Locking threads...

[Amourbien]

Hi I am brand new to these boards but I was just reading: "For my political Pals in Dalaya's Beginners (Iraq Edition!)" and noticed it locked. These are your boards indeed and you can do whatever you like granted but if you want free and open discussions it's best not to lock discussions unless personal information is being sent etc. That's just my two bits worth, I always enjoy a good debate even if it is tired and true.

Regards,
Nikki

 

[calaran]

Yeah, the problem is, this board is here for a particular reason, and that reason is not political debate. I don't believe I would be speaking out of turn to say that it isn't the forum moderators/admins desire for political discussion to happen here. The board is run by people who run a game, for the purpose of discussing the game for the most part. Every time a political or religous thread is started on ANY message board there is always a great deal of drama and flaming; in the interest of restricting/limiting this, the moderators will (and imho should) lock threads with great flame-war potential...

There are plenty of politics message boards out there where people much more (or less in some cases) qualified are discussing these issues at great length.

 

[Xanex]

hello

yes, this board IS here for a particular reason.

you might want to reconsider your position.

Real World: SoD
Any non-media related real world discussion such as politics, birthdays, celebrities and so on goes here.

 

[calaran]

I am completely retarded.

My bad.

I don't have a problem admitting when I'm so obviously wrong. Sorry to have crapped up the thread.

 

[Xanex]

well

as it turns out, Iraq war and "bush bashing" are not welcome on this board. so we are both wrong.

"bush bashing" these days might as well be anything related to current events/politics. i guess we could always talk about birthdays.

 

[jeremiahlogan]

Chuck Norris turns 66 tomorrow.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY CHUCK.

 

[calaran]

Chuck Norris turns 66 tomorrow... IF he decides not to roundhouse kick father time in the grill and start aging in reverse..

 

[moghedancarns]

Just keep it at the Leno level and you will be fine.

Even staunch Republicans smile when Bush does something a little dumb, or when the VP shoots someone.

Other than that, there is really no discussion. There is no way someone else's words are going to break you from your naive, idealistic little world of make believe. We simply must wait until the realities of the world metaphorically bash in your skull. As you pick yourself off the ground and slowly heal your metaphorical wounds, you make great strides in understanding the exact nature of the world. Similarly, none of the drivel that manages to escape the spit bubbles of your drooling incoherence is going to convince us that your lesbian transvestite, ultra liberal, left wing propaganda is anything more than your drug induced, paranoid delusions. ( I have to have at least one Mog paragraph. )

Every post made is nothing more than a challenge to the other side to fire back. In the end, no one wins, they just get bored and quit reading, secure in the knowledge the other is off their rockers. It gets to be kind of tiring. The mods seem to be ok with discussion, but have little tolerance for bickering, which is what political debates of that level rapidly degenerate into.

 

[Birlic]

Iran wants to develop nukular weapons. I've distinctly heard our president say that on the radio yesterday.
I think we're all safe unless they'll go for nuclear weapons.

 

[Wiz]

Similarly, none of the drivel that manages to escape the spit bubbles of your drooling incoherence is going to convince us that your lesbian transvestite, ultra liberal, left wing propaganda is anything more than your drug induced, paranoid delusions. ( I have to have at least one Mog paragraph. )

You are a spiteful troll. Don't ever post on the forums again.

 

[calaran]

Wow. I'm not totally certain that Mog was meaning that to be directed at the OP or anyone else in the thread... At least, the first time I read it, I read it more as a general statement against those sorta comments, not attributing it to anyone. I could obviously be wrong, but I almost think Mog didn't mean to attack someone specifically... Then again, if he did... :buttertroll: <-- looks like someone waiving the banstick?


::edit:: Read it again... yeah, it sounds pretty directed... hmm...

 

[Xanex]

wow

it's a good thing we are not having our debate on a medium where assertions can immediately be fact-checked via a wide variety of sources, including but not limited to, government agencies, global news services, primary documents and whitehouse press releases.

for example, how do you feel about our government's direction concerning the separation of church and state?

according to my "liberal world view", thomas jefferson, author of the declaration of independence, one of the most influential founders of our nation and the third president of the united states wrote:

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

i happen to agree with the above sentiment, thus it is worrisome to read articles (via the communist, ABC news) titled,

Religious Charities Get More Money

WASHINGTON Mar 9, 2006 (AP)— The Bush administration says it is making steady progress in steering more federal taxpayer dollars to religious charities.

In the budget year that ended Sept. 30, religious charities received $2.15 billion in federal grants to administer a range of social service programs for the needy. That represented 10.9 percent of the total grants from the seven federal agencies such charities were eligible to apply to in fiscal 2005, according to a White House report obtained by The Associated Press.

...

"We think faith-based groups are more competitive, but there are barriers they still face," [Jim Towey, who directs the so-called faith-based initiative for Bush] said in an interview. "The president is changing a culture of grant-making and there's a headwind."

Sadly, Jim Towey is right that religious groups face considerable barriers to tax-payer funding (such as the Constitution).

Luckily for us, Bush has, for some bizarre reason, Established a Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives at the Department of Homeland Security.

here's a sample:

Sec. 2. Purpose of Center. The purpose of the Center shall be to coordinate agency efforts to eliminate regulatory, contracting, and other programmatic obstacles to the participation of faith-based and other community organizations in the provision of social and community services.

it should be obvious to even liberals how giving government grant money to religious charities is directly related to securing our homeland. God Bless you, George W. Bush.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

see? was that so hard? say something, back it up. and keep the childish, ad hominen attacks to yourself- and a debate does not have to desolve into a primary school shouting match.

as far as the other side being unwilling to consider unpleasant facts or contrary arguments, there is a saying about a horse and water... you get the drift.

 

[calaran]

I wonder if we could get a politics-only forum. And the ability to not show certain forums at all on our main view. I have this BURNING desire to read every thread every time I see an update, 'cause I'm bored at work, but then I click and I find a huge steaming piece of crap thread like this, I read it, and then end up having to exercise incredible restraint in not posting a retort.

Personally, I have political views and opinions but I certainly don't come to the SoD forums to discuss them. I realize the front page says that this forum is where to post stuff like that, but I click on this hoping maybe there are new member pictures, or updates on how any of the soldiers who play this game are doing etc... any kind of stuff that actually matters. I have yet to EVER see a strongly-opinionated pundit of either side be converted or even brought closer to center just because someone quoted 10 news sources and gave their opinions; this is why I think it's utterly useless and also why I assumed the mods/admins didn't want it here.

I was wrong apparently, but I wonder if there would be a way to completely isolate political crap so that I can ignore it even more easily (along with, I believe, the large majority of people here who don't want to read leftist or rightist propaganda).

 

[Wiz]

Mog is constantly borderline trolling and testing boundaries. This time he crossed the boundary pretty clearly.

 

[Xanex]

to further illustrate

and so you understand this isn't just about bush, it seems that the republican party in missouri has introduced a bill in the house to make christianity the states official "majority religion"

From the St. Louis Post Dispatch

The proposed resolution states that "voluntary prayer in public schools, religious displays on public property, and the recognition of a Christian God are not a coalition of church and state."

It was recently approved by the House Rules Committee along party lines - five Republicans backed it, three Democrats did not - and could come for a vote before the full House next week. It would also have to pass in the Senate.

granted, it is only a resolution and does not have the power of law, but it did make it out of committee which shows substantial support, though i doubt it will pass full senate or constitution muster.

is america really ready for a theocracy? see how science is under attack

also worth noting is an article in the Nature journal (subscription req'd)

The highlight of the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) last week was an impassioned session [...] organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists in the wake of revelations about how the administration's political appointees have sought to control the messages communicated by scientists to the public [...] And judging from the response at a packed and emotional hall in St Louis, a great many US scientists now believe that the Bush administration is prepared not only to ignore scientific facts in making policy decisions, but also to suppress findings that conflict with its own priorities.

[/b]

 

[Xanex]

ok

cal, i apologize for bringing information to your attention. i have a tip for you, ignore all threads i post, post in and /ignore Armando and Ciara in game. you'll be all set.

ps - yes, i quoted an AP wire article, but also a white house press release. do you question the veracity of the information presented? if so, take it up with bush's white house. i'm just the messenger.

option two is that you simply don't care, in which case, we are done talking.

 

[calaran]

Re: ok

cal, i apologize for bringing information to your attention. i have a tip for you, ignore all threads i post, post in and /ignore Armando and Ciara in game. you'll be all set.

ps - yes, i quoted an AP wire article, but also a white house press release. do you question the veracity of the information presented? if so, take it up with bush's white house. i'm just the messenger.

option two is that you simply don't care, in which case, we are done talking.

Wow. I remember clearly calling you out. That happened. True story. I saw me do it.

Um no.

I live in St. Louis. I am aware of this issue you brought up and am against it whole heartedly even though I could be accused of leaning right and I am proudly a Christian. You can leave the Post Disgrace out of this.. if you want to do research, look into their history of innacurate reporting and absolutely bottom-of-the-barrel journalistic integrity.

I don't agree with establishing an official religion. Short of that, I don't care. If they want to have voluntary prayer for any and all religions, a kosher lunch line, whatever, I don't care. When our founding fathers sat down they did NOT intend to keep a child from praying with or without their friends inside school or a state building; they intended to prevent the declaration of an official church or religion for the state or country. In this case, that DOES seem to be what this resolution seeks to do and as such I'm against it and appalled that it made it through ANY scrutiny.

However you can keep your somewhat veiled personal attacks to yourself. You pointed out NOTHING to me that I didn't already know. You DID manage to only bring up liberal talking points, but I'm sure you don't see it that way. It's not that I don't care, it's that I doubt you have any insight or special information that will drastically change the way I view the political landscape. The extremes on both ends of the spectrum do NOT represent the majority of the people and are both dangerous (or at best useless) to the nation.

If you will read my post, you will see we agree on that resolution, but why did that even come up? What bearing does it have? How did this thread actually turn into "How is Bush hurting this country?" And then you've managed to throw like 6 unassociated points into 3 posts and claim that you're educating me. Thank you, but I will stick to the sources I trust rather than some random internet troll.

 

[Xanex]

attack?

i didn't write it as an attack. you wrote that you did not want to see politics at all and i was trying to help you out, sincerely. because if you don't want to hear it, then i don't want to speak it.

remember this?

I wonder if there would be a way to completely isolate political crap so that I can ignore it even more easily

maybe i misread you, but i think not.

and i also do not think i read too far into your post when i assumed you just didn't care, as i am sure a majority (at least a vocal minority) feels.

moving on,

You can leave the Post Disgrace out of this.. if you want to do research, look into their history of innacurate reporting and absolutely bottom-of-the-barrel journalistic integrity.

irrelevant. unless you are contesting the accuracy of that specific report, which you are not (and i can dig up several more sources, including gov. legistlative databases), then i do not see why past inaccuracies have any bearing on our conversation.

If you will read my post, you will see we agree on that resolution, but why did that even come up? What bearing does it have?

i was giving that mog an example of how to make a point without acting like a child, concerning the question of separation between church and state.

if i will read your post? what? the one you just made? i don't see any other posts stating your position other than your desire to only see "the stuff that actually matters," whatever that means.

anyways, i think you are overreacting a bit to this perceived attack.

ps -

You pointed out NOTHING to me that I didn't already know. You DID manage to only bring up liberal talking points, but I'm sure you don't see it that way.

so you are saying everything i pointed out, you already knew (as if this somehow detracts from the information, as if in the future, you will *always* already know and hence all discussion is rendered unnecessary). and, strangely enough, even though you agree with what i say and concede my points are factual, you STILL use the empty meme "liberal talking point"

what does that even mean?

according to your very own words, you support my so-called "liberal talking points," and you clearly aren't a liberal. and so what if i am. if i am speaking the truth, does that truth carry less weight?

more than anything else, i am saddened by this thread.

 

[Anatole]

These 'political' discussion threads never come to any good in the long run, as it's virtually impossible to have a reasoned debate on such issues over the internet. In a real-life debate, you have the presence of your body and your social standing to throw weight into a discussion, whereas here we're all coming from the same level and it's far too easy for an argument to become polarized and never progress anywhere, ending in the inevitable result that each seperate camp goes off grumpier than before, with an even more narrow-sighted view of the other group than when they began.

One could well ask, "What's the point?"

In the grand scheme of things, there isn't one. We'd all be better off grinding exp in Miel B (in my opinion).

 

[Xanex]

fine

These 'political' discussion threads never come to any good in the long run, as it's virtually impossible to have a reasoned debate on such issues over the internet

please define "good" from above, and demonstrate to me an example of a thread that "comes" to it.

and what about the internet makes it impossible to have reasoned debate/communication? if it is because people are jerks, then that is because of people, and not the internet.

in a real-life debate, you have the presence of your body and your social standing to throw weight into a discussion,

in a real life debate, you do not have the most powerful information database -ever- at your disposal to fact-check your opponent. in a real life debate, the truth is entirely irrelevant and completely indiscernable. you also do not have the time, as you do on this forum, to investigate dubious claims.

in a real life debate, volume often wins out over validity.

in a real life debate, the participation is limited to strictly right then and there, as opposed to an internet discussion board which invites all comers, as long as the thread is alive, to take as much time as they need to form their points (and back them up)

One could well ask, "What's the point?"

because I enjoy it and education is an important foundation to our democracy. how can people be entrusted to elect leaders when they do not have the time or desire to engage in any sort of political discussion?

and, I assume all participation is strictly voluntary. would i be wrong to then assume this voluntary participation is done because the participants enjoy it as well?

final note: notice how any detractor did not provide a drop of evidence to suport any contention. notice how the opposition simply uses empty insults with no substance whatever to back it up. notice how the other side has deployed vague generalizations against liberals as the only way to refute points and evidence that they agree with (yes, i know this doesn't make sense. talk to cal).