My Emails With A Republican End Poorly (Glenn Beck, Healthcare Involved)

[ihavenobias]

I know, I know, you're going to say I shouldn't have bothered in the first place. But when I saw the already infamous I couldn't resist having my GF forward it to her Republican pal/former classmate.


1. My Original Email Sent To Republican

Subject: Glenn Beck Loses His Mind On A Caller About Healthcare

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA7-BvVDV10&feature=channel_page

PS---http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZHycYmewng

And here is the full unedited video of Beck's hospital fiasco from his own site: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/3502/

1A. Original Response From Republican

Subject: Re: Glenn Beck Loses His Mind On A Caller About Healthcare

Yeah, he definitely went "exorcist" there but I agree with him so that lady sounded like and idiot to me and I would have said everything he did but without the freak out.

There are just too many reasons that I believe universal healthcare is not only a bad idea but a HORRIBLE idea. I will not list the reasons b/c we will just go back and forth, and this topic is just to close to home that I will get just as upset as Beck and I'm not willing to do it. It is already sooo hard not to write exactly what I believe will happen. Good, bad, or indifferent, it is going to effect our lives now that we are in the healthcare field.

2. My First Response To Republican

Subject: Re: Glenn Beck Loses His Mind On A Caller About Healthcare

There is no reason to go back and forth with opinion on this because the facts are clear and undeniable:

1. The ranks the US for our healthcare system.. Even Glenn Beck himself acknowledges this fact and sadly enough , probably because he's nuts.

2. Before you try to argue that the WHO is some crazy liberal organization that's biased, don't bother. The US health care system is not the best in the world. But don't take my word for it, instead look at the evidence provided by the , "which represents CEOs of major companies". Last time I checked the CEOs of major companies weren't stereotyped as super-liberal, socialist or biased in favor of government, etc.

From :

"...Americans spend $2.4 trillion a year on health care. The Business Roundtable report says Americans in 2006 spent...at least two-and-a-half times more per person than any other advanced country.

In a different twist, the report took those costs and factored benefits into the equation.

It compares statistics on life expectancy, death rates and even cholesterol readings and blood pressures. The health measures are factored together with costs into a 100-point "value" scale. That hasn't been done before, the authors said..

The results are not encouraging.

The United States is 23 points behind five leading economic competitors: Canada, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and France. The five nations cover all their citizens, and though their systems differ, in each country the government plays a much larger role than in the U.S.

The cost-benefit disparity is even wider — 46 points — when the U.S. is compared with emerging competitors: China, Brazil and India...".

2A. Response #2 From Republican

Subject: Re: Glenn Beck Loses His Mind On A Caller About Healthcare

There is no question that the healthcare system needs change but by no means does what was said below prove that a government run system will work in this country. I do not want the government involved with my healthcare!!!!

There are facts that are clear and undeniable on the other side too.
Americans will still spend 2.4 trillion, actually more just not to our insurance companies but to the government, and they will spend it as they choose and will dictate when or if I get the surgery I want or need.

Only 3% of the population are chronically uninsured(cant count illegals, 20 somethings that chose not to be insured, temporary unemployed, people in grace period at new job, etc) don't overhaul the whole system b/c 3%.

Tom, I'm not doing this with you on this topic. I've listened to what the Dems want and their views and it sounds nice to want to help everyone and you’re a good person to want to pay for everyone else's healthcare but I want nothing to do with it. You pay and leave me out of it.

So again, I have a headache so maybe that is why I don’t feel like making a list of every reason why it is a bad idea, but I'm not gonna do it, I will just come to you the day it affects me in a negative way and you can explain all this to me again then.

3. My Final Response To Republican

Subject: Re: Glenn Beck Loses His Mind On A Caller About Healthcare

(Name Deleted),

Those two huge studies prove quite clearly that in countries where the government plays a larger role, the cost is much lower, everyone is covered AND the quality of care is better overall. You can cover your ears and bitch about government all you want, but that conclusion is inescapable. Facts are facts and they aren't partisan.

1. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said the Public Option will SAVE the government money.

Report:

And the Public Option has nothing to do with covering everyone. Those are two separate issues. The insurance companies are fighting to cover everyone while keeping the same overpriced system we have now, and everyone should agree that's a terrible idea.

2. The current bill in the House is not for single payer. Single Payer is the progressive position, the Public Option is the moderate (not "liberal") position (, hardly a "left wing" or "extreme" plan) compromise. And of course the Republican position is "give a few more tax cuts and leave the broken system in place". Public Option means you keep your current insurance. . I know, I know, you love protecting rich people (who will still be very rich even with an additional 4-5% tax BTW), but obviously this has 0% impact on you.

3. The Don't buy into bullshit talking points about how we'll have to pay for 'lazy deadbeats' and 20-somethings. We can't leave a broken system in place (the 37th ranked system that makes us pay more than TWICE as much as any other country) just because we're worried that a small percentage of the country might take advantage of it. That doesn't make any sense. A friend of mine in Ohio emailed me last night and said her deductible went from $500 a year to $10,000 this year! She's horrified and has no idea what she's going to do.

PS---Enough of this "government can't do anything right" nonsense, it's bullshit. It's not a fact, it's a generic right wing talking point and you're too smart to buy into it. If the government can't do anything right and everyone should take care of themselves, . After all, if you walk into a bad neighborhood and get shot, why should *I* pay for the police to arrest the guy who shot you? Or to investigate the crime? And if your house burns down because you forgot to turn off the oven, why should *I* pay?

While we're at it, let's get rid of the socialized military we have. If the government can't do anything right, we sure as hell can't trust them to keep us safe now can we?

Conclusion: She (the Republican) sent an angry text to my GF saying that she can't argue with me because it has to be "his way or the highway and if you disagree with him you're automatically wrong". She added that she wished I would acknowledge that we both have some good points and that neither one of us is completely right, or something like that. And she refuses to respond to my email because she doesn't like my attitude.

In other words she wants me to put my well researched facts/points on par with her generic, poorly thought out Republican talking points and factoids. Keep in mind her Dad has informed most of her political views, and he's a big Rush Limbaugh fan who thinks the Dems will tax his success, etc. Obviously I don't have a monopoly on truth, not even close. But it's obvious that she didn't put in 1/10th the research, thought and effort into her responses and she's pissed at having her long held beliefs and assumptions challenged.

[OhioChick]

1. K&R n/t

[Styxiv]

22. WOW

Man I couldn't agree more. I have friends at work that are the same way, they KNOW its bad but can't tell you why other then that's what they've been told. A don't even have a problem with Republicans not liking it so to speak BUT they have no alternate solution but simply bash the plan. Beck ( the douche bag) says he has the answer reign in costs, put a cap on law suits etc but NO substance. WELL DUH!!!!

I get tired of the repukes simply saying generic talking points. If this plan is wrong fine BUT GIVE US AN ALTERNATE PLAN YOU IDIOTS!!!!! MAN how hard is that. Why you ask BECAUSE THEY HAVE NONE!!!
And they are WRONG Beck states "We have the best health care system in the world thats why leaders and the rich from other countries come here" BULLSHIT!! We have the WORST SYSTEM in the world the REASON they come here is we have some of the finest DOCTORS and TREATMENTS in the world NOT THE SYSTEM!!! But idiots like Beck and Hannity and Rush know they audiances are COMPLETE MORONS who let them do their thinking for them and they know (the Becks etc) that these people are as dumb as dirt. PERIOD!!
The beckys and Rushes don't know the difference between SYSTEM and TREATMENTS they wouldn't know their asses from a hole in the ground. OH and not to mention these elete from other countries come here also because they can take advantage of the SYSTEM and get the care FOR FREE!!

[Yavin4]

57. Actually, The Republicans Do Have A Plan

Which I debunked in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6078410&mesg_id=6078410


Basically, what they want to do is de-regulated the entire health insurace industry by allowing you to buy health insurance through an exchange, sort of like EBay. By doing selling health insurance this way, these companies can avoid strict regulations in one state for favorable regulations in another state. Or, they can relocate offshore and avoid all regulations. The big problem with that is when you file a claim, that unregulated insurance company may not have the money to pay your claim.

Also, they want to give everyone a tax credit or voucher to buy health insurance which would be too small for the current market prices.

[MadMaddie]

2. Yea, your first mistake was to provide facts

Repuglicans have no use for facts.

[burning rain]

3. Well, what can you do with libertarian goombas?

[ihavenobias]

35. She's not really libertarian, but point taken.

My GF and I have hung out with her and her boyfriend (he's more reasonable). The funny thing is, on some level she thinks she's actually moderate, or fair and balanced. Granted, she convincingly claims she begrudgingly voted for Obama in November...

[KakistocracyHater]

69. dept of homelnd security?

:dilemma: also the fbi........the cia.........food & drug dept....golly, there are SO MANY yucky government tentacles to upset libertarians

[matthewf]

4. K&R. Good work!

[Hissyspit]

5. Can't count 20-somethings that choose not to be insured? Why the FUCK not?

What kind of stupid logic is that?

[Marr]

15. Also can't count people born on Tuesdays. Or guys named Steve.

[pleah]

6. K&R First thing I thought of was the three monkeys only,

the rethug version is: See evil, Hear evil and Speak evil.

[ihavenobias]

38. That's hilarious, because that's exactly what I said to my GF when she got the text.

She clarified today that the R in question said she won't even READ my final response to her.

[pleah]

45. That is funny.

Not surprised she wouldn't read the response, since she completely ignored what you wrote in the first place.
They just don't want to know or see what is real, imo.

:hi:

[hfojvt]

55. "lonesome no more"

I think we need that Vonnegut quote to reach across the aisle. Is she alone, or off with the rest of her tribe where they 'see evil, hear evil and speak evil'? Or can we find common ground with the decent people that might exist on the other side?

[ihavenobias]

56. Update, AKA I'm One Step Ahead Of The Contrarian

About an hour ago I emailed her and said I shouldn't have been as snarky as I was (noting fairly that she herself has been snarky) and that we shouldn't let our political discussions get personal. There was even a smiley emoticon that I know she'd appreciate.

[hfojvt]

58. who is "the Contrarian"?

In one Peanuts cartoon Snoopy is having a disussion with Woodstock and it finally ends with Snoopy saying "You just cannot argue with somebody who keeps saying 'eau contraire'"

[wolfgangmo]

75. typical

Mistaking opinion for fact.

And worse yet falling for the democracy fallacy wherein one assumes that their opinion is as valid as everyone else's, often despite the fact that they are dumb asses. Not to be crude but why does your girlfriend bother with her and why does the twits boyfriend put up with her?

[ihavenobias]

100. Well, she's not as bad outside of politics. n/t

[mzmolly]

7. Tom you

ROCKED IT! :yourock: Well @#$ done!

:toast:

K, B and R!

[Divine Discontent]

8. Oh my! You've been busy! Hats off to you! :)

[Duer 157099]

9. A whole generation has a skewed view of what "fair and balanced" means

Nowadays all opinions are completely equal, whether they are derived by fact or fiction, no matter. They get equal time.

And this is the result.

[Kajsa]

10. Good work, IHNB!

You are a man of action!
:)

[Wetzelbill]

11. k and r

Nicely done, about all I can say is you might want to be a little less aggressive, like instead of saying "Bullshit" you could have left it at "nonsense" or instead of saying the "cover your ears and bitch" you could leave it at the conclusion being inescapable. And instead of saying the "before you argue that the WHO is some crazy liberal organization" you could just say: "Also, the WHO is not a liberal organization." It makes it less personal. I used to go back and forth with a few Republican friends of mine, one in particular all the time, and one thing they can't handle is if you not only smack them around, but if you make it aggressive like that. They're bullies and when they get hit at all they go running for the hills, so hit back, but they take offense to a personal challenge and wimp out so much that they start playing victim and change the whole subject to your meanness. Just like she did. They cannot accept they are wrong though, and if you make it remotely personal or make them feel stupid, they revert to victim mode. I learned with my friend that if I avoid that I can at least make a bit of a dent in his thinking, if not, well the guy just gets defensive and whiny and changes it to how liberals always look down on people etc etc. It does no good then. Of course, typically you are talking to a brick wall anyway, but if it's somebody you actually know in your life it keeps things a little more civil and they even begin to accept a few things.

[ihavenobias]

16. Thanks and I completely agree...

I guess I should point out that the Republican in question is incredibly blunt and harsh. I've often joked that she has no 'filter' in social situations, i.e. she just says what comes into her head.

Maybe I still should've softened my approach, but if you knew her you'd know why it was so hard to do.

[Wetzelbill]

23. yes it took me a long time to get over that

The ones I deal with who are blunt and harsh just get all weeny hurt if you slam them back in a more personal way or make them feel stupid. I still hit back hard, I just made a rhetorical change so it didn't end up about how liberals look down on others and are hate-filled. I hear the term "Left Wing Hate" often from people who practically think liberals are less than human and crazily hate the Clintons to this day for no rational reason, a few simple rhetorical changes and I can deconstruct their nonsense line by line without making them totally defensive. It works to the extent that anything can work on a brick wall though. You can often show people like that a blue sky and if they want to believe it's green or some other color they'll just believe it for no rational reason.

[autorank]

12. A keeper - bookmarkedk k*r

Great arguments and analysis. A simple hearing where reason is allowed demolishes any right wing argument.

The new face of the Republican Party was expressed on Madow's show tonight by Pat Buchanan - pure racial
polarization, nothing more.

People are dying bedause they can't afford health care. They're suffering because they can't afford health care.
The notion that health care is a luxury or option is simply barbaric.

[Richard Steele]

13. FACTS are like cyanide to the RW thought process, so RWingers avoid them at all costs. K&R.

[jgraz]

14. Republicanism will soon have an entry in the American Psychiatric Association Manual

There's no longer any reason to belong to that party other than pure delusion (or a desire to con the deluded).

[truedelphi]

33. Soon? It seems like every day they are a touch bit nuttier than the

Day before. So each day that passes, the entry posted will have to be longer, and more complex, to include more symptoms and more weirdness.

[DUlover2909]

17. K&R - She's a typical misinformed American.

The pukes put alot of effort into reducing education spending to keep people ignorant and even more effort into promoting disinformation. She's a victim of her own ideology. She would rather pay higher prices for healthcare and maybe DIE than trust the government. I can't really blame her. For decades she's be lied to by her own leaders. The right-wingnuts accept lies pretty easily. They even accept being lied to when they know they're being lied to. It's a sad thing that 25%(you need to remind her she belongs to this ignorant minority) of Americans are dupes and are being used by mega-corporations.

[GreenEconomist]

18. I agree with you fully in principal, but

I have not seen any well-managed federal programs. Can you please point me to some to use in case I get in the same argument again. The Police and Fire Departments are bad examples I think because they are usually local government, not federal. And they are not administrative bodies, they are mission-oriented. A better example of a government administered program analogous to national healthcare is the DMV, and I don'thave much luck convincing people that it's an efficient operation. I guess the post office, but they're mission-oriented and really don't have a good track record at all. Then there's Amtrack, well nevermind about Amtrack. I'm not sure the federal government should be doing this. It sounds really nice, but have they ever gotten anything right? The repubicans may have a point here---keeping in mind that George Bush tripled the size of the government s it really doesn't even matter if its dems or reps, they are all out of control.

[ihavenobias]

19. Huh?

Medicare was working quite well until the Republicans (and corporate-funded Dems) managed to get Medicare Part D through which . Not to mention all of the (notice it's not individual fraud).

PS---Can you point me to an industrialized country with a primarily private insurance system that is successful? And considering the fact that Business Roundtable Report (put together by top CEOs) puts the US 23 points behind the 5 leading countries (Canada, France, Germany, Japan and the UK), I'd say that's more than enough evidence to suggest that we allow for a greater role for government in healthcare.

[Maru Kitteh]

26. Sweet Baby Jesus on a shish-kabob, don't they teach any of you how to spell? It's PRINCIPLE.

Enjoy your stay 'lil camper.

[DireStrike]

80. The spelling is right actually

Just the word choice is wrong. Good catch though, I skated past that one somehow.

[ejbr]

29. Green, as in greenback economist? n/t

[scheming daemons]

60. Um... the military

[DireStrike]

78. "mission oriented"??

What does that even mean...

Can you point to a private administrative enterprise that everybody likes? There simply are no huge private administrative things to point out, but if there were, everyone would hate them too. For example, I can't name anybody that doesn't hate dealing with their privately administered health insurance.

Oh and I actually don't mind the DMV that much. Sometimes there are an assload of people there, other times you get lucky and there are not many, and it runs like clockwork. You can probably eliminate a lot of the hassle by going at the right time, when it is not busy. The idea that the DMV is a horrible place to experience sounds to me like insignificant anecdotal garbage, like the idea of "welfare queens". Sometimes you have a bad day there, usually it's just a bit annoying.


Basing how successful an administrative body is on the generally held public opinion of their experiences with the place is a horrible idea. Nobody likes those places, none of them are fun, or quick and easy.

The private sector cannot compete with the government because of the obscene salaries private executives get for the same work. "Talent" my ass. Cost-effectiveness is the only acceptable metric of administrative efficiency, and I'd be very surprised if government agencies are significantly worse than private ones.

[PSzymeczek]

79. The DMV has gotten a lot better.

The last time I was there, I was in and out in about 10 minutes.

[CC]

82. DMV?Aren't they state

run? Though have to admit I have always had good, friendly, fast service at any I have been to. The post office has always been dependable and friendly for me. Now Amtrak I rarely get to use though again friendly, dependable service when I have used it. Wish there were more trains and stops then maybe I could use it more. So truthfully should health care be as efficient and cheap and the USPS that would be great by me.

[OhioChick]

20. Quote:

"A friend of mine in Ohio emailed me last night and said her deductible went from $500 a year to $10,000 this year! She's horrified and has no idea what she's going to do."

Ummm....Wonder who that is? ;)

[lonestarnot]

21. Factboy! Neener neener neener.

They can never deal with facts. Facts make them squirm like the worms they are. K & R!

[MedfordTim]

24. Eerie!

I am having an almost mirror conversation with a Conservative friend (he registers Democratic so he can vote in the primaries) except **I'm** the one who said I wasn't in the mood to argue about it again because he spews the Rush line ("Why isn't FOOD free? Why isn't CLOTHING free?") and then denies he got it from Rush 'cause he's at work when Rush is on. I suggested that maybe he accidentally overheard the radio in his office which is permanently set to ConserveTalk...

I decided that the main difference is that he looks at things from the top down perspective - as if he was in Bill Gates' shoes instead of Payless Shoe Source - and I look from the bottom up. I always have. So I'm not sure how productive it will EVER be - how can you argue with someone who thinks he's paying everyone else's bills?

Good luck with yours...

[Seldona]

25. I admit to a perverse pleasure in watching them squirm

when their arguments fail. The phases their faces go through are fascinating.

I hate the use the worn out, 'deer caught in headlights look,' but it is just so perfectly apt.

I had a conversation with a woman in a waiting room who called the President a communist, but didn't even know who Karl Marx was, let alone what the actual tenants of communism were. She flat out admitted both when confronted with the facts, yet remained convinced it must be true. I take it she is an avid consumer of right wing media.

Pointless, but amusing.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

88. tenets

of communism....

tenants are the people who rent your apartment.

sorry to be a word nazi, but I thought you'd want to know

[Seldona]

95. Thank you,

Oh Great Spelling Nazi.

:)

[BlancheSplanchnik]

99. Why, yer welcome!

Just riding in on my White Horse of Linguistic Correctness, Ma'am....

[Turborama]

27. "I have a headache"

Where have I heard that before? lol

But seriously, you've managed to expose a clinical case of cognitive dissonance with this "back and forth".

:kick: & R

[ejbr]

28. After enduring 8 years of repubican policy,

I think you were TRYING to get a "Glenn Beck" meltdown out of this woman. :)

[yellerpup]

30. Good job!

I hope she has good insurance because her head just might explode after reading all those facts! K&R! :kick:

[DailyGrind51]

31. You just can't argue with people with made-up minds!

...and, they will always consult some pundit to learn what they should be thinking about the issue.

[callous taoboy]

32. Facts?!! Shut-up, shut-up! Heh, nice work.

:thumbsup:

[Silent3]

34. There are a lot of people, and you can find plenty of them on DU as well...

...who equate any attempt by one person to persuade another person to change his or her mind on any given subject as a hostile act, equivalent to denying that the other person doesn't have a "right" to a differing opinion, hence the "his way or the highway" type of reaction.

If you were to follow this thinking to its logical conclusion, the only "acceptable" way to argue is for each person to state what he or she believes, put all the different ideas on the table, and just let them sit there: Gee, look! There's my idea, and there's yours! Okay, we're done now.

Actually trying to compare and contrast the relative merits of those ideas once they're out on the table -- that's verboten. That's intolerance. That's oppression. That's inflexibility. That's being an insufferable know-it-all who thinks they're right and everyone else is wrong.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

89. +1

Hee hee! Gee look! There's my idea! And there's yours!

Weee!

Good one!

[NoSheep]

36. Well done. She might not have admitted it to you, but you ate her for lunch and she knows it..

:toast:

[20score]

37. Good job! K&R

Couldn't agree more.

[libodem]

39. I must say I am favorably impressed

with your grasp of the stats and your pointed presentation. What attitude? I don't see no stinkin' attitude? This seems to be one of those don't confuse me with the 'facts' moments.

[Javaman]

40. I find it interesting that she never once brought up her "counter points"

that she claims exist.

another tool for the repuke toolshed.

[progressoid]

68. Oh. c'mon. Give her a break.

She had a headache ya know. :eyes:

[wolfgangmo]

76. She didn't bring them up because she doesn't have them.

She remembers hearing Rush on the Radio talk about this, and she remembers chanting USA, USA, USA while sideswiping brown people walking on the side of the road, but the "facts" are lost to her. She just KNOWS she's right. And that's all she needs to know.

You sir are obviously a commie scum and come the revolution she will be the first in line to send you to a camp for "re-education." Righteous Snort.

[hfojvt]

41. your conclusion shows perhaps a big part of why you FAILED

Because of your attitude. The attitude that you have the facts, and the other person is just a dittohead. Perhaps she's pi$$ed about being talked down to. Wouldn't you be?

As for research, would more research on her part have convinced you? Could you admit, for example, that there might be some holes in this -

"Those two huge studies prove quite clearly that in countries where the government plays a larger role, the cost is much lower, everyone is covered AND the quality of care is better overall. You can cover your ears and bitch about government all you want, but that conclusion is inescapable. Facts are facts and they aren't partisan."

Because I think there are.

One purpose of an argument is not just to convince yourself that you are superior to the person you are arguing with. It is to bring them around to your point of view. You should take some responsibility for your own failure here instead of thinking you just won a game of 'king of the hill' against a 'big loser'.

[ihavenobias]

43. The funny thing

Every comment I've seen you leave has been disparaging in some way. Is it personal or do you always go with this bitchy attitude (incredibly ironic that you should be the one to argue that I "FAILED" because of my approach).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5868685&mesg_id=5875702

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5032199&mesg_id=5033058

[hfojvt]

49. you thought that first one was disparaging?

I suppose it could be taken that way, but it was not the way it was meant. At least not to the person I was responding to. Perhaps to the rest of the group who seemed to have blindly accepted some wrong numbers because it said something they liked to hear.

Probably I am not influencing people, nor making friends either though, but I am not the one posting a thread bragging about an exchange, am I?

I have made over 20,000 comments though, so I cannot believe EVERY one of them has been disparaging. Especially since I am a nice guy, really.




"If I had friends, you could ask them."

[ihavenobias]

50. The bottom line

You had *some* truth in what you wrote, but I feel that you wrote it in exactly the way you were criticizing me for. Two other people provided some constructive criticism (one before you, Wetzelbill, and one in response to your comment) and I received it quite well and agreed with them. Granted, I don't have a history with them (a history which I have with the R in question) in which they make harsh and absurd comments, but still.

In the end I hope people take away the links and information provided in my OP, not necessarily the tone which they can adjust to their particular situation. And I do think many Republicans can dish it out but can't take it. They throw a punch and cower and get angry if you throw one back IME.

[hfojvt]

52. I don't think anybody wants to take it

and we all perhaps dish it out too casually. Especially since we are being encouraged to see some people as 'the other' and as 'deserving of contempt.'

"Lithwick’s piece is designed to make us sneer at Ricci for filing a suit—for even talking about such things. Why are we supposed to get mad about this? Lithwick offers a remarkably thin reed of justification as she starts her piece. In truth, her piece was pure/perfect tribal blather—the kind of blather in which one side is urged to hate those who belong to the other. We’ve seen Hannity do this a million times. Increasingly, our own “intellectual leaders” play this silly game now."

I see too much of that at DU too, where we urge each other to hate or have contempt for 'the other side'

"the kind of blather (or clever prose) in which one side is urged to hate those who belong to the other"

I react strongly against that, whether it is from you, or Cenk. Especially when there seems to be a big crowd of :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

But you are probably right and I should go read my first post and see what I should have said differently.

[theFrankFactor]

93. Fuck Tom, What's Wrong With You...

Did you offer to change the oil in fucking Tahoe or do her fucking laundry or eat the corn out of her shit?

What a load of bull shit. SHE is the one who had a history of being a cunt not Tom. Reach across the isle Tom... with fuckin' roses and a box of chocolates. THEN you'll see your stupid FACTS have no power. You must be kind to these fuckin' morons. That always wins them over not facts and a fuckin' back bone. BULLSHIT!

Christ on a fuckin' Cracker, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to see Democrats lecture a Democrat on how to blow a Republican.

Tom, you don't need to see a psychiatrist about your anger issues (I might) you made a valiant effort. No apologies needed AFAIC.

[gratuitous]

46. I don't know as it's a failure

I sense that the friend is persuadable, and maybe it would be best to just let the facts ferment for a little while. The overall tone in the present exchange is somewhat snarky, and I would hesitate to engage with someone on that level as well. But the facts are indeed pretty well set about what kind of bang the average American gets for his health care buck, and it isn’t much. In a couple of weeks, re-visit the topic with an introductory, "You know, I might have been a little strident or over the top when we exchanged e-mails on this a couple of weeks ago."

The fact is that the United States does a poor job of delivering health care to its citizens at a reasonable price. There are many factors, some going back decades to the bad old days of the Red Scare, the American Medical Association’s opposition (fear of reduced income masked by a twisted notion of "socialism"), and good old-fashioned American hard-headedness. While there is concern voiced over "government bureaucrats" making health care decisions for people, our current system has insurance company bureaucrats - with a vested financial interest - currently making those calls. If we have to choose one or the other (and I submit that the concern over government bureaucrats is greatly exaggerated), I'd rather have the meddling done by someone without a personal financial stake in denying coverage or treatment.

[ihavenobias]

48. True.

Wetzelbill and I had a friendly discussion about this earlier in the comments on this thread, and I agreed with him as well. If I were starting from scratch, I would modify my tone, but at the time it was very much a heated exchange and I was rushing to include links and get my points out before my GF left (so that she could 'approve' the email before I sent it).

The context is important here, and I briefly mentioned it before. The person I wrote to has sent us absurd and insulting emails bordering on racism, if not being flat out racist. She can be and often is very harsh and abrasive in her tone and comments, and while 'fight fire with fire' might not be the best approach, it's also true that she steamrolls those who soft-peddle it.

In the end it's about finding the middle ground with her between soft-peddling and being too snarky at times. Thanks for the respectful feedback!

[Seldona]

47. 'Because of your attitude.'

Seriously? You are defending the dittohead? Do you even see the irony here?

:wtf:

[jgraz]

59. Excuse me while I go buy a bigger irony knife

The one I have won't quite cut through this...

[FiveGoodMen]

42. That final PS, all by itself, is a great come-back to all their nonsense

Sadly, I'll bet your correspondent didn't learn a thing.

[WeDidIt]

44. I'd just plain cut her off

I wouldn't waste my time on her.

But that's just me.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

51. You gave her a headache with all those facts and you weren't being fair!!!! n/t

[PatSeg]

53. I seriously doubt

that she even read your facts, as she has already made up her mind. People like her are usually only convinced once they have been affected personally by our disastrous health care system (sometimes not even then).

How different our system looks to people like her when they become seriously ill and find out how much they have to pay "out-of-pocket". Or if they lose their jobs and insurance. Conservatives are quick to ridicule government programs, but don't hesitate to collect unemployment benefits or Social Security or Medicare. There are only a handful of people who are immune to the current economic crisis and I seriously doubt she is one of them. She may end up learning the hard way.

[txprog]

54. Why pay for anything someone else uses?

Of all the arguments we hear, the one that says, "I want everyone to have healthcare, I just don't want to pay for it" is the most disingenuous of all. If a person truly believes this, then why have anything at all that is collectively paid for and collectively used? No schools, no roads, no nothing. Why should I pay for a road I'll never drive on, why pay for a school when I have no kids to send to it?

This cuts to the core of Republican ideology and tells us why it is so dangerous. They enjoy the benefits of a collectivized society but they hate to admit it. If they can stop further collectivization they will even though they themselves are likely to benefit from it. Ideology trumps pragmatism, trumps finding real solutions to real problems. The marketplace will NEVER naturally provide decent affordable healthcare to everyone, and perhaps because it won't is why Republicans ignore how they will benefit from a healthier citizenry.

It's an easy case to make that healthy people make better workers and better students, and if all people had ready access to quality care those benefits would ripple out into society to the benefit of all, Republican business owner who can't insure his employees and doesn't want to pay for it anyhow included.

But since the case is so easy to make, why do Republicans fight so hard? Listen to Tony Benn in "Sicko." When people become empowered, whether economically or through better healthcare, or whatever, they are more likely to vote and vote for Democrats. Republicans know this, at least inherently. They'd never admit to wanting to keep people un-empowered but history tells us otherwise.

Conservatives in Europe long ago threw in the towell - at least to some extent - on healthcare and social security and eduation. Conservatives in this country are going to have to do the same I think, or they might be looking at many, many years in the minority and out of the White House. The Bush years finished the job the Reagan years started, and they just couldn't fool enough of the people in 2008.

Once we settle these issues once and for all, let's then have a useful debate about what govenrment can and can't, should or shouldn't do. Healthcare, social security, and education are too important to be a part of that debate, and though we all pay for others to have such services, we all benefit in the long run.

[booley]

61. Maybe you could've been more civil

Though the fact remains you backed up what you claimed while the respondent did not. (She says things are "facts" but how do we know they are?)

A debate i snot about who is more polite. It's who has a better case. You were kind of an ass but that doesn't mean you aren't right.

[TommyPaine]

62. "Don't tax my success!!!"

What, do people become successful in a vacuum? This is dangerous, child-like thinking. Actually, that's not fair to children, many of whom learn to be selfless at a young age. Just picture the most spoiled, self-centered infant imaginable and age him/her several decades. There's your typical anti-tax reactionary.

As for a single-payer healthcare system, it should be an option. Let the cynics keep their private plans and all the premiums, co-pays, and high administrative costs. Let them try to find reasonably priced insurance once they've had a major illness. Let them deal with insurance company lackeys whose sole purpose is to find creative ways to force patients to pay as much as possible, to trick them into footing the bill despite apparent coverage. Let them pad the ridiculous salaries and bonuses of insurance company CEOs. Let them discover what it’s like to lose their insurance and have to go to the emergency room as a last resort. Let them go bankrupt from a $30,000 hospital bill for a simple surgical procedure.

[Enthusiast]

63. You are right and

we are right. There is only one true solution to our health care dilemma. That is to enact a not for profit system of care. Costs could plummet and care could improve. But, simply because of the influence of the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry we will never get it. I am convinced it is now a lost cause. Because the MSM is one sided our voice won't be heard. Given the truth the American people would overwhelmingly support a not for profit system.

[crim son]

64. Sounds to me like she's learned her talking points well.

Next lesson: what do they actually mean? It's obvious that she has no idea whatsoever.

[madamesilverspurs]

65. Interesting.

There's a weird little pattern thingie going on with these attempts at conversation with republicans. I first noticed it in attempts to converse with my brother, and have noted since then that some version of the pattern crops up in just about every response.

In my bro's case, there's a two-level mechanism:

(1) I served in the military, so if you disagree with me about anything you have no respect for those in uniform. And,

(2) I can't continue this discussion. You are clearly into blaming (fill in the blank) and have no interest in what's really going on. I love my country, and it's very upsetting to me that you clearly don't; knowing how you think makes me sick to my stomach, and I can't afford to get so sick that I miss work.


In other words, the experience that informs his opinion is valid; my experience means diddly squat. And facts and figures are unpatriotic and make true patriots sick. There's probably some psychological term for that kind of conversational manipulation, but I have no idea what it is.

Ironically, on the very rare occasions when he tries to initiate conversation he does so by sending something cut and pasted from some conservative website; and when I ask him to please put things in his own words he usually comes back with something like "I knew you'd find some excuse for not talking about this honestly." He does this with the other siblings as well. We just shake our heads and try to limit our comments to innocuous topics. We love him dearly, and if he showed up at my front door I'd give him a huge hug and a cup of coffee; then I'd ask him how the weather is in Michigan.

[wolfgangmo]

81. I have a brother in law who tried the same shit with me.

After putting up with it for a few years I finally blew my top at a holiday where the entire family, both close and extended where there at his house.

He also tried the "I was in the military and you ain't shit" card followed up by the "I'm a victim because you don't agree with me" card. I let him have both barrels in a loud way. I said very loudly to him, "how dare you say I'm unpatriotic! Is it unpatriotic to look out for your family and neighbors? Is it unpatriotic to question insurance companies when they break their contracts and the law? The entire family was listening at this point, even the kids.

I then went on to tell him that I was more than willing to discuss this with him but that I was not his pet liberal doormat. If he wanted to say that I was unpatriotic or that claim to be a victim because I didn't agree with him, then he could find someone else to talk to. He fumed for a few minutes and then stomped out of the room. Later that night he apologies (in private).

I accepted and the few times he has tried that shit recently I just remind him quietly to knock that shit off and he does. We actually had some reasonable discussions since.

I think the key here was that I challenged him publicly by naming his behavior and not going after him personally. And then I was very gracious about his apology and didn't make a big deal of it.

[ChromeFoundry]

66. K&R

[TerryRay]

67. The only thing

I how you said this
"There is no reason to go back and forth with opinion on this because the facts are clear and undeniable"

Well yes to you they are, but that statement along with the facts you presented( good ones by the way not disputing that, but this debate like every debate in politics is not a one side is 100% right and the other side is 100% wrong) created IMO a hostile environment when she ( a she correct?) clearly states she for whatever reason DID NOT want to banter on this day about the topic. She even admitted the subject was to close to home and emotions would be involved.

So you threw down the first hostile blow and that created the attitude she had of it now becoming personal, she is not going to see anything you provided as information, but one-sided rhetoric.

I think again IMO a better statement would have been..I understand you dont want to go back and forth at the moment so here are somethings I found in researching this issue that you might not know.

Maybe it is just the debate person in me, I never get hostile, I never get emotional, I always just debate my belief, try to back it up with the facts I can and listen to the other side for two reasons, to see if I can grasp WHY they feel the way they do and to see if their beliefs have any concrete information to back it up.

I feel today( yes I know it is a ramble) that because of the communication abilities we now have like message boards and such that we are all exposed to more diversified views. The problem is people on average allow that emotion and personal attacks to take center stage and the actual topic being debated gets lost in the YOUR A LEFT WING NUT..or YOUR A RIGHT WING NAZI argument.

And I am not saying we must listen to everyone and then agree, but I do wish more people were able to listen then give their counterviews without it turning into a name calling 3rd grade debate( not that the OP did this at all, but I think it could have went that way very easily).

Sorry for the ramble lol

[hfojvt]

71. not to be contrarian

but I think you have this backwards

"I feel today( yes I know it is a ramble) that because of the communication abilities we now have like message boards and such that we are all exposed to more diversified views. The problem is people on average allow that emotion and personal attacks to take center stage and the actual topic being debated gets lost in the YOUR A LEFT WING NUT..or YOUR A RIGHT WING NAZI argument."

But I think that often discussion boards like this expose us to less diversified views and urge an attitude of less tolerance. They divide us into Jets (DUers and other progressives like Cenk, DKos, Rachel, etc.) and Sharks (FReepers and other 'wingnuts like Buchanan, Limbaugh, rapture ready, etc.). We are encouraged to have contempt for people who deviate from our own creeds. They only believe what they believe because they are ignorant, hateful idiots who have drunk the koolaid. We each inhabit our own echo chamber where diversity is scorned ("you are probably really one of THEM").

[TerryRay]

96. Well

On a message board that is only that political party and the whole board is basically the same party, then I agree with what your saying

But I visit many boards that have both sides that debate the issue and that is where I see the topics quickly turn into the name calling I was talking about

But good points

[noiretextatique]

70. she can't argue with you because she has no argument

just talking points. it;s pathetic, really.

[Mother Of Four]

72. Going to dissect this for a min-

Not being nit-picky- just feel the need to point a couple things out.

In her first response to the video- she didn't try to shove anything down your throat... only stated what SHE believed. She even admitted that he freaked out, pretty big admission.

Look at this statement you pasted from her.

"There are just too many reasons that I believe universal healthcare is not only a bad idea but a HORRIBLE idea. I will not list the reasons b/c we will just go back and forth, and this topic is just to close to home that I will get just as upset as Beck and I'm not willing to do it. It is already sooo hard not to write exactly what I believe will happen. Good, bad, or indifferent, it is going to effect our lives now that we are in the healthcare field"

At the outset, she was pretty respectful. She told you it was something that was too personal for her, and that the last thing she wanted was an argument.

Instead of respecting her back, you dismissed anything she believed and basically called her out with this "There is no reason to go back and forth with opinion on this because the facts are clear and undeniable"

From there it pretty much went downhill. There was a second time she told you, she didn't want to discuss it. "Tom, I'm not doing this with you on this topic."

You persisted anyway.

I have quite a few R friends, the key word is "friends". You don't get in your friends faces, ever hear the term "You get more flies with honey"?

During the election, I gently guided conversations. Waited patiently for subjects to come up, and then asked them questions to make them THINK. Contrary to popular belief not all of R's are stupid. Just misinformed. Many R's are only R's because that's the way they were raised.

Maybe I'm gentler about it because I'm a former R, raised in an R family. The key is getting them to THINK, not blast them with cold facts. For example, when she said that there are too many reasons she believes Uni H would be a bad idea...tell her you're curious, what does she believe? Let her get the feeling she's having her say. Do it when you guys are having drinks one night, or if you don't drink...next time you guys grill or go walk the dogs in the park. Someplace non threatening and relaxing.

I tried to do a search on my posts but got a bug report :/

Every "Hmmmm" you get is a success, every thoughtful look, every pause. It means they are THINKING, something the R party doesn't want them to do. You can't turn a sheep into a wolf overnight, it takes patience.

[mnhtnbb]

73. Well said. The problem with R's I have known (particularly family)

is that they don't want to engage a challenge to their belief systems. What's the result?
No more comfortable views of things; responsibility to gather information and think. It's too
uncomfortable, so they avoid the discomfort by refusing to acknowledge facts.

[ihavenobias]

74. I know

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6084650#6085343

Between that and her semi-blatantly racist forwards and comments, I would put my responses to her in the overall context of our relationship. Which of course you can't do since I didn't provide it. And not that I still couldn't and shouldn't have taken a different approach.

With that said I think most people like the fact that I presented an easy to read, well sourced and arguably well thought out point by point case. It was more of the snark here and there I could have done away with, not the facts and links IMO. At any rate I appreciate the constructive criticism.

[Mother Of Four]

92. Oh your facts were well laid out-

Sorry if I didn't give Kudos for that...sometimes I get lost when posting.

The only thing I could go with was the discourse you had posted, so :shrug: Thank you for taking what I wrote how I meant it by the way, without tone and facial expressions miscommunications happen.

:pals:

[florida08]

77. I wish you success

Tried it with my son-in-law. A few exchanges were decent enough..we were talking about the stimulus. He sent me an article by Jonathen Hoenig..a real piece of work. Hoenig stated "There is no such thing as a right to a job; there is only the right to free trade. As an industry, auto makers have no more or less rights than shopkeepers, restaurant owners, marketing consultants or professional clowns...Only individuals who create wealth deserve it and have a right to it. Period"

Kinda went south after that..:-) I see my daughter a lot more now

[JHB]

98. ...only the right to free trade; ...Only individuals who create wealth deserve it

"There is no such thing as a right to a job; there is only the right to free trade. As an industry, auto makers have no more or less rights than shopkeepers, restaurant owners, marketing consultants or professional clowns...Only individuals who create wealth deserve it and have a right to it. Period"

You said it: "A real piece of work" this guy is.

"There is only the right to free trade." Why? And what exactly do you mean by "free trade"? Exactly what assumptions are you making when you use that term. (the "you" in this context being Hoenig and people who quote him)


"Only individuals who create wealth deserve it and have a right to it. Period." Ahh, there's the rub. Who creates it? Because as far as I've observed, the people who do the actual creating -- in the design of a product or service, and attending to the details of providing it -- tend to get a smaller part of the wealth thus created than those who push paper and are nominally at the top.

[florida08]

102. exactly

This guy wrote "Greed is Good" so I guess he's channeling Gordon Gekko..you see why the exchange with my son in law went bye bye..lol

[kevsters]

83. Ron Christie Is A Douche!!!

Watch Ron Christie make an outrageous statement about being more concerned about cost of health care reform, and less concerned about people dying.

This is insane.

http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2194

[DatManFromNawlins]

84. Conclusion: you're an ass

You first acted like a snarky asshole with the Glenn Beck deal when you already knew her political bent, THEN decided to try to start an argument with all of your readily available URLs, then when she told you she wasn't going to do this with you, you STILL pushed the issue.

You're a dickhead who values your own personal need to be right more important than the friendships you supposedly value, and you LOST the argument because your entire point was to try to bring her around to your way of thinking, and you definitely will NOT be getting that from her now.

She was right about you. And when she wouldn't put up with your shit anymore, you came here with your chest puffed out because you needed to proclaim your victory to somebody.

How proud you must be.

[CherylK]

85. Conclusion: you're one to talk!

Your comment is the definition of acting like a snarky jerk. Using words like asshole, dickhead and shit? How proud you must be!!! You missed the part where the repug was sending racist emails and other mean spirited things I guess??

:eyes: :puke:

[OhioChick]

86. Wow...You're a piece of work.

:eyes:

[FiveGoodMen]

103. Bye.

[CherylK]

87. K & R!!!

Lots of great info here bias!

:toast: :thumbsup:

[Historic NY]

90. Pea brain philosophy, they can't grasp concepts that matter for a greater good...

in other words they can't handle the truth or the real facts.

[theFrankFactor]

91. Good Fight Tom!

Here's my video re Health Care

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_w3xk3jCYo

[zeos3]

94. Nice work

Overall it was a good post but it did come across as a bit antagonistic. Having said that, I think I understand completely.

I have a couple of R friends that I debate with occasionally. One of them can be a complete ass when trying to make a point so I never hold back with the snark and I'm a big enough man to admit that I am a small man who enjoys rubbing it in when I'm right and he's wrong. I went through 8 yrs of him being a complete douche during the Clinton administration but I didn't give him anywhere near the same amount of crap for the Bush years.

I find myself having to reign it in or apologize to another R friend when we talk because he is a bit more even keeled during these discussions, so it's a fine line I have to walk depending on with whom I am speaking.

If your goal was to try to get her to see your side and not just lay a verbal smackdown, consider this; we all have certain beliefs that we feel we have come to after giving them considerable thought. In a situation like the one you described, she said it all in her text to your girlfriend. She felt like you didn't acknowledge that you both had good points (regardless of whether or not she had any (she didn't :evilgrin: )). This caused her to dig in her heels and shut out anything you had to say. It became personal because she was confronted with her "wrongness" and, for the most part, the current batch of R's see themselves as right about everything. The emails became less about healthcare and more about her insecurities and inability to accept the fact that she may be in error regarding this issue.

If you're trying to change her mind, I'd suggest a round about method next time. If your out for a chuckle and some stress relief against a dittohead (or didiot) then, by all means, head on and full steam ahead.

[gtar100]

97. All she wanted was for you to acknowledge her. And you had to go and attack her

with facts and sound reasoning. That's just too much for a republican mind awash in hannity and limbaugh.

I've had it happen before in discussions where they are so quick to run to the "agree to disagree" corner. Selfishness is at the base of their ideas. That much is clear.

[jcarterhero]

101. Unbelievable how thick-headed the right-wringers are

It's like talking to a brick wall.