Bob Cherub Watching 60 Minutes tonight


“Oh Mr. President, ruffle my plumage!”


Chet was seen at a local anti-Bush rally.

My post dealt with your perception on how you act here, you stick your head in the sand whenever their is anything negative said about Bush and pretend it doesn’t exist.

You just wanted to make a personal attack based on appearance of a person you have never seen.

Hmm… you really are a republican aren’t you?


Seriously, Bob, how’d you feel when the former top government official on terrorism basically accused Bush of telling him to forcibly connect AQ and Saddam? Or when he described the Bush administration as people “encased in amber”, who acted as if the 8 years of the Clinton administration had never existed and thought they’d pick up the problems of the Cold War and carry on.

Whoa, John, asking Cherub to think about reality… that’s mean!

I ask again: why isn’t he banned? He doesn’t bring intelligent discussion to the table and just throws in hopeless arguments. I really think he makes the conservatives on the board look bad.

Because we can ignore him? I mean, if Cherub’s so irrelevant and incoherent – which he is – why not just ignore him? By responding to him and whining about banning him, you’re just giving his little puppet act validation.

Unless you’re willing to change this to the “Liberal Politics and Agnostics” forum, you can’t possibly ban Bob without sending a couple people from the other side along with him. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, there are people on the other side that are much more worthless and inept, but by virtue of being on the right team, they’re being quoted and agreed with rather than ridiculed and run off the boards. Don’t think I’m targeting liberals, I don’t like to think in those terms but I’m definitely closer to that than to conservatism.

A braindead person can nod just as easily as he can shake his head.

Who is as bad as Bob? All he does is link and run. Midnight Son occasionally says something if called out.

But yet, he was still the first person you thought of as an alternative :)

Midnight annoys me more than Bob does.

I don’t understand the correlation. Just because Bob is an idiot who supports conservative policies, doesn’t mean all conservatives are idiots.

It is my sincere belief that the sheer volume of his bad arguments drowns out what good points other conservatives make. Thus, banning him would improve the level of discussion, IMO.

I certainly didn’t mean to convey that all conservatives are idiots, though this board does tend to convey that, despite its best intentions. What I meant to say is that I think Bob’s political leanings end up focusing ire on him with more passion than people who post much more inanely but agree with the prevailing opinion.

I’m not saying he supports his arguments well or that he doesn’t tend to troll, but even in crappiness there are varying degrees. If he was politically in line with the rest of the board, he’d be lost in the shuffle just like many of the truly bad posters currently are. Don’t only get rid of the guy who has questionable value to the board and just so happens to be conservative; clear out all the crap.

It probably would improve the level of discussion, but I think it would set a bad precedent. Yes, yes, I know people have been banned before. The bad precedent isn’t that someone is getting banned, but rather why they’re getting banned. From what I understand, the people who have been banned were seriously disruptive. They were warned to stop being disruptive, and they refused to reform their bahaviour. On what grounds would we ban Bob? He’s stupid? Sure he is, but that’s much too fuzzy a criteria. He’s dogmatic? He’s that as well, but unfortunately almost all of us occassionally succumb to dogmatism. Bob merely succumbs to it a little more often than the rest of us. OK… a whole lot more than the rest of us. And banning him because he’s vitriolic isn’t a good idea either… a lot of us are vitriolic. Venomous speech has a valid role to play in a discussion.

Basically, the only good reason I can think of to ban someone is if they’re disruptive, and Bob just isn’t all that disruptive. He says something stupid, perhaps provides a link, and that’s it. Usually, as soon as someone engages him, he drops out of the conversation. The very thing that makes him pretty much worthless as a poster (he refuses to engage in any serious arguments) is the very thing that also makes him a harmless poster.

Thanks and a correction. I always say something if called out. (This is assuming I read the thread you’re calling me out in. If you put my name on it, I should see it…) :)

You must be the one European who likes Dubya. (Ooops! Excuse me, the second one, besides Major.) :lol:

Of course, but the level of liberal “noise” as opposed to quality arguments, is somewhat proportional. Bob just makes a TON of noise, and it’s easy to focus on him because he’s an easy target and is just so abrasive about matters.

Maybe a ban would be a bad precedent because it would be a gray area, rather than a clean-cut black and white matter. Maybe there really aren’t enough conservatives to make an argument anyway… I don’t know. But my irritation with him has gotten to be enough that a ban seems justified. It’s up to the Entity as always.

Why ban what you can lampoon?

You must be the one European who likes Dubya. (Ooops! Excuse me, the second one, besides Major.) :lol:[/quote]

Ah, no, superficially at least we have most political views in common. I just consider you to be the liberal equivalent of Bob. Every time you write a sentance you usually do more to tarnish whatever good ideas that may lie at the core of your beliefs than you promote then, just like Bob, except that I don’t give a rat’s ass about Bob’s beliefs but I do not want my beliefs to be associated with you.