Muslim in chief wants to eviscerate Israel

witness23

Veteran Expediter
Really? So who should I remove. Those who call the opposition "wing nuts" or those who say "kool aid drinkers" and "evil".

Quite the predicament you find yourself in, huh? Like I said, if the moderators were consistent, you wouldn't be asking me that question, you would know the answer yourself.

Cant have it both ways.

It seems a few can.

Debate the views, leave the personal names and insults out.

I agree 100%. It would be nice to see someone say this more often, not just when "one of their own" is targeted.

We dont have to have a soapbox.

Your right, they don't. But for the time being, they do, so a little consistency(like I said) would be nice.

The rules are much less strict in this forum, but there are still rules.

Debatable.

We try to allow for passionate debate, without direct insults.

Agreed, but you have to admit these rules don't always apply to everyone.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Agreed, but you have to admit these rules don't always apply to everyone.
Responding to the post, and not to the poster, is one of my pet peeves. As long as you can keep it about the issues, then reasonable (usually intelligent) discussion can be had. But as soon as things come in from outside the current thread, when the responses are personal about the poster and not about what they posted, the discussion usually quickly devolves into name calling and sticking your tongues out at each other, or worse.

The rules have always applied to everyone, it's just that they haven't always necessarily been evenly applied to everyone. That's something I've been harping about since shortly after I got here (not just the issue of favoritism, or any perception thereof, but of the basic issue of trying to get people to reply to what was posted rather than to who posted it). Hopefully I'm making some headway here. It's a never ending battle, tho, and I know that, human nature being what it is.

At the bottom of each Forum there is a list of the moderators who can moderate within that forum. You will notice my name is absent from the list of the Soapbox moderators. Because of my unnatural and irrational obsession with getting people to stick to replying to the post and not to the poster, that's probably a very wise decision. :D

On a side note, I think it should be called The Soapbox Derby. One, because it sorta fits with expediting vrooom, vrooom, and two, because most people in here aren't concerned with the process of building their car (their argument and the issues), but instead are only concerned with winning and will do anything they can to win their argument, even if it means abandoning their own ride (principles and issues) to sabotage someone else's. <snort>
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
"Agreed, but you have to admit these rules don't always apply to everyone""

Yeah, but we try to be nice! :p

Hey, NOTHING is perfect. Learn to live with some things. Most others do, or at least try too.

Participation in this forum is NOT mandatory. NO ONE, is required to be in here. If it is too hard for some to accept, don't log on!! It may help the 'ole blood pressure!

Relax, have a potato chip, watch the Stooges, (Larry, Moe and Curly, NOT, Barry, Harry and Nancy) INSTEAD of Katy or Beck.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Back to the topic,

Get real and learn about the real issues.

Yes there is a terrorist organization in charge of the Palestinian government but they were voted in via that great democracy everyone is so enthralled over which is what everyone seems to justify the use of force - Libya anyone?

Let's not forget that we can't control Israel and they seem to be a bit more intelligent on the subject than many in the press and entertainment segments of our media. They seem to think that regardless what is said, they know two things are very true, we can't understand what is going on there because we are too involved with stupid stuff AND because of that, we don't have a right to speak about it.

Our money is used to buy our influence in that region, it is used for more things than humanitarian relief but that's our own fault. We give freely because we want everyone to live under a democratic flag. But the sad fact is when we discover that they are not living the way we want them to live, we complain about it. One such example is the Iraqi constitution and the right (later some on the left too) complaining that we should draft it for them because they wanted to include too many religious base things in it.

So whether or not it is a liberal/conservative issue or a right or left issue, the problem is when we were actually a strong country willing to fight for the right things, we could not solve this problem and to expect us to be able to solve it now is rather stupid.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Yes we did but at first we allowed them to draft it and it wasn't to MacArthur's liking (which I think he had that intent all along) and he had it done.

BUT that was a different time, we had to defeat an enemy we could see, not a religion or anything like that. Japan attacked us, we fought for our actual freedom, and won.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Yes we did but at first we allowed them to draft it and it wasn't to MacArthur's liking (which I think he had that intent all along) and he had it done.

BUT that was a different time, we had to defeat an enemy we could see, not a religion or anything like that. Japan attacked us, we fought for our actual freedom, and won.

Yeah, but we have been attacked here as well this time. We could win this one IF congress and the jack weed in the White House would dry up and blow away. They spend FAR too much time aiding our enemy instead of killing them.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Yes we did but at first we allowed them to draft it and it wasn't to MacArthur's liking (which I think he had that intent all along) and he had it done.

BUT that was a different time, we had to defeat an enemy we could see, not a religion or anything like that. Japan attacked us, we fought for our actual freedom, and won.

Yeah, but we have been attacked here as well this time. We could win this one IF congress and the jack weed in the White House would dry up and blow away. They spend FAR too much time aiding our enemy instead of killing them.
 

clcooper

Expert Expediter
in stead of them waring .why not have a court decide whos land it is and then be done with it .

they are spending our money to help them . how much of our money is being used to help us.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
The rules have always applied to everyone, it's just that they haven't always necessarily been evenly applied to everyone.

Okay.....So the rules aren't being carried through properly, I totally agree, so what's being done about that? Actually, I'm not sure why I'm asking you, no offense but you carry no authority here. I respect your opinion, but really its not your job to be a mediator, that's what the owner of the site and the moderators should be doing. We should be hearing from them. I truly could care less, but when you have someone who seems to be a little thin skinned and feels as if they have to stick up for their comrades every chance they get, it becomes tiresome. Their in lies the problem.
 

Lawrence

Founder
Staff member
I respect your opinion, but really its not your job to be a mediator, that's what the owner of the site and the moderators should be doing.

Mediator? No - moderator. So comment on the post already. Obviously, LDB's comment was his opinion and not ExpeditersOnline.com. Sheesh. :p
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
Mediator? No - moderator.

Sorry, not sure what you are trying to convey above? Are you saying Turtle is a moderator?

If Turtle wants to play the role as mediator: a neutral party who assists in negotiations and conflict resolution, the process being known as mediation, he can have it, but that title carries no weight or authority.

If he is a moderator then he would be in a role that should provide leadership, responsibility, respect, trust and would be a representive of the website and is in a authoritarian role.

So comment on the post already. Obviously, LDB's comment was his opinion and not ExpeditersOnline.com.

I was only following the flow of the thread, at the same time suggesting to Greg not to waste his breath. Maybe I should've ran a got a moderator and complained about LDB's obvious violation of the Code of Conduct that falls under, Trolling.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
If anyone had doubts before, today's speech should have removed all doubt. One of the very very few partial allies we have and he wants to do this to them.

What exactly, in your opinion did the President do that has you so outraged?

Obama is evil and with what we know now those who support him are evil also.

Wow....quite the statement. Then maybe those that say the United States is evil are right :eek: Since the majority of our great country voted Mr. Obama into office, that would make the United States EVILLLLLLL.
 

Dreamer

Administrator Emeritus
Charter Member
Witness.

Take a look at Turtle's name on the side of the page. You will notice it now says Moderator under it. Which is what he is trying to do, and I think rather well.

Leo was stating his opinion. While it may not be the way I would state things, it is his opinion, which he is allowed to have and express.

Kindly get back on topic.



Dale

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
Link: Allen West: Obama's Middle East Policy 'Beginning of the End' for Israel

From the article:
Mr. Allen West says:
"President Obama has not stood for Israel or the Jewish people and has made it clear where the United States will stand when Palestine attempts to gain recognition of statehood by the United Nations. The President should focus on the real obstacle to security- the Palestinian leadership and its ultimate goal to eliminate Israel and the Jewish people.”

First of all, the Presidents proposals aren't the first time we've heard this from our President. President Clinton and President Bush, both supported a two state solution.

Has Mr. West came up with a policy?

The 1967 borders, with land swaps, the President has recommended is only a starting point for negotiation. You have to start somewhere. The land swaps would have to be mutually agreeable, with security for both Israel and Palestine of the utmost importance. Adding, "That Isreal's security is paramount". Again, you have to start somewhere.

The President also said in his speech that Israel should not be expected to have talks with an orginazition that does not acknowledge their right to exist and is bound and determined to wipe them off the map. That is why he denounced the Palestinian plan that seeks the endorsement of the General Assembly for statehood. That is why I hi-lited, in red, Mr. West's statement.

Face it, this is just another attempt of the Rightwing making something out of nothing. The unfortunate thing, they will probably succeed. Because Middle-East politics is so confusing, even the experts have a hard enough time figuring out what's going on.

Don't worry, Israel isn't going anywhere, the Caliphate isn't happening, the U.S. isn't ignoring them and the world will not end today. All is well.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
Another thing, I caught Beck's show today, and heard him on O'reilly and on both shows saying, "Do you see where Israel is? They are surrounded" and just got done hearing Hannity say, "Do you see where Israel is? They are surrounded".

Really? :rolleyes:
 
Top