BaptistLife.Com Forums.

Secretary Clinton recently stated...

"You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about," Clinton said in an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour."

Yet, isn't the reason her call for incivility is because she wants to destroy the political party that takes a different stand than she does and one that party cares about?

If so, then she is also calling on all conservatives to not be civil. She would have to support such action from the right simply because she supports such action... period.

Sadly, I find that the incivility of both political parties reflects the poverty of reason in our society. We have ceased to be a people of reasoned discussion of issues. The day of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates or even the Carter-Ford Debates are long gone. Instead, we have a culture of 20 to 30 second character assassinations that have become the way to win elections. A perfect example is the character assassination going on in Virginia right now by Dave Brat, Republican Congressman in danger of losing his seat, who is maligning the character constantly of his opponent, a former CIA agent, blaming her with policies she was tasked to carry out as a way to imply she actually trained and favored terrorists, not that she worked in the "War on Terror." I don't blame good people for not running given that they will be subjected to having their most treasured values maligned or will be called "Pocahontas" because they actually have distant Indian ancestors.

Perhaps we can learn a little from the Prime Minister's question and answer time in the British Parliament which is broadcast on CSPAN. Prior to being critical of someone of the other side, the members of Parliament address their opposition as "the right honorable gentleman from...." or "with all due respect to the right honorable gentleman..." Then they are direct and to the point with their disagreement but never personally insulting or demeaning.

If you do a little bit of research into this particular issue, you'll find that a great deal of the "incivility" that has replaced political debate originated with Rush Limbaugh. Don't blame the Democrats for this, it was Limbaugh and the "dittoheads" that made the rules and defined the current level of incivility in politics. Limbaugh incites his listeners with name calling because it gets a reaction and picks up his ratings. Anyone who disagrees is labelled an imbecile by the man who originated such terms as "libtards and feminazis" along with other choice names for those who disagree with is position. His view is not that all opinions are equal in America, but that those who disagree with his perspective are not equal to those who do and don't deserve to have their view considered. He's also the originator of "tell a big enough lie long enough and a percentage of the people will decide it is true." The bigger the lie the better. He has openly stated that since conservative views are always right, there is nothing wrong with cheating to win, including being an advocate for voter suppression and manipulation. Limbaugh picked up on making a buck by fanning the flames of prejudice and ignorance and it has taken over.

If you look at the context of Hillary's statement, it is exactly this kind of attitude that she is addressing. I've never seen her, nor any Democrat or mainstream media for that matter, advocate to eliminate the other side completely or try to "destroy" them. Win elections, sure. Pass legislation that favors their view, sure. Destroy, no, that's been almost exclusively the domain of right wingers like Limbaugh and the train of wannabees that are trying to make a fortune off hatred like he does. And now we have Trump and his train of deplorables who opened the door to the haters like Steve Bannon and used them to get what he wanted. Clinton is not "calling for incivility", she is pointing out exactly what she faced from her opposition, hatred bent on her destruction.

Ed: Sandy, I would suggest that the late night show host on the three major networks have to at least share the responsibility.

I agree with Sandy. It isn't done evenly by both "sides". Nor do I see Democrats doing the stuff I see from the GOP followers.

My own experience on FB shows many more hostile, angry, vindictive posts from my conservative friends than from my moderate ones. Many are not original with them, but are sound-bite sorts of memes that are re-posted. I spend a good bit of time blocking the people who created such negative stuff (not my friends, but the ones who create what they re-post). It must be in the hundreds by now. I am amazed that they keep finding more and more.

Today, however, a woman friend I usually disagree with posted an all-caps rant with four letter words about how she is sick of hearing about the people coming our way thru Mexico. She hasn't done that sort of thing before. I fear the hostility level is rising as the elections draw near.

You have reminded me why I do not listen to Limbaugh, do not watch late-night TV, and seldom watch TV news.

By the way, there is one great difference between the British Parliament and our Congress. In the Parliament, the representatives are in their seats to hear their "esteemed colleagues." In our Congress, most of the speeches are made to the cameras of C-Span for the consumption of the folks at home. Outside of the paid personnel on the dias, there is no one else in the hall to be esteemed or offended. Our Congress does not debate, it makes political speeches to empty seats while the representatives and senators are manning fund-raising phone banks for their parties.

Thanks, Sandy. Jon was correct on one point he made, however, when he said, "I really just don't get it."

Yesterday and today, we are seeing where the incivility leads as bombs have been intercepted on their way to George Soros, Hillary Clinton, President Obama, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Words are deadly enough, but now incivility has risen to attempted maiming or murder. I also heard that white nationalist materials were in one of the bomb packages.

Thought I read something about Maxine Waters and a past CIA Director (name evades me) too; or were those less recent? And that one package was misdelivered to its return address, and another was intercepted before delivery, in the House mailroom.

And lest we miss the log in our own eye, there is at least one GOP congressman who's walking wounded after a "Dem" shot up a ball game.

From Gerry Milligan...Jon, you asked: "So, what would you do with the 7000 immigrants marching to the US border? I hate four letter vulgar words... see no need for them. Yet, I understand the not wanting the mobs to enter into the USA breaking the law." So, first, what did Jesus teach about strangers; second, with a population of 350,000,000 in the USA, how much would 7,000 affect the USA? And lastly, what about amnesty seekers? I truly think that the president is fear mongering. Our red-neck friends do not want 7,000 (or even 7 if truth be told) more brown skins into the USA because very soon WASPs will no longed have a majority of the electorate. Personally, I am not afraid of 7,000 more people in the USA. They work, pay taxes and add to the economy.

Surely Honduras qualifies as being in the Middle East. Ask any Salvadoran.