Purple Grass, Lime Green Sky. Discussing Politics on ATS.

reply to post by sheepslayer247

Dear sheepslayer247,

What an honor to have you drop by! Welcome. Maybe I should have put this in "Rant," your diplomacy shames me.

If I had to sum up my OP quickly, I suppose I would say. "If we're both willing to follow the facts wherever they lead us, we can have a fruitful discussion."

As an example, I might say "Obama has one of the least transparent administrations ever." My conversation partner might say, "Hey, I guess that's true. What does that say about our society now, and where we're headed?" The result is a stimulating and worthwhile discussion.

But, if my partner says, "Nuh Uh, that's just partisan spin, and you're a brain dead moron for believing it," conversation slows to a stop. Certainly, sometimes it's possible to break through an attitude like that. I have spent the time needed fairly often, and it works a time or two. But I wonder how good of an investment it is.

HEY EVERYBODY!! >>>>> sheepslayer247 has a great radio show on Wedenesday night at 9 p.m. central. That is definitely worth the time. Look in the ATS Live forum.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


I'm sorry but I must disagree. Your statement of opinion is not fact. Someone can disagree that Obama's administration is one of the least transparent ever and support it with facts that you can rebut with facts. There is a fundamental difference between fact and opinion.

ExNihiloRed
reply to post by Snarl

 

I would love to talk to a dragon.

I've spotted quite a few on this site. I'm sure your wish has come true. Did you notice?

reply to post by Snarl

Dear Snarl,

Thank you, thank you. You've made my night. I do remember one "Swords and Sorcery" series that showcased a friendly and helpful dragon, but I agree, it is very important to know what kind of dragon you're talking to.

With respect,
Charles1952

ExNihiloRed
reply to post by Snarl

 

I would love to talk to a dragon.

He'd only blow smoke in your face, or, um, whatever part of you is facing him…….up your arse comes to mind…..

reply to post by ExNihiloRed

Dear ExNihiloRed,

Absolutely no need to apologize. I thank you for disagreeing. I make mistakes all the time, and the people who disagree are basically saying "You'd better check that before you go any further." That's a valuable service. But now, to your response.

There is a fundamental difference between fact and opinion.

Very true, but every opinion has some basis in experience, or in information we've received by someone else. Eventually, if enough information piles up, the opinions become something more significant than just someone's opinion. For example, did we land on the Moon? I don't think that's ever been proved to the satisfaction of ATSers, but it's no longer just an opinion that we did.

I have seen too many news stories and published statements from people that believe this administration is unusually opaque, to think it's just opinion. If my earlier examples weren't persuasive, add in the Fast and Furious documents, the stories that the IRS scandal was caused only by two workers in Cincinnati (or was it Cleveland?), and the efforts to keep people knowledgeable about Benghazi away from Congress. We do have the administration's claims that they are the most transparent, I don't recall seeing any facts that support that claim.

Thank you for responding.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Rant? Na....you bring up a great point that highlights a fundamental problem we all have. We must learn to let our pride and ego go and accept fact when it is presented.

For example, I was once a Neo-Con of sorts. Facts were presented and I was forced to accept some things that went against my personal "agenda". I also spent some time fighting against the Neo-Cons and posted many times that we need to give Obama the chance to lead the country before we throw our hands in the air and give up.

I was wrong! There is no shame in saying that. But there is shame in being a stubborn knucklehead that holds to an ideology even when FACT proves it to be outright BS.

Facts being what they are, we can say that Obama did not come through on his promises and continues to lead us down the road to perdition.

It's not because I want Obama to fail or that I believe the Republicans are better. I have accepted the reality we are presented and I am willing to flow with it as needed.

And thanks for the plug, but tune in to hear Charles as well. He is part of the ATS Live Radio Team.

reply to post by charles1952


I think it is important to discern opinions or conclusions drawn from facts and the underlying facts. It may be a nuanced point in some scenarios. A lot (if not all) of what you posted in your OP was opinion. You can also doubt facts that are unverifiable or of questionable validity. People who did not witness us landing on the moon in person and disagree that we landed on the moon would argue that what you define as facts are false facts. If that person sets forth facts or arguments that are not bully tactics or something akin to covering their ears and yelling, I don't see anything wrong with having a meaningful debate on the topic. I could say the same about each of the positions you set forth in your OP. They are up for debate, as long as it is a "debate" and not a lopsided temper tantrum.

reply to post by sheepslayer247

Dear sheepslayer247,

This is where my idealism comes in. We're anonymous here on ATS, nobody knows where to find me. (Well, except for one "Mystery Woman" I have a crush on.) I'm free to say, "Awww, Blast. Did I ever get that wrong. My ego doesn't have to take a beating, because the real life me isn't here. I can look for truth, stumble, fall, start over, and it's all good progress with no shame attached.

I'd like ATSers to support and encourage one another, and to point out when there is a deviation from logic and truth. Other than that, it just becomes a mud wrestling free-for-all, and that's never really impressed me as entertainment.

We can discover and learn about things, whether it's technology, conspiracies, ancient civilizations, or just about anything we want. All it takes is for us to be willing to learn, to be willing to say I don't know, to use our minds and even some logic.

Well, now I'm blushing from embarrassment, but that's my dream for this place.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by ExNihiloRed

Dear ExNihiloRed,

Thank you, finally you got through to me. I appreciate your patience. I was absolutely wrong when I criticized people who thought Romney would be a worse president than our current one. It's entirely possible that Romney would have been worse. A different worse, but it is a fit subject for debate.

I'm not sure I agree with the thrust of your response, though. Consider that Obamacare as signed, has several provisions that say, "On such and such a date, this thing will happen." Congress passed it, the President signed it, and I can't tell you how many times I've heard supporters say, "It's the law!" Now, the President says "I'm not going to follow the law, I'm going to change all the dates around, and grant waivers to people who don't want to follow the law."

How in the world can someone say that the President has not broken the law? I grant there is no penalty for breaking the law in such a way, and Congress doesn't see fit to institute legal proceedings, but the law has been broken. What debate can occur? Please help me with that, so I can understand. I get the impression that you are saying something important, and I just don't see it yet.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Well, two things to start with. One, the same facts can lead to different conclusions. Second, you need to make sure you know all the facts before you reach a conclusion. I'm not intimately familiar with every provision of Obamacare. Are you sure that the law does not allow unilateral waiver or extension of implementation deadlines? Perhaps the "deadlines" are merely guidelines in the law for when provisions should go into effect. The law is really not in effect until whatever dates it becomes effective, so if those effective dates are moved, is he really breaking the law? If it allows discretion in granting waivers and the President, in his discretion, grants waivers, he isn't breaking the law, right? As long as he follows the requisite procedures set forth in the law as in effect.

reply to post by ExNihiloRed

Dear ExNihiloRed,

You are a treasure. If you didn't have other things to do, I'd ask you to devote full time to keeping me on the straight and narrow. I agree with almost everything you've said.

One, the same facts can lead to different conclusions.

In general, that's quite true. In my list I don't see it, but if some one wants to say that my facts are all true, but they have a different conclusion, I'd be glad to hear it. But that's not so much the situation with my list.

Second, you need to make sure you know all the facts before you reach a conclusion.

Dear ExNihiloRed, I must be misunderstanding you. Nobody ever has all the facts before they make a decision. How many people test the breaking strength of various shoelaces before they purchase them. No one knows all the facts about a house, a car, a wife, a career, or where to live. The Supreme Court said it would be cruel and unusual punishment to have to read Obamacare and decide which sections were Constitutional. Again, nobody ever has all the facts.

The date sections in Obamacare use the word "shall," I've seen them. "Shall" has the very specific meaning of "You will do such and such. It makes no sense for Congress to pass a bill that says the President shall do such and such, then put in a provision saying, "We didn't mean "shall," it's just a suggestion." Further, I have seen at least six articles based on the "opinions" of reporters, researchers, lawyers, and Congressmen, saying the President is in violation.

I have heard no contrary evidence, except for the President's claim that he is allowed to do it, because he gets to decide how the laws are executed. If it were true that the president not only has the power to decide how a law is to be executed, but whether it is to be executed at all, there is very little need for a Congress.

With respect,
Charles1952

I want to thank you for this thread, it is important and though what I would like to share would not be considered "appropriate" those who know me, know I will write it anyway.

There is and always has been a HUGE misconception on the part of those that are in "power", as the word power and its definition alone can tell you that those we deem to hold it are unfit, but what if you realized that this and all those that we hold in high esteem, even those of the past were all a sham?

Our division alone should show how wrong we truly are, and as a matter of fact have been for a very long time. Our "political ideology" is but a sliver of our division, always has been and as it seems... always will be.

NoRegretsEver
Our division alone should show how wrong we truly are, and as a matter of fact have been for a very long time.

FWIW, I saw nothing inappropriate in your post.

Specific to your reply I would add a simple observation. We ... us ... you & me, are only divided if we choose. The political elites started out divided from us. We are given a perception, lead to believe we have a choice in who represents us, but we don't. The political elite are separated from us as is wheat from chaff.

The answer is we walk away together hand-in-hand. Let them have the sandbox all to themselves and find out how empty a place it can be. Letting go isn't so hard. The trick is doing it all at the same time.

reply to post by Snarl


Thank you. Yet all in all, what is spoken will still be misinterpreted. The "people" have no voice, we hold no power to the masses, we have no wealth, so amongst those that see us, see no change.

We have to have those things, and even when we do, we still seem loony, or even the worst of all names, conspiracy theorists, this is the badge of blame, and judgment. Our true blame lies in those that refuse to see, and I am sorry to say that I am amongst those who see it for whats its worth, and that aint much.

Peace, NRE.

reply to post by charles1952


I should have been clearer. The first two points I made were general points, not specifically about your OP. I was just providing further context and support for my other posts. I actually thought I may have been unclear and anticipated that response from you. Also, when I say "all the facts" I mean a much narrower universe than you seem to have thought I meant. I mean all of the facts available. For example, if two people are debating the meaning of a law, they should read the law before they start making assertions as to what it says, etc. I clearly have not read the letter of the law with respect to Obamacare and therefore I included the caveat in my statement. Thus, if someone is devoid of certain facts, they should make that clear when asserting their opinions. Moreover, if your opinions are based on what others have said about the law (and you yourself did not read it all) then it is more accurate to state, as fact, that commentators have suggested that what the President is doing with respect to Obamacare is illegal. That is a fact because commentators have actually said that it is illegal. Whether or not it actually violates the law is a legal conclusion reserved for a jury or judge to decide. You can be of the opinion that it violates the law, but you are not the final arbitrator of that decision. I don't know what your education background is, but if you are not schooled in the law and have not read the entire law, then you are merely basing your opinion off what others have said and should make that clear. It is not accurate to refer to that opinion as fact, however.

I don't disagree with your opinion, however, that the President is violating the laws with respect to Obamacare. I was just making a point that someone could disagree with your opinion, support it with fact (e.g., provision x of Obamacare lets Obama do what he is doing, etc.), and engage in an intelligent, meaningful debate. I would personally need to read the entirety of the law to see what type of discretion it grants the executive branch in implementing the law. I just don't know, so I will not speculate. Your OP sort of read that anyone who disagrees with what you set forth is absolutely wrong. I am not taking any positions on whether there are facts that rebut the opinions in your OP. I bet, though, that someone more informed than me on each of the points could cite to facts and create intellectually sound arguments rebutting your opinions. I think the problem is (and maybe we are saying the same thing when push comes to shove) that people don't support contrary opinions with facts and engage in childish playground antics of name calling and other unconstructive methods of asserting their viewpoints.

reply to post by charles1952


Charles, the reason is that you are racist!


I kid.


So many have invested so much (emotionally) into this presidency, that they have no other choice but to support Obama and his agenda and administration.

reply to post by charles1952


Like papa used to say to me, "never try to teach a pig to sing; it's a waste of time and it annoys the pig".

People get riled up on these topics (as do I sometimes) but there's no need to be emotionally invested in them. My self-worth is not tied into whether or not people agree with me.

I've come to realize that you could demonstrate that 2+2 does indeed equal 4 and there would still always be someone that argues with you about it. It's not my job (or anyone else's) to drag the adamantly ignorant into enlightenment. All one can do is present the facts cogently, answer any questions that they have and let them come to their own conclusions. You can't reason with unreasonable people.

King James Bible
But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

On this site (or anywhere else) we can deny ignorance but it doesn't mean others have to agree.

I'm sorry that I was away so long. May I say that I'm really impressed with these most recent posts? They seem to interlock into one plan for moving forward.

First, discover the facts, whether or not they come from people who disagree with you. If any thing of lasting value will be accomplished it will need a foundation of truth and logic. Passion and energy can build on such a foundation, there is a need for both the foundation and the building.

Second, those who, after repeated efforts, refuse to recognize the facts discovered and accepted by a vast majority (90%?) of the people will not be included in the planning. They're not to be punished in any way or mistreated, it's just that they may not be suitable for building a political future. I don't know if they will come from the left or the right, it doesn't matter. Changing the system, which it seems every ATSer ends up calling for sooner or later, requires unified effort among many people.

Whether that unified action involves just walking away from the system, using the massive numbers to change the members of government, setting up a parallel government and ignoring or resisting the old one, setting up a Constitutional Convention or similar mechanism, I don't know. I don't have enough facts to make a reasonable prediction on which would be the best choice. I am definitely not a fan of violent overthrow of the government. (It just dawned on me. That last phrase might cause a warning light to blink at NSA.)

But if our only motivation is the passion, hatred, anger which one group has for another, we show that we are still susceptible to empty speeches, name calling, and advertising campaigns. Something else has just dawned on me. What percentage of public schools teach any form of rational thinking? It's even worse on many college campuses. Maybe the first challenge is getting people to believe that facts matter. Have we slipped backwards as far as that?

reply to post by charles1952


To be honest, I don't bother shaking around the rocks in my pretty little head when it comes to politics. There are a few things that I'm passionate about, but the details of "Fast and Furious" and "Benghazi" don't capture my attention long enough for me gather the facts, let alone form an opinion.

But, I would venture to say, and I hope I'm not out of line in assuming, that your frustration, and subsequent hiatus, was due to finding yourself hamstrung by the mentality of too many conversationalists like these two!

Warning: "colorful" language