NOW Do You Agree That Congress Should Read Bills Before It Passes Them?

runaway-train

The Obamacare meltdown should not be cause for joy anywhere, although I can understand why the Republicans are giddy and conservative pundits are searching for ways to say “Didn’t I tell you?” in unobnoxious ways. There are no obnoxious ways. There is no worse feeling than knowing that a leader, a movement or a cause that you fervently believed in and defended against doubts and criticism was not worthy of your trust. For the politically and socially committed, comparing this experience to losing a loved one is no exaggeration. Are you in the habit of pointing at your neighbor and shouting, “Haha, your mother died! I told you she looked sick!”? Mocking and razzing the Democrats or progressives in your life is not much better.

We all, however, share responsibility for running this republic, and lessons must be learned. Back in 2010, I wrote of the process whereby the Affordable Care Act was passed…

“…Once the bills began to emerge, though, things got worse. They were far too long and convoluted to read and understand; this was incompetent and irresponsible. None of the Senators or Representatives (or the President himself) who advocated the bills in the most emphatic terms had read them, which is a breach of diligence, and many frequently made statements in public that misstated the provisions of the bill, sometimes egregiously. Not reading a technical bill on a well-understood or narrow matter and still voting for it may be common (though, I would argue, outrageous), but doing so with a massively expensive and complex bill affecting the life of every American is irresponsible and an abuse of power. This has continued. Politicians who the public should be able to trust are still making assertions of fact that are not facts they have independently confirmed, and they are insufficiently familiar with the details to either make fair arguments or inform the public.

“Since nobody could read the bill, this allowed the President and his allies to make general arguments that were often half-truths devised to mislead the public or avoid raising sensitive subjects. President made many “promises” about what would and would not be in the bill, knowing that they were promises he might well not be able or willing to keep. Indeed, the bill now being voted on fails to fulfill many of those pledges.  Important policy trade-offs that might erode support were not discussed, or misrepresented.”

This isn’t a partisan point, you know. I am sure that Republicans don’t read bills before voting for them either, but the practice is unconscionable, professional negligence and reckless, and if nothing else good comes out of this miserable blot on democracy, if the public finally demand that its law-makers read, understand and be candid about the laws they make, then something of value may lie beneath the rubble.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office has compiled a list of 27 Democratic Senators who, like President Obama, pledged that Americans could keep their coverage under Obamacare.  None of them have any excuse. All of them are as accountable as President Obama, who signed a law he either did not understand, or did understand and lied about, repeatedly.  Either explanation is as bad as the other: I suspect that for some, it is one, and for others, the alternate explanation is the correct one. I do not believe for one second that any of the Senators or the President, read the bill thoroughly, or with sufficient comprehension. My sister, who authored some provisions in the final bill, attempted to read the whole thing (as I did with an earlier version).  She pronounced it unreadable, both because of the impenetrable bureaucratic jargon and legal gobbledygook, and because the text was constantly referencing pages and footnotes ahead and behind.  “I honestly suspect that there is no single person who had read the entire thing,” she told me. Do you know what a legislator’s duty is when he or she is asked to vote for such a monstrosity? Send it back.Putting laws on the books without knowing specifically, not just generally, what the law is and how it will work, who it will affect and what its problems are before they are passed is a formula for utter disaster. I have been arguing this for years, and the past week came as no surprise at all. Here is that disaster. And here is what I am sure is an incomplete list of the Democratic Senators who didn’t know what was in the law they voted for.  I want to hear them apologize for that. They were not doing their job.

SEN. HARRY REID (D-Nev.): “In fact, one of our core principles is that if you like the health care you have, you can keep it.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.8642, 8/3/09)

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: “We believe — and we stand by this — if you like your current health insurance plan, you will be able to keep it, plain and simple, straightforward.” (Sen. Durbin, Congressional Record, S.6401, 6/10/09)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): “If you like your insurance, you keep it.” (U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, Bill Mark-Up, 9/29/09)

SEN. PATTY MURRAY (D-Wash.): “Again, if you like what you have, you will be able to keep it. Let me say this again: If you like what you have, when our legislation is passed and signed by the President, you will be able to keep it.” (Sen. Murray, Congressional Record, S.6400, 6/10/09)

SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-Mont.): “That is why one of the central promises of health care reform has been and is: If you like what you have, you can keep it. That is critically important. If a person has a plan, and he or she likes it, he or she can keep it.” (Sen. Baucus, Congressional Record, S.7676, 9/29/10)

SEN. TOM HARKIN (D-Iowa): “One of the things we put in the health care bill when we designed it was the protection for consumers to keep the plan they have if they like it; thus, the term ‘grandfathered plans.’ If you have a plan you like — existing policies — you can keep them. … we said, if you like a plan, you get to keep it, and you can grandfather it in.” (Sen. Harkin, Congressional Record, S.7675-6, 9/29/10)

THEN-REP. TAMMY BALDWIN (D-Wis.): “Under the bill, if you like the insurance you have now, you may keep it and it will improve.” (Rep. Baldwin, Press Release, 3/18/10)

SEN. MARK BEGICH (D-Alaska): “If you got a doctor now, you got a medical professional you want, you get to keep that. If you have an insurance program or a health care policy you want of ideas, make sure you keep it. That you can keep who you want.” (Sen. Begich, Townhall Event, 7/27/09)

SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-Colo.): “We should begin with a basic principle: if you have coverage and you like it, you can keep it. If you have your doctor, and you like him or her, you should be able to keep them as well. We will not take that choice away from you.” (Sen. Bennet, Press Release, 6/11/09)

SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D-Calif.): “So we want people to be able to keep the health care they have. And the answer to that is choice of plans. And in the exchange, we’re going to have lots of different plans, and people will be able to keep the health care coverage they need and they want.” (Sen. Boxer, Press Release, 2/8/11)

SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D-Ohio): “Our bill says if you have health insurance and you like it, you can keep it…”(Sen. Brown, Congressional Record, S.12612, 12/7/09)

SEN. BEN CARDIN (D-Md.): “For the people of Maryland, this bill will provide a rational way in which they can maintain their existing coverage…” (Sen. Cardin, Congressional Record, S.13798, 12/23/09)

SEN. BOB CASEY (D-Pa.): “I also believe this legislation and the bill we are going to send to President Obama this fall will also have secure choices. If you like what you have, you like the plan you have, you can keep it. It is not going to change.” (Sen. Casey, Congressional Record, S.8070, 7/24/09)

SEN. KAY HAGAN (D-N.C.): ‘People who have insurance they’re happy with can keep it’ “We need to support the private insurance industry so that people who have insurance they’re happy with can keep it while also providing a backstop option for people without access to affordable coverage.” (“Republicans Vent As Other Compromise Plans Get Aired,” National Journal’s Congress Daily, 6/18/09)

SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D-La.): “If you like the insurance that you have, you’ll be able to keep it.” (MSNBC’s Hardball, 12/16/09)

SEN. PAT LEAHY (D-Vt.): “[I]f you like the insurance you now have, keep the insurance you have.” (CNN’s “Newsroom,” 10/22/09)

SEN. BOB MENENDEZ (D-N.J.): “If you like what you have, you get to keep it” “Menendez is a member of the Senate Finance Committee, which is expected to release a bill later this week. He stressed that consumers who are satisfied with their plans won’t have to change. ‘If you like what you have, you get to keep it,’ he said.” (“Health Care Plan Would Help N.J., Menendez Says,” The Record, 6/19/09)

SEN. JEFF MERKLEY (D-Oreg.): “[E]nsuring that those who like their insurance get to keep it” “The HELP Committee bill sets forward a historic plan that will, for the first time in American history, give every American access to affordable health coverage, reduce costs, and increase choice, while ensuring that those who like their insurance get to keep it.” (Sen. Merkley, Press Release, 7/15/09)

SEN. BARBARA MIKULSKI (D-Md.): “It means that if you like the insurance you have now, you can keep it.” (Sen. Mikulski, Press Release, 12/24/09)

SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-W.Va.): “I want people to know, the President’s promise that if you like the coverage you have today you can keep it is a pledge we intend to keep.” (U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, Hearing, 9/23/09)

SEN. JACK REED (D-R.I.): “If you like the insurance you have, you can choose to keep it.” (Sen. Reed, Town Hall Event, 6/25/09)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-Vt.): “‘If you have coverage you like, you can keep it,’ says Sen. Sanders.” (“Sick And Wrong,” Rolling Stone, 4/5/10)

SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D-N.H.): ‘if you have health coverage that you like, you get to keep it’ “My understanding … is that … if you have health coverage that you like you can keep it. As I said, you may have missed my remarks at the beginning of the call, but one of the things I that I said as a requirement that I have for supporting a bill is that if you have health coverage that you like you should be able to keep that. …under every scenario that I’ve seen, if you have health coverage that you like, you get to keep it.” (Sen. Shaheen, “Health Care Questions From Across New Hampshire,” Accessed 11/13/13)

SEN. DEBBIE STABENOW (D-Mich.): “As someone who has a large number of large employers in my state, one of the things I appreciate about the chairman’s mark is — is the grandfathering provisions, the fact that the people in my state, 60 percent of whom have insurance, are going to be able to keep it. And Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. That’s a strong commitment. It’s clear in the bill … I appreciate the strong commitment on your part and the president to make sure that if you have your insurance you can keep it. That’s the bottom line for me.” (U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, Bill Mark-Up, 9/24/09)

SEN. JON TESTER (D-Mont.): “‘If you like your coverage, you’ll be able to keep it,’ Tester said, adding that if Medicare changes, it will only become stronger”. (“Tester In Baker To Discuss Health Care,” The Fallon County Times, 11/20/09)

SEN. TOM UDALL (D-N.Mex.): “Some worried reform would alter their current coverage. It won’t. If you like your current plan, you can keep it.” (“What I Learned: About Health Care Reform This Summer, By Your Lawmakers In Congress,” Albuquerque Journal, 9/8/09)

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-R.I.): “…it honors President Obama’s programs and the promise of all of the Presidential candidates that if you like the plan you have, you get to keep it. You are not forced out of anything.”(Sen. Whitehouse, Congressional Record, S.8668, 8/3/09)

This was a disgrace.

65 thoughts on “NOW Do You Agree That Congress Should Read Bills Before It Passes Them?

  1. It’s gotten to the point that the female senator for New York actually managed to admit in a TV interview that they all pretty well knew ahead of time that Obama’s frequent “you can keep your health insurance” assertions were lies. Of course, she’s no mental giant, but if she (and her colleagues) all knew this, doesn’t that make them party to mass perjury? In fact, doesn’t that make them additionally liable to impeachment? One has to wonder just how prevalent this little conspiracy was. It’s also notable that those who spoke out against this were treated as nasty children by the media. Yet, those same pundits had to have known this was all false, too. We can’t impeach THEM, of course, but we can make our displeasure known in other ways. Another suggestion: What about a rule that restricts Congress from proposing any measure that is lengthier than the U.S. Constitution?

    • That they knew ahead of time suggests the crime isn’t just perjury but maybe something a little more sinister. These people are insufferable,never to be trusted. Just what are they trying to pull? The healthcare and well being of the citizens is not what’s on their minds.

    • Kill the ACA. Allow individuals to claim the same tax credit businesses do. Remove most coverage mandates, allow for purchase across state lines, tort reform.

      Just like the Right has been saying for over three fucking years.

      Next question?

    • As Howard Dean once pointed out, the only responsibilty of the opposition party is to oppose. You idiots on the left side of the aisle rammed this through on your own, you figure out how to fix it on your own. The GOP should do not a damn thing.

      • I think that would be a terrible response by the GOP. If the GOP isn’t seen to be trying to fix the problem, then the GOP is just an empty shell that doesn’t believe in its own rhetoric.

        Already the House of Representatives passed a quick fix to forestall some of the problems until maybe a more responsible set of legislators and executives can be voted into office to enact a complete fix. It has already received a threatened veto from the President if it passes the Senate (who probably wouldn’t pass it, since Obama’s lap-dog in the Senate will block it.

        Gotta love it. Obama vows to ‘fix’ Obamacare illegally, while vowing to veto any legal fixes to it. What a tin horn dictator. (which wouldn’t ever come to this if it weren’t for his rubber stampers in the Senate.

          • Maybe it is, but the duty of Congress is to help run the country and look out for the welfare of all Americans, even the foolish ones who are gullible, and not allow a catastrophe to occur because it will be blamed on the opposing party and that will make them feel good and pick up some votes in the next election.

            • I’m sorry, but after Howard Dean’s vicious comment how all the opposition party has to do is oppose I see the perfect opening here. with their one achievement in the past 7 years collapsing like the temple after Samson pushed down the pillars, to pay the idiots on the left back with interest. For that long and for fifteen years before they touted themselves as smarter, more enlightened, cooler, and all around better than those gun-toting, praise-Jeebus rednecks on the other side and dreamed of how much better they’d run the country once they got in power. Well, they had their chance, and they not only fell short of expectations, they screwed it up royally and now there is no further hiding that fact. Those of us on the right, who endured their slings and arrows and worse all this time, are under no duty to lift a finger to help them. We’re fully within our rights to tell them “you said we ran the car into a ditch and now we have to sit in the back seat, now you ran it into the river. Now you can sink with it.”

              • For that long and for fifteen years before they touted themselves as smarter, more enlightened, cooler, and all around better than those gun-toting, praise-Jeebus rednecks on the other side and dreamed of how much better they’d run the country once they got in power. Well, they had their chance, and they not only fell short of expectations, they screwed it up royally and now there is no further hiding that fact.
                ***********
                Good post.

            • Fuck you, you ignorant whore. We have stated the Republican option time and time again. I am fucking sick of ignorant shittards like you ignoring it and then claiming the republicans need to come up with a plan.

              Die in a fire.

            • Like I said, Karla, it was the DEMOCRATS’ guru Howard Dean who said all the opposition party needs to do is oppose. It was also he who said the Republicans were evil and all those other insults that go back to 2008. It was the Democrats who leveled countless unfair insults at the Republicans when the parties’ positions were reversed.

              It was the Democrats’ lapdogs in the media who insisted and are still insisting (witness the recent ridiculous “12 reasons Obama is the greatest” post at HP) that their way is the smarter, cooler, better, hipper, more forward-thinking way and the other side is hopeless, stupid, clueless, Neanderthal, clinging to God and guns, and who messed everything up to the point of forfeiting their place in the discussion.

              Well, it seems that their way was not the smarter or better way, in fact it was a very bad way, and what’s more, it was sold with a pack of lies. To turn back to the very people they’ve spent years insulting, belittling, vilifying, marginalizing, and doing their damnedest to make sure they are shut out of the discussion and insist that now THEY come up with a plan to fix this mess that they played no part in creating (in no small part because they were not allowed to play a part while the other side smugly reminded them “we won”) is chutzpah at best, a high insult at worst. The GOP is well within their rights, legally, Constitutionally, morally, and ethically, to tell the crumbling, splitting Democrats EXACTLY what bodily orifice to stuff their demand for a plan in.

              • Yep,and I say I’m pleased with the result. My son and his wife cannot afford Obamacare and have opted to pay the penalty but before that happens I hope the whole mess is scrapped. I know it prolly won’t be but I can hope. I don’t want to have my boy with a record just for not buying health insurance!!

  2. I would be happier except everything is still broken and isn’t likely to be fixed. How do you say “Ha ha, everyone’s mother died and it’s your fault.” Mothers are still dead, and it’s not ever going to be funny.

    • It will be fixed. And if we learn not to choose slick, manipulative, soothing, arrogant, inexperienced, pie-in-the-sky amateurs because their “narrative” and skin color makes us feel good for voting for them, and the media learns that we are not better off when our democratic processes are distorted by the simplistic ideological biases of unethical journalists, then it will be worth it.
      That’s hope and change I can support.

      But what a disaster. The fact that I predicted it does not cheer me at all.

      • The people in charge of communicating the national narrative – the MEDIA and the EDUCATION system –

        DO NOT believe in deliberative government (it slows down their statist/progressive agendas)

        DO NOT believe in private property and sanctity of the same (it gets in the way of buying votes)

        DO NOT believe in a rigid constitutional system

        DO believe that the vast majority of your person and goods are held solely at the grace of the power holders and ought be surrendered to their constituency on a whim.

        DO believe in convincing people that their emotions (transient as they are) ought to rule the day.

        DO NOT believe in rule of law (because that impedes catering to the temporary and wildly manipulated emotions of the people)

        Until people who believe in limited government and free market are back in charge of the Media and Education (not going to happen), then the narrative of collectivism and central power will continue to win.

        That Obamacare is an immitigable disaster is not going open people’s eyes that excessive state imposition on the free market through confiscation of private property and compulsion of market behavior will Never Never Work AND have a liberty / privacy respecting society. They still want free stuff paid for by other people…that has not changed.

          • As touching as Ann Frank’s memoir is, her quote sounds great but accomplishes nothing.

            A bad person who ‘is good at heart’ is still a bad person doing bad things.

            Her attitude towards others is very ethical, but otherwise meaningless, it’s great she can forgive the people who put her to death. It’d have been better if she had the ability to stop them (violently if necessary) before they even had the state apparatus to do what they did.

            Yes, “a bad person who is good at heart” may be convinced that their actions are not achieving good…but there is a point where you stop persuading and start opposing vehemently, generally at some point prior to the collectivists gaining complete control of the infrastructure necessary to consign millions of virulently isolated sub-sets of the general society to the flames.

  3. You are right. The ethical response is not “Ha ha, told you so” or “See? Those #*%?# Demo-rats are destroying the country!” but to point out that both sides do this routinely. Heard of the PATRIOT Act? Or the mealy-mouthed “Authorization to Use Military Force Somewhere Against Somebody … We Don’t Exactly Know Or Care Whom”? That was the GOP version of this.

    Only those who critique our government ethically (unsparingly and impartially) have the necessary moral authority to cut through the hyperpartisanship and offer a way forward.

    • Rationalizations:1,2 and most of 7. But I liked the way you wrapped your partisan justification in a nice warm blanket of denouncing hyper partisanship. Also, the ‘way forward’ bullshit was like a cherry on top..Did that phrase test well in the focus groups?

    • Oh no, the same people who routinely attacked GWB in cheap and dirty ways like naming sewage plants after him and putting pictures of him next to a chimpanzee don’t now get to cry “let’s all be mature about this” and “but your guy did it too” when their guy’s one, count it, one, accomplishment comes tumbling about his ears and a very good chance emerges that his legacy will be farther down the ladder of success than the very guy they bashed and attacked and patted themselves on the back for bashing and attacking. Here’s one from me – what color’s Obama now that all these problems are falling on top of him? Flat black!

        • Hardly.

          Has Obama ever done anything without it being a photo-op? Can you actually see him (or anyone who served in his administration) spending their time helping rehab clinics in 3rd world nations? Or serving on a ship to help refugees?

          Can you see Obama staying silent during a Republican administration?

          Bush might not be the smartest man to ever be President, but he was at least competent for the job…

          And while I never bought that Obama was “the smartest man in the room”, he certainly thinks he is…

        • Not even close, Jay, and indicative of sloppy thinking. You might be right if the two men and their two administrations were alike, or so similar that the differences were only academic, but that’s not the case. GWB understood the limits of the office and did not think he was smarter than everyone else in the nation. BO thinks he is the supreme authority on everything. There’s plenty of individual issues to criticize both on without the false absolutism of love both or hate both on principle.

  4. Off with their crowns, every one of them! Let them have the opportunity to become ‘personal injury lawyers’ or teach in some fleabag non accredited law school.

  5. But Jack, none of these quotes say that you get to keep your insurance “no matter what” or “with no exceptions” or “unless we make it so you can’t.” You’re just adding interpretations to what they said, they didn’t actually lie! Right?

      • Jack,why do you allow this being on here? Look at my statement and his response? I may be wrong in my statement but you’re allowing this to go on is making me think I should leave the group. I don’t need this. He’s nuts!

        “Republicans need to come up with a plan. So far all they’ve done is oppose. They don’t need to do nothing to let Democrats tear themselves apart. The Democrats are already losing ground.”

        Fuck you, you ignorant whore. We have stated the Republican option time and time again. I am fucking sick of ignorant shittards like you ignoring it and then claiming the republicans need to come up with a plan.

        Die in a fire.

        • I stated the 3 year old Republican plan in this very fucking thread!!!! I would have remorse for what I said if you were not willfully ignorant. You have to expend energy to be this uninformed, and I refuse to sit idle by and let you get away with demanding something that has been provided ad nauseum for over three years.

          But maybe you’re right… “Die in a fire” was not called for…

          It would, after all, require something with potential utility and value be destroyed in the process. I should have referenced drowning.

          • Calling me willfully ignorant isn’t a problem. Your adolescent,violent temper tantrums are. You are a very hate filled person. I’m afraid for your wife and kids,if you have any. Do you beat your wife/girlfriend if she burns dinner?

              • I never saw the Republican plan here or anywhere else. All I ever heard is that they didn’t have one and that it was all left up to the Dems. I’m not with either party but usually I assume they both lie,maybe Dems a little more. I did look it up after you mentioned it. But Democrats didn’t want a plan that didn’t have a hidden agenda so I guess that’s why they rejected the Republican plan.

                • I never saw the Republican plan here or anywhere else. All I ever heard is that they didn’t have one and that it was all left up to the Dems.

                  then you have spent three years being worse than useless. You have to have been the most eager of dupes to have heard nothing of the republican option.

                  And to say the Republican plan had a hidden agenda is to prove that you are even more stupid than I though possible, and I’ve read some of the shit Beth has posted. Save tort reform, there is nothing in the Republican plan that didn’t reduce governmental control and influence.

                  “Hidden agenda” my ass.

                  I retract my partial apology – that building will just have to take one for the team.

    • Karla. I saw your previous post directed at me just now, and my lack of an answer does not indicate anything other than that. You have been here for a long time, and your participation is valued.

      Let me answer your questions, as they are good ones, and at this point, difficult ones.

      Ablativemeatshield is not nuts, but he has a particular controversial style that has been the subject of a couple of threads. I would not allow someone on the blog who expresses himself like that on a regular basis without accompanying substance of value that adds to the discussion. Nor would I normally allow someone to begin appearing here who entered the fray with that choice of words, because civility is a theme here. So is the principle that offense to one individual, however valid, shouldn’t automatically confer the power to censor the mode of expression of another.

      When the last thread on the topic of AMS rhetoric surfaced, his target of ire was Beth, who is a personal friend of mine. She rebutted his attack confidently and well, and I concluded that I would prefer to allow regular debaters here to police themselves when lines are crossed. When the exchanges get too hot or vulgar, I usually interject an admonishment to take it down a notch or six. In the initial fray in your case, I did not—I’m not sure why. I think it was because you made your objection known directly, and the discussion returned to acceptable levels. You were not being bullied, and you defended yourself.

      In the earlier thread, Beth expressed to me the concern that that tenor of discourse could drive away commenters and readers, and I certainly don’t want that. Nor would I want AMS’s style to become the norm here, but he made a coherent and, I felt, valid argument that his use of such language permitted the communication of intensity, emotion and, sometimes, humor that had independent value….and he advocated such rhetorical liberty for all. AS it stands right now, he has what could be called special leeway, as a regular contributor of value who periodically resorts to language that is otherwise unwelcome here. Yes, it’s a double standard. Personally and professionally, I think such outbursts distract from his arguments.

      If another commenter feels abused and communicates that, then AMS has generally moderated his methodology, as I would expect him too. I thought he did in your case. You mentioned tgt, who is still in communication with me and whom hope will return soon. His style does not include vulgarity and obscenity, but his rhetoric is tough on occasion, and some of his adversaries here have also sometimes called on me to shut him down. A rebuke without words that are not considered acceptable in genteel company can be just as assaultive as the other. I would prefer to keep my moderator’s hand light. After the previous incident, AMS was absent here for a while. His perspective was missed.

      Yours would be as well. I admit that I have not mastered the moderation process, and that it is still evolving. I am keeping an eye on this, and trying to balance two competing values—an ethical conflict.

      I apologize for not responding more quickly, but again: I did not see the post in which you specifically addressed your objections to me.

      • Thanks Jack and thanks for the e-mail as well. I do try to make allowances, and sometimes the emotionalism just goes with the territory. I also try,as far as it depends on me,to get along with everyone. I did make that effort with tgt and I realized in spite of his bluster he really isn’t a bad fellow. With AMS I thought that if he addressed me that way in something other than this forum I would feel threatened of physical harm. Beth put up with him admirably and she obviously feels it’s worth staying with the blog in spite of him. I,however,do not, but if this is an isolated incident and he will not be attacking me on everything we disagree on in that manner then I’d like to stay.

        I did find it confusing that a blog dedicated to ethics allowed that sort of thing when he was attacking Beth. But I will endeavor to take him with a grain of salt providing,as I said,he doesn’t become fixated on me!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.