A Modest Proposal for a Culture of Civility

[washamericom]

I'm a conservative and I yearn for the time when people treated each other with respect, even when they had major disagreements over policy.

The way I think of it, we all are creating the culture of the US every day, in every interaction, in every post, in every discussion. It isn't someone "other" than us, it is us. How we relate to each other creates a patchwork or mosaic of our total culture. Its starts on this micro, one on one level, and it is repeated everywhere in the country until we create an overall culture of dialogue. Right now it isn't terribly pretty.

So I ask myself before I engage in conversation, "What kind of a country do I want to live in?" Do I want to live in a country in which it's okay to question my opponents sanity and/or "Real American" status? Do I want to live in a country where some of the vitriol that people spout at each other creates the culture?

No, I choose civility. If we all make the same choice in how we talk to each other, we can disagree, as Ronald Reagan said, without being disagreeable.

It starts with every small discussion, every post, every interaction. It's up to us, not anyone else. And it isn't "their" fault, whoever "they" might be to you. "They" are Americans too.

i agree, 95 percent of life is local.

Unfortunately while life is happening to us locally, there is a profound effect on that local life from the decisions made in Washington

this administration will try to get out of the way. we needed a correction shift of power back to the states, which is great cause if hillary or bernie became president we'd be trying to make cuba great again. even roe v wade overturned would send it back to the states.

We need to replace a lot of Federal Judges, like the the traitors and hacks squatting on the 9th Court of Appeals, for instance. That is going to take a while, getting rid of all the seditionists who want to destroy this country, as the Democratic Party does.

the democrat party is at it's lowest since it's inception, ala obama. i believe in the sublime level of conduct when it comes to high court jurists.

 

[Eloy]

The US DID win the Cold War, and it WAS due in large part to Reagan.

cold war's not over.

You are correct; Russia is a military threat to the democracies of Europe even if the Americans are now Putin devotees.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The violence on the street started with rhetoric. I have to pick on the left here because the rioting and violence are coming from them.

The BLM group formed after a lot of smaller groups started rioting, looting and destroying neighborhoods. It was due to false statements and rhetoric that painted all cops as racist. To ensure the violence, paid thugs were bussed around the country to lead the way in violence and destruction.

The OWS started after the Obama administration started badmouthing wealthy CEOS. Of course, that was after they bailed them out.

The riots after the election were caused by months of hateful rhetoric from the left. People believed they were doomed because liberal wasn't in the WH.

The women's march was more hysteria stemming from even more vitriol aimed at Trump and false claims of a war on women.

More riots after the inauguration because it was 'doomsday' again.

Now, it's more riots over a totally warranted and constitutional travel ban.

Next week, it will be more riots and violence over some other issue.

It's never ending and every damn one of these riots has been funded by Soros, who wants one world government and open borders. His plan requires civil unrest and he has a rather impressive network of organizations to promote it.

It won't be until these groups out there acting out violently realize that they are being lied to and played that they might settle down and be willing to talk reason.

You cannot have a conversation with people who are torching buildings and cars, threatening violence to whites, cops and Trump supporters or posting thousands of death threats on social media. They need to get a grip and deal with the anger. They've been whipped into a frenzy and the instigators continue to ramp up their hateful rhetoric to keep it going.

The anti-Muslim ban, contrary to your assertion about a "constitutional travel ban" has been declared to be illegal by two federal courts.

And when it's overturned by the Supreme Court, will you then admit you were the one that was wrong?

It doesn't matter what I think. The question is whether Donald Trump will call the Supreme Court "so-called" judges for making an "outrageous" decision when they uphold the appellate court's finding.

I wouldn't count your chickens on that one, especially if his nominee is seated by then.

Liberal judges sided with the liberal party. Gee, who would have thought that?

As the saying goes, you won the battle, but not the war.

There will not be a 9th member of the Supreme Court this week.

Who said this week? Trump can wait until after he joins the court before he files for an appeal of the 9th.

 

[Clementine]

I'm a conservative and I yearn for the time when people treated each other with respect, even when they had major disagreements over policy.

The way I think of it, we all are creating the culture of the US every day, in every interaction, in every post, in every discussion. It isn't someone "other" than us, it is us. How we relate to each other creates a patchwork or mosaic of our total culture. Its starts on this micro, one on one level, and it is repeated everywhere in the country until we create an overall culture of dialogue. Right now it isn't terribly pretty.

So I ask myself before I engage in conversation, "What kind of a country do I want to live in?" Do I want to live in a country in which it's okay to question my opponents sanity and/or "Real American" status? Do I want to live in a country where some of the vitriol that people spout at each other creates the culture?

No, I choose civility. If we all make the same choice in how we talk to each other, we can disagree, as Ronald Reagan said, without being disagreeable.

It starts with every small discussion, every post, every interaction. It's up to us, not anyone else. And it isn't "their" fault, whoever "they" might be to you. "They" are Americans too.

i agree, 95 percent of life is local.

Unfortunately while life is happening to us locally, there is a profound effect on that local life from the decisions made in Washington

this administration will try to get out of the way. we needed a correction shift of power back to the states, which is great cause if hillary or bernie became president we'd be trying to make cuba great again. even roe v wade overturned would send it back to the states.

We need to replace a lot of Federal Judges, like the the traitors and hacks squatting on the 9th Court of Appeals, for instance. That is going to take a while, getting rid of all the seditionists who want to destroy this country, as the Democratic Party does.

the democrat party is at it's lowest since it's inception, ala obama. i believe in the sublime level of conduct when it comes to high court jurists.

You're right that the Dem party has managed to sink to new lows. It's the insane rhetoric that continues to turn people off.

The latest is leftists claiming that the Patriots winning the Super Bowl was due to racism and white supremacy. They must start some rational debate if we are to ever come to any compromise.

WHAT? Liberals say Patriots won the Super Bowl for most INSANE reason ever...

 

[washamericom]

The US DID win the Cold War, and it WAS due in large part to Reagan.

cold war's not over.

You are correct; Russia is a military threat to the democracies of Europe even if the Americans are now Putin devotees.

The Cold War Never Really Ended

 

[washamericom]

The anti-Muslim ban, contrary to your assertion about a "constitutional travel ban" has been declared to be illegal by two federal courts.

And when it's overturned by the Supreme Court, will you then admit you were the one that was wrong?

It doesn't matter what I think. The question is whether Donald Trump will call the Supreme Court "so-called" judges for making an "outrageous" decision when they uphold the appellate court's finding.

I wouldn't count your chickens on that one, especially if his nominee is seated by then.

Liberal judges sided with the liberal party. Gee, who would have thought that?

As the saying goes, you won the battle, but not the war.

There will not be a 9th member of the Supreme Court this week.

Who said this week? Trump can wait until after he joins the court before he files for an appeal of the 9th.

that's the california court of appealing to liberals..

 

[washamericom]

i agree, 95 percent of life is local.

Unfortunately while life is happening to us locally, there is a profound effect on that local life from the decisions made in Washington

this administration will try to get out of the way. we needed a correction shift of power back to the states, which is great cause if hillary or bernie became president we'd be trying to make cuba great again. even roe v wade overturned would send it back to the states.

We need to replace a lot of Federal Judges, like the the traitors and hacks squatting on the 9th Court of Appeals, for instance. That is going to take a while, getting rid of all the seditionists who want to destroy this country, as the Democratic Party does.

the democrat party is at it's lowest since it's inception, ala obama. i believe in the sublime level of conduct when it comes to high court jurists.

You're right that the Dem party has managed to sink to new lows. It's the insane rhetoric that continues to turn people off.

The latest is leftists claiming that the Patriots winning the Super Bowl was due to racism and white supremacy. They must start some rational debate if we are to ever come to any compromise.

WHAT? Liberals say Patriots won the Super Bowl for most INSANE reason ever...

russia hacked the falcon's private server.

 

[NCC1701]

Nowadays, socialism as it is understood in Europe is altogether different from what you are saying. When you write "First, there is no one definition of socialist but most of them state that socialism involves state control of the means of production (which refutes your definition), which the soviets had. Second the soviets themselves called their government socialist. Third, the communists believe that socialism is only a small degree shy of communism." You are right that there is no one definition of socialism, I suppose that is true. Contrary to your statement that most definitions of socialism "involves state control of the means of production", this is not European socialism which has evolved into social democracy where the state is involved in the conditions and remuneration for workers in all industry, private and public. Socialism in Europe will support government ownership of strategic industries and this application will vary from one state to another. For example, transport is often identified as a strategic industry for obvious reasons. Some socialist governments will create the conditions where private companies operate, say, the railways, but they are regulated so that companies which want to operate only lucrative profit-earning routes from e.g. Leipzig to Zwickau in Saxony but will not be interested in serving the public who want to travel from Zwickau to Johanngeorgenstadt. In this instance, under a socialist government, the company might be expected to also provide a service to customers who live in the towns along the line to Johanngeorgenstadt such as Lauter, and Swartzenberg and carry the loss. On the other hand, a local service might operate a provincial service run by the government with a subsidy from taxes on the main route from Leipzig to Zwickau. You can see here how socialists are different from a command economy by having regulated private enterprise companies and state companies co-existing. Another socialist leadership might nationalize the whole railways and operate it itself. Modern European socialism is very different from communism which permits no private enterprise with all industry owned by the state. So, you see, your definition of socialism does not fit reality.

Secondly, most European governments, being democratic, have many political parties and the system of proportional representation means that governments are formed from coalitions where socialists might be partners which complicates politics but forces compromises.

I said Europeans now realize that capitalism is superior as a means of production so third way socialism gave up on command and control production, and simply taxes and regulates the shit out of the producers who operate in a somewhat free market economy. Nothing in your tortured redefinition contradicts that, so my understanding is correct. Tax and regulation however is a form of command and control.

so you see, as is typical of the pretentious left, you are actually the one in need of an education. European 'third way socialism' is the realization that true socialism sucks at production so it is better to let the producers produce and then tax the shit out of them for distribution to your political lefty supporters.

Don't you think you are being nasty with this comment as well as misunderstanding modern European social democracy?

no, because what I said is true

Second, we did win the cold war. Our economy could bear the cost and theirs could not, Gorby chose to change, not us, so we won. Khruschev said they would bury us economically because of the belief that socialism was superior when it turned out we had the better economy. I would say we definitively won the cold war.
We, in Europe, see it differently.

so you speak for all Europeans? anyway, that is exactly why I think American investment was a waste, because you are ungrateful and delusional. Funny how the Poles are now begging for American bases in their country, just as you speak of how America was not really needed. How about you lecture the poles on your enlightened approach to the Russians?

"We have waited for you for a very long time,” Polish Defense Minister Antoni Macierewicz said during a ceremony in the western Polish town of Zagan, the Associated Press reported.

'We waited for decades': Polish leaders hail arrival of U.S. troops

I never write garbage.

It is garbage to think American military presence had little effect in europe, pure garbage

At one time or another, both Hitler and Stalin ruled all or half of Europe.

..and we should have let them keep all of it for much longer than 1945, it got us Americans nothing

Until Trump, the Americans were an important ally of Europe but the message from Washington DC in the past few weeks has changed a friendship which has existed since WWII. Europe must now be ready to stand alone. We can do that and we must do that.

But you just told me that American military presence was not that important since we did not win the cold war, and that Europeans did it largely by themselves, now you can't even be consistent with yourself. That is the problem with your lies, sooner or later you trip over your own sorry balls.

Let me clarify as well since I agree with trump, you euros are not paying your fair share of the defense bill so you can lavish welfare spending on yourselves while I foot the bill. I am sick of it, you guys can go **** yourselves.

Which NATO members are falling short on military spending?

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton both used the Democratic presidential debate Thursday to call on other NATO members to spend more on defense. Donald Trump has gone even further, saying the U.S. should rethink its involvement in the military alliance because it costs too much money.


Many European members -- including big economies like France and Germany -- spend less than the amount called for by NATO guidelines.

The U.S. shells out far more money on defense than any other nation on the planet...

Even NATO itself admits it has an "over-reliance" on the U.S. for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense and airborne electronic warfare.

The U.S. also spends the highest proportion of its GDP on defense: 3.62%. The second biggest NATO spender in proportional terms is Greece, at 2.46%, according to NATO.

 

[Picaro]

i agree, 95 percent of life is local.

Unfortunately while life is happening to us locally, there is a profound effect on that local life from the decisions made in Washington

this administration will try to get out of the way. we needed a correction shift of power back to the states, which is great cause if hillary or bernie became president we'd be trying to make cuba great again. even roe v wade overturned would send it back to the states.

We need to replace a lot of Federal Judges, like the the traitors and hacks squatting on the 9th Court of Appeals, for instance. That is going to take a while, getting rid of all the seditionists who want to destroy this country, as the Democratic Party does.

the democrat party is at it's lowest since it's inception, ala obama. i believe in the sublime level of conduct when it comes to high court jurists.

You're right that the Dem party has managed to sink to new lows. It's the insane rhetoric that continues to turn people off.

The latest is leftists claiming that the Patriots winning the Super Bowl was due to racism and white supremacy. They must start some rational debate if we are to ever come to any compromise.

WHAT? Liberals say Patriots won the Super Bowl for most INSANE reason ever...

No need to debate loons, gimps, deviates, and traitors; they're only going to increasingly marginalize themselves, so pretending they have anything to debate only assigns them a legitimacy and credibility they threw out the window in their insane fits and truly retarded rhetoric.

 

[Eloy]

Nowadays, socialism as it is understood in Europe is altogether different from what you are saying. When you write "First, there is no one definition of socialist but most of them state that socialism involves state control of the means of production (which refutes your definition), which the soviets had. Second the soviets themselves called their government socialist. Third, the communists believe that socialism is only a small degree shy of communism." You are right that there is no one definition of socialism, I suppose that is true. Contrary to your statement that most definitions of socialism "involves state control of the means of production", this is not European socialism which has evolved into social democracy where the state is involved in the conditions and remuneration for workers in all industry, private and public. Socialism in Europe will support government ownership of strategic industries and this application will vary from one state to another. For example, transport is often identified as a strategic industry for obvious reasons. Some socialist governments will create the conditions where private companies operate, say, the railways, but they are regulated so that companies which want to operate only lucrative profit-earning routes from e.g. Leipzig to Zwickau in Saxony but will not be interested in serving the public who want to travel from Zwickau to Johanngeorgenstadt. In this instance, under a socialist government, the company might be expected to also provide a service to customers who live in the towns along the line to Johanngeorgenstadt such as Lauter, and Swartzenberg and carry the loss. On the other hand, a local service might operate a provincial service run by the government with a subsidy from taxes on the main route from Leipzig to Zwickau. You can see here how socialists are different from a command economy by having regulated private enterprise companies and state companies co-existing. Another socialist leadership might nationalize the whole railways and operate it itself. Modern European socialism is very different from communism which permits no private enterprise with all industry owned by the state. So, you see, your definition of socialism does not fit reality.

Secondly, most European governments, being democratic, have many political parties and the system of proportional representation means that governments are formed from coalitions where socialists might be partners which complicates politics but forces compromises.

I said Europeans now realize that capitalism is superior as a means of production so third way socialism gave up on command and control production, and simply taxes and regulates the shit out of the producers who operate in a somewhat free market economy. Nothing in your tortured redefinition contradicts that, so my understanding is correct. Tax and regulation however is a form of command and control.

so you see, as is typical of the pretentious left, you are actually the one in need of an education. European 'third way socialism' is the realization that true socialism sucks at production so it is better to let the producers produce and then tax the shit out of them for distribution to your political lefty supporters.

Don't you think you are being nasty with this comment as well as misunderstanding modern European social democracy?

no, because what I said is true

Second, we did win the cold war. Our economy could bear the cost and theirs could not, Gorby chose to change, not us, so we won. Khruschev said they would bury us economically because of the belief that socialism was superior when it turned out we had the better economy. I would say we definitively won the cold war.
We, in Europe, see it differently.

so you speak for all Europeans? anyway, that is exactly why I think American investment was a waste, because you are ungrateful and delusional. Funny how the Poles are now begging for American bases in their country, just as you speak of how America was not really needed. How about you lecture the poles on your enlightened approach to the Russians?

"We have waited for you for a very long time,” Polish Defense Minister Antoni Macierewicz said during a ceremony in the western Polish town of Zagan, the Associated Press reported.

'We waited for decades': Polish leaders hail arrival of U.S. troops

I never write garbage.

It is garbage to think American military presence had little effect in europe, pure garbage

At one time or another, both Hitler and Stalin ruled all or half of Europe.

..and we should have let them keep all of it for much longer than 1945, it got us Americans nothing

Until Trump, the Americans were an important ally of Europe but the message from Washington DC in the past few weeks has changed a friendship which has existed since WWII. Europe must now be ready to stand alone. We can do that and we must do that.

But you just told me that American military presence was not that important since we did not win the cold war, and that Europeans did it largely by themselves, now you can't even be consistent with yourself. That is the problem with your lies, sooner or later you trip over your own sorry balls.

Let me clarify as well since I agree with trump, you euros are not paying your fair share of the defense bill so you can lavish welfare spending on yourselves while I foot the bill. I am sick of it, you guys can go **** yourselves.

Which NATO members are falling short on military spending?

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton both used the Democratic presidential debate Thursday to call on other NATO members to spend more on defense. Donald Trump has gone even further, saying the U.S. should rethink its involvement in the military alliance because it costs too much money.


Many European members -- including big economies like France and Germany -- spend less than the amount called for by NATO guidelines.

The U.S. shells out far more money on defense than any other nation on the planet...

Even NATO itself admits it has an "over-reliance" on the U.S. for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense and airborne electronic warfare.

The U.S. also spends the highest proportion of its GDP on defense: 3.62%. The second biggest NATO spender in proportional terms is Greece, at 2.46%, according to NATO.

You did not understand my previous post and I am hesitant to reply to someone who considers what I have to say is garbage. What is the point? Right?
Let's see ... Europeans believe capitalism is better than socialism?
No, the make up of European governments are not only some capitalist parties in office but several other parties more popular all over the EU. So, I cannot give you that.

Mmmm ... You never mentioned Zwickau once. ermmm. Taxes and regulation is the same as a command economy?
No, most industries in the EU are in private hands and there are health and safety regulations but this is altogether different from the Soviet model as I explained.

Let's see. I'm looking. ... You say that most Europeans believe "socialism sucks".
No, most member states in the EU are social democracies or what you are calling "third way socialism" (if I understand you right). The most socialist with extensive welfare state and some amount of government ownership and the high taxes to pay for this are are Sweden: Prime Minister Kjell Stefan Löfven of the Social Democrat Party; Finland: President Sauli Väinämö Niinistö of the National Coalition Party (Liberal and Conservative); Denmark: Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen of the Venstre Party (center right); Ireland: Prime Minister Enda Kenny of the Fine Gael party (Conservative); and Belgium: Prime Minister Charles Michel of the Reformist Movement party (Liberal).
As you can see, even the most socialist states are led by Liberals and Conservatives. The variety of political parties and the coalitions they form to govern is nothing like the American two-party system.

I should stop here rather than write more garbage as you put it.

 

[Ozone]

Rewind the whole Internet all the way back to it's ground zero point of origin where it all started, like to follow the example of the big bang theory... It's hypothetical, okay. Now, over the whole span of time then to now, how did it all go wrong? At some point in that mess, a primordial form of SJW emerged, the simple, single-celled atheist troll, sworn to change the world by annoying Christians. Or maybe it was Scientologists. Who knows, but somehow that evolved. And then again, at some point there was GamerGate, the biggest scandal in the world that no one ever heard of until six months after it happened. And so it goes.

The liberals do this, it's always the liberals, the censorship. Even when it's the fundamentalist Christians, you'd call them RWNJ, you think they're conservatives. Nope. They are quite liberal about it when it's their turn to make the blasphemous illegal. Hate speech. You think it's a noun adjective, but it's a verb every time, an instruction to you to hate to speak. Don't say the N-word, there are imaginary N-words floating around that might get angry and attack you. But there are many words spelled with letter N, no?

Because the Democratic party of the United States is rulership of sorts, but it's the government of, by, and for the propagandist, or is it the Republicans doing it that way this time? Fake news. Fake news because fake money. Fake money because fake personhood. Fake personhood because liars. 100% of the time it's liars. Or the Jews if you need a scapegoat. False flag attack is because the news media reports it, makes it a false flag, factoring shock into the equation of political agenda narratives. A riot breaks out, even with the smashings and the burnings and all the bells and whistles and trappings by which anything of a riot is readily identified, self-evident. It's called a peaceful protest.

Or it's like, if you have a cat, and you make a fist and you go right for it's skull, but just stop short of it. The cat will lean into it because it's a psychopath that occasionally drops the severed heads of rodents on your doorstep as a sign of affection.

Thanks for your response. I don't quite understand it, though. I think I believe that everyone is contributing to the incivility, not just one "side." My point is that we are all Americans and we can take back the culture of America without leadership. We can do it ourselves, one post, one conversation, one email at a time.

Words are funny like that. But, it is one-sided mostly, the right-wing is inspired by the left-wing violence to insult the left-wing politicians for the terrible behavior. The left-wing uses the hard rhetoric of the right-wing as a justification to riot. Or I could call it a pathetic justification to riot, would it be more or less true or just spin? So I guess we're all going to suffer the "Trump made me do it because he's a racist" every time somebody feels like setting a car on fire or beating someone up.

 

[P@triot]

The US DID win the Cold War, and it WAS due in large part to Reagan.

cold war's not over.

You are correct; Russia is a military threat to the democracies of Europe even if the Americans are now Putin devotees.

What do you mean that is "correct"? When Mitt Romney stated that reality 5 years ago as an average, every day businessman. Meanwhile, Barack Obama (who had access to National Security briefings but skipped them all) mocked him.

Thank you for acknowledging that Barack Obama was the most ignorant, unprepared, unqualified president in U.S. history and that Mitt Romney had his finger on the pulse of the geopolitical landscape without out any of the classified/top secret information that Obama had access to. Just think of what a great president Romney would have made.

 

[Eloy]

The US DID win the Cold War, and it WAS due in large part to Reagan.

cold war's not over.

You are correct; Russia is a military threat to the democracies of Europe even if the Americans are now Putin devotees.

What do you mean that is "correct"? When Mitt Romney stated that reality 5 years ago as an average, every day businessman. Meanwhile, Barack Obama (who had access to National Security briefings but skipped them all) mocked him.

Thank you for acknowledging that Barack Obama was the most ignorant, unprepared, unqualified president in U.S. history and that Mitt Romney had his finger on the pulse of the geopolitical landscape without out any of the classified/top secret information that Obama had access to. Just think of what a great president Romney would have made.

Although Mitt Romney was prescient on one important foreign policy issue, he might not have made a good president.




.

 

[P@triot]

Although Mitt Romney was prescient on one important foreign policy issue, he might not have made a good president.

There is no way to know for certain - but all indications are that he would have made a great president. We already covered foreign policy. He's a very successful businessman so the economy would have been in good hands. He's had experience in both governing and in leadership during crisis. He's intelligent and articulate. And he's humble.

 

[Hum Dinger]

I'm a conservative and I yearn for the time when people treated each other with respect, even when they had major disagreements over policy.

The way I think of it, we all are creating the culture of the US every day, in every interaction, in every post, in every discussion. It isn't someone "other" than us, it is us. How we relate to each other creates a patchwork or mosaic of our total culture. Its starts on this micro, one on one level, and it is repeated everywhere in the country until we create an overall culture of dialogue. Right now it isn't terribly pretty.

So I ask myself before I engage in conversation, "What kind of a country do I want to live in?" Do I want to live in a country in which it's okay to question my opponents sanity and/or "Real American" status? Do I want to live in a country where some of the vitriol that people spout at each other creates the culture?

No, I choose civility. If we all make the same choice in how we talk to each other, we can disagree, as Ronald Reagan said, without being disagreeable.

It starts with every small discussion, every post, every interaction. It's up to us, not anyone else. And it isn't "their" fault, whoever "they" might be to you. "They" are Americans too.

What your asking is absurd at this point in time! Conservatives just elected the nastiest presidential candidate there has been in modern times, and possibly the nastiest presidential candidate in the history of the country.

For years, Liberal have been pushing 'political correctness', which is another word for 'politeness'. Everything you asked for in the OP has been the modus operandi of the liberal movement for years. Conservatives just threw 'political correctness' and civility into the crapper.

What you seem to be saying is that conservatives should be as nasty as they want, but are suddenly shocked when they find out that liberals can be just as nasty.

This message board is full of liberal posts that argue based on logic and intelligence, but get nothing but a slew of vulgar, childish responses from many, many conservatives. Sure there are a few conservatives that respond politely, but the majority are just nasty and childish.

So it's time we find out if conservatives can take it as well as they can dish it out. So far it seems not.

 

[Eloy]

Although Mitt Romney was prescient on one important foreign policy issue, he might not have made a good president.

There is no way to know for certain - but all indications are that he would have made a great president. We already covered foreign policy. He's a very successful businessman so the economy would have been in good hands. He's had experience in both governing and in leadership during crisis. He's intelligent and articulate. And he's humble.

You might be right and the more we see of Donald Trump, the more tempting Romney would be.
Nevertheless, being successful in business does not mean he could have mastered the United States economy. A country, you see, is not like a business in many ways.
While Romney was personable, I thought a lot less of him when he went for a photo shoot dinner with Donald Trump after he had correctly spotted him as a phony conman.

 

[Unkotare]

I'm a conservative and I yearn for the time when people treated each other with respect, even when they had major disagreements over policy.

The way I think of it, we all are creating the culture of the US every day, in every interaction, in every post, in every discussion. It isn't someone "other" than us, it is us. How we relate to each other creates a patchwork or mosaic of our total culture. Its starts on this micro, one on one level, and it is repeated everywhere in the country until we create an overall culture of dialogue. Right now it isn't terribly pretty.

So I ask myself before I engage in conversation, "What kind of a country do I want to live in?" Do I want to live in a country in which it's okay to question my opponents sanity and/or "Real American" status? Do I want to live in a country where some of the vitriol that people spout at each other creates the culture?

No, I choose civility. If we all make the same choice in how we talk to each other, we can disagree, as Ronald Reagan said, without being disagreeable.

It starts with every small discussion, every post, every interaction. It's up to us, not anyone else. And it isn't "their" fault, whoever "they" might be to you. "They" are Americans too.

What your asking is absurd at this point in time! Conservatives just elected the nastiest presidential candidate there has been in modern times, and possibly the nastiest presidential candidate in the history of the country.

For years, Liberal have been pushing 'political correctness', which is another word for 'politeness'. Everything you asked for in the OP has been the modus operandi of the liberal movement for years. Conservatives just threw 'political correctness' and civility into the crapper.

What you seem to be saying is that conservatives should be as nasty as they want, but are suddenly shocked when they find out that liberals can be just as nasty.

This message board is full of liberal posts that argue based on logic and intelligence, but get nothing but a slew of vulgar, childish responses from many, many conservatives. Sure there are a few conservatives that respond politely, but the majority are just nasty and childish.

So it's time we find out if conservatives can take it as well as they can dish it out. So far it seems not.

"political correctness is another word for politeness".

 

[Unkotare]

Although Mitt Romney was prescient on one important foreign policy issue, he might not have made a good president.

There is no way to know for certain - but all indications are that he would have made a great president. We already covered foreign policy. He's a very successful businessman so the economy would have been in good hands. He's had experience in both governing and in leadership during crisis. He's intelligent and articulate. And he's humble.

You might be right and the more we see of Donald Trump, the more tempting Romney would be.
Nevertheless, being successful in business does not mean he could have mastered the United States economy. A country, you see, is not like a business in many ways.
While Romney was personable, I thought a lot less of him when he went for a photo shoot dinner with Donald Trump after he had correctly spotted him as a phony conman.

So, what is your nationality?