You used to be one of the more intellegent conservative posters and I would always look forward to reading your posts to get an intelligent opposing viewpoint. Lately however, you are sounding more and more like Brutus (whose posts I also enjoy, albeit for a different reason).
IM(not so)HO.
The board didn’t used to be so hostile.
Who changed first?
I, too, am sorry to see Bricker stoop to this level. I had always thought he was above behaving in such a juvenile manner. It is my hope that this is an aberration that will not last too long.
There exists the possibility that Bricker’s post was inappropriately worded for GD; however, pitting somebody whilst failing to actually name the pittee is, in my humble opinion, also bad form.
You’re tied.
Get over it.
I agree, but it will be pointless to try to figure this out anyway. I think that we all need to step back and try to have a higher regard for more intellectual debate that also repects the positions of the other side without trying to paint them as Evil Republicans that derive sexual pleasure from seeing the poor disenfranchised and starving on the streets or Liberal Commie Pinkos that are just stupid little whiny pussies that couldn’t get their candidate elected and therefore hold worthless opinions.
This particular post by Bricker wasn’t the height of mature discourse, but he’s certainly posted some thoughtful and useful stuff in the past.
This will call for a little less arrogance and a little more listening from both sides, but I think the “level” here on the boards has actually come up a bit since the election and here’s to hoping that it will continue to improve.
Could be you are right, there has been a lot of hostility in the past year especially with the election. That said, I remember reading threads in 99 and 00 regarding Clinton that were just as hostile as anything I’ve seen recently if not more so. I do agree that there is a lot of “whining” about Bush these days. I also feel that there are a lot of things about the current administration that leave much to be desired and understand why this makes people “whine”.
One of the most amusing things to me is how the tables have turned. 5-6 years ago the liberals on this board were telling the conservatives to quit whining and get over it. Now it is the conservatives telling the liberals to get over it and quit whining.
Anyway Rick, I don’t know if you are right or not, but I have been surprised for the last several months at the “tone” of your posts. As one of the dopers that I respect most (even though I think you are confused, or maybe just plain wrong, regarding your politics 
) you have seemed to take it a little personally lately. Probably not worth a pit thread, but I did want to express myself without hijacking the other thread.
Since we are in the pit, fuck off EL, who the fuck asked you anyway? OK, maybe you are right. I think it is pretty unimportant as the links make everything pretty clear. However, if any passing mods agree with EL, please feel free to change “you” to Bricker in the thread title.
Eh…It’s just Bricker finally showing his true self. Taking his place among the insulting Bushies.
Is anyone surprised?
Are you saying that “insulting Bushie” is the true self of all Bush voters, or just that this is something you expected of Bricker in particular? I’ll withhold further comment until you reply.
Well, us conservatives *have * been able to learn from the best, **Reeder ** 
The amount of hostility coming from Bricker right now isn’t even a drop in the vast ocean of vitriol that regularly spews out from the left on this board, especially a couple of years ago before we lost Collounsbury and his ilk. But of course, any of us who complained about it back then were accused of being babies who couldn’t ‘take it’. And besides, we ‘deserved’ it.
But hey, late as it is I’m happy to welcome our newfound believers in the need to maintain civil discourse. Too bad GD is but a hollow shell of its former self before all of this got out of hand.
Big words from Mr 4th place…
Almost 100 points out.
A pit over a small bit of gloating? You’ve got to be kidding.
Bricker didn’t say anything out of line, so quit getting your panties in a knot over nothing.
You would better spend your efforts at winning the next election.
You have my vote Eyer8…anyone is better than duhbya.
I have noted on several of these silly “you’re so mean” threads that I find both sides equally guilty of “owning” nasty posters. However, I am still frequently amazed at this sort of extreme silliness:
Col was unnecessarily harsh at the best of times, but trying to place Col on the “left” side of any political spectrum is so absurd as to indicate that the people who grew to hate him never actually read the opinions he actually posted. He was a committed Capitalist with absolutely no brief for Socialism or socialist-leaning posters. He was the sort of “hard science” advocate more frequently associated with Right wing causes than the “touchy feely” attitudes generally ascribed to the Left. His only “sin” that I could see (from the perspective of the posters of the Right) was a serious contempt for the sort of neo-con arrogance that he saw leading the U.S. to make (what he, as an entrepenur in the MENA region considered to be) counterproductive mistakes.
Bricker is, of course, at once one of the most rational and one of the most hard-nosed conservative posters here. I would suspect that his (not out of line, in my opinion) reaction was due to the same confusion I suffered from the article linked in the GD thread. Was the President’s vist political or governmental?
As a rule, I would expect the local government leaders to be given the opportunity to greet the President at his arrival in their locality, but if he was coming in town to boost the local Republicans, I can understand why he didn’t. That horrible article gave no clue which was the case.
This is true, but because the issue of the day was those ‘neo-con’ policies associated with a Republican president, he was the de-facto leader of the lefty pack on this board for quite a while.
:rolleyes:
That’s just stupid. He was arguably the de-facto leader of the anti-Iraq invasion crowd, but neither made him a lefty or a leader of lefties. So far as I can tell, he has just as much contempt for leftist views as he does for Bush’s foreign policy. That you are apparently incapable of distinguishing between “leftist” and “opposed to Bush’s foreign policy” says more about you than it does about anyone else.
What you appear to be saying is that “left” has no meaning other than “people with whom I disagree at the moment, regardless of their actual political beliefs.” Col was in no way the only person whose economics and politics were more nearly Republican or right wing or (if one pretends the word still has meaning) “conservative” who opposed the Iraq strategy, yet every opponent of that strategy is now mindlessly labeled “left.”
That would be in accord with my perception of most of the people (right and left) who accuse the “other side” on the SDMB of being “meaner” or “nastier”. If a poster self-identifies as left or right, they immediately identify everyone with whom they disagree as being of the right or left. It is really not worthy of the sort of discussion that we should be maintaining, here, but after all these years I realize I’m just going to have to put up with seeing such nonsense.
“They started it?”
C’mon, dude. You’re better than that.
No he’s not.