Soulshiner wrote: I think it's possible. If one justs posts an issue and their stance, it's easy. It's when the demeaning of each other, the snarkiness that follows one's opinion in the same post, the dismissive nicknames, like Dubya or Odumbo or Knuckledraggers or SFB are added that everything goes off the rails. Civility disappears and everyone is firing and no one is listening. The game now has become investigate everything someone from the "other" side posts in order to try to catch them being wrong and then nuke them with it. No one ever admits they were wrong and everyone ends up yelling at each other through the fence and no one is listening. WIth the severe positions that posters take, they have made it impossible to cede any point without being held as weak and an idiot for everything they have offered an opinion on. That's what going on in our government as well. Polarization has really taken hold in America and this message board is a mirror of this. When compromise has become a dirty word, we are screwed. All of us.
Instead of demonizing personalities, if posting strictly stayed on the issues, then I think it's possible.
Do I think it's probable? Not a snowball's chance in hell. Too many posters are invested in the pleasure of stirring up the emotions of posters who's buttons they know how to push all too well. That is the sole purpose of some of the posters on here, to raise the hackles of someone they know will bite. I wonder when the last thread without a torpedo ruining it was. If someone was really interested in discussing the issues instead of arguing, they would ignore the flak and stay with the issues. But everyone knows, as soon as the names, the snark and the intended disrespect comes out, it's not about the issues anymore, it's about the mud and no one stays with the issue. There might have been people like that posting here, but the mob has run them off. Read some of these threads, this place is a mean, brutal message board and it's nothing more that us.
Soulshiner wrote: Instead of demonizing personalities, if posting strictly stayed on the issues, then I think it's possible.
There might have been people like that posting here, but the mob has run them off. Read some of these threads, this place is a mean, brutal message board and it's nothing more that us.
I've offered that challenge many times with zero takers. If there was a "Civil Debates Section", where only the issues were discussed like adults (I mean real adults) I would spend most of my online time there....and I would be as respectful as if I was talking to someone in person.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
I answered yes. I have posted some w/o any comment, just the article or video or whatever and found good discussion.
I also post on other private forums. There are many options.
What I think this forum provides is a fun atmosphere. I can count on having a few laughs while learning some new or repeated info. I don't think people would be here otherwise.
IN NOVEMBER 2014, WE HAVE A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO CLEAN OUT THE ENTIRE HOUSE AND ONE-THIRD OF THE SENATE! DONT BLOW IT!
“When white man find land, Indians running it, no taxes, no debt, plenty buffalo, plenty beaver, clean water. Women did all the work, Medicine man free. Indian man spend all day hunting and fishing; all night having sex. Only whit man dumb enough to think he could improve system like that.” Indian Chief Two Eagles
I tend to stay somewhat politically neutral. Politicians as a whole are corrupt, and only out for themselves.
I don't stay policy neutral though....and I'm happy to debate those policies. I'm not one to firebomb for my side....If my side is wrong in my opinion, I jump on them too.
Too bad future generations aren't here to see all the great things we are spending their $$ on!!
Side note: is Jefferson closer to a modern Republican or a Democrat? As President, he agonized over expanding the power of the federal goverment, but then went on to buy the Lousiana Purchase doing exactly that. I think he would lean more to Democrat in his views on religion and seperation of church and state.
Jefferson would puke if he knew what modern democrats were up to today- advocating for government solutions for everything including medical and education and every other damn thing the government has involved itself in the last 100 years. Jefferson stood against those ideas of socialism- he warned about it, he warned against becoming what we have become.
He was very insistent that government should be limited to those functions he helped to outline in the constitution. He would consider todays government to be a tyrannical government- and he probably would advocate we take up arms and regain the control we have lost as citizens.
No doudt he would have many problems with the republicans today as well- expanding military power and legislating social issues - he would not look kindly at them either.
Jefferson would consider himself a libertarian today- he would advocate for lower taxes and limited government- and limited military involvement. Jefferson never envisioned government to take more than 5% of the GDP of America- and in his day government was about 2% of GDP.
PS- was that a neutral post? well- about as neutral as I care to be.
Neutral is booring- and I'll go to sleep with neutral.
