View Full Version : Why Are Liberals and Democrats Weak in Foreign Policy.....
There it is in black and white. Why are liberals and Democrats so weak at Foreign Affairs? Why is it that the left runs from discussing these issues? Why can't the the left come up with any topics when discussing Politics with other foreign countries? Especially when it is related to War and Conflict?
Peter1469
04-07-2012, 06:41 AM
Because their foreign policy wonks left the Dems for the GOP once the Dems started to go soft during the Vietnam War. We call them NEOCONS.
Dagny
04-07-2012, 06:49 AM
Vietnam was the pilot to the movie 'Iraq....the clusterfuck'.
Bin Laden....dead.
Al Qaeda....limping.
Time to get the fuck home, and worry about true homeland security.
Mainecoons
04-07-2012, 07:07 AM
Now THIS we can agree on. That is my OPINION as well.
Vietnam was the pilot to the movie 'Iraq....the clusterfuck'.
Bin Laden....dead.
Al Qaeda....limping.
Time to get the fuck home, and worry about true homeland security.
Morning dagny.....AQ limping? I definately can agree with what you said about bringing our people home. But what about our politicians playing to the Sunni why they committ genocide and oppression thru that new form of democracy legaly now in the world?
Because their foreign policy wonks left the Dems for the GOP once the Dems started to go soft during the Vietnam War. We call them NEOCONS.
Why true Pete.....why do you think they avoid to discuss the conflict tho. As most libs aren't really into the Con portion of that agenda. One would think they would talk about it more with the Neo-Libs and their New World Order. Pushing the socialist agenda. Yet when it comes to these conflicts on specificity. They are grossly mute.
Conley
04-07-2012, 08:17 AM
Seem to me the Republicans aren't any better at foreign policy. That has been a major flaw in our government for decades.
Seem to me the Republicans aren't any better at foreign policy. That has been a major flaw in our government for decades.
While true.....they(the Repubs) don't have a problem discussing the issues nor the policy. Usually talk about it on a daily basis. Not just with issues related to econimics either. as this has nothing really to do with the track record as more to the avoidance issues by those who call themselves Liberals.
Conley
04-07-2012, 08:25 AM
While true.....they(the Repubs) don't have a problem discussing the issues nor the policy. Usually talk about it on a daily basis. Not just with issues related to econimics either. as this has nothing really to do with the track record as more to the avoidance issues by those who call themselves Liberals.
Oh, sorry I totally misunderstood the thread. I thought you were talking about Democratic administrations and their lack of good foreign policy, not every day democrats. Well I think you are overstating a bit but I imagine foreign policy isn't as important to them because they are more concerned about domestic policies here at home to help people.
I should have :coffee2: before I start posting.
:laugh: I thought I would catch you with those sleepers still in ya eyes. Would you like some :occasion15: to go with that coffee. I hears you west coast guys like to have ya cake and eat it to. Or was that just the Democrats out in California? :wave:
Conley
04-07-2012, 08:45 AM
I could definitely go for some spacecake. :wink:
I could definitely go for some spacecake. :wink:
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=5034784512345404&id=dca237b3b8b2a9c1b4c9e97061684213&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sarah-palin.org.uk%2fImages%2fPhlog_Sarah_Palin.jpg
Here ya go brutha.....even comes with a ribbon. See I didn't forget. :wink:
Conley
04-07-2012, 09:04 AM
Uh...this is more what I had in mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_brownie
Uh...this is more what I had in mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_brownie
:nono: isn't it best to clear the cobwebs first.....before bringing in the fog? :laugh:
Conley
04-07-2012, 09:13 AM
:nono: isn't it best to clear the cobwebs first.....before bringing in the fog? :laugh:
Whatever that thing is up there isn't clearing any cobwebs. In fact, you'd probably catch some creepy crawlies from her.
Captain Obvious
04-07-2012, 10:05 AM
I wouldn't say liberals are weak at foreign policy.
BO managed to singlehandedly alienate one of our greatest trading partners in Canada to the point that they are considering reneging on their discounted energy sales to us and diversifying their trading partners from primarily us to other countries over the oil pipeline.
I'd say that's a pretty strong foreign policy move.
Well I wasn't look at any of his specifics. While I am sure there is more. I just don't understand how they don't that the money is tied in with the domestic issues and to me neirther side wants to acknwledge that waste. Althought I would say there is much more waste with those of the left.
dsolo802
04-07-2012, 01:46 PM
I disagree with the underlying assumption. This is one of those product differentiation claims that are entirely fanciful, and shameless.
When it pleases GOP leaders to bash Obama's "change we can believe in", they point out that his policies are as militaristic as were his predecessor.
When it pleases GOP leaders to bash Obama as an ultra leftist Liberal, he supposedly is like all other Democrats, that is, just another weak appeaser, someone who wants to cede America's rightful position of supremacy on the world stage to NATO and the UN.
When all else fails, and nothing even comes close to fitting, then come out the really heavy guns: He is a Muslim, Kenyan anti-colonialist, socialist who favors the terrorists over our fighting men and women, hates America and Christianity, wants to pull the plug on Granny, re-educate our children in FEMA funded re-education camps, and [probably wants soccer to replace baseball as our national past-time - my editorial comment there].
The prevailing assumptions about the current President of the United States in particular and the Democratic Party in general are off the chart absurd, insane and toxic.
Folks, Dems and Repubs are not different species for Christ's sake!
dadakarma
04-07-2012, 01:48 PM
Bears repeating:
The prevailing assumptions about the current President of the United States in particular and the Democratic Party in general are off the chart absurd, insane and toxic.
Alias
04-07-2012, 02:04 PM
I disagree with the underlying assumption. This is one of those product differentiation claims that are entirely fanciful, and shameless.
When it pleases GOP leaders to bash Obama's "change we can believe in", they point out that his policies are as militaristic as were his predecessor.
When it pleases GOP leaders to bash Obama as an ultra leftist Liberal, he supposedly is like all other Democrats, that is, just another weak appeaser, someone who wants to cede America's rightful position of supremacy on the world stage to NATO and the UN.
When all else fails, and nothing even comes close to fitting, then come out the really heavy guns: He is a Muslim, Kenyan anti-colonialist, socialist who favors the terrorists over our fighting men and women, hates America and Christianity, wants to pull the plug on Granny, re-educate our children in FEMA funded re-education camps, and [probably wants soccer to replace baseball as our national past-time - my editorial comment there].
The prevailing assumptions about the current President of the United States in particular and the Democratic Party in general are off the chart absurd, insane and toxic.
Folks, Dems and Repubs are not different species for Christ's sake!
Obama's father was a muslim. In the muslim world a muslim father who has a son, the son is automatically a muslim. Perhaps that's where the idea comes from that he's a muslim. He also made a reference to that in an interview and the the interviewer helped him correct that admission.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgNg7aD8M
Alias
04-07-2012, 02:05 PM
Bears repeating:
If I called Obama a "mongrel", would that be an example of something "toxic"?
dsolo802
04-07-2012, 04:43 PM
Obama's father was a muslim. It's not a serious point. He has been a member of a Christian Church for decades - and eviscerated by the right because they don't like the Christian Preacher of that Church.
I know where the disinformation is coming from. It does not come from a good place.
I disagree with the underlying assumption. This is one of those product differentiation claims that are entirely fanciful, and shameless.
When it pleases GOP leaders to bash Obama's "change we can believe in", they point out that his policies are as militaristic as were his predecessor.
When it pleases GOP leaders to bash Obama as an ultra leftist Liberal, he supposedly is like all other Democrats, that is, just another weak appeaser, someone who wants to cede America's rightful position of supremacy on the world stage to NATO and the UN.
When all else fails, and nothing even comes close to fitting, then come out the really heavy guns: He is a Muslim, Kenyan anti-colonialist, socialist who favors the terrorists over our fighting men and women, hates America and Christianity, wants to pull the plug on Granny, re-educate our children in FEMA funded re-education camps, and [probably wants soccer to replace baseball as our national past-time - my editorial comment there].
The prevailing assumptions about the current President of the United States in particular and the Democratic Party in general are off the chart absurd, insane and toxic.
Folks, Dems and Repubs are not different species for Christ's sake!
Lets not forget Dsolo.....I am not looking at Politicians. Nor really focusing on them. I am more or less looking at all those that follow that leftward slant but seem to be the least informed as to what is taking place with most overseas affairs. With most conflicts overseas, including the amount of money that is put thru NGO's or NFP's. With all policy. From both Parties.
This has nothing to do with Obama's policies nor his Administration. It does have to do with parties as they are involved with the NGO's and NFP's.
So your surmise was completely off about the product of a fanciful claim thru differentiation. See this here has nothing to do with the GOP Leaders bashing the Obama adminstration as you had hoped. Nor does it focus so much on the Democrats failed leadership.
So all that semantic talk you just came out with while trying to point out that it's both parties fault while Defending Obama and that Democratic Party and as to why Liberals don't get into talking about Foreign Affairs and Policies. Kinda leaves you hanging in the wind, when you make assumptions about something you clearly did not understand. Or have no clue as to what one is talking about.
Perhaps next time you might want to ask a question first. To see where one is going with a discussion. Before you do all that Assuming for nothing.
All one need do is go to 6-10 other Political sites and look up whats being discussed in Foreign and World Affairs and you will see exactly what I am talking about. Especially with those from the left. :wink:
dsolo802
04-08-2012, 03:20 AM
Lets not forget Dsolo.....I am not looking at Politicians. Nor really focusing on them. I am more or less looking at all those that follow that leftward slant but seem to be the least informed as to what is taking place with most overseas affairs. With most conflicts overseas, including the amount of money that is put thru NGO's or NFP's. With all policy. From both Parties.
This has nothing to do with Obama's policies nor his Administration. It does have to do with parties as they are involved with the NGO's and NFP's.
So your surmise was completely off about the product of a fanciful claim thru differentiation. See this here has nothing to do with the GOP Leaders bashing the Obama adminstration as you had hoped. Nor does it focus so much on the Democrats failed leadership.
So all that semantic talk you just came out with while trying to point out that it's both parties fault while Defending Obama and that Democratic Party and as to why Liberals don't get into talking about Foreign Affairs and Policies. Kinda leaves you hanging in the wind, when you make assumptions about something you clearly did not understand. Or have no clue as to what one is talking about.
Perhaps next time you might want to ask a question first. To see where one is going with a discussion. Before you do all that Assuming for nothing.
All one need do is go to 6-10 other Political sites and look up whats being discussed in Foreign and World Affairs and you will see exactly what I am talking about. Especially with those from the left. :wink:MMC, I'm no stranger to the level of discourse by folks on boards like this one either. In general, the "argumentation" on boards like this reflects the poor quality of our national discourse, by people who self-identify with the right, and by people who self identify with the left.
The left is no more monolithic than the right. When an argument begins "All people on the right are all [fill in the blanks] or all people on the left are all [fill in the blanks], it is not worthy of being called an argument. Change your OP formulation and substitute "All Blacks", "All Jews", "All Christians", "All Whites", or "All Women" for your "All or predominantly all Democrats and Liberals are weak on foreign policy" - and you will understand how wrong-headed it is. This is argument by label, focused on group bashing not on the weakness or strength of any particular argument. When you can dismiss the messenger on the basis of his or her inclusion in a group you imagine to be your intellectual inferior you never have to actually address the merits or demerits of the message itself. It is lazy and it is not honest.
I reject the underlying premise of your thread as restated. It has no merit whatsoever, invites no meaningful conversation and instead invites others to avoid meaningful conversation.
"Pushing the socialist agenda?" Shame on you.
Mainecoons
04-08-2012, 06:17 AM
It's not a serious point. He has been a member of a Christian Church for decades - and eviscerated by the right because they don't like the Christian Preacher of that Church.
I know where the disinformation is coming from. It does not come from a good place.
If you can call what came out of the "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright's pulpit Christian. I can't.
MMC, I'm no stranger to the level of discourse by folks on boards like this one either. In general, the "argumentation" on boards like this reflects the poor quality of our national discourse, by people who self-identify with the right, and by people who self identify with the left.
The left is no more monolithic than the right. When an argument begins "All people on the right are all [fill in the blanks] or all people on the left are all [fill in the blanks], it is not worthy of being called an argument. Change your OP formulation and substitute "All Blacks", "All Jews", "All Christians", "All Whites", or "All Women" for your "All or predominantly all Democrats and Liberals are weak on foreign policy" - and you will understand how wrong-headed it is. This is argument by label, focused on group bashing not on the weakness or strength of any particular argument. When you can dismiss the messenger on the basis of his or her inclusion in a group you imagine to be your intellectual inferior you never have to actually address the merits or demerits of the message itself. It is lazy and it is not honest.
I reject the underlying premise of your thread as restated. It has no merit whatsoever, invites no meaningful conversation and instead invites others to avoid meaningful conversation.
"Pushing the socialist agenda?" Shame on you.
To bad you didn't see the part about that I said most.....not all. As I am a Vet and know those on the left that actually do know about foreign affairs and World Affairs. As well as World History. Ancient and Eastern/Western Civilizations. These are people that they discuss such on daily basis. Not only do they discuss such in depth. But they are apt to even start discussions upon such.
You can reject it all you want. Course you would have some ground you could stand on, if since upon your and your good friends arrival here that at the very least one of you would be posting up such in the appropriate thread. Tell me dsolo since you can't speak for your friends. Why is it crew and you have not been able to keep up with whats happening then. Where was all that discussion concerning Clintons Friends of Syria Meeting?
What was going on in Syria? China? Mexico? Russia. Where is all that discussion on the UN, you know that group the left believes in and professes to be that citizen of the World? What Dsolo.....care to come up with some rational as to why such cannot be discussed? Because it is clear if we left such upon you and your pals. Then we would never know anything.
But by the way......I have been to like 12 other sites. It is the same on all of them. So that rational that you got going with that semantics of another tangent that you decide to talk about. Still doesn't change the truth and the facts now. Does it? But we do notice how you defend those up on the left and as usual avoid the key points of the topic. :wink: :grin:
Perhaps a couple courses in logic will help break you of that attorney mentality. :evil:
Captain Obvious
04-08-2012, 07:36 AM
If you can call what came out of the "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright's pulpit Christian. I can't.
I don't get caught up in BO's suggested Muslim heritage or all that birther bullshit, but I DO consider someone's character in relationship to the company that they keep. The whole relationship with this Wright asshole speaks volumes, far more volumes to me than anyone of these other manufactured concepts.
I don't get caught up in BO's suggested Muslim heritage or all that birther bullshit, but I DO consider someone's character in relationship to the company that they keep. The whole relationship with this Wright asshole speaks volumes, far more volumes to me than anyone of these other manufactured concepts.
Cmon now Cap.....do I got to take pictures or what? :wink: :grin:
dsolo802
04-08-2012, 09:58 AM
To bad you didn't see the part about that I said most.....not all. As I am a Vet and know those on the left that actually do know about foreign affairs and World Affairs. As well as World History. Ancient and Eastern/Western Civilizations. These are people that they discuss such on daily basis. Not only do they discuss such in depth. But they are apt to even start discussions upon such.
You can reject it all you want. Course you would have some ground you could stand on, if since upon your and your good friends arrival here that at the very least one of you would be posting up such in the appropriate thread. Tell me dsolo since you can't speak for your friends. Why is it crew and you have not been able to keep up with whats happening then. Where was all that discussion concerning Clintons Friends of Syria Meeting?
What was going on in Syria? China? Mexico? Russia. Where is all that discussion on the UN, you know that group the left believes in and professes to be that citizen of the World? What Dsolo.....care to come up with some rational as to why such cannot be discussed? Because it is clear if we left such upon you and your pals. Then we would never know anything.
But by the way......I have been to like 12 other sites. It is the same on all of them. So that rational that you got going with that semantics of another tangent that you decide to talk about. Still doesn't change the truth and the facts now. Does it? But we do notice how you defend those up on the left and as usual avoid the key points of the topic. :wink: :grin:
Perhaps a couple courses in logic will help break you of that attorney mentality. :evil:
You continue to avoid discussion of ALL issues, foreign and domestic, using the language and rationale of bigotry, and want me to brush up on logic? :)
I'd call this school boy's logic but that would be unfair to school boys.
Your continued use of "crew," "my pals", "most liberals", and unrepentant group bashing is the essence of irrationality and would be offensive if it weren't so patently unintelligent.
dsolo802
04-08-2012, 10:09 AM
If you can call what came out of the "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright's pulpit Christian. I can't.I'm no fan of Wright's political "views", but let's be fair: neither those political views nor his actual religious teachings have anything to do with Islam.
You continue to avoid discussion of ALL issues, foreign and domestic, using the language and rationale of bigotry, and want me to brush up on logic? :)
I'd call this school boy's logic but that would be unfair to school boy's.
in favor of demonizing groups of people based upon less than anecdotal scraps truly data that would ml
Your continued use of "crew," "my pals", "most liberals", and unrepentant group bashing is the essence of irrationality and would be offensive if it weren't so patently unintelligent.
Yeah and so.....I do to it to conservatives to. Liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Repubs, Cubs, Jay Cutler, Lindesy Lohan, NY, LA, (Btw whats your favorite football team- I'll do it to them too) There is no special favor granted. I'm not the one that made you come in here to point out anything now, did I? Rhetorical question.....I think you can figure that one out.
But then I guess you could prove your point by jumping into those waters so to speak......huh? Last I looked.....there was plenty of the content and good discussion that You Said You were looking for when you came here, remember? Right there, in World Affairs and Foreign Policy. So why avoid what you came here looking for.....Right? Jump right on in.....the Water is any way you like it! :kiss:
Alias
04-08-2012, 10:15 AM
It's not a serious point. He has been a member of a Christian Church for decades - and eviscerated by the right because they don't like the Christian Preacher of that Church.
I know where the disinformation is coming from. It does not come from a good place.
The preacher of that church is a racist. Obama distanced himself from the hateful preacher when it became known who his pastor was. Wright is a spreader of hate and racism, not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He is a perfect example of what Jesus was speaking of....."Wolf in Sheep's clothing".
Alias
04-08-2012, 10:19 AM
I'm no fan of Wright's political "views", but let's be fair: neither those political views nor his actual religious teachings have anything to do with Islam.
http://johnpaulus.com/blog/2011/03/19/obamas-link-to-gaddafi-runs-right-through-jeremiah-wright-and-louis-farrakhan/
dadakarma
04-08-2012, 10:31 AM
Yeah and so.....I do to it to conservatives to. Liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Repubs, Cubs, Jay Cutler, Lindesy Lohan, NY, LA, (Btw whats your favorite football team- I'll do it to them too) There is no special favor granted. I'm not the one that made you come in here to point out anything now, did I? Rhetorical question.....I think you can figure that one out.
But then I guess you could prove your point by jumping into those waters so to speak......huh? Last I looked.....there was plenty of the content and good discussion that You Said You were looking for when you came here, remember? Right there, in World Affairs and Foreign Policy. So why avoid what you came here looking for.....Right? Jump right on in.....the Water is any way you like it! :kiss:
So as long as you're willing to dumb down the discussion by offering generalized simplifications about all political persuasions, it's okay? Is that your justification?
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by dsolo802 http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=56882#post56882)
I disagree with the underlying assumption. This is one of those product differentiation claims that are entirely fanciful, and shameless.
When it pleases GOP leaders to bash Obama's "change we can believe in", they point out that his policies are as militaristic as were his predecessor.
When it pleases GOP leaders to bash Obama as an ultra leftist Liberal, he supposedly is like all other Democrats, that is, just another weak appeaser, someone who wants to cede America's rightful position of supremacy on the world stage to NATO and the UN.
When all else fails, and nothing even comes close to fitting, then come out the really heavy guns: He is a Muslim, Kenyan anti-colonialist, socialist who favors the terrorists over our fighting men and women, hates America and Christianity, wants to pull the plug on Granny, re-educate our children in FEMA funded re-education camps, and [probably wants soccer to replace baseball as our national past-time - my editorial comment there].
The prevailing assumptions about the current President of the United States in particular and the Democratic Party in general are off the chart absurd, insane and toxic.
Folks, Dems and Repubs are not different species for Christ's sake!.....snip~
Dsolo there was no GOP bashing Obama in this thread.
Moreover it seems here we have you doing the same thing as in your defense of Obama. Which the thread was not on Obama.
Nor do I care if he is Kenyen, Muslim, hates America, or really much of what you talk about. Course you are not talking about Spending, Expanding Government, nor the fact that his policies suck.
So as long as you're willing to dumb down the discussion by offering generalized simplifications about all political persuasions, it's okay? Is that your justification?
Well it is not quite the same as your National Inquirer rebuttals. Or the Pom Pom Cheers. But mine will at least contains some sort of fact or two without the re-writing of history. :wink:
dadakarma
04-08-2012, 10:38 AM
Well it is not quite the same as your National Inquirer rebuttals. Or the Pom Pom Cheers. But mine will at least contains some sort of fact or two without the re-writing of history. :wink:
I like to have fun here. There is a difference between the fun back-and-forth that I enjoy with Dagny and the carefully-sourced posts I make here. It doesn't surprise me that you're incapable of discerning any difference between the two. Now - answer my question please: Is it okay to dumb things down by offering simplistic generalizations, as you do with your argument-by-label method of debate here, because you do it to both Democrats and Republicans?
Alias
04-08-2012, 10:40 AM
I like to have fun here. There is a difference between the fun back-and-forth that I enjoy with Dagny and the carefully-sourced posts I make here. It doesn't surprise me that you're incapable of discerning any difference between the two. Now - answer my question please: Is it okay to dumb things down by offering simplistic generalizations, as you do with your argument-by-label method of debate here, because you do it to both Democrats and Republicans?
I love that...."carefully sourced posts". That was a real knee slapper. I like to have fun also. Are you celebraing Easter today?
I like to have fun here. There is a difference between the fun back-and-forth that I enjoy with Dagny and the carefully-sourced posts I make here. It doesn't surprise me that you're incapable of discerning any difference between the two. Now - answer my question please: Is it okay to dumb things down by offering simplistic generalizations, as you do with your argument-by-label method of debate here, because you do it to both Democrats and Republicans?
Yes it is apparent you like to have fun at the expense of others. Others have already brought out about your carfully-sourced posts. :rollseyes:
So that is irrelevent. Your question has no bearing on anything that I am talking about. It is just another of your questions based on your attempt to deflect for your pal. Plus if you were serious about such. I think you would have already been in the World affairs thread and talking about Foreign Policy.
All that good discussion you were looking for. If you want to discover if someone is dumbing down anything. I would give the same recommendation to you as I did to your good friend. Looks Like theres plenty of threads there. Cmon on in.....the Waters just the way you like it. :wink:
dsolo802
04-08-2012, 11:11 AM
Yeah and so.....I do to it to conservatives to. I came here to engage in meaningful discussion with people who have viewpoints different from my own - not to bash them.
What about you? Do you personally want discussion on the merits here? Do you have any interest to engage with people whose views are different from your own? Or do you want virtual Vince McMahon and WWW smackdown?
Liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Repubs, Cubs, Jay Cutler, Lindesy Lohan, NY, LA, (Btw whats your favorite football team- I'll do it to them too) There is no special favor granted. Your bragging about being an equal opportunity offender is not going to make me feel any better about the absence of argument in your argumentation.
I'm not the one that made you come in here to point out anything now, did I? Rhetorical question.....I think you can figure that one out.And neither will your repeated calls for people to avoid meaningful conversation be the reason I leave. There are people here who are willing to treat newcomers as individuals and who are willing to engage on the merits of what they have to say.
But then I guess you could prove your point by jumping into those waters so to speak......huh? Last I looked.....there was plenty of the content and good discussion that You Said You were looking for when you came here, remember? I've had more than my fair share of good conversation with true conservatives here. I've reached out and repeatedly made the effort to engage the existing people here in respecful conversation. I sound people out on their views, and NEVER presume to tell them what "they all" - or most of them - think.
Unlike what you are doing here in this thread, there are old timers here who were willing to take a chance and actually talk things over with me - instead of simply deflecting by calling people who may see things differently than you names.
Right there, in World Affairs and Foreign Policy. So why avoid what you came here looking for.....Right? Jump right on in.....the Water is any way you like it! :kiss:Starting threads that assume the stupidity of those who would disagree with you, will either get your "viewpoints" ignored, or attention of a kind better expressed in Where the Wild Things Are.
Speaking for myself only, why I respond to a particular thread or not depends on a lot of things. That I don't respond to threads you think warrant response quickly enough to meet your exacting standard - doesn't necessarily mean I'm disinterested in those topics or "weak" on the related issues. It means precisely nothing. If this is your way of saying, "gee, I wonder what the new comers think about this issue or that?" - there are far better ways to ask.
Management here has spoken: Outside of Where the Wild Things are, management wants us to engage with each other civilly and on the merits of our arguments. How does a thread like this help?
Those of us who are looked upon with respect, including yourself, can be agents for positive change or will serve to thwart it.
Thats understandable Dsolo......what's not is sitting here for another hour or two, waiting to see if you would jump into The World Affairs and Foreign policy Thread. Rather than looking to push this discussion, and seeing if you can put forwith all that you talk about.
Clearly you didn't see the call out.....erm I mean the Invitation. Even if the Threads aren't mine. :wink: :evil:
Alias
04-08-2012, 11:19 AM
I came here to engage in meaningful discussion with people who have viewpoints different from my own - not to bash them.
What about you? Do you personally want discussion on the merits here? Do you have any interest to engage with people whose views are different from your own? Or do you want virtual Vince McMahon and WWW smackdown?
Your bragging about being an equal opportunity offender is not going to make me feel any better about the absence of argument in your argumentation.
And neither will your repeated calls for people to avoid meaningful conversation be the reason I leave. There are people here who are willing to treat newcomers as individuals and who are willing to engage on the merits of what they have to say.
I've had more than my fair share of good conversation with true conservatives here. I've reached out and repeatedly made the effort to engage the existing people here in respecful conversation. I sound people out on their views, and NEVER presume to tell them what "they all" - or most of them - think.
Unlike what you are doing here in this thread, there are old timers here who were willing to take a chance and actually talk things over with me - instead of simply deflecting by calling people who may see things differently than you names.
Starting threads that assume the stupidity of those who would disagree with you, will either get your "viewpoints" ignored, or attention of a kind better expressed in Where the Wild Things Are.
Speaking for myself only, why I respond to a particular thread or not depends on a lot of things. That I don't respond to threads you think warrant response quickly enough to meet your exacting standard - doesn't necessarily mean I'm disinterested in those topics or "weak" on the related issues. It means precisely nothing. If this is your way of saying, "gee, I wonder what the new comers think about this issue or that?" - there are far better ways to ask.
Management here has spoken: Outside of Where the Wild Things are, management wants us to engage with each other civilly and on the merits of our arguments. How does a thread like this help?
Those of us who are looked upon with respect, including yourself, can be agents for positive change or will serve to thwart it.
You presumed to tell me what to do, while ignoring others who are here for one purpose. You publicly on the forum confronted me, while you publicly ignored others doing the same thing. Why?
dsolo802
04-08-2012, 11:24 AM
Thats understandable Dsolo......what's not is sitting here for another hour or two, waiting to see if you would jump into The World Affairs and Foreign policy Thread. Rather than looking to push this discussion, and seeing if you can put forwith all that you talk about.
Clearly you didn't see the call out.....erm I mean the Invitation. Even if the Threads aren't mine. :wink: :evil:I'm out of this place quite a bit, MMC. Which is the primary reason I asked to be removed from consideration as a Mod. I'm not here enough to stay on top of things. Typically, I come, see a topic of interest, dive deep, leave - and come back some time later to see the responses, and so on.
You and I have had mostly respectful exchanges with each other. I see this continuing. I'm engaging with you here on this thread in a blunt way because I can't conceive that this thread, and threads of the same kind and tenor, will do anything but hinder the goal I understand we both believe in.
Alias
04-08-2012, 11:28 AM
I'm out of this place quite a bit, MMC. Which is the primary reason I asked to be removed from consideration as a Mod. I'm not here enough to stay on top of things. Typically, I come, see a topic of interest, dive deep, leave - and come back some time later to see the responses, and so on.
You and I have had mostly respectful exchanges with each other. I see this continuing. I'm engaging with you here on this thread in a blunt way because I can't conceive that this thread, and threads of the same kind and tenor, will do anything but hinder the goal I understand we both believe in.
Are you going to explain to me why you publicly confronted me on the forum while ignoring the actions of the leftist posters?
dsolo802
04-08-2012, 12:24 PM
Are you going to explain to me why you publicly confronted me on the forum while ignoring the actions of the leftist posters?On its face, my public post was NOT specifically directed to you, or to any other people, left, right or center. It was directed to offenders of good chat. You then stepped forward. Our ensuing chat made its way to the Where the Wild things are, from whence it has apparently been flushed for the good of us all. Let's not repeat history.
I'd like to see everyone who is a member on this board suspend their biases, engage what people say on their merits, and leave the group bashing for the professional propagandists in Washington. Are you for or against that?
Alias
04-08-2012, 12:54 PM
On its face, my public post was NOT specifically directed to you, or to any other people, left, right or center. It was directed to offenders of good chat. You then stepped forward. Our ensuing chat made its way to the Where the Wild things are, from whence it has apparently been flushed for the good of us all. Let's not repeat history.
I'd like to see everyone who is a member on this board suspend their biases, engage what people say on their merits, and leave the group bashing for the professional propagandists in Washington. Are you for or against that?
I agree with that. However, no one is going to suspend their baises. That's not realisitc. Demanding good behavior is realistic. Join me in confronting the trolling regardless of who is doing it. You have your methods and I have mine. Thanks.
dsolo802
04-08-2012, 01:51 PM
I agree with that. However, no one is going to suspend their baises.On the contrary, Alias, some already have.
That's not realisitc. Demanding good behavior is realistic. Join me in confronting the trolling regardless of who is doing it. You have your methods and I have mine. Thanks.The more people lead by example, the less we will see trolling, reaction, counter-reaction and useless argumentation about "who started calling who names" first.
As I said before, it would be a mistake to assume that influence is not being used to halt the personal attacks and incendiary rhetoric. It is in fact being used, and is obviously having a positive effect.
Alias
04-08-2012, 01:57 PM
On the contrary, Alias, some already have.
The more people lead by example, the less we will see trolling, reaction, counter-reaction and useless argumentation about "who started calling who names" first.
As I said before, it would be a mistake to assume that influence is not being used to halt the personal attacks and incendiary rhetoric. It is in fact being used, and is obviously having a positive effect.
Here's your mistake, pal. I had a positive effect. You didn't blow it up. I did. I used the exact same tactic you were appeasing while focusing on me, only I turned it around and got everyone's attention until it got fixed. Don't feed me such BS. I'm not one of the mob.
dsolo802
04-08-2012, 03:26 PM
Pal? No. We are off to a bad start.
I didn't focus on you. I said name calling isn't funny, and asked all not to throw fuel on the fire. You stepped forward
Your bluff and bluster intimidates no one. It only serves to polarize.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.