Tuesday, December 16, 2014

You'd think it's a hoax

"It’s Okay To Hate Republicans"

Okay? Hell, it's a duty.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you get compensated for clicks? I'm afraid of what kind of site they'll take me to so I am commenting in ignorance here (hey what's the internet and blogs for anyway?)

Based just on the sentence quoted here, I would say its OK (and entirely natural) to hate bad weather too

4:02 AM, December 16, 2014  
Blogger LAGuy said...

The only compensation we get from this blog is psychic. So don't feel obligated to click on anything, though that would sure throw a monkey wrench into ColumbusGuy's business model.

9:01 AM, December 16, 2014  
Anonymous Denver Guy said...

[Comment I left at the click site]

A few months ago Cass Sunstein, Harvard Law Prof. and former Obama administration official in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, pointed at a possible tipping point toward incivil partisanship in this article: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-10-29/how-the-alger-hiss-case-explains-the-tea-party .

He suggests the left's treatment of the right regarding allegations of Alger Hiss' communist spy activities (they dismissed the right and Whittaker Chambers as uncultured ignoramouses) began the slide into ultra-partisanship. This was true for my English professor in college in the 80s (he felt guilty for having criticized folks who suspected Hiss once he found out the allegations were true).

Alger Hiss was a bit before my time, so my first sense of the unfairness of the left was the treatment of Robert Bork in his nomination for the Supreme Court (which led to the verb "to bork"). After that, there was the treatment of Clarence Thomas, and the blocking of Miguel Estrada's nomination. Being a lawyer, I tend to focus on some of these law related affronts.

But the kicker for me was when Hillary Clinton on national TV blamed the simmering allegations of sexual harassment against her husband on a "vast right wing conspiracy." She said this when she knew the allegations were true. It convinced me that the left will say anything, because in their collective minds the ends justify the means.

Now I know folks on the right have sometimes adopted similar tactics. Fight fire with fire is a common attitude in tribal warfare. So maybe it's a matter of cherry picking the first unfair attack to decide which side you agree with. The real problem is the increasing denial by both sides that the other side may share common basic goals. If we assume everyone wants a safe, prosperous country (and world, for that matter), then we can work toward common objectives, even if we disagree on the means to achieve these goals. Then we can compromise, saving face by saying we know the other side wants the same end result, and hoping that their approach will work.

Look at the healthcare debate. Why does the left insist that the right wants people to die in the street? The right wants the best healthcare system we can reasonably afford, which should be the goal of the left as well. I, as a conservative, think that is not accomplished by institutionalizing insurance and creating a giant government bureaucracy. But I can see that some might think that is the way to go - I don't dismiss their objectives, just their methods. Personally, I think the best way to find a solution is to let States experiment with different solutions, and eventually the most effective will emerge.

I believe the current dire situation was born from 40 uninterrupted years of Democratic control of Congress. That long a period led the left to truly dismiss the right, and planted long term discontent. It is unhealthy for one party to have unchallenged control for so long. I hope the Republicans hold power long enough to teach the Democrats that they actually have to earn the support of the nation (not just assume it as they do with so many of their voting blocks). The Republicans learned this lesson from the rise of the Tea Party which, despite what you may have heard, is fundamentally a group seeking smaller, less centralized government and nothing more. The Democrats need their own Tea Party, to get them focused on their fundamentals.

9:11 AM, December 16, 2014  
Blogger ColumbusGuy said...

Speak for yourself, LAGuy. The only compensation *you* get is psychic.

Which is rather shocking to me. I would have sworn you didn't believe it psychics.

10:14 AM, December 16, 2014  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is CG upset about. Chambers was an ignoramus, Bork was terrible and there was a vast (and luckily incompetent) right wing conspiracy.

I don't think wingnuts want people to die in the streets, just that they don't care if they do

10:59 AM, December 16, 2014  
Blogger ColumbusGuy said...

I think you're mixing up your Guys, Anonymous.

1:37 PM, December 16, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home

web page hit counter