How important is the TFP Politics board?

[highthief]

Originally Posted by n0nsensical

Maybe say instead of copying whole articles you should post excerpts in the forum and links to the complete articles for the other people (which I'm guessing isn't very many) who want to read them. Like a research paper. Include the relevant quotations as support within your writing and cite them with a reference to the original.

Exactly.

[host]

Originally Posted by StanT

Heaven forbid, I agree with Ustwo (even if he was just kidding).

I'm perfectly capable of researching conservative right wing view points, there is no shortage resources out there. Nor is there a shortage of liberal counterpoints. Linking page after page of talking points isn't a discussion, I can find them just fine on my own.

What's missing is any discussion or compromise.

I sometimes look at new topics to look for something new. I rarely read past the first page before I go off and research it on my own.

How would you describe these links, listed in these search results:
http://www.google.com/search?q=host+...e=off&filter=0

....are they liberal links, or conservative links?

How is what you're saying, any different than filtherton's example. We can "discuss" over the phone, or over a cup of coffee. This is a recent format, in a recent media. Over and over, there are arguments against using it for what it does best. It permits detailed presentations.

The "details" raise the bar. You want to lower the bar, even if you do not mean to. "Compromise" is a process. IMO, the size of presentations to support a position, do not affect that process. It is the quality of the presentation. The more detail in a presentation, the more there is to criticize, to obtain examples for a counter argument.

We have "Mcnews"...USA Today, for example. We have "sound bites", broadcast on the local and national, half hour evening news segments.

Here we have the ability to present/share detail. It is searchable, afterwards, via "the google". if it is all DISPLAYED. If you don't use that feature as a resource, in combination with your recoverable posting history here, than it is not something you would need or appreciate.

Please leave the forum alone. If you don't want to someone else's post, don't read it. Stop attempting to eliminate features and resources that have become available via the development of the internet, just because you don't use them and don't value them.

[StanT]

Originally Posted by host

Please leave the forum alone. If you don't want to someone else's post, don't read it. Stop attempting to eliminate features and resources that have become available via the development of the internet, just because you don't use them and don't value them.

Done,

Enjoy your personal playground / quotefest.


My mistake in thinking we were looking to make the politics board more inclusive.

[ottopilot]

Originally Posted by StanT

Done,

Enjoy your personal playground / quotefest.


My mistake in thinking we were looking to make the politics board more inclusive.

I'd say most of us are trying to set a more respectful tone on politics. Some of the more extreme partisans or ideologues will continue their pace, much like spammers do with email... the hope that you eventually succumb to sheer volume and buy what they're selling.

[host]

Originally Posted by ottopilot

I'd say most of us are trying to set a more respectful tone on politics. Some of the more extreme partisans or ideologues will continue their pace, much like spammers do with email... the hope that you eventually succumb to sheer volume and buy what they're selling.

Would you consider starting a new thread on the politics forum, complete with a well thought out and persuasive political observation(s) or opinion, or continue like this?

....Let's not get into who is "trying to set a more respecful tone". I am sure none of us have cornered "the respectful tone" market, to the point that we are qualified to critique who is, and who isn't "setting" one.

We "are" our past posts, in this medium, in that they contain the only ingredients from which we gain a sense of each other.

[Tophat665]

I went with the last choice, but none of them really work properly. This is one of the few fora I've been around whereat I feel a sense of community.

Is it important for bringing people in? Possibly. I came for the titties and stayed for the people.

[snowy]

I read it occasionally, but only if I'm in the mood to get angry or indignant.

[ratbastid]

This is my announcement that I'm going to be pulling back somewhat from my participation in Tilted Politics. I don't like who I become most of the time when I post there. I'll probably continue to troll, and might post occasionally, but my voice will probably be somewhat more scarce there, at least for a time.

(Yes, I did just post there a couple seconds ago. I said "somewhat". )

[pan6467]

You're right Uber...... instead of attacking I'll edit and simply say:

I have an easy cure, I'll just ignore on Politics certain posts and posters that make no sense or are on there just to destroy the thread. I'm always up for good debate but no longer care to fight.

[ubertuber]

Whether or not politics is an important part of TFP, this isn't really a very enticing advertisement.

[QuasiMondo]

I'm surprised nobody's made reference to "The Angry Young Man" by Billy Joel.

[uncle phil]

Originally Posted by QuasiMondo

I'm surprised nobody's made reference to "The Angry Young Man" by Billy Joel.

well, did YOU start the fire?

[allaboutmusic]

Personally, I think there should be a rule in Tilted Politics that quotes articles longer than, say, 100 words should require use of the HIDE tag for those quotes, or the post will be deleted. It's just too cumbersome to read when there are 15 different 500-word articles quoted in a post. It's borderline spam.

Does anyone actually read them all in full?! I end up ignoring that post, as I'm sure everyone else does.

[host]

If John mcCain is smart enough to be president, shouldn't he have had some curiousity about his new wife's father, James Hensley's background, that Hensley was "mobbed up", and so was his money and the money that McCain has ended up with? When did the money become "clean"?

Below are investigative reporter, Don Bolles' last words, spoken after a car bomb shattered his body in a Phoenix, AZ parking lot in 1976.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Bolles#Death">"They finally got me. The Mafia. Emprise. Find John (Harvey Adamson)."</a>

http://www.amazon.com/Arizona-Projec...3312904&sr=8-1
The Arizona Project (Paperback)
by Michael F. Wendland

pps.93-107

...Dick Levitan, an award-winning reporter for WEEI-Radio in Boston and the only broadcast reporter with IRE, was assigned to visit with Harris to get his views on the mistrial and the subsequent removal of the case from his office. "Babbitt is a four-eyed prick, a real fuck-up," Harris told Levitan for openers. Sitting in his office, which was decorated with eight medals he had won as a Marine in Vietnam, Harris conceded that he wanted to call a grand jury. He was convinced that Kemper Marley, the wealthy rancher and political shaker, had contracted Adamson for the job. He also believed that Max Dunlap, Marley's protege, was the middleman. There were others involved, he said, who had assisted Adamson, but those were the big three. Rocking in his leather swivel chair and fondling his Western-style shirt, Harris changed the subject to the hundred thousand dollars a year he had raked in as a private attorney. Levitan steered the conversation back to the Bolles case....

http://www.ire.org/history/arizona.html

....July 6, 1977 - Trial begins for Dunlap and Robison, who are charged with first-degree murder. During the trial, Dunlap's attorney tries to cast suspicion on Phoenix attorney Neal Roberts, who had dealings with both Adamson and Dunlap, as the real mastermind in the murder plot.

Nov. 6, 1977 - A jury finds Dunlap and Robison guilty primarily on the strength of Adamson's testimony. They also are found guilty of conspiring to kill then-Arizona Attorney General Bruce Babbitt and advertising man Al Lizanetz. Adamson testifies that Dunlap wanted the three killed because each had angered Dunlap's friend, millionaire rancher and liquor wholesaler Kemper Marley Sr., who never is charged in the case.

Jan. 10, 1978 - Dunlap and Robison are sentenced to death......

Dec. 19, 1990 - Dunlap is recharged with Bolles' murder. Dunlap and Robison also are charged with conspiring to obstruct a criminal investigation into the slaying. Adamson agrees to testify against the pair in return for the reinstatement of his 1977 plea bargain and 20-year, two-month prison sentence.....

....April 20, 1993 - Dunlap is found guilty of first-degree murder and conspiring to obstruct the investigation of the case, and is later sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole for 25 years....

Kemper Marley Sr. Is Dead at 83; Name Arose in '76 Slaying Inquiry ...Kemper Marley Sr. Is Dead at 83; Name Arose in '76 Slaying Inquiry ... LEAD: Kemper Marley Sr., a millionaire Arizona rancher and liquor distributor whose ...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...55C0A966958260

http://www.azcentral.com/news/specia...-chapter5.html
Arizona, the early years
Dan Nowicki, Bill Muller
The Arizona Republic
Mar. 1, 2007 10:33 AM

CHAPTER V: ARIZONA, THE EARLY YEARS

.....Cindy's money came from her family business. Her father, Jim Hensley, owned a Phoenix Anheuser-Busch distributorship that had made him a multimillionaire. He gave his new son-in-law a job as vice president of public relations, but, really, McCain was just biding his time until the right political opportunity came up.

"Jim Hensley didn't care about PR," said Bill Shover, a former executive with The Arizona Republic who met McCain in 1981. "When you have the Budweiser franchise, you . . . don't need PR."......

....On the political front, McCain reached out to his Capitol Hill mentors and friends for guidance. Cohen put him in touch with veteran political consultant Jay Smith, who advised McCain to discreetly get out and start meeting Arizona VIPs.

<h3>His job with Hensley allowed him to do that.</h3>

It didn't take long for McCain to meet wealthy power brokers such as developers Charles Keating Jr. and Fife Symington III, who would later be elected governor. Local polls suggested McCain start slowly by running for the state Legislature, but McCain wasn't interested......

....Money-in-law
Many have told the tale of McCain winning the 1st Congressional District by wearing out three pairs of shoes, with the final pair immortalized in bronze by Cindy. McCain's footwear definitely took a beating during the race, but it was more greenbacks than soles that swept McCain into the House of Representatives.

McCain's first campaign benefited from his wife's personal wealth, some of which had been tied up in a trust set up in 1971 by her parents, Jim and Marguerite "Smitty" Hensley.

In 1981, the trust expired and was dissolved, giving Cindy a half interest in Western Leasing Co., a truck-leasing business controlled by her father, according to Trevor Potter, general counsel to the McCain 2000 presidential campaign and 2008 exploratory campaign. Potter also is a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission. Western Leasing was not the only income the McCains had in 1982. They earned a combined $130,000 in salary and bonuses from Hensley, the beer distributorship controlled by Cindy's father. John also had his Navy pension, which paid $31,000 a year.

"No one pretends that Cindy had no money at all," Potter said. "It was hers. And it wasn't something Jim (Hensley) had given her for the campaign."

Under 1982 election rules, it was legal for McCain to tap his wife's assets, as well as his own, when making personal loans to the campaign. In 1983, the rules were rewritten, with tighter guidelines on the use of family money. .....

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/sp...naproject.html
A look back at the Arizona Project
Lauren Vasquez
Special to The Republic
May. 28, 2006 11:25 AM

Thirty years ago, a team of investigative reporters from newspapers around the country gathered in a hotel room in downtown Phoenix intent on making journalistic history.

They came after a fledging organization called the IRE put out a call in the weeks following the murder of one of its own: Come to Arizona to expose the mob and finish the work that Don Bolles had started. Bolles, an investigative reporter for The Arizona Republic, had reputedly been working on stories exposing organized crime when his car was blown up in downtown Phoenix.

In the months that followed that call in the summer of 1976, nearly 40 reporters and editors from 23 newspapers as varied as Newsday and The Milwaukee Journal interviewed politicians, mobsters, prostitutes and businessmen, crossed and re-crossed the Mexican border and filled six large file drawers and 40,000 cross-index files with notes. It was the biggest investigation in Arizona history - and the only one of its kind ever conducted by the Investigative Reporters and Editors or any other media group.

Those involved with the project promised a blockbuster of a report - one that would expose corruption at the highest levels of Arizona's politics, put mobsters in jail and send a clear message that no one could kill a reporter in the United States and get away with it.

The report the IRE team produced the next year was a blockbuster -- at least in length. In 40 stories over 23 days, it aimed the spotlight on organized crime in Arizona and blamed the mafia’s infiltration on greedy public officials and a justice system that they called a “social club” of judges, prosecutors and bar associations....


....And that was the mild language.

“The state has become a haven for white-collar swindlers” with “itchy-palmed public officers eager to look the other way for a price,” states one story. “The ability of mobsters to move unscathed and corrupt public officials to go unpunished is the result of the benign attitude of some judges and prosecutors and bar associations that function more as social clubs than guardians of the legal ethic. The result is an attitude of arrogance and untouchability, logical precursors to the thought that the murder of a newspaper reporter is a reasonable way to halt his work.”

The report alleged that Goldwater, a millionaire and former candidate for president of the United States, had close ties with organized crime that went back for years. It said there were more than 200 people in the state with clear ties to the mafia. It argued that Del E. Webb Corp., still a major land developer in the Valley, was in business with the mafia.

One of the project’s most contentious reports came on day eight of the series, which focused on the citrus farms owned by Goldmar, a real estate and investment company owned by Barry Goldwater’s brother, Robert, and Robert’s longtime business partner, Joseph Martori.

The farms were run on the “sweat of illegal aliens who have been paid cruelly eager wages and forced to live in subhuman conditions,” the report reads. Goldwater and Martori claimed to have no knowledge of the use of illegal workers.

Phoenix millionaire liquor wholesaler Kemper Marley also took heat. The project pegged Marley as cowboy who earned his millions after an early life of sleeping on the open range and surviving on jerky and beans. Marley’s rise from cowboy to millionaire was attributed to suspected dealings with the mafia. and it was the mafia that gave Marley a seat on the Arizona Racing Commission, which regulated horse and greyhound racing.

At the time of the project’s publication, one of the theories was that Marley had ordered the hit on Bolles partly because of Bolles’ investigation of Emprise Corp., a sports concession company that had been linked to the mob. Marley was suspected of trying to get a seat on the Arizona Racing Commission to help out Emprise.

Reportedly Bolles’ last words when he was found in the parking lot the day of the bombing were, “They finally got me,” “the mafia,” and “Emprise.”

Police never found enough evidence to arrest Marley, who continued doing business in the Valley until his death in 1990....

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...5BC0A96E958260
PRO FOOTBALL: NOTEBOOK; Bidder No. 7 Helps to Thicken the Plot in the Saga of the Browns' Ownership

By MIKE FREEMAN
Published: August 16, 1998
The process of finding an owner for the new Cleveland Browns team has at times resembled a mystery novel. The National Football League will not publicly identify any prospective owners, though six ownership groups have been identified in news media reports. And there have always been rumors of a seventh.

It is a rumor no more. As of late last week, seven groups had turned in their applications and paid the fees to reach the final step in the bidding process: a formal presentation to the N.F.L. owners next week.

The mystery group? According to several team executives, it is led by Jeremy Jacobs, owner of the National Hockey League's Boston Bruins and the Fleet Center. Jacobs is also the chief executive officer of Delaware North Companies.

This is not the first time Jacobs has pursued a professional football team. He wanted to buy the New England Patriots in the early 1990's, but they were eventually bought by Robert Kraft.

Jacobs, the N.F.L. executives said, has a solid shot at getting the Browns. His net worth is estimated at some $600 million. N.F.L. owners are familiar with him, and they like that he knows how to run a professional sports franchise. They describe Jacobs as an intensely private man with a thirst for sports. Jacobs did not return phone calls and has done few interviews.

N.F.L. team executives say Jacobs seems to be willing to spend what it takes to get the Browns. Estimates are that rights to the team could sell for anywhere from $400 million to $700 million.

The other groups in the running for the Browns are led by Richard Jacobs, who owns the Cleveland Indians and is no relation to Jeremy Jacobs; Tom Murdough; Bert Wolstein; Larry and Charles Dolan; the New York real estate developer Howard Millstein, and Al Lerner, who has teamed with Carmen Policy, the former general manager of the San Francisco 49ers.

It has been thought that the Lerner-Policy team is among the front-runners, but Commissioner Paul Tagliabue said recently that the race was wide open.

All the candidates are businessmen who own large companies. Jeremy Jacobs is no different, but his company may have the most interesting background.

Jacobs's company, which, among other things, is the concessionaire to several professional baseball teams, has more than 200 operating units in dozens of states and some half-dozen other countries. The company's yearly revenues top $1 billion. The company was built by his father, Louis Jacobs, who died of a heart attack while at his desk in 1968 when Jeremy was 28 years old.

Around the time of Louis Jacobs's death, investigators had been looking into the company, then named Emprise Corporation, for links to organized crime. Jeremy Jacobs, who took control of Emprise after his father died, strongly denied any wrongdoing.

In 1972, however, a jury in a Los Angeles Federal court ruled that Emprise conspired to conceal its ownership interests as well as the interests of two alleged organized crime figures in a Las Vegas casino. The jury said that Emprise gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans to front men for alleged mobsters at the casino. The late Louis Jacobs and another son, Max, were named as unindicted co-conspirators. Emprise was fined $10,000.

That year, Sports Illustrated put Louis Jacobs on its cover as ''The Godfather of Sports.''

http://www.azcentral.com/news/electi...z-hensley.html
McCain, his wealth tied to wife's family beer business
Dawn Gilbertson
The Arizona Republic
Jan. 23, 2007 12:29 PM

The trophy case at Hensley

Hensley

Headquarters: Phoenix.

Business: Beer distributor in metropolitan Phoenix and Prescott Valley. The company, founded in 1955, is the nation's third-largest Anheuser-Busch distributor.

Employees: 643.

Ownership: Privately held. Cindy Hensley McCain, wife of Arizona Sen. John McCain, is controlling stockholder and chairwoman of the board.

The blue-and-white campaign pin from the 1980s is a subtle reminder of the distributor's ties to Arizona's senior senator and would-be presidential candidate.

McCain's wife, Cindy, is the Hensley in Hensley, the nation's third-largest Anheuser-Busch distributor. Her father, Jim, founded the company 50 years ago, and she became the controlling stockholder of the privately held company upon his death in 2000. Cindy Hensley McCain is chairwoman of Hensley's board of directors.

Cindy McCain's family business and her other investments have long been the source of McCain's wealth, according to disclosure reports candidates are required to file. He is the seventh-richest senator by net worth, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan, nonprofit group that tracks money spent in political campaigns.

The latest personal finances report, filed last May, shows assets worth a minimum of $27.5million for the McCains, with the company accounting for about half of that. The company portion does not include his wife's retirement plan from Hensley or the Anheuser-Busch stock held by her and their dependent children.

The total value is a bare minimum, as assets worth more than $1million in the name of a spouse or children do not have to be quantified in the financial reports. Many of Hensley's assets are listed in that "over $1million" category.

The only assets listed under McCain's name or held jointly are a few bank accounts worth less than $100,000. McCain has been far removed from the operations of the family business he married into, except for a brief stint as vice president of public relations at Hensley when he moved to Arizona in the early 1980s, company officials say.

"The limit of his questions to me is, 'How's business going?' That's about that," said Bob Delgado, Hensley's longtime chief executive and a close friend of the McCains.

"Senator McCain has never tried to advise us on how to run this business, and I certainly am not going to try to advise him on how to do what he's doing."

Cindy McCain isn't even a regular at the headquarters, preferring to keep abreast of company business largely through Delgado, he said.

They talk and meet often, usually about broad business issues, such as new products in the pipeline from Anheuser-Busch or the new plant Hensley is building in Chandler.

"That's what Cindy is interested in, the big picture and making sure employees' welfare is taken care of," Delgado said.

The only McCain who pulls into the Hensley offices near 45th Avenue and Indian School every morning is Andy, John's son from his first marriage. He is Hensley's chief financial officer and has been with the firm for about 10 years.

"He's really become part of the culture, part of the fabric of the company," Delgado said. "He's fit in very, very well."

Delgado said it was clear to him when he met John McCain that he did not plan to climb the ladder in the family beer business. McCain had moved to Phoenix after retiring from a job as naval liaison to the Senate.

"He always talked about world events, local events," Delgado said. "The beer business was not something of great importance to him."

He said McCain worked at Hensley for such a short time, "It's almost like he wasn't here."

Over the years, Delgado said, he does not think the McCain-Hensley connection has helped or hurt business at the company, which has a commanding 60 percent market share in the competitive Phoenix market. When he was elected to Congress, McCain said he would recuse himself from voting on issues related to the alcohol industry.

"Obviously there are a lot of people that know that connection, but there are a lot of people that don't," Delgado said. "It's not something I bring up."

Delgado said it has been his responsibility since McCain was elected to Congress in 1982 to keep things separate.

"We just think it's good business," he said. "The corporation has got its dealings, and the senator is in a political world."

Still, McCain and Hensley are inextricably linked, and those ties will no doubt be under scrutiny should the senator enter the 2008 presidential race.

The beer distributor came under fire more than a decade ago for allegations of grouping political contributions to skirt Arizona campaign finance laws.....

http://www.azcentral.com/news/specia...-chapter6.html
The Senate calls
Dan Nowicki, Bill Muller
The Arizona Republic
Mar. 1, 2007 10:34 AM

CHAPTER VI: THE SENATE CALLS

.....Kimball launched another series of attacks, calling McCain "bought and paid for" by special interests because much of McCain's campaign contributions came from political action committees in four industries: defense, real estate, petroleum and utilities.

Kimball also noted that McCain was a millionaire because of his wife's interests in the beer distributorship owned by her father. Kimball wasn't shy about airing the Hensley family laundry.

<h3>He had dug up old newspaper clips that showed Jim Hensley had been an underling to well-known power broker Kemper Marley Sr., a rich rancher and wholesale liquor baron with suspected links to the 1976 car-bomb murder of Arizona Republic reporter Don Bolles.
</h3>
After World War II (Hensley was a bombardier on a B-17 that was shot down over the English Channel), Hensley and his brother Eugene went to work at Marley-owned liquor distributorships in Phoenix and Tucson.

In 1948, the Hensley brothers were convicted of falsifying records to conceal, government lawyers contended, the illegal distribution of hundreds of cases of liquor. The sales occurred from 1945 to 1947, postwar years when liquor was rationed and in short supply.

Eugene Hensley was sentenced to a year in federal prison. Jim Hensley got six months, but his sentence was suspended. He received probation.

<h3>In 1953, Jim Hensley was again charged with falsifying records at Marley's liquor firms. The companies were defended by William Rehnquist, who would go on to become chief justice of the Supreme Court. Hensley was found not guilty.....</h3>

Ooops....sorry, wrong forum......

[Hain]

Host, posts like that are precisely why I rarely, if ever, venture into the deep end of the politics board, especially after you've posted in it.

Could you maybe... summarize stuff... or highlight key parts for those of us with learning disabilities or are engineers?

[host]

Originally Posted by Augi

Host, posts like that are precisely why I rarely, if ever, venture into the deep end of the politics board, especially after you've posted in it.

Could you maybe... summarize stuff... or highlight key parts for those of us with learning disabilities or are engineers?

I'll sum it up...I've done the "leg work", and I'm providing you with a chunk of interesting "stuff", if you have an interest in politics, that you probably haven't seen before, and would probably not come across.....

There is more proof about John McCain's problem here, for instance:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...7&postcount=41

...and as far as I've been able to confirm, it is available nowhere else online. It's about having the curiousity to read, and if you don't have it, how much effort would you really put into a post to respond to it, no matter how much I condensed the information or explained it?

It's harder to post something of substance or rich in content than it is to read a post with a 50,000 character limit.

There already is a general discussion thread, and every "shooting du jour" ends up with it's own thread, there. If you don't want to read what I post, don't read 'em, but don't try to reign me in based on your own tolerance for reading or level of curiousity.

[Hain]

It isn't that I am railing you personally, I just have a problem with reading in general. I do not process written information that I am not acquainted with well at all. If someone were to read this out loud to me, I would probably be able to understand and take something away from it. Just shooting the breeze on TFP is easy since it is a different form of information processing.

If there were bold elements that drew my attention, akin to one changing the tone of one's voice, I am directed to that point as important, and follow each successive point as support.

I have the curiosity to read, and really want to know what the hell goes on the politics board. I just read all those articles... and I honestly couldn't for the life of me tell you what you were going for.

[tecoyah]

For me at least, the style you post in Host, is a put off. I have never actually made it all the way through one of your posts, primarily because Its not worth the effort to me. If you truly wish to reach people I would highly recommend a summary, followed by hidden links within the body of the post. I actually avoid my scroll button, and go straight to the bar grab and drag due to the length of what you post....its a bit on the overkill side of things.

[Aladdin Sane]

I recently started a thread in politics (http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=131626). It was my first venture into that area in a while. I wanted to see if it has changed. It hasn't. The personal insults began in the second post. By the seventh post the OP was completely forgotten. Five and one-half hours after the OP, my original question was so buried in the hubris it could only be dredged up by the keenest of posters. The argument was now over the definition of "socialism," and someone even posted a chart showing the political spectrum, none of this even vaguely related to my OP. Vanity, Vanity, All is Vanity!

[silent_jay]

Let's see, Tilted Politics, you have certain posters who are the cut and paste champions of the internet, tons of articles, lots of times same information, and after the 'Why Canadians Tip Less' thread I don't trust his links at all, he uses 'Yahoo Answers' links and links to other forums and tries to pass them off as fact, I reckon this person should try having an original thought rather than posting 10 articles and making people scroll through for 5 minutes. Then we have another regular poster, the resident politics board troll, if he sees a thread he disagrees with he'll do his best to take it off topic or be as sneaky as he can with his insults.

So yeah politics for me is a place to laugh at peoples posts and laugh at how serious some people take themselves.

Originally Posted by host

but don't try to reign me in based on your own tolerance for reading or level of curiousity.

No one is trying to reign you in, people are trying to tell you how to get your point across to us better, but hey if you don't want to listen and like having your posts ignored, please continue in the same way.

[roachboy]

there's no way to win the "look at the self-serious little people" game, sj, since as soon as you make a move, you're in the same game yourself.
the resulting loop is tedious: predictable in all its variants.

my move would be to laugh at you.
then you could post something laughing at me.

blah blah blah.

make a more interesting game.

[ratbastid]

Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane

The personal insults began in the second post.

Pardon me? I wrote the second post in that thread. I'd love to see how "Vote for the empty-suit Obama. Although I probably shouldn't be answering the question, since I'm not a conservative." could be construed as a personal insult. If you somehow managed to take offense at that, I apologize. I mostly meant it as a joke. I intended it to be somewhat self-effacing in tone.

[Hain]

@ Aladdin Sane:
Your thread was clearly egging on some mudslinging and not a fair debate. You could have easily reworded the OP. Had you left out the name calling and made yourself seem the slightest bit more scrupulous, that thread could most certainly have gone on to accomplish more for what you wanted than it currently has.

Personally: You should have just titled the thread, "Conservatives Only. No Liberals Allowed!" For the effect I imagine, however, it would have to look like a sign handwritten in crayon, with the R's and S's reversed. I absolutely agree with SecretMethod, his 3rd post.

[Aladdin Sane]

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Pardon me? I wrote the second post in that thread. I'd love to see how "Vote for the empty-suit Obama. Although I probably shouldn't be answering the question, since I'm not a conservative." could be construed as a personal insult. If you somehow managed to take offense at that, I apologize. I mostly meant it as a joke. I intended it to be somewhat self-effacing in tone.

ratbastid, I meant the second post after the OP. I was not referring to you.

Originally Posted by Augi

@ Aladdin Sane:
Your thread was clearly egging on some mudslinging and not a fair debate. You could have easily reworded the OP. Had you left out the name calling and made yourself seem the slightest bit more scrupulous, that thread could most certainly have gone on to accomplish more for what you wanted than it currently has.

Personally: You should have just titled the thread, "Conservatives Only. No Liberals Allowed!" For the effect I imagine, however, it would have to look like a sign handwritten in crayon, with the R's and S's reversed. I absolutely agree with SecretMethod, his 3rd post.

Here we go again. My post was not clearly intended to do anything but get a response from conservatives.
Your response here is indicative of the problem.

[silent_jay]

Originally Posted by roachboy

make a more interesting game.

very true roahboy, we do need a more interesting game in the politics forum.

[dc_dux]

The value of the politics board to TFP is evident by the fact that it generates the fourth greatest number of posts (120,000+) among all the boards. I think many of the political posters, including me, would not otherwise be here.

But then again, it doesnt come close to the number one board...the titty board.

I guess most TFPers prefer one set of boobs over another.

[The_Jazz]

Originally Posted by roachboy

there's no way to win the "look at the self-serious little people" game, sj, since as soon as you make a move, you're in the same game yourself.
the resulting loop is tedious: predictable in all its variants.

my move would be to laugh at you.
then you could post something laughing at me.

blah blah blah.

make a more interesting game.

RB and I have had this conversation many times. He's right. Politics is stale. The most heated discussions tend to focus around host's stylistic approach. The rest is ... filler?

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

RB and I have had this conversation many times. He's right. Politics is stale. The most heated discussions tend to focus around host's stylistic approach. The rest is ... filler?

Hey....I'm not a filler. I'm all beef and answer to a higher authority!

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by host

If John mcCain is smart enough to be president, shouldn't he have had some curiousity about his new wife's father, James Hensley's background, that Hensley was "mobbed up", and so was his money and the money that McCain has ended up with? When did the money become "clean"?

Below are investigative reporter, Don Bolles' last words, spoken after a car bomb shattered his body in a Phoenix, AZ parking lot in 1976.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Bolles#Death">"They finally got me. The Mafia. Emprise. Find John (Harvey Adamson)."</a>











Ooops....sorry, wrong forum......

Your post made me think of this image.



Excellent self parody.

[Hain]

Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane

Here we go again. My post was not clearly intended to do anything but get a response from conservatives.
Your response here is indicative of the problem.

The problem, whether you accept it or not, is that your OP lacked tact. You asked a question in free forum where both sides can read and respond. Yes, I was on the side that was offended by your OP.

However, I have had conversations like this before, only was not pissed off, because the question put forth was asked sensibly, without superfluous opinions.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

RB and I have had this conversation many times. He's right. Politics is stale. The most heated discussions tend to focus around host's stylistic approach. The rest is ... filler?

Replace stylistic approach with manic obsession and I'd agree.

[silent_jay]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Replace stylistic approach with manic obsession and I'd agree.

Much like your trolling is manic obsessive?

[Hain]

I always found Ustwo's "trolling" funny. Sometimes unwanted and unnecessary, but otherwise, funny.

If he just had his real opinion in some hide tags, then he would be in business. First, I, and others, can get upset at the one liners, then read all the rest of whatever he has to say sucks about liberals, antifluoridontists... and I got nothing else.

[silent_jay]

I find it annoying, and the only reason he does it is to get a thread he doesn't agree with, or has no interest in off track, then funny thing is, he complains when other people troll his threads, or his posts.

Maybe if he'd put the sarcasm and trolling in hide tags and leave his opinion in the thread people wouldn't think he's a troll but someone who actually has an opinion other than 'Democrats are Socialists', 'Canada's health care is terrible'.

[pan6467]

I don't see why in a political forum a person cannot ask others of his spectrum a question without having people from a differing viewpoint jump on him.

Alladin just asked a question, he even stated it was for Conservatives, he wanted some insight to a problem. Why not show him respect and allow his question to be answered by his peers (those of the same spectrum)? Why must others jump in degrade, jump to conclusions, and turn his OP into something it was never meant to be.

I don't agree with the premise, voting Democrat and "pulling the lever for the person most likely to be defeatable in Nov." but that is his choice. It's a legitimate question and something that happens frequently in politics so it is nothing new. So why not allow Conservatives to answer his question and leave it alone?

If I posed a question for Dems to answer why should I be bombarded with GOP responses and attacks?

Part of a good forum is to allow others their points of view and respecting them, you don't have to agree, but we should at least honor their words. Some of the answers there seemed to have no purpose than to creat animosity and a fight.

Ratbastid answered with a quick self effacing joke, and left it alone afterward.(Edit: Rat's response was pretty respectable and funny).. Others chose to really instigate a fight. Why? Because you didn't like his question so you had to blow it out of the water with attacks and ways to change the OP's subject? That's just ego there and taking away a legitimate question and a man's right to openly express himself.

Ahhh but there's the rub, some will argue that he shouldn't have posted in a public forum. Why? this is supposedly a community of friends and family, why should he not be able to ask his question unprovoked or harassed?

Some would argue that he was allowed to express himself but he did it publicly so they can express themselves by attacking, changing the subject etc. Again, I ask why? And I also would argue that you are not truly allowing the man to express himself freely by attacking his legitimate question. All you show is that if a person expresses an opinion, question or statement, contrary to your beliefs you will attack them, change the topic or belittle the expression.

But why? Are you so insecure in your beliefs that you have to attack others beliefs?

I didn't know having political viewpoints, asking questions and trying to learn how others see things was a game. I thought the politics forum was there so that people could express political views freely and have debate, discussion and maybe learn/teach from each other. So that is where I was all fucked up..... it's a game, thus nothing there is to be serious and noone is to truly share, discuss,,debate or learn from each other. We are to go in and act like 3 year olds demanding attention to ourselves and only ourselves.

It's a fucking game you say? Well, why don't you go to Yahoo or Pogo and play your games and let's see what happens when adults, with ideas, questions and wanting to learn and express their political ideas are free to, without you playing "your little game". Maybe the Politics board may see an increase in intelligent posts, new ideas and threads and not just the same people saying "look at me, look who I can attack in new and differing ways".

In the end political and speech freedoms are not just the freedom to say them but knowing you are not going to be attacked into silence by 3 year olds playing "games".

Edited: reason..... upon reading I added the ( ) to follow Ratbastid, it gets across what I am trying to say in that paragraph better.

[Hain]

Originally Posted by silent_jay

I find it annoying, and the only reason he does it is to get a thread he doesn't agree with, or has no interest in off track, then funny thing is, he complains when other people troll his threads, or his posts.

See I didn't know that. Once I step my good foot forward into the politics sandbox, maybe I'll learn that for myself.

...

Or find the heroine needle lying in the sand.

[silent_jay]

Originally Posted by Augi

See I didn't know that. Once I step my good foot forward into the politics sandbox, maybe I'll learn that for myself.

I wouldn't step into that sandbox if I were you, it's a good place to lurk, but posting is another story.

[Aladdin Sane]

Originally Posted by Augi

The problem, whether you accept it or not, is that your OP lacked tact. You asked a question in free forum where both sides can read and respond. Yes, I was on the side that was offended by your OP.

However, I have had conversations like this before, only was not pissed off, because the question put forth was asked sensibly, without superfluous opinions.

The problem, Augi, whether you accept it or not, is that your post lacked tact. You responded to a question in a post that was for conservatives. Yes, I was on the side that was offended by your response.

However, Augi, I have had conversations like this before, only was not pissed off, because the question was answered by those invited, without superfluous opinions.

And since I, Aladdin Sane, am the arbiter of sensibility, morality, and good taste, I declare you to be empty-handed. My judgment is final.

[silent_jay]

Why not put at the top of the first post FOR CONSERVATIVES ONLY, you were never specific in who could respond to the OP, only the title said it was a question for conservatives, nothing about non conservatives being allowed to post.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by Augi

However, I have had conversations like this before, only was not pissed off, because the question put forth was asked sensibly, without superfluous opinions.

Sometimes some people ask a question the wrong way, but his opinion and the OP are just that, his opinion and question. So why not just let Conservatives answer like he wants, ignore the OP if it doesn't pertain to you and the thread will eventually die because the question got answered, opinions between parties shared and nothing more to say.

But by attacking it you draw attention to it and then it becomes a mess of disrespect, immaturity and shows those who may themselves want to attempt to ask questions what happens if others find their opinions or writing style less than or superfluous or just not worthy for whatever reason.

Allow people the right to express themselves without trying to intimidate them from doing so or running them out of the Politics Board.