For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: incivility in our comments sections.
Lots of "spirited discussions" occurring at NB lately, many degrading into serial invective, and often between usual suspects.
What's up, folks? Aren't there enough compelling and important events transpiring in our country at this point that evoke serious debate without it becoming too personal? Or, our message boards reflective of the deep political divisions not just between the political parties but also within them?
Do folks actually enjoy the bickering and squabbling, or do it more defensively to save face? Should NB be more aggressively moderating such battles in an attempt to minimize and/or eliminate them? Or, is this just a part of the internet community experience?
Comments Policy
Ahh.. the million dollar
April 17, 2008 - 09:43 ET by contraryAhh.. the million dollar questions.
"Do folks actually enjoy the bickering and squabbling"
BING. The kinds of people who post inflamatory, outlandish opinions post to be provocative, and to stroke their egos.
"...is this just a part of the internet community experience?"
Sadly, yes. The internet supports and attracts this type of conversation because of people's immunity to consequence. Who cares if I slander someone, they don't know who I am.
"Republicans always get a huge pass on the racist issue. Huck is just another example. Provided they don't start up with the N word, they seem able to pander directly to the racist vote."
-- Chuck Davis, intellectual heavyweight, bigot
Well, it is a fact that the
April 17, 2008 - 10:07 ET by bassndudeWell, it is a fact that the founding fathers came to blows a time or two. Sadly, we are unable to follow in their foot steps.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
We need a virtual duel
April 17, 2008 - 10:12 ET by contraryWe need a virtual duel here, the loser has their bank account turned over to NB for probate.
"Republicans always get a huge pass on the racist issue. Huck is just another example. Provided they don't start up with the N word, they seem able to pander directly to the racist vote."
-- Chuck Davis, intellectual heavyweight, bigot
Part of the bickering is
April 17, 2008 - 09:43 ET by Dan The Man 2Part of the bickering is the blog experience, it does get tiresome. It seems there is too much testoterone in all parteis concerned. I have at times been guilty of this testorone exchange. I think everyone has their own toleration level. But, even the participants need to see if it covers 40 posts on one exchange from the same people in the same thread it may be too much. Perhaps we need to ban tag like the school did? Nah just need to remind everyone to use restraint or they will be restrained.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Ban anyone who brings up religion and/or abortion
April 17, 2008 - 09:44 ET by Melodic_MetalAww hell Sarcasmo too heh heh j/k
"To beat Violence, You must ignore the focus groups. You must send in the Mossad, turn off the BBC, CNN, and don't look back."
Yeah, ban libertarian thoughts!
April 17, 2008 - 09:48 ET by sarcasmoThat's sure to help!
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
This doesn't necessarily
April 17, 2008 - 10:09 ET by motherbeltThis doesn't necessarily involve incivility, but I've noticed that threads that touch on relgion in any way (the Pope's visit etc.) tend to get derailed into discussions (and sometimes the aformentioned invective) on Catholic doctrine, Christianity etc.
That's fine, if it is done with manners, but I wonder if those things aren't better off in the forum (or the woodshed, if the situation warrants) since they go so far afield of the original topic. I realize that threads do wander, but how do you administrators handle that? At wwhat point should the topic be moved? Can you request that someone move the topic over? And sometimes people need more than a hint. I usually drop out of those threads by the time they get into the second page, but some go on forever, from what I've seen.
How do you invite others onto a forum?
April 17, 2008 - 12:15 ET by KC MulvilleMB, I agree, but in practice, it's awkward.
In theory, having a forum off-thread is a good idea, but in practice, I find it awkward. If there was a more practical procedure to follow, I would, but I can't think of how to make that easier.
KC - I think when someone says something about your religion
April 17, 2008 - 12:27 ET by Dee Bunkthat you find incorrect and/or offensive, you have every right to and should correct it.
I don't want to speak for MB, but she may be thinking of it like I am. I don't like to see people get in arguments about who's religion is the right one. That's different. So if you are Catholic and someone says something incorrect about what Catholics believe or practice then that should be responded to and is usually appropriate to the thread.
It's the threads that say my religion is better than yours and we interpret the bible better discussions that get out of hand in my opinion.
Thanks, Dee, that is part
April 17, 2008 - 18:14 ET by motherbeltThanks, Dee, that is part of my outlook on it. I too will explain and defend misunderstandings about my religion.
What I am talking about is threads being derailed into a side discussion of different religions, as you said, with endless arguments for and against, people throwing Bible verses back and forth, challenging each others' knowledge of the Bible etc.
IMO, there is a place for that kind of "discussion"...it's called the Forum. Not the thread on Pope Benedict's visit to the White House.
The following statements
April 17, 2008 - 18:29 ET by tracheostomyThe following statements are contradictory:
Dee: I think when someone says something about your religion that you find incorrect and/or offensive, you have every right to and should correct it.
Dee: I don't like to see people get in arguments about who's religion is the right one. That's different.
No. It is not.
Dee: So if you are Catholic and someone says something incorrect about what Catholics believe or practice then that should be responded to and is usually appropriate to the thread.
It's a two-way street. The one who represents a particular sect, denomination, or order cannot automatically be assumed to know everything about it. Also the possibility exists that those representing their particular order assume too much as well.
Dee: It's the threads that say my religion is better than yours and we interpret the bible better discussions that get out of hand in my opinion.
That's exactly where the anger comes from, yes.
Two discordant interpretations from two sides that deal with the majors of the faith (such as soteriology) will almost always cause the side with the weaker interpretation a lot of inner rage, because the other is quite literally pulling the foundation of their faith out from under them.
But then, if man is capable of having that much effect on another man's god, then it's not a very powerful god to begin with, is it?
Very hurtful, but only because one side failed to count the cost of such a confrontation at the outset. Can I fault my opponent if I build my foundation on shifting sand?
Such things are not assumed, but can be demonstrated when it comes out in the wash.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Dee, on this I could not
April 17, 2008 - 18:21 ET by bigtimerDee, on this I could not agree more.
It's the threads that say my religion is better than yours and we interpret the bible better discussions that get out of hand in my opinion.
I love to read and have learned a lot regarding religion of others here...but some really need to go to the forum.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Guilty as charged,
April 17, 2008 - 21:46 ET by QueenMumGuilty as charged, motherbelt. But as soon as I see that I'm going too far off track, I'll try to remember to continue the conversation via pm or in the Forum if warranted.
We've had discussions about this problem in the past and come to a sort of gentlemen's/women's agreement amongst ourselves. It has gotten much better, especially since the "construction" of the Woodshed. ;) Thanks for the reminder.
I am the exotic Queen Mum, and I approved this message.
Banning (be it temporary or
April 17, 2008 - 11:21 ET by Roger the ShrubberBanning (be it temporary or otherise) people spreading lies is acceptable. That is trollish behavior. There should be some sort of repercussion for spreading untruths.
(I know this will spawn a whole other pathetic thread full of "whiner" and "liars", etc....., but it is a topic of discussion here today).
I'm for it...
April 17, 2008 - 12:08 ET by sarcasmoBut there's nothing pathetic about calling 'em like I see 'em, whiners included. This is the internet, and as you so-politely put it today, "grow a pair."
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
I'm Against It...
April 17, 2008 - 12:59 ET by TinianI prefer a market solution.
That would be
April 17, 2008 - 13:02 ET by sarcasmoA first. Explain.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Explain -- Why?
April 17, 2008 - 13:33 ET by TinianIt would be similar to the market solution you proposed (but never explained) that would ensure parents of public school students had their kids properly vaccinated.
I'll explain that one instantly.
April 17, 2008 - 13:35 ET by sarcasmo3 words. "Eliminate public schools." And thanks for the reply, because you of all people need to see this.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Instant Dose of Insanity
April 17, 2008 - 14:12 ET by TinianHow about a reality based market solution?
I'd love to see an end to the Department of Education, but that's not happening any time soon. So what is your near-term market solution to the vaccination problem
Got one?
I didn't think so.
Also, how would eliminating public schools help? Obviously, some low end private schools wouldn't require vaccinations for attendance, creating perfect breeding grounds for epidemics.
So what is your long-term market solution to the vaccination problem
Got one?
I didn't think so.
You're not listening
April 18, 2008 - 05:11 ET by sarcasmoAnd you look stupid when you try to put words in my mouth. Reading is fundamental. Try it.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Writing is fundamental
April 19, 2008 - 10:23 ET by UnsaneWell, I just read this entire thread and I have yet to see you answer Tinian's question.
Well?
No links either. Try using your very own words. Writing is fundamental. Try it.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
See what I mean,
April 17, 2008 - 12:59 ET by Roger the ShrubberSee what I mean, folks?
Pathetic.
Yep, pathetic
April 17, 2008 - 13:02 ET by sarcasmoInability to adhere to 1 standard, even in the same thread. And now he's hoist by his own petard.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Like I said before:
April 17, 2008 - 13:26 ET by Roger the ShrubberLike I said before: pathetic.
I used the term "man-up and grow a pair" to tell somebody to "quit being a douche and be honest ni the face of overwhelming evidence".
You are using the term "man-up and grow a pair" as "quit whining about my spreading lies about you and then refusing to admit I am lying becuase I have no evidence to back me up".
So man-up, Sarc. Quit acting like it's high school and try to be an adult. Plain enough for you, genius?
Look who's talking.
April 17, 2008 - 13:30 ET by sarcasmoAnd I've never lied here, as you know. Not once.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Man-up, little boy. You
April 17, 2008 - 13:48 ET by Roger the ShrubberMan-up, little boy. You can't, can you? Since you have zero evidence to back up your lies, you are a liar.
Until you apologize for being a lying ass, you have zero credibility left on this site.
Like I said, grow up, we're not in high school.
Nope, Whinebot.
April 17, 2008 - 13:55 ET by sarcasmoYou're way too dishonest to admit it if I wasted the time to track down your meltdown (which continues to be a matter of opinion, anyway) and I've already linked multiple times to another, better example of one of your meltdowns where Warner had to delete to get in the last word. Whining again won't make that go away.
If you don't like these smackdowns, don't start this elementary school crapola. I refuse to take any of your crap, or let you and other big government Republicans drive me off. You'll have to get used to me, instead.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Why haven't you gotten
April 17, 2008 - 14:10 ET by Roger the ShrubberWhy haven't you gotten Warner to verify he had to "delete" on of of my supposed meltdowns (which, you now say is a term that completely subjective and a matter of opinion, like a true spineless pud)? Why is that? It seems to be a simple matter, and could resolve you having to actually put any effort in to proving you are not a douche.
The link (which I gave you yesterday)
April 17, 2008 - 14:17 ET by sarcasmoNo longer goes to a particularly idiotic comment you made, which has disappeared. I assume Warner deleted it, but maybe it was another admin, but it's obviously evidence of a deleted comment because a giant link formerly to a comment simply leads to the top of Warner's thread. Where the Whinebot melted down. Again. But it's interesting that you can't give up on accusing me of lying over an obviously subjective matter, and my spine stands up to the likes of yours anyday.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Rog and Sarc
April 17, 2008 - 14:26 ET by Noel SheppardRog and Sarc,
Do we NBers have to witness this juvenile debate EVERY day in the Open Thread? Do you know how infuriating this is to other members?
Why don't the two of you create "Rog and Sarc's Forum" so that you can fight amongst yourselves without others being forced day in and day out to witness the insanity? ns
Noel, Thank you.
April 17, 2008 - 14:38 ET by KarmaNoel,
Thank you.
Thanks, Noel
April 17, 2008 - 14:57 ET by ChaitealoverThat kind of back and forth crap is why I've pretty much given up on Newsbusters as a source of information and amusement. I used to come here several times a day and read many of the topics/comments, sometimes even adding a thought or two of my own. Now when I stop by, more often than not, I just scan through the topics and leave.
Today I did comment on the Barbara Boxer thread, but that was mostly because the usual tiresome 'let's blame all the ills of the world on California' started the comments section.
Chai
Senator John McCain could never convince me to vote for him. Only Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama can cause me to vote for McCain. – Thomas Sowell
I apologize.
April 17, 2008 - 15:01 ET by Roger the ShrubberI apologize.
Rog
April 17, 2008 - 19:11 ET by Noel SheppardRog,
You're very loved here. You know that. But, you're WAY better than this. JMHO. ns
Is this where we
April 17, 2008 - 20:53 ET by Roger the ShrubberIs this where we hug?
:P
I'm sorry, I thought this
April 17, 2008 - 15:43 ET by Hero SquadI'm sorry, I thought this was theater to provide us with a dramatic demonstration of the suggested topic for today's open thread.
Someday let's hope that Sarc and Rog can resolve their differences and co-exist in NB harmony. Don't make Noel stop this car and come back there to straighten it out. Because God help him, he will.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
HS
April 17, 2008 - 19:12 ET by Noel SheppardHS,
Amen, brotha! :-) ns
I'm fully willing to coexist in harmony
April 18, 2008 - 05:23 ET by sarcasmoI refuse, however, to take crap from the unhinged.
Maybe, if each Whi...er..Shrub Report started with something that might lead to smaller government instead of what I can only describe as a whine would help? Roger has never linked, for example, to this site despite many not so subtle hints from me. Why? Is the "not invented here" syndrome THAT powerful over your minds? Right now, he's begun linking to a whine for literally months, so IMO to make up for it I'd hope to see months of advocacy for smaller government IF he's telling the truth about being "for" that.
What's so great about 3 months (coincidentally right-before the election!) of no gas tax (yawn!) vs FOREVER of no taxes on any poor waitress or waiter's tips? Let's stipulate that Ron Paul's noninterventionist foreign policy isn't wanted by Republicans. Fine. What's so wrong with no tax on tips, aside from the fact that a libertarian thought it up?? Specific answers, please. People frequently SAY "I like some of Ron Paul's ideas," and then they proceed to act instead with dimwitted antilibertarian hysteria whenever they see one. I have trouble showing such big government Republicans much respect, especially when they disrespect me.
At least, that's how I see it. I wonder, though, just how folks here suggest I respond to my attackers? I'm not the type to back down to BS from the unhinged, as you've seen, so please keep that in mind for any replies...Thanks.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Why single out "tips"?
April 18, 2008 - 08:25 ET by Karmasarcasmo,
Just to be clear, (1) I'm for elimination of all personal income taxes. (2) I tip extremely well, even to people not normally tipped. With that in mind:
Do you tip someone for nothing or have they done some form of labor for you?
Why should tips be singled out for protection from income taxes?
If you feel so strongly about it, couldn't you just add an additional 20% or so to what you would normally tip to cover that persons tax on the tip?
Couldn't the employer just pay a fair wage?
Because that would work.
April 18, 2008 - 08:48 ET by sarcasmoI'm for the elimination of the income tax entirely, too. When I say "we could do it just by cutting spending back to the last year of Slick Willie's administration, and you were probably complaining just like me about the too-high level of government spending back-then" folks look at me like I am insane, even though I'm telling the God's Own Truth and political geeks here fully know it. The truth sounds "crazy" these days due to pervasive antilibertarian media bias. ANY victory for fiscal conservatism will be tiny, like this one, IF it happens at all.
Incrementalism works. No Tax On Tips is popular with every tipped person I ever talked-to about it. It would actually and permanently shrink government, unlike McCain's temporary pre-election gas tax reprieve. Should we permanently shrink taxes and especially spending much more? Yes, I think we should. That's why I worked so hard to help this country see the light on that. I failed.
Incrementalism works. People don't look at you like you're crazy if you say "get rid of the tax on tips." Try saying "get rid of the income tax and massively cut spending" and they'll think you're nuts, even if they say they "hate the income tax."
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
OK, but...
April 19, 2008 - 10:28 ET by UnsaneWhat would you replace the income tax WITH?
I'd rather see it radically simplified to 15-17% of income with NO deductions or loopholes instead.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Nothing.
April 19, 2008 - 10:44 ET by sarcasmoThe Federal Government has plenty of income besides the tax, the problem is spending. Go read about it, google is your left-wing friend. And the troll isn't worth a reply on a day like today.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
This is pretty simple: if
April 18, 2008 - 09:02 ET by Roger the ShrubberThis is pretty simple: if you do not like the Shrub Report®, don't read it, Paulbot. Get off your lazy a$$, show some initiative, and design a "Sarcamo Report", fill it with all the douchey ramblings you want. Quit crying like a liberal expecting other people to carry your water for you.
Don't bother responding, because there is no response you can add that will be worth reading. I have already apologized to all my NB friends for hijacking this thread exposing your douchebaggery, but you just can't seem to let it go. Let it go, Sparky. Let it go.
This proves
April 18, 2008 - 09:05 ET by sarcasmoThe "sincerity" of your "apology," Whinebot. And as usual, I'll do what I want when it comes to the likes of you...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Sarc
April 18, 2008 - 09:05 ET by Noel SheppardSarc,
Here's a truly libertarian idea: if you don't like the Shrub Report, or its contents, DON'T READ IT! And, DON'T RESPOND TO IT!
Seems pretty simple to me, and quite libertarian. Then, the rest of us don't have to read your squabble EVERY DAY! ns
Look who responded to whom
April 18, 2008 - 09:06 ET by sarcasmoAnd look who's gettin' scolded. The Whiner responded to MY comment here first. And despite the uncontested fact that every Whine Report BEGINS with a whine, I don't tend to be the instigator, as in this case, but I do tend to be the whined-at.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Sarc
April 18, 2008 - 09:20 ET by Noel SheppardSarc,
You're right. He responded to you in this instance. I apologize. Can be tough to discern when the bickering gets this longwinded. :-) ns
I'm fully willing to coexist in harmony, as I said.
April 18, 2008 - 09:24 ET by sarcasmoBut I tire of this, too.
And I'd love to re-harness the energy (see? I'm not calling it "whinepower" anymore!) towards actually-smaller government. But until they're proved wrong, my suspicions remain that actually-smaller government isn't a widely shared goal when it comes to some who call themselves "conservative." I'd love to be proved wrong, starting today, and I think it would result in a more-civil, more interesting board for all of us.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Sarc
April 18, 2008 - 09:47 ET by Noel SheppardSarc,
Well, I think most conservative "voters" want smaller government. However, I think most GOP elected officials don't walk the talk. And that's the problem.
In the end, Bush and the GOP actually supporting an expansion of Medicare in 2003 to include prescription drugs might have been the death knell to fiscal conservatism in the Republican Party. This was a disaster for the nation in MANY ways. ns
Sarc, 2cents
April 18, 2008 - 09:56 ET by AgnosticFrom what I read most people have less faith in the goodness of people to police themselves when it is about something they see as "wrong". Most people on this site would like to see the US stop putting money into social programs because the church and people in local communities will pick up the slack. However, they don't trust these same churches and local communities to help with the problems of personal choice (drugs, gambling, etc...)
I am sorry, Noel, but I am
April 18, 2008 - 09:52 ET by Roger the ShrubberI am sorry, Noel, but I am I supposed to simply sit idly by when someone bellyaches about me? I apologized for the thread yesterday (unlike others), but I am not allowed to defend my good name ever again? This is pathetic. I apologized, yet this thread never ends.
I am trying my best, Noel, but I feel like I am a little kid in the back seat of a car on a long trip, with a little brother who is being a complete idiot, and you are the dad. I am done on this topic, will not respond on this thread anymore, and have said my peace. I have long-grown weary of dealing with sociopaths.
Rog
April 18, 2008 - 09:59 ET by Noel SheppardRog,
Well, I'm certainly not the dad. However, using your analogy, to end the bickering between my kids in the backseat, I demanded that they stopped talking to one another.
The two of you are never going to agree. I've got posters here that I no longer respond to due to the futility even when I'm being attacked. Giles attacked me in one of the AGW threads a couple of days ago, and I ignored it. Someone actually allowed BlindSight back, and he's been attacking me for days. Haven't responded once!
Sometimes, the only winning move is not to play. ns
Incivility
April 17, 2008 - 09:52 ET by BufordI have lost interest in participating in the blogs lately because of the, at times, bitter fights that take place here. Many times the subject of the blog is totally irrelevent to the bloggers. Moderators would be welcomed by me.
The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program...........Ronald Reagan
Moderators ---
April 17, 2008 - 10:07 ET by longriderYea, that’s the ticket…moderators.
I hope they are government approved.
Moderators
April 17, 2008 - 10:14 ET by BufordNoel sometimes steps in on his thread and attempts to calm the invective of the posters, I don't find that overboard.
Overtly Boring Yet Covertly Annoying.....
April 17, 2008 - 10:01 ET by JamesonLewis3rdPersistently trading puerile ad hominem is akin to a game of Pong that's stuck bouncing back and forth for infinity and there's nobody home but the cat.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hebrews 11:8
Jeremiah 33:3
My Two Cents
April 17, 2008 - 10:02 ET by KC MulvilleI don't like the squabbling, and I don't like differences becoming personal, but so long as we allow human beings to get involved, that's going to happen. When the posts veer away from content and become pissing matches, I just skip through them anyway. It's like the AA slogan: "take what you need, leave the rest."
Other than profanity and clear personal cheap shots, I'm inclined to let 'em go.
ditto, KC...I said, when
April 17, 2008 - 10:15 ET by motherbeltditto, KC..When some complained about voluminous lists of links, and wanted them deleted or banned, I commented that I simply scrolled past them.
We need to live and let live; but there's a lot to be said for civility.
civility would be great -
April 17, 2008 - 11:21 ET by TruthMongercivility would be great - but what is "in-civility" exactly? I've asked the admins here to define it, and ban it, but they won't so far...
the religious bigots here really get me - disparaging Muslims, Mormon's, fundies like me...
around here that makes me "douchemonger" the "mooslim apologist:)..."
I don't mind the persecution really - makes me feel like I'm on the right track - but I don't like to see Republicans sink to the linguistic level of the DKOS crowd - it's so far beneath us - we are the party of enlightened reasoning, after all:)!
But you are a liar when you
April 17, 2008 - 11:41 ET by Roger the ShrubberBut you are a liar when you accuse people of being a "bigot" when all people like me are doing is expose the Muslim faith for the blodd cult it is. A bigot is someone who is intolerant os ideas different from their. Exposing the truth is not being intolerant.
That's where you mess up, Truthie, thus earning the abuse you receive. Calling me a bigot does little to further your argument (especially when you never seem to be able to back it up), and neither does your past attempts to cover up the atrocities committed. If anybody on this board would say "kill all the Muslims!", that would be wrong. But, if someone says "why in the world do the millions of so-called 'good Muslims' allow all this death, pain, and backward-thinking to continue?", what is wrong with that?
I post the evils that a religion can do. I have posted (on the rare ocassions it happens) when something whackjob is committed by another religion, but, let's face it, the overwhelming vast majority of religious insanity these days is committed by the followers of Islam. Sorry if you do not like it.
And, finally, you have accused me of claiming that all Catholics are pedophiles, yet, once again, offer no proof. Do not accuse people without evidence.
Roger---
April 17, 2008 - 11:49 ET by misterbillIf you continue to call us a "blood cult" I will have to have you beheaded.We are the religion of peace , you infidel dog!!!
PS If you convert you may have my 9 year old sister's hand in marriage.
MrB, you forgot
April 17, 2008 - 12:49 ET by FastEdto ask for the goats and sheep!, Unless, ah, umm, . . . . .
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
→ FastEd
April 17, 2008 - 14:54 ET by Cool ArrowThou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.
♣ a seal
bigotry:)and Jews are
April 17, 2008 - 15:06 ET by TruthMongerbigotry:)
and Jews are cheap, it's "true"
Priests are peds, its "true"
Christians are anti-Semite, KKK/Neo-Nazi white-supremists, it's "true"
Mormon's are polygamist freaks, it's "true"
etc
etc
we ban swearing
we should ban bigots
We should ban people who
April 17, 2008 - 15:11 ET by mastersofdeceitWe should ban people who call us "f***ing retards" and if they "need to wipe our a** for us?"
if we ban religious bigots
April 17, 2008 - 15:27 ET by TruthMongerif we ban religious bigots (if they weren't here that quote wouldn't exist in the first place:)...
then yep, by all means:)...
...and now it's time to play TM's WHO SAID IT! Can anyone here claim this quote - or do you know where it comes from?
Islam is obviously the biggest threat to White survival...
...they are flooding in at a staggering pace and all of this makes me worry that our great grand-children will be bowing down to the evils of Sharia Law in our own nation in just a few decades...
...the amount of racist attacks on Whites by Asian Muslims in my nation is simply outrageous and MUST be stopped. The so called more moderate Muslims are the ones that you see burning the American flag...
a. Rush Limbaugh
b. roger the bigot
c. the stormfront white nationalist bigot website
d. Dick Cheney
Oooooh! Oooooooh! Lemme
April 17, 2008 - 16:15 ET by Roger the ShrubberOooooh!
Oooooooh!
Lemme guess! Lemme guess!
Is it E. Truthie's momma?
Truthie, if NB starts banning bigots, religious or otherwise...
April 17, 2008 - 23:54 ET by R D Helm...there would soon be no members left to post squat. After all, everybody is a bigot to one extent or other.
Even you. :-)
Theme for Election '08: Who cares?
BfrickinS - talk about
April 17, 2008 - 15:43 ET by TruthMongerBfrickinS - talk about liars - you're not exposing the Muslim faith as it is - you obsess about less than 1% of Islam - who commit atrocities soley due to POLITICS that have absolutely ZERO to do with the Muslim faith...
you don't know any Muslims, right?
you don't talk to any Muslims, right?
You want proof? Where the hell is your "proof" that at least 50% of Muslms routinely practice Sharia law, strap on suicide bombs, and behead people on a regular basis...?
YOU HAVE ABSOLTELY NONE, DO YOU, YOU LIAR...
You couldnt even provide evidence that 20% do this. Even if the WHOLE MIDEAST DID THIS YOU ARE STILL ONLY TALKING ABOUT 15% OF THE WORLD'S MUSLIMS...
if you were in the same room with some Muslim right now - like some 80 year old grandmother of 12, all born here in the US - grandma included - you'd be sh*tting your pathetic bigot pants in fear of being beheaded - you are an absolute DUNCE, rog - pull your head out of your "f***ing a**" and get some air to the brain
you are the pathetic "douche" on this site, my friend - stoking the centuries-old religious conflicts that kill so many of our soldiers decade after decade...
you're performing a fantastic service for Osama bin Laden, rog - OBL thanks you and salutes you for your tremendous help - great work bro!
damn that felt good - but now I'll have to go review my anger management notes - catch y'all laters!
→ Service to Osama?
April 17, 2008 - 15:48 ET by Cool ArrowLooks like you're giving bin Ladin all the "servicing" he can handle.
♣ a seal
How about some truth,
April 17, 2008 - 15:59 ET by NL207How about some truth, Truthie, straight from the Koran:
Surya 2:191
"2.191": And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
These are the sort of folks who make FINE neighbors, aren't they?
<Steps in between the fighters>
April 17, 2008 - 16:08 ET by motherbeltNow THIS is an excellent example of a discussion that, IMO, should be taken to the Forum (or the Woodshed).
I know, no one asked me...but since I brought up the Forum earlier, just thought I would clarify what I was talking about.
Have at it, guys! <steps away; jumps out of ring>
After a united
April 17, 2008 - 16:09 ET by tracheostomyAfter a united front utterly wasted him in the forums, TM now depends on hijacking for attention.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Not so fast! You don't
April 17, 2008 - 20:06 ET by NL207Not so fast! You don't jump into this ring, hit one of the wrestlers with a chair, and then just stroll away like nothing happened. This ain't the WWF ya know!
Some more truth
April 17, 2008 - 16:14 ET by mastersofdeceitSome more truth
http://newsbusters.o...
And here, I thought today
April 17, 2008 - 16:11 ET by Roger the ShrubberAnd here, I thought today was thorazine day. Must be tomorrow.
I am sorry if the facts and the truth does not conform to your reality, Truthie. Thanks for sharing your wisdom, though.
→ Truthie's wisdom
April 17, 2008 - 16:16 ET by Cool ArrowOnly 15%? That's what? 150,000,000 Muslims desiring the violent deaths of all Americans.
OK, since it's such a small group, I guess he's got a point.
♣ a seal
Exposing the truth about Islam insults it...
April 17, 2008 - 22:21 ET by Army Bratthat's all it takes.
Show me another religon whose leaders say it's cool to have sex with an infant, as long as you only sodomize it, and I'll never reveal another truth about Islam. Bestiality is perfectly accepatable as well...as long as you slaughter the critter afterwards, and don't sell the meat to your neighbor. Look for yourself...I ain' lyin' or makin' things up. Can you defend either of those practices?
Happy Trails...
Usual Suspects
April 17, 2008 - 10:10 ET by sam.i.amAt Newsbusters there are obviously a couple liberal "plants" that take part in the discussions and can be the most vocal.
We know who they are. They are agitators and instigators. They are somewhat of a turn-off because they engage easily and are so prolific in their posts that, as you have pointed out, the discussions are dominated by bickering.
As people feel that they "know" the posters, I think it makes them resent them even more, and the posts lack the civility one would find with "strangers".
Again, to clarify, we "know" who the contrarians are, but we really don't "know" what makes them tick, their personality, etc. (some have posted so often and so voluminously, that people think they know "the type")
As long as it's kept respectful, I think it should continue to be self-policed.
I tend to snark when I'm
April 17, 2008 - 10:40 ET by balboaI tend to snark when I'm called a "pathetic liar," or an "ignorant bastard."
I'm silly that way.
Okay -- that's real life,
April 17, 2008 - 10:47 ET by Jack Bauer <