Limbaugh vs. Krauthammer? Columnist calls radio talker ‘odd and condescending’

[Valin]

Oh and...

 

I've been thinking a lot about this "civil discourse" thing. I don't think agreement is what regular Americans are looking for, (politicians/leftists maybe, but not regular folks) but instead we are looking for REAL debate about issues and ideas. I don't hate Obama as a person, and I don't hate Michelle either. I PROFOUNDLY disagree with them and their vision for the country and am perfectly willing to discuss why using facts...rather than denigrating them personally. I just think that distinction needs to be made often—for our own good.

 

 

Nothing wrong with civility in life and politics, particularly the former. I do have several problems however...1. could someone name me a period in the history of our nation when civility was the rule of the day in politics? 2. For some civility appears to mean not disagreeing with them, or if you do it must be done in most inoffensive way possible. Because we are such delicate creatures that any use of harsh, strong language will cause us to (1) come down with a darn near terminal case of the vapors or (2) grab a gun and go on a murderous rampage.

 

 

 

 

What we have here is one more teachable moment.

 

 

NCTexan

 

Right Valin! The people on the right are not allowed to hold different opinions.

 

Is that the answer that you are fishing for?

 

Signed lovingly,

 

NCTexan - a mind numbed robot

 

It appears to be to these old eyes. At least that's my opinion.

[righteousmomma]

Oh and...

 

I've been thinking a lot about this "civil discourse" thing. I don't think agreement is what regular Americans are looking for, (politicians/leftists maybe, but not regular folks) but instead we are looking for REAL debate about issues and ideas. I don't hate Obama as a person, and I don't hate Michelle either. I PROFOUNDLY disagree with them and their vision for the country and am perfectly willing to discuss why using facts...rather than denigrating them personally. I just think that distinction needs to be made often—for our own good.

 

 

Nothing wrong with civility in life and politics, particularly the former. I do have several problems however...1. could someone name me a period in the history of our nation when civility was the rule of the day in politics? 2. For some civility appears to mean not disagreeing with them, or if you do it must be done in most inoffensive way possible. Because we are such delicate creatures that any use of harsh, strong language will cause us to (1) come down with a darn near terminal case of the vapors or (2) grab a gun and go on a murderous rampage.

 

 

 

 

What we have here is one more teachable moment.

 

 

NCTexan

 

Right Valin! The people on the right are not allowed to hold different opinions.

 

Is that the answer that you are fishing for?

 

Signed lovingly,

 

NCTexan - a mind numbed robot

 

It appears to be to these old eyes. At least that's my opinion.

 

IMO good points made here by all three of you.

I might add (in reference to no one in particular) that there is a difference between being disagreeable and disagreeing.

Disagree

1

: to fail to agree <the two accounts disagree>

2

: to differ in opinion <he disagreed with me on every topic>

3

: to cause discomfort or distress <fried foods disagree with me>

 

(Naturally if someone disagrees with a person it makes the other person discomforted because the ego/self feels slighted or offended. Just human nature. Whether between a man and wife, parent and child or neighbor and neighbor.

And when "attacked" or "offended" or discomforted" the natural tendency is to fight back or retaliate and get revenge)

 

Disagreeable

 

1

: causing discomfort : unpleasant, offensive <a disagreeable odor>

2

: marked by ill temper : peevish <a disagreeable person>

 

Too often though because of human nature the one being offended (not agreed with) reacts disagreeably.

 

I don't see any evidence in the public arena of mainstream conservative politicians being uncivil or disagreeable to the Democrats. To disagree with the other party's policies and agenda and agree with one's own party's beliefs (whether always right or justified or not) is why we have 2 parties. THANK GOD.

 

I see no evidence of anyone on the right becoming sheeple -( well some at another site.... maybe ) but I do see and hear evidence every day of sheeple following blindly and dumbly on the opposing side because of political correctness, white guilt, elite liberal snobbishness and pure reasons of race biases and assumed world view perceptions.

[Casino67]

Newsbusters.com has an article just posted about CK on Mark Shields' NPR(I guess)show. Rips the left about accusing Palin of causing AZ.

 

 

CK

[Pepper]

What program is that link supposed to go to, Casino? Thanks.

 

If you are afflicted with low blood pressure, check this out.

 

MSNBC

[Valin]

Newsbusters.com has an article just posted about CK on Mark Shields' NPR(I guess)show. Rips the left about accusing Palin of causing AZ.

 

 

CK

 

 

MARK SHIELDS, SUBSTITUTE HOST: Charles Krauthammer?

 

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Well, I think the President actually put an end to that malicious and scurrilous innuendo that was started in the mainstream press, particularly by the New York Times and Obama’s allies on the left, who claimed from the beginning without a shred of evidence that this attack was a consequence of supposedly a climate of hate created by the political right. The President refuted that, as he should have, which I think was healthy, but I think it is a scandal what happened in the four days between the attack and the President's speech of these unwarranted, unsupported, and now obviously discredited attacks from on the left, which essentially made people like Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and others accessories to a murder, a series of murders, of which they had nothing to do.

 

SHIELDS: And comforter in chief?

 

KRAUTHAMMER: He did that as well, but I think it was important to stop the malice and the in-civil discourse that had characterized all the days leading up until the service.

 

SHIELDS: Nina Totenberg?

 

NINA TOTENBERG: So we can’t even have a two-minute conversation here without a little bit of finger-pointing, but…

 

KRAUTHAMMER: You don't think it was merited?

 

 

How dare Charles Krauthammer defend Sarah Palin!!!! It should be obvious to all that Krauthammer is just a shill for the evil ultra extreme racist right wing noise machine, that is intent on oppressing women, minorities, and all others who support all that is good and true and just in this country!

What's more I bet he has a constitution fetish.....like any modern caring person in touch with our Mother Gaia could read and understand that old out of date document. You know that some of those old white men owned (shudder) slaves.....need I say more.

[pollyannaish]

I am glad that Charles is willing to "debate" a woman who said "Christmas party, if you'll pardon the expression."

 

There comes a point when it gets hard to have a discussion because there isn't even a remote agreement on what is real/good/ decent.

[Casino67]

What program is that link supposed to go to, Casino? Thanks.

 

If you are afflicted with low blood pressure, check this out.

 

MSNBC

 

Sorry for late post. It is a link, as of yesterday, to the MSNBC network broadcasts. No particular show.

Just checked and it still works. Of course MSNBC takes weekends off and just show prison crap.

[Valin]

righteousmomma

 

My point was about your question....."I have no clue what has happened to Krauthammer lately --AND Fox and their pundits including Hannity and Beck."

 

As if there is something wrong with disagreeing with other conservatives. God bless Rush and the work he does, But we can disagree with him without our conservative credentials being called into question, or being asked....."What's wrong with you".

[Casino67]

Other network

[Valin]

I am glad that Charles is willing to "debate" a woman who said "Christmas party, if you'll pardon the expression."

 

There comes a point when it gets hard to have a discussion because there isn't even a remote agreement on what is real/good/ decent.

 

 

I didn't watch the show, so....did she answer Charles?

 

I would hope that Nina knows that she's outgunned (OMG! I used the G word...now calm down people no need to go on a rampage) intellectually.

[pollyannaish]

I am glad that Charles is willing to "debate" a woman who said "Christmas party, if you'll pardon the expression."

 

There comes a point when it gets hard to have a discussion because there isn't even a remote agreement on what is real/good/ decent.

 

 

I didn't watch the show, so....did she answer Charles?

 

I would hope that Nina knows that she's outgunned (OMG! I used the G word...now calm down people no need to go on a rampage) intellectually.

 

I didn't. I just read the transcript. I don't know very many of us who aren't outgunned (I'll go to confession later) by CK. I would hope that she'd at least be that smart.

[Valin]

I am glad that Charles is willing to "debate" a woman who said "Christmas party, if you'll pardon the expression."

 

There comes a point when it gets hard to have a discussion because there isn't even a remote agreement on what is real/good/ decent.

 

 

I didn't watch the show, so....did she answer Charles?

 

I would hope that Nina knows that she's outgunned (OMG! I used the G word...now calm down people no need to go on a rampage) intellectually.

 

I didn't. I just read the transcript. I don't know very many of us who aren't outgunned (I'll go to confession later) by CK. I would hope that she'd at least be that smart.

 

 

MUST....NOT...GRAB....GUN.

[righteousmomma]

righteousmomma

 

My point was about your question....."I have no clue what has happened to Krauthammer lately --AND Fox and their pundits including Hannity and Beck."

 

As if there is something wrong with disagreeing with other conservatives. God bless Rush and the work he does, But we can disagree with him without our conservative credentials being called into question, or being asked....."What's wrong with you".

Valin, I think you totally misread me. I was referring to how suddenly everyone at Fox was lauding the presidents speech the day after when all of us here watching the rally found nothing superior about it. One would expect the president of the U.S. to make a nice speech.

 

Of course next day we see how the entire deal was orchestrated. So perhaps as said earlier Ailes was trying a new tactic.

 

As for:

But we can disagree with him without our conservative credentials being called into question, or being asked....."What's wrong with you".

 

No body ever said you could not. I don't always agree with Rush or NCT or anyone else either.