fansince62
Guest
+1!
I hope the Redskins never have another bye week that coincides with an election.
Whew!
that's funny!!!........but you know....elections....like bye weeks...come and go.
+1!
I hope the Redskins never have another bye week that coincides with an election.
Whew!
Firstly - I don't need to make veiled threats to ban certain topics. I co-own this place. If limiting conversation on certain topics were our intention, Mark and I would just do it. I don't anticipate that would ever happen. Nor did I accuse anyone of going over the line (or didn't intend to anyway). Neophyte is charged with moderating this place, and if he felt anyone was going over the line, they'd know it. So I agree with you.
I was simply expressing my personal distaste for the general direction the political threads take. That doesn't mean you have to see/feel/experience the same thing when you read them. I suspect you love this ****, having known you for years - in fact, I'll go as far as to say I know you love this ****
Personally, I consider the conversations largely a waste of time. The instances of someone actually moderating their viewpoint even slightly, much less actually changing their mind on a given topic as the result of anything you, I, or any other internet community member says are so infinitesimal as to be hardly worth considering. It's mostly just folks venting and standing on their personal soapboxes. If I weren't concerned about them going over the line and our not knowing about it, it's probable I wouldn't even click on the political threads.
I believe if one is so engaged with politics and government, the best course of action is to get involved in them, not wax poetic on the internet. But that's just me, and if folks enjoy this kind of thing, I guess ultimately I'll say 'knock yourselves out'. As long as everyone plays nice, there's no issue.
1) where have I attacked your character?
Again, I shouldn't argue with you when you're rolling but I will comment on this one last bit.
I didn't mean to suggest that you were attacking my character, or that of anyone on this board. I was using 'your' and 'mine' in the general sense.
You're a good guy, Al. I just think sometimes your momentum carries you a bit too far, and my quick comment was a mild attempt to help you put on the brakes. Clearly that was epic failure so I'm going to bow out now, head to the main board and revel in the 45-7 shellacking of the Cowboys.
so I'm going to bow out now, head to the main board and revel in the 45-7 shellacking of the Cowboys.
How about a compromise? No politics at BGO and linked to a place where we can discuss it - like the Noosphere or a similar establishment. Just a suggestion.
Just open a politcal forum with the knowledge that if you go in there, you probably need a quasi thick skin. Or the ability to take and receive fire point blank. No personal attacks and no whining to the mods about your feelings getting hurt
I'm talking to the mirror here, but 'toning it down' when it comes to conversations with good friends with whom we don't always agree, is probably the best thing any of us can do.
It's like pornography ... you know it when you see it Al. And yeah, I know that's a mealy-mouthed answer, but it's the best one I can come up with. Knowing when to 'moderate', and when to stay out of it and let 'energetic' conversation continue is an art, not a science. That's why I don't think structural changes like creating a sub-forum just for political battling makes any difference.
The problem with politics and political discussions is that folks rarely are able to truly listen and consider the opposing viewpoint - in fact, the entire nature of politics (like combat) is to impose your will on the other guy. That's not evil. It's just not generally compatible with the idea of 'building a community'. On the other hand, we're not looking to build some sanitized, pristine, high-brow fan forum here. We want folks to be passionate and vocal about all kinds of things. We just don't want hard feelings when the dust settles.
I'd challenge anyone who has ever posted aggressively in a political discussion (as I have many times) - I knew when I was pushing the limits of tolerance and dare say everyone who creeps up to that line of civility knows they are doing so. I think the only sentiment really being expressed by myself, Henry, and a few others in this thread is to urge a little more self-awareness when things are getting aggressive or heated.
And I think the key thing to keep in mind is that not all boards are built for all things. This is a Washington Redskins football discussion community. We added forums to discuss other things because we felt that was a very important part of building a community. But I also know if we ever reached the unlikely situation where strident conversations were undermining the friendships and culture of good-will here, we wouldn't hesitate to narrow the scope of the forums to just football.
In a nutshell, if guys/gals want to have political discussions on BGO, have at them. Just try and keep it respectful and nice. If/when we (the BGO staff) chime in, it helps if folks view that as it is intended, that we are not trying to trample on your first amendment rights, but that we are trying to ensure we keep the level of civility and respect that we hope makes this place a little different from other internet discussion communities.
Were I you I wouldn't hold my breath while waiting. I remember feeling the same way after Slick....'er Clinton's first midterm election. We all know how that turned out. Regardless of my support for Obama, midterm election losses tend to portend reelection for a sitting POTUS. Sorry to be the wet blankey.Personally, I'll be glad when the next election arrives so we can get rid of the Apologizer-in-Chief. He's talking the country down in his homeland again
they'll need to reexamine their current ideas about a mandate as well as the value of their obstructionist tactics to the party and more importantly the country.
PALIN IN 2012!!!!
How did they obstruct things? Because Obama was stupid enough to continue with his attempts at bipartisanship even after it became clear that the GOP was in 99.999% lock step in simply saying "NO" to everything. At that point he should have just done the damn thing and completely discounted them. The subsequent loss of the super majority after Kennedy's death made GOP intransigence even stronger.
You do realize that Obama never once, in 18 months, spoke with McConnell? How is that ""bipartisanship"? The fact is that Obama couldn't get all of the Democrats onto the reservation without all the little parlimentary procedural tricks and outright bribes
I tend not to agree with Democrats too often but in the case of healthcare/financial sector reforms they had the high ground and they should have done what needed to be done in spite of GOP obstructionism.
I thought they did. Now we have yet another bloated government program that is already over budget before it even gets off the ground
As for the earmarks thing, please see the link above. If Rand Paul of all people has already flipped on this issue, how much stomach to you think a recent convert like McConnell is going to have for it? Even if they do pass legislation against earmarks, ti will have little effect because they make up such a small portion of the budget and because as the article points out, earmarks will likely remain-just done under the table.
Paul and McConnell had been at odds over this topic, but now seem to be in agreement on the issue
You haven't joined any rooms.