Comments on: Respect For Others: What We Can Learn From the Obama Debacles

By: Gen Y

Gen Y — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:34:07 +0000

Right, because Obama was the one who started the whole thing. Ever run a war? Try figuring out the logistics of withdrawing from those countries without leaving them some sort of internal support and then judge the president.

Are you serious? you really think he was advocating “mandatory education”? Wow. you’re one paranoid guy. I guess you’d rather the poor kids stay stupid.

(Report comment)

By: Bryant Knight

Bryant Knight — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 02:20:48 +0000

All government action–even a seemingly innocent speech about staying in school–ultimately involves aggressive violence.

“Every Communist must grasp the truth, ‘Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.’” — Mao Zedong

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” — George Washington

Political discourse will never be tame because some people will benefit from certain government actions, while others will be disadvantaged by those same actions. The brutality of the state can not be reconciled by polite conversation, nor should it be. Let those who fear victimization at the hands of the state scream brazenly.

In the case of Obama’s education speech, one could easily argue that Obama is supporting mandatory education (If you disobey the mandate, your parents will be beaten by the police and imprisoned, and you’ll be sent to a government-approved foster home.), federal involvement in education (which has no Constitutional basis), and encouraging the public education system (which gives the state an opportunity to brainwash children into supporting the state’s actions for the rest of their lives. Why do you think so few Americans put up any meaningful resistance to Obama’s merciless slaughter of innocent, poverty-stricken brown people in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere?)

(Report comment)

By: Ann

Ann — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:36:30 +0000

O.K.! Enough sarcasm and poking at each other’s politics! Let me clear this up: when I said that the world is indeed moving forward (and not standing still), I meant it in a cosmic, “que sura, sura” sort of way. Discussion, debate — even the disrespectful voices and behavior — propels us along the path to where we’re heading. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not condoning that behavior — I think it would be great if we all put on our big boy pants and behaved ethically and with some measure of empathy for others — but just because we haven’t reached our destination or “final outcome” (is there ever such a thing?) doesn’t mean we’re not moving closer to it. Think of it as an evolution, not a revolution.

(Report comment)

By: christine

christine — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:03:15 +0000

Ann, you say it is moving forward, but you don’t say how. Me, I see tax payers money wasted as politicians on both sides “debate” healthcare, how much the environment can be ripped to shreds, where we will cap the large bonuses of the execs that got us into a financial quagmire in the first place (oh, only $2 million now? I feel so sorry for them), all while these politicians pockets are lined by the companies for which they “debate”.

I have no problem with my politics being clear, but hardly consider myself “silly.” The Supreme Court is *this* close to overturning 100 years of campaign finance protection, ones in which politicians have to disclose where their money came from. So then which industry they are fighting for will only be obvious by their loud shrills.

So, maybe you’re correct, I was *silly* to think we are standing still, when in fact, we are moving backwards.

Thanks for your comment, which obviously shows which “side” you support.

(Report comment)

By: Ann

Ann — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 01:34:37 +0000

Your final question, Christine, reveals a lot about your politics. “What do you think it will take to make the world move forward instead of stand still?” Silly girl. The world IS moving forward, though it’s apparent from your essay that you’re after certain outcomes…the ones supported by the current administration, it would seem. Whatever. But if today’s voices are loud and strident and at times “disrespectful” — well, there’s a lot at stake and it’s foolish and tragically short sighted of you to think that we should be walking hand-in-hand into the future singing “Kumbaya.”

(Report comment)

By: Marc Latham

Marc Latham — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 14:17:41 +0000

Nice article bringing up an important point. I think it’s one of the negatives of democracy: parties often say and do things just to win elections, rather than doing the right thing, and this means that issues just go round in circles rather than getting sorted.

If you could get a load of politicians that were trustworthy and had the best interests of the people, country and world as their first priority then that nation might get sorted.

And if you could multiply that by all the countries in the world, the world may then get sorted too!

You would also avoid months of false promises before elections then too!!

(Report comment)

By: Heather

Heather — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:54:24 +0000

Education is the answer. People have to be taught how to respectfully debate one another and actually listen to what the other side is saying instead of shouting over someone, walking away, or tuning them out. They need to also learn that it’s also okay to disagree and even fight for the opposite. It’s just learning how to do these things in a responsible and thought-out way instead of in response to a knee-jerk emotional reaction. People who are easily swayed by fears and emotional manipulating by others are often used to further causes they may be only dimly aware of. Proper education of kids and lifelong self-education of adults is necessary to facilitating healthy debate, no matter what the topic.

(Report comment)

By: Turner

Turner — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:45:58 +0000

Unfortunately, my solution has been to become nothing but a listener and keeping any opinions I have to myself. Certainly not the best way to affect change, but works well for the individual and “keeping the peace”.

(Report comment)

By: Marissa

Marissa — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:01:49 +0000

I would love if the far right would at least choose a better issue to get fired up about (without getting me started on the whole healthcare drama). Encouraging education? Really? I know they want Obama to look as bad as possible but I wouldn’t have even able to get mad at George W. Bush for promoting staying in school, despite not being a fan at all.
But like JoAnna, as liberal as I consider myself to be, I would love to find more middle ground. Even if the left “won” every issue, I don’t really like the idea of so many people being angry and unhappy. Freaking 2 party system.
Oy. Okay, I’m done!

(Report comment)

By: JoAnna

JoAnna — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:52:52 +0000

I think people on both sides of the fence need to be more open-minded. Not just hearing, but listening. Not necessarily accepting, but trying to understand. If we can agree to disagree and honestly find a middle ground that is neither wholly right or left, perhaps we can move forward. I think the main problem is that so many people believe they are correct unconditionally, when, in actuality, we could all stand to learn more about other people and the religious and political views they support.

(Report comment)