Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Monday, March 26, 2012 | 2:02 a.m.
Dear Reader,
Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas and Republican presidential candidate, is launching a radio show next month that is being positioned to challenge Rush Limbaugh, the king of talk radio.
Given that Limbaugh’s well-established program airs on some 600 stations and Huckabee’s will open on 140, that is a long shot. However, what’s interesting is how Huckabee and his backers think he can compete with Limbaugh.
The Wall Street Journal reported that “The Huckabee Show” is being sold as a low-key alternative to Limbaugh, noting the controversy that has swirled around Limbaugh since his verbal attack on a female law school student. The Cumulus Media Networks, which is syndicating Huckabee’s show, uses the slogan “more conversation, less confrontation.” And in an interview with the Journal, Huckabee drew the comparison this way:
“I’m not a person who would call anyone by names that would cause my late mother to come out of her grave and slap me to the floor.”
Is Huckabee on to something? Do people want more conversation and less confrontation or a more polite discussion about the issues?
Huckabee may be hard-pressed to make that work on talk radio, where brash acts thrive on more confrontation, not conversation. But what about in politics or civic affairs?
There is plenty of terrible behavior in public view. We regularly hear complaints about the tenor of politics, campaigns, public debate, the Internet, comments, etc. We’ve heard from people who say they want no part of it, and who could blame them?
It seems that many of us are talking (or yelling) past one another, mimicking what we see and hear from many public officials and media personalities. And the anonymity of the Internet gives people the ability to use language they’d never use in person. That can’t be good for the type of serious public debate the country needs to move forward, can it?
It seems Congress can’t have a debate about the budget or deficit without a verbal brawl that devolves into personal attacks and mud-slinging. And many of the arguments come down to something we would have hoped to have left behind in third grade: “He did it first! He’s worse!”
It would be naive to think this type of behavior would stop any time soon, especially considering that harsh campaigns have been part of American politics for generations. If there’s any novelty, it’s the extent and speed that such rhetoric spreads given the use of the Internet and the fact that a 140-character message carries great influence today.
However, it’s tough to discuss the complexities of the federal budget in tweets and sound bites, but that seems of little matter. It’s what works. The negative tone also seems to work. For example, people routinely say they hate the slash-and-burn tactics of negative campaigns and loathe attack ads, yet they tend to work quite well.
Huckabee appears to be trying to cut a different path. He seems to be able to engage in discussion and disagree, and do so strongly, without being disagreeable or getting into petty games of name-calling. But will that work? We’ll see how he does and whether he is a trail blazer or just a lone wolf.
What do you think? Is the tenor of the debate a problem to you? Do you think it’s a problem for the country?
We’ll look forward to hearing what you think. You can comment below or send your thoughts in a letter — 250 words or less is preferred — with your name, address and phone number if you want us to consider printing your letter. Anonymous letters will not be published. E-mail: letters@lasvegassun.com and put "debate" in the subject. Thanks!
Best,
Matt
Matt Hufman is assistant managing editor/opinion.
To: Matt Hufman; Yes, civility is of course, always an option. However, in political discussions, civility is just going to be shoved aside at some level or point. I think it is natural. I believe, it can even be healthy. People need to voice their support and/or frustrations no matter what side of the political spectrum their loyalties may be positioned at. In the Las Vegas Sun discussion forums, debates do get heated, and to the point where the room moderator has no choice but to remove some comments. I, myself, have been in that category on more than a few occasions. However, with those commentators that I do frequently engage in these fiery debates, I actually like who they are, realizing that we are two completely different people with totally different opinions and experiences from our pasts. I do respect that about them, although you would never know it from some of the words and sentences I have used towards them. In other political discussions in this forum, some debates are even hilarious, but informative, as well. Screen names "GogoWhiteSox", "Dipstick", and "FoSimmons" are classic examples of these type of debates. I greatly enjoy and get a lot of laughs at the way they banter back and forth. Construe this as political entertainment, if you so choose.
I've found that many commentators, even on Yahoo, where the most seemingly radical individuals post, that on serious issues, we can all be in agreement. I would have never said this until yesterday. On Yahoo, I'm sure almost everyone knows that when you post a comment, others can give you a rating on your post by either clicking a thumbs up, or a thumbs down.
I posted the following comment on Yahoo regarding the shooting death of Trayvon Martin:
"While I fully understand the national outrage over the death of Trayvon Martin, and the protests that are arising from law enforcements failure to arrest Mr. Zimmerman, I would hope that each of you will consider prior to joining these protests, to consider what exactly Dr. Martin Luther King would do in this situation. To conduct yourselves in the path of Dr. King, you cannot go wrong, and justice will at some point prevail."
The results to this post, to me, were shocking. I had this huge number of thumbs up, and not one single thumbs down. This proved to me, that when something this tragic has occurred, we are, as Americans, on the very same page.
So, yes Matt, there is civility in America today. In a sense, I do not look forward to this civility surfacing in discussion rooms and debates. For, this surely means something very tragic has taken place.
Bradley D. Chapline
Dear Matt,
Mike the Governor is a real quality gentleman. His new show will be a success I predict.And without cutting into the brashness of Limbaugh's voice.
Limbaugh's time and turf are numbered. Huckabee's intent is to provide an option to Limbaugh's present and future viewers. It's a smart and savvy move. Gradually advertisers will drop Limbaugh and support Huckabee. As will viewers. Big mouth pieces like Limbaugh, despite their prescient insights, do themselves in by their own self-serving means.
Carmine A. DiFazio
To Matt Hufman: We have lost sight of our goal in this country. While our purpose should be solving a problem, it has degenerated into the goal of winning the debate. In order to win the debate, truth is stretched or completely ignored. Opponents motivations, patriotism, religious affiliation etc. are questioned, and we end up with two sides screaming at each other while their trousers are aflame. The result is a hardening of positions that leave little room for compromise or bipartisanship.
"Huckabee appears to be trying to cut a different path. He seems to be able to engage in discussion and disagree, and do so strongly, without being disagreeable or getting into petty games of name-calling. But will that work? We'll see how he does and whether he is a trail blazer or just a lone wolf."
I don't think he will be a trail blazer in this regard. If you ask me, anyone could host a right wing radio talk show.
Just because Mr. Huckabee plays himself off as the voice of reason and tries to legitimize the far right wing position doesn't mean it will be popular.
I don't watch his show, but I don't think he can transfer this enthusiasm to a radio show.
From what I have seen of his television show, it relies heavily upon audiences. It's going to be a lot different when he says something, expects applause, and all he has is a quiet sound studio. I don't think he can handle it. Because he's first and foremost a politician. And he seems to thrive on adoration from the people. Kind of hard to get that on radio.
Plus the fact that his musical abilities will have a hard time making an appearance on radio. That side will be gone. Kind of hard to play bass with Lynyrd Skynyrd on radio and be appreciated. It don't transfer.
But I guess his radio show will thrive, but only if he comes up with some new shtick or a hook or something.
"What do you think?"
What I really think is it's all timing. I guess the powers that be in the right wing radio network system see an opening after Mr. Limbaugh's debacle. And they think this "voice of reason" thing will work. Perhaps even unseat Mr. Limbaugh's over abundant backside from a chair in front of a microphone.
"Is the tenor of the debate a problem to you?"
Not to me. I don't listen to it.
And I really doubt Mr. Limbaugh has twenty million listeners. I don't think it's even close to that number. It's highly suspect because there has been no actual way of gauging listeners on the radio. That number sprouts from the producers of that show, and the radio network that airs it.
"Do you think it's a problem for the country?"
No. Not regarding Mr. Huckabee. Unless he crosses to the dark side.
It is a problem for Mr. Limbaugh though. Because he can't seem to shut up and turn off the blatant hate. Especially when it regards people who have different equipment between their legs than he has. He seems to have a viral hatred for women, and he portrays it on his show for all to behold all the time. This is leading to advertisers leaving in droves. He's sinking his own boat.
I make a prediction: I can see right wing hate radio disappearing. Slowly though. I say they don't have the loyal followings they say they have. I see more made up stuff propping them up than I see things promoting them to stay in business.
Can Huckabee admit when he is wrong and apologize?
In other words, can he learn?
I always get a kick out of the "civility" question and then both sides spew remarks that drive civility into the ground like a yard dart.
Jim Weber, I think your comment is one of the best I have ever read on this forum.
Mark, to answer your question.....when you finally admit that global warming is a scam
Huckabee will need red meat, and lots of it, to compete in the right-wing media universe. Far right conservatives tune in to hear the very latest in GOP propaganda, not sugar coated kumbaya conversations between rational, thinking individuals.
For his regular listeners, Limbauh's brand of in-your-face hate radio is like a drug addiction, much the same as Rush's own Oxycontin addiction that he kept hidden from the public for five years until getting busted and entering rehab.
Unsurprisingly for a world class hypocrite, and even during his five years of drug dependency, the four-time divorced blowhard is always first in line to demean, slander and belittle those who don't measure up to his idea of a 'real' American, especially left-leaning 'feminazis' and those filthy, hippie drug addicts.
Rush is the main locomotive in today's off-the-rails GOP train wreck. He sets their hateful course and they follow closely behind.
Will Mr. Huckabee's radio show make it? Chances are no.
A very large portion of the American Public wants drama. They are not interested in Facts or real solutions to the problems of our country today. They want the dirt on candidates running for office or anything negative from a persons past.
Most "good" people would not consider running for office in this country today. They are not interested in becoming nothing more then a side show for the American public.
People that do good in today's America are considered evil and have motives with the American public. People that would be willing to make the hard decisions that require the American public to become responsible for their own lives and actions can not be elected, that is not what American's want anymore.
With no hard hitting drama people will tune out Mr. Huckabee and call him boring. The money will not be there without the listeners to keep the show running. Just how it is.
It is no longer about reality, it is about who can spin the story to keep the most excitement in it.
No, dipstick, the more speech the better. Your solution seems to be to center on silencing those who disagree with your point of view, narrow as it is. We have seen just how well the liberal point of view goes over on radio in the form of Air America which went belly-up and without a call from Conservatives that it be taken off the air. It failed in the best venues the US has to offer - the venues of public opinion and the market place of ideas. Obviously, the ideas put forth on Air America were unacceptable to thinking American's while shows featuring Limbaugh and others rake in the listeners and the advertisers. So, it's back to the drawing board for you, dipstick. Go suck your thumb as you whine and cry into your little security blankie.
"Huckabee appears to be trying to cut a different path. He seems to be able to engage in discussion and disagree, and do so strongly, without being disagreeable or getting into petty games of name-calling. But will that work? "
Huffman -- I see you mentioned nothing about how in Huckabee's presidential bid his choice for VP was Jesus Christ. This not only shows delusion, it shows how willing he is to change his stripes to stay relevant to the herd.
"People need to voice their support and/or frustrations no matter what side of the political spectrum their loyalties may be positioned at."
BChap -- imagine that, free speech. How quickly so many forget enduring the uncivil side of it is the price we pay to have it.
"replacing rushbo with silence would be even a better solution."
dipstick -- amen to that. But Limbaugh has had a show for so long because he has an audience. All those who whine and rant about him -- and by doing so only contribute to his popularity with the masses -- keep forgetting all they have to do is turn him off. I wrote him off as a buffoon long ago and now don't even tune in to any popular media. It's so much more peaceful.
"But perhaps the desire of the thing called fame will torment thee." -- Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, Roman Emperor, 2nd Century A.C.E.
Matt, after making my post to your article at a bit after 3:00AM in the morning, I crawled into bed and woke up about 9:30AM. After getting myself ready for the day, I sat down momentarily to review the comments to this article. I chuckled when I saw the screen names "FoSimmons", "Dipstick" and "LVFacts101" had replied. Of course, as I read through their entries I was laughing at this quick bantering taking place. What a way to start off my day. With a laugh, and big smile on my face. Thanks guys!!! You are all great!!!
@KillerB ....
You said "How quickly so many forget enduring the uncivil side of it is the price we pay to have it."
And then you stated "...amen to that..." in reference to replacing Rush with silence.
It just seems to me that the statements made above are mutually exclusive. I don't understand how one can champion free speech, yet advocate silencing free speech that one does not agree with.
Mr. Hufman, I have a suggestion. At the end of your postings, try putting in a sentence like "please begin your replies with the word 'banana'" or something like that. (or put it deep into the article should folks catch on).
It doesn't appear that people read an entire article before they respond, which i am sure would lead to a better and more intelligent discussion. 99% seem to read a headline, maybe just maybe the first paragraph, then they are off to comment. (understand that it may be hard for Limbaugh supporters and/or opponents to fully read and evaluate something, but worth a shot)
I knew it was only a matter of time before the LVSun would weigh in on this issue and I also knew that they would try and limit the scope of the conversation to Rush Limbaugh and "talk radio" thereby giving the TV liberal sewer spewers a pass.
Of course Mr Hufman thinks he can dismiss all the hate spewed out by the likes of Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, Ed Shultz, Bill Press, Al Sharpton etc by saying we should be above the "third grade:"He did it first! He's worse!" stuff.
Sorry, but this is also about hypocrisy and exploitation, both things we see liberals engage in when stuff like this arises. We saw it when Gabrielle Giffords and others where shot when liberals immediately started blaming Sarah Palin and claiming the shooter was "inspired" by "rightwing talk radio" when he turned out to be some kind of run-of-the-mill nutjob.
Heck, we can even go all the way to JFK's assassination when liberals were claiming the assassin just had to be a racist, rightwing Goldwater Republican when Lee Harvey Oswald turned out to be some kind of Marxist, leftwing malcontent.
We're even starting to see some of this liberal "finger pointing/exploitation" stuff with the Trayvon Martin case with their philosophy of "never let a crisis go to waste".
If the liberals want to start having a serious conversation about this kind of stuff then they need to start doing some soul searching themselves about their words and their repercussions. Lets not forget Al Sharptons hateful words actually led to riots, murder and arson at NY's "Freddies Fashion Mart" and MSNBC gave him a TV show. But, it's hard to have a conversation with people who think they are right all the time.
http://www.jewishpost.com/archives/news/...
Fnord
Incivility in cultural and political discourse is nearing the level of that in academia. It has been noted that academic incivility is robust because so little is at stake. It occurs to me that the cultural and political warriors are fighting over the equivalent of the office with windows.
@boftx - Illuminatus! ;-)
Matt, when it comes to civility of discussion, sometimes posts that are made with the best of intents, can spark outrage when the words of a commentator are not precise to an issue at hand. I now realize, that when I made my initial post on Yahoo concerning the Trayvon Martin incident, I definitely misspoke. A person of my background and experience in "Use of Force" situations should have known better.
Where I wrote, "While I fully understand the national outrage over the death of Trayvon Martin, and the protests that are arising from law enforcement's failure to arrest Mr. Zimmerman, I should have written, "While I fully understand the national outrage over the death of Trayvon Martin, and the protests that are arising from law enforcement's failure to take Mr. Zimmerman into custody", whether the terms of this custody were for his own protection, or pending criminal charges, the police should have acted.
God I love America. We get to blast away at anybody, even the damn President or the damn President that came before or even the cigar guy before that. We can call an idiot an idiot.
The quality of a Rush Limbaugh is never strained. His protracted posturing is protected here. And he damn well knows what butters his bread - his saliva spewing onto the dripping mic and the elevated tone and bashing anyone he chooses to bash.
What's not to love about our freedom of reprehensible abusive indecency, caustic callous name-calling, and boiling barbarous barbs bashing anybody we deem worthy of our verbiage??
And in Rush's case, the barbs are twice blessed - they boil the blood as surely as they bring home the bacon.
The awe and majesty of the arrogance of a Limbaugh befits the king of spit radio as the scepter of his razor tongue slices his tortured enemy to shreds in thin air with thick checks made payable to the Rush!
A kinder and gentler voice will be a flash in the pan compared to the monster of madness whose talent in trashing civility has earned him the throne. Waste your time elsewhere Mikey; you ain't gotta snowball's chance.
God I love America. We get to blast away at anybody, even the damn President or the damn President that came before or even the cigar guy before that. We can call an idiot an idiot.
The quality of a Bill Maher or Mike Malloy is never strained. Their protracted posturing is protected here. And they damn well knows what butters their bread - their saliva spewing onto the dripping mic and the elevated tone and bashing anyone he chooses to bash.
What's not to love about our freedom of reprehensible abusive indecency, caustic callous name-calling, and boiling barbarous barbs bashing anybody we deem worthy of our verbiage??
And in Maher's or Malloy's case, the barbs are twice blessed - they boil the blood as surely as they bring home the bacon.
The awe and majesty of the arrogance of a Maher or Malloy befits the queen of spit radio or late night cable as the scepter of their razor tongues slices their tortured enemy to shreds in thin air with thick checks made payable to the Maher or Malloy !
A kinder and gentler voice will be a flash in the pan compared to the monster of madness whose talent in trashing civility has earned him the throne. Waste your time elsewhere Mikey; you ain't gotta snowball's chance.
Just a note.....I think Obama believes there are one million reasons why Maher's gross comments are different than Rush's gross comments.
Gorsh, I spoke wrong. My bad. My previous post included an awful error...in grammar. The verb 'befits' in the second last paragraph is just plain wrong, and I am sorry. The subject is plural (awe and majesty) so the appropriate verb is befit, not befits.
Please don't shun me or avoid my posts because of my foolish errors in our native tongue. Yes, i should have known better.
But honest to God, i was caught up in the fiery rush to publish my little sentiment before the winds died down and my computer lost power. The tiny prop atop the mast gets the blast that casts my words to the Sun, my pearls before swine in time.
This is a great discussion, and you're exploring a variety of interesting angles. I appreciate it.
My interest, and concern, about the tone of the civic discussion isn't to limit debate, as some people seem to think. It's actually the opposite: I've seen ugliness and name-calling turn people away from participating in discussion. (Not all of them have thin skins. Many just don't see the point of engaging in a "debate" that is more about who can score the most verbal put downs than discussing the issues.)
Of course, civic life isn't dainty, and people have the choice to participate.
BChap made some good comments on the discussion, particularly on the Internet. People with differing views do clash and have robust conversations. And sometimes, those clashes can get very rough. Fair enough.
But to PISCES41's point, has society focused on winning the debate instead of trying to find solutions?
Matt
THE solution exists only in fantasy. A solution can be found, but it will change as the inputs change. Case in point - the foul tongue and virulent attitude of the Rush, the king of spit radio, if you will. No amount of logical discourse could alter his business plan. he will be launching tirades as long as the checks roll in.
Mikey's show will draw a few for a short time, and he'll find other avenues for his folly.
Methinks the folly in even reaching for decency here is self-evident. How often does one read of a concession, of an agreement or a mutual respect for the contribution from someone in 'another camp?'
In other words, Matt, the goal is absolutely a worthy one - to coalesce, to find common ground and hash out a reasonable assessment that includes more than it excludes. Among a respectful and mature audience of citizens trying to benefit the society as a whole, these efforts would yield progress, and endless possibilities are realistic.
What we face here is the accumulation of years of immature maturity. Too many of us hold tight to our assumptions to the exclusions of points of view from others, and as you say, we end up scoring put-downs, and celebrating our DIVERGENT victory at the cost of sharing our CONVERGENT interests. We have placed splinters ahead of splices.
Matt,
Comment posters do not share a common trust and understanding of the issues. Most are advocating a position, therefore, they're not interested in debating as their position is set in stone. It's rare that you see dialogue in an attempt to find a common understanding on a particular issue. Politically speaking, there appears to be two visions of the future. One relies on freedom and self-reliance and the other establishes government dependency with more mandates telling us how to live and think. When you have two very different visions of the future then it's difficult to find common ground. A civil dialogue with the goal of understanding others points of view without personal attacks is a great idea however it's the two distinct visions that will make finding common ground elusive. When we're pushed into a bad situation with ominous repercussions then you'll see enough people fall in line with one vision or the other which will give us that sense of direction we need to start overcoming the backlog of issues that beset us.
There is an ebb and flow to the level of civility in our country.
It is not so bad now as compared to times past.
Remember this thing called, The Civil War. It was not so civil.
Once one US Senator clubbed another US Senator on the Senate floor.
A founding father and former Vice Presidenet shot to death another founding father and architect of the Federal government and Sec. of Treasury who's picture is on the ten dollar bill.
Believe me......today is much milder compared to the past.
One common tactic of exclusion is the straw man, as beautifully demonstrated by Re in his previous post - "One relies on freedom and self-reliance and the other establishes government dependency with more mandates telling us how to live and think." equates to one group is for freedom and self-reliance and the other is for government dependence. Gee Re, is this the way it is??
Of course not. Nobody is asking government to step into our lives and dictate thought. Depicting the dialogue as a 'black and white' simplistic picture washes away the grey in order to dissolve the dynamics of discussion.
I seriously doubt that Mr. Freeman would like to be identified as intellectually dishonest, but his words appear to sublimate the facts, and this tactic assumes conclusions that seem, even on the face, to be concocted in order to be conquered, NO?
Matt -
Few are looking for real solutions; most folks here (and elsewhere) seem to think complex issues are but a game to be won and that any opponent must be ridiculed into submission or simply shouted down. Logic, common sense, and/or critical thinking be damned.
Exploration of common ground is neither here nor there; it's been thoroughly eroded away by the acid rains of hate, bigotry, political dogma, and outright ignorance.
As Sgt. Rock pointed out, things have been worse. I thought about the nation's history before I wrote this piece, including the beating Rep. Preston Brooks administered to Sen. Charles Sumner in 1856 on the floor of the Senate.
However, in the ebb and flow of things, there have also been better times as well. There was a time when people sat for hours listening to speeches and watching politicians debate (Lincoln-Douglas, for example). There have also been great examples of politicians from vastly different viewpoints finding ways to work together (e.g. Ronald Reagan-Tip O'Neill).
I'd agree with Test_Guy's assessment in that it seems there is too much of a focus on who wins and loses than in finding solutions.
Also, out of curiousity, I went back to the Senate's history office to look up the Rep. Preston Brooks beating of Sen. Charles Sumner.
Here's a summary of what the Senate historian reports (you can find it at http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/hist...
Three days before the beating, Sumner went after two colleagues in a speech -- Stephen Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina -- in the debate over whether to admit Kansas as a free state or a slave state.(Brooks took offense because he was related to Sumner.)
Sumner called Douglas, who was in the chamber, a "noise-some, squat, and nameless animal . . . not a proper model for an American senator."
Sumner attacked Butler, who was not present, and his stance as a "man of chivalry." He accused Butler of taking "a mistress . . . who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight--I mean, the harlot, Slavery."
I can only imagine what would happen today if a senator did something similar. (Other than the C-Span clips going viral.)
It is true that many people tend to mimic what they see and hear in the media, but the converse is also true. I have little doubt that many politicians and media personalities are simply playing to the crowds and trying to come across as a "regular guy" by engaging in what is perceived to be regular behavior, good manners and argument be damned.
Given the current level of polarization I don't think Huckabee will enjoy a large measure of success. Al Franken tried that, and look what happened. (Yes, Franken is tame compared to most of the talking heads on MSNBC.)
To airweare, I must disagree that Re was putting up a straw man. One of the major components of topics being "debated" today is the proper role of government. That is as legitimate an item today just as it was over 200 years ago (i.e. the Federalist Papers.)
Unfortunately, it seems that most people would rather regurgitate dogma from either extreme instead of looking at each proposed action independently and argue the merits on a case by case basis.
Lamy,
You're not a long time poster here on the political issues. School funding yes but politics you're not a regular. The comments of liberals combined with viewing the Facebook comments of the Occupiers will easily give many the same conclusion. There is a line where individual decision-making ends and government decision-making begins. Where does government decision-making end for liberals? Answer: We don't know. In San Francisco, liberals tried to ban circumcision and it failed last year. This year, the democratic enacted Obamacare one-decision-fits-all tried to force a religious institution to partially pay for products it is morally against. A principal at a school recently banned hugging at an elementary school. California bans McDonalds happy meals with toys. Where does the government intrusion end? Meanwhile, the Occupy group, which consists of radical teachers/students, socialists, anarchists and unionized workers, has an amazing list of debts they want government to wipe off the books such as student loans. I wonder how those students who spent years paying off their student loans would feel about that?
Back in the 1970s, 60 Minutes had the segment 'Point/Counterpoint' which was a civil discussion from the left and right. Saturday Night Live did a beautiful spoof of that. Sadly, most people emulate the latter. It is a maxim of debate that when you can't win on the facts you try to belittle your opponent. To wit: "Jane you ignorant...."
Or the earlier comment about Coolican. The commenter disagrees with him so Coolican should write about food. The same comment contains this: "Nowhere do liberals bemoan the fact they do NOT have one successful liberal hate spewer." So liberals are not upset that there is no successful liberal hate spewer? Sounds like all the successful hate spewers are on the right.
There was a comment from the Staff to the commenters the other day to stop the name-calling. The guy who appears to do the most name-calling is the same guy who claims it's the other side that does all the name-calling. Apparently the playground has moved online.
If there was a penalty for lying, say an immediate prostate biopsy for the gents, the discourse would become civil in the blink of an eye. Instead, when politicians lie well enough, we (re)elect them.
Civility only happens when it is personal.
The Cheney family is likely quite friendly and appreciative of any liberal doctors and nurses who helped get him a new(ish) heart.
The odds of them treating the same liberals with the same respect and affection publicly before his heart transplant surgery is slim.
David Horowitz (The Right wing Flame Thrower) had a liberal daughter who died who informs him to this day. He sees his daughter through their eyes. When you hear him talk of his daughter he is human. Read it here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...
There is only one poster here I consider civil that I disagree with often, and that is botfx. He's a good family guy, a nice and warm human being and if I may sit down at some point and break bread with him.
90% of my friends are republicans, and we have extreme heated arguments that are quite civil -- no 4 letter words, no hanging up or walking out. They just slowly realize I only argue what I know, and what I know I know well. These are the type of people who, unlike the right wing folks here that when you show them, for instance the letter from PNAC to President Clinton are at least disturbed about our Iraqi adventures. Most of them have agreed unilaterally that we were sold a bill of goods that led to the killing of, according to George W. Bush himself in 2006 over 30,000 Iraqi's. Here is that Letter to President Clinton: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqcl...
Most people will agree that a country that has no reason being invaded has good reason to HATE America, and by extension, Americans.
The right wingers here cannot grasp these realities in any way, shape, or form.
I really appreciate the Columnist/staff member joining the conversation.
Once it is personal, it can get fixed, over the air, or over the net, rarely, if at all.
Comment removed by moderator. Name Calling
A PS to my post above:
Probably one of the most popular radio shows ever aired was that of Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, whose cause is now before the Vatican for sainthood. Bishop Sheen later turned to TV and had an award winning show called "Life is Worth Living." For his time, the topics were controversial and sometimes poltical. But always done in the spirit of civility and grace.
Sceptics here may say then was then and now is now. But, people are people regardless of the times. And if it worked then it can very well work now.
Carmine A. DiFazio
I like to think I can engage in a spirited debate while remaining civil. A few years ago, I debated a conservative about a very emotional topic: abortion.
We were both able to come away from the discussion as friends and he said it was the first time anyone had ever made him question his stance.
I respected him, and his opinion. We are all entitled to one, hence my username. My opinion is no more important than yours and yours no more important than mine.
The minute I see people throwing out phrases like "libs always.." or "replublitards" I just tune them out. Name calling and pigeon-holing have no place in an intelligent conversation.
The scariest thing about this topic, is that probably every person who refuses to even attempt to use a brain cell to think about their own position, let alone a different one, votes.
The motivations for anti-social behavior come out of a cocktail of personal experience, brain chemistry and cultural influence. The ability to check impulsive behaviors (like insults, repetition, retribution, bullying and personal attacks) is a mark of maturity, civility and mental health. The unfortunate consequence of political media machines like FOX and Limbaugh (I know of no liberal equivalents) is that they have normalized anti-social behavior in daily discourse, even elevated it. Rude is good; polite is bad; mean is fun; opponents are evil.
Matt asks if we are more focused on winning debates than finding solutions, but I don't think we're focused on either. Winning a debate presents the same undesirable outcome as finding a solution -- it ends the conflict. A constituency raised on red meat would starve or die of boredom. Perpetual battles create fear and anger which are motivating (and exciting) emotions. Fear and anger make people vulnerable and distractible, and produce irrational behavior. Chronic fear and anger affect brain chemistry, hence personality, in measurable and obvious ways, such as abandonment of social courtesies.
Incivility won't disappear any time soon because it is the strategy and legacy of one of our major political parties and its media outlets. As we can see by the predictable comments, for some impulse control is neither possible nor desirable. They are focused on displaying irrepressible anger.
Matt....
Mike thinks that he can patch up the damage that
rush has done to the republican party.
It's not going to work.
The damage is done.
Bush and Cheney destroyed the republican party
and rush used a pile-driver to finish it off.
Rush is just in it for more cash.
President Obama is the winner in all of this.
Thank God.
Can RefNV point to any time in human history that self-reliance existed? No use of metalurgy, tools, or any implements that took group action to make are allowed for such examples because, obviously, such use makes a mockery of claims of self reliance. While we are at it include food and water which are result of many people's efforts over the course (think of the generational efforts to make 'modern' grain) of literally hundreds of years. Can someone define freedom while they are at it? All actions are constrained by either physical limits or limits imposed to constrain harm to self or others. Less law doesn't equate to more 'freedom' but something closer to anarchy. So I find the arguments of conservatives regarding 'freedom' and 'self reliance' at best banal and often meaningless.
mschaffer,
You know damn well that RefNV is talking about minimal government. Unlike you, I say that there can be no liberty without personal responsibility.
You, of all the people who post here, are possibly the strongest proponent of the "nanny state". I am the complete opposite of you.
The company I work for cut my pay (and that of all the other employees) in half at the start of this year in an effort to stay in business. (Market conditions for us have changed over the last five years. The owners have already been taking only $1/yr for the last 2 years. At least they can afford it since they have literally made tens of millions from the software I have written for them since the late 90s.)
I can easily qualify for some assistance programs at this point, but I have not applied for any of them. Instead, I have looked around and found another company that my vision and skill can help and I expect to be making the same, if not more than I was before in a few months. (This time I have negotiated for a percentage of the monthly income and not just a flat rate.)
In other words, I help create success for the people who help me. That may not be self-reliance as you see it, but I know that I am making my own success and am also enabling others to succeed as well.
Can you say the same?
mschaffer,
boftx responded with the correct context of my point.
Thanks Jim.
JefffromVegas,
Thank you for the kind words (though some members of my family would disagree with you.) You, along with many others who post here, would be welcomed at the table. (My wife is a proud socialist.)
You're more than welcome, RefNV.
I could literally write a book on what I call "enlightened self-interest" to refute what Mark said. (To airweare, Mark's post was a real "straw man" argument.)
But to bring this more on point with regard to Matt's topic, I submit that Mark's post was an example of using rhetorical tactics in an attempt to "score points" rather than an attempt to engage in honest debate. Not that you need any help to defend yourself, but I simply couldn't remain silent when I read it.
I disagree with you in other areas, but I know we agree in principle on this.
Again, in deference to Matt's topic, when people acknowledge their differences but agree to seek common ground progress can be made. A recent example of this is how Barney Frank and Ron Paul joined forces to call for an end to our involvement in Afghanistan.
Hasn't Mark complained in the past about the straw men that others have placed on this forum, yet he so blatantly threw out this one?
Reductio ad absurdum, Mark, reductio ad absurdum.
boftx,
It is quite the confused mishmash you have posted here. Without the efforts of thousands all your efforts would mean nothing and couldn't even be done ,especially in the software business which mainly exists because of government research. If this new company didn't exist, with all those interdependent people, where would you be?
Self reliance is a mythology and you should live in the real world rather than the your fairy tale of enlightened self interest.
Mark has something here. We are all quite dependent upon the contributions of others to make even this simple discussion appear before us - the guy fracking away to nab some methane, the pipeline superintendent running the line to the power plant, the accountant from the power company counting our beans, the Chinese girl manufacturing my keyboard, the MCDonalds cook making lunch for boftx's boss,etc.. And we are standing on the heads of giants like Al Gore building the internet for us (knew that would getcha), Galileo for standing up for the Sun, Socrates for wondering WTF, Euclid for insisting that proof means proof, I could go on, but the veracity of Schaffer is difficult to dispute, and all you idiots know he's right.
Interdependence is how we eat, drive, work and play; get over yourselves. Freedom is dependent on the 7th Fleet, bad dudes with guns and bombs and nukes and the well-spring of civility in the human heart. I could go on but why. Nobody gives a hoot about anything I say because as Re points out, I have only dealt with building houses, developing property, pioneering in methane digester proliferation in third world countries, developing malls, Energy Engineering, Literature, Film, Instructional Media and of all completely ridiculous ventures - music is her name.
Jim the Joker:
I realize which posts will be removed. I also know they are there long enough for you to see them often, and if they get yanked before you see them, all the better. They (my posts) are never immoral, they are never untrue, the truth sometimes is not allowed here (when you pin someone's name to it). They are often very funny, and I can live with being occasionally deleted.
It is ironic, that the left (The Sun and its online moderator) do a much classier job than the right does in policing the comments. I mean they let crazy people (extreme Right Wingers) post here!
I think your brand of politics should be tossed off of all online boards and should be relegated to the fringes of political speech, where it belongs.
Mark, Jeff and Joe....You guys rock,
While these extreme right-wing nuts grasp at
straws.
They've got nothing and they know it.
These delusional republicans still think that
they can fool Americans.
Not this time.
We Democrats will take back the House, keep the
Senate and KEEP THE WHITE HOUSE!
DEMOCRATS FOREVER!
Civility is the antithesis of pigeon-holing.
When I read the posts of those whose drive appears to WIN a discussion, the common element is belittling a person with different views primarily by attempting to isolate them, to reduce the value of their input by implying a limited view of things so broad and deep that the opponent has absolutely no way of seeing the BIG picture.
This practice reveals the problem over and over in developing a cogent and constructively beneficial dialogue here for us to actually take in that elusive BIG picture. It reminds me of the scene in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz where the geezer was found with his projector, hoodwinking as it were.
Civility requires an open mind; pigeon-holing eliminates the shades of grey in the old Black and White picture along with the actual BIG picture in the grey matter - where it does matter.
That's one reason our Constitution seemed such a radical thing, back in the day, especially that dang First Amendment - the celebration of voice, of shades and of express respect for individualism which tyrants abhor.