Will We Ever Learn?

Advertisement

Editor:

I believe the editorial was correct in its assessment of Brenda Barton’s statements.

She actually believes what she said. I realized that when I remembered the 1949 musical “South Pacific.” One of the songs was titled “You’ve Got To Be Carefully Taught.”

“You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear,

“You’ve got to be taught from year to year,

“It’s got to be drummed into your dear little ear,

“You’ve got to be carefully taught.

“You’ve got to be taught to be afraid

“Of people whose eye are oddly made,

“And people whose skin is a different shade,

“You’ve got to be carefully taught.

“You’ve go to be taught before it’s too late,

“Before you are six or seven or eight,

“To hate all of the people your relatives hate,

“You’ve got to be carefully taught.”

Sixty-four years later, nothing much has changed.

We elect anti-government candidates to our local school board, to the state Legislature, and to our national government. Will we ever learn and teach humanity, compassion and the ethics of loving your neighbors regardless of their beliefs? One can only hope.

Sylvia Freeman

Comments

Donald Cline 1 year, 1 month ago

Well, Sylvia, you are confused. You are confusing "Pro-Constitution" with "anti-government." Neither Brenda Barton or the other activists opposing what we see happening to our nation of liberty, including myself, are "anti-government." We believe in government. We just oppose "unconstitutional government," and we oppose "anti-Constitutional government," such as that being imposed upon us by the Marxist Mafia infesting our White House, our U.S. Senate, and much of the House of Representatives. We oppose the Marxist-focused U.N. and its Agenda 21, which has infested practically every school board and planning commission in the United States. And we are supporting Rep. Brenda Barton's comments, because Obama has admitted on the record he favors "wealth redistribution," which is theft by socialism any way you look at it, and he claims to be our "national" President. That makes him a "national socialist" by definition and the German gutter slang for "national Socialist" is "Nazi." And Hitler -- Der Fuhrer -- was head of the Nazis. Question, Sylvia: Do you think a political ideology that murdered six million people is worthy of "hate?" I do. If you don't, I would recommend you re-orient your philosophy to one including more love, compassion, humanity, and -- not to put too fine a point on it -- principle.

1

Mel Mevis 1 year, 1 month ago

Mr Cline you just made Sylvia's view so true.

Your rant is full of nothing but hate. Apparently that is something you have been taught.

Your comments do not warrant a rebuttal.

0

Donald Cline 1 year, 1 month ago

So you believe it is inappropriate to hate a political ideology (Marxist-Stalinism) that rationalized the murdered 20 million people from 1929 to 1945 in the Balkans, and a variation of the same political ideology called (National socialism, aka Nazi-ism), that murdered another 20 million people in Germany and surrounding nations from 1933 to 1945 under the direction of a man named Hitler whose followers called him "Der Fuhrer"? You don't think murdering 40 million people is worthy of your hate? Do you think it is fun and games, perhaps distasteful to some, but everyone has a right to their own opinion about vicious murder of millions? If so, what planet are you from? What evil muck did you crawl out of?

You are wrong: I was not "taught" to hate murderous viciousness, and I was not "taught" to hate the political ideologies that try to justify it or rationalize it with the politics of hate, Like you, I was "taught" to live and let live -- until I discovered, on my own, that if you allow Marxists or Nazis to gain power, "live and let live" is not an option -- or at least it is not YOUR option. It is the option of your masters, dependent entirely on how much amusement they can derive from controlling you down to the last breath you take..

http://www.paysonroundup.com/users/photos/2013/oct/22/52016/

0

Donald Cline 1 year, 1 month ago

Oh, sorry -- I failed to point out: You're right: Your reply is not a rebuttal; it is just a typical Marxist playbook flame.

0

Mel Mevis 1 year, 1 month ago

Mr. Rhea and Mr Cline

You make the point so well ........

People with your attitudes are what create the atmosphere where hate, prejudice, bigotry are allowed to flourish. What next, a final solution for all those who do not agree with you?

I love America (the one I grew-up in), Free Enterprise (when it's free), freedom of speech (always, even when wrong), Democracy (when allowed by politicians), the diversity of our nation (what makes us strong),

Why do people like you support limiting democracy through gerrymandering and voter suppression? Because the majority do not agree with your views.

Why do people like you espouse free enterprise while supporting corporate welfare? Because you believe falsely that it needs support, in reality you are supporting a modern form of fascism. You freely use the words socialist, Nazi, Marxist, why not Fascist? Apparently you may know the real meaning and understand that your political beliefs support it. For the readers who don't know the history of fascism I suggest you read a little history on who supported fascism in this country prior to WWII, what it really was in the 1930, not the definitions thrown around today.

Why do people like you demonize and denigrate people who are not like you? Our nation was made strong by immigrants. The people that were here prior to the next wave of immigrants have always spoken poorly and disparagingly about immigrants that followed, Guess what they were wrong. My great grandparents came to this country form Europe. My grandfather did not speak English until he was 10 years old because he was raised by parents who only spoke German. He was called all kinds of names because he spoke English with an accent, but you know what, he was more of a patriot that people like you, he served in one World War and worked to support a second. He openly spoke about how wrong the KKK was when I was a child. I am proud to be an American with descended from people who spoke up against hatred, bigotry, and injustice. People like you today would deny him citizenship and want to send him "home".

Why do people like you wrap yourself in the Flag, put bumper stickers on your car, and pay for license plates to show how patriotic you are? Because you are insecure. Because you want to feel superior to others.

And finally ....... Your comments place you in the same league as Ms Barton. I'm sure your proud of that, but is not intended that way

0

Ronald Hamric 1 year, 1 month ago

Mr. Mevis, I cannot disagree with what you posted here, right up to the point you expressed this view " People like you today would deny him citizenship and want to send him "home". That sir, is a falsehood that has been a hallmark of the Left for many years. Anyone who is either a naturalized citizen or citizen by birth are ALL descendants of immigrants unless they come from the indigenous people that were here before Columbus. The accusation that you reiterated could not be further from the truth. Those who you have political differences with have never proposed sending any LEGAL immigrant "home" . The issue is with ILLEGAL immigrants, from whatever country they are from. Either we are a nation of laws or we are not. If someone has broken those laws (entered the country illegally), then it should be a reasonable expectation that those charged with enforcing those laws actually do such. Therein is the argument ,which people who want to undermine this nation's sovereignty, refuse to address directly. They use the view which you did, which is a red herring, that people such as Mr. Rheas and Mr. Cline are against "immigration', legal or illegal. I think your very biased partisanship has been openly displayed with that statement.

0

Donald Cline 1 year, 1 month ago

Hey! I am amazed! It is rare that a troll ever deigns to actually engage in a debate instead of throwing empty rhetoric around. I appreciate it, Mr. Mevis; it is so much more worthwhile than flame wars. We don't have time for flame wars; time is short. Okay, since you bring up some specific points, I will address your specific points: Your second paragraph: I think the Marxists in Democrat feathers in the Progressive Caucuses in Congress do a much better job of fostering hate, prejudice, and bigotry than the Tea Party or the Republicans. Your attitude toward anyone who disagrees with your political ideology is an excellent example of that. And Progressive comments about anyone who believes in our fundamental, Constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms are outrageous: Accusing us of being Neanderthals, baby killers, supporting the KKK -- BTW, the KKK was almost entirely a Democrat membership. And since you mention a final solution, we know what the "national socialist" final solution is, don't we? Hitler and Stalin both proved that, with 40 million unarmed people murdered between 1929 and 1945. The question I have for you, is why do you support that by challenging people who express a hatred for it? What does that make you? Your third paragraph: Yeah, when its free. It hasn't been free for decades, thanks to a steady slide down the slippery slope to Statism and Socialism and now Marxism, and soon it will be the Stalinist version of Marxism. It started with an avowed Socialist named Woodrow Wilson, was thoroughly entrenched with a far-left F.D.R., and it has been accelerating more with each far-left-influenced President since -- some through no fault of their own, but due to the heavily-infiltrated bureaucracy and the Marxist infestations in the House and Senate over the last sixty years or so. About the only one who really slowed it down was Ronald Reagan, but even he feel for a few Marxist/Statist ploys. Every President since has either been a Marxist sympathizer if a Democratic or a Statist thug if a Republican, and every Republican has gotten laws passed that make it easier for the Marxists when it is their turn. As for free speech, you're darned right. Even when it is wrong. Which is why I appreciate you engaging this time; I've had 38 years of liberals bailing out every time someone who knows their game tries to engage them in the "rational debate" they are always whining about. At least you are willing to stand here and slug it out if you disagree with me, and everyone will learn from that. If you think "Democracy" is so great, I invite you to read what the founding fathers said about it in the Federalist Papers: "Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Continued in Part 2.

0

Donald Cline 1 year, 1 month ago

Part 2: Or as Ben Franklin said, "A Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch." We don't have -- or at least we are not supposed to have -- a Democracy in this country, Mel. We are supposed to have a Constitutional Republic, with democratically-chosen representation. And the federal government does not have any lawful authority to do ANYTHING the subject matter authority for which is not delegated to it by the Constitution of the United States. Read the Tenth Amendment. In fact, read the whole thing: It is the Bible of our federal government, and they ignore it. You love the diversity of our nation. Well, I've never ever disliked anyone for the color of their skin, or for their religion, and I would cheerfully vote for Alan Keyes or Allen West for President in a New York Second, and they are both blacker than Barry Soetoro --er, "Obama" -- by half. But history rejects the concept that "diversity" of culture makes a nation strong. It has resulted in strife and tumult in every nation that has encourage it, and it has destroyed some. The Muslim infestation in Europe and in Michigan is totally destroying the traditional cultures in both places and replacing them with Sharia Law. Good luck with that. Your fourth paragraph: What gives you the idea that we support gerrymandering and voter suppression? Everyone in the Tea Party I know absolutely hates gerrymandering -- oh, dear; there's that word again -- and a Democratic-dominated committee just gerrymandered the heck out of Arizona for THEIR benefit, not ours. Gerrymandering is pure-dee vote manipulation, and we oppose it whether Democrats or Republicans do it. As for "voter suppression," what the heck are you talking about? We spend most of our time trying to "get out the vote" -- however, we don't like Democrats trying to stuff the ballot boxes by making it legal for illegal aliens to vote early and often. Voting is a farce if you don't require voters to prove they are eligible by citizenship and by district of residence to vote. Marxists and the Mafia (I'm being redundant here) just LOVE it when incompetent judges rule any danged fool from any country in the world has a right to vote in our elections. Your paragraph five: What the heck makes you think I or we (I assume you are referring to the Tea Party) we support corporate welfare? I don't, and I don't know anyone in the Tea Party who does. I point out to you that OBAMA is the one who is famous for handing out corporate welfare to outfits like Solyndra, who promptly go belly up and head for the hills with the taxpayer's money -- and several other equally shaky companies just because they supported his election. As for me personally, I don't believe in the whole concept of "limited liability incorporation;" it is no different than English feudalism and exists for the same reason. Continued in Part 3.

0

Donald Cline 1 year, 1 month ago

Part 3: I don't think any officer of a corporation should escape personal accountability for the decisions he makes in the name of the corporation, ESPECIALLY when those decisions deprive citizens of their rights on premises open to the public. Further to your fifth paragraph: Indeed, why not "Fascist"? If you look at the reality of those hair-splitting labels for political ideologies, you find their only real purpose is to keep ignoramuses spinning their wheels instead of doing something about injustice. You go far enough to the left and the result at the street level is indistinguishable from the far-right fascist. Both are statist andauthoritarian; both presume that some figurehead jerk can make better decisions about your life than you can, or has the authority to rob everyone blind to bail idiots out for their bad life decisions -- and then, when the money runs out, when they can't borrow any more, the poor and the downtrodden riot over their loss of freebies from government and the First Sock-Puppet has the justification for Martial Law he has been after all along. Fascism is no better than Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Nazi-ism, Corporatism -- they all seek to make those who do the governing not accountable to those who are governed. And as long as you want to bring up Fascism, Mel, how about "Liberty"? You notice that is the one political ideology, supported in the world EXCLUSIVELY by our Constitution and Bill of Rights and rule of law (currently being ignored by our Marxist administration). Why don't I hear you extolling the virtues of that political ideology, Mel? Your sixth paragraph: What makes you think I or people like me demonize and denigrate immigrants? I don't, and I don't know of anyone among my acquaintances who do. I do demonize and denigrate criminals and people who break the law, and that includes people who are committing an illegal act by simply being here. If they want to be here they can apply for citizenship and have their backgrounds checked and prove they know what being an American is REALLY all about, and wait their turn like other law-abiding immigrants. It probably means nothing to you, but I do have a lot of sympathy for people who were brought here as infants by their illegal alien parents; I think their parents have handed them a really rough, raw deal. But while it is terrible to send them home, it would be equally unfair to everyone else to give them a pass. No other country in the world would, and I see no reason why we should exempt them from the law because their parents were criminals.
Continued in Part 4.

0

Donald Cline 1 year, 1 month ago

Part 4. Now, Mel, I've been polite and circumspect in my reply to you tonight, but if you think I or anyone else in the Tea Party would deny your grandfather citizenship and send him home -- IF HE WAS A LEGAL IMMIGRANT -- then you are a G-D liar and you bloody well know it. Yeah, there's a lot of hate and bigotry in the world and I'm sure your grandfather suffered a lot of it, but I am glad he stood up against it and I stand up against it -- I do not tolerate viciousness or bullying -- but if he was legal I'll stand with him and if you are legal I would stand with you against that kind of crap. In fact, I would stand with either of you even if you weren't legal, but I'd have you deported as soon as the viciousness and bullying was put down. If you think the Tea Party opposes legal immigration, you've been drinking Obama's Kool-Aid and you need to stop it. Your seventh paragraph: Given where Obama and his criminal Marxist Mafia is taking the country, they have a right to feel insecure. And yeah, Mel, if we believe in the fundamental principles of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and we are willing to put our lives on the line fighting for those principles in the nation that is still, today, the last best hope for the liberty of Mankind (if we can kick the G-D Marxist Mafia out), then yes: You are right: We ARE superior to others who think we should become a second-rate Soviet Union or third-world satrapy, like this twerp in the White House believes. Your last paragraph: Yes, Mel, you are darned right I am proud of that, and I don't give a flying Frisbee what you intended by it. I hope your prejudices and bigotry and hate for people who stand up for principle and justice under the rule of law is a little dented now, Mel. I could tell you've been drinking a lot of Kool-Aid. But at least you stood up and said what you believe and gave me an opportunity to address it. That's more than 99% of the other liberals have done in the last 38 years, and I commend you for it. It's a beginning, and I don't mind discussing this with you a bit more if you wish.

0

Mel Mevis 1 year, 1 month ago

Mr Cline

We may have more in common that you think. I still find much of what you say offensive,

As I have said before and will say again, I believe in respecting the office of the President of the United States. If you disagree vote him out. I do not agree with everything this President says or does, just like I have had issues with previous Presidents. Personally I feel we lost more personal privacy under Bush II that any other President. Did you feel as passionately about what this President did to freedom? If not .... I question your real motive.

Personally I see President Obama no better or worse than any President elected in modern times.

When I hear remarks like your, the hyperbole and inflammatory remarks, my reaction is to place you in a category of someone who is far to one side of the political spectrum. Much like you have placed me in your mind on the far left. I am see my self as a moderate,

I vote for a man based not on what they say, but do and have done. Example John McCain: Initially I voted for him until a very close friend who served on the USS Forrestal pointed out little know fact or stuff not reported. This resulted in my looking at his personal history much closer, there is a lot about him that most people overlook because he is a "war hero" ....

If I fit the definition of an internet TROLL then it's the pot calling the kettle black. You are much better at inflammatory remarks than I. Here is a definition of Internet Troll: In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response ...

I live in the Rim area, as you note my picture is posted with my comments, I own them. Who knows we may even have a chance to discuss this in person some day. I usually only respond in short responses to people who use avatars or cute online name, and most times not at all.

0

Donald Cline 1 year, 1 month ago

Mr. Mevis; Thanks for getting back to me. It appears to me we may have more in common than you think: Your questions to me made it obvious you have been inundated with wrong information about people like me, probably for years. I believe in respecting the Office of President of the United States too -- when he respects it. And when he respects the rule of law that created the government of which he is head, and which assigns to him the only, absolutely exclusive authority that he has, and as long as he endeavors to constrain himself to that authority and exercises no other color of authority. I'm afraid the current man occupying that office fails on all counts, and in addition is ineligible to that office by reason of his lack of natural-born citizenship. Most likely not born on U.S. soil, but definitely not born of parents who were both U.S. citizens as required by the Founder's definition of the term -- or so he claims. I think he is a liar when he says Obama Sr. was his father, but that is what he claims, so he convicts himself of his own ineligibility. If you wish to get into that argument, or any other, feel free to meet me on "A Recurrence to First Principles" blog at www.frdmftr.net/sv -- or here, if you prefer. We may very well have lost more privacy under Bush than any other President save Obama, but I carry no water for the man who gave us the so-called Patriot Act. He was an incompetent fool, but at least he wasn't a Marxist -- although he assisted them greatly with that Act. He was every bit as anti-Constitution as Obama: "Stop bringing up the (G-D) Constitution to me! It's just a (G-D) piece of paper!" he said. I see this President (I gag every time I have to call him "Obama;" his name is Soetoro) as very definitely worse than Junior Bush, who was only slightly better than terrorist organization "Institute for Policy Studies" member Clinton, who was much worse than the awful George H.W. "New World Order" Bush, who was in the bottom of the outhouse compared to Reagan who was fantastic compared to the incompetent Jimmy Carter -- Mel, every President since Taft has been carrying us down the slippery slope into socialism and Marxism, and Taft was no prize. The slope has gotten steeper and our speed faster with the last five or six, not including Reagan, who barely managed to hold our speed steady for his two terms, but he brought down the USSR, to his credit. Continued in Part 2.

0

Donald Cline 1 year, 1 month ago

Part 2: By today's standard, Mel, based on what you have said, you ARE a "mainstream moderate." But that is because you comport with 75% of the ignorant fools out here in the real world who have been drinking the leftist Kool-Aid for so long they have NO CLUE what our country is supposed to be, where their "liberties" come from, or how they are being destroyed systematically by a cadre of internationalists who don't give a flying Frisbee for your (or my)political ideology: They will sell you whatever Ponzi Scheme you will buy as long as you let them gain control over your choices and your life increment by increment until you are required to lick their boots and anything else they want you to lick in order to exercise the privilege of living another day in their world.

As it happens, the "Progressive ideology" is what people have been buying since before the Gunfight at the OK Corral, and that's what they are selling. "Progressive" is pure-dee Socialism, which any Marxist who lapses into truth for a half a second before catching himself will tell you has no purpose beyond setting the stage for the violent Marxist revolution. That's how Trotsky and Lenin and Stalin did it in the Soviet Union and it is how Hitler did it in Germany and it is how a long row of U.S. Presidents and lesser politicians and their bureaucracy is doing it in the United States -- and Kristallnacht, the Night of Broken Glass redux, is just around the corner. We've been on the verge of it three or four times now, and each time it was postponed by one fact and one fact only. Ask me and I will reveal that fact to you if you haven't figured it out.

If you compare your ideology, and its fundamental premises, to the documents that founded our nation and improved the lot of the average working man, woman and child in 100 years more than they improved in the previous 25 centuries, you will find your ideology -- the one that has been imposed on you without your knowledge or consent in the last fifty to one hundred years -- is so far-out to the left (and right; same thing) you are about to cut yourself on the very edge of the world. Let me put it to you this way: The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the founding premises of the framers of those documents is the "moderate" political theory for our nation. You are so far out from that you couldn't be reached with a bean from a bean-shooter. I'm hoping with these conversations you can be made to realize that. I am not engaging in hyperbole at all, Mel: I'm giving you facts you can research and confirm for yourself. Continued in Part 3.

0

Donald Cline 1 year, 1 month ago

I have no argument with you about McCain, none. The man is a RINO of the first order, and the only time he acts like a Republican is when he is campaigning. God help us if he ever becomes President, but I'm afraid if he runs again he will lose to a Marxist Mafia-man on steroids (if we have another election; I don't think Obama is going to allow it). This is how the elections are manipulated; we have come to voting for the lesser of all evils, and third party candidates siphon votes away from any good candidates, and we always wind up with evil: Worse evil with every election. (Kudos to you for not voting for him, but it didn't make any difference: It was a Hobson's Choice.)

I agree with your definition of Internet troll, and given your engagement in this discussion, you are not one. The two other threads on this forum in which you have responded to me fit that definition exactly. Your postings here do not, and neither do mine. You are engaging in political discussion -- and this is not even really a debate because you haven't taken anything I've said and countered with opposing argument. All you have done is given me your personal impression of it, and that's okay. That means I am making sense to you, and you aren't quite ready to accept the fact that you have been lied to since you were in knee pants. That's okay too; I've been there done that: When I first discovered something wrong with what I had been taught since I was a kid, it took me six months of hard research to convince myself it was true. And I was lucky; I'd just returned from four years in Australia, which has a patently communist political party and I was ready for the information because I couldn't figure out why our government was so much like theirs. That was 38 years ago, and I've been studying it every since, and I have learned what is going on and who is running the show, and I'll tell you who that is someday if you ask. It ain't who you think. Your last paragraph confuses me. I get that you live in the Rim area, and in Payson, but I don't get what you mean when you say "I own them." FWIW, I live near Payson. I'm going to have to put my avatar on my profile; it is on all my other profiles.

Good to talk to you again.

0

Rex Hinshaw 1 year, 1 month ago

This has been interesting to read. I'm looking forward to Mel's response.

1

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.