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
 A Plea For Sanity   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ]
 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
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

A Plea For Sanity

 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


75 posted 03-30-2010 08:06 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

The truly needy in this country are a very small portion of the population. To have a government safety net for them with a combination of private sector/church assistance should be doable without breaking the bank.

There will always be a need for a safety net. But that doesn't require the government to take over 1/6 of the economy and force everyone to purchase health insurance. That is just a scheme to redistribute wealth from one sector to another. One sector pays and another sector gets reimbursed. That's what this is all about. There is nothing in this new law that makes healthcare or insurance premiums more affordalbe. There is nothing in it that lowers costs. It's not reform, it's simply a government takeover. It takes more money from the ones who are paying already and uses that money to help cover the costs of the ones the government is currently paying for and for the ones the government will add into the mix. And everybody will lose because the government has a peculiar knack for screwing things up.

You can lay out for me, Bob, how the government has ever made anything better for anybody. Many experts believe that government 'help' extended the Great Depression by a decade.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


76 posted 03-31-2010 01:59 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Denise, you made earlier statements about the safety net.  You didn't support them.  Now you make more statements about the safety net.  Again, no support.  I am playing by your rules, here:  You said, the person who makes the statement, supplies the support.  So supply it.
Restatement of the same thing by you without facts or figure doesn't count.  If you're going to use facts and figures, use neutral sources or sources on the right with excellent reputation for checking their facts, such as The Economist.

     That's what I try to do.

     If the private sector is enough, show it.  If the amount of poverty and need is so small, demonstate it.  

     If the research shows that these private sources were enough to solve the great depression, I look forward to seeing the figures you come up with and the sources from which you gathered them.  Did I tell you that Harry Hopkins was a social worker?  Just thought you might like to know.  Did I mention that social workers like to have their programs done in such a way as to be able to evaluate their effectiveness, and that there should be effectiveness ratings for most of the govbernment programs done with social work help?  Head Start, for example, has such ratings.  You see, I would consider head start as a part of the government safety net because oif the effects it may have on long term education rates for those who attend it.  You may think Head start is not a part of the safety net, though.

     Consider the effects that Head Start may have had of the populations that it served.  Ask yourself if the investment was worth the price.

     Also, you might consider why you believe that the government has taken over one sixth of the economy.  That's the health care industry.  The Government doesn't run the Health care industry, nor does it run the insurance industry, yet somehow you are using figures that would support the assumption that it runs the health care industry.  Having made that assertion, you have yet to show proof for that, either.  I am curious what objective facts and figures you will find to support such curious statements.

quote:

     That is just a scheme to redistribute wealth from one sector to another. One sector pays and another sector gets reimbursed. That's what this is all about.



     I think that you may not be using the word sector in a standard fashion here.  Exactly what you mean is unclear.  Are you speaking about the manufacturing sector and the labor sector, for example, or is there some other form of sector that you are speaking about here?

quote:

There is nothing in this new law that makes healthcare or insurance premiums more affordalbe. There is nothing in it that lowers costs. It's not reform, it's simply a government takeover. It takes more money from the ones who are paying already and uses that money to help cover the costs of the ones the government is currently paying for and for the ones the government will add into the mix. And everybody will lose because the government has a peculiar knack for screwing things up.



     If you wanted to make the question one of affordability, then why would you wish to include profits for private companies in the mixture, for goodness sake?  Then, why would you include separate opperating costs and bonuses for different companies in the picture when you could have a single structure and no bonuses to pay at all?  Sorry, Denise, but you rejected that option yourself; don't try to blame other people for rejecting it when you were very clear about your opposition to it, and when you succeeded in having your way.  You got what you wanted; don't moan about it.

     The Democratic plan was far from the best plan that could have been suggested.  

     I wanted a single payer plan with controls on drug companies and on insurance costs.  I didn't get what I wanted either.

     Saying the government screwed it up doesn't quite get it right, though.  The government tried to put a plan together that gave everybody something of what they wanted.  The flaws in that have to do with the disagreements among "we the people."

quote:

     You can lay out for me, Bob, how the government has ever made anything better for anybody.



     You every go to school?  Were your roads all constructed by private doinations.  What about the sewers that haul the waste stuff away, and the water systems that bring fresh water in.  Perhaps you're in the country and you have a well, but what about your electricity?    Got your money in a bank?  It's insured by the government.  Feel confident that the food you eat is reasonably safe?  Federal food inspectors or state food inspectors?  What about the safety of the drugs you take?  Feel reasonably safe in your local comings and goings? — police and fire are government services.

     I think you were expecting that was a rhetorical question, though, weren't you, Denise?  It would have been difficult to have given that question much thought and still raise it as an actual issue.  We haven't mentioned the various defense forces yet, for example, or the legal system of which we occasionally feel so proud.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


77 posted 03-31-2010 08:47 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

You every go to school?

That's our Bob. I suppose that comment adds to the thread in some positive way? Why not just channel your insults to me, Bob? I'm used to them.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


78 posted 03-31-2010 09:35 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     Taking me out of context again, Mike?

     Denise asked me a straightforward question.  If you bvelieve I asked her if she had ever gone to school because I thought she hadn't, he is very much mistaken.  Denise suggested that she believed the government had never done anything for the people and I started with the first contact with the government that many people remember.  If you confuse that with a swipe at Denise, you are incorrect, in the same way that you would be incorrect to confuse any of the other items on that list as being a swipe at Denise.

     I try to be reasonably clear if I feel upset.  And I try to be clear what my upset is about.  I disagree with Denise about a fair amount, but her schooling has never been an issue with me.  She and I appear to have political issues about what government can and should do.    

     You, in this case, seem to be trying to put words in my mouth that are not and were not there.

     The way in which my comments add to the thread, especially take in the context they were placed rather than the context from which you extracted them, is to place the discussion on grounds more closely connected with facts.  The facts are that government does fill many useful functions, and the rhetoric of the right wing often puts people in the position of either forgetting this fact or denying this fact.  Forgetting such things can lead to making uninformed or distorted decisions that do not serve the country well at the ballot box.  In economic terms, these decisions are often known as "guns or butter" decisions in which the interests of the community must often take precidence over the wishes of individuals.  Right?  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


79 posted 03-31-2010 10:03 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Taking me out of context again, Mike?
You, in this case, seem to be trying to put words in my mouth that are not and were not there.


No, I didn't change your words, Bob, although I could have corrected your misspelling of "ever". How could I take it out of context or put words into your mouth? That was your complete statement, word for word. It was a stand-alone statement right after quoting Denise. There is no wiggle room to get out of it....there is not even a "It all depends what "is" is" defense. You said it - it was meant to be an insult and the point is made. At least be honest enough to admit it.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


80 posted 03-31-2010 10:26 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
it was meant to be an insult and the point is made.


Please tell me you’re joking Mike.



Denise asked a question - how the government has ever made anything better for anybody - and Bob answered with a bunch of rhetorical questions to highlight areas where they had clearly made things better.

Or are you saying Bob was claiming Denise didn’t have any money when he said, “Got your money in a bank?”. If you’re going to express outrage regarding insults Mike you'd do better picking some of the real insults kicking around these forums.

One of them being your attempt to insult everyone's intelligence with faux outrage.

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


81 posted 03-31-2010 10:39 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Faux outrage, grinch? Hardly, but certainly resigned outrage. You may substitute "you ever go to school" with "you stupid?" or "you got a brain in your head?" and they would all be the same.  It is certainly not the same as "You have your money in a bank" because there are possible exceptions to that, like credit unions or the simple fact of not having much money. Since education is mandatory in the United States, there is no such alternative to such a statement. He meant it to be insulting and it was.

Bob and I have gone at it many times in different ways, from little giggle jabs to outright insulting. Denise really doesn't fit into that scenario. She is respectful in everything she says, when either agreeing or disagreeing. She would never direct a statement like that one at Bob, or anyone else. For Bob, a fellow who makes occasional appeals for respect on the threads, it is out of line....and he knows it.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


82 posted 03-31-2010 11:07 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

No Mike, you could replace “You ever go to school? “ with:

You ever go to school? Because that’s a good example of something that the government made better.

In the same way that you could replace all the other rhetorical questions that would elicit responses that proved that the government had in fact made things better.

If you really think Bob has insulted Denise Mike instead of huffing and puffing simply report the post and ask for him to be banned from the site for breaking the rules. Because if you’re right and I’m wrong and he did mean it as an insult then that’s the least he deserves.

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


83 posted 03-31-2010 11:21 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Huffing and puffing, grinch? I had no idea you were so eloquent  

Spitting on the sidewalk is not enough to arrest someone, even though it is illegal. Neither are Bob's small efforts at sarcasm. I was simply speaking up for Denise in the same way Bob has done for Jennifer when I have directed something at her he didn't care for, and actually the same way you are doing for Bob right now. I didn't see you around defending me then but you do show up for Bob. That's interesting enough. I'm not sure why you have decided to involve yourself in this particular area of conversation, anyway, since you were not mentioned and it really didn't pertain to you in any way but I suppose you felt the need for some reason.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


84 posted 03-31-2010 12:21 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

     I can't speak for Grinch's motives, Mike, but he's accurately assessed mine here.  You haven't.  This feels like you are actively harassing me, though, Mike, and I wish you'd stop it.  Take a deep breath, and simply deal with the stuff that I'm saying about the issues at hand.  I have no desire to attack Denise.  It's her politics that I have issue with, and occasionally her sources.  I think it's possible she might think the same way about me.

     I also have no particular wish to pick a fight with you.  I enjoy the point of view you bring to the table, though I try to make those places and ways I disagree clear.  

     Basically, for your information, when you take a person out of context you don't have to change the words they say.  You simply put them in a context in which they are not appropriate.  I never suggested you didn't get my words right, Mike, I suggested you got the context wrong, which changed the meaning of the words.

     You act as though you don't understand the distinction.  I find this difficult to believe, but I have taken you at your word, and have tried to explain the concept to you.

     For example, if I mention to my friend that I'm dieting and am now drinking at least eight glasses of water every day, that suggests I'm on some sort of a health kick, and good for me.  If my friend tells somebody else, using that same information, that I'm drinking like a fish, that's taking the same information out of context and using it to suggest something very different.  My friend would essentially be putting words in my mouth about my efforts at maintaining my health to give the wrong impression.  Correct information — a lot of fluids — wrong context, one is in the context of health damaging in the form of alcohol consumption, the other is an attempt to help my health by giving my kidneys a boost.

     You were taking me out of context.

     Sometimes I think you do it on purpose.

     I would think that you might to better than bring up your comments about Jennifer.  I have been trying to drop them.  If this is your attempt to place me in the same position that you placed yourself in with Jennifer, I am unintrested in following up.  Nor am I interested in attempts to place me in that position.  If you want to get out of that position, why not simply treat people in a friendly, open and welcoming fashion.  

     You may be assured that I have in the past and will in the future make mistakes that I find humiliating, and that you need not push to find them.  They will be there for sure, try as hard as I might to avoid them.  If I thought this was one of them, I would say so, because I hate being in the wrong any longer than I need to be.  It's simply too uncomfortable for me.  In the meantime, what I experience as harrassment  takes you away from the points that, if I understand the purpose of these forums, we are supposed to be here for.  You don't make the political points that you might wish to make while you concentrate on making points off me.  

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


85 posted 03-31-2010 12:29 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

No, Bob, it's the same story. When your words contradict you in some way, they receive the "out of context" excuse. Months ago when I showed your earlier quotes tht you felt Clinton was instrumental in dealing with the financial meltdown, you claims them to be out of context, since you were trying to pin it all on "the past eight years" at the time. Hard to refute what one puts into writing...but you keep trying.

No, I[m not trying to pick any fights with you, Bob. Lately, you have been calling for civility and respect, which simply does not coordinate with your remarks to Denise. If you are sincere about your call, these types of comments are not appropriate. I will welcome you call for civility when I see you practice it.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


86 posted 03-31-2010 12:30 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"Democrats last week began a well-orchestrated campaign to change the subject from Obamacare by declaring Republicans the newest terrorist threat. House Majority leader Steny H. Hoyer claimed that Democrats faced threats of violence in their home districts. He demanded that Republicans take a stand against it. 'Silence gives consent,' added Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, who accused Republicans of 'aiding and abetting this kind of terrorism.' Democrats promptly exploited their own fear-mongering by rushing out a fundraising letter. Meanwhile, a shot was fired through the window of Republican House Minority Whip Eric Cantor's Richmond office. Instead of attempting to fill his campaign coffers over the incident, Mr. Cantor denounced Democratic recklessness in creating 'media vehicles for political gain.' To hear Mr. Clyburn talk, you'd think the Capitol had been bombed -- like President Obama's spiritual mentor Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground did in 1971 or the communist Revolutionary Fighting Group did in 1983. We don't recall Republicans placing the blame on Democrats for those bona fide terror attacks committed by the Democrats' ideological cousins. For the party's leaders to make such insinuations now rings hollow. The Democrats and their supporters have consistently demeaned and mischaracterized the broad, nationwide, nonviolent grass-roots movement that arose in opposition to their radical agenda. A willing press establishment relays baseless claims that these protesters are violent uncritically and without investigation. ... Any leftist thug is now free to toss a brick through a Democratic congressional district office window secure in the knowledge that the act of vandalism will be blamed automatically on Tea Partiers or Republicans. Such hoaxes are tickets to instant press coverage. ... This victimization sideshow is meant to hide the fact that Democrats are pursuing policies that the American people oppose, and they are beginning to face a political price." --The Washington Times
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


87 posted 03-31-2010 06:55 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I'd be interested in "The Washington Time's" source material on some of this.  Have they proved that Bill Ayers Bombed Washington in 1971, for example.  Their notion about The bullet hole is Mr. Cantor's building is not apparently born out by fact, so I'd like to see what references they have to support that claim.  While it's entirely possible that SDS bombed Washington in 1971, being the widely denounced wing-nut organization that they were, the possibility does not in itself constitute proof.  Mike's running the piece without comment is a bit of a puzzle.  Is Mike agreeing with The Washington Times, here?  Or is he simply trying to find a way of getting unsupported allegations into these pages without having to stick his own neck out and saying that he agrees with them.

     The logic of the allegation of having left wing folks assault left wing politicians for publicity is particularly grotesque, suggesting that all the complaints that Mike is fond of making against the left for its comments and attacks on the last Republican administrations are actually the work of right wing extremists, trying to give the left a bad name.

     Both are possible, but vanishingly so.  The Nazis did attack one of their own radio stations on the Polish Border in 1939 with troops dressed in Polish uniforms.  The dead left behind — CZ camp folks, if I remember correctly — were touted as proof as Polish agression.  Willian F. Shirer has an account of the incident in The Rise And Fall of The Third Reich as I recall.  It is possible, as I said, simply really really unlikely.

     I'd like to know how the left managed to get all those leftie protesters to dress up as TEA Party folks and shout those tooth crackingly obscene comments.  For the left that's like garlic and vampires, Mike.

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


88 posted 03-31-2010 08:30 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Mike's running the piece without comment is a bit of a puzzle.  Is Mike agreeing with The Washington Times, here?  Or is he simply trying to find a way of getting unsupported allegations into these pages without having to stick his own neck out and saying that he agrees with them.

There's just no stop in you, is there, Bob? Providing a link without comment is hardly uncommon here. Jennifer has made it into an art form. Have your accusations ever headed in her direction? Of course not..you can only fire in one direction. Apparently you believe I am the type willing to sneak unfounded allegations in when no one's looking....hence the question of the possibility? You also seem to feel that I can look for these ways not to stick my neck out. Failure to stick my neck out in the Alley has never been a problem for me...I do it all the time. It was a Washington Times post, period. If you want to call it filled with unfounded whatevers, then you can protest to the newspaper. I doubt they post things like that without verification and open themselves up for libel suits but who knows? Maybe, if you protest loudly enough, they will respond to you.

I'm finding out that the ways you comment with innuendos and veiled little gotchas are not really insulting. They just must be your normal way of speaking since they are constant and it's foolish of me to be insulted by them....easier to just ignore them.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


89 posted 03-31-2010 09:31 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer


"I'd be interested in "The Washington Time's" source material on some of this.  Have they proved that Bill Ayers Bombed Washington in 1971, for example.  " - Bob


Ayers, 63, spent 10 years as a fugitive in the 1970s when he was part of the "Weather Underground," an anti-Vietnam War group that protested U.S. policies by bombing the Pentagon, U.S. Capitol and a string of other government buildings. Nobody was hurt in the attacks by the defunct organization, which the FBI labeled a "domestic terrorist group." http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/902213,CST-NWS-ayers18.article

He went underground in 1970, after his girlfriend, Diana Oughton, and two other people were killed when bombs they were making exploded in a Greenwich Village town house. With him in the Weather Underground was Bernardine Dohrn, who was put on the F.B.I.'s 10 Most Wanted List. J. Edgar Hoover called her ''the most dangerous woman in America'' and ''la Pasionara of the Lunatic Left.'' Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn later married.


In his book Mr. Ayers describes the Weathermen descending into a ''whirlpool of violence.''

''Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon,'' he writes. But then comes a disclaimer: ''Even though I didn't actually bomb the Pentagon -- we bombed it, in the sense that Weathermen organized it and claimed it.'' He goes on to provide details about the manufacture of the bomb and how a woman he calls Anna placed the bomb in a restroom. No one was killed or injured, though damage was extensive.

Between 1970 and 1974 the Weathermen took responsibility for 12 bombings, Mr. Ayers writes, and also helped spring Timothy Leary (sentenced on marijuana charges) from jail. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/11/books/no-regrets-for-love-explosives-memoir-sorts-war-protester-talks-life-with.html?pagewanted=1
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


90 posted 03-31-2010 09:34 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"Their notion about The bullet hole is Mr. Cantor's building is not apparently born out by fact, so I'd like to see what references they have to support that claim." - Bob

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. authorities have arrested and charged a man with threatening to kill the No. 2 Republican in the House of Representatives, Eric Cantor, and his family, according to court documents filed on Monday.

Norman Leboon, 38, was accused of making the threat in a video on YouTube in which he said, "You receive my bullets in your office, remember they will be placed in your heads," according to an FBI affidavit accompanying the charge.


Yes, Bob, you can claim that the Washington Times didn't actually have a man on site to see the Pentagon bombing nor did have anyone to actually see Leboon shoot the bullets but their claims seem pretty accurate to any rational person, I would believe.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


91 posted 03-31-2010 10:13 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Under the "Babe the Pig" video, Leboon also said he killed Pharaoh's first-born.

Sun Yung Moon reported on that yet?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


92 posted 03-31-2010 10:25 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

You're right, Jenn. The congressman made it all up and Leboon is probably a model citizen, misunderstood by all. The bullet probably came from some republican shooting at a democrat.

Are we all happy now?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


93 posted 04-01-2010 02:48 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Thank you for supplying the material on Bill Ayers.  I know it must have felt beyond the call of duty to do so, but it was helpful, and it appears that The Washington Times was right in suggesting that Mr. Ayers was involved with the bombing of the Pentagon.  I hadn't known that he'd been in hiding for ten years, though I probably should have known.  I was actually surprised to find that he was married to Bernardine Dohrn.

     The business with Representative Cantor seems clear to you.  It is not at all clear to me.  The reports a few days ago said that the bullet hole was in a downward direction and was not consistent with an attack but consistent instead with an accidental discharge.  This doesn't mean that the wing-nut that was arrested isn't responsible.  It does mean that I find it hard to believe and that there might be considerable difficulty in actually proving the allegation.  I tend to think that the allegation is not true because it sounds as though the guy has confessed to just about everything, without much regard to reality.

     Doesn't mean he didn't do it.  Does mean that it seems reasonably implausible.  

     Doesn't mean that Republicans don't have to worry, either, near as I can tell.  It seems like the situation overall is unstable.  You already know my thinking on that, and you've already expressed your disagreement with it.  Seems like Leboon is responsible for making threats on the intertube, and with any luck, he'll have to deal with some reality in facing those charges.

     The Washington Times statement about the bullet in Mr. Cantor's building sounded to me as though they were claiming that Mr. Leboon did it.  

     This is inflammatory, and way ahead of fact.  I have no idea what Mr. Leboon's politics may be, left or right or something else entirely.  The Washington Times has not proven a case here.

     Thank you for providing the details and the references.  They cleared up confusion in my mind about Mr. Ayer's history.

     I would like to remind Mike, however, that the incident about Mr. Ayers' past was raised by The Washington Times as a distraction of what is happening in the country today, and how the Republicans have been trying to whip up the more agitated members of their base over the past year or so.  In order to do so,  The Washington Times found it useful to reach a good 40 years into the past, smear Mr. Ayers, who has been a fine and useful citizen since he surfaced and who has written frankly about his thoughts and experiences in the SDS, and then use the smear of Mr. Ayers to suggest a smear of The President.  

     This is the method The Washington Times has chosen to refute allegations of rabble rousing on the part of the radical right.  I would characterize this more as an example of exactly that rabble rousing than a refutation of it.  I see no conciliation attempted by Reverend Moon's publication, though perhaps others may see charity where I see only more attempts to fan the fires of hatred.  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


94 posted 04-01-2010 08:02 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The Times tried to create a distraction by printing facts? They only went 40 years in the past because Ayers is still part of the scene NOW. Yes, you may claim that, since he is a model citizen now, it's no harm, no foul, but wouldn't you consider it just a little strange that a man involved in bombing the Pentagon and other things would ever be a close friend of a President? The thing is that he is not the only one. There are other such radicals right there with him, close to the President. If you can't find that a little strange, especially in light of the fact Obama is making moves in the direction these past radicals endorse, then I won't try to convince you any further.

Your plan seems to attempt to target the Times. I believe you have said in the past "Don't shoot the messenger" and "Just because the source may be one you don't favor doesn't mean they can't print true statements.", or thoughts along those lines. Apparently you don't give such leeway to the Times.

It's interesting that you won't accept the deliberate firing of a bullet into the congressman's office because there were no witnesses and yet to accept with faith the other congressman's allegation that tea-partiers hurled racial insults at him. This allegedly occured with cameras and microphones everywhere, especially on congressmen, and yet it was never caught either on video or tape. That appears to you to be a done deal while a bullet in the wall doesn't.

I don't know Leboon's political affiliation, either. That's not the point. It doesn't matter. The point was not that democrats were firing at republicans. The point was that republicans are getting the same insults and actions against them as democrats are.


You may continue to feel that this hysteria is being fueled by republicans but you are in a large minority. The democrats have been doing everything in their power to make sure every incident gets full coverage, complete with them pointing fingers at republicans. This is understandable, since Obama has made finger-pointing so popular as a way of avoiding blame for anything. They are doing everything possible to keep the fires burning and, in doing so, foster more of the same. The public is not buying it and neither do I.

Not everything has to be partisan, Bob. Democrats are under attack and so are republicans. Instead of democrats spending their time pointing fingers, they should be spending it downplaying the incidents and working towards having them stop. Undoubtedly, the Times felt the need to print what they did because of the democrats' actions and constant accusations in one direction. One can only be falsely accused so many time before the other responds.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


95 posted 04-01-2010 12:36 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

So much to say, so little time.

I'll just have to leave it at this for now:

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


96 posted 04-01-2010 01:43 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

"Republican National Committee paid $1,946 for a gathering at a sex-themed Hollywood club and later listed a phone-sex number on a fundraising letter."

Wonder where the Teabagger Express is headed next - the Cherry Patch Ranch?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


97 posted 04-01-2010 01:49 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Nah, they are just going to hire gals and call them into their offices, cigars at the ready, and save all of that time and expense, like slick willie did.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


98 posted 04-01-2010 06:05 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     What were the expenses submitted to the RNC again, Mike?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


99 posted 04-01-2010 06:15 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

You're asking me??? Ask Jennifer. It's her detour....
 
 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 >> A Plea For Sanity   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ] 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