I've promised myself I'm not going to use this blog to be political except in rare, significant occasions. I'm not sure if this really qualifies as significant, but it touches on an aspect of politics that has impacted me personally, deeply, in the past few months and an aspect that I have made a new focus of emphasis in my Poli Sci classes. That aspect is the prevalance of hate speech and demonization in our political discourse. More and more we have this mindset developing that anyone who disagrees with us is evil and out to destroy the United States. It's an offshoot off what Hofstader defined as the "paranoid style in American politics" back in the 1960s, but whatever the cause, it is the biggest threat I see to our nation's success. If one defines the "other side" as evil, that makes negotiation and working together impossible. Many "true believers" on both "sides" don't like to admit this, but the true genius of our nation has been our ability to take widely divergent points of views and work together to achieve a solution. I had accepted this concept for many years, one has to while teaching American History and teaching the many compromises that were crafted in that convention at Philadelphia that designed our Constitution. But it was really driven home by that old son of Mississippi, Shelby Foote, in Ken Burns' Civil War, when he drawled that our "real genius" was compromise and it failed us in the time of the Civil War.
I'm not coming from a "holier-than-thou" position, I get fired up at times and have called Dick Cheney, "Satan". But, as a rule I have tried to recognize the fact that people on both sides, almost without exception, in politics think they are doing the right thing. We may disagree with them, but attributing conspiratorial motives or simply calling them names is wrong. I pray every day that I won't fall pray to this again.
What prompted this rant?
This morning I awoke to find a wonderful Facebook message shared by one of my Facebook friends from one of her Facebook friends. This was the message:
"Before you talk about some one...THINK! T-Is it true? H-Is it helpful? I-Is it inspiring? N-Is it necessary? K-Is it kind?"
What a great idea!! Now for the kicker to me.
The person that made that post, was formerly a Facebook friend of mine. I had to delete that person because almost every day they bombarded my Facebook page with "Obama is a Muslim", "Obama hates America", "Pelosi is an idiot", "Democraps hate this country", "Demo-rats are trying to destroy this country."
Would that we all follow that simple warning before we talk or speak -- even on our Facebook pages.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think there should be exceptions to every rule and in this case for sure. The THINK rule is a wonderful way to live your life , however if certain situations dictate exceptions then that will be the rule. Obama is an exception he should be ridiculed daily far more than he is . He is destroying this country from the inside and most Americans are sitting on their butt letting him do it. I believe this country will never recover from Obama. This post is way too short to go into all the things he has done. Was Paul Revere wrong for letting people know the British are coming.
ReplyDeletePlease don't hold back Anonymous. Please share your reasons why standard rules of civil decorum shouldn't hold in this case. I'll be very interested to see what evidence you have to justify your point of view. You have all the room you need to explain why anything happening now is any different from any other differences between parties and what they see best as their country. There's no limit on space.
ReplyDeleteAs for your historical question, no Paul Revere wasn't wrong. He was responding to an armed assault on the people. What is the similar provocation today? I don't know of anything that has been done without the approval of the elected legislature of our nation.
If you want to have a discussion of ideas, that's great. Bring forth your points to justify hate speech.
Let me add one more comment of sorts.
ReplyDeleteI'm slightly confused by your choice of verbs. I really don't see where I said much about ridicule and also, are you equating Revere's warning as a form of ridicule?
I did mention some ridicule in the form of attacks on Pelosi. But I'm really not upset about ridicule. You can make fun all you want, of Obama's weak throws when making first pitches, etc, I'm not concerned. I'm talking about hyperbole, destructive hyperbole that contributes nothing to the solution of problems and is rooted in misinformation.
That's what I don't like seeing. So, if you choose to answer, I hope you'll explain why you think such hyperbolic statements should be condoned, along with your call for increased ridicule of our national leaders.
Couldn't resist...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/pargon/sets/72157623594187379/
The solution to your problem is simple, don't listen to those you don't agree with. Something you do readily by simply unfriending those you disagree with. Or, you could just stick your fingers in your ears and scream when they talk.
ReplyDeleteYou talk a good game of agreeing to disagree, but don't practice it well. How many people have you unfriended because you don't agree with what the have to say?
You demonstrate exactly the problem with liberals. That of, they know what's best, no one else does. That's not compromise.
I wish I knew if you were the Anonymous who posted earlier, because I would still like to find out more about your doctrine of ridicule. I'd also like to explore what seems to be a contradiction in this post, first you cite "unfriending" as a good option, then you seem to be painting it as something evil. But, I guess if I cared that much I'd check the IP addresses and that if you cared that much you'd have addressed my question.
ReplyDeleteI'll answer one of your questions first and then expand. I haven't unfriended anyone because I didn't agree with what they had to say. Now, I didn't know I'd ever need to account for whom I had unfriended, so I may be off a little on the numbers, but the folks I have unfriended have basically fallen into three groups.
I have unfriended five or six folks because they repeatedly posted whatever was the hot conservative e-mail forward of the day, nearly all of which could be easily found to be false by a simple Google search. I don't think they were malicious, they just didn't care to find out the truth if the story matched what they wanted to believe. So they weren't dropped because I didn't agree, but because they repeatedly posted false information.
A second group of five or six or seven, I unfriended because of how they expressed their opinions. True, I didn't agree with the opinion, but they seemed to always use "ridicule" (to borrow anonymous above's usage) or border-line hate speech to express their opinion. I didn't need to see that popping up on my page, so I removed them.
Now, for both of those groups, had I been as "Facebook savvy" then as I am now, I would not have unfriended them, I would have simply blocked their posts. Of late, that's what I do for anyone falling into those categories or the addicted game players who fill up the page.
There is a third group. That group only containes two individuals and they are special cases. They are special cases because first, they were people I had respected prior to what took place and second, because of the inherent evil nature of what they were doing.
ReplyDeleteBoth cases came out of the health care debate. The problem arose over repeating false information and knowingly continuing to repeat such false information. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was noted for saying that we all are entitled to our own opinions but we are not entitled to our own facts. If you throw truth out the window, it becomes impossible to have any dialogue of substance. In both of these cases, prior to the health care debate, I thought I had experienced exchanges of substance with these two men.
One was our current Congressman. My problems with him arose over his repetition of Sarah Palin's "death panel" charges and the concept behind his famed "resolution" requiring members of Congress to join the health care plan the American people were being forced to join. There are no death panels, and he knew there were not. There was no government plan being forced on individuals. There is a mandate to purchase coverage (by the way a part of the plan I don't support and want to see repealed) but even in those cases the citizens have a choice between private plans.
When I confronted the Congressman his response were in both cases he believed that eventually the passage of this health care plan would lead to such things. Perhaps he is right (I don't think so), but it is very different to run around saying the health care bill WILL do something, instead of saying I believe the passage of the health care bill may eventually lead to certain things taking place in future legislation.
The 2nd person did the same as the Congressman, but he went further. He repeatedly posted whatever the "lie of the moment" from right wing blogs might be. They were almost entirely lies, half-truths or distortions/misreading of the bill. I repeatedly confronted him with the misinformation, he continued to press foward spreading the lies.
When someone, like the folks I mentioned earlier, spreads misinformation when they have been misinformed, that's one thing. When a person is shown they are spreading false information, but they refuse to stop because -- as both of these men essentially stated - they believe the false information will help achieve what they think is a desirable goal it's a more serious matter. Then, to paraphrase the actions of Pilate in the New Testament, I wash my hands of them.
These issues are too important to countenance those who have no respect for the truth and will use lies to advance their cause. (Are there liberals that do that, too? Absolutely, but I don't know them personally, don't interact with them, and they aren't my Facebook friends. If they were, I'd drop them, too.)
I'm not sure about your last paragraph. Are you trying to say that Conservatives DON'T think they know what's best? They don't believe they are right? If so, you need to see what your Congressman said this week. He clearly stated that only one side is right and not only is the other side always wrong, they are so wrong he won't even listen to them.
Also, you really need to think more about compromise. First, you don't compromise about facts. Even if two sides believe different sets of "facts" exist they can compromise over actions to take to deal with the facts. Compromise is about working to find solutions to problems that both sides can accept.
Nothing that caused me to drop John Fleming or this other man as friends had anything to do with compromise. It had to do with disregard and lack of respect for the truth.
John i think you should just go ahead and tell us that you are an ultra liberal Democrat and save all the yada, yada, yada. I know the Democrats have never practiced ridicule ever.
ReplyDeleteJohn please check this out and see if its true or just made up stuff you know they do that about Obama all the time.
ReplyDelete* Obama's violations of federal campaign and ethics laws, including the offers from his administration to Democratic U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, who reported he was offered a high-ranking government job to drop his opposition in the Pennsylvania Senate primary to sitting Sen. Arlen Specter.
* Obama's effort "to persuade the [Illinois] governor to fill the vacated Senate seat with his longtime adviser Valerie Jarrett."
* Suggestions from Obama's own Federal Election Commission documentation that he got at least $33.8 million for his campaign from disallowed foreign contributions, including 520 contributions from interests in Iran as well as $30,000 from the Hamas-controlled Gaza area.
* Obama's administration decision to drop a case that prosecutors already had won against "black nationalist thugs" who were seen on video apparently intimidating voters during the 2008 election.
* Obama fired an inspector general, Gerald Walpin, after he exposed corruption linked to one of Obama's buddies, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson.
* The president's system of rewarding supporters has come under question. The report confirms more than 70 individuals who raised $50,000 or more for Obama "have been rewarded with ambassadorships or high ranking jobs."
A few points. First, you seem to imply I'm trying to disguise my political beliefs. I've never made any secret about where I stand on politics. I've clearly stated it, even on this blog when issues arose. I guess you haven't read that, perhaps because you dismissed it as "yada, yada". If you had read my views, and had a sense of balanced political perspective, you'd know I'm not an "ultra liberal", although I don't take that as an insult, as you may have hoped. My views are left of center, and I would explain them, but you'd call that "yada, yada" because clearly you want short, sound-bite answers.
ReplyDeleteSecond, if you have even bothered to read the original blog post that started these comments, you would have seen that: first, I admitted to even using ridicule myself; and second, I said from the outset that both sides were guilty of this sin, but the immediate trigger was from the right, simply because I probably only have a handful of liberal Facebook friend and most of them are very thoughtul people, more thoughtful than myself and not subject to hypberbolic hate-speech.
Third, I'm not sure precisely where this idea that if someone commits a wrong, it makes it acceptable for someone else to commit a wrong originated. That's apparently what you mean when you want to excuse ridicule coming from Conservaties by saying Liberals have ridiculed, too. It's like that argument I'm seeing raised in the debate over the Mosque that goes something like this, "well, what would happen if someone tried to build a Christian church in a Moslem nation." Obviously the answer is they might well be stopped. But is that going to become our standard, we set our principles only as high as those of the lowest behavior of other nations. I've been very wrong at times when I've used political ridicule, but me being wrong doesn't make it right for someone else to do it, even if doing it in the first place made me feel good, or retaliating made someone else feel good.
Finally, I always find the "yada, yada" attack for long comments rather bizarre. I also readily admit over and over that I write book length posts. But, when someone pops into the blog and complains, I have to ask, did I make you come here, did I make you start reading, did I make you continue to read? If you found it boring or a waste of time, I didn't require you to participate.
Lastly, I guess I'm going to have to require user names or at least trace the IPs. Because I'd like to know are you the original poster who raised the ridicule idea, if so, was that your answer to why you thought Obama needed more ridicule, because liberals used ridicule.
Or are you the one who attacked the concept of unfriending people on Facebook as intolerance, if so, did you just omit your response to that issue.
Or are these three different posters?
So many questions if we seek a dialogue, one needs to know with whom they are speaking.
Answer to anonymous at 3:17
ReplyDeletehttp://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/sunday-replay-6/
The Sestak matter is under investigation to see if there was a violation. Basic answer will be if the GOP wins the House the investigation will move ahead in January, if the GOP loses the investigation will end. That’s how politics work in this country. Most on both sides of these matters are attorneys and are pretty aware of how to violate the spirit of the law while not violating the letter of the law. This was clearly against the spirit of the law, but perhaps not the letter of the law. You may well want to move ahead with this as a crime to lay at Obama’s feet. I didn’t do such when similar things occurred in the past under administrations of both parties, so I doesn’t make such an issue for me today when it happens again.
As to the Jarrett situation it’s not a crime for the President to try and use political influence to get a supporter appointed to a vacancy, it been a standard, expected and encouraged practice since the days of George Washington. I’m sure he did try to persuade the appointment of Jarrett. Guess it didn’t work, so, I’m doubly not sure why this is an issue for anyone who has ever paid any attention to American politics.
You will have to provide me a legitimate source that mentions your allegation of the campaign contributions from Iran and Hamas. I find no mention of it on any legitimate web news source through Google, including Fox News. I did find some mention of something related to this on a few blogs at the time of the final debate before the 2008 election; however, nowhere else. I would particularly like to see the source where you obtained the fact that the FEC, after Obama has been President verified such information. However, I do appreciate you posting an Internet rumor from nearly two years ago, because it lets me know who probably made this post and their goal. But please reply with a link and I’ll be glad to answer, but if you would call yourself “Anonymous 317” so I can tell which person I’m answering.
As to the Black Panther case, the Bush Administration is the one that dropped the criminal charges, the Obama Administration dropped the civil case after obtaining a plea deal or sorts. I disagree with that decision, if for no other reason that I have no tolerance for voter intimidation and also because it opens the door for charges of favoritism. They should have pursued the case, even though it was judged to be unwinnable. Here’s a link about that situation.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/23/bill-oreilly/bill-oreilly-blames-obama-administration-not-pursu/
The facts I find in the Walpin case don’t match the ones you have suggested , particularly when you find that his termination was recommended by a U. S. Attorney appointed by President George W. Bush and his firing was held as acceptable by a Federal Court (admittedly with a Clinton appointed Judge):
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/more-details-emerge-in-president-obamas-firing-of-inspector-general.html
Again, on the last, I’ll defer until you choose to give a source or at least the entire sentence. When a sentence starts with “the report confirms”, I’m always going to want to know which report by whom.
If the links don't work, I apologize, but I know you are more than capable of fixing those things, HTML is a 2nd mother tongue for you.
John what does it matter to whom you are speaking ,we are just discussing politics. John please go on record that you are for them building a Mosque at the site of 9/11 because you are doing the Liberal Democrat two step just say i John Agan am for a group of people that consider all of us infidels , that hate us and want us dead to build a Mosque at the site of the 9/11 the most horrific terrorist attack in American history. I bet the people of Minden would be very interested to read that .John trace the ip address if you want to know who you are speaking to i kinda think it might be 4 or 5 different people.
ReplyDeleteWhat does it matter? Well, I didn't ask whomever or whomevers to reveal their identity. I just asked you to pick a name so I can address the individual concerns. That's what matters and that's all.
ReplyDeleteI will tell you what, regarding your implied threat -- why don't you go ahead and suggest what you think I believe to the people of Minden. Wow, that's rather bizarre, but if you want to threaten me with making up things and telling the town, Feel free. If I didn't try to always keep politics out of my newspaper column, I'd add it for Friday.
But, to make you happy, I'll do it right now. People of Minden, someone who posts on this blog believes I am for a group of people that consider us infidels, that hate us and want to build a Mosque at the site of the 9/11 the most horrific terrorist attack in American history.
I've also posted it in a note on my Facebook page. Is that better?
Now, back to the first paragraph are you a new anonymous or one of the others, so we can get back to the topic at hand in what we were trying to talk about.
I read that 10 times and i see no threat directed at you or anyone else. I think he or she was just wanting you to tell your beliefs in laymens terms instead of Democratic blab.I must be reading the wrong post i see no threats to you or spreading rumors among your town folks. Kinda funny in a way because something as simple as that really did cause a knee jerk reaction in you.
ReplyDeleteWell actually, you read it 11 times, assuming you read it when you wrote it. And either you're a husband and wife, or a little gender confused, because the that post and yours came from the same IP, so I'm not sure about the "he or she" part of this last post.
ReplyDeleteYou're partially correct, there have been five people on this blog today, but only three have made posts.
So you got me, made me go look up the IP. At least so far, I'm not having to resort to making posts and pretending I'm someone else. May get there if I keep playing with you.
Well actually John we are at the end of our conversation and i have to admit i really did enjoy this . We started out discussing standard rules of civil decorum and ridicule and ended with me being called a troll and being gender confused(lol)that was the best part. John i may be a a little hard headed at times but didn't you violate the rules of civil decorum and wasn't i ridiculed. John i also am not pretending to be someone else , i just chose to remain anonymous. Also John i had several people read the post that you answered on your facebook page and asked them if i threatened you everyone said no and i'm sorry you took it that way.(not my intent) In the future don't get so wound up when someone disagrees with you. Please stick to writing about the civil war, Germantown, and the history of Minden that is your strong point not politics.
ReplyDeleteRather odd, everyone that I know saw it obviously as an implied threat. What possible other purpose could it serve?
ReplyDeleteAs for troll being name calling, actually, it's called truth in labeling. You came to this blog, raised issues which I attempted to answer. When I raised issues or in one case answered your questions to the best of my ability, you didn't continue the dialogue or even try to answer the questions, you changed the subject. Then you made a post pretending to be someone else, backing up your previous post.
Sorry, so far as I can tell those are all behaviors of a troll.
I'm not worked up over your disgreeing, I'm worked up over dishonesty, just plain dishonesty and more specifically intellecutal dishonesty. I will not apologize for being disturbed. When someone hides their identity, refuses to answer questions while expecting the other person to answer there is a problem.
Since you decided to give me advice, let me give you some, please don't be afraid to reveal your identity if you want to carry on a discussion of personal qualities, or if not, certainly don't pretend to be two people. Also try to learn to be honest, and tell the truth. It really seems to be a problem for you, even in your closing you state, "I did not pretend to be someone else." Yet you made a post pretending that you didn't know the gender of the person that made one of your own posts and providing backup for that post. I sincerely hope you are the "Computer wizard" who lives here who had already demonsrated a total disregard for the truth, becasue otherwise, I am sad to think there are two people who have such low character living in Minden. That's not ridicule, that's fact.
Wow John low character , intellecutal dishonesty, troll, truth in labeling, plain dishonesty and last but not least Computer Wizard . I don't really think i deserve any of these labels especially Computer Wizard since i barely know how to turn one on. John i will email you my identity in a few days if you will cease with the name calling and ridicule. We don't want to violate the rules of Civil Decorum and most certainly say things like you have said to me in a public forum.
ReplyDeleteLet's see, I'll stop calling you a troll, when you stop being a troll. Since you say you are not computer savvy, I'll answer in that way (disregarding your previous dishonesty), perhaps you aren't familiar with that term in Internet usage and think I meant you live under a bridge. A troll is someone who comes into a discussion, purports to want a discussion, but never participates in the discussion. They do things like you have done -- post questions and when they are answered drop the discussion. Refuse to answer questions given to them, and pose as more than one person to back up their posts. By definition, that is a troll, that is what you have done, there's no other name to give it.
ReplyDeleteIntellecutal dishonesty also describes what you have been doing. When you introduce a topic pose questions and then move on to another topic leaving the previous one because you don't like what was said. That's intellectually dishonest and what a troll does.
You also seemed to have missed that I said I hoped you were a certain Computer wizard -- the label of computer wizard applied to that person, if you aren't that person then it doesn't apply to you.
As for low charater, yes, I consider people that engage in troll behavior as of low character.
If you want to e-mail me who you are that's fine. I would much prefer you decide to be intellectualy honest -- to post under one name (not your name, but a single screen name), to not pretend to be another person to provide support for your other posts and honestly carry on a dialogue. If someone answers your questions, have the decency to answer theirs. Of course, in true troll like fashion, you can't be pinned down for those behaviors unless I bother to check the IPs because it is impossible to detect which comments you made and which were made by others. Take responsiblity for the comments you make, particularly if you want to single them out toward one person.
John you my man are a hoot. Just a quick question or two for you and then i will leave you alone forever . If you find out i'm a student of yours am i going to fail your class? What if i live down the street from you are we still going to be friends? What if we are in the same Sunday school class are you still going to speak to me? What if we bump into each other in Minden from time to time are you still going to visit with me? Ask yourself these questions John.
ReplyDeletePretty simple. If I find a student in my class is posing as another student as you did they will be suspended, not fail. If a student starts a discussion and then refuses to answer question posed by his fellow classmates and myself, as you did, they will be asked to refrain from starting discussion unless they are willing to continue them as an adult. If I have a student who does something to cause a disturbance or a disruption in class and then tries to pretend they didn't do such, they will be at risk of suspension.
ReplyDeleteI don't choose my friends based on where they live. I don't choose people as my friends who are knowingly deceptive or lie to me. If we were previously friends, I would have to consider the behavior in light of our previous relationship. If we are not friends, I don't need friends that display the dishonest behavior you have shown. If your implication is I choose my friends based on their politics, I encourage you to go back to my Facebook page and see the folks who are my friends and the exchanges we have about politics -- honest discussion where we both own our own opinions and treat each other with respect and intellectual honesty.
I currently don't have a Sunday School class. I will always speak to people, but would I want to have a personal conversation with you? Probably not, because I couldn't depend on you being who you say you are.
I apologize to the five folks who are "followers" of this blog in case you receive e-mail notifications of all of these comments, not sure if you do. Sorry what I let this discussion become.
ReplyDeleteHey Anonymous, good job on being a coward. That alone says alot about who YOU are and what kind of character that you have within you.
ReplyDeleteYou want honesty? You show me where John's trying to hide his "politics" and cite them for me.
Also, John and I are diametrically opposed on quite a few political issues and I sincerely wish that I had time to actually sit down and have lunch with him.
I also know John well enough to know that if you're honest about who you are and what you're about and you are in one of his classes, then you don't have to worry about retribution. John's more interested in dialogue and learning about people rather than exercising some sort of a petty power trip on a poor, hapless student.
Be a man, or a woman, and put your name on what you write. Or just keep on being the coward and disgrace that you are since you love internet anonymity...
Sincerely,
Scott Alexander
And you can find me on Facebook too.
John,
ReplyDeleteI came back here after a month's absence and am appalled to find what I believe is you accusing someone else of being me. I have made only one post here. That is the one on August 29, 2010 11:53 AM.
You accuse me and other Conservatives of lying and even go so far as un-friending us for it. That was the gist of my post. You claim ethics as the issue. I wonder where your ethics will be when your "truth" dissolves and our "lies" become truths. For example you said we lied when we said this health care bill would result in the government making life and death decisions. Time will prove one of us correct. I wonder where your ethics will be then.
Good day to you my friend. See, I don't allow differences of opinions with others to affect my friendships with them. Although I will admit your attitude in this has surely stretched it.
Will
I clearly did assume you were the one raising the issues and I was wrong and made a big mistake.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise my position hasn't changed. There isn't "my truth" and "your truth", there is truth. To spread information around that something WILL happen, when it something that you think MIGHT happen and to persist in spreading that with the intent of confusing the issue, even after it has been pointed out, is lying. Worse than lying it is lying for a malicious intent. So, as I stated, I didn't unfriend over a difference of opinion, I unfriended over repeated, unrepentent deception and lying, with the intent of influencing others with those lies.
I would turn the question you poised on you, what happens if "your truth" turns out to be wrong. Will you then be effected by the lies you spread, portraying your distortions as truth to persuade others.
I'm actually not sure I used ethics as my reason, I used the reason that when you try to have a discussion based in facts and the other person refuses to limit themselves for the truth, it's really a waste of time to deal with them in a honest, productive discussion.
To add one other point, that doesn't by any means excuse my jumping to conclusions, but just for the record, I commented early in this thread that I wish those Anonymous posters would pick a name to tell them apart. Once I picked up what I believed to be comments I had heard from you in the past. I assumed the subsequent Anonymous posts were also by you. Doesn't excuse my actions, but if you had used your name in the first place, there would have been no confusion about "who was saying what."
ReplyDeleteAnd how often do you use "Anonymous?"
ReplyDeleteOn the other issue, is it just as lying to cite that something is not going to happen when clearly it could. And to "persist in spreading that with the intent of confusing the issue..?"
The real truth about what we were discussing will only be known after does or doesn't occur. Then it will be my truth or your truth. What I said then and what I say now is I'm betting on my truth. I think Flemming feels the same way.
I can see where you would want that to be a lie, considering your liberal position, but you may be disillusioning yourself.
As for the one issue I cited above on the government making life or death choices with our health care, I base my opinion on most other societies I've looked at that have socialized medicine such as this. If you studied them as I have you will see those governments choose the suitability and how of health care. That can and will affect life or death of people. Now you can call that a lie if you want but I believe it will come to pass if this law remains in effect. And obviously a doctor such as Flemming should have a pretty good feeling of the affect of this law as well.
Incidentally, I'm not the only one that think as I do.
How often do I use anonymous? Every time I post on your message board, ever since I discovered truth didn't matter in your world view, that became my name over there.
ReplyDeleteOur discussion was not about what might or might not happen, our discussion was about a concrete piece of legislation being debated. There was nothing in the bill that created the situation you and Dr. Fleming kept insisting was in the bill, I don't know if I asked you, but I know that I asked the Congressman if he would please add that to his comments. He refused. To tell people that you believe at some future date the conditions established in the bill might cause an event, is very different from repeatedly telling those who are not as aware and can be manipulated that passing the bill will cause such things.
But beyond that, again I can't speak for your view, but I did get the Congressman's view,and the type of provision he claimed would create the situation wasn't even included in the bill. There is no public option, only private options. There isn't a government plan competing with the private sector. The "choice of life and death" will remain where it is today -- in the hands of the insurance companies. See, that's the worst part of the illusion you chose to spread, the idea that life and death isn't already out of the hands of the individual. Insurance companies already dictate who will live and who will die through what they allow to be covered, and they will continue since the absence of a public option will allow them to only prosper more now since they have everyone in the country required to purchase their products.
I see you are still sticking to your "lie" by repeating the "socialized medicine" catch phrase. Exactly what nation did you study that has a plan like ours? I don't know of any country that has this system. I'm sure you are talking about Great Britain, Candada, et al, but if you think that we have socialized medicine, you've really turned a trick, you've convinced yourself of your own lies. There is no socialized medicine in the United States, no government plan -- other than Medicare and Medicaid that have been here for years. Nothing in the bill from last year put the government in the insurance business, you repeated that so often you fooled yourself.
Sorry, I can't share your view of corporate America as concerned about the people. Government may well make bad decisions, but if you were to tell me my "life and death" decision would either be made by government, whom I chose through election or by a corporation, whose only motivation is profit, I'll go for government every time.
By the way, I'm not the only one that thinks so, either. Check out the latest poll that tells us that more than twice as many people think the health care bill didn't go far enough as compared to those that think it went too far.
John once again you have strayed into politics. I was saddened by your attack on Trista Ashley. It seems like your opinion is the only opinion . Wow i just can't believe how you go on and on and don't say anything kinda comical . Why have you such a problem with John Fleming? whats up with that? I don't know who Will is but here"s to ya Will a big high five. Oh by the way John i am anonymous #2 or is that #1 no # 3 oh heck i can't remember. THIS HAS BEEN CHECKED FOR THREATS and there are none. hahaha
ReplyDeleteHave a great election day John and i hope everyone with your views is defeated.
Strayed into politics? Sorry, to disappoint you but I "strayed" into politics in about 1972 and have been actively involved in many ways since that time. It's a big part, now actually more than half, of my job and I am vitally interested in the subject. So, I'm not sure about that idea. I would actually like you to "stray" into politics and articulate some ideas rather than just criticize me, but we take what we can get.
ReplyDeleteIt's Saturday and a while before any good football games, so I'd like to explore your interesting choice of words beyond strayed.
Particularly curious is your assertion I "attacked" Trista Ashley. What happened is that Mayor Robertson made a post to his Facebook page that mentioned "empty promises” in campaigns. I spend a great deal of my time in my Poetical Science classes working on that very issue. I want my students to take any promise made by any politician seriously and explore all aspects of those promises to see if they “hold water.” Since I am a supporter of the Mayor and also strongly believe in that premise, I shared the post on my own Facebook page. A few days later Trista voluntarily made a post on my Facebook page in response to the Mayor’s post (I’ll set aside for a moment the fact that she attributed the introduction of the phrase “empty promises” to me and not the Mayor.) She basically asked how a promise could be empty if the person was never elected and got the chance to carry out the promises. I assumed, incorrectly, based on her later statements, that she was directly addressing the campaign for Mayor in which her former husband is running against the Mayor, particularly since she was addressing in my mind – the “empty promises” phrase that I had not used until that point.
Since I teach this each semester two or three times, I responded with several ways a promise can be empty, even if the candidate making the promise never takes office. Since she seemed to be tying it to the Mayor’s race, I used examples of empty promises that Alton Hortman has made in this race.
She responded again, seeming offended by my response. Now, I am confused at her interpretation and yours, Anonymous. Is it your position that she has the right to come to my Facebook and ask a question challenging my statement, but if I respond to her I’m “attacking her?” I didn’t say anything about her, period. I said much about her ideas and why I didn’t agree and what I thought. It seems that to you Anonymous I am obligated to drop my opinions and automatically agree if someone raises a counter opinion. I’m not going to apologize for holding things I believe very strongly and having lots to say about WHY I believe what I believe.
I would also suggest that maybe one reason you think I go on and on and say nothing, is that apparently my writing style bores you so much you don’t get what I am saying. I say that because you comment that you don’t know what my problem is with John Fleming when I had articulated, in what you call going on and on without saying anything, precisely what my problem was with John Fleming.
I guess I'm also a little confused about why, if you thought I was attacking her, you didn't come to her defense from my attack.
Continued in next post
Do I think my opinion is the only opinion? No. Do I think my opinion is right? Most of the time I do, although I’m not a big fan of political certitude and allow for other valid opinions. If I didn’t think my opinion was right, I wouldn’t have that opinion. I’m sorry that you feel thinking someone’s opinion is wrong and telling them so is attacking, particularly if you are the same Anonymous who earlier reveled in the idea that personal ridicule and attack was a valid political tool. Again if that was you – the only reason I mentioned and asked for numbers or something after the “Anonymous” so I could know what comments had been made by whom earlier in the conversation – it seems to be the ultimate in hypocrisy for you to offer that idea and then categorize me answering a question posed to me as an “attack.”
ReplyDeleteLast thing, you’d better be careful about that last wish. See I don’t vote along party lines. For example, I voted for John Fleming in 2008 – that’s one of the reasons I’m harder on him, I have a stake in his election that year – so when you wish all candidates I vote for defeat, you may be wishing defeat on the candidate you supported. I guess that ends my “attack” on you.
Stake in the election , thats interesting. John i also said i hope everyone with your views (not who you vote for) is defeated (big difference). You also said Trista was offended by your response i'm sure she was and most everyone else in Minden too at least the ones i have talked to. I just have to ask this answer if you want to Who are you backing in the Chief of Police race. There are some fine choices out there. John its been fun we will do it again sometimes
ReplyDeleteAnonymous # 1 # 2 # 3 your choice.
Would you explain why you and "most of Minden" are offended by my response?
ReplyDelete