<p>Idmom, perhaps my question is explained better in the original post, but its pretty close to what youve said. I hope it did not offend you it was just an observation Ive made based on several previous threads. Thank you for your response, its fair enough and I do find it interesting.</p>
<p>I would say that I agree very much with Idmom. I’m a republican who voted for Bush twice and thinks he’s still the best of the available alternatives. With the caveat that I didn’t vote for him in the primaries and he wasn’t my first choice. I have always been opposed to the Iraq war but have, at the same time, always hoped that the reasons therefor would someday become clear to me. They have not. I don’t have a candidate yet in this election and heaven only knows where my support will go because I sure don’t. I like TheDad and have always had nice conversations with him about politics and other things. We agree on some issues political and disagree on others, but he’s never taken me to task for something I didn’t say, which I appreciate. What I can say is that I, personally, see red when someone attacks me for something that I neither said nor intended. There are a couple of posters who have done that but, again, it doesn’t happen that much anymore and the poster to whom I’m specifically referring will usually stop when called out. That same poster is also kind and funny on other topics, so there is great balance. Kluge has shown that two people can disagree and one can even legitimately take another to task for something and then graciously accept an apology and move on from there. I think that is an admirable quality. I also think that people post for different reasons and sometimes those clash. I often post just to “chat” and took a while to learn that some posters with whom I both agree and disagree take their postings much more seriously and are looking to score points, to win as if in a debate, or to change minds. I’m not interested in that.</p>
<p>The only things that work for me are:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Having a short list of people that just hack me off, and NEVER responding to their posts no matter what.</p></li>
<li><p>When I say what I have to say in a thread, I stop posting. In 11 years of participating in online discussion boards (first Usenet, and now on the Web) I’ve learned that you cannot win an argument. No one votes, no one gets elected, and oh so rarely does someone change their position. </p></li>
<li><p>Use real facts whenever possible. Anyone can have an opinion, but facts are unique.</p></li>
<li><p>Don’t call people names. Don’t suggest that they are personally stupid or otherwise of lesser value just because they disagree with you (even if they are stupid or of lesser value). I’m not above a snarky comment or two about a position someone takes, but I try very hard not to make personal attacks.</p></li>
<li><p>It’s entertainment, not a heart attack. Don’t forget that.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I would support a BOP (Ban On Politics), but that’s only because after earning a degree in Political Science I am pretty much a lifetime burnout case on political arguing. This leads to WashDad’s first rule of political discussion:</p>
<p>No political disagreement can ever be fully resolved because no problem worth discussing has an easy answer.</p>
<p>Idmom:</p>
<p>yes, when NBC first did their colorized state version back in the dark ages ('70s?), the coasts were the typically the red states and the center of the country more blue. Tom Brokaw even commented about it during the last election cycle, but I don’t recall if he said how/why the colors were reversed, however.</p>
<p>From Post 39 if you are concerned that the posters are allowed to lie, I am afraid that your complaint does not belong here</p>
<p>I think a discussion of people lying for partisan purposes belongs on a thread entitled, “does partisanship come in the way of principles.” If I may, why is you dont think a discussion of people lying for partisan purposes belongs here?</p>
<p>From post 39 . However, if the mods choose to designate you the board lie consultant, all posters would be obliged to comply with your opinion.</p>
<p>I would be very much opposed to appointing me to anything and did not suggest or implied it. Since I didnt bring the idea of designating me anything, if I may ask, why did you bring it up?</p>
<p>
I can relate to that. After I moved from a dark blue community here in “blue” California to a decidedly “Red” suburb, I became significantly more liberal in my views. Lock me in a room full of Berkeleyites and I’d probably come out voting for McCain.</p>
<p>But it’s possible to surround yourself with like-thinkers wherever you are - red state, blue state - no difference, particularly if “where you are” is “on the internet.” That’s why I don’t read blogs. It’s too easy to get pounded into a lockstep mindset. I get a kick out of “dittoheads” calling themselves “dittoheads” - talk about unconscious self-disclosure!</p>
<p>“But it’s possible to surround yourself with like-thinkers wherever you are - red state, blue state - no difference, particularly if “where you are” is “on the internet.” That’s why I don’t read blogs. It’s too easy to get pounded into a lockstep mindset.”</p>
<p>That is a very valid point. As I’ve posted repeatedly, gay marriage is a very important issue to me, but I’ve yet to find a conservative blogger who supports gay marriage other than Andrew Sullivan, whom I like very much, but with whom I have a personal issue.</p>
<p>Tommybill, I am sorry you missed my point. To reiterate, the accusation of a lie coming form a poster is usually subjective and, therefore, not credible, unless it is established by a plausible and independent source. But never mind, you can have the last word, I won’t challenge you any more.</p>
<p>Re posts 36 and 44 </p>
<p>This is the story that was going around right after election night 2004. I can only tell story I cant verify it. </p>
<p>In the past the Republicans have always had the Democrats colored red, as in communist. This always rankled the Democrats and pleased the Republicans. Getting ready for the 2004 election coverage a D graphic artist at ABC knowing exactly what he was doing just switched the colors. The R went nuts and complained loud and long. When ask by ABC management what is the problem the Rs said, because red is the color of the communists. ABC management said ok to be fair since the Ds were red last time youll be red this time. The other networks followed suit. Such a big deal has been made of it people now associate the Rs with red and the Ds with blue, and because of this public association with the colors there doesnt seem to be any plans to switch back.</p>
<p>
I don’t completely agree that it’s possible to surround oneself with like-minded people, regardless of where one lives. For example, we subscribe to the Boston Globe, a very liberal newspaper – it’s pretty much the only major paper in our area. Also, given where we live, most of the other media outlets tend to be liberal. </p>
<p>The only source of any conservative point of view around here is the internet, and I tend to stick to realclearpolitics.com for it’s wide-ranging points of view. I don’t subscribe or participate in any other internet communities, so CC is the only place where I discuss political issues. I think that participating in political discussions on CC has polarized my views – I’d probably be less adamant in certain beliefs otherwise. So maybe I’m also a contrarian, like zoosermom.</p>
<p>Rom Post 48 Tommybill, I am sorry you missed my point.</p>
<p>Thanks for clarifying what you were trying to say.</p>
<p>color scheme from wikipedia:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If I follow the twists and turns of this thread correctly, they seem to have meandered to musings of the content, the tone, the writing style, the political and social (personal) affiliations of, and the vocabulary used by, cc posters (and speaking of vocabulary… wow- “scatalogical”-- I haven’t seen that word on cc in quite some time!). But I digress. I for one find this refreshing-- to address these thoughts and opinions here, out in the open, where they can be discussed appropriately, rather than backchannel where negative commentary, namecalling, distortion, criticism and hypocricy can go unchecked, where speculation can morph into fact, and where incorrect information can be spread as gospel. I personally find the occasional high-spirited conversations entertaining. I agree with the above posters who noted that they do at times require a thick skin, and many times I have felt like grabbing a bag of popcorn and a ringside seat. One person’s humor is another person’s insult. But to project a hostile intent where none existed is, IMO, equally unproductive.</p>
<p>I tend not to swim in the occasionally shark-infested political threads-- but am not surprised by the passion they evoke. Some posters are direct, some are demure. Some posters are clever, and I may read a thread just because I see their name as the OP or that they are the last poster in a thread. Sometimes I add a comment, sometimes I read and smile, and sometimes I read and shake my head. But in the end, I trust that posters will see past the individual differences, and see what brings us together on this forum, not what drives us apart.</p>
<p>TheDad, would you at least learn to spell your trollish buzzwords correctly please?</p>
<p>Its ayatollah, not “ayahtollah”.</p>
<p>ahem. “Trollish”?</p>
<p>A post that is trollish is one that is made to incite flames or other negative reactions from other members.</p>
<p>vyse-
Perhaps it should be the “ayatrollah”? :D</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>10 chars.</p>
<p>jym, this is hysterical!</p>
<p>so the collective name is “would-be ayatrollahs”? :D</p>
<p>Hey, who interrupted our gripe-fest? When did everybody start being all funny and nice to each other? I wasn’t quite finished complaining about the bad-mouthing that goes on behind the scenes. Oh, wait. I was being funny and nice. Never mind :)</p>