EL the Famous Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 The same people who inflicted their blind opinions and wills on a nation now put on blinders and sharpen their knives for the next kill. Call me a shit, call me a pussy, but then explain why you think so. Take me apart for what I say if you think it's wrong, and expect feedback. De-evolving into childish crap is context that becomes too common on online forums because people hide behind obtuse screen names and say it's O.K. because "over there people are doing much worse." A. so, let's say jules, because he voted for bush, 'inflicted his blind opinions and wills on a nation, now puts on blinders and is sharpening his knife for the next kill'?! dude, that's couldn't illustrate the type of polarizing generalization i'm talking about! B. i didn't call you or anyone else anything. if i took apart anything, it's what you and others said...not you or anybody else individually. i don't how i could explain my viewpoints any clearer than the past several posts have done already. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 A. so, let's say jules, because he voted for bush, 'inflicted his blind opinions and wills on a nation, now puts on blinders and is sharpening his knife for the next kill'?! dude, that's couldn't illustrate the type of polarizing generalization i'm talking about!Leave me and my silver spoon out of this. Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Leave my KA-BAR and my Brown shirt out of this. Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 matt, i'm not sure why you were explaining yourself to me either. you certainly don't need to. i was just elaborating on why chris doesn't feel that getting 'angry' or using/approving particular language in describing your view on the current adminstration is productive. it's a viewpoint i share and i thought my post you quoted was substantive, albeit emotionally-charged, input as to why. Fair points in your post above. That being said, I do think it is interesting to explore why people aren't that angry about this administration. And I am not sure you are right -- I don't think Chris ever suggested that getting angry was't productive. His point (I think) was that these atrocities are nothing new so why get all bent out of shape over it. This country has done so many horrible things in so many instances that it is scary to think about. But throwing our hands up at the next terrible thing we do, and not getting angry about it, allows it to keep happening. Maybe I am fooling myself to think we can do anything about anything. But, not being angry seems like giving up to me. And that's what I was trying to explore. Why aren't people more upset about illegal wiretapping? Because it's happened before under other Administrations? Of course this isn't the first time we've violated the Geneva Conventions! So what?! Maybe if we get angry about things, things will change. Or maybe, and perhaps more likely, I am fooling myself. As we continue to beat this horse dead, I'd say that I am glad that we were able to turn this train wreck around. (And Chris, sorry to drag you back into this, I am perfectly happy to drop this.) Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cousin Tupelo Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 A. so, let's say jules, because he voted for bush, 'inflicted his blind opinions and wills on a nation, now puts on blinders and is sharpening his knife for the next kill'?! dude, that's couldn't illustrate the type of polarizing generalization i'm talking about! B. i didn't call you or anyone else anything. if i took apart anything, it's what you and others said...not you or anybody else individually. i don't how i could explain my viewpoints any clearer than the past several posts have done already.I can't believe Jules would do that -- not that I know him. I can say in my short time on here I've enjoyed his humor and wit. If I created a list of specific examples rather than a generalization, it wouldn't matter to you, who wouldn't know any of the people on the list. Fox news provides a scary enough portrait that generalization is not necessary. You don't [need] to explain anything to me. I didn't say you called me out. Your viewpoints in your most recent post is clear and again, I really appreciate you taking the time to make yourself understood. As you say, peace. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 I can't believe Jules would do that -- not that I know him. I can say in my short time on here I've enjoyed his humor and wit. Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 As you say, peace. Quick, someone lock this thread. Link to post Share on other sites
gogo Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 as far as dissapointing or offending anybody, neither my red foxx-like posts nor my 'rant' was in any way shape or form different than how i've functioned here for the past X amount of years. there was no intent to intentionally offend or bait anybody. those posts were tame in comparison to a lot of what's posted in the ENTIRE 'Ummm' forum. so, if it's an issue of where it was posted versus what was posted...set me straight on the ground rules. i'm not saying this via PM because it's not directed at any one particular person and, to note, not one person PM'ed me to tell me they were offended...if that was the case, i would have stopped immediately. ms yvon asked pretty politely for folks to stop posting that sort of thing, and I don't think her request was out of line. Also, if I recall, it did pretty much stop after she asked, didn't it? So no worries there. The stuff that we were asking to have out of the thread, and taken to PMs, was the back-and-forth crap on "no offense" "of course you meant to offend", etc. It was a personal argument over the way people were expressing themselves, and it was carried over from a previous argument, and it threatened to drag down the level of the discussion even beyond the depths that had already been reached. I don't think that request was out of line, either. There are some arguments that are probably never going to be resolved, but hopefully they don't have to pop up in every thread, anyway. It's been stated before: moderation is not an exact science. We're seriously just trying to keep the board civil, and manageable. No one enjoys being "the man". Anyhoo: Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 "Mad with power" Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 That being said, I do think it is interesting to explore why people aren't that angry about this administration...Maybe if we get angry about things, things will change. i'm not going to speak for chris. i completely understand where you are coming from, but let's be clear, there are plenty of things this administration has done and continues to do that make me furious. thing is, just getting 'angry' changes absolutely nothing. just getting 'angry' at someone who voted for him changes absolutely nothing. just sharing your 'anger' w/ a message board where most likely 98% of the other posters already agree and piling on said administration against 5-6 posters changes absolutely nothing. actively campaigning for an alternative to what your angry with...engaging in thoughtful, 'anger'-free dialogue w/ those may not agree with you in an effort not to necessarily change their mind for them, but give them the opportunity to make up their mind for themselves...focusing on why your 2008 candidate is a better opportunity for ALL versus a president that won't even be on the ballot for re-election. those things may not change everything or, even, anything, but it's putting you in a more active role in affecting a future wide-open versus a past that can't be fixed. doing very little but talking about how angry you are or convincing other people to be angry as you about where we've been...versus really trying to work together at a better path towards where we're going...it just doesn't make sense to me. again, not directed at Matt or any one individual. Quick, someone lock this thread. too late! Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cousin Tupelo Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 i'm not going to speak for chris. i completely understand where you are coming from, but let's be clear, there are plenty of things this administration has done and continues to do that make me furious. thing is, just getting 'angry' changes absolutely nothing. just getting 'angry' at someone who voted for him changes absolutely nothing. just sharing your 'anger' w/ a message board where most likely 98% of the other posters already agree and piling on said administration against 5-6 posters changes absolutely nothing. actively campaigning for an alternative to what your angry with...engaging in thoughtful, 'anger'-free dialogue w/ those may not agree with you in an effort not to necessarily change their mind for them, but give them the opportunity to make up their mind for themselves...focusing on why your 2008 candidate is a better opportunity for ALL versus a president that won't even be on the ballot for re-election. those things may not change everything or, even, anything, but it's putting you in a more active role in affecting a future wide-open versus a past that can't be fixed. doing very little but talking about how angry you are or convincing other people to be angry as you about where we've been...versus really trying to work together at a better path towards where we're going...it just doesn't make sense to me. again, not directed at Matt or any one individual. too late! You're absolutely right. And I made the point early on that for anything to get accomplished in the next 4 years -- and beyond -- both sides are going to have to reach across the aisle. It's not right to mischaracterize what was discussed as bitching about it without trying to do anything about it. There were interesting points made from both primary perspectives. Anyone, if you're not politically active, you had better not pop off in an anonymous chat. Throwing a derisive wrench into the spokes doesn't make a point, it exacerbates it. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Fair points in your post above. That being said, I do think it is interesting to explore why people aren't that angry about this administration. And I am not sure you are right -- I don't think Chris ever suggested that getting angry was't productive. His point (I think) was that these atrocities are nothing new so why get all bent out of shape over it. I think my point was more along the lines of things aren't as bad as they are sometimes made to appear by some people on the left. I'm mad about many things in the past 8 years. The media's willingness to just lie down for the Bush Administration during the first 6 years of the presidency. The PATRIOT Act (Which most democratic congressmen voted for, if I'm not mistaken). The level of discourse from both sides in general. And some other stuff. But I'm not as angry about the Iraq war, because if I was my anger would mostly just come from my belief that war in general isn't a good thing. But I understand that it is unfortunately a sad reality of our society and civilization. War is going to happen, and this one is no different, really. And I'm not 100% sure I see what 'atrocities' you are talking about. Has Bust used chemical weapons on his own people or suspended elections? Herded people into camps? That's an awful strong word, and I think that's where my disagreement with you comes in. I think he's fucked up, but I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as you do. Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 You're absolutely right. And I made the point early on that for anything to get accomplished in the next 4 years -- and beyond -- both sides are going to have to reach across the aisle. It's not right to mischaracterize what was discussed as bitching about it without trying to do anything about it. There were interesting points made from both primary perspectives. Anyone, if you're not politically active, you had better not pop off in an anonymous chat. Throwing a derisive wrench into the spokes doesn't make a point, it exacerbates it. in looking at numerous posts in this thread and others, i am hardly mischaracterizing anything. okay, that said, how are you politically active? better yet, as an example, how is a comment like 'how do you look at yourself in the mirror' reaching across the aisle? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cousin Tupelo Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 And I'm not 100% sure I see what 'atrocities' you are talking about. Has Bust used chemical weapons on his own people or suspended elections? Herded people into camps? That's an awful strong word, and I think that's where my disagreement with you comes in. I think he's fucked up, but I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as you do.*Conservative* (not, you know Conservative, but conservative) estimates at more than 100K Iraqi civilians dead. Infrastructure is far worse than it was under Saddam. Talk to anyone who's served in Iraq and security for soldier and civilian alike is non-existent. With terrorists being one of the reasons for the war, there's far more terrorist groups in the country now. Billions of dollars have been wasted on contractors who won contracts without bidding and amscrayed with the money. That is pretty atrocious. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cousin Tupelo Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 in looking at numerous posts in this thread and others, i am hardly mischaracterizing anything. okay, that said, how are you politically active? better yet, as an example, how is a comment like 'how do you look at yourself in the mirror' reaching across the aisle?Several committees, frequent volunteer in Duval country, financial support, letters to editor, speaking at various church and club groups. My comment stands for those who continue to support the current administration and refuse to acknowledge the crimes that have been committed, who perpetrate the same sort of dealings that this administration has been caught doing, and those who try to minimize the impact and instead attack anyone who has and does oppose these acts. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 *Conservative* (not, you know Conservative, but conservative) estimates at more than 100K Iraqi civilians dead. Infrastructure is far worse than it was under Saddam. Talk to anyone who's served in Iraq and security for soldier and civilian alike is non-existent. With terrorists being one of the reasons for the war, there's far more terrorist groups in the country now. Billions of dollars have been wasted on contractors who won contracts without bidding and amscrayed with the money. That is pretty atrocious. I think we're gonna be arguing semantics from this point on. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cousin Tupelo Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 I think we're gonna be arguing semantics from this point on.You're right. But we don't need style points, we need to fix the problem and move forward. I think we can agree on that? Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Yeah, I think we always need to fix whatever problems are there. The problem comes when one side assumes the other thinks the problems are the same for everyone. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cousin Tupelo Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Yeah, I think we always need to fix whatever problems are there. The problem comes when one side assumes the other thinks the problems are the same for everyone.What then, do you feel are the main issues of this campaign, if not Iraq? Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 And I'm not 100% sure I see what 'atrocities' you are talking about. Has Bust used chemical weapons on his own people or suspended elections? Herded people into camps? That's an awful strong word, and I think that's where my disagreement with you comes in. I think he's fucked up, but I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as you do. You are right -- we are arguing semantics now. I think what Bush has done to our constitution is atrocious, but I guess it all depends on how you define "atrocities." I don't think it is a relative term or concept. If it is to you, then I agree. Bush has not rounded up Japanese Americans and put them in internment camps. But I also don't think he needed to, or needed to use chemical weapons on his own people, to be committing atrocities. I see where you are coming from now, though. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 I see where you are coming from now, though. I hate America, basically. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 You are right -- we are arguing semantics now. I think what Bush has done to our constitution is atrocious, but I guess it all depends on how you define "atrocities." I don't think it is a relative term or concept. If it is to you, then I agree. Bush has not rounded up Japanese Americans and put them in internment camps. But I also don't think he needed to, or needed to use chemical weapons on his own people, to be committing atrocities. I see where you are coming from now, though. I think a great many people would agree that torture is an atrocity. Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 I think a great many people would agree that torture is an atrocity. Nice that you've got my back now that the argument is over. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 I am hesitant to use the word atrocity for most things. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts