to all those who have been concerned...Posted by Suzanne D on 2/20/03 at 16:58 (110095)
To all those who have been concerned about this message board group during the past few days ~
Notice the graciousness of many posters today: those responding to Nancy's grief concerning a gravely ill pet, John's gentlemanly note assuring all he still is their friend no matter what their political views, D. Thomas' admission that he has learned from everyone here, Pala's heartfelt post of something that brought tears to her eyes, and more - not to leave anyone out - I'm behind in my reading as we actually had school today!
Emotions have been strong, but stronger still remains the care for one another in good times and bad. As Julie said, it always passes.
May it always remain a good and caring place for all to come.
Re: to all those who have been concerned...Tammie on 2/20/03 at 20:03 (110137)
well put and yes you have a variety of classroom people ! I knew you could handle it! Thanks and a huge hug to you!
Re: to all those who have been concerned...Jim C. on 2/20/03 at 21:37 (110145)
I don't normaly visit this part of the board much, most of time just alot of small talk that I'm not interested in. But the last few days certainly have been interesting to say the least. I think everybody handled themsevles pretty well as these types of topics can bring out the worst in us, I have been on boards that are a lot worst than anything I seen here!
The thing I noticed is that most people made up and were very pleasant about it all in the end . I think that is a sign of good friends as it what you do after after a disagreement that really counts. We all have said things or acted in ways we wish we hadn't, espeically among friends and family. Again, it's what you do afterwards that counts in the long run.
Re: to all those who have been concerned...john h on 2/20/03 at 22:08 (110150)
Jim even the lions fight among themselves but generally do no seriously injure each other and in the end they stay together.and remain in the Pride.
Re: to all those who have been concerned...Necee on 2/21/03 at 08:33 (110158)
No matter which side of the political fence we are on, there is still one common thread.....we are Americans! I'm thankful we can all voice our opinions, yet rise above the dissagreements and still remain friends.
Re: to all those who have been concerned...orson on 2/21/03 at 09:38 (110164)
This board is not a place where all can voice their opinions. Instead, those disagreeing with the majority were browbeaten into silence, and ed even wondered aloud what their 'real' motivations were for expressing political views that differed from his. What the heck did that mean? It was insulting, bad faith debating, but most importanly, cowardly (and of course my question to ed is what does he really mean when he posts his right wing diatribes.) Will those who disagree with the majority have to justify their motivations now before they can express an opinion on this board? Is this free debate?
And look what this board has become since this 'debate.' It is a dispirited ghost of its former self because of the nastiness and bullying implications like the one mentioned above.
Have you noticed that there are even people seriously debating whether or not the gov't should 'allow' protests about this war? That mindset, and the conduct of the discussion on this board, shows that the places where free discussion can take place are disappearing. So I ask, if the freedoms we defend are destroyed in their supposed defense, haven't the people and institutions threatening those freedoms already won?
It looks like the right wingers have already started to build their little 'city on the hill' right here in cyberspace, and it's just as repressive and hypocritical a burg as I thought it would be. And the foundations are already rotting.
Re: to all those who have been concerned...john h on 2/21/03 at 10:16 (110167)
I have been on this board since its inception Orson and I have no idea what you mean when you say it is a ghost of its former self. Two of my better friends here for many years are Nancy S and Julie..Politically we are worlds apart but still remain friends and do not call each other names. I never expect to change their opinions and I doubt they will change mine. I recall no one saying or suggesting you could not demonstrate. Nacncy's husband was recently in a demonstration which is just fine with me.
Re: to all those who have been concerned...BGCPed on 2/21/03 at 10:36 (110168)
Boy thats alot of information and observation on this board. You sure you have only lurked and this is just your 3rd or 4th post since about 3 days ago?
just asking a legit question, and please dont label me nasty or say I am trying to chase anyone from the board
Re: to all those who have been concerned...orson on 2/21/03 at 10:53 (110169)
I am not a long-tiime or regular poster to this discussion board, but I have been following it casually long enough to sense a change of tone since politics became a subject of discussion. I refer to the last week or so. My exposure to the board before that was much less frequent, and I was not, at that point, really interested in its content.
The reason I said this board is a dispirited ghost of its former self is that, since the political debate started, at least two people have either been driven away by the tenor of the debate, or have stopped posting messages of a political nature. To me, this does not indicate an environment where opinions can be exchanged in good faith. Diversity of opinion is a marker of vitality, whether in the body politic or on a discussion board.
I don't plan to be a regualar poster to this board, but you have always stated your opinions respectfully, no matter who you were responding to, and I felt that your post deserved an immediate and respectful response also. Again, I am not concerned with the details of the discussion--everybody has a right to their opinion. I am merely concerned that people are able to exercise that right, whatever their opinion is.
Re: to all those who have been concerned...BGCPed on 2/21/03 at 11:30 (110171)
I would like to point out, respectfully,that no person can be 'driven' from a board. It is a persons own free will to leave or skip over certain names or subjects. That is also , in some cases a persons attempt to silence others. Is it possible that a person claims they will stop posting and leave is more to gain sympathy or to be begged not to? Perhaps also to get a few folks to gang up on a certain individual?
I am not I REPEAT not aiming this at any one person since I dont even recall who claimed they were leaving. If a person takes discourse that personal, enough to leave a great board then I question the motives. It is like complaining about a tv show, dont tune in.
You could also go to the fridge so to speak,like when a show you like is on but a 4 minute segment is coming up that you know you will dislike.Hopefully this will be taken not as a nasty but an observation so that maybe some people can re-evaluate their reason for leaving over some discussions
Now the spammers and the hucksters can all go as far as I am concerned
Re: For OrsonSharon W on 2/21/03 at 11:58 (110172)
You are new here, so perhaps you don't realize that the fact that someone did not POST a declaration that they will no longer participate in the political debate, does not mean that they haven't made that decision privately. It seems obvious to me that more than two people have stopped posting political messages, at least for the time being, and by no means are all of them liberal (or for that matter, conservative).
I don't know what you mean, however, about people being 'driven away by the tenor of the debate'. Both of the people I know of who have posted that they were leaving the debate have, in fact, made other posts since then -- so it seems unlikely that they were 'driven away' permanently from the board, even though they still may (or may not) choose to remain mute in this situation. There might be someone who has decided to leave these message boards permanently but hasn't chosen to post that decision. I hope not -- but it's possible.
I think most people here DO care about keeping alive the friendships that have been established on these message boards and want to give whatever hard feelings may have been created by this overheated debate, a chance to heal. (The post that started this thread is a good example of that.)
On the other hand, anyone who chooses to do so, is still free to post whatever they want on this subject or any other subject.
Re: DebateEd Davis, DPM on 2/21/03 at 14:37 (110188)
Debate or discussion is a two way proposition. Did you really expect to make a post, making some very strong statements and expect a muted response?
Re: Debatenancy s. on 2/21/03 at 14:59 (110194)
ed, yes, debate or discussion is supposed to be a two-way proposition, but a lot of things can mess it up or twist it -- such as manipulation and certain nitpicking types of haranguing, such as you did over the tom brokaw matter, which struck me as very silly. i regret any extra time i spent on it, and on your part it didn't include any true spirit of debate or discussion as far as i could see.
Re: Debateorson on 2/21/03 at 15:00 (110195)
I am prepared for any response, and I never said differently, so your post is a non sequitur. And I alluded to something you said, which you haven't yet responded to. Is this debate, Ed, taking potshots with no substance after specific points have been made, and letting that be your response? This seems to be your debating style, and this is exactly what I mean by bad faith debate.
Re: Re:OrsonJulie on 2/21/03 at 15:31 (110196)
Please have no worries about those of us who were 'disagreeing with the majority'. There certainly seems to be a 'majority', but as one of the minority, I can tell you that I do not feel I have been 'browbeaten into silence'.
I have, however, concluded that there is not much point in my continuing to contribute to the discussion.
I am an American. I have lived in England for 42 years. I have tried, in my posts, to offer a transatlantic perspective, and I've posted a number of links to British websites and articles that people living in the States might not otherwise have had access too. There has been scant acknowledgement of, or response to, these links.
I have also attempted to share, as truthfully and clearly as possible, my own developing thoughts and feelings, dilemmas and confusions,regarding the crisis we all face.
This week has been educative for me. I have learned a great deal from other posters, but I don't feel that I have genuinely been listened to, or that I have got anywhere, and that is why I have bowed out of the discussion for now, and possibly for good.
That doesn't mean that I feel browbeaten, or that I've left the board.
I do feel differently about it, though.
I am an American. I love America, and my American friends. I want America to be a country that other countries and other peoples can look up to for the right reasons, good reasons: concern for humanity and concern for the planet and its future. I believe many Americans share my feelings. It hurts me to see my country pursuing aims that run counter to the aims I wish for it (to take just one example: the tearing-up of the treaty on emissions that might, just might, have led to an extended lease of life for this beleaguered planet).
And it hurts me to see the government of my country bent on an unnecessary - or at least premature - attack for reasons that I believe are not valid, and in pursuit of aims that have not been truthfully acknowledged, and - apparently - without regard for the catastrophic consequences that will in all probability ensue.
I believe in the depths of my being that George Bush and his colleagues are grievously misguided on the issue of Iraq. Of course I could be mistaken, but I believe that there are choices, even now, that could lead to Saddam Hussein's disarmament. But when I say so, I am vilified, as though I were an unthinking apologist for Saddam and his despotic regime; and what I say is misinterpreted - sometimes openly, sometimes subtly. And that is not pleasant, so I've stepped back again. Not because I feel I've been attacked or that I've 'lost the argument', but because I'm tired of it, and I've other things to do.
I want to thank you for your posts. I think, or at least I hope, that it has been useful for at least some people here to have an 'outside' view of what has been going on. And I hope you will not take to heart some of the jaundiced responses you have had.
This one comes from one who appreciates your concern, and is grateful for it.
Re: Re:OrsonJim C. on 2/21/03 at 16:20 (110203)
Great post Julie,
I like that you have a vision of what America can be and I think it is a grand vision. You also seem to base your opinions on the princibles of this vision. It's to bad our political leaders can't do the same. It would be nice if this country could practice a quality leadership that involved congruency, fairness, compassion and consistency. We seem to base our actions in the world on immediate self interest. But the nature of our political system doesn't promote this, until the electorate demands leaders of of great vison will we be stuck with what we have. I really can't blame the politcal leaders, I blame the people who keep putting them in office.
Re: Re:OrsonLeon S. on 2/21/03 at 17:14 (110216)
First of all, let me say that I can't believe that I missed all of this.I love a good pot boiler as some of you might remember.
As far as the issues here are concerned, as many of you, I don't know what to believe anymore. Our government has a history of lying and distorting facts to stir up the general population to a war frenzy (can we remember the infamous Gulf of Tonkin resolution?) Part of the job of disinformation is to create a demonic image of the gov't we're about to go into battle with. Although in Hussein's case, it's not difficult. Prior to the 1st Iraq war, there were stories going around about how the Iraqi's were brutalizing women and children in Kuwait when they were there. Those turned out to be fabrications. The problem we now have is that we don't know whom to believe and Hussein doen't make it any easier. My gut feeling is that we should take him out but the other end of me keeps questioning whether we have any kind of sane policy for after the war. We no longer have statesmen in government but greedy policticians who are only out to protect their asses regardless of which party they belong to. Instead of a win win situation, I'm afraid that it is a lose lose situation. What I really get angry about are the conservatives who are so adamant about their righteous beliefs, that they demonize anyone who disagrees with them. It's so easy and safe to be so sure you are right all the time.
Re: DebateEd Davis, DPM on 2/21/03 at 17:38 (110219)
The appearance of 'nitpicking' only occurs when parts of the discussion is taken out of context.
The Tom Brokaw issue, more specifically, had to do with the question of whether the mainstream news media is predominantly liberal or conservative.
You seemed to imply, based on Brokaw's recent comment, that a conservative bias existed. My response was there to state that that comment was not consistent with Brokaw's historical philosophy. The mainstream media is considered to be predominantly liberal based on numerous polls of people in that business showing strong preferance for liberal Democrats in national elections.
Most conservatives feel that there is a strong liberal bias among the mainstream media in the reporting of the news. That area is open to debate though. One can debate the meaning of the statistics but the numbers are very consistent and I believe the burden is upon those who dispute the statistics to tell us why they may be wrong.
Re: To SharonPauline on 2/21/03 at 17:43 (110220)
Great explaination. Posts like this can cool the flames of a heated debate instead of fanning flames. Thanks
Re: DebateEd Davis, DPM on 2/21/03 at 17:59 (110223)
Bad faith is when an individual introduces himself as neither a conservative nor a liberal but then proceeds to bash only conservatives (save the one 'bleeding heart' statement. What point, specifically, have I not responded to?
Re: Re:Orsonjohn h on 2/21/03 at 18:14 (110227)
You can believe he invaded Iran. You can believe he invaded Kuwait. You can believe he gassed both the Iranians and the kurds for openers. Many people who have escaped from Iraq wil confirm his many bruitalities. You question our government but do not believe his attrocities?
Re: Re:OrsonEd Davis, DPM on 2/21/03 at 18:23 (110229)
I don't know many conservatives wh think 'they are right all of the time.'
I am sure there are some. I know more liberals who take that point of view.
As far as a 'demonic image' of the governemnt we are about to do battle with. There has always been propaganda on both sides in wars. Nevertheless, much of the negative information about Saddam Hussein comes from his own people -- that is, the ones left alive to talk about it.
Re: Debatenancy s. on 2/21/03 at 18:38 (110232)
yes, ed, and i found it interesting that the only responses to my posts have taken tiny pieces out of context and proceeded to misinterpret them or attribute to them more grandiose proclamations than i ever made or would make. only sharon has made an effort to understand what i was getting at; and at least bob today asked me a significant question, which i answered although i doubted it was a sincere question and suspected more of a baiting. but at least he was direct, today.
as i clearly wrote to sharon, and she seemed to understand it, i think there are both 'liberal' and 'conservative' biases in the media *in how they present information.* (can you admit the same thing?) almost always, i notice that liberals tend to think the media are too conservative and the conservatives tend to think the media are too liberal. my tom brokaw one-quote example was just that: an example. if you chose to twist that into meaning i was proclaiming all media to be conservative, as you did, that was your own mis-doing -- and it was not based on or in any sense a true reply to my thinking or my posting. it was your choice to manipulate and twist, and that is what you did. and i noticed it wasn't by any means the first time, so i don't take it personally. i think it stinks, though; and with this statement i choose to be less than tactful -- but it's the truth from my perspective, and at least it's open and not underhanded, although it lacks tact.
the (vague) numbers you mention, based on voting preferences of people working in the media, carry little weight with me. as i posted (once again now having to repeat myself), the mainstream media in this country are owned by a single-digit number of huge corporations, which as big business are republican by nature (true for some time, but magnificently exemplified by the bush administration's favoritism). the people working for them no doubt compromise themselves at times -- often, in my opinion -- by becoming mouthpieces for these biased big businesses in order to salvage and maintain their careers, on a personal level. what these people do in the voting booth doesn't matter one whit; what matters is how they present, or are told to present, 'factual' information to the public.
so i don't plan to debate these statistics with you, ed. They have little meaning in the real world and little bearing on what actually comes out of the mainstream media's mouths into the ears of those people among the general public who tend not to question or are preoccupied by a personal grief or whatever on any given night.
numbers are easy --simple -- to throw about (and hard, if not impossible, to verify). original ideas are much more difficult to come up with and defend in a supposed debate.
Re: Re:OrsonEd Davis, DPM on 2/21/03 at 18:40 (110234)
Iran recently refused to let Saddam seek asylum. The Iranian government is not that much better but even they remember his use of poison gas against Iranian soldiers, his brutal torture (against the Geneva Convention -- who enforces that anyway?) of Iranian prisoners.
Re: "don't confuse me with the facts"Ed Davis, DPM on 2/21/03 at 18:55 (110239)
I am sure that liberals would like to see a more liberal bent to the mainstream media and conservatives would like to see it more conservative.
That does not change the statistics. You can ignore them if you wish but doing so detracts from the credibility of your position.
Your statement that news organizations are owned by big business which is Republican by nature is another generalization -- and one that you are simply wrong about. New organizations are owned by the entertainment industry which is predominantly owned and run by liberals. Feel free to dispute that but if you do, let me tell you about all the swamp land in Nevada.
Re: "don't confuse me with the facts" -- by ednancy s. on 2/21/03 at 19:33 (110243)
funny. i'm not confused by facts -- just don't like stuff presented as facts that have little bearing on the larger issues and *may* not be true (you haven't offered clear evidence, after all). i don't have all the facts. i don't think you do either, ed, but you sure present yourself as though you think you do. as a honcho said in 'broadcast news' to the holly hunter character, 'it must be nice to think you know everything' (paraphrase). she said, 'no, it isn't! it's awful!' is it awful for you?
and twisted again: i didn't say i ignore statistics. i said they carry little weight with me. that means they carry little weight with me, ed. and they carry little weight with me especially when the future of the world is at stake and much more important and larger issues are being decided -- none of which appears to have much, if any, relation to the statistics you're promoting.
if this detracts from my credibility in your eyes, ed, so be it. you may be a good podiatric doctor -- of course, i don't know that, i could be wrong, though i've defended that likelihood in the past -- but your 'debating' style is low, in my opinion. and now i officially feel it is a waste of my time and effort to read it or respond to it.
so i'm moving on.
Re: "don't confuse me with the facts" -- by edD.Thomas on 2/21/03 at 20:35 (110251)
I have some info here (not taking sides):
-CNN & HBO
- ABC & ESPN
- Fox SportsNet & Discovery
Re: "don't confuse me with the facts" -- by edpala on 2/21/03 at 20:43 (110253)
i've stopped responding to ed as well, due to his 'low debating style'.
how is moose? how are you?
Re: "don't confuse me with the facts" -- by edEd Davis, DPM on 2/21/03 at 20:57 (110255)
Thank you. Fox News is the only one that viewers often classify as conservative. Actually, the policy of Fox News is 'we report, you decide.' They simply claim to be objective, letting viewers decide.
Conservatives have flocked to Fox after being tired of being browbeaten by the other networks, relieved to have an objective news source. I do think that while their presentation of the news is balanced, their editorial staff tends to be conservative.
Conservatives have, out of frustration, set up their own media outlets: CNS, Worldnetdaily; not to mention conservative talk radio shows. The important thing about those outlets is that they do not feign objectivity as does the mainstream media - they readily admit to being conservative.
If I want to learn about the liberal point of view, I may read publications such as the New Republic. That publication identifies itself as a liberal publication. One of the issues here is honesty -- let the public know where you are coming from without pretending to be objective when you are not. I have no problem revealing my biases and where I am coming from, where I am getting my information from and how I am formulating my opinions. Why cannot some of the liberals posting here do the same? They get defensive when asked to do so and claim that the conservatives are somehow treating them unfairly nad don't 'like' they way we debate. The rules of debate are ideology neutral and need to apply to all.
Re: "don't confuse me with the facts" -- by edEd Davis, DPM on 2/21/03 at 20:59 (110256)
The rules of debate are ideology neutral and apply to all. Being honest is not a 'low debating style.' It is too bad you feel that way.
Re: intellectual honestyLarson on 2/21/03 at 21:36 (110259)
Sorry but I could not stay away from this one. It is too hot a topic.
Hey, I am a conservative. A true,blue conservative. I don't try to hide where I am coming from. Can you understand that, Orson?
Why do the liberals here call the debate unfair every time one of their statements is challenged? I guess they don't really want a debate after all but a love fest. Groovy.
Re: Re:Orsonpala on 2/21/03 at 22:46 (110271)
thank you for your post leon. it is refreshing to get an occasional breath of sanity and decency here lately. i more or less agree with you.
Re: Debatepala on 2/22/03 at 00:04 (110273)
nancy, larry and i have also been discussing the media's move furhter and further towards the right. .
Re: For PaulineSharon W on 2/22/03 at 00:52 (110276)
Thanks, Pauline. It is always nice to know that one's efforts have been noticed. :)
Re: Debate - or nitpicking?Julie on 2/22/03 at 01:22 (110279)
Here is my observation of your debating technique, for whatever you may think it is worth.
Several days ago I told you that I think you pick holes in the arguments of others while failing to engage with the essential points they make. I still think so. You have done this with me, you did it with Nancy N, and now you are doing it with Nancy S. If I had the time, I would go back over all the posts I have made and make a list of everything I have said in which you have taken no interest.
I could also list all the comments you have taken out of context (and not only from my posts) and belaboured over and over again, all the while asking 'Why can't liberals....' (whatever your complaint-of-the-day is). You label people.
You are an intelligent person, but you use your intelligence to create an appearance of reasonableness, which you hide behind, all the while issuing blanket condemnations of 'liberals', and making subtle - I would call them insidious - digs at anyone who does not agree with you. These are bullying tactics. I noticed this during the discussion after 9/11. It made me sad then, and it makes me sad now.
I also feel that you have taken quite an unkind approach towards Paula. She may not like my saying this, but you know as well as I do, from your previous communication with her, that she is disabled, house-bound, and in continual pain. Her brave bitter humour is part of that situation. You could have made allowances for it, but you didn't.
The final straw for me was your post to John on one of the other boards - 'Keep backing me up on the Social Board, John, we have to get these liberals to keep their facts straight'. I don't know why it was the final straw - it's fairly innocuous, even a bit silly, but it was. Then I came to this board and read your post to Nancy, and decided to say what I think.
Now, if you like, you can label me as just another bleeding heart liberal. I'm not a liberal - but my heart IS bleeding, for the world.
Re: intellectual honesty / to "larson"nancy s. on 2/22/03 at 05:57 (110282)
hello, 'larson.' it's interesting that bg was immediately curious as to who orson is -- and we now know who orson is. so who are you, 'larson'? bg doesn't seem curious, but i am. if you're truly intellectually honest, as your subject line seems to imply, you won't neglect to tell us. i suspect he bears some relation not to bg but to another poster who regularly bemoans 'why do the liberals here...' and uses terms regarding supposed liberals such as 'always' and 'every time.' but i'm open to the truth of who you are, whatever it may be.
Re: intellectual honesty / to "larson"pala on 2/22/03 at 08:19 (110286)
excellent nancy. lol. you put it so well. i was wondering how to phrase this latest batch of crap handed us by the odious one. it's a cold day in hell that a rightt winger can outthink a liberal.
Re: Re:OrsonLeon S. on 2/22/03 at 09:17 (110290)
As I said in my earlier post,the issues against Hussein are many. His brutality is well documented and it is very easy to just say let's rid the world of him...and my gut tells me that I would like to see it done. The problem is that I just don't see our policy being anchored in any kind of statesmanlike foundation that thinks beyond killing the s.o.b. I don't think enough thought has been presented to us about what happens afterwards. We are on the verge of some real history altering policy that can affect the entire civilized world and I don't think enough thought has been given to the consequences. Our government is made up of the same type of people who created Enron, Worldcom et.al. and their interests don't go too much further than their own greed.
I listen to alot of talk radio and most of the programs are dominated by conservative hosts who basically 'take no prisoners'. You are either an American patriot by supporting the gov't. policies or you are a traitor. I understand that most of them are entertainers who are there to 'push our buttons' but they stimulate a likeminded audience to respond in kind, who don't take the time to consider all sides of an issue. What surprises me is that once you get past Bill O'Reilly's shtick, he's not as hardline conservative as he appears or his critics make him out to be. As a general rule, I find that most conservatives aren't as willing to look at the other side of an issue as having any legitimacy as others. Of course there are exceptions and I don't mean to paint you or anyone else specifically, with the same brush. It is important that everyone who takes an interest have the opportunity to express themselves freely, without being branded unAmerican or anything else.
PS. My Dad was a podiatrist for about 40 yrs.
Re: intellectual honesty / to "larson"john h on 2/22/03 at 09:41 (110299)
One could send a lifetime studying Liberalism. It dates back hundreds of years and is usually debated by academics. It's birthplace is usually considered England and there ae literally hundreds if not thousands of books on the subject. Even academic liberals argue and have argued for hundreds of years over what the meaning of Liberalism is. On this board we tend to argue liberalism on it's Political Philosophy but it is argued on many different levels. Probably, more people who think of themselves as Liberal really have no sense of the history of liberalism. More recently, we tend to argue what is known as the new New American Liberalism by academia. There is no short answer for what is a Liberal. I do not think you could condense it into a hundred pages. One would have to devote a lot of reading on this subject to understand where and how it originated and the arguments of what it is to even to begin to grasp what it was and what it has become. Our disagreements here seem more political to me and many of the so called 'liberals' really have a dislike of George W. Bush. Churchill, Roosevelt, even George Washington had many of our citizens who hated them and their policies. Clinton was hated by the so called Conservatives and so it goes. It has only been a few hundred years since our first and only Repulic was founded. During that period France has had 5 Republics and a revolution. The founders of this country wanted no King and were very much concerned about the powers of a Federal Government.Washington and the Founding Fathers would gasp at the size and power of our Federal Government now. Our history very much effects the way we view government which is one of the reasons that various forms of Liberalism really never took hold in this country and never will. That is not to say all or even most of Liberal philosohy is bad as we have adapted much of into our way of life. We really have few true Liberals in this country. I think the true Liberals are to be found predominently in Europe and then I have to be careful as I have said that Liberalism exist on a politcal level, a philosophical level, and many other levels..
Re: Re:OrsonSharon W on 2/22/03 at 10:33 (110308)
I see quite a bit in your post that makes sense to me. It is nice to find someone arguing a more liberal point of view here who is still interested in discussion of the issues.
We do seem to have gotten bogged down, here, in disputing which side is more offensive than the other, and it may be impossible to agree on HOW to debate civilly at this point. I do think the mindsets are quite different between 'liberals' and 'conservatives.' An example would be the disagreement over whether or not name-calling is (or should be) acceptable when it refers to the president (and some would include past presidents, or ANYONE in the public domain -- others would not).
I think it is this difference in mindset that explains why there clearly is no agreement on which debating tactics are considered acceptable and unacceptable -- for example, whether or not it is OK to bring up a minor point that one objects to if it comes up within the context of a larger discussion. Some have argured that to do so is 'evading the issue' and is a deliberate attempt to avoid discussion of the topic presented in the previous post. Others see this as 'taking them to task' for a statement that should not be allowed to stand, unchallenged. (Personally, I think that both sides have done this -- although I suppose one side has done it more than the other -- but like all the others, this tactic is usually only found to be offensive and evasive when it is the OTHER side doing it!)
I believe a breakdown in communication also occurs because we don't mean the same THING when we use terms like 'liberal' and 'conservative' (-- or for that matter, 'moderate'). We just aren't 'speaking the same language'!
It seems that 'Liberals' and 'conservatives' don't react with the same types of rhetoric when angry and on the defensive. BOTH sides do seem to become more entrenced in their positions in that situation, however, and it's a real problem when people start looking at the world like a pen-and-ink drawing (where everything is either black or white). It may SEEM as if it is only people with the opposite political viewpoint who do that, because it is when THEY do so that it seems so offensive and inflammatory -- but both sides do react to an 'attack' by becoming more entrenched in their positions.
I'm not claiming to know the solution to these problems. Perhaps it would help to wait a while before responding to posts that get the heart pumping and leave you feel angry and defensive, then re-read those posts later on(with a cooler head). The problem with that is, by the time you DO post a response, the discussion will probably have gone on WITHOUT you and your delayed comments may no longer seem relevant.
Re: Debate - or nitpicking?Ed Davis, DPM on 2/22/03 at 10:50 (110309)
Give me one example of what you are calling an 'unkind approach to Paula.'
You talk about 'lists,' but I am asking for just one example. I have supported Paula in most of my posts as far as I can see. Your accusation here is unwarranted and unfounded. I am very dissapointed in you.
We are discussing ideas and ideology. There is little room for discussion with those who wish to hide from the facts and label those who point out the facts as somehow arguing unfairly. Everytime BG has posted he was attacked by the same group and has not come back. Do you really want a few people to have a carte blanche to say anything they want and try to intimidate anyone who disagrees? Some call that censorship and you are showing a side of you that I had no idea existed.
I am a conservative and willing to be labelled as such. What is wrong with truth in labelling? Better than obscuring one's philosphical bent for the purpose of avoiding counter points.
Re: Re:OrsonEd Davis, DPM on 2/22/03 at 11:04 (110310)
Your point about the radio shows is well taken. I think even most conservatives agree that those shows are there for entertainment and do so via some 'shock' value. Many listen to those shows for a chuckle at the bombast and really don't take them that seriously.
I cannot agree with your view of our government from the standpoint of cynicism. The Enron scandal is a symbol of corruption and excess but I am not sure that that typifies what is going on in government or is consistent with government business 'as usual.' Corruption, in general, knows no ideologic bounds and hope you would agree that neither major political party has monopoly on that.
People may argue what type of political ideology is best but invariably different ideologies can work if followed with as little corruption as possible. Modern conservatism has roots in Calvinist thought in the sense that there is a presupposition of inherent corruption or corruptibility in man that is hard to get away from. As such, affording limited powers to centralized government is favored as a means to limit concentrations of power that may become corrupt. Sometimes such conservatives forget or ignore that concentrations of power can occur outside government and that government is needed as a counterbalance.
Re: attempts at censorshipEd Davis, DPM on 2/22/03 at 11:20 (110316)
I like Leon's post because he is being straightforward, even so I may not agree with the content.
Here we see 'pala' stating that it is refreshing to 'see an occasional breath of sanity and decency...' Why is it that it is okay for some to make statements like that but when the conservatives respond they are 'arguing unfairly, low, mean spirited, etc. etc.
Sorry Pala, Julie and Nancy but you really don't want a level playing field here.
Re: intellectual honesty / to "larson"Ed Davis, DPM on 2/22/03 at 11:25 (110317)
Larson told us where he is coming from philosophically. Something Orson did not do. Why attack him personally instead of sticking to the issues he brought up? What a low argument style!
Re: intellectual honesty / to "larson"pala on 2/22/03 at 11:30 (110320)
ed, so sorry to hear you have lost one of your minions. glad to see jhon is still following your directives. julie has blown your cover. i'd think you would both be ashamed to show your faces here today. also glad to see there are folks here who just respect the heck out of the mean underhande, nastybad faith ruination of this board that you and those who are your operatives have arranged here.
Re: intellectual honesty / to "larson"pala on 2/22/03 at 11:44 (110326)
julie, thanks for your concern, but the empathic folks here have already shown that they care about my situation. so with that said, i want no special tretament. ed, and minions, bring it on. the few folks here who can see this cabal for what it is, the few folks perceptive enough, might just as well see this nasty little right wing gang for what they are.
Re: palaEd Davis, DPM on 2/22/03 at 11:44 (110327)
Sounds like you are proud to be able to chase posters who don't agree with you away. And you complain about the debating style of others!
Re: "little right wing gang" Shame on you.Ed Davis, DPM on 2/22/03 at 11:48 (110329)
Pala. You have turned this board into a mud slinging match. Shame on Julie for supporting that. I really thought she was a reasonable person.
Re: "little right wing gang" Shame on you.pala on 2/22/03 at 11:54 (110331)
anyone new to this mess should scroll backwards and see ed and minions at work here, on a board that was polite and supportive till this horror started. make up your own minds.
Re: intellectual honesty / to "larson"john h on 2/22/03 at 12:03 (110332)
Paula I am not ashamed to show my face anywhere. You seem to be unable to have a discussion without name calling. This is no way supports your position which I have no idea what it is. I understand you do not like Bush. You do not want war with Iraq but that is all I get out of your post. Do you oppose all wars? Do you oppose all Republicans and support all democrats, Did you oppose the removal of Noriega in Panama. Do you support a strong military force in the U.S.? Do you think all wars can be avoided? Do you think there are some people so evil you can not reason with them? I like Dr. Ed, Julie, Nancy S to name a few who are on opposite sides of the issuess but I would never make post about them or call them names. I will simply agree to disagree. We will ultimately settle these issues in the voting booth. At the moment your team is not in control so you may not like it but Bush is the President and the Republican control both houses of Congress. Maybe in two years things will be more to your liking and then maybe not. This is how Democracy works.
Re: intellectual honesty / to "larson"pala on 2/22/03 at 12:14 (110334)
john, did you read julie's latest post where she tells us that she saw ed, on another board, telling you to come back to this board to shore ed's positions up?
you say you are a freind to nancy and others here. but ed has treated them badly and apparently you have been a secret suporter of that behavior. you are always telling us what a nice, respectful poster you are. well, if julie is right, and knowing julie i think she problably is, you are at least a dupe. that is what i meant. these endless diatribes of facts you have been posting ....... as directed, apparently.
you have lost all credibility with me and that is a shame because you were the only conserbative here who actually knew anything and stated pure facts., i am not disappointed in some of the others here i see them for what they are. but at least they stand up to their mean little posts. i thought much more of you
Re: Paula = Pala ?????Ed Davis, DPM on 2/22/03 at 12:16 (110335)
Is the poster 'pala' the same as Paula? I could not figure out what Julie was talking about when she criticized my approach to 'Paula.'
Re: Re:Orsonjohn h on 2/22/03 at 12:17 (110336)
Sharon: Certainly no discussion on the board will change the minds of those who are consiered Conservative or Liberal. Some people may care less about politics and look at some of these views and form an opinion which is the best we can hope for. Soon enough the current issues will pass. I am reminded of a Fitgerald writing 'The moving finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all the Piety no Wit Shall lure it back to cancell half a Line, Nor all they Tears wash out a Word of it.'.As one who is a bit older I have seen everything from the Great Depression forward and experienced it. Not much new emerges that has not been done or said before. My opinions on issues have been tempered by time and experience. they are not correct nor are they wrong. they are just mine.
Re: intellectual honesty / to "larson"Ed Davis, DPM on 2/22/03 at 12:18 (110337)
Looking to score another victory by chasing another conservative off this board? All you do is attack people on a personal level.
Re: intellectual honesty / to "larson"pala on 2/22/03 at 12:20 (110338)
again, my answer is anyone intereseted in who attacks on personal level should scroll back. if you have the stomach for ed's hypocrisy.
Re: intellectual honesty / to "larson"pala on 2/22/03 at 12:23 (110340)
i imagine liberals and conservative who left, left becasue of the atmosphere created by you and a couple of others wehn you invaded this lovely, safe, supportive haven and started your nastiness about a week ago. scroll back
Re: Pala = Paula????Ed Davis, DPM on 2/22/03 at 12:24 (110341)
If these two are the same, I can, at least figure out what you are trying to say. Pala/Paula has my deepest sympathy for her health problems. As far as 'making allowances' that would be hard to do without knowing the information in advance that you have provided.
The bottom line is that I will drive to the end of the earth to help someone in her condition. But that does not provide an excuse for her behaviour online. Acceptance of such behaviour or making excuses for it is what many call 'bleeding heart liberalism.'
Re: intellectual honesty / to "larson"Ed Davis, DPM on 2/22/03 at 12:27 (110343)
Your mouth needs to be washed out with soap.
Re: intellectual honesty / to "larson"Pauline on 2/22/03 at 13:21 (110354)
Backboarding whether here or on another site is quite common to gain support for ones position, mud slinging, hatred, hand slapping or anything else especially when someone needs that extra support to fill a void and feel good.
Don't look for or expect fairness here because alliances change on a daily basis and the doctors are always right.
If you take that as a given, your blood pressure will stay under control, and you'll not lose any sleep. Remember what ever is posted eventually slides off the page.
Nothing here is a matter of life or death, or right vs wrong. Instead think of it in terms of wants and needs. You want this board to be fair, open and equal, but you don't really need it to be that way to be happy, provide your basic living needs or allow you to give encouragement and medical support to others.
Life as we know it still goes on regardless of what people decide to post or the alliances they form. Take what you 'need' for support, participate often if you like, but discard from your mind the 'wants' that you think should exist here because our life doesn't depend on 'wants' to survive.
Re: intellectual honesty / to "larson"nancy s. on 2/22/03 at 13:41 (110357)
i spent much of last night going back over the past week's posts here on the social board. i did so in an attempt to understand who really is or are more censoring, less interested in the broader ideas presented here, more knee-jerk, less than honest, more manipulative, less arrogant, more interested in recognizing facts as facts and opinion as opinion, and so on. i saw problems on both sides, and straightforward attempts at honesty on both sides -- and the latter i always have great respect for, no matter what their political position is.
it was not a surprising project in the end, but it was enlightening nevertheless. the honest and from-the-heart posts (even if possibly 'wrong' in the end, we don't know) were obvious. the manipulative and arrogant posts (even if possibly 'wrong' in the end, we don't know) were obvious.
i'll say this: despite my great political differences with someone like john h, for example, he remains high up on my respect list as honest and unmanipulative. ed, on the other hand, has sunk lower every day and i'm not surprised that he's 'dissapointed' in people who hold his arrogance up to the light. i don't easily label people as arrogant; i tend to struggle to a fault not to put a person in any ugly category. but for me it was the obvious conclusion in this case.
Re: the strangerLarson on 2/22/03 at 13:49 (110359)
I am a long time reader of this site but have not posted before recently.
I have found a lot of valuable information on the site and did not have the need to ask specific questions. I am a school teacher. I think I have now revealed as much personal information as any one on this board except for the doctors.
I was motivated to chime in on this social board given the relevance of the topic. Unfortunately, this is a dysfunctional group of individuals.
Pala or Paula - -are you going to let Dr. Davis know your real name or are you having a good time keeping him guessing?
The 'liberals' on this board seem to take pleasure in seeing how many conservatives they can chase away. Are you having a contest or what?
Pala and Nancy seem to have no concept of civilized discourse. Julie sounds rational one day and is off in left field the next day.
If Pala is indeed the 'Paula' with serious health problems, I feel sorry for her because someone like her needs friends and support. I hope she does not treat others as badly as the posters who disagree with her on this board.
Re: intellectual honesty / to "larson"nancy s. on 2/22/03 at 13:53 (110363)
pauline, i think this was a very wise post. you are pretty amazing, coming out at times with posts that knock my socks off and at other times with posts that i have a pretty hard time with. i'm finally beginning to get just a glimpse of where your cynicism concerning doctors comes from, though; i suspect you're far less out of line than i used to think on this subject, and you probably have experience on the matter that we here can't know about. anyway, i appreciate the wisdom you just displayed here to paula on a variety of matters, and i learned from it.
Re: "don't confuse me with the facts"BGCPed on 2/22/03 at 13:59 (110365)
In the last election Clinton was involved in there was a survey. I believe it was in the low 90% of media folks that voted for him. I think the fact that FOX has great numbers with conservatives like Shawn Hannity and Bill O Rielly makes it seem the other way.
The fact is that many of the folks in this country have more conservative views in general. If Al Franken is the best guy the left can come up with for a show it wont last 1 year unless they pump it full of funding.
There is a reason that Rush, ORielly, Hannity are popular. You may not like them but they draw huge numbers for a reason
Re: the strangeredlar on 2/22/03 at 14:01 (110366)
it nauseates me to think the larson eds would post about a poster's disability and pain and use a person's disability to get in a nasty dig at them.
Re: the strangernancy s. on 2/22/03 at 14:04 (110368)
'larson,' with all due respect, you know next to nothing about me. if you've been a longtime reader of this board, you know that i have my flaws but that usually a problem with 'civilized discourse' is far from one of them. i haven't seen much civilized discourse from you, yet, but i certainly would welcome it, no matter what your political bent.
paula/pala has never hid behind either name. she started here a long time ago as 'paula.' then another paula came on board and seemed not to want to qualify her posting name so that the two people could be distinguished. so the original paula changed her posting name to 'pala.' (the second paula seldom posts.) very simple -- and it's been explained here a number of times. it does make me wonder if you really have been a longtime reader, although i know none of us can read and take in every single thing. ed should have known this, though, i would think, given the length of time he has been actively on the board.
Re: intellectual honesty / to "larson"BGCPed on 2/22/03 at 14:05 (110369)
Actually I just got on here for the first time in about 20 hours.....I misse all the fun. I dont know Larson at all but if he is a Conservative then he is ok by me. I like Liberals also. It is possible to debate and ask questions that are uncomfortable, it doesnt mean you hate or are a meanie that wants to silence people
Re: EdJulie on 2/22/03 at 14:09 (110370)
Thank you for your response. I'm not surprised that you are disappointed in me: I am disappointed in myself.
My post this morning said nothing that I did not think true, and it was from detached observation. I had not wanted or intended to say these things to you, but after your post to John that I mentioned, I was angry.
I called it as I saw it, and I cannot take it back, but I now understand that I should not have said it. It was too personal, it offended you, and although I believe what I said to be true, I am sorry that I said it.
I do want a level playing field. If you really want it too, then I hope you will think about the way in which you debate. I couched my disquiet with it in what I thought were moderate terms, and I hoped what I said would cause you to reflect. That it didn't have that effect, but offended you, must have been due to the way I expressed myself.
I'm not going to say anything more. You are far more valuable to this website than I am, and I am afraid that any further comment from me will antagonise and alienate you further. I respect you as a doctor, you have given enormous help to people here, and I do not want that to happen.
So I apologise to you and to the board, and with that I leave this discussion.
Re: the strangerpala on 2/22/03 at 14:10 (110371)
i am pala i am paula i am edlar. just wanted to make the point that anyone can hide behind a false name.
Re: intellectual honesty / to "larson"BGCPed on 2/22/03 at 14:11 (110372)
REALLY? You didnt hear Shawn Hannity the other night. He had the Kennedy son on calling people with SUV 'un-american' Shawn then asked him how often he flies on private jets. After saying I dont remember, I cant recall, not often, he finally admitted it is often. BTW after he left the show he was going and it was on a private jet.
He used logic anf fact. Kennedy used the old 'I wont dignify that question with a response' He was lecturing that too many drive suv to waste fuel. He said people dont need to use them. Shawn asked why he needed to fly private jets all the time. He couldnt answer that and he lied and drug his feet for 1/2 hour.
That is what irks many conservatives like myself. The total hipocrisy and double standard nonsense that many (but not all) liberal politicians exibit
one more log for the fire
Re: "little right wing gang" Shame on you.BGCPed on 2/22/03 at 14:16 (110373)
Whats a mininon? Am I one? I bet they would taste great with bbq sauce
Re: the strangerEd Davis, DPM on 2/22/03 at 14:19 (110374)
I have been posting on this SITE for a while but only occasionally on the 'social' board. The last time I spent any significant time here was after 9-11. I did not know the information you provided me about Paula and it is unreasonable for you to expect me to have known. Even if I was a first time poster, more courtesy should be extended than you and Paula have shown. It sounds like your have made this board a private domain for you and a few select friends and stand ready to fend off any intruders.
Re: "don't confuse me with the facts"nancy s. on 2/22/03 at 14:21 (110375)
bg, how interesting that you raise the subject of clinton. it doesn't matter if even 100% of media people voted for him -- they went all out to help take him down in the most vicious of manners -- for years! that vendetta was one of the ugliest things i've ever seen, and over FAR less important an important issue than the ones facing us and the whole world today. the priorities demonstrated by the media during that time, and by others, struck me as sick and warped, and they still do.
you don't need to barrage here with all the stuff about how clinton did it to himself, and so on (although, of course! you can if you WANT). i've heard it all a thousand times. he was no saint, not by a long shot, but except for arrested development in the sexual area (a flaw in which he was hardly alone, to put it mildly), he had a real brain.
i agree that rush, o'reilly, and hannity are popular for a reason. the reason is rather sickening, if that's what passes for entertainment these days, and apparently it does among a large segment of the population. passing it off as entertainment is really undercutting their value to right-wingers, though; i'm sure you're aware that many many people take them all dead seriously. some are embarrassed to admit that, so when referring to these characters they reduce them to 'entertainment.'
Re: the strangerEd Davis, DPM on 2/22/03 at 14:21 (110376)
Thank you for answering my question. Yes, anyone can hide behind a false name, but why?
Re: EdEd Davis, DPM on 2/22/03 at 14:28 (110377)
I accept your apology and I too apologize for the misunderstanding. My comment to John was in jest and did not expect it to be taken seriously.
I too, will leave this topic and board for now. The topic is too important to leave alone so I beleive we will be compelled to revisit it later. I only hope that Nancy and Paula can reconsider their attitudes.
Re: EdJulie on 2/22/03 at 14:32 (110378)
Thank you Ed.
I certainly agree that the topic is too important to leave, but perhaps it's really better to let it all lie for the moment, at least.
Re: the strangernancy s. on 2/22/03 at 14:34 (110379)
i think i just read that i have made the board 'a private domain' for myself and a few select others.
we could count the posts and see if that's actually true. but i doubt we will. i don't think we need to.
i'm so tired of words being putting put into my mouth that i could go to bed for a month. but maybe i'll just politely gag and read something more uplifting than i'm finding here today.
i often find uplifting things, and honest things, to read. the next time i do, i'll post about it here.
Re: PaulaJulie on 2/22/03 at 14:40 (110380)
My dear Paula - you must try to stop saying whatever comes into your head. John is exactly what you always have thought him: a honest man who speaks from his heart and from his experience. I wish you had not called him a 'dupe'. If I thought anyone would think badly of him (but how could I have?) I wouldn't have called attention to that post.
Enough, now. If you really care about the board and want it to be the safe place it was, please take care. Again, I mean this kindly.
And where is that email you were going to send me?
Re: Paulajohn h on 2/22/03 at 14:43 (110382)
As I would expect! A lady from my generation! We differ politically but our hearts are in the right place and we care for people.
Re: "little right wing gang" Shame on you.john h on 2/22/03 at 14:46 (110383)
BG: I think a miniinon must be something like escargot although we do not have them here in Arkansas.
Re: the strangerjohn h on 2/22/03 at 14:49 (110385)
Larson let me tell you about Nancy S: she likes cats, wears cat socks, likes antiques, lives by the ocean, drinks wine (French I bet), and uses a Mac computer.
Re: the strangerPauline on 2/22/03 at 14:52 (110386)
Maybe because their not a doctor who's always given the right to speak his/her mind openly taking shots when ever and where ever they please.
The value of our life does not depend on the place we occupy. It depends on the way we occupy that place.
Re: "don't confuse me with the facts"BGCPed on 2/22/03 at 14:53 (110387)
I do take many of their comments in all seriousness. I am not ashamed to admit that. Many in the left get more than a few mulligans from the mainstream press. The idiots in the media will beat anything to death if it sells. Thanks for telling me to skip the run down of Clintons misgivings, I dont have the time to list them all.
He was much more than just a dirty old man using a dumb intern . The continued argument that he is somehow great since he has an alleged higher iq than GWB is moot. Bush has more moral fiber in his pinky. He has not done anything as slimy as Clinton so all they can do is say 'he is a crazy oil stealing cowboy' 'he is dumb' 'his daddy wants him to nuke Iraq' and so on.
I remember Martin Sheen going on about GWB and saying he was an idiot and a 'white knuckle drunk' since GWB has not drank in 20 years or whatever. Sheen claimed he was lying and couldnt have stopped because he didnt use a 12 step program or fo into a detox. GWB said he partied too hard and one day said thats enough I quit, and he did. He also took up running( his 1 mile time is WAAAYYY better than Slick Willie, look it up in runners world) p.s. do I get a rim shot for that one?
Point being Martin Sheen know for his 2 sons that did many a stint in a rehab. One spent about 70 grand on hookers from Hiedi Fliess has now room to talk. GWB had the will to just stop himself, which shows character. For Sheen to slam a person for dealing with a disease is low. That is another example of the left.
P.S. I dont care to hear any more entertainers spouting about Bush and the war. You make a comfortable living singing or acting like you are someone else. Sean Penn, Sheen, Mike Farrel, Madonna? I would submit that a Dog Catcher or the bartender Moe from the Simpsons is more qualified to comment on domstic and foriegn affairs.
Re: the strangerjohn h on 2/22/03 at 14:55 (110388)
Something just occured to me! All my buddies who I tend to have political differences with use Mac Computers. What is with this' Nancy N, Nancy S, Julie. I had better check that there is not some sort of radiation coming out of my Mac that could change me. Mac computer people tend to be very loyal and not given to change. Any of you who tend to lean left and use a PC do not forget you are suppporting the most wealthy man in the world Bill Gates and believe this or not since the shares of Microsoft split recently there are two BILLION shares..
Re: "little right wing gang" Shame on you.BGCPed on 2/22/03 at 14:57 (110389)
John, you from Arkansas? Someday I would like to read one of your long and eloquent posts on the state of state in Arkansas during and after the Clintons. I am not picking on them I just like to hear ir from an honest person that actually lives there. I heard about that guy Larry something that had a video tape of Clinton letting himself into Jennifer Flowers apartment. That was another lady he didnt know and didnt do what is is with. I saw him on a show a while back and around 91 some guys visited him to 'reclaim' the tape. He supposedly got a good beating. Do you know about that?
Re: "don't confuse me with the facts"john h on 2/22/03 at 14:59 (110390)
I would not care what side he represented Franken could not make it a year on TV if he represented Mother Tehresa. There was an interesting discussion on one of the news shows this past week why the Democrats could not put forth a talk or TV show that would draw viewers. One of the guest was a San Francisco lady who is a successful radio talk show representing the left. Strangely everone agreed what the problems were including the lady.
Re: intellectual honesty / to "larson"john h on 2/22/03 at 15:13 (110391)
Wonder where you have been Pauline. Hope you are well. I perceive some truths in your post (supprise). What I have taken away from this board is what I perceive as some life long friends and as many as not are not in agreement with me on many issues. I have been able to find solace and understanding when I am in pain and a place where people understand the pain I am in. I have found some good information on my condition and know that I am not the only person in the world with it. The Social Board is just what it's name implies. You can discuss what ever you want. People can agree and disagree but we should all try to be as nice as possibe when doing it. Not easy and I am not always pure on this but I really never want to offend anyone personally. Some people may be looking for more than this board can provide and will ultimately be disappointed. We cannot all be loved by everyone and have everyone agree with us. The board for me has been a wonderful place to have met some very smart people from all over the world. I would like to have the Nancy living on one side of me and Julie on the other. Dr Ed and Dr Z could be my Doctors. Carole could live down the street which could be party headquarters (party as in fun). Pauline I would want you to live across the street so I could annoy you but then again we just might be friends.
Re: Re:OrsonSharon W on 2/22/03 at 15:26 (110394)
By the way, I didn't say so earlier but I wanted you to know that I appreciated your remarkably thorough and knowledgable answer to my question about what you think the administration will do AFTER winning in Iraq (assuming the war does occur, at that it is likely the US will win). Your answer showed marvellous knowledge and insight about the administration's plans for helping Iraq to establish their new government without Saddam and his cronies, how they will actually put such a thing into place.
Was that post under 'Ed'? I am not sure. I have seen my question to you repeated a couple of times since then, with somewhat different wording and orientation. Reading your earlier post would certainly help to answer that question, for anyone who is really interested.
Re: the strangerLarson: on 2/22/03 at 15:32 (110395)
I have several doctors in my family. They have a lot less liberty to speak their minds than most people given the liability situation.
By the way, what do you have against doctors anyway? Especially the one's who post on this site.
Re: Re:Orson ...To Ed & JohnLeon S. on 2/22/03 at 16:26 (110403)
I reply to Ed first regarding your exception to my comparison of this administration with the Enron mentality. It was G.W. who hosted the Taliban leaders at his ranch in Texas when our interests were in securing an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. To this date, any attempt to make tougher laws to protect us from future Enrons still haven't passed and whatever was proposed has been so watered down by this administration,they are meaningless. There is still a circling of the wagons mentality when it comes to getting tougher with white collar corruption. By the way, has there been a replacement for the head of the SEC yet? With all that being said, although I didn't vote for him, I'm happier (for lack of a better word) that G.W. was the president when 9/11 happened than Gore. I also agree that neither party can take the high moral ground when it comes to politics. That's what I meant by rueing the fact that there are no 'statesmen' anymore.
To John, I reply that your sage observation that longevity has taught you that the extreme positions that some people take should be tempered by the thought that things are never as dire as they predict is something that I have been telling people for quite a while. I think that this is probably one of the most serious times in our country's history. Prior to Desert Storm, we had a broad coalition and there was no serious AlQueda threat. This is a different time with a vastly unknown different enemy. I would like to apply that same reasoning to hope that if/when we do go to war, that great unknown factor will be in our favor.
Re: intellectual honesty / to "larson"Leon S. on 2/22/03 at 17:22 (110407)
All I can say is WOW!!!! I like a good debate and discussion but this whole thread is something else. I get into it because of the intellectual stimulation it provides and it makes me think on my feet (so to speak). In some ways, it's like doing a tough crossword puzzle. It stretches the mind, or at least it should, but even I am surprised at the animosity that's being generated here. Even the people on The McGlochlin (however he spells it) Report are friends off the air.
Re: the strangerPauline on 2/22/03 at 18:46 (110411)
I have nothing against doctors not even the ones on this site, however,
I see them as equals. I don't put them on a pedestal, make them sacred cows or live in daily fear that those posting will somehow be driven off this board.
Standing naked their body looks the same as every other human that walks the face of this earth and their blood is the same color.
Those that post here get just as much out of being here as anyone else. Their here for a reason just like you and I and all the others.
We have no Gods among us at least none that I see here.
Re: "little right wing gang" Shame on you.john h on 2/22/03 at 19:10 (110413)
BG: Bill Clinton's years in Arkansas were very much like his years in office at least on the social level. He was Attorney General and then Governor and I believe it was for 3 terms with him losing to a Republican during one run. Hillary was not known as Hillary Rodham Clinton while he was Governor but she preferred to be known as Hillary Rodham. When he began his campagin for President she assumed the name of Clinton. Arkansas was split 50/50 on Clinton during his political career in state government. As was the case during his presidency you either hated him or loved him. There was no in between. Arkansas is a state of only about 2.5 million people and a very rural state. Pickups, guns, hunting are the order of the day here and no man or woman could ever hold office here if he supported any sort of gun control. Hillary was a lawyer at the famous Rose Law Firm in Little Rock. Supprisingly, there were a number of rumors about her and someone in the law firm many years ago. I have talked to former President Clinton on several occasions and he is indeed personable and comes across as a good ole boy you would not mind having a beer with. His womanizing is legandary around here long before he became President but no one really cared. He was a decent Governor. Our state is a staunch Democratic state since the days of reconstruction. We have produced two of the more Liberal Senators of our times in William Fullbright and Dale Bumpers. We have also produced the likes of Wilbur Mills of the Fanny Fox fame. Between Mississipp and Arkansas we seen to be last in everything in the way of income,schools or any thing else you can imagine. Clinton is currently constructing what will be the largest Presidential Library of all time. It is to be located in downtown Little Rock on the banks of the Arkansas River.Also he is building a large lake house in Hot Springs which is to be part of the Clinton Library.I cannot figure that out. We had a big to do when the City Board renamed a street that was very old and historic to President Clinton Avenue. Probably the majority of the city did not like the name change. Most of the famous Arkansas staff that Clinton brought to Washington like Vince Foster and Webb Hubbell have ended up in a sad way. They were likable and successful while in Arkansas but things went south for them in Washington. President Clinton has been back to Little Rock many times but I do not recall ever seeing Hillary back here. I really do not think she liked Arkansas coming from the city of Chicago and attending a prestigeous school in the east. President Clinton is not discussed around here much anymore and many still think he embarrassed the state. Not because of his politics but because of his problems with women and truthfulness. I do not think we will ever see a President from Arkansas for a 100 years or so. As I remember he did not carry the state while stumping for Gore and I am not sure he even carried the state duing his last winning election. I had occasion to go to the state Capitol on frequent occasions so saw him around there on a regular basis.By the way our state Capitol is an exact duplicate of our Capitol Building in Washington only on a much smaller scale. Very beautiful. I have lived all over the U.S. and grew up in the Chicago suburbs. Arkansas is a wonderful state to live in. You can be in the country from almost anywhere in less than 15 minutes. Lots of mountains,lakes and you do not have to deal with large crowds. We have our problems like any state but are part of the old South for better or worse. We have a state law that the state budget 'must' be in balance each and every year so we have no billion dollar state deficits. We are begining to acquire a large Hispanic population in Northeast Arkansas (Wallmart Hq and Tyson foods). I am not sure but would guess our African American population to be around 35%. I actually see a lot fewer racial problems here than I did in the Northern cities I have lived in. I think the only thing we are famous for is President Clinton, Wallmart, Rice, and duck hunting. Oh! I guess I should have mentioned pickup trucks.
Re: "don't confuse me with the facts"john h on 2/22/03 at 19:20 (110414)
I have run in many 5K and 10K races with Clinton. Actually he was not a bad runner. On one of our Pepsi 10K's he was just ahead of me at about the 6K marker and went down hard. I ran on by him of course as any ruunner would do. He did get up and finish the race. I would guess he was running around an 8 minute mile in a 5-10K races and that is not bad for a guy his size. You think I ever let him beat me BG? No way Jose. Seems all of our Presidents do stupid things when it comes to women. Kennedy,Roosevelt, Eisenhower,Clinton. Good ole Harry stayed on the straight and narrow and Jimmy bless his heart admitted 'he lusted in his heart'. I got to confess I may have had that lust in the heart thing myself when I saw Katheren Zeta Jones in Chicago tonight. .
Re: Re:Orson ...To Ed & Johnjohn h on 2/22/03 at 19:31 (110417)
Leon: Unfortunately we never know when we are involved at a turning point in history. 9/11 may well have been one. without 9/11 I do not think we would be looking a Iraq and in conflict with our former or maybe present allies France and Germany. If there is war I think you have to trace it directly to 9/11 and the results of a war are clearly unkown at this time as would be the results of having no war. Indeed Leon, we could be at a major turning point in history. Some of you younger people may be able to look back 50 years from now and say I told you so or was I ever wrong. .
Re: Re:Orsonjohn h on 2/22/03 at 19:39 (110418)
Just after my post Sharon there was a program that covered in detail the plans of a post Irag government if it comes to that. There are detailed plans in place for a governmet which are close to what I outlined. Of course when it comes to war things can change in a hurry. Clearly we will not take the oil as all involved note it belongs to the people of Iraq. I read today in an unconfirmed report that some of our special forces have already taken over some of the oil fields near the Kuwait border to prevent Saddam from blowing them up. Supposedly the oil from these fields exceed over 40% of Iraq production. I am not sure I buy into this report because surely the media would have been all over it since they seem to have access to about anything and Saddam would surely have made some noise about it. Probably a bogus report.
Re: DoctorsSharon W on 2/22/03 at 20:53 (110427)
I figure that the doctors here get a chance to see a side of the patients that they wouldn't normally get to see. Detailed descriptions of how people feel, emotionally as well as physically -- things like that. Sometimes even comments on how doctors interact with patients, from the PATIENT'S point of view, not from the viewpoint of a health professional.
But I'm sure that would get old after awhile. So I figure anyone who has stayed more than a year is doing it because he likes to HELP people, and/or because he has come to care about the people he is exchanging posts with here. (Probably a little of both.)
No, doctors certainly are not gods, they are just people with many years of education and lots of responsibility. They have the same character and personality flaws as anyone else, the same range of emotions, the same needs for approval and friendship. And if you cut them, they will bleed (as you pointed out, Pauline) the same red blood as everyone else.
Re: intellectual honestymarie e on 2/22/03 at 21:14 (110428)
Thanks for your post Larson. Now I remember why I switched from the Conservative Republican party to the Democrat party.
happy trails marie
Re: sticks and stones may break my bones but words willnever hurt me.marie e on 2/22/03 at 22:05 (110432)
I've been away from the board for about a week. Wow! From some of the posts I have read during this discussion I have to say there is some name calling going towards some of the more liberal minded folks that come here. Shame on you! I am reminded of the bullies i deal with in the classroom daily.
I guarantee you that I am not all that groovey nor am I interested in a love fest. I am pro peace and I pray on my knees daily that war can be avoided at all costs. Peace is not a liberal cry it is a human cry. I am not a peacenik I am an American with decent values, like respect for life and freedom of speech. I am a Christian. No one here will argue the horrific deeds committed under Sadam's regime. We should all hope that he will comply and war will be avoided.
I am a grounded Democrat who was once a Republican. I chose to be a Democrat because it seemed that the only way conservatives in the Republican party debated was to resort to namecalling and bashing. So please all of you both conservative and liberal minded knock it off. Take a minute and remember we're all just folks trying to make it in the world. One day at a time. We all want the same things for our children:a safe place to live, good education,good health and the opportunity to be all that they can be. Folks in Afghanestan, France, England, Japan ....all want we want. They're folks like us. Folks who will loose their loved ones, their children in another war. And so I will pray for a peaceful resolution, please liberal and conservative take a minute and say a small prayer for peace. Choose whatever religion you want or none at all but pray.....our young people in the mideast need it.
Re: Ed & JohnJim C. on 2/22/03 at 23:34 (110447)
As an objective moderate who leans slightly left I would like to get your feed back on Bush's nomination of Migual Estrada. The Demo's claim there is no information on his stand on past cases, law and todays issues, and he hasn't been very forth coming with his opinions.
The only rebutal I've heard from the Republicans is 'He's a good man and should be confirmed' or, 'The Democrats simply don't want a conservative hispanic'. My understanding is it is fairly normal for these nominies to be questioned on there views. And are generally confirmed unless their is something bizarre in their past. I would really like to hear a conservative view on the Democrat's concerns?
Re: Re:Orson ...To Ed & JohnLeon S. on 2/23/03 at 10:27 (110466)
Thanks for the compliment but I do qualify for senior rates on the bus and movies...unless you meant the other younger people who might be dropping in.
Re: Ed & JohnLeon S. on 2/23/03 at 10:43 (110468)
The whole judicial nominating and confirmation process has been so politicized since the Judge Bork hearings that it is almost irrelevant what a candidate stands for. Both sides have an agenda that will obstruct any objective screening process. Can we remember the Clarence Thomas debacle? On the other hand, there is a history of judges who have made independent decisions which were totally opposite from their past practices. It seems that once they hit the Supreme Court, a certain sense of history kicks in and they think on a different level.
Re: Ed & Johnjohn h on 2/23/03 at 10:44 (110469)
Jim: My view it is generally all about politics.Clearly when you cannot even get the appointees name out of committee for a full vote sommehthing is wrong. Both sides do it. Names that come to mind Robert Bork and Anita Hill who nearly brought down a nominee for which there is now a common term in use called Borking. These guys and girls in congress are so political it sometimes makes me sick. They will spend millions researching some ones past to fine the tinest speck of sometihing they can use to discredit someone. I think politics comes ahead of the qualification of the candidate. At the moment the Democrats have nothing to hang their hat on concering this candidate but are saying he is not forthcoming with all the information they want including confidential notes. Is there anyone on this earth that could pass muster if they are really out to obstruct a nomination? Certainly not me. I could not get elected dog catcher. Everyone brings a certain bias with them to the bench because they are human. Our system allows for the President to make nominations for these positions but in recent decades both parties are terrible about trying to shoot down nominees purely on a political basis. It serves the country no good and when the Democrats take the Presidency again what will they get? Retailation of course.
Re: Ed & JohnLeon S. on 2/23/03 at 11:07 (110474)
Speaking of great minds thinking alike.....
Re: senior discountsCarole C in NOLA on 2/23/03 at 12:06 (110480)
I haven't ever benefited from senior discounts on buses or the movies, but some chain grocery stores are also giving senior special rates on groceries one day a week! This is probably totally unfair to younger people but it saves me a few dollars every week. I didn't know about it until one of the check-out clerks bravely asked me if I was a senior. I told her I was 54 and got the discount, so the cut-off age must be less than that. Any seniors out there might want to ask at their local grocery store if they aren't getting a senior discount.
Re: senior discountsSharon W on 2/23/03 at 12:33 (110482)
I think a lot of times the cut-off rate for 'senior discounts' is 50. I am not quite there yet -- but I'm looking forward to it!
Re: Ed & JohnJim C. on 2/23/03 at 13:04 (110486)
Thanks for your comments. I do agree whole-heartedly that the process has become very political. I think this is a reflection of politics in general, to gain an ideological edge at all cost, even while ignoring the responsibilities of the office you were elected to. So my conclusion at this point is, this is an escalation in the tactics over the confirmation of judges! 'Don't give your opponent anything to criticize to force his hand into being even more creative!'
Being a moderate I do wish Bush would put forth more moderate judges. There are some very good conservative thinkers out there who would make excellent judges. It just seems Bush finds the most controversial people to nominate, knowing the demos will be furious further escalating the cycle.
Again, I'm for moderate judges who would offer the best of both worlds and would be far more impartial than a die-hard right winger or left winger.
But as you said, this is more about pay back and retaliaton than doing what's right. So what do you think needs to happen to break this impasse?
Re: "little right wing gang" Shame on you.BGCPed on 2/23/03 at 14:14 (110496)
Thank you Sir. It sounds like a decent state. I also appreciate your views. Makes me think a bit differently about that state.
Re: Ed & Johnjohn h on 2/23/03 at 14:57 (110509)
Jim: Any president of either party has a problem almost with anyone depending on the politics of the day. What is a judge to say or should he even be asked his opinion on abortion? That can be a deal killer no matter wich way you answer as the country is split about 50/50 on this issue There are other tricky issues than one party or the other or some special interest issue that some one will condem him/her for. The nominee in question was approved by a nationl bipartisan legal organization as a good nominee. I really do not know much about him but I am sure the politicians will tell me his life's story before this is over. The Democrats current plan is the old fashioned fillibuster which has not been used in many years. I think that using parlimentary procedures to prevent even a vote on an issue or nominee is not good for either party and in general is not approved by the public. Determining where one is moderate or not is not a science etiher. Many people after they get their life time appointments change dramatically. The President should put forth whoever he deems worthy as he is President and under the Constitution that is his job.If it were a Democrat in office I would expect him to put forth someone more to his liking. That is just the way our system works. We all went sort of crazy when Clinton on his last hours in office granted a bunch of Pardons many of which were very politically charged. Once again that is our system and that was his call. If a guy can not get by a full vote on the floor I accept that but once again I do not like using parlimentary procedures to keep something from even being voted on. That is surely not the will of the senate or house who represent the people.
Re: ArkansasCarole C in NOLA on 2/23/03 at 14:59 (110510)
Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't Arkansas produce a lot of NASCAR racers? I don't know why I had that idea.
Re: senior discountsjohn h on 2/23/03 at 15:03 (110512)
Hey Carole: Seniors were young people once and paid their dues. Actually with seniors there is usually only two in the family and they do not spend much on groceries. I do not plan my day to go grocery shopping on Wednesday to save 10% on my moon pies. My wife seems to shop a lot at Beans and Grains where everything cost double so we can eat all that natrual organic food (yuck). I can look high and low in all our kitchen shelves and frig and find nothing but this yucky health food.
Re: senior discountsCarole C in NOLA on 2/23/03 at 15:06 (110514)
It's great! I'm using some of it to pay for my HBO (which otherwise I was going to get rid of since I felt it was an unnecessary luxury). The rest I will squirrel away in my retirement savings. I don't remember what the percentage is, but it seems to me that it's around 2-3% and maybe more.
Also since seniors get a discount on Wednesdays, my grocery store is full of seniors on that day. I kind of like going then because it seems like other seniors tend to be more courteous and friendly, and less hurried. Probably the non-seniors are glad that most of us are out of the store, on other days!
Re: senior discountsCarole C in NOLA on 2/23/03 at 15:16 (110518)
I really feel like I've paid my dues, John. Each and every one of these white hairs has a reason!! LOL
When I drive home from work every day I pass right by my grocery store, so if it's Wednesday I just stop and get what I need. I still shop on other days too if I need something, but I get most of my food on Wednesdays.
It sounds like Mary is feeding you good, nutritious food. New Orleans isn't exactly noted for that, but we do have a couple of Whole Foods stores that opened up. They are both in locations that are a real pain to get to from here, and would take me a half hour each way unless it was rush hour when it would take longer. Plus, in my case I'm trying to be frugal so that I can retire before I'm terribly aged.
That yucky health food will help you to live longer, though! Those moon pies are no help at all but gee, I do hope I can have at least one more before I croak. LOL
Re: Ed & Johnjohn h on 2/23/03 at 15:22 (110522)
Leon: I do not see how any man or woman could not really be true to there self and the constitution as they see it when appointed to the Supreme Court. I think all these people generally do there best and keep politics out of it. We all may not like their decisions but at the Supreme Court level I am not a skeptic. I am not sure political parties should be asking perspective judges how they ruled on specific cases or that should be the standard for their appointment to the bench. Over the long haul I think it all balances out in accordance with how the pople vote. Democrats appoint people they like and Republicans people they like. Over a period of say 50 years it probably balances out if the people balance out their votes for Republicans and Democrats.
Re: DoctorsDr. Z on 2/23/03 at 17:31 (110535)
You mean I am not G-d to you Pauline. Dam Ok how about the devil. I sure wish I had gotten involved earlier, but I figure by the time this debate is over we will have driven Sadam out of Iraq. I just don't have George Bush's patience. I would have killed the SOB along time ago. I would of called up John h to do the job, birks and all.
Re: Ed & JohnJim C. on 2/23/03 at 17:32 (110536)
I disagree that certain issues like abortion would be a deal breaker. I remember Clarence Thomas describing his opposition to abortion in front of a senate committee and went on to be confirmed by a democratically controlled senate. I think both parties understand the President has the upper hand in this process, and the best they can hope for is to get someone whom is tolerable. I don't think the Republicans would stand for a Ralph nader type liberal being put in the Supreme Court but they can tolerate a Gingsburg who was confirmed by a Republican controlled senate.
The one thing I don't care for with Bush is, having barely squeaked into office he governs as if he has a conservative mandate, as evidence by his nominees. But as you said, 'that's his prerogative'. You have to give Bush credit, he plays to win and what you see is what you get, whether you like him or not.
Re: Ed & Johnjohn h on 2/23/03 at 18:29 (110537)
Jim you are either President or you are not. If you win by one vote or 1 million.Currently the people have put the house,senate, and President all in control of one party so they should have more than just a little input as to whom the nominees are. It all may change in two years but at the moment I would expect any President not to base his actions on how many votes he won by. If he did, I would prefer a Democrat who would act on his convictions. That is part of the job description of being a Leader
Re: Arkansasjohn h on 2/23/03 at 18:40 (110539)
We got one real good Nascar driver from Batesville Carole. We gave you Glenn Campbell from the little town of Delight, Arkansas and General Douglas MacArthur and a couple of other people on the Grande Ole Opry.The little town that Amos and Andy lived in with the Jottem Down Store is around here somewhere.
Re: Ed & Johnjohn h on 2/23/03 at 18:45 (110540)
Jim: I had never heard of this nominee and still know nothing about him. I think that would be the case with 99% of the population so what we are left with is a few politicans fighting with each other calling a guy to liberal or to conservative.
Re: Ed & JohnJim C. on 2/23/03 at 19:04 (110541)
I do appreciate your views...Jim
Re: DoctorsPauline on 2/23/03 at 19:33 (110544)
That's right naked or not:*)