Politics 2015

[ih8music]

I wonder what an acceptable deal would look like to the people complaining about this one? Aside from total capitulation -- which would never happen -- what is their realistic alternative that Iran would agree to? Or is war and regime change the only choice?

[KevinG]

I wonder what an acceptable deal would look like to the people complaining about this one? Aside from total capitulation -- which would never happen -- what is their realistic alternative that Iran would agree to? Or is war and regime change the only choice?

 

You keep asking a question you will never get an answer too.  And everyone knows asking a direct question on the internet is bad form.

[tinnitus photography]

I wonder what an acceptable deal would look like to the people complaining about this one? Aside from total capitulation -- which would never happen -- what is their realistic alternative that Iran would agree to? Or is war and regime change the only choice?

i'm pretty sure Hixter's got the answer all typed out, we just have to wait until he hits 'Post'

[Hixter]

i'm pretty sure Hixter's got the answer all typed out, we just have to want until he hits 'Post'

As I've said before, calling people out on the Internet is bad form.

[Doug C]

I quite possibly just laughed the best ever. Thanks VC!

[IRememberDBoon]

yeah N Korea tested the weapon because we were inches away from historic meeting between North and South Korea and making things really happen when Bush took Florida and came into office. He destroyed the entire deal and went into psycho boy mode with darth vader at his side.
he blew that deal in the absolute worst way. we had been working on that hard as hell for straight years. disgusting and sad.

[Hixter]

yeah N Korea tested the weapon because we were inches away from historic meeting between North and South Korea and making things really happen when Bush took Florida and came into office. He destroyed the entire deal and went into psycho boy mode with darth vader at his side.

he blew that deal in the absolute worst way. we had been working on that hard as hell for straight years. disgusting and sad.

We were "inches away" from a deal, yet they performed their first test 5 years after Bush took office? And 2 of their 3 tests have taken place during Obama's presidency, so what does that say?

 

They're a rogue regime that can't be trusted. The same can be said about Iran.

[lost highway]

Iran and North Korea are very different.

[tinnitus photography]

As I've said before, calling people out on the Internet is bad form.

you can put yourself typing that on an endless loop and it still won't be true.

 

 

 

[Hixter]

you can put yourself typing that on an endless loop and it still won't be true.

It most certainly is true and it has been so for decades. It is also against the official rules for many message boards and is even a ban-able offense on some. 

 

What exactly did 

i'm pretty sure Hixter's got the answer all typed out, we just have to wait until he hits 'Post'

add to the discussion? Nothing at all.

 

And why was it necessary for someone to include this sentence in a discussion about Ted Cruz that I hadn't even participated in?

yes Hixter he has the right to say the things he does

 

My best friend is prone to posting politically charged, conservative stuff on Facebook. I rarely agree with the content, but I don't say anything because he has a right to voice his opinion and, most importantly, he's my friend. About a year ago he posted something political and called out 2 or 3 of his very liberal friends. I politely informed him that it was impolite to do so and at first he was adamant that he'd done nothing wrong, but after several people told him the same thing he apologized and abandoned that tactic. 

 

People will respond to whatever they please, whenever they please, so calling them out in order to ridicule them or demand a response will always be poor form in a forum like this.

[KevinG]

It most certainly is true and it has been so for decades. It is also against the official rules for many message boards and is even a ban-able offense on some. 

 

What exactly did 

add to the discussion? Nothing at all.

 

And why was it necessary for someone to include this sentence in a discussion about Ted Cruz that I hadn't even participated in?

 

My best friend is prone to posting politically charged, conservative stuff on Facebook. I rarely agree with the content, but I don't say anything because he has a right to voice his opinion and, most importantly, he's my friend. About a year ago he posted something political and called out 2 or 3 of his very liberal friends. I politely informed him that it was impolite to do so and at first he was adamant that he'd done nothing wrong, but after several people told him the same thing he apologized and abandoned that tactic. 

 

People will respond to whatever they please, whenever they please, so calling them out in order to ridicule them or demand a response will always be poor form in a forum like this.

 

Yes we all need to get Hixter's rules to the internet.  I am sure it would be a much better place.  

 

For some reason you see when people asking you questions and clarification as some one "calling you out."  Which at least for me, when it is done it is for clarification.  Go back to the "No Blacks Allowed sign comment."  You said the free market should decided if a business should survive, and they have the right to discriminate if they wish.   So a clarification question was asked on whether businesses have the right to discriminate against Blacks. But the question is apt and is an important distinction.  It is one that could have been answered.  It was a tough question, but a logical one.  And you derailed the question, and turned it to about where racists are in the country or something.  Doug C, pointed a question was asked it again.  I don't think anyone is here to ridicule you, or anyone here.  It would be nice just to have some sort of clarification.    

 

Listen the internet is not a nice place and people can be overly mean.  I have not seen anything like that here in VC.  The politic threads are probably the place where people get the most heated, but they stay civil.  Hixter, you are a vocal conservative voice here.  And sometimes (unfairly) you stand in for conservatives everywhere in this forum.  I think it is important to have a conservative voice here.  It is interesting to see another point of view.  But it is extremely frustrating when clarification questions are asked and they go silent.  I really want to know what conservatives see a solution in Iran.  I know you think it is a bad deal, so what is the solution?  But again you won't answer, because of being called out.  And that of course is your prerogative.

 

So to me at least you do not see this forum as a place for discussion, or at least one that people ask questions of one another.  I guess it is a place where you can say what you have to say on a topic, but when someone asks a tough clarification question it is time to shut down.  

 

I for one am done with this.  This, bad form, BS.  I know enough in dealing with you that it is a waste of time to actually ask you anything.  Which is a shame.  You are a smart guy, and have a perspective different from mine, but you are so caught up on if some is trying to ridicule you and honest discussion is never had.  You said once life isn't fair and no one should expect to go through life without being offended.  But out of anyone here you get the most offended, whether it is judging a group as racists, being called out, or someone inferring something form your statements.           

 

Also IMHO it is more of a bad form to quote something in a forum and not provide any reference to the quote.     

[LouieB]

I am also going to chime in one more time and say I am done with Hixter as well. It was extremely helpful to hear his whole life story the other day because now I understand.  As a rugged, independent, and individualistic American I really can't counteract his belief that everyone should just buckle down and do for themselves and not expect the government to do anything for them.  That's all well and good and I commend him for his life choices.  I suppose everyone should do the same thing, but lots of folks simply can't .  So us bleeding heart types will have to carry on and hope that there is a safety net to catch a few of those who can't.

 

The constant parrying by HIxter by saying that is not what he said or what he believes is also fine. He doesn't agree with anyone on anything so he can't have any particular ideology or political philosophy pinned on him. Also okay.  I am done trying.  He is neither left or right, liberal, libertarian or conservative.  I get that now too. He remains an island.  Good luck with that. 

 

Identifying, even vaguely with a particular political philosophy makes it easier to have a discussion with that person, but going completely Teflon makes that impossible. 

 

I listen to a lot of talk radio these days in the car because music radio sucks so badly.  I listen to way more liberal talk than is healthy and it irritates me after a point. Obviously I listen to far less right wing talk, but occasionally tip my toe in.  The blatant lies coming from Limbaugh and his ilk are outrageous. The carping from the left is merely irritating.  I understand fiscal conservancy, but have no tolerance for the lies about what our ostensibly Republican president is trying to do.  All politicians lie and are corrupt at some level, but we need to hold them accountable.  But the total insanity coming from the far right of the spectrum is laughable if it weren't so sad.  The right is perhaps more interested in big government than the left could ever be, trying to legislate our bodies and our interpersonal relationships and habits well beyond what the left could ever conceive, not to mention spending tax money on stuff that is way more costly than anything the left is interested in spending.  On just one matter, the nuclear talks with Iran, should we be concerned?  You bet, but to not try and get an diplomatic solution to a very real danger and only harp on war is totally fucking nuts.  The battle on gay marriage is already won (or lost depending on your perspective.) The US of A still has the largest economy in the world and we could use it to do so much good, but instead we arm the crap out of ourselves and shun those who need our help (or fully educate our children or do scores of other things.)  We can do something good with our resources (which don't belong to the 1% but are created by all of us including the 99%), or we can squander it all. 

 

LouieB

[Hixter]

He is neither left or right, liberal, libertarian or conservative.  I get that now too. He remains an island.  Good luck with that. 

 

I'm pretty much middle of the road. Whenever I've taken the online political compass tests I've come up squarely at the center, but I just took it again to generate the graph and it seems I've strayed into lefty libertarian territory. 

 

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

[uncool2pillow]

I have no doubt that much of what you say here is absolutely sincere. Those who follow these political threads probably label me as conservative. I still define myself by that term, though the test you just shared seems to show I am wrong. If people read my posts in Facebook arguments with an old high school acquaintance, they would see a completely different side. Usually when I respond to online political debates is when I feel I see either misinformation or poor logic. When I agree, I keep quiet. So they way people perceive my views is going to be largely determined by who else is in the discussion.
 
I do understand why others get frustrated when you try to define the terms of the debate. I think in regards to RFRA laws, it is perfectly acceptable to ask whether someone who supports discrimination against gays on religious grounds would do the same for racial discrimination on the same grounds. There is a history of both in this country. While I somewhat sympathize with folks who have spent their life thinking one way about homosexuality and have not shifted as quickly as the culture, I ultimately cannot justify discrimination of gays without feeling hypocritical because racial discrimination repulses me so strongly. 
 
Businesses are not religious institutions. I do see a difference between a privately held business (especially, a small "mom & pop" type opervation versus something as big as Hobby Lobby) and publicly held corporations. I do believe that at some level, these kinds of operations are due some sort of consideration, I don't think that should include the right to discriminate.
 
Here was my somewhat surprising result on the same test.

 

 

[Mr. Heartbreak]

... the total insanity coming from the far right of the spectrum is laughable if it weren't so sad.  The right is perhaps more interested in big government than the left could ever be, trying to legislate our bodies and our interpersonal relationships and habits well beyond what the left could ever conceive, not to mention spending tax money on stuff that is way more costly than anything the left is interested in spending.  On just one matter, the nuclear talks with Iran, should we be concerned?  You bet, but to not try and get an diplomatic solution to a very real danger and only harp on war is totally fucking nuts.  

LouieB

This is what is most disturbing to me about the right vs. left discussions we have in our country today. A lot of us would agree that Reagan was a relatively shitty to very shitty president, but the right today holds him in the same esteem as Lincoln or Washington. Oddly, and largely thanks to Fox News, people have totally forgotten that Reagan's greatest achievement had nothing to do with the Cold War. His greatest (actually, I should say his most infamous) achievement was moving the far right to the center. Positions that were once considered fringe and thoroughly nutty (abolishing the Department of Education, eliminating the National Endowment for the Arts, etc.) are now considered pretty mainstream on the right. People like Obama - who has governed as a more or less center-right President - are labeled as commie/pinko/wimpy, etc. etc.

 

But look at what Obama has done: continued the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for years; droned the shit out of people all over the Middle East; and can anyone say "Libya"? This guy is not exactly the Dalai Lama. But to hear people on the right talk about him, you would think he makes Jimmy Carter look like Attila the Hun. It is really, really crazy.

 

Some of this is attributable to the utter horse shit coming out of people on Fox or on talk radio...but it really traces back to Reagan, who made John Birch Society politics look sweet and kind of harmless. Oh, it wasn't really that bad when he referred to "strapping young bucks" on food stamps or Cadillac-driving "welfare queens," was it? Nothing racist about that. And transferring millions or even billions to the top 1% of the country all throughout the 80s? Well, that was just giving well-deserved tax breaks to those who are "successful."

 

And it worked beautifully. People here in America don't resent the rich...we just aspire to be them. So they get richer and richer, and hardly anyone minds, really. Everyone in America thinks that one day, they too, can be part of the upper echelon of the super rich. Just got to get that high paying job or win Lotto. That is the heart of old Ronnie's legacy. He moved the whole country to the right. He would never be able to win a Republican primary today, because everyone else in his party is so far to the right of where he actually was. It is sad, more than anything else.

[Doug C]

I Googled "Internet etiquette rules". I thoroughly read all 10 results on the 1st page, https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#q=internet+etiquette+rules&safe=active&ssui=on and found no mention of "calling people out" or anything about asking direct questions during discussions. Maybe the other 1,649,990 results mention how "calling people out" and asking direct questions during a discussion is bad form and ill mannered, but I don't have the time to read them.

 

I don't understand how you can have a conversation/discussion without asking people direct questions.

 

And Louie B and others are correct. All politicians and parties say things that are untrue and hypocritical. But, as a group, not individually, and today, not at other times in history, Republicans and the Right have a monopoly on saying things that are bat shit crazy. 

[Hixter]

This whole conversation borders on the ridiculous. Someone else implies that the entire south is filled with racists eager to throw us back to an ugly era, yet I am the one from whom clarification is demanded?

 

I find it very easy to be polite to people, even when we're disagreeing about something. I've asked questions that have gone unanswered, and made statements that were not responded to, yet I feel no need to demand answers and responses from anyone. It may be "the Internet" but I have no intention of being "one of those people on the Internet."

 

Would VC be a better place if my posts were something like this?

 

Hey UserX, it looks like your messiah Obama has really screwed the pooch in Iran. Leave it to all you lefty libtards to destroy the world -- starting with Israel. But we know you are all a bunch of anti-Semitic pinkos anyway, masturbating to photos of Saul Alinsky with one hand while signing your 12-year-old daughter's abortion consent form with the other. Stop sniffing Al Franken's butt for a minute and explain to me how the Iran agreement won't destroy modern civilization. Or are you too busy filling out your ISIS enrollment form? Huh? Huh?

I think not.

[JUDE]

This whole conversation borders on the ridiculous. Someone else implies that the entire south is filled with racists eager to throw us back to an ugly era, yet I am the one from whom clarification is demanded?

 

I find it very easy to be polite to people, even when we're disagreeing about something. I've asked questions that have gone unanswered, and made statements that were not responded to, yet I feel no need to demand answers and responses from anyone. It may be "the Internet" but I have no intention of being "one of those people on the Internet."

 

Would VC be a better place if my posts were something like this?

 

I think not.

 

I'm pretty sure you'd get banned or at least a time out for posting like that.

 

 

I do like your style and would gladly sign up for your news letter.

[Doug C]

It doesn't border on the ridiculous to ask someone saying that it should be legal for a business to refuse to sell to homosexuals because the free market will take care of said businesses, if they also believe that same reasoning should apply to businesses refusing to sell to blacks. That is all that I did.

I doubt that twoshedjackson believes '"that the entire south is filled with racists eager to throw us back to an ugly era". I know a way that you could be certain of his meaning, rather than make an assumption. You could ask him a direct question for clarification.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

[Hixter]

It doesn't border on the ridiculous to ask someone saying that it should be legal for a business to refuse to sell to homosexuals because the free market will take care of said businesses, if they also believe that same reasoning should apply to businesses refusing to sell to blacks. That is all that I did.

Although I made it very clear that I am in no way a racist, you are still demanding like a modern-day McCarthy that I submit to your questioning about something that was rightly relegated to the trash heap of history 50 years ago. I will reply to whatever I want, when I want, and you are free to do likewise without any goading from me.

 

I know a way that you could be certain of his meaning, rather than make an assumption. You could ask him a direct question for clarification.

And you can rest assured that I wouldn't still be mentioning it (or even caring about it) 10 days later if he chose not to respond.

[Doug C]

Although I made it very clear that I am in no way a racist, you are still demanding like a modern-day McCarthy that I submit to your questioning about something that was rightly relegated to the trash heap of history 50 years ago. I will reply to whatever I want, when I want, and you are free to do likewise without any goading from me.

 

And you can rest assured that I wouldn't still be mentioning it (or even caring about it) 10 days later if he chose not to respond.

Using your statement that race-based segregation was "rightly relegated to the trash heap of history 50 years ago", am I wrong in assuming that you agree that it should be illegal? If I am right in assuming this, then why do you believe that sexuality-based segregation should be legal and left to the free market? If my assumptions are correct, it appears to be a hypocritical stance. I ask you to please clarify and/or explain how you see them differently. I don't want to make any false assumptions. I thank you in advance.

[lost highway]

There's a few ways this type of deal usually goes:

 

- A person who sees the Jim Crow era as odious, but does not agree with action being taken to avoid this type of discrimination in the context of LGBT rights.  When the connection between the two is created it causes extreme discomfort due to a direct revealing of the double standard, a condition known as cognitive dissonance.

 

- The person in question resents being asked to answer for the crimes of a larger group they could be associated with.  This was the point from many enlightened Muslims who were asked to publicly denounce the Charlie Hebdo attackers, i.e. "Why should I have to make a statement every time a southerner drops an N bomb?", "Why should I have to denounce Christians who protest a funeral?" etc.

 

There are a few other permutations of this.  I wouldn't pretend to know where Hixter is coming from (I'll assume option B because he's an overall good dude), and I wouldn't ask him because he finds it extremely rude.

[twoshedsjackson]

There's a few ways this type of deal usually goes:

 

- A person who sees the Jim Crow era as odious, but does not agree with action being taken to avoid this type of discrimination in the context of LGBT rights. When the connection between the two is created it causes extreme discomfort due to a direct revealing of the double standard, a condition known as cognitive dissonance.

 

- The person in question resents being asked to answer for the crimes of a larger group they could be associated with. This was the point from many enlightened Muslims who were asked to publicly denounce the Charlie Hebdo attackers, i.e. "Why should I have to make a statement every time a southerner drops an N bomb?", "Why should I have to denounce Christians who protest a funeral?" etc.

 

There are a few other permutations of this. I wouldn't pretend to know where Hixter is coming from (I'll assume option B because he's an overall good dude), and I wouldn't ask him because he finds it extremely rude.

That is almost exactly what I was going to say. The cognitive dissonance is getting more and more pronounced as the GOP goes further off the deep end. I know some very nice (mostly much older) people who vote republican. The way they can seemingly completely ignore or just refuse to deal with their party's increasingly homophobic, racist, anti-science agenda is startling. I like to think they don't share those views, but the fact remains that by voting the way they do they're at least tacitly agreeing.

[twoshedsjackson]

It doesn't border on the ridiculous to ask someone saying that it should be legal for a business to refuse to sell to homosexuals because the free market will take care of said businesses, if they also believe that same reasoning should apply to businesses refusing to sell to blacks. That is all that I did.

I doubt that twoshedjackson believes '"that the entire south is filled with racists eager to throw us back to an ugly era". I know a way that you could be certain of his meaning, rather than make an assumption. You could ask him a direct question for clarification.

Dude, are you trying to get me called out!?