The root cause of the lack of "Civil Discourse"

[mdn2000]

The shootings in Arizona have brought the concept of civility in political discussion to the front of message boards, pundit blogs, and all of the mainstream media formats....

Only because authoritarian left wing hacks, along with their useful idiot hack fellow travelers in the lamestream media, want to cower behind the dead and wounded, in order to move forward their desire to limit and outright censor the speech of all who have the temerity to oppose them.

The good news is that few people, outside of the loony left, are buying into their transparent and cynical political ploy.

You keep spewing the 'authoritarian left' when about 1% of the left could be classified as authoritarian. It is an overwhelmingly right wing trait.

But don't let 88 different psychological studies conducted between 1958 and 2002 that involved 22,818 people from 12 different countries deter your bluster.


While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.

COMBAT LIBERALISM (7 September 1937), later quoted in Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong (The Little Red Book) (1964), Ch. 24.

22,000 people out of 3 billion. Psychologist say? Psychologist are so of the most deranged individuals on earth. Many get into Psychology because of their own mental problems. If you base you opinion on Psychologist there is pretty much no hope for you.

So you quote a Marxist, what is the relevance other than Obama is a Marxist as well.

Mao Zedong is Mao Tse-Tung, the Marxist Che the murderer admired most. A complete idiot that caused the deaths of tens of millions of people.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." Alex Carey

Interesting question and not one open to an easy answer. This is my paradoxical and incomplete reply. Because civil discourse is ineffective. Why is it ineffective, because it is nuanced and complex, and people do not have time for nuanced and complex today - maybe never did. In America if you give an intelligent answer to any question you are a nerd, pinhead or elitist.

You find that to be some kind o' problem??



*

​

 

[mdn2000]

You really don't have a clue, do you?

There are plenty of things that I do not agree should be done with my tax dollars. Tough shit. We don't get to pick and choose on an individual level. That's why we elect representatives.

And when Roe vs. Wade gets reversed, the answer to you will be "tough shit".

We elect representatives to uphold the Constitution, seems the courts ruled against the Constitution, tough shit, right.

Sure, if that happens.

The courts do not rule "against the Constitution". They interpret the Constitution, because that's their job.

Very Naive You Are.

 

[mdn2000]

"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." Alex Carey

Interesting question and not one open to an easy answer. This is my paradoxical and incomplete reply. Because civil discourse is ineffective. Why is it ineffective, because it is nuanced and complex, and people do not have time for nuanced and complex today - maybe never did. In America if you give an intelligent answer to any question you are a nerd, pinhead or elitist. The 2000 and 2004 presidential races demonstrated a piece of that puzzle with the characterizations of Gore and Kerry. But deeper down there is much more to this issue: isn't it easier to call universal healthcare 'socialism' than to debate it is a needed social good - with all the complexity that reply would muster. Isn't it easier to call taxes stealing, than to recognize that profits and salaries only grow out of a society that supports both individual and business and each other. Isn't it easier to call welfare recipients, or the unemployed, lazy than to recognize the movement of manufacturing or the outsourcing of work in a global world. And isn't it easier to call global warming a fraud when climate is complex and any change affects corporate interests and profits - who have a vested interest in denial?

I tried last night to watch Glenn Beck, I lasted longer than usual because he was discussing the power of advertising. Edward Bernays was his topic until he got into his strange associations of propaganda with George Soros. Beck is not nuanced enough to recognize that advertising, aka propaganda, works but it only works if the climate is right. No one advertises marijuana but it does OK I've heard. What was so interesting to me was how Beck could take a complex topic and then with a few carefully selected quotes jump to his usual fantasy and not see what he was doing - engaging in uncivil hyperbole and distortion.

I don't mean to say that all information is uncivil or wrong or distorted but a great deal is because it works; the people with the power to present the news or fight for or against some issue use it because it works. The invasion of Iraq should, or could stand, for the power of uncivil discourse in a climate of fear. It doesn't really matter if your opponent is right or wrong so long as your side wins.

"Corporate propaganda directed outwards, that is, to the public at large, has two main objectives: to identify the free enterprise system in popular consciousness with every cherished value, and to identify interventionist governments and strong unions (the only agencies capable of checking a complete domination of society by corporations) with tyranny, oppression and even subversion. The techniques used to achieve these results are variously called 'public relations', 'corporate communications' and 'economic education'." Alex Carey

Gore and Kerry, Kerry is an idiot, how in the hell is this conceited piece of shit should never of been elected. I can think of nobody that is a bigger coward, the idiot shot himself in Vietnam, murdered Vietnamese children, and came back with a purple heart for a self-inflicted wound and blamed everyone else for what he did. Imagine chasing down a boy and shooting him and then claiming everyone did this. Sick, that is Kerry.

Of course Al Gore is a pure fraud, Al Gore released the strategic oil reserves to lower the price of gas, that is Al Gore transferred the people's strategic oil reserves to his families corporation for profit.

Health Care, are you too young or too partisan to know that before the government got involved it worked pretty good for the entire world. That is the entire world profited from the health care advances we created in the USA.

Al Gore and Kerry are just the tip of the Iceberg of a big problem in the USA, the elite in government and the minions that constantly worship them.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

No, our argument on abortion is about tax payer's money. You have the right to abortion but not with taxpayer money,it violates the one's who are against abortion.

Ah, yes....those anti-abortion folks are (already) struggling to save every nickel-and-dime, they can!!

How can they (possibly) be expected to maintain their momentum, helping all o' those women, who (they've decided) have an obligation to motherhood....if the government is taking-away all o' their charity-buck$??

*

So.....what's THIS got-to-do with The root cause of the lack of "Civil Discourse"????

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Obviously it's the evil corporations fault. People working together to earn a living for themselves and their families is clearly the only reason discourse is uncivil.

Gee.....that almost made sense.

 

[Bfgrn]

Only because authoritarian left wing hacks, along with their useful idiot hack fellow travelers in the lamestream media, want to cower behind the dead and wounded, in order to move forward their desire to limit and outright censor the speech of all who have the temerity to oppose them.

The good news is that few people, outside of the loony left, are buying into their transparent and cynical political ploy.

You keep spewing the 'authoritarian left' when about 1% of the left could be classified as authoritarian. It is an overwhelmingly right wing trait.

But don't let 88 different psychological studies conducted between 1958 and 2002 that involved 22,818 people from 12 different countries deter your bluster.


While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.

COMBAT LIBERALISM (7 September 1937), later quoted in Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong (The Little Red Book) (1964), Ch. 24.

22,000 people out of 3 billion. Psychologist say? Psychologist are so of the most deranged individuals on earth. Many get into Psychology because of their own mental problems. If you base you opinion on Psychologist there is pretty much no hope for you.

So you quote a Marxist, what is the relevance other than Obama is a Marxist as well.

Mao Zedong is Mao Tse-Tung, the Marxist Che the murderer admired most. A complete idiot that caused the deaths of tens of millions of people.

Much of the empirical data is gathered by people revealing THEIR beliefs using the RWA scale used by Robert Altmeyer. It is a questionnaire that is a significant improvement over the F-scale, which was the original measure of the authoritarian personality.

The RWA Scale

Obama is not a Marxist. Only an asshole would say that.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Well I don't see how the last congress can pass a Health Care Bill aganist the majority of this contry who do not want this health care bill and expect not to have heated debates.

Liar.

CBS poll
Poll: Most Americans Remain Against Health Care Overhaul - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

We have always had heated debates, my point is it has gotten more heated because of the Health care bill. Why do you think so many people showed up at their town hall meeting? To tell our congress reps that we did not like the bill. A lot reps were very surprised when the bill was being read to them and they had not read it themselves.

Not a prob!!

Here's your opportunity to show everyone (exactly) which part(s), of the Health Care legislation, you find so troubling.

Health-Care Reform - Implementation Timeline

You're on-the-clock!!!

(Show those bad-ol'-Reps how it's done!!!>

<tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick>

*

*** After this, feel free to return to the subject-at-hand: The root cause of the lack of "Civil Discourse"​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The Final Solution, I wonder if Liberals have thought of a Final Solution. Nazis or Fascism was not the in the 30's, it was simple human nature.

Yeah.....in the 1930s, it was simple human nature for the high-roller$ (those darlings of the Teabaggers) to lay-waste to our economy.....

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6whSWn1RRM&feature=player_embedded[/ame]​

 

[Trajan]

The shootings in Arizona have brought the concept of civility in political discussion to the front of message boards, pundit blogs, and all of the mainstream media formats....

Only because authoritarian left wing hacks, along with their useful idiot hack fellow travelers in the lamestream media, want to cower behind the dead and wounded, in order to move forward their desire to limit and outright censor the speech of all who have the temerity to oppose them.

The good news is that few people, outside of the loony left, are buying into their transparent and cynical political ploy.

well said BUT I must say that donw the road 3-5 years or so, the msm/obama will use this to fool those that have little memory and don't really pay attention to detail, and have that short term memory that the politicos always count on.

The "speech" was a HUGE strawman.Its the veritable Burning Man of strawmen...

Yes he said some very nice things, even inspired things about the victims BUT, the "speech" as a body of work will be burped up as a Sister Souljah moment, as the day he stood up for civil discourse, and as a by product the msm got let off the hook for their craven dishonesty .


As I said on anther thread, this has actually been a red letter week for the msm. They instituted a complete fraud, and, ala Mark Penns musings, Obama got that Oklahoma city moment, well, minus an Oklahoma city. I seriously give them props, they pulled it off.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Most Americans approved of what the lame duck congress just passed.

Ain't it a bitch, when The FACTS get in-your-way??!!!!​

56 Percent Give Obama's Lame Duck A Thumbs UP​

Right HERE.....Saggy!!!!!!​

 

[BenNatuf]

The root cause of incivility in political discourse is liberty... and I'll choose to keep it and the rhetorical liscence thankyou.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

This brings us to the question; Do you think that the people on the other side of the aisle can have an opinion and not be stupid/evil/greedy/facist/communist/sheeple/goverment agents? I know on some topics there are easily defined right sides and wrong sides, but most of our political discourse is on far greyer areas. Punishing murders is something everyone can agree on, but how to punish is anothering thing entirely. As an example, can reasonable people be on both sides of a debate on the death penalty?

I would agree that reasonable people can debate the wisdom of the death penalty. But it's hard sometimes to ascertain what conclusions reasonable people are going to agree upon. For example, statistics show that states WITHOUT the death penalty have had consistently lower murder rates than states that allow the death penalty. (See this article on Deterrence)

But is the death penalty about presumed deterrence of serious crime, or about imposing a suitable punishment? To be honest, I'm not convinced that "reasonable people" are going to find positions on these two issues that are broadly acceptable.

Not a prob!!

Presently, everyone says their primary-concerns are more financial, by nature.

Fair, enough!!​

Financial Fact$ About the Death Penalty​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

WHAT TIMING!!!!!

(...regarding "Civil Discourse")

TONITE!!!!!

Probably the GREATEST SCIENCE-FICTION EVER PRODUCED.....with a HEAVY-DUTY dose o' Cold War politics!!!!!

​

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They are listening. We just want opposite things.

They are?

When the people rose up and told Congress that they need to focus on jobs and not pass a health care bill what happened?

When the members of Congress went home to hold meetings about health care and they trucked in union goons, and loaded the audience rather than listen to the people they are supposed to represent. The political class never listens, on either side of the aisle, because they believe they are smarter, better, and more deserving than us.

Not that I am surprised that you think they are listening, because you never listen yourself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They are listening. We just want opposite things.

Exactly!

Poll: Many voters think healthcare reform didn't go far enough

Voters who say the new health reform law was too conservative outnumber by 2 to 1 those supporting repeal, according to a poll released Saturday.

About 40 percent of respondents said the law was too timid in overhauling the nation's healthcare system, while 20 percent said they'd like to see it scrapped, according to the survey, commissioned by The Associated Press (AP).

Republicans, who voted unanimously against the health reforms, have molded their campaign message around the idea that opposition to the law comes overwhelmingly from voters who consider it an intrusion on time-honored liberties.

“When you said you didn’t want a government takeover of health care, we heard you," Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said Saturday during the Republican's weekly radio address.

But the poll suggests dissatisfaction with the new law is much more nuanced than that, with more voters indicating frustration that the Democrats didn't go further.

Poll: Many voters think healthcare reform didn't go far enough - The Hill's Briefing Room

Thank you for proving my point, the political class does not listen. They prefer to point out polls that do not mean squat than actually talk to the people who they represent.

 

[Bfgrn]

They are listening. We just want opposite things.

They are?

When the people rose up and told Congress that they need to focus on jobs and not pass a health care bill what happened?

When the members of Congress went home to hold meetings about health care and they trucked in union goons, and loaded the audience rather than listen to the people they are supposed to represent. The political class never listens, on either side of the aisle, because they believe they are smarter, better, and more deserving than us.

Not that I am surprised that you think they are listening, because you never listen yourself.

When the 'people rose up'? You mean the people in a 'grass roots' movement started by corporate lobbyists?

'When the members of Congress went home to hold meetings about health care and they trucked in' (in buses paid for by the lobbyist organization) people given written instructions from the same lobbyist organization how to disrupt and shout down debate?

 

[BenNatuf]

The root cause of the lack of "Civil Discourse"

My first comment notwithstanding, this kind of presumes there ever really was this "civil discourse" thing we've been hearing hyped as of late....If anything, the discourse, as "rancorous" as it is alleged to be today, is a far cry from that of the nation's founding.

In those days, you settled your heated disagreements by duel....How civil.

People seem to forget the civil discourse in the late 60's and early 70's too. This nation has ever been a nation of people who fight for their liberties and political asperations using heated rhetoric, hyperbole and at times civil disobedience and violence. It's who we are. Those who call for "civility" in political discource are as always those who've been caught with their pants around thier ankles and want "civility" only to persist as long as it takes to soften the blow of the repurcussions of their own rhetorical excess.

Freedom is messy.

 

[thanatos144]

The shootings in Arizona have brought the concept of civility in political discussion to the front of message boards, pundit blogs, and all of the mainstream media formats. While sides can debate and scream over who is to blame, and who's rhetoric is the cause of all the hostility seen poltical disagreements, my impression is that the current state has nothing to do with a persons beliefs, but how they sees the other sides proponents, and the motivations applied to the people on the "other side of the bench"

Listening or reading a person's position on a given topic, and thier opinion on the validity of the opposing postion on the same topic, one more often than not gets the feeling that said person not only thinks their opposites position is wrong, but they are "wrong" as a person in general. That those holding an opposing viewpoint are not just wrong on said point, but have something wrong with themselves at a basic level. The idea that a person just as rational and understanding as you are can hold an opposite position on some topic seems beyond the grasp of some people. It almost gets to the point that in order to justify your own position, some fatal flaw must be found in the person supporting the opposite, that there is no longer the concept of being "wrong" on a topic, but that there has to be some sinister underlying reason for someone to have an opinion differing from yours.

Now as I am not 250 years old, I do not know if this is the same way it always was in our political environment, that this is basically the status quo over 2 and a half centuries of bilateral politics. Maybe the internet has allowed for a more anonymous and vicous type of political commentator to flourish, and this has had an influence on more mainstream media types. Has our political arena gotten meaner? Are we as a people incapable of seeing someone holding a differing opinion than ours as holding a valid, albeit wrong, point?

This brings us to the question; Do you think that the people on the other side of the aisle can have an opinion and not be stupid/evil/greedy/facist/communist/sheeple/goverment agents? I know on some topics there are easily defined right sides and wrong sides, but most of our political discourse is on far greyer areas. Punishing murders is something everyone can agree on, but how to punish is anothering thing entirely. As an example, can reasonable people be on both sides of a debate on the death penalty?

free speech did not make the dick insane.

 

[peach174]

They are listening. We just want opposite things.

They are?

When the people rose up and told Congress that they need to focus on jobs and not pass a health care bill what happened?

When the members of Congress went home to hold meetings about health care and they trucked in union goons, and loaded the audience rather than listen to the people they are supposed to represent. The political class never listens, on either side of the aisle, because they believe they are smarter, better, and more deserving than us.

Not that I am surprised that you think they are listening, because you never listen yourself.

When the 'people rose up'? You mean the people in a 'grass roots' movement started by corporate lobbyists?

'When the members of Congress went home to hold meetings about health care and they trucked in' (in buses paid for by the lobbyist organization) people given written instructions from the same lobbyist organization how to disrupt and shout down debate?

Have you read the Health Care bill? If you have'nt you should.
Me and My husband did and we drove ourselves to our townhall meeting and It was 43 miles away from where we live. We had nothing do with corporate lobbyists.
Are you talking about the union's (SEIU ) that was trucked in and given instruction's?