Here is part of a conversation about Grayson I had with a R.W.er

Do you mean the Alan Grayson that is featured on mycongressmanisnuts.com: "appears Alan Grayson's recent self indulgent behavior has paralyzed his ability to serve as an advocate for the citizens of Central Florida. By asking Attorney General Eric Holder to fine and imprison Angie Langley for exercising her first amendment right to free political speech, Alan Grayson has sunk to an extremely alarming and potentially dangerous new low. It is clear that this man has no business representing the good people of Central Florida...to attempt to use the law enforcement arm of the federal government to silence his critics is proof positive that Alan Grayson is not only unfit for office, but that his behavior and approach is totally and utterly nuts"? Imagine those right-wingers attacking a champion of free speech like Grayson?

How should I answer him?

I also don't try to convert them but try to open a dialogue and since he is talking to me, mainly because he knows I was a progressive talk show host, and he wants to challenge me. I am not familiar with the woman he mentioned and don't know what she said, but I pointed out to him that I had interviewed Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Alan Grayson on my show and found that right wingers didn't like I had Grayson on and the left didn't like that I had Blackburn on. I was noting how the lack of conversation between sides not only doesn't help our nation, but it is also hurting political talk which has been in a rating decline due to it.

It would be a different debate. But we have run soooo far to the right, that we are a banana republic (just no coups unless you count the money pouring in from all over the world to influence our elections from the multi-national corporations)... If the politicians weren't so beholden to their corporate sponsors (and both on left and right), the debate would look much different.

The debate would be do we put up a wind farm or a solar plant?

Do we want to expand the highspeed rail into more rural areas of the country?

Should we increase food assistance from $200.00 per month to $300.00 per month for families making less than living wage in their area?

Should we build a new university or vocational school to compete with the demands?

Should we build a new housing project for returning vets with PSTD?

Are we putting enough into the social security/ pension fund; perhaps scaling back the military even further would help?


Instead, we are debating idiot soundbites and teabaggers who want to shoot their way into office. Its not a debate.. Its time to set the stage for history and and idealogy for the future.

You could easily write a long list of right wingers who have engaged in similar self-indulgent behaviors but he has a point. A very weak, sad point.

Baggers r notorious for making shit up. If it isn't true or not entirely true then don't answer with a long well thought out defense . Simply say that you would agree with him if it were true, but it's not.

Make el baggo prove a negative. Don't fall for that old debate trick.

Cheers

they are jostling each other for sleeping space under a bridge. Forget about talking to them. Instead, concentrate your energies on protecting yourself if these nutcases get elected.

I did Progressive Talk radio and was the first Progressive talk show host to air regularly on terrestial radio in Mississippi so my ignoring those who engage me in conversation is not a good idea. It would only give them something to point to, as I have done with Neil Bortz and J.D. Hayworth, as not being able to debate on topics. While your advice might be good for some it certainly would just be more for this guy to point to in proving that Progressives are a bunch of losers.

is a belief system. It might be interesting to figure out how the belief system was changed in the Roman Empire that led to the spread of Christianity or later during the European Reformation.

More recently, Communists and Nazis. Millions truly believed that these were a panacea.

RWers believe they have the answer based on the facts they get from their sources. People on the left of course have the same thing. Around here we believe that our facts are better than theirs.

As humans we always seem to think "sure, you're right, but this time is different!"

But as it is with global warming, if Al Gore was wrong, we end up with a sustainable existence. If the deniers are wrong we're dead.

As an Engineer I often found myself debating people who did not understand the laws of physics, and therefore felt they did not apply. OK, I don't fully understand them either, but know they do apply! I finally got to the point where I would say "I don't get into religious arguments!"

I thought someone here would have known and posted about this but so far nobody has so I checked it out and here is what I found:

Although Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) might seem a political pit bull at times, the freshman congressman grew defensive recently when crying foul against a Web-based political action group that's been dogging him for months.

But in a ruling released Friday afternoon, the Federal Election Commission dismissed Grayson’s complaint that political organization MyCongressmanIsNuts.com was deceptive in its efforts to raise funds to attack him.

Grayson’s complaint, filed with the FEC in November, accused the group’s founder, Angela Langley, of disingenuously soliciting funds to attack him. Grayson argued that Langley claimed to be an unhappy constituent of his, although in reality, she resides in a Florida district not under the congressman’s jurisdiction.

“The FEC recognized that Angie Langley lied. Unfortunately, the statute does not expressly prohibit liars from lying,” Julie Tagen, Grayson’s chief of staff, told OpenSecrets Blog.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/06/rep-alan-grayson-not-nuts-about-fec.html

http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2009%2012%2015%20grayson%20complaint%20to%20doj.pdf

As you can see Grayson is saying that she willingly and knowingly raised funds by knowingly promoting lies to defraud people of their money. She was/is a Republican leader in another district and thereby would know she wasn't represented by Grayson so she was breaking a law. The FEC ruling does show her to be a liar, but didn't rise to the level of illegal acts.

even having his goons jot down license plate numbers? And how he had the Feds invade the homes of anti-war gatherings? Or how those on his "enemies list" were placed on the "no-fly" lists? Or how Cheney outed a CIA agent because her husband disproved Cheney's lies?"

And on & on & on...