PDA

View Full Version : The worth of this Area


Chiwas
04-12-2004, 11:40 AM
To have this section is worth by itself for not cluttering the Lounge.

But I don't see a real debate here. Democrats (or their supporters) don't post or don't exist. Republicans (or their supporters) can't make a criticism about Bush.

We say that "better a bad but known that a good not known" and maybe this makes me prefer Bush than Kerry, or Nader, but I hardly can believe that Bush administration is perfect or that he hasn't lied, or that he has a -maybe slightly, maybe not- different agenda that the reported, and I would like to see how he is going to improve in the next Presidential period.

If a real opposition seems to not exist in this forum, at least we -or you- should discuss the weaknesses and strengths of Bush and his aides, and the things that he should do or change, as we do with the Mavs. It would be worth for this forum.

Just a thought.

FishForLunch
04-12-2004, 12:03 PM
But I don't see a real debate here. Democrats (or their supporters) don't post or don't exist. Republicans (or their supporters) can't make a criticism about Bush.

I guess you dont read some of the posts, Mavdog and Reeds are regular posters for the POV from the democracts side.

Chiwas
04-12-2004, 01:37 PM
Yeah, I know, I read them and I know that they defend pretty well their cause, but the posts of the other wing overwhelm them in a way that it seems they don't exist. It's been a matter of quantity, not of a balanced debate.

I would like to see, cause Reeds and Mavdog can't post as much as the Bush supporters, at least that the latter could concede some points, that could have a debate among them, that could post news or reports intended to start arguments, not to cheer Bush.

Otherwise, this forum won't have too much audience.

FishForLunch
04-12-2004, 04:12 PM
The only solution is if Reeds and Mavdog can start a movement to convert all us right wingers to see the Democratic POV. I think is a matter of fact that most posters in the political forum are on the right of center, therefore they dont want to or excuse miscuses of the Bush administration, just like how the left did not raise any issues about Clinton when he was in office.

Mavdog
04-12-2004, 04:42 PM
I am actually a non-affiliated person who has voted for all the parties in elections past. I do have a fairly progressive viewpoint, but I am NOT a democrat or republican.

I hope that I am critical of either party when the need arises.

The primary reason that I post here in the Political Area is to balance the rhetoric of so many ill informed right wing posters, educate them and help them see the error of their ways i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif

Drbio
04-12-2004, 10:45 PM
It's funny when the uninformed try to inform others.


Actually....it's kind of pathetic.

MavKikiNYC
04-13-2004, 07:11 AM
But I don't see a real debate here. Democrats (or their supporters) don't post or don't exist. Republicans (or their supporters) can't make a criticism about Bush.

I do and I don't agree with this observation. I believe that I don't agree, in part, because of the issue du jour (the 9-11 Kangaroo Commission) that is getting the most coverage of late, and consequently generating the most 'discussion' here--or at least the bulk of the postings.

If you sense that some posters here (typically supportive of Bush) may be unwilling to make a criticism of him with respect to the 9-11 attacks, perhaps it's because the criticisms coming out of the Commission's carnival of hearings and the resulting press coverage is so unstinting in its attempt to pin not just responsibility but BLAME on the Bush administration for not preventing the unpreventable, for not thinking that the unthinkable coud happen, and for not correcting systemic shortcomings or overcoming intelligence failures which were 10, 20, 30 years in the making.

When you see a parade of former Clinton-adminstration hacks like Ben-Veniste and Gore-Lick giving interview after interview after interview in which they all but get up and dance naked on the table in their revelry at the opportunity to smear the Bush administration--to smear the likes of Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice--it's a wonder these boobs have any time to listen to testimony or to conduct hearings into what the systemic and institutional failures were that allowed the United States to be so vulnerable to that type of attack;

when you see someone with a maimed conscience like Bob Kerrey, who has literally been accused of murder (yes, murder), all but jump out of his chair and into the spotlight for a chance to second-guess someone else for what may or may not have been failings in judgment or analysis, in unimaginably difficult circumstances;

when you see someone without a maimed conscience like Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy, who has been accused of the equivalent of murder (yes, murder), proudly hoisting his bloated, alcoholic, amoral legacy onto the stage of a presidential campaign for one last vicarious glint of glory (oh God, PLEASE let it be his last); ready, willing and able to make the wildest, most slanderous, most out-and-out WRONG and WRONGLY-MOTIVATED condmenations of Bush administration policies;

...perhaps in that context, Chiwas, one can begin to understand why Bush supporters give no quarter on this issue. It shouldn't take 5 minutes' worth of debate to come to the agreement that what happened on 11 September 2001 was essentially going to be unpreventable in a society as open as the one we lived (yes LIVED) in, and that there is virtually ZERO chance that the policies or actions of any administration, whether it had served for 8 YEARS or 8 MONTHS, would have been able to avert those attacks. That is reality.

Instead, we are treated to a daily diet of the Carnival of Lies and Hypocrisy that is the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

If the national debate moved beyond this issue, perhaps on to social issues such as pregnancy rights of women, or equal rights for homosexuals, or maintaining the separation of church and state, or economic issues like taxation equity or tax reform, perhaps then you'd see less polarized opinion, and more nuanced debate. The lack of legitimate debate you see here, though, is in my constituionally-protected opinion (IMCPO) a reflection of the lack of legitmate debate there is on the 9/11 Commission.

MavKikiNYC
04-13-2004, 08:44 AM
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ch/1993/ch930413.gif

Chiwas
04-13-2004, 01:29 PM
I'm starting to get it, the behavior of this forum.

Linde
04-13-2004, 02:52 PM
just look back a year or 15 months and what happend to people who were against this war
how they got treated by some of the "gurus" of this board
why waste any time and talk with them about politics ?

madape
04-13-2004, 03:49 PM
I don't need to remind long-time posters of the attention that major international media outlets have paid to the political debate laid down in this very forum. Less than one year ago, we achieved the holy grail of discussion forums - we were featured in a BBC television special. Several of our members discussed the situation in Iraq in front of an audience that likely numbered in the tens of millions. For a time at least, the rants laid down by members of this board were significant on a worldwide scale. I think history alone deems that political discussion on Dallas-Mavs.com should continue.