El Dorado said: SF, you responded to his post, and then told him in not so many words he was not worthy of a reply.  Am I missing something?

 Apparently.

I really don't understand what your deal is. I'm sure he can defend himself if he wanted to and why you're doing it for him is beyond me and somewhat retarded to be honest.

Here goes.

In my first post regarding the Honduras subject I was brief. I said I haven't followed it really so I'm just going to go with popular opinion on that one. I provided absolutely no other information. His reply, regarding Honduras starts off saying I was insulting. I was not. (The full statement I made was "I know nothing about Hondurus, but the entire world is backing the president there and not the coup so I'll side with popular majority on that.") Absolutely nothing insulting in that. I am then told I am stupid, to educate myself, and that it may be over my head and I should admit it. This is all in response to my flat out saying that it is a subject I have not followed closely (and that's entirely it. It's not over my head, I just don't care about Honduras.) So as not to completely ignore a section of his post I said I would side with the majority. If I am uninformed on an international event that in my eyes is not something that overly affects me, I will almost always side with the majority (whatever the majority of leaders believe is the best path). I'm not sure if he is aware of it but when most of the people in the room are telling you you're wrong - odds are you are. So when most of the world is saying one thing regarding this (or for the most part whatever subject), the safe bet is that the majority IS correct. My comment in no way warranted the 3 or 4 derogatory comments provided in that first section regarding Honduras. At THAT point there was no reason for me to read any further because if he was that rude and inflamed by my LACK OF A COMMENT, I could only imagine the trash that was to come.

If _YOU_ would like, I will go back and read the second section (the part responding to the actual meat of what I said) and rip it apart too and point out any inaccuracies or trash that I originally assumed it would contain; or you can realize that I actually do have reasons behind the things I say or do, sometimes I don't feel like spending the 10 minutes to explain them to someone; especially someone they are not directly related to.

I’ve been here since March, Mad has never attacked me, or Owl, SP, OldFart, Income Trader, and many others, I wonder why? Can’t you just let him have his say and let it go?

El Dorado said: I’ve been here since March, Mad has never attacked me, or Owl, SP, OldFart, Income Trader, and many others, I wonder why? Can’t you just let him have his say and let it go?

 HAHA.. That is excellent.

Is he twelve years old and defenseless? .. Can he only dish it out but not take it? Should I just let him have his say out of pity and not defend myself? Why is everybody always picking on him? .. I'm running out of lines to quote, cliches to say.

And oh.. it was let go, until you jumped in. Notice he hasn't replied regarding the post that you've been debating with me for the last 4 hours? .. I have no real problems explaining why I write something, I just prefer to do it with the person it was regarding if they actually have a need to want to know. This has been fun though, seriously.

SF said:

Notice he hasn't replied regarding the post that you've been debating with me for the last 4 hours?

 Because I had things to do.   It is July 4th.  I'm refinishing an antique piece of furniture.  I bought some fireworks for my son.  And I went out to dinner with my wife.

  Me not posting in some 4 hour period is a pretty ridiculous point to use in your argument.




     What was insulting is that you claimed I was a "conspiracy theory nut" because of my opinions of current events which you admit zero knowledge of.   Our opinions (everyones) are based on facts and experiences.  We then extrapolate from those.   It seems ridiculous for you to attack my opinions when you are not privy to the facts that helped form those opinions.

      So, simply put:   Your insult was that I am a conspiracy nut.   The reason your insult is both unwarrented and premature is because you have not educated yourself about the facts that I used to base my opinion.



     Furthermore, it is doubly insulting to be labeled a conspiracy nut, presumably unhinged and not a deep thinker, from someone who bases their own opinions on "popular sentiment" and "if enough people in a room chuckle at a question".
     In reality, a room full of laughing reporters does not impact the valitidy of a question or concern.  The number of people supporting a thing does not determine it's morality, ethics, quality, or anything else.  If that was the case then slavery would be a good thing because it was at one time popular.  Popularity does not equal being in the right.  History has proven that again and again.

themadride said:

SF said:

Notice he hasn't replied regarding the post that you've been debating with me for the last 4 hours?

 Because I had things to do.   It is July 4th.  I'm refinishing an antique piece of furniture.  I bought some fireworks for my son.  And I went out to dinner with my wife.

  Me not posting in some 4 hour period is a pretty ridiculous point to use in your argument.




     What was insulting is that you claimed I was a "conspiracy theory nut" because of my opinions of current events which you admit zero knowledge of.   Our opinions (everyones) are based on facts and experiences.  We then extrapolate from those.   It seems ridiculous for you to attack my opinions when you are not privy to the facts that helped form those opinions.

      So, simply put:   Your insult was that I am a conspiracy nut.   The reason your insult is both unwarrented and premature is because you have not educated yourself about the facts that I used to base my opinion.



     Furthermore, it is doubly insulting to be labeled a conspiracy nut, presumably unhinged and not a deep thinker, from someone who bases their own opinions on "popular sentiment" and "if enough people in a room chuckle at a question".
     In reality, a room full of laughing reporters does not impact the valitidy of a question or concern.  The number of people supporting a thing does not determine it's morality, ethics, quality, or anything else.  If that was the case then slavery would be a good thing because it was at one time popular.  Popularity does not equal being in the right.  History has proven that again and again.

My "going with popular majority" is not a basis of my opinion it is me recognizing that I am one person and cannot possibly follow every world event and have an informed opinion on every last thing in the world. At times I have to entrust the people elected to deal with these things. The most intelligent path to follow in those circumstances would be to accept that the majority's opinion of the world or world leaders would almost everytime be the correct path to follow. Since I didn't care to follow the Honduras events this would be one of those times where I should trust what the majority of world leaders were saying is the right path. Could they be wrong? Of course. Might I have a differing opinion if I bothered to read in detail what was going on? .. Quite possibly, but more often than not, the popular majority follows the correct, moral, and legal path and ones that most likely mirror my beliefs on major(ish) world events so following the popular majority is not stupid or an uneducated decision. It is actually quite logical and the safest one in the case to take.

 I was not derogatory about the Honduran section which is where you started out with 3 or 4 or whatever insults that had absolutely 0 basis to them. You get so worked up that you cannot help but try and insult, degrade, and cut down which is why you started in on me in the Honduran section. You had no basis for your comments other than your pure speculation and opinion. Worthless statements.

It was a coup. I recommend you look up what a coup is and realize that MAYBE everyone else in the world calling it a coup is correct and YOU just might be the one that is wrong.

You hate Obama, we get it. I can only assume (like you love to do) that it is some racist backwoods South Carolina thing. You are wrong on the majority of the things you have said in your posts to me and there is no way you will realize it, accept it, or admit it on any forums. This (as I mentioned in a private message to someone) is why I've avoided all the political threads (until now). Politics is such a touchy subject that is difficult to debate with people or convince them of a different opinion when you are talking to them face to face, let alone trying to discuss it on a message board. These political topics will lead nowhere the majority of the time especially with someone so insecure that they constantly resort to name calling and childish tactics.

Regarding Obama: He took office less than 6 months ago. All the Obama hating people are so quick to judge that they don't realize that actions of any president generally don't have an effect or show an effect for some time. Certainly not in 6 months. They also don't realize that their beloved George Bush hadn't done a thing yet; it's still another 2 months until Bush's first major f--kup. Some of the things you wrote in your post (I went back and read the second section) about Obama doing wrong were things he was following up on from Bush. Stuff the worst president in history inacted and got the ball rolling on. You can't clean up the s--tstorm of a mess that GWB made in the last 8 years in a matter of 6 months.

Yes, I voted for Obama. No I do not agree with everything he has done. I am not blindly following him and I do not blindly go with the popular opinion on things when it comes to my own country (felt you might bring this up later). GM/Chrysler should not have been given a penny. The unions should be toast. (Your hardcore Obama hating conservative side should at least appreciate the last two sentences).

You want people to respond to you properly, with a point, and the conversation not turn into the mess that is this thread (and from what I hear a lot of political threads you enter) - Stop calling people names, stop blindly hating Obama because he's not who you voted for, and start paying attention to facts. Ohh.. and don't assume so much. You can't infer as much as you seem to want to believe by the things I have posted.

MrReed said: To El D.  I haven't exited the battle, not entirely, I read (laugh, chuckle a little bit), and move on.  It took me a while, as it will SF, but its a waste of time.  And I have had about as many "posts" deleted as Mad has had "threads" deleted in the past 2 days, but thanks for the shout out.  I look at it like this, yeah, its perfectly legal for me to walk into Wal Mart wearing a t-shirt that says "I dislike George W. Bush"......Wal Mart however would probably have a big problem with me grabbing my soap box, setting up shop in the electronics section, and shouting at the top of my lungs "I Dislike George Bush", and, it would be perfectly understandable for Wal Mart to ban me from the store for however long they see fit.  Trade King is not out of line, contrary to unpopular belief (Mads, yours apparently).  Its theyre business, and they will run it as they see fit.  If turning they're trading forums into one mans soap box for all things Drudge, then they have the right to shut that down, change things up, and run things how they see fit.  If ya dont like that, well, as has been said many o' times, then theres the door, dont let it hit ya on the way out.  Same applies for if I wanted to turn the boards into the Huffington Post, which I dont out of respect for the other members. 

To SF.  You seem to intelligent to get caught up in this BS, its a waste of time, move on, I value your oppinions on the things I am here for, Trading and Investing.  Although, this whole deal has made me respect your thoughts outside of investing and trading more so. 

To Incubus.  Im drunk, had a great 4th, hope you did too, and man, we could really use to have those beers and those chuckles like we talked about. 

 Hi Mr. Reed, hope you had a good fourth. A thread without any responses dies and goes to obscurity rather quickly. Doesn’t seem to be the case for anything Mad posts. So many complaints, and yet so many responses, guess we’re just human and want to speak out even if we think it’s wrong.

One thing I have noticed, you, and all the other regulars on this board never allow a newbies question to go unanswered, the bright side. Probably kept more members here than anything else.

It is so tiresome to debate with people who base their entire arguements on spite and emotion rather than facts or logic, or even hypothesis.

I must be a redneck racist because I think Obama is destroying the country?   So how may we catagorize you for claiming Bush was the worst president in history?

It is exactly this type of nonesense that creates my attitude.   You set up false premises that make debate almost impossible.
  - It I dislike Obama I must be a racist
  - If the economy gets better it's because Obamanomics worked.  If it gets worse it's because Obamanomics didn't go far enough.


The simple reality is that the congress and supreme court of Hondurus upheld their constitution by ousting the president turned dictator.  Obama's support of that dictator should give us all pause.  I appreciate his press secretary's comments about supporting term limits, but when it really seems to count with a real-time event he falls on the other side of the issue.  Combined with the existence of the house bill to repeal the 22nd ammendment, it should alert us all that the conditions we take for granted in this country are more fragile that many of us choose to believe.

You may choose to place your faith in the idea that "majority" will never let things get too bad, and you may choose to take comfort in a room full of reporters laughing off an issue or concern, but history has shown that my views are less likely to be "conspiratorial" than your views are simply naive.

The thought, regarding racism, has occurred to others here as well with the level of constant fanticism in the pursuit of Obama bashing that has occured on this forum.....there is more to live than living to be angry

The time to fight a bill is when it is first introduced, not after it has gained momentum, or as some of you would have us do....which is blindly support anything, let it pass, wait to see how bad of a mess it makes...and then spend decades trying to fix it.


From the wall street journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124683595220397927.html

Hundreds of emails from Hondurans flooded my in-box last week after I reported on the military's arrest of President Manuel Zelaya, as ordered by the Supreme Court, and his subsequent banishment from the country.

Mr. Zelaya's violations of the rule of law in recent months were numerous. But the tipping point came 10 days ago, when he led a violent mob that stormed a military base to seize and distribute Venezuelan-printed ballots for an illegal referendum.

All but a handful of my letters pleaded for international understanding of the threat to the constitutional democracy that Mr. Zelaya presented. One phrase occurred again and again: "Please pray for us."

Hondurans have good cause for calling on divine intervention: Reason has gone AWOL in places like Turtle Bay and Foggy Bottom. Ruling the debate on Mr. Zelaya's behavior is Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez, who is now the reigning international authority on "democracy."

Mr. Chávez is demanding that Mr. Zelaya be reinstated and is even threatening to overthrow the new Honduran president, Roberto Micheletti. He's leading the charge from the Organization of American States (OAS). The United Nations and the Obama administration are falling in line.

Is this insane? You bet. We have fallen through the looking glass and it's time to review how hemispheric relations came to such a sad state.

It goes on.....read more by following the link.

I disagree with you on the 22nd amendment that it is something to worry about. There would be no chance of it getting the support it _has_ to have to pass. If I remember right it needs 2/3 in both house and senate. Even if all the dems voted for it, the republicans wouldn't, and I doubt many at all would vote for it. There's no reason to repeal it, there is no good argument for it to be repealed, and the fear of being ripped out of office on the next election would keep those representitives from voting for it.

I still am not following Honduras so I have no comment on it. Still.

I also never said I blindly support anything, please try to stick to my actual words and not twist them to fit your needs.

Thanks

Obama 2012