Dude, back away from the crack-pipe. This has nothing to do with whether or not **Mr. Moto ** has the common sense to see that Bush is a dumb cunt. It has to do with a stupid law and his support of that law. Jayzuz! Where do you get this stuff?
So much for me thinking it was pot.
You’re all morons.
You’ve turned the issue of the OP - in which Moto suggests Kalhoun is wrong not because of her position, not because of her ideas, but the way she represented them - into a partisan bicker-fest.
I have noticed the boards “getting nastier” but not I think in the way it was meant. It seems like any issue that could in any way affect politics even a tiny amount gets blown up into this ridiculous running liberals/conservatives snarkfest. Things aren’t nastier, per se, people are just more willing to ignore what actually might be the issue (on which, I can only assume, they have pisspoor arguments) and define it as a partisan issue. Oh, you’ve insulted me, that’s proof all liberals are idiots! You’re disagreeing with my position, you fool - and isn’t that typical of conservatives?
Like I said, you’re all morons. And so am I for posting this. But at least I realise it.
But it wasn’t good. I mean, it wasn’t bad. But it wasn’t something that merited a series of me-too cheers. It was just a fairly run of the mill smack-down. For me, a good post would be one that facilitated an understanding among one another. But then, it’s like Luc says, as a liberal, I’ve never known victory. Maybe if overnight we were all free from coercion, I’d be worse than all the leftists combined! 
Words that should be written in flaming letters for all to see. 
I’ll grant it weren’t no Shakespeare, but it seems to have been a defining moment in the thread. She stood her ground well, and the ovarian cyst comment was gold, pure gold.
Are you seriously suggesting that if Mr. Moto was a registered Bush-hater, that we’d all have piled on Kalhoun? For the crime of using sarcasm in a GD thread?
Heavens to betsy!
Okay, then it restored the status quo. She stood her ground, leftists are having a party, rightists are licking wounds, libertarians are going “what the fuck?”, and authoritarians are trying to devise a suitable central plan for us all. Hooray. I guess.
You’ve been nippin’ at the giggle juice, too, I see. I think you confuse understanding with agreement. I understand exactly what Moto was saying. I simply don’t agree with it. Because I didn’t agree with it and because he can’t tell the difference between statements, questions, accusations, or sarcasm, he decided to call a conservative jihad on me here in the pit.
Most people in the other thread agreed that forbidding ex-cons to vote is assinine. He could have simply answered the questions posed to him so that the participants could get a more complete picture of what his idea of fairness and civil rights are. Instead, he chose to gather up his friends and throw stones at me off school grounds.
And after all is said and done, it’s *still * monumentally stupid to forbid ex-cons from voting after they’ve served their time.
We might be able to do that, if you’d ever defined who is one of your celebrated “Usual Suspects.” Trying to determine who you mean by the context in which you use the phrase, I’ve managed to narrow it down to, “Anyone who disagrees with Shodan, in any way, for any reason.”
Which doesn’t help a whole hell of a lot.
Actually, to be fair, it’s a jihad of one at this point.
I was answering those questions, wasn’t I? The picture I presented of where I stood on the issue was reasonably complete, wasn’t it?
Even if it wasn’t, a polite question would have been nice, rather than a nasty one.
You chose to muddy things considerably with your rude and over the top contributions to that debate. I didn’t think that had any place in that conversation, which is why I came here.
Mr. Moto, let’s do like the emergency room physicians do. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the most refined politeness and 10 being the ultima thule of rudeness, where do you think Kalhoun’s remarks lie?
I just brought it here because I didn’t think it was appropriate to get into a pissing match in the other thread.
Remember earlier how I said there were ways to tell when you had presented an unassailable argument, because people then had to misrepresent it?
I just won the argument.
As also said earlier, it becomes much easier in situations where, as the debate continues, so does a precipitous decline in the apparent IQ of your opponents. So don’t cry for me, Argentina.
I am suggesting that Kalhoun is a RBH, and thus does have an automatic chorus line all kicking in time to her tune.
I guess you haven’t read the thread.
Regards,
Shodan
Kalhoun’s questions seem pretty legitimate, perhaps with the exception of whether you think all aspects of the criminal’s being are bad. **Moto **stated himself in the thread that it’s a balancing test. He believes that any violation of the law evinces a lack of civil maturity, and draws the line at the commission of a felony. The questions were clearly targeted toward understanding that balance and why he thinks ex-felons should be presumed to lack that maturity.
That said, the sub-humans sarcasm seems a little out of line. Pit-worthy? I think you need to be pretty short-fused to find it pit-worthy. It would be pit-worthy if it were evidence of the wider issue cited, that **Kalhoun ** automatically assign the worst of intentions to Moto. But none of this even arises until page 3, after 2 pages of rational interaction between the two. There’s really no assigning of bad intentions in what is clearly a snarky comment.
As for **Shodan **and the rest in this thread, can you really read that GD and come away thinking **Moto **or **Martin ** or **Bricker **was treated unfairly? It seemed like a pretty level-headed, rational discussion to me overall. I thought **Moto **presented a calm and relatively well-reasoned argument and got mostly that same response in kind.
Given how tepid Mr. Moto’s actual complaint is, it would be beyond bizarre if the rest of us piled on her. And the idea that there’s any ideological angle to this at all is pure invention – of yours, not Mr. Moto’s.
Put it this way - suppose Mr. Moto had posted that he believed that the reason Kalhoun wanted to amend the Constitution to automatically restore voting right to felons the instant they left prison was because she was sure they would mostly vote Democratic. Is that a fair-minded comment, in your view?
Regards,
Shodan
First, let me say that I took you and others to be saying that the board in general treats conservatives poorly. I think that thread is evidence in quite the other direction, regardless of how you come out on Kalhoun’s two comments (of many).
Second, I think your hypothetical comment as-stated is probably unfair. But it’s sort of a gray area. If it’s used to dismiss everything the person is saying, I think it’s unfair and pointless. But I don’t think we should never be able to address possible unstated motives. If it’s just being pointed out that there is an underlying partisan advantage to the position, I don’t really have a problem with that. I think it depends on the tenor of the comment and the actual context of the discussion. If you started a thread saying that only military personnel should be allowed to vote because of their service to the country, I don’t think it would be unfair to suggest that part of the reason that you endorse that position is the partisan effect it would have. I don’t think the discussion of your particular motives for endorsing a policy further the debate over the policy too much. But neither do I think it should be off-limits.
Are you referring to Czarcasm’s comment?
Agreed. But by the grace of Allah go I.