I’m sure y’all saw this by now
The House voted on Wednesday to repeal the sweeping healthcare law enacted last year, as Republicans made good on a central campaign pledge and laid down the first major policy marker of their new majority.
The party-line vote was 245-189, as three Democrats joined all 242 Republicans in supporting repeal.
NC Blue Dog Heath Shuler, who voted against Obama(No)Care, voted against repeal. That’s right, Heath, people here in North Carolina will remember come 2012. You will be targeted, in the crosshairs if you will….yes, I wrote that, and, if you are so immature to not understand that they are simply words, and not a call to violence, then, you have no business in adult society.
BTW, remember when the whole original idea was simply to make sure that the 30-45 million Americans without health insurance had access? What happened to that simple notion? Anyhow, Organizing for America, Obama’s fund raising arm, was quick on the trigger in sending out an email. After some whining about special interests (you know, those same special interests who helped write the bill, and had liberals all pissed off?) we get
We’re putting together a dedicated team of organizers and volunteers across the country to protect our progress on health reform — and we need 45 donations from Raleigh to make sure they have the resources they need.
Chip in $3 or more to support Organizing for America and help stop repeal before it’s too late.
Then some more whining, followed by
Please donate $3 or more today:
Can you give $3? Because I think they really want $3 from you. Anything to avoid having to come to grips with the legislation being vastly unpopular, as the polls, especially that big on back in November, show.
Thursday morning update: just received another email from OFA, this time by Jen O’Malley Dillon, which apes much of the same language, and, yup, asks for $3 multiple times.
Agreed, but these words have no place in adult society either. Anyone that thinks that words are simply words is sorely mistaken. Words and more accurately, ideas, can be dangerous.
[…] […]
Agreed, but these words have no place in adult society either.
According to what standard of behavior?
Words and more accurately, ideas, can be dangerous.
Yeah, the idea that “these words have no place in society” is dangerous. It is why you should be allowed to say them so the idea you are expressing can be exposed for the lunacy it is.
The Founding Fathers understood the benefit of the very exchange of ideas and words you want to limit.
With few exceptions (ie libel, slander, fighting words, immediate inciting to violence, sedition, and immediate harm) we have a society where ideas flow freely. Despite the call from some like yourself who want to restrict that flow or label it as “harmful,” the free exchange of ideas is a good thing.
It is totalitarian regimes and petty dictators who seek to limit ideas and words.
Kevin, you have just lost all credibility. Seriously? You and those others calling for limits and penalties on FREE SPEECH are the dangerous ones.
Hey Kevin, did you know that the ability to freely speak without retribution is one of our founding rights?!!?
[…] The Mahablog, Questions and Observations, The Other McCain, Salon, Scared Monkeys, Pirate’s Cove, The Nation, Blogcritics, NewsReal Blog, National Review, JustOneMinute, Shakesville, Sister […]
the $3.00 thing might be due to their cost of transaction. They’re trying to discourage #1.00 donations cause they lose money on them.
Or they’ve focus grouped it and found that $3.00 was the point at which people started thinking about the cost.
I’m not suggesting that you can’t say these things in society.
I’m not suggesting that these words will cause people to do violent things, although, I also have to leave room for the possibility that your words might affect someone, somehow. I don;t know who or how, but it would be amiss to say that affecting people with speech is not possible.
I’m also not saying that you should have to limit what you say. Free speech is wonderful and necessary. I don’t want to live in England where in order to talk freely you have to stand on a stone, and even then, you can’t say anything disparaging about the Queen. (Probably an outdated policy, but still, my point is that speech is restricted there.)
I know that the ability to speak freely is one of our founding rights. I think you would have to be insane to want to limit that.
I do think that politicians shouldn’t be allowed to lie, make up facts, or bend the truth. This happens on both sides and politicians in England are called to resign when they do it.
My point is that you don’t have to use language like that to get your point across. Nothing more, nothing less. Don’t read too much into my statement. I’m simply arguing for respectful language when our politicians discuss topics. We don’t have to talk like that, but they should hold themselves to a higher standard of dialogue. They are after all supposed to represent US.
Then again, this is my opinion. This is how I would try to act if I was a public official. I’m not saying that everyone should act like this, but we should strive to be better in both our words and actions.
Personally, I think a guy that has to say things like, “You will be targeted in my crosshairs” loses credibility. But, that’s just me. I don’t care for the dramatics in politics. Let’s just have the facts and get the job done.
By the way, Teach, if you are reading this, I am not offended by what you said. I realize the point you were trying to make, I just think there is appropriate and inappropriate language. What may be okay between friends, isn’t always okay for a politician, our representatives, to say. No one that truly represents me will use such lame metaphors. But then, I am not everyone.
If you think I have lost all credibility simply because of an opinion that you disagree with then you obviously didn’t think I had much credibility to begin with. By the way, I have never asked you to view me as credible. Everything I have said to back up my ideas is research-able. When I am wrong I admit it. When I am presented with facts I back down and even apologize. I try and be factual in everything I say, and I think dialogue is a good way to test your opinion. I value the insight of other people and I genuinely take it into account when forming an opinion. If that makes me not credible, so be it. I don’t always get it right, but I can acknowledge when that happens.
This is an opinion, and not an attack on our very foundation as I do not believe in limiting speech. Rather, I believe in being relevant and to the point with speech. I believe in avoiding dialogue that puts people on the defensive and treating my colleagues with dignity and respect. Just because we disagree with someone doesn’t mean we should disparage them. We aren’t in Junior High anymore, although, more and more that is how our politicians act.
What are we telling our kids when politicians talk so informally and crudely to each other? I feel that it teaches are kids that respect is not necessary and if you disagree with someone it is okay to bad mouth them. That isn’t the country I want to live in. If I have an idea you disagree with, I want to know why, not that I will be put in your crosshairs. Besides the fact that the phrase tells me nothing about your disagreement, it is crude and unprofessional. And face it, these people are not blue collar. They are supposed to be professionals.
Imagine if as a teacher I told a parent I disagreed with that they I am going to target them and put them in my crosshairs. I would receive immediate disciplinary action and rightfully so. Why should our face to the world be any different?
Quote Kevin:
What are we telling our kids when politicians talk so informally and crudely to each other? I feel that it teaches are kids that respect is not necessary and if you disagree with someone it is okay to bad mouth them.
I would hope that you teach your kids that words have several meanings based upon the context they were used in. Some words even change completely based upon the sentence structure. Such as, “I would like to lead the church songs on Sunday.” vs “Don’t forget to put that lead shot on your fishing line.”
I would hope that you teach your children that they shouldn’t jump to conclusions about people and the words they say unless they are sure of the context and of all possible uses of the words in question.
Quote Kevin:
Imagine if as a teacher I told a parent I disagreed with that they I am going to target them and put them in my crosshairs. I would receive immediate disciplinary action and rightfully so.
And thus, you would be right. Because in this CONTEXT, you were actively threatening them. The only context is during a disagreement with another person. However, if you had been at a city council meeting and you were actively engaging in political discourse but yet you couldn’t get your opinion across, and the council just would not accept your suggestions for change, you then decide to run to replace one of those council members. You then state, “You are going to be in my crosshairs when I run for your chair next year. I will work hard to get you thrown out of office because I disagree with your politics and decisions.”
In that CONTEXT, everyone knows that you are in a political discourse talking of political maneuvering and letting your “opponent” know who you will be focusing your campaign against.
Have you ever called someone “gay” before while wearing a smile? Did you get slapped or harassed for it? I bet you did. People these days have no clue about the word before it became “offensive”. I recall it being used as a descriptor to describe someone who was full of frivolity and joy. Someone who appears to be having a really good time.
What next? Forcing the TARGET stores to change their name? How about BULLSEYE bbq sauce to change their name? Are we going to have to force Disney to change the name of Woody’s horse? Are we going to have to eliminate all professional and hobby target shooting – if not just do to the presence of guns? Are we going to have to eliminate the sport of hockey and their “Sudden-De*th” periods? Speaking of sauces, are we going to force “Kick Ass BBQ” to change their name for being such an angry rhetoric? Are we going to have to get rid of “deadman” anchor points for suspension bridge and tower construction?
Are there other words that could be used? Sure. Yet, that only adds credibility to my argument.
Again, I don’t believe in limiting free speech. But, I do expect our politicians to hold themselves to a higher standard. They represent us, and I would hope they would be very careful to avoid saying anything that can be taken out of context. Casual speech is an entirely different issue that has nothing to do with what I am disagreeing with.
This isn’t an issue of being too sensitive to certain types of rhetoric. I am suggesting that there is such a thing as good taste and bad taste. I know that this may be lost on people that believe anything goes, but I still believe there is a thing called diplomacy and it is the way we should treat each other that ultimately matters. When I die I want to know that I did my best to treat the people that I dealt with respectfully, even if I don’t agree with them.
To be sure, there are people that don’t deserve such mercy and they should be dealt with appropriately.
I have tremendous respect for John McCain when he was running for President. He was in a town hall type meeting with Obama and someone called Obama an Arab and something else that I don’t remember. McCain stood up and defended him by saying something along the lines of, “No, he isn’t, he is a good person and a family man, with ideas that I happen to disagree with.”
I would like a government that responds to each other like that. Stop the lying, the instigating, and the denigrating of each other. Deal with the issues and give us the facts. Leave the gutter talk to the rest of us, but the people that represent us should be more responsible. This isn’t a liberal or conservative issue, it is an issue of what is appropriate and what is not.
No, that is not what is next at all. Treating each other with respect is not a slippery slope that will lead us to La La Land. There is certainly a difference between how corporations brand themselves and how our politicians treat each other. You can disagree without threatening. In case you missed it Gabrielle Giffords was concerned, and did feel threatened. At that point, maybe this issue should have been addressed. She was afraid to go to these town hall type meetings, but she went anyway. Politicians in our country should not be afraid to meet with the public and speak their mind.
When someone addresses something you say, and states that they feel threatened and concerned for their safety. maybe it is time to take a second look at what you are saying. Or, we could simply continue to up the rhetoric until there is a point where we start specifically targeting people. (See, you can use the word targeting). People can continue to get angrier and angrier, until we have a party that gets people so angry they are willing to take up arms against anyone that doesn’t agree with them.
Here is an except from the debate between Lincoln and Douglas. Funny, how even when dealing with a topic as tough as slavery, at the time, they don’t demean, denigrate, or insult each other with gutter talk. I guess there is another way to interact after all. This is from Wikipedia, and while I don’t care for it, at least there are citations.
I’m sorry Kevin, but what does that have to do with the current attempt by the liberals to remove words like “crosshair”, “crossfire”, “killing”, “target”, “blast”, “explode”, “kill”, “destroy”, etc from our current lexicon of descriptive words?
Nothing. Like I said, I agreed with what Teach was saying. But, I also felt it was responsible to be more responsible with our wording. I don’t agree that we should forbid the language, but I see no reason to encourage it either.
Now that I look at what I said, I can see where the confusion would come in.