Apology for the 2012 Forum

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'll kind of miss old Politico.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

If this isn't a joke and you're truly willing to change, I don't see why you shouldn't be given another chance.  With time, you may prove yourself redeemable.  However, I don't think your infraction points should be taken away just like that.  If you're going to make positive contributions from now on, those shouldn't matter.

[BigSkyBob]

Don't bother apologizing, Politico.  You haven't done anything wrong, IMO,

You don't consider equating all people whom happen to have a relative whom suffered from maniac depression to Adolph Hitler to be wrong? If that wasn't a willfull attempt to stigmatize mental illness, what is? Nor, were his attempts to set a weight requirement to be President any thing other than an appeal to prejudices against overweight people.

Politico's attempts to blame some unspecified Gingrich supporter for his woes just shows how unapologetic he really is. If he wants to play a game of whodunit may I suggest that he consider every Gingrich supporter, every Santorum supporter, and every Obama supporter [if Romney wins the nomination the smear machine will turn to Obama.] Then, there is everyone whom has a relative with a mental illness, or, even autism. Those whom are overweight and tired of being demeaned. And, finally, there are those whom have had enough of his spam.

It's the internet, dude.  If you don't like being around people with ideas that offend you or that you disagree with, there's a power button for that.  I think there should be some minimum standards (e.g., no personal attacks on other forum members), but I find it awfully quaint to apply some sort of chilling, restrictive appropriateness standard to politics discussions on the internet, of all things.

While I totally agree with the concept of free and open debate where all ideas are presented and each forum member decides for themselves which are better and truer, I find hypocritical for you to first offer your opinion that Politico has never done anything "wrong," and, then,  bristle when someone disagrees with the correctness of that opinion. Didn't you say, "It's the internet, dude?" If you didn't want to discuss the appropriateness of Politico's behavior here, then, may I suggest that you shouldn't have posted an opinion of the appropriateness of Politico's behavior in a discussion forum. 

[Politico]

Don't bother apologizing, Politico.  You haven't done anything wrong, IMO,

You don't consider equating all people whom happen to have a relative whom suffered from maniac depression to Adolph Hitler to be wrong?

I have never said such a thing. There is only one person who is responsible for your misinterpretation of posts.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Don't bother apologizing, Politico.  You haven't done anything wrong, IMO,

You don't consider equating all people whom happen to have a relative whom suffered from maniac depression to Adolph Hitler to be wrong?

I have never said such a thing. There is only one person who is responsible for your misinterpretation of posts.

Wrong.

[Politico]

Don't bother apologizing, Politico.  You haven't done anything wrong, IMO,

You don't consider equating all people whom happen to have a relative whom suffered from maniac depression to Adolph Hitler to be wrong?

I have never said such a thing. There is only one person who is responsible for your misinterpretation of posts.

Wrong.

Where have I equated "all people whom happen to have a relative whom suffered from maniac depression to Adolph Hitler"? I have done no such thing. You cannot just say, "WRONG," implying I did, without posting the direct quote and arguing that I equated all people who suffered from manic depression to Adolph Hitler. Bob did not equate "all people whom happen to have a relative whom suffered from maniac depression to Winston Churchill," did he? Of course not. It would be absurd to do either thing. I merely pointed out that, yes, Winston Churchill was a great leader who happened to suffer from bipolar disorder, but there are other examples of awful leaders who also suffered from bipolar disorder. In short, my point was this: Mental illness is NOT a favorable characteristic in a leader. That was the sole point of all those posts. I said there is no shame in having bipolar disorder. Do you think I would say that if I was equating it to being Hitler?

There is no shame in having bipolar disorder. It is an awful illness that people need help with, and it affects plenty of families. With that said, suffering from bipolar disorder does disqualify you from becoming POTUS, IMHO. I am sure if you did a national poll, you would find that an overwhelming majority of Americans agree with me.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Politico- even when Newt was doing well and you and I clashed our disagrements were respectful unlike some people on here... you don't need to apologize the way I see it

[Niemeyerite]

You were really annoying...and I can't say I'll miss your posts here if you get banned or something like that. But if you're going to change I haven't got reasons to think you shouldn't be given a 2nd opportunity.

[BigSkyBob]

Don't bother apologizing, Politico.  You haven't done anything wrong, IMO,

You don't consider equating all people whom happen to have a relative whom suffered from maniac depression to Adolph Hitler to be wrong?

I have never said such a thing. There is only one person who is responsible for your misinterpretation of posts.

Wrong.

Where have I equated "all people whom happen to have a relative whom suffered from maniac depression to Adolph Hitler"? I have done no such thing. You cannot just say, "WRONG," implying I did, without posting the direct quote and arguing that I equated all people who suffered from manic depression to Adolph Hitler. Bob did not equate "all people whom happen to have a relative whom suffered from maniac depression to Winston Churchill," did he? Of course not. It would be absurd to do either thing. I merely pointed out that, yes, Winston Churchill was a great leader who happened to suffer from bipolar disorder, but there are other examples of awful leaders who also suffered from bipolar disorder. In short, my point was this: Mental illness is NOT a favorable characteristic in a leader. That was the sole point of all those posts. I said there is no shame in having bipolar disorder. Do you think I would say that if I was equating it to being Hitler?

I can believe many things, but, what I cannot believe is someone equating having manic depression with Adolph Hitler merely believes that manic depression "is not a favorable characteristic in a leader." Most folks would consider being like Adolph Hitler to be singularly disqualifying characteristic. That is why you equated Gingrich with Hitler.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, if having manic depression disqualifies someone from being POTUS, then, isn't the consistent application of your principle that Churchill was "disqualified" to be Prime Minister of England during WWII? Clearly, you are overreaching, and overreaching broadly.

Moreever, I will not let it pass that your objection to Gingrich was not that he suffers from manic depression, but, rather, that his mother suffered from manic depression. If you polled the American people, I would suspect that the vast majority of Americans will reject tainting a Presidential candidate by the health of his mother.

[Politico]

Don't bother apologizing, Politico.  You haven't done anything wrong, IMO,

You don't consider equating all people whom happen to have a relative whom suffered from maniac depression to Adolph Hitler to be wrong?

I have never said such a thing. There is only one person who is responsible for your misinterpretation of posts.

Wrong.

Where have I equated "all people whom happen to have a relative whom suffered from maniac depression to Adolph Hitler"? I have done no such thing. You cannot just say, "WRONG," implying I did, without posting the direct quote and arguing that I equated all people who suffered from manic depression to Adolph Hitler. Bob did not equate "all people whom happen to have a relative whom suffered from maniac depression to Winston Churchill," did he? Of course not. It would be absurd to do either thing. I merely pointed out that, yes, Winston Churchill was a great leader who happened to suffer from bipolar disorder, but there are other examples of awful leaders who also suffered from bipolar disorder. In short, my point was this: Mental illness is NOT a favorable characteristic in a leader. That was the sole point of all those posts. I said there is no shame in having bipolar disorder. Do you think I would say that if I was equating it to being Hitler?

I can believe many things, but, what I cannot believe is someone equating having manic depression with Adolph Hitler merely believes that manic depression "is not a favorable characteristic in a leader." Most folks would consider being like Adolph Hitler to be singularly disqualifying characteristic. That is why you equated Gingrich with Hitler.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, if having manic depression disqualifies someone from being POTUS, then, isn't the consistent application of your principle that Churchill was "disqualified" to be Prime Minister of England during WWII? Clearly, you are overreaching, and overreaching broadly.

Moreever, I will not let it pass that your objection to Gingrich was not that he suffers from manic depression, but, rather, that his mother suffered from manic depression. If you polled the American people, I would suspect that the vast majority of Americans will reject tainting a Presidential candidate by the health of his mother.

You're throwing mud and it ain't sticking, Bobby. I am putting this thread into Al Gore's lockbox.