I’ve always loved yer screenname.
Yes, although I hear that you can get a waiver if you do alternative service in the Guard.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that. Anything can be made a tournament, especially if you like to bet. 
I haven’t debated all that much with **Moto **lately, so I’m not sure if his posting style has changed. My impression is that he’s willing to give the Republicans a lot of slack, although he will be critical in some instances. He seems to delight to point out the weaknesses or flaws in the other party (Dems), but like he says-- he is opennly and admitedly partisan. Even still, I think he brings a valuable perspective to this board, just as some of the opennly partisan Democrats do. Additionally, he has asserted many times that he thinks a viable Democratic party is a good thing for the country, never claiming that they’re evil.
One big difference I notice between the partisans on the left and the right on this board is that you rarely ever hear any of the righties use silly nicknames for their political opponents. “Bushco”, “chimp-face”, “Fearless Misleader” are all simply ad hominem attacks (ad nauseum, I might add, too) that poison the well of debate. I don’t know about others around here, but I can’t take anyone’s argument seriously when he/she peppers it with that much nonsense.
It’s a nickname I picked up in the Navy, and has no relation to Peter Lorre movies.
Well, then, I retract the statement.
beats my record
I’ve never served a day in the military in any capacity, and I’d have to say that reflection looks pretty damned good. All due respect to those who served, but putting on a uniform doesn’t give you any special insight into politics or society at large, and it doesn’t automatically entitle you to deferential treatment in all other arenas of life.
That said, the people who crapped in his earlier war heroes thread were dicks, and if you look for the pit threads that were generated, you’ll find no shortage of liberals who were willing to say so.
“Slick Willie” ring any bells for you? How about “Lurch”?
Which conservative posters on this board used “Slick Willie” or “Lurch”?
Does the word “rarely” ring any bells for you?
Posters like Diogenes, Elucidator, RedFury, not to mention Elvis1ives and **rjung **routinely use the phrases I mentioned earlier. Not just once in awhile, but most of the time.
It’s not the sin that bothers me, but how often the sin. 
Like everything else, the preferred transgressions of good taste varies along conservative/liberal lines. Has there been a month since 9/11 when some consy nutjub hasn’t been calling for the flat-and-glassy solution to all our problems with muslim terrorists?
when you origanally posted the ‘my side doesn’t do this much’, I did a mental :rolleyes: - but didn’t want to bother doing a search. Admit it both sides do it. the fact that Bush has been in office for the most recent years would, I believe, account for the plurality of usage wrt Bush. Simply put, most current events will invoke Bush vs Clinton etc though Hilary has also suffered slings here, and let us not forget “bore” and “loserman”
it’s easier to remember when it’s the other side doing it.
No. That would be arrogant, not mention unworkable and unrealistic. I was making a point by expressing my annoyance with those folks who felt that little twinge of resentment when they read my post.
Moto contributes to this board in ways that many do not. I appreciate his posts and his presence.
I agree with the above. I respect the contributions of anyone who ends up having a positive effect on society. The reflection comment was aimed specifically at those who crapped all over the War Heros threads. I apologize if I was unclear and implied otherwise.
But how can you compare when the left is out of power and in the minority? Doesn’t it stand to reason that they would be more vocal with anger at this time?
And why are the right-wingers angry at all, when they have all the power now? I’m very curious about this.
Regarding the OP: I participated in that Great Debates Thread. I was surprised that something like that would be considered a “debate” here. I have no standing here, but wouldn’t it have been better to move that thread to The Pit, rather than start this one?
I don’t mind that Mr. Moto is partisan - especially because he is very upfront about it. But the topic didn’t seem to fit the criteria I inferred about the Great Debates forum. What was the “debate” in that thread?
Easy. Just look at the threads during the months before the election. Kerry and Bush were in the news about equally, and there were numerous threads about each of them. I can certainly understand, and have often stated, that it’s not surprising that there seems to be more negative threads about the Republicans since they are in power. I’d expect the reverse to be true if the Dems were in power.
But my point is that using silly, derogatory names in GD equates to an ad hominem that undermines the seriousness of a poster’s argument. It’s not a reflection on a “side”, wring, it’s a reflection on the poster. Furthermore: Side? I am no one’s side, because no one is on my side.
I dunno. If a name is:
- Unoriginal, or
- Substituting for a substantive argument,
then I agree. But if someone has an incisive post, and they drop a silly little insult into it making fun of a politician, it doesn’t really bother me.
Hey, waitaminute. Why are we talking about this, when we’re supposed to be talking about Moto’s lameass partisanship of late?
Daniel
Good point.
I think his partisanship is less of an issue because he’s about as close as we get to having a true social conservative on this board. **Bricker **isn’t really a social conservative; maybe **Shodan **is a soical conservative, but Moto seems to embody that way of thinking more than anyone.
IRL (ie, by US political standards), I suspect **Moto **would be more centrist than social conservative, but on this board, he’s as close as we get to having one of the latter. That’s what I meant earlier when I said I think he brings a needed perspective to the board. And I give him credit for being up-front about his partisanship. He’s not trying to pass himself off as a completely objective bystander.
Acknowledged. I’m disappointed.
I coulda sworn I answered this on the first page. Well, here goes.
Currently, the republicans are in power. Thus, they are the ones who can do the most damage. Their supporters are here. Everyone can see that their side is doing a crappy job, save for them. The vast majority, both here and in real life, believe all roads lead to Bush being right. The total wrongness of them gets pointed out, time and time again. But… they know that Bush is right! Why can’t everyone else see that? Well, no one else acknowledges that Bush is right :rolleyes: , and actually react negatively to what he is doing, so the republicans feel they are being attacked for holding their ground.