I suppose intelligent discourse really is dead.

[kellinator]

scarcrest reports that certain parties have not taken well to the Lone Star Iconoclast's endorsement of John Kerry.

"In the past, when individuals disagreed with an editorial, they would write a letter to the editor politely expressing a different point of view in contrast to the views of the publishers, which we have usually published.... The new mode of operation, I am told, is that when a newspaper prints an editorial of which some sectors might disagree, the focus is now upon how to run the newspaper out of business.... Unfortunately, for the Iconoclast and its publishers there have been threats — big ones including physical harm.

...Next time you hear a Republican crowing about how the Republicans are the party of values, I want you to think about the values of threatening and harrassing newspaper employees who aren't even on the editorial staff. I want to you think about the values of trying to silence those who disagree with you, rather than offering articulate reasoning as to why you disagree. And then I want you to think about what kind of values they're really selling you.

Yes, I agree: I am rude and condescending when it comes to politics. In return, I put up with rude and condescending comments from many of my circle, because it's only fair. But I have never threatened those of opposing viewpoints with physical harm (well, maybe alanator, but he was goading me while I was drunk). If these people are willing to do so, you might want to ask yourself exactly what they're afraid of.

If I make it through the next month without losing my fucking mind, it'll be a fucking miracle.

Comments

[richardf8]

That's the thing. They're thugs. I know many republicans who are not thugs themselves, but alas, the party comprises thugs, and the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter actively recruit thugs. And so the party is overrun by thugs.

[ariedana.livejournal.com]

Oh, but Kelly, didn't you get the memo? We're the ones with the "liberal media" who's singlehandedly propelling Kerry into office without giving Bush a chance to defend his poor self. We're the ones spreading the lies about hidden microphones at debates (have yet to hear a decent explanation of that bulge in Bush's jacket) and impending drafts and all sorts of things that can't be true, because Bush has always been upfront and honest in the past. Right?

[dwivian]

It's just like the union goons assaulting republican offices. It's proof that there are WAY TOO MANY IDIOTS out there, and not enough bricks to fling at their heads.

Kudos to you for accepting contrary discussion gracefully.

::steals your margharita::

[deza.livejournal.com]

Go ahead and lose your mind, sweetie. You'll feel much less stress once you get past that.

BTW, you've got email.

[streamweaver.livejournal.com]

When I read this I have to wonder why it is we aren't married?

[stronae.livejournal.com]

[insidejoke]Oh look, another similarity![/inisidejoke]

[orfeo517.livejournal.com]

My Republican values dictate that I must now bomb you for disagreeing with me. Sorry. Heh! I loved watching the Jon Stewart interview with Lewis Lapham. The man said that the neo-cons are in no way conservative. He said they're "utopian idealists" or "radical nationalists." One good quotation is "what in Hell are conservatives conserving?"

[sujata.livejournal.com]

I was furious when I heard about this, too, and wrote about it in http://www.livejournal.com/users/sujata/68005.html.

I referred to the threats made against the newspaper staff as "Constitution-busting," which led to intelligent discourse between john666 and myself. So no, intelligent discourse is not dead.

Intelligent Republicans, however, may well be extinct. >:-)

[kobrin.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I read that the other day. *shakes his head*

We haven't gotten quite to that stage yet down here in Australia, but I think that's mainly because most Australians simply refuse to take themselves too seriously. (Might be something in the beer) Heh.

I'm annoyed at our recent elections though, as the Prime Monster has returned to power for a fourth term (there is no limit to the number of terms a prime minister can serve down here). His platform was lies, fear and B.S. and his opponent tried to lead a campaign of hope and promise for the future. Sadly, the B.S. campaign won.

I hope that this doesn't foreshadow the results of the US elections. :S

[grunion.livejournal.com]

Threats of physical violence are illegal, and those making them should be charged and dealt with accordingly. They are NOT protected speech no matter what party they support.

As for the party of values.. um, there is NO party of values. There are only parties of "how can I get votes". Every time I hear someone giving me a line with the words "family values" in it, I know they want ME to change to THEIR values or they will put a gun to my head to make me. I think the exact same thing when I hear the words "common good" or "progressive". The first has its roots in a history I want no part of (religion based governments), the second and third are from movements I know to be wrong (Fascism and Communism respectively). The only way to make me more dedicated to being opposed to any given position is to actually use the word "neo-con". It's fun to know where certain concepts or words came from sometimes.

Words can be powerful sometimes, but replying to them with bricks and threats is never appropriate.

[thetuan.livejournal.com]

actually the old fashioned way of disagreeing with an editor was to call them out. there are many instances where newspaper editors dueled in order to defend their paper's view or statements.

JOHN HAMPTON PLEASANTS VS. THOMAS RITCHIE, JR. Thomas Ritchie was the son of the founder of the Richmond Enquirer (first issued in 1804) and one of the editors after 1845. John Hampton Pleasants (1797-1846) founded the rival Richmond Whig in 1824 and edited it until 1846 when he was shot and killed the duel. The two paper editors feuded over their papers and finally it got so out of hand a duel was called.

THE HYMAN-HILLIARD DUEL. In the Summer of 1855 John D. Hyman, editor of the Spectator said in his paper the mail service was not as efficiently conducted as when been under the management of the Whigs. Dr. W. L. Hilliard was then the postmaster, and a partner of Dr. J. F. E. Hardy. Besides this, both were Democrats. Dr. Hilliard sent Dr. Hardy to Col. Hyman with a polite request for a retraction and apology, which were refused. Thereupon a challenge to mortal combat followed which was promptly accepted, rifles designated as the weapons, and Paint Rock on the Tennessee line agreed on as the place of meeting.





http://www.twainquotes.com/18630802t.html


perhaps one should let them duel....http://clarionherald.org/19990916/stall.htm

[whorlwind.livejournal.com]

Basic logic, A is B does not mean B is A. Some assholes are republican does not mean all republicans are assholes.
Just like not all democrats/republicans are unthinking sheep... it just seems that way.