Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » the polarization of our country (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: the polarization of our country
tonylovern
Member
Member # 2580

 - posted      Profile for tonylovern   Email tonylovern   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
whatever your opinion of george bush jr. is, i think we can agree that he was a polarizing force for our nation. his policies simply did not allow for middle ground.

on the same token, obama is also a polarizing force for our country.

right now we're firmly entrenched in an us vs. them mentality. each side thinks that the other is just too stupid to understand.

is this just highlighting our natural differences or are we simply responding to the divisive nature of out leadership?

Posts: 1045 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
i think we can agree that he was a polarizing force for our nation
Can we?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tonylovern
Member
Member # 2580

 - posted      Profile for tonylovern   Email tonylovern   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
it could go either way, but i like to think we could.

as an objective observation it could stand.

Posts: 1045 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that the idea of "us vs. them" is pushed by whatever party is not in power...

... but if I may make an observation, most of the criticism launched at GWB from the left was for things he actually DID, whereas what I hear right now directed at Obama is based on "what he might do" (e.g. path to socialism, 'death panels', addressing schoolchildren, might take our guns, might tax us, etc). The principle thing Obama HAS done, is spend ludicrous amounts of money - but the criticisms of that (which are totally valid) are almost dwarfed by the inanities of the rest.

Contrast this with criticisms of Bush - he was criticized for tax cuts (for the rich), a war (deemed unnecessary), torture policy, etc. Those are at least things he did, not imagined or based on "motive speculation".

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think it was actually Bush or Obama, it was the people who used Bush and Obama to scare other people into giving them money.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"on the same token, obama is also a polarizing force for our country."

I disagree. Bush didn't have conservatives FURIOUS at him by August 2001. The only reason Obama is polarizing is because people are insisting n treating him as such, regardless of what he's actually doing. Just because someone refuses to be appeased, doesn't mean the other side is bein unaccommodating or unreasonable. Bush and the repub congress ran roughshod over Democrats with a far lower mragin of victory and significantly lower majority in the senate (and house too, I think, not sure, not up for checking).

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I blame Bill Clinton for forcing the then Republican powers that be into the politics of character assassination. If it had not been for Bill Clinton, the polarization you see now would be almost non-existent.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tonylovern
Member
Member # 2580

 - posted      Profile for tonylovern   Email tonylovern   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ricky.

obama has said something to the effect of, "we'll do it with or without the republicans".
that statement alone is polarizing.

Posts: 1045 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Polarization, whatever. There are two major parties, and they're in opposition. All this across the aisle talk is political horse shyte.

You get a major heavyweight like LBJ or Teddy K or Everett Dirksen, you get some meaningful outreach across the aisle. But the rest of the time, get serious. It's a football game. They got uniforms. They break the rules of the game whenever they can get away with it and the umps expect their palms to be greased for not calling foul.

Being a Dem or a Republican is inherently a polar act, capisce? Maybe some day we'll have a Unity party or such, but for now...

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
I blame Bill Clinton for forcing the then Republican powers that be into the politics of character assassination. If it had not been for Bill Clinton, the polarization you see now would be almost non-existent.

"Did you see what she was wearing?" and all that too?

Or maybe that's a little closer to "He needed killin'"

In any case "We're breaking the rules because we don't like him, but can't win any other way" is a bit of an anti-defense, I think.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tonylovern
Member
Member # 2580

 - posted      Profile for tonylovern   Email tonylovern   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
it didn't used to be like this though. at least under clinton we could have productive dialogue.

now all we have is knee jerk reactionism and a go for the throat mentality that targets people instead of ideas.

i remember a time when godwins law applied. as soon as someone started shouting hitler nonsense, they were dismissed. recently i saw someone invoke godwins law to try and prove thier point.

it seems like a lot of counter-productive silliness to me.

we're to the point where crazy is getting bandied about because people think its less offensive than stupid. we're very close to just using stupid.

constructive dialogue is failing.

edited for spelling.

[ September 04, 2009, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: tonylovern ]

Posts: 1045 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"obama has said something to the effect of, "we'll do it with or without the republicans".
that statement alone is polarizing.

Why is it polarizing to say that you'll execute the policies you were elected to execute? Where on earth does it say that the opposition must sign off on the majority's policies? Indeed, they shouldn't. They're supposed to OPPOSE them. Obama is giving the Repubs far, far more consideration than any president in history with such margins in both houses.

Yeah, this is a top priority, and if the Repubs don't cooperate and help craft a bill they can live with, then we will have no choice but to pass it without their input. The actual bill is more important than egos, and democracy means that the majority gets to set policy for the cycle.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrtolin, your irony setting needs adjusting again.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Pyrtolin, your irony setting needs adjusting again.

Darn it. Maye I should try to get it insured.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe it's just getting stuck. A couple of knocks with a mallet upside the head could loosen things up a bit.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tonylovern
Member
Member # 2580

 - posted      Profile for tonylovern   Email tonylovern   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
it's polarizing because it endorse an us or them mentality and closes the door on constructive dialogue.

all those republican were also elected. saying "you dont matter" for the next 2 years is a pretty douchebag way to go about it. one that will lose them the support of a lot of moderates.

Posts: 1045 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
obama has said something to the effect of, "we'll do it with or without the republicans".
that statement alone is polarizing.

I'm not sure how true that it, tony.

One of the repeated criticisms of Obama that I hear from the Liberal Demagogues is that he is too accomadating with Republicans, to the point of alienating Democrats. [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gina
Member
Member # 6372

 - posted      Profile for Gina   Email Gina   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
"on the same token, obama is also a polarizing force for our country."

I disagree. Bush didn't have conservatives FURIOUS at him by August 2001.

Bush was also not trying to cram through massive, game-changing pieces of legislation faster than the ink can dry in his first 6 months.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gina
Member
Member # 6372

 - posted      Profile for Gina   Email Gina   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
... but if I may make an observation, most of the criticism launched at GWB from the left was for things he actually DID, whereas what I hear right now directed at Obama is based on "what he might do"

Not so. There was Tim Robbins' "chill wind" speech, and all the hysteria that it presaged and embodied.

I did not care for Bush, and thought he betrayed conservatives more often than not, nor did I like his style or the neocons' approach to the problem of Islamic fundamentalism. But the unreasoning, lathering rage about him is what I'll take away from the era. Now these same people are turning around and are all about "let's bring the country together." Too late for that.

To my mind, it is obvious that Obama is a polarizing figure. a) Someone with such radical background and associations, with little experience or qualification for the role, does not command confidence; and b ) he and his Congressional allies have gone out of their way to demonize not just the previous administration, not just the powerless Republicans in Congress, but the common people opposing their actions.

Obama, by himself, could have gone a long way in actually following through on his stated intent to set a centrist course. Instead, he decided to shoot for the moon while he believed he had momentum for the "progressive revolution." And he is not able to rein in Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid, who are toxic spokespeople.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
I blame Bill Clinton for forcing the then Republican powers that be into the politics of character assassination. If it had not been for Bill Clinton, the polarization you see now would be almost non-existent.

ROTFLMAO!

You should have been here during the Regan era. You guys must be kids or were extremely disconnected before the 90's, not to mention seem to have no grasp of history. It's always been like this. Always:

quote:
To counter Cleveland's image of purity, his opponents reported that Cleveland had fathered an illegitimate child while he was a lawyer in Buffalo. The derisive phrase "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa?" rose as an unofficial campaign slogan for those who opposed him. When confronted with the emerging scandal, Cleveland's instructions to his campaign staff were: "Tell the truth." Cleveland admitted to paying child support in 1874 to Maria Crofts Halpin ...
That's Grover Cleveland from the election of 1884. 1884! And it seems like many of you think this thing is somehow new?!?! I wish I could say I was surprised.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Tim Robbins' "chill wind""

The Bushadmin had already condoned torture. That was drafty,

A year after Robbins' speech, Abu Ghraib hit the news.

Here's the core of that speech:

This past weekend, Susan and I and the three kids went to Florida for a family reunion of sorts. Amidst the alcohol and the dancing, sugar-rushing children, there was, of course, talk of the war. And the most frightening thing about the weekend was the amount of times we were thanked for speaking out against the war because that individual speaking thought it unsafe to do so in their own community, in their own life. Keep talking, they said; I haven't been able to open my mouth.

A relative tells me that a history teacher tells his 11-year-old son, my nephew, that Susan Sarandon is endangering the troops by her opposition to the war. Another teacher in a different school asks our niece if we are coming to the school play. They're not welcome here, said the molder of young minds.

Another relative tells me of a school board decision to cancel a civics event that was proposing to have a moment of silence for those who have died in the war because the students were including dead Iraqi civilians in their silent prayer.

A teacher in another nephew's school is fired for wearing a T- shirt with a peace sign on it. And a friend of the family tells of listening to the radio down South as the talk radio host calls for the murder of a prominent anti-war activist. Death threats have appeared on other prominent anti-war activists' doorsteps for their views. Relatives of ours have received threatening e-mails and phone calls. And my 13-year-old boy, who has done nothing to anybody, has recently been embarrassed and humiliated by a sadistic creep who writes -- or, rather, scratches his column with his fingernails in dirt.

Susan and I have been listed as traitors, as supporters of Saddam, and various other epithets by the Aussie gossip rags masquerading as newspapers, and by their fair and balanced electronic media cousins, 19th Century Fox. (Laughter.) Apologies to Gore Vidal. (Applause.)

Two weeks ago, the United Way canceled Susan's appearance at a conference on women's leadership. And both of us last week were told that both we and the First Amendment were not welcome at the Baseball Hall of Fame.

A famous middle-aged rock-and-roller called me last week to thank me for speaking out against the war, only to go on to tell me that he could not speak himself because he fears repercussions from Clear Channel. "They promote our concert appearances," he said. "They own most of the stations that play our music. I can't come out against this war."

And here in Washington, Helen Thomas finds herself banished to the back of the room and uncalled on after asking Ari Fleischer whether our showing prisoners of war at Guantanamo Bay on television violated the Geneva Convention.

A chill wind is blowing in this nation. A message is being sent through the White House and its allies in talk radio and Clear Channel and Cooperstown. If you oppose this administration, there can and will be ramifications.
<end>

We report. You deride.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gina:
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
... but if I may make an observation, most of the criticism launched at GWB from the left was for things he actually DID, whereas what I hear right now directed at Obama is based on "what he might do"

Not so. There was Tim Robbins' "chill wind" speech, and all the hysteria that it presaged and embodied.
I had never heard of the speech, but having gone over a transcript just now, it appears to be about various things in the past and present tense. Oh yeah, and Bush's name isn't even mentioned. Do you have a better example of paranoia about what GWB might do? I'll bet whatever it was, it wasn't as prevalent as what's being prognosticated now.

quote:

I did not care for Bush, and thought he betrayed conservatives more often than not, nor did I like his style or the neocons' approach to the problem of Islamic fundamentalism. But the unreasoning, lathering rage about him is what I'll take away from the era. Now these same people are turning around and are all about "let's bring the country together." Too late for that.

I'm not sure the extreme left and the Cindy Sheehans are the people saying "let's bring the country together". That would be the moderates, and people like myself, who thought Bush was a poor president, perhaps even an imbecile, but who were not waving placards nor comparing him to Hitler. The loons are the loons, on both sides.

quote:

To my mind, it is obvious that Obama is a polarizing figure. a) Someone with such radical background and associations, with little experience or qualification for the role, does not command confidence; and b ) he and his Congressional allies have gone out of their way to demonize not just the previous administration, not just the powerless Republicans in Congress, but the common people opposing their actions.

Leaving behind the "radical" background of Obama for the moment (which I think is overstated), his maneuvering has caused considerable consternation among the left and the most liberal. In fact, I'm pretty sure the liberal wing is currently the angriest at him. I'm not sure how you can paint him as radical in any regards if that is the current state of things - if you think HE is a liberal, you must not have met any real hardcore ones.
Secondly, ascribing to Obama "demonization" of the previous administration and "common people" begs for you to point to a relevant quote. I'm game to hear it. I'm no fan of Pelosi and her ilk, but I think you've projected that onto Obama directly.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Y'know, hatred toward Bush had some roots not usually found in presidencies. There was this seriously contested election result, and this weird decision by the Supreme Court that IT could choose a president.

And there were these busloads of Republican activists shipped down to the recount to offer their... assistance. I remember those videos.

SO Bush pulled into the White House with a huge amount of tinder for bad feeling.

I recall he was hugely popular after 911.

Then he started pumping lies about Iraq/WMD/al-qaeda connexions... plus he had this annoying habit of saying really DUMB sounding things on TV with the whole world watching. (Some people find Obama a boring speaker. Fine. But he has a genuine command of the English language.)

Also, Bush was a scion of a dynasty. That inherently creates animosity. Dynasty echoes kings and oligarchy, and Americans don't like that.

No, the hatred of Bush wasn't at all irrational, any more than hatred of FDR by Republicans wasn't all irrational.

[ September 04, 2009, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
A chill wind is blowing in this nation. A message is being sent through the White House and its allies in talk radio and Clear Channel and Cooperstown. If you oppose this administration, there can and will be ramifications.
Hey ken....

WHERE IS ROBBINS AND THE REST OF THE "ANTI-WAR" PROGRESSIVES NOW?!?!?!

Apparently, there is no "chill wind" for opposing this administration, because the only principle most of these douche bags stood for was this:

Only Democrats can wage war and condone torture without protest.

There's no chill wind, because it's turned into a doldrums of complete silence.

****ing hypocrites. No, not you ken or most of the rest of you Democrat/libs here on OA, I'm talking about all of the outspoken liberal pundits, celebrities and political figures that opposed war when Bush was the Commander- in-Chief, but are now nowhere to be found since Obama is the one waging it.

WHERE OH WHERE DID THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT GO?

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"WHERE IS ROBBINS AND THE REST OF THE "ANTI-WAR" PROGRESSIVES NOW?!?!?!"

One: we've gotten somewhat used to that chill wind.

Two: I'll bet thqt if you google the likes of Robbins for recent (say, past 3 months) criticisms of the kinds of things you mentioned, you'll find them.

But see, that's so... 2004. Right now, we Robbinses still like what Obama is doing overall WAY WAY WAY more than what his predecessor did.

And there isn't that post-911 feeling, that bunker mentality we had then, and there're so much more juicy things for the news to talk about, like how Obama is gonna indoctrinate our youth and all that.

There's an attention span factor.

Hmmm... Robbins made that speech in Dubya's 3rd year.

Can you guys wait a little bit?

We had to wait for the tragic mishaps of Katrina, and a conclusive 'absence of evidence' regarding WMD, and Abu Ghraib before we really got our Bush-bashing on at the celebrity level.

BTW, since it was we Dems who took on your former poster boy now disgraced, why can't you guys take up the slack and bash Obama on this stuff?

Apparently, y'all are too busy heaving raw sewage with little factual basis. You guys are like Obama's best friend, because so much of what you throw to date won't stick. (Not so much you, D, but you have treated some of this nonsense as if it were serious or accurate.)

The leftists I pal with, the really funny bright ones -- like at http://thepoorman.net/ -- have been all over this. But even there, they haven't abandoned all hope JUST EIGHT MONTHS INTO THE GUY'S 1ST YEAR.

Could we try to maintain some sense of proportion and chronological perspective? Relax. Obama will provide plenty of genuine outrage material. Just give him TIME. Meanwhile, enjoy the chewtoy hysteria of the likes of Glenn Beck.

"WHERE OH WHERE DID THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT GO? "

Did you know we're already shipping tons of military equipment home from Iraq? That the evacuation deadline is currently on schedule to be met?

As for Afghanistan: I don't support it. I was one of the very few who protested our going there way back when. I don't like us there now. But at least there's an honest rational I can apply to it:

Pakistan got nukes. Fundamentalist unrest is big in the region. I think we're returning to classic foreign meddling over there: beat around until we can get some kind of heavy dude in charge who says the right things and puts anyone remotely disturbing in the gulag.

So we're back to the milder, less brash imperialism of pre-Bush Doctrine era. The kind of **** that gave us Saddam and the Ayatollah in the 1st place. It's an ugly dog, alright, but not as ugly as the one where we invaded unilaterally on
phony claims and violated the Geneva Convention not quietly with shame but brazenly with pride.

It's all relative, D, and remember, you believe there's no difference between the two parties.

Me, I discern small but apprehensible differences, and work to get leverage on those differences that aren't as bad as the other. tack against the wind thing. The lesser of two evils Ain't much but I work with what I got.

And again: Obama campaigned on Out Of Iraq and took heat from everyone for stating, plainly and often, that there was still work to be done in Afghanistan.

Liberals howled about that but that hypocritical, lying, two-faced bastard Obama didn't kiss their ass then and is now doing what he then said he'd do. So, while I don't much like it, I don't feel like someone took me for a ride because of REMEMBER 911!!!

[ September 04, 2009, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Bush was also not trying to cram through massive, game-changing pieces of legislation faster than the ink can dry in his first 6 months."

Such was not his mandate, nor his promise. In fact his promise was quite the opposite. Obama campaigned on massive change.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You should have been here during the Regan era. You guys must be kids or were extremely disconnected before the 90's, not to mention seem to have no grasp of history. It's always been like this. Always:

It seems like G2 also needs his irony settings adjusted...
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
at least under clinton we could have productive dialogue.
Please read the rest of this post and tell me if you have any change of heart based on the information that strongly conflicts with your assertion.

In the 1990's, Republicans were led by Newt Gingrich, whose approach to productive dialoge came in a GOPAC memo entitled "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control" (Gingrich distributed the list to GOP candidates across the country, and if you remember those times, there was a concerted effort to use these terms).

quote:
This list is prepared so that you might have a directory of words to use in writing literature and mail, in preparing speeches, and in producing electronic media. The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. Memorize as many as possible. And remember that, like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used....

Contrasting Words

Often we search hard for words to help us define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helps you. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party.

decay... failure (fail)... collapse(ing)... deeper... crisis... urgent(cy)... destructive... destroy... sick... pathetic... lie... liberal... they/them... unionized bureaucracy... "compassion" is not enough... betray... consequences... limit(s)... shallow... traitors... sensationalists...

endanger... coercion... hypocrisy... radical... threaten... devour... waste... corruption... incompetent... permissive attitudes... destructive... impose... self-serving... greed... ideological... insecure... anti-(issue): flag, family, child, jobs... pessimistic... excuses... intolerant...

stagnation... welfare... corrupt... selfish... insensitive... status quo... mandate(s)... taxes... spend(ing)... shame... disgrace... punish (poor...)... bizarre... cynicism... cheat... steal... abuse of power... machine... bosses... obsolete... criminal rights... red tape... patronage

How productive is it to refer to your opposition as sick, pathetic, shallow traitors?

And by the way, even if someone like Tim Robbins was as unproductive, negative and destructive as Newt Gingerich, there's a huge difference between an actor and the Speaker of the House. And, in addition, Tim Robbins is nowhere near as extreme as Gingerich or most of the Republicans. In fact, if you were to take the rhetorical intensity of even a fringe player like Tim Robbins and use it to shape Obama criticisms, those criticisms would be pretty seen as mild compared to what is actually emerging from Republican throats nowadays.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
obama has said something to the effect of, "we'll do it with or without the republicans"
that statement alone is polarizing.

How do you compare that statement to the statement from the previous administration "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" which was first used to push back on other countries(some of whom were doing us the very big favor of telling us that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq) and later the phrase and attiotude crossed over into domestic political discussions (the Republicans ran ads in 2002 where the face of the Democratic candidates were overlaid with the face of Osama bin Laden)
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
]How productive is it to refer to your opposition as sick, pathetic, shallow traitors?

How productive is it to refer to your opposition as lying, homophobic, heartless nazis? Greg, do you seriously think this is something only the GOP does? This this is a new thing is modern politics only? You can't be that blinded by ideology .. or maybe you can.

If you want it to be the speaker of the house, how about "un-American" mob? Let's go to the senate for "evil-monger". Examples from current Democrat leadership over just the last few weeks. How about good ol Van Jones calling his opposition assholes? Is that enough rhetorical intensity?

Obama supporters are biting the fingers off their opposition now and you think this is a GOP thing?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The difference is that accusations of being "lying, homophobic, heartless nazis" come from fringe elements on the left, while my example came as part of an explicit plan from the Speaker of the House of Representatives to use language to make discourse unproductive. Remember, the topic I specifically addressing is responsibility for creating the polarization in our country.

If you want to make your case for parallelism, give me the quote and context for the "un-American" and "evil-monger" comments.

Regarding "Van Jones calling his opposition assholes". I think that's wrong, but I don't think it's a big deal, particularly with a minor official. Was it a big deal when the previous Vice President of the United States told a Democratic Senator to F--- Off on the Senate floor?

The Obama supporter biting off the finger is a loon, just like the McCain supporter mutilating her own face and saying it was done by a black Obama supporter.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Obama supporters are biting the fingers off their opposition now and you think this is a GOP thing?
Just to clarify the details of this incident: an anti-healthcare demonstrator attempted to prevent a pro-healthcare demonstrator from walking down the street to reach the group of like-minded protesters there. He cursed at the guy, pushed him, and threw a couple punches, then tackled him to the ground, grabbing him in a headlock. At that point, the pro-healthcare guy bit the old man's pinky finger.

I'm not saying that they didn't both react badly, but it's not like gangs of healthcare activists are wandering around biting off appendages. The guy was dragged to the ground in a headlock and bit somebody.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gina
Member
Member # 6372

 - posted      Profile for Gina   Email Gina   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
"Bush was also not trying to cram through massive, game-changing pieces of legislation faster than the ink can dry in his first 6 months."

Such was not his mandate, nor his promise. In fact his promise was quite the opposite. Obama campaigned on massive change.

Obama was all over the map in his campaign promises. People believed what they wanted to believe. However, I don't recall that Obama promised he would ram these major changes through in such a short time and in such an undemocratic fashion as, say, the Porkulus was foisted upon us.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What undemocratic fashion? What ARE you babbling about? If anything, we have too much consideration of the minority here. Your hatred of Obama really is the rage of Caliban upon not seeing himself in the mirror.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gina
Member
Member # 6372

 - posted      Profile for Gina   Email Gina   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Just to clarify the details of this incident: an anti-healthcare demonstrator attempted to prevent a pro-healthcare demonstrator from walking down the street to reach the group of like-minded protesters there. He cursed at the guy, pushed him, and threw a couple punches, then tackled him to the ground, grabbing him in a headlock. At that point, the pro-healthcare guy bit the old man's pinky finger.

Not quite how it's being reported:

"The fight came as a small group of counter-protestors showed up at Wednesday’s vigil. The vigil, which included about 100 people, was organized by MoveOn.org.

There were about 15 counter-protestors, witnesses said.

Witnesses said Rice got into a heated argument with one of those supporting health-care reform.

Rice later walked back to his group. The unidentified man then walked over and verbally confronted him, witnesses said, allegedly calling him names and acting aggressively.

Rice told police he felt threatened by the man and punched him in the nose. A fight ensued and part of Rice’s finger was bitten off, witnesses told police."
link

Posts: 476 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gina
Member
Member # 6372

 - posted      Profile for Gina   Email Gina   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
What undemocratic fashion? What ARE you babbling about? If anything, we have too much consideration of the minority here. Your hatred of Obama really is the rage of Caliban upon not seeing himself in the mirror.

How poetic. The sham stimulus was written behind closed doors, hurried to a vote before anyone even had a chance to read it, and Democrats were not even going to allow floor debate. John Boehner forced them to at least take the minimum amount of time required for open discussion, and Coburn was able to offer a few amendments, which were voted down. All that for nearly 1 trillion dollars in pork-laden spending, one of the largest spending bills in US history.

link

Posts: 476 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sauurman
Member
Member # 6467

 - posted      Profile for Sauurman   Email Sauurman       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Us vs. Them. Well yeah. I don't see why people think that two vastly different belief systems, opinions and directions for this country are going to get along like old chums. Personally I don't have conflicts with people I know who are liberal however when it comes to politicians, yeah no quarter.

If you are on the left you may believe things like Republicans want to deny critical support for the children, the poor and the helpless. You might feel that the Republicans are trying to strip women's rights and will gladly start an unproductive war to get more oil or payoff your old buddies while you were in the business world.

If you are on the right you may believe things like Democrats want to continue to allow the murder of babies. You might feel Democrats want to take away your freedoms such as speech, guns and income and turn away from the noble beliefs of our founding fathers.

Obviously not all things are believed in those were just examples but if you felt a single politician is furthering the cause of wrecking the country you want your "team" to play nice with them? Hell yeah I was gleeful when John Edwards scandal broke. I was thrilled when thousands of dollars worth of bribe money was found in the freezer of a Democrat. I want the other side's champions to be thrown in the mud (when the charges are accurate) and have their political careers destroyed.

So yeah are we polarized? Yes. Why would this be surprising?

Posts: 174 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I disagree with your assertion of parity.

I put some specifics on the table a few comments back, and they stand yet unanswered

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sauurman
Member
Member # 6467

 - posted      Profile for Sauurman   Email Sauurman       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg - personal examples of what? Hardball politics? Good for us if we know what is at stake. However the lunatic fringe of the left is a pretty wide group of folks. Remember that poll that was taken about what percentage of folks thought the 9/11 attack was an inside job in order for support to be drummed up of the war?

Heck our 'beloved' leader used to sit and listen to liberal hate speech from the pulpit for what 20 years? You would like to say that all that mean stuff is just done by the luanatic fringe but those people get jobs in the Obama administration and frankly I think Obama is part of that same group he's just better at hiding it.

Posts: 174 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
i think we can agree that he was a polarizing force for our nation
Can we?
I think we can. Karl Rove was his campaign strategist, and Karl Rove's approach was pretty much that it doesn't matter how many people you piss off with your message as long as it inspires enough of the base to turn up and vote for you on election day. When a president's campaign style is a reinvented Southern Strategy, it's kinda hard not to see him as a divisive figure.
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1