Comments on: Outrageous rhetoric gets us nowhere

By: Mockingbird

Mockingbird — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:58:21 +0000

Grayson nailed it.

Why would anyone want civility now - after all the crap that has been flung
by Republicans & the speed bumps they represent?

How long are they going to stonewall with no ideas?

If anything - start bringing what has been delivered.

By: Mockingbird

Mockingbird — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:55:05 +0000

Changing Washington — the last time a president met all the campaign promises was in the 1800’s.
Its simply easier said than done.

And further, its a fiction to think that congress was ever really totally civil.
One must only visit the history of congress to see that.

They should be smarter by now, but congressmen still are not a good representative of the intelligence
of the voter base. Note Bachmann. Pretty much most of the Republicans bring the grade point down & a few of the Dems.

Klobuchar & Franken are anomalies in that respect.

By: Pete

Pete — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:02:25 +0000

You're living in a dream world. For every uncivil comment from the left, there's probably 20 from the right. Granted, that's my estimate, not based on any statistical evidence. This comes from my experience following politics for some 50 years.

btw, anybody know of a site that tracks this information? (The bile from the left vs. that from the right).

By: Randy

Randy — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:51:45 +0000

You are confusing civil, reasoned discourse with agreement. We don't have to agree on policy matters in order to communicate in a civil manner.

If disagreement is uncivil, or if you refuse to admit the possibility of reasoned discourse with someone with whom you disagree, then you are missing the point entirely.

By: MrTom

MrTom — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 05:18:36 +0000

Part 5…
The current plans being considered in Congress will chip away at the abusive practice of denying patient care. This should be a good thing. It is probably as much as can be expected in the current political environment. It will not, however, to anything to restore the primacy of the doctor-patient relationship and won't put a big dent in corporate profits, either; in other words, costs will remain high.

As disappointed as I am in this situation, it is a start. And now, after too much verbiage, I'll get to the point. I trust government more than I trust corporations. I can vote for government leaders; I can't for corporate leaders. I am part of the government; but stand pretty much powerless outside of the corporate realm. The real choice for Americans between making government work or surrendering ourselves to the power of corporate interests.

By: MrTom

MrTom — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 05:18:03 +0000

Part 4…
Back to health care. Right now health care delivery rests almost completely in the corporate sector. A true system of laissez faire delivery of medicine went out in the 1940s and 1950s with the rise of health insurance. This separated health care spending decisions from the doctor-patient relationship. With the rise of HMOs, the separation has gone even further. Most "savings" in this corporate medical delivery system have come from two sources: 1) doctors receiving lower payments for their services, and 2) denying medical treatment to patients. Both of these strategies do nothing to increase Americans' health; they only increase corporate profits.

By: MrTom

MrTom — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 05:17:30 +0000

Part 3…
Again from history: when the moguls of the gilded age squeezed Americans too tightly, government of the people returned power to the people through the anti-trust laws of the early 20th century and through the New Deal. The trend since the 1980s has been to relax government controls on business and let the corporations take a larger share of power and absolute wealth. This led to the near total abandonment of financial regulation in 1999 (Gramm-Leach-Bliley), which in turn led to the near total collapse of the entire financial system one year ago. Only big government, acting on behalf of the people - we elected the leaders - prevented complete chaos.

By: MrTom

MrTom — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 05:17:00 +0000

Part 2…
Another premise before going on: people arrange themselves in various groups that grab as much power as they can with whatever means they have at their disposal. Government in American is one large structure that, for our 233 years, has worked pretty well, although not always to everyone's satisfaction. In the past in Europe, religions have often literally and figuratively run countries. So far in America we've avoided this dilemma (getting past the Puritans in early Massachusetts). One group that wields huge influence in America, although they have yet to directly govern, is corporations.

By: MrTom

MrTom — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 05:15:10 +0000

Kathy, I hope this is a civil reply to your earlier comments. And it is Part 1. The mnpublius software told me my post is too long! No wonder we write vitriolic soundbites instead of reasonable discussions. Anyway, here goes…

First, the government is us. We vote leaders in and vote 'em out. Being a diverse group of 300,000,000, we have differences of opinion of how we should govern ourselves. One important point, though, is that government is not the enemy, unless Pogo's statement is true "we have met the enemy and he is us."

By: Kathy

Kathy — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 02:26:49 +0000

amuseinc…
…you don't listen, you don't think. (Gosh…a poem..)

What a warped and wacky world you inhabit. You are the poster child for what is wrong with this country today. Any ideas that don't fit your little personal paradigm are just too much for you to take in. You wouldn't know "civil" if you tripped over it. You wouldn't know "intelligent discourse" if it bit you. Perhaps you'll feel better once that hope-y/change-y thing kicks in and gives everyone everything they ever wanted. Any moment now, I'm sure.

No more mnpublius for me. Yup, you win. Yay for you. You sure showed me. Indeed, I give up. Why bother? Pearls before swine and all that.
I will leave you to your echo chamber.
And good luck to us all.