The silence of ideology

[cxt]

Anybody else notice that threads involving closing Gitmo, rendition, accidentally killing non-combatants, potential scandals in the Justice Department, ethics violations in Congress, lack of transparence from the White House, presidents acting in "imperial" fashion ie. ignoring the electorate--doing end run/s around Congress....etc. Have experienced a drastic reduction from several posters?

Funny, not that long ago these sleepless watchdogs were keeping a close eye on all of the above and more........but oddly the last 18 months or so not so much.

Even more strange, these are all still serious issues facing the nation.

Hmmmmmm.......why the change?......what could be at the root of furious anger not so long ago but nearly utter silence now

Either these problems and more, have been solved or several folks might just have been motivated by something more than real feelings for the topics.....which is cool, or would be if they would just admit it----even if it was to just themselves.

Course it's always possible that they just changed their minds...............

[AAAhmed46]

Anybody else notice that threads involving closing Gitmo, rendition, accidentally killing non-combatants, potential scandals in the Justice Department, ethics violations in Congress, lack of transparence from the White House, presidents acting in "imperial" fashion ie. ignoring the electorate--doing end run/s around Congress....etc. Have experienced a drastic reduction from several posters?

Funny, not that long ago these sleepless watchdogs were keeping a close eye on all of the above and more........but oddly the last 18 months or so not so much.

Even more strange, these are all still serious issues facing the nation.

Hmmmmmm.......why the change?......what could be at the root of furious anger not so long ago but nearly utter silence now

Either these problems and more, have been solved or several folks might just have been motivated by something more than real feelings for the topics.....which is cool, or would be if they would just admit it----even if it was to just themselves.

Course it's always possible that they just changed their minds...............

Oh believe me, i have been grossly upset by black bush clinton. Changing nothing. The health care reform bill is really cosmetic, creating the illusion of change. He hasn't DONE anything really.

Here is one lefty who does not worship obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ79gp-tNao

If there were trials this would probably not be an issue. But we don't want any more of what happened with "taxi to the darkside"(documentary of an innocent Afgan taxi driver thought to be a terrorist and tortured to death)

Trials would probably most probably kill 90% of the critisism. Most people don't care if a guilty man is tortured.

[cxt]

The point is not really a "bash Obama" thread but more just kinda thinking-out-loud as to why all the deafening silence from all those folks whom were so frothingly anger over stuff like Gitmo---even saying the word "Gitmo" brought howls of outrage from folks----the President even made closing it a promise for his election.

And yet it is still open and nobody seems to care. And that is just one situation.

The only thing I can come up with is that all those folks that were so angry then really cared little or nothing for the issues and actual suffering of the people involved and were just swinging a ideological ax.

Their silence now is both deafening and telling.

Course I could be wrong.

[Valkenar]

And yet it is still open and nobody seems to care. And that is just one situation.
...
Course I could be wrong.

You are wrong. I do care.

It's that same thing you've failed to grasp before. I don't preach to the choir, if I can avoid it. Debate isn't very interesting if everyone agrees. So, yeah, warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detention and all that bother me and are disappointing. But what is there to say about it when everyone agrees? I always thought closing gitmo was a pretty pointless gimmick. We need to change our approach to things, not just continue business as usual in different location. Gitmo's existence never bothered me, only the things going on there.

Anyway, I can't speak for anyone else you might think is being deafeningly silent, but if you want to engage me in online debate, you'll need to say something I disagree with.

[mhosea]

Just to play Devil's Advocate, cxt, I'd say that when the other party holds the reins of government, then you really don't cut them any slack, partly because you have the ultimate goal of getting your guys elected on the hope of moving forward with your own ideology. You want them to look bad. However, when your own party holds the reins, and fails to deliver, then you are motivated to take a more measured approach. You want your ideology to move forward, but, on the other hand, too much complaining could take you out of the frying pan and into the fire (via losing control in the next election).

[cxt]

Val

So you "care"....or did as of 18 months or so ago.....but not now?

Besides, given the very debates you reference its hardly like anybody was "preaching to the choir" on issues.....even less of chance of "everyone agreeing" esp around here.......as the debates here have consistantly shown.

I just think it odd that after all the venom and ire and angst not that long ago.......seemingly all of sudden like.......few of the former watchdogs have all that much bark over issues that have not been settled.

It is like a buddy of mine---all over Bush for renditons---but but when Clinton was in office and doing worse---he had nothing to say about it.....it only became an issue after "his" guy was no longer running the show.
So the problem "might"......I say "might" because I'm not a mind reader ......might be something very different from his actual feelings on the issue of rendition.

A-He felt is was nasty.....but kept quiet because it was "his" guy doing it.

B-He only developed his strong aversion to the practice while "somebody elses guy" was calling the shots.

Either way he has potential problems with his logic and ethics and intellectual honesty.

Or like Kagen....when her boss at the time Bill Clinton developed "Don't Ask-Don't Tell" not a peep, not a word, not a stongly worded memo.......nothing. of course later she develops this deep, serious, postion on the unfairness of it.
It's a pretty stark choice......either she always hated it kept quiet because it was essentially her bosses policy and she didn't want to rock the boat.......which calls into question her character.
Or it was a "new" POV relatively speaking and she owes people an explantion as to exactly why she changed her mind.

I don't object to folks having opinions.........place would be really boring if everyone felt the same on all issues.
But I really question/object to seemingly heartfelt and strongly worded/defended postions which change or become non-issues depending on whom is doing things.

I would feel differently if people would just say:

" I am driven almost totally by ideology and I decide what is right, wrong and noteworthy based almost utterly upon said ideology and not upon the facts. For me its never a question of what is being done and always a whom is doing it."

At least that would give us a basis for future debate.

[cxt]

mhosea

I agree in almost all areas, save one.

Part of the problem is people being highly selective of what they express depending on their ideology----this does not solve problems.

If folks decide that they either "really care" or "not so much" about issues based upon whom is in the White House then how can anyone trust that they mean what they say?

If people can't have a good faith belief that honest feelings instead of ideology drives the discussion then nothing improves.

If people hate rendition.....but only when its the "other" guy that is doing it......then it becomes merely a ideological talking point.

And that does, IMO, more harm than good.

[Valkenar]

So you "care"....or did as of 18 months or so ago.....but not now?

Uh... what? I'm really confused. It seems like you didn't read a single word I wrote.

I'll try one last time. Here's how it works:

I usually don't start threads. If I read something I disagree with, I will probably respond. If I read something I agree with, I will probably not respond.

For example, nobody in the past 18 months has argued that torture is okay. And therefore I haven't had anything to say about it. There are things Obama has done (or not done) that I don't like. But nobody has defended those things, so there hasn't been any reason for me to post in response.

[cxt]

Val

Odd, seems to me like you read the first sentence of mine then just stopped.

Oh well.

Interesting,

Ok.....so when you say:

"There are things Obama has done (or not done) that I don't like. But nobody has defended those things, so there hasn't be any reason for me to post in response."

That leaves 3 things......just off the top of my head, to discuss.

A-Whatever Obama has done or not done falls below your threshold for comment. Interesting, but that standard leaves little to talk about.

B-Your concerns are not sufficent to post anything about anything unless and until someone posts something you disagree with.
So it's not concern for issues per-se or the people harmed that motivate you?

B1-Its not about your personal feelings and opinions. Its about what a 3td party says?

B2-Reminds me of an old debate tactic/fallacy often called failure to state---it's where you just keep attacking other peoples postions so you never have to state your own.

C-Silence is tacit agreement.
If your not willing to stand up and speak out then you kinda have to live with the perception it gives people.

Like I said before........if you had a problem prior with certain issues then presumably you still have the same problem/s now.

I just find it odd that, as I observed, there seems to be a distinct unwillingness to rage against the current POTUS compared to the former POTUS...............even when their actions are identical.

So it, rationalizations aside, would seem to lie with whom does things....not what those things might be.

[Glenn]

Where is the silence? There have been several animated discussions about leaders and events over the past 18 months. May not be the same ones participating now as before, but participation in online forums waxes and wanes for many as their interests and priorities change. I have not noticed a decrease in political discussions though. In fact to me such discussions seem to dominate the forum now, what has decreased is discussions about martial arts.

[cxt]

Glen

Probably true as far as discussion of the martial arts goes.

Could be just perception on my part about the rest.......it just seems to me that not that ago we had people ranting and raving about nearly everything Bush did, was suspected of doing or failed to do.
But Obama has done the same things or failed to do the same things and it is disconcerting to me that the same oh-so-passionate folks are suddenly deaf, dumb and blind.

Look at all the e-ink spilled over renditon and the Patriot Act.

And it's not just the boards........not to long ago vets chained themselves to the gates of the White to protest various things among them Don't Ask, Don't Tell----yet almost nobody in the media covered it.
After 6 years of EVERYTHING involving the Bush White House as "newsworthy" the sudden shift in attitude is jarring to me.

Consider the vastly different way John Edwards alleged affair was handled compared to John McCains.
In the former a credible story with more than a bit of support was effectivly buried while the latter whispered, largely unsourced rumor was front page news.

I think part of the problem is that on some level all but the most partisan of people realize the vast double standard that they and others are part of and on some level it bothers them.

Thus you get post-hoc rationalizations, deflection, parsing, etc instead of a "whoa, we need to do better here" moment.
Tough to fix a problem unless and until people can admit that they have a problem.

[KentuckyUechi]

In fact to me such discussions seem to dominate the forum now, what has decreased is discussions about martial arts.

I must say I remain silent when it comes to the threads on political issues (or many other non-martial arts issues). Most I don't even bother to read. If I do browse through them, I do not comment regardless of how much I agree or disagree with the opinions on the thread. Not because I don't care about politics, but simply because I do not enjoy debating such issues. I participate in the threads I do enjoy or find educational (a.k.a. martial arts related). I'm guessing that very few debates on political issues result in changing anyones mind or views on politics.

That's just my 2 cents worth.

[Valkenar]

B-Your concerns are not sufficent to post anything about anything unless and until someone posts something you disagree with.

When it comes discussions on the internet, yeah.

There's nothing particularly nefarious or insidious here. These are forums about martial arts, so I don't usually start threads that are off that topic. I do like debating, so when political discussions turn up, I'll participate if I have anything to add. But there are plenty of forums on the internet where political discussion is the primary focus, so I only rarely feel like starting an explicitly political thread on what are primarily martial arts forums.

[Valkenar]

Oops, double post

[Glenn]

I mainly participate in the political discussions to try to improve my debating skills, which are not that great to start with since I haven't done much debating. But in the college classroom I generally have a politically diverse group of students so having some first-hand experience with discussions of the different viewpoints is a good thing.

Plus it's hard to pass up the opportunity to annoy Bill