Why are Left & Right so hard to reconcile?

[Redfish]

You've been trained very well..

The real answer is kinda long winded. From the media to the internet. To the fringe pushing their agendas. To the sensationalism of the headlines. That is why you see people drawing lines in the sand. They have been pushed slowly towards what we have now. The other side is the enemy, evil, end wording etc.
Everyone is a hitler now and we don't comprise with hitlers. People have also found now they don't have to back down because there are no consequences for their actions or opinions. Everyone's opinion is now valid and should be given the time to think over.
The reality is not every opinion is valid and we should ignore the extreme on both sides..we are literally destroying everything because we can't be seen as weak.
See Obama and the gov. Of new jersey who's name escapes me. They put politics aside because of a hurricane and the right found that offensive. They put politics above the common goal of helping people..The left does this as well.. they will shun someone if they agree with the right on something.

It's sad.

When has anyone on the right done anything similar to what the left did to Condi Rice last week?

The left does not want to let the other side have any voice because deep down inside all lefties know that they are wrong.

Ah example of someone I don't take serious because he has blinders on...

really? then give us some examples. When has anyone on the right done anything similar to what Rutgers did to Condi Rice?

 

[Redfish]

Look at the Republican responses in this thread.

Then look at the Democrat responses in this thread.

Now you see the problem?

Yes, the problem is that both sides are so hard over on their positions that there is virtually no compromise possible. Where are Reagan and O'Neill when we need them? Who are the Reagan's and O'Neill's of today? Why are there no longer any statesmen in DC? Because being in congress has become a very lucrative lifetime occupation and these assholes on both sides are only looking out for themselves.

Want compromise? invoke term limits.

 

[Avatar4321]

Look at the Republican responses in this thread.

Then look at the Democrat responses in this thread.

Now you see the problem?

That both sides dont want to compromise? yeah

 

[nodoginnafight]

really? then give us some examples. When has anyone on the right done anything similar to what Rutgers did to Condi Rice?

Tim Robbins
Susan Sarandon
Dixie Chicks

Just off the top of my head. It happens both ways.

 

[ClosedCaption]

When has anyone on the right done anything similar to what the left did to Condi Rice last week?

The left does not want to let the other side have any voice because deep down inside all lefties know that they are wrong.

Ah example of someone I don't take serious because he has blinders on...

really? then give us some examples. When has anyone on the right done anything similar to what Rutgers did to Condi Rice?

I gave examples and so did others. You missed those of course

 

[ClosedCaption]

Look at the Republican responses in this thread.

Then look at the Democrat responses in this thread.

Now you see the problem?

That both sides dont want to compromise? yeah

Lets compare the first responses from either side:

There is no point on which reconciliation can be reached. There are no more points of compromise.

Brother and sister. They only unite when it's time to fight with the kids next door. The father of the Neocons has a theory of society based on that idea. You need an enemy otherwise you fight amongst yourselves. See: Leo Strauss.

He also explains why religion is necessary but that the leaders of the nation shouldn't believe such nonsense, just pretend to for the good of national unity.

Yes those are the same only to you. One says compromise cant happen the other muses why compromising is not happening.

Of course in your hive mind you think they are the same

 

[Little-Acorn]

Why are Left & Right so hard to reconcile?


Why are people who rob banks, so hard to reconcile with people who do normal withdrawls and deposits?

Surely they can find a middle ground.

They can - as long as the bank robbers can grasp the error of their ways while they are in jail.

But that won't be a "middle ground" solution.

The bank robbers must give up their way completely, and stop altogether taking what is not theirs.

And all normal people agree that that is the ONLY possible solution. Only the bank robbers disagree.

If there were just as many bank robbers as normal people, would that be a reason to compromise and arrive at a "middle ground"? One where the bank robbers keep maybe half the money and stay out of jail, with the normal people's blessing?

Of course not, that idea is plainly ludicrous.

Same applies to liberals who think they can use government to "spread the wealth around", versus normal people who want to keep what they earn and believe that government should get only the money the people agreed was necessary to run the government and do what it was set up to do: Defend our rights.

The idea of the leftist fanatics reaching a "middle ground" with the people they are victimizing, is just as ludicrous as the other.

The only difference between the two situations is: The bank robbers never tried to pretend they were treating the normal people justly, as they robbed them.

 

[Redfish]

really? then give us some examples. When has anyone on the right done anything similar to what Rutgers did to Condi Rice?

Tim Robbins
Susan Sarandon
Dixie Chicks

Just off the top of my head. It happens both ways.

I don't recall any street protests that resulted in those people being banned from speaking at a college campus.

Boycotting movies and songs is totally different from what was done by a small group of Rutger's radical profs and students.

Sarandon, Robbins and the chics were never denied free speech. They were not silenced by a street demonstration. You assholes seem to want the US to operate like Egypt.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Why are Left & Right so hard to reconcile?


Why are people who rob banks, so hard to reconcile with people who do normal withdrawls and deposits?

Surely they can find a middle ground.

They can - as long as the bank robbers can grasp the error of their ways while they are in jail.

But that won't be a "middle ground" solution.

The bank robbers must give up their way completely, and stop altogether taking what is not theirs.

And all normal people agree that that is the ONLY possible solution. Only the bank robbers disagree.

If there were just as many bank robbers as normal people, would that be a reason to compromise and arrive at a "middle ground"? One where the bank robbers keep maybe half the money and stay out of jail, with the normal people's blessing?

Of course not, that idea is plainly ludicrous.

Same applies to liberals who think they can use government to "spread the wealth around", versus normal people who want to keep what they earn and believe that government should get only the money the people agreed was necessary to run the government and do what it was set up to do: Defend our rights.

The idea of the leftist fanatics reaching a "middle ground" with the people they are victimizing, is just as ludicrous as the other.

The only difference between the two situations is: The bank robbers never tried to pretend they were treating the normal people justly, as they robbed them.

Conservatives dole out as many of our tax dollars as liberals do. The only difference is in who the checks are made out to. That's why your analogy fails.

 

[ClosedCaption]

really? then give us some examples. When has anyone on the right done anything similar to what Rutgers did to Condi Rice?

Tim Robbins
Susan Sarandon
Dixie Chicks

Just off the top of my head. It happens both ways.

I don't recall any street protests that resulted in those people being banned from speaking at a college campus.

Boycotting movies and songs is totally different from what was done by a small group of Rutger's radical profs and students.

Sarandon, Robbins and the chics were never denied free speech. They were not silenced by a street demonstration. You assholes seem to want the US to operate like Egypt.

See how redfish operates?

Even if you found an example of not being allowed to speak on a college campus, and street protests he'd say it didnt happen yesterday at 3:45 pm

 

[Redfish]

Look at the Republican responses in this thread.

Then look at the Democrat responses in this thread.

Now you see the problem?

That both sides dont want to compromise? yeah

Lets compare the first responses from either side:

There is no point on which reconciliation can be reached. There are no more points of compromise.

Brother and sister. They only unite when it's time to fight with the kids next door. The father of the Neocons has a theory of society based on that idea. You need an enemy otherwise you fight amongst yourselves. See: Leo Strauss.

He also explains why religion is necessary but that the leaders of the nation shouldn't believe such nonsense, just pretend to for the good of national unity.

Yes those are the same only to you. One says compromise cant happen the other muses why compromising is not happening.

Of course in your hive mind you think they are the same

The USA would unite against a common enemy. but today we don't agree on who our enemies are. leftists think the rich are the enemy, rightists think big government is the enemy. leftists think religion is the enemy, rightists think anti-religion is the enemy.


we are a very divided nation. might be time to split the blanket.

 

[nodoginnafight]

really? then give us some examples. When has anyone on the right done anything similar to what Rutgers did to Condi Rice?

Tim Robbins
Susan Sarandon
Dixie Chicks

Just off the top of my head. It happens both ways.

I don't recall any street protests that resulted in those people being banned from speaking at a college campus.

Boycotting movies and songs is totally different from what was done by a small group of Rutger's radical profs and students.

Sarandon, Robbins and the chics were never denied free speech. They were not silenced by a street demonstration. You assholes seem to want the US to operate like Egypt.

Sarandon and Robbins were uninvited to a Bull Durham celebration at the Baseball Hall of Fame after they made controversial anti-war comments. The Dixie Chicks had concert dates canceled after Natalie Mains made controversial anti-Bush comments from the stage in Europe.

Conversely, Rice was NEVER uninvited. SHE elected not to make the Rutgers appearance after some students and faculty protested her choice as commencement speaker.

And NONE of these folks were denied free speech.

 

[Redfish]

Tim Robbins
Susan Sarandon
Dixie Chicks

Just off the top of my head. It happens both ways.

I don't recall any street protests that resulted in those people being banned from speaking at a college campus.

Boycotting movies and songs is totally different from what was done by a small group of Rutger's radical profs and students.

Sarandon, Robbins and the chics were never denied free speech. They were not silenced by a street demonstration. You assholes seem to want the US to operate like Egypt.

See how redfish operates?

Even if you found an example of not being allowed to speak on a college campus, and street protests he'd say it didnt happen yesterday at 3:45 pm

in other words you can't find any examples. But take your time, go back in history. If you have some examples lets see them. If not, admit that I am right.

 

[DGS49]

It is not "openness to change," versus demanding predictability, but that is certainly a symptom.

There are two completely different (and barely reconcilable) views on the role of Government in society - mainly the Federal government. One is (more or less) based on the Constitution, which details what Congress and the President have the "power" to do, and then says that everything else is up to the states or the People (see the Tenth Amendment). Under this view, when the Federal government goes outside what it is strictly authorized to do, it is an outrage - consider NPR, Obamacare, the Department of Education, Social Security, and on and on.

Government's main role is, "...to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," mainly by staying the hell out of our lives excepting only under the demands of fulfilling the mandates of the Constitution (e.g., collecting taxes, the military draft).

The other view is that Government is the Instrument by which life can be made "fair" and wonderful. If we need better television programming for our lives to be better, then the Government ought to sponsor a television network, like they have in England. If you point out that the US Constitution does not permit the Federal government to have a TV (and radio) network, they think you are just too stupid (or evil) to understand the need.

Under this view, it is Government's MANDATE to sort out Education, Health Care, the Environment, and to make sure nobody is Too Rich or Too Poor. The means Government uses to accomplish these noble goals should only be measured by whether or not they work. The "Constitution" is a historical document that should only be used when it can be twisted around in such a way as to facilitate the Dawn of Enlightment that their vision anticipates. And of course anyone who seeks to use the Constitution to thwart these NOBLE and ALTRUISTIC initiatives is obviously EVIL.

Honestly, to people holding the Liberal/Progressive view, the concept of some Government action being a great idea but totally unconstitutonal (say, Socialized Medicine), is totally inconceivable. If it is a good idea, then it couldn't possibly be against the Constitution.

The two (2) viewpoints are irreconcilable. The best we can hope for is solutions that both sides can accept through nothing more than pragmatism - for example, a small and meaningless increase in the Federal Minimum Wage, or a limited accommodation to the 14 or so million illegals within our midst.

 

[Redfish]

Tim Robbins
Susan Sarandon
Dixie Chicks

Just off the top of my head. It happens both ways.

I don't recall any street protests that resulted in those people being banned from speaking at a college campus.

Boycotting movies and songs is totally different from what was done by a small group of Rutger's radical profs and students.

Sarandon, Robbins and the chics were never denied free speech. They were not silenced by a street demonstration. You assholes seem to want the US to operate like Egypt.

Sarandon and Robbins were uninvited to a Bull Durham celebration at the Baseball Hall of Fame after they made controversial anti-war comments. The Dixie Chicks had concert dates canceled after Natalie Mains made controversial anti-Bush comments from the stage.

Conversely, Rice was NEVER uninvited. SHE elected not to make the Rutgers appearance after some students and faculty protested her choice as commencement speaker.

And NONE of these folks were denied free speech.

She did the honorable thing, back out rather than allow the commencement to become a political riot.


tell me-------did anyone on the right block Ahmadinijad from speaking at Columbia? did anyone on the right block Ayers from speaking at several colleges?

You fricken libs are the most disengenuous people on earth.

 

[Redfish]

Tim Robbins
Susan Sarandon
Dixie Chicks

Just off the top of my head. It happens both ways.

I don't recall any street protests that resulted in those people being banned from speaking at a college campus.

Boycotting movies and songs is totally different from what was done by a small group of Rutger's radical profs and students.

Sarandon, Robbins and the chics were never denied free speech. They were not silenced by a street demonstration. You assholes seem to want the US to operate like Egypt.

Sarandon and Robbins were uninvited to a Bull Durham celebration at the Baseball Hall of Fame after they made controversial anti-war comments. The Dixie Chicks had concert dates canceled after Natalie Mains made controversial anti-Bush comments from the stage in Europe.

Conversely, Rice was NEVER uninvited. SHE elected not to make the Rutgers appearance after some students and faculty protested her choice as commencement speaker.

And NONE of these folks were denied free speech.

those were both commercial events, the promoters dropped them because their presense would have caused them to lose money. your attempt at moral equivalency fails once again.

 

[OKTexas]

Wow!

The lack of enquiring minds here is amazing!

Did NOBODY watch the presentation? Did no one see anything useful in it?

You guys are so polarised you should all freeze to popcicles.

Yep, couldn't get past about 4 minutes. Don't present a totally biased piece of propagandist bullshit and expect an honest discussion.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I don't recall any street protests that resulted in those people being banned from speaking at a college campus.

Boycotting movies and songs is totally different from what was done by a small group of Rutger's radical profs and students.

Sarandon, Robbins and the chics were never denied free speech. They were not silenced by a street demonstration. You assholes seem to want the US to operate like Egypt.

Sarandon and Robbins were uninvited to a Bull Durham celebration at the Baseball Hall of Fame after they made controversial anti-war comments. The Dixie Chicks had concert dates canceled after Natalie Mains made controversial anti-Bush comments from the stage.

Conversely, Rice was NEVER uninvited. SHE elected not to make the Rutgers appearance after some students and faculty protested her choice as commencement speaker.

And NONE of these folks were denied free speech.

She did the honorable thing, back out rather than allow the commencement to become a political riot.


tell me-------did anyone on the right block Ahmadinijad from speaking at Columbia? did anyone on the right block Ayers from speaking at several colleges?

You fricken libs are the most disengenuous people on earth.

So you acknowledge that Rice was not blocked from her appearance as Robbins, Sarandon, and the Dixie Chicks were?

And so your challenge to name instances in which left-leaning folks were treated as poorly as Rice was, has not only been met, but exceeded since it's obvious that in Rice's case, the choice was hers. In the cases of Sarandon, Robbins, and the Dixie Chicks, the choice was not their own.

And the bottom line for me is that I think freedom of speech worked perfectly and as intended in all these cases. People expressed their opinion. And those who disagree with them got to express theirs. No one got arrested.

If it makes you feel better to imagine that this is a "liberal" opinion and therefor unworthy of consideration - you just underscore the problem illustrated in this thread.

 

[Redfish]

Sarandon and Robbins were uninvited to a Bull Durham celebration at the Baseball Hall of Fame after they made controversial anti-war comments. The Dixie Chicks had concert dates canceled after Natalie Mains made controversial anti-Bush comments from the stage.

Conversely, Rice was NEVER uninvited. SHE elected not to make the Rutgers appearance after some students and faculty protested her choice as commencement speaker.

And NONE of these folks were denied free speech.

She did the honorable thing, back out rather than allow the commencement to become a political riot.


tell me-------did anyone on the right block Ahmadinijad from speaking at Columbia? did anyone on the right block Ayers from speaking at several colleges?

You fricken libs are the most disengenuous people on earth.

So you acknowledge that Rice was not blocked from her appearance as Robbins, Sarandon, and the Dixie Chicks were?

And so your challenge to name instances in which left-leaning folks were treated as poorly as Rice was, has not only been met, but exceeded since it's obvious that in Rice's case, the choice was hers. In the cases of Sarandon, Robbins, and the Dixie Chicks, the choice was not their own.

And the bottom line for me is that I think freedom of speech worked perfectly and as intended in all these cases. People expressed their opinion. And those who disagree with them got to express theirs. No one got arrested.

If it makes you feel better to imagine that this is a "liberal" opinion and therefor unworthy of consideration - you just underscore the problem illustrated in this thread.

what you say is correct, but you are missing the point. the issue is the tactics used by each side to prevent the other side from being heard. The left uses violence or threats of violence, the right uses boycotts or economic sanctions.

Rice was not there to make a political statement. Sarandon and Robbins and the Chics made their political statements BEFORE being dropped.

Rice was not allowed to speak because of lies told about her by a few radical profs, the others were dropped because of their own political statements.

Its close, but its not the same.

Both are probably wrong, but one is certainly worse for a civilized society.

 

[LoneLaugher]

She did the honorable thing, back out rather than allow the commencement to become a political riot.


tell me-------did anyone on the right block Ahmadinijad from speaking at Columbia? did anyone on the right block Ayers from speaking at several colleges?

You fricken libs are the most disengenuous people on earth.

So you acknowledge that Rice was not blocked from her appearance as Robbins, Sarandon, and the Dixie Chicks were?

And so your challenge to name instances in which left-leaning folks were treated as poorly as Rice was, has not only been met, but exceeded since it's obvious that in Rice's case, the choice was hers. In the cases of Sarandon, Robbins, and the Dixie Chicks, the choice was not their own.

And the bottom line for me is that I think freedom of speech worked perfectly and as intended in all these cases. People expressed their opinion. And those who disagree with them got to express theirs. No one got arrested.

If it makes you feel better to imagine that this is a "liberal" opinion and therefor unworthy of consideration - you just underscore the problem illustrated in this thread.

what you say is correct, but you are missing the point. the issue is the tactics used by each side to prevent the other side from being heard. The left uses violence or threats of violence, the right uses boycotts or economic sanctions.

Rice was not there to make a political statement. Sarandon and Robbins and the Chics made their political statements BEFORE being dropped.

Rice was not allowed to speak because of lies told about her by a few radical profs, the others were dropped because of their own political statements.

Its close, but its not the same.

Both are probably wrong, but one is certainly worse for a civilized society.

@nodoginafight

You won't get the time back. It's gone.