CDZ What makes a good poster?

[Wyatt earp]

Just the current President, eh?

I said, "in part". All presidents lie. Some lie to hide things in their personal life such Kennedy hiding his Addison disease and Clinton hiding his affair with Lewinsky. Others, lied to protect policies such as Reagan and the Iran-Contra Affair. And still others made promises they know they couldn't never keep such as Obama telling the public they would be able to keep their doctor in Obamacare. However, Trump has to be the first president that creates his own fact, lies about trivial details, or just plain makes shit up to drive home a point. The media calls him out on it, but it's so common the public is not paying attention anymore. It use to be a big deal when a president such as Obama, Bush, or Clinton lied but not anymore.

So tell Me. What would you rather have?

A President that lies about trivial matters -- This is the greatest economy ever! -- when in fact, it isn't and it can be verified that there have been better economies? The economy IS pretty damn good. So, has this lie taken any food off your table? Obama said, "you can keep your plan if you like it" regarding healthcare. Yet, you couldn't keep your plan unless it met "Their" requirements. Requirements they did not articulate before they made the lie. Has their lie taken food off your table? Having to pay for healthcare that is more per year with a deductible so high you have to choose between paying one bill over another or going without healthcare?

Which is worse? A President that says that the people trying to enter into this country illegally are bad people, who bring crime like rape and murder with them; or a President that says that it was just a movie that caused an Ambassador and his staff to die?

Has his lie about all of the illegals being murderers stopped illegals from killing, raping or bringing disease into our country? Have Obama's lies brought comfort and solace to those who loved Stevens and his staff?

You see, you people whine about trivial lies. And lies, trivial or not, are a sign of poor character. With that, you and I are in agreement.

But if you must whine about a President who lies, then whine about the ones who weaponize government agencies against American citizens, not against those that lie about statistics.

All Presidents lie. The question is, when is the lie an actual detriment to your own bottom line? That is the one you whine about.

Trump's lies are not just about trivial matters. He lies about just about anything that he believes will fit his narrative. What is worse is millions of people defending those lies and repeating them over and over in order to support their leader. They thus become part the lie.

"If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself."
Joseph Goebbels - Wikiquote

So you say his lies are trivial, then turn around and say that because people who voted for him disregard his trivial lies that is somehow worse than the lies told by past Presidents who's lies have actually hurt people.

Every President tells lies that fit their narrative. This isn't anything new. Yet somehow, this is wrong when he does it.

You yourself said that all Presidents lie. Which is why I phrased My response the way I did.

It is only offensive to you when a Republican does it.

Me, I hold them all responsible for their lack of character, but I don't pretend that the R's are worse than the D's, nor do I pretend the D's are worse than the R'. To do so is a serious lack of character.

I don't like Trump, but he's done alright by America so far. Either way, his lies haven't cost Me food on My table like Obama's lies have.

Having a reading problem? I said, "Trump's lies are not just about trivial matters. He lies about just about anything that he believes will fit his narrative. Where Trump differs from other presidents, is when he speaks he lies, little ones, big one, some trivial, and some not.

Honesty and trust go hand in hand which is why Trump has so many problems with foreign leaders. They don't trust him. When Trump was selling real estate and developments, he had a reputation among investors and bankers that you could always trust Trump provided it's in the contract. However in politics and diplomatic negotiations there are no contracts. Agreements are based a nod, an OK, or a comment to the news media. In other words, you can't meet with a foreign leader and pledge to work with him and two days latter announcement on Twitter that he can't be trusted.

He is a used car salesman with a lot of money everyone knew that for decades.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I said, "in part". All presidents lie. Some lie to hide things in their personal life such Kennedy hiding his Addison disease and Clinton hiding his affair with Lewinsky. Others, lied to protect policies such as Reagan and the Iran-Contra Affair. And still others made promises they know they couldn't never keep such as Obama telling the public they would be able to keep their doctor in Obamacare. However, Trump has to be the first president that creates his own fact, lies about trivial details, or just plain makes shit up to drive home a point. The media calls him out on it, but it's so common the public is not paying attention anymore. It use to be a big deal when a president such as Obama, Bush, or Clinton lied but not anymore.

So tell Me. What would you rather have?

A President that lies about trivial matters -- This is the greatest economy ever! -- when in fact, it isn't and it can be verified that there have been better economies? The economy IS pretty damn good. So, has this lie taken any food off your table? Obama said, "you can keep your plan if you like it" regarding healthcare. Yet, you couldn't keep your plan unless it met "Their" requirements. Requirements they did not articulate before they made the lie. Has their lie taken food off your table? Having to pay for healthcare that is more per year with a deductible so high you have to choose between paying one bill over another or going without healthcare?

Which is worse? A President that says that the people trying to enter into this country illegally are bad people, who bring crime like rape and murder with them; or a President that says that it was just a movie that caused an Ambassador and his staff to die?

Has his lie about all of the illegals being murderers stopped illegals from killing, raping or bringing disease into our country? Have Obama's lies brought comfort and solace to those who loved Stevens and his staff?

You see, you people whine about trivial lies. And lies, trivial or not, are a sign of poor character. With that, you and I are in agreement.

But if you must whine about a President who lies, then whine about the ones who weaponize government agencies against American citizens, not against those that lie about statistics.

All Presidents lie. The question is, when is the lie an actual detriment to your own bottom line? That is the one you whine about.

Trump's lies are not just about trivial matters. He lies about just about anything that he believes will fit his narrative. What is worse is millions of people defending those lies and repeating them over and over in order to support their leader. They thus become part the lie.

"If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself."
Joseph Goebbels - Wikiquote

So you say his lies are trivial, then turn around and say that because people who voted for him disregard his trivial lies that is somehow worse than the lies told by past Presidents who's lies have actually hurt people.

Every President tells lies that fit their narrative. This isn't anything new. Yet somehow, this is wrong when he does it.

You yourself said that all Presidents lie. Which is why I phrased My response the way I did.

It is only offensive to you when a Republican does it.

Me, I hold them all responsible for their lack of character, but I don't pretend that the R's are worse than the D's, nor do I pretend the D's are worse than the R'. To do so is a serious lack of character.

I don't like Trump, but he's done alright by America so far. Either way, his lies haven't cost Me food on My table like Obama's lies have.

So you actually had less food on your table because of what a President said?

Seriously?

Before Obama care you could choose between health care and food, after Obama care you were forced to buy health care 1st, then if you had anything left over you might be able to buy a cheese burger..


Thanks president Trump for giving us a choice again.


.

I have had to pay many thousands of dollars a year for a policy that doesn't pay a thing.

The whole thing is just a scheme that forces the middle class to support those who don't want to work for a living.

 

[Flopper]

So tell Me. What would you rather have?

A President that lies about trivial matters -- This is the greatest economy ever! -- when in fact, it isn't and it can be verified that there have been better economies? The economy IS pretty damn good. So, has this lie taken any food off your table? Obama said, "you can keep your plan if you like it" regarding healthcare. Yet, you couldn't keep your plan unless it met "Their" requirements. Requirements they did not articulate before they made the lie. Has their lie taken food off your table? Having to pay for healthcare that is more per year with a deductible so high you have to choose between paying one bill over another or going without healthcare?

Which is worse? A President that says that the people trying to enter into this country illegally are bad people, who bring crime like rape and murder with them; or a President that says that it was just a movie that caused an Ambassador and his staff to die?

Has his lie about all of the illegals being murderers stopped illegals from killing, raping or bringing disease into our country? Have Obama's lies brought comfort and solace to those who loved Stevens and his staff?

You see, you people whine about trivial lies. And lies, trivial or not, are a sign of poor character. With that, you and I are in agreement.

But if you must whine about a President who lies, then whine about the ones who weaponize government agencies against American citizens, not against those that lie about statistics.

All Presidents lie. The question is, when is the lie an actual detriment to your own bottom line? That is the one you whine about.

Trump's lies are not just about trivial matters. He lies about just about anything that he believes will fit his narrative. What is worse is millions of people defending those lies and repeating them over and over in order to support their leader. They thus become part the lie.

"If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself."
Joseph Goebbels - Wikiquote

So you say his lies are trivial, then turn around and say that because people who voted for him disregard his trivial lies that is somehow worse than the lies told by past Presidents who's lies have actually hurt people.

Every President tells lies that fit their narrative. This isn't anything new. Yet somehow, this is wrong when he does it.

You yourself said that all Presidents lie. Which is why I phrased My response the way I did.

It is only offensive to you when a Republican does it.

Me, I hold them all responsible for their lack of character, but I don't pretend that the R's are worse than the D's, nor do I pretend the D's are worse than the R'. To do so is a serious lack of character.

I don't like Trump, but he's done alright by America so far. Either way, his lies haven't cost Me food on My table like Obama's lies have.

So you actually had less food on your table because of what a President said?

Seriously?

Before Obama care you could choose between health care and food, after Obama care you were forced to buy health care 1st, then if you had anything left over you might be able to buy a cheese burger..


Thanks president Trump for giving us a choice again.


.

I have had to pay many thousands of dollars a year for a policy that doesn't pay a thing.

The whole thing is just a scheme that forces the middle class to support those who don't want to work for a living.

Would you prefer a policy that paid all the routine stuff and when you're hit with a major medical problem, you're left with huge expenses. That's the alternative that has been propose. We can chip away at costs by reducing preventive care, putting limits on number of visits, excluding various procedures but you end up with a policy that covers a lot less and is still expensive plus you'll have big expenses at the worst possible time, when you're very sick.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Trump's lies are not just about trivial matters. He lies about just about anything that he believes will fit his narrative. What is worse is millions of people defending those lies and repeating them over and over in order to support their leader. They thus become part the lie.

"If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself."
Joseph Goebbels - Wikiquote

So you say his lies are trivial, then turn around and say that because people who voted for him disregard his trivial lies that is somehow worse than the lies told by past Presidents who's lies have actually hurt people.

Every President tells lies that fit their narrative. This isn't anything new. Yet somehow, this is wrong when he does it.

You yourself said that all Presidents lie. Which is why I phrased My response the way I did.

It is only offensive to you when a Republican does it.

Me, I hold them all responsible for their lack of character, but I don't pretend that the R's are worse than the D's, nor do I pretend the D's are worse than the R'. To do so is a serious lack of character.

I don't like Trump, but he's done alright by America so far. Either way, his lies haven't cost Me food on My table like Obama's lies have.

So you actually had less food on your table because of what a President said?

Seriously?

Before Obama care you could choose between health care and food, after Obama care you were forced to buy health care 1st, then if you had anything left over you might be able to buy a cheese burger..


Thanks president Trump for giving us a choice again.


.

I have had to pay many thousands of dollars a year for a policy that doesn't pay a thing.

The whole thing is just a scheme that forces the middle class to support those who don't want to work for a living.

Would you prefer a policy that paid all the routine stuff and when you're hit with a major medical problem, you're left with huge expenses. That's the alternative that has been propose. We can chip away at costs by reducing preventive care, putting limits on number of visits, excluding various procedures but you end up with a policy that covers a lot less and is still expensive plus you'll have big expenses at the worst possible time, when you're very sick.

I would prefer to not be forced ro fork over 15% of my income to subsidize othets,many, if not most of whom don't want to work.

As far as the particulars, if I had no health coverage at all, I would have 30000 in my pocket today that I don't have because of Obama care.

 

[Flopper]

So you say his lies are trivial, then turn around and say that because people who voted for him disregard his trivial lies that is somehow worse than the lies told by past Presidents who's lies have actually hurt people.

Every President tells lies that fit their narrative. This isn't anything new. Yet somehow, this is wrong when he does it.

You yourself said that all Presidents lie. Which is why I phrased My response the way I did.

It is only offensive to you when a Republican does it.

Me, I hold them all responsible for their lack of character, but I don't pretend that the R's are worse than the D's, nor do I pretend the D's are worse than the R'. To do so is a serious lack of character.

I don't like Trump, but he's done alright by America so far. Either way, his lies haven't cost Me food on My table like Obama's lies have.

So you actually had less food on your table because of what a President said?

Seriously?

Before Obama care you could choose between health care and food, after Obama care you were forced to buy health care 1st, then if you had anything left over you might be able to buy a cheese burger..


Thanks president Trump for giving us a choice again.


.

I have had to pay many thousands of dollars a year for a policy that doesn't pay a thing.

The whole thing is just a scheme that forces the middle class to support those who don't want to work for a living.

Would you prefer a policy that paid all the routine stuff and when you're hit with a major medical problem, you're left with huge expenses. That's the alternative that has been propose. We can chip away at costs by reducing preventive care, putting limits on number of visits, excluding various procedures but you end up with a policy that covers a lot less and is still expensive plus you'll have big expenses at the worst possible time, when you're very sick.

I would prefer to not be forced ro fork over 15% of my income to subsidize othets,many, if not most of whom don't want to work.

As far as the particulars, if I had no health coverage at all, I would have 30000 in my pocket today that I don't have because of Obama care.

I don't see how money you pay in premiums is subsidizing others who don't work.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

So you actually had less food on your table because of what a President said?

Seriously?

Before Obama care you could choose between health care and food, after Obama care you were forced to buy health care 1st, then if you had anything left over you might be able to buy a cheese burger..


Thanks president Trump for giving us a choice again.


.

I have had to pay many thousands of dollars a year for a policy that doesn't pay a thing.

The whole thing is just a scheme that forces the middle class to support those who don't want to work for a living.

Would you prefer a policy that paid all the routine stuff and when you're hit with a major medical problem, you're left with huge expenses. That's the alternative that has been propose. We can chip away at costs by reducing preventive care, putting limits on number of visits, excluding various procedures but you end up with a policy that covers a lot less and is still expensive plus you'll have big expenses at the worst possible time, when you're very sick.

I would prefer to not be forced ro fork over 15% of my income to subsidize othets,many, if not most of whom don't want to work.

As far as the particulars, if I had no health coverage at all, I would have 30000 in my pocket today that I don't have because of Obama care.

I don't see how money you pay in premiums is subsidizing others who don't work.

The very system is set up to subsidize those who don't work while the middle class was FORCED to subsidize them.

 

[Flopper]

Before Obama care you could choose between health care and food, after Obama care you were forced to buy health care 1st, then if you had anything left over you might be able to buy a cheese burger..


Thanks president Trump for giving us a choice again.


.

I have had to pay many thousands of dollars a year for a policy that doesn't pay a thing.

The whole thing is just a scheme that forces the middle class to support those who don't want to work for a living.

Would you prefer a policy that paid all the routine stuff and when you're hit with a major medical problem, you're left with huge expenses. That's the alternative that has been propose. We can chip away at costs by reducing preventive care, putting limits on number of visits, excluding various procedures but you end up with a policy that covers a lot less and is still expensive plus you'll have big expenses at the worst possible time, when you're very sick.

I would prefer to not be forced ro fork over 15% of my income to subsidize othets,many, if not most of whom don't want to work.

As far as the particulars, if I had no health coverage at all, I would have 30000 in my pocket today that I don't have because of Obama care.

I don't see how money you pay in premiums is subsidizing others who don't work.

The very system is set up to subsidize those who don't work while the middle class was FORCED to subsidize them.

The question is how does the premiums you pay your insurance company subsidize those that don't.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I have had to pay many thousands of dollars a year for a policy that doesn't pay a thing.

The whole thing is just a scheme that forces the middle class to support those who don't want to work for a living.

Would you prefer a policy that paid all the routine stuff and when you're hit with a major medical problem, you're left with huge expenses. That's the alternative that has been propose. We can chip away at costs by reducing preventive care, putting limits on number of visits, excluding various procedures but you end up with a policy that covers a lot less and is still expensive plus you'll have big expenses at the worst possible time, when you're very sick.

I would prefer to not be forced ro fork over 15% of my income to subsidize othets,many, if not most of whom don't want to work.

As far as the particulars, if I had no health coverage at all, I would have 30000 in my pocket today that I don't have because of Obama care.

I don't see how money you pay in premiums is subsidizing others who don't work.

The very system is set up to subsidize those who don't work while the middle class was FORCED to subsidize them.

The question is how does the premiums you pay your insurance company subsidize those that don't.

It should I kid be obvious. The costs are the costs.when some receive benefits with no contributions and others are forced to contribute but receive almost no benefits, those who pay in are subsidising those who don't.

If 5 people were forced by the government to buy a 500000 dollar house and they all contributed, they would be paying 100000
0 each. If only two were required to contribute, but still had to buy that house for the others, they would be paying 250000 each in order to subsidize the others.

 

[longknife]

I have never pulled any punches about my posts being statements of my own political beliefs. They are based upon a lot of study and nearly 80 years of experience.

I do my best to back up my posts with links and have no qualms about the things I find interesting and wish to share.

I am unashamedly an American nationalist with a firm belief that our constitution is the supreme law of the land. I am sick and tired of career politicians who have never served this country or held a real job or met a payroll. I find it criminal that so many from both parties have lined their personal coffers due to their time in public office.

As my signature indicates, I proudly voted for President Trump and have found extremely few things to be unhappy about. I find Melania to be the classiest First Lady this country has had.

I have also learned a simple lesson - no amount of facts or truths are going to change the minds of ideologues, especially socialist/progressive/Leftists. So, I don't waste my time.

Have a nice day.

 

[Flopper]

Would you prefer a policy that paid all the routine stuff and when you're hit with a major medical problem, you're left with huge expenses. That's the alternative that has been propose. We can chip away at costs by reducing preventive care, putting limits on number of visits, excluding various procedures but you end up with a policy that covers a lot less and is still expensive plus you'll have big expenses at the worst possible time, when you're very sick.

I would prefer to not be forced ro fork over 15% of my income to subsidize othets,many, if not most of whom don't want to work.

As far as the particulars, if I had no health coverage at all, I would have 30000 in my pocket today that I don't have because of Obama care.

I don't see how money you pay in premiums is subsidizing others who don't work.

The very system is set up to subsidize those who don't work while the middle class was FORCED to subsidize them.

The question is how does the premiums you pay your insurance company subsidize those that don't.

It should I kid be obvious. The costs are the costs.when some receive benefits with no contributions and others are forced to contribute but receive almost no benefits, those who pay in are subsidising those who don't.

If 5 people were forced by the government to buy a 500000 dollar house and they all contributed, they would be paying 100000
0 each. If only two were required to contribute, but still had to buy that house for the others, they would be paying 250000 each in order to subsidize the others.

What kind of health insurance are you talking about, Insurance bought through the exchanges with supplements, purchased through your employer, or what?

 

[Pogo]

I have never pulled any punches about my posts being statements of my own political beliefs. They are based upon a lot of study and nearly 80 years of experience.

I do my best to back up my posts with links and have no qualms about the things I find interesting and wish to share.

I am unashamedly an American nationalist with a firm belief that our constitution is the supreme law of the land. I am sick and tired of career politicians who have never served this country or held a real job or met a payroll. I find it criminal that so many from both parties have lined their personal coffers due to their time in public office.

As my signature indicates, I proudly voted for President Trump and have found extremely few things to be unhappy about. I find Melania to be the classiest First Lady this country has had.

I have also learned a simple lesson - no amount of facts or truths are going to change the minds of ideologues, especially socialist/progressive/Leftists. So, I don't waste my time.

Have a nice day.

Then there are posters who blatantly contradict their own points, and don't even see the blatant contradiction, as above.

Thus perhaps one practice that makes a good poster is reviewing one's own work to determine if it makes sense.

 

[jwoodie]

Trump's lies are not just about trivial matters.

Still waiting for an example that has harmed the country...

 

[flacaltenn]

Although I agree with most of your post, cognitive scientists have determined by many studies that facts and rational arguments do not change opinions. They only polarize opinions

Intriguing.

I must be unique in that way then.

If you want to change hearts and mind, you have to establish a dialog and you can't do that by proving your adversary is wrong.

My opinion is this: Never refer to the person you are debating with as an "adversary". That only hardens them to your viewpoints... or in your words, it further "polarizes" their opinion against yours.

Furthermore, the person you are debating should not live in ignorance if facts are readily available to contradict their argument. Nor should they live in ignorance of facts. One of the worst things, I believe, is to let a person continue believing something that isn't true when there are facts and evidence to the contrary. How they handle that information is a burden for them to bear alone.

If you submit facts and arguments to prove someone's beliefs are wrong, that's fine. Just don't expect them to change their beliefs. If you want to establish a fund to help people that are victims of climate change, you don't attack core beliefs of climate change deniers, you appeal to their desire to to help people in distress and don't mention climate change at all. If you want democrats to support reducing welfare payments to the poor, talk to them about ways to create jobs for the poor.

The "wrapping" on the package is more important than most realize.. Because all the "argument packaging" is highly distributed by the media and politicians. And MOST of it -- just doesn't make sense to begin.. We argue about SOO many things on discussion board that are just EXPRESSED and laid out wrong to begin with...

You got to get thru the "packaging" before you can even attempt to argue or persuade.. And most USMB OPosts are HIGHLY "over-packaged"...

 

[Flopper]

Although I agree with most of your post, cognitive scientists have determined by many studies that facts and rational arguments do not change opinions. They only polarize opinions

Intriguing.

I must be unique in that way then.

If you want to change hearts and mind, you have to establish a dialog and you can't do that by proving your adversary is wrong.

My opinion is this: Never refer to the person you are debating with as an "adversary". That only hardens them to your viewpoints... or in your words, it further "polarizes" their opinion against yours.

Furthermore, the person you are debating should not live in ignorance if facts are readily available to contradict their argument. Nor should they live in ignorance of facts. One of the worst things, I believe, is to let a person continue believing something that isn't true when there are facts and evidence to the contrary. How they handle that information is a burden for them to bear alone.

If you submit facts and arguments to prove someone's beliefs are wrong, that's fine. Just don't expect them to change their beliefs. If you want to establish a fund to help people that are victims of climate change, you don't attack core beliefs of climate change deniers, you appeal to their desire to to help people in distress and don't mention climate change at all. If you want democrats to support reducing welfare payments to the poor, talk to them about ways to create jobs for the poor.

The "wrapping" on the package is more important than most realize.. Because all the "argument packaging" is highly distributed by the media and politicians. And MOST of it -- just doesn't make sense to begin.. We argue about SOO many things on discussion board that are just EXPRESSED and laid out wrong to begin with...

You got to get thru the "packaging" before you can even attempt to argue or persuade.. And most USMB OPosts are HIGHLY "over-packaged"...

I think the root of the problem you're describing is the fact that we have so much information at our fingertips on USMB and the media in general that writers construct sensational pieces to catch our attention. So often those articles and posting are just "much ado about nothing." I've notice a lot of these fantastic articles are complete fabrications.

 

[Foxfyre]

I was watching something on tv and there was a bit on that if one wants to effectively talk to others, usually about politics, do it without the emotions. I thought about that for a minute and that really makes sense. If you can discuss any subject (Especially politics and religion) by inserting facts and discussions of observations, do it without anger and name calling.

Can posters here manage to discuss based on facts without being emotional, playing the victim and just basically losing it?

In other words can posters be the adults in the room?

In my opinion:

A good poster says what s/he means and means what s/he says.

A good poster can do that without the use of ad hominem or personal insult though negative adjectives and adverbs may be used to make the point. Calling out rhetoric, behavior, concepts as wrong, unacceptable, even evil, is far different than attacking a person's character or person.

A good poster can articulate and explain a concept or issue in his/her own words. At times a well chosen link supporting their argument can be effective, but should not take the place of their own point of view and argument. Those who cannot make a coherent case for their point of view but just spout the assigned talking points of the week or month come across as not only clueless, but usually come across as ignorant and/or mean spirited. Those who don't make their own argument but but post link after link after link or who copy and paste cherry picked phrases not only come across as ignorant and/or mean spirited, but are boring as the dickens.

A good poster can discuss the issue with all pros and cons and doesn't dig up a lot of unrelated old bones to use in lieu of discussing the actual issue.

And I think a good poster knows what the topic is and stays on it as much as reasonable. He/she is not dragged off course by the 'professional' (probably paid) people who show up on every thread with the explicit goal of derailing it, changing the subject, twisting it into something else. For example, by page four of this thread, nobody was discussing the thread topic any more but were off on something entirely different. That is no accident when it happens.

 

[Chuz Life]

Folks don't come to this place to have intellectual discussions. They mostly come to have their biases confirmed and prattle on about their political enemies.

Already so many agree with you on that.

It is a sad testimony for this site.

 

[task0778]

It's not like you gotta be this all-knowing expert, but you ought to put your thoughts out there in a coherent and understandable way no matter what your position is. Nothing wrong with stating your opinion, but you oughta say so if that's the case. Sometimes it's obvious, but other times one wonders; it doesn't take that long to type IMO or IMHO. If it's somebody else's opinion then link to it if you can or at least say so. Sometimes you read something somewhere that states what you think is right better than what you could say yourself, and that's fine but you should credit whoever or wherever you got it from, even if it's from what might be considered a somewhat extremist site.

I know this: there are many posters on this board from both sides of the aisle who are smarter than me. I am not so ideologically bound that I can't see another point of view as at least worthy of consideration, and in fact I have changed my mind once or twice. Sooo, I guess we all need to ask ourselves a question, which is why do we post here? If it's just to pick a fight or bitch about the other side, well I guess that's allowed within the confines of the forum rules. Insults and demagoguery will avail you nothing however. All you're doing is adding to the divisiveness, maybe some people get their jollies doing that. Which is sad really, one hopes they grow out of it.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's not like you gotta be this all-knowing expert, but you ought to put your thoughts out there in a coherent and understandable way no matter what your position is. Nothing wrong with stating your opinion, but you oughta say so if that's the case. Sometimes it's obvious, but other times one wonders; it doesn't take that long to type IMO or IMHO. If it's somebody else's opinion then link to it if you can or at least say so. Sometimes you read something somewhere that states what you think is right better than what you could say yourself, and that's fine but you should credit whoever or wherever you got it from, even if it's from what might be considered a somewhat extremist site.

I know this: there are many posters on this board from both sides of the aisle who are smarter than me. I am not so ideologically bound that I can't see another point of view as at least worthy of consideration, and in fact I have changed my mind once or twice. Sooo, I guess we all need to ask ourselves a question, which is why do we post here? If it's just to pick a fight or bitch about the other side, well I guess that's allowed within the confines of the forum rules. Insults and demagoguery will avail you nothing however. All you're doing is adding to the divisiveness, maybe some people get their jollies doing that. Which is sad really, one hopes they grow out of it.

You touched on something dear to my heart here, i.e. "(you) have changed (your) mind once or twice." THAT is also the mark of a good poster, as well as a person who is not bound by hyper partisanship and/or dogmatic ideology and who is capable of critical thinking. It isn't people pleasing. It is an honorable trait of deciding to be right instead of pretending wrong is right or refusing to admit you are wrong. It is something I deeply respect.

Nobody impresses me by deliberately misspelling the President's or somebody else's name or heaping ugly characterizations upon him or reciting the assigned talking points of the day or whatever. Nobody impresses me when they do that to people I oppose either.

I can say that I think a point of view or activity or propaganda is uncaring, unrealistic, hateful, disrespectful, divisive, or whatever without characterizing a PERSON as being uncaring, etc. People can hold entirely screwy, wrong, destructive points of view without being evil or unacceptable people. That is the subtle difference between ad hominem and actual criticism. That is the difference between integrity of one's convictions and intolerance. So long as they are not violating anybody else's rights to be who and what they are, attacking, trying to silence, or destroy the reputation, livelihood, or well being of people disagreed with is evil. UnAmerican. Wrong. And it should be illegal.

But give me a good, honest, supportable, reason that I am wrong in my point of view, and I might chafe a bit because nobody likes to be wrong. But like task0778, when people I respect here offer me an argument that I can't refute and that puts my own point of view into a different light, I like to think I am grown up enough to able to change my mind about something now and then.

 

[Flopper]

I was watching something on tv and there was a bit on that if one wants to effectively talk to others, usually about politics, do it without the emotions. I thought about that for a minute and that really makes sense. If you can discuss any subject (Especially politics and religion) by inserting facts and discussions of observations, do it without anger and name calling.

Can posters here manage to discuss based on facts without being emotional, playing the victim and just basically losing it?

In other words can posters be the adults in the room?

In my opinion:

A good poster says what s/he means and means what s/he says.

A good poster can do that without the use of ad hominem or personal insult though negative adjectives and adverbs may be used to make the point. Calling out rhetoric, behavior, concepts as wrong, unacceptable, even evil, is far different than attacking a person's character or person.

A good poster can articulate and explain a concept or issue in his/her own words. At times a well chosen link supporting their argument can be effective, but should not take the place of their own point of view and argument. Those who cannot make a coherent case for their point of view but just spout the assigned talking points of the week or month come across as not only clueless, but usually come across as ignorant and/or mean spirited. Those who don't make their own argument but but post link after link after link or who copy and paste cherry picked phrases not only come across as ignorant and/or mean spirited, but are boring as the dickens.

A good poster can discuss the issue with all pros and cons and doesn't dig up a lot of unrelated old bones to use in lieu of discussing the actual issue.

And I think a good poster knows what the topic is and stays on it as much as reasonable. He/she is not dragged off course by the 'professional' (probably paid) people who show up on every thread with the explicit goal of derailing it, changing the subject, twisting it into something else. For example, by page four of this thread, nobody was discussing the thread topic any more but were off on something entirely different. That is no accident when it happens.

I agree with almost all of your post, particularly your point about personal attacks and insults. I try my best to remain civil and if a poster starts insulting me and launching personal attacks, I put them on ignore. There's really good reasons to do this other than keeping your blood pressure down. First, fame wars kill threads. Nobody wants to read screen after screen of two people insulting each other. Second, once you start attacking a person, your chance of convincing them you're right drops to zero. If you really want to hit these people where it hurts, ignore them.

I love to read well written posts but many of us do not have great language skills. I think people sometimes try to substitute quantity for quality. Most people do not read more than 100 words or so. I know it really feels good to fully express yourself or offer a detailed rebuttal, however don't expect people to take the time to read 5 screens of text.

 

[Flopper]

It's not like you gotta be this all-knowing expert, but you ought to put your thoughts out there in a coherent and understandable way no matter what your position is. Nothing wrong with stating your opinion, but you oughta say so if that's the case. Sometimes it's obvious, but other times one wonders; it doesn't take that long to type IMO or IMHO. If it's somebody else's opinion then link to it if you can or at least say so. Sometimes you read something somewhere that states what you think is right better than what you could say yourself, and that's fine but you should credit whoever or wherever you got it from, even if it's from what might be considered a somewhat extremist site.

I know this: there are many posters on this board from both sides of the aisle who are smarter than me. I am not so ideologically bound that I can't see another point of view as at least worthy of consideration, and in fact I have changed my mind once or twice. Sooo, I guess we all need to ask ourselves a question, which is why do we post here? If it's just to pick a fight or bitch about the other side, well I guess that's allowed within the confines of the forum rules. Insults and demagoguery will avail you nothing however. All you're doing is adding to the divisiveness, maybe some people get their jollies doing that. Which is sad really, one hopes they grow out of it.

For those of us who aren't great writers such as myself, spending some time googling the topic before writing a reply can not only keep you from making a fool of yourself but can also provide you with a good reply. Nothing wrong with pasting in your reply, as long as it's not 5 screens long and you put a link to the source.

My biggest complain about replies is so many of them aren't really replies, they're just political propaganda that often does not even address your post.