Why the barrage?

[47MartialMan]

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.

Actually, the politics brings out the "best" :shrug:, of people.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Why is it some people can have a "discussion", even when they disagree

Some view it as a way of better refining ideas as we go forward in history.

Some view it as a competition to 'win', and thus the other side must 'lose'

 

[sgtmac_46]

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.

So what you're saying is that you liked what it said about your counterparts, the far right religious wackos, but you didn't like what it said about you? Sounds like it hit the nail on the head on both counts. Extreme nuts SHOULD be offended by those articles, rightwing or leftwing. Sounds like you found one side to identify with. I'm sure your mirror images on the religious right would find a rare moment to agree with you. None of it offended me because i'm not A) A radical religious right wing nut bent on bringing on the second coming or B) A radical leftwing idealogue bent on bringing on the revolution. Now that I think about it, there's one MORE way religous right and radical left are so much a like. They both believe in some sort of coming apocalypse that will remake the world. Religious right believes Jesus is coming bac and the Radical left believe in some sort of revolution. It's why they hate each other so much, they are competing religions.

 

[sgtmac_46]

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.

Nah, you just call them Fascists, claim they sound like Hitler, and attempt to paint them as "hate filled" and evil incarnate blah blah blah. Get over yourself. That's why you accuse them of "Spewing hate", more attempts to paint the opposition as fascist.

Do you actually think you're clever enough to pull that trick off without anyone noticing? Do you call it hate filled when a leftist talk show host talks about assasinating a sitting president and punctuates the point with gunshots in the background? I never heard anything like that on Limbaugh.

I don't recall rightwingers throwing pies at people they disagree with. Could it be that what makes you maddest is that the right has actually developed well thought out arguments that destroy the lefts asinine positions? I don't think i've ever heard anything "Hate filled" in the sense of threatening violence or trying to provoke it from ANYONE you've mentioned. In fact, i've seen a couple of Ann Coulters visits to universities, it isn't her yelling profanity, it's the leftist college students. Yet COULTER is hatefilled? Please. I have heard some pretty condescending comments from them about asinine statements made by lefties, is that "hate filled"? lol.

Again, get over it. Are you so idealogically driven that you don't see when you are engaging in the same types of activities you accuse others of? I mean, come on, I rarely see a post from you that you haven't A) Insinuated your oppositions was fascist (or "hatefilled) or B) Outright called them such. Way to change the tone of the dialogue there partner.

 

[ginshun]

Are you so idealogically driven that you don't see when you are engaging in the same types of activities you accuse others of?

I think the answer to that question is pretty obvious to anyone of reasonable intelligence who reads this thread.

 

[michaeledward]

That is twice now someone has referenced a radio threat of assassination against a sitting president by an accused 'Liberal' program. Please expand on this reference ... who said it, on what broadcasts, when?

You know, provide some context and a source ... like this.

On August 26, 1994, G. Gordon Liddy told his radio listeners: "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests." Liddy's advice that day was explicit: "They've got a big target on there, ATF. Don't shoot at that, because they've got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots.... Kill the sons of bitches."

On September 15, 1994, for example, Liddy told his listeners: "If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a firefight, give them a firefight. Just remember, they're wearing flak jackets and you're better off shooting for the head." The theme was repeated so often that Liddy's callers began to exclaim "head shots!" to express their agreement with the host, the way Rush Limbaugh's callers say "megadittos."

 

[ginshun]

That is twice now someone has referenced a radio threat of assassination against a sitting president by an accused 'Liberal' program. Please expand on this reference ... who said it, on what broadcasts, when?

It was Al Frankens talk show not long ago. It was meant as a joke, but was in very poor taste IMO. People like Sean Hannity and a few other conservative commentators made a huge deal about it. I will see if I can find some more info on it.

 

[ginshun]

Actually, here is a different one from Randi Rhodes.

In a allusion to the Godfather she says:

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]"The Fredo of the family is the president of the United States, so why doesn't his father or his brother … take him out for a little fishing, and let him say some Hail Marys – he loves God so much. … You know, Hail Mary, full of grace, God is with thee – pow [gunshot sound] – works for me."

[/font]I am almost sure that there was one on Al Frankens show that was done like a comedy skit too, so I am not sure which one people are refering to.

[Edit] Never mind, I guess the skit was on her show too. Sorry Al.

Here is the story in the Wahsington Times

 

[michaeledward]

I found this report ...

http://www.columbustownhall.com/townhall/index.php?act=ST&f=18&t=2356&

There is a link to the audio of the Randi Rhodes Show introduction.

For the record ... it never references the 'President'. It certainly infers the President ... a "spoiled child", an "ungrateful whelp".

So, follow the link, listen to the audio ... and then argue against the second amendment (American Associate of Armed Retired Persons - that's the joke) and the first amendment.

Nothin' like givin' away what it is to be an American.

Go Go Gadget!

 

[Andrew Green]

The thing that sticks out to me is how this seems to be such a either or thing down there. You are either right, or left. No in betweens, no parts from each. One or the other. With us or against us attitude...

Both sides try to do it... If you believe x you are leftists/rightest and therefore must also believe y and z...

Dividing a country that cleanly can't be good for either side...

 

[sgtmac_46]

I found this report ...

http://www.columbustownhall.com/townhall/index.php?act=ST&f=18&t=2356&

There is a link to the audio of the Randi Rhodes Show introduction.

For the record ... it never references the 'President'. It certainly infers the President ... a "spoiled child", an "ungrateful whelp".

So, follow the link, listen to the audio ... and then argue against the second amendment (American Associate of Armed Retired Persons - that's the joke) and the first amendment.

Nothin' like givin' away what it is to be an American.

Go Go Gadget!

The point wasn't about the 1st or 2nd amendment, it was about robertson making the claim that conservative commentators were "hatefilled". I made the point that Limbaugh never created a spot simulating (i'm sorry, inferring) the assasination of a sitting president. Nor, do I recall a vast rightwing "pie throwing" operation. Again, the leftist pot certainly has no room calling the kettle black on the divisiveness issue. Again, physicians heal thyselves.

 

[TonyM.]

My take on all talk radio.
If a conservative and liberal talk show host were to jump off the empire state building whom would hit the ground first?
Answer: Who really cares!

 

[sgtmac_46]

My take on all talk radio.
If a conservative and liberal talk show host were to jump off the empire state building whom would hit the ground first?
Answer: Who really cares!

Whoever they land on.

 

[psi_radar]

I found this report ...

http://www.columbustownhall.com/townhall/index.php?act=ST&f=18&t=2356&

There is a link to the audio of the Randi Rhodes Show introduction.

For the record ... it never references the 'President'. It certainly infers the President ... a "spoiled child", an "ungrateful whelp".

So, follow the link, listen to the audio ... and then argue against the second amendment (American Associate of Armed Retired Persons - that's the joke) and the first amendment.

Nothin' like givin' away what it is to be an American.

Go Go Gadget!

To be fair to Randi, she did apologize for the skit the following day and gave some excuses, which she freely admitted weren't good enough. Taking responsibility and apologizing. Imagine that.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. The claim to be, "centrist," or filled merely with, "common sense," or to, "have no politics," is, as always, an ideological belief.

2. Hate to burst bubbles, but I happen to be a card-carrying member of the "radical left." really--they sent one to me, from their Fortress of Solitude under the Kremlin. Or was it the Vatican? I forget. Anyway, this revolution stuff's a buncha hooey. Dangerous hooey.

3. Writing as a scholarly type, there is an enormous difference between exactly citing a primary source--G. Gordon Liddy's radio show--and saying, "I am almost sure," then citing something in the "Washington Times," a right-wing newspaper owned by the Third Adam himself, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. Whyn't you just quote the, "Volkischer Beobachter," and yes, that's a pretty strong suggestion of fascism. (Incidentally, I'd be interested to see where I've called anybody a fascist. Well, maybe Mussolini.) But then, the Rev. Moon (Group marriages? Korean CIA?) teaches that Adam, Christ and himself are the Three Adams, and that his paper is his tool to bring about Christ's Reign on Earth.

4. No organized group of rightists. Really. Personally, I take guys like Karl Rove and Ralph Reed at their word...

5. Sorry. I pretty much take Al Franken as an entertainer. And the rest of 'em--difference is, Franken doesn't screech endlessly about traitors, lie without the slightest remorse, call to have people shot. And if we're really going to get into personal moral character, perhaps folks might want to contemplate little things like: a) which of these guys has ever served? b) which ones have actually gone to Iraq? c) which ones are recovering junkies of one kind or another? d) which ones got nailed on sexual harassment? e) which ones are convicted felons?

 

[ginshun]

You can't honestly be doubting that that Randi Rhodes incident happened because it was reported in the Times. Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that you believe the Times fabricated that whole story? If so, then I don't really know what to say.

 

[Phoenix44]

Who cares if someone calls the President a spoiled brat, or Barbara Boxer a shrew? Listen or don't listen. I have a problem with lies, fabrications, and gross inaccuracies.

For example, today, Al Franken played a clip of Bill O'Reilly's interview with Jeremy Glick, whose father died in 9/11 and who is against the Iraq war. THEN Franken played a clip of a more recent O'Reilly show where O'Reilly said that Glick called the 9/11 attack an "alleged" attack, and that Glick said that Bush and Cheney "orchestrated the attack." Glick had said no such thing, which was obvious because Franken played the original interview. Those tapes were your "primary sources." (Unfortunately, most of us don't have easy access to government primary sources)

Now it seems that before O'Reilly made those comments about Glick, he also could have--should have--reviewed the original tapes. So was it inaccuracy, or lies? Because those tapes were "primary sources." Glick found the false comments about him very offensive, and possibly harmful to his career. Do you think O'Reilly will retract?

To me, that's what makes the difference between an intelligent political conversation, which I'm happy to engage in, and nonsense, which I have no time for. It's not the epithets or lack thereof, it's the factual back-up--or lack thereof.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Ginshun: when a newspaper is owned by an extreme right-wing religious nutcake like Moon, who claims that a) he is the Third Adam, and b) he uses his newspaper to further his religious and political goal--which is to bring about the Kingdom of Chirst on earth and have himself installed as King of the World--you are damn skippy that I tend not to believe anything his paper publishes about politics or religion. And neither should you; at the very least, you should find a corroborating source before accepting any such story.

2. Why in the world would anyone want to take such sources seriously? You can look it up on Rhodes' own website, right? You can find a real newspaper to consult...why use a grossly untrustworthy source like the "Washington Times?" And before anyone starts, here's the difference between that rag and the "New York Times:" Moon's background and intellectual origins are in right-wing fanaticism and a cultish view of Christianity; the other paper's owners are steeped in humanist philosophy and a businessman's viewpoint not very different from those of Franklin, Jefferson, et al. Assuredly they will have their blind spots, biases and shortcomings: nobody's saying (read carefully here!) that they're merely objective.

But anybody sane would take the New York paper's owners' approach any day.

3. So again, my question on this thread: there're lots of conservative sources ("The Economist;" "The National Review;" "Foreign Policy;" "The American Spectator" and many more) that I don't agree with and even find morally reprehensible at times, but which are certainly put out by intelligent people who do their homework and aren't religious lunatics.

So why in the world would anybody bother with the likes of "The Washington Times?"

 

[Tgace]

So when the Washington Times posts the baseball scores I should double check a different source?

 

[rmcrobertson]

I would. But as for what I ACTUALLY wrote, I was quite specific about WHICH TYPE of article to be wary of:

"I tend not to believe anything his paper publishes about POLITICS OR RELIGION. And neither should you; at the very least, you should find a corroborating source before accepting ANY SUCH story." (accents added for this reprint)

Please read more carefully; this is precisely the sort of thing that leads readers to mistrust a source.