What do you think about this forum?

[Boiler]

Originally Posted by Startup

I was just trying to inject a bit of humor in a thread that desperately needed it.

Startup, at least we know now that you don't earn your money as a comedian

[muspell]

Originally Posted by Yankeefan1970

I would LOVE to get back to posting opinions and debating on ISSUES. I just have an issue with the personal attacks. Drop those, and we can get down to actual discussions. We might even learn something from each other.

I must admit, the mild outrageousness at the mere fact that Ranger dared to say something as plainly as he did was so satisfactory to witness I wouldn't want to dissuade Ranger from posting like that for anything. Threatening people with violence is of course something you simply do not do, but I think the question this time is how far you will need to go to provoke any reaction. I mean, when it comes to a certain issue, we're more often than not discussing how a "pre- chewn" truth is more pleasing to believe than something actually possible to sustain with more than "popular" or dictated sentiments. Rather than the issue as such. In media this happens frequently when people polite themselves to death - "Yes, I can see how it is a valid viewpoint to want to kill off the opposition groups not acting in concert with our country's administrative whims. But do you not see how this might be seen as very impolite to the populace and work against the political goals we have set?". If the interviewer lost his head, probably. Whereupon the responsible figure assure everyone that they're working for freedom and democracy, and that they of course do not "kill off the opposition", but always deal with terrorists. It's this informationless prattle that perhaps should provoke some "plain language", at least demand a small reaction, and not simply silence or a lame "we'll wait and see" - or "I'd like to keep an open mind about it", perhaps until the administration sees fit to commit suicide on the CNN.

So how far would one need to go to get the point across? Apparently, if this leads to a debate where participants agree that they should discuss the issue rather than deflect it and complain about personal attacks when someone finally snap, Ranger truly went exactly as far as needed.

After a few posts, it got annoying as hell and the guy lost any credibility he had. Ranger, and his constant theme of personal attacks, and now violence, is equally annoying. It really has no place in a civil debate.

Hm. There are ways to politely tell people to go fuck themselves after all, then. But you're right. Resorting to personal attacks and violence is something you would do when you've ran out of arguments that can touch the opponent's opionions.

[hypedave]

Welp, I think it's time to give this forum a set, set of rules to follow.

[hehehhehe]

Originally Posted by yankeefan1970

Remember that one guy on SR who could never leave the word "democratic" out of any conversation?

I think his nick was TFBM. I only remember because I always wondered WTH that was.

[Starfury]

Originally Posted by hehehhehe

I think his nick was TFBM. I only remember because I always wondered WTH that was.

According to Google, there are 3120 possible explanations

[Startup]

Originally Posted by hypedave

Welp, I think it's time to give this forum a set, set of rules to follow.

Rules are tantamount to censorship. I would oppose any abridgment of expression. Some of my best friends are people who I initially didn't like. The members here are adults and I think we should let them work out their own problems.

[Ranger]

There's really nothing to be worked out, I don't think. Yankeefan1970 obviously has his opinions, and I obviously have mine. And so it stands.

I'm really rather bemused by the various reactions to my comments, tho. It seems like some people here prefer political correctness over any sort of direct confrontation. I guess I'm not all that surprised by that tendency. I see it all around me all the time, and I think that's one of the primary reasons that very little ever really seems to change in this world. Directly confronting issues and other people, or the very possibility of any sort of fundamental change itself, simply scares the hell out of most people I think. They just prefer to avoid either as much as humanly possible.

A couple of years ago there was a photo in Time magazine that caught my eye. It was a picture of some "gay rights" marchers in some parade in San Francisco. The focal point of the photo was a gay male couple carrying a sign and walking a dog. The two gay guys were obviously bodybuilders - they were the size of Arnold Schwartzenegger, and looked like they could bite 10-penny nails in two with their teeth. Big, huge, muscular guys. The dog they were walking was a Pit Bull and the sign they were carrying read "We don't all walk Poodles!"

Most of you already know that I'm a semi-retired professional career soldier. Most of you also know that my career was spent mostly with the US Rangers and the Special Forces, and that my military career stretches all the way from Vietnam to Iraq. I saw my first combat at 18, and spent the entire first three years of my service career in combat. And as most of you may be coming to realize, I'm not the type that walks poodles either.

Most of my adult life has been spent serving as an instrument of violence, real or implied. I guess I just don't have the same aversion to it that many of you seem to have. I see violence (again; either real or potential) as something that definitely has it's place, and it's uses. Life on this planet would be totally lawless without it, in fact.

Now, yankeefan1970 obviously knows he's anonymous here, and that I [probably] couldn't track him down and do him physical harm even if I wanted to. And that wasn't really what I was implying anyway. What I wanted him to think about was simply the very real fact that I'm certainly not alone in my political views (or in my displeasure with this current administration) by any means; there are lots of people that share my views, out here in the real world. More every day, in fact. I was just giving yankeefan1970 the opportunity to consider the possibility that if he wants to continue to parrot his neocon crap to people in real life it won't be very long before he comes face-to-face with somebody that decides to teach him a little political reality lesson by rearranging his face with their fists a little bit, one of these days. It's a possibility he really should consider a bit more seriously, perhaps - especially as time goes on.

A lot of people "don't walk poodles" when it comes to expressing their feelings about these current political trends and policies that are costing Americans (and others) their lives abroad, for no credible reason. That's just a fact.

Violence, or the threat of violence, has it's place somewhere in every political process, there is absolutely no doubt about that. We're using violence to bring "freedom and democracy" to Iraq, and some Iaqi's are using violence in an attempt to get us out of there, so they can set up their own government.

It's an old story. It took a LOT of violence here in the US to end the Vietnam war as well. There were riots all across the US. Cars were overtuned and burned, policemen were hit with bricks and molotov cocktails. Students protesting the war at Kent State were shot and killed. The Weathermen and the SDS (American antiwar protesters) actually set off bombs in the US Senate, the US House of Representatives and even in the White House. Political conventions turned into open warfare in the streets of our nation's capitol, and in every other major US city. Many people got their noses broken by their angry fellow citizens, and many had their skulls cracked open by police in riot gear, before the antiwar movement finally prevailed here in this country. It literally took bloodshed here at home, between US citizens, to change national policy.

Do you think that can't or won't happen again over this war as well? Do you think that it won't come back to that, here in the US and abroad, if something doesn't change drastically, politically, and change soon?

I think that if something doesn't change politically very soon, here in this country, you can bet your last dime that it will happen again. Just give it some time.

That was my message to yankeefan1970. That espousing those particular political views may begin to cost him a bit more than a few rhetorical points, sooner or later here. I may not be able to fully express my own displeasure with him and his politics personally, but somebody surely will one of these days, I trust. It's only a matter of time. If he's willing to defend his convictions (along with his nose) that shouldn't be a problem for him. If he's not then he'd probably be better off keeping his views quiet or to himself, if he can, for his own welfare.

Anyway, if my comments have really offended people here the solution is both simple and elegant. I just won't post here anymore. If that's the general concensus just let me know. I don't have any problem with that.

[fatboy]

Let me see if I understand this:

yankeefan1970 needs to keep his opinions to himself if he values his personal safety; because people who don't agree with Bush's "illegitimate" use of force are willing to use force to shut yankeefan1970 up. Including you.

Evidently, force is only legitimate when the opinion it supports is yours.

It's all coming very clear now.

[Startup]

I value everyone's opinions, even when I disagree. Although I think the "discussion" between Ranger and Yankeefan1970 got a bit out of hand, I hope they will both stay and participate even if they decide to ignore each other's posts.

@ Ranger - I don't think anyone thinks of you as "a semi-retired professional career soldier." War is a consistent topic on this forum and I like the fact that we have someone here who has first hand combat experience.

[Ranger]

@ fatboy -- He certainly doesn't have to keep his opinions to himself, unless he's intentionally trying to avoid any and all confrontation over them, I suppose. That's entirely up to him. He certainly seems like a very sensitive kind of guy that really does not like being directly confronted about his beliefs very much. He's apparently very easily hurt or offended by that, or something. The rest of this seems to have devolved into a more general discussion about what one is free to say around here, or not, I guess. About what's "acceptably polite" here. As if we're all a bunch of frail little old ladies or something. Heh. I really didn't think that anybody here was quite that fragile. I may have been mistaken about that, tho.

@ Startup -- I was just trying to point out that, given my background, I don't even try to claim that I've always been totally opposed to violence, per se. I think it's an integral part of our human nature, and it's been an integral part of my life for a very long time. I accept it more readily than the rest of you seem to. And I'm probably more apt to suddenly decide to abandon political correctness, or even polite civility, than the rest of you are, perhaps, simply because of that background.

.