Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Perhaps I have been guilty of blurring the line separating

by Ziks511 / May 4, 2009 8:47 AM PDT

political and non-political posts. I have certainly tried to indicate that I wanted to discuss the philosophy behind the ideas, or the implications of an action. I have tried not to misrepresent the issues but to quote from articles verbatim and then discuss the issues.

There are currently two posts on the forum that seem to either misrepresent what the article they refer to, or to engage in flat out political anti-administration rhetoric. With regard to secession, the Republicans have been in control of the agenda since the time of Reagan. Never did Democrats suggest secession as a solution, and even the majority in Texas do not favour secession, so that dog won't hunt. Only Bolsheviks consider 20% a majority. If it's a non-issue in Texas except for the mouthings of the governor then why are we discussing it here in such a politically fraught manner.

C'mon guys, this can be an enormously enjoyable place to discuss things, but politics, and extremist politics like secession will only lead to losing the forum as a place to chat.

Robert T. Boyter

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Perhaps I have been guilty of blurring the line separating
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Perhaps I have been guilty of blurring the line separating
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
But where you blow it , Rob,

is by always mentioning a party or representative of a party that you present or have previously presented in a negative light. It swings your posts away from the neutral ground of being purely philosophical. It's just my observation of what seems to be a predictable nature. Hopefully that observation will be helpful and not offensive.

Collapse -
You're entitled to that opinion, but I don't think close
by Ziks511 / May 4, 2009 10:23 AM PDT

examination and comparison with those of differing opinions will support your point. I am trying not to get into current politics. In the discussion of the "Innocent til Proven Guilty" post, I referenced the Kennedy administration, and my agreement with it. I didn't bring the issue up, nor would I have, but I do feel that I have the right to express my opinion on the post and whether it accurately reflects the article it is based on.
But, as always, it's just my opinion.

The secession concept is so extreme, that one cannot address it without pointing out the difference between those who are willing to indicate their support and those who suffered through the previous Administration without suggesting anything like that but were still decried as anti-American. The other half of the issue is the lack of substantial support for the idea even in Texas. But that's just how I see it. It seems a petulant and divisive attitude to me.

Rob

Collapse -
"those who suffered"

I believe that you can find some who claim this to have happened under any administration and some who feel the opposite. So whose thinking is deserving of respect and whose is to be ignored? I don't think the president's comment that those who don't cooperate will be considered as having something to hide. This is no different than a person who's stopped for a driving offense and refuses a sobriety test might be considered guilty in the same way. Personally, I think it would be a stretch to call that identical to being treated as guilty until proven otherwise but I can certainly understand the concern. Some have already become sensitive "heavy handed" treatment and government bullying but I guess that who's being bullied determines whether another person will stand up for them or applaud the bully.

Collapse -
Oops...bad editing...an incomplete sentence
by Steven Haninger / May 4, 2009 8:24 PM PDT
In reply to: "those who suffered"
"I don't think the president's comment that those who don't cooperate will be considered as having something to hide."

should read

I don't think the president's comment, that those who don't cooperate will be considered as having something to hide, is completely innocent.
Popular Forums
icon
Computer Help 51,912 discussions
icon
Computer Newbies 10,498 discussions
icon
Laptops 20,411 discussions
icon
Security 30,882 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 21,253 discussions
icon
Windows 10 1,672 discussions
icon
Phones 16,494 discussions
icon
Windows 7 7,855 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 15,504 discussions

REVIEW

Meet the drop-resistant Moto Z2 Force

The Moto Z2 Force is really thin, with a fast processor and great battery life. It can survive drops without shattering.