Do I Honestly Think? Yes, but Apparently that Makes Me a Liar

Count me in -- someone I consider a friend relentlessly attacked me on a message board regarding the health care bill. In all my years as an ardent pro-lifer, I have never been as disrespectful to anyone who disagreed with me. But this President, and his agenda, seems to bring this out in so many of his supporters. They choose politics over friendships.

I said that Barney Frank was condescending for asking a woman "On what planet do you spend most of your time?" at his town hall meeting. Yeah, she was the woman who made a hu-u-uge stretch by comparing what she feared could happen under the proposed health care plan to the practices of Nazi Germany.

Okay -- whereas I do agree with those who said there was a possibility that something resembling a death panel -- if only in the virtual form of bureaucrats making life-and-death decisions by turning to "QALY" (Quality-Adjusted Life Year) standards to set health care policy, and that could be looked at as choosing the fit over the weak -- I feel that making any comparison to Hitler does a disservice to those who suffered at the hands of that monster.

I tried to say that by attacking this woman, Frank was just fanning the flames of distraction from the debate, rather than attempting to reach consensus.

I suggested that Frank could have said something like "I detest any comparisons to Hitler, or Nazi Germany -- I think that is a ridiculous comparison -- but in the interest of putting these accusations to rest, I can assure you that any legislation that we pass will very clearly spell out that bureaucrats will not be making life and death decisions. No one need fear anything even resembling a death panel."

But rather than admit that Frank had skirted the issue, this friend felt I was defending the woman (who it turned out was a LaRouchie not a conservative, as had been suggested) and declared that I was just another "vicious and hurtful liar." Yep, for saying that this bill is so unclear and that so much seems uncertain -- I'm a liar. And for mentioning the V.A. pamphlet without expressly saying first that it isn't a death panel, but it does have questions within it that make me uncomfortable and fearful -- I was spreading even more lies. (Nothing like giving a friend a chance to explain herself, eh?)

Here I was trying to help him understand our concerns, and instead of saying oh, something along the lines of, while he doesn't agree such concerns are valid, perhaps there should be language prohibiting such practices added to the bill -- nope, instead he calls me names and says "Do you honestly think that Congress and Obama would stoop to that?"

(This from the guy who -- after saying that no President deserved to be compared to Hitler -- in the very same post suggested that he could see why some people think that "a scum like Bush" was at least a bit deserving of the comparison.)

Do I honestly think that about Congress and Obama? Yes, I do.

Because this is the same Congress whose leaders think it is more humane to suck the brains out of an "unwanted" or "imperfect" child just inches away from birth than let it be born and adopted by the countless couples aching to do so.

Because this is the same man who lied about his Illinois congressional record, denying that he voted against a bill to try to save babies who survive abortions. When his voting record was found, he then lied by saying that he voted against it because he felt there was already sufficient legislation. When the record of his comments on the floor of the Illinois House were discovered which revealed that he opposed the bill because he felt the infant -- even though alive and separate (outside the body) of his or her mother and also capable of being adopted -- was an undue burden on the mother, what did he do?

Did he apologize to the people who had challenged his cover-up for calling them "sleazy liars"? No.

Silence. He was counting on most people not to learn the truth. He was counting on the MSM not to press the issue. And it came to pass, and he was elected. 

So now the counter-attacks by Obamacare proponents ensue. They think the old tactics will still work. But everyone has wised up to Obama, Pelosi, Frank, & co. and they can no longer hide when their deceptions are revealed. These attempts to call us the liars isn't working and the truth is coming to light for all to see.

So while it hurt that this friend attacked me, and I don't expect he will apologize for letting his passion get in the way of respecting me enough to have a true debate, I find solace that the public at large isn't buying the "it's all lies by racist Astroturfers" subterfuge and is demanding an alternative plan.

I honestly think so.

Comments

[KansasGirl]

Doesn't sound like much of a friend.

[Vince]

The Left takes its religion very seriously... more serious than even the Muslims do.

[Pat]

It obviously stinks to feel you were attacked by a friend. I'm sorry you've been hurt. But perhaps that "shorthand" you use so often to generalize those who support the president offended this person you were trying to discuss the issues with. Your usual "we vs. them" perspective is not a particularly nice way with which to engage a friend, either.

[Colette Moran]

Seriously Pat -- it was nothing like that. (I thought we had reached an understanding about trying not to assume?)

Someone else had posted that video and said "Barney Rocks" and I said something like "You gotta be kidding, he was so condescending! Why didn't he just brush aside the stupid comments and address the concerns?"

This guy then launched into an attack on Bush, all right-wingers, how they're all vicious and hurtful liars and how I was one of them. I really felt blind-sided. But as a friend I tried to keep it light, I didn't hit back, I just tried to explain why we were concerned.

Wasn't good enough -- he wasn't the least bit concerned with listening to what I was feeling or any explanantions -- it wasn't short-hand being misunderstood (except maybe re: th V.A. pamphlet) it was a deliberate attempt to totally discredit me and not validate *anything* I was saying.

Someone else tried to explain it away by saying he was just carried away by something he felt so strongly about, but I don't buy it.

It was personal. When you forget who you are talking to, and treat them like a strawman, that's personal.

Now, this wasn't a particularly close friend, but it still hurts to think how so many -- in my experience, liberals -- are throwing personal relationships out the window in the name of politics.

[ChunLing]

I think I'll second KansasGirl.

But I don't refer to his behavior in this one instance. I refer to the basic values which he has chosen to use in creating his moral framework. Remember Clinton's defenders? "Everybody lies about sex." I don't know or care how true it is, but those who said it revealed some important points about themselves. About their ideas of right and wrong, honesty and honor, and fidelity and chastity.

Knowing what a moment's thought could tell you about those people, could you really consider any such to be a friend?

I understand that civility is important. But courtesy does not imply friendship. Indeed, in the truly civilized society, it is nearly the opposite, in cultures that really value polite discourse, adults will only ever relax the rules of etiquette with their true friends. Then again, such societies invariably provide for the proper modes of socially accepted behavior between deadly enemies.

Do not mistake 'civilized behavior' for friendship. Friendship is a matter of common goals and beliefs, starting with your beliefs about your individual value as a person and your beliefs about your friend having similar individual value, and your friend reciprocating those beliefs. Perhaps a better phrase is "love thy neighbor as thyself." Better, but so worn that people commonly forget what it means. I don't really understand how, but then often observed reality is somewhat inexplicable. It might have something to do with the fact that most people want to have, or seem to have, more friends rather than fewer, so they try to relax the basic prerequisites.

I'm all for having friends, but surrounding yourself with facile enemies doesn't seem like a good way to achieve it. I could be wrong. After all, it's not like I have a lot of friends. Sometimes I've hurt the feelings of people who desired that accolade because I hold it to such a high standard. I'm always a little puzzled that anyone would even want to be thought of as my friend, really. It's not like there's any kind of benefit to it.

Still, while I don't count many as friends, I know I'd gladly give all for any of them, and that they would do the same for me. There's no advantage to a relationship like that, but friendship isn't about gaining advantages. There's no need for 'civility' or 'respect' between those who really share an unbreakable bond of love and trust. You practice good manners on your friends because there's nothing lost when they inform you that you're doing it wrong, you tell them of your admiration because it delights you, and nobody keeps score.

Most human relationships are more fragile. But falsely naming those relationships "friendship" doesn't make them any stronger as far as I can tell.

[Pat]

Again, I'm not pleased that you've been treated hurtfully. If you say you weren't using "shorthand," then I'll take you at your word. But again, you've introduced a generalization into your comment that removes the personal aspect that compels someone to empathize.

Let's say that, yes, you've been insulted time and time again by liberals. But are they REALLY the only ones who are throwing friendships away in the name of politics? And if you've lost more than one liberal friend, is there any possibility at all that you might also be part of the reason that those friendships are broken? I, for one, never discuss politics with my Republican friends, because I know that they feel as passionately about their point of view as I do mine. As such, our conversations tend to be more about wanting to be understood than to understand.

Does that sound familiar in the least?

[Colette Moran]

What I would say in response is that I have talked about politics with all kinds of friends -- in basically the same manner from one person to the next. There are plenty of other liberal friends who I am still friends with, and I have never dropped a friendship with a liberal because of their views, and I do not recall a single conservative friend who has done this either.

Of course, this is just my experience, but other conservatives I know have said the same thing. All I can report is what I personally know, and this is it.

I am always respectful when I talk politics -- having been on the other side on some issues before, I know where they're coming from -- but there seem to be some who just don't want to hear an opposing view. They are literally INtolerant, and act as if thinking otherwise is not possible.

Now, I can see that if I were, say, a holocaust denier, but having a difference of opinion about *health care* or *tax policy*?! How does that make me worthy of shunning?

[ChunLing]

"I, for one, never discuss politics with my Republican friends, because I know that they feel as passionately about their point of view as I do mine."

I wonder which of those criteria Pat fails to apply to Colette. Is she not 'passionate' enough about her beliefs, are they not sufficiently 'Republican', or could it be that Pat doesn't count Colette as a friend?

I may not exactly be a conservative--I'm certainly not a Republican, at any rate--but I've certainly never been friends with any 'liberals'. Then again I've never been friends with pederasts, satanists, or Nazis either. The point here is not that these various viewpoints are connected, but that it's simply not realistic to tolerate all points of view. You can argue about the morality of intolerance, but I don't see how a morality that espouses tolerance of everything can possibly condemn me for my intolerance (or anything else I do, some of which is probably more properly condemned).

At some point, disagreements about who needs to be shot (which is the ultimate question at the heart of all political debate) do become a bit of a strain on any relationship. When somebody sincerely believes that the people you admire and respect should be rounded up and shot unless they stop doing what you admire them for, I'm hard pressed to understand why you would consider that somebody a friend.

Once you personally are in their cross-hairs, I'm completely flummoxed. I cannot imagine what "friendship" means to you anymore, if you'll still count someone as a friend when they believe the police (or someone) should storm your house and put a gun to your head unless you fundamentally change your behavior. I don't think that about any of my friends, even when we all agree that it's very likely that something like that will happen soon enough.

Colette, I don't want the police to come and shoot you for what you've been doing. That doesn't mean I'm your friend, it just means that I don't think what you do should be regarded as criminal. And I certainly don't expect you to reciprocate, you're perfectly free to think of me as someone who should be rounded up and shot, most people agree on that, or would if they knew me. So I'm not saying that thinking someone doesn't deserve to be treated as a criminal is the core of friendship.

But I fail to see how it can be completely irrelevant.

[Pat]

OK, well, I can see we're not going to move away from the "liberals are intolerant" kick. If that's what you think, then who can argue with you?

I did not say that you were worthy of shunning. But in ChunLing's galaxy (far far away), you might be worthy of worse...

[Colette Moran]

Pat --

Thanks for being consistent and coherent. (I have to admit, I agree with you on the comment preceding yours. Should I delete it? I'm unsure...)

Anyway -- once again, you're misrepresenting what I mean. It's not what I think about *every* liberal, it has been *my* experience that many of the liberals I know -- to the contrary of what they espouse -- are less tolerant than most of the conservatives I know. And I have been told of the same experience by many of those conservatives friends.

And I did not say *you* thought I was worthy of shunning, I was just expressing "I don't think that I was worthy of being dismissed by the people who have."

In all seriousness, I get no kick from relating what I consider to be a tragic development in some of my friendships.

[ChunLing]

I really wonder what people think government is.

I know it isn't a pleasant idea to contemplate, I don't like the thought of the police coming and shooting me. Well, I probably don't dislike the idea as much as most people must, because at least I can think about it.

On the other hand, some of the people I know who like the idea even less than I do can't not think about it. So maybe those who refuse to think about it (or at least refuse to admit thinking about it) secretly enjoy the thought. Or, here's something...maybe they only ever think it will happen to people they don't like.

I shouldn't really impute that kind of stupidity to people, but sometimes it just can't be avoided. On the other hand, it isn't exactly my job to understand why people don't think. So really I could avoid it. I could probably avoid it even if it were my job. I'm actually quite good at procrastination.

[jessica johnson]

Huh?

[ChunLing]

Hah hah, here I am just assuming that people actually think at all.