board77

Quote:

If someone tells me that I make him sick, due to my views and/or opinions without even bothering to say what, exactly, causes their nausea, then I am inclined to poke them back until they do.

I'm not saying hal wasn't wrong, and maybe you think it's harmless to "poke" him, but it can make you look like self-righteous know-it-alls, and in demos case, like he gets pleasure from heartless attacks on someones personality.

Quote:

Better we correctly put a statement like "you all sicken me" down to weak character rather than nasty prejudice don't you think?

Again, I'm not endorsing hal's responses, but you are stooping even lower with this snide "weak character" crap.

The best way to respond would have been "hal, that sort of emotional response doesn't help the debate and actually makes your arguments weaker." Keep the condescending personality jabs out of it.

I can't speak for Demo or his motivations.

However, Iavas, I think your suggestion is a good one. I will try it now and see if halplm returns to the discussion. It is true that his posting history tends to color some people's initial responses to him and he sometimes provokes a knee-jerk reaction. Your response is much more fair.

Okay, take two.

halplm wrote:

you all sicken me

hal, that sort of emotional response doesn't help the debate and actually makes your arguments weaker. Perhaps you could rephrase some of your opinions so that those of us on the "other side" might be able to see your views more clearly.

Quote:

However, Iavas, I think your suggestion is a good one.

I appreciate that

It was a brilliant suggestion, Iavas. We ought to all remember that.

However, I don't care if I am one of the "all" who "sicken" halplm.

If you can't take being disagreed with, then don't argue.

So now, not only am I irrational, predjudiced, hateful, the worst kind of religious hypocrite, a whiner, one whose faith is damaging to myself and others, a bigot who loves assholes like Jerry Fallwell, and weak of character... but I also can't take being disagreed with and shouldn't argue...

but I'm the one who's makin personal attacks...

right...

halplm wrote:

So now, not only am I irrational, predjudiced, hateful, the worst kind of religious hypocrite, a whiner, one whose faith is damaging to myself and others, a bigot who loves assholes like Jerry Fallwell, and weak of character... but I also can't take being disagreed with and shouldn't argue...

but I'm the one who's makin personal attacks...

right...

right...

Lidless wrote:

Never mind the individual personalities (Clinton - cold, calculating, Osama - never made an executive decision), which is more important for America, a black president, or a female one?

Should the decision be based purely on internal America, or the world stage?

Given the monstrous failures of the Bush administration in nearly every endeavor, I think the answer is: either one is better.

As for the "image" of America abroad: a black president (assuming you categorize Obama as black - after all, his mother is white, but that's another issue for another thread) will do "more" for that image.

There are a few nations on earth that have had women presidents and prime ministers. The fact that the US has not yet had a woman president is not, I think, as important to "the rest of the world" as the fact that American presidents have all been "rich white men". Some richer than others, of course.

There is an almost universal and unadmitted contempt and hatred of powerful women all around the world, and no one is particularly surprised that a woman has not been president of the US. It is surprising when women ARE leaders, almost anywhere. While few will admit it, it is often Sen. Clinton's gender and nothing else that makes her "unattractive".

hal -

I will ask you, if your state primary were this Tuesday, let us just suppose that it was, WHO would you vote for? Or would you not vote because there is no candidate that you find being able to choose? BTW, the latter is a totally valid answer as far as I am concerned.

I will be honest, I find myself in a bit of the same dilemma. There are several candidates running on all different platforms that I find myself liking, but none of them are close enough on key core issues that I can say without a doubt that "X" is the person for me at this point. It is easier for me to rule candidates out, and at least in my perspective, Giuliani is someone I dislike nearly as much as Huckabee, and for totally different reasons. I do not like Hillary, and there it is HER I do not like, too much of the consummate politician in her, too much wanting this and thinking she deserves it (which is I know sort of a weird reason to not like her, I just don't.) I guess I am also sick to death of family political legacy sorts of issues, we need to sort of sweep out what we had over the last two decades and start afresh, if that makes any sense.

So, what WOULD you do? I am really interested.

I'd just like to step in here and ask as a member, not a ranger, that you keep things civil.

Demo, your remarks are uncalled for, and inflamatory. If they were addressed to me I would be extremely unimpressed.

Hal. Don't over-react. Please. If you feel you want ranger involvement over what you believe is a personal attack, then ask for it. Otherwise, don't feed the fire.

It doesn't matter what I think, It should be obvious to anyone.

The big issue I have with faith as employed by the GOP is they've basically fallen under the control of the evangelicals and the subset of evangelicals that are fundies and/or creationists. This reflects poorly on the rest of Christianity, including the vast majority of Americans who identify themselves as Christians but only go to church on Easter and Christmas Eve. Furthermore, thanks to these evangelicals, the GOP has taken to waving around a cross wrapped up in an American flag and calling it American when the fact is America was never meant to have a state religion. I don't care that the Founding Fathers were Christian. They were men of the Enlightenment and they did not believe faith and statecraft should be mixed, especially in a place like the US where freedom of worship was built right into the charters of the colonies. To wave a cross and call it American is anything but. Most people do realize that your typical Christian is more like Lali and less like Jerry Falwell, but, at the same time, the Jerry Falwells are much noisier than the Lalis and thus their ridiculous stances are open to the ridicule they deserve.

halplm wrote:

It doesn't matter what I think, It should be obvious to anyone.

??

What's obvious to anyone and, if this thing is so obvious, why do I even have to ask?

when a ranger should take action.

Now for something hillariously accurate.

A 9 year old watched the debate, analyzed it, made notes about it.

See if you can guess which candidate is which before you get to the end of the article.

Daily Kos: State of the Nation

I'm going to echo Alatar here and ask that certain people take a step back before things get nasty.

hal, you're kinda flipping out which is what certain people (CG and Demo)want so just let it roll. I don't see anyone attack religion here and even if they were who cares it's their opinion.

CG, you keep baiting hal which is a bit annoying but that's how you work in these kind of discussions. He doesn't like Ron Paul and doesn't really have to explain it to you any further than that so stop harrassing him.

Demo, you remind me of another poster named democracy hmm strange Democratis and Democray....coinciedence perhaps. In any event you've always been abrasive and harsh so check yourself before you piss me off. Okthxbai!

As for the first topic I don't know enough about any of the candidates to say much but I don't think our President's gender or race is important it's more about what kind of person they are and not what they look like.

I didn't like Bill so it's no surprise that I'm not a Hillary fan either. I like Obama (w00t Illinios) but I do feel he should have waited another term before running due to lack of experience.

All the rest are kind of meh just because I don't know anything about them.

As for religion and politics I am going to agree with Jewel and anyone else who is religious and still thinks that separation of church and state is what's best. If Huckabee really wants to bring religion into politics that would be scary. The first thing I thought of was Iraq and Iran *shudder* no suicide bombers in the United States please. God doesn't want us to kill for him. It sucks that it happens over seas but I'm happy keeping the bullshit over there the U.S. has enough to worry about with more religious fanaticism.

I apologize for any spelling errors

TheMary wrote:

Demo, you remind me of another poster named democracy hmm strange Democratis and Democray....coinciedence perhaps. In any event you've always been abrasive and harsh so check yourself before you piss me off. Okthxbai!

I remember you making some kind of "don't piss me off" type comments in another America related thread previously, perhaps such empty threats are a habit of yours?

The difference between you and Alatar is striking in the tone and tenor of your criticisms. Alatar is someone whose opinion on this matter I can respect based given the consistency of his board behaviour, so I will therefore consider his comments. Your comments on the other hand is inconsistent with your previous behaviour so I'll choose to ignore them.

Demo.

P.S. I don't actually intend to derail this thread any further so if you or Hal want to take this any further then by all means start a thread in the bike shed. I'd be more than happy to accommodate you.

P.P.S. I have no idea who this other Democracy character is, I have always posted under just the one avatar - Democritus. So you can park that insinuation, whatever it relates to.

There is only one simple test of the sincerity of any professed Christian candidate: will they outlaw torture. A politician who accepts its use and claims to be a Christian is a simple liar.

Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:

A 9 year old watched the debate, analyzed it, made notes about it.

This made great reading, C_G. I don't even care if it's true or not - it reads like something a 9-year-old would have written. And I loved the nicknames!\

That's what we need in these campaigns! More humor! And maybe more 9-year-olds to keep things real.



ETA:

TheMary wrote:

All the rest are kind of meh just because I don't know anything about them.

I initially read this as "all the rest are just kind of men..."

TheMary wrote:

CG, you keep baiting hal which is a bit annoying but that's how you work in these kind of discussions. He doesn't like Ron Paul and doesn't really have to explain it to you any further than that so stop harrassing him.

If I'm "baiting" hal, I'm doing it with facts. Hal is a "lower taxes less government" conservative, and I'm showing him the fact that Huckabee is more taxes and more government.

That's what political discussion involves.

TheMary, the truth is that in the past Americans elected men with more experience and did that necessarily turn out well?

Although Americans might take this badly, I will say it anyway: the president of the US is really a figurehead. He has more actual "power" than, say, the Queen of England, but in fact he does not really "govern", he is the chief and must bear the responsibility, but no one man can actually run the US, no matter how brilliant or experienced he might be.

In that case, it seems to me, that any actual "experience" is neither here nor there. What you want is a man of character, who is firmly grounded in reality, not a "ruler". A "leader" is not one who does everything himself, nor who micromanages, a leader is one who knows how to delegate and who then trusts the men he delegates to.

The actual president, not the men who surround him, is the one upon whose shoulders the burden of office falls. He must be a man who can make up his own mind, judge the characters of other men, listen to advice. Better yet, he ought to be a man who does NOT want to hear only what he wants to hear, or what marches with his preformed opinions.

I wonder if Obama is such a man. George Bush sure as hell isn't. He's had his head up his fundament all his life and being in office for 7 years seems to have taught him nothing.

But then, he's not really the president anyway.

what conspiracy theory do you employ to say who IS the president?