Democrats and Republicans once treated one another with respect. Is today’s animus caused by the Far Right or Far Left?
In case you haven’t noticed, Republicans have a problem. Believe it or not, it isn’t a problem with Democrats. It isn’t a problem with Republicans. We have a serious problem with Far Right conservatives. We have a serious problem with Far Left liberals. And – we have a problem with everyone and their uncle telling “us” what to do, even though they’re not Republicans.…
Article comments
26 - roger nowosielski
It's a lost cause, Glenn. Fuck it.
27 - Arch Conservative
Yeah Ruvy......you're not aggressively licking the lint from between Barry the messiah's toes as you chant hope and change so you're a lost cause.
28 - roger nowosielski
Don't you worry. The area where you and I can have any intelligent conversation has shrunk to a virtual nil.
29 - Arch Conservative
Speaking of public opinions Roger.........did you happen to notice that Dick Cheney's approval rating has been on the rise ever since he decided to take King Barry to task over his duplicitous handling of the torture issue?
But hey if your child is killed in the next 911 like attack due to Barry's incompetence and ignorance you can take some degree of consolation by placing one of those fucking hope and change campaign signs in the fucking coffin!
30 - roger nowosielski
I never said, Archie, that the Left has a monopoly on public opinion. Obviously, public opinion is divided on lots of issues. If it weren't, we'd all be under one thumb, whether from the Left or the Right.
I think it's rather good that we're still free in this country to express disagreement, don't you think?
31 - Arch Conservative
Yes I do. But unfortunately most leftists don't agree with you and I.
This is eveidenced by their attempts to stifle anyone who disagrees with them whether it be through the Facsist Fairness Doctrine or a bunch of screaming college kids who belong to some campus orgnation with the words "socialist" or "workers" in the title who feel it necessary to get in the face of anyone they disagree with and scream like a five year old brat.
32 - roger nowosielski
Well, Archie, I can't be responsible for that. I see as much intolerance from the Left as from the Right. I think we all have responsibility to think as individuals.
Any construct, such as "public opinion" or mass consciousness is necessarily diluted, reduced to the lowest common denominator, and vulgar.
I've always try to think for myself.
33 - Arch Conservative
You're right there is no shortage of intolerance on both the right and left Roger.
However the intolerance on the left has become so mainstream that it's too often viewed as an acceptable norm.
Just look at how King Barry publicly ridiculed the tea party protestors because they were critical of his policies. It was downright disgusting and if I had had any respect for him at that point time, I would have lost all of it.
I dare anyone to show a similiar example of Bush going on national TV and publicly criticizing private American citizens expressing their beliefs the way that Obama did.
34 - Ruvy
Bing, at comment #27. Try to remember that for my own selfish reasons, I supported the Blessed of Hussein as your president, and I got what I wanted - in spades (pun intended).
I don't want to see this SOB killed off, even though he is leading your country into disaster. I want to see the Israeli regime replaced, and its present leaders jailed or executed for treason, so that a real regime that will see to it that there is a Jewish country here will arise.
Obama is the target marker, the evil priest of the Setting Sun - America. He who bows to the evil priest of the Setting Sun, is the target.
Once I get what I'm looking for, I do not care about the fate of the Blessed of Hussein.
35 - roger nowosielski
I don't want to argue, Archie, about who is worst. That's an argument I'm certain neither I nor you would care to win. I'll just say that ridicule is just one weapon at one's arsenal. Calling people "communists," "socialists," "un-American" - any of the names and labels which have become the mainstay of today's political debate not just "out there" but on BC, too - is another tactic. So you take your pick.
But then again, that's an argument I do not care to win.
36 - Arch Conservative
"Calling people "communists," "socialists," "un-American" - any of the names and labels which have become the mainstay of today's political debate not just "out there" but on BC, too - is another tactic. So you take your pick."
During the campaign the very words "we're going to spread the wealth around" came directly out of King Barry's mouth and you're seriously going to take issue with people calling him a socialist?
37 - zingzing
well, archie, until he enacts a socialist agenda, you're just extracting your own meaning from those words. socialism is a specific thing, not just whatever you want it to be.
38 - Dr Dreadful
During the campaign the very words "we're going to spread the wealth around" came directly out of King Barry's mouth and you're seriously going to take issue with people calling him a socialist?
Archie, for your edification, this is the FULL version of the pertinent part of Obama's conversation with Joe the Plumber. Not only did he not say those 'very words', the context in which he used the phrase gives it a rather different meaning than the spin you and most of his opponents put on it.
[sourced from Politifact]
OBAMA: It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success too.
WURZELBACHER: Seems like you would be welcome to a flat tax then.
OBAMA: You know, I would be open to it except for here's the problem with a flat tax. You'd have to slap on a whole bunch of sales taxes on it. And I do believe that for folks like me who have worked hard but, frankly, also been lucky, I don't mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress who I just met over there who - things are slow, and she can barely make the rent. Because my attitude is if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's going to be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're going to be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you. And right now, everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.
39 - Dave Nalle
You castigated me for calling certain individuals within the right 'chickenhawks...yet in this thread you have others making insulting references against the entire left. I referred to single public individuals, and the other painted with a broad brush.
Glenn, I haven't seen anything as offensive here as what you posted, plus I'm not the comments editor, nor am I in favor of censorship. Note that I didn't delete your article, I just objected to it on personal grounds. I don't see anything as objectionable here.
Yes, some remarkably stupid things have been posted on this thread, suggesting that both our left and right readers have no real idea how the others think at all. Plus there's Ruvy's strange and sexually suggestive posting. Harmless, but amusing IMO.
But what do you want me to do? If you're offended, say so. I'm not all that bothered.
In the Navy, we believed in enforcing regulations fairly, firmly, and impartially. I recommend that you adopt the same standard. I've seen you kick off some from the right before and I know you have the capacity to be that fair...so please consider this as encouragement for you to uphold your position.
I didn't enforce any "rules" on you. I'm not enforcing any rules here. My role here in the comments section is to express my opinion.
Dave
40 - roger nowosielski
And to second what zing had said in #37, yes, the wealth should be more equitably spread in our presumably equitable society. I definitely would like to see that, rather than the Wall Street sharks and the corrupt Wall Street-government establishment claiming their ill gotten gains.
41 - Arch Conservative
There's the link to a clip of Obama saying "I think that when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." That's what he said Dr....watch the fucking clip.
Obama has spent in 100 days what it took Bush 8 years to spend and now he's pushing cap and trade which India and China will not agree to and you [edited] are still defending him.
Is it actually going to take Obama banjrupting the nation before you fucking idiots wakeup to reality?
42 - roger nowosielski
Everything that Ruvy says of late is amusing. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] But I should hold you, Dave, and some other, more responsible exponents from the opposition, to a higher standard. And I believe Glenn, too, should subscribe to such; and I made an appeal to that effect. Otherwise, there is no discussion.
43 - Dave Nalle
Roger, we may all agree that wealth should be distributed fairly. It's just that we don't agree on the methods. I believe in wealth being spread to those who work for it. Others believe it should be spread by force to those who will not work for it. I think that's a formula for societal destruction.
Dave
44 - Jeannie Danna
Arch, The link you added does not work I'm trying to learn how to add those myself...
Why don't you tell us how President Obama wants to spread the wealth around, But don't confuse the word "opportunity" with the words "accumulated wealth." They are totally different entities.
45 - El Bicho
"did you happen to notice that Dick Cheney's approval rating has been on the rise"
considering how low they were, where else could they go?
46 - Jeannie Danna
We should all pity Dick Cheney now! the stress is taking a tole on his heart...
47 - Jeannie Danna
When is SG going to make a comment?
48 - roger nowosielski
"Others believe it should be spread by force to those who will not work for it. I think that's a formula for societal destruction."
I don't think, Dave, that you'll find many of us on BC to subscribe to this proposition; there are exceptions of course.
So be reacting to the cited position - a straw man - you're putting yourself in a frame of mind that would be apt reject more moderate and sensible proposals. And in that sense, it's an obstacle to an open mind and creative thinking.
49 - zingzing
sj doesn't comment on her own posts, or anyone else's it seems... she has a purity of opinion known only by the gods and some small forms of bacterial life.
she'll "comment" by putting up another article in which she decries her reception. or something.
of course, we go off on our own tangents, and i'm not even sure if the current discussion (about ruvy and his nasties, or whatever else is going on) has any relation to the original post.
50 - zingzing
oh, right, we're talking about socialism again. who brought that up? probably dave. or archie.
red scare!
boo! (how do i make that come out in red letters?)
51 - roger nowosielski
"she has a purity of opinion known only by the gods and some small forms of bacterial life."
A gem! You should frame it.
52 - Baronius
Exactly, Zing. SJ's articles attain that purity because they avoid the two great errors of our time: everything to the left of SJ, and everything to the right of SJ. We're never told what SJ's beliefs are, but they're apparently perfect. In fact, her articles aren't about her beliefs. They're about the superiority of her beliefs.
Also, it turns out that anything offensive she says is part of a grand psychological experiment, but anything critical of her articles reflects back on the ideology of the commenter.
53 - zingzing
we can't agree on anything, baronius. if we do, things start getting strange, religions crumble, babies cry, dinner is burnt, go-go dancers start designing buildings, and i start pooping out my mouth. so cut it out.
54 - Baronius
Right. Sorry.
You're wrong, Zing. (Is that better?)
55 - roger nowosielski
But Zing. One could read Baronius's #52 as another gem - perfect irony.
Didn't you take it that way?
56 - Jeannie Danna
SJ, That seems a little cowardly. "Passive aggressive criticism" dishing it out but never taking it... I'm disappointed here!
57 - Jeannie Danna
consider this
58 - zingzing
baronius-thank you.
roger-what's the irony? i have a hard time getting a good handle on baronius' politics. sometimes, he's ridiculously right wing, sometimes he's christian (but not in the horrific way that that can happen), and sometimes he's a regular human being with empathetic and grounded (he's no ruvy in regards to his spirituality...) opinions. so i'm kinda perplexed about the irony of his response. it seems he was genuinely agreeing...
59 - roger nowosielski
You're right, zing, in that "irony" is a difficult read; but I think "straight face" is well nigh impossible. That's why I lean towards the first interpretation, because the second one is unimaginable.
Don't you think?
60 - Jeannie Danna
Roger, "Others believe it should be spread by force to those who will not work for it. I think that's a formula for social destruction." You know, If we fostered a more intelligent culture here in America more people would want to "work for it as you say" and that fostering starts with better education for all social classes not just the "creme"
61 - roger nowosielski
Of course, Jeannie. But it is not I who need to be convinced of this but people like Dave.
62 - Jeannie Danna
DAVE, that last comment was for you! sorry Roger I got the quotes mixed up! :)
63 - Jeannie Danna
You know Dave I was really pissed at you last night and I still want to chuck you your pool for that little chat about Teachers Unions! but I would like to try to understand you better...:)
64 - roger nowosielski
You'll find, Jeannie, that there'll be very few things about which we will really disagree. We're coming from pretty much the same heart/mindset.
65 - zingzing
while dave is coming in a pool.
sorry.
66 - Jeannie Danna
THANK YOU ROGER! :) ZING ha ha ha ha
67 - Jeannie Danna
Well Roger,Zing and Dave that will not speak to me, I'm calling it a night! See ya tomorrow maybe but maybe not. I can't write like this...takes too much Besides I want to really give you guys something to bitch about.. :)
68 - Jeannie Danna
jeannie's swimming pool chat
69 - roger nowosielski
Tomorrow then.
70 - Ruvy
Jeannie,
I see you have mastered links. I did get to the site you wanted us to go to. But the page at Democracy Now! you sent us to was not there or had been moved.
71 - zingzing
ruvy, your comment was deleted, but what you said was not "called for." it was bitter, rude and childish. it was you that made a "vicious personal attack," not roger.
reel that shit in. there are levels of decency, even here, and you stepped across a line that need not be crossed again.
i hope you have it in you to apologize. really. go see a therapist or something.
72 - roger nowosielski
Here it is, zing (I was on the wrong thread):
My #42 was in response to Dave's #39, in particular, when Dave says,
"Yes, some remarkably stupid things have been posted on this thread, suggesting that both our left and right readers have no real idea how the others think at all. Plus there's Ruvy's strange and sexually suggestive posting. Harmless, but amusing IMO."
So there you have it - the context. (And I did you the "f ...l" word - yes, a personal attack, but in response to sarcastic characterizations - like "the sage from Christian County KY" where I happen to be stuck for now.)
73 - Davehere
Let's see now. It must be that the Sergeant, who was my Sergeant in 1970 must have been lying about being in WW11 (at the end), at least according to Ruvy. My Sarge was all of 55 and about to retire in 1970 (had two years to go to 30). He was in WW11, Korea, and Viet Nam. You are the one who needs to get it right Ruvy. Sounds like you must be one of those who can't add =(1942 plus 30 years is 1972). Quite a few of the men in Nam were also in WW11 and Korea.