Reading the posts in this thread, I was struck by the fact that the first post favorable to the President was in post #64. Each of us has a right to think that the speech is bunk, but I think it illustrates the leftward bias of this board.
This board is supposed to be about fighting ignorance, no? If you can post something in a forum called “Great Debates” about the President addressing the nation about a war, and get ZERO response from an opposing position in the first page and a half, I think that puts the lie to any semblance of balance here. Perhaps, in the interest of reducing our own ignorance, the climate should be a bit more conducive to both sides of every debate. I am also struck by the exceedingly few times anyone has ever posted, “Gee, I never thgouht of it that way, you may have a point there.”
This place is basically an echo chamber for the left. Certainly there are people right of center who make appearances and assert cohessive arguments, but they are definitely the exeption, as illustrated in the above thread. Anyone who asserts pro-Bush sentiments is pounced on and overwhelmed in an avalanche of dissent.
Can this board be made more balanced? What can be done to involve more people from different sides of the Great Debates of our day. I fear we have become a community who gathers to spout one side of the issue and high five each other for making the same point over and over in new ways, while dismissing the opposing arguments.
As I said, there are those who make a showing for less popular sides, but usually they are drowned out. In a nation that is more or less evenly divided, sometimes with swings pro or anti the President or the War or any particular issue, why is the debate not indicative of that?