Bush Twins

[westkoast]

IMO, the right wing is where the majority of these types of idiots reside.  While the left has people who are just as stupid and venemous, they're clearly out numbered by the right.

"Well . . . they're meaner than we are! So they deserve it."

You may be right about that. It was the Huffington Post and that should say something about who was reading and posting there. The likelihood of finding responses unfriendly to Bush is high. But honestly, I'm getting pretty sick of each side saying "well they're even meaner than we are!" My five-year old likes to use that one all the time.

This particular batch of venom stuck out to me because it is directed at someone with no involvement in politics, and it comes in response to a conciliatory, gracious gesture, not some damaging policy or botched strategy. And it comes directly from the people, not pundits.

Who knows where it all starts? Are Limbaugh and Coulter popular because they make right-wingers become like them? Or because right-wingers are already like them? Do they create the hate? Or is it already there?

And that begs the question: If the pundits make the right-wing pricks, who makes the left-wing pricks? Cuz there sure are a helluva a lot of them on places like the Huff Post.

I agree and I've actually talked to people I know who justify being brutal by saying "well the right is even more brutal!"

Limbaugh and Coulter are popular because they tout the right wing agenda, get under the skin of left wingers very well, AND because they piss enough people off that you get viewers/listneres who listen just to complain about how stupid they are!  Bill O'Reily does the same.  He has a huge amount of viewers who HATE him but fail to realize just by watching they are enabling him.    Howard Stern mastered this approach as he is a shock jock just like they are.  You don't really kill the ratings until you get people listening because they hate you.  That's when you go over the top.

You know who makes the left wing pricks ?  The right wing pricks.  You know who makes the right wing pricks?  The left wing pricks.  Vicious cycle that never ends.  I know its a joke that liberals are soft, wussy, hippies who rather talk then do but sometimes it applies.  The right wing has more personalities that tend to be the opposite of soft, wussy, hippy so I feel what W.O.W was saying is right.  I think the bullies/chest beaters do tend to end up on that side of the fence moreso than the Dem side.  If that wasn't true then people wouldn't call Dems "soft" "wussy" and "hippy"

[WayOutWest]

Howard Stern mastered this approach as he is a shock jock just like they are.  You don't really kill the ratings until you get people listening because they hate you.

I think people who hate Stern don't "get it".  People who compare Stern to the likes of Rush and Coulter don't "get it".  Stern is very unique in that his show represents America right down the middle.  The Stern show is the most accurage guage of the ENTIRE American pulse IMO.  There is no left or right with Stern, the rest of mainstream American media cannot make that claim.  While there is plenty of juvenile humor on that show his best and most contraversial (sic?) attribute is his ability to "expose" stupidity/hypocracy, 50% of the time he has stupidity expose itself the other 50% of the time he just points at it.

[westkoast]

Howard Stern mastered this approach as he is a shock jock just like they are.  You don't really kill the ratings until you get people listening because they hate you.

I think people who hate Stern don't "get it".  People who compare Stern to the likes of Rush and Coulter don't "get it".  Stern is very unique in that his show represents America right down the middle.  The Stern show is the most accurage guage of the ENTIRE American pulse IMO.  There is no left or right with Stern, the rest of mainstream American media cannot make that claim.  While there is plenty of juvenile humor on that show his best and most contraversial (sic?) attribute is his ability to "expose" stupidity/hypocracy, 50% of the time he has stupidity expose itself the other 50% of the time he just points at it.

Not only do I get it.  I raise your 'don't get it' with a 'YOU don't get it'

The reason I compared the two is how they mess with the American public to get a rise out of them for ratings.  Both are very good at playing to their core listeners but it's how they mess with non-fans and casual listeners that has shot them up.  Obviously Howard's show has no slant to right or left.  His show never really covers anything along those lines other than to poke fun at it.    He often pushes the envelope on sexuality to get a rise.  Limbaugh pushes the envelope with off the wall comments like "I want Obama to FAIL".  Both will do things that they know will get a rise to cause problems. 

To be fair though, ever since he had to stop dealing with the FCC and BS advertisers his show has less of that.  I actually enjoy the show on Sirius more now than I did when he was on public radio.  The non-censorship and no one to tell him 'you can't do that on your show' has really kept him from doing off the wall crazy stuff just to push buttons.

[WayOutWest]

Not only do I get it.  I raise your 'don't get it' with a 'YOU don't get it'

The reason I compared the two is how they mess with the American public to get a rise out of them for ratings.  Both are very good at playing to their core listeners but it's how they mess with non-fans and casual listeners that has shot them up.  Obviously Howard's show has no slant to right or left.  His show never really covers anything along those lines other than to poke fun at it.    He often pushes the envelope on sexuality to get a rise.  Limbaugh pushes the envelope with off the wall comments like "I want Obama to FAIL".  Both will do things that they know will get a rise to cause problems. 

To be fair though, ever since he had to stop dealing with the FCC and BS advertisers his show has less of that.  I actually enjoy the show on Sirius more now than I did when he was on public radio.  The non-censorship and no one to tell him 'you can't do that on your show' has really kept him from doing off the wall crazy stuff just to push buttons.

Call.....

The difference between Stern and the others is he's pretty honest about what he's saying.  He really likes the things he likes and vice versa.  The "others" are just doing shtick to get a rise out of people.  Stern likes porn, farting, Dancing with the Stars, "whack packers", hot chicks, etc....  He's not doing it JUST to get a rise out of people.  Huge difference, which is why I like listening to the show so much.  While the Stern show does focus on current events they don't take a "contraversial" position just to get attention.

[Lurker]

The whole right wing radio exploded when the Repubs repealed the "fairness doctrine".  That doctrine stated that radio stations had to give equal time to both political views.

The reasons I have heard for the explosion of right wing talk radio vs left wing is that the right wing is a very narrow focus group (God, guns, country...gotta love 'em) albeit a large one.  Whereas the left wing is much more fractured and usually only joins forces to try to stop the right wing.

[Joe Vancil]

The right-wing side is always going to have more judgmental types than the left side, because more behaviors offend conservatives than offend liberals - just by the very nature of the two philosophies.  In fact, the nature of the two philosophies also lies at the heart of the criticisms against them.

Every right-winger will be stupid, moronic, less civilized, less advanced.  Every left-winger will be a condescending, loud-mouthed know-it-all with no common sense.

What I find interesting is what it takes to WALK BETWEEN THE TWO.  It's darn near impossible.  A well-reasoned argument that doesn't come to the conclusion the left is the sign of the "lack of intelligence and understanding."  A differing philosophy that rubs the right the wrong way is the sign of something between a heretic and a rabble-rouser.  As a result, you'd better adopt *ALL* the beliefs of one side, and get into their "club."

Some try by being something like "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" or some such mix and walk between the two sides.  But the fact remains that this often makes you an outcast to both sides.

The one big difference I see in moving between the two is that the right offers a way in, whereas the left tends to be more exclusionary.  People are more forgiving of being "Godless" than being "stupid," apparently;  it seems to be easier to say "I was wrong" to a conservative than to a liberal.

[westkoast]

The right-wing side is always going to have more judgmental types than the left side, because more behaviors offend conservatives than offend liberals - just by the very nature of the two philosophies.  In fact, the nature of the two philosophies also lies at the heart of the criticisms against them.

Every right-winger will be stupid, moronic, less civilized, less advanced.  Every left-winger will be a condescending, loud-mouthed know-it-all with no common sense.

What I find interesting is what it takes to WALK BETWEEN THE TWO.  It's darn near impossible.  A well-reasoned argument that doesn't come to the conclusion the left is the sign of the "lack of intelligence and understanding."  A differing philosophy that rubs the right the wrong way is the sign of something between a heretic and a rabble-rouser.  As a result, you'd better adopt *ALL* the beliefs of one side, and get into their "club."

Some try by being something like "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" or some such mix and walk between the two sides.  But the fact remains that this often makes you an outcast to both sides.

The one big difference I see in moving between the two is that the right offers a way in, whereas the left tends to be more exclusionary.  People are more forgiving of being "Godless" than being "stupid," apparently;  it seems to be easier to say "I was wrong" to a conservative than to a liberal.

Don't know if I agree with the last part.  Considering that Republicans are not all including.  If they were then I think you would see a more diverse amount of people subscribing to what the Republican party wants to do. 

Ask poor people, specifically blacks and latinos, if they always feel like the door is open to them to be equals in that regard.  The way they vote and support tends to say the opposite.  Especially when those same people want to cut programs that some of those said people depend on.

Honestly when I see republican rallies I tend to see a lot of white people.  At the Dem rallies you see a mix across the board more often.

[WayOutWest]

Some try by being something like "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" or some such mix and walk between the two sides.  But the fact remains that this often makes you an outcast to both sides.

I don't try to be that way, I am that way.  And you're right, I catch flak from both sides.

[Ted]

I don't try to be that way, I am that way.  And you're right, I catch flak from both sides.

You catch flak cuz yer an ornery cuss.

[WayOutWest]

Honestly when I see republican rallies I tend to see a lot of white people.  At the Dem rallies you see a mix across the board more often.

IMO that's all that needs to be said about that subject AND that has been my experience from day one.  Part of the reason I'm turned off by my own political party.  Every now and then you'll see the Reps put a token black or hispanic in the spot light and they are almost always the stereotypical "white washed" representative.

[WayOutWest]

I don't try to be that way, I am that way.  And you're right, I catch flak from both sides.

You catch flak cuz yer an ornery cuss.

BS!  I catch flak cause I'm Hispanic!!! 

I got millions of "race cards" to play because all the blacks had to turn theirs in on January 20th of this year! 

[Joe Vancil]

The right-wing side is always going to have more judgmental types than the left side, because more behaviors offend conservatives than offend liberals - just by the very nature of the two philosophies.  In fact, the nature of the two philosophies also lies at the heart of the criticisms against them.

Every right-winger will be stupid, moronic, less civilized, less advanced.  Every left-winger will be a condescending, loud-mouthed know-it-all with no common sense.

What I find interesting is what it takes to WALK BETWEEN THE TWO.  It's darn near impossible.  A well-reasoned argument that doesn't come to the conclusion the left is the sign of the "lack of intelligence and understanding."  A differing philosophy that rubs the right the wrong way is the sign of something between a heretic and a rabble-rouser.  As a result, you'd better adopt *ALL* the beliefs of one side, and get into their "club."

Some try by being something like "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" or some such mix and walk between the two sides.  But the fact remains that this often makes you an outcast to both sides.

The one big difference I see in moving between the two is that the right offers a way in, whereas the left tends to be more exclusionary.  People are more forgiving of being "Godless" than being "stupid," apparently;  it seems to be easier to say "I was wrong" to a conservative than to a liberal.

Don't know if I agree with the last part.  Considering that Republicans are not all including.  If they were then I think you would see a more diverse amount of people subscribing to what the Republican party wants to do. 

Ask poor people, specifically blacks and latinos, if they always feel like the door is open to them to be equals in that regard.  The way they vote and support tends to say the opposite.  Especially when those same people want to cut programs that some of those said people depend on.

Honestly when I see republican rallies I tend to see a lot of white people.  At the Dem rallies you see a mix across the board more often.

Understand, but disagree - but that could be because as a white guy, I have an easier time in that I *DO* get a choice.

I'll grant you that the Republicans tend to be a more "white" party.  I think that has to do with "judgmental" rather than "exclusionary," though.  Non-traditional families aren't going to find welcoming arms of Republicans.  But generally speaking, the only way to really be "wanted" by the Democratic party is to be rejected by the Republican party -and then, you're not going to be part of the face of the party...you're just needed for your vote against those evil Republicans.

I'm white, male, straight, healthy, reasonably well-to-do, and Christian.  The only two things the Democrats want from me are my money and my vote.  They're not interested in hearing anything I have to say - nor in any compromise I might be willing to make.

In fairness, though, Senator McCaskill (D) did write me back, whereas Senator Bond (R) didn't.  Of course, I told both of them that they needed to be brought back home and re-learn Missouri values after voting for that bail-out package....

[westkoast]

The right-wing side is always going to have more judgmental types than the left side, because more behaviors offend conservatives than offend liberals - just by the very nature of the two philosophies.  In fact, the nature of the two philosophies also lies at the heart of the criticisms against them.

Every right-winger will be stupid, moronic, less civilized, less advanced.  Every left-winger will be a condescending, loud-mouthed know-it-all with no common sense.

What I find interesting is what it takes to WALK BETWEEN THE TWO.  It's darn near impossible.  A well-reasoned argument that doesn't come to the conclusion the left is the sign of the "lack of intelligence and understanding."  A differing philosophy that rubs the right the wrong way is the sign of something between a heretic and a rabble-rouser.  As a result, you'd better adopt *ALL* the beliefs of one side, and get into their "club."

Some try by being something like "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" or some such mix and walk between the two sides.  But the fact remains that this often makes you an outcast to both sides.

The one big difference I see in moving between the two is that the right offers a way in, whereas the left tends to be more exclusionary.  People are more forgiving of being "Godless" than being "stupid," apparently;  it seems to be easier to say "I was wrong" to a conservative than to a liberal.

Don't know if I agree with the last part.  Considering that Republicans are not all including.  If they were then I think you would see a more diverse amount of people subscribing to what the Republican party wants to do. 

Ask poor people, specifically blacks and latinos, if they always feel like the door is open to them to be equals in that regard.  The way they vote and support tends to say the opposite.  Especially when those same people want to cut programs that some of those said people depend on.

Honestly when I see republican rallies I tend to see a lot of white people.  At the Dem rallies you see a mix across the board more often.

I'm white, male, straight, healthy, reasonably well-to-do, and Christian.  The only two things the Democrats want from me are my money and my vote.  They're not interested in hearing anything I have to say - nor in any compromise I might be willing to make.

The only two things the Republicans want from you is your money and your vote as well.  They just do a much better job of pretending they care about everything you do at the higher levels.

[Joe Vancil]

They just do a much better job of pretending they care about everything you do at the higher levels.

Agreed. 

And that is not insignificant.

Given that some in the Democratic faithful would claim that any one of the characteristics I listed in describing myself is "evil," it's small wonder that I have very little in common with that group.  (That these traits are "evil" is a DIRECT QUOTE from a University of Missouri teacher.)

Simply put, when it comes to rhetoric, one side completely alienates me, and the other side completely beckons.  Given the fact that both sides want my money, want my vote, and one offers me very little in return other than condemnation of who and what I am, why would I have much respect for that side?

What's really scary is that it wasn't always that way.  Granted, the Republican party has done its share of polarizing - I'm not saying it hasn't - but the Democrats are no better.

[Lurker]

Some try by being something like "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" or some such mix and walk between the two sides.  But the fact remains that this often makes you an outcast to both sides.

I don't try to be that way, I am that way.  And you're right, I catch flak from both sides.

I would say that describes my philosphy also.

I don't try to be that way, I am that way.  And you're right, I catch flak from both sides.

You catch flak cuz yer an ornery cuss.

BS!  I catch flak cause I'm Hispanic!!! 

I got millions of "race cards" to play because all the blacks had to turn theirs in on January 20th of this year! 

IMHO Ted was right.