How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Politics or just plain hatred?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ]
 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Politics or just plain hatred?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


125 posted 03-26-2010 12:28 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

If they were so proud of this mess they just jammed down our throats they'd be hyping that, not trashing those who opposed it, would they, Mike?  They do think we are stupid and they think they know better than we do. They have a rude awakening coming their way.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


126 posted 03-26-2010 12:36 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Their arrogance will be their downfall, Denise.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


127 posted 03-26-2010 01:01 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Let’s just hope that "rude awakening" doesn't come in this form - teabaggers in silly hats marching again with pitchforks.

Then again, perhaps teabaggers parading with pitchforks is a heck of a lot safer than thousands of them gathered at an Open Carry rally.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


128 posted 03-26-2010 01:10 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Hey, Denise, should we pretend to be offended by Jenn's comments to make her feel better or just continue ignoring them? I'll vote for the latter
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


129 posted 03-26-2010 01:36 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:

Bob, I see nothing about the party being "democratic" these days, in any way. Democrats they are.

Your post reiterated the news stories about threats against democrats but ignored my statements about the threats, present and past, against republicans that the press virtually ignore or slip on page 42. When that happens, it shows the bias I refer to. The word obviously went out  before the vote to trash the movement and the press complied. Right before the vote a "tea-partier" screamed at a disable man. Some alleged "tea-bagger" in the crowd shouted an alleged racial slur at a congressman, with no proof. Now "tea-baggers" are threatening congressmen. All of these things get major press coverage. The threats against republicans? Barely a whisper. The threats against Stupak by the left and unions before he changed his vote? Nope, not much there, either.

You may not wish to recognize this ploy but, believe me, many do and, once again, democrats underestimate the intelligence of the American people. It's another example of why network news watcher numbers has plummeted faster than Clinton can unzip his pants.



     I'm sorry about whatever threats the Republicans have gotten.  If they've come from Democrats, the democrats were wrong.  They should be investigated by the police and prosecuted fully.  If there was hate-speech involved, then the necessary hate-speech legislation should be invoked.  There's no excuse for this sort of stuff no matter who does it, Mike.

     Nobody asked you what your views were on what my Party decided to name itself, Mike.  The name was given, and really, that's what's supposed to be used, the same way that I am obligated to call you Mike, Michael or Balladeer, even when I'm frustrated with you.  That's the social convention.  If I'm to slap you with a personally insulting name because I want to, that says something about what I think about our relative social positions now, doesn't it?  It says that I think that I'm allowed a special set of rules that you aren't allowed and that I'm better than you are.  

     I am not better than you are.  

     You treating me and people in my party in this way is insulting.  It also blocks actual conversation about issues, while I spend time not only trying to address the issues, but attempting to get you to treat me and members of my party with civility.  Civility shouldn't be hard, it should be pretty much reflexive.  You would like it from others, and even get upset when you don't feel you get enough of it.  Offering it isn't a bad way to start.

     I heard some of the stories about Republicans getting rough treatment, and I don't like them any more than I like the stories about Democrats getting bad treatment.  I would like to point out to you, that stories about stuff said and done to Democrats have pretty much been ignored, passed over or outright denied by the Republicans since the last election.  We could go back further, should you wish, but we don't have to.  The Republicans have been outright lying and certainly distorting the facts about the Obama administration and this insurance bill from the beginning.  I have seen Grinch correct distortion after distortion within these pages.  I cite him because he is conservative, and you have at least from time to time listened to the reality of what he has said.  Similar things said by myself or others on the left have seldom been acknowledged at all.

     It seems to have made no difference, however.  You get shot down about your facts once, twice and more (death panels come to mind) and the same stuff crops up again as though you weren't aware that it was a lie.  None of this has mattered to you, near as I can tell, in the least.

     Until.

     Until the bill passed and the public began to look around at the sort of atmosphere had been created over the past almost two years.  Until it began to soak in that there were actual threats of armed unrest in the streets, and that the Republicans were — if not actively encouraging them, a position which I believe there is plenty of evidence to support, should we wish to go coal mining in that direction some day — at least passively encouraging and cheerleading.  Instead of trying to keep the burgeoning violence in line, what we got were voices that said, "Bluster, Bluster, Bluster, violence is right on the horizon, it's right next door, it's coming because of the Democrats who are taking our freedom away from us; and we understand that.  Of course it's understandable that you would believe the lies we're telling you.  Here are some more:  You'll lose your doctor.  The Democrats are taking over the health care system and they fascist, Nazi, communist tyrants.  Also bluster, Bluster, Bluster."

     Until the public looked around and began to say, hey, this is pretty ugly stuff the Republicans and the Tea Party folks are doing here.  We really don't like it at all.  It's sort of disgusting, this level of violence and threats of violence."

     Now, of course, the Republicans have still not gotten around to saying, We're sorry.  

     They still indulge in calling folks things like "Baby-killer" on the floor of the house, and calling the President a liar in a joint session of congress.  They wait till they're forced to say, That wasn't what I actually said in public, then go off on right wing talk shows and brag about how they got away with it and use the incidents to raise money from the very loonies who are responsible for some of the violence making the rounds now.

      The latest response — and I confess I find this response just a little bit more revolting that some of the previous responses — is to say, Me Too!  

     Yes, Folks, we Republicans too have been the poor victims of hate and violence, and what;s more, we want to know why this hasn't been made as important as the wave of hate that we've unleashed countrywide over the Democrats.  

     I am authentically sorry that the Republicans have been swept up in this.  It's not that I would wish it solely on the Democrats; it's that I don't like anybody getting this sort of response.  I also think it might have been a little tiny bit foreseeable, and that the Republicans have been getting told right along that once you release this sort of rhetorical wave, it's not good for the country period.  That's still true, by the way.  
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


130 posted 03-26-2010 02:26 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise



Maybe I'll quit my job, join Organizing for America, plaster the internet with trumped up stories in an attempt to smear average everyday Americans in an effort to enhance the image of The One, then sip a latte while relaxing in front of the TV watching the boobs on MSNBC, and daydream about the ways I will spend the redistributed wealth that will soon be coming my way courtesy of the idiots who insist on continuing to work, Michael! Care to join me?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


131 posted 03-26-2010 02:32 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Are all the stories trumped up Denise?

.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


132 posted 03-26-2010 04:36 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

You can never say 'all' or 'none', Grinch, but since the administrator of Security at the Capitol issued a memo yesterday stating there had been no uptick in the number of incidents this week, over and above the average that they always get, which target both sides of the aisle, I'd say all of this attacking of the right is quite trumped up, nothing but political grandstanding. Very Alinskyesque.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


133 posted 03-26-2010 04:40 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Have you read Saul Alinsky, yet, Denise, or not?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


134 posted 03-26-2010 06:09 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I'm sorry about whatever threats the Republicans have gotten.  If they've come from Democrats, the democrats were wrong.

That's good of you, Bob. If you were to say, "I'm sorry about whatever threats the Democrats have gotten. If the've come from Republicans, the Republicans were wrong". You don't say that, though, do you. The "ifs" somehow got lost in the journey from one party to the other. On this side of the coin, it changes to the Republicans being responsible, taunting, antagonizizng, calling for violence....no "if" the republicans in sight.

There's no excuse for this sort of stuff no matter who does it, Mike.

On that we can agree. There is also no excuse for placing the blame on the actions of a few idiots on an entire party, which you are more than willing to do to the Republican party, but not to the democrats when the roles are reversed. There is no excuse for the media give front-page headlining to acts against democrats and find it not newsworthy enough to mention when it is against Republicans.

Now, of course, the Republicans have still not gotten around to saying, We're sorry.  

You need to watch more tv, Bob. All major Republicans have condemned these actions. They should say," We're sorry"? I'm sure everyone is sorry that these kinds of acts exist...or do you want them to say they are sorry because they committed them? They didn't and they have never advocated it.

They still indulge in calling folks things like "Baby-killer" on the floor of the house,
which he didn't do. He called the bill a baby-killer
and calling the President a liar in a joint session of congress.
Which was true.

You treating me and people in my party in this way is insulting.

I'm assuming you typed that without laughing, though I don't know how. Do you really want to speak of insulting a party? Yes, Folks, we Republicans too have been the poor victims of hate and violence, and what;s more, we want to know why this hasn't been made as important as the wave of hate that we've unleashed countrywide over the Democrats. Bob, I could fill many pages with direct insults you have made concerning the Republican party and you know it. You don't even have the courtesy of saying Republican leaders or specific Republicans. You just apply them to the entire party. SInce I am a member of that party, I must assume you are applying it to me as well. Now you complain that the word democrat is insulting to you and your party and you want it stopped? Rotsa ruck.

The word is in the dictionary. It is not considered blasphemous (yet) and it is not on the list of banned words on this site. I will continue using it. You may call me anything you like. Yoo may call the republican party anything you like. You can call them Repubs and say  it stands for the regrowth of pubic hair after a close shave. I could care less. If you really want respect for your party, you may try giving some, instead of the dozens of insults and accusations you have thrown our way. It's regrettable that you don't like it but, for me, the name of your party will continue to end with -rat.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


135 posted 03-27-2010 12:40 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:
  Bob says:
I'm sorry about whatever threats the Republicans have gotten.  If they've come from Democrats, the democrats were wrong.

Mike replies:
That's good of you, Bob. If you were to say, "I'm sorry about whatever threats the Democrats have gotten. If the've come from Republicans, the Republicans were wrong". You don't say that, though, do you. The "ifs" somehow got lost in the journey from one party to the other. On this side of the coin, it changes to the Republicans being responsible, taunting, antagonizizng, calling for violence....no "if" the republicans in sight.



     I'm a Democrat, Mike.  I can say I'm sorry about things members of my party have done that I don't approve of.  I would have trouble speaking for members of other potentially offending groups, wouldn't I?  It would be misleading and false for me to even try.

     Keeping in mind one of the articles quoted by Denise the other day, which proported to list Democratic attacks on Republicans, I tried to be clear that not all attacks were real, just as many of the attacks listed in that article were real or politically motivated.  The woman professor in Alabama who shot fellow staff people because she failed to get tenure had no political motivation at all that I could see, for example; and the guy who flew his plane into the Federal Building IRS offices  didn't seem to me to have anything against conservatives, simply against the faceless IRS and the large government.  Most of the incidents and people could be disposed of that way, I thought, and fairly clearly, too.  The black guy who was assaulted by another black guy may well have been Liberal on Conservative violence it certainly seemed like it was to me.  Though I must say that it was hardly buried on page 42 of the local papers.  We spoke about it here.

     If the examples the Republicans chose tended on the whole to have more truth to them, and less obvious misinformation and  disinformation, it would be easier to be even-handed about business such as this.

     It is not my responsibility to make an apology for the behavior of the Republicans, as you seem to suggest I should.  I am not a Republican, and the apologies that I see are mostly accompanied by attacks and justifications, as yours have been, as to why it's perfectly fine to call Democrats "Rats."  That is not an apology; that's an excuse for another chance to use hate speech against Democrats.


quote:
Mike paraphrases Bob, then comments:

They still indulge in calling folks things like "Baby-killer" on the floor of the house,which he didn't do. He called the bill a baby-killer and calling the President a liar in a joint session of congress.
Which was true.



     These remarks describe two different incidents on the House floor.

     The Texas Representative who made the Baby Killer comment reported that he made that statement about the bill itself.  He waited at least a day before issuing that correction, which suggests that he was in no hurry to correct anybody's misapprehension about his statement.  He made the statement after it was public knowledge that the President had issued an executive order forbidding use of monies from that bill to be used for abortion, and he made the statement knowing that according to the Hyde ammendment, it was already illegal for public monies to be used for that purpose.   I am prepared to believe that the Representitive was stupid enough not to  be aware of one of these things, and maybe two, but not all three.  Perhaps you might wish to argue that his stupidity was larger than what I might imagine from a Texas Congressman, but I believe that being a Congressman does really in truly take a good amount of smarts.  So The Congressman knew that any reference he was making to "Babykiller' in not going to be construed by anybody in the Body as being made in reference to that bill itself.  They were no more stupid than the Congressman himself, and the gaveling that came from the front of the chamber and the murmurers that ran through the chamber were a pretty clear indication that everybody knew he was talking about Congressman Hoyer.  Perhaps Mike choses to believe differently, but it is clearly his nobility of spirit giving the Texas Congressman the benefit of a doubt large enough to sink the national debt in without a trace.

     As for calling President Obama a lier, I will respectfully suggest that Mike is making a hot headed choice of words.  

quote:
Bob says:
You treating me and people in my party in this way is insulting.

Mike Replies:
I'm assuming you typed that without laughing, though I don't know how.



     And you do it again.  If you want to deal with how I speak about Republicans, feel free to bring it up sometime in a thread.  Here, you change the subject top avoid how the Republicans have been treating the Democrats for over a year now, since at least the last election.  The subject comes up and suddenly you want to talk about everything that hasn't bothered you for the whole period of time.  You've been busy attacking the Democrats and people related to the Democrats.  A major Bill doesn't go your way, the public doesn't like what you've been doing, and now you want to change the subject the other way around.

     I'd say, one thing at a time, guy.  You've been insulting the President and everything Democratic nonstop for a year.  You've been told that this is essentially incitement to riot.  Now you want to pretend you haven't done a thing; it's all the Democrats again.  And yes, you've been insulting Democrats right along with the best of them, Mike.  Even in this thread.  I'd rather keep the pubic hair out of the dialogue, Mike, if you don't mind.  I'm not in any race with you to see who can get to be crudest, fastest.  I'd rather preserve this forum for a place where people have the possibility of democratically talking out differences and sharing thoughts, ideas and information, and not trying to overwhelm each other with personal insults.  

     Your party will continue to be Republican to me, though I don't think the Lincolns and the Roosevelts and the Eisenhowers of that great party would be very pleased with the way she's being treated right now by the folks who have taken her over.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


136 posted 03-27-2010 08:44 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I'm a Democrat, Mike.  I can say I'm sorry about things members of my party have done that I don't approve of.

I'm sure you are, Bob, being the decent fellow you are, I doubt though that you can direct me to a thread where you have attacked them as democrats for their actions, as you have with republicans.

I tried to be clear that not all attacks were real, just as many of the attacks listed in that article were real . Most of the incidents and people could be disposed of that way, I thought, and fairly clearly, too.  

...and yet you will state that all attacks blamed on Republicans are? Should we present any thoughts on how some of the republican accused actions could be disposed of as being staged or untrue, you dismiss them immediately and Jennifer puts on her tin-foil hat.

It is not my responsibility to make an apology for the behavior of the Republicans, as you seem to suggest I should.

I have no idea where that comes from. I wouldn't expect you to apologize for Republicans. What I would expect you to apologize for would never come to pass, anyway, so I don't expect anything.

He waited at least a day before issuing that correction, which suggests that he was in no hurry to correct anybody's misapprehension about his statement.

So that is the basis for your statement, that he waited longer than you would have liked for him to? With regards to Denise's post about the republican condemnation of violence, you looked for grammatical errors to bring up. With this, his actions were not quick enough. I see a recurring theme there.

He made the statement after it was public knowledge that the President had issued an executive order forbidding use of monies from that bill to be used for abortion

Yes, Bob, an executive order that has no weight at all, one that cannot overrule any decision by congress and one that can be repealed at the whim of this president or any to follow. It is a sham stunt aimed at appeasing Stupak to get his vote only. SHould congress decide to change it tomorrow, next week or whatever, it's gone and Obama will look trite and apologetically at Stupak and say, "What can I do? I tried.." Will that happen? WHo knows? The point is that it can.

As far as the "You lie" incident, Obama was touting health care for 46 million uninsured, which included illegal immigrants, while saying that such immigrants would not be covered. That was a lie. The proof of the pudding is that he changed his figures the next day, dropping them over 10 million. Why? He got caught in his lie.
If you want to deal with how I speak about Republicans, feel free to bring it up sometime in a thread.   Bob, it doesn't matter to me how you speak of republicans. The only points I bring up is when you use the double standards that you do. You may call republicans anything you like. Just don't tell me that I should not use words that offend your party while doing so because you would be wasting your time.

You've been insulting the President and everything Democratic nonstop for a year.  You've been told that this is essentially incitement to riot.  Now you want to pretend you haven't done a thing; it's all the Democrats again.  And yes, you've been insulting Democrats right along with the best of them, Mike.

Yes, I have, Bob, and I freely acknowledge it. I think Obama is wrecking the country and I think Pelosi and Reid are two of the most horrendous creatures to have ever held high positions in the government (toss Frank in there, too, and don't forget Gore and Kerry while you are at it). You are calling it essentially incitement to riot???? Speaking one's mind is incitement to riot? What communist manifesto does that come from? Perhaps you would enjoy Cuba or Venezuela, where such actions are forbidden. Were your years of Bush-bashing incitements to riot then? Your double-standard is showing once again, Bob.

No, I don't think JFK would be that happy with the democrats, either....and it's a certainty that Will Rogers never met Nancy Pelosi.  
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


137 posted 03-27-2010 09:06 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
an executive order that has no weight at all, one that cannot overrule any decision by congress and one that can be repealed at the whim of this president or any to follow.


Mike, you seem to be overlooking the obvious. The pres hasn’t said anything in the Executive order that contradicts current law. Government money can’t be used to fund abortions regardless of whether he issues the executive order repeals it of makes a nifty paper plane out of it.



quote:
It is a sham stunt aimed at appeasing Stupak to get his vote only.


You’re definitely right there Mike, it certainly was a sham, and a stunt, but it wasn’t to appease Stupak, it was designed to appease the people who might vote for Stupak. You see Stupak knows that the bill doesn’t allow government funding of abortions, it’s the man in the street, the potential voters, who are confused and need the assurance of the executive order.

It's called politics.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


138 posted 03-27-2010 10:00 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

OK, grinch, I'm confused...there has been so much about this health care over the past year that I'll admit my small brain has gotten completely overloaded.

It was my understanding that the bill the senate passed included the possibility of health-care funded abortions and Stupak has a problem with that, causing Obama to issue an executive order to assure Stupak that, when the bill went back to the senate for tweaking, there would be no stipulations for any federal monies to be used to help pay for abortions. If there had never been any provision in the senate bill for abortion coverage, where did Stupak's original decision not to vote for the bill based on that point come from?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


139 posted 03-27-2010 10:54 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
where did Stupak's original decision not to vote for the bill based on that point come from


Easy Mike -  from his constituents who believed all the false claims that were floating around the interweb. Stupak had to look like he was on their side, that he was willing to play hardball to get what they wanted. The fact that the bill already complied with what they wanted was incidental.

Either that or he was a complete dipstick who believed the lies being peddled or didn’t have the sense to read the bill for  himself and needed the pres to write it down for him in big letters with pictures in the form of a (not worth the paper it was written on) executive order.

Check out the bill in all its forms for yourself Mike – it doesn’t contain anything anywhere that changes the current law regarding abortion in any way whatsoever, it never did. People simply convinced themselves that it did and the kings clothes executive order was the result.

.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


140 posted 03-27-2010 11:17 AM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Republican hypocrisy - From 1991 on the  RNC’s insurance plan covered elective abortion – a procedure the party’s own platform calls “a fundamental assault on innocent human life.”
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


141 posted 03-27-2010 11:22 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

In my neck of the political Wood:

Last night, I attended my first formal dinner in support of the Republican Party: The annual Hamblen County Lincoln Day Dinner. The turnout for the dinner was the largest on record: 350+ fine folks dined together while listening to the speeches of those who were running for various positions of office.

All was delightful within the gathering network of social classes. (Many of my family members, clients, church family, former co-workers, school teachers, professors, etc. were in attendance.)

Not once did anyone become radically irrational over any of the topics or campaign pitches; who were passionate, yes, and poignantly moved with gratitude and/or high-spirits.

In fact, our good Mayor, Sami Barile attended and was quite a smile maker and instigator of a few good-natured laughs.

Barile is a notable liberal, deemed a “tree-hugger,” and SHE is quite proud of such. She is our first female Mayor. And she gets this quite often: “I thought you were a man!” (Despite her press.) LOL. I personally enjoyed her handshaking response to the continuous confession: “I get that a lot. As you can see I’m not a man. I really am a woman.”

My point is: Conservatives & liberals can and do get on very well in most cases and I’m very sad with the fact there’s always something ugly in the news that’s more party-favor-empowering & “newsworthy” than a prayerful “supper” for supporters of Jobs/Controlled Spending/Lower Taxes/Better Education/And last but not least, a Better Plan for Health.

As Grinch points out: “That’s politics.” But I take my stance and remain active as an important member of the first order of government: We the People.

And I was being dutiful with my attendance. My husband is a volunteer materials editor for a campaigning comrade. (My sweetheart dozed-off for a brief moment during one of the speakers and I gave his hand a light squeeze. He was so tired, bless his heart, but he snapped awake with a grateful wink.) Despite our slight political differences and view points, who am I to let my loved one end up with his face in his salad plate?? How déclassé that would be of me in any respect or party hat.

And that was probably the most threatening incident that could’a happened during the dinner.

That, and perhaps the accidental slip of a volunteer table waiter who might have caused a huge small town folly. My imagination is always at work, but if the slip resulted in the misalignment or removal of a certain attendee's toupee! Well, it was possible and the thought made me smile when the waiter actually did graze his rug but not enough to snag it.  

By nature, such makes for good-hearted amusement and how ill-natured it would be if written-up as a DEMOCRATIC PLOT to abuse an elder republican. Good reporting is too boring, anymore, I suppose. But I still report and some still enjoy it in small ways which are pretty grand to me.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


142 posted 03-27-2010 04:33 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Stupak had to look like he was on their side, that he was willing to play hardball to get what they wanted.

I can't say you're wrong, grinch, but I find that scenario highly unlikely. He received hate mail from Democrats and threats from unions by taking the stance of voting against the bill...or were they all part of the grand deception also?

In one scenario, you portray his followers as being stupid enough to warrant the play of such a deception and, in the other, you portray Stupak as being stupid by not knowing what was in the bill.

Quite a choice....
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


143 posted 03-27-2010 05:17 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Mike,

You don’t need to be stupid to be deceived, some deceptions can fool the best of us for a while. Stupidity is not recognising you’ve been had when all the evidence suggests otherwise or, in the case of the deceiver, when you start to believe that you can fool all of the people all of the time.

quote:
He received hate mail from Democrats and threats from unions by taking the stance of voting against the bill...or were they all part of the grand deception also?


No Mike, in one scenario they’d be the people trying, in a rather crude way, to show him he was being deceived. In the other scenario they’d be the ones Stupak doesn’t give a hoot for, the ones that can’t vote him back into office.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


144 posted 03-27-2010 05:57 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Actually, the unions warned him that a negative vote would lead to their withdrawal of support and active campaigns against him...so, in that instance, they certainly ARE a force that could determine his re-election.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


145 posted 03-27-2010 06:25 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

quote:

I'm sure you are, Bob, being the decent fellow you are, I doubt though that you can direct me to a thread where you have attacked them as democrats for their actions, as you have with republicans.



     You will have heard me assert that as a party in congress, they have been spineless from time to time, and that their actions have been spineless.  You will have heard me say that some of the legislation that I dislike has come from them, at least in part, and you will have heard me say that they were foolish and certainly politically outmaneuvered.

     On the other hand, I don't recall they they've acted in the same way that the Republicans have acted, used the same language or made the same sort of attacks on the other party as the Republicans have.  For me to have attacked them in the same way that I have attacked the Republicans, I would have had to see them do the same sort of thing that the Republicans have been wont to do, and that, thank you, I do not recall them having done.

     Had they acted in the same way I see the Republicans have acted, rest assured, I would have attacked them in exactly the same way.  I know lots of perfectly fine Republicans.  I know many admirable Republicans, my late father-in-law included, my brother-in-law included, uncles and cousins included.  But I don't hear them talk the same sort of trash that I hear from Fox News or from the RNC or from the Republicans in either house of Congress.

quote:


...and yet you will state that all attacks blamed on Republicans are [real]? Should we present any thoughts on how some of the republican accused actions could be disposed of as being staged or untrue, you dismiss them immediately and Jennifer puts on her tin-foil hat.



     I made no such statement.  Don't put words in my mouth, please; I sound silly enough on my own without somebody adding things I didn't say and don't mean.

     All reports blamed on Republicans are not real, and I never said they were.

     Where did you see me say such a foolish thing?  And why would you imagine that I would believe it?

    The comment about Jennifer was a personal attack.  Not only was it completely off the subject, it was gratuitous and sad insult about the character of somebody not even present.  The rationality of such a comment completely escapes me.



quote:

Bob said:
He waited at least a day before issuing that correction, which suggests that he was in no hurry to correct anybody's misapprehension about his statement.

Mike replied:
So that is the basis for your statement, that he waited longer than you would have liked for him to?



     No, Mike, it's not.  It's only the part you quoted to make fun of.  The reasoning was this:

     The Texas Representative who made the Baby Killer comment reported that he made that statement about the bill itself.  He waited at least a day before issuing that correction, which suggests that he was in no hurry to correct anybody's misapprehension about his statement.  He made the statement after it was public knowledge that the President had issued an executive order forbidding use of monies from that bill to be used for abortion, and he made the statement knowing that according to the Hyde amendment, it was already illegal for public monies to be used for that purpose.   I am prepared to believe that the Representative was stupid enough not to  be aware of one of these things, and maybe two, but not all three.  Perhaps you might wish to argue that his stupidity was larger than what I might imagine from a Texas Congressman, but I believe that being a Congressman does really in truly take a good amount of smarts.  So The Congressman knew that any reference he was making to "Baby-killer' in not going to be construed by anybody in the Body as being made in reference to that bill itself.  They were no more stupid than the Congressman himself, and the gaveling that came from the front of the chamber and the murmurers that ran through the chamber were a pretty clear indication that everybody knew he was talking about Congressman Hoyer.  Perhaps Mike choses to believe differently, but it is clearly his nobility of spirit giving the Texas Congressman the benefit of a doubt large enough to sink the national debt in without a trace.

     What you did is called "quoting out of context."  It is impolite.

quote:

With regards to Denise's post about the republican condemnation of violence, you looked for grammatical errors to bring up. With this, his actions were not quick enough. I see a recurring theme there.



     Mike, near as I can tell, Denise posted about some group other than the Republican Party.  Her posting quoted a statement that was concerned about hostile statements from the Republican Party, as well as the other two major parties.  I didn't have to look for Grammatical errors to bring up; the existence of the grammatical errors made the statement so unclear to me that I didn't understand it because of its ambiguity.  It was unclear whether that ambiguity was accidental or purposeful, as one sometimes finds in a statement crafted with legal help.

     There is, sadly, no ambiguity about the fact that you have ignored my statement, and by taking only a single part of it to stand for the whole, you misrepresent me in front of others.  I choose not to be curious about the "why" of this.  I have not wish to know.

     Your method for arriving at "a recurring theme" is not one I wish to know about either.  Please keep it to yourself.

quote:
:  Mike quotes me:

You've been insulting the President and everything Democratic nonstop for a year.  You've been told that this is essentially incitement to riot.  Now you want to pretend you haven't done a thing; it's all the Democrats again.  And yes, you've been insulting Democrats right along with the best of them, Mike.

Then Mike Replies:

Yes, I have, Bob, and I freely acknowledge it. I think Obama is wrecking the country and I think Pelosi and Reid are two of the most horrendous creatures to have ever held high positions in the government (toss Frank in there, too, and don't forget Gore and Kerry while you are at it). You are calling it essentially incitement to riot???? Speaking one's mind is incitement to riot? What communist manifesto does that come from? Perhaps you would enjoy Cuba or Venezuela, where such actions are forbidden. Were your years of Bush-bashing incitements to riot then? Your double-standard is showing once again, Bob.



     Okay, Mike, let me try to be clear here, because I think there's a real distinction that you may not understand; or, if you do understand it, you choose to overlook.

     We live in a country with constitutionally protected free speech.  That speech is not only a right, some would say — myself included — that it is an obligation, at least as far as politics goes.  You have an obligation.

     What you do not have an obligation to do is to say these things in an offensive or cruel or rude or abrasive fashion.  Those of us who are inarticulate might be limited to doing so by lacks in our ability to think or speak or remember.  Those of us who are articulate are blessed.  This means that we are able to say what we think without actually needing to be cruel in the process.  

      Imagine somebody with the gall to criticize the fine quality of the customary Balladeer driving, the melodious singing tones that flow from the balladeer voice box as he cruises down the Floridian highways and byways, his deft turnings around the flow of traffic, his excellent eye, his fine control of speed.  Tee-tum, tee-tum, te-tum and so on.  Then some jerk sitting beside him pipes up with a rude comment like, "Yer going too fast!"

     The thoughts that flow through the cortex of the famous Balladeer brain would boil down to, ""Mercy, I do so disagree with this fine fellow."  And the polite Mr. Balladeer would do what?  

     For the sake of discussion and discussion only, mind you, let us imagine him saying something on the order of, "Blow it out your ears, Banana-brain!"  Perhaps far fetched, perhaps not so far fetched, who but the mighty one himself would know?  I certainly know that Mr. Bob might react in a fashion not all that far off.  Mr. Bob might say, Oh Dear, Oh Dear, Blow it out your ears, Banana Brain!"  A much more suitably Liberal comment, I'd think.

     Now, to continue out thought experiment, imagine that the criticism has not come from the fruit-head on the bench beside balladeer, or trussed in the back-seat beside Mr. Bob, but from a police officer, peering quizzically through the driver's side window, holding out hand for various official documents.  The thoughts going through the fevered brains of our two heroes, Balladeer and Mr. Bob may in fact be much the same as they were when so rudely interrupted by the previous ill-mannered lout — "Blow it out your ear, Fur-ball!" or something of the sort, with some additions or deletions of course — but the actual speech flying from the lips of of two examples of nature's noblemen would possibly run somewhat differently.

     Both would probably include the words, "Yes, Officer," in them somewhere.  Maybe not, but probably.  Neither of the two gentlemen in question are total idiots.

     The Officer or the lout in question aside, and the reality of their complaints aside, the thoughts inside the heads of the two poets are not all that different.  The question is how they get across the truth with their freedom of speech, isn't it?

     In the example, the difference between the two reactions for our two middle aged gentlemen (middle aged, ha!, there's a good one!) would be discretion, prudence, or, more baldly, fear.

     Both of us would still probably tell the truth to the officer — "Well no, officer, I don't believe I was speeding.  No officer, I'm not calling you a lier; last I heard a disagreement didn't mean that there was a lie, it meant only a disagreement.  Of course I believe your instrument said what you say it said.  Yes, I believe you believe it."  Und so weiter.

     My point?

     We can exercise the same discretion other places as well.  Freedom of speech doesn't mean that it's helpful to act nasty or contemptuous while exercising that obligation and right.  The truth is just as true when it is phrased respectfully or even neutrally as it is when it is phrased with a cruel twist or in a put-down.

     Would I exclude myself here?  No, sir, I would not.  And I think that the truth is often a bit more understandable when put in that form, so there are advantages in approaching it that way.  Not to undercut the pleasure in the dangerous keenness of a well turned phrase, gleaming in the sun.  Of course, of course.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Politics or just plain hatred?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors