PDA

View Full Version : Krauth scores again...


revefsreleets
09-07-2008, 02:35 PM
Notice how he manages to dissect the pick and it's fallibilities, but also commends the braveness of the risk, and how it might actually work.

Better than the mypic blind hate of many on this board, because it actually engages in synthesizing knowledge and actually formulating some interesting observations, other than just tearing her down...

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/27966314.html

Will Palin perform an Obama? Published on Sunday, Sep 07, 2008
There are two questions we will never have to ask ourselves, ''Who is this man?'' and ''Can we trust this man with the presidency?''
Fred Thompson on John McCain, Sept. 2.
WASHINGTON: This was the most effective line of the entire Republican convention: a ringing affirmation of John McCain's authenticity and a not-so-subtle indictment of Barack Obama's insubstantiality. What's left of this line of argument, however, after John McCain picks Sarah Palin for vice president?
Palin is an admirable and formidable woman. She has energized the Republican base and single-handedly unified the Republican convention behind McCain. She performed spectacularly in her acceptance speech. Nonetheless, the choice of Palin remains deeply problematic.
It's clear that McCain picked her because he had decided that he needed a game-changer. But why? He'd closed the gap in the polls with Obama. True, that had more to do with Obama sagging than McCain gaining. But what's the difference? You win either way.
Obama was sagging because of missteps that reflected the fundamental weakness of his candidacy. Which suggested McCain's strategy: Make this a referendum on Obama, surely the least experienced, least qualified, least prepared presidential nominee in living memory.
Palin fatally undermines this entire line of attack. This is through no fault of her own. It is simply a function of her rookie status. The vice president's only constitutional duty of any significance is to become president at a moment's notice. Palin is not ready. Nor is Obama. But with Palin, the case against Obama evaporates.
So why did McCain do it? He figured it's a Democratic year. The Republican brand is deeply tarnished. The opposition is running on ''change'' in a change election. So McCain gambled that he could steal the change issue for himself a crazy brave, characteristically reckless, inconceivably difficult maneuver by picking an authentically independent, tough-minded reformer. With Palin, he doubles down on change.
The problem is the inherent oddity of the incumbent party running on change. Here were Republicans the party that controlled the White House for eight years and both houses of Congress for five wildly cheering the promise to take on Washington. I don't mean to be impolite, but who's controlled Washington this decade?
Moreover, McCain was giving up his home turf of readiness to challenge Obama on his home turf of change. Can that possibly be pulled off? The calculation was to choose demographics over thematics. Palin's selection negates the theme of readiness. But she does bring important constituencies. She has the unique potential of energizing the base while at the same time appealing to independents.
This is unusual. Normally the wing-nut candidate alienates the center. Palin promises a twofer because of her potential appeal to the swing-state Reagan Democrats that Hillary Clinton carried in the primaries. Not for reasons of gender Clinton didn't carry those because she was a woman but because more culturally conservative working-class whites might find affinity with Palin's small-town, middle/frontier American narrative and values.
The gamble is enormous. In a stroke, McCain gratuitously forfeited his most powerful argument against Obama. And this was even before Palin's inevitable liabilities began to pile up inevitable because any previously unvetted neophyte has ''issues.'' The kid. The state trooper investigation. And worst, the paucity of any Palin record or expressed conviction on the major issues of our time.
McCain has one hope. It is suggested by the strength of Palin's performance Wednesday night. In a year of compounding ironies, the McCain candidacy could be saved, and the Palin choice vindicated, by one thing: Palin does an Obama.
Obama showed that star power can trump the gravest of biographical liabilities. The sheer elegance, intelligence and power of his public presence have muted the uneasy feeling about his unreadiness. Palin does not reach Obama's mesmeric level. Her appeal is far more earthy, workmanlike and direct. Yet she managed to banish a week's worth of unfriendly media scrutiny and self-inflicted personal liabilities with a single triumphant speech.
Now, Obama had 19 months to make his magic obscure his thinness. Palin has nine weeks. Nevertheless, if she too can neutralize unreadiness with star power, then the demographic advantages she brings McCain appeal to the base and to Reagan Democrats coupled with her contribution to the reform theme, might just pay off.
The question is: Can she do the magic unteleprompted extemporaneous magic, from now on for the next nine weeks?

Krauthammer is a Washington Post columnist. He can e-mailed at letters@charleskrauthammer.com.

Mosca
09-07-2008, 05:36 PM
I agree with this 100%. My prediction is that she can't do it, but my vote only counts as "1".

tony hipchest
09-07-2008, 05:47 PM
Notice how he manages to dissect the pick and it's fallibilities, but also commends the braveness of the risk, and how it might actually work.

Better than the mypic blind hate of many on this board, because it actually engages in synthesizing knowledge and actually formulating some interesting observations, other than just tearing her down...


"many on this board"? count and list them....

this article in itself had enough merit w/o tugging at heartstrings. instead of coming neck and neck with a 3rd party candidate, mccain has solidified his base. :hatsoff:

c'mon revs, even you know the myopic blind hatred has been much more vocal towards obama on this board. its not the dems fault that obamas lack of experience still trumps bush's "success" (and bush has more experience 'governing" than mccain

revefsreleets
09-07-2008, 06:00 PM
Most of what I've seen from those who oppose the Palin pick has been knee jerk...how could it be otherwise, since nobody knew anything about her before the pick and all that's been disclosed since is what the media has dug up (i.e. husbands 22 year old DUI and the like)?

It will take a while to fully understand her positions on every issue. Much of what I see I DON'T like, but I'm willing to give it some time and see what develops, let her speak some more, and all that.

One thing I know WON'T happen...she's not going to be changing her positions the way Obama has. It's too late and would serve no purpose. So she's going to also at least have the advantage of consistency over Obama.

Still think it's funny that it's Obama versus Palin, too.

xfl2001fan
09-07-2008, 06:04 PM
Obama isn't running against Bush, so your point is moot.

tony hipchest
09-07-2008, 06:11 PM
Still think it's funny that it's Obama versus Palin, too.i still find it funny that the rookie obama has shown he can surround himself with qualified people (although not the people my biased self woulda prefered) whereas the veteran politician mccain failed miserably.

thats about all i need as a "1st test".

mccains focus is shortsighted and clearly more on winning an election (solidifying his shattered base) as opposed to leading a nation.

again, "many on this board" dont stand up in defense of obama. it doesnt exist, so your claim is false.

tony hipchest
09-07-2008, 06:16 PM
Obama isn't running against Bush, so your point is moot.my point is a bit deeper than that but then again you root for the browns so your point is moot. :wink02:

:sofunny:

revefsreleets
09-07-2008, 06:16 PM
I can't even follow what you are talking about anymore. And I'm not really that interested in arguing with you, since half your arguments don't make sense.

Let's just leave it at this: You ain't voting for McCain, and I've been "voting" for McCain since 2003...I'll support my candidate, and you do what you do, and we'll just steer clear of each other in the political forum.

tony hipchest
09-07-2008, 06:41 PM
I can't even follow what you are talking about anymore. And I'm not really that interested in arguing with you, since half your arguments don't make sense.

Let's just leave it at this: You ain't voting for McCain, and I've been "voting" for McCain since 2003...I'll support my candidate, and you do what you do, and we'll just steer clear of each other in the political forum.:cookie:

yes, you can steer clear of me if you wish.

you live in ohio. how exactly have you been "voting" for mccain since 03?

talk about arguments not making sense....

revefsreleets
09-07-2008, 06:43 PM
I've supported McCain since he hinted he was going to run against Bush in the last election. That makes sense to you, doesn't it?

I'm a HORRIBLE selection to try and hurl the "all or nothing" or "straight party ticket" or "blind hate" argument at...

xfl2001fan
09-07-2008, 06:47 PM
my point is a bit deeper than that but then again you root for the browns so your point is moot. :wink02:

:sofunny:

Your point is indicative of Obama vs Bush. If this election is about Obama vs Bush, then McCain has it in the bag. Of course, I've seen the Dem's try to spin it to be Obama vs Bush and now Obama vs Palin. Neither of which is running for Presidency next year. But you can keep your narrow-minded myopic culture of fear and try to run with whichever argument you feel suits you best.

In the end, it's nothing but Smoke and Mirrors from the Dem's in this election.

fansince'76
09-07-2008, 07:23 PM
Whoa - let's cool it here, folks. Besides, the Steelers won and won big today! :tt:

tony hipchest
09-07-2008, 07:24 PM
I've supported McCain since he hinted he was going to run against Bush in the last election. That makes sense to you, doesn't it?

I'm a HORRIBLE selection to try and hurl the "all or nothing" or "straight party ticket" or "blind hate" argument at...then why didnt you simply say youve supported him since 2003? :hunch:

instead of sugar coating "support" with the false statement that youve been "voting" for him since 2003?

good job cloaking the voting statement in quotes though.:thumbsup: whereas, im sure many woulda easilly bought it, i saw you workin'. implying you actually "voted" for someone as opposed to simply supporting them, makes you seem more credible with your stance as you try to shoot someone elses [mine] down.

again, i see you workin. nice job too, except ( quote ice cube in NWA) "i aint the one... the one to get playled like poo-butt, you see i am from the streets, so i know what is up."

feel free to NOT get that argument either.

tony hipchest
09-07-2008, 07:29 PM
But you can keep your narrow-minded myopic culture of fear and try to run with whichever argument you feel suits you best.

In the end, it's nothing but Smoke and Mirrors from the Dem's in this election.lol. :sofunny:

i voted for bush in 2004. it was against my better judgement but my mom had me sold on simply "staying the course". i essentially gave her my vote because bush in the whitehouse gave her comfort and i am more loyal to my mom (who i would do ANYTHING for) than party affiliation.

:coffee: next.

xfl2001fan
09-07-2008, 07:32 PM
So you basically don't take your right to vote seriously? You're willing to throw it away on a whim.

Nice to know that my brother's and sister's in arms are fighting for that.

tony hipchest
09-07-2008, 07:39 PM
So you basically don't take your right to vote seriously? You're willing to throw it away on a whim.

Nice to know that my brother's and sister's in arms are fighting for that.theyre fighting for capitalism, and i am already on record saying i could easilly put my vote up for sale on e-bay this election cycle.

throw it away? how dare you claim those fighing in war as yours and yours alone? i dont know how they do it in your branch of the military, but my civilian code says God>Family>country.

my mother > than your opinion.

btw you just admitted i that threw my vote away for Bush. :toofunny:

next :coffee:

revefsreleets
09-07-2008, 07:49 PM
This is getting downright weird. How could I vote for McCain for President in 2004 when he wasn't the incumbent and GOP nominee?

Seriously, you need to stop. You're losing it, and I'm not the only one who sees it. This isn't just rhetoric or arguing, I'm telling you that this is beyond that...people are actually starting to wonder what's up with you.

xfl2001fan
09-07-2008, 07:53 PM
You threw your vote away when you went against your own judgement to appease someone else.

We fight and train to fight to protect our freedoms. We follow orders.

Let us stand aside, pull us all home and see just how much your civilian code holds up.

God Family Country only holds up because there are those of us out there willing to lay our life on the line to protect that.

There are those of us who believe that there is something more out there that God doesn't provide on His own.

There are those of us who will fight for the rights of our entire country, more than just our family, knowing that if our Country fails, our family has no chance.

You have proven nothing more than just how small your world is.

fansince'76
09-07-2008, 07:58 PM
OK folks, it' s getting old. Please get back on track here and begin debating the contents of the article in the OP and cease and desist with the verbal potshots at each other, or the thread's getting closed. Thanks. :drink:

tony hipchest
09-07-2008, 08:11 PM
This is getting downright weird. How could I vote for McCain for President in 2004 when he wasn't the incumbent and GOP nominee?

Seriously, you need to stop. You're losing it, and I'm not the only one who sees it. This isn't just rhetoric or arguing, I'm telling you that this is beyond that...people are actually starting to wonder what's up with you. my question exactly. weird indeed. see post #8

: You ain't voting for McCain, and I've been "voting" for McCain since 2003...I'll support my candidate, and you do what you do.

sorry fansince. i posted before i saw your guidance. i am out anyways as i have already shot this thread down. :coffee:

X-Terminator
09-07-2008, 08:28 PM
OK folks, it' s getting old. Please get back on track here and begin debating the contents of the article in the OP and cease and desist with the verbal potshots at each other, or the thread's getting closed. Thanks. :drink:

I'm getting to the point where you should seriously consider suspending political discussions altogether. One thing that always brings out the worst in people and causes hard feelings, even though they agree in other areas, is politics, because very few people can debate without resorting to potshots and name-calling. For me, it's 2004 all over again.

Nuke it all.

fansince'76
09-07-2008, 08:31 PM
I'm getting to the point where you should seriously consider suspending political discussions altogether. One thing that always brings out the worst in people and causes hard feelings, even though they agree in other areas, is politics, because very few people can debate without resorting to potshots and name-calling. For me, it's 2004 all over again.

Nuke it all.

Very tempted to X-T, but at the same time we don't want to appear that we're trying to censor people's opinions. :drink:

X-Terminator
09-07-2008, 08:40 PM
Very tempted to X-T, but at the same time we don't want to appear that we're trying to censor people's opinions. :drink:

I understand, but it's in danger of getting out of hand. Nothing wrong with disagreeing, but why the angry rhetoric? What POSSIBLE good does it do?

I'm SO glad football (and nearly hockey) season is here.

MACH1
09-07-2008, 10:09 PM
It must be a bad case of....

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f82/jAMBAMAS/l_af9603e8c232833d4c43a0367031a605.gif


:toofunny:

BozMan
09-07-2008, 10:29 PM
i still find it funny that the rookie obama has shown he can surround himself with qualified people (although not the people my biased self woulda prefered) whereas the veteran politician mccain failed miserably.


Yeah, all 300 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/us/politics/18advisers.html) of his foreign policy advisers?

Are these the same qualified (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/obamas-inabilit.html) people that Obama likes to blame (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080830/pl_politico/13004) for every gaffe (http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/05/obama_throws_st.html) and misstep? (So much for taking personal responsibility.)

Mosca
09-07-2008, 11:33 PM
I'm getting to the point where you should seriously consider suspending political discussions altogether. One thing that always brings out the worst in people and causes hard feelings, even though they agree in other areas, is politics, because very few people can debate without resorting to potshots and name-calling. For me, it's 2004 all over again.

Nuke it all.

On the one hand, I agree; political discussions get pretty heated, and people here get stubborn... as you might expect Steelers fans to.

On the other hand, the discussions here can be pretty insightful. Although I usually only open and participate in one out of five or so, I usually get some good repartee. Yeah, I can get riled up, but I don't let it get too me for too long.

Whichever you choose will be OK with me. Remember, if you DO suspend political discussions until after November, it won't be like there isn't a million other places around the internet for folks to argue.

X-Terminator
09-07-2008, 11:51 PM
On the one hand, I agree; political discussions get pretty heated, and people here get stubborn... as you might expect Steelers fans to.

On the other hand, the discussions here can be pretty insightful. Although I usually only open and participate in one out of five or so, I usually get some good repartee. Yeah, I can get riled up, but I don't let it get too me for too long.

Whichever you choose will be OK with me. Remember, if you DO suspend political discussions until after November, it won't be like there isn't a million other places around the internet for folks to argue.

But at least it won't be HERE where all of this arguing is going on. The insightfulness of some of the discussions has been taken over by stubbornness, bickering and outright hostility over minutia, and it's gotten worse since McCain picked Palin as his running mate. It's not my call to decide what should ultimately be done, but I just can't see the value and think that it should be nuked, at least for now. Why should I or any one else who isn't interested in the flame wars and just want to discuss the issues rationally have to keep sifting through all of the BS to find something worth responding to?

tony hipchest
09-08-2008, 12:17 AM
But at least it won't be HERE where all of this arguing is going on. The insightfulness of some of the discussions has been taken over by stubbornness, bickering and outright hostility over minutia, and it's gotten worse since McCain picked Palin as his running mate. It's not my call to decide what should ultimately be done, but I just can't see the value and think that it should be nuked, at least for now. Why should I or any one else who isn't interested in the flame wars and just want to discuss the issues rationally have to keep sifting through all of the BS to find something worth responding to?how many people here are actually standing up and posting in defense of the left? 3 or 4?

in the meantime we get blasted and attacked by a swarm of what seems like army ants.

again, if this is a republican board, just let me know. if this board is in favor of censorship of ideas and thoughts contrary to the "mainstream" then maybe a shut down is in order.

as one who has played by the rules (i did have some fun w/ cubanstogie after attacking one of my friends) i find it funny that this is such a problem.

i have had my job, post count, family, and worthiness to even post in this forum thrown in my face, and i must say, i have responded rather amicably.

i have always tried to keep the topic of the thread at hand even though plenty of threads i have started have been quickly hijacked.

i never even really got too deep into these discussions until they seemed to become a republican orgy of bashing and discrediting anyone on the other side. its all on record, and nothing i am making up.

if the board decides to shut opposing opinions down, i will oblige and have no problem with discussing football.

i certainly hope nobody suggests we suspend discussions in the "blast furnace" though. :wink02:

cubanstogie
09-08-2008, 12:50 AM
how many people here are actually standing up and posting in defense of the left? 3 or 4?

in the meantime we get blasted and attacked by a swarm of what seems like army ants.

again, if this is a republican board, just let me know. if this board is in favor of censorship of ideas and thoughts contrary to the "mainstream" then maybe a shut down is in order.

as one who has played by the rules (i did have some fun w/ cubanstogie after attacking one of my friends) i find it funny that this is such a problem.

i have had my job, post count, family, and worthiness to even post in this forum thrown in my face, and i must say, i have responded rather amicably.

i have always tried to keep the topic of the thread at hand even though plenty of threads i have started have been quickly hijacked.

i never even really got too deep into these discussions until they seemed to become a republican orgy of bashing and discrediting anyone on the other side. its all on record, and nothing i am making up.

if the board decides to shut opposing opinions down, i will oblige and have no problem with discussing football.

i certainly hope nobody suggests we suspend discussions in the "blast furnace" though. :wink02:

I don't see the problem. Yeah we can tone it down on occasion but we all must have thick skin to talk politics or even football when Brown and Patsie trolls are around. As long as the Steelers keep winning thats what is important. just my 2 cents

For the record, I never attacked ,Mosca. I probably wasn't too diplomatic about telling him to quite reading the S.F. chronicle and listen to talk radio. I certainly didn't attack him. I stated he was being thing skinned and called him spiderman(incorrectly I might add. I thought mosca was spider in spanish.) I don't think I used the word hate either.

revefsreleets
09-08-2008, 09:14 AM
The problem is that political arguments need to be about the issues, the candidates, and their stances on them...but it always devolves into personal attacks. Always.

X-Terminator
09-08-2008, 09:19 AM
how many people here are actually standing up and posting in defense of the left? 3 or 4?

in the meantime we get blasted and attacked by a swarm of what seems like army ants.

again, if this is a republican board, just let me know. if this board is in favor of censorship of ideas and thoughts contrary to the "mainstream" then maybe a shut down is in order.

as one who has played by the rules (i did have some fun w/ cubanstogie after attacking one of my friends) i find it funny that this is such a problem.

i have had my job, post count, family, and worthiness to even post in this forum thrown in my face, and i must say, i have responded rather amicably.

i have always tried to keep the topic of the thread at hand even though plenty of threads i have started have been quickly hijacked.

i never even really got too deep into these discussions until they seemed to become a republican orgy of bashing and discrediting anyone on the other side. its all on record, and nothing i am making up.

if the board decides to shut opposing opinions down, i will oblige and have no problem with discussing football.

i certainly hope nobody suggests we suspend discussions in the "blast furnace" though. :wink02:

First of all, who said that I only recently started feeling this way? Hell, I predicted this would happen back when the discussions were, for the most part, amicable and informative with very little or no problems, because I know how people are when it comes to their political beliefs. They get so defensive that their common sense and common courtesy go out the window, because they don't like having their views challenged. And on that note - why is it that every time a Democrat takes a little heat or have their beliefs questioned, the first thing out of their mouths is that "this is a Republicans-only board" and that it promotes censorship? Have your posts been deleted? Have you been explicitly told by anyone in charge that your opinions aren't welcome? I don't believe either have happened. So how can this be a "Republican-only" board? It isn't, it never has been, and it never will be. And I am not promoting shutting opposing opinions down, I'm promoting shutting ALL discussions down, regardless of their leanings. That would mean conservative opinions too.

If we all get back to the way things were a couple months ago, that would be fine. The discussions back then were great. Now, they aren't, because people have allowed their differences in opinion to get in the way of what's important.

X-Terminator
09-08-2008, 09:24 AM
The problem is that political arguments need to be about the issues, the candidates, and their stances on them...but it always devolves into personal attacks. Always.

Exactly my point.

Mosca
09-08-2008, 10:19 AM
I don't see the problem. Yeah we can tone it down on occasion but we all must have thick skin to talk politics or even football when Brown and Patsie trolls are around. As long as the Steelers keep winning thats what is important. just my 2 cents

For the record, I never attacked ,Mosca. I probably wasn't too diplomatic about telling him to quite reading the S.F. chronicle and listen to talk radio. I certainly didn't attack him. I stated he was being thing skinned and called him spiderman(incorrectly I might add. I thought mosca was spider in spanish.) I don't think I used the word hate either.

For the record, I helped that discussion get out of hand. If I didn't take offense, it would have died early. I had a chance to keep it in line, and I didn't take it.

It's "spider" in Italian, "fly" in Spanish.

Mosca
09-08-2008, 10:29 AM
how many people here are actually standing up and posting in defense of the left? 3 or 4?

in the meantime we get blasted and attacked by a swarm of what seems like army ants.

again, if this is a republican board, just let me know. if this board is in favor of censorship of ideas and thoughts contrary to the "mainstream" then maybe a shut down is in order.

as one who has played by the rules (i did have some fun w/ cubanstogie after attacking one of my friends) i find it funny that this is such a problem.

i have had my job, post count, family, and worthiness to even post in this forum thrown in my face, and i must say, i have responded rather amicably.

i have always tried to keep the topic of the thread at hand even though plenty of threads i have started have been quickly hijacked.

i never even really got too deep into these discussions until they seemed to become a republican orgy of bashing and discrediting anyone on the other side. its all on record, and nothing i am making up.

if the board decides to shut opposing opinions down, i will oblige and have no problem with discussing football.

i certainly hope nobody suggests we suspend discussions in the "blast furnace" though. :wink02:

And also for the record, I agree with thc here. It doesn't bother me all that much, because it really only amounts to you guys slapping each other on the back over stuff. I like people here, I don't care about the politics much. None of the far right folks here are really converting anyone to that side, after all. I try to stay out of it, but sometimes I can't; the choice of Palin for VP candidate is so far out of left field, and a lot of us center/undecided voters were looking for ANY good reason to vote for McCain, and we were offered perhaps the very worst possible reason; I had to post.

But yeah, it sometimes feels like it's me, thc, Dan, and a couple others against the world. For everyone else to complain about US, it strikes me as funny. It would probably be best for US if politics were shut down. We could talk Steelers more.

Mosca
09-08-2008, 10:39 AM
And on that note - why is it that every time a Democrat takes a little heat or have their beliefs questioned, the first thing out of their mouths is that "this is a Republicans-only board" and that it promotes censorship?

I don't think that it promotes censorship, at all. But when it comes to the politics that get posted, it often feels like a post is made with the expectation that everyone is going to agree with it. And when thc or AD or I post a counter opinion, we get swarmed with a lot of stuff that is not quite attack, but not really an exchange of ideas, either. I'm not complaining; I'm only trying to explain what it seems like. If it ever got out of hand, I'd simply stop visiting the forum, after all; I have complete control over how it works for me. There's no point in complaining if I have complete control. And I'm not going to leave.

revefsreleets
09-08-2008, 10:45 AM
In re Palin, the reason I'll tolerate her draconian positions on some social issues (ie anti-abortion with NO exceptions) is that throughout her (albeit short) poilitical career, she has kept that as a private issue and has not tried to force that as an issue other than as her personal choice.

Roe v Wade is never going to be overturned, nor should it be, so that's not a dealbreaking issue for me.

That's just a microcosm of the whole big picture. If Bush didn't tip us over into a theocracy, nobody will.

X-Terminator
09-08-2008, 11:29 AM
I don't think that it promotes censorship, at all. But when it comes to the politics that get posted, it often feels like a post is made with the expectation that everyone is going to agree with it. And when thc or AD or I post a counter opinion, we get swarmed with a lot of stuff that is not quite attack, but not really an exchange of ideas, either. I'm not complaining; I'm only trying to explain what it seems like. If it ever got out of hand, I'd simply stop visiting the forum, after all; I have complete control over how it works for me. There's no point in complaining if I have complete control. And I'm not going to leave.

See, this is a huge problem I have with people on message boards. Far too many people go into these debates expecting everyone to agree, and then complain when someone doesn't. I never go into any debate expecting everyone to agree with me - I fully expect someone or multiple people to disagree. I think Steelers fans are fickle and fair-weathered - I know a LOT of people disagree and I have had my share of poison darts thrown at me as a result. It doesn't bother me, because I expect it whenever I take an unpopular stance. If everyone took that same attitude, there would be far less problems. But the bottom line is that this is not a "Republican message board," there is no bias and I challenge anyone to prove to me that there is.

tony hipchest
09-08-2008, 11:35 AM
First of all, who said that I only recently started feeling this way? .:hunch: not me.

i think mosca expanded on my points really well. this board will seem like a republican board if the politics threads are shut down just because of the strong opinined posts of a few left leaning posters. there is power in numbers and the left is vastly outnumbered by the right when it comes to active posters who are actually posting in these threads. i cant speak for the members who dont post in them. i would guess there is alot of lefties here who chose not to participate as to not "go against the grain".

fwiw, those of us who have defended obamas ticket all seem to be very moderate, and our voting records show we dont vote straight ticket, just who we feel is the best candidate.

as far as discussing the issues, that is great, but "experience" isnt an issue for me this cycle (president bush and his father had all the experience in the world a candidate could want). a refreshing change is.

im a bit tired of having experience jammed down my throat as if it should be MY main issue. i have discussed taxes, welfare, education, health care and and get looked upon because of it (the right are clearly disgusted with welfare recipients like its americas largest cost). the issues are simple. one side is for them, one side is not. not much to discuss there, when people dont wanna hear what you have to say.

what i find to be a much more interresting discussion is campaign party strategies, and media spin + public perception.

Mosca
09-08-2008, 11:38 AM
See, this is a huge problem I have with people on message boards. Far too many people go into these debates expecting everyone to agree, and then complain when someone doesn't. I never go into any debate expecting everyone to agree with me - I fully expect someone or multiple people to disagree. I think Steelers fans are fickle and fair-weathered - I know a LOT of people disagree and I have had my share of poison darts thrown at me as a result. It doesn't bother me, because I expect it whenever I take an unpopular stance. If everyone took that same attitude, there would be far less problems. But the bottom line is that this is not a "Republican message board," there is no bias and I challenge anyone to prove to me that there is.

Yes, that is exactly what I mean. But I don't think Steelers fans are fickle at all; in fact, I think they are STUBBORN. I know I am.

No, it is definitely not a Republican board. It is a neutral board that happens to have a ratio of about 20 Republicans to every Democrat. But the board itself is neutral; I've never felt any pressure at all to change my posts, or edit them, ever.

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-08-2008, 11:48 AM
Yes, that is exactly what I mean. But I don't think Steelers fans are fickle at all; in fact, I think they are STUBBORN. I know I am.

No, it is definitely not a Republican board. It is a neutral board that happens to have a ratio of about 20 Republicans to every Democrat. But the board itself is neutral; I've never felt any pressure at all to change my posts, or edit them, ever.

I would have to disagree with you there....the tone of the political discussions went the wrong way when Atlanta Dan and Jeremy felt the need to post several hundred anti-McCain..anti-Bush..posts in here over several months...until those of us on the other side of the aisle retaliated.

Luckily for everyone....the truth and facts drove them into their little corners.

BUT NOW ..the end result is that it seems that has become tit-for-tat with both sides (myself included) finding articles to back up their stances.

I like that fact that NOW we are back to discussing the possibilty of a better discourse.

X-Terminator
09-08-2008, 11:55 AM
:hunch: not me.

i think mosca expanded on my points really well. this board will seem like a republican board if the politics threads are shut down just because of the strong opinined posts of a few left leaning posters. fwiw, those of us who have defended obamas ticket all seem to be very moderate, and our voting records show we dont vote straight ticket, just who we feel is the best candidate.

as far as discussing the issues, that is great, but "experience" isnt an issue for me this cycle (president bush and his father had all the experience in the world a candidate could want). a refreshing change is.

im a bit tired of having experience jammed down my throat as if it should be MY main issue. i have discussed taxes, welfare, education, health care and and get looked upon because of it (the right are clearly disgusted with welfare recipients like its americas largest cost). the issues are simple. one side is for them, one side is not. not much to discuss there, when people dont wanna hear what you have to say.

what i find to be a much more interresting discussion is campaign party strategies, and media spin + public perception.

Well, I'm the only one openly campaigning for the politics threads to be shut down. Not because of a few opinionated left-leaning posters, but because of the overall tone the discussions have taken. Everyone else doesn't, some because it would give the appearance you mentioned, so majority rules. Fine by me - I don't have to participate if I don't wish to.

As per the issues, well, experience is an issue for a lot of people this election cycle, which is why it may appear to you that it's being crammed down your throat. Nobody has said it should be your main issue - if you want change, that's fine. As I've mentioned to you before, you are an American citizen and can vote for whomever you want for whatever reason you choose. I have my reasons for not voting for Obama, as you have yours for not voting for McCain. For the record, I am a registered Democrat only because I have to pick a party in order to vote in PA primaries and everyone else in my family are Dems, but I have never voted straight party tickets and disagree with many things that they stand for. I also don't agree with a lot of what Republicans stand for, especially the religious right (which is why I don't like Palin all that much). I'd rather be an independent, quite honestly.

As far as your view on how Republicans view welfare - I don't think they hate welfare at all. Most of them don't have a problem with it if it's used as it's intended - to provide help for those who need it. It's the ones who abuse the system that they, and I, don't like, and unfortunately that ends up being what the perception of welfare recipients end up being. Unfair? Yes, but that's just how it goes.

tony hipchest
09-08-2008, 12:00 PM
I like that fact that NOW we are back to discussing the possibilty of a better discourse. :thumbsup:

Luckily for everyone....the truth and facts drove them into their little corners. :doh:

:shake01:

jeremy deserved to be/and was banned but....

isnt several hundered a bit overdramatic? definitely explains why i have been talked down to as if i were jeremy lately, though. thats ok. i can take it. LITP and bengalbrian used to like talking down to me too. :wave:

Mosca
09-08-2008, 12:08 PM
I would have to disagree with you there....the tone of the political discussions went the wrong way when Atlanta Dan and Jeremy felt the need to post several hundred anti-McCain..anti-Bush..posts in here over several months...until those of us on the other side of the aisle retaliated.

Luckily for everyone....the truth and facts drove them into their little corners.

BUT NOW ..the end result is that it seems that has become tit-for-tat with both sides (myself included) finding articles to back up their stances.

I like that fact that NOW we are back to discussing the possibilty of a better discourse.


The fact that I didn't know about those topics is proof that I skipped them!

But do you notice how the tone of your post contributes to the problem? "Luckily for everyone....the truth and facts drove them into their little corners." Lucky? For WHO? EVERYONE? Truth? Facts?

I dunno, it sounds like just what I said; not exactly an attack, but not really an exchange of ideas, either. And an assumption that EVERYONE agrees.

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-08-2008, 12:20 PM
The fact that I didn't know about those topics is proof that I skipped them!

But do you notice how the tone of your post contributes to the problem? "Luckily for everyone....the truth and facts drove them into their little corners." Lucky? For WHO? EVERYONE? Truth? Facts?

I dunno, it sounds like just what I said; not exactly an attack, but not really an exchange of ideas, either. And an assumption that EVERYONE agrees.

Sorry if that came across wrong.
Let me explain what I meant.
They were posting straight up lies and slanted deceptive facts....lies & truth have nothing to do with political affiliation...EITHER side can decieve...and TRUTH and FACTS will sent the poster back to the shadows.

In those cases...the posts were more a revelation of the posters and not a party.