You Lie = Ka-ching!

[Hauptman]

1. Learn what a straw man means before making it your favorite expression. You'll look like less of a dolt.

2. This issue is about respect for the office, not the man. My point was your outrage when it happened to your guy, but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you had no problem with the incoming shoe.

At least I'm consistent. Neither one of them really bothered me.

Sorry to disappoint you and AshleySimpleton here, but I'm probably less of the right winged conservative nut as you'd like to believe I am.

Dolt? Now I can add projection to the list.

It's simple; you keep making up the arguments you expect to hear from us, and then try to knock them down. That's a straw man.

I didn't support that reporter throwing shoes at Bush, but on the other hand I really had no great expectations for some unknown guy in another country. However I do have expectations for an elected official in THIS country.

I'm also not "outraged" by the idiot congressman; just disappointed.

SO you lecture us and make incorrect assumptions about how us liberals show no respect for the office, and then tell us you have no problem with it yourself. You're right; you're consistently hypocritical.

[Slim]

I am also consistant. I think that neither the reporter that tossed the shoe, nor Joe Wilson should hold a seat in Congress

I also understand your tactics. you are not a conservative. You spew factiods, and present yourself as an incredibly stupid lemming following the orders of right wing pundents. Doing this makes all conservatives look as stupid as you, and this discredits them. Then you can see your true adgenda come to fruition: "Gay porn is an inailenable right, and should be shown in schools." You are way to liberal, and you will fail

Let the ad hominems flow, I guess....

AshleySimpleton, congratulations. You are now the sole occupant of my ignore list. I would respectfully request you add me to yours. I enjoy the banter and back and forth with a lot of people here. You're not one of them.

You're just boring.


Buh bye.

[jessicasimpson]

Let the ad hominems flow, I guess....

AshleySimpleton, congratulations. You are now the sole occupant of my ignore list. I would respectfully request you add me to yours. I enjoy the banter and back and forth with a lot of people here. You're not one of them.

You're just boring.


Buh bye.

Don't let me exposing the truth deter you, you keep on keepin' on.
I however have always gotten several laughs from your bigotry, sexism, and general stupidity, so you will not make my ignore list.

[thereom4]

I didnt see much of an uproar from the left when someone chucked a shoe at the last president. In fact, a good number of people here though it was pretty funny. So much for mutual respect for the office.

Though I'm not on the left (or the right).......I thought the shoe throwing incident sooo disrespectful. I don't like the precedent it sets. Bush wasn't my favorite president but he was OUR president and that was uncalled for. Now I'll laugh at a lot of things but, assault and attempted battery on a U.S. president is not funny to me.

P.S. I wasn't an active member on this forum yet either.

[I_luv_saber]

Firstly, Oookay.

Secondly:

I expect better of you.

Really?

[Fiat Slug]

I didnt see much of an uproar from the left when someone chucked a shoe at the last president. In fact, a good number of people here though it was pretty funny. So much for mutual respect for the office.

Throwing a shoe at a head of state is funny and yet disrespectful. Calling a head of state a liar is disrespectful and not funny. However, we live in a relatively free society where it is not a criminal offense to call a head of state a liar even though the remark is offensive and disrespectful.

Why did you sign your contribution "friends from fencing.net"? Your comment about the shoe-throwing incident suggests that you know that Joe Wilson does not have many friends here at fencing.net. Until a few days ago, he didn't have many enemies here either. What is your objective in signing (and telling us) about the way your signed your contribution?

[chase]

i just found his donation page and forwarded the link to my dad. i think he'll make a donation too!

good job. democracy in action! (i'd rep you again if i could)

[MyrddinsPrecint]

no taxation without representation!

.... how do you feel about statehood for DC?

[Purple Fencer]

Yes, it was. No argument.

No one hits every time he comes to bat...

[I_luv_saber]

Man... the politics forum used to be fun. But it's really starting to degenerate into nothing but yelling matches.

I suppose it's a reflection on society as a whole in the States right now...

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Man... the politics forum used to be fun. But it's really starting to degenerate into nothing but yelling matches.

I suppose it's a reflection on society as a whole in the States right now...

People take after their role models, I guess.

Things work a little different were I come from, though. Over here, if someone from/representing party A flames away at party B, he always runs the risk that voters currently favoring party C, which is different from both A and B but closer to B, will vote for party B just because they dislike the vicious attacks, and want to punish them. This keeps the most vitriolic stuff in check, since most proponents of party A actually have some sense of what not to do, so as not to shoot themselves in their collective political foot.

However, in a country where there is no significant party C, this dampening mechanism can not function. One has to rely on the participant´s honor, rather than their self-interest, if one wants to see civil discourse.

The fact that USA only has two important parties at any one time is of course a consequence of Duverger´s law. It can be fixed, but not without significant changes to the constitution.

Downer of the day.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[I_luv_saber]

I agree. For multiple reasons, I've always favored a multi-party system to a two party system (or two coalition system as some like to call it).

[Gav]

ILS,

It's actually been like that for some time. It's one of the reasons I am reluctant to post here all that often. There's just no point in investing time when the you can't have any sort of reasonable discourse.

[I_luv_saber]

Well, there was always that undercurrent. But, to me, it seemed like that's just what it was: an underlying issue. For some reason it now seems to be pushed to the forefront. Dunno, just seems worse lately for some reason. I can't remember the last time there were more than 3 flame threads at once that were active...

For awhile there, there seemed to be some very good and reasonable debate going on, and I loved using this place as a way to think out loud and work out issues and standpoints. We really have some stellar boarders on here who have made this place really fun. It's just too bad a select few have had to ruin it. Oh well... here's hoping it gets better. Until then, I think I'm going to start migrating over to the Water Cooler and Games forums more...

[Inquartata]

There's just no point in investing time when the you can't have any sort of reasonable discourse.

Why bother, when even the moderators occasionally just resort to name-calling?

[Bayou Bum]

The fact that USA only has two important parties at any one time is of course a consequence of Duverger´s law. It can be fixed, but not without significant changes to the constitution.

An example of this was the 1992 election where Ross Perot earned 19% of the votes and put Clinton in the White House. But our Constitution doesn't mention political parties, so what change do you think is needed? Currently, with 538 electoral votes, if 3 candidates split the votes with no one gaining the 270 needed, the election would go to the House to decide.

While I think Sweeden has too many parties, I'm undecided on a multiparty system in the US.

[chase]

.... how do you feel about statehood for DC?

the framers of the constitution didnt want the CAPITOL to be in ANY one state. annexation of parts of dc by maryland might be in order, but it shouldnt be an extra state just because the liberals want to further their political gain by ripping up the CONSTITUTION.

[fencerchica]

the framers of the constitution didnt want the CAPITOL to be in ANY one state. annexation of parts of dc by maryland might be in order, but it shouldnt be an extra state just because the liberals want to further their political gain by ripping up the CONSTITUTION.

There were a lot of things the framers of the Constitution didn't originally intend which we later decided were necessary. 27 amendments' worth, to be exact. I guess all of these constituted "ripping up the CONSTITUTION" in your eyes too, huh?

[MyrddinsPrecint]

the framers of the constitution didnt want the CAPITOL to be in ANY one state. annexation of parts of dc by maryland might be in order, but it shouldnt be an extra state just because the liberals want to further their political gain by ripping up the CONSTITUTION.

There are a lot of reasons why any proposal regarding a change for DC are problematic (most have very different problems)... But the fact that's most problematic *right now* with DC is .... wait for it.... taxation without representation. Which you, like most people, are opposed to. So how do you suggest we fix the most egregious example of something you seem to care a whole bunch about?

[jeff]

An example of this was the 1992 election where Ross Perot earned 19% of the votes and put Clinton in the White House. But our Constitution doesn't mention political parties, so what change do you think is needed? Currently, with 538 electoral votes, if 3 candidates split the votes with no one gaining the 270 needed, the election would go to the House to decide.

While I think Sweeden has too many parties, I'm undecided on a multiparty system in the US.

Finally a BB post I somewhat agree with (well, not necessarily the Perot part - and I would point to Bush/Gore as the better example). The Electoral College is a relic that should be removed, and having lots of political parties leads in many countries to paralysis and disfunctional temporary alliances.