Family and Politics

First of all, to all the Spittles (esp. Cara, Jason, Jim), an apology. I will refrain from posting any additional political links. However, I would like to engage in some "friendly" philosophical debate.

First, I acknowledge that we are all VERY opinionated, and have no qualms about the expression of such opinions. My question is, at what point do we decide that we can no longer be quiet about a topic, in order to "keep the peace?" I don't have an answer. I don't think any of us do, as witness the fact that every Spittle Family Reunion experiences at least one argument, usually more, and often on the first day of the reunion (not counting the disagreements involved in even trying to organize the reunion).

As a point to this, I offer the following quote: "First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." (Martin Niemoller, as quoted by David Stafford in Endgame, 1945, p223) The point I'm trying to make is not whether to engage in boycotts, but the stifling of free speach, and the hypocrasy associated with that. Do I agree with what the Socialists, Trade Unionists, Communists, Gays/Lesbians, etc. say? Not ususally. Do I agree with their right to say it? Absolutely. The point I was trying to make is that this has to be reciprocated by both sides. If one doesn't like my opinion on a topic, that's OK, that's one's choice. However, don't try to deny me the right to voice that opinion just because somebody doesn't agree with it. If somebody wants to boycott me, go ahead, I don't care. I personally boycotted UHaul for a number of years because of a personal incident. I didn't force others to do the same.

As a final example, and then I'll shut up, let's look at how the press and liberals view Pres. Bush. Basically, one cannot open any kind of print media without finding scathing attacks against him. I am not necessarily defending him, as there were several policies of his that I absolutely detested. Regardless, the majority of the liberals was vehemently anti-Bush (Cindy Sheehan, anybody?). Fair enough. How did he react? He ignored them. Now compare that to the reaction of HIS HOLINESS, THE MESSIAH, Pres. Elect Obama. Here is a link:

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/wgnam_again_target_of_obama_ca.html

and another

http://www.discriminations.us/2008/08/obama_tries_to_censor_critical.html

Again, my point being is that if it's OK to denigrate one party's chief, then it's OK to denigrate the other. The fact that Obama, instead of just issuing a statement denying the allegations against him and moving on, went on the attack to try to censor the media from broadcasting this is, to me, an enormous amount of hypocrasy on the part of the liberals who so nobly espouse the virtues of "Free Speach." Free speach means receiving as well as giving (as long as violence is not encouraged, which I have not).

Back to the point of this little diatribe - I will call a truce to the postings of such links. That, however, will not lead to the demise of other, similar, postings by others (just do a facebook search for Obama, Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin and see how many results you get.) I see one of you joined the Nicole LeFavour for Idaho Senate group. Should I be offended by that? I'm not. That's your choice and I applaud it. I have to figure out whether to go for Romney or Palin in 2012! Just cut me some slack for voicing my choice. There, I'm done. I'm sorry.