Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartim

    Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
    I don't mean to offend gratuitously, LA. I thought you were saying MS's post was so dead on that it weakened your's by association, but then you cautioned him to tone it down. It appeared you were trying to have it both ways -- praising his arguments -- which I have characterized as nutty and dishonest, but I actually find them objectionable on other grounds too -- while distancing yourself at the same time with your cautionary note about tone. If I misread your post I apologize.
    I'm not praising his post at all. It was full of bile and anger and not much content, beyond that he wants us all to watch 60 minutes.

    Back on topic, comparing Clinton to Carter is like comparing Reagan to Nixon.

    The Republican Party isn't what it used to be on many issues, including (but not limited to) national defense, fiscal responsibility, local governance, federal interference in the daily lives of Americans and respectful recognition of dissenting opinion.

    How long ago was it that the Republicans represented the minority, the voice of reason in a backwards, spending-mad Washington?

    This is not my father's Republican Party. It's not my mother's Republican Party. It is not the party of my youth, it is not the party that I saw as flawed (particularly in issues of economy and race) but capable of change into a force that could encourage (rather than quash) diversity and use a reasonable, "sure thing" approach to legislation.

    But the party has changed beyond recognition other than the flag waving.

    Likewise, the Democratic party isn't the Democratic party of the 70's either. Why people don't recognize that is beyond me. With notable exceptions like Boxer and Kucinich, it is a much more conservative party than it ever was.

    The Clinton whitehouse proved that the Democratic party was capable of managing a budget, standing up to congress, leading a military and gaining allies. NONE of that matches the traditional Deomcratic Party M.O.

    But here we are, talking about how Republicans are playing the hand with the national defense trump card.

    - - - - -

    I talked to a U.S. Marine the other day in Dallas. I asked him what we need to do to "win" in Iraq and get this thing ironed out. What he said troubled me.

    "When I first went over there, there was a plan and we followed it. I wanted to kick some tail. And I did. But this last year, all I could think about was not being one of the unlucky guys."

    "You mean dead?"

    "No, that doesn't mean unlucky. I'm fine with dyin' as long as I go in a fight. The unlucky ones die random. They don't even have a job to do but stand there, and then next thing you know, BAM.... I don't even know what we're doing over there anymore. It's like nobody's in charge."

    I didn't consider that an endorsement of strong, trustworthy leadership.

    - - - - -

    The more my government lies to me, hides numbers and refuses to make corrective moves for fear of having to admit its mistakes, the more I don't trust it. That used to mean Democrats and domestic issues (the supposed "strong suit" of the left). Now it means Republicans and foreign policy (the supposed "strong suit" of the right.)

    Voting for Republicans because of something that they USED TO represent but abandoned after gaining power doesn't make sense to me.

    I guess I'm just a glass is half empty kind of guy.

    (Yes, I recognize the irony of writing such a long post only days after asking Bat Boy to "learn to sum it up." )
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

    “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

      Originally posted by Eindar View Post
      Ever stop to think that this might be exactly the reason we seem to go to war every time we have a Republican President?
      No, all my positions are thoughtless.

      Are you saying had a Dem been elected the US would not have been involved in the first Gulf War or Afganistan and that Korsovo doesn't count as a war?
      "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

      "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

        When I have to read that Reagan and Bush made the Berlin Wall fall, I stop reading, there are terms for re-writing history like that, but thinking of a polite one is kind of hard.

        On top of all that I do simply not understand why you get all riled up about two ultra conservative parties calling themselves Republican and Democrat when both are as far to the right as one can phase any "democratic" government.

        With the most recently development on the "Torture Bill" I would make dead sure that whoever votes "for" that one did not come back into any form of government, no matter what party they were an associated member of.

        I am sure someone can make a list of "freedom-restricting-acts" that have taken place during this President's reign and I am sure that the number will be higher then 97 while using a correct count.
        So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

        If you've done 6 impossible things today?
        Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartim

          Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
          I'm not praising his post at all. It was full of bile and anger and not much content, beyond that he wants us all to watch 60 minutes.

          Back on topic, comparing Clinton to Carter is like comparing Reagan to Nixon.

          The Republican Party isn't what it used to be on many issues, including (but not limited to) national defense, fiscal responsibility, local governance, federal interference in the daily lives of Americans and respectful recognition of dissenting opinion.

          How long ago was it that the Republicans represented the minority, the voice of reason in a backwards, spending-mad Washington?

          This is not my father's Republican Party. It's not my mother's Republican Party. It is not the party of my youth, it is not the party that I saw as flawed (particularly in issues of economy and race) but capable of change into a force that could encourage (rather than quash) diversity and use a reasonable, "sure thing" approach to legislation.

          But the party has changed beyond recognition other than the flag waving.

          Likewise, the Democratic party isn't the Democratic party of the 70's either. Why people don't recognize that is beyond me. With notable exceptions like Boxer and Kucinich, it is a much more conservative party than it ever was.

          The Clinton whitehouse proved that the Democratic party was capable of managing a budget, standing up to congress, leading a military and gaining allies. NONE of that matches the traditional Deomcratic Party M.O.

          But here we are, talking about how Republicans are playing the hand with the national defense trump card.

          - - - - -

          I talked to a U.S. Marine the other day in Dallas. I asked him what we need to do to "win" in Iraq and get this thing ironed out. What he said troubled me.

          "When I first went over there, there was a plan and we followed it. I wanted to kick some tail. And I did. But this last year, all I could think about was not being one of the unlucky guys."

          "You mean dead?"

          "No, that doesn't mean unlucky. I'm fine with dyin' as long as I go in a fight. The unlucky ones die random. They don't even have a job to do but stand there, and then next thing you know, BAM.... I don't even know what we're doing over there anymore. It's like nobody's in charge."

          I didn't consider that an endorsement of strong, trustworthy leadership.

          - - - - -

          The more my government lies to me, hides numbers and refuses to make corrective moves for fear of having to admit its mistakes, the more I don't trust it. That used to mean Democrats and domestic issues (the supposed "strong suit" of the left). Now it means Republicans and foreign policy (the supposed "strong suit" of the right.)

          Voting for Republicans because of something that they USED TO represent but abandoned after gaining power doesn't make sense to me.

          I guess I'm just a glass is half empty kind of guy.

          (Yes, I recognize the irony of writing such a long post only days after asking Bat Boy to "learn to sum it up." )
          I actually agree with a little of your post. Lots of conservatives (a group related to but distinct from the Republican Party) such as myself are pretty unhappy with the unchecked spending of Republicans, just as we were unhappy with the unchecked spending of Democrats. The past 12 years has driven home the lesson that whoever is in the majority overspends, and neither has a patent on fiscal integrity.

          Certainly, the parties aren't what they used to be in other ways too, but I think we would also disagree on what they used to be. For example, "on race," I think the Republican party gets a bum rap. There seems to be this premise that the Dems were exclusively pro civil rights and the Republicans exclusively opposed, a/k/a racists. I don't know if that is what you meant or thought, but it took a great deal of Republican support to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and in so doing overcoming the opposition and lengthy filibuster conducted by lots of Democrats such as Albert Gore (Al's father), William Fulbright (Clinton's mentor), Robert Byrd (of KKK fame, but still in office) and others.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartim

            Originally posted by able View Post
            When I have to read that Reagan and Bush made the Berlin Wall fall, I stop reading, there are terms for re-writing history like that, but thinking of a polite one is kind of hard.

            On top of all that I do simply not understand why you get all riled up about two ultra conservative parties calling themselves Republican and Democrat when both are as far to the right as one can phase any "democratic" government.

            With the most recently development on the "Torture Bill" I would make dead sure that whoever votes "for" that one did not come back into any form of government, no matter what party they were an associated member of.

            I am sure someone can make a list of "freedom-restricting-acts" that have taken place during this President's reign and I am sure that the number will be higher then 97 while using a correct count.
            able, what is your belief as to why the Berlin Wall (and the Soviet Union) fell? You don't buy Reagan's role in it, yet lots and lots of history books tell us otherwise, including his insistence on missile defense which convinced the Soviets that they could not compete militarily. I read an article just today that stated that, after the Soviet Union fell, its military leaders were interviewed, and they had claimed that the key reason was that Reagan had convinced them that they would be at too big a disadvantage militarily with Star Wars program. Maybe these history books are wrong, but what do you believe was responsible for the fall of the Wall, etc?

            Also, if you regard both the Republican and Democrat parties as conservative, what kinds of policies characterize liberal governments in your view? I take your point that both are more conservative than many European countries that have socialist benefits, but there still seems to be a pretty large gap between the parties, at least in my view, on lots of issues.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

              Um, guys maybe we should all take a step back & take a deep breath.

              Let's keep the hitting & sniping at each other above the waistline, that goes for both sides of the argument.

              Please.


              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartim

                Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
                Good point Eindar. And factually correct, too! Franklin Roosevelt (WW II), Harry Truman (Korean War) and John F. Kennedy (Vietnam) were all Republicans! And if Al Gore had been elected in 2000, there would be another one in the "Republican" column, by your analysis. Oh, wait ...

                Eindar, you are obviously too young to recall Bob Dole's (controversial) comment about "Democrat Wars of the 20th Century" in the 1976 Vice Presidential debates. At that point in time, all of the wars in the entire century had begun on a Democratic president's watch. But if you are going to try to score political points by smearing an entire party's alleged warmongering (as Dole was rightly condemned for doing), at least read a little history. Or, as you might put it, "stop to think."

                I was born in 1980. For me, it went like this: Reagan (introduced me to the cold war), Bush I (Desert Storm), Bush II (Enduring Freedom (and no-bid contracts)).

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

                  Originally posted by Peck View Post
                  Um, guys maybe we should all take a step back & take a deep breath.

                  Let's keep the hitting & sniping at each other above the waistline, that goes for both sides of the argument.

                  Please.
                  2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartim

                    Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
                    able, what is your belief as to why the Berlin Wall (and the Soviet Union) fell? You don't buy Reagan's role in it, yet lots and lots of history books tell us otherwise, including his insistence on missile defense which convinced the Soviets that they could not compete militarily. I read an article just today that stated that, after the Soviet Union fell, its military leaders were interviewed, and they had claimed that the key reason was that Reagan had convinced them that they would be at too big a disadvantage militarily with Star Wars program. Maybe these history books are wrong, but what do you believe was responsible for the fall of the Wall, etc?
                    Re-writing history to fit whatever one wants it to fit seems a common thing nowadays that (to put it mildly) bothers me.

                    Thew fall of the Berlin wall started way before Reagan and forget Bush's part in it, he didn't play any whatsoever.

                    You are so easily forgetting the movement that started the build of the wall and in the end became the downfall of the wall, the people in the eastern euopean coutries themselves. That year (1989) was a spectacular year in the eastern european countries, and on the tail of the developments in Poland (which started years before), Czecho-Slowakia, and later other countries as Romania, Yugoslavie (they all except Romania, turned into democracies over that year, through movements started years before which had nothing to do with the USA or any of it's presidents) which had made (over the years) the position of Eastern Germany an impossible one, combined with the movement of the people of all those nations, is what determined the final (and mainly symbolic at last) fall of the Berlin wall.

                    The dimninshed importance of the former Soviet Union had far more to do with losing it's buffer in the west then anything the USA did or threatened, those democractic and revolutionary movements inside those "former Soviet states" were what undermined the regime more then anything.



                    Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
                    Also, if you regard both the Republican and Democrat parties as conservative, what kinds of policies characterize liberal governments in your view? I take your point that both are more conservative than many European countries that have socialist benefits, but there still seems to be a pretty large gap between the parties, at least in my view, on lots of issues.
                    The "gaps" you see and many others with you are not real gaps, they are perceptions of polarized points of view, of clear imaginetive fiction.
                    The "defense is weaker" under the D's the the R's well the generals do not move out of their office when the president does, so if they become less capable then you have other problems, Congres is not always representing the same party as the President so to claim that it makes that much of a difference is strange to say the least.
                    I think (or like to think) that I can write down a lon glist of things that "seperate" you the R's from the D's but polarization is the most clear explanation.

                    Or is Liebermann really that bad a D that the R's like most of his ideas ?
                    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartim

                      Originally posted by able View Post
                      The fall of the Berlin wall started way before Reagan and forget Bush's part in it, he didn't play any whatsoever.

                      You are so easily forgetting the movement that started the build of the wall and in the end became the downfall of the wall, the people in the eastern euopean coutries themselves. That year (1989) was a spectacular year in the eastern european countries, and on the tail of the developments in Poland (which started years before), Czecho-Slowakia, and later other countries as Romania, Yugoslavie (they all except Romania, turned into democracies over that year, through movements started years before which had nothing to do with the USA or any of it's presidents) which had made (over the years) the position of Eastern Germany an impossible one, combined with the movement of the people of all those nations, is what determined the final (and mainly symbolic at last) fall of the Berlin wall.

                      The dimninshed importance of the former Soviet Union had far more to do with losing it's buffer in the west then anything the USA did or threatened, those democractic and revolutionary movements inside those "former Soviet states" were what undermined the regime more then anything.
                      Good points, able. To be sure, there were many things going on in the mid to late 80's including in eastern European countries themselves. Still, it would seem that if that is all that it took, if all that occurred was those countries throwing off the yoke of Soviet oppression, why didn't it happen long before then? What was it about that moment in time that led to all of the dominos collapsing at once? I don't dispute that those countries (especially Poland, from what I recall of news reports at the time -- because Lech Walesa and the Solidarity labor movement planted the impression that the Soviets, after all, were not all powerful and could not indefinitely suppress the desire for freedom. Also, the Pope and influence of Catholic Church in Poland and elsewhere in eastern Europe was huge.) impacted the fall of the Berlin Wall, but I don't think it is accurate to say that the Americans (and Reagan's policies) had nothing at all to do with it either.

                      The "gaps" you see and many others with you are not real gaps, they are perceptions of polarized points of view, of clear imaginetive fiction.
                      The "defense is weaker" under the D's the the R's well the generals do not move out of their office when the president does, so if they become less capable then you have other problems, Congress is not always representing the same party as the President so to claim that it makes that much of a difference is strange to say the least.
                      I think (or like to think) that I can write down a lon glist of things that "seperate" you the R's from the D's but polarization is the most clear explanation.

                      Or is Liebermann really that bad a D that the R's like most of his ideas?
                      Certainly there is polarization between the parties, but that polarization is for many, many reasons, not the least of which is disputes about policies. I don't think the gaps between the parties are mere perception, and certainly not fiction. I believe they are genuine.

                      I think your characterization of the differences between Ds and Rs is more accurate in terms of how they used to be than how they are now. In the 50's and 60's, for example, there wasn't much difference between the parties, and the common description was that both parties wanted to do the same thing, the Rs just wanted to do them more slowly. The parties do not now want to do the same things at all, there is a dramatically different vision and worldview for each party, and there is little similarity on most things. Certainly on most Big Things -- such as the belief about and importance of our national response to the war on terror and even whether it should be fought at all. Say what you will, these are not small differences of outlook.

                      I don't think it is the case any longer that there are only small differences between Rs and Ds, nor has it been for a long time, at least since the Democrat Party was essentially taken over by the Left in the late-60's and McGovern became their standard bearer. Since that time, the parties have been pretty far apart -- in a way that they had not been -- over important issues concerning national security, as well as economic policies. I think that, at this moment in time, the parties are as polarized and far apart on policies as they have ever been.

                      Lieberman is a very liberal senator on every issue except national defense. It is only on the question of supporting the war and responding to Islamic terrorism that he has sided with the Rs, and for that he lost decades of support from his own party. No one thinks that the Rs' policies have been perfect or that mistakes have not been made, but no one thinks Lieberman is a disloyal D either, even when he backed a few policies of the Rs, and for his own party to toss him out is, in my opinion at least, a clue at how far out of the main stream some factions in his party have become. Anyhow, thanks for your thoughtful post, able.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

                        Any article that places much blame for today's situation on Jimmy Carter and paints him as one of the worst presidents ever... is A-OK in my book.

                        -Bball
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartim

                          Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
                          Good points, able. To be sure, there were many things going on in the mid to late 80's including in eastern European countries themselves. Still, it would seem that if that is all that it took, if all that occurred was those countries throwing off the yoke of Soviet oppression, why didn't it happen long before then? What was it about that moment in time that led to all of the dominos collapsing at once? I don't dispute that those countries (especially Poland, from what I recall of news reports at the time -- because Lech Walesa and the Solidarity labor movement planted the impression that the Soviets, after all, were not all powerful and could not indefinitely suppress the desire for freedom. Also, the Pope and influence of Catholic Church in Poland and elsewhere in eastern Europe was huge.) impacted the fall of the Berlin Wall, but I don't think it is accurate to say that the Americans (and Reagan's policies) had nothing at all to do with it either.
                          You also have to take a look at the Soviet Union itself. It was pumping out money left and right to keep these satellite regimes propped up. They weren't getting much of a return from these countries either economically (for example with Cuba, all they really got in return was sugar). At the same time the economy was still trying to recuperate from the Brezhnhev years which were stagnant (thanks to following economic cues from Khrushchev, but that's a different story), and overall, corrupt. Keep in mind to they had more than one Cold War going at the time even since the Sino-Soviet Split, though to be fair the tensions had cooled down since Mao's death.

                          But Ronald Reagan's policies were a cause, but they weren't THE cause. It was a part in a downfall that involved a rotten economy, a wave of mass movements, a broken up camp, religious pressure, and finally a leader who pushed them over the economic edge and there's probably a lot more to.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X