Dear friends, I’ll leave those of you who wish to argue what the meaning of “is” is, and whether “collect” means “collect”, for a few days. I’ll be on the road. My great appreciation to those who have discussed this in a serious and meaningful fashion.
For the rest, let me try again. My concern is that if the government is asking people to give them other people’s email addresses and their corresponding messages, there is a potential for abuse. Yes, there may be no abuse, but the potential is there, and that is dangerous. That’s why I opposed it, whether you call it “collection” or any other name. I see no danger from Obama’s actions, but I have no desire to see a future president as unprincipled as George Bush ask for people to forward emails to them. That’s a scary thought.
That’s why I was very happy to see that the Obama administration changed their request to include “do not send the Government any personal information”. That’s the proper course.
I’m talking about the issue. You’re repeatedly posting broad generalities that don’t apply to the specific issue we’re talking about and implied meanings to others that did not relate to what was actually said.
I’m not a stamp collector simply because I get mail and save some of it am I? I’m not saving it for stamp I’m saving it for the content. I may either save it in the envelope or toss the envelope and save the important bit. It doesn’t matter because I don’t care one way or the other about the stamps and I’m not collecting them.
Receiving them is not the same as collecting them. That’s what several folks have been trying to point out to you. While you criticize the WH use of words and phrases you don’t seem to recognize the nature of your own. You repeatedly claimed {by carelessly and inaccurately using the phrase} the WH was asking people to inform on their neighbors. That type of careless phrasing is what lends credence to the lies of the opposition.
After reading your post about your grandmother I understand that you object to the forwarding of emails that contain the addresses of others *in principle * and think the WH should stay away from anything that even gives that appearance. {I hope I got that right} I think that’s a reasonable position however I do find it’s a bit naive and unrealistic. In much the same way I think those who accept or worry about the lie that was spread concerning that request for forwarded information are being naive and unrealistic.
Why? Because it only takes a little thought to understand that any government that is going to use modern technology to build an enemies list doesn’t have to publicly ask it’s citizens for help. Add to that the fact that the computer age does indeed pose some risks along with the benefits. Are we not going to be free to express our thoughts to our elected officials for fear of being marked as a dissenter? Will we be afraid to voice our ideas and feelings through Emails and on public boards like this one? I think we will use the available technology and continue to support free expression.
That said I acknowledge that Obama is the president of the naive and unrealistic too. Hell on some issues I’m that way. So, it appears in post #126 that Obama did comment on the stupid lie but also acted to allay the fears of those who fell for it. I’m fine with that. I’m also glad that last night he used even stronger language in calling out the lies and smacking those who waste our time and resources with BS partisan behavior.
I get that your point all along was that if the WH was really smart they might have avoided the appearance and the controversy. It’s a valid point. I agree they should be careful. We seem to disagree on where the lines are drawn. We can’t always cater to the lowest denominator in our communication. I’m suggesting we try to separate the citizens who may have unrealistic but sincere concerns, and the liars who knowingly instigate and manipulate those concerns.
There’s a side benefit of being attacked in that way. It gives us the opportunity to expose the attackers for who and what they are. I think ultimately the bulk of the American public will reject that kind of dishonest BS. They more they fan the fires for the smaller % that will be manipulated the more they expose themselves. The rest of us can help by patiently informing and educating those with the sense to listen. {we should resist all the name calling we can, but being human some might slip out :)}
Great Scott man. Read your own post .**you said **
**
**
and I’m saying this kind of exaggeration and generalization isn’t helping the specific topic. Nobody is claiming any such thing so there’s no need to tell us to stop. Got that?
I’ll point out that I said some groups and specified the fear mongers rather than all republicans I agree that lumping all republicans into the same mold is inaccurate and a mistake. I appreciated the way Obama separated those willing to work, make constructive suggestions and the political hacks last night in his speech. We should be encouraging and honoring the legislative process that encourages honest dissent and different ideas.
Both parties need to address those political hacks that repeatedly distort the truth and block process of growth and the exchange of ideas and real solutions. Obama spoke to that last night.
We don’t want to spend time and energy catering to the liars that repeatedly distort the truth for political gain. That demonstrates they don’t really give a crap about solutions. They care about their own agendas. I agree that errors have been made and what I’ve been trying to explain is the need to separate those who are willing to communicate honestly and those who purposely promote foolish lies. As Obama said “It would be laughable if it wasn’t so cynical and irresponsible.” While we can take steps to allay the fears of real citizens we must also call out the liars and expose them by educating and informing those same citizens. We can’t always be on the defensive by walking on eggshells and trying to anticipate what lies they may spread from a certain phrase or word.
No. Now you’re lumping all the opposition together and that’s not correct for you either. There’s a significant difference between honest republicans who differ in political philosophy and the hacks who resort to lies at almost every turn. The liars need to be exposed as liars rather than catered to and negotiated with while we continue to encourage and appreciate and work with those who just honestly differ in opinion and details of legislation.
The trip is going well, thanks for the good wishes, I’m in a hotel in South Korea with an hour before the next business meeting.
I’m not lumping anyone together. I’m saying that it is a bad negotiating stance to say “I’m not negotiating with you.” Or as Obama put it, “I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.” But we all created the mess, this is a democracy, and both sides have their share of blame for where we find ourselves. Should we all shut up and get out of the way? Or take Pelosi comparing the health care protesters to Nazis, when a number of them likely fought against the Nazis …
That’s foolish, calling people Nazis and telling them to shut up and get out of the way. If you don’t let them talk, if you tell them to shut up and get out of the way, what is left for them to do but to attack?
Many people have said that we need to distinguish between “liars” and opponents, and I agree. But where in Obama’s comment or Pelosi’s comment is that distinction being made? Nowhere. That’s the difficulty, that many Democratic politicians and commentators are not making any attempt to distinguish between people with an axe to grind, and people who have real concerns. Obama made the distinction clear in his address the other day, but that is a wonderful exception to a most distressing trend.
The same problem exists here on this board. I have attempted to make it very clear that I do not think that the Obama administration had any desire to spy on its citizens, they just made a request that had that as an unintended consequence. I have attempted to make it very clear that I am an Obama supporter, that I voted for him and will very likely do so again. Despite that, people continually question my motives, as though I too were a secret Nazi of the kind that Pelosi warned against, as though I too should “shut up and get out of the way.” When I try to discuss the errors that I think Obama has made, I get accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy … the enemy? A bunch of old geezers worried about their health care is the enemy?
Still on the road, I’ll check in as I am able. My best to all.
Do you assume the opposition is always willing to negotiate and truly find a working compromise? What is a leader to do if they’re not?
I’d like to see the Obama quote in context. I think he’s shown that he’s willing to work with those who are trying to find real solutions and are willing to compromise.
Pelosi never called health care protesters Nazi’s. When you make such comments that aren’t based in the truth don’t be to surprised if people suspect you’re not really an Obama supporter.
Show me the context of the Obama comment.
On the Pelosi one you’re just wrong.
Did anybody on this board point to the average person with real concerns as the enemy?
There are those who just lie in order to scare people into opposing health care reform and will do anything to derail it because it’s in their political interest for Obama and the Dems to fail. The needs of the American public are not that high on their list of priorities so they have no problem lying to and manipulating the public to serve their own agenda. Those people , commentators or politicians, or whatever, need to be called out. It’s one thing to make an honest mistake or be misinformed. When you’ve been given the facts several times and continue to deny and distort them repeatedly, the you should be off the list of people to negotiate with.
Since you are an Obama supporter perhaps you could spend some time focusing on the mistakes of the opposition.
Naw, I’ll leave that focus to you, you guys do an excellent job of that, no need for my assistance.
I’m one of the few Obama supporters on this list who doesn’t seem to think Obama walks on water, so I feel it is incumbent upon me to speak up for the rest of the Obama supporters, those people who like and respect and voted for Obama but are not thrilled by some of his actions.
Obama is fast losing support among some crucial constituencies - a drop since April of 12% among white Democrats, 9% among white Independents and whites over 50, and 12% among white women. These are constituencies that we simply cannot afford to lose.
You can blame all of this on the lies and evil machinations of the opposition if you wish. Me, I ascribe a good chunk of it to foolish mistakes on the part of the Democrats, some of which I have tried to discuss in this thread. If we ignore those, we will lose bigtime regardless of the presence or absence of “mistakes of the opposition.”
So no, I will not focus on anything but our own mistakes. If we don’t fix those, we’re toast …
Since this kind of language"walks on water" is also frequently used by the opposition maybe you could point out some specifics on this board. I voted for and support Obama but hardly think this admin is free of mistakes. If people disagree with your particular assessment that doesn’t mean the extreme of “walks on water” must be their mindset does it?
I expect any admin to make some mistakes and I try not to judge them to harshly for simply being humans like the rest of us. It wasn’t simple human mistakes that led to me despising the Bush admin but consistent lies and abhorrent policies.
I think it’s a matter of reasonable expectations. Sure I’d like the WH to use the ideal language and strategy at every turm but I think that’s an unreasonable expectation. In the meantime the opposition is using blatant lies to create distraction and contrived controversy. While it may be legit to suggest the WH could do X or Y better and have phrased something differently , when you repeat and somewhat agree with the lies of the opposition you’re not helping.
Maybe that’s one thing the GOP is better at. They can disagree with each other but still work together for a larger goal. The liberals seem to withhold active support over smaller disagreements rather than working together toward the big picture.
While that may be true it’s realistic to expect approval ratings to drop from election time to months into dealing with a long list of problems in a struggling economy.
Here you go with the exaggerations again. I am not blaming *all this * on any one thing because I’m not that immature or stupid. I am suggesting we have a finite amount of time and energy to devote to making some effective changes so it seems less effective IMHO to focus on minor errors in wording and strategy rather than actively working to debunk the lies of the opposition.
You mean like the mistake of Nancy Pelosi comparing protesters Nazi’s? I notice you conveniently left out any comment on that. How about answering my questions as well.
Do you assume the opposition is always willing, or that all the opposition is willing, to negotiate and truly find a working compromise? What is a leader to do if they’re not?
Y’know, this time I think I’ll leave you to answer your own questions. A quick search on Pelosi Nazi brings up many more articles than I could cite, complete with descriptions. The same is true for the Obama quote. Look them up yourself, that way perhaps you’ll be satisfied with the information rather than continuing to beat a dead horse.
Is the opposition always willing? Of course not. Are all the opposition willing? Of course not.
But when you compare them to Nazis and tell them that you don’t want to hear from them, the results are predictable.
I saw a great juxtaposition in the local Singapore paper this morning. An article on how the Democrats are all in a lather and want to have a censure resolution regarding Rep. Wilson calling the President’s words lies, next to an article about how the House Democrats are doing nothing, nothing at all about Rep. Rangell of the Ways and Means Committee lying like a dog on his taxes and financial statements.
Your position is that we should focus on the sins of our opponents, that we should call them out for being liars. My position is that much greater, deeper, longer lasting damage is done to our party by Democratic liars than Republican liars.
Can you not cite them because she didn’t say what you said she did? I provided the exact quote a few posts up. Nancy Pelosi did NOT compare anyone to Nazis or call anyone a Nazi. She said that they brought swastikas and “symbols like that” to town hall meetings. Some town hall participants did do that. It does not help your argument to cite “evidence” that is simply not true.
By tradition, that’s not how it work’s here on the SDMB. When you make a factual claim it is your obligation to support it when called on it. So just a link, maybe two is too much to much effort?
The thing is I already looked it up when it was first rumored. Knowing how these things go I was skeptical, but realizing it was possible I did the research rather than assume it was incorrect. My preferred method is to do the research myself and gather information before reaching a firm conclusion. Are there lots of links accusing and claiming Pelosi compared protesters to Nazi’s or called them Nazi’s? Of course there are. When you dig a little deeper and do the reading you realize that she did no such thing. That’s twice in this thread you’ve casually repeated a gross distortion of the truth while calling yourself an Obama supporter. How does that happen?
The question you didn’t answer was “What is a leader to do if they’re not?” the point being is that in order to get something done, at some point you have to stop waiting for people to come around. Some never will, and the ones who eagerly believe a falsehood are likely in that category. You can offer the truth and invite them to participate but if they simply refuse you must have the nads to go forward without their approval.
Except that didn’t happen. It’s another lie you’re willing to repeat for some reason.
This was not the topic of discussion.
I’m not sure why you repeatedly use exaggeration to misrepresent my position.
Yes, call out our opponents on their lies by presenting the facts consistently and encouraging people to look them over. Don’t try to cater to those who use malicious lies as political tools.
That is in no way suggesting we accept and excuse the lies of Democrats. FTR; I think plenty of politicians on both sides of the isle are corrupted by the money influences and a badly damaged political system. They claim to look out for the public but thier priority is actual protecting their job and catering to whatever special interest groups are funding them.
My suggestion and guiding principle is to try and use the same standard to judge both parties. I can respect anyone who argues honestly based on sincere beliefs and facts. That’s how we find solutions.
I think what you’re saying is the ole speck in the eye of your neighbor thing. I agree in principle but it helps to be realistic about politics. You’re speaking of two separate issues. I don’t think Wilson’s outburst is worthy of much attention. Point out that he’s wrong and lacking class and move on.
I haven’t looked into the Rangel thing but I agree that both parties need to be better at policing their own rather than justifying and making excuses.
I did a little reading on the Rangell tax issue. He clearly needs to lose his position as Chairman of ways and means and IMHO that kind of crap is exactly the indicator that someone is feeling to comfortable and privileged in their position and needs to go. I’d love to see the Dems withdraw support for his reelection and recommend another candidate. I don’t hold out much hope for that.
Oh, I see my error. I thought that Pelosi saying that people were carrying Nazi symbols meant that they were Nazis. You thought that she meant that they were not Nazis but they were carrying the symbol for fun or something, I don’t really know … but none of that has anything to do with my point. She insulted them regardless of what her exact words are, and predictably, many of our opponents who are not Nazis took the insult personally.
Look, some of them likely are Nazis, it’s popular on the white supremacist lunatic fringe … but so what? If you want to achieve your aim in a negotiation, insulting the people on the other side of the table is dumb. Obama in his health care speech made the distinction very clear. He said that we are happy to negotiate with anyone who wants to be a part of the process, but he will call people on their lies. That’s great. That’s negotiation, that moves us forwards towards what we want to achieve.
On the other hand, comparing people to Nazis by pointing out that a few of them are carrying swastikas, or telling them to shut up and get out of the way, is a very foolish move. I’d like to get something achieved here. Belittling and insulting people on the other side, however much they may deserve it, is counterproductive. It just pisses them off. Do you want to have a fight, or do you want to achieve something regarding health care? Because if you do want to get somewhere, you should know that the first rule of negotiation is to bite your tongue.
Oh, please, spare me the “provide me a cite” and the lecture on SDMB tradition, I know it well. As you point out, you already had plenty of cites, and C3 provided one up above as well … so you ask me for a cite??? That’s picayune harassment, not an honest request, and I responded to it as such.
Did Nancy call people Nazis? Oh, no, no, not at all, she just said they were carrying swastikas. If you believe that had nothing to do with Nazis, fine … but average people out there certainly took it that way and were incensed, which is all that counts. And that was the issue, not the exact words she used, but that she Godwinized the discussion with predictable results.
If someone comes to the negotiating table with bad breath whose cousin is an authentic skinhead Nazi, you have a choice — lecture them on their personal hygiene and their poor selection of relatives, or discuss the issues. I know which one I recommend, but you might see it differently.
Well, the fact that you hold out little hope for the Democrats to do the right thing should give you a clue regarding my position about the problems with my (perhaps our) party.
Rangell will never go because the Republicans want him out. He will only go if enough Democrats raise our voices … but when I do, I’m accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy and told I should look at the bad stuff the opposition is doing. To me, not calling Rangell on his actions gives immense aid and comfort to the enemy, “far above my poor power to add or detract” … let’s get our own house in order before we start attacking our neighbors for the condition of their houses.
SHE Godwinized the discussion? THEY were the ones carrying swastikas! They weren’t demonstrating their Nazi-ism by carrying swastikas, they were carrying signs that were accusing the President of being a Nazi. Pelosi did not call them Nazis; they were calling Obama a Nazi. Save your outrage for the people who were actually doing the namecalling.
You’re argument is not based on anything resembling facts (much like the right-wing fringe we’re discussing) - I’m outta here.