Anonymous
Post 10/12/2011 20:27     Subject: "Confidence Men" paints a really poor portrait of Obama
I agree. Point scoring deserves nothing better than retaliation. If you read the book and you give people some perspective based on your reaction to it, maybe some of us will go out and buy it.
TheManWithAUsername
Post 10/12/2011 14:51     Subject: "Confidence Men" paints a really poor portrait of Obama
Anonymous wrote:
TheManWithAUsername wrote:I think it matters* because there are differences among 1) a sincere, considered opinion; 2) thoughtless parroting; and 3) propaganda from a paid activist/campaigner. Many people would choose to ignore #2, and just about everyone would ignore #3. It's the same as the difference between an honest product review and an ad.

* It's all relative, of course. Nothing here really matters.


Well I'll say I'm definitely not 3, and since I've read about 75% of the book I don't consider myself 2. But now the conversation is less about the book, politics and policy and more about the level of discourse in the country as a whole and these boards are just a microcosm. If someone says or posts something that is not part of the ideology of the group then there is a quick lashing out. And on these boards its people lashing out at any conservative posting or thread. I would have understood if someone said, "yeah its a book whatever" but the first post was "troll". Maybe I will take your advice and call my moniker "FauxNewsTeaPartyTroll" (I actually like it) and thus when I post I won't hear "troll". Funny thing is that you and Jeff actually respond to threads instead of just pretending that anyone of the other end of the spectrum is the enemy.

I think that's a cop out.

There are multiple factors. I think you're probably underestimating the effect of anonymity. There's a right-wing nut here who is an annoying waste of everyone's time, and I think it's whipped things up a bit. That relates to the second factor, reaction to a post that looks at all like spam. So when we see a very short anti-Obama post, we tend to write it off (and I don't even like the guy). You have control over both of those factors.

A third factor is just tolerance and civility, yes. So I can't guarantee that you'll get a completely different reaction if you control for the other two factors, but I bet it will make a big difference.

(Sorry for hijacking, BTW.)
Anonymous
Post 10/12/2011 14:13     Subject: "Confidence Men" paints a really poor portrait of Obama
TheManWithAUsername wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
TheManWithAUsername wrote:
Anonymous wrote:So pray tell me what we should discuss on the political forum? Or is this only open to one political ideology? Jeff seems to have no problem with these posts. So again I ask on a political forum does posting a thread for discussion make a person a "troll" if they don't toe your party line? Is this the DNC boards?

I have a suggestion: get a username, even if you only use it for posts here. It will make it less likely that your posts are mistaken for astroturf propaganda.

FWIW, for me the "wow," with such a brief comment, adds to that impression. Basically, it read like spam to me.


OP. I understand that point, but does it matter? Again its the political forum. It's not like I'm posting links to "get free viagra". I mean Jesus what does that person expect?

I think it matters* because there are differences among 1) a sincere, considered opinion; 2) thoughtless parroting; and 3) propaganda from a paid activist/campaigner. Many people would choose to ignore #2, and just about everyone would ignore #3. It's the same as the difference between an honest product review and an ad.

* It's all relative, of course. Nothing here really matters.


Well I'll say I'm definitely not 3, and since I've read about 75% of the book I don't consider myself 2. But now the conversation is less about the book, politics and policy and more about the level of discourse in the country as a whole and these boards are just a microcosm. If someone says or posts something that is not part of the ideology of the group then there is a quick lashing out. And on these boards its people lashing out at any conservative posting or thread. I would have understood if someone said, "yeah its a book whatever" but the first post was "troll". Maybe I will take your advice and call my moniker "FauxNewsTeaPartyTroll" (I actually like it) and thus when I post I won't hear "troll". Funny thing is that you and Jeff actually respond to threads instead of just pretending that anyone of the other end of the spectrum is the enemy.

Anonymous
Post 10/12/2011 12:11     Subject: "Confidence Men" paints a really poor portrait of Obama
Anonymous wrote:
TheManWithAUsername wrote:
Anonymous wrote:So pray tell me what we should discuss on the political forum? Or is this only open to one political ideology? Jeff seems to have no problem with these posts. So again I ask on a political forum does posting a thread for discussion make a person a "troll" if they don't toe your party line? Is this the DNC boards?

I have a suggestion: get a username, even if you only use it for posts here. It will make it less likely that your posts are mistaken for astroturf propaganda.

FWIW, for me the "wow," with such a brief comment, adds to that impression. Basically, it read like spam to me.


OP. I understand that point, but does it matter? Again its the political forum. It's not like I'm posting links to "get free viagra". I mean Jesus what does that person expect?
Thoughtful comments get thoughtful responses. Did you read the book? Or are you acting as an affiliate transmitter for Faux News?
TheManWithAUsername
Post 10/12/2011 11:52     Subject: "Confidence Men" paints a really poor portrait of Obama
Anonymous wrote:
TheManWithAUsername wrote:
Anonymous wrote:So pray tell me what we should discuss on the political forum? Or is this only open to one political ideology? Jeff seems to have no problem with these posts. So again I ask on a political forum does posting a thread for discussion make a person a "troll" if they don't toe your party line? Is this the DNC boards?

I have a suggestion: get a username, even if you only use it for posts here. It will make it less likely that your posts are mistaken for astroturf propaganda.

FWIW, for me the "wow," with such a brief comment, adds to that impression. Basically, it read like spam to me.


OP. I understand that point, but does it matter? Again its the political forum. It's not like I'm posting links to "get free viagra". I mean Jesus what does that person expect?

I think it matters* because there are differences among 1) a sincere, considered opinion; 2) thoughtless parroting; and 3) propaganda from a paid activist/campaigner. Many people would choose to ignore #2, and just about everyone would ignore #3. It's the same as the difference between an honest product review and an ad.

* It's all relative, of course. Nothing here really matters.
Anonymous
Post 10/12/2011 09:51     Subject: "Confidence Men" paints a really poor portrait of Obama
TheManWithAUsername wrote:
Anonymous wrote:So pray tell me what we should discuss on the political forum? Or is this only open to one political ideology? Jeff seems to have no problem with these posts. So again I ask on a political forum does posting a thread for discussion make a person a "troll" if they don't toe your party line? Is this the DNC boards?

I have a suggestion: get a username, even if you only use it for posts here. It will make it less likely that your posts are mistaken for astroturf propaganda.

FWIW, for me the "wow," with such a brief comment, adds to that impression. Basically, it read like spam to me.


OP. I understand that point, but does it matter? Again its the political forum. It's not like I'm posting links to "get free viagra". I mean Jesus what does that person expect?
TheManWithAUsername
Post 10/12/2011 08:31     Subject: "Confidence Men" paints a really poor portrait of Obama
Anonymous wrote:So pray tell me what we should discuss on the political forum? Or is this only open to one political ideology? Jeff seems to have no problem with these posts. So again I ask on a political forum does posting a thread for discussion make a person a "troll" if they don't toe your party line? Is this the DNC boards?

I have a suggestion: get a username, even if you only use it for posts here. It will make it less likely that your posts are mistaken for astroturf propaganda.

FWIW, for me the "wow," with such a brief comment, adds to that impression. Basically, it read like spam to me.
Anonymous
Post 10/11/2011 23:31     Subject: "Confidence Men" paints a really poor portrait of Obama
Obama should never have appointed "Doogie Howser" Geithner as Treasury secretary. Geithner couldn't even pay his taxes on time, and as head of the NY Fed under Bush was too much a part of the financial crisis already. He has shown himself to be too close to the banks and financial services industry to be effective. Geithner should go.
Anonymous
Post 10/11/2011 22:08     Subject: "Confidence Men" paints a really poor portrait of Obama
Summers might be a jerk, but I agree that he's a smart guy. Didn't he become a Professor and then President of Harvard before age 30? Yes, he would not be the best person for the EEOC, but neither was Clarence Thomas....but look where he is now.

Separately, didn't all this stuff start going down during W's administration with Hank Paulson, 2008 credit crisis, funds on the brink of breaking the buck? How about Bush's first Commerce Secretary...wasn't that like his AA Sponsor or something?

A questionable choice would be Timothy Geithner...but he's still there.
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:[...]
Right off the bat you need to question the decision-making ability of anyone who would hire Larry Summers.


Good one. But seriously Summers is one of the smartest guys out there and the democrats are lucky to have him.
[...]
Anonymous
Post 10/11/2011 21:56     Subject: "Confidence Men" paints a really poor portrait of Obama
OMG you are STILL here? Thanks to you I just won a bet with my wife.
Anonymous
Post 10/11/2011 20:08     Subject: "Confidence Men" paints a really poor portrait of Obama
That's funny, I voted for him BECAUSE he was inexperienced. I did not want the same old McCain.
Anonymous
Post 10/11/2011 13:32     Subject: "Confidence Men" paints a really poor portrait of Obama
Autocorrect really mangled that one. "wow"

Anonymous
Post 10/11/2011 13:31     Subject: "Confidence Men" paints a really poor portrait of Obama
Anonymous wrote:http://www.amazon.com/Confidence-Men-Washington-Education-President/dp/0061429252

Wow. In over his head, radical, had to be pulled back from the edge. A very good read.
Yseem ao surprised that toucan find books that validate your point of view. And you use "wow " too much. You are a troll and nit fooling anyone.
Anonymous
Post 10/11/2011 12:29     Subject: "Confidence Men" paints a really poor portrait of Obama
Obama's protection of Wall Street is so sad. We need Ferdinand Pecora, but Obama would never allow someone like that to be appointed to anything.
Anonymous
Post 10/11/2011 11:44     Subject: "Confidence Men" paints a really poor portrait of Obama
http://www.amazon.com/Confidence-Men-Washington-Education-President/dp/0061429252

Wow. In over his head, radical, had to be pulled back from the edge. A very good read.