Where do the conservative Card readers post?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Jay,
This is not a big liberal board.
We have lots of conservatives here. Including a fair number of POLITICAL conservatives.
Post your opinion and see what happens.
We love to argue!
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I think the general consensus is that the board is central. If only because most of the liberals think it's too conservative and most of the conservatives think it's too liberal.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Jay
I'm a conservative (Bush-supporting) Hatracker. However, I usually just keep my mouth shut on political issues on this forum because speaking my opinions would not have any effect at all on these guys....
Farmgirl
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I think liberals just have bigger mouths and like to hear themselves speak....
(okay, okay -- just joking -- don't start the flames..)
FG
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Is NOT!
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The President has had some difficulty lately maintaining a lot of his supporters here. As a result they seem to be quiet today on the State of the Union discussions.
I don't think that will last long.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
It just seems more liberal lately because Bush is becoming harder and harder to defend. Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
There's not much point in engaging nonsense, Dan. That's why I've left those threads alone. Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I enjoyed the State of the Union address. And I listened to EVERY word (unlike some people who are making comments on excerpts they heard).
and that's all I'm gonna say about that.
FG
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Yes, I think the liberals here are just the loudest and most organized group. You may notice me trying to match their tone and volume from time to time, and usually failing.
Somebody has to keep you all honest.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
yeah, Jay!
You got enough posts in now to get the "new" off your membership status.
FG
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Yes, I think the liberals here are just the loudest and most organized group
That reminds me. Tom, our super-secret newsletter is late this month. What's the game plan for stifling all these mouthy Conservatives?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Wait, wait, wait....
Are we talking conservatives, Republicans, or Bush-supporters? Cause they're three different things.
And yes, this board is pretty balanced between the different views. Historically, I think there has been a bit of complaining about it being too conservative (possibly a LDS influence?) but not too much. At the moment, though, I think we may be missing a few of the louder conservatives.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Yeah, what ever happened to that nice Baldar fellow?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: What's the game plan for stifling all these mouthy Conservatives?
Here's the plan, let the media keep spinning events in your favor, simmer for 10 months, serve hot!
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Yeah, what ever happened to that nice Baldar fellow?
I think that teaching that cordiality class was cutting into his schedule too much, so he had to stop posting here.
By the way, did I hear that he got banned from Ornery too? Was he just banned from all OSC sites, or did he get in trouble over there also?
[ January 21, 2004, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
You forgot to add the one part "Bush is retarded".
The recipe practically makes itself!
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Noemon, OrneryMod made the decision to ban Baldar separately.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Yes, Robespierre, we liberals are very organised. Daily there are memorials circulated detailing how to react to specific issues and to coordinate our stance on controversial topics. The mastermind of our operation is a very prolific poster -- who shall remain nameless (although I am at liberty to disclose that his initials are "TD") -- whose task it is to propose new members to our little cabal and to admonish those who appear to stray from the accepted party line. Of course, all this is very secret, so this is strictly for your eyes alone.
Interested in joining us?
[ January 21, 2004, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Tristan ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Interested in joining us?
Hell yeah! Only, I can't afford the fee, can you waive that since I NEED it so bad?
quote: his initials are "TD"
I always thought his initials were "NYT".
(edited for humor)
[ January 21, 2004, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I'm pretty sure that was Baldar and his wife in that "Club For Growth" anti-Dean ad.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To answer your REAL question, Jay:
It's a shame that you feel the need to locate a board populated by conservative Card fans. Most of us here -- in fact, I'm probably safe in saying ALL of us -- came here because we were Card fans, period, and settled in because we got to know and like each other.
There are some HUGE differences in political opinion on this site; we have religious conservatives, libertarians, socialists, and neo-fascists, all of whom post regularly. And while we don't all agree or reach consensus -- obviously -- most of the arguments are civil and self-moderated. The politics, in other words, tends to be secondary to the community itself -- much as it is in the real world.
If you feel that you would be unwelcome in a board that didn't exclusively cater to conservatives, you'll probably isolate yourself here -- not because we won't welcome another conservative, but because you're probably not tolerant enough to be comfortable talking to liberals.
So you're asking the wrong question. It's not "is this a big gay liberal board," but "are the people here worth getting to know?"
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
The member fee is an appropriate donation to an environmental organisation of your choice. I'm afraid it can't be waived, since we use it to rather effectively weed out the occasional conservative who seeks to join our ranks and spread mischief. There is also a trial period under which the candidate's political views are carefully scrutinized and evaluated and when he is asked to perform a variety of tasks (after a number of complaints, we scratched "having or performing an abortion" from the list, though) in order to prove himself a true and worthy liberal. If you are still interested, I will mention your name at our next cyber meeting.
[ January 21, 2004, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: Tristan ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think TomD's take on this is correct. Ask not what the board can do for you. Ask what you can do for the board.
To quote a famous "liberal"
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
I have this strange urge to get some sushi and cruise around in my Volvo looking for a body piercing parlor...
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: Yes, Robespierre, we liberals are very organised.
But apparently you can't spell.
On the serious side, I don't know what I would call myself. I'm not so sure I like Bush as much as I did back in 2000 (I would have voted for him had I been old enough), but lately it seems difficult to justify his actions.
So I don't know whether I support him or not. Since my opinion of my political position is biased, I don't think I could truthfully tell you where I lay on the political scale. What do you guys think? Conservative moderate maybe? Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
The only reason I asked was because I saw the traditional nonsense Bush basing all over the place and didn’t really see any support for him. So….. I wanted to make sure there were some conservatives in the group. Which I see there are. I figured there must be since Card readers tend to be a little smarter then the average bear. Do you know that when I first started to read Card I was an Atheist? Many many moons ago. I would say around 87 or so I got a copy of Ender’s Game and Speaker for the Dead as a Christmas present. I kept reading Scott Card after that and some years later I did start going to church on no small part to the influence of Cards writing. I always sort of considered Card part of my conservative background and only this past year at the Crystal City tour in Cincinnati did I find out that Scott is a big liberal. Oh well. He’s still a hero of mine and I think he’s really a conservative at heart. Like most of you. It’s just cooler to be a lib now a days! But I’d rather be right then cool. :-)
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Nick, I use British spelling (whenever I remember).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Like in all things, many of the best posters-on different levels, humor, intelligence, wisdom, empathy, or readability-are liberals. Some are conservatives.
Some liberals here, if they can be so named, oppose abortion eloquently. Some conservatives support it.
Most people, here as well, have at least partially fleshed-out political, social, and religious beliefs that defy pigeonholing into liberal and conservative. Take me, for instance. A die-hard capitalist who opposes unrestricted capitalism, a man who's voted for Bush in the past yet supports the right of homosexuals to marry, who thinks Bush's domestic policy needs some work-to be generous-yet mostly approves of the way he's handling things abroad.
No one learned nuthin' by hanging around people who think like they do. Go for a swim in this non-homogenized body of liquid. See how you like it before checking if it'll give you the cooties .
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
By the way Bob, I have the inside track for the Democrats theme for their 2004 campaign!
Ready? This is good!!!
“Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!”
How about that! Those silly liberals now a days. All dyslexic. Gotta feel a bit sorry for them!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I figured there must be since Card readers tend to be a little smarter then the average bear.
But many of the widely-agreed smartest people on the board are, in fact, liberals. Or at least wouldn't call themselves conservatives.
Posted by BYuCnslr (Member # 1857) on :
quote:It’s just cooler to be a lib now a days! But I’d rather be right then cool. :-)
Very big warning on that comment, you may think you're right, but others think they're right, perhaps both are right...in one way or another. Welcome, and enjoy! Satyagraha
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Um...OSC is a big liberal????
Man, I think you should read some of his essays here and on Ornery.
He's well to the right of me and I don't consider myself a liberal. I worry half the time that I'm too far left for this board and then you come along and say OSC is a liberal?
Wow! Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:I wanted to make sure there were some conservatives in the group. Which I see there are. I figured there must be since Card readers tend to be a little smarter then the average bear.
One of the things that you'll discover, if you stick around Hatrack for awhile, is that there are people of varying intelligences at pretty much every point on the political spectrum. You'll find people on the far left and right that are more intelligent than you are, and less, and hopefully you'll come to realize that your own opinion isn't the only one that an informed, intelligent person can come to.
[ January 21, 2004, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:that Scott is a big liberal
My first 2004 nomination for the "Laugh of the Year Award".
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
TomDavidson wrote:
quote: So you're asking the wrong question. It's not "is this a big gay liberal board," but "are the people here worth getting to know?"
... or, as Royal Tenenbaum (Gene Hackman) asks about his soon-to-be-ex-wife's paramour, "Is he worth a damn?"
Hear, hear. A lot of high-quality people here.
[ Edit: typo]
[ January 21, 2004, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: John Van Pelt ]
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I never thought you were overly liberal Bob. I thought you were just the right amount to be a run-of-the-mill democrat supporter. Not to say you're average, but just to say that your views are.
I must have had it fip-flopped. I thought it was generally conservatives that opposed abortion...
I guess I must have some liberal tendencies... Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: Hear, hear. A lot high-quality people here.
Are there low quality people? People who weren't "manufactured" right?
Seriously, I agree that everybody here would be friends with everybody else in person, no matter their differences.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Not me. I hate you.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
OSC speaks the liberal speech sometimes, but doesn't write the liberal essay, or vote the liberal vote.
Essentially, he's for extreme government economic intervention and extreme government social intervention. This makes him, in one of the classic senses of the word, a liberal. Nowadays, his economics would get him labeled liberal (though one would be hard pressed to find many liberals in power who agreed with it) and his social stances would get him labeled conservative.
As the one area he might agree with modern "liberals" on, economics, is not a view of any of the people in power, liberal or conservative (thank god, protectionism is economic idiocy), and he aligns closely with many on the "conservative" side with regards to social issues, you'll find him at the national level almost exclusively a "conservative".
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: Not me. I hate you.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
quote:Question? Is this a big liberal board?
You know, when I imagine liberals, I usually think of them as pretty small. Hobbit sized, maybe.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
And they have the ability to eat for four men! Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Coolness... what fun. Hey, no one commented on the Democrat theme for the 2004 campaign. You know it's what you all stand for in the liberal halls!
quote: his economics would get him labeled liberal
Very true, and his Bush bashing too!
quote: with regards to social issues, you'll find him at the national level almost exclusively a "conservative".
I don't know about that. Maybe a moderate, he's got a lot of social issues he differs on.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
OSC has engaged in Bush-bashing? When did this happen? Jay, for an example of actual BASHING from Scott, you should ask him about Clinton sometime. Once he gets done raving and flailing his arms around incoherently, the stream of invective that he settles into can be quite educational.
------
BTW, Jay, what social issues do you think OSC supports that differ from the traditional social conservative platform? I'm not aware of any. He's to the right, in fact, of many people I know who call themselves social conservatives.
[ January 21, 2004, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Remember, OSC heavily disagrees with Bush on a number of economic issues. However, I strongly suspect you misunderstood the difference between bashing and poking fun at/having fun at the expense of. Public figures are great resources for comic metaphor.
Read his columsn, they're linked to on the front page.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
You know, I think it's counterproductive to lump people into labels like "conservative" and "liberal", and then attack or defend them collectively, as if they all were the same or as if they were like a sports team.
Does it really matter what label OSC falls under?
[ January 21, 2004, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
But Tres, if we don't label him, how will we know if he's on our side or not? Sheesh, some people!
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: Question? Is this a big liberal board?
For the most part, yes.
The great majority of people are like minded as far as President Bush, War in Iraq, War on Terror, President Bush, Lord of the Rings, Episdoe 1, President Bush, Jar Jar, Newbies, Ender's Game, and President Bush are concerned. But this stands to reason considering that this is an internet board and people of at least vaguely similar interest would have found their way here for the most part.
There are a vast array of differing opinions on anything to do with homosexuality though.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Didn't someone start an "in defense of JarJar thread a while back?" It was someone like Bob_Scopatz too...
AJ
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:I worry half the time that I'm too far left for this board and then you come along and say OSC is a liberal?
You and me, both, Bob.
For the record, I agree with TomD's comments on this forum.
**Ela**
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Coolness... what fun. Hey, no one commented on the Democrat theme for the 2004 campaign. You know it's what you all stand for in the liberal halls!
OK, I'll bite...
quote:By the way Bob, I have the inside track for the Democrats theme for their 2004 campaign!
Ready? This is good!!!
“Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!”
How about that! Those silly liberals now a days. All dyslexic. Gotta feel a bit sorry for them!
Well, I don't get it. What's so funny about this?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I didn't get the part about it being a joke, either.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Is it a ripp off from Patrick Henry or Nathan Hale. Or was Nathans "I regret I have only one life to give for my country". Ah well the democrats had better come up with a better campaign slogan than that if they want my vote. Actually it isn't the slogan that matters. It is the issues they pick to adress in the slogan.
AJ
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
No Banna, it's a direct quote from JFK.
I suspect the "joke" is that the poster is implying that liberals actually meant to ask the opposite -- what the country can do for them -- but got the slogan backwards. Haha, isn't that funny. Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
No No! JFK!!
FG
edit: dkw beat me to it
[ January 21, 2004, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I don't like Jay.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Ok I had it totally wrong. My brain is fried at work. I think Im' going home because I got the experiment done even though the glassware is a mess. I had to fix a broken chloride electrode by being creatively inventive (we didn't have any spare parts) and then run my experiment because the requestor needed it asap.
good night
AJ
[ January 21, 2004, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Jay- I used to be centrist, but hanging out on Hatrack caused me to realize that I am extremely conservative. Don't worry about Primal Curve. He doesn't like me either. By the way, that's known as an ad hominem attack (both PC's statement and my response.)
Pseudo-intellectuals think it's cool to whine about the powers that be. This was even true to an extent during the Clinton years.
Anyway, the board itself is neither conservative nor liberal, but the liberals do have more to talk about right now, with the primaries and all that.
The more they say the war wasn't necessary, the more I am convinced it is. The more they say gay marriage is harmless, the less inclined I am to think so. But maybe they'll push me off the horizon one day and I'll pop up left of them. Then the revolution will really get rolling. Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:ad homi·nem adv. Usage Note: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans' evocation of pity for the small farmer struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes. This usage appears to be waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel. ·Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in “Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together” (Washington Post). This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style. ·A modern coinage patterned on ad hominem is ad feminam, as in “Its treatment of Nabokov and its ad feminam attack on his wife Vera often border on character assassination” (Simon Karlinsky). Though some would argue that this neologism is unnecessary because the Latin word homo refers to humans generically, rather than to the male sex, in some contexts ad feminam has a more specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to describe attacks on women as women or because they are women, as in “Their recourse... to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly climate for women's leadership on campus” (Donna M. Riley).
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Saying you don't like someone, as you did, or that their opinion doesn't matter, as I did, are both forms of ad hominem attack. It is to undermine someone's position without addressing the logic of their argument.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Here's another ad hominem attack:
Primal Curve, did you even understand that gobbledy gook you just quoted?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Stating you don't like someone isn't an ad hominem attack at all. An ad hominem attack only occurs when one attempts to undermine an argument by personal attack; PC did no such thing. Yours isn't either, because PC put forth no argument.
And I must say how sad I am you decide your opinions not on the facts of the matter, but on the opinions of others.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
I can't fathom why you're upset with Primal Curve when all he said was
quote: I don't like Jay.
while Jay said things like
quote: I figured there must be since Card readers tend to be a little smarter then the average bear.
and
quote: He’s still a hero of mine and I think he’s really a conservative at heart. Like most of you. It’s just cooler to be a lib now a days! But I’d rather be right then cool.
and
quote: You know it's what you all stand for in the liberal halls!
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm "upset" with Primal Curve because he has dissed me in the past. You share something personal on this board and you get genii like tom and PC zinging you to make themselves look cool
Anyway. Sorry Fugu.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Yes, my point was that I never addressed his argument. I just said I didn't like him.
An ad hominem attack in this instance would have been. "Hatrack isn't liberal. You must be stupid to think so."
All that I did was attack him. I never once mentioned the subject of this thread.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Wow! Thanks for the backup guys.
I've been compared to TomD! Wow, pooka, I take back anything I ever said about you. That was one helluva compliment! Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
(((Primal Curve)))
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
My feet smell.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
While an ad hominem attack is bad, I think a direct attack on a person is much worse.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't think you should apologize to me, I'm just sad for you.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Tres, I wasn't defending myself. I was merely showing pooka how wrong she was.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Tresopax annoys me.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Pastrami makes me happy.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Yeah, me too Mack - that pretentious jerk!
[ January 21, 2004, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Okay, Fugu, now you will suffer the fate of one who does not accept an apology graciously!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, I don't recall ever zinging pooka. Except just now, very obliquely.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
ow, ow
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You hadn't done anything to me to apologize for . . .
I'm not insulted by your view, I'm saddened by it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Are there really 12 other Fugus or is that your age?
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Wow, that must have hurt.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Yeah, I think I just crossed the line into being a troll.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
<hands pooka a sarcasm-meter>
Most people are born with these.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Tom is Liberal, and big. So, we are a board with at least one big liberal.
Does that make this a big liberal board?
Possibly.
I don't like anyone.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I have to do it. Faint of heart, cover your eyes.
Slash: --I--
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
We were actually joking about my kid having a sarcas-o-meter yesterday. But as is frequently pointed out, tone is hard to detect over the internet. That is why it's always safe to assume the worst about people. Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
::covers eyes::
::trips and falls::
--|--
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Oh man, I've been trolling my guts out and Slash gets the finger after one flipping post! This board is all about favoritism.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
You don't always need to rely on tone alone. Sometimes people will just say something completely outrageous that is obviously sarcastic (such as, your barb back there must have stung deeply considering it's not a very strong attack nor is it very cutting or topical.)
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
You can ask any of the Wenchcon attendees about my policy around flipping people off. Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Well, this forum can't be too liberal, or you'd think at least one person would have checked out my Good News for John Kerry thread. Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Okay, that's it!
<Pulls out squirt gun>
SQUIIIIIRRRRT!!! (to everyone)
<Runs off>
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Jay, welcome to Hatrack.
Be opinionated, staunch, irreverent, dead-serious, thoughtful, quizzical, rigorous, sweet, and/or provocative. Just don't be uncivil.
Pretty much the first and last rule around here. (Civility covers quite a lot, though, including avoiding both stalking and plagiarism. )
Engaging the whole liberal/conservative, Republican/Decmocrat, atheist/theist divisive thing isn't nearly as cool as engaging diverse and well-rounded individuals. Really, it isn't. And Hatrack is sort of the Madison, WI of the internet: whatever cause you're espousing--crazy or otherwise--you'll be able to find someone to hold up a sign next to you.
(Again, welcome! )
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Is it possible for one to stalk civilly?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Only if one leaves a calling card. Tastefully engraved, none of that messy pen-and-blood stuff.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Good one, CT!
mack - I don't LIKE that you have never ever flipped ME off . . .
there - how's that for civility and social worker etiquette - I named the behavior Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Shan, when you get AIM, I will flip you off.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
**liberally burninates the Newb Jay**
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Nope, I'm the only liberal here
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
If one were to dobie this thread, which would be worse: Big Libel board or big liberal Broad?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
*adores Slashie*
Take that. Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
AIM . . . an inexpensive toothpaste, I do believe Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
The board is to the right of the political forum I frequent most often. That said, it's quite a bit to the left of where it was before I left (c. 2000), having lost much of its quaint family-centric / Midwestern / LDS character and landing somewhere very slightly left of what the polls say median Americans believe.
Me? I'd have no problem being called a liberal...in the sense that Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. (Recent American perversions of the term don't make much sense.) If I had to choose a modern label, it would be a "1999 conservative," i.e. someone who agreed with much (but not all) of the Republican platform before the current Administration twisted it unrecognizeably.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
That would go along with my theory, that Jatraqueros tend to resist the powers that be. Since most of 2000 Clinton was still president.
I still waffle a bit between the idea that you can't legislate morality, and the idea that some things cannot be made moral, no matter how many people vote for them (i.e. slavery).
I mean, how is legislating to make a traditionally immoral thing acceptable different from legislating morality? (edit, bad example)
Okay, I'm having trouble coming up with one that wasn't adjudicated rather than legislated.
[ January 22, 2004, 12:13 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Shan:
Papa Moose: I'm pretty sure that picture was taken at my place. Or at least it could have been -- Tom gets all snoozy when he visits us.
I prefer to attribute it to his high level of comfort in our home, rather than to boredom, but YMMV.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Tom, can I join the secret liberal group? I'll start the subversive campaign down under...
quote: The only reason I asked was because I saw the traditional nonsense Bush basing all over the place and didn’t really see any support for him
Bush bashing doesn't mean you're a liberal. Just sensible. Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:I still waffle a bit between the idea that you can't legislate morality, and the idea that some things cannot be made moral, no matter how many people vote for them (i.e. slavery).
I mean, how is legislating to make a traditionally immoral thing acceptable different from legislating morality? (edit, bad example)
I can only assume you're complaining about the movement to give homosexuals equal rights.
Morality isn't being legislated -- nobody's promoting homosexuality or prohibiting heterosexuality. In fact, if this ridiculous persecution against homosexuals by the law were to end tomorrow, struck down by the Supreme Court, it would be a blow against the legislation of morality -- no longer would homophobic or fanatically religious conservatives be able to create laws based on religious bigotry to keep homosexuals from their birthright as American citizens to equal treatment in the eyes of the law.
Or were you referring to something else?
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
Lalo rocks my face off! their post just made me smile a huge freaking grin!
[ January 22, 2004, 05:39 AM: Message edited by: Ben ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Yeah yeah yeah, I’m the dyslexic one. I said the quote right from JFK and didn’t say that 2004 Democratic theme. Which really is:
“Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you!”
But anyway, now that I look really dumb….. How embarrassing. But their theme still holds true!
I never realized how much posting goes on here on this board. Pretty cool.
So you all going to watch the big debate tonight? I know liberals hate Fox News since they don’t control it. So I wonder if they’ll be about to get around their channel block to actually watch. I think I’ll watch Friends and CSI instead.
Fun fun fun.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
quote:I know liberals hate Fox News since they don’t control it.
*heaves great sigh* *hangs head*
I don't like the over-production of it. It's like a monster truck rally (George Bush Crushinates taxes on Monday. Monday Monday MONDAY!) But that's a beef I have with all the American news stations and more and more with the CBC (curse you CBC!).
Am I the only person who just wants a person who watches the news to be informed and not entertained?
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, it's been a while since we've had a user obsessed with a single issue. It's kind of odd that Jay's personal obsession is the perceived failings of liberals -- which I suppose he's taking synonymous with "Democrats" -- but to each his own, right? Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
He's amusing himself quite well. Can't argue with that.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Richard, c'mon, it's okay, you can promote Ars here... You fancy-shmancy Mod, you.
-Bok
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I think you do have to give this dude some respect for using the word "crushinate."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think BtL used "crushinate," not Jay.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Phew! Now I can save my respect for somebody I actually want to give it to! Although not to myself, because apparently I can't read.
Posted by Saruman (Member # 2275) on :
*crushinates Saxon*
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
LOL!
Jay, your fascination with liberals is very interesting. Do you have any idea of how you came to be so biased about things?
I mean, really, you seem to be tilting at windmills. I don't know a single person who dislikes Fox News for anything but legitimate reasons, and I know plenty of conservatives who simply fail to watch the Fox News Network (or whatever it's called) since there are so many other better ways to access the news.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I think that Jay's liberlophobia is proof that he's really a repressed liberal himself. Clearly, he's compensating for his own secret leanings toward the-political-position-that-dare-not-speak-its-name.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Wow, I wish I had been reading this durring the fun flaming, then I could've posted this:
And then if you guys didn't calm down I could've found more and more images and informed you that they were all trying to get you guys to calm down. Yah, that would've rocked.
Hobbes Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Ah......ah......wow.
I haven't been so much offended by Jay's comments as.....um....dumbfounded?
He's definitely beaten the record for most jaw-dropping in a single thread.
All I can say is this -- Jay, Hatrack opened my mind. I actually hope you stick around, because maybe it'll open yours.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
"I used to know this liberal, and he was so liberal, and people picked on him and stuff."
"Were YOU, that little liberal?"
"No way! I used to beat him up and say, 'Why are you so Liberal!"
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
*Puts a check mark besides Slash's name under a column labeled "The MAN"*
Hobbes Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: Do you have any idea of how you came to be so biased about things?
I guess because liberals are so silly all the time!
quote: I mean, really, you seem to be tilting at windmills.
Tilting at windmills? Whaa…. http://www.tilting.com/ I like art. As long as it’s not subsidized by the government. Oh cool! I found it. The internet rocks. http://phrases.shu.ac.uk/meanings/383100.html A phrase look up. Pretty neat. “Tilting at windmills” means Attacking Imaginary Enemies. No, liberals are very real. And scary. I know plenty of libs who hate fox news because they think it leans to the right. Maybe this is what you meant by legitimate reasons. But you see, I see Fox news as actually just reporting the news and letting it’s viewers deciding instead of the usual alphabet network way of reporting and giving opinions as you do.
Posted by Jeni (Member # 1454) on :
It bothers me that I can't tell if Jay is joking around or not.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Pop, where are you? This is the very epitome of an Onanism thread.
Though, Jay is typing quite well one handed. Gotta give him that. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Lalo, I actually thought of a good example as I was getting into bed last night. The District of Columbia considered a law that minors over the age of 11 can have sex with persons no more than 4 years their senior. So an adult could have sex with a minor as young as 14 (assuming an 18 year old adult). I was in that age range when it was discussed, I don't know if it happened.
My first thought was about abortion. I don't really consider the protection of homosexuality as a minority status to be settled yet. I don't favor a constitutional amendment on marriage sanctity, though I don't favor instituting gay marriage either. Just like I don't believe in the republican plank of an anti-abortion amendment, but I also think abortion should only be publicly funded for therapeutic reasons.
Anyway, Jay, if you want to see a Hatrack debate on gay marriage I would suggest you familiarize yourself with the search feature. As a matter of fact, you could have started by checking FAQ's for newcomers .
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:This is the very epitome of an Onanism thread.
Exactly why he has no reason to be relieved.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm still interested in hearing which social position OSC holds that Jay thinks is liberal. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
OSC believes in welfare or something like that, I'm pretty sure. His stance on abortion is a mystery to me. But I don't watch FOX news, so I guess I'm not a conservative anymore.
Liberals and conservatives frequently don't know when each other are kidding. Recall the whole "Russia has been declared illegal and we are going to start bombing in 10 minutes" joke.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
It's pretty tough equate conservatives with Republicans and liberals with Democrats, which is what you seem to be doing.
I am, for the most part, an economic conservative. That's why I don't like George Bush!
I'm moderately conservative on economics and moderately liberal on social policy. That puts me directly at odds with the President.
Oh, plus I generally like the idea of smaller government. Homeland Security deparment, anyone?
Oh, and I like civil liberties. Which, you may be surprised to learn, is a traditionally conservative position. Maybe not Republican position, but a conservative one.
Wait.....Jay, who are we talking about exactly?
*confused*
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I think we should retire the phrase "Tilting at windmills" and replace it with "looking for weapons of mass destruction."
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Slash, nice reference. I liked that movie better than it's cousin that gets more lovin'.
-Bok
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
I am about as Republican as we get Jay.
Rhaegar
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Thanks, Mr. Fool.
(punctuation fixed lest it call into question whether I was being sarcastic or merely obtuse.)
[ January 22, 2004, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Am I the only one who doubts the true "newbie-ness" of Jay?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I dunno. What are you suggesting?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Well, I didn't. But I'm gullible. And jet lagged.
(oh, btw hi rivka!)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That Jay is actually an "old-time" Hatracker pulling our collective leg.
Welcome home, imogen!
[ January 22, 2004, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
I think it's Rivka.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I'm just jealous because Jay comes in as a newcomer and immediately has a post that goes 3 pages!!! It took me forever to get enough response to any of my posts to accomplish that feat!!
::note to self -- be more controversial::
Farmgirl
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Nah, he's got a whole identity and everything. Do we know anyone else living in Grafton, WV?
I think he's for real. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And I think it's Slash!
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I think Slash IS rivka.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I won't bother with the rest of your post, but this needs a response
quote:But you see, I see Fox news as actually just reporting the news and letting it’s viewers deciding instead of the usual alphabet network way of reporting and giving opinions as you do.
And the response is...
Which US news outlet (radio, TV or print) has shown US soldiers questioning why they are in IRAQ or talking candidly about low morale?
See, the fact is that we have faced an almost total blackout of negative news on the war from the front lines. I don't necessarily blame the media for this, except that they "embedded" themselves with the troops and thus became part of the story instead of maintaining a distance from it in order to at least maintain an aura of objectivity.
Where do you get the reports about US soldiers feelings? From the UK and Canada (for English speakers).
And frankly, we don't have a single news outlet that even comes close to BBC World News. CNN used to be close but they seem to have sold out. NPR is good, but always seems to take the "quirky" side of every issue for reporting and thus misses the main thrust much of the time.
I generally like the Christian Science Monitor for it's reportage.
But the ONLY print source that's done a decent job of balanced reporting is, in my opinion, The Economist
If you haven't looked at it yet, you should!
Fox is just plain crap in comparison. Some of the other TV news shows are worse than Fox. Some are better. But they are all well below my expectations. And sinking.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
He’s probably Anastasia.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Remember that African American empress or whatever she was that actually turned out to be Captain Somethingorother from some other board?
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Dang!
Beaten to the punch! What are the odds?!
[ January 22, 2004, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: lcarus ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm just trying to figure out what would be gratifying about adopting the moniker "Jay". I guess I'll post stalk him for a bit.
Farmgirl- I used to long for the spotlight of a rapidly growing thread, but when it finally happened it was incredibly embarassing and unpleasant.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
yeah I bet so. [agreeing with Icarus and dkw] I'll give them props for improving their technique though.
Incidentally, Bob I agree. I love the Economist. I keep meaning to subscribe to it one of these days.
I asked my mother for National Geographic for Christmas.
What do I get?-- Readers Digest
I never before realized how targeted Readers Digest is to prey on old people with their ads. Well it sits on the back of my toilet for occasional perusal and then the trash...
AJ
[ January 22, 2004, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Wow, has Anastasia taken Ced's place in the Hatrack pop culture?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
No I think she and Nubian Princess simply have their own chapter...
I think Baldar actually gets eulogized the most.
AJ
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
pooka, wasn't that your dream about Gandalf thread? This one?
I remember that thread!!
*goes to bump pooka's embarassing and unpleasant thread just for fun*
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Wow Bob, you're right--until you said something, I hadn't even *thought* of Ced; I was thinking of Anastasia also. Somehow the direct statement of belief smacked of that guy (and that board's) style.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
I've met both Slash and rivka, and if they're the same person then that is one hell of a make-up job.
And on the other topic, yeah -- nothing to be relieved about.
--Pop
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The combo of member number and post count is suspicious. But he's either for real or unbelievably disingenuous. Since the latter would call for outright cynicism, I shall reserve my judgement. Boy, I but that's a load off for all you oldbies. (I'm being sarcastic, for the benefit of Primal and Tom)
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Reader's Digest is great -- lots of jokes that won't give you a heart attack from laughing too hard. And some poignant stories about overcoming adversity and having a happy ending.
Next time ask for a subscription to Funny Times. Maybe you'll get Highlights.
Those Timbertoes crack me up!
And Goofus and Galant!
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Good job, Farmgirl. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Couldn't I at least have gotten Ranger Rick? I read it in a doctors office a while back and it was just as good as it used to be!
AJ
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Oooo . . .are they still publishing Ranger Rick ?!?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
What about Zoobooks? Do they still do those?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I went on a fieldtrip to whatever organization it is Ranger Rick fronts. Another fond memory from the Carter administration. But I can't remember what it was. I really want to say it was the World Wildlife Foundation, possibly before they were infiltrated by the Chinese.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
[ January 22, 2004, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
WWF was infiltrated by the Chinese?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Am I for real or just part of this Matrix? (didn’t the last two movies suck, first one ruled though)
I am impressed with the response to this line. How funny. I did have an ID a few years back but lost its password and email so got a new one. Don’t usually post much. But after seeing how much fun this has been I’ll probably check it out more often!
And I did get my question answered about if this is a liberal board. Seems pretty spilt to me. Which hey, that makes the world go round right?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Exactly. Now just make sure that as long as you're here you don't lose sight of the fact that all right-thinking people lean to the right. I mean, why else would you use the same word for both types? Also, I hear that liberals like to eat their babies! They must be breeding like rabbits, though, because even what with them eating their babies and all the late-term abortions they're always having their numbers are still growing! Probably doing it out of wedlock, too. Or with animals or something. The sickos.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't know if the NWF and the WWF are affiliated in any way, but the WWF has a panda. Is all I'm saying. I'm not actually suggesting that all multinational interests actually serve the chinese. Not yet, for now.
Edit: I guess I would sound less whacked if I remind folks that I am half chinese, so it's cute when I make xenophobic remarks about them.
[ January 22, 2004, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I was always a big fan of Zoobooks.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
He's not Ced. Ced would never use the same excuse twice about "lost my password". He's too devious for something like that. Besides Tom D's Ced-dar hasnt gone off yet.
AJ
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
the last page ended with the saras-o-meter. Which, by the way, sounded a lot like Dean's rebel yell.
P.S. Checked the zoobooks link and I never saw them before.
[ January 22, 2004, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If Jay were Ced, he'd be a former Marine married to a legless black woman who had recently converted to Islam. Ced's pseudonyms were rarely subtle.
Posted by Saruman (Member # 2275) on :
quote:WWF was infiltrated by the Chinese?
Ooh . . . Chinese wrestling . . .
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Tom D
(but you are right) AJ
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Yeah pooka, I kind of figured you were joking!
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Goodness....... I'm real. I'm a person!
Here I am, touch it. feel it. love it
Sheeze......
Are we having fun yet?
Any of you listen to Hannity? He's got a great Howad Dean loop going today!
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
No but when I went to lunch at Subway Rush was being more acerbic than usual. He didn't make me laugh once the entire trip there or back.
I may not agree with the man but when I do listen he used to be entertaining.
AJ
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: Here I am, touch it. feel it. love it
O_o
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:You can ask any of the Wenchcon attendees about my policy around flipping people off.
Gee, I must have missed it, mack. What is it?
<jealous of people who have met Slash> Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Wow, I had no idea this one was also Jay. And it was almost exactly a year ago.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Must be something in the air.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I read somewhere that this is the most depressing day of the year because by now we have gotten all our credit card bills from Christmas. Or more people have low seratonin related disorders due to the dark overproducing melatonin(depression, OCD, PTSD and other anxiety disorders).
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Yes - my sister told me that yesterday as well - -that January 25th was supposed to be documented as "the most depressing" day of the year (due to statistical evidence, I suppose). Due to post-holiday let-down, S.A.D., etc. I had never heard that before.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I'm conservative in a sense, but probably just a radical on everything else to be honest. My main issue with liberals is they tend to be a little elitist in their thoughts and ideas. Not that some rather pompous conservatives can be the same way. Its simply that its rather hard to find a "down to earth' liberal. Liberals and Conservatives are both guilty of the same thing and that is leading the public, and in that sense American society, around by the tail. Its rather irritating to see at times how strong and amazing America an be at times and then notice how simple it would be to fix most of the weaknesses. The problem is the sides have defined themselves and see no gains for themselves by truely working together. Too many people want to stay in power or simply disagree for the sake of disagreeing with the other side. It seems rather.. hilarious to assume that because a person has a certain view on society that their view on economics could be wrong and vice versa.
Both sides are vastly negative and its embarassing to see. I find it embarassing to see how many people would call their leader retarded, stupid, inept , etc. How can you build something when you bring it down every day with your words and actions. How will my friends lives ever mean anything if all you can do is argue and call each other monsters and heretics. Our nation had these problems in its births and I suppose they will continue on until its end one day, it is simply depressing to watch.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:My main issue with liberals is they tend to be a little elitist in their thoughts and ideas. Not that some rather pompous conservatives can be the same way. Its simply that its rather hard to find a "down to earth' liberal.
Since "elitist" seems to be one of the favorite accusations of Conservative rhetoric, I'm wondering if you can explain what you mean by that. What does it mean to be down-to-earth?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Someone actually called me elitist to my face not too long ago. It was surprisingly not that offensive. In fact, under the circumstances, I took it as a compliment. Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Belle: Elitist!
I just want to know what people mean when they use it as some all-encompassing complaint or accusation.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
In my case, the person used it because I mentioned that a book that a bunch of people at my church were reading and studying didn't really have anything important to say to me. I said I personally felt that the author was "writing to the masses" and aiming her message at people with a fifth grade reading level and only an elementary knowledge of theology.
Now, I wasn't doing this to be ugly, I was asked why I hadn't joined the study and I answered truthfully - while it may be a fine book, it just didn't challenge me. With school and family obligations right now I'm not going to take a night out of my week to sit with a bunch of other women discussing a book that reveals nothing new to me. Then when he asked what books I would like to study I named about five or six that I thought would be appropriate, and I was told that I was an elitist, and if I wanted to study such things I may as well just go to seminary.
*shrug* Heck, if the teaching thing doesn't work out, maybe I will. Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Belle, was it said in a negative way, or just an observation? Because any time I've heard someone call someone else an elitist, it's been accompanied by this revolted disgust, in the same tone of voice that someone would say "scumbag."
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I would first say I don't think one side or the other is more prone to elitism. I would define elitism as thinking that just because you are smart or rich, you are entitled to certain things without applying your "gifts" to anything useful. That is, in America is great because of the opportunity to excel and reach your potential. But to simply worship your own potential and not do anything with it is elitist. I guess I am an elitist because I acnknowledge my potential without doing anything about it. Maybe. I don't know.
P.S. I guess the difference is insisting that others validate your wonderfulness even though you have done nothing to make it self-evident.
[ January 26, 2005, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I will freely admit to being an elitist. I think that I am better than most people. Moreover, I think that many of the things I like are objectively better than the things other people like.
I suspect that the vast majority of people in this country feel this way to some degree, mind you. We only call it "elitist" when we're talking about things that cost more money or require more education to appreciate than their alternatives, however.
[ January 26, 2005, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
To answer Jay's original question...
Yes, this IS a big liberal board.
It's not that there's not conservatives (and Libertarians, like me) here, it's just that they tend to be shouted down by a cacaphony of talking points and propaganda along with the occasional questioning of basic axia such as "Is it really GOOD to be free and happy? Maybe some people don't WANT to be free and happy!"
Btw, don't let yourself be intimidated by Tom. He just writes well. He did it professionally. Lots of people here like him, though, which is boggling.
On the other hand, be ready to back up what you say, perferably with links (to news sites the liberals will accept. Don't like to Drudge or Newsmax unless they are linking from somewhere else.)
You will be straw manned and attacked on semantics.
And you will probably leave as so many have. (I've done it like 3 times but I always come back. I'm sure certain people wish I wouldn't.) Just don't make a huff when you do. Huffy exits make it hard to come back when you calm down.
It IS worth being here. Try to stay away from the political threads if you're easily frustratable and stick to the more fluffy or entertainment related threads. I logged in today, for instance, to see if anything interesting had been said in the "Battlestar Galactica" or "24" threads.
Pix
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Wow! Such an old thread. That seems like forever ago.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"it's just that they tend to be shouted down by a cacaphony of talking points and propaganda along with the occasional questioning of basic axia such as 'Is it really GOOD to be free and happy? Maybe some people don't WANT to be free and happy!'"
And Pix has been known on occasion to exaggerate her case. Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Oddly enough, many liberals feel that this board is overwhelmingly conservative.
Funny how your perspective hangs on what your own personal viewpoint is.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Oh come on Tom... you don't remember Tres's big "Do people in the middle east really want to be free?" argument?
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Pixiest- I am one of those annoying people who changes screennames. Unless you didn't mean me.
Ela- I guess that's possible. Though apparently the board favored Kerry over Bush. But I don't know how many Bush supporters may have just avoided the board that week. I think the conservatives just have a greater tendency to be quiet. It's kind of the nature of conservatism, as opposed to progressivism which I am thinking is kind of similar to liberalism.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"you don't remember Tres's big 'Do people in the middle east really want to be free?' argument?"
You apparently still think that Tresopax/Xaposert actually engages in honest argument, then? See, I haven't thought that for over two years, now.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Mothertree -
I don't think you really have any reliable way to back up your assertion that this board favored Kerry over Bush, for the reasons you stated in your post.
In fact, though Kerry won in an informal exit poll here, I would bet that more Hatrack members voted for Bush.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Why do you think that? Why do you think sarcmup's exit poll was wrong?
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I didn't vote in it. But neither did Princess Leah. We both left the board shortly before the election. I was more conservative, she more liberal. She couldn't take the crankies, and I was being too cranky.
[ January 26, 2005, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
It doesn't really matter if the exit poll is right or wrong, anyway, Porter.
I don't think you can tell anything from a self-selected poll.
And I know some people who consider themselves conservative, but voted Kerry because they disagree with some of the things Bush did in his first term. By the same token, some who normally vote Democrat (and consider themselves liberal) supported Bush cause they felt he was strong on terror, morals, and the like. (Many normally liberal Jews voted Bush cause they felt he was "good for Israel.")
[ January 26, 2005, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: Ela ]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:
quote: Why do you think that? Why do you think sarcmup's exit poll was wrong?
The same reason the national exit polls that leaked were wrong: more Kerry supporters chose to participate.
Yes, for this reason, also. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, the polls that leaked might have had equal participation by Kerry and Bush voters, but they were limited to a specific time of day that might have favored Kerry. Not all the polls leaked.
Dagonee
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Well, the point remains that the "Hatrack exit poll" can't even pretend to be scientific. Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Oh come on Tom... you don't remember Tres's big "Do people in the middle east really want to be free?" argument?
Hmmm... I don't remember that one. I do remember one about whether or not the people in the middle east really wanted a DEMOCRACY - but what what was suggested in that thread, the point was that freedom was possible in non-democratic regimes and that, in fact, FORCING democracy upon them would be taking their freedom. Incidently, I have been proven correct that there is a large faction that doesn't want a democracy, but I have also been proven mistaken in suggesting this faction may represent 50% of the people, as Iraqi polls have shown it is more like a quarter.
More importantly, though, you can't use me an example of what's wrong with liberals because I am not a liberal in any conventional way. I am only a liberal in the vaguest possible sense of the term, or in the shallowest possible sense (the "anyone who votes Kerry is liberal" sense). Keep in mind that, just as you suggest I had a thread claiming the Middle East doesn't want to be free, I have had recent threads that have been interpretted to suggest I was saying the following strawman conservative things, among others:
-Gay people can't get married -Creationism belongs in school science class just as much as Evolution does (this one was actually what I did mean, and do believe) -Pharmacists should be able to deny abortion medicine because their faith thinks that medicine is wrong (This was what I meant too, but I think I was somewhat well-refuted and am not so sure if I believe it now.) -Racism is completely gone And so on... not to mention my repeated complaints against big-government economic policies.
Thus it is inaccurate to try to use me an example of the "liberals" on this board, what motivates them, of how they act.
quote:You apparently still think that Tresopax/Xaposert actually engages in honest argument, then? See, I haven't thought that for over two years, now.
Explain yourself. I think I've argued very honestly - perhaps even moreso than you. I do not, for instance, throw out lines like the quote above without backing them up with a good reason.
I can say, honestly, that I don't think I've ever given any argument on this forum that I knew was wrong when I was giving it. This is not to say I think every conclusion I am advancing is necessarily right, because in many cases I can also think of an equally valid argument from the opposite side that leads to an opposite conclusion.
If you think this is dishonesty, I'd definitely like to discuss that more, because I couldn't disagree more. I think it is CRITICAL that a person recognizes that two different arguments can both seem completely right and yet lead to totally opposing conclusions. And the only real effective way to find which is right and which is wrong is to advocate one in contrast to the other, to see if that one will hold up, if it will fold, of if it will illuminate a fault in the other.
Nothing is more dangerous than believing one thing based on one reason, and then rejecting all other arguments just because, even if they seem right, they lead to a conclusion you don't believe. This problem is very evident these days - where certain conservatives absolutely refuse to consider certain lines of argument solely on the grouds that they have already committed to another line of argument that leads to the conservative conclusion. Similarly, certain liberals refuse to even consider the conservative arguments just because they have already concluded Bush is wrong, and thus reject even seemingly good reasons out of hand for coming to that conclusion.
So, Tom, I'm not sure where we disagree - If (1) you think I am lying when I act like I think a certain argument is a good one, you are mistaken. I don't give arguments I think are wrong. OR, if (2) you think I am being dishonest by giving one argument while simultaneously accepting an alternative conclusion based on a different argument, you are correct that I do that, but I think you are wrong that it is dishonest. In fact, I'd argue it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise (and that you should not pretend otherwise either, if you do!) - to pretend there are no other valid arguments than the one that leads to the conclusion I most believe.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, there is one significant exception to this, and that's when I intentionally say ridiculous things just to have some fun, assuming everyone will know they are intentionally ridiculous - usually these are related to certain unlikely-to-win sports teams that I claim are locks to "dominate." I usually think it is fairly obvious when I'm doing this, though - or at least that it should be. I have been known to mix my serious and absurd a bit much, so I suppose I could understand if there was confusion on something like that. I'm not too concerned though - as long as you actually fairly judge my line of argument when I mean it, it doesn't matter if you think I'm just making it up for the sake of whatever.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Edit: typo]![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)