Anyone else have GOP Friends that they cannot even talk to anymore???

[bijou]

KansasVoter  (930 posts)       Wed Sep-17-08 11:11 AM
Original message
Anyone else have GOP Friends that they cannot even talk to anymore???
 Advertisements [?]Just told a guy I know that I was DONE talking until after the election.

He says that Bush was horrible and that Bush did a horrible job and that Bush did everything wrong.

But "McCain is not Bush" according to him. And Bush just had bad luck. And Clinton just had good luck. Blah, blah, blah!

I have sent this guy pages of crap that he cannot counter.

I just told him today that obviously there is no logic that works with him. He just hates Obama.

Man, this election is pissing me off 1000 times more than any other.
I guess I have worked harder on this election than any other and this is the only one I have donated money to ever. Maybe that is why I cannot deal with these GOP fools.
 

It's official, PDS has taken over from BDS.

ericgtr  (1000+ posts)       Wed Sep-17-08 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
1. My father-in-law sigh..
 He's a Rush/FOX hardcore right winger and I simply can't talk politics with the guy without getting upset.  Other than that he's a great guy though.
 
 bobbert  (411 posts)      Wed Sep-17-08 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
40. Both my father and father-in-law
 are hardcore republicans, fox news, and Rush lovers. At least both of our mothers will vote dem 

 IanDB1  (1000+ posts)       Wed Sep-17-08 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
2. I stopped talking to my last Repuke friend right after Katrina. n/t 
 

firedupdem (741 posts)      Wed Sep-17-08 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
3. I just told a person I thought to be a friend to lose my email and phone 
 number for good last nite. I was sending her emails regarding the election that spoke to the truth...not Palin jokes, nothing one sided and she started sending me emails that had muslim rumor bullshit and crap that has been proven wrong over a year ago. I finally realized she's an asshole and I don't need that in my life.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7094574

Lots of replies.  All across America normal people breathe a sigh of relief. 

[Lord Undies]

I have sent this guy pages of crap that he cannot counter.

Why not?  Was his time limited?

[Miss Mia]

No not at all.  I friendship and family are more important than politics. 

[franksolich]

You know, I have Democrat friends with whom I haven't spoken since.....November 1980, a very long time ago.

We were very young then, and a whole lot of water has gone past the dam, but we remain friends despite that we haven't spoken to each other for quite a while.  I know it sounds odd, but there it is.

It appears to me that November 1980 was the breaking-point of civil political discussion, when the Incompetent One lost in a massive landslide to Ronald Reagan.  Before then, civil political discussion among people who disagreed was not only possible, but common.

One gets an idea of this from reading columnists in old newsmagazines, from say, circa 1960 or 1965 or 1970 or 1975; Democrat and liberal columnists didn't name-call like they have since November 1980.

In fact, I was shocked when sometime during the 1980s, some columnist for the Boston Globe (Thomas Oliphant, I think) referred to then-Senator Robert Dole (R-Kansas) as "right-wing," and in an angry tone.

Whoa.

A columnist before then, even if a wired-out extreme left-wing liberal, wouldn't have used those words, since those words used to smack of demagoguery.  Demagoguery used to be considered poor taste, classless.

[thundley4]

I have a few friends that I disagree with politically, so we choose not to discuss it.  How often do politics come up when a friendship is growing?  Do libs force their politics on everyone they meet? 

[asdf2231]

My two best friends on earth are a rabid Obama supporter and a born again hippy who still votes for Ralph Nader every chance he gets.

We seem to have survived college together 20 years ago and still trade off babysitting.

People who cannot seperate politics from love are what I like to refer to as "Douchebags".

[GOBUCKS]

Wow. A whole thread of mini-bouncies. But the title is misleading.

Anyone else have GOP Friends that they cannot even talk to anymore???

That's better.

I agree 100% with coach on the difference in rhetoric pre- and post-Reagan. Before, a vicious attack on a conservative would simply say that he shares some views with the John Birch Society, which was considered to be the embodiment of evil. Goldwater was slandered as a "Bircher".

There were no attacks on liberals that I can recall, since we only had three TV networks, Time, Newsweek, and the major papers. They were as socialist then as they are now.

Come to think of it, maybe the reason political discourse was more muted then was because people on the right had no public voice whatever. It was a one-sided conversation. Since liberals had total control over every organ of mass communications, had they been more strident it would have looked like unseemly overkill. The ascendency of Reaganism coincided with the introduction of cable television, and then, later, the internet. Those factors made society drastically cheaper and coarser, but they also gave voice to the right, where none existed before.

[asdf2231]

The basic problem these days is that Conservatives think that Libs are childishly naive, dangerously inclined to unpractical national security approaches and prone to socialist and flawed social programs and ideas that go against what they believe the founders of the country intended when they set the framework up. As well as supportive of a policy that most organized religions recognize as a cardinal sin.

And Liberals think that Conservatives are evil and need to die or be in jail.

I may be oversimplifying that a bit.

[franksolich]

I agree 100% with coach on the difference in rhetoric pre- and post-Reagan. Before, a vicious attack on a conservative would simply say that he shares some views with the John Birch Society, which was considered to be the embodiment of evil. Goldwater was slandered as a "Bircher".

There were no attacks on liberals that I can recall, since we only had three TV networks, Time, Newsweek, and the major papers. They were as socialist then as they are now.

Come to think of it, maybe the reason political discourse was more muted then was because people on the right had no public voice whatever. It was a one-sided conversation. Since liberals had total control over every organ of mass communications, had they been more strident it would have looked like unseemly overkill. The ascendency of Reaganism coincided with the introduction of cable television, and then, later, the internet. Those factors made society drastically cheaper and coarser, but they also gave voice to the right, where none existed before.

Great analysis.

Post-November 1980 was also the beginning of the popularity of Molly Ivins, the rabble-rousing name-caller, and one of the biggest wastes of human and journalistic skin.  I wasn't used to this new fashion of coarse and violent language in columnists when I first started reading her, and I'm being honest in saying that Molly Ivins shocked me; I was shocked that newspapers even published her as a professional columnist.

A really nasty little person she was, Molly Ivins.  She wouldn't have made it before November 1980.

[Vagabond]

The basic problem these days is that Conservatives think that Libs are childishly naive, dangerously inclined to unpractical national security approaches and prone to socialist and flawed social programs and ideas that go against what they believe the founders of the country intended when they set the framework up. As well as supportive of a policy that most organized religions recognize as a cardinal sin.

And Liberals think that Conservatives are evil and need to die or be in jail.

I may be oversimplifying that a bit.

If you are oversimplifying, it is not by much.  The question now is, how do you negotiate, in good faith, with someone who thinks you are evil?  I don't know that it is possible.

[Lord Undies]

I agree 100% with coach on the difference in rhetoric pre- and post-Reagan. Before, a vicious attack on a conservative would simply say that he shares some views with the John Birch Society, which was considered to be the embodiment of evil. Goldwater was slandered as a "Bircher".

There were no attacks on liberals that I can recall, since we only had three TV networks, Time, Newsweek, and the major papers. They were as socialist then as they are now.

Come to think of it, maybe the reason political discourse was more muted then was because people on the right had no public voice whatever. It was a one-sided conversation. Since liberals had total control over every organ of mass communications, had they been more strident it would have looked like unseemly overkill. The ascendency of Reaganism coincided with the introduction of cable television, and then, later, the internet. Those factors made society drastically cheaper and coarser, but they also gave voice to the right, where none existed before.

Great analysis.

Post-November 1980 was also the beginning of the popularity of Molly Ivins, the rabble-rousing name-caller, and one of the biggest wastes of human and journalistic skin.  I wasn't used to this new fashion of coarse and violent language in columnists when I first started reading her, and I'm being honest in saying that Molly Ivins shocked me; I was shocked that newspapers even published her as a professional columnist.

A really nasty little person she was, Molly Ivins.  She wouldn't have made it before November 1980.

Don't you think November 1980 was the time the arrogance of the Left met the determination of reality?   November 1980 was when the Left had to stop coasting and start peddling.  All of the sudden they were going uphill again.  That wasn't suppose to happen to them.  

The Left thought they were The Way and The Light.  No one was to challenge their plan, and certainly no one was to have the nerve to stand in their way.  Then the election happened in November 1980.

Soon after Reagan's election, and true to their arrogance, the Left began to think Reagan was a fluke.  They assumed their world would get back in order any day.  That didn't happen, and everyday that didn't happen, up to the present day, has driven the Left further and further into ugly despair.  Now they are in full blown hideous derangement where they are not even compelled to pretend they are anything but what they have always been - but use to try to hide.    

[LC EFA]

I have sent this guy pages of crap that he cannot counter.

Why not?  Was his time limited?

I've seen this in practice. When he says "pages of crap" , he's very close to the truth.

They either copy'n'paste large sections of obscure websites, or simply link to them with a "READ THIS FOR THE TROOF" request.

It is not really that his time was limited; it is more that the time was better spent working, being around the family, and generally enjoying life. 

I'm sure the friend in question could probably counter 90% of the "crap" sent to him by the moonbat, with the simple phrase "That is Bullshit". Assuming that they actually bother to read through hundreds of pages of outright fabrication, paranoid delusions, misinterpretation, misquotation and all the other staples of what passes for leftist intellectualism.

[MrsSmith]

I'll admit that I have a "friend" at work who isn't speaking to me right now.  A couple days ago, he made the statement that Palin doesn't "deserve" to be Vice President because she's never run for President.  I replied that Biden doesn't deserve to be Vice President because he has run, and he's a LOSER.    (I actually did the "L" thing.)  My boss was shoving him out the door and ordering me to be quiet; while he was telling me what all was wrong with Palin, and I was telling him that she cut earmarks in half, etc.  Once my boss got him out the door, my boss turned and glared at me...and I shut up!!  The other guy was still talking as he walked down the hallway, but I couldn't hear him, anyway. 

He had to deliver something to my department today, and I was the only one there.  He said about 2 words (instead of talking at me for 20 minutes, like usual).   

I don't think my boss was really mad at me.  I hope.   

[comradebillyboy]

No not at all.  I friendship and family are more important than politics. 

H5 

I have major political differences with many of my friends; we either engage in civil discussion or avoid discussing politics. People who can't mange one of the 2 options really don't qualify as friends.

[Splashdown]

I'm an English teacher. I can't, almost by definition, have friends in my department without having rabit moonbats for friends. I am the moderator of our school's Young Republicans club. We get along great. If you can't talk and joke about politics, then simply don't talk and joke about politics.

[Chris_]

No not at all.  I friendship and family are more important than politics.  :)

H5  :cheersmate:

I have major political differences with many of my friends; we either engage in civil discussion or avoid discussing politics. People who can't mange one of the 2 options really don't qualify as friends.

That is why structural discussions work well -- you can discuss politics without injecting personal politics into it.

[BlueStateSaint]

I had a heated, animated political discussion with a co-worker Tuesday afternoon.  Problem was, it was on the street, and it continued loudly for a block-and-a-half.  I shut up after we got on North Pearl Street in Albany, and let him rant and rave for a block.  He suddenly got self-conscious and shut up.  The third guy we were walking with was the one I felt sorry for, as he continued walking with us.  When we got back to our building, the other guy was the one that got ridiculed for ranting and raving.  (He was saying that Palin is stupid, a no-talent hack, and I asked him to tell me exactly what the Obamessiah has accomplished.)  Our building is right on the edge of one of Albany's poorer (and minority-inhabited) neighborhoods, so I was taking a chance by arguing against the Obamessiah.  He was sick yesterday, so I couldn't tell him, "You're not going to change my mind."  He's also a rabid Buffalo Bills fan, and I have to offer him a trade--I will pull for the Bills to get to, and win, the Super Bowl (but not beating the Steelers on the way)--only if John McCain is the President-Elect on November 5th, and Sarah Palin is the Vice President-Elect on the same day.  I've got a feeling that he'll go for that.  He may be a moonbat, but he's more of a Bills' fan than a 'bat.

[JohnnyReb]

I don't have a bit of trouble talking to my GOP friends. It's the ticking time bomb moonbats that I dare not say anything remotely political around.