Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

Debate the issues -- that means people from both sides discussing, debating and arguing. Lets do that without calling our opponents morons and idiots, or hurling racist and other insensitive (and harsh, mean, nasty, choose your word ....) labels and names around. There's no need to do it, it adds nothing to the debate but confirmation of the stupidity of the individual that is using the labels

 

Seeing the labels that some of these talk radio hosts (especially the one noted in the link above) are tossing around just seems so far over the top that it's ridiculous

taking the first quote at face value--and considering the 2nd quote more accurately describes the incident in question--wouldnt it have more appropriate then to have titled your article "radio talk show hosts love to sling the names'?

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: kingbeePosted: Tuesday, November 23, 2004Debate the issues -- that means people from both sides discussing, debating and arguing. Lets do that without calling our opponents morons and idiots, or hurling racist and other insensitive (and harsh, mean, nasty, choose your word ....) labels and names around. There's no need to do it, it adds nothing to the debate but confirmation of the stupidity of the individual that is using the labels Seeing the labels that some of these talk radio hosts (especially the one noted in the link above) are tossing around just seems so far over the top that it's ridiculoustaking the first quote at face value--and considering the 2nd quote more accurately describes the incident in question--wouldnt it have more appropriate then to have titled your article "radio talk show hosts love to sling the names'?


"wouldnt it have more appropriate"... probably.

I did struggle with the title of the article a bit. Unfortunately there's only so much room to use for titles, and yet the titles still need to be "loud" enough to draw attention so they'll be read and get comments like yours.

Meanwhile, the issue isn't just with "radio talk show hosts", it applies to talking heads on TV -- including locals, networks, and "cable" channels. It further applies to plenty of people on the web as well, who are just as quick to toss in insults or derogatory terms and pet names as any of the paid pundits.

Seriously, the issue is one of (in the words of Rodney King) "can't we all just get along?" Folks on the right don't need to call liberals girlie men and whiney babies. Folks on the left don't need to call conservatives nazis and fascists, and don't need to call administration officials nasty names either.

Condemn the policies. Call them stupid, idiotic, moronic, unintelligent, harmful, wasteful, or any of a host of other terms. But don't parade around saying that any individual is one of those things. Again, it just reflects badly on the name thrower, and isn't needed. It doesn't help advance the debate or further the cause. It just fans flames of divisiveness that we really don't need, and it serves to be counter-productive.
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

the titles still need to be "loud" enough to draw attention so they'll be read


which surely explains the media and everyone else who engages in it ()


i agree it's counterproductive and most frequently works to the detriment of those who indulge therein.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Funny {ironic} how If President bush has blacks in his adminastration there somehow traitors to the blacks, yet if he had no blacks in his admin. he would be condemed as a racist............ from the lefts point of view {sick twisted jealous} Bush can do NOTHING right.

Yet the demoncrapick left whines constantly how Pres. Bush must reach out. yeh he should reach out so one of the lefty lunies can bite his hand off.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Yet the demoncrapick left whines constantly how Pres. Bush must reach out. yeh he should reach out so one of the lefty lunies can bite his hand off.


good thing youre moderateman.  it's difficult to imagine what angryradicalman might proclaim.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
it's difficult to imagine what angryradicalman might proclaim.


@ kingbee
Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
You are doing labeling yourself by stating this person speaks for the left. He doesn't any more than Ann Coulter speaks for the right.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

You are doing labeling yourself by stating this person speaks for the left. He doesn't any more than Ann Coulter speaks for the right.

A better term wouldbe speaks from the left.  Since Feingold was quick to condemn him, I know most of the left does not think his way.  But unfortunately, a large number do.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think Dr. Guy has it right. There are plenty that speak "from the left" and do so in ways that reflect very poorly on their causes and issues. Lawrence O'Donnell (who engaged in the great "liar" screamfest at the author of "Unfit for Command"), Chris Matthews (and his rant at Michelle Malkin) and his friend Keith Olberman, and a host of others like the aforementioned radio host above reflect very poorly on the side of the left. Whether they speak for everyone, or only a portion (or even just one), they are seen as representatives of the left, and they paint an image of the left with a broadbrush (in other words, they paint the image themselves, so that the right doesn't have to).

There are plenty on the right that are not any better though. Rush Limbaugh has been over the top many times lately (and before), and so have others.

My point is that both sides should try to get out of the gutter and stop letting the other side have such poor images to poke at.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: kingbee Posted: Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Yet the demoncrapick left whines constantly how Pres. Bush must reach out. yeh he should reach out so one of the lefty lunies can bite his hand off.




Yep kingbee then you can imagine what I might be like if I was a female{I ain't} and on the rag too, truth hurts no matter how is presented huh?
Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top
A better term wouldbe speaks from the left. Since Feingold was quick to condemn him, I know most of the left does not think his way. But unfortunately, a large number do.


Generalization that the right have led most of America to believe, but not based in fact.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Generalization that the right have led most of America to believe, but not based in fact.


What's funny is that when this is as much of a generalization as saying "the left does this" or "the left does that."
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
That guy was on Fox again last night - he's a complete turd. Hannity was wrong to be so rude to the guy (they got into a 3rd-grade name-calling fight), but Sylvester (Sly, as he likes to call himself) is a total bigot. It's a shame they gave him any air time, though give 'em credit for letting the guy spew in prime time. It is so insulting for the guy to dismiss Rice & Powell as duped pawns, not to mention racist to the core. If the left doesn't completely repudiate the guy I'll be very surprised. OK, a little surprised.

Cheers,
Daiwa