The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[rcgplanner]

The scary thing to me is that we are getting to a point, where logic no longer rings true. I think that we are going to keep on this path until a Tea Partier does something just crazy enough to either: A.) Hurt another human, or B.) Get themselves imprisoned for trying to do something crazy illegal.

I think that the reason we argue that either party is worse is because when they aren't in power they attack in different ways. G.W. Bush was made to look like a fool. The D's pushed that he was stupid and was linked to oil. They had peace protests, and their rhetoric was about how much he wasn't able to handle the position, and how he was a war president. They put him down in terms of intellegence and ability. The D's do not fear monger, they misinform, put down, and degrade.

The R's do not play by the same rules. When they aren't in power they rally the troops to be active. Pushing muslim background, not a U.S. citizen, and for only black causes. They used Hussain, not because it was his middle name but because he invoked fear. They called him the messiah because they thought people were worshiping him - and that he was "appointed". They use the words socialist, communist, and other words that invoke memories of Stalin and the third Reich. The R's fear monger. They misinform and they incite fear.

The major difference is that when the D's are putting down a president and highlighting only certain aspects of his presidency it brings their base together to make fun of his stupidity and hate of his policies. When the R's are making people fear a president it brings out the worst in a misinformed base.

My problem with what the R's are doing now, is not so much in the fact that they are playing politics, but in that they are creating a scared society. They are making it seem as if we are all going to die. "Death Panels" - or otherwise known as reasonable discussions about death. The "Apocalypse" - or otherwise known as the day after a large piece of legislation that we didn't agree with passed.

We need to find a way to tone down the fear, bring civil discourse back to our country. If yelling over someone at a town hall makes you an American, than we are in a bad place. Respect, honor, and integrity are what make this country great. We need to find a way back to where we can agree to disagree, we can compromise, and we can understand that BOTH sides play these stupid games - it is politics.

We are beginning to see this happen in the aftermath of the healthcare bill. The rhetoric of some on the right has pushed people to make threats to several House Democrats. According to an article I read on CNN at least 10 House Democrats have received threats; a brother of a House member from Virginia had a gas line cut after a local Tea Party website posted the address, thinking it was the House member's house, asking readers to drop by the address "to express thanks" for the healthcare bill, Democratic party offices in Rochester, NY and Wichita, KS have had windows broken by bricks.

I am not saying that both sides have not been guilty of this extreme rhetoric in the past but the right seems to have the market cornered on fear-mongering. The R's are not doing any favors by not distancing themselves from the Tea Party groups. In fact some House Repubs. seem to be feeding into this movement with some of their rhetoric, calling this bill Armageddon, a member of Congress yelling "baby killer" or "You Lie!" It is one thing to have a member of the general public say these things, it is another for a member of Congress to. By members of Congress saying these things, they are doing nothing but fanning the flames and are on the same level as O'Reilly, Beck and Limbaugh.

Instead of trying to actually improve this bill the R's are using stall tactics and trying to force the D's in the Senate to cast unpopular votes during this reconciliation process so the R's have fodder to place in future campaign ads. As I said in the "Health Care Bill" thread, the R's never had any intention of supporting healthcare reform, no matter what the bill would have contained. It was very telling when I heard Sen. Jim DeMint and RNC Chair Steele last July, saying that if they could kill HCR, it would be Obama's Waterloo.

[mgk920]

I agree completely. But don't you think that the multi-media society we live in today brings a certain amount of misinformation into the donnybrooks that are occurring? The misinformed outliers of both political parties use the media to flame the donnybrooks. So while I agree that the system was set up to encourage "division", society today is very different from when Burr took out Hamilton. The general public's ability to access (mis)information demands that we are more responsible about how we portray ourselves and others.

I don't have any links to examples handy, but in the late 18th century and throughout the 19th century, especially, the popular press of the day was just as nasty, 'mis-informing' and inflammatory as some of it is now and then some. I'd love to be able to spend some time digging out some of the juiciest examples just for the entertainment value.

Again, the situation of today doesn't hold a candle to some of what the USA had a century or two ago and especially in its earliest days.

As for some of the reported 'threats' and so forth, it just strikes me that a lot of that is being hyped and trumpeted up by the liberals and their compliant wing of the popular press solely to (at least try to) marginalize their opponents, make look bad and to head off a likely major wipeout in this upcoming fall's election cycle.

Mike

[rcgplanner]

As for some of the reported 'threats' and so forth, it just strikes me that a lot of that is being hyped and trumpeted up by the liberals and their compliant wing of the popular press solely to (at least try to) marginalize their opponents, make look bad and to head off a likely major wipeout in this upcoming fall's election cycle.

Ah yes, hyped by the "liberal media", like this story from foxnews.com about the FBI investigating these threats on Democratic House members.

[btrage]

I don't have any links to examples handy, but in the late 18th century and throughout the 19th century, especially, the popular press of the day was just as nasty, 'mis-informing' and inflammatory as some of it is now and then some. I'd love to be able to spend some time digging out some of the juiciest examples just for the entertainment value.

Again, the situation of today doesn't hold a candle to some of what the USA had a century or two ago and especially in its earliest days.

As for some of the reported 'threats' and so forth, it just strikes me that a lot of that is being hyped and trumpeted up by the liberals and their compliant wing of the popular press solely to (at least try to) marginalize their opponents, make look bad and to head off a likely major wipeout in this upcoming fall's election cycle.

Mike

I'm not really picking a political side in this discussion.

Just trying to point out that back 200 years ago, a very limited number of people had the ability to spread their message through the media, basically just the editors of newspapers or those who wrote editorials.

Today, just about everyone from the entire political spectrum can make comments and spread lies through the internet, which is where most people (good or bad) get their news. So it isn't just the popular press now - it's every blog, website, or anonymous crackpot who makes comments about an online newspaper article.

[mgk920]

Ah yes, hyped by the "liberal media", like this story from foxnews.com about the FBI investigating these threats on Democratic House members.

Note that I did not say "all", I said "a lot". A very large difference. It is one thing to 'report' news and let us, the unwashed masses, decide, it is a totally different thing to 'hype' and 'trumpet' it.

I'm not really picking a political side in this discussion.

Just trying to point out that back 200 years ago, a very limited number of people had the ability to spread their message through the media, basically just the editors of newspapers or those who wrote editorials.

Today, just about everyone from the entire political spectrum can make comments and spread lies through the internet, which is where most people (good or bad) get their news. So it isn't just the popular press now - it's every blog, website, or anonymous crackpot who makes comments about an online newspaper article.

Perhaps there is a bit too much of that 'free speeching' going on here, with lots of soapboxes all over to do that 'speeching' from. 'Soapbox' speeches were pretty popular in the old days.

Looks like the USA at its best, doesn't it?



Mike

[imaplanner]

Note that I did not say "all", I said "a lot". A very large difference. It is one thing to 'report' news and let us, the unwashed masses, decide, it is a totally different thing to 'hype' and 'trumpet' it.


Perhaps there is a bit too much of that 'free speeching' going on here, with lots of soapboxes all over to do that 'speeching' from. 'Soapbox' speeches were pretty popular in the old days.

Looks like the USA at its best, doesn't it?



Mike

That's what the media does though- isn't it. It reports on conflict and scandal. It blew out the Eric Massa stuff like it was the story of the decade- and now its doing it with the recent republican violence. Doesn't make eitehr of those things less troubling.

As far as the USA at its best- people saying what they want to yes. A minority claiming to speak for ALL Americans and refusing to accept the consequences of elections and throwing bricks through windows, threatening politicians lives and faxing pictures of nooses to black politicians? No- I would say that is not America at its best.

[btrage]

Note that I did not say "all", I said "a lot". A very large difference. It is one thing to 'report' news and let us, the unwashed masses, decide, it is a totally different thing to 'hype' and 'trumpet' it.


Perhaps there is a bit too much of that 'free speeching' going on here, with lots of soapboxes all over to do that 'speeching' from. 'Soapbox' speeches were pretty popular in the old days.

Looks like the USA at its best, doesn't it?



Mike

So are you arguing that the political process is better, now that we have a greater ability to spread our fee speech in complete anonymity?

[mgk920]

So are you arguing that the political process is better, now that we have a greater ability to spread our fee speech in complete anonymity?

How many people knew who wrote each Federalist Paper when they were first published?

Mike

[btrage]

How many people knew who wrote each Federalist Paper when they were first published?

Mike

Very few. But there's a big difference between the Federalist Papers and anonymous Internet babble. In a vacuum, they are the same. But we don't live in a vacuum and we certainly have a much different society than when the Papers were written.

Care to answer the question I posed to you above?

[TexanOkie]

The results of the poll mentioned in the following Daily Mail article offend my conservative Republican politics, my conservative Christian religious beliefs, and, most of all, my reason: "Almost a quarter of Republicans think Obama 'may be the Antichrist' as 14 states sue over healthcare reforms".

[CJC]

^Crazy. What is this "Harris Poll?" Same company that does the sports polling?

[mgk920]

Very few. But there's a big difference between the Federalist Papers and anonymous Internet babble. In a vacuum, they are the same. But we don't live in a vacuum and we certainly have a much different society than when the Papers were written.

Care to answer the question I posed to you above?

Many people are afraid to air their true opinions on many subjects - when others might know from whom those opinions originate. That is why, for example, we have laws that ensure that ballots in an election CANNOT be directly matched to the names that are checked off on the polling places' poll lists - the sacred secrecy and anonymity of the voting booth.

Mike

[TexanOkie]

^Crazy. What is this "Harris Poll?" Same company that does the sports polling?

Yes. It's the same organization. Apparently they're a full-service market research company. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/

[btrage]

Many people are afraid to air their true opinions on many subjects - when others might know from whom those opinions originate. That is why, for example, we have laws that ensure that ballots in an election CANNOT be directly matched to the names that are checked off on the polling places' poll lists - the sacred secrecy and anonymity of the voting booth.

Mike

Again, I agree. I'm not arguing there should be less anonymity. It's a bedrock of our country.

Hmmm....let me try and rephrase...

Would anyone agree with me that the nature of the Internet, the anonymity it can provide, and the so-called "journalism" that can be found in many places, has helped fuel the political anger that we are now experiencing?

And please, I know I'm a liberal, but I truly am not trying to make a political argument here. Rather, just an observation in general?

[Hink]

Again, I agree. I'm not arguing there should be less anonymity. It's a bedrock of our country.

Hmmm....let me try and rephrase...

Would anyone agree with me that the nature of the Internet, the anonymity it can provide, and the so-called "journalism" that can be found in many places, has helped fuel the political anger that we are now experiencing?

And please, I know I'm a liberal, but I truly am not trying to make a political argument here. Rather, just an observation in general?

I think that anonymity is fine, but because this world is so much better and faster at sharing information our founding documents can't keep up. In a world where you had to write a letter or send a messenger, misinformation was abundant, but slow. I would imagine the telephone game going on and making all kinds of normal things sound crazy - "Mr. Jones is going to buy a new parcel of land" to "Mr. Jones wants to kill our plan".

Today it isn't that there is less misinformation, just that it gets out quickly. Today MSNBC and FOX NEWS will have stories that are probably a quarter true. They will have people watch them and recite them to their friends and family as partially truth. These people will then blog/call/phone in/email/etc. that this information is true. This all happens in minutes. There is nothing more telling of this than Obama's place of birth. A rumor went out that he wasn't born in Hawaii. That rumor was ended when proof was shown, but the lie was already moving. People made up reasons why the answer was slow, or why it wasn't sufficient enough, "I heard that he wasn't first, so this answer must not be true...". The internet, 24hr news channels, and the waste of space talk radio hosts, have turned misinformation into money. If you don't air the report first, you lose. Nevermind whether the story has any merits or not.

Journalism is dead. Until we rid the nation of talk radio, 24 hr news, the telephone, and the internet it will never be like it was in 1778. There is no comparison. None.

Or we stop funding the fear mongers. Fine people who start rumors, continue lies, or spew hate. Although this would require regulation and we can't have that.

[wahday]

Would anyone agree with me that the nature of the Internet, the anonymity it can provide, and the so-called "journalism" that can be found in many places, has helped fuel the political anger that we are now experiencing?

I may have said this before somewhere, so my apologies in advance for repeating myself. Repeating myself.

Some years ago I visited the Experience Music Project in Seattle and they had a nice little video about hip hop there. At one point Chuck D is talking about the emergence of rap as a viable music form in the 1980's and made the observation that one of the remarkable things the form did was to tell the local neighborhood stories of inner city young people all over the country. You had people from Dallas, NYC, LA, and so on all painting a picture of their lives which was very insightful and something that had not reached the mainstream press in any way that spoke in the voice of these populations.

He goes on to say that this was an information revolution of sorts because so many otherwise disenfranchised people were developing a voice and venue for telling their story and experience. Democracy, of sorts.

But then he qualifies the democratic nature of all this by saying "just because you had a lot of people saying things, doesn't mean that everyone had something positive or worthwhile to say. A lot of people were spewing a lot of nothing, hate and other less than helpful attitudes" This is one of the aspects of forms like this - you slog through a lot of crap to find the genius' among us. But those genius' are only able to be noticed because the forum was opened to so many.

I think you can say a very similar thing about the interwebs, with their easy access and endless forums for saying, well, anything. We have to suffer a lot of crap and maybe downright evil-minded ideas to access the great kernels of wisdom and insight.

But I would agree with you that this can have the effect of fomenting ill feelings, misinformation, hate and so on. But maybe it is also working to build, connect, enlighten and engage in other arenas (like this one). Its a hard call and hard for me to wrap my brain around since, really, it is still so new and its potentials still being developed. But I would agree that the internet has been used to excite the ire and anger of folks who otherwise may have brooded alone and perhaps been less harmful. Again, though, the same could be said of others who are now engaged positively in their communities (whatever they may be) that otherwise would have stood on the sideline.

[btrage]

But I would agree with you that this can have the effect of fomenting ill feelings, misinformation, hate and so on. But maybe it is also working to build, connect, enlighten and engage in other arenas (like this one). Its a hard call and hard for me to wrap my brain around since, really, it is still so new and its potentials still being developed. But I would agree that the internet has been used to excite the ire and anger of folks who otherwise may have brooded alone and perhaps been less harmful. Again, though, the same could be said of others who are now engaged positively in their communities (whatever they may be) that otherwise would have stood on the sideline.

Well said wahday.

Being relatively new, perhaps it will take a while for people to learn how to trudge through all things the Interwebs spews forth.

[imaplanner]

Well said wahday.

Being relatively new, perhaps it will take a while for people to learn how to trudge through all things the Interwebs spews forth.

It's interesting. Many other countries have much stricter regulations on what constitutes hate speech and incitement. So much so that some of the key players like Glen Beck, Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, etc would possibly be breaking the law. I wonder if eventually we are going to have to head in that direction as well? I would prefer not (and of course there are some serious constitutional issues there) but political incitement on the interwebs is becoming a more and more serious issue.

The results of the poll mentioned in the following Daily Mail article offend my conservative Republican politics, my conservative Christian religious beliefs, and, most of all, my reason: "Almost a quarter of Republicans think Obama 'may be the Antichrist' as 14 states sue over healthcare reforms".

That kind of goes along with my thinking that overall the republican party has become dominated by wingnuts. Over 50 percent of republicans think he is secretly a muslim and wasn't born in this country?

There really needs to be a new third party- for fiscally conservative, socially liberal, intelligent Americans. The democrats have no principles, the republicans are fanatical wingnuts. Where do the rest of us go?

[fringe]

"... The democrats have no principles, the republicans are fanatical wingnuts. Where do the rest of us go?..."

In Y2K Ralph Nader offered a choice. THen, and since, however, the sham "debates" will not allow any other voices on those fora, not even the wingnuts like Libertarians.

Corporations have taken over the Republicrat Party and we, like China, now live under autocratic "capitalism".

[Marine Corps Planner]

As a side note here at MCAS Iwakuni a good portion of the Marines; the younger Marines, the African American Marines, the Latino American Marines and the Mexican Nationals who serve in our Marine Corps are by far Obama Fans. So the myth that the Republican Party owns the military vote simply is not true.

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Many people are afraid to air their true opinions on many subjects - when others might know from whom those opinions originate. .......

Or why GOP elected officials try to say they favor states rights and are strict constitutionalists rather than admitting they are racists.

[TexanOkie]

"... The democrats have no principles, the republicans are fanatical wingnuts. Where do the rest of us go?..."

In Y2K Ralph Nader offered a choice. THen, and since, however, the sham "debates" will not allow any other voices on those fora, not even the wingnuts like Libertarians.

Corporations have taken over the Republicrat Party and we, like China, now live under autocratic "capitalism".

I don't believe Ralph Nader offered a choice for the political demographic imaplanner described (fiscal conservative, social liberal). Also, I think it's a relatively safe bet that corporations and at times independent and non-profit organizations, be it religious groups, labor unions, and special interest groups, have taken over both parties (obviously with differing interests) and brought us into some form of corporatist political-economic-social system.

At the same time, I don't really see how the present situation could have been avoided, or that it ever has been save during the Revolution. Well, no, even then...

Or why GOP elected officials try to say they favor states rights and are strict constitutionalists rather than admitting they are racists.

Claims that favoring federalism and a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution either equates to or is a diversion from racism are subjective and highly conditional.

[Veloise]

Since it's now midnight in Newfoundland, April Fool's Day is over...and here's a link I wanted to share.

Photos of Tea Party protesters and their atrociously bad signs
starting with one of the best.

[Hink]

I think the defending of tea party actions will only get stronger. If the R's don't start to get away from the wack-jobs they will pay for it in November.

I think that the R's will probably gain some seats in the House and Senate, but if they continue to work off the Repeal platform they are going to win a lot less. They also need to be more aware of what the truth is, because as the tea parties skewed vision of reality continues to blur what is actually happening, R's need to keep out of the lies and heated rhetoric.

[btrage]

Again, I agree. I'm not arguing there should be less anonymity. It's a bedrock of our country.

Hmmm....let me try and rephrase...

Would anyone agree with me that the nature of the Internet, the anonymity it can provide, and the so-called "journalism" that can be found in many places, has helped fuel the political anger that we are now experiencing?

And please, I know I'm a liberal, but I truly am not trying to make a political argument here. Rather, just an observation in general?

Interesting editorial from the Detroit Free Press on this very topic.

http://www.freep.com/article/2010040...nymous-vitriol