timesjoke

Wez, I was not making an attack on you, I was simply giving examples, nothing more. I was talking to IWS and was just posting the first two examples I could think of that were people being attacked on a personal level but still on topic of the discussion. I promised to try and be more careful about what I post and I meant that promise. If you were truly hurt by my comment I honestly say I am sorry.

This is not what I said at all but I expect some to ignore the point I was making. All I was saying is right after posting a new rule making personal attacks against forum rules, the poster of that rule made a blanket attack on all Democrats. I was trying to provide a way to show how there are different kinds of personal attacks, some that are not harmful to discussions and some that are harmful to open discussions.

I know what he is "trying" to say, but that is not what the new rule covers. That is why I gave an example of the rules from my forum to try and help this forum create rules that actually deal with the specific problem of converstaion ending attacks but can allow spirited debates. I am not being petty, I am looking at how the new rule leaves more questions than answers and changes nothing when even the rule poster is breaking the rule 5 minutes after he posted it.

What personality are you? Well, try this test: Personality test based on Jung - Myers-Briggs typology You are: very expressed extravert slightly expressed intuitive personality slightly expressed thinking personality distinctively expressed judging personality

The President does effect the economy, but the problem is something as complex as the American economy is not going to show the result of all the actions until years later. We can see some actions like how the Bush tax cuts "increased" collected taxes (somethign that pisses off liberals) but the result on the economy of policy is a wait and see kind of thing most of the time. I loved the way Obama got 5 out of 5 this weekend. Hillary has fired her manager and is starting to look desperate. When we consider how Hillary was all but assumed to be the next President a few months ago, it is a huge blow to her to see Obama gaining so much momentum. I would like to see Obama beat her just to prove that the Clinton machine is not as invincible as they have been pretending. I don't really see any difference detween them, their both socialists who believe we need to give more to those who do less and want to raise taxes in a massive way. Interesting news: Clinton 'planned to divorce Hillary to be with one of his many lovers' | the Daily Mail Not much new information but the timming is good for both book sales and helping to remind the people of just how caluulating the Clintons are.

And this comment is helpful how? Pleast stop being an instigator Wez. IWS is the only one here both making personal attacks and also "claiming" he wants to stop personal attacks. He is both the rule setter, and in this case, the rule breaker. What exactly is your motivation for comments of this nature Wez? Clearly this in intended as discussion stopping attacks, not to help. This is why there is a difference between what I define as type one attacks and type two. Here we see a type two attack, gentle looking to be sure, but it's only motivation is to demean and belittle someone, and is the most harmful thing you can ever have on a forum because this nasty attitude spreads and perpetuates itself. The same can be said about anyone who gets offended for any reason. They make a choice to be offended. We are talking about the concept of making personal attacks, not if the target of the attack is offended. You attack people all the time, it is your only true debate skill, most of us don't really get offended by your nasty attitude but at the same time, your attacks still exist. Well, clearly it is allowed for him, but under the new rule he just posted, the rest of us would be violating the rule if we said something similar, and this was my point. I was directly addressing a double standard if IWS feels his personal attacks are okay just because he is a mod and is above the rules he is telling the rest of us to follow. Why? Just because it directly addresses well poisioning guys like you who spend most of their time making the type 2 attacks? My guideline removes guys like you because it is capable of making a distinction between people interested in spirited debate and those like you just out to stir up trouble and get attention. His actions do not match up to his virbal claims of not having a problem with me. I don't care if he does not like me to be honest though, all I care about is reasonable execution of his moderating powers. So far he is not very equal, but I know this is based in him trying to both debate and moderate at the same time. Even cloaked agreed that moderating and debating at the same time is not a good idea. You cannot maintain objectivity if your down in the trenches. I laugh all the time Wez, but you just make me shake my head in dissapointment. As I keep saying, you have great ideas, but you wrap them in garbage making it impossible to take you seriously sometimes. Take this post you just made for example. Most of it is obviously designed to take shots at me and that motivation is my point. If your motivation is to take shots at me, your most likely doing the wrong thing.

Nice try and I guess your attempts to justify your attack on all democrats is a kind of answer though. You see everything you do as justified, so you feel your above the rules your telling everyone else to follow. This is why I don't let my mods moderate and post in the threads at the same time, you cannot see past your own opinions to be objective. Clearly your attack on all democrats was just that, an attack. We clearly have people who are democrats on the board and your comment could easily offend them. But, as I pointed out earlier, even though it can be "seen" as an attack, it was still on topic, and should be allowed, the only problem is it is not allowed by the new rule you made. If you used the rule I offered, or made a similar one, this would solve the problem because it makes a distinction between spirited debate and hostile actions that ruin discussions. I am just trying to help you have the result your looking for, don't turn your back on a great idea just because you don't like me.

That is like someone claiming they can't find a job because someone else is holding them back. Sure, it is possible to make an arguement like that but where will it get you? Sometimes you have to step up and take action, I am not saying everything we have done has been 100% right, but we cannot allow ourselves to be frozen into inactivity and isolation policies out of fear for what some wacko group may do to us. What would Hitler had done if everyone had remained neutral? How about Russia? True neutrality is the most difficult possition to take because it is the most against our nature as humans. We have ideas and beliefs that drive us to get involved in things. Most of the time, not getting involved is still getting involved. If we had kept our distance with Russia, that would be a kind of support, and the rest of the world wouldsee our inaction as just that. If we stood by and watched Russia take them over, that could breed anger and hostility as well. There is always a way to twist perceptions and events into something bad if someone wants to so the most important thing to do is be sure we are proud of the actions we take. That is not to say we will always act in perfect ways, but we should truly know that we acted with good intenetions, not holding back our actions from fear of terrorist groups. How do we know that? Do we trust the words of people who feel good about blowing up a bus filled with children? Do these kinds of actions show a tendancy tword honesty? I don't believe we can trust their word, I believe they are manipulating the media and society to try and win the media war because they know they can never win a face to face war. And sometimes people look for complicated things were most of the time the simplest answer is the correct answer. 2+2=4, no matter how complicated someone wants to make it seem. All I can say is in my world, those willing to target innocents "exclusively" are bad people. There is something inside me that screams out against the notion of directly killing a child, but these terrorists not only kill children, but they will select them as a prefered target. (By the way Wez, nice points)

Actually he is, in the video I posted of the debate, RP clearly states that America provoked the 9/11 attack. In many interviews, RP has clearly stated that there has never been a use of military force outside of America that has been justified. RP is a hands in his pockets kind of guy, I like some of his ideas, but he is too radical on things like blaming America for 9/11 to be considered a real option for President.

And now it starts. What is to be considered a personal attack? What happens when your assumption is wrong (like your last assumption of who started what)? You have already said you don't care if you make mistakes in judgement because you see your mistakes like a bad call in football, no harm done in your view. Sometimes a personal attack is on topic, let's consider the abortion discussion where I was called names for having a strong opinion to end most abortion or Wez being called a killer becasue he killed his child. I don't know if it will help but I offer part of the rules on my debate forum as a kind of guideline: When someone makes a type two attack on another person, we quote the person's attack and give them a chance to make ammends to the one they attacked(all handled in PM's). If they believe the attack is justified, they must offer support of why it was justified and a minimum of two moderators or one admin decides the merit of the explanation and informs the person of their decision. If we decide the explanation is good or simply middle ground, we ask the person to be more careful, if not, the person must provide a retraction of his comment(edit post and offer an appology). If they refuse to retract their attack, or we must order the same person to make retractions ten times, they are immediately removed from the forum. As a side note, I would like to explain that the reason I am here and on other forums debating instead of my own is in order to maintain my objectivity, I cannot get down in the trenches of spirited debates and then enforce the rules of the board. You don't see Judges hanging out with the police. I have a rule where if one of my moderators is posting in a thread, they cannot exercise their mod powers in that thread except for the most obvious problem like a spammer posting porn or a member losing his cool, and even then I take more time to review those situations to be sure there is no possibility of a staff member abusing his mod powers just to win a debate. I just found a great example: Here you attack all Democrats and call them socialists. Clearly this is against the new rule you just posted before making that attack on Democrats so where does this leave us? Do you think we do not have democrats on this forum? I see your post in that thread as on topic and clearly not disruptive to the forum but under your own stated new rule, this kind of thing is not allowed. Unless you will be the kind of mod who says, do as I say, not as I do.

I agree to a certain extent, but it was our involvement in the world that stopped Hitler and made it possible to stop Runmnian attempts to take over the world. The world would now be speaking german or russian if not for American involvement in the world issues. Muslim problems are increasing because they use our own systems against us. They wage the war against us from many directions including the media war gaining sympathy for their cause even from people like Ron Paul. Ron Paul is parroting their dogma about them only attacking because we provoked them but are these claims true or is this just what their saying to gain support? If a man can blow up a school bus filled with children and be proud of that, what makes Ron Paul or anyone else think this same man is truthful and honest? Why trust the words of a terrorist?

Well, it seems we have a little in common.

Ron Paule blames America for 9/11: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQrwKr_b4Lg]YouTube - Ron Paul - Rudy Giuliani Blowback Debate[/ame]

Enterpriser Based on your answers to the questionnaire, you most closely resemble survey respondents within the Enterpriser typology group. This does not mean that you necessarily fit every group characteristic or agree with the group on all issues. Enterprisers represent 9 percent of the American public, and 10 percent of registered voters. Basic Description As in previous studies conducted in 1987, 1994 and 1999, this extremely partisan Republican group?s politics are driven by a belief in the free enterprise system and social values that reflect a conservative agenda. Enterprisers are also the strongest backers of an assertive foreign policy, which includes nearly unanimous support for the war in Iraq and strong support for such anti-terrorism efforts as the Patriot Act. Defining Values Assertive on foreign policy and patriotic; anti-regulation and pro-business; very little support for government help to the poor; strong belief that individuals are responsible for their own well being. Conservative on social issues such as gay marriage, but not much more religious than the nation as a whole. Very satisfied with personal financial situation. Who They Are Predominantly white (91%), male (76%) and financially well-off (62% have household incomes of at least $50,000, compared with 40% nationwide). Nearly half (46%) have a college degree, and 77% are married. Nearly a quarter (23%) are themselves military veterans. Only 10% are under age 30. Lifestyle Notes 59% report having a gun in their homes; 53% trade stocks and bonds in the stock market, and 30% are small business owners ? all of which are the highest percentages among typology groups. 48% attend church weekly; 36% attend bible study or prayer group meetings. 2004 Election Bush 92%, Kerry 1%. Bush?s most reliable supporters (just 4% of Enterprisers did not vote) Party ID 81% Republican, 18% Independent/No Preference, 1% Democrat (98% Rep/LeanRep) Media Use Enterprisers follow news about government and politics more closely than any other group, and exhibit the most knowledge about world affairs. The Fox News Channel is their primary source of news (46% cite it as a main source) followed by newspapers (42%) radio (31%) and the internet (26%).

Does that include refusing to assist our friends if their in trouble? RP is on record for saying that America has never used our military outside our borders in a good way. This includes ww1, ww2, even attacking Afganistan after 9/11 was wrong in his view. RP blames 9/11 on America, he says we brought it on ourselves. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who can blame us for 9/11 cannot be President of the united states.

That all depends on where you look. I can find truly intelligence any time I want, but I know where to look. RP is a great kind of guy to offer a counterbalance to the wackos on the other side, a perfect counterbalance. He would be a terrible President however because of his radical stands. He would turn everyone away from him, conservative and liberal. Most of the Country tends to be sowhere in the middle of politics, not on the outside fringe like he is. Sure, I like a few of his ideas, but most of them such as being an isolationist and never using military might for any reason outside of American borders, are just too far out into space to even consider him as a viable Presidential canidate.

There are more people that believe Bush planned 9/11 than want Ron Paul for President, that should be a clue.

As I have attempted to explain to you several times, shades of gray. Wez is a liberal and even if he was telling the truth about wanting social programs to be removed (I have good reason to doubt him) that does not change the fact he openly supports liberal agendas most of the time, his test even came back liberal, at this point your just grasping for straws to try and save face with the way you flew off the handle at me. You were wrong, just admit and accept it so we can move on. Very Jesus of you, interesting that it also allows you to avoid answering a question that would make you agree with me. By the way, your jumping to "wrong" conclusions about who started this was a form of judging, bad judging to be more correct. Fine, but don't expect the rest of the world to be perfect like you. The rest of us must live life as humans. If I had a choice concerning where you could be perfect I would rather you not fly off the handle at me when things were not started by me. No, you very clearly said Wez was the one who tends to start these problems: Being as we now know he started this one, definate trends can be seen. I have proven him wrong so many times it is no longer funny, this is why he lashes out at me so much, to get revenge . I said Wez has good points sometimes, and he does, but he ruins his points by either adding attacks that close discussions or by adding completely wrong information. Let me offer an example and we will see how you respond. Wez says all soldiers are mindless murderers, do you feel that statement shows he knows what he is taking about? Because he "is" a liberal. How is it a personal attack if it is true? Your floundering around trying to save face here, I know why your trying so hard but at the end of the day one thing is still true. Wez started the attacks, you "assumed" I started them and flew off the handle at me. You don't want to take responsibility for your wrong action and are now playing word games trying to make me say my attack was worse than his attack but it all boils down to this: Without his attack "first" my "reply" would not exist. Look, I had a short agreement with Wez last night where we agreed to be more careful posting tword each other. I don't know if or how long it will last but maybe it is better if we just let this go instead of you working so hard to save face. While your floundering, we are still talking about Wez and that is sort of against my agreement with him even though I am talking with you. While it is certainly possible that our truce will not last long, I don't want that time to be reduced because of me.

Nirther or both the same, it all comes down to what is understood about the person in question. I am clearly not a liberal so calling me one is an insult. I generally do not get involved in any discussion where I do not know what I am talking about at least a little so the other comment would also be an insilt. But, what if the comment is correct, is the comment still an insult? This is why your dodging my question, you know darn well Wez is clearly a liberal and me calling him one is fact, not an insult. You have also admitted Wez starts the messes most of the time and the truth panned out he started this one as well so my opinion about Wez seeming to be lost most of the time seems to be fairly accurate as well. Are we now starting the PC posting guidelines here where I cannot call a spade a spade out of fear I may offend you? I can post several things Wez has said that shows his liberal leanings, can you prove me wrong and show Wez is a conservative?

Look Wez, I will try again. Yes, you have great points sometimes but you ruin them by wrapping them in dog crap. You start out your comment with something that looks like agreeing with me then ruin it with an attack on me. It is all a part of the other. It is like starting to give someone flowers just to end up slaping them in the face with the same flowers. If you want peace, so do I. Out of the two of us only I have tried to compliment some of your points and tried to explain where I have issues with you. I am very open to trying to get past the garbage but this has to be a two way street.

More personal attacks I see, and getting inventive too. Is this how you live your life Wez? Always trying to tear people down that don't agree with you? Does it fill some inner need you have to try and imagine good people in bad ways to make you feel better about your failed life? Can't rise up yourself so bring down others? Yes, I call you a liberal, and even your test shows your a liberal. Your possitions on this forum are those of a liberal. If you see that as an insult, I'm sorry, maybe you should give that some thought and wonder why your ashamed to be called what you represent.

First of all, the way I said it was clearly my opinion: Notice the underlined part. I was giving my opinion based on the question asked by old salt where what Wez said was seen as confusing to many people. If others say their confused by what Wez meant, and I say I believe he is always lost in his postings (my true meaning for my comment to be honest) then that is both on topic for the question I was responding to and also my opinion. I believe I am entitled to voice my opinions right? You trying to add sh1t to the game by trying to make it sound like I said more than I did: Is not helping any either. So lets just make this simpler. Are you trying to say Wez is a conservative and I am wrong when I say his voiced opinions are liberal leaning? Even his test result said he was mostly a liberal. Seriously, this is like gays being mad when you call them gay, if your gay be proud of what you are, I am mostly a conservative, I proclaim it with honor because I am what I am by decisions I am proud of.

No, I am saying my comment would never have been made without Wez instigating it. I "responded" to him, this is my point. He can call me whatever he wants, but I will "reply". Started with me? Again you still cannot take responsibility for making a wrong "assumption"? I just ask you to remember that while Wez was leaving me alone, there was not this kind of mess, Wez has started the same mess everywhere he goes. I will never start wnything with Wez, just like this mess, I did not start it, but I will reply when attacked. It may be, children accept your authority without question, I don't. You have a difficult job to do but it is you making it harder then it needs to be, not me. You came out swinging at me, I defended myself and proved you wrong, now your sore at me. If you had refrained from jumping to "wrong" conclusions, all of this with me would have been avoided. So if your looking for the cause of your issue with me today, look in the mirror.

Your not making any sense. First of all, based on topics discussed on this forum to date, I am clearly a conservative. your mostly a conservative with tiny liberal leanings, Brotherman is more conservative then I am, eddo is a conservative, anna is a liberal, wez is a liberal. This is based on observations on topics covered in my opinion. Now we are not allowed to have opinions? It seems to me you feel it is okay for Wez to call people things their not, but if I call them what they are, somehow I am wrong.............. Forgive me but I do not understand where your going. Either way, I am the only one who has been blasted by you to later find out your 100% wrong on your "assumption". Your a moderator, your not supposed to be flying off the handle like this.

Fragile ego? Your the one who went off half ed, tore into me claiming I started the personal attacks when I did not start them. Now your wanting to pretend you did not tear into me defending Wez who clearly did instigate the problem. Wez did not need your protection and you directing unfair and wrong allegations against me made the situation worse, not better. Maybe you need to move on with this grudge you clearly have against me so you can see more clearly. Wez is the well poisoner, blaming me for the excesses of Wez is not going to get us anywhere.