You are unbelievable and should spend more time jousting with your ilk on the many political boards which specialized in that sort of discussion.
I have used more than one alias on this board over the five years I've been posting. Perhaps I made previous complaints regarding this board being politicized using a different handle. The fact that you spent the time searching that, looking for some little political angle, rather than reading what I actually said, is typical of how this board has been degraded by the partisan bickering that has taken it over.
And to Sully, or whomever asked the question, the "on-topic" threads are affected because after the 8 or 10 of you are done posting five or six times each on your political threads, repeating the same old points week after week, the other threads are quickly pushed to oblivion on page 2.
And just so you can know who to hate- after all, isn't that what this is about isn't it? Whose with ya, and whose ag'in ya? I posted below as Cogito Ergo DATY. I spent a long time writing that post, which was in response to an interesting and good question. Few people will read it because the daily posting of political articles, which BTW can be read on any one of dozens of news sources, will quickly consume half the board as the same group of people indulge their egos debating the days news.
This is not what TER is about. Go to CNN.com if you want to read the news, or to some political board if you want to have daily political discussions. And I don't give a fuck if you're a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Green.
An interesting fact, that certainly supports Richard Clarke's claim that Al Qaida was not viewed as a significant threat to the U.S. Prior to 9/11:
It turns out that NO senior member of the Bush Administration EVER mentioned the word "Al Qaida" in ANY public statement that was spoken or published, from the time that they took office until the Terror attacks of 9/11. NOT ONE SINGLE UTTERANCE of the word in public. Not by Bush, Not by Cheney, Not by Rumsfeld, Not by Powell, Not by Rice, Not by Ashcroft, Not by Wolfowitz, not by Ari Fleischer. Not by ONE single person who was chartered with speaking for the administration. Not in any speech, Not in any TV interview, not in any press release, NOTHING, NADA, NEVER.
So tell me how can anyone with a straight face make the claim that fighting Al Qaida was "THE HIGHEST SINGLE PRIORITY" of the Bush Administration prior to 9/11. It just cannot be, if NOBODY in the Administration EVER mentioned it in public, in the ENTIRE 8 months that Bush was in the White House prior to 9/11.
-- Modified on 3/25/2004 2:49:09 PM
This has really gone too far, it's off topic, and it's turned into the personal political playground of about a ten people.
Threads that are "on-topic" are quickly pushed off the board while this group shouts at each other with mulitple posts to the same thread.
GND, why are you allowing the boards to be hijacked in this manner? This isn't about free speech- there are plenty of boards dedicated to political discussion- this is about keeping TER available for those who still wish to use it for the purpose to which it claims to be dedicated. The few people who insist on posting daily threads about politics refuse to utilize other available boards dedicated to that purpose. Rather, they seem intent on stealing this one from those of us who have no other alternative for the hobby other than TER.
I have about a dozen TER friends who have simply quit using TER, and also quit posting because of the way this board has been allowed to be taken over. Most of these people have been around TER for 4-5 years and have finally quit out of frustration.
If a separate political board on TER is possible, then maybe that would solve the problem. But in the meantime, I'd like this board returned to its original purpose.
-- Modified on 3/25/2004 2:33:38 PM
Is it because YOU have a partisan agenda as well? These complaints would be ALOT more credible if they were made in response to posts on BOTH sides of this issue. But an interesting observation is that they are ONLY coming when someone advocates the Democratic/Moderate/Anti-Bush side of the discussion. Why is it that the Pro-Bush/Pro-War/Right-Wing faction only wants to silence the debate when opposition emerges?
That being said, I DO recognize that there is some underlying validity to your complaint about these political threads crowding out other subjects from the board, and not actually changing anyone's mind (especially minds so small and inflexible as the likes of Bribite). So, I'll make you an offer: This thread will be the LAST political thread that I personally will initiate. I will not have any qualms about aggressively responding to other people's opposing views, but I will no longer initiate any of these threads myself (this is actually only the 3rd or 4th such political thread that I've started. So, if you don't want to see any of MY political posts on the board, all you need to do is make sure that I don't have to see any political posts from the OPPOSING view get started. I will only post rebuttals from now on. That means no posts with gratuitous digs at Kerry, or any opponent of the Bush administration, or any other posts with a political agenda. I am content to end the debate. But I will not be silenced while people post the opposing positions. Fair enough?
Sorry, but they have ALWAYS come after someone posts an Anti-Bush message.
-- Modified on 3/25/2004 2:54:27 PM
Boring.
{For what it is worth, I despise both of the major parties. Remember the joke about how to tell if a politician is lying? Appropo for this campaign.}
You are unbelievable and should spend more time jousting with your ilk on the many political boards which specialized in that sort of discussion.
I have used more than one alias on this board over the five years I've been posting. Perhaps I made previous complaints regarding this board being politicized using a different handle. The fact that you spent the time searching that, looking for some little political angle, rather than reading what I actually said, is typical of how this board has been degraded by the partisan bickering that has taken it over.
And to Sully, or whomever asked the question, the "on-topic" threads are affected because after the 8 or 10 of you are done posting five or six times each on your political threads, repeating the same old points week after week, the other threads are quickly pushed to oblivion on page 2.
And just so you can know who to hate- after all, isn't that what this is about isn't it? Whose with ya, and whose ag'in ya? I posted below as Cogito Ergo DATY. I spent a long time writing that post, which was in response to an interesting and good question. Few people will read it because the daily posting of political articles, which BTW can be read on any one of dozens of news sources, will quickly consume half the board as the same group of people indulge their egos debating the days news.
This is not what TER is about. Go to CNN.com if you want to read the news, or to some political board if you want to have daily political discussions. And I don't give a fuck if you're a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Green.
and it was a VERY simple point: EVERY one of these "please stop the political debate" posts has come in response to an Anti-Bush post. EVERY one of them. Not JUST yours, but certainly ALL of yours are included in this. All I asked is for you to show me otherwise. I can only conclude that your inability to do so is prima facie evidence that my point is correct.
I fully got YOUR point. But I have to re-itterate, it would hold ALOT more water if your complaints were not so completely partisan themselves. Just show me ONE example of a post you made under ANY handle, where you asked one of my conservative nemeses on this board to stop posting on political topics. But you have completely ignored several opportunities to do so. Why is that? Is it because YOU TOO have a political agenda? If not, please simply show me one single example of where I am wrong about this.
And, As I said, I will no longer INITIATE these political threads, but I certainly WILL respond to others who initiate them. That should be all you could desire, because if the folks on the OTHER side of the debate manage to hold THEIR opinions to themselves, then you'll not see any more of mine. What more could you reasonably ask out of me?
And, yes, I am very focused on these political issues, because they are FAR more important than the general musings on the interactions of escorts and clients. And as for the SPECIFIC interactions of escorts and clients, that is what ALL the other BBs in this venue are for. This one is for general discussion, and this is the single most important general discussion topic that there is - even if only viewed in the context of our little hobby. There is a REASON that I post these political views on this forum. It's because getting Bush and Ashcroft and their cohorts out of office has a direct impact on my hobbying. It makes a difference as to how we as Americans are received around the world, and it makes a difference as to the attitudes of local communities toward what we do.
I certainly DO post my political views on other forums as well. But on none of those forums can I deal with the issue as it relates to BOTH life in general AND as it relates to seeing escorts, both domestically and internationally. Also, none of the OTHER forums have an audience with a built in willingness to ignore authority as this one does. So it is a fundamentally different environment than the other forums in which political discourse occurs.
And finally, I don't HATE you. In fact, I've found some of your posts to be exceptionally insightful under Cogito Ergo DATY. I will admit that I HATE Bribite, and I HATE John Ashcroft, and I HATE Paul Wolfowitz, because they are fundamentally dangerous to everything I deeply believe in. Among which, I consider the Constitional protection from Religious Tyranny and the right to freedom of expression to be first and foremost among all else. I WOULDN'T HATE George W. Bush either, if he had not been thrown into a position so clearly above his personal mettle that it represents a severe danger to our nation. If he were just another Texas good ole-boy rancher, I could even find him an affable chap. But his simplicity has made him a dupe for people like Wolfowitz and Ashcroft, and his lack of gravitas has made my life less safe, and CERTAINLY, it has diminished the likelihood that I can go on living my life as I see fit. And Bush has done this on false pretenses. If he were truly doing it to make my life safer from Al Qaida, I could respect it. But there is NOTHING that indicates this to be the case.
-- Modified on 3/25/2004 5:00:27 PM
Geez dude, may I recommend a tumbler of scotch or a bowl of good weed. Do you really think any of these political hacks have that much influence? They are all about selling fear, and you're buying the line completely.
As mentioned above, I despise all of them, and if we ever get to the point of McCarthyism (yes, I remember those days) or the tyranny of the Soviet Union, I will be out there, but these hacks are just trying to dip their hands in your pocket for the one currency that they treasure above all others -- $$$$. And none of them will give you a BBBJ for your donation!
I usually read the first few posts of the political threads. Often the different sides will bring up pertinent ideas that are interesting to contemplate. Sometimes mild, lighthearted joking is amusing to read as well.
But lately it seems both sides get carried away in screaming matches. I really dislike fanatics (religious, political, whatever) who feel they know what is best for me.
So, yes, it will be nice to lighten up when the political extremists get off this particular board.
I voted for Dole over Clinton in '96, and I certainly would have voted for McCain had he beaten Bush in the primaries in 2000.
To me, the most important traits of a President are Character, Intellect, and Integrity. So it should be obvious why I think Bush is such an unmitigated disaster, as he is so seriously lacking in all 3 of these traits.
I agree, that I've gotten dragged into polemics by Bribite, and I really should never have stooped to his level in the discussions. It really IS a shame that the debate has gotten so polarized in this country that pretty much any discussion takes on the appearance of being about extremes.
Actually, I don't fear our enemies from outside the country. If we are properly motivated, Al Qaida is no threat to us. What I DO fear is John Ashcroft making public policy - There is very little to distinguish him from Joseph McCarthy, except that McCarthy is in the past, and Ashcroft is in the present.
Whoa-
How are on-topic threads either effected or affected by political threads? I think its like a store- there are apples and oranges. You can buy both or either or neither.
Does a few people discussing weighty matters however ad nauseum really change how the others discuss the bbbbj, cg rcg, or spiralling hobby costs? Not much, really. Plenty of room for both. Kernels of useful info in both.
No harm = no foul
If you can make a real case and not just expose your distaste for one versus the other, I'm all ears. Cuz I like this board too. So far you have not, or at least not well.
You can always not read a thread or two or be selective of which posters you read. I need more explanation of where the harm is...
Sully
can go either way... on this question...
-- Modified on 3/25/2004 2:59:02 PM
generally speaking , this is a general discussion board,so generally speaking ,in the use of the word "general", in this context generally covers generally everything....if they start a political board thatd be great ...in the meantime your talking about censorship...who decideds whats covered in "general"..you?..me? ....theres other posts on subjects i dont care for....but unlike some , with my computer i can skip over them , it trully isnt as hard as it seems ! when you buy a newspaper do you read it front to back?
i do like the idea of a political board , but untill it happens , learn to skip , its not a hard concept
I think that generally sums up the general sityation, generally speaking.
Of course if people want to go there, Ill start threads on Generals.
General Hooker come immediately to mind. Or should I call him General Provider in the new PC era? He was incompetant both poliotically and militarily, but knew his way around commercial sex...
i wish i'd thought of it myself but TER beat me to it!
folks, it's called reading the board in "Over View" mode (as opposed to "Detail View" - the default setting)
after you're done reading this message and click on the "Back to Forum" button on the lower left of your browser window, look down again and find the button which says "Over View" ... click on it, you'll be glad you did!
*
i highly doubt if i'm the only one here who uses it ... it cuts down on the clutter and the "uninteresting" or "non-topical" discussions ... at least as long as people don't get cute and/or obtuse with cryptic subject lines when starting a new thread
Thank you. I had not discovered this until your suggestion, but I most certainly will make use of it for at least a few months.
BTW does anyone else want to say
"Shana you ignorant slut" when I see the counterpoint ID? No diss to him, but the old SNL skits of the same name were funny shit...
Actually, it was
Jane, you Ignorant slut!
Dan Akroyd uttering the immortal lines to Jane Curtin.
Right this is too much free speech. Anyone with any sense doesn't want to see this subject matter. Some may say "well you don't have to read it". I say those people hate America and The Flag! I'm a real American and I want to get my way.
which is not far below this. Let's be considerate here.
want to get together and read the latest issue of American Prospect? *smile* Sigh...if only your alias didn't remind me of STD's each time I view it.
But I always drink my Champers in the tub right VR01?
with you... that is...lol...in the tub
I seem to recall a more softer, squarer structure.
Its funny, but I avoid the political posting threads like the plague but happened to see your ID and a tub and sud subject...lol...so I clicked on it...
I never expected to read about Champers with the suds...
I was thinking Black and tan...lol..but Champers works for me too..
Cheers!