The Open-Minded, Tolerant Party

[BulldogBlitz]

i'd just be too tempted to walk through there and ask all those "friendly" locals to give me half of their most recent paycheck. most of them make more than i do, which makes it unfair (boohoo) ... so it is only fair that their wealth get redistributed to me.

[BrentAllen]

Lisabob wrote: "But I haven't yet heard the other side responding with threats of violence, either."

 

So... Sandra Bernhard warning Sarah Palin not to come to NY lest she be "gang-raped by my big black brothers" isn't a threat of violence?

[BrentAllen]

OGE wrote: "...yeah our VP candidate is having an baby out of wedlock,..."

 

Say what?

[Lisabob]

Egad, Brent, that's awful. I agree that such statements would be utterly beyond the pale and no, I had not caught that one. Upon checking, I see that it was reported in a number of what are often referred to by conservatives as "liberal MSM" news outlets, including the Wash Post. In the NY Daily News Bernhard was quoted as attempting an explanation as follows:

 

""[The gang rape comment] is part of a much larger, nuanced, and yes, provocative (that's what I do) piece from my show about racism, freedom, women's rights and the extreme views of Governor Sarah Palin, a woman who doesn't believe that other women should have the right to choose," Bernhard told the Daily News today.

 

"Women deserve better," she continued. "I certainly wish Governor Palin no harm. I'd just like her to explain to me how she can hold such outrageous views - and then go back to Alaska.""

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/09/19/2008-09-19_sandra_bernhard_issues_gang_rape_warning-2.html

 

I don't find her "explanation" to be very convincing though.

[packsaddle]

I don't find it convincing, period. And it sure as hell is not comedy. I think Sandra Bernhard did it and now she's trying to rationalize her screwup.

She's over the line as far as I'm concerned, making a disgusting statement that is to me an assault on women and blacks in general as well as Palin.

I'm with Brent on this.

 

[Gold Winger]

Of course, by "right to choose" we mean "right to slaughter unborn children because having a child would be inconvenient."

[OldGreyEagle]

OK Brent, I meant to say our VP canidates DAUGHTER is having a baby out of wedlock, is that better? So now you can tell me all about how horrible the Democrats are, and don't hold back, meanwhile, for everything you say about the Democrats, do you not think that something equal or worse can be said about the Republicans?

 

To have both sides slinging mud at each other, is this what politics is? "To answer every charge with I know you are but what am I"?

 

I remember a long time ago someone in this Forum told me when I stated I was a confirmed independent that is was easy not to pick a side, from my view its either dung or garbage, sorry but I opt out

[BrentAllen]

OGE,

I just thought you might know something about Sarah that I hadn't heard. :-) BTW, I believe the couple plan on getting married, but not sure if that will be before or after the birth.

 

Sorry, but I won't indulge you. I don't care for the threats or vicious attacks in the campaign. If I heard someone yelling Obama was a terrorist, of to "kill him" I would go out of my way to shut them up. I do think Ayers is a terrorist, and that Obama has made a huge mistake in associating with him. I think that association is fair game.

 

Some here say they judge a candidate by what he says and does. I try to judge by their character. Character counts more than anything. Isn't that why we are all involved with the BSA - to develop the character of our youth, by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law? A big part of a person's character is seeing who they choose to associate with. Judging Obama in that light, I am not impressed or encouraged. I'm not a big McCain fan either, so don't paint me as a Republican shrill. I am a conservative, and will vote for the more conservative candidate, as long as their character doesn't disqualify them.

[packsaddle]

OGE, the Eisenhower/Stevenson campaign was fairly civil. Both were honorable men. Both would have been good Presidents. One of them was. Since that time, there has not been a single campaign that has been civil and devoid of dirty tricks. Closest one to it was Carter/Ford, both good guys in my opinion.

What changed?

 

Television changed a few things but I don't blame the media. Talk radio has been around for a very long while but I don't blame the blowhards either. I'm not sure what the answer is. I suspect, however, that given that we are electing 'representatives' as well as leaders, the dirty tricks and similar behaviors could be just a reflection of OUR willingness to allow such behaviors. Would we allow this stuff at a troop meeting? At a roundtable?

 

It takes work to read different accounts and objectively make decisions when they don't agree. It is easy to just listen to a blowhard of any persuasion, and nod in agreement.

It takes work to understand the opposing view well enough to defend it and to offer objective, constructive criticism. It is even more difficult to listen, really listen, to such criticism of your own view and to accept the possibility you might be wrong. Easy to label, demonize, or simply dismiss without thinking.

It is difficult to really put yourself in the place of your opponent and try to understand his viewpoint. Easier to make him an object that can be discarded without emotion.

 

But something about us causes us to react to these political dirty tricks by doing something almost as bad. We merely point the finger and blame when we could condemn such behavior and reject it. It's easy.

 

To some extent, McCain sees this I think, based on his recoil from it at the recent rally. I think Obama sees it as well. These two candidates, however, are not in control. WE are in control. There is a civil way to disagree. The art is not dead. Some of us still apply it. But when some of us don't, if the rest of us don't stand up to it, we support it through inaction. It's just easier that way.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[OldGreyEagle]

"...so don't paint me as a Republican shrill."

 

And yet you are the one who started this thread featuring the sarcastic title and a video of one incident, sorry you painted yourself

[packsaddle]

I hate to be shrill but wouldn't that be "Republican shill" rather than 'shrill'?

[molscouter]

They say Reagan and Tip O'Neill fought like alley cats during the day and then sat down and had a couple of drinks at night. Probably not true, but the two men respected each other, even though there wasn't a lot they agreed on politically.

 

My theory on the lack of political discourse and civility that has blossomed over the past 25 years or so is generational, and the fact that those of the Greatest Generation are no longer real players in the Government. They grew up during the Depression. People had to work together to get throught that. Then came World War II, another uniting cause. No matter how you felt politically, you respected the guy next to you, because you needed him at your back and vice versa (not excluding the women here, but politics in those days was mostly a male game). Reagan and O'Neill were products of that era, although older, Eisenhower and Stevenson lived them as well. Lyndon Johnson and Everett Dirksen had the same relationship in the Senate. Respect.

 

The next genration of politicians were Boomers and had no such unifying events. Hence, the "me" attitude that to many of us show, especially our politicians, and in my opinion, the I'm right, your absolutely wrong attitude that exists today.

(This message has been edited by molscouter)

[SR540Beaver]

Sorry guys, but I lay a lot of the blame directly at the feet of talk radio. Ratings is the name of the game. No ratings, no advertisers. No advertisers, no bucks. Talk radio has devolved into appealing to the lowest denominator in political discourse. As a result, the fans of the shows imitate and repeat what they hear. It is all gotcha politics. Following talk radio is the ever expanding internet media. The radio and internet follwed by TV and print media are all competing for the same bucks and will stoop to new lows in order to earn it. Sadly, there are a lot of folks out their who fail to recognize that the pundits they idolize as true believers and deep thinkers are just out to make a buck and little else.

[BrentAllen]

I lay the blame at the feet of far-left web sites, like Daily Kos and Huffington Post. Talk radio is rated G, in comparison. Many of the articles and opinions posted on those pages couldn't even be read on the airwaves. They are like a bunch of high schoolers, pushing the envelope, cheering each other on, seeing who can be the most outlandish. The uglier things you write, the higher your star rises.

[SR540Beaver]

I've never been to those sites and I'll bet you most people have not. They appeal to a very small minority of people. Talk radio on the other hand has millions of listeners every day, all day multiplied the large number of hosts. They reach and influence a far greater population than a website will ever hope to.