While Driving, The Car Radio.....

[_honorentheos]

For clarity, let me ask you a few questions:

Her are a few quotes by New York Times writer Sarah Jeong:

.........................
.........................
.........................

what do you think about these? Do you think they are bigoted and intolerant?

I think I have my answer.

(Going to go shopping with the bride - I hope you all enjoy the rest of your day. I'm out.)

I doubt you do, ceebs. You want acknowledgement they were intolerant? Yes, they were. Just as I acknowledge her apology and the Times' statements on it as well. I can see the context in which they occurred, the attitude of Jeong when this was brought up, and the NYT's response collectively and am not concerned that the Times is hiring her with all of this involved because the story didn't end with those tweets four years ago.

I firmly believe context matters. When a major anchor of a news outlet is using racially charged outrage to pump up their base, I'm more concerned because it's explicitly being used to draw viewers and get their ad-money-attracting eyeballs and ears to their channel. It's a serious error in judgment to act like the Jeong issue and the Times' actions are all that is necessary to say the gloves are now off because the left doesn't care about racisim so long as it's towards the right kinds of people. Because they didn't do that, Jeong in 2018 isn't doing that, and those who know what's what aren't doing that. It's interesting you don't see that.

[_canpakes]

Well, so much for having a light-hearted thread. Oh well.

Hey, it can still be light-hearted, even if discussing serious matters. Isn't that part of bridging the divide? ; )

Ceeboo -

I think what is going on here is that Schmo is not arguing that listening to Rush will necessarily make someone intolerant and/or bigoted, but that someone defined as such might prefer listening to Rush given a certain range of choices.

You have a special gift of swooping in to defend anyone who possesses views on the political left - And only those on the political left. Makes me believe that the motivating factor for your defense is, in very large part, because you share those political views. What other reason could possibly explain your selected swooping?

You'll have to be more specific on particular political views. I'll be happy to tell you how I feel about any of them.

Funny thing about those views - I have developed them while growing up in an extremely conservative environment, within a conservative family (including military service by multiple members), and surrounded by a conservative community amongst conservative friends. I would only say that you might guard against the idea that exploring opposing viewpoints is the same as condoning them. It is not.

Or, I guess it could be possible that you have never seen a post here - ever (written by someone who is politically left leaning) that you thought was bigoted or intolerant. Perhaps this is the reason that I haven't seen you swoop in a balanced position?

Oh, I've seen a few.

Here is the quote:
There is no surer way to foster and reinforce your ignorance and bigotry than listening to Rush Limbaugh.

It's crystal clear that the obvious suggestion here is that Limbaugh is intolerant and bigoted - So listening to him will reinforce and foster the listeners intolerance and bigotry. There is simply no other way for reasonable people to come to an alternate conclusion.

I see two ideas there. One is that Rush is intolerant and bigoted. Another is that listening to Rush can reinforce intolerance and a bigoted attitude. These can exist independently. Do you agree?

You've mentioned the so-called unbridgeable divide with regard to political discussion quite a few times in the last several weeks. You've stated that you don't think that it can be overcome. You've reached that point because you must have classified those folks that seem very counter to your own political sensibilities as unreachable, and you don't feel like trying to find a way around that. Is that a correct assessment of your position?

Not really.

I have given my personal opinion that the political divide in this country has reached a point that it is unbridgeable. This view is based on a number of factors (None of which involve mere dissent of political opinions and/or the various political sensibilities that can be found among the collective citizens of this country.) Rather, this unbridgeable divide has been created (for the most part) directly because of the wide spread and complete intolerance of political dissent that can be easily seen on a daily basis all over this country.

Do any of these examples exist on the 'right'-hand side of the political fence?

But you are now arguing that characterizing a person that has openly espoused viewpoints that are typically judged (for right or wrong - the determination for you is yours alone to make) as bigoted, is just as erroneous as the attitudes expressed by the one claimed to be the bigot. In other words, seeking to identify bigotry is, in itself, bigotry.

Nonsense!

OK, then is it fair to term the majority of content found on Stormfront as bigoted? Is it fair to characterize folks who post that same content as bigoted? What should the guidelines be that split us from righteous indignation at the term, to active dismantling of bigotry?

I was arguing that assigning bigotry and intolerance to someone who listens to Rush on a Saturday - because they listen to Rush on Saturday - is itself bigoted and intolerant............Because it is.

I agree, if for no other super-simple reason that I'll sometimes flick the dial over to Limbaugh to see what he's ranting about that day. Doing so doesn't necessarily make me bigoted. Nor anyone else who listens to Rush, on Saturday or any other day.

What matters is what one does with what s/he hears from that program.

Isn't what you are doing here just another version of what Prager - in that opinion piece by him that you posted a while back - was identifying as problematic?

So far, this thread about what people listen to on their car radios has pointed out Limbaugh, Prager and Hannity in a negative light. (Again, I can't imagine why?)

I have an idea why.

Ceeboo, when I listen to NPR, for example, I notice some things. First, I don't hear any of the hysterical viewpoints being bandied about by the commentators or reporters there, which I'm told (by yourself, or Rush, or Hannity, or by virtually every other right-leaning show host) is happening within the Bubble of Leftism that NPR supposedly exists within. In fact, what I often hear is the folks there respectfully interviewing politicians or talking heads with a conservative ideology quite often - or, pressing folks with a more 'leftist' ideology with questions that sound like they were penned by the staff at Fox. Granted, NPR leans decidedly left (my opinion, anyway) in what news stories that they decide to give air time to, but they are very happy to call out and call on to the carpet any voices from within that world to honestly examine and explain their own left-leaning opinions. It's a good give-and-take.

Now, take an honest look (or an honest listen) to Rush. Or Hannity. Or any other conservative radio show. How often do you hear what I just described above? I hardly ever do. Instead, I am told what those evil leftists are supposedly doing and thinking, and those reports are delivered with a palpable level of derision or snark. Sometimes, there are even outright lies thrown in to help make the host's case sound more believable (I just documented one earlier in this same thread). And through all of this is a broad, pulsating negativity about that segment of the population that doesn't agree with Rush. They are referred to less as humans and more like a sort of dangerous mob out to get 'us' - the good, God-fearing people of Conservative Talk Radio Land. 'They' are coming to take everything away - our culture, our country, our religion - and it must be stopped.

I can point to a half-dozen radio shows catering to the right, in my market alone. I haven't found an equivalent radio show that caters to the Left, using these tactics.

Basically, I guess my question to you - after all of this - is how should that sort of daily content be characterized? How close does what Rush, or Hannity, or even Prager at times - land within the definitional world of bigotry? Especially given their presentation?

Please look up the term, and tell me what your answer is.

Let me ask you a question:

Do you think that anyone who reads or listens to politically left views - like the New York Times - is fostering their bigotry and intolerance?

They could be. See my response further up in this post.

For the record, I don't think that every person that reads this paper (Left leaning to be certain - and one of the most read papers in this country) - is fostering and reinforcing their personal bigotry and intolerance because they read the paper. I would assume that most people read it because they like the paper.

Agreed.

For clarity, let me ask you a few questions:

Her are a few quotes by NY Times writer Sarah Jeong:

"Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men."

"white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants".

"Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins,"

(I couldn't post some of her other disgusting, hate filled, racist, bigoted and intolerant comments as they would be against the board's rules)

what do you think about these? Do you think they are bigoted and intolerant?

Certainly. Even with the argument of needing to look at this episode in context, it was stupid for Jeong to stoop to the same level of the folks who were harassing her and who supposedly instigated her to respond in this way. Regardless of her frustration, this behavior only feeds the same set of trolls.

As it is, Jeong is being hit hard on her Twitter feed in response. Take a look:

https://Twitter.com/search?f=tweets&ver ... 0&src=typd

What do you make of what you see happening, there? What do you suppose are the general political leanings of the crowd attacking her? What do you want to say about that?

And what is your opinion about the New York times' decision to stand by Sarah?

Maybe keeping her on staff is part of bridging the divide, if she can speak out publicly about her past behavior and its lack of sensibility.

What do you think about the elected and sitting democratic congresswoman from California. Maxine Waters, who issued a clarion call to her fellow democrats - which among other things - encouraged and incited mob violence against dissenting political views.

Here is one of Maxine's recent quotes: "God is on our side! On the side of the children. … Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere."

Can you find any bigotry or intolerance in that?

Sure. but it also mimics what the Left has arguably been hearing from the Right for a few decades now, going back to Falwell and his Moral Majority. You know, "God is on our side!", and how they aren't going to 'take it' any more. Go get them liberals, those gays, those communist lefties. All that good stuff.

How about the ever growing Antifa population - What's your personal opinion about these violent American militant groups that are popping up all over this country? Do you think they exhibit any bigotry and intolerance? Do you support them?

I can't claim to 'support Antifa' because the term refers to a loose coalition of folks with some pretty widespread views, and I cannot say that I definitively agree in whole with any one component group's ideology or actions. You'll need to be more specific.

But I do find it a little bit amusing that you ask me about "these violent American militant groups that are popping up all over this country", without even mentioning the factor that just might be responsible for them 'popping up'. Can you guess what I'm referring to? In fact, here we go again - there's another Unite the Right rally occurring in DC that could be seen as instigating these Evil Antifa Leftists into 'action', whatever that is. But why do you not mention the alt-right's involvement, here? Are white nationalists, neo-Nazis and members of the Ku Klux Klan just not considered to be bigoted, militant, or violent, in any way? Are they not a part of the discussion about the apparent bigotry pervading American political opinions?

The fact that they didn't even merit mention in your post is curious.

[_honorentheos]

Granted, NPR leans decidedly left (my opinion, anyway) in what news stories that they decide to give air time to, but they are very happy to call out and call on to the carpet any voices from within that world to honestly examine and explain their own left-leaning opinions. It's a good give-and-take.

The Pew Research Center put out findings along these same lines, showing when it comes to listener perception and their own political persuasion, NPR is perceived to be well on the liberal side of the spectrum, and listened to more by liberals based on polling -



But assessments of their journalism placed them fairly center. The Pew's page above noted -

Almost Center News Sources

The following news sources are rated as "Center" by AllSides and are noted for stating an independent and unbiased agenda, as well as consistently providing balanced coverage (giving time to both sides of an issue). However, they are listed here as almost center because of audience distrust from conservatives.

Respondents to the Pew survey who are consistently liberal, mostly liberal, and mixed views, rated these sources as more trusted than distrusted. Mostly conservatives rated them as about equally trusted as distrusted; Consistently conservatives rated them as more distrusted than trusted.


•NPR
National Public Radio is a U.S. private and publicly funded non-profit organization that syndicates to a network of local stations.


•PBS NewsHour
The Public Broadcasting Service is a non-commercial U.S. television broadcaster and distributor.


Even more concerning is the divide that has occurred most recently with Republicans/conservatives viewing the media as interfering with politicians doing their jobs compared to Democrats/liberals viewing media serving as a watch dog that keeps politicians from doing things they shouldn't be doing -



During the Reagan/Bush years v. Clinton years it's easy to see the trend basically aligning with whomever held the White House having a less favorable view of the media's role in Washington. It's interesting to see the lines converge under Obama, though, only to exponentially diverge with the election of Donald J. Trump. It's pretty clear this is a case of people being partisan rather than rational.

Last of all, and in relation to this thread, one can see that one's political affiliation seems to influence how one views media in general -

[_canpakes]

Ceeboo, just thought I'd comment more specifically on this part:

What do you think about the elected and sitting democratic congresswoman from California. Maxine Waters, who issued a clarion call to her fellow democrats - which among other things - encouraged and incited mob violence against dissenting political views.

Here is one of Maxine's recent quotes: "God is on our side! On the side of the children. … Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere."

Can you find any bigotry or intolerance in that?

Here's a more complete quote:

We want it done now. We want it done now, we’re gonna insist on it, if you think we’re rallying now, you ain’t seen nothing yet!

Already, you have members of your Cabinet that have been booed out of restaurants, who have protesters taking up at their house, who sang, ‘No peace, no sleep. No peace, no sleep.’

And guess what, we’re going to win this battle because you try to quote the Bible, Jeff Sessions and others – you really don’t know the Bible.

God is on our side.

On the side of the children.

On the side of what’s right.

On the side of what’s honorable.

On the side of understanding that if can’t protect the children – we can’t protect anybody!

And so let’s stay the course. Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere …"

A few comments about this... first, her statement was specifically concerning the issue of child/parent separation re; migrant/illegal entrant detentions. The quote you supplied is suspiciously stripped of some lines that would have made that context more clear. Were you aware of this editing?

As such, this is not so much of a bigoted cry against opponents for any reason as it was a call to action for a specific reason.

I might also point out (and as I'm betting you already know), Waters' references as to where God supposedly stood in that debate was prompted by Jeff Sessions and SH Sanders quoting Biblical passages as a way to rationalize their policy. Not sure how you view that, but I'd have to go with Maxine as being closer to the truth on this one. And I'm not even any sort of fan of hers.

YMMV.

[_Gunnar]

Correct, most of the bigotry and intolerance we see today is coming from the left - do doubt about it.

I am at a complete loss to understand how any rational, compassionate individual can possibly come honestly to that conclusion! All the hateful bashing and disparaging of blacks, Jews, foreigners and both undocumented and legal immigrants I hear and see is coming from the hard right. Almost all of the support I see for treating minorities and the poor fairly, equally and compassionately comes from liberal and moderate sources, while those most subject to "liberal bashing" and condemnation are genuine bigots who really deserve such bashing. There is really no more, if any, equivalence between liberal bias and hard right conservative bias than there is between flat earther bias and heliocentric, round earth bias.

Please understand that I am talking about Trumpists and hard right conservatives--not conservatives in general. I recognize that there are political and economic conservatives who are genuinely caring, honest and compassionate people. Until some of your more recent posts, I was strongly inclined to believe you were one of them!

[Guest]

Ceeboo, just thought I'd comment more specifically on this part:

What do you think about the elected and sitting democratic congresswoman from California. Maxine Waters, who issued a clarion call to her fellow democrats - which among other things - encouraged and incited mob violence against dissenting political views.

Here is one of Maxine's recent quotes: "God is on our side! On the side of the children. … Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere."

Can you find any bigotry or intolerance in that?

Here's a more complete quote:

We want it done now. We want it done now, we’re gonna insist on it, if you think we’re rallying now, you ain’t seen nothing yet!

Already, you have members of your Cabinet that have been booed out of restaurants, who have protesters taking up at their house, who sang, ‘No peace, no sleep. No peace, no sleep.’

And guess what, we’re going to win this battle because you try to quote the Bible, Jeff Sessions and others – you really don’t know the Bible.

God is on our side.

On the side of the children.

On the side of what’s right.

On the side of what’s honorable.

On the side of understanding that if can’t protect the children – we can’t protect anybody!

And so let’s stay the course. Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere …"

A few comments about this... first, her statement was specifically concerning the issue of child/parent separation re; migrant/illegal entrant detentions. The quote you supplied is suspiciously stripped of some lines that would have made that context more clear. Were you aware of this editing?

As such, this is not so much of a bigoted cry against opponents for any reason as it was a call to action for a specific reason.

I might also point out (and as I'm betting you already know), Waters' references as to where God supposedly stood in that debate was prompted by Jeff Sessions and SH Sanders quoting Biblical passages as a way to rationalize their policy. Not sure how you view that, but I'd have to go with Maxine as being closer to the truth on this one. And I'm not even any sort of fan of hers.

YMMV.

I'm with you on Maxine Watters. I certainly am more in sympathy with her view (as completely quoted) on this (or almost any other issue) than with that of most of her most virulent attackers. Additionally, I am at least slightly more a fan of hers than you are. She is certainly far from the low IQ moron that Trump characterizes her as! I would definitely vote for her over Trump for President if they were the only two running!

[_canpakes]

Correct, most of the bigotry and intolerance we see today is coming from the left - do doubt about it.

I am at a complete loss to understand how any rational, compassionate individual can possibly come honestly to that conclusion!

I'm just not seeing that this statement jives with reality, either. I don't see that any evidence has been presented to support it.

[_Some Schmo]

Correct, most of the bigotry and intolerance we see today is coming from the left - do doubt about it.

I am at a complete loss to understand how any rational, compassionate individual can possibly come honestly to that conclusion!

I'm just not seeing that this statement jives with reality, either. I don't see that any evidence has been presented to support it.

I read it and felt justified in everything I've said to Ceeboo lately. It's one of the most outrageous falsehoods ever to appear on this board, and shows just how deluded certain people are concerning politics these days. It's like someone coming on and claiming the sky is usually purple. Everyone (who cares about what's real) can see you're just wrong. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of objective fact.

ETA: by the way, I'm pretty sure when someone points out that someone else is wrong, based simply on the facts (like in this case), there is an attitude on the right that this, itself, constitutes bigotry/intolerance.

I am a bigot to the degree that bigotry applies to people who are intolerant of opinions contrary to facts.

[_Ceeboo]

Or, I guess it could be possible that you have never seen a post here - ever (written by someone who is politically left leaning) that you thought was bigoted or intolerant. Perhaps this is the reason that I haven't seen you swoop in a balanced position?

Oh, I've seen a few.

You have seen a "few?" (Wondering if that means 4 or if that means hundreds)

Assuming you have only seen 4 and considering how often you post - why haven't you ever posted a comment on any of them? Don't you think that's a little odd?

I have given my personal opinion that the political divide in this country has reached a point that it is unbridgeable. This view is based on a number of factors (None of which involve mere dissent of political opinions and/or the various political sensibilities that can be found among the collective citizens of this country.) Rather, this unbridgeable divide has been created (for the most part) directly because of the wide spread and complete intolerance of political dissent that can be easily seen on a daily basis all over this country.

Do any of these examples exist on the 'right'-hand side of the political fence?

Of course there are examples on the "right-hand side of the political fence." in my opinion, in order to have serious discussion, both sides of the discussion must be able to understand and accept that there are always exceptions and that the general rule is what we (or at least I) am/are talking about.

OK, then is it fair to term the majority of content found on Stormfront as bigoted?

I know exactly nothing about Stormfront - So I am unable to offer any opinions on it.

Is it fair to characterize folks who post that same content as bigoted? What should the guidelines be that split us from righteous indignation at the term, to active dismantling of bigotry?

How about this, (no matter what radio station someone may or may not listen to on any given day - or what paper they may or may not read - or what vote they may or may not have casted - or what news channel they may or may not watch ) why don't we consider characterizing the bigotry of someone (or lack there of) by what the individual person says. Why aren't we able to see bigotry without wearing political glasses? Why does it seem like we selectively see bigotry and intolerance?

Perhaps this board is too small of a sample (and perhaps there are a fair amount of other factors in play here) but I think it's ridiculous that almost 100% of the "bigotry" and "intolerant" application here is upon those who lean politically right. Given the huge number of times that I have seen someone here called a bigot or intolerant - I don't think I recall a single example where a left-leaning board member pointed out a bigoted or intolerant post by another left-leaning board member.

I posted some examples of some of the most obvious vile, racist, bigoted and intolerant comments and the replies where allattempts to excuse and or deflect from the obvious. It makes me wonder if who says something is being seen as much more important than what someone says. I would suggest that the threads on this board would strongly support this suggestion/observation.

I'll sometimes flick the dial over to Limbaugh to see what he's ranting about that day. Doing so doesn't necessarily make me bigoted. Nor anyone else who listens to Rush, on Saturday or any other day.

What matters is what one does with what s/he hears from that program.

That is patently false and it's a part of the bigger issue, in my opinion.

What matters, in all cases in my opinion, is the behavior of the individual. What they listen to - or what they read - or what they watch - does not take away from the responsibility of the individual person to recognize the freedoms of those they may not agree with politically. As someone who is ideological on the political right, I don't care if someone listens to Maddow, reads the NY Times, watches Maher, votes for a specific candidate, etc, etc (I personally believe these freedoms must be available to all Americans (because this is America) and I would never suggest that they ought to be taken from the public square.

Ceeboo, when I listen to NPR, for example, I notice some things. First, I don't hear any of the hysterical viewpoints being bandied about by the commentators or reporters there, which I'm told (by yourself, or Rush, or Hannity, or by virtually every other right-leaning show host) is happening within the Bubble of Leftism that NPR supposedly exists within.

Unfortunately, I don't know anything about NPR either, so I can't comment on that program. But I will stand by my comments on hysteria (One example of this hysteria is the one I posted about Trump/Putin/Helsinki/ being equal to The Holocaust/911/Pearl Harbor. I gave that a 100 on a scale of 1 to 100 - I am fairly confident that you didn't agree with me on that and that's fine. Agreement, especially if we are talking about Americans collectively, is entirely impossible, Clarity of our positions, even if the positions are very different, is much more valuable in my mind.

In fact, what I often hear is the folks there respectfully interviewing politicians or talking heads with a conservative ideology quite often

If true, that would be extremely refreshing (and rare) to hear. Perhaps I will check out NPR some day.

Now, take an honest look (or an honest listen) to Rush. Or Hannity. Or any other conservative radio show. How often do you hear what I just described above?

With the one exception of the Prager show (I adore him, his show, and his views on a variety of subjects that are not limited to just politics) I rarely (almost never) listen to talk radio. In addition, it's also very rare that I watch any of the TV/News channels (Fox, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc) I simply find all of them to be littered with exceptionally opinionated spots, deeply partisan panels with very little news being reported. I do watch some TV news if there is breaking stories (Wild fires, Plane crashes, people trapped in a mine, etc) but unfortunately today's news ("reporting") is almost entirely about people calling other people racist, or fascist, or sexist. That's not news and in my opinion the "reporters" have forgotten what their roles are and they have given themselves the authority and responsibility to tell their audiences what to think, how to think, and what to think about.

And through all of this is a broad, pulsating negativity about that segment of the population that doesn't agree with Rush. They are referred to less as humans and more like a sort of dangerous mob out to get 'us'

Do you see any pulsating negativity being displayed towards the segment of the population that does agree with Rush? How about Prager? How about Hannity?

Do you see any pulsating negativity being tossed upon any members of the population that voted for Trump?

You see this goes both ways. Might I suggest that we ought to consider the actions and behavior of individual American citizens (and not what radio show they listen to) as the determining factor for delivering this pulsating negativity upon people in this country. Sound like a good idea?

Basically, I guess my question to you - after all of this - is how should that sort of daily content be characterized? How close does what Rush, or Hannity, or even Prager at times - land within the definitional world of bigotry? Especially given their presentation?

Bigotry can be found all over this country - Since you have for my opinion, I would suggest Americans ought to be able to point out bigotry wherever they see it unite against it (Not only when said bigotry is coming form a specific person who happens to belong to a specific political party.) Unfortunately, it has been my experience that Americans (At least enough Americans to make it a real problem) are not capable of doing this as their personal political views will not allow them to see bigotry if the bigotry is coming from someone that is in the same political camp as they are.

it was stupid for Jeong to stoop to the same level of the folks who were harassing her and who supposedly instigated her to respond in this way.

Among other things, this is a great example that shows how we see things so differently (That's not meant as a jab at you, only an observation that illustrates the huge difference)

You see her comments as "stooping to the same level of the folks who were harassing her and who supposedly instigated her to respond in this way." (Stooping to the same level, instigated her to respond that way)

I see her comments as it as disgusting, vile, racist, bigoted and intolerant. Period.

I can't even imagine a scenario where comments (any comments at all) would cause me to write the kind of disgusting, hate filled, racist, vile and intolerant comments that she wrote.

Why do so many people go to such lengths to excuse - or deflect from - or defend obvious bigotry? If we can't all agree on an example of bigotry and intolerance that is as obvious and crystal clear as this example is/was, then I am sincerely afraid that we might to be able to agree on literally anything,

Maybe keeping her on staff is part of bridging the divide, if she can speak out publicly about her past behavior and its lack of sensibility.

LOL (Sorry, not laughing at you - that was really my reaction)

I can't claim to 'support Antifa' because the term refers to a loose coalition of folks with some pretty widespread views, and I cannot say that I definitively agree in whole with any one component group's ideology or actions. You'll need to be more specific.

But I do find it a little bit amusing that you ask me about "these violent American militant groups that are popping up all over this country", without even mentioning the factor that just might be responsible for them 'popping up'.

I'm glad you found it a little amusing. I don't.

Once again, you focus entirely on the suggested reasons they are popping up and you don't place any accountability to the people in these groups who are violently screaming at American citizens trying to eat lunch (In America) - Screaming things at them like "Racist" Fascist" "Get out of this country". They are causing bridges to be closed, they are stopping traffic. They are attacking/bullying/harassing American citizens, on American streets for wearing a Trump hat. They are attacking mothers in parking lots, because they have a Republican bumper sticker. But, as you suggest, they have had their raging flames of anger stoked by other people so they need not adhere to the civilized behavior that is expected by most of American citizens.

there's another Unite the Right rally occurring in DC that could be seen as instigating these Evil Antifa Leftists into 'action',

See my above comments.

But why do you not mention the alt-right's involvement, here? Are white nationalists, neo-Nazis and members of the Ku Klux Klan just not considered to be bigoted, militant, or violent, in any way? Are they not a part of the discussion about the apparent bigotry pervading American political opinions?

Because the discussion in this thread (car radios) has brought up Prager, Rush and Hannity. The KKK or Neo-nazis haven't been introduced to the thread - until now.

Of course I believe that the KKK/Neo Nazis groups are bigoted. Seriously?

The fact that they didn't even merit mention in your post is curious.

Curious? It can only be seen as "curious" if you don't recognize what the topic/topics being discussed in this thread were/are.

The fact that you didn't even mention Hitler in this thread is curious (Yeah, that's about as silly as your comment isn't it?)

[_Xenophon]

I know you didn't ask me, but since I am a Family subscriber to Spotify, I feel qualified to answer this challenge.

...[snip}...

It's totally worth it. I have gigs of mp3s I never listen to because I don't need them. Frankly, there's no need to own any digital media anymore (unless you just like collecting stuff). Everything is in a cloud somewhere.

Schmo's thoughts on the superiority of Spotify are right in line with mine. I'll just add that I too typically prefer to listen to whole albums and that is readily accessible on 99.999% of the things I want to hear, even accounting for some of my more eclectic tastes. It is also crazy how good the music recommendation algorithms are. I know Pandora has similar features but I've found Spotify is good for recommendations across genres in a way I hadn't seen from other sites. I've been introduced to a whole slew of musicians I might never have discovered if they hadn't been offered up to me.

It has gotten where I can go most of the day with just the single app, jumping from pump-up tunes for my workout, a podcast on my morning ride in, a channel designed to help me focus during a project at work, to some mood setting music for dinner with my wife that evening. As much as I love some of the old-school aspects of music (I've still got quite the vinyl collection) there is just something extra nice about bringing your listening experience into the modern world.

Also I think you can test it for like 90 days with just a dollar so not a bad little trial period.