Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Anger

I've been seeing a lot of angry posts, emails and comments today--not just here but all over the blogosphere. This isn't new, of course. But today it really hit me for some reason.

We get angry. That's all right, sometimes, because we're passionate about what we believe. But sometimes we let our anger for a party, a group, a cause or even a single person cloud our judgement. Sometimes our anger carries us away.

Sometimes we go insane. The distance the internet puts between us makes it worse. We can say terrible things, and fear no real reprisals.

But let me ask you: if you met that liberal, that ranter, that Republican you hate so much on the street today, could you find it in yourself to despise them still? Could you bring yourself to say the things you say here?

Or would you see that they are human, too?

We fight and argue about politics because that's what we do. We like it. But it shouldn't get personal. Hate and anger can tear us apart, and I don't want to see it happen here.

This post isn't directed at any one person or event, but at a nastiness and divisiveness that I've felt building for a long time. We're all Americans and patriots. We have common ground. Let's try to find it.

27 comments:

Bobby McGee said...

Well said.

Bluto Blutarsky said...

If The Lamont people werent so mean and nasty everyone would get along. But when they start doing the you aren't a Good Democrat if you support Lieberman stuff It automatically sets us off like fireworks.

Someone whom I talked today and is a very active Democrat said that a lot of the Lamont Supporters have been using the tactic on him.

If people want to support Lamont that is your right. But dont tell people who support Lieberman or Schlesinger How to vote Because it is a turnoff and it really makes us angry.

People should be allowed to support whom they want to support and if you dont agree just say nothing.

There is a small percentage here who are guilty of this Lamont bullying tactic mostly people of a certain anti-Joe Site.

Anonymous said...

I want to complement Bluto on starting the healing by calling people names one half of one sentance into his post.

If it keeps up, we will be the springer show by November 8th...

Bobby McGee said...

Bluto-

On the flip, there are some supporters of Lieberman and the Iraq war who question other's patriotism if they disagree.

I think you're right. Nobody is a "bad democrat" for voting for Joe. Personal party affiliations are nearly meaningless. People should vote for whoever they think is the better candidate, and only for a specific party if they care who they're caucusing with.

Anonymous said...

At the Newtown parade, Joe Lieberman walked over to his nemisis and shook his hand. He commented that it was important to do that and to keep talking. Good for him. I think Ned Lamont would do the same thing; in stark contrast, quite frankly, to many of the people who support him.

There are angry, meanspirited, bigots in all walks of life and of all political parties. It does seem, however, that the hatred for President Bush is at a level of which I have never seen (not even during Vietnam or Watergate).

I don't understand the anger and the hatred, but if you get an answer Genghis, please share it with us.

Jim said...

What about when TurfGirl, one of your own front-pagers, uses phrases like "Kos directed attack poodles" to dismiss Lamont supporters: Does that elevate the discourse?

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:46 - First of all, there is a tape of that meeting at the Newtown parade floating around these internet tubes and your description of the graciousness of the handshake leaves a little something to be desired...

Also, when you say: It does seem, however, that the hatred for President Bush is at a level of which I have never seen (not even during Vietnam or Watergate)., I would like to congratulate you for your recovery from the coma that you were apparently in during the Clinton years...

Jim, try to remember that she is from the center, see? Its okay from the center...

turfgrrl said...

jim -- I am neither angry at nor hate "Kos directed attack poodles." But thanks for asking ...

bluecoat said...

House majority leader Boehner "..wondered if the Democrats were more interested in protecting the terrorists than the Ameican people.." the other night for the international press when some of his House Democrat collegues took issue with the content of Bush's 911 memorial speech from the Oval office. Boehner's boner may just have something to do with pushing further division and it just may be his political goal to divide and conquer. Just maybe...for sure.

Anonymous said...

See, Jim, she doesn't hate attack poodles! Discourse elevated!

Bluto Blutarsky said...

Anon 441- this is exactly what I mean.The Supporters of Ned Lamont(or some of them) have been too mean,nasty when talking with someone who supports Lieberman.

This nastiness and sarcasm by Lamont supporters is really turning a lot of voters off.

If you support Ned that is fine But not everyone is and not everyone is going to agree with you.

I just think some of The Lamont Supporters(and they know who they are)need to tone it down a bit and stop making comments to people like you are a Bad Democrat for supporting Lieberman or we dont want you in the party anymore among many others.

The persons who are guilty of this know who they are and one has an Anti-Lieberman Website who has been way to vocal and a few of his friends.

I think the Lamont and Dumpjoe.com supporters need to stop alienating other Democrats. Because if it continues it only hurts Ned and helps Joe.

TrueBlueCT said...

Bobby-

I've got to disagree. I don't think you can be a good Democrat and still support Senator Lieberman. America has a two-party system and Joe chose to participate in our primary. Then upon losing, he creates a sham party so he can drag the Lamont/Lieberman battle into the fall? That is simply not the way the game is meant to be played.

The only way a Democrat can now support Lieberman is if he/she is also willing to thumb their nose at our basic processes. We had a $12 million election, Lieberman lost, and if he cared about other Democrats, and the Party, he'd get the heck out. Instead Joe and his few patronage pals somehow think they are above the rules of the game.

And Bluto, if it pricks your conscience, it should. Honestly, if you want to go all third party on us, please, really go your own way. But don't try to stay within the fold under some pretense that what you are doing is somehow justifiable or right.

P.S. Don't forget that the challengers all pledged to do the right thing and support Lieberman, had he won the primary. There wouldn't have been this WATB "do-over" had the incumbent prevailed.

Anonymous said...

Bluto... Go read the post above and then read the first sentance that you wrote in the second comment in the thread. I'm not saying your right or wrong; I'm not addressing the substance of your post at all - this is 100% meta comment:

After Genghis's post above it took until the first sentance of the second comment until someone called a goup of people names.

Well done!

Bluto Blutarsky said...

See this the problem a certain group of people loyal to the Dumpjoe.com founder who just want to keep this nasty,vindictive fight going rather than letting people support whom they choose to support.

Well to look at it another way Ned Lamont should of done the right thing after he lost the nomination at the Convention.Ned chose to primary Joe which was his right.

Joe Lieberman is exercising his right to run and people should be allowed to support him and not be called a Bad Democrat or told to leave the party I think there are certain Liberals who think they own the Connecticut Democratic Party and the dumpjoe.com founder needs to cut the hatred and venom and let the voters decide.

I don't think the Liberal way or the highway plan is going to help Ned Lamont get elected and the dumpjoe.com founder needs to tone down his anger.

TrueBlueCT said...

Anon4:46--
I've got to disagree. (Macaca anyone?) Why won't you acknowledge that the GOP actually fomented our country's racial divide according to their infamous "Southern Strategy".

And Bluecoat, I agree. I moved from the middle to being a Dem partisan b/c of 1) the GOP's use of race and religion to divide America, and 2) the insane foreign policy the Bush/Lieberman crowd has been engaging in, not to mention their attempt to brand all critics "weak and unpatriotic".

Turgy, is it anger? I don't know. I do know the hate-mongers and chicken-hawks bring out a level of disgust that often cascades into sheer contempt. FoxNews is that awful.

Jim said...

turfgrrl said...
jim -- I am neither angry at nor hate "Kos directed attack poodles." But thanks for asking ...

5:07 PM, September 13, 2006

You're just snide and condescending?

Bluto Blutarsky said...

I have tried to reach out and talk to Lamont Supporters but they want to have it their way like Burger King all the time and not have a discussion.

I think they need to stop bullying Lieberman supporters and trying to brainwash us into voting for Ned.

They also need to allow us to support whom we wish to support.

It seems the only way we(Lieberman supporters) can say anything is to attack back Because they fire on us immediately.

if they would drop the "you're a bad Democrat for supporting Joe and you arent welcome in the party anymore nonsense I think people could get along.

Anonymous said...

Bluto - Do you really not recognize that the point you are making is, in fact, part of the problem mentioned above?

I'm not saying you shouldn't make it. If you read carefully, you will even notice that I did not disagree (or agree) with you at any point...

Repeating your point does not make what I am saying any less meta. Your comments are odd and counterproductive in this thread (and in this thread only).

Cue you attacking some people and their websites...

Bluto Blutarsky said...

This isnt about Ned Lamont..The US Senate Candidate it is about a group of individuals who chastize those of us who wish to support Joe Lieberman and call us Bad Democrats and tell us we don't belong to the party.

It is exactly that type of behavior that will help Joe Lieberman get re-elected Because this method of operation is turning a lot of Voters off and I can see it backfire on Ned and it will cost him the election.

So Lamont supporters it is your call we can try to agree to disagree and you let us support Joe or this nasty and vindictive battle will go on through election day. It is your choice.

TrueBlueCT said...

Anon5:05--

GOP nastiness during the Clinton Presidency? Exactly what are you referring to? The Republicans don't remember any of their own ugliness. You sure it occurred?

(My favorite was when the GOP made public the sex scenes between our President and Monica. That was classy. I'm just glad I didn't have to explain what a blow-job was to a 3rd grade daughter.)

But look, if they don't understand why we are angry, post their esteemed Rush Limbaugh, post-MonicaGate, post the stolen election, post Sean Hannity, post the failed Iraq Experiment, post Ann Coulter, post the swiftboating of John Kerry, post-Katrina, etc... Is their any real hope of reconciliation? I doubt it.

The Republicans new frustration comes from the fact that the Democrats are fighting back. Suddenly it's a two-way street, and if they want their divisive hate-mongers they also have to own them. Are there nastier people in the world than Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter?

Grumpy said...

I think that from a purely partisan perspective, a Democrat voting for Joe in November could indeed be considered a "bad Democrat." However, voting for Joe doesn't mean that Democrat is a bad person. Rather, I think those Democrats who spew venom at Joe and his supporters, as well as the Republicans who spew similarly towards Chafee (or on a less visible level, Diana Urban here in CT), would do well to read President Washinton's Farewell Address. (Particularly his warning against blindly passionate loyalty to political factions and parties.)

turfgrrl said...

jim -- Oh right, inconsiderate of me not to coddle those who feel condescended to.

Anonymous said...

turfgrrl - You raise the level of discourse just by showing up! Keep doing what you are doing!

Seriously.

TrueBlueCT said...

Anon5:05--

GOP nastiness during the Clinton Presidency? Exactly what are you referring to? The Republicans don't remember any of their own ugliness. You sure it occurred?

(My favorite was when the GOP made public the sex scenes between our President and Monica. That was classy. I'm just glad I didn't have to explain what a blow-job was to a 3rd grade daughter.)

But look, if they don't understand why we are angry, post their esteemed Rush Limbaugh, post-MonicaGate, post the stolen election, post Sean Hannity, post the failed Iraq Experiment, post Ann Coulter, post the swiftboating of John Kerry, post-Katrina, etc... Is their any real hope of reconciliation? I doubt it.

Their real anger comes from the fact that the Democrats are fighting back. Suddenly it's a two-way street, and if they want their divisive hate-mongers they also have to own them. Are there angrier people in the world than Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter?

Anonymous said...

My favorite Clinton-hating moment was when Rush (on his tv show) announced that the Clintons had gotten a new dog and then held up a picture of Chelsea. All class.

Genghis Conn said...

Never mind.

(sigh)

Jim said...

turfgrrl said...
jim -- Oh right, inconsiderate of me not to coddle those who feel condescended to.

5:42 PM, September 13, 2006

Sarcastic, snide and condescending. again, this is a front-pager on the blog where the landlord (?) is asking everyone to be more civil. Where on Earth could he start....