Debate: What happened to civility?

[Saffron]

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 ?

Amen!

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by wvrevy
ABSOLUTELY he is (the man is brilliant.....I just don't particularly want to listen to him).....So ? By "loud" I mean "reaching as many people as possible", not "has a high volume to his voice". Rush, Hannity, and co. are available pretty much 24 hours a day via radio and Faux News channel....How often is Carville on ?

But whose fault is that? Can liberals not start their own radio programs and reach millions of people? What's stopping them?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Speaking for myself, it's not that I don't care about the guy down the street, it's that I don't think it is the government's job to care more about him than he does about himself and to use my money in the process.

Government has its purposes, but taking from those that produce to give to those that won't produce isn't one of those purposes, IMO.

Ok...So please distinguish between someone that CAN'T "produce", and someone that "WON'T" produce...and kindly tell me how the government should distinguish between the two (or should we just say to hell with both of them) ? And also, could you explain to me what is to be done with those that find themselves in the kind of situation where they NEED help, if the government isn't supposed to be there ?

Should we have people starving on the streets instead of receiving welfare checks ? Despite republican propaganda, not EVERY person receiving welfare is a bum that refuses to work for a living...

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
But whose fault is that? Can liberals not start their own radio programs and reach millions of people? What's stopping them?

That's not the point....The point is that the obnoxious trio I mentioned all have rather loud megaphones at their disposal, where-as no liberal voice has that kind of amplification (making it rather difficult for the liberals to be at fault for the lack of civility that has become the norm in public political debate).

 

[jrydberg]

but I am not calling all who do agree with it morons, just those that continually attack the liberal left for caring more about the guy down the street than about their own bank balance. (If that makes sense.)

I guess this doesn't make any sense to me. Someone makes a political argument they feel passionately about and your reaction is to label them a moron? I'll argue with anyone who wants government to take more money out of my paycheck I think that's a fairly reasonable position with considerable thought behind it.

You refer to the Republican Party as the Repuglican Party... not that I agree with everything the Republican Party stands for, but when one starts with such hatred, it is difficult to have a worthwhile discussion. And that's my basic point.

 

[izzy]

Originally posted by wvrevy
That's not the point....The point is that the obnoxious trio I mentioned all have rather loud megaphones at their disposal, where-as no liberal voice has that kind of amplification (making it rather difficult for the liberals to be at fault for the lack of civility that has become the norm in public political debate).

Gee, I think the libs have plenty of loud megaphones at their disposal and always have. To name a few:

CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Speaking for myself, it's not that I don't care about the guy down the street, it's that I don't think it is the government's job to care more about him than he does about himself and to use my money in the process.

Government has its purposes, but taking from those that produce to give to those that won't produce isn't one of those purposes, IMO.

I don't see it in that light at all. Society has developed in a way that some individuals benefit from unearned privilege. This is a fact of the world, not just the United States, although it is probably much more prevalent here than elsewhere.

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.

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.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by izzy
Gee, I think the libs have plenty of loud megaphones at their disposal and always have. To name a few:

CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN

Is that the "liberal media" argument that is sooooooo ridiculously false?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by jrydberg
I guess this doesn't make any sense to me. Someone makes a political argument they feel passionately about and your reaction is to label them a moron? I'll argue with anyone who wants government to take more money out of my paycheck I think that's a fairly reasonable position with considerable thought behind it.

You refer to the Republican Party as the Repuglican Party... not that I agree with everything the Republican Party stands for, but when one starts with such hatred, it is difficult to have a worthwhile discussion. And that's my basic point.

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.))

Yes, I've referred to the Republican party as "Repuglicans" for several years now (about since the first time I was called a liberal as if the person doing so was using a four letter word). I've also been known to call the president "Shrub" (as in "Has the intelligence of your average...") and even, when I'm feeling really peppy, the "smirking chimp in the white house".

Perhaps that is just as wrong as those that call liberals "socialists" and that call anyone that thinks we should, you know, have a reason to invade another country "traitors". Perhaps, I believe it to be the attitude that I'm facing, so I'm too quick to jump to the conclusion that the person I'm debating / discussing an issue with is "going negative".....

It's an interesting thought...I'll honestly have to think about it....

 

[Chicago526]

Call this simplistic, but at some point, politicians on BOTH sides figured out that it is easier to whip the masses into an emotional frenzy about an issue than make the masses THINK about an issue and make a logical, well thought out decisions.

They now play to the "emotions" of policy instead of the logic. This is why one side hates the other. The ads and speaches are designed to envoke powerfull fear and hate for the "other guy who's out to get you" and euphoria over how "I'm going to stop him and make it right for the little guy".

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Perhaps that is just as wrong as those that call liberals "socialists" and that call anyone that thinks we should, you know, have a reason to invade another country "traitors". Perhaps, I believe it to be the attitude that I'm facing, so I'm too quick to jump to the conclusion that the person I'm debating / discussing an issue with is "going negative".....

It's an interesting thought...I'll honestly have to think about it....

Perhaps? There's very little doubt about it. I find it highly ironic that you would post so vociferously about the alleged abuses and incivilities of a select few conservatives, all the while practicing the very same incivility you preach against.

Physician, heal thyself.

 

[missypie]

Pretty funny (but not surprising) that the thread on civility has become so un-civil.

If we can pause in the name calling for a moment, here is a possible explanation that relates to the original post: As you may have heard, last year the Republican members of the Texas legislature called three special legislative sessions to redraw the congressional lines. (You may have heard that the Democratic delegation fled the state twice.)

That brought up a lot of dicussion about who and how the lines are drawn. The point was made that a neutral/non-partisan body should draw the lines, because both parties, when in control, draw "safe" districts for themselves, which means that the person elected does not have to appeal at all the the center. If a district fairly is equally populated by members of both parties, neither candidate can be too "radical." But safe democratic seats are occupied more and more by very left wing politicans, and safe republican seats are occupied more and more by very right wing politicians...thus the rift between the congressional delegations has become huge instead of narrow.

I guess one of the reasons I respect McCain is that he is willing to disagree with his own party. Can you imagine having to support the "party line" on every single issue...foreign policy, defense, education, health care, the environment, farm subsidies, abortion...the list is endless, and I think most Americans agree with one party on some issues and the other party on other issues.

Take the issue of "life." As far as I can see, nuns seem to be totally and consistently pro-life: They are against abortion and against the death penalty. Democrats are largely pro-choice and anti-death penalty and Republicans tend to be the opposite.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
Perhaps? There's very little doubt about it. I find it highly ironic that you would post so vociferously about the alleged abuses and incivilities of a select few conservatives, all the while practicing the very same incivility you preach against.

Physician, heal thyself.

Yes, because it's the same thing when I do that on a message board and when Hannity or Rush do it to a couple million viewers (or listeners).

Hmmm...Why do I doubt that you're not quite so quick to jump in when you see someone like Ann Coulter slamming liberals on principle ?

Tell you what....you convince Rush, Sean, and the rest of the right wing media circus to give up their nukes, and I'll put down my pea-shooter. Fair enough ?

 

[Eeyore1954]

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.

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.

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.

Our society is not a commune. Society does not take care of itself; that's the responsibility of each individual. Unfortunately, some believe they are entitled to receive compensation, goods and services without providing a meaningful contribution to society. That is simply wrong. There are plenty of jobs available for people -- too often it is simply easier to choose not to work and live off handouts. That's sheer laziness and I don't believe in rewarding sloth.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
Our society is not a commune. Society does not take care of itself; that's the responsibility of each individual. Unfortunately, some believe they are entitled to receive compensation, goods and services without providing a meaningful contribution to society. That is simply wrong. There are plenty of jobs available for people -- too often it is simply easier to choose not to work and live off handouts. That's sheer laziness and I don't believe in rewarding sloth.

So, should we just let the people starve on the streets, then ? What about those with kids...should the kids starve too, or would it be ok to go ahead and feed them ?

Hey, here's a question for ya'.....A mother of 3 is out of work, has a high school education but no real skills. She can either stay home and take care of her kids, or go to work. Unfortunately, if she goes to work, her three kids will have to go to daycare of some sort, and McDonalds barely pays enough in a week to cover the daycare bill, let alone living expenses.

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 ?

But then, that'd be "communistic", huh ?

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Yes, because it's the same thing when I do that on a message board and when Hannity or Rush do it to a couple million viewers (or listeners).

Audience size notwithstanding, how do you justify accusing/bashing others for doing the same thing you are doing? Civility starts with each of us saying "Today, I will practice being civil, even to those I may intensely disagree with." We may not always succeed, but over time we could probably begin to raise the bar a little.

Hmmm...Why do I doubt that you're not quite so quick to jump in when you see someone like Ann Coulter slamming liberals on principle ?

Ms. Coulter, Rush, Hannity and other conservative voices all make me shudder when they practice ad hominems. I would not justify anyone's use of that method of so-called "debate", no matter what side of the fence they are on.

Tell you what....you convince Rush, Sean, and the rest of the right wing media circus to give up their nukes, and I'll put down my pea-shooter. Fair enough ?

Why don't we all start by taking a higher road on this board and maybe set an example others may want to follow?

 

[spagheddie]

This is a feeling I've had for a while also. It used to be that both parties were opponents rather than the enemies that they are now. I also feel that not giving into the other side is more important to some than putting policies in place that would be good for the country.

I'd have to say that the nastiness increased during the Clinton era. '92 was the first presidential election I could vote in and I voted for Clinton. I liked him then and still do today. But I have to say that I might not like him nearly as much if it weren't for people like my parents, friends, basically everyone that I knew who voiced an opinion, who just complained about him over every little thing. The first "incident" was when he got a haircut on the runway at LAX and held up some flights. I had friends argue about that longer than the flights were actually delayed. It seemed like a federal case was made out of everything.

Little did we know then what people were willing to make a federal case out of.

I just got to the point where I tuned it out, though it never prevented me from voting Republican in other elections if the candidate was a good one.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by wvrevy
So, should we just let the people starve on the streets, then ? What about those with kids...should the kids starve too, or would it be ok to go ahead and feed them ?

Hey, here's a question for ya'.....A mother of 3 is out of work, has a high school education but no real skills. She can either stay home and take care of her kids, or go to work. Unfortunately, if she goes to work, her three kids will have to go to daycare of some sort, and McDonalds barely pays enough in a week to cover the daycare bill, let alone living expenses.

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 ?

But then, that'd be "communistic", huh ?

We can sit here & debate hypotheticals until this thread gets locked or dies and it will accomplish nothing.

I do not support any policy that gives people money/support for doing nothing. There are some positive, workable solutions to welfare that have achieved good results. There are ways to invest in people's lives to help them become functioning/contributing members of society again. As a society we need to look for ways to empower people, not continue a lifestyle that too easily becomes a prison.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
Audience size notwithstanding, how do you justify accusing/bashing others for doing the same thing you are doing? Civility starts with each of us saying "Today, I will practice being civil, even to those I may intensely disagree with." We may not always succeed, but over time we could probably begin to raise the bar a little.

Honestly ? I can't, really, as it is just a matter of degree. I really try to maintain civility until treated in a different fashion, but I sometimes get a little too big for my britches (as my grandma would have said...lol). You're right, it DOES (or should, at least) start with each of us saying "I will not stopp to that level, even if provoked". Unfortunately, it's a short trip from "even if provoked" to "unless provoked", and thus to "I WAS provoked"

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
Ms. Coulter, Rush, Hannity and other conservative voices all make me shudder when they practice ad hominems. I would not justify anyone's use of that method of so-called "debate", no matter what side of the fence they are on.

Yeah...well....unfortunately, the right is stuck with those three idiots just like the left is stuck with Michael Moore and (to a lesser scale) Al Franken (though anybody that titles a book "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" can NOT be all bad...lol)

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
Why don't we all start by taking a higher road on this board and maybe set an example others may want to follow?

Good question.....

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
We can sit here & debate hypotheticals until this thread gets locked or dies and it will accomplish nothing.

I do not support any policy that gives people money/support for doing nothing. There are some positive, workable solutions to welfare that have achieved good results. There are ways to invest in people's lives to help them become functioning/contributing members of society again. As a society we need to look for ways to empower people, not continue a lifestyle that too easily becomes a prison.

Which means you don't have an answer for that hypothetical, right ?

But that's ok...I'll drop it in the spirit of our new civility