New rule: shut the fuck up about Bush

[Dunderman]

In this thread, rjung decided to ignore the premise of the thread to instead get in a cheap shot against Bush. As much as I agree with rjung, it's fucking annoying and boring. To avoid hijacking that thread I will respond to rjung here instead.

Originally Posted by rjung

Considering the OP is discussing nuclear war, government authorization, the destruction of civilization, and all that sort of stuff, I don't see how it's inappropriate.

It's inappropriate because it's off-topic (the Airman asks three specific questions, none of which have anything to do with Bush; you just leapt at the chance).

Originally Posted by rjung

Some of us think the craziness happening in the world today is at least as scary (if not more so) than the armagedden-hanging-over-our-heads Cold War paranoia of the last half-century; drawing parallels is hardly a reach.

I am one of those who think that, I am further to the left than you are, and I hate Bush with a passion, but that doesn't mean it isn't fucking boring to have every single discussion derail into a shitty flameparty about Bush, especially when it's completely pointless. Nothing new would have been said, no opinions altered. You're harming our cause, not helping it.

Originally Posted by rjung

You shouldn't hang around Great Debates then, methinks.

Sorry, missed the bit in the forum description where it said Great Debates were only for petty snipefests about modern American politics. Could you point it out for me?

In light of all this, I propose a new rule: shut the fuck up about Bush if it isn't specifically on-topic. You all know it's a hot button, but you just won't leave it alone. If the thread is about alcoholism, someone will say Bush is an alcoholic and someone else will dispute it, or someone will say he cured his alcoholism through faith and someone else will dispute it and off we go. If the thread is about ornithology, someone will say Bush's environmental policies are making birds extinct and off we go. If the thread is about Andromeda, someone will give voice to their fears that Bush will go there to eradicate any terrorists living there and off we fucking go.

I hate him too, I'd like to see him and everyone like him removed from power, but he's there and doing your best to turn this message board into a shitpile won't change that. Just leave it the fuck alone, says this very leftist but also extremely bored poster.

[askeptic]

Why do you hate America?

[Dunderman]

Originally Posted by askeptic

Why do you hate America?

Ooooh, that would take a while. That'll have to be a whole 'nother thread. I mean, it's so hard to pick one thing, isn't it?

[Miller]

A good start, but I think it can be further refined:

New Rule: rjung, shut the fuck up

There. One rule that solves many problems.

[Shodan]

Well, let's see - milroyj hijacked a thread to beat on one of his pet peeves. But it wasn't Bush-bashing, so...

rjung is a one-trick pony. I started a thread in Cafe Society about chilling last lines - the silly bastard tried to hijack that too with the same shit.

I doubt he has any political ideas beyond a knee-jerk tu quoque about Bush and the Iraq war. But by golly he gets about ten thousand miles of of that.

Regards,
Shodan

[UrbanChic]

Because it fits in with my ultra-conservative, neocon, Bushista viewpoint, I'm going to see this as a pitting of rjung. A richly deserved and far overdue pitting. I'm not sure if what I'm about say violates Board rules, but he's the only person I've ever considered putting on The List That Shall Not Be Named.

I don't have a problem with people who don't agree with my political leanings, but he just needs to give it a flippin' rest already. When he's not taking potshots at Bush, he's taking them at Microsoft.

All in all, his two worst crimes are being predictable and redundant. We get it. No, really, we do. You dislike for Microsoft is only paled by your dislike for Bush.

[NurseCarmen]

Originally Posted by UrbanChic

Your dislike for Microsoft is only paled by your dislike for Bush.

Yeah, but they both just suck so bad!

[UrbanChic]

I see someone else is angling for some The List action, too.

_{pssst. Thanks for correcting my typo. Seriously.}

[wring]

Originally Posted by Shodan

rjung is a one-trick pony. I started a thread in Cafe Society about chilling last lines - the silly bastard tried to hijack that too with the same shit.
Regards,
Shodan

in a cafe thread??? gotta link? (not that I doubt you, just wanna see how far he had to travel - I assume the thread wasn't about the Michael Moore film, right? )

In a cafe thread should be an easy and obvious smack down. hopefully some one did.

in a GD thread, it's more difficult, especially if the thread is about potential for nuclear war. I'd have a hellava difficult time voicing my thoughts about potentials for the future w/o bringing into the discussion how I think current events will effect them. So, yes, I would indeed be referencing BUsh. Be glad I haven't been in GD for a while.

[Dunderman]

Originally Posted by wring

in a GD thread, it's more difficult, especially if the thread is about potential for nuclear war. I'd have a hellava difficult time voicing my thoughts about potentials for the future w/o bringing into the discussion how I think current events will effect them. So, yes, I would indeed be referencing BUsh. Be glad I haven't been in GD for a while.

Did you read the thread? Airman Doors asked three very clear questions, none of which required a Bush reference to answer. rjung did it to stir up shit.

[danceswithcats]

Originally Posted by Priceguy

Did you read the thread? Airman Doors asked three very clear questions, none of which required a Bush reference to answer. rjung did it to stir up shit.

I believe what it comes down to is when the only tool in your kit is a hammer, you perceive all problems and situations as nails.

[JeffB]

Originally Posted by wring

in a cafe thread??? gotta link? (not that I doubt you, just wanna see how far he had to travel - I assume the thread wasn't about the Michael Moore film, right? )

From Creep Me Out With Your Closing Line.... :

Originally Posted by rjung

If we're not limiting ourselves to fiction, then I'll toss out:

"The future of the United States remains in the hands of a dishonest man."

[wring]

Originally Posted by Priceguy

Did you read the thread? Airman Doors asked three very clear questions, none of which required a Bush reference to answer. rjung did it to stir up shit.

yes, I read the thread.

did you read my answer?

That I would have a difficult time responding to that thread (ie those questions) without discussing the current events. I wouldn't have done it in the same way the rjung did, but rest assured that some mention of "premptive strike based on faulty intelligence claiming potential nuclear capability" would have been prominate in my response. Really I can't see any way around talking about the issues raised by the Iraqi invasion to adequately respond to questions about possablities of future nuclear war. Which would require some mention of the Bush adminstration.

Now, if friend Shodan will bring in the link the the cafe society thread, I'd gladly issue my own condemnation of an irrelevant Bush Hijack. Or, if rjung had done some of the other things you put in your OP (the alcoholism one in particular) I'd gladly join in.

but discuss potential for future nuclear action somehow without talking about current events? can't be reasonably done, IMHO.

[Dunderman]

Originally Posted by wring

but discuss potential for future nuclear action somehow without talking about current events? can't be reasonably done, IMHO.

The question was

Given the general bemusement and willingness of my classmates to push the button, in addition to their general ignorance of the fear that used to accompany nuclear weapons and the thought of nuclear war, should we be concerned about 30-40 years from now when that generation is in charge?

Is Bush going to be in power 30-40 years from now? Is he part of the generation Airman Doors speaks of? No? Then what does he have to do with that question?

[wring]

I see that JeffB has obliged. yep that deserves a smack down - did any mod come in and deliver it?

rjung - I don't post often anymore, but others may perhaps remember that I'm quite left leaning, find it difficult to walk down the street that way, but there it is.

I believe the only hope we have for the future is for all of us, all of us to start remembering that we're people. and that the similarities outweigh our differences (generally), that we want the best for our loved ones and our futures. We may, as adults disagree about what path is best for that, or what constitutes the 'best', but all in all, we can still find some topics to discuss rationally, or even playfully. What's your favorite Simposon line, or favorite recipe containing apples shouldn't be turned into the bitchfest that politics and other 'heavy' topics often turn into.

when you take the oppotunity to piss all over a thread where folks like Dio, and Shodan are enjoying each other's thoughts, you're (IMHO) encouraging strife, encouraging rifts, encouraging pointless dissention. IN short, (again, IMHO), doing everything I hate about closed minded folks on either side of the spectram.

I, for one, would be very grateful if you would knock it the fuck off. You see, when folks on my end of the argument do shit like that, it's easier for the folks on the other side to dismiss any relevant point you may ever have, and relevant points others may "Oh, that's just leftist nonesense" and all. And that bugs the shit out of me, makes my (liberal but not a fucking lunatic) job harder. Pretty please?

[wring]

Originally Posted by Priceguy

The question wasIs Bush going to be in power 30-40 years from now? Is he part of the generation Airman Doors speaks of? No? Then what does he have to do with that question?

Criminey, Priceguy - Airman himself in his OP referred to his childhood recollections of bomb drills and so on effecting his outlook. No, Bush personally won't be in charge in 30/40 years, but the kids of today (who Airman was posting about) are spending their formative years NOW, hence my belief that their perceptions will be contoured by todays' fucking events which of course includes the fucking Bush administration.

how on earth can you even answer the question about how "today's youth" will behave when they're in power in a few decades without reflecting on what they are living through now? The people who lived through the first stages of the "sex revolution" in the 70's have radically different (from my personal experience/observation) views on sex than those who were reaching sexual maturity during the beginnings of the AIDS epidemic in the US, vs. young people of today. OF COURSE their personal experiences relative to the times will have an effect. OF COURSE it makes sense to take that into account when attempting to speculate on what course they will steer.

I aggree with you that rjung is capable of idiotic hijacks about BUsh. I agree that his wording wasn't what I'd have used, but to attempt to claim that the realities of recent events have no place in a discussion about potential nuclear posturing 30/40 years from now is, IMHO, idiotic.

[Khadaji]

I don't post in the pit often, I don't enjoy the tone that often comes with being here.

But I wanted to say that in principle I agree with the OP. rjung, your presence on the board would be far more enjoyable if you could limit your Bush comments to the occasional pit rant. I have seen some of posts of yours that were quite witty and intelligent, showing that you are more than the embodiment of anti-Bush sentiments.

Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge you your beliefs, but I would prefer you didn't inject them into quite so many threads that have no relationship. Please, keep it in the pit and keep it in threads that are specifically about Bush.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by wring

I see that JeffB has obliged. yep that deserves a smack down - did any mod come in and deliver it?

No, I don't think anyone reported it. A moderator was participating in the thread, so I figured if anything needed to be done, it would happen.

:shrugs: Another thread, another hijack from rjung, Founding Member of the "Too Tedious to Pit" Lamebrains of the Lockstep Left.

But it's nice to hear from you, wring.

Regards,
Shodan

And thanks for providing the cite, JeffB.

[NurseCarmen]

Originally Posted by UrbanChic

_{pssst. Thanks for correcting my typo. Seriously.}

_{well, technically I was breaking the rules by altering your quote, but I figured you wouldn't tell.}

[wring]

Originally Posted by Shodan

No, I don't think anyone reported it. A moderator was participating in the thread, so I figured if anything needed to be done, it would happen.

I wouldn't make that type of assumption - a. they might have glossed over it, b, figured that it didn't bother anyone. but that's your call.

Originally Posted by Shodan

But it's nice to hear from you, wring.

Regards,
Shodan

back atchya

[BabaBooey]

Originally Posted by Khadaji

I have seen some of posts of yours that were quite witty and intelligent, showing that you are more than the embodiment of anti-Bush sentiments.

Cite?

[Cervaise]

Originally Posted by Shodan

rjung is a one-trick pony. I started a thread in Cafe Society about chilling last lines - the silly bastard tried to hijack that too with the same shit.

I doubt he has any political ideas beyond a knee-jerk tu quoque about Bush and the Iraq war. But by golly he gets about ten thousand miles of of that.

This might be the only thing in the entire universe on which we agree. I am hardly a fan of President Monkeyhouse and his cartel of reactionary goons, but there are, absolutely, without question, times and places where it's appropriate to bring up, and where it's not. rjung has been cut way too much slack on this, and in the interest of fair play (not to mention making our side look better by reducing the obnoxiousness quotient ), it's time to rein him in.

[SteveG1]

Same here. My politics are not hidden. But the world does not revolve around Bush, he is not some sort of elemental "He who is everywhere in all things". If we are in a thread about U.S. politics, or certain more worldwide things, OK. But let's not turn everything into a Bush thread.

[wring]

Originally Posted by SteveG1

Same here. My politics are not hidden. But the world does not revolve around Bush, he is not some sort of elemental "He who is everywhere in all things". If we are in a thread about U.S. politics, or certain more worldwide things, OK. But let's not turn everything into a Bush thread.

I agree, but since the thread of the OP was something like "potential for nuclear wars in the future", can't ya kinda see how Bush's current policies might be a relevant point? I agree rjung has been cut way to much slack. the cafe thread, for example, should have been (MHO and all) a smack down. any of the fake examples in the OP, sure. but the thread cited by the OP? NIMHO.

[SteveG1]

Yes Wring, I can see it easily. I was talking about threads, where talk of Bush being at fault for "whatever" really don't fit.

[rjung]

Geez louise, anyone who thinks I'm a "one-trick pony" must have missed the dozens and dozens of messages I've posted in the various SDMB forums that have nothing to do with George, Dick, Condi, Donald, or Paul (I'd dig up the Hitchhikers' Guide To the Galaxy thread in Cafe Society, but I'm being a lazy bastich right now).

But then, selective memories make the pitting that much easier, don't they?

Originally Posted by wring

I see that JeffB has obliged. yep that deserves a smack down

Nice trick, considering that neither the title of the work nor the subject was ever identified...

[John Mace]

Uhm.... it isn't exactly a laudable virtue to be able to discuss "Hitchhiker.." without mentioning Bush. Everyone can do that. When even those who share your politics tell you to cool it, you might think about listening. That is, if there is another trick in that pony somewhere....

[elfbabe]

I hate Bush. In fact, I hate him SO MUCH that I'd prefer NOT to read about him in threads on completely unrelated topics.

I'm a radical, I know. But I stand by it.

[Reeder]

eh...

The chimpmeister is fair game.

[Uvula Donor]

Originally Posted by Reeder

eh...

The chimpmeister is fair game.

Couldn't see that coming...

[JohnT]

Well, if Bush wasn't such a friggin' idiot, rjung would have nothing to bitch about, would he? WOULD HE?????

Huh. I thought not.













What???

[Metacom]

Originally Posted by John Mace

That is, if there is another trick in that pony somewhere....

This pony has two tricks.

I kid, I kid. rjung isn't so bad. He's nowhere near, say, reeder. But giving Bush a break for a bit may not be completely uncalled for...

[Scott Plaid]

Originally Posted by JohnT

What???

Don't look at me, JohnT, I agree with you on this.

[SteveG1]

If Bush never even existed, there's always someone else we could pick on. There is no shortage in the world of politics.

By the way, ever notice how much he looks like Curious George? Hmm his name is George too.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Metacom

This pony has two tricks.

I kid, I kid. rjung isn't so bad. He's nowhere near, say, reeder. But giving Bush a break for a bit may not be completely uncalled for...

Maybe he can use that as his sig: "Hey, I'm not as bad as reeder."

[Frank]

Originally Posted by rjung

Nice trick, considering that neither the title of the work nor the subject was ever identified...

Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail '72 - Hunter S. Thompson (in re Tricky Dick)?

I suppose I should simulpost this in the other thread.

[Reeder]

Please post the the last time before today I bashed him.

Thanks.

[SteveG1]

If you're gonna get blamed, you may as well join the fun? [running off to hide now].

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Reeder

Please post the the last time before today I bashed him.

Thanks.

What's wrong? Are you jealous that rjung is being Pitted for serial Bush-bashing instead of you? Relax, I'm sure you'll get your turn again before long.

[Reeder]

Originally Posted by John Mace

What's wrong? Are you jealous that rjung is being Pitted for serial Bush-bashing instead of you? Relax, I'm sure you'll get your turn again before long.

Nah.

Playing with idiots is only fun for so long.

Then it gets old.

[Zoe]

Priceguy, I think you picked the wrong thread to use as the basis as your criticism. After all, even Airman mentioned "the President" and "Reagan." It is not difficult to think that today's President might be relevant to today's generation.

It should also be noted that President Bush was mentioned as part of an answer to one of Airman's questions. (He answered all three.)

No offense to you personally, but it was your chastizement that was the hijack for me. I thought his post was on OT.

One of the other examples you mentioned might have been a better illustration of your point.

[SteveG1]

Considering the nature of this thread, and observing that I still couldn't resist getting my own shot at the Prez in, I withdraw my previous comments. It would be hypocritical to join the "opposition" when I was guilty of it right here too.

[Rufus Xavier]

I'm surprised that so many people have characterized rjung as a "one-trick pony." Looking at the two threads linked to, as well as his last 20 posts, I disagree with that characterization, and have decided that this is the least-deserved pitting of an individual poster that I have seen in a long time.

[Reeder]

Originally Posted by Rufus Xavier

I'm surprised that so many people have characterized rjung as a "one-trick pony." Looking at the two threads linked to, as well as his last 20 posts, I disagree with that characterization, and have decided that this is the least-deserved pitting of an individual poster that I have seen in a long time.

Duh.

[Excalibre]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Well, let's see - milroyj hijacked a thread to beat on one of his pet peeves. But it wasn't Bush-bashing, so...

rjung is a one-trick pony. I started a thread in Cafe Society about chilling last lines - the silly bastard tried to hijack that too with the same shit.

I doubt he has any political ideas beyond a knee-jerk tu quoque about Bush and the Iraq war. But by golly he gets about ten thousand miles of of that.

Regards,
Shodan

See, now you've hurt your cause. Because you've pointed out the only vaguely positive thing that can be said about rjung - at least he's not as big an ass as milroyj was.

Anyway, I fully support Miller's rule. I'd love to see every irrelevant political hijack go, but we could get about half of 'em if Miller's rule was implemented.

rjung does one thing that's good, though. He unites us - Democrat and Republican - behind a common cause. Trying to get him to shut his goddamn mouth.

Originally Posted by rjung

Geez louise, anyone who thinks I'm a "one-trick pony" must have missed the dozens and dozens of messages I've posted in the various SDMB forums that have nothing to do with George, Dick, Condi, Donald, or Paul (I'd dig up the Hitchhikers' Guide To the Galaxy thread in Cafe Society, but I'm being a lazy bastich right now).

But then, selective memories make the pitting that much easier, don't they?

rjung, let me say this one America-hatin' leftist to another: I don't care if you've posted ten thousand messages unrelated to Bush, each of whose poignant prose is outshadowed only by the depth of thought and research therein. You post countless utterly irrelevant Bush-related hijacks. I doubt I'm a bigger fan of the dude than you are. But that doesn't mean it's acceptable to try to end discussions by turning them into screaming hatefests.

No one really cares whether you're a "one-trick pony" or not (you've certainly got at least one other) because even one of these stupid hijacks is too many, and you've posted far more than one. Even if your ratio of good posts to irrelevant hijacks was a hundred to one, it's still too many when I see them in what seems like every other thread I read. (And don't make me count your posts and do the math. I'll get bored, and it'll end up embarrassing for you.)

Originally Posted by Reeder

Please post the the last time before today I bashed him.

Thanks.

Why does it matter? We all see you do it, all the time. Taking a week or two off between bashings is not such a great achievement. And even if you prove you've done it, who cares? Do you think we'll all forget what we've seen? You can't argue your way out of people finding your conduct annoying.

Originally Posted by Rufus Xavier

I'm surprised that so many people have characterized rjung as a "one-trick pony." Looking at the two threads linked to, as well as his last 20 posts, I disagree with that characterization, and have decided that this is the least-deserved pitting of an individual poster that I have seen in a long time.

Think of it as symbolic of our hatred of all irrelevant Bush hijacks. These two are the biggest offenders, but that doesn't mean we think they should go away, or that their posts are always without value. It's just that we've seen it enough times that we're really sick of it. Both contribute elsewhere - but that doesn't make it okay for them to do this. There's not some magical ratio that you have to keep your irrelevant hijacking below for it to be okay.


. . .


Ok, ok, I'll stop. I just take this crap personally because I'd really like to make that whole "irrational screaming leftist" thing even less accurate around here. I don't like sorta implicitly feeling like I'm in a category with these two.

[Squink]

Originally Posted by Zoe

Priceguy, I think you picked the wrong thread to use as the basis as your criticism.

Yes, that thread is just begging to go off into ABM, nonproliferation and other treaty issues that impact MAD. It'd be quite a trick to bring any of that up without mentioning Bush.

[Dunderman]

For the people who think rjung's comment was on-topic, focus on this part of my original post instead:

I propose a new rule: shut the fuck up about Bush if it isn't specifically on-topic. You all know it's a hot button, but you just won't leave it alone. If the thread is about alcoholism, someone will say Bush is an alcoholic and someone else will dispute it, or someone will say he cured his alcoholism through faith and someone else will dispute it and off we go. If the thread is about ornithology, someone will say Bush's environmental policies are making birds extinct and off we go. If the thread is about Andromeda, someone will give voice to their fears that Bush will go there to eradicate any terrorists living there and off we fucking go.

I hate him too, I'd like to see him and everyone like him removed from power, but he's there and doing your best to turn this message board into a shitpile won't change that. Just leave it the fuck alone, says this very leftist but also extremely bored poster.

"You", above, is the collective "you".

[duffer]

Originally Posted by Reeder

Please post the the last time before today I bashed him.

Thanks.

Please post the last illegal war Bush started. If was more than a week ago, everything gets reset to zero. Didn't you read the entire memo?

[rjung]

Originally Posted by Rufus Xavier

Looking at the two threads linked to, as well as his last 20 posts, I disagree with that characterization, and have decided that this is the least-deserved pitting of an individual poster that I have seen in a long time.

Aw, you're not playing along with the game, Rufus! It's very simple:

1. Somebody tosses out a broad generalization as an excuse to pit a "controversial" poster.
2. Other folks of a similar ideological bent use that as an excuse to pile on the dude.
3. Insults are exchanged until people get tired of slinging crap, and everyone retires to their respective corners.
4. After an indeterminate amount of time X, rinse, lather, and repeat.

Me, I'm just mildly amused by this, especially watching The Usual Suspects^tm jump through the hoops. I know Shodan's week has been made already, as this thread is the closest thing to an orgasm he'll have until mid-June.

Originally Posted by Excalibre

You post countless utterly irrelevant Bush-related hijacks.

To you, they're "utterly irrelevant Bush-related hijacks." To me, they're mere slivers of my "I'm mad as hell at having the name and honor of my beloved country dragged through the mud by a bunch of hairy-knuckled troglodytes, and I ain't taking it any more" fury peeking through.

If it bothers you so much, may I recommend judicious use of this board's Ignore List functionality? Trust me, it won't bother me none...

[Dunderman]

Originally Posted by rjung

1. Somebody tosses out a broad generalization as an excuse to pit a "controversial" poster.

You're not controversial, not even "controversial". Also, this is not a pitting of you, it's a thread with a dual purpose: it allows me to respond to you without hijacking the Great Debates thread, and it allows me to pit this behaviour, which I've been thinking about doing for quite some time. You just gave me the opportunity.

2. Other folks of a similar ideological bent use that as an excuse to pile on the dude.

You're either a moron or an illiterate. Which is it?