Best use of the word “fuck” this week!
GQ. Not the Pit. Not MPSIMS. Not IMHO. Your quote was clearly (and you labelled it as such yourself) IMO. How hard of a concept is that to grasp?
This is what happens when manny isn’t around to moderate. 
I was not aware that all posts in General Questions were now required to be 100% free of any non-factual non-objective non-opinionated non-verifiable content. Must have missed the memo.
Required? Who’s talking about rules here?
From what I can tell, UncleBeer ain’t talking about rules being violated, he’s just bitching that he’s tired of seeing political opinions popping up in GQ so much. Rather than address the topic, you go off into left field:
In case you missed it, the topic is “Partisan Opinions in GQ”. If you think your post was appropriate – and I believe you can make a case for it – then explain WHY posting this particular opinion in that particular GQ thread was appropriate. Let me give you a head start here, it involves the topic of the thread …
Yeah, but he was responing to someone who inappropriatedly posted in GQ.
Of course, when he said that, he wasn’t president anymore, and the president was a man he hated. He wouldn’t neccesarily have agreed with that sentiment when he was president.
Which wouldn’t make the sentiment any less valid.
I partly blame myself. I realized it was a politically charged question, and there’s probably a debate in there somewhere, but I was too lazy to think it up. Rather than bumping the GQ thread, I’ll say here that I appreciate the answers relevant to the question since that’s all I really wanted to know (rather than start a debate).
Actually, I think the OP asked for such responses, even if not directly. While the question itself was a factual question with an answer that could be found via Google, he also stated:
I think this statement invites opinions on the practice, one of which was given by rjung.
I don’t think you’re at fault at all. Had you left out the statement I quoted above, you still would have likely had some drive-by Bush bashings in the thread, and I’d be here agreeing with UncleBeer instead of disagreeing with him. In fact, it’s quite possible that the exact same people who are being called out would have been the ones doing the bashing, but we don’t know that, so it’s unfair to call them on it. My only point is that that statement invited opinion, and therefore their opinions as to purpose were called for in this case.
DMC, I did Google, but I wasn’t sure what terms to use, and did an image search for pictures of Clinton in hopes of seeing a picture of him at a rally (with no luck). I made the statement about what I thought of the practice’s intended purpose to see if it was correct, or to see if someone knew of another reason I hadn’t considered. It is true that most any political topic is going to leave itself open to partisan comments no matter how innocuous the question.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Liar, liar, liar.
The “memo” is right at the top of the fucking GQ page. And has been since April 2003. Two fucking years.
And thank you, chique. I appreciate your help very much.
I gotta admit, UncleBeer, that I think you’re setting the standard a bit high.
The thread was clearly about political activities. Given the wandering nature of non-political GQ threads at times I don’t see a diversion into opinions and anecdotes about the efficacy of such tactics to be straying that far from the good ground.
Now, when such things pop up in threads completely unrelated to politics (as they do from time to time) I get mighty annoyed.
But then again I know the morons on both sides at this point and can dismiss them out of hand.
Welcome. When bugmenot doesn’t work I somehow transmorgify into a 104 year old Albanian male with an income of +$100,000…
No. Makes his motives suspect, though.