Civility in Politics

[Truthmatters]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ns-wehre-no-personal-insults-are-allowed.html


take a gander

 

[Truthmatters]

I'll take an ammunition pledge, I swear I won't run out of it.

so you cant debate without personal insults?

Exactly who did I insult?

Im sorry if I misunderstood you.

Are you willing to try?

 

[Truthmatters]

I think the closest the libs can get to showing Republican incivility would be the "You LIE!" comment during the SOTU speech.

Obama WAS lying, but the comment was uncivil...

Obama wasnt lying.

did you check the link to the other thread I posted?

 

[GuyPinestra]

How is it possible to insult an inanimate object?

Edited to add: Ok, we're missing each others posts. I'm not trying to insult anyone, and would be happy to engage in a conversation that doesn't involve any insults.

As for joe Wilson's SOTU comment, here's what CNN had on it...

Rep. Joe Wilson shocked many observers Wednesday night when he shouted, "You lie!" after the president denied that health care legislation would provide free coverage for illegal immigrants.

Since ACA does indeed cover illegal aliens, Obama was in fact lying.

 

[Truthmatters]

Im not understanding you

 

[Truthmatters]

So NO one is willing to try, even just in one thread?

 

[GuyPinestra]

So NO one is willing to try, even just in one thread?

I said I was willing to try, but I won't back down on the fact that ACA covers illegal aliens, and that Joe Wilson was correct, if uncivil, when he said "You lie!" during the SOTU speech.

 

[Truthmatters]

should I start another thread?

Oh you know what I dont think I can.

will you start a no insult thread?

I already did and...... well it didnt last as very long as you can see from the link I gave

 

[Nosmo King]

texanmike is spoonfeeding himself only those portions of the Founders with which he agrees.

This is called an indulgement in bias, and always results in the indulgee, to wit, one texanmike, looking rather ridiculous.

I have a bias, certainly. I tend to side with the anti-federalists. That does not mean I have not read the other side. I am at least aware of both sides of history. Do you think the Republicans (as they called themselves, not the present day party) history is accurately represented in your history books? Of course it is not. From the moment Marshall took his seat on the bench it was pretty much assured that the federalists would be hailed as the heros of the ratification.

And, for the record, a lot of my views in the world changes after reading what I read. I was a staunch conservative growing up. It wasn't until I started reading commentary by Jefferson and John Taylor that I moved towards liberarianism. My political compas is probably not permenantly set, I still have a reading list which grows almost daily. On it are about 30 books I have yet been able to find or had the time to read.

Mike

Your fire is all heat, no light.

What you conveniently forget in your zealotry is that this nation was founded upon compromise, not incivility. Continued incivility only fertilizes the garden from which discontent springs. Incivility is no way to govern, no way to conduct the people's business, no way to present your case to the world as being a free, fair, just society.

And it is certainly no way to convince your political opponents that you're anything but petulant, immature and close minded.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ns-wehre-no-personal-insults-are-allowed.html


take a gander

did you look at it?

 

[Truthmatters]

I guess if I did a different subject I could try again.

 

[LoneLaugher]

texanmike is spoonfeeding himself only those portions of the Founders with which he agrees.

This is called an indulgement in bias, and always results in the indulgee, to wit, one texanmike, looking rather ridiculous.

I have a bias, certainly. I tend to side with the anti-federalists. That does not mean I have not read the other side. I am at least aware of both sides of history. Do you think the Republicans (as they called themselves, not the present day party) history is accurately represented in your history books? Of course it is not. From the moment Marshall took his seat on the bench it was pretty much assured that the federalists would be hailed as the heros of the ratification.

And, for the record, a lot of my views in the world changes after reading what I read. I was a staunch conservative growing up. It wasn't until I started reading commentary by Jefferson and John Taylor that I moved towards liberarianism. My political compas is probably not permenantly set, I still have a reading list which grows almost daily. On it are about 30 books I have yet been able to find or had the time to read.

Mike

Wow! A guy who reads books! impressive. Reading books has moved him toward "liberarianism". Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

 

[GuyPinestra]

should I start another thread?

Oh you know what I dont think I can.

will you start a no insult thread?

I already did and...... well it didnt last as very long as you can see from the link I gave

I don't think a thread is going to work, TM. I think it will have to start with individuals choosing not to participate in the incivility that permeates the atmosphere. I will pledge that I will not engage in any insults from this point forward, until the moment comes, as I'm sure it will, that unfounded personal insults are hurled at me.

Fair enough?

 

[Sallow]

So no takers for a civility pledge?

I don't want civility. Civility was not a part of this nations founding, nor was it a characteristic of the founders. I much prefer a passionate debater to a bunch of mice to represent me.

Mike

Sure it was.

The founders both agreed and disagreed on a wide range of issues. But the final outcome was the result of civility.

 

[candycorn]

Look at this board; civility is in very short supply most of the time. Bripat is a serial liar, you have the posers who throw obscenities around like most people say "hello", idiots who tried to politicize a GOP senator having a stroke....

If you're surprised that the government is uncivil, you shouldn't be. We're uncivil and they take their cues from us; not the other way around.

Really? What have I lied about? I know you can't even list one thing.

Saying that troops have to be "shot at" to get combat pay for starters.
"Obama: Soldiers in Afghanistan Must Be Fired Upon to Receive Combat Pay "

Here is the actual statute:

The rules for Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay have changed. Service members will now receive imminent danger pay only for days they actually spend in hazardous areas. This change went in effect on February 1, 2012.

A member of a uniformed service may be entitled to Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger pay at the rate of $225 for any month in which he/she was entitled to basic pay and in which he/she was:
•Subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines;
•On duty in an area in which he was in imminent danger of being exposed to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines and in which, during the period he was on duty in that area, other members of the uniformed services were subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines;
•Killed, injured, or wounded by hostile fire, explosion of a hostile mine, or any other hostile action; or
•On duty in a foreign area in which he was subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger on the basis of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism, or wartime conditions.

At no point does it say you have to be fired at to receive combat pay.

Your move.

 

[bripat9643]

Really? What have I lied about? I know you can't even list one thing.

Saying that troops have to be "shot at" to get combat pay for starters.
"Obama: Soldiers in Afghanistan Must Be Fired Upon to Receive Combat Pay "

I simply quoted an article. I made no comments about it, either pro or con.

[Here is the actual statute:

The rules for Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay have changed. Service members will now receive imminent danger pay only for days they actually spend in hazardous areas. This change went in effect on February 1, 2012.

A member of a uniformed service may be entitled to Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger pay at the rate of $225 for any month in which he/she was entitled to basic pay and in which he/she was:
•Subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines;
•On duty in an area in which he was in imminent danger of being exposed to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines and in which, during the period he was on duty in that area, other members of the uniformed services were subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines;
•Killed, injured, or wounded by hostile fire, explosion of a hostile mine, or any other hostile action; or
•On duty in a foreign area in which he was subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger on the basis of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism, or wartime conditions.

At no point does it say you have to be fired at to receive combat pay.

Your move.

That comes pretty close to saying you or your buddies have to be fired upon to recieve combat pay.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't want civility. Civility was not a part of this nations founding, nor was it a characteristic of the founders. I much prefer a passionate debater to a bunch of mice to represent me.

Mike

Sure it was.

The founders both agreed and disagreed on a wide range of issues. But the final outcome was the result of civility.

You mean like the time when one Senator beat another to death with his cane right on the Senate floor? Or how about the time that Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton?

 

[Truthmatters]

should I start another thread?

Oh you know what I dont think I can.

will you start a no insult thread?

I already did and...... well it didnt last as very long as you can see from the link I gave

I don't think a thread is going to work, TM. I think it will have to start with individuals choosing not to participate in the incivility that permeates the atmosphere. I will pledge that I will not engage in any insults from this point forward, until the moment comes, as I'm sure it will, that unfounded personal insults are hurled at me.

Fair enough?

Then why not try a civility pledge?

why do you refuse that idea?

 

[Texanmike]

texanmike is spoonfeeding himself only those portions of the Founders with which he agrees.

This is called an indulgement in bias, and always results in the indulgee, to wit, one texanmike, looking rather ridiculous.

I have a bias, certainly. I tend to side with the anti-federalists. That does not mean I have not read the other side. I am at least aware of both sides of history. Do you think the Republicans (as they called themselves, not the present day party) history is accurately represented in your history books? Of course it is not. From the moment Marshall took his seat on the bench it was pretty much assured that the federalists would be hailed as the heros of the ratification.

And, for the record, a lot of my views in the world changes after reading what I read. I was a staunch conservative growing up. It wasn't until I started reading commentary by Jefferson and John Taylor that I moved towards liberarianism. My political compas is probably not permenantly set, I still have a reading list which grows almost daily. On it are about 30 books I have yet been able to find or had the time to read.

Mike

Your fire is all heat, no light.

What you conveniently forget in your zealotry is that this nation was founded upon compromise, not incivility. Continued incivility only fertilizes the garden from which discontent springs. Incivility is no way to govern, no way to conduct the people's business, no way to present your case to the world as being a free, fair, just society.

And it is certainly no way to convince your political opponents that you're anything but petulant, immature and close minded.

So wait, let me get this straight. I provide you with examples of incivility and you say I'm just wrong. The whole reason we have a Constitution was what ammounts to a plot. Knox account to Washginton (who's attendance was necessary for the convention to even happen) about Shay's rebellion was vastly over-stated. He claimed there were thousands of old soldiers that were being mistreated and that the rebellion was a threat to the "federation". Interesting that he used that word isn't it?

Beyond that, Madison worked clandestinely to bring the conevention with the intention to "amend the AoC" but that is not what happened. He went to the convention with a full draft of a constitution written. He would not announce it to the general assembly though, because he knew that NY and RI would not hear of ratifying a new governing document.

I mentioned earlier that people were writing in cypher, one such person was Randolph. There are at least two cases that the carriers are suspected of intercepting letters, intentionally, which might have altered the outcome of the convention.

Do I need to list further examples of incivility? I've got tons of them. Can't provide online links because most of them are in old books that nobody ever bothered to reference much less put online...

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

I don't want civility. Civility was not a part of this nations founding, nor was it a characteristic of the founders. I much prefer a passionate debater to a bunch of mice to represent me.

Mike

Sure it was.

The founders both agreed and disagreed on a wide range of issues. But the final outcome was the result of civility.

You mean like the time when one Senator beat another to death with his cane right on the Senate floor? Or how about the time that Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton?

IIRC he didn't beat him to death, but he did beat him severly. People from all over sent him canes in support.

Mike