Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Comments

    • From WaPo, citing a Robert Woods Johnson foundation national poll:

      <

      p>http://voices.washingtonpost.c…

      <

      p>

      The survey included more than 5,000 doctors spread across an array of specialties, and asked two sets of questions. […]

      Doctors overwhelmingly support either a public option or a public system. Indeed, when you add the two groups together, it’s more than 70 percent of respondents. There were some differences across specialties, but not a lot: about 75 percent of primary care doctors favored a public option or public system, while about 67 percent of surgeons felt similarly.

      <

      p>More bad news for the Bush-holes, Teabaggers, Joe Wilson dead-enders.  

    • I recently helped form a PAC, Move Lowell Forward. When we discussed names, like Lowell Vote for Truth, I argued against it. Not because of your whiny faux victim meme. Simply, it implies there are no other versions or correct perceptions.

      <

      p>Of course, TRUTH is a big GOPer meme. You guys are full of it.

      <

      p>

    • Democrats have given evidence that Republicans have misrepresented this.

      <

      p>You have not given evidence. You have whined.

      <

      p>This is not rational discourse.

      • Don’t start with that again. I have not misrepresented. I have not skipped facts which go against my argument. I have not been dishonest even in spirit.

        <

        p>I do think the use of the word “truth” in support of any subjective position is incorrect. Republicans and Democrats have absolutely engaged in demagoguery and hyperbole regarding the healthcare reform bill. I wish “both” sids would stop. We shouldn’t have to do “fact check” on pols every single time they open their mouths. And please don’t tell me “your side” is telling the truth and the Republicans are lying.  

        • Nor are you exactly the adult in this conversation with the rest of us children.

          <

          p>

          Republicans and Democrats have absolutely engaged in demagoguery and hyperbole regarding the healthcare reform bill.

          <

          p>is unproven by you. You can’t just assume everything’s equivalent — even if equivalence is your favorite way of viewing everything.

          • Factcheck’s analyses are here.

            <

            p>Polifacts’ analyses are here.  Some of these are from the campaign.

            <

            p>Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.”  You’ll notice that the sites above do also call out Democrats when appropriate.  To me this adds credibility so they aren’t just seen as partisan organs.

      • You cannot take your ball and not let me play. I am trying to discuss things and if I’m not your “cup of tea” then please ignore me. There are plenty of other people here who you could have an agreeable discussion with. Consider me invisible.

        • This thread is about the public option and the video above.  You have not commented on the public option, taken issue or agreed with substantive claims made in the video, commented on things you learned watching it, identified aspects you think meritorius or misleading.

          <

          p>Unless you are going to engage constructively about the substance of the thread. Then please take your trollish comments elsewhere JohnD.  It will not be me who is leaving, it will be you unless you choose to engage in the substance.  

          <

          p>Dirt be gone.

          <

          p>

        • of a class of behaviors.

          <

          p>I think the word here is being used more for its descriptive power than for its power as invective.

          • I saw the adjective, “trollish”, and the verb, “(to) troll”, but I didn’t see the actual noun form. So is it a violation, nonetheless, to say that someone is “trolling” or to call someone’s comments “trollish”? I’ll leave that one for the judges.

          • The Rules of the Road are quirky here and I think that new members might be, at least, surprised by how they operate.

            <

            p>I know of no other moderated forum that does not seek to pluck out contributors who descend into trolling behavior. They could exist, but I bet they are rare. If I’m wrong about this, I’m curious.

        • If acting like a troll is not against the RoR for the site, then the site is in serious trouble.

          <

          p>I see nothing in your cited RoR statement that prohibits spam. I see nothing that prohibits intentionally posting viruses. I see nothing that limits the number of persona a particular party can create and maintain. Nothing that limits “sock puppets” — creating multiple persona for the purpose of creating a false “discussion”, for the purpose of affirming the originator.

          <

          p>Trollish behavior is part of a large set of behaviors that, if not managed, will destroy the site. EVERY online community suffers a disorder like this, sooner or later (it is a disorder, it seems to be wired into the DNA of open multi-way internet communication).

          <

          p>Finally, as in nearly all defamations (including “personal attacks”), truth is an absolute defense. If someone is acting like a “liberal”, then saying so is not an attack. While all these boundaries are certainly gray and blurry (it often helps to separate behavior from the person and use adjectives instead of nouns), the fact remains that attempts to characterize people based on their behavior and statements is part of public discourse. If someone is acting like a troll, then saying so is an observation, not an attack. It might be mistaken or incorrect, but it is not necessarily an “attack”. The distinction relies on the motive of the speaker — a distinction that, in this case, seems impossible to draw.

          <

          p>While I applaud your effort to ensure civil discourse and maintain our diversity, you are attempting to make a bright black-and-white line from something that is inherently soft. I believe that in this case it is not only incorrect, but leads to serious harm to the community.

          • rather than a bunch of voices echoing each other? I know that JohnD rattles some cages here, but he does liven up the posts. I agree with Bob that name calling (troll) is not appropriate with people who are regular visitors to the site.
            By the way, as far as the tape goes, it isn’t going to change anyone’s mind.  On universal coverage why isn’t anyone talking about a VAT? That is fairest way to pay the bill.  For example, how do you cut Medicare by 500 million dollars and cover more people?  How do you cover 50 million more people and save us money?  Common sense tells anyone that you can’t do that; do you really believe that the medical establishment and drug companies are sucking that much money out of the present system? Before you start attacking me, realize that Rahm Emanuel and several other advisors have been reported as favoring the VAT also, but are backing off for now because of the “no new taxes” mantra.

            • The comment in question is not a discussion. It’s a subject only: “Truth? Another subjective definition where opponents ‘must’ be liars.”

              <

              p>Describing this as a troll isn’t “name calling”, any more than describing one of my posts as “a joke”. The comment in question adds nothing to the conversation, offers no opportunity to discuss anything, and only serves to provoke precisely this kind of response. That’s why, in my opinion, it is accurately described as a “troll” (the post, not the poster).

              <

              p>It doesn’t matter to me whether a contributor has been here ten years or ten minutes — when they offer something like this, the appropriate behavior is to ignore it. If and when the comments from a particular individual become dominated by such comments, then that individual becomes a “troll” — no matter how long he or she has been here.

              <

              p>Finally, will you please stop with the “before you start attacking me” bit, at least when you respond to me? I have never attacked you, I don’t in general attack people, and when people disagree with you it doesn’t mean they “attack” you.

              <

              p>I am, actually, generally receptive to the idea of a VAT — but only if it replaces (instead of supplements) the income tax. I think we should be taxing consumption, not income. I also think we should be looking very hard at a significant (as in more than 70%) estate/gift tax on individuals with wealth in excess of something like five million dollars.

              <

              p>Please read that carefully:

              • Wealth, not income.
              • More than five million dollars. Upper, not middle, class.
              • Estate/Gift tax. Earn the wealth during your lifetime, keep it and enjoy it. Pass some of it to your children. The rest? Put almost all of it back in circulation.

              <

              p>The breakdown is available from the IRS 2004 Personal Wealth Report, at this link. Here is the opportunity:

              <

              p>

              • $5.56 trillion dollars
              • 357,000 individuals.

              <

              p>Look again at those wealth distribution numbers. That’s $5.56T among 357,000 persons — an average wealth of $15B each. If we could agree that a person with a net worth $5M was “wealthy”, then this is enough wealth to create MORE THAN A BILLION wealthy people — 1,113,643, to be precise — were it spread at $5M each (after reserving $5M each for the 357,000 individuals who currently hold it).

              <

              p>When these wealthy individuals die, the revenue opportunity is $3.89 Trillion. That’s a lot of VAT.

              <

              p>Look closely at those wealth distribution numbers, and tell me again about how “fair” the Republican-style “free market” economy is. The topmost 47,000 individuals together hold $2.7T.

              <

              p>I suggest that a community with a THOUSAND millionaires is a far healthier social and business climate than that same community with just one billionaire. I suggest that a nation with a BILLION five-millionaires would be a far healthier social and business climate than we currently have with our 357,000 billionaires.

              <

              p>How’s THAT for “spirited discussion”?

              • is very apropos-I’m thinking of the terrible economic condition of Russia because of such disproportionality. I agree about taxing consumption and having realistic inheritance taxes. The problem with doing away with the income tax is that it is used to spur economic areas which our society consider to be a plus for everyone, e.g. home ownership, deductions for children, higher education, etc. I have no idea how much of a VAT would be needed to cover everyone, but it should certainly be on junk food, soft drinks, cigarettes, all of the products which contribute to our health problems. And I really don’t care about hearing how we would be picking on certain areas; we have to make choices.  I would also include gasoline at the pump on the VAT list.  Where it gets shaky, I admit, is that I don’t know exactly how much it will take to cover all the health bills.
                Sorry about the “no attacking” bit; it’s a reflex from having been criticized so often–much of which I may have deserved, though I do think some people here are much too much touchy about their ideas.

            • My hypothesis, Edgarthearmenian, is that people are more likely to jump on you if conservative contributions tend to be trollish here. That makes the liberals less tolerant, less likely to think, “Ah! That’s a question that needs addressing.” And I’d say you often ask questions that need addressing.

              <

              p>You’ve raised the possibility of using a VAT a number of times. That’s orders of magnitude more substantive than having to unravel a mess of false equivalences and whiny grievances.

              <

              p>So I say: Let there be some substantive conservatives here. Let them be sarcastic and caustic, even, so long as they are substantive and try to understand and participate in the conversation.

        • Sorry, Bob, there’s a lot of trolling here. It’s not just disagreement, it’s conversation-disrupting behavior, and it has several forms.

          <

          p>1. What are you, stupid? (Or naive, or part of a herd, etc.).

          <

          p>2. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

          <

          p>3. Stab yourself and call it a fight: “YOU LIE! I suppose you’ll say I’m disruptive now!”

          <

          p>4. The preempt: (“You Democrats always defend Obama! Can’t you think for yourselves?”)

          <

          p>My personal favorite, and the most bipartisan, is the ankle nip. (“The Pennsylvania primary was APRIL 22, not MARCH 22! You don’t know what you’re talking about!”) And that in response to a four-paragraph post.

          <

          p>I’ve raised this before, and the answer was “We like it like this,” so c’est la vie. But for your sake, and mine, I can’t not reply to you saying there’s no trolling here. There is.

          <

          p>

        • The name callers “need” to belittle people they don’t agree with. People pull the “troll card” when they don’t like something or don’t want to answer. But it seems to me the “civilized” way would be “just don’t comment”.

          <

          p>If BMGers want to keep the “troll” invective maybe us “trolls” can define a word to define pig headed stubborn partisan behavior for Democrats/Liberals that BMG editors would accept? And it couldn’t be a “nice” word but would have to be something insulting. That way when I ask if Obama was “fear mongering” when he said in his speech that without healthcare reform people would die and people called me a troll, I could call them an invective word (as a noun, verb…). Although, that is probably why you don’t want “tit-for-tat” name calling to begin with.

          • The people quickest to call others “trolls” are generally, in my observation, the ones with the weakest arguments themselves — here at BMG, to a limited degree because it doesn’t happen very often, but even more in other places on the Internet where the word “troll” is basically a synonym for “someone I disagree with.”

            • …but to me a troll is someone who consistently rehashes the same talking points/arguments that have been repeatedly explained/debunked and contributes in a way that not only does not add to the discussion, but that it should be obvious won’t add to the discussion.

            • So are you saying that Christopher, Tom from Brookline, LightIris, and I all make weak arguments?

              <

              p>Really?

            • In my direct experience, the biggest problem on this blog is that you, specifically, are so afraid of an echo chamber that you’re more tolerant of people using the word faggot than people being called out for using it.  As a result the rules of a road are a joke.

              <

              p>Put another way, do you seriously believe that JohnD adds more value to the blog than the people complaining about him? If so, I pity you.

            • In one fell swoop you have managed to offend, I think, THE most thoughtful, productive, and invested participants on this site.  (For the record, I do not consider myself among them, but the detail-oriented wonks and junkies who regularly contribute here comprise an easily identifiable short list.)  Are you really saying that the progressives who regularly and vociferously object to the disruptive and cynical behaviors noted above are the “ones with the weakest arguments” on this site?  

              <

              p>Holy creeping son of god.  Most of what the “differently winged” participants here contribute is of little substance or fact.  They goad, blatantly assert, and then insult their way through all sorts of posts here resulting in high volume commenting (is that what this is about?  page views?) but little authentic dialogue.  Most of these folks are not here to exchange ideas; they’re here to inflame, and that’s worth about two farts in a bucket.  

              <

              p>There is plenty of diversity on the center-to-left spectrum for there to be energetic discussion on this site.  The likelihood that BMG will become an echo chamber, in the micro sense, is nil.  If one insists on looking at this site, though, from 30,000 feet, a perspective that disregards or even devalues nuance, factuality, and reason, then by all means shelter and indulge the JohnDs, MCRDs, and Eabos, but be aware that by doing so the quality consistently suffers.  In other words, your site becomes the underachiever in the classroom who consistently takes the easy road, producing cliched and predictable work that neither lifts that student individually nor contributes to the betterment of the others in the room.  

        • In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community…with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

           And I would add “…either for the purpose of impeding or shutting down discussion, or solely for his/her individual entertainment.”

          <

          p>

        • By saying there are no trolls, and by effectively banning the use of the term, is it your contention that the above behavior does not take place on BMG, or that it does, and is acceptable?
        • Is there an approved term to describe this behavior that doesn’t violate the ROTR, so that when legitimately necessary, it could be noted?
        • Are the rules prohibiting insults, personal attacks, and rudeness more important than the rule prohibiting blanket unsupported statements, or just easier to enforce?
        • Was there a reason this site was not named “Whatever Group”, or “Come One Come All Group”, but Blue Mass Group”, which — intentionally or unintentionally — carries the suggestion that its target community is Democrats, liberals, progressives, and/or anyone considered to be from the center to the left, and that it provides a forum for discussion — an internal one, if you will — among that defined community?
        • If so, would it not be true that even though this community encompasses a wide variety of viewpoints, even the broadest possible definition of that community embraces some ideas and assumptions and holds others to be antithetical (otherwise the definition would be meaningless); and that someone who participates in the discussion by promoting those antithetical assumptions/ideas, either with or without the expectation that the result will be their adoption by members of the community, could be considered to be participating in bad faith?
        • Is it not possible for the content to conform to the rules of the road, and — after the contributions of the editors — be predominantly provided by participants who 1) identify themselves as not being part of the target community and thereby participate in bad faith, or 2) fit the conventionally-accepted definition of trolls; and if so, how is this possible without the site becoming a joke abandoning whatever mission was originally conceived for it?

      • That took all of two weeks.  

        <

        p>Welcome to BMG.  

        <

        p>Your question is an excellent one.  Many of us have yet to truly figure that out.  

    • many of the opponents are liars.

      <

      p>

      to lie

      1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
      2 : to create a false or misleading impression

            • Yes, I believe the bill will affect the deficit even if we plan for it not to.

              <

              p>Why? Healthcare costs are out of control.

              <

              p>However, I still think that, for fiscal reasons, healthcare reform is necessary. The way the U.S. currently funds healthcare is unsustainable. It will bankrupt Medicaid and Medicare soon if not controlled better. It also, as statistics on our puny small business sector show, discourages innovation and growth in our economy. Like the rest of the civilized world, we need to get this under control.

              <

              p>Finally, as Krugman argues, deficits tend to be dwarfed eventually by the expansion of economies. You read that argument in your research on your Krugman diary, right?

              On this issue, no one believes you because you’re just riding around in the False Equivalency Express throwing unsubstantiated one-liners out your window.

              • The sad thing is that a public option really is just another choice. Here we see the bankruptcy of the Republican opposition in this area: one who really favored choices and competition would support a public option, because it is an option — one among many.

                <

                p>In fact, however, the G.O.P. has been completely captured by the corporations and is now reduced to trying to defend the business position of the health insurers through a serious of internally contradictory and, ultimately, senseless arguments.

                <

                p>The tragedy is that even though Obama won a smashing victory he hasn’t been willing to really push this issue. It may be that the final result is substantively the same with or without a public option — that’s Obama’s argument, anyway — but that remains to be seen, and as a betting man I wager it unlikely.

              • but that doesn’t mean I believed him. The number of economists who predicted last year’s economic collapse withered the small amount of confidence I had in them to start with and even some who did predict it were the ones predicting bad things for decades so they were right due to “the broken clock being right twice a day rule”. The “tinkerbell” theory of if we wish it hard enough it will come true rings true on many people’s theories and projections for the next 10 years.

                <

                p>Only a fool would think healthcare costs are “not” currently out of control and unsustainable. I have said that many times right here. And maybe that same fool would think adding 20, 30 or 50 million more people will reduce costs. I also think both sides of this issue are in agreement on 80% of the bill. What is the problem with passing 80% and tackling the PO/competition… aspect next year?

                <

                p>While we have heard the PO amounts to only a small percent of this bill, the “feeling” by the public is it will screw things up. This may be an irrational fear but it a fear nonetheless. I am not an expert but I believe the public has very little to “no” faith in our leaders and the government. We get schnuckered so many times that it’s a miracle we vote for people at all. I know there is a distinction between a lie and being wrong, but the public often sees them the same way.

                <

                p>

                • The cigarette tax will be used for “dangers of smoking” education (lie, went to general funds).
                • The Mass Turnpike will be a toll road till 1997 when the bonds are paid and it will transfer to the highway dept (lie – tolls will “never” go away).
                • “Read my lips, no new taxes” (lie – new taxes).
                • “I did not have sex with that woman” (lie – had sex).
                • “Iraq has WMD so we need to go to war” (lie, had no WMD).
                • Social Security is healthy (lie, will be bankrupt in 2037).
                • “We are only sending US Advisors to Viet Nam” (lie – we went to war).
                • The last three Speakers of the House in MA

                <

                p>I mean the list goes on of people lying and double talking and using specific words so they can later say “I said it should not would lower car insurance payments… so is it any wonder why skeptical people like myself don’t believe the government can manage this right? When someone says illegals will be covered in the new bill then there has to be proof “beyond the shadow of a doubt” that they won’t be covered because no one believes politicians anymore!

                <

                p>I waited 1-1/2 hours in line today to register my car (20 minutes just to get the ticket to wait in line). I remember a sign at the Worcester Tea Party saying “if you love the registry then you’ll love Obamacare”.

                <

                p>

                • you can give a fair account of the liberal position. Then, your comments will become interesting.

                  <

                  p>Until then, it’s a waste of time.

                • You want me to give one for the “liberals”? When I do that I get typically excoriated for “reading minds”? How can I give an account of how they feel?

                • The point is that if you don’t bother to try to understand the liberal position then there’s no utility in discussing this with you.

                  <

                  p>What if I said, I’m going to have a conversation with you, but I was going to pay no attention to what you said?

                  <

                  p>That, essentially, is the deal you offer me.

                  <

                  p>Not buying.

            • Notice when I linked to factchecking sites I didn’t cherrypick just those that agree with us.  I linked to general pages precisely so people could see all the information.  This objectivity is what gives these sites credibility, and if you insist on keeping a truth score then yes, our side is winning by a long shot.

          • I didn’t know it was a contest. The hard part is “who” are we fact checking? It looks to me like many of these rallies have a lunatic fringe participating and I would agree that they are lying, misinformed and “unstable”. But is Senator Tom Coburn lying? I want to know if Obama, Boehner, Reid, Pelosi, Mcconnell… are lying? And I want this “use of words” to avoid a lie to be called out!

            <

            p>I’m still waiting to see how this will not cost “a dime” to implement. Even many supporters are caught flat footed answering that question. I hope many BMGers are contacting their Congressmen to inform them Obama will veto any bill which adds even a dime tot he deficit.

            • why don’t you read some of the fact-checking sites yourself instead of writing clueless questions like “So both are lying?” People here are tired of arguing with your making every opinion equivalent to every other one. It’s a lame and unreasonable way to try to make a point.  

  3. are they going to air on every station in the United States, 15 times a day so the message can get out.

  5. trying to read about the US Census bureau ending their association with ACORN but couldn’t find it (surprise!). But I did find some interesting reading…

    <

    p>

    • Dems seek to downplay public option idea
    • More in Congress question Afghanistan policy
    • Troubles brew for House Dems in 2010 election

    <

    p>Does anyone know how I could point MSNBC to the story about ACORN.

    • Since we’re off topic, I have the Philadelphia Eagles’s defense in one of my fantasy football leagues.  They had 5 sacks, 5 INTs, 2 fumble recoveries and a TD.  I gained 40 points from my defense alone. Hell yeah!

      <

      p>Also, if you spent as much effort as typing in “Acorn” into the MSNBC.com search bar as you did with writing this disjointed WTF piece, you’d find this dated TWO DAYS AGO:

      <

      p>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32…

      <

      p>A sad, sad effort, JohnD. You repeatedly demonstrate that you have some pathological need to just randomly insert your other grievances into threads that are totally unrelated. This, and your inability to verify that MSNBC did in fact skip covering the ACORN deal, is a prime example of why people think your participation here generally sucks.

      <

      p>  

      • Glad for your 40 points, sorry for your anger and frustration. Maybe tai chi will help you become one with yourself. So MSNBC had the story but BMG missed it, got it.

        <

        p>See you at the meeting.

        • Perhaps we don’t give a crap because we’re more concerned about other issues. But because we didn’t discuss ACORN it doesn’t give you license to be rude and hijack someone else’s thread; you can’t seem to be bothered to a.) perform a basic search for the article you seek and b.) to show the courtesy of opening a new thread.

          <

          p>Stay classy, JohnD.

          • How many comments about Joe Wilson? If there was a “Republican” ACORN story it would permeate this website, with reminder diaries everytime another “sleazy” ACORN story was published.

            <

            p>The relevance to me is one of the main reasons Obama won in 2008 was 6 million new registered voters (4 million black, 2 million hispanic, no change in whites). What organization was primarily responsible for this huge “new” registration, ACORN.

            <

            p>So I do believe stories about ACORN are relevant and should concern all of us.

            <

            p>I’ll try to stay “classy” tblade and I hope you start to “give a crap”.

            • As far as I can tell a few rogue employees/volunteers added names like Mickey Mouse to their rolls, names which of course couldn’t actually vote and thus have no bearing on the outcome of an election.  If there were a per name incentive the only person who would benefit is the collector, except they got caught by ACORN superiors who did the right thing by informing authorities and terminating those collectors.  It really takes a lot for me to call someone a racist; most of the time I think people look to hard for evidence of racism.  However, I can think of no other explanation for what seems to be your biggest complaint that they managed to register an additional 4 million blacks and 2 million Hispanics.

              • Lately I heard Joe Wilson is a racist, anyone against the reform bill is a racist, anyone not supporting Obama is a racist… Why can’t people default to “ideology” or “party”… ?

                <

                p>If ACORN registered 6 million Republicans and an insignificant number of Democrats…

                <

                p>- I would think it smelled but wouldn’t complain to much.

                <

                p>- You and other Democrats “may” think differently about ACORN and the many stories about them (and all the public dollars given to them).

                • I for one never called Wilson a racist.  Like I said, it takes A LOT for me to make that accusation.  You complained that ACORN registered millions of blacks and Hispanics as if there’s a problem with more of them being registered in principle or if that’s somehow proof that ACORN is corrupt.  Both parties and other organizations do voter registration all the time, often targeting constituencies likely to vote their way.  There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.  I’m happy to default to ideology regarding criticism of Obama’s policies, but your criticism was what went to race.  You apparently don’t approve of 4 million more blacks and 2 million more Hispanics being registered voters.  That was your complaint in the previous comment.  Seeing as how you never did clarify this I can’t draw any other conclusions.

                • I am trying to say that Obama won by a margin which coincidentally was about the same number of blacks and hispanics registered by ACORN. I think this is relevent and I will continue to say some/many here may have cried foul if the same situation existed from a Republican organization.

                  <

                  p>I would hope everyone registers to vote, all colors, all ethnicities and all ideologies but I would not want a “single dime” of public money going to any organization which picks certain groups to register. IMO that’s wrong!

                • Wilson, who worked for Strom Thurmond, claims Thurmond’s illegitimate daughter, Essie Mae Washington-Williams was “smearing Strom Thurmond” by rightly claiming he was her father.  

                  <

                  p>That claim despite the fact the Thurmond supported Essie May and her mother.  What is the nature of a smear in Joe Wilson’s small mind?  Should Essie May have been more considerate of the attitudes of South Carolina conservative voters?  

                  <

                  p>In 2003, Essie Mae Washington-Williams’ revealed that she was the daughter of Wilson’s former employer, the late Senator Strom Thurmond, and Thurmond’s black maid. Wilson was among those who publicly doubted her claim that Thurmond had a child out of wedlock. Wilson said even if her story was true, she should not have revealed it because “it’s a smear” on Thurmond’s image and was a way to “diminish” Thurmond’s legacy. After Thurmond’s family acknowledged the truth of Washington-Williams’ revelation, Wilson apologized but said that he still thought that she should not have revealed that Thurmond was her father.

                • a former member member of Sons of Confederate Veterans.  The confederacy was a secessionist movement founded over the economic right to treat black people as property.  

                  <

                  p> (SCV) is an organization of male descendants of soldiers or sailors who served the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War. SCV membership is open to all male descendants age twelve and over (lineal and collateral) of soldiers who fought for and honorably served the Confederate States of America. The SCV has a network of genealogists to assist applicants in tracing their ancestor’s Confederate service. The SCV has programs at the local, state, and national levels for its members, such as marking Confederate soldiers’ graves, historical re-enactments, scholarly publications, and regular meetings to discuss the military and political history of the American Civil War. Local units of the SCV are called “camps.” The SCV also publishes books and other media, including the magazine Confederate Veteran. In recent years, the SCV has taken actions in furtherance of what it describes as “heritage defense” regarding references to the Confederacy and “the South” in U.S. history.

                • My point is you can’t take Wilson’s outburst, tea bagger’s ugly remarks or people who oppose Obama issues and simply call them examples of racism. It is an overused remark and needs to be used when actually racism occurs. People hated George Bush with a passion but it had nothing to do with his race. People hate professional athletes of all colors but if they hate a black player then people shouldn’t jump to racism as the reason, people hate entertainers but just because someone might have disliked Michael Jackson didn’t mean they were a racist.

                  <

                  p>Lately, I have heard on MSNBC comments (and Ron Reagan) about opponents against the Healthcare reform bill are racists and I think this is ridiculous.

    • I would appreciate if you would not hijack this thread a second time, this time by raising an entirely unrelated topic.  

      • If I complain like you then people accuse me of whining. Are you whining? Think of it this way, if you take out my comments and people replying to my comments (39 of 42), you would only have a pathetic total of 3 comments. See, I’m actually helping you… you’re welcome. When’s your next one?

      • What you have to understand is that by reading BMG and commenting frequently John is helping this site and calling attention to this thread — which means that (a) more people will watch the video and (b) the frame for the debate is the one set by Reich. Game, set and match before we even get to ACORN.

        <

        p>Don’t worry about his attempts, such as they may be, to hijack threads or make arguments that seem silly to you. If you don’t like his points, just ignore them.

        <

        p>John, despite himself, or perhaps intentionally, I don’t know, is advancing the causes you hold dear.

        <

        p>God bless him, and God bless America.

        <

        p>:-)

        • I would appreciate if you would not hijack this thread a second time, this time by raising an entirely unrelated topic.

          <

          p>The response from JohnD does not acknowledge nor respect my request.  

          <

          p>

          …Are you whining? Think of it this way, if you take out my comments and people replying to my comments (39 of 42), you would only have a pathetic total of 3 comments. See, I’m actually helping you… you’re welcome.

          <

          p>It also assumes as you do Bob, that maximizing the number of comments is the goal or somehow an indication of the success of the post.  

          <

          p>I have another measure that has to do with engaging on the substance of the material presented with other people who may or may not agree but who are interested in the substance, interested in sharing thoughtful ideas that are on topic or reasonably related issues.

          <

          p>To me “Are you whining?” is like getting a finger in the eye. What in my request merits that kind of shit?

          <

          p>You and I have exchanged in some give and take, mostly when you decide to note an objection to my replies to JohnD.  Have you given any thought to the prospect that you enable JohnD’s engagement on these threads in a manner that does not contribute constructively to the discussion?

          <

          p>If you want me to take your advice (actually, it was an imperative “relax”) on how to engage here, I would like to ask you to read through the comments on this thread and learn about how other BMG commenters would like JohnD to engage and not engage, and give some thought as to whether you might have some role in influencing that.  

        • If there were a VAT on comments, JD would owe next to nothing. As was pointed out to me, several of the more conservative members here DO add substantive arguments, and I have learned from their comments. He’s not one of them. If he commented less, it would be a minor annoyance. As it is, he’s all over the site, and his comments almost never rise above what you see here. First he makes some general, but inflammatory remark, then when people respond to it, he throws up a barrage of see-how-intolerant-you-progressives-are comments that paint him as a victim. This thread is a prime example of the disingenuous arguments he uses to derail real discussions into ones about him. That’s not what I come here for.

        • Please stop it.

          <

          p>Hijacking threads “never” happens on BMG? Go read some of the diaries I post here. You’ll find them littered with ad hom attacks and “off point” attacks. Bob and David… (I would guess) disagree with “everything” I say on BMG but at least they allow discussion.

          <

          p>Here’s a post on Sept 8th titled Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus releases framework for Healthcare reform.

          <

          p>I don’t think it was snarky. I think the release by the “gang of six” was certainly newsworthy. One person commented.

          <

          p>I also think the diary on Charlie Rangel was honest and fair. I would challenge BMGers to look in the mirror and answer the question honestly would they feel the same ambivalence or “wait and see” attitude if we replaced Charlie Rangel’s name with John Boehner?

          <

          p>I am not above lobbing the occasional hand grenade but no more than how many hand grenades get lobbed at me. I’ve been calling for a truce for weeks but many want to continue the fight (sounds like a Joe Wilson scenario). Thank you to ones who are trying and giving constructive criticisms to my style/content vs. snarks.

        • There’s so much JohnD generated noise on BMG these days that wading through it to find the kernels of substantive discussion is an exercise in tedium.  

          <

          p>As I’ve complained before, even ignoring him isn’t possible, since he so hates to be ignored that he launches random attacks.  It’s not just that he derails discussion, it’s that he actively bullies the other participants.  That you’ve effectively banned criticizing him just diminishes the forum further.

    • It does seem like the left is steadfastly sticking to something which gets minimized by people like Obama. Something seems wrong here in either “it is” a bigger deal or the principle is getting in the way of outting together a bill we all can support.

      <

      p>Obama’s words…

      I heard him lamenting about many differnt parts of healthcare reform. He almost went “out of his way” to minimize the public option aspect…

      Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable.  And the insurance reforms that I’ve already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Now, let me be clear. Let me be clear. It would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up.

      So if the PO will only effect a “teensy weensy” percent of the population, how it is going to “single handedly” save healthcare for all by controlling costs? If we remove insurance companies profits from the equation, how much money do we save for actual healthcare coverage? If we remove the “healthcare bureaucrats”, how much additional medical procedures happen which increase healthcare costs?

      • I think, for many people, the public option became what we would get instead of single payer. So that shaped the politics of the debate, because it was a lower rung on the ladder. If that also breaks, many people will feel we’re back on the ground floor.

        <

        p>Primarily, I asked the question because it’s the question Reich’s message begs. If it is that simple, then:

        <

        p>a. Why would anyone outside Aetna or Blue Cross oppose it?

        <

        p>b. Why not pass it on a party line vote? Who cares if this simple step is bipartisan?

        <

        p>

  7. This is a thread about Robert Reich’s piece regarding the public option.

    <

    p>The effect (intentional or not) of the numerous comments (and their long tails) by JohnD is to deflect the discussion to distractions that include:

    <

    p>

    • ACORN
    • Mr. Wilson
    • Racism and the “race card.
    • Census methodology
    • JohnD himself

    <

    p>Like it or not, this thread is a case study in trolling.

    <

    p>By the way, the annoying flood of unrelated posts from lasthorseman is a similar example, though easier to ignore.

    <

    p>If such contributions do not violate the terms of use, then the terms of use are badly flawed.

    • and ride the road of the the thread. They often start in Boston en-route to Cleveland but get sidetracked to Washington. And many times those are not posts I contribute to.

      <

      p>Example thread…

      <

      p>Should we be fighting in Afghanistan?
      — Yes, but we should leave Iraq…
      — If we leave IRaq the nation will collapse…
      —- Other countries have survived when we left such as Bosnia…
      —– But Bosnia was a NATO not the US…
      —— … and the thread goes on to other connected points which may have nothing to do with “Should we be fighting in Afghanistan?”

      <

      p>I own up to going completely “off point” with ACORN and should not have done it. Next time I’ll start my own diary.

      • Of course, this point makes no sense to JohnD because to JohnD everything is equivalent and so, in his view, he doesn’t do anything better or worse than anything else.

        <

        p>I submit that someone who does not believe that words have meaning, that distinctions are possible, or that his ideological opponents are making sincere points deserving of understanding is not part of the conversation and should be ignored.

        <

        p>It’s like conversing with a T.V. set.

        <

        p>It occasionally says stuff but it’s only responsive by chance.

Archives