The silence of ideology

Bill's forum was the first! All subjects are welcome. Participation by all encouraged.

Moderator: Available

IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

CXT, I think you're imagining this. Justin basically has it. When people post stuff we disagree with we disagree; he and I generally do not come here to share complaints about X issue and Y concern. I have been, for example, very concerned that Obama has been more appreciative of executive power now that he has it, and now that Obama settled out to the RIGHT of Bill Or'Reilly on DADT, he can go f--- himself (but, thanks for the hospital visitation rights!). And I have pointed out that he's basically continued Bush policies (but gotten reamed for doing the wrong thing when those policies were ok when Bush was president). Did you notice THAT ideological inconsistency? How about that battle royale over the "libertarian" candidate Rand Paul and his desire to control abortion politics at a federal level, control church's ability to marry same sex people, and the offshoots into Arizona's immigration law and Alabama's English or get lost political ad? You didn't think the "Obama shills" sat that one out did you?

Basically the upshot of that was I learned it was pointless to discuss anything even with people I considered smart and reasonable--I felt it was "dismiss without reason" and I stopped posting, which is why THIS thread's IJ inputs will be limited to this observation and a quick bow out to return to my workouts.
--Ian
User avatar
Jason Rees
Site Admin
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Location: USA

Post by Jason Rees »

It's funny, I participated more in the political threads before Obama is in office, but I think I break the mold of this thread, because you certainly cannot call me a believer in 'The One.'
Life begins & ends cold, naked & covered in crap.
cxt
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm

Post by cxt »

IJ

"I think your imagining this"

Always possible........but I don't think so.

I also think Val is post-hoc rationalizing. Hard for me to belive that people whom really, really care about subjects like rendition and the Patriot Act but not enough to say anything unless and until someone else comments first.

Something about that just feels........odd.

Sure I noticed that Obama while running for POTUS had very different views than Obama as POTUS.
Again really just 2 choices here....or some variation of them.

A-He meant what he said at the time..........but he was simply too inexperienced to know how difficult it would be.

B-He said whatever he needed to say to get himself elected.

Either way it concerns me. The former is at least undertandable---but suggests problems. The latter raises the question of why anybody should belive anything he says at this point.

On another note......you said:

"I felt it was "dismiss without reason".........and that is why on this thread IJ inputs will be limited to this observation and a quick bow out."

A-I never "dismiss" your posts....disagree, at times most certainly..... but I always have excellent reasons. ;)

B-Not a real fan of "drive by postings".........the online equal of "I'm taking my toys and going home."

If you have something to say, by all means say it. If it's not worth commenting on----so be it.
But commenting then taking a hike strikes me as basically unfair.

Like I said before, I think that many people....down deep, realize that they are behaving much differently now than they were 18-20 months ago.

Pretty sure that is why they don't want to discuss it......the cognative dissonence is too unsettling.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH
cxt
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm

Post by cxt »

Val

So now it's some version of you not wanting to start political discussions on a martial arts forum....even though you have no problem particpating in such a discussion as long as somebody else starts one?

Sorry man, that sounds exactly like the kind of post-hoc rationalization I was talking about.

Now people are, in effect, trying to act as if they have always had some kind of detailed check-list of exactly how and why and when they operate on-line in general and this site and this section---and if things don't meet their now exacting criteria then they don't post.

Good to know. ;)
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH
User avatar
mhosea
Posts: 1141
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:52 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Post by mhosea »

cxt wrote: A-He meant what he said at the time..........but he was simply too inexperienced to know how difficult it would be.

B-He said whatever he needed to say to get himself elected.
It's always both, I think, with first term presidents, since every campaign promise/plan is over-simplified into a form consumable by the masses and sweetened with a spoon full of disingenuous sugar. In practice things get ugly. Sounds like martial arts versus self defense.

The difference between a strong leader and a weak one, however, is how much reason A matters. So far it seems to be mattering a lot.
Mike
cxt
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm

Post by cxt »

mhosea

"sweetened with a spoon full of disingenous sugar"

:lol:

Now wondering if all politicos seeking office should come with their own "warning" label for "disingenous sugar" content.

As in:

"warning-overconsumption of this product may lead to fiscal bloating."

"warning-this product should be taken with a grain of salt"

"warning-this claims of this product should not be taken at face value.
All pre-election claims should be throughly investigated for logic and application content."

"warning-overindulgence in this product may lead to overweight, addictive government."
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH
User avatar
Glenn
Posts: 2186
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska

Post by Glenn »

Well cxt, I just did a search and the last serious discussion of the Patriot Act on Bill's forum was in September 2008. At that time the vocal opponent of it it was Jim Hawkins, who is not participating here anymore. I still think a lot of the inactivity on some topics is related to turnover in forum participants.
Glenn
cxt
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm

Post by cxt »

Glen

Maybe.....maybe not.

I did presume that they would still be around. If they are not they can't be posting.

Other reasons...off the top of my head:

1-They changed their minds
2-They got tired of debating it
3-Problem is no longer a problem
4-They are no longer around
5-Posters "problems" had much less to do with action/faliure to act and more on whom was acting/failing to act.

I lean toward the last one since 1-2-3 don't really fit with people having strong opinions.

Also I mentioned that I think it's more than just the site----that my POV about these topics on the site are a mirror for what is going on....or not going on, in the "real" world.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH
Post Reply

Return to “Bill Glasheen's Dojo Roundtable”