Get your panties out of the wad, sir. No ones telling you that you CAN'T be here. And in fact, it doesn't bother me. Believe it or not, GMAN, I like and respect you. It was an advisory remark (that I, of course, do not expect you to heed) to those unwilling to accept or even acknowledge the validity of differing opinions and viewpoints. If all you're (speaking generally here, not just to you) going to do is insult someone when they express themselves, you might not fare very well in this sort of setting.
Here's the friendly and non-argumentative way to state his post: subject: President Bush Ignored Jong-Il Contact text: According to Yahoo.com, it appears that President Bush ignored a personal letter from Kim Jong-Il that may have spared us from dealing with the current nuclear crisis. Thoughts? Questions?
I don't believe for one second that any of the responses would have been any less hostile had he worded it exactly that way. The propensity for you all to jump down this guys throat for ANYTHING he says is overwheliming. Besides, what business does something 'non-argumentative' in nature have in FSA? I don't see anything wrong with being 'inflammatory' towards politicians/figureheads and their policies. It's when things get personal between posters that the downward spiral is initiated.
There is absolutely nothing inflammatory in the opening post of this thread. Rex posted a link to a legitimate news item and made a comment on it. It would have been inflammatory to say "that scumbag Bush". Or to follow up with "and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fascist idiot". He said nothing like that. True, he's said things like that in the past, but he didn't this time. Holding public figures up to ridicule is entirely proper in a political discussion. If one disagrees, then he should speak up and say why, but one shouldn't question a post's appropriateness here just because the subject matter bothers him. This is Free Speech Alley.
That's quite a hoot. When did you start insisting on people being friendly and non-argumentative here? Why have you given those green reputation points to people who did little else but hurl personal insults? No, I did not wish to be "friendly and non-argumentative." I wished to display disgust and disdain for George Bush in an unambiguous manner. "It appears GW Bush blah blah blah" would not have captured the disgust I wished to relate. Inflammatory? You feel inflamed by a criticism of a politician who affects us all? What is he? Your mentally retarded child? When exactly did the custom of blasting American politicians with parody, indignation, and sarcasm get prohibited for George Bush? When the USSC handed him his first term? Bush had an opportunity to talk to a man in control of nuclear weapons. Should Kim Jong Il be trusted? Certainly not automatically. But our ambassador now says Kim was asking for little more than being recognized as a sovereign state and a promise not to be attacked. Bush could have at least talked to him, and made an assessment of the man's current motives. So, what do we have now, instead? Nukes in his hands. Whatever Bush's reasons, he failed at dissuading Kim Jong Il from building them. Thus, Bush's failure to talk was part of that failure. As for trusting Kim Jong Il more than Bush... I trust them about equally. I can count many serious lies committed by GW Bush, and I can see a war launched on lies wherein 1723 Americans have died. When did Kim Jong Il start a similar war? As for whoever said I'm a Marxist... you don't have a clue. That I happen to trust a Communist as much as the President of the USA doesn't mean I'm a Communist... it's only a reflection of the character of the man in the White House.
We all know why you're here, Rex. You're here to stir sh!t. And you're quite adept at it, I might add. Are you a Marxist? You're right, I really don't have a clue. All I have to judge you by is what you post. And if you aren't a Marxist who is bitter that his chosen social experiment has failed everywhere it's been tried, you certainly are one disgruntled something-or-other, who has little else to do other than stir the pot. The character of the man in the White House? What do you see other than what you really choose to see?
GMAN, I still don't see how disdain for Bush is, in any way, indicative of a desire for complete economic submission. There are more groups than just 'W supporters' and 'commies'. The mentality that there are not irks me and is an embarrasment to our great nation. While we're reverting back to the topic at hand lol, I think it's ironic that people want to jump down your throat because they accuse you of trusting KJI. Bush wants to suspend the six-party talks and make it a one-on-one affair. Well then, if those talks are successful (which they most likely will not be, given both of their complete disregards for diplomacy) wouldn't that entail W trusting KJI to some degree? Will everyone come on here and start calling W a commie then? I doubt it.
wow, this thread is terrible. 157 is stupidly calling stuff inflammatory, as if it that is somehow wrong or makes any difference. contained chaos is way too defensive and always makes the other person the issue, and gman is foolishly wasting his time baiting CC. the thread mvps are red and rex, so this is a pretty bad thread.
