You ultra liberals are getting a bit too histrionic

[Bill]

Stefan, it's not necessary to use ALL FRAKKIN CAPS all the time.

imgonnaeat, you are not necessarily doing your positions any favors by being so shrill.

I'm just sayin'.

There are modes of rhetoric that get your points across without always coming over as too exciteable.

If you guys scare away all the moderates by your breathy remonstrations and exhortations, we all get trapped in a deadly spiral of preaching to the choir.

[stefan segal]

Bill...I use caps only in the title as I don't know how to bold that space.

As far as posting items I deem are of an interest to reasonable people of all stripes, I would reserve that choice as an obvious right to the workings of my own mind.

That you attempt to modify and direct what and how I post the expressions of my values, says a lot about yours.

If you are objecting to my insane rambling editorials I sometimes indulge m, I would submit that one, this venue is titled: "speak your mind", two, that my over-the-top rants are designed to be over-the -top to point out that I am being somewhat humorous...albeit in the mode of darkest irony, and lastly, I use it as a venting mechanism much needed to keep me from going postal or crumpling in a corner and crying for my lost country.

As far as aj, subnormal, and some others go, Bill, why don't you write to them privately if their absence tugs at you so much.

One question for you Bill: It appears that you, either consciously or unconsciously, feel that without morons in the mix, the "choir" would default into the deadly condition of consenses...and thereby loose all efficacy in debating truth and reason.

Isn't it possible that, in considering that no two people ever agree on the same points for the same reasons ( unless reading their values out of church handout ), EVER...regardless of how closely they are affiliated?

That people accept a basic floor of values for everyone, means thier disputes and discussions will occur at a higher level than those base rights of man.

Is there a problem with moving above...say above the argument that the world was made totally in seven days, heaven is a stop on the subway line
and that women don't have the right to their own bodies, and stem-cell research is murder?

I don't know about you Bill, but I find that sort of shit demeaning...I find loudly ignorant people tiring...I think a well laid out position with no weasle room to back off their own pitard provocative.

It's provocative to those who feel strongly enought to want to engage...but those people, (again if they are not reading their values out of a church handout ) have much to be admired and their participation raises the whole quality level of the group...in stark contrast to those others named and inferred above.

Stefan

[Bill]

It's been an internet convention for many years that posting in all caps is rude, and equivalent to shouting in someone's face. Haven't you ever heard of this convention?

---

This place is of little use if it's just a bunch of ultra liberals posting to each other.

It'll end up being abandoned as a board project.

I imagine you might feel some sense of victory in driving away all the moderate and right-wing posters, but it's an empty victory.

It will make me sad to see this board abandoned, but ultimately there's not much I can do about it. I wish you guys would be more interested in debating politely tho vigoriously, rather than posting attack screeds, but again, not much I can do about it.

However, I can remove your post titles, if you keep posting titles in all caps, untill the point that Tommy kills my moderator powers.

So, please stop shouting in your titles.

And consider wether it benefits you to drive off the moderates.

[Mr. Blue]

I can see where Bill is coming from with his post. I happen to be...umm...a borderline anarchist and I still find myself playing the role of moderate or even conservative to help balance out the board.

Also, it's not that I'm even fake acting moderate or conservative...nope, some of the ultra liberal histrionics are so out of left field that I find myself actually drawn to the opposing argument just because the framing of the original post.

Now, I support liberal organization financially, I'm a free speech fanatic, my voting record is, umm, unique. At the end of the day though I like to hear opposing viewpoints in intelligent discourse. I have a wide variety of friends, republicans, democrats, liberals, conservatives, Christian, Muslim, buddhists, atheists, etc. I enjoy all their company for different reasons, but when I debate topics with them I'm always respectful of them as people first...as if we can talk, we can compromise, and if we can compromise we can find common ground.

It's too bad that America has become so polarized where it's always them vs. us and if you're not with us you're against us and must be destroyed. It really is sad.

However, free speech, I support it and I support the right of people to be abrasive, lol. I just think there's a better way to discuss topics.

[stefan segal]

I find it odd in the way some people identify what is a liberal (fanatic ) while terming uberchristians as moderates.
I am more conservative than the average repug on a balanced budget, while I am 100%+ iun favor of upholding our Constitution and Bill of Rights...is this last fanatical liberalism?

I am 100% against war and in favor of diplomacy. Is being 100% for or against anything an indicator of fanatical liberalism?

I have few areas in which I am 100% for or against...those listed above about cover them all.

For example, I don't agree with capital punishment, but I accept the fact that some individuals have earned death and the public should not be taxed to pay for their keep or pay to protect themselves from these individuals until they die...I think that is a stupid concept to exclude the death penality.

I don't think your characterizations should be made for rants...as I explaind them above as a venting mechanism that holds in them and bears upon documentation, but is presented in an "over the top" manner.

Some people's sense of humor is based upon poopie jokes, mine lies in irony...do you think it's your place to dictate mine to me?

As far as your threat to edit my posts...I think that also tells a lot about you...moreso than me.

My attempt to make a header that shows up more prominantly than the body of the work (New threads are mostly cut and paste, and thier headers are in bold large type), and none of the idiocy you are attributiting to my internet bad form, is in the pasted copy...I am copying other's work.

I have routinely seen print ten or twenty times my caps without a peep from the upholders of any "miss manners" efforts toward homogenizing the output on this list.

If you demand uniform copy, then present a form that we can check off, in yes/no fashion our opinions, then no one will get thier feelings bruised.
But until that event, I will continue as I have been and urge you to comment upon the issues raised and not the shine of the spoon in which it is delivered to you.

Stefan

[Betty Blowtorch]

HISTRIONIC? http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/5633/avatarsamjacksonsnakesvk2.gif
Who the hell you callin' histrionic?


Nobody calls me histrionic. http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/4900/avatarfistfightzu7.gif
Take it back, goddammit!!


(What's histrionic mean?) http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/7968/avatarbusheyeuv3.gif

[imgonnaeaturlunch]

Stefan, it's not necessary to use ALL FRAKKIN CAPS all the time.

imgonnaeat, you are not necessarily doing your positions any favors by being so shrill.

I'm just sayin'.

There are modes of rhetoric that get your points across without always coming over as too exciteable.

If you guys scare away all the moderates by your breathy remonstrations and exhortations, we all get trapped in a deadly spiral of preaching to the choir.
If moderates scare that easily, than the hell with 'em. All democratic moderates do anyway is slow down progress. Your post attempts to label me as someone who his far left which is an example of how far to the right this country has allowed itself to be manipulated. My posts are the posts of reason, the left of center. You attempt to label them as something too far to left says much more about your political position than mine.

[Bill]

Unfortunately, moderates do scare that easily. That's what makes them moderates.

As I said, there's probably nothing to be done about the tendency of the political debate to polarize. I'm just trying to suggest that too much polarization doesn't do either side much good - and that it is especially damaging to the progressive and liberal side, which can't as effectively use fear and hate to motivate people.

Progressives benefit more by being the party of reason and practicality and probvlem solving, by being inclusive rather than divisive.

I believe polarization benefits the neoconservatives more than the progressives.

Stefan, your posts and ideas are totally welcome here. I should have said something about your tendency to use all caps in titles long ago, because it's arguably not fair to the people who are following net convention. All I ask is that you cool it with the all caps.

[stefan segal]

Bill, I can't fathom whatever you could mean by "not fair..."

As I pointed out earlier, I use caps for new posts in the header line...what could figure as unfair in a header?
If I've used caps in the body of a piece, it certainly wasn't to "shout"...albeit ever so silently...it more likely that my caps lock was on and I didn't change it. Since caps in the body of a piece has no value to me either way, I will be more sensitive to it.

As far as in the header of a new post, tell me how to make it bold or otherwise stand out from simple lower case, and I will do that instead...but I am curious as how you figure "fair" fits into this...I also would like to know where these "rules" you refer to are listed.

Stefan

[Mr. Blue]

If moderates scare that easily, than the hell with 'em.

Actually I find some of your posts bordering on the moronic. You don't scare moderates away...I think they read your posts and wonder why on earth they'd waste their time responding. Let me give you some examples:

The whole Cingular confederate flag thing. Are you nuts? Instead of bringing up an inane example why don't you just raise the issue of the Confederate Flag still being used and seen at sporting events, movies, etc, etc. Which might have been a good jumping point for discussion. Instead you bring up this ludicrous example of a cell phone logo.

The Bush can't dance is really a secret encoded message to white people. I don't even have to discuss this one. There's a million and one things you can criticize Bush about...I mean he's just ripe for the picking on so many topics...what do you pick up on...he can't dance.

These two examples coupled with your obsession of making every topic about race which bores people. Also you don't listen to a person's argument...you immediately label them either a racist or a Bush supporter. Seriously, they may just be disagreeing with you because you've made an idiotic statement.

As for Stefan, I've always like your posting and I may not agree with you all the time, but at least there's some thought put into your posts. Granted you CAP a little too much and I think a few of us have been online way too long and we follow the netiquette to the letter...so CAPS IS CONSIDERED SCREAMINGGGGG, lol.

btw, if I've offended anyone with this post...umm...too bad? This isn't CBS and I don't have a multi-million dollar contract here. (however, I am open to offers).

[Bill]

Maybe you really don't know.

I typed "posting in all caps" into google.

This is the first result.

http://designforcommunity.com/essay1.html

"Lately I've been thinking about netiquette – that thin veneer of social understanding that all virtual communities need. Netiquette means knowing that posting in ALL CAPS is rude, that posting a link to your 'N Sync fan page in a discussion about the mating habits of Australian gophers probably isn't wise, that starting a post with "Jane, you ignorant slut" may be a joke best left to Saturday Night Live discussion forums."

From the wiki on netiquette:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette

"Typing in all capital letters usually denotes screaming or yelling, and this should be avoided. "

If everybody else is following this quite old - as in 1990 era and earlier - net convention, and you aren't, then it's not fair to the others, because it implies that your posts are more important than theirs, because you are allowed to post titles in all caps, in violation of traditional rules of netiquette.

You could make the counterargument that you are just trying to use a HEADLINE effect to draw attention to your post, and used in moderation that's not unreasonable.

If you type "posting in all caps" yourself into google and look at some of the entries, I think you'll get a sense of the general feeling about this kind of thing.

[stefan segal]

Bill...have you looked into finding yourself a hobby?

Stefan

[Ravenn22]

Hello, I just found the site. It looks promising - the possibility of real discussions about things that matter.

My 8 cents, (2 cents adjusted for inflation), Netiquette is important, it shows your readers that you wish to have a civil discussion with them and you honor the "rules" of the medium. If you stray very far from the "rules" of any medium you risk get "off message" and not getting your point across.

As as side note to Stefan, my Quick Reply Message box has Bold Italic and Underline as well as a Text Color icon at the top of the box.

On the more important issues raised in this thread. I have seen news articles and heard, yes I listen to that ultraliberal NPR, that the Republican party has deliberately used fear tactics to divide the electorate. This fracturing has been along both economic and social values. My take is that the Republican old guard saw the fall of the "robber baron class" and the overwelming populist movement of the early 20th century as a near disaster for not the nation but to the power elite that was in place at that point. The facist ideology, which unites political and economic power, was a way to reassemble that power base.

R M Nixons' imperial presidency was the first shot at trying to overtly put the power into play in the political arena. Fortunately, there were people in both public and private sectors who believed that no one was above the law.

R Regans' presidency was much better received by the population, in part because the lack of education in the basics of civics, history, and how the government should work. Under the banner of "Less Government" he started the dismantling of many of the government programs. If you look at the who really gets the money from these programs you find they really support the middle class in this country. We are now seeing a shrinking middle class.

The "Republican Revolution" of mid 1990s was the coming out party for the neoconservative agenda that tried to take this country back to the "Robber Baron" heyday, of unfettered commercial development.

Yes, moderates do scare easily, they seem to be the folks who are thinking about history and the future of our nation, way of life, and the planet.

Our founding fathers wisely drew up a constitution that balanced political power in this country. The three branches of government were designed specifically so no single group could control the government.

My answer is to have people read, discuss, and to demand their representatives in both state and national legislatures listen to their needs.
Campaign Finance Reform is crucial to getting our representatives back to the business of governing this nation. We have been too long without.

[stefan segal]

As an aside to Bill: Thanks for the info...although I don't see the fine distinction between a header in bold, inderlined written in red, as distinguished from garden variety caps in tems of "volume", but whatever gets you through the night...as long as you don't get the feeling you can edit my posting, I aim to comply.
One more bit of housekeeping before moving onto something meaningful:

I approve of your efforts to "clean" up this list by attending to your own copy first..lead by example, as daddy used to say.

Your overview of the political parties attending to differences by what "good" looks like to each, is a great way to illuminate the fact that we are and have been embroiled in a class war in this country that no one except the rich and powerful appear to acknowlege.

I would move the distinction a bit further than picking over the bodies in the republican wake, by painting the repug party as the active enforcing arm of the corporate state in the Herculean struggle to force this country into solely a two class nation of haves and have-nots....or peasant and master relationship based on the Czarist model of eighteenth century Russia.

The uberclassist's model of governance is facist along the nazi lines, but BIll was refferiing to the socia/political aspects, and that would be facism matured to the point where propaganda is no longer needed because grinding poverty so limits the poor's options to resist, thier collective opinions are no longer a factor = Czarist Russia.

Blue and some others were commenting on the futility of voting for one party/candidate or another, inferring they were all of the same stripe...they are onto something not yet illuminated in our pop culture..and that is the interchangablitiy of the mouthpieces congressmen/senators, like changing disks on a sander...used until it no longer cuts, put on a new disk, and begin anew...the sanding machine is only interupted, but not efected.

This is how corporations use our representative lawmakers...like sanding disks.

And like a cat fascinated with what shows movement, we paw at the fan to stop the blade..when .it's so much easier to simply pull the plug and stop the motor...once that plug and it's utility are starkly identified.

Our problem is not with "our" congressional prostitutes...it's with the market that feeds their appitite. Exactly the same as all this tripe about enforcing our borders against hungry immigrants...stop the corporations from hiring them...then the prize would be gone and the problem solved...but prostitutes are bought...we are only talking price now...corpoations looking for cheap labor that can't organize and don't require health care, will pay whatever it takes...or blackmail them for what they have already taken to supply corporate appetites.

So instead of expending our energies and ire upon enforcing some standards of morality on our lawmakers, our attentions could be more effective in exposing corporate crime and organizing national boycotts.

What I am crying wolf about is no small concern...corpoations are buying up our freshwater from the great lakes, corporations through the machanism of insurances are shifting wealth daily in a continual upward flow to the top, in banking, issuing irrational levels of credit to homeowners will culminate in creating an army of the homeless.

All our needs in which to survive are being removed from our control.

Look at it as it is today. Food, shelter, fuel, medical care,occupation, transportation. personal safety...all removed from our control.

We don't immediately notice this, but all those neccessities listed above we must go begging for with our paper dollars...and always, they want more dollars.

You and I, here reading or typing on this list, don't feel the cold of the steel at our throats jsut yet...we have the time and the wherewithall to sit here and chat...maybe wonder why so many Blacks carry guns...and maybe we shold enforce our laws against such behavior...maybe that would lower the rate of murder in our streets...a worthwhile expenditure of one's time.

But what if you were Black and living in one of the many free-fire zones called neighborhoods...and what if you were threatened with a housebreak-inor a car jacking...would you immediately go 911 as the 911 service was designed, or would you worry about getting shot "escaping' and maybe getting your dog and some of your neighbors shot as well by overenthuiastic cops..or perish the thought...swat teams?

We don't need to question the advisability of calling for for some agency trained to protect us...we are white, we speak and act "civilized" so we never consider we might be setting ourselves up as a target of opportunity...anyway, some addresses get cops there before it's all over...that's why we don't carry a hide-away piece...while others...Black orthers, know that whatever is set to happen will happen before "help" arrives...unless one takes control back for protecting themselves.

The corporate action statements all read the same...whatever product or service the corporation is involved in, and that is: "To remove the customer from their source of supply and supply them with yours."

A quick perusal down memory lane of all the trades evaporated, all the services no longer rendered (seen a milkman lately?) all the small businesses like hardware stores and lumberyards...gone, and all the corner mom and pop stores...all WAWA now...the guy who made the best hamburgers in the city...gone to double golden arches...Open you eyes and look at your world...what you see if you do look is the ubiquitious takeover of the corporate borderless state.

Corporations are aleins...they have no loyalities, no patriotism, and mostly, no humanity, and we sit by talking about the great deal we got on some shirt made by child slave labor, while our country is swallowed up.

We really need to get serious. We need to quell our fascination with the dog and pony show our media feeds us nightly, and get down to our real work of breaking/starving the corporate state...one corpoation at a time.

We each must educate ourselves as to how and where to take back personal control of supplying our needs.The Victory gardens of the 40's made a great difference. Learn how to handle bulk food, how to prepare and store it.

I won't rant on...I think I've presented my message...although I feel that I should be beating a drum and shooting off fireworks to garner attending to what we are already deeply embroiled in and fast loosing all hope of becoming free individuals again...but...

Stefan

[imgonnaeaturlunch]

[QUOTE=Bill]Unfortunately, moderates do scare that easily. That's what makes them moderates.

As I said, there's probably nothing to be done about the tendency of the political debate to polarize. I'm just trying to suggest that too much polarization doesn't do either side much good - and that it is especially damaging to the progressive and liberal side, which can't as effectively use fear and hate to motivate people.

Progressives benefit more by being the party of reason and practicality and probvlem solving, by being inclusive rather than divisive.

I believe polarization benefits the neoconservatives more than the progressives.

Stefan, your posts and ideas are totally welcome here. I should have said something about your tendency to use all caps in titles long ago, because it's arguably not fair to the people who are following net convention. All I ask is that you cool it with the all caps.[/QUOTYes, the U S is polarized but who's responsible. I say deliberate polarization began with the GOP's " southern strategy". In the mid to late '60's the GOP saw its political philosophy out of step with most of the U S so they went into the south & said " you racst whites are alright with us". If the white racists hadn't had a party to run to then their kind would have died on the vine rather than given encouragement to continue. We continue to see the results of the "southern strategy" to this day. Of course, the murders of MLK, JFK & RFK greatly advanced their cause as well. Gee, what a coincidence.

[imgonnaeaturlunch]

Unfortunately, moderates do scare that easily. That's what makes them moderates.

As I said, there's probably nothing to be done about the tendency of the political debate to polarize. I'm just trying to suggest that too much polarization doesn't do either side much good - and that it is especially damaging to the progressive and liberal side, which can't as effectively use fear and hate to motivate people.

Progressives benefit more by being the party of reason and practicality and probvlem solving, by being inclusive rather than divisive.

I believe polarization benefits the neoconservatives more than the progressives.

Stefan, your posts and ideas are totally welcome here. I should have said something about your tendency to use all caps in titles long ago, because it's arguably not fair to the people who are following net convention. All I ask is that you cool it with the all caps.
The polarization began with the GOP's "southern strategy". The results of this strategy are still with us today. Of course, the murders of MLK, JFK & RFK helped their cause as well. Gee, what a coincidence. Had primarily white southerners & their racist attitudes not been made to feel at home in the GOP in the 60's then their racist attitudes would have had nowhere to go & would've died on the vine.

[Linkster]

First off - Ravenn22 welcome :)
Nice take on things although I have one outside thought that you will see a separation of what I call "old school republican party ie Goldwater types" and this new school Gingrich type with a huge divide showing itself in the next 2 or 3 years.

The other interesting part is that with that three pronged government approach that supposedly maintains checks and balances - there is an inherent flaw that is showing itself right now - if somehow you could get all three politicized enough, you would have the ability to do anything you wanted with power - I tend to believe this was started in the late 50s and has been a gradual effect rather than a all at once thing - the one part that cant be taken out of the equation easily though is "states rights". I do believe that we are starting to see a swelling of that concept again that mirrors some of the talk in the 1850s before the sucession of some of the states - it would be interesting to watch for the next 20 years

Last - in reference to imgonnaeaturlunch - I actually have a hidden side that has a huge conspiracy theory that I tend to only scatter about in here occasionally - but it looks at the involvement starting in the early 60s of a group of people that if you feel like researching a little - actually involves Bush Sr - a good place to start would be to look a little behind the scenes at what his positions were back in the early 60s and follow through from there :)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9137354720737304741
Its long 1 1/2 hrs but well worth it in my "opinion" :)

[imgonnaeaturlunch]

First off - Ravenn22 welcome :)
Nice take on things although I have one outside thought that you will see a separation of what I call "old school republican party ie Goldwater types" and this new school Gingrich type with a huge divide showing itself in the next 2 or 3 years.

The other interesting part is that with that three pronged government approach that supposedly maintains checks and balances - there is an inherent flaw that is showing itself right now - if somehow you could get all three politicized enough, you would have the ability to do anything you wanted with power - I tend to believe this was started in the late 50s and has been a gradual effect rather than a all at once thing - the one part that cant be taken out of the equation easily though is "states rights". I do believe that we are starting to see a swelling of that concept again that mirrors some of the talk in the 1850s before the sucession of some of the states - it would be interesting to watch for the next 20 years

Last - in reference to imgonnaeaturlunch - I actually have a hidden side that has a huge conspiracy theory that I tend to only scatter about in here occasionally - but it looks at the involvement starting in the early 60s of a group of people that if you feel like researching a little - actually involves Bush Sr - a good place to start would be to look a little behind the scenes at what his positions were back in the early 60s and follow through from there :)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9137354720737304741
Its long 1 1/2 hrs but well worth it in my "opinion" :)
I'll check it out thank you