A perfect way to cleanse USPOL

[chassisman]

I may or may not be alone in the opinion that this once vibrant site has become little more a playground for idiots. The only decent posters that are capable of intelligent debate have to gather in the private forums in order to have discussion worthy of the trouble of typing.
Now here's a great solution............craigslist.com has a section called rants and raves which is chock full of people who want to flame, racially slur, insult one another, and generally conduct themselves in the manner that you so often (now) see here at USPOL. How can we convince our problem children to leave for greener pastures? Maybe we can point out that there is porno posted there too, this should be a direct mental fit for many of them.......kind of a bonus for 'em. There is little moderation, everyone runs amok, and you can even pick on people in your home city or state!
Lets begin the drive to cleanse!

[Captain Trips]

Originally Posted by chassisman

I may or may not be alone in the opinion that this once vibrant site has become little more a playground for idiots. The only decent posters that are capable of intelligent debate have to gather in the private forums in order to have discussion worthy of the trouble of typing.
Now here's a great solution............craigslist.com has a section called rants and raves which is chock full of people who want to flame, racially slur, insult one another, and generally conduct themselves in the manner that you so often (now) see here at USPOL. How can we convince our problem children to leave for greener pastures? Maybe we can point out that there is porno posted there too, this should be a direct mental fit for many of them.......kind of a bonus for 'em. There is little moderation, everyone runs amok, and you can even pick on people in your home city or state!
Lets begin the drive to cleanse!

I'll support your idea. I have no motivation to come and post anything of quality here because .......... there isn't anything of quality here anymore. I got banned from the private forums I was a member of because even THEY were running amok with blathering nitwits and nothing worth discussing was taking place in THEM either.

The way it's going this little corner of the WWW is looking more like what you were describing in craigslist.com

[drgoodtrips]

Originally Posted by Thane

I'll support your idea. I have no motivation to come and post anything of quality here because .......... there isn't anything of quality here anymore. I got banned from the private forums I was a member of because even THEY were running amok with blathering nitwits and nothing worth discussing was taking place in THEM either.

The way it's going this little corner of the WWW is looking more like what you were describing in craigslist.com

Don't you have anything better to do than spend dozens of hours writing posts about how much the place you're posting in displeases you? You're like a shut-in sitting on his couch soiling himself and complaining to his friend on the phone that his place is a dump. Better solutions might include (1) not crapping everywhere or (2) leaving for greener pastures if it's really that bad.

Otherwise, it's hard to have any pity.

@chass - most of the people here to whom your post refers genuinely believe themselves to be quality posters with something important to say. The idea of having a "playpen" for trolls, konspiracy 'enthusiasts', racists, terrorist supporters, and general riff-raff has been bandied about but ultimately rejected because of the fact that no one believes himself to be in that category (except perhaps the troll, whose fun is ruining the place).

We're waiting on the return of the old AWS system that was in place before the forum upgrade. Once we get that back, I strongly suspect that you'll say "good riddance" a bunch of times and find that the forum quality improves.

[Captain Trips]

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Don't you have anything better to do than spend dozens of hours writing posts about how much the place you're posting in displeases you ?

Dozens of hours is quite an exaggeration. Anyways, I believe this could be a much better forum is all. I mean, sure, I have my fun battling trolls. Unfortunately in the battle with trolls liars and nutcases, you usually have to become like one. This CAN be enjoyable if you have a somewhat perverse sense of humor like I do :-)


It gets old even for ME though.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

You're like a shut-in sitting on his couch soiling himself and complaining to his friend on the phone that his place is a dump. Better solutions might include (1) not crapping everywhere or (2) leaving for greener pastures if it's really that bad.

Otherwise, it's hard to have any pity.

Not expecting, wanting or needing pity for ME. Expecting, wanting and needing pity for the forum. In any case, let me do something useful for everyone for OUTSIDE the forum:



Pass this around. We have enough bullshit to live with. Here's a way to control some of it:

Junkbusters Home Page

[gem]

I posted this response to Hank in the "Gerald Ford is Dead" thread in the "Breaking News" section of this forum.

What I'm wondering is if this post is the type of post Chassisman is talking about:

gem gem is online now
Governor


Member Since: Nov 2006
Location: Northern Ixtlan, N.M.
Posts: 550


Re: President Gerald Ford is Dead
Qouting Hank:

Quote:
President Gerald Ford was a great man and patriot who served in WWII. He was a Christian, eagle scout and an honorable man who served his government and the people nobly. He was everything moonbats fight against and fuel for the hate that drives them.
God bless Gerald Ford, God bless America…

If this is true then what about this, Hank?

Quote:
washingtonpost.com

Ford Disagreed With Bush About Invading Iraq

In a four-hour conversation at his house in Beaver Creek, Colo., Ford "very strongly" disagreed with the current president's justifications for invading Iraq and said he would have pushed alternatives, such as sanctions, much more vigorously. In the tape-recorded interview, Ford was critical not only of Bush but also of Vice President Cheney -- Ford's White House chief of staff -- and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who served as Ford's chief of staff and then his Pentagon chief.

And this:

Quote:
"Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said. "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."

or this:

Quote:
In a conversation that veered between the current realities of a war in the Middle East and the old complexities of the war in Vietnam whose bitter end he presided over as president, Ford took issue with the notion of the United States entering a conflict in service of the idea of spreading democracy.

"Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people," Ford said, referring to Bush's assertion that the United States has a "duty to free people." But the former president said he was skeptical "whether you can detach that from the obligation number one, of what's in our national interest." He added: "And I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security."

And the late President Ford's views here are worthy of consideration as well:

Quote:
Ford fondly recalled his close working relationship with key Bush advisers Cheney and Rumsfeld while expressing concern about the policies they pursued in more recent years.

"He was an excellent chief of staff. First class," Ford said. "But I think Cheney has become much more pugnacious" as vice president. He said he agreed with former secretary of state Colin L. Powell's assertion that Cheney developed a "fever" about the threat of terrorism and Iraq. "I think that's probably true."
Sooo, Hank, would you agree that it was the "hate-filled moonbat leftists" that said that there were no WMD's in Iraq and that Bush&Co's assertions that Saddam's regime had them was an outright lie?

Would you agree that it was the "hate-filled moonbat leftists" that said that continued sanctions, and not an outright invasion, would be the best way to deal with the "problem" of Saddam Hussein?

Would you agree that it was the "hate-filled moonbat leftists" that said democracy could never be forcefully imposed from without but must come from a desire of the people within?

Would you also agree, Hank, that it was the "hate-filled moonbat leftists" that said that Bush and Cheney had apparently "gone off the deep end" in regards to their desires to invade Iraq and were in fact the "pugnacious aggressors" in this case?

Because if you agree that it was the "hate-filled moonbat leftists" that did indeed believe in and say all those things- and more- then it would appear that the late President Ford's views and opinions that you venerate and honor were far closer to the views of those "hate- filled moonbat leftists" than they were to the likes of yourself and folks like Hairball, Kinetic, proUSA and Varrusword. It would appear that the rationales and justifications for the war in Iraq by the pro- Bush&Co crowd have just been discredited by a former president that you say was "...a great man and patriot who served in WWII. He was a Christian, eagle scout and an honorable man who served his government and the people nobly."

The false logic and self-serving excuses of the house of cards that you and your "Right- Wing" pro-war Bush supporting bretheren have construtcted for yourselves is crashing down around your ears, Hank- and the words of a former President that you just saluted and honored have dealt your views and opinions a painfully lethal blow.

That being said I have another question for you, Hank:

How do you like your crow- baked or southern fried?

Gem
__________________
HELL IS NOT WHERE YOU MAY BE GOING.
HELL IS WHERE YOU CHOOSE TO REMAIN.
Reply With Quote

What hasn't escaped me is noticing the location of Chassisman- his location is described as the Bible Belt. I also noticed the general flavor of the siglines of those that have posted in this thread thus far that ostensibly support Chassisman's suggestions, and they could not be described as something that favors a "liberal" point of view.
Could it be that what Chassisman is really offended about is the simple fact that the realities of the real world are increasingly supporting and validating the beliefs and opinions of the liberals and the anti- Bush&Co, anti- war and the anti- Fundamentalist Christian crowd and that it is that fact that Chassisman really finds so offensive?

Seems to me what Chassisman really wants is a forum version of "ethnic cleansing".
That's how it comes across to me anyway.

Your thoughts?

Gem

[Tim]

Originally Posted by gem

I posted this response to Hank in the "Gerald Ford is Dead" thread in the "Breaking News" section of this forum.

What I'm wondering is if this post is the type of post Chassisman is talking about:



What hasn't escaped me is noticing the location of Chassisman- his location is described as the Bible Belt. I also noticed the general flavor of the siglines of those that have posted in this thread thus far that ostensibly support Chassisman's suggestions, and they could not be described as something that favors a "liberal" point of view.
Could it be that what Chassisman is really offended about is the simple fact that the realities of the real world are increasingly supporting and validating the beliefs and opinions of the liberals and the anti- Bush&Co, anti- war and the anti- Fundamentalist Christian crowd and that it is that fact that Chassisman really finds so offensive?

Seems to me what Chassisman really wants is a forum version of "ethnic cleansing".
That's how it comes across to me anyway.

Your thoughts?

Gem

My thoughts? I assume this is a general question?

Chassiman is a first-rate poster who has been around here for quite a while, and it seems to me that your bias based on his place of origin is questionable. As for me, no doubt you will take note that I am from both NYC and Connecticut. These are fine, liberal places. However, I happen to be a conservative. I will add another "however": I did not vote for Bush in 2004. I did - however - in 2000.

Can you find a place for me in your crude box?

[Captain Trips]

Originally Posted by gem

I posted this response to Hank in the "Gerald Ford is Dead" thread in the "Breaking News" section of this forum.

What I'm wondering is if this post is the type of post Chassisman is talking about:

What hasn't escaped me is noticing the location of Chassisman- his location is described as the Bible Belt. I also noticed the general flavor of the siglines of those that have posted in this thread thus far that ostensibly support Chassisman's suggestions, and they could not be described as something that favors a "liberal" point of view.
Could it be that what Chassisman is really offended about is the simple fact that the realities of the real world are increasingly supporting and validating the beliefs and opinions of the liberals and the anti- Bush&Co, anti- war and the anti- Fundamentalist Christian crowd and that it is that fact that Chassisman really finds so offensive?

Seems to me what Chassisman really wants is a forum version of "ethnic cleansing".
That's how it comes across to me anyway.

Your thoughts?

Gem

This is ONE kind of garbage that he's referring to actually

What we have here is typical liberal arrogance, offhandedly dismissing as "old nonsense that the world has "moved past"" any opinions or views that don't fit into the liberals oddball worldview.

What he and others find offensive is your arrogance and your attempts to ignore or dismiss any other views.

We find it offensive because it IS offensive.

Liberals are ALL about tolerance and "diversity".

Until you disagree with them. Then the arrogance, lies and misdirects come out with the fangs.

You're a gem alright. A perfect gem of an example of liberal underhanded hateful diatribe.

[gem]

Reply to both Tim and Thane:

So what you are both essentially saying is that what you find so offensive are things like my quoting the late Gerald Fords own words and effectively using them as a rebuttal- and a powerful rebuttal at that- to Hanks point of view?

My friend Jane read what I quoted, shook her head and said I write like a frustrated lawyer, LOL! And yet the part of that post that she considered a "more reasonable" part is the part that Thane and Tim chose to focus on and quoted as being "offensive"!

When a poster like Thane makes this kind of statement...

What he and others find offensive is your arrogance and your attempts to ignore or dismiss any other views.

We find it offensive because it IS offensive.

Liberals are ALL about tolerance and "diversity".

Until you disagree with them. Then the arrogance, lies and misdirects come out with the fangs.

You're a gem alright. A perfect gem of an example of liberal underhanded hateful diatribe.

... what he is doing is essentially saying that the words of Gerald Ford that I quoted to as a rebuttal to Hanks point of view are "offensive", and depict "arrogance" are "lies", and "A perfect... example... of liberal underhanded hateful diatribe.

Contrary to the views of Thane I have listened to, and considered, the points of views that Thane says I “dismiss". It is true that, after listening to such points of view and standing those points of view up against the actual realities we see today in the world I have indeed "dismissed" them- as apparently had Gerald Ford when he was still alive. You may call it "arrogance" if you wish. I call it having the ability and the willingness to face reality as it stands and having the courage to state my own convictions.
The mere fact that Thane and Tim chose to quote the part of my post that they did, while ignoring my jibe to Hank about how'd he'd like his "crow" prepared is a clear indication of what it actually is that you folks find so 'offensive" about my posts.

I rest my case!!!

Gem

[noahath]

I guess us liberals take our cue from the fine example set by many conservatives on this site. :P

I agree to an extent with the opening post in that even since I joined a couple of years ago I have noticed the increase in hateful rants. There is little genuine debate anymore; the site has become partisan in the extreme.

[Tim]

Originally Posted by gem

Reply to both Tim and Thane:

So what you are both essentially saying is that what you find so offensive are things like my quoting the late Gerald Fords own words and effectively using them as a rebuttal- and a pwerful rebuttal at that- to Hanks point of view?

My friend Jane read what I quoted, shook her head and said I write like a frustrated lawyer, LOL! And yet the part of this post that she considered a "more reasonable" part is the part that Thane and Tim chose to focus on as being "offensive"!

When a poster like Thane makes this kind of statement...



... what he is doing is essentially saying that the words of Gerald Ford that I quoted to as a rebuttal to Hanks point of view are "offensive", and depict "arrogance" are "lies", and "A perfect... example... of liberal underhanded hateful diatribe.

Contrary to the views of Thane I have listened to, and considered, the points of views that Thane says I 'dismiss". It is true that, after listening to such points of view and standing those points of view up against the actual realities we say today in the world I have "dismissed" them- as apparently had Gerald Ford when he was still alive. You may call it "arrogance" if you wish. I call it having the ability and the willingness to face reality as it stands and having the courage to state my own convictions.
The mere fact that Thane and Tim chose to quote the part of my post that you did, while ignoring my jibe to Hank about how'd he'd like his "crow" prepared is a clear indication of what it actually is that you folks find so 'offensive" about my posts.

I rest my case!!!

Gem

I ignored your "jibe" against Hank because you chose to bring a specific fight from another thread on to this one. Not fair play, sir.

The comments that I specifically responded to were not even mentioned in your rebuttal: your insulting assumptions about Chassiman. You sound more like a hack journalist writing for a two-bit blog than a "frustrated lawyer". Don't flatter yourself.

[Captain Trips]

Originally Posted by gem

When a poster like Thane makes this kind of statement...

... what he is doing is essentially saying that the words of Gerald Ford that I quoted to as a rebuttal to Hanks point of view are "offensive", and depict "arrogance" are "lies", and "A perfect... example... of liberal underhanded hateful diatribe.

Nothing I posted had ANYTHING TO do with any comments you made about our latest dead president.

Rest your case on bullshit all you want. I see where this is very quickly going to go.

Nowhere. Have fun now.

[gem]

In addition to what I just wrote in my previous post I'd also like to say that it doesn't appear that you guys want a 'discussion" with opposing points of view- what you'd like to see is a forum of sycophants that won't effectively or powerfully challenge your own particular points of view.

Gem

[drgoodtrips]

Originally Posted by gem

Your thoughts?

You were so pleased with your post that you posted it again in a thread in which it was irrelevant.

[Tim]

Originally Posted by gem

In addition to what I just wrote in my previous post I'd also like to say that it doesn't appear that you guys want a 'discussion" with opposing points of view- what you'd like to see is a forum of sycophants that won't effectively or powerfully challenge your own particular points of view.

Gem

This is absurd. I have numerous discussions here all the time with people of many differing viewpoints. I am more than open to people who "powerfully challenge" my point of view: provided they know what they are talking about, of course.

Are you suggesting that you are an example of this? If you are, I will be glad to meet you on the playing field. Nothing I have seen from you on this thread would relate to this, of course....

[Captain Trips]

Originally Posted by Gem

I posted this response to Hank in the "Gerald Ford is Dead" thread in the "Breaking News" section of this forum.

What I'm wondering is if this post is the type of post Chassisman is talking about:

What hasn't escaped me is noticing the location of Chassisman- his location is described as the Bible Belt. I also noticed the general flavor of the siglines of those that have posted in this thread thus far that ostensibly support Chassisman's suggestions, and they could not be described as something that favors a "liberal" point of view.

That would be the cause of your problem then would it ? The siglines "could not be described as something that favors a "liberal" point of view ?"

Originally Posted by Gem

Could it be that what Chassisman is really offended about is the simple fact that the realities of the real world are increasingly supporting and validating the beliefs and opinions of the liberals

Oh, the "simple fact that the realities of the real world are increasingly supporting and validating the beliefs and opinions of the liberals" ?


That is NOT a simple fact at ALL.

The fact IS is that is your OPINION. That is the "simple fact". That liberals like to sell their ideas and lies as "fact" comes through loud and clear AGAIN :-)

Originally Posted by Gem

and the anti- Bush&Co, anti- war and the anti- Fundamentalist Christian crowd and that it is that fact that

Chassisman really finds so offensive ?

Seems to me what Chassisman really wants is a forum version of "ethnic cleansing".
That's how it comes across to me anyway.

Your thoughts?

Facts facts facts. I think you might be confusing facts with opinion and fantasy. That you go on to suggest that someone you disagree with wants a form of "ethnic cleansing" once again tells us about your confusion. Or that you're trying to confuse US.


That's all I'm going to offer you. I know where the arrogance of your kind of thinking will take this. It's already dragging towards that direction very quickly.

Now, here's your opportunity. That's all MY fault :-) RIGHT ?

Of course