Dr. Henry Louis Gates Arrested

[Dreadloc'd Diva]

Let me guess,Dr.Phil...you're a card-carrying Republican?

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Because you subscribe to political divisiveness.



He's the only current president. As with presidents before him, there should be no obvious disclaimers of "well, the president isn't perfect" or "he isn't the only politician with this issue."

Luckily for everyone, Obama's approval ratings are declining as reality has sunk in and the public is taking off the kiddie gloves. That happened before the first 5 months for some of the other presidents.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Dreadloc'd Diva

Let me guess,Dr.Phil...you're a card-carrying Republican?

Why would that matter at all? Several other posters have made the point that no matter what anyone's political affiliation, it's a valid criticism.

Stop trying to cause drama or partisanship on this board.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Dreadloc'd Diva

Let me guess,Dr.Phil...you're a card-carrying Republican?

How about you respond to the substance of our posts instead of playing the guessing game and trying to decide if you consider us among the cool people.

[agzg]

This may just be me but I don't remember republicans asking if someone was a democrat if that person had criticisms for Bush.

ETA: It's not surprising to me that there are a lot of criticisms for Obama right now. The economy is still in the shitter (something Obama couldn't have avoided but the President always gets blamed) and people are coming down from the high energy and high hopes of the campaign. We're not patient people, so combining all that with the fact that almost all of the things Obama said he would accomplish have not been accomplished, people are getting restless and are not content.

Besides that, all Presidents always face criticism. Sometimes it's not valid (OMG HE HAD A BEER HE HAD A BEER DRINKING ON THE JOB!) and other times it is. We don't make excuses for other Presidents, and we shouldn't make them for Obama.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by agzg

This may just be me but I don't remember republicans asking if someone was a democrat if that person had criticisms for Bush.

They assumed the person was a Democrat.

Then people like SWTX and me come along and it blurs people's categories and confuses their brains. They weren't using their brains, in the first place.

ETA to respond to your ETA :

I agree with you that America is finally coming off of the Obama cloud. They should never have gotten on that cloud in the first place because it overrode many people's ability to think clearly and critically. Many were so busy trying to LIKE Obama.

Obama intentionally marketed off of his reputation as a great speaker (which I still don't see). He ran his mouth and made a lot of promises to a DESPERATE population. I knew those promises wouldn't pan out anytime soon, if at all, and that wasn't just the cynic in me who doesn't believe in liking presidents. That was realism. But a lot of people acted like a change was going to come relatively quickly and Obama and his crew didn't focus on the waiting game of change enough. Much of this isn't Obama's fault, just as much of what happened during Bush's administration wasn't his fault, but people don't want to admit that because it's supposedly coolererer to dislike Bush. All in all, I'm not blaming Obama for what's happening in a general sense. I'm blaming him for running his mouth with all of his rhetoric conferences and playing the "make believe game." This is a better thread now that we've gotten over Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

[agzg]

I think IRL I fall into your category, as well. I changed political affiliations four times before finally moving to a state where I could choose which primary I wanted to vote in based on who is running that year. I was a "swing voter" last year, even though I voted in the democratic primaries.

You know, they're all human, and none of them are perfect. I don't expect them to be. I just expect them to know when they need to check their mouths before their mouths run away on them. I don't think Obama does that, obviously.

PS. I still don't like Bobby Jindal.

ETA: One promise I'd be happy not to achieve was Obama's promise to get the Olympics in Chicago. I was excited about it at first (at that time, I was getting ready to move to the city) but after living here for almost a year, I'm really kindof against the Olympics coming here. After the 4th and how horrible it was to take public transportation during that time (I rely on it to get to work almost completely), I don't want it here at all! Can't take the L, can't take buses, can't drive? If we do get it (which at this point it looks like we won't), I'll plan on taking a vacation around that time. Maybe to Rio or Madrid.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by agzg

Oh no, dear, I'm fully aware that my posting style and offhand remarks affect the views people have about me as a username. But you don't see me going around saying "wahhhh people are just disagreeing with me to disagree with me because it's me."

Stop playing the fucking victim. It was never cute.

It seems to me that you participate in a great many threads that don't devolve into personal attacks. I don't see that happening with Deepimpact. Every longish thread I've see DI becomes at least partially about DI's interactions with other users.

I think it's normal for an occasional interaction to be about "why are you being a jerk to me?" but the majority of the threads you're in shouldn't involve that issue.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I agree with you that America is finally coming off of the Obama cloud. They should never have gotten on that cloud in the first place because it overrode many people's ability to think clearly and critically.

You mean, the effects of the Kool-Aid finally wore off?

[UGAalum94]

I think as Bush's terms went on, Republicans were just as likely to be criticizing him as Democrats. This early in his first term, yeah, I think people assumed that his critics were Dems.

I think we're still at the stage that if the election were held again tomorrow, even the folks disappointed in Obama right now would vote the same way, assuming they voted for him in the first place.

He doesn't really have to be good for people to vote for him, he just has to appear to be better than the other major party candidate.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

It seems to me that you participate in a great many threads that don't devolve into personal attacks. I don't see that happening with Deepimpact. Every longish thread I've see DI becomes at least partially about DI's interactions with other users.

I think it's normal for an occasional interaction to be about "why are you being a jerk to me?" but the majority of the threads you're in shouldn't involve that issue.

Yes but I've participated in a great many more threads than DI has, and have posted here a lot longer. There's something to be said to learning the tendencies of other posters, if only for the simple help at knowing who to engage in what way.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by agzg

Yes but I've participated in a great many more threads than DI has, and have posted here a lot longer. There's something to be said to learning the tendencies of other posters, if only for the simple help at knowing who to engage in what way.

Yep, and sometimes people do really dislike particular other users and their posts as an ongoing pattern. However, if you're verbally scatter shooting lots of people's unstated beliefs in a thread that's probably not it.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by agzg

Yes but I've participated in a great many more threads than DI has, and have posted here a lot longer. There's something to be said to learning the tendencies of other posters, if only for the simple help at knowing who to engage in what way.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Yep, and sometimes people do really dislike particular other users and their posts as an ongoing pattern. However, if you're verbally scatter shooting lots of people's unstated beliefs in a thread that's probably not it.

In my opinion it's important to draw the line between knowing how people are likely to post, and making the assumption that it says something about them as a person. Even if someone has thousands of posts, in reality you know nothing about the person who is posting - you don't know their background, their experiences, and their core values.

Where posters make a big mistake is where they go from "I don't agree with your posts" to "I don't like you," or "I think you're a racist/bigot/whatever."

As I've always said, I know two people on this site personally (both of whom I like as people) - one (KSigRC) has been a good friend for almost 10 years, and one (nme525) I met a few times in Boston. Other than that, I don't know anyone on here, and I won't presume to make assumptions about who they are and what core values they hold dear. I don't think that would be at all fair, or smart - at the end of the day, it's posting on a website, and it's really not that important.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I think as Bush's terms went on, Republicans were just as likely to be criticizing him as Democrats. This early in his first term, yeah, I think people assumed that his critics were Dems.

I think we're still at the stage that if the election were held again tomorrow, even the folks disappointed in Obama right now would vote the same way, assuming they voted for him in the first place.

He doesn't really have to be good for people to vote for him, he just has to appear to be better than the other major party candidate.

I think that last part is true in any election - in many cases, you're voting for the "least bad" of the candidates. That's how I ended up voting in the last election - I didn't think any of the third party candidates were credible or worth my vote, and I liked McCain more than Obama. It wasn't that I was such a big McCain supporter - I just liked him more than Obama.

As for the Bush/Obama thing - I agree that, as you got to the end of Bush's term, it was hard to find anyone that was happy with his term. Lots of Republicans were just ready to get someone else in office.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

In my opinion it's important to draw the line between knowing how people are likely to post, and making the assumption that it says something about them as a person. Even if someone has thousands of posts, in reality you know nothing about the person who is posting - you don't know their background, their experiences, and their core values.

Where posters make a big mistake is where they go from "I don't agree with your posts" to "I don't like you," or "I think you're a racist/bigot/whatever."

As I've always said, I know two people on this site personally (both of whom I like as people) - one (KSigRC) has been a good friend for almost 10 years, and one (nme525) I met a few times in Boston. Other than that, I don't know anyone on here, and I won't presume to make assumptions about who they are and what core values they hold dear. I don't think that would be at all fair, or smart - at the end of the day, it's posting on a website, and it's really not that important.

I think how you consistently post does say something about you as a person, but I agree that we can't know whether that matches up well with the person in real life.

I think when I find myself dwelling about something on the internet, it has much more to do with my own opinions and behavior, and I think that might be important.

There are users here that I feel positive about and users here I feel negatively about, but they are greatly eclipsed in number by the users that I simply find entertaining or interesting. It doesn't, in any of the cases, have anything to do with their particular political positions although it has a great deal to do with how they express themselves and as far as the most negative ones, the frequency with which they seem to attack or insult vs. posts that attempt reasoned or even good faith emotional give and take in this forum or helpful activity in other forums.

[agzg]

I wouldn't go so far as to say "Oh I knew you would disagree with me" or "Oh I knew that most of the people on here would attack me..." More along the lines of I know that if I confront someone in a certain way it's going to "ruffle their feathers" - at least as much as one can be ruffled from interweb conversations. You can have the feeling that "oh this isn't going to end well with [poster]" - most people would adjust the wording on that particular post. DI just rolls that "I told you so" implication into her insults.

I also don't transfer that to real life. I'm sure if people that post here knew me IRL they'd find me to be a very different person.