PS: Link here.
I will when they show a sign of being interested in it themselves. They can start by not assigning evil motives to anyone and everyone who disagrees with them.
I won’t be holding my breath.
“Respectful discussion”, by definition, means that both parties are willing to have an honest exchange (D’s aren’t) and that both sides have a measure of respect for one another (I don’t respect them). So….
Sure, right after they’re done calling me a racist bigot homophobe, great time to sit down and tell me that they want to take all our money and give it to their cronies.
There may in fact be some left-liberal proposals and/or ideas worthy of respectful consideration, but not many. This is the basic problem behind the call for “civility”.
Suppose the Democrats propose that we kill all the Jews (euphemized as “investment bankers” or some such, and if you think it’s a far-fetched notion you should look at the flags around Msr. Hollande in the congratulatory celebration of his election). Most Republicans would reject that — BUT the next step is “conference” and “civil discussion” leading to compromise: Just kill half of the Jews. That’s “collegial”. It’s “bi-partisan compromise”. And it means the firing squads should turn around to face everybody concerned.
I’d like to. Honest I would. But dealing with people who think of me as a subhuman primitive makes it difficult to play nice.
As many pointed out, discussion implies a two way exchange. Modern libs are not interested in discussing or even debating the issues, they just want us to shut up and give them our money.
Respect means it goes both ways, so to answer in a word: No.
Besides, I don’t have any respect for them, either.
[…] #rsrh Roger Simon asks “Should we engage liberals in respectful discussion?” […]
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Site by Neil Stevens
| Theme by TheBuckmaker.com