<p>It is ridiculous to judge someone’s intentions. This is a debate. I belittle the ideas, not the post or the poster. I don’t care if the ideas were “sincere” - does that mean they should not be debated wholeheartedly? If I didn’t think the ideas were sincere, I wouldn’t have given the respect and dignity of a response.</p>
<p>Suggesting that people open their wallets to send a check if they disagree with a government program is no different in substance than my response. </p>
<p>The “tone” is not uncivil as it is directed at ideas, which is totally appropriate. Certainly no less “uncivil” than calling someone out because their ideas hit a nerve. It is much more civil to stick to the debate.</p>
<p>If you wish to debate the point I made in post 74, please do. That would be a relevant contribution.</p>
<p>haha spidey, if that was the case, then you should tell me exactly what you think is wrong with my post. b/c you can be sure that there are a lot of people out there wondering the same things as me. so if this is a debate, how would you respond to what i said? or do you just throw in the towel b/c you don’t think i’m sincere?</p>
Some of use were under the impression that we were having an online discussion, not a “debate”. Discussion is fostered by courtesy and a willingness to consider other points of view.</p>
<p>Intparent was pointing out, rightly, that programs such as the one she described need funding and that it needs to come from somewhere.</p>
<p>Good post. … Also note the flip side of the coin, calmom. Harding and Coolidge, consistently ranked by historians as two of the worst presidents of all time, had plenty of political experience before entering the oval office. In the 22 years preceding his presidency, Harding had served as a State Senator, a Lieutenant Governor, and a U. S. Senator. Coolidge had spent 17 years as a State House Representative, a Mayor, a Lieutenant Governor, a Governor, and a Vice President. They were both total disasters.</p>
<p>spidey can throw a fast hardball, but she’s not mean-spirited. A little sarcastic now and then … but who isn’t on these threads? Except for me. I’m perfect. :D</p>
<p>In an online discussion or debate, the writer’s tone is the main clue to whether or not he or she is behaving in a civil, courteous way (unless, of course, folks have resorted to direct name calling, then it’s quite obvious what is happening). Your tone was sarcastic and mocking, and you even yelled (all caps):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wrong. The first key to accurately comprehending a piece of writing is to resolve the author’s intentions.</p>
<p>Good attempt, though, to disqualify the relevant concern about Obama’s lack of experience as “racist”.</p>
<p>Do you really think that Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Wilson can be used as examples today? Do you not think that the world is a BIT more complicated now? I sure do.</p>
<p>momof2inca: All caps does not necessarily mean yelling. Sometimes it is just for emphasis. Since the work was mine, I can tell you directly it was for emphasis.</p>
<p>Now please - breathe.</p>
<p>Do you finally wish to debate the issues in post 74? If so, please do.</p>
<p>By the way, I LOVE (yes - I am screaming that - not) Bobby Jindal, but in no way is he ready to be POTUS. I think most people feel the same way about him.</p>
Yes, and when programs are funded through “private foundations” or “faith-based initiatives”, real people also need to pay. The difference is simply that people of good will have choice as to which charities they choose to subsidize – but if those programs cannot raise enough money to fulfill their mission and they serve an important societal purpose, then it ends up falling to government to come in where the private sector has failed. </p>
<p>Which is why intparent hoped by her post to encourage people to donate to the project she mentioned. The fact that her request was met with hostility is telling.</p>
<p>^Yes, which is cool, but also with the point that if one diagrees with the notion of government paying for it, they can always send a check. Which brings up a valid political matter for debate (or discussion - whatever you want to call it).</p>
<p>Liberal that I am, I tend to see our government as an extension of the people (us). Perhaps I am a bit of a socialist at heart, but I’m happy to pay taxes toward programs that will help the less fortunate … just so long as I have enough left over to take care of me and mine in my middle-class style. (And as long as the government bureaucrats don’t completely muck it up.) We probably all feel that way, to a greater or lesser extent.</p>
<p>Assuming that you yourself are on a solid financial footing (i.e., have some discretionary income) – if you disagree with the idea of government funding for social programs and if you do NOT personally contribute to charities — then what is your position? That all such programs, whether funded through tax dollars or private contributions, are simply someone else’s responsibility, but not your problem?</p>
<p>In that case, I suggest you learn how to do bold or italics to avoid future misunderstandings and the necessity of explaining your intentions. Or you could just step off the soap box long enough to not interpret EVERY POST AS AN ATTACK ON YOUR IDEOLOGY! (yelling intentional, ) I think intparent was merely sharing a positive experience and presenting an anecdote. Why so worried?</p>
) I think intparent was merely sharing a positive experience and presenting an anecdote. Why so worried?</p>