I find it funny that the people that are complaining the most about socialism are the ones benefiting the most from the Government handouts that come in the form of unemployment, welfare, and farmer subsidies, in the midwest, rust belt and other areas of the US

---

I think one big reason we remain divided is because the impression each side has of the other comes from their own media.  The right wing media tells right wingers what the left is doing and saying, and the left wing media tells left wingers what the right wingers are doing and saying.  

And people go to their "comfort media" and get pounded all day about how evil the other side is.

I'm a moderate.  You people, left and right, need to stop hurling insults at each other and start talking about actual issues.

Bwwwahahaha, it's funny all you self-righteous "moderates" didn't feel that way until some guy from the Right started acting back at the left the way they've acted for generations. NOW it's suddenly "both sides" are the problem. Nonsense.

George W. Bush is probably the nicest man you'll ever meet. Called him dumb and Hitler.
Romney, a man who literally adopted black children into this family? Racist tax evader.
McCain, the guy who gets pilloried by his own side for reaching across the aisle. Warmonger.

Nah, save that "both sides" crap for these moron kids who don't know what the past was like.

Each of those men can take it.
Yes, Bush 43 is a fundamentally decent person.  He really thought NCLB would improve education and war would improve Iraq.  But a lot of people think he was wrong about those things.  They call him dumb.  They call his ideas dumb. It's not nice, but do you really want to turn the discussion into a defense of NCLB and the Iraq war? Some call him Hitler because, like Hitler, he started a preemptive war.  But Bush 43 is tough enough, and smart enough, not to complain or fight back.  
If you get in a high position, people will snipe at you.  And, because no one is perfect, some of their gripes will be legitimate.
Most people who get up that high are just grateful for the opportunity and understand the sniping comes with the territory.
You don't need to be thin skinned on their behalf.

---

And that was a semi-satirical, personal opinion piece that happened to run in the LA Times. It is also marked as opinion.

I can’t wait to see the LA Times run a “semi-satirical opinion piece” denigrating the hypocrisy of the left.

You hold your breath first.

Why should the LA Times be held to a higher standard than talk radio?!
Paper is a renewable, theoretically infinite resource.
Radio spectrum isn't.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Bwwwahahaha, it's funny all you self-righteous "moderates" didn't feel that way until some guy from the Right started acting back at the left the way they've acted for generations. NOW it's suddenly "both sides" are the problem. Nonsense.

George W. Bush is probably the nicest man you'll ever meet. Called him dumb and Hitler.
Romney, a man who literally adopted black children into this family? Racist tax evader.
McCain, the guy who gets pilloried by his own side for reaching across the aisle. Warmonger.

Nah, save that "both sides" crap for these moron kids who don't know what the past was like.

Each of those men can take it.
Yes, Bush 43 is a fundamentally decent person.  He really thought NCLB would improve education and war would improve Iraq.  But a lot of people think he was wrong about those things.  They call him dumb.  They call his ideas dumb. It's not nice, but do you really want to turn the discussion into a defense of NCLB and the Iraq war? Some call him Hitler because, like Hitler, he started a preemptive war.  But Bush 43 is tough enough, and smart enough, not to complain or fight back.  
If you get in a high position, people will snipe at you.  And, because no one is perfect, some of their gripes will be legitimate.
Most people who get up that high are just grateful for the opportunity and understand the sniping comes with the territory.
You don't need to be thin skinned on their behalf.

---

I can’t wait to see the LA Times run a “semi-satirical opinion piece” denigrating the hypocrisy of the left.

You hold your breath first.

Why should the LA Times be held to a higher standard than talk radio?!
Paper is a renewable, theoretically infinite resource.
Radio spectrum isn't.

You’re equivocating.

---

You typically dont find people like that in North Florida

You obviously haven't been down to the Publix round-about area in PVB.  There is a group of ~ 10 people ranging in age from 75-85 years old that used to set up their canopy, wave signs, and sell merchandise.  Kind of reminded me of driving through Golfair Blvd back in the day ..... definitely not a place where you want to run out of gas or get a flat tire.

---

You typically dont find people like that in North Florida

You obviously haven't been down to the Publix round-about area in PVB.  There is a group of ~ 10 people ranging in age from 75-85 years old that used to set up their canopy, wave signs, and sell merchandise.  Kind of reminded me of driving through Golfair Blvd back in the day ..... definitely not a place where you want to run out of gas or get a flat tire.

Really? I am in the Beach/Hodges area and things are pretty normal around these parts. Especially in my hood.

---

Judging from the posts in this thread, it seems like most people's opinions as to why we remain divided fall into the category of "because the other side is evil."

---

While it’s true both sides hurl invective, the left has a much larger platform and open acceptance for their taunts.
This article is a prime example. Blatantly comparing Trump supporters to Islamic terrorists and Nazis is de rigueur. Even after they’ve performed an act of kindness.

There will be no denouncement from those on the left who want to meet in the middle. They’ll simply quietly agree with this woman’s shrill thoughts and then look at the right as obstinate for not extending an olive branch.

It would be easy to reconcile with the left if they weren’t such obvious hypocrites.

Again, I've seen this done by both sides. Not just the left.

---

I think one big reason we remain divided is because the impression each side has of the other comes from their own media.  The right wing media tells right wingers what the left is doing and saying, and the left wing media tells left wingers what the right wingers are doing and saying.  

And people go to their "comfort media" and get pounded all day about how evil the other side is.

I'm a moderate.  You people, left and right, need to stop hurling insults at each other and start talking about actual issues.

Agreed 1000%. This is the main problem in America today. The media feeds off this rift. The news is no longer the news anymore. It's just a bunch of propaganda feeding the most radical people on both sides of the aisle. Nobody wants to hear real news anymore. They wanna be fed what they wanna hear, so they are flocking to bias news sites.

I think you are 100% incorrect.  Most people crave an unbiased media.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Judging from the posts in this thread, it seems like most people's opinions as to why we remain divided fall into the category of "because the other side is evil."

Do you want to know why we are divided? The MSM. There is your answer. The MSM has always been the problem. Social Media just happens to be an amplifier that never existed before.

---

Judging from the posts in this thread, it seems like most people's opinions as to why we remain divided fall into the category of "because the other side is evil."

I honestly can’t help but believe you are intentionally ignoring the conversation.

We get it, Marty, you’re the “moderate”. But in even more honesty, I think simply you take the side which you interpret as getting the most support or least resistance. Only my opinion, but that’s how I see it.

---

Judging from the posts in this thread, it seems like most people's opinions as to why we remain divided fall into the category of "because the other side is evil."

One side thinks America is evil. I don't think the other side can be united with them if that's their position going forward.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

[quote pid='1360334' dateline='1612878700']
Why should the LA Times be held to a higher standard than talk radio?!
Paper is a renewable, theoretically infinite resource.
Radio spectrum isn't.

You’re equivocating.
[/quote]

How so?

If you think the LA Times or Bozeman Chronicle needs to give opportunity for rebuttal against opinion pieces, do you not apply the same logic to talk radio?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

[quote pid='1360334' dateline='1612878700']
Why should the LA Times be held to a higher standard than talk radio?!
Paper is a renewable, theoretically infinite resource.
Radio spectrum isn't.

You’re equivocating.

How so?

If you think the LA Times or Bozeman Chronicle needs to give opportunity for rebuttal against opinion pieces, do you not apply the same logic to talk radio?
[/quote]

No, because the first two are alleged institutions of journalism which supposedly adopt policies of neutrality and balance, while the last is not.

Does, does, this need to be, um, explained?

---

Judging from the posts in this thread, it seems like most people's opinions as to why we remain divided fall into the category of "because the other side is evil."

I honestly can’t help but believe you are intentionally ignoring the conversation.

We get it, Marty, you’re the “moderate”. But in even more honesty, I think simply you take the side which you interpret as getting the most support or least resistance. Only my opinion, but that’s how I see it.

You think I am not voicing my honest opinions?  Why do you think that?

Maybe you're just surprised that someone who detests Trump can agree with you on some issues.

---

How so?

If you think the LA Times or Bozeman Chronicle needs to give opportunity for rebuttal against opinion pieces, do you not apply the same logic to talk radio?

No, because the first two are alleged institutions of journalism which supposedly adopt policies of neutrality and balance, while the last is not.

Does, does, this need to be, um, explained?

You know they're not neutral in their choice of opinion pieces to publish.
I know they're not neutral in their choice of opinion pieces to publish.
In fact I don't think they ever claimed to be neutral. Most city newspapers make an effort to publish some contrasting editorials, but certainly not 1:1.
And if you look at your local newspaper, the Florida Times Union, their choice of opinion pieces is obviously slanted towards the right.
What's the problem?
We should either expect neutrality and equal time from all of these outlets, or none of them.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

How so?

If you think the LA Times or Bozeman Chronicle needs to give opportunity for rebuttal against opinion pieces, do you not apply the same logic to talk radio?

No, because the first two are alleged institutions of journalism which supposedly adopt policies of neutrality and balance, while the last is not.

Does, does, this need to be, um, explained?

You know they're not neutral in their choice of opinion pieces to publish.
I know they're not neutral in their choice of opinion pieces to publish.
In fact I don't think they ever claimed to be neutral. Most city newspapers make an effort to publish some contrasting editorials, but certainly not 1:1.
And if you look at your local newspaper, the Florida Times Union, their choice of opinion pieces is obviously slanted towards the right.
What's the problem?
We should either expect neutrality and equal time from all of these outlets, or none of them.
[/quote]

Excellent point. You've closed it out nicely. It clearly illustrates the left's practice of biasing news media in their favor to create political division and silence their opponents.

Also, why are you having such problems formatting a quote?

---

No, because the first two are alleged institutions of journalism which supposedly adopt policies of neutrality and balance, while the last is not.

Does, does, this need to be, um, explained?

You know they're not neutral in their choice of opinion pieces to publish.
I know they're not neutral in their choice of opinion pieces to publish.
In fact I don't think they ever claimed to be neutral. Most city newspapers make an effort to publish some contrasting editorials, but certainly not 1:1.
And if you look at your local newspaper, the Florida Times Union, their choice of opinion pieces is obviously slanted towards the right.
What's the problem?
We should either expect neutrality and equal time from all of these outlets, or none of them.

Excellent point. You've closed it out nicely. It clearly illustrates the left's practice of biasing news media in their favor to create political division and silence their opponents.

Also, why are you having such problems formatting a quote?

Probably because he favors left tags over right ones.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You know they're not neutral in their choice of opinion pieces to publish.
I know they're not neutral in their choice of opinion pieces to publish.
In fact I don't think they ever claimed to be neutral. Most city newspapers make an effort to publish some contrasting editorials, but certainly not 1:1.
And if you look at your local newspaper, the Florida Times Union, their choice of opinion pieces is obviously slanted towards the right.
What's the problem?
We should either expect neutrality and equal time from all of these outlets, or none of them.

Excellent point. You've closed it out nicely. It clearly illustrates the left's practice of biasing news media in their favor to create political division and silence their opponents.

Also, why are you having such problems formatting a quote?

You say I've made an excellent point, but clearly you don't understand it. Thank you for pointing out the quoting problem, don't know how that happened but I've fixed it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

If anyone poses a response in this thread that includes something like, "but the liberals" or "but the conservatives," then you are part of the problem. You have to acknowledge that this rift is caused by both sides. Not just one or the other. If you can't see this then you are biased and contributing to this divide.

Obviously, in any relationship, both parties contribute to some disfunction in the relationship, even if it's co-dependence. That doesn't mean both parties are equally complicit in deterioration of the relationship. Until liberals reject the platforms and tenants of the progressives, this issue is going to get worse. This is no longer a conservatives vs. liberals argument. Only the uninformed believe that. Leftists are a different beast entirely, and until enough people wake up to what's going on, they are going to continue to demonize their ideological opponents. You can't see that, dude? You can't see the concerted effort to obliterate the conservative position? 

The goal for progressives, is to move the Overton window as far left as possible. Crush the right in this country, then deal with the liberals. Liberals find them useful for now, but for how long? If you listen to what the progressives are saying, they are trying to push the parties into liberal vs progressive, then they will try to snuff out the liberals. Global socialism is the only answer. The ends justify the means. Political power is the only goal. That's radical. You will never find unity with that group, yet they are increasingly given a voice in the Democratic party.

I agree that liberals should denounce the progressive wing of the Democratic party, just like I believe conservatives should reject the Trumpist wing of the Republican party. Hardcore Trump supporters, (not the everyday Joe that voted for Trump as an option to Joe Biden,) but the real followers and apologist to everything he did are every bit as dangerous to this country as the left wing progressives. We need to get back to the days when Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were the faces of the parties and we didn't have radicals at both ends of the spectrum. People back then may not have liked one another's politics, but they never got nasty and they were still able to work together to get things done. 

I do see that leftist are ruining this country just as I see that Trump and his followers have hijacked what I used to see as true Republican issues and values and they've turned it into something I can't even recognize. The pendulum swings both ways and people that can't see that and recognize their own biases, frankly worry me. Both sides play off of one another's most radical groups and by bickering back and forth and getting so much media coverage, they are actually making one another stronger. People are getting the impression that these fringe groups are way larger than they actually are. Thus they join the bandwagon in order to fight off the perceived enemy. It was bad when Obama was in office, but when Trump became president, it got worse by ten fold. He made the progressives out to be a much, much larger group than they actually were and his followers believed everything he said, no matter how ridiculous and false it was. Now, we're at an all-time low. No one trust anything they see or read that is out of their comfort zone, because they got suckered into the propaganda spewed out by the progressives and the Trumpist. I don't know if there is any way to come back from this either.

---

Excellent point. You've closed it out nicely. It clearly illustrates the left's practice of biasing news media in their favor to create political division and silence their opponents.

Also, why are you having such problems formatting a quote?

You say I've made an excellent point, but clearly you don't understand it.  Thank you for pointing out the quoting problem, don't know how that happened but I've fixed it.

Ok.

---

I guess what I'm saying is, if you can't see this, then you are uninformed and contributing to this divide.

I have no side, so how am I part of the divide? That makes no sense at all. I see fault in both sides and it's both sides that need to take half of the blame. Only the people who have been un-effected by the propaganda of both sides, have a clear view of what is truly going on.

---