My Give-a-little get-a-little thread

[PatsFanInVa]

I have problems with a lot of what "the other guys" are saying, doing, thinking, etc. especially on the health care issue right now.

But I am willing to admit it has pissed me off enough to where I've been embracing positions I would not, when the shoe is on the other proverbial foot.

We've all got a laundry list of things we think the other guys have wrong, do wrong, did wrong, etc.

Then we [should] all have things where we can say "okay you have a point."

Anybody who wants to kick them in feel free. Here are mine, on health care:

HEY RIGHT WINGERS YOU HAVE A POINT

- "Astroturf" is a clever and fun term, meaning an effort isn't really grass-roots, because it's encouraged and funded by industry... BUT I have no reason that looks the same TO YOU as to why outreach on one side is different from outreach on the other. The people directed supplied and instigated by industry and the likes of Beck and Limbaugh are legitimately angry. I disagree w/their tactics, and the source of their anger, and the depth of their knowledge, etc., but stipulate that you'd disagree with same were the shoe on the other foot.

So for me, right wingers, you have a point: "Astroturf" means one thing if I'm an old ex-activist on my side, talking to my side, and there's no reason you should "get" that.

As has been demonstrated the fact that these protests are orchestrated by the demogogues and lobbyists does not mean that the "grass roots" of "the other side" aren't sincere in their reactions.

- Dissent is patriotic: Hey right wingers, you have a point - dissent is patriotic. The stronger one's point, the more patriotic it is, of course; and when the point of dissent is destruction of the union itself, it is difficult to see where the patriotic part comes in (that is not, yet, the point of the health protests.) I will say that the form of that dissent, to me, seems antithetical to the premise that "nobody knows what's in this bill" ("...and if you try to tell them I'll chant over you...") But you cannot dictate the form of another's protest. You can kick them out of the meeting, and it will go on TV, etc.... but do they have the right to protest? Sure. Just be willing to do the time if you break the law (such as becomming violent,) or present a clear and present danger (for example, bringing a gun with you to see the president.) So far I'm not seeing arrests... that's interesting to me, but I think it's coming.

However all that said, HEY RIGHT WINGERS YOU HAVE A POINT -- dissent is patriotic. You have the right to protest; you don't have the right to be taken seriously. So the content of your actions and your "arguments" may ultimately have to improve... but that's not the same as saying "hey you can't do that!"

- Cost savings in the health care bills we're currently discussing may or may not make the bills revenue-neutral; my money -- surprise surprise, just like your money -- is on NOT. CBO says a couple hundred billion over 10 years... The administration says revenue-neutral. Hysteric bloggers and posters say a trillion, because trillion is the new billion nowadays. I say CBO is probably overstating the cost, and Obama is probably understating it and being optimistic. Time will tell.

So, HEY right-wingers, you have a point: I bet there will be a bill for this one way or another. I never trust something-for-nothing. If we get it it would be a nice surprise... but it would be one.

I'd like to think I'd see some reciprocation here. I know it's more likely I'll get excoriation for saying, hey, these are the things you guys are something like right about... drag up a few old posts where my posts were zealously partisan, you know the drill.

Well, if I've been zealous in other posts, I will say here right off the bat, positions change, people change, blah blah blah. I will say I've started to see in my own responses to what I see as the more ridiculous nuisance actions on the right, the attitudes I so abhored from the various Republican regimes.

Keep guns away from the president, and yes, you have the right to protest, up to the various local laws... to the extent it makes debate impossible, well, applicable laws apply. Do I care if you're busted for that? Nahhhh, because the debate's important too. (That's where your right to speak bumps up against everybody else's rights of speech and assembly.... "back in the day," all those who had any protesting or organizing in their pasts accepted such risks... so do you guys when you protest. Goes w/the territory.)

And that's what I've got for the night.

Anybody else want to acknowledge that our dug-in positions are by nature distortions... or should we just go back to the sh1t-slinging?

Up to you guys,

PFnV

[tanked_as_usual]

'scuse me......I fahhted

[PatsFanInVa]

I have to say, you post responses of a consistent level of quality and thoughtfulness, Tanked. Your input, as always, is appreciated.

[Fogbuster]

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

I have problems with a lot of what "the other guys" are saying, doing, thinking, etc. especially on the health care issue right now.

But I am willing to admit it has pissed me off enough to where I've been embracing positions I would not, when the shoe is on the other proverbial foot.

We've all got a laundry list of things we think the other guys have wrong, do wrong, did wrong, etc.

Then we [should] all have things where we can say "okay you have a point."

Anybody who wants to kick them in feel free. Here are mine, on health care:

HEY RIGHT WINGERS YOU HAVE A POINT

- "Astroturf" is a clever and fun term, meaning an effort isn't really grass-roots, because it's encouraged and funded by industry... BUT I have no reason that looks the same TO YOU as to why outreach on one side is different from outreach on the other. The people directed supplied and instigated by industry and the likes of Beck and Limbaugh are legitimately angry. I disagree w/their tactics, and the source of their anger, and the depth of their knowledge, etc., but stipulate that you'd disagree with same were the shoe on the other foot.

So for me, right wingers, you have a point: "Astroturf" means one thing if I'm an old ex-activist on my side, talking to my side, and there's no reason you should "get" that.

As has been demonstrated the fact that these protests are orchestrated by the demogogues and lobbyists does not mean that the "grass roots" of "the other side" aren't sincere in their reactions.

- Dissent is patriotic: Hey right wingers, you have a point - dissent is patriotic. The stronger one's point, the more patriotic it is, of course; and when the point of dissent is destruction of the union itself, it is difficult to see where the patriotic part comes in (that is not, yet, the point of the health protests.) I will say that the form of that dissent, to me, seems antithetical to the premise that "nobody knows what's in this bill" ("...and if you try to tell them I'll chant over you...") But you cannot dictate the form of another's protest. You can kick them out of the meeting, and it will go on TV, etc.... but do they have the right to protest? Sure. Just be willing to do the time if you break the law (such as becomming violent,) or present a clear and present danger (for example, bringing a gun with you to see the president.) So far I'm not seeing arrests... that's interesting to me, but I think it's coming.

However all that said, HEY RIGHT WINGERS YOU HAVE A POINT -- dissent is patriotic. You have the right to protest; you don't have the right to be taken seriously. So the content of your actions and your "arguments" may ultimately have to improve... but that's not the same as saying "hey you can't do that!"

- Cost savings in the health care bills we're currently discussing may or may not make the bills revenue-neutral; my money -- surprise surprise, just like your money -- is on NOT. CBO says a couple hundred billion over 10 years... The administration says revenue-neutral. Hysteric bloggers and posters say a trillion, because trillion is the new billion nowadays. I say CBO is probably overstating the cost, and Obama is probably understating it and being optimistic. Time will tell.

So, HEY right-wingers, you have a point: I bet there will be a bill for this one way or another. I never trust something-for-nothing. If we get it it would be a nice surprise... but it would be one.

I'd like to think I'd see some reciprocation here. I know it's more likely I'll get excoriation for saying, hey, these are the things you guys are something like right about... drag up a few old posts where my posts were zealously partisan, you know the drill.

Well, if I've been zealous in other posts, I will say here right off the bat, positions change, people change, blah blah blah. I will say I've started to see in my own responses to what I see as the more ridiculous nuisance actions on the right, the attitudes I so abhored from the various Republican regimes.

Keep guns away from the president, and yes, you have the right to protest, up to the various local laws... to the extent it makes debate impossible, well, applicable laws apply. Do I care if you're busted for that? Nahhhh, because the debate's important too. (That's where your right to speak bumps up against everybody else's rights of speech and assembly.... "back in the day," all those who had any protesting or organizing in their pasts accepted such risks... so do you guys when you protest. Goes w/the territory.)

And that's what I've got for the night.

Anybody else want to acknowledge that our dug-in positions are by nature distortions... or should we just go back to the sh1t-slinging?

Up to you guys,

PFnV

Why does it have to be only right-wing or left-wing?? Why can't we go where we have never gone before and choose the BEST way, one that is fair for ALL?? I think we can do that, and I think everybody is yearning for it, as well; don't believe I'm alone on this.

For example, there are good reasons to provide health care to all -- PROVIDED they are CONTRIBUTING to society in a constructive way; those who choose to opt out of constructive contribution need to throw themselves onto the mercy of those who do contribute; humility and gratitude are operative attitudes in such cases.

There are also good reasons to have medical care that continues to improve, supported by on-going research and testing to find ways to make life better, more healthy, more enjoyable for longer periods of time. As we have learned so much in the past 50 or so years, "life-style" habits contribute greatly toward long-term health, so these healthy habits need to be emphasized and rewarded, even as unhealthy habits need to be discouraged. After all, EVERYBODY is affected for the good or for the bad by each of our actions; none of us are "islands" separate unto our solitary selves, we all impact on each other.

And so forth.....



//

[DarrylS]

Originally Posted by Fogbuster

Why does it have to be only right-wing or left-wing?? Why can't we go where we have never gone before and choose the BEST way, one that is fair for ALL?? I think we can do that, and I think everybody is yearning for it, as well; don't believe I'm alone on this.
//

There was an initial effort at bipartisanship, however the spokesmen of the party.. Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, Chuck Norris and Hannity did not want it to go that way, the end result is this mess...

[PatsFanInVa]

So sin taxes on:

1) cigarettes
2) booze and
3) high calorie food,

are probably exactly the sorts of things that will discourage the behaviors (simultaneously helping support the system as a whole,) since big drinkers, smokers, and just plain lardasses cost us all money.

I can live with that even though I personally have to pay on two of the three above (hopefully I'll get it down to one of three in the near future.)

PFnV

[Fogbuster]

Originally Posted by DarrylS

There was an initial effort at bipartisanship, however the spokesmen of the party.. Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, Chuck Norris and Hannity did not want it to go that way, the end result is this mess...

Well, I don't think of any of the above as MY "spokesmen/women" for the Repub Party ..... just as I do not think the Olbermans, Maddows, Stewarts, and other far-out extremists of the Dem fold are "spokespersons" for that Party, either. Even Pelosi is where she is more from her seniority than from her views; I doubt if the Blue Dogs voted for her as Dem leader with much enthusiasm.


Anyhow, be that as it may, there is a need right now to reach beyond the historical polarizations and create a new sense of "we"-ness rather than "you"-ness or "they"-ness. The old paradigm of "left" and "right", Dem and Repub are really outdated and no longer beneficial, creates too much divisiveness, rancor, and bad blood. We need to get beyond all that junk.

I thought Obama might be headed in that direction, but he seems to have been hi-jacked by the hard left in the past 8 months, I'm sorry to say.


//

[DarrylS]

Originally Posted by Fogbuster

Well, I don't think of any of the above as MY "spokesmen/women" for the Repub Party ..... just as I do not think the Olbermans, Maddows, Stewarts, and other far-out extremists of the Dem fold are "spokespersons" for that Party, either. Even Pelosi is where she is more from her seniority than from her views; I doubt if the Blue Dogs voted for her as Dem leader with much enthusiasm.


Anyhow, be that as it may, there is a need right now to reach beyond the historical polarizations and create a new sense of "we"-ness rather than "you"-ness or "they"-ness. The old paradigm of "left" and "right", Dem and Repub are really outdated and no longer beneficial, creates too much divisiveness, rancor, and bad blood. We need to get beyond all that junk.

I thought Obama might be headed in that direction, but he seems to have been hi-jacked by the hard left in the past 8 months, I'm sorry to say.
//

You minimize the left wing media as something inneffective, and now endorse that they have a big say in all of this... the right wing own the airwaves, and there are tons of folks who ingest their rhetoric hook, line and sinker. See the death panel horse crap..

All this sounds warm and fuzzy, but have yet to see any effort at true bipartisanship.. it is becoming more and more apparent that the folks at these townhall are being set up as tools for the medical insurance people.. who do not want change.

[Fogbuster]

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

So sin taxes on:

1) cigarettes
2) booze and
3) high calorie food,

are probably exactly the sorts of things that will discourage the behaviors (simultaneously helping support the system as a whole,) since big drinkers, smokers, and just plain lardasses cost us all money.

I can live with that even though I personally have to pay on two of the three above (hopefully I'll get it down to one of three in the near future.)

PFnV

Sin taxes have been around for long time -- and I'm sure they do help in many instances -- but I'm thinking of some more proactive measures, like eliminating ALL advertising for bad behaviors, for one thing (tobacco, alcohol, over-eating, free sex ... I know I'll get hammered for that last one around here .... but anyway...) . Even all these ads for food, from McDonalds on through, ..... tell me they are not connected to the horrendous rise in obesity in America. Advertising is a very potent form of public education. Then, if the public and private school systems all joined in, I believe there would be a major improvement in people's behaviors, health, and community-ness.


//

[Fogbuster]

Originally Posted by DarrylS

You minimize the left wing media as something inneffective, and now endorse that they have a big say in all of this... the right wing own the airwaves, and there are tons of folks who ingest their rhetoric hook, line and sinker. See the death panel horse crap..

All this sounds warm and fuzzy, but have yet to see any effort at true bipartisanship.. it is becoming more and more apparent that the folks at these townhall are being set up as tools for the medical insurance people.. who do not want change.

Whoever said the left wing media -- I call it the "dominant media culture" -- have been "ineffective"???? I have never said that. Quite the opposite, in fact. I have consistently railed against the dmc for being lethally lax on morals and equally malfeasant in advocating abuse of tax-payers' sweat, tears, and blood.

Whatever you see in these town hall meetings can easily be turned around and said about ACORN, the ENORMOUS amount of bail-out money deficit and national debt we have incurred, and the other irresponsible practices by today's and former Congresses. Continuing the blame game only feeds the monster that is strangling America. Need to get off of that immediately if we are to move forward.

If the Dem health plan is really as good as Obama and its other advocates say it is, we need a national seminar to show us HOW and WHY that could be true. We need THE DETAILS of the plan spelled out so we can see the KEY POINTS, what's new, what will be unchanged (if anything), and how it will impact all Americans.

We need patient, detailed transparency by those who are advocating this shape-shifting change in America's health care, or there will continue to be growing opposition.... that could be even more divisive. Which I, for one, don't want. If this change is really going to be better than what we currently have, the advocates should be able to sell it without too much trouble, but they need to be willing to listen to the questions and answer them patiently and caringly; otherwise, it will be a crap-storm.


//