Bytor and politics

[bytor2112]

It has been pointed out to me by my friend from the great white north...aka....Funky Town, that I am a bit......over zealous in my posting of news stories regarding President Obama, the majority of which mirror my personal views of his economic policy and more recently his foreign policy.

I will restrain myself and if my numerous posts have offended or left emotional scars, please except my most sincere apology. I truly do not have any hatred for our President, his policies are and will continue to be a grave concern for me and I hope eventually most Americans. But I will avoid posting further stories about President Obama and his policies.

[Hemidakota]

It has been pointed out to me by my friend from the great white north...aka....Funky Town, that I am a bit......over zealous in my posting of news stories regarding President Obama, the majority of which mirror my personal views of his economic policy and more recently his foreign policy.

I will restrain myself and if my numerous posts have offended or left emotional scars, please except my most sincere apology. I truly do not have any hatred for our President, his policies are and will continue to be a grave concern for me and I hope eventually most Americans. But I will avoid posting further stories about President Obama and his policies.

I have no taste for both parties. We simply need to rely on the Holy Ghost as a guide in picking the lesser evil.

[Aesa]

I don't think anyone should be emotionally scarred.

What I'd suggest is that rather than giving your opinion in the opening post, just post the information and then ask others their opinion and respond with yours.

That'd be a start in talking to people properly. It seems that when you post a topic, and simultaneously announce your opinion you're talking AT people rather than TO them.

I enjoy you posting them, but just don't ... I don't know ... make your opinion seem deliberately imposed (i.e., posting it in the opening post).

Or maybe just, cut it down.

[FunkyTown]

You know you're awesome, Bytor. And I don't mind that you post some stories, but you posted 4 in a row that basically said the exact same thing. I worry that some US citizens who might be Democrats(Shock horror!) might think you have to be Libertarian/Republican to be a member of the church.

Heck: Timothy McVeigh was Libertarian and I'm pretty sure he's never going to be quoted by Church leaders.

[bytor2112]

You know you're awesome, Bytor. And I don't mind that you post some stories, but you posted 4 in a row that basically said the exact same thing. I worry that some US citizens who might be Democrats(Shock horror!) might think you have to be Libertarian/Republican to be a member of the church.

Heck: Timothy McVeigh was Libertarian and I'm pretty sure he's never going to be quoted by Church leaders.

I hear that may be a new requirement for a Temple recommend....

[Wingnut]

I don't think anyone should be emotionally scarred.

What I'd suggest is that rather than giving your opinion in the opening post, just post the information and then ask others their opinion and respond with yours.

That'd be a start in talking to people properly. It seems that when you post a topic, and simultaneously announce your opinion you're talking AT people rather than TO them.

I actually don't think that's much of a problem. Even if he doesn't comment on the articles at all, they are all (almost all) still slanted toward his view (if he didn't agree, why would he post them?).

[bytor2112]

I actually don't think that's much of a problem. Even if he doesn't comment on the articles at all, they are all (almost all) still slanted toward his view (if he didn't agree, why would he post them?).

But Wingnut, it gives YOU and others who feel as you do the opportunity to rebutt or defend or comment or ignore.

[FunkyTown]

You do raise a good point, Bytor: It's important that open communication be maintained. Especially in the current balkanized state of American politics.

I think for the most part, it's the sheer volume people were objecting to. I honestly like your thoughts on political subjects, even if I disagree with the degree of government intervention necessary(Which is, I think, basically the one disagreement we have on the economy). Since I usually don't read specific forums, but just hit 'New posts' when I log in, I can see just how many anti-Obama posts are made. It's really a very lot and very rarely is it something new.

If you're wondering why I sound so chill and relaxed right now, I'm listening to Simlish versions of songs.

This song gets me so happy.

[DigitalShadow]

I don't mind at all. I read most of the articles just so I can get a better understanding of the conservative viewpoint since honestly it has never made much sense to me.

[Wingnut]

But Wingnut, it gives YOU and others who feel as you do the opportunity to rebutt or defend or comment or ignore.

Yeah, I know. I just don't have the energy to do it after trying to sift through so many. And as a matter of practice, I don't ignore/block anyone.

[Guest]

Whoa! Another thread about Bytor.

You're one popular d00de today!

Okay okay... I should not speak (er, write) unless I can improve the silence.

<bowing out now...>

Hey Funky - let me borrow that simlish thingee...

[Moksha]

I worry that some US citizens who might be Democrats(Shock horror!) might think you have to be Libertarian/Republican to be a member of the church.

This is a very important worry. I have read stuff that refers to the Church as a right-wing political organization rather than a church. That is definitely bad for us.

[Palerider]

I don't mind at all. I read most of the articles just so I can get a better understanding of the conservative viewpoint since honestly it has never made much sense to me.

I am glad you said that....because you just summed up my feelings for the Democrats and their Liberal agenda.....I don't get it...:)

[FunkyTown]

That's exactly the problem with American politics, Pale. There is no bridge. Neither side understands the other side and both are firmly of the opinion that the other side must be fools, tyrants or dupes.

It doesn't make for any real compelling arguments.

[Palerider]

That's exactly the problem with American politics, Pale. There is no bridge. Neither side understands the other side and both are firmly of the opinion that the other side must be fools, tyrants or dupes.

It doesn't make for any real compelling arguments.

My biggest beef with Democrats is Tax increases......they always want to raise them.....it also cost Daddy Bush his second term....I won't start on the next guy after Daddy Bush...

[Dravin]

That's exactly the problem with American politics, Pale. There is no bridge. Neither side understands the other side and both are firmly of the opinion that the other side must be fools, tyrants or dupes.

It doesn't make for any real compelling arguments.

Are American politics really that polarized compared to others? Do you think it's the two party deadlock or something else?

[Kawazu]

Are American politics really that polarized compared to others? Do you think it's the two party deadlock or something else?

Howdy,

The problem is professional politicians instead of citizen politicians. These people have no real jobs, spend too much time at the Capitol, (disconnected from the general population), install automatic pay raises for themselves, and practically live off the largess of the State.

[Dravin]

Howdy,

The problem is professional politicians instead of citizen politicians. These people have no real jobs, spend too much time at the Capitol, (disconnected from the general population), install automatic pay raises for themselves, and practically live off the largess of the State.

Now right off the bat I will confess a I'm ignorant, but how is that different than politicians elsewhere such as England, Canada or to get away from the Anglos, France, Germany or Italy?

[Palerider]

Howdy,

The problem is professional politicians instead of citizen politicians. These people have no real jobs, spend too much time at the Capitol, (disconnected from the general population), install automatic pay raises for themselves, and practically live off the largess of the State.

the way to solve that is....Term Limits

[Kawazu]

Now right off the bat I will confess a I'm ignorant, but how is that different than politicians elsewhere such as England, Canada or to get away from the Anglos, France, Germany or Italy?

It is not, I should think, different at all.

[Dravin]

It is not, I should think, different at all.

Ah, see FunkyTown is Canadian and and I took his comment as implying that wasn't the case in Canadian (and possibly) other politics. So I was wondering why he thought such. He may not have been implying such* at all and just recognizing we're talking about American politics, I suppose either way It'll take him to clarify what he meant, unless of course you know how to do a Mind Meld. :)

*Such an implication does not offend me

[Kawazu]

MIND MELD

[Kawazu]

Ah, see FunkyTown is Canadian and and I took his comment as implying that wasn't the case in Canadian (and possibly) other politics. So I was wondering why he thought such. He may not have been implying such* at all and just recognizing we're talking about American politics, I suppose either way It'll take him to clarify what he meant, unless of course you know how to do a Mind Meld. :)

*Such an implication does not offend me

You know, considering further, I will concede that there may be differences in the amount of loot available for elected officials to spend and how isolated the Capitol city is from the rest of the populace. I wonder what correlation there is between national wealth and corruption, compounded by the fact that elected officials are often separated by many miles from the homes of their constituents? (For instance, I could see a State government being more accountable than a Federal one because it is easier for an individual to petition the ruling class--and a single vote carries more weight in a local area.)

Edited June 10, 2009 by Kawazu

[Elphaba]

But Wingnut, it gives YOU and others who feel as you do the opportunity to rebutt or defend or comment or ignore.

Actually, your plethora of posts does the opposite. I'll just speak for myself.

I DO rebutt your threads. I DO do defend my positions--over and over and over again. Unfortunately, almost each time I do, my rebuttals and opinions rarely get serious, point-by-point responses, and the thread dies. What they get are insults, along the lines of "How can you really think that," or "Stop drinking the Kool aid."

In my experience, after I've written a rebuttal to one of your threads, you've already gone on and posted new ones, the previous threads end, and my rebuttals are not seen, or if they are, they are only given a cursory response because, like I said, everyone is on to your newest thread. I believes this repeats over and over again, to the point that there is perceptive cycle to the Current Events forum now.

Obviously there are many exceptions to this, yet, in my opinion, this is accurate more often than not, and I think my cyclical example is valid.

At that point it is my choice to write yet another rebuttal with basically the same information, tweaking it for your new thread, or ignore it. I've come to the point where I ignore it. Why should I bother when my responses are lost to new threads?

So I'm not going to respond anymore, or if I do, it will be rare, and it is directly because I feel like you bombard us with threads that say the same thing over and over again, and my belief that it prevents substantive discussions. It's not worth my time. (I realize you may think that's a good thing. )

Elphaba

Edited June 10, 2009 by Elphaba

[FunkyTown]

It is not, I should think, different at all.

I sheepishly have to admit that it is a bit different.

Some people in Canada are die-hard liberals. Some people are die-hard Conservatives and some people are die-hard NDP or Bloc Quebecois.

In Britain, some people are die-hard Conservative. Some people are die-hard Labour. Some people are die-hard BKIP.

People from the United Kingdom and Canada are every bit as internet savvy as their American counterparts, but the number of UK or Canadian politics posts on the web are miniscule compared to American political threads. While I can't argue surliness(This is the internet, so everything generally descends to surliness), I can argue that the sheer amount of anti-Democrat/anti-Republican claptrap on the net far exceeds that of any other country.

Heck - How many people on here, before they look it up, even know what the Canadian Liberal party stands for? The conservative party? How about the BKIP party in Britain?

There's even a litmus test we can throw in: This is an LDS church. If you combine the number of UK members with the number of Canadian members, it's still about 1/10th the population available in the US. I will go better than 1/10. If anyone on here can find any UK or Canadian political threads(And there are some on here, since I participated in them), I will find 15 threads on American politics. I bet the number is closer to 100-1 or higher.

If you don't like those odds on an LDS website: Pick any generic, non-nation specific website and I guarantee the numbers will still heavily weight in favour of US politics.