Why the barrage?

[rmcrobertson]

Uh...you folks DO know that this is explicitly a liberal Christian website? That it attacks a lot of the conservative/right-wing fantasies, and explicitly says that a lot of this stuff comes out of an, "ideology of anxiety," which is kinda my point?

However, it simply repeats pretty much the same old same old stuff about libs and lefties we've all heard a thousand times.

To take one example:the article cited explicitly claims that libs/leftists are, "fundamentalists," who, "hate themselves," and that there is, "a sinister aspect," to their view of the world. To prove this, they mention a couple of conversations in Berkeley. Nowhere are any of the thousands of books, articles, discussions, etc., that libs and lefties write. Same old same old: I don't really want to know what I'm talking about, I'm not gonna find out, I just want to repeat the same stuff back...

Why the endless caricatures?

And as for the, "moral relativism," bit, what would be more morally relativistic than a President who spent most of his early life screwing around, then became a born-again? who claims Christian values, but who lied to get us into a war we apparently didn't need to be in? who didn't serve, but who had the barefaced gall to build his campaign around attacking his opponent for his service? Or--what's more morally relativistic--the argument that morality is built up by human beings as a social contract (which is kinda what our laws say anyway), or Henry Kissinger's Realpolitik?

And what are folks so WORRIED about, that they have to accuse everybody who doesn't agree with them of being immoral, of being traitorous, of being unrealistic?

I liked the Blind Chihuahua. The attempt at trashing everybody was nice to see. It's hard to argue that the indictment of the silly way leftists sometimes talk and behave is wrong--because it's not. But it's just a gussied-up version of the Same Old Stuff.

Oh yes. Michael, in answer to your question, when I turn on the radio and TV and hear people--daily--screaming that anybody who believes anything like what I believe is a traitor, or screaming that people like me (you know...teachers) are the root of all evil in American society, or screaming that we oughta just wipe out everybody who disagrees with them, or screaming that teaching evolution is the Devil's work, yes, I get a little bothered. And when I see the same from the libs and lefties--screaming that YOU'RE a traitor, screaming that YOU oughta be fired, screaming that YOU are the whole prob with the country, screaming that YOU are morally corrupt, why then, you too will have some solid ground for worrying.

But basically I worry about bills more.

 

[Tgace]

So he's right about conservatives but wrong about liberals....typical. Why am I not surprised?

 

[ginshun]

He's about our latest rabid loon on talk radio

I am a bit familiar with the Savage loonbox

what is so wrong with the way the country is that folks find it OK to launch all sorts of personal attacks on the fellow Americans

Enough said

 

[rmcrobertson]

First place, Sparky, discussing. I only whine personally--and the fact that rather than discuss anything, you choose instead to inject the personal note is precisely what I'm talking about.

Second off, yes, I'm quite aware of the lacunae in what I write. Are you?

 

[ginshun]

I just find it very entertaining that you make a whole thread about how conservative talk show hosts are so bad because they are constently throwing personal attacks, and in the process call them "rabid loonballs"

Am I the only one who sees the hypocasy in that? And last time I checked my name wasn't Sparky. Keep those insults coming though, it helps.

 

[Tgace]

Odd when the most confrontational people start complaining about civility isnt it?

 

[rmcrobertson]

First off, "ginshun," (I'd go with "Sparky," myself), I see that you edited out your typical crack about my supposedly, "whining," to which I was responding.

Second off, no, what's odd is that I still can't seem to find a actual answer to a pretty simple question: why do some folks--like you two--need personally to attack anybody who disagrees with them about politics?

If you're wondering why I referred to Savage as a rabid loonbox, remember, this is the guy who got on air and told gay people that they should just shut up an die horribly, which they deserve. Ann Coulter's written a whole book claiming that ALL libs and leftists are traitors. G. Gordon Liddy and his ilk get on the air and say that ATF and FBI agents should be shot in the head; Jerry falwell claims that 9/11 was God's Punishment for the ACLU and for lesbians. "Rabid loonbox," sounds about right for that sort of nonsense.

You shouldn't have that much trouble finding leftists who write just as stupidly. I've tried to get you to look up, say, Louis Althusser--great ammo for your claims!

And if you want perfection outta me, you'll want to bring your own.

 

[Tgace]

Whos arguing politics? I havent noticed any support or attacks against any political stance here....besides saying that conservatives and fundamentalists are nasty, while somehow implying that liberals are not.

Perhaps its not the ideas that garner the venom as much as the attude of the person arguing it...:shrug:

 

[ginshun]

I admit that I did edit out the part about you whining, but I did it before I read your post. Sorry, I thought it made a better point as it is now.

I did not intend a question about you whining to be taken as an insult to you. I don't believe that I at any point personally insulted you.

I did however ask you why it is OK for you to launch personal attacks at the likes of Michael Savage and Sean Hannity, and then become offended when they insult others. I have yet to recieve an answer.

Or maybe "rabid loonball" is a term of endearment, and I just misinterpreted it. If that is the case I am sorry.

[edit] never mind, you did answer. They have views different than yours, so that makes it OK for you to insult them. Fine.

First off, "ginshun," (I'd go with "Sparky," myself)

and then you insult my name in the very post.?!?! Honestly, I'd give you a bigger shovel, but I think you are already using a backhoe. You have insulted me in every response so far. I quit, you're not worth my time. You win, conservatives are evil.

 

[Marginal]

It is odd that the voice for furthering a right wing agenda seems to cheifly put fourth by the rabid outliers. No one claiming conservatism on this thread seems to agree with the likes of Savage, so why is it that he, along with the rest of the folks making completely over the top claims are the public face of the convervative movement?

Why's the conservative movement "cool" with that?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Uh...do you find Savage's comments something other than, "nasty?" Coulter's? Hannity's verbal bullying? Limbaugh's pomposity? How about O'Reilly's? McLaughlin's? The current Republican Party bigwigs, starting with Tom DeLay?

And ginshun, stop whining. You're not worth my time. Nothing personal meant, of course---c'mahn, that's absurd.

 

[Tgace]

While I consider my political views to be "conservative". I could care less about any "movement". Somehow, certain people like to polarize everybody into camps. I guess its easier to believe Im a Savage fan, with a life size poster of Bush in my office who wants the Church to run the country. Than it is to believe Im a working class Cop raising a family in suburbia who loves his country, supports the military, sometimes goes to church (hope my mom isnt reading), is more anti than pro abortion (but agrees in its necessity under some circumstances), thinks that homosexuals should not be discriminated against in the military, women should be allowed in combat if they meet standards, etc. etc.

I guess you have to express some contempt for the president and constantly bemoan the problems with our country or else you get labeled a Neo-Con.

 

[psi_radar]

Robert, you're really getting into pot-calling-the-kettle-black territory here. Maybe you think you're a little less transparent in your posts than you actually are, but your outright contempt for all things (and people) right-wing is palpable and I'm sure insulting to those on that side of the fence. Not a good way to approach a dialogue meant supposedly for understanding.

 

[Tgace]

Seemed like a "why are all you guys such *******s" thread from the get go to me....

 

[ginshun]

I guess you have to express some contempt for the president and constantly bemoan the problems with our country or else you get labeled a Neo-Con.

yup

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, I'd guess I'm less than perfect. I get tired of the personal attacks, and occasionally (far less than is thought by some) crack back.

And while I do not hold the people I talk to on forums in contempt, I do rather despise the way guys like Savage, and Limbaugh, and Hannity, and Coulter, and and and (it's a long list) get well-paid to spew hate on the radio. Who wouldn't?

However, I don't call people traitors; I don't tell them they're weak or neurotic or whiny; I don't claim they hate their country; I don't (long list follows) do a lot of the things I see other posters doing regularly.

And what I'm asking is: what's all the big huhu? It's just discussion.

 

[Tgace]

Why is it some people can have a "discussion", even when they disagree, while others seem to get into pissing matches with everybody? Legitimate question, not directed... Perhaps its less the message as it is the messenger. There seems to be various "types" of political conversation Ive observed. People who enjoy disagreeing, laugh about it and have another beer. People who agree to disagree and stay civil. People who can get into full blown arguments but get over it. And others who just butt heads at every turn. Its more about the people (and how they act and interact) then it is about the politics.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh, I'm pretty sure it's the politics. The other stuff's just an excuse....mostly. But while I certainly do screw up, I don't seem to screw up any more than, "some people...."

 

[Phoenix44]

Bear in mind that Coulter, Savage, O'Reilly, et al are not "Conservatives." Neither are Bush-Cheney and company. These people are radicals. They have a radical agenda, they "conserve" nothing, not money, not resources, not privacy. REAL conservatives favor low taxes, limited government, and limited spending. These folks favor low taxes for the wealthy, big spending, and MASSIVE government.

What I object to among the "pundits" is venom spewing without factual argument. It's real easy to call people "latte drinking liberals," "feminazis" or "girly men." It's a lot harder to back up a cogent argument with fact.

Randi Rhodes is strident, no doubt, but she will read, ad nauseum, statistics, case law, and whatever it takes to back herself up. Limbaugh does no such thing, which is why he's frequently wrong. And strident.

 

[Tgace]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec03/righttalkradio_10-13.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/interviews/harrison.html