PDA

View Full Version : Closing The Locker Room Door


Atlanta Dan
09-05-2007, 03:54 PM
Primarily because it finally is football season but also because an increasing number of posts here (I apologize if mine are regarded as have been among them) are packaged with a preamble on the posters' superior maturity and intellect, I am looking forward to posting only on the football forums for the foreseeable future.

If I have offended anyone by this statement I apologize and suggest you put me on your ignore list.

Otherwise I look forward to discussing the Steelers and other NFL topics with anyone regadless of what they think about such topics as Iraq, the 2008 election, or the current management of the federal governemnt.

:cheers:

revefsreleets
09-05-2007, 08:00 PM
I cited sources, and backed every single thing I said up. It's not my fault that I've done my homework and can back up my claims. It's just sad that you can't deal with an alternative position to your own that is fully formed and documented. It's a shame that you had to put me on ignore, but the fact that you also had to grandstand and make an actual thread dedicated to all this says a lot about how you deal with this kind of adversity.

But it's all good. Like I said, I still read your posts and respect your views on all subjects. If I disagree, I'll argue my point, and back it up. But I truly hope that anyone else who reads this will not emulate Dan's approach, not that there's anything wrong with it.

tony hipchest
09-05-2007, 08:17 PM
i agree. i would much rather discuss the steelers and football in general on a steelers board as opposed to the regular locker room summer time banter.

the excitement of football season is so near i even had to refrain posting (or bumping last years boredom thread on the matter) the article of the new "chupacabra" found in texas.

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/070831_chupacabra_vmed_7p_widec.jpg

personally i think its just a wild hybrid dog. definitely not as scary as revefsreleets pup though :wink:

:chuckle:- i thought your dog pict was pretty funny rs.

revefsreleets
09-05-2007, 08:22 PM
I'm not a bad guy, I'm just serious and focused on some things. I hope I don't step on too many toes, but, if I do, well...I don't know what. It's just me.

Mosca
09-05-2007, 08:49 PM
It is a fox with mange. That's what the wildlife biologists say.

It would be really cool if it was a chupacabra, though. That would be an AWESOME helmet logo.


Tom

billybob
09-05-2007, 08:59 PM
i don't know what the freakin hell he meant by that,but he could be a plant by the ravens.we are now unpredictable and we all know it.maybe he is coach tomlin,trying to see what we really think about his team.but my bet is he is of the ravens organization.

fansince'76
09-05-2007, 09:01 PM
It is a fox with mange. That's what the wildlife biologists say.

It would be really cool if it was a chupacabra, though. That would be an AWESOME helmet logo.


Tom

Here's an even better helmet logo that would be guaranteed to scare the hell out of the opposition:

http://static.manilasites.com/images/doc/samdog.jpg

:toofunny: :toofunny: :toofunny:

MasterOfPuppets
09-05-2007, 09:30 PM
i don't know what the freakin hell he meant by that,but he could be a plant by the ravens.we are now unpredictable and we all know it.maybe he is coach tomlin,trying to see what we really think about his team.but my bet is he is of the ravens organization.:uhh:

HometownGal
09-05-2007, 09:37 PM
i don't know what the freakin hell he meant by that,but he could be a plant by the ravens.we are now unpredictable and we all know it.maybe he is coach tomlin,trying to see what we really think about his team.but my bet is he is of the ravens organization.

Huh???? Who are you referring to?

billybob
09-05-2007, 09:42 PM
to the person that started that thread,thats who,dahhhh,are you a raven plant too?

MasterOfPuppets
09-05-2007, 09:49 PM
billybob....

http://http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/9789/dahmc3.png (http://imageshack.us)

billybob
09-05-2007, 09:55 PM
thats not me dude

HometownGal
09-05-2007, 09:55 PM
to the person that started that thread,thats who,dahhhh,are you a raven plant too?

Excuse me??? I simply asked a question. Wow.

billybob
09-05-2007, 09:56 PM
i just got steeleritis

fansince'76
09-05-2007, 09:58 PM
to the person that started that thread,thats who,dahhhh,are you a raven plant too?

Atlanta Dan? A Ravens "plant?" ROFLMAO!!!!! :toofunny: :toofunny: :toofunny:

HometownGal
09-05-2007, 10:01 PM
Atlanta Dan? A Ravens "plant?" ROFLMAO!!!!! :toofunny: :toofunny: :toofunny:

I'm a Ravens plant too - get with the program will ya? :dang::wink02:

billybob
09-05-2007, 10:04 PM
stand behind your team cuz i sure do.steelers mean a lot to me but sometimes i get offended.sorry ir i hurt some feelings

MasterOfPuppets
09-05-2007, 10:04 PM
I'm a Ravens plant too - get with the program will ya? :dang::wink02:
i'm a robert plant fan...:jammin:

HometownGal
09-05-2007, 10:06 PM
stand behind your team cuz i sure do.steelers mean a lot to me but sometimes i get offended.sorry ir i hurt some feelings

Listen bud - everyone who knows me here at SF knows I am a diehard Steelers fan and have been for many, many years, through thick and thin. I don't understand why you were offended - no one in this thread said anything derogatory about the Steelers!!!

You certainly didn't hurt my feelings but you were beginning to torque me off, quite frankly.

HometownGal
09-05-2007, 10:09 PM
i'm a robert plant fan...:jammin:

I used to be a hemp plant fan. :smoker:

billybob
09-05-2007, 10:11 PM
steelers are my life,well..........passion.what can i say.browns are going down,and as i stated thier best defense will be batteries.

billybob
09-05-2007, 10:17 PM
till someone smoked ya

MasterOfPuppets
09-05-2007, 10:27 PM
I used to be a hemp plant fan. :smoker:and apparently at least ONE poster in this thread still is...:whistle:

HometownGal
09-05-2007, 10:40 PM
LMAO @ you, MOP! :toofunny:

OK - Dan started this thread and it's been hijacked to Cleveland and back. Back to the topic, k?

MasterOfPuppets
09-05-2007, 10:53 PM
LMAO @ you, MOP! :toofunny:

OK - Dan started this thread and it's been hijacked to Cleveland and back. Back to the topic, k?
ummmm...there wasn't really a "discussion" topic to start with....:wink02:

Preacher
09-06-2007, 01:37 AM
LMAO @ you, MOP! :toofunny:

OK - Dan started this thread and it's been hijacked to Cleveland and back. Back to the topic, k?

HTG...

One major problem with your post.

NO ONE would hijack ANYTHING... TO CLEVELAND!!! :sofunny::sofunny::sofunny:

HometownGal
09-06-2007, 06:41 AM
HTG...

One major problem with your post.

NO ONE would hijack ANYTHING... TO CLEVELAND!!! :sofunny::sofunny::sofunny:

There was a hidden message there - you're a smart guy - figure it out. :wink02::flap:

Hammer67
09-06-2007, 07:07 AM
to the person that started that thread,thats who,dahhhh,are you a raven plant too?

You must have :poop: for brains.


Back on topic. I don't think the Locker room needs closed...just don't visit it if you don't want to. Jees....

HometownGal
09-06-2007, 07:23 AM
Back on topic. I don't think the Locker room needs closed...just don't visit it if you don't want to. Jees....

I don't believe Dan was suggesting that we close the Locker Room. I think he was just saying that because football season is here, he's not going to be posting in this forum, which is his right.

The Locker Room is a nice diversion in the off season and for the bye and to keep up on "news" per se. It's not going to be closed.

Atlanta Dan
09-06-2007, 07:54 AM
You must have :poop: for brains.


Back on topic. I don't think the Locker room needs closed...just don't visit it if you don't want to. Jees....

I do not think a clarification is necessary, but here it goes.

I was not saying the locker room should be closed.

As you suggested, if someone does not regard the benefits of exchanging posts with courteous posters here to outweigh the costs of having to deal with posters who regard a killer debating point to consist of stating "I am mature, non-partisan and well informed and you are not" then don't visit.

Jees...

Hammer67
09-06-2007, 11:49 AM
I do not think a clarification is necessary, but here it goes.

I was not saying the locker room should be closed.

As you suggested, if someone does not regard the benefits of exchanging posts with courteous posters here to outweigh the costs of having to deal with posters who regard a killer debating point to consist of stating "I am mature, non-partisan and well informed and you are not" then don't visit.

Jees...

That's what I get for entering a thread halfway through!

Anyway, there you go...then what's all this fuss??? :wink02:

:cheers:

Atlanta Dan
09-06-2007, 12:25 PM
That's what I get for entering a thread halfway through!

Anyway, there you go...then what's all this fuss??? :wink02:

:cheers:

Should have ended my reply to you the same way

GO STEELERS!
:cheers:

Preacher
09-06-2007, 10:31 PM
HEY....... AD....


Why don't you want to come into the Lockeroom anymore... afraid of seeing things like this?

http://www.mushytime.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/ugly_fat_man_big_tummy_funny_pictur.jpg


:sofunny::sofunny::sofunny::sofunny::sofunny::sofu nny:



Thought you would enjoy that!

See ya in the football forum! Except for the source of faith thread, I will become somewhat absent in here as well.

revefsreleets
09-07-2007, 06:08 AM
I do not think a clarification is necessary, but here it goes.

I was not saying the locker room should be closed.

As you suggested, if someone does not regard the benefits of exchanging posts with courteous posters here to outweigh the costs of having to deal with posters who regard a killer debating point to consist of stating "I am mature, non-partisan and well informed and you are not" then don't visit.

Jees...

Gosh, you're awful bitter. Let it go already.

revefsreleets
09-08-2007, 03:27 PM
For Hammer:

Dan and me got into it a bit in another thread. I became a little frustrated because pretty much all I was getting in response to my posts was regurgitated summaries of very partisan op/ed pieces, and I called him out on it. He took his ball and stomped home (sorry, but after 3 or 4 separate references directed at me, it's time to call aces aces and spades spades). In truth, what I was saying has since been better and more succinctly summed up, appropriately enough, in some other op/ed pieces, which, according to some, are apparently the only reputable source to cite from in debate. In that case, I am redeemed.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/trudy_rubin/20070902_Worldview___Shape_chaos_before_drawdown.h tml

Issue is not stay or go, but how to keep Iraq from collapsing when U.S. does leave.
By Trudy Rubin
Inquirer Columnist
Once Labor Day weekend ends, the big Iraq show will begin in the nation's capital.

Congress will receive a series of new Iraq assessments, leading up to the grand climax during the week of Sept. 10: congressional testimony by Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

Then the drama will turn into a political circus. President Bush will give an Iraq report to Congress on Sept. 15, setting off another round of debate on whether we should or shouldn't leave Iraq by 2008. This debate will be shaped - on both sides - more by election-year politics than events on Iraqi ground.

Both parties are expediting a worse Iraq disaster. The president wants to keep troops in Iraq as long as possible. The Democrats (and some Republicans) want to pull the plug - either quickly or more slowly.

So here's a plea. Can we please start thinking differently about this Iraq debate? Instead of stay or go, can we focus on preventing Iraq from collapsing when we ultimately leave?

Such a focus fits badly with the story lines of both parties. Republicans want to shift attention away from their gross mishandling of Iraq, so they pretend we can still establish Iraqi democracy and win a neat "victory." The stress on "stay the course" prevents an honest examination of how to salvage the best outcome we can.

Yet we all know the Pentagon cannot indefinitely maintain current troop levels in Iraq, for reasons beyond domestic politics. Our armed forces are overstretched, the American public has soured on the war, and many Iraqis have lost faith in our presence. That disillusionment cannot be blamed on Congress; it results from years of glib administration claims belied by violence on the ground.

That said, those Democrats who argue that Iraq violence will ease when we leave are mistaken. Setting a timeline for complete withdrawal won't shock Iraqi factions or their Arab and Iranian neighbors into reconciliation. That's not how the Middle East works.

None of these factions trusts each other enough to make peace without strong outside involvement. U.S. leverage in Iraq has shrunk because of the mistakes of the last four years. If we set a departure date without proper preparation, our leverage will disappear.

Already, the debate over when to leave has provoked Iraq's Sunni and Shiite militias to start gearing up for all-out power struggles. The same with Iraq's neighbors.

Many Democrats say it's not worth staying on, because the American presence won't make a long-term difference. They argue that Iraq's sectarian leaders appear determined to fight, so any U.S. military gains will prove fleeting. Our presence will be like fingers in the dike holding back the flood.

But if U.S. troops leave without prior political arrangements in place, sectarian forces will rush to fill the power vacuum. Iran and Saudi Arabia will fund and arm their Shiite and Sunni proxies.

We pull our fingers from the dike, and Iraq floods. That's almost for certain. So why aren't Democrats and Republicans trying to build up the levees before we go?

When Gen. Petraeus testifies before Congress, he will talk about military gains in Iraq made at the local level, where many Sunni tribes, and some Sunni insurgents, have turned against al-Qaeda.

He knows these gains must be consolidated. Those Sunni tribesmen now working with our troops could morph into new militias who turn on the Shiite-led government (or U.S. forces). Nor has the progress with Sunnis yet led, as Petraeus had hoped, to an overall lessening of Shiite support for their own militias.

Still, the general hopes that patches of progress in the provinces and parts of Baghdad can be knit together over the next year. If Sunni tribesmen are paid by the central government as auxiliary police, maybe resentment of the Shiite-led government will lessen. Maybe Sunni tribal leaders will choose to resolve their differences with Shiites through politics.

Petraeus knows the surge must end. But he expects several more months, at the very least, to try to create a ragged Iraqi political quilt out of the current chaos.

I don't know if these hopes will materialize, given the weakness of Iraq's political leaders. The chances of success would have been immeasurably higher had Petraeus been in charge in 2003.

However, I do know that too hasty a withdrawal will lead to disaster. Before setting timelines, we must work harder to avoid catastrophe after we go.

This point was made to me quite passionately by a former Army officer, Kyle Teamey, who served in Ramadi in Anbar province in 2003-04. His important op-ed piece about the Iraq war debate, in the Washington Post on Thursday and titled "The Washington Clock Runs Down," moved me to call him up.

Teamey told me: "Congress is just debating whether to pull out or stay. But we should be trying to shape the outcome, trying to start shaping the chaos.

"We've seen what happens if we pull out rapidly without shaping things. Every time we've pulled out of areas where we've made progress, like Mosul, Tal Afar, and parts of Anbar, they go to hell with mini civil wars."

So Teamey argues we should use however long we remain in Iraq to "try to build up local structures in large parts of the country, so we don't have utter chaos if the central government falls." He also hopes such structures would prevent an al-Qaeda return to areas we leave.

This is one way to try to shape the chaos. There are others. One would be a robust effort at regional diplomacy to push Iraq's neighbors, for reasons of self-interest, to help stabilize Iraq. This would require an intense American diplomatic effort of a kind the Bush administration has so far avoided.

But Teamey is right: We must try now to shape the chaos that will follow an American troop drawdown, or it will swallow us and the region. Will leaders of both parties be wise enough to attempt this? Or will the circus continue while Iraq goes down the tubes?

Contact columnist Trudy Rubin at 215-854-5823 or trubin@phillynews.com.

revefsreleets
09-08-2007, 03:31 PM
This is even more interesting. When I used some of the language this author uses, I was mocked, but isn't the message exactly the same as mine?

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/9634532.html

Bring vitriol down a notch in debate over the Iraq war

By Ted Galen Carpenter

Published on Friday, Sep 07, 2007

WASHINGTON: A few days ago, I received a letter from Robert M. Duncan, chairman of the Republican National Committee, soliciting a contribution for the GOP's 2008 election campaign. Given the objective, the stridently partisan tone of the letter came as no surprise.

What did come as a surprise was the sheer viciousness of the language.

Wrote Duncan: The ''Democratic leadership believes failure by our troops in Iraq the central front in the War on Terror is essential for them to win elections in 2008.''

He charged that ''any sign of progress in Iraq is simply a 'problem' for them.'' Lest anyone miss the point, he added, ''It is unconscionable that Democrat leaders are hoping for our troops to fail so their party can gain a political advantage.''

Impugning the patriotism of one's political opponents in such a crude fashion is beyond reprehensible. Duncan apparently cannot imagine that Democratic critics of the Iraq war might embrace that position because of an honest belief that the policy is misguided. No, according to his worldview, they would be willing to sacrifice America's safety and well being for sleazy partisan advantage.

Unfortunately, Duncan's slur is not an aberration. Increasingly, both sides in the debate on the Iraq war slime the motives of their opponents, and that tactic is poisoning the political discourse.

Even a casual perusal of the op-ed pages in conservative publications finds repeated allegations that war critics are unpatriotic and even ''pro-terrorist.''

Looking at MoveOn.org and other liberal outlets finds a comparable number of allegations that Bush ''lied'' America into war, and that the principal reason the United States is in Iraq is to control the oil supply. The ''no blood for oil'' slogan popular among leftists succinctly captures that attitude.

Just as many conservatives cannot grasp that opponents of the war may have legitimate motives for their position, many liberals seem incapable of considering the possibility that the Bush administration went into Iraq out of honest concerns about security issues and with the sincere goal of establishing a stable democracy in that country. One might justifiably question the administration's judgment on those issues, but that is a far cry from assuming the stated goals were merely a cynical cover for nefarious objectives.

In a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars last month, President Bush invoked the Vietnam analogy with regard to Iraq. The way he used that analogy was strained, but there is one disturbing parallel with the Vietnam era that he should have mentioned.

At that time as well, the policy debate turned vicious and personal, generating far more heat than light. The rival positions became portrayed as caricatures: fascist baby burners versus dirty hippie communist sympathizers. We are seeing a similar degeneration of the debate on Iraq today.

That is more than a little disappointing.

America should be a sufficiently mature democracy that difficult foreign-policy debates can be conducted in a more constructive manner than having dueling accusations of treason and war crimes. The Iraq war is an agonizing problem with no pain-free solutions. We need to consider our options carefully and choose the best (or perhaps more accurately, the least bad) one.

We will not be able to do that if we are merely screaming epithets at one another.

Hammer67
09-09-2007, 09:21 AM
Ah...I have to say I agree with Mr. Carpenter's sentiments on this. Partisan crap is the reason I hate politics. I tend to stay neutral. I will accept a valid point from either side but my BS meter will go off over crap like moveon.org and Sean Hannity.

sixstringlass
09-11-2007, 04:41 AM
Here's an even better helmet logo that would be guaranteed to scare the hell out of the opposition:


That has to be, without a doubt, the ugliest dog I have ever seen in my entire life. I took one look at that picture, and, as if my mind refused to fully recognize the sheer horror of it all, the singular thought that formed in my brain was, "what the hell is that thing in its mouth?"

Hehehe

Stlrs4Life
09-18-2007, 05:24 PM
Ah...I have to say I agree with Mr. Carpenter's sentiments on this. Partisan crap is the reason I hate politics. I tend to stay neutral. I will accept a valid point from either side but my BS meter will go off over crap like moveon.org and Sean Hannity.



Just like my BS meter goes off over any crap from Rush Limbaugh.