I think how one expresses one's self is a key to our inner selves and values. To give you the most obvious example, Rush Limbaugh has a particularly abrasive style of communication. He also has very few female listeners, even among women who consider themselves conservative. In the same way you have an abrasive and antagonistic way of communicating which immediately brings about defensive reactions in people. Just read the vast majority of your posts over months. They all are designed to create discord and animosity in others.
You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar? True. I'm with you on "how one expresses one's self " being key to our inner selves and values.
It's funny you mention women in your example because that saying is usually told to women...to catch more flies with honey.
I don't think it has anything to do with being polite. It has a lot to do with how you, and other reactionary folks, incite inner violence in people by saying things in a deliberately offensive way. Your MO is to attack and harm others.
If you want to say that you disagree with Obama or Republicans or Democrats or whoever, you can do that without expressing an inner bitterness and divisiveness which makes you unappealing and unattractive.
Okay...but then you keep reading:
I think that however phony or lying or distasteful you feel Obama is, you've got to acknowledge that his political style and hype has worked well for him. The majority of Americans like him for that reason. He may be all the things you say he is, but your arguments against him don't hold any water.
I think until conservatives come up with more positive ways of expressing their ideas and political positions, the majority will prefer Obama and company.
The majority will prefer Obama because of his
political style and hype? The majority preferred Hitler because of his propaganda.
And to say his arguments don't hold water because the majority are on the bandwagon is simply not true. There are two opposing positions. You can't say that one position is invalid because the majority (at this time) is against it. The majority of people elected and re-elected George W. Bush. (And yes I believe he stole the election however a great number of Americans voted Republican for the White House and in Congress during the time period to get Bush in the White House and to have the Republicans controlling Congress at the outset) Karl Rovian Politics worked on the masses for 8 years. Until it didn't. The majority does not invalidate a position or make everything someone states wrong.
And I don't know if we want to start defining what one can and cannot say about our government.
It must be said in this "polite" way...that is just offensive...or that is rude. It is a fine line.
When we discuss Bush we can say anything? There can be as many negative McCain/Republican/And even Hillary threads as we want but negative Obama threads are simply offensive.
[practicing]
It would be very nice if President Obama would be honest when he is talking into a camera. It would be extra nice if he would try to stop making false promises that he cannot deliver for the sake of public appeal and approval ratings. Mr. Obama is smart and crafty and has a good education.
I would be especially happy if my friends the liberals would work to form realistic opinions and judgments of Mr. Obama.
I would prefer not to have an extremely large government. Some people that work for the government are nice.
You're funny Starinvestor
So sayeth the man who still bases Obama's actions on a misinterpreted, exaggerated definition of the word "change". Besides that, the only "opinions" and/or "judgements" you'd ever accept from "libs" are one that align with yours. That's not a way to debate or even come up with anything remotely realistic.
You're a man that thinks in black & white (and no, I'm not talking about race). If it's not one way, it has to be the other. Which is why you'll never understand or ever be able to listen to or even comprehend why a "liberal" believes what they do.
Change "libs" and "liberal" to "conservative right wing, religious right, republican, fox news"
It is your opinion that his definition of "change" is exaggerated or misinterpreted.
