated Press, etc. etc. like with any NEWS! Obviously it was a variety of "news" that has been created in order to make the Republican Party look bad, hence it barely made a couple of links, but got FULL coverage from Handfleisch for very obvious reasons.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
jwellsy wrote:
Oh the irony of rightous indignation.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/18m-being-spent-to-redesign-recoverygov-web-site.html

Quote:

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: For those concerned about stimulus spending, the General Services Administration sends word tonight that $18 million in additional funds are being spent to redesign the Recovery.gov Web site.

The new Web site promises to give taxpayers more information about where their money is going than the current version of the site.

“Recovery.gov 2.0 will use innovative and interactive technologies to help taxpayers see where their dollars are being spent,” James A. Williams, commissioner of GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service, says in a press release announcing the contract awarded to Maryland-based Smartronix Inc. “Armed with easy access to this information, taxpayers can make government more accountable for its decisions.”

The contract calls for spending $9.5 million through January, and as much as $18 million through 2014, according to the GSA press release.

“We are pleased that another major milestone has been achieved," Earl E. Devaney, chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, says in the press release. “We thank the GSA for its assistance and look forward to working with Smartronix."

UPDATE: The RNC has released a new web ad mocking the Obama administration's decision to allocate additional funds to the redesign of the Recovery.gov Web site.


LOL. So using 1.4 million of private money is ridiculed, but using 18 million (over 10x more) of taxpayer money to show where else Obama is wasting taxpayer money is lauded. Funny.


It's great to sit back and watch the grasping at straws by the defeated neocons. Comparing two dissimilar things and calling them the same, dishonest use of numbers, ignoring the point -- the usual Repub nonsense.

The point: GOP.com launch was a failure, a heap of unintentional humor. Remember the "error" page when you clicked on "Future Leaders".

The dissimilar things: The cost of the launch of GOP.com is not the same as the revamping, improvement and years of upkeep of Recovery.org. GOP spent 1.4 million on just the launch and new site; they are still paying for its upkeep, so add on more millions to that boondoggle.

More on the numbers: "As much as 18 million through 2014" means that is the maximum over a five year period, for a site serving all Americans in all aspects of stimulus spending by the US government -- in other words, a huge project. Recovery.gov is already a lode of info, animated graphs, and multi-purpose features, and it's being upgraded. Maybe $3m per year is an acceptable deal for the teams of people, coordinators, researchers, writers and officials who will have to keep on it over the years. But to even compare it to GOP.com, which has the big achievement of a photos page like some high school website, is absurd.

One more thing. There is only one source for this whole 18m Recovery.gov story, a blog, and the writer cites a press release but does not even link to it. So there is no way to further track down info.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
One more thing. There is only one source for this whole 18m Recovery.gov story, a blog, and the writer cites a press release but does not even link to it. So there is no way to further track down info.
And we barely found two links for the subject of this thread handfleisch. The dramatic way you announced this "news" sounded as though it had been splashed all over the media. It did not make the headlines, it did not even make the major news media. It got about three hits on the Internet, and obscure ones at that.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
It did not make the headlines, it did not even make the major news media. It got about three hits on the Internet, and obscure ones at that.


LOL. 3 hits? How are things out there in the Arab desert otherwise?

CNN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC8lT9cE9hg
Links to NY Daily News even http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/gopcom-rnc-website-relaun_n_319335.html

http://www.google.cz/search?q=republican+website+launch+error+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rlz=1R1RNFA_en___CZ345&client=firefox-a

400,000 hits on "republican website launch error"
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
It did not make the headlines, it did not even make the major news media. It got about three hits on the Internet, and obscure ones at that.


LOL. 3 hits? How are things out there in the Arab desert otherwise?

CNN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC8lT9cE9hg
Links to NY Daily News even http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/gopcom-rnc-website-relaun_n_319335.html

http://www.google.cz/search?q=republican+website+launch+error+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rlz=1R1RNFA_en___CZ345&client=firefox-a

400,000 hits on "republican website launch error"


It may be because you're using a Czech Republic version of Google, handfliesch. I used the same search terms you did in the US version and came up with a considerably lower number of hits, many either not related or from opinion/biased sites/blogs, not legitimate news sources. I guess in CZ it’s a bigger deal for you than it is here. Regardless, I still don't get why you are harping about a few broken links on a privately funded website yet are ok pissing away 10x that much in public money basically for nothing. Is this really your major beef with the GOP that you're spending your time researching this? The internet is designed for iterations, optimization and beta versions. Or are you saying you never posted something and then went back and “fixed” it after someone pointed it out?
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
It did not make the headlines, it did not even make the major news media. It got about three hits on the Internet, and obscure ones at that.


LOL. 3 hits? How are things out there in the Arab desert otherwise?

CNN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC8lT9cE9hg
Links to NY Daily News even http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/gopcom-rnc-website-relaun_n_319335.html

http://www.google.cz/search?q=republican+website+launch+error+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rlz=1R1RNFA_en___CZ345&client=firefox-a

400,000 hits on "republican website launch error"


It may be because you're using a Czech Republic version of Google, handfliesch. I used the same search terms you did in the US version and came up with a considerably lower number of hits, many either not related or from opinion/biased sites/blogs, not legitimate news sources. I guess in CZ it’s a bigger deal for you than it is here. Regardless, I still don't get why you are harping about a few broken links on a privately funded website yet are ok pissing away 10x that much in public money basically for nothing. Is this really your major beef with the GOP that you're spending your time researching this? The internet is designed for iterations, optimization and beta versions. Or are you saying you never posted something and then went back and “fixed” it after someone pointed it out?


Having a hard time figuring out what you are trying to say. I linked to the CNN report about it, which showed what an embarrassment it was live while it was happening. Are you trying to say that it never happened, or was an obscure news story, as DH seems to think? Is that really your approach-- Let's just pretend it didn't happen? Did you even read my response that shows your comparison between the GOP.com launch debacle and the Recovery.gov upgrade is apples and oranges -- actually, apples and orangutans? Recovery.gov is "basically for nothing"? Are you serious?

(edited to make it nicer)
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
It did not make the headlines, it did not even make the major news media. It got about three hits on the Internet, and obscure ones at that.


LOL. 3 hits? How are things out there in the Arab desert otherwise?

CNN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC8lT9cE9hg
Links to NY Daily News even http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/gopcom-rnc-website-relaun_n_319335.html

http://www.google.cz/search?q=republican+website+launch+error+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rlz=1R1RNFA_en___CZ345&client=firefox-a

400,000 hits on "republican website launch error"


It may be because you're using a Czech Republic version of Google, handfliesch. I used the same search terms you did in the US version and came up with a considerably lower number of hits, many either not related or from opinion/biased sites/blogs, not legitimate news sources. I guess in CZ it’s a bigger deal for you than it is here. Regardless, I still don't get why you are harping about a few broken links on a privately funded website yet are ok pissing away 10x that much in public money basically for nothing. Is this really your major beef with the GOP that you're spending your time researching this? The internet is designed for iterations, optimization and beta versions. Or are you saying you never posted something and then went back and “fixed” it after someone pointed it out?


Having a hard time figuring out what you are trying to say.

It’s pretty simple. As you wrote, DH may be out in some desert (which, btw if you’re going to complain that someone is “researching” you and “using it against you,” you really shouldn’t do the same). He didn’t get many hits when he looked into it because he was looking for more for reputable sites. The link to your Google results that you posted was from a Czech Republic version of Google, which I’m assuming is where you are located since Google usually defaults to the version where you are located. Now I don’t know if he looks at Google or whatnot, but he didn’t come up with as many hits, and I was just saying it could be a difference in the version of Google you are using. Some countries (such as China) force filtering of content. And for example, I did the exact same search you did (using the same keywords) but using the Google version here in the US and got considerably less hits than what you cited, and most of those hits were either blogs, opinion sites, etc. I didn’t look closely at your results, but maybe many are the same. I’m not an expert in how Google does its filtering, but I do know that the number and quality of results is based on what people are linking to. So you guys in the Czech Republic must be linking to more blogs and opinion sites talking about this piece of gossip. I don’t have a problem with that, but was just pointing out why DH may be getting fewer (if any) results.


handfleisch wrote:

I linked to the CNN report about it, which showed what an embarrassment it was live while it was happening. Are you trying to say that it never happened, or was an obscure news story, as DH seems to think? Is that really your approach-- Let's just pretend it didn't happen? Did you even read my response that shows your comparison between the GOP.com launch debacle and the Recovery.gov upgrade is apples and oranges -- actually, apples and orangutans? Recovery.gov is "basically for nothing"? Are you serious?

I didn’t say it never happened, but I do think that even on the slowest of news day most reputable news outlets would have better things to do than report on some broken links on a site. Was the site down? From what I’ve seen in your posts, yes. Should the GOP be pissed off at the development firm who did the work for them? Probably. Is it newsworthy? Probably not, but of course there will always be those “hope to fail” types (as you like to call them) who will make a mountain out of a molehill.

handfleisch wrote:
[ (edited to make it nicer)

And that dovetails exactly into my point about the web being designed for iterations, optimization and beta versions. So the GOP had some broken links and they fixed it. Should we have federal hearings about it? (Please note the sarcasm.)
handfleisch
[quote="jmi256"]
handfleisch wrote:
, but I do think that even on the slowest of news day most reputable news outlets would have better things to do than report on some broken links on a site. Was the site down? From what I’ve seen in your posts, yes. Should the GOP be pissed off at the development firm who did the work for them? Probably. Is it newsworthy? Probably not, but of course there will always be those “hope to fail” types (as you like to call them) who will make a mountain out of a molehill.

handfleisch wrote:
[ (edited to make it nicer)

And that dovetails exactly into my point about the web being designed for iterations, optimization and beta versions. So the GOP had some broken links and they fixed it. Should we have federal hearings about it? (Please note the sarcasm.)

Well, whatever. My point still stands solidly -- that it was the latest embarrassment for the Republican Party. Plenty of conservative sites were also dismayed and incredulous. You can minimize it and be in denial about it all you want (it was not just broken links, but again, whatever), however in the age of the internet and the important of site launches, it was a hilarious screw up that will be remembered for years to come. Just the Future Leaders = Error Page is a classic.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
however in the age of the internet and the important of site launches, it was a hilarious screw up that will be remembered for years to come. Just the Future Leaders = Error Page is a classic.

Hilarious screw up, yes. Remembered for years? Probably not. (except in some news archive)

What is also hilarious is how you take a relatively small thing like this and turn it into 'a major embarrassment for the republican party'.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
however in the age of the internet and the important of site launches, it was a hilarious screw up that will be remembered for years to come. Just the Future Leaders = Error Page is a classic.

Hilarious screw up, yes. Remembered for years? Probably not. (except in some news archive)

What is also hilarious is how you take a relatively small thing like this and turn it into 'a major embarrassment for the republican party'.


Didn't they teach you in school what quote marks mean? If so, who are you quoting, exactly?

But you're right (even though I never used the word major) -- it was just a run of the mill embarrassment for the Republicans.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Didn't they teach you in school what quote marks mean? If so, who are you quoting, exactly?

When quoting someone specific exactly, I use quote tags or double quotes: "
When paraphrasing, referring to a word or phrase as a word or phrase and not in context, or when mocking, I use single quotes: '

Wink
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
however in the age of the internet and the important of site launches, it was a hilarious screw up that will be remembered for years to come. Just the Future Leaders = Error Page is a classic.

Hilarious screw up, yes. Remembered for years? Probably not. (except in some news archive)

Not everyone suffers from nor celebrates historical amnesia.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
however in the age of the internet and the important of site launches, it was a hilarious screw up that will be remembered for years to come. Just the Future Leaders = Error Page is a classic.

Hilarious screw up, yes. Remembered for years? Probably not. (except in some news archive)

Not everyone suffers from nor celebrates historical amnesia.
The press has already forgotten about this a long time ago. All in all it must have been a blip "yawn" that had turned out into not much of a yawn either. When I did a Google search tonight there was nothing on the first four pages about the Website having been down, I did not look further, but obviously it has been a non-event:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=republican+website.

The UK Telegraph article on the first search page did not mention that the Website had been down in its article of earlier in October about the new Website:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/6319824/Republican-Party-launches-new-website.htmlI thought it was a well balanced article with an objective report about the event.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
however in the age of the internet and the important of site launches, it was a hilarious screw up that will be remembered for years to come. Just the Future Leaders = Error Page is a classic.

Hilarious screw up, yes. Remembered for years? Probably not. (except in some news archive)

Not everyone suffers from nor celebrates historical amnesia.

The creation of a single, malfunctioning website is hardly historical.

People denying that the holocaust ever happened, or saying that the American civil war was only about slavery... those are examples of historical amnesia.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
however in the age of the internet and the important of site launches, it was a hilarious screw up that will be remembered for years to come. Just the Future Leaders = Error Page is a classic.

Hilarious screw up, yes. Remembered for years? Probably not. (except in some news archive)

Not everyone suffers from nor celebrates historical amnesia.

The creation of a single, malfunctioning website is hardly historical.

People denying that the holocaust ever happened, or saying that the American civil war was only about slavery... those are examples of historical amnesia.


No, those are examples of historical revisionism in the first place and oversimplification in the second. Amnesia applies to more often to the recent. Examples of the kind of amnesia that holds sway in the US are, for example, forgetting events from recent history or last year. The same person who bought a small car during the gasoline crisis of the 80s buying a gas-guzzling SUV or Hummer in the 90s, not remembering that gas prices were ever once skyrocketing. Another example would be people forgetting multitude examples of incompetence by one of the only two main parties (the latest being the inability of to even launch website without becoming laughingstocks).
Afaceinthematrix
handfleisch, Why do you always act like Democrats are the pinnacle of all good in this world and that everyone else is just the pinnacle of all bad in this world?

This isn't even their fault. It's obviously the fault of the web designing company that they paid the big bucks to and it's their responsibility to fix the error. They should have done more debugging before the "official launch" because then they would have found all of their bugs. So the Republicans just need to tell that company to fix their error and the case is done. I agree that 1.4 million is too much for a website (I would have done just as good of a job for a couple thousand) but you act like Democrats don't waste bundles of many all the time.

And honestly dude, read back what you've actually said in this topic (and other topics) and maybe you'll realize that you're the master of ad hominem attacks. Instead of actually responding to ocalhoun's legitimate point, you attack him for not using quotation marks correct (even though he did use them correctly). Instead of responding to deanhill's legitimate point, you attack him for not being able to find a story that YOU quoted poorly.

Grow some balls and learn to debate instead of just attacking people every single chance you get. The idea of a debate is to attack the ARGUMENT, not the PERSON behind the argument. And even if someone misuses a punctuation mark (even though ocalhoun didn't misuse it), there's still no reason to attack that because it doesn't attack their idea (and you should be able to figure out what they're trying to say) and you have to realize that English isn't everyone's first language.
handfleisch
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
handfleisch, Why do you always act like Democrats are the pinnacle of all good in this world and that everyone else is just the pinnacle of all bad in this world?

This isn't even their fault. It's obviously the fault of the web designing company that they paid the big bucks to and it's their responsibility to fix the error. They should have done more debugging before the "official launch" because then they would have found all of their bugs. So the Republicans just need to tell that company to fix their error and the case is done. I agree that 1.4 million is too much for a website (I would have done just as good of a job for a couple thousand) but you act like Democrats don't waste bundles of many all the time.

And honestly dude, read back what you've actually said in this topic (and other topics) and maybe you'll realize that you're the master of ad hominem attacks. Instead of actually responding to ocalhoun's legitimate point, you attack him for not using quotation marks correct (even though he did use them correctly). Instead of responding to deanhill's legitimate point, you attack him for not being able to find a story that YOU quoted poorly.

Grow some balls and learn to debate instead of just attacking people every single chance you get. The idea of a debate is to attack the ARGUMENT, not the PERSON behind the argument. And even if someone misuses a punctuation mark (even though ocalhoun didn't misuse it), there's still no reason to attack that because it doesn't attack their idea (and you should be able to figure out what they're trying to say) and you have to realize that English isn't everyone's first language.


Typical. One second you decry ad hominem attack, next you're personally attacking with such insults as "grow some balls" (a phrase quite demeaning to women, by the way).

You engage in other fallacious argument in the very first line, the glaring straw man of attributing to me the opinion "Democrats are the pinnacle of all good in this world and that everyone else is just the pinnacle of all bad in this world". Obviously that's not my opinion, but you're glad to stuff words in other people's mouths, I guess. You however, have actually admitted that you "completely hate" Obama from since before he was even elected, which I think says enough about the state of your mentality and judgment. (http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-108817.html)

Given your two logical fallacies in one short post, and your admitted motivation of hatred, excuse me if I don't take any lessons in reasoned debate from you today.
deanhills
Back to the subject of the thread Wink, if one looks at the current Government's trillions of debt, 1.4 million seems to pale in comparison. Especially the trillions that were forked out at the beginning of the year to ostensibly circulate dollars among the taxpayers. To my mind the trillions that went to the Banks, mostly went to Wall Street. So much lip talk about looking after the people in the street, as it was in their name that the Banks got to be bailed out, but in the end it was only the Banks who profited from it. Worrying about a pesky 1.4 million dollar Website seems to be quite trivial, and hence the reason why the media for the most part paid little or no attention to it.
jwellsy
http://watchdog.org/2009/11/17/6-4-billion-stimulus-goes-to-phantom-districts/

In the typical land of lies, demrats spend $18 million on a website so they can falsify 440 phantom make-believe districts and 30,000 jobs.

Quote:
Vice President Joe Biden admitted that the administration’s statistics were flawed after an Associated Press study revealed several instances of exaggerated and outright false job creation. The vice president acknowledged that “further updates and corrections are going to be needed.”
Afaceinthematrix
handfleisch wrote:
Typical. One second you decry ad hominem attack, next you're personally attacking with such insults as "grow some balls" (a phrase quite demeaning to women, by the way).


Absolutely not. I am not engaging in an ad hominem attack with you. I am merely giving you a suggestion. And that suggestion is to grow some balls and start debating. By the way, it's an expression.

Quote:
You engage in other fallacious argument in the very first line, the glaring straw man of attributing to me the opinion "Democrats are the pinnacle of all good in this world and that everyone else is just the pinnacle of all bad in this world". Obviously that's not my opinion, but you're glad to stuff words in other people's mouths, I guess. You however, have actually admitted that you "completely hate" Obama from since before he was even elected, which I think says enough about the state of your mentality and judgment. (http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-108817.html)


That's how you act in almost every single thread you ever post in. Anything that the Democrats seem to do you act like is okay yet you love nitpicking any other political party for anything you can see fit... Even if it's something that's not their fault.

Furthermore, me hating Obama has nothing to do with this topic - at all. Furthermore, I didn't just wake up hating Obama. I actually liked the guy at one point. I hated him because of some very disturbing actions by his crew.

Quote:
Given your two logical fallacies in one short post, and your admitted motivation of hatred, excuse me if I don't take any lessons in reasoned debate from you today.


I was guilty of no logical fallacies - at all. My hatred with Obama has absolutely nothing to do with this and simply pointing out that I'm sick of you attacking the person behind the argument instead of the argument is not a logical fallacy. I've grown to expect this from you because you have done this numerous times. I have grown to expect you to not actually debate a topic and make a point but to just attack people for grammatical errors and anywhere else you can see fit. That's cowardly and that's not debating and it's about time someone calls you out.
handfleisch
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Typical. One second you decry ad hominem attack, next you're personally attacking with such insults as "grow some balls" (a phrase quite demeaning to women, by the way).


Absolutely not. I am not engaging in an ad hominem attack with you. I am merely giving you a suggestion. And that suggestion is to grow some balls and start debating. By the way, it's an expression.

Quote:
You engage in other fallacious argument in the very first line, the glaring straw man of attributing to me the opinion "Democrats are the pinnacle of all good in this world and that everyone else is just the pinnacle of all bad in this world". Obviously that's not my opinion, but you're glad to stuff words in other people's mouths, I guess. You however, have actually admitted that you "completely hate" Obama from since before he was even elected, which I think says enough about the state of your mentality and judgment. (http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-108817.html)


That's how you act in almost every single thread you ever post in. Anything that the Democrats seem to do you act like is okay yet you love nitpicking any other political party for anything you can see fit... Even if it's something that's not their fault.

Furthermore, me hating Obama has nothing to do with this topic - at all. Furthermore, I didn't just wake up hating Obama. I actually liked the guy at one point. I hated him because of some very disturbing actions by his crew.

Quote:
Given your two logical fallacies in one short post, and your admitted motivation of hatred, excuse me if I don't take any lessons in reasoned debate from you today.


I was guilty of no logical fallacies - at all. My hatred with Obama has absolutely nothing to do with this and simply pointing out that I'm sick of you attacking the person behind the argument instead of the argument is not a logical fallacy. I've grown to expect this from you because you have done this numerous times. I have grown to expect you to not actually debate a topic and make a point but to just attack people for grammatical errors and anywhere else you can see fit. That's cowardly and that's not debating and it's about time someone calls you out.


So you reserve the right to define what is insulting to others, and you can personally attack them in anyway you think is not an attack? And then do it all over again by calling people cowardly? Again, it's typical of the pedant who would tell others what to do, while ignoring his own faults.

In fact, it's more typical of projection, the psychological problem of a person accusing others of doing exactly what he or she is doing. Your post is personal, emotional, bordering on weird, ranting about what you are "sick of". I am not sure that sickness is rhetorical.

Likewise your strange issue with Obama hatred. (Which had everything to do with the subject, because you had just wrongly accused me of extreme, exaggerated bias and feeling concerning the Democrats, when in fact you are on record with, and apparently proud of, the same exaggerated bias and feeling against the Democratic president, even before he took office. I think you in fact are the one guilty of this, and that is why you take my defense of the much-lesser-of-2-evils party as some kind of affront. That is why you set up the straw man argument about my posts concerning Democrats, because you are projecting your own touchiness on the subject.)

If you would look at all my recent posts, in the Climategate canard or the anti-government thread for example, you will see that I have used rationality, evidence and logic -- unlike you in these posts above, and unlike the posters you defend above. (I would point out that even the moderator of moderation, Bikerman, has lost his patience with Deanhills' persistent wrongness in the past.) In fact I have decided to no longer disturb the Frihost echo chamber for reactionary spam; it's not interesting and not just a little pathetic. That doesn't mean I have to take being called out in a tantrum by someone who needs to get his own house in order, though.
Afaceinthematrix
handfleisch wrote:
So you reserve the right to define what is insulting to others, and you can personally attack them in anyway you think is not an attack? And then do it all over again by calling people cowardly? Again, it's typical of the pedant who would tell others what to do, while ignoring his own faults.

In fact, it's more typical of projection, the psychological problem of a person accusing others of doing exactly what he or she is doing. Your post is personal, emotional, bordering on weird, ranting about what you are "sick of". I am not sure that sickness is rhetorical.


Nope. I have not attacked you at all. I have simply suggested that you start debating instead of mastering ad hominem attacks and then told you that it's cowardly to not debate. I simply gave you a suggestion and told you what a coward is. I have not attacked you. I have never called you a moron, stupid, etc. I have never tried to nitpick instead of actually looking for the content in your posts. In fact, I have not attacked you at all; I have attacked your "debate" form and social skills.

Quote:
Likewise your strange issue with Obama hatred. (Which had everything to do with the subject, because you had just wrongly accused me of extreme, exaggerated bias and feeling concerning the Democrats, when in fact you are on record with, and apparently proud of, the same exaggerated bias and feeling against the Democratic president, even before he took office. I think you in fact are the one guilty of this, and that is why you take my defense of the much-lesser-of-2-evils party as some kind of affront. That is why you set up the straw man argument about my posts concerning Democrats, because you are projecting your own touchiness on the subject.)


I don't have a strange hatred or bias towards Obama - at all. Like I said, I didn't wake up hating him. I gave him a chance. He did something very bad and so he blew it. That's not a strange hatred. He deserves the hatred. He's the one that was guilty of what he did. People hated Clinton because he lied (although I had no problem with it). So Clinton deserved the hate that he got. People hated Bush because he was a moron and did a crappy job as president. So he deserved the hate that he did. Obama is the same. He did something that I despised and so I hate him for it. So my dislike for him has nothing to do with this and everything to do with something else (which is a topic for another discussion).

Quote:
If you would look at all my recent posts, in the Climategate canard or the anti-government thread for example, you will see that I have used rationality, evidence and logic -- unlike you in these posts above, and unlike the posters you defend above. (I would point out that even the moderator of moderation, Bikerman, has lost his patience with Deanhills' persistent wrongness in the past.) In fact I have decided to no longer disturb the Frihost echo chamber for reactionary spam; it's not interesting and not just a little pathetic. That doesn't mean I have to take being called out in a tantrum by someone who needs to get his own house in order, though.


I have not read that post so I do not know if you actually used rationale and logic. But from the posts that I have read from you, you seem to just attack people, like above. You keep accusing me of not using logic. Where did I not use logic? You were being a jerk in this post. You basically called deanhills stupid and you basically told ocalhoun to get an education - even though YOU were wrong - instead of actually responding to their arguments. That's an ad hominem attack and it's not a valid form of debate. Excuse me for actually calling you out on your bullshit. This isn't the first time that happened. Do I need to remind you of this?

Afaceinthematrix wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
well it's the internet, so I guess it's no surprise that a discussion of the grossly inadequate enforcement of food safety regulations on ground beef devolves into... don't worry, you're more likely to die in a car crash. Maybe we should just apply that to all safety features and regulations -- anything less likely to kill you than a car crash can now be ignored, no need to enforce the safety regulations, or have them at all. Yeah, good idea.


Dude... What's your problem? You're the one being ridiculous. You made a claim. That claim was that you'd have to be crazy or be a masochist just to eat beef.

I found that claim to be ludicrous and I called you out on it. Not only did I explain that there are regulations for beef (beef is recalled all the time, expiration dates are set yet retailers/consumers often ignore them, etc.), but I also explained the logic behind your statement and how silly it was.

To say that you're crazy or a masochist because you eat beef, even though the chance of actually getting sick from it are extremely tiny (and preventable) is about as insane as saying you'd have to be suicidal to fly in an airplane.

Now... Instead of responding to the points, you gloss over them with and basically say that we're all retarded, or a bunch of morons with computers, and say that you're not surprised that an internet discussion (what... so the internet (or maybe this forum) is full of dumbasses?) would turn out this way!
handfleisch
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
So you reserve the right to define what is insulting to others, and you can personally attack them in anyway you think is not an attack? And then do it all over again by calling people cowardly? Again, it's typical of the pedant who would tell others what to do, while ignoring his own faults.

In fact, it's more typical of projection, the psychological problem of a person accusing others of doing exactly what he or she is doing. Your post is personal, emotional, bordering on weird, ranting about what you are "sick of". I am not sure that sickness is rhetorical.


Nope. I have not attacked you at all. I have simply suggested that you start debating instead of mastering ad hominem attacks and then told you that it's cowardly to not debate. I simply gave you a suggestion and told you what a coward is. I have not attacked you. I have never called you a moron, stupid, etc. I have never tried to nitpick instead of actually looking for the content in your posts. In fact, I have not attacked you at all; I have attacked your "debate" form and social skills.

Quote:
Likewise your strange issue with Obama hatred. (Which had everything to do with the subject, because you had just wrongly accused me of extreme, exaggerated bias and feeling concerning the Democrats, when in fact you are on record with, and apparently proud of, the same exaggerated bias and feeling against the Democratic president, even before he took office. I think you in fact are the one guilty of this, and that is why you take my defense of the much-lesser-of-2-evils party as some kind of affront. That is why you set up the straw man argument about my posts concerning Democrats, because you are projecting your own touchiness on the subject.)


I don't have a strange hatred or bias towards Obama - at all. Like I said, I didn't wake up hating him. I gave him a chance. He did something very bad and so he blew it. That's not a strange hatred. He deserves the hatred. He's the one that was guilty of what he did. People hated Clinton because he lied (although I had no problem with it). So Clinton deserved the hate that he got. People hated Bush because he was a moron and did a crappy job as president. So he deserved the hate that he did. Obama is the same. He did something that I despised and so I hate him for it. So my dislike for him has nothing to do with this and everything to do with something else (which is a topic for another discussion).

Quote:
If you would look at all my recent posts, in the Climategate canard or the anti-government thread for example, you will see that I have used rationality, evidence and logic -- unlike you in these posts above, and unlike the posters you defend above. (I would point out that even the moderator of moderation, Bikerman, has lost his patience with Deanhills' persistent wrongness in the past.) In fact I have decided to no longer disturb the Frihost echo chamber for reactionary spam; it's not interesting and not just a little pathetic. That doesn't mean I have to take being called out in a tantrum by someone who needs to get his own house in order, though.


I have not read that post so I do not know if you actually used rationale and logic. But from the posts that I have read from you, you seem to just attack people, like above. You keep accusing me of not using logic. Where did I not use logic? You were being a jerk in this post. You basically called deanhills stupid and you basically told ocalhoun to get an education - even though YOU were wrong - instead of actually responding to their arguments. That's an ad hominem attack and it's not a valid form of debate. Excuse me for actually calling you out on your bullshit. This isn't the first time that happened. Do I need to remind you of this?

Afaceinthematrix wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
well it's the internet, so I guess it's no surprise that a discussion of the grossly inadequate enforcement of food safety regulations on ground beef devolves into... don't worry, you're more likely to die in a car crash. Maybe we should just apply that to all safety features and regulations -- anything less likely to kill you than a car crash can now be ignored, no need to enforce the safety regulations, or have them at all. Yeah, good idea.


Dude... What's your problem? You're the one being ridiculous. You made a claim. That claim was that you'd have to be crazy or be a masochist just to eat beef.

I found that claim to be ludicrous and I called you out on it. Not only did I explain that there are regulations for beef (beef is recalled all the time, expiration dates are set yet retailers/consumers often ignore them, etc.), but I also explained the logic behind your statement and how silly it was.

To say that you're crazy or a masochist because you eat beef, even though the chance of actually getting sick from it are extremely tiny (and preventable) is about as insane as saying you'd have to be suicidal to fly in an airplane.

Now... Instead of responding to the points, you gloss over them with and basically say that we're all retarded, or a bunch of morons with computers, and say that you're not surprised that an internet discussion (what... so the internet (or maybe this forum) is full of dumbasses?) would turn out this way!


Dude, seriously... If you don't see calling people cowards is the definition of flaming, and you defend hate as a legitimate political opinion, then there's not much point discussing things.

You say you don't have time to read my other posts, but then you pull out this old tainted beef thread. That's kind of weird. All I said was that I thought the comparison of any moderate danger to the greater danger of car crashes in order to minimize the former danger is not valid and yet much too common. The only person using the word moron, dumbass, or retarded is you. Once again you are shoving words into my mouth, doing the whole straw man fallacy, saying that I am "basically" calling people names when I am not. It seems like you're just upset that I didn't respond to your angry, flaming (charbroiling?) post.

Or more so it seems like you're having a bad day and want to take it out on anonymous internet forums. If you want to fight then join a boxing club, if you have issues see a professional, if you're having a bad day then work on the source of the problem instead of flaming out in a chatroom.

I think I have debated politely and logically quite enough on this now.
Afaceinthematrix
handfleisch wrote:


Dude, seriously... If you don't see calling people cowards is the definition of flaming, and you defend hate as a legitimate political opinion, then there's not much point discussing things.

You say you don't have time to read my other posts, but then you pull out this old tainted beef thread. That's kind of weird. All I said was that I thought the comparison of any moderate danger to the greater danger of car crashes in order to minimize the former danger is not valid and yet much too common. The only person using the word moron, dumbass, or retarded is you. Once again you are shoving words into my mouth, doing the whole straw man fallacy, saying that I am "basically" calling people names when I am not. It seems like you're just upset that I didn't respond to your angry, flaming (charbroiling?) post.

Or more so it seems like you're having a bad day and want to take it out on anonymous internet forums. If you want to fight then join a boxing club, if you have issues see a professional, if you're having a bad day then work on the source of the problem instead of flaming out in a chatroom.

I think I have debated politely and logically quite enough on this now.


I said that I didn't read one topic. I didn't say that I didn't have time to read all of your posts. I said that I didn't read one (and it wasn't because of a lack of time - I simply didn't catch my attention and I don't read topics that I'm not interested in).

Furthermore, calling your actions cowardly is not an attack on you - it's an attack on your "debate" tactics. Like I said, you were attacking people instead of their ideas and I called you out on your bullshit.

I'm not having a bad day. I just wasn't going to sit around and let you attack people. I called you out on your bullshit. Quit bringing up my hatred of Obama. I have a legitimate reason. Obama did something terrible and I despise him for it. It's not wrong to think that someone who did something terrible is a terrible person. And like I said, I still do not understand why you keep bringing that up. It has nothing to do with this. This whole topic was about the Republican party. It's not even about an individual. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, nor do I hate either parties in general. I just hate selected members of each parties all for legitimate reasons.

Also, that sort of helps my point. You're wanting to invalidate everything I'm saying just because I hate Obama (and you don't even know my reasoning)? You have no reason to do that. You have no reason to invalidate everything that I'm saying (which is nothing about Obama or Democrats) just because of how I feel about one person? Dude, I'm done with you.
handfleisch
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
handfleisch wrote:


Dude, seriously... If you don't see calling people cowards is the definition of flaming, and you defend hate as a legitimate political opinion, then there's not much point discussing things.

You say you don't have time to read my other posts, but then you pull out this old tainted beef thread. That's kind of weird. All I said was that I thought the comparison of any moderate danger to the greater danger of car crashes in order to minimize the former danger is not valid and yet much too common. The only person using the word moron, dumbass, or retarded is you. Once again you are shoving words into my mouth, doing the whole straw man fallacy, saying that I am "basically" calling people names when I am not. It seems like you're just upset that I didn't respond to your angry, flaming (charbroiling?) post.

Or more so it seems like you're having a bad day and want to take it out on anonymous internet forums. If you want to fight then join a boxing club, if you have issues see a professional, if you're having a bad day then work on the source of the problem instead of flaming out in a chatroom.

I think I have debated politely and logically quite enough on this now.


I said that I didn't read one topic. I didn't say that I didn't have time to read all of your posts. I said that I didn't read one (and it wasn't because of a lack of time - I simply didn't catch my attention and I don't read topics that I'm not interested in).

Furthermore, calling your actions cowardly is not an attack on you - it's an attack on your "debate" tactics. Like I said, you were attacking people instead of their ideas and I called you out on your bullshit.

I'm not having a bad day. I just wasn't going to sit around and let you attack people. I called you out on your bullshit. Quit bringing up my hatred of Obama. I have a legitimate reason. Obama did something terrible and I despise him for it. It's not wrong to think that someone who did something terrible is a terrible person. And like I said, I still do not understand why you keep bringing that up. It has nothing to do with this. This whole topic was about the Republican party. It's not even about an individual. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, nor do I hate either parties in general. I just hate selected members of each parties all for legitimate reasons.

Also, that sort of helps my point. You're wanting to invalidate everything I'm saying just because I hate Obama (and you don't even know my reasoning)? You have no reason to do that. You have no reason to invalidate everything that I'm saying (which is nothing about Obama or Democrats) just because of how I feel about one person? Dude, I'm done with you.


In supposedly calling someone out on their bullshit, all you did was produce tons of your own.
Ghost Rider103
I'm going to close this as it just seems to just cause a useless argument.

If anyone has a good reason to keep this open, you're welcome to PM me.

-close-
Related topics
Ayumi Hamasaki
How to become a millionaire on the internet?
Boo-Hoo!! MacDonalds Lied to Me!! Get over it!!
What's Next in Telecommunications?
Mod Projects lots of info
the 9/11 truth
Dell recalls 4 million laptops
Web Design Contract
Another Asteroid Collision With Earth
How much did Microsoft pay Jerry Seinfeld??
1937 Bugatti Type 57S sells for $4.4 million
Americans want universal health care. Why can't we get it?
5.4 million, and the media is silent - the Congo war
How would you spend a million dollars in a day?
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.