Just goes to show the pent up rage and lack of interest in having a dialogue from Gladiato and CometsWin, actually. Embarrassing performance from both of them to derail this olive branch from dandorotik.
A campaign slogan and governing by slogan aren't quite the same thing. Not that you would get the difference.
Well, you deserve some of what you have gotten in the past, jo mama, in my humble opinion (Nadir for President? Really?? just ribbing you!), and I'm shocked that you find texxx entertaining (I much prefer Trader_J's style), with all due respect to texxx, but I agree that he'd be fun to share a pitcher of beer with. I enjoy his posts in other forums, as I do basso's. Hey, as someone who posted "Keep D&D Civil!" thousands of times at the bottom of each post here for god knows how long, I am glad to see dandorotik make this effort. In fact, I applaud it (yes, that tiny clapping sound you hear, folks, is me clapping like mad). I hope people pay attention. It would make The Basement far more enjoyable, and we would have more members posting down here, in my humble opinion. Here's an idea. Why don't the members who delight in starting threads just to get a rise out of "the other side" pledge to stop doing that for a while, and see what happens. There are a couple of members I'd take off my ignore list in a New York minute if I saw an honest effort to do it. I'm not going to name names, and I won't say it comes from just one side of the political spectrum. Just stop doing it. You know who you are. You don't need to make any public announcement, either. Stop doing it, and let's see if we can improve this forum. What say you, ClutchFans?
What needs to be done is to stop the cussing and personal insults directed at other posters. Those are simply crutches used when the posters run out of concrete facts and logic to debate. That move alone would really help. I'm glad dandorotik told this bold move to extend an olive branch, so we can start moving in that direction.
The "trolling" threads from both sides are the biggest cause of members losing their tempers, wouldn't you agree?
I am extremely interested in having honest, open dialogue, which is the reason I am generally disgusted with what you post.
No. The inability to tolerate opposing viewpoints is what causes these people to lose their tempers. And, sorry to say, those who lose their tempers are mostly either from the far left or from a radical group of a certain religious ideology (for which the inability to tolerate "non-belief" is entirely typical, sadly).
The petulance is strong in this post. If you think one side is more insulting than the other, you are either overly devoted to your own thoughts, or you don't understand how the "game" is played. Once your focus shifts to changing the other person's position instead of augmenting your own, you're a step behind. There's almost always two or more legitimate sides to any issue, and always more to learn. Forget liberalism and conservatism; this company needs a lot more pragmatism.
Most of the abortion discussions I have engaged in have gone well over 10 pages, that is hardly trying to curtail anything.
I wasn't sulking at all in the post you quoted. Perhaps you meant another word. Yes, there are generally two legitimate sides to an issue and dozens of facets to each of those sides. I have no illusions about changing other people's minds, at least the minds of the people engaging in the discussion. My posting is virtually always about crystallizing and strengthening my own arguments and my overall goal is always to learn more. That is the entire reason I have been continuing to expand my education over the last 13 years. I completely agree. I believe most of the solutions to the problems facing America will require elements of both conservatism and liberalism. Americans need to come together to face these problems, but sadly, we are divided by a media intent on exploiting our differences for their own selfish gain.
First emphasis "curtail"... second emphasis "try".... You always very quickly come out with "there should be no prohibition on a lawful medical procedure"... which just attempts to undercut any discussion. Then there's the always popular "this was decided in 1973" or the love affair with one-sided medical terminology which shuts off the discussion. Let's not forget the over-rated "could it survive outside of the womb" argument. Those are just some of the open-minded tactics we've seen over the decade. At least I will acknowledge that I am abridging a woman's rights in favor of the young life growing inside of her. Some things are just more important...
Yeah, and then I slipped up and started criticizing tallanvor's politics in a thread that had nothing to do with politics. It's just hard when you really feel strongly about something to keep emotion out of it. Really something I have to work on- for some, maybe it's easier to do.
To be fair, I personally think that both sides can lose tempers- but yes, as much as I support my liberal brethren, we can tend to be emotional. Which is not always a bad thing- but it can be. You know, I was talking with my stepdaughter yesterday who lives in San Antonio, and she was telling me about her husband, who's a cop, and how many of the cases he deals with involving drunkenness and domestic dispute are a high, high percentage of Hispanic individuals. I mean, to the point where that's when you almost become prejudiced, right? But you know deep down that not every person from that culture behaves that way, which is why we absolutely can't stereotype. But my stepdaughter is as liberal as you can get- makes me look like a right-wing hawk- and here she is almost having prejudicial thoughts. It's crazy how that works. And my best friend is from Iran- as nice a person as you could ever meet- but he got a lot of hatred from people after 9-11- one friend of his even said he just couldn't bear to be around him any more due to 9-11 (that encounter was in 2002)- isnt' that crazy? I guess it's just a matter of always sorting out where you fit in the political spectrum.
I don't try to curtail anything. I have never argued the above. I have never argued the above, either. Is your recollection really that bad? That isn't an "argument," it is my own personal "line in the sand" for when I believe the state has a right to enforce rights on behalf of a fetus. You need to go back and read my words again. Apparently, you don't understand what I have written, too bad. Yes, and in my opinion, the woman deserves the right to decide. That is far more important.
You have got to be kidding? Where did I get these from then? You may have motivated me to go looking! That's why you don't call it a Right to Life issue...
