Why Is It?

[chrisdavis]

Why is it, that when someone here makes an anti-Bush comment, that someone always responds "www.delta.com" and "If you don't like it leave the country". Correct me if I am wrong but, do we not live in a free society where we are all allowed to make our own decisions and express our beliefs openly? This is something that is not said in jest, nor is it an isolated event. It seems that other than Paul no one can express their feelings against Bush without being decimated for it. Very rarely have I seen a valid, two sided, and civil debate here. It always seems to break down into insults and childishness. I myself would love to see both sides presented factually, thoughtfully, and the occasional stinging barb wouldn't hurt.

[Jaimecbr900]

That would be nice in theory. Problem is that in a real debate you should have a point system which rewards valid and factual points. If you don't, it always boils down to a he said/she said. Most people can't connect those two dots; I make a bunch of valid points, you made only one....I proved my point better, so I won the debate.

It's one thing to take shots at the subject matter being debated, but it's completely another when someone gets frustrated when they are losing a debate and then turn it personal to try and turn the tide. If someone goes personal, then they deserve whatever they get. Don't open that can of worms if you don't want to be hit in the head with it. Most of the cheap personal shots are usually taken between people that either already don't like each other anyway or people that are totally ignorant and like to get their rocks off by stirring up trouble.

My

[ISAtlanta300]

Why is it, that when someone here makes an anti-Bush comment, that someone always responds "www.delta.com" and "If you don't like it leave the country". Correct me if I am wrong but, do we not live in a free society where we are all allowed to make our own decisions and express our beliefs openly? This is something that is not said in jest, nor is it an isolated event. It seems that other than Paul no one can express their feelings against Bush without being decimated for it. Very rarely have I seen a valid, two sided, and civil debate here. It always seems to break down into insults and childishness. I myself would love to see both sides presented factually, thoughtfully, and the occasional stinging barb wouldn't hurt.

You hit the nail on the head. I was about to comment on the exact same shit.. I mean everybody has their right to their opinion. Just because they do not like the current government or the current president does not give anybody the right to tell them to leave. If so, they are no different that Cuba and Hitler, in that it you are either with me or against me, and if you are against me you will be executed etc etc etc.....

[Jaimecbr900]

You hit the nail on the head. I was about to comment on the exact same shit.. I mean everybody has their right to their opinion. Just because they do not like the current government or the current president does not give anybody the right to tell them to leave. If so, they are no different that Cuba and Hitler, in that it you are either with me or against me, and if you are against me you will be executed etc etc etc.....

Bush hater.....jp.....

[Kristi]

i agree and i am one of those that gets shit for stating my opinion - even when i back it up with facts

[malfeas99]

Not all opinions are created equal.

A valid opinion, anti-bush or not, must be backed up with empirical, contextual evidence to make one's claims tenuous.

The main problem with the lemming anti-bush crowd is that they either lie, don't know, or don't bother to check the shit that's spoon-fed to them.

Holding an anti-bush stance is fine. I hold one myself. Not being able to validate it beyond pointless rambling, unsustainable accusations, irrational emotion-driven inanity, and pithy political photoshops is a waste of everyone's time and only serves to lower the relative level of intelligence on the planet.

[chrisdavis]

That would be nice in theory. Problem is that in a real debate you should have a point system which rewards valid and factual points. If you don't, it always boils down to a he said/she said. Most people can't connect those two dots; I make a bunch of valid points, you made only one....I proved my point better, so I won the debate.

It's one thing to take shots at the subject matter being debated, but it's completely another when someone gets frustrated when they are losing a debate and then turn it personal to try and turn the tide. If someone goes personal, then they deserve whatever they get. Don't open that can of worms if you don't want to be hit in the head with it. Most of the cheap personal shots are usually taken between people that either already don't like each other anyway or people that are totally ignorant and like to get their rocks off by stirring up trouble.

My

Yes but it seems that a debate never really gets off the ground before it gets ruined by cheap shots.