Is it possible to have a reasonable political discussion on Sodahead?
T J
2012/05/02 12:14:36
|
|
|||||
|
18 votes
|
|
16% | |||
|
5 votes
|
|
5% | |||
|
43 votes
|
|
39% | |||
|
44 votes
|
|
40% | |||
I know I've had my fair share of battles on this website, sometimes it's gotten personal. But sometimes I wonder if it's even worth it. Sometimes you have a disagreement but then you find that common ground and it makes the discussion rewarding. Unfortunately, other times it usually ends in someone being blocked or just on bad terms. And let's be honest, just about every discussion includes the author's opinion, and facts that only support the author's opinion. In the end, though does it really matter. I have burned a few bridges here, and have blocked and have been blocked multiple times, so it may seem odd that I ask this question, but I want to know. Is it possible to have a reasonable political discussion on Sodahead?
They will attempt to discredit you, then call you a racist.
You usually have to sift through the trolls to occasionally find someone willing to have an honest discussion. If approached in a reasonable manner I'm usually willing to try and discuss an issue reasonably, but if insulted right of the bat I'll either respond in kind or ignore them. There was a time when I enjoyed the give and take banter complete with insults, but frankly I've grown tired of it lately.
Why do you think that anti-abortion = anti-woman?
Anyway a women's right to have an abortion has been long established since the Supreme court ruled on Rowe vs. Wade. Because the right winger politicions can't have it overturned they used these new laws as an end around instead. Its a choice left between a women and her doctor, no politician has a right to impose his or her religious beliefs on anyone.
Planned Parenthood isn't pro-woman. It willfully hides sex traffickers and child abusers by failing to report suspicions to authorities and through its refusal to comply with parental-involvement laws.
1. O'Keefe's videos were published in their entirety. Completely unedited. I saw them with my own eyes.
2. One video showed how the ACORN employees were only too happy to help O'Keefe with his prostitution business, even though he had clearly explained the prostitutes would be ILLEGAL aliens and UNDERAGE. After you've watched the videos, you will NOT think of this as a "hit-job" and be happy he did this public service.
3. The Sherry Sherrod video was published in it's entirety, the minute Breitbart had it, which was only 2 days after be put up the edited video (which was all he had at the time, he didn't edit the video). Actually the unedited video of Sherrod's, was far more damning than the edited version.
"integrity of journalism"??? I don't know a single person who's been interviewed by the press, that wasn't misrepresented and/or misquoted. Journalist are the most dishonest bunch of lazy scum you'll ever meet. They are by-and-large driven by political agendas and will lie, cheat, and steal to forward their views. Just in case, I am including a #4 in the list of things you probably don't know;
4. integrity |inˈtegritē| (noun)
the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness
1. No, they weren't. I've seen some of the left out bits.
2. You've also failed to mention the time O'Keefe was kicked out of an office, or the fact the people to whom O'Keefe spoke to, (he wasn't wearing his pimp costume) would later report O'Keefe to his (or her) superiors.
3. Only a snippet of the Shirley Sherrod video was put out, which completely distorted her point. The whole video explains and there was nothing damning about the video. If anything, it showed how her eyes were opened and how she became a better person. This is indisputable. Why are you disputing it?
4. Integrity is something neither Breitbart or O'Keefe have (or had since Breitbart's dead).
Only you partially right about the agenda that many so-called journalists use instead of reporting the truth. Kind of like Fox New's "Obama went to a Madrassa" story. Like I said, an embarrassment.
2. Why would I mention those things. O'Keefe never asserted that every single person at ACORN was corrupt.
3. Your nuts. Have you watched the unedited video? She does NOT redeem herself.
"...it IS about black and white..." - Shedddod
I should tell you that when Brietbart received and posted the unedited version, he apologized for the distorted representation it made of Sherrod. He never called for her resignation, or anything like that. In fact he defended her in this second post.
4. I never claimed they had/have integrity. However, there is no doubt that compared to 90% of journalists, they are saints.
All the major news outlets have embarrassed themselves, when their agenda had been revealed. The NBC editing of the Zimmerman 911 tape is a good example. The edited version makes Zimmerman sound like a racist, the unedited does not. I can't say the same about the Sherrod video. She sounds like just as much of a racist in both.
2. No, but he did smear the hell out of them though didn't he? Let's face it, the right has been after ACORN for a long time.
3. This is why I wrote this post. I'm nuts? No, you're lost in right wing spin. I've seen it, you must have seen something else or just don't want to admit you're wrong. I understand what she was trying to say, and I think most reasonable people do too. As far as Breitbart, the damage was already done. And he would gone on to pretend to be some patron of broadcasting instead of the hack that he truly is.
4. If you think those two are saints, then you don't know what a saint is, or what a good broadcaster is. I'm not going to defend what went down with Zimmerman/Martin, as it was an embarrassment. Honestly, this why I pay more attention to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, they have more credibility than any of those folks combined and I don't care what you think because I'm done talking to you.
2. After ACORN because of a long list of involvements with voter registration fraud.
3. Would "most reasonable people" understand what a white man was saying if he said, "It IS about black and white?" You need to watch the Sherrod video again.
4. I NEVER said they were saints. Why are you attempting to put words in my mouth? Jon Stewart is an idiot who doesn't understand most of the subjects he is commenting on. His commentary is shallow and ignorant and it is a sad sad situation that folk are so mislead by his 'comedy.'
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If conservatives are vegetarians they want the FDA not to check meat, if liberals are vegatarians they want all food checked to be safe.
If a conservative is down and out they will get SNAP like in AL but not want job training, If a liberal is down and out they will get educated to make their life better.
If a conservative dows not like a talk show host they will call them a communist and traitor, If a liberal does not like a talk show host they will show their lies.
If a conservative is a Christian, Mosques will not get permits and the Bible will be part of our laws, if a liberal is Christian they will abide by the first amendment.
If a conservative needs health care, can't afford he will pass the cost to other and use the emergency room, the liberal will have 98% of everyone with insurance.
If a conservative needs a job he will look to a big corporation like GE that will build their factory in China and wait for Cantor to give GE a better tax break for doing it, if a Liberal wants a job he wants the taxes raised on foreign income.
I'd love a place where respectful discussion can take place, where we can question one another without being subjected to abusive language, false accusations, etc. A place where blogs aren't considered "evidence" or where Youtube video's aren't "conclusive proof" That might actually provide an environment in which we can learn from one another. But alas that doesn't appear to exist on SH.
Blessings Upon You