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

"Serious"vs. "Frivolous"

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    "Serious"vs. "Frivolous"

    Steyn's latest offering below. Thoughts?


    An election Foley-equipped with frivolity

    October 15, 2006
    BY MARK STEYN Sun-Times Columnist
    Who is James Vicini? Well, he works for Reuters, the storied news agency. By "storied," I don't mean in the Hans Christian Andersen sense, though these days it's hard to tell. But they have an illustrious history and they're globally respected and whatnot. And last week newshound Vicini got assigned quite an interesting story:

    "WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- A California-born convert to Islam, accused of making a series of al-Qaida propaganda videos, became on Wednesday the first American charged with treason since the World War II era, U.S. Justice Department officials said.

    "Fugitive Adam Gadahn, 28, who is believed to be in Pakistan, was accused of treason, which carries a maximum punishment of death . . ."

    Wow! Treason! First time in half-a-century, since the Tokyo Rose days. Since then, of course, the very word "treason" has come to seem arcane, if not obsolescent, like something some fellow in doublet-and-hose might accuse somebody of on "Masterpiece Theatre" but otherwise not terribly relevant and frankly no big deal: Indeed, the campus left usually gives the impression that "treason" is little more than an alternative lifestyle, like transvestism.

    Yet the Justice Department wants this fellow over in Pakistan for treason. Now why would they do such a thing? After chugging through the various charges, Vicini got to the meat of his story: "Justice Department officials denied the case was timed to deflect attention from the fallout over lewd computer messages sent by a former Republican congressman to young male aides, a scandal that may help Democrats seize control of Congress in the Nov. 7 elections."

    Cut out that paragraph and have it framed. Or now that the nights are drawing in, if you're at a loose end of an evening, sew it into an attractive sampler and hang it in your parlor. In years to come, you'll spend many precious moments treasuring it as the perfect summation of the 2006 U.S. election.

    "Justice Department officials denied . . . " What Reuters means by those words is that a reporter -- possibly the great Vicini himself or his colleague ("Additional reporting by Rick Cowan") -- gets the press release about this once-in-a-half-century treason thing and says to the relevant feds, "C'mon, you guys are just nailing this dude in Pakistan to distract from Mark Foley, right?"

    And the Justice Department fellow no doubt replies, "Mark who?"

    And Cowan (or Vicini) goes, "The ex-congressman. Teenage pages. Horny gay Republican predators. Hastert's notorious pedophile ring. You must have read about it. It's been in all the papers." And the Justice guy says, "Sorry, I've been been working the fax machine to Pakistan all week, typing up the relevant indictments in triplicate, and so forth."

    Originally, only the Republican Congress was covering for Foley. But, as Vicini and Cowan see it, the conspiracy now extends to the Justice Department. We should be grateful Reuters imputed merely the "timing" of the treason indictment to the "lewd computer message" scandal, not the indictment itself. After all, why would the Bush administration have earmarked some nobody in Pakistan for a cockamamie charge of "treason" if it weren't for just such an eventuality as this? Also, notice the way the most damaging "lewd computer messages" and the toppling of Saddam Hussein both occurred in 2003: Did the neocons stage the entire Iraq war in order to set Foley up with an endless supply of fetching young Arab houseboys? As Al Jolson liked to sing, climb upon my knee, Sunni boy.

    And what about that North Korean nuke? That timing's pretty suspicious, too. And in that goofy outfit of his Kim Jong Il looks a bit like a teenage congressional page at a slumber party. Well, from a distance and in a poor light, and if you've had a couple drinks.

    And how about this for convenient timing? From the BBC on Thursday:

    "A man has pleaded guilty to conspiring to murder people in a series of bombings on British and U.S. targets. Dhiren Barot, of north London, planned to use a radioactive 'dirty bomb' in one of a series of attacks in the UK, Woolwich Crown Court heard . . ."

    In my new book (out this week, folks: you'll find it at the back of the store past the 9/11 Conspiracy section and the Christianist Theocrat Takeover of America section and the ceiling-high display of the new Dixie Chicks six-CD box set of songs about how they're being silenced), I say that some of us looked at Sept. 11 as the sudden revelation of the tip of a vast iceberg, and I try to address the seven-eighths of that iceberg below the surface -- the globalization of radical Islam, the free-lancing of nuclear technology, the demographic weakness of Western democracies. Other folks, however, see the iceberg upside down. The huge weight of history -- the big geopolitical forces coursing through society -- the vast burden all balancing on the pinhead of the week: in this instance, Mark Foley.

    Thomas Sowell says the question for this election is not whether you or your candidate is Republican or Democrat but whether you're "serious" or "frivolous." A lot of Americans, and not just their sorry excuse for a professional press corps, are in the mood for frivolity. It's like going to the theater. Do you really want to sit through that searing historical drama from the Royal Shakespeare Company? Or would you rather be at the sex comedy next door?

    In the 1990s, Americans opted for the sex comedy -- or so they thought. But in reality the searing historical drama carried on; it was always there, way off in the background, behind the yuk-it-up narcissist trouser-dropper staggering around downstage. The mood of the times was to kick the serious stuff down the road so we could get back to President Lounge Act offering to feel our pain. With North Korea, the people delegated to kick the can a few years ahead -- Madeleine Albright, Jimmy Carter -- are now back, writing self-congratulatory op-eds about their genius and foresight. Not at all. Albright's much-touted "agreement" was a deal whereby Washington agreed to prop up a flailing basket-case state in order to enable it to buy enough time to become a serious destabilizing threat to its neighbors and beyond. Many of our present woes -- not least Iran -- derive explicitly from the years when Carter embodied the American "superpower" as a smiling eunuch.

    Thanks in part to last decade's holiday from history, North Korea and Iran don't have to buy any more time. They've got all they need. Life isn't a night on Broadway where you can decide you're not in the mood for "Henry V" and everyone seems to be having a much better time at "La Cage Aux Foley." Forget the Republicans for a moment. In Connecticut, the contest is between a frivolous liberal running on myopic parochial platitudes and a serious liberal who has the measure of the times and has thus been cast out by the Democratic Party. His state's voters seem disinclined to endorse the official Dems' full-scale embrace of trivia and myopia. The broader electorate should do the same.

    © Mark Steyn, 2006
    http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/9...teyn15.article
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: "Serious"vs. "Frivolous"

    Take out Lieberman's support of the Iraq adventure and the political differences between the two candidates in Connecticut actually are not very great. And Lieberman has softened his support of "more of the same" substantially.

    Lieberman's opponent actually is a successful entrepreneur who understands well what is good for upstart businesses in America.

    It also wasn't long ago your ilk was calling Lieberman a liberal. I'm comfortable with Lieberman in the Democratic party.

    Also,

    Bat Boy, after your long rants in other threads about those liberals and civil rights activists who you said were sympathizers of Communism in the 50's and 60's, thanks for reminding that not one person was charged or convicted of treason in a court of law in that long post war era. Seems like most of the commie baiting by those on the right was mostly political rhetoric to protect the status quo.

    As for this coming election being about serious" or "frivolous.", I would agree. Hard to take Mr. Bush seriously anymore when he discusses the war in Iraq. The man's judgement has been proven wrong way too many times. What is needed is some serious discussion about how we change course and target our efforts against terrorism more effectively.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: "Serious"vs. "Frivolous"

      Well, I talk to a lot of people about politics, and I don't know anyoen that is voting Democrat because they don't like Foley. The reason that the polls have changed is that fewer Republicans have the stomach to vote for this crowd, and clearly the Foley mess and coverup contribute. The reason folks ARE voting Democrat that I know are: they want to register their vote against torture, they are pro habeas corpus, the want some health care for that 45 million that don't have insurance, they want to have a decent environment for their kids, they want some adults back handling the budget, and they don't like being spied on.

      A very close relative of mine is not a citizen. She has a green card, loves America, and plans on staying here. Under this president and congress, she could be arrested and held indefinitely without charges ever being filed. She would never be able to contact her child, and we would never know what happened to her. She can be tortured, or sent to Eastern Europe or the middle East to be torture more. She could be killed, and we would never know. So that's why I'm voting Democrat. You know, frivolous things like that.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: "Serious"vs. "Frivolous"

        Originally posted by sixthman View Post
        Take out Lieberman's support of the Iraq adventure and the political differences between the two candidates in Connecticut actually are not very great.
        That's helpful. Kind of brings to mind the famous quote of Marion Barry, when he was Mayor of Washington, D.C., to the effect "if you don't count murders and rape, Washington, D.C. is one of the safest cities in America." If you carve out enough issues -- including genuinely polarizing differences of world view and ideology -- then we aren't different. They both put their trousers on the same way, after all. But don't kid yourself, their differences in opinion on national security are profound, and your party chose the frivolous candidate, and pretending that Lamont and Lieberman are essentially the same on most issues is a mischaracterization of how great their differences on serious issues.

        And Lieberman has softened his support of "more of the same" substantially.
        Whew. Good thing Lieberman has softened it "substantially." That way his re-election will be, what, exactly what Connecticut Dems had in mind all along when they voted for his opponent?

        Lieberman's opponent actually is a successful entrepreneur who understands well what is good for upstart businesses in America.
        And if "upstart businesses in America" follow his model, they will do great. First, inherit tens of millions of dollars from your ultra-wealthy banker grandfather and father. Second, start your own business, with the ability to fund whatever it takes to make it successful. Third, run for high political office with no experience, while portraying yourself as -- as you put it -- "actually ... a successful entrepreneur." If Lamont were a Republican, he would be described as "born on third base, and thinks he hit a triple."

        Remember the old Steve Martin schtick "how to become a Millionaire"?

        "Okay. First, get a million dollars. Then, ..." run for office, calling yourself a "successful entrepreneur."

        It also wasn't long ago your ilk was calling Lieberman a liberal.
        I and my "ilk" are still calling Lieberman a liberal. Everyone still is. Steyn did in the article. What is your point?

        I'm comfortable with Lieberman in the Democratic party.
        You don't have any choice in the matter. Your preferred candidate, Lamont, is going to lose by a huge margin -- largely provided by the votes of Connecticut Republicans, along with the less-frivolous Connecticut Democrats.

        Bat Boy, after your long rants in other threads about those liberals and civil rights activists who you said were sympathizers of Communism in the 50's and 60's, thanks for reminding that not one person was charged or convicted of treason in a court of law in that long post war era. Seems like most of the commie baiting by those on the right was mostly political rhetoric to protect the status quo.
        sixthman, until you can address my unrebutted point that some 50's and 60's liberals were in fact Communist sympathizers -- a point of historical fact that is not even challenged by serious liberals with minimal grounding in history, much less unserious liberals like yourself who want to pretend this aspect of history does not exist -- you continue to prove you are out of your depth, and ought to go easy on dishonest characterizations of what constitutes a "rant" and what constitutes an argument you are not quite up to addressing. But while you're thinking about that, if you can bring yourself to do so, let us know if you are actually claiming that the failure of the government to charge anyone with treason is the same thing as suggesting that there has been no treason by Americans in the past half century. If that is your contention, tell us where you would place the Rosenbergs' conduct. They of course were convicted and put to death for spying in connection with their also treasonous provision of atomic secrets to the Soviets.

        As for this coming election being about serious" or "frivolous.", I would agree. Hard to take Mr. Bush seriously anymore when he discusses the war in Iraq. The man's judgement has been proven wrong way too many times. What is needed is some serious discussion about how we change course and target our efforts against terrorism more effectively.
        If you agree that the issue is serious vs. frivolous, kindly explain why that agreed formulation suggests we should elect more Democrats. And why it is that, in recent weeks, your party has pushed the Foley episode -- as of this writing, an example of inappropriate electronic communications, but no evidence of sexual relations between a gay congressman and pages, as distinct from, say, the earlier example involving sex between a Democrat congressman and an under age page which resulted in Democrats circling the wagon in support, or, say, Ted Kennedy's conduct with a young campaign volunteer which led to her ... death. If the Foley episode bothers you, how does that event suggest electing more Dems are the answer?

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: "Serious"vs. "Frivolous"

          Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
          Well, I talk to a lot of people about politics, and I don't know anyoen that is voting Democrat because they don't like Foley. The reason that the polls have changed is that fewer Republicans have the stomach to vote for this crowd, and clearly the Foley mess and coverup contribute.
          Hmm. But if the winning margin for Dems is provided by the (well timed and exquisitely coordinated by Dem dirt diggers and their buddies in the media) Foley scandal, you'll still take it, right?

          The reason folks ARE voting Democrat that I know are: they want to register their vote against torture, they are pro habeas corpus, the want some health care for that 45 million that don't have insurance, they want to have a decent environment for their kids, they want some adults back handling the budget, and they don't like being spied on.
          3Ball, you have commingled some serious issues with some frivolous ones, in my opinion. To simply claim Dems are voting for at least some of these things is not helpful and borders on the frivolous. To simply proclaim you are opposed to "torture," where you refuse to define what it is, and where you are willing to call mild discomfort such, is frivolous. If you are talking about wiring up genitals for electric shocks and skinning alive, you will find that Republicans are not in favor of that either, but the events reported in the news, with few exceptions that have been dealt with promptly by the military, are not of the variety everyone would agree is genuine torture. To argue otherwise for political gain, as the Dems have, is frivolous.

          A very close relative of mine is not a citizen. She has a green card, loves America, and plans on staying here. Under this president and congress, she could be arrested and held indefinitely without charges ever being filed. She would never be able to contact her child, and we would never know what happened to her. She can be tortured, or sent to Eastern Europe or the middle East to be torture more. She could be killed, and we would never know. So that's why I'm voting Democrat. You know, frivolous things like that.
          "Under this president and this congress?" Based on what? This is a false argument. If she has a green card, she is here on legal, if temporary, authority. Your agument, based on invoking a false claim of what you say might happen to a relative is a cheap argument, and if I said my Uncle Otto feared a return to a Democrat-controlled congress because they'll start reading his mind again and watching him through the television, it would not make it more persuasive because he is my Uncle. And if that is your reason for voting Democrat, in my opinion, it does qualify as a frivolous thing. But then, you'd be voting Dem even if you did not believe these things, right?

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: "Serious"vs. "Frivolous"

            Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
            If you agree that the issue is serious vs. frivolous, kindly explain why that agreed formulation suggests we should elect more Democrats. And why it is that, in recent weeks, your party has pushed the Foley episode -- as of this writing, an example of inappropriate electronic communications, but no evidence of sexual relations between a gay congressman and pages, as distinct from, say, the earlier example involving sex between a Democrat congressman and an under age page which resulted in Democrats circling the wagon in support, or, say, Ted Kennedy's conduct with a young campaign volunteer which led to her ... death. If the Foley episode bothers you, how does that event suggest more Dems are the answer?
            I didn't discuss ex Congressman Foley once in this thread. And rarely have since the first few days of the revelation of his story. But you keep insisting on keeping the story alive.

            Retired Congressman Studs died the other day at peace with those who played major parts in his life, including the former intern, both of whom argue their friendship was legitimate. Let him rest in peace. Ted Kennedy also paid for his foibles, long ago, as we all do.

            Most Democrats are not talking about Mark Foley. Don't need to. The story speaks for itself. On election day people can decide for themselves if the House leadership acted the way they should have in this matter.

            I went to a party last night. Maybe of those there keep up with what is happening politically, Democrats and Republicans, and I can honestly say I didn't hear the ex-Congressman's name mentioned once.

            I also have almost literally no interest in the Senate race in Connecticut either. The slapping of the wrists of Lieberman in the primary was good enough for me. If he survives with Republican votes, more power to him.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: "Serious"vs. "Frivolous"

              Originally posted by sixthman
              I didn't discuss ex Congressman Foley once in this thread.
              Well, that's a helpful distinction.

              And rarely have since the first few days of the revelation of his story. But you keep insisting on keeping the story alive.
              Well, you know the old saying: "one's man's 'rarely' is another man's breathless topic for days and weeks of scandal coverage on DailyKos, democraticunderground and Huffington Post."

              Retired Congressman Studs died the other day at peace with those who played major parts in his life, including the former intern, both of whom argue their friendship was legitimate. Let him rest in peace.
              Oh, okay. Forgive me forgetting the Rule: If a Democrat engaged in misconduct that was exponentially worse than misconduct of a Republican, it is unfair to use it in an argument relating to the latter. So, pointing out the historical fact that the Democrats circled their wagons, defended Gerry Studds and indeed reelected him to Congress six more times after the disclosure that he had a sexual relationship with an under age Page cannot be commented on in the midst of a scandal involving a Republican whose misconduct -- again, based on what is currently known -- is confined to inappropriate messaging and did not include sex with the Page, which information was put out by the media upon a coordinated effort involving Democrat operatives who specialize in opposition research, and who did so on the eve of a national election. It is simply indecent to comment on that, since Studds died this week at age 69, unrepentent to the very end. (By the way, since you have routinely blasted lots of dead Republicans on other threads, how long must someone be deceased before we may discuss their roles in historical events without being accused of not allowing them to "rest in peace"?)

              Ted Kennedy also paid for his foibles, long ago, as we all do.
              Sure he did. He lied about the events when they occurred, and lies about them to this very day on the rare occasion asked about them by the media, and conspired and covered up the "foibles", and yet sixthman, Kennedy sycophant that he is on this and other threads, believes that he has "paid" as "we all do." I don't think so. I think that none of us pay like Kennedy did. After all, we would have gone to jail for at least negligent homicide, and the police would have insisted on actually investigating what happened that night rather than taking a dive because one of "The Kennedys!" was involved. We would go to jail, but -- as with Gerry Studds, and as with Bill Clinton -- the Democrats circled the wagons and defended the misconduct. Ted Kennedy has been "paid" -- he has been reelected to at least five six-year terms since Chappaquiddick.

              I also have almost literally no interest in the Senate race in Connecticut either. The slapping of the wrists of Lieberman in the primary was good enough for me.
              Yes -- this illustrates the "serious vs. frivolous" point perfectly. "Slapping the wrists" -- threatening and seeking to vote out of office an important, respected (on both sides of the aisle) senior Democrat Party figure, only 6 years ago the party's Vice Presidential candidate, an avowed and demonstrated liberal on all political issues, and to vote and support an empty suit wealthy trust fund baby with no political experience whom even his friends say is not that different on most policies than Lieberman -- for Lieberman having the temerity to treat the war on terror as a serious thing, and to support the administration and our common ally Israel in this war against our common enemies, this is the very height of frivolity.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: "Serious"vs. "Frivolous"

                Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
                That's helpful. Kind of brings to mind the famous quote of Marion Barry, when he was Mayor of Washington, D.C., to the effect "if you don't count murders and rape, Washington, D.C. is one of the safest cities in America." If you carve out enough issues -- including genuinely polarizing differences of world view and ideology -- then we aren't different. They both put their trousers on the same way, after all. But don't kid yourself, their differences in opinion on national security are profound, and your party chose the frivolous candidate, and pretending that Lamont and Lieberman are essentially the same on most issues is a mischaracterization of how great their differences on serious issues.

                Whew. Good thing Lieberman has softened it "substantially." That way his re-election will be, what, exactly what Connecticut Dems had in mind all along when they voted for his opponent?

                And if "upstart businesses in America" follow his model, they will do great. First, inherit tens of millions of dollars from your ultra-wealthy banker grandfather and father. Second, start your own business, with the ability to fund whatever it takes to make it successful. Third, run for high political office with no experience, while portraying yourself as -- as you put it -- "actually ... a successful entrepreneur." If Lamont were a Republican, he would be described as "born on third base, and thinks he hit a triple."

                Remember the old Steve Martin schtick "how to become a Millionaire"?

                "Okay. First, get a million dollars. Then, ..." run for office, calling yourself a "successful entrepreneur."

                I and my "ilk" are still calling Lieberman a liberal. Everyone still is. Steyn did in the article. What is your point?

                You don't have any choice in the matter. Your preferred candidate, Lamont, is going to lose by a huge margin -- largely provided by the votes of Connecticut Republicans, along with the less-frivolous Connecticut Democrats.

                sixthman, until you can address my unrebutted point that some 50's and 60's liberals were in fact Communist sympathizers -- a point of historical fact that is not even challenged by serious liberals with minimal grounding in history, much less unserious liberals like yourself who want to pretend this aspect of history does not exist -- you continue to prove you are out of your depth, and ought to go easy on dishonest characterizations of what constitutes a "rant" and what constitutes an argument you are not quite up to addressing. But while you're thinking about that, if you can bring yourself to do so, let us know if you are actually claiming that the failure of the government to charge anyone with treason is the same thing as suggesting that there has been no treason by Americans in the past half century. If that is your contention, tell us where you would place the Rosenbergs' conduct. They of course were convicted and put to death for spying in connection with their also treasonous provision of atomic secrets to the Soviets.

                If you agree that the issue is serious vs. frivolous, kindly explain why that agreed formulation suggests we should elect more Democrats. And why it is that, in recent weeks, your party has pushed the Foley episode -- as of this writing, an example of inappropriate electronic communications, but no evidence of sexual relations between a gay congressman and pages, as distinct from, say, the earlier example involving sex between a Democrat congressman and an under age page which resulted in Democrats circling the wagon in support, or, say, Ted Kennedy's conduct with a young campaign volunteer which led to her ... death. If the Foley episode bothers you, how does that event suggest electing more Dems are the answer?
                Originally posted by Bat Boy
                Hmm. But if the winning margin for Dems is provided by the (well timed and exquisitely coordinated by Dem dirt diggers and their buddies in the media) Foley scandal, you'll still take it, right?

                3Ball, you have commingled some serious issues with some frivolous ones, in my opinion. To simply claim Dems are voting for at least some of these things is not helpful and borders on the frivolous. To simply proclaim you are opposed to "torture," where you refuse to define what it is, and where you are willing to call mild discomfort such, is frivolous. If you are talking about wiring up genitals for electric shocks and skinning alive, you will find that Republicans are not in favor of that either, but the events reported in the news, with few exceptions that have been dealt with promptly by the military, are not of the variety everyone would agree is genuine torture. To argue otherwise for political gain, as the Dems have, is frivolous.

                "Under this president and this congress?" Based on what? This is a false argument. If she has a green card, she is here on legal, if temporary, authority. Your agument, based on invoking a false claim of what you say might happen to a relative is a cheap argument, and if I said my Uncle Otto feared a return to a Democrat-controlled congress because they'll start reading his mind again and watching him through the television, it would not make it more persuasive because he is my Uncle. And if that is your reason for voting Democrat, in my opinion, it does qualify as a frivolous thing. But then, you'd be voting Dem even if you did not believe these things, right?
                Batboy, I can't heads or tails out of this post. If Foley pushes the Dems over the edge, well, so what? The Democrats didn't have anything to do with it, and they were winning in the polls anyway. At least the Foley story has the benefit of being true, unlike the Swift Boats, which pretty clearly turned the last election.

                It's simply not true that the Republicans don't support torture. They do and they have. We are allowed to use evidence against folks that were gotten by torture, folks that torture are not accountable under the law, and the president has the the authority to say what torture is. That's the rub. It doesn't matter what my definition is. If the president says that thumbs screws aren't torture, then they aren't. And it's beside the point anyway, because he can simply get his "allies" to do the wet work anytime he likes. If that's not serious, then what is?

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: "Serious"vs. "Frivolous"

                  Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
                  Batboy, I can't heads or tails out of this post. If Foley pushes the Dems over the edge, well, so what? The Democrats didn't have anything to do with it, and they were winning in the polls anyway.
                  Well, actually the Republicans had reversed their year-long slump in the polls, and had turned things around and become competitive in so many races that, in the week prior to the Foley news, many articles predicted that the Republicans would hold both houses. The revelation of the London-based Islamic plot to blow up airplanes in the week after the Lieberman-Lamont primary reminded voters that national security remains a serious issue. Falling gasoline prices, a healthy economy and growing stock market and the fact of no attacks on American soil since 9/11 were all factors trending towards Republicans holding control.

                  Then came the highly suspicious Foley story, which continues to resonate and which clearly has benefitted the Dems. Maybe the Dems would have won significant gains anyway, as you seem to believe, but if this is so they would have had to overcome the issues set forth above without the benefit of the Foley news.

                  At least the Foley story has the benefit of being true, unlike the Swift Boats, which pretty clearly turned the last election.
                  Right. Dozens of Kerry colleagues all conspired to tell lies about him, and to unfairly point out that exaggerated and false claims he made (e.g., claiming to be in Cambodia at Christmas 1968 and listening to President Nixon, before Nixon had taken office), including smearing as war criminals his colleagues -- they are the bad guys, right?

                  It's simply not true that the Republicans don't support torture. They do and they have. We are allowed to use evidence against folks that were gotten by torture, folks that torture are not accountable under the law, and the president has the the authority to say what torture is. That's the rub. It doesn't matter what my definition is. If the president says that thumbs screws aren't torture, then they aren't. And it's beside the point anyway, because he can simply get his "allies" to do the wet work anytime he likes. If that's not serious, then what is?
                  Still dodging this one, right? You refuse even to attempt to define the conduct you call torture -- is sleep deprivation torture? tickling? -- yet you would smear and condemn an entire political party and its members as being in "support" of a procedure you will not define. Go read Alice in Wonderland -- you're like the Queen, you can make words mean whatever you say they mean.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: "Serious"vs. "Frivolous"

                    Well, everyone that actually had immediate contact with Kerry confirmed his story. Only folks that were his colleagues in the sense that they were nowhere near what happened said otherwise. But this is pretty old news and has been done to death. And of course, the difference is that Foley is clearly guilty, he's admitted it. It's weird to me that you call it suspicious.

                    I tell you what BatBoy, I'll make you a deal. I'll provide you with a definition of torture if you would be kind enough to do the same. I'm assuming that your definition will specifically allow for tickling.

                    Torture: The use of violence or the threat of violence against a prisoner to intimidate, coerce, or instill fear.

                    This, by the way, is a pretty close to a good definition of terrorism as well. Of course, rather famously, the Army in 1984 defined it as: "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." (US Army Operational Concept for Terrorism Counteraction TRADOC), which sounds pretty good to me.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: "Serious"vs. "Frivolous"

                      Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
                      Torture: The use of violence or the threat of violence against a prisoner to intimidate, coerce, or instill fear.

                      This, by the way, is a pretty close to a good definition of terrorism as well. Of course, rather famously, the Army in 1984 defined it as: "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." (US Army Operational Concept for Terrorism Counteraction TRADOC), which sounds pretty good to me.
                      Since you're the one characterizing Republicans' collective view of this issue as indecent, it would seem you bear the burden of proof as to a commonly accepted definition. And on that front, your proffered version is ... clear as mud, and not really that close to the Army's definition, which expands on the "goals".

                      We now know that routine college fraternity pranks would qualify under your definition, as well as routine boot camp training of our own forces. These are what lawyers call "vague" and "overbroad" definitions (and what judges strike down as unenforceable for the same reasons).

                      However, at least Hillary Clinton is a Dem willing to weigh in on the subject, even if she is as squishy and self-serving as you inyour arguments.

                      McCain team mocks Hil torture loophole

                      Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) said she supports legalizing the torture of a captured terror suspect who knows about "an imminent threat to millions of Americans" - making an exception to her opposition to torture and marking a key difference from her possible rival for the White House, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

                      "If we're going to be preparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law," Clinton said in a phone interview Friday, expanding on comments to the Daily News Editorial Board.

                      She said the "ticking time bomb" scenario represents a narrow exception to her opposition to torture as morally wrong, ineffective and dangerous to American soldiers.

                      "In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable," she said.

                      "That very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances is better than blasting a big hole in our entire law." Clinton's stance comes days after a complex bill on the treatment of terror suspects became law, a compromise between McCain and President Bush.

                      McCain and some human rights groups said the bill bans cruelty to detainees. Clinton and other advocates said it gives the President the power to mistreat prisoners.

                      McCain's chief political aide, John Weaver, mocked Clinton's willingness to make an exception.

                      "I'm shocked Sen. Clinton would try to have it both ways," Weaver said in an e-mail.

                      A Human Rights Watch official, Tom Malinowski, said he was disappointed by her exception.

                      "Once you open the door to this sort of thing, you legitimize the practice," he said.

                      But the argument over the extreme ticking time bomb case isn't crystal clear. McCain, who was tortured in Vietnam, doesn't rule out torture in that unlikely case, but he argues it would be better for officials to break the law than to legalize any torture. "To carve out legal exemptions to this basic principle of human rights risks opening the door to abuse as a matter of course," he wrote in Newsweek. "It is far better to embrace a standard that might be violated in extraordinary circumstances."

                      Clinton compared her proposal to legislation permitting the President to order the shooting down of a hijacked commercial airliner. But Malinowski said Clinton's stance was in line with Bush's failed push to legalize some forms of torture for fear of the ticking-bomb scenario.

                      "The idea that she was flirting with here is virtually identical to what the administration tried to persuade McCain to accept last year," he said.

                      ***

                      Clinton's clash with McCain over torture policy comes as the New York senator finds herself on the defensive in a more personal flap over the same issue. Clinton called McCain on Saturday morning after New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd quoted an unnamed Clinton adviser making light of McCain's own torture in Hanoi. Clinton's camp immediately disavowed the comment, but that didn't stop Weaver, McCain's aide, from returning fire later in the day, including a reference to former President Bill Clinton's failure to serve in Vietnam.

                      "I never expected the Clintons or their allies to know much about Vietnam," he said in an e-mail to The News.

                      ***

                      Upstate Republican Rep. Tom Reynolds, battered by links to his party's disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley, canceled a fund-raiser Thursday for Rep. Don Sherwood (R-Pa.), himself tarnished by settling a lawsuit that accused him of assaulting his mistress.

                      Reynolds cited a scheduling conflict: He's due to appear before the Genesee Chamber of Commerce and the Amherst Republican Party. Democratic Party spokesman Blake Zeff said the move was evidence that Reynolds has become a pariah.

                      "You know you've got problems when a man accused of choking his mistress thinks being seen with you will ruin his reputation," Zeff said.

                      National Republican Campaign Committee spokesman Ed Patru defended Reynolds, who chairs the committee.

                      "I don't remember making the claim that the event was canceled because of earth-shattering events," he said, noting Reynolds spent Thursday night coping with the Buffalo blizzard.

                      If he had campaigned for Sherwood, "reporters would be writing about how Reynolds isn't paying attention to his district," Patru said.

                      Originally published on October 16, 2006
                      http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-388764c.html

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: "Serious"vs. "Frivolous"

                        Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
                        Since you're the one characterizing Republicans' collective view of this issue as indecent, it would seem you bear the burden of proof as to a commonly accepted definition. And on that front, your proffered version is ... clear as mud, and not really that close to the Army's definition, which expands on the "goals".

                        We now know that routine college fraternity pranks would qualify under your definition, as well as routine boot camp training of our own forces. These are what lawyers call "vague" and "overbroad" definitions (and what judges strike down as unenforceable for the same reasons).

                        However, at least Hillary Clinton is a Dem willing to weigh in on the subject, even if she is as squishy and self-serving as you inyour arguments.



                        http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-388764c.html
                        Well, Batboy, I hope you were in a hurry or something, because I'm not even sure you read my post. First, I can't help but notice that YOU wussed out on giving YOUR definition or torture. Second, someone joining a frat or the Army is not a "prisoner", and third, unlike torture, there doesn't need to be a reason to qualify. It's torture whether you're trying to get information or are just a sadist. Whiffed on the first swing Batboy, want to try again?

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: "Serious"vs. "Frivolous"

                          Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
                          Yes -- this illustrates the "serious vs. frivolous" point perfectly. "Slapping the wrists" -- threatening and seeking to vote out of office an important, respected (on both sides of the aisle) senior Democrat Party figure, only 6 years ago the party's Vice Presidential candidate, an avowed and demonstrated liberal on all political issues, and to vote and support an empty suit wealthy trust fund baby with no political experience whom even his friends say is not that different on most policies than Lieberman -- for Lieberman having the temerity to treat the war on terror as a serious thing, and to support the administration and our common ally Israel in this war against our common enemies, this is the very height of frivolity.
                          Umm. You raise an interesting point. Maybe, because of Lieberman's exuberance for the Iraq mistake, I should be more angry.

                          But, bottom line, I am not a one-issue guy.

                          I'm thinking Lieberman will line-up with the Democrats in caucus and not be a road block to a more progressive agenda, particularly regarding health care reform. I also think a more Democratic Senate will help control the excesses of Mr. Bush regarding Iraq, the judiciary, and a government which worries about corporate America and the wealthy. more than the betterment of its middle class and working poor.

                          While Lamont's lack of political experience in a campaign may be a liability, I actually wouldn't mind seeing more than a few guys in the Senate being replaced by guys with less political experience.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: "Serious"vs. "Frivolous"

                            After days of uncharacteristic silence from BatBoy, I guess I have to throw it out to the wider community. Does anyone have a better definition of torture than, "The use of violence or the threat of violence against a prisoner to intimidate, coerce, or instill fear."? Remember, this applies to PRISONERS (not frat boys or enlistees) and is based on the US Army definition of terrorism under Reagan, "The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." Anyone?

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: "Serious"vs. "Frivolous"

                              Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
                              After days of uncharacteristic silence from BatBoy, I guess I have to throw it out to the wider community. Does anyone have a better definition of torture than, "The use of violence or the threat of violence against a prisoner to intimidate, coerce, or instill fear."? Remember, this applies to PRISONERS (not frat boys or enlistees) and is based on the US Army definition of terrorism under Reagan, "The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." Anyone?
                              Sorry for the bump, but I am just stunned that nobody is willing to comment on a definition of torture after SO many posts saying, "You don't even DEFINE torture." So am I hearing tacit acceptance?

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X