1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Losing a Sense of Community

houdini1984 Wrote: Aug 22, 2014 6:44 PM
I have grown more and more disillusioned with the site's direction, though many of the diarists still do excellent work on most days. The site's main weakness right now is its moderators. They seem incapable of engaging in any sort of reasoned debate, and are far too quick to threaten account bans for people holding opinions contrary to their own. Worse, they appear to have fun clubs who cheer them on as they verbally abuse anyone who dares to have a different outlook.
In response to:

Losing a Sense of Community

houdini1984 Wrote: Aug 22, 2014 3:42 PM
You're 100% correct. Many seem so afraid of being labeled as extremist right-wingers that they swallow the leftist bile instead.
In response to:

Losing a Sense of Community

houdini1984 Wrote: Aug 22, 2014 3:41 PM
I don't know that I would call the moderators there Leftist. They are as conservative as I am on any given day. They are, however, often intolerant of opposing views. Worse, they're often quite nasty about it. It's a privately-owned site, so that is their choice, I suppose. Still, this Ferguson instance has been one in which their writers and moderators have been almost uniformly wrong about every aspect of the case, and foul toward any who dared question their wrongheadedness.
In response to:

Losing a Sense of Community

houdini1984 Wrote: Aug 22, 2014 2:55 PM
Ah, Erick. You wonder why so many are happy to see the facts start to come out before the officer in question could be summarily tried and convicted in the court of public opinion? You wonder why they are happy that this officer may actually get a fair hearing over this incident rather than the media trial many on the Left seek in their attempt to gain political advantage from the death of this young man? Yes, there may be a handful of people here and there who always react to news of criminals being shot with a shrug and a hearty "got what he deserved." Your lament about that small minority, however, seems much ado about nothing. It's almost as though you're trying to deflect attention away from that initial rush to judgment, and redirect it toward those of us who warned various commentators that they were allowing their own biases to get ahead of the facts. Take your own Red State site, for example. You had front page writers penning scathing attacks on the Ferguson police in general and officer Wilson in particular. When various readers questioned that rush to judgment, or even attempted to discuss what the witnesses were saying, your site moderators engaged in personal attacks on those readers and even threatened site bans. One of them went out of his way to foment strife within the community, even going so far as to suggest that the refusal to simply accept the proposed narrative was due to racism. The vast majority of people writing and commenting about this incident are NOT gleeful that a young man is dead, so spare us your criticism of those who failed to join the mob as it sought to publicly destroy officer Wilson prior to any investigation being concluded. Your efforts might be better spent scolding your fellow media personalities and your compatriots at Red State who expended so much energy repeating the initial false reports as gospel and attacking anyone who dared question their narrative.
In response to:

Hillary's Delphic Politics

houdini1984 Wrote: Aug 22, 2014 1:54 AM
'Hillary, who followed me in high school..." Did you report her for stalking?
That's it in a nutshell: nanny-state. These are the people who've had their minds conditioned by decades of nanny-state policies and now fear even the most basic demonstrations of independence. Shocking!
Indeed. I only clicked on the article link to vote for cinnamon, but was dismayed when I saw that they'd already corrected the headline. Sigh...
"The parties switched platforms loooooong ago." Here we go again. When, exactly, did the Republicans ever enact party platforms that supported slavery (as Democratic platforms routinely did from 1840 to 1860), or advocated for segregation (as Democratic parties either actively promoted or remained completely silent on from 1868 to 1948)? Please tell us exactly what these mythical Republican platforms supposedly said. The fact is that the racists who made up the Democratic Party prior to the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s by and large remained with that party (except for a brief time when they attempted a third party movement as Dixicrats). Some, like Strom Thurmond, left the Democrats and became Republicans - but only after completely reversing themselves on issues of race. That stands in stark contrast with Robert Byrd, who not only remained a Democrat, but continued to use disparaging language in reference to blacks well into the 1990s. So, no, those old Democrats would not have been Republicans today for one simple reason: their views have never been acceptable to the Republican Party. Yes, the Democrats did change their stripes on civil rights. They did, finally, come around and support civil rights laws to undo the lingering remnants of Jim Crow and the injuries of segregation (horrors inflicted upon blacks by Democrats, of course). In so doing, however, they did not suddenly take up a cause abandoned by Republicans, for the Republican Party had always championed civil rights for blacks. We can stop this just as soon as you stop trying to pretend that Republicans of today are somehow akin to Democrats of yesteryear in their views on race. No matter how often you and others utter those lies, they'll never manage to erase or even paper over the Democrats' long and sordid history of racism or support some absurd thesis that Republicans somehow transformed into racist Democrats. That's sheer nonsense...
"Dubya Illegally signed a treaty with Iraq to keep troops till 2012 tying Obamas hands." Really? What treaty was that? Are you talking about the SOFA with Iraq? If so, you do know what a Status of Forces Agreement is, right? It in no way forces a President to maintain troop deployments in the host country; it just sets out the legalities involved in any force presence. Obama could have pulled out every single American troop as soon as he took the oath of office. He chose not to. As for the "had 7 years to fix it" argument, it was fixed. Obama himself declared on December 14, 2011 that we were turning over a "stable" Iraq as we were exiting the country. What happened? If he was so savvy and so far-sighted, why was he unable to negotiate a new SOFA to maintain that small contingency force you claim that he wanted? We already know that he is incapable of negotiating here at home. Are you alleging that he is also so inept that he cannot even negotiate the type of agreement we have with so many other countries around the world? Seriously, review the man's actions and words. When we pulled out of Iraq, he bragged about how he had fulfilled his campaign pledge. Now that things have gone south over there, he wants to pretend that he never wanted to pull out, but was forced to by the Iraqis. Which is it? Is he a great visionary who deserves credit for following the terms of Bush's 2008 SOFA agreement and timetable or a hapless bystander at the mercy of forces beyond his control?
"Oh wait -- we've been at war almost continuously since then. Hmmm." But not against Germany, Italy, or Japan. Hmmm...
1 - 10 Next