To the Folks Who Post that They Don't Post Here, Anymore.....
 

If you've stopped posting on this forum, but you still lurk here, if you've posted that you've stopped posting, but you still post to explain why....or, if you just post less, than you used to.......this question is for you......

....is a major reason why you are participating less, or not at all, here, because you have been challenged.....with increasing frequency, to provide support.....in other words....to back up the opinions....the statements that you've posted?

example: (not trying to "single you out", ace....it's just that your post was the most recent one I've replied to....)

With regard to the recent guilty verdict in the Scooter Libby perjury trial;
My response to this is.....what is your support for your opinions that
I've found nothing in main stream news reporting, nor in the comments by the POTUS, nor in the statements or actions of former #2 at DOJ, James Comey, in his appointment of special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, given authority to investigate the leak of classified CIA information, nor in Fitzgerald's comments and actions, nor in the comments and actions of the judge in the case, Fed. District Court Judge Walton, nor in the Libby trial record, nor in the jury verdict, nor in the comments of a juror, after the verdict, <b>that would lead me to agree that, "on the surface"</b>.....what has happened in the "Libby case". resembles anything similar to ace's
,,,,so.....my question is....in a politics forum, is it unreasonable to challenge and rebut...several times....even....if no detailed response is initially forthcoming, opinions and statements made by other posters, but especially opinions and statements that come out of "left field".....out of a consistent record and chain of events, statements, and actions, such as I detailed in my reaction to the example of the reported events in the investigation, trial, and verdict, detailed above?

example: From a former prolific poster who stopped by , the other day, to post several times as to why he stopped posting on this forum.....<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2205355&postcount=78">Link</a> to the following post, excerpted as follows:
....and my response <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2205831&postcount=86">-link-</a> to the above "example" post:
My points in the preceding response were a rebuttal of the following:
I showed, with supporting links, that the recently complaining and historically offended, former frequent poster, had received an apology from the author of the "oral sex" slur leveled against him in 2004, and I supported my claim, with supporting link, that I had posted to show him, when the offense he posted the other day to complain about......was only 101 weeks in the past....and he had complained about the memory of it then....last summer...that he had received a timely, posted apology from the offender, shortly after the offense against him, back in 2004.

I also supported with a link, that there was jutification for what Seaver had posted, So, with the two examples above, in mind....and with addition of any that anyone else would like to follow up with, <b>do you think that the "problem" on this forum, that is driving people away from participation, is more about people who think that it is acceptable to post things like,</b> "Saddam did have WMD when the US invaded Iraq, and they are hidden in Syria, and buried in undisclosed and still undiscovered locations in Iraq, and I want to base my argument that the US invasion of Iraq was a sincere and legal act by president Bush because of those "facts"......

......or....the Bush admin. had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks and must have ordered US air defense to "Stand down" on the morning of 9/11, or they hampered the readiness of NORAD by staging multiple pre-planned wargames, so it is a given that Bush and Cheney let 9/11 happen, as an excuse to consolidate their own official power and provide an excuse to remove some of our constitutional rights, and invade Iraq.....

or...is the greater "problem" that some here challenge every poster to support their opinions and statements, and rebut th support that they do provide, in response to the challenges.....

....and, what is the goal here? Is it to "chat" about current events and trade political opinions and ideologies, or is it more to refine discussions so that they approach a higher level than posting opinions such as "I feel that Saddam had WMD, but he was hiding them", or "I feel that the Bush admin. was "in on" the 9/11 attacks"....while expecting that they will hold equal weight to opposing opinions that withstand repeated challenges because the posters of them share links and citations that speak to the strengths, consistancy, and reliability of the contents of their posts ?

I post if I have relevant opinions, I try to back up my opinions by some sort of facts/evidence, but sometimes it's just an opinion formed from wherever. It does not diminish it whatsoever.

I do try to pay attention in here to read what I can and understand so that I can get a better understanding as to my motivations and how my opinions are formed.

IMO the goal here is to provide a forum to "discuss" politics for some that discussion may be as simple as espousing an opinion to a complex debate involving multiple citations and counter citations and refutations and counter refutations. If that distills down into "chat" then that is a fine label for me.

Host,

There is a difference between my approach to a subject and yours. I understand your approach, and that is o.k. because it is grounded in the way people are taught in school.

Often, your research and citations have major fallacious arguments and disconnects with logic and reason. My approach is socratic and doesn't lend itself to blindly reporting the opinions and views of so-called experts or anyone for that matter.

When you post statistics on hunger, I generally start questioning the basis of that information and try to reconcile it to real world experience. When I discuss the economy with you - you tend to debate the marginal issues and ignore the foundational issues. It is like me saying it is not raining, and telling you to look out the window. I generally think it a waste of effort to try to present a scientific case for it not raining when you won't look out the window.

On the Libby issue - I simply gave my opinion. I acknowledge that I don't have a detailed understanding of the issue, nor am I going to take the time to get one. Living life and being exposed to the media means I have had exposure to the issue, just like I have had exposure to Anna Nichole. I have an opinion on her as well, but no reasearch. Guess what - I have an opinion on American Idol too, no research. I have an opinion on the Cubs chances this year - no research. I have an opinion of Jennifer Love Hewitt's underwear commercial, witch I have reasearched thoroughly, to the point of having my wife throw a pillow at me.

Occasionally I come here just to clear my mind for a few moments. I ain't trying to change the world on this forum.

Huh...well whadda ya know...I agree with Ace on something. Someone write that down, will ya?

I'm not in college anymore. I'm not working on a thesis. I don't post research papers here. The opinions expresed, by me, are my own. I did not dig down, and disect every possible nuance, of every single issue. I have...a life. Like Ace, I tend to form my opinions based solely upon my own experience. I've been walking this planet for 44 years now. I've had the time to develop my own thoughts, my own views, and my own opinions.

Oh...and I also agree, with Ace, on the Jennifer Love Hewitt underwear ad. :thumbsup:

BoR, I think there is a difference in that you make clear that you are expressing an opinion versus a fact. I try to do the same, but when I fail to make that distinction and I'm challenged on a statement, I feel obligated to respond. Being challenged forces me to look carefully at what I am saying and assess why I believe it to be true. I come to this forum to test my beliefs rather than force my beliefs upon others.

Fair enough.

But...

Then is it a fact that the Jennifer Love Hewitt underwear ads are hot? Or...is that only my opinion?
In the end, I guess it just depends upon who's reading the posted statement.

If citation is needed to support that position, then I'm certain that I could find any number of sources out there to back up my assertation.

Can you please post a source for the Jennifer Love Hewitt underwear ad? Better yet, multiple sources and visual aids so we know what you are talking about and also from a good mix of liberal and conservative sources so that your "facts/opinions" will be well-backed and balanced.

No need to use the "hide" function either. Feel free to bold or highlight areas of "interest" or if you think we can't read the articles for ourselves or if you just want to selectively highlight text that supports your reasonong behind why the Jennifer Love Hewitt underwear ad is great and thus take it out of context and don't forget to cite some previous threads or posts and while you're at it you can quote UsTwo also just to make sure all your bases are covered.

Host, I do agree with you on a number of levels when it comes to this. The only thing I disagree on is that often, when people find a source to back up their opinion, it often seems to be the opinion of someone else. The only difference being that the person from the article has the benefit of being published on the internet. Sometimes it seems like people Google a topic until they find just the article or blog that suits them. That is why I don't feel it necessarily wrong for people to state their opinions and support them with their own ideas.

Of course, when relevent and concrete evidence is available it should be utilized.

Who is Jennifer Love Hewitt? I need facts, dammit. :skeptical:

What do you mean by your method being the Socratic method?
What do you do?

^^^ Oh, this should be good.:thumbsup:

:hearts: Host, love your opening post! The title actually got me to venture into this forum.. which is a very scary place to me. :)

Thanks.

People are, for the most part, incapable of admitting they are wrong. That leads to all sorts of tap dancing, and ultimately less posts. I'm struck by the parallel to Stephen Colbert's shtick about "truthiness" and "thinking from the gut, not the head" as I read some of these posts. The conversation about hunger is a good example of that. It doesn't matter what stats are quoted, what examples are used or what many people see themselves, some people FEEL that hunger is not a problem in the USA, and that opinion is never going to change.

The irony is thick: the whole 'mushy-headed-liberal-that-thinks-with-his-heart' has been stood on it's head.

host, I think it's just as fair to challenge somebody to support a claim as it is to challenge somebody who systematically interacts with the board using very long, intimidating posts to try to be more 'user-friendly'. I'm not sure if this is the right place to say this because I know it's off-topic, but I've seen a lot of (direct and indirect) mud-slinging all over the TFP about you and your posts. Here's my opinion prefaced by some of my personal background that is relevant to my opinion.

When I was a kid, I was really good at Scrabble... for a kid. My big sister played with me all the time, but as I got a little older, she stopped wanting to play with me because I just beat her all the time. In fact, nobody ever wanted to play Scrabble with me more than once (or twice if they were very bored one day) because I beat them so handily that it just wasn't fun for them anymore. Then I got to college and met some people who could wipe the floor with me in a game of Scrabble. My first reaction was to stop seeking games with them. It wasn't fun to get utterly demolished, and with so little effort from my opponent. Of course, later I decided that it was better to play a monster of an opponent and get demolished than it was to altogether give up on a game I love. Heck, it just gives me a chance to get better at it.

Not everyone I know deals with this kind of thing the same way I did. In fact, most people I know chose the opposite response to the same stimulus - they stopped playing with me, as I said. What I learned is that I can have two approaches: I can demolish everyone I play with by maintaining a killer spirit while I play Scrabble and not have many (or any) playmates, or I can find constructive ways to bring people to the table and play with me. Since I've decided that I want to have playmates, I've learned a lot of ways to get people to play with me AND make it fun for everyone involved. The most successful one I've used is to give my opponent tips to improve their game, which also happens to make my lead seem less daunting. My skill at Scrabble isn't diminished when I do this.

The moral is that you clearly play the politics-forum-discussion game a lot better than most people around here. In fact, maybe you are winning the argument 100% of the time! (I really have no idea because I have a very hard time digesting or even getting through your average post.) Whether people are able to converse with you is a separate issue. In my limited experience so far, I have seen only one person go to bat for you - that's roachboy, who has stated that you post well-researched, quality information and suggested that the rest of us should maybe grow up a little and start appreciating it for what it is... or at least not knock it down.

Sure, people shouldn't knock you for it, but when that's the only defense for continuing your course unchanged, it's hard for anybody else to stick around. When somebody says, "you shouldn't tell me to play weaker words - you should just be better" then the people who are struggling won't want to play anymore. I honestly think you would have more of a leg to stand on (and more people to talk to) if you put a little more effort into giving others a place at the table. Enabling constructive discussion is possible without having to sacrifice the quality of your posts. I think the quality would even be enhanced.

Supple, I so appreciate your post and would hope that you spend more time here. I perceive you as one who is able to clearly communicate a position from which a discussion is possible. That is all I hope for in this forum.

That said, Host has a number of admirer's beyond roachboy, myself included. He has significantly altered his approach to posting here, but those who don't like 'details' have yet to recognize it. I come here to learn rather than to participate in some 'yo mamma' childhood taunts. Host brings information to the discussion and I value that.

Please, hang out here awhile and discuss with us the important issues that concern you. I think you will find that the Politics reputation is more myth than reality.

Pen

I left at about the time that various Bush supporters were saying that torture is fine, we should be doing more of it, which to me is as vile as advocating child abuse. Rather than pretending "respect" (forum rule) I decided to simply be honest with myself.

Nothing to do with providing references, which is trivial. That's it in a nutshell :)

Have just come to the conclusion that no one ever changes their mind around here. People to the far left think that everything is a Bush-inspired conspiracy, and people to the far right seem to believe that turning the middle-east into a sheet of glass is the only solution.

The only reasonable people here are the people in the middle, who don't get listened to anyway.

Addtionally, internal US politics are of no interest to me, which is the majority of the discussion. Plame? Libby? I could care less, it has no impact on me.

host,

in answer to your questions: no. i personally just haven't seen much in the threads that's really interested me much. probably a cyclical thing. i have no problem reading through your posts or the posts of others (although that hide thing might be a good idea, but this is an old conversation and apparently its anathema to suggest such), nor am i particularly worried about being challenged for proof. as you know, i agree with what supple posted above, but i don't think this is all about you or any other poster in particular. i think a lot of people are just bored with politics for a bit.

You are good. I have wasted about 10 minutes trying to phrase a response in the form of a subtle question. But it looks like you have trumped me into the basic question. Did you do that on purpose?

Don't let my wife see this.

http://www.adjab.com/2005/06/07/jenn...-hanes-on-her/

http://www.adjab.com/images/2005/06/jlh2.gif

Many of the threads just seem repetitive, and even when they're not, they quickly devolve into the same crap that's posted in every other thread. I think HOST has changed his methods a bit - at least attempting to be more brief... but every post, whether it's about Iraq etc or not... you tend to jump in and *make* it about the same issues as all the other Bush vs. the World threads. Besides, I think less people disagree with you in general now - perhaps in the details, but more people are saying, "yep, he screwed it up." ... Makes it a short discussion.

And really, I think the point of THIS thread is... You miss USTWO. Just admit it, it's okay. He's a pain in the ass, but he never let you off easy and gave you plenty to argue about. It's like Batman with no Joker - it's just not right.
:*

My pleasure...

Now THAT's a discussion I can get behind. Well played sir, well played indeed.

raveneye ! It was worth the time spent to create this thread, to "see" a post from you, again. I hope that you are doing well.

I'm sorry but all of your posts are waaaaayyy to short: The are not enough articles, sources from multiple media outlets that accurately reflect the liberal and conservative sides to this issue to back up your claims which you would find that all can agree on the general "hotness" of the Jennifer Love Hewitt underwear commercials. Is one ad or one video enough of a fact-checking data extrapolation to substantiate any of your claims that the Jennifer Love Hewitt commercials are indeed as you say, "hot"? If so, where is your proof? Where are the "facts" to back up your "opinion"?

Please see posts #1,2,3,4,6, and 7 to review the initial claims and arguments to support those claims. Can any of you refute those assertions? Where do the underwear experts weigh in on this issue? TFP's own bobby, resident underwear/porn expert is a good source and credible too. Perhaps you could interview him to solicit an expert opinion to back up your claim. Just make sure you post the entire transcript and BOLD the key sentences out of context for us.

http://www.beyondhollywood.com/galle...anties-heaven/

Or how about here: This is a good analysis on the efficacy of utilizing Hewitt to sell their product and her market appeal.

http://www.adjab.com/2005/06/07/jenn...-hanes-on-her/

This article offers a feminist view that takes issue with Jennifer Love Hewitt perpetuating gender stereotyping and sexist attitudes.

http://www.adrants.com/2005/06/jenni...ells-hanes.php


Or how about this: Truth in Advertising? Hewitt buys rival bran's product, credibility in question?

http://thesuperficial.com/2006/02/je...buys_ling.html

I don't have much time so this will have to do for now, but I will be back with more sources to back up the claims.

Back to the OP, I think Host has been reading my journal entries. *giggle*

As for undies? Youve seen one chick in panties youve seen them all... the Vickies Secret models look better than that chick!

Some of us like that "girl next door look eventhough the girl next door doesn't look like that". It is like the old debate Ginger or Maryann, I was always a Maryann guy. I want my women in Hanes not Victoria Secret.

I found a while back that one one hand arguments had become too nitpicky, that the line-by-line dissections had become too focused on sniffing out miniscule mistakes and attacking them rather than disputing the other 95% of the post that was completely valid, and on the other hand, certain people had become overly emotional and others decreasingly rational while arguing heated issues.

Facts started to give way to blind ideology, small groups and individuals were shouted down by larger groups, and those with less popular opinions were backed into a corner where they had no choice but to back out of the argument or lash out at those who were trying to overpower them. People would find anything that sounded authoritative and agreed with them and wave it at others, regardless of veracity or rationality.

Long story short, it degraded into the kind of place where arguing replacecd debate and went from my favorite forum to somewhere that I had very little interest in participating.

Of any post the preceding post most closely echoes my sentiments about the politics threads.

Hopefully that doesn't reflect poorly on its author.

I feel that some people are a little bit too cutthroat about politics debate. I personally find the method of quoting someone's post and inserting responses to each invididual line to be vicious. I guess that just goes hand in hand with how I portray my own thoughts. The thought that someone is looking at my individual sentences for weaknesses in my point tells me that they are not paying attention to my message, but more to my words themselves. It gives the idea that if you cannot deliver a post like you've got your own speech writer, you shouldn't even step up to the plate.

Too many people stop just short of understanding their fellow man. It's not that they take words out of context, or even see them through a different lens; they just want to be right. The end result is frustration for those who have valid opinions, but don't know the rulebook by heart. They say things, but it falls on deaf ears because the reader doesn't want to think any further than the period at the end of the sentence.

This is from my own point of view. Obviously, I'm defending my style of delivery. For every word written, there are 10 more unseen before the next. Many would respond with, "HELP me understand." My retort is, "Make me feel like it's possible."

I'm with Supple and MSD.

There are only a few conversation styles that happen here anymore, and I'm not interested in them.

There's the one where people do line by line quote and reply posts to each other - where it's apparent that they are searching for ways to "zing" each other and declare "gotcha points". This is just tedious.

There's the one where the vast majority of posters agree with each other and slap each other on the back. This behavior is broken up only for the occasional chance to gang-rape the hapless soul who disagrees. Here I say hapless not because they don't have facts (which sometimes they don't), but because it's pointless to carry on a debate that is 1 on 23.

Then there's the thing where nearly every thread ends up as the same conversation. I'm sure somewhere in the realm of politics there is a topic that doesn't come down to "Bush sucks", but you wouldn't know it from reading this forum. This doesn't bother me because I like Bush, it bothers me because it is tedious, repetitive, and smacks more of an agenda than a discussion.

And then...I'm going to be blunt here...I felt choked by trying to read your posts host. I was really making the effort for a while, but so many of your articles were not relevant to the topic or were selectively quoted (so as to be inaccurate in the context of the discussion here). There was more emphasis on volume of material than there was on relevance or quality. Wading through all that material was a waste of time more often than not, and it kept me out of discussions because I was reading and digesting every word of previous posts in good faith before I contributed. I'm getting the impression that things have changed in this regard and I keep meaning to come back and give you guys a shot again, but this won't happen until after tax season is over and my job calms down.

I see little evidence that most posters in this forum are actually interested in discussing things with people who don't already agree with them. No one learns from the other side - they only try to find ways to shut them down. Things have been like that for a while here, and I don't think it is a positive thing at all.

*sigh* It looks like my satire was completely missed. Oh well...

To Halx's and Uber's observation about responding line by line, I would suggest it is to highlight a line that is factually incorrect or unsupportable. At least, that is my intent when I reply in such a fashion.

Uber, I would also suggest it is same for ganging up on a "hapless" minonrity voice....again, when that voice is factually incorrect. One example? An often posted argument to the effect that the Dems who voted for the Iraq war had the same pre-war intelligence as Bush. That is just factually incorrect, no matter how often it may be repeated by hapless, but well-meaning supporters of the war. It is not ganging up to correct that misconception every time it appears.

I appreciate Supple Cow's observations as welll. I would only respond that constructive discussion, at least for me, requires more than stating an opinion that you can not back up with facts, as is often the case here. There is very little added to one's knowledge base by simply trading opinions and I personally dont find it very entertaining or enlightening. It is through the supporting information (and links - that should be judged for credibility) that knowledge is shared.

Now ya know how host feels when nobody reads his novellas. ;)

I did, however, appreciate your due diligence. :thumbsup:

Haha BOR, but we do, but we do. We do read his posts. Otherwise I wouldn't bother replying. See what I mean?

For the record, I read most of Host's links...I have learned something new from many and I have challenged him on the credibility of others.

I really wasnt interested in reading about Jennifer Love Hewitt.

uber, I have to disagree with your description of the "dynamic" here, because, if results from these recent, and a year ago poll that I authored, are any persuasion, (I admit that it is a small sample vote, in each case, but it is data that is an authentic "pulse" from this forum), there is no atmosphere of "ganging up". There was consistent, although sometimes narrowly so, disagreement with the crux of my OP opinion, gleaned from these poll results:

Poll results: 5 dissenting votes vs.POV of thread OP, 8 votes for the thread OP POV
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=113978

Poll results: 20 dissenting votes vs.POV of thread OP, 5 votes for the thread OP POV
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=109821

Poll results: 8 dissenting votes vs.POV of thread OP, 29 votes for the thread OP POV
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=112677

Poll results: 9 dissenting votes vs.POV of thread OP, 3 votes for the thread OP POV
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=112281

Poll results: 18 dissenting votes vs.POV of thread OP, 17 votes for the thread OP POV
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/poll.ph...ts&pollid=1541

....and the more recent poll results, above, aren't much different from exactly a year ago:

Poll results: 13 dissenting votes vs.POV of thread OP, 10 votes for the thread OP POV
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/poll.ph...ts&pollid=1482

I see nothing in these poll results that would dissuade anyone from participating....posting an opinion. To the contrary, I would expect that these poll results would encourage participation. The poll results are frequently in disagreement with my POV....more incentive for me to "try harder".

I post quite a bit on this forum, uber....it should not have been difficult for you to find and post an example to support your criticism of me, especially because of the credibility that you have established for yourself with the management and the members here at tfp. I'm disappointed that you did not offer me the opportunity of "specifics", similarly to the examples I afforded in my criticism of ace and of ustwo in the OP.

I am at a disadvantage to defend against your criticism, or to admit that I misled or misinformed other readers, (an apologize to them, if appropriate) in my previous posts. I do post quite a bit, and it isn't an excuse, if I am indeed guilty of doing the things that you claim that I have done, the offenses that you mention, they are at most, a tiny percentage of my posting content.

and....dc_dux, I think that you've hit the nail on the head. All points of fact do not have equal standing/validity. IMO, this forum won't "work", as a "politics" forum, if we can not "stipulate" that certain foundational assumptions, are "points of fact", for purposes of discussion. For a long time, here, and it even cropped up again, long after most thought we could stipulate to it, was the issue of whether Saddam had WMD and WMD making capability, to any degree that resembled what US authorities described as justification for invading Iraq.

If no discussion of any substance can take place on a political issue or controversy, until most of us are willing to stipulate to a key "point of fact", the discussion won't progress past that point. How could it, and be worth participating in? The more recent impasse, has to do with whether or not Scooter Libby did anything illegal, and whether there was a basis for a CIA requested, criminal investigation, concerning the leaking of the name and the CIA employment of Valerie Plame to the media.

A curious thing about these delayed stipulations, is that the folks who rely on multiple, news reports from professional press correspondents, for their information, and who end up being correct (examples...no WMD found in Iraq, and Scooter Libby convicted on four felony charges) enjoy no advantage that I can recognize, when it comes to persuading any other participants here who harbor an opposite POV, shaped from sources that they won't, can't, or refuse to share....or when they do share a source, they can not defend it against criticism of it's integrity and conflicts of interest.

All ideas and opinions are beholden to the information sources that establish and influence them. They are not all in synch with the most likely explanation for why a given "point of fact", is or isn't, so. Sometimes, a false or misleading conclusion can be agreed upon by all, as a point of fact, yet this still does not always make it, so.

A challenge to an opinion that anyone posts, is not an attack on that poster, it is a challenge to defend and support that opinion, or ideally, if that defense is not possible, to concede that other interpretations of the issue, enjoy a greater weight of evidence in their favor, than yours does. When that happens, if only temporarily, until we know more....or do more research, we can agree to disagree.

....but as dc_dux posted, it did not advance the discussion here, to continue to claim that democrats in congress who "voted for the war", had access to all of the intelligence information that the president had access to, before they voted to support responding militarily to his claims that Iraq was an "imminent threat".

My "style" of posting is to support/foster agreement of as many "points of fact" as I anticipate that it will take to have an "in depth", political discussion.
I try to persuade that my POV is well founded. I don't see others having more success, and most of the time, not even as much, supporting what they have to say, using other means and methods than I'm using.

If I do, and I'm always looking, I'll latch on to those methods, and I'll come by my future posts here, much easier, and more quickly, than I can, now!

Host:

This thread is an example of a time in which you and I actually went back and forth on the very issue I am bringing up. I am surprised you do not remember it:

Failing to learn from history

I have found the experience I had in that thread over and over when reading your content. That is simply the only time I engaged you directly on the issue. In terms of posting lists of examples - it's not going to happen, at least not right now. I've got to go to work. However, to do this I'd have to read tens if not hundreds of pages of content and apparently analyze it more thoroughly than you did and again, that's a waste of my time.

Regarding your polls, I think they support my view more than yours - people are happy to vote out of the "accepted message" because they are anonymous. However, take a look at the recent "heated debate" thread. A topic about the way we converse turned into Ace vs. about 4 or 5 people on 3 different topics.

Both of these are merely striking illustrations. There are many more. You asked why some of us don't post here anymore (although I have never declared this to be the case until now) and offered up a lame and condescending explanation which I don't feel represents my lack of motivation. It isn't "being confronted with facts" that pushes me a way - I like that. It's the low ratio of reward to time spent that discourages me from hanging around much.

uber, yes....I remember that thread well....and our exchange began <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=97941&page=2">here</a>, in post #61:
....and your example(s), from an exchange that was a result of what seemed like a request from you, when it took place ten months ago, influenced you to post these comments, yesterday, on this thread?:
....again, uber....your a mod, and you have "cred" here, independent of that status. I posted frequently before our May, 2006 exchange, and certainly since....

.....at least 40 percent of the linked excerpts I posted, from post #61 on, in the example that you linked, are no longer available to be viewed where they were linked to, last May.....

......In our May 2006 exchange, smooth posted last, with questions for you that you never replied to. Had I known that you would later use that exchange as an example of my deficiencies, I would not have waited for you to reply there, to respond to your criticism....

.....I regarded your skepticism about Bush and Cheney intentionally linking Saddam's Iraq to directly supporting the 9/11 attacks, as a state of mind that, coming on the heels, as it did, of Cheney vehemently lying in a broadcast video, to Gloria Borger....denying his earlier "well confirmed" statement in reference to the Atta meeting in Prague........even though that statement, was, and still is....contained in a whitehouse.gov web page, similarly to the way that I regard any political point that would reasonably be stipulated to, as fact, by parties in a political discussion where the point is relevant to the possibility of a discussion.

I anticipated that, either you were "toying" with me, or you really did require, as you later stated....quotes from Mr. Bush or Cheney that included words similar to.."the 9/11 attacks? Yeah....we know for a fact that Saddam was bin Laden's partner...." to be persuaded that the two "leaders" set out to, and had succeeded in convincing a majority (including 2/3 or more of our military, serving in Iraq...) that the US invaded Iraq, because of it's involvement in 9/11.

I responded to your skepticism by displaying, along side of your posts, my "presentation" of why I was (am) convinced, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the effect of the Cheney/Bush Iraq propaganda, combined with the perception it implanted into the minds of the majority, at the time of the Iraq invasion, was as they intended.

I set out to create an impression that it was reasonable to conclude that Bush and Cheney knew exactly what they were doing in painting Saddam/Iraq with 9/11. I think that I did that. I think that the context of my presentation, the sheer numbers of reports and their details, was as important as the links and "one sentence" snippets that you claimed would have sufficed.

You may not think so, but I try to confine my "content rich" posts to breaking stories, and to countering opinions that "fly in the face" of the overwhelming majority of existing news reporting, if a political "incident" or situation has developed to a level, as the Cheney/Bush "iraq/9-11" linkage, certainly had...

That leaves us disagreeing about how to present, on this forum, our opinions and what influences them. We could leave it at that, but you chose to use that as an example to justify your criticism...

I stand by what I do here...what I post. I still think that your criticism of me
here, "matters", hence the detailed response. Unfortunately, I think that you have painted my "contribution" to the politics forum in a somewhat less favorable light than is warranted. I already faced challenges in making credible arguments, despite my best effort. I put my best effort into our exchange last May....and I think that you took a little bit away from my reputation, then, and a little bit more, away, here.

It was interesting to read the <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=97941">first page</a> of that thread (exempting the OP, of course). After I did, it gave me the confidence to write this post, and to assert that, when it comes to writing sincere, relevant, accurate, and informative posts in this forum, I'm right up there with the best of them....

host:

I'll take as a compliment that you say that my comments "matter", and that I have cred here other than staff status. Credibility as a contributing person matters much more than a staff title - and I speak only for myself in this thread.

Still, I think you are making more out of what I am saying than you should. You ask why some people don't post here anymore and speculate that they are afraid of being confronted with facts. I used to come here to learn - and I would post and debate with people I disagreed with to elicit more of their point of view. There was a streak where I was able to get a lot from the posters here that way. I'm merely saying that for me, the rewards I get for the time I spend here have fallen dramatically. I'm just not into putting lots of time into things that aren't rewarding or fun anymore. A part of that is that I became very frustrated reading your posts (I'm speaking of 8+ months ago when I was more active) and find that they are heavy on content and light on analysis and, at times, relevance. I linked the thread I did, because it was striking in that we danced around that very issue. That thread is but an example, and frankly, I'm not gonna go read 30 pages of links and quotes to be able to give a list of threads here that illustrate what I'm talking about. I don't suspect it would change anything, and I'm not trying to get into a war of attrition by drowning each other in paragraphs. Besides that, it isn't the point of your question. I'm telling you one reason I haven't been posting.

Despite what you suspect, I don't toy with people. Not ever, not anyone, not here, and not in real life. I am direct and honest, and expect the same of others in return. I am also skeptical, and trust my own judgment. This is why I really did want you to post examples of what you claimed happened...happening. In understanding what is going on around me, I'm looking for causation to go with correlation. This is the heart of effective analysis. Smooth made this exact point in his last post, which I unfortunately forgot about until this morning when I dug that thread up. I've been thinking about his questions regarding correlation as evidence, and I haven't decided where I draw the line yet.

I guess we do disagree about how to present our opinions here. And that's ok - I don't make the law here, and I don't try to stop people from doing things I disagree with. Just don't paint me in with those you feel are afraid of "truthiness". That's what I have to say here in public. I'll shoot you a pm with more, since I also don't believe in turning threads into private conversations.

I don't think any reasonable person is going to ask you to cite sources for your opinions. However, if you claim "Bush did A and then he did B and that's why I think he's a bad president" you should have something to back up the notion that he did those things.

I've seen so much crap on here about both parties with wild accusations of things they absolutely did not do (Bush engineered 9/11, Kerry didn't do the heroic things he's credited with when he was on the swiftboat, etc), and it could all be alleviated if people would bother to check their facts before forming an opinion on them.

But instead they see some bizarre email forward that has some inane bullshit that wouldn't even fly on the paranoia board, they take it as gospel, presumably because it's on the internet and therefore must be 100% true, and then come in here and post opinions based on those lies. What's worse is that they're spreading those lies, and others who are just as lazy as they are about fact checking might (and often do) start believing them as well.

Opine all you want, but if you claim something as fact, back it up.

And while we're on the subject, let's all learn what a good source is shall we? If it's a known-biased source, like Bill O'Reilly, it's not a valid source. In my opinion, Al Franken is right on the money with many of the points and facts in his books, but you don't see me citing him because he's left biased.

Another good hint is that if it appears only in one place, especially if that place is not a recognized, respected media outlet, there's a good chance it's bullshit. If you cite the Washington Post as a source, it's probably valid. If you cite the Washington Times as a source, it's probably a load of crap.

I post very little in here anymore because my politics are extreme but not a Left or Right extreme and thus I'm attacked from both sides and neither side even acknowledges good points.

Then again neither side admits or acknowledges when the other has a good point either.

Everyone wants to bitch about what is the best way to run the country and everyone wants it done their way, no compromise.

I believe in making compromises and doing not what's best for me or for "my side" but what is best for my country as a whole.

If more people truly believed that way and found compromise and ways to work together instead of trying to destroy each other we may get somewhere in this country. And as I keep saying, it starts at the ground floor.

Instead of every damned thread being a fight to see who can beat down the other, why don't we work on solutions and then go to other forums, write letters to the editor, find candidates that will listen and start a grass roots campaign and work to build up steam.

We are on one of the most popular forums on the net and we do nothing but fight here in politics.

No one listens to me, both sides refuse to see what I say and can do nothing but ridicule me for my beliefs so.... I stay out of it. Let you morons who only want to fight bloody each other and ruin the board.... I'll watch shake my head and keep imagining what could be.

Sorry Pan.....I'm confused....are we morons or elitists?

Why is your approach to political forums the only correct and/or reasonable approach for discourse?

It's not but when your discourse includes only trying to destroy the right or left and you refuse to try to reach compromise and try to find the best way for improvement... then you are whichever you want.

You can be elitist because you refuse to listen to the other side and try to find middle ground for the betterment of all..... or a moron for it.

My way may not be perfect, and I maybe elitist myself.... but I want to listen to BOTH sides, find middle ground and do what is best for society as a whole...not just the side I am on because I want to prove myself right and feel all warm and cuddly while I didn't better any part of society at all.

Be pissy, get all defensive about what I'm saying.... hell attack me .... then look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if you honestly believe that by being so fucking partisan, that by not trying to reach a workable middle, that by doing nothing but fighting over who is all right and who is all wrong, you are truly bettering society as a whole.

I tried.... I couldn't do it any longer. I want to better society, leave a better world for my kid, niece, nephew and their kids and their kids and so on.... I don't want to take a stringent all one side or all the other stance and keep watching my country destroy itself. We are better than this and we deserve better.

But hey if you sleep better at night believing your side is all there is and you'll fight the other even if you know there can be middle ground and a better way that you both can agree on.... then sleep well.

Me? I sleep well because well, I try to keep an open mind and learn and do my best to make sure the part of the world I can control, is a little better than how I found it.

Get enough people wanting to put politics and religion aside and work to find ways to better society.... we will and the world will be a much better place.

Keep fighting over who's side is the only side or who's God is the only God..... you will eventually destroy each other... or if you do destroy all opponents and leave only you... best damned be sure you can better everything you say because if you can't...... you will find an opposition that will grow and destroy you.

Plus, if you are willing to find middle ground and the opponent still refuses to.... you win more people over to your side and middle ground will eventually win out... and you'll end up as the ultimate loser, because everyone will see you only stood for hate and 1 way. Let them see that in your opponent.... take the high road.

Disclaimer: the "you" used is meant as a collective "you" not just DC Dux. I'm sure you know deep down if this applies to you or not. If not God bless you.... if it does then why keep allowing hate to control you?

Pan...I would simply urge you to look at your previous post again objectively. It is the antithesis of consensus-building.

You rant about how you are "attacked from both sides" (I dont recall seeing such personal attacks), you rave about how others "do nothing but ridicule you for your beliefs" (I dont recall seeing such ridicule either) and you put yourself above the others here by characterizing them as "morons" (and earlier as "elitists") and implying that you care more about solving the problems of the country and the world.

Sorry but this is not whatI would describe as an effective way to create an environment for compromise and consensus building,

BTW..I dont believe that I allow hate to control me. I do believe it is important, or even critical, for the future of the country, for people to speak out and expose lying, secrecy, incompetence, and potential acts of malfeasance by a government that, in the opinion of many, is not working in the best interest of its citizens. From there, I am willing to build consensus to correct these failures and I am open to a wide range of solutions....not just mine. :)

Pan, did you see a recent editorial that four former senators, 2 R's & 2 D's, have formed their own "think tank" to find compromises for the big issues that need to be addressed? They recognize that congress is infected with partisan poison and it is their hope that they can craft legislation that is acceptable to both parties. It gives me great hope that a more collaborative government may be possible.

I believe this article was in my local paper and I will look for a link if you have not seen it.

Times are changing, my friend

Pen

Elph...I think you are referring to the Bipartisan Policy Center formed by former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker, George Mitchell, Bob Dole and Tom Daschle.

The BPC will work with national experts to undertake projects on a range of issues, beginning with energy policy, agriculture policy, and national security. Additional projects will be added in the coming year. Each project will be staffed by substantive experts and directed by a diverse group of national leaders. The BPC Advisory Board, comprised of the former Majority Leaders, will advise the organization on its overall direction and agenda. While each project will differ in scope and approach, all BPC projects will be politically balanced, evidence-based, and designed to have a meaningful impact on the national policy debate.
http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/inde..._Policy_Center

I look forward to following their work.

....evidence-based....bi-partisan...sounds identical to the ISG and the 9/11 Commission, and we saw how far their reco's went....however, we can hope, can't we? There was a time when it seemed that we were in for "one party" rule, for as far in the future as the eye can see, and now we've seen that some change is possible, especially when there is more than one "decider"...

The question was asked I answered it.

Find a thread where we see the Lefties here and the Righties find compromise and not try to bludgeon each other with their own "facts", with arguing over details and not offering compromise.

Am I better than anyone here? NO, absolutely not. I just speak as I see it and I see this board as being very partisan and hateful.

Again, I was asked, I answered honestly.

When I was growing up, my parent taught me that polite people don't discuss politics or religion in public. Once I grew up, I realized that those are the two most divisive issues for humanity (note how I lumped everyone on the planet in there?). There's a good reason for my parents' warning - discussing either is one of the fastest ways to start a fight among strangers.

I've been thinking a lot about this topic recently, and I've come to the conclusion that I generally only post in Politics as a way to organize my own thoughts and to get a sense of the talking points of the ends of the spectrum. No one here is ever going to convince me to change my vote by themselves, and I'm never going to convince anyone else to do the same. In the best of all possible worlds, we'd all realize that and take some of the venom out of our statements. But I'm not Dr. Pangloss and I realize that won't happen. Instead, I'm going to restate the most basic rule of Politics - debate the topic, not the individual.

I've already seen a couple glaring violations of that rule in this thread, and to be honest, I actually thought about abusing my newly granted mod powers to warn people or shut down the thread entirely. Then I had a sip of coffee and realized that was counterproductive. However, I am going to insist that the rule be followed in both letter and spirit. There's a line between attacking someone's politics and their character, and I expect that you all know it. If you don't, you're going to find out. If you're the victim, please feel free to let me know since I obviously can't be everywhere at once.

for me, these are the horse latitudes politically.
the bush administration is still in power.

the ideological climate has shifted out from under the administration, but it is still in power.

the fiasco of the iraq war is now self-evident--from its inception through to the present (the admin is requesting another 8000 troops---according to the guardian, yet another request is coming in may---there is no discrete endpoint for this "surge"--so it appears that the "surge" is best spelled ESCALATION in the grand vietnam stylee--this despite the story floating about this morning that the us is now planning to withdraw entirely if the "surge" doesnt work....)
but the administration is still in power.

i recently watched the spike lee documentary about katrina and nola---shocking stuff--unbelievable non-action from this administration, needlessly compounding already overwhelming suffering---but they are still in power.

the abuse of the judiciary--from guantanomo to the purging of district attorneys through the "expansive" interpretation informational gathering prerogatives accorded the fbi under the patriot act---all obvious. but the administration is still in power.

the list of incoherences could go on and on.
what is there to say?
i dont find this to be a climate that makes how i think about politics in the states to be more open than it had been....i dont find this a climate that provides much change in fundamental problems...i dont particularly enjoy the sense of writing the same thing over and over...so i have found myself fading out a bit.

You say Bush did this has done that..... (and I may agree), but how do we better the country? He only has less than 21 months in office before the next President Elect is sworn in. So we need a plan to better the country and repair it. So how will you do it?

Now you have something to work with, now you go in show what you got other than Bush is evil and the Right has to show what they have, other than their mantra, "the Left want to weaken America, tax and spend..." etc.

See both sides give fear, hate and rely on those. Neither side shows any answers. It's like for the past 20 some odd years our country has chosen to be REACTIONARY instead of trailblazing, stepping on some toes (which has to happen to move forward) and working to make this country great again.

I want new leaders that give new ideas. Leaders that listen to BOTH sides, takes the best from BOTH sides and looks at past mistakes not accusingly but to learn from.

Growing up with Liberal beliefs I was taught and believed back then to respect and listen to others. Then, I got into the politics of hate because that is where the road led and it was very easy. However, I looked at my son, the kids I go to college with, my sisters kids and realized that in hate politics I leave nothing better for them. So I worked to change and am changing more and more. It's work to not fall into the easy hate and blame politics, sometimes I still do, it's natural at times because there are still sensitive areas.

Hopefully, as shown above the think tank can work. It's a start. A start we need to make, hopefully it grows into something extremely productive. But there are those that will bear false messages of unity and working together and they will hurt the advancements. But if we hold politicians to a greater level of ethics than they have now, and they hold themselves to those ethics... those that would bear the false messages won't last long enough to do any serious damage.

We can blame, point fingers and hate or we can move forward, forgive and find lessons from our mistakes.

Plain and simple, which do you choose? Doesn't mean we give carte blanche.. we still hold politicians to a better and higher level than now.... but we don't blame a whole political party, we work together to get the garbage out and the rest will fall into place.

Show the masses a better, more positive message and way to advance and you will win. Elections then will not be "the better of 2 evils" but who has better ideas and a more comprehensive, inclusive plan to move us forward.

We can keep looking back, but doing so slows us down and gets us nowhere if all we do when we look back is point fingers and offer up nothing but hate and BS because we just want our side elected.

I have to say that I agree with several of the other contributors on this thread. I consider myself to be a political person. I read and I take stances and I like to talk about them. But I have to admit that I am often turned off by the discussions in the politics forum. Like pan, I feel as though I am an outsider for my moderate stances on many issues. Even though I consider myself to be very liberal in my views, I don't feel like I am "liberal enough" to be accepted by the other lefties on the board. And the righties tend to simply ignore me, lol. But that's okay really, because I don't come to conclusions and develop opinions simply to post them here and gain acceptance. I post here in the spirit of weighing in with my opinion - for better or for worse.

And they are opinions, folks. I don't care how much you think you know, what sources you have or how compellingly factoids line up, there is no way for any of us to take in the entirety of the machinations at work in the world and claim that we know "the truth." The forming of political views can be a very narcotic and womblike experience. It makes us feel more secure to know that we have a viewpoint and that there are "facts" out there that align with our thinking...that impart some "truthiness" to the political ethos we feel akin to. But how is this possible when there are two sides who feel exactly the same way about their political affiliation? Now I don't say all this because I think I am better or smarter or more savvy than anyone else here, because I am well aware that I am not. It's just where I'm at and it leaves me often with not a lot to say in the politics forum.

Like uber and Hal, I am also turned off by the mode of discussion, but I understand it. It is typical of political discussion on the internet and is oftentimes a necessary manner of responding to some posts. I also agree that the liberal vs. conservative imbalance on the board makes some discussions degenerate very quickly when certain conservative posters get involved. I've no interest in getting involved in most conversations about "right and wrong" because I just don't believe in them most of the time...when it comes to politics, that is.

Finally, somewhat like roachboy, sometimes I feel like I have said all that I can say (not only here) about the current issues and haven't much desire to recant my own words over and over. Even just writing what I am writing now, I feel like I am repeating myself ad nauseum.

pan:

all i wrote about is why i haven't been as active here as i have been.

i dont think i am particularly unusual in that my statements about what i may understand to be possible in principle (as things that might be done to alter the present, grim state of affairs) fluctuates with my general view of that state of affairs.

sometimes i think that lars von trier was right in "dogville": the united states is a gangster state and the only thing to be done about it for the benefit of all is to burn it down. it is not reformable, it is not changeable. it cannot accomodate the basic demands of its own citizens, much less be coherent as the center of a global socio-economic system. these are moments that push me more into my past of involvement with left revolutionary politics.

other times i think that much could and should be done. these are my more social-democratic moments.

in the horse latitudes, i find it difficult to focus on those things that could and should be changed within the existing order: the dysfunctions of the order itself become too obvious and with that the problems appear to be of a piece with the nature of the order itself---so solutions to fundamental problems begin to migrate into functioning as elements of a more radical position.

at other times, things seem amenable to being taken apart, separations made and on that basis more local arguments can be outlined and so forth.

insofar as the forum in concerned, when i am thinking about the present state of affairs as particularly grim, the arguments that i would be likely to advance would be more radical. these would (a) require a fair amount of explanation, which i am not sure folk would necessarily want to wade through and (b) would incline me to being quite uncompromising in discussions that may or may not follow.

besides, i work out the more radical stuff in other forms.

as is the case for anyone, what happens here is separate from my other work----what functions here is particular---in the end there are tactical questions particular to the forum that shape what i am and am not inclined to talk about here--because this is a particular kind of space involving a particular community--it is not that open, frankly--in part because of the format itself (a messageboard) and in part because of the particular combination of voices that comprise the community. the community is interesting and valuable, but not all kinds of argument function equally well within it. and this is neither good nor bad in itself: it simply is.

so.

But you have and give a picture of pessimism. All I am trying to do is push people to show that there is optimism and that change CAN and WILL happen if enough voices demand it and work for it.

Don't push the negativity and the hatred, expand your views into what can be positively done and work to BETTER the country.

There is no need to tear it down... we have the freedom to make the changes but we have to work for them. (Although I admit I am scared of what Bush may do if the GOP lose in '08.... but that's just my paranoidal side and I can't live on "what ifs" but they are fun to hypothesize at times.)

It's not time to tear down the nation it is time to stand up be counted and push people to come up with ideas to save and better ourselves. We need optimism and positive ideas now more than ever.

RB whether you believe me or not, I like ya. I like and respect most people on this board. I am trying to push people into getting out of the negativity and come up with positive ideas and compromises and debates that produce ideas that people when they read these threads can say, "That could work." or at least push them into thinking positively and demanding positive messages, ideas and plans from their politicians.

We are a country driven on negativety, fed negativity, and hate politics. It is time to push and demand for better.

Who cares what party the person with the better ideas comes from... we need leaders that are willing to take chances, piss people off in their party and the other and to stand up to corporate interests and say, "This is OUR country. A nation is not built on the power of the corporation and rich, it is built on how well educated, the chances EVERY single person has to advance, and the ability leave a better country for the future."

We can do it, we just have to start doing it. If enough voices speak out and demand what is right and demand politicians work for what is best for the country not their party or special interests we all win and we all get a better result.

You are very optimistic, pan.

RB

The community, state and nation are a sum of all its parts.

If the parts are a majority negative.... the community, state, nation will be negative.

If the parts are a majority positive and work for positive growth......the community, state, nation will be positive.

It is imperative in these times of negativity coming at us from everywhere to stand up acknowledge it and turn it into positives and find ways to grow from it. Otherwise we keep falling into negativity until we die.

It's not hard to spend 15 minutes typing a positive thread or trying to read someone you disagree with's post and try to find compromise or a positive way to debate, instead of attacking, waiting for attack and attacking more.

That is what I am doing I guess... because I keep trying to push people to be positive and that in and of itself is wrong... I'm no better than anyone, I'm not holier than thou it's just I can see ways we can progress forward but I see too much hatred and resistance from partisan people and people who refuse to bend at all. It's frustrating, but then again... maybe someone reads what I say and it gets them to think and they start getting positive and coming up with ideas and they pass that on and so on and so on.... one can hope.

well, i am not sure how you would position arguments along the line of:

the problems the states are experiencing follow in significant measure from the rationality of capitalism itself.

the problems the states are experiencing follows from the tendency to collapse politics into the arrangement of objects in the world, to assume that political arrangements are given in the way a naive epistemology take objects to be. you can see how this claim operates by watching the way in which political frame-assumptions and visual infotainment are combined in television "news" footage. watch them from a naive perspective. it should be obvious.

these two claims operate in tandem, with the first being a condition of possibility for the second.
it either is true, then it would follow that significant change at the political level should follow from a quite radical reassessment of how politics is understood. this reassessment may or may not end up being functional within this particular socio-economic system---following out its logic may end up with a quite radical transformation of the existing state of affairs as a whole.

i say this stuff because i suspect you, pan, would lump it all together under these rather problematic categories of "hate" and "negativity"--when it is neither. you act as though the existing state of affairs is a necessary horizon for all political thinking. i find that assumption to be useless. for me, at least, it is useless. it begs the questions that interest me. and that's all there is to it.

-------------

aside:

at bottom, pan, the problem that arises for me from your particular approach to debate is that i am not sure if you can or are willing to distinguish a radical critique--that is a critique that tries to point to fundamental underlying problems---from what you call "hate" and "negativity"--sometimes i dont think your recognize any distinction between them at all. whence the differends that arise. whence to some extent at least my sense of the community as placing artificial limitations on what can and cannot be said here. this is not a claim to censorship---rather it is a problem that at certain moments i find interesting to engage with and at other moments i dont.

almost inevitably, when period of interpersonal board snarkiness happen between you and i--for example--at its origin is what i take to be your refusal to recognize a difference between types of argument---"hate and negativity" as over against critiques oriented around fundamental or structural problems--the problem is: to deal with structural problems, you have to change the structure itself. it is not a matter of making adjustments within a structure that is itself fucked up. i dont find anything "negative" about saying as much--and i think that you do.

I can get on board with your message Pan, in fact, I like to think of myself as possessing similar attitudes as yourself. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being an optimist, it's a good thing. People would do well to learn that.

You just have to keep plugging away. Plus, we all could do to listen more as well.

Keep at it, don't lose hope.

RB I have to get to work, but see how things are going now? You and I have dialogue and that is a beginning, is it not? :icare:

THANKS MM AND JORGE FOR THE KIND WORDS..... I TRULY APPRECIATE THEM. :thumbsup:

I don't think there is anything wrong with being an optimist. I used to be very much of one myself...still am in some regards. But I must admit that the genetic pull towards cynicism that is inherent in my parents draws me deeper and deeper into its fold year by year.

Gather 'round ye peoples of TFP and bear witness to the development of an honest to god misanthrope. It's bound to get ugly.

Not a chance in Hell. :D

oh, cut it out, I'm cultivating curmudgeonliness here....grrrrrr :lol:

If that's what you're aiming for, you need to figure out how to keep me from going from the stockings thread directly to this one. Crumudgeons, by definitions, aren't hot.

they can be.
i worked out a proof, but i cant seem to make myself post it.

...okay, deal in base stereotypes if you must, my man ;)

You, sir, are my proof that crumudgeons aren't hot. I've met you IRL and read your posts on a regular basis, remember?

oh snap!

I think roachboy is hot. But then, I've been known to be somewhat of a freak.

LOL, what's this thread about again? :lol:

I think it's about whether roachboy puts out or not. :hyper:

Pen, I'm sending you the bill for my new keyboard! I just shot beer out of my nose reading that!

No need to do my abs tonight; laughing this hard will do the exercise for me!

mr. jazz:
while it's true that we met in 3-d, i think you put me in a false bind on account of it. specifically:
what makes you think i am a curmudgeon?
i am much more a bouncy, trouncy, flouncy, pouncy bundle of fun fun fun.
so my spectacularly attractive 3-d self can cleave the air without contradiction.
and i am a boy of negociable virtue. it comes with the trouncy flouncy territory.

that about covers that, i think, except for the blushing part, which it is best not to speak of. here's my secret:

http://ubu.wfmu.org/sound/chopin_hen...diopoems02.mp3

and a low bow during the course of which i describe an arc with my right arm that results in my unnecessarily large hat sweeping across the floor in the general direction of ms. media.

Pan, with a small alteration, I'd be right on board with you.

I think the rest of it (community and country) just comes in time - with enough focused individuals.

supple,

why must it be one or the other? i would agree with a position that you can not make the world a better place until you have worked on yourself, or at the very least that you will be more efficient with more self-improvement. but i don't see why that means that you can't be aware of and motivated by a desire to improve the collective simultaneously with self-improvement.

Because the "collective" is nothing more than a mob. A mob doesn't think or care. An individual can. (Whether one does or not is another issue.) I am optimistic, too. I just happen to believe that efforts to control or educate collectives are wasted. I would rather use my energy and time to effect change among individuals. It is not that I have no desire to improve things beyond the scope of my selfish benefit.

Do you personally feel more motivated when an appeal to action comes to you as an individual or as some anonymous member of a collective?

If you turn the keyboard upside down and use an air mover you are likely to still have a dead keyboard. I know this.

Pen advice bill is coming your way. :splat:

hmmmm, large hat = large.... :oogle:

sorry, couldn't resist

It is ok to question the other side and to point out weaknesses and debate, I just feel that there is too much attack and no one offering up any solutions.

If both sides truly want what is best for the country then why doesn't either put forth a viable platform instead of running on "GOP is all Right winged Christian pro big corporate, evil old white men who hate the poor."

or

"The Dems are whacked out wanting to take away all your guns, let drug addicts roam free, tax and spend, they hate the rich and will do all they can to tax business and the rich into bankruptcy."

Or similar such hate.

But look deeply and neither side truly runs on ANYTHING of substance. It's time to push our politicians and ourselves to do better.

Why does one have to take a side? Why cannot one work to find middle ground that all can live with, without having people question his stances or motives?

Therein lies the biggest problem and why we don't see good people get elected. People are so used to the negativity and hate mongering they either don't care anymore or they vote for the person who convinces them that the other guy will do more harm. Is that what we truly want from government and in control of our future?

My belief is you show people positive outlooks and hope and it will spread. Clinton offered that hope. The Contract with America (even though it was discarded and forgotten about and was a PR move) offered a taste of that hope. People voted for that hope. It was crushed because it was for the wrong reasons and because hate mongering continued to saturate politics. Thus people who voted for that hope were disenfranchised and their voices silenced.

It is time for someone, some group, some entity to bring that hope back and prove it can exist and work.

How is this done? Keep plugging along spreading the messages you believe in. Offer debates, if your opponent makes a good point admit it. Keep your positive position and message no matter what happens or who you piss on and eventually people will gravitate toward the positive message and those who are negative will lose. When it is negative vs. negative... all that wins is negative and everyone loses.

To you it maybe useless, but that is you. For the majority it maybe what they want. Politicians that put forth the best most positive plans and not hate. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe people prefer to live in negativity and watch our country be destroyed by parasitic politicians who don't give a damn, by corporate entities that worry only about money, by people who only worry about themselves and not what is best for the future, and what their kids and grandkids will inherit.

I'm sorry, I don't want future Pans cursing me because I left them a bankrupt decrepit country that holds no hope. I want future Pans to know that whether I succeeded or not, whether I was accused of being a radical insane optimist with no grasp on reality, I tried and did what I felt and believed was best for them.

I honestly do not believe there are many politicians that can say that and there are few who post here in Politics that I believe can honestly say that and truly believe it.

It's time we find it in ourselves to do that and to expect our politicians more than any one to strive for, work hard and not back down from it.

In the end, what we do in this lifetime, how we vote, who we elect and the laws they write and get away with.... may not truly be felt by us, but our children, grandchildren and so on will feel it and pay for our mistakes.

Is it not time we do as our grandparents, great-grandparents and so on did for us and build a better country that moves forward and takes positive steps even if at the time they may require some sacrifice and compromise?

Yes Supple, I agree one does need to work on one's self but as you do so, you can find others of the same mindset to help and work with.

I don't see the community as a mob. I see it as individuals each wanting what is best for society as a whole: but lost in the confusion, hatred, selfishness that is brought about by negativity.

If you keep hearing bad news every day, whether true or not you will believe it, prepare for it and adjust your life and attitude so that you can handle it. When filled with negativity, health suffers, mentally you are drained, you can't focus and you fill up with negative energy and emotions.

That is what is happening in this country today.

It's time to change that. We can do it. Like I said I can affect my little world only to a degree. But if someone hears me and is influenced then they affect their own little world and make it better and perhaps we join together and affect others who affect others and so on.

I've said this before and if nothing else I say makes any sense to you think long and hard about this and try it in your own life to see how true it is. (Hopefully you try it on something small.)

Negative energy flows downhill... so it covers everything in it's path exerting a minimal amount of energy. So it is very weak. Everyone can see how weak it is.... but it is easy. The majority of politicians, corporations and media use this to their advantage.

Positive energy flows uphill and starts weakly and has to fight to survive. But as it fights to survive it gains strength and presses forward and upward. Each step it gains more and more strength and more and more powerful, so that when it meets negativity there are only 2 possible outcomes. It's strength, might and the belief in it overcomes the negativity and becomes stronger gaining more strength and belief each battle it has as it moves upward.

You don't truly defeat negativity, as you win a battle it just pulls back, condenses and waits for the next battle.

OR

The belief in it is bogged down and the easy way is chosen and negativity didn't have to do anything but wait for the positive influences to get tired and decide to give up.

The option lies within each of us. Recognizing we own that option and we can make the choice and not have the choice made for us can make a difference.... but again it lies solely in how much energy and belief each person wants to put into it.

(I also use that with my clients describing recovery.)

supple, your preference for point of attack is entirely up to you, of course. i didn't mean to imply anything concerning selfishness in the popular negative connotative way, although i suspect you may use that word with a different sense. however, i suppose i reject the premise the we are primarily either individualistic or societies; i believe the fact is that we are both simultaneously. i'm thinking about a friend of mine who works for the usda in organic certification and farmland allocation/preservation. although he certainly enjoys what he's doing, its not his primary interest in his job. he does it because he is concerned about the future of open spaces in america and the availability of healthy food stocks. in fact, i know many people who work in fields with a primary motivation to make a better world; and i would tend to think that these career choices are at least heavily influenced by an awareness of the larger social group.

are you talking primarily about the imposition / education of morality / ethics?

I think there are collectives, as in groups organized around an interest or a concern. Then there is THE collective. And I tend to agree with supplecow. THE collective is very hard to influence in subtle yet meaningful ways. It is hard to get THE collective to change or sacrifice because, individually, they can fall back on laziness or indifference without being singled out.

i dont think anyone engages with the political unless they are motivated by a degree of concern for themselves, for their surroundings and the direction these are moving both in real time and in the future. real time situations are indices of future possibilities: that's why folk spend time trying to work out meanings for real-time phenomena. and in this there is a commonality that runs well beyond the narrow limits you seem to want to draw around political debate: it goes as much for folk who trawl through the field of debris that is the left as for those in the shadowy reaches of the far right who play paintball in camo every weekend as a way of preparing themselves for helter skelter.

maybe folk have other things that they would focus on if they were able to assume that the political space within which they lived was coherent: stuff like finding a rubik's cube on ebay because this time goddamn it i am going to solve it or trying to figure out if it really makes any sense to use pipe from a pipe organ in your car's exhaust system because it should sound cool....

but the fact is that the political space within which we operate is not coherent, and the longer-term trajectories you can derive from this political space are even less coherent. the major political parties really are factions within an oligarchy that engage in periodic rotation--the democrats offer very little that differs from the republicans--periods of deviation apart--and the bush administration has turned out to be quite a period of deviation----such that the democrats suddenly look like an actual alternative, even as their actions in congress demonstrate that the constraints within which they function nearly outweigh any sense that this alternative has a content.


here's a little example:

over the weekend, i watched spike lee's documentary about new orleans during and after katrina. you really should see it, even though the last 2 parts operate like a long, slow drift into ambiguity. it raises a host or problems, from the way in whcih the television coverage of the storm and its aftermath was simultaneously about sensationalizing certain elements AND was a device to enable avoidance of the scale of what happened, to the systematic racism that cuts through all aspects of the situation and responses to it, to the way in which the disaster was "handled": shipping people all over the united states on busses, one-way tickets provided by fema. one way bus tickets. go to utah and rot. buh-bye.

nola revealed many systemic problems--and it showed how folk had managed to cope and flourish even within these systemic problems--a coping and flourishing that did not in any way justify the systemic problems themselves...

one of these problems: racism and its implication with the american class structure and the ways in which these factors coverge in the debacle that was the nola public school system. this cluster is a set of indices of the way in which social reproduction in the united states is entirely geared around an outmoded class structure---one of the consequences of this is that the system itself amounts to an argument, and that argument is that if you are young, poor and african-american, you are expendable.

it was like this before the storm.
it is like this, after the storm.
this is a fundamental element of what makes america as it is.
and this is a STRUCTURAL problem.

it is intertwined with the entire history of the united states since the civil war. it is an expression of that history. it is among the logical outcomes of that history.

and nola was but an extreme example of a situation that obtains across the board insofar as the american class system, racism, poverty and social reproduction are concerned.

both political parties are geared around avoidance of such problems: they are not amenable to short-term solutions, so it is difficult for politicians to offer simplistic packages the primary function of which is the enabling of appropriate photo-ops for the heroic politician. this is what i did. i am magnificent. vote for me.

addressing stuff like this would require a fundamental rethinking of how the united states operates: what class system it actually has (as opposed to the class system the conservatives prefer to imagine that we have, one within which everyone is somehow middle class--an image that is the simple inversion of lake woebegone, where everybody is above average...), what factors it leans on, what functions it serves and does not serve, whether it is ethical to allow it to continue....and what is more, questions of what should be done to change it and to what end do not resolve themselves as a result of thinking about the history of these issues.

the questions that arise even from this are difficult. and neither political party has any interest in attending to them. not really.

so if you position yourself in the center, and define the center as the result of a triangulation of party positions as you understand them, ruling questions in and out of debate in this way, then the simple fact of the matter is that you have no way of thinking about this kind of question either.

now judging from the way in which you present yourself, pan, it would appear to follow that for someone to dwell on this kind of problem, and to do it here, would be tantamount to introducing some vibe of "hate and negativity"---in this case, these empty terms that you like to throw around function simply to exclude issues from debate. and if the claim underpinning this exclusion centers on concern for the future, then i think you create a problem for yourself: i dont see how the future is served by avoiding difficult problems.
and i dont see anything in your preferred exlcusionary categories of "hate and negativity" but a desire to avoid complex problems in the name of maintaining some facile optimism.

"no no, let's not talk about that, man, it's bumming me out."

i dont accept it.
i dont buy the argument, i dont buy its implications and i certainly dont buy its effects.
sorry.

Well, if neither the left nor the right is really dealing with seemingly intractable problems like classism and racism in America, and I believe this is true, then what purpose does it serve to align yourself with one of them? This happens to be an issue that I care very much about. Yet, I consider myself to be politically moderate. For me, being moderate is not so much about compromise. It's a rejection of the stalemate and assimilation, that you also seem to perceive, in American two-party politics.

there's two questions crunched into each other in the last post i put up:

1. the particular functions of pan's mode of interaction in this place when it comes to structural problems and debate about them and
2. an outline of the type of problem in the actually existing world (whatever that means, really) that moderate-ness as processed through (1) would functionally exclude.

then a little rant got started and took on a life of its own.

anyway: i guess my position would come down to: the dominant political parties in the states both operate within ideological boxes that are geared around avoidance of structural problems.

the shared assumptions: capitalism is in itself rational. the parties differ on the extent of that rationality and on what needs to be done compensate for its shortcomings--but both believe that capitalism is in itself rational.

because capitalism is in itself rational, then it follows that the united states, which is the belly of the beast, is in itself rational. problems that arise then are adjustment issues, not functions of problems with the underlying rationality itself. so problems that arise, and which cannot be avoided (avoidance being always plan a, it seems), therefore can be addressed by tacking on some extra element that will be charged with making the necessary adjustment.

but the assumption that the socio-economic order within the united states is necessarily rational because, somehow, it cannot be otherwise a priori is a shared assumption that cuts across party divisions.

obviously, when it comes to fashioning these extra adjustment mechanisms, reps and dems diverge: the right prefers a kind of voluntarism (discourse of the will--they LOVE it), the democrats a more socially-oriented response.

when it comes to educational policy, the right favors privatization, the democrats--well, what? they default into defending the existing system because, and ONLY because, when compared with the lunacy of the conservative educational philosophy, the status quo doesnt look so bad.

but think about it. the educational system is the primary mechanism of social reproduction--what it reproduces is the class system that is in place---but the american economic order has been fundamentally transformed since the late 1970s--and there is talk about adjustments, but no adjustments--time passes, the reorganization of the american socio-economic order accelerates, affecting sector after sector---and along with that the class profile being reproduced by the american educational system and the profile of the labor pool diverge more and more. think the disappearance of the american working class. think the much graver problems that result for the poor. the ideological order within which we operate would assign everyone either a place in the "middle class" or they disappear. the ideology under which we operate is geared around denial. it is a mechanism of denial.

addressing this process would require asking certain questions: does it make sense for the united states to simply allow its internal organization to be remolded by the reorganization of capitalism? does it make sense to assume that the logic of this remolding will simply be given by capitalism itself?

it appears that the right imagines this will happen, and in this the right is operating with an understanding of the relations between registers of a particular mode of production that is so crude that it would have made even stalin blush.
how exactly are markets rational?
is social reproduction a market function?
clearly it is not--it feeds into labor pools but is not itself a function of those pools--it does not move along with the structure of labor pools, there is nothing automatic about the relation. the relation requires a degree of planning.

the right's "plan" is to surrender: privatize everything, kids. that way, when the shit hits the fan politically as a result of a defunctionalized educational system that chooses social control over social opportunity, particularly when it comes to the poor, who in conservativeland are self-evidently expendable, there will be no political consequences to be bourne. that way, the populations whose futures are maimed can choke in silence. and that, apprently, is the american way, that is the way it should be.

the democrats default into defending the status quo. the argument that the status quo is preferable to crackpot notions like school vouchers is certainly persuasive in itself (to me anyway)--but the effect of this pseudo-debate is to marginalize critiques of the system itself--there is no space for such critiques.

but the problems that are being performed by the public education system in the states are structural. they speak to the inability of the dominant ideology to provide an adequate framework for thinking about the nature, meaning and responses to conditions that are unfolding beneath your feet, within your city, in real time, all around you.

it simply seems to me that the dominant ideology in the states is about avoiding all this. and we are talking here about ONE SECTOR. there are lots of sectors. there are lots of deep problems. this globalizing capitalism thing isnt working out as the neoliberals halluncinated that it would. and this is not a process that is only fucking around the southern hemisphere: it is generating and/or excerbating many real problems in the states as well.

and there is no debate. there is no discussion. there are no adjustments. there are no options. there IS avoidance. and this primarily because the spectrum of political positions that the americans confuse with a viable range of alternatives simply doesnt allow for this kind of issue to be addressed coherently.
so i dunno.

I don't mind backing up my opinions, but I have no interest in researching or composing a thesis, either. My middle of the road political opinions seem to get trampled by the extremes of both sides, both of which have canned arguments readily available.

I read the discussion here, make up my own mind, and keep my mouth shut. It isn't worth the effort.

Pan:

You've definitely got my respect and admiration for having the heart to fight the good fight, however small and hard-fought the gains are.

While I don't disagree with the thrust of your feelings on negativity, I think there's also a trap in single-minded focus on "solutions". When I was still in school, this mindset was frequently employed by the administration as the ultimate criticism killer. Don't like the way housing is allocated? Come up with a better method. Don't think our vendor contracts are negotiated to students' advantage? Figure out a better system. Disagree with the way teacher evaluations are handled? YOU fix it. This was so effective at shutting down unwanted feedback because the people with the ground-level view were not the ones with the resources and knowledge, to say nothing of responsibility, to solve the problems. In my year working in that administration, I got a lot of attention for telling students to come to me with problems because it was my job to fix them.

I think a certain level of this translates to what goes on at tfp - and it's a question central to who we think we are and what our space will become. So far as I know, none of us are politicians. None of us have the whole picture, the knowledge, the resources, or the responsibility to fix these problems. To insist that every post or thread without a solution packaged is nothing more than negativity is to lock us into choosing between silence and pie-in-the-sky posts.

I'm perfectly happy to learn about and discuss problems here. I know that none of us is likely to come up with anything as grand as a solution. For me, the reward is in learning to use some insight that one of you posts and think about the world around me in a clearer fashion...

Great post, roachboy...change will come, as it always does....via economic dislocation...I fear that we are in the early stages of a "weimar republic" scenario:
and today, gold is <a href="http://www.kitco.com/">$645.00</a>, up from a recent low of April 2, 2001, when the price was <a href="http://www.kitco.com/londonfix/gold.londonfix01.html">$255.95.</a>

"Change" will come, roachboy....but only when the people "who matter", "important people", lose large amounts of money in our current "experiment" with "capitalism". In the scheme of things, education has been commoditized
......and "outsourced", just like everything else. I don't think that changing the US education system matters so much. The "jobs" in the future, I fear, will be in private security and law enforcement, and figuring out how to scratch by on a subsistence living, and the economic conditions will drive us into some sort of dictatorship.....the degree of benevolence or oppressiveness is the open question......

<center><img src="http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/1y/n/new"><br>
<img src="http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/1y/l/lend"><br>
<img src="http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/1y/n/nfi"><br>

<b>and the next one???</b>
<img src="http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/1y/c/cfc"><b>

and after that...will it be the "big enchilada" ???
<img src="http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/5y/_/_dji"></center>

Americans will only see the "unfairness" of the current economic "system", when it is "unfair" to them....when it bites them in the ass....turns them out of a job, a home, and out of their retirement savings....that will be the catalyst for an economic and education "revolution"......

damn it.
this just won't work.
i'll try again later.

Gold is down to $645 from a high of $800 something not too long ago.

Up and down, up and down, round and round we go.

Nothing to see here. For every economist or expert opinion there is an equal and opposite opinion.

Que serra serra, whatever will be will be......

Host, I'm a little short on time but I will do my best to come back and complete my post. I want to give some references and stuff. I want a chance to respond to your position on the economy (RE: price of gold etc).

Thanks.

I don't disagree with you, roachboy, but I don't agree with you either. I don't agree that conservative policies and social agendas are inherently evil and predicated on the exploitation of the poor. And I don't believe that the globalization experiment has had the chance to yet be deemed a failure. I do believe the world must gain some homogeneity in regards to economic opportunity and that in the process, cultural distinctions will become less so and it will cause much strife and struggle around the world. I believe that the way of life we have taken for granted in the West will (continue to) take a downturn as people in places we normally haven't given much thought to start to claim their own piece of what we used to so charmingly refer to as the "American Pie" - as if it were the bottomless dessert tray that just naturally comes along with Manifest Destiny. I don't know what to think about liberals who decry the American capitalist system and then cry when the American capitalist status quo starts to dissolve under their feet. You can't have it both ways. Yes, corporate entities are taking advantage of cheaper labor to make more money. But they are also giving jobs to people who would do just about anything to scrub toilets in a fast-food restaurant so they could have the privilege of not watching their children starve to death. Yet we liberals here in the states want to be able to sit at a nice little table outside of Starbucks with our four dollar cafe latte and bemoan how bad off we are, how horrible capitalism is and the how evil the conservatives are when the truth is that the roots of the problem are so much deeper, more daunting and more horrible than we even want to begin thinking about. I don't have a lot of patience for it.

My point is, I don't think pure liberalism (ie, socialism) is anymore of an answer than pure conservatism (ie, capitalism). I think the answer will lie somewhere in the middle. In a system that gives people both social and economic opportunity. More control over their communities and more control over their lives. From the standpoint of the world we are living in now, I think this outcome is more likely than that of the world slaveholder cum, corpo-illuminati dictatorship model and that of the world-sharing, level playing field model.

Thusly, I find myself self-identifying as a moderate. Granted, I am not the most knowledgeable person around here and I don't have a compendium of graphs and articles to base my opinion on. My ideas are based on my own observations and what I believe is a pretty well-grounded sense of pragmatism. And that's about that.

Thanks Uber............. I truly am thankful for the kind words.... and I agree, it is a double edged sword saying "find the solution." In politics it is the politician's job to fix things and keep them running smoothly, however, it is up to us the people to find the politicians who have good ideas and are willing to take chances, are willing to listen to all sides and find solutions that people may not like but can live with.

Again, if we discuss problems here and we find something that may work, we have some idea what to ask from our politicians and what to look for in them.

But if all we do is hate and ignore..... our politicians will be as negative as we are..... hence corruption, hence greed, partisan politics, etc. etc.

What have we got to lose by trying to be positive and focus positively on issues and try to find positive ways to handle them?

Nothing more than we already have lost and are losing.


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

And so it goes and Host and RB's posts are perfect examples of what I started in this thread with..... instead of debating .... RB and Host all of a sudden turn the thread into "let's blame the Right and show economic injustice".

Great, but that wasn't the point I was trying to get across in saying I am trying to stay positive and I don't post because people here seem to want to stay negative and not work on finding middle ground.

On the other hand these 2 proved my point as to why it is utterly useless to try to post anything here............ They don't like the flow they change the subject to what they want and totally disregard what was being said.

(Not just Host and RB do this.)

Hence, the elitism on this board.... you play by THEIR rules and when THEY decide the topic isn't worthy instead of starting a new thread or just saying they have nothing more to say they bog the thread down, change topic and fuck anyone who might have been interested in what was being said.

Thanks for demonstrating the answer guys, I am not trying to attack you anymore than you tried to change the subject on me. And decided what I had to say and others who may have had something to say on a topic you obviously were bored of..... wasn't worthy of your respect.

what are you talking about?
and how did you possibly read roachboy's post to "blame the Right?"
if anything, roachboy argued that CAPITALISM creates economic injustice and that NEITHER party can get past the idea that capitalism and the structural problems it brings are part of the natural order of things.

it's that kind of interpretation that makes my eyes boog out when I read your responses and wonder how you consider yourself liberal or even moderate. it seems the level of critique you offer isn't anything other than baseless, everyone hates everyone else comments and that's all there is to it according to your analysis. even if it were true, it's tedious to read it in every thread and damn near every post.


EDIT: and I had to go back and reread how we even got to here from there and I find it bizarre, to say the least, that not a few posts of roachboy's back you actually congratulated him on engaging in a discussion with you. and his posts seemed to me to be in response to your questions...so I'm confused as to why you would then turn around and use these same responses as a negative example of what you were trying to show in the beginning of this thread.

pan, please reread the first part of roachboy's post.....I thought that he responded to you by trying to find out from you hwere you thought the "divide" between Americans actually and why it has to be so narrow, so limiting, so confining, soooooo "to the right".....I think he was challenging you to look at your own arguments "outside of the box"....to look at the indoctrination of the "student" by the American system of education/socialization, so that you might recognize that, on the whole, Americans are trained to live in a narrow little of view that is decidedly to the right of where world economic "dynamics" are continuing to move them towards. The vast majority of Americans are educated to believe in a "system" that is moving rapidly away from being
in their best interests......and that they are already much more "united" and in accord with a belief system that hasn't and won't benefit them.....

If he' s right, pan....what discussion can be aspired to, that will not be based on "everybody knows"......but are actually non-constructive assumptions as a foundation for what to do "to come together" to improve "things"....to improve "the system". Consensus building in a society that is rapidly becoming poorer and has less opportunities of the pre- 1970's variety....a consensus aimed at improving "our way of life".....may actually, pan....offer the potential for a way to block "real" improvement, if....."our way of life"...the socio economic political order that is the root of our "politics"......the two "right leaning" major party politics is the foundational "problem".

...hence the idea that "heated" debate is the outcome of the status quo, and what you regard as "division" is actually a mild form of disagreement, compared to the "fireworks" that must take place, if there is still to be a "middle" economic "class" in the US.....a country that is more and more resembling Manhattan, with only the "haves" and those there to serve them, inhabiting the place......

Do you think pan, that the US seems closer to a system that could spawn this
....or this:
Would libertarian majorities in Wash. DC, discourage the concentration of wealth of a Carlos Slim, or foster a tax system that would encourage a Buffet or a Gates to such high levels or philanthropy?

Would the wealth of Buffet or Gates or Carlos Slim, ever be concentrated in the hands of one person, in the first place, uder the Chavez style economic "reforms" so popular in South America?

The point pan, is that there is no "left" side in the US, there is basically only the side leaning much more heavily to the right than you may accept now.
So....there is really no "debate"...embracing US "style". present day "capitalism", which seems more closely akin to the even more rightist "corporatism", to me..... So the question is....what do you advocate us coming together to do.....to form a unified, even more right leaning, pro status quo agenda of continued indoctrination in our schools to support a system that is rotting out our economic security and our futures?

I believe that we need to challenge and, at this stage, brutally criticize the status quo and the current economic "system", and the two rightist "money parties....and I think disagreement will probably mirror the everyday world, and it won't be friendly....just as Chomsky would not be enthusiatically received here. Our system is broken, things must be shaken up.

It will be "in you face", as it is on Pelosi's lawn.....with a challenge from middle leaning folks who many would consider the "extreme left".....democrats against the continued war who see Pelosi as hindering withdrawal legislation, instead of leading it.

You can't seperate money and power from politics, pan....it is the "business" of taking, dividing, and distributing both....the process evokes emotions, even in a "capitalist" society. United right leaning Americans will result in things like the ISG and the 9/11 commission, when what we need for the benefit of the greater good, is a serious dialog about the pros and cons of the rationality of markets, or capitalism, and what we can learn that is helpful to the most of us, about the "work" and policies of Chavez and the leaders of Brazil and Bolivia, and ways to lessent the chances of other Carlos Slims and Bill Gates, without loosing the benefits to society of their vision, planning and execution.

I'm angry pan.....angry for radical change.....and fearing that it's already too late...hence the impatience, and the less than eager embrace of a "why can't we all just get along" movement....that stays in it's "to the right" sphere.

Most already do "get along", pan....and it's tendency is to blind as it binds...

You are absolutely right, he offered up debate to the point. Never once did he say:
Sounds like someone willing to work with others to find a viable solution. You're right, what was I thinking?

I did compliment him. He seemed focussed and willing to talk about trying to find positive answers and at least converse the matter with open mind..... until.

Then Host jumps in and we're debating Capitalism..... but what about my discussion on bringing in positive solutions?

I forgot they were answered with open mind here .... again I quote:

So in the end, he gets his way. Those that want to work for a positive solution are told there cannot be one.... no debate necessary, people aren't smart enough.... people get confused too easily.... but Roachboy has all the answers he tells us right here:

what I had to say was not worth the time.... but let's talk about Capitalism and how the Right want to destroy everything, turn everything private.... the Left is useless and again.... Debate???? Yeah right.

And yes, I am pretty liberal socially, moderate to a degree fiscally (I believe in cutting waste and abuse but not programs. And I believe the other side wants the same... it's all a matter of compromise and working TOGETHER to find viable solutions. But that must be too boring.... let's turn the thread into a bash against Capitalism. Why? Because Roachboy tells us right here that:

.

But I'm the negative one. :thumbsup: :rolleyes: OK........

pan,
did you think those statements about no debate and no discussion related to you and him? or participants in this thread?

because I read them as a conclusion to his point why nothing is resolved in Congress, for example. That mambers of the two main political parties are unable to debate or discuss things rationally because they are locked in a particular paradigm--namely, that the order of business as it stands today is a natural product of human interaction...so it's hard for them to think of the system as a system and to therefore difficult to discuss the system itself.

as far as I can he was trying to engage with you why he sees people speak past one another other than the fact that they just hate each other. that inability to see one another's point is a function of systems, not a function of personality clashes.

I don't know how his post got converted in your read of it into a position that you and he are unable to sit down and discuss ideas together outside that complex of systems that inform all of our thought processess...

pan.... I just attempted to explain to you why I reacted to this:

...in the way that I did.

If you have lost faith, like I have....in a "system" that in the best of times, experiences 45 million without health insurance and the bottom 20 percent with no "net worth", while the top one percent holds 30 percent of the total wealth,

and is a "system" that experiences large spikes in inflation and, that, twice in the last 75 years, has featured a decline to 1/5....or less of the recent high valuation of one of it's major stock exchanges, along with high unemployment,
and has produced, in the present decade, an increase from $300 billion annually, in defense and intelligence gathering spending, to more than $700 billion presently.....as it "unwinds" huge numbers of formerly wage and benefit rich "union" jobs.....

.....while the large majority of my countrymen describe that system as the "American way of life", and accept, as a given, that this is a universal belief,
where is the "poltical division", and the "left" vs. "right" "divide" that you condemn as unproductive? Where is the "left" portion of the partisanship that you want to diminish?

Host,

The attitude you and RB give is that we are doomed and we need radical changes.

It ain't happening unless you want civil war and a nation that may truly not allow freedoms.

Let me ask you this, what is your solution?

You 2 tell us how bad things are, how gloom and doom things are, how there is no hope..... but where are YOUR solutions???????

Where are your plans to change things?

All I have been saying is you open up both sides look at what the majority of the people want, sit the politicians down and find answers. If your senator or Representative doesn't want to find answers then elect new ones.

Debate for positive changes and demand positive changes.... ringing the bell and telling everyone how bad things are does NOTHING, offers NOTHING and takes away any hope that still exists.

In the end you get more people apathetic with politics that way and you create that which you say and speak out against.

So where are your answers??????? Not the problems, everyone knows what the problems are, how would Host and RB solve them and solve them to a degree that the majority will be happy with???????

Oh I forgot the 2 of you do have positive responses:

Host, turn your anger into something positive, not negative. Work for true change not "radical change" you dream of.... it won't happen.

Radical changes happen in steps and take time.... or if forced happen but end with negative results: Castro, Chavez, Vietnam, China, the old USSR, need I go on?

You have legit points but Host, you will never get a majority to agree to this radical change you are so wanting of.... what you will end up getting is people who want power and they will be far worse than what we have.

I say change the system from within and work in a way that the majority can agree with, have hope in and take part in because they feel positively about it.

oops, my bad

I don't really see the problem here. I understand that you're frustrated pan, but if this is the an internet bulletin board thingy (and i think it is) and if both roach and host (and i think i can probably throw smooth in there as well) feel that one of the problems with political discussion is that we aren't asking the correct questions - why would you want to stifle that viewpoint? i have to agree with smooth here; it seems that you are internalizing their comments and pretty blatantly trying to shut down that mode of conversation.

and host, i don't think its too late. i do think it will likely have to get much worse before we reach critical mass, and the solution may not be such that america emerges with its current standard of living.

pan:

you simply misunderstood the posts i put up.

there were two points, really. one was specific to the forum, the other a series of examples of structural problems. the irony, i guess, is that as i was talking about examples of structural problems, i more or less anticipated how you would react--i put it in the posts for gods sake...

anyway, you decided for some reason to isolate the last paragraph of no. 82. that paragraph follows from the previous paragraphs in the post and does not mean what you take it to mean.
here it is in context:

i put the crux of the section in bold. the last paragraph refers to it.
the premise concerned both political parties in the states.
the set-up was the claim that both parties assume capitalism to be in itself rational---and the outline is as smooth pointed out above.

in no. 80, i included this:

QED.

i'm all for working out solutions, pan: but it makes no sense to me to think about that if the issues as framed are too limited, or if entire areas of problems are excluded up front from debate.

i'm all for solutions--i just think it is better if the solutions are coherent----call me cranky that way.

i'm all for solutions--i just dont exclude the possibility that for solutions to structural problems to unfold, it might require a far more radical political change than folk like you are anticipating.

i dont exclude radical change. i dont exclude a political project that would tend toward revolution. in many ways, i think that radical political transformation is desirable--BUT i do not default into this position. i couldn't if i wanted to: i have spent far too many years tracking the history of the devolution of the left and of the old style of revolutionary politics.

i think that you can argue that structural problems are created by the unfolding of capitalist rationality and that the source of the problems is the rationality itself. from that, what i said about the basic position i operate from follows----i lean toward--am at least open to--that position. the problem is that the position itself is empty. if there is to be a revolutionary project, it has to be rebuilt from the basic conceptual level on up. this is at the core of my academic work: it runs through almost everything that i do in that context.

at the same time, however, i am in this world and there are problems. i live here and part of me would prefer that these problems be manageable within this framework: but i also am open to the possibility that they are not.

last thing: none of these problems are inevitable, none of them spring from Nature or from History (if you understand that as some abstract force that orders the world)--WE MAKE THEM. WE MAKE THEM WHEN WE REPEAT THEM. WHEN WE REPEAT THEM, WE ARE THEM.

RB,

I do feel it is the right and duty of everyone to push the government to do better. That includes asking tough questions and finding the answers.

However, I'm also a realist and realistically what we have now, as imperfect as it maybe, as one sided as it may seem it is the best form of government and freedom man has seen in modern day history. But it doesn't mean we have to stop there. We build onto it, we take away from it as needed and when needed. If Bush is evil.... we have only 2 more years... we vote him out and we find a new guy to pin everything on. Unless we decide to get positive and we elect someone with true ideas and plans to better the country.

We get only what we want... we want negative politicians we get them... we want to be apathetic we are.... we want to be bullied by extremists we will be.... we want the press to tell us how to be.... we will be told..... Negativity = easy.

I've stated many times, this nation is primarily a nation of centrists. The vast majority are not radical. Maybe one one or two issues but they are pretty much middle ground.

I am not of the belief that "both parties are the same because that is how the powers that be want it." They are what they are because WE are. There isn't much difference because there isn't much difference in what the needs and wants are.

If we have negative corrupt politicians, it isn't because of some grand scheme, or master plan.... it's because we put them there. Again, negativity begets negativity. People don't demand true change until the nation goes too far one way.

Are we ever going to have a perfect society, where everyone is treated equally, everyone has the same amount of money, everyone is fed etc etc?

No, it's impossible. The only thing possible is to take what we have and make it better. The only way to make it better is to open dialogue between the 2 sides stop pushing the to be defensive over everything they believe and embrace the possibility that together they may find answers and solutions.

If I am beat over the head every day for a belief that the sky is pink and purple polka dotted..... I am eventually going to do 1 of 2 things.... 1) I will get defensive and never change my mind ....... or 2) I will eventually get tired of fighting and comply, but also have hatred and an "I'll show them" attitude. That is what we are doing to society today.

The media, politicians, politics board theorists..... etc all are beating down people with how they should believe.

The Dems are told to believe this way..... the GOP that way.... but in doing so the middle ground and the majority of people who want middle ground are used as warfare and pushed and pulled and dictated to by the 2 extremes.

It's time to stop letting the extremes run the country and find poistive solutions.

This country is not black and white but full of grays and can grow.... but we allow the politicians, press and so on to tell us it's all black and white and there is no other choice. They beat us down and tell us how horrid the other side is and run by fear.

Solutions, compromises and bettering the country is out there and within reach, it's just a matter of truly working to find how best to achieve them.

It's like I asked of you and Host, or anyone here. Stop complaining, stop telling everyone how bad everything is and come up with solutions and debate those..... people watch, they learn they see what they like and then they get opinions and add input and soon people are no longer scared to speak out, or feel they are not smart enough, or feel left behind.... but that they are included and what they say matters.

That is the key to this country and to bettering our society. Not ringing bells, blowing whistles, telling everyone how bad everything is.... but giving everyone the oppurtunity to have a voice, to embrace their ideas (on local levels and then their reps and senators take them higher), to give everyone hope and a feeling of belonging in society.

Greed, chasing the Smiths, etc. etc. stems from one problem: the people are losing their sense of community belonging. They don't feel a part of the community, they don't feel a sense of having a voice and way to input ideas.... so they go out and buy all the neat stuff that allows them to feel they belong.

Man is a social animal.... however the individual needs to feel that what they do matters .......... if anything is truly wrong with this country.... it's that we have allowed that sense, that needs to be dismissed and taken away from us.

It's time to get it back, even if it is only on this insignificant forum at first.... good ideas and positive energy while they have to work harder are heard, seen and spread like wildfire.... not that they take immediately but people see them and start thinking and begin to believe there can be better.... that's a start.

i debated for a while whether to respond to this last post or not.
i still havent really decided.

basically, all i see in it is a restatement of where you started from, pan.

it seems to me that the refusal to engage with the positions others outline is far more negative in the context of a discussion or debate than anything even the most extreme political activist could post, so long as that activist actually listened to--or read in this case--what others say.


i am not sure that i see the point in continuing with this discussion: it is not getting anywhere and holds out no promise that it will get anywhere.