Can talking heads be civil?

[rtwngAvngr]

OK here's one. "Special Rights".

There's no code here. It's when minorities or gays or retards or whatever want not equal rights, but rights above and beyond the rights afforded to others, special rights.

This is not code; you're apparently just an idiot.

 

[Nuc]

There's no code here. It's when minorities or gays or retards or whatever want not equal rights, but rights above and beyond the rights afforded to others, special rights.

This is not code; you're apparently just an idiot.

I don't know if you are gay or not but you definitely belong to the other two groups you mention. Do you have special rights?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I don't know if you are gay or not but you definitely belong to the other two groups you mention. Do you have special rights?

Oh, so you understand the "code phrase" and have used it effectively in a sentence. I'm glad I could help you out. Any other basic word combinations you're having trouble understanding?

 

[GotZoom]

I also think one of the reasons for all the attacks from the Dems and their supporters is frustration. When I was Debate in school, one of the things they taught us was to look for our "opponents" frustration. When debating/arguing a point, if you say something that is logical and makes a valid point, the "other side" will get frustrated because they can't respond. When that happens you can go in for the kill because they will start getting desperate and try saying anything that will attack you and take you away from the point.

So they start an anti-American radio network (that nobody listens to) that does nothing but bash the Adminstration and the people who support it.

The libs are frustrated because they can't get enough people to believe in their cause. They see the U.S. wanting to go back to the foundation that started our country. They will stop at nothing to try and convince the American people that this will lead us to ruin.

They have no real argument against this so they are frustrated.

Think about it. They had a candidate that was, at best, avearge. Then they get a opportunistic film-maker, some mediocre comedians, and a few actors/actresses - rally them together against the President saying what a failure he was and how the country is in terrible condition.

Then they can't understand how they lost.

A little sidenote: Rush might be paid, but so do they (when they can meet payroll). And if you think Michael Moore does this for warm-fuzzies and a seat at a political convention, you really have no clue.

From: http://slate.msn.com/id/2117923/
--

Fahrenheit 9/11, now an event, took in more than $228 million in ticket sales worldwide, a record for a documentary, and sold 3 million DVDs, which brought in another $30 million in royalties. After the theaters took their share of the movie's gross (roughly 50 percent) and distributors deducted the marketing expenses (including prints, advertising, dubbing, and custom clearance) and took their own cut, the net receipts returned to Disney were $78 million.

Disney now had to pay Michael Moore's profit participation. Under normal circumstances, documentaries rarely, if ever, make profits (especially if distributors charge the usual 33 percent fee). So, when Miramax made the deal for Fahrenheit 9/11, it allowed Moore a generous profit participation—which turned out to be 27 percent of the film's net receipts. Disney, in honoring this deal, paid Moore a stunning $21 million. Moore never disclosed the amount of his profit participation. When asked about it, the proletarian Moore joked to reporters on a conference call, "I don't read the contracts."

 

[Nuc]

Oh, so you understand the "code phrase" and have used it effectively in a sentence. I'm glad I could help you out. Any other basic word combinations you're having trouble understanding?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.........this was a good topic. You wanted a pissing match instead. I am bored and you are not a worthy adversary. To have mercy on people who may be interested in the topic, I'll give up. Maybe someone with an original thought will pick up the thread where it went astray.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.........this was a good topic. You wanted a pissing match instead. I am bored and you are not a worthy adversary. To have mercy on people who may be interested in the topic, I'll give up. Maybe someone with an original thought will pick up the thread where it went astray.

You were interested until your argument utterly failed and you looked like an idiot. This is the real reason you're letting it go. We all see that.

 

[ThomasPaine]

Has American politics always been so polarized or is my perspective skewed. It seems as though politicians (or political commentators) are less civil today than they have ever been. Does someone's having a negative opinion about the president's foreign policy make that person "Anti-American"? Does that person hate America? Does someone with even a slightly liberal perspective have a mental disorder? Is that person committing treason if he says that he disagrees with the president?

Final question: Is there such a thing as a political talk show host who is also a moderate?

Comments - please.

continuing to lose. The left had COMPLETE control of the media for over 50 years and now sees it's grip over information slip. This, combined with a declining voter base and subsequest decreasing political power, has the left in an absolute tizzy. The left is the shrill party. From the right, except for guys like Savage and a couple others, you hear rational arguments. It's the left that has lost its marbles and launches into a hissy-fit tirade of irrational epithets on issues where they are losing.

Kinda depends on what you refer to as "liberal". Todays "liberal" is a wack job Neo-Marxist that blames America first for all the worlds' ills. If you refer to say a "John Kennedy Liberal" or a "Scoop Jackson liberal" I have no problem with their viewpoint, but those types of liberals no longer seem to exist.. I find the "current liberals" of the Dem party to be A. Neo-Marxist B. Anti-American C. Anti-Christian D. Anti-Capitalist. In short Marxist-Leninist wackos. And yes I certainly believe the majority of the wackos are extremely unpatriotic as I think they hate this country.

As for moderate talk show hosts. I doubt you'll find many as controvery is what drives their ratings.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

continuing to lose. The left had COMPLETE control of the media for over 50 years and now sees it's grip over information slip. This, combined with a declining voter base and subsequest decreasing political power, has the left in an absolute tizzy. The left is the shrill party. From the right, except for guys like Savage and a couple others, you hear rational arguments. It's the left that has lost its marbles and launches into a hissy-fit tirade of irrational epithets on issues where they are losing.

Kinda depends on what you refer to as "liberal". Todays "liberal" is a wack job Neo-Marxist that blames America first for all the worlds' ills. If you refer to say a "John Kennedy Liberal" or a "Scoop Jackson liberal" I have no problem with their viewpoint, but those types of liberals no longer seem to exist.. I find the "current liberals" of the Dem party to be A. Neo-Marxist B. Anti-American C. Anti-Christian D. Anti-Capitalist. In short Marxist-Leninist wackos. And yes I certainly believe the majority of the wackos are extremely unpatriotic as I think they hate this country.

As for moderate talk show hosts. I doubt you'll find many as controvery is what drives their ratings.

I listen to Rush and Savage for their sheer brilliance.

 

[mattskramer]

I don't mean to suggest that Conservatives are the only people going to extreme. There are crass "over the top" comments by Liberals. Some of them try to equate Bush with Hitler. They create slogans like "Kill Bush". I see it from both sides and, some days, it really turns me off to politics. Civil and polite discussions and debates about specific differences of opinion on particular issues mutates into an "all or nothing" mentality.

 

[Bonnie]

Has American politics always been so polarized or is my perspective skewed. It seems as though politicians (or political commentators) are less civil today than they have ever been. Does someone's having a negative opinion about the president's foreign policy make that person "Anti-American"? Does that person hate America? Does someone with even a slightly liberal perspective have a mental disorder? Is that person committing treason if he says that he disagrees with the president?

Final question: Is there such a thing as a political talk show host who is also a moderate?

Comments - please.

I can address this one by giving you my persective which is that it's not so much a question of civility although there was, is, and always will be those not civil to eachother in politics it's the nature of things. What concerns me more are two things, the first is the willingness of many Dems and some Republicans to politicize everything and anything to the point that issues are unrecognizable anymore to even have constructive debate namely this hypocritical scorch and burn policy based on exagerations and perpetuated by the press to ruin politcians lives and careers just for political gain. Second- those who do dissagree with the president have ample opportunity to do so just as those who support the president have the freedom to counter those opinins with their own. I have no problem with dissent as long as it's based on fact. Mike Moore is no hero as he made a pure propaganda film based on snippets of events spliced together to make it appear as the truth in an effort to not only dissent but to sway gullible minds into submission. Not to mention prominent people in the media using forged documents to bring down a presidents chances for re-election, that's what I have a problem with.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I don't mean to suggest that Conservatives are the only people going to extreme. There are crass "over the top" comments by Liberals. Some of them try to equate Bush with Hitler. They create slogans like "Kill Bush". I see it from both sides and, some days, it really turns me off to politics. Civil and polite discussions and debates about specific differences of opinion on particular issues mutates into an "all or nothing" mentality.

IMO the main reason that conservatives and liberals cannot have civil debate is because there are two very different ideologies driving each group. Conservatives, by and large, represent traditional Americans with varying degrees of conservativism but can discuss their differences intelligently among themselves. However, when cons & libs debate, the underlying ideologies become apparent if the debate gets deep enough and that's when the fireworks start.

The liberals, or as ThomasPaine so aptly labels them, the Marxist-Leninist wackos, need to throw up smoke screens or create diversions in order to not divulge their basically un-American ideology. If a debate is allowed to get too deep, they would become exposed for what they really are. Therefore liberals need to stay away from facts and truth and instead resort to attacking, defaming, denigrating, and diverting discussion into meaningless idiotic rhetoric.

You can see this very clearly in liberal leaders such as Kerry and Hillary. Both of them are basically marxist-leninist wackos and both will waffle on just about any position in order to make themselves appear good to the American voters, hiding their real agendas. They'll say anything in order to not admit the real truth about themselves and their ideology.

I believe that if the ideologies of the two parties were not such polar opposites, civil discourse would have a chance. However, what we are seeing is a clash between one ideology attempting to change and control America and another attempting to defend the American way.

 

[ThomasPaine]

IMO the main reason that conservatives and liberals cannot have civil debate is because there are two very different ideologies driving each group. Conservatives, by and large, represent traditional Americans with varying degrees of conservativism but can discuss their differences intelligently among themselves. However, when cons & libs debate, the underlying ideologies become apparent if the debate gets deep enough and that's when the fireworks start.

The liberals, or as ThomasPaine so aptly labels them, the Marxist-Leninist wackos, need to throw up smoke screens or create diversions in order to not divulge their basically un-American ideology. If a debate is allowed to get too deep, they would become exposed for what they really are. Therefore liberals need to stay away from facts and truth and instead resort to attacking, defaming, denigrating, and diverting discussion into meaningless idiotic rhetoric.

You can see this very clearly in liberal leaders such as Kerry and Hillary. Both of them are basically marxist-leninist wackos and both will waffle on just about any position in order to make themselves appear good to the American voters, hiding their real agendas. They'll say anything in order to not admit the real truth about themselves and their ideology.

I believe that if the ideologies of the two parties were not such polar opposites, civil discourse would have a chance. However, what we are seeing is a clash between one ideology attempting to change and control America and another attempting to defend the American way.

.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I don't mean to suggest that Conservatives are the only people going to extreme. There are crass "over the top" comments by Liberals. Some of them try to equate Bush with Hitler. They create slogans like "Kill Bush". I see it from both sides and, some days, it really turns me off to politics. Civil and polite discussions and debates about specific differences of opinion on particular issues mutates into an "all or nothing" mentality.

So matt, many theories have been proferred. Do you buy any of them, or is it still just an inexplicabe phenomenon in your mind?

 

[mattskramer]

So matt, many theories have been proferred. Do you buy any of them, or is it still just an inexplicabe phenomenon in your mind?

I think that it is a "Hey, Watch Me" phenomenon. Talk show hosts want ratings, and it is difficult to keep people's attention and keep ratings up if you sound "middle of the road". You have to drive people's emotions and a good way to do it is with hype, hyperbole, and melodrama. I don't know why, but people seem attracted to extremism. I guess that it has to do with adrenaline. Anyway, money is the bottom line.

 

[mattskramer]

Screaming Eagle gives an example to my point. I doubt that Kerry and Hillary are Marxist-Leninist wackos. I also doubt that he truly believes it either. Does Hillary really want the USA to become a Marxist State, or does she simply believe that some more money and resources should be redistributed, via tax and spend with help from government, to the poor? I think that "minimum wage" is a good thing. Does that make me a hard-line liberal wacko? I don't think that minimum wage should be raised. Does that make me a greedy heartless Capitalist pig? Can't we ever replace extremist rhetoric and name-calling with attempts to reach some reasonable compromise and understanding.

 

[dilloduck]

Screaming Eagle gives an example to my point. I doubt that Kerry and Hillary are Marxist-Leninist wackos. I also doubt that he truly believes it either. Does Hillary really want the USA to become a Marxist State, or does she simply believe that some more money and resources should be redistributed, via tax and spend with help from government, to the poor? I think that "minimum wage" is a good thing. Does that make me a hard-line liberal wacko? I don't think that minimum wage should be raised. Does that make me a greedy heartless Capitalist pig? Can't we ever replace extremist rhetoric and name-calling with attempts to reach some reasonable compromise and understanding.

Are you trying to ruin everyones' fun here, Matt?

Here's a quote from Roger Baldwin--founder of the ACLU-marxist is a pretty applicable comment I would say and without hyperbole.

I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.
Roger Baldwin

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I think that it is a "Hey, Watch Me" phenomenon. Talk show hosts want ratings, and it is difficult to keep people's attention and keep ratings up if you sound "middle of the road". You have to drive people's emotions and a good way to do it is with hype, hyperbole, and melodrama. I don't know why, but people seem attracted to extremism. I guess that it has to do with adrenaline. Anyway, money is the bottom line.

For many years, when the alphabet channels had tight control over the media, there was no "hey, watch me" phenomenon. There was also no opposing opinion.

How much is truth and how much is hyperbole is now for you to decide.
Arrrgh! The responsibility!

Buy it or not.
Capitalism in the media.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Screaming Eagle gives an example to my point. I doubt that Kerry and Hillary are Marxist-Leninist wackos. I also doubt that he truly believes it either. Does Hillary really want the USA to become a Marxist State, or does she simply believe that some more money and resources should be redistributed, via tax and spend with help from government, to the poor? I think that "minimum wage" is a good thing. Does that make me a hard-line liberal wacko? I don't think that minimum wage should be raised. Does that make me a greedy heartless Capitalist pig? Can't we ever replace extremist rhetoric and name-calling with attempts to reach some reasonable compromise and understanding.

OK, Matt, this is not rhetoric or name-calling. Listed below are ideas that liberals leaders like Hillary and Kerry support. Many are also tenets of marxism-leninism-socialism. Can you calmly and rationally deny this? Are you willing to follow leaders that are attempting to extinguish our traditional American ways and ushering in a new world order?

big government
redistribution of wealth
family planning "It takes a village"
abortion
euthanasia
sexual deviancy
private behavior does not reflect in public office
government control of private property and land grabs
extensive social programs
heavy government regulation of private business
judicial activism and control
political correctness
international control

 

[mattskramer]

Are you trying to ruin everyones' fun here, Matt?

Here's a quote from Roger Baldwin--founder of the ACLU-marxist is a pretty applicable comment I would say and without hyperbole.

"I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

When was that quote given? Do you have the complete source? Was it part of a larger speech? Under what circumstances and context was it given? What does the present leadership of the ACLU think of that comment? What is the position of the ACLU how with respect to the quote?

No offense, but it is so easy to find one sentence from a representative (or even a founder) of an organization that you oppose and treat that sentence as the contemporary, all encompassing definition of the organization - as if nothing else needs to be considered.

If I were interested in learning about the ACLU, I would read its "handbook", speak with several of its representatives, and review several of its cases. I suppose that finding a tiny blurb and establishing a conclusion based on that blurb, it so much easier on the time and on the brain.

 

[mattskramer]

OK, Matt, this is not rhetoric or name-calling. Listed below are ideas that liberals leaders like Hillary and Kerry support. Many are also tenets of marxism-leninism-socialism. Can you calmly and rationally deny this? Are you willing to follow leaders that are attempting to extinguish our traditional American ways and ushering in a new world order?

(1.) big government - How big should government be? Do they want everyone be a state employee? I think that there should be some federal agencies? Does that make me a liberal?

(2.) Redistribution of wealth - Do they want to redistribute 100% of your paycheck? I think that people should pay some taxes. Does that make me a liberal?

(3.) Abortion - Do they support it for any reason at all up to the day of delivery? I think that it should be legal under certain circumstances. Does that make me a liberal?