Home› A Moving Train

Objective Thread: Thank You

saveuplifesaveuplife Posts: 1,173
edited September 2008 in A Moving Train
Thank you to all of you who hijacked the Objective Thread.

I figured it wouldn't work. When being objective it's hard to throw out words like anti-christ. ha

It's actually kinda funny. So, why don't you put on your helmets and use this thread instead to bash the candidates? Let us who were actually having an objective discussion on the political moves by the candidates have the other one.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • jimed14jimed14 Posts: 9,488
    saveuplife wrote:
    Thank you to all of you who hijacked the Objective Thread.

    I figured it wouldn't work. When being objective it's hard to throw out words like anti-christ. ha

    It's actually kinda funny. So, why don't you put on your helmets and use this thread instead to bash the candidates? Let us who were actually having an objective discussion on the political moves by the candidates have the other one.


    I admittedly steered clear from posting .... I think I can try and look at things through an objective lens, but, after all is said and done, my beliefs are pretty strong for one side, so, I tried to give the objective thread a chance.

    Good idea, but sadly, it didn't work.
    "You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91

    "I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    It was going good for a little bit at least.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • catch22catch22 Posts: 1,081
    it looked ok to me. i don't know what you wanted it to be? it just seemed like you wanted it to be a thread where people supporting one candidate just admit to things that are ok about another. what's the point of that? how can anyone talk about the politics without talking about the issues?
    and like that... he's gone.
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    I think the OP basically wanted a place where we could discuss the candidates and the issues objectively without resorting to the usually sewage spewing attacks we are accustomed to seeing.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • catch22catch22 Posts: 1,081
    mammasan wrote:
    I think the OP basically wanted a place where we could discuss the candidates and the issues objectively without resorting to the usually sewage spewing attacks we are accustomed to seeing.

    i didn't see too many of those in there.
    and like that... he's gone.
  • John BudgeJohn Budge Posts: 259
    Obama is a racist Muslim elitist!!

    Beware of Islamic terrorists!!
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    catch22 wrote:
    i didn't see too many of those in there.

    Well it started on the very first page with the last post. Granted it wasn't a bad post but we where trying to avoid those types of sweeping generalizations and just stick to the issues.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • RolandTD20KdrummerRolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    You can't be neutral on a moving train...

    so the saying goes..
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • catch22catch22 Posts: 1,081
    mammasan wrote:
    Well it started on the very first page with the last post. Granted it wasn't a bad post but we where trying to avoid those types of sweeping generalizations and just stick to the issues.

    i think i missed the middle 4 pages of that thread, upon review :)
    and like that... he's gone.
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    You can't be neutral on a moving train...

    so the saying goes..


    Not neutral but objective yes. People can sit there and discuss the issues and candidates without throwing our generalizations or calling one of the candidates the anti-christ, not that this was done in that thread. I can easily have a discussion about the issue without trashing a candidate with impunity.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • RolandTD20KdrummerRolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    mammasan wrote:
    Not neutral but objective yes. People can sit there and discuss the issues and candidates without throwing our generalizations or calling one of the candidates the anti-christ, not that this was done in that thread. I can easily have a discussion about the issue without trashing a candidate with impunity.


    I like to stick to the issues, but I also tend to toss in a few "holy shits that's crazy"

    force of habit.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • sweetpotatosweetpotato Posts: 1,278
    mammasan wrote:
    Not neutral but objective yes. People can sit there and discuss the issues and candidates without throwing our generalizations or calling one of the candidates the anti-christ, not that this was done in that thread. I can easily have a discussion about the issue without trashing a candidate with impunity.


    i think "objective" and "neutral" are pretty damned similar. so maybe "objective" wasn't the correct description. maybe "polite" or "civil" or even "nice" would have been more along the lines of what was really being sought?
    "Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."

    "Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore

    "i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
    ~ed, 8/7
  • sweetpotatosweetpotato Posts: 1,278
    saveuplife wrote:
    Thank you to all of you who hijacked the Objective Thread.

    I figured it wouldn't work. When being objective it's hard to throw out words like anti-christ. ha

    It's actually kinda funny. So, why don't you put on your helmets and use this thread instead to bash the candidates? Let us who were actually having an objective discussion on the political moves by the candidates have the other one.

    try and keep in mind that once you start a thread, it belongs to all of us, not just you. i agree that "hijacking" is wrong, but taking it and running with it, wherever it seems to organically lead, is different. in that case, the thread starter just needs to get out of the way and let it happen.

    imo.
    "Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."

    "Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore

    "i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
    ~ed, 8/7
  • saveuplifesaveuplife Posts: 1,173
    sweetpotato wrote:
    i think "objective" and "neutral" are pretty damned similar. so maybe "objective" wasn't the correct description. maybe "polite" or "civil" or even "nice" would have been more along the lines of what was really being sought?


    Jeeebus.

    No they aren't. You can be be far-left or far-right and throw out your ideal platforms in order to engage in a discussion about political moves and strategy. For instance, if you are super-far-right, you can still think that Obama has a decent speaking style, but think that he needs to appeal to his base more with his message. Going deeper, maybe you can be far-righty and think in order for Obama to win, he will need to appeal to these low-middle class voters in rural areas.... and think that raising the minimum wage is one way for him to do it. This is objective thinking. Looking at the political spectrum and seeing how each candidate (party) can win.

    If you agree/disagree with the message of the politician (platform), that's another story.... that's subjective. That's typically what leads to name calling and garbage.
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    sweetpotato wrote:
    i think "objective" and "neutral" are pretty damned similar. so maybe "objective" wasn't the correct description. maybe "polite" or "civil" or even "nice" would have been more along the lines of what was really being sought?


    Neutral — not engaged on either side
    Objective — expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

    I would have to say based on these definitions from Websters dictionary that neutral and objective are not pretty damned similar.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • sweetpotatosweetpotato Posts: 1,278
    saveuplife wrote:
    Jeeebus.

    No they aren't.

    actually, they have quite a few synonyms in common: unbiased, fair, impartial, unpredjudiced, bipartisan, nonbelligerent...

    i didn't say that "neutral" and "objective" are interchangeable, but they are close enough in spirit that if you ask for one you may get the other.

    in any case, i think it's nearly impossible to get anything near an objective OR neutral conversation going here since we are ALL very much engaged in this election, and many of us are pissed off at the current state of things. that's not to say that we're not capable of having one, i just don;t think most of us are interested in philosophizing and navelgazing at this point. we want ACTION.
    "Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."

    "Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore

    "i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
    ~ed, 8/7
  • sweetpotatosweetpotato Posts: 1,278
    mammasan wrote:
    Neutral — not engaged on either side
    Objective — expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

    I would have to say based on these definitions from Websters dictionary that neutral and objective are not pretty damned similar.

    i still think that, based on your previous post about not wanting namecalling, bashing, etc, that "objective" isn't the correct term to use.

    and i used webster's, too! it's called a THESAURUS.

    ;)
    "Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."

    "Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore

    "i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
    ~ed, 8/7
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    sweetpotato wrote:
    i still think that, based on your previous post about not wanting namecalling, bashing, etc, that "objective" isn't the correct term to use.

    and i used webster's, too! it's called a THESAURUS.

    ;)

    Objective was the proper term. :)
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Sign In or Register to comment.