The only Insurgent I considered--aside from Iggy--was Halo. He was the only one who actually posted for reasons beyond defending the honor of fair maiden Whomod.
However, his brand of stupid, while severe, was never quite as odious as the terrible 3 + 1.
What Pro, Ani, and....Darky all had in common was a penchant for the disingenuous. Pro and Ani would argue for light years about how this place was just a big game to them, and that they could take or leave this board all the while ignoring how much effort they put into it. Darky was always desperate to try and convince people that he was somehow on a higher level of political or social understanding than everyone else.
In Pro's case, he would just spam and try to convince everyone that it was for our own good and that his obstinacy to facts (be they religious, political, or philosophical in nature) was more enlightened than our own opinions.
Ani would just get into arguments and then micro-analyze every sentence to the point of retardation just so he wouldn't have to concede anything. And then when people called him out on it, he decided to wear the label "nitpicker" like a badge of honor as though brushing off the critique justified continuing to act like a total douche in a conversation. Both him and DK were stuck on stupid whenever someone tried to make a calculated generalization about something; "You can't do that! How dare you blanket-statement an entire group of people!?" they'd scream like total faggots in an effort to stalemate the discussion.
Insecure obsessives par excellence.
And Darknight613.....
If you don't care, why did you--less than eight hours before--ask for me to respond to some of the points raised on this "petty" thread?
To be honest, mere curiosity. You made a point, several people made valid challenges, and I wanted to see how you would respond when people disputed your claims. Everybody reacts differently, and I wanted to know how you would. Also, it was kinda nice to see that for a while discussion was civil, and it kept my interest. But once the "slamming the other side" begins and discussion comes to an end, I lose interest. And it may not have been at that point yet, but I had the feeling it was going to, and I was annoyed, ebause I thought we had a real debate going here. I was willing to get involved to the degree of sharing insights on public opinion on how the media works in regards to polls and that sort of thing (because I work in the media - check out my webpage and see for yourself), but I have no interest in another "liberal vs. conservative" debate. It's gotten old, and when neither side is listening to the other, which often happens in political debates, what's the point?
I've come across these types of debates elsewhere, and besides getting sick of this feeling of divisiveness that many of my fellow Americans insiston, I'm tired of people presenting valid points that get snubbed just because of what side they're on.
As noted to the other poster, is any question about how our government is being operated ever pointless?
Not in the least. But slamming somebody for their support, or lack thereof, of a certain ideaology is if you're not willing to hear them out. And in many "lib vs. con" feuds, most people aren't willing to hear the other guys out. They have their stance, they won't change it, and how are you supposed to debate with someone who won't listen to what you're saying?
DISCLAIMER: This is the general "you," not G-Man or anyone else here
If you are not interested in the discussion, you neither have to participate nor read.
I'm interested in discussion. I just don't want to get sucked into a "liberal vs. conservative" deadlock. I've been sucked into too many, or hastily dived into them as a response to a comment I didn't agree with, and I've gotten tired of it.
<strong>I hope, however, you will choose to reconsider and contribute some more points to ponder. </strong>
If people are willing to listen, I'm willing to speak (and even sometimes when they're not willing).
The most annoying thing about partisanship is the fact that a lot of it is based on stereotyping and generalizations (without qualifiers like "most.") Look at any stereotype ever made about liberals or conservatives, and you will find a decent number of exceptions. In any race, nationality, gender, religion, political party, there are good people and bad people, and to only focus on one or the other isn't right.
It's like what Abraham tells G-d in the Bible when he's told of the destruction of Soddom and Gemorrah - "will you sweep away the innocent with the guilty?" There are many conservatives I don't like, but I don't hate conservatives period. There are many liberals I admire, but I don't admire them all. I just think people need to be careful with broad generalizations, because there will always be exceptions.
For example:
I was listening to "The Schnitt Show" yesterday on my way home from work, and they were talking about the possibility of the draft. Some caller made a remark that "liberals and Democrats don't want to serve in the military." Schnitt said he agreed, and he said that he really wondered if liberals and Democrats would be willing to answer the call to serve their country if they were needed.
In 1968, my dad, who describes himself as a liberal Democrat (I'm more moderate than my parents are), enlisted in the United States Air Force during a war he did not believe in under a president he did not support. He served this country proudly and honorably, as have many other liberals and Democrats. When people make broad generalizations that say "liberals or Democrats don't want to serve in the military," they are dismissing my dad like he didn't matter.
Granted this was loyalty and defense of a parent that was on my mind (they stick up for me, I stick up for them), rather than politics, but I was annoyed with Schnitt's comments, because my dad is an exception to that claim. I've heard Schnitt play the Devil's Advocate in a lot of situations. He's a smart guy, and surely he must know there are exceptions to his claim. But because the caller was taking a shot at liberals, he didn't object. As far as I'm concerned, people can slam liberals all they want if they really feel the need, but my dad served this country when it needed him, and nobody has the right to say his service didn't count just because of his political ideaologies.
This is the problem with partisanship. When you lash out blindly at a certain group, people get hurt like this.
Dear God what an idiot. Whenever he'd get called out on asking a question that took a critical position of one side over the other, he tended to use phrases like "mere curiosity" or "simply wondering"--like the retard didn't have a partisan position to speak of.
