Trolling Not Allowed

Trolling Not Allowed! Comments from anonymous trolls are not permitted and are deleted if posted by the offending pest.

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Yet Another Political Dialogue Fiasco On Facebook!

In discussing politics, there are people from all sides of the political spectrum ranging from the ultra-liberal to the ultra-conservative who can discuss and debate issues in a polite, respectful, intelligent manner citing facts and sources along the way.

Then, on the other hand, there are other people who resort to making comments that personally belittle those with whom they disagree, bash their political beliefs, use a strawman argument, will state anecdotal observations as absolute social science fact, and not cite clear, objective, factual sources.

Some folks just seem to want to go back and forth, sticking to their guns, and just tell their detractors how wrong they are without providing anything of real substance to substantiate their own viewpoint.

These things happen within almost every mode of communication used in the discussion of politics. However, it appears to me to be much more commonplace in the impersonal realm of Facebook, where friends and relatives will write things to others that they would never say in person, or at least not say with the same level of insensitive, unkind demeanor.

As I have done in previous Roland Hansen Commentary entries, let me share yet another of my "conversations" that has taken place in that crazy world called "Facebook" as one more example of some frustrations I have encountered as it relates to "political" discourse on that internet social network.

I am re-producing that diatribe of a dialogue in its entirety (from its beginning date of October 28, 2013 through its last entry of November 3 that was made prior to this specific entry of Roland Hansen Commentary.

Here it is:

Roland Louis Hansen shared Jay Lynwood's photo.

Monday, October 28 at 12:01pm

"America’s rich aren’t giving you money, they’re taking your money. Between the years 1980 and 2005 80% of all new income generated in this country went to the richest 1%. Let me put that in terms that even you fat-ass teabaggers, I’m sorry, can understand.

Say 100 Americans get together and order a 100 slice pizza. The pizza arrives and the first guy takes 80 slices. And if someone suggests, why don’t you just take 79 slices, that’s socialism! I know, I know. I know, I know, it’s just a TV show. But it does reinforce the stupid idea people have that rich people would love us and share with us if only they got to walk a mile in our cheap plastic shoes.

But they’re the reason the shoe factory moved to China. We have this fantasy that our interests and the interests of the super rich are the same. Like somehow the rich will eventually get so full that they’ll explode. And the candy will rain down on the rest of us.

Like there’s some kind of pinata of benevolence. But here’s the thing about a pinata. It doesn’t open on its own. You have to beat it with a stick. ~Bill Maher"

Top of Form
Monday, October 28 David McKay 
...and the unions aren't wealthy?

Monday, October 28 Kim Wolfe Wyckhouse 
I have to say I am so thankful for the union at jeep, if not my husband would have been without a job many years ago.

Tuesday, October 29 Roland Louis Hansen 
Labor unions actively engage in advocating and obtaining better working conditions, better benefits, better pay, better worker safety, better standard of living, better quality of life, etc. for working men and women. The American corporations and their elite "rich" owners do not; they fatten their wallets off the sweat of the brows and at the expense of the working men and women. Generally speaking, it appears to me that the "rich American fat cats" could not care less about American workers; their only interest is increased profits and the almighty dollar. Furthermore, in my opinion and again generally speaking, I highly doubt that "rich" people and corporations would make charitable donations if they could not get a tax write-off and if they could not pass on those costs to the customers; in the long haul it is the average taxpayer and the average consumer/customer who truly bear the cost of charitable contributions made by corporations and by the wealthy people in the USA. I do acknowledge, however, that there may be exceptions to my overall generalizations.

Tuesday, October 29 David McKay 
All corporations are owned by stockholders. Unions own stocks so that retirement checks go out every month, Roland and David own stocks so that our wives can go shopping every month, government entities own stocks to maintain financial solvency, the elderly own stocks so that they need to work less as they age. By your definition of a corporate owner it appears that all the aforementioned stockholders are "rich American fat cats." While I would agree that there are a few wealthy elitists that manipulate the stock market and consider their employees "organic assets" to be discarded or traded for a profit... I would not approach most corporate owners as fitting into that category. In fact most corporations are small business owners with less than 50 employees (like myself) who structure their companies as corporations for asset protection, insulation against frivolous lawsuits, and high taxes. Most of my small business peers are very generous in our donations (time and money) and do not pass these costs on to our customers. Additionally, my employees are like family, not whipping posts. I'm not sure why you think most business owners are so evil... without people like me who are willing to take the risk and sometimes ridicule of being an employer there wouldn't be employees or unions. You need to hang out with business owners more frequently... And I'm willing to donate my time for the cause (i.e. when are you going to be back in town?)

Wednesday, October 30 Roland Louis Hansen 
My comment concerning "American corporations and their elite "rich" owners" was in regards to the big 500 type corporations and their individual majority shareholders, not the small corporation small business owners or minor shareholder individuals. I refer to people in the top 1% to 10% of income and net worth when I use the term "rich."
Here is a definition of of "fat cat" as it relates to my usage of the term:
Fat cat definition, a wealthy person from whom large political campaign contributions are expected. See more.

Wednesday, October 30 Roland Louis Hansen 
What is "Rich" in America?
  The WSJ breaks down the numbers of what it takes to be wealthy in the USA: The top 1% of U.S. households have a net worth above $6.8 million or

Wednesday, October 30 Roland Louis Hansen 
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
Details on the wealth and income distributions in the United States (1% of households control 35% of the wealth), and how to use these distributions as power indicators.

Wednesday, October 30 Roland Louis Hansen 
Hey David McKay, I am always happy to hang out with you! I enjoy our conversations very, very much. I only wish we could get together more often!!!

Wednesday, October 30 Maury Remer 
I would have to say that the fed govt is the one who couldn't care less about the people. They take our money any & every way imaginable. They are the biggest employer in this country. They waste 100's of billions of dollars every year. Btw: Top 10%: $113,799. Hardly what I would call a "fat cat" especially when living in certain areas of this country. Unions had their place in the past. Now they are the "fat cats" who continually steal from the dues of the workers. They also support people who have violated company policy & somehow manage to get them their jobs back. I'm well aware of the govt corruption as well, but that has nothing to do with the amount of waste I'm referring to.

Thursday, November 1 Roland Louis Hansen 
Well, Maury, I guess you and I disagree. None-the-less, I respect your right to your opinion.

Thursday, November 1 Donna Marie Sharp 
Some days I feel like beating someone with a stick. Make me a list.

Thursday, November 1 Maury Remer 
Everything I stated is fact.

Thursday, November 1 Roland Louis Hansen 
Uh, Maury, with all due respect, not everything you wrote is objective factual information, some of what you stated is opinion. And, as I stated before, "I respect your right to your opinion."

Thursday, November 1 Maury Remer  
Tell me what isn't factual, Roland.

Thursday, November 1 Maggie Metzger Brazeau 
Maury, have you got a source citation?

Thursday, November 1 Roland Louis Hansen 
Okay, Maury. The following statements expressed in absolute terms made by you are opinions, as any English teacher will attest:
" I would have to say that the fed govt is the one who couldn't care less about the people."
"They take our money any & every way imaginable."
"Hardly what I would call a 'fat cat' especially when ..."
"Unions had their place in the past."
"they are the 'fat cats' who continually steal ..."
"They also support people who have violated company policy ..."
Once again, Maury, I state, "I respect your right to your opinion."
Please do not think I am so naive or without sufficient knowledge or intelligence as to not know a statement that falls in the realm of that of perspective or opinion as opposed to a statement that is absolutely factual that may stand alone based on the merit of objective scrutiny.
Now, I am finished going back and forth with you in this message thread regarding opinions that you assert are facts.

Thursday, November 1 Roland Louis Hansen 
Side note -- Maggie posted her comment as I was still composing and before I hit the "enter" command for my last comment right before this.

Friday, November 2 Maury Remer 

Saturday, November 3 Roland Louis Hansen 
Well, Maury Remer took his marbles and went home. He has chosen to defriend me here on Facebook. Apparently, Maury decided that "might is right" and chooses to "unfriend" those who refuse to accept personal opinion and anecdotal accounts as "absolutes" and "proof positive" "beyond the shadow of a doubt" factual information. Respectful disagreements do not seem to fit Maury's world. I am sorry to see him go. My perspective is simply as I have stated before, I do not require people to think as I think, believe as I believe, or agree with my opinions in order to be my friend. I value and treasure friendship.

Saturday, November 3 Roland Louis Hansen 
My opinionated thoughts are similar to this:

So, what you think of the dialogue that took place?


Roland Hansen said...

On December 31, 2013 (6:37 PM EST), I received the following message in an email to me from Maury Remer:

"What’s your point? I stated facts that you call opinions.
To be honest Roland, I had been thinking of defriending you for a while. You have a condescending attitude toward people who don’t agree with you. I knew that you would post something like this after I defriended you. Look how many friends & family have done it, Roland. It’s not just me. FB is a place to have conversation & debate as well as other things. Instead of a friendly way, you try through your typing, to put people down in an elitist, over worded & “I’m above it all” way. That’s just not for me. Maybe you don’t think that’s what you’re doing, but it is. Like I said, it’s not just me. Many of your friends & family have done the same. I saw all of your posts about the people who defriended you. Maybe, just maybe, it’s you. Ever think of that?"

Roland Hansen said...

So, at Maury's request, I answered (in some detail) his question, "What's your point?"

His response to my reply that he requested is reproduced in its entirety as follows:
From: Maury Remer []
To: Roland Hansen
Date: Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: FYI
I have debates with people who do not do what you do. Look at all this crap you’ve typed. You just don’t get it. Move on to someone else!

I responded to that with a simple short email to Maury in which I wrote, "If you did not want me to answer you, THEN WHY THE HELL DID YOU ASK ME???"