lostfan Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 30, 2011 -> 05:20 PM) GOP Sen. Rand Paul Urges Cutting Aid to Israel http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/28/...5.shtml?tag=dis Yeah, I see where he's going with this, never happening though. I don't care if Dennis Kucinich was elected president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 30, 2011 -> 08:08 PM) Yeah, I see where he's going with this, never happening though. I don't care if Dennis Kucinich was elected president. I wonder if at some point it isn't actually going to happen, just because it's the real leverage the U.S. has over them. Until the U.S. uses that leverage, Israel will assume they have a free hand, just like they've been doing the last few years. You know what might do it? Not having to face the electorate again and wanting Middle East Peace to be one's legacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 30, 2011 -> 07:49 PM) I wonder if at some point it isn't actually going to happen, just because it's the real leverage the U.S. has over them. Until the U.S. uses that leverage, Israel will assume they have a free hand, just like they've been doing the last few years. You know what might do it? Not having to face the electorate again and wanting Middle East Peace to be one's legacy. That worked for Billy and George W., didn't it? \ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 30, 2011 -> 08:56 PM) That worked for Billy and George W., didn't it? \ Did either of them actually cut off aid to Israel? Clinton was still trying to bribe Arafat into taking a deal that Arafat turned down, and he'd have had it work if Arafat had wanted to. Hell, as Bush went out, Israel decided to level Gaza completely and try to kill everyone there before Obama got the chance to get in. Either they were trying to show Obama who the real boss was or they were a little concerned he might not let them do it so they got it done before he had power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 30, 2011 -> 07:58 PM) Did either of them actually cut off aid to Israel? Clinton was still trying to bribe Arafat into taking a deal that Arafat turned down, and he'd have had it work if Arafat had wanted to. Hell, as Bush went out, Israel decided to level Gaza completely and try to kill everyone there before Obama got the chance to get in. Either they were trying to show Obama who the real boss was or they were a little concerned he might not let them do it so they got it done before he had power. I guess Barackus the Great might have the balls to do it... yea... I wonder why...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 30, 2011 -> 09:03 PM) I guess Barackus the Great might have the balls to do it... yea... I wonder why...? I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 30, 2011 -> 03:50 PM) But they didn't, that's an important point. I'm having flashbacks to the "ZOMG! Obama spending 200 TRillion a day in India!" crap/ Well, the possibility of a slow-down among NY street cleaners is pretty plausible, even if it turns out not to be true. The idea that the President was spending $200M a day in India for travel was unbelievable on its face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 30, 2011 -> 04:02 PM) No I propose we keep driving people off with the pretty much one way hyperpartisianship. On the bolded, no way. On the hyperpartisanship, absolutely. Its just not coming from only one side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 09:19 AM) Well, the possibility of a slow-down among NY street cleaners is pretty plausible, even if it turns out not to be true. The idea that the President was spending $200M a day in India for travel was unbelievable on its face. Honestly, I was willing to believe both. Still would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 08:24 AM) Honestly, I was willing to believe both. Still would be. I'm sorry but that $200M per day number was entirely absurd. But I won't go into that any further, its already been talked to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 30, 2011 -> 03:58 PM) Ok? You're right, there are a lot more counter-points posted in this thread. What do you propose happens, though? No refutations allowed? I do, but that's just me. If there's a topic you want to debate...start a thread and debate. But leave Repub thread for Repubs and a Dem thread for Dems. I believe that was the original intent and it got all jacked up during the pres election. Everybody would be a lot happier...except of course for the people who just can't read a thought without hitting reply. May of 2008 and really you can go back to when the threads were first created. http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...t&p=1640151 http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...t&p=1642378 Edited January 31, 2011 by Controlled Chaos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 10:00 AM) I do, but that's just me. If there's a topic you want to debate...start a thread and debate. But leave Repub thread for Repubs and a Dem thread for Dems. I believe that was the original intent and it got all jacked up during the pres election. Everybody would be a lot happier...except of course for the people who just can't read a thought without hitting reply. May of 2008 and really you can go back to when the threads were first created. http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...t&p=1640151 http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...t&p=1642378 So, problem with that... that means I can't really post in either forum. Or maybe that's a good thing for everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I don't see the benefit in allowing factually incorrect things to remain unchallenged. I'm not talking about detailed discussions or nuanced positions, but something like the example that started this discussion where we have a misinformed-at-best statement. If Balta hadn't posted that link looking into it a bit further, or we didn't have the multi-page marathon on the $200M/day thing, how many people that read those would assume they were true and factual, have the impact future judgments, or even used as evidence of the President over-spending in the future? On the other thread, what's the benefit of letting the accusation that Wikileaks somehow harmed Ugandan democracy stand? If there's clear, undeniable evidence that a claim or statement is incorrect or a lie, it should be posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 It's a valid point though, these party threads were not intended to be the place to have multi-page arguments about obviously biased articles. The occasional "that's factually untrue and here's the proof," ok, but not knock-down drag-out arguments, that's what the rest of the forum is for. (it doesn't just happen in this thread btw, you guys are basically just talking about Balta anyway) I end up posting in this thread a lot because a) I'm a mod and B) I just post a lot in general, but you usually won't see me doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 05:56 PM) It's a valid point though, these party threads were not intended to be the place to have multi-page arguments about obviously biased articles. The occasional "that's factually untrue and here's the proof," ok, but not knock-down drag-out arguments, that's what the rest of the forum is for. (it doesn't just happen in this thread btw, you guys are basically just talking about Balta anyway) I end up posting in this thread a lot because a) I'm a mod and B) I just post a lot in general, but you usually won't see me doing that. This I would agree with, but I'd add that I think mods should split discussions that start to become more detailed out into their own threads more frequently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 06:41 PM) This I would agree with, but I'd add that I think mods should split discussions that start to become more detailed out into their own threads more frequently. Lazy mods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I'd do that, but I can't get on Soxtalk at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 IMO there's 10-15 liberal posters that post regularly and probably 4-5 conservatives, which includes moderates. So nearly ANY discussion in this thread (and others) turns into a liberal circle jerk, especially when the issue is controversial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 08:29 AM) IMO there's 10-15 liberal posters that post regularly and probably 4-5 conservatives, which includes moderates. So nearly ANY discussion in this thread (and others) turns into a liberal circle jerk, especially when the issue is controversial. I think that's a bit of an exaggeration, I can't even think of 10-15 liberal posters who post with any regularity in the Buster. I can think of Balta, BigSqwert, StrangeSox, bmags and to lesser extents Rex, AHB, Soxbadger and jasonxcteruhueig. I can't even think of any other regular liberal posters, let alone ones in here. GOP regulars would be you, SS, kap, and to lesser extents CC, Y2HH, cknolls and mr genius. I'd consider lf, iamshack and myself moderates. Who am I missing that you consider regular posters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 tex? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 08:47 AM) tex? Tex has his own party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Soxy? Maybe 10-15 was a bit high...I dunno it just seems like every debate ends up being 1-2 conservatives arguing one point and 4-5 liberals arguing the opposite. At some point there's not much of a debate, but a pile on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 08:48 AM) Tex has his own party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 08:45 AM) I think that's a bit of an exaggeration, I can't even think of 10-15 liberal posters who post with any regularity in the Buster. I can think of Balta, BigSqwert, StrangeSox, bmags and to lesser extents Rex, AHB, Soxbadger and jasonxcteruhueig. I can't even think of any other regular liberal posters, let alone ones in here. GOP regulars would be you, SS, kap, and to lesser extents CC, Y2HH, cknolls and mr genius. I'd consider lf, iamshack and myself moderates. Who am I missing that you consider regular posters? Do that little thing SS2k5 just did where it tracks who posts where? Probably see more names pop up that we're forgetting. I would love to see that as well, just to see all the people that have given up posting anymore. Edited February 1, 2011 by Controlled Chaos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 09:30 AM) Do that little thing SS2k5 just did where it tracks who posts where? Probably see more names pop up that we're forgetting. I would love to see that as well, just to see all the people that have given up posting anymore. If you click the "replies" number for any thread, it'll tell you the number of times each person has posted in the thread. no mod powers needed. Works the same for most forum software. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts