"Don't You Dare Stand Up!" -or they will try to destroy you.

[Calabrio]

Remember Joe the Plumber? He had the gall to ask Obama a question, in response, his supporters set out to destroy the man. Illegally using the power of government to investigate his background, releasing private information and attacking him on the internet, harassing him at his home....

And now we have Katy Abram.

YouTube - Katy Abram Had A Great Statment For Senator Arlen Spector At Meeting

And what happens to her?

MSNBC:
YouTube - Katy Abram - Sleeping Giant? More like Sleeping Ignoramus!

Democrat Underground:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6282615#6282621

Daily Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/13/1990/79926

And then they went to her Meetup.com page and harrassed her there too:
http://www.meetup.com/members/3510141/

I presume any Facebook or Myspace account, if it was to have existed, has also been sufficient harassed as well

And her telephone call into the radio this morning.
Please, listen to this:
YouTube - katy abram on glenn beck

"For the past two days it's been a whirl wind. (cries)I just went there to ask a question, and these people...are emailing me and my cell phone, calling my dad's office, e-mail my dad's office...."

So, who wants to be the first person to ask Obama a tough question during a Town Hall meeting now? What price will that person have to pay?

 

[foxpaws]

Hardball isn't named that because Chris Matthews is going to be lobbing softballs... which he did in this interview. This is the nice-est I have seen him in a long time....

So, do you think that this woman has been turned into a drone for the right? It appears she doesn't even know what a socialist program is. That we have lots of them.

I love that people are standing up, going to town hall meetings and speaking their mind. But, it really seems like they are just reading off points from some right wing website. The ones I have talked to have. Their talking points say, I saw this on Beck, I read this on right wing news, I saw how the health care plan will really work on NewsBusters. Good - she is interested, she is trying to find out. But, just like if you are from the left, if all your information is coming from one side, you aren't making your own decision, you are making the decision they are leading you to make.

Matthews is doing what he is suppose to do, expose... Here, once again, the most gently I have seen him in a long time, he exposes that she really doesn't know much about the subject matter other than what has been fed to her from one side.

So, do you think this woman really understand the issues?

 

[Calabrio]

So, do you think this woman really understand the issues?

First, you've misrepresented the "interview" with her.
It's the guest host, Lawrence O'Donnell, so it must have been a 'really long time' since you've watched the show. But, need I remind you, Mathews was the MSNBC NEWS anchor who is famous for getting the "thrill up his leg" while listening to Obama speak.

O'Donnel starts off the interview with this clearly nervous, inexperienced, average citizen by trying to drop her guard- and then he starts hammering her, fairly aggressively.

Not only does he do that, HE'S WRONG!! She's simply not experienced or composed enough to call him on it and effective defend herself and her opinion.

But it's curious, you focused on one point, but you ignored the relentless person attacks on the internet. You ignored the cyber-harrassment. And you've ignored the threats and intimidation that her and her family are experiencing now.

You don't even address the reality that this is standard practice by the political left in this country. Interestingly enough, you didn't even give a disingenuous condemnation of it.


Do I think she understands these issues?
I think she has a good idea of what's going on and how she feels about it, better than most people. Her eloquence before the camera is of no importance nor does it demonstrate her grasp of issues.

I have a strong grasp of these issues and I don't know how well I'd do my first time on MSNBC with a partisan mouthpiece like O'Donnell (or Mathews).

But why do you ask? Does what she have to say not matter? You don't like the original sources she used? Or is it that you'd simply like to convince everyone that her opinion doesn't matter. So it's not astroturfers. It's not nazis. No, those didn't work and the public has seen through it. Now it's just dumb people repeating things they don't understand? Is that the next play in the playbook, fox?

You seem conflicted. Why is that?
You oppose the bill, but you still defend it, defend those rabidly fighting for it, and attack those who are fighting it? Why? Where's the conflict?

Do you agree with the bill in principle? Are you worried about the long term health of your movement because of this overreach?

I love that people are standing up, going to town hall meetings and speaking their mind.

Unless they disagree. Then you, or the thugs on the left, will DESTROY their lives. And this isn't an isolated incident.

Be it Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, Katy Abrams, or which voice DARES to disagree with them... the thugs on the left will destroy you and intimidate your family...even if you're just a private citizen asking a question, making a statement at a little town hall meeting.

 

[fossten]

Hardball isn't named that because Chris Matthews is going to be lobbing softballs... which he did in this interview. This is the nice-est I have seen him in a long time....

So, do you think that this woman has been turned into a drone for the right? It appears she doesn't even know what a socialist program is. That we have lots of them.

I love that people are standing up, going to town hall meetings and speaking their mind. But, it really seems like they are just reading off points from some right wing website. The ones I have talked to have. Their talking points say, I saw this on Beck, I read this on right wing news, I saw how the health care plan will really work on NewsBusters. Good - she is interested, she is trying to find out. But, just like if you are from the left, if all your information is coming from one side, you aren't making your own decision, you are making the decision they are leading you to make.

Matthews is doing what he is suppose to do, expose... Here, once again, the most gently I have seen him in a long time, he exposes that she really doesn't know much about the subject matter other than what has been fed to her from one side.

So, do you think this woman really understand the issues?

It's funny how 'speaking truth to power' was cool during the Bush years. Now it's met with criticism and personal destruction. As I've said for years, Democrats are the worst hypocrites.

You need to clarify that point-
Democrats are not the same as the political leadership on the left.

A lot of good people, a lot of the people at the teaparty rallies and attending these town hall meetings, still consider themselves Democrats. Their party was taken from them.

Okay, you're right. I'll amend my statement to conform to yours.

 

[foxpaws]

Sorry - I am so used to the Matthews/Hardball connection I think it is embroiled in my brain.

However - the smear campaign that the left is doing here is typical - and disgusting, I will give you that... I didn't even read the other junk - I don't have to, I have a pretty good idea of what it probably says.

It isn't the smear that interests me, it isn't new, it isn't even very original smear - it bores me.

But, what is interesting to me it here is an interview (not the really mindless one that Fox had) with this woman. I am sure she is 'salt of the earth', mom, kids, little business. She is getting involved in where her country is going, which is great. I don't think she appears dumb at all, nervous, yes, but who wouldn't be? I

But, is she being led - you didn't answer that Cal.

What interests me, and what has interested me about this issue (other than of course the issue itself) is the whole rising up of everyday Americans. And I truly believe they are 'everyday'. They aren't organized. Many of them, like this woman, haven't ever been involved in politics before. Why now? It is an important issue - but, we have others, just as important as the interview pointed out. What makes this one so compelling? I went to a couple of local events, not because I love town meetings (I don't) but because I wanted to talk to the people there. Find out what was happening.

Doesn't this interest you at all Cal? This massive switch to how Americans are getting information, the speed at which they are getting it, and how, perhaps, it is being manipulated.

That last part is what I find really fascinating. To some extent, in the past, media had to mostly get the 'facts' right (not always, and this isn't about that point). I know things were left out and the left was portrayed in a better 'light'. But, here, with the massive unfiltered amount of information on the internet, people are going to need to learn how to slog through all this to get to some 'truth'.

How will America do this? The internet is built for propaganda. The perfect delivery system for it. No watchdogs, no editing, no need for self restraint, no punishment for 'bad behavior'.

I do care about her sources, people are easily manipulated... it is why certain laws have been put into place. There aren't any here, on the internet, there shouldn't be. But, knowing that, how will this media be manipulated? How many times have you gotten an email from an older relative warning you about something, something you know just isn't true, but they believe it because they saw it here.

And, this thread isn't about the bill... And I am not defending the people who are for it. I don't agree with it in principle. What I do agree with is that the healthcare system (the way health insurance works in this country) needs to be changed, within the current system. I know that single payer barely works with Medicare, it is extremely frightening thinking of the government trying to run single payer for the entire country. But, enough about that here on this thread.

 

[Kbob]

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with not having an original idea, or with agreeing with someone else's point of view, or repeating an organization's "talking points." For an example, look how much Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" affected the American people at the time.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Spare us the fake outrage, Cal. What she got is nothing compared to what has been directed at democrats and pro-health care reformers:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/de/content/summary-death-threats-against-obama-other-democrats-so-far

The town hall was to discuss HEALTH CARE REFORM, not to use as a stage to start spouting off unrelated far-right talking points. Despite that, Lawrence O'Donnell used constraint and could've easily ripped her a new one, but didn't. I'm not going to defend what she got via the "internets", I don't advocate faceless attacks like that, but that goes w/ the territory. The right has honed their skills at using the "internets" to launch attacks much worse that this lady received.

 

[Calabrio]

Spare us the fake outrage, Cal

Rest assured, it's real outrage.

What she got is nothing compared to what has been directed at democrats and pro-health care reformers

In responding, I don't want to sound like I'm dismissing or excusing the stupid behavior by individuals who are opposed to this hijacking of the healthcare system. I'm not, and will readily condemn some of the isolated instances mentioned on your MSNBC video clip. But it's a different issue. And I think you understand that.

She's a private citizen who asked a question.
Joe the Plumber was a private citizen who asked a question after he saw the President doing a photo-op near his front yard.
And there is a pattern of this.
This are normal people who are deliberately being targeted and intimidated for political reasons.

What is the purpose of destroying or intimidating these people? To serve as a lesson to others? To prevent other people from expressing their opinions or crossing this administration.

It's amazing, the political left loves the ideas of "free speech" and "questioning authority" unless you disagree with them. Then they waste no time in crushing you and silencing your voice. And it doesn't matter just how small you are.

The town hall was to discuss HEALTH CARE REFORM, not to use as a stage to start spouting off unrelated far-right talking points.

Should they have gotten permission from you first?
Can you tell us precisely what was "O.K." to talk about?
And what's a "far-right talking point?" Anything you don't want to hear?
More simply put, it's the TRUTH, unfortunately for you, the truth just isn't politically advantageous for you.

Despite that, Lawrence O'Donnell used constraint and could've easily ripped her a new one, but didn't.

Yeah, he could have.
because she was a novice. She's a regular woman who's very uncomfortable and nervous. Laurence disarms her and then gets aggressive with her.

Of course, it doesn't matter that O'Donnell WAS WRONG.
She wasn't comfortable or quick enough to call him on it.

I'm not going to defend what she got via the "internets", I don't advocate faceless attacks like that, but that goes w/ the territory.

What territory is that?
Disagreeing at a local town forum?
Tell me.
The concerned Mother territory who wanted to speak with her Senator?
Is that allowed?

If I ask a politician a question that you don't agree with, should I expect to be assaulted and harassed by Obama's brown and purple shirted thugs? Is that just part of the territory now?

But you know what... I think you're right.
That is.
And that's how you guys on the left like it.
The purpose is to intimidate normal people and prevent them from speaking out. The political agenda being thrust upon the public is out of step with the American people. If exposed to the public it is crushed. The administration knows this. The progressive left knows this. So they need to silence the voices of opposition and rush this legislation through at such a pace their no time for the public to even review it.

The right has honed their skills at using the "internets" to launch attacks much worse that this lady received.

I'd ask for an example, but you'd undoubtably just post another pointless Rachel Maddow clip..... maybe she can tell us how the Obama Joker is racist too. Or how Glenn Beck making a joke in a segment about Nancy Pelosi's WINE TASTING town hall meeting was really "acting out an assassination."

But let's not let accuracy, honesty, or truth get in the way of one of your defensive little outbursts.

 

[foxpaws]

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with not having an original idea, or with agreeing with someone else's point of view, or repeating an organization's "talking points." For an example, look how much Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" affected the American people at the time.

Hello Kbob...
You are right - you don't need an 'original idea'. Often times people who believe in the same way you do express it better, or seem to have a more clear picture of the problem than you do. The same with talking points. They help, they start discussions, they can be more articulate than you might be, and so you feel more comfortable repeating them. There is nothing wrong with that.

What I find interesting though, are these people relying on just one type of source for their information, and how biased is that information? Websites are a spiderweb of interlocking links and source. It can look good, and factual, but it doesn't have to be. I have often seen where one article refers to a website as its 'source', while the article they have source refers back to the original article. And even larger circles (A refers to B, B refers to C, C refers to D, and so on until Z refers back to A) are very common.

Mostly what should take place is hunt around, don't get caught up within a circle... But, do people do that? Did this woman go to only right wing source, whether it be TV, print, web, or whatever.

With some of the media becoming very biased, it is easy to get caught up in a single POV...

 

[shagdrum]

Hello Kbob...
You are right - you don't need an 'original idea'. Often times people who believe in the same way you do express it better, or seem to have a more clear picture of the problem than you do. The same with talking points. They help, they start discussions, they can be more articulate than you might be, and so you feel more comfortable repeating them. There is nothing wrong with that.

What I find interesting though, are these people relying on just one type of source for their information, and how biased is that information? Websites are a spiderweb of interlocking links and source. It can look good, and factual, but it doesn't have to be. I have often seen where one article refers to a website as its 'source', while the article they have source refers back to the original article. And even larger circles (A refers to B, B refers to C, C refers to D, and so on until Z refers back to A) are very common.

Mostly what should take place is hunt around, don't get caught up within a circle... But, do people do that? Did this woman go to only right wing source, whether it be TV, print, web, or whatever.

With some of the media becoming very biased, it is easy to get caught up in a single POV...

How about, instead of generalizing about every source from any perspective and assuming all are biased and dishonest, you critically analyze what is said double check their facts and links (to direct sources) and learn which sites are credible and which aren't? Going further, learn which way some sources are baised and which ways they aren't. In short, judge sources and cites on an individual basis instead of making generalized assumptions.

If a source is biased to the point of dishonesty, you can usually pick up on that, if you familiarize yourself with what to look for (fallacious arguments, dishonestly reframing the debate, asserting "facts" that don't check out, etc.).

 

[fossten]

What I find interesting though, are these people relying on just one type of source for their information, and how biased is that information? Websites are a spiderweb of interlocking links and source. It can look good, and factual, but it doesn't have to be. I have often seen where one article refers to a website as its 'source', while the article they have source refers back to the original article. And even larger circles (A refers to B, B refers to C, C refers to D, and so on until Z refers back to A) are very common.

Mostly what should take place is hunt around, don't get caught up within a circle... But, do people do that? Did this woman go to only right wing source, whether it be TV, print, web, or whatever.

With some of the media becoming very biased, it is easy to get caught up in a single POV...

And you are free to try to discredit the arguments being made on their merits. But you don't do that very often. You spend most of your time 'embroiled' in red herring exchanges and straw man arguments.

Whining about sources is a very poor way to argue. Besides, I thought you preferred interesting discussions. What you're trying to do is chill discussion by setting rules for everybody else. I notice that you rarely use citations to back up your assertions. So nobody knows where you get your information. At least the rest of us are honest about it.

 

[Calabrio]

Sorry - I am so used to the Matthews/Hardball connection I think it is embroiled in my brain.

Certainly a simple mistake to make.
Sometimes I get Olberman confused with that Rachel Maddow fellow.

However - the smear campaign that the left is doing here is typical - and disgusting, I will give you that...

Glad we agree on that.

It isn't the smear that interests me, it isn't new, it isn't even very original smear - it bores me.

And this is where I take issue.
It bores you?
A private citizen is treated so aggressively, targeted for personal destruction, and has her family harassed... and that bores you?
It bores you or would you rather not talk about it because it takes you off point?

But, is she being led - you didn't answer that Cal.

No, she's not being led.
She's been emboldened.
But what's really interesting is how you are trying out a new approach to this issue since, clearly, the party line rhetoric hasn't been working up until now.

And I truly believe they are 'everyday'. They aren't organized. Many of them, like this woman, haven't ever been involved in politics before.

WOW... look a sudden shift in position.
So you realized that the bogus astroturf argument that you'd previously been using wasn't working?
So now they aren't "astroturf," they aren't "organized by the GOP, they're just regular people being "led?"
It's interesting to watch your propaganda and spin evolve. You are on the cutting edge of liberal bull-crap.

Why now? It is an important issue - but, we have others, just as important as the interview pointed out. What makes this one so compelling? I went to a couple of local events, not because I love town meetings (I don't) but because I wanted to talk to the people there. Find out what was happening.

But I thought you opposed the health care bill and wanted to express that objection? I didn't know you were doing opposition research.

Doesn't this interest you at all Cal? This massive switch to how Americans are getting information, the speed at which they are getting it, and how, perhaps, it is being manipulated.

Yeah, but...maybe you should start a new thread to discuss it.
That's not what I'm discussing here.

This is the pattern of vile intimidation that is being used to silence dissent and disagreement with the political agenda of the left.
A pattern that YOU have already acknowledged is both typical and disgusting!

 

[foxpaws]

It bores you?
A private citizen is treated so aggressively, targeted for personal destruction, and has her family harassed... and that bores you?
It bores you or would you rather not talk about it because it takes you off point?

No - what is boring is that it isn't 'new'. I can claim that both sides have done it, but we wouldn't get anywhere, we would throw examples out on both sides, going back to Andrew Jackson's time. It is awful behavior. We can agree on that - I have already stated that, I even know that right now the left is very guilty of this. I am not interested in arguing that.

What is different is how is information being delivered, and at what speed. That to me is what is interesting. Here you think she has been emboldened - so what is the difference between being 'emboldened' and being led in this case - what do you see as a difference? That is what the Hardball interview is about. How, where, and what type of information is getting into the hands of the people. And why do they suddenly feel a need to act on that. The interview was quite specific about that part.

But what's really interesting is how you are trying out a new approach to this issue since, clearly, the party line rhetoric hasn't been working up until now.

I know party line rhetoric like crazy - I haven't used it at all in this thread, because it doesn't interest me Cal. Once again you can label me with 'party, party, party', that is fine - but rather than looking at the past here - all the centuries of smear, let's look at the future - the future of how politics will be run. That is interesting, that is how you change things.

WOW... look a sudden shift in position.
So you realized that the bogus astroturf argument that you'd previously been using wasn't working?
So now they aren't "astroturf," they aren't "organized by the GOP, they're just regular people being "led?"
It's interesting to watch your propaganda and spin evolve. You are on the cutting edge of liberal bull-crap.

Cal, I never said that they were organized by the GOP - did I - got the quote on that? The people I have talked to got emails from the 9-12 group, a union group and from the RNC & DNC - but I don't think that these people are organized - they were told when the meeting was, but that isn't 'organization'. And I don't believe I went down the astroturfing path at all - got any quote from me on that?

So did I say that this was an organized effort by any group?

But I thought you opposed the health care bill and wanted to express that objection? I didn't know you were doing opposition research.

In fact, I met with my Rep in a small group of 6 to really talk about this issue a couple of days after the 'meeting'. I was chosen from the town hall attendees. There were 4 people against it (yes, including me) and 2 people for it. I did a great deal of expressing, over the period of 90 minutes, basically one-on-one with my rep.

At the townhall meeting what I really was more interested in was not 'opposition' research, but 'information' research. I asked people on both sides how they had found out about the meeting, where they were getting their information regarding the bill, had they read the bill, or any portions of it. I didn't ask party affiliation - I didn't care about that. That tends to make people defensive.

 

[fossten]

No - what is boring is that it isn't 'new'.

It isn't new for the left to do it. It's SOP.

I can claim that both sides have done it, but we wouldn't get anywhere, we would throw examples out on both sides, going back to Andrew Jackson's time. It is awful behavior. We can agree on that - I have already stated that, I even know that right now the left is very guilty of this. I am not interested in arguing that.

Of course you're not. We wouldn't get anywhere because examples on the left would outnumber the right by far, and then you'd probably try to move the goalposts by changing the definition of 'it.'

What is different is how is information being delivered, and at what speed. That to me is what is interesting. Here you think she has been emboldened - so what is the difference between being 'emboldened' and being led in this case - what do you see as a difference? That is what the Hardball interview is about. How, where, and what type of information is getting into the hands of the people. And why do they suddenly feel a need to act on that. The interview was quite specific about that part.

You really don't understand the concept of somebody 'getting her back up,' do you? I guess when you hang out with pot smoking flower children, you're used to seeing people who don't have any character.

I know party line rhetoric like crazy - I haven't used it at all in this thread, because it doesn't interest me Cal. Once again you can label me with 'party, party, party', that is fine - but rather than looking at the past here - all the centuries of smear, let's look at the future - the future of how politics will be run. That is interesting, that is how you change things.

Yes, yes, nothing to see here, let's move on. Anything to avoid exposing the left as the real smear merchants. Just shut up about it everybody!

So, forward looking - what is your solution to the problem of the left always trying to destroy anybody (including private citizens) they view as a threat, rather than trying to win in the arena of ideas?

Cal, I never said that they were organized by the GOP - did I - got the quote on that? The people I have talked to got emails from the 9-12 group, a union group and from the RNC & DNC - but I don't think that these people are organized - they were told when the meeting was, but that isn't 'organization'. And I don't believe I went down the astroturfing path at all - got any quote from me on that?

Then why did you bring up the 9-12 in the first place? The context was astroturfing.

So did I say that this was an organized effort by any group?

You definitely implied it.

At the townhall meeting what I really was more interested in was not 'opposition' research, but 'information' research. I asked people on both sides how they had found out about the meeting, where they were getting their information regarding the bill, had they read the bill, or any portions of it. I didn't ask party affiliation - I didn't care about that. That tends to make people defensive.

Did you publish your results anywhere, or do we just have to take your word for it?

 

[foxpaws]

You really don't understand the concept of somebody 'getting her back up,' do you? I guess when you hang out with pot smoking flower children, you're used to seeing people who don't have any character.

Nice to see you generalize a whole generation Foss...

Then why did you bring up the 9-12 in the first place? The context was astroturfing.

You definitely implied it.

I was saying where some of the people had heard about the meeting - they got an email from the 9-12 group - and I didn't imply anything Foss - your style of arguing where you keep saying I imply things is getting old. You keep assuming I tout party line here - I am not. I asked for Cal to post where I said that any group was organizing the protests against healthcare or that I said that the protesters were astroturfing. You won't find one because I didn't, because I don't believe that they are part of an organized group - nor do I believe that they are astroturfing. Now, you have to go with some fuzzy 'implied'?

Did you publish your results anywhere, or do we just have to take your word for it?

Nope, I pitched the article though - I got a tentative 'OK', they need to see first drafts....

 

[fossten]

Nope, I pitched the article though - I got a tentative 'OK', they need to see first drafts....

Uh-huh. How convenient. So you get a copout because you can claim an alternate motive for being there, but you don't have to supply evidence that you were. Based on the usual dishonesty of your arguments, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[foxpaws]

What dishonesty Foss - even without the article I would really only be interested on how the people found out about the townhall meeting and what helped form their opinions. Once again, I have taken part in probably close to 100 townhall meetings, the reason they now interest me is the participant mix.