Open Thread


For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: improving the level of political discourse between liberals and conservatives.

Does the bickering between left and right leaning members in our message boards and forums bother you? Do you yearn for a more civil discourse where liberals and conservatives debated issues without the seemingly requisite venomous attacks? Or, is that part of the entertainment at a political website?

Can there actually be a forum for people on both sides of the aisle to engage with one another politely and respectfully whilst exchanging ideas about current events and the state of the nation? Or is this just a pipe dream for those tired of the caustic level of political discourse in this country?

Your thoughts, hopefully civil, are appreciated.

Read comments

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Leave LIberals ALONE!!!

I say leave liberals alone to spout their nonsense. It is educational to watch them post their tantrums.

I am often amused by the

I am often amused by the concept of such statements "improving the level of political discourse between liberals and conservatives."

I do not wish to "Improve my level of discourse with the liberals". 

I seek to defeat liberalism as an ideology since I find it dangerous.

All of this "Seeking moderation and improving the climate of discourse" is crap.

O'Reilly column

Bill O'Reilly has some relevant words about a closely related subject.

D

Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.

The Real John McCain

Betrayal, deceit, corruption and John McCain (The U.S. Veteran Dispatch)

Abortion:

John McCain Supports Embryonic Stem Cell Research (Audio)
McCain Softens Abortion Stand (The Washington Post)

"But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." - John McCain

Fiscal Record:

McCain Boasts That He Voted Against The Bush Tax Cuts (Video)
McCain Would Vote Against Tax Cuts Again (The Club for Growth)

- He sponsored and voted for an enormous 282% tax increase on cigarettes in 1998
- He was one of only two Republican senators to oppose the 2001 tax cuts
- He was one of only three Republican senators to oppose the 2003 reductions
- He supported an amendment sponsored by Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) against full repeal of the Death Tax
- He voted against repealing the Death Tax in 2002

Foreign Policy:

McCain to Close Club Gitmo: "The first day I am President" (Video)

Global Warming:

McCain and Lieberman Push for New Anti-Global Warming Legislation (The National Center for Public Policy Research)
Senators McCain and Lieberman Propose Energy Tax (The National Center for Public Policy Research)

Illegal Immigration:

John McCain gets a 'D' on his Immigration Voting Report Card (Americans for Better Immigration)
John McCain Praises Pro-illegal Protests (NewsMax)

Huckabee: Raising Taxes OK
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

I believe political ideas

I believe political ideas and philosophy can be debated civilly. It's everything else where the trouble starts - the politicians, their motivations, the political process, etc. However, nothing can be debated honestly as long as one side's ideas are not represented fairly in the media.

It is tiresome...

...When talking points, apocrypha, junk, and discredited and/or unsupported positions are trotted out as undeniable fact. It's not the opinion, it's the veracity thereof.

People posting here who graduated from the school of "My Dad Always Said, High School", and then did advanced studies at "Some Guy Down at the Bar Said, University", clutter up good argument and valid exchanges of opinion. Perhaps a rating system?

Standards, including citations from valid sources, refusal to allow demeaning language (Chimpy McWhatever-the-latest-is) and repudiation of other shallow, tasteless, useless maneuvers should be encouraged and offending posters put on notice.

I hear already the untutored whining about "Free Speech". That really doesn't apply here. You do have the right to speak freely... outside. When you are in someone else's house, you don't.  You will behave according to the rules of the host, or be ejected.

Don't like the rules of the house? Don't go there.

Way too funny

The Co Anchor of America's Newsroom just used the "F" word after making a bet with her partner Bill Hemmer.

I hit the record button on my DVR and replayed it several times to verify.

Some sheepish moments there. 

I ♣ My Seal

Fudge? :)

Fudge? :)

Not quite Fudge but dirty

It's very clear.  Megan Kelly used the "F" word.

If you're near a TV, check her out.  I'd swear she's lit up today. 

I ♣ My Seal

As in the tire changing

As in the tire changing scene from "A Christmas Story".

Nope

I gotta say, I don't believe actual civil discourse on a website between the Left and the Right is even remotely possible. I live in DC, and as a result I have a lot of lefty friends. Whenever political discussion comes up, it ultimately spirals down to friendly insults and completely irrelevant observations about nothing. They HAVE to do this - the facts are simply not on their side. About anything, really. It is in their best interest to obfuscate, to muddy the waters, what have you. This is the source of all "flame" wars and general incivility. Civil discourse, all the way to someone admitting, "gee you're right, I never thought about it that way or knew this", does not ever happen. Look at what they do and say to Coulter, for crying out loud - she brings facts, figures and well thought out arguments to the table, and the answer from the Left is to wish her dead. When you can't argue a point on the merits, you have no other recourse. And I wish it weren't so.

We'll have more comity in

We'll have more comity in our political discourse in this country when the Dems shake off the control of the far left, which is dedicated to the destruction of American society in order to institute(mandate, if you will) a totalitarian socialist society here in the US. It is entirely appropriate for those of us who wish to maintain the American way of life to resist this effort with every fiber of our beings.

More Ron Paul Lunacy Revealed

Did you know your fiat money has chemical taggants that allow the feds to track you?

Did you know an American destroyer shouldn't worry about a speedboat?

Did you know that Dr. Ron Paul is bat-poop crazy?

Meet the real friends of Dr. Ron Paul.

Tinian

That chemical taggants link tried to grab my computer and wouldn't let it go until I did a cold boot.

I don't know what site that is, but it didn't do anything but try to hijack me

I ♣ My Seal

Hijack is such an ugly word.

Hijack is such an ugly word. Think "strong-but gentle, warm embrace".

Hey Roger! Did you read

Hey Roger! Did you read about the twins gettin married? To each other????   http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article677584.ece

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Holy crap, that was a great

Holy crap, that was a great story, Bass!

 

It's a PDF file. Opens in a

It's a PDF file. Opens in a new window in Firefox fine for me.

Yeah, Ron P destroyed

Yeah, Ron P destroyed himself in the debate last night.

I would LOVE to hear someone ask him "Congressman Paul, what nations do you feel are key to the US's security and are thus worthy of being called defenable allies????"

If I remember from last

If I remember from last night they must be democracies with no human right violations, which in the strictest terms eliminates us too.  I really could not fathom any nation allying with us.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Actually, if Paul is to fit

Actually, if Paul is to fit the total Libertarian/isolationist/non-interventionist mold - he must admit that there are NO nations with which he would ally us with.

Most Libertarians/non-interventionists even say our participation in the european theater in WWII was a mistake.

Yep, they are loons....

There is no Debate...that's the problem

People are Screaming at their TV's, because when Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermaniac have a Discussion amongst themseleves, there is no Debate, there is no dissenting Opinion, there is no Other side.

Enter Fox news, with Balance and Debate among opposing Views, and you stop Screaming at the TV .... you see both Opinions, and your side has to be Represented one way or the other, or maybe the Middle of Both.

Exit MSM, Some people refuse to watch it, as it is Bad for their blood pressure.   IF you don't want the other sides opinion, and you agree with the Alphabet networks, you watch the MSM.  But Fox does have your favorite people on their show sometimes, and you can watch Fox without Screaming at your TV.

The Fox approach will replace the MSM, as the Ratings Fall on the MSM side, and as Matthews and Friends Finally achieves ZERO audience, miserable ratings, and Declining AD revenues.

To break it down from my perspective...

The bickering is frustrating, and quite frankly, it's getting old. I've left a blog because I was the only reliable supporter of the war, and the personal attacks were getting old. I was a 'pro-Bush counterbalance' to inarticulate, uninformed bloggers who 'won' arguments because they didn't have jobs and could spend all day plagiarizing text from the DU. They were incapable of agreeing with anything I said because I was 'pro-Bush'.

When I left, the bloglord requested a one day moratorium on political posts to clear the air. This prompted cries of 'censorship' and 'fascism' (I'm not kidding!) and resulted in essentially the collapse of what could have been a pretty good blog.

That's part of the reason I won't allow comments on my blog.

I think there's hope, though. I mean, c'mon. Even if grabbing the popcorn and watching the carnage is what you're into, aren't you getting sick of:

- Right makes good point.

- Left cites specious, disproven talking-point to refute point.

- (Repeat)

- Right grows frustrated at changing of subject and declares victory.

- Left calls right a fascist.

- Bloglord deletes personal attack comment.

- Left complains of violation of First Amendment rights.

- Bloglord bans Left.

- Left comes back as sock puppet.

- Bloglord bans Left's IP.

- Bloglord writes long diatribe explaining decision to delete comment, decision to ban, and requesting that everyone cool down a bit.

I'm tired of it. Maybe if more people are too, things won't get so nasty.

Reality Check

You must lead a dull life.

You must lead a dull life. That or have no sense of adventure:-)  

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

I'm not going to argue that

I'm not going to argue that your paradigm doesn't exist, but there's also this one:

Right makes outlandish, sweeping generalization about left.

Left refutes that claim, asks for proof.

Right either cites a couple of examples or says Left is being a troll.

Left says that's hardly proof of overall characteristics of left.

Right calls Left a troll.

Left asks for clarification

Right "laughs" and says Left is floundering, "how typical."

 

I enjoy good back and forth with 99% of the people on this site. It sometimes gets ridiculous, but it's a worthy exercise for the most part.

Hehe, floundering. Yeah, I

Hehe, floundering. Yeah, I think we all know who that is.

My frustration with arguing here, and I imagine the core group of liberal posters would agree, is not the conservative ideology (obviously we know what we're getting into when we come on to debate) but the astonishing number of posts that begin with "Liberals always..." or some variation thereof.

Not to toot our collective horn, but I would say that the conservative paradigm cited above almost never actually happens here.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Typical. Liberals always

Typical. Liberals always say conservatives like to start their posts with "Liberals always..."

*****

"There are no stupid questions. Only stupid people who ask questions." - Chris Berman 

Liberals always

Hey now, I really appreciate that rejoinder. LOL

Balboa, JasonC....  Did

Balboa, JasonC....

 Did you two not grab the irony of your posts?  Both of you complain of the sweeping generalities that you claim are made by "ALL" conservatives on NB......yet, BOTH of YOU had no problem making a sweeping generality about conservatives who you debate on this site. 

Regardless, I am sure both of you have spend enough time on Liberal blogs, DU, Thinkprogress.org, Huffington Post, etc, etc to admit that Liberals make sweeping generalities too and the number of posts on those sites that begin, "All Conservatives....blah, blah, blah...." far surpasses the number of entries on NB that may begin with, "All Liberals....blah, blah, blah". 

Furthermore, let us not forget that 90% of Liberals when faced with being defeated in a debate on any blog, right or left, love to call Conservatives, fascists, Nazis, Hitler like...or some variation thereof.  And 90% of Liberals on ALL Liberal blogs love to insult a Conservative regardless of civil or angry exchange.  Most Liberals only have an open mind for Liberal ideology.  They are completely closed minded when it comes to respecting Conservative ideology. 

and let us not forget the famous, preditable attack, when Liberals are faced with defeat, they not only call you a Nazi, they start attacking your grammar and spelling believing that blogs are thesis papers for a Master Degree or PhD.  Of course, if you point out that their grammar and spelling is less than stellar they make an excuse for themselves which they would never accept from a Conservative.   

The vitrol and hatred that you find from Liberals towards Conservatives that post on Liberals blogs is far greater and displayed by a much greater number of posters than any hatred that you may find from Conservatives towards Liberals.

Also, I find Conservative groups and Conservative individuals who run blogs like NB, RedState, etc, etc to be a lot more fair when calling the attention of someone that is getting out of hand with insults. 

Here at NB and other Conservative sites I have seen moderators scold both sides for getting out of hand with the insults, while in Liberal blogs you find that it is only the Conservatives that are scolded and banned.  I have seen pretty horrific things written at Thinkprogress.org by both sides, but the Conservatives get banned faster and more readily than any Liberal that has said the same horrific thing about a Conservative. 

but of course, this is all in my humble opinion, right?

 

 

Fut, goodness, it's been

Fut, goodness, it's been awhile, how are you?

I'll speak only for myself:

1. The word "all" was not used, in reference either to NB posters or conservatives in general. An "astonishing number" is vague and unspecific and is merely an unempirical observation on my part. Thus, I think you have misused the term "irony" in reference to my post.

2. I do not frequent liberal blogs. I have never posted on one. Most of my news/political opinion is formed by this site, FoxNews, NYT, and books.

3. Your 90% statistic w/r/t liberal counter-arguments is obviously pulled out of thin air, and is far more in line with what you accuse my post of being, ie a "But the other side always does it" accusation.

4. They are completely closed minded when it comes to respecting Conservative ideology. And conservatives are sooo open-minded about liberalism?

5. I personally only point out grammar/spelling errors when it betrays that a poster is attempting to make a point about something they haven't studied. For instance, dramatically misspelling the name of an author whom they are 'citing'. I'm not one to get huffy about misplaced modifiers and comma splices, although I do judge (to myself) the validity of a person's post partially on the basis of their ability to form a cogent sentence and observe standard rules of English.

6. The vitrol and hatred that you find from Liberals towards Conservatives
that post on Liberals blogs is far greater and displayed by a much
greater number of posters than any hatred that you may find from
Conservatives towards Liberals.
Again, you're making a comparative claim with no empirical basis. To reiterate, mine was an observation that many posts on this site beging with "liberals always X", and the general behavior of the core group of liberal posters here (myself, Bal, and Leon). That was the extent of my statement. You, on the other hand, are making generalizations that span the entire political realm of the internet.

7. Also, I find Conservative groups and Conservative individuals who run
blogs like NB, RedState, etc, etc to be a lot more fair when calling
the attention of someone that is getting out of hand with insults.
I don't doubt this, most of the moderators here are great, but again, my experience of liberal blogs is extremely minute.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

JasonC, Well, it

JasonC,

Well, it certainly has been a long time.  Even though I don't post on her nearly as frequent as I use to.  I do try to come into NB everyday and read the forums. 

1)  You are one of the few Liberals that I have ever debated that is fair and knowledegeable and doesn't resort to insults when the debate is not going your way.  You are a rarity amongst Liberals my friend. 

2)  You are right, you never used the word "all", but the words "astonishing number" does imply a majority if not a GREAT AMOUNT of conservatives, right? 

3)  True, my 90% is pulled out of thin air, I don't say 100% because of the few rarities, like yourself, who are Liberals and can actually debate.

4)  I do have to say though, the vitrol and hatred that is found in Liberals blogs spewed out at Conservatives who "dare" post on Liberal blogs is far, far, far, far, I mean FAR greater than any hatred you may find Conservatives throwing at Liberals. 

5)  In a Liberal blog as a Conservative you don't only have defend your point of views, but somehow you end up defeding your family, Christianity, the fact that Nazis were far from being Conservatives (Nazi SOCIALIST Party seems to escape the Liberal/Socialis/Progressive mind), etc, etc, etc. 

6)  Moderators on Liberals blogs are many times the same people that are posting and they are less than cordial to individuals that they disagree with and will allow horrific insults to be used by people they agree with and will ban in a second someone that used the same insult, but they disagree with their ideology. 

7) I use to spend a lot more time posting on blogs and all that good stuff, but it gets tiring and old.

8)  I brought up the close mindness of Liberals when it comes ot Conservative ideology because day in and day out, whether it is in a Liberal blog, Conservative blog, New York Time, Washington Post, ABC, ,NBC, CBS, MNSBC, Foxnews, etc, etc, etc, etc Liberals and the Liberal media love to tell us, more like preach to us how open minded Liberals are, right?  While I agree that most Conservatives are closed minded to Liberal ideolgy, we don't claim to be open minded as Liberals, right?  but the fact is that Liberals are as closed minded if not more so when it comes an ideology they disagree with.  would you not agree?

Anyways, I am off to lunch, I look foward to reading your response this afternoon. 

 

I want to answer just one of your objections, Jason

"4. They are completely closed minded when it comes to respecting Conservative ideology. And conservatives are sooo open-minded about liberalism?"

It doesn't work that way for most conservatives, Jason.  Most conservatives have to travel through liberalism to get to conservatism.  Let me explain.

A good portion of liberalism is based on feelings.  For example, when you stop in a laundromat and see the many and varied illegal hispanics with their young children, the first thing likely to pop up in the minds of a liberal is an emotional thought.  "These poor people struggle so much, what can we do to help them?"  The thought in and of itself isn't so bad, really.  But the solutions that come out of that thought are often times horribly horribly short-sighted.  (such as giving them hospital benefits, schools, and other entitlements)

Maybe what those people should really do is overthrow their government and share oil revenues.  But that will never happen as long as the US is there to take care of these poor people. 

Meanwhile, the entire economic system is strained by the additional people. 

I evolved into a conservative because I kept seeing how ineffective and bureaucratic government is in solving problems.  At the same time, I've seen how businesses faced with similar problems could solve those problems with lower cost and greater efficiency.  In other words, I was already open-minded to liberalism.  I had to think my way into conservatism because the answers aren't easy when you are conservative. 

Therefore, your question is moot. 

See this doesn't fly for

See this doesn't fly for me, because both sides of the aisle engage in emotional manipulation. For every hillarycare supporter who says "think of the children" there is someone opposed to gay marriage, controversial free expression, or abortion rights who invokes the exact same totem of "Children" and futurity to make their point. Or who, like Giuliani, promise that another 9/11 will occur soon and only his election will preclude that from happening.

So, let me rebut that it is not a specific ideology that necessitates emotionalism, but the methodology of spreading/advocating almost any particular ideology; a methodology to which vast numbers of American voters have proven themselves desensitized and susceptible.

You cannot sum up the position of the Left as "raise taxes to subsidize essential services". As a resident of Massachusetts, I am acutely aware that Romney's healthcare reform sucks. My own approach to liberalism is not in the vein of legislating leftist beliefs and policies (universal healthcare, legally-enforced PC speech, et al.) so much as changing the cultural consciousness and circumstances that make these measures appear necessary. I think that this is, in fact, more challenging, worthwhile, and radical.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

JasonC, You see, you just

JasonC, You see, you just made a sweeping generalization about pro-lifers, and even about Hillarycare.

1) I have to say that I agree with Democrats, all children should have health insurance. But I disagree with, EVERYONE should have health insurance.

2) The above being said....it is a FACT that an unborn baby suffers immensely during an abortion. Just because you can't hear him/her, it doesn't mean that there is no suffering. I have never understood Liberals that are against the death penalty because they believe it is cruel and unsual punishment, but they have zero people killing a baby, or supporting the killing of a baby in an unusual and cruel way. Maybe you can explain.

3) Also, don't forget that after 9/11 all experts claimed that before Bush left office for sure we were going to have tons of 9/11 like attacks. OOOOPS! I guess the experts are wrong. Although they do have about 12 months to go, correct?

4) As for Giuliani using 9/11, I have to agree. His whole campaign is based on 9/11. And while it doesn't make it right or justify it, you mean to say that no Liberal politician has used some type of tragedy to propel them into power? c'mon now.

5) "...so much as changing the cultural consciousness and circumstances that make these measures appear necessary..." what do you exactly mean by this? do you want to change society so that it is necessary to have abortions? necessary to force people to accept homosexuality as being ok? Not sure what you mean by this statement.

6) "...contraversial free speech..."? hmmm....isn't Liberals who hide behind free speech mantra to attack Christianity and every Conservative believe and who scream hate speech when a Conservative attacks a Liberal ideology? yeap! So not sure what contraversial free speech you are talking about.   Aren't Liberal pushing for hate speech and hate thought laws?  yeap.  In Canada a minster, priest, etc can go to jail, be fined, etc for speaking inside his church, sinagogue, mosque, etc against homosexuality.  Is this the type of contraversial free speech that you want to defend? 

Fut, apparently we need to

Fut, apparently we need to stop using the word 'generalization' with each other as an epithet, because your post is also full of them. My point, in response to the idea that liberalism is based exclusively on emotion whilst conservatism is based on solid rationalism, is that it is almost irrelevant what the individual ideology promotes; what matters is that all mainstream politicians invoke the same appeal to the figure of the helpless child (and by extension The Future)* who will suffer if anything but their own program is implemented. I'm not trying to argue political stances here, and tempted though I am, I will not get into the abortion thing because you and I have had that battle before; but I will submit that it is the means of implementation (colloquially known as "politicking") not the goals of the ideology that are subject to irrational emotional coercion.

*I assume no credit for this idea or this wording, I just last week finished a fascinating book on the topic.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Nowhere did I say that it

Nowhere did I say that it applied to all conservatives. Like I said, 99% of the people here are fine.

Balboa....you did write

Balboa....you did write the post below, did you not?  Notice how you used the word "Right".  Are you not using sweeping generalizations about the right? 

Let me help you....YES

By using the word Right with nothing before it you are implying that EVERYONE on the Right acts how you claim we act. 

You could have said, "A great number on the Right" or even like JasonC did, "An astonishing number on the Right...."  Still implies a majority, but not all, correct? 

Now at the end you do contradict your whole post by saying, 99% of the people you debate with on NB are fine.....so you have to pick one  or the other. 

c'mon Balboa, you know better than this.

I'm not going to argue that

January 11, 2008 - 10:41 ET by balboa

I'm not going to argue that your paradigm doesn't exist, but there's also this one:

Right makes outlandish, sweeping generalization about left.

Left refutes that claim, asks for proof.

Right either cites a couple of examples or says Left is being a troll.

Left says that's hardly proof of overall characteristics of left.

Right calls Left a troll.

Left asks for clarification

Right "laughs" and says Left is floundering, "how typical."

 

I enjoy good back and forth with 99% of the people on this site. It sometimes gets ridiculous, but it's a worthy exercise for the most part.

You're cartoonishly

You're cartoonishly ridiculous. I should know better...than to have ever replied to you.

Balboa, Thanks for playing,

Balboa, Thanks for playing, you are the perfect example of why it is futile to debate with most Liberals.

Faced with the truth, you turn to using insults a two year old would use.  Thank you for proving my point.  You have no self control which we found out over a year ago.  You should be ashamed of yourself.

You took the easy way out as most Liberals do, then face the truth.  That you DID use a sweeping generalization against those on the Right. 

I won't return the favor and lower myself to your level and insult you Balboa, but do know that you and so many other Liberals like you are the reason why hatred is so afluent in your ideology and party.  (Yeah, yeah, I know you are not a Democrat, so are most Democrat

I mean this whole heartly, I pity individuals like you.  I truly do.  Full of hatred.  Sad, sad.  Just because I pointed out what you refuse to see or admit to, you turn around and insult me?  how truly childish of you.  You are the perfect example of the type of Liberals I was talking about. 

hateful liberals?

"I mean this whole heartly, I pity individuals like you. I truly do. Full of hatred. Sad, sad "

Not sure why Bal got so angry about your post Fut, but I did not see any evidence of hatred. If you do want to generalize, there are just as many hateful conservatives as liberals

Romney time machine

bal: here it is in a

bal: here it is in a nutshell, using Hannity and Colmes as an example.

Colmes: George Bush is doing XXXX which is unconscionable.

Hannity: When President Clinton did it, you said it was fine

Colmes: And your side had a conniption fit when President Clinton did it, but no you think it's fine for Bush.

There you go. That's the long and short of Liberal vs. Conservative debate these days. That's why I quit watching those "Crossfire-type" shows.

Oh I agree with you about

Oh I agree with you about those shows. They're pointless. I was more talking about on this site.

attacks on liberals

I can't speak for all the other liberals on the site, but most times even though there is lots of biting sarcasm to my opinions, most conservative members are respectful. I actually enjoy a spirited debate

I just hate it when the comments get personal. ie? Saying someone is retarded ,Any attacks on someone elses religion, getting called a liar,

Romney time machine

Agreed

They used to say that Michael Jordan was great, not only because of his skills, but because he made people around him better. For me, that’s the barometer of conversation. Does it make me better? Does it make me think? Does it force me to get my facts straight? Does it force me to acknowledge a weakness in my own argument? That’s when the conversation is useful, and for me, fun.

How can you keep it civil? Like any free market, you can’t force it. We’re all human beings. We’re all going to fire off a cheap shot now and again. I doubt there’s any way to prevent that. We need to give humanity a little room to operate. Like the free market of products, you have to allow the free market of ideas. If the idea isn’t strong enough, it’ll fall on its own. And like the free market, the best way to improve the product is not to make demands on the supplier, but to warn the consumer. Let the reader beware!  

Besides, if you demand that the rest of the world be perfect all the time, well, good luck with that.

Just wondering.In New

Just wondering.

In New Hampshire all the polls showed Hillary getting trounced by double digits. However, she then rebounds and wins.

Fast forward to the general election, all the polls show Hillary dominating the republican nominee the day before the vote and we find out the republican squeaks out a win. Does anyone believe that the democrats and the Clintons would just sit back and accept the premise that the polling was inaccurate like they did in NH? Or would the entire democrat party and liberal media be screaming voter fraud?  

Not to worry, Underdog is

Not to worry, Underdog is here! Underdog being Dennis Kucinich who just demanded a recount of the ballots. I doubt it will help as the problem wasn't the counting of the ballots, it was who cast them.

No doubt he's demanding a

No doubt he's demanding a recount because, although he only got eight votes, he swears he met at least 12 people who promised to vote for him in NH. 

*****

"There are no stupid questions. Only stupid people who ask questions." - Chris Berman 

"Do you yearn for a more

"Do you yearn for a more civil discourse where liberals and
conservatives debated issues without the seemingly requisite venomous
attacks'

I appreciate how the question is asked to. It is not phrased are you sick and tired of getting venomous attacks from liberals? :-)

Romney time machine

Shawn, my skin is not that

Shawn, my skin is not that thin. Liberals attack, thats the nature of the beast. I really dont care what they say in personal attacks. I take comfort in the fact that they are frustrated:-)

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

"I take comfort in the fact

"I take comfort in the fact that they are frustrated:-) "

Well, I hope you take comfort in the fact that they are very united and will be very well funded and organized when their nominee is selected, and I hope you can find comfort that many conservatives might stay home or pencil in their own candidate come election time :-)

Romney time machine

comfort

Really, Libs always say that .....

?????????

Huh? Interesting debate style Judith. I guess the foul mouth crass liberals you talk of, are no match for you.

Romney time machine

Any Colbert Fans?

I was watching my first writerless episode of the Colbert Report last night, and I found it very revealing. Colbert usually does a fantastic job of hiding his true Liberal self under the fictional mantle of his Bill O'Reilly/John Gibson character, but without the writers he's a different guy. He was trying to poke fun at the reports from the NH primaries in the NYT, but every joke he told was poking fun of Republicans. You could tell he was really scraping the bottom of the barrel for material, and he seemed to be forcing the jokes most of the time.

I used to think the guy had some talent, but I guess the talents is all with the writers.

I think he and Stewart

I think he and Stewart having been doing awfully well considering they have no help. Imagine doing a daily show without writers? That would be really tough.

I've been watching Colbert

I've been watching Colbert for a long time now, but I had to shut off the show the other night halfway through. It was just too painful to watch.

Not only that, but as

Not only that, but as member of the WGA themselves, I was made to understand that Stewart and Colbert are not permitted to write anything for their shows themselves, either. That's definitely flying without a net, and these guys are only marginal improv talents. (not intended as a criticism - that is a tough thing for anyone to do, and it's not their job usually.)

Unless they can pull talent from "Whose Line is it Anyway?" this is mainly an exercise in proving how valuable writers are. Which, I might add, is probably part of their intent to begin with.  

*****

"There are no stupid questions. Only stupid people who ask questions." - Chris Berman 

writers

Just goes to prove that the yapping heads have nothing to say anyway.

When I think of civil

When I think of civil political discourse, I always remember a story that was told to me buy a Naval Reserve officer I worked with. His day job was being the foreman of the Ford Mustang production line, and he was telling me about the UAW union rep that was responsible for the guys who worked for him. The foreman's office was elevated above the assembly line, and accessed via a cat walk that ran along the line. Everytime the union rep came to call, he would walk down that catwalk screaming obscenities at the top of his lungs. He would be calling the foreman a rotten SOB, a rotten prick, a bloodsucker, and other names, and then say how he was going to kick the foreman's ass over some issue or another. Then, once the union rep got in the office and closed the door, he would shake the foreman's hand, ask about his family, exchange pleasantries, etc., then get down to business. All the screaming, name calling, and threats were just to boost the morale of the folks working on the floor and make them think the union rep was a real tiger... which he wasn't.

I see the same effect coming from a lot of these political dustups we keep hearing about. Lot's of name calling and threats, followed by the same people sitting down in a room and laughing and having an enjoyable meeting, and all the while the masses are watching from a distance and thinking they've really got someone fighting for them.

The SURGE

Will we see this story on the evening news today?  http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080111/D8U3O53G0.html

Not a betting man, but feel it will be overlooked.  Note the way we go about this also-taking into consideration civilians.  We will fully succeed if we can continue the job,  We need strong leadership elected to continue the fight against terror on foreign ground, without letting it get to our own ground.

Clinton touts new right for women

Hillary Clinton, at a campaign stop in Las Vegas, had a man yell to her that his wife was an "illegal."

Her response? "No woman is illegal!"

mb... I read that piece

mb...

I read that piece early this morning...

If this would of been reversed in every situation, the dem party going after illegal immigration and a republican woman running for Prez... saying what Hillary did it would be all over the news, talking heads having the opposition on the networks asking their opinions feigning outrage over this, making sure the candidate was hurt and hurt badly if possible.

It was outrageous what she said...outrageous.

I don't care what gender you are if you here illegally you should be shipped out of here...pronto!

By the way, you can be sure in Nevada Hillary is praying for all the illegals voting for her, I watched a reporter from Nevada taking questions this morning on the Washington Journal about the illegals voting there and how many ect...which she didn't know but there are supposedly a lot...(duh) ...and the people can go in and register one day voting...so you know plenty are going in...I have no idea who they are voting for her or Obama but his illegal BS is sickening...if we want to get rid of some of the illegals there should be some law enforcement of some kind at the polls watching for papers from people, we could get rid of a lot that way IMHO...(I know if they get word the law is going to be there they will not come, but at least it will be a somewhat fair vote for the dem side...for once) 

illegal woman

Just an aside, has anyone noticed that no dem candidate is touting whats good for the country (a she) but only whats good for women, who cant't seem to vote with their heads or African Americans who care only for African Americans, etc. You get the picture. The libs have systematically segmented this country and now they want to bring us together? Bollywash.

Any Navy people here?

I laughed out loud last night when they were discussing the incident with the speedboats and our Navy ships. The moment of hilarity came when Huckabee called the Navy ship a 'boat'.

Did anyone else catch that? 

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ 

Unfortunately, I missed it.

Calling my beloved Navy ship is an insult.  Unless of course you are a Sailor attached to said Ship.  We call returning to Ship "going back to the boat" all the time. 

Faciem durum cacantis habes

OldSailor...

Well, I learn something new everyday.

I thought calling a ship a boat was considered disrespectful. And here I thought Huck had made another goof. 

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ 

CT

Huck did make a goof.  In my post above what I meant was that only Sailors attached to a ship call it a boat.  For a civilian to call my Ship a boat is a show of ignorance. 

Faciem durum cacantis habes

OS...

Thanks for clarifying.

Yeah, I'm batting a 1,000. 

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ 

submarines are boats

I know it was a destroyer (ship) in the Gulf, but you mentioned boats. I served on board a BOAT. The USS Daniel Webster, a nuclear submarine.  

 

It's not Right vs. Left; it is Right vs. Wrong

South Jersey...

Now that I knew.

At least I'm batting 500 on boat/ship/sub lingo. 

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ 

Partner with Islam!

I think discourse is good

I think discourse is good but the anger between liberals and conservatives will take a long time to settle. 

As a conservative I saw the rift begin to widen greatly under Bill Clinton.  His unwillingness to compromise and dishonesty really caused a bitter divide.  For me as a solider, his unwillingness to stand up for America when we got bombed by terrorist in Saudi, Yemen, and our own soil that made me really take a hard look at liberals.  When the extreme left started making policy for the Dems I lost all faith in their ability to compromise on any issue.  The new liberal thinks of themselves as intellectually superior.  They are very narcissistic and extreme agenda driven, which has been demonstrated by a lot of our hit and runners.  By that I mean those who post some talking point BS and leave.

We do have a few, on both sides, who come here, and spout anti-religious drivel or way too much religious dogma. That needs to stop.  Hey if you are an atheist or don’t believe in organized religion, fine and dandy, but don’t degrade those who do.  And for those who are religious, who love there religion, likewise don’t demean or put down someone else’s.  Don’t preach either, unless the subject of the thread is on religion most of us don’t care how many freaking scriptural references you can site in one post.

Name calling, and I am guilty of this, has got to stop.

Debate the issue.  If you can’t agree, press on.

 

Iran/US Navy conflict

 yesterday  there were a couple threads calling anyone who had doubts about the supposed conflict involving  Iran and our Navy traitors and  treasonous -

gee, yesterday our Navy also expressed doubt about the audio threats ---

"The Pentagon said yesterday that the apparent radio threat to bomb U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf last weekend may not have come from the five Iranian Revolutionary Guard speedboats that approached them -- and may not even have been intended against U.S. targets," the Washington Post reported Friday. "The communication Sunday was made on radio channel 16, a common marine frequency used by ships and others in the region. 'It could have been a threat aimed at some other nation or a myriad of other things,' said Rear Adm. Frank Thorp IV, a spokesman for the Navy."

---------------------------------------------------------

when are you people going to learn to question a little bit? instead of just accepting everything this administration says hook, line and sinker??

remember Colin Powell's testimony? even HE regrets that now