Why the hyperpartisanship?

[CBWx2]

There is MUCH more bile and venom on the left.

ROFL ... You have got to be freaking kidding me ... Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, Levin, Hannity, Coulter, et al join me in laughing at that ultimate example of hyperpartisanship.

And what's even more ironic is that in trying to point out how hyperparitsan liberals are, he responded in a completely hyperpartisan fashion.

[Col. Klink]

There is MUCH more bile and venom on the left.

ROFL ... You have got to be freaking kidding me ... Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, Levin, Hannity, Coulter, et al join me in laughing at that ultimate example of hyperpartisanship.

And what's even more ironic is that in trying to point out how hyperparitsan liberals are, he responded in a completely hyperpartisan fashion.

I'm not saying the libs don't have their share of bile spewers but to say they have the emphasized "MUCH more" is hilarious ...

[Chief Joseph]

CBW, you very much tend to argue from emotion as opposed to logic. It looks to me like you gauge the validity of your argument by the strength of your desire to believe it, instead of its actual merits. I would like to see you take a position in a debate that was contrary to your own beliefs. I'm betting you'd have your ass handed to you, due to your inability to analyze the strong points of the position you've been assigned. Ironically, this is exactly what the article is talking about.

This leads you to examine evidence with an eye towards reinforcing an already determined outcome, instead of seeing where it leads.

[VinBucFan]

This leads you to examine evidence with an eye towards reinforcing an already determined outcome, instead of seeing where it leads.

You can see that truth on display in the Trayvon Martin thread

[CBWx2]

CBW, you very much tend to argue from emotion as opposed to logic. It looks to me like you gauge the validity of your argument by the strength of your desire to believe it, instead of its actual merits. I would like to see you take a position in a debate that was contrary to your own beliefs. I'm betting you'd have your ass handed to you, due to your inability to analyze the strong points of the position you've been assigned. Ironically, this is exactly what the article is talking about.

This leads you to examine evidence with an eye towards reinforcing an already determined outcome, instead of seeing where it leads.

Illuminator, the fact that you agreed with cardoc's mile long manifesto condemning liberal hyperpartisanship in a completely hyperpartisan fashion pretty much negates any middle ground you can to claim on this issue.

"I'm not a Rush listener, although I have heard his show in the past.  He definitely is a bit over the top.  I've tried to explain my position on his as this:  He's a guy who get the right idea, runs with it and makes sense, but then keeps running and goes a step or two too far into the place where it doesn't work.  JMHO on Rush.  But Rush (and another favorite liberal demon FOX) is/are just islands in a sea of liberal bile.  Olberman, Maher, the mass media accusations of Palin suborning Giffords' shooting, the lies about spitting and racist remarks on the "Kill the bill" liberal photo-op setup, on and on.  There is one Rush, and one fox, versus PBS, NBC, CBA, ABC, CNN, BBC, MSNBC, ALL of Hollywood, essentially ever major print paper and magazine, and I'm sure I'm missing a bunch.  Let's also talk about the response to the recent "Slit" remarks.  Yes, not appropriate by Rush at all.  Media Matters has bragged they had a planned action plan for just this mistake by him since 2009.  Think about that.  3 years before they can implement it.  Maybe he's not as venomous as people portray?  What was the response from libs when Maher called Palin a cu** ?"

"Remember where I predicted your strawman above?  This is why.  I NEVER said it didn't exist on both sides.  But again you imply I did and proceed to beat up a strawman.  Don't you feel big and tough.  As noted in the paragraph above, there is much more bile from more sources coming from the left.  Even if the right wanted to, they don't have enough of a media presence to match the venom-count of the left.  Take an honest look at it and you'll see it.  Most of what liberals call "hate speech" or "uncivil discourse" is just people disagreeing with them, because the "Hate" when you do that."

What part of any of that isn't hyperpartisan? What hyperpartisan thing did I say leading up to these responses? What hyperpartisan comment have I made in this entire thread? Give me a break, Illuminator. These comments do nothing if not refute the claim that liberals not understanding conservatives is the reason for negative partisan discourse.

[Chief Joseph]

Has nothing to do with anything anyone else said. It was a summary of your debate style based on numerous observations of your overall body of work, not any single topic.

[Durango 95]

This  study contrasts liberalism and conservatism.  (philosophies)

But its being incorrectly reframed into a debate of Dem. & Rep. (partisanship)

One would have to accept that Rep. politics represents total & whole allegiance to conservative principles & practices. Obviously it doesn't. Conversely you would have to accept that Dem. principals & practices wholly represent liberal philosophy. It doesn't. The premise of the thread is partisanship but it doesn't translate.......(But we have been conditioned to believe...ah wait...never mind I'll save that for another time).

[CBWx2]

Has nothing to do with anything anyone else said. It was a summary of your debate style based on numerous observations of your overall body of work, not any single topic.

Yet this was the topic that you chose to point it out in. So the question still stands. What did I say in regards to this topic that was overly emotional or hyperpartisan?

[CBWx2]

This  study contrasts liberalism and conservatism.  (philosophies)

But its being incorrectly reframed into a debate of Dem. & Rep. (partisanship)

Intentionally, by the author and by the starter of this thread, I would add.

[Chief Joseph]

Has nothing to do with anything anyone else said. It was a summary of your debate style based on numerous observations of your overall body of work, not any single topic.

Yet this was the topic that you chose to point it out in. So the question still stands. What did I say in regards to this topic that was overly emotional or hyperpartisan?

You don't seem to be listening.

[Durango 95]

This  study contrasts liberalism and conservatism.  (philosophies)

But its being incorrectly reframed into a debate of Dem. & Rep. (partisanship)

Intentionally, by the author and by the starter of this thread, I would add.

The title of the thread is a question that should be asked of the one that wrote it.

[dbucfan]

I would think a fair reading of the linked material would cover anyone's questions.

[acacius]

I think there's an awful lot fo confirmation bias that occurs when people discuss the currtent state of political discouse in the country.  Speaking as one of your friendly neighborhood liberals, I can say in all sincerity that I see far more nastiness coming from the right than I see directed at them.  But I don't doubt for a second that caradoc is equally sincere when he suggests the opposite is true.  I think we simply don't see the nastiness that isn't directed at us the same way we see that which is.  caradoc's suggesting that liberals are "going full on communist" is a fine example.  Not only is it factually untrue, but it's frankly a bit insulting (albeit not nearly to the extent of some of the stuff I've seen).  But let me emphasize that I'm am in no way claiming to be above such things.  I *know* I can fall prey to confirmation bias.

[spartan]

I think the article is spot on, and, the responses to it support and substantiate exactly what the author outlined. I will add that Liberals for the most part think conservatives are stupid and treat them with contempt. I can think of no better example than the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

[NovaBuc]

This is standard liberal instant caricaturization of any differing viewpoint.  On the other hand, I said "ESSENTIALLY gone full on communist".  Communism is a real and existing political and economic ideology.  There is no "demonizing" in saying someone holds that viewpoint or viewpoints which are ESSENTIALLY the same.  Communism economically focuses on distribution of wealth rather than creation of it, that it is more important that everyone gets their "fair share" rather than accepting some inequality so that in the end everyone gets more.  The current assaults by liberals on "Bankers" "the rich" "corporations" "businessmen" and the "failures of capitalism" are pretty much 100% in line with the USSR propaganda book.  Another basic tenet of communism is a powerful, essentially all powerful, central government running things for our own good.  If you can't see the parallels between that and the ever increasing nanny state, Obamacare, EPA "regulating" CO2, then I can't help you.  Fact is liberals are pushing ever larger government both in scope and authority. Of course your friends don't call themselves communist.  But they most likely DO do hold essentially the same viewpoints on a lot of key matters. 

 Actually, that is not what Communism is, though it is what the US/NATO tended to portray Communism as during the Cold War (and thus how most of us think of it today). Communism is actually akin to Anarchy, in that once all capitalistic societies have had their worker revolutions there is no need for government, any form of central authority or any 'wealth redistribution' as society at that point would be stateless and classless. No need for money as all goods and services are provided for everyone and everyone would only use what they need. What most folks think of as Communism is what Marx identified as a transitional process between revolution and the ultimate 'worker-utopia' of pure Communism in his Communist Manifesto.. As long as non-Communistic societies exist, then there is a need for a basically dictatorial government to help further the revolutions in other societies/countries and to protect the proletariat. What you describe as 'Communism' is more properly termed State Socialism, or as Marx put it a 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. It was intended to be a bridge from the 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie' to the classless, stateless, moneyless society of pure Communism.