It doesn't seem like you think much of anything is "worthy of a response." In that sense, you'll find that you reap what you sow.
There are interesting discussions to be had about the fiscal issues facing the U.S. right now, including the deficit, the economy and the so-called "fiscal cliff." But you have shown very little interest in any of that. Instead, you engage in drive-by posting that borders on trolling and demonstrate precious little actual understanding of any of those issues. Most risibly, you then pretend that only you understand them, and those who have bothered to educate themselves are just sadly deluded sheep who lack your penetrating insight into America's economic problems. That's not discussing: that's pretending to discuss--and I'm not the only one around here who's tired of it.
When you are ready to talk like a grown-up, you may find that there are willing partners here. Until then.... well, I think you can figure out what to expect.
While I agree with you, I find it interesting how you openly criticize only one side of the coin here, when there are posters on both sides that do the whole driveby crap.
There are drive-by posters in this thread at both ends of the political spectrum, there's no denying that.
And only one side is being jumped on. IFF has never 'once' criticized longsuffering or Flash for their OBVIOUS driveby posts.
Never once.
Even better, he 'warned' nickerjones, who is one of the most respectable posters on here of getting close to being racist because nicker questioned how many Obama supporters voted for him because he's black, but never once said a 'word' when witty and others inferred that 57 million Romney supporters only supported Romney because of race.
One side believes the other side is biased. I get that, but a mod jumping on one side and criticizing ONLY them for something that is standard practice for both sides is extremely annoying and only serves to drives away posters who might have a differing opinion.
Example? The electoral maps shown earlier show casing the apparent link between 'southern' states, and those states that voted in favor of slavery years ago. Except when you look at the total electoral map, I guess we can assume that Ohio, Pennsylvania and Illinois harbor some deep seated racism, as they're almost the same percentage red as Mississippi.
Why didn't I post it? Because its quite clear that the idea that Republicans as a whole are racially motivated when they vote is an acceptable viewpoint on here, despite evidence to the contrary. But hey, can't win them all. Would be nice if the 'discussion' would be more balanced though without posters coming to criticize you as having the 'same old line' everything you post something.
If you look at the breakdown of votes, its quite evident to notice that there are many Romney and Obama supporters in each state, and some states that vote just red, and some states that vote just blue.
Now I'm going to regret posting anything about the subject considering how many people are going to make ridiculous driveby posts about it.
Now I'm going to regret posting anything about the subject considering how many people are going to make ridiculous driveby posts about it.
You had a point until this. Now everything you typed above is worthless. Well done. Just a silly way to end a post and make yourself look like you're playing the victim card.
/Driveby
__________________
BUTLER FOR STARTER!
The Following User Says Thank You to Blaster86 For This Useful Post:
No one suggested the vast majority of republicans are racist. The assertion made is that there is far more racism in one party than the other, despite FOX news' insistance. This constant "but both sides do it!!" is avoiding the point and trying to look like your above it all
While I agree with you, I find it interesting how you openly criticize only one side of the coin here, when there are posters on both sides that do the whole driveby crap.
I really think this bears emphasizing.
It's not about "sides." It's about how people choose to communicate their viewpoint.
If someone presents a well-reasoned argument, it shouldn't matter if it's conservative or liberal or what-have-you. But insults, condescension, what you call "driveby crap" is unproductive.
With that said, I am of course as biased as any other person. So it's certainly possible that this sort of behaviour is less visible to me in a poster with whom I agree. But that is why I don't moderate threads that I'm participating in, unless I can't help it. When I 'criticize' FoL for calling people communists (when they clearly aren't) I do so as a poster, not as a moderator.
If you feel that I should be moderating this thread more, send me a PM and we'll discuss it. But it has (until recently) worked very well. Things have gone downhill today, and I think I bear some responsibility for that. I suggest we just move on and talk about the election.
Example? The electoral maps shown earlier show casing the apparent link between 'southern' states, and those states that voted in favor of slavery years ago. Except when you look at the total electoral map, I guess we can assume that Ohio, Pennsylvania and Illinois harbor some deep seated racism, as they're almost the same percentage red as Mississippi.
Why didn't I post it? Because its quite clear that the idea that Republicans as a whole are racially motivated when they vote is an acceptable viewpoint on here, despite evidence to the contrary. But hey, can't win them all. Would be nice if the 'discussion' would be more balanced though without posters coming to criticize you as having the 'same old line' everything you post something.
These maps are quite interesting, but they don't really prove anything about the racial motivations of voters. What they do show is that the red state/blue state split is largely a function of the percentage of the population that lives in urban vs. rural areas. Rural voters tend to vote Republican, and urban voters usually vote democratic. This is true even in reliably blue states like Massachusetts, as the map clearly shows.
With that said, of course there is racism in parts of Ohio and Pennsylvania. Perhaps more than you would find in parts of Alabama. Anyone who suggests otherwise doesn't understand history.
