Oh, and dropzone, I’ll drop out of the thread for good now. But keep heart; liberalism finds its greatest welcome among the young. 
What are you stating it as. . . falsity? dishonesty? bad faith? insincerity? not agreeing with reality?
You didn’t think your own words were clever? I don’t blame you; neither did I.
Sure you have. You claimed that for every loss of civility, there was a gain. . . from the 50’s and beyond. It’s your perception.
bold added for emphasis
Post proof or retract (with an apology), please.
Or is that not the way it works around here, since you seem to think that you’re the arbiter of what happens here.
Of course, since Texas and Mexico had never gotten around to formally setting a boundary*, it can be argued both ways that the Rio Grande or the Nueces should have been the border. We could just as easily note that Zachary Taylor crossed the Neuces river, first, in a bid to establish the Rio Grande as the correct border of Texas.
- Under duress, Santa Anna signed a “treaty” agreeing to a border while a prisoner and the “treaty” was never ratified by the Mexican government. (Also, it was General Arista, not Santa Anna who commanded the Mexican forces at that location.)
A wikipedia entry on truth! Thank you for that witty and informative “cite.” Didn’t people in this thread offer that as one of their pet peeves? For good reason. But at least you offered one cite. Good job!
I never claimed that my opinion was truth. And I never offered some indictment of the 1950s or of conservatives, nor blamed anyone for ruining everything. Starving Artist does it on a regular basis. You have decided to side with him. He never offers any real evidence, just opinion stated as fact. I can admit that my opinions and perceptions are just that. They are not “truth.” But SA can’t and doesn’t. It seems that you agree with me, that opinions are not truth. Will you tell your buddy SA that?
I’m so glad you posted this in the thread about least favorite posters, because these days, you’re mine, and you have been for a while. Thanks for demonstrating so aptly why. But I’m glad you turned to my words for your argument, since you have none of your own but sanctimony and nonsense.
And you claimed that America has lost civility. Cite? Are you going to be able to prove that, or back it up in any way? I’m waiting. Cites that we’ve lost civility, first of all, and that we’ve made no gains to offset them. Any evidence whatsoever. Otherwise, retract (with an apology), please. Since my opinion does not cast aspersions on anyone, or place blame, and yours/Starving Artist’s does, I think the burden of proof is on you.
What am I supposed to prove? That YOU made statements, like “the amount of crass, rude behavior has increased” (a rather blanket statement lacking nuance). Did you not say that? Is that not a statement of fact? I say, sure, we lost some, but there have been gains to offset the loss. You pitch a hissy fit, claim that I’m trying to declare a truth. Huh? It’s my opinion. That’s my point. I can admit that it’s my opinion, that the world is not as black and white as you and Starving Artist claim it is, and it’s nobody’s fault. There have been losses and gains, and that’s the nature of an evolving society. No use crying over swear words or spilled milk. You take the good with the bad. I need a cite for this? I think it’s common sense.
But then, I’m not making a claim that cannot be demonstrated. I can point to gains (civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights) which have done more than increase your precious civility. It depends on what you value, and how you define civility. Thus, you made a claim, and you offered no explication, and no cites. What do you expect an apology for? Sorry, princess. You (or Starving Artist) make sweeping, black and white statements, you’re asked for a cite. Don’t want to give one? Or you can’t? Then you lose. Don’t try to turn it around on me.
Me saying you should give a cite for an opinion you stated as fact = I’m the arbiter of what happens around here? Really? Are you truly trying to argue that asking for a cite is something peculiar to me on the SDMB? Or are you just being argumentative because you get off on it?
Are you Quiddity Glomfuster? Because you remind me of her an awful lot. An AWFUL lot. A wikipedia entry for truth. :smack:
Starving Artist, This is a serious question and I mean it in a reasonable way, not snarky.
What exactly is it that you think “liberalism has wrought here?”
Judging by his past posts: syphilis, gonorrhea, AIDS, rudeness and/or general lack of civility, sagging pants, crime*, war, pestilence, famine, and hip hop music.
I think he grudgingly agreed one time that it was kind of alright that segregation ended, though.
Altogether an excusable mistake, said poster having demonstrated that his cerebrum, if not his genitalia, is undeniably feminine: alluringly soft and smooth.
Well, if a bunch of Americans moved to Saskatchewan and then declared it a republic independent of Canada, and then the U.S. annexed it and then made it a state, and Canada sent in the Mounties, who’s provoking whom?
Besides when Santa Ana signed the treaty of Velasco, which declared the boundary of Texas to be the Rio Grand rather than the Nueces River further north, he did not have the governmental authority to so (and also was imprisoned by the Texans, and arguably simply signed it to get out)–and the Mexican government never ratified the “treaty” of Velasco in the first place. So at most you could say they were entering into disputed territory, but if you ask me, it was stolen territory if you considered it part of Texas in the first place. So when the Mexicans crossed the Rio Grand (or Rio Bravo, and they would have said)–and Santa Ana himself was not involved in that skirmish by the way–they were just defending their territory.
And the U.S. declared war on Mexico (citing the skirmish in the territory legally belonging to Mexico between the Rio Grand and the Nueces–in which a whopping 11 U.S. soldiers were killed-- as an excuse, though another reason was the desire in Congress to have another slave state) before the Mexicans declared war on the U.S.
The whole thing was part of president Polk’s desire to have the U.S. extend all the way to the Pacific, especially for its ports. In fact, before any of this happened, he offered to buy Texas and California from Mexico, but the Mexicans were too proud and their government too disorganized to make the deal, though they disparately needed the money after their own war for independence from Spain. In the end, though, that’s exactly what happened under the terms of surrender, with New Mexico and Arizona thrown in to boot.
And that’s why I can’t stand Siam Sam.
Because he’s from Texas.
(See, I wasn’t side-tracking after all.)
ETA–Oh. tomdeb already explained it. How do I manage to waste my own time so well?
I’ve never heard of bible-bashing in my life, but it sounds very harmful to the Bible in question, and just about the opposite of what a bible-thumper would do.
Noting BlueCanary’s location, could it be one of those British vs American language differences?
Oh no, a lying piece of shit doesn’t believe me? Actually, you know I’m telling the truth, but you don’t think I can prove it, and thus we’re down to he said/it said.
While there isn’t a particular shortage of bloviating on your part on these forums, and while I consider myself a pretty lucky guy in general, that sort of serendipity is even beyond me. The facts: I first posted regarding your stance at 9:40 PM on 12/28 (post 480), in response to Guinistasia’s post at 9:05 PM (post 478) on the same day, without quoting you at all. Tell you what, I have no idea if the moderators are able to look at user searches, or if only admins can do that sort of thing, but assuming that someone can, I hereby grant them permission to do so, and to publicly announce when and what I searched for. If they can and will do so, I’ll bet you five hundred dollars that they will find that I searched for your stance on communism, McCarthy, and liberalism between Guinistasia and my posts. I’ll even happily send the money to a trusted (and willing) third party. Bricker would work for me, for instance.
Want to take me up on it, credibility boy?
Note: Mods, feel free to keep the info to yourself until Stark Raving Arsch backs down, but at that point, feel free to post the information even though I won’t get any money out of it, at your discretion.
Apart from the fact that I’m sure the mods want nothing to do with opening the doors to digging up virtual timestamps and refereeing disputes between this poster and that, the fact of the matter is you’re letting anger get the better of you and you simply aren’t thinking straight.
If I had said what you’d claimed I said in this very thread, why would have to go back and dredge up something that only looked like what you were claiming I’d said from a post I’d made two months ago? You could simply have gone back to where I’d said it here and then pointed to that.
You have shown in the past that you have a pretty good memory for things I’ve said that have offended you, and it’s quite possible that rattling around in the back of your mind was a faulty recollection of my previous post, which you then mentally inserted into what I was saying here. So, to that extent I’m willing to stipulate that perhaps you didn’t just go rummaging around in the archives in advance trying to find something, anything, to try to prove I’d said what you claimed.
But still we still come back to the fact that had I said here what you were claiming I’d said here, you would have been able to prove it by simply pointing back to it.
Thus I’ll withdraw my assertion that are intellectually dishonest and replace it with the assertion that u r dumb.
Kthxbye.
Heffalump and Roo (and yes, Rubystreak, too, because you can’t cast aspersions my way and expect no response) I truly will try to post the chronology I’ve promised later. The problem is that it’s a complex, multi-faceted and interrelated set of issues that are involved and I expect it will take a fair amount of free time to address it all, and for the most part I’ve been having to post on a hit-or-miss basis the last few days and haven’t been able to free up a sufficient enough block of time to tackle it properly.
And why do I keep skipping words? Ever since I got this laptop I don’t seem to be able to type without skipping/misspelling words all over the place.
Arg!
I don’t give a rat’s ass if you respond to me or not. Anything you say that places blame 100% on any one group is never, ever going to get traction with me, and indeed has led to your utter lack of credibility on these boards. If you are able to take a more nuanced view, where you can see that it’s not a matter of blame, and that America is not ruined, then maybe I’ll listen. But it can’t be a ton of anecdotes and opinion that you offer as fact, and allegations and insults towards people whose ideology doesn’t jibe with yours. I’m not interested in arguing that with you, because you have admitted that you are not interested in an exchange of ideas, just in scoring points with your “audience.” No thanks.
Hmmm…I could have sworn you asked me not to when you said: “ETA: Starving Artist [bolding mine :D], you don’t need to “get back” to me. I’ve been through this with you before, and I do not want to read more…”
and then you try the childish tactic of asking H&R to relay your comments to me by saying things like: “Will you tell your buddy SA [bolding mine once again :D] that?”
And then you often make snide and accusatory (and frequently either distorted or flat out wrong) comments about me or what I’ve said, and you know I have to respond to you then.
So if you don’t want to hear from me, just stop sniping at me and we’ll be good. Capsize?
P.S. - It’s interesting that you accuse Heffalump and Roo of being Quiddity Glomfuster, especially since their posting styles are nothing alike apart from the fact that you don’t like what they say. I have noticed that she seems to bring out the worst in you - much like QG did - and that you follow her around giving her shit like you did QG, so it’s no surprise that you might be thinking that.
But on the other hand, you’re a tricky (if not very sophisticated or effectual) little poster who is given to undertaking painfully transparent attempts to minimize or marginalize your opponents by referring to them as ‘old’, ‘provincial’, ‘out of touch’, etc., when you find yourself unable to argue the issues. You’ve tried the ‘old-and-out-of-it’ routine on both H&R and me recently…and in consecutive posts:D…so it’s not out of the question that you’re either trying to intimidate her that way or publically accuse her of being a sock when you know the procedure is to report it privately.
In other words you really aren’t up to the game you’re trying to play, so I’d suggest you knock off the attempts at subtle, subliminal subterfuge and argue your points openly and honestly or stay out of the fray.
And we demand parity!
Right. That’s about the same as “I don’t give a rat’s ass.”
You can go ahead and respond to that if you like. Don’t state your opinion as fact. There, I’ve said it to your face. Will it have any affect? I’ve already exhaled. The reason I addressed her is because she foolishly picked up your bullshit line about “increased crass and rude behavior” and ran with it. I called her on it. If she wants to side with you, then she can damn well be asked to back up her points with cites. Maybe, unlike you, she actually will. Again, I’ve exhaled.
First of all, you make plenty of snide and accusatory remarks about a whole group of people (ill-defined though it may be), about how they ruined America. You refuse to see why it is provocative and hateful, and continue to do it despite being Pitted multiple times in recent memory for it. Yet you’re shocked that people speak snidely of you. Really? You HAVE to respond to me? Am I somehow controlling your actions? No, you choose to respond. You could choose to ignore me if you wanted to. If you don’t want to, then go right ahead. But since you do not engage in debate, only in spewing nonsense, it won’t get very far.
I don’t care if I hear from you or not. It’s like a record with a skip in it.
She brings out the worst in me? QG sure got my goat, but H&R? Not so much. Unless disageeing with her = the worst in me, which I rather think it is not. As for following her around, well, that’s a lie and you know it. You’re just saying that to be a dick, par for the course. If you look, I think you’ll see that she has entered several threads after me, to comment on my posts (the Jesse Leigh thread and the gay marriage thread in the Pit come to mind). So, yeah, talking out your ass again, making baseless accusations. Par for the course, again.
Hahahaha. ::wipes a tear:: Pot, meet kettle. Painfully transparent attempts to minimalize or marginalize opponents? Can’t argue the issues? Look in the mirror: you’ve just described yourself. You’re the laughingstock of the board. You make conservatives with actual fact-based arguments look bad. And you are the master of the unsophisticated, ineffectual jabs at your opponents, who you blame for everything you think is wrong, but don’t see why that is a completely idiotic stance to take. tomndebb is the only one who bothers with you anymore, and he regularly kicks your ass in every single “debate” you try to have with him. You can’t debate me because I’m not interested. It’s a waste of time.
Intimidate her? Really? How absurd. I doubt she is remotely intimidated by me disagreeing with her. This is the Pit. If I had actually called her a sock, this is the place to do it. But all I said was that she reminded me of QG. Both are similarly needlesome, annoying, and uptight. Sock? Not so much. Nice try, though.
The day you argue any point openly and honestly, I’ll eat my shoe. With your black and white, us v. them thinking, your inability to see any subtleties, your ahistoric, baseless, blaming opinions stated as facts, and your "I’ll get back to you later with PROOF that conservatives are teh awesome and liberals are teh suxxorz! but later, gotta go now… " Don’t you ever get tired of it?
And as for playing the game, you are one of the most inept debaters on this board, so your accusations are rather ironic. I’m not going to knock shit off. When I feel like it, I will continue to point out your clownish absurdity. But engage in debate? I can’t happen, because you are incapable of it. You are a fly buzzing, nothing more. So, keep engaging me if you want. I think you’re fun. You’ve given me the best laugh I’ve had yet today.
I thought so too and jumped in, ready to dispute BlueCanary’s use of it too; however, I left my mind open and looked around first and almost every cite I found (see later ones posted) that characterized general usage agreed with him(?).
It didn’t seem to have anything to do with it being a Britishism either.
I’m back out.
And here I thought you’d grown to like me, Rubystreak.
And what a shock it is, too!
As it happens, I’ve always been perfectly frank and open about the fact that I’m stating my opinion. In fact, unless I also post a cite, you can pretty much take it for granted that I’m stating an opinion.
I have had to engage in innumerable squabbles around here (several of them with you) over this very issue. You and certain other posters around here love to yell “Cite” whenever you hear something you don’t like, even though no such cite could possibly exist because what you’re hearing is an opinion, an observation or a recollection, and therefore no cite could exist…unless of course you want proof that my opinion is my opinion, in which case my post is my cite. 
Where do you get this stuff from? I not only don’t refuse to see it, I know perfectly that it’s provacative and why (though I’d argue about hateful). It’s provacative because people don’t like to hear that they’ve fucked things up. As far as hateful, things are what they are (and trust me, I’m MUCH more unhappy at having to complain about what liberalism has wrought in this country than you are to hear me complaining about them). What I’m doing is simply stating my view of what has happened in this country, and hate has nothing to do with it – at least not as far as specific posters here are concerned. Besides, the things I post are no different (and are far less voluminous) than the nonstop anti-right rhetoric that this board is filled with, and which is largely responsible for the fact that I post in the way I do.
No, not really. ‘Hardly’ would be a better word.
I’ve said here several times (and I know you were there) that I’m perfectly aware that one can’t come onto a board filled with people who embrace a certain POV, criticize and condemn that point of view and what has resulted from it, and expect to be met with applause and howls of approbation.
(Maybe I should just start numbering these various points and then, when you continue to bring them up again as though they’d never been answered, I could just enter something like ‘Post #39’ and you could read the answer to your repeatedly erroneous accusations without my having to go to the trouble of typing them out all over again.)
And you could choose not to snipe at me and talk behind my back or as if I weren’t there. But since you do, I’m gonna have to decline your invitation. You know, the one that implores me not to talk to you…
…but then claims not to care whether I do or not.
Oh, horseshit! There’s not a conservative on this board that comes in for any less grief than I do, on a word-for-word basis. Even Sam Stone and Bricker, the two who are in my opinion the most calm and reasonable conservatives here, get reviled almost everytime they open their mouths about anything political.
Wrong yet again. I rarely blame my opponents here for anything; but I do very much blame liberals in the main for what’s gone wrong in this country, and, given that my opponents here are of a similar mindset, they take it to heart…but liberals are not monolythic, and while some are responsible for some of the things I don’t like and others are responsible for other things, the fact remains that each problem grew out from under the umbrella of liberalism, and so it is liberalism in the main that I have a problem with, not specific posters on this board.
Besides, most of the posters here are too young to have been involved during the ‘fucking it up’ process anyway. I just don’t like to see them swallowing the Kook-Aid that it was all necessary in order to end racism.
I argue all my points openly and honestly. Chomp away. (I suppose a photo is out of the question?)
As opposed to the nuanced and multi-faceted and open-minded way your typical liberal Doper (and my this I mean the ones who post in GD and the Pit, as there are tons of reasonable, tactful and open-minded Dopers around here that one hardly ever hears from) approaches any conservative viewpoint around here?
Sorry, but I have to call bullshit. My posting style is a nothing more than a mirror. If you don’t like it, I’d suggest you lobby for a more civil, mature, polite and grown up message board around here…sort of like what I lobby for when it comes to society in the main. Because you see, this is what comes of the politics of division and hate, and it’s what we on the right have been subjected to by the left for decades.
I get tired of people either lying about what I said or being to stupid to comprehend it. I’ve said not one word about PROOVING conservatives are awesome, or about PROOVING that liberals are ‘teh suxxorz’. When I’ve done (in this case, vis-a-vis Heffalump and Roo, and which is what you’re talking about) is offer to answer her question about whether or not it was necessary to trailer-park America in order to eliminate racism, or whether the two happened simultaneously but effectively independent of one another, which is roughly my contention – though I think civil rights efforts had already been largely victorious before the fucking up of America by the hippie generation even began.
I’m sure. :rolleyes:
I do like you, SA. What is the village without its idiot? Love ya, really I do. You keep me in laughs. Never change.