Not to want to participate in a pile on or anything, but you can count me in those numbers. I’ve noticed it too.
I know my opinion means fuck-all to most of the regulars around here, but I too have noticed it.
-Joe, hasn’t made a “me too” post anywhere in years
Just yesterday I was wondering when the GOP would start to defend the woeful outcome of this war by accusing those opposed to it of treasonously undermining the effort.
The suspense is over.
Expect a lot more of this.
They’ve been doing that since before the war’s inception, though.
damn tdn. Today I just want to kiss you on the mouth.
Finally, she notices me! OK, babe, make with the tongue!
Oh, I’m so fucking sorry for taking up all the room for meaningful discussion in this thread.
Bad, Bad Zebra!
True that. And even more so if people don’t call them on it.
Obviously, numbers do matter, as the pile-on of Libertarian demonstrates
(disclaimer: I know little about Lib’s posting habits and am not taking a side in that argument)
Excuse me if I’m wrong but wasn’t Zebra just called out on that?
I don’t even know what you’re talking about here.
That’s a different issue than the one raised by Twist, at least as I understood his English: “Lib, seriously, you’ve been pissing about the boards like a bulldog on Ex-Lax all week.” I am an old southern gentleman, not British, and am reading “pissing about the boards” to mean “complaining about the boards”. I certainly have not complained about the boards. Rather the opposite, I have taken considerable heat for vociferously defending the admnistrators and their decisions, including enduring the audacity of one board member who saw fit to raise a prior incident (for which I have apologized) in which I had criticized Lynn, ostensibly as some bizarre reason why I should not be defending her now. Your complaint is not about that, but about demeanor, some of which, as I’ve explained, was due either to medication or to withdrawal from same. But I have spoken to this recently already and have attempted to draw a distinction between aggression and assertiveness, a distinction with I believe to be nontrivial. That assertiveness has manifested mostly in discussions about politics, and I’ve explained repeatedly that the very urgency of this year’s election, and the severity of its consequences, underlies the desperation that I feel about it, and about how I believe that I see the liberals throwing away the opportunity to win.
perhaps, then you should refrain from judgement unless you knew the issue? From my perspective, t’wasn’t a pile on (and certainly for me personally), it was a genuine ‘dude, something going on?’. When some one you’ve gotten to know to a degree exhibits what seems to be abberant behavior, caring folks may indeed comment. This does not consitute a pile on.
Lib thanks for the response. I guess for me, and why I posted what I did -
I don’t read much of the board anymore, you’ll see I’ve posted in very few threads (frankly have only read about 3 or 4 more than I’ve posted in), and yet, I ended up tripping over posts by you that seemed, to me, to be nearly in the category of ‘drive by pot shot out of the blue’.
that’s the feeling I’ve had, don’t know that it’s 'cause of one particular comment by you or not.
I do agree that the difference between assertive and aggressive is real and quite important. But I guess what I saw did not match what you explain here - IOW - your message of “get it together liberals, you’re pissing away your chance at defeating Bush” isn’t quite getting through.
It almost is like you’re only posting the last 2 sentences or so of what you’re thinking, so that all of the rationale for what/why you’re seeing something the way you are, is still in your head and not on the screen. kinda like (thinking here, here’s yet another liberal wasting time on something petty instead of looking at real ways of gaining votes, they seem to be splintering off on tangents commenting on all the idiotic things, setting themselves up for failure… {continue on in that vein for a while}} Posting “and no one here at the SDMB has done something like this, either?”
so that the end comment seems more like an attack on the person posting or the people posting that POV here, vs. what you seem to be saying here.
anyhow - I have no beef with you, hope you realize that, but if I’m seeing it more as an out of the blue attack and not clearly deliniated, again, I’m not demanding that you change, just suggesting (as it appears you seem to be doing) that your method is not achieving your stated goal.
Peace be with you.
I can see where it could be possible, even likely, to encounter a few random posts and make the conclusion that you did. It is regrettable that you do not find the time participate as often these days. Your name and mine have appeared together in many of our most classic threads. I appreciate your concern, Wring, and your expression of it. I take it in the manner in which you intended.
My point was that you made an unbelievably dumbassed statement. As far as I can tell there’s only two possible ways to take it, and it’s difficult to distinguish “tone” in print.
A) It was just a smart-assed remark made for the sole purpose of insulting people and pissing them off. In which case, you are an asshole.
-or-
B) You actually believe that crap. In which case, you are an idiot.
People disagree, and disagreements can get heated. I don’t have a problem with that. I draw the line at tolerating idiots and assholes.
Not that it means anything, but this morning on NPR there was a short give and take between the guy who ghost wrote We Were Soldiers Once… now a columnist for some news paper chain, and the military affairs guy from The Washington Times on the subject of whether Secretary Rumsfield should be fired / should resign. The We Were Soldiers guy was of the pretty strong opinion that Rumsfield should go because the whole war in Iraq is pretty screwed up and somebody has got to be responsible and take the hit. The Washington Times guy, who I take to be a direct conduit from the White House, said, as I understood it:
You can’t expect the Secretary to be on top of everything;
In war things get confused;
Removing Rumsfield would hurt troop morale; and, are you ready for this;
It was all Bill Clinton’s fault.
Honest to God, that’s what he said – or at least what I understood him to say. First, I doubt if Joe Rifleman is more than vaguely aware of just who the Secretary of Defense is. Old Joe probably had to memorize the chain of command sometime during basic training but that’s about it. The kid on the pointy end of the stick does not fight for the Secretary of Defense, or even for apple pie. He fights for his own skin and his buddies. Removing Rumsfield may well mean a lot to the ideologies in the Pentagon and the generals and admirals who have been given command because their political positions are more palatable by the administration and because they do not insist on putting unpleasant facts before the brass hats, but Joe Rifleman and the kid that shoves powder bags into the gun breach does not care. What is going to screw up that kid’s morale is the daily grind of working in the middle of a civilian population that does not only like him but might well kill him.
Second, as far as Clinton’s fault goes, Clinton’s army was plenty good enough to invade Iraq with a big part of its armor left behind, now all of a sudden the lack of equipment that is sitting a Mieseau Depo in K-town or in the tank parks at Fort Hood is Clinton’s fault? Now the fact that prisons are being run by under-trained reservists under CID and MI supervision is Clinton’s fault. Now that 10 of 12 Army divisions (or 8 of 10) are either in Iraq, or leaving Iraq or en route to Iraq and the country has no strategic reserve to use to waive the big stick is Clinton’s fault. That a war that was supposed to pay for itself has required first an $87 Billion appropriation and now another $25 Billion and the country is faced with a half trillion dollar deficit (which is commencing to scare the willies out of Alan Greenspan) when we had a fiscal surplus when Clinton left office is Clinton’ fault.
Third, the Pentagon knew about the latest fiasco in the Iraqi prison. The made no attempt to defuse it because they thought they could hide it. They could have gotten ahead of it but they chose to let events overwhelm them. Maybe the Secretary can’t know everything but he can sure be able to deal with the stuff he knows or should know and chooses to ignore.
Words fail me. Maybe the President and the boys will dance around the big lie but the surrogates sure are embracing it.
AND it was in defense of the Secretary of Defense who told the generals who wanted more grunts going into Iraq in the first place to stick it, that a REAL, MANLY army could do the job with one squad and a case of Hershey bars. No wonder my blood pressure was up by the time I got to the doctor!
Maybe you can only tell of two possible ways to take my statement because of a lack of imagination.
But yes, you are correct that I am not giving a meaningful discussion to the issue at hand. Of course, neither are you. Kind of ironic as the the OP, remember the OP?, is about how two Republican Congressmen are not having a meanigful political discussion. Actually they are doing what YOU are doing. Not discussing the issue at hand but trying to make the discussion about the character of a person that doesn’t agree with them.
In case you don’t know it giving aid and comfort to the enemy is basically treason. Now do you think the first congressman in the OP committed treason? Or do you think his Repubilcan colleges are assholes and/or idiots?
I can’t tell because you have not joined in that discussion. Nor have you remarked on any of the more thoughtful or deeper posts from say Spavined Gelding.
So I’m just questioning your desire to have a meaningful political discussion. Of course The Pit is a strange place to look for one those anyway.
You see, I’m the way I am from watching the Republicans for so many years. I’m acting just like them.
And you’re acting just like me.
So, are you and idiot or an asshole?