Favorite War Room Posters

[Buck Swope]

I enjoy reading both @Buck Swope and @M3t4tr0n posts very much so

Thanks.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Should change this thread to "People I agree with".

Best poster I disagree with the most, is @Greoric

Best Poster is @Arkain2K hands down. Opinions are a dime a dozen. People actually putting in work to find good content.....gold.

 

[TSO]

@ripskater I always read his posts in Beaver Cleavers voice and it makes it that much more amusing.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Should change this thread to "People I agree with".

Best poster I disagree with the most, is @Greoric

Best Poster is @Arkain2K hands down. Opinions are a dime a dozen. People actually putting in work to find good content.....gold.

Isn't "good content" just another form of "people I agree with"? Tons of people support their views with sourced materials. Are you talking about backing up opinions with facts or addressing topics you feel are more worthy of discussion? Something else?

 

[*Z*]

I tend to agree more with the left leaning posters on most issues here. The right leaning posters are a little extreme in their views.

 

[Arkain2K]

Isn't "good content" just another form of "people I agree with"? Tons of people support their views with sourced materials. Are you talking about backing up opinions with facts or addressing topics you feel are more worthy of discussion? Something else?

IMO, good content is written with logic and reasons, or at least not the insanely-biased, batshit-crazy op/eds dripping with hypocrisy masquerading as "news reports" today.

It's the reason why when it comes to social issues like the BLM, I prefer the opinion board on the Wall Street Journal and not the Huffington Post.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I tend to agree more with the left leaning posters on most issues here. The right leaning posters are a little extreme in their views.

I think what's more striking is how anger drives the WR right. The thinking is not problem-->solution as it is for liberals. For a lot of posters here, it's 100% identity politics. They hate certain groups of people and just want to vent that. And few of them think for themselves or post anything interesting. It's just about saying what they all think first. If I were, say, Heretic or Nostra, I don't know why I'd even want to read pwent, evil, Lucy, huked, soda, Wiolent, kln, or Hans (for example). They wouldn't be informing me of anything or even phrasing anything in an interesting way. What's the point of reading someone who says exactly what you're thinking, expresses themselves in the same way, and even makes the same jokes?

I don't see the same on the left as much. I mean, I usually agree with guys like FD, kpt, Fawlty, Quipling, nickerson, ghandi (not left but someone I usually agree with), Polish (same), minicraque, rup, crow, Homer, thames, worden, and many others, but they have distinct personalities, some different views, different areas of specialty, etc. And there's just a massive difference in just the quality of language use and thought that I think should stick out to anyone between those guys and the right-wing hivemind (the guys mentioned earlier). That said, I am more likely to read posts from people I disagree with who aren't part of that particular hivemind. That would be people like Pan, Greoric, Viva, Zank, Kafir, cubo, ehtheist, Trotsky, cauhtomec (or whatever), UP, RP, kafir, ultra, sabre, and more. That's not a comment on how good they all are at thinking (Viva and Greoric, in particular, are really bad), though most are good, but they bring something to the table that's worth reading.

 

[*Z*]

I honestly don't know why you get so much shit from the right on here. your posts are almost always very thoughtful and well written.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

IMO, good content is written with logic and reasons, or at least not the insanely-biased, batshit-crazy op/eds dripping with hypocrisy masquerading as "news reports" today.

It's the reason why when it comes to social issues like the BLM, I prefer the Wall Street Journal and not the Huffington Post.

If he's referring to your prowess as a TS then we all agree you're top tier. Lots of people don't do much of that and instead chime in on the stuff at hand with logic, reason, and sources.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I honestly don't know why you get so much shit from the right on here. your posts are almost always very thoughtful and well written.

That's exactly why. It's an honor, really.

If he's referring to your prowess as a TS then we all agree you're top tier.

I don't agree. I already read the news.

 

[TSO]

I think what's more striking is how anger drives the WR right. The thinking is not problem-->solution as it is for liberals. For a lot of posters here, it's 100% identity politics. They hate certain groups of people and just want to vent that. And few of them think for themselves or post anything interesting. It's just about saying what they all think first. If I were, say, Heretic or Nostra, I don't know why I'd even want to read pwent, evil, Lucy, huked, soda, Wiolent, kln, or Hans (for example). They wouldn't be informing me of anything or even phrasing anything in an interesting way. What's the point of reading someone who says exactly what you're thinking, expresses themselves in the same way, and even makes the same jokes?

I don't see the same on the left as much. I mean, I usually agree with guys like FD, kpt, Fawlty, Quipling, nickerson, ghandi (not left but someone I usually agree with), Polish (same), minicraque, rup, crow, Homer, thames, worden, and many others, but they have distinct personalities, some different views, different areas of specialty, etc. And there's just a massive difference in just the quality of language use and thought that I think should stick out to anyone between those guys and the right-wing hivemind (the guys mentioned earlier). That said, I am more likely to read posts from people I disagree with who aren't part of that particular hivemind. That would be people like Pan, Greoric, Viva, Zank, Kafir, cubo, ehtheist, Trotsky, cauhtomec (or whatever), UP, RP, kafir, ultra, sabre, and more. That's not a comment on how good they all are at thinking (Viva and Greoric, in particular, are really bad), though most are good, but they bring something to the table that's worth reading.

Wait... You're saying the right is guilty of identity politics? You do realize that every leftist stance is identitarian don't you?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Wait... You're saying the right is guilty of identity politics? You do realize that every leftist stance is identitarian don't you?

Not at all. There's a whole policy outline and a philosophy behind that policy outline. Good example is healthcare. Liberals devised a detailed plan (partly based on what some conservative think tanks came up with and what Massachusetts actually implemented) and passed it into law. It addressed what liberals thought were the big problems facing our healthcare system (people who didn't get it from work, Medicare, or Medicaid were shut out, and costs were rising) in an effective way. The right absolutely hated it, but why? There's no problem created, and the GOP was simultaneously complaining on one hand about some left uncovered, high deductibles, and high premiums (i.e., not enough redistribution) and on the other about taxes and spending (i.e., too much redistribution). They promised to cover more people with cheaper plans while also cutting taxes, which is literally impossible. There's no coherent approach here--just anger at liberals. Similar issues apply to almost all major areas of policy. Liberals have a policy position (that you may or may not agree with), but the right is just thinking, "they're not our kind of people, and we want our kind of people to win elections so we feel good." You can also confirm that by looking at polls showing that pluralities or majorities of Republican voters disagree with their own party's platform. You don't see something similar on the other side. This has been going on for a while:

 

[TSO]

Not at all. There's a whole policy outline and a philosophy behind that policy outline. Good example is healthcare. Liberals devised a detailed plan (partly based on what some conservative think tanks came up with and what Massachusetts actually implemented) and passed it into law. It addressed what liberals thought were the big problems facing our healthcare system (people who didn't get it from work, Medicare, or Medicaid were shut out, and costs were rising) in an effective way. The right absolutely hated it, but why? There's no problem created, and the GOP was simultaneously complaining on one hand about some left uncovered, high deductibles, and high premiums (i.e., not enough redistribution) and on the other about taxes and spending (i.e., too much redistribution). They promised to cover more people with cheaper plans while also cutting taxes, which is literally impossible. There's no coherent approach here--just anger at liberals. Similar issues apply to almost all major areas of policy. Liberals have a policy position (that you may or may not agree with), but the right is just thinking, "they're not our kind of people, and we want our kind of people to win elections so we feel good." You can also confirm that by looking at polls showing that pluralities or majorities of Republican voters disagree with their own party's platform. You don't see something similar on the other side. This has been going on for a while:

Are you using "liberal" interchangeably with "the left"? Because right =/= conservative and left =/= liberal.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Are you using "liberal" interchangeably with "the left"? Because right =/= conservative and left =/= liberal.

Pretty much, yes, though you're right. The political right in America is not at all conservative, while the fringe left that right-wingers love to attack is not liberal. The mainstream left is, though.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

I honestly don't know why you get so much shit from the right on here. your posts are almost always very thoughtful and well written.

That's the precise reason why he gets so much crap imo

 

[Lead]

That's the precise reason why he gets so much crap imo

Anndddd angrycrow is back!

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I don't agree. I already read the news.

lol. Well, the dude does get the most mentions for best TS every year and you get none.

My point of discussion though was how vague "good content" was and that it probably amounted to nothing more than one's personal preference. Truth be told I don't find most of his threads particularly interesting. But he does put them together as well as anybody.

 

[Jack V Savage]

lol. Well, the dude does get the most mentions for best TS every year and you get none.

I usually go the whole year without starting a thread. So that's an odd angle to take.

My point of discussion though was how vague "good content" was and that it probably amounted to nothing more than one's personal preference. Truth be told I don't find most of his threads particularly interesting. But he does put them together as well as anybody.

It's definitely subjective.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I usually go the whole year without starting a thread. So that's an odd angle to take.

It's the obvious angle to take. If nobody started any threads then what? So by virtue of that, something is better than nothing.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's the obvious angle to take. If nobody started any threads then what? So by virtue of that, something is better than nothing.

If you want to praise him for starting threads, that's different from praising him for starting good ones. If you want to amend your statement to "we can all agree that you sometimes start threads," I can get on that train.