When political polarization goes too far

[John Reynolds]

No, accurate label. Bush was a draft dodger,

Nice label. I'll be sure to let everyone else in the national guard know your feelings toward them.

Wow, for someone who loves to try to nail people down with semantics as much as humanly possible, you like abusing them yourself. Where did I say all national guard members are draft dodgers? Those who fled into the guard during the Vietnam era differ from those who join otherwise, particularly those who somehow got in ahead of others when scoring 1 point away from a score of "I'm too f*cking stupid to fly" on their flight test.

BTW, I served in our country's military. I graduated from Air Force basic training and Command and Control school with honors, something that had never before been done in the history of my unit. Have you served our country's military? If not, perhaps you might reconsider the ground you're standing on when discussing this subject with me.

 

[RussSchultz]

That wouldn't be like not being able to question Kerry's foreign policy because he served in Vietnam and got medals, would it?

 

[John Reynolds]

That wouldn't be like not being able to question Kerry's foreign policy because he served in Vietnam and got medals, would it?

No, it would be like not having words put in my mouth about those who serve in the national guard by someone who possibly hasn't been in the military and therefore knows nothing about serving. You know, we want to avoid all rhetoric don't we? But while Joe's twisting my words to inform the national guard how I feel about them, I'll be sure to let the gays and black community know that "it's the law" when they feel, as a minority, their rights are not fully equal to those of others. We all know how once it's the law it's morally right and unassailable.

And haven't you railed against ad hominem attacks repeatedly in the past?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Wow, for someone who loves to try to nail people down with semantics as much as humanly possible, you like abusing them yourself. Where did I say all national guard members are draft dodgers?

When did I say you accused everyone in the National Guard of being a draft dodger?

You keep on slighting the Presidnet's service. He was in the guard. I guess there's just no honor in that.

Those who fled into the guard during the Vietnam era differ from those who join otherwise,

Like I said, I'll be sure that everyone who served in the guard (in the Vietnam era, to be clear) what you think of them. I'm sure they could give a rat's ass about your self-serving attitiude, and your "holier than thou art" military record.

BTW, I served in our country's military.

Of course, I already know this. What action have you seen? (Just curious.)

I graduated from Air Force basic training and Command and Control school with honors, something that had never before been done in the history of my unit.

Point? Other than insulting the history of your own unit?

Have you served our country's military?

Nope. Didn't know that was a requirement when talking about Bush, Kerry, or the Military.

Have you served in political office? Particularly national office? If not, maybe you should reconsider the ground you're standing on when discussing the subject with anyone.

If not, perhaps you might reconsider the ground you're standing on when discussing this subject with me.

I could give a rat's ass what your military record is, John. That's the whole point. I grateful to you for serving...really, I am. But I'm actually pretty disgusted that you would try to use that service as some sort of prop. Not becoming of the uniform, IMO.

 

[John Reynolds]

You keep on slighting the Presidnet's service. He was in the guard. I guess there's just no honor in that.

Swish, the sound of Joe dodging Bush's flight test scores and my entire point of daddy's affluence being used to help his son, gasp!, dodge the draft.

Of course, I already know this. What action have you seen? (Just curious.)

I flew in planes. It was fun. (you probably won't get that subtle reference)

Point? Other than insulting the history of your own unit?

How's pointing out that I served with distinction an insult to the rest of my unit? More great logic there, Joe.

Have you served in political office? Particularly national office? If not, maybe you should reconsider the ground you're standing on when discussing the subject with anyone.

And here I thought it was an American right to criticize publically elected officials. Not quite the same as someone who's never served in the military presuming to tell me what I think of the country's national guard because he constantly dodges the fact that his partisan-based political leanings won't allow him to admit Bush dodged the draft.

I could give a rat's ass what your military record is, John. That's the whole point. I grateful to you for serving...really, I am. But I'm actually pretty disgusted that you would try to use that service as some sort of prop. Not becoming of the uniform, IMO.

Not a prop, but a defense. Someone who's never belonged to the Masons perhaps shouldn't tell someone who has how they feel about the organization, eh?

And please note that you never ONCE admitted that what Coulter wrote about Clelan was factually wrong. You've certainly introduced loads of other horseshit, but never directly touched that point.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

How's pointing out that I served with distinction an insult to the rest of my unit? More great logic there, Joe.

Follw me here, John.

Apparently, you are the only person in the history of your unit graduating from basic training and C&C with honors...and considering your apparent level of intelligence....

(An insult that went over your head...the fact that this needs to be explained to you only underscores the point.)

You didn't answer my question though...what is the point of puffing your chest about your "military accomplishment?"

And here I thought it was an American right to criticize publically elected officials.

And here I thought it was an American right to criticize publically anyone I damn well please.

And please note that you never ONCE admitted that what Coulter wrote about Clelan was factually wrong.

Beacuse I don't know if she's factually wrong or not.

 

[John Reynolds]

Follw me here, John.

Apparently, you are the only person in the history of your unit graduating from basic training and C&C with honors...and considering your apparent level of intelligence....

(An insult that went over your head...the fact that this needs to be explained to you only underscores the point.)

I'm stupid for not catching a subtle insult in the midst of all this back 'n forth arguing? OK. And what exactly is my "apparent level of intelligence", Joe?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Your apparent level of intelligence is indicated by not recognizing yourself as the hypoctite that your are, Mr. "I detest ad hominem attacks except if they come from me."

Or maybe it's just a lack of integrity...

 

[John Reynolds]

Your apparent level of intelligence is indicated by not recognizing yourself as the hypoctite that your are, Mr. "I detest ad hominem attacks except if they come from me."

Or maybe it's just a lack of integrity...

When someone in a discussion feels the need to sink this low, it's time to walk away.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Your apparent level of intelligence is indicated by not recognizing yourself as the hypoctite that your are, Mr. "I detest ad hominem attacks except if they come from me."

Or maybe it's just a lack of integrity...

When someone in a discussion feels the need to sink this low, it's time to walk away.

Perhaps then, you have finally gotten the point.

You feel I've sunk pretty low (and I have purposely, to make a point) Consider how low you're sinking with every ad hominem attack you make.

Please.

 

[Guden Oden]

Joe,

Having read through this entire thread only an hour or two ago on my first visit to this particular forum (I was feeling bored), I can't say I think John is guilty of any other crime in this thread than what you too committed, so please spare the rest of the universe your self-righteous indignation, okay?

You are as much a hypocrite as he is if either of you are, so you really should keep quiet on this topic...


Anyway, with conservatives like YOU guys, the liberals should have nothing to fear. You are your own worst enemies!

 

[John Reynolds]

Perhaps then, you have finally gotten the point.

You feel I've sunk pretty low (and I have purposely, to make a point) Consider how low you're sinking with every ad hominem attack you make.

Please.

Joe, when I make comments that Bush is going to run over a gay couple in the prez. mobile, I'm obviously making a point that I believe he doesn't care too much for homosexuality and his support of the gay marriage amendment is probably rooted in his religious beliefs. That said, don't you think I'm just being intentionally sarcastic and a little over-the-top to make my point? Likewise with other comments? No, I'm no fan of Dubya and I'm intentionally tweaking his more fervent supporters in this forum with the above comments, but why do you feel the need to defend him to such a degree that you've got to start making personal, mean-spirited comments like the above? He's in the political arena, so IMO it's all cannon fodder. You think I'm taking ungrounded left wing-based swipes at him and I think you're adamantly denying certain truths like him being a draft dodger. I understand you don't like or appreciate my posting style, and if it offends you I'll tone it down a bit, but I don't think I'll understand your reactions. Probably because I don't feel that aligned with any political party or individual politician, so people could tweak Kerry, Edwards, Bush, etc., and I'd probably chuckle if I thought there was some truth in their comments.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You are as much a hypocrite as he is if either of you are, so you really should keep quiet on this topic...

(Pssssst.....I'm purposely being hypocritical here to make a point...thanks for noticing....)

 

[Guden Oden]

(Pssssst.....I'm purposely being hypocritical here to make a point...thanks for noticing....)

If you think the first example of you being hypocritical (purposely or otherwise), is in this point: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=229487#229487, then I have the dubious pleasure of telling you you are quite mistaken.

As I said, I read the entire thread, and for someone looking in from the outside it definitely shows you give just as well as you take.

You two are down to your knees in this thread, both of you are. If you want to accuse the other of being guilty of anything, you can be sure the mud's stuck to both of you.

 

[Clashman]

Well, I never said or implied Natoma ever supported Kerry...

Actually, you did. Natoma made a jibe about the president's service record to which you responded with a jibe of your own towards Kerry. Now, there's really only two reasons you would have done this:

1) Simply to deflect the conversation away from Bush onto Kerry
2) Because you wanted to imply that Natoma's choice of politician was just as scandalous as yours, and therefore Natoma should shut up.

Both of these, however, need someone to actually give a shit about Kerry, to take a sense of injury at what you said, in order to work. And it's been made blatantly obvious that just about everyone on this board, and probably those on the left more than the right, can't stand Kerry.

 

[Sabastian]

Joe, when I make comments that Bush is going to run over a gay couple in the prez. mobile, I'm obviously making a point that I believe he doesn't care too much for homosexuality and his support of the gay marriage amendment is probably rooted in his religious beliefs. That said, don't you think I'm just being intentionally sarcastic and a little over-the-top to make my point? Likewise with other comments? No, I'm no fan of Dubya and I'm intentionally tweaking his more fervent supporters in this forum with the above comments, but why do you feel the need to defend him to such a degree that you've got to start making personal, mean-spirited comments like the above? He's in the political arena, so IMO it's all cannon fodder. You think I'm taking ungrounded left wing-based swipes at him and I think you're adamantly denying certain truths like him being a draft dodger. I understand you don't like or appreciate my posting style, and if it offends you I'll tone it down a bit, but I don't think I'll understand your reactions. Probably because I don't feel that aligned with any political party or individual politician, so people could tweak Kerry, Edwards, Bush, etc., and I'd probably chuckle if I thought there was some truth in their comments.

Jon, I think WRT the polarization matter you really are playing with fire in a sense. You see as soon as you make a choice one way or the other you really are not in a moderate category. I always considered myself to be moderate but as soon as you state support one way or the other it lop sides your political bias. So I consider myself right of center in my politics. Further you don't have to be religious to support a position that does not support gay marriage, not that there is anything inherently wrong with having religious convictions IMO. The reason these political debates can get nasty is because they do strike on personal convictions. (Whatever they be rooted in.) I don't think you are unintelligent, reading your posts betray that characterization.

I think what you are failing to realize is that these arguments are so double edged that as soon as you decide to support one way it comes back to haunt you. What comes to mind at this point is an argument that Plato brought up with ones willingness to be a leader. The idea is that we ought to choose the least willing to be our leaders as they realize the difficulties of matters and they would be cautious in their decision making. The problem is though how do you go about finding such a character?

I don't recall you being as vocal about politics in the past on these boards and as such it is good to have a different perspective. heh, but that does not mean that people with opposing views have to like it. Anyhow as soon as you make a choice one way or the other you become polarized this is something you ought to get used too if you like to delve into political debates.

BTW I read your post with regards to conservatism in your other thread. I am thinking you are a libertarian. There are debates that split the conservative right some conservatives are social conservatives more so then others. Libertarians have a tendency to not be social conservatives but share common ground with them in that they believe in self governance and this is an important factor in political philosophy. From that allot of political policy flows. Ironically if you are a libertarian you should not be a democratic partisan.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

As I said, I read the entire thread, and for someone looking in from the outside it definitely shows you give just as well as you take.

Um, hello? Yes, I give as well as I take. John's giving, but not taking too kindly to taking.

You two are down to your knees in this thread, both of you are. If you want to accuse the other of being guilty of anything, you can be sure the mud's stuck to both of you.

(You just don't "get it"...)

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Actually, you did. Natoma made a jibe about the president's service record to which you responded with a jibe of your own towards Kerry. Now, there's really only two reasons you would have done this:

1) Simply to deflect the conversation away from Bush onto Kerry

Um...Natoma deflected the conversation with a jibe to Bush's service record, so then I "deflected" that jibe it in antother direction with one towards Kerry.

Only because Kerry is the current Front Runner opposition to Bush. not because Natoma does or doesn't support him. (He's made is position towards Kerry plainly obvious.)

I didn't see Natoma complain...why are you?

 

[John Reynolds]

BTW I read your post with regards to conservatism in your other thread. I am thinking you are a libertarian. There are debates that split the conservative right some conservatives are social conservatives more so then others. Libertarians have a tendency to not be social conservatives but share common ground with them in that they believe in self governance and this is an important factor in political philosophy. From that allot of political policy flows. Ironically if you are a libertarian you should not be a democratic partisan.

You're probably correct on that. And, no, I'm not a democratic partisan and I'm disappointed to see Kerry pulling so far ahead. I can't, and won't, vote for him or Bush.

 

[Clashman]

Because all you've been doing the past several days is throwing around childish insults, not simply at public figures, but directing them at specific people on this board. Perhaps some of us react more harshly after watching a couple days of that than others.