Insulting politicians

[davjohns 1]

It seems to have become the replacement for legitimate debate and honest disagreement on issues.

I just looked at the edited and unedited clips of Romney that have started controversy. I don't think all the controversy was warranted, but I think Andrea clearly edited things to create a deception. I think she has proven herself untrustworthy as an objective journalist. Just my take.

The larger issue that bothers me is this: Throughout the presidency of George W. Bush, people who disagreed with him attacked him on a personal level and pretended he was stupid. To my knowledge, none of them had degrees from Yale, MBAs from Harvard, had flown jet fighters, had run major businesses, governed a state, etc. Feel free to disagree with the man, but pretending he is stupid because he doesn't agree with you tells me more about you than it does about him.

I look back over the presidents we have had. I can't find one that I consider unintelligent. I may disagree with policies, philosophies, etc. They might make blunders in speeches or social faux pas that get placed in the limelight. But I don't see unintelligent people.

Ms. Mitchell's (MSNBC's) piece just tells me they have a political agenda and are willing to make baseless attacks on anyone who doesn't share their agenda. Disappointing, but not surprising.

My question is: are we capable of civilized debate in order to make things better, or are we doomed to school-yard name calling and distortion of facts? How does anyone consider this beneficial?

Please don't go partisan on this (fat chance). All sides are guilty of it. This is just the example du jour.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Remster 24]

I think political discourse in the US is such a bunch of negative, insult yielding BS.. On a good day.

I really think this comes from all the negative ads that started several years ago. They basically were attacking others, more or less insulting them. This has gradually degenerated into the mess you guys have for a political discourse system now...

Remster

[Gravitymaster 0]

Yeah, well the Democrats started it.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

I think political discourse in the US is such a bunch of negative, insult yielding BS.. On a good day.

I really think this comes from all the negative ads that started several years ago. They basically were attacking others, more or less insulting them. This has gradually degenerated into the mess you guys have for a political discourse system now...

Has always been that way, back to the mudslining in the Adams-Jefferson election.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Remster 24]

I guess it's the American way then!

Remster

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

I think political discourse in the US is such a bunch of negative, insult yielding BS.. On a good day.

I really think this comes from all the negative ads that started several years ago. They basically were attacking others, more or less insulting them. This has gradually degenerated into the mess you guys have for a political discourse system now...

Has always been that way, back to the mudslining in the Adams-Jefferson election.

What he is talking about is not a add. It was a so called report by MSNBC where A Mithcel tried to make is look like MR was talking about a touch order screen and that he was amazed by it and so he is out of touch

A bald faced lie. Nothing to do with mudslinging

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Why bolster yourself when you can trash someone else?

Trashing someone is is much easier than picking up yourself. I've noticed that there are some common themes, though:
(1) The Republican is stupid. (Reagan the "amiable dunce," GHW "It's the economy, STUPID" Bush, Dubya Bush, etc.)
(2) The Democrats are Ivory Tower who never held a real job (Obama, Clinton, Dukakis)
(3) Republicans are mean (Bob "Darth Vader of the Hill" Dole, Reagan "turning loose all the lunatics")
(4) Democrats are bleeding hearts (Michael "Card Carrying Member of the ACLU" Dukakis, etc.)

Nobody can even be honest about the accomplishments and failures. "Clinton gave Bush a balanced budget" was bullshit spin. "The Bush Economy" was something people bitched about when he came in, people loved until 2007, and then hated.

Obama outraged lefties when he actually had the audacity to COMPLIMENT Reagan during his campaign. I was complimentary towards Obama during his campaign (Hilary was right - he was "change you can Xerox")

I though Clinton was the worst President of the 20th Century his first two years. I thought he became on of the best Presidents of the 20th Century his last 5 years.

I think Reagan was a bad-ass who united a country still horrifically divided and that his last four years in office were amazing in his foreign accomplishments (this Warmonger secured the INF treaty) and domestic affairs (1986 Tax Reform Act).

I thought Dubya was not that great of a president, but absolutely no dummy (Dubya won the election, I think, because he OWNED genius Al Gore in the debates - calling Bush stupid meant he could only exceed expectations).

I thought Carter was one of the worst presidents. Highly intelligent and idealistic but with a lousy grasp of pragmatism. The best ex-president we have.

Did they all have problems? Absolutely. I think Clinton in many ways ran the Presidency like a mob boss. People talk about the lack of compromise - check out the government shut downs (plural) under Clinton/GOP Congress.

We don't look at policies anymore. We don't even look at whether things should be that way. I have SIGNIFICANT issues with plenty of policies on all sides. Using drones to assassinate people - I don't like it. Denying habeas corpus to "terrorists." I don't like it. Military hit-jobs in foreign countries to take out the most wanted man on earth. I've got a problem with acts of war. Legislation forcing people into interstate commerce so that interstate commerce can be used to justify it. I have a problem with it. Patriot Act - Big problem.

But it's easier to insult. Why discuss a policy? That might actually result in finding legitimate reasons for it.

Maybe talking it over with a person could reveal that marriage is deeply meaningful and personal to a gay person who thinks that marriage to his partner would be the icing on the emotional cake. Even though you disagree, you might actually see the person has his own reasons that are personal. Naw. Fuck that. Call it a "WAR ON MARRIAGE!"

Or maybe we'll find out that the church priest truly thinks that what Onan did was a sin and cannot participate in something that would encourage it or lessen the impact of it. Fuck that. Call it a "WAR ON WOMEN."

In doing so we manage to lose the points. We turn everything into "us versus them." It matters not what is said but who is saying it.

Dave - I think it is possible. We just need to find those who can do it.

Hence the reason why I have such mad respect for billvon. He's a guy who has his opinions but still sees all sides. I'll say it that I've gone into the same conduct I despise. And bill will call me out on it. He's always been right when he's made the call, too. bill - thank you.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

Where is your outrage over the crap reporting all over Newsmax?

- Dan G

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Where is your outrage over the crap reporting all over Newsmax?

What stories are you refering to?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The larger issue that bothers me is this: Throughout the presidency of George W. Bush, people who disagreed with him attacked him on a personal level and pretended he was stupid. To my knowledge, none of them had degrees from Yale (legacy admit), MBAs from Harvard, had flown jet fighters (and went AWOL), had run major businesses (into the ground), governed a state, etc. Feel free to disagree with the man, but pretending he is stupid because he doesn't agree with you tells me more about you than it does about him.

Bush was of above average intelligence, but he's bracketed by two guys of superior intelligence, as well as his father, who sported the most impressive background of any President of the past 50 years. He also did not help matters when he chose to deliberately dumb down his conversation to appeal to the commoners, particularly pandering to those who distrust intelligence.

[pirana 0]

Quote

I look back over the presidents we have had. I can't find one that I consider unintelligent.

Agreed; though some have not been very on the ball (Johnson not able to find Vietnam on a map & Reagan thinking launched nukes could be recalled are 2 examples off the top of my head.

The much bigger problem is the lack of ethics. It's certainly a problem inherent in the system and processes - but it is nonetheless audacious that not a single one of them chooses to actually do something about it. Once they leave office we get a good number of tell-all books and interviews where they admit to how totally corrupt the system is and how it is completely out of line with serving the interest of the general population - but every single one of them seems to ride it for all it's worth while in office.

Truly pathetic situation - nobody in the game has even the slightest incentive to institute significant reform - other than maybe just behaving like a principled human being. Fat chance.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[DanG 1]

For instance, the one you quoted yesterday (and now refuse to discuss) with a headline blaming Obama for increased content blocking by Google, but a text that had nothing to do with Obama.

- Dan G

[rushmc 18]

Quote

For instance, the one you quoted yesterday (and now refuse to discuss) with a headline blaming Obama for increased content blocking by Google, but a text that had nothing to do with Obama.

First off it was about the Obama admin. (splitting hairs? maybe)

Second, the intent was to demonstrate how differently many look at Obama vs Bush

You just gotta wonder how many breathlessly opened the thread thinking, "ya, that dirty evil Bush bastard...." only to be disapointed that it was not about Bush

As for the article

The requests are up under his admin

That is very simple

On another note, you are trying to redirect the thread way from what MSNBC did

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Where is your outrage over the crap reporting all over Newsmax?

I don't equate MSNBC to Newsmax. Want to equate Fox News then go for it.

But Newsmax? We're talking Andrea Mitchell, here. Former NBC Chief White House correspondent. Someone with serious journalistic cred on a serious station. And Mitchell's excuse for the edit that took all context out of it? She "didn't get a chance to play that." "That" being the rest of it.

I understand that NBC News is a big dog, and MSNBC is the more "opinion" laden material. However, if you have to twist and edit something to make your point, the point itself must not be that good.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

I haven't even seen the Andrea Mitchel video. I was merely commenting that it's a little hypocritical to feign righteous indignation over something when a certain person's prefered news source does the same or worse every single day.

- Dan G

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Where is your outrage over the crap reporting all over Newsmax?

Not familiar with Newsmax or anything in particular. Post a link and I'll be happy to see if outrage follows. I only brought up this incident because someone else mentioned it in another thread in SC. I didn't go looking for it.

I think Andrea was clearly trying to make it appear that MR is out of touch with today's technology. She was disparaging him and even laughed at him (along with her guest). That wasn't reporting. It was school-yard insults with no value.

Like I said...both sides do it. Every time I see it, I think less of the people engaged in it. Kind of like when everyone who is conservative is called a Right Winger or anyone who is liberal is called a Left Winger. It's an attempt to discredit someone with no legitimate examination of their point. Like a little kid who is out of his depth and comes up with the stunning "I'm rubber, you're glue!"

I'd just like to see everyone take one step closer to acting their age.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[DanG 1]

Quote

First off it was about the Obama admin. (splitting hairs? maybe)

First off, no it wasn't. That why everyone in the thread was trying to figure out your point. It was about requests during the Obama Administration's time in office, not from the Obama Administration.

Quote

Second, the intent was to demonstrate how differently many look at Obama vs Bush

You just gotta wonder how many breathlessly opened the thread thinking, "ya, that dirty evil Bush bastard...." only to be disapointed that it was not about Bush

As for the article

The requests are up under his admin

That is very simple

Why didnt you explain any of that in the other thread? Regardless, your point is stupid, since as everyone has tried to explain to you, your article had nothing to do with Obama or his administration.

What I'm commenting on is that you'll take as face value an extremely misleading headline from Newsmax, but rail against similar tactics from MSNBC. That's call hypocrisy.

Quote

On another note, you are trying to redirect the thread way from what MSNBC did

The thread was about civil discourse in the public arena. It wasn't about MSNBC specfically, the OP merely used that as an example. I was attempting to further the discussion by pointing out that hyper-partisans like you react exactly as expected. I would make the same comment about funjumper or another hyper-partisan lefty.

- Dan G

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

First off it was about the Obama admin. (splitting hairs? maybe)

First off, no it wasn't. That why everyone in the thread was trying to figure out your point. It was about requests during the Obama Administration's time in office, not from the Obama Administration.

Quote

Second, the intent was to demonstrate how differently many look at Obama vs Bush

You just gotta wonder how many breathlessly opened the thread thinking, "ya, that dirty evil Bush bastard...." only to be disapointed that it was not about Bush

As for the article

The requests are up under his admin

That is very simple

Why didnt you explain any of that in the other thread? Regardless, your point is stupid, since as everyone has tried to explain to you, your article had nothing to do with Obama or his administration.

What I'm commenting on is that you'll take as face value an extremely misleading headline from Newsmax, but rail against similar tactics from MSNBC. That's call hypocrisy.

Quote

On another note, you are trying to redirect the thread way from what MSNBC did

The thread was about civil discourse in the public arena. It wasn't about MSNBC specfically, the OP merely used that as an example. I was attempting to further the discussion by pointing out that hyper-partisans like you react exactly as expected. I would make the same comment about funjumper or another hyper-partisan lefty.

Stupid in your opinion

Probably because my point hits close to home

BTW, I don’t mind being told you don’t agree with my points or my posts or that you think they are stupid

And, if you don’t start out with some kind of veiled insult I will at least talk with you

Or, I can throw the same shit you pitch back at you

Your choice


Oh, and one more thing

I will bet there were many who opened the thread thinking they got something new on that evil Bush

But like you, they will never admit it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The much bigger problem is the lack of ethics. It's certainly a problem inherent in the system and processes - but it is nonetheless audacious that not a single one of them chooses to actually do something about it. Once they leave office we get a good number of tell-all books and interviews where they admit to how totally corrupt the system is and how it is completely out of line with serving the interest of the general population - but every single one of them seems to ride it for all it's worth while in office.

What books are you referring to? I haven't heard Clinton or Nixon talk about the corrupt White House.

But as for your question - it's a lot easier to look back and see it for what it was. It's a bit different when you're in the midst of it, just trying to keep up with the duties of the office. Look at Obama and all the promises he made before winning the election. I don't believe he was lying/campaigning then - I think he really believed he could just walk in and do these things. That's what you get when you combine intelligence with no experience. When faces with the full picture, suddenly many of Bush's stances didn't seem so wrong. One could claim that's being captured by the system, but I'll just say that the real world is a bit complicated.

[DanG 1]

Quote

I will bet there were many who opened the thread thinking they got something new on that evil Bush

But like you, they will never admit it

Actually, I opened the thread because I knew it would have some attempted twist. How did I know? Because you posted it, and you have a pretty good track record of posting exclusively anti-Obama articles. There was no way in hell you were going to start a thread critical of Bush.

If you think you're the shining example of evenhandedness we should all aspire to, you are not being very self-aware.

- Dan G

[Remster 24]

Quote

Please don't go partisan on this

I tried...

Remster

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

I will bet there were many who opened the thread thinking they got something new on that evil Bush

But like you, they will never admit it

Actually, I opened the thread because I knew it would have some attempted twist. How did I know? Because you posted it, and you have a pretty good track record of posting exclusively anti-Obama articles. There was no way in hell you were going to start a thread critical of Bush.

If you think you're the shining example of evenhandedness we should all aspire to, you are not being very self-aware.

Ah

and now a great example of good reason or excuse to insult

Please

continue

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln