This post is getting dangerously close to mimicking the Abuzz. Suggest you guys either cool it or call it a draw and let it go at that. Your points have been made. Please don't shoot the messenger.
blatham, that is good of you, now will you send posts to the name callers, the other name callers? to continue your consistency...or do only i get a public post??
au,
i agree totally, why cant we discuss why we take a position, without someone attacing teh president or others, lets start over...and please dont you pull that trigger on that poor little dog
Because the actual "liberation" may take awhile.
I've heard we may need to occupy the country for awhile, and we may also see a Yugoslavia-like situation where we have factional violence. That will take time and money.
To me the liberation will take place when the People select their own leaders.
Then I fear Bush will move on to the next country, and so on and so on.
All the more reason for this "anti-war" movement to stay together!
As a note of procedure, it is quite ok to attack, even if such is seen as insulting, any political leader of any party and in any position here, no guideline is violated by such. Attacks and insults on posters is a violation.
neo,
why are you oppsed to war, yet not opposed to saddam killing and mistreating his own people? and saddam, violating treaties and UN resolutions
and if liberation takes a while, isnt it eventually a batter place? have you seen teh iraqis hug the troops?
why not admit teh movement was wrong and wouldnt lead to freedom?
blatham,
your last comment seems to disagree with the following guideline:
"
As per the membership agreement, it is a given that flaming, rude comments, and personal attacks are not acceptable here. Intellectually vacuous and snide slanders such as 'DemoRats' or 'REPUGlicans' (or local variants if you live elsewhere than the US) are completely unwelcome. But, actually, we ask more of you than those obvious and fundamental rules. "
especially the last sentence.
calling the president, for ecample, a moron, a traitor, etc is rude and snide and no better than abuzz.....and no better than DemoRats, etc. because it leads to the next statement, often, those who vote for him are alos, etc...
either you have decorum or not, i guess you dont want it! or change the guidelines to state that rudeness is allowed in the following situtions, etc.
jim
Please listen carefully.
First, from now on out, procedural matters such as you address above are to be dealt with ONLY by PM, to a guide or moderator.
Secondly, you'd be unwise to suggest I have the intent of the guidelines wrong, because I wrote them.
The intent of the guidelines was and is to allow full freedom of expression, such that even unpopular ideas may be voiced with no reprimand that they are in some manner inappropriate.
Political figures get no pass in any way. We are each allowed to say whatever we like about them. As always, whenever some claim is made, there ought to be some evidence to substantiate. However, if this is a matter of opinion (Clinton is immoral), then one prefaces the statement acknowledging that it is the writer's opinion (though often that may be obvious).
The injunction against terms such as 'Repuglicans' is specifically to avoid unthinking and knee-jerk partisan discourse. One is to use the term republican, and then argue whatever point is under discussion.
Decorum here means intellectually integrity and careful discourse with mannerly treatment of other posters. It doesn't mean some version of political correctness.
Now, we shall carry on with the topics under discussion, and do so utilizing these guidelines.
blatham,
since you wrote them, then you should have known better before , its all much clearer now, so ill say adios, you are intellectually dishonest and you have proved it again...you are like a little chikd, its my ball and ill take it away and change the rules as we go, lol
another typical small minded liberal good luck
Jim:
Why do you insist on accepting the line that "Anti-War" = "Pro-Hussein"?
As for this movement--well for one, based on what I heard at the Harrisburg rally, we seem to be willing to carry this on. As well we should--if this does turn into a new "Cold War". For two, I think it's worth continuing until Bush and the rest of his warmongers are out of office and people willing to work FOR peace and WITH the world as a whole, not just those that can be paid off are replaced.
I'm sticking!
Excuse me folks ... but if I might, I'd like to join the digression. Intra-Personal Squabbling among members about insults and inaccuracies in no way advances the matter at discussion, is tedious, of little interest and considerable inconveniece to The Membership At Large. That in itself arguably may be a violation of both or either the TOS and/or The Guidelines. When such behavior devolves into name calling and ridicule conducted on public threads among members, the members participating in the inappropriate behavior are by defintition in violation of both. Now, if you're gonna do that crap, get a room; take it to private message.
I don't want to lock a thread I enjoy, damnit, but I will if this keeps up. Now, knock it off, quit fighting one another, and get back to The War.
That's how I feel, anyway. Thanks for listening.
oh yeah! well your momma wears combat boots pfffffffffffffffffffffffftt
Oh, yeah? I heard your momma's castoff shoes were goodluck charms
timber we better cut this out, people might end up with a smile on their face and ruin their day.
My mother, bless her soul (she always insisted she had one) preferred, for footwear, the black rubber boots of a typical Canadian farm girl. Some august evenings, when the moon was full, she'd slip on a little daring something, and dance across the tundra, like a Shakespearean fairy creature on the wrong planet.
Blatham, your mom, god love her, sounds just exactly like my Auntie Marie!
omg
could it be
we're
related?
