Majority in U.S. Favors Healthcare Reform This YearControlling costs a higher priority than expanding coverageby Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ -- As U.S. House leaders unveil a plan to reform the U.S. healthcare system, a USA Today/Gallup poll finds 56% of Americans in favor and 33% opposed to Congress' passing major healthcare reform legislation this year. Support for healthcare reform before the end of the year is sharply split along party lines, with 79% of Democrats in favor, compared with only 23% of Republicans.
On Tuesday, House Democrats held a press conference in which they introduced their version of healthcare legislation. The Senate is still working on its version. With the specific outlines of healthcare reform still far from settled, the July 10-12 survey explored a number of other issues that Congress is considering as it works toward drafting legislation.
A more up-to-date poll from Gallup on health care legislation here.
Why listening to Glenn Beck will "collapse" your brain.
In this typically nonsensical piece from his show, Beck admonishes Americans to "stand up" to the "brainiacs," who want to change this country--and then he claims NO AMERICANS WANT HEALTH CARE REFORM. He urges Americans to resist the brainiacs through peaceful means, and as an example, shows photos from the 1960s of anti-integration southerners turning their fire hoses on African-Americans, as an example of the sort of peaceful resistance Americans should use (never mind the fact that an overwhelming majority of Blacks and other minorities are in favor of health care reform). Beck warns that if health care reform isn't resisted (peacefully, of course) the brainiacs will win, and then this country will be "rebooted" with their "new America." Y'know, like the "post-segregated" America that the "brainiacs" helped effect? Like that "new America?"
It's always a challenge to discover any sort of meaning from the sausage-making like processes that pass for Glenn Beck's thinking. This particular performance piece, I believe, is one of his classics in nincompoopery.
52 comments:
I did a speak long about about how when a wrestler loses the crowd he resorts to yelling, insulting and any other means necessary to get them back. It looks like Beck is losing his crowd. He has nothing left but to shout nonsense that only appeals to his base viewership of bigots. Homophobes and idiots.
In a sense, this is good news that he's going downhill. It's scary though that his diatribes will only serve to inflame further the bigots, homohobes and idiots that hand on this joker's every word.
I wonder what Humphrey Bogart would make of a weasel like Glenn Beck?
http://www.terramedia.co.uk/reference/documents/red_menace_in_hollywood.htm
I love reading blogs like this only because they make me laugh so hard.--Listen To Me
Everyone needs somewhere to go to get their kicks. Glad I could help.
It's time to grow up people. Glenn Beck is one of the highest rated shows on cable, all of his books are best sellers, and he packs auditoriums. He isn't going anywhere.LtM
Yes. We know. Thank you for saying so.
Everyone needs a hero. You're welcome to Glenn Beck, who has labeled himself a rodeo clown.
You seem to be in desperate need of laughs.
"It's time to grow up people. Glenn Beck is one of the highest rated shows on cable, all of his books are best sellers,"
We're not impressed.
Now this is impressive:
The Oprah Winfrey Show, hosted and produced by its namesake Oprah Winfrey, and is the highest-rated talk show in American television history. It is currently the longest-running daytime television talk show in the United States, having run nationally since September 8, 1986, for over 22 seasons.
Beck Schmeck.
'Rebooted' is rather extraordinary, it's most commonly what we do to Escape from kinks in our computer, and altogether a good thing. I wonder if, unconsciously, Beck refers to jackbooted, or maybe freebooting, though, since he didn't seem to mean it as a good thing. Something about rambling on illiterately does keep his fellow illiterati coming back to him, tho, where the poor things feel comfortable.
The last episode of Dancing With The Stars had ten times the viewers Gle Beck had.
That there are people who regularly watch this joker is a testament to their narrow minded loyalty.
I may not agree with everything that Beck says , but I don't agree that any group of people have the right to "shut him down" for his thoughts...LtM
No one's trying to shut him down. If enough people pressure his advertisers to drop him because of his hate speech, that's perfectly democratic. A group of people petitioning the advertisers is NOT shutting anyone down. The advertisers are within their rights to ignore those who petition them. If they believe it is in their best interests to drop Beck, they will. Their financial interests will determine this. Perfectly democratic and legal.
I resent having to agree or be called a racist...--LtM
No one here has called you a racist. My, but you do go on about these phantom injustices.
I'm sick of people saying that if you don't agree with the president, you're "right wing nazi,"--LtM
Another claim to victimization. Really. No one here has called you that. You need to take your indignation to the place where those epithets are normally found--like an anti-health care town hall meeting.
Who feigns outrage over Glenn Beck, yet lauds the likes of Olbermann, Sharpton, Shultz, and my personal favorite, the Rev. Wright - THE INTOLERANT LEFT!LtM
Your outrage is quite misplaced on this blog. I don't "laud" Olbermann, Sharpton, or Shultz or Rev. Wright.
You have said nothing of interest to report to anyone but only repeat your tired, empty rhetoric of being a victim because the Republicans lost the last election, and it's really quite tiresome.
It is appalling that you're so desperately wrong about what you've written, but even more unforgivable is that you're also insufferably boring when you do so.
Being off work today, I visited and posted my disagreements with President Obama on several blogs today. Jame's Wolfer's and Libby Spencer's in this community if LTM is interested.
I have no problem with amnyone disagreeing however vociferously with the President he wants to. I'm just sick of no sibstance attacks in favor of just calling him a socialist or saying he's destroying America.
Offer substance and I have no doubt Shaw will engage in reasonable and civil discussion.
I'm not a Glenn Beck fan. But not for the reason SK or T101 may use. I believe the man is a plagiarist. And that, to me, is intolerable.
It's OK to take someone else's idea and expand them, bring them to life and before as many of the public as one can, but for heaven's sake, give the credit to where it is due!
(I would name the outraged folks, from the right I might add, that are less than happy with young Beck. I feel that it is up to them to make their grievances public. And that may happen any day.)
Listen; Does "facist" rhyme with "racist"?
My introduction to Beck was the time he ranted at length, and in detail about the necessity of murdering a certain left-wing American media figure, and how to go about doing it.
I don't find that kind of thing defensible, in any way. And no instance of "the other side did it too!" can make this the least bit justifiable.
---------
On to one of the specific comments, "Listen to Me" said: "Just pay attention at who's first to bring RACE into a debate - THE INTOLERANT LEFT!"
Just below this post there happens to be a slightly older one about Rush Limbaugh having actually brought race into discussion of the NFL. He has been playing the race card on this one. The Left plays the race card a lot, but the Right does as well, and there is no excuse on either side.
My family is multi racial. Irish, Black, Chinese, Indian, Philipino, I love every aspect of my family. I really do not see color in any of them, we are a family who lives for and loves one another on a far deeper level than race. I am so sick of all of this racism crap that I can just about hurl every time I hear it parroted by the media.
My deepest prayer right now is that Rush sues the pants off of everyone who was instrumental in blocking him from owning any portion of the team.
I have visions of him owning CNN. A simple retraction from them in insignificant at this time. They know the have done the damage and they will not be sorry unless they feel it in their pocketbook.
My family is multi-racial too.
So what.
That doesn't erase what Limbaugh has said in the past.
He is a racist.
Period.
Anonymous wrote:
My deepest prayer right now is that Rush sues the pants off of everyone who was instrumental in blocking him from owning any portion of the team.
The owners and players of the NFL said they didn't want any part of Rush Limbaugh.
Limbaugh and his supporters can cry over this as long as they want and call it an injustice.
Limbaugh's words are out there and they speak for themselves.
Mr. Beck has his right to free speech, and that is as it should be.
What bothers me is all the people who listen to and believe what he says. They have made him rich and famous.
It's enlightening about Americans, that they believe what people like Beck say and the fear he uses to mold public opinion.
Their right to free speech is tempered only by others right to free speech to point out the lies and hate.
So, thanks to Shaw and others for shinning a light on the demagogues.
I am not a Beck fan and have said so on many different occasions. I listen to him every so often, mostly because the person I am with has him on the radio or TV. I've heard enough of him to dislike the drama that goes along with him. He's made a few good observations but the problem is anything good he contributes is overshadowed by the stupid things he says.
I wouldn't have such an issue with him if people did not live and breathe by every word he says. I see it in close relatives and I just shake my head and bite my tongue. I wish people would think for themselves, and I don't think that is too much to ask. If he says something, what would it hurt to look into it further than to accept it as fact?
Sorry.....didn't mean to ramble! LOL
it looked to me more like the Republicans collapsed the economy. i mean, in 2000 when Dubya was running against Al gore they were talking about how to spend a surplus.... a surplus that had emerged out of a deficit from long years with Republicans at the helm under Reagan.....
Dubya turned a surplus into a great big deficit by cutting taxes for really rich people, then he did wars without raising taxes.
then, at the end of his reign, the whole darn financial system choked because, due to all the regulations Republicans slashed, the bankers and financiers went and did stupid risky things that they couldn't pay for if they lost.
well, they lost, and Public monies, you know the money the government collects for "everybody" programs.... well that money had to be use to help the poor Financial institutions like a great big welfare check.
corporate welfare.... that's what Republicans like.
and now Beck is saying Obama is going to do something bad? he's gotta be kidding.
the American People just took the keys away from a bunch of drunk drivers called Republicans.
Ghost: There was no surplus in 2000, actually. Clinton ran the budget into the red every single year he was in office. No surplus, but instead 8 years of the government spending more than it took in.
Bush did this a lot worse than Clinton.
And now Obama is doing this a lot worse than Bush.
"the American People just took the keys away from a bunch of drunk drivers called Republicans."
And now drink drivers with a BAC three times as high have the keys and are driving the car.
"the bankers and financiers went and did stupid risky things that they couldn't pay for if they lost."
This was a result of government regulation. Fannie Mae encouraged this. The Democrats circled the wagons when others tried to stop it.
The financial crisis explained.
'Fannie Mae' & 'the Democrats'.
Case closed.
Next.
Arthur: Bush could have tried harder to overcome the Dem's objections and stopped Fannie Mae from backing loans to undeserving people. But he didn't. In hindsight, I blame him for not trying harder to stop the problem also.
well they sure spent a lot of time talking about "the surplus" in the 2000 election.
it probably would have been good if somebody mentioned there wasn't any surplus then.
the Dems and the Fannie Mae thing was a "do good" attempt to expand the availability of finance for housing.
when i look across the entire landscape of deregulation that began with the Reagan administration, i would tend to fault that as the underpinnings of the current environment.
also, people talk about Clinton like he was some kind of lefty socialist. Clinton governed right-of-center (as will Obama), and his economic policies were essentially continuity on Reagan-era economic philosophy.
check out Rubin's role in the the finance industry's ability to pack complicated financial instruments with potentially toxic components.
see also deregulation that allowed banking and financial institutions to merge their practices etc.
that's all Milton Friedman, Austrian School, laissez faire stuff out of modern Republicanism.... not traditional Democratic Keynes thinking.
from an Economic point of view, Clinton and the DLC were Democrats in name only.
we still see some of these characters in Obama's administration.
but i don't think making loans available to poor people was the lynch-pin of this whole thing.
Interesting response, Ghost Danser.
Ghost said: "well they sure spent a lot of time talking about "the surplus" in the 2000 election."
A classic case of counting chickens before they hatched.
"but i don't think making loans available to poor people was the lynch-pin of this whole thing."
I don't blame the poor people. I blame the architects of this poorly thought out policy, which was basically handing out homes for free to large numbers of people who could not otherwise pay for them. It was indeed the lynch pin, the cause of the landslide.
As for the "do good" policy, shouldn't housing-related welfare had been handled through HUD instead? Instead of corrupting the banking and real estate sector an turning them into a dual train wreck with this mess.
i think if you look closely, the banking and real estate sector that was "corrupted" participated in the policy and saw a way to make profit.... which they did.
i would suggest the policy simply enabled predatory behavior. however i don't think that was the intent.
the issue goes back to CRA in '77. however CRA found Banks operating profitably and still servicing low-income for a number of decades.
the change in philosophy during the Clinton administration was essentially de-regulatory in philosophy.
i would suggest that the Fannie May Freddie Mac policy brought out in the Clinton administration was simply a twist on de-regulatory Reaganomics intended to extend the "ownership" culture that Dubya Bush was still talking about in his administration.
again.... i don't think the Fannie Mae issue is the lynch pin of the current economic crisis. the lynch pin is a culture of de-regulation practiced by Republican and Democratic regimes....
the Savings-and-Loan crisis during the Reagan years was simply a tremor foreshadowing an earthquake.
"LIMBAUGH: They [Democrats] have to have a villain to advance everything, because they cannot sell their ideas. They had to demonize me with false, fake, made up quotes. To protect their precious little — National Football League as an outpost of racism and liberalism, which is what it is."
Except NFL teams, owners, players and personnel gave overwhelmingly to GOP since 1989.
Limbaugh is a pissant whiney-assed loser.
Keep it up Rush, we love seeing you for what you are.
Ghost said: "I think if you look closely, the banking and real estate sector that was "corrupted" participated in the policy and saw a way to make profit.... which they did."
I did. And the "black hole for toxic debt" policy of the federal government's Fannie Mae agency made this possible.
I agree that the policy encouraged and enabled this behavior, but it was not the original intent. More of a case of those crafting policy giving little or no regard to the effects of what they do.
Malden gave us a Limbaugh quote: "National Football League as an outpost of racism and liberalism, which is what it is."
Wow, I thought it was really about playing football! Thanks, Rush, such an intelligent observation1
Ye Gawds.
Limbaugh should have kept his mouth shut and taken this defeat with some measure of grace. He is, afterall, a very, very wealthy man and should be able to come up with some other way to show off his power and influence.
But, in the end, he has shown he is incapable of graciousness and is totally devoid of class.
Well, if this is all a ploy by Limbaugh to upstage Glenn Beck, it might well be working.
Some comments in response to Ghost Dansing: He is right about Fannie and Freddie NOT being a root cause of anything, and, most especially, right about the disastrous consequences of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of voodoonomics.
Fannie and Freddie themselves were losing market share to mortgage cowboys who were compromising lending standards ... forcing F&F to underwrite this paper. But the corruption extends to every level of Wall Street.
Sub-primes were bundled into derivatives and the quality was so mixed and intermingled that it was impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff. One bad apple made the whole barrel rotten.
To make these derivatives marketable, they bought credit default swap insurance from insurers such as AIG, and since AIG was then considered a AAA rated company, rating companies such as Moody's gave these derivatives their top rating.
Hedge fund cowboys sold these triple A-rated securities worldwide, taking exorbitant front-loaded commissions. Total exposure for sub-prime credit default swaps: An estimated $50 trillion. That gives you some idea as to the magnitude of the problem ... and why this meltdown will remain with us for a very long time.
Bottom line: The whole securities system was corrupt from top to bottom. SO DON'T START LOOKING FOR SCAPEGOATS in all the wrong places, and that means you, Dmarks.
About why Reaganomics is a sham, ask me later. I'm tired now.
"...forcing F&F to underwrite this paper."
They were asked to do so by the federal government.
" in all the wrong places, and that means you, Dmarks."
I'm looking in the right places. F & F are one huge smoking gun on this.
Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan sure are not, and had nothing to do with this. In fact, I defy you to find one instance of Friedman doing anything like asking for what happened (having the federal government inadvertantly crash the economy by interfering in the free market and supporting/encouraging bad loans).
If anything is "voodoo" it is trying to solve the mess with more of what caused it in the first place: hamhanded Federal intervention in the economy without any regard to consequences of actions.
There is already a willful disregard of consequences on Left here. Obama is poised to increase the national debt in his first year by a greater amount than Bush did in all of his 8 years. Yet those on the left who were deficit-hawks* during the Bush years are pretty much silent as President Obams spends without thought or consequence. I guess it is OK for the government to waste money if the guy at the top is in your own party.
Dmarks, an article posted this weekend discusses the MOODY’s side of the story:
"A McClatchy investigation has found that Moody's punished executives who questioned why the company was risking its reputation by putting its profits ahead of providing trustworthy ratings for investment offerings ...
Instead, Moody's promoted executives who headed its "structured finance" division, which assisted Wall Street in packaging loans into securities for sale to investors. It also stacked its compliance department with the people who awarded the highest ratings to pools of mortgages that soon were downgraded to junk. Such products have another name now: "toxic assets.""
Dmarks said: If anything is "voodoo" it is trying to solve the mess with more of what caused it in the first place: hamhanded Federal intervention in the economy without any regard to consequences of actions.
Dmarks, you did NOT READ my comment. You IGNORED the role of “cowboy” mortgage originators who compromised lending standards to make a quick buck. You IGNORED the haphazard bundling of sub-prime derivatives and how these trashed commercial credit markets. You ignored the role of credit default swaps designed to turn “junk derivatives” into marketable products. You ignored the role of quick buck artists who made exorbitant commissions off toxic assets. In short, you ignore the culture of greed that permeates Wall Streets, and the fact the same scum who authored the “junk bond” era got recycled back into the Wall Street job market and created this crisis.
This is what Alan Greenspan said in testimony before the Committee of Government Oversight and Reform<:
“ The consequent surge in global demand for U.S. subprime securities by banks, hedge, and pension funds supported by unrealistically positive rating designations by credit agencies was, in my judgment, the core of the problem.”
Dmarks, do you really have the arrogance to consider yourself more knowledgeable about economic matters than Alan Greenspan?
You seem to have a broken record of Reaganomics playing repeatedly in your head, and conveniently forget the mindset that precipitated the saving and loan crisis of the 1980s, the sole creation of the Reagan era deregulation and precursor of the current crisis:
The Tax Reform Act 0f 1986 and subsequent deregulation of the S&L industry allowed S&Ls to function as a bank WITHOUT the same regulations of banks. In short order, S&Ls embarked upon a wave of imprudent lending practices. Result: 745 S&Ls failed, and the cost of the bailout was $160 billion of which $124 billion was paid by the U.S. government … meaning U.S. taxpayers.
Dmarks, Karl Marx, dog barks, you know absolutely nothing about the events of the past 30 years … and even less about economics. Worst of all, the only thing you excel at is in turning yourself into an unrelenting comment pest.
Looks like one more person whose definition of troll or "pest" means someone who does not agree with them 100% on everything. How Glenn Beckish of you.
Thanks for the above comment about cowboys (apparently people who rope cattle while making loans), and never mentioned the actual situation which triggered the economic mess. Such as the specific Federal policies through its Freddie and Fannie agencies which directly caused the very "toxic asset" situation that you all too briefly touched on.
"You seem to have a broken record of Reaganomics playing repeatedly in your head"
Actually, it is you. You keep mentioning a man who was not even around when this problem happened, and a specific style of policies that barely even survived the first Bush. It is as silly as blaming Jimmy Carter for anything that went on during the Clinton administration.
Your last paragraph (where your growning triumph was a string of playground-style rhyming insults). pretty much devoid of facts. Very appropriate that it comes up in a Glenn Beck post.
As for the "comment pest" thing, lets let Shaw decide. Does Shaw think that commenters who do not agree 100% with Octo's dubious historical summaries are "pests"?
In Shaw’s post of March 29 2009, this conversation took place:
dmarks (MARCH 26, 2009 11:57 AM): And we can abolish Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the cause of much of this mess.
James Wolfer (MARCH 26, 2009 8:09 PM): Dmarks, The budget deficit and the national deficit, or public debt, are two different things … Clinton's national debt went up slightly in terms of actual dollars. But in relation to GDP, it went WAY down. When he came into office, the debt to GDP ratio was 66.2%. Four years later, it was 65.6%. When he left office, it was 57.4% of the GDP.
Arthurstone (MARCH 26, 2009 11:22 PM): Let it go (…) One can't have a discussion with a pair of spring loaded metal jaws.
James Wolfer (MARCH 26, 2009 11:34 PM): Dmarks: In a budget, you don't add debt in. You add debt in an equity sheet, as any accountant would tell you .
(O)CT(O)PUS (MARCH 26, 2009 11:57 PM): Dmarks, you seem to miss a point Wolfer is making. When the ratio of debt to GDP declines, as Wolfer has shown, it is the functional equivalent of an increase in liquidity (…) GDP means "Gross Domestic Product" -- the sum of all goods and services transacted in the U.S. An increase in GDP is like an increase in income. Another term for it is "economic growth." Although debt may increase in raw dollar terms, a larger increase in GDP means a smaller percentage of debt relative to economic performance (…) This should not be a difficult concept for you to understand: If your income increases at a faster rate than your debt, your liquidity is actually increasing ... thus improving the serving of debt.
Time (MARCH 27, 2009 12:26 AM): [Dmarks] does not get it guys, give up.
[My comment with respect to the above: Here are four participants in one comment thread … all exasperated with Dmark’s knuckle headedness.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
Dmarks, with respect to the current comment thread (above), this is what you said:
Your last paragraph (where your growning [sic] triumph was a string of playground-style rhyming insults). pretty much devoid of facts.
There were also three attributions referenced in the above comment citing authoritative sources. Count them: Three! I cite facts backed with references. You cite nothing accept the same broken record spinning in your head.
This is why I called you a comment pest. YOU DON’T READ. YOU DON’T LISTEN. YOU DON’T LEARN. You do not understand basic accounting concepts or basic economics, but you do repeat gibberish as if repeating yourself were proof enough. You don’t even have the humility to admit gaps in knowledge.
In my post on healthcare reform, you trolled the comment section at least 19 times demanding attention. Understand this: Bloggers have lives beyond the blogosphere - have jobs, have families, have obligations.
The writers of the Swash Zone (and Shaw is one of them, for your information) are not there to entertain Dmarks on demand. This is the other reason why I called you a comment pest. You have no respect for the boundaries of writers and readers. You even had the gall to write me a personal e-mail demanding even more attention, which I rightfully left unanswered.
So take your Glenn Beckisms and blow it up your ass!
Dmarks: If I recall correctly, the actual troll was Capt. Fogg.
Captain Fogg is a writer at the Swash Zone. The Swash Zone is his home. A writer is NOT A TROLL IN HIS OWN HOME. But you have been a VERY RUDE AND UNWELCOME GUEST. Have a nice day!
There was nothing trollish about my comments in that topic. You seem to base the "troll" accusation on the fact that I left 19 comments there, and nothing else. Well, it turns out that the Fogg guy also left 19 comments there, which makes him as much of a troll as I was, by your standards.
" But you have been a VERY RUDE AND UNWELCOME GUEST .... and blow it up your ass!
Perfect example of "pot calling the kettle black".
But enough of your bloviating, nonsequitur attempt to spin a deficit as a surplus, and tantrums.
One of the facts you got wrong deserves especial attention.
I refer to this false claim in a comment of yours:
"You even had the gall to write me a personal e-mail demanding even more attention, which I rightfully left unanswered.".
How much about this can you get wrong?
Let's see, we both know it was not a "personal email". It was actually sent to the main blog email address for Swash Zone, and involved blog management matters. It was in no way "personal". Not only that, it was courteous, and it was a point of clarification of your blog rules. Not a "demand for attention" (if you want to see an example of that, look at your own "Read my comment!" linked comment you left on my blog).
There was no "demand" or "gall" about it, no matter how you spin it. It should also be pointed out that this email was to an address labelled "Swash Zone". It was not to your personal address. Perhaps your email forwarding system sent it to your personal address. In which case I am not responsible for your ignorance of your email set-up sending blog-related emails to your personal address.
The fact that you rightfully left unanswered my request concerning blog policy just shows that you have no idea what you are doing.
Dmarks: " Well, it turns out that the Fogg guy also left 19 comments there, which makes him as much of a troll as I was, by your standards.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I will restate this one more time to make sure you get it: " Captain Fogg is a writer at the Swash Zone. The Swash Zone is his home. A writer is NOT A TROLL IN HIS OWN HOME. "
Dmarks: " It was not to your personal address [my bold]. Perhaps your email forwarding system sent it to your personal address. In which case I am not responsible for your ignorance of your email set-up sending blog-related emails to your personal address. "
Idiot, this IS my personal e-mail address. There is NO forwarding system attached to that account. So here you are creating another piece of fiction and then accusing me of "ignorance" over your own fictional creation. You are like one of those imbedded Babushka Dolls; each time you open up one, there is an idiot inside an idiot inside an idiot.
Give it up. You've been punked. You punked yourself.
Octo said: "Captain Fogg is a writer at the Swash Zone. The Swash Zone is his home. A writer is NOT A TROLL IN HIS OWN HOME. "
No definition of troll says anything like "you have to be outside of your own home".
Good to see though that you have abandoned the one basis of your "troll" accusation. A flimsy one already: my 19 comments were a small part of an item that had 96 comments on it.
"Idiot, this IS my personal e-mail address"
Temper temper. The email address in question also happens to be tagged with the name of the blog, and was given as the primary contact email address for that blog.
"So here you are creating another piece of fiction"
I have yet to create one. But why are you here insisting that I sent a personal email, when the email address I sent to was not personal, and the content was not personal either?
"Give it up. You've been punked. You punked yourself."
Whatever that means. I am sure it is some sort of clever insult somewhere. Talk about "repeating gibberish".
And a reminder to all:
"I welcome civil discourse from people of all persuasions but express no obligation to allow this blog to be trolled. Any comment that fails to rise above ranting, taunting, profanity, and name-calling will be deleted without further comment at my discretion."
Progressive Eruptions has a pretty good policy (above). More blogs, like Swash Zone, should follow it.
So, I left some comments at Swash two months ago that you didn't like. And I sent the Swash email address a courteous email. I think it's time to let go, move on, and chill.
Dmarks: “ I think it's time to let go, move on, and chill. “
No, you are not going to dismiss this matter that easily, and I will repeat what I said earlier:
“ In my post on healthcare reform, you trolled the comment section at least 19 times demanding attention. Understand this: Bloggers have lives beyond the blogosphere - have jobs, have families, have obligations (…) The writers of the Swash Zone (and Shaw is one of them, for your information) are not there to entertain Dmarks on demand. “
When you trolled my post on healthcare reform 19 times, you pestered and annoyed writers and readers alike. When Captain Fogg expressed his annoyance, you failed to take a hint but continued to interrupt the comment thread, continued to interrupt others with off-topic gibberish, and continued to call attention to yourself over the objection and annoyance of others.
I shall not mince words: Your actions were PREDATORY AND ABUSIVE.
I will defend all Swash Zone writers from predatory abuse including Shaw, Captain Fogg, and anyone else whom you take it upon yourself to harass.
Now I am finished !!!
"No, you are not going to dismiss this matter that easily, and I will repeat what I said earlier"
Repeating lies does not make them true.
"When you trolled my post on healthcare reform 19 times"
I did not troll the healthcare post even once.
"When Captain Fogg expressed his annoyance"
Captain Fogg is the worst debater this side of the anonymous trolls. He decided to make up views that I never expressed, and don't even have, and attack me for those. So I called him on it. If you had any idea what you were doing, you would have called him on it too.
"continued to interrupt others with off-topic gibberish"
"Gibberish" meaning facts you don't like known. You know as well as I do that it is impossible to interrupt in a comment conversation, and the 77 comments in that post that were not mine were all over the place as far as subjects go. And a lot of these were what you call "gibberish" (comments that do not match the ideological requirements of "Swash" 100%).
"I shall not mince words: Your actions were PREDATORY AND ABUSIVE."
You may not mince words, but you flat-out lie about this. In your summary of the conversation there, and especially in your disproven claim that I sent you personal email. The "predatory and abusive" words are something you pulled out of thin air. Quite simply, you do not agree with my views, so you feel free to lie about them.
"I will defend all Swash Zone writers from predatory abuse including Shaw, Captain Fogg, and anyone else whom you take it upon yourself to harass."
Translation: reasonable dissent is not allowed on Swash, and it is OK for those on your side to troll.
I did not harass even one of those. What is clear though is that you do not tolerate reasonable dissent at all, have no idea what personal email is, and defend trolls (like Fogg) if they are on your side.
Predatory, abusive, harass? No reasonable person could say this of my small number of comments in the 96-comment healthcare post you discussed. Nor of my one entirely non-personal email to you on blog policy.
Yet, one might reasonably use any or all of these words for you resurrecting the two month old posts. I stopped commenting there long before the discussion was over (leaving others to comment their "gibberish").
Yet for some reason you are throwing a temper tantrum which you have spread to this blog, and you have even left an entirely off-topic comment demanding attention on my blog concerning it.
It is indeed time to dismiss this. One has to wonder what sort of imbalance has caused your temper tantrum. You are going nuts and lying about a post two months old that has been a dead issue ever since. Get a life.
"Now I am finished !!!"
I hope so. I hope that made you feel better.
This exchange has been rather off topic, but your crying and blubbering about nothing to do with anything does bring it all back to Glenn Beck.
You "called me" on nothing and you are and remain the troll's troll looking for someone to knock the chip off your shoulder so you can pretend there's merit to your mndacity.
Mentioning things that your arguments lead to is not putting words in your mouth but calling attention to your ill considered opinions.
Big of you to slink away and look for some other place where you can pretend you won something when you never have and you never will.
Capt. Fogg:
I see that Octo's "PREDATORY AND ABUSIVE" behavior not only includes spreading her stalking to two more blogs, but includes dragging in "allies".
I had forgotten about our exchange, but Octo reminded me of it. I specifically remember you making a few big errors in attacking me for views I never had but you "predicted" I would have. I did call you on it. Nothing can change that. No matter how many times you lie about it, and on how many blogs you lie about it.
"Get a life". You too. That post is over two months old now.
As for false accusations about me being a "troll" for objecting to your straw-man attacks on me, I looked at the roster of Swash Zone writers:
Most of them I do not know. One of them has specifically defended me against false accusations that I was some sort of "troll". Several I communicate with amiably (they are mature enough to accept that people have different views and don't have a hissy fit about it).
"Mentioning things that your arguments lead to is not putting words in your mouth but calling attention to your ill considered opinions."
Yet, my arguments do not lead to, and did not lead to these "things". You did nothing more than the "straw man" fallacious arguments of attacking views I never even held. You made some big mistakes that more mature debaters never do.
My opinions? Ill considered: not at all. Different from yours: certainly.
"Big of you to slink away and look for some other place where you can pretend you won something when you never have and you never will."
Slink away? When did I ever slink away from anything? Like with arguments I never hold that you attack me for, you are probably attacking me for something someone else did.
I suppose if it makes you feel better I never did "win" arguments with you over views I don't even hold. But that is really a problem if your poor reading comprehension skills and logic-gaps.
Grow up.
(Also, you accuse me of "mendacity". Like with all of your straw man attacks, you have nothing to base that on. No actual mendacity.)
Dmarks: " I see that Octo's "PREDATORY AND ABUSIVE" behavior not only includes spreading her [my bold}] ... "
Give it up, Dmarks. I happen to be a male cephalopod, and you are beyond C O M I C A L !
Awesome! fantastic idea, but will this really work?
Post a Comment