• If you're returning to Cyburbia, your old password should still work with your username. If you can't remember your password, you can reset it here. If your email changed, or you can't get into your account, follow these instructions.

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

fringe

Cyburbian
Messages
634
Points
18
"...Conservatives need to start asking yourselves weather you want a competent defense now that the bills are coming do, or you won't be able to defend yourselves at all..."

To me the biggest irony of all this defense spending is that none of our military efforts are effective against small groups of fanatics armed with box-cutters, shoe-bombs, underwear bombs, and suicide vests.

What needs to change is our foreign policies. We will not be able to kill off everyone who doesn't like our policies.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
16,441
Points
59
What needs to change is our foreign policies. We will not be able to kill off everyone who doesn't like our policies.

I would argue that our foreign policy has changed since Obama was in power. I don't like many of his policies, but I do like that he is willing to have diplomatic relations with people. Bush carried a stick, Obama walks softly. Hopefully, we will see Obama keep diplomacy moving forward and if needed use the stick (i.e. at Iran, N.Korea). I think the way our foreign policy was structured the last eight years, we will be having a much longer time to fix all the hate the U.S. (I believe deservedly...does that make me unAmerican? :r: ) has garnered.
 

imaplanner

Cyburbian
Messages
6,672
Points
28
I think Obama is doing more to destroy the progressive cause than Bush and Rove ever did or could have hoped for.
 

TexanOkie

Cyburbian
Messages
2,903
Points
20
After having watched the televised GOP primary debates for the Texas gubernatorial election this year, I've got to admit I'm more than slightly embarrassed... I don't want to vote for any of them. I'm embarrassed for the state of Texas. The thing is, I'd just more likely want to vote for them than their Democratic counterparts when the general election arrives (although I'm open to Bill White if he wins the Dem primary and makes some concessions in his platform during the general election campaign).

At least in national elections I vote for lessers of evils where I can at least respect one of the candidates (but usually I'm not truly embarrassed by any of them).
 

hilldweller

Cyburbian
Messages
3,863
Points
23
I think Obama is doing more to destroy the progressive cause than Bush and Rove ever did or could have hoped for.

By reaching too far with health care reform? Other than health care I don't really think Obama has really put forward that much of a progressive agenda. I suppose you could argue that the stimulus spending had some ideologically progressive/liberal ambitions, but when you look at the big picture it was really about all about jobs with a major focus on infrastructure. A lot of people on the right are decrying the stimulus spending but I don't think you could say the idea of the stimulus in itself was a progressive one since Bush passed the first stimulus and everybody on both sides of the aisle pretty much supported it. I guess I'd like to hear your reasons why you think Obama is hurting the progressive cause..
 

imaplanner

Cyburbian
Messages
6,672
Points
28
By reaching too far with health care reform? Other than health care I don't really think Obama has really put forward that much of a progressive agenda. I suppose you could argue that the stimulus spending had some ideologically progressive/liberal ambitions, but when you look at the big picture it was really about all about jobs with a major focus on infrastructure. A lot of people on the right are decrying the stimulus spending but I don't think you could say the idea of the stimulus in itself was a progressive one since Bush passed the first stimulus and everybody on both sides of the aisle pretty much supported it. I guess I'd like to hear your reasons why you think Obama is hurting the progressive cause..

No - I'm saying the opposite of what you think I am saying. He's destroying the movement by not being progressive. He's governing as a moderate republican with terrible ideas while simultaneously allowing republicans to convince the populace that he is too liberal. And at the same time he is frustrating and seriously turning off the younger generation from political involvement - because they worked so hard to elect him because he campaigned on progressive issues and then he instantly turned around and became conservative and refused to do anything that he said he would do. Thanks for working so hard to get me elected now screw u and while I sell you out to corporations.

The biggest example is of course the health care bill (although there are plenty of other examples). The bill he's trying to ram through is hardly progressive- it's to the right of Nixon's platform for chrisakes. He sold out the public to insurance companies and has been actively trying to get congress to pass an unpopular health care bill that only benefits the insurance companies. Polls show people overwhelmingly support a public option but they hate the bill that he's trying to ram through (because its a damn awful bill). Most people know about his backroom deal with big pharma that hurts Americans, but now it looks like he also made a backroom deal with insurance companies that there would be no public option.
 

TexanOkie

Cyburbian
Messages
2,903
Points
20
Well, the Texas governor's race is official: Rick Perry for the GOP and Bill White for the Democrats. I have never voted for Rick Perry, and I'm pretty sure I won't this year either. In the last governor's election, I voted for the Libertarian candidate. This year, however, the Texas Democratic Party has put forward a fiscally conservative, socially moderate, and pragmatic (as opposed to ideological; also, not in the sense that President Obama is considered "pragmatic", either, because, let's face it, despite his intention to be, thus far in his administration he's not been such, regardless of different political groups' analysis as to why) candidate in Bill White, so there's a good chance I'll vote "D" for a major political candidate for the first time ever this November.

Also, while I hope Perry's campaign - which so far has been about nothing related to state government except for arcane, inane, and at times insane statements about the nature of federalism in this country - starts actually addressing actual issues, his victory speech last night appeared to say no, it won't. Bill White's victory speech, in my opinion, hammered this fact and completely burned Perry. Unfortunately, Perry's campaign tactics will probably win him the election because most Texans are too dumb to: (1) look past the "R" or "D" next to a candidate's name on a ballot sheet; and (2) understand that there's a difference between state and national politics and government that is not a deeply flawed idea of about who trumps who and how.

Bill White's Victory Speech Audio: http://www.texastribune.org/audio/2010/mar/02/audio-bill-white-victory-speech/
Rick Perry's Victory Speech Audio: http://www.texastribune.org/audio/2010/mar/02/audio-rick-perry-victory-speech/
 

imaplanner

Cyburbian
Messages
6,672
Points
28
Well, the Texas governor's race is official: Rick Perry for the GOP and Bill White for the Democrats. I have never voted for Rick Perry, and I'm pretty sure I won't this year either. In the last governor's election, I voted for the Libertarian candidate. This year, however, the Texas Democratic Party has put forward a fiscally conservative, socially moderate, and pragmatic (as opposed to ideological; also, not in the sense that President Obama is considered "pragmatic", either, because, let's face it, despite his intention to be, thus far in his administration he's not been such, regardless of different political groups' analysis as to why) candidate in Bill White, so there's a good chance I'll vote "D" for a major political candidate for the first time ever this November.

Also, while I hope Perry's campaign - which so far has been about nothing related to state government except for arcane, inane, and at times insane statements about the nature of federalism in this country - starts actually addressing actual issues, his victory speech last night appeared to say no, it won't. Bill White's victory speech, in my opinion, hammered this fact and completely burned Perry. Unfortunately, Perry's campaign tactics will probably win him the election because most Texans are too dumb to: (1) look past the "R" or "D" next to a candidate's name on a ballot sheet; and (2) understand that there's a difference between state and national politics and government that is not a deeply flawed idea of about who trumps who and how.

Bill White's Victory Speech Audio: http://www.texastribune.org/audio/2010/mar/02/audio-bill-white-victory-speech/
Rick Perry's Victory Speech Audio: http://www.texastribune.org/audio/2010/mar/02/audio-rick-perry-victory-speech/


Perry's being mentioned as a potential 2012 presidential candidate? Isn't this the guy who made some statements about suceeding from the US? The patriotism of some Americans is really quite odd.
 

TexanOkie

Cyburbian
Messages
2,903
Points
20
Perry's being mentioned as a potential 2012 presidential candidate? Isn't this the guy who made some statements about suceeding from the US? The patriotism of some Americans is really quite odd.

Perry won't make it past the primaries if he is a presidential candidate. Unlike his predecessor, George W. Bush, Perry doesn't have much of any successful endeavors he can boast under his governorship. W was actually a decent, if not good, governor. Too bad the skills and successes he had here didn't translate to the Federal arena. I can imagine most liberals outside Texas (and those in Texas who can't remember the 1990s) won't believe this about Bush. Well, either that, or draw some negative conclusion about Texas and Texans as a result.
 

Suburb Repairman

moderator in moderation
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
7,453
Points
36
Well, the Texas governor's race is official: Rick Perry for the GOP and Bill White for the Democrats. I have never voted for Rick Perry, and I'm pretty sure I won't this year either. In the last governor's election, I voted for the Libertarian candidate. This year, however, the Texas Democratic Party has put forward a fiscally conservative, socially moderate, and pragmatic (as opposed to ideological; also, not in the sense that President Obama is considered "pragmatic", either, because, let's face it, despite his intention to be, thus far in his administration he's not been such, regardless of different political groups' analysis as to why) candidate in Bill White, so there's a good chance I'll vote "D" for a major political candidate for the first time ever this November.

Also, while I hope Perry's campaign - which so far has been about nothing related to state government except for arcane, inane, and at times insane statements about the nature of federalism in this country - starts actually addressing actual issues, his victory speech last night appeared to say no, it won't. Bill White's victory speech, in my opinion, hammered this fact and completely burned Perry. Unfortunately, Perry's campaign tactics will probably win him the election because most Texans are too dumb to: (1) look past the "R" or "D" next to a candidate's name on a ballot sheet; and (2) understand that there's a difference between state and national politics and government that is not a deeply flawed idea of about who trumps who and how.

Bill White's Victory Speech Audio: http://www.texastribune.org/audio/2010/mar/02/audio-bill-white-victory-speech/
Rick Perry's Victory Speech Audio: http://www.texastribune.org/audio/2010/mar/02/audio-rick-perry-victory-speech/

Glad to hear that you are willing to pull a lever for White despite him being on the democratic ticket. White is an excellent, well-qualified candidate that is proof that no one party has the market cornered on fiscal responsibility. Several folks around Houston refer to his mayoral period as a golden age for them due to his ability to get things accomplished and bring together groups that had historically opposed each other. Like you though, I'm very concerned about the intellect of the average Texas voter and the likelihood of Perry painting White with the national politics paintbrush rather than focusing on the real issues of our state. I hate that our governor has no understanding of the U.S. Constitution or Texas Constitution. Also, the statements he has been making about the 10th amendment in his ads make me very uncomfortable--they are very similar to arguments made in southern states just before the Civil War.

I'm pretty sure you and I have already had a discussion about the quality of Bush's governorship and decided to agree to disagree, so I'll let that sleeping dog lie.:a:

imaplanner: don't worry too much about him being a Presidential candidate. He would last about five seconds in a primary. I also don't think he could withstand the digging that would occur during vetting for a national race--the dude has plenty of skeletons to play with.
 
Last edited:

TexanOkie

Cyburbian
Messages
2,903
Points
20
The patriotism of some Americans is really quite odd.

Perry isn't so much an American patriot so much as he is a Texan patriot. That is why I could never be a "true Texan" (as would be said is some circles down here) - I love the United States more than I love this state, and my allegiance and loyalties lie with country as a whole, for better or worse.

That being said, I do (deep down) have a soft spot for this place and I definitely admire it's creed of rugged individualism (once upon a time the creed was actually played out, even... oh well).
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
16,441
Points
59
Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin on late night talk shows.... Palin attempts humor and Romney still tries to pretend that he is not seriously ready to consider if he is going to run or not. After 2010 elections he will know... really?

Politicians on late night talk shows seems odd to me. I do somewhat like it, in that it shows they have some sense of humor or wit, but at least in these cases, both came off as odd, and less attractive politically to me. Maybe it is because I think both are pretty fake people and only put on faces...
 

CJC

Cyburbian
Messages
1,688
Points
19
^Depends on the show for me. I always look forward to politicians on the Daily Show, especially folks like Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. I think it often results in some really good debate, and while I may not agree with most of what Paul or Huckabee have to say, I certainly respect them and am always curious to hear their views and opinions.
 

imaplanner

Cyburbian
Messages
6,672
Points
28
Excellent article in newsweek about why the country is unable to deal with anything other than short term political BS
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
16,441
Points
59
^Depends on the show for me. I always look forward to politicians on the Daily Show, especially folks like Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. I think it often results in some really good debate, and while I may not agree with most of what Paul or Huckabee have to say, I certainly respect them and am always curious to hear their views and opinions.

I don't really consider the Daily show or Colbert late night tv. I think of it as it's own unique section of programing I guess. Although Jon Stewart was rated the must trusted news anchor, I still don't think Comedy Central is mainstream to most people.

Leno and Letterman have to toe the line in terms of politics, Jon Stewart attacks it. Colbert goes beyond it.

I think that if Al Gore was more like 2002 Al Gore and less like 1999 Al Gore he might have won. Only after he lost did he show that he had a personality (SNL, Leno, Letterman, etc.).
 

TexanOkie

Cyburbian
Messages
2,903
Points
20
This is going to seem random.

I believe that, if the ideal candidate was in each position, here's how my voting tendencies would lie:

Federal elections - libertarian-conservative
State elections - moderate-conservative, yet still okay with granting local governments pretty broad powers (not mandating things, but allowing them)
Local elections - liberal-progressive

I guess I wanted to post this so that Cyburbians would know that I'm not against liberal or progressive ideologies. I strive in my own personal life to fight for social justice for those less fortunate than I am (my religious convictions play a large role in this). And I'm a planner, so I'm fairly certain my views on the built environment are not in line with traditional libertarian-type philosophies I espouse at the national level, but I do want progressive development policies to be tempered by market capitalism, personal liberty, and pragmatism. All of this stems from an idea that progressive ideas work best when adopted locally, and that proper interpretations of Constitutional federalism require many of them to be at the state and local level and not at the federal level.

Anywho, just a short expose about my political leanings. I'm sure it'll serve no purpose, and I'm not trying to argue any points of my political philosophy.

In other news, I hate the words "nullify" and "nullification". I think they're retarded. Blast you, Texas GOP and your good ol' boy candidates constantly barking at me...
 

imaplanner

Cyburbian
Messages
6,672
Points
28
So now that HCR passed republicans in the senate are refusing to do anything for the rest of the year? Including invoking a little used senate clause to slose the senate at 2pm? Combined with increasing violence against democratic senators that the GOP seems to be encouraging - what the heck is going on? I just can't see how this is a winning strategy for them. Has a major political party ever been so childish?
 

Bubba

Cyburbian
Messages
5,908
Points
47
...increasing violence against democratic senators that the GOP seems to be encouraging...

Is that just your opinion (that the GOP is encouraging violence against Democratic congress members), or is there anything concrete to back that up? Honest question - I'm barely paying any attention to the health care bill...seems like actual Republican Party encouragement of such stuff would be a case of shooting themselves in the foot (not that either party is immune to doing that over and over).
 

imaplanner

Cyburbian
Messages
6,672
Points
28
Is that just your opinion (that the GOP is encouraging violence against Democratic congress members), or is there anything concrete to back that up? Honest question - I'm barely paying any attention to the health care bill...seems like actual Republican Party encouragement of such stuff would be a case of shooting themselves in the foot (not that either party is immune to doing that over and over).

Well yeah - that's why I said "seems to be". They are certainly firing up the crazies- by saying things like "This is Armagedden". "This is worse than 9-11". "The democrats are a bigger threat to freedom loving Americans than Al Qaeda!". Palin says we should take them all out and put pictures of top dems with crosshairs on them on her website.

With the exception of some minor statements the other day from Steele and Boner, I haven't seen any republicans denounce the rhetoric and violence that's been happening. Tom Periello's brothers house was just vandalized. Democratic lawmakers have had offices vandalized. And republicans are out there whipping these groups up.

That's probably all subjective. But I guess my main point was about the senate republicans refusing now to allow any further senate business to happen - supposedly until the end of the term (according to old man McCain). They shut down the senate all day today. How is that going to help them politically? It seems like they are aligning themselves with the crazies. Perhapos they are making a political calculation that there's alot of crazies out there?
 

mgk920

Cyburbian
Messages
4,201
Points
26
No mainstream political party will EVER advocate anything like what is written about a couple of post above. Yes, I do wish ill towards most of the 'D's - in their next upcoming election. I *don't* want them destroyed, I want them defeated. I will be vigorously campaigning against USSenator Russ Feingold and USHouse Rep. Steve Kagen this fall in my strong desire, among other things, that even if the recently-passed 'health' bill isn't or can't be repealed, that it can be substantially modified to remove its worst aspects and to at least try to make it into a decent, sustainable law.

Unlike many on the left, I do not blindly and constantly go name-calling and making ad-hominum attacks, nor go out purposely misspelling names of people nor organizations in my writings (I personally do not say things 'PMSNBC', 'Osama Obama', etc, and I challenge all of the liberals in Cyburbialand to do likewise.). I like working and winning in the arena of public opinion, where I firmly believe that I am ultimately on the winning side.

Right now, the press corps is out trolling for ANYTHING that will make the conservatives look bad while ignoring (or at last trying to ignore) anything that could possibly blemish the left and especially our current administration - and I can see right through them.

Mike
 

imaplanner

Cyburbian
Messages
6,672
Points
28
No mainstream political party will EVER advocate anything like what is written about a couple of post above.

I guess the GOP isn't a mainstream political party anymore then? I would agree with you on that front.

Unlike many on the left, I do not blindly and constantly go name-calling and making ad-hominum attacks, nor go out purposely misspelling names of people nor organizations in my writings (I personally do not say things 'PMSNBC', 'Osama Obama', etc, and I challenge all of the liberals in Cyburbialand to do likewise.). I like working and winning in the arena of public opinion, where I firmly believe that I am ultimately on the winning side.

Agreed. Other than some poor taste usage of Obama's middle name or your determination to call him either "the messiah" or "the nameless one" I guess.

But just because some liberal type people on here do it doesn't mean the left does it. Take a peek over at any remotely right wing forum lately and see what kind of ad-hominem attacks are being used. Don't pretend like its just the left that does it.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
16,441
Points
59
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.
 

mgk920

Cyburbian
Messages
4,201
Points
26
Remember that the USA's system was set up at the very beginning to be divided, with many checks and balances from different branches with the intent that they be hostile towards each other. Two hostile-towards-each-other branches of Congress, hostile to/from the executive branch and hostile to/from the judicial branch - and then there are all of those pesky semi-sovereign states. The very WORST thing would be for all of them to be in agreement - because then we *WILL* have tyranny.

Donnybrook arguments are the USA's system AT ITS BEST and the level of discord we are seeing now is not at all unusual and is in fact quite MILD when compared with the 230+ years of USA history. For example, recall that Alexander Hamilton (the guy on the $10 note) died in a shooting dual with a political rival (Aaron Burr).

:-c

Mike
 

btrage

Cyburbian
Messages
6,427
Points
27
Remember that the USA's system was set up at the very beginning to be divided, with many checks and balances from different branches with the intent that they be hostile towards each other. Two hostile-towards-each-other branches of Congress, hostile to/from the executive branch and hostile to/from the judicial branch - and then there are all of those pesky semi-sovereign states. The very WORST thing would be for all of them to be in agreement - because then we *WILL* have tyranny.

Donnybrook arguments are the USA's system AT ITS BEST and the level of discord we are seeing now is not at all unusual and is in fact quite MILD when compared with the 230+ years of USA history. For example, recall that Alexander Hamilton (the guy on the $10 note) died in a shooting dual with a political rival (Aaron Burr).

:-c

Mike

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.
 

rcgplanner

Cyburbian
Messages
1,730
Points
20
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

Cyburbian
Messages
4,201
Points
26
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

Cyburbian
Messages
1,730
Points
20
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

Cyburbian
Messages
6,427
Points
27
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

Cyburbian
Messages
4,201
Points
26
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

Cyburbian
Messages
6,672
Points
28
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

Cyburbian
Messages
6,427
Points
27
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

Cyburbian
Messages
4,201
Points
26
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

Cyburbian
Messages
6,427
Points
27
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?
 

CJC

Cyburbian
Messages
1,688
Points
19
^Crazy. What is this "Harris Poll?" Same company that does the sports polling?
 

mgk920

Cyburbian
Messages
4,201
Points
26
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
 

btrage

Cyburbian
Messages
6,427
Points
27
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

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
16,441
Points
59
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. :r:
 

wahday

Cyburbian
Messages
3,959
Points
23
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

Cyburbian
Messages
6,427
Points
27
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

Cyburbian
Messages
6,672
Points
28
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?
 
Last edited:

fringe

Cyburbian
Messages
634
Points
18
"... 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".
 

Nero

Member
Messages
248
Points
10
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

Cyburbian
Messages
2,699
Points
24
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

Cyburbian
Messages
2,903
Points
20
"... 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
16,441
Points
59
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

Cyburbian
Messages
6,427
Points
27
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/20100402/OPINION05/4020321/1322/Cut-off-anonymous-vitriol
 
Top