An open letter to the political posters

[Lilith** 0]

It all started you know, back when I said that the former pope should go to hell...

so was that bad??

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Meant to say that I have NEVER LOST as political discussion here.

Of course, you never had one in the first place.

So incredibly well said it is as if this person read my own thoughts. I have been reading these types of posts all along, but have never responded for this very reason. I have come to notice, however, that there is something of a pattern of the types of items/statements/articles and such posted for discussion and the persons associated with them. Which then provides reason for one to derive the stance that said persons believe or feel on particular issues. I have come to also realize that the sole intent for such conversations is to rile the masses for the poster's amusement. Our job, then, is to refrain from supplying fodder.

I don't know. I sometimes wonder if our reluctance to debate political issues lest we offend someone isn't, at least in part, responsible for the sorry state of politics today. We have elevated feelings above principles.

My sentiments exactly.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It all started you know, back when I said that the former pope should go to hell...

so was that bad??

It was at the time. The guy had just died.

Edited May 13, 2006 by Fishdude

[Lilith** 0]

It all started you know, back when I said that the former pope should go to hell...

so was that bad??

It was at the time. The guy had just died.

well........what the heck.....he probably did.......

[almaty 19]

Meant to say that I have NEVER LOST as political discussion here.

Of course, you never had one in the first place.

So incredibly well said it is as if this person read my own thoughts. I have been reading these types of posts all along, but have never responded for this very reason. I have come to notice, however, that there is something of a pattern of the types of items/statements/articles and such posted for discussion and the persons associated with them. Which then provides reason for one to derive the stance that said persons believe or feel on particular issues. I have come to also realize that the sole intent for such conversations is to rile the masses for the poster's amusement. Our job, then, is to refrain from supplying fodder.

I don't know. I sometimes wonder if our reluctance to debate political issues lest we offend someone isn't, at least in part, responsible for the sorry state of politics today. We have elevated feelings above principles.

My sentiments exactly.

pwned fox

It all started you know, back when I said that the former pope should go to hell...

so was that bad??

It was at the time. The guy had just died.

well........what the heck.....he probably did.......

.

[dalegg 143]

i am personally sick of the labels...

Shut up, liberal.

(j/k)

It's "progressive" now.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

i am personally sick of the labels...

Shut up, liberal.

(j/k)

It's "progressive" now.

Are you going PC on us?

[Fischkoepfin 1]

i am personally sick of the labels...

Shut up, liberal.

(j/k)

It's "progressive" now.

There's actually a huge difference between liberals and progressives about as big between the difference between conservative and liberal. And you wouldn't like it if someone called you liberal, would you.

[Artegal 1]

I would like the label "Situational." Depending on the situation I am either Liberal, Conservative, Progressive, Religious, Atheists, a Social-Democrat, or a Fiscal-Conservative.

I think this label fits for just about anyone.

For example given the exposure that the NSA was collecting all the telephone numbers that everyone dials etc. Republicans and Democrats that were secretly briefed many many months earlier on this program now given the situation had gone public--suddenly showed public outrage at the spying on American Citizens.

[dalegg 143]

i am personally sick of the labels...

Shut up, liberal.

(j/k)

It's "progressive" now.

There's actually a huge difference between liberals and progressives about as big between the difference between conservative and liberal. And you wouldn't like it if someone called you liberal, would you.

What? Get out! I totally thought they were the same thing. I have heard on our Left wing radio station out here the radio station calling itself "Progressive Radio for Southern California" and the talk hosts specifically referring to themselves as liberal. What's the difference between a liberal and a progressive?

Why would I care if someone called me a liberal?

Edited May 13, 2006 by dalegg

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i am personally sick of the labels...

Shut up, liberal.

(j/k)

It's "progressive" now.

There's actually a huge difference between liberals and progressives about as big between the difference between conservative and liberal. And you wouldn't like it if someone called you liberal, would you.

What? Get out! I totally thought they were the same thing. I have heard on our Left wing radio station out here the radio station calling itself "Progressive Radio for Southern California" and the talk hosts specifically referring to themselves as liberal. What's the difference between a liberal and a progressive?

Why would I care if someone called me a liberal?

Progressivism and Social Liberalism

Vs.

Classical Liberalism

These definitions might be more familiar however:

Neoliberalism

Neoconservatism

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why would I care if someone called me a liberal?

Because you might not be a liberal? Who wants to be misrepresented as something they aren't?

Labelling is a means by which people can avoid dealing with issues or views that demand critical thought. If, for example, you have strong preconceived views that 'liberalism' (such as your conception of it might be) is ruining America, for instance, applying a political label to a person or set of ideas is a means of avoiding dealing with them, or allowing them to enter into your train of thought.

What I find unbelievable is that some people will defend preconceived ideas even if they are presented with specific proof or evidence that what they think just might not be the case. They don't even deal with what is presented to them - because its infinitely easier to attack the messenger for their ideas and perceived political stance than it is to have to challenge what you hold to be true.

In other words politics is a personal issue - I believe there was a story in the news about that some time ago. Politics triggers violent emotional responses in a lot of people, or some such.

well........what the heck.....he probably did.......

Not that this one's much of an improvement

[antone 0]

It was at the time. The guy had just died.

Hee! I remember that. It got burned on my mind - they elected Jo Ratz while I was in a Heathrow hotel awaiting my K1 flight.

You were pariah of the week

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It was at the time. The guy had just died.

Hee! I remember that. It got burned on my mind - they elected Jo Ratz while I was in a Heathrow hotel awaiting my K1 flight.

You were pariah of the week

It bugged me that people were so cut up about his death, when the man wasn't all that sympathetic to begin with.

[antone 0]

My sentiments exactly.

Yup. I get sick of the whole US "We can't talk politics in polite company" thing. Would they rather talk politics in rude company? Or perhaps just avoid the subject, and elect a moron as president?