See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On November 19th, 2009 at 10:44 am, zeroangel said:

   Roland:

   The problem is that these rational Christians that butt into these arguments almost without fail defend the ceationists! Furthermore, they consistently attack my atheism. On top of that, the lie that atheism makes you a bad person is repeated ad infinitum on this blog.

   I am not lying when I say that “religion might be helpful.” That is not what they want to hear. They basically don’t want atheists to mention their atheism at all, even when they tell us we are evil!

   Truth can become a very difficult concept to pin down when we start dealing with other abstract concepts like courage and love and honor. And right and wrong. And resistance to evil. Christian truth might blur into yours around the edges.

   I don’t deny that abstract emotions and morality is hard to nail down. I deny that a deity has anything to do with it based on the lack of any evidence whatsoever. “Christian” ideas about morality coincide with mine an awful lot, that doesn’t mean I have to respect the idea that a deity sacrificed himself to himself to forgive the sins of my ancient ancestors who exist only in a creation myth.

   We probably have a different set of priorities, ZA. I think we are losing. Badly. The alliance of the collectivists and the Muslims is overrunning us.

   Well, I like to have a more positive attitude. Personally, I also like to think I did my part in Iraq.

   I absolutely consider Christians as allies against Jihadists. I have complete confidence that I could (for example) share a foxhole with Dave. We might get into some pretty hairy arguments, but when push comes to shove I know we will have one another’s back against the Jihadists. This doesn’t mean I am going to keep my mouth shut when people tell me I am evil. I will leave the accomdation to you.

2. #102
   On November 19th, 2009 at 11:22 am, Roland said:

   Well, I like to have a more positive attitude.

   That’s all most Christians are trying to do with their belief: Maintain a positive attitude.

   Hope you’re right. I’m not God, and the world is amazing and mysterious, so I could easily be wrong.

   Except God told me.

3. #103
   On November 19th, 2009 at 11:25 am, zeroangel said:

   Roland:

   That’s all most Christians are trying to do with their belief: Maintain a positive attitude.

   If it were just that, it would be fine. It often isn’t and you know that. This is especially true when they attack atheists. Did I mention to you the atheist billboard that had to come down due to death threats? Of course you can see the double standard.

   I don’t know if I am right about the idea that accomodation is not the answer. I do know that it hasn’t worked so far.

4. #104
   On November 19th, 2009 at 12:00 pm, Roland said:

   I don’t know if I am right about the idea that accomodation is not the answer. I do know that it hasn’t worked so far.

   Au contraire. The two sides (we wise and enlightened nonbelievers and those religious loon crackpots ….. or is it those wise and thoughtful followers of the Saviour and we wilfully blind sociopathic minions of Darwin?) accomodating eachother over the last few hundred years has given the world the most successful collaboration in history.

5. #105
   On November 19th, 2009 at 12:03 pm, zeroangel said:

   Roland:

   accomodating eachother over the last few hundred years has given the world the most successful collaboration in history.

   I’m sorry, in what way? I don’t recall any scientific advances coming out of studying the Bible. Nor do I recall any ethical advances from the same. For the most part, I see the faithful being dragged into the future reluctantly and then later adjusting thier dogma to fit modern times.

6. #106
   On November 19th, 2009 at 12:24 pm, Roland said:

   The overwhelming majority of the people who died in our wars were bible thumping Christians.

   Without people willing to go into battle for the society, oblivious to their imminent doom (most of them need to think/hope “God” has got their back, although there are obviously exceptions), there could never have been any real scientific advances.

   I’m not too sure there have been any real ethical advances lately from either side. Not ‘good’ ones, anyway.

   The last major advance of that sort was the American Constitution (both sides contributed) ….. unless you count the ending of the global slave trade, a moral crusade which was clearly driven by bible thumping Christians.

7. #107
   On November 19th, 2009 at 12:32 pm, zeroangel said:

   Roland:

   Well, again, you are back to asserting that religion is good for some things, in this case: it hardens soldiers in battle. I don’t disagree in all cases. However, in my case, I didn’t need it and there’s more than a few like me. Even people that claim some kind of religion still fear death AND question the idea of an afterlife.

   I will still come back to my earlier point, I will be honest about what I think, you can do the accomodation.

   I’m not too sure there have been any real ethical advances lately from either side. Not ‘good’ ones, anyway.

   What? Of course we have advanced ethically! You don’t honestly think we were better off with slavery and other such things from the ancient world, do you?

   The last major advance of that sort was the American Constitution (both sides contributed) ….. unless you count the ending of the global slave trade, a moral crusade which was clearly driven by bible thumping Christians.

   Both sides contributed but the advances that led to the Constitution were borne out of the aforementioned Enlightenment and weren’t so much fomr the Bible. The same is true of slavery. Just because some anti-slavery folks were Christian doesn’t mean they derived their ideas from the Bible anymore than they would derive ideas about science from the Bible.

8. #108
   On November 19th, 2009 at 12:50 pm, Roland said:

   Just because some anti-slavery folks were Christian doesn’t mean they derived their ideas from the Bible anymore than they would derive ideas about science from the Bible.

   We see the history somewhat differently:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)

   ““ Had I interfered in the manner which I admit, and which I admit has been fairly proved (for I admire the truthfulness and candor of the greater portion of the witnesses who have testified in this case), had I so interfered in behalf of the rich, the powerful, the intelligent, the so-called great, or in behalf of any of their friends, either father, mother, brother, sister, wife, or children, or any of that class, and suffered and sacrificed what I have in this interference, it would have been all right; and every man in this court would have deemed it an act worthy of reward rather than punishment.
   This court acknowledges, as I suppose, the validity of the law of God. I see a book kissed here which I suppose to be the Bible, or at least the New Testament. That teaches me that all things whatsoever I would that men should do to me, I should do even so to them. It teaches me, further, to “remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them.” I endeavored to act up to that instruction. I say, I am yet too young to understand that God is any respecter of persons. I believe that to have interfered as I have done as I have always freely admitted I have done in behalf of His despised poor, was not wrong, but right. Now, if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments, I submit; so let it be done!”
   ”
   — Excerpt from a speech given by John Brown in court after his conviction, John Brown’s Last Speech, November 2, 1859 “

9. #109
   On November 19th, 2009 at 12:52 pm, zeroangel said:

   Roland:

   Do I need to quote the parts of the New Testament that encourage Christian slaves to obey and respect their Christian masters?

   How about the parable where Jesus mentions slavery but neglects to mention it is wrong?

   John Brown picked and chose from the Bible. Where did his values come from that told him what parts to pick and choose?

10. #110
    On November 19th, 2009 at 1:00 pm, Roland said:

    My point is not about the intellectual and ethical prowess of ancient Christian dogma compared to modern scientific enlightenment. My point is about Christianity being the force that held back, and still holds back, other much more intolerant ‘ideas’ willing to give the masses their opium if Christianity weakens.

    Insane cults like Islam and collectivism.

11. #111
    On November 19th, 2009 at 1:12 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On November 18th, 2009 at 11:58 pm, emjem24 said: #844300

    I’m surprised anything can penetrate your self-absorbed bubble.

    LOL. And, I was not surprised that your attempt at humor was feeble.

    Input is more than attending townhalls and voting. It’s taking into account the interests of the ENTIRE district, not just a segment. DeGette doesn’t get that and that was my point.

    No. Input is input. Calling, writing, speaking at townhalls is providing input. “Taking into account” is consideration. Making a suggestion is providing input. Using the suggestion is accepting the input. Just because you make a suggestion, provide input, does not mean it has to be used and accepted.

    EXAMPLE: Ever paint a room in your house? You like one color, your spouse likes another and your child likes a third. Each person has provided their input. Each person has made a suggestion.

    Do you believe that all input, suggestions, should be used? What color should the room be? Each color gets two surfaces? Are the colors blended to get a new color, or a fourth color is agreed to after everyone has had their INPUT?

    As for your point, you would be well served to make it the first time. I went with the common sense definition of the word ‘input’ as used in Rep Degette’s quote. If you had a different definition in mind, or wanted to say something specific about Rep Degette, you should have said that from the start.

    Please don’t lecture me on the Constitution. I have a BA and Master’s degrees in history. However, the intentions of the founders and the circumstances of our Republic have CHANGED and you know it. We are a nation of multiple constituencies, identity groups, and agendas. This in-fighting is tearing the country apart and underscoring what’s really a nation divided, not united. Even the founders said that political parties would be the death of our Republic and they have been. Stop being naive.

    My suggestion that you should read the Constitution was interpreted by you, as me lecturing you? You are sensitive aren’t you? You asked the questions, “Everybody has input? We’re all in this together? Since when? “ And, I answered the question in the most profound and succinct way I could. No lecture just an answer that demonstrates that, yes we’re all in this together.

    Besides a lecture would typically be longer than 30 odd words.

    I disagree that infighting is tearing the country apart. I can only think of one time when any policy disagreement, or infighting, actually pushed the country to a point where it could be said that it was being torn apart.

    Perhaps, you should have put this in block quotes. I so like people using my own words like it’s part of their own text.

    Are you kidding me? You are sensitive. We have been exchanging views and sharing our opinions with one another using ‘block quotes’ for some time. We have been using that format in this thread. And, because I missed using it once you get snarky? Please emmjem, lighten up.

    Thanks for explaining that. Perhaps, you too should be a constitutional lawyer like Obummer. Nothing is ever settled. That’s why the courts have their place.

    Snark aside, did you happen to notice in my post where I said, “. . . that is it until the issue is voted on again. “? And, it is true I did not mention the courts. But, since you did, there are examples when even the courts get it wrong and are reversed. And yes, even the Supreme Court has reversed itself. Yes, the Courts have their place. Yep, things are not always settled until they are later changed either by voting on them again or by a court reversal. And, just in case you missed it in my post, I also said, ” . . . but that is how we do things.” Settlement is a function of the time frame one uses.

    I was making a larger point about the sheer ignorance of people like DeGette and you. There are many DISENFRANCHIZED people in this country who do not vote. Why is that? There are other modern societies with higher voter percentiles than ours. Including Iraq. The ugly truth is that disenfranchized people, INCLUDING military spouses, are underserved and marginalized DELIBERATELY. And when people are marginalized and disenfranchized they don’t feel invested in their country. And I’m not the only one who’s noticed.

    Well, you would be well served to initially make your point more clearly. The word ‘disenfranchized’ did not appear in your post. You spoke of employer discrimination. Now you are speaking about people who do not vote and who are marginalized. What has voting for elected officials have to do with employers? And, everyone has feelings. Your feelings are your own. Maybe if these people voted they would feel invested in their country and not disenfranchized. You are conflating a number of issues, and I am sure you are trying to make a point beyond what Rep DeGette said. [Note: Her quote has now since been revised.]

    Again, whatever your point is, it remains tangential to the topic of the thread. Though I would happily discuss the issues of employer discrimination, disenfranchizement, people not voting, marginalization, specific issues concerning military spouses, voting in Iraq, and yes even people’s feelings, at another time.

    Really? So Harrycare overall reflects the opinon of the American people AGAINST the Health Care Reform bill, right? What a joke. There is little reform and more than a little social engineering that doesn’t address the real issues. That doesn’t sound like our vaunted senators listening to the views of their constituents, just the left extreme of the Dem party.

    I would say that some inputs and suggestions have been accepted and incorporated into the bill. Other inputs and suggestions have not been incorporated into the bill. So yes, the bill reflects both camps, those who are for the bill and those who are against it. The larger question is, after the composition of the bill, whether the bill will pass. Those who are for the bill, after inputs have been received and incorporated or not, and those who are against the bill, will vote up or down on it.

    Creating the bill, with input (used or not used) is distinct and separate from voting on the bill.

    You don’t say. Dude, you’re lecturing an historian. Perhaps, you should quit while you’re ahead. I’m sorry you’d rather live in denial but that’s not my ATTITUDE. I live in REALITY. You want to talk up this administration and the beauty of majority rule all you want but if we were truly a REPUBLIC there would actually be some true REPRESENTATION not the special interest peddling that overrides the interests of the American people.

    I am glad to know that you accept that I am ahead. What makes you think I am living in denial? Specifically, what have I denied? Until this moment within this particular thread the Administration has gone unmentioned by me. And, I have made no reference to your attitude. Recall that the topic is about what Rep Degette said, and since redacted.

    Yes, I mentioned majority rule. That is the reality. Are you denying majority rule? We are a Republic. We do have representation. And, special interests are part of the reality. If a particular representative succumbs to special interests, that is also a reality. Are you denying any of this?

    You do that. We’re not talking selfishness. That’s only a small part of the bigger picture. Humans are reckless, egocentric, self-destructive, foolish creatures. We are talking the interests of the few who want socialized medicine and other special European freebies over the many more who don’t want it and definitely fear the effects such bad laws will have on their lives. I’m sorry YOU cannot see that.

    You said, “Humans aren’t built for togetherness.” and from that I spoke of selfishness. So be it. I will use your term. Humans have overcome their not being built for togetherness. Humans have come together to achieve great things, despite not being built for that purpose. I agree, humans have all the characteristics you state. And, humans also are capable of rising above how they are built.

    I had thought we were talking about Rep Degette’s statement, since redacted, and having input into the process. This is the first mention of socialized medicine between you and me. Very well, you are defining healthcare reform as socialized medicine. And, now we are discussing the fear of the effects of bad law. I suppose the undertones of the discussion concern bad law, however both sides of the aisle agree that healthcare reform is necessary.

    What I do see is how to achieve what everyone wants. About how far we go. I see people talking past one another. I see people using different definitions. I see that the cost of healthcare is the real issue and must be addressed. I see that the ‘how’ is truly the difficult part. I see that there is a level of dishonesty from all sides. I see unanswered and unaddressed questions. There is a great deal that I see. When and if you want to know what I see, ask me. Avoid telling people what you think they see, or don’t see.

    There is no collective selfishness that is being discussed. You basically want freebies for the few so that you can say how empathetic you are. I’m not discussing that. I’m talking more about how our vaunted politicians don’t seem to be beholden to their employers, the American people. And we, the American people, are responsible for that.

    Again, you used the term “togetherness” and I used the term “selfishness.” I said collective selfisnes to have it understood that I was referring to the selfishness of the entire country.

    Where did I say I want freebies. Please cut and paste where I said this. If you can’t, then you have made an incorrect assertion.

    There are some 300 million of us with 300 million and one opinions. The populations of States varies, though the size of each Congressional Districts is set, there are a number of varying opinions within each. Exactly who’s opinion should our politicians be beholden to? Yes, they work for us, but with the variety of opinions among all constituents, whose position should they pick up and advance? Yours, mine, or some other person’s? Or, should they take INPUT from a number of sources and make a decision?

    You need it more that I do. I live my life in reality, and live my life according to my own principles instead of the lies politicians tell me to get my vote. I find the truth on my own.

    Ummm, OK.

    All the drivel that you spouted makes me fear for not only the overall intelligence of the American voter but the future of our kids. No wonder our kids don’t trust adults if they’re full of the kind of BS you just gave me. I believe in the philosophy and ideas behind this country but not how they’ve been practiced. As a teacher, I’ve compared and contrasted the founding of this country with the ACTUAL practice of their principles and ideas. Then, I let my 8th graders decide. Some kids actually don’t like being talked down to like you just did with ME. Perhaps, you should keep THAT in mind.

    Are you saying that you do not believe in the opportunity and promise that our country allows for it’s citizens? Is that the drivel to which you are referring to?

    But wait, now you are saying you believe in the philosophy and ideas behind the country. Maybe you don’t like how I said what I said. Is that the case?

    Yep, we have often fallen short of practicing the principles and tenents of our founding. Fortunately we have reversed ourselves.

    Are you comparing yourself to an 8th grader? I certainly am not. What you get and how you feel about what I say is on you. I have no control of your feelings or what you infer. Not sure what to keep in mind, though your capitalization of the word ‘me’ allows for some deeper thinking.

12. #112
    On November 19th, 2009 at 1:18 pm, zeroangel said:

    Roland:

    My point is about Christianity being the force that held back, and still holds back, other much more intolerant ‘ideas’ willing to give the masses their opium if Christianity weakens.

    Again, maybe it’s useful. Like I said, you can accomodate them. I will be honest about my atheism.

    Furthermore, I really think that in many ways secularism and even atheism can be every bit as effective in holding back those same dark forces. Haven’t you ever read Sam Harris?

13. #113
    On November 19th, 2009 at 2:20 pm, Roland said:

    Like I said, you can accomodate them. I will be honest about my atheism.

    I told you I was not suggesting for you to lie. Seeking to emphasize points of agreement instead of disagreement is not lying unless deceit is the intention.

    We will just have to disagree about the effectiveness of atheism (without some kind of opium like collectivism) in holding back the forces of darkness.

14. #114
    On November 19th, 2009 at 2:43 pm, zeroangel said:

    Roland:

    Seeking to emphasize points of agreement instead of disagreement

    All I need do is say I am an atheist. That alone will invoke the ire of some people. Surely you can see that?

    We will just have to disagree about the effectiveness of atheism (without some kind of opium like collectivism) in holding back the forces of darkness.

    Mainly I was thinking of secularism. Atheism itself does nothing since it is the absence of an idea. In much the same way, not collecting stamps doesn’t lead to anything except more free time.

15. #115
    On November 19th, 2009 at 2:43 pm, zeroangel said:

    …I suggest reading Harris.

16. #116
    On November 20th, 2009 at 10:02 am, misterbee241 said:

    Last I heard a bishop’s freedom of speech and religion dont terminate when he puts on his robes and mitre. Idiot liberals.

17. #117
    On November 20th, 2009 at 5:33 pm, emjem24 said:

    zyzzyg said:

    LOL. And, I was not surprised that your attempt at humor was feeble.

    And I’m not surprised that you lack a funny bone. Then again you’d have to get over yourself first for that to happen.

    No. Input is input. Calling, writing, speaking at townhalls is providing input. “Taking into account” is consideration. Making a suggestion is providing input. Using the suggestion is accepting the input. Just because you make a suggestion, provide input, does not mean it has to be used and accepted.

    Calling, writing, and townhall participation are completely useless if a Congress critter just tunes you out anyway. I have a Dem Congress critter and I called his office to voice my discontent over him voting for the bailout. Did he listen to me? No, because he only listens to liberals who currently control the party. Thank goodness I will soon no longer be a NY absentee voter.

    EXAMPLE: Ever paint a room in your house? You like one color, your spouse likes another and your child likes a third. Each person has provided their input. Each person has made a suggestion.

    This is a facetious example. Painting a room isn’t like voting or civic participation. And, if comes to it, there’s always the color WHITE. My whole freaking rental house is WHITE. Here’s my reverse example: if you rent a house you often must get approval from the landlord to paint any room if they give it at all. Does this mean that the landlord values your “input” when they say no to painting a room or moreover give you a suggested color scheme? See how facetious this is?

    Do you believe that all input, suggestions, should be used? What color should the room be? Each color gets two surfaces? Are the colors blended to get a new color, or a fourth color is agreed to after everyone has had their INPUT?

    I know you took a lot of time to equate voting with PAINTING A ROOM but they’re dissimilar. Voting has consequences that last FOREVER. Painting… not so much. You can strip the paint and paint another color.

    As for your point, you would be well served to make it the first time. I went with the common sense definition of the word ‘input’ as used in Rep Degette’s quote. If you had a different definition in mind, or wanted to say something specific about Rep Degette, you should have said that from the start.

    I see. Like your facetious comparison to painting a room. Then, again, I don’t think you made your point either. So the definition of “input” is now subject to one’s point of view or word usage. Got ya.

    My suggestion that you should read the Constitution was interpreted by you, as me lecturing you? You are sensitive aren’t you? You asked the questions, “Everybody has input? We’re all in this together? Since when? “ And, I answered the question in the most profound and succinct way I could. No lecture just an answer that demonstrates that, yes we’re all in this together.

    You’re being condescending. And you do it to other posters too not just myself. The Constitution doesn’t cover what happens when people become disenfranchised, or marginalized, or the effect corrosive political parties have on the voting dynamic of our country. The Constitution is just a set of ideas or principles put down on paper as to how to govern our country. That is all it is… perhaps, you should advise our public servants to read it since they’re so adept at IGNORING IT.

    Besides a lecture would typically be longer than 30 odd words.

    I will put the word in quotations if you’d like. Stop being so literal. Then again, you have your own regard for the term “input” so perhaps you should make allowances for the term “lecture.”

    I disagree that infighting is tearing the country apart. I can only think of one time when any policy disagreement, or infighting, actually pushed the country to a point where it could be said that it was being torn apart.

    It doesn’t take a history degree to know when infighting in any country can lead to dysfunction and thereby a lack of function or actual, representational government. Look at Latin America. Our own country had a civil war brought on by the infighting over slavery and states rights that still have bearing on our governance today. It can happen again and I think it will with all the disparate forces trying to force unnatural change to our country until it no longer resembles what our founders intended.

    Are you kidding me? You are sensitive. We have been exchanging views and sharing our opinions with one another using ‘block quotes’ for some time. We have been using that format in this thread. And, because I missed using it once you get snarky? Please emmjem, lighten up.

    It’s a pet peave of mine regarding block quotes. Then, again, for someone who tends to be a devil’s advocate or whatever it is you do on this blog, I’m surprised you even care. Then again, I’m just being “sensitive.” Whatever.

    Snark aside, did you happen to notice in my post where I said, “. . . that is it until the issue is voted on again. “? And, it is true I did not mention the courts. But, since you did, there are examples when even the courts get it wrong and are reversed. And yes, even the Supreme Court has reversed itself. Yes, the Courts have their place. Yep, things are not always settled until they are later changed either by voting on them again or by a court reversal. And, just in case you missed it in my post, I also said, ” . . . but that is how we do things.” Settlement is a function of the time frame one uses.

    With regard to certain things like affirmative action, gay marriage, etc., sometimes the voter isn’t allowed input… something you assert that voters have. Not always. The Maine legislature legalized gay marriage and then the voters decided it was time to vote on it via a referendum because they had no input. So, there are instances where input is never given to the voter at all until the voters have to force the issue.

    Well, you would be well served to initially make your point more clearly. The word ‘disenfranchized’ did not appear in your post. You spoke of employer discrimination. Now you are speaking about people who do not vote and who are marginalized. What has voting for elected officials have to do with employers? And, everyone has feelings. Your feelings are your own. Maybe if these people voted they would feel invested in their country and not disenfranchized. You are conflating a number of issues, and I am sure you are trying to make a point beyond what Rep DeGette said. [Note: Her quote has now since been revised.]

    I use the term “disenfranchisement” as an umbrella to cover people who no longer feel invested in this country for various reasons. Some feel disenfranchised because of lack of job opportunities (military spouses) or discrimination (on employment grounds) or any other reason. Representatives like DeGette would like to use such “disenfranchisement” for their own political purposes instead of actually addressing the issues.

    Again, whatever your point is, it remains tangential to the topic of the thread. Though I would happily discuss the issues of employer discrimination, disenfranchizement, people not voting, marginalization, specific issues concerning military spouses, voting in Iraq, and yes even people’s feelings, at another time.

    I’m sorry you think I’m “off topic.” Perhaps, MM will put into practice a new policy in regards to your “advice.” The fact remains I was illustrating that your broad use of the term “input” really doesn’t apply to people who are “disenfranchised” and feel that the political system has let them down. You cannot deny that however ideal a Republic may be as a political system, it isn’t so representative in practice when the very notions that set it in place are being compromised and perverted.

    I would say that some inputs and suggestions have been accepted and incorporated into the bill. Other inputs and suggestions have not been incorporated into the bill. So yes, the bill reflects both camps, those who are for the bill and those who are against it. The larger question is, after the composition of the bill, whether the bill will pass. Those who are for the bill, after inputs have been received and incorporated or not, and those who are against the bill, will vote up or down on it.

    Creating the bill, with input (used or not used) is distinct and separate from voting on the bill.

    Hmmmmmm…. okay. So, let me get this straight. A majority of people in this country have expressed their dissatifaction with a government option (or whatever they’re calling it today) and yet, it’s in BOTH bills. I appreciate reform like the next person but if we’re dismantling the current system in favor of a government system, yet the current problems aren’t addressed, how does this signal that voters had any input in this bill? If you care so much for voter input, let’s put this to a referendum, either nationally, or by state. The Federal government should not be instituting bad law and calling it reform when it’s really just telling the people what they need when the people have already expressed their opposition. That is more of a function of a “democracy” or social democratic state rather than a republic, which is what the founders wanted to preserve balance and not concentrate power into any one entity. The voters should have the final say… not disengenuous, power hungry politicians looking to concentrate power more into the Federal realm rather than the states.

    I am glad to know that you accept that I am ahead. What makes you think I am living in denial? Specifically, what have I denied? Until this moment within this particular thread the Administration has gone unmentioned by me. And, I have made no reference to your attitude. Recall that the topic is about what Rep Degette said, and since redacted.

    Actually, using the phrase “quit while you’re ahead” is an expression not an admittal of an argument (or whatever we’re having) that has been “won.” Who’s being literal now? I’m only saying you’re expressing your idealistic view of this country and can’t seem to understand that idealism is only as good as how it’s practiced. That’s what I meant by the phrase “quit while you’re ahead” since, frankly, your idealism cannot overcome the very fact that things like disenfranchisement and voter disaffection exist. No one can win an argument with someone whose ideals cannot be penetrated with reality.

    I think you believe that the current system is hunkey dorey. It’s really hard to gauge what you believe because often you hide behind your devil’s advocate role or you don’t really express what side of the political spectrum you’re on. I think I even asked if you voted for Obummer and I don’t know if I ever got an answer. I like to know who I’m dealing with. Until I get a better idea, a lot of my responses to you are based on previous history and positions fleshed out. You do tend to bend over backwards giving this administration the benefit of the doubt and that colors what you say. Unless I’m wrong. Am I?

    Yes, I mentioned majority rule. That is the reality. Are you denying majority rule? We are a Republic. We do have representation. And, special interests are part of the reality. If a particular representative succumbs to special interests, that is also a reality. Are you denying any of this?

    Again… perhaps you should stop asking rhetorical questions when we’ve already confirmed that I’m a realist not an idealist. I’ve already given you my background and political dissafection and yet you’re using rhetorical devices for questions you already have the answers to. I wouldn’t be having this conversation if I wasn’t aware of the realities of our political system.

    You said, “Humans aren’t built for togetherness.” and from that I spoke of selfishness. So be it. I will use your term. Humans have overcome their not being built for togetherness. Humans have come together to achieve great things, despite not being built for that purpose. I agree, humans have all the characteristics you state. And, humans also are capable of rising above how they are built.

    All fine sentiments that are grounded in idealism. If you mean humans have a capacity for a communal existence, I’m not interested. Humans, at their basic foundation, are INDIVIDUALS. The instant
    political institutions want to urge or insist that humans must care for “each other” instead of addressing actual problems and the role of the individual in those problems is the moment I check out of the conversation. Humans cannot rise to “achieve great things” or rise above their foundations when they’re too dependent on a government trying to keep them from succeeding. I want to be an individual, not part of a community trying to control me, what I believe, or how I live.

    I had thought we were talking about Rep Degette’s statement, since redacted, and having input into the process. This is the first mention of socialized medicine between you and me. Very well, you are defining healthcare reform as socialized medicine. And, now we are discussing the fear of the effects of bad law. I suppose the undertones of the discussion concern bad law, however both sides of the aisle agree that healthcare reform is necessary.

    Ummmm… this is all part of a discussion of the current bill, which includes a public option. The public option is just some back door set up into a single payer system (socialized medicine). Your take is we won’t know until it’s actually passed and we know how much money it costs. Reform for the sake of reform that produces bad law isn’t always great reform.

    What I do see is how to achieve what everyone wants. About how far we go. I see people talking past one another. I see people using different definitions. I see that the cost of healthcare is the real issue and must be addressed. I see that the ‘how’ is truly the difficult part. I see that there is a level of dishonesty from all sides. I see unanswered and unaddressed questions. There is a great deal that I see. When and if you want to know what I see, ask me. Avoid telling people what you think they see, or don’t see.

    How is anybody to know your true feelings if you never reveal them or never stop existing in a neutral gear? At least with people like Chaps, or Zero, I get a point of view. For someone who doesn’t want others to tell them what they think they feel or don’t feel, you feel awfully comfortable saying that I’m “sensitive” or I need to “lighten up.” What is that but you telling me how I feel or am? You actually are assuming things you either think or want to think I embody. You either put yourself out there, zyzzyg, or you don’t. We’re discussing the future of our healthcare system and the prospect of government control of any kind scares the heck out of me. I’m a Tricare dependent, I know what it’s like and I’m passionate that no one experience the inadequate healthcare I now have.

    Again, you used the term “togetherness” and I used the term “selfishness.” I said collective selfisnes to have it understood that I was referring to the selfishness of the entire country.

    You’re going to now have to give examples of our “collective selfishness.” You should have done this a LONG time ago. You can keep asserting a “collective selfishness” but without actual EXAMPLES this is your opinion.

    Where did I say I want freebies. Please cut and paste where I said this. If you can’t, then you have made an incorrect assertion.

    Are you or are you not defending this bill? Is this bill nothing but giveaways to the poor unfortunates who cannot afford health care otherwise known as “freebies?” Poor souls, where would they be without a government ready and willing to enslave them into a life of dependency? Show me that you’re not supporting this bill and I’ll retract my assertion. Perhaps, you’d also like to retract your assertion that I’m “conflating issues,” am “sensitive,” or need to “lighten up?”

    There are some 300 million of us with 300 million and one opinions. The populations of States varies, though the size of each Congressional Districts is set, there are a number of varying opinions within each. Exactly who’s opinion should our politicians be beholden to? Yes, they work for us, but with the variety of opinions among all constituents, whose position should they pick up and advance? Yours, mine, or some other person’s? Or, should they take INPUT from a number of sources and make a decision?

    What exactly is your point? I love rhetorical questions like the next person but is there a thought behind them? Congressional representatives should actually represent the interests of their constituents not the interests of their party. If there is a majority of people in any district saying they do not want this health care boondoggle bill, then that is the prevailing view they should take away… not being wooed with money or threats by their party to vote a certain way.

    You need it more that I do. I live my life in reality, and live my life according to my own principles instead of the lies politicians tell me to get my vote. I find the truth on my own.

    Ummm, OK.

    I think EVERY American who calls themselves a citizen should approach life like this. If they’re interested in being an actively engaged citizen then they need to divorce themselves from political loyalties, educate themselves, and make decisions for themselves instead of letting politicians do it. That’s the inherent weakness in our Republic right now is the power of political parties and people’s antiquated loyalties to any political entity. What’s wrong with that? We’re having a discussion where you’re trying to flesh out my positions, yet you’re not reciprocating. All I get is a shadowy idea of what you think or feel. Do you even have any views or positions to flesh out? What are they? I’m asking you.

    Are you saying that you do not believe in the opportunity and promise that our country allows for it’s citizens? Is that the drivel to which you are referring to?

    No, I don’t. That is the drivel I’m referring to. It took me 34 years of obervation to arrive at this conclusion. I do not appreciate a country that says all you need is a college education for EVERYONE to be a successful person when that commodity is too readily available and then rendered worthless by it’s overavailability. I believe in the ideals and principles that the founders set out, not the social welfare mentality I’m seeing now. Opportunity can be acquired through individual initiative and talent, not discrimination according to political viewpoint, who you marry, and who you don’t know (something unfortunately I’ve seen in the public school system).

    But wait, now you are saying you believe in the philosophy and ideas behind the country. Maybe you don’t like how I said what I said. Is that the case?

    I think you’re naive. You either misstated what you intended or you intended what you misstated. I believe in the philosophy and ideas of this country. I’ve taught them as a social studies teacher. However, if we’re being honest as a country, we no longer live up to them.

    Yep, we have often fallen short of practicing the principles and tenents of our founding. Fortunately we have reversed ourselves.

    We may have reversed ourselves but those reversals haven’t taught us anything because we’re still not living up to the Founders’ ideals and we never will.

    Are you comparing yourself to an 8th grader? I certainly am not. What you get and how you feel about what I say is on you. I have no control of your feelings or what you infer. Not sure what to keep in mind, though your capitalization of the word ‘me’ allows for some deeper thinking.

    You really need that deeper thinking now because you obviously didn’t understand my example. You come off as condescending (whether you’re aware of that or not) just as many adults do when interacting with teenagers. If you think I’m comparing myself to an 8th grader you need to reread what I said.

    The same goes for my having no control over the inferences and feelings you make and have. All I can do is make myself clear. Have you made yourself clear? There would be no confusion on my part if you actually clarified your positions. That is something I cannot control. Only you can do that.

    The thing to keep in mind is the tone of your many posts. You do come off as condescending (whether or not you intended that). If you’re not willing to put yourself out there, say what you mean and mean what you say position wise, then there will be assumptions made. You want to be asked your feelings but when have you ever made those feelings known? That’s the thing. How is one to have a conversation with you when they don’t have all the information? These are all things that you either willingly avoid or hide, don’t want known, or don’t think you have to share. If that’s how you REALLY feel, and approach this blog then you need to make that known right away or not partipate in this blog. People who want to have a “conversation” with you will then understand how one-sided it actually is.

    The reason I say all this is because I know how people like Chaps and Zero, who I disagree with on many issues, feel. With you, I don’t know anything. Either exchange your political viewpoints or don’t respond to me. That’s okay with me. Just be honest about it.

18. #118
    On November 20th, 2009 at 5:40 pm, zeroangel said:

    I nominate emjem24 for the longest single post ever made on this website.

19. #119
    On November 20th, 2009 at 5:51 pm, emjem24 said:

    zeroangel said:
    I nominate emjem24 for the longest single post ever made on this website.

    Oh, Zero, you’re such a flatterer. I tend to “conflate” issues, you know, so things will be a LOT longer.

20. #120
    On November 20th, 2009 at 9:26 pm, zeroangel said:

    emjem24:

    *smile* Don’t be too flattered. I didn’t read any of it. I skimmed the last one or two between you guys and it just seemed like a personal pissing contest between the two of you.

    Not only was it way off topic (no big deal I do it all the time) it wasn’t about any single topic at all (that’s kind of hard to follow).

    Flame wars are fun, but you guys seem to be going about it in a strange manner. They are usually shorter.

    In any case, I hope you guys hug and make up.

21. #121
    On November 21st, 2009 at 5:44 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On November 20th, 2009 at 5:33 pm, emjem24 said: #845200

    And I’m not surprised that you lack a funny bone. Then again you’d have to get over yourself first for that to happen.

    Are you projecting?

    Calling, writing, and townhall participation are completely useless if a Congress critter just tunes you out anyway. I have a Dem Congress critter and I called his office to voice my discontent over him voting for the bailout. Did he listen to me? No, because he only listens to liberals who currently control the party. Thank goodness I will soon no longer be a NY absentee voter.

    So, you provided your Representative with your advice, opinion, suggestion . . . dare I say it, you gave your input. Because your Representative did not do as you said, does not mean you did not have input.

    This is a facetious example. Painting a room isn’t like voting or civic participation. And, if comes to it, there’s always the color WHITE. My whole freaking rental house is WHITE. Here’s my reverse example: if you rent a house you often must get approval from the landlord to paint any room if they give it at all. Does this mean that the landlord values your “input” when they say no to painting a room or moreover give you a suggested color scheme? See how facetious this is?

    I am not making an inappropriate joke, my example was serious and unfortunately remains unaddressed. After everyone has provided their input, what color is the room painted? Because one color is selected, does that mean that the input provided was not allowed, or that the input was rejected?

    As for your example, it is the landlord’s property. The landlord dictates what can or cannot be done to their property. And, should you want to paint and the landlord says no, is not a value judgment of your desire to paint. You asked and you were told no. Your landlord suggested a color scheme? Fine. If you don’t like it, say no. Input was provided in both cases, and it was rejected in both cases. Input was allowed.

    I know you took a lot of time to equate voting with PAINTING A ROOM but they’re dissimilar. Voting has consequences that last FOREVER. Painting… not so much. You can strip the paint and paint another color.

    Nope. Not talking about voting. I mentioned no form of the word ‘vote’ in my example. The example speaks to having input. Did everyone suggest a paint color? Yes. Everyone had input. Not everyone’s input was inacted.

    I see. Like your facetious comparison to painting a room. Then, again, I don’t think you made your point either. So the definition of “input” is now subject to one’s point of view or word usage. Got ya.

    No. There is only one definition of input. Providing your suggestion of paint color, is input. Yes, or no? What is your definition of the word ‘input’?

    You’re being condescending. And you do it to other posters too not just myself. The Constitution doesn’t cover what happens when people become disenfranchised, or marginalized, or the effect corrosive political parties have on the voting dynamic of our country. The Constitution is just a set of ideas or principles put down on paper as to how to govern our country. That is all it is… perhaps, you should advise our public servants to read it since they’re so adept at IGNORING IT.

    Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution speaks to how to overcome the issues you have raised.

    I will put the word in quotations if you’d like. Stop being so literal. Then again, you have your own regard for the term “input” so perhaps you should make allowances for the term “lecture.”

    I am only reading what you say. Either your words having meaning or they don’t.

    It doesn’t take a history degree to know when infighting in any country can lead to dysfunction and thereby a lack of function or actual, representational government. Look at Latin America. Our own country had a civil war brought on by the infighting over slavery and states rights that still have bearing on our governance today. It can happen again and I think it will with all the disparate forces trying to force unnatural change to our country until it no longer resembles what our founders intended.

    Yes, I agree infighting can lead to negative places. I disagree that any current issue on the table will tear the country apart as you suggest.

    It’s a pet peave of mine regarding block quotes. Then, again, for someone who tends to be a devil’s advocate or whatever it is you do on this blog, I’m surprised you even care. Then again, I’m just being “sensitive.” Whatever.

    Yes, having a pet peeve would be an element demonstrating sensitivity.

    With regard to certain things like affirmative action, gay marriage, etc., sometimes the voter isn’t allowed input… something you assert that voters have. Not always. The Maine legislature legalized gay marriage and then the voters decided it was time to vote on it via a referendum because they had no input. So, there are instances where input is never given to the voter at all until the voters have to force the issue.

    I believe you are slowly coming to understanding the definition of input. Yes, the Maine legislature made a decision absent the participation from their citizens. Then the citizens voted. Had the vote turned out differently would you have said the citizens did not have input? Is input only input when the decision goes your way?

    I use the term “disenfranchisement” as an umbrella to cover people who no longer feel invested in this country for various reasons. Some feel disenfranchised because of lack of job opportunities (military spouses) or discrimination (on employment grounds) or any other reason. Representatives like DeGette would like to use such “disenfranchisement” for their own political purposes instead of actually addressing the issues.

    You drew this conclusion of Rep Degette’s motives based on her one statement from the link provided by MM? Do realize that the statement was incorrect and has been since redacted. Do you wish to re-evaluate your assessment of Rep DeGette’s motives.

    I’m sorry you think I’m “off topic.” Perhaps, MM will put into practice a new policy in regards to your “advice.” The fact remains I was illustrating that your broad use of the term “input” really doesn’t apply to people who are “disenfranchised” and feel that the political system has let them down. You cannot deny that however ideal a Republic may be as a political system, it isn’t so representative in practice when the very notions that set it in place are being compromised and perverted.

    I disagree that the notions that were set in place are being compromised and perverted. Is there still freedom of the press? Is there still freedom of religion? One man one vote? Oh yeah, that certainly has been compromised and perverted. Women can vote now. Yes, some things have changed, and I say many of them for the better.

    Hmmmmmm…. okay. So, let me get this straight. A majority of people in this country have expressed their dissatifaction with a government option (or whatever they’re calling it today) and yet, it’s in BOTH bills. I appreciate reform like the next person but if we’re dismantling the current system in favor of a government system, yet the current problems aren’t addressed, how does this signal that voters had any input in this bill? If you care so much for voter input, let’s put this to a referendum, either nationally, or by state. The Federal government should not be instituting bad law and calling it reform when it’s really just telling the people what they need when the people have already expressed their opposition. That is more of a function of a “democracy” or social democratic state rather than a republic, which is what the founders wanted to preserve balance and not concentrate power into any one entity. The voters should have the final say… not disengenuous, power hungry politicians looking to concentrate power more into the Federal realm rather than the states.

    Would you call that expression of dissatisfaction having provided input? Yet, another opportunity to ask you if things do not go your way, does it mean you have not provided input? Or, is it that your input has been rejected? A referendum is fine by me, though it is impractical and fraught with peril.

    Actually, using the phrase “quit while you’re ahead” is an expression not an admittal of an argument (or whatever we’re having) that has been “won.” Who’s being literal now? I’m only saying you’re expressing your idealistic view of this country and can’t seem to understand that idealism is only as good as how it’s practiced. That’s what I meant by the phrase “quit while you’re ahead” since, frankly, your idealism cannot overcome the very fact that things like disenfranchisement and voter disaffection exist. No one can win an argument with someone whose ideals cannot be penetrated with reality.

    We are sharing our opinions, giving our input so to speak, on what MM posted about Rep Degette’s quote, since redacted. Me, I am being literal. Yes, I am an idealist and am hopeful. I also accept that there is plenty wrong. Yep, negative things do exists. Win an argument? I am just hoping you recognize the definition of the word ‘input.’

    I think you believe that the current system is hunkey dorey. It’s really hard to gauge what you believe because often you hide behind your devil’s advocate role or you don’t really express what side of the political spectrum you’re on. I think I even asked if you voted for Obummer and I don’t know if I ever got an answer. I like to know who I’m dealing with. Until I get a better idea, a lot of my responses to you are based on previous history and positions fleshed out. You do tend to bend over backwards giving this administration the benefit of the doubt and that colors what you say. Unless I’m wrong. Am I?

    Actually, you do not know what I think because you don’t ask. And I am hardly hiding because we are obviously engaged in conversation. Instead of asserting what you believe I think, why don’t you ask if I believe if the current system is ‘hunkey-dorey.’ Ask me what side of the political spectrum I am on. And, if you asked me a question, I have answered it.

    How can you allow your responses to be based on history when don’t remember having received an answer to a question you think you might have asked? And, no I do not bend over backwards giving anyone the benefit of the doubt.

    EXAMPLE: A common attack on the administration is to suggest their socialist tendencies and their desire to take over private industry, specifically the automobile industry. Is it bending over backwards to say this is incorrect and point out that the administration hasn’t taken over Ford? If the administration is socialist and desires to take over private industry, why haven’t they taken over Ford? GM and Chrysler made some bad decisions and this was not the first time the Federal Government bailed out an automobile company. True or false? So yes, you are wrong about me bending over backwards. I just state the facts and question the conclusions of others.

    Again… perhaps you should stop asking rhetorical questions when we’ve already confirmed that I’m a realist not an idealist. I’ve already given you my background and political dissafection and yet you’re using rhetorical devices for questions you already have the answers to. I wouldn’t be having this conversation if I wasn’t aware of the realities of our political system.

    When I ask you a question it is to better understand your position or to get clarification. If you assign motive to my questions or don’t want to answer them (though I would prefer you would) that is OK.

    All fine sentiments that are grounded in idealism. If you mean humans have a capacity for a communal existence, I’m not interested. Humans, at their basic foundation, are INDIVIDUALS. The instant political institutions want to urge or insist that humans must care for “each other” instead of addressing actual problems and the role of the individual in those problems is the moment I check out of the conversation. Humans cannot rise to “achieve great things” or rise above their foundations when they’re too dependent on a government trying to keep them from succeeding. I want to be an individual, not part of a community trying to control me, what I believe, or how I live.

    Here I think we are talking past one another. The best example I can offer of people coming to together to achieve great things was our effort to defeat Germany, and the axis powers, in WW II.

    Yes, government can impact the human spirit, negatively and positively. And, if you ‘check out of the conversation’ you will loose your opportunity to provide your input. When you voluntarily ‘check out of the conversation’ you have automatically disenfranchised yourself.

    Ummmm… this is all part of a discussion of the current bill, which includes a public option. The public option is just some back door set up into a single payer system (socialized medicine). Your take is we won’t know until it’s actually passed and we know how much money it costs. Reform for the sake of reform that produces bad law isn’t always great reform.

    Yes, the public option can lead to a single payer system. Please cut and paste where you got my ‘take.’ I have never said such a thing. True, reform for reform’s sake that produces bad law isn’t always great reform.

    How is anybody to know your true feelings if you never reveal them or never stop existing in a neutral gear? At least with people like Chaps, or Zero, I get a point of view. For someone who doesn’t want others to tell them what they think they feel or don’t feel, you feel awfully comfortable saying that I’m “sensitive” or I need to “lighten up.” What is that but you telling me how I feel or am? You actually are assuming things you either think or want to think I embody. You either put yourself out there, zyzzyg, or you don’t. We’re discussing the future of our healthcare system and the prospect of government control of any kind scares the heck out of me. I’m a Tricare dependent, I know what it’s like and I’m passionate that no one experience the inadequate healthcare I now have.

    My true feelings and beliefs are revealed in my posts. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. My point of view is quite clear. With regard to this thread and MM’s post about Rep DeGette’s statement, I believe everyone should have input. Everyone should have the opportunity to say what they believe.

    I don’t want others to make un-substantiated assertions about what I believe or don’t believe. But, you are sensitive. You have since mentioned that you have pet peeves. You took me to task because I missed a blockquote. You capitalize the word ‘me.’ You personalize the discussion and go on tangents about what is happening in your life. You use words like passionate. Emjem, you are sensitive. Am I wrong?

    I am out there as much as the anonymity of blogging allows. If you have a direct question for me, ask it.

    You’re going to now have to give examples of our “collective selfishness.” You should have done this a LONG time ago. You can keep asserting a “collective selfishness” but without actual EXAMPLES this is your opinion.

    How about a definition? Individuals are selfish. A group of people are also selfish. You can discuss each individual separately or you can do it collectively. Collective selfishness addresses that the group is selfish, that the group is made up of selfish individuals.

    Are you or are you not defending this bill? Is this bill nothing but giveaways to the poor unfortunates who cannot afford health care otherwise known as “freebies?” Poor souls, where would they be without a government ready and willing to enslave them into a life of dependency? Show me that you’re not supporting this bill and I’ll retract my assertion. Perhaps, you’d also like to retract your assertion that I’m “conflating issues,” am “sensitive,” or need to “lighten up?”

    I am not defending the bill. See how it easy it is to ask a direct question and get a direct answer. I would say the bill is more than what you suggest, and has many more elements. Absent affordable healthcare they will be right where they are now. Again, I am not supporting the bill. Now retract your assertion. Though I am not sure which assertion you are talking about because you have not made any in this paragraph. You asked questions and I answered them. Nope, you do conflate issues, are sensitive and sometimes do need to lighten up.

    What exactly is your point? I love rhetorical questions like the next person but is there a thought behind them? Congressional representatives should actually represent the interests of their constituents not the interests of their party. If there is a majority of people in any district saying they do not want this health care boondoggle bill, then that is the prevailing view they should take away… not being wooed with money or threats by their party to vote a certain way.

    My point remains unchanged. Everyone should and does have the opportunity to present their input on healthcare reform, or any issue. Yep, Representatives should not be wooed, in either direction, by money or their party.

    I think EVERY American who calls themselves a citizen should approach life like this. If they’re interested in being an actively engaged citizen then they need to divorce themselves from political loyalties, educate themselves, and make decisions for themselves instead of letting politicians do it. That’s the inherent weakness in our Republic right now is the power of political parties and people’s antiquated loyalties to any political entity. What’s wrong with that? We’re having a discussion where you’re trying to flesh out my positions, yet you’re not reciprocating. All I get is a shadowy idea of what you think or feel. Do you even have any views or positions to flesh out? What are they? I’m asking you.

    Your approach is reasonable. Though I would hope you would allow for different approaches. Do you?
    If you are getting a shadowy idea of what I think or feel, then you will agree that it is wrong to asset what I actually think, feel, or believe, because you actually don’t know. Correct? This will be an important admission for you. Once you do, I hope moving forward, you will not continue to assert things about me or anyone that you do not know as fact.

    Of course I have views and positions. The topic of this thread is Rep DeGette’s comments. I gave my opinion on it. I have gave my opinion and position on other threads, specific to that topic. It is difficult and impractical for me to provide every view on every subject within one thread. I appreciate you asking the question about my views. However, your question is overly broad.

    You speak of me being condescending yet it is your approach that opens yourself up to condescension. I can give you my view on the infield fly rule, designated hitter, or roughing the passer. Admittedly, that would be snarky. But, you set yourself up for it.

    No, I don’t. That is the drivel I’m referring to. It took me 34 years of obervation to arrive at this conclusion. I do not appreciate a country that says all you need is a college education for EVERYONE to be a successful person when that commodity is too readily available and then rendered worthless by it’s overavailability. I believe in the ideals and principles that the founders set out, not the social welfare mentality I’m seeing now. Opportunity can be acquired through individual initiative and talent, not discrimination according to political viewpoint, who you marry, and who you don’t know (something unfortunately I’ve seen in the public school system).

    You have not identified the drivel that you are referring to.

    I think you’re naive. You either misstated what you intended or you intended what you misstated. I believe in the philosophy and ideas of this country. I’ve taught them as a social studies teacher. However, if we’re being honest as a country, we no longer live up to them.

    Me, naive? No, I am not. And, I have said what I meant and meant what I have said. I asked you did you not like how I said something. I said, ‘that I believe in the opportunity and promise of the country.’ You called this drivel. Now, you are saying that you believe in the ‘philosophy and ideas of this country.’ Is there that much difference between saying ‘philosophy and ideas’ versus ‘opportunity and promise’? Why is one drivel?

    We may have reversed ourselves but those reversals haven’t taught us anything because we’re still not living up to the Founders’ ideals and we never will.

    Each time you mention the founders I think of the Constitution. It clearly lays out their ideals. The thing is we have since modified the Constitution, several times. So yeah, we are not living up to their ideals. I like the changes, not all of them, but most of them.

    Speaking of reversals, how about the 18th and 21st Amendments, or the addition of the 19th Amendment?

    You really need that deeper thinking now because you obviously didn’t understand my example. You come off as condescending (whether you’re aware of that or not) just as many adults do when interacting with teenagers. If you think I’m comparing myself to an 8th grader you need to reread what I said.

    I understood your example, you did not understand that I asked you a question and then stated that I am not treating you like an 8th grader.

    The same goes for my having no control over the inferences and feelings you make and have. All I can do is make myself clear. Have you made yourself clear? There would be no confusion on my part if you actually clarified your positions. That is something I cannot control. Only you can do that.

    Yes, I have made myself clear. If you have difficulty understanding my position then ask me a question, as I ask you questions to more fully understand you. The difference is that I will answer your questions.

    The thing to keep in mind is the tone of your many posts. You do come off as condescending (whether or not you intended that). If you’re not willing to put yourself out there, say what you mean and mean what you say position wise, then there will be assumptions made. You want to be asked your feelings but when have you ever made those feelings known? That’s the thing. How is one to have a conversation with you when they don’t have all the information? These are all things that you either willingly avoid or hide, don’t want known, or don’t think you have to share. If that’s how you REALLY feel, and approach this blog then you need to make that known right away or not partipate in this blog. People who want to have a “conversation” with you will then understand how one-sided it actually is.

    Position wise? Ask me. I will always say what I mean and mean what I say. And, I am grateful that you are admitting that you make assumptions not knowing my actual position on any subject. For the record, assumptions should be avoided. Especially, when you can ask the question. I make my feelings known when I comment on what MM posts and when asked.

    All of what information? What do you want to know? Ask me. How am I supposed to know what you are interested in knowing about me unless you ask? On every thread am I supposed to repeat who I voted for in every election since I was eighteen? There’s a great deal of information about me. As I am sure there is a great deal of information about you.

    Everyone’s approach is their own. I reject the notion that there a single way to approach posting on MM’s blog. Or, that I have to make anything known right away. Because you voluntarily share anecdotes about your life does not mean that everyone should. If you want to share, then go ahead. If you want to know something, then ask.

    I make comments to what MM posts. I rarely initiate commenting on what others post. When someone comments on what I post and takes me to task, I will respond.

    The reason I say all this is because I know how people like Chaps and Zero, who I disagree with on many issues, feel. With you, I don’t know anything. Either exchange your political viewpoints or don’t respond to me. That’s okay with me. Just be honest about it.

    Again, I state my opinions and say what and how I feel based on what MM posts. Of course you don’t know anything because you don’t ask. My political viewpoints are clear you just choose to ignore them and go off on tangents.

    We have expended more time and energy discussing everything except what Rep DeGette said, “I’ve got to say that I think that the Catholic bishops and all of the other groups shouldn’t have input.”

    I disagree with that statement. Everyone should have input. Period. What more of my political views on this subject do you need to know?