You guys misunderstand the point of the post I made regarding support for the troops. I was merely trying to explain why some of us feel a certain way. I was very calm and very clear in laying out my position. I was hoping that someone would be able to offer an explanation for the apparent lack of support that I see from some. It was never an attempt to sling mud. I was honestly curious for an explanation. There was no need to take an extremely hostile position in response to my post as I feel my post was not hostile in nature (if it was, I apologize as it was not my intent). I never called anyone any names in the post all I did was to draw a comparision from glynch's comment about HayesStreet's past comments about Muslims and the conclusion glynch drew and the evidence some of us see for why it seems some people do not support the troops as much as they claim to. This in essence is the problem I brought up at first. I asked a generally non accusatory question. I singled nobody out and used no harsh language. The only responses I've gotten have done both. I was merely trying to get an honest response from someone from the other side of the aisle.
Reporting deaths and tragedies involving our troops isn't a celebration, but a look at why we should never go to war unless it is the last resort and we have to do it in order to defend our nation, our allies, or stop a genocide. Neither of those situations were the case with Iraq, and so every death of a soldier is a reason to mourn, and reason to be angry about the war. It is because of support for the troops that tragic occurences are often reported.
I think the problem is what is considered by the word "support." The fundamental difference is that those who support the invasion and the administration see no difference between supporting the troops, their mission and the Admin that has ordered them there whereas those who don't support the invasion see a clear difference between supporting the troops and supporting the Admin.. This ends up being that one side sees support as an all or nothing proposition while the other side has divided the issue. "Support" from the standpoint of the anti-war side is about seeing that the troops are return safe and sound whether or not Iraq is pacified. From the anti-war side the view is that the troops are in harms way at the moment and that the best way to get them out of harms way is to bring them back. The pro-war side looks at it as that the troops are there on a mission and support for them is to support the mission and those who ordered that mission and to see it through till its end. This is a simplification of the positions but I think ecapsulates the difference between the two rhetorical sides when they both say they support the troops.
What happen? Some one set us up the hate! Rove: Ha ha ha. All you rhetoric are belong to us. ----------------------------- What happened to D&D? 1. Rimbaud starting using the term "word" as a sentence. For shame. 2. Hayes ran out of patience. 3. treeman is so far gone that someone seriously called him "treehouse." 4. I perfected the D&D drinking game to such an extent that I became typically too drunk to post. (*hiccup*)
I thought what happened was that success went to our heads. We became to obsessed with fame. Refman started demanding a different dressing room, I wasn't showing up to rehearsals, Treeman wouldn't even show up to the D&D boards unless he brought his new girlfriend with him, and she didn't get along with the rest of us. Then Batman wanted to start a solo messageboard, and it was all over from that point on.
and i've always felt guilty about the affect of my drug habit on the group. just wanted to say sorry for that.
But it WAS mudslinging. Even though according to you it was not an attempt to sling mud, you actually accused more than half of the population of the United States of not supporting the troops. If we cannot debate in a reasoned way without accusing the other side of taking pleasure when Americans are killed, then the D&D will continue to devolve. Apart from my last statement regarding "conservative blowhards," (which I almost edited out and probably should have) I think my response went directly to the arguments you put forth. You have chosen not to respond to those points, much as several posters here do over and over again. After putting forth an argument and getting a response, they simply disappear or choose not to respond. What has happened to the D&D? This thread seems to encapsulate it all for me.
perhaps that is the problem we sling mud . .without knowing it it is so ingrained like folx saying. . I don't mean to be offensive but .. . Then say the most offensive garbage you can think of . .. Rocket River
Hell, everyone should just take a shower and keep having fun. Periodically, this sound and fury over the direction of D&D, how "one sided" it is, how it's gone to hell in a handbasket, comes up. My reply would be... make it better yourself. Post more, not less. Quit telling others here how terrible they are, or how terribly stupid they are, and make good arguments that make your position clear to the meanest understanding. Quit being "holier than thou" towards others. Respect others opinions, and perhaps they'll respect yours. And quit lumping everyone who likes or dislikes the Bush Administration into one big group. The posts that irritate me, personally, are the ones that lump me with "far-left liberal wacko, troops hating, god hating, country hating, want our soldiers to fail, terrorist loving, hateful... blah, blah, blah." It's so much bulls**t. And so is the same aimed at conservatives. Yes, I'm a liberal Democrat, and damned proud of it, but I disagree with much of the rhetoric coming from "my side" of the fence, and sometimes agree with the conservatives here, depending on the issue. Except for deep disagreements over certain issues, I would call myself a moderate, but I have those deep disagreements. Look, I type that damn slogan at the bottom of each post I make in D&D because I believe it's important. I believe this forum is important, and serves a great need for members to discuss these kinds of subjects with people they share a common bond with, love of the Rockets. I don't post on other message boards, although I'm sorely tempted, on occasion. I spend more time on this BBS than I should as it is. Why spread myself thin? People want things to "change" here? Post more, dammit. Make the change yourself. I'm no angel. I put that slogan there as much as a reminder for myself as to be a reminder to others. Again, quit b****in', and make good posts. The forum will be the better for it. KEEP D&D CIVIL!!
No kidding. B-bob needs to keep being stingy with the rules to said game. I don't drink much, but I would play at least once if I knew how the game went.
Hell, I would play at least once if B-Bob were there. Sam would be icing on the cake. I'd probably sneeze from the fur, but it'd be worth it! Keep D&D Civil!!
