Enough. Enough with dividing the world between moral, family-loving Christians and supposedly permissive, corrupt, family-destroying secularists. Enough with pretending that personal virtue is connected with political creeds. Enough with condemning your adversaries, sometimes viciously, and then insisting upon understanding after the failures of someone on your own side become known to the world. And enough with claiming that support for gay rights and gay marriage is synonymous with opposition to family values and sexual responsibility.
The quote above is from Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. His reference point was the recent resignation of Republican Congressman Mark Souder after revealing that he had an affair with a staffer. It follows on the heels of today's revelation from Republican strategist Will Folks that he had an affair with South Carolina Gubernatorial and Tea Party favorite Nikki Haley (which she denies), the same Will Folks that had been communications director for current SC Governor Mark Sanford, whose "hiking the Appalachian trail" affair has become the stuff of legend.
Dionne's "Enough" tirade got me thinking. And I agree with him. I'm tired of the false Christianity that proselytizes morality in public while practicing immorality in private. I'm tired of the false patriotism that paints anyone that questions the accuracy of your statements as a socialist or a communist or a fascist or a nazi or some irrational and uninformed combination of all of the above, all while supporting policies that continue to send billions of dollars overseas to oil countries that fund terrorists. I'm tired of people putting on false indignation whenever some liberal calls a tea partier a "tea bagger," a term that the tea party itself invented, while simultaneously calling the liberal such ugly names as to wonder how it is possible not to see the hypocrisy.
Here on this venue we have a microcosm of what we see in the real world. Self-professed Christians viciously attacking others, and by doing so blasphemously usurping the judgment of God to assail the very souls of God's own creations. Some of the most un-Christian, intolerant, and despicable people on this site are people who claim to be strongly religious. Perhaps they don't think that God is taking notes.
We have people who get all outraged that "we must take our country back" (from what, no one seems to actually know, but apparently from the people that the majority of Americans voted into office over the last two elections). These false patriots scream at the top of their lungs about their right to do whatever they want, but apparently that only applies to themselves and not the rights of others. Rand Paul revealed one of the tenets of the tea party movement by admitting he believes the right of a person to discriminate should take precedence over the rights of others not to be discriminated against. And the reactions by supporters show that they agree with him.
Does it make sense to claim superiority both morally and otherwise while violating several of the Ten Commandments and laws by stealing, lying, and frankly, just being plain obnoxious?
Do the Democrats have affairs, say nasty things, make poor choices? Of course they do. But the Democrats do not go around acting like they are the only ones that count. Democrats do not tell themselves and others that they are the chosen ones put here on Earth by a God who apparently is vindictive and petty, based on the malignant unforgiving and rancorous attitudes of those who claim His mantle.
Enough already.
So listen up. We are ALL people, with human frailties and human needs. Not just the ones that you decide are special. All of us. We are humanity. And with humanity comes responsibility.
It's time to grow up and take some responsibility. It's time to think.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 362
No. They were too busy getting important things done that would build a future, not send them back to their "conservative" past.
Why would we want to do that? See, that's the point. We ALL are standing up for our country and for our founding fathers and what this country STILL stands for. All of us. Not just the ones who think they are somehow special in this regard.
Make me just let communistic ideas threaton the very fabric of Our Republic.
What communistic ideas? And "threaten the very fabric of Our Republic?" No one is threatening the very fabric of your republic. No one. See, that's the point. We ALL are Americans and we ALL are standing up for America and working hard to keep it great. ALL of us.
Make me throw away the constitution and all it stands for.
Why on Earth would you want to throw away the Constitution and all it stands for? Certainly no one here would "make" you do that, nor would any of us here want to do it. We ALL stand up for our Constitution. ALL of us.
And that is the point. Notwithstanding your use of company time to surf the internet. Especially as I'm sure you know that they can monitor any site you spend time on, and even read what you type. Which, for the record, is a private business thing, not a government thing.
Michelle Witt Jun 14, 2010, 12:35pm EDT
You all misunderstood what he was saying. No surprise there. You dems/libs/progressives/socialists, etc... have no idea what the COnstitution stands for. If you did you would have never voted for Obamanus. He wants to get rid of the COnstitution...not to mention your party is also responsible for the unnecessary and idiotic disclaimer on the Constitution. Which has no premise on the Constitution. Obviously those are great exemplars...notice my sarcasm.
I am curious about this part:
not to mention your party is also responsible for the unnecessary and idiotic disclaimer on the Constitution.
Besides being rather presumptuous of which party people belong to, to what "unnecessary and idiotic disclaimer on the Constitution" are you referring, exactly?
Well, all I can say is: If you belong to the party that is responsible for the unnecessary and idiotic disclaimer on the constitution you should at least KNOW about it, David. Didn't you get the Obama Team Memo? That's funny. Neither did I.
Does not mean I am a supporter of the GOP,
Because I support some of the ideas of the Tea Party Members does not mean I associate with the ideas and philosophy of everything they stand for.
And silencing a group, what does that say about 'free speech'
I'm tired of being called racist because I don't bow before Barry Boy or Al Gore.
And now I'm racist to boot because I support Arizona for the immigration law. Not because I don't want Mexican's here, I want them to come here legally!
So I'm tired of it too.
It goes 2 ways Matthew M.
I would suggest your argument would be more persuasive if you refrained from using characterizations such as "Barry Boy," though I'm sure it wasn't meant the way many people would take it. The point is that we can't focus on the person but on the message. Obama has messages and policies. If you don't like the messages and policies then address them directly, not simply call the duly elected president of the United States by a diminutive name and assign all manner of demonic traits to him. Ditto with Al Gore. He has nothing to do with climate change other than he did a movie to communicate what scientists have been saying for decades.
As for your support of the immigration law in Arizona, I agree that there have been mischaracterizations thrown out there that cloud the issue. But the law has serious flaws, some of which they immediately tried to correct with a follow up law. The point is whether it is the best way to deal with a very difficult and problematic situation. Let's focus on the law.
I can certainly understand why you are tired of it. My hope is that all of us that are tired of it will band together to have honest discussions based on facts and the understanding that all of us are humans and should be treated as such.
They wanted the Great Depression back? We'd all starve. Most lived on farms back then in the 30s. Our current "just in time" economy could collapse at every level right away. An economy is not magic - it just doesn't go no matter what. What total idiots!!!
We need to always think rationally about actual facts if we want to find a path forward. We may have different views of where we want to go and how to get there, but we are all Americans and all want the same fundamental things - the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I've tried to avoid talking 'politically correct' in the sense that I'm just throwing out partisan talking points instead of principled stands and facts. Hopefully I can persuade others to do the same.
At some point I plan to start a series of open ended discussions based on actual facts and actual bill provisions being offered. The hope is that we can air out our opinions and find a path forward. But that is impossible until the issue that is the topic of this post is rectified. And yes, their is hyperbole from all ideologies, but right now those as I've discussed are the ones drowning out honest discussion.
Thanks again, Matthew.
As an aside, I do have to ask how you organize and keep all of your links straight? You do an excellent job at presenting your case and linking to other pages when needed.
But as to how I keep my links straight, I guess there are two reasons.
1) Whereas a good number of people here simply cut-and-paste or even just plagiarize completely with no added input, I write everything I post. That means I understand what I'm writing (again, something that is often not the case with others) and I have thought about it (ditto). So when I'm writing something new my previous writings often provide support for my thought processes. I also will take the time to do a little research so I understand the question at hand rather than simply miming the mindless talking points. Again, this is sadly missing from many posters.
2) For the climate related information I have two groups that are basically file drawers for previous articles. For "Exposing Climate Denialism - A Guide to Tactics and Tall Tales" I have created an article that links to all the other related articles, so that makes it easy. The Truth About Global Warming group is newer and so has fewer articles, but eventually I will create a compendium article for that as well. For non climate related articles I just memorize everything I've ever written or read. :)
Oh, and I never sleep. :)
Unfortunately, I have to sleep ;-)
This is on us. We are the failing here. And the ones who scream "personal responsibility" the loudest are the ones who accept personal responsibility the least.
As far as ignorance driving us, I think a lot of this has to do with the success (to our detriment) of propaganda the last few years. All the propaganda techniques of: repetition and linking of what they want to vilify with something else that's already vilified have manipulated the public into near blindness about who we are and where we're going.
And worse, they don't seem to see at all the utter ridiculousness of most of it. The wilder the charge the more they latch onto it. When presented with actual facts, those facts are somehow just "liberal bias" or some ridiculous assertion. No, they are facts. Discuss legitimate differences in philosophy and approach based on actual facts.
We seem to have forgotten how to think.
And it is true (I also said it before in one or previous blogs) ..we seem to have forgotten how to think...
Also I would like to add, .. we have forgotten the defitions of the different parties and their "motto" which have evoluted in a new way..
Michelle Witt Jun 14, 2010, 12:43pm EDT
Not being involved in any party whatsoever, I can tell you that the ones screaming for Bigger Government, which takes away Personal Responsibility, are the DEMS! So whose calling the kettle black here? Seriously, you are the ones who need a wake up call! The ones screaming for Personal responsibility are the ones against big government and everything big government stands for. They are against Socialism and everything it stands for. They lead by the CONSTITUTION and our RIGHTS, not by their hearts! So again, you are all a bunch of misguided people who would rather place blame than accept responsibility for your ignorance.
I'll parse this one to illustrate my point further:
Not being involved in any party whatsoever, I can tell you that the ones screaming for Bigger Government, which takes away Personal Responsibility, are the DEMS!
1) No one is screaming for bigger government
2) Government, big or small, is not taking away personal responsibility
3) Republicans have been responsible for many of the biggest increases in the size and power of government, as well as increases in the national debt, borrowing from China, and starting wars (which are good for defense contractors but not so much for the men and women who give the ultimate sacrifice).
So whose calling the kettle black here?
No one is calling any kettle black. Unless of course you are the ones practicing false Christianity, false patriotism and false outrage.
The ones screaming for Personal responsibility are the ones against big government and everything big government stands for.
Really, you mean like Republican Congressman Barton apologizing to BP for the inconvenience of having to stop the gusher of oil that has been destroying the livelihoods of the Gulf coast? Like the lockstep voting to protect the big insurance companies? Like the lockstep voting to protect the big banks that put us into this catastrophic economic hole?
They are against Socialism and everything it stands for.
That's nice. No one in the United States is suggesting socialism.
They lead by the CONSTITUTION and our RIGHTS, not by their hearts!
We all lead by the Constitution (all CAPS or not). What have you done that is so constitutional? Will the Arizona law be found constitutional? As for "by their hearts," I agree with your assessment that the Republican and tea parties appear to be heartless. And yet, not one of my Republican friends, family, or colleagues is as heartless or hyperbolic as your comments. Only the tea party and far right wing Republicans/Libertarians seem to be heartless.
So again, you are all a bunch of misguided people who would rather place blame than accept responsibility for your ignorance.
This from someone who left multiple comments whining about "libs" and "DEMS" and other intentionally dismissive labels turning against the constitution and making our country socialist. Do you realize how absolutely buffoonish and uninformed that sounds?
Thanks again for providing another exemplar. I couldn't have asked for more.
Well, many are screaming for the government to take on more responsibilities, pass more laws and regulations, etc. That does lead to bigger government.
Hypocrisy doesn't begin to describe it. Perhaps hubris.
I know your novel proposes a way, but we aren't ever going to see that happen in practice. So I think that leaves only some miracle that smartens us all up. Don't see that happening in practice either.
If you have some definite reason for believing my solution will never be tried, please let me know what it is. There's no point in my trying to save humanity if that's impossible. I can become selfish with a clear conscience. :-)
It would require almost nothing. You would have no bills to pay nor taxes. You would have no debt. You would not need insurance of any kind. In fact, much of the complications of modern life would be gone along with the TV commercials and the ads on Gather. Your daily life would have less stress.
You and your spouse would no longer have money troubles to drive you apart. Your working conditions and relationship with your boss would be improved for most folks. If you were a farmer or other businessman/woman you would not have any overhead to pay. You could not lose the business either to the tax man nor to foreclosure.
One's daily life need hardly change at all. But you would not have to worry about retirement nor taking care of your elderly parents nor paying medical bills. Everything gets easier.
I agree that it would be slapped with whatever label people put on things they don't understand and are afraid of. But change is almost always opposed. Yet we adopt changes anyway.
But Larry, it would require a complete change in the mindset of all Americans. You figure out how to do that and you've got a goldmine (so to speak, given the premise).
I agree that it would be slapped with whatever label people put on things they don't understand and are afraid of.
Unfortunately so (it's that mindset thing again). I'm guessing this one would be added to the ever-growing "socialism" pile.
But change is almost always opposed.
Agreed. As we've seen the last year and a half.
Yet we adopt changes anyway.
Usually kicking and screaming against our will. But yes, we do have the capacity to learn, and to change. Many people are trying to do just that (lots of kicking and screaming). I'm pulling for you. And us.
Can I get a Z4 out of this? :)
Let's say you were in a coma for a few months and awakened after the transition. What would you be required to do? You could ignore the whole thing and be repeatedly surprised when people gave you things for no money. But why would your attitude have to change?
Now I do think your attitude would change over a short time (a few weeks or months at most) but it would not be required of you or anyone else. There would be no punishment nor coercion to make you change, just enticement and lures to change.
The best I can do is make the idea available and hope that someone who does have access to the public attention will publicize the idea.
It will only take one to get the idea started. Modern technology makes it possible for the idea to be a topic of conversation all over the world within a month. If enough people (a few million) come to understand the idea in the U.S., I think the big money interests will see that it is put in place. The very wealthy have problems with money just like the rest of us do. It's just that they don't have the same problems as we do.
Why do you think they would lose that power? You assume that they would no longer be "movers and shakers" but that isn't the case. Those who actually do make important decisions and actively control events in the world today would still have that power. They would just be exercising it in different ways.
Of course there would be some whose power would be significantly changed, like the big financial types, but they would still be "players."
Also, those at the top have problems with money. Money is an equal opportunity oppressor.
While things are going good for them they will not want to change. But if things get bad... well, then they might consider it. These days there could be some bad times in the immediate future.
Wanted to stop by and give you a view and a comment.
Mooch
Just wanted to say that we are all in this together, and as long as we keep that in mind we can have honest differences of opinion. Our goal should not on "winning over the other side" but to find a solution that allows us to deal with whatever issue being discussed.
+++++++ that is how this nation was founded.
What is most annoying to me is the complete disregard toward having intellectual discourse on issues and policies. Good ideas stand on the logic of their founding; not on claims of having heard some voice from the sky deliver them. We are not living in 300 B.C.
Exactly.
These people reflect the Tea Party, and the tea party has the Republicans catering to their every whim in abject fear.
You are likelier to have a pebble cough up three tons of platinum than to see the Republicans growing up to that level.
They've been WRONG on every important policy decision for the last 30 years! They've been wrong about:
trickledown/ supply side
Saddam [ they created him as ally then enemy]
Osama [ they created him as aly and enemy]
the Taliban[ they created him as ally and enemy]
the war in Iraq
Deregulation
voting rights act
equal rights act
equal rights for women
These people are bankrupt morally and they continue to LIE about everything...and it's enough.
The lying is a major problem in my mind because we're not talking about the usual "truth stretching" that you see in campaign ads. We're talking about blatant lying about death panels that don't exist, continuous bailouts that don't exist, foreign births that don't exist. Everything starts with a big lie.
That's why tea party people love Fox News and hate MSNBC (and CNN and ABC and everyone else). Fox tells them there were 1-2 million people when there were really 70,000, and they viciously fight anyone who would tell them that it was 70,000. Their entire self-worth seems to be wrapped up in some external position that puts them into a group they feel comfortable in, that any fact that refutes that is obviously just some ideologically opposite bias.
I think that attitude would get him kicked out of the party today.
I do notice that in straw polls, Gingrich and Palin do NOT end up at the top of the list for Republican figures who are possible 2012 candidates. These fringe figures however, still get far more attention than they deserve. They are about as moderate and civil as Jeremiah Wright.
Gingrich isn't going to run for president. He just plays the sycophants along because it makes him more money with his books, on Fox, and in his various lobbying organizations he has started. He's in it for the money. Remember that the Republican party unceremoniously kicked him out after he screwed up the House. Any competitor in the Republican primaries would be sure to mention that. For Gingrich, it's just money.
Palin is so totally disconnected from reality that she might actually think she could get the nomination. Despite the fact that the majority of even the tea party people think she isn't capable of being president. All she can do is toss out one-liners like Don Rickles with legs. Romney would annihilate her in the primaries. But she won't run either. She will suck up as much money as she can before her celebrity wears off. She's the Britney Spears of politics. [And that is not a compliment]
All I can do is sigh, Sheryl. And try not to be one of them.
Shut the freakin' television off, start reconnecting with the people around you, start discussing things civilly. People have always had different POV's. We need to start turning away from the Becks and the Limbaughs and the money-grabbing politicians and evangelists of the country and start taking our civility back.
The current Congress was elected by the people, who made clear choices in 2006 and 2008.
So what you are saying is that the small minority of Americans who fit the categories I described in the article are not happy and thus are intent on lying their way into power?
That's not very American.
When a person's position is based on propaganda, lies and plain deceit that position is indefensible. A deluded or ignorant person can believe in propaganda, lies and deceit with all their heart and all their soul but that belief is still tainted by propaganda, lies and deceit and therfore should be cast aside.
Thanks, I needed this.
Judas was disappointed in Jesus because He wouldn't take the kingdom by force. If the traditional and the religious sincerely wish to honor the God they present and the Savior they represent, they would be calling for confession and repentance among themselves, in preparation for doing spiritual warfare on behalf of the nation they claim to love. It's all a sham and a shame. Just ask any "leader" who's cashing in on the fear and the loathing... tame
How very true it is that Judas wanted a political Messiah, rather than a spiritual one, and Judas had a self-serving, selfish agenda that had nothing to do with Jesus' purpose.
There are many "Judases" out there, using the word, "Christian", but that is all it is to them -- a word to be abused for their own selfish purposes.
I suppose a corollary could be the obsessional component of the personality.
I totally agree, and this is one of the things I really don't understand about many conservatives in general, and teabaggers in particular.
Totally not true. In fact, many of my professional friends are progressive liberals. and they were 100% in favor of universal healthcare, just like is practices in almost every other westernized, democratic society on earth. They own and run businesses, just as I do. They are doctors and engineers and lawyers.
Conservatives seem to think that anybody who supports socialist programs hates business, and feeds off government. None of my professional friends (nor I) have EVER taken a penny from government. And we are all in the highest tax brackets and do not have a problem with paying taxes. We are educated, we are fortunate, and we are smart & compassionate enough to know that not everybody in our country has had those advantages and some people need a helping hand in their lives.
I'm really tired of being an entrepeneur (I own my own investment company) and being told by conservatives on Gather that 1) I know nothing about money, 2) I know nothing about working for a living, and 3) if I support social programs, then I must be an idiot with no job, no education, and who lives off the state doll.
Get overl your nonsense.
My information isn't nonsense just because you disagree with it. It actually is based off of fact. Just because you decide to believe everything good ole obamanus says, doesn't make it right. Everything he has ever said is BS. You claim to be educated so maybe you should start using your brain instead of following the masses. That is the real reason Obamanus doesn't like any one with a dissenting opinion. He knows we're on to him. You all say the same things that he says about us. Which is just sad. NO original thoughts or ideas.
So get over your nonsense.
Good idea.
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? In a post about coming together and dealing with issues in rational discourse, you've done nothing but spout irrational arguments with no substantive evidence to support them. You've all but shouted that your position was the only one based in fact while offering no facts to support your argument. There's no meat to your argument. You are contending that 'Conservatism' is right and are arguing against David as if what this article is written against conservatives. It's not written against conservatives.
I'll say it again clearly. This article is about those radicals who have coopted conservatism. This is about people who claim social conservatism when it suits their needs but then are having affairs and voting for pork because it buys them votes and on and on. This is about people who claim to share your values, Michelle, but then don't really. None of them. The Becks and the Limbaughs and the Gingrich's. They don't share your values, they use your values. The claim your values and then use your vote to further themselves.
Men like Ron Paul (whom I disagree with on many things) and, to some extent, Ronald Reagan and John McCain; are, at least, honest for the most part. I can trust that they have the faith they support and claim. Their behavior is in line with their commentary. Unlike the others. It's those others that have earned scorn. And despite the fact that they espouse your opinions, Michelle, they are not true believers and they are, in fact, wolves in conservative clothing. They deserve the scorn this article heaps on them.
It should be pointed out that there were some aggressively racist, and bigoted comments left here that later disappeared, presumably because Gather unilaterally deleted the person's account. So while the comments of Michelle (and others, some of whom have deleted their own comments since posting) epitomize the characteristics I've discussed, they pale in contrast to the abject violence and clinically disordered offerings of some folks out there.
Since I wrote this post I've seen certain political factions (and we all know who they are) continue their devolution from the realm of reality and into some fantasy world they have constructed around them to rationalize their predetermined views.
As the oft-quoted saying goes "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
So while it is perfectly legitimate to have different views of how to address issues, it is not legitimate to create some "reality" that isn't true on which to hang those views.
We have a great country here, and with greatness comes responsibility. That responsibility requires dealing with facts as they are, not as we need them to be to support our biases.
Excellent article.
I followed the "think" link in the article above and wanted to share something with you and perhaps others who might follow this link.
When I read Descarte's "Cogito Ergo Sum" as a philosophy major in undergraduate school it completly blew me away. In fact, it was somewhat of an epiphany for me and as a naive philosophy student I thought I had just read the "ultimate" truth. As I have since learned, philosophy does not lead to ultimate truths....just more questions about what is true. However, even though one can never find it, for me, it's the journey one goes on in the search of ultimate truth which is the fun part.
At any rate, in Discourses on Method Descartes was looking for propositions which, in and of themselves, were beyond doubt. Of "Cogito Ergo Sum" he said "...if one is skeptical of existence, that is in of itself, proof that he does exist." In other words, if one is thinking about whether or not he exists this act of thought proves he exists as a thinking being.
I enjoy your posts and will be looking forward to more.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.RES.397:
did you enjoy that one? Does he have anything else more important to deal with in Congress? yeah, but energizing the Christianist yahoos is way more fun and even gets him more votes from the Pat Robertson fans.
Minorities aren't particularly taken aback by all the Tea Party and Rand Paul and other madness. It's nearly a weather report.
When Representative Jim Clyburn (African American) was asked after passing Health Reform if he was afraid in light of all the spitting and yelling from balconies and threats to House members and vandalism of members' relatives' homes, and when asked if he like other House members was investigating "additional security" for his home or himself, he replied daringly, "No." He said effectively [completely my paraphrase] he knew how to shoot a gun too, and was likely faster on the trigger and hence, not the least bit intimidated.
This is all African Americans have known for most of their American experience. Most of them are surprised Obama is still alive. They have been living and working around madness and contradictions since they got here---Christians who owned and discounted other human beings, white women who thought they were looked at wrong and led to a lynching, founding fathers who were pedophiles and drunks like Jefferson and Franklin respectively, raging segregationists like Strom Thurmond all the while siring black children---these contradictions and this stuff is not news to at least one demographic in America.
Talk to them. They can teach us something and be taught something.
The election has just pulled back the curtains so that which was already with us is exposed for the world to see effortlessly, but the world also could have perceived some of this too.
And they don't even get a bunch of virgins, when they get to heaven....
I also have no problem with patriotism. We are all patriots. We all sacrifice. And our service men and women who literally put their lives at risk for us come in all ideological and political persuasions, as well as every color, religion, sexual preference, etc. We are not more or less patriotic because we vote for one party or another.
We are all Americans. Not just the ones that some people are "more American" than others, defined by their prejudices.
It's time the real Christians (and Jews and Muslims, etc) stand up for the basic tenets of their faith - that all of us are equal in God's eyes. And shouldn't that be the only eyes that count?
It's time for real patriots to stand up for all Americans, not just the ones who think they are better than everyone else (newsflash - you aren't).
And it's time for all honest people to call out the intellectual dishonesty of those who demean what this country stands for, which is the opportunity for all of us to make a good life by working hard, being honest, and treating everyone with respect and dignity.
There's a BIG DIFFERENCE between religion and tribalism, which alot of "christians" (small "c") don't seem to understand. The "god is on our side" religious "soldiers" actually FAIL to understand the fundamental tenets of all major religions, and as a result, act in direct opposition to those tenets. Jung had a term for this phenomenon. He called it the "shadow" aspect of the personality - and he noted that it is one of the major moral challenges - in a psychological sense - to confront one's own moral failures, instead of "projecting" those failures onto others.
To be fair, David, these folks want "energy independence" as much as you and I do. It's just that they have swallowed industry propaganda that domestic drilling is 1. safe, and 2. can make a difference. Now that millions of barrels of oil are streaming through the Gulf of Mexico, what do they do? They blame Obama and the Sierra Club.
"Rand Paul revealed one of the tenets of the tea party movement by admitting he believes the right of a person to discriminate should take precedence over the rights of others not to be discriminated against. And the reactions by supporters show that they agree with him."
Rand Paul states he is not a racist, and I am inclined to take him at his word. However, he is a physician. And although he is not a psychiatrist, as a physician, Dr. Paul should be able to recognize the difference between a right (to privacy) and a psychological disorder (sociopathy), which racism is. In short, racism is violence, which (as anyone, who lived in the segregated south during the pre-civil rights era knows) doesn't stop at lunch counters and private businesses. Government enforces civil rights of all citizens to not have such violence committed against them.
"And with humanity comes responsibility."
There is no freedom without responsibility. As far as I can discern, "libertarians", for the most part, fail to understand that. So they end up supporting psychopathological conditions in the name of individual rights. They may say that one has the "right" to be sociopathic, but one does not have the "right" to behave antisocially toward others.
Yes, that is what they say. But then they block any attempt to change our "dependence" from a commodity based system that puts money in terrorist's pockets into a renewable, sustainable system that doesn't do that.
As with so many other things, they are false in this regard as well.
All about the duality of Right/ Wrong, good/evil, them/us ... source/shadow ... boy are they ever confused ... but GOD knows, knows that "their" God (as "they" understand him) is false even.
IMnsHO.
Well, I didn't say they actually understood what they advocate.
No one asked him, how he would have modified it a little, and what the new words would say, and how he thought that would play itself out in reality.
Of course, the law was passed exactly because there was NOT peer pressure convincing any of these bigots that they had erred. And even if there was a slow, multigenerational process to change attitudes, those being discriminated against were supposed to just suck it up and bear with it until the bigots (or their bigots grandchildren) changed their ways?
Paul's position is untenable in the 21st century, and it is shocking that so many people are trying to defend it.
And I also believe that the Republicans regaining control would be a disaster. Frankly, I'm not prone to hyperbole, but they pretty much have screwed things up for the last 30 years, in large part because of those that fit the topic of this post.
Wish everyone else acted that way.
I love Free Speech because -- and this is only when those I consider to be my political opposition feel comfortable enough to come out of the shadows, as they did when Clinton was in the Oval Office and as they do with Obama in the Oval Office -- I believe the truth, which is now coming from Paul's mouth, will bring the clarity that just may reach some good people whose frustration with and ignorance of the system have been badly used by their manipulators to save our country from it's downfall.
Make no mistake, it is the downfall of our country as we know it that the opposition is working for -- nullifying a presidential election, redefining who is an American and who is not, redefining who is a Patriot and who is not, redefining language, redefining science, redefining history, redfining the Constitution -- need I go on?
I work at engaging when I feel like it and disengaging when I don't feel like it. I do not support anything that makes money for the opposition if I can help it. In fact, I support a thorough review of the rules and the enforcement of non-profit status. I work for my candiates and I vote. In fact, I will be supporting all candidates who support my country across this nation in 2010 and 2012. And I thank those who are already doing it.
I find the hard work of keeping them out of office to be a great antidote to their toxicity.
Having said all that, I also adore ranting now and then and I recognize a good one when I see one. Boo-Yeah! on this post.
Just to clarify, I have no problem with free speech, nor would I want to restrict it. My beef in this post are those who don't speak honestly. And that doesn't mean just lying, it means refusing to provide viewpoints consistent with the facts.
We can all have different views of the same facts. But we have to start with the facts, and we have to draw logical and supportable conclusions from those facts.
We also must begin with the understanding that it is legitimate for others to come to different conclusions. There are many here on Gather, for example, that I would disagree with on issues and yet they present arguments that are reasonable based on the fact pattern. Or at least reasonable for an honest person to come to given their honest attempts to understand the fact pattern. That doesn't always mean they (or I) are right, but that they honestly try to be.
In contrast, there are way too many who have created this fantasyland in their minds where facts are considered malleable and can be altered to fit the predefined narrative. Or simply made up on the cuff. Many, but not all, of these people also feel they are better than everyone else, that God has chosen them to berate everyone else on Earth who doesn't toe His line, and they of course are predestined to decide for all humanity.
But enough venting.
Boo-yeah indeed! :)
Never thought for a moment that you had any problem with Free Speech but I'm glad you clarified if anyone could have read that into what I said.
I agree with you totally -- of course -- just sharing why I don't want them to shut up and how I deal with the frustration of it all.
Someone mentioned the press in all of this frenzy. I might have a perspective on this. A year before the election, I was a guest on a local TV talk show related to my environmental book that had just come out. Some critics thought that I was a conservative, because of some of the views in the book, although a more careful reading of it, showed they were wrong. Anyway, I was booked on a number of conservative (they werent yet the hysterical right wing nuts of today) shows. I sat on the stage for about 10 minutes with the host, chatting at a fairly pleasant way. His views were a bit anti environmentalist, but not crazy. And then the show started. He blew me away. The first question was so wild, I couldnt respond. He began a tirade about Jane Fonda (this was 2007) and communists (I repeat, this was 2007) and global warming (which I hardly mentioned in the book) and the left wing destruction of everything we value in America, and so on.
At the end of the interview, I was a bit shaken. He smiled, shook my hand and told me it had been a great show, really got things stirred up. So it hit me. It was a show. It was show business. Glenn Beck, and I would venture to add Rachel Maddow, are nothing but clowns. Literally. They are providing excitement and entertainment. Edward R. Murrow, Wlater Cronkite, Chet Huntley, etc. would be blown off the air by these clowns.
There is nothing serious about the people who are pulling us apart. They are all in it for the money, like Ginrich and Palin. The problem is that it is very serious for us the people. There are lots and lots of folks who take all of this crap seriously. Of course, the Republicans are screwing around. Do you they think they mean anything they say? It is all show business folks. The next reality show will be called "The Congress, by day and night!!"
Is the Mean-Spirited, Ignorant, Tearful Glenn Beck Going to Have an Impact on America?
What is worrisome to me is that this is what we encourage. We say we want honesty and integrity in the media and in Congress, then we go out of our way to discourage it. In fact, we reward the clowns.
I've reached the point where I am no longer satisfied in accepting this as the norm. I just haven't quite figured out how to change it yet.
That's a great article, Jerry, thanks. I had to look up the bit about about the miscarriage he made fun of. I found a source in this Salon article.
"A couple days after Kelly's wife, Terry, had a miscarriage, Beck called her live on the air and says, 'We hear you had a miscarriage,' " remembers Brad Miller, a former Y95 DJ and Clear Channel programmer. "When Terry said, 'Yes,' Beck proceeded to joke about how Bruce [Kelly] apparently can't do anything right -- about he can't even have a baby.
There you have it-- all that culture of life and moral clarity shining through.
Here is what Wikipedia reports of Glenn Beck, the accuracy of which, I haven't confirmed though my past use of Wikipedia has been consistently reliable:
Along with being a recovering alcoholic and drug addict,[18] Beck has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.[19][20] He cites the help of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) in his sobriety and attended his first AA meeting in November 1994, the month he states he stopped drinking alcohol and smoking cannabis.[19]
In 1996, while working for a New Haven-area radio station, Beck was admitted to Yale University through a special program for non-traditional students. Beck took one theology class, "Early Christology," and then dropped out.[19][21]
Here is a bit on Rachel Maddow from the same site:
Maddow earned a degree in public policy from Stanford University in 1994.[14] At graduation she was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship. She was also the recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship and began her postgraduate study in 1995 at Lincoln College, Oxford. In 2001 she earned a doctorate in philosophy (DPhil) in politics from Oxford University.[15] Her thesis is titled HIV/AIDS and Health Care Reform in British and American Prisons. She was the first openly gay American to win a Rhodes scholarship.[16][17]
Sir, I would suggest that Dr. Rachel Maddow and Glenn Beck are not terribly comparable and that Rachel may be a lot of things, but a "clown" and "entertainer" she is not.
And yet Beck gets much bigger ratings and makes tons more money.
What does that say about us, the people?
I admit that was a bad analogy, and I certainly shouldnt have compared the two. I was just trying to be fair, and there are some left wing clowns, but David is right, they dont have anywhere near the popularity of a Beck or a Limbaugh.
Free speech is one thing, but when a person spouts the same disinformation and hate all the time and refuses to admit when he's been proven incorrect, then he should at least have enough sense to shut up. The culture of proud ignorance has got to go.
I'm assuming that is a good thing. :)
The culture of proud ignorance has got to go.
Ah, but they won't agree that they are ignorant.
They might agree when they find out they have no answers and find out that prayer isn't a solution. When they're hungry, cold, and tired and can't find comfort, that's when it might dawn on them that a little action goes a long way toward making a better world.
Seems to be a minority opinion these days, I'm afraid.
It's interesting to me that some folks will rally around ideas that sound like something but aren't really anything, like "family values" or "take our country back." What do these things even mean? Either they're meaningless catchphrases or code for a darker, implied message.
Except it isn't even true.
Heaven forbid there would be any attempt to get the facts before creating a conspiracy theory.
The National Parks Quarter series was authorized by Congress in 2008 and signed by President Bush. Like the recent State quarters, the new series will have designs related to each national park on the back. The Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee recommended the designs based on entries from each location. It was they that recommended that Teddy Roosevelt be placed on the front instead of Washington. In fact, it was a citizen member (a Reverend, as a matter of fact) who came up with the idea, and the recommendation was unanimous with all 8 citizen members agreeing to the recommended change.
But Congress say no. They did not want to take Washington off the front, and did not take Washington off the front. Washington remains on the front, and will for the entire series of national park coins. In fact, the first coins are already out in circulation, with the usual George Washington portrait right there on the front just like always.
But here's the kicker. Okay, maybe these people are just ignorant or too lazy to take a few minutes to check the facts. But even after being presented with the facts that it was Bush who signed the bill and that the quarters all still have Washington on the front and will continue to do so, these people insist that they must support the fight to keep Obama from destroying the memory of our founding fathers by "taking Washington off the quarters." They are frothing at the mouth about something that isn't even true, and has been proven to be not true. They insist that they are the only ones who care about our country, and yet here they are fighting phantoms that exist in their own minds.
It's one thing to make believe you are more patriotic than everyone else, it's another to live in a land of make believe.
I'm tired of that and I'm tired of being called a racist because I don't like the policies of this administration. I don't care what color the man is, I don't want much on his agenda.
The one in the title?
I'm tired of people saying that TEA party members started calling themselves that bad name.
You mean Fox News?
I'm tired of that and I'm tired of being called a racist
You've been called a racist? I've never been called a racist. Ever. Wow.
I don't care what color the man is, I don't want much on his agenda.
He has a color? I thought he was the President elected by a clear majority of the American people. Seems likely that they voted for his agenda.
They did because they used tea bags as props and you know it. It was on their own signs and buttons, I have seen photos. And then the sex slang definition came to light later (in a heterosexual context) from the widely seen Sex and the City. Stop being so totally stubbornly delusional. You can't rewrite such recent history - we have memories.
And the term? You know doggone well what it was.
But I know many persons who fall above the $250,000 income mark and below the millionaire, and they pay and pay and pay. Don't forget when you're figuring out how much one pays, you have to also add in state and local income taxes. One person I know pays 52% even though she gives 10% of her income to charities and gets a tax benefit for that.
Marilyn, you seem to be unaware, or choose to forget, that 95% of Americans got tax breaks, including most businesses, especially small and medium sized enterprises.
I know you think that you got a tax decrease. Most of us who actually keep track of that realize how untrue that was. But you can keep believing the liberal liars if you so chose.
Elvis is dead. George Washington is still on the front of the quarters. And President Obama was born in the USA. Any other conspiracies you can't seem to get right?
And the term? You know doggone well what it was.
Of course I know what the term is, but apparently you have a hard time with the English language so I'll give you a chance to reread what I wrote so you understand it this time. I didn't write the term specifically because I didn't want to distract you from answering the question.
Which you still didn't do.
Which was, are you honestly saying that no one in the tea party has ever engaged in the act to which the term refers?
So your position is that 1) everyone who is not super wealthy is illegally paying their share of taxes, and 2) you have no problem with someone who has 99% of their income as discretionary funds (i.e., over the costs of basic food, shelter, clothes, childcare) paying a 15% tax rate while someone whose income is only a few percent discretionary (while living in less expensive houses, buying less food, etc.) should pay up to twice that tax rate?
Which means she does NOT pay taxes on that 10%. She also does not pay taxes on her home mortgage, her child care credit, etc. With an annual income of greater than $250,000 she also makes in the high percent range as discretionary income, which she probably invests and pays no more than 15% on for capital gains. Meanwhile, her maid pays 100% of her income trying to keep her kids fed while both her and her husband each work two jobs.
Keep in mind, Marilyn, that most of the people who pay no income tax are below poverty level or make so little that basic living expenses add up to more than they make. Of course, there are extremely rich people who pay no income tax either. That's because they hire accountants to play games with the legal loopholes in the tax code they they, the rich people, lobbied to get inserted. Or they just hide it in offshore tax havens so that they don't have to pay US taxes on it. Did you know that ExxonMobil, who made a record $45 Billion in profit, paid zero (0) federal income taxes? Do you think they are being overburdened in taxes? Do you agree that we should continue to give them billions in subsidies on top of the high profits they make while we pay more for gas and clean up their oil spills?
Were it up to TEA party members, that would not be so.
So the tea party members would make the poverty stricken pay taxes while insisting that the very wealthy and the high profit corporations should be allowed to pay very little taxes, or no taxes at all?
All would pay something. And if that actually happened, perhaps those who crave government programs would think twice if they actually had to pay towards them.
I suppose that would include all the big corporations paying no taxes but collecting subsidies and protected from competition by tariffs, right? I mean, the tea party wouldn't just target those living below the poverty level, right?
Look, no one wants to pay taxes. But to carp on how 40% of Americans don't pay federal taxes but ignore the fact that many of those are poverty stricken or are businesses or rich people who use loopholes, is to be uninformed.
And an extremely cavalier attitude.
Read the article next time.
Bunk. Obama gave 95% of Americans a tax break shortly after taking office. He gave tax breaks to middle class individuals and to small and medium sized businesses. And the tea party is constantly whining about how big corporations pay way too many taxes, when in reality they pay close to zero taxes. The wealthiest individuals pay a smaller percent of their income in taxes than most Americans.
Bunk. You constantly are whining about a few dollars that poor people get back in tax credits for taking care of their kids, but not one word about the billions of dollars that ExxonMobil gets every year in tax breaks, subsidies and tariff protection despite the fact that ExxonMobil paid zero federal taxes last year. Zero.
And yet you whine about a few hundred dollars some other single mom gets to help feed her kids while she works two jobs, but not a peep about the billions of dollars of corporate welfare given to the most profitable companies in the world, the same ones who hide their profit offshore so they don't have to pay federal taxes, and the same ones who have been moving American jobs overseas.
But that does not mean that I ever thought that someone who had more should have been giving it to the government to give to me.
Those that have more are not giving it to the government to give you. The government is giving it to those who have more and they are getting it from those who have less.
I never once thought that distribution of wealth was a good idea, no matter how little I made.
Then why do you insist on redistributing wealth from the poor and the middle class to the very wealthy? Our tax dollars go to give big tax breaks to these big corporations who then don't pay taxes. Our tax dollars have to cover the costs of services that the very wealthy use even though they get to take advantage of tax loopholes they helped write that result in them paying a lower tax rate than most of us on the vast majority of their income.
Seriously. How do your reconcile those facts?
The only people I know of who don't pay their taxes are the rich -- via loopholes, and cheating -- and the very poor. Christians should not be complaining about taxes.
Additionally, Jesus included the most loathed, and reviled of all humans of that day as one of his 12 Apostles; a tax collector by the name of Matthew. Since Jesus was purposeful, and as he said in John's gospel, "did nothing, except what the Father [God] told him,
paying taxes without complaining, and including tax collectors into the inner circle was Father God's will.
True Christians would follow the example of Jesus, and that includes his position on taxes -- "render what belongs to Caesar [like taxes] to Caesar, and what belongs to God to God."
OR SO JUDAS and HIS ALLIES THOUGHT. LOL!
No, you're being called a racists because you say dumb things like how he's born in Kenya, he's a Muslims, and welfare was created for minorities.
Hey David, if you want, how bout you read these post in the links I offer in the comment above and tell me your opinion.
I already proved this wrong by showing you 2 of your own post. I'm sure your questioning his US citizenship has nothing to do with race. Plus people who aren't racists, don't waste their time signing pledges about how they aren't racist. You teabaggers were funny at one point, know it's just sad.
Robert, I think her credibility level has been made quite clear.
A. Some superstition ridden intellectually challenged people create a problem. Government is called upon to deal with the problem. The very same superstition ridden intellectually challenged people who created the problem get all exercised about the increased level of government, taxation, and intrusion into their lives. They vow to elect superstition ridden intellectually challenged people into public office who then proceed to create more problems and so there's even more growth in expensive intrusive government. Let's call this approach the tea party movement.
B. People don't make a mess in the first place. Let's call this approach conservatism for grownups.
IMnsHO
Michelle Witt Jun 14, 2010, 1:20pm EDT
Of course he is. Except when he isn't.
Thanks for your insights, Charles. I'm all for conservatism for grownups.
Just curious. Do you see the irony in you saying that? I mean, I didn't actually say that anything like that at all. But the fact that seem to think so does illustrate my point, don't you think?
". . and wishes those who do not share the various labels he ascribes to himself,"
I haven't ascribed any labels to myself. But clearly you have. Again, illustrative. [Actually, I did ascribe one label to myself - I'm an American, just like all other Americans.]
" to recognize their egotism and moral depravity,"
Still chuckling. I recommend a second reading of the article.
"so we can all get along as one big happy family"
Well, as much as I would love us all to recognize each and every one of us is an American, it seems clear that that is not currently the case. Hence, why I wrote this post.
. . . Charming stuff ; )
What is charming? The stuff I wrote, or the stuff I didn't write but which you decided I wrote because it more easily fit your predefined narrative?