Discussion II about the Suspension List
Quote: Joeshlabotnik
but I regard most of the folks here as spiteful, petulant children at best; knuckle-dragging bigots at worst. .
Please leave.
Quote: beachbumbabsJoe. Bob.
Thank you both for stepping up, recognizing the problem, and raising the level of conversation to one of the best we've had, from one of the worst.
I really appreciate the intelligent discussion of real problems over tired rhetoric and name-calling.
And a special Thanks to Face for his very thoughtful posts. He said many things very well, and I think made a difference.
So describing the forum as full of petulent children or knuckle dragging bigots is a thoughtful post from Joe? You have set the bar quite low..... That's not rhetoric and name calling? Please give me an example of what is rhetoric and name calling?
Quote: SOOPOOSo describing the forum as full of petulent children or knuckle dragging bigots is a thoughtful post from Joe? You have set the bar quite low..... That's not rhetoric and name calling? Please give me an example of what is rhetoric and name calling?
I guess you stopped reading about 4 pages ago, as well as selectively quoting one side of a very lopsided disagreement. If you're unhappy with Joe being on here, ignore him. You and others have trolled him, insulted him, and set him up, as well as being legitimately outraged at some of his responses.
Election is over. So, time for everyone to dial it down, stop nitpicking, stereotyping, and baiting each other. That includes Joe. And you. And me. Let's try talking to each other about things that matter.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikWell, though I think you might be the only one who will care, I'll tell you exactly why I hate conservatism.
See? Beautiful.
I don't think I'm the only one who will care, not by a long shot. And your effort, along with ME's response, is beginning a real conversation. This, IMO, is where things happen.
See, though I do not claim a side, for this exercise I suppose one could consider me a Righty. I loathe .gov and aim to see it cut to ribbons (not destroyed, but severely diminished in scope), I'm a rabid ammosexual who believes there should be a steep increase in the allowance of weapons (to include SMG's, true assault rifles, etc), I'm severely against what I suppose is an ignorant view of the welfare state (paying able bodies to watch Maury all day). In looking at views like this, I would understand being slapped with the Righty tag, so I would have to admit that much of your earlier work offended me personally.
Yet, with explanation, I find much less offense and am beginning to find common ground. Yeah, dumbf#$% Bubba with more shooting iron than most island countries is finding he has similar tastes as the pinko commie fag spouting his bleeding heart bulls#$%. Imagine that?
With explanation, I see that what you REALLY rail against are things that I happen to hate, too. While I, with effort, tolerate religion, I do not whatsoever accept it as a guide for our leaders. I don't accept its male superiority, I don't accept its bigotry and oppression of those with different sexual or gender stances, all the same s#$% you hate. Additionally, my belief that we need to "take things back to the way they were", which came under your assault, wasn't really targeted at all. Because my "taking it back" means going back to a time where hard men did hard jobs because they needed to be done. They didn't cry that it was beneath them, they didn't live above their means via credit, they didn't expect .gov to rob their neighbor so they could afford to live. YOUR version of "taking it back", back to when women couldn't vote, blacks were 3/5ths a person, etc, is all horses#$% to me, too.
If I can make the effort to see past my offense, and you can make the effort to see that you're understood, a real conversation is had and real work gets done. They say that no stupid forum is ever gonna change anyone's mind. I say if you don't change at all, you're doing it wrong. Yes, your hyper-socialistic plan gave me the shivers and made me a bit nauseous. That's not an intended insult, it just happens to be in severe conflict with my views, which you may be beginning to understand as we go on. But in reading what you (and ME) are starting to explain, I'd be completely daft to not hear you out, and I must admit that some of what you're saying is reaching me in a way that's causing change. I am that guy you're speaking of. I am an uneducated, unskilled grunt who sort of learned that if I did not wind up a professional, a tradesmen, and artisan, that I could always be a grunt and still find success. Yet here I am, 36 and already half a cripple, and though my life should be just about redlining second gear and about to shift into third, I'm STILL hunching and lurching off the line about to stall it in first. I'm being left behind. I'm falling apart. And I'm f#$%ing pissed off about it.
That IS why I supported Trump, and why I am pleased (see also: less horrified) that he is in and not her. I can't speak for all the Trumpers, but I don't care about a wall. Don't care about immigrants, don't believe he's gonna be some industrial savior that's gonna bring me some $50/hr factory gig with a fat pension. I supported him because I thought he'd shake things up. And though I realize his shake up could cause chaos, chaos is a DRAW for me. I seemingly cannot compete in the world as it is today. I can't be more educated than you, I can't be more skilled than you, I've been left too far behind. But I can be harder than you, I can be meaner than you, and I damn sure can be more violent than you. And a chaotic, destructive, violent mess, at least for me and at least right now, seems to be my only path out of the gutter and toward success.
As ME pointed out, that's a sad thing. I, as an old fashioned change-resistant righty, should hear what he's saying, understand his point before insta-screaming ".gov bad!" And he needs hear and understand where I'm coming from and what my REAL issue is so that we can work together for the betterment of EVERYBODY. And I think that's where .gov, and recently this forum, have failed and failed hard. Too much rah-rah home team bulls#$%, too much, to use your word, tribalism. It's all a bunch of bitching over who has stars upon thars, when there is no Sneetch that's best for the beach. We won't be saved by some Fix-It-Up Chappie, whether ass or elephant. But maybe if we talk to each other, something might happen.
Quote: DeMangoMany of us held our nose as we voted for Trump. 53% voted against Clinton. That would have been higher with a more comfortable candidate.
Right. What's sad is that you (and other Trump voters) recognized what was wrong with Trump and voted for him anyway. Somehow, you believe that he will be a better President than Hillary would have been, and that's just mind-blowing. Trump will be an absolute train wreck, and then we can all ask ourselves if Clinton would have been better after all. For one thing, she appears to respect the Constitution and rule of law, and he appears not to. I also think she's a far better person than he is, but that doesn't necessarily correlate to being a good President.
We'll see what happens, and I hope that Trumpers accept the blame and acknowledge what they've done. But I have this strange feeling that whatever goes wrong will be blamed on Obama or Hillary or Batman or somebody--anybody but the ones who are now in charge and bear the actual responsibility for the imminent disaster that is Trump.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikRight. What's sad is that you (and other Trump voters) recognized what was wrong with Trump and voted for him anyway. Somehow, you believe that he will be a better President than Hillary would have been, and that's just mind-blowing. Trump will be an absolute train wreck, and then we can all ask ourselves if Clinton would have been better after all. For one thing, she appears to respect the Constitution and rule of law, and he appears not to. I also think she's a far better person than he is, but that doesn't necessarily correlate to being a good President.
We'll see what happens, and I hope that Trumpers accept the blame and acknowledge what they've done. But I have this strange feeling that whatever goes wrong will be blamed on Obama or Hillary or Batman or somebody--anybody but the ones who are now in charge and bear the actual responsibility for the imminent disaster that is Trump.
Your opinions are hilarious.
ZCore13
It's hard to accept, when things are going badly for you, that there's no quick or easy fix. It's like when you have a car that isn't running right and you keep having to fiddle with it. At some point, you fantasize about just shoving the thing off a cliff. But while satisfying (especially if your mother-in-law is at the wheel at the time), it isn't really a solution. You still don't have an operable car. Clinton said that you need to fix the reverse flanged doowhackity and install a 13/19 inch power boost renoberator. Trump said you should call the junkyard and have them send a tow truck. If you don't understand or have stopped caring about how cars work, you might have chosen the Trump option.
And here's the thing about revolutions. In revolutions, people suffer. People DIE. And all too frequently, the new boss is the same as the old boss. Or worse. Hell, I could make a cogent argument that the American Revolution was a net loss for us (slavery would have been abolished sooner and there would have been no Civil War, for one thing). I realize, though, that revolutions--or at least the IDEA of them--are sexy, at least to talk about. I think that everybody harbors some kind of desire to see things "shaken up." But how do you shake up only the things that bother you? There are PLENTY of societal and governmental institutions that are doing a fine job, thank you. Are you willing to stop the clock on everything in order to destroy whatever aspect of government bothers you?
As you state, there actually is common ground to be found. I think each side has to yield. For instance, on religion, I would accept that people have beliefs that give meaning to their lives and whether or not those beliefs are grounded in reality is beside the point. I would expect religious conservatives to accept that their beliefs are just that--ONLY that--and not try to impose them on others. I would expect that both sides acknowledge that freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion. But I haven't seen any on the religious right budge an inch in this regard. So, I become (or remain) more hard-line as a result. Could stupid religious wackos, uh, I mean evangelical conservatives and godless atheists who are going to hell, I mean liberal progressives at least agree to disagree? Sure, but only if everybody stops shouting.
I would also like to see everyone consider the facts, the science, the reality when it comes to critical policy positions. Economic theory is nonpartisan. So is the science of global warming. So is medical care. I would LOVE to see the Right stop politicizing these things. I would also like to see liberals stop demonizing corporations and business in general. The vast majority of them are just people working hard to earn a living. I also--and I've been guilty of this--don't want liberals to say that opposition to social welfare is due to a lack of compassion. I mean, maybe it often is, but how is it constructive to say it?
And you know what we all SHOULD agree on? That we want ourselves and our children to live happy and fruitful lives and that everybody loves their families and doesn't want to see them die in a nuclear fireball or from a deadly pandemic. I would also like to see NO ONE suffer and/or die for lack of food, shelter, clothing, or medical care. That happens all too often here in the richest country in the world (in terms of resources, anyway), and it breaks my heart. But you know what? I have to acknowledge that a LOT of people aren't bothered by that nearly as much as I am. So I have the choice of filing them under "selfish assholes" or having a constructive dialogue with them. I think that the basic liberal error recently has been to do the former.
Quote: Zcore13Your opinions are hilarious.
ZCore13
Now, that's just the kind of constructive dialogue we're looking for!
Perhaps we should move the election stuff back to one of the election threads???
...or not...
Quote: beachbumbabsYou and others have trolled him,
It's hard to resist, it's kinda easy. Even though he is smart.
Quote: RonCThis thread is way off track--this is a thread about discussing the suspension list.
Perhaps we should move the election stuff back to one of the election threads???
...or not...
Wouldn't be the first time a thread has diverged from its original topic. Worrying about stuff like that is kind of futile. Frankly, the whole thread seemed kind of pointless in its original iteration, as it was just a place for some forum members to bash other forum members (gloating about suspensions, etc.; childish).
Quote: bobbartopIt's hard to resist, it's kinda easy. Even though he is smart.
It's also easy to talk to him on a factual basis, and maybe listen. I disagree with Face on many priorities and solutions. But I live very much in the same world he does. I don't know where most Trump supporters OR Bernie supporters live. To me, they live in a bubble of unreality and perception, misplaced anger and blame.
To many of them, I live in my own bubble of cherry - picked facts. But I think I'm mostly a pragmatist and want any benefits earned and paid for, and solutions to be based on factual evidence and well-defined problems. I want my country and my legislature to understand my equality; can't seem to get to that point of just being human.
I'm still a Republican for 3 reasons; I can't stand able-bodied people sitting on their asses, no, people don't deserve "free" college or "free" anything - they should contribute what they can, how they can, and you can't fix anything from the outside. Pick a side, and work to make it worth your allegiance, especially to your opponent.
On a practical note; I am not splitting this discussion yet, because it's directly pertinent to suspensions, forum bullying and baiting, and member conduct on contentious issues. But, more importantly, because it's a good discussion with a lot of participation, and I don't care to interrupt it at the moment.
Quote: onenickelmiracleAmnesty for all the suspended in light of the new normal. Everyone nuked, set them free and give them a second chance, and get rid of the martingale. It doesn't work. There are so many nuked that are so much better than the elephant in the room.
Nope. Not gonna happen. Wouldn't be prudent.
Kind of arrogant of us to assume they'd want to come back anyway. I would hope most have moved on.
Quote: onenickelmiracleAmnesty for all the suspended in light of the new normal. Everyone nuked, set them free and give them a second chance, and get rid of the martingale. It doesn't work. There are so many nuked that are so much better than the elephant in the room.
I disagree 100%. As far as I see there isn't a person banned on here who didn't know it was coming. Some had multiple warnings and still didn't learn. Others had to know what they posted would lead to it. We may not like the rules, but they are clear to anyone on this site. Any many of them continue to rail against this site and its owners and mods in horrible fashion.
For every KJ or MC that did add value to the site, there are dozens of Larry's and Freddy's. But they all made their bed, knowing what could and probably would happen.
Quote: beachbumbabs
I'm still a Republican for 3 reasons; I can't stand able-bodied people sitting on their asses, no, people don't deserve "free" college or "free" anything - they should contribute what they can, how they can, and you can't fix anything from the outside. Pick a side, and work to make it worth your allegiance, especially to your opponent.
This might be where your opinions and mine diverge. There's quite a bit of research support for the "helicopter" approach--that the best way to solve the problems of the poor--or, more precisely, to solve the societal problems caused by the existence of the poor--is to simply give them money (as in, dropped from a helicopter, per the metaphor). This idea rankles people quite a bit, as they don't like the idea of people getting money when they don't "deserve" it. But as Clint Eastwood's character said in "Unforgiven," "Deserve's got nothing to do with it." A local example for me is the constant debate about the level of assistance we should give the homeless. Some chronically homeless are getting free apartments, This REALLY BUGS some people. The city manager put it pragmatically--we spend tens of thousands of dollars every year periodically scraping these people off the sidewalk. An apartment and food stamps are a LOT cheaper in the long run. Given that we're not going to simply run them out of town or kill them--an approach not left out of consideration by many--simply giving them what they need may be the least expensive alternative.
You can extrapolate this to our society in general. You may not like the idea of people getting free medical care, food stamps, housing vouchers, etc. But the mess that results from not giving those things to those people is far worse and far more expensive to clean up (prisons, critical medical care, crime, etc.). Let's face it, some people just can't make a living in modern society--and that includes being too stupid or lazy or addicted or whatever. Others struggle with doing that and require periodic, if not constant assistance. It's a reality that we all seem to have trouble facing.
This is how I cut the Gordian knot. We seemingly have to choose between two evils--giving some people assistance who don't "deserve" it, or not giving it to some people who actually "do" deserve it. However you define "deserve," you're going to be erring on one side or the other. I don't think we have to make that choice/distinction at all. Give that filthy bum a $5 bill or give that smarmy little bastard a free college education and be done with it. Why? Because it's simply practical to do so. Leave aside all humanitarian considerations. Look at it from a strictly business standpoint. We keep problems from getting worse and ultimately, save money. And on the stressor aspect of it all--we don't have to worry about whether someone deserves to get the swag or not. Sure, there will be freeloaders. But really, so what? They'll spend their free money at the grocery store and they'll help to keep healthcare workers employed. And we won't have to scrape them off the sidewalk and rush them to the emergency room every three days.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikThis might be where your opinions and mine diverge. There's quite a bit of research support for the "helicopter" approach--that the best way to solve the problems of the poor--or, more precisely, to solve the societal problems caused by the existence of the poor--is to simply give them money (as in, dropped from a helicopter, per the metaphor). This idea rankles people quite a bit, as they don't like the idea of people getting money when they don't "deserve" it. But as Clint Eastwood's character said in "Unforgiven," "Deserve's got nothing to do with it." A local example for me is the constant debate about the level of assistance we should give the homeless. Some chronically homeless are getting free apartments, This REALLY BUGS some people. The city manager put it pragmatically--we spend tens of thousands of dollars every year periodically scraping these people off the sidewalk. An apartment and food stamps are a LOT cheaper in the long run. Given that we're not going to simply run them out of town or kill them--an approach not left out of consideration by many--simply giving them what they need may be the least expensive alternative.
You can extrapolate this to our society in general. You may not like the idea of people getting free medical care, food stamps, housing vouchers, etc. But the mess that results from not giving those things to those people is far worse and far more expensive to clean up (prisons, critical medical care, crime, etc.). Let's face it, some people just can't make a living in modern society--and that includes being too stupid or lazy or addicted or whatever. Others struggle with doing that and require periodic, if not constant assistance. It's a reality that we all seem to have trouble facing.
This is how I cut the Gordian knot. We seemingly have to choose between two evils--giving some people assistance who don't "deserve" it, or not giving it to some people who actually "do" deserve it. However you define "deserve," you're going to be erring on one side or the other. I don't think we have to make that choice/distinction at all. Give that filthy bum a $5 bill or give that smarmy little bastard a free college education and be done with it. Why? Because it's simply practical to do so. Leave aside all humanitarian considerations. Look at it from a strictly business standpoint. We keep problems from getting worse and ultimately, save money. And on the stressor aspect of it all--we don't have to worry about whether someone deserves to get the swag or not. Sure, there will be freeloaders. But really, so what? They'll spend their free money at the grocery store and they'll help to keep healthcare workers employed. And we won't have to scrape them off the sidewalk and rush them to the emergency room every three days.
Point taken. I'm somewhere on the gauge between you and face, but we're all closer than you might think on it. We do differ in degree and response. I prefer continued rehabilitation to resignation. But I also agree there are incurables that must be part of the equation, and resources play a part.
Face is full of compassion and empathy. You really should join Diversity tomorrow just to read him. He has a different approach than you do, but he sees so much of the same world. And he has many creative ideas about solving them, some of which might inform or inspire you as they do me. Intelligent, caring opposition.
Quote: beachbumbabsNope. Not gonna happen. Wouldn't be prudent.
Thanks Dana Carvey!
Quote: rxwineThanks Dana Carvey!
See? I speak Republican!
Quote: beachbumbabsIt's also easy to talk to him on a factual basis, and maybe listen.
I don't need to listen to him, I've heard it all before. No one was further to the Left than I was in my youth. Age 14 I was buried in Marx and Lenin. That ain't normal. Thank God I finally saw the light. There's nothing new about his ideas. Collectivism. Been there done that.
Quote: bobbartopI don't need to listen to him, I've heard it all before. No one was further to the Left than I was in my youth. Age 14 I was buried in Marx and Lenin. That ain't normal. Thank God I finally saw the light. There's nothing new about his ideas. Collectivism. Been there done that.
That's a bit ironic.
There's a general agreement among the losing side that "we" didn't listen to "them" and that's why "we" lost.
So you, as one who was not listened to and decided to take action, your first post-election action is to not listen.
We've tried talking around each other. STRIKE ONE.
We've tried talking at each other. STRIKE TWO.
We've tried talking behind each others' backs. STRIKE THREE.
How about we try talking to each other for a change. Which includes listening.
I'm visionary, you just don't see it yet. 100 people signing in and less is coming. Plus, I don't think the people will immediately misbehave. I need feedback and participation and so do the others that have jumped ship. I might have a handful I would want to exclude, but they might be almost entirely different people by now. This isn't the only forum banning itself to death, but it doesn't have to choose to be. This in light of the worst of the worst running free, makes no sense not inviting the best of the worst back. You'll either see me be right or a forum wasting away.Quote: beachbumbabsNope. Not gonna happen. Wouldn't be prudent.
Kind of arrogant of us to assume they'd want to come back anyway. I would hope most have moved on.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikNow, that's just the kind of constructive dialogue we're looking for!
I'm not in agreement that there can be constructive dialogue with you. You are so far to the left and so insistent that everybody that voted for Trump is what you perceive him to be that is it is impossible for you to be open minded.
ZCore13
Quote: beachbumbabsThat's a bit ironic.
There's a general agreement among the losing side that "we" didn't listen to "them" and that's why "we" lost.
So you, as one who was not listened to and decided to take action, your first post-election action is to not listen.
I'm sorry, I don't understand.
That's an interesting point, but weird. Are we talking welfare? Maybe it isn't as bad as a lot of doomsters like to claim. A factory replaces a percentage of workers with automated wielding systems. This factory maybe loses 50 stations of human positions. But someone has to program and operate, like a group of machines. Someone has to maintain each machine and that takes numerous full time people. Someone has to design the machines. Someone has to go to work in a factory to MAKE the auto robots. Not counting the construction and rebuilding of lines and factories for the new machines. Lots of jobs there, and steady as well. Someone has to run the sales of machines. Someone has to design the pieces they create.Quote: MathExtremistI don't think capitalism is dead or dying, but I think we'll need a hybrid approach going forward. When the 2/3 of the population in the +/- 1SD can't keep up with the 1/6 of the population >1SD, not due to lack of effort but due to structural defects like "there simply aren't enough high-tech jobs" or "all the industrial labor jobs are now in China" then either we create a new system where it's okay for someone to not have a job, or we'll have a revolution. Expecting people to be okay with machines taking their jobs, and not providing an alternate path to survival, is a recipe for chaos.
See the shift in employment?
For 100 jobs lost, there's still, hopefully perhaps 60 created, or retrained. This doesn't seem to get too much coverage by the media who prescribe to the old adage that bad news sells. The media doesn't like to show information like the lives saved, family costs saved by keeping humans out of welding harms way for instance. Sure, the companies save costs, and I'm not pro business by any stretch, but I believe this 'savings' is blown out of content and not balanced with reality. There's a robotic systems company near me that just opened another plant in a nearby city, employing 100's of people. Their plant right by me opened 2 years ago and moved from a low wage country to a higher wage location in our country. Pretty stupid eh?
Humans adapt. Everyone I know younger than 30 has taken some form of computer design, science or programming in the computer of everything sphere.
And yes, it's truly a sad fact that my generation or 2 below me are the last ones who will know what a pension was. I'm the first to admit I don't even understand the full science and function of what a pension package really is. But I know that corporations have made it clear that the era of the corporate pension package for rank and file is passing away. Well, not for executives of course, but that's another whole subject because they're special, just like politicians who can work part time for less than 3 years and earn an obscene pension for life. But I digress and not go off point.
In every industrial/financial revolution in our country's history, we lose people and things, those that won't change get left behind and even more painfully the people who can't change and it may not be their fault because of where they are in their life get left behind too.
It may be such a swift paradigm shift, it's already changing, that my nephews and nieces may ask, "what's a pension? You mean companies paid you to stop working?". They won't know that it was a co-pay system for people who basically didn't know how to invest for themselves or didn't care because it was easier. I don't think, back in the day, people realized that pension accounts have always been ATM's for corporations in numerous ways. I don't think the next generations will even have the option.
I hope that made my point clearer. To me, it made it wordier. But the after-election analysis seems to come down to these people as the swing vote.
If you're one of those people who voted for Trump to get yourself heard, people are now listening who weren't. But if you're not listening, what changed for either side?
Quote: beachbumbabsSome unknown but significant number of people reportedly voted for Trump not because they wanted him, but because they wanted to shake up/wake up/give the finger to Washington. They didn't like anybody, but nobody was listening to them, and both establishment Republicans and Democrats hated him publicly, so he was their guy.
I hope that made my point clearer. To me, it made it wordier. But the after-election analysis seems to come down to these people as the swing vote.
If you're one of those people who voted for Trump to get yourself heard, people are now listening who weren't. But if you're not listening, what changed for either side?
I don't think I've expressed an opinion on Trump, not on this forum anyway. I know at least a few people took the liberty of assuming I voted for Trump. That's a big assumption, and a lot of liberty. I try to never miss an election, because there are always important local propositions.
But I was talking about Joe. I haven't seen any indication that he wants to listen to anyone other than himself.
Quote: sammydv
In every industrial/financial revolution in our country's history, we lose people and things, those that won't change get left behind and even more painfully the people who can't change and it may not be their fault because of where they are in their life get left behind too.
It may be such a swift paradigm shift, it's already changing, that my nephews and nieces may ask, "what's a pension? You mean companies paid you to stop working?". They won't know that it was a co-pay system for people who basically didn't know how to invest for themselves or didn't care because it was easier. I don't think, back in the day, people realized that pension accounts have always been ATM's for corporations in numerous ways. I don't think the next generations will even have the option.
There are two issues here. One is that, you're still describing a net job loss. And not everybody can be a computer wiz.
Leads to issue 2. Someone has to clean the toilets. And, as quality jobs vanish, more and more jobs that do exist offer little more than sustenance, often with tough hours and shabby conditions.
So, do these people live well, or like peasants?
You might do a little better if you go to college. But you'll likely be an indentured servant to bank.
The Clinton/bush/nyt perspective is that there is nothing wrong with this. We should all be happy to eat crap, while they horde wealth, make war and cut away liberties.
Trump and sanders show that there is strong disagreement. Imagine if trump was actually a good candidate. Woulda been a slaughter.
We are just starting to feel the pain. I believe there are 9 million truck drivers, for example. Most of those jobs gonna be history.
You think a lot of people are angry now? Just wait.
Quote: bobbartopI don't need to listen to him, I've heard it all before. No one was further to the Left than I was in my youth. Age 14 I was buried in Marx and Lenin. That ain't normal. Thank God I finally saw the light. There's nothing new about his ideas. Collectivism. Been there done that.
Just shows how badly you misunderstand me. Not everyone who fails to think the way you do is a radical leftist. But yes, there's nothing new about my ideas. Or yours. Or anyone else's. Why should there be? Is it not possible to discuss existing ideas?
However, in order to discuss, you must listen. I do understand that listening to anyone who doesn't agree with you is not in your skill set. I wonder sometimes why you're even here, with your bizarre conspiracy theories. I mean, do you REALLY think you're going to make any converts? Gamblers are among the most skeptical people on earth.
Quote: Zcore13I'm not in agreement that there can be constructive dialogue with you. You are so far to the left and so insistent that everybody that voted for Trump is what you perceive him to be that is it is impossible for you to be open minded.
ZCore13
Well, that's certainly your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but perhaps you could inject your own enlightened views on these topics. A snarky comment about another poster doesn't contribute anything. And news flash--you're not the first person to paint disagreement with himself as being closed-minded.
I don't think that viewing Trumpers negatively is not being open-minded. Anyone with a brain can see that he's totally unfit for office. Therefore, one has to wonder why anyone would vote for him despite that.
Quote: bobbartopI'm sorry, I don't understand.
In simple words, you (and the rest of the pack) became a Trumper because you felt that no one was listening to you, and your primary position after the election is that you will refuse to listen to anyone else. See the basic contradiction?
Quote: bobbartopI don't think I've expressed an opinion on Trump, not on this forum anyway. I know at least a few people took the liberty of assuming I voted for Trump. That's a big assumption, and a lot of liberty. I try to never miss an election, because there are always important local propositions.
But I was talking about Joe. I haven't seen any indication that he wants to listen to anyone other than himself.
You haven't seen any such indication because you deliberately don't look for it. Hell, I even listen to YOU--as utterly pointless as that is manifestly proving to be.
There are actually some pretty good discussions going on here. I don't suggest you join them, though, unless you can let go of your silly little war with me (and others). You have to realize, nobody is going to buy your panoply of conspiracy theories. If you can get away from that, though, I think your viewpoint would be valuable. You should at least TRY to understand opposing points of view. I have been trying to do that as well. I realize that Trumpers have their reasons for being Trumpers, and it isn't just some kind of mental defect. In fact, if we're going to clean up the mess that Trump makes, we'll have to understand just why so many people supported him--and those aren't the reasons that Trumpers will give you if you ask them directly.
Looks like Joeshlabotnik broke the truce for not leaving Before bbartop alone.Quote: JoeshlabotnikIn simple words, you (and the rest of the pack) became a Trumper because you felt that no one was listening to you, and your primary position after the election is that you will refuse to listen to anyone else. See the basic contradiction?
And againQuote: JoeshlabotnikYou haven't seen any such indication because you deliberately don't look for it. Hell, I even listen to YOU--as utterly pointless as that is manifestly proving to be.
There are actually some pretty good discussions going on here. I don't suggest you join them, though, unless you can let go of your silly little war with me (and others). You have to realize, nobody is going to buy your panoply of conspiracy theories. If you can get away from that, though, I think your viewpoint would be valuable. You should at least TRY to understand opposing points of view. I have been trying to do that as well. I realize that Trumpers have their reasons for being Trumpers, and it isn't just some kind of mental defect. In fact, if we're going to clean up the mess that Trump makes, we'll have to understand just why so many people supported him--and those aren't the reasons that Trumpers will give you if you ask them directly.
Quote: beachbumbabsJoe. Bob.
If I suspend either of you, I'm suspending both. You've been equally rude and reprehensible to each other throughout this thread, to other people in other threads, and to each other on other threads.
I think you both bring value when you're not busy bringing the snark. So I'm giving you this last chance warning. Your choices:
Truce.
Ignore each other.
Continue for a double nuke.[/qI am a robot.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikAnyone with a brain can see that he's totally unfit for office. Therefore, one has to wonder why anyone would vote for him despite that.
Once again, your personal opinion and completely ludicrous. It's exactly why there can't be intelligent conversation with you. You believe you are either smarter, more knowledgeable, more insightful and/or know 100% what the future holds as compared to others, solely based on who they voted for. A terrible starting point to try and engage in fruitful discussion.
Others can see your side and consider you points. You say you can see the other side and then follow it with slander about anyone who voted differently than you.
We'll soon find out, but I'must pretty sure Trump will do more for the middle class in his first year than Obama did in 8 years.
ZCore13
This discussion is suspended by a thread...
I never saw Bobbartop interacting with Jbot, so hopefully the gambit only snares jbot. That would be prudent after all.Quote: Mission146I would say the truce has been broken, so temporarily suspending Joe and leaving it for BBB to decide.
Is joe gone for good? Pun intended.
Where s the pun? I don't get it.Quote: RSI see only 2 "thank you"s on Mission's post. So few thank-you's is unnacceptable, IMO.
Is joe gone for good? Pun intended.
Quote: MathExtremistThis discussion is suspended by a thread...
This belief suspends my disbelief.
Quote: onenickelmiracleWhere s the pun? I don't get it.
"gone for good" meaning he'd be gone forever, or "gone, for good" meaning "it's good he's gone".
I'm not good with puns.
According to him he doesn't care, however its obvious most others do care, in that case it makes things very simple.Quote: Mission146I would say the truce has been broken, so temporarily suspending Joe and leaving it for BBB to decide.
Quote: Mission146I would say the truce has been broken, so temporarily suspending Joe and leaving it for BBB to decide.
Been mulling this for an hour or so. Not done thinking about it on so little sleep.
The saddest part is seeing people I know, liked and respected prove they're every rotten thing Joe said about them that they found so insulting. He doesn't know the whole truth about them, but he wasn't wrong. I thought I knew them better.
Quote: beachbumbabsBeen mulling this for an hour or so. Not done thinking about it on so little sleep.
The saddest part is seeing people I know, liked and respected prove they're every rotten thing Joe said about them that they found so insulting. He doesn't know the whole truth about them, but he wasn't wrong. I thought I knew them better.
I don't care if, or how long, Joe is suspended for at this point. He can play inside the lines, but he chooses not to do so. Y'all have to decide how far outside the line he or anyone else can go...but the line clearly has been crossed by him many more times than by any of us.
As to the second part of your post, WHAT? I don't see where anyone as actually proven to be so bad as to be everything that Joe said about them. He said a whole lot of things that aren't even partially true about people here. His writing does not challenge us to solely think deeper about why we feel differently (Iike ME's often does for example), it also comes with insults thrown out calling us horrid things, too.
Some people get the reaction they desire by acting the way they do.
