Well here's the liberal compassion I've heard so much about.

[*michaelsean*]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/02/23/alan_colmes_was_fox_news_original_liberal_patsy.html

The death of Fox News contributor Alan Colmes, who passed away in New York City this week at the age of 66, has been greeted with an outpouring of emotion from the channel’s on-and-off-the-air talent. Colmes, it seems, was a nice guy, a good friend, and an ideal colleague: all qualities one would imagine people who have had to spend their lives around the likes of Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly would welcome. And while one should usually view tributes to the recently departed with a forgiving cynicism, in this case they are all too believable: Colmes was the most absurd, useless, and mocked television personality in America for many years, precisely because he was nice. In the context of Fox News, being a nice guy—and a “liberal” nice guy at that—meant being a buffoon, and a patsy. Colmes not only played the part to perfection—he defined it.

Colmes had a radio career, but he will almost surely be remembered for his job co-hosting Hannity & Colmes, the dreadful, morally bankrupt, Foxified version of Crossfire that ran for a dozen years and birthed the even more dreadful and morally bankrupt Hannity. The joke about Hannity & Colmes was always that Hannity dominated it to such an extent that Colmes was left as a mere bystander, asking soft questions while Hannity berated whatever liberal guest they brought on that night. This was of course true—Colmes’ air of nearly amused passivity became a running joke in itself—but it understated the way the format of the show set him up to fail. Yes, the two men appeared to have equal time during each segment, and yes, there was often a liberal guest and a conservative one. (Because it was Fox, the conservative guest was usually smarter or higher profile.) But the show, by design, was conservative, and often in racist or homophobic or Islamophobic ways.

A typical segment would begin as follows (I exaggerate only slightly): Hannity would announce that some college professor had said child molestation was fun. This professor had also once said he voted for Democrats. Therefore, the graphics would ask, why do Democrats support a national policy of mandatory pedophilia? Hannity would attack the pale, inarticulate liberal guest, and then ask the conservative how our country had gone so far off the rails. Then it would be Colmes’ turn, and he would say to the liberal guest something like, “It’s not really true that all Democrats love pedophilia, is it?” Then he would ask the conservative guest whether it was painting with too broad a brush to claim that an entire party were perverts and sadists. And that was that.

Eventually Hannity got his own show—with the football tossing and the many American flags—and Colmes was demoted to being a commentator who would occasionally weigh in on the O’Reilly Factor or some other program. He was usually paired with a conservative and would end up playing the role of the liberal guest on his previous program. I always thought this was a strategic mistake from Fox’s perspective, because Hannity is an exhausting presence, and because Colmes made liberals look dumb in a way no other Fox show could manage. To millions of Americans, Alan Colmes was liberalism.

I wrote that Colmes was a nice guy, and we should all be able to separate the personal from the political, and the personal from the professional, etc., etc., etc. But while Colmes may not have been a genius, he wasn’t a complete moron either; in short, he was smart enough to know he was being used, and to take the money that his services demanded. If this is something less than morally reprehensible, it is still pretty gross. We can mourn that Alan Colmes won’t be around to watch the political era he, as an important cog in the Fox News machine, helped usher in; unfortunately, the rest of us have no choice.

[Rotobeast]

(03-02-2017, 10:49 AM)michaelsean Wrote: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/02/23/alan_colmes_was_fox_news_original_liberal_patsy.html

The death of Fox News contributor Alan Colmes, who passed away in New York City this week at the age of 66, has been greeted with an outpouring of emotion from the channel’s on-and-off-the-air talent. Colmes, it seems, was a nice guy, a good friend, and an ideal colleague: all qualities one would imagine people who have had to spend their lives around the likes of Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly would welcome. And while one should usually view tributes to the recently departed with a forgiving cynicism, in this case they are all too believable: Colmes was the most absurd, useless, and mocked television personality in America for many years, precisely because he was nice. In the context of Fox News, being a nice guy—and a “liberal” nice guy at that—meant being a buffoon, and a patsy. Colmes not only played the part to perfection—he defined it.

Colmes had a radio career, but he will almost surely be remembered for his job co-hosting Hannity & Colmes, the dreadful, morally bankrupt, Foxified version of Crossfire that ran for a dozen years and birthed the even more dreadful and morally bankrupt Hannity. The joke about Hannity & Colmes was always that Hannity dominated it to such an extent that Colmes was left as a mere bystander, asking soft questions while Hannity berated whatever liberal guest they brought on that night. This was of course true—Colmes’ air of nearly amused passivity became a running joke in itself—but it understated the way the format of the show set him up to fail. Yes, the two men appeared to have equal time during each segment, and yes, there was often a liberal guest and a conservative one. (Because it was Fox, the conservative guest was usually smarter or higher profile.) But the show, by design, was conservative, and often in racist or homophobic or Islamophobic ways.

A typical segment would begin as follows (I exaggerate only slightly): Hannity would announce that some college professor had said child molestation was fun. This professor had also once said he voted for Democrats. Therefore, the graphics would ask, why do Democrats support a national policy of mandatory pedophilia? Hannity would attack the pale, inarticulate liberal guest, and then ask the conservative how our country had gone so far off the rails. Then it would be Colmes’ turn, and he would say to the liberal guest something like, “It’s not really true that all Democrats love pedophilia, is it?” Then he would ask the conservative guest whether it was painting with too broad a brush to claim that an entire party were perverts and sadists. And that was that.

Eventually Hannity got his own show—with the football tossing and the many American flags—and Colmes was demoted to being a commentator who would occasionally weigh in on the O’Reilly Factor or some other program. He was usually paired with a conservative and would end up playing the role of the liberal guest on his previous program. I always thought this was a strategic mistake from Fox’s perspective, because Hannity is an exhausting presence, and because Colmes made liberals look dumb in a way no other Fox show could manage. To millions of Americans, Alan Colmes was liberalism.

I wrote that Colmes was a nice guy, and we should all be able to separate the personal from the political, and the personal from the professional, etc., etc., etc. But while Colmes may not have been a genius, he wasn’t a complete moron either; in short, he was smart enough to know he was being used, and to take the money that his services demanded. If this is something less than morally reprehensible, it is still pretty gross. We can mourn that Alan Colmes won’t be around to watch the political era he, as an important cog in the Fox News machine, helped usher in; unfortunately, the rest of us have no choice.

Given the arena he was in and the restrictions he faced, I always thought Colmes done quite well.
There were times he didn't unleash on Hannity, but he didn't need to, with the body language and facial expressions used.
I liked the guy.

[*bfine32*]

(03-02-2017, 10:49 AM)michaelsean Wrote: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/02/23/alan_colmes_was_fox_news_original_liberal_patsy.html

 But while Colmes may not have been a genius, he wasn’t a complete moron either; in short, he was smart enough to know he was being used, and to take the money that his services demanded. If this is something less than morally reprehensible, it is still pretty gross. We can mourn that Alan Colmes won’t be around to watch the political era he, as an important cog in the Fox News machine, helped usher in; unfortunately, the rest of us have no choice.

I think the Liberal as the accepting façade has been exposed for some time now. While this is in poor taste, it in no way compares to how our last fallen SCOTUS was demonized as soon as he drew his last breath.

[Dill]

(03-02-2017, 05:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the Liberal as the accepting façade has been exposed for some time now. While this is in poor taste, it in no way compares to how our last fallen SCOTUS was demonized as soon as he drew his last breath.

Liberals sure are bad.

[*Nately120*]

Meh, I've been told that Trump was elected due to a desire for this country to fight back against the oppressive increase of forced political correctness. Get on board, liberals.

[*bfine32*]

(03-02-2017, 05:43 PM)Dill Wrote: Liberals sure are bad.

Perhaps I should start a thread.

[*Nately120*]

(03-02-2017, 06:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps I should start a thread.

Wouldn't making a thread about liberals being meanies make you a butt-hurt crybaby snowflake?  I'm serious...I don't know the rules regarding who is allowed to complain about what.

[BmorePat87]

(03-02-2017, 06:45 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Wouldn't making a thread about liberals being meanies make you a butt-hurt crybaby snowflake?  I'm serious...I don't know the rules regarding who is allowed to complain about what.

You're allowed to complain about how coffee cups are decorated and when the dry cleaners use too much starch on your white hood. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-02-2017, 06:45 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Wouldn't making a thread about liberals being meanies make you a butt-hurt crybaby snowflake?  I'm serious...I don't know the rules regarding who is allowed to complain about what.

As soon as Trump won the General Election I said we (as a forum and a Nation) are going to spend a minimum of the next 4 years being what we hated for the last 8. Given I am always right, but I can't recall the last time I hit a nail so squarely on the head.

But to answer the question (because that's what I do). I find it more as an attempt to show the other side to be hypocrites. I doubt anyone is truly offended by the left's exposure to be nothing more than the excepting they accused others of being for the last 8 years, they are just "rubbing their noses in it". Just as the left would do so by calling them "snowflakes".

It is a ridiculous dynamic and one I wished I didn't witness so frequently.  

[Dill]

(03-02-2017, 07:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As soon as Trump won the General Election I said we (as a forum and a Nation) are going to spend a minimum of the next 4 years being what we hated for the last 8. Given I am always right, but I can't recall the last time I hit a nail so squarely on the head.

But to answer the question (because that's what I do). I find it more as an attempt to show the other side to be hypocrites. I doubt anyone is truly offended by the left's exposure to be nothing more than the excepting they accused others of being for the last 8 years, they are just "rubbing their noses in it". Just as the left would do so by calling them "snowflakes".

It is a ridiculous dynamic and one I wished I didn't witness so frequently.  

Still thinking Trump will be there four years from now?

Conservatives hated Obama for doing good.

Liberals now hate Trump for doing bad.  Glad someone is pointing out the hypocrisy here.

This ridiculous dynamic will never likely stop.

[Dill]

(03-02-2017, 05:25 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Given the arena he was in and the restrictions he faced, I always thought Colmes done quite well.
There were times he didn't unleash on Hannity, but he didn't need to, with the body language and facial expressions used.
I liked the guy.

I liked him too.  But the OP is right. He did help bolster Hannity. There were many times he just didn't challenge misinformation or craziness--especially in the lead up to the Iraq War.

His job was to give Fox "plausible affirmability" on their claim to be fair an balanced.  I don't have a problem with people calling him out on that.

[*bfine32*]

(03-02-2017, 07:35 PM)Dill Wrote: Still thinking Trump will be there four years from now?

Sure do. Do you still think he won't: 

Win the GOP Primaries?

Get the nomination of his party?

Win the General Election?

Make it to the inauguration?

But I'm sure you think you are right this time

Quote:Conservatives hated Obama for doing good.

They sound terrible

Quote:Liberals now hate Trump for doing bad.

..and apparently Alan Combs according to the OP. They sound awesome 

Quote:Glad someone is pointing out the hypocrisy here.

You're welcome. Many are currently too blinded by petty hate to see it

Quote:This ridiculous dynamic will never likely stop.

That's the spirit. 

[*Nately120*]

(03-02-2017, 07:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As soon as Trump won the General Election I said we (as a forum and a Nation) are going to spend a minimum of the next 4 years being what we hated for the last 8. Given I am always right, but I can't recall the last time I hit a nail so squarely on the head.

But to answer the question (because that's what I do). I find it more as an attempt to show the other side to be hypocrites. I doubt anyone is truly offended by the left's exposure to be nothing more than the excepting they accused others of being for the last 8 years, they are just "rubbing their noses in it". Just as the left would do so by calling them "snowflakes".

It is a ridiculous dynamic and one I wished I didn't witness so frequently.  

It really comes down to how much you think Obama and Trump deserved the derision flung their ways.  I reckon this will just be passed off as me justifying my bias, but Trump butters his bread with the notion that everyone hates him and is against him and the fact that so many people are out to get him is further evidence that he's awesome.  Seems a little unfair to just expect all the haters to fall in line and salute the guy now that he's president, doesn't it?

Well, that and Trump just seems way more easy to hate.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-02-2017, 07:39 PM)Dill Wrote: I liked him too.  But the OP is right. He did help bolster Hannity. There were many times he just didn't challenge misinformation or craziness--especially in the lead up to the Iraq War.

His job was to give Fox "plausible affirmability" on their claim to be fair an balanced.  I don't have a problem with people calling him out on that.

You are constantly telling us how loving libs are and how hateful cons are(they hate Obama because he does good) but you are ok trashing a guy the day after he dies.  I was about to respond to you on the free press thread, but I now realize it's utterly useless.  I look forward to the return of the old Dill.

[Rotobeast]

(03-02-2017, 07:39 PM)Dill Wrote: I liked him too.  But the OP is right. He did help bolster Hannity. There were many times he just didn't challenge misinformation or craziness--especially in the lead up to the Iraq War.

His job was to give Fox "plausible affirmability" on their claim to be fair an balanced.  I don't have a problem with people calling him out on that.

But..... what if Alan thought that he may be able to makes conservatives stop and think ?
Seriously, he made me question some things.
Had he taken an aggressive stance, I would have wrote him off.
We tend to double-down on our opinions when we're challenged.
I will agree there are a few times where he could have done more, but I believe there was a method to his tone and cadence (apart from the times where he was stammering in anger...lol)
I like to think he subscribed to the thoughts of the following article, as I am ATTEMPTING to do.

http://www.learnliberty.org/blog/if-you-want-persuade-people-stop-winning-arguments/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=facebook_page&utm_medium=Learn+Liberty&utm_content=If+you+want+persuade+people%2C+stop+%E2%80%9Cwinning%E2%80%9D+arguments

Quote: Anetlanda/iStock

If you want to persuade people, stop “winning” arguments
David R. Henderson
February 26, 2017


How should believers in freedom try to persuade other people to share their beliefs? Many people believe that they should come up with good arguments, great examples, and moving stories. All of those work — some of the time.
Are there other ways of persuasion that work? I think so. One way, paradoxically, is to give up trying to persuade and instead ask questions. Another way is to settle for one tenth of a loaf. But first, let’s consider why it’s so hard to persuade our fellow humans.
Realizing Capital Losses
Libertarians face the same problem faced by anyone who tries to change people’s minds: most people are strongly attached to their ideas. Michael Walker, formerly the executive director of Canada’s Fraser Institute, once recounted to me a conversation he had had with Friedrich Hayek. Michael had told Hayek how frustrated he was that some of his best logic and evidence seemed to fall on deaf ears. Hayek smiled as if he had heard that complaint hundreds of times. He probably had. Then he said, “One of people’s most treasured forms of private property is their ideas. So when you convince them that an idea they had was wrong, you have caused them to suffer a capital loss.”
One of people’s most treasured forms of private property is their ideas.
There’s a lot to that. I rarely run into people who, when convinced that something they believed was wrong, react with delight. There’s usually some degree of mourning for their “capital loss.”
That suggests that, at a minimum, you should try to persuade people gently: let them realize their capital loss gradually.
Ask Good Questions
But there’s more to say. One thing I’ve noticed over the years is that effective persuaders often sway others indirectly, simply by asking good questions.
Some years ago, a colleague of mine had his students pair off according to their views on a controversial issue, one student on one side of the issue and the other on the opposite. He gave the “persuader” five minutes to try to persuade the “persuadee” of his viewpoint. When the time was up, he asked the “persuaders” to raise their hands if they had persuaded their partner. Many hands went up. Then he asked the “persuadees” to raise their hands if they had indeed been persuaded. Many fewer hands went up.
He then asked the persuaders who incorrectly thought they had convinced their partners to tell what their strategy had been. Invariably, they said that they had been at their rhetorical best, using logic and evidence to make their case. He then asked the persuaders who had succeeded to explain their strategy. Almost invariably, they said that they had simply asked questions. Why do you think what you think? Have you ever thought differently? Do you remember when you thought that way? What kinds of evidence would persuade you? If you thought this particular fact was not a fact, would that change your mind?
Why did this approach work? My view is that the questions loosened things up, making it safer for the persuadee to think about why he (I use “he” because the students were U.S. military officers, almost all of whom were male) really did think what he thought. He didn’t feel under assault by a powerful logic machine coming at him. Once he got to think that way, to express it, and to feel heard, he felt more open to a different viewpoint. That means that both the persuader and the persuadee were working together, with the persuadee doing most of the work, to come to a resolution. In the more typical case where the persuader simply argued, the persuadee was probably using his mental energy to resist.
Sometimes people hand you the right question to ask. One example I’ve seen a lot is when someone says, “I just don’t understand how someone can believe X.” The most common response is that a person who believes X then tries to explain why he believes it. That’s a natural reaction. After all, the original person said he didn’t understand, so it was natural to try to make him understand.
But there’s a crucial missing step, so I always take that step. My first reaction, as someone who believes X, is to say, “You don’t understand, and you want to understand?” Sometimes the person will reply that he doesn’t, or, more commonly, he won’t answer the question at all, but will simply go on to explain why he doesn’t believe X. In that case, I don’t try. But occasionally the person responds “Yes, I really would like to.” That means that he has opened his mind just a little, and so I try to explain.
One Tenth of a Loaf Is Better Than None
Persuasion is gradual. Whatever methods you use, you are unlikely to persuade someone to agree with you completely. Think back to how you came up with your ideas and I think you’ll find that even though you had “Saul on the road to Damascus” moments, most of your views are ones you came to gradually. Remember that fact when talking to others.
Most of your views are ones you came to gradually. Remember that fact when talking to others.
Let’s say, for example, that you’re trying to persuade someone that the minimum wage is bad because it destroys job opportunities for some of the most vulnerable people. There’s a good chance that the person you’re trying to persuade has never heard that argument. A standard reaction you will often get back — since, remember, the person does not want to suffer a “capital loss” — is that while that might be true, there are offsetting gains to those low-wage workers who do keep their jobs.
There are good arguments to make once the person makes that claim. You might want to make them. You also might not want to. Why? Because notice how you have already slightly succeeded. The other person’s “while that might be true” is pure gold. This person has allowed into his brain the idea that there are tradeoffs where he previously saw none. I can’t say that you shouldn’t continue to challenge the person’s claim about offsetting gains. What I can say is that you should regard not challenging as an option — accepting the concession graciously might get you further.
If you see the person you’re trying to persuade as your opponent, you will likely try to beat him.
Notice a word I have not used: opponent. I have not told you how to persuade your opponent. Why? Because if you see the person you’re trying to persuade as your opponent, you will likely try to beat him. That’s almost never good.  People whom you have beat usually feel beaten.

[Griever]

(03-02-2017, 05:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the Liberal as the accepting façade has been exposed for some time now. While this is in poor taste, it in no way compares to how our last fallen SCOTUS was demonized as soon as he drew his last breath.

they sure are closed minded

[GMDino]

I can't believe in a world with a few billion people there are some that aren't compassionate.

Next you'll be telling me that people on the internet have opinions that can't be change no matter how many facts they are shown.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-03-2017, 10:00 AM)GMDino Wrote: I can't believe in a world with a few billion people there are some that aren't compassionate.

Next you'll be telling me that people on the internet have opinions that can't be change no matter how many facts they are shown.

C'mon.  Coming from the guy who posts articles about something some mayor of a town in backwoods NC says?  This is a major liberal publication that I assume has editorial discretion.

[*bfine32*]

(03-03-2017, 10:00 AM)GMDino Wrote: I can't believe in a world with a few billion people there are some that aren't compassionate.

There are not.

Signed:

All Conservatives are racist

[GMDino]

(03-03-2017, 10:32 AM)michaelsean Wrote: C'mon.  Coming from the guy who posts articles about something some mayor of a town in backwoods NC says?  This is a major liberal publication that I assume has editorial discretion.

You mean an opinion writer at Salon or HuffPo carries the same weight as an elected official?

See if someone on this board says all brown people are terrorists they are wrong but do know harm short of spreading hatred.

If the President does it he can actually affect the lives of people he's afraid of. 

That's the difference.

If any government official let's their personal biases restrict the rights and freedoms of people in their district/town/country that deserve mocking.

Larry from KY saying "liberals aren't really conservative because one didn't say enough nice things about the dead conservative" isn't the same.

I will admit to posting opinion pieces if I feel they make a point more eloquently that I could or did.