Current Political rhetoric/ speech/etc.

**deathgodusmc** · 01-17-11, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by matthewx

There is a time and a place for everything Kracker. Even though I agree with a lot of what you say, I find myself unable to actually agree with you because of how you say it. Unfortunately I rarely enter a topic in this section because of how fast civility is lost in the attempt to "drive your point home". For example, I refer to Obama as "Osama" to my click of personal friends based on how I lean with my political beliefs (and because my friends know me), however I would never refer to him in that manner in this forum, or anywhere else for one simple aspect... Respect. I think the recent banning that took place in this section was meant to emphasize this point, but unfortunately all anyone took from it was "The man fighting the voice of that which opposes him" or "Good riddance" depending on how you lean.

One of my best friends is my political polar opposite, and the reason we are both good friends is that we love to debate our points. I hold him with the highest respect; and even though most of what he says irritates the crap out of me, I never call him names. I never tell him he is stupid for thinking the way he does. I never even tell him he is 'wrong' in the aspect of arguing our opinions.

It is unfortunate that, even though I can see great intelligence in this section by those active posters, the lack of respect by both sides ends up diminishing it to just another internet argument of no merit.

The hell you say.

**Consultant** · 01-19-11, 10:34 AM

Political mean-spiritedness and personal attacks are nothing new...I mean, didn't Thomas Jefferson call John Adams a hermaphrodite? To which Adams responded that if Jefferson got elected that your children will be raped and your wife will be murdered...

Extreme rhetoric isn't new. That doesn't excuse it...but lets not act all shocked when it happens. The problem is that as a society we still largely condone it.

**~~hawgballs~~** · 01-19-11, 02:33 PM

I don't think anybody is "all shocked" about the rhetoric. I'm thinking most just aren't comfortable with the level that it is at along with the frequency. It seems a bit more like people are trying to make an attempt at taming it a little bit.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

**Consultant** · 01-19-11, 02:59 PM

I think the 24/7 news cycle that the cable news networks bring also ups the frequency with which we hear what people say. If a public figure says something "sensitive" then it will be heard 30,000 times online and on TV for the next 3 weeks. Imagine what the early founding of this country would be like if cable news existed...what a nightmare.

**CivilWars** · 01-19-11, 03:09 PM

Totally different topic, but ties into what Con just said. Saw jack Hannah on letterman, and he said all these crazy animal deaths have happened for centuries, but we just hear about them now. Same with politics.

Sent from Uranus using Tapatalk

**digital** · 01-19-11, 03:59 PM

The problem with Cable News Networks is that they try to operate 24/7.

The problem is there is not enough content to report locally, nationally or internationally.

Plus the try to "hype" things up and make reporting the news entertaining which in itself is difficult to do and not required.

The news is designed to be informative service. The problem its has become a source of entertainment and infrequent is wrong plus is full personal views and opinions.

Very rarely do you see a Local New Stations Editor/Chief give an "Op-Ed or Editorial Review" on a news piece or new story effecting the community.

You get nothing but that with CNN, Fox, MSNBC and other so called news networks.

**Red_Lizard2** · 01-19-11, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Totally different topic, but ties into what Con just said. Saw jack Hannah on letterman, and he said all these crazy animal deaths have happened for centuries, but we just hear about them now. Same with politics.

Sent from Uranus using Tapatalk

its the same with Natural disasters, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't look at ways to reduce the random deaths, or reduce the natural disasters (in the sense of better warning systems, and not building next to an active volcano etc. basically reducing life loss from it).

**Consultant** · 01-20-11, 07:37 AM

Who's saying we shouldnt? Are you just trying to argue for the sake of arguing? haha.

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

its the same with Natural disasters, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't look at ways to reduce the random deaths, or reduce the natural disasters (in the sense of better warning systems, and not building next to an active volcano etc. basically reducing life loss from it).

**Kraker Jak** · 01-20-11, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

its the same with Natural disasters, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't look at ways to reduce the random deaths, or reduce the natural disasters (in the sense of better warning systems, and not building next to an active volcano etc. basically reducing life loss from it).

Or like building a city under sea level next to the coast?