Quote:
|
Originally Posted by meembo
Yo, willravel -- You are completely ignoring the fact that host defined the threads and topics he complains about as the ones that most people read and respond to here in this forum. That's going pretty far out on the branch. What are all the rest of us who read and post supposed to think -- are you and host suggesting you are more enlightened politically? Are the topics you consider to be more relevant being banned from this forum? I take the populist view, that the numbers speak for themselves. The numbers of views and responses represent the voice of the people -- they think this way, they vote this way, and they debate these topics, like it or not. There are certainly heavyweight and lightweight topics in that top ten list, but to belittle the topics and the contributors as irrelevant is to belittle the judgement of every single person who contributed to the statistics of that top ten list.
|
I'm no smarter than anyone else....actually that's wrong. I'm smarter than some people, and some other people are smarter than I am. Just as that's true, some people are more informed in some political ways, and not as informed in others. Just by reading posts, you can usually get an impression of how informed people are, as well as their political loyalties. To say we're all on the same footing in politics would be lying to ourselves. I'm not saying I'm better or worse than anyone, but I'd like to poitn out that there are people who are better, and there are people who are worse. As for relavancy, how many of us will have a heart attack from stress (and possibly diet), and be brain dead resulting in brain damage that allows spinal fluid to rush into our brains, and then have our SO and parents fight over whether we should die or not? Not too many of us. How many of us are effected by major governmental decisions like President Bush cutting domestic spending in a bid to lower our record deficit. The cut proposes reductions in budgets at 12 out of 23 government agencies including cuts of 9.6% at Agriculture and 5.6% at the Environmental Protection Agency. That effects the food we eat, and the air we breath and the water we drink. Relevancy is relative only to a point. I haven't really heard anything in Politics about the cuts that are going to try desperatly to make up for the military spending on what is considered by a large amount of the world to be a failed war.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by meembo
The premise of the post seems to be that most of the participation here (again, defined by host as the number of views and posts) is somehow not relevant enough to another person's liking, and that's what I reject. His opinion is directly contadicted by the evidence he provided in his own post. My reaction is that every thread in the top ten list that host posted in genuinely political, and condemning the posts as irrevelant is silly and illogical. For the crowd that gathers here in this forum, the threads are apparently very relevant, and the numbers bear that out.
|
How would you measure participation? It seems logical that it would be reflected both by how may people clicked on the page beacuse they were interested by the title, and also those who read the post andf were interested enough to add theri two cents. They participate in these that are not even relativly relevant in comparison to other political actions in the world. The condemnation is relative as well. On their own, those top 10 threads are really interesting political discussions. Compared to what is going on in the entire political arena, they are basically fluff. No one would know about a woman who might or might not be starved to death because she is comotose had it not been such an important political point (on which elections will no doubt be fought).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by meembo
KMA pointed out clearly that host provides a great deal of other information and opinion to chew on, and I applaud that. Host points out host's relevant topics, and others do the same.
|
You can talk to KMA about his sense of humor. His whit is quite sharp.
He's good people. Just like host.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by meembo
Finally, hosts asked at the end of his post whether or not we agree with what s/he proposed. I answered his question, that I think the question itself is flawed.
|
Of course. You're welcome to your opinion in every way. I respect your opinion, and I know that it is informed. I am also entitled to my opinion, and my opinion of your opinion. Most of Poltics is peoples opinions on other peoples opinions. I was pointing out that this post wes relevant enough for you to post on.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA-628
BTW, Will -
I heard the Clinton document thing a few days ago and was fairly impressed by it. This is not the first time that Bush has gone out of his way to protect Clinton and I admire him for that. I would guess that it is one of the reasons why Clinton isn't overly critical of Bush....I think Clinton feels like he owes him a bit.
Plus, it shows that Bush can, at times, put himself above the political games often played. He could've handed over a lot of info that would've made Clinton look bad--but he didn't--and nobody would've criticized Bush if he had. You'll notice that Bush often publically speaks very highly of Clinton and has always treated him with more respect than most conservatives would be willing to give Clinton.
I think a lot of good things about Bush are often overlooked, just as many of the good things about Clinton were/are overlooked by Republicans.
|
That's part of the reason I brought it up. Not only does it have political relevancy because the information is being removed about an important political decision, but we saw some really interesting right-left cooperation. It was interesting to see that.