Civility in Politics

[Truthmatters]

Does civility have any value to you?

 

[Texanmike]

So no takers for a civility pledge?

I don't want civility. Civility was not a part of this nations founding, nor was it a characteristic of the founders. I much prefer a passionate debater to a bunch of mice to represent me.

Mike

Sure it was.

The founders both agreed and disagreed on a wide range of issues. But the final outcome was the result of civility.

The final outcome was the result of manipulation and dishonesty. There was a lot more design that went into the writing of the Constitution than you know.

Mike

 

[Nosmo King]

I have a bias, certainly. I tend to side with the anti-federalists. That does not mean I have not read the other side. I am at least aware of both sides of history. Do you think the Republicans (as they called themselves, not the present day party) history is accurately represented in your history books? Of course it is not. From the moment Marshall took his seat on the bench it was pretty much assured that the federalists would be hailed as the heros of the ratification.

And, for the record, a lot of my views in the world changes after reading what I read. I was a staunch conservative growing up. It wasn't until I started reading commentary by Jefferson and John Taylor that I moved towards liberarianism. My political compas is probably not permenantly set, I still have a reading list which grows almost daily. On it are about 30 books I have yet been able to find or had the time to read.

Mike

Your fire is all heat, no light.

What you conveniently forget in your zealotry is that this nation was founded upon compromise, not incivility. Continued incivility only fertilizes the garden from which discontent springs. Incivility is no way to govern, no way to conduct the people's business, no way to present your case to the world as being a free, fair, just society.

And it is certainly no way to convince your political opponents that you're anything but petulant, immature and close minded.

So wait, let me get this straight. I provide you with examples of incivility and you say I'm just wrong. The whole reason we have a Constitution was what ammounts to a plot. Knox account to Washginton (who's attendance was necessary for the convention to even happen) about Shay's rebellion was vastly over-stated. He claimed there were thousands of old soldiers that were being mistreated and that the rebellion was a threat to the "federation". Interesting that he used that word isn't it?

Beyond that, Madison worked clandestinely to bring the conevention with the intention to "amend the AoC" but that is not what happened. He went to the convention with a full draft of a constitution written. He would not announce it to the general assembly though, because he knew that NY and RI would not hear of ratifying a new governing document.

I mentioned earlier that people were writing in cypher, one such person was Randolph. There are at least two cases that the carriers are suspected of intercepting letters, intentionally, which might have altered the outcome of the convention.

Do I need to list further examples of incivility? I've got tons of them. Can't provide online links because most of them are in old books that nobody ever bothered to reference much less put online...

Mike

The constitution and the governance of this nation happened IN SPITE OF, not due to incivility. Compromise is the watchword. In our republic, nothing can happen beyond resolutions praising Motherhood or Christmas without compromise. And incivility is the direct opposite of compromise.

Thinking that incivility is virtuous while compromise is a vice will not lead to American justice, liberty and freedom. Incivility leads us on the road to anarchy.

 

[Texanmike]

Does civility have any value to you?

Civility like diversity, is a pleasant thought, but has little if anything, to do with productivity and the outcome of debates.

Mike

 

[Truthmatters]

I guess it only goes for Republicans, while Democrats get a free pass from the president. Post your best videos of Democrats being uncivil in the last 3 years all the while the president calls for civility.
This one is just the latest.
Obama Calls For Civility In Wake Of Tucson Shooting - YouTube
Maxine Waters Unhinged: Boehner and Cantor Are 'Demons' - YouTube
And Obama is so quiet on it, why?

It sure seemss that at this site the right is the one who insists on incivility

 

[Truthmatters]

Does civility have any value to you?

Civility like diversity, is a pleasant thought, but has little if anything, to do with productivity and the outcome of debates.

Mike

So you would not teach a child under your care to be civil?

 

[Texanmike]

Your fire is all heat, no light.

What you conveniently forget in your zealotry is that this nation was founded upon compromise, not incivility. Continued incivility only fertilizes the garden from which discontent springs. Incivility is no way to govern, no way to conduct the people's business, no way to present your case to the world as being a free, fair, just society.

And it is certainly no way to convince your political opponents that you're anything but petulant, immature and close minded.

So wait, let me get this straight. I provide you with examples of incivility and you say I'm just wrong. The whole reason we have a Constitution was what ammounts to a plot. Knox account to Washginton (who's attendance was necessary for the convention to even happen) about Shay's rebellion was vastly over-stated. He claimed there were thousands of old soldiers that were being mistreated and that the rebellion was a threat to the "federation". Interesting that he used that word isn't it?

Beyond that, Madison worked clandestinely to bring the conevention with the intention to "amend the AoC" but that is not what happened. He went to the convention with a full draft of a constitution written. He would not announce it to the general assembly though, because he knew that NY and RI would not hear of ratifying a new governing document.

I mentioned earlier that people were writing in cypher, one such person was Randolph. There are at least two cases that the carriers are suspected of intercepting letters, intentionally, which might have altered the outcome of the convention.

Do I need to list further examples of incivility? I've got tons of them. Can't provide online links because most of them are in old books that nobody ever bothered to reference much less put online...

Mike

The constitution and the governance of this nation happened IN SPITE OF, no due to incivility. Compromise is the watchword. In our republic, nothing can happen beyond resolutions praising Motherhood or Christmas without compromise. And incivility is the direct opposite of compromise.

Thinking that incivility is virtuous while compromise is a vice will not lead to American justice, liberty and freedom. Incivility leads us on the road to anarchy.

Actually, I don't think of civility or incivility as either virtuous or vile. I consider the outcome of the interaction to be virtuous or vile, not the nature of it.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

Does civility have any value to you?

Civility like diversity, is a pleasant thought, but has little if anything, to do with productivity and the outcome of debates.

Mike

So you would not teach a child under your care to be civil?

I do teach my child to do what is necessary. Honesty is paramount. Beyond that there isn't much that I require.

Mike

 

[Nosmo King]

So wait, let me get this straight. I provide you with examples of incivility and you say I'm just wrong. The whole reason we have a Constitution was what ammounts to a plot. Knox account to Washginton (who's attendance was necessary for the convention to even happen) about Shay's rebellion was vastly over-stated. He claimed there were thousands of old soldiers that were being mistreated and that the rebellion was a threat to the "federation". Interesting that he used that word isn't it?

Beyond that, Madison worked clandestinely to bring the conevention with the intention to "amend the AoC" but that is not what happened. He went to the convention with a full draft of a constitution written. He would not announce it to the general assembly though, because he knew that NY and RI would not hear of ratifying a new governing document.

I mentioned earlier that people were writing in cypher, one such person was Randolph. There are at least two cases that the carriers are suspected of intercepting letters, intentionally, which might have altered the outcome of the convention.

Do I need to list further examples of incivility? I've got tons of them. Can't provide online links because most of them are in old books that nobody ever bothered to reference much less put online...

Mike

The constitution and the governance of this nation happened IN SPITE OF, no due to incivility. Compromise is the watchword. In our republic, nothing can happen beyond resolutions praising Motherhood or Christmas without compromise. And incivility is the direct opposite of compromise.

Thinking that incivility is virtuous while compromise is a vice will not lead to American justice, liberty and freedom. Incivility leads us on the road to anarchy.

Actually, I don't think of civility or incivility as either virtuous or vile. I consider the outcome of the interaction to be virtuous or vile, not the nature of it.

Mike

Not a very pragmatic approach. You still have to govern with the presence of political opposition. If you conduct all negotiations with incivility, I suggest not much will ever get done.

 

[Texanmike]

The constitution and the governance of this nation happened IN SPITE OF, no due to incivility. Compromise is the watchword. In our republic, nothing can happen beyond resolutions praising Motherhood or Christmas without compromise. And incivility is the direct opposite of compromise.

Thinking that incivility is virtuous while compromise is a vice will not lead to American justice, liberty and freedom. Incivility leads us on the road to anarchy.

Actually, I don't think of civility or incivility as either virtuous or vile. I consider the outcome of the interaction to be virtuous or vile, not the nature of it.

Mike

Not a very pragmatic approach. You still have to govern with the presence of political opposition. If you conduct all negotiations with incivility, I suggest not much will ever get done.

I never said I have a preference for incivility. I started by saying that our founders were not civil, I gave you examples. I would prefer civil but if the need arises I would prefer that my representative be less than civil if it means accomplishing what needs to be accomplished.

We were, as colonies, civil with King George III for quite some time. We realized that wasn't working and we became less than civil.

You insisted on suggesting that I had no idea what I was talking about so I provided examples, multiple examples. Then somehow this became a discussion about whether or not we should be civil. That is, of course, the preferred manner of operations but sometimes it is impossible.

I still maintain that you should go back and read the accounts of history as written by the makers of history. Every biography or historical text holds in it some sort of bias, it is human nature. Read both sides and decide for yourself, you might just be surprised at what you learn, I certainly was.

Mike

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have a bias, certainly. I tend to side with the anti-federalists. That does not mean I have not read the other side. I am at least aware of both sides of history. Do you think the Republicans (as they called themselves, not the present day party) history is accurately represented in your history books? Of course it is not. From the moment Marshall took his seat on the bench it was pretty much assured that the federalists would be hailed as the heros of the ratification.

And, for the record, a lot of my views in the world changes after reading what I read. I was a staunch conservative growing up. It wasn't until I started reading commentary by Jefferson and John Taylor that I moved towards liberarianism. My political compas is probably not permenantly set, I still have a reading list which grows almost daily. On it are about 30 books I have yet been able to find or had the time to read.

Mike

Your fire is all heat, no light.

What you conveniently forget in your zealotry is that this nation was founded upon compromise, not incivility. Continued incivility only fertilizes the garden from which discontent springs. Incivility is no way to govern, no way to conduct the people's business, no way to present your case to the world as being a free, fair, just society.

And it is certainly no way to convince your political opponents that you're anything but petulant, immature and close minded.

So wait, let me get this straight. I provide you with examples of incivility and you say I'm just wrong. The whole reason we have a Constitution was what ammounts to a plot. Knox account to Washginton (who's attendance was necessary for the convention to even happen) about Shay's rebellion was vastly over-stated. He claimed there were thousands of old soldiers that were being mistreated and that the rebellion was a threat to the "federation". Interesting that he used that word isn't it?

Beyond that, Madison worked clandestinely to bring the conevention with the intention to "amend the AoC" but that is not what happened. He went to the convention with a full draft of a constitution written. He would not announce it to the general assembly though, because he knew that NY and RI would not hear of ratifying a new governing document.

I mentioned earlier that people were writing in cypher, one such person was Randolph. There are at least two cases that the carriers are suspected of intercepting letters, intentionally, which might have altered the outcome of the convention.

Do I need to list further examples of incivility? I've got tons of them. Can't provide online links because most of them are in old books that nobody ever bothered to reference much less put online...

Mike

Well, Madison did not need to worry about RI, which did not attend. What states attended the constitutional convention of 1787

Incivility then is no more excusable than today.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sure it was.

The founders both agreed and disagreed on a wide range of issues. But the final outcome was the result of civility.

You mean like the time when one Senator beat another to death with his cane right on the Senate floor? Or how about the time that Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton?

IIRC he didn't beat him to death, but he did beat him severly. People from all over sent him canes in support.

Mike

Still inexcusable. Time passed does not endow it with rightness.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So wait, let me get this straight. I provide you with examples of incivility and you say I'm just wrong. The whole reason we have a Constitution was what ammounts to a plot. Knox account to Washginton (who's attendance was necessary for the convention to even happen) about Shay's rebellion was vastly over-stated. He claimed there were thousands of old soldiers that were being mistreated and that the rebellion was a threat to the "federation". Interesting that he used that word isn't it?

Beyond that, Madison worked clandestinely to bring the conevention with the intention to "amend the AoC" but that is not what happened. He went to the convention with a full draft of a constitution written. He would not announce it to the general assembly though, because he knew that NY and RI would not hear of ratifying a new governing document.

I mentioned earlier that people were writing in cypher, one such person was Randolph. There are at least two cases that the carriers are suspected of intercepting letters, intentionally, which might have altered the outcome of the convention.

Do I need to list further examples of incivility? I've got tons of them. Can't provide online links because most of them are in old books that nobody ever bothered to reference much less put online...

Mike

The constitution and the governance of this nation happened IN SPITE OF, no due to incivility. Compromise is the watchword. In our republic, nothing can happen beyond resolutions praising Motherhood or Christmas without compromise. And incivility is the direct opposite of compromise.

Thinking that incivility is virtuous while compromise is a vice will not lead to American justice, liberty and freedom. Incivility leads us on the road to anarchy.

Actually, I don't think of civility or incivility as either virtuous or vile. I consider the outcome of the interaction to be virtuous or vile, not the nature of it.

Mike

Than virtue is not a part of your libertarian ethical structure: so noted.

 

[Texanmike]

The constitution and the governance of this nation happened IN SPITE OF, no due to incivility. Compromise is the watchword. In our republic, nothing can happen beyond resolutions praising Motherhood or Christmas without compromise. And incivility is the direct opposite of compromise.

Thinking that incivility is virtuous while compromise is a vice will not lead to American justice, liberty and freedom. Incivility leads us on the road to anarchy.

Actually, I don't think of civility or incivility as either virtuous or vile. I consider the outcome of the interaction to be virtuous or vile, not the nature of it.

Mike

Than virtue is not a part of your libertarian ethical structure: so noted.

That is an odd conclusion to draw.

Is it virtuous if I am civil in my advocation for racial inequality and lacking virtue if I am not civil in advocating for racism?

I'm not sure of the purpose of your statement to be honest.

mike

 

[JakeStarkey]

My conclusion is quite on the spot. I am well aware that you are not aware of the meaning and application of virtue, texanmike.

 

[Texanmike]

My conclusion is quite on the spot. I am well aware that you are not aware of the meaning and application of virtue, texanmike.

Maybe you fancy yourself more well aware than you actually are. Don't assume that because I didn't respond with some rant about Kant that I can't. (How's that for a play on words).

If we are going to get technial then maybe we should say that temperance, not virtue has no place in my Libertarian ethical structure...

Mike

 

[candycorn]

Really? What have I lied about? I know you can't even list one thing.

Saying that troops have to be "shot at" to get combat pay for starters.
"Obama: Soldiers in Afghanistan Must Be Fired Upon to Receive Combat Pay "

I simply quoted an article. I made no comments about it, either pro or con.

[Here is the actual statute:

The rules for Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay have changed. Service members will now receive imminent danger pay only for days they actually spend in hazardous areas. This change went in effect on February 1, 2012.

A member of a uniformed service may be entitled to Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger pay at the rate of $225 for any month in which he/she was entitled to basic pay and in which he/she was:
•Subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines;
•On duty in an area in which he was in imminent danger of being exposed to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines and in which, during the period he was on duty in that area, other members of the uniformed services were subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines;
•Killed, injured, or wounded by hostile fire, explosion of a hostile mine, or any other hostile action; or
•On duty in a foreign area in which he was subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger on the basis of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism, or wartime conditions.

At no point does it say you have to be fired at to receive combat pay.

Your move.

That comes pretty close to saying you or your buddies have to be fired upon to recieve combat pay.

It doesn't say it. Not at all.

It is your sole responsibility to ensure what you're posting is factual. If you repeat a lie, you, sir, are a liar.

So Bripat=habitual liar.

Thats the truth...now documented by your own words. Sorry.

 

[candycorn]

Really? What have I lied about? I know you can't even list one thing.

Saying that troops have to be "shot at" to get combat pay for starters.
"Obama: Soldiers in Afghanistan Must Be Fired Upon to Receive Combat Pay "

I simply quoted an article. I made no comments about it, either pro or con.

[Here is the actual statute:

The rules for Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay have changed. Service members will now receive imminent danger pay only for days they actually spend in hazardous areas. This change went in effect on February 1, 2012.

A member of a uniformed service may be entitled to Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger pay at the rate of $225 for any month in which he/she was entitled to basic pay and in which he/she was:
•Subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines;
•On duty in an area in which he was in imminent danger of being exposed to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines and in which, during the period he was on duty in that area, other members of the uniformed services were subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines;
•Killed, injured, or wounded by hostile fire, explosion of a hostile mine, or any other hostile action; or
•On duty in a foreign area in which he was subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger on the basis of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism, or wartime conditions.

At no point does it say you have to be fired at to receive combat pay.

Your move.

That comes pretty close to saying you or your buddies have to be fired upon to recieve combat pay.

PS: It was a blog you quoted, not an article. You should learn the difference.

 

[JakeStarkey]

My conclusion is quite on the spot. I am well aware that you are not aware of the meaning and application of virtue, texanmike.

Maybe you fancy yourself more well aware than you actually are. Don't assume that because I didn't respond with some rant about Kant that I can't. (How's that for a play on words). If we are going to get technial then maybe we should say that temperance, not virtue has no place in my Libertarian ethical structure... Mike

That is a particular definition falsehood for some libertarians: that it is a valueless system. That very statement is false, revealing that such libertarians lack virtue. Libertarians want a "society of equals", when in fact it is nothing more than the flip side of communism ~ great in theory, impossible in practice. Why the lack of value enforced by law leads to the Rule of Man, the individual.

No, no thinking person of virtue and value wants anything to do with libertarianism or communism.

 

[bripat9643]

It doesn't say it. Not at all..

Yes, that's what it says.

It is your sole responsibility to ensure what you're posting is factual. If you repeat a lie, you, sir, are a liar.

So Bripat=habitual liar.

Thats the truth...now documented by your own words. Sorry.

So, a "liar" is anyone who posts something you disagree with. That makes you an habitual liar since I disagree with everything you post.

On top of being a liar, you're a double barrelled jackass.