Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

OP/ED: Feeding the White Elephant

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Pathos, Logos, Ethos are all modules of persuasion learned in introductory English courses. I don't think it's uncommon to find these in persuasive arguments and sometimes they may even be necessary if that is indeed what someone is trying to do.

Perhaps the problem is that too many people are trying to persuade others to their point of view. Or perhaps it is an imbalance of those three ingredients...I don't know, I'm just pointing out that people shouldn't be surprised to see emotion in a discussion on ATS.




posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I said it on a previous post, I am sick and tired of fighting this and that, there are valid arguements on both sides, for me that is the left side, for others it is the right. I presonally do not care for the rights arguements but they are entitled to their opinions, as am I. The thing is, this duality is poisoneous, instead of fightenting against something, can't we fight for something for once. That supposed to be the American way anyway.



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer70
Valhall I'm not so sure I agree with this: " BOTH PARTY'S POLITICIANS HAVE DECIDED THAT THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE AGAINST ANY "DANGER" WILL BE DRAWN FROM OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND OUR FREEDOMS". Why have you come to this conclusion?



Because they both have??? It's that simple. I don't see where the confusion is.


Originally posted by gallopinghordes


Just as an aside can I use the Meantards at work? It fits so many people there.


This was actually developed at my work, so I can't possibly hold some one back from using it at their work. I think it's almost an Office Space type phrase. Go forth and use wisely.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Can I hurl in some observations?

There are few policy differences between the Democrats and Republicans, whatever their ideological manifesto's state. It is the same in Britain and Australia, the main members of the Coalition of the Willing. Our societies are supposedly polarised but our governments, the party's in office and the parties in opposition are scared of appearing different to the ultimate mantra of the voting mass; self interest fueled by fear, especially fears of the unverifiable, the unknown, the misunderstood. What useful political capital those fears provide. They are subject to the boring old cycle of history and the permanent reach of power. Modern governments do not represent us, they appease us with prepared gibberish.

There are growing numbers of traditional Republican supporters who are dismayed by their party's actions in government, (Valhall may be one of them?) who may subsequently like to remember the faults of the Clinton administration and be satisfied that they're not the only disaster in town. I don't recall the Clinton Administration invading Iraq without blatant provocation to strategic US interests. The Axis of Evil is a human trait, not a nationality. Both invasions of Iraq are self interest unfurled, not advancement of freedom, nor the diminishing of a threat.

The actions taken by the current US administration, considerably supported by the alleged Democrat opposition, not to mention the clapping media, have polarised the Coalition nations, brought the angelicised Presidency into a perception of disrepute (not for the first time) and set the world on a knife-edge. Those nations not aligned to the Western coalition are being made enemies of the West for they hold the resource keys to our carbonised future.

People typing on keyboards, staring at their thoughts on a screen without instant retort, tend to make statements they might temper significantly in face to face conversation, unless inebriated. The ATS handbook has some useful things to say on this. Conversely, time in front of a keyboard should theoretically add up to greater thoughtfulness. But does it?

Valhall, Semperfortis did not accuse you of stating 'we should all become moderates'. That person said "What is it that you suggest, that we all become moderates?" (Pg.3) You lost your cool at this point. Meantard? Is that a nasty retard? Quote "Since the trend for the day is to feed the elephant with both hands and a shovel..." (Pg.3) Suddenly you're pointing a gun at your foot.

Freedom of speech is exactly that. 'Say what you wilt shall be the whole of the jaw.' Apologies to Crowley. Thoughtful debate is for the thoughtful. I don't expect it from everyone....ME EVIL PARTISAN!!!???



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soulstice


There are growing numbers of traditional Republican supporters who are dismayed by their party's actions in government, (Valhall may be one of them?) who may subsequently like to remember the faults of the Clinton administration and be satisfied that they're not the only disaster in town. I don't recall the Clinton Administration invading Iraq without blatant provocation to strategic US interests. The Axis of Evil is a human trait, not a nationality. Both invasions of Iraq are self interest unfurled, not advancement of freedom, nor the diminishing of a threat.



You almost got it right, but then missed it...usually happens when you try to discern some one else's intent.

There are traditional (i.e. TRUE) Republicans that are dismayed by the fact there is no longer a TRUE Republican party or a two-party system. There is now only a left-wing Democratic party (the modern day Democratic party) and a right-wing Democratic party (the modern day Republican party). They are differentiated by their stand on assinine issues that shouldn't even be at the federal level (first indication that there is no TRUE Republican party any more). Those issues are...

abortion
gay marriage
etc.

Because now we just have two halves of the same party pushing for big, intrusive, government...and if there were a TRUE Republican party, one of them wouldn't be doing this - they would, on the contrary, be fighting against it.

If there still was a two-party system and a TRUE Republican party the PATRIOT Act would never have been considered while Congress and the White House was under a TRUE Republican control. There is no act passed in my lifetime that is more anti-TRUE-Republican than the PATRIOT Act. There would also not be wire-tapping of U.S. citizens without court approval. And there would not be the behemoth "Homeland Security" department.

A republican president (whether he's a TRUE Republican or the new fake type) being willing to go to war is no big surprise. But a TRUE Republican president would also be pushing for a strong military in a DEFENSIVE posture. I don't see that happening, do you? I just see a fake Republican president pissing off every country on the globe with his "shoot first figure out if you should've later" behavior.

You're implication that me bringing up Clinton's attempt at the Omnibus bill was some type of "sharing of the blame" not only can't be further from what my intention was, it's bizarre that you even see it that way.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   
I'm not feeding any more "political" animals, no more. I am voting Constitutionalist next time. What it isn't on the ticket you say, I saw it on mine, so what if I wrote it on there...


[edit on 18-6-2006 by ADVISOR]



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Great op/ed

It has become evident to me in my life time that this political alignment by party is increaseing in strength. Almost everyone I know that are republicans, will make excuses for this current administration and condemn the last one.

No matter what the issue, there is always and excuse to say" This is a diffucult issue and the administration is doing the best it can" .

IF you review the political platforms most will find things in both platforms items they like and dislike.

This polarization will not end until the majority of us accept that neither party really represents us, the citizens. It appears that our elected representitives do what ever they want. This is true on both sides of the isle.

There are many examples to show this with the current administration. One excellent example was the Dubi deal on the ports. The people contacted their representatives in masses and helped stop the deal. However only a short time later the president signed a Dubi deal giving management control over some military manufacturing facilities to the UAE company, even though he knew how the people felt.

THis is not to say that Clinton did not do the same kinds of things.

We tend to treat our political parties like an organized sports team. We will always stand behind our team, no exceptions. If we didnt then the other team would win and that would be just horrible.

I hope you do get a area up to talk about this problem, though it may not get solved, perhaps it will open a few of our minds up to a change in the normal way we think.

If those who visit this site cant see both sides and come to a logical conclusion then no one can, after all most here believe in conspiricy and beyond.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Two points for two posters:

dj - Bush has currently held mideastern and/or Muslim men for over 4 years. See - I challenge you to just say that. Just admit it. It's quite liberating.

If you had said - "in the past this country went so far as to have internment camps where vast numbers of U.S. citizens were held, and at least at this point we have not gone that bad..."

I would be more inclined to say - you are absolutely right! But I fear we might be sliding toward it.

But you didn't - you had to point out that it was a DEMOCRATIC president that wins the award for the most extravagant display of populace restriction.



Actually, no comparison as these Muslims being held are not U.S. citizens and are not being held on U.S. soil. This anti-Gitmo sentiment is fueled by the media at this time in an attempt to get the administration to list exactly what these people are being held for. Understand that many were dragged from Afghanistan and the rest probably from Iraq. The fact that GWB and others do not fully list out each and every individual and list what they are being held for is probably the true issue at hand. But understand that these were and are enemy combatants, sources of intel about the other potential terrorists, and they are not U.S. citizens as the Japanese were.

Maybe someone might bring up '731' in Japan as a nice comparison of how we treated P.O.W's vs. Japan, but as for the rounding up of U.S. citizens without a charge or warrant...THAT was the issue at hand.

Please refrain from comparing Gitmo to this incident, as Gitmo has to be the Taj Mahal of P.O.W. camps. You can compare it to Hanoi, "731", and Korea all you'd like.

OR if you really like, wait until the video comes out on the two kidnapped U.S. servicemen being held. Contrast what is probably going to happen to them sharply to that of the Muslim detainees in Cuba.

THIS is not a partisan argument FOR or AGAINST GWB, Repubs, or Dems. This is an argument against what we are doing to find and kill terrorists.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
There are traditional (i.e. TRUE) Republicans that are dismayed by the fact there is no longer a TRUE Republican party or a two-party system. There is now only a left-wing Democratic party (the modern day Democratic party) and a right-wing Democratic party (the modern day Republican party). They are differentiated by their stand on assinine issues that shouldn't even be at the federal level (first indication that there is no TRUE Republican party any more). Those issues are...


If you would care to do further research in your free time, I think you would discover that both Democratic and Republican Parties have its real roots in the Democratic-Republican societies bore out of the machinations of Edmond Genet.

It's really one party with two faces. The original Republican Party was a genuine American political party in the early 19th century that somehow got "infected" with people privately inspired by the ideals of the Democratic-Republican societies.

Sadly there isn't much history to reveal the true nature and intents of Edmond Genet and the Democratic-Republican societies he created.


[edit on 6/22/2006 by pawnplayer]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 12:29 AM
link   
As bad as partisianship is, and has been, for our country, there is another phenomenon at work within ATS and within politics that bothers me equally as much. That phenomenon is the apparent need for seemingly intelligent human beings to portray just about everything they do in the greatest possible contrast. We seem to have a difficult time accepting the notion that, for example, plan A is a barely discernable shade of grey darker, or lighter, than plan B. Instead, depending upon which particular plan we favor, we will describe/paint the other plan as totally black, or white, as totally good, or evil.

While I'm ranting, let me also say that the seeming total inability of people in general to plan anything further into the future than around 18 months also disturbs me. What is it about us that demands near instant results? You can see this at work in government, in business and in peoples personal lives. In business for example it manifests itself in the quarterly profit & loss sheet, often at the expense of reinvestment or deferment of profits to realize a more worthwhile goal further down the road.

Well enough of playing Andy Rooney for today.



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
I'm not feeding any more "political" animals, no more. I am voting Constitutionalist next time. What it isn't on the ticket you say, I saw it on mine, so what if I wrote it on there...


[edit on 18-6-2006 by ADVISOR]

I am so with you on this one

In the 2004 election our ballot didnt have Ralph Nader... so I wrote it in. Im sure it didnt count but I still spoke my mind that day.

Down with the Pseudo-two party dictatorship!!!!



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 03:54 AM
link   
The main difference between Republican and Democratic Parties are the approach and execution of the Taxation System that exists in the USA.
Democrats prefer to spread wealth around
Republican prefer to allow the wealthy to keep more of it
Other than this, there is little difference between the parties. Whoever is in power wants more, whoever isnt wants to restrict it, hence the Drama.


You have no constitutional rights or freedoms. The Constitution enumerates and recognizes your rights and freedoms, but they do NOT emanate from the Constitution. They are birthrights and no government nor document can grant them.
It is up to you to fight to keep them, and restrict the power of government. THAT is the intent of the Constitution, a document that restricts the power of government, not the citizen.
Once we start writing things like flag burning ammendments, which tell the citizen what they can / cannot do, then we are precariously close to dilution of the Consitution of the United States.

good OP/ED piece, independant thinking and critical analysis of political discussion.
Unfortunately there are some brilliant political consultants that know how to press buttons and divert, create wedge issues, manipulate voters, and just plain abuse the voters in this Nation.
We must educate ourselves, understand the key issues and how to analyze Policies and the politicians themselves.
That is our Job.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 01:21 AM
link   
One of the biggest obstacle to "intelligent discussion" described by Valhall is the gradually intensified personalization of politics.

The basic explanation of personalization is that leaders have become more important than their partys (see: polsc.anu.edu.au... )

However one a wider, deeper scale, personalization also means that political partys have become more important than ideas themselves.

Personalization has come to be the prism through which basically all political issues are viewed. Issues are no longer conflicts of ideas; they are conflicts of personalities and/or partys.

Since "political personality" is just a step removed from "political identity", people get much more defensive (and less rational) when discussing politics. They look at the issues through the personality/identity prism.

As far as the particular case of US politics, a political landscape with two dominant political partys is a fertile ground for automatic manicheanism. Whichever your position on any given ideological issue is; you'll be automaticaly categorized "with" or "against" one of the two partys, because there's very little - if any - room for a middle ground "neutral zone".



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 03:07 AM
link   
It seems to me that when discussing politics and religion, subjects which are debate causing, people tend to discuss from emotion rather than fact. I am certainly not going to downgrade abovetopsecret for having posters who are politically biased when several other discussion boards are much more biased.

To name a couple:

www.godlikeproductions.com

www.fulldisklosure.org

Posters of sites such as these have such a liberal slant on issues that a conservative can hardly survive. Fulldisklosure is cetainly a more intellectual group than Godlikeproductions, but sometimes is just as biased.

The biggest problem that I have witnessed on discussion boards is that so many want to revert to name calling. "Well you nazi this" or "You socialist that". To be quite honest, I think if an individual reverts to name calling rather than making his or her point, their post should be removed from the thread entirely.

One of the things that I do appreciate about ATS is the intelligence of the posters and the lack of name calling that occurs here. ATS is very unique in that respect.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join