Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal dissent?

[Exsubmariner]

Let's not forget about Tillman

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't find El Rushbo, but I did turn this up:

Michelle Malkin about Ted Rall

[/ QUOTE ]

As a side note, everytime I see Michelle Malkin on a cable news network, I generally assume Ann Coulter must have been unavailable.

[Exsubmariner]

Look, Wrong Again

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe we just have different definitions of what a troll is. I think of it as meaning something along the lines of 'someone who posts on a message board with the explicit and obvious purpose of starting a flame war'.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, that's my definition as well. So think. Why did he start this thread about Ted Rall if not to stir the shitpot?

We were all wrong about Pat Tillman. He told one of his fellow soldiers in Iraq that the war was bleeping illegal.
He was going to meet with Noam Chomsky when he returned. Its too bad we lost him, he could have been one of our greatest presidents ever.

I am glad you are exploring his work and its criticism. People hate him because he is a unique voice that is outside of the corporate media. Sometimes hes wrong, but hes usually right.

I just wish certain posters would stay out of my threads unless they wish to add to the discussion.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe we just have different definitions of what a troll is. I think of it as meaning something along the lines of 'someone who posts on a message board with the explicit and obvious purpose of starting a flame war'.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, that's my definition as well. So think. Why did he start this thread about Ted Rall if not to stir the shitpot?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a difference between stirring the pot and trying to start a flame war. I'd guess half of the posts on the Politics forum are typically some form of schadenfreude meant to stir the shitpot, as you say.

But I assume he started a thread about Ted Rall hoping to start a discussion about Ted Rall and the content of Ted Rall's writing.

I get what you're saying, but in many ways this board is one big shitpot that's constantly stirred. I don't think that necessarily means stirring the shitpot is equivalent to intentionally starting a flame war -- let's make a distinction between stirring the shitpot (trying to start discussion that might include barbs thrown back and forth -- that's what politics and jockeying for power is all about, right?) versus a flame war (a post meant merely to upset people). I think we ought to be very careful about what we label as 'flaming' and 'trolling' in the Politics forum; it's much easier to spot in the poker forums (a poster whose only goal is to criticize, name-call, etc. and not contribute to the poker discussion) than it is in the Politics forum -- as a legitimate component of genuine political discouse is strong criticism, vivid dialouge and imagery, etc. I don't have much sympathy for those who come to the Politics forum and find all the debating and arguing in poor taste -- anyone who feels this way has come to the wrong place, IMO.

If you see no distinction between the two, that's fine -- if that's the case, however, then there probably isn't anyone here who isn't a troll, because if merely saying you agree, respect, or like Ted Rall constitutes the intentional stirring of the shitpot, which is tantamount to starting a flame war, which makes the poster in question a troll - then we're all guilty of it or something similar, except for those too cowardly or ignorant to have strong opinions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Rall

The first contraversy on this page is very interesting.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
How does invoking the name of Hitler invalidate his opinion?

I don't get why people say this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it goes to your credibility as a poster when you are constantly using sources that hold extreme views or draw extreme conclusions or make extreme comparisons. And since you should know this will be the reaction of even posters who generally are more likely to agree with your overall views, then that brings up the question of whether your post is sincere or rather intentional trolling.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How does invoking the name of Hitler invalidate his opinion?

I don't get why people say this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it goes to your credibility as a poster when you are constantly using sources that hold extreme views or draw extreme conclusions or make extreme comparisons. And since you should know this will be the reaction of even posters who generally are more likely to agree with your overall views, then that brings up the question of whether your post is sincere or rather intentional trolling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does having opinions that are unpopular or not widely held automatically make you a troll? Or similarly, why does merely citing someone who shares your not-widely-held views make you a troll?

I don't understand; is bringing up anything controversial trolling? That's what I seem to be gathering from you and BCPVP.

[xpokerx]

Just a quick question, what happens in 2008, when Bush doesn't win reelection, to all the "dictator for life" and "tyranny" people? Do they still insist that GWB, the man they call an idiot, is somehow pulling the strings on the nation even when out of office?