Bill Maher Calls Out Rush Limbaugh Boycotters

[AUDub 11,148]

Agree with both. It's starting to affect me. I'm getting a bit too quick with the snark for my liking lately.

[AURaptor 1,123]

I've shown the false claims made by the Left against Rush to be nothing but hateful baseless attacks.

If going against the grain offends some, so be it. I've gone overboard in giving proof, and I've been accused of trolling. Either you want me to respond, or you don't. If not, then don't bitch that im just posting my opinion & nothing else.

[homersapien 11,373]

And Titan, as a respected moderator, I would ask that you give some thought to this. How about establishing a process to allow the possibility of subjecting someone to a popular referendum to suspend or ban them?

[homersapien 11,373]

Agree with both. It's starting to affect me. I'm getting a bit too quick with the snark for my liking lately.

It's corrupting. You either join in or suffer the idiocy without comment. That's a bad choice.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

And Titan, as a respected moderator, I would ask that you give some thought to this. How about establishing a process to allow the possibility of subjecting someone to a popular referendum to suspend or ban them?

Hmm. That's a tough call. I don't know that I really trust that such decisions would be made impartially and solely on the merits of the person's posts. I tend to think that it will largely be a "party line" vote. The conservatives will back their worthless dunces and nominate the other side's members for banning and vice versa.

I'm not above banning someone solely from the political forum if it came to that though. I'm just not sure the overall maturity level of the participants here would make a popular referendum workable.

[AURaptor 1,123]

Galileo telling the Pope that the earth goes around the sun wasn't " trolling ".

He was " truthing "

[AUDub 11,148]

Galileo telling the Pope that the earth goes around the sun wasn't " trolling ".

He was " truthing "

Galileo? think rather highly of ourselves, huh?

I've challenged your rationale for Rush's hate speech in several cases. All you've done in response is the metaphorical equivalent of stomping your foot and proclaiming you're correct.

You're arguing by assertion. Do better.

[homersapien 11,373]

Exhibit A:

He told a black female to take the bone out of her nose and call him back

Back in the early 70's, early in his broadcast career, under a pseudonym, Jeff Christie. So technically it wasn't Rush....

There are many more in this thread alone. In fact this thread is a pretty good example of what I am talking about. I invite anyone to go back and start from the beginning and re-read it.

Again, I do not think we would miss either Tim or Raptor. Let's have a way to vote them off for say, a week or two and see if it changes their style. If it doesn't vote them off again for another week or two. Three times suspended, and they get banned.

[AURaptor 1,123]

Ben - please stop trolling.

[AUDub 11,148]

Ben - please stop trolling.

I expect better. Shame on me. Ready to withdraw your assertion that "none of these are true" yet?

[homersapien 11,373]

And Titan, as a respected moderator, I would ask that you give some thought to this. How about establishing a process to allow the possibility of subjecting someone to a popular referendum to suspend or ban them?

Hmm. That's a tough call. I don't know that I really trust that such decisions would be made impartially and solely on the merits of the person's posts. I tend to think that it will largely be a "party line" vote. The conservatives will back their worthless dunces and nominate the other side's members for banning and vice versa.

I'm not above banning someone solely from the political forum if it came to that though. I'm just not sure the overall maturity level of the participants here would make a popular referendum workable.

Actually, I have more faith in both sides to recognize a consistent habit of trolling. Maybe establish a process that allows for anyone to make a case against anyone else by saving and presenting (say ten?) egregious examples as an "indictment" for a vote.

Let's try it.

[DKW 86 7,423]

Agree with both. It's starting to affect me. I'm getting a bit too quick with the snark for my liking lately.

Guilty as well myself.

Although, i have to say, in my own meager defense, i have had to come to the realization that to many on this board, it is "PARTY Uber Alles."

We have discussions here in which facts are trampled under nothing more than blind talking points, repetitive in the extreme, and almost devoid of any substance.

If talking points is all that passed for discourse, then we might as well just shut the whole 'Politically Speaking' forum down.

Spin and talking points shouldnt matter here at all. We are supposed to be educated folks discussing ideas with some depth. Then we will get some closet racist, homophobe, or blind PC adherent that can just shut down a thread with relentless posts linking crazy websites.

If titan and rir want to test the water, try this: develop a list of websites that we can no longer link from. Maybe have a open vote, but put he matter to the mods and ownership.

I am for unrestrained free speech, but maybe it would end the inane spiraling threads that form here.

Some of the threads lately have devolved into shouting matches and i also know that some on here are proud trolls.

[WarTim 3,456]

Agree with both. It's starting to affect me. I'm getting a bit too quick with the snark for my liking lately.

Guilty as well myself.

Although, i have to say, in my own meager defense, i have had to come to the realization that to many on this board, it is "PARTY Uber Alles."

We have discussions here in which facts are trampled under nothing more than blind talking points, repetitive in the extreme, and almost devoid of any substance.

If talking points is all that passed for discourse, then we might as well just shut the whole 'Politically Speaking' forum down.

Spin and talking points shouldnt matter here at all. We are supposed to be educated folks discussing ideas with some depth. Then we will get some closet racist, homophobe, or blind PC adherent that can just shut down a thread with relentless posts linking crazy websites.

If titan and rir want to test the water, try this: develop a list of websites that we can no longer link from. Maybe have a open vote, but put he matter to the mods and ownership.

I am for unrestrained free speech, but maybe it would end the inane spiraling threads that form here.

Some of the threads lately have devolved into shouting matches and i also know that some on here are proud trolls.

This makes sense. The "if I can't win a debate then I want to ban them" is laughable. You would have 3 "Folks" remaining talking to themselves. JMVHO :-)

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Agree with both. It's starting to affect me. I'm getting a bit too quick with the snark for my liking lately.

Guilty as well myself.

Although, i have to say, in my own meager defense, i have had to come to the realization that to many on this board, it is "PARTY Uber Alles."

We have discussions here in which facts are trampled under nothing more than blind talking points, repetitive in the extreme, and almost devoid of any substance.

If talking points is all that passed for discourse, then we might as well just shut the whole 'Politically Speaking' forum down.

Spin and talking points shouldnt matter here at all. We are supposed to be educated folks discussing ideas with some depth. Then we will get some closet racist, homophobe, or blind PC adherent that can just shut down a thread with relentless posts linking crazy websites.

If titan and rir want to test the water, try this: develop a list of websites that we can no longer link from. Maybe have a open vote, but put he matter to the mods and ownership.

I am for unrestrained free speech, but maybe it would end the inane spiraling threads that form here.

Some of the threads lately have devolved into shouting matches and i also know that some on here are proud trolls.

This makes sense. The "if I can't win a debate then I want to ban them" is laughable. You would have 3 "Folks" remaining talking to themselves. JMVHO :-)

That is not what is being said or implied.

[WarTim 3,456]

Agree with both. It's starting to affect me. I'm getting a bit too quick with the snark for my liking lately.

Guilty as well myself.

Although, i have to say, in my own meager defense, i have had to come to the realization that to many on this board, it is "PARTY Uber Alles."

We have discussions here in which facts are trampled under nothing more than blind talking points, repetitive in the extreme, and almost devoid of any substance.

If talking points is all that passed for discourse, then we might as well just shut the whole 'Politically Speaking' forum down.

Spin and talking points shouldnt matter here at all. We are supposed to be educated folks discussing ideas with some depth. Then we will get some closet racist, homophobe, or blind PC adherent that can just shut down a thread with relentless posts linking crazy websites.

If titan and rir want to test the water, try this: develop a list of websites that we can no longer link from. Maybe have a open vote, but put he matter to the mods and ownership.

I am for unrestrained free speech, but maybe it would end the inane spiraling threads that form here.

Some of the threads lately have devolved into shouting matches and i also know that some on here are proud trolls.

This makes sense. The "if I can't win a debate then I want to ban them" is laughable. You would have 3 "Folks" remaining talking to themselves. JMVHO :-)

That is not what is being said or implied.

Poor attempt @ humor on MY part...

[homersapien 11,373]

Heck, if the popular vote process is too complicated, let's anoint a "style" Czar with the power to enforce some basic rules of debate, if not decorum. After all this forum is not a democracy. I nominate Titan for the role.

If someone has a problem with the way anyone else is trolling or otherwise posting in bad faith, appeal to Titan (by PM?) for intervention in whatever way he sees fit - maybe with just an initial warning.

[WarTim 3,456]

Top of the page....."Instructions for ignoring user".......Works great on all other Forums.......

[AUDub 11,148]

Heck, if the popular vote process is too complicated, let's anoint a "style" Czar with the power to enforce some basic rules of debate, if not decorum. After all this forum is not a democracy. I nominate Titan for the role.

If someone has a problem with the way anyone else is trolling or otherwise posting in bad faith, appeal to Titan (by PM?) for intervention in whatever way he sees fit - maybe with just an initial warning.

This is the way I would go. I also second the motion to nominate Titan. Ideological disagreements aside, he's fair.

Top of the page....."Instructions for ignoring user".......Works great on all other Forums.......

Doesn't work in your case.

[WarTim 3,456]

"Doesn't work in your case".....Nice "smarmy" (again, being kind) come back that was not required. Are the instructions not clear enough or are you simply a glutton for punishment? :-\

[AUDub 11,148]

"Doesn't work in your case".....Nice "smarmy" (again, being kind) come back that was not required. Are the instructions not clear enough or are you simply a glutton for punishment? :-\

Not being smarmy. I quite simply can not put you on ignore. You are a mod. Mods can not be put on the ignore list.

Remember? I've explained this in the past.

[homersapien 11,373]

"Doesn't work in your case".....Nice "smarmy" (again, being kind) come back that was not required. Are the instructions not clear enough or are you simply a glutton for punishment? :-\

Not being smarmy. I quite simply can not put you on ignore. You are a mod. Mods can not be put on the ignore list.

Remember? I've explained this in the past.

I still don't get how he can be a "moderator". It's an oxymoron, with the emphasis on the second syllable.

[channonc 466]

IMO, this forum would be far better off without Tim and Raptor.

Giving them the benefit of doubt, they are simply trolls. They post just to make absurd arguments to get a reaction.

Frankly, I wish there was a way to vote them off. Most really good forums are self-moderated. But that can't work with people who have no shame and it's not working with them.

Ha ha. Nice graphic. :-\

Serious question: Do you think my participation is also detriment to the forum?

And keep in mind, I am not referring to political positions. While I don't normally agree with many posters on this forum - including you, PT, Japan, 78, Blue, and several others - they at least make an honest effort to express their views. They rarely troll with silliness or absurdity for the simple purpose of eliciting a reaction (trolling). For Tim and Raptor, it's become their stock in trade.

I understand the nature of a political form is going to lead to a lot of heated discussions, but that's not the same as the sort of gratuitous trolling Tim and Raptor do, which simply devalues the venue. It's corrupting the forum. And it should be obvious by now they are totally impervious to corrective criticism.

So how can a forum self-moderate when participates are shameless?

Regardless, I would be OK with subjecting myself to being thrown off the forum along with anyone else. Heck, if it continues to get worse, I'll probably leave anyway.

I'm going to have to agree with homer to an extent here. There are some posters who I can at least understand why they think the way they do, even if I disagree with them on most political matters. But there are some here whose sole contribution to most threads is some snide one-liner or nonsense remark. Everyone here has fired off a one-liner here and there, but there are some who do almost nothing but.

I disagree with homer often, especially on social/moral issues. But I think he at least makes an effort to put forth a cogent argument.

Agree with both of the above. It's partly why I have been lurking more here and not posting. Civil debate exchanging opposing views and actually trying to learn something new has no longer been the objective with some here. Titan, I do appreciate your willingness to clean up some of the absolute absurdity that has gone on recently in here.

Overall, I enjoy reading the posts from ben, homer, emt, titan, pt, tex and others who seem interested in actually discussing relevant political issues even if they disagree.

[channonc 466]

Heck, if the popular vote process is too complicated, let's anoint a "style" Czar with the power to enforce some basic rules of debate, if not decorum. After all this forum is not a democracy. I nominate Titan for the role.

If someone has a problem with the way anyone else is trolling or otherwise posting in bad faith, appeal to Titan (by PM?) for intervention in whatever way he sees fit - maybe with just an initial warning.

I wholeheartedly agree with this suggestion on Titan. But this could mean more work for him on the moderating side if this were to happen, so have no idea if it's a viable solution in that respect, but would certainly be one I would get behind.

[AUUSN 823]

Agree with both of the above. It's partly why I have been lurking more here and not posting. Civil debate exchanging opposing views and actually trying to learn something new has no longer been the objective with some here. Titan, I do appreciate your willingness to clean up some of the absolute absurdity that has gone on recently in here.

Overall, I enjoy reading the posts from ben, homer, emt, titan, pt, tex and others who seem interested in actually discussing relevant political issues even if they disagree.

I've always enjoyed your posts. Please do so more often.

[WarTim 3,456]

"Doesn't work in your case".....Nice "smarmy" (again, being kind) come back that was not required. Are the instructions not clear enough or are you simply a glutton for punishment? :-\/>

Not being smarmy. I quite simply can not put you on ignore. You are a mod. Mods can not be put on the ignore list.

Remember? I've explained this in the past.

I still don't get how he can be a "moderator". It's an oxymoron, with the emphasis on the second syllable. ;D/>

Yet again with the name calling?