Jay Kadis wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 10:44 |
Even when using the same kind of rhetoric, the left uses targets while the right uses cross-hairs. That is a significant difference. |
Paul Cavins wrote on Sat, 15 January 2011 13:35 |
Life is a Rorschach test. This tragic event, for the Left, HAD TO BE a result of their enemies' wrongfulness. Paul Krugman didn't wait more than a couple of hours before he blamed it on the RIght. The left sees everything in the world through their hatred of their political enemies. There is absolutely no political angle on this tragedy, or at least there shouldn't be. We should all just wish the victims and their families well. PC |
jonathan jetter wrote |
sarah palin does not deserve my respect or civility. |
Strummer wrote on Sun, 16 January 2011 10:53 |
"What's so funny about peace love and understanding" |
ssltech wrote on Sun, 16 January 2011 09:01 | ||
-Actually, this attitude saddens me. |
Paul Cavins wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 22:25 |
The perp is mentally ill. The great forces of fire that rage in our political debate did not influence this guy. We shouldn't be learning lessons from deranged wack jobs. I have no problem discussing the merits of moderation in political discourse, but this is not the occasion. We will do damage to the truth if we allow this event to draw the parameters of debate. We shouldn't conveniently use this tragedy to advance any ideas about anything, except sorrow, and maybe about how we deal with severely mentally ill people. PC |
jonathan jetter wrote on Sun, 16 January 2011 17:05 |
she is stupid. she is shameless. and she has left my country worse off than it was before she started her career. |
Bubba#$%Kron wrote |
I'd still bang the shit out her, willow's pretty hot too!!!! |
ssltech wrote on Mon, 17 January 2011 14:47 | ||
See... -THIS is the sort of respectful, civil discussion which I'm thinking about. -Seriously though, while I REALLY don't like Sarah Palin, while I HATE the idea of having as leader who may be significantly less clever than I am, and while I surely dislike many of the principles, there are some basic fundaments which -for me- delineate the thin end of the wedge. If we can't have a civil discussion just because we don't like someone, then I don't believe that we'll ever be able to move forward. If anyone reading what I write doesn't agree with me, or holds an entirely contrary opinion or feeling, that's PERFECTLY fine. -But if they think that -because I'm somehow "wrong" that the basic requirement that they don't treat me like I'm less than a nugget of dung doesn't apply... then I want no part of a society which believed that to be in ANY way acceptable. Keith |
ssltech wrote on Mon, 17 January 2011 14:47 | ||
See... -THIS is the sort of respectful, civil discussion which I'm thinking about. -Seriously though, while I REALLY don't like Sarah Palin, while I HATE the idea of having as leader who may be significantly less clever than I am, and while I surely dislike many of the principles, there are some basic fundaments which -for me- delineate the thin end of the wedge. If we can't have a civil discussion just because we don't like someone, then I don't believe that we'll ever be able to move forward. If anyone reading what I write doesn't agree with me, or holds an entirely contrary opinion or feeling, that's PERFECTLY fine. -But if they think that -because I'm somehow "wrong" that the basic requirement that they don't treat me like I'm less than a nugget of dung doesn't apply... then I want no part of a society which believed that to be in ANY way acceptable. Keith |
ssltech wrote on Mon, 17 January 2011 21:01 |
-I think that if we DO take the time to ponder and reconsider, and that if SOME measure of civility can be restored as a result of this tragedy, then at least some good may result. .... Anyhow, I'm ready to try and improve how I speak of others. -If others would join me, perhaps at least tings might improve a little... though I fear that the AM radio 'format' might be less profitable if they dropped the (somewhat compelling for their target audience, I've no doubt) outrage. -If my read on that is true, I don't expect much improvement there. |
jonathan jetter wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 05:54 |
in regard to conversation between you and me, i certainly would agree. or between you and most people, or between me and most people. but when it comes to interaction between me and, say, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, or a United States senator, or the RNC Chairman, and so on, then no. civility has no place. they are not human like we are human. i do not respect their jobs as legitimate and i do not respect them as moral beings. |
jonathan jetter wrote |
thoughts? jon |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 07:31 |
What elitist, misguided and hateful bollocks. Bankers and Senators are human beings, like everyone else. They have strengths and weaknesses, they have good sides and bad sides, they are as different to each other as they are similar to everyone else. They are responsible for bigger things, so when they do wrong (either by accident or by design) it affects more people to a greater degree than when people in less powerful jobs do so, so we should wish for them to be as good and as competent as possible, better than the average, so we shouldn't go too easy on them when they screw up. Some individuals may be genuinely nasty pieces of work, but to attribute sub human characteristics to a whole group of people because of their chosen profession, professions which are necessary in our current political and economic systems, is just bollocks. |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 12:31 | ||
What elitist, misguided and hateful bollocks. |
Fenris Wulf wrote |
Anti-elitism is now elitist. Awesome. |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Wed, 19 January 2011 07:50 |
Anti-elitism is now elitist. Awesome. |
Jay Kadis wrote on Wed, 19 January 2011 10:28 |
While they're unfortunately all too human, those responsible for the subversion of our economic and political system for personal gain should be held responsible. |
Fiasco wrote on Wed, 19 January 2011 10:42 | ||
And do you posit that these people are primarily Republican? |
Fiasco wrote on Wed, 19 January 2011 13:42 | ||
And do you posit that these people are primarily Republican? |