Comments on: The Class That Failed – A socialist allegory updated for Obamanomics

By: James

James — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:01:22 +0000

I said, "Will you both withdraw the accusation and address what I actually did say? (Based on history, I suspect not.)"
And I thank you for supporting my points, yet again.
You're swell!

By: Louis

Louis — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:52:07 +0000

Okay, so one Republican congressman got booed by the same crowd of brown shirt nutjobs – and for suggesting turning off brown shirt nutjob Glen Beck! Good for him! But, naturally, it was the brown shirt nutjobs doing the dirty work all around. F*ck 'em!
And it's not "playing the victim" to recognize that gays live under a threat of violence straights never even consider. If you can't understand or recognize this, you're either stupid or crazy or a conservative christianist (same thing). Even if I link to examples, you'll just brush them off like daniel and Aaron and the rest of your ilk as isolated examples, so what's the use. Look it up for yourself.
Okay, no, it's not close enough. And if "my" people are participating, it's in reaction to the right wing brown shirts trying to shut down the debate and intimidate the rest of us. "We" are fighting back. So, shove it.

By: James

James — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:41:18 +0000

Louis said:
"Why are you distorting what I said?"
Did I misquote you? Or do you fail to understand that "close enough" (my words) are a tacit recognition that it's not a complete one to one, and the "?" following it is asking you whether you think it's a fair comparison. You accuse me of something I did not do. Will you both withdraw the accusation and address what I actually did say? (Based on history, I suspect not.)
"the threat and reality of violence gays live under every single day"
Can you provide sourcing for this? You claim victim status a lot, but I'm not sure it exists outside your head. Our culture on the whole venerates gay culture. Are there recent stories of gay hate violence I'm unaware of? Please substantiate.
"They aren't at Republican forums. Duh."
OH RLY?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/0…
"I suppose you think it's okay to disrupt and intimidate and stop the democratic process as legitimate dissent. I don't. "Peaceably assemble to petition the government" this isn't. "
And there's the money shot. Can you read? You certainly have felt free to correct other's spelling before, so I assume so. Not only have I repeatedly stated on this blog that I think drowning people out is unhelpful and unproductive, but I also gave no indication that I think it's okay to be disruptive.
What I did point out and what you ignored and failed to address, is that you have a "they" are doing this stance, but it's "your" people who are at least participating, if not driving this behavior.
So, care to be fair, since you're not a conservative, and address what I have actually said, instead of distorting and ignoring? (again, I doubt it based on past experience, but I'd be happy to be wrong about that).

By: Louis

Louis — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:26:24 +0000

Whatever. Everything you say reminds me of how I felt under Bush.

By: danielg

danielg — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:20:48 +0000

By: danielg

danielg — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:19:47 +0000

>> LOUIS: I suppose you think it's okay to disrupt and intimidate and stop the democratic process as legitimate dissent. I don't. "Peaceably assemble to petition the government" this isn't.
I agree Louis, shouting and chanting is not really 'civil discourse' – but the real problem is that people need a legitimate forum at which they can air their disapproval and grievances. I think that they blew their chance when they started getting out of hand at the initial Town Halls.
However, people ARE reasonably scared and concerned, and not just because of the 'scare tactics' of right wing organizations. There are plenty of reasons to be alarmed at the rate of spending, the unread ramrodded porkulous bills, and this healthcare bill is being ramrodded too – thousands of pages that Obama wanted to push through in a week?
And the problems with this legislation, now that we have time to vet it, are myriad, from abortion funding to race quotas for medical schools ("no doctor, i don't care if you weren't the best qualified, as long as you are a minority").
Obama doesn't seem interested in a national conversation on this matter that might lengthen the time it gets for him to accomplish HIS goals. There is plenty of opposition to this bill, and not just from uncaring capitalists. People are pushing back against his heavy-handed legislative and spending style. Liberals are giddy with power right now, and seem to think that this is their opportunity to ram their ideological ideas through Congress without discussion. That's BS.
And please don't say 'that's what the republicans did' because (1) that wasn't true, and (2)two wrongs don't make a right.

By: Louis

Louis — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:16:33 +0000

daniel likes to post comix here. Since I don't have access, here and here are links to funny examples.

By: Louis

Louis — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:48:26 +0000

The link you posted quoted a few bloggers and commenters, but did not show any gays carrying weapons and signs threatening violence (my quote). Why are you distorting what I said? And how does your commentary address my points about the threat and reality of violence gays live under every single day.
You say that people are at Democratic functions… not the first time you've said that… I didn't realized they were checking for party affiliation at the door.
They aren't at Republican forums. Duh.
I was careful to discuss dissent I think is fine. I suppose you think it's okay to disrupt and intimidate and stop the democratic process as legitimate dissent. I don't. "Peaceably assemble to petition the government" this isn't.
Whatever. I don't expect conservatives to be fair.

By: James

James — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:42:43 +0000

Louis said:
" I'm not aware of gay rights protesters carrying weapons openly along with signs implying violence"
Is this close enough?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=…
I'm glad you also said:
"Sometimes they get out of hand and I condemn that"
But I'm wondering, how does one nutty A-hole, who has been widely condemned by conservative pundits and gun rights activist reflect suddenly on that whole group?
You say that people are at Democratic functions… not the first time you've said that… I didn't realized they were checking for party affiliation at the door. Are (D) Representatives only supposed to represent (D) people, or are they supposed to be available and accountable to every constituent in their district?
Tactics are undemocratic and unAmerican? I thought dissent was the highest form of patriotism. It was under Bush. Just ask Keith Olbermann. UnAmerican, like what Nancy Pelosi said about people drowning out opposing voices? What about when the SEIU says that's their exact intent in attending townhalls?
They have no right to do what they are doing? Re: 1st Amendment.
Facing violence? I wonder what Kenneth Gladney has to say about that. The Obamacare supporters certainly had something to say.
As for your final closing thoughts, you're clearly not the first to think about it. In fact, it seems like some aren't satisfied with real Obamacare opponents anger, and are trying to invent some. Enjoy:
http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/08/busted-ob…

By: danielg

danielg — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:38:55 +0000

No analogy is perfect, but this one applies in as far as the relevant criticism – that socialism removes the reward for hard work, and serves as a dis-incentive for the virtues of hard work and honesty. The problems with the Obama solution is precisely the same problem as with a purely capitalistic one – it does not compensate for it's weaknesses.
I think that you are right about a PURELY market driven health care system in one sense, and that is, the person with the most money could buy the best 'grades' – but that's not really entirely correct.
We are not arguing for a purely capitalistic market-driven health care system, but rather, a lightly REGULATED system. The advantages of this are that it gives us the best of both worlds, i.e.
- regulation prevents the abuses of a purely capitalistic venture
- free markets allow for choice and competition to drive down cost and drive up quality
What we ARE saying is that the Obama plan, while it pretends to just come alongside the existing market plans, it structured in such a way that it will REPLACE the free-market system, and will end in an ENTIRELY GOVERNMENT run health system, which, lacking free market competition, will
- be fraught with waste and fraud
- encourage employers to dump their employees into the public system, thereby essentially eliminating private options (I know that libs argue against this, but I think they are being totally naive, if not blind and disingenuous)
- seriously reduce our choices and freedom (see the CNN article I posted yesterday)
- lack competition, thereby driving UP costs (to the taxpayer) and DOWN quality. To dispute this is almost beyond belief, since that is the common experience worldwide (again, oil-rich Netherlands programs are an anomaly, not the rule), and anyone familiar with Canada or Britain's systems can see this in spades.
I listened to Obama's highly controlled Town Hall meeting yesterday, and his answer to the 'Republican' was the same old weaseled answer he always give – he doesn't DENY that we are heading towards a single-payer system, he just says 'such a rapid transition would be too difficult.'

By: Louis

Louis — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:30:27 +0000

What do gay rights advocates do?
1. There are no "gay rights advocates" understood as a group mind. Gay rights advocates advocate for gay equality under the law. Sometimes they get out of hand and I condemn that. Non-violent, peaceful protest is perfectly legitimate (as long as one is ready to accept the consequences). The only parallel I can think of would be if gays organized on a national level to pack evangelical and fundamentalist (and RC) churches and scream and yell for the entire service to halt the free exercise of religion. They would raise signs depicting the Pope or Jesus as Hitler, with graphics depicting the cross as a swastika. They would imply violence as a necessary step. Beyond a few isolated instances here and there, I have not seen this happen on a mass, organized level. Can you provide evidence that it has?
2. I'm not aware of gay rights protesters carrying weapons openly along with signs implying violence. Usually it's the other way around. Violence, or the threat of violence, is a constant presence in our lives. This is one way we are intimidated into silence.
3. The protesters we have been seeing at Democratic functions aren't there for communication but to disrupt and destroy the political process. They aren't amenable to reason. Their tactics are anti-democratic and un-American. They may be frustrated and angry, but they have no right to do what they are doing. btw: they make great advertisements against their cause. Maybe we should thank them!

By: keith johnson

keith johnson — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:10:33 +0000

Hi Daniel:
An equivalent capitalist allegory: the professor offers to SELL grades for whatever the market will bear! Dumb allegories cut both ways, my friend.
your friend
Keith

By: danielg

danielg — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:46:14 +0000

>> LOUIS: And what will happen when this demand that the rest of us (ie, the "majority") doesn't heed the "concerns" of the radical right for an oversimplified version of America?
What do gay rights advocates do?

By: Louis

Louis — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:07:59 +0000

Involve ridicule from the minority, which should be viewed as a warning that failing to heed the concerns will lead to the next step - public defiance (can you say "Town Hall meetings"?) And what will happen when this demand that the rest of us (ie, the "majority") doesn't heed the "concerns" of the radical right for an oversimplified version of America? See here for one example: guns and implicit threats of violence.