Consequences of Attitude
Phil Dillon, Emporia
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Tucson has become another painful chapter in our history. In the aftermath of the tragic events we’re frantically trying to figure out why this happened. Some say guns are the root problem. Others say it’s the sad state of our mental health system or the anger that pervades our public discourse.
Could a gun ban have prevented the tragic events in Tucson? I don’t know.
I don’t own a gun. I’m not a gun enthusiast. I suspect I might disagree with friends over the meaning of the second amendment, but I’ve never felt compelled to argue against their right to own firearms. I think we’d agree that we have a right to protect ourselves. For me, that means a Louisville Slugger (33 ounce Kirby Pucket model) that I keep for the occasion that, thankfully, has never come.
Would the outcome have been different if Jared Loughner had gotten the psychiatric help he so desperately needed? Perhaps.
The sad truth is that America is awash in weapons and there are a lot of deranged people in our midst. It’s a toxic mix and it’s been that way for a long time.
Is the overheated rhetoric the problem? If we ban that, will we be able to stop the crazies? If so, who do we ban? Is the cure simply a matter of purging the public square of the Sarah Palins, Glenn Becks, Keith Olbermanns, or the Rachel Maddows?
There’s no doubt that our rhetoric has been white hot for far too long. It has cut a wide, destructive swathe through the nation. If there’s guilt to be assigned there’s more than enough to go around. As the President wisely said on January 12th, “At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -- at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do -- it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”
The President took the high road and so should we. We need to be part of the healing process. As Abraham Lincoln observed at his first inaugural, “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.”
The healing course isn’t easy. It’s difficult. It’s gradual. It’s the course that directs us to turn wrath away with a gentle response. It’s fraught with the temptation to give rise once more to the anger that’s been at the core of our divisions. But, it’s the right path.
I took a course in college called “Man and Society.” One of the course requirements was a group presentation covering a current societal issue. In the class brainstorming session I said I wanted to team up with a female student and a “negro” student to do an expose’ on the American Nazi Party, particularly its abhorrent views on gender, race, and religion. I noticed a hush come over the class as soon as I made my request. After class, several students approached me and blurted out, “The correct term is ‘black,’ but then a racist like you wouldn’t know that.” I was devastated. I was angry. For hours afterward I let the anger come to a boil. Later that afternoon I got a call from my faculty advisor. She began by telling me that she knew I wasn’t a racist and that my intent had been to expose the ugliness inherent in the Nazis. Then she asked me to apologize to the class. At first I was offended. “Dammit, Dee, I wasn’t wrong!” “I know,” she replied. “But a gentle answer turns away wrath.” After some soul searching I decided she was right. The next day I apologized to the class. I was tempted to qualify my apology by letting the class know that my motives had been pure, but I simply said, “I’m sorry. Please forgive me.” That was more than enough. The class, particularly the African-American students, expressed their support for me. “We know you’re not a racist, Phil. We love you, we trust you, and we’re with you!”
A gentle, healing response does, indeed, turn away wrath.
I wish I could say I always turn to the gentle, healing response. I wish we all could. Our families and communities would be better for it.
The President has asked us to chart that course. He’s right. If we do, we’ll see, as Lincoln did, that we’ll be getting in touch with the “better angels of our nature” and our national wounds, that have festered far too long, can begin to heal.
empgazfan (anonymous) says...
The safest places I have ever lived by far are those with total bans on private gun ownership. Its the only way to go.
February 10, 2011 at 8 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
noel_stanton (anonymous) says...
Well written, Mr. Dillon. May your thoughts and wishes bear fruit...
Noel Stanton
Moerlenbach, Germany
February 10, 2011 at 8:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
empgazfan, "Once a fool always a fool", enough said.
February 10, 2011 at 11:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dml (anonymous) says...
There is a federal ban on guns in schools, yet there are several students that were not "safe" when some other students decided to go on a shooting spree. Look at Virginia Tech, Columbine, CO, Paduka, KY, etc. Also note that the Omaha mall had "No Gun" signs posted until after the shooting occurred there, but they were taken down right away by mall staff before people had time to get back with their cameras to take pictures of them in fear that the mall would get sued by not allowing the patrons the means of using a gun to protect themselves from an active shooter. Empgazfan, you say the safest places you have lived are places with total gun bans? What would you do in those places if an illegal with a gun showed up and starting shooting at anything that moved or breathed?
February 11, 2011 at 1:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
As you learned in that Man and Society class, turning the other cheek does have its value. You knew the truth you wanted to uncover, but your mistake of making an ethnic stereotype prevented it.
Unfortunately, turning the other cheek doesn't always work as well. This is not a one-view-fits-all kind of world. For example, reports from the scene that day in Arizona tell us that many people pleaded with the shooter to stop. Now we learn that had his gun not jammed, many more would have been shot. No amount of pleading would have stopped this madman.
And that's the size of it. The shooter was enraged by who knows what goes on in the brain of a mad man. He should have been on medication, but he wasn't. He should have never been able to buy that gun and ammo as someone with a mental health problem. It was a perfect storm of circumstances.
Large numbers of people watch or listen to the highly charged news shows like Maddow and Beck and Olbermann and Limbaugh, and they watch a gun-toting Sarah Palin in the Alaska wilderness. But do they all grab a gun and stalk a politician? However, with respect for those who died, all it takes is one nut case.
I'd like to think that I'll never use my gun to defend myself, but if the time ever comes, I like the distance a gun gives me over a baseball bat or a cast iron skillet.
February 11, 2011 at 5:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
create, very nicely put. Thank goodness we have the right to bear arms and those arms aren't just the baseball bat,cast iron skillet or a swift kick!
February 11, 2011 at 7:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rabblerouser (anonymous) says...
You MUST own a gun - it's the law!
KENNESAW, Ga - Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house.
Read the Full Story at: http://www.usacarry.com/forums/genera...
February 11, 2011 at 7:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rabblerouser (anonymous) says...
Hey, I found where Empgazfan lived:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCFMDL...
February 11, 2011 at 7:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Create
The project was quite successful in the end.
I never have been able to figure out how deep the extent of my sin was. I did know my own heart and knew my motives. My failure was, unfortunately, clumsy language and the failure to stay abreast with the acceptable terms. It's a lesson I learned and occasionally have to re-learn.
I never argue with people about gun rights and ownership. I don't own a gun, mainly because I think I'd be more prone to shoot myself or someone I loved rather than an assailant or intruder. The advantage I see in the baseball bat is that I don't think I could hit myself in the head with it and that I'd have to be close enough to see who I'm aiming at, which would prevent my harming someone I love.
The bat does have its disadvantages, which you've rightly pointed out. I've decided that for me the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. I leave the decisions others make in this regard in their capable hands.
February 11, 2011 at 9:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
EmporiaRocks (anonymous) says...
Laws only govern law abiding citizens. Take away our guns and only the criminals will have them.
February 11, 2011 at 9:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Regarding political rhetoric being a factor:
In 1949, President Truman implemented the "Fairness Doctrine", which was overturned by Reagan in 1987. Which is when talk radio really began to flourish. A breakdown of the assassination attempts on political figures in the US per each era:
"In the 114 years before the enactment of the Fairness Doctrine, there were 4 assassinations and 9 attempts, making a total of 0.114 assassinations or attempts per year. In the 38 years under the Fairness Doctrine, there were 7 assassinations and 11 attempts, making 0.474 per year (or 0.395 per year if you exclude the assassination attempts on the pope). In the 24 years since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, there have been no assassinations, and only 5 attempts, making it 0.208 assassination attempts per year."
Full breakdown at
http://brevis.me/tag/assassination-at...
February 11, 2011 at 3:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Or that could be that with advances in technology and other means are a factor in preventing assignations? Are you really claiming the fairness doctrine was a factor in assignation attempts? Sounds like something Reddog would post.
I am curious though Open Eyes, we have had some very important topics in this town as of late. The kinds of topics that citizens here should be concerned and voicing their concerns, yet we heard nothing from you. But the second something politically charged appears here you are making your case for the right. Begs the question, are you a plant? or are you a citizen? To your credit you usually construct a convincing debate. Can always use that here on local topics too. your not Steve Sauder or a monument supporter are you? I'm curious.
February 11, 2011 at 5:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I simply thought it was interesting, goodoleboy, nothing more. If you want to argue advances in technology, It appears that the "advances in technology" did not lesson the rate of assassination attempts during the implementation of the Fairness Doctrine compared to previously, the rate actually went up. I'm sure technology was more advanced during that period than the time before. Maybe people just kept too much bottled up and didn't have a constructive outlet during the Doctrine, I don't know, LOL. But if one is going to argue that the political rhetoric of talk radio is causing a rise in assassination attempts then, yes, along with plain common sense, this helps debunk that. As far as it being a "case for the right"..... anyone with half a brain knows that the heated rhetoric from the left is just as plentiful from various outlets. Just because most of the media ignores it doesn't make it not a fact. "Case for the right" - I also posted a very, very long & detailed (several posts) explanation of why I am in favor of higher taxes on the very wealthy - there was a "case for the left", as you put it.
I figured most readers here knew the answers to your questions as I've stated them multiple times, but for those who may not have, here goes - again.
1) No, I am not a plant. I am not mineral either (animal, vegetable, mineral). Definitely a member of the animal kingdom.
(Although after a few drinks I often am in a "vegetative state" for awhile..... ;-)
2) The fact that I was born on and raised on a farm near Emporia, went to a small school near there, attended ESU, (all of which I have stated often) - pretty much should answer the question of am I a citizen. (YES, for those who still can't piece that together). And yes, my parents & grandparents were all legal US citizens. I'd have to go back thru the family geneology to determine exactly when all my ancestors came here but as far as I know they were all late 17-early 1800's, and all legally. I have also stated repeatedly on here I do NOT live in Emporia, but am back often to visit family, friends, investments. So legal US citizen - yes - citizen of Emporia - no. But I do have holdings in Lyon County - so I do pay taxes there......
February 11, 2011 at 5:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
So often, (not always, but often) - local politics don't interest me as much as national. But then again, that's the beauty of freedom in this country, I get to pick and choose what interests me and what doesn't. For example, as a former employee at IBP and with family & friends who worked at Tyson during the Somalian brouhaha - that interested me, even though it was local. I also from time to time just take breaks from here, lose interest, get busy with my own life, etc. Sometimes I only blog if/when I feel strongly enough one direction or the other.
And who is Steve Sauder? ;-)
Monument - what a waste of money. I also recall saying on an earlier thread something along the lines of give me $50 and I'll paint some signs up, hire some local help for $10/hour to do a few hours of landscaping to put them up, etc. I figured that also pretty much precluded what I thought of the $100,000 rocks. I didn't really follow the thread closely but checked in from time to time & caught up. But pretty much anything I would have said had already been said quite well, by you as well as others, goodoleboy, so I felt no need to just echo.
I don't know - sometimes I get the itch to throw my voice/hat in the ring, sometimes I don't, sometimes I just don't follow it. Lately, I will admit, however, since biscuitboy's death I have not had as much interest here. Always did enjoy sparring a few rounds with him, which almost always ended in a respectful handshake, so to speak.
February 11, 2011 at 5:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
We at one time locked "crazies" ,but now we are a society of enlightenment,what the "h" do you expect when these people walk among us.I am beginning to think some even post here! .......so sorry ,I dont know the PC name for crazies.
February 11, 2011 at 6:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
BTW, I ate at Freddie's last time I was back. Reminds me alot of a Steak-n-Shake.
February 11, 2011 at 6:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Your voice has a lot greater thunder on the local scene then it does on the national. I feel it is equally important to take care of your own back yard as it is to try and affect change on the national level.
Just never hear you chime in on much of anything that is local, it is almost always the national scene. Based off of that it is logical to believe you could be a plant(can define that reference if needed). Just my observations.
But in regards to your statement about the Fairness Doctrine. You made the inference that it lead to higher assassination rates by the connotation of your post. I find that to be a right wing theory as I have read it elsewhere a few times theorized by those on the right. It about as ridiculous as one making the claim that the TV has pacified the masses leading to lower assassination rates, or that higher obesity resulted in lower rates. It's silly and I am confused as to why you even brought it into this, other than the fact the right gets paranoid about it when something like Tucson happens.
February 11, 2011 at 6:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Just an FYI, since Olbermann is now gone, can we axe Beck to so that the scales are balanced?
February 11, 2011 at 6:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
No, goodoleboy, actually you are reading my intent exactly backwards. The AZ shootings raised to new heights this paranoid and ignorant claim that talk radio & political rhetoric (specifically from the right) was the cause of the shootings, and furthermore has raised /fomented violence against politicians. I simply used that case to show what a stupid and unfounded claim that is, not anything going in the other direction. Never intended to show that it was higher under the Fairness Doctrine, just that there has certainly been no rise corresponding to the rise of talk radio. You read too much into it.
I find the original claims made right after the shooting every bit as ridiculous as those you posed. And it appeared to me it was the LEFT that got paranoid right after Tucson. They are the ones that started the blame immediately. Should the right not have defended themselves and common sense in any way?
February 11, 2011 at 6:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Yeah, remember Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally last year? Yeah, we should definitely not allow things like that in this country....... to balance the scales.... ;-)
February 11, 2011 at 6:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
An extremist is an extremist whether it is a nut on the left torching SUV's to save the planet or it is a nut on the right bombing a medical clinic to save the unborn, both are equally reprehensible and the punishment should be just as extreme but banishment of fire will change nothing.
February 11, 2011 at 7:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
booker5m (anonymous) says...
Gun show in town Sat. We can all go load up
February 11, 2011 at 8:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Not talking about Beck's rally, talking about the lies and extremism he advocates. Do you deny this? I have seen you time and time again rip on Olbermann, yet Beck is more of same, just a different flavor.
February 11, 2011 at 9:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
In regards to the post concerning the Fairness Doctrine. If I misunderstood I apologize, but your post to me sounds like a person making a case that the Fairness Doctrine being repealed was in direct correlation with fewer assassination attempts. I have read quite a bit lately about the right thinking that Tucson would bring it back. Consequently if there truly was a correlation then the far right extremists should be pushing for it come back right?
February 11, 2011 at 9:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy
I read it the same way.
Corellations can often lead to strange conclusions. I've seen that most people these days die in hospitals. Before they die they eat inordinate amounts of jell-o. It only takes a leap of faith to conclude that jell-o is one of the primary causes of death.
February 11, 2011 at 9:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
My dad once asked me, "Why don't you bring my grandchildren over to visit?" I replied, "Because you have loaded guns everywhere." My dad went off on his "gun rights" torrent demanding that it was his right to have guns and I had to stop him and remind him that I wasn't questioning the constitutional right to bear arms, just answering the his question. He gathered up all his guns and secured them in a gun safe and I brought his grandchildren to visit.
I'm as liberal as anyone I know but I don't believe conservatives are responsible for right wing extremists any more than I believe that liberals are responsible for left wing extremists. I don't condone Olbermann's rhetoric and I don't condemn Beck's rhetoric. I treat them the same way as I treat reddog's links. I just don't go there.
I always find it interesting how people come out after a tragedy and say they knew the lunatic would do something like this. If I knew a nutcase that did something insane, I would be too ashamed for not trying to get the guy help to go public. It sounds to me like the college that kicked the nutcase off their campus should be held to answer at least a few questions. Jared Loughner didn't need the sporting goods department at wal-mart. He needed the pharmacy.
February 11, 2011 at 9:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well, I can't control how other people interpret it, but my intention truly was simply to show that with the demise of the Fairness Doctrine and the rise of talk radio there has been no corresponding rise in violence against politicians.
Which, anyone with half a mind can easily interpret, was the insinuations and accusations made by the far left immediately after the Tucson shootings.
The fact that the number of incidents had actually went down I attribute to nothing, make no correlation with. Just simply showing that there was no sharp rise in step with the rise of talk radio. I mean, given all the accusations immediately after Tucson, it seems that would be the assumption.......
February 12, 2011 at 6:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
I read it the same way netloafer and goodoleboy did, open_eyes. Perhaps we can agree to disagree that your prose was a tad unclear? Not starting a war here, just sayin'.
REWBA, I heartily agree with you that the college needs to be held responsible for not reporting that they had expelled Loughner. Unfortunately, privacy laws sometimes do more harm than good. Only days after the tragedy we learn of all the bizarre things he was doing and saying in the classroom and elsewhere on campus. They even have him on videotape. It's as if we should better rely on a good investigative reporter than on the police.
But let's be clear here, to whom should the college have made such a report? I suppose the police for starters since it would take a court order to get him the mental health service he needed. Then again, he didn't actually do anything at the time. I can just hear the police now. "Unless he does something or threatens anyone, there's nothing we can do." Heck, we've had cases like that around here with people actually rallying around the offender to defend and protect him. Look at the many people who defended Magallenez.
But, I digress so hit post.
February 12, 2011 at 7:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well, then I apologize for the intent or meaning being unclear.
1) Immediately after Tucson, left comes out with accusations that right-wing talk radio was the culprit and incites violence.
2) Facts show absolutely no correlation whatsoever between the rise of talk-radio and violence against politicians.
My only intent. Period. Sorry I didn't realize the dots were so difficult to connect in that fashion, or that it appeared I was trying to argue the exact opposite. I guess people read into things what it is they want to see. I wanted to show stats show there is no correlation. Others apparently want to see an attempt by "the right" to show something else, I guess. Its interesting to note the directions/ideologies the alternate interpretations are coming from. Well, to each their own, I suppose. As I said.... it appears everyone sees what they want to see. I was looking for a correlating rise in violence and found none. And stated that, and nothing more. Never said one single word whatsoever about it being higher during the Fairness Doctrine, or implied anything, only stated the stats, whatever they were. I'm sure anyone else can find exactly what it is they are looking for in it. :-)
February 12, 2011 at 8:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Now, now, now, open_eyes, take your licks about being unclear and be done with it lest you sound like Steve Sauder on here, blaming the faceless ones and saying his imagination made him do it.
LOL
Good to spar with you. Happy Saturday.
February 12, 2011 at 8:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
BTW, you've come back to town at a very good time with all the controversy and hoopla over the rocks and now a primary election too. Enjoy it.
February 12, 2011 at 8:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
create, I don't blame the school for the actions of a lunatic but I do wonder why, if his professor and peers were so scared of this guy that they demanded he be expelled and banished from the grounds, couldn't they contact law enforcement? I know that if a police officer believes someone is loco (harmful to self or others), they can't just release the lunatic. They have to transport them to a medical facility for diagnosis. Is Arizona law that much different then the rest of the U.S.?
We are not talking about tazing a potty mouth child in second grade, just seeking mental health for someone who we now know needed it.
February 12, 2011 at 11:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
I'm with you, REWBA, but I'm guessing that college was so afraid of privacy matters that they just let him go and out of sight, out of mind. In addition to the college, what about his parents? Surely they had to know he had a couple of screws loose. If not, why did his father chase after him out into the desert that morning? Strange all the way around. I'm sure no one is saying anything because this thing has to go to trial.
I wonder if their paper has a forum like ours does. If so, that college has probably been told a thing or two by now.
February 12, 2011 at 1:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
It appears that more people saw it as I did. The way you presented your argument was very much like a right wing article I read after Tucson claiming that the left would try to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. I' not taking sides, just calling it as I/we saw it.
That being said, I do think there needs to be some accountability for what is happening today in the media on BOTH sides. I don't watch MSNBC, but I was glad to see Olbermann go. To me people like him, and the Glenn Becks out there have much more in the minus column than the positive column in what they contribute.
If I watch cable TV news I usually watch CNN, they seem to at least attempt to be neutral at times. I used to watch Fox News, specifically O'Reilly, but after his interview with the President I am officially done with that network. 6 friends and I watched the Superbowl interview together before the game, all of us looked at each other afterwords and asked why is he interrupting the President so much? That is annoying and disrespectful. A few days later I read the he interrupted the President 48 times during the course of that interview. Wow....
Of course this inflamed the left which I expected, as I would if the inverse occurred. The point is that extremism leads to violence. Lies and propaganda perpetuated by both sides feeds it. The right can rail against the Fairness Doctrine, but what they need to do take the Hannity's and Beck's of their ranks down a peg or two. I think that Olbermann lost his job to his extremist ways, would like to see the same happen on the other end of the spectrum, then maybe, just maybe we could get a little more news and a little less opinion.
February 12, 2011 at 6:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ascwrangler (anonymous) says...
Don't worry Open Eyes....it made sense
Depth perception can be an issue with only the left eye open.
February 12, 2011 at 9:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Feel free to present your argument, or are labels all that simple mind can muster?
February 12, 2011 at 9:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
southparkrepublican (anonymous) says...
I read it the same way goodoleboy did. I thought it was pretty easy to connect the dots on where he was going with it. Amusing that a conservative thought it made sense.
February 12, 2011 at 10:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Phil Dillion is a paid spook for the Emporia Gazette.
February 13, 2011 at 3:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Speaking of spooks, look in mirror.....
February 13, 2011 at 4:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
IT TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE,
February 13, 2011 at 4:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Reddog
You mispelled my name. Lots of people do that.
What is your source for the information about "paid" spook?
I'm curious. You may know something I don't.
February 13, 2011 at 7:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Phil,
It is sure a good thing you are not the litigious type;>)
February 13, 2011 at 7:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
No kidding.
Careful reddog. From time to time, I too write articles for the Gazette and am published under my real name and "Special to the Gazette." I do not get paid. Repeat, I do not get paid. Were you to say something similar about me, you'd be in trouble.
You were wrong to say what you did about Phil Dillon, and you owe him an apology, a public apology.
February 13, 2011 at 8:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justaflushaway (anonymous) says...
kbthomasyouraidiot, it may surprise you,BUT a lot of people actually , KNOW SOMETHING YOU DON'T,
I know, it's breaking your widdle heart. but get use to it, remember your a write-in for commission? (your words), and when you lose there also, your widdle heart will be broke once more.
February 13, 2011 at 8:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
1) Claim talk radio has raised violence
2) No evidence to support it
Amusing that liberals even made the attempt at # 1, let alone reading whatever they want into any attempt to show # 2. Again..... it's pretty easy to note the ideology of those who are reading one thing into it, and those who read another. So everyone just be happy interpreting what you want out of it. Next time maybe I'll fudge the numbers and make them exactly equal so nobody who is at least somewhat amenable to the Fairness Doctrine or any tenet of it can zero in on that aspect of it instead of anything else it may have shown ;-)
And I've seen talk (from Congress) about re-instating the Fairness Doctrine LONG before Tucson, goodoleboy - and complaints from others in rebuttal - was that the first you've heard of it?
Well, I suppose folks can go wherever they want with it. And they will. As your synopsis of the O'Reilly interview, which gave me a good chuckle. As Bill himself has noted in his email, everyone is not going to be pleased no matter what. A large chunk of folks were disappointed & think the interview was too soft, just another "softball" interview like those we've gotten SO used to, a large think it was too rude, etc..... personally I'm glad he didn't let Obama do too much filibustering or he would have only gotten in 2 questions in 15 min. (Given his what, 7-minute average answer at that one press conference?). Brett Baier found the same problem in his interview, tried about every trick in the book he could to get the interview moving when he could.
SCORFOPOTUS (Sudden Concern Over Respect For the Office of President Of The United States) is an affliction that suddenly and without warning struck millions of US citizens on or about Jan 20, 2009 who had up to that point been largely immune to its effects, or at the very least the affliction had lain dormant in them for several years. Conversely, quite a few people who had been afflicted with it were themselves suddenly symptom-free. I've witnessed some of the near-miraculous transformations on these very boards. There are still some who are both symptom-free before and after that date as well as those who are still afflicted, but for many folks, it seems to come and go in roughly 4 to 8 year intervals. ;-)
Well, let's see, if we don't watch anything that has shown any disrespect to our current favorite poli, let's see, that automatically eliminates pretty much ALL news........ ESPN? Nah, Lebron James said Bush when asked who he's most like to dunk on, so that's out, can't watch that anymore.... maybe Nickelodeon? Where does SpongeBob stand on all this? LOL I still watch other news organizations, even those who's usual point of view I mostly disagree with, because I want the media in this country to hold our politicians accountable, not give them a free ride.
February 13, 2011 at 10:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
It amazes me how sidetracked this thread has gotten by that one set of stats, so please, by all means, everyone read whatever you want into it. If you think it was trying to show that violence against politicians rose as a direct result of the implementation of the Fairness Doctrine, then please do, don't let me stand in your way. If you think it tried to show that the claims of many on the left immediately after Tucson had no merit - (you know, those who were completely blind to the DNC map being nearly identical to Palin's) - then please do. If you want to read into it that obviously muskets in the old days were much more dangerous than today's high-powered armaments, please do. I have a sneaking suspicion that I may be able to show some correlation between the violence and oil prices, but that may take me a little more time. Have fun with it, by all means - enjoy. :-)
February 13, 2011 at 11:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
open_eyes,
Anonymous people on the internet complaining about problems showed people who otherwise would remain silent out of fear of reprisal that their feelings were felt by more than a minority. That gave them the courage found in numbers to stand up and demand change. We witnessed it on CNN and FOX.
We know for a fact that the nutcase who shot the democrat congresswoman was influenced by his right wing thoughts and so it is not unreasonable to believe that he may have believed he was following the marching orders of Sara Palin and other in the tea party movement.
The man who shot Dr. Tiller was influenced by extreme right wing propaganda as well.
The Earth Liberation Front members who torched housing developments and car dealerships were not influenced by the right, they were influenced by the extreme left.
You are right of center and I am left of center but you and I are closer that I am to the extreme left or you to the extreme right.
Those of us in the wide center whether right or left need to form an alliance to counter those on the extremes. It is the extremes that has divided our nation and left us broke and angry. Politicians love the extremes because they polarize a base and paralyze a nation. You and I can have our differences but as long as we can communicate freely, we will always find common ground where there is no room for extremists to stifle cooperation.
February 13, 2011 at 11:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
solong (anonymous) says...
reddog, really, was that the best come back you have for goodoleboy? You are losing even more than I thought.
February 13, 2011 at 12:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Please, REWBA, by all means, show your facts where the nutcase was influenced by his right wing thoughts. (And please, none of the silly crap even you admit you don't believe :-). From everything I've read he eschewed politics alltogether. And since 2 Republicans were killed in the attack, I guess I'm going to put on your thinking hat and say it is "not unreasonable to believe that he may have believed he was following the marching orders of someone on the left" - you know, like the DNC that put bullseyes on Republicans.
Nah, it sounds too stupid and unreasonable, even for me.
For those who obviously have their own slant of it but obviously didn't read the article, here is the gist of what was apparently missed:
"Here was a topic that was posed to me by Heather Johnson, a loyal reader of Brevis: has conservative talk radio had an effect on political discourse in the U.S.? Here are my questions: has the rate of political violence in the United States increased since the advent of political talk radio? Has talk radio contributed to political violence? Has the rise of the “poisonous” political rhetoric of conservatives (the “right wing”) led to an increase in political violence?.... "
Reasonable questions all, IMO.
"Background on talk radio. A little history, first..... All of the big radio talk show hosts seem to have begun their career after the Fairness Doctrine ended, so it seems a logical choice to use the Fairness Doctrine as marks on a timeline. I did some digging into assassinations of and assassination attempts on political figures since the beginning of our country, and here’s what I found:.....
(stats)"
And I think here's where we focused on 2 different things:
"While it would be foolish to try to draw an inverse correlative effect between the advent of talk radio to the decline of assassination attempts on public officials, there is an argument to be made here: when regulation to free speech is withdrawn, political discourse increases. When political discourse increases, the people feel as if their voices are being heard, as if their political views are being given a voice."
for. JMO.
February 13, 2011 at 1:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
(Sorry about the ending "for. JMO" - cut/paste error when I had to split the post up).
So I focused the fact there was no rise, and as the author said, dismissed the foolishness of drawing the inverse correlation..... while it appears to those on the left, that is what they focused on (in direct contrast to the authors statement). As for the remainder of the final paragraph, sure, that's a point of discussion. And I might even say I agree with it at the extremes - for example, in Iraq, Egypt - lack of political discourse certainly leads to people not feeling their voices are being heard. But in this country does it translate into violence? Here's where everyone can (and will) make their own call.....
As REWBA just said (in apparent agreement with the author of the article) - "as long as we can communicate freely, we will always find common ground where there is no room for extremists"....
Problem is.... who gets to do the labeling of what is "extremist"? Beck drew alot of ire for his "Restoring Honor" rally, where he talked about commitment to values, principles, self-reliance,..... all ideas apparently too extreme for many. I keep being reminded of the POV of the CNN reporter - the signs degrading Obama were obviously too extremist, (and I agree with her) - but apparently she didn't feel the signs degrading Bush were. Apparently she was ok with that. That's my problem. Who gets to decide one was ok & the other wasn't? Apparently most of the media outside of Fox, and indeed, most of those who recently came down with a sudden case of SCORFOPOTUS apparently didn't seem to think it was extreme or over the line as long as it was directed at Bush. Place for the Fairness Doctrine? Personally, I think, if implemented, those who pushed for it will quickly rue the day they got what they wished for - JMO
February 13, 2011 at 1:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
I would say anyone who decides that killing a human is the right thing to do is an extremist.
My only problem with Glenn Beck is the way that he manipulates his believers into believing that values and principals are something that only the right have. He is extremely divisive and in his controlled mob, people who attempt to pull the curtain back on the great wizard get their faces smashed by the cowardly lions.
Before you go accusing me of attacking the right wing nut shells, let me say that I feel the same way about Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and other foaming mouthed liberals. Syndicated hate on both sides are tearing this nation apart. They are backed financially by puppet masters who have everything to gain by ripping America in half. Hell, Rupert Murdoch wasn't born in America. He makes his money here selling tabloid half truths and outright lies to the deaf, dumb and the blind.
February 13, 2011 at 1:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Al Gore just hired Olbermann..... so I guess he believes in their message as well. Apparently its not too extreme for Al.
I can name Nobel Prize winners, movie makers, politicians, liberal talk-show hosts, noted media figures, and on and on who all during the prior few years publicly made statements regarding wishing for the death of Bush.
Including you, REWBA.
I don't mean to be attacking, I'm just having a little trouble "connecting the dots" as it has been explained to me as being easily done by I think, 4 or 5 folks here who have a self-admitted more liberal point of view.
I interpreted the authors statement "it would be foolish to try to draw an inverse correlative effect between the advent of talk radio to the decline of assassination attempts on public officials"...... to mean just that, that it was foolish. Apparently several folks immediately connected the dots to mean exactly what the author said was foolish, if I am interpreting them correctly. Well, as you said, southparkrepublican, I, too, see some humor in how some people are interpreting things......
February 13, 2011 at 2:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
In answer to an earlier question of your, goodoleboy, which I inadvertantly skipped over until I just now went back and read, I'm somewhat in the middle on Beck.
If I just follow what the left says about him, I would think he was Hitler and Satan rolled into one. I don't watch him much, but on those rare occasions when I do, I don't see it nearly as much as claimed. Yes, I'm aware of some things he has said that are definitely controversial, and I would say I strongly disagree with. But the times I actually sit down and watch him, especially when he has his panel discussions, I just don't see that much of what is portrayed. Olbermann, on the other hand, I can't get thru 30 seconds of without him coming out with some hate-filled rhetoric and a silly sneer on his face the whole time. So yes, in answer to your question, I don't see the same level hate spewed by either. Actually I think Beck is more of a clown than anything. I very much enjoyed his panel discussion with black conservatives awhile back. Can't think of anything Olbermann has ever done I enjoyed, or that I thought he treated even-handedly.
Now Hannity is one that I see as extremely one-sided and not very open to other viewpoints - however, his show (again, I rarely watch it anymore, but I did watch his interview with the British Sharia court judge last week) does regularly have very liberal members & viewpoints presented - it almost should be called Hannity & Beckel - LOL. I've never thought of Hannity as very skilled at the art of debating, however. Weak, actually. But I've heard his guests say equally as "incindiary" things, for lack of a better term for it, on his show coming from the other direction. But as I said, I pretty much quit watching it once Colmes left it.
February 13, 2011 at 3 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
I might have really liked the Bush family had I not known where their wealth came from AND not have been sent to war every single Christmas that they held the White House.
I believe Gore would have been a bore had the 2000 election not been rigged in Bush's favor but I also believe that we would have never gone to war with Iraq and perhaps airport security would have been increased when a President Gore would have received the security briefings the was provided to the POTUS named bush. But we will never know because the Bush family cheated like they always do.
http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives...
February 13, 2011 at 3:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justaflushaway (anonymous) says...
they just never stop!
February 13, 2011 at 4:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Open Eyes,
Above I was critical of both the right and left, yet with you it is almost always defending the right and demonizing the left. I find extremism on both sides to be a problem. I reiterate that Olbermann gone is a good thing, but I also think the likes of Hannity or Beck should go to, they are every bit as bad. It has nothing to do with free speech, they just don't contribute enough positive to outweigh their negatives.
Perhaps if you paid as much attention to Beck as you did Olbermann you would see, I have plenty I can link if you would like, I try not to be a reddog though. Timothy McViegh was a right wing extremist, 2nd worse terror attack ever on our soil. He was a Republician who switched to Libertarian, paid up member of the NRA and wanted revenge on the Clinton administration for Waco and Ruby Ridge. Sounds kind of like Tea Party follower to me. One trend that I saw while researching was that the left is increasingly using technology to reek havoc, the right just seems to kill people.
February 13, 2011 at 6:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hometownboy (anonymous) says...
empgazfan do you need help moving back where you came from.
February 13, 2011 at 9:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Open Eyes,
Regarding the Super Bowl interview, out of the six people I was with that viewed it, it was the women that brought it up to begin with. 2 of them did not even know who O'reilly is, none of us talk politics, all of us thought he was out of line. II mention it only because I thought it was interesting. My point here is regardless of the political affiliations of the parties involved it was a hatchet job. I would say the same if it Olbermann interviewing Bush. Obama is a long winded speaker, but interrupting the man 48 times to move an interview along is hardly acceptable. He does not have to respect Obama's policies, but he does need to respect the office.
February 13, 2011 at 9:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I think folks that know and watch O'Reilly are well aware of his penchant for interrupting, and expected it. Those who don't even know who he is I can see would be surprised by it. I do wish in a few cases he wouldn't have been as "brusque" in his interruptions, but it didn't appear that it upset Obama - unlike it appeared to when Baier tried to get him to stop filibustering. It seemed a pretty friendly & cordial give & take to me overall.
The number started out at 22 interruptions, then went to the high 20's, then 30's, now 48. I expect it will cross 50 soon ;-)
As for who defends what mostly, again - I ask who gets to set the definition of extremism. Many, many folks on the left don't think of Olbermann as extreme at all. Many think O'Reilly is extreme (most of those have never once watched him, just the carefully crafted soundbites they get from his competition). Same with Beck. Maybe its just my point of view/where I'm coming from.
February 14, 2011 at 11:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Nope, 48 has been the standard. I even counted them myself because I thought it was being exaggerated.
But what you said about O'reilly is exactly what I find to be telling of why people took offense. If people watching him for the first time with no knowledge of who he is and what he stands for are offended by his style then does that not say something? I watched O'reilly for quite a bit, but since Obama took office Fox News has shifted a long way from Fair and Balanced, he seemed to buck the trend at first, but lately he seems as permeated as the rest.
Many folks on the right don't think Beck or Hannity or even Limbaugh or Coulter are extreme, does not make it true. I found Olbermann extreme, and even though it will probably never come out I will wager he lost his job over it. Want to bet he gets more extreme at Current?
February 14, 2011 at 4:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
O'Reilly interrupted Obama 22 times in 15 min interview, multiple sources, here's one:
http://www.examiner.com/political-buz...
But maybe they were just talking about the portion that aired during the super bowl, not the whole interview, don't know.
This one said interrupted 70 times:
http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com/_new...
Saw one that said 72 times during the whole interview, so I reached my 50 goal ;-)
That's funny. I've felt he has become more and more supportive of Obama over time - LOL. And his viewer email seems to echo that. The other night they had Marc Lamont Hill, regular very liberal Fox contributor on, with another conservative, they rated Obama's response to Egypt to that point. The liberal gave him a D-, the conservative a C+, O'Reilly a B+. So I guess it was the liberal there who was the extremist, right? It appeared the trend O'Reilly was bucking was the liberal point of view - LOL.
That's one reason I watched Olbermann from time to time. I didn't trust what anyone said about him, had to see it for myself. Same can be said for alot of folks who never watch certain shows but have an opinion based on what others tell them (especially the competition - like that should tell you something).
Reminds me of Eric Holder, when he said he was against AZ's immigration law.
"Have you actually read it yet?"
"No, I haven't".
;-)
February 14, 2011 at 4:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
OPEN EYES: enjoy reading what you write.Reminds me of analyst report,very well written.
February 14, 2011 at 5:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
It took me all of 2 minutes to find over 10, here are 3, I can post 20 plus and reddog this thread if you like:
http://www.indyposted.com/151868/how-...
http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/02/10/o...
http://www.towleroad.com/2011/02/watc...
Split the difference on your figures if you like, it still changes nothing. It was disrespectful to me and to people who had no clue about O'reilly. As I said before I think he needs respect the office. I would say the same if it was a liberal interviewing a conservative.
I have watched everyone (wonders of DVR) before making my assertions. I saw enough on Olbermann, Hannity, Beck, etc to warrant my claims. I would be happy to start linking youtube videos if I thought it would make a difference.
As for the Holder comment, I could make the case for darn ear every politician out there has spoken at one time or another on a bill they have not read. Recently I heard Beck channel Palin again saying there would be death panels with Obama's HCR. A topic voted lie of year:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-met...
What is more dangerous? Telling people the government is going to kill them? Or the AG saying he has not read a bill he invariably read? If everyone was forced to read everything we could do away with all those staffers I guess, good luck getting anything done ever.
February 14, 2011 at 11:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Oh brother. I never said there weren't plenty of sources who say it was 48. I just said there are plenty out there who have even different numbers. Lower & higher. Good grief.
I have also seen you quote & reference quite a few media figures on here who blatantly disrespected Bush, so it doesn't appear you get "officially done" with other folks & networks for disrespecting the office of the president, only a certain one. Eyebrow raised.
Thx, sail, I appreciate it. I guess it comes from my job which requires me to think analytically. You know, the kind where if an author says it would be foolish to make this assumption, then I figure if would be foolish to make that assumption, instead of connecting the dots & coming up with the exact opposite interpretation as some on here did - and still haven't explained to me how they connected those dots yet. Maybe they just didn't read the article?
I actually sat down & watched Hannity last night. Beckel was on the show. They seemed to be pretty cordial. I liked the segment with the guy who has the audience who is pretty evenly split ideologically and rates graphs the responses to different segments. It was quite a contrast from the usual Olbermann/Maddow show. It seems to me these days the definition of extremism is just anyone who doesn't agree with you. Remember back when communists & socialists used to be extremists? Now we have congresspeople who openly state they are socialists, and that's not considered extreme, only if you oppose them. Bill Maher recently had a segment blasting the O'Reilly interview for how disrespectful it was. But has anyone ever pointed out to him the horrible things he has said about Bush? And interrupting someone is somehow worse? Makes my head hurt trying to connect THOSE dots.........
February 15, 2011 at 8:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Missed the point again, like I said, whether it 70,48,36,29 pick a number. It was too much. I am not even going to argue the number, in fact if you read above where I said "split the difference" I said as much.
Regarding media figures who attacked Bush. Again I stated above that this was the final straw, it was a progression getting to this point, I stated this in an earlier post. Did you not read what I said? /eyebrow raised.
I consider extremists those that continually preach lies. Fox News was a pretty decent network until Obama got elected. Then it started. I realize full well what people said about Bush, not discounting this. What I do find curious is that you always go back to "Well they did to Bush", "Bush had it worse". Bush in his 3rd year had nowhere near the rhetoric and hate spewed at him. In fact I remember a few liberals, Bill Maher being one of them. That were booted off their respective shows for raising questions and spreading hate.
With Olbermann gone, one could make a case the liberals seem to police themselves better than the conservatives. I consider Limbaugh and Coulter to extremist hate mongers, especially with the some the things they have gone on record saying. Yet that is OK. Glenn Beck went on record saying he had a deep hatred for white people, token apology given, damage done though. I could continue to go on and on and on and on but I get the point. Since it happened to Bush it's OK, got it, I understand now.
February 15, 2011 at 8:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
The point is, for eight years the conservatives screamed bloody murder anytime anyone criticized Bush. He was a president in time of war and any criticism was treated as treasonous by the right. For the past two years those same conservatives have done nothing but criticize and insult a president in time of war and it isn't even his freaking war. I won't call it treasonous, it's partisan. But I will call it hypocritical to say the least.
February 15, 2011 at 8:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Interesting stuff here:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/...
February 15, 2011 at 8:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
Rewba, both parties have let us down for several ellections,im hoping for great things in 2012. 'V'
February 16, 2011 at 7:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
sail, I totally agree. Both the republican party and the tea party have been allowed to get away with bald face lies as they manipulate the ignorant masses for far too long.
I'm afraid that nothing will change as long as people with dementia and extremely lo IQ's are allowed to vote. However, that would disenfranchise the red states.
I'm voting Obama unless there is something better offered by one of the other 46 political parties in the U.S.
http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm
February 16, 2011 at 8:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
REWBA,wow...all I can say after that is ...WE COME FROM DIFFERENT REALITIES......."v"
February 16, 2011 at 10:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
But of course, REWBA, none of your 8:32 post applies to Dems, right? What would you guess the IQ of those who thought they weren't going to have to worry about paying for any bills ever again, Obama would take care of it from his "stash"? What do you think the ratio is of folks in highly concentrated urban areas is to sparsely populated/agricultural "red" states?
No sail, I don't think you come from a different reality. I just think you come from reality, period. Don't really know where some folks come from.
February 16, 2011 at 2:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Goodoleboy, I'm simply wondering when your "final straw" was reached in the other direction? Seems to me if interrupting was enough to put you over the top then you've had ample opportunities to be done with alot of others - for alot bigger reasons.
Besides, I tried to explain the "final straw" analogy to you when you wondered why people are now more upset about the deficit than under Bush and you decried it, so I guess its yet another of those things that only apply in one direction, I suppose.
And no, I didn't miss the point. I was just making fun of the fact that the numbers are all over the place. Started out at 22, most are sticking at 48, some are up in the 70's now.
And now on Maher they say the whole interview was RACIST......... well, I expected that claim to be made as soon as I heard it was scheduled, long before the actual interview. I wonder how long it will be before someone claims Fox broadcast subliminal messages durning the interview? LOL
And if you think for a second I imply that "Since it happened to Bush it's OK".... then you truly do NOT understand.
February 16, 2011 at 2:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
open_eyes,
I remember that lady who was saying that she wouldn't have to pay her bills anymore. FOX news played it over and over. It was funny but, like the majority of the right wing's propaganda, it was meaningless. Over half of all conservatives really believe Obama wasn't born in the U.S. because of meaningless remarks made by talk show personalities who themselves know that it is a myth. A simple short phrase like "Obama want's to raise your taxes!" it repeated over and over so, although Obama has cut taxes three times in two years and has never raised taxes once, simple minded conservatives still believe that Obama has raised taxes.
It isn't my responsibility to educate idiots but if people cannot see that the republican party is on the dark side of the force following Sith Lords then I feel obligated to warn the innocent.
February 16, 2011 at 4:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Look at the broader picture. There are more taxes out there than just simple income tax alone. About 2 weeks after taking office he raised the federal cigarette by 156%. Also, numerous tax increases were included in Obamacare. Among them: a tax on medical-device makers, a tax on withdrawals from health-savings accounts, a $27 billion “fee” on pharmaceutical manufacturers, an excise tax on high-end health insurance plans, a tax on indoor tanning businesses, an increase in the Medicare payroll tax, raising the threshold for deducting medical expenses from 7.5 percent of income to 10 percent. As a result, people with substantial medical expenses will pay more income tax.
As has been noted, “Ninety percent of all the tax cuts he ever signed into law are temporary.......but 100 percent of all of the tax increases he passed are permanent."
Even simple minded people should be aware of the above.
So yes, there's arguments to be made on both sides there. He as not raised income taxes, and has actually cut some taxes. But when he says he hasn't raised ANY taxes that is a lie. I WISH he had raised taxes on the very wealthy, and some aspects of Health care will do just that.
To borrow your phrase, simple minded liberals still believe that Obama has never once raised any taxes.
PolitiFact & FactCheck apparently are both simple minded idiots under the spell of the Dark Master because they agree that statement is completely False:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-met...
http://factcheck.org/2011/02/obamas-t...
I feel obligated to warn the innocent about a certain Sith Lord in a Jedi's clothing only telling half the story. Just as the other side does. It appears there are 2 "Dark Sides" in politics anymore. ;-)
February 16, 2011 at 5:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Was I not clear? I thought I was clear that my being done with O'rielly was a pretty clear. Final straw is what it is, might not have been one for you. I don't consider O'reilly an extremist, but I don't think he is the centrist he claims to be anymore. I had a final straw on Olbermann too, don't worry.
I caught the Maher show, they JOKED about it about being racist, but Maher contention was that it was disrespectful not racist, if you saw something contrary to that it was taken out of context.
February 16, 2011 at 5:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Problem is that Conservatives like to frame Obama as someone who increased taxes on an unprecedented scale. Some of the lies they come up get repeated until people believe them.
Rick Scott here say HCR is probably one of the tax increases ever:
http://www.politifact.com/florida/sta...
Sarah Palin lying about Obama hiking taxes:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-met...
Or Eric Cantor saying HCR kills jobs:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-met...
Or Bob Marshall saying people will go to jail for not buying health insurance.
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/st...
Or the perpetuated lie that HCR is a government takeover of Health Insurance:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-met...
I'll wager $100 I can turn on Fox News and hear any or all of these lies within 30 mins or less. Funny thing is that the tax cuts just passed in December are worse for the deficit than the stimulus, TARP, or equal to HCR.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-met...
The only way to truly tackle the deficit is to cut from defense spending or medicare and social security. Currently neither party is touching those, liberals would lose the poor vote and conservatives would lose the elderly.
February 16, 2011 at 8:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
The problem that conservatives have with health care reform aka "Obamacare" makes no sense at all. If you believe that we are spending too much public taxes providing health care for elderly and poor, the only choice there is is forcing everyone to have health insurance or denying health care to those unable to pay altogether.
I have never used an ambulance but I pay to have one standing by just in case. I have health insurance so if I use an ambulance, my health insurance will be billed but people without health insurance will just cost taxpayers with no reimbursement. Then you have the medicare and medicaid hypochondriacs who don't give a (blank) and just abuse the medical system because it's free for them.
If there is any way to reduce this public cost, people must be made to insure themselves. Anything less is just socialism.
February 17, 2011 at 6:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Those are all good points, goodoleboy, and people should definitely not be mislead by them. Everyone of them you listed.
But, just like Obama saying he has never raised taxes, that doesn't mean the truth is completely 100% in the opposite direction, either. Take your first point. Is it the largest tax increase ever? Of course not. Scott was absolutely wrong. (Note that he DID say "probably"... not that it absolutely was. I know, splitting hairs.... but worth noting). BUT.....from your own link....."The health care law certainly is, on the whole, a tax increase.". And when they do the comparison.... it looks like it comes in tied for about 5th largest in the modern era (very little difference between 3rd, 4th, & 5th). So it DOES represent a sizeable increase. Which makes Obama's statement equally as false as Scotts. And REWBA's.
Also from your links:
It notes this regarding Cantor's claim: "The Republican report is RIGHT that the CBO has determined that the law will reduce "the amount of labor used in the economy"........ but basically rates it false because there is no way to really tell at this point.
Marshall's claim on jail time was based on a report which, as they noted, "That was true -- then. But it took place well before the health care law was approved.
Both House and Senate versions of the health care bill contained language that would levy a tax on persons who refuse to obtain coverage. Under the House version, evading that tax WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN JAIL TIME; but not in the bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee and eventually made law.
So, he was woefully out of date as to the legislation he was citing, as that did not make it into the final bill. So apparently he had not read or did not know the final version.
Now, earlier you defended politicians for making statements & assumptions on things they had not read yet, now you are attacking. Which is it?
Regarding the governement takeover of health care, as I've said often, IMO that will most likely be a backdoor result. In Mass, with their similar approach passed by Rep Gov Romney.... the insurance companies are being squeezed out, so soon the gov WILL be the only option. And they know that, that's why they took the gov option out. Time will tell, JMO.
I'll also wager $100 I can turn on MSNBC or other networks and fail to hear any of the rest of the story on these points within 30 mins or less. So which is a bigger lie? Those who claim a half-full glass is completely full, or those who claim it is completely empty?
Or those who claim it is the top half that has the water while the bottom half is dry - LOL ;-)
February 18, 2011 at 10:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
And for all the folks & media out there constantly attacking the Tea Party & generalizing the entire movement based on the disgraceful actions of a few......
There are plenty of Hitler & Nazi signs, targets, death threats in the Wisconsin protests going on.
Hmm.... that aspect seems to be ignored by most of the media, Dems, etc. Anyone surprised?
Do I get $100 since none of the media outlets who seemingly devoted their entire lives to scrutinizing Tea Parties for any misstep haven't pointed that out yet? ;-)
February 18, 2011 at 10:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, It just all depends on how you look at some things..
Judy Wallman, a professional genealogy researcher in southern California, was doing some personal work on her own family tree. She discovered that Senator Harry Reid's great-great uncle, Remus Reid, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. Both Judy and Harry Reid share this common ancestor.
The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows in Montana territory: On the back of the picture Judy obtained during her research is this
inscription: 'Remus Reid, horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.'
So Judy recently e-mailed Senator Harry Reid for information about their great-great uncle.
Believe it or not, Harry Reid's staff sent back the following biographical sketch for her genealogy research:
"Remus Reid was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory . His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to government service, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when
the platform upon which he was standing collapsed."
Every story has two sides and each tries their hardest to come out looking better then the other. :-)
February 18, 2011 at 11:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
OMG REWBA
Got up from the floor still laughing.
February 18, 2011 at 11:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
ROFLMAO, REWBA ;-)
How should I spend my $100 for the lack of reporting of the Hitler signs at the Wisconsin rallies?
I was thinking I could put up a sign with a picture of a rock on it saying Welcome to Emporia for $100. And then, like any CEO nowadays, I'll pocket the other $99,900 as a bonus for saving the company that much money..... ;-)
February 18, 2011 at 11:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
That was just an email I got from a tea party member. It's not true. It's not new either. The same bologna story was done with Uncle Remus, Reid, Uncle Remus, Rodham, and relatives of other names, including a fellow by the name of Gunther Gore (ancestor of Tipper Gore), Remus Stevens (great-great uncle of Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens), and Robert Biden (relative of Vice President Joe Biden)
http://www.beatreid.com/2009/07/harry...
It is funny but it is one of those dirty tricks that the right is famous for.
February 18, 2011 at 11:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
It's also amazing how many on the left still think it was Palin who actually said she could see Russia from the roof of her house ;-)
So when Maher does comedy.... its funny.... when the right does it..... it's a dirty trick? ;-)
February 18, 2011 at 12:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
She may not have used those exact words, but shoot, let's take a look for ourselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXL86v...
February 18, 2011 at 12:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
"I can see Russia from my house!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psyo4J...
open_eyes, That is another one of those right wing theories. People on the left are intelligent enough to know that that was a parody made by a comedian and broadcast on Saturday Night Live.
I understand that it is difficult for people with extremely low IQ's to differentiate between entertainment and national news.
February 18, 2011 at 12:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
"You can actually see Russia from land, here in Alaska".
Absolutely true. Given the fact that half our kids these days can't find Iraq on a map, they may have needed the visual as to where Russia is. Doubt if alot of them can find Alaska on a map either, though, so that probably didn't help any. - LOL
Zogby Poll
512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points
When asked which candidate said they could "see Russia from their house," 87% chose Palin, although the quote actually is attributed to Saturday Night Live's Tina Fey during her portrayal of Palin during the campaign. An answer of "none" or "Palin" was counted as a correct answer on the test,
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cf...
You were saying? :-)
February 18, 2011 at 2:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Correction on what was counted as correct on the above test:
For example, when asked which Candidate "said they could see Russia from their House", 87% of them said Palin. Only 13% correctly identified that it was Tina Fey from Saturday Night Live that said it in a skit and that the lines were never actually spoken by any Politician on either ticket."
February 18, 2011 at 2:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
The point about the whole reason Palin was mocked over the statement just goes over the right's head.
Here, I'll try to explain:
a. Palin cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of her foreign policy experience.
b. Every time a news reporter asked her to clarify her own statement, Palin could never provide a coherent explanation.
Since a + b = funny, professional comedians ran with it and it was funny.
It's funny to conservatives and liberals alike when professional comedians satire liberals. But, when professional comedians satire conservatives the only ones laughing are the liberals. That Saturday Night Live sketch with Palin and Clinton portrayed Clinton as an idiot too but the only thing anyone remembers is Palin's Alaska. :-)
February 18, 2011 at 4:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I completely understand the whole reason she was mocked. It never "went over my head". Nor did it many conservatives. I joke about kids needing the visual since they probably can't find anything on a map but I agree she did not do a good job of following up on it. She definitely bungled that part. And I thought the Tina Fey skit was hilarious, and I know many conservatives who thought it was, too.
My only point was your usual idiotic rant about how X group is all low IQ while Y group is all so much smarter. Which with the frequency you resort to that, only serves in the eyes of many to firmly put you in X group. You can do better, I know you can.
February 18, 2011 at 4:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
open_eyes,
I have an Uncle who is a far right Republican and I love him dearly anyway. He is always sending right wing e-mail's like the one I plagiarized earlier. I've tried to show him that they are urban legends and are not real but he gets really angry and defensive so anymore I just delete them and smile feeling honored to be on his email contact list. Since Obama has been the president I get at least three emails from my Uncle each week so it lets me know he is still alive. :-)
February 18, 2011 at 5:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
If Palin did not do so much dumb crap to begin SNL would not have had the gold mine to draw from. Their skits on McCain and Obama were pretty dull. Where there is smoke there is fire.
February 18, 2011 at 5:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
In regards to the claims made above by politicians, point is that they are false claims, and still being preached as truth, just turn it Fox for an hour, or I can give you links where EACH of these same lies were repeated in the last month.
February 18, 2011 at 5:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I also have some very good friends who are far left wing Democrats, and I get the same wacko-far-out left wing crap from them in emails on a regular basis. Same thing. I just smile and delete them, because they will refuse to listen to anything else, just as your uncle.
Unfortunately, the frequency they fill up my mailbox hasn't dropped any since Obama became Prez.
The point is..... they exist.... on both sides...... and for every 87% or whatever it is that believe some stupid thing about Obama, there's some stupid thing, somewhere, that 87% of the other side mistakenly believe. Only difference is I don't regularly label the whole kit & kaboodle based on some.
Still waiting to hear the media point out the Hitler, Nazi, etc signs in the Wisconsin protests. One sign says Reload with crosshairs put on a picture of the governor.
Hello? Anyone out there in the media that went off on this tangent after Arizona still awake? Hello?
Watch this video all the way thru - if you want to see a good example of hypocrisy. I know.... its from a Fox link...... but I went to a HuffingtonPost link, and the discussion had been closed. Imagine that.
http://nation.foxnews.com/politics/20...
February 18, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Gee, I had no problem finding coverage on the protests, did not even search for it. Was right there on CNN.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/...
So what was you point again?
Also, I can provide quotes and video from current politicians and media on FOX stating those false statements I mentioned above in the last month, all of them and more. You can keep deflecting to the liberals if you like, does not change the fact that it is taking place, and is feeding the hate.
February 18, 2011 at 5:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
There is a difference between a political rally and a union strike. A union is a conglomerate of coworkers from all spectrum's of political ideology. It looked to me like many of those striking workers just re-purposed their tea party signs. lol
February 18, 2011 at 5:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Glad to see it finally merited 3 short paragraphs on CNN. And only a full day late. Well better late than never. Have yet to see hour after hour of coverage debating the rhetoric, though, as we saw previously, with all sorts of "experts" weighing in on it.
And I can provide rhetoric & false statements coming from the left, both politicians & media alike, just as easily. You can keep deflecting to the conservatives if you like, does not change the fact that it is taking place, and is feeding the hate.
Yes, well put.
I know it comes from everywhere. My only point is folks that like to think it only flows from one direction. Like in the video above. What utter ignorance.
February 18, 2011 at 5:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Do a little research, REWBA, and see which party unions overwhelmingly donate to.
Unions spent more than $500 billion on campaigns between 1989 and 2009, with well over 90 percent of the total going to Democratic presidential and congressional candidates.
February 18, 2011 at 5:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Want more? Found a full page starting form early this morning dropping it into Google, sorry bud, but your contention the media is giving this coverage is false.
Wisconsin is an interesting situation, and one I expect to see repeated in the coming months. Interesting to hear "class warfare" being brought up. Class warfare has been going on for quite sometime, the victim is the middle class.
February 18, 2011 at 5:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
And unions make up a whole 12% of the workforce now.......
February 18, 2011 at 5:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, I'm a union member and so are my coworkers. I'm the only liberal in the bunch. I pay union dues. Many of my conservative coworkers refuse to pay dues and mock me because Kansas is a "Right to Work" state so they get the same representation that paying members get under the collective bargaining agreement. My former boss was a tea party conservative who hated it when I would use the collective bargaining agreement to defend myself from her unreasonable demands and her hostile work environment but the first time she was called to the carpet, she ran straight to the shop steward with her grievance demanding redress. If not for the collective bargaining agreement, she would have lost her career but the union she despised saved her job and she still refuses to pay dues and she still rants against the employee unions.
February 18, 2011 at 6:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
It always gave me a chuckle in 2008 when I saw a Union bumper sticker coupled with McCain/Palin sticker.
February 18, 2011 at 6:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Yesterday I found little or none. I saw converage but nothing on the signs on any channel except for one, of course. Today they realize once again they are lagging behind someone else. (Whatever happened to "scooping" your competition???)
Contrast that with the intense and immediate scrutiny they gave signs at tea parties.
Sorry, "bud", but I don't see the same scrutiny, panels berating it, guest after guest coming and and decrying the signs, etc. I expect to see panel after panel of "experts" belittling the mentality of the typical union member now........ right? I mean, that would be comparable, right?
Unions may be 12% of the workforce, but contribution wise, they are pretty heavy...
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
Makes some of the other groups that are always blasted as "having bought politicians" look small by comparison....
February 18, 2011 at 6:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
And do you think the ideology of folks in your union is representative of the whole? Or that the typical union member had a McCain/Palin sticker? Did Obama get 100% of the black or latino vote? If unions are full of tea party members, then why was the SEIU always picking fights with them? Could it be that any particular group you pick at random, has pockets of folks here and there that don't go along with the group, but yet the group is still overwhelmingly one way or another? Really? Check out the link of contributions above..... and where it went.
Oh, right..... I remember now. Some people represent the whole in this group, but not in that group. Got it.
February 18, 2011 at 6:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
Union dues go towards paying for experts to research political candidates and determine which politician best represents the worker. AND NOT JUST TAKE THEIR WORD FOR IT. Democratic politicians tend to favor the worker who would like to be able to afford lunch meals for their school aged children, while republican politicians tend to favor the corporations who want to force productivity and increase company profits without fairly compensating the worker.
Ever wonder why so many children qualify for free or reduced lunch programs while the corporations their parents work for boast record profits to their shareholders? Taxpayers pay to feed the blue collar workers while the white collar workers drive brand new company cars. Isn't that a form of corporate welfare?
February 18, 2011 at 6:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Yet another reason I'm in favor of higher taxes for the very wealthy. There is no sane reason the multiple of how much top execs make compared to the average worker has zoomed from 30ish to 400ish over the last 20 years.
February 18, 2011 at 6:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
There, now we found common ground. I knew we could do it. Now just accept fault for the past administrations failed government, two wars and the worst economy since before the great depression and we'll be eye to eye. lol :-)
February 18, 2011 at 6:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
You really want to get into campaign contributions? Really? We can go there if you like, but Unions are the hardly the ones I would worry about. They represent %12 or less of the workforce, seeing as their numbers have almost been cut in half in the last 20 years I think the contributions have been wasted, not much "bang for the buck" if you asked me.
Also your comparison of this Wisconsin deal to the Tea Party is a stretch. The Tea Party has been around quite awhile and had MANY more rallies then a this conflict, this is still in it's infancy. You'll get your wish though, the longer it goes on you will see more on it. I had no problem finding any of what you said was not out there or not being covered.
You missed my point about the McCain/Palin sticker, I saw them a lot of them, saw a lot of Wolf Creek cars, the point is that without those unions these jobs would not be what they are. The hypocrisy was hilarious. If not for the union, Wolf Creek would not be the best employer in the Emporia/Burlington area. Point is republicans are anti union, and any union member biting the hand that feeds them is quite comical.
Unions are not a bad thing, like everything else they get corrupted, but the idea is sound, and without them a lot of middle class people would be getting screwed more than they already are.
February 18, 2011 at 7:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
I'm in favor of higher taxes for the wealthy too, makes a lot of fiscal sense right now, Republicans did not let it happen, wonder who "bought and paid" for that?
February 18, 2011 at 7:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
Regan busted the Air Traffic Controllers Union by making them federal employee union members. Bush I weakened unions through his illegal alien amnesty program. Clinton signed NAFTA killing the unions a little more. Bush II railed against NAFTA but when he got into office he left NAFTA alone and started working on CAFTA and SAFTA then he created the department of homeland defense who's employees aren't allowed to unionize. Obama has talked a good talk but hasn't lifted a finger to help the working poor. He is happy to help gays serve in the military or force people to purchase insurance companies products and save banks from themselves or help automobile manufacturers to keep out of bankruptcy but as far as organized labor goes, he's just as bad as the rest.
February 18, 2011 at 7:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I've never said a word one way or the other whether I was for or against unions. Just simply showing that it's highly doubtful the majority of them
are "re-purposed" tea party members.
I still don't see it on the news yet. Checked CNN, MSNBC, all of them. They ran non-stop coverage of guest after guest after panel after panel all talking about how racist and stupid all tea partiers were, there was barely time for any other news.
Have yet to see ONE single type of discussion of that sort going the opposite direction on any of those networks. Yet. NOT ONE.
Could be that there are among those doing the "buying".....some very rich and powerful union execs who don't want their taxes raised either...... eh? Rich folks come from all directions & walks...... & whatever their background may be........ usually their only concern is their own greed. When unions make up 8 of the top 14 political contributors in the last 20 years...... you can bet they're not losing every battle on the Hill.
February 19, 2011 at 1:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
What irks me about what is happening in Wisconsin (aside from the "violence-inciting signs" not getting the SAME treatment from the press - and I do mean THE SAME as previous) - is that while on the one hand, I do see the need to cut, and that entitlements have gotten out of hand in many cases, and since the government workers all make more than their private counterparts, yes, there needs to be some balance........ but on the other hand, the cuts folks are being asked to make are NOT balanced.
On the one hand, they're telling folks, "you make more than your private counterparts, so you're being asked to give a little back"........... while on the other hand....... the very rich make WAY more than most.................... and what are THEY being asked to give back? Seems to me they should apply the same logic to the tax code. To not do so........ seems pretty hypocritical to me.
February 19, 2011 at 1:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"When unions make up 8 of the top 14 political contributors in the last 20 years...... you can bet they're not losing every battle on the Hill."
Based on how bad their numbers are falling, they are losing badly, logically speaking, if this trend continues you won't have to worry about their political contributions anymore. I would not worry about them now, they don't have much to show for it.
I don't watch MSNBC, but I watched enough CNN today to say that your claim about all their air time devoted to bad mouthing the Tea Party is false. In fact I was happy they aired the Tea Party darling Bachmann's rebuttal to the SOTU when other networks did not. Real bias there for sure.
And we did I state that the majority of Union memebers were "re-purposed tea party members"? I merely pointed out the irony of union members voting for Republicans, who are anti-union. Kind of like Tea Party members carrying signs protesting socialized medicine, but advocating Medicare.
BTW I was able to find plenty of signs by simply typing "Wisconsin protest signs" into Google.
http://www.google.com/images?q=wiscon...
Plenty there for all see, just curious are you for or against unions then? Yes/No?
February 19, 2011 at 1:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
It's also worth noting that the DNC's Organizing For America campaign group has joined helping organize the Wisconsin protests, and planning more in other states. I doubt if many of the folks they are calling & busing to the protests are tea party members, either. Yeah, you see alot of McCain stickers at Wolf Creek.... but this is a Red state. Doubt the ratio is the same in Blue states....... of which Wisconsin is one.
But as I said..... I see and agree with points on both sides on this issue. I'm all for cutting spending, and it is going to take some sacrifices by folks....... but why is it only the middle class which is being asked to give back?
February 19, 2011 at 1:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Concerning your post Wisconsin's dilemma, the union has already stated they would accept cuts, they are upset that the Governor wants to strip them of their collective bargaining powers, and I cannot blame them for that. So we have do have some compromise, but the Governor does not want to. The governor just passed a $120 million tax cut deal, why? Where is the logic in cutting taxes when deficits are what they are? Don't forget either that the media thus far seems blind to the fact that there are 2 republicans AWOL with the Democrats. So far all I read is that it's the democrats holding this up.
February 19, 2011 at 1:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Goodoleboy, I was referring to before the elections, late summer/early fall, when the Tea Party protests were in full swing. I DID watch the news then, and I DO remember how & what the coverage was. Every hour had a discussion about racism in tea parties. And I also couldn't go 30 seconds on any news channel for 2 weeks after the AZ shootings without some fool blathering about how this was all the fault of the tea party & right-wing talk radio. That news has faded since then, for sure. I just assumed you would have realized that when you tuned into the news - NOW. But the Wisconsin protests are going on NOW. So why aren't we seeing the same all-out assault on the tone of some of the signs by those very same networks? This point just doesn't seem to be getting thru to you very well, but I don't know how else to describe it. I'm not talking about being able to go to some web site & see a compilation of the signs. I'm not talking about CNN's 3-paragraph note of the Hitler signs, even if they run it every 15 minutes. I'm talking about the nearly non-stop guests and panel discussions going on about it DURING the height of the movements and immediate aftermath of AZ and the direction each was taking aim at.
And it was REWBA who used the exact phrase about being re-purposed tea party members. I agree with the irony that you point out. Similar to many liberals who are, say, gay rights supporters, standing up for the rights of Muslim terrorists, who would kill them n a second in their country for being gay.
And since it seems for some odd reason nothing I ever state here seems to come thru clearly to some folks or with the intent it was meant..... I'm in the middle on unions. (Call my wishy-washy, go ahead). I think in many cases they are needed..... and in many cases they go too far. I've seen injustices that only unions most likely could right..... and I've seen unions nearly destroy businesses. In this case specifically, see the paragraph of my 1:47 post.
February 19, 2011 at 2:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"but why is it only the middle class which is being asked to give back?"
That is the $64,000 question I would like to know too, consider the following:
"In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33,400, adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, and not much had changed: The average income was still just $33,000 in 2008, according to IRS data.
Meanwhile, the richest 1% of Americans -- those making $380,000 or more -- have seen their incomes grow 33% over the last 20 years, leaving average Americans in the dust. Experts point to some of the usual suspects -- like technology and globalization -- to explain the widening gap between the haves and have-nots."
taken from:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/How-the...
I can say this, I am not placing blame entirely on the Republican party, but there philosophy on tax cuts for the rich is killing us. They should have let them expire in December, it would have had a MUCH bigger effect on tackling the deficit then the measly cuts they are proposing now. Keep crushing the middle the class and the wealthy will be only ones left to pay the tab.
February 19, 2011 at 2:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
The logic in cutting taxes is to stimulate the economy, and at certain times, for certain periods, I can agree with that. But the rich have had these tax cuts all along, and it doesn't appear, other than the first few years they were enacted, that they are using them to stimulate anything right now other than their own recreation. And if they're not being asked to give anything back...... then why are those in the middle?
If the unions are being asked to give up their "collective bargaining power"...... then let's have the fat cats give up their "power" to set their own salaries at some astronomically unfair multiple of their workers. If someone has to tighten their belt, then those with the widest waist certainly have the most room to be tightening, right?
February 19, 2011 at 2:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Toss a "before the elections, late summer/early fall, when the Tea Party protests were in full swing" then for me so I know what exactly what you are referring to and what the comparison is then.
"Similar to many liberals who are, say, gay rights supporters, standing up for the rights of Muslim terrorists, who would kill them n a second in their country for being gay."
This is very ironic, I said something similar to a lady the other day I was talking(very liberal), backtracking was comical.
February 19, 2011 at 2:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
It's a fine balancing act, for sure. Give the unions too much power & we end up like Greece. Take away too much union power & we still end up like Greece. Or Egypt. Heck, maybe we're headed there no matter what, I don't know.
If it was up to me, I would have had a phased expiration on the original Bush tax cuts. The wealthiest top would have expired in 3-4 years, with the remainder up for the vote they just had.
February 19, 2011 at 2:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Sorry goodoleboy, I thought I had made that distinction clearer earlier about when the coverage was at its height, maybe I didn't, too late at night for me to have the energy to backtrack thru my posts & see if I did, so if not, I apologize.
The irony of what certain groups of people support can be found in all sectors & ideologies, to be sure. Sometimes the most informed overall can have such glaring blind spots, and the most uninformed in general can be experts on some tiny sliver of knowledge. Go figure. :-)
February 19, 2011 at 2:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
The strength of this nation was and always will be the middle class. The politician that succeeds in the revival of it will go down with Washington,Lincoln, etc as one of the greatest leaders of our time. The alternative is that one day there will be class warfare, it's just a matter of time.
February 19, 2011 at 2:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I wholeheartedly agree, goodoleboy.
I know you've sworn off O'Reilly, but tonight, while talking about Wisconsin, he stated that not only is he a member of a union, but in the past the company tried to stiff them, and the union was able to get part of it back, so he is not anti-union. But he does see the spending & entitlement problems. So without explicitly stating it, he's somewhere in the middle, as I am.
Just as an aside, one of my favorite things on Fox are the segments by Frank Lunz (he does them on all different shows, from O'Reilly to Beck to Hannity to Greta to any of the other news shows, so he's all over the place on Fox) - where he has a pretty evenly divided audience, and records their responses to different things. Usually very insightful discussions ensue with the audience members. And not partisan in any way.
Anyway, time to hit the hay. Way past time, actually.
February 19, 2011 at 2:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
I don't we will end up like Greece, the world will bail us out. The elephant in the room is that if the US goes under, the world goes under. All that globalization comes at the price of a domino effect.
February 19, 2011 at 2:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Unfortunately situations in real life have reminded me of the things that are truly important, and that blogging here is way down the list of my priorities, especially right now, so I'll probably be taking another haitus for awile. Just so you don't think I'm a garden vegetable (plant) again ;-)
Ya'll have a good one.
February 19, 2011 at 10:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Well looks like the Tea Party is involved in Wisconsin now:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/02/19/wisc...
And apparently it would seem that this is more about destroying the unions than money.
""I have been informed that all state and local public employees -- including teachers -- have agreed to the financial aspects of Gov. Walker's request," said Sen. Jon Erpenbach, a Democrat. "This includes Walker's requested concessions on public employee health care and pension. In return they ask only that the provisions that deny their right to collectively bargain are removed. This will solve the budget challenge."
GOP needs to flex on this IMO, not compromising will only lead to a confrontation between the protesters, and will only serve to increase the divide.
February 19, 2011 at 5:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/201...
Interesting..
February 19, 2011 at 5:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )