A good reason to aid Liberia

Remove all ads!

I think Yago was referring to the person who created the thread, not Tal. Whether you decide to take part in the debate is up to you. But I don't see why you shouldn't.

 

@ Laches

I feel for you. I've recently become disgusted with what is going on in the Alley. You must realize that you are fighting a losing battle. I'm not saying that you are wrong, but you are being opposed by (to borrow a phrase) a bunch of NeoIKnowWhatIsRightandYouDon'ts with a very clear anti-United States agenda.

The hypocrisy of stating that a nation should do something that isn't in its national interest is beyond comprehension. To make claims that a nation has a responsibility to do something to correct an abandoned foreign policy initiative is beyond reason. Then to claim that a nation has the resources to do something and therefore must do something is just being naive.

I think in the long run the Alley will suffer from the loss of American input.

See you in the gaming boards.

 

As this is discussed, brings me back to my old point, which I will raise again and again. The cultures are just waaaayyyy too different. Without big effort, there is no conversation over the pond for most people possible, except for those who are flexible.

 

You must mean conservative republican input. Not everyone in America agrees with everything its government is engaged in. Too bad for you guys this is not the Fox news network.

 

It must be comforting to pigeonhole and label people.

This 'conservative republican' is not a registered republican nor did he vote for a single republican candidate in the last two elections. He has argued on this board against war in Iraq, against tort reform, against the death penalty, for affirmative action, for intervention in Liberia, for gay rights, acknowledge being atheist while arguing that there should be a strong wall of seperation between church and state, and implored people to vote against Bush in the next election (just to name a bit).

I know that for you 'conservative republican' amounts to a dismissive insult but you should know that it's not. Also, you should realize that disagreeing with you or more precisely in this instance with an obsessive agenda does not make someone a, *gasp, 'conservative republican.'

And as far as what Yago says - B.S. I regularly participate in another forum with users from all over. The forum is acknowledged by the members to be 'predominantly liberal.' On the first page of that site right now are threads regarding Plame-Gate (why that's not here I really don't know - very important), Uday and Qsay and how it was foolish not to capture them, the official 9/11 report, a thread called 'faith lost...America is dead', a thread criticizing the application of the RAVE act in Mt. just to name a few. BUT, the same people making those threads are also making threads about whether video games are art, the gay bishop to be in the NH district, privatizing marriage, international rights for the handicapped, thoughts on children and declining fertility rates, the draft EU constitution (something so important and none of the Europeans here even mention it?), international copyright laws, the sexualization of pre and young teens, Hong Kong protests, and changes in the way dating is today.

The difference is that the same people who regularly criticize the US on those boards have something else to add to other discussions and bring those discussions up. Conversely, here I'm discussing 90-98% posting about the same tired criticisms and how that becomes tedious. To borrow from Tal, if y'all can't recognize the difference between those two types of posters then 'I pity YOU.'

Edit - also, this is not something that was a kneejerk reaction, it's been building for years. For example, go back into the search history as you can go and check out for example the 'Moment of Silence' thread and understand that this was consistent with those threads no longer here that go back as long as I've been here. Please don't just dismiss those 'conservative republicans' without first exploring the possibility that there are other possible explanations.

 

I did not know that we were disagreeing on anything other than whether or not to continue the debate. What issue is it the we disagree on this thread? Whether or not to send our guys to Liberia? I said your argument was valid. I just don't think our military needs be everywhere in the world fixing every other country's government when there is a lot that needs to be done here.

The problem seems to be that you just don't like being disagreed with. That can be probmatic for those who are "obsessive" themselves. You knew what the stated issue on this thread was when you started posting on it. You used it as an excuse to attack Ragusa because you don't like his opinions on America. And I'm calling you on it. I suggest you that you don't have to look beyond your computer screen to find someone who is "obsessive."

BTW, I knew you would deny being a republican when I posted that line. Whether you are or not hardly matters to me. But there is an expression: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be a....

[ July 27, 2003, 18:43: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I think your pigeonholing and labeling is pathetic. But do a search and you can see my stated positions on each of the above. Maybe you just need to realize that you shouldn't label someone with what amounts as a dismissive label because they disagree with you and that it's possible to not toe a party line. For example, in the link above I do argue that Bush should be voted out of office don't I? Or did you even bother to read it before saying that everything I write is republican? Take your blinders off - just because I disapprove of your continuous comparisons of the US administration to the Nazis and fascist states because I view that as hyperbolic ad hominem doesn't fit me into one of your neat little dismissive pigeon holes. Think rationally.

 

Sorry - I'm not going to search for your views on any particular issue. Nor am I going to look up any links on past threads just to satisfy your ego. I suggest you put your obsession with your views on other past issues aside and deal with the issue at hand. As I stated, it hardly matters to me whether you are a republican or not. Great Snook was the one who took this off topic even further than it has gotten and made it personal. But, I'm not really sure where either of you are going with this silliness - except that you are obsessed with trying to keep Ragusa from having an open debate on his feelings on American foreign policy.

The party line for me, since you brought it up - is the Green Party, and no, I don't go along with the entire party line. But if I'm lucky I can find one or two of my own party members to vote for on any given election.

[ July 27, 2003, 20:10: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Good, keep your blinders on. It makes your pigeonholing and dismissive branding much easier - you don't have to think, everyone who disagrees just is a 'conservative republican.' So, it isn't really 'quack like a duck walk like a duck' for you its 'disagrees with my name calling so it must have quacked like a duck and walked like a duck in the past but to make sure I'd have to check my facts - oh why bother, much easier to label.'

 

According to you we don't disagree on the issues. It would be nice if you would make up your mind, since you claim that you oppose the war and oppose Bush. Yet, I'm sure we don't agree on many issues. Why does the word Libertarian come to mind? Must be strong desire to label everyone. Anyway, I'm sure there is a point in all this somewhere.