Debate: What happened to civility?

[emmagata]

Originally posted by N.Bailey
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.

You probably haven't been listening lately or long enough. He's pretty consistent on where he disagrees with the Republican party.

 

[emmagata]

Originally posted by N.Bailey
In all honesty however, until jobs are created that will pay single mothers enough to support their families, I don't see it happening.

Please explain how this is supposed to come about?

 

[Lanshark]

Civility was lost in politics when society, in general, began to tolerate it. If American society reacted badly to it I believe it would be reined in.

You don't have to look any further than this board to see that communicating in a non civil manner has become a norm.

 

[emmagata]

Originally posted by Lanshark
Civility was lost in politics when society, in general, began to tolerate it. If American society reacted badly to it I believe it would be reined in.

You don't have to look any further than this board to see that communicating in a non civil manner has become a norm.

I'm not really sure if I agree with that 100 percent. Just take a look at what society accepts as the norm compared to 25, 50, 100 years ago....

 

[treesinger]

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?

I'm one of those rare conservatives that hope Air America would succeed. I was hoping to hear it and hoping that it would be a talk radio counter-balance to the Big Conservatives. Alas, the network is really on the ropes and never was broadcast in the Philly market.

 

[treesinger]

Originally posted by wvrevy
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...

I think the real issue here is people that take ADVANTAGE of the system, not people who use it. I think the gov't needs to provide assistance to the average American that needs it and respects it when they're on the ropes. For too many people, though, the handouts pay better than the jobs they can get at entry level. Enticing isn't it? It's these people that corrupt the system and get the "I want my tax money back" conservatives into a tizzy because EVERY hard-working American (from the left ad the right) is being taken advantage of by these people.

Now, the gov't isn't obligated to do any of this. But I feel that American society as a whole is improved by it because it keeps the have-nots from increasing too large in rank, and too many have-nots would destroy the American economy. I don't have figures to back me up, just going with my gut feeling.

 

[Grog]

. 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 was surprised to see that it took four pages for someone to bring this up. Without an audience, and the ratings that come with them, Shows like Rush's wouldn't be on the air.

I'm one of those rare conservatives that hope Air America would succeed. I was hoping to hear it and hoping that it would be a talk radio counter-balance to the Big Conservatives. Alas, the network is really on the ropes and never was broadcast in the Philly market.

The details are a little sketchy, but they seem to have been plagued with problems from the beginning. Apparently thier financial problems are bad enough that Al Franken announced last week that he was going to work without pay for the time being.

 

[treesinger]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
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.

Point by point.

I am a believer that, if someone makes money, they should be able to keep as much as is possible after appropriate taxes are collected and that they should be able to gift it to whomever they see fit after they die. I think things like the Estate tax are akin to grave robbing. Why take more money from someone just because they've died? Shouldn't people who have made money in their lives be able to give what's left to whjomever they choose, rather than whom the gov't chooses?

The gov't DOES give all Americans the ability to self-actualize. And I don't mind that the gov't needs to help "boot-strap" some Americans so that they can get back on the road of Capitalism. But it is too easy to take advantage of. ne of these nightmares exists in my own family and this person is a government leech but gets so many benefits that this person would be severely worse off if the handouts were replaced by a real job. Without motivation to get off the assistance completely, this person will never become a contributing citizen again. But the gov't is a financial gift that just keeps on giving.

Society takes care of itself when the people that are able-bodied take care of themselves. Gov't assistance is for those that are temporarily downtrodden. But it is so often abused...

Sorry, I have to stop.

 

[Lanshark]

Just take a look at what society accepts as the norm compared to 25, 50, 100 years ago....

That's my point. Society accepts negative campaigns otherwise those running them wouldn't be elected. Would the way some politicians conduct themselves have been accepted 25 or 50 years ago? I'm sure it happened behind the scenes but now it's out in the open. That's partially due to the fact the media is always in their faces and the news has 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to fill with something. Controversy sells because people like it.

The same concept applies to entertainment. What is accepted and even sought after today would not have been 25 or 50 years ago. Politics changed as society changed. Society is less civil and more tolerant of those who are not civil.

 

[gometros]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
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.

You are describing socialism, not democracy. If that's what you really believe, you're living in the wrong country. It is not goverment's responsiblitiy to even the playing field. The thing that makes humans the most intelligent animnal is that we have the ability and intelligence to detemine our own fate.

 

[treesinger]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Is that the "liberal media" argument that is sooooooo ridiculously false?

I wish it were false.
I never saw it for the longest time. I heard it all the time. "Liberal media" I didn't get it. Then little things started to stand out.

The media is typically judged only by what it puts out. But what it DOESN'T report is also important. For example, in regards to Iraq. Yes, some nasty stuff has happened, and all noteworthy. But to look at the evening news, you would swear that our soldiers are doing absolutely nothing worthwhile, all the while being killed in scores and torturing prisoners. While the media is reporting facts, they are only reporting the side of the story that helps the liberal agenda. Heck, even Reagan's death has been liberalized. Don't remember where I heard it, but it went something like this...
"Pres Reagan's body is laying in state in Simi Valley, where the trial against Rodney King's police assailants was held..."
***?! What does Rodney King have to to with the PRes. dead body? The ONLY explanation is that the powers that be of that particular netwok, even over top news of Reagan's death, couldn't help but try and put a liberal spin on it. Reagan=Republican=Rodney King getting beaten by cops?

Gosh, I never saw it before, but I see it all of the time now.

Before I am painted differently...
I am a registered Independent. Voted for Clinton twice and Gore. In the last couple years, started having children, had a tragedy thrown into the mix, and became more conservative as the days passed. Never listened to Rush, maligned him actually, then became a fan. Once even called myself an atheist, but have now swung much farther to the other side spiritually.

Just wanted to point out, before anyone tries to say that I must be blind to other side...I WAS the other side. I was on the liberal left wondering what those crazy conservatives could come up with next. I've seen both sides, understand both sides. I am not your typical conservative.

 

[treesinger]

Originally posted by 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".

I think the most terrible thing is that the average American is uninformed and bases their opinions on what they see on TV. By appealing to emotion, they think they understand the problem and form their opinions solely on that basis. Their brains don't do any heavy lifting.

 

[treesinger]

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).

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 ?

Coulter is most definitely, if I may borrow a term from O'Reilly, a "bomb-throwing" rightie. Which is a shame. She does strike some interesting points some times, but her substance is so large and obtrusive that it eclipses any point she wants to make. O'Reilly does the same thing, only less so.

As far as nukes and pea-shooters...I'm a believer that the "liberal" media exists. Rush et al.'s nukes don't match up with Big Media's nukes IMO. Somehow, I have a feeling that we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that point.

 

[treesinger]

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 ?

There are so many programs available...welfare, WIC, head start, job training, job placement...gosh, the gov't offers a lot of help. And that's a GOOD thing. It's the people that take advantage of the system, or don't care to improve themselves through programs like job training, that make conservatives hot under the collar. I'm more than happy to help this single mother of three get the training she needs so that she can become a productive citizen and resposible mother again. But I will not allow her to be a welfare mother that thinks she'll do just fine, thanks, on the handouts and ride life out.

 

[treesinger]

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.

And a great big ITA to ya Eeyore1954!

 

[treesinger]

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

I remember hearing about that. Comments like that are crass no matter what side of the aisle you sit on.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by gometros
You are describing socialism, not democracy. If that's what you really believe, you're living in the wrong country. It is not goverment's responsiblitiy to even the playing field. The thing that makes humans the most intelligent animnal is that we have the ability and intelligence to detemine our own fate.

I don't really agree with this either. Some people end up in situations that are beyond their control. Orphaned children, sick people without adequate health insurance, battered women, I could go on.

I believe that we control our own destiny to a certain extent, but some of us have an easier time of it than others.

 

[treesinger]

Originally posted by emmagata
You probably haven't been listening lately or long enough. He's pretty consistent on where he disagrees with the Republican party.

While Hannity is a quite the Bush supporter, he has also taken them to task on occasion. Not much though.

Rush, on the other hand, almost had to go out of his way to say nice things about Bush until the GWOT. He had to continually defend himself AGAINST HIS OWN LISTENERS who attacked him for repeatdly beating on the Pres. and his policies. Whoever says Rush doesn't treat Bush fairly hasn't tuned in enough the last four years to make an accurate claim. Same for O'Reilly. Style aside, he definitely promotes HIS agenda and he won't let Bush, Kerry, or anyone else stand in his way.

 

[gometros]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
I don't really agree with this either. Some people end up in situations that are beyond their control. Orphaned children, sick people without adequate health insurance, battered women, I could go on.

I believe that we control our own destiny to a certain extent, but some of us have an easier time of it than others.

I can agree there. I just didn't think that was the gist of the original poster's intent.

 

[treesinger]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
I don't really agree with this either. Some people end up in situations that are beyond their control. Orphaned children, sick people without adequate health insurance, battered women, I could go on.

I believe that we control our own destiny to a certain extent, but some of us have an easier time of it than others.

ITA, that's why it is a GOOD thing that gov't offers some form of help. But the gov't offers so much help at times, that they end up offerring a LIFESTYLE. Some people descend into the lfiestyle and don't want to come out. They are the leeches. They are the ones that bleed the system and the people's respect of the system.