Favorite War Room poster

[Cubo de Sangre]

To be fair Jack takes tons of shit on here and gets personally attacked daily.

And to be circumspect he's often the first to throw in the personal jabs.

 

[kpt018]

And to be circumspect he's often the first to throw in the personal jabs.

Well that's ok since we all know the rules of combat, right? I mean, whenever I see him go off on people it's the usual suspects. Shit, half of those posters personally attack me as well since I am also a liberal.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Well that's ok since we all know the rules of combat, right? I mean, whenever I see him go off on people it's the usual suspects. Shit, half of those posters personally attack me as well since I am also a liberal.

I'm not sure what to make of this post. You seem to be agreeing that he oftentimes is the first to include insults while saying he only does it to people who've earned it from past postings. To me it just looks like he plays the condescending dickhead in order to stir the pot (i.e. drum up conversation and throw people off their game) while also substituting disparaging remarks for answers when he's given a direct question. Maybe if you weren't always agreeing with him you'd view things differently, based on the different treatment you'd receive.

What rules of combat are you referring to?

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Only in the warroom would a thread about who your favorite poster is devolve into argument.

Enjoy your weekly Rex Kwon Do like, brah.

 

[Thames]

And to be circumspect he's often the first to throw in the personal jabs.

Not really.
The reality is that so many posters are so buthurt by him, that they desperately seize every opportunity they can to smear him. The saddest part is they often do it in threads he is not even part of.
It's really funny to read a thread, where JVS has been completely absent, and suddenly a poster just namedrops him and insults him (or even worse, make up a position for him) for no reason. I guess they are not reflective enough to see how sad that makes them.

I rarely see him take personal jabs, but he can certainly be condescending as all hell. I would truly be the pot calling the kettle black if I took issue with that though.

 

[kpt018]

I'm not sure what to make of this post. You seem to be agreeing that he oftentimes is the first to include insults while saying he only does it to people who've earned it from past postings. To me it just looks like he plays the condescending dickhead in order to stir the pot (i.e. drum up conversation and throw people off their game) while also substituting disparaging remarks for answers when he's given a direct question. Maybe if you weren't always agreeing with him you'd view things differently, based on the different treatment you'd receive.

What rules of combat are you referring to?

Huh? I don't even get what you're trying to say here. I honestly give my views and that happens to align with Jack and other left leaning posters here. Sue me.

And the war room allows for some flaming (I know they technically changed the rule but they allow that shit). People go after Jack and he fires back, I don't see the problem. Personal attacks are uncalled for (and they happen to me too) but the mods allow it and we still enjoy the war room anyway. All good.

 

[Fawlty]

Much like my point about Miller (it being important what wasn't said), you're failure to address my question says it all. At no time was the 2nd ruled a "collective" right vs. one held by an individual. Couple that with the fact that individuals have had the right to own guns since the nation began and your claim that this is somehow a new right falls on its face.

This started because I pointed out that gun rights have never been stronger in America, because it has recently been ruled, for the first time, as an individual right. And then it was applied to the states soon after. That is a very high standard of legal protection for gun rights- the highest available. I am not interested in any more of your Miller peddling. The Supreme Court already schooled you on its proper scope.

 

[Ruprecht]

Only in the warroom would a thread about who your favorite poster is devolve into argument.

That's how all the awards threads go, so honestly I expected no different.
Actually, the off topic digressions are the best parts of these threads. There's only so much back patting I can read before feeling nauseous...

 

[M3t4tr0n]

That's how all the awards threads go, so honestly I expected no different.
Actually, the off topic digressions are the best parts of these threads. There's only so much back patting I can read before feeling nauseous...

I know i just wanted an excuse to use that gif

 

[Ruprecht]

I guess you've got it all figured out then. Must be something about actually growing up here and being on both sides of the argument at different points in my life that has tainted my view.

Funny how you agree Hilary is pandering but then gloss over the implication of using anti-gun rhetoric to pander. Funny how she's using the subject to hurt Bernie when none of the voters care about it. But hey, just because of the money spent politically on the side of defending the right has been substantially more historically that means the left isn't trying to strip people of their rights. And because gun owners finally had enough (after the Hughes Amendment and the AWB) and are on top of things such that they're cutting this legislation off at the pass that means there is no threat.

You know what else is lopsided in this country. The whole race issue. Not one person I know cares to keep black folks down. Nobody is introducing anti-black legislation or spending large amounts lobbying for such. That makes it some kind of non-issue, right?


Here's some legislation that passed, but dismiss that too because it doesn't affect you. In reality though people here almost all live in states that also have laws. The absence of sweeping Congressional action is hardly proof that infringements aren't both threatened and implemented. And yes, I realize legislation was passed that strengthened 2nd Amendment rights too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_after_the_Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ne-newtown-gun-control-mental-health/4009051/


Ps. What have you got against women that you're so dismissive of them?

Spoiler

Just having a little fun with you.

I'm not sure what your point is here.
The idea isn't that Democrats wouldn't support gun control measures.
It's that federal gun control is a much lower priority for Democrats than fighting it is for Republicans.
As evidenced by the campaigns, money, NRA membership and results.
Also that the NRA (and other 2A activists) narrative about gun control doesn't match the reality of the proposals.

Hillary has been more outspoken on gun control, and it's an issue which polls more favourably amongst her strongest demographic (women 30+), so it makes sense that she'd try to distinguish herself from Bernie on the issue.

I don't see any parallel with race/identity politics, aside from gun ownership being part of the conservatve identity.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Not really.
The reality is that so many posters are so buthurt by him, that they desperately seize every opportunity they can to smear him. The saddest part is they often do it in threads he is not even part of.
It's really funny to read a thread, where JVS has been completely absent, and suddenly a poster just namedrops him and insults him (or even worse, make up a position for him) for no reason. I guess they are not reflective enough to see how sad that makes them.

I rarely see him take personal jabs, but he can certainly be condescending as all hell. I would truly be the pot calling the kettle black if I took issue with that though.

The first part doesn't really contradict what I said and the last part is in agreement with me. Condescension is a way of saying you're better than the person you're addressing. Go ahead and tell me how that's not personal.

Huh? I don't even get what you're trying to say here. I honestly give my views and that happens to align with Jack and other left leaning posters here. Sue me.

And the war room allows for some flaming (I know they technically changed the rule but they allow that shit). People go after Jack and he fires back, I don't see the problem. Personal attacks are uncalled for (and they happen to me too) but the mods allow it and we still enjoy the war room anyway. All good.

You can be honest and agree with Jack. Those aren't mutually exclusive so maybe you're confused over my words due to defensiveness.

Yes, flaming. Never said it wasn't allowed. I said oftentimes in threads Jack initiates it. All you've offered is that it doesn't count because they may have said something negative to Jack in some other thread some other time in the past.

This started because I pointed out that gun rights have never been stronger in America, because it has recently been ruled, for the first time, as an individual right. And then it was applied to the states soon after.

It started because in my view you made it seem like the court had made the 2nd an individual right out of some type of judicial activism and that during the history of America owning guns wasn't viewed that way. I'm saying it was and only recently has SCOTUS spoken officially on the matter. Then I asked you when have they ever said it wasn't an individual right and you're resorting to summarizing your views as a way of avoiding the question.

In my opinion that's a difference between good posters and no-so-good. If you can't answer questions or indulge the other person's arguments/points then I'm not impressed. That's why I don't rate Jack and Pan as highly as others seem to. The quickest way to get them to stop responding is to stay focused on trying to make your own point rather than constantly getting sucked into only addressing theirs.

 

[kpt018]

The first part doesn't really contradict what I said and the last part is in agreement with me. Condescension is a way of saying you're better than the person you're addressing. Go ahead and tell me how that's not personal.

Listen man, I'm not saying people should like it. I am saying that a lot of shit gets slung and if you're the sensitive type maybe arguing politics online isn't for you.

You can be honest and agree with Jack. Those aren't mutually exclusive so maybe you're confused over my words due to defensiveness.

I assume you meant "you can be honest and disagree with Jack". Ok, but I am saying that my views closely align with his and others on here so posting otherwise would be dishonest. Of course if I disagreed with him I would say it wtf.

And if you think I'm confused help clarify what you're asking.

Yes, flaming. Never said it wasn't allowed. I said oftentimes in threads Jack initiates it. All you've offered is that it doesn't count because they may have said something negative to Jack in some other thread some other time in the past.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I don't have a problem with it.

And we should make a distinction between what Jack does and what others say to him. Jack may say "that is an utterly moronic post and you don't know what you're talking about" and "Jack you're a fucking liar and have no integrity". Do you see the difference?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Idk, I see Jack as an extremely consistent poster. I don't see him arguing "both sides" as you put it. I just think he's a lightning rod around here and it's mostly a great thing. Makes for interesting reading.

Glennrod called me "the liberal final boss." Legit loled at that one.

To me it just looks like he plays the condescending dickhead in order to stir the pot (i.e. drum up conversation and throw people off their game) while also substituting disparaging remarks for answers when he's given a direct question.

That last thing has never actually happened, though.

I will say that when I started posted to SD (exclusively in the HWs for the first seven years, as part of my secret plan that Anung can see through), I thought that there were a lot of people who knew their shit (and obviously even more who didn't), and I'd put in the time to raise some points and was super respectful in disagreement, and it would just get ignored or like a "fair point" in response when I really wanted to see the guy defend his position. So I did find that if you really want to see if someone has a good point that you're missing, you need to give them a little more to respond to.

 

[Rick Sanchez]

hollywood nicky and chauncey love

 

[Thames]

That's how all the awards threads go, so honestly I expected no different.
Actually, the off topic digressions are the best parts of these threads. There's only so much back patting I can read before feeling nauseous...

Also, didn't the award threads use to be a yearly thing? We really are an insecure bunch here.

The first part doesn't really contradict what I said and the last part is in agreement with me. Condescension is a way of saying you're better than the person you're addressing. Go ahead and tell me how that's not personal

Apparently we have different opinions on what "personal jabs" mean.
He is condescending towards the point being made, but he is not making personal attacks towards the poster. A lot of posters often attack JVS on a personal level, but I have never seen him start out with making personal attacks.

Glennrod called me "the liberal final boss." Legit loled at that one.



That last thing has never actually happened, though.

Glennrod has it in him to be funny. This post also got a legit chuckle out of me: http://forums.sherdog.com/posts/113250571/

 

[Fawlty]

The quickest way to get them to stop responding is to stay focused on trying to make your own point rather than constantly getting sucked into only addressing theirs.

You mean like the way you keeping trying to suck me into your Miller argument? All I'm saying is the right is stronger now, and if you have a problem with that, you'll have to do better than putting far too much stock in the Miller case, and pretending it's meaningless to incorporate our rights.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You mean like the way you keeping trying to suck me into your Miller argument? All I'm saying is the right is stronger now, and if you have a problem with that, you'll have to do better than putting far too much stock in the Miller case, and pretending it's meaningless to incorporate our rights.

Cubo is actually revealing a lot about himself. When I discuss an issue, I don't give two shits about trying to throw people off their game (WTF?) or avoid any issue or anything. Like, I'm actually interested in the issue I'm talking about, and I want to get it right. The fact that he thinks that others think like that probably reveals something about his own mindset. Likewise with the "getting sucked into addressing their issues." That's how he interprets "not getting sucked into my off-topic diversions," I guess.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The idea isn't that Democrats wouldn't support gun control measures.
It's that federal gun control is a much lower priority for Democrats than fighting it is for Republicans.
As evidenced by the campaigns, money, NRA membership and results.

Hillary has been more outspoken on gun control, and it's an issue which polls more favourably amongst her strongest demographic (women 30+), so it makes sense that she'd try to distinguish herself from Bernie on the issue.

Yes, and I've pointed out how worthless that distinction was based on human nature. I also pointed out how anti-gun legislation occurs when liberal emotions run high after some particularly upsetting crime, which easily contradicts the notion that one side fights out of passion and the other doesn't.

And again, it's the Democratic candidates making it an issue so you dismissing that simply because it appeals to women more than men has little merit. Do they not count? Women are in fact the majority here.

I posted a link to a debate moderator commenting on guns being one of the top topics of discussion and it's ignored because why? Because civil liberty groups tend to have to spend more money to fight for their rights than those taking them do? When isn't that the case? Here's the scoop. Gun-grabbers have had all the momentum for decades. Call it wind at their back. Post-AWB gun owners became more proactive with legislation and have been trying to reclaim their rights. Thanks to that and Heller/McDonald there's progress being made. Now that the shoe is on the other foot and momentum has swung the expenditures for gun control have gone up. It being focused on a particular case or political race rather than being sprinkled around the country evenly doesn't mean none of this is happening.

I guess Obama is highly apathetic himself as evidenced by this topic serving as his greatest frustration. Can't imagine why gun nuts create this whole controversy out of nowhere. <sarcasm>

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33646704

President Barack Obama has admitted that his failure to pass "common sense gun safety laws" in the US is the greatest frustration of his presidency.

In an interview with the BBC, Mr Obama said it was "distressing" not to have made progress on the issue "even in the face of repeated mass killings".

tl:dr. When the Democrats continually push for gun control and flock toward reactionary legislation when their passions are inflamed it's hard to say they don't really care about it.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

well this friendly experiment derailed; however, the amity did last longer than i expected.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Listen man, I'm not saying people should like it. I am saying that a lot of shit gets slung and if you're the sensitive type maybe arguing politics online isn't for you.

You didn't contradict my statement that Jack initiates much of the personal insult shit? I thought you did. Since I agree with the above I don't think I've been arguing against it.

You mean like the way you keeping trying to suck me into your Miller argument? All I'm saying is the right is stronger now, and if you have a problem with that, you'll have to do better than putting far too much stock in the Miller case, and pretending it's meaningless to incorporate our rights.

I'm not asking you about Miller. Do you even English bro?