Brian wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:51:55 -0500, singhals <singh...@erols.com> > wrote:
>>As soon as 60% of the American public believes 0=32. Or, >>possibly, as soon as 51% of American politicians come to >>believe the American electorate isn't a collection of >>idiots. IOW: don't hold your bhreath.
>>Cheryl
> You are making unwarranted assumptions that because you think it would > be a good idea, those who disagree are idiots.
Speaking of unwarranted assumptions!!!
Don't hurt yourself leaping to conclusions, now, y'hear?
On Tuesday 26 January 2010 21:47, Wes Groleau (Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org) opined:
> singhals wrote: >> soon as 51% of American politicians come to believe the American >> electorate isn't a collection of idiots.
> On average, aren't we? After all, a majority of us elected _them_.
> -- > Wes Groleau
And it would appear that a goodly number are now suffering buyers' remorse. It would be true, whichever party, but I think a lot of people are now seeing that having one party so overwhelmingly in control of the "levers of power" is not a good thing.
Stubborn Ol' Bob
-- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke's 3d Law
> On Tuesday 26 January 2010 21:47, Wes Groleau (Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org) > opined:
>> singhals wrote: >>> soon as 51% of American politicians come to believe the American >>> electorate isn't a collection of idiots.
>> On average, aren't we? After all, a majority of us elected _them_.
>> -- >> Wes Groleau
> And it would appear that a goodly number are now suffering buyers' remorse. > It would be true, whichever party, but I think a lot of people are now > seeing that having one party so overwhelmingly in control of the "levers > of power" is not a good thing.
> Stubborn Ol' Bob
You bet. I would have never thought that 40 votes could allow a thoroughly-discredited party to still remain in effective control of the American government.
Democrats are such gutless losers -- stupid but aggressive Republicans roll right over them.
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:12:29 +0000 (UTC), "Dr. Brian Leverich" ><lever...@linkpendium.com> wrote:
>>Actually, right now in American politics there's a huge >>correlation between a particular political bent and folks >>who live in the moron-imbecile-idiot continuum.
>>The reason why it's worth pointing out that idiots are, >>in fact, idiots is not to persuade the idiots.
>>The definition of an idiot is an untrainable individual.
>>The point is make sure the mushy middle doesn't confuse >>noisy idiots for people who actually have something useful >>to say.
>>America would be a better, if somewhat less civil, place >>if people with brains and education pointed and laughed at >>the follies of the idiots rather than treating their idiocy >>as something that deserves "fair and balanced" attention.
>>Cheers, B.
> It would be so much better, wouldn't it, if those who are liberal were > just completely in charge of the country and didn't have to worry > about those pesky stupid people who don't agree?
> The cities where liberals are perpetually in power are such great > models for this utopian society. Doesn't Baltimore have one of the > best school systems in the country for example?
You ever looked at educational achievement in liberal bastions like Alabama?
You are an idiot. In the literal sense of the word.
###
Note that I'm a conservative, and don't have much use for liberals.
But I really wish the stupid people would get their Very Small Brains out of conservative politics.
Thank you for Iraq. Amazing all that WMD we found and the al Qaeda links, eh?
Thank you for bank deregulation. That worked out real good, didn't it?
Thank you for the $2 trillion tax giveaway to the rich. It really is terrible how underpaid and overtaxed New York bankers are.
Thank you for the prescription drug "benefit", which helps subsidize those poor suffering pharmaceutical companies.
And I loved how we inherited a balanced budget from a Democrat and proceeded to run up record-breaking deficits.
> On 2010-01-27, Bob Melson <amia9...@mypacks.net> wrote: >> On Tuesday 26 January 2010 21:47, Wes Groleau >> (Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org) opined:
>>> singhals wrote: >>>> soon as 51% of American politicians come to believe the American >>>> electorate isn't a collection of idiots.
>>> On average, aren't we? After all, a majority of us elected _them_.
>>> -- >>> Wes Groleau
>> And it would appear that a goodly number are now suffering buyers' >> remorse. It would be true, whichever party, but I think a lot of people >> are now seeing that having one party so overwhelmingly in control of the >> "levers of power" is not a good thing.
>> Stubborn Ol' Bob
> You bet. I would have never thought that 40 votes > could allow a thoroughly-discredited party to still > remain in effective control of the American government.
> Democrats are such gutless losers -- stupid but > aggressive Republicans roll right over them.
> Cheers, B.
Brian,
I know you SAY elsewhere that you're a conservative, but your tone and your comments certainly argue the contrary.
This is certainly NOT the place for a political discussion, and I will "cease and desist" after this final comment: the one party currently in control of the levers of powers is that whose symbol is the Jackass. They can, because of their majorities - and Scott Brown's election really makes little difference in the larger scheme of things - pass any legislation they wish. But, because of the unpopularity of some of that legislation and the underlying policies, the Dems are looking for the cover of a bipartisanship they really don't believe in and have poisoned over at least the past 15 or so years (at least since the '94 mid-terms and the GOP "Contract with America"). Are the Dumbo-Jumbo Repubs innocent victims? Of course not. They have, in fact, shown themselves unable to govern and did little or nothing noteworthy while they had control of the Congress - although that control was far less overwhelming than that the Dems have at present.
What we have, sadly, is a government that doesn't listen, representatives who don't represent, an establishment that we've permitted to become a self-anointed aristocracy, where, as Ronald Reagan famously said, the most terrifying phrase one can hear is "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." This isn't a new phenomenon and is not the exclusive fault of either party - it's the fault of the electorate for allowing it to happen at all, for not holding their elected officials to account.
Further deponent saith not.
Bob Melson
-- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke's 3d Law
> On Wednesday 27 January 2010 10:09, Dr. Brian Leverich > (lever...@linkpendium.com) opined:
>> On 2010-01-27, Bob Melson <amia9...@mypacks.net> wrote: >>> On Tuesday 26 January 2010 21:47, Wes Groleau >>> (Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org) opined:
>>>> singhals wrote: >>>>> soon as 51% of American politicians come to believe the American >>>>> electorate isn't a collection of idiots.
>>>> On average, aren't we? After all, a majority of us elected _them_.
>>>> -- >>>> Wes Groleau
>>> And it would appear that a goodly number are now suffering buyers' >>> remorse. It would be true, whichever party, but I think a lot of people >>> are now seeing that having one party so overwhelmingly in control of the >>> "levers of power" is not a good thing.
>>> Stubborn Ol' Bob
>> You bet. I would have never thought that 40 votes >> could allow a thoroughly-discredited party to still >> remain in effective control of the American government.
>> Democrats are such gutless losers -- stupid but >> aggressive Republicans roll right over them.
>> Cheers, B.
> Brian,
> I know you SAY elsewhere that you're a conservative, but your tone and your > comments certainly argue the contrary.
Bob -
I've been doing Republican campaigns since Goldwater, and have been a speechwriter and policy analyst for a number of Republican officeholders.
I have almost surely forgotten more than you've ever learned about being a conservative and a Republican.
And I am *really* tired of there being a presumption that being a drooling idiot is a required qualification for being a conservative or a Republican.
Moreover, in view of the fact that the idiot wing of the Party has pretty much managed to drive us into a ditch, it's probably time to stop being tolerant of idiots and to start pointing and laughing.
> On 2010-01-27, Bob Melson <amia9...@mypacks.net> wrote: >> On Wednesday 27 January 2010 10:09, Dr. Brian Leverich >> (lever...@linkpendium.com) opined:
>>> On 2010-01-27, Bob Melson <amia9...@mypacks.net> wrote: >>>> On Tuesday 26 January 2010 21:47, Wes Groleau >>>> (Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org) opined:
>>>>> singhals wrote: >>>>>> soon as 51% of American politicians come to believe the American >>>>>> electorate isn't a collection of idiots.
>>>>> On average, aren't we? After all, a majority of us elected _them_.
>>>>> -- >>>>> Wes Groleau
>>>> And it would appear that a goodly number are now suffering buyers' >>>> remorse. It would be true, whichever party, but I think a lot of >>>> people are now seeing that having one party so overwhelmingly in >>>> control of the "levers of power" is not a good thing.
>>>> Stubborn Ol' Bob
>>> You bet. I would have never thought that 40 votes >>> could allow a thoroughly-discredited party to still >>> remain in effective control of the American government.
>>> Democrats are such gutless losers -- stupid but >>> aggressive Republicans roll right over them.
>>> Cheers, B.
>> Brian,
>> I know you SAY elsewhere that you're a conservative, but your tone and >> your comments certainly argue the contrary.
> Bob -
> I've been doing Republican campaigns since Goldwater, > and have been a speechwriter and policy analyst for a > number of Republican officeholders.
> I have almost surely forgotten more than you've ever > learned about being a conservative and a Republican.
One of the Johnny-come-lately's, eh? Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, since Eisenhower days. Please, let's not indulge in upsmanship - it's a losing battle on both sides. I may not - but then, again, I may - be a Piled higher and Deeper, but I do take exception to being patronized.
> And I am *really* tired of there being a presumption > that being a drooling idiot is a required qualification > for being a conservative or a Republican.
Well, as what the liberal camp wants to style a knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, Neanderthal, I'm more than a little tired of the presumption that only _they_ know what's best for the rest of us. They've proved time and again that that just isn't true and I'm constantly amazed that people still buy into it. While it's true that the "press" has never been particularly fair or unbiased, it's also true that today's MSM has exceeded even those bounds and there's no doubt that that contributes to the informed ignorance we see.
> Moreover, in view of the fact that the idiot wing of > the Party has pretty much managed to drive us into a > ditch, it's probably time to stop being tolerant of > idiots and to start pointing and laughing.
The problem is, unfortunately, that what constitutes the idiot wing of the party is very much a matter of definition. I can remember being very much frightened by some of the Goldwater supporters I encountered, "back when", folks who wouldn't - or couldn't - accept that there were alternate and equally valid views of the issues of the day. Were _they_ the idiot wing of their day? Dunno, but a strong case could be made that they were and that they cost Goldwater the election. In today's climate, it's not so much the individual politicians that are harmful but the one-issue supporters that gather around them - the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons, if you will - who do the greatest damage. But are _they_ the idiot wing? Again, dunno. Or is it the division between what some call RINOs and "true" conservatives? If politics is the art of compromise, doesn't that imply there must be some degree of moderation in the party's approach? Or are the RINOs merely Jackasses in Elephant's clothing? You tell me, and tell me, as well, which of _them_ is the idiot wing of he GOP.
The sad fact of the matter is that, after 40-plus years in the wilderness, when they had a chance to govern and govern well, the GOP showed themselves incapable of doing so and demonstrated, as well, that they were not much different from the Democrats. Who's to blame? The party "leadership"? The one-issue interest groups? The "think tanks" and policy mavens? The electorate? IMNSHO, all of 'em.
Maybe, because both major parties have so badly discredited themselves, it's time for a real reform party to be created. But we said that in '92 and we said it in '64 and the same thing was no doubt said in the 20s and 30s and 40s. A new party would have to be fundamentally different from the major parties and from the other, lesser parties now out there "in the wild", different not only in what it says but in how it conducts itself and in its relationship with the voters.
And all that leaves us exactly were we were when this conversation started.
> Love, B.
Bob Melson
-- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke's 3d Law
> On Wednesday 27 January 2010 12:59, Dr. Brian Leverich > (lever...@askin-17.linkpendium.com) opined:
>> On 2010-01-27, Bob Melson <amia9...@mypacks.net> wrote: >>> On Wednesday 27 January 2010 10:09, Dr. Brian Leverich >>> (lever...@linkpendium.com) opined:
>>>> On 2010-01-27, Bob Melson <amia9...@mypacks.net> wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday 26 January 2010 21:47, Wes Groleau >>>>> (Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org) opined:
>>>>>> singhals wrote: >>>>>>> soon as 51% of American politicians come to believe the American >>>>>>> electorate isn't a collection of idiots.
>>>>>> On average, aren't we? After all, a majority of us elected _them_.
>>>>>> -- >>>>>> Wes Groleau
>>>>> And it would appear that a goodly number are now suffering buyers' >>>>> remorse. It would be true, whichever party, but I think a lot of >>>>> people are now seeing that having one party so overwhelmingly in >>>>> control of the "levers of power" is not a good thing.
>>>>> Stubborn Ol' Bob
>>>> You bet. I would have never thought that 40 votes >>>> could allow a thoroughly-discredited party to still >>>> remain in effective control of the American government.
>>>> Democrats are such gutless losers -- stupid but >>>> aggressive Republicans roll right over them.
>>>> Cheers, B.
>>> Brian,
>>> I know you SAY elsewhere that you're a conservative, but your tone and >>> your comments certainly argue the contrary.
>> Bob -
>> I've been doing Republican campaigns since Goldwater, >> and have been a speechwriter and policy analyst for a >> number of Republican officeholders.
>> I have almost surely forgotten more than you've ever >> learned about being a conservative and a Republican.
> One of the Johnny-come-lately's, eh? Been there, done that, got the > t-shirt, since Eisenhower days. Please, let's not indulge in upsmanship - > it's a losing battle on both sides. I may not - but then, again, I may - > be a Piled higher and Deeper, but I do take exception to being patronized.
I'm not patronizing you. I'm simply pointing out that I'm more competent than you in this area. Deal with it.
If you have a problem with that, let's do indulge in upmanship. Flop out your credentials, and I'll flop out mine. ;)
>> And I am *really* tired of there being a presumption >> that being a drooling idiot is a required qualification >> for being a conservative or a Republican.
> Well, as what the liberal camp wants to style a knuckle-dragging, > mouth-breathing, Neanderthal, I'm more than a little tired of the > presumption that only _they_ know what's best for the rest of us. They've > proved time and again that that just isn't true and I'm constantly amazed > that people still buy into it. While it's true that the "press" has never > been particularly fair or unbiased, it's also true that today's MSM has > exceeded even those bounds and there's no doubt that that contributes to > the informed ignorance we see.
I never much liked liberals for a variety of reasons.
They focus on the poor, the elderly, the ... While that's all well and good, it misses the larger issue that what overall economic progress (not trickle-down!) raises all boats and that the first concern of any sane society should be its children and productive workers.
They have no horsesense. People who are permanently poor are usually in that state because they aint no good. Giving them some money makes them people who aint no good with some money. If libs really wanted to help the poor, educating the kids is their best shot at it.
And they're gutless. They're smart enough to know teabaggers are, almost to the last individual, a bunch of drooling idiots and psychologically-disturbed nutcases, but far be it from a liberal to point out the very, very obvious if it might possibly cause the idiot or the nutcase some self-esteem issues.
>> Moreover, in view of the fact that the idiot wing of >> the Party has pretty much managed to drive us into a >> ditch, it's probably time to stop being tolerant of >> idiots and to start pointing and laughing.
> The problem is, unfortunately, that what constitutes the idiot wing of the > party is very much a matter of definition. I can remember being very much > frightened by some of the Goldwater supporters I encountered, "back when", > folks who wouldn't - or couldn't - accept that there were alternate and > equally valid views of the issues of the day. Were _they_ the idiot wing > of their day? Dunno, but a strong case could be made that they were and > that they cost Goldwater the election. In today's climate, it's not so > much the individual politicians that are harmful but the one-issue > supporters that gather around them - the Jerry Falwells and Pat > Robertsons, if you will - who do the greatest damage. But are _they_ the > idiot wing? Again, dunno. Or is it the division between what some call > RINOs and "true" conservatives? If politics is the art of compromise, > doesn't that imply there must be some degree of moderation in the party's > approach? Or are the RINOs merely Jackasses in Elephant's clothing? You > tell me, and tell me, as well, which of _them_ is the idiot wing of he > GOP.
I'm kinda uncomfortable with the whole "alternate and equally valid" thing, because there only is one reality.
There weren't any WMD. The planet is getting warmer. Bank deregulation is a bad idea. The universe is about 14 billion years old. There's no "alternate and equally valid" bit to any of those things.
There *are* different value systems: some folks are altruistic, some are selfish, and maybe those value systems are alternate and equally valid. (Though even there, Charlie Manson's value system just can't be "alternate and equally valid" or I have no idea what anything in life means ... )
Unfortunately, you hear a lot of people premising arguments on things that are factually wrong, rather than just flopping out "I'm concerned health care reform might affect my Medicare, and I'm willing to have other people die of treatable illnesses to avoid risking an impact on an entitlement I value."
> The sad fact of the matter is that, after 40-plus years in the wilderness, > when they had a chance to govern and govern well, the GOP showed > themselves incapable of doing so and demonstrated, as well, that they were > not much different from the Democrats. Who's to blame? The > party "leadership"? The one-issue interest groups? The "think tanks" and > policy mavens? The electorate? IMNSHO, all of 'em.
> Maybe, because both major parties have so badly discredited themselves, > it's time for a real reform party to be created. But we said that in '92 > and we said it in '64 and the same thing was no doubt said in the 20s and > 30s and 40s. A new party would have to be fundamentally different from > the major parties and from the other, lesser parties now out there "in the > wild", different not only in what it says but in how it conducts itself > and in its relationship with the voters.
> And all that leaves us exactly were we were when this conversation started.
I'm not sure a reform party is needed.
The Republican Party is a perfectly good vehicle, but the idiot wing needs to wake up and realize they've been being played for fools by the wealthy and the corporations.
<lever...@linkpendium.com> wrote: >On 2010-01-27, Brian <drmorrisnos...@comcast.net> wrote: >> On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:12:29 +0000 (UTC), "Dr. Brian Leverich" >><lever...@linkpendium.com> wrote:
>>>Actually, right now in American politics there's a huge >>>correlation between a particular political bent and folks >>>who live in the moron-imbecile-idiot continuum.
>>>The reason why it's worth pointing out that idiots are, >>>in fact, idiots is not to persuade the idiots.
>>>The definition of an idiot is an untrainable individual.
>>>The point is make sure the mushy middle doesn't confuse >>>noisy idiots for people who actually have something useful >>>to say.
>>>America would be a better, if somewhat less civil, place >>>if people with brains and education pointed and laughed at >>>the follies of the idiots rather than treating their idiocy >>>as something that deserves "fair and balanced" attention.
>>>Cheers, B.
>> It would be so much better, wouldn't it, if those who are liberal were >> just completely in charge of the country and didn't have to worry >> about those pesky stupid people who don't agree?
>> The cities where liberals are perpetually in power are such great >> models for this utopian society. Doesn't Baltimore have one of the >> best school systems in the country for example?
>You ever looked at educational achievement in liberal >bastions like Alabama?
>You are an idiot. In the literal sense of the word.
> On 2010-01-27, Bob Melson <amia9...@mypacks.net> wrote: >> On Wednesday 27 January 2010 12:59, Dr. Brian Leverich >> (lever...@askin-17.linkpendium.com) opined:
>>> On 2010-01-27, Bob Melson <amia9...@mypacks.net> wrote: >>>> On Wednesday 27 January 2010 10:09, Dr. Brian Leverich >>>> (lever...@linkpendium.com) opined:
>>>>> On 2010-01-27, Bob Melson <amia9...@mypacks.net> wrote: >>>>>> On Tuesday 26 January 2010 21:47, Wes Groleau >>>>>> (Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org) opined:
>>>>>>> singhals wrote: >>>>>>>> soon as 51% of American politicians come to believe the American >>>>>>>> electorate isn't a collection of idiots.
>>>>>>> On average, aren't we? After all, a majority of us elected _them_.
>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Wes Groleau
>>>>>> And it would appear that a goodly number are now suffering buyers' >>>>>> remorse. It would be true, whichever party, but I think a lot of >>>>>> people are now seeing that having one party so overwhelmingly in >>>>>> control of the "levers of power" is not a good thing.
>>>>>> Stubborn Ol' Bob
>>>>> You bet. I would have never thought that 40 votes >>>>> could allow a thoroughly-discredited party to still >>>>> remain in effective control of the American government.
>>>>> Democrats are such gutless losers -- stupid but >>>>> aggressive Republicans roll right over them.
>>>>> Cheers, B.
>>>> Brian,
>>>> I know you SAY elsewhere that you're a conservative, but your tone and >>>> your comments certainly argue the contrary.
>>> Bob -
>>> I've been doing Republican campaigns since Goldwater, >>> and have been a speechwriter and policy analyst for a >>> number of Republican officeholders.
>>> I have almost surely forgotten more than you've ever >>> learned about being a conservative and a Republican.
>> One of the Johnny-come-lately's, eh? Been there, done that, got the >> t-shirt, since Eisenhower days. Please, let's not indulge in upsmanship >> - >> it's a losing battle on both sides. I may not - but then, again, I may >> - be a Piled higher and Deeper, but I do take exception to being >> patronized.
> I'm not patronizing you. I'm simply pointing out that I'm > more competent than you in this area. Deal with it.
QED Condemned out of your own mouth.
> If you have a problem with that, let's do indulge in > upmanship. Flop out your credentials, and I'll flop > out mine. ;)
Frankly, I like to think I'm bigger than that. If you want to indulge in schoolyard behavior, I certainly can't stop you. You only make yourself look small and petty by doing so. So, no, I won't play the mine is bigger than yours game - I'll let you embarrass yourself.
Bob Melson
<snip> -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke's 3d Law
> On Wednesday 27 January 2010 21:05, Dr. Brian Leverich > (lever...@linkpendium.com) opined: >> I'm not patronizing you. I'm simply pointing out that I'm >> more competent than you in this area. Deal with it.
> QED Condemned out of your own mouth.
>> If you have a problem with that, let's do indulge in >> upmanship. Flop out your credentials, and I'll flop >> out mine. ;)
> Frankly, I like to think I'm bigger than that. If you want to indulge in > schoolyard behavior, I certainly can't stop you. You only make yourself > look small and petty by doing so. So, no, I won't play the mine is bigger > than yours game - I'll let you embarrass yourself.
> Bob Melson
Bob, this is precisely what I dislike about the last 30 years of American politics.
There are actual differences between idiots and geniuses, and between amateurs and professionals.
For a long time, we've had idiots and amateurs masquerading as authorities simply because polite folks have been too kind to point out that they're idiots and amateurs.
This has left us with a badly damaged country.
I, for one, won't do that any more. Don't impose on my civility, because I've run out of willingness to play doormat for bellicose idiots.
If you won't lay out your resume, you're a liar and a fraud.
On Thursday 28 January 2010 11:48, Dr. Brian Leverich (lever...@askin-17.linkpendium.com) opined:
<snip>
Brian,
The last thing I want is to get into a pissing contest - with you or anybody else. You may well have done what you've said you have - I don't question that you have and would expect you to accept my word that I, too, have worked in political campaigns, tho' perhaps not at the level you evidently have and certainly not every time, since I've spent a large part of my adult life outside the US, since the mid-50s. That doesn't make your experience better than mine, it just makes it different. It doesn't make your opinion more worthy than mine; again, it just makes it different.
In order for there to be a civil discussion there must be some degree of mutual respect, something that seems sadly lacking in your comments and responses. And that's too bad, I think, since we seem largely in agreement with respect to the issues under discussion. But you don't score points by denigrating the other guy's opinion or calling him names. You're certainly welcome to think what you will of me - there's little I can do about it. But consider that by being patronizing, by indulging in name calling, you only diminish yourself in the eyes of others. You've done some wonderful things in the past, things for which you deserve enormous credit and which I'm more than happy to acknowledge (yeah, yeah, I know, big hearted Bob). I dare say, though, you put your pants on one leg at a time like most of the rest of us, with all that says about individual value.
Now, I've said my piece, you've said yours. It's time, I think, to back off on both sides and let matters cool. Deal?
Bob Melson
-- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke's 3d Law
Bob, Brian, this tirade is entirely out of character for both of you. I can't believe you need reminding that this is a worldwide genealogy group. Could you please agree to differ? Lesley Robertson
> On Thursday 28 January 2010 11:48, Dr. Brian Leverich > (lever...@askin-17.linkpendium.com) opined:
><snip>
> Brian,
> The last thing I want is to get into a pissing contest - with you or > anybody else. You may well have done what you've said you have - I don't > question that you have and would expect you to accept my word that I, too, > have worked in political campaigns, tho' perhaps not at the level you > evidently have and certainly not every time, since I've spent a large part > of my adult life outside the US, since the mid-50s. That doesn't make > your experience better than mine, it just makes it different. It doesn't > make your opinion more worthy than mine; again, it just makes it > different.
Bob, actually it does make it more worthy.
You don't ask a plumber to remove a brain tumor.
There is a real, substantive difference between idiots and amateurs and geniuses and professionals.
A big part of what's gone terribly wrong for the last thirty years is that self-assured idiots have been driving the place into the ground.
> In order for there to be a civil discussion there must be some degree of > mutual respect, something that seems sadly lacking in your comments and > responses. And that's too bad, I think, since we seem largely in > agreement with respect to the issues under discussion. But you don't > score points by denigrating the other guy's opinion or calling him names. > You're certainly welcome to think what you will of me - there's little I > can do about it. But consider that by being patronizing, by indulging in > name calling, you only diminish yourself in the eyes of others. You've > done some wonderful things in the past, things for which you deserve > enormous credit and which I'm more than happy to acknowledge (yeah, yeah, > I know, big hearted Bob). I dare say, though, you put your pants on one > leg at a time like most of the rest of us, with all that says about > individual value.
Fuck civility.
Teabaggers in town hall meetings were surely civil, eh?
For three decades I've watched literal idiots have vastly undue sway on public policy because they trespassed on the civility of brighter and better-trained people.
This is a rightwing asshole thing: the jerks on the right have noticed that lefties tend to be gutless wonders, so they bully them.
I won't put up with that any more.
Bob, I've forgotten more than you've ever learned about public policy. Harvard and Stanford degrees in mathematics, and a Ph.D. in public policy analysis from the best institution on Earth do mean something.
You and I get precisely the same vote on Tuesdays, but do not even begin to think that our understanding of public policy matters are in any way equivalent.
They aren't.
> Now, I've said my piece, you've said yours. It's time, I think, to back > off on both sides and let matters cool. Deal?
> Bob Melson
Why cool off?
How does it feel having someone share town hall civility with you?
On Friday 29 January 2010 10:20, Lesley Robertson (l.a.robert...@tnw.tudelft.nl) opined:
> Bob, Brian, > this tirade is entirely out of character for both of you. I can't > believe you need reminding that this is a worldwide genealogy group. > Could you please agree to differ? > Lesley Robertson
No argument here. This has gotten entirely out of hand and I apologize to the group for my role in it. If Brian wants to continue, he may contact me via my reply-to email address.
Bob
-- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke's 3d Law
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:05:58 -0700, Bob Melson <amia9...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>No argument here. This has gotten entirely out of hand and I apologize to >the group for my role in it. If Brian wants to continue, he may contact >me via my reply-to email address.
On 2010-02-01, Brian <drmorrisnos...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:05:58 -0700, Bob Melson <amia9...@mypacks.net> > wrote:
>>No argument here. This has gotten entirely out of hand and I apologize to >>the group for my role in it. If Brian wants to continue, he may contact >>me via my reply-to email address.
>>Bob
> No need to do that.
> And it did get out of hand.
What I don't understand is why, when teabagging idiots behave uncivilly, it's a groundswell of public opinion.
When anyone else dishes it out the same way, it's "out of hand".
On 2010-02-01, Brian <drmorrisnos...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:05:58 -0700, Bob Melson <amia9...@mypacks.net> > wrote:
>>No argument here. This has gotten entirely out of hand and I apologize to >>the group for my role in it. If Brian wants to continue, he may contact >>me via my reply-to email address.
>>Bob
> No need to do that.
> And it did get out of hand.
In fact, thanks for providing a perfect example of what I'm on about.
Melton, a guy with no obvious Republican chops except maybe he once voted for one, tells Leverich, who has spent a fair chunk of time campaigning and staffing for Republicans, that Leverich is not a Republican.
Melton, a guy with no obvious training or experience in public policy, tells Leverich, one of the best-trained and more experienced public policy analysts on Earth, that Melton's understanding of public policy is equivalent to mine.
Dunno about you, but most people would think that telling a retired Marine that he's not really a Marine would be rude, and asserting that you can do surgery like a neurosurgeon, is sufficiently stupid (unless you're another neurosurgeon) that it's rude.
OK, so we have a rightwing idiot being rude, but that doesn't require an apology.
And I'm catching flack, because the usually urbane and polite Dr. Leverich is forcefully articulating that you are being stupid and rude.
Right.
Hypocritical idiots.
Get used to it, because I think the teabaggers have provoked their own reaction and people aren't going to sit still for the stupidity and onesided rudeness any more. I think we'll have some two-sided incivility in the future.
> OK, so we have a rightwing idiot being rude, but that doesn't > require > an apology.
I didn't ask for apologies, I just asked you guys to rmember where you are, and agree to differ.
> Hypocritical idiots.
Thank you.
> Get used to it, because I think the teabaggers have provoked their > own > reaction and people aren't going to sit still for the stupidity and > onesided rudeness any more. I think we'll have some two-sided > incivility > in the future.
