Pitting The Republican for no reason whatsoever

The BBQ Pit
1

Well, this should be a thread about pitting the newest Great Debater, The Republican, but to be honest, I can’t really do a good introductory rant here.

Actually, I should be fair, and mention that I’ve only skimmed the stuff this guy has written so far. But consider what the guy’s already accomplished in his first three hours on the SDMB:
[ul]
li started a thread to re-hash conservative bullshit about the 2000 Florida Election fiasco (“Bush won legitimately! Gore was the one stealing the election! It’s all the work of evil liberals! Fox News speaks the truth!”).[/li]li started a thread to talk about how George W. Bush is really a *sooper-*genius, despite being unable to go through an unscripted press conference even after three years in office (“He graduated from Yale! Gore said he invented the internet!”)[/li][li]and (c) apologized in the wrong forum for being clueless about basic concepts as providing cites for his claims (“I’m gonna say things that I can’t provide evidence for, because I worked with *sooper-*secret intelligence that you ordinary peons aren’t allowed to see”)[/li][/ul]
…well, anyway, despite his rather … er, flamboyant start at he SDMB, I don’t really have anything against the guy yet, unless you count his embarassingly partisan choice of a handle.

But still, given all that The Republican has accomplished in the first three hours alone, I figure he’s gonna end up getting pitted sooner or later (probably sooner), so I thought I’d start this thread and avoid the rush.

After all, you know the guy’s gonna have problems soon enough when he makes december look sane by comparison. :wink:

2

My only beef with him is his inability to produce cites when asked to. I expect more from a conservative than, “Do your own homework.”

Don’t tell me you are still hung up on the '00 election, Rjung. GW did win legitimately. Blame the system, not the person. I am all for ditching the ‘electoral college’ crap, even it does mean Al ‘Son of The Beast’ Gore would be prez. But, the rules we have are the rules we have to live by, until they are changed…

3

You know, I was going to come in as The Fundamentalist, but I decided against it.
Anyway, he’ll keep things interesting, I think.

4

The guy apologized. What the fuck do you want? His first born?

rjung, I’d like to formally call you an asshole for no reason whatsoever.

You get a -3.

-LC

5

Brutus? The election thread was started by our new friend. You might direct your derision that way.

6

I think The Republican is OK so far - the rules take a bit of getting used to, but I reckon he’s doing his best. Cites are good, though.

As for (O_o) - “dashing pack”… oh dear. Paranoid delusions are so unbecoming. “Over extended egos are my favorite play toys.” I’m kind of underwhelmed so far, dude.

7

If the Republican starts including cites with his OP’s, rather than grudgingly providing them later, he’ll be fine.

(O_o), OTOH, is just an idiot who thinks very highly of himself.

8

Never mind. Lynn just banned (O_o).

Way to go, Lynn!

9

Well, we’ve got ‘the Republican’; ‘Libertarian’; who’s ‘the Democrat’?

He did come in to GD more or less leading with his chin, but he apologized right away, so I don’t think a Pitting was needed this early.

If he keeps posting right-wing conspiracy theories without cites, though, all bets are off…

10

Since posting his “apology”, The Republican has:
[ul][li]Deflected a request for cites in the intelligence thread by saying he could repost the thread with cites - apparently replying with them is too difficult[/li][li]Said he will not bother to find cites in the 9/11 thread. Why? The board is slow. Apparently all his cites are located on the SDMB.[/li][li]Offered a WorldNetDaily link, which was debunked by MC Master of Ceremonies, as his only cite in the 9/11 thread[/ul][/li]I just don’t understand why it is so difficult for him to provide cites. After all, he told us they were available on request, and claims that they are from respectable sources such as Time and the Washington Post. So why does he avoid providing these cites, and why does he give us a link to WorldNetDaily when he does provide a cite? Strange.

11

:eek: I was sure I would never agree with you on anything, Brutus. Thank you for proving me wrong!

Daniel

12

You might be right, Brutus, depending on what exactly you mean by it. The reason that Election 2000 is fair game after three years is that there are so many thoroughly examined but unresolved issues in it.

Should Gore, or Bush in turn, have called for a statewide recount? Well, yeah, if you mean, “What selfless moral act ought he to have performed if he were a totally ideal person?” Gore called for recounts in certain counties he and his advisors thought were miscounted, for good and proper reasons, as was his privilege under state law.

Did Bush win the election in the Electoral College? Yeah. Were there partisan motives underlying some SCOTUS votes in the decision that terminated recounts and gave Bush the state of Florida and the election? Almost certainly.

I can cite with absolute certitude that there were validly cast Gore votes in PBC that were not counted for him – persons who (1) marked their ballot, (2) discovered before casting it that they’d voted for Buchanan rather than Gore, (3) applied to the poll workers for a replacement ballot – as was their right under Florida election law, (4) were refused replacement ballots because they were running short, and instead told to mark their ballots, with the Buchanan vote already present, with a Gore vote as well, then circle the Gore vote in order to clarify which was their intent. These counted as “overvotes” – and the stauncher Republican arguers say that it’s improper to count those votes.

There was extensive partisanship on both sides during Election 2000. No doubt about it. And the outcome is that only in the strictest sense of the word – that after the tumult and the shouting died, the rule of law did in fact take its proper place, albeit in a context that can be argued was narrowly partisan, and Mr. Bush was finally certified as having won.

But the entire episode showed what is wrong with America in the harshest light – it seemed nobody public on either side was willing to give credit to any valid argument on the other.

Contrast this with Franklin Knox in 1940. Loyal Republican, he accepted nomination as Secretary of the Navy (and went on to become one of the greatest Navy Secretaries ever). When criticized by fellow Republicans for accepting nomination by a Democratic President and serving in a Democratic cabinet, he said:

By that standard, Norman Minetta is the only American in public life today.

13

Well, we have a poster named NDP, but I understand it’s a coincidence.

14

I dont know if this is standard practice for every new member here. I dont know if I am the first. Either way it is pretty pathetic.

rjung has proven his extreme ignorance about, well, anything considering the only attacks he has against me is that I posted something in the wrong forum, I have a history working for the United States Military (I guess it is looked down on on this forum), and not only that, but he admits to not really reading anything I have written. Proof of this is him stating that I believe Bush is a “sooper-genius” when anyone with an IQ above that of a toaster oven would be able to see what I was really getting at.

Brutus, I did produce cites when asked on my “Election” thread, and suggested the other one be deleted so that I could actually insert the citations where appropriate, instead of spending hours replying to everyone saying “well, where did you get this. Well, where did you get that.” I just figure that given the speed of the board that would make things a lot easier for everyone.

appletreats, I apologize if I refused to spend 10 hours yesterday waiting for the board to load so that I could reply to every attack against me. And if you think that MC character “debunked” my citation by simply saying that the same website doesnt like the UN then you have got a lot of learning to do.

Between this rjung idiot and the Elv1s guy, there is a boatload of immaturity at this board. There seem to be a good amount of intelligent people hanging around here, its too bad that a few peoples ignorance has to ruin the fun.

15

Heil Hitler !

16

C’mon, rjung. Just admit you pitted The Republican because of his name.

The man never stood a chance, did he?

17

TR, you have been treated to a rare “honor”. This is only for those who demand it.

Apparently you’re still confused about this “ignorance” thing we’re fighting (see the masthead). The one spouting bullshit and refusing steadfastly to back it up is you. Why the hell should anyone give you credit for having either command of facts or ability to reason from them? Before you can convince anyone at all that you’re right, you have to show that you’re right, not depend on simply repeating yourself and tossing barbs at anyone who dares question you. Is that approach why you’ve been kicked off other boards, as you claim? That can happen here too, ya know.

18

No, it’s not standard practice. That should tell you something.

Where the hell did he attack you for being in the military?

Technically, you did provide cites in the election thread. But around here, it’s generally better if people can read the cites without subscibing to a bunch of newspaper archives. For all we know, your cites are just opinion pieces. Scylla suggested links or quotes. You have so far failed to provide any.

Bullshit. You said “Im not going to bother doing everyones history homework tonight” due to the board being slow. First, the SDMB being slow has absolutely nothing to do with your ability to find cites elsewhere on the internet. Second, you posted twice in that thread. Why were you willing to wait to make a post about how slow the board was, but not willing to wait to make a post with your cites?

That’s not what he said. He said that WND claims the EU and UN are planning to take over the world and that there is a gay conspiracy to take over the United States. Quite a bit different from a simple dislike of the UN.

19

Actually, if anyone truly deserved a Pitting, it was (O_o). But of course, that one’s gone now, so little point there.

The Republican is making some newbie mistakes, and he has just a touch of arrogance in his posts. (heh) I’ve seen worse. I’m hoping he’ll calm down when he gets a better feel for the general tone of the board.

20

Republican:

Most of the posters have been extremely patient and welcoming, yet you continue to be condescending and snide. Stick to the facts and quite apologizing all the time. Don’t ask baiting questions (Does anyone know what the ANC is), and assume that the people you are debating with have integrity and conviction. You’ll find out soon enough who actually does and who doesn’t. And in the end, be readly to admit that itwo ntelligent people can disagree about an issue without one of them being evil, shortsighted, naiive, or deluded.

If you don’t, you’ll be visiting this forum of the SDMB more than you’ll like.