Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:43 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Shootings
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 1:48 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
val wrote:
Judge Landis wrote:
Bob in Boston wrote:
Excuse me? Knock yourself out promoting/defending your pet cause. I'm sure you're more than capable of providing a detailed response. But I do not address anyone else on the board using that language and had assumed that similar respect would be shown to me. Guess I was mistaken in that belief.

You call what you posted respectful? Read it again. It wasn't respectful in any way, shape or form, so get off your high horse, you hypocrite. I'm sorry if your delicate sensibilites can't withstand a stray cuss word. I had assumed that you were an adult. Guess *I* was mistaken on that one.

I've been on this board for only a little while, but you strike me as one thin-skinned individual, Judge. Bob's post maybe wasn't respectful, but it sure as heck wasn't disrespectful. And in challenging his post, you certainly the elevated the "disrespectful" stakes and you come off as the one on the high horse. Which is a pity, because gay rights is something I support and I would have enjoyed lurking in on a more mature conversation.

Bob deserves every bit of vitriol for his comment. He commonly acts like he has a monopoly on the truth and freely disparages board members who hold differing viewpoints as not being informed, as he did with respect to Judge. Judge may be a bit looser with the profanity than most members of the board, but his post was not out of line.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Shootings
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:38 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 6208
Location: Keystone State
Let me say this right now before this thread threatens to take down this board.

There is an old adage that when you go to a dinner party, you never talk religion or politics.

With that said, I understand this is a message board and you are free to voice your opinion. That's why it exists.

However, as much as we might disagree with each other on certain subjects, please be respectful of others opinions and beliefs.

I have no horse in this race. I already see the tone in this thread and it is worrisome.

We lost a good poster unnecessarily for months because he was ridiculed on this board for his beliefs. Just trying to make sure that doesn't happen again.

_________________
The Bucs are going all the way, all the way this year!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Shootings
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:18 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:09 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: Hingham, MA
I've been thinking about this, and Willton and the Judge are right. My memory isn’t what it used to be, and I forgot that President Obama has instructed us conservative Christians to be more civil in discourse when these shootings occur. Hatred and intolerance are such dangerous impulses, especially coming from our side. Just ask the Southern Poverty Law Center, which clearly is the authority on the subject, having identified 1,018 hate groups across the country (notably the Family Research Council). One is in awe at such dedicated work. Thank goodness someone is on the case. After all, as we've seen, so many of the shooters have been conservatives.

Oh, wait, actually they haven’t. None of them has.

_________________
If you think nobody notices you and you're all alone, try not paying your bills.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Shootings
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:30 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Bob in Boston wrote:
I've been thinking about this, and Willton and the Judge are right. My memory isn’t what it used to be, and I forgot that President Obama has instructed us conservative Christians to be more civil in discourse when these shootings occur. Hatred and intolerance are such dangerous impulses, especially coming from our side. Just ask the Southern Poverty Law Center, which clearly is the authority on the subject, having identified 1,018 hate groups across the country (notably the Family Research Council). One is in awe at such dedicated work. Thank goodness someone is on the case. After all, as we've seen, so many of the shooters have been conservatives.

Oh, wait, actually they haven’t. None of them has.

Really? You don't think Wade Michael Page considered himself a conservative?

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Shootings
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:33 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:18 am
Posts: 723
Location: The Hinterlands of Northwestern PA
Bob in Boston wrote:
I've been thinking about this, and Willton and the Judge are right. My memory isn’t what it used to be, and I forgot that President Obama has instructed us conservative Christians to be more civil in discourse when these shootings occur. Hatred and intolerance are such dangerous impulses, especially coming from our side. Just ask the Southern Poverty Law Center, which clearly is the authority on the subject, having identified 1,018 hate groups across the country (notably the Family Research Council). One is in awe at such dedicated work. Thank goodness someone is on the case. After all, as we've seen, so many of the shooters have been conservatives.

Oh, wait, actually they haven’t. None of them has.

"Mainstream" conservative? No, of course not. Far-right conservative? Um, yes. Please see Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, every abortion doctor killer ever, and, as Willton has just pointed out, Wade Page.

_________________
Judge Landis
Chairman, UPPMB Pink Polo Shirt Brigade
President, Lacee Collins Fan Club


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Shootings
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:47 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:18 am
Posts: 723
Location: The Hinterlands of Northwestern PA
Also, I've been a big fan of the SPLC for about 20 years. They are not, despite what Bob wants you to believe, a liberal organization. They are a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization whose primary function is to provide free legal counsel to victims of hate crimes who couldn't otherwise afford it. Their Hatewatch monitoring organization is something they do on the side, and they monitor U.S. hate groups of all stripes, including the black separatist Muslims you may have encountered handing out free literature in their horn-rimmed glasses, suits and bowties on street corners in East Liberty.

So if you want to call the SPLC a liberal organization, then that means that you're implying that hate groups are exclusively a right-wing/conservative thing. Which I am NOT doing.

_________________
Judge Landis
Chairman, UPPMB Pink Polo Shirt Brigade
President, Lacee Collins Fan Club


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Shootings
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:10 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:09 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: Hingham, MA
Let the record show that I do not know Judge Landis personally. Never met him. Never have spoken with him over the phone. Never have had any communication with him except through this board. The same with Willton.

Note, though, the ease with which I've been called a hypocrite for what, apparently, he thinks is my attitude toward gay rights. Not that he knows is my attitidue from first-hand observation. That he assumes is my attitude. Willton has done the same in times past.

Once you cross a line in human relations by calling someone else you do not know a hypocrite, that line cannot then be recrossed. Words have meaning. I worked in the news business for 47 years, dealing with athletes, entertainers, community activists, cops, union leaders, military commanders, corporate CEOs, educators, bureaucrats, politicians, diplomats, and hundreds of others from ordinary walks of life. And if I learned anything from those years it's that calling another person a hypocrite carries with it a presumption of fundamental dishonesty, and further discussion leads nowhere.

So be it. We move on.

_________________
If you think nobody notices you and you're all alone, try not paying your bills.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Shootings
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:31 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:18 am
Posts: 723
Location: The Hinterlands of Northwestern PA
Bob in Boston wrote:
Let the record show that I do not know Judge Landis personally. Never met him. Never have spoken with him over the phone. Never have had any communication with him except through this board. The same with Willton.

Note, though, the ease with which I've been called a hypocrite for what, apparently, he thinks is my attitude toward gay rights. Not that he knows is my attitidue from first-hand observation. That he assumes is my attitude. Willton has done the same in times past.

Once you cross a line in human relations by calling someone else you do not know a hypocrite, that line cannot then be recrossed. Words have meaning. I worked in the news business for 47 years, dealing with athletes, entertainers, community activists, cops, union leaders, military commanders, corporate CEOs, educators, bureaucrats, politicians, diplomats, and hundreds of others from ordinary walks of life. And if I learned anything from those years it's that calling another person a hypocrite carries with it a presumption of fundamental dishonesty, and further discussion leads nowhere.

So be it. We move on.

No, Bob. I called you a hypocrite because you made an unbelievably snide and disrespectful comment to me, and then flipped out because I used a cuss word when I told you to back off, accusing me of being disrespectful. Your position on gay rights had nothing to do with me calling you a hypocrite. Your hypocritical actions did.

Now, here comes another observation, based not on your political views, but on the way you've conducted yourself in the course of this discussion: You are cowardly and intellectually dishonest in the way that you debate. Make of that what you will, Bob. I could give (in the interest of preserving your virginal ears) a rat's patooty.

_________________
Judge Landis
Chairman, UPPMB Pink Polo Shirt Brigade
President, Lacee Collins Fan Club


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Shootings
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:18 am
Posts: 723
Location: The Hinterlands of Northwestern PA
Also please note that Bob didn't choose to humph and pick up his toys and go home yesterday morning, when he made his "conservatives have never engaged in domestic terrorism" argument. He only decided to do that after Willton and I proved him definitively and ludicrously wrong.

Here's a tip for you, Bob: Debating politics is a little more difficult when you're engaged with an actual human being, as opposed to the "liberal" straw men that right-wing radio hosts routinely pillory. And when the actual human being is actually informed on the issue that you're debating, well then, watch out.

_________________
Judge Landis
Chairman, UPPMB Pink Polo Shirt Brigade
President, Lacee Collins Fan Club


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Shootings
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4234
Location: Zelienople, PA
Judge Landis wrote:
Also please note that Bob didn't choose to humph and pick up his toys and go home yesterday morning, when he made his "conservatives have never engaged in domestic terrorism" argument. He only decided to do that after Willton and I proved him definitively and ludicrously wrong..


For the record, you did no such thing. Using McVeigh as a "conservative" is laughable. Wade you know nothing about, which is why Wilton referred to "one EXPECTS such and such" by his actions.

I'll be more on board when the vitriolic rants, which I like by the way, stop conflating "bigot", "Fox News", "right wing", "homophobes", and "redneck" in every post, and start going say... 50/50 with "MSNBC", "racist", etc.. in the vitriol.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Shootings
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:18 am
Posts: 723
Location: The Hinterlands of Northwestern PA
ZelieMike wrote:
For the record, you did no such thing. Using McVeigh as a "conservative" is laughable.

I know that you conservatives bristle when McVeigh is categorized as a right-winger, but he was an anti-government, pro-individual extremist, which by definition falls on the far right side of the political spectrum. Never accused him of being a mainstream conservative, and in fact I went out of my way to point that out. But ultraconservative is still conservative.

ZelieMike wrote:
Wade you know nothing about

He was a racist who was active in the local white-power punk rock scene, and he associated with a lot of racist skinheads and neo-Nazis. Those guys are, again, by definition, far right. Not mainstream conservative. Far right.

But this is clouding the issue. My point was never to lump all conservatives together with the violent, murderous extremists on your side of the political fence. I don't believe that and I never implied that.

My first point in starting this thread was that the Family Research Council, while not a *violent* anti-gay hate group, is still an anti-gay hate group. They don't persecute gay people by lynching them, they persecute by disseminating disinformation and exercising their political power to help pass discriminatory legislation (and thwart progressive legislation). It's not murderous hate, but it's still hate. (And, again, a more detailed description of the 2010 "Gays = Kiddie Diddlers" report that the FRC put out that got them categorized as a hate group in the first place is forthcoming, I promise; I meant to write it last night, but that damned ballgame wore me out and I went to bed early.) And my second point is that Fox News and the mainstream right is entirely too cozy with NON-VIOLENT hate groups like the FRC (note: I said NON-VIOLENT hate groups, NOT violent hate groups, do NOT misquote me on this).

And, one last thing ...

ZelieMike wrote:
I'll be more on board when the vitriolic rants, which I like by the way, stop conflating "bigot", "Fox News", "right wing", "homophobes", and "redneck" in every post

I did not engage in a single vitriolic rant in this thread; all of my prose has been completely lucid and focused. I never used the word "redneck" once, and I never implied that Fox News or the right wing at large is homophobic or bigoted - what I did was point out that both entities are quite comfortable with associating with the FRC, who *are* bigoted homophobes, and that this is troubling. Again, ZM, argue with me, don't argue with the liberal straw man.

Thought of one other last thing: Despite what you said in your initial post, ZM, everyone who disagrees with liberals is *not* accused of hate speech. I've never heard anyone accuse Mitt Romney, John Boehner, Eric Cantor or Paul Ryan of being hatemongers. So please cut it out.


EDIT: Added the word "racist" in front of the word "skinheads" in the Wade Page paragraph. As a 26-year member in good standing of the worldwide punk rock community, I know that there are also skinhead groups that are not racist, and should have made the specification. I regret the error.

_________________
Judge Landis
Chairman, UPPMB Pink Polo Shirt Brigade
President, Lacee Collins Fan Club


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Shootings
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Bob in Boston wrote:
Let the record show that I do not know Judge Landis personally. Never met him. Never have spoken with him over the phone. Never have had any communication with him except through this board. The same with Willton.

Note, though, the ease with which I've been called a hypocrite for what, apparently, he thinks is my attitude toward gay rights. Not that he knows is my attitidue from first-hand observation. That he assumes is my attitude. Willton has done the same in times past.

Actually, we do know your attitude toward gay rights:

On Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:41 pm, Bob in Boston wrote:
In fact, I support state laws against abortion and same-sex marriage.

...

As for same-sex marriage, I live in Massachusetts, which has one of the longest and most heated histories on this issue of any state. It's like a campfire that's assumed to be out but smolders underneath the ashes until a wind comes up and it bursts into flame again.

I don't care what people of homosexual orientation do in private; that is none of my business. I have no problem with visiting rights in hospitals or being able to will to one's partner some or all of one's estate. To my sense, however, marriage should remain a union of one man and one woman. The law does not deny homosexuals the right to marry. But generally they are not free to marry others of the same gender, just as the rest of us are not free to marry our mothers, our sisters, our first cousins, or more than one woman at a time.

I get that a great many of them think this is unfair. But much of life is unfair.


viewtopic.php?p=48801#p48801

On Fri May 04, 2012 5:07 pm, Bob in Boston wrote:
Unlike the establishment, conservatives believe the social issues are crucially important. That is their right, you know. To them, much of the moral fiber of this country already has been eaten away by cultural rot and liberal government policies. This is why they oppose abortion on demand, contraception on demand, legalization of marijuana, pornography, and same-sex marriage. They believe that without moral fiber the United States will have lost what made it the most exceptional nation in human history. I am a conservative and I don’t give a damn what people do to themselves or each other in the privacy of their own homes. If it’s inimical to their best interests, that’s their problem. Just do not ask me to vote for it or expect me to be happy about paying for it.


viewtopic.php?p=104705#p104705

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Shootings
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:18 am
Posts: 723
Location: The Hinterlands of Northwestern PA
Wow. Nice catch.

_________________
Judge Landis
Chairman, UPPMB Pink Polo Shirt Brigade
President, Lacee Collins Fan Club


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Shootings
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:29 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:46 am
Posts: 3654
Location: Economy, PA
The older I get, the more socially liberal I get. I support gay marriage, right to abortion, and am opposed to the death penalty.

But I became a fiscal conservative many years ago and that is unwavering.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Shootings
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:43 pm
Posts: 4983
Location: Omaha, NE via Sioux City, Kansas City, and Chicago
I wrote a fairly long post on this but decided to delete it. Having these conversations on a message board won't change anyone's mind, it only digs your own belief even deeper and makes you become less rational.

_________________
Iowa State Cyclones (2-4) at Texas Longhorns (2-4)
Darrell K Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium
October 18, 2014
7:00 PM


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Shootings
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:06 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:26 pm
Posts: 3006
Ralphie wrote:
The older I get, the more socially liberal I get. I support gay marriage, right to abortion, and am opposed to the death penalty.

But I became a fiscal conservative many years ago and that is unwavering.


Welcome to the libertarian party! Glad to have you!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Shootings
PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:50 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
Interesting discussion. Don't know if that makes anyone a 'libertarian' or not, but am certain that those views make it impossible to be a winning candididate for any Republican primary, especially one dominated by 'teaparty' believers.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Shootings
PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:30 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:18 am
Posts: 723
Location: The Hinterlands of Northwestern PA
FYI, for anyone who was following this thread, I took IA Pirate's advice and abandoned it. There's a lot more I could say, but arguing politics online is indeed a fool's errand. Unless the discussion is respectful and civil, the negative energy builds up fast, and there are just too many people out there like Bob in Boston who are incapable of remaining respectful and civil with people who dare to disagree with their opinions. (I never really had much of an opinion about the guy before, but from now on, whenever I read anything he posts, the first thing I'm going to think about is what a vile, cowardly bigot he is. All things considered, I probably would have been better off without that knowledge, considering that this message board is a place to have fun and talk about baseball.)

_________________
Judge Landis
Chairman, UPPMB Pink Polo Shirt Brigade
President, Lacee Collins Fan Club


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Shootings
PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2012 2:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5418
Location: Pittsburgh
Judge Landis wrote:
Here's a tip for you, Bob: Debating politics is a little more difficult when you're engaged with an actual human being, as opposed to the "liberal" straw men that right-wing radio hosts routinely pillory. And when the actual human being is actually informed on the issue that you're debating, well then, watch out.

Amen. The road gets a bit rougher when you leave the echo chamber.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Shootings
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10718
Ralphie wrote:
The older I get, the more socially liberal I get. I support gay marriage, right to abortion, and am opposed to the death penalty.

The United States Supreme Court and most state courts vigilently defend social rights, such as the right to travel, associate, engage in political discourse, undertake medical care, etc.

That has been the case for the past 40+ years.

Ralphie wrote:
But I became a fiscal conservative many years ago and that is unwavering.

However, courts are not NEARLY as protective of property rights. The rule for a legislature passing a bill involving money is the "rational basis" test. That is, "Can it be argued that the legislation can rationally be seen as advancing the government interest?"

The answer to that question for economic and tax legislation is always - repeat, ALWAYS - yes.

For example, California passed an anti-global warming statute in 2006. The statute will tax CO2 emissions, and put a lot of businesses (cement manufacturing, trucking) out of the state due to the taxes and regulations.

The problem is that the CO2 reductions will have NO RELEVANT EFFECT, AT ALL, on worldwide totals for CO2 emissions. It seeks to reduce California's emissions greenhous gas emissions overall by 25% (or to 1990 levels) by 2025.

However, that means that emissions remain at 75% of their current levels. Emissions in the other 49 (or 56, depending on whom you ask) states remain unaffected. Emissions from India and China, the two growing economies producing more increased CO2 emissions than anywhere else, will continue unabated.

Scientists agree that reducing California's greenhouse gas emissions (mainly CO2) by 25% will have no measurable effect where the other nations do not follow that approach, and where India and China have made it clear that they will produce energy for their growing economies.

In other words, the statute fails completely in its goal. Is the statute therefore unconstitutional?

No. It passes the "rational basis" test.

So the rights that are being eroded are not personal liberties, or social rights, or anything of the sort. The rights that are being eroded are economic protection from government.

And erosion of economic freedom has as dire consequences as erosion of personal liberties. That is why the Constitution sought to protect both. (For example, the only specified remedy in the U.S. Constitution is for the taking of private land, which is to be done only with "just compensation.") When governments take away economic liberties, I am as hostile to such efforts as their work to take away my individual liberties.

I find that not very many share my view about the importance of protecting economic liberties.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits