November 6,2012

[RuggedH2]

Alright... hey listen... I don't like Obama because I think he's got it all wrong... his politics don't line up with mine. Except for killing some of those terrorist ass-holes. I'm with him on that.

But guys... George Bush could not speak in public. He was inadvertently funny though.

[video=youtube;j76bLFbpuLQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j76bLFbpuLQ[/video]

 

[auggie mathis]

I cant wait till the year is up. I strongly disagree with the folks he hangs out with. And I still cant believe america put him into office.

 

[3Hummers]

George created the need for the mangled English version of Webster's, no doubt, but he was no dummy. Dan I have been involved in politics for a long time, belonged to a lot of organizations, been directly involved in several campaigns for federal office and was a founding member on numerous conservative political initiatives. I can say that politics can be an ugly business...and it is a business in many ways. Both parties are essentially the same except in outlook and goals. I happen to align with the more conservative thoughts on how this country should be run but the politics are very similar.

 

[M22KLARS]

Oh my comment wasn't aimed towards you Dave. It was aimed at the whole thread in general. So many people get butthurt so easily over politics. And that isn't aimed at anyone either.

 

[RuggedH2]

This is what makes discussion forums entertaining. If everyone always agrees, what's the point in discussing it?

Just so long as we don't get too many libs. There's no reasoning with libs. :giggle:

 

[twinmill28]

Wasn't going to jump in, but what the hell....
It'll be nice to have a president (maybe wishful thinking) in the House again that gives a **** about the welfare of the troops; not trying to smoke everything we have that makes our living just above the poverty line---commissaries, medical, pay and benefits etc. in the pursuit of solving an 11 trillion dollar budget deficit before his term is up.

 

[Kurt]

Good, that means you won't but into our comments.

NIce. :roll:

This is the reason a number of forums outright ban political discussion.. people tend to forget that they are part of a group that folks that have... dare I say .. an opposing opinion and you will get flare ups like this.

Like RonB said, both parties have their issues and for every video/post/joke you bring up to make fun of one guy, you can be guaranteed theres one just as bad or worse that can be brought up for the other guy. It results in an loop and distracts from the main issues.

I'd like to see a 3rd party, a moderate party take hold, but the system is rigged in the Democrats/Republicans favor. 2 choices isn't much of a choice.

 

[3Hummers]

Frequently our choices are the lesser of two bad choices. I would like to see a third party that had real staying power, or a conservative party that was truly conservative and didn't wander off the reservation like the Repubs did.

 

[f5moab]

"Please understand I just mean on this thread, and my comment is basically agreeing with your comment. Maybe it came across too harsh, and if so, I apologize.

Your input for all other threads is appreciated. So please don't take it as I meant on this forum, just on this thread."



Thanks for letting me know that perspectives different than your own are welcome in all other threads on this public forum. I will go back to the build threads where we all agree 100% and everything is black and white. I will patiently wait for someone to disagree with my choice of shocks so I can let them know they are not welcome in my thread.

I don't give a damn if your perspective is different than mine or not. You can make any political statements you want. Believe me, I debate Hussein and his tribe with people far more progressive than you ever week.

You were the one who stated "so I am not going to play this silly internet game and argue politics on a 4x4 forum." And I was the one who just wanted to define what I posted (Good, that means you won't but into our comments) just to make it clear I was talking about this thread.

My mistake was the apology! It won’t happen again. Your mistake was implying you were not going to post any further on this thread; when that was not true!

 

[RuggedH2]

NIce. :roll:

This is the reason a number of forums outright ban political discussion.. people tend to forget that they are part of a group that folks that have... dare I say .. an opposing opinion and you will get flare ups like this.

I post on several forums. Offroad, firearms, and motorcycle forums are some of my favorites... but I also like sports team forums and I follow several.

The problem with forums is they die when the discussion is dry and boring.

Where does the balance lie between the sensitive butthurt crybabies and interesting broad ranging discussion?

Obviously my favorite forums are much closer to free for all, have an opinion and an open mind and let others believe whatever they want, but state your case.

I have changed my opinions on many issues because someone swayed my viewpoint with a valid case or a good argument.

This place could use a little open dialog in my opinion. If we want to grow then we need to make the place an interesting place to read and discuss. I like this place and the people, and I like Hummers... but the place could use a little fire.

I did leave HXC due to all the liberals back in the day... but that was more because we had several other options for Hummer forums at the time... and in my opinion HXC was more boring than others available... and I thought the predominance of vocal libs ganged up on dissenting conservative opinions and made personal attacks instead of valid arguments, all while stroking each others junk. If I remember right, RonB was involved.

If I cared enough, I would have stuck around for the fight... but I didn't. I have on many other places though.

Oh and personal attacks can be fun too. If they are funny.

 

[RuggedH2]

Oh and I also forgot to mention...

I would really enjoy meeting Ron B (or anyone else whose opinions don't line up with mine) while wheeling together in Moab.

I have met many, many people from the forums in real life while wheelin' in Moab and have never had any bad feelings about anybody there. (Even though I probably pissed several of them off at one time or another online.)
It's always been a consistently good time with good people... and we still don't always agree about everything.


Well... except for one inconsiderate, selfish ass-hole, that everybody hated, but that's another story entirely.

Real life is much different than what we throw out on line. Hell half of what I do around here is button push and troll. Come on Ron, take the bait. :wink:

 

[alrock]

Well... except for one inconsiderate, selfish ass-hole, that everybody hated, but that's another story entirely.

Uh, excuse me, but I'm right here! :wink:

I think I've stated this before but I think the right approach for our forum is that it is appropriate to question people's ideas, statements, etc. but it is not appropriate to publicly attack the forum member. Take those arguments offline. I've got no problem with people saying my ideas are ****ing idiotic, but to call me the same may be in appropriate. That make sense and/or seem fair?

I've thought this is a pretty good thread so far. Well, at least the on topic stuff and until Rugged called me out.

 

[RuggedH2]

Uh, excuse me, but I'm right here! :wink:

I think I've stated this before but I think the right approach for our forum is that it is appropriate to question people's ideas, statements, etc. but it is not appropriate to publicly attack the forum member. Take those arguments offline. I've got no problem with people saying my ideas are ****ing idiotic, but to call me the same may be in appropriate. That make sense and/or seem fair?

I've thought this is a pretty good thread so far. Well, at least the on topic stuff and until Rugged called me out.

Dude, you're the admin... who gives a rat's ass what you think about anything? :mock:

As far as name calling goes... every situation is unique... sometimes I've deserved every name I've been called. Other people might not though.

Oh and Alex... your ideas are ****ing idiotic... and we talk about you behind your back in Moab.

 

[3Hummers]

Lmfao

 

[Kurt]

I don't give a damn if your perspective is different than mine or not. You can make any political statements you want. Believe me, I debate Hussein and his tribe with people far more progressive than you ever week.

The problem is not much of a debate if you are going around emphasizing "Hussein" and his blackness in a debate. Your position is pretty much established to the other party and you'll be dismissed as some redneck racist dude.

"WHAT? A BLACK MAN WHOS A MUSLIMMMMMMMMMMMM IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE??!??!"

"HOLY ****ING **** HIDE THE FRIED CHICKEN AND THE GUNS!!!!!"

etc.

So whats happened since Barry got in?

The economy still went to ****, no ones guns got taken away, 2 *******s on the international scene got taken out, and a really ****ing lame ass health care bill got passed... The Democrats had full control of all 3 levels of government and the United States didn't get turned into USSR 2.0...despite what sound of the far right mouthpieces was claiming was going to happen.

Barracks done anyways, no incumbent president has ever gotten re-elected with an approval rating of less than 49%... so the GOP will win next year, unless they pull a Kerry and put a really weak candidate vs Obama.

I think Romney will beat him, however I'd like to see Cain vs Obama for the comedy factor, the democrats always assume they got 100% of the black vote all the time and that base is a bit pissed off at Obama since "he's ignoring them".

Personally I've preferred the moderates. I really like Mc Cain, I wish he got the GOP nod in 2000 instead of GWB, Palin was just too much of a poison pill for a lot of moderates.

On that note, I think Mc Cains right on this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/08/us-washington-summit-mccain-idUSTRE7A77U820111108

He's got it right, the moderates carry the majority of the votes and as 3Hummers put it, you got to pick the lessor of two evils. No one wins in a 2 party system.

 

[alrock]

Oh and Alex... your ideas are ****ing idiotic... and we talk about you behind your back in Moab.

Dude, it's not been behind my back. It's worse when I'm standing right there but you ignore my like I'm invisible!

And you're right - every situation is unique. Fortunately we haven't had any "situations" here so far.

 

[RuggedH2]

Geez Kurt...

I think that sh!t probably made sense in your head... it just didn't quite make the jump to cyberspace in a cohesive legible way.

Maybe it's just me... but it came off a little sh!t house rat crazy bro. :whaa:

 

[3Hummers]

At this point I hope Romney is out next President. Perry blew his shot in the last debate, guilty or innocent Cain has been wounded by the allegations, Bachmann isn't electable nor is Huntsman. Ron Paul...just a distraction. I am a little more critical of both what Obama has and hasn't done than most. I am in the anybody but Barry crowd.

 

[deserth3]

At this point I hope Romney is out next President. Perry blew his shot in the last debate, guilty or innocent Cain has been wounded by the allegations, Bachmann isn't electable nor is Huntsman. Ron Paul...just a distraction. I am a little more critical of both what Obama has and hasn't done than most. I am in the anybody but Barry crowd.

I think that's a pretty fair assesment of the way things stand now.

Once the sexual harasment accusation fly there's alot of people who automaticaly think Cain is guilty. He's out of the race. Which is a shame. I think he may have done well.

As for Obama... IMO he's the worst president so far in my life time.

 

[Bigunit]

I already heard Cain say, "9-9-9 on 11-11-11'. :giggle:

 

[LagunaH1]

Geez Kurt...

I think that sh!t probably made sense in your head... it just didn't quite make the jump to cyberspace in a cohesive legible way.

Maybe it's just me... but it came off a little sh!t house rat crazy bro. :whaa:

I dunno, made sense to me...

 

[3Hummers]

People get pretty jazzed up about their politics. I know I do. My outlook has been shaped through the years by my own experiences, much like most people. Someone else's arguments to the contrary have little impact on me because my beliefs are self learned and earned. I simply cannot fathom the liberal mindset. It is as foreign to me as Mars. I suppose if my beliefs were based on Fox or CNN sound bites and what my neighbor told me I could be easily swayed but they aren't. For whatever reason I have had some limited success in convincing some wayward souls that their take on the world was backasswards but for the most part political debate is more about talking to hear your own head rattle moreso than convincing someone else that you are right and they are wrong. Whether their beliefs are as earned and deep seated as mine or they are just an ideologue with the same entrenched ideas as their father and grandfather arguing politics is generally an exercise in futility. Besides, you all know deep down that I am right anyway.

 

[RuggedH2]

I dunno, made sense to me...

Of course it did.

Like I said, crazy as a sh!t house rat.

 

[Bigunit]

The Clucking Theorem

This "debate" reminded me of something I had read.

It's great to have a set of beliefs and opinions about things but you also should parcel them out judiciously. The classic free-speech axiom is that the cure for bad speech is more speech. I read a new study that found that more speech often burdens us all. It may be an illness, not a cure.

Studying how communities waste resources in debates over backyard chicken laws, and often fail to reach an agreement, an Arizona Law professor and a law student explained the mechanism of failures in public debates that are associated with excessive speech. Professor Barak Orbach and Frances Sjoberg, now a judicial law clerk at the Arizona Supreme Court, have applied their model to broader national debates, such as those related to gun control, health-care reform, gay rights, and the federal budget.

The article, “Excessive Speech, Civility Norms, and the Clucking Theorem,” was published as a lead article in Connecticut Law Review this fall. “In August 2011, Standard & Poor’s downgraded the credit rating of the United States, citing the political brinkmanship in DC as a major cause,” said Orbach, “this act is controversial and may well be wrong, but it highlights the type of costs society pays for excessive debates that could be economized.”

Orbach and Sjoberg focused on backyard-chicken law-making because it provided an opportunity to examine how more than 100 communities debate the same topic. “National debates rarely repeat themselves and their topics vary,” said Sjoberg, “it is difficult to use them to identify the elements of excessive speech.” “The simplicity of backyard-chicken lawmaking helped us to understand the costly dynamics of public debates,” added Orbach.

We all pay for excessive speech for several reasons, Orbach and Sjoberg say. But they identified several profiles of individuals who tend to quibble in unproductive ways, make few or no compromises, and tax all of us to serve personal interests or for the hubris of their self-conviction (this part of the study actually was the most interesting and entertaining to me as it identified 5 categories of individuals who engage in clucking: losers, winners, status quo enforcers, political opportunists and human roosters). Orbach and Sjoberg call this tax - “clucking” - which are avoidable debates, controversies, disputes, litigation, and other argumentative processes. They are avoidable because economizing them would not sacrifice communication of substantive issues. “We pay for the excessive speech of some because of the time they consume,” said Orbach, “we have less time to deliver good changes, we make compromises, and we are willing to tolerate undesirable laws. The debate over the debt ceiling in the summer of 2011 illustrates these costs.”

The “costs” come also in the form of fractured communities and deteriorated civility norms (especially on internet forums :wink. Orbach and Sjoberg stressed that the history of national debates provides more evidence that some individuals – with more speech – strategically or even unconsciously undermine change or degrade change.

“Ultimately, our positions matter less than the ways in which we discuss them,” said Sjoberg. The authors emphasize that the government should not diminish free speech rights, but they do advocate strengthening procedural rules and emphasizing social norms of civility to reduce the level of excessive speech.


“Speech is powerful,” Sjoberg said, “it should be used responsibly.” :am7:

 

[3Hummers]

Luis, are you telling me to shut up?