Relevant and reputable sources
 

It has been suggested that links be limited to relevant and reputable sources. A noble and reasonable suggestion, but how is it possible when some here consider any source critical of Bush to be leftwing media hogwash? Is Michelle Malkin, Drudge or the Wash Times more reliable than the NY Times, ThinkProgress or the Wash Post?

The probem here is not Host's posts (some of which I read and some I dont) ..or Ace's simplistic analogies, or any one single poster. IMO, the problem is unwillingness by some to have reasonable discourse BASED ON FACTS when the source is challenged.

I dont claim to be the best role model, but I do try to back up my comments with facts. When I see a post that is entirely false, (more often than not, the product of right wing blogs) I will challenge it with relevant and reputable sources, for which I am then criticized for "threadjacking" or responded to with snide remarks and more false information.

Maybe others here have suggestions on how to regain a sense of decorum and a place to exchange reliable and relevant information expressing opposing views. First and foremost, it takes an open mind and a willingess to accept that some positions on an issue (as opposed to an opinion) may not be supportable by the facts.

I am out of ideas.

....I'm not....what can you expect, though....when in the 3D world,

.....you get this "op-ed" column....in the nation's "newspaper of record":
...and it's opposite, on a "liberal" politics blog:
...my point is that IMO, the opinion at the link assumed to be more "credible", the Washington Post link, is not....in this case it is deliberately misleading.....and....unless you know that it's author, Ms. Toensing, and her husband, Joe diGenova, were described in the same newspaper, in 1998 as:
....Mr. Johnson, on the other hand, although posting from a "blog", seems to be who he says he is....a former CIA agent turned political pundit, who was in Valerie Plame's training class at CIA, in the mid '80's......

My "solution" is to post "in depth" support for my points and opinions....

I have more to say, (of course....)but I'm distracted, thinking about the irony that the point of my post on this forum before this one was that the "establishment" in the US has a tendency to discourage / banish political discourse from the "left" of "center-right"....

creating this problem was a major goal of the conservative media apparatus over many years. it was a space that enabled the right to borrow something from marxist ideology critique and stand it on its head: the right boiled ideology critique down to a simplistic forumla that relativized all information sources by claiming that all of it is equal in that all of it is political--and by "political" they meant "not conservative"---so it followed from there that the right would argue, not that conservatives needed to read critically what information they encountered (why do that?) but instead that since all information as political, and since, in the fantasyland of the american extreme right, conservative viewpoints were marginalized, that it followed that conservative political propositions built into the information itself can function to legitimate information provided to the conservative faithful.

this has created a real problem around agreement as to the legit-ness of any given information source.
and it has had the desired effect: cutting conservatives off from information streams that would provide it with problematic information, replacing them with other streams that do not.
so it follows that political conversations across positions end up being hamstrung more often than not.
in my more paranoid moments, i think this was a good part of the point of this tactic relating to information.

i dont really know what to do to address this. the meta-debates about information sources are endless in here, and they do not seem to get anywhere because even if you crush any number of sources in the course of a debate, you never get to the dispositions that informs their usage.

but this is a direct consequence of choices made by the conservative media apparatus aimed at opening up a space for its own brand of reactionary infotainment to be taken seriously (somehow).

it is very strange.

I'm less concerned about reputable, and more concerned with relevant. The information can always be debated, so long as it is relevant to the discussion and not overbearing in volume. Brevity will spur the discussion.

Not to mention that something is not true just because someone else says it is.

I think that the quality of the original thought in a post is what drives a thread - links and quotes are there for references, not content.

Halix...your thread on President 2.0 provides an example of the problem.

It went off course when magictoy offered a post that was completely baseless:

If you do not consider the right to keep and bear arms a freedom you should be enjoying, then Obama is right for you.

If you think that a black child of Michael Jordan is more deserving of a place in college than the white child of Joe Lunchbucket, then Obama is right for you.

Neither claim can be supported with any factual information. Should I have qualified my response by saying anyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts?

Was is a threadjack for me to challenge these false assertions?

When I was further confroted by dk and marv with mocking responses, I provided more FACTS.

Yes, what followed was a further threadjack by all of us, but is it not relevant to set the record straight even if it takes the thread further off course?

What is more important...keeping a thread on the OP topic or shedding light on bullshit when it is presented as factual?

Why should I or anyone who really wants an honest debate bother to contribute if there are restrctions that allow bullshit to go unchallenged?

Bingo! This encapsulates the preferred method of message board debating, IMO.

Here is what I got out of the above.

I am smarter than you. When I challenge your source that is o.k., but if you challenge my source you are wrong. And one other thing, while I am at it here is another personal attack on Ace, eventhough my attack adds no value to my point.


Here is a very simplistic thought. Give credit when good points are made. Also, conceding to the obvious allows the discussion to progress. I often give "simplistic analogies", because of what appears to be fundemental disagreements on obvious points. For example at some point everyone would agree to take preemptive military action against a looming threat. So when people pretend that they would not, that makes me want to challenge their position. If that point was conceded, a more indepth discussion would occur without "Ace's simplistic analogies" when I participate in a discussion.

Some information is political. I have often acknowledged that some "conservative sources" I have given has been political (i.e. - discussions where I provided info on global warming and and Walmart), however, I have yet to see the same kind of acknowledgement about a "liberal" source. I can see conservatives being guilty of what you suggest, but guess what. Perhaps liberals are guilty of it too.

I call it hypocrisy.

dc_dux, magictoy got a warning for thread derailment. However it is everyone's responsibility not to get swayed.

Ace..i am sorry you see it that way.

I encourage you or anyone to challange any factual declaration I make or any source of mine with FACTS of your own and if yours have more merit than mine, I am man enough to admit it or to discuss it further. When you resort to comparing Saddam to a grizzly bear (or was it polar bear) caged in a zoo or comparing a corporate ceo to a babysitter, I think it is simplistic and irrelevant to any reasonable discussion. It is not a personal attack on you. It is a critique of your methods of discourse.

I have also crtiticized as many of Host's sources as I have your conservative "opinion" pieces (from IBD and other sources) as not being factual.

I briefly had this idea to declare a day where you could not post any source material, all posts had to be in your own words, referencing an idea.

Then it hit me that politics without reference is philosophy.

Profound, no?

It's the "I've got the support of all my buddies" mentality that make politics what they are. Me being me, it kinda makes it that much more interesting to argue without sources. However most internet debaters won't even pay attention to a post unless it has some blowhard's stamp of approval on it.

Halx...I dont think it is irresponsible to correct a statement that is clearly incorrect and unsupportablee with the facts, even at the expense of temporarily diverting or swaying a thread. The truth should be more important than allowing misinformation to be spread.

But it is your forum and your rules. I will try to be more circumspect (but I am a stubborn old cuss when it comes to the truth) :)

By all means, correct the guy. But there are ways to do it while maintaining a quality forum. All you need to do was, instead of hitting "Reply" - hit "New Thread"

Halx, I think it might be political science.

Ace, as a conservative you're outnumbered something like 12:1 here, so why are you surprised when you get run over? That's the nature of the beast.

dc, I find myself agreeing with you, but there has to be some wiggle room on whether a source is reputable, even if we're quoting something mainstream. A lot of people quoted very reputable articles back when Jessica Lynch was in the news....only to find out that everyone was wrong. The real problem is that very few of us are journalists, and very few of us have a real connection to a source on a story. I happened to know people in Lebanon when Israel invaded a few months back, so I knew my information was correct and up to date. A lot of the information on that story was sourced from Israeli news organizations, though, so while my information was correct, the prevailing understanding was wrong and I was thus considered wrong. This is a complicated problem that does not have one solution. Simply speaking, the answer is to do your best and keep and open mind, but that seems an inadequate response to the situation.

That sounds interesting....whatever it would end up being.
Stuff means more to me when it's coming first person, pure....probably a little on the simple side I guess :o ....but I can really build into something off my own experience and ideas. I can more easily see when I need to redirect myself too, if I'm not muddled by other people's agendas.

Maybe what is needed is a sticky Fact Check Thread, where anyone can post corrections to misinformation or blatant bullshit (as opposed to opinions) on other political threads. (...in reference to post #x on thread "abc", the following information is not supportable with facts and I offer (this) as more in line with the truth).

When I have posted IBD pieces, I have also clearly stated they were from the editorial page. I often do it to show a different point of view based on the same set of facts on a given issue, not to prove factual truth.

If I have ever failed to do that, please show me. I think most know the difference between an editorial and factual based research, eventhough facts may be quoted in an editorial.

Again, my analogies are pointed to the extreme because posters often take extreme positions that don't stand up. For example wanting controls CEO pay but no controls on the pay of others including babysitters. When people say they get the point, I don't spend time thinking of analogies.

I am not surprised. I am disappointed by some who on the surface pretend to be interested in open honest debate and then easily get offended when challenged. I have also notice when I make afew good points here and there they run from the discussion or make personal attacks. I have had several tell me my beliefs were not sincere, or simple try to tell me what I really think, inspite of what I actually state.

I like this idea. It keeps the OP clean from a major threadjack with a small post "I disagree, but don't wish to threadjack. See FCT, post #..."

Hal: You are so wrong about this, that I strongly suggest that you return this forum to those mods that have been doing so well in maintaining civility while moving the topic forward. A lock down and a warning in one day. My, my. :orly:

Profound, good lord no. Oblivious, yes. Insulting blowhard, it's all you, baby.

I have a very serious question about your presence in this forum. Why? You hate the forum, and despise some of the members that post here. If you had a sincere interest in politics, you would never had made the observations and comments above.

Is it your intention to demonstrate how you want this forum to be moderated from now on? If this forum was not meeting your expectations during the last year, I believe, we, the regular posters here, deserve an explanation of what your problem is with Politics.

If it is your intention to shut down Politics, as you have stated in the past, please understand that political issues encompass all aspects of our life. Shut down this forum if you wish, but political issues will bubble up elsewhere on this board. I suppose you can lock down all political topics from now until eternity from showing up in your other forums, but this forum keeps those issues in one area.

You idea of Evolution? I guess that only applies to titties & twats. I don't see you supporting the discussion of conflicting ideas on the effects of the new global economy and the politics that support it. How about the war on Iraq, and now Iran? Are you interested in the treatment of our returning wounded soldiers? Why can't we resolve the mideast crisis? Can we avoid a massive deflation of the dollar?

Politics is messy. There is no one answer to all of the problems that face our government at this moment. The divisiveness that you complain about here, is no less or more than that being experienced across the country.

We are a deeply divided country that needs to find common ground when ever we can. Are you open enough to include something that large on your board? Or is it too big for your original vision of "tits and twats?"

Yes, it was my purpose to offend you to get your attention. Now, respect the opinion of your mods that have moderated this forum, successfully.

I find it laughable that you think people find common ground in the Politics forum.

You must have been born yesterday.

You're talking to me about my ideal, while you purposefully attack me?

Elphaba, you're mislead about my intentions. You obviously disagree with my methods, but you should never doubt the direction I want to move in. If you doubt that, then it puzzles me as to why you are even here. One minute I hear from you that this forum isn't worth your time. The next minute you're preaching to me like I'm up in your nest. One minute I hear I've neglected it. The next minute I hear I'm handling it too much.

Maybe if you weren't so threatened by me, you'd keep your head on straight. The warnings I've passed out are for policy infractions and ignored past demands. And while we're at it.. moderation? What moderation? Maybe you've come to enjoy the complete lack thereof, but I want a clean forum, not a free-for-all.

You've got this lense that you like to view me through. It's unwaveringly negative, I can do no right. You are a prime example of someone who loves themself too much to sympathize with their opposition. I'm here because I care, not because I want to shut this forum down. How crazy do you have to be to think that?

Thank you, Carno, for that insightful contribution. Particularly since you rarely post in this forum. You and I have found common ground about how laughable a post can be in Politics. :thumbsup:

There are always going to be people talking with their eyes shut and their fingers in their ears. They live in all areas of the political spectrum, usually residing, though, on the outermost parts of an issue. It would be good to ignore these people, as a way of passively denouncing their methods. There are also people who tip toe in politics and really aren't in there for the heavy hits like you or I. One part of being a member of the community is recognizing that some people should be given some level of comfort in discussion. An example would be some of the newer members, who we don't want to scare away. Meanwhile, people that you know can take it are here also. I'm always up for pulling out the big guns and going head to head, and there are a lot of other people out here that feel the same.

Personal attacks are wrong and should always and without exception be dealt with as a broken law. If you feel you've been personally attacked, contact the moderation staff. There are a ton of good people here to monitor and make sure that is dealt with.

Elph....shh!!! Hahaha. I happen to think our moderation is second to none, and that a few complainers are making the situation seem much, much worse than it really is. Things really aren't that bad, but don't jinx it by bringing up that "shutting down politics" stuff.

Carno: people do find common ground in Politics. People even find common ground on polarized issues from time to time. I would have to ask if it was you that was born yesterday, because you seem to have forgotten about all the wonderful discussions in politics. Do you remember the "Common Ground" project? For a time, we have peaceful threads on various subjects and all was right with the world. Look at the non binding resolutions thread going on right now. It's peaceful, it's mature, it's informative. Look at " What happens if the Middle East fights a major civil war?". It's a divisive issue, and there is nothing in there but good discussion. Let's leave the exaggerating about how bad politics is to the politicians, and let's do everything we can to keep Tilted Politics a place where people can come to simply discuss politics.

This response of yours is beyond my comprehension.

- Why do you confuse my post with an attack? Please read it again.
- I can't be misled by your intentions or direction, if you have not articulated them for this forum since your board shakeup?
- Nonsense. Please show were I said any of these things:
-You believe that I am threatened by you? How curious in that I feel completely comfortable in confronting you. It would seem that your idea of keeping my head on straight is defined by agreeing with you in all things.
-You say that there was no moderation in Politics, and a free-for-all? I am very supportive of the mods you assigned to that forum. It appears you are not.

And your final comment If I were so unwaveringly negative, would I have participated in a positive way in the topics you started in Politics? I welcomed your participation, in case you didn't notice. I love myself too much? I ask you the same question you asked me..."How crazy do *you* have to be to think that?"

I can agree that certain subjects aren't as bad as others, but in my opinion, they are just peanuts in the shit. The threads that people go into not thinking that they know everything are vastly outnumbered by the threads where people post like they do.

I'm not trying to attack anyone, I'm just calling it like I see it. I read the Politics forum quite a bit, but I don't post because I really don't like getting involved in long, drawn out discussions with people who act like religious zealots. I find that I learn just as much without posting.

Carno, you are a very intelligent man with a depth of experience that isn't often found in Politics. I would urge you to start your own topic and define how you want it to be addressed.

Respectfully,
Pen

You're blowing up while I'm doing my job. Simple. Let's stop pretending we're not doing/saying things that we actually are. Please refer to the discussions in General Discussion where you stated the previously noted phrasings. Keeping your head on straight is seeing things clearly, which you are not doing because you come to this forum every night looking for the latest "action" that you can speak out against. You continue to contradict yourself by saying you are positive about my presence, yet you accuse me of being here only because I hate this forum.

Do I need to put out a report for you to know what my intentions are? I've been running this site for over 5 years, I don't need to restate its values when they have been the same the entire time. The moderation has been close to nill lately; not because everything is fine, but because the few mods who were patrolling Politics have either gone inactive or have backed off because of overall lack of staff action. If you want to construe that as lack of support, then that's just another negative interpretation of my actions that you use to convince yourself that you're talking sense.

You confront me because you have people to impress. You're going to deny this. If it wasn't for them, you'd do the right thing and talk with me in private. This public outburst is unnecessary posturing considering what you're asking. You participate positively when I post as a member, but get bent when I post as a moderator; that's not a hard phenomenon to understand. You have a game you want me to play.

The bottom line is I'm laying down the law. That law is meant to improve the standard of conversation around here. It has to do with the quality of posts and the intuitive structure of a forum that invites new users to the fold. If you have specific actions that you don't agree with, please bring them to my attention. Otherwise, you're just waving your arms, jumping up and down, and screaming incoherently.

There is so much here that is of your own imagination that I simply can't answer why you assert/attribute things to me that have never been my intention or claim.

You or anyone else can test your claims against my post history.

Regardless, if this is an example of how you wish to promote your new Politics direction to encourage new member participation, I will end my posts here. It seems best.

No Host's posts aren't a problem, one can just scroll down and ignore them. However, I do believe for the sake of space, time and perhaps encouraging people to read them, Host could post a synopsis, highlight what is said in his own words, how he got to his belief and show links for those questioning him.

It's not very creative, showing open mind or productive to just cut paste an article(s) in a thread and say, "yeah, what this says." That can be done by anyone .... to go to an extreme, I'm sure Men Boy Lovers can do it, Nazis can do it, anyone with half a brain can cut, paste and post. Doesn't even take that much time.

But to delve deep, paraphrase, show how a certain article has affected you views and how you have come to the conclusions you have requires some thought, effort and time.

If all TFP were to just copy and pastes articles and post "Yeah, what this said." we wouldn't last very long. Politics is dying, one for this reason and two because everyone has taken sides and we all know where the other stands now. When someone does put forth a good debate or topic of thought it is quickly hijacked by others for their own purposes and the thread loses it's meaning (ahem "President 2.0").

Ace and I have had great debates and I have learnt a lot from him. I have nothing but respect, and his "simplistic analogies" aren't an issue... but what they are in response to maybe. Simple, non-thought provoking or black and white get simplistic, non-thought provoking, black and white answers.

Finally, one of the problems in Politics is the fact people refuse to accept "I feel....", "I believe and this is why....", as "worthy" enough for them to reply without attacking.

POLITICS IS NOTHING BUT THOUGHT, PHILOSOPHY, PERSONAL EXPERIENCES AND A PROPOSED WAY OF GETTING THINGS DONE.... (IMHO).

So when someone says, "Gun control is wrong/right, abortion is wrong/right, bush is a dunce/a genius, etc" we need to debate what is said, express why we feel the opposite way..... why we feel the opposite may not have anything to do with facts.... it just maybe our life experiences.... how the fuck do expect hard facts from that? Or how the Hell can you rip someone and tear them apart because of something they have experienced?

This Politics forum used to be rough, but it allowed the exchange of ideas, creativity and most importantly it made you THINK..... somewhere we lost that... somewhere in time people here came to believe all that mattered was being able to say "yeah what this says."

Was there a lot of links and pasting back then? Yes, but they also included original thought and expressions. The biggest thing we lack here now... and the lifeblood of a thriving forum.... we can thrive again.

there is no "NEW" politics direction... it's the same it's always been... chaotic

the point here is relevant substance not detours from the topic at hand...

we're talking about about apples and someone wants to explain the sex life of an orange... that's fine, but please do it with a new thread...

exactly!!!

I am somewhat amused by the statements of some about "facts" and how their opinions are based on them.

I read a <i>lot</i> of different sources of news and opinion every day, precisely because no one outlet is reliable. I start the day with the NY Times, finish it with the NY Post and read lots of stuff in between. After a while it becomes easy to hear axes grinding when you read stuff, and often you can almost see the reporter straining to be "fair" while still stating the news from his/her viewpoint.

The point being that there is a level at which all factual reporting is refracted through the eyes of those reporting it, which is why it's important to read the words of lots of observers if you want to have a chance of knowing what is going on.

As for the opinions, I have come to the conclusion that opinions do not follow logically from facts. Opinions are formed by the confluence of temperament, predisposition and experience. Different people find different things significant; different people find different things persuasive; different people have different priorities. People differ in their openness to new experiences and arguments. And different people will draw different inferences from the same facts.

So reading how some people here say the facts support them, and some sources are good and others are bad really just makes me laugh. They are, to a large extent, self-selecting for confirmation of their pre-existing views.

I think we're all looking at this wrong. The politics board has a bad rep with a lot of the users and I frankly don't know why. Of COURSE we fight in here. That's an integral part of politics. It's called "debate" people, not "let's all get along and hug each other and give each other puppies."

Is politics for everyone? No, but then I don't spend much time in Trampoline either. To each his own. If you want everything to be pleasant and rosy, maybe this forum isn't for you but believe it or not, some of us LIKE debate, and can argue with each other without it turning personal.

But as long as we're going to have this debate forum, there are basic rules of debate that we should follow. Citing sources is one of them. I can argue that Bush shouldn't be president because he was the Grand Dragon of the Texas KKK, but if I don't cite a source on that, people won't, and should not, take it seriously. (No, he wasn't, if you were wondering).

We get too many people coming through here making outlandish claims and failing to back it up. Am I gonna waste time debating their points when it's not even clear that their points even happened? Of course not. Cite your sources or don't be surprised if your ideas are rejected out of hand.

And while we're on the subject of citing sources, digg, fark, and especially wikipedia are NOT legitimate sources. They can point you in the direction of a legitimate source, but anything that's written and edited by anonymous people on the internet is automatically suspect.

In short, if you want to get into a political debate, you should know what you're talking about, be able to PROVE that you know what you're talking about, and you should EXPECT to have your ideas attacked. That's the definition of a debate.

There is just as much opinion, hearsay and outright distortion of left-leaning facts tossed around as there is on the right. I don't know how many times I've heard people say that GWB is dumb on this board. Does one not need facts to back this up?

I have to admit that I very rarely read host's lengthy citations and articles. And his bolding of "relevant" passages doesn't help. I'm not interested in being swayed...or even particularly swaying the opinions of someone else. I prefer to read for myself and draw my own conclusions based on instinct, reflection, experience and the gathering of information...on my own.

I think Pan and Hal are right about politics largely being discussions of philosophy. ANYONE can find the information out there to make their opinions look like fact. From my perspective the totality of politics today cannot be summed up FACTUALLY within the realm of one particular American political point of view. In other words, I think both "sides" are full of shit because they are in the business of being "right." Which is impossible. I've grown very tired of that opportunistic game of connect the dots.

Just my take on it all...........

The inherent flaw in your logic, your posts in this thread, and this idea is simple; the number of true "facts" in Politics is tiny. Things like dollars spent and bills voted on are sometimes correct, but assumptions about how things happened are always conjecture and not fact. Even how someone acted is not a factual composition, but a summary of information and biases. Just because you want to call some things facts and other things opinions does not make them truly so. Try to recognize that even encyclopedic 'facts' are biased by their writers, too.

The question is what IS factual, just because it is written on the net, or in a newspaper does that make it fact? Prime example, the old grey lady's Jayson Blair, if I was to use his articles in a post does that make it fact or relevant?

Case in point, some experiences I have had in the Marine Corps were reported on extremely incorrectly, but they they were printed in major newspapers, how do I dispell what was written without being able to find a source with the correct information? I know it is true because I lived it, but I can't prove it.

I have ben coming to this board long before there was even a tilted politics,
and I have never seen this board as bad as it is,
some of the threads are just ridiculous, I could post that Clinton is satan himself and probably find a blog or article to cut and paste the crap out of it to back it up, and then challenge
everyone to disprove it.

well, to say that Bush is dumb is an opinion. So you need facts to support your opinion. You don't need to find some reliable source that comes straight out and says "Bush is dumb." But if I were to say Bush is dumb, I would cite things such as his (mis)handling of Iraq, Katrina, the war on terror, his inability to extemporaneously string 5 words together without losing his train of thought, the fact that he said he doesn't read newspapers or in fact expose himself to any news media, the fact that he refused to fire Rumsfeld until it was too late for his party, and countless other facts which would back up my opinion.

I agree with much of what has been said about the interpretative nature and source of "facts". However, I do believe that even in politics, many facts, beyond dollars and votes, are irrefutable but are often manipulated and/or intentionally misrepresented by one side or the other for political gain.

one of the potentially interesting things that politics can take up as a problem is exactly that question, mike: what is a fact?

i dont think the answer obvious at all. and there is a whole series of other problems that go along with very basic categories that people use to organize their views of the world--what is an event? where does one stop and start? what do you think motivates human action in the world? what roles do ideologies play in that? what are ideologies? how do you dismantle them and to what end? for example.

does anyone seriously think that these questions can be addressed with exclusive reference to their own direct experience?
if you do, i think you are dreaming.

this is one of the reasons why politics detached from philosophy is incoherent--politics is a type of philosophy.
but philosophy is not just pulling claims out of your ass with no reference to anything else--and eliminating supporting information is not a way to unleash creativity--it is a way to avoid central questions and use that avoidance as a pretext for retreating into a private world of private fantasies about a private world that you confuse with the world that other people know about.
that is not philosophy: it is a form of dissociation.
why would you want to encourage dissociation?
if you want that, it is easy enough to find: go to a bar. it is easy peasy to find yourself snared there into some drunken rant that starts of being about some political question but which quickly degenerates into a long tiresome story about me me me.
the problem in a bar is that these tedious scenes are often difficult to leave.
with their written duplicate in a space like this, leaving is easy.

information is critical--but it is also obviously problematic.
so it makes no sense to treat information uncritically.
one problem with debates here is that there is no agreement at all about how to handle information. but that's fine--this is a discussion board and not a political philosophy class--but it also generates problems, and one of these problems is at issue in this thread--there is so little agreement not only about how to handle information but also about what politics is (and what philosophy is) that it has to be chocked up to the creativity of all of us that anything ever happens in here at all.


==============
here is a definition that i am kind of attached to:

creativity is a matter of interacting with constraints. it is not about the elimination of constraints: it is about working within them/around them/through them and ending up in a place that you did not expect to, that goes beyond what is comfortable.
it is *not* about simply repeating what you already know.
it is *not* about eliminating what makes you uncomfortable.
it is a process of interaction with material that pushes you outside these comfortable internal limits.
information, with all the problems of mediation that come along with it, is a constraint.
processing information can be a creative undertaking--IF you allow that processing to get beyond teh simple repetition of a political line that you are comfortable with.
i do not always manage this in this forum. i dont think anyone does, particularly not during periods where they get the idea that they are talking largely to themselves.
no friction=no creative action.

==============

i think that pan is right in a way: any statement that gets generated about information provided can have the phrase "i think that..." attached to it--it always implicitly is there--whether you include it or not is just a matter of style, not of content.

===============

i think this debate supporting information yes/no is a wholly false one.

the question of differing types of information that folk present as if there were no differences in types of information is a problem, but usually it is sorted easily in the course of debates themselves.
problematic information usually grinds debate to a halt pretty quickly because they end up being about the fact that the information is problematic.
that should function on its own as a brake on the types of information that folk post.
i do not see the problem with that either.

FWIW, here is how I view "facts" after 22 years of law practice. Most cases I work on don't involve disagreements about basic things that happened. There are some differences in the details and at the margins, but basically we know what happened: it's almost impossible to get around your paper trail. Where the disagreements come in is about what the facts mean -- which ones are significant, which chains of causation and reasoning are convincing, which POV is most reasonable.

Outside the legal process, though, there is no discipline on how to get and use facts. So there is an awful lot of cherrypicking, discounting of sources, and so on. The sources are themselves considerably less than totally reliable - back when I was working in the courthouse, I found that newspaper articles about hearings I was at were never more than 85% accurate.

That's why it's important to get your news from multiple sources.

With all due respect Shakran, that is elitist bullshit and a reason why this poltics forum is dying.

If someone posts something YOU (a collective YOU, not a personal Shakran attack of YOU) believe to be BS.... IGNORE IT. Don't attack the person, don't play holier than thou and rip apart what they say..... just simply move on. It amazes me the people in Politics that would rather have you sit down and shut up than to speak and give your opinion..... Thought it was a free country and one had the right to speak thier opinion without being harassed for it.

Again, 99.99% of politics is based on people's feelings, experiences and personal beliefs..... if a person just gives opinion, who cares, everyone has one and facts can be backed up, just look at global warming.

But gun control, abortion, the war etc....... IT IS ALL OPINION, I don't care if you have 10 pages of facts.... I can find 10 pages to back me up and show you wrong. And if we just post the articles and synopsi then we haven't proven anything. But were we creative, did we add anything, did we show why we believe what we do.... because in the end that is what it all comes down to..... what you believe, why you believe that way and how you got to that belief. The rest is just BS that isn't hard to find collobrating stuff on.

I said it before and I'll say it again, Politics became an elitist, BS, look down your nose, same people posting and they have to post in every thread for fear someone will think they don't care, and they have all these posts but say so very little.

....... double post for some reason.

What you call elitist bullshit I call mature debating. You seem to be saying you'd like this forum to descend into an anarchic free-for-all in which anyone can spew any crap they want without being called on it.

Political debate requires at least two sides. If everyone runs and hides under a rock the minute someone says something they don't agree with, you don't have much debate.

The number of contradictions here is staggering. First you say move on when you don't agree, and then you complain that people want you to shut up rather than give your opinion. Not to mention the fact that you're not exactly moving on by disagreeing with me. Let's be realistic here. If someone spouts what you feel is bullshit, you should call them on it. Period.

You thought wrong. You have the right to speak your opinion without getting arrested for it. If your opinion disagrees with mine, then *I* too have the right to speak my opinion. I'm sorry that you view disagreement with YOUR (meaning you, Pan, not the collective you) opinion as harassment, but that's simply not the case.

Acting as though fundamental truths are 99% opinion and should therefore be welcomed with open arms is cowering from the debate.

Pan it sounds to me like you're saying you don't see the point of this forum at all. If you don't like debate, and you don't like it when someone contradicts you, then that's your perogative, but don't expect to find a happy home in a forum that is defined BY debate.

And that's the point. Of course it's opinion. When did opinion become bad?

And if I post that I believe the world is flat and Europe doesn't exist and it's all anti-religious bullshit, you don't think I should have SOMETHING to back me up on that? Dude I can sit here and make stuff up all day long, but if that's the kind of crap you want this forum to devolve into I think you're going to be sorely disappointed. There's no point in debating with someone if they're just making up the facts that led to their opinion as they go along. If you want people to realize you're not just inventing lies in order to support your fantasy world opinion, then you're going to have to show us where you got your facts. That's just how it works.


No, Politics became one of the more intelligent political debate forums on the internet. You don't see a bunch of crap in here about Bush being a closet nazi or Clinton (Mrs) being a closet lesbian because people in here realize that you can't just spout cheap bullshit without being called on it. Now unfortunately some OTHER people around here have decided that's "elitist bullshit," presumably because they can't be bothered to actually inform themselves of the issues before jumping to an opinion. All opinions are welcome here, but you'd better know the facts underlying those opinions or you'll get crucified. And frankly, that's how it should be. You can find PLENTY of forums out there where you can make shit up or form an opinion that's not based on the real world at all. Do we want to copy them, or do we want to set a higher standard? My vote's for the latter.

what shakran said.

all i'll add to it is a simple statement: opinion is interpretation and interpretation is based on something. presenting information along with an interpretation opens up debate around the question of how well the interpretation fits the information.
from there everything is fair game: the quality of the information, it's political perspectives, the logic of the interpretation, the consequences of the interpretation. all of it.
remove the information and you remove the exchange of ideas.

i do not know why you would want that.

You may, shakran, but not everyone bothers with information to back up their statements as to GW's mental capacity because they are not meant as serious propositions needing back-up but as low blows. The tone of this thread seemed to suggest to me that the only low blows and inflammatory rhetorical allegations being dealt in this politics forum are coming from the right. From my observation this is not true. That is my point.

I'll stand by my assertion that one can find information to support their political opinions but that does not necessarily give their political opinions more basis in FACT because the fludity of truth and fact will very rarely conform to the rigors of America's republican and democratic ideological molds. :)

No, I just don't believe people need to put up pages upon pages of bullshit that they find on the internet that back them up, when I can find the same crap.

.

But debate is done with respect not personally attacking as you have done in your reply to me (and yes, there were personal attacks as I will show later).


No, I said move on if you don't like the post and feel it is bullshit and cannot civilly reply to the person. If you have to personally attack the person or their belief in a way that is demeaning (much like you did in your reply)... then move on. NOONE should be demeaned and talked down to for their beliefs.... that is elitist, holier than thou, "I'm right and you're just stupid" attitudes and those have no place in debate.

Attacking the idea and showing where there are holes but treating the person with respect and allowing them dignity and the oppurtunity to see another side is true debate.

If I say Bush is destroying the economic infrastructure and I give my reasons and opinion based on my experiences and what I believe and then you argue the opposite, based on your experiences and beliefs.... we may show each other something that we can think about and influence our opinions as well as others who maybe reading.

But, if in your reply you ignore what I said, or rip it apart with no respect and showing no interest in what I believe and why.... then you are just flat out attacking and you won't change anyone's views.

No, you can disagree with my views and ideas all you want.... however, when you attack me personally for my ideas and views... you are then in a way trying to censor what I say and believe.

Look at the tone, the attitude of what your reply was and tell me you gave respect and could see my side.... You can't you believe your side to be 100% right and when I made my post you had to rip me personally... not the idea.

You don't want to debate you want to destroy me and my views. You want what I said to look foolish, ignorant and unintelligible so that you can feel good about yourself and believe you won something.


What truths? Politics is not about truth..... it's all about winning people over to your beliefs on how the government should be run.

As I stated and you seem to not touch on, you can find 10 pages of bullshit supporting your beliefs, I can find 10 pages of bullshit supporting mine.... it all comes down to opinion.

Take global warming for instance...... some say it is man made.... some say the Sun is overly active and Mars' icecaps melting show it's not just us, thus it's not manmade, some say it's just hooey, period.

You take a stance and get piles of bullshit proof, I take a stance get piles of bullshit proof.... neither of us have done anything but supply others with piles of bullshit.

Tell people in your own words why you believe what you believe... (I'm not saying don't have the proof at hand, use links... use parts that show what you want shown.... but don't bog the people down).

I like debate, Ace and I have had some very good debates, Stevo and I have had some very good debates.... we never once had to attack the other, we could show respect for each other while at the same time getting our points across. We didn't have to rely on just posting articles and saying, "Yeah, what this said." We pushed each other to be intelligent and to show why we believed what we did.

It is far more intelligent and harder to support your ideas and beliefs when you have to actually think for yourself then just post some articles and say, "yeah...." or attack the other person and show them or their beliefs no respect.



Opinion is a part of individuality, it is part of what makes us all different, of course it is good..... but the attacking someone personally, treating them as lessers, acting superior over someone because their opinion differs from yours is wrong.


First od all, I am not an elephant's phallic hair, so I am not a "DUDE".....

Ok so you post crazy ass bullshit, soon noone reads your posts, you get no replies, you get no audience.

I look at what your doing and what I see is someone trying to take what Isay to extremes and read more into what I wrote than what was truly there.

And you show your elitism and holier than thouism...... ordinary people can't debate, they'll say stupid shit and not have anything to back it up... only those of us that are educated and read the news truly know what is going on and thus only OUR views count. Unless you have 10 pages of bullshit, you have nothing to add.

My belief is that your post was to justify the elitism and to keep things the same in an area that is dying rather than face the truth.... the truth is there are some here that just want to keep politics bogged down with pages of bullshit and as Mixed put it....lowblows and bullshit but sourced only from those sources they agree with.


Of course what do I know, I just spent 1/2 writing this post, doing exactly what I accuse you of doing, being holier than thou.

Awww fuck it my views are right, I am right you're just a peon. (BTW that was meant in humor and sarcasm.)

What I find amazing and Mixed just touched on this...... the lefties here seem to like the board the way it is....... the reason they may not want change is because then people from the Right may actually come back and true debates and ideas will be exchanged from newcomers..... and their monopoly and hate tactics will have to cease.

(BTW..... I am far more left than Right but I see what some are doing in politics chasing away the Righties and not having any debates at all.)

Take this example a step further....and assume none of us have the expertise to make an informed decision without additional information. What is wrong with bringing relevant source information into the discussion?

The question of the value of sources arises when a secondary source like a glib editorial that attribute global warming to cow flatuence is given the same weight as primarry sources (like the International Panel on Climate Control report or a contradictory scientific report on the impact of solar flares).

I would suggest that discussions without a knowledge base are more irrelevant and provide less of a learning opportunity than sharing source information for others to judge.

Too be clear, bringing your research to back you up is *always* a good thing. The only real issue that people have had with this is that some have posted way to many articles into one post and it makes it quite intimidating for some.

The new HIDE tags will allow the poster to write their opinion and back it up with all sorts of information while highlighting the relevant portions of the article. Those who care to read further and do so as before.

Again, research and support materials are a good thing and arguably essential to good debate.

The only issue I see here is how to convince others that your source material is worthy. But that is another debate in itself.

Yes, having facts backing up what you say is a good thing, however, posting just articles and saying "yeah..." and not paraphrasing and putting in your own thoughts and ideas is inane and proves nothing.

I come here to be challenged and to learn, I do not come for petty, elitists who treat people's opinions, experiences and ideas as less than worthy of this place.

I find it funny that they will complain about threads but post in them.

If the thread isn't a gun control fight or a Bush sucks fight..... it has to become one. Facts be damned people's feelings be damned the true OP be damned.....

You don't like the post or poster you put them on ignore..... you don't attack them, it's juvenile and shows no class.

You want to debate, great. You want to teach great. You want to attack and fight, I feel you should take it elswhere where it's acceptable or everyone agrees 100% with you and never doubts your sources or has sources of there own to disprove your sources.

It's about growth and learning..... I thank God I am not as militant about my views as I was 15 years ago, Hell, 3 years ago in some aspects. Because, all militant does is make the other side militant and compromise, respect and the working together that is necessary to run this country goes out the window. All you are left with is hatred, distrust and anger. Nothing but negativity.

I don't mean to say that links to articles, data and other information to back up your claims are meaningless, worthless or insignificant. Just that said information isn't necessarily persuasive or beyond doubt regardless of how reputable the source. And I am speaking only for myself and where I am...where my head is at.

And I want to make clear that I didn't mean to infer that I do not respect host and the depth and breadth of his knowledge, as I am aware it probably sounded. Looking back I realize that in my haste I neglected to touch on the fact that, when host uses his own words (displaying the network of his own thoughts and conclusions) I am always impressed. Even if I don't agree. It's just that, again speaking only for myself, the excessive amount of reading material he provides does not encourage me to follow his line of reasoning.

honestly, pan, i have just read your last two posts and i haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about.
and i am kinda fed up with how you act here, so let me tell you a couple things that i would assume you already know:

what i see when i read your posts is an amazing level of barely controlled anger---it seems often to build on itself--all because you seem to confuse resistance to your arguments with a lack of respect for you as a human being.

this must be true because otherwise your reactions would make no sense. you know what i mean: when you are confronted with disagreement---and particularly when that disagreement engages with you directly you react with:
"you--and those fucking "militants" just like you---are wrecking the country"
or
"we could all pull together as a big happy team if it wasnt for you and those other fucking leftists"
or
"you elitist prick, stop persecuting me"
or a variation (you get a fair sample above)

in all of this, you extend no respect whatsoever to those of us who disagree with you politically: yet you never seem to tire of demanding it for yourself.
how do you manage that?

you get what you give, friend.
and a respectful environment does not start with treating people who disagree with you as persecuting phantasms. it just doesn't.
if you really want to change the tone of this forum, you might start with your own.
just a suggestion.

I don't understand it either...and worse, I watched you come from a place that was much different and the slide over what has been at least a year long process.

I guess the best description I can give of what I've fealt is, ok so you to seem like some kind of liberal but then you started to "see what they were saying" and the actual underpinning of your posts seemed to change...that is, you would claim, "look, I'm a leftist and I'm in agreement with seaver, why can't the rest of you do what I'm doing" but your actual content looked like it changed to me. I would think to myself, what is pan talking about.

and then my opinions degenerated more when you would start these kinds of persecution posts. that's how I felt from what I was reading, I have no idea about the facts of the matter. I could honestly be, along with members like roachboy and host, viewed by a pile of other members as part of an elitist cadre, the militant leftist contingency on tfp, or whatever. but I don't have any idea, I've never read anything like that in our posts, least of all shakran's.

If that's a commentary on Host's posting method, then I see where you're coming from. I'll admit I don't always read through the reams of information he posts myself, and I'm on his side. On the other hand, it IS really nice to see a guy who can back up EVERY SINGLE FACT he talks about by citing sources, and who's willing to do that.

I was attacking your ideas, not you personally. I do not feel one has to do the "well I understand and respect your ideas but perhaps you could look at it this way" to get a point across. That's frankly for PC BSers, and I don't have much patience for them. State your opinon. Be blunt about it. We're big boys and girls. We can take it.


To a point I agree with you. However I must admit that I don't have the patience to be supportive and encouraging when someone says something appallingly stupid. I was in a discussion once about violence on TV where one participant kept telling everyone the only solution was to outlaw television. I tried to be nice. I really did, but on about the 5th time he espoused that brilliant idea I said what everyone else was thinking, and what frankly needed to be said. If an idea is abjectly stupid, we should have the freedom to say that. If I call your idea stupid, that doesn't mean it's a personal attack on you, and it doesn't mean you have to sit there and take it either. If you don't think your idea is stupid, then tell us why. If it's really not stupid, I'd be the one to look like an idiot, not you.



And that's exactly what I did in my reply to you. I picked your ideas apart. I did not call you an idiot, or any other name.



Difficult to respond to this one, since you and I agree on Bush's handling of the economy ;) But if I were wrong and thought that Bush was doing fine with the economy, I should pick your statement apart, if possible. Truly good ideas cannot be logically picked apart. Sure, you can pick 'em apart with stupid BS, but the folks around here are generally smart enough to see through that.

I am not attacking you personally. I'm sorry if you feel that I am.

It is not necessary for me to see your side. No, I can't see your side. You're wrong here. 100% flat out wrong. That doesn't mean you're an idiot. It doesn't mean I don't see your side in other threads you participate in. But you are arguing the polar opposite to what I am arguing. As far as tone, we both used the same tone in our respective posts. You told me "With all due respect Shakran, that is elitist bullshit." Calling my idea elitist bullshit isn't exactly respectful, and if you think that putting the "with all due respect" in front of it tones it down you're sorely mistaken. Are you suggesting that all I had to do in my reply was start it out with "with all due respect" and you'd have been totally fine with everything else I said? Look, you bashed my idea because you 100% disagree with it. That's OK. I'm a big kid now, I can take it. Honest. I didn't get mad. I didn't even get irritated.

I think that's the problem with this board. Some people want us to spend a crapload of time being syrupy-nice to each other. That's simply not needed. I don't have a personal problem with anyone in here. Do I disagree with 'em? Hell yes. Ustwo and I have bashed each other's ideas for a VERY long time now. And ya know what? When we agree with each other, here or in another forum, we joke about it. He and I disagree. Doesn't mean I don't respect or dislike him or vice versa. I think his political ideas are completely wrong, and he thinks the same about mine. That doesn't mean we have to sit there complimenting and "respecting" each other for half an hour before we get down to the debate.


I'll tell ya something. If I needed an internet political forum to feel good about myself, I'd have a lot more problems than even you apparently think I have. I'm not here to feel good about myself. I'm here because I enjoy debating. Debate is a competition. It's like sports, only fat people like me can play too ;) I hold no illusions that I'm going to totally change people's worldview. I will NEVER convince Ustwo that the dems are right and the republicans are wrong. Simply won't happen. But ya know what? I don't need to, nor do I care to. However, if Ustwo and I debate it out, those who are more on the fence might be exposed to our ideas and make a choice themselves. He doesn't have to cite sources, but he's gonna look awful foolish if he doesn't. Same goes for me.

As for this particular discussion, yes I'm absolutely out to show that you are wrong (though I'm not out to destroy you). You are trying to turn this forum into Philosophy 2.0. Political debate is rough and tumble by its very nature, and dammit, that's OK. There's absoultely nothing wrong with that. As long as we aren't turning to personal attacks (you're an idiot, what are you stupid, etc) it's OK to show why other people's ideas are wrong.

And how am I supposed to do that if I'm not supposed to attack and/or destroy the ideas that do not agree with those beliefs?


Actually it all comes down to who has the most logical opinion and has the best facts to support it. I can cite documents by the flat-earth society (yes, it actually exists, believe it or not) "proving" that the world is flat. You can cite a globe and a picture of the earth from the shuttle. Who wins, me with screwey documents written by a collective of nutjobs, or you with concrete evidence?

Now, you can choose not to cite sources if you want, but then you take the risk that if I'm a good enough debater, I might just convince someone that the world is flat.

True. So we look into the sources. Who cites the most reliable sources. Turns out that most of the sources cited by the "it's just hooey period" crowd are studies undertaken by scientists working for, or for whom the project has at least been paid for by, the oil companies. Funny, but I don't consider that a very unbiased scientific source.

Well I never suggested that we should cite bullshit sources. Frankly if you go and cite a bullshit source, you're gonna get ripped apart, and rightfully so. But if you hit me with several reliable, trusted sources, it's gonna be much harder for me to argue back.


Here we agree. Cite sources. I don't feel it is necessary to post the ENTIRE source.


Well I don't think many of us are just posting articles and then parroting them. My style is to tell you the facts (here's fact 1, fact 2, fact 3) and then tell you that BECAUSE of these facts, such and such is true. You can then either attack my sources, attack my conclusions, or both.

Um. . . .What?


Well then I'd better learn to back up that crazy assed bullshit to prove that it isn't. . . . or I'd better not post crazy assed bullshit, hadn't I?


You're wrong.


And you accuse me of taking YOUR ideas to extremes? I never said ordinary people can't debate. Anyone can debate. But if they don't debate smart - i.e. have sources to back up what they claim as fact - they can expect to get nailed for it. That's not elitist any more than it's elitist to expect a kid to get the right answers on the math test before you mark the answers as being correct.

Your belief is 100% wrong. What I want to see happen, frankly, is for people to buck up. I see too much shit on the other forums around here whining about how "mean" politics is and how people are afraid to come in here and how they're "allergic" to it, and all I can think is, WHY. We have 41 other forums where we can be nice to each other and not attack each other's ideas. What in hell is wrong with one where we can (intelectually, non-personally) mix it up? If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen, but don't bitch to everyone that the stove is warm. It's supposed to be that way.

No, we dont' want to see pages of bullshit. I'd like to see moderation concentrate on citing decent sources. If more people were held to the idea of citing real sources instead of "dood bush sucks and everyone knows it" type of crap that we see so much of around here.

And ya know what? That's OK. You have the right to your opinion, and you have the right to express it. And I don't mind that you disagree with me. Really.


;)

Actually if you'll look back before the republicans took their infamous "thumpin" there were plenty of republicans in here, and they were spouting just as much bullshit as anyone from the left. I don't think the right has abandoned politics because we're too mean. I think they've abandoned politics because it's now impossible for them to tell us "you're wrong, we're the majority, deal with it." It's gotten VERY difficult for someone on the right to win a debate because their party has been mismanaged to the hilt by Bush and unfortunately many don't make a distinction between a real republican (which we haven't seen in office since before Carter was president) and the neo-con crap that Bush et al puts forward.

Guys.....guys....!!!! In the last 1-1/2 days here, you have reinforced the idea, and maybe just as....or more importantly....the feeling, that we share here at this forum is akin to a family relationship. At times, it appears to be dysfunctional....akin, again, to the experiences of being a part of any one of our families in the "real" world.

In our politics forum "family", the "daddy" came home here to spend time with us for the first time....in a long while. He observed that I was breaking a rule that he had defined and warned me before, not to break....as did some of my older brothers....aka mods and admins....

I felt the sting of his words....in the form of a public rebuke, and a new thread OP that I had stayed up half a night researching and compiling, was criticized by "daddy", and closed before it attracted any replies from the rest of the "family".

Then, other family members came by to weigh in on their opinion of me, and my contribution to "our family", aka the tfp politics forum. "Daddy" received both praise and frank criticism for the stand he took with me.

"Daddy" posted things that were supportive of my contribution and participation, and he went out of his way to come up with a board "fix" that would permit me to continue posting full articles and/or lengthy excerpts, while giving all other members and readers the opportunity to view a much shorter, streamlined version of my posts, with the option of viewing all of the content of each quote box in a given post.....or not....

"Daddy" PM'ed me with a description of his "fix", and asked me if I was willing to work with this solution.

Since I've so recently felt the effect of strong public criticism from "daddy", and to a lesser degree from other family members here, as well as the effect of support and praise from family members who posted in my support, even in strong defense in my favor, and directly against "daddy", I post now in support of our brother, pan....

my brothers, roachboy and smooth..... I know for a fact that pan is about committing to truly listening, and opening himself to learning from, if...after listening to members of our family who espouse opposing ideas and principles to ours....there is anything to learn from their positions on political issues.

He is about setting aside our partisan ways....because the place to start, if we want those who disagree with us, to be less partisan....to truly listen and be open to learning, begins within each of us in this family. He believes he has blinked first, offered respect.....tried to convey an atmosphere of one "side" here....one family....

Our brother, politicophile has come back to be in our posting family. A few days ago, others, and I....on another forum, urged him to rejoin us here as a regular participant within our politics forum family.

It was reconfirmed to me, yesterday and today, from other members of "my family".....that my effort here is "worth it"....that I am more appreciated than, more widely read than....."daddy", in his initial frustration and exercise of his authority, claimed that I was.

I want to <b>emphasize to pan now.....that he is worthy of my strong support....his participation here is highly regarded, as is the renewed participation of politicophile, and that both have my respect.</b>

I support "Daddy", Halx, in his effort to make this a better, more inclusive site, and forum, I respect the fact that he is "the owner", and I ask that he consider that he provides the "canvas", and we provide the painted images on the canvas....the content.....that this makes us his "partners", that the site and it's functionality alone, are "the house", but our residence here is what makes this a family that he and us are all members of. The tfp site has taken on a life of it's own, just as individual threads, or posts do the same....on a smaller scale....in ways that we often have not anticipated.

All of our claims.....of site ownership, of site membership, of being a part of the politics forum family, in no way diminish the claims of anyone else here. We all benefit from the interaction and exchange of ideas....by the effort we put into participating here.

....and pan.... I am wrestling with this challenge....how can I open myself to opposing ideas and opinions in these mercurial times..... to commit to being "less partisan"....so that they, of opposite perspectives and sympathies will....too, encouraged by the example that you are already setting...... without me being in conflict with this?:
....and to my sister, Elphaba..... where do you think you are going off to? Get back here ! Please??

Thank you, uncle host. Your words are poignant.

Nice post Host... thank you.

Well said host.

Onward and upward for Tilted Politics.

Host...this is probably the first post of yours that I've read the whole way through in...months. Maybe even years. Well put. And...entertaining as well. :thumbsup:

Go? Me? :)

Thank you for the very kind words and the respect is mutual Host.

Welcome back Politico......... :thumbsup:

As for trying to be open...... maybe as I am turning 40 soon it's a midlife crisis, but I look at the hypocracy in my life and views and try to deal with them, learn from them and be done with them.

In all honesty, I think it is driving me crazy, because I am also coming to see that it is impossible not to be hypocritical at times.

I think my posts show that, in the times when I talk about others being self righteous and espouse my views..... that in and of itself is hypocritical of me because I am pointing out the splinter in one's eye and while acknowledging the log in mine, continue to do so.

But that's life and I am working on that.... driving me batshit, but life is getting very much more mellow and happier because of it.

As for politics, look at the other side, look at what you, yourself take advantage of, the tax breaks, etc. and realize that both sides truly want what is best for the country, but if we go to far in either direction we are doomed, so we need balance and compromises.... moderation.

When seeing that look on common ground between the 2 sides and find a solution. Listen with open mind, respect, an honest heart, and erase all preconcieved prejudices. When they are done, give your side, explain in detail how you came to your beliefs and hopefully, the other person and you can work out a middle ground beneficial to all.

Just remember, every opinion, belief and philosophical idea in politics has a reverse side to it...... somewhere in the middle of each issue is the truth.... don't be so sure your side is the only truth, because then the other side is sure and nothing gets done. If both sides see that there is indeed a middle and need to compromise.... then you can work to find it in a positive manner. If not negativity is the environment in which the bill is passed and thus negativity will be the end result.

You want to win people to your side, show how negative the other side is and how willing you are to put aside your beliefs to find what's best for all, not just you, your party, whatever.

It starts at the bottom and works its way up...... so yes, I am a believer that it can start here. That by my example I may influence some, who in turn can influence some and so on, until there are enough people that believe, that Wash. the state gov'ts. the cities and so on... the political parties and so on will have no choice but to listen.

Positive energy flows uphill and thus it has to start small and work harder, but lasts longer. Negativity, flows from the top down and thus doesn't have to work at all and gets worse as it pours down.

That's why positive can beat negativity...... positivity has to work harder and is stronger because of it. Negativity is weak and easy. Human nature says take the easy way... but to better mankind and the fututre we need take the hard way.

Does this mean I get to be a Crazy Uncle? :-)

Seriously, Host, that was cool. Very well said, my friend.