Welcome to the Politics and Religion Forums

[LG]

As a long-standing member of HungAngels and a very frequent poster in the Politics area of the board I am glad to see new posters coming over from the General Discussion area and people who had once left now return.

I think we can have reasoned debates here. We're not going to change the world, certainly, but we can prove that it is possible to talk about politics and religion without resorting to personal insults, and that it is possible to have an opinion yet not be opinionated or believe in something yet not be a bigot.

I think this part of HungAngels had gone a little downhill, particularly since one or two members posted here merely in an effort to incite argument, and particularly since one member, now banned, found it so difficult to debate without insulting others, and without being hypocritical.

We may not all be liberals on these boards, but we should all be open-minded. This is what the transgender movement is about. If we cannot listen to each other here and work our way through issues, how can we ever start to make a difference in the "real world"?

So to all the members here, new or long-standing, young or old, regardless of how you look or what's between your legs, I would like to say "Welcome again".

Let us use humour rather than insults, choose patience over anger, acceptance over intolerance. And let us try to learn from each other. The mind is like a parachute- it only works when open.

Let the games re-commence. And keep the peace

LG

[Quinn]

Well said, LG.

-Quinn

[guyone]

LMFAO!

How are you going to debate if all the participants are all like minded? Every time someone voices a difference of opinion they get sandbagged and banned. Face it if you don't subscribe to GroupThink™ (i.e. left wing ideology) you run a very high risk of being ridiculed then kicked off the sight. THE VERY CRIMES THAT THE LEFT HAS ALWAYS ACCUSED ABOUT THE RIGHT! As soon as a few of the more vocal posters start complaining about certain individuals the mods acting like the responsible KGB agents they take after put a 'bullet' into the offenders head.

You may want to exalt what you perceive as the greatness of GroupThink™, but that's not debating.

It's like the line from the Woody Allen movie "Bananas"

Differences of opinions should be tolerated as long as they are not too different.

I know that the left wing ideologists on this site like to brandish the first amendment every time they may feel their points may be proven vacuous and without any merit. Here are the actual words:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There are no codices or footnotes. You may say whatever the hell you want. The law provides for that. If there are repercussions for said speech that is known as censorship. If there are repercussions from speech then this is not a place where free speech is welcomed or tolerated and being a privately owned and operated system the mods have a right to do whatever they want. But please don't fool yourself into thinking this is some sort of free thinking forum. This is a place where GroupThink™ comes to petrify.

(In memory of my fallen comrades 'WMC' & 'TFan' someday freedom shall prevail!)

[Quinn]

The thing that seems to escape you, Guyone, is that the aforementioned individuals were banned for their behavior, not for espousing any particular political view.

1) TFan, for his part, had taken to calling a moderator and others (not any of us) on the general forum FAGS, despite their not having addressed TFAN or issues related to him in any conceivable way. Furthermore, his erratic ramblings about God telling him to pursue Jennifer Justice were just creepy and even a tad worrisome.

2) WMC’s actions were incontrovertibly beyond the pale of acceptable behavior on this or any forum. He was warned by the moderators and chose to persist anyway, hence his being banned.

You can make all of the excuses or whine as much as you want, but the FACTS stand undisputed. Moreover, when have you or TFan ever actually engaged in a reasoned discussion? The bulk of your posts consist almost entirely of generalized statements that you utterly fail to support in any manner whatsoever when challenged to debate their factual basis. Seriously, though I often enjoy the humor behind your posts, you are to a reasoned debate what “Where"s Waldo?” is to great literary works.

-Quinn

[chefmike]

Question: What did the chickenhawk say when he crossed the road to defend his cowardly chickenhawk cronies?

Answer: "In memory of my fallen comrades 'WMC' & 'TFan' someday freedom shall prevail!"


ROTFLMFAO! GOOD ONE, GUMP!

[guyone]

I think you two clowns proved my point.

[Quinn]

I think you two clowns proved my point.

And you, in turn, have handily proven my point regarding your inability to debate anything on a factual basis. Thank you for that.

-Quinn

[guyone]

Translation:

"I'm rubber you're glue whatever you say bounces off me and sticks back to you."

[Quinn]

Translation:

"I'm rubber you're glue whatever you say bounces off me and sticks back to you."

That's three posts you've generated in a row without including the word "bolshevik." Who are you, and what have you done with the real guyone?

-Quinn

[LG]

Translation:

"I'm rubber you're glue whatever you say bounces off me and sticks back to you."

That's three posts you've generated in a row without including the word "bolshevik." Who are you, and what have you done with the real guyone?

-Quinn
ROTFL :lol:

But seriously guyone, did you actually make it all the way through my post?


We may not all be liberals on these boards, but we should all be open-minded. This is what the transgender movement is about. If we cannot listen to each other here and work our way through issues, how can we ever start to make a difference in the "real world"?

As for TFan and WMC, they were not banned for being rightwingers but for being assholes. The first turned out to be an intolerant stalker who spammed the boards, the second was a self-righteous hypocritical bastard who- when he couldn't argue on the points- resorted to hitting below the belt. You on the other hand- I like to think- are a young man with a decent sense of humour who I simply disagree with more often than not. Disagreement can be a healthy thing if it sparks awareness and informed and civil debate.

Please do not go down the same route as those two. You are much better than that, I think. They are not worth looking up to. Did you ever agree with the way they handled themselves on these boards or did you merely consider them your buddies because you agreed with their politics? Was their behaviour ever excusable?

So please, read my post again before effectively calling me a hypocrite. Then read my history of posts. I stand by it. I was the one who was always willing to take a step back and present the olive branch. I was the one who wanted to debate rather than merely argue. I only reacted after being grossly insulted and seeing other long-standing members that I respect being insulted also. And though I am in touch with the moderators here as well as with many veteran members and believe I share a mutual respect with all of them, I never actually called for a ban. I asked the moderators to take a look at things, as did other members. The moderators warned both TFan and WMC but both brought the ban on themselves. It's that simple.

Read my post again and consider my history on these forums. Then see if your comments to my post can even be excused.

[Coroner]

Once I said I´d debate here with you but I forgot to think about it :lol:

No, seriously, I´d really like to share my knowledge and my opinions but since it´s all about America, I´m not interested and I don´t complain. This is an American forum, so it´s interesting to me anyways to see how people in America think.

P.S.: Guyone, since your comrades are gone with the fart, you´re left to die :lol:

[Quinn]

No, seriously, I´d really like to share my knowledge and my opinions but since it´s all about America, I´m not interested and I don´t complain. This is an American forum, so it´s interesting to me anyways to see how people in America think.


Coroner, for what it's worth, the politics of Europe and Asia have long been of greater interest to me than those of the US. If there's an international issue you want to put on the table, by all means do so. Though this is primarily an American oriented forum, there are quite a few posters from Europe and places outside the US.

-Quinn

[guyone]

P.S.: Guyone, since your comrades are gone with the fart, you´re left to die


Nice sentiment.


I think I've proved my point.

[LG]

Though this is primarily an American oriented forum, there are quite a few posters from Europe and places outside the US.

As one of those posters I agree that it would be good to discuss international issues. I find American politics interesting, but sadly many Americans, unlike you, Quinn, do not realise that there is a bigger picture.

[guyone]

So LG you don't want to address the comment by Coroner that 'I am left to die.'? Is that the new spirit you are talking about? I'm beginning to feel like Alexander Solzenitzen here.

Would you be a good chap and please remind me to snag a copy of the latest Newspeak dictionary when comes out? I wouldn't want to offend those of the Inner Party.




"By 2050—earlier, probably—all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron—they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."

[LG]

So LG you don't want to address the comment by Coroner that 'I am left to die.'? Is that the new spirit you are talking about? I'm beginning to feel like Alexander Solzenitzen here.

Would you be a good chap and please remind me to snag a copy of the latest Newspeak dictionary when comes out? I wouldn't want to offend those of the Inner Party.

Coroner does not speak for me, nor I for him. I trust that his comment was made in jest (I am sure he doesn't think you should-literally- die), however, and the truth is that none of us did like White_Male_Canada or TFan much. Personally I never understood why you supported them so much, even when the former was exposed as a lying hypocrite who edited his posts in order to change his position and who also accused another poster of being a pedophile.

As for TFan, if you ever bothered to check out the General Discussion you would realise exactly why he was banned.

I have always believed, and have always told you that you are better than either of them. Please stop mourning the fact that they were kicked out (and for very good reasons, too).

Let's start over, guyone and have the kind of Politics forum that we should have had in the first place.

And, by the way, it's "Solzhenitsyn".

[guyone]

I think the problem here is that the sides here are very off balance which is fine but the mob mentality seems to over rule civility and fairness. Excuses for misconduct or outright ignoring the offense seems to rule the day. I don't hold prejudices or judge anyone. I don't get so enraged with someone's opinion or belief that I want to thrust them from my field of influence. TFan was a bit of a clown, WMC and I share the same point of view. I won't get into the flame wars. Rogers or Quinn could have ended any one of those threads with a simple "I disagree." rather than engaging in "Mutually Assured Destruction" when the debate degenerated into who got 'Pwned' or 'who's an idiot loser'. What does that have to do with the bolshevik lie of global warming?(Did ya like the way I snuck that in there?). I think ideas should be discussed without all the name calling.

And I stand with my brothers TFan and WMC because I found their comments no more offensive than others here on this board.


"... I'll be all aroun' in the dark. I'll be ever'where--wherever you look. Wherever there's a fight so free thinking people can debate, I'll be there. Wherever there's a mod banning a nick, I'll be there. I'll be in the way guys yell when they're mad--an' I'll be in the way kids laugh when they're hungry an' they know supper's ready. An' when our people eat the stuff they raise, an' live in the houses they build, why, I'll be there too."

[guyone]

And when did names start harming people...Oh yes when the ACLU had to make a living.

[Cuchulain]

"... I'll be all aroun' in the dark. I'll be ever'where--wherever you look. Wherever there's a fight so free thinking people can debate, I'll be there. Wherever there's a mod banning a nick, I'll be there. I'll be in the way guys yell when they're mad--an' I'll be in the way kids laugh when they're hungry an' they know supper's ready. An' when our people eat the stuff they raise, an' live in the houses they build, why, I'll be there too."

John Steinbeck must be spinning in his grave. Here's the accurate quote for those who don't remember this beautiful novel:
Whenever they's a fight so hungry people can eat, I'll be there. Whenever they's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there . . . . I'll be in the way guys yell when they're mad an'-I'll be in the way kids laugh when they're hungry an' they know supper's ready. An' when our folks eat the stuff they raise an' live in the houses they build-why, I'll be there.
The Grapes of Wrath Joad farewell speech in Chapter 28

and one more:
In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.
The Grapes of Wrath
Chapter 25

[guyone]

Steinbeck wasn't a communist.

From Wiki:


In 1967, at the behest of Newsday magazine, Steinbeck went to Vietnam to report on the war there. Thinking that the Vietnam War was a heroic venture, he was considered a Hawk for his position on that war. His sons both served in Vietnam prior to his death.

Sorry for bursting your bubble.

[thombergeron]

Steinbeck wasn't a communist.

Steinbeck was more a populist, greatly influenced by the travails of the American working class during the interwar period. I think what Cuchulain was saying is that Steinbeck would have been horrified at your appropriation of Joad's speech in order to defend cretinism.

George Orwell, on the other hand, was a socialist, and fiercely proud of it. He was shot through the neck while defending the socialist Spanish Republic.

[insert_namehere]

Steinbeck wasn't a communist.

Sorry for bursting your bubble.

Nope, he wasn’t a communist – as thombergeron said, he was a populist. Like many populists, He didn’t fall into the classic libtard camp, or at least the one so many conservatives feel the whole “If you believe ONE thing, you gotta believe ALL these things” mindset socially progressive folks tossed into.

Point of fact, equitable opportunity doesn’t rob anyone. In my opinion, there is a fair standard of job opportunity, wage protection, fair housing and non-discriminating individual rights that don’t slam the capitalist dream into oblivion.

Political action tends to be a pendulum, especially when there are only 2 parties to mark the arc points – as such, BOTH camps tend to take a good idea and muck it up by pushing it past the point of logical application. Kennedy style democrats had their shot at screwing good ideas into the ground; post Nixon era Republicans have done and excellent job of trashing any sense of proportion and logic the Conservative camp ever had.

And now the pendulum swings again.

Trust me, if Steinbeck were alive today, he’d be writing about plenty of things you agree with, as well as plenty of things you don’t.

[Quinn]

Political action tends to be a pendulum, especially when there are only 2 parties to mark the arc points – as such, BOTH camps tend to take a good idea and muck it up by pushing it past the point of logical application. Kennedy style democrats had their shot at screwing good ideas into the ground; post Nixon era Republicans have done and excellent job of trashing any sense of proportion and logic the Conservative camp ever had.

From my perspective, this cuts to the heart of this nation's continuing inability to deal effectively with any of the truly pressing issues that threaten its future. It's harder to fall into this dynamic with a parliamentary democracy than it is in a presidential democracy, which is one of many reasons I tend to favor the parliamentary model.

-Quinn

[thombergeron]

From my perspective, this cuts to the heart of this nation's continuing inability to deal effectively with any of the truly pressing issues that threaten its future.

But don't you think this is a very contemporary deficiency in American politics? The American government, with active participation from both sides of the aisle, implemented some amazing and innovative public policy during the 20th Century: Social Security, Medicare, the Peace Corp, the Marshall Plan, the G.I. Bill, etc. These policies in particular were driven primarily by the executive.

It's really only been in the past quarter century that effective public policy has been hamstrung by, forgive me, partisanship, and as a corollary, a politics of style over substance.

So I'm not ready to give up on presidential democracy yet. The European parliamentary democracies, while showing an enviable level of efficiency over the long term, seem to me to be characterized by stasis, and really lack the innovative power of a presidential system.

[Cuchulain]

Steinbeck wasn't a communist.

From Wiki:


In 1967, at the behest of Newsday magazine, Steinbeck went to Vietnam to report on the war there. Thinking that the Vietnam War was a heroic venture, he was considered a Hawk for his position on that war. His sons both served in Vietnam prior to his death.

Sorry for bursting your bubble.

No, he wasn't, but he sure as hell wasn't a REICHwinger. You just pissed me off by taking a passage from one of my favorite books and twisting it to your own nefarious purposes. I'm sure you did it with an evil grin, knowing that it would be like fingernails on a blackboard to anyone on the Left. :wink:

Steinbeck wasn't easy to pigeonhole. He did support the Vietnam conflict; LBJ was a friend of his. He also had many friends on the Left. He sympathized with the poor and the Labor Movement and he detested Joe McCarthy and nuclear weapons. He's probably my favorite author. I suggest you read ' Tortilla Flat','Cannery Row' and 'Sweet Thursday' - books which will bring a smile to anyone's face, regardless of their politics.

[Quinn]

Thom, taken from a long-term historical perspective I would definitely be inclined to agree with you, particularly when it comes to waging war. It is the growing partisan divide, and the way it has come to affect our form of government, of the last few decades that has markedly changed the national equation for the worse. I agree with insert_namehere’s assertion: specifically that the two parties have monopolized every conceivable position and taken many of them well beyond the point of practical applicability. The resulting polarization of our political process has left this nation paralyzed for nearly three decades now, reliant upon bureaucratic inertia for anything approximating genuine progress.

I find it interesting that the international system’s other notable presidential democracy – that being France – suffers from a similar inability to respond to changing political realities the way other, healthy European parliamentary democracies have. I’m not saying parliamentary democracy is a political panacea – far from it. Nations like Italy serve as a prime example of that system’s potential failings. Still, in my opinion, it’s much harder for political parties to so thoroughly monopolize the entirety of a nation’s political spectrum in a healthy parliamentary democracy.

That's just my opinion. I would certainly be interested in hearing your or any other persepctive on the matter.

-Quinn

[Coroner]

No, seriously, I´d really like to share my knowledge and my opinions but since it´s all about America, I´m not interested and I don´t complain. This is an American forum, so it´s interesting to me anyways to see how people in America think.


Coroner, for what it's worth, the politics of Europe and Asia have long been of greater interest to me than those of the US. If there's an international issue you want to put on the table, by all means do so. Though this is primarily an American oriented forum, there are quite a few posters from Europe and places outside the US.

-Quinn

If only one person is interested in international issues, it´s enough for me to start different threads. Thanks, Quinn.

And guyone, as LG already made it clear, I´m talking for myself and I can´t believe that you thought I´d like you to die. It was more something like that you´ll be the only one here from the right-wingers corps. All that´s left to you is to copy and paste WMC´s posts, that were by the way also a result of copy and paste......

And there we go: you should solve your own issues...... your problem is that you claim everyone a communist who´s not a right-winger. There´s much more than The American Way and communism, than Republicans and the Democrats....... I´ll start European topics and you´ll see that you´re trapped in a dimension.

[guyone]

And guyone, as LG already made it clear, I´m talking for myself and I can´t believe that you thought I´d like you to die.

Well...*snif**snif*...thank you very much...*snif**snif*...you don't know how much that means to me.



your problem is that you claim everyone a communist who´s not a right-winger

Everyone who does not think like me is a communist (or more commonly bolshevik). And how is that a problem?



*Attention ACLU members - The above post is satirical in nature. We at guyone™ did not intend on offending anyone.

[thombergeron]

*Attention ACLU members - The above post is satirical in nature. We at guyone™ did not intend on offending anyone.

As a card-carrying member, I can say with the utmost confidence that the ACLU has never, in almost 90 years of existence, argued a position that could even be vaguely construed as stifling speech. In fact, the ACLU’s founding principle is a broadly expansive view of the First Amendment. So reality is precisely the opposite of what you’ve implied with your comment.

For a particularly titillating example of the ACLU's position on freedom of speech, google "Shirley L. Phelps-Roper v. Jeremiah W. Nixon, et al."

This makes at least twice in a single week that you’ve demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the issues involving the First Amendment, a core principle of the American experiment. Are you certain you live in and were educated in the U.S.?

[guyone]

Yes. I was educated in the USA not the USSR where you received your bolshevik training.

[Coroner]

And guyone, as LG already made it clear, I´m talking for myself and I can´t believe that you thought I´d like you to die.

Well...*snif**snif*...thank you very much...*snif**snif*...you don't know how much that means to me.



your problem is that you claim everyone a communist who´s not a right-winger

Everyone who does not think like me is a communist (or more commonly bolshevik). And how is that a problem?



*Attention ACLU members - The above post is satirical in nature. We at guyone™ did not intend on offending anyone.

Nice to beat you, Mr. Hitler.

[guyone]

You're so violent. Please stop beating me.

[dderek123]

Hmm, maybe Jesus inspired the Village People?

Discuss