I would oppose the US intervening in foreign affairs. If the US had a clean track record, didn't lie to take us into war, didn't lie about occupation and wasn't hated vehemently in those pockets of the world, then this would be a different conversation. But we don't live in that world.

So, yes, I oppose military force to do anything outside of national defense as long as the US government stands and is stealing my money to pay for defense spending.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Maybe on FB? I don't remember. So, you would oppose using military force to stop genocide?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I wish my viewpoint was uncomplicated so I could take a fair weather non-stance. But you know us liberal peaceniks; we don't see aggression and death with rose colored glasses.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I see merit on both sides.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
He disagrees with this Libyan interventionism. You agree with it. How do you reconcile your two systems of belief?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Chomsky's concerns are all valid. I agree with him too.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I believe Chomsky is right about this one. What are the odds that there'd be a topic and I'd side with Chomsky and you wouldn't?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't really expect Libya to come to our aid. That was a joke.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Bah. You're side stepping.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Return the favor? You mean another government would liberate us somehow? Or a militarized action on our soil? I know it sounds nice to say that, but this isn't necessarily a "We Are the World" moment.

I bet either the US will remain involved in Libya as support to NATO for the coming years (to aid in nation-building), or they'll send troops to the ground and possibly an occupation begins (to nation-build in favor of the US). Either one will be bad. And then what happens if we go into Iran?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
We are helping people to rise up against an oppressive government. Maybe they'll return the favor.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
The evidence that it probably won't be limited to a no-fly zone was answered in your comment: "we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2"

Though why is the no-fly zone okay? It's still a militarized act of aggression in a place that already hates us. This is the kind of thing that lead to the blowback we saw on 9/11.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
So long as it is limited to a No-Fly Zone, I'm OK with it. I know I'm probably wrong to trust that this is legit, since we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2, but I've yet to see evidence that it is not.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No, just wondering if you're pro-military interventionism or against it. I see Chomsky didn't change your mind.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Is there some new development?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Has your stance on Libya changed yet?

Maybe on FB? I don't remember. So, you would oppose using military force to stop genocide?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I wish my viewpoint was uncomplicated so I could take a fair weather non-stance. But you know us liberal peaceniks; we don't see aggression and death with rose colored glasses.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I see merit on both sides.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
He disagrees with this Libyan interventionism. You agree with it. How do you reconcile your two systems of belief?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Chomsky's concerns are all valid. I agree with him too.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I believe Chomsky is right about this one. What are the odds that there'd be a topic and I'd side with Chomsky and you wouldn't?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't really expect Libya to come to our aid. That was a joke.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Bah. You're side stepping.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Return the favor? You mean another government would liberate us somehow? Or a militarized action on our soil? I know it sounds nice to say that, but this isn't necessarily a "We Are the World" moment.

I bet either the US will remain involved in Libya as support to NATO for the coming years (to aid in nation-building), or they'll send troops to the ground and possibly an occupation begins (to nation-build in favor of the US). Either one will be bad. And then what happens if we go into Iran?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
We are helping people to rise up against an oppressive government. Maybe they'll return the favor.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
The evidence that it probably won't be limited to a no-fly zone was answered in your comment: "we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2"

Though why is the no-fly zone okay? It's still a militarized act of aggression in a place that already hates us. This is the kind of thing that lead to the blowback we saw on 9/11.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
So long as it is limited to a No-Fly Zone, I'm OK with it. I know I'm probably wrong to trust that this is legit, since we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2, but I've yet to see evidence that it is not.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No, just wondering if you're pro-military interventionism or against it. I see Chomsky didn't change your mind.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Is there some new development?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Has your stance on Libya changed yet?

I remember you saying that you do support intervention in some circumstances. Have you changed your thinking on this?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I wish my viewpoint was uncomplicated so I could take a fair weather non-stance. But you know us liberal peaceniks; we don't see aggression and death with rose colored glasses.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I see merit on both sides.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
He disagrees with this Libyan interventionism. You agree with it. How do you reconcile your two systems of belief?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Chomsky's concerns are all valid. I agree with him too.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I believe Chomsky is right about this one. What are the odds that there'd be a topic and I'd side with Chomsky and you wouldn't?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't really expect Libya to come to our aid. That was a joke.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Bah. You're side stepping.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Return the favor? You mean another government would liberate us somehow? Or a militarized action on our soil? I know it sounds nice to say that, but this isn't necessarily a "We Are the World" moment.

I bet either the US will remain involved in Libya as support to NATO for the coming years (to aid in nation-building), or they'll send troops to the ground and possibly an occupation begins (to nation-build in favor of the US). Either one will be bad. And then what happens if we go into Iran?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
We are helping people to rise up against an oppressive government. Maybe they'll return the favor.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
The evidence that it probably won't be limited to a no-fly zone was answered in your comment: "we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2"

Though why is the no-fly zone okay? It's still a militarized act of aggression in a place that already hates us. This is the kind of thing that lead to the blowback we saw on 9/11.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
So long as it is limited to a No-Fly Zone, I'm OK with it. I know I'm probably wrong to trust that this is legit, since we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2, but I've yet to see evidence that it is not.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No, just wondering if you're pro-military interventionism or against it. I see Chomsky didn't change your mind.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Is there some new development?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Has your stance on Libya changed yet?

I see merit on both sides.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
He disagrees with this Libyan interventionism. You agree with it. How do you reconcile your two systems of belief?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Chomsky's concerns are all valid. I agree with him too.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I believe Chomsky is right about this one. What are the odds that there'd be a topic and I'd side with Chomsky and you wouldn't?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't really expect Libya to come to our aid. That was a joke.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Bah. You're side stepping.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Return the favor? You mean another government would liberate us somehow? Or a militarized action on our soil? I know it sounds nice to say that, but this isn't necessarily a "We Are the World" moment.

I bet either the US will remain involved in Libya as support to NATO for the coming years (to aid in nation-building), or they'll send troops to the ground and possibly an occupation begins (to nation-build in favor of the US). Either one will be bad. And then what happens if we go into Iran?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
We are helping people to rise up against an oppressive government. Maybe they'll return the favor.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
The evidence that it probably won't be limited to a no-fly zone was answered in your comment: "we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2"

Though why is the no-fly zone okay? It's still a militarized act of aggression in a place that already hates us. This is the kind of thing that lead to the blowback we saw on 9/11.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
So long as it is limited to a No-Fly Zone, I'm OK with it. I know I'm probably wrong to trust that this is legit, since we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2, but I've yet to see evidence that it is not.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No, just wondering if you're pro-military interventionism or against it. I see Chomsky didn't change your mind.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Is there some new development?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Has your stance on Libya changed yet?

Chomsky's concerns are all valid. I agree with him too.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I believe Chomsky is right about this one. What are the odds that there'd be a topic and I'd side with Chomsky and you wouldn't?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't really expect Libya to come to our aid. That was a joke.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Bah. You're side stepping.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Return the favor? You mean another government would liberate us somehow? Or a militarized action on our soil? I know it sounds nice to say that, but this isn't necessarily a "We Are the World" moment.

I bet either the US will remain involved in Libya as support to NATO for the coming years (to aid in nation-building), or they'll send troops to the ground and possibly an occupation begins (to nation-build in favor of the US). Either one will be bad. And then what happens if we go into Iran?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
We are helping people to rise up against an oppressive government. Maybe they'll return the favor.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
The evidence that it probably won't be limited to a no-fly zone was answered in your comment: "we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2"

Though why is the no-fly zone okay? It's still a militarized act of aggression in a place that already hates us. This is the kind of thing that lead to the blowback we saw on 9/11.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
So long as it is limited to a No-Fly Zone, I'm OK with it. I know I'm probably wrong to trust that this is legit, since we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2, but I've yet to see evidence that it is not.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No, just wondering if you're pro-military interventionism or against it. I see Chomsky didn't change your mind.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Is there some new development?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Has your stance on Libya changed yet?

I don't really expect Libya to come to our aid. That was a joke.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Bah. You're side stepping.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Return the favor? You mean another government would liberate us somehow? Or a militarized action on our soil? I know it sounds nice to say that, but this isn't necessarily a "We Are the World" moment.

I bet either the US will remain involved in Libya as support to NATO for the coming years (to aid in nation-building), or they'll send troops to the ground and possibly an occupation begins (to nation-build in favor of the US). Either one will be bad. And then what happens if we go into Iran?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
We are helping people to rise up against an oppressive government. Maybe they'll return the favor.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
The evidence that it probably won't be limited to a no-fly zone was answered in your comment: "we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2"

Though why is the no-fly zone okay? It's still a militarized act of aggression in a place that already hates us. This is the kind of thing that lead to the blowback we saw on 9/11.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
So long as it is limited to a No-Fly Zone, I'm OK with it. I know I'm probably wrong to trust that this is legit, since we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2, but I've yet to see evidence that it is not.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No, just wondering if you're pro-military interventionism or against it. I see Chomsky didn't change your mind.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Is there some new development?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Has your stance on Libya changed yet?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Return the favor? You mean another government would liberate us somehow? Or a militarized action on our soil? I know it sounds nice to say that, but this isn't necessarily a "We Are the World" moment.

I bet either the US will remain involved in Libya as support to NATO for the coming years (to aid in nation-building), or they'll send troops to the ground and possibly an occupation begins (to nation-build in favor of the US). Either one will be bad. And then what happens if we go into Iran?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
We are helping people to rise up against an oppressive government. Maybe they'll return the favor.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
The evidence that it probably won't be limited to a no-fly zone was answered in your comment: "we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2"

Though why is the no-fly zone okay? It's still a militarized act of aggression in a place that already hates us. This is the kind of thing that lead to the blowback we saw on 9/11.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
So long as it is limited to a No-Fly Zone, I'm OK with it. I know I'm probably wrong to trust that this is legit, since we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2, but I've yet to see evidence that it is not.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No, just wondering if you're pro-military interventionism or against it. I see Chomsky didn't change your mind.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Is there some new development?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Has your stance on Libya changed yet?

We are helping people to rise up against an oppressive government. Maybe they'll return the favor.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
The evidence that it probably won't be limited to a no-fly zone was answered in your comment: "we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2"

Though why is the no-fly zone okay? It's still a militarized act of aggression in a place that already hates us. This is the kind of thing that lead to the blowback we saw on 9/11.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
So long as it is limited to a No-Fly Zone, I'm OK with it. I know I'm probably wrong to trust that this is legit, since we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2, but I've yet to see evidence that it is not.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No, just wondering if you're pro-military interventionism or against it. I see Chomsky didn't change your mind.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Is there some new development?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Has your stance on Libya changed yet?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Good points, but I'm still conflicted on this one.


That's because you care deeply for the lives of your common man. That's what I like about you. That and your penis.

But what I see with this Libya interventionism is a means to allow special interest to affect the outcome of the liberated Libyans. There are many other problems with interventionism, such as blowback, encroaching on sovereignty, occupation, corporate occupation and so on. My biggest fear is continued US hegemony and further justification for larger defense spending.

>> ^Aniatario:

Jimmy Carr is quite an amazing comedian, he's actually created an environment where his audience is encouraged to heckle. The audience is confident enough to step-in and become part of the performance with no serious blowback.
You really got to hand it to Jimmy, he know his audience. Whats more, every interaction I've seen him hold with a heckler the outcome is always witty and quite jovial.


That is so perfectly put, I completely agree. He's taken the thing that most comedians dread, and so few pull off anything worthy and thrown it right back at the audience. And like you said, because of that, there's never any negative undertones, which is lovely

Jimmy Carr is quite an amazing comedian, he's actually created an environment where his audience is encouraged to heckle. The audience is confident enough to step-in and become part of the performance with no serious blowback.

You really got to hand it to Jimmy, he know his audience. Whats more, every interaction I've seen him hold with a heckler the outcome is always witty and quite jovial.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

I want the dumb-fuck truthers to answer a couple of "simple" questions for me, or to STFU:
1)What is there to gain from it?
2)Where are the signature multi-level explosions used to fell a building?
3)How the fuck do you sneak all the explosives in with no one noticing?
4)Why would they bother making them fall straight down? Wouldn't sideways be better if you're going to kill a bunch of people?


1.what is to gain from it?
this is the question that really stood out to me.
my friend.look up "false flag operations".
read bryzenski's "the grand chessboard" or chalmers johnson "blowback" and naomi klein's "shock doctrine" for more insight in to what might be gained from any fear-inducing crisis situation.
why?
because governments lie...thats why.
this is not my opinion but historical pattern.

as for the rest of your inquiry,i tend to agree with you and is one of the reasons i am not a "truther" but to suggest that somehow asking questions of a seriously flawed "conspiracy theory" put forth by the american government somehow makes people "dumb-fucks",is dis-ingenuine at best.because just as many 9/11 truther theories fail under scrutiny,so does the version put forth by our government.

so lets keep asking those questions and understand that the government is not our buddy,our pal or our friend and governments lie.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's shameful how long the US has propped up this strong-arm dictator ... and so the blowback begins. *promote

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

How is what these guys said any different than what the 'other guy' says (and gets a pass)?

What I think is different about things like what Angle and Bachmann said is that are incitement of violence.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Politicians since times ancient have grossly extrapolated the actions/policies of their opponents.
[snip]
Bachman wanted people 'armed and dangerous'. Barak Obama wanted people "angry, get in their face, hit back twice as hard, bring a gun". I see no difference.

First, you need to source your Obama quote. I only found this as context:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

Kinda sounds like it's a metaphor, does it not?

Secondly, that never became any sort of Democratic talking point or campaign slogan. You didn't hear it coming out of the mouths of everyone on the left every 10 seconds for the better part of a year, the way you heard "death panels".

Thirdly, have you followed the link on Bachmann's full quote, and read it in context? If not, here's more:

I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people – we the people – are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.

I see the word revolution being used literally. I see talk of losing the country, of losing freedom, in the context of saying "I want people armed and dangerous".

Fourth, have I mentioned that this is in the larger context of falsely accusing Democrats of making up global warming?

So, the Obama quote isn't well sourced, doesn't involve a lie, was pretty transparently a metaphor for traditional electioneering activities, and I suspect if Obama was asked about it today he'd say it was a poor word choice. Bachmann's quote we have audio recordings of, involves a big lie, was pretty clearly about armed insurrection against the legitimate government of the United States, and while I suspect she would say "I didn't mean that", she probably wouldn't confess to any kind of issue with her word choice.

I don't see any equivalence.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Palin's death panel is an exaggeration of the rationed care that IS a part of Obamacare. Similarly, Democrats accuse the GOP of starving people when they want to cut a social program.

Really? Neither statement is true.

First, medical care is a scarce resource, and any system by which we choose to distribute it is by definition "rationing", whether it's a market, or something else, so saying "Obamacare" has "rationing" is a meaningless statement. Even if I grant some special meaning of the word "rationing", there still isn't anything even remotely like Palin's "death panel" in the bill anywhere.

Second, when have Democrats accused Republicans of starving people? To be frank, I wish they would, especially since it's true more often than not. The closest I've seen is Alan Grayson saying that the Republican health care plan is "#1 Don't get sick. #2 If you do get sick, die quickly."

For that one to be true you need to wrap some caveats around it, but basically if you can't afford insurance, or have a preexisting condition, that was totally accurate.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Do I like the overblown rhetoric? No, but it is part and parcel of any vigorous debate.
No normal person takes these statements literally though. And trying to pander to the NOT normal people seems to me an exercise in futility. Moreover, trying to be "PC" using the outliers of society as a standard is an impossible moving target, and rather subject to opinion.

To a large degree, this is a response to an argument I'm not making. I actually really like overblown rhetoric. What I don't like is the way the right imputes sinister motives to the left. It's not just "they're corrupt and beholden to special interests (and sometimes mansluts)", these days it's "they're coming to take your guns, kill your family, make your kids into gay drug addicts, take your house, your job, and piss on the American flag while surrendering to every other nation in the world".

The left is getting pretty coarse about the right, but most of our insults are that Republicans are corrupt and beholden to special interests...and dumb, heartless liars.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
There is no nice way to say this, but you are wrong. They were not, and you know it. There is no GOP candidate who would have survived 5 seconds if they'd been calling for armed rebellion if they lost. That is hyperbole.

I'd love to be wrong about this. I am not. Scroll back up to my first comment here, there are two videos of Republicans calling for armed insurrection if they lose. These two were small potatoes, but Michele Bachmann and Sharron Angle both were saying the same thing, just a little less directly. Rick Perry has been a bit more overt, but also a lot less graphic (talk of secession rather than revolution). Not to bring the Tea Party into this, but they kept showing up with signs talking about "Watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants"

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I put it to you kindly that this opinion is another symptom of perception bias. Would you not agree that from Glenn Beck's perspective his infamous 'chalkboard histories' are an attempt to educate and outreach? And quite frankly, I feel very little sense of 'outreach' or 'education' when liberals call conservatives hateful, angry, evil, nazis, corporate shills, mind numbed robots, neocons, teabaggers, racist, sexist, and bigoted.

No, Beck's not trying outreach with his blackboards. He's painting a false picture of history in which liberalism is about violence and domination, and entirely overrun by a conspiracy of nefarious interests. That's not outreach, that's poisoning the well so that it's impossible for people who think he's illuminating some sort of truth (and to be clear, he is not), to talk to the people who haven't subscribed to Beck's belief that liberalism progressivism is just the new mask the fascists have put on to insinuate themselves into modern society so they can subvert it from within.

It's true that the left isn't engaging in outreach when they're calling you names. I suspect you haven't seen much outreach, given the way you personally tend to approach topics around here. You don't seem like the kind of person who's open to outreach.

That said, if I thought there was a way to show you what I think is good about liberalism, I would do so. I'd be happy to give you my take on what liberals believe and why, if you're genuinely interested in trying to understand the way we think.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Sure - just be sure to allow that both ways. Criticize conservative pundits all you want. But don't get all testy if conservatives criticize liberal ones. And if you try to pin accessory to murder on conservatives, don't be surprised when they get their back up.

Yeah, I didn't. See, the right's been calling us murderers and tyrants quite a bit lately. They've been making the case in countless different ways that government run by Democrats, and especially by Obama is fundamentally illegitimate. Not "something we strongly disagree with" but a total break with the fundamental principles of our government that present a direct threat to people.

Here I personally went one click further and suggested that perhaps this is an intentional strategy to rile up the crazies, so they'll physically intimidate liberals.

Again, I'd love to see someone prove me wrong about that. Ad hominem tu quoque arguments won't really do the job.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
That is because I'm bearding the lion in its metaphorical den, so to speak. The sift is liberally slanted. I'm not. So even when dare to challenge the consensus groupthink - even when done respectfully - I get blowback. I would say that I am incredibly patient, respectful, and moderate in my tone. I rarely (if ever) make things personal. Even when I'm on the receiving end of some rather nasty abuse I tend to keep it civil.

I think then there may be room for me to maybe help understand the kinds of reactions you get.

Part of the issue is a lot of your comments are of the formation "What liberals are saying is utterly, demonstrably, and obviously false, and in fact, they're more guilty of it than the right". You then support your argument with a litany of asserted facts...that you don't source, and are in direct contravention of what was said elsewhere (regardless of whether it'd been sourced or not).

Part of the issue with making an argument purely on challenging facts is that you run headlong into questions about the legitimacy of the source, and those can be some of the ugliest arguments of all, especially if the only source cited is yourself.

I'd recommend trying to make philosophical or moral arguments that don't hinge on the specific circumstances, especially when we're talking about events we only know about from news stories. I find it helps move conversations from heat to light when you shift the discussion to the underlying philosophical disagreement like that.

I also think you'll get farther with making a positive statement about what you believe, than a negative statement about what you believe liberals believe. (i.e. instead of "Liberals just want to boss people around with their nanny state", try "Conservatives are trying to give people more freedom to choose how to run their own lives")

People will likely still disagree with you, but at least there's a chance they'll respond to what you said, rather than just hurl invectives at you.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I don't apologize for being a rare conservative voice in a chorus of liberals, but that doesn't mean that "I" am responsible for 'increased vitriol'. The vitriol comes when people other than myself. I simply present a different point of view.

I don't think you should apologize. However, I also think you have to be willing to accept some responsibility for how people react to what you say. I'm self-aware enough to know that what I say is going to sound inflammatory to some people, and I certainly don't feel like criticism of my own inflammatory speech is somehow an assault on my free speech.

If you're getting a lot of vitriol (and I know you are), and that's not what you want, I think you should examine the way you're presenting yourself rather than assuming it's all the result of some sort of universal liberal intolerance.

This place has a bunch of really thoughtful people who enjoy civil discussion with people who they disagree with. If that's what you want, I gotta say I think you're just pushing the wrong buttons.

Palin - Bachman - et al.

I'm trying to avoid the typical back & forth on this thread. So I'll phrase it like this... How is what these guys said any different than what the 'other guy' says (and gets a pass)? Politicians since times ancient have grossly extrapolated the actions/policies of their opponents. Palin's death panel is an exaggeration of the rationed care that IS a part of Obamacare. Similarly, Democrats accuse the GOP of starving people when they want to cut a social program. Bachman wanted people 'armed and dangerous'. Barak Obama wanted people "angry, get in their face, hit back twice as hard, bring a gun". I see no difference. Do I like the overblown rhetoric? No, but it is part and parcel of any vigorous debate.

No normal person takes these statements literally though. And trying to pander to the NOT normal people seems to me an exercise in futility. Moreover, trying to be "PC" using the outliers of society as a standard is an impossible moving target, and rather subject to opinion.

The right-wing elected officials and candidates were talking about armed rebellion if they lose the election

There is no nice way to say this, but you are wrong. They were not, and you know it. There is no GOP candidate who would have survived 5 seconds if they'd been calling for armed rebellion if they lost. That is hyperbole.

I don't get the same sense of desire for outreach/reformation of liberals. I also don't get the sense of compatibility from them.

I put it to you kindly that this opinion is another symptom of perception bias. Would you not agree that from Glenn Beck's perspective his infamous 'chalkboard histories' are an attempt to educate and outreach? And quite frankly, I feel very little sense of 'outreach' or 'education' when liberals call conservatives hateful, angry, evil, nazis, corporate shills, mind numbed robots, neocons, teabaggers, racist, sexist, and bigoted.

I can condemn anything I want because I have free speech. I also think that there's a lot of validity to the idea that our national discourse has been poisoned with over the top rhetoric.

Sure - just be sure to allow that both ways. Criticize conservative pundits all you want. But don't get all testy if conservatives criticize liberal ones. And if you try to pin accessory to murder on conservatives, don't be surprised when they get their back up.

You...increase vitriol

That is because I'm bearding the lion in its metaphorical den, so to speak. The sift is liberally slanted. I'm not. So even when dare to challenge the consensus groupthink - even when done respectfully - I get blowback. I would say that I am incredibly patient, respectful, and moderate in my tone. I rarely (if ever) make things personal. Even when I'm on the receiving end of some rather nasty abuse I tend to keep it civil. I don't apologize for being a rare conservative voice in a chorus of liberals, but that doesn't mean that "I" am responsible for 'increased vitriol'. The vitriol comes when people other than myself. I simply present a different point of view.

I really think that's what is happening in the 'national discourse' too. Two sides collide. They don't like each other. If they dare (DAARE!) to present their perspective, they get jumped on like black on a bowling ball. The media in particular is hypersensitive to this, because it gives them ratings. Politicians love it too, because 'going negative' gets votes.