Extremism

[top gun]

Again your hostility is a demonstration of the polarization that this thread complains about. You are here only to argue and browbeat; you have no interest in rational discussion. You automatically assume that any conservative must be a “right-wing nut job” so discussion with you is always impossible.

Things are polarized but you coming at things from a Right Wing perspective cannot possibly understand why it did have to come to this... or maybe you can but dislike it when people don't just lie down anymore but instead choose to fight back in kind (not necessarily to you but to the Karl Rove, Druggie Limbaugh types on the Right that lead you).

Except for the major unrest in protesting the war in Vietnam (and history now shows Vietnam was a mistake) the Left tended to be made up of mostly intellectual types or peace & love types. This changed over time as the Right became more & more rabid.

The Right Wing attack dogs made stuff up & witch hunted President Clinton on everything from murder to drug dealing to fraudulent land deals and when all else failed they ended up trying to take him down for a consensual adult affair.

The Right Wing attack dogs smeared Max Cleland a highly decorated Vietnam War Veteran and double amputee who lost limbs in the line of military duty unpatriotic because they wanted to oust him from the US Senate.

The Right Wing attack dogs did likewise in their Swift Boating of Senator John Kerry an in country in theater Vietnam fighter a highly decorated officer including multiple purple hearts.

And now these same low life Rightie attack dogs want to smear & attack our President who was left with such sh!t from when you guys held power.

So you'll have to excuse us if we walk an in your face line now. We didn't want this fight but it your side who brought it to us and now we do fight back. If you want to represent that side then you're going to have to expect the heat now.

You can't play the bully when you have someone outnumbered and then whine when that same person you bullied wops you right on that side of your face.

 

[flaja]

The net does give people the chance to say things that would tend to bring a negative response if done in person, that's so. One of the great things about it is that we can say what is on our mind without worry about alienating people, or, if we do alienate someone, we can subsequently ignore them.

I think there is more to it. If we lose our ability to discuss political issues out of fear of alienating people or being verbally (or physically) attacked in response to an honest expression of our opinions all discourse shuts down and our political problems are allowed to fester. Voters could too easily end up like siblings who draw a line down the middle of a shared bedroom.

But all in all the net is worthless as a political tool. People that are naturally belligerent aren’t likely to want to discuss politics in person because their idiocy and foolishness are easily identified and could be too easily be taken as fighting words. Without any fear of a physical response people on the net can easily go out of their way to be belligerent. The net creates a problem that seldom, if ever, exists in the real world.

As for Libertarians being liberals, that is only true if you define conservatism as authoritarianism.

Libertarians favor chaos. This effectively and totally separates them from legitimate conservatives. Conservatives, in the Anglo-American tradition have nothing against liberty, but libertarians abuse liberty and turn it into license.

Libertarians share ideals of both ends of the unidimensional left to right continuum that dominates some people's thinking.

This is something that I have always said. Libertarians don’t understand how much they have in common with communism.

No, it may not be anything new. It seems more pronounced than it has been in the past. Maybe that is just my perception.

I may have some age on you and I likely have studied more history than you have. This gives me the advantage of being able to put today’s political climate in its proper historical perspective. Today it is common for liberals to call conservatives Fascists or Nazis and people who claim to be conservative usually have no qualms about calling a liberal a socialist or communist. But over 140 years ago Abraham Lincoln was called “the original gorilla”- by his friends (namely William Seward Lincoln’s chief rival for the 1860 GOP nomination and later his Secretary of State).

It does seem quite pronounced on this board, more so than on other forums.

This board seems to be more balanced in that it has a mix of liberals and libertarians. Most other boards in my experience are dominated by one or the other and have moderators that don’t mind banning anyone who does not support their preferred ideology.

So, political ideology, like sexual orientation, is something one is born with? Now, that's a unique idea.

Except that sexual orientation is not something one is born with. I can give you an explanation of the genetics involved if you’d like.

 

[flaja]

Things are polarized but you coming at things from a Right Wing perspective cannot possibly understand why it did have to come to this... or maybe you can but dislike it when people don't just lie down anymore but instead choose to fight back in kind (not necessarily to you but to the Karl Rove, Druggie Limbaugh types on the Right that lead you).

Neither Rove, nor Limbaugh are counted among my leaders.

You are attempting to paint all of your political adversaries with the same brush. This is polarizing belligerence on your part because you refuse to take the time to give any honest consideration to what your political adversaries actually believe and want. You make no effort to understand your adversaries and then proceed to attack them out of ignorance.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

FLAJA SAID: Voters could too easily end up like siblings who draw a line down the middle of a shared bedroom.

What an absolute utterly absurd analogy...what is this conclusion supposed to MEAN Unless that bedroom has more then one egress they both will need access to the one and only door out and that alone will mean that some form of compromise will need to be established...GOOD GRIEF.

You talk a 'NEW PREACHABLE SOAP BOX SERMAN'...but I still reference one of your first topics: "There Once Was A Time In America"...re-read your post #6 and then tell me again just exactly with whom you deliver your diatribe about equal and fair understanding too...cause I've been there and done that with you and you took the entire thread directly straight into the GUTTER

YOUR HALO SEEMS TO HAVE FALLEN EVER SO SLIGHTLY OFF OF YOUR HEAD...LMAO

 

[BigRob]

Things are polarized but you coming at things from a Right Wing perspective cannot possibly understand why it did have to come to this... or maybe you can but dislike it when people don't just lie down anymore but instead choose to fight back in kind (not necessarily to you but to the Karl Rove, Druggie Limbaugh types on the Right that lead you).

Except for the major unrest in protesting the war in Vietnam (and history now shows Vietnam was a mistake) the Left tended to be made up of mostly intellectual types or peace & love types. This changed over time as the Right became more & more rabid.

I am just going to jump into the conversation here, so I apologize if I have missed anything.

Neither Karl Rove, nor Limbaugh are the leaders of the Republican Party. Putting that aside, it is naive to assume that polarized politics is something new.

Additionally, I think it is odd to place those on the "Left" as peace loving types etc. The Democratic Party is the party that used the nuclear weapon, expanded Vietnam, tried to invade Cuba, etc etc... The point is that both sides have times when they can be called "warlike," but it hardly makes any of those times somehow unnecessary, or pointless.

Additionally, even with Nixon, following into Reagan, there was a lot of polarization on the Left and going after them for everything under the sun. Certainly in some cases the criticism was legitimate, however it should be an example that politics and polarization is nothing new.

The Right Wing attack dogs made stuff up & witch hunted President Clinton on everything from murder to drug dealing to fraudulent land deals and when all else failed they ended up trying to take him down for a consensual adult affair.

His main issue came when he lied about his affair. The affair itself was not going to sink him.

Furthermore, both parties seemingly continue to make up things about the other side, that is nothing new.

The Right Wing attack dogs smeared Max Cleland a highly decorated Vietnam War Veteran and double amputee who lost limbs in the line of military duty unpatriotic because they wanted to oust him from the US Senate.

I notice you leave out that many Republicans came to his aide during this time. That said, military service does not mean you are immune from public examination of your viewpoints and record if you remain in public life.

And now these same low life Rightie attack dogs want to smear & attack our President who was left with such sh!t from when you guys held power.

Attacking policies is hardly the same as just outright attacking someone.

So you'll have to excuse us if we walk an in your face line now. We didn't want this fight but it your side who brought it to us and now we do fight back. If you want to represent that side then you're going to have to expect the heat now.

I view this as an absurd statement. It seems that you are attempting to blame political realities on the Republicans, when these realities arguably existed before the Republican party did.

 

[flaja]

What an absolute utterly absurd analogy...

I cannot explain it any more plainly. It isn’t my fault that you cannot comprehend the analogy.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Originally Posted by ASPCA4EVER What an absolute utterly absurd analogy...

I cannot explain it any more plainly. It isn’t my fault that you cannot comprehend the analogy.

FLAJA SAID: Voters could too easily end up like siblings who draw a line down the middle of a shared bedroom.

You don't have to undo/retract/explain the why/what you said...it just kinda lays there like the 800# Gorilla in the room...
NONSENCE just like your posting your assumed qualifiers for being able to discuss political view points...
A B S U R D.

 

[flaja]

You don't have to undo/retract/explain the why/what you said...it just kinda lays there like the 800# Gorilla in the room...
NONSENCE just like your posting your assumed qualifiers for being able to discuss political view points...
A B S U R D.

When two siblings who share a bedroom become so argumentative and combative towards each other that they draw a line down the center of their bedroom with each telling the other to stay on their side of it, they are essentially telling each other that they no longer consider themselves to be part of the same family.

The more polarized our politics become the more our voters and politicians take on the appearance of these siblings. If we reach a point where we refuse to discuss political issues and become unwilling to cooperate with each other in order to solve our political problems, we may be willing to draw a line across the country telling each other to stay on their side of it because we no longer consider ourselves part of the same nation.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

When two siblings who share a bedroom become so argumentative and combative towards each other that they draw a line down the center of their bedroom with each telling the other to stay on their side of it, they are essentially telling each other that they no longer consider themselves to be part of the same family.

and that makes it all perfectly ok that you said it...that you used it here...CHILDREN THINK LIKE CHILDREN and when it comes time for them to egress/leave/depart that bedroom some form of compromise is going to have to take place...there is only ONE DOOR OUT {GEE DIDN'T I STATE THAT ALREADY} why, yes I DID

The more polarized our politics become the more our voters and politicians take on the appearance of these siblings. If we reach a point where we refuse to discuss political issues and become unwilling to cooperate with each other in order to solve our political problems, we may be willing to draw a line across the country telling each other to stay on their side of it because we no longer consider ourselves part of the same nation.

Oh, contra...I believe that it just allows for more dialect from EVERYONE...instead of as in the past where the 'few' have spoken for the masses and now the opposite is becoming the norm. But you resent the labels and don't approve of the label that is attached to your person...so don't try to force people into a pre-labeled box

America is loud and rowdy and telling their lawmakers WTH they want...but it is all about the same BASIC issue 'WHAT IS BEST FOR OUR AMERICA'

 

[flaja]

and that makes it all perfectly ok that you said it...that you used it here...CHILDREN THINK LIKE CHILDREN and when it comes time for them to egress/leave/depart that bedroom some form of compromise is going to have to take place...there is only ONE DOOR OUT {GEE DIDN'T I STATE THAT ALREADY} why, yes I DID

Compromise is possible only as long as we are willing to compromise with our political opponents. We are not at the point yet where we are absolutely unwilling to compromise, but we have been at that point before, i.e., 1860.

If a shared bedroom represents the U.S.A., your compromise by exiting that bedroom is impossible because no one can constitutionally leave the country. We cannot legally create separate countries, i.e., leave the shared bedroom, except by amending the Constitution. Is this what you want?