Yeah, that’s just what we need. Another whining fucking Bush apologist and enabler. Go for it. :rolleyes:
Yes, that’s exactly what we’re getting at. We need to defend Bush more on the Straight Dope and are going to use the mods to do it. Good job for picking up on that.
I think we’ve found our Stephen Baldwin.
Sorry, Harborwolf, but God has told me that you’re a wanker.
You’re all focusing on rjung way too much. I don’t care what part of the political spectrum someone is on; if they make an unnecessary remark about Bush, be it positive or negative, they invite a hijack and they know it, so why the fuck do they do it? In the case cited in my original post, it was a negative remark. In a thread about alcohol, someone said that Bush had defeated his alcoholism through faith. That was a positive remark, and just as bad. Bush is a major hot button, so can’t we just leave him the fuck alone when we don’t need to bring him into the discussion?
No, it might be possible that rjung goes too far in bashing bush, but his post referenced in the OP meant something besides bush bashing, for it was on-topic, as was his posts on other topics. I believe it could be summed up as " I do not like the president. Looking at reality, I seem to be supported in saying he is doing a bad job. How will futher generatons feel about this?"
Priceguy, I agree with the sentiment and disagree with the example. Shodan’s example, however, is perfect: a moment of Internet research shows that it’s from David Corn’s book The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception. And that’s some fucked-up doctrinaire hijacking.
However, there’s no cause to shut the fuck up about Bush when discussing the state of US military policy, and its possible future directions. In fact, that’s damn near the Platonic Ideal of times to discuss Bush, of which all other discussions of Bush are shadows on the wall of a cave.
Daniel
Fine, the example was wrong. Can we concentrate on the sentiment then?
Oh, I agree with the sentiment, if it’s limited somewhat. I’d rephrase it as: “If a thread is not directly about US politics, don’t bring up US politics. And especially don’t bring up the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, or George Bush, not even with your incredibly clever nicknames for them.”
Daniel
Sure. But since you conceed that the OP is not a good example of the behavior you’re pitting, please present any number of alternate examples justifying the validity said sentiment and we can proceed from there.
Okay, as a general rule, I would disagree. “Generally speaking, shut up about Bush,” seems a fairly specific cover-his-ass tactic.
I would be in complete agreement if your argument was “Stop hijacking threads with irrelevant bullshit.” However, you wouldn’t get as much interest that way. Seems you have only garnered interest in the assertion by linking it specifically to Bush. Ironic.
Redfury, howsabout Shodan’s example? Lord knows he and I disagree on almost every political issue, but his Cafe Society thread was apolitical and interesting. Until rjung came along and pooped in it with a reference to the Pundit-of-the-Week.
If Diogenes had started that Cafe Society thread, and milroyj* had come in with some quote from Sean Hannity’s latest diatribe, would you consider that to be unacceptable behavior?
I think rjung acted deplorably in this instance, should apologize, and should confine anti-Bush comments to threads where the OP touches directly on US politics.
Daniel
- To the credit of board conservatives, I can’t think of any current board member on the conservative side who’d do a thread-shitting like this.
What, you think asking yet again will accomplish it? Pointless nitpickery is the closest you’ll find to discussion around here most of the time.
You’re right. Because if you look at my posting history, you’ll see nothing but a solid string of conservatism and unreasoned praise for the Republican party. What’s the problem? Are you so fucking stupid that you can’t do anything but divide the world into ‘us’ and ‘them’? Is it so inconceivable in your tiny little rodent brain that some of us would just rather not see constant hijacks and arguments in completely irrelevant places? Not all of us as blindly partisan as you. I guess it’s a heuristic you use to make up for your utter inability to apply reason or thought. Fucktard. :rolleyes:
Besides, shouldn’t you be mailing your body parts to Liberal in little boxes or something? Don’t let us keep you from your stalking.
I still think it’s a good example, but since everyone else seems to disagree I just wanted to get it out of the way. Shodan gave you one, here’s another one (which, of course, spawned a retort), here’s a third one, and a fourth one.
So, you’re basically proposing a variation on Godwin’s Law. Call it Priceguy’s Law: The first person to bring up Bush in a thread, loses. 
The point is, which should be clear to you by now, that Bush is an incredibly infected topic. A throwaway remark about Bush, which would be perfectly OK about almost anybody else, can and probably will generate a hijack.
Poor, poor, Excalibre. Put upon on so many sides. Left, right, everyone should just shut the fuck up, I guess.
And this doesn’t indicate to you that there might be a problem worth looking into? The fact that everyone when they think of you, brings to mind primarily your whiny complaints about Bush kinda indicates some behavior you should consider modifying. Eh?
Hmm? I’m not feeling sorry for myself here. I’m just recommending that you try to grow back the part of your brain you donated to science.
I should expand on this a bit. If you try to play to the “center”, what’s most likely to happen is that everyone is going to think that you’re an unprincipled asshole. And that’s what I think you are: an unprincipled asshole.
What’s the word for that emotional state I feel when Demostylus is insulting me?
Oh yeah, it’s apathy.
Sweetpea, like I said earlier in this thread, I’m as leftist as they come. (Though if you think all centrists are unprincipled assholes, well, that says a lot about who you are.) It’s just that in my case, I don’t like to see threads shit upon and turned into screamfests, even if I happen to agree with the politics of the hijacker.
So, really, sugarpants, one might conclude that my “principles” - in this case, a preference for real discussion over shrill screaming, and a disgust for folks who try to foment the latter - are actually stronger than yours, since you only hold yours when the screamer’s not on your side. My politics are more complicated than a schoolyard dodgeball game, I am capable of recognizing that those who disagree with me politically are not inherently evil, and above all I dislike idiocy. Which I why I don’t like pointless threadshitting.
As for whether I am indeed an asshole, we’ll have to let history decide.