• Well, I'm not about to fire shots which will start the Primary Wars again.

    But read your own words and compare what you said and the bases you opened for comparison to the candidate you think won because he was better than the one who didn't win the primaries.

    My point still stands -- raw politics doesn't guarantee that the better person wins, only the better campaigner (which word does not mean the person with better policies/vision/beliefs/records but the person who knows how to play the game, take advantage of the forces splayed before him and appear to promise everything to everyone).

  • No.

    There's no magic in the system.

    It's raw politics and that means that the better person doesn't always win.

    Or do you think Reagan was better than Carter or Mondale, or Bush was better than Gore or Kerry, etc.?

  • A reply a long time coming -- but then again, I have other/better things to do.

    I do not go to Townhall meetings -- and if I did, I'd not be one of the shouters. Or did you miss my remark about civility?

    All I said was that people getting passionate was understandable for various reasons (or do you think seniors concerned about losing billions from medicare programs and therefore affecting their lives seriously is just so much dross? Or, maybe you just don't care about the elderly.).

    A person like you enjoys taking the words of another and twisting them into something the person did not say or intend to say. Just so you can make your little pint and seem the bigger, morally better individual. (But that ain't morality from where I stand.)

    You are a smug, arrogant, self-righteous person and I'm sure you'd be a pip at a townhall meeting.

    My version of democracy is one where there is certainly civility. But when government officials ignore their constituents and do as they please, ya gotta admit that some people are gonna shout until they're heard.

    I don't advocate shouting. I advocate civil but pointed questions to the people who WE pay to do the job of being a Senator or a Rep. or any other official. They are paid to listen to us -- that's the Republic we live in. (It isn't really a democracy -- these people represent us and our interests and need to listen to us.)

    You are also a terribly dismissive person -- "a rowdy teabag" protest? When and where did I suggest that? And why are the interests of the tea party  protesters suddenly inconsequential? These are real people with real concerns -- I may not agree with everything they do, but I have compassion for the problems and fears they have.

    Seems to me you'd be happier in a society where an elite ran things and rammed their opinions and laws down our throats.

    Democracy is preferable to me and if some people get passionate because they feel they've been lied to or because they understand that their lives may be on the line, then so be it.

    I've attended plenty of anti-war protests where people were rowdy in the extreme and wouldn't let the other side have their say. Because they wanted to stop the killing and the people in power weren't listening.

    I've rallied and demonstrated and been a part of the rough and tumble of democracy -- and to find myself being accused of trollery is quite amusing as well as offensive.

  • I was intending to write a diary about my concerns, so you'll get the specificity you crave.

    The basic thing you forget is that people have a right to protest -- even if it's loud and rowdy and disruptive. Or, do you forget the oh so many times those tactics have been used against people we have disagreed with on the various wars, policies, etc. that we have taken issue with over the years (I've been participating in demonstrations for a long time in the gay movement and in anti-war movements and not all of them have been civil, polite gatherings.)

    Get over your disdain for democracy -- all of us have a right to free speech. Even those we don't agree with. I don't like it when I hear people mouthing off against gays or immigrants or being offensive about other issues, but they've got a right to say what they want. That's as important a principle as any other we have in this country.

    Civility sure -- but sometimes passion carries people away for legitimate reasons:

    For example -- taking billions OUT of medicare to help pay for the "reforms".

    Don't you think that the elderly will be terrified about what that loss of funding will do to the programs they need to maintain independent healthy lives?

    Don't you think the caregivers for the elderly will be passionate about wanting services maintained?

    Or is a bland meeting in which congresspeople are not held to accounts more important than the real concerns of passionate people?

  • for the war "I have concerns, Listen to me, please. And allay my fears."

    If you're talking about my post -- I think you have no idea what you're talking about.

    You are one of the dismissive types that cares only to push a thought without listening or caring about the other side. I can see from your post that you have a heartless uncaring attitude toward people and their issues.

    I was not talking about the euthanasia concerns that some people have been frightened into worrying about.

    I was speaking to other provisions of the bill -- which I know for a fact that neither my Rep. nor my Senator have read. I've called and spoken to staff -- in a very civil way. But they have no idea about concerns I raised. They freely admit that the Rep and the Senator have not read the bills or paid much attention to the debate.

    You think this is all a joke and that all arguments are straw men -- well, they're not.

    How much of the bill have you read? What answers can you give to specific questions on various provisions for which I watched debates and votes?

    I'm guessing none.

    Start caring. You might find you enjoy it.

  • comment on a post Teabagging Tampa and Rep. Castor UPDATE over 4 years ago

    It won't be popular to say this, but it really is unfair to characterize everyone who has questions about the healthcare legislation as teabaggers and wingnuts.

    There are many truly legitimate concerns that people have about clauses and provisions in the bill which no one is addressing -- I have watched hours of committee hearings on C-Span and I have some questions. Serious, legitimate questions.

    Not everyone who has concerns is a nut. Not everyone who protests and questions Congresspeople, and makes their voice heard is part of a "mob" or a manufactured protest.

    Why is it necessary to demonize and demean people who have legitimate concerns and questions?

    Healthcare is something that is personal and the concerns of everyone should be addressed with dignity.

    As a Democrat, my vision of the party is one that includes respect for all views and respect for the dignity of each and every person -- even those with whom we disagree. That's the Party I was raised in and believe in.

    I find this current wave of disdain for those people who have legitimate concerns to be distressing and not at all worthy of what the Democratic Party should be about.

  • on a comment on Frat Boy Journalism over 4 years ago

    Are you seriously asking why?

    You're a smart person, you can't be that dense.

    Where were you during the primaries when sexism was the order of the day?

  • comment on a post Frat Boy Journalism over 4 years ago

    What a surprise. Sexism in the media.

    Haven't seen that before. Watched all these guys closely for months, nay for years, and never saw anything like this.

    It's astounding.

    I mean, what would Keith Olberman say?

  • comment on a post Political Homophobia Kills over 5 years ago

    A great diary. You are so right and as a long time gay activist, I salute you and support you.

    This is one diary everyone should read.

    Recommended.

  • Ageist of you. Isn't it?

    She's smart and on point. No one should be forced to retire.

    How is it you can be so ageist? That's not very progressive.

    You don't like someone who speaks truth to power, so you resort to ageism.

    Very smart of you and so very progressive.

  • I believe I understood you all too well. Perhaps you don't understand yourself very well.

  • Please. Because you're heterosexual YOU are a better judge of how to move on this issue!

    If that isn't offensive, I don't know what it.

    The breadth of your experience interviewing people and your personal relationships don't seem to have made a dent in your sensitivity to gay issues at all.

    If you cared for gay/lesbian issues you'd want full equality now for every one of us.

    You're heterosexual, easy for you to tell us to wait. You've got all the rights and benefits of full citizenship.

  • Since you obviously know nothing about the Gay/Lesbian movement in this country perhaps you should do some reading.

    The movement has never ignored the religious component of this society.

    As a person who has been involved in the movement since the 70s, I know what I'm speaking about.

    We have made overture after overture to religious groups, to ministers and priests and institutions. Most times it falls on deaf (more than deaf, hostile) ears.

    There are numerous gay/lesbian religious groups: Dignity, Integrity, etc. which try to work within the religion they are formed around (e.g. Dignity and Catholicism).

    So to say that we as a movement have ignored the religious in this country says more about your monumental ignorance than it does about anything else.

    You are a person who knows nothing but says much.

    And most of what you say is worthless. Many scholars have studied what the Bible and other scholars have said about homosexuality and there are plenty of books on the subject (one of the best is What the Bible says about Homosexuality -- it's short so maybe you'll be able to get through it. But it's powerful).

    You insist that to protest and hold politicians' feet to the fire is not something we should do?

    Then you fail to recognize what this republic and our Constitution is all about.

    We don't elect people so we can sit back and adore them.

    We elect them so they can lead.

  • Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

    All of a sudden we cannot demand that promises be kept?

    Now that he's in office we must all be silent and wait?

  • comment on a post A Durable Comprehensive Legislative Solution over 5 years ago

    Yes, you are in the minority on this.

    What I can't understand is why you keep pushing this ridiculous religious excuse. In effect you are providing excuses and cover for Obama instead of calling for him to bring about the change he promised.

    As a long time activist, I have never found it useful or productive to provide the other side with excuses. Instead, what we always did and what we (who are committed to change and full equality) continue to do is to keep up the hue and cry, keep holding their feet to the fire, keep making sure they have no excuses to hide behind.

    What you are doing is asking us to wait. Wait? Howe long? When will this so-called religious culture that is supposedly so strong in the military, go away?

    In all likelihood it won't - if it's as solid as you claim.

    So then we wait for what? For how long?

    NO. The answer is to keep fighting, keep pushing, keep shouting -- until we are heard and change is brought about.

    After all this was supposed to be the administration of change.

    Let's see some leadership and real change.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads