Although I sometimes may disagree with you, I think your characterization is "right on." There are many of us who are adaptable in our views and can learn from others. I started out "gung ho" supporting the President after 9/11 but find the incompetence so overwhelming that it leads me to examine the fundamentalist nature of those pushing him in the areas of privacy and then the nature of the war and "planning," if you can even call it "planning."
I don't consider myself extreme.
Yet, when I see my posts to those who are allowed to post on a "moderate forum," I question that. As I've posted before, the extremists on both sides often have more similarities than those in the middle and don't recognize that through their hatred.
This thread seems to welcome those who hated Bush, who blame the US for everything, ooooops first blame Israel.
I remember when there was criticism, and probably rightfully so, for those of us who blamed France for "everything."
There is always blame that is justified. No nation is all just. Yet, Israel, the US and even France are not all evil, all cowards, all tyrants.
Syria, Iraq under Saddam, Al Queda, OBL are evil and are run by those who torture, maim and kill their own people and threaten their neighbors and the world. How a "moderate forum" can encourage, and even be dominated by, posters who deny this and who actually post as if these devils are victims or patsies, tends to bring out the "extreme" opposite reaction from some of us who would otherwise try to look at both sides of an argument.
I've even seen you get a little hot under the collar in your posts, not often,and I'm not being critical of you. Personally, I don't use the "ignore" feature because, if I am going to participate, I prefer dialogue to soliloquy and I like to know what propaganda is being spewed. If I were to "ignore," I'd probably just go away, which I might do and I'm sure this would make many very happy.
If you are going to have a moderate discussion, and I hope that this is the start of a way to have policies and candidates that will truly change the face of our world (a dream I suppose), then you really have to define "moderate" as excluding those who live to blame the US or Israel or Bush or the Trilateral Commission (outdated showing my age I guess), as well as aliens from the planet Uranus.
I've been wrestling whether to support Kerry. I am leaning towards him at this point. Yet, when I see the extremists on the other side, claiming Cheney is doing this for profit, or that there are little Jewish midgets whispering words into Bush's ear about the tiny nukes on the WTC, I then start to be more critical in my analysis of Kerry. I then see someone who also is basically critical, jumping on Rumsfeld the first day. Now I think maybe Rumsfeld should go but give him a couple of days. Kerry didn't look Presidential to me, particularly when one starts to examine the other stuff that comes out of his mouth. He doesn't like attacks but he talks about Bush and Cheney records from 30 years ago. He doesn't like hypocrisy but he calls "ribbons" "medals" but only in certain conversations. He drives an "Suv" but doesn't because it's his wife's. He's for liberal family policies and he attacks (justly I believe) those nuts in the right who would restrict this, yet his own family life would annul his children and marriage.
Strange as it seems, I think the American people dislike hypocrisy more than almost anything else. We don't express it well but that explains why Bush AND Kerry both dropped in the polls. With all the terrible stuff coming out, a decent "moderate" democrat would be walking away with the race. Bush is still leading and it's unbelieveable.
Remember we posted to each other about my argument that Bush would win if it were a race between Bush and anti-Bush? I never imagined, that the administration would prove this incompetent. Yet, my post turns out to be strangely very accurate even to this date.
Those who could change the system with debate and I often hoped that message boards could foster change are stuck in this extremist world. You point out that it is basically, "I'm 100% right, you're 100% wrong and my enemy is responsible for all the evil." Look at posts of moderates who respond to the known whackos and you will see that we get stuck in this pattern.
What's the solution? I guess I should stop posting here because clearly I do not fit the definition of "moderate" if a "moderate" can post with the belief that Israel or France or Russia did 9/11, that someone in the administration knew about 9/11 in advance and did nothing because they wanted it to happen, that the murder of a pregnant mother and her children was somehow justified or even done by their own people, that Bush plans to build concentration camps, that Iraqis were better off under Saddam, that Syria is a peaceful regime, that the European view is always right, that Jews control the world, or at least the media for evil purposes, that there is a group of people that secretly run the world ala the Matrix, etc., etc. Then I really don't want to be a "moderate."
We all have our range of views. When one's sense of moderation is attacked by some outrageous post, a response equally outrageous may be the most appropriate even if not quite PC.
When those on the extreme left realize that they sound so much like the extreme right, even in their choice of targets, then maybe we can have a true moderate discussion, with real solutions being debated.
There are plenty of real issues out there and I'm not proposing the "party line" or being namby pamby. E.g., The Saudi connection with Bush and prior administrations and the impact on 9/11. The French and Russian dealings with Saddam and the impact on their policies towards Iraq. The role of extremist religious thinking in Judiasm, Christianity and Islam, etc. How to draw Russia into the council of democratic nations. How to fight Jihaddists. Why we don't help improve the standard of living of Palestinians and minorities in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other breeding grounds for terror, etc., etc., etc.
But when you have a thread, claiming to be for "moderates" largely targeting nations and individuals, the vast majority of Americans would not consider inherently evil, and when there is very little attacking of those that are inherently evil, then the environment about which you posted, will foster and grow, leading to nothing but name-calling, extremist views "tit for tat", and the election of leaders who are randomly picked, by either a small percentage of the people or by a Supreme Court 5-4. I'm not saying it's cause and effect but it is view that shows why message boards have not been leaders in change, but merely expressions of ego, often dominated by extremists, pretending to be "moderate." |
