Displaying 18,841 To 18,870 Of 19,504 Comments HuffNo Friday Music Night: The Realm of Possibilities You know I’m a SRV fan! » Posted By AdLib On November 6, 2009 @ 8:00 pm THE TRUE FACE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY Four of us co-founded this site, myself, KQuark, Kalima and KevenSeven. All of us were long-timers at HuffPo until after the election. HuffPo changed by the end of last year towards the travesty it is today. There was a big exodus of original and long time members early this year. So, the four of us eventually developed the idea for The Planet! We wanted a blog that respected Freedom of Speech and its members. Sounds simple but not so much at HuffPo. So, welcome to The Planet, make yourself at home! » Posted By AdLib On November 7, 2009 @ 11:34 pm libralady, welcome to The Planet! You’ll find a number more members here you know from HuffPo. It seemed to me that Will was more intent on being banned from this site so he could diss it than having any cogent discussion. He didn’t get his wish. Typically we would remove comments such as his that are name calling but Kalima wanted him to be seen for who he is and have her reply to his rants capping the exchange. However, there will be no more such personal attacks permitted. » Posted By AdLib On November 7, 2009 @ 7:50 pm How it is that the Teabagger Movement is bogus Lance, welcome to The Planet! You’re right on the money with the dishonest way that the Repubs have and continue to knowingly distort the truth and spoonfeed it to their mindless Dittoheads. It is politics at its most cynical. Betting on Americans being so ignorant and fearful at their core that they’ll believe anything. As for criticizing HuffPo, I think it’s becoming an imperative to start exposing the manipulation and intentional dishonesty there too. Just two weeks ago, HuffPo’s lead story was an unverifiable “report” that Pres. Obama was trying behind the scenes to kill the public option. This week Arianna herself wrote another top story attacking Obama titled: “Obama One Year Later: The Audacity of Winning vs. The Timidity of Governing” The Obama Admin and David Plouffe responded to protest her and HuffPo’s message as well. In the opinions of others here and at Huffpo, The Huffington Post and Arianna have charted a suspect course recently. We should have unconditional principles, we can’t afford to blindly follow or support an entity because it represents itself as Progressive or we’re no different than those who do the same with entities that claim they’re only about serving Republican interests. » Posted By AdLib On November 7, 2009 @ 7:13 pm Hi Athena! When teabaggers wail, “I want my country back!” what they’re really saying and even Beck has said so literally, they want to return to the 1950’s. Remember what it meant to be a white American back then? Especially in the south? The election of a black president has brought the notion of white supremacy crashing down and these people, who only had their skin color to make them superior, are freaking out because now that’s gone. » Posted By AdLib On November 7, 2009 @ 10:29 am Is this the definition of cognitive dissonance? Yes you do, they have these things called elections. We were screwed by the Bush Admin and the Repubs who marched lockstep with him. What happened to them? » Posted By AdLib On November 5, 2009 @ 2:31 pm OT but just saw this in the news widget to the right: ============================= » Posted By AdLib On November 5, 2009 @ 1:00 pm So you oppose both sets of displays, those by followers of Tea Parties too as shown in javaz’s link? » Posted By AdLib On November 5, 2009 @ 12:16 pm Disgusting hateful people holding and supporting that sign. But I’m past being further troubled, I accept the hatred as part and parcel of far too many of those people. There has always been a hateful segment in America. Against women being equals, blacks being equal, on and on. They have and will always be with us to a degree, as long as there’s ignorance. » Posted By AdLib On November 5, 2009 @ 12:15 pm The issue I see is that with the deficit being what it is, just printing more money to fund SS could back us up towards financial decline again. I do agree with you on controlling fraud in SS and Medicare as well as changing the Pay for Service model in Medicare which only encourages unnecessary services that drain Medicare. The numbers are pretty impressive on removing the cap on SS payments and how that would bring enormous amounts back into SS, have you seen them? » Posted By AdLib On November 5, 2009 @ 12:01 pm Final request, please continue discussing the issues as you just did below. You have made your point repeatedly, move on please. In the hope that we can indeed move on, I’m reposting the exchange we just had below: Will T says: Social security is a huge problem and whether I support it or not does not matter. It is going to insolvent, broke, no money before I get my chance at it so it is nothing but another tax to me. Same with medicare. When the government gets involved it needs to be targeted. Plenty of people have the ability to handle their own HC needs. My biggest problem with the government getting involved is the lack of mechanisms to control overuse of the HC system which is something that I see as a driver of increased HC costs. * Appreciate your points. SS is in deep trouble, there are fixes though, some are very painful, some less so. For example, removing the contribution limit would pour huge new amounts into the coffers. In addition to that are more painful steps such as increasing the age for claiming it, raising the withholding percentage. So there are things that can be done, the question is whether it is worth it to keep a safety net for the elderly or not. I think it is. If the wealthiest have to contribute more to those who helped make them wealthy and will turn around and spend that money with those same wealthy corporations and people, that » Posted By AdLib On November 5, 2009 @ 11:50 am Appreciate your points. SS is in deep trouble, there are fixes though, some are very painful, some less so. For example, removing the contribution limit would pour huge new amounts into the coffers. In addition to that are more painful steps such as increasing the age for claiming it, raising the withholding percentage. So there are things that can be done, the question is whether it is worth it to keep a safety net for the elderly or not. I think it is. If the wealthiest have to contribute more to those who helped make them wealthy and will turn around and spend that money with those same wealthy corporations and people, that’s not a bad path in my book. » Posted By AdLib On November 5, 2009 @ 11:45 am Nellie, I fully agree. We have never had to give any member a “time out” here before nor delete or moderate a single post or comment. It would have been hypocritical and easier just to have reacted quickly to step in right away. My feeling is that such situations are indeed a moment of truth, to try in good faith as hard as possible to bridge a conflict with someone with a POV not shared by the majority here. My question has been, is it possible to make that leap when not under the influence of HuffPo? I have been trying with Will but one can’t have a handshake with only one hand. I can’t force Will to have a discussion that’s not about him if he doesn’t want to. And as long as we have made every effort to show good faith, we can feel comfortable with establishing precedents when good faith is not accepted. » Posted By AdLib On November 5, 2009 @ 11:40 am Okay, so let’s get back to the discussion. I don’t understand how those folks can make the case against government involvement in health care without also opposing and voluntarily giving up o Disability Insurance and Medicare payments. Do you oppose all government involvement in health care including Medicare? Do you oppose Social Security? If so, how would you prefer to see the poor and elderly served? » Posted By AdLib On November 5, 2009 @ 11:27 am Will, can we stop going around in circles? I can speak only for myself but I will agree not to use that term if you will agree to get back on topic. This is the second time I’ve tried to ask if we can agree to respect each other’s wishes. Do you want to discuss and debate issues regarding the Teabag Parties Movement or not? I will take your next response as your answer to that. » Posted By AdLib On November 5, 2009 @ 11:19 am So I gather you do not agree then. This is a site for free speech but certainly not hate speech. If I can show you at least one instance of someone in the Tea Party Movement using that term to describe themself, will you admit it is not always used as an insult? If that is the case, then who can read minds to know when it is or isn’t being said to be derogatory? One last question, do you think respecting Freedom of Expression means that if one person has an opinion, that is not conclusive, that a word or term is derogatory then all members of a blog should be censored from using it? I’m not talking about a term that is admittedly an insult in society but one that is not definitively seen as an insult by a vast majority. Freedom of Speech is respected here, hate speech is not. And flogging dead horses isn’t either. I will ask once more that if you are truly here to discuss and debate, that you please return to the topic of what the Tea Party Movement is, what they want, how do they reconcile their opposing viewpoints on government support of people, etc. » Posted By AdLib On November 5, 2009 @ 11:15 am Please read my note to you above… » Posted By AdLib On November 5, 2009 @ 10:59 am Will, I do not wish to be provocative with you, I want a conversation with you about the issue. I think this horse is not only beaten to death, it’s been pulverized. I don’t believe in political correctness but in this one case, to compromise with you so we can hopefully move forward, I will agree not to use that phrase with you for members of the Tea Party Movement if you will agree to drop the personalizing posts here and get back to discussing this issue with me and the others here who would like to as well. Deal? » Posted By AdLib On November 5, 2009 @ 10:57 am Will, to be frank, you have constructed a scenario for yourself where people here are insulting you for having used the phrase “teabagger” which, whether you like it or not, is used frequently in the media and by those in the Tea Party Movement to describe them…without the negative connotation you project on all that use it. This is not a place where seeking out scenarios to feel insulted will play or continue for too long. If you are truly here to discuss issues, I will ask you once more to discuss them with us because I would like to do so with you. I and many others have asked you questions and yet you only reply with expressing how you feel wronged. If you feel the inescapable need to continue post solely about yourself and your feelings of being wronged, I would suggest doing that at Huffington Post and returning here when you wish to discuss actual issues. » Posted By AdLib On November 5, 2009 @ 10:50 am Seems like a good time to restate the philosophy of The Planet about the conduct of members. Tha Planet is a site where Freedom of Expression about issues is greatly respected. It is however a site for discussions about issues, not a social site for personal conflicts. That is ancillary and trivial garbage that offers nothing constructive. One of the biggest problems with Huffington Post is the arbitrary nature of censorship and banning. Here however, there are Terms of Use (which you can consult under FAQ) that apply fairly and equally to all. There can’t be a civilized discussion about issues if disagreement on POV’s is personalized and the discussion is hijacked into being about the character of members with opposing opinions. Opinions from every perspective are sought and welcomed but all are required to simply show respect for each member though passionate opposition of opinions is perfectly fine. There is already a Huffington Post for people to indulge themselves in personal attacks and personalizing differences of opinion. I recognize from personal experience that the pettiness and hostility from Huffington Post makes an imprint on people that takes time to shake off. That’s why we’re a bit more lenient right now when it comes to enforcing the TOU by the book. But if people come here solely to engage in the HuffPo mold of creating personal conflicts, disrupting threads or even doing so intentionally to get banned and then use that to criticize the principles of the site, they would not get the satisfaction they were seeking. Those who violate the clearly posted Terms of Use would only be banned in the most severe circumstances, such as direct personal attacks on a fellow member. Otherwise, those violating the rules will get a “time out” here, having their posts and comments legitimately and fully moderated for personal attacks and disrupting threads until they get back to writing about their opinions on issues. Some people do not respect freedom, instead of taking advantage of the benefits of it, they view it as weakness or foolishness that can be taken advantage of. Any who believe that’s the case here would be sadly mistaken. » Posted By AdLib On November 5, 2009 @ 10:41 am WillT, you are again generalizing and you are again condemning something you yourself practice. You accused me of being “underhanded” which certainly sounds like an insult. You are also sidetracking from discussing the tea bag movement to criticisms of the members here and the site. Please note, my response is not to personalize your comments and get upset. I would rather discuss the issue with you. This isn’t HuffPo, that is the place for people to turn discussions into conflicts about themselves and not discuss the topic. This is the place to discuss and debate issues and I welcome and invite you to do so. » Posted By AdLib On November 5, 2009 @ 10:05 am As you’ve witnessed, here you are free to criticize the site or the opinions of others. As someone who appears to be coming from a more libertarian position, I hope you appreciate that philosophy of The Planet and that your opinion is as welcome here as any other member’s. If Kev or you or anyone else personally insulted a fellow member, then they would be crossing the line. However, Kev clearly said that he felt your argument is weak and discussing, debating and criticizing POV’s is exactly what Free Expression is all about. HuffPo has left an imprint on many who have blogged here, the real sin over there is allowing every disagreement to become a personal affront. It’s important that we let that garbage stay at HuffPo and not personalize disagreements or criticisms on issues here. » Posted By AdLib On November 5, 2009 @ 9:55 am You didn’t answer any of my questions and simply made another unfounded generalization about what all of them think. I thought you opposed generalizations? Could you please respond to the questions above? » Posted By AdLib On November 5, 2009 @ 9:42 am Kev’s right, you did just use a generalization to criticize making generalizations. If, for example, one or more members freely express themselves here that they like bacon, to conclude that everyone at PlanetPOV liked bacon would be an incorrect generalization. Whereas, if everyone who replied to you said they liked bacon, you could deductively conclude only that those who responded to you liked bacon, not that everyone at The Planet loved bacon. Personally, I like bacon. » Posted By AdLib On November 5, 2009 @ 9:37 am It was not underhanded nor intended as an insult. That is how they are typically referred to throughout the media. Is that not your experience? What term do you hear most frequently used to describe this group? How do you refer to the group of people who follow the Tea Bagging movement? » Posted By AdLib On November 5, 2009 @ 9:28 am First, welcome to The Planet WillT! Very much appreciate your POV here. I do agree with you that the tea parties do represent a segment of America and I also agree with your caution about generalization. I don’t doubt that there are well educated, professional people amongst the tea baggers. At the same time, there is a preponderance of evidence and surveys which reflect that the majority of teabaggers are not well to do, among the better educated and professionals. Putting aside the surveys which reflect the above, there is also what can be seen of the membership. On Tea Bagging Protest days, teabaggers from around the country were and are shown extensively on tv. I saw a lot of this as well as videos and photos from teabaggers themselves. Deductive reasoning and observation are keys to making stronger conclusions. So I submit these as what I base my opinion on, that the majority of teabaggers are white, lesser educated, lower income Americans. All teabaggers I have ever seen in the media and in person out of the thousands in protests and all of those shown disrupting town hall meetings are older and white. I have not seen younger people though I would concede there must be some. One’s clothes typically reflect one’s financial status and based on that one would have to conclude that teabaggers are not in higher income brackets. Another indicator of education and income is literacy. The spelling, vocabulary and grammar that people use reflects their education which is connected to their professional status. The preponderance of misspelled signs, poor use of grammar and limited vocabularies displayed are instructive. Also, the blind hostility and racism that has been evidenced at teabagger protests, portraying Pres. Obama as Hitler, a Nigerian, a Marxist, the AntiChrist, hating white people, etc. is ignorant. Any educated person who truly supports the anti-government message would have the intellectual resources to recognize that Pres. Obama is none of the above and is simply a Democrat. Lastly, Teabaggers have the availability to attend many activities, including protests, townhall meetings, trips to DC, etc. People who are employed and established professionals do not typically have the flexibility to leave their jobs so frequently. So, though I do agree that we can’t say categorically that all teabaggers are covered by any one profile and the odds would insist that some do not fit the profile of the majority, my respect for deductive reasoning would conclude that the majority of teabaggers are older, less educated, lower income white people. Their conduct and behavior does not reflect intelligent expression or explanation of a political POV, it is more often composed of emotional outbursts and offering unfounded and blatantly untrue insults and charges. They do indeed represent a segment of America. However, there have always been segments of America which have been more detrimental than constructive to discourse and society because they have been fueled by unreasoning hostility. » Posted By AdLib On November 5, 2009 @ 8:57 am I think the subtext is where you’ll find what he was really saying. He is angry at life, his life, that it didn’t turn out to be what he thought it would be. He is poor, on disability and probably feels like a failure in life. He’s angry. He doesn’t sound well educated either. So who do angry uneducated people hate? Those who they think see themselves as smarter than them, as more entitled than them, as more successful than them (we did get “our” president elected). They hate the winners. They hate those who aren’t as disappointed with their lives. They hate people who have hope because they are jealous. They just hate blindly and hypocritically. It’s sad that a whole segment of our nation (Repubs, Fox News, etc.) are dedicated to making so many people feel like vengeful victims who have lost out on the American Dream…so they can be turned into soldiers to do the bidding of the very corporations and politicians who robbed them of the American dream. » Posted By AdLib On November 5, 2009 @ 12:07 am Just wanted to make the 500th post on this thread. Go on about your business now, nothing to see here. » Posted By AdLib On November 6, 2009 @ 11:58 pm How much do you charge? » Posted By AdLib On November 6, 2009 @ 11:57 pm Missed it by that much! » Posted By AdLib On November 6, 2009 @ 8:46 pmComments Posted By AdLib
FORT HOOD, Texas
11/05/2009 at 11:32 AM (Edit)
AdLib says:
11/05/2009 at 11:45 AM (Edit)
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats