Fla. Gov. supporters: Too dumb to write their own letters?
Rick Scott, Florida's 45th governor.
Disgraced business exec and Florida Gov. Rick Scott has been getting hammered in his home state recently — some polls show him as the least popular governor in the nation.
So the Republican is fighting back. His staff has created a pre-written Letter to the Editor, with the syntax, spelling and grammar just right. Just in case his supporters are too stupid or uneducated to write one for themselves.
You can find it here, and a copy of the Rick Scott letter also is below.
Dear Editor,
When Rick Scott ran for Governor he promised to create jobs and turn our economy around. I voted for Rick because he’s always been a businessman, not a politician. While politicians usually disappoint us and rarely keep their promises, Rick is refreshing because he’s keeping his word. His policies are helping to attract businesses to our state and get people back to work. Some of the special interests are attacking the Governor for making tough decisions, showing leadership, and doing what he told us he would do. Rick Scott deserves our unwavering and enthusiastic support. How can we expect to elect leaders who will keep their word and do what’s right for our state if we don’t stand up for those with the courage to set priorities, make difficult choices, and actually deliver on their promises made?
If Scott has his way with the schools down there, they’ll need a lot more of these in the future.
Note: At the prompting of a comment by “tass” I fixed a subject-verb disagreement/typo in the third sentence of the second paragraph.
June 21, 2011 - 8:00 AM
Frank mixed me up with all of his talk...
Pre-written letters are not uncommon. Lots of special interest groups have such things available so that the people who support them don’t sound like buffoons. I know we’re all pretty capable of putting our own thoughts on paper, so it does seem absurd to us.
No surprise here. Rush and Republican operatives regularly write the posts of some people who show up on this blog and the RT. Just read the one-sided posts from John R over at the RT.
Oh come on. As VT Hokie said, pre-written boilerplate letters are common on all sides of all kinds of issues, and they don’t reflect poorly on those who sign them. A few weeks ago I added my electronic signature to a pre-written letter to Congress about debit card interchange fees. Using CUNA’s syntax, spelling, and grammar doesn’t mean I’m “too stupid or uneducated to write one for” myself.
Oh, and you might want to check your own grammar, and decide whether you want to go with singular or plural: “Just in case his supporter are too stupid or uneducated to write one for themselves.”
“Oh, and you might want to check your own grammar, and decide whether you want to go with singular or plural: “Just in case his supporter are too stupid or uneducated to write one for themselves.” “
A fair point tass. I’ve corrected the typo.
No matter what issue you champion or what side you are on, there are some folks, no matter how well intentioned or passionate they are, that you just don’t want to represent the views of your group, at least not without some guidance. Hence, the form letters/emails.
That’s a good part of how the official Tea Party message often gets lost in the sea of ignorant raving and blathering. The raving and blathering are rarely on point. No official part of the Tea Party agenda has to do with social issues, but you wouldn’t know it because even when the main focus is the size of government and out of control spending, someone always has to digress and start pontificating about prayer in schools and abortion.
If they ever want to truly convince anyone that their purpose is not to promote a conservative social agenda, they need to get a clue and take the following steps that other groups already employ:
1) Stop letting people bring home-made signs to rallies. If you want to send a specific message, you need to control the message.
2) Stop letting people other than designated speakers speak in public or to reporters. You don’t want just anyone speaking on behalf of your group, because you can’t control what they will say, and public statements are forever.
3) Have prepared, pre-written, letters to the editor and letters/emails to government representatives. That is, if you want your group’s views to be taken seriously.
The pre-written letter thing is common for a good reason.
I have to agree with VT Hokie & tass.
All sides develop boilerplate corespondents. For but just one example left wing example on an issue you have championed see: http://cdn.publicinterestnetwork.org/assets/2yKPQ4XM5dbqkMFXHSGLUw/Download_the_complete_toolkit_here.pdf
**SAMPLE LETTER:
Dear Senator,
From the threat of rising sea levels and shrinking snowpack, to extreme drought and increased wildfires,global warming poses tremendous risks to California’s environment, economy and people.
Fortunately, many of the solution we need are at our fingertips. From hybrid cars to solar power, we have win-win solutions to global warming that will simultaneously reduce our dependence on oil, reduce air pollution, and protect pristine places from oil drilling and mining.
I hope you will support and co-author these important bills to help solve global warming:
- AB 1470: will promote soar hot water systems and other technologies to reduce demand for natural gas
- AB 493: will establish a program that provides rebates for people who buy cleaner cars while creating fees for dirtier ones
- SB 494: will require by 2020 that one-half of all new cars are “clean alternative fuel vehicles” like electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, and flex-fuel vehicles that can run on renewable biofuels
Sincerely,
**
IMHO, this thread is decrying a mote in the eye of the right while ignoring the beam (or the same mote, maybe) in your own eye — IOW a big to-do over nothing.
Writing or not writing his own letters is the least of this thugs problems IMO. Poor Florida!
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2010/may/20/alex-sink/rick-scott-healthcare-ceo-faces-questions-a/
“Oh, and you might want to check your own grammar, and decide whether you want to go with singular or plural: “Just in case his supporter are too stupid or uneducated to write one for themselves.” “
LMAO.
“Rush Operatives” writing posts for others.
LMAOOOOOO.
I wonder who these “Rush Operatives” are. Can I be one? How much do they get paid? Why hasn’t someone approached me about writing letters for people?
“Why hasn’t someone approached me about writing letters for people?”
Well even for RWnutball boilerplate tripe, there must be some standards.
@#9
“Why hasn’t someone approached me about writing letters for people?”
See post #5.
Wonder why Suzie tends to use LMOA rather than LOL or ROFL?
Seems as if she has an obsession with the A-word.
—– —– —– —–
Re: #9
You are not?
Hum? Could it be even Rush wouldn’t trust you?
Suzie@10:55
Probably because they would like for the letters to be coherent and not
contain words like bastards, ass, assclown, s**t, dumbass, moron,
etc. etc. etc.
#9 “Why hasn’t someone approached me about writing letters for people?”
Good question, suzie. You certainly are a master of distortion, which would be a primary qualification.
Of course we should all realize that the question posed in post #9 was not a serious question, but crafted to elicit the predicted response, which we all immediately and willingly provided.
Well played Suzie.
#15 VT Hokie, I was well aware it wasn’t a serious question. It’s fun throwing it back at her anyway.
@#16
Yeah, I didn’t mean to imply you or anyone else didn’t realize….just that even though we realize we play along rather than refusing to take the bait. I guess it is because sometimes it’s fun.
Yet none of you points out how ludicrous the idea of “Rush Operatives” is. Leave it to leftwingers to miss the obvious.
I can answer that question in one word; Yes.
“Can I be one?”
You already are. It’s not difficult to spot a ringer.
Re: #18
There are volunteer “Operatives” as well as paid “Operatives” in many movements. Don’t you like to identify with one such movement, which alleges to be primarily Grassroots and unpaid? So, what’s your point?
OTOH, I have long suspected that you are a paid “Operative” — paid to make the right-wing-nuts look even more extreme / delusional / racist / egocentric / etc than even right-wing bobble-heads. I must say you earn your money. BTW, what’s the point? To make Rush and company look more appealing to the moderates? If so, I don’t think it’s working.
DaveH,
I number of people have emailed me, suggesting that Suzie is this or that paid operative. But they are far smarter than that. There’s no way they would invest such time in a blog that has such little traffic.
Or perhaps I’m giving them credit for being smarter than they are.
Side comment. I really think the Governor looks like Richard O’Brien (Rocky Horror Picture Show) without hair. Anyone else think so?
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3865623296/tt0073629
#18 I should have just called them what they are, suzie, Rushbots. Nothing ludicrous about it at all.
DaveH:
I’m starting to agree with you. With the exception of BM or the occasional random post, there are no other conservative voices left on this blog. Nobody else seems to want to associate with “Suzie.”
Cold n P, the governor sort of reminds me of Mr. Burns from The Simpson’s.
Art Hill @ 1:24
I respectfully disagree with your statement that no one wants to associate with Suzie.
It seems that no Conservative voices are wanted on this blog.
I started posting on this blog, with the idea that we could communicate with each other, perhaps find common ground…and reach the conclusion that neither of us are the “enemy” of the other.
I have to admit that my MAIN goal was to try to get you all to YEARN for a “Consitutionally” governed America, as I do. I feel THAT is the only way we will begin to heal America, and also a way that we can all get “what we want” without neccessarily infringing on the rights of others. Yet, it seems that whatever I try to say, you all seem to always be on the defensive, you doubt what I say, appear to “willfully” overlook the point I am trying to make, and if you don’t complain about what I say, you complain about how I say it.
It’s really difficuly to communicate that way.
Monday, while our lights were out for hours, I, for the first time, had a “political” conversation with my gay neighbor. We like and respect each other enough that we could have an open and honest conversation, without either of us being on the defensive, or the attack, and without either of us closing our minds to the other’s point of view.
With THAT “attitude” of communication we were able to discuss things like, pre-conceived notions about each group ( me as a conservative, he as a gay man), and what each group of us fear from the other.
By the end of that “communication”, he DID come to yearn for a “Constitutionally” governed America, as I do. But, He opened MY eyes too!!…. to the point that I have COMPLETELY changed my mind about something and now am defending HIS concerns…..which I WASN’T before.
THAT is effective communication, and what I wanted to do on this blog.
Re: #22
Why, Dan, how could that be?
You must be a highly influential liberal commentator / blogger — w/ considerable influence w/ a large following.
Why else would a sophisticated, smart, successful woman of business and private enterprise invest so much time trying to disrupt your following and gonzo members and the scatter the Rev. Dan’s flock?
Any astute, perceptive, entrepreneurial successful maven would be way, way to profit motivated to keep investing money or time into an endeavor at which she continuously fails.
The true private sector entrepreneur knows not to keep throwing more money into a losing effort.
Ergo you must be a highly influential liberal commentator / blogger.
Or something else is wrong with the picture.
.
.
Re: #26
Art,
I don’t think she realizes (or cares) how much her foul language, racist innuendos, argumentum ad hominem, etc hurts the causes, which she allegedly champions, and/or drives away those reasonable folk who are conservative.
I imagine that you are as “wanted” and welcome here as we would be on a FOX or TEA protest blog Sharon N. People who frame everything in insults, factual errors, condescension, misleading information, outright lies and bitter right wing partisan ideology, or espouse “birther” conspiracies and the idea that this is no longer a “Constitutionally governed America” will not find welcome or ease of communication here. That is simply how we roll. There are plenty of sites and blogs that welcome people like you and Suzie. You might even be a star there. But if you expect us to welcome you with open arms and minds, you missed that boat with your first few efforts and it does not sail in a circle.
http://www.squidoo.com/montgomery-burns
If the governors nose was a little thinner.
Sandi @ 4:30
Is it to be assumed then, that you speak for the WHOLE blog? IF so, you are right, I’m wasting my time trying to communicate with people who have pre-conceived notions about me…I believe I have shown that I have an open mind….and I can’t BELIEVE you think that we ARE or HAVE been living under a “Consitutional” Government….we haven’t been for the past 100 years or so. But, of course, you seem to take any criticism I have for the Gov. or it’s policies as a personal attack on you or Obama, and yes, if that is your attitude, I AM wasting my time trying to fight against that kind of close mindedness…
Again..do you speak for the whole blog?
Sharon N,
I congratulations on your new relationship with your neighbor — albeit I don’t see being Gay and being politically or economically Conservative as being in conflict with each other. I have known some very politically and/or economically Conservative Gay Men/Lesbian/Bisexuals/Transgender/etc. Also, I have known some very homophobia non-Conservative.
FWIIW, I have no problem avoiding being on the defensive, or going on the attack in an exchange of points-of-view. I carry on many a conversation without either party closing their minds to the other’s point of view — i.e. opinions stated as opinions. Opinions are somewhat like noses — nearly everyone has one and there is no one-size-fits-all. I welcome anyone to state opinions as opinions.
However, when folk state points-of-view / opinions as facts then sharing of opinions tends to come to a screeching halt.
Also, a condescending claim of holding the high-ground by either party puts other folk on the defensive.
Now, when it comes to debating something (not just a simple exchanging points-of-view on various things) that change things a bit — but not enough to justify name-calling, argumentum ad hominem, etc, IMHO. The change is that in a debate one needs to argue logically, establish proof(s) of validity, provide documentation, etc. It also helps to concede a point occasionally.
I do believe that I have challenged you to establish proof(s) of validity, provide documentation, etc. If, you were just expressing a YMMV point-of-view, I apologize — but you did not come across, to me, as expressing a simple point-of-view.
If you are going to use terms like a “Constitutionally governed America”, I strongly suggest you establish for the group what you mean by that term — as it has become something of a code-word in some circles.
BTW, as to what is “Constitutional” you might want to look at the point-of-view expressed in the link I posted at #47 on http://blogs.roanoke.com/dancasey/2011/06/your-daily-letter-to-the-columnist-june-21-2011/#comment-126342
Debbie. I can see that.
How ’bout Christopher Lloyds “Uncle Fester”
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_vB5-At6IHoY/SnNPp9w7ZdI/AAAAAAAAAaI/Uwib_Z6t8Rc/s400/Fester.jpg
Sharon N,
Some of us would be interested in which aspects of the government, for the past 100 years, that have been unconstitutional? Just give us a list, please.
Some of us would be interested in which aspects of the government, for the past 100 years, that have been unconstitutional? Just give us a list, please.
All you have to do is go down the list of activist leftwing Supreme Court decisions that made new law.
Interesting how those on the Right feel that they are the only ones entitled to exercise the great principal of Democracy. Some simply spout crap to fuel their narcissistic need for attention yet there are those who are actually passionate about change yet believe their side should make all the rules. That ain’t how it works, kids.
Re: #36
Your or my or some bobble-head’s opinions about the “constitutionality” of the “laws” that SCOTUS adjudicates is entirely academic.
Ergo, by definition none of the SCOTUS actions can be “unconstitutional.”
FWIIW, SCOTUS does not “make new law.” SCOTUS unmakes “unconstitutional” laws made legislation and/or confirms or overturns lower courts opinions and/or interprets the proper application of the law made by legislation.
You are welcome to your opinions, as are the bobble-heads, as are various Congressional figures, as is the POTUS and as am I. However, it is the nine women and men of SCOTUS who determine “constitutional” and “unconstitutional” — them and them alone, not us.
#34 LOL, Cold!
I was not “speaking for the blog”, I was giving my opinion and impression of the people who post here regularly. If you call what you have done since coming on here “trying to communicate with people”, you have seriously misidentified your efforts. Your whole “birther” efforts betrayed your fringe status and you cannot walk it back from what I consider crazyville. If you have the unmitigated gall to post the things you do and then say we are the ones “who have pre-conceived notions”, that is just laughable! If you believe you have shown that you have an open mind, on anything, well again, I find that an incredible statement.
You came in defending and agreeing with Suzie (red flag) and have not let up with your inane indictments since that time. If you expect a mostly progressive blog group to “welcome” such antics, you have been in the sun too long. I do not go to right wing, TEA or FOX blogs and try to change the minds and insult the opinions of people like you and Suzie and since you have no more intention of changing your mind on anything you BELIEVE, any more than we do, there is no point in trying to have a polite conversation with someone I would avoid in any other circumstance and consider dangerous to the progress of this nation. No point at all.
The reason Suzie is so combative, insulting and abrasive is that it is all she has. The facts, reality, truth and justice do not support her contentions nor her POV so she resorts to the only thing that will get her any attention at all. You can feel free to join her in that effort and yes, you both can make this a more uncomfortable place for us to converse and a less productive place for ideas and conversation, but you will not change hearts or minds with what you bring. Why not take it where it is welcomed? Why bring it here where it will meet such vigorous contempt and refutation? What is your point? You change minds and hearts with evidence, truth, facts, statistics, reality and proven data. So far you have brought none of the above.
Some folks can’t see the trees for the forest. Minds are made up. What’s lost in the country in someting we used to take for granted.
Question Authority. Every Time. All the Time. Seek you own truth.
Don’t group up like cattle for the slaughter like most of us have by identifing ourselves by artificial political groupings. All of them. I go Al LA Carte and pick and choose based on the issues at hand. To be “Accepted” you must walk the party line on some absurd crap I just don’t have time to go into this morning, but you get my drift.
What are your “core beleifs?” If you take the time to list them then examine closely our political system, I bet not one will match up. It’s designed that way on purpose. We are forced to select the “lessor of 2 evils”
It’s time we had more choice in this country.
Re: #37
“believe their side should make all the rules. That ain’t how it works, kids.”
———-
Bingo!
Well said.
#36 IOW, suzie has no answer for that one.
#42 Cold, your post made me think of this quote by Buddha.
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”
II number of people have emailed me, suggesting that Suzie is this or that paid operative. But they are far smarter than that. There’s no way they would invest such time in a blog that has such little traffic.
Or perhaps I’m giving them credit for being smarter than they are.
So….y’all are saying I might be a paid opertive of the left. Then Dan just said he doesn’t think the leftwing power that-be are very smart.
Thanks for the back-up Sharon. You are correct that some of the RT blogs drive out conservatives. That was certainly the RT blog when Dan Radmacher was running it. If you slapped him around or rubbed his own words in his face, he had a tendency to not publish your posts. For awhile the RT blog was down to like 15 posters a day, most of them Sandi Saunders talking to herself.
Dan on this blog has gotten more radical as time has gone by. He no longer features conservatives’ posts as Post of the Day, and his views have gotten more extreme. He used to provide somewhat of a contrast to the leftwing lunatics in here. Now he leads the way.
The facts, reality, truth and justice do not support her contentions nor her POV so she resorts to the only thing that will get her any attention at all.
Yeah, like when I cited Columbia U. economists and the respected WSJ in our discussion of Fannie Mae and Sandi cited a non-economist Newsweak editor writing in a far-left blog.
Sharon, Sandi does exactly the same as she accuses conservatives of doing times ten. She’s the one who responds to actual debate points by going straight to the diatribe of insults.
Cold n P & Debbie nailed it.
—–
BTW, Cold n P I going to steal that “I go Al LA Carte and pick and choose ….” It describes me better than “moderate.”
And you would know this how? When have you ever actually made, verifiable “actual debate points” exactly? I cited economists and I have offered 10 sources to the one you barely offered. You have never won an “actual debate” because you are not capable of an actual debate. You come out of the gate with a “diatribe of insults” on a daily basis ad have the temerity to call it debate, but as usual, that does not make it so.
I stated your position and your case, exactly as it exists. Period. The facts, reality, truth and justice do not support your contentions or your POV so you resort to the only thing that will get you any attention at all. You insult the more conservative voices for not being as crazed with partisan anger and bile as you are and you make conservatives look like lunatics. Daily.
#45 As I will continue to point out, by the time Dan R left, the RT blog was about 75 percent conservatives. If Dan R didn’t put up your posts, it was because of your insults and expletives.
49
Let’s say I could land a gig as a “Rush Operative”. Would it pay more than an RT butt-monkey position?
As I will continue to point out, by the time Dan R left, the RT blog was about 75 percent conservatives. If Dan R didn’t put up your posts, it was because of your insults and expletives.
Two things:
1) 75% conservative is a lie
2) Sandi Saunders provided half the posts, so that diminished conservative percentages even more.
I noticed Rad didn’t last an evening in here. I’ve always said give conservatives and liberals an equal forum, and the liberals get destroyed on their arguments and either run away or seek institutional “help” from leftwing mods. Sandi hid behind Rad and libs in here light Art and Gdad are always running to Dan.
At first glance, the new chick doesn’t seem quite as extreme and crazy as Rad. Between him a Trejbal, I have never seen a more extreme radical editorial staff in the country. They were WaPo wannabes, but at least at the Post, they at least put on airs and pretend they were fair. Rad was more like Olby.
Hey, pop quiz: What do Rad and Olby have in common?
Answer: They both went bye-bye. (Ain’t it a shame?) One can assume both were shown the door for being too extreme.
Re: #48
Yup.
Volume (neither defined as shrillness or as quantity) does not a winning argument make.
Perhaps Rad has other things to do with his life, than live on this blog.
LOL, then that is something you all three have in common Suzie #52! You too were “shown the door” after all, no one can imagine it was not for being “too extreme”. There is no scarier idea than a Roanoke Times Editorial Board Suzie approves of.
I think it is well documented both at the RT archives and over here that I hide behind no one and nothing. I sign my name to every word I post and I am easily found. You write checks credibility runs from so perhaps you should refrain from trying to impugn anyone else. Of course that would be the smart thing to do and your track record tells us that is not your style.
#52 “One can assume…”
With you being the one. And only one.
#51 Sure, suze. I do just fine destroying the majority of your posts without Dan or anybody else.
I HAVE questioned why he continues to let you be so vile and disgusting when he claimed he wanted to clean things up, but who else would I ask about that other than Dan?
To all of you, I can’t just point out specific posters on this one.
You have made very good points, truly, and Suzie has too….it’s hard to come in and reason with someone when they are going to “challenge” every little thing you say….and start insulting. We each get in “defense” mode, or argue about something that is NOT the point we were trying to make…if we would EACH make an effort to try and understand the others point of view, rather than think of how we are going to challenge it, we’d get much farther. Agreed?
And I AM going to be the first to admit, that Monday, with open communication”..my way of thinking was challenged..I saw how we each have pre-conceived notions about what the other fears, and in a lot of ways, I could clearly see that perhaps HIS fears were more valid, than mine….the “right” and “left” are BOTH NEEDED in a Constitutional Government, perhaps that little nagging feeling I’ve always had, even when not “political” is what has made me never officially “choose sides”, and I have always been an Independent….even now. But anyway, both sides of the fence are needed, to keep the other one in check…the left to keep the right in check, as well as the right to keep the left in check.
If we will all be honest with ourselves, we will have to admit that communication has been sorely lacking, and we have been pitted against each other, especially, in the past few years, it seems the more ridicule and hate the left can stir up against the right, and the more fear and “righteous indignation” the right can stir up against the left….the more each are supported.
We need to STOP this INSANITY people!! We are ALL Americans, who want whats best for our Country…we need to SEE each other that way. It’s NOT black and white, all or nothing…on your side OR ours. If we keep this up….our Country is going to fall, and we will be too busy fighting amongst ourselves to notice.
Yes, whoever said it…..I have known and been good friends with many gay people in my life, most seem to have been “conservative-leaning” OR like my neighbor, we never discussed politics, so I didn’t know. ( he is liberal leaning by the way, but it seems to be ONLY because he feels that the right will not defend his rights..which is why I said that he ended up longing for a Constitutional Gov., as I do.)
As not being “racist” does not mean that I support affirmative action, the Black Panthers, or automatically support Obama…not being homo-phobic does not mean that I support a Militant Gay Safe School Czar, who wants to expose our school children to unnatural sexual acts or attitudes, tout it as the new normal, and call anyone who DOESN’T agree intolerant and hate filled. It doesn’t mean that I think gays should be able to demand to be “married” in any church of their choosing.
Gee, he feels the same way!! When we got to the point where he said “All I want is…..”
“For gay kids not to be bullied or ridiculed in school, to be accepted for who they are..”
..and we discussed that not only gay children were bullied and picked on….in my school, back in the 70′s..a SMALL school, we had several gay students….they did not seem to be picked on as much as the “Christians” were…so, we could agree that NO bullying whatsoever should be tolerated in our Schools….for any reason.
“…I want to be able to put my partner on each other’s insurance,to be able to leave our money to each other, without blood family interference, and although he didn’t mention it specifically, I’m sure he also means that they want to be able to make medical decisions for each other.
I started to point out to him that me and my boyfriend are in the same situation, not because we are gay but because we are not married….then it hit me….my BF and I have a “remedy”..if this was important to us…we could get married, solve those problems. Gays have no such “remedy”.
So, in other words….ALL that he is wanting is the right to be considered “family” in the eyes of the law…we have “marriage” provided in the law for heterosexuals…a man and woman can fall in love, get married, and all of a sudden, we are “Family”…our love for each other and committment we made to each other makes us able to, in the eyes of the law…make these important decisions, and gives us these rights to each others property, the right to make hard decisions of behalf of the other out of our love and concern for them, whether we ever have any children or not.
There is NO WAY, IMO, that we can try to live according to the Consitution and NOT provide these equal rights for gays and lesbians who are Americans too. The “Christian Conservatives” may not like their lifestyle and they have been made to fear that the Gays are wanting to shove that lifestyle down our throats, but it all boils down to…they want the same Constitutional Right to equal treatment under the law….and there is no way that can be legitimately denied to them. We can debate what God means by the word “marriage” all we want to but…THAT is still the bottom line…there needs to be some way provided for them to make a commitment to each other, and be considered as much “family” as heterosexuals are.
That SAME Constitution prevents them from going to ANY church and demanding that they perform the “marraige” ceremony..but the Constitution dictates that SOME means be provided to give them the same rights.
That is when I realized that I don’t neccessarily want to advocate that “Christian Conservatives” take over DC…we just need people who are willing to abide by the Constitution, even if we/they “personally,or perhaps even religiously” disagree.
Believe me…I have gotten just as frustrated trying to explain my “about face” to a “Christian Conservative” friend of mine as I have EVER gotten with any of you all. (wink).
We NEED each other people!! WE DO!! …in DC even more than Roanoke, VA. We just need to find a way to communicate effectively, on BOTH sides, and we need a committment to do our BEST to abide by the Constitution..it’s the best design for a Gov. ever provided..and has given us the greatest Country in the World!! The mistakes that America has made are when we did NOT follow the Constitution.
We may have to agree to disagree on some things..but we need to find a way to cooperate.
So, surprise!! ON THAT, I can agree with Obama. (wink)
@#58
Sharon N., I think you are a decent person. I am firmly on the opposite side of the birth certificate issue, but as far as your other expressed views and positions….well there is always room for honest debate and I believe your heart is in the right place. Yes, we all want what’s best for our country, we just haven’t come to a consensus on what that is, and there are a lot of aspects to consider.
That said, you should be aware of aligning with Suzie….the only place her heart is in is stirring up as much controversy as possible. She openly contradicts herself all the time, blatantly denies it, and sits back and laughs as we all rush in to contradict her (an exercise in futility, since she’s deliberately baiting us). Suzie’s posts are not reviled because she’s conservative, they’re reviled because their typically mean-spirited, heartless, or just absurd. I personally come down on the conservative side of certain issues, and no one has ever reacted to a post of mine the way they react to Suzie’s. I get challenged, sure, but not insulted or derided.
Stick with offering honest thoughts and opinions, and no one is going to try to drive you away.
Oh, and maybe try to shorten your posts a bit
What you seem to be leaving out of your assessment Sharon N, is that liberals have used the exact same Constitutional argument for the protection of Gay rights for as long as I can remember, that is not a new position or idea to us. That is why your position that we somehow need to change and follow the Constitution is so hollow. We already are following the Constitution and those that have fought it and will fight it until (and even after) they lose in the Supreme Court (because if they follow the Constitution they have to lose), are the problem. Our voices already are saying it is unconstitutional to discriminate in the marriage contract or military service. It has nothing to do with religion or church weddings, it never has.
It is wonderful to see that your mind and heart can be changed, that makes you an open minded, if confused person. Now we just need you to let go of the “birther” nonsense and we will all be respectful correspondents.
“because their typically mean-spirited”
Crap.
“because they’re typically mean-spirited”
“So, in other words….ALL that he is wanting is the right to be considered “family” in the eyes of the law…we have “marriage” provided in the law for heterosexuals…a man and woman can fall in love, get married, and all of a sudden, we are “Family”…our love for each other and committment we made to each other makes us able to, in the eyes of the law…make these important decisions, and gives us these rights to each others property, the right to make hard decisions of behalf of the other out of our love and concern for them, whether we ever have any children or not.”
The evil gay agenda, revealed.
Sharon N, you are right in that civility has been lost on both sides in this country.
Hell will freeze over before Suzie is civil to any liberal on this blog, or anyone who doesn’t absolutely agree with everything she says.
Hell will freeze over before Suzie is civil to any liberal on this blog, or anyone who doesn’t absolutely agree with everything she says.
I haven’t seen a whole lot of civility directed my way, kitten. As far as the rules of the blog, I follow them pretty much perfectly. Girl is a model blogger.
Re: #65
“I haven’t seen a whole lot of civility directed my way”
———-
Wonder why you can’t figure the reason for that out?
BTW, Suzie, did you notice that a number of us were trying to make Sharon N. feel more at home and have agreeing with her, on occasion?
As far as the rules of the blog, I follow them pretty much perfectly.
Like the time just the other day when you called me Junior?
#65 As I’ve said before, it’s called cause and effect. You Suzie, reap what you have sowed.
There are “girls” who could indeed be called a “model blogger”. Suzie does not happen to be one of them. Case closed.
Sandi @ 2:40
I will respond to you, I guess because “we” seem to have the most passion in expressing out points of view…although I have certainly taken to heart and noticed ALL of your posts.
Sandy, your post made me smile at the end…I will respond to that later.
But, Sandi…..everything else that you said in your post is absolutely correct, absolutely!! You all HAVE ALWAYS BEEN on the side of the Constitution in this…..I certainly agree, and plead guilty to being close minded in that regard….I always like, got along with, was friends with gays and lesbians, and accepted them for who they are….however, I guess I always wondered what they were complaining about.
I guess I allowed myself to be blinded by the rhetoric of the “religious right”…I am NOT, however, going to say that there aren’t SOME things that YOU ALL have been blinded to by the rhetoric of the “extreme” left.
I wanted to point out that it took honest communication between two people who respected each other enough to have an open and honest discussion of the issues to open my eyes to the fact that we always DO need to have both sides of each issue presented…and that yes, I have been kind of falling into “my way or no way” thinking…or the we are right and you are wrong in everything, way of thinking. I am hoping to convey that I realize you all have some valid “beefs”, and I hope you will realize that we do too.
As to the “birther” issue Sandi, (Smile)….we are going to have to call a draw and agree to disagree on that. I will NOT try to change your mind, and you can’t change mine….we just have to agree to disagree and move on. I won’t bring it up again, please don’t hold it against me to the point you don’t listen to anything ELSE that I may express. Can we agree to that?
ANd to the one that suggested I shorten my posts….I think that now that I hope we have reached an agreement between all of us….I won’t need to keep trying to explain that we need to be civil and listen to each other….and that will automatically shorten my posts. (smile).
I appreciate ALL of you, I DO…yes, I may have come here with the thought that I was going to talk you into agreeing with my side, now that we see THAT isn’t going to happen, (LOL)…nor SHOULD it. Maybe now we can begin to bounce points of view off each other in a cooperative, rather than combative way.
#65 “Girl is a model blogger.”
The one who recently had some posts deleted for not following the rules.
OOOPs…Dave H. This is for you……I SHOULD have said….IMO I feel that there are some things that you all may have been blinded to by the rhetoric of the extreme left also.
I am sorry Sharon N, I can tell that your passion and your pent up ability to be heard is driving you like a demon and no one can appreciate that more than I do, but in all honesty, no, I am not willing to call the “birther issue” a draw and move on. I do not appreciate or respect people who believe in alien abductions, the Roswell cover up, a faked moon landing, or that President Obama went through his whole life without being a natural born American citizen. It will, like any of the other conspiracy theories people carry, color the way I see you and read your opinions. It has to. Just as my liberal, compassionate, fierce defenses and condemnations label me and color the perceptions people have of me.
I post under my real name publicly and I suffer the slings and arrows for it because integrity and credibility matter to me. I do not post rumors and unsubstantiated misleading “facts” for political gain or to attack anyone who disagrees with me. I am accountable in ways some here are not and that is on purpose. I do not just throw our charges and opinions (or even insults) that cannot be backed up with facts and reality. Circumstantial evidence can be the truth and it can also be an intricate falsehood woven out of whole cloth. Your belief in President Obama not being a natural born citizen defies credibility.
Sandi,
If you are going to insist on dragging out the issue, I just have one thing to say….no one repsonded to my comments with any facts, or even logical reasoning….you all just said…He IS Sharon, your crazy to question…so, you all just more or less said he IS…and your proof is???….what?? because he said so? Because YOU said so?? No one even SEEMED to show me that they even understood the difference between a “natural born” citizen and an ordinary “Citizen”
IF I were to hold you all to the same standards that you hold me to…that wouldn’t be acceptable, would it?
But, I was willing to say…that we reached a brick wall on that one and move on…perhaps YOU can’t ever forgive me but….perhaps other’s will?
Re: Sharon N. @ 10:20 pm & #73
I have to agree with Sandi, subject matter aside.
IMHO, “agreeing to disagree and moving on” does not equate to a “draw.” It is a mutual agreement to simply disagree and leave the current round of the debate dormant, as each agrees that they will not continue at that time, IMHO.
A “draw” suggest equality.
I would suggest, in sports parlance, “no contest” — i.e., the winning conditions are unable to occur. A “no contest” is a state separate and distinct from a “draw.” A “draw” indicates winning conditions were met and both sides were found equal.
Or, continuing, in sports parlance, you might concise it as a “suspended game or an “incomplete game.”
.
.
Dave H.
You are absolutely correct…I SHOULD have said simply “agree to disagree and move on.”
I sort of doubt, though, that the objection was due to my choice of words.
Sharon IMHO, if you want to be taken seriously, dispense with this birther nonsense. Do you really think that if there were any credible evidence McConnell and Boehner wouldn’t be shouting it from the Capitol dome? There are too many other important issues to address.