Poll
16 votes (50%) | |||
16 votes (50%) |
32 members have voted
Quote: Chuck
Yeah, she would have sent in the Dutch. "The Dutch and the Norwegian. They are known for dikes and for cleaning up water and for dealing with spills." That's some real mastery of world affairs right there, that is.
WAIT A MINUTE...! Was she saying foreigners are better than Americans?
She would probably meet with the best people in the industry, not "the best in academia" as Obama said he was meeting with. She would have the sense to tell Federal Agencies when there is a disaster you don't worry if the booms are the right sizwe and color for federal guidelines-you use what you have; she would not worry if burning the oil off would cause a little air pollution-she would let them burn it off as the disastrer plan in place called for; and she would not have waited well over a month to meet with BP-heck, she was used to meeting and working wilt them ia AK.
I don't see why you are upset she might have taken offers of foreign help. And I also don't see the point at all in your last sentence. Perhaps you can tell us all your meaning?
Nothing upsets me. Merely pointing out that she would have called in the Dutch and Norwegian to stick their finger in the dike. It conflicts with her ideological pillar of "American Exceptionalism." You mean to tell me that the Dutch are better than Americans at ANYTHING (except soccer)?
"You are an absolute freakin' moron if you think (insert Obama or Palin, as your leanings lead you) is smarter than a fifth grader. She is a stupid red-necked women...He isn't an American."
I don't like name calling because it doesn't help prove the case one way or the other. If you call another forum member names, you should be tossed. If you call someone you oppose names as you state your position on an issue, it weakens your case.
Anyway...maybe I don't really want "political trolls" but I do enjoy political discourse...
Oh well. It happens a lot.
"I stand here asking us to do what we did not in do in Vietnam, was to recognize the valiant and outstanding service of our men and women,and to understand that victory had been achieved."
"Today, we have two Vietnams, side by side, North and South, exchanging and working. We may not agree with all that North Vietnam is doing, but they are living in peace. I would look for a better human rights record for North Vietnam, but they are living side by side."
It went on longer than that (it is on YouTube) and was pretty embarrassing to watch.
When they make a speech full of mistakes like this one or they say things like "we have to pass the bill to see what it is in it" (it isn't a box of Cracker Jacks, ma'am!) ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ISSUES, they should be called out.
On the whole, though, I'd agree for a niche site like this, it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a voluntary no-politics policy, because in the current political environment, it tends to pollute the vibe. So I'm declaring victory and refraining from additional political discussion.
But I applaud the Wizard for being a free-speech kinda guy.
The other alternative would be fine with me, too. Don't just ban "trolls" who only come in to disrupt things--ban ALL "trolls" and ALL "political statements".
Why bring that into this forum?
Quote: NareedThe problem with political discussions these days is they degenerate into character assassination of the other side, assuming they don't start out that way. This inevitably leads to flame wars and personal attacks.
Why bring that into this forum?
Then let's just all agree that Obama is an inexperienced Chicago thug that's destroying the fabric of this country who hates successful white businessmen and gets totally unravelled at any level of criticism....and leave it at that.
Is that possible, JB?
Quote: DocDoes this forum have a preferences setting for "Ignore"; i.e., a setting by which I can designate that a particular member's postings don't even appear on my screen?
Second!
Of course, pretty soon we'd have a JellyRogan posting the same stuff. But it's worth a shot.
Quote: ChuckHer actual response is on the record.
Nothing upsets me. Merely pointing out that she would have called in the Dutch and Norwegian to stick their finger in the dike. It conflicts with her ideological pillar of "American Exceptionalism." You mean to tell me that the Dutch are better than Americans at ANYTHING (except soccer)?
I still do not see how accepting an offer of help from nations that have extra oil skimmers conflicts with American Exceptionalism. I might have a super well-trained fire department, but if a really big blaze starts I will surely call in a second or even third alarm.
I'd rather that than a leader apologizing to the world for what the USA has accomplished and thinking the USA is just another nation.
Quote: DocNot wishing to start a flame war with anyone, I decline to say whom I would choose to "Ignore". But can't you see the humor in having a large portion of users setting their login status to completely ignore some troll and not even see his/her posts? Can you imagine how infuriating that would be to a troll? And he/she might not even know that his/her garbage wasn't being read.
Here's something even more infuriating to the whiner who puts people they disagree with but haven't the ability to debate them, on ignore: The particular post that unnerves them appears within a quoted reply.
And people wonder why Air America failed.
Have you noticed that paranoia is on the rise?
Quote: DocHey, Nareed:
Have you noticed that paranoia is on the rise?
Paranoia is one of the requisites to being an extremist. I think it was even mentioned in that article that was posted.
If the individual is someone I know and typically get along with, I'll attempt to talk them back from their ledge with some pragmatism. But for a stranger/troll online, the only answer is to just ignore them.
Quote: ruascottIf the individual is someone I know and typically get along with, I'll attempt to talk them back from their ledge with some pragmatism. But for a stranger/troll online, the only answer is to just ignore them.
Just let a troll jump? I guess I could do that without remorse. I certainly wouldn't bother to correct, flame, or even respond to them.
I didn't bother to read the article that was posted. My apathy was running rampant.
Quote: JerryLoganHere's something even more infuriating to the whiner who puts people they disagree with but haven't the ability to debate them, on ignore: The particular post that unnerves them appears within a quoted reply.
And people wonder why Air America failed.
It's not your opinions, it's that you go out of your way to insult other members. I think the moderator who tolerates your presence for free speech reasons is misunderstanding (especially when the forum is on their dime) that they are not required to provide a soapbox.
You should make Jerry pay to be here. He detracts more from the forum than contributes to it. Nothing useful he has said wouldn't have eventually been contributed by another member. We have conservative or liberal members here already, so we won't be deprived of any important opinions. So, free speech won't suffer.
But I have no idea why you tolerate him. If you wouldn't want to hang out with him, why worry about banning him? No matter what name he comes back under, you should send him on his way again and again when he starts acting the same way.
Jerry doesn’t seem to give a shit about anyone, so show him the response that deserves.
I submit that anyone using vulgarity when they become agitated, be banned. Why do you stay on if you're so unhappy and have the incessant need to curse?
He's not going to change his ways. He's obviously an old dog. No new tricks are coming. I see no reason to give him a second chance even in the remote chance that he promised to shape up.
I can do nothing obviously, as I don't run the site.
But if you just banned him quietly I don't think a lot of people would object, except maybe some of his troll-y made-up friends.
Quote: rxwineIf you guys really love Jerry, fine with me. I'd ban his ass.
Not "his". "Its". It is a troll using "JerryLogan" so that you will imagine it as a person for purposes of interaction.
Quote: MoscaNot "his". "Its". It is a troll using "JerryLogan" so that you will imagine it as a person for purposes of interaction.
Please explain how that contributes to anything.