100,000 Protestors... Angry mobs of students...

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

Yeah, ok, and when I have time come up with the links- which I don't right now- what is it then? You make assumptions that I am just blowing hot air- heaven forbid there actually be something to it.

Calm down. When you post blanket statements without links or reference to posting links later you leave the post wide open to the thought that you have no intentions of posting links.

Really Neph, you don't seem to be able to have this type of conversation without getting upset and mad. If you're in a bad mood please take it elsewhere. If not, please calm down and post rationally, like our other "righty does. He doesn't attack. He posts his facts from his perspective with the links to back it up.

It is no secret that even though there is a majority of "left wing" posters here almost all of them will respectfully debate the "right wing" view. Respectfully is the key word. You have to give it to get it.

Whatever you do, this is all I am going to say on that matter.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

B) I'm assured by one of my gay friends that no gay person would ever vote Republican that anybody who does is just trying (and failing) to pass as gay. I, of course, don't believe him.

The GLBT group the Log Cabin Republicans vote Republican. As far as I know.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

Maybe you missed where Abramoff plead guilty, but Delay has not even had a trial? Or is it guilty until proven innocent as long as you are not in the right political party?

DeLay is a politician, no? Guilty of all charges!


(party affiliation irrelevent)

[innerSpaceman]

Let me be clear about what I find to be fightin' words. Alex's remark about not being able to tell the difference between Iranians and Iraqis* because they all look the same to him was not fightin' words because (1) it was obviously meant as humor and (2) neither Iraqis nor Iranians make up a significant portion of our membership, and thus are not here to experience a blanket insult that may nonethess apply to them individually.

Insulting Disney fans would be in poor form here.

Jokes about geeks are fine, but real put-downs about geekdom as a group would be considered fightin' words by me.


Similarly, attacking Democrats is fine - if it's clear that the attack is limited to politicians. But when an attack is made on such a broad group as democrats, applying to large segments of our membership, such can be considered fightin' words.

If the line that I've drawn in the blood-stained, desert sand had been crossed, I would have let it be known. But since the tone was approaching the line, I thought it prudent to say so.




* I'm not sure if Alex's comment was even in this thread, but I can't keep these political threads straight in my head anymore. They have become almost interchangeable. I've half a mind to merge them all.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

The GLBT group the Log Cabin Republicans vote Republican. As far as I know.

Yes, and it is them that he is referring to when he says they're just passing and not really gay. I'm sure even he doesn't believe that but if he could revoke their gay membership card for voting Republican he would.


iSm, would a statement that "Republicans are the party of racists, homophobes, and accounting frauds" have prodded the same warning out of you?

[wendybeth]

iSm can answer for himself, but I felt he outlined fairly clearly that it was the statement "Democrats- the party of the dead, the felons and the illegals." that was nearing the line, in which case yes, your example would also approach the same line.

I wonder if I were to wander into a thread at some message board like this but run by mostly conservatives if I would receive only a very mild cautionary warning? I know too many Republicans to apply such a blanket statement to them, but the body of Republican lawmakers and politicians might not get the same consideration.

[innerSpaceman]

No, but only for the same reason that, were your Iraqi/Iranian comparison not a joke, it also would have slid by. And that's because - to my knowledge, there are barely more republicans than middle-easterners posting here.

My guideline is not to be unoffensive to everyone on the planet, but to be unoffensive to the people who post on the LoT. Hence my reference to Disney-geek bashing being bad.


(Actually, mindful of the proportion that 3 or 4 republicans represent on a board of roughly 55 active members, I would likely have posted a caution about a republican-smearing as well).

[Alex]

Except that he laid out that it was a problem since there are a large number of democrats here. Not so true with the Republicans.

Other than having been elected by the people who agree with them, how would you go about making a blanket statement about the beliefs and traits of all elected Republicans that wouldn't also necessarily apply to the non-elected Republicans that support them?

Does "every elected Democrat is a dingleberry who believes in magical fairies" really exclude Democrats in general?

[wendybeth]

I happen to really like most of the conservatives here, and I don't hold their party affiliation against them in the slightest. I would have gotten cranky either way. It depends on the context around the statement as well- joking is one thing, but flame-baiting is another. If I were to go into a predominantly conservative area and start spouting off negatives, I would deserve what I got. Of course, the only reason I would even do so would be if I were looking to start a fight.

[Alex]

Yeah. That's why I do it. It is through the fights that, if you listen, you learn things. Which is why I end up expressing the "conservative" results of my libertarianism here.

Just wondering what sensibilities Steve felt warranted protection. We could say an awful lot of mean things about black people here (if what I know of the makeup of the board extends to those I haven't met).

Really, what is the fun of iSm and I both saying that drugs should be legal?