On a related note, I had an evil thought that if we’d elected Nader, he’d mostly be worried about the pollution from the burning buildings. So, I am glad he’s not Prez, and I think he’s probably glad he’s not Prez.
Robin
Hmm…
I think I used to know a Ranger named Arden…'course, I also think I was a bard named Kutter at the time, so it probably never happened…
I’m not particular…I’ll sit on the side that has the most alcohol and the loosest morals…
I for one have noticed that Stoid seems to have closed Bush bashing season for the duration of this crises (for reasons of national unity I presume.)
I think that’s a classy choice.
Different worlds, I think. Although…
I know several Rogues.
Monster104, don’t forget what Uncle Beer said.
AFAIK, the SDMB isn’t a popularity contest, and the popularity of my opinions are not at issue. If a moderator, speaking in a moderator’s capacity, tells me that I must not post unpopular political opinions in SDMB, I will comply. If this happens, the SDMB will change from a place where Ignorance is fought, to a little corner of the Taliban where political dissent is suppressed. Consider carefully. We have met the enemy and he is us.
I repeat: I have never said that Bush caused the attacks. I have never expressed anything but sympathy for the victims. I HAVE expressed my contempt for the way this tragedy is being handled by Bush, the media, and the public, and I’ve done everything I can to support my opinions with factual information and cites. This is my little battle against Ignorance. And that is what SDMB is all about.
This isn’t the first time that I’ve heard her name. If you’ll check the record I believe that you’ll find her voting record indicates that she is more interested with her specific agenda than the general good of the country.
Bullshit. You’ve repeatedly asserted half-baked nonsense as indisputable fact throughout that “Where will Bush start a war?” thread. When called on these facts, by myself, gobear, and others, you’ve equivocated and rationalized to the point that nobody could possibly take you seriously any longer. You’re officially a joke, Chas.
May I be the first to say “WTF??”
And the first to add “:rolleyes:”
Yep. This message board was created simply for you to fight your “little battles.” However, you don’t seem to have won any of those “little battles” yet. Keep trying though. We’re enjoying the entertainment.
Not that I agree with Nader on much of anything, not even a little bit, but the man does seem to be unquestionably patriotic. Has deluded ideas about what America stands for, IMHO, but loves this country dearly. I have no idea what he’d do if it was him in the Oval Office, though.
[Mod Hat: ON]
And you shouldn’t forget that it was just as directed towards you as it was to him. If you’re going to be a jerk over every time he posts in the same thread as you, then perhaps we should judge how much a jerk you’re being. We’re not going to paint a white line through the forums so that you can post on one side and he on the other.
[Mod Hat: OFF]
As a moderator, I state fully that you can post whatever political opinions you want, so long as they are not obviously racist, sexist, or anti-semitic. However, you must take full responsibility for appearing the fool and being razzed in the Pit when you refuse to change your beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence.
And generally been rebutted.
I should point out that, in order to fight Ignorance, one must not be upon the same side as it. But that would be far too catty to say.
(And thanks to all of the liberals, conservatives, and moderates who have remained rational, sane, and calm in the discussions across this board. I hope I live up to your examples.)
Would you like some cream with that, John?
I prefer skim milk, actually.
Some people can never be convinced. You wouldn’t believe in a smoking gun if someone gave it to you with the muzzle still warm. I call that Ignorance. I can’t combat all ignorance, especially when I’m being tag-teamed by everyone and I am the sole defender. Besides, I’m busy with other discussions too. My political statements represent the far minority of my activities.
Southernstyle, a congresswoman’s role is to represent her constituency. This is rarely a role where one acts in the interests of the country as a whole. BTW, nobody pokes fun at Jeannete Rankin’s sole dissenting vote against the WWII declaration of war, they still consider her a woman of principle and her name and statements are in the history books. I would be gravely concerned if every declaration of war (or equivalent) didn’t get at least ONE dissenting vote.
Jeep’s phoenix, I didn’t start any of these arguments, I’m not here to push my agenda, except insofar as it is a rebuttal of an already existing discussion. The only exception was the only vaguely WTC-related thread I started about music censorship. I’m not here to push an agenda like seethruart or others of his ilk.
Here’s a hint, doofus: stop making shit up. Makes the fight against ignorance ever so much more effective.
Just because you are a man/woman of principle doesn’t mean you’re right.
FGI, I’m slightly conservative, leaning towards the “Just fuck off and don’t bother me” stance.
There is a vast difference between being rebutted and being shouted down. I cannot conduct simultaneous debates with the entire world. It is like playing blindfold chess with a hundred opponents. While I’m trying to prove some point, others go unrebutted due to time constraints, and they feel they’ve won by default. I note, with distaste, that this lapse is usually followed by an obscenity-laced “victory dance.” Is it any wonder I prioritize my discussions to focus on the more level-headed participants?
If a single person would care to engage me in debate on these issues, without coaching from interested bystanders, I would be amenable to it. But I’m not looking for a political debate with the entire SDMB. For that matter, I’m not looking for ANY political debate. But fair is fair, I’ll stand or fall on my own two feet, if any single representative is willing to do the same. Mano a mano, just like your hero El Presidente, eh?
Well, the fact that the entire world disagrees with you should tell you something about your stance.
Furthermore, I don’t see how the number of people on the opposite side has anything to do with how accurate you are able to be. It is not any harder to stick to the facts just because there are more people challenging them.
Although, in your case, I suppose that having only one opponent would kind of limit the ability to remove all the pure bullshit from your posts.
Here’s a hint for ya, buddy. When your ideas and opinions are being ‘tag-teamed by everyone’ except you at a place like the SDMB, it means your being a fucking jackass. This board has a wide variety of very learned people who are quite tolerant of others.
It’s when people like you state garbage like Bush’s Kyoto or missle defense policy caused the WTC terrorist attack that the tag teaming starts. Now before you claim ‘I didn’t say any such thing!’ here is the cite:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=87875
As has been stated before in this thread, you’re a joke. You’re arguments are laughable and honestly, I cannot believe that the people here would waste their valuable time arguing with you about it.
He’s got a point waterj2. Arguing with a whole pile of people throwing one bit of disinformation after another can be every bit as tough as fighting intentional ignorance. The man’s words are frequently no closer to pure bullshit than yours.