Comments about ‘Letter: Public discourse impossible with such divergent world views’

The problem we face in our current political scene is demonstrated in the letter. The moment we stop thinking others as "Americans" and it is "Us Vs Them" we really have already lost the battle. When we immediately reject an idea because of the source, any chance of unity and productivity goes with it.

Most if not all Americans really want the same thing from Government: The protection of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. Where we differ is on how, and how to fund it. These are really a matter of degrees, and not diametrically opposed views. Nobody wants Uncle Sam in certain aspects of their lives, and they wish to be left alone to live their life as they see fit.

If we could simmer down the emotions, and have a conversation from that perspective it would be amazing what we could accomplish. If there is divisiveness, it is a failure to listen and an overwhelming desire to ensure one is heard. Be the change you want in the world.

Liberal Larry,

It's not just older white men who seem to be swallowing the ultra-right rhetoric. For some odd reason, it's Mormons too. Can't tell you how many of my neighbors have drifted off to the far right and are believing everything spouted by Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Fox News talking heads. They don't even seem to recognize how irrational much of this stuff is. Of course, the DesNews doesn't help matters by printing Krauthammer every Sunday. We are what we eat, I suppose. And too many Mormons have been feasting on hate-filled right-wing propaganda.

Comments about the amount of federal dollars a state receives are rarely taken in the context of how much of a state is owned by the federal government. It also does not take into account the number of facilities and/or services the federal government runs from the state.

Utah is mostly federal lands. Those are lands that we cannot use and exploit for our state expenses like most states can.

So...either there is a lack of understanding on the posters part or a touch of disingenuousness. (a good word to add to your spelling function - D News)

Re:Kent C. DeForrest

What was the headline of this article? Your demonization of all things conservative is an example of why we have difficulty conversing.

It's not possible to have a civil discourse with someone who calls people who disagree with his viewpoint, "wingnuts".

Although our viewpoints are nearly opposite, I respect Roland and I respect his views. He is a gentleman. He doesn't call names when people see things differently than he does. From his posts, it seems that he considers the ideas of others before he responds.

We're all entitled to our own ideas. Life's experiences shape our viewpoint. Wise people ask themselves what the consequence to society would be if everyone followed the course of action being proposed. If calamity wpuld result if 100% of the people did something, then that course of action is wrong.

It's a simple test, but it works.

If Obama wants to raise taxes, all we have to ask is what would happen if he raised taxes on everyone. We know that it would destroy us. Raising taxes on a portion of Americans will destroy that portion of Americans.

His policy is wrong -because unless his goal is to destroy part of the people.

Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT

OK. Just for you. Bill Maher is not my favorite. Many times he says outlandish things, in my opinion, which stretch credulity and are extremely offensive. As such, I usually don't watch his program. And I would never look to it as a valid source of information. However, his audience is considered young, hip, and unconventional in its tastes.

Is that what you want to hear?

Now, what do you say about Rush Limbaugh and the wingnut media?

Mike Richards: Thank you for the kind comments. I also respect your opinion even though I obviously disagree.

@Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

"The left has changed over the last 50 years far more than the right has. Claiming that the right has become more extreme is a classic example of left wing extremist passive/aggression."

The biggest change prior to Reagan and the emergence of evangelical, social conservatism occurred in 1964 when Southern Democrats (Dixicrats) left the Democratic Party and became Republicans because of civil rights legislation.

The purging of the Republican Party of its progressive and moderate members over the past 30 years has resulted in a much more ideologically conservative political party dominated by social conservatives. The growth of the Tea Party only intensified the shift right-ward, an inward contraction resulting in a smaller, more reactionary, partisan base, and a sense of self-indulgent alienation and anger found today.

The Democratic Party, on the other hand, has a much broader base ranging from liberal to conservative. Much of the propaganda generated by Right-Wing media of Left-Ward movement within the Democratic Party is just that -- propaganda. The Democratic Party has expanded to accomodate those disaffected people rejected by the New Republican Party as moderate.

Some, of the calming thoughts expressed here, might have helped the woman, in Arizona, who ran over her husband because, of a difference of opinion, over political issues, choose a different way to express her frustrations.

@Truthseeker

Your argument that Maher is on cable and Limbaugh is on radio is splitting hairs. My comparison was meant to be more contextual than literal (I debated whether to use Maher or O'Donnell, Maddow, Schulz, Matthew, Goldberg, Stewart, etc. as the example of left-wing intolerance - but there is a 200 word limit)

However I will offer KUDOS for stepping up and condemning Maher. That is a step towards civility that I can agree with.

@Salsa Libre
Condemning Maher was a good start; but then you offered that his audience was young hip and unconventional as if that made it all OK. Isn't that merely disheartening than hate is considered hip?
Then you ended with the typical wingnut comment. One step forward two steps back.

Jesus was a Liberal.

My conscious is clear.

@James
although it i often hard to tell if you spend to much time on these threads there really are people out there on both sides that have worth while viewpoints that can present them in intelligent and insightful ways that can promote understanding. As a liberal there are a few conservatives/republicans I really enjoy reading and listening to there view points. sadly they do tend to be pushed to the sidelines instead of the headlines. This is also true I believe of liberals/democrats. Sensationalism sales so it is what you will find unless you dig down through the hyperbole. If you want to understand those with different points of view it is probably best to ignore sights like this one as civil dialogue. I do like to believe that if I where to actually be sitting across from some of these people that I would find them to be far less abrasive and likely not so different from me but these threads really do not promote civility.

@Grundle

Okay - who is the largest employer in the state of Utah? In a state that has a venomous relationship with the federal government, the federal government continues to expand it's presence in Utah employing tens of thousands of Utahns in mostly the Department of Defense and now the National Security Agency. Would you prefer that these people move away? Would you prefer that these bases and activities cease to exist in Utah? Is Utah ready to absorb those jobs and those unemployed people? You have your hand out with "Save Hill AFB" as the battle cry for election after election (even though Hill AFB is not threatened), yet you spit in the very hand that provides the jobs for those who work at the base (and other federal facilities throughout the state). Which is it, then? Do you want less federal spending in Utah or not? BTW, the number of federal facilities in Utah (a "taker" state) pales in comparison to a state that is a "giver" like New York or New Jersey.

You can continue to justify Utah's taking of more than they give all you want, but the fact still remains - Utah is a "taker."

I love it that the file photo used with this story is the same one as was used with the 'women cheating as much as men' story.

The Bible does not say Jesus was a liberal.

James 1:5 says he gives liberally, but that hardly means the same thing as being liberal today.

Jesus gives from what is His. Liberals today seek to take from the rich so they can sanctimoniously give to others. Not the same thing.

@james
Sorry I really do know the difference between their and there, but you get the point.

This is the cleaned up version of this morning’s post, minus the metaphorical comparison which undoubtedly got it censored.

I think the difference of the view has very little to do with the inability to communicate appropriately. The stereotyping and name calling is unbelievable. With 5 posts we have already the following insults:

called people "wingnut fringe” (name calling, insinuating that people are actually insane and should be institutionalized)

"their message appeals mainly to older white men" (This is Racial and Sexist and whatever the word is for discrimination of the aged)

"we would surely drown out those loud mouthed minority extremists." (Just talk over them and they are not important enough to bother listening to or even being nice to, they are terrorists)

These words are carefully chosen to pass the screeners, but to give the intended insults loud and clear.

They do not represent civil dialogue and shut down real communication.

LDS liberal, being liberal as a person in Jesus' time and place and being a political liberal in the context of today's US government policies are quite different. In other words, you seem to believe that if Jesus were living today, he would be a Democrat. That assumption is brazen and without basis (btw, I would say the same to those who think he would be Repbulcian).

@joe moe
I think you are probably right the Jesus of Christian faiths would likely avoid siding himself with either party but then the brings up the question (not necessarily to you in particular but in general) what does that say about the arguments being made by people on both sides that use their Christian beliefs as a weapon in the political arena?

To "LDS Liberal" do we once again need to prove to you that Jesus would shun the modern day liberal movement, and its faceless government programs?

If you think that Jesus was a liberal, name one time that Jesus told his followers to seek out the government for help. Tell us where Jesus taught that to take care of our fellow man we just need to pay more taxes.

To "Kent C. DeForrest" the LDS people like the conservative movement because it preaches freedom and personal responsibility, just like the LDS church. It reflects their values better than liberalism.