Things that irritate me

[RedScare]

Parrot stated a rather incendiary opinion and asked for responses. Several posters responded rather negatively. Parrot defended herself, and another round of rather subdued responses ensued. I thought everyone self-moderated rather well on a topic that could have gotten out of hand. Even the name calling stopped when called out. Parrot got to make her point, and others got to agree as well as disagree.

You, on the other hand, demand censorship whenever you do not like the topic. That's more offensive than the disagreements you don't like to read. For someone who hates government interference into anything, you sure do demand the HAIF government to step in a lot.

[nmainguy]

I didn't read Parrot's post about nuking anyone, so I can't speak to her case.

I've already addressed you at length on your misinterpretation of my own statement.

Look dude, you need to recognize that there is a profound difference between stating an opinion about an issue and namecalling. It isn't so much that you are offended by an idea in principle...and if you are, then you have every right to state exactly that and to argue your point to the furthest extent possible. But...and let me say this categorically: that does not necessitate namecalling.

If you'd read through this thread you would see there was very little name calling-not to excuse it-and none from me.

I never misinterpreted what you said about illegals. I don't have to. Read your own words:

1) De-incentivize the immigrants from bringing families. Cut off access to all schooling, health care, and any other social services to those that cannot prove citizenship or a work visa. If they're dying of a gunshot wound, let them...that's a very good deterrent to coming here illegally.

So like parrot, when you express an opinion-no matter how repugnant it may be-expect to be called on it-but don't ask that threads that annoy you be shut down.

[TheNiche]

You, on the other hand, demand censorship whenever you do not like the topic. That's more offensive than the disagreements you don't like to read. For someone who hates government interference into anything, you sure do demand the HAIF government to step in a lot.

I think that this might be the second time that I've advocated that a thread be closed down due to basic personal incivility. I do not advocate closing down topics.

HAIF is not a branch of the government, but is rather a privately-owned and operated forum. If I had a party at my place and someone got out of hand, I would similarly reserve the right to tell them to please leave...or I could boot out the whole lot of people if the whole thing got so out of order that civility could not be restored. If I was an attendee rather than the host, I'd provide my input on the matter. If it kept on degrading...I'd leave. If the next party that the host threw went the same direction, I'd just sit out the next one. Why go to a party if I'm not going to have a good time?

If the host values my presence, they'll keep things basically civil.

If you'd read through this thread you would see there was very little name calling-not to excuse it-and none from me.

No, you didn't commit the act...at least not this time. About that, you are correct. But my recommendation to the moderator was not based upon your responses alone. My advice to you still stands.

I never misinterpreted what you said about illegals. I don't have to. Read your own words:

We've already been over this way too many times in way too many threads other than the one in which any debate about it should have taken place. There's more to it than that and you know it. Even if there wasn't, it doesn't necessitate the personal disrespect that you've shown me. Nobody should be lynched for their ideals and as far as I'm concerned, namecalling and other such nonsense is about the intellectual equivalent of lynching.

[nmainguy]

I do not advocate closing down topics.

Moderators: Shut threads like this down.

Absolutly bizarre.

[TheNiche]

Absolutly bizarre.

Why must I continually repeat myself to you?

Whiny people: Get a grip. Read into things a little more deeply. Pay attention. Don't namecall.

I think that this might be the second time that I've advocated that a thread be closed down due to basic personal incivility. I do not advocate closing down topics.

A topic is an issue or idea that is subject to debate. A thread is the debate. There are no childish or incivil topics, just childish or incivil debates. Is there anyone else out there that doesn't understand the difference? Perhaps I haven't done a good enough job at explaining myself...if anybody else pipes up, I'll go further, but right now, it looks like its just you, nmainguy.

[dalparadise]

Nobody should be lynched for their ideals

Actually, I think ideals are the only things worth being lynched for.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Interesting.......................all very interesting.

[TheNiche]

Actually, I think ideals are the only things worth being lynched for.

I vaguely recall having seen an MLK quote to that effect. It was something along the lines of: "If you aren't willing to die for something, then what is the value of your life?"

I think we're probably in agreement. One may be willing to die for their ideals...but that doesn't necessarily mean that they should lynch other individuals (physically or intellectually) because those people disagree. I can think of cases where there is complete governmental breakdown in a way that may require this notion to be rethought, but I don't see such a case as a likelihood in my lifetime...

[Trophy Property]

I am still waiting for a reponse from Parrothead explaining her "Master Race" comment. I am not being argumentative or calling anyone names. I just want to know what she was referring too.

[Highway6]

I am still waiting for a reponse from Parrothead explaining her "Master Race" comment. I am not being argumentative or calling anyone names. I just want to know what she was referring too.

... and she half responded at the end of post #85 with the following link.

La Raza

[Trophy Property]

... and she half responded at the end of post #85 with the following link.

La Raza

OK thanks. I will read the link.

[west20th]

OK thanks. I will read the link.

I was going to read the link but it lead to an Alan Keyes blog/website. No thank you.

[TJones]

I was going to read the link but it lead to an Alan Keyes blog/website. No thank you.

I know that black Republicans probably scare the BEJESUS out of lefties like you west.

[nmainguy]

I know that black Republicans probably scare the BEJESUS out of lefties like you west.

You may be one of the few Republicans who accept him as a Republican. He should have never ragged on Mary Cheney-he didn't have a lot of friends in your party to begin with-now he's just another Coulter or Beck: mad, mean and pathetic.

After saying homosexuality is "selfish hedonism," Keyes was asked if that made Mary Cheney "a selfish hedonist."

"Of course she is," Keyes replied. "That goes by definition."

He broke the first rule in politics: he attacked a politician's child-and it was Cheney's daughter??? How absolutly stupid was that?

Now do you see why no one would take his bile seriously on his skanky little website?

[TJones]

You may be one of the few Republicans who accept him as a Republican. He should have never ragged on Mary Cheney-he didn't have a lot of friends in your party to begin with now he's just another Coulter or Beck: mad, mean and pathetic.

His "values" don't exactly conform to mine, he is harmless though.

[Highway6]

Now do you see why no one would take his bile seriously on his skanky little website?

Alan Keyes may not be someone many people look up to..but Alan Keyes didn't write the article.

Sher Zieve wrote it.

To so easily dismiss it as not worth your time because of whos site it is associated with. Thats pretty typical I find actually. Typical but sad.

I'm conservative but even I don't confine my reading to NRO, and Weekly Standard.. even I see what the NYT has to offer each day on its skanky little website.

Go read the article Nmain.. then put in your two cents.

[nmainguy]

Go read the article Nmain.. then put in your two cents.

Shrill comes to mind. In addition she has nothing new to offer-just re-hashed far-right spin. No ideas. No solutions. The same old tiered scare tactics.

[TJones]

He broke the first rule in politics: he attacked a politician's child-and it was Cheney's daughter??? How absolutly stupid was that?

Now do you see why no one would take his bile seriously on his skanky little website?

Really ? Maybe that's why Kerry couldn't pull it off ?

[nmainguy]

Really ? Maybe that's why Kerry couldn't pull it off ?

Who's child did Kerry rag on?

[TJones]

Who's child did Kerry rag on?

Cheney's "who of course you know IS a lesbian." I was just joking, but I can't believe you don't remember that ! He wasn't really raggin' on her, but he was trying to tie the fact in for some stupid political high ground.

[Guest danax]

Alan Keyes may not be someone many people look up to..but Alan Keyes didn't write the article.

Sher Zieve wrote it.

To so easily dismiss it as not worth your time because of whos site it is associated with. Thats pretty typical I find actually. Typical but sad.

.....

Yes. Let's forget parties and look at the facts, which are always somewhat spun by the author, but I think the linked article is accurate and at least needs consideration by any thinking person. Does "the left" dismiss Mecha as extremists not worth being concerned about or do they support their struggle, and in doing so, become revolutionaries themselves? That seems to be the question asked in the linked article.

And wouldn't the Mecha group be considered extreme right-wing revolutionaries, but they would seem to attract the extreme left-wing Chicanos, although I really don't know who, if anyone, they attract. I say they're right-wing using a stereotype as right-wingers being racists, which Mecha clearly is.

Back to Parrothead's original post; it's a legitimate reaction and it's a shame to see her being attacked, although I still am tending to believe that it is highly likely to have been a World Cup flag, as there were several in my neighborhood. Maybe a HAIF drive-by (no, not that kind, silly) might be in order. If not, then my question is, if the exact reverse were happening in Mexico; millions of illegal Americans fleeing south for a better life, Bush grandstanding in Mexico in support of the same, and then some of the Americans were flying the flag in Mexican neighborhoods, would the same "left" be supporting them, or condemning them and crying about Mexico's sovereignty? I am speculating that many would be attacking the Americans.

Sometimes it seems one group is just anti-US across the board.

[Highway6]

The same old tiered scare tactics.

Hispanics.. just a right-wing scare tactic.

Global warming.. just a left-wing scare tactic.

WMD, nuclear winter, islamofascists..... nothing but scare-tactics.

"Scare tactics" is way over-used term used by both sides... again, to dismiss without debating that which you disagree on.

[nmainguy]

Cheney's "who of course you know IS a lesbian." I was just joking, but I can't believe you don't remember that ! He wasn't really raggin' on her, but he was trying to tie the fact in for some stupid political high ground.

I remember it. I don't think you can equate that with what Keyes spewed.

John Kerry didn't out me, nor did he offend or attack me by calling me a lesbian. I certainly couldn't be offended by the truth.

Mary Cheney

[heightsfan]

Wow !

Many people come from a 2nd class country who our 2nd class citizens who

die to come to this 1st class country to become 1st class citzens.

Most of these people do not come to be 1st class citizens in a 2nd class country

so lets do our part by making this a 1st class Country !

[emirate25]

How is flying a mexican flag on your property alowable yet flying a rebel flag deemed offensive ?

Lets assume this flag and house in question.. this occupant is perfectly legal, has lived here for generations..

and he is a proud American and at the same time a proud Mexican-American.

The rebel flag is deemed offensive to blacks.

One can't be proud to be a Southern-American.. or least they cant show it with a flag.

How many states have had to take the rebel flag off their capitol building ?

Slavery was just one aspect of the Civil War... yet thanks to racist groups like the KKK.. the symbol of the south has been turned into something offensive.

That doesnt mean every southerner is racist. That doesnt mean every proud southerner who would fly that flag if they could does so out of racist intents.

This is more carrying over from my earlier post.

Its more allowable for any other race to be offended here than it is for whitey.

A house flying a mexican flag gets defended by people here in this forum, yet if it were a conferderate flag.. some in here would dismiss the occupant as racist, the flag as offensive, and demand action be taken.

Let's not forget that this is AMERICA...the land of the free! So if you want to fly any other flag, is your right.

[TJones]

Let's not forget that this is AMERICA...the land of the free! So if you want to fly any other flag, is your right.

But it isn't your right to fly it higher than the American flag if you are on American soil.

[RedScare]

But it isn't your right to fly it higher than the American flag if you are on American soil.

There is no law against that.

[TJones]

There is no law against that.

Your right, it is just called Etiquette, I apologize.

The fundamental rule of flag etiquette is: treat all flags with respect and common sense.

The Stars and Stripes takes precedence over all other flags when flown within the United States. It should not be flown lower than another flag nor should it be smaller than another flag flown with it. Other flags may, however, be flown at the same height and in the same size. Other national flags should not be smaller nor flown lower than the Stars and Stripes when displayed together. If it is not possible to display two or more national flags at the same height, it is not proper to display them together at all.

The point of honor is on the extreme left from the standpoint of the observer (

[MidtownCoog]

We used to take the flag very seriously.

You could not have a flag on garments or bags. In WWII the Brits made us 1000s of nap sacks and put the flag on each one.

We gave them back citing our policy.

Now you can buy a US thong. Go US!

[ricco67]

Your right, it is just called Etiquette, I apologize.

The fundamental rule of flag etiquette is: treat all flags with respect and common sense.

The Stars and Stripes takes precedence over all other flags when flown within the United States. It should not be flown lower than another flag nor should it be smaller than another flag flown with it. Other flags may, however, be flown at the same height and in the same size. Other national flags should not be smaller nor flown lower than the Stars and Stripes when displayed together. If it is not possible to display two or more national flags at the same height, it is not proper to display them together at all.

The point of honor is on the extreme left from the standpoint of the observer (