Both sides of the coin

[Quantum Windbag]

You argue that we should never attack people, then use a picture of a real person simply to make a stupid joke. Do uyou see why I refuse to let you dictate how I talk to the scumbags that demand something from me they don't give to others?

In case you missed it, I just called you a scumbag.

Actually, no you didn't. That was two different posters you lumped together.

And QW swings.......


....and misses!!!

Which explains why the OP actually agrees with me on that post.

Oops.

 

[Unkotare]

I've been mulling over why some people give themselves permission to be complete asphedoras online, and further why it is expected that we should just tolerate it.

Or why we should have to read every post that flies, or else we "don't want to hear opposing opinions."

[MENTION=42649]Gracie[/MENTION] - I just found this.



Personally, I think the ignore function is a very good option for avoiding the trolls, white supremacists, and others who just generally live her to wreak havoc. But as stated in the first sentence, I am curious as to why any adult would use this place as where they go to take a verbal dump whenever they are in the mood.

Obviously, this isn't just happening here. It's a worldwide phenomenon of "Nobody knows who I am, so here's my ass." But shouldn't there be some button in their brain that says "Mentally healthy people don't act like this?" And that question would go double to anybody who claims to be a follower of any given spiritual belief system.

I guess the bottom line I would like to ask any trolls who are willing to be honest - what do you tell yourself that makes such antisocial behavior acceptable, in your mind.

Any educated guesses, links and/or articles from non-trolls are welcome as well.

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]
[MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]

Just how interesting do you think a discussion forum would be if everyone agreed with each other all the time, or walked on eggshells every time they did disagree about something? You need to be less whiny and more realistic.

 

[Statistikhengst]

<snipped>

I guess the bottom line I would like to ask any trolls who are willing to be honest - what do you tell yourself that makes such antisocial behavior acceptable, in your mind.

Any educated guesses, links and/or articles from non-trolls are welcome as well.

@Statistikhengst
@Derideo_Te

That's a great question. What makes people take on such a persona and commit such energy to maintaining it? It would be interesting to hear from some of the people who do this, if they would be willing to break character long enough to explain honestly.

It is a lot easier to treat people with contempt than unfailing politeness. I guess that means I am lazy.

The 1st amendment also guarantees your right to make confessions any time your heart desires. Have at it.

 

[BDBoop]

Some things make me seriously angry. Blood boiling, (virtual) wall punching angry. Sometimes I'm willing to express those feelings in an understated manner but sometimes I let loose. Then people say I've changed. But I haven't changed. I'm conscious of the dangers associated with hyperbole -- danger to the atmosphere, danger to the goals one ostensibly favors and danger to one's own cognitive processes -- so I take some care. And usually I enjoy calm discussions, often with an element of rigor. But sometimes I enjoy lobbing hand grenades. It's not a change. There's a time for every purpose.

You know, I'd be more inclined to believe that if it wasn't for your avatar.

Comparing hers to yours just caused rofl.

 

[Peterf]

I suggest that everyone who posts on message boards wants, at some level, to be respected. At least respected and at best admired. Do you not think that you forfeit respect when you call people names and are 'generally being obnoxious'? This seems so obvious to me that I cannot understand why others find it so difficult to grasp this rather simple concept.

I can grasp the concept just fine it's just that the concept doesn't necessarily reflect reality. I agree that there are those who wish to be respected, however I am not one of them and I know that there are a large number if people here who feel the way that I do. In addition, even though I probably get little respect from some people, I know that there are others that I do get respect from. It's a wash basically.

The people I call names and act obnoxious to are not people that I care what they think about me. In fact I learned a long time ago that you cannot control what others think and it is a waste of your time to try.

So given that verbal abuse is counterproductive to making reasoned ponts, you're saying your purpose here is not to make any particular argumentative point, but to feel good about yourself by abusing others. Which I think is what the OP wants to explain -- why that would be a goal at all.

And wouldn't it be swell if we could just have this talk, rather than degenerating into partisan bullshit?

Ta.

Hmmm, isn't that what the Tea Room or Coffee Shop or whatever that thread is called, is for?

Absolutely not. Political talk is firmly verboten there. Same in the Tavern. Ask Libertarianman how that goes down. In both threads.

PC is political correctness as you already know...........

Which part of my statements on how I don't care about PC don't you understand.........All CAPS, SO WHAT...............

This is not a FACT BASED DISCUSSION...............It's about politeness and PC.......I'm usually Polite on most threads, but when it goes in the toilet I fire back............

This isn't an OP about a subject like the Debt, or Obamacare..........It's about posting in general..................And on those threads I post a lot of reference material to back up my claims..............

Exactly what do I need to post as reference material on this thread.....................

Some PSYCHOLOGY DRIBBLE ARTICLE.............

Either way.......there is a divide in this country......The Libs are refusing to budge on principles but demanding that we do.................Excuse me for telling them to get lost until they come to the table.............With real cuts and COMPROMISE...............As all they do is say OBEY all the time, which we refuse to do so.........

And again, I have no reason to be polite to those calling my stance on Gov't Anarchists and Nazi's.................

Take this post and my way of posting any way you like..........What ever floats your boat.

Yeah we all know what the abbreviation "PC" stands for -- but what does it mean?

The OP never mentioned "PC" at all. You're the only one that keeps going there. And from the way you're using it I don't think you understand what it means. And your inability to explain it pretty much confirms that. Perhaps you need a synonym but as it is you're not making much sense here.

It means giving up your freedom in order to conform.

I support civil unions for all. I do not support "gay marriage" unless a church decides to marry a gay couple. The PC crowd insists that my beliefs are anti-homosexual and declare me "homophobic" because I believe marriage is a religious rite. If being called homophobic bothers me, I have to accept the constraints they put upon me or suffer the consequences. Same thing with believing that a child's life supersedes a woman's desire to abort. Because of that belief, I am anti-woman.

To avoid being ostracized, smokers must submit to the PC crowd and give up a nasty habit they may have succumbed to decades ago.

I despise the N-word and will not use it myself. I dislike the racist trolls on this site. However, I do not believe I have the right to make them conform to my wishes... the PC crowd does. Give up your freedom to be whoever you are, good or bad, or be bullied by the PC crowd. That is the essence of giving up your freedoms. Edit: and what is even worse is that they are starting to use the force of law to require our conformity.

Immie

You are right. PC seeks to restrict what may be thought and said. It is at its most pernicious in universities.

Not a negative word, even indirect, must be spoken about, for example, homosexuality or Islam. Unless , of course, the speaker is a Muslim; in that case he may say that gays should be put to death without running the risk of censure.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Some times I am embarrassed by people - not you as I recall - who are on the same side of an argument as me. On boards, as in personal contact, I find it necessary to distance myself from the abusive and the foul mouthed.

As your post above demonstrates you are perfectly able to express yourself intelligently and interestingly so why on earth would you deliberately descend from this high standard? Why emulate semi-literate oafs?

Does foul language fucking hurt your immature ego? Do you define yourself by how other assholes talk? Doesn't that indicate how stupid and dependent you are?

That proves that you have a problem, I suggest you find someone to slap your fact until you grow up.

The think that is so fucked up is when fucked-up fuckers can use "fuck" as a fucking noun, a fucking adjective, three-times over fucking verbs, the occasional fucking adverb and then they, those motherfucking fucked-up fuck-ups, wondering why the the fucking world that no fucking motherfuckers ever fucking listen to them.

Fuck. That is just plain old fucked-up. F. U. C. K. E. D. U. P.

Ergo, you are just plain old fucked-up. F. U. C. K. E. D. U. P.

 

[BDBoop]

He's not banned. He disappeared back in May. I'm a bit worried, but it is after all a message board, and since he didn't bother to connect with people, there is no way to find (and check on) him.

You are correct, he is still a member.

Just hasn't posted since May 8th.

You probably didn't notice, but he actually toned down the colors before he left.

I was gone when he left, and remain concerned.

Who knows, maybe he'll return someday.

I know that a member who everybody was used to treating badly has disappeared from here. Since I am not naming names, I will say that his wife of forty-plus years passed. I can see why "here" is not a very good choice of where to be, for him.

 

[Statistikhengst]

polarization has set in. and is going to be something that is real hard to break. the real problem is politicians no longer have minds for themselves. in Washington, you either tow the party line or you are out. Not every democrat believes in gun control and not every republican believes in preventing gay marriage. but the problem is partisan politics force politicians to support the party line. and that is what leads to the public galvanizing to the right or left. as soon as an issue you are very passionate about becomes a topic of discussion you are pushed to either the right or left, because you know one part is going to fully support you or oppose you. There is no middle ground

@Spoonman

As very strongly evidenced by the disappearance of Blue Dog DEMS and Rockefeller Republicans. Another two more blue dogs announced their retirements in the last days.

And just to think: in 1976, Ronald Reagan, in a parliamentary trick at the GOP national convention, went out of his way to pick the man who would be his running-mate, were he to secure the nomination and take it away from incumbent Pres. Gerald R. Ford. That man's name: Richard Schweiker, a LIBERAL Republican from the state of Pennsylvania. Reagan went so far as to force a vote on the floor to force Ford to declare his running mate before the balloting for the Presidential nomination, a move that lost, but gave the convention the "look" of a 2nd ballot nomination. It also, of course, forced the nomination, which Ford won by around 100 delegates, to go way into the night.

I will say that again: just 38 years ago, the man whom many Conservatives consider the greatest Conservative icon of all time WENT OUT OF HIS WAY to select a decidedly liberal running mate at the Convention. Back then, Ronald Reagan calculated that this would be to his advantage, and not to his detriment.

Not only is that utter irony of history, but also shows how much we have changed as a nation in 2 generations.

It amazes me how assholes keep conflating Reagan with conservative movement.

By the way, who was the Vice President under Reagan again? Am I supposed to see a parliamentary maneuver as proof of the real Reagan? If so, it shows me that, at heart, he was a politician first and foremost, not an actor.

Come to think of it, that might explain why he was president of SAG.

Tsk, tsk..... now, now, it will be all better. A nice warm bottle of milk, a nighty-night song, off into la-la land with the young man and tomorrow will be a better day!!!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1FCO2XUYL0]The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Peterf]

I've been mulling over why some people give themselves permission to be complete asphedoras online, and further why it is expected that we should just tolerate it.

Or why we should have to read every post that flies, or else we "don't want to hear opposing opinions."

[MENTION=42649]Gracie[/MENTION] - I just found this.



Personally, I think the ignore function is a very good option for avoiding the trolls, white supremacists, and others who just generally live her to wreak havoc. But as stated in the first sentence, I am curious as to why any adult would use this place as where they go to take a verbal dump whenever they are in the mood.

Obviously, this isn't just happening here. It's a worldwide phenomenon of "Nobody knows who I am, so here's my ass." But shouldn't there be some button in their brain that says "Mentally healthy people don't act like this?" And that question would go double to anybody who claims to be a follower of any given spiritual belief system.

I guess the bottom line I would like to ask any trolls who are willing to be honest - what do you tell yourself that makes such antisocial behavior acceptable, in your mind.

Any educated guesses, links and/or articles from non-trolls are welcome as well.

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]
[MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]

Just how interesting do you think a discussion forum would be if everyone agreed with each other all the time, or walked on eggshells every time they did disagree about something? You need to be less whiny and more realistic.

Nope. I often strongly disagree, not least with you. And with your post above. Being as civil on an MB as one would be face to face is not 'walking on egg shells'. That is of course just my opinion even if it the correct one.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Some things make me seriously angry. Blood boiling, (virtual) wall punching angry. Sometimes I'm willing to express those feelings in an understated manner but sometimes I let loose. Then people say I've changed. But I haven't changed. I'm conscious of the dangers associated with hyperbole -- danger to the atmosphere, danger to the goals one ostensibly favors and danger to one's own cognitive processes -- so I take some care. And usually I enjoy calm discussions, often with an element of rigor. But sometimes I enjoy lobbing hand grenades. It's not a change. There's a time for every purpose.

That is one reason I express my emotions, it gives me more control over them. To the best of my knowledge I have never posted while angry on this board. Not that some people haven't gotten me angry, I just don't let them control me.

Oh, indeed, we all see that you are emotionally just totally in control of yourself.

But I 100% respect and support your right to engage in bullshit. Have at it.

 

[PredFan]

Some times I am embarrassed by people - not you as I recall - who are on the same side of an argument as me. On boards, as in personal contact, I find it necessary to distance myself from the abusive and the foul mouthed.

As your post above demonstrates you are perfectly able to express yourself intelligently and interestingly so why on earth would you deliberately descend from this high standard? Why emulate semi-literate oafs?

Does foul language fucking hurt your immature ego? Do you define yourself by how other assholes talk? Doesn't that indicate how stupid and dependent you are?

That proves that you have a problem, I suggest you find someone to slap your fact until you grow up.

The think that is so fucked up is when fucked-up fuckers can use "fuck" as a fucking noun, a fucking adjective, three-times over fucking verbs, the occasional fucking adverb and then they, those motherfucking fucked-up fuck-ups, wondering why the the fucking world that no fucking motherfuckers ever fucking listen to them.

Fuck. That is just plain old fucked-up. F. U. C. K. E. D. U. P.

Ergo, you are just plain old fucked-up. F. U. C. K. E. D. U. P.

Or as almost every word in a sentence;
"Fuck the fucking fuckers!"

 

[Statistikhengst]

Excellent points!! What is to be gained by keeping us at each other's throats? Then we won't be looking at what is actually happening with the man behind the curtain. We won't be holding Washington responsible, and they can quite literally get away with murder while aiming us at each other.

polarization has set in. and is going to be something that is real hard to break. the real problem is politicians no longer have minds for themselves. in Washington, you either tow the party line or you are out. Not every democrat believes in gun control and not every republican believes in preventing gay marriage. but the problem is partisan politics force politicians to support the party line. and that is what leads to the public galvanizing to the right or left. as soon as an issue you are very passionate about becomes a topic of discussion you are pushed to either the right or left, because you know one part is going to fully support you or oppose you. There is no middle ground

Excellent post, and bears repeating. I think many on this board are "labeled onto a side, and treated accordingly." I rather hate that.

I concur with you wholeheartedly. I do think that most people have many sides, are multi-faceted.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Funny how many people tell me the same fucking thing in real life. One of these days I will figure out who it is that is going to punch me simply for caring about something.

It must suck to be that paranoid. But I respect your right to be so, if you so choose.

Besides, imo, how someone "cares" for something can be interepreted in a number of different ways. A matter of perspective.

I know a couple of people who are all mean and nasty online, but in the real world, they are just scared little kids. Whether or not they need the net to somehow vent is really not very interesting to me.

Paranoid?

Excuse me, but people have told me, to my face, that my attitude is going to get me in trouble. That is not paranoia, it is fact. Paranoia would be an irrational fear based on the false belief that people will punch me for saying what I do. An example of that would be the people that insist I would say something different in person, like you. Perhaps you should learn the difference.

Well, if you had contributed that information before..... you see, my crystal ball is on vacation this week. I do wonder if many people have said that to you...

naaah, forget it...

 

[Spoonman]

Excellent points!! What is to be gained by keeping us at each other's throats? Then we won't be looking at what is actually happening with the man behind the curtain. We won't be holding Washington responsible, and they can quite literally get away with murder while aiming us at each other.

polarization has set in. and is going to be something that is real hard to break. the real problem is politicians no longer have minds for themselves. in Washington, you either tow the party line or you are out. Not every democrat believes in gun control and not every republican believes in preventing gay marriage. but the problem is partisan politics force politicians to support the party line. and that is what leads to the public galvanizing to the right or left. as soon as an issue you are very passionate about becomes a topic of discussion you are pushed to either the right or left, because you know one part is going to fully support you or oppose you. There is no middle ground

It is up to We the People to find our own middle ground. We the People are not helpless pawns. We can decide for ourselves to reject the polorization and find common ground. Put outside the extreme demands and we are in agreement on at least 80% of what needs to be done. The remaining 10% on each side should not be enough to keep us at each other's throats.

Just as we can choose how to interact in this forum we can also choose how we want to move forward together. Do we want to continue to drag each other down or do we want to respect each other for the individuals that we are and work together on the common cause that is the future we will leave to our children and grandchildren?

as long as we try to impose our will on others, or as long as we tolerate others trying to impose their will on others, we'll never come to a common ground. we have to accept that what is right for us may not be right for others. but others also have play by the rules. and when they don't the rest of us have to hold them accountable, whether we agree with them or not.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I can grasp the concept just fine it's just that the concept doesn't necessarily reflect reality. I agree that there are those who wish to be respected, however I am not one of them and I know that there are a large number if people here who feel the way that I do. In addition, even though I probably get little respect from some people, I know that there are others that I do get respect from. It's a wash basically.

The people I call names and act obnoxious to are not people that I care what they think about me. In fact I learned a long time ago that you cannot control what others think and it is a waste of your time to try.

So given that verbal abuse is counterproductive to making reasoned ponts, you're saying your purpose here is not to make any particular argumentative point, but to feel good about yourself by abusing others. Which I think is what the OP wants to explain -- why that would be a goal at all.




Absolutely not. Political talk is firmly verboten there. Same in the Tavern. Ask Libertarianman how that goes down. In both threads.

Yeah we all know what the abbreviation "PC" stands for -- but what does it mean?

The OP never mentioned "PC" at all. You're the only one that keeps going there. And from the way you're using it I don't think you understand what it means. And your inability to explain it pretty much confirms that. Perhaps you need a synonym but as it is you're not making much sense here.

It means giving up your freedom in order to conform.

I support civil unions for all. I do not support "gay marriage" unless a church decides to marry a gay couple. The PC crowd insists that my beliefs are anti-homosexual and declare me "homophobic" because I believe marriage is a religious rite. If being called homophobic bothers me, I have to accept the constraints they put upon me or suffer the consequences. Same thing with believing that a child's life supersedes a woman's desire to abort. Because of that belief, I am anti-woman.

To avoid being ostracized, smokers must submit to the PC crowd and give up a nasty habit they may have succumbed to decades ago.

I despise the N-word and will not use it myself. I dislike the racist trolls on this site. However, I do not believe I have the right to make them conform to my wishes... the PC crowd does. Give up your freedom to be whoever you are, good or bad, or be bullied by the PC crowd. That is the essence of giving up your freedoms. Edit: and what is even worse is that they are starting to use the force of law to require our conformity.

Immie

You are right. PC seeks to restrict what may be thought and said. It is at its most pernicious in universities.

Not a negative word, even indirect, must be spoken about, for example, homosexuality or Islam. Unless , of course, the speaker is a Muslim; in that case he may say that gays should be put to death without running the risk of censure.

And from which gospel did that edict stem, exactly?

Ahhh, I found it:

The gospel according to peterf, Chapter 2, vs. 17-18.

Ok, understood.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Some times I am embarrassed by people - not you as I recall - who are on the same side of an argument as me. On boards, as in personal contact, I find it necessary to distance myself from the abusive and the foul mouthed.

As your post above demonstrates you are perfectly able to express yourself intelligently and interestingly so why on earth would you deliberately descend from this high standard? Why emulate semi-literate oafs?

Does foul language fucking hurt your immature ego? Do you define yourself by how other assholes talk? Doesn't that indicate how stupid and dependent you are?

That proves that you have a problem, I suggest you find someone to slap your fact until you grow up.

The think that is so fucked up is when fucked-up fuckers can use "fuck" as a fucking noun, a fucking adjective, three-times over fucking verbs, the occasional fucking adverb and then they, those motherfucking fucked-up fuck-ups, wondering why the the fucking world that no fucking motherfuckers ever fucking listen to them.

Fuck. That is just plain old fucked-up. F. U. C. K. E. D. U. P.

Ergo, you are just plain old fucked-up. F. U. C. K. E. D. U. P.

You resorted to a personal attack, I must have won.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

@Spoonman

As very strongly evidenced by the disappearance of Blue Dog DEMS and Rockefeller Republicans. Another two more blue dogs announced their retirements in the last days.

And just to think: in 1976, Ronald Reagan, in a parliamentary trick at the GOP national convention, went out of his way to pick the man who would be his running-mate, were he to secure the nomination and take it away from incumbent Pres. Gerald R. Ford. That man's name: Richard Schweiker, a LIBERAL Republican from the state of Pennsylvania. Reagan went so far as to force a vote on the floor to force Ford to declare his running mate before the balloting for the Presidential nomination, a move that lost, but gave the convention the "look" of a 2nd ballot nomination. It also, of course, forced the nomination, which Ford won by around 100 delegates, to go way into the night.

I will say that again: just 38 years ago, the man whom many Conservatives consider the greatest Conservative icon of all time WENT OUT OF HIS WAY to select a decidedly liberal running mate at the Convention. Back then, Ronald Reagan calculated that this would be to his advantage, and not to his detriment.

Not only is that utter irony of history, but also shows how much we have changed as a nation in 2 generations.

It amazes me how assholes keep conflating Reagan with conservative movement.

By the way, who was the Vice President under Reagan again? Am I supposed to see a parliamentary maneuver as proof of the real Reagan? If so, it shows me that, at heart, he was a politician first and foremost, not an actor.

Come to think of it, that might explain why he was president of SAG.

Tsk, tsk..... now, now, it will be all better. A nice warm bottle of milk, a nighty-night song, off into la-la land with the young man an tomorrow will be a better day!!!


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1FCO2XUYL0"]The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow - YouTube[/ame]

Reagan was a Republican, and a politician, I am neither. I don't need comforting because he doesn't live up the the ideal I didn't have about him.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Does foul language fucking hurt your immature ego? Do you define yourself by how other assholes talk? Doesn't that indicate how stupid and dependent you are?

That proves that you have a problem, I suggest you find someone to slap your fact until you grow up.

The think that is so fucked up is when fucked-up fuckers can use "fuck" as a fucking noun, a fucking adjective, three-times over fucking verbs, the occasional fucking adverb and then they, those motherfucking fucked-up fuck-ups, wondering why the the fucking world that no fucking motherfuckers ever fucking listen to them.

Fuck. That is just plain old fucked-up. F. U. C. K. E. D. U. P.

Ergo, you are just plain old fucked-up. F. U. C. K. E. D. U. P.

Or as almost every word in a sentence;
"Fuck the fucking fuckers!"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6p8laE9p5s]Indian Guy explains multiple use of the word FUCK !! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[BDBoop]

I've been mulling over why some people give themselves permission to be complete asphedoras online, and further why it is expected that we should just tolerate it.

Or why we should have to read every post that flies, or else we "don't want to hear opposing opinions."

[MENTION=42649]Gracie[/MENTION] - I just found this.



Personally, I think the ignore function is a very good option for avoiding the trolls, white supremacists, and others who just generally live her to wreak havoc. But as stated in the first sentence, I am curious as to why any adult would use this place as where they go to take a verbal dump whenever they are in the mood.

Obviously, this isn't just happening here. It's a worldwide phenomenon of "Nobody knows who I am, so here's my ass." But shouldn't there be some button in their brain that says "Mentally healthy people don't act like this?" And that question would go double to anybody who claims to be a follower of any given spiritual belief system.

I guess the bottom line I would like to ask any trolls who are willing to be honest - what do you tell yourself that makes such antisocial behavior acceptable, in your mind.

Any educated guesses, links and/or articles from non-trolls are welcome as well.

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]
[MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]

[MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION]

You said the OP was partisan. This was news to me.

In what sense?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Excellent points!! What is to be gained by keeping us at each other's throats? Then we won't be looking at what is actually happening with the man behind the curtain. We won't be holding Washington responsible, and they can quite literally get away with murder while aiming us at each other.

polarization has set in. and is going to be something that is real hard to break. the real problem is politicians no longer have minds for themselves. in Washington, you either tow the party line or you are out. Not every democrat believes in gun control and not every republican believes in preventing gay marriage. but the problem is partisan politics force politicians to support the party line. and that is what leads to the public galvanizing to the right or left. as soon as an issue you are very passionate about becomes a topic of discussion you are pushed to either the right or left, because you know one part is going to fully support you or oppose you. There is no middle ground

Excellent post, and bears repeating. I think many on this board are "labeled onto a side, and treated accordingly." I rather hate that.

Which is fine and most are in agreement but how to transcribe these Kumbaya moments into political reality when confronted with the mentality exhibited in post #65?