Originally Posted By vbdad55 <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...< on the contrary your posts and use of a term like hissy fit ( when there are others who actually understand why I posted) make it perfectly clear to me,if they only made it clear to you, we'd have something
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <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. < thank you inspector - that was the intent - to surface the conversation as constructive and not part of any other particular topic - not what a few have accused me of. I can learn a lot from this thread too - but when some continue to make it personal and then dismiss my stance continually,I'll just skip over those from now on - everyone cannot be reached.I appreciate your insight inyour response
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I am not liberal or conservative. I am mawnckative.> And I'm a confirmed Dabobian™. You too can join my party for only the nominal initiation fee that is really quite reasonable! Really. With apologies to Mel Brooks... Get a new party, or just a new hobby, an' Sign up today to become a Dabobian. Learn how to picket and pressure and lobby an' All things political as a Dabobian. Stop being stuck up and nasty and snobby an' Join us, the few, the proud, the Dabobian. Best set of principles since Hammurabi, an' All can be yours if you'll be a Dabobian.
Originally Posted By Tony Manero """" I have seen what happens when a board becomes one sided - it no longer becomes a discussion board. """" Bravo for your post vbdad. But I think you too late. I think many many good moderate and conservative posters are gone forever. Just read the posts that are here. Read the topics that start. They are overwhelmingly liberal in title and context. The WE is what it is. At this point I think people must take it or leave it. Many have left for the exact reason you fear: "Why bother posting my opinion? I'm viewed here as an enemy. I am unwelcome and unwanted." It isn't anyone's fault, it just is what it is. I am sure that the majority of WE posters here would feel the same way were they to begin regular posts on Hannity.Com's board.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I am sure that the majority of WE posters here would feel the same way were they to begin regular posts on Hannity.Com's board. << Yes, but we know better. Thanks for stopping in, though, Mr. Gone Forever.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I am sure that the majority of WE posters here would feel the same way were they to begin regular posts on Hannity.Com's board. < I gotta admit I wouldn't go there either...I read a few posts on the Branson boards that someone listed a link for a while back -- they were extremely biased also ( not what I want) and quite frankly they were somewhat frightening. I kinda feel like I don't have a board..
Originally Posted By Tony Manero """"an inability to assess the complexities of what's going on"""" Oh so only YOU can really "get it" huh? Things in WE are not as complex as you claim. I always get very cautious when someone offers the spin "you are not able to understand because things are too complex" out there. Doing so redefines the argument so that, well, only you can win. And pardon me, but you do it quite often, and you are not the only one. Humor me. Let me bring up the "Survivor" TV series for a moment. Last time out, there was an island that only one person could visit at a time, known as "Exile Island." On this island, there was a choice to be made. Either the contestant could choose "Comfort" or "Clue." If you chose "Comfort" you get to lounge about with lots of food and a safe place to sleep. If you chose "Clue" you get no comfort, but a clue that could eventually lead you to an "immunity idol." The immunity idol would grant the finder the ability to "play" the idol at various times during the game, giving the player the possibility of staying in spite of getting voted out by the other players. It is a very valuable thing to have. Long story short, the accomplished attorney was on said island, and chose "Clue." He got the clue and began to make his way around the island to find the immunity idol. The path to the idol's location was not revealed by only one clue, but was at the end of 4 or 5 clues. You use the initial clue to find the second clue, to find the third...etc. eventually finding the idol. The very intelligent, and highly logical attorney found all clues and was on the hunt for the idol itself. Armed with the very last clue he needed, he spent hours and hours looking. Now sitting home on the sofa, America was shown the location of the idol the whole time. So the audience could see how the clues worked together and could understand how one could find the idol. Just to come right out and say it, the attorney made the clue WAY too difficult and complex, thought far too much into it and never even came close to finding the idol. As things usually go in the world, the dumbest <---if you will allow the word, contestant in the game, ended up finding said idol using the exact same clues, and she found it with almost NO effort whatsoever. Why??? You tell me. I'm not saying that "dumb" people are better at Survivor than "smart" people. This isn't my point but, am I picking on lawyers? NO! I am picking on truly highly intelligent people who forget that the average person walking around in the world, has an IQ of only 100. Yes, it IS scary, but it's the fact. The point is, you higher thinking posters here can blab on and on about the complexities of how people think, and what is right and what is wrong, and what paradigm shifts come and go in the minds of Americans collectively. The truth of the matter is the average person out there is far simpler than that. Real life and real people really do still very much view themselves as Conservative and Liberal. Using words that are uncommon and stuffing statements with lots of fluff cannot change the fact that life really IS simple. People really are simple. "Right" and "wrong" are not as gray and unreachable by simpletons as you want to claim. Now to the OP, Yes, there are far more liberal posters here than conservative. And if you who are conservative don't like it, there is the door. While I don't feel this way about you vbdad, I don't know of many who really and truly care who stays or goes here as long as they get their say, which leads me to my real point. My point is: I personally think that we all tend to forget that the nic-names we see are actual representations of real people with real lives and real feelings. And we all know when we have mistreated someone directly and on purpose. You can't say that only Liberals do it or that only Conservatives do it. We all have done it. THAT is what drives people away; being mistreated and disrespected routinely. It really has nothing at all to do with politics, or WE.
Originally Posted By Tony Manero """Thanks for stopping in, though, Mr. Gone Forever.""" I only stick around to bother you.
Originally Posted By Tony Manero """I kinda feel like I don't have a board..""" Too bad the rest of this thread will probably prove you out vbdad, in that the way you see things here is the way things here are.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I've been here long enough to know that things morph. As someone else mentioned, circa 2004 WE was much more conservative, perhaps even slightly conservative-dominated. I really do think that the large-scale disenchantment with Bush, which took hold of our moderates as surely as with moderates all over the country, led to a). WE seeming more liberal-dominated than it was in reality, as it was dominated by anti-Bush feeling more than liberal positions across the board; and b). some conservatives dropping out as they found defending Bush increasingly untenable. As Obama inevitably screws up some things, you'll see criticism of him too, and I think things will morph back. Think about it: January 2009 is as liberal (or at least as Democrat) dominated a moment as we've had in American political life in literally a generation, and it would be kind of surprising if that WASN'T reflected here... but it's just a moment. Things always swing back.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Things in WE are not as complex as you claim. I always get very cautious when someone offers the spin "you are not able to understand because things are too complex" out there. Doing so redefines the argument so that, well, only you can win. And pardon me, but you do it quite often, and you are not the only one.<< Ironically, after claiming it wasn't complex and easy to understand, you completely misunderstood me. I was responding to the intellectually lazy tendency of Americans who say "Both sides are the same! Both sides engage in politics. Both sides...yada, yada, yada." Like I said, this is a failed attempt at trying to rise above the fray and act as if all political arguments are equally balanced or equally valid. But that's not true. By breaking down what's being said by both sides, it's quite clear that they aren't the same. If you come to a political message board and tell gay people, some of whom are going to be on those boards, that they don't deserve to be married and that their relationship isn't as good as yours is in the eyes of God, either directly or indirectly, you can't expect that your position is going to be as respected as saying "I think we need to make serious changes to the economic stimulus package." So your post really just proved my point. Yes both sides have hurt feelings. Yes both sides engage in some of the same rhetoric. But it's simply not accurate to throw up your hands and say, "It's not hard! Both sides do it!" By analyzing what's happened, we can see that the "balance" some people say is missing, is a direct result of some conservatives expecting balance on topics where there can be none. And ironically, on a topic where there were valid points of view (the investigation and potential prosecution of Bush administration officials) it was the liberals (for lack of a better label) frequently saying "I don't know exactly how I feel, but I lean for an investigation." You had both me and Dabob2 saying that, and 2oony disagreeing with us, but being polite about it. And for that, we were called "foamers" and treated like garbage for daring to disagree with some other posters.
Originally Posted By ecdc I'll add that I think Dabob hits the nail on the head. I also think that we'll see a shift back. I think this will especially be the case as we see some of the "culture war" issues fall by the wayside and a larger focus on the economy and foreign policy changes under Obama. For example, barboy had a list of some of SPP's positions a few posts back, and said that these aren't moderate positions to have. That's true, but we're assuming a neo-conservative definition of "conservative" (or even a neo-neo-conservative definition ). It wasn't all that long ago that being "conservative" wasn't characterized by your position on abortion, stem-cells, gay marriage, and religion in the public square. It was defined by your economic philosophy, your view of American foreign policy, etc. Karl Rove created an environment where being conservative meant essentially being a right-wing Christian conservative who is anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-stem-cell research, pro-gun, etc. It's little wonder why someone like SPP wouldn't feel like a part of that group. Hopefully we can get back to a place where your politics aren't defined by these things, but more by issues we can disagree on, but still feel like we want what's best for America.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I also think that we'll see a shift back. I think this will especially be the case as we see some of the "culture war" issues fall by the wayside and a larger focus on the economy and foreign policy changes under Obama. < I hope you're right < It wasn't all that long ago that being "conservative" wasn't characterized by your position on abortion, stem-cells, gay marriage, and religion in the public square. It was defined by your economic philosophy, your view of American foreign policy, etc< >Karl Rove created an environment where being conservative meant essentially being a right-wing Christian conservative who is anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-stem-cell research, pro-gun, etc< Why I avoid the term conservative at all costs now-- economically I am a fiscal conservative, but all the other baggage that goes with the term now causes me to rarely ever even make that statement. The term has morphed into being tied to Rush and Hannity types...which overrides any fiscal issues - so I run like Hell. I believe there are many in the country like me....absolutely not a liberal in the truest sense, however also not a conservative any more. So we glom onto the moderate title - which almost no one hasa definition of, but neither 'camp' really wants to claim. the term 'confused moderate' coined here a while ago likely isv very accurate.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I kinda feel like I don't have a board.<< If you think that is because no one here cares about your opinion, I think you're wrong. If people didn't care, this thread would be ignored. But I think what this is about is "fighting words." It's my view that using certain terms and expressions is like lighting a match near gasoline, and you can't be surprised at the results. Intended or not, the following phrases are probably going to get a backlash just about every time: DCA is an okay theme park. Religion is a fairy tale. You can't say anything negative about Obama the Messiah. Yes, that outfit does make your ass look big. The Oakland Raiders suck. Cats are much smarter than dogs. All of the above may or may not be true, but every statement there will provoke someone. They're loaded phrases, a jab in the ribs at someone. Using them will provoke a response. Which is NOT the same thing as saying: You can't ever discuss the design merits of Disney theme parks. You can't ever discuss the pros and cons of religion. You can't ever discuss whether Obama has good or bad ideas (or even whether some people have expectations that may be too high). You can't ever discuss fashion (and tact). You can't ever discuss football. You can't ever discuss animals. It's about not being passive-aggressive about it. By dropping fighting words in with a post (and I know I have done it myself) it shifts and distracts from the matter at hand.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<If you come to a political message board and tell gay people, some of whom are going to be on those boards, that they don't deserve to be married and that their relationship isn't as good as yours is in the eyes of God, either directly or indirectly, you can't expect that your position is going to be as respected as saying "I think we need to make serious changes to the economic stimulus package.">> And that is where you are wrong. There are no "universal truths". Even on the hot button issues, there can be disagreement by intelligent and moral people. I happen to think gay people should be allowed to marry. Others feel that by definition "marriage" is between a man and a woman, and that the lifelong partnership of gay people should carry the same rights and responsibilities as marriage but be called something else. I don't know that they necessarily are terrible people who hate gays. I think they want to preserve the meaning of a term that has existed for thousands of years. On abortion, some very intelligent and moral people feel that that it is purely an issue of a woman's right to control her own body. Others (like me) feel it is taking a human life. Now I play both sides of the issue a bit by believing it is taking a human life while still feeling that I don't have a right to force my view on others. But again, there is no single "correct" position. For you or anyone else to claim that YOUR position on gay marriage or abortion or whatever is the ONLY proper position is hogwash. You are absolutely no better than the far right freaks who think gay people are an abomination of nature. They also claim their position is the absolute moral and correct position to take. None of this stuff will ever be resolved until people on both sides are willing to see a few more shades of gray. This black and white view of the world is overly simplistic and accomplishes nothing. When you start demanding "my way or the highway", don't be shocked if people choose the highway.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Back in high school I thought I might be bipartisan...but...after a little experimentation I realized I was very much not. The fact that World Events has gone from Bush Bashing to Obama Praising is of know real surprise. Frankly, I hope Obama gives me a reason to praise him too. I can only assume that if Obama does well my family will also do well.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>For you or anyone else to claim that YOUR position on gay marriage or abortion or whatever is the ONLY proper position is hogwash. You are absolutely no better than the far right freaks who think gay people are an abomination of nature.<< First, I never claimed that my position was the only proper position. You need to learn to respond to what people have actually said. I said that both sides are not equally valid. I'm acknowledging the shades of gray. What I'm responding to is this notion that somehow, just by virtue of saying, "I believe such and such," that it's as valid a position as any other. That's not true. People are welcome to have whatever opinions they want. But if someone says, "I believe space aliens founded the American government and still run it in a secret bunker in Dublin, Ohio," they should probably be prepared to face some resistance to that idea, or have it dismissed without much debate. Second, RT, what on earth is your problem? How ironic that you say these boards aren't balanced, when it's frequently you of late doing the name calling and the labeling? None of us on here have ever treated you with anything but respect. I've certainly never made it personal. I've enjoyed and appreciated your personal stories and I've wished you nothing but the best, especially in the wake of your wife's illness. The last few months you've repaid some of us with name calling, with vitriol, and with insisting we're not old enough to "get it." Ironic for the self-labeled "optimist." You need to grow up and show the same respect you so willingly demand from others. Seriously.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Where in the post above did I name call? The only nastiness here is in your post. I do question your approach to issues and think my questioning it is absolutely valid. Your space aliens example is ridiculous and not a valid comparison. That statement is verifiable false. I am talking about issues where there is no absolute right and wrong, but where people equally intelligent, equally informed, and equally moral can come to different conclusions on an issue. Your inability to see that is exactly why WE is NOT bipartisan. Of course your reply was exactly what I expected. It contained the proper amount of nastiness and everything.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Where in the post above did I name call? The only nastiness here is in your post.<< Saying: >You are absolutely no better than the far right freaks< is making this personal. It's saying, essentially, I'm a freak. Look, I already went the rounds once with you after your little meltdown over voting McCain or Obama and have no interest in doing it again. You insulted me then and it took several posts and me quoting you before you finally copped to the fact that you had attacked me and apologized. I have no interest in doing it again. I've always liked you and I'm at a loss as to why you think your treatment of decent people on these boards is acceptable. You've been name-calling (foamers, for example) you've been displaying anger and vitriol (cursing at SPP), and you said that I think I know everything because of my age. You've been insulting. You're more than welcome to make excuses for yourself all you like. I really could care less. I'll cop to matching your lack of civility in my last post. Call it frustration that I shouldn't of let get to me; I apologize. I'm surprised you expected "nastiness" from me. If you can show where I've been "nasty" in the past, I'll gladly apologize. I just think you've been very unfair to some of us here. Take my two cents for what it's worth. If you disagree and think your behavior's acceptable, there's really nothing left for me to say.
