Debate: What happened to civility?

[EsmeraldaX]

Originally posted by wvrevy

Again, there ARE no liberal voices as loud (or as obnoxious) as Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity...and both wouldn't know civility if it kicked them in their collective groins. Or maybe you could use Ann "If you don't agree with me you're a commie" Coulter as an example ?

There's one. Michael Moore.

I've met the man and he is about as obnoxious as they come.

 

[MHopkins2]

Originally posted by EsmeraldaX
There's one. Michael Moore.

I've met the man and he is about as obnoxious as they come.

Ugh. Why am I not surprised?? I'm fairly anti-gun, and I still can't stand that guy.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by EsmeraldaX
There's one. Michael Moore.

I've met the man and he is about as obnoxious as they come.

Oh, no doubt about it....Moore gives liberals the same bad name that someone like Coulter gives to conservatives.

In fact, I'd say those two just about cancel each other out...Neither has their own national networks to make their voice heard, but both take advantage of available outlets to do the same, just to a lesser degree than Rush or Hannity.

Even I am flabbergasted (love that word) by some of the things Moore comes up with.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Originally posted by MHopkins2
Ugh. Why am I not surprised?? I'm fairly anti-gun, and I still can't stand that guy.

I work for one of his publishers, and what really got me about him is that he made a lot of small indie bookstores order a min. of 1000 copies of one of his books for a signing. Then, he didn't show up to a bunch of them. Yeah - he's really for the small guy, huh?

I also used to like his show The Awful truth or whatever it was called. Anyway, I went to one of his lecture/signings once and was appalled at how rude he was to his fans. I have not liked him since.

 

[Pete's Mom]

Civility went out the window when a lot of people decided that it was more fun to "one-up" one another and make wise cracks at others expense rather than have an actual debate.

 

[jrydberg]

Please re-read what I wrote...I am NOT referring to anyone that disagrees with me as a moron (though I obviously think they're wrong, otherwise I wouldn't hold my current opinion). I am referring to those that have turned the word "liberal" into an insult in this country. ((OT:As to the "considerable thought behind" that position, I'd argue that the only thoughts behind it are in placing the wants of the individual over the needs of society, which is exactly what a government should not be doing, but that's neither here nor there.))

You say you're not calling anyone who disagrees with you a moron, yet in the same breath, you mention that those who disagree with you have put very little thought into their position. If you want to argue the merits of what government should or should not be involved in, fine. But why belittle the position I take?

 

[AirForceRocks]

I disagree. Each person, as the DoI eloquently states, has the right to pursue happiness. But it is not any government's responsibility to ensure or guarantee any individual person's happiness. Further, there is no way to "level" the playing field. Each person has to compete using their own talents, skills, education, etc. It's not feasible to expect the government to provide everyone with an absolute equal opportunity to everything ... that kind of socialist mentality failed in Russia and would never work in a capitalist economy.

I couldn't have said it better.

Blaming the victim is wrong. If an individual cannot find work, then the government has an obligation to provide basic needs for that individual until he can once again sustain himself. It’s the communal part of being a society. It’s how society takes care of itself.

And when this big commune takes care of everyone, where is the incentive for people to take care of themselves?

 

[N.Bailey]

I don't know, this thread has given me some food for thought, if you will.

As a conservative (btw, conservative is tossed around with bad vibes the same as liberal is to the left crowd), I never watch Rush, or Hannity. I liked Hannity for awhile, but the more I watched him, the more irritated I got that he found NO fault within his own party. As I've stated, I am a conservative too, but I can surely find a lot to disagree within a party that I feel I agree with on most issues. The thing to ask yourself though is, why are Rush and Hannity so successful? Disagree with them politically or not, they have HUGE audiences. I feel they have these audiences because the majority of the press is extremely liberal and there are very few to speak for the conservative's point of view.

Where the welfare systems is concerned, I too would love to see a lot done to help get people off the system and living lives where they contribute to society. In all honesty however, until jobs are created that will pay single mothers enough to support their families, I don't see it happening. I feel that some people sit on welfare, day in and day out, year in and year out till the oldest child reaches 17, then they decide to have another child. I'm not talking about those people. There are many people on welfare that would love to work. Taking a job means, you need transportation, you need new clothing, or descent clothing, you need child care services, and on and on. In reality, if the job doesn't pay X amount per hour, there is no way that family is going to make it! They'd pull their food stamps, or cut them back considerably, aren't some of the medical benefits pulled as well? There are no easy answers though.

I don't feel the government (according to the Constitution) owes us any of these benefits. If they're going to tax us to death though, they owe us something.

and....I'll take a lot of flack for this, but I think they should get rid of the earned income credit. I wonder how many millions/billions go out a year in these checks?

My take on the OP's original question has been answered by many already, but I think the Internet has done a lot to both educated the public and give the public a voice to express what they agree with, but to also speak out against what they don't agree with. This wasn't available through what, pre Clinton era?

 

[Galahad]

flabbergasted

What a great word to use in a sentence about Michael Moore....

Pundits and entertainers aside, what is the level of civility in the public discourse coming from actual elected officials and other official representatives of the parties? I haven't done the analysis but I sense is that while the right has "loud" voices that may be seen as uncivil from unofficial ranks, the left tends to have more voices from their official ranks that use that rhetoric.

 

[AirForceRocks]

So, should we just let the people starve on the streets, then ?

If people are starving in the streets in this country, it's because they're too dumb to go to the many places that will provide food for them, in which case, Darwin takes over.

Now, this woman WANTS to work, so, should we just say "oh, well, too bad...nobody owes you anything", or should society actually attempt to help this family get on their feet ?

I'd be more than happy to see the tax money going to pay for most or all of her daycare in order to get her out of the house and into work, at least for a few months. I have no problem helping people that want to get on their feet get on their feet. I have lots of problems with paying for people that aren't interested in helping themselves. Please see the above paragraph regarding Darwin.

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks

I'd be more than happy to see the tax money going to pay for most or all of her daycare in order to get her out of the house and into work, at least for a few months. I have no problem helping people that want to get on their feet get on their feet. I have lots of problems with paying for people that aren't interested in helping themselves. Please see the above paragraph regarding Darwin.

I agree, I don't have a problem helping her with child care expenses either. I see you added for a few months anyway. Well, what is she suppose to do after those few months? In all honesty I mean. If she's taking home $200 a week, and child care is $100 - $150 per week, what then? Again, I'm talking about someone who really wants a chance. The way things are set up, it's just not a possibility. I think the government knows this too and feels it would be more expensive for us to foot the child care and other costs to get these people employeed, than to just let them have the welfare to begin with. I don't agree with that theory, but I think that's why it is the way it is.

 

[arminnie]

Originally posted by wvrevy
anybody that titles a book "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" can NOT be all bad.

A friend of mine in San Francisco who is a very liberal Democrat was quite upset by that book title as she felt belittled for being overweight. Calling someone "fat" seems to be almost the worst thing you can do in today's society. I thought that only a very cruel person could put out a title like that - someone who didn't care if innocent bystanders were hurt in the process.

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by jrydberg
I haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh in years, but in my experience, he tended much more towards the sort who would argue stridently about policy, but maintain a good degree of civility.

Rush, civil? He turned me off when he called 12-year-old Chelsea Clinton the family dog.

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by KarenC
Rush, civil? He turned me off when he called 12-year-old Chelsea Clinton the family dog.

I'm no Rush fan, but I'd need to see some evidence of this before I could possibly believe it.

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by N.Bailey
I'm no Rush fan, but I'd need to see some evidence of this before I could possibly believe it.

Do a google on "Chelsea Clinton", Limbaugh and "White House dog" and you'll get a whole bunch of results. Here's a biography of Chelsea Clinton from CNN that mentions the incident. She was actually 13 at the time. I don't know about you, but 13 was not my most attractive age.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/conventions/chicago/players/chelsea/index.shtml

 

[emmagata]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles


I believe it is the government’s obligation to ensure than all individuals have the opportunity to self-actualize. This often means that the playing field needs to be leveled through policy and those policies, more often than not, require money to be implemented and run.

Really? All? Even the rich?

I think I'll quit my job tomorrow so I can go on the government sponsored self-actualizing program.

Who's with me?

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by KarenC
Do a google on "Chelsea Clinton", Limbaugh and "White House dog" and you'll get a whole bunch of results. Here's a biography of Chelsea Clinton from CNN that mentions the incident. She was actually 13 at the time. I don't know about you, but 13 was not my most attractive age.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/conventions/chicago/players/chelsea/index.shtml

I'd run across several sites that talked about this, but then you would have a link to click for other opinions. In all cases, when I'd click, the link was either dead, or something else was there. Not real surprising considering how long ago this was. Every site I seen was a liberal site, again though, I'm not real surprised by that either. Either way, I'll not be losing any sleep over this, I have never liked Limbaugh's style (although I speculate that I probably agree with him on many issues), and this is all the more reason to not listen to him IMO.

If you've ever watched Bill O'Reilly, he comes off the same way. I watch him from time to time and agree with him a lot. I really don't care for his presentation though.

 

[jrydberg]

Rush, civil? He turned me off when he called 12-year-old Chelsea Clinton the family dog.

Well, if that's the case, then that certainly doesn't qualify as civil. Perhaps it's a good thing I stopped listening to him years ago

 

[treesinger]

What a fun thread! I don't know if I have enough hours in the day to respond to it all.

First, civility isn't dead. It's just been squashed into the very small center between idealogues from the left and the right. But if you look really close, you can see it waving back to us, still smiling as always!


One thing that so many of us lose sight of is that those on the left and the right want, to a large degree, the same thing! We want security, prosperity and equality. The sides just don't agree on how to get there and because the rift is so large, they don't see room to compromise. It's rather difficult to shake hands from a mile away.

 

[treesinger]

wvrevy, just wanted to say that I'm glad to see you take a step back from how you started your responses to this thread. I'm not going to comment on the content of what you've said here. Just wanted to say that by curbing the passion you have against the right (or for the left), you enable me to take you much more seriously on substance rather than style and you set an example for others that focus TOO much on style to also tone down. So thank you!

Raise your glasses and lets have a toast for some good 'ol civility!