WHy is disagreeing with a position viewed as bullying?
Posted By: sam on 2008-09-02
In Reply to: SP's announcement sparked it, not me. - Just trying to make the best of it..sm
Your response is much more bullying....self-righteous and pompous I think were your words...
It is not MY party. I am not a Republican. This country would be much better off if everyone, both sides, put country first and not the party.
That being said...it were an important issue to debate, it should not have had to have a pregnant 17-year-old girl "spark it." All I am saying is, regardless of that, it is a choice whether to continue to bring into the spotlight a candidate's child for political fodder.
The point is...it was not an issue before 17-year-old pregnant Bristol. But now it is, a way to keep that constantly in the forefront. That is the choice some on the left have made.
All I am saying is...while I am sure you think it is justified, there are many who will not. And that is ALL I am saying.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I don't see that anyone was disagreeing. sm
Since when is discussing opinions and lifestyles disagreeing? Having said that, my belief is different. I would call that a difference in belief system, not disagreeing. There is much to be learned from each other.
Ok, I'm not disagreeing with you
Maybe I should not have even posted. I'm not arguing with you about percentages of it being pork or not and what the pubs are replacing it with or anything like that. I'm not arguing because truthfully I have no idea. I have not read the bill/proposal or any of it. All my original post was about was that I thought what McCain said made sense. Even though I didn't vote for him, I believe what he was saying on C-span made sense that the Americans know what's going on and we are not happy about it. I have not posted on this board and I don't have time to read through everyone else's posts.
As for Obama's economic plan - this is not what he laid out in his campaign. Granted, I could possibly be wrong and if I am I am sorry, but, during his speeches I don't ever remember him saying that he would be approving a bill that taxpayers would be paying for dog parks, frisbee parks, new office furniture, etc. Granted I am not 100% familiar with this whole bill thing. My only comment was that I watched what McCain had to say and I believe (and still do believe) that I'll bet you any money if McCain was a democrat they would have passed what he presented.
So, I'll be the first to admit that it's not perfect, I don't know all the ins and outs of it, I was just saying that I liked what McCain presented and unfortunately I think the democrats will get their way and we will be paying for them to refurnish their offices and stuff like that. Maybe you don't mind paying for that kind of stuff, but I would rather my taxes go for other important stuff.
This post has spurred me on to read more about it because I would like to know if we are going to be getting the tax cuts we were promised during the campaign.
Seeing as I'm a registered democrat I hope that the democrats will do good for the American people, but just the little snippets I have been hearing I don't think so (I'm listening to MSNBC).
P.S. - I may be a democrat but I do also agree with some of the republicans (and disagree with some of the democrats). I'm not one side or the other. Think both sides have good and bad to them.
On the outside (of this board that is) what I'm finding is that most American are not fed up with the pubs holding up the bill, they are fed up with not being told the truth by the politicians - both sides.
Or disagreeing with Bush gets you labeled a terrorist sympathizer?
The most absurd label to date.
It took about an hour after I viewed the video.
It is better than just reading something that is posted and believing it on its face. If I really hated Democrats as I have been accused of, I would have accepted it at face value. I didn't. And now that I know the truth, you could not pay me enough to vote for a Democrat this election. When a party messes up this badly they need to be held accountable, and at the ballot box is the best place to do that.
It has been release, viewed by the courts
Sme people just want to live inside the lies they create...and often are not able to distinguish reality from fiction. Most children outgrow this but, on the other hand, some never do.
I'm glad the article was viewed for what its worth
After I posted I was prepared to get flamed. I used to support Obama until I started reading and learning more about his polices. I could care less about the "Wright" thing or what his wife said. I want to know hard facts. What does he want to lead our country, what are his plans for the economy "back to life". His "tax" plan. What I'm hearing is that everytime he talks he's saying something different, and I'm beginning to not trust that. I also just read that he is now saying he doesn't plan to bring our troops home right away. He'll keep them there another 5 years. So, my trust in him is going downhill very fast. Also I think we all know that both candidates are "run" by others higher than them (bankers, lawyers, the richest of the richest, etc). Each group has their own agenda. Something that is disturbing to me (and I'd have to do a lot of research to find this article again), but I read an article that said the same people who are "running" Obama are the same people who are running Bush. When you do a search on the people who are funding Obama's campaign they are the same people who back Bush and what he does.
I'm glad the article I posted was met with people who appreciate the information and not flame me for posting something that doesn't praise Obama.
I am not bullying anyone into my way of thinking....
simply presenting the other side. That is what democracy is about. If you are saying women should not involve themselves in politics, I could not disagree more. Decisions affect us, just like they affect men.
Of course I don't know everything...I just give research due diligence because I don't accept anything from either side at face value. The whole basis of our political system is that there are two sides to everything and you choose whichever side most closely meets what you think is best for the country.
What is wrong with defending someone if you believe that person is right? The other side defends Obama just as aggressively, if not more so.
Actually, the beatitude says the meek shall inherit the earth, not the weak. In my interpretation, "meek" does not mean "weak."
A bipartisan prayer request viewed as provoking hate.
by taking this kind of position and posting these kinds or rants.
No bullying would be too easy........they have to push
---
What is your problem with just teaching no bullying
There is no need to point out homosexuals as being people they should not pick on. Why pick out any single type of kid?
Did you ever hear of just teaching your child to be nice to people, to not name call, bully or pick on anyone? That would just about wrap it up wouldn't it?
There are many young children in elementary school that do not even know the term "homosexual", so I certainly don't believe it is the school's job to bring that to the attention of a child. That is the parent's responsibility to explain what homosexuality is, if they so choose.
You think for a minute if a school starts talking about tolerance of homosexuals that questions wouldn't arise about what they do, what that means, why they do that, and every other question they could possibly imagine? I sure as heck don't care for the school system to educate my child on gays or their lifestyle, thank you very much!
Teaching a child about not making fun of a child with disabilities is NOT the same as teaching a child about homosexuals. You believe homosexuality to be a "disability". Funny you brought up those two things together..........
No sell!
Agreed. Teach no bullying or violence, period.
"Lifestyle acceptance" doesn't have to come into it at all. I don't have to accept anyone's lifestyle in order to learn that bullying and violence are not acceptable ways of expressing my disagreement with them.
You see, there's a conflation between the principle of "nonviolence" and "acceptance of lifestyles" going on here, and it's very, very calculated and it's very, very deliberate.
In fact, "acceptance" is really an inadequate basis for nonviolence - if you stop for a moment to think about it - because I am obliged to be nonviolent toward people whose lifestyles not even you would suggest that that I (or my children) should EVER "accept".
Just teach "no bullying" PERIOD and leave the lifestyle crap out of it.
I'm sorry, but you're very naive about what these children are actually being taught - i.e., that one family is "just like another" (there's a cute little song they sing about this), etc.
You want to teach kids not to be physically violent toward any other kids - fine. You go beyond that and start preaching the gospel of lifestyle equivalency and you're wandering off into the parents' domain.
Oh, yeah - I almost forgot. Get back to T E A C H I N G!!
She has put herself in this position
Don't blame the vultures for her mistakes.
You don't even know his position do you?
@!@
You are in an even worse position than I am...
at least my mortgage is a fixed rate mortgage with a reasonable interest rate - not as low as what is being offered to those who are defaulting, but not too bad in the grand scheme of things. So--good luck to you!!!
Sorry - you can't diagnose my position
I live in a blue collar neighborhood - those who lose their jobs - start scrapping metal or cutting wood or whatever they can do to earn a living. They do not sponge off of society. Their kids go without medical care as a result, but the whole family does. They also hunt to put meat on the table. I go into the cheap grocery stores to shop - rarely do I see food stamps being used. My husband is a white collar worker who was just laid off. Wehave to decide between COBRA and the mortgage. I have cancer, so I guess COBRA wins. Please research welfare and find out, REALLY, what a small percentage of our population is on the dole. Welfare is just another propaganda tool. I know - I went into social work.
Not in a position to give more
The problem is not everyone is in a position to give MORE but the government doesn't take that into acct. We will all be paying more to the government eventually. Who else will be paying this money back?
He was sworn into his current position
using a Koran, not the Bible. He refuses to honor our flag because it is against his religion. He will ruin this country from the inside out if elected. The phrase "One nation under God" will be removed from our Pledge of Allegiance. Think about that!
Whoever gets the position will have a whale of a job to clean up. sm
Our troops are stretched so thinly worldwide that homeland security is compromised. Ya gotta hear some of the older vets talking strategy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiJk6MeBx54
I stand by my position. Isn't that partly what
the VP is for. I am glad that McCain thinks he needs to be in DC, but let Palin take over for a few days.
Don't be ridiculous, of course the financial crisis is more important. But, why can't he do the debate 1 night. It is just 1 night. Let them debate the economy instead, I am sure Americans would love to hear what they have to say about it right now.
It's not an attack, it's a statement of position.
the concept I take exception to. I want my health insurance benefits to stay in the "pre-tax" column on my pay stub. In fact, I want all my benefits to stay in that column. Under McCain's plan, I would pay tax on my benefit out of every single paycheck and the US treasury gets the use of that money until filing time rolls around. I need my money to stay in my house, not theirs during the course of the year. I don't want a percentage of my health insurance benefits to be used to bail out predatory lenders (under McCain's new Resurence Plan) on subprime mortgages. I want it to be used to buy groceries, pay for gas and pay bills. The slippery slope comes into play the next time they need to go looking for another way to screw over taxpayers and they start to monkey with the 14% rate. Thanks but no thanks. No second grade math lession needed here.
Difference being if elected, SP will be in a position to
nm
For key cabinet position, just where would you suggest
One key element of bringing change to Washington in my estimation would be to take US leadership one step beyond the "old guard" of the Boomer generation. I can say this with impunity since I am referring to my own generation. In any case, this is a bit of a tricky proposition since that means Obama would need to focus on younger individuals born in the early to mid 1960s and beyond, with ages approximately 46-48 or younger. These individuals would have reached their adult years and started building their professional careers AFTER the Carter administration. How many democratic presidents have we had since the Carter administration?
With the selection of KEY positions, it is imperative that Obama appoint people with senior-level experience. Stop to ponder for a moment, the appointments that have been made thus far.
1. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, by all measures a "Clinton person."
2. Atty General Eric Holder served in the US Justice Dept during Ford, Carter and Reagan, who appointed him DC Superior court Judge in 1988, a post he held until 1993 before Clinton appointed him US atty in DC, later becoming Clinton's Deputy Atty General. In other words, 17 years of his experience was gained in service to the 3 former presidents prior to the Clinton appointments.
3. Director of the Office of Management and Budget - Peter Orszag, Director of Congressional Budget Office under W and served on Council of Economic Advisors under Clinton.
4. Senior Advisor Pete Rouse - Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. Clinton and W.
Holder served under 3 different presidents prior to Clinton, Orszag's onlyh appointed position was under W and Rouse servced under 5 other presidents before Clinton. My question then is why is it that all of these people are suddenly "Clinton people?" Even if they all were, where would you expect Obama to look for his cabinet appointees...retired officials from the Carter administation perhaps? Would Reganites deliver Change? How about those Bush people (I am so sure).
I have no doubt that there will be appointees with roots in the republican camp, but please note that we are talking about only 4 choices at this point in time, 3 of which DO have ties to administrations other than Clinton's. Besides that, the most key factor is that all of these appointees will be serving under a DIFFERENT leader with a strong mandate for change, equipped with favorable legislative bodies. Perhaps it would be wise to reserve judgment on ALL of this until AFTER they take office and actually start doing their jobs, ya think?
He disqualified himself from the position by his own testimony.... sm
Didn't he? Or was that someone else talking?
Who can believe anything this guy says?
Any republican in his position would be run out of Washington.
Extremely poor judgment from President Obama on this one.
Had dog catcher been an elected position
I'm sure she would have run for it. Well, she's ''moved on up to the big house'' now. She is a co-sponsor of Card Check and a real party hack. This is my representative. Abandon all hope!
Excuse me....the Presidency is an executive position...
Palin is the only one of the four who has executive appearance. She is as ready to lead right now as Obama is. Obama has zero international experience other than one trip to talk to the Germans in a political speech.
And I would think the fact that your #1 has less experience than McCain's #2 you would stay away from the experience thing...?
He picked her because she shares his ideals..wants change in washington. Obama wants that too. McCain picked a REAL Washington outsider. Obama didn't. Soooo..they are saying some of the same things Obama is saying, but when Obama says it is good, when they say it, it is bad?
Hello President McCain, and VP Palin!
Wow, is this the type of person we want in a position of power? (nm)
xx
And where is that written, if you are conducting the job or position for which you ran with integrit
where is it written that you give away your right to privacy? Are you kidding? I am so sick of the media mentality that just because someone has chosen a profession, such as politics, acting, the arts, etc., that EVERYTHING is fair game, you can never have a private moment in your entire life (or term), you may be hunted, haunted, treated like an animal in a zoo.....yes, you are a public figure, but still a human being with rights, and that means a right to privacy. To think otherwise is mercenary, cold, and totally out of touch with humanity. Actors play parts to entertain us, give us pleasure, help us escape, but they can never ever escape the papparazzi at any time, when off camera??? What a cruel and voyeuristic society we have become!!!!
She has 12 months in an executive position, actually running a government...
Obama does not. She is going to be 2nd chair, not 1st. If either of them is going to be training on the job, better it be 2nd chair. She also served as mayor, which is also executive work. She has more experience to be President now (and that is not the position she is running for) than he does. Just fact, based entirely on experience. And the only reason I posted that at all is that is the first criticism of her that surfaced here. Personally, with Obama's limited experience going into the first chair, not the second chair...I would think his campaign and his followers would want the conversation to avoid that...that make an issue of it. Just an observation.
Her position was not eliminated - it says she is on unpaid leave of absence. nm
x
I have seen some bullying get out of hand first hand
during the same grocery strikes that I referred to in the very small town where I grew up. Scabs were beat up and such. I am not saying it's the norm, but there can be tremendous pressure to vote one way or another--as can be seen right here.
|
