Here's the difference between Archer's forum and this one. Here, the vast majority of posters will jump to totally erroneous conclusions, like KK never heard of Gelpi (as you did oh so precipitously), or hasn't read Nabokov. There, the vast majority of posters will reach the correct conclusion that most unrequited lefties are moronic ignoramuses.
Amazing how "people I think are smart" looks a lot like "people whose views I agree with." The continual maligning of the monolithic left by the "independent centrists" makes it clear that they argue from an ideological position, despite protestations to the contrary. I fully admit that there are conservatives that are smarter than me. It doesn't even hurt that much. The difference between this forum and Archer's is that ideas here get challenged and refined, not applauded and reinforced.
The really fvcked up thing....... 4+??? more years of the Patriot ACT!!! ""Three of the most-debated measures would have to be reviewed again by Congress in four years, rather than the seven-year window originally favored by some House leaders.""""" <------- (House??) More freedom lost from these fvking crazy@ss mid-east religious dip$hits banging heads with the religious dip$hits in the west?? More free Beer is needed! ~worm~
There are plenty of smart conservatives, and there is much to learn from the conservative principles, such as fiscal discipline, self-reliance, decency standards in the media, respect for veterans, and much, much more. But we can absolutely ignore right-wingers, who do not follow conservative principles. Rather, they don't mind corporate welfare, they condone torture, they support corporate control of the media, and they totally hate veterans. (Reference to a right-winger Republican member of congress calling Murtha, in effect, a "coward.") Right wingers are complete turds and they need to be ignored, at least on soccer yack-fests. In real life, I assure you, I will not ignore them.
Democrats Test Themes for '06 and '08: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051211...yahxoWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM- The frontrunner: 'Community' Yes, really. BTW: John Edwards says he is that leader. John Edwards: But Edwards is not the only one talking like that: Tom Vilsack: Barak Obama: This harping on community is no coincidence. It seems that Party Chairman Howard Dean has commisioned confidencial polling and analysis that suggest candidates in 2006 and 2008 should frame their policies -and attacks on republicans- around the context of...guess what? Community. Community? My reaction is, are they really serious? Maybe I am not in touch with American sentiment but or maybe I'm not good at judging advertising slogans. -After all, I thought 'Always Coca Cola' was lame, but it didn't seem to keep people from buying that sugary inky stuff. - But as far as this community thing, I'm not buying it. There are plenty of real issues to discuss. If people want community, they can go live near their relatives or something. The good news for the Democrats is that if they don't win the elections, they will be able to get jobs selling the new giant communities that are so popular with housing developers this days. But if there is really 'a hunger for something big and important and inspirational that they can all be involved in', as John Edwards says, I have the solution. Americans should do what the rest of the nations of the world do. If you want to belong to the community of nations, and you crave to unite behind a common national goal, then never mind Edwards. You should start following the FIFA World Cup, and rally behind your National team.
I like Archer's forum as well. I don't know about that. They're not any less intelligent, for sure. It's more of an echo-chamber than a forum for debate, and Bill--who is otherwise very intelligent and well-informed--has an annoying habit of quoting Dennis Prager as if he is someone worth wasting time on. But it's his forum, and he's free to do what he wants. He certainly starts plenty of provocative threads, and allows others to do the same. As long as you're civil and avoid blatant stupidity, you're welcome to post as you please there. That shows integrity.
That's not true. I've been banned, and I've never posted anything like the stuff I commonly post here. Once, Anthony and I were having a nice discussion, and Bill kept interjecting how I should leave. In fact, my guess is that that's precisely WHY i've been banned. When I posted, it tended to be debunking of a premise for a thread, but I was always civil.
I did not know that; then again, I'm an infrequent reader on that forum. I do know that Archer has something against you, that's for damn sure. Sorry to hear that.
It's definitely true, Archer berates superdave whenever he makes a post there and tells him to leave. Why, I'm not sure. I'd guess it's over an ancient insult.
Reps have been successful at constantly repeating simple phrases and words. I happen to like "community," though I have no idea about its effectiveness.
No, it's over several ancient ass-whippings. Bill's style of argument values volume and passion over facts. He's flatly not man enough to come around here. That's one thing I'll say for Keller. He can sack up and have a discussion with people who don't agree with him. Archer can't. Just cannot. He will freak if you point out that the world isn't flat. He's got a sloppy, lazy intellect. I do think he's a very smart guy, he just doesn't use it. But his forum is alot of fun to lurk in, just cuz of the number of batshit insane posts there.
In my mind, it’s because Dave and Archer argue in the same way, i.e. “These are the facts, see I have a link, therefore if you don’t believe then you are either stupid or a liar.” Archer tends to go for the stupid accusation while Dave tends to go for the liar. Both are rude in my mind and their need to logically pin the other person down seems to spring from some sort of insecurity. A typical argument between the two would be along the lines of Iraq -> AQ ->9/11 where Archer would defend the sources for the connections between Iraq and AQ while Dave would counter with a lack of connection between Iraq and 9/11. Both would be right but their conclusion, the other person is stupid or a liar, would be wrong. I think they are both somehow afraid that independent minds would be forced to agree with the other if their side wasn’t heard. As if their style of arguing is so persuasive that, in the wrong hands, it is a tool for the evil of the other side. I also think it’s funny how they each think they are the leader of their own political cults, i.e. the elected preachers of their side. Both trying to stay half a step ahead of their parishioners in order to be provocative but not outside the pack. Last, they assert their leadership and keep their pack in line by barking in full voice whenever the other pack shows itself.