Self Sufficiency

[JaneBlow]

Ending the Hidden Agenda Behind Tax Cuts

Tuesday 17 February 2009

by: Joe Brewer, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

http://www.truthout.org/021709R

I highly recommend reading the full article first.

I would like to make a comment on the following excerpt:

Taxation as Conservatives Understand It

I've already alluded to an interesting metaphor that helps make sense of conservative thought about taxes, which I'll call Taxes Are a Burden to make it explicit. The understanding of taxation that follows from this metaphor can be seen in this story:

Hard-working Americans are in need of some tax relief. Years of mismanagement by tax-and-spend liberals have taken money out of the hands of working people and put it into bloated government programs that serve special interests. We need to cut taxes, return fiscal responsibility to government, and put money back in the hands of taxpayers who know best how to spend it.

This perspective is grounded in two beliefs: (1) The world is comprised of individuals; and (2) People are inherently bad and must learn right from wrong through self-discipline. I like to call this the "Me First" perspective because it assumes that people must help themselves before thinking about others. It can be summarized with the declaration, "You're on your own!" The Me First perspective assumes that any assistance from the community would be "coddling" or "spoiling" us. This claim is asserted as truth in the conservative worldview.

Taxation as Progressives Understand It

Progressives have a different understanding of taxation that can be expressed through a variety of metaphors: Taxes Are an Investment, Taxes Are Membership Dues, Taxes Are Pathways to Opportunity, Taxes Are Infrastructure and Taxes Are a Duty. (Read more about progressive taxation in "Progressive Taxation: Some Hidden Truths") Reasoning that emerges with these metaphors can be seen in this progressive story:

Our great nation was founded on a promise of protection and opportunity. Through our shared wealth, pooled together by taxation with representation, we have invested in the public infrastructure that makes possible the creation of new wealth. We have a sacred trust to keep this promise alive throughout our lifetimes, expand it as we are able, and pass it along to our children.

This perspective is grounded in the beliefs that (1) Individuals are influenced significantly by our communities; and (2) People are inherently good and benefit from cooperation with others. I like to call this the "People First" perspective because it assumes that people must help each other in order to enhance their ability to help themselves. It can be summarized with the declaration, "We're all in this together!" The People First perspective assumes that we are greater than the sum of our parts and that new opportunities emerge when we make wise investments with the common wealth we share.

Truth and Consequences

Now that we have a clear sense of what taxation means to conservatives and progressives, we can see what happens if these different ideas are used as governing principles for shaping society. This analysis accomplishes two purposes. First, it reveals key truths about taxation that complicate arguments made by conservatives, truths that don't get talked about nearly enough. And second, it exposes a covert agenda that deceptively exploits real concerns of people to advance an otherwise unpopular agenda.

What happens if the Me First perspective is applied to taxation? Just look to the world we find ourselves in today. A problem defined as "too much spending" leads to budget cuts. This results in a diminished capacity to provide vital services. Public goods like education, civil and criminal courts, road maintenance and fundamental scientific research are too costly for individuals - or even multinational corporations - to afford. So these services are cut and people lose their jobs. Thousands of teachers no longer cultivating young minds. Countless construction workers laid off when city and state governments halt infrastructure projects. Graduates with advanced degrees unable to find work because public agencies are "tightening their belts" and cutting back on grants to academia, nonprofits and the private sector.

Beyond the direct human suffering of disrupted lives, there is substantial reduction in government programs that protect the public against harm. The FDA cannot staff enough inspectors to keep toxic peanuts out of the food supply. The EPA lacks capacity to keep drinking water clean in cities and towns across the country. The SEC is unable to keep a watchful eye on runaway speculation and our economy spins wildly out of control. Bridges crumble and levies break because funds are in short supply.

The consequence of conservative ideology is a self-fulfilling prophecy. People are forced to be "on their own" with no protection against serious threats and no assistance to get them beyond their current means. When disasters strike, there is widespread suffering and death because the tapestry of society - our precious safety net - has withered and decayed. Think I'm exaggerating? I'll just say one word - Katrina.

My comment is this. Conservatives seem to take great pride in promoting self sufficiency and often characterize Liberal policies as promoting laziness by giving people a free ride. But Conservatives fail to recognize that protecting the weakest among us -- children, the sick, the elderly, the poor and disenfranchised is not only the moral thing to do, but it is part of being self sufficient citizens. The well-being of every citizen is jeopardized if we turn a blind eye and allow the weakest among us to suffer. We are all in this together and to the extent that we help those that suffer, we help our nation.

If we eliminated Child labor laws, the FDA, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, water treatment plants, roads, bridges, schools and disaster relief agencies, we would not be promoting self sufficiency, but rather self destruction. These government functions provide protections and services that are too big for the individual and too important to leave to the private sector. Recognizing that we must continue to improve all of these solutions plus add new priorities such as ending our dependence on foreign oil, is the only responsible, moral and self sufficient thing to do.

[McKinneyRes]

Thank you Jane for posting this article. I am interested to here Mr. JQ's response to this article. He will probably ignore it and not even take the time to read it because he will accuse the source of being leftist media..

[McKinneyRes]

I just e-mailed this article to the Mark Davis show, Rush and Sean Hannity show to see if they will discuss this on air. I can assure you they won't..

[J.Q. Citizen]

Thank you Jane for posting this article. I am interested to here Mr. JQ's response to this article. He will probably ignore it and not even take the time to read it because he will accuse the source of being leftist media..
First things first, this is a leftist media source and any denial of that is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty. However, since it is commonly known that truthout.org is what it is, I do not dismiss it out of hand. The criteria for full disclosure has been met.
Second, you're wrong, I read it before I even knew you'd responded to the original post.
Third, I'm still waiting to see your responses to our discussions about your willingness to suspend freedom of speech for people with whom you disagree.
Fourth, as you may have gathered from various posts, I'm currently looking for a job so I will have to incorporate a response to this tripe into my other very pressing activities. Fortunately, looking for a job is a mental beating that requires the occasional break in order to preserve the health of my computer. Perhaps I'll create a "holding" post so that when I'm finished, my response will be available on the same page.

[J.Q. Citizen]

Apparently, I should have reserved two spaces so, unfortunately, I will have to overwrite my post that originally followed this post, unless there is room to include it at the bottom.

Ending the Hidden Agenda Behind Tax Cuts

Tuesday 17 February 2009

by: Joe Brewer, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

I would submit that in his essay, Mr. Brewer failed miserably to substantiate his use of the words “hidden agenda”. Those words imply that, even if every word of his essay is true, that it is the intent of Conservatives to cause the consequences he mentions. So basically, we don’t care about our own children and families. After all, we all drink the same water, breath the same air and eat the same foods. Not only is that false and disingenuous but he never once makes that case. Therefore, I would submit that Mr. Brewer has a hidden agenda of his own. Namely, to portray conservatives as intentional purveyors of death, destruction and misery…without having to defend his actually making those accusations.

Taxation as Conservatives Understand It

I've already alluded to an interesting metaphor that helps make sense of conservative thought about taxes, which I'll call Taxes Are a Burden to make it explicit.
The reality is, taxes are a burden. This from Wikipedia: “A tax may be defined as a "pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property to support the government […] a payment exacted by legislative authority."[1] A tax "is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority" and is "any contribution imposed by government […] whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name."[1]” So, to ignore that reality is to deny a fact.

The understanding of taxation that follows from this metaphor can be seen in this story:

Hard-working Americans are in need of some tax relief. Years of mismanagement by tax-and-spend liberals [more accurately simply "government"] have taken money out of the hands of working people and put it into bloated government programs that serve special interests. We need to cut taxes, return fiscal responsibility to government, and put money back in the hands of taxpayers who know best how to spend it.

Yay, he actually gets something right. Please note my slight modification to make it even more correct.

This perspective is grounded in two beliefs: (1) The world is comprised of individuals;
Yes, I would put this into the category of undeniable, universal truths.

and (2) People are inherently bad and must learn right from wrong through self-discipline.Well this is such a load of male bovine excrement (if necessary, hereto after referred to as MBE) that I don’t even know where to start.

I like to call this the "Me First" perspective because it assumes that people must help themselves before thinking about others.

Of course he does. Now, I can’t help but wonder, he and his family are staying at a little roadside motel. He’s outside getting a bucket of ice and suddenly someone screams that there is a fire. I wonder which room he’s going to go to first? Conservatism recognizes the inherent aspects of undeniable human nature. It is only when people look out for themselves first that they will be will truly have the ability to look out for others but looking out for one’s self first does not preclude the ability to look after others.

It can be summarized with the declaration, "You're on your own!"

Yeah, whatever moron. How about, “Look to yourself first!!!”? How about, “Don’t depend on someone else first, particularly some faceless entity that goes by the name of “government”!!”?

The Me First perspective assumes that any assistance from the community would be "coddling" or "spoiling" us.

And by “community” he actually means “government”. Funny but in there are different definitions for those two words. Conservatives actually believe that if government were less intrusive in our every day lives that many more people would be able to derive help from our communities.

This claim is asserted as truth in the conservative worldview.

No it is not.

Taxation as Progressives Understand It

Progressives have a different understanding of taxation that can be expressed through a variety of metaphors: Taxes Are an Investment, Taxes Are Membership Dues, Taxes Are Pathways to Opportunity, Taxes Are Infrastructure and Taxes Are a Duty
And exactly where in our founding documents are the mandates for government to play an active role in those pretty and noble sounding words except for maybe infrastructure and duty?

Our great nation was founded on a promise of protection and opportunity.

Agreed. However, it is not the responsibility of government to intervene to provide directly provide the opportunity but rather stay out of the way so as not to impede it.

Through our shared wealth, pooled together by taxation with representation, we have invested in the public infrastructure that makes possible the creation of new wealth. We have a sacred trust to keep this promise alive throughout our lifetimes, expand it as we are able, and pass it along to our children.
So long as infrastructure is pretty much the extent of this concept, I’m pretty much ok with it. The “shared wealth” part should clarify and specify that it should be a form of taxation that is absolutely as fair as possible and not punitive in any aspect.

This perspective is grounded in the beliefs that (1) Individuals are influenced significantly by our communities;
What difference does it make by whom they were influenced?

and (2) People are inherently good and benefit from cooperation with others.
I don’t think many people would argue with this concept.

I like to call this the "People First" perspective because it assumes that people must help each other in order to enhance their ability to help themselves.

Oh, so it’s not a matter of whether or not people should help themselves but rather, in which order. So basically, give me a fish today and I promise to learn to fish tomorrow because I’m tired of having to not work to get my fish. Yep, that’s exactly the way of human nature.

It can be summarized with the declaration, "We're all in this together!" The People First perspective assumes that we are greater than the sum of our parts and that new opportunities emerge when we make wise investments with the common wealth we share.

We are all in this together to a certain extent. I absolutely agree with that. However, what this perspective actually promotes is that the government is the greatest entity of all and that only through our government will we be able to prosper. The only problem with that is that, for the vast majority of our history, the exact opposite has proven to be true. The exact opposite is what has made us the great country that we are.

Truth and Consequences

Now that we have a clear sense of what taxation means to conservatives and progressives, we can see what happens if these different ideas are used as governing principles for shaping society.

Actually, we have the clear perspective and opinion of a single individual.

This analysis accomplishes two purposes. First, it reveals key truths about taxation that complicate arguments made by conservatives, truths that don't get talked about nearly enough. And second, it exposes a covert agenda that deceptively exploits real concerns of people to advance an otherwise unpopular agenda.
I submit that Mr. Brewer fails to either reveal any key truths or expose a “covert agenda”.

What happens if the Me First perspective is applied to taxation? Just look to the world we find ourselves in today. A problem defined as "too much spending" leads to budget cuts.

I’m sorry, are we talking about taxation or “too much spending”? Which is it? Which one exactly is the subject? Didn’t the author just make a huge leap of assumption? Isn’t he essentially creating his own brand of “truth” by implying that it is an inherent truth that tax cuts automatically result in a decrease in the amount of money available for the government to spend? In other words, a reduction in the amount of revenues to the treasury? Well guess what Mr. Brewer…it’s just not true. Take a gander, gander takers.
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=676
Oh, and where, in the history of the Us government have we ever had a budget “cut”? How often have we actually spent less in one year than we did the previous year on a given program or entitlement? Or is he using the tired old liberal hack of “a reduction in the projected amount of spending is the equivalent of a cut”?

This results in a diminished capacity to provide vital services. Public goods like education, civil and criminal courts, road maintenance and fundamental scientific research are too costly for individuals - or even multinational corporations - to afford. So these services are cut and people lose their jobs. Thousands of teachers no longer cultivating young minds. Countless construction workers laid off when city and state governments halt infrastructure projects. Graduates with advanced degrees unable to find work because public agencies are "tightening their belts" and cutting back on grants to academia, nonprofits and the private sector.

Can anyone provide evidence that this has ever happened as a direct result of decreased spending by the federal government, much less as a direct result of tax cuts? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Continued below

[J.Q. Citizen]

Beyond the direct human suffering of disrupted lives, there is substantial reduction in government programs that protect the public against harm. The FDA cannot staff enough inspectors to keep toxic peanuts out of the food supply. The EPA lacks capacity to keep drinking water clean in cities and towns across the country. The SEC is unable to keep a watchful eye on runaway speculation and our economy spins wildly out of control. Bridges crumble and levies break because funds are in short supply.

Ahhh, here must be the hidden agenda. Conservatives actually want people to die, eat poisoned food, drink poisoned water and lose all of their money. Yes, we all frequently get together in our dark-paneled rooms, in our 3-piece suits, sipping expensive scotch, looking over our WSJ and exchange an evil chuckle as we plot how we can use the free-markets to kill our own children. So, to tie all of this together, people are inherently good except for Conservatives. Okay, I got it now.

The consequence of conservative ideology is a self-fulfilling prophecy. No, it’s recognition of the principles and philosophies which have directly contributed to the factors that have made us the great nation we are today.

People are forced to be "on their own" with no protection against serious threats
Wonderful generality or MBE, take your choice. If he’s talking about invasion from foreign countries or attacks by religious zealots then we absolutely believe the government has a role in our protection. If you’re waiting for the government to protect you from a tornado or hurricane…it’s been nice knowing you.

and no assistance to get them beyond their current means.

So, is the assumption that without the assistance of government we are incapable of helping ourselves to move beyond our current means? Basically, this is more MBE that I will address below in my responses to Jane.

When disasters strike, there is widespread suffering and death because the tapestry of society - our precious safety net - has withered and decayed. Think I'm exaggerating? I'll just say one word - Katrina.

What a load of MBE. So, all of the problems in New Orleans was a direct result of Conservative tax cuts. He doesn’t present any substantiation of this claim. He assumes his claim is a given. He gives absolutely no proof to back up this moronic statement. Why? Because there is not a shred of evidence to support it. In fact, his final point is so disjointed and illogical that it’s hard to figure out exactly what he’s saying. Hey people, if you don’t want to die in your city that is below sea level, have the good sense to tell your incompetent and inadequate mayor to got get those busses rolling and get you the Hades out of Dodge. Could certain aspects of the response to Katrina have been much better? Absolutely. But is this moron suggesting that the government should have come in ahead of the hurricane and forced people out of the town? Or is it just possible that they should have taken responsibility for their own safety? Incredible.

My comment is this. Conservatives seem to take great pride in promoting self sufficiency
That’s true Jane. I believe that self-sufficiency contributes to a greater sense of pride among its myriad of other positive benefits.

and often characterize Liberal policies as promoting laziness by giving people a free ride.
Based on your experiences with human nature Jane, if someone can get the exact same thing without doing anything as they can by working, which do you believe the majority will choose?

But Conservatives fail to recognize that protecting the weakest among us -- children, the sick, the elderly, the poor and disenfranchised is not only the moral thing to do, but it is part of being self sufficient citizens. The well-being of every citizen is jeopardized if we turn a blind eye and allow the weakest among us to suffer. We are all in this together and to the extent that we help those that suffer, we help our nation.
.And that’s where you’re wrong Jane. If it were truly limited to those who truly could not help themselves, then we would endorse it. But surely you recognize that it is not limited in that way.

If we eliminated Child labor laws, the FDA, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, water treatment plants, roads, bridges, schools and disaster relief agencies, we would not be promoting self sufficiency, but rather self destruction.

Are you tying this in some way to tax cuts or have we moved to government programs and entitlements in particular? Who has advocated eliminating Child labor laws? Not that, in this day and age, I think they’re really needed but how does this fit in? Is there a huge expense in enforcing those laws? The FDA is a bloated bureaucracy that needs to be trimmed down and made more efficient. Just as with the SEC, the problem is not that they’re too small, the problem is that they don’t work efficiently. Actually, outside of most of the military, there is no such thing as efficiency in government and no incentive to perform in that way. I don’t believe anyone is advocating that infrastructure be neglected.

These government functions provide protections and services that are too big for the individual and too important to leave to the private sector. Recognizing that we must continue to improve all of these solutions plus add new priorities such as ending our dependence on foreign oil, is the only responsible, moral and self sufficient thing to do.

And couldn’t we almost immediately decrease or end our dependency on foreign oil if we tapped more of our own resources now instead of letting the flat-earth, no growth, eco-marxists determine our energy policies?

-------- Original post in this position ----------
I just e-mailed this article to the Mark Davis show, Rush and Sean Hannity show to see if they will discuss this on air. I can assure you they won't..

I don't know how you can make such an assurance. If you really do listen as frequently as you purport then surely you know that these are the kinds of topics that they address virtually every day. What makes this particular essay so worthy of their attention?

[kmcgraw5]

Thank you Jane for posting this article. I am interested to here Mr. JQ's response to this article. He will probably ignore it and not even take the time to read it because he will accuse the source of being leftist media..

The only thing I can say is, as usual, here is another leftist that totally misunderstands and totally distorts the core principles of true conservatism. To try to say anything else about this on this blog will simply... well... be ignored... or distorted... or worse... So why even bother...

[kmcgraw5]

Hey JQ, sorry to hear about your job troubles. But don't worry, His Highness will put you to work digging ditches or planting trees. And you'll have that wonderful Federal retirement to look forward to! ;-) Hey give me a shout on the flip-flop; I'd love to buy you a beer or a coffee, or even take you to lunch sometime. Good luck wih your job search!

[J.Q. Citizen]

The only thing I can say is, as usual, here is another leftist that totally misunderstands and totally distorts the core principles of true conservatism. To try to say anything else about this on this blog will simply... well... be ignored... or distorted... or worse... So why even bother...

Sigh, you're probably right on this Kevin. Does that make me a masochist because I just don't know if I can resist a response?

[J.Q. Citizen]

Hey JQ, sorry to hear about your job troubles. But don't worry, His Highness will put you to work digging ditches or planting trees. And you'll have that wonderful Federal retirement to look forward to! ;-) Hey give me a shout on the flip-flop; I'd love to buy you a beer or a coffee, or even take you to lunch sometime. Good luck wih your job search!

Thanks Kevin. Yeah, it even came with two ironies. My last day was Friday 13th and the last job that I got laid-off from a job that I really liked was shortly after we had inaugurated a new president.

As for the job hunt, my girlfriend actually suggested that, based on some newspaper articles she'd read recently, I might be able to get a job in the IT or database department of the TWC. Another irony? There won't be any money in the reserves when I'm up for retirement so I'm not sure I should count on that. Of course, the retirement age will be moved to 92 in order to keep SS solvent.

LOL...I wonder how many people understood the "flip-flop" comment? I'll send you a message here with my email address. I'd really enjoy meeting you and sitting down for any of the above mentioned consumables :)

[kmcgraw5]

Sigh, you're probably right on this Kevin. Does that make me a masochist because I just don't know if I can resist a response?

Yeah, as I am also, I'm afraid... I'll probably write one of my long-winded, convoluted dissertations, anyway... When I too can find the time... ;)

[billspiz]

Can I just ask why constant references to the members of the current administration are by derogitory terms such as "his highness" or the references to Nancy Pelosi with comments about botox and the like?

Its ok to disagree or even not support administration policies but to stoop to elementary name calling really takes out the desire to think about your commentaries and respond. Its no surprise I am NOT a support of the past administration, however I still reference him as President Bush. Can we be adults at least from the name calling perspective?

[kmcgraw5]

Can I just ask why constant references to the members of the current administration are by derogitory terms such as "his highness" or the references to Nancy Pelosi with comments about botox and the like?

Its ok to disagree or even not support administration policies but to stoop to elementary name calling really takes out the desire to think about your commentaries and respond. Its no surprise I am NOT a support of the past administration, however I still reference him as President Bush. Can we be adults at least from the name calling perspective?

Sigh... here we go again. With all due respect sir, we Bush supporters had to endure 8 long years of uncalled for invicitve and hate-filled diatribes against "Dubya," much of which was totally undeserved. So I could say that turnabout is fair play, whether its deserved or not. But in this case, calling President Obama "His Highness" (at least I'm capitalizing it ;)), is well-deserved because of the imperial nature in which he has been acting since he assumed the presidency. I'm just calling things as I see them. And when he starts walking the talk about bi-partisanship, then and only then will I stop. But having said that, I'm sorry if I have offended your delicate liberal sensitivites (and those of all the other leftists on this blog)... :rolleyes:

[billspiz]

You have not offended me..nor do I have delicate liberal senstivities, but again you revert to constant name calling. Can you respond to any post without reverting to that?...just a non liberal, non conservative comment if that is ok with you. I am a Democrat by the way, jsut to be open about that.

Also the bi-partisan approach was tried but alas to no avail other than 3 Republicans. I'm sure you will fire back with some spirited name calling reply rather than debate. Maybe I'll get my 13 year old daughter to help me recraft my replies to be more in line with your yours!...oh wait she already has learned in 7th grade debate how to respond properly.

[kmcgraw5]

You have not offended me..nor do I have delicate liberal senstivities, but again you revert to constant name calling. Can you respond to any post without reverting to that?...just a non liberal, non conservative comment if that is ok with you. I am a Democrat by the way, jsut to be open about that.

Also the bi-partisan approach was tried but alas to no avail other than 3 Republicans. I'm sure you will fire back with some spirited name calling reply rather than debate. Maybe I'll get my 13 year old daughter to help me recraft my replies to be more in line with your yours!...oh wait she already has learned in 7th grade debate how to respond properly.

Gee whiz, I couldn't tell... But I'm afraid I'm not capable of non-conservative thought or comment because... well... I'm conservative. Besides, my 16 year-old boy can beat up your 13 year-old girl... ;)

As for debate as to whether President Obama and his congressional cronies acted in a bi-partisan manner in getting the stimulous bill passed, I will concede that he at least paid a visit to the Congressional republicans (although his attitude while there was clearly and objectively lacking in bi-partisanship-ness):

"Obama chides Republicans, demands speed on stimulus, http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5161JU20090207?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews"

"Obama showed little patience for Republican arguments and continued his aggressive posture of recent days, which he has used to wield the political capital from his November 4 electoral victory over Republican John McCain."

And to try to even argue that there was any significant or substantive debate over the bill with congressional republicans, is just an exercise in intellectual dishonesty. This bill, regardless of its merits or lack thereof, was simply ram-rodded down the throats of the American people, in conscious disregard for the Constitution and congressional rules and protocol. If that's not imperial, then I guess I don't know what is...

[JaneBlow]

I'm not so sure it was possible to come up with a bi-partisan stimulus bill. Finding a compromise between polar opposites doesn't make sense. What we ended up with is a bill that is severely watered down and an economy that is weaker for the wait.

Tying this back to the original post, why aren't the $288 billion in tax cuts considered a worthy compromise to the Republicans?

[billspiz]

I agree...I guess its novel for both sides to claim bi-partisanship and as Sen McCain used to claim "reaching across the table", however as you state being polar opposite it will never work. Much like this blog. Each side as their say, we believe in the agenda's of our respective parties.

We find articles that support our beliefs and we each break apart and dissect each sentence on the other side. While I am new to the site I am surprised to see so much name calling and continued dismissal of Democrat policies.

Wait...I said I was surprised...I'm sorry I'm in Collin County..I forgot for a moment..I haven't lived here that long and am quickly finding out that there isn't much patience for non conservative thoughts or values...thansk Jane!

[JaneBlow]

Sigh... here we go again. With all due respect sir, we Bush supporters had to endure 8 long years of uncalled for invicitve and hate-filled diatribes against "Dubya," much of which was totally undeserved.

Kevin, I don't think anyone engaged in the discussion now has called Bush names.

[kmcgraw5]

I agree...I guess its novel for both sides to claim bi-partisanship and as Sen McCain used to claim "reaching across the table", however as you state being polar opposite it will never work. Much like this blog. Each side as their say, we believe in the agenda's of our respective parties.

We find articles that support our beliefs and we each break apart and dissect each sentence on the other side. While I am new to the site I am surprised to see so much name calling and continued dismissal of Democrat policies.

Wait...I said I was surprised...I'm sorry I'm in Collin County..I forgot for a moment..I haven't lived here that long and am quickly finding out that there isn't much patience for non conservative thoughts or values...thansk Jane!

I'm actually quite envious of you and Jane, Bill. At least you have a party that (you think) actually represents your values and beliefs. I don't. I used to be a democrat until I quit drinking the kool-aid and and woke up and realized that my party didn't represent me or my values any more. So, I became a republican, along with Phil Gramm. But then the republicans left me as well. Oh, fiddle-de-dee, what ever is a poor Constitutionalist to do!?! Frankly, my dear, the politicians don't give a ****! Oh well, tomorrow is another day...

[J.Q. Citizen]

Can I just ask why constant references to the members of the current administration are by derogitory terms such as "his highness" or the references to Nancy Pelosi with comments about botox and the like?

Its ok to disagree or even not support administration policies but to stoop to elementary name calling really takes out the desire to think about your commentaries and respond. Its no surprise I am NOT a support of the past administration, however I still reference him as President Bush. Can we be adults at least from the name calling perspective?

Speaking mostly for myself, perhaps I can add some perspective to this.

First, even though he omitted it this time, Kevin has made the excellent point that one of the reasons he refers to Obama as "his Highness" is two-fold. He is presented by much of the media, his supporters and his own mannerisms as basically imperial. I think his own comment to certain members of the Republican Congress of, "we'll do this my way because I won" is a pretty good example of that. The whole media hype surrounding his campaign and election, the complete adoration he receives for no logical reason I can discern, the virtual worshiping at his feet by some supporters as demonstrated by that 19 year old in the Florida audience the other day who breathlessly thanked God or Obama (possibly synonymous in his view) for taking time out of his day...all of this has contributed to a cult of personality that borders on ridiculous. "Highness" is simply a way to put him more into perspective and remind people that he is, after all, simply a man. So, while I wouldn't categorize it as a term of endearment, it's not the derogatory insult that some have made it out to be any more than "Dubya" was for Bush. And second, it is simply to illustrate that, from the point of view of many of us, the Emperor Has No Clothes. I believe that an emperor can be addressed as "His Highness' so it's just an extension of that idea.

Next point. The "name calling" hasn't been aimed at anyone on these boards so I really don't understand the problem. Perhaps if, during his term in office, I had seen anyone here ever decry some of the foul things that were said about Bush in the general public, such as direct or veiled references to Hitler, I would be more willing to filter some of my thoughts in consideration for those who might be offended. However, unlike formal debates, this is a forum for expressing ourselves and while I certainly believe there should be a modicum of decorum and a fair amount of respect to the other posters, sometimes expressing ourselves in this less formal of settings is going to result in popping off with whatever reasonable thought comes to our mind. However, as I said, the names have not been aimed at anyone on these boards so I don't understand why a particularly crafted response, from a 13 year old or otherwise, is in order. If there is someone in the Republican party that you feel deserves a certain name and it's within the TOS of this site then go for it. I'm pretty sure it won't diminish the argument you're trying to make in any way. At least, not in my mind. I might even be amused by it.

Finally, if you will notice, my "pet" nicknames are reserved for a select few. Primarily, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid but also occasionally for the entire leadership of the Democratic Congress and a few others. Why those two? Because through their actions and words they have earned my complete and utter disrespect and disdain. To me, Pelosi's behavior and underlying motivations are as transparent as the face lifts and botox she thinks no one has noticed. To me, Reid plays a particularly dirty brand of politics that is offset only by his diminutive stature, whiny voice and the realization that most people must look at him and take him for the joke that he is. I realize he would love the title of a "Dirty" but he will never rise above the status of a Dingy Harry. So, I use those names for them whenever the opportunity arises because I don't want anyone to think I have any respect for them at any time. And fair warning, Biden isn't very high on my list either and if Franken is actually able to steal the Minnesota election he's going to get a tirade and litany all his own. If it's any consolation, I'm working on some ideas for Snow, Collins and Specter so it's not just limited to Democrats.

[kmcgraw5]

Speaking mostly for myself, perhaps I can add some perspective to this.

First, even though he omitted it this time, Kevin has made the excellent point that one of the reasons he refers to Obama as "his Highness" is two-fold. He is presented by much of the media, his supporters and his own mannerisms as basically imperial. I think his own comment to certain members of the Republican Congress of, "we'll do this my way because I won" is a pretty good example of that. The whole media hype surrounding his campaign and election, the complete adoration he receives for no logical reason I can discern, the virtual worshiping at his feet by some supporters as demonstrated by that 19 year old in the Florida audience the other day who breathlessly thanked God or Obama (possibly synonymous in his view) for taking time out of his day...all of this has contributed to a cult of personality that borders on ridiculous. "Highness" is simply a way to put him more into perspective and remind people that he is, after all, simply a man. So, while I wouldn't categorize it as a term of endearment, it's not the derogatory insult that some have made it out to be any more than "Dubya" was for Bush.

Thank you, JQ. As usual, you have expressed my thoughts as well, far better and more eloquently than I have. Perhaps you should have been the lawyer... ;)

[JaneBlow]

Speaking mostly for myself, perhaps I can add some perspective to this.

First, even though he omitted it this time, Kevin has made the excellent point that one of the reasons he refers to Obama as "his Highness" is two-fold. He is presented by much of the media, his supporters and his own mannerisms as basically imperial. I think his own comment to certain members of the Republican Congress of, "we'll do this my way because I won" is a pretty good example of that. The whole media hype surrounding his campaign and election, the complete adoration he receives for no logical reason I can discern, the virtual worshiping at his feet by some supporters as demonstrated by that 19 year old in the Florida audience the other day who breathlessly thanked God or Obama (possibly synonymous in his view) for taking time out of his day...all of this has contributed to a cult of personality that borders on ridiculous. "Highness" is simply a way to put him more into perspective and remind people that he is, after all, simply a man. So, while I wouldn't categorize it as a term of endearment, it's not the derogatory insult that some have made it out to be any more than "Dubya" was for Bush.

Next point. The "name calling" hasn't been aimed at anyone on these boards so I really don't understand the problem. Perhaps if, during his term in office, I had seen anyone here ever decry some of the foul things that were said about Bush in the general public, such as direct or veiled references to Hitler, I would be more willing to filter some of my thoughts in consideration for those who might be offended. However, unlike formal debates, this is a forum for expressing ourselves and while I certainly believe there should be a modicum of decorum and a fair amount of respect to the other posters, sometimes expressing ourselves in this less formal of settings is going to result in popping off with whatever reasonable thought comes to our mind. However, as I said, the names have not been aimed at anyone on these boards so I don't understand why a particularly crafted response, from a 13 year old or otherwise, is in order. If there is someone in the Republican party that you feel deserves a certain name and it's within the TOS of this site then go for it. I'm pretty sure it won't diminish the argument you're trying to make in any way. At least, not in my mind. I might even be amused by it.

Finally, if you will notice, my "pet" nicknames are reserved for a select few. Primarily, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid but also occasionally for the entire leadership of the Democratic Congress and a few others. Why those two? Because through their actions and words they have earned my complete and utter disrespect and disdain. To me, Pelosi's behavior and underlying motivations are as transparent as the face lifts and botox she thinks no one has noticed. To me, Reid plays a particularly dirty brand of politics that is offset only by his diminutive stature, whiny voice and the realization that most people must look at him and take him for the joke that he is. I realize he would love the title of a "Dirty" but he will never rise above the status of a Dingy Harry. So, I use those names for them whenever the opportunity arises because I don't want anyone to think I have any respect for them at any time. And fair warning, Biden isn't very high on my list either and if Franken is actually able to steal the Minnesota election he's going to get a tirade and litany all his own. If it's any consolation, I'm working on some ideas for Snow, Collins and Specter so it's not just limited to Democrats.

You are "working on" some new names? Wow that's time well spent. I won't be so creative -- I'll lazily resort to the old fashioned standby, "jerk" -- which I think applies quite nicely to anyone who is so preoccupied with delivering a more damaging, spiteful insult that they completely disregard the need for civil discourse on subjects that impact our future.

[J.Q. Citizen]

You are "working on" some new names? Wow that's time well spent. I won't be so creative -- I'll lazily resort to the old fashioned standby, "jerk" -- which I think applies quite nicely to anyone who is so preoccupied with delivering a more damaging, spiteful insult that they completely disregard the need for civil discourse on subjects that impact our future.

Well, it's more a back of the mind thing Jane. Things like that just pop up from time to time...it's a creative process over which I have no control. So far, Olympia Snowjob is all that's come to mind but I'm kinda liking it. I'm sure that sooner or later something to quickly and accurately convey my feelings about the other two traitors will pop out and I will incorporate it into my dialogue. I believe that the overall tone of my conversations has been quite civil and respectful...at least for the people who are directly impacted by the reading of my posts.

You know...at first I thought your "jerk" comment might have been directed at me but since I'm not preoccupied with coming up with insults....I dismissed that idea.

[J.Q. Citizen]

Thank you, JQ. As usual, you have expressed my thoughts as well, far better and more eloquently than I have. Perhaps you should have been the lawyer... ;)

My pleasure Kevin but sigh...I forgot the second part of the "two-fold". In my defense, it was 2am. I'll go back and correct it.

[JaneBlow]

You know...at first I thought your "jerk" comment might have been directed at me but since I'm not preoccupied with coming up with insults....I dismissed that idea.

I'm not proud of my "jerk" comment and I apologize for it. I should know better than to lose my temper and stoop to name-calling, even if it is done indirectly. Name calling is an indefensible practice because it undermines the possibility for civil discourse, which is so badly needed at all levels in this country.

[kmcgraw5]

I'll lazily resort to the old fashioned standby, "jerk" -- which I think applies quite nicely to anyone who is so preoccupied with delivering a more damaging, spiteful insult that they completely disregard the need for civil discourse on subjects that impact our future.

Now Jane; you shouldn't call Bill a "jerk" like that. I thought he was your friend...? ;)

[billspiz]

wow a "conservative funny"!!!....:)...thats an usually an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp

I thought all you guys just hang out in dark panelled rooms, smoking cigars, wearing 3 piece suits, drinking expensive scotch and reading the Wall Street journal talking about how the free market will correct everything!! ...there is a sense of humor!!!!...(wiping a tear from my oversensitive liberal eye) ...:)

[JaneBlow]

J.Q., now that you've spent the time to write several pages in defense of name-calling in debates, could you take a minute to respond to the original post?

As a refresher, my comment on the article was this:

Conservatives seem to take great pride in promoting self sufficiency and often characterize Liberal policies as promoting laziness by giving people a free ride. But Conservatives fail to recognize that protecting the weakest among us -- children, the sick, the elderly, the poor and disenfranchised is not only the moral thing to do, but it is part of being self sufficient citizens. The well-being of every citizen is jeopardized if we turn a blind eye and allow the weakest among us to suffer. We are all in this together and to the extent that we help those that suffer, we help our nation.

If we eliminated Child labor laws, the FDA, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, water treatment plants, roads, bridges, schools and disaster relief agencies, we would not be promoting self sufficiency, but rather self destruction. These government functions provide protections and services that are too big for the individual and too important to leave to the private sector. Recognizing that we must continue to improve all of these solutions plus add new priorities such as ending our dependence on foreign oil, is the only responsible, moral and self sufficient thing to do.

[J.Q. Citizen]

I'm not proud of my "jerk" comment and I apologize for it. I should know better than to lose my temper and stoop to name-calling, even if it is done indirectly.

I'm really not very thin-skinned Jane...not by a long shot actually. Honestly, I found it more amusing than insulting so I would simply say, either no apology necessary or I accept your apology. Whichever makes you feel better about a minor and temporary loss of your usual stoic control and allows us to move forward without needing to revisit the matter.

Name calling is an indefensible practice because it undermines the possibility for civil discourse, which is so badly needed at all levels in this country.
When it is aimed at the people actually involved in the discourse, I'm inclined to agree with you.

[J.Q. Citizen]

J.Q., now that you've spent the time to write several pages in defense of name-calling in debates, could you take a minute to respond to the original post?

As a refresher, my comment on the article was this:

Oh, I've got that entire post in the back of my mind Jane, I assure you. I will be responding to the original post very soon. Both your comments as well as the thoughts of the author. The reason for the delay is that it will 1)take fair amount of time at a single sitting and 2)the post delves into the heart of both conservative philosophy as well as the liberal misperception of said philosophy. While I know what is right and wrong in my heart with both respectively, putting that knowledge into words is one of the challenges that we Conservative/Constitutionalists face. Maybe I'll start it in Word and then paste it here when I'm done.


-------
FYI, I just started. To illustrate my point, 10 minutes, 122 words, 7 sentences thus far. I believe I am now finished with my response to his title. Now for coffee and job hunting.

[McKinneyRes]

I agree...I guess its novel for both sides to claim bi-partisanship and as Sen McCain used to claim "reaching across the table", however as you state being polar opposite it will never work. Much like this blog. Each side as their say, we believe in the agenda's of our respective parties.

We find articles that support our beliefs and we each break apart and dissect each sentence on the other side. While I am new to the site I am surprised to see so much name calling and continued dismissal of Democrat policies.

Wait...I said I was surprised...I'm sorry I'm in Collin County..I forgot for a moment..I haven't lived here that long and am quickly finding out that there isn't much patience for non conservative thoughts or values...thansk Jane!

Yes, Bill..

I agree with you. Funny thing is, Collin county is one of the most affluent counties in the nation, but also one of the most in debt counties in the nation..
I am not from Collin County, I was raised in Central Texas.. Which is a much different atmosphere then what I was raised in.
Some of my friends recently moved out of Plano to Winter Park, Co because they were tired of their kids growing up around other kids whom constantly feel like they are owed things by their parents. The pretentiousness is out of control here in Collin County.

Don't get me wrong, I love McKinney.. But, its funny how people in group settings will freely talk Republican and just assume everyone else at the table are all Republicans..

[billspiz]

Thanks Res,

I do enjoy the McKinney area as well, my kids love the schools and I picked this area when relocating for a new job based on the number of people that were in a similar situations, along with quailty of life. New job, new home, new schools...new state! We have adjusted well, but I have noticed more of tendency of entitlement here amongst kids versus the other areas I have lived (Chicago, Chicago suburbs and a brief stint in Maryland). My daughters fortuneately recognize this and while it does make it somewhat difficult at times, my kids understand and they never start a sentence with "I don't have...".....they know they have versus many people in this country.

I do agree with your statement on "assumed Republicanism"..that is a term I just made up in response to your comment about most people thinking you naturally are Republican. I have received looks or comments from neighbors, mostly tongue in cheek when putting up signs or displaying a Democratic bumper sticker. However, I do believe if you are going to step out you need to be prepared to take some hits...although some of the comments are downright rude.

Its funny that while living in Chicago suburbs for the majority of my life, my suburb was primarily Republican and my Congressional Rep was former Speaker of the House Denny Hastert!...I could still post signs and knock on doors without rude comment. In blockwalking in Collin County I have had doors closed in my face and some not nice comments when stomping for a particular candidate...interesting. I guess one can call it passion for the GOP or general disdain for Democrats....:)

Again...my examples just mentioned are a minority of most people I encounter....however I do feel that when being a Democrat is mentioned or comes up, there is usually some type of joke or comment about that affiliation.

It was a bit disconcerting when my 7th grade daughter came home after mock elections in school and the comments made by some of her classmates...I would hope those aren't coming from their parents and are just the product of naiveity or youth. One in particular was a classmate telling my daughter that "if you vote for Obama, every woman has to have an abortion"...fortunately my daughter understands "choice" versus "must"...

DISCLAIMER---Not looking to debate Roe v Wade...just a real example of what someone told my child.

This is just a comparison of 2 areas I have lived in my and agreeing with McKinneyRes on "assumed Republicanism"...thanks Res

[J.Q. Citizen]

I do agree with your statement on "assumed Republicanism"..that is a term I just made up in response to your comment about most people thinking you naturally are Republican. I have received looks or comments from neighbors,

Yeah well, I bet YOU would stare if a UFO landed and out popped little green men.

[billspiz]

thanks JQ for continued confirmation of my statements about jokes and comments about political affiliation moving to this area....:)

The beauty in this is that is has inspired my kids to not be afraid to go out and speak your mind regardless of what might be said back to you...they understand that having a different point of view or affiliation doesn't make you a martian.....oh and spaceships are not allowed in Stonebridge Ranch per the association bylaws...:)

[kmcgraw5]

wow a "conservative funny"!!!....:)...thats an usually an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp

I thought all you guys just hang out in dark panelled rooms, smoking cigars, wearing 3 piece suits, drinking expensive scotch and reading the Wall Street journal talking about how the free market will correct everything!! ...there is a sense of humor!!!!...(wiping a tear from my oversensitive liberal eye) ...:)

Well, you're right about good cigars and expensive scotch. But I don't own any 3-piece suits, and my wife won't let us have dark-paneled rooms in our house. And my office is painted a horrid shade of green... ;)

[J.Q. Citizen]

Well, after all the time and effort I put into my initial response to the attack on conservatism, I received this email. And while it contains many of the principles of conservatism it is really just a light-hearted way of stating some of the things we believe. Take it for what it's worth. I didn't write it, I just found it amusing and somewhat fitting to the discussion at hand. If anyone chooses to pa.rse it and attack it then have at it. I will determine whether or not I choose to respond.

THE NEW BILL OF NON-RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Preamble:
"We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights."

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes .

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair..

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!

[billspiz]

Thank you so much for letting us know that you will decide if you choose to respond...I can sleep much better now knowing I have that information..as I went through I wasn't sure if I should comment and if I would get a response...but knowing that now I feel complete...thanks JQ for allowing us the honor....we are ever indebted!!

[J.Q. Citizen]

Thank you so much for letting us know that you will decide if you choose to respond...I can sleep much better now knowing I have that information..as I went through I wasn't sure if I should comment and if I would get a response...but knowing that now I feel complete...thanks JQ for allowing us the honor....we are ever indebted!!

Bill, all I was trying to say was that this wasn't posted with any serious intent and that it would be a waste of my time if anyone were to try to pick it apart in an attempt to get me to defend it. If you had been a long time visitor to this board then you would be aware that this has happened before. My disclaimer was simply a heads-up that I might not be as inclined to defend this post as I would be had I written it myself.

I figure that each of us has the option of either choosing to respond to any given post or not. However, I have attempted to express my respect to those who have taken the time to read and reply to one of my posts, by replying in turn, whenever possible. Having established that pattern, I didn't want anyone to construe my lack of a response to this post as a lack of respect for them.

[billspiz]

I should have added a disclaimer in my reply John Q..:)...

sar·casm
Pronunciation:
\ˈsär-ˌka-zəm\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwarəs- to cut
Date:
1550
1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b: the use or language of sarcasm

and maybe my reply was more smart a** than sarcastic...just having one of those Fridays!..:)

[JaneBlow]

I should have added a disclaimer in my reply John Q..:)...

sar·casm
Pronunciation:
\ˈsär-ˌka-zəm\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwarəs- to cut
Date:
1550
1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b: the use or language of sarcasm

and maybe my reply was more smart a** than sarcastic...just having one of those Fridays!..:)


Sarcasm? What's that? Is that anything like humor?

...don't mind me, I'm just still getting over being referred to as stoic for the first (hopefully the only) time. ;)

[billspiz]

I thought it might be something like humor although I'm sure I will be told its not..:)

at least you're stoic...I am a little green man in a UFO...:)

[J.Q. Citizen]

I should have added a disclaimer in my reply John Q..:)...

sar·casm
Pronunciation:
\ˈsär-ˌka-zəm\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwarəs- to cut
Date:
1550
1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b: the use or language of sarcasm

and maybe my reply was more smart a** than sarcastic...just having one of those Fridays!..:)

And if you had done that Bill, I would have taken it in the spirit in which it was intended rather than as

derogatory

Main Entry:
de·rog·a·to·ry Listen to the pronunciation of derogatory
Pronunciation:
\di-ˈrä-gə-ˌtȯr-ē\
Function:
adjective
Date:
circa 1503

1 : detracting from the character or standing of something —often used with to, towards, or of
2 : expressive of a low opinion : disparaging <derogatory remarks>

Naw, I got the sarcasm for the most part but it seemed just a bit more biting than necessary so I figured I would clarify just in case there was any misunderstanding or perception of arrogance on my part.

Hope your Friday turns out better.

[J.Q. Citizen]

...don't mind me, I'm just still getting over being referred to as stoic for the first (hopefully the only) time. ;)

Sorry, I meant it as a compliment.

[J.Q. Citizen]

at least you're stoic...I am a little green man in a UFO...:)
Which is why I warned my kids about you.

[billspiz]

speaking of kids...I had a great retort from my daughter when she read the response from John Q about seeing a UFO and a little green man (not the exact quote).

She asked me why someone would respond that way and in particular she mentioned the response I had wasn't directed to him. (I responded in the forum to MCKINNEYRES)...I did explain the concept of a forum and anyone can speak

Her question was fair...and I didn't even have to answer..she just said..."whats wrong with people being so mean to people that are not Republican"..

Again..as I earlier mentioned we moved from an area while predominantly Republican was still tolerant......ahhhhhh theres a word

[J.Q. Citizen]

speaking of kids...I had a great retort from my daughter when she read the response from John Q about seeing a UFO and a little green man (not the exact quote).

She asked me why someone would respond that way and in particular she mentioned the response I had wasn't directed to him. (I responded in the forum to MCKINNEYRES)...I did explain the concept of a forum and anyone can speak

Her question was fair...and I didn't even have to answer..she just said..."whats wrong with people being so mean to people that are not Republican"..

Again..as I earlier mentioned we moved from an area while predominantly Republican was still tolerant......ahhhhhh theres a word
Wouldn't it have made more sense, in the context of the response, to have explained the concept of good-natured humor?

I can't help but wonder...what was her reaction to you telling me how well you were going to sleep because I told you that I might or might not respond to replies on that particular post?

Are you implying that you have experienced intolerance here on this board or just in McKinney in general?

[billspiz]

whether it be humorous or legitimate debate, the point was that she and my other daughter as well, have not seen so much intolerance of another opinion...obviously Democratic in this case..I can't speak to Green Party, Libertarians or other nationally recognized parties.

While there has always been debate where we lived before between Republicans and Democrats ..they expressed how they have felt more like outsiders (political alliance only) since moving here.

I completely admit based on their ages they are influenced by their parents..guilty as charged!...the fundamental reason I am bringing this up is the feeling of intolerance they have witnessed....here in McKinney...they blow it off since they are not directly affected.

My kids my decide as they grow to switch direction which I am comfortable with...the problem is the rigid line that seems to stand in this area between Democrat and Republican.

On the other hand part of me is glad my children do see this as I already have a 13 year old saying this doesn't seem right...you shouldn't have to have neighbors walk by your house and whisper if you have a sign in your yard for that represents a different set of views you do.

My older daughter wouldn't drive my car with a COLLIN COUNTY DEMOCRAT sign at first for fear and worry.....what is that telling our community????

[billspiz]

I meant to end with "what is that telling our youth"

[J.Q. Citizen]

whether it be humorous or legitimate debate, the point was that she and my other daughter as well, have not seen so much intolerance of another opinion...obviously Democratic in this case..I can't speak to Green Party, Libertarians or other nationally recognized parties.

While there has always been debate where we lived before between Republicans and Democrats ..they expressed how they have felt more like outsiders (political alliance only) since moving here.

I completely admit based on their ages they are influenced by their parents..guilty as charged!...the fundamental reason I am bringing this up is the feeling of intolerance they have witnessed....here in McKinney...they blow it off since they are not directly affected.

My kids my decide as they grow to switch direction which I am comfortable with...the problem is the rigid line that seems to stand in this area between Democrat and Republican.

On the other hand part of me is glad my children do see this as I already have a 13 year old saying this doesn't seem right...you shouldn't have to have neighbors walk by your house and whisper if you have a sign in your yard for that represents a different set of views you do.

My older daughter wouldn't drive my car with a COLLIN COUNTY DEMOCRAT sign at first for fear and worry.....what is that telling our community????
I think it's telling our youth that we both worry too much. I worried about vandalism to my car after I put on the McCain/Palin sticker. Of course, I can't speak to what you've experienced because I would fit more into the "whisperer" than the "whisperee" category but I suspect that it's more a perception than a reality. I could be wrong.

[billspiz]

incorrect my dear GOP amigo, don't dismiss the issue...we have been told for all intensive purposes that Democrats wear a scarlet letter here.....

do not soft shoe it by saying we worry too much...thats bunk!!......there is a separation here and its why we speak here...you cannot possibly think a McCain/Palin sticker would cause concern in Collin County...my god there are still Bush '04 stickers here..

we didnt worry about it...we just voiced our opinion and told we are wrong..

[J.Q. Citizen]

incorrect my dear GOP amigo, don't dismiss the issue...we have been told for all intensive purposes that Democrats wear a scarlet letter here.....

do not soft shoe it by saying we worry too much...thats bunk!!......there is a separation here and its why we speak here...you cannot possibly think a McCain/Palin sticker would cause concern in Collin County...my god there are still Bush '04 stickers here..

we didnt worry about it...we just voiced our opinion and told we are wrong..
Well then, I have no experience whatsoever with what you're talking about. I haven't engaged in it and I haven't experienced it so I'm not soft shoeing anything. I don't know who would have given you the scarlet letter reference. Was it a Republican or a Democrat? Was it given in the form of a threat?

The 2004 election is irrelevant to this conversation. With the amount of emotion surrounding this election, with the near rabidity of some supporters on both sides, with the stealing of yard signs and other acts of vandalism...you bet I was concerned. Did you think that I would just make that up?

[billspiz]

scarlet letter reference is back to my original point. We have had comments made to us and people have referenced us as "the Democrats on the block"...no where else I have lived has this occurred.

My children have been called out for it....so I have lived in and engaged in this behavior as you so eloquently stated.

...it is wrong....and I will continue to say it is..

and really I don't buy that you would really worry about vandalizing your McCain/Palin signs in McKinney....just grab one of the 20 on your block..:)

[JaneBlow]

My kids have been ridiculed at school for supporting Obama during the election. And my experience has been that a lot of McKinney residents assume everyone is Republican here. They make comments and send emails that make this assumption very clear. I'm not saying all -- but there are many.

[J.Q. Citizen]

and really I don't buy that you would really worry about vandalizing your McCain/Palin signs in McKinney....just grab one of the 20 on your block..:)

Bill, I will make this a plain and civil as I possibly can. Now, you can agree or disagree with my opinions, that's fine. You can make the occasional snide remark, banter, question my facts or even ridicule some of the things that I say. That's fine. I have no problem with that and I'll very likely respond in kind. This is different. You have essentially questioned my word. How can you buy into what I said was genuine and sincere? Because I FLIPPIN' said so...that's how.

[billspiz]

no problem...if that last sentence bothers you that fine...I put a smile emoticon at the end which meant a bit of humor which obviously was missed...maybe I'll add a caveat next time

the sign/vandalism piece of this is not the primary argument anyway...its the lack of tolerance of an opposing party that is quite bothersome...which was my original response to McKinney Res...which you replied quite nicely with a green man UFO comment...so I'll call this a draw

[J.Q. Citizen]

no problem...if that last sentence bothers you that fine...I put a smile emoticon at the end which meant a bit of humor which obviously was missed...maybe I'll add a caveat next time

Well, I'm glad that it's fine with you that your comment was insulting to me. No, I didn't miss the emoticon. I applied it in the manner in which you wrote it...at the end...as pertaining to your suggestion that I simply steal a yard sign from the ample pool of like-minded signs in my neighborhood. Not that it really matters and I'm hesitant to dilute my response but either we live in significantly different neighborhoods or you weren't paying very close attention in the month leading up to the election. On my block, there were exactly 3 signs, all in my yard. On my route to and from Hwy 75 from approximately Tennessee, I counted the number of presidential yard signs one day the week before the election. Results: McCain - 11 signs in 9 yards, Obama - 10 signs in 6 yards. I was struck by two impressions; first, there just seemed to be less overall visible participation than in previous elections and second, those that were participating seemed very...enthusiastic. I just thought that was an interesting observation.

the sign/vandalism piece of this is not the primary argument anyway...its the lack of tolerance of an opposing party that is quite bothersome...which was my original response to McKinney Res
I can't speak to your experiences of a lack of tolerance...I just can't. I haven't seen it, experienced it or been guilty of it. I actually enjoy it when I encounter an unabashed Democrat, which is usually the only way I know their political views, because of the opportunity to exchange ideas in person. Maybe that's just me, I don't know.

...which you replied quite nicely with a green man UFO comment...so I'll call this a draw
I really just don't know what to make of this comment Bill...I really don't. You say that I "replied quite nicely" which was my intent. Then you say that you'll call "this a draw" which implies that you took that comment as an insult just as I took your previous comment in this thread as an insult. Now, if I take your "nicely" comment at face value, ie. that I was being genuinely nice then the "draw" part of your comment makes no sense. However, if I take the "nicely" as sarcastic then the next part makes perfectly good sense but it's a sad indictment of how our conversations are going. That "alien" comment was so deliberately over the top and so moronic, had it been serious, in its content that I didn't think that it could be taken for anything other than the good-natured, self-deprecating attempt to interject some humor and lighten the mood that I intended it to be. As I said, I haven't experienced the "party prejudice" you mentioned but I was acknowledging your perceptions by implying that, "in this neck 'o the woods, we stare at things outside of our realm of all things 'natural', such as a Democrat, in the same way you would stare at a space alien for the same reason". I deliberately didn't include an emoticon. The whole intent was to be so deadpan that it would emphasize the "moronicness" and make it even more apparent.

So tell me Bill. Exactly how should I interpret this latest of our interactions? I would like to be able to maintain and continue these debates and discussions but I have to confess to a growing frustration.

[billspiz]

Well John, I have to admit I am prone on occasion to act first and think later, which is why I do have a tendency to spout off. Just ask my family!..:)...and Joe Biden!!..:)

Call it emotion, passion...or boorishness as was added by kmc on another post. I do wear my emotions on my sleeve and while that has its ramifications, it also is what makes me successful in what I do and in my daily interactions with people. I'm not the most educated, well written or spoken, but I am passsionate when it comes to certain things. I can attribute to my blue collar inner city Chicago upbringing where people acted first and thought later many times. Not always condoning that behavior.. its what it is. I guess I do need at times to step back and digest before I respond.

Much of my frustration since moving here is as I indicated a lack of tolerance for the Democratic party...and as I called it earleir "perceived Republicanism". I indicated I have worked for the party, stomped and knocked on doors for candidates and have not experienced such downright animosity. What got me started was attending a Memorial Day event a couple years back at Pecan Grove Cemetary and witnessed as the Mayor of McKinney and our 2 Republican congressman used the forum to chastize Democrats and posture politically on the graves of fallen men and women. Using a cemetary for a campaign stop is wrong. I actually wrote letters to them, but received no response.

My family and I always attend these types of ceremonies everywhere we have lived as I feel its important for my kids to understand what Memorial Day is all about. Nowhere else had this ever occurred and Republican dignitaries always spoke at these in the past and all that was ever mentioned was about the fallen and how we should honor them.

My point is that my passion stems from events like this, the whisperings of neighbors, the comments at kids schools. It makes me want to support my party even more!

I also feel with the advent of technology and with forums such as this has provided all of us an opportunity to write as we feel and allows an opportunity for all to be heard that did not exist before. Conversely, the written word not always conveys what we feel. Just like everyone in my line of work has fallen into email syndrome where once the medium was used to convey just fact, has now turned into a primary source for all dialogue. I'm much more of a face to face person or pick up the phone...after the 8th email its time to pick up a phone!..:)..you can read or hear what a person is trying to say and in many cases respond in a much better tone . In forums we can all say what we want without the fear of recourse since its so non confrontational..

earlier I mentioned that friends of mine (most non Dems)...thought some of your writings were arrogant, patronizing and self serving. Mine have not come off well in many occasions either. Its the issue with the written word at times and the opinion of others based on their beliefs...not sure if perception becomes reality in many cases.

We have people here at different ends of political spectrums and frankly we are not going to agree on much. Jane articulates well and most if not all times times she is not agreed with by non-Democrat viewpoints. I agree with her viewpoints...just like you and kmc have a tendency to feed off like viewpoints.

I'll learn to temper some emotion prior to spouting!..:)...not guaranteeing it will work all the time...but I will do my best...

[J.Q. Citizen]

Well John, I have to admit I am prone on occasion to act first and think later, which is why I do have a tendency to spout off. Just ask my family!..:)...and Joe Biden!!..:)

My point is that my passion stems from events like this, the whisperings of neighbors, the comments at kids schools. It makes me want to support my party even more!

I also feel with the advent of technology and with forums such as this has provided all of us an opportunity to write as we feel and allows an opportunity for all to be heard that did not exist before. Conversely, the written word not always conveys what we feel.

We have people here at different ends of political spectrums and frankly we are not going to agree on much.

I'll learn to temper some emotion prior to spouting!..:)...not guaranteeing it will work all the time...but I will do my best...
I edited your post to emphasize the portions of my focus.

I understand and commend your passion just as I commend your desire to expose your children to some of the overlooked aspects of our society and history that have contributed to ours becoming such a great nation. I can't comment on the particular event you mention but if it's as you say then I would condemn that behavior. Memorial Day should be used strictly to recognize the sacrifices of our fallen and all politics should be put aside. Still, if it stirred you to action and involvement then perhaps it served a greater purpose overall than those possibly misguided officials intended. Of course, I have to point out that such behavior is not limited to one particular party.

I agree that technology is a two-edged sword. It allows for much greater communication than ever before while simultaneously creating a less personal environment and sometimes a boldness, bordering on rudeness, fostered by the anonymity of it all. Honestly, I've been communicating via email and the internet for so long that I thought I'd gotten pretty good at it. My speaking manner is much different than my typing manner but, at the same time, I feel that I've developed a style that allows my actual personality to come through in an understandable fashion. Of course, much of that development involved feedback from people who actually knew me so there's something to be said for the possibility that those who don't know be to be put off by it. I have a biting wit and sarcasm and, combined with the conviction of my beliefs, it's possible that some people could interpret that as arrogance or some other off-putting attitude or behavior. However, I guess I've just always figured that it's better to be myself as much as possible and that surely, so long as people are able to figure out that I'm not mean-spirited in my intent, they would understand both the point I was trying to make as well as the context in which they were delivered. Please understand. I try to inject humor whenever possible. For me, it's not ALL about politics and who is right or wrong. Sometimes, it's just to lighten the mood, show commonality or build a bridge to the extent possible. I don't hate anyone here and would probably welcome it if I met any one of you in person. Despite the passion shown here, it's not personal for me. I have tried to focus on ideas and not personalities. That is why I've tried to show respect to each and every poster here. I do not show the same respect to our elected officials or members of the press. They can actually affect or influence our very lives.

I agree, we are not going to agree on much. But, as the saying goes, we can disagree without being disagreeable...at least to each other.

Oh, and if you don't mind. I've come to think of myself here by the pseudonym of JQ. While "John" is the name behind the initials, it just doesn't feel right and tends to throw me for a loop for a half second until I realize it is me that you're actually addressing. :)