Why are Left & Right so hard to reconcile?

[nodoginnafight]

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.

The bottom line is what I said from the very beginning: Both sides do it. As to the violence of one side versus the other ....

Natalie Maines says one of the death threats she received after criticizing President Bush three years ago was “definitely scary” because the sender “had a plan.”

Dixie Chicks recall death threat - today > entertainment - today > entertainment > celebs - TODAY.com

And try to use that argument with the parents of those four anti-war protesters at Kent State

Your contentions (first, one side does it - the other side doesn't. And then, one side threatens violence, the other side doesn't) are so easy to debunk.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

What time are you talking about?

 

[kaz]

I saw this:

You can't shame conservatives by exposing their hypocrisy; they are in a cult and cults require lockstep obedience at ALL costs, including the cost of being hypocritical.

Is one side evil? Or do both have good points, which the other fails to see?

Because neither side do what they say they advocate. Conservatives don't fight for smaller government and liberals don't fight for genuine charity, just greater government power.

The true merger between liberal and conservative is libertarian. One can believe in small, responsible government and personal charity, which is the only effective kind, at the same time.

 

[jasonnfree]

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

Compromise is always possible. Don't be so negative.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

What time are you talking about?

The time that you have wasted trying to reason with Redfish.

The video is excellent, by the way. I agree with the opening premise and his suggestion that we take the "red pill". It could be argued that this is precisely what most liberals intend to do when coming here.

I also found the graphs with his five areas where he measure morals very interesting. Thanks.

 

[nodoginnafight]

@nodoginafight

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

What time are you talking about?

The time that you have wasted trying to reason with Redfish.

The video is excellent, by the way. I agree with the opening premise and his suggestion that we take the "red pill". It could be argued that this is precisely what most liberals intend to do when coming here.

I also found the graphs with his five areas where he measure morals very interesting. Thanks.

Oh, that time.
Well ... regardless of the results, I've enjoyed the time.

 

[jasonnfree]

The video showed there are opposites and it took both to build a civilization. There had to be some compromise to make that possible.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The video showed there are opposites and it took both to build a civilization. There had to be some compromise to make that possible.

But to compromise, you also have to agree that people who hold a different position have a right to that different opinion.

You have to acknowledge that not everyone feels the exact same way that you do and in order to move forward, you have to find that common ground or a way to accommodate others.

It's statesmanship and it is what is so lacking in U.S. politics today.

 

[Redfish]

The video showed there are opposites and it took both to build a civilization. There had to be some compromise to make that possible.

compromise would have been if the dems had let the republicans discuss the obamacare bill before it was passed by dems only. compromise would have been if any republican amendments to the bill had been allowed to be voted on in either house. compromise would be if Reid had allowed any house passed bills to be voted on in the senate.

Compromise is determined by the party in power. obama and the dems have chosen to govern by the ramrod method rather than the compromise method. they will reap what they sow in 2015 and 2016.

 

[Redfish]

The video showed there are opposites and it took both to build a civilization. There had to be some compromise to make that possible.

But to compromise, you also have to agree that people who hold a different position have a right to that different opinion.

You have to acknowledge that not everyone feels the exact same way that you do and in order to move forward, you have to find that common ground or a way to accommodate others.

It's statesmanship and it is what is so lacking in U.S. politics today.

True, and its also true that the two sides are probably further apart than anytime in our history. There is a vast difference between how the left and right see the future of the USA-------and the past, which is being rewritten every day.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The video showed there are opposites and it took both to build a civilization. There had to be some compromise to make that possible.

But to compromise, you also have to agree that people who hold a different position have a right to that different opinion.

You have to acknowledge that not everyone feels the exact same way that you do and in order to move forward, you have to find that common ground or a way to accommodate others.

It's statesmanship and it is what is so lacking in U.S. politics today.

I submit that President Obama is a statesman.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The video showed there are opposites and it took both to build a civilization. There had to be some compromise to make that possible.

compromise would have been if the dems had let the republicans discuss the obamacare bill before it was passed by dems only. compromise would have been if any republican amendments to the bill had been allowed to be voted on in either house. compromise would be if Reid had allowed any house passed bills to be voted on in the senate.

Compromise is determined by the party in power. obama and the dems have chosen to govern by the ramrod method rather than the compromise method. they will reap what they sow in 2015 and 2016.

I agree with the first paragraph and disagree with the second.
Obamacare is a prime example of a "no compromise" bill. And in that, they are to blame for ramrodding (good choice of words imho) this through without compromise or discussion.

But I don't think that compromise is always the burden of the party in power. And I don't believe that one side is any more responsible for the lack of compromise in Washington DC than the other.

I've seen too many instances of "my way or the highway" from both parties.

 

[B. Kidd]

No way in hell should anyone compromise with a party that passes a law to find out what's in it!!!

 

[nodoginnafight]

The video showed there are opposites and it took both to build a civilization. There had to be some compromise to make that possible.

But to compromise, you also have to agree that people who hold a different position have a right to that different opinion.

You have to acknowledge that not everyone feels the exact same way that you do and in order to move forward, you have to find that common ground or a way to accommodate others.

It's statesmanship and it is what is so lacking in U.S. politics today.

I submit that President Obama is a statesman.

Obamacare is one example of where he feel far short of that imho.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The video showed there are opposites and it took both to build a civilization. There had to be some compromise to make that possible.

compromise would have been if the dems had let the republicans discuss the obamacare bill before it was passed by dems only. compromise would have been if any republican amendments to the bill had been allowed to be voted on in either house. compromise would be if Reid had allowed any house passed bills to be voted on in the senate.

Compromise is determined by the party in power. obama and the dems have chosen to govern by the ramrod method rather than the compromise method. they will reap what they sow in 2015 and 2016.

How many times have these assertions been proven wrong to you here? What motivates you to continue saying these things that you know are not accurate?

 

[LoneLaugher]

But to compromise, you also have to agree that people who hold a different position have a right to that different opinion.

You have to acknowledge that not everyone feels the exact same way that you do and in order to move forward, you have to find that common ground or a way to accommodate others.

It's statesmanship and it is what is so lacking in U.S. politics today.

I submit that President Obama is a statesman.

Obamacare is one example of where he feel far short of that imho.

Hardly. The entire thing is born of compromise and a desire to get something done.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The video showed there are opposites and it took both to build a civilization. There had to be some compromise to make that possible.

compromise would have been if the dems had let the republicans discuss the obamacare bill before it was passed by dems only. compromise would have been if any republican amendments to the bill had been allowed to be voted on in either house. compromise would be if Reid had allowed any house passed bills to be voted on in the senate.

Compromise is determined by the party in power. obama and the dems have chosen to govern by the ramrod method rather than the compromise method. they will reap what they sow in 2015 and 2016.

I agree with the first paragraph and disagree with the second.
Obamacare is a prime example of a "no compromise" bill. And in that, they are to blame for ramrodding (good choice of words imho) this through without compromise or discussion.

But I don't think that compromise is always the burden of the party in power. And I don't believe that one side is any more responsible for the lack of compromise in Washington DC than the other.

I've seen too many instances of "my way or the highway" from both parties.

You agree with the first paragraph? Really?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Liberals bang on the man for compromising too much. Nutters claim that he never compromises. Only one of these can be true.

The Breakthrough Institute - In Defense of Obama?s Compromise Strategy

 

[nodoginnafight]

I submit that President Obama is a statesman.

Obamacare is one example of where he feel far short of that imho.

Hardly. The entire thing is born of compromise and a desire to get something done.

Really, can you point me to any discussion between Republicans and Democrats on this bill? And any items that Republicans were able to modify?

BOTH sides are guilty of this, but this happens to be one of the instances in which Democrats are the guilty ones.

 

[srlip]

again, what compromise can be achieved with a robber? let him steal only half of your money, or only shoot him in the kneecap, instead of the guts? which?