goddam coding.
You’re missing the subtleties. That is not what they’ve been saying, and it certainly isn’t what I said here.
So should I take your views seriously when you demonstrate that you didn’t even read my OP?
I don’t think the board is nearly as numerically skewed as some of the conservatives seem to think. Like I said, my feeling about prevailing sentiment is that it seems to mostly lean moderate liberal and soft libertarian. No one claimed that Elvisl1ves is representative of the board or even a substantial part of it. That’s the problem, sugarpants. A tiny minority (the idiots) has been able to drown out discussion and drive most people out of political threads entirely. Others they’ve just pushed away from the boards altogether.
I should fucking hope people agree with me because (1) I’m right 
and (2) if they don’t, it proves that the screaming idiots are the mainstream of the board’s liberals, and that’s a really sad, scary thought.
Sorry, let’s try that again.
I think you’re right. No matter what your political stripe, there’s no denying that the current administration is one of the most controversial in a long time. And as it looks more and more like an astonishingly twisted parody of itself, more and more thinking people are going to voice concern. A good number of Republicans are hopping on that bandwagon, which may seem to some like a liberal smackdown. It’s not so much a cadre of liberalism as it is growing concern over Bush.
Want to see how ultra-conservative the board is? Mention Michael Moore.
Excalibre…You want a little cheese with your whine?
You think more pittings are going to change what past pittings haven’t? What does it suggest when someone expects the same action to have different affects if repeated just one more time?
No offense meant, because I really think you’re doing a great job as a mod so far. But a moderator is supposed to be, you know, moderating the discussion. That’s sorta what it’s all about.
Fine. I didn’t know Zell Miller was so hated. How about Joe Lieberman? How about Harry Reid, the minority leader of the Senate, calling Pres Bush a loser? That smacks of playground tomfoolery, not the professional behavior we should get from our elected officials.
You wanna kiss my ass? Don’t sling smileys my way. You, Reeder, I don’t like. And I don’t think I ever will. Don’t act as though we’re on friendly terms. You’re an embarrassment to the left on the best day of your life.
But ivylass, another member of the put-upon conservative minority, already showed how this is wrong. She did so by saying it was wrong. So it’s wrong.
Oh my…Excalibre doesn’t like me. Whatever shall I do.
:rolleyes:
I assume you intend to start on Dick Cheney’s use of the f-word on the Senate floor next. Right?
Right?
Because you aren’t going to selectively omit that example of puerile idiocy, right?
You have an argument, make it. You don’t have an argument, don’t whine about being called on it. It ain’t that complicated, but it sure can be hard.
Here’s a clue, chief: The actions of the President of the United States are always, always, always going to dominate political discussion, and not only in the United States, no matter who he is or what those actions are. Get used to it.
If you are correct and the actions of a few posters are in fact ruining things for everyone else, then yes, I think pitting those few posters for specific actions could potentially make a difference. It may not, but it’s certainly a better path than mods disallowing specific positions. I’d much rather the community try to improve itself than the moderators try to herd the community like sheep.
No it isn’t. Larry King moderates discussions. I’m not Larry King, and I don’t want to be.
No one is saying that Bricker is a flawless poster. No one is: most people act like an ass to some degree, especially in the pit. But I think Bricker is an ass FAR less frequently, then, say, Reeder.
Thanks.
Since it wasn’t an actual transcription of the speech but rather a few excerpts as a news item, it’s hard to get the context. But it does seem uncharacteristically shrill for Gore. And a bit broad-brushed. I’ve seen the guy make better articulated arguments, and I generally tend to agree with him. I’ll keep him.
Yea, when Lieberman was the vice presidential candidate - oops I mean “looserman” wasn’t that what the republicans were calling him? - but I digress, yea, we only nominated him 'cause he was so hated.
re: Harry. Um, I don’t think you want to start evoking quotes from the majority leaders now do you? That would be a Delaying tactic. and what Excalibre said, too.
yes, the prehensiled one is wonderful - thanks for the coding assist. that was really nice of you.
I’m honestly not sure which way the board leans. I mean, politically, it seems to me to lean left. Religiously, it seems to lean atheist, followed distantly by a sort of new age vanilla mysticism. It seems to treat science like an epistemic panacea. But these leanings really aren’t the problem, as I see it. The problem is that some people seem intent on drowning out dissenting voices. Nobody listens to anybody else. We misrepresent each other. We misunderstand each other. We taunt each other. We push each other’s buttons. I complain about pile-ons a lot, but truth be known, I’ve jumped in with them too when it suited me. There’s too much hysteria. Not just noise. MPSIMS has noise. The Pit has hatred, enmity, and infantile bullying. We aren’t trying to understand each other. We’re trying to see who can post the most clever rejoinder. Nobody wants to give. Very few people admit any error or permit any compromise. There’s too much plain meanness. And meanness begets meanness. Posters hold respect hostage and demand that you behave a certain way or say certain things lest they withold their respect. It’s a place where the rules often don’t make sense, where minority groups are subjected to bad treatment because they are minorities here but majorities elsewhere, and they’re saddled with representing views they may not even hold. I think the board has become a lot like the post 9/11 world. There’s no trust. No kindness. No mercy. Just an impatient rush to stomp out dissent. It’s as though people think that if they shut people up, the ideas will go away. And crowds ganging up to shout them down is the method of choice.
“The attempt to silence a man is the greatest honour you can bestow on him. It means that you recognize his superiority to yourself.” — Joseph Sobran
Utter horseshit. He was denounced by the more balanced conservatives here with a frequency and a passion probably as great as those exhibited by the more balanced liberals when they’re denouncing such folk as ElvisL1ves. If millroyj was a “classic representative of the right” on these boards, then you’d better be prepared to claim such foaming idiots as Elvis and rjung “classic representatives of the left.”
I guess “ass” is relative; or "It depends on what the meaning of the word “ass” is. I see the type of posts that Reeder drew so much criticism about as generic diatribes about Bush, not about attacking a specifc poster or set of posters. Bricker seems much more targeted.
I could be wrong about Reeder. I’m not going to jump on the Reeder bashing bandwagon, but from the occasions I did open up his threads, my sense was that they were highly partisan but fairly benign. Of course, being predisposed to agreeing with his general point, I am sure I perceived them differently than others might have. He strikes me as less harsh than I am, or many other posters can be, so I just think we ought to be a bit more precise in our character assassinations.
I think the reason this board is virulently anti-Bush is becuase they see the job he has done and are not swayed but the social issues. In fact they are violently pro-homosexuality and a bit less violently anti-religion (not necessarily religion in general rather governement involvement in religion). Just looking at the facts Bush has increased government spending, increased the defeciet and brought us into an illegitimate war by shady means. One of the biggest criticisms Bush made of Kerry was the fact that he dared speak the truth that the Iraq war was illegitimate and was the wrong decision. I am sitting here listening to Bush say something to the effect of how can a person lead when they say wrong war at the wrong time and am in disbelief that people agree with that. How about looking at the person that lead us into the wrong war at the wrong time?
At least from my perspective Bush lost on every single policy issue. Spending, defeciets, foriegn policy, anti-terrorism protection were all failures of Bush in the first term. He made up for this in the polls by winning the so called religious right and the patriotism vote. That I think is what riles up the left. If it were that there was an open debate on public policy and the majority just flat out disagreed with me then that is something I and most of the left would accept. That isn’t what happened though, the Republicans won on a moral and patriotic ticket not on issues IMHO.