![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
Fog/Mist ~ High: 59°F ~ Low: 41°F |
|
Civility (rerun)
Posted Saturday, September 12, 2009, at 2:28 PM<< Previous | Read comments | Respond | Email link | Next >>
I ran this blog almost a year ago. My latest blog along with several others, mine and others, show that nothing ever changes. Just more of the same. Guess some just cannot learn. With due respect to the new Editor, if people had to identify themselves, most would stay on the issues or go away. Those that go away would show their true colors. How can anyone not question the courage of someone's convictions if you don't know who you are talking to?
Civility. I have reached the point whereby I am convinced this word is totally absent from the vocabulary of many, if not most of the people. I never thought I would see this day, yet here it is. The relatively new forum of the blogs seems to have brought not an appreciative round-table for the exchange of ideas but an arena to anonymously show the very worse of mankind's animosity towards their fellow man. (man in the sense of being human) Here on the blogs a few, overtly and marching in the sunshine for all to see, seek to promote ideas, convey news and/or information of some kind. They are clearly identified and by definition proactive since they initiate the theme of each blog. Now come many who feel their task in life is to lay in the bushes and often in childish, caustic verbiage inform anyone with a creative idea how wrong they are! And we wonder why many ideas, perhaps earth shattering ideas may never reach the light of day because many good people will not subject themselves to the pithy, asinine, idiotic and savage abuse of anonymous people, some if not many of whom are clearly idiots. These folks profess, nay insist they know exactly what you are thinking! They not only know what you say is wrong, they know your history and why you are saying it! Information by osmosis and/or ESP.....incredible! They know instinctively your total and exact theories on history, politics, religion, relationships, etc. No rational person can read the comments on these blogs and reach any other conclusion in my opinion. I can see the day soon whereby the T-G may decide these blogs are a detriment instead of an asset and the very idiots that cause this decision will live in ignorant bliss that they had nothing to do with it. My stated interest here is in the area of politics. I so state in my bio. In politics, I can remember a time in the not too distant past when all advertisements and speeches from a candidate and his supporters were a positive outline of his position on issues. Today it is in many cases, negative from day one. The aim is to personally reduce the other candidate to a callous, evil, characterless lout who is a totally worthless human being. In so doing I guess the aim is to say, "Hey, I'm not as bad as that so vote for me." One just said, "I can't screw it up any worse than they did." (remember who?) I leave the meaning up to you, but the statement is factual, if not verbatim, then in paraphrase. The one phenomena that is rife of these blogs is the notion if one candidate says something intended to be negative and shows the other candidate in a bad light and you point out factually they are incorrect, then you are being negative! How is refuting a statement, factually, negative?? Well I will lament no further. The time I remember not so long ago, the candidates could campaign on the merits of their record and when it was over, the candidates could, and would, shake hands and sincerely go about working together to make a better place. They didn't worry about sacrificing the welfare of citizens just to make the other Party look bad. We badly need to find our way to that place again or else we are possibly, even likely, to be on our way to becoming a third-world banana republic that can't even grow bananas. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Near lifelong resident of Bedford County. Will comment on the issues of the day in, hopefully a cogent and certainly an honest manner. Will propose discussions not usually fully addressed in the mainstream media.
Hot topics Election 2010(0 ~ 3:57 PM, Nov 18)
Gambling Sentence
Wartrace Liquor
Gambling Update
Gambling Article
|
![[Feed icon]](http://www.t-g.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
The right to free speach is one our most cherished. While I don't agree with most liberal points of view, I will defend with my life their right to express them. Liberals, on the other hand, not only do not want to listen to conservative viewpoints, they want to silence them completely.
I actually posted the reponse below on Kelly Fernandez's "Pat Marsh-RepubliCrat" blog this evening, but I think it applies here too:
I initially had a username, then switched to my real name. If you are impassioned enough in your beliefs you should not be afraid to stand up for them. However, I do understand why one might want to remain undiscovered. Most of you may have already observed that I am very blunt in my blogs and very impassioned about my convictions (but I never try to tell someone my way is the only way, or even the right way...who am I to judge or rule on what is right or wrong?). My blogs are based on MY opinions, not someone else's.
I do often wonder, however, if my words will be too harsh and upset someone to the point of wanting to take action against me. So I can understand why one might want to remain anonymous. I choose to take a stand and fight--unveiled--for what I believe in [so to speak] but not everyone is that brave...or more accurately, that stupid.
Even so, I do think one of the reasons that these blogs get so out of hand and sometimes even "down-right nasty" is because of the anonymity. Many people choose to use a malicious tongue in blogs knowing that their mask will keep them safe from exposure. I find that cowardly. One should never "cross the line" and attack someone soley because you know they can't "pick you out of a line-up," because someday they just might...
Thanks for your comments. I too am a great champion of free speech, but here all too often the "messenger" is attacked personally and the facts as presented are never debated. Free speech is not absolute and requires a certain responsibility when trying to hide behind the First Amendment.
I hope that it also requires a little respect for our fellow man/woman. When one declares you to be an idiot, anonamously with no supporting argument or attempt to address the issues, they display the least desirable qualities, including cowardness, one hopes to find in a human being.
Civility is not in the conservative dictionary, sorry, Jim Wilson proved the point.
"Civility is not in the conservative dictionary, sorry, Jim Wilson proved the point."
-- Posted by chs61 on Mon, Sep 14, 2009, at 9:29 PM
It's not in the Liberal dictionary either...
In 2004 Harry Reid not only called President Bush a liar, but a looser too. How disrespectful is that, to call your country's leader a looser? He eventually apologized for calling him a looser, but never for calling him a liar.
Democrats booed Bush during adresses made to Congress on the House floor. And let's not forget that Bush got shoes thrown at his face (by an Iraqi journalist)...Obama gets a two word sentence and the Democrats go nuts over calling our "leader" a liar. I think ALL of these actions were inappropriate and disrespectful. I guess the conservatives just don't "whine" as loud, ergo the lack of apologies from the Left.
I do feel Joe Wilson was right to apologize, because the time and place was inappropriate. That doesn't mean Obama wasn't lying...because he was--read the fine print...just as Bush had been lying when he said he would not move forward on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump unless there was "sound science" to back it up, and he dumped anyway. A liar is a liar, regardless of political affiliation. Conservatives are just more "civil" about it.
That is very true Shawna . . . each side is guilty of the same thing that they accuse the other side of doing. A lot of disrespect was shown to Bush as president by members of Congress but they seem to have forgotten that. Why all of a sudden is it against decorum just because Obama is president. It is silly politics at its worst.
I didn't vote for Bush and I didn't vote for Obama . . . they both fell off the same tree but on different sides.
Yes the people have a right to freedom of speech.
It used to be however that they were held accountable for that speech.
If you choose to blurt foul language you choose to be asked to leave places that it is inappropriate to use.
If a person spread lies that hurt a person then they should be held accountable for any damage caused by the lies.
People valued the reputation of being honest and honorable, and those qualities would show through by how they presented themselves, their word was an important part of who they were and they respected the power of what they said.
I think it's time to return to the practice of holding people accountable to what they say, yes we have and must preserve our freedom of speech but WE MUST HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT THEY SAY AND THE DAMAGE THAT THEY MAY CAUSE BY THE MALICIOUS MISS USE OF THEIR SPEECH.
JUST THINK OF ALL THE LAW SUITS ALONE THAT WOULD BE AVOIDED IF THE PERSON WHO INTENTIONAL POST FALSE REPORTS AGAINST ANOTHER. IF A PERSON KNEW THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR THE EXPENSE, AND BE PUNISHED FOR LIES AGAINST ANOTHER, OR WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ABUSE OF SPEECH TO CAUSE HARM THEY MAY ACTUALLY THINK BEFORE THEY ABUSE THE RIGHT.
I will always defend the persons right to freedom of speech, but will also defend the right to have that same person be held accountable for the abuse of that right. If you cuss some one or lie, fine it's your right, but it's also our right to be protected from your verbal abuse.
the only person whose civility i control is my own. to be honest, that is challenge enough. regardless of how other people may act or respond, that does not alter what is proper conduct. i was taught that we do not set our standards based on what other people do (another conservative value that seems to have been abandoned). in the case in point, mr wilson's behavior, i have seen two excuses (excuses, not reasons) offered. one is the democrats booing bush in 2005. that was on them. it does not change what is appropriate behavior. two, that he "could stand no more". fine. that would seem to indicate that he lacks the maturity and strength of character called for to hold elective office. in the scheme of things, listening to something you dont want to hear sets a pretty low bar for how much a person can stand. every individual is responsible for their own behavior. maybe if we want to see a better example set in washington, we should focus on electing more grown-ups.
"The time I remember not so long ago, the candidates could campaign on the merits of their record".....
Carl,
I think one reason for this, is there are very very few politicians who have merits to stand on anymore.
Dear Mr. McClanahan:
Am I the only one who heard President Obama say in his latest speech to congress, "It is a lie, pure and simple!"? His statement was referenced toward critics from the political right for their interpretation of language in the proposed Healthcare Reform Bill.
Only minutes later came the out-cry from Congressman Wilson, "You lie!".
While it is understood and agreed that the Congressman was out of order, for the sake of good reasoning, should not the bias of omission by the press be prosecuted in the public forum?
It's apparent that most, if not all politicians lie. They are allowed to explain their dishonesty by simply stating that they have "misspoken" themselves (with or without the tears) There are of course, many examples of this on both sides of the isle. The problem in Washington today is that we the people have just accepted and condoned this type of nonsense based upon party affiliation. We tolerate behavior in our elected officials that we would not allow in our own homes. It's become blatantly obvious that morals and character are no longer welcome traits in our elected officials.
Tattoos & Scars,
"The problem in Washington today is that we the people have just accepted and condoned this type of nonsense based upon party affiliation."
You nailed it, we condoned this crap... Now how can we fix it?
Evil Monkey, I truly believe that we the people can remedy this problem by researching those for whom we cast our vote. It never ceases to amaze me that some people would vote for Charles Manson as long as he had the appropriate letter beside his name. I vote across party lines because I care more about that person's ability to do the job than I do what little letter is by his name. The other glaring problem is the voter apathy that has plagued our country for the past thirty years. While I would love to blame the liberals for the rediculous state of our government, I can't. I do however blame conservatives who can operate their TV remote blindfolded, yet can't bother themselves with going to the voting booth on election day.