Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Jun 9, 2004, 11:30 am

Yup, a leftist site.

Mia · Jun 9, 2004, 11:49 pm

Truth, just as many conservatives are invited here. They just don't last ;-)

dotcoma · Jun 10, 2004, 01:36 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Truth,
Yup, a leftist site.

Because?

**Pooeypants** · Jun 10, 2004, 01:47 pm

*cough* No more bantering here please.

dotcoma · Jun 10, 2004, 02:07 pm

Leave it alone. I want him to explain.

Mia · Jun 10, 2004, 02:16 pm

Yes, Pooey, this complaint keeps being lodged and needs back-up.

1) People in here accused of being leftist are miscategorized in many cases, and the accusation with all the implcations that go with it is very tiresome.

2) Sean works hard to make sure the site is balanced. As I said above, he invites as many "Truths" as "Mias". So the site itself is not "leftist"

These whining labels seem to come out when (*gasp*) someone's idea is challenged.

They either lack the knowledge and/or ability to prove themselves right, or don't care to bother. Either one means they have no business on a debate site.

If they would care to step up, I would love that. It's much more interesting to have other views argued well.

But "nanny-nanny-boo-boo-mommy-he's-touching-me-he's-a-leftist-you're-all-lefist-life-is-so-unfair" is GETTING ON MY NERVES! ;-)

I open what looks like an interesting topic and find this instead - pages of it.

dotcoma · Jun 10, 2004, 02:25 pm

Quote:

ANTI-RIGHT, leftist

Please explain for the gazillinth time....

tusaki · Jun 10, 2004, 02:34 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio,
This was a honor Ronald Reagan thread, but the ANTI-RIGHT, leftist have no class, and this thread collapesed. Balanced my arse.

I've looked through the thread and only RoxDog and PatrickHenry were really offensive. of the two, PatrickHenry was "reasonable" and said he wouldn't miss him and explained why. I agree that this could have been phrased differently. Poeeypants posted some information about his term as a president, which in my oppinion, together with the posts of PatrickHenry should be placed in another thread.

But balanced it is.

Good bye Mr. President: Mr. Viccio, dave654, sixmillman, Paavo, URnotmeRU, Mia, bishop, Dieval, Poetic_Justice, Truth, castille.

Look at the bad things: PatrickHenry, poeeypants, Gorgo, roxdog.

Undecided: Compugasm, Osborn F Enready.

The only conclusion I can take from this, is that in occasions where decorum is required, such as this, please start a seperate thread to discuss the shadow side of things.

**Pooeypants** · Jun 10, 2004, 02:51 pm

Continuing the discussion of this site's political allegiance. Keep it civil.

Sonart · Jun 10, 2004, 02:57 pm

What ever happened to the Poll Thread about where we all stood politically. As I recall, the lead catagory was 'Morderately Right'.

bishop · Jun 10, 2004, 03:06 pm

what does "moderately right" mean though?

you'll find people who support damn near everything bush does, from pre-emptive war (without justification), to unequivocal support for israel, to the patriot act, etc - who consider themselves "moderately right".

this is the most right-wing president that this country has seen in a damn long time. bush if FAR further to the right than reagan ever was.

Jun 10, 2004, 03:19 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mia,
Truth, just as many conservatives are invited here. They just don't last ;-)

No, they get tired of the "here no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" chant form their opposition.

bishop · Jun 10, 2004, 03:28 pm

gotta love the blanked statements.

dotcoma · Jun 10, 2004, 03:31 pm

Quote:

bush if FAR further to the right than reagan ever was.

Please explain. So far, not too many people on this site (it seems to me) can explain the difference between the two phony political parties. In my opinion, Bush is the biggest liberal EVER. I have explained this in depth many, many times. In my opinion (and based on Reagans OWN WORDS) Reagan at least THOUGHT he was more "conservative" than GHWB. Dubya seems a carbon copy of his father with a few more bells and whistles. Please explain how Bush is "FAR further to the right than reagan ever was. "

Sonart · Jun 10, 2004, 03:57 pm

Quote:

what does "moderately right" mean though?

It means of the 9 or so categories, they picked 'Moderate Conservative'. Beyond that you'll probably have to ask folks.

Quote:

No, they get tired of the "here no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" chant form their opposition.

LOLOL!!!

Sounds like your kindred spirits over on the Climate Change thread, Truth.

dotcoma · Jun 10, 2004, 04:22 pm

Quote:

Sounds like your kindred spirits over on the Climate Change thread,

No, that would be, "We're told there is evil, so we believe there is evil"..."Look at my graph of evil"....

bishop · Jun 10, 2004, 04:52 pm

i think there's too often a knee-jerk association connection made with spending money and liberalism. liberals aren't the only ones who spend money. for example, kim jong is definitely no liberal and he spends all of his money on his military. reagan was more conservative (because he actively fought to limit spending through his veto), but not as right wing.

that said, i'm not interested in validating a semantical argument. i label bush as being far right according to my own perception of what that term means.

to be a right wing american in my eyes includes, christian fundamentalism, unapologetically racist, ignoring low/middle class woes while giving huge benefits to the rich, a tendency towards unilateral/isolationist and warlike actions, shifting social spending towards military spending, disregard for all laws (be they international or domestic), homophobia and the complete perversion of keynesian economics....

egalitarianism is the driving force behind liberal spending. but, under bush's rule, inequality (the gini coefficient for those who know) has increased to all-time highs.

we could make comparisons maybe... for reagan vs. bush..

how big was the deficit?
did reagan enact anything similar to patriot act 1 and 2?
reagan's biggest scandal was iran-contra, bush's was iraq-wmd.
stem cell research
increase in poverty.
increase in military spending.
etc..

PatrickHenry · Jun 10, 2004, 05:26 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by bishop,
connection made with spending money and liberalism

Would you please visit my thread at Investigation of the Political Landscape? Your opinions above could contribute to the discussion. I really want to know and would like to clarify terms...

dotcoma · Jun 11, 2004, 11:20 am

Reagan curbing spending?

bishop · Jun 11, 2004, 11:21 am

he used his veto a hell of a lot.

Jun 9, 2004, 11:49 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	Truth, just as many conservatives are invited here. They just don't last ;-) "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Jun 10, 2004, 01:47 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,549	cough No more bantering here please. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jun 10, 2004, 02:16 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	Yes, Pooey, this complaint keeps being lodged and needs back-up. 1) People in here accused of being leftist are miscategorized in many cases, and the accusation with all the implcations that go with it is very tiresome. 2) Sean works hard to make sure the site is balanced. As I said above, he invites as many "Truths" as "Mias". So the site itself is not "leftist" These whining labels seem to come out when (gasp) someone's idea is challenged. They either lack the knowledge and/or ability to prove themselves right, or don't care to bother. Either one means they have no business on a debate site. If they would care to step up, I would love that. It's much more interesting to have other views argued well. But "nanny-nanny-boo-boo-mommy-he's-touching-me-he's-a-leftist-you're-all-lefist-life-is-so-unfair" is GETTING ON MY NERVES! ;-) I open what looks like an interesting topic and find this instead - pages of it. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Jun 10, 2004, 02:51 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,549	Continuing the discussion of this site's political allegiance. Keep it civil. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jun 10, 2004, 02:57 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
Sonart It's simply logical Location: San Diego Posts: 4,333	What ever happened to the Poll Thread about where we all stood politically. As I recall, the lead catagory was 'Morderately Right'. I don't suffer from insanity... I thoroughly enjoy it

Jun 9, 2004, 11:30 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
Truth Guest Posts: n/a	Yup, a leftist site.

Jun 10, 2004, 02:07 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	Leave it alone. I want him to explain.

Jun 10, 2004, 03:06 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	what does "moderately right" mean though? you'll find people who support damn near everything bush does, from pre-emptive war (without justification), to unequivocal support for israel, to the patriot act, etc - who consider themselves "moderately right". this is the most right-wing president that this country has seen in a damn long time. bush if FAR further to the right than reagan ever was. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Jun 10, 2004, 03:28 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	gotta love the blanked statements. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Jun 10, 2004, 04:52 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	i think there's too often a knee-jerk association connection made with spending money and liberalism. liberals aren't the only ones who spend money. for example, kim jong is definitely no liberal and he spends all of his money on his military. reagan was more conservative (because he actively fought to limit spending through his veto), but not as right wing. that said, i'm not interested in validating a semantical argument. i label bush as being far right according to my own perception of what that term means. to be a right wing american in my eyes includes, christian fundamentalism, unapologetically racist, ignoring low/middle class woes while giving huge benefits to the rich, a tendency towards unilateral/isolationist and warlike actions, shifting social spending towards military spending, disregard for all laws (be they international or domestic), homophobia and the complete perversion of keynesian economics.... egalitarianism is the driving force behind liberal spending. but, under bush's rule, inequality (the gini coefficient for those who know) has increased to all-time highs. we could make comparisons maybe... for reagan vs. bush.. how big was the deficit? did reagan enact anything similar to patriot act 1 and 2? reagan's biggest scandal was iran-contra, bush's was iraq-wmd. stem cell research increase in poverty. increase in military spending. etc.. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Jun 11, 2004, 11:20 am	#19 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	Reagan curbing spending?

Jun 11, 2004, 11:21 am	#20 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	he used his veto a hell of a lot. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/