Dude, not healthy. Nothing against the site, but you gotta get out more... ;)

What I mean is, with the exception of a few Israel comments on Yahoo and Gun Control discussions on DISQUS, Weigantia is the only place where I have ongoing discussions and debates..

I read voraciously from anything and everything... CNN, FNC, Drudge, Reuters, HuffPo, Al Jazeera, etc etc..

But here is the only place I can actually talk about the things I read..

Aren't ya'all just the luckiest ones!! :D

Michale

Yea, that's what people keep telling me.. :D

Michale

But, for better or worse, Weigantia is the totality of my political world..

Dude, not healthy. Nothing against the site, but you gotta get out more... ;)

The anonymity of commenting online means any drunken fool can type out what he (or she, to be fair) thinks is clever at midnight some enchanted evening...

(http://xkcd.com/386/)

"Now yer just being nasty.."
-Indiana Jones, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK

:D

Michale

...in this particular case, I think you're wasting your breath...

Quixotic it may be, but the alternatives are to leave it stand unchallenged or to respond with incivility. And I'm sure I'd enjoy having a beer or two with Michale (at least that's how I imagine our conversations when I reply), as I'm sure I would with many of you.

...I'm not sure if that's more a comment on my friendliness or my love for beer, but such things are best left unexamined.

...there are lots of folks here who truly do appreciate your efforts.

You're very kind.

...my theory is that [Michale]'s trying to prove he's more stubborn than the lot of us!

I suspect you're right. In fact, I think he likes us, enjoys the sparring, and, secretly, actually agrees with us (*grinning mischieviously*). You know, kind of like pulling pigtails in class...

I am always reminded of the vicious things the Federalists said about Thomas Jefferson in the election of 1800. You think things are bad now? Check out the historical record -- they've always been pretty bad, in American politics.

The only thing I've read on this is John Ferling's book, but, yes! Then add in the barely contained animosity between the northern and southern states (also reflected in the 1800 votes) papered over by the compromises of the Constitutional Convention, only to spill out into war 60 years later.

So, yeah, its a bit worrying, especially as our blue and red jerseys seem to becoming more geographically separated as people self-select into like-minded regions. Gerrymandering could become the least of our problems.

The Internet opens it up to a much wider audience, so maybe we all just think things are getting worse?

Agreed, but there is no way to go but forward. Since we are the Internet then we also have the means to improve it.

Instead of behaving like we're in traffic, yelling at other cars and flipping birds as though their drivers aren't humans we might actually enjoy lunch with some day, we might try being a teeny, tiny bit more civil. You know, those fender benders get expensive after a while (cite: "Why Johnny Can't Speed" by Alan Dean Foster)...

Well said...

Michale

Perhaps..

But, for better or worse, Weigantia is the totality of my political world.. :D

Michale

EXACTLY!!

That guy gets it!! And from HuffPo no less!!!

What *I* don't get is why we don't see more of that from Weigantians in particular and the Left Wingery in general??

Why can't anyone here JOIN me in condemning the acts at MU as outlined in many of my recent comments??

Only two reasons come to mind..

1> No one here wants to be seen agreeing with me.. :D

or

B> Everyone here agrees with the Wanna Be Pampered And Parented College kids...

Frankly, I think the guy that advocates raising the voting age to 25 has REALLY good points..

As Reason’s Robby Soave notes, student demands for “safe spaces” boil down to a demand that universities fulfill the role of Mommy and Daddy. In the old days — this practice, interestingly, ended about 1971, too — colleges stood in loco parentis (in the place of parents) and, as Soave writes, exercised extensive and detailed control over students’ social lives, sleeping hours, organizing and speaking. Now, he observes, the students are “desperate to be treated like children again.”

Well, OK, I guess. But children don’t vote. Those too fragile to handle different opinions are too fragile to participate in politics. So maybe we should raise the voting age to 25, an age at which, one fervently hopes, some degree of maturity will have set in. It’s bad enough to have to treat college students like children. But it’s intolerable to be governed by spoiled children. People who can’t discuss Halloween costumes rationally don’t deserve to play a role in running a great nation.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/11/11/raise-voting-age-25-yale-missouri-protests-political-debate-column/75577468/

Let me put it this way, CW... I'll believe that it's an actual conflict within the Left Wingery when Weigantians start to actually rationally debate and discuss the issue..

Until that time... "Silence gives assent"

Michale

Life at the New and Improved Mizzou Campus: White Students Asked to Leave “Black-Only Healing Space”
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/life-at-the-new-and-improved-mizzou-campus-white-students-asked-to-leave-black-only-healing-space/

Call me silly, but it's always been my understanding that *ANY* race-based criteria is the very textbook definition of racism..

Apparently, it's ONLY "racism" when it's the Right who is doing it....

Hypocrisy... Pure and simple...

That's why it's always so hard to take ANY accusations of racism from the Left seriously...

Michale

No, I don't want to call "foul"...

What I DO call "foul" on is the hypocrisy.. The airs that the Left Wingery puts on whenever they respond to the Right's attacks...

But the facts clearly show that the Left is as mean, nasty and hate-filled as the Right..

In short, I don't mind that the Left is as much assholes as the Right...

But, since we ALL agree that the Left IS as much assholes as the Right, the Left should admit it..

That's all I am saying...

"Hi, my name is Left Wingery and I am an asshole.."
-AssAnon meeting

Is that too much to ask??

Apparently, it is...

Michale

Again, I am not faulting Dems for being that way..

*MY* bitch is that they claim they AREN'T that way...

See comment #29...

Michale

I am sure I did.. And, if I didn't, I SHOULD have...

So, you agree with me. You agree that calling political opponents "terrorists" solely over political differences is pathetically beyond the pale...

Right??

"Right?? Buddy??"
-Woody, TOY STORY

:D

Michale

It's NOT a "bad" thing, per se..

It's only bad when the Left tries to deny that they are as nasty and hate-filled as the Right..

As is usually the case, it's the blatant hypocrisy that bugs the crap outta me..

If the Left Wingery wants to stand and say (as you just did) that the Left is as mean and nasty and hate-filled as the Right, you wouldn't hear a peep out of me about it.. :D

Now that things are more equal, they're whining about it. Pretty pathetic, when you think about it.

I completely agree.. It IS pathetic that the Right complains..

Michale

A quote I'm reminded of, but have no idea where it came from (could have been Doonesbury, but probably not):

"...so they were supposed to fight valiantly, like Harvard, and then always lose."

Maybe Dems just got tired of that, eh? You can only be the Washington Generals for so long before you want to actually win a game or two...

-CW

So, we've achieved parity. How is that a bad thing? You yourself used to ridicule Dems for being ineffective in Congress. Nowadays, not so much, eh?

Maybe the Right was just getting too comfortable being the only ones on the block to bring a gun to a gun fight instead of a knife. Now that things are more equal, they're whining about it. Pretty pathetic, when you think about it.

-CW

Damn, you certainly are doing a great job of raising the level of erudition around here, just had to say that!

I mean, in this particular case, I think you're wasting your breath, but rest assured, there are lots of folks here who truly do appreciate your efforts.

Good point about Rove, his major contribution to political history may indeed be "attack your opponent on the issue where you are the weakest." It seems so counter-intuitive, but when done right it works brilliantly (see: Swiftboating John Kerry, for instance).

As for what Michale calls "Weigantia," you're right, we're really too small to form any sort of proper statistical universe, whether biased or not.

Which leads me to a plug to all the "lurkers" out there, who read these columns but never comment -- hey, folks, jump in! Write your first comment! Join the party!

As for Michale putting up with Lefty stubbornness, well, my theory is that he's trying to prove he's more stubborn than the lot of us!

Heh.

-CW

I remember when a Bush (II) cabinet official called all teachers and their unions "terrorists". Was about 2006 or so. So of course you denounced that, at the time, right?

Because, as we all know, you're ever so willing to accept responsibility for viciousness from the Right... [pause for audience laughter]

Admit it, you're just as bad as anyone else. When someone on your side says something hilarious (even if untrue) and snarky in the extreme, you laugh loudly and cheer them on. So why are you so annoyed at the other side doing exactly the same thing? As Pogo Possum said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

As for Trump, it's not the Left that's trying to destroy him. It's the Right. The Left is bemused, at best, and at worst in a state of "orgasmic schadenfreude," as I pointed out.

What you apparently want (and I totally sympathize, it's a reasonable thing to wish for) is a return to the era when the Right beat up on the Left with absolute impunity, because the Left would not fight back using the same gutter tactics. Now that they are matcing the Right in viciousness, you want to call "foul" and institute new rules... but only for the Left. I hate to say it, friend, but those days are gone.

But I do have to thank you, as I believe that's the first time in my life I've been called a "Grand Poohbah" of anything....

Heh.

-CW

And THAT is my point..

The Liberals of our childhood are gone...

They have become just as mean and nasty and hate-filled as they accuse the Right of being..

That is EXACTLY what I am saying..

In other words, mean and nasty and hate is something expected of the Right..

Until recently, it was the SOLE purview OF the Right..

As you point out, this is no longer the case..

Michale

I also think the Internet has much to answer for. The anonymity of commenting online means any drunken fool can type out what he (or she, to be fair) thinks is clever at midnight some enchanted evening (wait a minute... checks clock... heh...).

This has led to a lot of snarkiness (and worse) that, previously, never would have had a platform others could read. So maybe this sort of thing has always been with us, just in a very localized way. The Internet opens it up to a much wider audience, so maybe we all just think things are getting worse?

I am always reminded of the vicious things the Federalists said about Thomas Jefferson in the election of 1800. You think things are bad now? Check out the historical record -- they've always been pretty bad, in American politics.

-CW

It's also a generational thing. 18-year-old voters next year will have been born in 1999. That's a decade after the Berlin Wall came down and the end of the Cold War. "Socialist" has about the same emotional punch to them as "Federalist" or "Whig" -- it's a dusty term from a history book they didn't read.

-CW

The Left still has disagreements among itself with far more regularity than the Right. Here's an article you'll actually enjoy, by way of example:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/good-men-project/liberals-deeply-disturbed-political-correctness_b_8537946.html

-CW

OK, I'm going to attempt an answer before I read the whole thread.

Actually, from where I sit, you've got it absolutely backwards. The Right perfected this technique a LONG long time ago. See Barry Goldwater, for instance. Or any commie-hunter from that era (Nixon, Reagan, McCarthy, etc). See the language they used against the Left.

This continued through the 70s and 80s, where brutal language was used by the Right against the Left (mostly about being "soft on crime" and not "law and order"), while (as you point out) the Left was trying to be inclusive.

Finally, after 12 years of Reaganomics and Bush I, Dems began learning the lessons of the GOP's success. In a word, they started fighting back, using the same rhetoric that had been used against them for decades. They weren't very good at it at first, and didn't really come into their own until the late 2000's (the decade, not the century). From that point on, Dems have been the ones in Congress (under Pelosi, for instance) who have hung together and directed their attacks on the Right, while the GOP has collapsed into in-fighting -- where they're using the same rhetorical weapons against each other (and the Republican Party) that they've always used against the Left. See: the entire 2016 campaign, so far.

So maybe the Left is a wee bit harsh these days, but they learned at the feet of masters.

That's my take on it, at any rate. We're just catching up, not leading.

Ciao.

-CW

It's not so much that the hate is "MORE" propagated by the Left so much as the hate used to be anathema to the Leftist ideology..

No, it's not. This isn't a rigorous metric that can objectively be examined, and as stated, I doubt its falsifiable.

Sure it can examined... Would you like the multitude of factual examples that are available?

But you went further, Michale. You didn't just hypothesize that it might be true -- you claimed it indeed was. If that was your criterion, where is the specific and objective data to support your evaluation with respect to that criterion?

What exactly are you saying?

Are you claiming that the Left HASN'T referred to Republicans as "terrorists"??

Are you claiming that the Left HASN'T leveled false accusations of racism against the Right??

Because there is ample facts to prove otherwise..

If you doubt my facts, just say so.. :D

I'll be happy to show you... :D

Michale

Count the number of times that Weigantians in particular or the Left Wingery in general have said, "Ya know?? I think I might be wrong and Xxxxxxx is right. I think I might actually be part of the problem and not part of the solution.."

If this was your intended metric for measuring and improving civility, I argue it's one-sided and lacks objectivity.

First, its a bit like saying we'll only decide who won a soccer match on the basis of the number of goals the yellow team scores without regard to the number the green team scores. An objective criterion would be to count the number of times the specific (ok, near) phrase "Ya know?? I think I might be wrong and Xxxxxxx is right. I think I might actually be part of the problem and not part of the solution.." is written by both sides. I don't see it as a particularly convincing metric in response to your specific claim that the Left has more "nasties and haters", but at least its a potential objective criterion and could be the start of interesting conversation.

Second, you're begging the question when you start with "Weigantians in particular". The blog has a stated and transparent bias toward liberal policies. In general, its population will expect strong evidence that to claims by opposing viewpoints. In other words, there's a skepticism of opposing viewpoints even when open minded to listening -- it's not a blank slate. The site has a small number of commenters, and so isn't compelling as a sample size for statistical analysis. If you want to challenge what you perceive as liberal dogma, you'd probably want to come prepared with rigorous evidence that could convince a skeptic (note I said "skeptic" -- that doesn't mean unpersuadable). I know I would if I participated in Red State or GOPLifer comment sections.

Even so, what does integrity with regard to admitting one's mistakes or changing one's mind by the few commenters here have to do the Left's "haters and nasties" or, as you later claimed, "false accusations of racism" or "ridiculous accusations of terrorism"?

And, if we Left are so bad or so stubborn, why do you bother with us in the first place?

Thank you for your replies. Just to be clear, I was writing most about your claim that the level of hate is more propagated by the Left and less about the tenor of yours or others' specific replies on this forum.

The false accusations of racism and the ridiculous accusations of terrorism is all the proof that is needed...

No, it's not. This isn't a rigorous metric that can objectively be examined, and as stated, I doubt its falsifiable.

The metric I'm looking for would require, at minimum, at the first of two parts: an objective criterion that is can be measured (even if indirectly; quantitative is usually more convincing than qualitative but not always) and data that measures results with respect to that criterion (that the data could be verified regardless of who is examining is of course preferred over unverifiable data).

For instance, highest number of goals scored in a soccer match would be a criterion. The specific data of 4 goals for the green team and 2 goals for the yellow team would be measuring data. Even if you don't have the data available for measuring, you should at least be able to state a reasonable criterion that could theoretically be evaluated objectively even if the data weren't available at the moment.

So, I'll return to your claim:
Granted, the Right has it's fair share of nasties and haters as well, although not to the level of the Left.

As I said, I believe your claim is unfalsifiable and so is just pejorative rather than constructive. From the most generous point of view, it does allow the start of a earnest discussion about what we all can do reduce the nastiness regardless of what side we might sympathize with. At worst, it merely means to defensively point blame at others without taking responsibility for it by oneself.

The false accusations of racism and the ridiculous accusations of terrorism is all the proof that is needed...

Your response though was to make two more claims. First, that the Left is more likely (by way of extension from the first claim) to falsely accuse the other side of racism, and two, that the Left accuses the other side of terrorism, apparently at a "ridiculous" degree.

Those are both very serious claims. If you leveled such charges at an individual without cause, it could be grounds for libel if you couldn't prove them. Pointing vaguely at some unidentified group merely lacks courage -- I characterized it as "rabble rousing" last time.

So is it that you intend the metric to be that there are more people on the Left that engage in unfounded claims of racism or terrorism in their opponents than say people on the Right that do? We could, at least potentially, measure that. That might rise to a criterion for substantiating a metric. Was that your claim?

But you went further, Michale. You didn't just hypothesize that it might be true -- you claimed it indeed was. If that was your criterion, where is the specific and objective data to support your evaluation with respect to that criterion?

***

I'm considering another hypothesis. Back in his heyday in the early in mid 2000s, Karl Rove was known for preaching to "attack an opponent on their strengths." It was considered an innovation in campaigning strategy. Perhaps the purpose of claiming the Left spews a level of hate beyond that of the far Right is a demonstration of that Rovian ethic.

Or was this just idle chit chat, Michale, to fill the comments section of a wonky blog before CW obviates this column for the pending Friday Talking Points?

Wingnut trolls can't help themselves.

We agree about a few things about Hillary, but I have specifically lambasted most of your wingnuttery about her.
Most importantly, you insist on lying about her being representative of the Left, when she is a right wing corporatist lying about being progressive just to get elected.
Being slightly to the left of your wingnut ilk does not Left make.

On unemployment, we were talking about two different aspects... and my six year old niece was better at One of These Things Is Not Like The Other than you are if you're still trying to jump my train.
But, if you had actually been agreeing with my point rather than claiming validation for your very different "point", I would have no problem with it... as I've stated several times now... yet you keep lying about that too for some reason.

As far as your claim about "personal attacks", my apt description of you is based on the content and character of your comments. And you are most certainly a wingnut troll.
I get that you take it personally, but it's simply fact.
You constantly spew right wing nuttery.
And you constantly engage in trollery.

"Those who can NOT take a step back and honestly assess themselves and their positions... They are part of the problem".

Maybe you will eventually come out of the closet and admit it and own it.
I understand that it will be embarrassing to openly associate with the other wingnuts whose talking points you regurgitate as if they are independent thoughts, but that is the cross you've chosen to bear.

BTW, as for your response to rdnewman, you clearly have no grasp of what either a metric is or what substantiation means. You did not offer a metric and you did not substantiate your claim... but then, you never do.

And, you clearly missed Bleyde's point.

Typical wingnut troll.

Technically speaking, it was Bleyd who was missing the point..

I was asking why the Left Wingery is so full of hate and anger...

Bleyd gave me a link about the Right Wingery.....

Which, if you look at it, kind of illustrates my points made in comments 1, 3, 6, 7, 12, 13 and 14 quite perfectly.....

Those who can NOT take a step back and honestly assess themselves and their positions... They are part of the problem...

Those who can.... They are part of the solution...

Michale

But I'm trying! :D

Michale

To be fair to BigAl....

(see!? The guy treats me like dirt at EVERY opportunity, yet I am still fair with him.. Another example of me not just talking the talk but walking the walk..)

... I am not the easiest guy to agree with.. And yes, I do have a tendency to gloat somewhat when facts and circumstances prove me right...

But that's kinda my point.....

*I* can admit my culpability and responsibility for the problems..

If the totality of the Left Wingery could follow that example then there wouldn't BE any problems..

You wanted an "objective measurable metric" on the table??

There it is...

Count the number of times that Weigantians in particular or the Left Wingery in general have said, "Ya know?? I think I might be wrong and Xxxxxxx is right. I think I might actually be part of the problem and not part of the solution.."

The fact that you would be hard pressed to find such an example around here (sans the Grand Poobah hisself, I can only think of two for the first part and NONE for the second part) is all the objective proof someone needs to substantiate comment #7...

The first step in fixing this mess is to admit 1> the other side are not monsters and B> one's Party doesn't have all the answers....

Sadly, you will find very few who can admit that and has the stamina to go the distance....

Michale

The false accusations of racism and the ridiculous accusations of terrorism is all the proof that is needed...

:D

So, put a practical solution on the table to improve civility. It's time to stop pointing and saying how "left wingers" (or "right wingers" for that matter) are wrong and see what you'd actually do about it.

The key is to find the common ground and build on that.

Emphasize the common ground rather than the ground that divides us..

I try to do that a lot around here..

Take BigAl for example. We both have the same thoughts about Hillary. We both have the same thoughts about the employment issue.

But every time I try to bring it up, I get it thrown back in my face with a heaping helping of personal attacks.. You see his comment above...

He just can't BEAR the fact that we actually agree on something.... He is not the only one who thinks like that, but he is the latest example...

THAT epitomizes the problem with the Left/Right..

Take Donald Trump for another example. If you get past one MINOR issue (the illegal immigrant issue) and get past one MAJOR issue (the -R after his name) Trump has a LOT of ideas that Democrats have said in the past that they LOVE..

But because of that '-R' Trump is Lucifer incarnate and must be destroyed by the Left...

No, my friend, the battle lines have been drawn... The people like that HuffPo commenter above are the ones drawing them...

So get real, Michale, and put an objective, measurable metric (or two) on the table and what you, personally and with us, can do to improve that metric for the people you interact with. If you put a good faith effort in that, I'll be happy to see how I can help.

I did and I have.. You have as well, by putting out your thoughts on the incessant personal attacks...

But, to paraphrase Spock in DAY OF THE DOVE

"Those who hate must stop it themselves. Or it is never really stopped."

Until then, I reject your claim as unsubstantiated rabble rousing.

That's your right and I wouldn't dare intrude on that right..

But unsubstantiated???

We should promote a civic atmosphere of civility and understanding."
~~~~~
I agree. But we'd have to first ban Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, along with ALL the gotp candidates AND foxnews before we can ever attempt to return to a civil nation.

I can provide MANY MANY MANY more instances to substantiate my claims...

The "problem" is my claims are ALL perfectly and 1000% factual.. But they are largely ignored (present company excepted, of course :D ) because A> They ARE dead on ballz accurate and 2> To acknowledge the comments, Lefties would have to acknowledge their responsibility, their culpability in the problem..

They could NEVER do that and, as such, they are part of the problem.. NOT part of the solution...

"Good talk..."
-Dr Rodney McKay, STARGATE: ATLANTIS

Michale

Granted, the Right has it's fair share of nasties and haters as well, although not to the level of the Left.

Well, that's a hell of a claim, friend. If you wanted to prove you were correct, as objectively as possible, what metric would you propose?

I will say that it's clear that there is a lot of animosity built up and that both "sides" of the aisle behave as though besieged and attacked. The angst is palpable. It's my impression from reading sites from both sides and in deliberately starting conversations with people I imagine may agree or disagree with me, that there is a genuine feeling on both sides of being vilified and demonized by the other side.

But the thing is, there aren't really any sides. Most people want roughly the same things and can find agreement if they aren't made to join one tribe or the other. Most people want things to work out. Instead the current polarization is as much manufactured outrage as a way to sell advertising on news programs and get politicians elected as it is anything. Its like the sort of sports rivalries that get everyone excited to put on face paint.

So, put a practical solution on the table to improve civility. It's time to stop pointing and saying how "left wingers" (or "right wingers" for that matter) are wrong and see what you'd actually do about it.

This is not just a theoretical discussion for me. I'm part of a local civility focus with a year long project in 2016 that very much wants to find a way for people to have reasonable thoughts about contentious issues -- say on gun control or religious freedoms -- without it just turning into 3rd grade playground fights and hair pulling (figuratively speaking, of course) that cause 90% of regular citizens to just throw up their hands and walk away.

So get real, Michale, and put an objective, measurable metric (or two) on the table and what you, personally and with us, can do to improve that metric for the people you interact with. If you put a good faith effort in that, I'll be happy to see how I can help.

Until then, I reject your claim as unsubstantiated rabble rousing.

Nice.
I think your response was a good attempt at avoiding futility.

Hard to say if wingnut trolls like Micha are missing the point, or choosing to miss the point, eh?

They do love "debating" a false premise.

A

One of the other arguments against Sanders being bandied about is the supposed ease the Repubs will have in demonizing the socialist thing.

This is more of a possible talking point type thing than a column thing, but after 7 years of endless Repub harping about (neoliberal) Obama being an unAmerican/communist/Marxist/Muslim/Kenyan/Pastafarian... ok... that last one I threw in there because I know I'm forgetting one of their standard bits...

... anyway, after all their nonsense, doesn't it seem like just maybe a big, bad democratic socialist just won't be as useful in scaring most voters?

Obviously, it's Hillary supporters currently making the argument, and I imagine some Repub strategists will try it if he's the nominee... and there's no denying old rich men and a large segment of Repub base voters may be swayed by their childhood boogeyman, but they aren't going to vote for a Dem anyway...

... so, could it be that Repubs have sort of inoculated the electorate against what was previously one of their go-to attack lines?

A

Those are both excellent ideas for columns. The head-to-head thing I still think is too early (I've been keeping an eye on this polling, but I don't think it'll be relevant until just before the primaries actually start, when voters get more serious about their choices).

But the Obama/Clinton vs. Sanders/Clinton is a great idea. I will look into the differences and similarities, and thanks for giving me the idea!

:-)

-CW

The problem I am speaking of is epitomized by a commenter on HuffPoo..

We should promote a civic atmosphere of civility and understanding."
~~~~~
I agree. But we'd have to first ban Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, along with ALL the gotp candidates AND foxnews before we can ever attempt to return to a civil nation.

Get that??

"We will promote a civic atmosphere of civility and understanding.. Our FIRST step in doing so is to eliminate voices that we don't agree with.."
-The Left Wingery

THAT is the EXACT problem I am referring to....

THAT is the EXACT attitude that forces the Left Wingery to relinquish ANY moral or ethical ground they might have held...

THAT is the problem with the Left... Exemplified...

And what is so utterly MIND-BOGGLING about it is that the Left Wingery sees ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with it!!!

They are like Dr Evil on Jerry Springer going, "Wha??? What's the problem??? Whaddyii do??"

Until the Left Wingery can take a good hard look in the mirror and say to themselves, "Geeee.. Maybe WE are part of the problem..." any changes are only going to be brought about by force of arms...

And the Right is MUCH better armed and MUCH better trained than the Left...

Michale

Thanx, but I already know why Republicans are like that..

My question is, why is the LEFT the way the Left is??

The Right is easy to figure out... And much of the reason why the Right is the way the Right is in the here and now is a direct result of the Left being the way the Left is being.

The intolerance.. The hate... The unwillingness to compromise on even the littlest things.. The *ridiculous* accusations of terrorism and the blatantly false accusations of racism....

That explains a LOT of what the Right is the way the Right is...

But why is the Left the way the Left is??

What happened to the Liberals of my childhood?? The ones who would be MADDENINGLY sweet?? The ones who would epitomize the concept of "I don't agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it"???

The liberals who would feel that ALL opinions have values?? The liberals who were all about diversity and not imposing their will on ANYONE...

What happened to THOSE liberals??

Because, from where I sit, the "liberals" of today are EXACTLY like they Left accuses the Right of being??

Michale

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-north-patterson/why-are-republicans-like_b_8474026.html

I didn't necessarily agree with all of his points, but I think he makes several accurate observations that contribute to your questions regarding hate and partisanship.

You would seem to be the right person to be raising a comparison of the current Bernie/ Hillary poll numbers to the Obama/Hillary poll numbers from 8 years ago.

Maybe throw in the fundraising/donor numbers too?

Now that the "we can ignore Bernie" phase is over, the comparison becomes quite revealing.

Given that Bernie's doing a little better than our current president, and that name recognition has been a major factor in polling, I think your readers would be well served by the effort.

I would also welcome your expertise and current input on the back and forth among supporters of the two Dem candidates on some of the recent poll numbers.
It seems that older groups and larger numbers of people with landlines may be influencing some of the recent polls... perhaps intentionally.

I am asking you, because I have some doubts about the impartiality and accuracy of some of those presenting the arguments on both sides.

I also wouldn't mind hearing your two cents on the head-to-head poll matchups with Repubs either, as it seems they have some bearing on the electability argument the Hillary supporters insist on clinging to (flashback language trigger)... not unlike the argument they failed with against Obama btw.
Given the disarray on the Repub side, it may be too early... but I'd still like to know what you think.

Thanks
A

To be fair, I am fully cognizant of the fact that the majority of Weigantians don't "hate" Republicans..

But I could point to more than a few that do..

With the Left Wingery in general, I am on firmer ground..

The level of hatred and animosity that the Left directs toward the right is unprecedented in my lifetime..

Granted, the Right has it's fair share of nasties and haters as well, although not to the level of the Left..

But with the Right, it's ALWAYS been there.. "Traitors" and "Communists" have been the go-to epithet for the Right Wingery as long as I can remember..

Seeing so-called "liberals" descend to such depths of hatred and vitriol with their hysterical cries of "TERRORIST!!!, "HOSTAGE TAKER!!!" ??

Well, that's just a new development..

So, I think it's a fair question...

Does the hatred beget partisanship?

Or does the partisanship produce the hatred?

Does anyone on the Left really care??

Michale

Isn't it just completely and utterly ridiculous to make so much out of a candidate's hair??

Oh... wait.... :D

Michale

I am curious...

Does the partisanship fuel the hatred??

Or does the hatred feed the partisanship??

Or are they one and the same??

Michale