You’re right, and i plead guilty.
I’m going to stop now. The OP pitted someone else, and that’s who the thread should be about.
I did? Like I said, I think I usually just skip over his posts. But I’ve been posting here for almost 10 years, so it’s hard to remember everything.
Anyway, I’m not a conservative, although I obviously play one on this MB. 
One thing that can be somewhat frustrating about this MB is being call a conservative if you don’t hate every Republican with the passionate fire of a thousand suns. Not saying you do that, mhendo, but it’s pretty common.
And then there’s ralph12c4.
Hope you brought a lunch.
I’m not holding my breath.
Once in awhile, like today, I make the mistoake of posting in one of his idiotic thread.
His left wing self is Jinx, who doesn’t post in GD as much as he used to, but oddly enough has the exact same habit of posting many, really stupid and generally nonpolitical threads in GQ. Go figure.
Starkers reminds me of Professor Irwin Corey, the World’s Foremost Authority.
That’s understandable.
I only happened to remember it because the post for which you called him an idiot was one in which he was addressing one of my arguments. You can see it here. Actually, in the process of finding that post, i also found this one.
No, i recognize that. In fact, i think you are often treated unfairly around here by left/liberal folks who lump you into the conservative camp in cases where it clearly isn’t warranted.
Yep, and i’ve probably been guilty of it myself at times, although i try to avoid it.
For me, part of the process of rational debate and analytical thinking is a willingness to try and understand where people you disagree with are coming from, to try and inhabit their positions and their worldviews for a short period of time in order to fairly judge their arguments. It also involves being willing to alter your own position in the face of contradictory evidence, or at the very least being willing to say, “I respect your position, but i disagree with you.”
For me, the fundamental problem with Starving Artist is that he simply can’t approach the level of honest and rational debate that i think is necessary for good-faith participation in a board like this. All of us go off the rails at times; i’ve been guilty of it, and i’ve also had harsh words with other conservatives (like Bricker and Sam Stone) when i believed that they were doing it. But for Starving Artist, “off the rails” is his permanent condition, and is the reason that i refuse to do anything except sling shit at him.
But why, then, would you bother to do so?
Look, when I say ‘partisan asshole’ I mean to imply the sort of person who has lost perspective. They are no longer (or never were) looking for solutions but rather argument. I once defined this to the head of the Ohio Democratic Party as being the sort of person for which ‘winning’ is far more important than ‘solving problems’.
It’s people who are either willfully ignorant or are willing to endlessly argue in circles regardless of whether any discussion has actually occurred. If I learned anything in my endless candidate debates last year it was that people believe disparate things and will waste any amount of time arguing because they view any amount of disagreement as a personal affront or attack. Such people are not worth discussion because they’re not about the discussion. They are, instead, all about themselves.
This is the sort of behavior that makes Great Debates a wasteland for worthwhile discussion…at least as far as political and economic discussions are concerned. It should absolutely be meat and potatoes for me yet I don’t not often participate because what I generally see is the same ‘partisan assholes’. It’s like people are stuck in a loop and can’t get out.
I note from the earlier thread that Lonesome Polecat elected not to visit this thread either to comment or defend himself and that’s fine. Because my hopes for this are not about effecting change in him but that, in pointing out that sort of behavior, to influence others to alter their behavior.
I will, of course, continue to nominate people in this thread and include my reasons for doing so. God knows there will be no shortage of candidates from across the spectrum in Great Debates.
Oh, not always. I’m pretty clear about **John’**s non-partisan status, seeing as how if I had a dollar for every time he’s told me about it, it would be hookers and blow for the ol 'luc.
What chaps my hide about that is the self-serving presumption that since partisans are stupid, non-partisans must be somehow smarter. I offer the alternative suggestions that perhaps they just don’t give a rats, or can’t make up their minds.
Hell, I can see both sides of the issues just as well, I’ve made a choice, and I’m going to pull on this end of the rope. And smug non-partisans can lead, follow, or get out of the way.
Of course, I’d take ten John Mace over one **Lonesome Polecat **any day of the week, polite, ambiguous mutterings being better than shrieking madness any day.
I assume this was directed at me, based on the last sentence in my post?
I bother to do so for my own amusement. I don’t do it in GD; i generally reserve it for the Pit, where it’s perfectly acceptable. In fact, the only reason i made any mention of Starving Artist at all in this thread is precisely because it’s in the Pit.
I applaud your effort to make things better in GD, but that wasn’t really my aim in entering this thread. I don’t engage with assholes like Starving Artist in GD precisely because there is no point. As Bricker observed a couple of years back:
I don’t spend a huge amount of time in GD, precisely for some of the reasons you’ve raised in this thread. There are times when i would like to join a discussion, but a quick read of the thread reveals that it has already turned into a predictable partisan hack-fest. I know that, if i enter such a thread, i might have trouble curbing my tendency to call a moron a moron, so i often just decline to participate. And when i do participate, i do my best to argue honestly and cogently. I’ll leave it up to others to determine how well i accomplish this.
A presumption that exists only in your mind.
You continually confuse non-partisan with someone who has no stance on the issues. There are lots of us here who know exactly where we stand on the issues, and the sum total doesn’t add up to overwhelming, near-unconditional support for either party.
Can you name a significant issue that I have been “ambiguous” about?
John, whoever said that it did? If you’re on my touch football team, I don’t expect you to take a bullet. Be nice if you suited up.
I agree that calling oneself non-partisan is not an especially good indicator. Former Doper weirddave was the absolute master of claiming to be “moderate” and “non-partisan,” all the while spouting the most partisan drivel. For some people, hating both the Democrats and the Republicans qualifies as non-partisan; i reject such a definition.
I am non-partisan in that narrow sense that i am often critical of both major parties, but i do consider myself a partisan on a number of issues, and in my general politics. And i don’t believe that to be a bad thing. I am a partisan in the sense that i am committed deeply to particular moral and political positions, and am willing to argue for them strongly. I don’t believe that my moral and political partisanship makes me immune to rational arguments made by people who disagree with me, and nor does it make me immune from changing my mind on certain issues when confronted with particular types of evidence. But there are some positions i am committed to precisely because i believe that they are good. In that sense, i’m a partisan.
But, in the case of John Mace, i wasn’t arguing that he’s non-partisan. I was simply arguing that he doesn’t fit comfortably into some people’s definition of a conservative, and especially not a Republican. I’ve seen him accused of being a knee-jerk conservative on issues where he clearly isn’t. He seems, in general, to be vaguely libertarian in his politics, with a fairly “conservative” (i.e., free market) economic outlook, and fairly liberal social and cultural politics.
What did you mean by “polite, ambiguous mutterings”?
When we agree on issues, which we do a lot more than you seem to think, I’m more than willing to “take a bullet”. When we don’t agree on an issue, then we’re not on the same team.
While you’re directing that at Mace (with whom I have sometimes been confused, God knows) I’ll stand on that.
I am partisan. I’ve chosen sides and done what few enough do: I ran for office. 2010 not being what anyone would call a good year for my party I lost. C’est la vie. But I was in the game. I campaigned for myself, Governor Strickland, Cordray, and ran several county-level campaigns for candidates on my side because they needed the help. There is no one who can honestly accuse me of being on the sidelines.
I have chosen sides. But I am not a, forgive me, ‘partisan asshole’. It is perfectly possible to be partisan and to choose sides and work to achieve goals without falling into the trap of demonizing and name calling and dismissing the other side. And that’s the difference.
Under which party did you run? I seem to remember you as a pretty libertarian-type guy back in the day, but then you disappeared for awhile and you don’t seem to be so much in that category any more. But I could be wrong.
How’s that for some “ambiguous muttering”? 
That’s from the OP, Paragraph 2.
And…only 10 posts this time. Welcome back to your favorite show, everybody.