Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The problem is the right really does believe that the president is a Marxist, communist, socialist who wants to take away your guns and destroy America.
How do you talk rationally to irrational people?
MW, Fewer and fewer people are buying the smears.
You guys are fucking yourselves by continuing to say stupid assed shit like this that is so obviously partisan bullshit.
No one but idiots believe this clap trap.
MW, Fewer and fewer people are buying the smears.
You guys are fucking yourselves by continuing to say stupid assed shit like this that is so obviously partisan bullshit.
No one but idiots believe this clap trap.
The problem is the right really does believe that the president is a Marxist, communist, socialist who wants to take away your guns and destroy America.
How do you talk rationally to irrational people?
His policies are Socialist...he uses Marxism to get elected and to push his agenda...he released a very large list of banned guns in the first days of his presidency....and his policies have proven to destroy economies.....[see Greece]
Whats irrational about recognizing that?
The problem is the right really does believe that the president is a Marxist, communist, socialist who wants to take away your guns and destroy America.
How do you talk rationally to irrational people?
His policies are Socialist...he uses Marxism to get elected and to push his agenda...he released a very large list of banned guns in the first days of his presidency....and his policies have proven to destroy economies.....[see Greece]
Whats irrational about recognizing that?
Sigh. They are neither socialist nor marxist. Really, mud, you need to look up the classical definitions then apply them to this administration. Really, you are making silly statements.
The problem is the right really does believe that the president is a Marxist, communist, socialist who wants to take away your guns and destroy America.
How do you talk rationally to irrational people?
His policies are Socialist...he uses Marxism to get elected and to push his agenda...he released a very large list of banned guns in the first days of his presidency....and his policies have proven to destroy economies.....[see Greece]
Whats irrational about recognizing that?
Sigh. They are neither socialist nor marxist. Really, mud, you need to look up the classical definitions then apply them to this administration. Really, you are making silly statements.
His policies are Socialist...he uses Marxism to get elected and to push his agenda...he released a very large list of banned guns in the first days of his presidency....and his policies have proven to destroy economies.....[see Greece]
Whats irrational about recognizing that?
Sigh. They are neither socialist nor marxist. Really, mud, you need to look up the classical definitions then apply them to this administration. Really, you are making silly statements.
Since when has that ever concerned a Tea Bagger?
I see a common pattern on this board and in general political discussion of dismissive labels being applied totally inaccurately to people and then used to ignore them or avoid debating more specific issues at hand.
I've been labeled a rightwinger, wingnut, neocon, Republican, etc. when I criticize Obama and Democrats for escalating the occupation of Afghanistan, curtailing civil liberties, egregiously rebuking the rule of law, expanding executive power, colluding with powerful corporate interests against the public good on health care reform and the bailout, and general lack of transparency.
I've also been labeled an Obamabot, wingnut, socialist, Democrat, etc. when I criticize Bush and Republicans for much of the same and even greater failures of foreign policy and domestic governance, curtailment of basic liberties and disastrous economics, and extreme secrecy in how it operated.
I'm far from the only one I see this happen to, it's quite pervasive. Critique the Kagan pick, you're assumed to be a Tea Partier and your argument is dismissed by the members who identify with the "left" no matter how substantive. Critique Cheney's views on habeus corpus, you're assumed to be a true blue partisan and your argument is dismissed by the members who identify with the "right" no matter how substantive.
I've never voted nor supported either national party or their candidates, I've actually actively opposed them my entire adult life, and I have to believe there are a fair amount of genuine independents on the board, despite the generally polarized and partisan makeup here, whose grievances cannot be conveniently packaged with the platform of any party or movement.
I just want to bring it to general attention in the hopes that a couple people will read this and think twice before assuming the next person they disagree or agree with in a thread is automatically of a certain political persuasion, holds a variety of allegiances, and can be judged on a wide range of issues based on their opinion on a single and specific one.
We'd all be better off and discussion here would be a lot more rewarding if people took a little extra time and care to actually debate the issue at hand and not jump to conclusions about agendas and broader political beliefs, labeling any opponent in order to dismiss all they say or insult them, but rather engaging them point-by-point. Obviously there are people here who are simply loyalist partisans of both parties, but a lot of other people are more complex and individualized and there could actually be merit to debate that isn't shoehorned into simplistic, polarized, and so often inaccurate "sides."
*Steps off soap box*
Thanks for listening.
I see a common pattern on this board and in general political discussion of dismissive labels being applied totally inaccurately to people and then used to ignore them or avoid debating more specific issues at hand.
I've been labeled a rightwinger, wingnut, neocon, Republican, etc. when I criticize Obama and Democrats for escalating the occupation of Afghanistan, curtailing civil liberties, egregiously rebuking the rule of law, expanding executive power, colluding with powerful corporate interests against the public good on health care reform and the bailout, and general lack of transparency.
I've also been labeled an Obamabot, wingnut, socialist, Democrat, etc. when I criticize Bush and Republicans for much of the same and even greater failures of foreign policy and domestic governance, curtailment of basic liberties and disastrous economics, and extreme secrecy in how it operated.
I'm far from the only one I see this happen to, it's quite pervasive. Critique the Kagan pick, you're assumed to be a Tea Partier and your argument is dismissed by the members who identify with the "left" no matter how substantive. Critique Cheney's views on habeus corpus, you're assumed to be a true blue partisan and your argument is dismissed by the members who identify with the "right" no matter how substantive.
I've never voted nor supported either national party or their candidates, I've actually actively opposed them my entire adult life, and I have to believe there are a fair amount of genuine independents on the board, despite the generally polarized and partisan makeup here, whose grievances cannot be conveniently packaged with the platform of any party or movement.
I just want to bring it to general attention in the hopes that a couple people will read this and think twice before assuming the next person they disagree or agree with in a thread is automatically of a certain political persuasion, holds a variety of allegiances, and can be judged on a wide range of issues based on their opinion on a single and specific one.
We'd all be better off and discussion here would be a lot more rewarding if people took a little extra time and care to actually debate the issue at hand and not jump to conclusions about agendas and broader political beliefs, labeling any opponent in order to dismiss all they say or insult them, but rather engaging them point-by-point. Obviously there are people here who are simply loyalist partisans of both parties, but a lot of other people are more complex and individualized and there could actually be merit to debate that isn't shoehorned into simplistic, polarized, and so often inaccurate "sides."
*Steps off soap box*
Thanks for listening.
Could you point out what civil liberties Obama has curtailed??
MW, Fewer and fewer people are buying the smears.
You guys are fucking yourselves by continuing to say stupid assed shit like this that is so obviously partisan bullshit.
No one but idiots believe this clap trap.
You seem to be having an exceptionally tough morning.
MW, Fewer and fewer people are buying the smears.
You guys are fucking yourselves by continuing to say stupid assed shit like this that is so obviously partisan bullshit.
No one but idiots believe this clap trap.
You seem to be having an exceptionally tough morning.
Your rewrites of history are not hitting the mainstream as hoped, tuff for you
Sticks and stones........
It obviously bothers you to be labeled. But for folks like me, it's water off a ducks back.
No, it's not a thin skin thing. It's not the labeling that bothers me, if someone labeled me remotely accurately and responded accordingly, fine. And I could care less about someone applying a label to me if that were the only result.
My problem is the unwarranted dismissal that follows based on a rash misjudgment that, as I said, stifles meaningful debate.
A valid point being disregarded because someone assumes I'm just stumping for Obama or Bush, when I vociferously criticize both and think they're terrible presidents, and only want to discuss the matter at hand not be forced to try and defend the fact that I'm no fan of either party and don't fit into whatever box they've put me in based on my opinion on one issue, is annoying and discourages substantive debate and the time and effort that requires.
If someone just assumes you're part of some group they despise and they won't give what you say a fair shake as a result, what's the point of bothering to engage them?
The idea that criticizing someone on the right must mean you're a leftist and criticizing someone on the left must mean you're a rightwinger, or the reverse for supporting an action taken by someone on those sides, promotes polarization and discussions that amount to little more than name-calling between boosters of different sports teams. It reduces the complex and interesting into the stupid and predictable and makes it hard for anyone to get anything meaningful out of conversations here. That applies to everyone since I've noticed it as a really common go-to reaction among a lot of people, not just towards me. I have to assume there are members here whose views can't be pigeonholed simply into party talking points, otherwise this place has no more value than Crossfire.
I see a common pattern on this board and in general political discussion of dismissive labels being applied totally inaccurately to people and then used to ignore them or avoid debating more specific issues at hand.
I've been labeled a rightwinger, wingnut, neocon, Republican, etc. when I criticize Obama and Democrats for escalating the occupation of Afghanistan, curtailing civil liberties, egregiously rebuking the rule of law, expanding executive power, colluding with powerful corporate interests against the public good on health care reform and the bailout, and general lack of transparency.
I've also been labeled an Obamabot, wingnut, socialist, Democrat, etc. when I criticize Bush and Republicans for much of the same and even greater failures of foreign policy and domestic governance, curtailment of basic liberties and disastrous economics, and extreme secrecy in how it operated.
I'm far from the only one I see this happen to, it's quite pervasive. Critique the Kagan pick, you're assumed to be a Tea Partier and your argument is dismissed by the members who identify with the "left" no matter how substantive. Critique Cheney's views on habeus corpus, you're assumed to be a true blue partisan and your argument is dismissed by the members who identify with the "right" no matter how substantive.
I've never voted nor supported either national party or their candidates, I've actually actively opposed them my entire adult life, and I have to believe there are a fair amount of genuine independents on the board, despite the generally polarized and partisan makeup here, whose grievances cannot be conveniently packaged with the platform of any party or movement.
I just want to bring it to general attention in the hopes that a couple people will read this and think twice before assuming the next person they disagree or agree with in a thread is automatically of a certain political persuasion, holds a variety of allegiances, and can be judged on a wide range of issues based on their opinion on a single and specific one.
We'd all be better off and discussion here would be a lot more rewarding if people took a little extra time and care to actually debate the issue at hand and not jump to conclusions about agendas and broader political beliefs, labeling any opponent in order to dismiss all they say or insult them, but rather engaging them point-by-point. Obviously there are people here who are simply loyalist partisans of both parties, but a lot of other people are more complex and individualized and there could actually be merit to debate that isn't shoehorned into simplistic, polarized, and so often inaccurate "sides."
*Steps off soap box*
Thanks for listening.
Ya..Ya... Whatever..you have been nominated for a membership to "The List".. Any LAST words?
I think it's a great and appropriate quote.
A few months back I got into a several-page argument with someone where I was providing ample, well-sourced documentation that a central claim they were making just wasn't factually accurate and though they replied to me (so seemingly read it), they continued making the same claim as though it hadn't been thoroughly debunked. That, proving oneself to be obstinate or a genuine hack who doesn't care about the truth if it gets in the way of a talking point and actively dismissing "learning anything of substance", is entirely different than the "false labeling" I'm talking about, and either in that thread or another at the time I saw your quote and it seemed a great frustration venter worthy of sigging.
It's not quoted facetiously or mockingly if that's what you were worried about.
You just had to go and ruin it for us.
I guess QUENTIN hasn't read too many of TruthMatters posts.I bet when TruthMatters posted that, she was looking in a mirror.
I see a common pattern on this board and in general political discussion of dismissive labels being applied totally inaccurately to people and then used to ignore them or avoid debating more specific issues at hand.
I've been labeled a rightwinger, wingnut, neocon, Republican, etc. when I criticize Obama and Democrats for escalating the occupation of Afghanistan, curtailing civil liberties, egregiously rebuking the rule of law, expanding executive power, colluding with powerful corporate interests against the public good on health care reform and the bailout, and general lack of transparency.
I've also been labeled an Obamabot, wingnut, socialist, Democrat, etc. when I criticize Bush and Republicans for much of the same and even greater failures of foreign policy and domestic governance, curtailment of basic liberties and disastrous economics, and extreme secrecy in how it operated.
I'm far from the only one I see this happen to, it's quite pervasive. Critique the Kagan pick, you're assumed to be a Tea Partier and your argument is dismissed by the members who identify with the "left" no matter how substantive. Critique Cheney's views on habeus corpus, you're assumed to be a true blue partisan and your argument is dismissed by the members who identify with the "right" no matter how substantive.
I've never voted nor supported either national party or their candidates, I've actually actively opposed them my entire adult life, and I have to believe there are a fair amount of genuine independents on the board, despite the generally polarized and partisan makeup here, whose grievances cannot be conveniently packaged with the platform of any party or movement.
I just want to bring it to general attention in the hopes that a couple people will read this and think twice before assuming the next person they disagree or agree with in a thread is automatically of a certain political persuasion, holds a variety of allegiances, and can be judged on a wide range of issues based on their opinion on a single and specific one.
We'd all be better off and discussion here would be a lot more rewarding if people took a little extra time and care to actually debate the issue at hand and not jump to conclusions about agendas and broader political beliefs, labeling any opponent in order to dismiss all they say or insult them, but rather engaging them point-by-point. Obviously there are people here who are simply loyalist partisans of both parties, but a lot of other people are more complex and individualized and there could actually be merit to debate that isn't shoehorned into simplistic, polarized, and so often inaccurate "sides."
*Steps off soap box*
Thanks for listening.
Ya..Ya... Whatever..you have been nominated for a membership to "The List".. Any LAST words?
I always wondered if I was in that "list" somewhere. I don't venture there because its sheer size is scary, and I need my sleep at some point.
