Saturday, June 17, 2006

Leftist response: Shut up

The Statesmen Urinal editorial blog today has a letter written by an angry reader to another newspaper that used a commentary from the Urinal. The letter points out that Oregon is a leftist state and that the media reports only bad news from Iraq.

The Urinal response: "In response, all I have to say, is whatever happened to civil discourse and disagreement …."

That's what I love about liberals. When you argue with them you aren't being "civil" or "bipartisan" but when they argue with a conservative, oh wait, they don't argue, they just call you a bigot. That's civil discourse.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

What I find interesting is the names of those who cycle through the Statesman/Journal posing as reporters and editors before moving on to other Gannett publications.

Press #2 for English.

Bryan Saxton said...

Ok, fair, but in the Statesman's defense, the letterwriter really didn't present any "civil discourse." All he did was show his hate for anything Oregonian.

Anonymous said...

I am sure the writer didn't have a good schooling in geography because the city of Portland and surrounding area (20 to 25 miles) isn't really the true Oregon and I am sure that is the area to which the writer (He/She)was refering.

BEAR said...

Don't forget the people's republic of eugene, and new beijing (we used to know it as corvallis).

Kaelri said...

"Civil discourse and disagreement" does not consist of "Oregon is a left-wing, socialist, America hating state."

I'm afraid I probably can't bridge the gap this time. That letter is a pointless, emotion-fueled rant that's not going to change a single mind. Sorry, but whenever you call another American an "America-hater" you instantly end any possibility of real communication.

BEAR said...

kaelri, once more you show your naivete. The America haters like Alec Baldwin and his leftie pals, the Portland Seven (now in prison), Tre Arrow and his eco-terrorist friends, and....the list seems endless and I haven't even gotten to Congress, yet, let alone La Raza and Mecha, are into "real" communication through violence or the support of the violent. Don't lecture or pretend to be superior when one-sided appeasement and surrender are your goals. You are an intellectual infant. Calling the constant attempts by the left to redefine and pervert every rational concept is neither "real" nor "communication."

Bryan Saxton said...

Bear, you are displaying a fine example of the very thing you are arguing against. Your attacking Kaelri instead of attacking his argument displays your inability to proplerly and effectively argue, as well as epitomises the stereotype of a conservatives inability to engage in civil discourse (a stereotype that I highly resent and disagree with). Also, your inaccurate generalization of his claims displays your intellectual infancy in comparison to him, as does your inability to understand what arguing is about: exchanging ideas and learning. I would not be surprised to find that Kaelri has a much more extensive academic background than you do. The unwillingness to exchange ideas is the stuff that totalitarian regimes are based on.

Anonymous said...

BRYAN...Speaking of talking down to,around and attacking people , you just gave a fine example of how it's done . 3/4's of what you said had nothing to do with the subject. Just expressed malarky and much to do about nothing

BEAR said...

Besides the appeasement and surrender strategy (lol) advocated by the left to their terrorist and border crashing friends, you can't "communicate" with liberals. Pretending to be a conservative or hiding in a cloud of sophistry does not change reality, regardless of how hard you and the infant kaelri try. Representative J. Murtha introduced a surrender resolution, and then voted against it, along with almost all of his anti-American pals in the Democrat party. A PERFECT example of the phony, obfuscating, disingenuous nonsense liberals try to pass off as "dialogue.".....sheesh.

Kaelri said...

Alright. We'll suppose for a moment, Bear, that everything you say is true. I'm liberal. So I hate America. I just detest it. I really want to be defeated by terrorists. I am a coward who abhors any fighting whatsoever, except when it comes to my heartfelt struggle to destroy and suppress every instrument of good and throw open our borders to any miscreant who wanders past. And I'll fly into a rage if you even think of telling me to have a "merry Christmas."

If all that's true - and it's not, obviously, so this is all very much a sub-argument - what's the point in attacking me for it? You're not going to change my mind by telling me what I already know. You're arguing as if "one-sided appeasement and surrender" is agreed to be inherently evil. But if that's my chosen life mission, then obviously I disagree, and so your attacks mean nothing to me; if anything, I would take them as compliments.

A much better method would be for you to think about why that's my goal. Why would one half of this country vote for a party that hates the country, and actively works to hasten its downfall? Do we believe it's time for China or India to take up the torch? Are we all members of a cult, perhaps? Did we all have unpleasant childhoods?

I'd be interested to hear your hypothesis.

Bryan Saxton said...

Anonymous (and Bear),

First, I am not so much concerned about Bear's argument as I am how he is carrying it out. I know somewhere, hidden behind an inherent automatic bias against anything that goes against the extreme right is a coherent argument that I would be highly interested in hearing. My gripe is that Bear is playing into the stereotypical conservative argument of propoganda and generalizations over logic and reason(the terms "appeasement and surrender strategy" and "left's terrorist and border crashing friends" come to mind). In other words, name calling is a good way to discredit your argument.

To Bear specifically,

Just to clarify, I am by no means a conservative, but also by no means am I a liberal. I beleive that playing into either of those political party's ideals exclusively is folly, for when one does so, he or she subjects their ideals to their political leaders (our president in this case).

Rather, I am a firm beleiver in letting logic and reason guide your political decisions (hence my strong advocation of education) superceded only by what I beleive to be the holy word of God (The Bible).

To be honest I am disgraced at how our congress acts (both Democrats and Republicans).