Without EVER having attacked any posters here, I was called:
and a self-righteous prick.
Again, what do you want, a sounding board? So you keep the numbers low, but the only people welcome here are the ones who share your views? If someone dislikes Bernie Sanders, oh, the person doesn't fit? And the person needs to be attacked at every turn? Is this what you call a reasonable discussion?
Anyway, whatever. I'll de deleting my account soon. Just saying farewell to a couple of nice people here, by PM.
As it seems I "started" this, let me say a few words.
Words are a thing of mine, I like to try to be accurate and consistent in using their proper meanings. Like Perotista does with his statistics - keep it accurate and objective.
I also tend to believe that sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me (full disclosure, I didn't coin that phrase).
When I read GNTs post about Sanders (several times), I perceived the following things (in other words, I formed an opinion):
I perceived a level of something bordering on hatred for Sanders - I called that 'spleen', as in 'venting one's spleen". It's also called 'ranting', so thereby qualifying sweet and to the point of the name of this forum. By my logic, it isn't an attack to say that someone here is ranting.
I also noted that Senator Sanders was labelled a 'loser', or some other insulting and demeaning term of non-endearment at least 8 times, including a declaration that he had a failed career. The rationale for that was limited to these two facts: Sanders never introduced a bill that got passed; and Sanders has lost some elections. There are a great many other facts associated with Sanders' career, which indicate that he has had a great deal of influence, most of it positive and aligned with my world view. Therefor, I assessed the (too) numerous 'loser' and 'failure' comments to be irrational (rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic), as they ignored a lot of Sanders' 'wins'.
As for using the word 'emotional' (characterized by intense feeling), that too was a perception, arising from the tone of the rant, and supported in my opinion by the overuse of 'loser' and the spleen venting about Sanders.
I probably don't need to review the meaning of sensitive, but let me leave it at perhaps being supported by a pretty hyperbolic reaction to my observations, and the interpreting of my comments as an 'attack'. I have to say that if my expression of a logically substantiated opinion is an attack, and I have to watch what I say to the degree of suppressing my perceptions and opinions in order to not offend someone who is completely free to express theirs, that the person being coddled is probably overly 'sensitive'.
Now, you have the choice of taking these comments as 'discussion', or 'attacks'. You pays yore money and you takes yer chances... step right up!