ratbastid

Please note: This thread is NOT intended to talk specifics of politics. Any specific partisan talk or discussion of current events or policy, and I will immediately request that a moderator close this thread. Thank you.

In the aftermath of a certain thread here in TP that got way out of hand, I'm left with a deep concern about our ability in America (and the world, for all I know, though I'm not going to talk about anything but the US here) to have an actual, authentic debate on matters of politics.

In 1858, America reached what appears to be its highest point, in terms of political discourse. Abraham Lincon and Stephen A. Douglas, contending for a US Senate seat from Illinois, held a series of seven debates. Lincoln, a Republican and a relative unknown at the time, argued that the US could not survive as a nation split on the subject of slavery--this is where his quote "A house divided against itself cannot stand," comes from. Douglas, a Jefferson-style federalist Democrat, and the incumbent, argued that slavery was a matter best left to the states. He was a proponent of what was called "Popular Sovereinty"--reign by the people. There were other issues under debate, obviously, but slavery was the main one. Lincoln ended up losing the race, although he got more popuar votes than Douglas. More importantly, he made a name for himself with northern Republicans, setting him up for the nomination for the Presidency in 1860, and the rest is history.

Here's the thing: thousands and thousands of people turned out for these debates. While there certainly were partisan lines, people largely came to hear the candidate's views and to make up their minds for themselves--not only about whom to support, but about whose approach was the better one for Illinois and the nation. The amazing thing is this: at that time (and until 1913), US Senators were elected directly by state legislatures. In spite of that, Lincoln and Douglas took their message straight to the people. It was a foundation for some of the most influential political thought in the history of our young nation. And from the perspective 150 years later, it was a remarkable occurrance.

What I'm seeing these days is the opposite of all that. It seems impossible to have a discussion of political matters without the lines drawn ahead of time. The notion of debate as a shaper of public opinion and will seems to be completely dead.

I watched the Senate debate late Friday night on C-SPAN, and here's what I noticed. There was not even a pretense that the debate on the floor might change somebody's vote. Voting was predetermined before the resolution even hit the floor. Senators appeared to be speaking largely for the sound bite, or for the front page of their constituents' hometown newspaper. The whole thing smacked of stage play, not of statesmanship.

Here on TFP, where we pride ourselves on openness and inclusivity, it's roughly the same. A matter will come up, and we already know where most everyone is going to come down on it. We pretty much know how Ustwo will feel about it. We have a sense of what roachboy will say. I might have already seen a third of the articles host will quote.

And you know, for myself, to be perfectly honest, I know that my opinions are my opinions, and as far as I'm honestly concerned, there's really nothing anyone can say to change them. I'd like to think that new information might cause me to re-examine my opinions, but in practice, that doesn't happen very much.

I see this in my offline life too. Most of my friends (not all, but most) generally agree with me on political matters. Fact is, if somebody disagreed with me, and was vocal and strident about it, I doubt I could be their friend for very long. I'd probably claim it was nothing personal about them--but, let's be honest, what kind of horrible person disagrees with me? It inevitably turns personal. I might be able to humor them for a while, but I honestly doubt if real friendship would be possible. This makes me very sad, both for myself, and because I know I'm pretty typical in this matter.

I'm noticing a lack of thought rampant out there. Agreement or disagreement takes zero thought. That's all reflex. I can't remember the last time I heard anybody in a political discussion say, "Hunh! That's interesting! I'd never thought about it like that before! I can see your point!" Just doesn't happen.

Friends, is this what it has come to? Can we no longer talk about important national matters without divisiveness? Are we unable to see past our own opinions, party lines, and talking points long enough to even hear what others might be saying? Must we automatically, reflexively shoot down anything we disagree with, without applying even a smidgen of thought to it? We're all Americans, we're all human beings. How did we come to this?

I'll be honest, I'm pretty resigned about it. Maybe we should all just shut up. Maybe we should just let the polititians talk and let the media talk, and all form our own opinion, and vote the way we vote, and just shut the hell up about it. It seems to me to be entirely hopeless that we could ever actually discuss political matters with anybody.

On the other hand, if there's one group of people who can impact it, and impact it on a global scale, it's TFP.

What do you think?

rsl12

I think you're idealizing too much. When Lincoln and Douglas debated, they were debating in the hopes of changing people's vote, the same way that Bush and Kerry tried to change people's votes during their debates. Though the Illinois senator may have been voted by the legislatures in those days, it probably made political sense to address the debates to the general public, just as it makes sense for Tony Blair to address the general public in an appeal for support, and not the house of commons.

But do you really think that speeches on the senate and house floor were not full of grandstanding back in the day? For as long as speeches have been made part of public record, I'm guessing that 'debates' on the senate floor are about convincing voters more than convincing other senators. In that sense, both election debates and debates on proposed bills are consistent--they are both about convincing the public that Senator X is a good senator.

You say that it's a bad thing you know how Utswo will respond to a given topic--I say it's a good thing. I mean, isn't it great that you know how your wife will react to a particular circumstance? It marks a certain level of understanding of her personality. That's absolutely a good thing!

The fact that nothing gets solved during a political debate should come as no surprise. The politically hottest topics always have, as their core issue, certain inviolable principles held by individuals, and these principles cannot be 'argued' away. It is, indeed, rare to see someone say, 'oh, I haven't thought of that.', and rarer still to see such a remark that doesn't have as an addendum, "even so, that doesn't change my mind." But I think that's the nature of politics, whether today or a century ago.

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

tecoyah

I would absolutely LOVE to see our members act the way I know they can...civil and thoughtful...I have seen it in each and every person who posts right now. I also refuse to accept that we cannot get there as a community, and have seen strides towards this goal over the years. Part of the reason a few nameless members are no longer with us, was the roadblock they represented to achieveing this.....as unfortunate as that is.
I ask that we all try to put an effort into thoughtful discussion, and refrain from simply regurgitating the same tired platforms....this goes for EVERYONE who posts in this forum. Shortly I will attempt a small experiment in an attempt to get us all to think differently....just need to think it through a bit more.

This is Your Forum people....try to make it work....OK

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Seaver

Davey Crockett after getting fed up with the Government back even before those times. People are always corrupt. They are always making politics out of nothing, they are always putting themselves above the country.

Looking back with rose colored glasses does not reality make. Just like how America looks back to the '50s as a great time, they ignore prejudice, they ignore corruption, they ignore the constant fear they lived in.

JustJess

I find that I will often not post, or not indulge in the conversation because I already know how it's going to go. Mostly, I (and I assume others) aren't interested in replying unless we disagree. But having read through the threads... I don't want to participate in the flaming and the arguing and the personal attacks. There's no point in arguing, because as you say, no one is going to change their minds.

For me, I like to see other opinions on topics I don't know so much about. I might shift my own paradigm. Not on things I've decided already, but on new things, sure. Even when it's something I have a strong opinion about, I enjoy seeing the other side. I think I gain valuable insight and understanding. I need to know what they think, why they think, how they think - how else would I know that I feel differently?

I have conservative friends, the ones who are pro-life, or have never encountered a "real live gay"... I am NOT conservative. I have a lot of strongly held ideals. But that doesn't change the person I'm dealing with - they're still a good person, we just don't agree. And as long as we can leave it at that, we remain friends.

Perhaps it would help in our own forum to request a lecturer's approach. Set forth an idea for discussion, reveal your POV, discuss (as briefly as possible, please) why you think this way, and limit yourself to 5 pieces of "evidence". Try to go in with an open mind, to at least understand someone else, the "other side".

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

ShaniFaye

/reminds myself never to talk politics with Ratbastid cause we have differing opinions and Im one of those horrible people that disagrees with him

I shudder when I enter the polictics forum because I know that should I decide to read the threads I'm going to be forced to wade thru article upon article...and quite frankly the copy/pasting that goes on in there makes me hit the back button faster than anything else in the world.

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

ubertuber

Ratbastid, your question hinges on wording. If your intent is to ask why even have a political DEBATE, then your answer makes sense. A debate is intended to convey your point of view, and refute your opponent's. That is what we have here all the time, and it is what causes blood to boil and people to get banned. Also, if you are here to debate (as is everyone else), you probably have a good reason to feel that you aren't getting anywhere - debaters only listen to the ideas of others enough to dismiss them. They don't look for reasons to accept a foriegn idea, they look for ways to discredit it.

If you really want to know why it is worthwhile to have discussion, I think I have a few answers. To find out about someone else's point of view. To understand thought processes and rationales that differ from your own. To learn.

To me, the difference between debate and discussion is the difference between lecturing and learning.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Aladdin Sane

Ratbastid, I have asked a similar question before in this forum.
What is the point of debating politics? During the last 30 years, not once have I witnessed someone change their opinion on fundamental questions of politics as a result of a debate. Not a single time.
So what is the point other than vanity? I see none.

As an aside, I will tell you that my political philosophy and affiliation have changed dramatically over the years. My change was not the result of a political debate nor of a lifetime of political debates. Instead, it was personal experience and study that led me to a different conclusion.
Today, in this forum, I could post an opinion about a political matter and within 24 hours someone would respond in a way that would be either implicitly or explicitly insulting. Guaranteed. So what's the point of even talking about politics? I see none.

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

maximusveritas

Exactly.
Too often, in real life as well as here at TFP, we get into debates where we automatically divide into our respective sides and just try to "win". This usually means ignoring or distorting the good points that the other side makes, while stretching the limits of logic in order to make our own points.

I know I have personally changed the opinions of many people in real life, while also having my own mind changed on a number of topics. This doesn't mean changing completely from one extreme to another, but perhaps reaching some kind of compromise or understanding of the other side. Of course there are those people who are so set in stone that this is impossible, but most people are not like that.

The key is to establish the fact that you are simply having a discussion, not a debate. The goal is not to have someone win, but to gain a better understanding of the problem at hand and hopefully arrive at some kind of solution.

Lebell

*tag for later*

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

BigBen

Add me to the pile of people that get nervous when the thread resides in "Tilted Politics"; I think that there are people that take comfort in having something to discuss, whether it be politics or the weather. I like humour, personally, and will bring out a joke instead of what is on C-SPAN. Even though it is communication we are seeking, a wise man told me to stay away from discussing religion and politics. I have, and it has been a good course to steer, IMHO.

I change my mind often, on the little things. I have been known to change my mind on the BIG things from time to time. Wasn't there a thread asking what the similarities were between Republicans and Democrats? I don't remember (and am too lazy to search) but if I remember correcly, there was some good discussion there.

I love discussion. It makes me feel like I am part of something larger. When someone takes away something I said and tells me later "Thank you, BigBen, that statement you made was profound" I am truly a happy person. I like debate as well, but only when the rules are followed, forward progress is being made, and the debaters are masterful. (get it?)

It is horrible to see some of the monkeys fling their own poo. That is the best analogy I can make when I see the political posturing about the (insert current administration here) and the (insert sound byte here). Nothing productive occurs. People hold up an argument and wait for the other side to poke holes in it. If it survives with very few holes, it is then revered as a FOUNDATION argument that can be pulled out, again and again when a different argument (with totally different points) is losing.

Ratbastid, you have shown true character in wanting something more than rhetoric regurgitated. I applaud your intentions, and stand beside you in your search for something better. Of course, there is no surprise in your actions. I have come to expect nothing but the best from you.

__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

Ace_O_Spades

Personally, I believe the decline in logical and reasonable debate has much to do with the shift in the 17th century from predominantly print based forms of communication to the current internet and television dominant forms.

It's no longer how factual your argument is, or how logical; it's about how you look, how you present yourself, and how you convince people that your argument is the right one.

John Stewart Mill said that speeches about certain topics could be banned but the same topics in print could be allowed... he said this because speeches play on emotions and stir the soul, print is introspective - you use quiet contemplation to decide on what you think.

In the time of ol Abe, many Americans would never see the president in their entire lives, they only had what he put down in print to go by.

Food for thought in our ever increasing media-centered world view.

__________________
Feh.

pan6467

I talk politics because I truly like debate and finding how one side gets to an opposing view. Because in true debates, I have learned a lot and thought about why I took the position I did. It forced me to know more about my position, which is always a good thing.

Also, it gives someone who is in the middle and can go either way, the oppurtunity to see what both sides legitimately offer to learn about the issue without having to research or study on their own. This allows them to make intelligent choices.

Unfortunately, it only works when both sides give info and take info in a mature way. Today, it's all a pissing game and insults and trying to one up the other. What that does is turns the people in the middle off, and they end up just wishing both sides would shut the fuck up.

Ahhhh, but there is the rub and the gist, not so much here.... but in the realm of true politics and offices and power, both sides realize that with their monopoly the only way to keep it is to argue as loud as you can, engage in pissing wars and turn people, who may make the true difference, off.

Also, with the Limbaughs, O'Reillys, Drudges, Moores and Frankens this sells the medium they do and makes them millions, upon millions. The down side to this and the reason they need to just chill out, is that they have furthered the "I'm right, fuck you pissant, shut up and be my bitch" attitudes between parties and those who debate. It becomes a game of "me, me, me and fuck you" which very unfortunately, when it happens like it is now the true losers are not the political parties or those making the millions..... in fact they get more power, bigger egos and millions from it...... No the true losers are we the people, because when you are involved in games like these, there is no give and take, no meeting halfway, no compromise, it's all or nothing...... and the people like us in the long run lose.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Cynthetiq

this doesn't apply to just politics, it's become part of the fabric of our communities... pick any topic and pretty much you'll run into that same wall.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

ratbastid

Thanks for all the comments thus far. I don't have much in particular to respond about, except this:

Could very well be, and I thank you for saying it. The thought did cross my mind as I was writing the OP.

I dunno, I don't really need to go back to the (potentially mythical) qualities of the L-D debates. I'm more interested in what we might be able to create in the future.

Ustwo

Well you could argue that the end result of the Lincoln/Douglas debate ended with the deaths of 600,000 some odd Americans a few years later, not sure if that was a good outcome.

I think we all have a tendency to over estimate the political discourse of the past and the level of civic interest. Historians have picked out the high points for us, the high diplomacy, the great strokes, and using hindsight can pick out gems like the Lincoln/Douglas debate as the turning point of an era. They tend to neglect in the basic texts, the fist fights in congress, the duels, the petty bribes and the low brow type of pandering that was also done. I enjoy this type of history and seek it out when I can. If anything I think we have come forward, not backwards.

One of the more interesting things I got out of reading the Lincoln/Douglas debate was the racism involved in Lincolns argument to end slavery. I've heard that later excused as he was just trying to get more people on his side (one of these points was that by freeing the slaves you will have less mixed race babies born) but either he was pandering or a racist, neither of which are good.

Mass media has become something of an issue, and it is argued that we don't get great speeches anymore because of focus groups, polling, etc which waters down any strong opinions until a speech says nothing. This may be true, but I have to wonder if there are really less 'great' moments or are we biased because its only the great ones of the past we are aquatinted with, while the poor ones are not recalled.

All of the 'great' moments I can recall happened at pivotal times, people often think they are living in these times, but history will judge.

TFP isn't going to solve any issues in the world on a grand scale. Sure maybe one of us may rise to great heights of influence and power someday and make a difference, and maybe something they learned here will change them on the way, but we are not talking about politics on the politics board for the most part.

We are speaking of philosophy, and most philosophical conversations are held for the sake of having them, nothing of substances comes of it. My philosophy is opposed, and often diametrically opposed, to many of you. The type and role of government some of you seem to like I feel will lead to a version of an Orwellian hell. We will find no agreement, no common ground. Back in college I used to enjoy speaking with the more radical groups on campus on the quad. Once, I spoke to a Trotskyite for a couple of hours, and missed class to do so. We had a very well mannered discussion, but my conclusion was that if they ever tried to take power beyond the 5 feet of booth space they occupied I'd be sure to see them up against the wall. Our philosophies were totally incompatible and there was no room for live and let live in their world view.

We of course can change minds here. I have had people PM me as such, but such changes are gradual and I would think more often in the lurkers than the posters. I've had a few professors, with whom I spoke with on political matters when the clinic was slow. One of them I used to speak with quite often, he was a liberal but not hard core about it, and after a few years of our talks he stated out of the blue he was coming around to my way of thinking. I didn't expect it, and was somewhat flattered that someone many years my senior whom I respected said this to me. This was a man who was as educated as myself, in the same field, living in the same area, and it still took five years of conversations to get him to START to come around to my point of view. What chance do we have with people from very different walks of life, in both age, intelligence, education, profession, and location of really changing someones core philosophy on how we see the world?

We really don't, so we talk because we enjoy it, we can learn what others are thinking, even if we don't know why they think it, but any change is going to take a long time to come to fruition.

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

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

filtherton

The war for the hearts and minds of america isn't going to be won by reason, or facts, or well regulated debate. It is going to be won be persuasion. Being reasonable, having reality based arguments, or having equitable debate are conveniences of the persuasive process at best and placating delusions at worst.

Edit: Well said ustwo.

Willravel

I have to wonder if a real debate would even catch anyone's attention. The reason we have such heated, partison, antagonistic debates is because no one listens if you aren't loud and opinionated anymore. How well would any of the famous political comentators in the US do if they were anywhere near the middle of the road? No one would listen. Politics are boring (to most). Some may be asking what could change this? Well, a few years ago I would have responded, "Wait for the next big political problem that actually effects the lives of every American, then we'll see real debates." Of course, I'd be wrong. Many people who are directly effected by political changes, such as taxes or foreign policies effecting military families, still sit at home watching CSI, Orange County drinking their Budwiser Selects (which suck, btw). To be honest, the only way we'll see real debates in this country is if there is a revolutionary movement within politics to kick out the corrupt (for the time being, you can't keep corruption out of politics for long) and try to fill the systems with idological people willing to actually be politicians with the best interest of all people in mind, not just constituants. Of course, that's just the average person. The average person on TFP is a step above the average person, in my mind. I think that we do have the potential, as Tecoyah said, to rise above this. I myslef am very guilty of partison debating, but I also know that I am capable of having a very open mind (see my stuff in Paranoia, hehe). Just like me, most if not all who post and read TFP Politics are capable of great debates. We all have open minds to some degree, and that can be used to find the best soultion, not just the one that supports our points. I've been wrong before. You've been wrong before. You know what? That's okay. Better to be corrected for being wrong that to continue on assuming you're always right.

raeanna74

When I go to politics it's either because I've discovered a thread there discussing something that I'm not fully aware of or don't completely understand. In that case I rarely post in the thread unless I need to ask a question.

When I DO post in politics or tilted religion as well it's because the thread or posts within the thread have mentioned something for or against a opinion that I hold strongly to.

I have personally noticed an evolution of my thinking in regards to both areas since I've been a member of Tilted. I'm still in the process of growing, in what direction I know now, in my spiritual opinions. For better or worse though I've mostly given up on even discussing politics because I've lost hope of the situation improving. There is so much conflict and so many divisive issues and opinions on each subject that I see no reason to relive the constant pointless arguments. There are few things in my opinon that are worth spending my time debating. In any other areas I am willing to learn more but not interested in discussing much.

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

Marvelous Marv

It's all about money. One group wants to keep what they have (whether they deserve it or not), another thinks they deserve other people's money. A subset of the second feels entitled to SPEND other people's money. Not many minds will be changed among these groups.

Pretty much all of politics can be understood if you just follow the money. Who said that first?

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

roachboy

first, i find it a bit dispiriting to see my alias characterized as predictable in the opening post...kinda makes me wonder if there is any point to actually posting this, of if folk imagine that they can deduce it.....

what i see from many of the posts above is an assumption that politics is a matter for large-scale organizations which are in positions to afford sustained access to mass media.
the stuff of politics amounts to the generation and manipulation of signifiers in spaces that reduce meaningful interaction to spectatorship.
so politics is a variant of television programming for the most part.....programming made up of organizational discourses about themselves, most of which use curious promouns in order to hoodwink viewers into thinking that the choices being discussed actually involve them....
political commitment/action, then, is a type of shopping--one browses the racks of prefabricated opinions looking for those that flatter most.
debate would then be a way of trying on one's new clothes, walking around, working out a persona that seems implied by new accessories.
so a "liberal" who for whatever perverse reason found that a rightwing "opinion" on an issue made his or her butt look smaller who decides to debate in a space like this is like someone tottering about in heels who is not used to them. you could easily reverse these positions and keep the equation intact.

underpinning all this is the assumption that actual people have no power whatsoever---more than that---people not only have no power, but they do not want it---further, it really does not matter what you think or how you come to think it because all subjective issues that might arise while you are shopping disappear behind the commodities you choose as you shop.
.

if you really think this way, that politics is a particular space of consumer activity, then there is no point in debate at all.
why bother, frankly, when other types of consumer choice--such as drinking or drug abuse, will probably be more functional in therapeutic terms.
the outcomes--embarrassment and hangover, say, are perhaps even better than the kind of frustration engendered by political discussion because they at least do not come with the illusion that your participation in public life means anything and so while you may feel like hell, at least you dont also feel as though something basic has been taken from you.
besides, dignity is expendable--it dissolves quickly and efficiently in beer.
if you trade it away early and often enough, you will learn not even to miss it.
if you do not miss your dignity, then the dissolution of politics is easy to bear.
you wont miss that either.

maybe it is this type of facile cynicism that explains the otherwise incomprehensible attachment folk in netboards tend to espouse with libertarian positions---in a space where politics is nothing but shopping, the focus is the isolated individual. since politics is reduced to choosing between ill-fitting, mass produced options, questions of power, of social organization and its implications, of mode of production, etc., do not need come up. all that matters is you, the isolated, powerless, in communicado individual----somone who in all probability wants little more than to be left in his or her isolated, powerless silence and not be bothered with these repeated televised entreaties to be concerned about other people and the extent to which social organization is implicated in social problems. it makes sense, in that this political position, which is in fact not political at all, corresponds directly to the idea that you are nothing but a spectator who watches your own life amongst other programming choices on some flat and flattening screen.

and why not?

another way around: political discussion only matters to the degree that you imagine something is at stake in them.
if your starting assumptions work against this idea, the consequences unfold pretty directly.

this type of discussion can function as a kind of sociological theater across which you get to see how folk work out coping mechanisms that enable them to deal with their own (total and seemingly irreversible) powerlessness. this approach has a certain charm, but one can also find oneself growing unaccountably snippy when you actually post. but perhaps this indicates a certain luddite character i have--once i get my head around my own total powerlessness, perhaps i will be able to join in conversations about politics in a manner not so concerned with questions of implications that follow from arguments--because there arent any--and will simply take this for what it is--a particular conversational choice that i can indulge or not based on my consumer preferences of the moment. that'd be better. i look forward to achieving this stage of englightenment.

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

sailor

I think that's a very good point. Not only from that point of view, but also from the point of view of the person writing it. The internet, TV, the radio, it's all much more spontaneous. People can say what they want immediately, without having to really think it out, plan it out, and make it into a cohesive, logical argument.

I've noticed that if I take the time to write out arguments, oftentimes in response to posts in the forum, I'll sometimes find that what I had thought wasn't really that clear, or even a good argument. I'm not talking about writing it the "Reply" box and hitting submit, I'm talking about taking the time to write it out, in Word, or on a piece of paper, and then tweak it, edit it, really try to make it flow. Very often, this process makes you slow down and really think about your argument and present it in a well thought out way--and like I said, I've found that some of my arguments just didn't hold up anymore once I really wrote them out.

Of course, before anyone gets too nostalgic about that, remember yellow journalism and such--just because it's written doesn't make it true or even well thought out.

__________________
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."
--Plato

ratbastid

No offense intended, and I sincerely apologize for any taken. I guess I was feeling particularly dispirited when I wrote the OP, and characterized our conversations here in a way that reflected that. I used Ustwo as an example, and to keep my post as non-partisan as possible, I went looking for a frequent politics contributor from the moderate-to-left side of the fence, and chose you. Could have been anybody, actually.

To tell the truth, your posts are consistenly thought-provoking and, although I can sometimes predict the general thrust of what your opinion will be on a matter (as, I expect, most anyone here could mine), your articulation of it is always very interesting and engaging, and frequently cause me to see things in ways I hadn't before.

I'll include Ustwo and host in that apology as well. Sorry, guys. It was unfair to use you as examples in my rant.

Ustwo

Since most topics have been done to death, unless there is a new question you would have to be mentally defective if you didn't have a good idea of how frequent posters will react to a certain question.

Never apologize for the truth

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

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Grasshopper Green

I rarely post in here because I don't have as good a grasp on politics as a lot of posters, and my opinions are based on the limited knowledge of a subject...most of which hold little interest for me. After a personal (although not outright) attack by another poster, I refrained from posting here after that because I just don't need that type of garbage in my life (I am a pretty sensitive person). I think this is basically what all of this boils down to....everything is all about ME, and whoever gets stepped on/dissed/shoved aside, well, too bad for them, because they are wrong anyway. So many people don't have respect for anything or anyone anymore, and this just spills over into the political arena.

__________________
"They say that patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings; steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king"

Formerly Medusa

raveneye

Maybe we should have a role-playing parody debate. Participants choose their favorite opponent. Ustwo can play the role of roachboy, roachboy can play Powerclown, host can play Ustwo, Powerclown can play ratbastid. Use the full array of rhetorical devices, vocabulary, and debate tactics that your opponent uses. See if you can one-up your own self as played by your opponent. Maybe we'd all learn something valuable, about ourselves and how the dynamics inevitably play out here

pan6467

Personally, I see newer and more interesting topics come up on here like the GG, or Host's on the scandals. Yet those posts get largely ignored, or certain individuals use it to start flaming in another direction trying to provoke fights. (I.E. turning the Canadian GG thread into Canadian Healthcare and then calling them socialists..... no debate even just goes off trying to start flame wars on a topic that I guess if you are warped you can figure it belongs in that thread.)

Anyway, I ramble..... I just think there are certain people here who feel the need to pick fights, bully and call names, because they THINK they can win and that they can get away with it because the mods don't do crap to them. So they lead everyone off topic and into the same arguments so that they can bully and call names and not have to debate the true topic.

They do this because as posted above they "know" how frequent posters will react and if you don't know the poster insinuates negative intelligence on your part, (which I 99% of the time don't care about someone's reaction because I just post how I feel and what i want to say... nothing more not trying to one up anyone). LOL arrogance at its best, what a freaking great little man.

So, yeah one does have to wonder why post anything in here, when certain people take over and start name calling, start abusing others and the mods sit back. (Not all mods, but there are some who feel bullying, name calling and treating people like shit is ok because it keeps the board from being to 1 sided.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Elphaba

That idea is likely to lead to an ugly free for all. I like it.

Willravel

Thus began 'group bannings'....

Elphaba

Will, please consider the untrained replacements that would follow us. 'Tis not a pretty picture.

ajpresto

Hmmm... I'm an untrained replacement.

Elphaba

And you have already been sent to one timeout.