Wow. Honestly.
That is so stunningly bullshit like, I’d almost think Bill O’Reilly was saying it to cover one of his many mistakes.
Just curious, but is it your position that politicians never, ever use innuendo and doublespeak to advance positions they know would get them tarred and feathered if stated baldly? That seems… remarkably naive.
So it is perfectly comprehensible that gays are a threat to our freedoms (how, again?)
But it is “utterly ridiculous” that terrorism is a threat to our freedoms.
Patriot Act? Never heard of it. I think it’s one of those liberal myths. Terrorism is all fine and dandy when it comes to our freedoms.
Gays on the other hand… well, just yesterday the Gay Agenda broke into my house when I wasn’t home, without the need for a warrant, to make sure I had performed the required number of abortions.
So how about it, SA. Are you going to leave the Republican party since Bush says that terrorism is a threat to our freedom?
At the very least you should admit that, given that Bush considers terrorism a threat to our freedoms, you were wrong when you said:
"Okay, well, this is just about it for me. You’ve lost all perspective. "
“utterly ridiculous assertion”
“ridiculous bullshit”
“keep this silly kind of shit up and see what kind of credibility you have”
Unless of course, you are going to say all this to Bush.
Just as an aside, I hope you can deal with your overconfidence in, and then blind adherance to, your interpretations, because judging by your language here I am afraid that it will lead you to commit violence in real life.
And what’shisgaybash said what he said to the public press, thereby making it even more everyone’s business.
Nighttime, in fairness to SA, he was calling my assertion that Coburn was comparing gays to terrorists “utterly ridiculous” etc, not the idea that terrorists are a threat to freedom. And while he could have been clearer at the beginning, he’s since made it clear that he does not agree with Coburn’s statements.
Perhaps. But to what degree do you think the mere fact I’m a conservative poster on a vastly predominately liberal message board comes into play? As I said, I’ve seen exactly the same kind of misstatment and misinterpretation applied virtually without exception to any socially or politically oriented comment made by any of the other conservative posters around here. With the exception of the likes of EddyTeddyFreddy, Zoe, (and now you 
), that is.
This is very good advice on your part. I give you my word I’ll try it. But let me ask you, what if they don’t just say “Hey, SA, you’re being kind of a patronizing jerk here, ya know,” but instead they say something more like what I usually get, such as “Fuck you, asshole! You don’t know what you’re talking about.”? How am I to perceive that my adversary thinks that I’m being patronizing?
And this brings up another point. I’ve found to a large degree it’s a pretty good idea to give as good as you get when people start getting ugly with you. Otherwise, you just get run over. When I first came here I would try to proceed logically and politely even in the face of aggressively hostile and profane opposition. I pretty much got creamed. So then I adopted more of an attack stance, still showing respect to those who treated me the same, but becoming a major-league asshole and insult-monger to anyone who crossed me. This was pretty successful. I was surprised to find I had almost everyone running for cover, with some of my profane and insulting adversaries even going so far as to go into other threads and start complaining about how I was being mean to them…and they were part of a thread where I was outnumbered 12 to 15 to one.
But that proved ultimately unsatisfying as well. As I told EddyTeddyFreddy, I was beginning to feel like a right-wing bully and that I was coming off like Ted Nugent with a keyboard. I didn’t like the way I felt when I went to bed after one of these sessions. So I then adopted the posture I’ve used pretty much since, which is to try to be strong so as not to get run over, but not so strong that I act like a bully. I treat people respectfully and will even give them somewhat of a lead on acting ugly before I start to respond in kind.
This has worked pretty well in the main, but I think it may also have played a role in the difficulties we’ve all experienced regarding my posts to this thread. It has begun to appear to me that what you see as condescention and a stubborn refusal to see the problem is what I see as my being strong and attempting to stay on point in the face of hostile opposition. Strength is a good thing, but not if it only makes things worse. You can chalk this one up to another learning experience for me, and I thank you for taking the time and putting out the effort to convey your thoughts on the problem in such a way that I was able to see the situation in a different light myself.
As I just said above, I will indeed try. But I have to say that to a great degree it will depend on the type of things that are being said to me at the time. If my opponent will try to show me how they feel about what I’m saying and where there’s a disconnect, I will indeed work to empathize. But if it’s a just a case of angry insults and gross misrepresentations of what I’ve said, then it will be less successful because I tend to give what I get. I don’t say this out of pride or arrogance, that’s just truly the way it is. I’m like that in real-life (for want of a better term) too. If people talk loudly to me, I talk loudly back. If people scowl and get angry with me, I scowl and talk angrily back, etc. So to a very real degree, it is the people I come into contact with here who determine what the nature of our relationship will be.
Thanks. This thread has proven one of my other theories (I have many :p), and that is that even when things aren’t going the way you want them to, things still usually work out for the best. I, too, had given you short shrift prior to our interaction here. But you’ve turned out not to be such a bad guy yourself. And ETF and I have found we can weather a pretty ugly disagreement and still remain friends. And hopefully, I’ve gained a new insight that will help me to interact here more effectively.
All in all, a pretty good result. Thanks again.
“al-Qaeda is a threat to our safety, not our freedoms.” - SA
I would guess that the vast majority of people, on hearing the phrase “the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today”, would consider terrorists among those threats. And rightly so.
I’m not saying for certain that Coburn is among that vast majority.
But what I am saying is that it isn’t ridiculous to believe that Coburn, like Bush and most Republicans, believes terrorism is a threat to freedom.
SA’s view is highly atypical of Republicans, and ignores, most obviously, things like the Patriot Act.
And that sums up my side of this “debate” pretty succinctly.
Still wish it hadn’t devolved into “liberals” vs “conservatives” (vs, apparently “The Taliban and Saudi Arabia” 
) so quickly, but eh, what are you going to do.
Does anyone remember SA’s advice earlier in this thread?
Where he told gays to do the exact opposite of what he now says is the best idea?
And remember the response?
When people told him that if they did that, they would just get run over?
Looks like he really agreed all along.
That only applies to him, you see, not to gay people.
Hey, Nightime, you know what I think would be a good idea? I think it would be a good idea to tailor one’s behavior to the situation. If I were trying to effect social and political change, I would probably not adopt the same type of behavior as I would in defending myself one-on-one on a message board.
Thank you, Miller. I appreciate it.
The people who you attacked for being too angry were also posting on a message board.
I suspect they too would act differently offline, trying to effect social change.
However, I also think that nobody in this thread really went overboard, given the outrageous nature of Coburn’s remarks. The Pit is the right place to let off steam, and even then it was pretty tame by Pit standards.
I would have thought that if the co-chair of the presidential advisory council on HIV and AIDS said gays are the biggest threat to our freedom, he would get trashed even more.
Not to mention the bizarre things about gays being responsible for abortions. That one has to win the weirdness prize.
In the end, I agree with you that it is better to be less hostile in offline life than in the SDMB pit, but I think you assumed wrongly that anyone else thought otherwise.
I also think gays and those who support their rights DO need to be very vocal, and attack people like Coburn, or they will indeed be run over.
I mean really… you remember the part where he claims gays are the greatest threat to freedom, right? Even if he doesn’t include terror as a threat to freedom (which most Republicans, including Bush, do) that’s still utterly insane.
To some degree, I agree, it is a factor. In political threads, absolutely. In this thread, not so much. Just speaking for myself, I make a deliberate effort not to cast the gay rights debate as a liberal v. conservative debate. It shouldn’t be: there’s nothing inherent in the conservative viewpoint that is incompatible with gay rights, despite what the religious extremists in the Republican party would have us believe.
I think generally the assumption there is that you’re being deliberatly patronizing. That was my first impression, at least. Generally someone whose posts are as well written as yours has a better awareness of their tone. (Hey, how’s that for a backhanded compliment? Sorry 'bout that.)
I think this is most likely the period where I got my impression of you as a poster.
That’s an excellent approach. And, as others have pointed out, it’s exactly what this thread was about before you showed up.
I can see how that could have happened, and I’m glad I’ve helped you out. Thank you for caring enough to listen.
One last piece of advice. Like you said above, for a while on the boards you were coming on pretty strongly and felt like you were being a bully. Some people are going to remember this, and react accordingly. I did, at first. You might want to keep that in mind if you get an immedate negative reaction. Not that I’m saying to be a push-over, of course, just maybe cut people a little extra slack if they start off hostile with you.
You’re welcome. It’s been educational for me, too.
At least one thing we have in common, SA, is that we both get misconstrued.
I don’t recall ever suggesting that you agreed with Coburn’s statements. In fact, I know that you don’t.
I suggested that it was not ridiculous to consider that Coburn probably considers terrorism a threat to freedom, as do Bush and most Republicans. Not certain, but not ridiculous.
Incidentally, have you reconsidered your statement that terrorism is no threat to our freedoms? Given things like the Patriot Act?
Also, dead people lose most of their freedoms.
They still have the right to remain silent.
Thank you.
Was this the argument? I thought, as Miller reiterated not too long ago, the comment about riduculosity (:D) was as to whether or not Coburn’s contention was that gays were “worse than al-Qaeda!” Without intending in any way to defend Coburn, I simply contended that this was not what Coburn said. I would take the same tack with Hitler. If someone posted a quote by Hitler and someone else was so outraged by it, as Miller was by Coburn’s statement, that they repeated it in such a way that the quote was exaggerated (sorry, Miller) I would contest that as well. I guess I’m just a strict constructionist.
Well, I’m sorry…but I don’t remember ever saying that terrorism was no threat to our freedoms. But I do remember saying that terrorism was a threat to our safety, not our freedoms…so I guess you can reasonably interpret it as though I said terrorism was no threat if you want. With regard to the Patriot Act, I think we’re caught up in context. When I said terrorism wasn’t a threat to our freedoms but rather a threat to our safety, I had in mind our basic freedoms that Americans have always enjoyed…you know, like freedom of speech, freedom of religion and so forth. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but you seem to view them as a threat to our freedoms due to the constraints and actions being taken under the Patriot Act. In this sense, I’d say we’re both right.
Wow! Now it IS time.
Quick, everyone, join hands before milroyj shows up again.
:: Loud, enthusiastic, slightly off-key ::
“Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya!..”
:: Big grin, catch in voice “”
You guys are the BESTEST friends ever!
(Still only part-way through the thread, and as I’m at work, I don’t have time to read the rest first.)
Despite your little ‘friend to the queers everywhere’ speeches that you’ve been making throughout this thread, you’ve also been defending a dude who may be appointed to a position of significant power and who is preaching hatred for queerkind.
You are rather outspoken about your politics, and you vote for the guy who was recently behind a push to amend the law of the land to discriminate against us. (So much for Bush having better things to do than to mess with us, huh?) Now you’re asking us to be quiet, and not make waves even on an internet message board. Mockingbird and Grundy here haven’t been yelling slogans outside the guy’s house - they’re venting in an anonymous forum. And you fault 'em for it. Apparently you expect us to sit back, and instead of showing “bile and hatred” (which I haven’t seen much of in this thread so far) we should just wade in the water?
So yeah, SA, not only do I think you would if given the opportunity, I think you’ve shown yourself already to be tirelessly working to do deny us our rights. Congrats, you disingenuous, sanctimonious prick.