| Jump to bottom |
Mirabelle
I wonder what your reaction would have been to have someone say that about you? I don't think you'd be so understanding Lynn.
Sharon o, rochester, mi
Sharon,
I have been called numerous things on the news forum. All of those not so nice comments were removed by the monitors.
Including the one where I was called a communist, lesbian b*tch and wished bodily harm....
Mirabelle
Lynn posted:
I also understand why you would be upset. When put in context of the discussion, I think most people would have interpreted the same way I did.
Sorry to hear that. I would have never said that about anyone, no matter what the point was that I was trying to make. If you could see where I was upset, then how can you say you understand?
I wonder what your reaction would have been to have someone say that about you? I don't think you'd be so understanding Lynn.
Mirabelle
Mirabelle, with all due respect, you didn't see the post. It was directed to me, under my name, (which is my screen name) and it accused me of a very horrible crime. Believe me, it was not a frivolous you said, he said matter. It came out of the blue and was a direct attack on me, accusing me of something I would never, ever dream of accusing anyone of, besides putting it out there on a public forum.
Sharon o, rochester, mi
I read the post Sharon and I understtod the point that he was trying to make...Did he do it well, no, not really but I did understand where he was coming from.
I also understand why you would be upset. When put in context of the discussion, I think most people would have interpreted the same way I did.
Mirabelle
Mirabelle, with all due respect, you didn't see the post. It was directed to me, under my name, (which is my screen name) and it accused me of a very horrible crime. Believe me, it was not a frivolous you said, he said matter. It came out of the blue and was a direct attack on me, accusing me of something I would never, ever dream of accusing anyone of, besides putting it out there on a public forum.
Mirabelle
Miss M was always one of the most eloquent of posters. She could do what I only dreamed of. I admired her abilities. Her thought process was next to none. I wish I could have got to know her better. She was a brilliant addition to this forum before it went to hades.
Mirabelle
You probed and probed like a cowboy in a San Francisco bath house
Mirabelle
Now you are lying you were intensely keen on knowing what transpired.
Mirabelle
I never asked you about Mirabelle. Got a guilty conscience about something? p>
Mirabelle
Mirabelle,
Do keep trying I think you're near a break through. Pretend you writing Little Women use that as a motivator. Maybe rent the movie with Claire Danes in it to inspire you. Don't think for a moment girls can't write good stuff, I mean Woman's Day magazine is a good example.
You are the little engine that could, be positive. Maybe use that time of the month to channel that extra emotion into writing.
Mirabelle
Posted by: Elroy
Mirabelle wrote:
"Conservatives have a real problem when it comes to women in my opinion...they want you to hold to the old sterotypes and God forbid if you aren't a Christian."
I just love when you go on a tear like this, even when they are aimed at me. Of course, I love them more when they are not.
Enjoy,
Elroy
Mirabelle
Posted by: Elroy
Mirabelle wrote:
"Sorry it's taken me so long to respond, but I've been nursing a sick kitten that was rescued from the streets. She's been pretty sick with a respiratory illness that took a bad turn, but she's doing better now and seems to love chicken soup...just like people! =-)"
Good for you! I'm sure in whatever language cat brains think that the little thing is expressing gratitude. And chicken soup...yes..I make my own in a crock pot, particularly when I'm sick. It does help in so many ways.
"What I meant by 'coming up with something original' is that I get very tired of people using the Marxist argument with public healthcare (Is it Marxist to have eminent domain?). Instead of beating that old drum (and encouraging arguments along those ridiculous lines), why can't you suggest something as a alternative?"
Those here who throw out the Marxist silliness have no clue what Marxism is. That's just obvious from reading their misinformation. Some right winger claimed it was Marxist, and the fundie-bots follow in lock step chanting the mindless words of their fear mongering heroes.
I admit I've had less time to write, so I confess I've not been as original as I want to be.
"I think new ideas are needed, not useless rhetoric."
I agree, which is why I have come out strong on the Public Option. I think it is a new idea, a way for those of us who want national healthcare to opt in while letting those who want private insurance to continue to buy what they want.
"You see Elroy, I believe privatization can work once you get adequate oversight by the people responsible for enforcing our laws...when you see how much Robert Bobb has done for the DPS schools by simple audits and follow-up in prosecuting people breaking the laws, things improve mightily and 20 MILLION dollars is saved! But I understand why you might be doubtful."
I do not disagree with you at all here. I also believe we need what I term "Economic Democracy." As with the ingredients required to be listed on all food products, I believe an oversight board should judge all products sold in the U.S. and put labels on them as to how and by whom they were made. Right now I don't know if something was made in a sweatshop or not unless a diligent reporter digs up news on this or that company.
I believe if companies had to post how their products are made, it would radically change what people purchase and keep companies more accountable to those who support their business.
"In terms of ethics, Elroy, I've been to college and I know how great the disparity is between America and the rest of the world. But we can't solve everything overnight. There are too many things that have to be fixed and as much as I admire Obama for attempting to fix several things now, I believe a slower and more deliberate pace is warranted...if nothing else, to give people time to adapt to change."
One report I read said a president needs to do the majority of his work in his first year. The second year brings midterm elections, and the later years being his or her own re-election. If re-elected, then that president again has a chance to make real changes, but who knows if he'll get re-elected.
As for the money...I believe it was horrible that big corporations got bailed out, but us little guys didn't. I blame that on Bush and the Republican leadership. As for healthcare, the numbers as I've seen them are more of an investment. You gotta spend the money to create the system that cuts our healthcare expenses in the long run, and then, over the long run, your investment pays off, and you pay back the debt.
"If we continue to spend as we have, I'm afraid the country will go bankrupt. This is not a legacy to leave to our kids and I think Obama is mistaken in his economic policies."
I believe he and his economic advisers believe it is an investment that will eventually be paid back by having a stronger economy, less healthcare costs and less corruption and greed. I sincerely hope they are right. Tell you what, I would not have wanted to inherit the massive financial mess left to him by the previous White House squatters.
"Why are the economies of Mexico and America so different? A complex question and I'm not an economist."
I asked myself that a lot when I lived there. I have come to the conclusion it is our very different styles of government and a lack of a strong court system that allows ordinary citizens to challenge massive corporations and government agencies. It's not that Mexico is not a wealthy country. There is a lot of extreme wealth there, but it is owned by a handful of families, thus depriving Mexico of having much of a middle class.
Here ordinary people were better able to fight the extreme power of a few very wealthy people through unionization, regulation and, I believe, taxation.
"We took the cuffs off the banking industry, removed oversight and they sought to make the biggest profits possible on the greatest risk....it was a festival of greed."
Yep. And it's cost a lot of us our houses.
"In Mexico, there is greed of another kind in terms of widespread corruption and payola, in addition to a poorly educated majority that can be taken advantage of (far larger than what we have here) in my opinion."
Mexico has a great education system. Even the biggest universities charge little to nothing, and everyone is guaranteed the right to go to school. But because only a handful of people hold the wealth in the country, due to a lack of regulation and taxation, most people have to drop out of school and start working to support their families even when they are 10 years of age. And this is my contention, that our taxes are an investment in creating a system where more of us can earn more than we could without such an infrastructure.
I fully believe Mexico is more free-market capitalistic than we are. And that drives corruption and little consumer protection. I mean, what could possibly be more free market that bribes?
"As far as what is reasonable, yes, Elroy...it is reasonable to pay for infrastructure, military protection, education and services (water, sewer, power, gas)...but at what cost?"
As every new regulation has been proposed, business has claimed it would ruin the economy and cost jobs. And yet through all those changes our economy continued to grow. Now we've seen what happens when those in power deregulate private industry by believing private industry won't work in its own disinterest. Deregulation has cost us far more than having a strong, well-regulated infrastructure.
"I happen to think that many of these services are not efficient. Nor are they audited enough to suit me."
I do agree that we have a lot of inefficiency in both our private and our public institutions and would join the call for better oversight.
"Yes, there is a way to prevent things like child labor in private enterprise...if they take grant dollars, grants usually have agreements (i.e. that your money is not being used to support terrorist or illegal activities) that everyone must agree upon to get said dollars. If they take tax money to provide the services, you can write the prohibitions and penalties in an MOU....thus preventing any conflicts. All of which are legally binding as a contract."
I also think my Economic Democracy plan would help.
"Elroy, are you blind? Haven't you figured out yet that the ultra right WANTS lords and serfs again? Apparently they never read "The Grapes of Wrath"."
I fully believe the Bushes and Chaneys want to be lords over us serfs. But after seeing some of the rallies this summer, I am not convinced the people who support those power-hungry miscreants understand that they are being led by their noses to the slaughter.
"Sorry you got beat over the head because of my spelling boo-boo (cahones). Maybe I should stand in the corner for rhe Forum Spelling Police."
I found it hysterically ironic that Styler complained of me making a typo in a language he doesn't speak while making a typo himself in his one language. It is the height of arrogance that allows someone to think such silliness.
"Yep. We need to get rid of the lobbyists because what we're getting from our representatives is NO representation...which poses a bit of a problem in terms of inciting revolution. In my humble opinion, we're not far from it now."
A) alter the constitution so it cannot be construed by the Supreme Court to state that a corporation is a "person" with the same right to free speech. And B) alter the constitution to declare donations by corporations are not protected speech.
Then, maybe we can have representation again.
"Check out the gun stores lately?"
I'm not personally a fan of guns. Don't own one. Did try to buy a stun gun, but they are illegal? Go figure that one out.
One of the signs at one of the rallies said, "If the First Amendment doesn't work, the Second one will." Truly frightening. .
Enjoy,
Elroy
Mirabelle
Posted by: Elroy
Mirabelle wrote:
"Elroy, why don't you ask for something original?"
To be honest I'm not sure what this means.
"Government does some things pretty well and many things really badly. As a fiscal conservative, I know we can't possibly come up with the dollars for healthcare unless some key issues are addressed which drive up the costs involved...things like litigation and settlements which our lawyer friends in Congress won't touch."
I completely agree there needs to be some kind of caps placed on litigation without depriving individuals of the right to seek compensation from doctors who make horrible errors that cost patients their lives.
I say that with a bit of trepidation, however, because I firmly believe one of the major differences that separates us from places like Mexico is the fact average citizens do have the power to call any industry to account for bad actions.
"I think what should be done is to take all human services work, including social security and medicare/medicaid, and return it where it rightfully belongs...the nonprofit sector (i.e. churches, hospitals and human service agencies)!"
I recognize this is an area where we disagree on the role of government. My take would be not to privatize those things but instead to remove the influence of for-profit enterprise from government. I fully support a call for an amendment to the constitution of the United States to remove lobbying by for-profit industry from being classified as free speech.
"Christ gave a great example of how Christians should 'give' to those less fortunate. How about seeing that in action, instead of these so-called Christian Conservative loonies who insist that everybody should be rugged individualists, making their own arrangements as they get 'successful' REGARDLESS of personal circumstances? "
If most of those Fundamentalist who name it and claim it in the name of getting big bucks from God actually followed the words ascribed to the Christ character in the Bible, there would be far less hunger and homelessness in our great nation.
"Then they could work this all out on their terms, recognizing that THEY have to raise the money to pay for it...leaving government out of reform and planning. No more 'allocated' funding from the states. This would lower taxes and ease the burden on our staggering national debt."
Here again, though, I will raise my question: is it unethical that we as Americans get paid more for our labor than others around the world simply because we have a different government and, thus, a different infrastructure in which we earn our keep?
I know I've asked you this before, but it seems applicable. What, in your mind, is the reason why Mexico and the United States, who were pretty equal economically in the 19th century, have widely disparate economies today?
"It might smack some of these doctors and insurance bozos into reality in terms of costs!"
I actually agree with you, but I'm not sure I think the cost in human suffering would be worth the experiment. I know Hootie suggested as much too. And yes, I believe it would wake up a lot of Americans. But at what cost to our soul?
"While I really understand the ire of the conservatives when they see people lining up for 'free money' who appear rather well dressed and coifed, if the entire social work system were removed to the private nonprofits instead of being a taxpayer funded government mess I think we'd see greater success in terms of reform."
Personally I'm not a fan of government giving out support for nothing. I know there are exceptions for those incapable of work, such as the severely handicapped, but I propose welfare be more like the workfare of the New Deal.
I think that, alone, would weed out those who are taking advantage of the system. If they can make more money working for private industry, it would keep them from sucking dry the public teat. But for those who simply cannot get a private job, it would allow them to get something for helping our society by doing those things most people don't normally want to do.
"Grant funding could then be available from citizens who CHOOSE to give to the poor."
In theory I see your point. But again I ask, to those who earn more per hour here, because of our government-funded infrastructure, is it not reasonable that a portion of the extra income earned go back into supporting that infrastructure?
I like Hootie's idea. Let's create a system where a citizen can opt out of any government infrastructure in exchange for paying no taxes. Can't use public roads. Can't use public water supply. Can't use any publically funded transportation. No fire protection. No police protection. No FDA food protection. No Medicare. No Social Security. No emergency rooms without cash up front. No state-run power. No community trash collection. No public anything.
How many Americans do you think would opt for that in exchange for paying no taxes?
"All the government would have to do is oversee the finances with current nonprofit tax laws...and change some of the rules for churches who participate. Privatize it and see what happens."
I don't have as much faith in private enterprise as you apparently do. When private companies can hide their assets and shield consumers from knowing that child labor was used to make something so it costs less at Wal-Mart, I think the bottom line ends up hurting more people than it benefits. I'll all for making money, but I don't want to buy products that encourage sweat shops and child labor.
Do you have a way to make sure my money doesn't support such things? As hard as it is now to avoid buying stuff that causes damage to children around the world, do you seriously believe private enterprise with no government regulation would be better?
"This would still leave those that can afford insurance or pay cash the option to continue and CHOOSE to help the poor."
I would support that as long as they were also opted out of using any publically supplied benefits as mentioned above.
"Then we'd see where the rubber meets the road on the compassion of the 'conservatives' and 'liberals', wouldn't we? "
We would indeed. My fear is while this experiment would be telling, to be sure, that the selfishness of corporations would far outweigh the giving nature of individuals, and we'd end up with a class system of lords and serfs once again.
"And maybe the baying of the insane Glenn Beck and other far right sourpusses would be silenced if the majority failed in 'compassion'?"
No one would even know who Glen Beck was if there was no regulation of the public airways so that private companies with the biggest power in any given location could simply broadcast over someone whining about this or that in Washington.
"They don't have the cahones, my friend. So either nothing will be done again to avoid the juggernaut of collapse (thank you lobbyists) or we get a publicly funded system that few it seems really want combined with the knowledge that not everyone will get all the 'services' they think they deserve...and the Medicare faithful will see what a sweet deal they got as a 'protected' group of citizens, despite their whining."
The most recent poll I saw says 52% of Americans want the public option.
That said, I reiterate that I believe our government has become the wholly owned subsidiary of lobbyists, and I support an amendment that makes for-profit lobbying unprotected speech.
"There's no such thing as a free lunch. While life is sacred, nobody promises you anything from the minute you're born in this cold world on which we reside. And I can say this as a mom paying a lot of money for insurance every month...because of pre-existing conditions."
On this we agree. Most Americans don't understand that we already are paying through the nose for healthcare that goes to others. All those who use the emergency room as their primary care are being charged to those of us who pay taxes. I understand you have a very different take on how to get there, but I firmly believe a public healthcare system will ultimately cost us less money than we are paying now.
Enjoy,
Elroy
mirabelle
Hi mirabelle, it's been a while : )
Great post, but I would like to add a little to it. You just touched upon the tip of the iceberg, but what about all those other religions? What if you were born and raised in India, Iraq, Japan, Chad or China? Many of those people have lived though the same type of experience as yourself, except they come from a different religious perspective. Is it fair of "God" to send them off to be tortured for all eternity because "he" hasn't made it clear to them what to believe?
Oh, those pesky questions : (
Mirabelle
Sorry for the run on sentences and missed punctuation which makes it difficult sometimes to read my posts. At least you know when you read something I wrote it has all the hallmarks of a hootie post.
Mirabelle
Posted by: Elroy
Mirabelle wrote:
"I know that truth is really important to you and because of your experiences (which seemed to be highly negative) you want others to experience the freedom you received. But I feel you are making the same mistake you accuse others of making-that of assuming YOU know best in terms of belief."
Actually in those times when I put on the near fundie voice it's being done purposefully to demonstrate how it feels to be on the receiving end of their insistence that we accept what they believe.
I know my sense of humor at times is a bit dry, and I'm aware you can't see the wry grin on my face when I put on the caricature. Thus I should seriously consider that not everyone may be getting the joke.
"You make yourself in effect, God. If others do not believe as you do, you are unhappy (at least it seems that way)."
If it seems that way, then I'm not doing a good enough job of indicating when I'm mimicking the Fundamentalists' own style.
"Did it occur to you that perhaps what works for you may not work for others? That others may live happy, well-adjusted lives in their beliefs, regardless of what you think about it?"
Absolutely. I do believe some Christians are much better people, or, at the least, much happier people because of their faith. I try, as best possible, to differentiate between types of believers so not to be seen attacking Lynn or Hootie for their Christian faith. I admire both and believe both are better people for following Jesus.
I do, however, make pretty strong statements against the Fundamentalist variety, to be sure. And I do it because of the tens of thousands of letters I've received from so many former Fundamentalists who say they were so glad to find my information because they had been feeling so alone.
I did the same thing.
While still a Fundamentalist, I was unwilling to ever confess my doubts to anyone, and I became alone in my thoughts and frustrations. On the outside I was mister perfect Christian man. On the inside I struggled all alone. Thus, I believe the voice of a former Fundamentalist can be helpful to those who don't yet know there are many who have left the Fundamentalism to become much happier people.
I'm not actually trying to convert Dillon. I just use his words back at him from time to time. But I definitely want to keep the conversation out there that Fundamentalist faith doesn't work for everyone, and those who are struggling in its powerful grip might just see that it is possible to leave.
"Did it cross your mind that perhaps your truth is too harsh for some folks and that you may be causing unhappiness to people in your revelations? Is causing that unhappiness worth 'truth'?"
It has not crossed my mind that putting out the truth would hurt people here because everyone here chooses to be here. I'm not knocking on their doors to tell them they're wrong or going to their church or putting myself in any kind of position to force someone to read my story, so here I work under the assumption that if someone didn't want his or her faith analyzed he or she wouldn't be in a place where people are arguing for and against any number of religious topics.
However, when Mormons come to my door, I do consider that I could crush their faith. No, they won't ever admit it in person, but there are ways to find out. So I tend to be much lighter with them - asking questions about their lives rather than taking the opportunity to smash their faith to bits. If they get overly aggressive, I will match their tone and push back.
So I understand what you are saying, and I am careful in some situations. But to me, and I could be wrong about it, this forum is more of a no-holds-barred kind of situation since all are in a faith debating forum by choice.
"Now I'm not saying you shouldn't tell your story or speak to others of what you believe to be the 'truth'...but it seems to me you could be causing undue harm on people who are relatively happy in their 'truth' even if you don't accept it."
I most certainly hope that is not the case.
"Do you see where you might be causing undue harm to people who'd be perfectly happy with their 'beliefs'? Does it profit a child to know exactly where Christmas presents come from?"
I do see how it's possible to cause harm to others with what I know, and in the real world, where people are not trying to force religious thinking on me (even the Mormon missionaries are there because of family and church pressure, not because they just decided it would be fun) I treat more lightly.
When the children talk about going to church, I never take that as an opportunity to mess with their heads. Even when adults do it I tread lightly for the very reasons you mention. But on my website and here I have not considered there could be participants who would be hurt by what I write. I shall ponder it more.
"I understand taking on others who insist that they and they alone have the truth and want to impose that upon others, but you at times come across the same way. Is your 'truth' so righteous?"
Again, those times are done on purpose. I will consider how I might be more obvious about that in the future.
"I don't know, Elroy, but I don't think I have all the answers. Nor do I know what others need in their lives. Just a word of caution...you may become as self-righteous as any new convert and I don't believe you want that."
Not at all. I don't think of myself that way in the least, but when a Fundamentalists starts banging on the podium and doing his or her pious preaching, I often mimic them. And what I'm hearing you say is that if others don't realize it's done on purpose to poke fun at the Fundamentalists that they might think I actually think of myself that way.
"Truth can, for some people, destroy their security, sense of the world and their place in it."
Yes. I agree.
"Do you see what I'm saying?"
I see two things you are saying: 1) that at times I sound like I'm going Fundamentalist on the Fundamentalists, which I admit I do on purpose as part of my point. And 2) that what I say (not necessarily how I say it) can cause people otherwise happy in their faith to lose some of their happiness and security, which I agree is possible.
I definitely don't want others to think I really mean the fundie-like things I mimic. Thus I appreciate the feedback so I can figure out how to be clearer on my intent. But I'm not sure what to make of the second one as it pertains to the forum. In the real world, I agree with you and do tread lightly. But I'm not sure how I feel about the need to tread as lightly in a forum where participation is voluntary.
Thank you for your note. It is taken in the spirit of concern and care for others, and I appreciate that very much.
Enjoy,
Elroy
| Jump to top |
