The Dedgradation of the American Dialogue

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What does his citizenship have to do the rantings of a madman? Did Fox news make this guy insane? Is the right now denying the Holocaust too? Irans president has many times in public forums so maybe he should take some of the blame too, though I doubt he would mind. This is a clear case of the sensationalistic "journalism" the writer is complaining about. Tying the views of nutjobs to political pundits is a stretch. Free speech is fine unless you dont agree with it? It is a real stretch to say that psychos are killing people because of Bill O'Reilley. Nutcases have been killing people long before Foxnews came about. Just think of the reaction that JFK's death in modern terms would have caused? Surely Rush would have been to blame for inciting Oswald.

No, historically it's a pretty reliable way to get the masses worked up.

What do you think about the editor of the Dallas newspaper, that, in the week before Kennedy visited Dallas, called - in the newspaper - for his assassination?

Just an innocent opinionated bystander enjoying his American right of free speech, huh?

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I know that those guys dont like Obama but the libs here hate Bush. The hatred for Bush by some people was as intense as I have ever seen for a public figure not named Howard Cosell.

I don't hate Bush. I hate Cheney but Bush seems a decent enough guy, a horrible president, but a decent enough guy.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Maybe you could not view it in such a superficial, knee-jerk, black-white/right-left/blame point of view?

I think alot of that article is a bit exaggerated, but the part below is right on, and is the reason why I posted it.

What do you think about the below, the POINT of the article?

"There was a time when decency, even honor, was an essential part of the American dialogue in its most ideal form, and part of its very identity. There was a time when our culture would have recoiled in horror at the vituperation flowing unchecked from radios, televisions, and the Internet, instead of applauding it as "common sense," "free speech," or "mavericky," or "a spin-free zone."

"There was a time when intellectual honesty was not considered unpatriotic; when compassion for, and understanding of, your fellow man was a sign of strength, not weakness. There was a time when the phrase Have you no shame? meant something, and the First Amendment was not used as toilet paper to wipe up the excremental verbal degradation of vulnerable segments of the American population. A time when it was expected that citizens would understand the difference between free speech and irresponsible speech. "

I agree with some of that part except it is wrapped around the message that somehow only Conservative views are radicalized. This is hardly a plea for sanity. It is a totally partisan column found on a totally partisan website. Just saying a few things about our society that are unfortunately true doesn't hide the true intent of the writer which is to cast stones at the right using horrible tragedies as a baseline. Of course you can continue to think that this is a middle of the road viewpoint and that you arent a liberal too.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

I don't hate Bush. I hate Cheney but Bush seems a decent enough guy, a horrible president, but a decent enough guy.

I was about to write the exact same thing. In my mind being incompetent isn't a "hate-worthy" offense.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, historically it's a pretty reliable way to get the masses worked up.

What do you think about the editor of the Dallas newspaper, that, in the week before Kennedy visited Dallas, called - in the newspaper - for his assassination?

Just an innocent opinionated bystander enjoying his American right of free speech, huh?

You really think that Oswald read some editorial and decided he need to kill the President? Where do you come up with this stuff?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I know that those guys dont like Obama but the libs here hate Bush. The hatred for Bush by some people was as intense as I have ever seen for a public figure not named Howard Cosell.

Seriously, Dellinger63? Come on Chuck. If you want to take out Dellinger63 and Timmig and I will take out a couple of flaming liberals (me first ) then it is actually debatable.

Dellinger63 actually wakes up in the morning and before kissing his girlfriend/wife, brushing his teeth or even peeing, he is googling obama articles to post.

The guy hates obama.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The media has painted this picture of all republicans being radicalized and polarizing figures and it simply isnt true. .

Baloney. It was the GOP that allowed that to happen. No, correct that - they ENCOURAGED it to happen.

To get Bush re-elected the last time, the GOP gave increased voice to the 25% of the radial, polarized, ultra-conservative far right portion of the party.

The GOP ginned these polarized radicals up again by choosing Palin and letting her open her mouth. The Palin rallies were scary, racist, filled with lies. Palin herself is responsible, she encouraged it. That's why they chose her.

But it backfired big time, resulting in a good portion of the GOP voting Democratic this time. Until the extremists are dampened back down, the GOP is useless, and nobody will see that "it simply isnt true".

As lifelong GOP (I even loved Rumsfeld), to have extremists like Dell tell me "you're not a Republican" is laughable and ludicrous.

But as long as the GOP decides that is the voice of the party, the party will have no voice.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

And I do have a HUGE problem with someone like Coulter saying Jews need to be perfected by becoming Christians. It makes me physically ill. Shouldnt even be allowed to be said under the first amendment.

And that was the point of the article.

Where do we draw the line between suggesting the Abortion Doctor should be killed as Bill O'Reilly did, and someone killing him?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Seriously, Dellinger63? Come on Chuck. If you want to take out Dellinger63 and Timmig and I will take out a couple of flaming liberals (me first ) then it is actually debatable.

Dellinger63 actually wakes up in the morning and before kissing his girlfriend/wife, brushing his teeth or even peeing, he is googling obama articles to post.

The guy hates obama.

I think he likes to point out all the issues with Obama but I never sensed any hatred of the man.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I think he likes to point out all the issues with Obama but I never sensed any hatred of the man.

Chuck...please

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by gales0678

don't forget the republican party sent the 1st african american to the supreme court and attempted to send the 1st hispanic to the dc court of appeals (2nd highest court in the coutry) and the democrtic party the part of the people didn't even give miguel a vote ...talk about being out of touch

lyndon johnson was a republican?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You really think that Oswald read some editorial and decided he need to kill the President? Where do you come up with this stuff?

You really need to stop making assumptions up out of thin air, and attributing them to other people.

Oswald killed Kennedy as far as I've seen documented to try and impress his wife by being a hero. He picked Kennedy due to Kennedy's political views (heavily regarding Russia) - views that were attacked aggressively and repeatedly in the press in the weeks before the visit, as were Kennedy's religion and other politics. Oswald would be a hero to his wife (in his warped mindview) to knock off this inflammatory public figure.

Why are you a hero to kill the President? Well, look at all the people who say he deserves killing.

Do you think the environment of palpable hate down there, the public acceptance of people in positions of responsibility publically saying, "Kill The President Of The United States, he's bad for our country" had nothing at all to do with giving a degranged man the impetuous to kill the President?

Did you see Bill O'Reilly express any sincere remorse over George Tiller being killed? Naw, he spent his time bitching and whining about people pointing fingers at him.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Baloney. It was the GOP that allowed that to happen. No, correct that - they ENCOURAGED it to happen.

To get Bush re-elected the last time, the GOP gave increased voice to the 25% of the radial, polarized, ultra-conservative far right portion of the party.

The GOP ginned these polarized radicals up again by choosing Palin and letting her open her mouth. The Palin rallies were scary, racist, filled with lies. Palin herself is responsible, she encouraged it. That's why they chose her.

But it backfired big time, resulting in a good portion of the GOP voting Democratic this time. Until the extremists are dampened back down, the GOP is useless, and nobody will see that "it simply isnt true".

As lifelong GOP (I even loved Rumsfeld), to have extremists like Dell tell me "you're not a Republican" is laughable and ludicrous.

But as long as the GOP decides that is the voice of the party, the party will have no voice.

This is ridiculous. If the GOP was playing to the radicals why was John McCain the nominee? You take the liberal bait, hook, line and sinker.

And you are just as intolerant as the right by calling Palin's rallies racist and filled with lies.

And you hardly seem to have a single non liberal view so maybe mr Extreme is right?

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

This is ridiculous. If the GOP was playing to the radicals why was John McCain the nominee? You take the liberal bait, hook, line and sinker.

And you are just as intolerant as the right by calling Palin's rallies racist and filled with lies.

And you hardly seem to have a single non liberal view so maybe mr Extreme is right?

Because John McCain moved drastically to the right in order to be appealing to the radicals. Remember the whole 2000 John McCain calling Jerry Falwell an agent of intolerance and then 2006 John McCain doing the commencement speech at his good buddy Jerry Falwell's Liberty University?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I agree with some of that part except it is wrapped around the message that somehow only Conservative views are radicalized. This is hardly a plea for sanity. It is a totally partisan column found on a totally partisan website. Just saying a few things about our society that are unfortunately true doesn't hide the true intent of the writer which is to cast stones at the right using horrible tragedies as a baseline. Of course you can continue to think that this is a middle of the road viewpoint and that you arent a liberal too.

Sigh ... okay, once again, can you try to ignore the wrapper, and casting it as right-left, black-white argument, and look at the meat, the point of the article?

Can you leave politics out of it, and ignore that part, and talk about the point of it?

And again, you really have to stop making imaginary crap up out of thin air regarding other people. I obviously don't think this is a middle of the road viewpoint, as you might notice that in the message you are answering I already said I think much of the article is exaggerated. And sorry, I'm not a liberal, either.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

You really need to stop making assumptions up out of thin air, and attributing them to other people.

Oswald killed Kennedy as far as I've seen documented to try and impress his wife by being a hero. He picked Kennedy due to Kennedy's political views (heavily regarding Russia) - views that were attacked aggressively and repeatedly in the press in the weeks before the visit, as were Kennedy's religion and other politics. Oswald would be a hero to his wife (in his warped mindview) to knock off this inflammatory public figure.

Why are you a hero to kill the President? Well, look at all the people who say he deserves killing.

Do you think the environment of palpable hate down there, the public acceptance of people in positions of responsibility publically saying, "Kill The President Of The United States, he's bad for our country" had nothing at all to do with giving a degranged man the impetuous to kill the President?

Did you see Bill O'Reilly express any sincere remorse over George Tiller being killed? Naw, he spent his time bitching and whining about people pointing fingers at him.

You bring up some obscure reference to an editorial written in Dallas as evidence that "stirring the masses" can cause nutjobs to kill people then say that I am making assumptions? Oswald picked Kennedy because he disagreed with his political views? I didnt know there was another president around at the time to choose from.

No I think that people who are deranged enough to shoot the President are crazy regardless of what is said or written by political commentators.

Why should O'Reilly show remorse for the death of a guy he clearly didnt like? Wouldn't that play directly into the hands of people like you who are trying to place blame on him?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I was about to write the exact same thing. In my mind being incompetent isn't a "hate-worthy" offense.

Ditto.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Because John McCain moved drastically to the right in order to be appealing to the radicals. Remember the whole 2000 John McCain calling Jerry Falwell an agent of intolerance and then 2006 John McCain doing the commencement speech at his good buddy Jerry Falwell's Liberty University?

He hardly moved drastically to the right. He was the GOP nominee for President, was he supposed to insult Falwell again?

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

He hardly moved drastically to the right. He was the GOP nominee for President, was he supposed to insult Falwell again?

Falwell makes Wright look like Ghandi

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/if_y..._a/184293.html

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Sigh ... okay, once again, can you try to ignore the wrapper, and casting it as right-left, black-white argument, and look at the meat, the point of the article?

Can you leave politics out of it, and ignore that part, and talk about the point of it?

And again, you really have to stop making imaginary crap up out of thin air regarding other people. I obviously don't think this is a middle of the road viewpoint, as you might notice that in the message you are answering I already said I think much of the article is exaggerated. And sorry, I'm not a liberal, either.

The point of the article is to take shots at the GOP. If you cant see that...

Why would i leave politics out of an article that clearly is political? The writer isnt lamenting the degradation of American dialogue. he is lamenting the GOP's dialogue. Perhaps if he had included one of the Msnbc nut jobs in there too i could take his points as non political in nature.

If the article is slanted politically by your own admission, why would i "leave the politics out of it"?

And you are not only a liberal...you are a flaming liberal.