Competence and Accountability World Tour Has Started

[fansince62]

+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.

 

[fansince62]

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.

Boone...got it. respected. understood. no argument here.

however..........I would caveat your pov with something you already know but which just hasn't leaped to your attention: a lot goes on behind the scenes that no one ever sees. over at that "other place" I can't post on political issues...but I can e-mail folks........recently, I got into it with someone who posted something I disagreed with behind the scenes. You know what? We exchanged e-mails for over a week that covered a whole range of issues. It was hugely useful to me as I learned some new things, had some ideas confirmed, and passed on some info I considered insightful as well. my correspondent was very bright, stuck to his guns and had all kinds of data to back up his position. plus...let's face it....when in cyber world you're also trying to gather bits and pieces about the person you are conversing with to fit the puzzle pieces together about that person. this happens through prolonged exchanges.

btw...it's not love of argumentative conflict that dominates...it's a belief in hewing to the core of one's positions come hell or high water. it's a matter of personal integrity.

 

[Henry]

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.

 

[fansince62]

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.

on the last: I stand convicted!!!

 

[Lanky Livingston]

so I'm going to bow out now, head to the main board and revel in the 45-7 shellacking of the Cowboys.

On this we should all agree! Let us revel!

 

[Burgundy Burner]

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.

 

[fansince62]

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.

clicking a link? that's just another way of banning political conversation at BGO! if the BGO community wants to do so...go for it. I personally post at a lot of politically oriented sites and don't need 5 O'Clock to enjoy this site. aside from the uncomfortable aftertaste of such a ban...realize that other content is posted in 5 O'Clock. what you are really asking for is a self-imposed moratorium (into perpetuity) on political posts. my rec? take a poll...check and see if that's what the owners want to do....and flow with the majority. doesn't impact me much and I imagine if this such a sensitive issue for some then reducing the scope of BGO to its core mission wouldn't be a tough sell.

and no disrespect to noosphere - it's a nice site.

 

[Sarge]

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

 

[Boone]

We're not going to ban any topics of conversation, but we will aggressively moderate tone. Is 'The Noosphere' probably a more appropriate place to have extensive conversations such as the ones that crop up around political issues? Possibly. But we're not likely to ban a topic here. I wouldn't miss them if we didn't have political threads here, but that's a lot different than 'banning' them.

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.

 

[fansince62]

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

a possible approach!

 

[fansince62]

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.

boone...and that is the crux of the matter: what does "toning it down mean"?

- there are personal assults at fellow BGO community members

- and there is inflamatory language directed at politicians, political abstractions, policies, political parties, etc., etc.

the content of this thread aside...this is really a key cultural/community question for BGO.

 

[Boone]

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.

 

[fansince62]

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.

say...you are smarter than the average Cowpuke fan! very temperate/thoughtful response.....

 

[Sarge]

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

 

[Yusuf06]

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

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.

We are in agreement about impatience for the next election though. Contrary to the GOP's wet dream of gaining control of both houses, I think it's much more likely that the current status quo remains. At that point, 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!!!!

 

[Yusuf06]

As for competence and accountability, I'm sure this is exactly what the far right wing tea party nutjobs were expecting, i.e. "Earmarks and pork are akin to Satan himself, except when it's my state/district in which case they're a completely 'acceptable compromise' with my small government principles."

Wow, given the fact that Kentucky gets $1.50 for every $1.00 in federal taxes they send to D.C., who couldn't see that coming a mile away?

 

[Sarge]

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!!!!

So tell me how the Repubs obstructed anything. Up until Scot Brown came along the Dems had a super majority. The Repubs could stop nothing

I'm hopeful they can get their act together for the next two years. Getting McConnel to stop earmarks is a good first step

 

[Yusuf06]

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.

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.

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.

**Edit** After writing the above about how much money KY gets from the Feds compared to how much they send in taxes, I decided to look up the same info for other states. Surprisingly, it seems most of the staunchly red states are suckling at the public teat in the same way as Kentucky. So it seems "do as I say, not as I do" seems to be their M.O.

 

[Sarge]

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.

I think what Paul was saying was that if the Congress was going ot continue the earmarks, he wsa going to get his states share. Not that it matters now

Paul and McConnell had been at odds over this topic, but now seem to be in agreement on the issue