Of course I consider other viewpoints. You don’t expect me to argue them do you? I could, but that’s not why I come here.
I enjoy debate. It is entertaining to me. I like to take up the cause and do battle for it. That’s the entire reason I come here. By “here”, I mean GD, not the rest of the board. You wanna make friends, share recipes, make lists of favorite movies, share bad date stories, there is no better place in all of webdom than MPSIMS.
Why do you come here? Seriously. Are you entertained by debate? Are you seriously hoping you are going to make people think differently? (It happens occasionally, but only as an aberrant by-product of the process, not as a regular feature) What is your purpose in hanging out here and playing advocate for what you believe?
“I reject political correctness as the height of hypocrisy and political fashion as a poor basis for determining social/fiscal policy.”
Better? Poor parsing of the verbage on my part, I readily admit. If you like the corrected version, I’ll put it in my manifesto, with due credit to you for editorial support.
:takes a bow:
Is that the only thing you had a beef with? I must’ve done better than I thought.
Hey, moderator-type person: how is being called essentially an “untrustworthy, selfish me-monkey” (condensed for brevity) signifigantly different from being called a “frothing little goober”?
Should I have called her “an uninitiated half-wit who substitutes ill-concealed generalizations for specific insults and illogical ramblings for coherent thought in furtherance of a rabidly partisan agenda”?
While I admit that it more accurately represents her style of posting and her brand of logic, “frothing little goober” certainly possesses the virtue of brevity, without sacrificing honesty.
But I would be remiss in pointing out that M-W defines “goober” as a peanut, and a thesaurus search yielded no derogatory synonyms (actually no synonyms at all, suprisingly enough).
So technically, I called her a “frothing little peanut”, which lacks a certain bite. But it beats hell out of being lumped as an “untrustworthy, self-serving me-monkey” by a commie #$%&@ who hates soldiers and Republicans, and who layers her contempt with the thinnest patina of political intellectualism as a defense.
Hey Stoidela: did you by a VFW poppy and wear it last Friday? All it costs is whatever you want to donate. Light a candle in rememberance of a friend or family member who died in battle? Attend or march in a parade commemorating veterans and their sacrifices?
I know we’re not “your kind of people”, but would it kill you to hold your nose and stand next to one of us for a few moments once a year to thank us for your continued freedom to publicly insult large swaths of the American population? Some of us Vets are Democrats too, you know.
Wouldn’t they be your kind of people? Couldn’t they be, for just one day a year?
Just FYI: This untrustworthy, selfish me-monkey has bought VFW poppies every year since I was old enough to understand what they were about. I’ve marched in Veteran’s Day parades and pushed crippled veterans in their wheelchairs during those parades since before I graduated Jr. High. I volunteer time to mow lawns and tend grounds in Veteran’s cemetaries, and attend veteran’s homes for visits.
My charitable contributions may not be to your personal tastes, but how dare you impugn mine and other’s generosity and charitable contributions based upon your political beliefs?
In response to the title of this thread, you are unworthy of the cost of a bullet, and I wouldn’t sully my mind (never pure at the best of times) or any one of my numerous firearms, with such unworthy thoughts and deeds.
I’d rather donate the cost of the bullet to the Democratic Party, or eat it myself. So quit flattering yourself.
exTank:
While I can scarcely object to being mistaken for a luminous firefly type-person, I feel I must point out that the quote was mine, not RT’s. As to whether that was the only thing I had a beef with, I actually had no beef with any of it.
My response was intended to do a couple of things. First, to suggest an irony in your post, which also contained the phrase, “you consistently make blatant and highly insulting generalisations.” Second, to point out gently that you were perhaps skirting some boundaries in forum behavior.
I leave it to others to decide whether my message was understood.
… for reasons I’ve outline in the Pit thread dedicated to her.
With regard to the question, however, as to why Bush would reject Gore’s offer …
If you believe, as Bush has stated from the beginning, that counting punch-card ballots by hand is a lousy way to determine the legal, certifiable vote, why in the hell would you accept Gore’s “offer?”
Has anyone else seen the film footage of people in these election precincts where the hand-counts are going on, grabbing big blocks of ballots and bending and fanning them back and forth?
Do you really think you get an accurate vote when ballots that include perforated little pieces get handled several times over? Have you heard the story about chads all over the floors of these election precincts? Have you wondered how they’ve gotten there? If not, perhaps you should.
There’s a reason why Florida’s (and all other states’) election laws include deadlines for submitting results. Because after a certain point, the need to have a result supercedes the need for wrangling toward a particular result. If that provision wasn’t included in the law, this could go on with no foreseeable end.
The duly elected Secretary of State who, by law, oversees elections in the state of Florida, will likely certify this absolutely final vote on Saturday, when all of the overseas absentee ballots are in and counted.
For any who don’t like the result of that, tough. For those who support the rule of law, feel free to celebrate.
She said that a Republican judge was “in collusion”; she did not refer to you directly and insultingly at all prior to your insult. (Not that “she started it!” is considered an acceptable excuse for breaking the rules of this forum, anyhow) Any remarks about the relative selfishness of conservatives were made in another thread, and you have chosen to drag it into this one. Regarding that thread, it is no different that the other threads we have in GD that argue that atheists lack morals, theists are stupid, liberals are hypocritical, homosexuals are mutants, Libertarians don’t care about the poor, etc. It is a generalization about a group of people with supporting arguments, regardess of how poor those arguments may be, or how poor you think they may be. It is not a direct personal insult towards you to say less-than-glowing things about a group you may happen to belong to. You’ll note the “why I don’t trust liberals” thread is still around, it’s just neither the OP or the later posters ever bothered to make any freaking arguments. I should close that thread since it’s not and never was a debate, but I was assuming someone would actually try to debate the OP at some point!
But “half-wit” is a direct insult, and inappropriate to Great Debates.
But “frothing little goober” is a direct insult, and inappropriate to Great Debates.
Did she directly call you–or any other particular poster–an “untrustworthy, self-serving me-monkey”? I do not recall that phrase. I suspect she said some cutting things about Republicans in general, just as you have said some cutting things about liberals in general.
What, you think I am unaware of slang? You certainly aren’t. “Goober” means “idiot” (as I believe you are using it) or “pathetic schmuck below my level” or “booger”. (I believe it is also used as a racial slur, but that may just have been my neck of the woods and I don’t know if Stoid is black.) I don’t think you can make a plausible argument that you were not attempting to directly insult her here, so kindly don’t insult us by pretending you meant no offense.
NOW:
I told you immediately previously that this forum is not the proper place to discuss our moderating abilities. You apparently elected to ignore this. Any further complaining posts on this thread–heck, any anywhere in this forum anytime soon–regarding our moderatorial decisions will be deleted and you may, at your leisure, repost your gripe in the proper forum (or email it to us or the admins). From the BBQ Pit description: “This is the place for all complaints and other discussion regarding administration of the SDMB”.
I have never fought with you, to my knowledge, and so I do not bear you any long-past grudge. But your behavior in the forum violates the rules, and I will enforce those rules. I will not stand to see this thread hijacked further by your defense of your insults and your accusations towards my capabilites at my job.
Well, I know stoid can be VERY partisan, but here, in this thread, she seemed OK, and reasonable.
Next, I do not think there is anyone who really beleives, that if all the folks votes were cast & counted as they INTENDED them to be counted- that Gore would win FLA. Bush is not tring to stop the recounts because he thinks he will get more votes, you know. And Fla law does say that elections can be overturned if they do not represent “the will of the voters”. And this Election, clearly- does not. Now, it is also true, if just simple or dumb or careless mistakes prevent that “will of the people”- the Election stands. So, if you are pro-Bush, you can certainly say that that- DESPITE that the “will of the people” is not being reflected- it is their own damn fault for not being more careful. Umm, Ok, I can see that, as legal perhaps- but certainly anti-democratic. But, it can be argued as fair.
Finally, the SoS is very biased- there is no doubt about that. Jeb recused himself, as well as several judges because they were clearly biased- and so she should have.
I don’t think it’s jsut semantics. Winning and getting a majority are very different things. That majority needs to hold til its over. It ain’t over yet.
I should probably be asking this in ATMB and if told to I will.
Why are we only allowed to question the moderators in the one forum where rational arguments really aren’t considered to have any legitimacy?
Not that I am complaining about the moderators, I am generally happy with the moderation of these boards and have no complaint about your actions in this thread. I was just curious.
I’ll answer that question in the perceived spirit in which it was given…
I come here because I get bored a lot.
To expand on that, I’ve found a great deal of both conflicting, uplifting, supportive, deportive, and all-around interesting threads/posts/viewpoints/whatever. I’ve also found a medium in which I can express my own viewpoints to the best of my ability. I rarely seek to “change one’s mind” or to impart any serious or significant influence on another. After all, it’s only a message board, and a poor means of trying to convince others of alternating viewpoints.
That said, I also get slightly miffed at people who “shoot their mouths off”. Let me explain: There are issues which people get very passionate over. Obviously, the current Florida debacle is one that you seem very passionate about, and you make no secret of which way you lean. It’s seemed to come up in more threads than the standard homosexuality or gun control issue, which leads me to think that you’re far more (I really don’t mean this in an insulting way) obsessive about the presidential race than most… it goes beyond a mere “interest”, if you will.
I would have preferred that you (and everyone, including myself) managed to maintain a healthy dose of calmness and objectivity about the issue. That, of course, is flawed reasoning on my part, as there are numerous issues of which I get very biased and “partisan” about, so me advocating “objectivity” from everyone is rather unrealistic.
So I guess my “hostility” towards you (a very slight hostility, especially when compared to some others) isn’t so much based on your political stance, but how you word it. For that I apologize, as I was ignoring your message and focusing on the method with which you expressed it.
Gah! You post that right after I tell someone to not do that?! ::sigh:: But since you’re here…
The reason I don’t like it is it’s an incredible hijack. This thread was at one time about politics, not “do the mods suck?” or “why can’t I call someone a goober?”, yet we’ve had seven posts in this relatively short thread regarding a simple warning for an insult. At best, threads about the board should be in ATMB; we think The Pit is best for comments about the actual adminstration of the board since they quite often lead to flamewars or simply start out as someone flaming the mods. Being in the Pit does not mean a mod will not respond rationally to a reasonable question about the rules (see my recent response to peace’s question, properly posted in the Pit), and it keeps the other forums clean for those people who just want to talk to their friends, ask and answer questions or debate, and who hate to see squabbling about the running of the MB interfering with their General Questions, Debates or Mundane Pointless Stuff. Most people, I suspect, don’t want their question about cat pee or their story about their dogs or their abortion debates interrupted by an arguement about how the board should be run. I sure don’t.
Now, if anyone has any further comments on this, take it to the Pit!
Perhaps, but I think objections to her behavior can be made on very reasonable grounds.
In the first place, it was extremely poor judgment on her part to become Bush’s campaign co-chair in Florida. The duties of her office are directly involved with the certification of election results. This duty is to all the people of Florida. Her choice to actively endorse and camapign for one candidate makes it impossible for her office to maintain an appearance of objectivity.
Now, if the election were not close, and if her discretion as Secretary of State were not so directly involved with determining the result, it is likely that her poorchoice would simpy have slipped by under the radar of public scrutiny. But that didn’t happen. Instead, she has taken an active, even a proactive role in discouraging hand recounts that might damage the plurality of the candidate she campaigned for. Now, I am by no means saying that it is impossible for a person to express a passionate partisanship and yet be able to act dispassionately and objectively in the exercise of her duties.
But once she violates the impartiality of her office, which she did by actively campaigning for a candidate in a race over which she had supervisory authority, she has lost the presumption of objectivity. Failing to recuse herself due to conflict of interest after actively campaigning for one candidate certainly does nothing to reassure this Florida voter that she has managed to recover the impartiality of office which she should never have sacrificed in the first place.
Believe as you will that the Bush camp doesn’t want hand recounts because it will more accurately reflect the will of Florida voters and Bush will lose.
Doesn’t make it true, but feel free to believe it.
The Bush camp believes hand recounts will be less accurate, and less reflective of the will of the people. The way the relatively fragile ballots are being handled repeatedly; the lack of consistent, objective criteria for evaluating a ballot from county to county and even WITHIN THE SAME COUNTY; chads on the floor; etc.
You just reject all of that, then? Say so. Don’t pretend, however, that a counterpoint to your argument hasn’t been put forth.
To me, this repugnant conduct is more repellent than Bush and Gore’s behavior combined (just kidding). Her inability to fulfill the charter of her own office is so disgusting as to render me nearly speechless.
Thank goodness you have put it so eloquently. The shameless toadying that her conduct represents, of its own accord, could sufficiently taint any potential win by Bush worse than Bush’s own vote hand-counting hypocrisy.
I have refrained from commenting in a lot of these threads as I wait for the results to be tallied. However, the outright usurpment of the will of the Floridian voters by their own SoS is so reprehensible that Bush himself should request that she recuse herself. His unwillingness to do so bespeaks a “win at any cost” mentality that has no place in our Democracy.
Again, thank you Spiritus Mundi for consistently voicing your ideas in a calm and exacting fashion. Even if you were arguing against the Democrat’s position, I could only respect the clarity of your arguments.
Well, maybe somebody has sucessfully rebutted the argument, and I just missed it. However, so far I haven’t seen any counter to the fact that Bush signed in a Texas law preferring hand counts to machine counts. Hmmm…
Myrr, have you read the reports of all the chads they had to sweep off the floor? How many of those chads do you think were poked out that wouldn’t have counted otherwise? The thing is, no one knows for sure. However, that is sufficient for speculation of innaccurate and fraudulent recounting. That’s why Bush supporters are against hand recounts.
By the way, does anyone wonder how long a statewide hand recount would take? Gore claims it would take 7 days. However, I believe that to be a blatant lie (More realistically, it would take between 30-60 days). It took them 5 hours to hand recount 4000 votes…how long will it take to hand recount 6 million? Remember, the electors cast the electoral votes on December 18. If an elector isn’t decided by then, that state’s electoral votes could be thrown out, and the winner of the remaining electoral votes would be president. Could Gore be trying to string out the counting so this would happen?
By the way, I’m pretty sure I’m incorrect on the 6 million number. I’ll check it later, but hopefully everybody gets the drift of what I’m saying. For now, homework calls.
