Pride

[Progo35]

You know, I was thinking today of how I often mention my disability, and that I've been admonished by some people to mention it less. I think that it is legitimate to concern oneself if one is constantly presenting one part of oneself and not others, so there's a good point there.

Nevertheless, I've gotten the impression that when I refer to my disability, people get the impression that I am referring to something bad or embarassing. This is not the fault of those here: the term "dis" = non, and when connected with "ability," the term implies a lack of ability. It would be more accurate to say that I have a learning difference, which accurately describes the issue of being able to learn material in a certain way that doesn't happen to be the accepted way. I used to refer to myself this way but switched to the term "disability" in high school when people who had disabilities were being made fun of and I didn't want to perpetuate this tendency by looking as if I were trying to pretend I didn't have what society defined as a learning disorder. To me, it was part of demonstrating that the stereotypes held about such students at our school were/are wrong. Much of what "disability" entails is not bad, it is only a disability because society says so. LGBT people can certainly identify with this, because the medical community referred to LGBT individuals as having a disorder until the 1970s.

People with my learning disorder (specifically called nonverbal learning disorder, which can be researched by referring to a link I posted on my 'cut the crap' thread or by googling NVLD), tend to be more honest, frank, genuine, and innocent than the average person. While this can cause friction with social norms, I believe that all of these are good characteristics that are very difficult for most people to develop and nurture. For NVLD individuals, these things come naturally. People with NVLD are also highly intelligent writers, readers and thinkers, even if we may get our directions mixed up or have to think carefully when interpreting social cues. Since everyone has issues with something, I feel that the advantages and disadvantages conferred upon me by my intellect are quite natural within the context of human frailty. For whatever reason, our society is more accepting of people who lie than of people who can't tell right from left, but that really doesn't make my challenges any more extradinary than those of someone who comes from a broken home, or experiences discrimination because of having a different color skin, sexual orientation, etc.

In fact, I am proud of my "disability." I think it makes me unique and that God made me this way because I have certain jobs that he wants me to perform, including reaching out to others and helping to make the world a more accepting place for everyone by sharing my experiences. So, when I reference it, I do so with a sense of self-respect and love.

[ladyinred]

Speaking of disabilities, I have one called bipolar.I'm sure people can have reservations about that as well because you hear alot of stories about how whacko people can be who are bipolar. I manage mine through meditation,prayer, psychotherapy, self help and medication.(And have stablized tremendously) I'm sure alot of people associate that kind of disorder with stigma, but I've gotten to the point where I frankly don't give a sh-- about what other people think. If they react negatively , that is their problem. Bipolar tends to be heriditary in many cases. And I just happened to be one of the "lucky" one's who inherited it,LOL(Note: I forgot to add, this is not directed at people on this forum but to societal attitudes in general)

I'll tell you one thing, I'm honest and I would never steal, cheat or screw anyone over.I'm very protective of my family and I do have integrity.
I had friend who was a mental health tech for a hospital in Pennsyvannia, and she would tell me stories, but she also said many people who have my particular problem seem pretty normal in many ways.

My brother asked me how I manage my problems because he knew of one kid who was bipolar who had problems with aggression. I told him I meditate ,pray and read books and have tapes on self help, (and loads of resources online about self help , cognitive therapy and such)I also read books on spirituality and educate myself on dealing with personal issues that I have.If people want to attach a negative label to something or make it a stigma they can.I personally don't let that affect me. If people don't like me? It's like so?LOL I don't have much of a need for others to approve of me or like me now because I feel self acceptance is more important, I don't depend on others approval for my sense of worth anymore. I remind myself not to use other's approval or disapproval as a yardstick to measure my worth or to link it to the opinion of others.Like my ex said, opinions are like a--holes everyone has them.(Perhaps a crude way to put it, but that was her way.)If people think less of me so be it. As Wayne Dyer so fabulously put it,"Be independent of the good opinion of others."Most of my life I had struggled for approval and it just made me anxious and didn't do alot for my self esteem.

I don't have wild mood swings like I used to,I'm much calmer,that's part of the reason why I practice meditations and affirmations on an ongoing basis it has a soothing and calming affect on me .I'll even poke fun at myself and make light of me having bipolar, because I think a sense of humor helps my ou look too. I came out of the closet with it so to speak, though I don't tell everyone I know that I have it.Let people get to know me on their own terms.Jane Pauly and Patty Duke also had bipolar and they are celebrities. Brooke Shield came out with her postpartum depression, so more people are opening up about things like that.I can't tell you of all the people I know who have had personal struggles with anxiety or depression at some point their life.

But we all have in life something to deal with ,it might be a struggle with a physical disability or one like you have, others have different problems. I personally think you are very bright. My brother had dyslexia and had learning disabilities because of it, he got help through special ed and is a whiz at math and knows alot about computers. His disability hasn't kept him from having good paying jobs. Einstein flunked math in his earlier years and he's considerd a genius.

As for me my online personality only reflects a part of me. I tend read alot and get involved in different subjects and topics. Call it expanding my horizons. I tend to be more easy going in person.One of my favorite topics is psychology which I interlink with spirituality(In other words as a man thinketh , so he is) I started delving into topics like religion and spirituality and psychology to find out more about what constitutes a healthy belief about oneself in relationship to life.

I don't always go along with conventional wisdom, about what constitutes moral or natural behavior because I personally think our society at large is dysfunctional and because of toxic religion among other things(Note here I'm not saying all religion is bad) or shamebased, fear-based religion that is unhealthy, we often have a dysfunctional relationship with ourselves, God and those around us because of these crippling paralyzing belief systems, that tell us we are going to hell for such and such and so on. LGBT people in particular have been accused of not fitting into conformity...often with derogatory labels directed at them.

People are paralyzed when they are not allowed to be true to themselves. What so-called experts call mental health may be considered with what coincides with a "norm" or the socially acceptable or conforming. But if we look back on history alot of so-called norms in societies and civilizations back then would be considered atrocious today.

Would we sale our children as slaves as the Roman empire allowed men to do, feed people to the lions and call it a sport, would we enslave people like we did in past centuries? Would we kill infant girls because we wanted male children?Would we burn people at the stake for heresy ?These were norms .

What hasn't changed much throughout the centuries is man's proclivity toward violence and cruelty, violence in our society is pretty much common and we see it on tv , in movies, children's cartoons, read about it ,in relationship with others, see it in actions in our society and in relation with other countries. This is not to say our country is the only country that promotes violence, other countries promote it as well and are no better. But it says we as humans haven't advanced much from our brutish ancestors.

To me you have to wonder about our society and other societies that usually violate the rights of minorities and even encourage brutality toward them( hate crimes, bullying and taunting and even violence at school, for example)

We may have developed technology and say we are advanced, and call ourselves civilized but we aren't really that civil or that advanced or enlightened spiritually. Why do we think Christ and other's like Buddha came?Technology hasn't solved our interpersonal problems or global problems, it really hasn't improved the lot of man in terms of much of what we see going on in the world today.Technology has however helped advance one thing(And I'm not saying all technology is bad, we have benefited from technology as well) Our ability to kill each other off with weapons of mass detruction.

[Daniel]

Progo- I was the member who wrote you a PM last night about the matter. Characterizing my words as 'some people' is rather misleading on your part, that is, unless, others (and who would they be- pray tell?) also mentioned it. But I rather think no one else did- that is- unless you'd like to name names?

Why did I write my PM? Because another member criticised your thought process on another thread, and what did you do? In effect- pull out your disability card.

Is that very honest? I don't think so.

[Progo35]

Daniel:

I'm sorry, I actually appreciated your PM very much, because you seemed very concerned for my well being. It is honest to say that in general, I have gotten the impression from several people here that when I refer to my disability, I mean something bad. The reason I used the term "some people" was because I didn't want to name names. I'm also making an assumption about what disability means to others here based on our culture. Usually, disability does connote something bad, so in general I was simply providing a perspective on disability pride that I don't think is very visible in our culture. To me, it wouild be like talking about gay pride, but I'm talking about disability pride as a vehicle of empathy.

So, I actually really appreciated your input last night and those of others. One of the reasons I'm here is so I can reci3ve criticism from other people who have experienced oppression: I beleive that its important for people of different people groups to talk with one another and exchange ideas on the presentation of those differences, so I want criticm, I was just posting a thoughtful response that has a lot of meaning for me.

[ladyinred]

Progo I don't think most people here are going to judge you if you have a disability. I guess what they are trying to say when dealing with certain discussions on issues or topics stay on the discussion and topics at hand.I don't think they are trying to criticize you. But you must realize everyone has the right to their own viewpoint and if you disagree with them ,I would say do it in a tactful way, that would not offend or insult them. The one forum discussing US allies got a little heated and I think some people were offended by some of the things that you said that were directed toward them, then it was locked down. I don't say this to criticize you or to hurt your feelings.

[Progo35]

I understand that...and I think that in discussing these issues, it is expected that they will generate some "heat." But frankly, I stand by my assertion that if the people here can discount sources because of their position on LGBT issues, I can discount them because of their position on disability issues. I am also disturbed by the propensity I see in some of the people here to be totally okay with "bias" that conforms to their particular point of view while condemming "bias" that contradicts their views. For instance, making a generalized statement that I cite biased news sources is not fair: one could argue just as easily that the New York Times, MSNBC, and some of the other networks commonly cited on these forums are just as biased as any of the more conservative networks...their bias just happens to conform with the liberal agenda. If this is offensive, I'm sorry for hurting people's feelings, but I don't think that the person(s) making this accusation have been willing to listen to what I've pointed out about the bias against disabilities that generally exists in our society, some of which has been appropriated by the pro choice agenda and other "left wing" causes. Unlike the oppression that LGBT people have experienced from conservatives, the value of those who are disabled is generally more honored by the conservative agenda. My point is that disabled people often have to rely on "biased" sources from the conservative side to get accurate coverage on the issues they are facing, and I feel that as a forum that celebrates diversity, the people here, especially those in charge of moderating the forums and who are, therefore, leaders, should make an effort to this predicament. I see a double standard in many of the discussions on this forum, and that is very counterproductive for everyone involved.

[ladyinred]

I happen to be liberal Progo and the reason why I disagree with Bush and the republican party is because many are promoting an atrocious agenda, have been pro big business, anti labor, pro tax cuts for the rich, cut in to domestic programs like education and programs for the poor, have done little to resolve the healthcare crisis and often try to ingratiate themselves with the religious right , also they are pro-war(now it's ok to strike a non nuclear nation in terms of a preemptive strike which is not the same as defending our country from a foreign attack on our soil) , there are many that are anti-separation of church and state. And think that big business should be unbridled with alot less restrictions imposed on them so they are basically accountable to no one. Not only that some are racist,viruently anti -environment, The FDA has been undermined, I read where up to 75% prescriptions for children have not been FDA approved. Am I saying all conservatives think this way, no. But now we have a patriot act that allows spying on even the average American. On top of trying to undermine the ENDA from passing.I don't want to go on with the list...

As far as Iran is concerned, you might want to read up on some of it's history,they had tried to have a democracy, they just didn't want other countries to control their oil. The democratic leader was overthrown with the help of the CIA and the Shah was returned to power and basically a despot.Also Saddam Hussein was once an ally of the US and we helped supply him with arms along with other countries (Note ,the US was not the main supplier) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html

What draws ire from me, is there is a term used called blowback, and what it means is if we hadn't interfered in Iran's affairs in the first place there may have never been an islamic revolution . We support dictatators with murderous regimes and we wonder why there is "blowback?"

[Progo35]

This is my point. Nothing in my previous post has anything to do with what you're talking about in your response other than the respective agendas of each group. I feel like instead of talking about the issue of disabled people having to rely on conservatives whether they like it or not, which is what I was talking about, we're once again talking about the Bush administration being evil. I'm not out to say that it is or isn't: I'm just saying that people have to get support from whoever will support them, and if that's the conservative section of the population, than so be it.

[ladyinred]

I wouldn't say evil but woefully misguided by their ideological outlook.I also think the president has some duty to balance his agenda with the interests of Americans and not just side with big business interests against us.

[keltic63]

..........and I feel that as a forum that celebrates diversity, the people here, especially those in charge of moderating the forums and who are, therefore, leaders, should make an effort to this predicament. I see a double standard in many of the discussions on this forum, and that is very counterproductive for everyone involved.

Since I'm being called out once again, I'll go ahead and give my thoughts on this original post.


You know, I was thinking today of how I often mention my disability, and that I've been admonished by some people to mention it less. I think that it is legitimate to concern oneself if one is constantly presenting one part of oneself and not others, so there's a good point there.

Nevertheless, I've gotten the impression that when I refer to my disability, people get the impression that I am referring to something bad or embarassing. This is not the fault of those here: the term "dis" = non, and when connected with "ability," the term implies a lack of ability. It would be more accurate to say that I have a learning difference, which accurately describes the issue of being able to learn material in a certain way that doesn't happen to be the accepted way. I used to refer to myself this way but switched to the term "disability" in high school when people who had disabilities were being made fun of and I didn't want to perpetuate this tendency by looking as if I were trying to pretend I didn't have what society defined as a learning disorder. To me, it was part of demonstrating that the stereotypes held about such students at our school were/are wrong. Much of what "disability" entails is not bad, it is only a disability because society says so. LGBT people can certainly identify with this, because the medical community referred to LGBT individuals as having a disorder until the 1970s.

People with my learning disorder (specifically called nonverbal learning disorder, which can be researched by referring to a link I posted on my 'cut the crap' thread or by googling NVLD), tend to be more honest, frank, genuine, and innocent than the average person.

So, are we to believe that your posts, your statements, your opinions are to be considered more honest, candid, genuine, and innocently stated than other members of this forum? When you give your threads provocative titles,

Shooting the gay cause in the foot
Okay.....grrrrr
Help! I have no friends!
Sorry, but cut the crap
Why doesn't anyone give a crap?
People who don't understand aren't bad peopleare we to believe based on your learning difference that you innocently title your threads without realizing the combative, accusatory, or offensive tone of the words? AND that because you've told us this, you expect to be given a pass because this is what people with NLVD do?

While this can cause friction with social norms, I believe that all of these are good characteristics that are very difficult for most people to develop and nurture.
Not really, I'm being very frank with you right now. Others have been just as candid with you. You find it terribly offensive.

For NVLD individuals, these things come naturally. People with NVLD are also highly intelligent writers, readers and thinkers, even if we may get our directions mixed up or have to think carefully when interpreting social cues.

This sounds more like we're being reprimanded here because we don't recognize how great you are. The problem is that when you get in an emotionally charged discussion 1 of 2 things happens: You get angry and stomp away, or you bring up your disability as an excuse for your actions.

Since everyone has issues with something, I feel that the advantages and disadvantages conferred upon me by my intellect are quite natural within the context of human frailty.

You're smart. We got that. What about Emotional Intelligence? Developing that would go a long way to making life more pleasant for you. If you had done so, you might have figured out that bringing up NAMBLA and Nazis so very early in your membership here would make a bad impression.

For whatever reason, our society is more accepting of people who lie than of people who can't tell right from left, but that really doesn't make my challenges any more extradinary than those of someone who comes from a broken home, or experiences discrimination because of having a different color skin, sexual orientation, etc.

In fact, I am proud of my "disability." I think it makes me unique and that God made me this way because I have certain jobs that he wants me to perform, including reaching out to others and helping to make the world a more accepting place for everyone by sharing my experiences. So, when I reference it, I do so with a sense of self-respect and love.

One of the reasons I tend to stay out of the big discussions here at soulforce is because of the very thing you've accused me of: creating and promoting a double standard. I've made this statement in pms to several people: as a moderator, it appears that I am not allowed to have a strong opinion. Every time I post one, I'm hit with pms about my statement. I often find it easier to remain silent on certain threads, so that my moderating has a better chance of being perceived as fair.

[keltic63]

I am also disturbed by the propensity I see in some of the people here to be totally okay with "bias" that conforms to their particular point of view while condemming "bias" that contradicts their views. For instance, making a generalized statement that I cite biased news sources is not fair: one could argue just as easily that the New York Times, MSNBC, and some of the other networks commonly cited on these forums are just as biased as any of the more conservative networks...their bias just happens to conform with the liberal agenda.

The problem with your use of biased media is that you take their word as being absolute truth: sorry, but cut the crap (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3875)

I did get this information from Bill O'Reilly's talk show, who I've sensed is not popular around here, but I also did independent research via the internet and several LGBT newspapers talked about it and repeated the same events that OR did, so it is definitely true.

Yes, it is true that 2 men, dressed as nuns, members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, went to mass and received communion. They did not disrupt the service, nor did they stage a protest. You failed to recognize the spin that is put on such a story.

the respected voices in this forum often post a news item and ask for help in finding sources to corroborate the story. We've had discussions about ALL news sources having bias. I believe that most of our members do a good job of finding stories that are reported in a fair and balanced manner.

[Progo35]

Keltic,

Predictably, you assume that my mentioning my disability has something to do with you, your posts, and my positions on matters. Your assuming that instead of having a positive discussion about the good things that come with my disability, I'm sharing these things to excuse myself.

The fact that other people have sent you PMS about creating a double standard should indicate something to you. As for being combative, how do you think it is percieved when soulforce shows up at Christian colleges with or without invitation? Do you think that this is not confrontational? But, in this case, it is a good kind of confrontation. In my opinion, my posts should not be percieved as inciting conflict with any specific individual simply because of their title. You seem to feel that it is okay for you to have strong opinions but not okay for other people to have them.

Finally, the very fact that you cannot read my posts about having a disability as anything other than using it for an excuse indicates to me that I am not the only one on this forum who has things to learn about being open, educated, and accepting.

[keltic63]

OK Meghan, YOU need to learn to read.

Keltic,

Predictably, you assume that my mentioning my disability has something to do with you, your posts, and my positions on matters.
You specifically called out me, and 2 other people by stating the following:

especially those in charge of moderating the forums and who are, therefore, leaders, should make an effort to this predicament. I see a double standard in many of the discussions on this forum, and that is very counterproductive for everyone involved.

It's not about your disability, it is about what you specifically addressed to me. Your talk of your personal disability is all on you.


Your assuming that instead of having a positive discussion about the good things that come with my disability, I'm sharing these things to excuse myself.

I'm not assuming that you excuse yourself because of your disability. I've seen it a number of times in this forum.


The fact that other people have sent you PMS about creating a double standard should indicate something to you.

This is the part where you need to learn to read, dear. NO ONE has ever sent me a pm about my having a double standard. That has NEVER been said of me. However, I did say that when I post a strong opinion, I receive pms, not one of them is ever accusing me of implementing a double standard. You are the only one to make that accusation.


As for being combative, how do you think it is percieved when soulforce shows up at Christian colleges with or without invitation? Do you think that this is not confrontational? But, in this case, it is a good kind of confrontation.
Diversionary Tactic: Hey! Look over there!

can we stick to the topic please?

In my opinion, my posts should not be percieved as inciting conflict with any specific individual simply because of their title.

That's just YOUR opinion. No one said that the titles incite conflict with INDIVIDUALS, it appears from the responses you've gotten that it incites conflict with entire groups of people.


You seem to feel that it is okay for you to have strong opinions but not okay for other people to have them.

Did you read what I said???? I seem to feel that as a moderator, I'm not allowed to have strong opinions.

Finally, the very fact that you cannot read my posts about having a disability as anything other than using it for an excuse indicates to me that I am not the only one on this forum who has things to learn about being open, educated, and accepting.

here's the problem: in the thread, the justice of our "allies" (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4102) I question you about what appears to be an inconsistancy in your statement. YOU turned on me and attacked, reading things into my post that weren't even there. I pointed that out, and again you attacked. I locked the thread. Just over 4 hours later, you start this thread.

Emotional Intelligence: develop some.

moderator hat on: You've managed to alienate quite a number of members in this forum. If it continues, we'll need to discuss the effects your posts have on the forum and its members.

[ladyinred]

I do not personally see Keltic as confrontational, when he does get upset , he usually says he needs a cooling off period and has tried to exercise restraint in his own way, but Progo it seems to me that you are making accusations against soul force again.In my opinion they are just practicing their first amendment rights of freedom of speech, yet no one says a word about those who show up at gay pride events and when they start yelling God hates faggots or you're going to hell.(They were not invited to the event by the way)

No one says a word when those in the religious right infiltrate schools to teach intolerance and try to force out groups like the gay/straight alliance and even try to keep schools from teaching tolerance toward others who are different .Nobody says a word when students are allowed to protest and say being gay is a sin or shameful during school hours and on school property(Actually in the halls of schools).Nor do they gag right wing pundits when they say things.

Nobody has gagged James Dobson or his ilk when their rhetoric is inflamatory and often seen as inciting more prejudice and fear and hatred toward gay people.Nobody says a word when GLBT students are being beaten up at school or taunted by their classmates. So you are basically saying based on my conclusions certain people have the right to free speech where as soul force does not even though it speaks out against the oppression of LGBT people.

To me it seems you are now promoting double standards here.
I would question if you feel this way why are you on this forum anyway. You obviously feel offended that soul force has actually gone to these colleges and how "nervy" they were to do so.Who is being confrontational here? And yes Keltic has the right to his own views like anyone else here on this forum, are you trying to put a "gag order" on him as well to get him to shut up?

Other people here have the right to their own views, religious, politcal and otherwise even if they don't happen to be in sync with yours.If you notice, people here on this forum have a diversity of views.But they usually try to maintain civility in conversations with others.There are those of varying religious backrounds, different politcal backrounds, education, nonreligious people, they don't always agree on everything. And even me the "soapbox" queen. (And Yes I admit I can get a little heavy and serious on topics,even if my intentions are good and trying to be helpful I know I might come across as a bit preachy sometimes) I 've not personally been attacked by people on this forum.I don't think anyone on this forum tries to go out of their way to try to offend or hurt others feelings.

Simpleman came on this forum basically to say the same thing, supporting the right to hate speech but not supporting the same right for those who find it offensive and alarming
Perhaps you feel that since Soul Force has had the "gall" to offend those in the religious right, they need to stay in their place and just shut up and put up with it , because that's just the way things are? Confrontation is not always a bad thing, but Soul force has not used violence in a confrontational manner to support it's cause.
Perhaps I am wrong but it seems you are all for conservatives and their right to express their "opinions" or beliefs like James Dobson often defending them, but at the same time you don't think Soul Force has the same right to express their beliefs and opinions?If I am wrong on this then please correct me on this one and explain your position.

[ladyinred]

Keltic

The fact that other people have sent you PMS about creating a double standard should indicate something to you. As for being combative, how do you think it is percieved when soulforce shows up at Christian colleges with or without invitation? Do you think that this is not confrontational? But, in this case, it is a good kind of confrontation. In my opinion, my posts should not be percieved as inciting conflict with any specific individual simply because of their title. You seem to feel that it is okay for you to have strong opinions but not okay for other people to have them.
. You words.

[Progo35]

LIR,

The quote you cite clearly establishes that I said that Soulforce's work at christian colleges is a good thing. Such a statement is inconsistent with supporting any kind of "gag order," on Soulforce or anyone else. Moreover, the quote also shows that I support everyone's right to have strong opinions, I simply want mine to be given the same consideration.

[ladyinred]

Progo how long have you been on this forum? Think, has anyone tried to kick you off? You have had conversations with many of these people and you are telling me now they all don't let you have your own views?

[ladyinred]

e fact that other people have sent you PMS about creating a double standard should indicate something to you. As for being combative, how do you think it is percieved when soulforce shows up at Christian colleges with or without invitation? Do you think that this is not confrontational? But, in this case, it is a good kind of confrontation


And here I want to point out these statements sound a little self contradictory to me.

[ladyinred]

Unlike the oppression that LGBT people have experienced from conservatives, the value of those who are disabled is generally more honored by the conservative agenda. Then explain the attack on Graeme Frost and his family by the right wing pundits.

[Progo35]

I am making a valid, though not all inclusive, generalization. For instance, some oppression exists toward the disabled community within faith communities because of more general prejudices impacting society, i.e, not enough resources to accommodate disabled people physically and/or spiritually. Another problem is that some Christians take disability to indicate some sort of familial sin manifesting itself in one's person, or attribute such difficulties automatically to the devil instead of them being variations in God's plan. I'm not familiar with the case but will look it up.

[Progo35]

I'm not talking about people being kicked off.

[ladyinred]

Both kids were involved in an automobile accident and suffered from severe brain injury.

[Progo35]

Are you referring to SCHIP and Rush Limbaugh's comments on the testimony of two brain injured children?

[ladyinred]

Yes, I'd also like to add Progo no one has attacked you because of your disability, but reread Keltic's statements

[Progo35]

I didn't allege that Keltic attacked me because of my disability. I said that Keltic's interpretation of my mentioning and exposition of the features included in my disability as "excuses" shows bias. I do not need to re-read Keltic's statements because we simply do not share one perspective on the inclusion of this information in my posts.

Rush Limbaugh's comments were inappropriate and unfair to the children involved. Nevertheless, RL was reacting to what he saw as the Democrats using those children to promote their agenda. Thus, he was reacting to his distaste for how SCHIP and how it has been presented by its proponents, not responding to the children themselves. When I say that the conservative agenda is "friendlier" to those with disabilities, I am referring to its positions against euthanasia, etc.

[ladyinred]

Rush Limbaugh did insult the family and lies were spread about the family exaggerating their income and assets. There were also threats made on the family's life because of Michelle Paulk who not only exaggerated the family's assets and income but stalked them and gave out personal information as to where the family lived among other things. Also the democratic use of the son was a way of promoting SCHIP.(Egads!!!! support medical insurance for people who can't afford to pay high medical bills and spend more money on domestic programs to help our own)Many middle class families are pretty much facing the same problems as this family with high medical costs or they can't afford insurance. There are those who have medical insurance and because of high premuims and other factors are virtually on their way to the poor house.
I'd also like to add that the family did not have to report their assets and they did nothing illegal. You are talking thousands and thousand of dollars in medical bills. The father said if they didn't apply for help, they could have lost their home. Mighty charitable on the RW side.

Have you seen pictures of these kids by the way? Then they went after a couple who had a baby girl.

[ladyinred]

And they shouldn't be" friendlier" to people in general who have disabilities? They should just support certain causes they deem worthy?What about our disabled vets who are having a heck of a time getting healthcare? Anyway I'm getting sidetracked here and off the subject.(Ok I did admit it,now back to the subject at hand)
But Progo I think you have made some insinuations that I think some people may take offense at and anyone who would do that on this forum would be called on it, including me , or whoever. If you want to disagree with someone do it without being underhanded about it, or leveling accusations at them. If you are insinuating people here don't have any integrity or have "lied". I think you should re-read the posts. You need to remember people here on the forum have tried to help you as well.
You are attacking the character of others with innuendos, and they pick up on it.That is not being direct or honest.And in all honesty it won't win sympathy either. Why alienate people?

I'm not saying I have never made mistakes either, I used to get into arguments on other forums because I "championed" the LGBT cause" (Usually against people who were more conservative and straight) I succeeded in one thing , generating more hostility. It didn't work to my advantage to persuade people to see the other side and I got pretty much what I gave out. I could also be just as rude as they were with insults when they hurled at me , I hurled them back. (I was really infuriated at the fact that they kept quoting Narth and how gays were pedophiles and , the usual dah, dah, dah...) But I also learned alot from that.(I also learned alot from people here on this forum as well, not to be so confrontational) I guess they rubbed off on me in a good way and their good vibes sunk in.LOL

[Progo35]

LIR,

The only person that I accused of lying was Kara, the post was directed at her, not the entire forum, which I think is visible enough for people to interpret my posts as such.

My comment regarding the conservative agenda and people with disabilities was, again, not meant to be all inclusive or to give the right a free pass in regard to disability issues. I hope that I haven't connoted the impression that because I have made this argument about the right, I automatically support everything that the people on that side of the political spectrum do.

But, for instance, cases concerning the legal fate of those with disabilities has caused me to make this deduction. It may not be true, but these are the comparisons that have lead me to this conclusion



People fighting for the "right to die" vs. People fighting for th "right to life"

-NY Times-published articles that gave
credibility solely to those doctors asserting
that Terri Schiavo was dead and portrayed those who
felt she could have been rehabilitation as quacks

-The American Civil Liberties Union-taking her husband's word
at face value, ignoring indications that her husband injured or abused
her, not doing a thorough investigation into the case, being more concerned
about "freedom of choice" than with protecting Terri's right not to be dehydrated
to death without her consent, ignoring Terri's status as a part of the disability minority

-The American Civil Liberties Union advocating for a fully cognizant quadrapelegic woman's "right" to starve herself to death after she lost her entire family and was in deep depression, arguing that her life was so awful in comparison to the lives of others that she should be allowed to dehydrate herself with the assistance of hospital-administrered barbiturates

-The American Civil Liberties Union advocating the starvation and dehydration of a conscience, severely mentally disabled man, Robert Wendland, in 2001

-The American Civil Liberties Union's website calling the language barriers of those who do not speak English "disabilities" on the section of their website dealing with disability rights but having absolutely nothing on IDEA, futile care, etc.

-People on the left calling Bush a fascist for intervening in the Schiavo case when starvation and dehydration is what the real fascists did to disabled people.

TV shows repeatedly showing episodes where disabled people are portrayed as being violent, the brunt of other people's jokes, or being euthanized by thier friends and family instead of the friends and family protecting their disabled loved ones and trying to help them out of their depression. The other side is just not shown. Mockery, pro-euthanasia material, etc, is repeatedly shown on Comedy Central, MSNBC, CBS' Cold Case, NBC's Law and Order, SVU (although this show has also done some very pro-disability story lines, thus, they are doing much better in comparision to the others I've mentioned). MSNBC, one of the most far-left networks in the country, is repeatedly guilty of spreading pro-euthanasia messages with no balance on the other side.

vs.

-The Christian Law Association defending Terri on her parents side
-Priests for Life defending Terri Schiavo against dehydration
-Conservative and pro-life websites addressing futile care laws much more often than the liberal news
-Rush Limbaugh, for all of his faults, remarking that with Terri Schiavo's death, America had hit "rock bottom" vs. the MSNBC anchor Keith Obermann saying that if one didn't believe the autopsy report, they'd have to believe that doctors writing it had put their careers on the line, etc, to lie, and asserting that "Terri Schiavo's parents apparently believe something like that." This presentation of the autopsy materials was, of course, ihis nterpretation of the autopsy report (what he presented as the autopsy report having said).

James Dobson validating the existence of ADD while the Boston Globe publishes articles about ADD students only when they have done something wrong or when a few students use their disabilities as excuses to do bad things or not do their work

These are some examples of what I mean. Now, does that mean that the conservative agenda always benefits the disabled.

For instance:

The states with futile care laws, Texas and Virginia, are two of the most conservative states in the country

Ruth Shalit's article about learning disabilities in the New Republic is one of the most digusting examples of bigotry against the disabled I have ever seen

Connections between those in academia who don't believe in learning disorders and the Heritage foundation

The Herbert Hoover School of Business at Stanford University including Shalit's article as an example of the college's best writing by alumni

People from the right too heavily integrating their fight for the lives of the handicapped with commentary favoring other conservative causes that create friction, such as prayer in school, the republican party, etc.

[ladyinred]

I went back and read Kara's post and I don't think of Kara's remarks as an intention to lie. I don't know about the facts of what she said, but the worst that could be said if her statements were incorrect was she may have been misinformed. I don't see this as lying . I think you are in error to say that Kara's remarks were to lie.I did not get that impression at all from reading her post. Making an accusation based on assumptions or basing it on emotional reasoning because you may have been perturbed by the statements ,does not make it true.

Also I think you misconstrued her remarks on Iran and other countries having nuclear weapons. What I believe she was saying was not to support terrorism but to say that we as a nation are pretty hypocritcal to have all of nuclear weapons(And have actually used them) we have and then turning around and telling other countries they can't(while of course we can basically do what we please and even target nonnuclear countries for preemptive strikes) She was directing the remarks toward the arrogance of our leaders. I also think she has mentioned before all countries need to get rid of weapons of mass destruction including our own.

[Progo35]

My point is not that the US should have nukes while it prevents other countries from getting nukes. Indeed, I agree that if all countries could come to an agreement not to use them, we should all get rid of nuclear weapons. What good can they do?

Intention wasn't really the focus in my assertion that Kara was lying, but I do feel that Kara is an intelligent human being and, therefore, has either chosen not to inform herself of the facts surrounding that issue or is picking and choosing facts from her base of knowledge. Several historians have written about the Germans as "Hitler's willing executioners." Does that mean that everyone in Germany was doing that or that those who did nothing should all be condemned for thier legitimate concerns regarding thier personal safety? No, but if that's the case, than the people in the US certainly aren't any more to blame, either. Perhaps I did misinterpret what Kara intended with her remarks, but I don't think that my interpretation was illogical. Also, the other countries in the world aren't going to agree to get rid of all of thier nuclear weapons, so until then, something else has to be done. I don't claim to know what that is, but given all of these facts, I am upset that Kara would insinuate that the US is worse than Nazi Germany, which killed 11 million people. At least in the case of killing handicapped citizens, many doctors were only too happy to comply and participated in developing euthanasia methods later used in the gas chambers to kill Jews and other minorities. The last time I checked, we hadn't started murdering our own citizens systematically in gas chambers, demanded that everyone say "heil Bush" when referring to him, or been imprisoned for dissenting opinions. If that were the case, most of the media would have been in jail by now.

Does that mean that the US should be able to do what it pleases or that Kara's criticism of the US is invalid? No, on the contrary, I think that her point regarding nuclear weapons is a good one, and I don't object to a thoughtful consideration of parallels between fascist practices and those in any country, but to assert that US citizens know what is being done in thier name and that the German citizens didn't is a lie, whether or not Kara intended it to be such. This, of course, is only my opinion. Kara and everyone else here should remain free to make such statements, but I don't think that anyone can expect not to be called on them.

[Progo35]

Incidentally, this thread is supposed to be about pride in who we are as people, not about Bush, the world, or politics.

[ladyinred]

I responded to your statements on Kara's remarks. And doesn't that give them the same right to call you on your remarks?

[ladyinred]

I'm going to close this as of now. There is no further reason for me to get into a further discussion.Again the disability "trump" card is pulled again. Frankly Progo it is getting old. I know you have a disability but so do I. But I could understand why people might get a little tired of hearing about it all the time. Everyone here has experienced difficulties in their lives not just you or me . But when disagreeing with others, you pull that ol' trump card out of the blue and throw it in their face. I wonder why?
It doesn't really seem to be connected to the conversations or topics. I'm not saying I never get sidetracked or off subject, but you are jumping down everyone's throats as if they don't care about people with disabilities. And you seem to level that accusation toward people here on this forum again an again, can you see why it would turn people off after a while? That would get old. And I don't really find your accusations founded. I think you may be very angry for some reason but it isn't right to take it out on people here.

What is the source of your frustration?

[keltic63]

We're done here folks.