Here's the problem I have with ERC's posts. His op's constantly label people with a broad brush. Like you can possibly paint all Libs as being Unhappy about Jenner. It pisses me off. I wish there was a way I could just ignore all of his posts. I tell myself over and over and over again not to pay attention to him but the (in my humble opinion) "outlandishness" of his posts is like a moth to a flame. The guy constantly bombards the board with stupidity. Again in my opinion. You can't ignore him. He starts 20 posts a day.

He has started 13 posts on the front page.

No one else even has 4. He's a serial spammer and detracts from the board in my opinion.

I get annoyed when he uses far-right agenda driven blogs as sources and pretends that a story that originates from those sources are as legitimate/news worthy as a story that is on the front page of all the major media outlets.

(04-26-2015 03:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I get annoyed when he uses far-right agenda driven blogs as sources and pretends that a story that originates from those sources are as legitimate/news worthy as a story that is on the front page of all the major media outlets.

I can see your point; however, we must realize that those "legitimate/news worthy" sources sometimes neglect to report everything that is "legitimate/news worthy".

‘Tolerant’ Liberals Are VERY ANGRY Bruce Jenner Is A Republican!

http://soopermexican.com/2015/04/24/tole...epublican/

(04-26-2015 03:42 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 03:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I get annoyed when he uses far-right agenda driven blogs as sources and pretends that a story that originates from those sources are as legitimate/news worthy as a story that is on the front page of all the major media outlets.

I can see your point; however, we must realize that those "legitimate/news worthy" sources sometimes neglect to report everything that is "legitimate/news worthy".

You got it. If the MSM did their job and weren't so biased to the left, I would quote them as sources. Hard to do when they very rarely report any news damaging to the left.

(04-26-2015 03:42 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 03:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I get annoyed when he uses far-right agenda driven blogs as sources and pretends that a story that originates from those sources are as legitimate/news worthy as a story that is on the front page of all the major media outlets.

I can see your point; however, we must realize that those "legitimate/news worthy" sources sometimes neglect to report everything that is "legitimate/news worthy".

I fully agree that specialized blogs have an important function in providing news. However with him I recall one event where I named 3-5 high profile events off the top of my head where a nationally known Republican politician did _______ and it was a national story. His response was to use 8-10 examples all from one of his partisan sites, and in every single case the Democrat was an unknown on the state/local level. Not one of those examples was ever picked up by the mainstream media because they were so irrelevant.

He legitimate believed that the two were comparable. It's stuff like that which drives others on the forum insane.

(04-26-2015 03:47 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 03:42 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 03:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I get annoyed when he uses far-right agenda driven blogs as sources and pretends that a story that originates from those sources are as legitimate/news worthy as a story that is on the front page of all the major media outlets.

I can see your point; however, we must realize that those "legitimate/news worthy" sources sometimes neglect to report everything that is "legitimate/news worthy".

You got it. If the MSM did their job and weren't so biased to the left, I would quote them as sources. Hard to do when they very rarely report any news damaging to the left.

Don't act like you apply any sort of filter to discard the many stories that aren't news but portrayed as if they are intentionally by your sources. It's one thing to fill in the gaps, it's another to try and force issues. How many threads about a presidential candidates trip to chipotle do we need?

(04-26-2015 03:49 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 03:47 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 03:42 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 03:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I get annoyed when he uses far-right agenda driven blogs as sources and pretends that a story that originates from those sources are as legitimate/news worthy as a story that is on the front page of all the major media outlets.

I can see your point; however, we must realize that those "legitimate/news worthy" sources sometimes neglect to report everything that is "legitimate/news worthy".

You got it. If the MSM did their job and weren't so biased to the left, I would quote them as sources. Hard to do when they very rarely report any news damaging to the left.

Don't act like you apply any sort of filter to discard the many stories that aren't news but portrayed as if they are intentionally by your sources. It's one thing to fill in the gaps, it's another to try and force issues. How many threads about a presidential candidates trip to chipotle do we need?

Well, most of you libs have wanted me banned from this site, so I imagine you don't like any posts on any subject I post about. Am I supposed to be shocked by that? I have never called for anyone to be banned, post less or disagreed with them making posts here. If there is a poster I would rather no read what he posts, I put them on ignore. Not hard to do. You might try it.

(04-26-2015 03:49 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 03:47 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 03:42 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 03:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I get annoyed when he uses far-right agenda driven blogs as sources and pretends that a story that originates from those sources are as legitimate/news worthy as a story that is on the front page of all the major media outlets.

I can see your point; however, we must realize that those "legitimate/news worthy" sources sometimes neglect to report everything that is "legitimate/news worthy".

You got it. If the MSM did their job and weren't so biased to the left, I would quote them as sources. Hard to do when they very rarely report any news damaging to the left.

Don't act like you apply any sort of filter to discard the many stories that aren't news but portrayed as if they are intentionally by your sources. It's one thing to fill in the gaps, it's another to try and force issues. How many threads about a presidential candidates trip to chipotle do we need?

Not only that but he further enhances the problem by making his own thread titles that are either totally BS or extremely misleading. I don't even take his titles seriously because I have seen too many cases of him making a statement that he claims is from an article which the article did not state.

For example the abortion thread from a while back where he named a DNC chair who said something along the lines of "the decision to have or not have an abortion is a right." He then took that link and states "DNC chair says aborting 7 lb baby is a right."

Where did she make that claim. Did she flat out say it? did someone ask 7 lb baby in their question and that was her response? Or did ERC coin the 7 lb baby part on his own just to sensationalize the message? I don't know because the link is a partisan agenda driven site with a high probability that they intentionally took her statements out of context, and I shouldn't have to watch a 7 min video just to find out what was actually said. it's freaking BS when he does it.

and don't even get me started on his "libs like killing babies" rhetoric when his "proof" is a quote of some lib saying "I support a woman's right to choose." The two are not logically equivalent.

(04-26-2015 03:55 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 03:49 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 03:47 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 03:42 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 03:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I get annoyed when he uses far-right agenda driven blogs as sources and pretends that a story that originates from those sources are as legitimate/news worthy as a story that is on the front page of all the major media outlets.

I can see your point; however, we must realize that those "legitimate/news worthy" sources sometimes neglect to report everything that is "legitimate/news worthy".

You got it. If the MSM did their job and weren't so biased to the left, I would quote them as sources. Hard to do when they very rarely report any news damaging to the left.

Don't act like you apply any sort of filter to discard the many stories that aren't news but portrayed as if they are intentionally by your sources. It's one thing to fill in the gaps, it's another to try and force issues. How many threads about a presidential candidates trip to chipotle do we need?

Well, most of you libs have wanted me banned from this site, so I imagine you don't like any posts on any subject I post about. Am I supposed to be shocked by that? I have never called for anyone to be banned, post less or disagreed with them making posts here. If there is a poster I would rather no read what he posts, I put them on ignore. Not hard to do. You might try it.

We don't take issue with your political beliefs, we take issue with threads like this. If you were actually reading this thread you would understand that.

We never called for you to be banned, we want you to stop making threads like this. If you were actually reading this thread you would understand that.

Putting you on ignore won't solve the issue because you spam the main page with links which will still show up when one is put on ignore. If you were actually reading this thread you would understand that.

Why doesn't he put all of his Hillary Crisis of the Day in one thread!!!! He spams the board with related topics.

(04-26-2015 03:55 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 03:49 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 03:47 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 03:42 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 03:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I get annoyed when he uses far-right agenda driven blogs as sources and pretends that a story that originates from those sources are as legitimate/news worthy as a story that is on the front page of all the major media outlets.

I can see your point; however, we must realize that those "legitimate/news worthy" sources sometimes neglect to report everything that is "legitimate/news worthy".

You got it. If the MSM did their job and weren't so biased to the left, I would quote them as sources. Hard to do when they very rarely report any news damaging to the left.

Don't act like you apply any sort of filter to discard the many stories that aren't news but portrayed as if they are intentionally by your sources. It's one thing to fill in the gaps, it's another to try and force issues. How many threads about a presidential candidates trip to chipotle do we need?

Well, most of you libs have wanted me banned from this site, so I imagine you don't like any posts on any subject I post about. Am I supposed to be shocked by that? I have never called for anyone to be banned, post less or disagreed with them making posts here. If there is a poster I would rather no read what he posts, I put them on ignore. Not hard to do. You might try it.

Stick to what's being said, I am not asking for you to be banned or saying anything about your political views. I am commenting on your need to post so many stories which are either inaccurate or just downright unimportant.

Out of his 13 front page threads 4 of them deal with Hillary Clinton. Roughly 33% of his front page posts. Then to make matters worse he's the most frequent thread starter by a wide wide margin. If we wanted to read Matt Drudge headlines we would go there and read Drudge Headlines. Can you start posting your Hillary Bashing threads in one thread? Is that too much to ask ERC?

(04-26-2015 04:15 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Out of his 13 front page threads 4 of them deal with Hillary Clinton. Roughly 33% of his front page posts. Then to make matters worse he's the most frequent thread starter by a wide wide margin. If we wanted to read Matt Drudge headlines we would go there and read Drudge Headlines. Can you start posting your Hillary Bashing threads in one thread? Is that too much to ask ERC?

It's not his fault Hillary has so many scandals. Maybe a separate Hillary board is needed.

(04-26-2015 04:24 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 04:15 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Out of his 13 front page threads 4 of them deal with Hillary Clinton. Roughly 33% of his front page posts. Then to make matters worse he's the most frequent thread starter by a wide wide margin. If we wanted to read Matt Drudge headlines we would go there and read Drudge Headlines. Can you start posting your Hillary Bashing threads in one thread? Is that too much to ask ERC?

It's not his fault Hillary has so many scandals*. Maybe a separate Hillary board is needed.

*Insert GOP definition of the term "scandal"

FIFY


Hilary doesn't leave a tip at Mexican fast food restaurant. How the f**k does that constitute a scandal?

He'll start up another sub forum for all I care. I just don't care to read Matt Drudge headlines over and over and over again. Keep them to one thread. It's spamming the board with similar topics. I hope he takes me up on the Hillary bash!

You guys need to realize that message boards and talk radio are and will always be dominated by right wing extremists. It isn't because their views are the norm, it is because this is where they go to express themselves. It is in their comfort zone. They can affirm their views here. They aren't looking for spirited debate, just affirmation. Liberals are basically anyone that holds views that are different or less extreme than their own. Of course they have their counterparts on the extreme left but their outlets don't seem to be message boards and talk radio. Most people aren't that far left or right. In fact most of us are a mixed bag. Thus most people don't feel the urgency to promote their political agenda as enthusiastically as some on here.

Extremists?

Wow. Alrighty then.