Originally Posted By DyGDisney I agree with RoadTrip. Even if you disagree, it's fun (for the most part). And I'm very a very moderate Christian. However, didn't this board USE TO BE very conservative? Like maybe 8 years ago or so? I know both my brothers, who are liberal, stopped posting here because it was so overwhelmingly conservative. And isn't Orange County, CA known to be a pretty conservative place??
Originally Posted By mele It was pretty conservative when I started posting her in 2004. It's true that there are a few moderate conservatives on here who were disgusted by Bush and are called liberals because of it. (SPP and 2oony are two.)
Originally Posted By ecdc Perhaps I've misunderstood the point of vbdad's OP, but I see several flaws in the approach here: 1) That the majority doesn't want diverse viewpoints. First, the "majority" has very little control over the kinds of viewpoints expressed. This is an open board where anyone who registers can come and post. 2) That bi-partisanship is somehow to be expected or is automatically a good thing on a board like this. Again, the more liberal or left-leaning moderates on these boards have no control over that. 3) All of this seems to suppose that people are asserting that WE's is bi-partisan, but it's secretly not. I don't think anyone has suggested that WE's is a nice mixture of liberals and conservatives. So then the question becomes, have conservatives somehow been unfairly driven away by liberals? I have my thoughts, and I'll warn right now that they won't be very politically correct. There seems to be this assumption that both sides of the political aisle are equally valid, and that if one side dominates, as is the case probably right now on LP, that it means they're being unfair or bullying the other side away. After the last 8 years, I don't think that'll wash. Both sides are not equally valid. For the last 8 years, the Democratic side has been a much more sustainable position than the conservative side. That's not always the case, and they of course had plenty of their own missteps, but they paled in comparison to conservative blunder after conservative blunder. This notion that "both sides are the same" is just lazy thinking. People seem to think it's a clever way to analyze politics and somehow stay above the fray, but it really just reflects an inability to assess the complexities of what's going on. Perhaps the shift in liberals vs. conservatives is just a reflection of reasonable people (as has been pointed out, like SPP, for example) have shifted away from totally indefensible things like what's happened under Bush). I think the whole, "Obama's the Messiah" thing really reflects the lopsidedness of the conversation, and is a great example of why the conservative persecution complex on LP is way off-base. The way the OP presented the situation was not at all an accurate portrayal. We've heard repeated ad nauseum on these boards, as elsewhere, that Obama supporters see the new President as the Messiah, as the Second Coming, or some other kind of infallible deity or celebrity. When really pressed on such an absolutely absurd claim, they say, "Well it's not everybody, but it's a vocal minority." When further pressed, they offer nothing to sustain this silly notion. Finally, DB goes and does an hour or two of Googling "Obama" and "Messiah" and comes up with - what - three examples of someone, somewhere using the words "Messiah" and "Obama" in the same sentence. So predictably, people say, "See! See! It's happening all over!" First, a couple of the examples were very clearly not examples - as in the case of Farrakhan, as Dabob2 pointed out - of calling Obama the Messiah, but doing other things. One woman, IIRC from the example, said it was "like" seeing the Messiah. Extreme hyperbole, to be sure, but obviously an example of an African American person believing that great change had come. But even if these people did mean Obama was the Messiah, these tiny handfuls of anecdotal stories are not remotely representative of Obama supporters. Nor do they qualify as "a small vocal minority." They constitute exactly what they are, three or four people who used extreme language to express their feelings (but hey, none of us have ever done that, so clearly they actually represent thousands - perhaps millions - of Obama supporters). It's all part of this tendency on the part of some conservatives (witness Bill O'Reilly and his listeners) to take some story somewhere and enlarge it to be representatives of liberals everywhere. O'Reilly goes on some rant about a gay teacher in Clearwater, FL reading "King and King" to her elementary school, and suddenly all liberals are trying to promote the homosexual agenda to children everywhere. It's just really terrible logic and reasoning on so many levels. Instead, what's happened is that some people are not enthusiastic about Obama like some of us are. Nothing wrong with that. But since they don't understand the enthusiasm, they choose to assign strange motives to those that do. It can't be that we see genuine leadership, great ideas, a bright mind, and something to be excited about. Nope, we think he's the Messiah. What else could explain such unwarranted enthusiasm? Finally, as others have suggested, the topics up for debate also color things differently. With the economy the main focus, we've seen much more balanced, civil conversations. There's really no clear-cut answer on how to solve this. For the first time in a while, I'm glad there's two parties to balance each other and keep each other in check. We need these perspectives. But when it comes issues like gay marriage, you may not see that kind of balance, because frankly, it's not a topic that deserves balance. It's not as if both sides have a point and we should just respect it. We wouldn't say that white segregationists in the 50s had a point and why would we oppose them? As much as some people want to make political discussions all about two equally-balanced and valid viewpoints, that's just not how it works. We witnessed people on these boards talking about gays as if they were some kind of theoretical bunch of people. As if we were just debating tax policy when we talked about gay marriage. They acted entirely clueless about the fact that gay people are on these boards, and that those gay people have had their rights taken away. That kind of conversation is very different than just plain old "Republican vs. Democrat." If people are irritated that liberals got more aggressive, I was equally irritated that people were so naive as to think this is a valid, reasonable topic for conversation that we can disagree on. It's not.
Originally Posted By Mr X Well put, EC. Your opening comments, in particular, ring very true to me. One more comment from me on the whole "balance" issue. To be blunt, it has as much to do with the people you are talking to as it does the issue at hand. I've heard from some thoughtful right wingers who make some good points (George Will makes sense to me sometimes, for example), but not so much here on WE. Instead, we seem to have a bunch of people who want to rely on gimmicks and debate techniques in order to "win" their arguments, rather than have a real discussion. There are some exceptions, vbdad being one of them, but by and large the "other side" I find myself trying to talk to are an exasperating, stubborn and unyielding bunch of idealogues who aren't really interested in "discussing" things at all...but rather in forcing their point of view on others ad nauseum.
Originally Posted By barboy ///SPP probably seemed like a member of the liberal cabal, when actually he's a moderate. ///From what I can see, STP (isn't) your died-in-the-wool left(y). ///the shift in liberals vs. conservatives is just a reflection of reasonable people (as has been pointed out, like SPP, for example) have shifted away/// SPP aligns himself with liberalism far more than conservatism; this notion of moderation or that he's a disillusioned conservative makes little sense to me based on this: anti death penalty availability of abortion extending marital status to same genders decriminalizing prostitution decriminalizing most(if not all) drugs free speech/free expression gun control One can't paint the letters 'e, l, e, p, h, a, n, t,' on a mule and say he's a elephantidae family member.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney ^^^ Are STP and SPP the same person? I'm about 1/2 and 1/2 with the above. Guess I am truely a moderate.
Originally Posted By barboy The thing is SPP makes and 'ass' out of himself on these boards far more often even though he has the memory and force of a 'pachyderm' LOL!
Originally Posted By barboy And I find nothing wrong with being an 'ass' on those topics either since I more or less believe in all 7 also. You just won't find too many republicans/conservatives supporting those issues.
Originally Posted By barboy And I forgot to bring something up: just because one votes in Bush does not necessarily make him/her a moderate or conservative at the political core; one can still be inherently liberal. How many pure hetero's out there have had a homosexual encounter or vice versa. If one is attracted romantically to his/her same gender then he/she is homosexual irrespective of incidental or experimental sexual encounters. Hey, maybe Bush was SSP's incidental 2 night political stand going conservative. LOL
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Instead, we seem to have a bunch of people who want to rely on gimmicks and debate techniques in order to "win" their arguments, rather than have a real discussion. There are some exceptions, vbdad being one of them, but by and large the "other side" I find myself trying to talk to are an exasperating, stubborn and unyielding bunch of idealogues who aren't really interested in "discussing" things at all...but rather in forcing their point of view on others ad nauseum.< Yet people like me get caught in the crossfire and get labeled as the ‘other side On most topics in WE do you and others know where I stand ? Really ? Or because I am not sold on Obama a this point in time ( but sure as hell willing to support him and give him a chance) and because some of the rhetoric around his support I believe is over the top –I automatically become the other side ? It’s really very confusing to me as when I started here people like Beau and others accused me of being on the other side regularly..a left leaning – at best ‘confused’ moderate. So which is it ? The demarcation point surely seems to have shifted. <<And, again you threaten to leave WE when people don't agree with your posts. No one is abusing you but you seem to want to be able to tell other people their opinions are wrong but can't take it when people do it to you.<< Missed the point completely – and show me one post where I’ve ridiculed a nonreligious stance as idiotic – or just stupid. Show me one post where I’ve called people’s requests for same sex marriage as anything other than the right they should have. Heck I tried to warn people about Chicago politics and got accused of doing it to rail against Obama. The only thing I’ve claimed people are wrong on is that you are looking at the media coverage of Obama thru rosecolored glasses. You can see every fault that a G W Bush has with great myopic power – but cannot bring yourselves to the fact that some- repeat again some ( I know I’ve just read how maybe I belong to the side that’s not as smart so please bear with me ) are so far over the top it’s really annoying. <It would be easy to feel "ganged up on" on even bullied in such a situation, even if the posts were all respectful and well-argued.< Thank you for some level of understanding <<And I can completely understand that it must be discouraging to the conservatives here - not only are they outnumbered, but if we're being honest they're often outwitted too<< Thank you for some level of understanding <<"many others aren't your died-in-the-wool lefties...they line up on the same side as sensible people everywhere."<< If I was truly a conservative maybe I could relate – but guess what with few exceptions what you have left here on ‘ the other side’ as it was called – are bipartisan voting moderates who question both sides – but only one seems to be pszzed off over it. Ferret nails it on the head with the quote he pulled out. Now I am not going to go anywhere near chastising the poster as I actually believe this is the issue behind the scenes andthey werej just being honest. For everyone who said the Bush gang pre determined how everyone should feel about everything ( and they did ) the same thing is now happening from another angle- that’s all.. If one doesn’t agree with each and every talking point from what I will call ‘left of center’ rather than liberal etc.- we somehow just have no sense. Or we are ‘outwitted’ – back to the whole John Kerry blue brains are larger arrogance which is a load of horse manure. <<Instead, what's happened is that some people are not enthusiastic about Obama like some of us are. Nothing wrong with that. But since they don't understand the enthusiasm, they choose to assign strange motives to those that do. It can't be that we see genuine leadership, great ideas, a bright mind, and something to be excited about. Nope, we think he's the Messiah. What else could explain such unwarranted enthusiasm?<< Show me where I – or from what I can remember – ANYONE else has ever said that. What I have said is SOME ( a word that just will not sink in here) –have taken it to this level in the country and it is very foolish. But to keep including yourself for instance in that group makes no sense since no one here has said that about you or others. I am accused here of not listening – here is a perfect example of a message being repeated that has never been put in print.I have gone to great lengths to explain why I know most supporters back him – but yet this statement is made.seriously I’m not sure how to make it any clearer- or makeclearer that the fact SOME people do this does not takeaway from the true supporters. This is why I say one can't say anything negative if Obama’s name in it here or this type of thing happens. Sorry I think that’s wrong. <<You just won't find too many republicans/conservatives supporting those issues<< I believe in 5 of 7 so what does that say about the theory I and many others here or on the ‘other side ? One I cannot support for religious reasons although I understand both sides of the argument and I would never support legalization of all drugs because I have seen too many people destroyed by them – but agree there needs to be a different approach than today. <<This is a HORRIBLE place to have any type of rational discourse. On the other hand, I find it amusing as hell and enjoy posting here<< I agree with you Trippy – however I just don’t find it amusing at all. It was easy to laugh at a person like Beau when he posted because it was cartoon-like – however the nastiness that appears here sometimes surely is not. So that was my point – to bring this conversation out- no to ‘threaten to leave’ as accused as it seems everything has to be made us and them unfortunately. Who cares if any one of us left- really. Some of the things here I felt had to be said. I believe some people heard them and listened – even if just for a minute – and only a few just attacked the notion I would even raise them – and my motives. My main motive was everyone is not the enemy and attempts to label everyone based on one point or one topic is just silly. Yet it seems to be the way of things right now. The fact so few from the ‘other side’ whatever the hell that is bothered to even comment should be telling. I expressed the observation of what happens when a board goes groupthink – very little good, and even less understanding comes out of it. One of Obama’s main themes is that of inclusion and listening to all sides in order to understand the range of feelings/thoughts – however that seems to have been missed by some supporters. Thanks for listening, and for those who even for a moment stopped to try and put aside the huge rift in this country and actually read what I wrote – whether you agreed or not – thanks too. I’ll likely just stick to the financial/economic threads, it is a little more balanced discourse.
Originally Posted By barboy ---add another issue to the liberal list: how about segregating faith/spirituality from public creatures? The liberal mind cries foul much quicker than the conservative one, no? We're now up to 8.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Show me where I – or from what I can remember – ANYONE else has ever said that. What I have said is SOME ( a word that just will not sink in here) –have taken it to this level in the country and it is very foolish.<< vbdad, define "some" then for me. Ok, fine it's some. SOME people believed Bush was the Messiah. SOME people believe aliens run the country. SOME people believe Star Wars is a true story. SOME people believe dolphin souls have healing power. What on earth is the point to talk about any of those people? You name a wacky, extreme position, and we can probably find SOME people that believe it. So what? Who cares? But the fact that people repeatedly, on these boards and elsewhere, have said that SOME Obama supporters think he's the Messiah, clearly shows that they think it's a sizable group. You yourself said that they were a "vocal minority." Yet you couldn't provide any evidence that this vocal minority exists or who they are. Instead, DB comes up with three or four whackos or people who are prone to hyperbole. It proves exactly nothing. So this whole SOME thing sounds an awful lot like backpeddling after making such unsupportable assertions. "Gee, well we only said SOME." Ok fine. Perhaps I can say SOME conservatives have IQ's less than 50. It'd be true of course, and if people call me on it, I can say, "Well you can't say ANYTHING against conservatives on these boards! It would make about as much sense as saying SOME Obama supporters think he's the Messiah. I just don't see why it's that hard to cop to a little hyperbole.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It would be easy to feel "ganged up on" on even bullied in such a situation, even if the posts were all respectful and well-argued.< <Thank you for some level of understanding> You're welcome. (That's the only quote of mine in there you responded to... on a "housekeeping" note, it can be confusing when many people's quotes are responded to in a single post). <If one doesn’t agree with each and every talking point from what I will call ‘left of center’ rather than liberal etc.- we somehow just have no sense.> Well, no one said that. Put that straw man away, please. Even Gadzuux, from whom this springs, said only that moderates lined up on the side of "sensible people" when it came to exactly three issues: Bush, gay marriage, and separation of church and state. You can argue those three if you like, but it's a long way from him (let alone any of the rest of us) saying that if you don't agree with "each and every" left of center talking point, you have no sense. Many of us have said many times that conservatism has a long and honorable history in American political thought, and plenty of good ideas can be found there. So has Obama, for that matter.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Yet people like me get caught in the crossfire and get labeled as the ‘other side On most topics in WE do you and others know where I stand ? Really ? Or because I am not sold on Obama a this point in time ( but sure as hell willing to support him and give him a chance) and because some of the rhetoric around his support I believe is over the top –I automatically become the other side ?*** As I mentioned, you are generally an exception. BUT, if you're talking about having a discussion about the liberal take on things versus your own, then sure I'd say it's fair to say you represent "the other side" in a lot of ways. What's wrong with that?
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<The question is not whether the posts do represent multiple points of view - but rather is that what the majority wants ? And for expediency, let's not pretend there's not a majority view here. I have no problem that there is if everyone truly wants discourse and not to just present one point of view as correct. [...] So I think people really do need to decide what they want LP to be. There are precious few real conservatives here - and I have seen a distinct drop off in posting from moderates this month. The choice really belongs to everyone... I don't want it to become a 'soft' board - but somewhat fair would sure be nice... thanks for listening ( those who do )>> Thank you sincerely for creating this thread and for taking the time to write your opening post, vbdad55. It's incredibly constructive -- but difficult -- to confront concerns pro-actively and explicitly. Had you not created this forum, the issue you voiced would have just continued to bubble under the surface and cause contention here in WE. By now, most of my reactions have been expressed by posters who've written them more articulately than I could've. But I'll add... ... Being "disagreed with" is one thing -- and it's not inherently a bad thing. Anyone who decides to post a comment in WE should anticipate that that comment will be disected and criticized. S/he should be "grown up" enough to handle challenges to the original post. But being subjected to personal insults or ridicule is another thing entirely. If that's happened to you, that's wrong. That behavior is not supported by the rest of us in WE who might disagree with you. ... I read and post in LP's WE section because I believe that it is populated mostly by people who actually value and consider each other's contributions. Unlike many other so-called "discussion" forums, this one, to me, doesn't seem like merely a virtual playfield in which people drop in just to attack the other side. I think most WE regulars respect the posts that other regulars make. I think most of us participate here in the hope of true discussion. ... While it's convenient and fair to use labels -- such as "liberal" -- to describe groups of LP'ers, I believe it's inaccurate to say that LP posters have formed tight, bonded, homogenous, inviolate-able "sides" on LP. For example, I find myself very frequently aligned with K2M, Dabob2, ecdc, Ursula, gadzuux, STP/SPP and Mr X (among others), and I feel personally fond of each of them. But that hasn't kept me from challenging any of them when I've disagreed with what they've posted on WE. Similarly, I have disdain for DB's "drop-and-run" tactics -- which always play for the conservative side. But when he makes a thoughtful post that I agree with, I'll second it. I don't think there's a pack mentality in LP's WE. That's a big part of why I continue to participate here. Thanks again for this thread, vbdad55. I sincerely hope you'll continue to post throughout WE.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But that hasn't kept me from challenging any of them when I've disagreed with what they've posted on WE.<< This is a very important point. I can say that I don't expect anyone to agree with me all the time, and i actually enjoy the give and take when someone I *usually* agree with sees things another way. The bottom line in all this is that World Events may be too much for some folks to deal with on a Disney Board. Doobie has said many times that if he had his druthers, this section wouldn't exist at all. I understand why -- LP is built to discuss Disney mainly. And yet, I have always found it cool (and yes, sometimes frustrating) to hear what folks who share an interest in Disney think about OTHER parts of life, too. I also find it interesting how many people stay away from World Events -- and I often wonder is that because of the tone of posts or is it because we delve into too much "real world" stuff and most LPers are here to get away from all that?
Originally Posted By mele <<Missed the point completely – and show me one post where I’ve ridiculed a nonreligious stance as idiotic – or just stupid. Show me one post where I’ve called people’s requests for same sex marriage as anything other than the right they should have. Heck I tried to warn people about Chicago politics and got accused of doing it to rail against Obama. The only thing I’ve claimed people are wrong on is that you are looking at the media coverage of Obama thru rosecolored glasses. You can see every fault that a G W Bush has with great myopic power – but cannot bring yourselves to the fact that some- repeat again some ( I know I’ve just read how maybe I belong to the side that’s not as smart so please bear with me ) are so far over the top it’s really annoying.>> You are the one missing the point here. You're ranting about things that I've never accused you of but it's pretty clear you're working really hard to get your undies in a twist by what I'm posting. I'm seeing Obama with rose-colored glasses? I've hardly made any posts about my feelings about Obama but you continue to make accusations. Whatever...my posts are there for anyone to see. It's clear you are seeing what you want to see and not what has been written on LP. And as for your original accusation, sometimes I DO make comments about liberal posts that I feel are over the top. Yet another reality that you have failed to see. I've already pointed out how you continue to post about 'some people' in threads where no one is behaving in the way your complaining about. It's clear you're upset about it yet but still...why no threads about it? Wouldn't it be less confrontational, you know, since you're backtracking and saying it's the media and not LPers? Can you not take any responsibility for the fact that you ARE implying that the people participating in a thread are guilty of your accusations when you repeatedly accuse them in thread after thread? No, it's just everyone else who is wrong? I'm not going to comment about this ridiculousness anymore. It's clear you didn't want to learn why people are reacting to your posts here. As to your original hissy fit about me not confronting people who call Bush names...I have a pretty good history of taking anyone I disagree with to task. I have never called Bush the anti-Christ and I have often called people out on BOTH sides if I disagree with their hyperbole. I don't do it with every single post. Sometimes I don't have the time or I find it's not worth my energy but don't accuse me (yet again) of something that isn't true.
Originally Posted By mele Ooops, should read: I'm seeing the media's treatment of Obama with rose-colored glasses? And you would know this HOW, exactly?
Originally Posted By mawnck An observation (because I haven't been able to check in 50 times a day like I used to): The liberal/conservative labels are becoming obsolete. I take things issue-by-issue and decide for myself what my position is. I don't need some liberal/conservative checklist to decide my positions for me. I'm what you might call "left-leaning" in a lot of aspects, but some of my views are *extremely* conservative, especially when it comes to how to deal with the economic crisis. I am not liberal or conservative. I am mawnckative. Seems to me that most of the posters on LP WE (at least the ones who are able to hang with us and defend their positions rationally) are the same way. I guess if one self-identifies as conservative and is constantly disagreeing with the rest of us, then that makes us too liberal?
