(08-18-2009 02:43 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  JustAnotherAustinOwl is right in some extent. We don't have civil debate. We have a pissing contest between the two sides. Neither side is allowing for civil debate. However, when has this ever been different from the norm in the last decade? You either pick one or the other. There is no compromise. If we could find middle ground on stuff any more, we could fix a hell of a lot of our problems (health care, energy policy to name a couple). But, nope. It is either my way or the highway for either side. And that's why this country is where it is.

Yes, but one side is bringing guns to the debate. One side has a body count.

(08-18-2009 03:03 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 02:30 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  You realize your fear of the most extreme fringe is no different or less paranoid (fearing you'd get shot for showing up somewhere), than the fear that conservatives have over the fringe of the left?

What a load of BS. Armed people screaming about "bloodshed", calling people traitors, telling them they'll have to stand before god, etc. is threatening behavior.

Sane, rational people don't need to bring guns to a public policy debate.

If this is the extreme fringe, why are Republicans in congress not condemning them, even when put on the spot on television? Because it's not the fringe, it's the base.

Right, because the Dems in Congress condemn their fringe....guess it is hard for Pelosi to because she is basically out in the fringe.

edit: Question about your post right before this one, body count?

(08-18-2009 03:04 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  edit: Question about your post right before this one, body count?

Dead abortion doctor, dead policeman in pittsburgh, dead churchgoers at a "liberal" church in TN, two dead Dem officials during the campaign, etc.

Are those killers the fringe? Yes. But the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and Savages of the world share part of the blame.

And given those events I think it's rational to be scared of people who hear "debate about health care policy" and think "I should bring my assault rifle".

(08-18-2009 03:19 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  And given those events I think it's rational to be scared of people who hear "debate about health care policy" and think "I should bring my assault rifle".

Are you sure they were there to "debate"? Seems to me they were there just to protest. You don't have to debate to protest. You just have to be there and be loud.

(08-18-2009 03:22 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  Are you sure they were there to "debate"? Seems to me they were there just to protest. You don't have to debate to protest. You just have to be there and be loud.

You are right. They are there to threaten, intimidate, and shut down debate. Why else bring a gun?

(08-18-2009 02:31 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 02:07 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I don't own a gun, but I don't presume that the mere presence of a gun would preclude civil debate. To some extent, I would hope that it would guarantee it.

wut?

I have been to poker games that had guns on the table, and many others where I knew that some players had guns either on their person or in their cars.

I have been to poker games that had people being rude to each other, agruing with each other and that eventually erupted in violence.

They were not the same games. Sometimes the presence of firearms restains people from extreme behavior. I think this is what Rick meant.

As for me, I would prefer that no firearms would be taken to a town hall meeting. If they are, i hope they are in the possesion of people licensed to carry them. I would worry more about any firearms in the possesion of Acorn/SEIU members.

(08-18-2009 03:26 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 03:22 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  Are you sure they were there to "debate"? Seems to me they were there just to protest. You don't have to debate to protest. You just have to be there and be loud.

You are right. They are there to threaten, intimidate, and shut down debate. Why else bring a gun?

Did they keep people from going inside to debate? If I remember correctly, they left those "armed" people outside. Do you have any proof they shut down debate? Pretty sure security wouldn't let them do that.

Look, we are never going to agree. I think it was stupid, but I wish you wouldn't paint all of us conservatives in that light. As I said, we have a pretty damn good argument going on here about the issues and not the name calling.

(08-18-2009 03:26 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 03:22 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  Are you sure they were there to "debate"? Seems to me they were there just to protest. You don't have to debate to protest. You just have to be there and be loud.

You are right. They are there to threaten, intimidate, and shut down debate. Why else bring a gun?

Speaking for myself, I would feel better about "debating" some of the supporters of the "reform" if i had some means of defending myself. As it is, I would be afraid to go a town hall meeting if some of the organizations supporting Obamacare were going to be there. Their "support" is just as dangerous and disruptive as the opposition, if not more.

This is painted as good vs. evil, and my side is the evil side, i guess. I don't know why passionate opposition is bad, but passionate support is fine.

I don't think the dems would be happy to enact the French system, but since that will not happen, it will just have to remain MHO.

(08-18-2009 03:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  This is painted as good vs. evil, and my side is the evil side, i guess. I don't know why passionate opposition is bad, but passionate support is fine.

Passionate opposition is OK; lies ("death panels" etc.), intimidation, death threats and guns are not.

(08-18-2009 03:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't think the dems would be happy to enact the French system, but since that will not happen, it will just have to remain MHO.

Why's that? Just curious.

(08-18-2009 03:55 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 03:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  This is painted as good vs. evil, and my side is the evil side, i guess. I don't know why passionate opposition is bad, but passionate support is fine.

Passionate opposition is OK; lies ("death panels" etc.), intimidation, death threats and guns are not.

One reason we, the opposition, are so passionate, is that we think think we are being lied to, lied about, and intimidated. As for the death threats and guns, isolated instances should not be used to color the entire movement. I am sure that things can be found about supporters, like the assault on the black protester in St. Louis. Would you characterize all Obama supporters as beating up people because it happened once? If not, why go the reverse and characterize all opposition as gun-toting death threatening liars? Most of us are just everyday people who don't like being rushed, hushed, and pushed around.

[/quote]

(08-18-2009 03:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't think the dems would be happy to enact the French system, but since that will not happen, it will just have to remain MHO.

Why's that? Just curious.
[/quote]

Because I think the Dems want what they have proposed. Nothing else. Look at the left wing reaction to the trial balloon of dropping the public option. I think compromise is not what they want, and adopting the French system would be a compromise. They see a two-year window to do what they want, thus the hurry and the demonization of those who feel railroaded.

Neither of us can "prove" that our opinions on this are correct unless the Republicans actually did make an offer to accept the French system, and that won't happen, but I think the last word we would hear from the Dems in a case like that is "deal".

Austin Owl,

I'm a supporter of the French system, which hardly puts me on the right-wing fringe on this issue. I would maintain that it puts me somewhere near the center, and I am not happy with the way either extreme is handling this.

From that persepective, I'm sorry, but your hyperbolic rants strike me as being as nutty as the birther stuff.

(08-18-2009 03:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 02:31 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 02:07 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I don't own a gun, but I don't presume that the mere presence of a gun would preclude civil debate. To some extent, I would hope that it would guarantee it.

wut?

I have been to poker games that had guns on the table, and many others where I knew that some players had guns either on their person or in their cars.

I have been to poker games that had people being rude to each other, agruing with each other and that eventually erupted in violence.

They were not the same games. Sometimes the presence of firearms restains people from extreme behavior. I think this is what Rick meant.

As for me, I would prefer that no firearms would be taken to a town hall meeting. If they are, i hope they are in the possesion of people licensed to carry them. I would worry more about any firearms in the possesion of Acorn/SEIU members.

thank you

(08-18-2009 11:09 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 03:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 02:31 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 02:07 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I don't own a gun, but I don't presume that the mere presence of a gun would preclude civil debate. To some extent, I would hope that it would guarantee it.

wut?

I have been to poker games that had guns on the table, and many others where I knew that some players had guns either on their person or in their cars.

I have been to poker games that had people being rude to each other, agruing with each other and that eventually erupted in violence.

They were not the same games. Sometimes the presence of firearms restains people from extreme behavior. I think this is what Rick meant.

As for me, I would prefer that no firearms would be taken to a town hall meeting. If they are, i hope they are in the possesion of people licensed to carry them. I would worry more about any firearms in the possesion of Acorn/SEIU members.

thank you

Why are you worried about Acorn members with guns? Does the second amendment only apply to those that you agree with? Am I to understand that it is not the presence of guns that you feel would help civilize the debate, but rather the presence of guns held by the people you agree with? If a group of Black Panthers showed up at these protests armed with assault rifles, would Republicans feel that it helped keep the debate civil, or would they, like Reagan did in California in the 60's, support and sign a bill making such previously legal behavior, illegal.

In my opinion, the angry shouting by both sides, the Hitler posters and the threats, don't add much of anything to the debate. However, I would hope that we could all agree that persons showing up around town hall meetings with assault rifles does not help the discussion on what are very hot button topics. Showing up with a gun, in my opinion, is done for one reason and one reason only - intimidation (actually 2 reasons I guess, as it appears that one of the gun toters was sent as a radio prank). I don't remember the Republicans talking in terms of ensuring civilized discourse when the armed black panthers showed up at the polls in November to "ensure" voting rights were not being violated. In fact, they railed against it as an intimidation tactic, despite the fact that it was perfectly legal. For the record, I thought these actions were ridiculous and counter productive. I wouldn't propose to try to stop anybody from acting within the law, but, again, I would hope that people from both sides could agree that it is not adding positively to the discourse.

Let me add that I, in no way, believe that the actions of these people represent all of Republicans. I am a Democrat that has lived my entire life in Texas and support and vote for Republicans all the time. To use a worn out phrase, "hell, most of my best friends are Republican." What disappoints me, is not that I think it is representative of all Republicans, but rather the fact that many, many Republicans (elected officials, conservative media, and the general public) are not distancing from it, and in fact seem to be embracing it, celebrating it, and finding excuses for it. I know, I know, not the first time for either party, but disappointing none the less.

While I think this board is pretty good about disagreeing without being disagreeable, I do think, at times, some posters can come off as someone who just can't believe that someone who believes differently could be so damn stupid. I would hope that we could all agree that no matter how smart we think we are, there is always someone smarter on the other side who feels as strongly for the issue/policy/etc. as you do against it. And that should be enough to keep the debate civil and not dismissive.

Thanks FDub Owl. You've done a much better and more constructive job of saying what I was trying to say than I have.

My point is a somewhat different one.

I think the democrats were caught completely off guard. Their first plan was to pass this before the August recess, before the people had a chance to opine, because they certainly know what the stupid people need, much better than the people themselves. When that failed, and we are indeed fortunate that it did, they sent their congresspersons back to the hinterlands with the objective of ramming this thing down people's throats, and a list of talking points that were supposed to accomplish that. When instead of docile submission they encountered people who were genuinely unhappy, their next step was to try to marginalize things--astroturf, bought off by the insurance companies, lies, carrying swastikas and guns, nut cases who are going to kill someone, etc. By ratcheting up the hyperbole, they are doing two things:
1. Adding to the feelings of disenfranchisement among a large number of people who genuinely believe this is a bad idea.
2. And this is the scary one, increasing the likelihood that some true nut case out there will get the idea that, hey, this is going on, let me join in and see who I can kill.

This has been a jam-it-down-their-throats agenda from day one. If the democrats want to turn the volume down, all they have to do is really try to engage people. I've seen most of the youtube stuff, and I've really not seen much of an effort by the various politicians to let people have their say; it's been much more about stifling dissent. And that's the surest way to enflame passions even more.

I've represented a number of clients in proceedings before a particular regulatory agency whose procedures specifically provide for beginning a hearing with an off-the-record gripe and moan session, where I always insist that my clients sit quietly and listen. In the vast majority of cases, once the other side feels that they've had a fair chance to be heard, without my clients trying to stifle them, their settlement demands become reasonable and we can usually effect a negotiated settlement.

The democrats say our healthcare system has failed and therefore we have to have Obamacare immediately (or at least as soon as they can figure out what that is). The republicans reply, no our system is great, we just need a few tweaks. The truth lies somewhere in between. The system has not failed but it has some real problems. There are ways to address those problems, but if the experience of the rest of the world is any indication, the various iterations of Obamacare to date will create more problems than they will solve. As long as partisan hyperbole is the order of the day, we won't get to any of those better solutions.

(08-19-2009 11:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  their next step was to try to marginalize things--astroturf, bought off by the insurance companies, lies, carrying swastikas and guns, nut cases who are going to kill someone, etc. By ratcheting up the hyperbole,

I guess here's where we disagree. I would argue that it's people carrying guns and swastikas, carrying pictures of Obama as Hitler who are ratcheting the hyberbole, not those complaining about it. And before you complain about generalizing from a few nutcases, let's remember Rush Limbaugh is comparing Obama to the Nazis, Palin is saying Obama wants to kill her baby, and Sen. Grassley is saying Obama "wants to pull the plug on Grandma". Are Republicans allowed to say crazy #$%* with impunity, but pointing out that it's crazy is "hyperbole"?

And those aren't necessarily representative of the Republican party that I'd be willing to support (which is the direction I lean in elections, though not always). I find much of it stupid and counter-productive. But do you really think that people wouldn't be vociferously questioning things if the rabblerousers weren't going at it?

But then again, something needs to be done about Social Security. Bush tried proposing something - probably equally radical in its own way. Instead, it died a very public death, though without the spectacle of these town halls. But these tactics of opposition and demagoguing seem familiar to me in a lot of ways. It's actually what I expected the Republicans to essentially do to health care over the summer.

I guess I'm waiting for a third way. And in general, how the current legislation is written, I oppose it. I'm with 69 - something needs to be done. This ain't it.

(08-19-2009 11:44 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-19-2009 11:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  their next step was to try to marginalize things--astroturf, bought off by the insurance companies, lies, carrying swastikas and guns, nut cases who are going to kill someone, etc. By ratcheting up the hyperbole,

I guess here's where we disagree. I would argue that it's people carrying guns and swastikas, carrying pictures of Obama as Hitler who are ratcheting the hyberbole, not those complaining about it. And before you complain about generalizing from a few nutcases, let's remember Rush Limbaugh is comparing Obama to the Nazis, Palin is saying Obama wants to kill her baby, and Sen. Grassley is saying Obama "wants to pull the plug on Grandma". Are Republicans allowed to say crazy #$%* with impunity, but pointing out that it's crazy is "hyperbole"?

I would say that both sides are engaging in hyperbole. Unlike you, I'm not willing to give either side a pass simply because I agree with them. That may be easier for me because I don't really agree with either side.

Let me put it to you this way. I'm not carrying guns and swastikas, I'm not carrying a picture of Obama as Hitler, and for that matter I have said from the start of the whole birther thing that it was stupid because even if he was born in Kenya he's still a natural-born citizen. I haven't been bought off by any insurance company, nor have I received any astroturf literature. You can't marginalize me as belonging to any of the wacko groups. I oppose Obamacare, in any of the forms I have seen so far, because I believe it will do far more harm than good. I have even made it clear what specific approach I support, based generally upon what is considered the best health care system in the world, so you cannot marginalize me as just saying no.

Do you really believe that Obama or Reid or Pelosi or Frank is interested in having a serious, frank discussion with me about this issue? Any republican? You?

(08-19-2009 10:10 AM)FDub Owl Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 11:09 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 03:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 02:31 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 02:07 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I don't own a gun, but I don't presume that the mere presence of a gun would preclude civil debate. To some extent, I would hope that it would guarantee it.

wut?

I have been to poker games that had guns on the table, and many others where I knew that some players had guns either on their person or in their cars.

I have been to poker games that had people being rude to each other, agruing with each other and that eventually erupted in violence.

They were not the same games. Sometimes the presence of firearms restains people from extreme behavior. I think this is what Rick meant.

As for me, I would prefer that no firearms would be taken to a town hall meeting. If they are, i hope they are in the possesion of people licensed to carry them. I would worry more about any firearms in the possesion of Acorn/SEIU members.

thank you

Why are you worried about Acorn members with guns? Does the second amendment only apply to those that you agree with? Am I to understand that it is not the presence of guns that you feel would help civilize the debate, but rather the presence of guns held by the people you agree with? If a group of Black Panthers showed up at these protests armed with assault rifles, would Republicans feel that it helped keep the debate civil, or would they, like Reagan did in California in the 60's, support and sign a bill making such previously legal behavior, illegal.

In my opinion, the angry shouting by both sides, the Hitler posters and the threats, don't add much of anything to the debate. However, I would hope that we could all agree that persons showing up around town hall meetings with assault rifles does not help the discussion on what are very hot button topics. Showing up with a gun, in my opinion, is done for one reason and one reason only - intimidation (actually 2 reasons I guess, as it appears that one of the gun toters was sent as a radio prank). I don't remember the Republicans talking in terms of ensuring civilized discourse when the armed black panthers showed up at the polls in November to "ensure" voting rights were not being violated. In fact, they railed against it as an intimidation tactic, despite the fact that it was perfectly legal. For the record, I thought these actions were ridiculous and counter productive. I wouldn't propose to try to stop anybody from acting within the law, but, again, I would hope that people from both sides could agree that it is not adding positively to the discourse.

Let me add that I, in no way, believe that the actions of these people represent all of Republicans. I am a Democrat that has lived my entire life in Texas and support and vote for Republicans all the time. To use a worn out phrase, "hell, most of my best friends are Republican." What disappoints me, is not that I think it is representative of all Republicans, but rather the fact that many, many Republicans (elected officials, conservative media, and the general public) are not distancing from it, and in fact seem to be embracing it, celebrating it, and finding excuses for it. I know, I know, not the first time for either party, but disappointing none the less.

While I think this board is pretty good about disagreeing without being disagreeable, I do think, at times, some posters can come off as someone who just can't believe that someone who believes differently could be so damn stupid. I would hope that we could all agree that no matter how smart we think we are, there is always someone smarter on the other side who feels as strongly for the issue/policy/etc. as you do against it. And that should be enough to keep the debate civil and not dismissive.

I assume you were responding to Optimistic, not I, as I have not brought up ACORN.

As far as your last paragraph, I think the hyperbole thrown around on this thread was not initiated by Optimistic, who I believe has tried to couch almost all of his posts with qualifiers. Qualifiers that were absent in some of the posts to which he has been responding, I might add. Off hand, I don't recall any of Optimistic's posts being either dismissive (i.e., "your thinking is so different there's no point in discussing, etc") or absolute.

That portion of your post may not have been intended for either Optimistic (or me), so if that's the case, no need to respond.

(08-19-2009 10:10 AM)FDub Owl Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 11:09 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 03:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 02:31 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 02:07 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I don't own a gun, but I don't presume that the mere presence of a gun would preclude civil debate. To some extent, I would hope that it would guarantee it.

wut?

I have been to poker games that had guns on the table, and many others where I knew that some players had guns either on their person or in their cars.

I have been to poker games that had people being rude to each other, agruing with each other and that eventually erupted in violence.

They were not the same games. Sometimes the presence of firearms restains people from extreme behavior. I think this is what Rick meant.

As for me, I would prefer that no firearms would be taken to a town hall meeting. If they are, i hope they are in the possesion of people licensed to carry them. I would worry more about any firearms in the possesion of Acorn/SEIU members.

thank you

Why are you worried about Acorn members with guns? Does the second amendment only apply to those that you agree with? Am I to understand that it is not the presence of guns that you feel would help civilize the debate, but rather the presence of guns held by the people you agree with? If a group of Black Panthers showed up at these protests armed with assault rifles, would Republicans feel that it helped keep the debate civil, or would they, like Reagan did in California in the 60's, support and sign a bill making such previously legal behavior, illegal.

In my opinion, the angry shouting by both sides, the Hitler posters and the threats, don't add much of anything to the debate. However, I would hope that we could all agree that persons showing up around town hall meetings with assault rifles does not help the discussion on what are very hot button topics. Showing up with a gun, in my opinion, is done for one reason and one reason only - intimidation (actually 2 reasons I guess, as it appears that one of the gun toters was sent as a radio prank). I don't remember the Republicans talking in terms of ensuring civilized discourse when the armed black panthers showed up at the polls in November to "ensure" voting rights were not being violated. In fact, they railed against it as an intimidation tactic, despite the fact that it was perfectly legal. For the record, I thought these actions were ridiculous and counter productive. I wouldn't propose to try to stop anybody from acting within the law, but, again, I would hope that people from both sides could agree that it is not adding positively to the discourse.

Let me add that I, in no way, believe that the actions of these people represent all of Republicans. I am a Democrat that has lived my entire life in Texas and support and vote for Republicans all the time. To use a worn out phrase, "hell, most of my best friends are Republican." What disappoints me, is not that I think it is representative of all Republicans, but rather the fact that many, many Republicans (elected officials, conservative media, and the general public) are not distancing from it, and in fact seem to be embracing it, celebrating it, and finding excuses for it. I know, I know, not the first time for either party, but disappointing none the less.

While I think this board is pretty good about disagreeing without being disagreeable, I do think, at times, some posters can come off as someone who just can't believe that someone who believes differently could be so damn stupid. I would hope that we could all agree that no matter how smart we think we are, there is always someone smarter on the other side who feels as strongly for the issue/policy/etc. as you do against it. And that should be enough to keep the debate civil and not dismissive.

First, I said would be MORE worried about ACORN members with guns. FTR, I am also MORE scared of ACORN/SEIU protesters without guns. Their vehemance for their side/against opposition is scary to me.
Second, I said I would prefer no firearms be taken to a town hall meeting. This statement was NOT abridged to say that I wanted only one side to have guns, and any reading of that that leads you to that conclusion springs from your own mind.
Third, I said that if guns are taken to these meetings I hope they would be carried by those licensed to do so, and once again, I did not limit this to one side (or the other), and any reading that that is what I meant once again springs from your own mind.
Fourth, i never advocated the bringing of assault rifles. Once again.. but maybe you get the picture.
Fifth, I said nothing of the Black Panthers. I hope this was not thrown in to make me a racist, (I really don't think it was, but why bring race into this at all?) but if so, it is not the first time that the Pro-healthcare advocates has tried to make it out that opponents are just a bunch of racists.
Sixth, my statement was that "sometimes the presence of firearms restains people from extreme behavior. A: "Sometimes" B: I gave examples from my own experience to support this. Where is my error?

I know people that have concealed carry permits, and when i meet them for coffee at a restaurant, the gun is not there for intimidation - it is there for self-protection and because it is always there. Once again, your interpretation of why a gun would be there comes from...you guessed it. You opinion is yours, and that is fine, but I can disagree and have disagreed, and that is my right, too. I don't think that you are one of those you mention who believes that someone who disagrees with you must be damn stupid, but I disagree, so draw your own conclusions.

I hope the "some posters" does not refer to me. If it does, let's meet for coffee and talk this out. (I live in your area). I don't have a CC permit and won't bring a gun, if that has you worried. If you have a CC permit, feel free to bring yours.

I agree that a lot things don't help the debate. Besides the things you listed, I would include statements about "undereducated" people, people who "just can't stand that a black man is in the White House", Astroturf, swastikas, and other demeaning statements. Unfortunately, many of these are coming from Pelosi, Maddow, Oberman, and top Obama officials and elected Democrats. Any statement that demonizes one side and angelicizes the other is very likely wrong. But that is what we are getting. The country is more polarized than i can remember since the 60's.