Here’s my magic wand.
(wavewavewave)
There.
I’ve removed two of the most contentious issues of the campaign, abortion and religious fundamentalism.
Of course there are still divisions, but at least now there is much greater freedom to move between parties, and much greater freedom to recognize/verbalize weaknesses in one’s current party.
Let’s see what happens to debate now that (blind) party loyalty has been taken down a notch or two.
Since I started one of the threads you list in your OP, I felt compelled to respond, but I didn’t really get your point. I’m glad the hamsters ate the response I tried to post. I will respond to this post instead, since I understand it better.
You’re saying that we are being unfair to our opponents, is that right? We don’t acknowledge that even those we disagree with can be right about some things. I think I am sometimes guilty of that, certainly. But let’s draw a distinction between attacks on a candidate and attacks on his or her supporters.
I had a strongly negative opinion of George W. Bush in 2004. I would have had a hard time thinking of anything significant to say in his defense. And as for Cheney, he’s one of the few people in the world I actually literally hate. Does that mean I despise the majority of voters who supported Bush-Cheney in that election? No, it means I disagree with their choice.
Isn’t that understood? If I say “I can’t stand McCain! He’s a complete idiot and a vile blackguard!”* do I really need to add that I don’t hold that opinion of people who vote for him?
*I don’t hold that opinion of McCain, either.
And notice all the people jumping in to defend Dio! Now, if only some folks would allow reality to intrude even further, we might make some progress.
I’d live to see how Gonzales “forgetting or not being aware of” the rules regarding document handling would mean that he shouldn’t be prosecuted for it. I’m sure Bricker has been working on that one for days!
-Joe
I suggest you stop directing your commentary at the person, and start answering the questions posed. Argumentum ad hominem is not particularly helpful, and marginally against the boards rules.
I noticed a large number of liberals criticizing Dio for his hyperbole, while simultaneously arguing for the reality that there are a number of oddities and outright contradictions that one would have to believe in order to accept Palin’s story.
And I noticed a number of posters whose ‘reality’ seems to be “the republican said it, ergo, it must be true.”
As long as you’re junior modding, could you explain how ad hominem arguments violate board rules?
And while you’re waiting for people to obey your command to “start answering the questions posed,” would you (or Bricker) mind answering some of the questions I posed above?
Thanks so much.
I am concerned that Bricker may be advocating some sort of objectively correct way to view issues with respect to Palin. It’s as if he expects each post to be even handed balancing of the “facts” to be wholly ingrained in reality. This is nonsense. Nothing is stopping one person from arguing the facts as they see them against someone else. None of the threads have been outragous and slanderous. The focus is rightly on Palin since she is basically being vetted in the public sphere, meaning questions are being raised and addressed often and quickly, some of it will be nonsense, some fo it will be very relevant, and by bringing some of it up on SDMB we can help each other suss otu the issues, and while we won’t agree and come to a consensus atr least we can discuss them in a open forum. True, SDMB is Obama/left leaning, but I certainoly think that all sides are welcome to air their vantage points.
Honestly, I welcome reading the conservatee/right vantage points so I cna better understand the thinking from that side. I don’t expect it would change my mind, but it is good input. I would think you would want the same.
The polls change everyday. Why do we care what they say?. Do they suggest that people change their minds that much. ? Maybe they suggest that they asked slightly different questions from a different group of people. They will change 50 times in the next 60 days. What day do you want to pick for us all to argue about.?
As far as * blind to reality * goes, I have a question for Bricker. He was * not * a graceful winner after the last Presidential election. I lost a lot of respect for him at that point. Now, after nearly four more years of GWB, I want to ask, “How has that Presidency worked out for you?”. Obviously you’re still committed to the Republican party – fair enough, some people are going to vote the party line no matter what. But can you really say that the current administration upholds the values that you’re in favor of? Fiscally, they’ve been a disaster. The national debt is out of control. The dollar is weak. We’ve got more, and more intrusive, government than ever. We’ve been torturing political prisioners. We’ve got no long-term energy policy to speak of except “drill more oil”. Cost of living increases and inflation are higher than they’ve been in something like 20 years.
So, from a reality point of view, Bricker, * why are you so committed to the Republican party? *. You’re an intelligent guy. What have they done to deserve your pit bull-like loyalty? I’m serious here. Sell me on the McCain-Palin ticket. Tell me why a McCain administration wouldn’t be the same bunch of scary incompetents pursuing the same failed policies.
So, the debate here is: Why can’t everyone be as reasonable as you? 
Seriously, Bricker, what do you want people to do? There are plenty of “reasonable” poster here, so I don’t see why you need to paint this MB with such a broad brush. The partisan hacks are going to be partisan hacks. We’ve got them on both sides, even if the left has more representation than the right.
Not at all. Bricker seems to be under the impression that the SDMB should reflect all views evenly - much like his beloved Fox News.
He has also advocated for people who are of the opinion that the minority, as the minority, should STFU. If anyone was supposed to take their opinion seriously, they wouldn’t be in the minority.
However, somehow, Bricker’s worldview is in the minority here. However, we should all respect that minority view SO MUCH that we should make sure that the thread titles (which anyone on the board can create - it’s not some secret evil cabal) meet some Fox News-like “fair and balanced” criteria. Sorry, no. Ridiculous complaint, stupid idea.
-Joe
You have, apparently, totally misunderstood the whole point to Bricker’s intial post.
The proper response to the OP is to simply say: “so where are the opponents of Sen. Obama and why are they not starting threads?”
Poof, the whole specious observation gone in one simple reply.
Or we can look at the deeper point being made in the OP: all you liberals who are piling on the Republican ticket are out of touch with reality.
Which, frankly, as an independent reading the threads for the last few months in here, I tend to agree with. Worse, these threads tend towards a shrill tone, lacking in reasoned debate. Instead, they are thinly disguised polemics. They don’t persuade me, as a middle-grounder, to agree with them at all. On the contrary, they often leave me cringing and wondering if my tendency to want to go with the Sen. Obama ticket in the fall isn’t a bad idea.
It wouldn’t kill the Obama backers in this forum to simply tone down the rhetoric and act like people who support the opposing ticket aren’t complete lunatics who are gun-toting nut jobs each and every one. It might help to say in support of their opinions, “well, yes, that’s true, but have you considered this…”
This election is going to be very close, absent some intervening factor not currently predictable (like, for example, another terrorist attack or a complete financial meltdown in the economy). As a result, it’s simply ridiculous to shrilly attack the “enemy” ticket as if they are indeed some sort of enemy, or buffoons, or idiots, or unqualified political hacks.
Of course, the balance of threads might be more equal if the McCain supporters would pony a few of their own up now and again.:dubious:
Bricker has made an important point (even though his initial definition of “reality-based” threw me for awhile). The overall negative commentary here about Sarah Palin has not been reflected in national polling and is therefore inappropriate. As an alternative, I offer this portrayal of the Republicans’ new veep candidate from a thoughtful conservative:
“she seems to get up in the morning to root out corruption…a woman who risked her career taking on the corrupt Republican establishment in her own state, who twice defeated the oil companies, who made mortal enemies of the two people McCain has always held up as the carriers of the pork-barrel disease: Young and Stevens…So my worries about Palin are not (primarily) about her lack of experience. She seems like a marvelous person. She is a dazzling political performer. And she has experienced more of typical American life than either McCain or his opponent. On Monday, an ugly feeding frenzy surrounded her daughter’s pregnancy. But most Americans will understand that this is what happens in real life, that parents and congregations nurture young parents through this sort of thing every day.”
That’s from the N.Y. Times’ David Brooks, whose only significant concern about Palin is that she may be too dogged a crusader for virtue, just like McCain.
So all you Dopers who’ve been gleefully leaping on Palin’s views on God-directed military actions, non-evidence based environmental positions,
brewing mini-scandals and G.O.Politically Incorrect family soap opera, cut it out right now. Face reality, just like David Brooks, for whom virtue triumphs over mere partisanship*.
The funny thing is that the Palin choice could wind up as a wash. Voters who support the G.O.P. because of her are likely to be balanced out by those who steer clear because McCain has torched his whole “experience counts” mantra by selecting someone with a pitifully thin resume.**
*As a demonstration of the required spirit of niceness, I will here note that Sarah Palin seems like a bright, clean person who has impressed a number of Americans, commentators and public both, as the cat’s ass.
**Although I liked Cindy McCain’s defense of Palin’s foreign policy credentials, when she noted that after all, Alaska is the part of the continent that’s closest to Russia. Hurray for reality-based thinking!
And? There is no contradiction here. The board skews left.
Personally, I think McCain has an excellent chance to win, and I think that all the talk about Palin’s family will help the McCain camp.
It would probably be a good strategy for Obama supporters not to talk about it.
Anyone who thinks Obama has a sure win, or who thinks they are going to sink McCain by discussing Palin’s family, is out of touch with reality.
But participating in the threads you mention does not imply either of those things.
Cite?
Bringing David Brooks into this isn’t like invoking the John Facenda voice here. He doesn’t have much pull around these parts, ya know.
Sheesh, lazy lazy.
He has since tried to “clarify” his remarks. Will Coloradoans believe it? We’ll find out.
Hey, you call it lazy, I call it wanting to clarify that I am reading about the same subject you are talking about. 
Next time I’ll just read your mind and get the information that way. I’m sure I can get your wife’s permission for ten pounds of Alpaca.
All ya had to do was google McCain, water, and Colorado. And my wife is allergic to alpaca, so that wouldn’t go over real well.