Sorry, those are actually the threads I didn't read or only skimmed, as they mostly deal with US domestic issues. I missed it then. Also, how could I forget SamFisher on the leftist side - definitely not less partisan or aggressive or whatever else you want to throw at bigtexxx and TJ. Again, if you want to complain about these two, you would have to complain about him as well.
yes, we all know the reason is your endless fanatical jihad against Islam. So how did you get your start date pushed back to 2000? I guess that's how you lowered your post count too. Ah....nice little trick there! you are still one big turd man.
I have been here since...I don't know, but I think I still remember the days when the software used was "Ultimate BBS". I was definitely here on the old domain already. The only reason I am not a "99er" as tinman would say here is that the switch took place during a time when I was banned and I only read during that time, but did not post. I know many of you are wishing for those days to come back .
When I first came across the website there wasn't a BBS - it was the only Rockets website up, "dedicated to the team I love" was the listing. Being a 99er doesn't mean much, it's just Tinman's way of trying to elate himself up. I don't understand why you have to post so many Anti-Muslim threads though. It's one thing to antagonize people but I think you go too far. And what's up with the personal attacks on people? You definitely pissed me off.
Major, I see your point and agree. However, Sarah Palin is just a pawn in the repub's 'game'. Just as W was. Just as Obama is to the Dem's. The three are faces that each party believe they can get elected, regardless of their experience. Personally, I truly believe that both parties are so deep into Corporate pockets that it doesn't matter who gets elected because some big lobbying industry will get theirs (Dem's=Banking & Insurance Co's. Repub's=Big Oil and Defense). It doesn't change MY personal values because that's all background scenery to me.
Sure - but that's because you're starting with basso or glynch threads. Start with other threads and you see much more discussion until the stupid comments drag the whole thing downhill.
I recognize there are a lot of partisan attacks - I'm guilty of those as well. That's the nature of a heated discussion on an internet message board. But again, the difference is that if you engage SF in a rational discussion, he will talk facts. He will back them up. There might be attacks mixed in too, but there will be a legitimate discussion that can be discussed and debated. With the posters I referenced, there is no legitimate stuff mixed in. It's just rhetoric and attacks. You don't see SF posting threads liked the ones I pointed out.
Totally agree - and that's where the distinction between the vocal and less vocal conservatives come in. There are good conservatives here that have a basis for their views. And I'd love it if those people were more vocal and engaged in the debate. But as it is, the reality is that they tend to be drowned out by the crazies, just as the David Brooks of the world are drowned out by the Sarah Palins. One of my favorite sites on the right is: http://www.thenextright.com/ They formed in 2008, I believe, and talked about this exact issue - forming an actual intellectual basis for the revival of the right. The site hasn't done all that well, though, because the right's activism (really, the Tea Party) has been more geared towards Glenn Beck and Michelle Bachmann. On the left, you have sites like TPM which, while clearly biased, aim for actual news & fact reporting rather than simply engaging in attacks and using hyperbole or ratcheting up rhetoric. My hope is that eventually, the rhetoric nonsense will fail, and an intellectual right will resurface. Interestingly, Newt Gingrich is probably the strongest intellectual on the right in terms of politicians and was very much playing that role throughout the 2000's until this past year. Unfortunately, as he started running for President, he's really gone back off the deep end on the rhetoric nonsense.
A big one that's played out since the financial crisis hit is that I think Major and Sam are corporate sellouts in love with the Masters of the Universe who run Wall Street and way too forgiving of the harm these greedy bastards have done to the country while whining about how they are too big and important to fail or even have significant oversight and regulation. They think I am a simple, ignorant rube more in tune with William Jennings Bryan than the modern economy, calling for a rash, emotional response of Populist pitchforks with little understanding of the complexity of the worlds of business and finance, ready to destroy the village in order to save it. I think you can go back and look at the posts the three of us had on this topic in numerous threads and quickly come to the conclusion that such passionate and argumentative posts are rarely seen on the Con side.
It's so more complex than that. For example, I'm pro-Gay Marriage but anti-Abortion. Our laws speak to our nation's character. To just rest on the litmus test of whether or not it effects you personally is wanting. How did waterboarding three jihadists effect you? It didn't? Then why would anyone feel justified in opposing it? The inarguable pro-Life argument is that we can't be certain when life begins, yet you use it to legitimize abortion while I use it to deter abortion. Is that what we get by being self-serving?
Is this message board a Liberal based board? I'll say, within in my limited involvement in D&D starting 2 years ago, that those that represent the right on this board make it easier for liberals to appear in a more favorable board position. The really BAD examples fire up the base on the other side to unite against them. The liberals have provided better coherent arguments as a result. Why would liberals all flock together like they've been doing? "Rightists" give them reason to (and its not because they've presented a "compelling" issue against the other side..). Analogy- Like the Utah Jazz, we acknowledge that Deron Williams is a quality player for the Jazz. But the Rox fans no matter their differences will be MORE united together in rooting against that asshat Andrei Kirilenko. Then the Jazz will selectively focus their reaction to just that saying oh man those Rockets fans are all in LOCKSTEP, they're all the same! But they don't see those Rockets fans having a divisive 2 year point guard debate between themselves about if Aaron Brooks or Kyle Lowry should start. Outside the extreme situations, I'd say its about 60/40 liberal-conservative. Within that there's the age old issue of certain people not differentiating between presenting compelling issues and outright d******d behavior, or unapologetically blending the 2 together for a real sh#tstorm. (Also, I'd be considered a non-conservative here, though there's PLENTY liberals I do not agree with on this board)
The weirdest thing of all is that I used to come here exclusively for Rockets 'inside' info. Now I may scan the first 3 posts on the Game page while the D&D page regens.....lol. And while I don't agree with the majority I'm anxious to see their opinions. It was awesome to see the Pippen and Francis rumors come to fuitition. But the lack of outrage to Iran placing missles in Venezuela was dissapointing although I laughed my a$$ off at some of the posts.
The only problem, Lou, is that, in your opinion, only the people with whom you agree can be classified as "highly intelligent." Apparently, you have had limited exposure to the moronic tea baggers who are changing the political dynamic using a hearty work ethic, organizational skills and creativity.
I value the opinions of members who will take time to flesh them out, and I respect those who continue to evolve their opinions after debating it.
The thing about abortion is that the topic seems more about, at least to me, women's freedom of choice. Say if a woman had gotten raped, got pregnant, and wanted to abort the baby. Now the conservative argument would be "it's not the baby's (let's call it a baby for the sake of argument) fault, don't 'murder' him/her/it". The liberal arugment would be that "but it's that woman who has to bear the burden of having a child she never wanted". I am not *for* abortion but I am *for* a woman's right to choose. That is why I agree with Donny that comparing abortion to torture/taxes/gay marriage is comparing apples to oranges.
