host

No sense in wasting an existing thread.....the crux of the revised subject matter is in the fifth post, now.

I'll paste it here, too:

A question for all who post on this politics forum. <b>Why does the posting of documentaion and citations of main stream news reporting sources, end dicsussion, (and probably interest of a majority, for that matter....) on almost every thread where it is introduced into the "mix" of posted opnion?</b>

I suspect that this happens because many of us have been indoctrinated by the "message" (the liberal bias of the media) of L. Brent Bozell III and his mrc.org "research", and as a consequence, obtain information almost exclusively from sources that Bozell influences and steers us to.

Bringing this up, also ends discussion. Is the only way to promote discussion on these threads is to limit it to talking mostly out of our @sses, with nothing more than regurgitation, in our posts, or what we think that we know?

I hope not....but the silence is deafening.

Dilbert1234567

usualy you are very verbose host, cat got your tongue?

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Ch'i

This is Bush's best speach to date!

filtherton

Maybe he's tired of talking about 911, since, you know, he uses it in every other speech to justify most anything he has done or wants to do.

Ch'i

I hope he's ok...

host

A question for all who post on this politics forum. <b>Why does the posting of documentaion and citations of main stream news reporting sources, end dicsussion, (and probably interest of a majority, for that matter....) on almost every thread where it is introduced into the "mix" of posted opnion?

I suspect that this happens because many of us have been indoctrinated by the "message" (the liberal bias of the media) of L. Brent Bozell III and his mrc.org
"research", and as a consequence, obtain information almost exclusively from sources that Bozell influences and steers us to.

Bringing this up, also ends discussion. Is the only way to promote discussion on these threads is to limit it to talking mostly out of our @sses, with nothing more than regurgitation, in our posts, or what we think that we know?

I hope not....but the silence is deafening.

filtherton

The problem in general is that people don't like getting involved with arguments when they can't compete. You set the standards too high. If you want discussion you have to make a bunch of vague insults based on assumption and misunderstanding and then the other side will respond in kind.

roachboy

well, host, you gotta admit that this particular thread is a strange one in which to wonder why folk don't respond to stuff---this was a doublepost that managed to just float around for a while---somebody above even wondered if something bad had happened to you for a minute.

i dont know the answers to your questions, btw.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

matthew330

yeah
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

we

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...22&btnG=Search

suck.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...22&btnG=Search

Elphaba

Nice contribution, Matthew, as always.

Sticky

I honestly think it has to do with the lenght of the posts.
Some people just drop in here for a few minutes at a time. if posts are really long I think that people are sometimes deterred from reading them.

If the articles were summarized in a couple of sentences and a link posted I think that people would be more likely to continue the conversation because they can hendle reading a few sentences. Of course, they are not any more likely to click the link and read the article but at least the point would have been made in the summary.

Who knows maybe if the summary of the article is really interesting someone will click the link to read the article.

__________________
Sticky The Stickman

Ustwo

host, the few times people have taken the time (most of us conservatives are productive members of society, aka we have jobs) to pick appart one of your lenghty cut and pastes, which often have very little to do with whatever your point is, its ignored by you, and you have another onslaught of cut and paste to throw at us.

I think Labell was the last one who really tried, and that was several months ago.

There is only so much time in the day, and because you obviously have nothing better to do than cut and paste, most of us just ignore it.

For example, I think having an ex-president openly criticize our most important ally on the war on terror, and criticize them for helping us is 'bad' and you link articles about big oil and how I support traitors or something. You also linked a lot of stories which were to show me the government was bad. Vaguely or totally unrelated. Do you expect people to sit down and counter that?

There is a line between evidence and babbling.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

highthief

I have no time or, to be honest, patience, to read excessively long posts. I work for a living, I have a family and I go to school, in addition to other demands on my time. I skip Host's posts, by and large.

To be frank, very long posts are largely inappropriate and are not read, I'd be willing to bet, by the majority of people. And if they are not being read, then the writer needs to step back and consider how better to get his PoV across. Writing a ton does not make one more intelligent or influential - it actually makes one less influential if few read the posts. Even the posts that are just a step above trolling that are regularly regurgitated by some have more influence on this board than the biblical-length sagas, for at least the short posts are read.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

host

These are your OP comments in the "ex-president" thread, which you refer to:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=108585
Are you saying that it is OT or inappropriate in some other way, to respond to your OP comments in your "ex-president" thread, by making and supporting the points that the "ex-president" you anchored your thread as a criticism of,
was actually able, competent, and prescient in the sense that he identified the nations largest national security problem as a growing dependence on imported petroleum, and thus, drafted, passed and funded legislation to facilitate and meet the need to conserve and use that resource in the most efficient manner, the need to fund R&D and provide tax incentives for alternative energy sources, etc., and to pay for procurement and storage of stockpiles of petroleum?

I responded to your comments:
...in a coherent, easy to follow, and well documented manner. I stated that you had everything exactly opposite of what actually happened during and after Carter's presidency, and I showed you how the presidents who followed Carter, dismantled his energy dependence solutions, and his diplomatic initiatives, selling out the priorities of most of us, to the interests of "big oil" and the defense industry lobby, using an incessant message of fear to attract votes and to justify their agenda.

I presented a persuasive and clear case that "12 years of Republican presidents", gave us accelerated dependence on imported energy, ended funding for research, startup, and tax credits for alternative energy solutions, such as solar energy technology, adopted a flawed, free market "will solve the problem" policy that replaced Carter's initiatives and benefited only "big oil", and spent us into massive treasury debt that we can never hope to repay, and put the trade imbalance, due to our now spending 10 times the amount on imported oil that we spent annually, just 25 years ago, causing our present circimstances of military involvement in Iraq, and our loss of the support of our allies that followed, in response to our foreign policy.

The final point is that, rather than criticize Carter for speaking out in criticism of the Bush administration's policies of preemptive war and twisting of the human rights protections in article III of the Geneva Conventions, which, I pointed out, is acutally what Carter was doing by voicing his criticism of Tony Blair, along with his criticism of Bush policies, you should consider how he restrained his outrage and disgust, during "12 years of Republican presidents", when his well thought out, and proven solutions....where they weren't preempted, discontinued, sold to "big oil" competitiors, to be sabotaged, or destroyed by cronyistic management appointments, as in the case of Reagan's management team at Synfuel Corp,,,,,<b>actuallu worked the way they were intended....to lessen US dependency on foreign oil.</b>

I endeavor to post in detail and support for the detail that is in proportion to the extent of the misconceptions that, IMO, eminate from the other side of an argument. If I respond to someone who, IMO, advances an opinion, most especially in an OP of a thread at the politics forum, that, IMO, is the opposite of the actual record of events....the "history" of what actually happened, and the politcal effect that resulted, I put that much more work, research, and detail, into the counter arguments which I post. Conversely, if you post an opinion that seems to me to be accurate and in synch with the reporting of the elements of your opinion, I probably won't post inresponse, at all. You projected an opinion that Carter was a "bad" president, Reagan and Bush 41 and 43 are the opposite.... so Carter has no credibility and no justification to speak out. If I am incorrect, please tell me how I misinterpreted your OP statement.

If you read my posts, you might have gleaned that they were relevant, persuasive, and informative.....as others who read them and posted replies about them, obviously did.

If you had confined your critique of an "ex-president" to his contemporary criticism of Bush or Blair, I would have confined my response to your OP, to that narrow topic. You opened the "ex-president" thread by painting Carter as a worthless incompetent whose only contribution was influencing the voters to choose "12 years of Republican presidents". When you did that, you should have expected responses similar to the ones that I posted.

Now....do you want to have a discussion that includes POV and details, other than the ones you embrace and find compelling.....or not?

matthew330

Yeah that was for your benefit. I was afraid you stepped down from your self-appointed moderator position, and wanted to give you another opportunity to shine.

I was worried about you Elphaba.

Elphaba

Ah, that's so sweet of you matthew.