Here is the link of the current post http://orcasissues.com/page/5.
Comments have been removed from the original link above, I will post them in their entirety here for you to read.
Comments have been removed from the original link above, I will post them in their entirety here for you to read.
(This is a “copy/paste” from ORCAS ISSUES” before the editor removed the final comments.)
April 7th, 2013
By Susan McBain
Yesterday afternoon I attended the
Eagle Forum’s candidate forum to hear all six County Council candidates answer
questions on a variety of subjects. I thought all gave good answers and showed
impressive knowledge of different aspects of the issues. But my main impression
was, these are all good, smart, concerned people who would do their best for
the county as a whole. At one point I thought, I wish we could have all six of
them, as together they represent almost all the constituencies in San Juan
County.
I’m concerned and saddened at the
over-the-top negative feelings being expressed in this election. Yes, the
candidates have different perspectives, but there wasn’t a wild-eyed radical of
any stripe at that table. They’ve all got common sense and experience in how
our society works, and they respect how it works. I had the sense they all
respected each other too. I fear we’ve let the current ugly national temper of
all-or-nothing intolerance infect our island culture. It’s not right, it’s not
useful, and it’s not the way to reach good outcomes for the whole community.
Civility isn’t just pleasant, it’s necessary for a wholesome society. It’s easy
really: we all just need to follow the Golden Rule.
April 7th, 2013
3
Comments on Guest Editorial: Eagle Forum Showed Six Good Candidates
Susan, I
too attended the forum and agree that all 6 candidates are smart and concerned
people who will do what is “their best” in reference to our County if elected.
I respectfully disagree that all gave good answers and showed impressive
knowledge of different aspects of the issues.
I too am concerned and saddened concerning the dialogue in this election. Therefore I must take issue with your comments on feelings, intolerance and civility. Any candidates past and current beliefs will affect how they will govern and it is our responsibility as citizens and voters to question those beliefs. Those queries are not “over-the-top feelings” or “all-or-nothing intolerance”, but the questions of concerned citizens seeking truth and information in a civil dialogue.
For example, in response to presenting facts concerning Lisa Byers stated beliefs past and current, I and others have been referred to as “smear-tactic”, “Joe McCarthy Era”, “inaccurate and inflammatory” and “mud-slinging and innuendo.” The last 2 come from Byers herself. Jamie Stevens considers questioning facts about the CAO as “fear mongering.” At the forum last Saturday both Pratt and Stevens outwardly attacked those who publicly question their beliefs or openly support other candidates. Pratt believes the First Amendment only applies to her and her supporters. While all 3 of these candidates have attacked others in an uncivil way, I find no record where Rick Hughes, Brian McClerren or Bob Jarman has done so. In ORCAS ISSUES February 27, 2013 at 9:50 am. “Susan McBain says: “Socialism” means so many things that it means nothing, other than a scare word. (I’ll ignore the use of “communism,” which smacks to me of McCarthyism.).” I’ll get you a dictionary. The rest of your comment does not addressed facts and questions raised but divert the conversation.
I too am looking for civility in the questions, answers and responses. If you believe “civility” means suppressing thoughtful dialogue concerning all of any candidate’s beliefs, past and present, and how they might apply those beliefs in governing our County, then I must challenge your understanding of civil dialogue.
Civilly and respectfully
I too am concerned and saddened concerning the dialogue in this election. Therefore I must take issue with your comments on feelings, intolerance and civility. Any candidates past and current beliefs will affect how they will govern and it is our responsibility as citizens and voters to question those beliefs. Those queries are not “over-the-top feelings” or “all-or-nothing intolerance”, but the questions of concerned citizens seeking truth and information in a civil dialogue.
For example, in response to presenting facts concerning Lisa Byers stated beliefs past and current, I and others have been referred to as “smear-tactic”, “Joe McCarthy Era”, “inaccurate and inflammatory” and “mud-slinging and innuendo.” The last 2 come from Byers herself. Jamie Stevens considers questioning facts about the CAO as “fear mongering.” At the forum last Saturday both Pratt and Stevens outwardly attacked those who publicly question their beliefs or openly support other candidates. Pratt believes the First Amendment only applies to her and her supporters. While all 3 of these candidates have attacked others in an uncivil way, I find no record where Rick Hughes, Brian McClerren or Bob Jarman has done so. In ORCAS ISSUES February 27, 2013 at 9:50 am. “Susan McBain says: “Socialism” means so many things that it means nothing, other than a scare word. (I’ll ignore the use of “communism,” which smacks to me of McCarthyism.).” I’ll get you a dictionary. The rest of your comment does not addressed facts and questions raised but divert the conversation.
I too am looking for civility in the questions, answers and responses. If you believe “civility” means suppressing thoughtful dialogue concerning all of any candidate’s beliefs, past and present, and how they might apply those beliefs in governing our County, then I must challenge your understanding of civil dialogue.
Civilly and respectfully
Hmm, I
didn’t mention Lisa at all in this post. And no one in Lisa’s campaign
mentioned communism or socialism; others mentioned those labels in referring to
her. If it’s issues and beliefs that are under discussion, yes, let’s have open
dialog, but on the issues. For example, “What is your position on regulations
that affect property rights?” Not “Are you a socialist?”
You
addressed civility in your post. A civility you had already violated as had
Lisa Byers. Lisa started this with an attack on an e-mail that rightfully
questioned statements she made in a video as to how she arrived at the OPAL
Community Land Trust model. The people she quotes and the organizations she is
involved with in building this model certainly raise this as a valid question.
Instead of directly answering the concerns of the voters about her beliefs and the CLT model specifically, Lisa and the rest of her supporters have attacked the persons posing the queries, your comments being among them. “No one in Lisa’s campaign mentioned communism or socialism; others mentioned those labels in referring to her.” That is correct. It is also correct that neither she nor anyone in her campaign has yet to directly explain her long held career beliefs which point directly to those claims. Need a dictionary?
“What is your position on regulations that affect property rights?” Lisa this past weekend said that she approved the San Juan County Democratic Party endorsing her because she wanted the rest of the county to know in general where she was coming from in a “non-partisan” election. She said that would give them a sense of how she would govern. AMEN. That is exactly the point.
You wrote, “Yes, let’s have open dialog, but on the issues.” For example, “Lisa, in your speech to the NEI you state that the model for OPAL Community Land Trust is developed by you and others who believe individuals do not have a right to privately own land. In light of that and your affiliation with organizations who are committed to the ‘New Global Economy’ through communal, instead of individual land rights reform, what is your position on regulations that affect property rights? In other words Ms. Byers, even though you now claim you believe in the private ownership of land, will you push and/or pass regulations like the CAO and its strict enforcement to effectively suppress the land owner’s rights?”
Yes, I too welcome this discussion Susan.
Instead of directly answering the concerns of the voters about her beliefs and the CLT model specifically, Lisa and the rest of her supporters have attacked the persons posing the queries, your comments being among them. “No one in Lisa’s campaign mentioned communism or socialism; others mentioned those labels in referring to her.” That is correct. It is also correct that neither she nor anyone in her campaign has yet to directly explain her long held career beliefs which point directly to those claims. Need a dictionary?
“What is your position on regulations that affect property rights?” Lisa this past weekend said that she approved the San Juan County Democratic Party endorsing her because she wanted the rest of the county to know in general where she was coming from in a “non-partisan” election. She said that would give them a sense of how she would govern. AMEN. That is exactly the point.
You wrote, “Yes, let’s have open dialog, but on the issues.” For example, “Lisa, in your speech to the NEI you state that the model for OPAL Community Land Trust is developed by you and others who believe individuals do not have a right to privately own land. In light of that and your affiliation with organizations who are committed to the ‘New Global Economy’ through communal, instead of individual land rights reform, what is your position on regulations that affect property rights? In other words Ms. Byers, even though you now claim you believe in the private ownership of land, will you push and/or pass regulations like the CAO and its strict enforcement to effectively suppress the land owner’s rights?”
Yes, I too welcome this discussion Susan.
No comments:
Post a Comment