"Big" government

[Amskeptic]

There are more benefits for the poor today than 50 or 100 years ago, and especially more than 200 years ago when people were free and didn't get any benefits from the government.
Seriously Colin, this government was started to protect rights. Two hundred years ago it protected rights. Around 1800 you can not tell me or show me a benefit we asked the government for. We just wanted freedom. We did not look to ask the government for food or medical coverage.

Sorry Colin, I have used the standard well excepted definition of words.
It is you that is changing the meaning of words and in some cases using the opposite.
This very post once again shows a changing of words and/or history by you.
Give me some examples of government provided benefits that have been slashed from what they were even just 40 years ago?
I don't think you can. I know you can't from 200 years ago.

200 years ago, our country was free enough to enslave blacks and suffer from privations that you apparently do not care about. You apparently have no understanding of the exploitation of workers who had to work for real bastards who were not constrained by 40 hour work week laws and you laughably call it "freedom"? You have no understanding of the harsh lives led by desperate people who had no health and safety regulations. You apparently do not remember that many of our elderly were free to live in utter poverty while our children were not protected against having to work. You do not remember that our urban centers suffered from serious smog, that we were free to die from epidemics, that blacks were free to not drink from "whites only" water fountains, that women were free to not participate in voting, and were free to die in textile mill fires that had locked doors.

I may not have a specific grasp of current and past welfare benefits, but the welfare rolls decreased after the reform under the Clinton Administration, to wit:

Shrinking Welfare Rolls Leave Record High Share of Minorities
By JASON DePARLE
Published: July 27, 1998

As the welfare rolls continue to plunge, white recipients are leaving the system much faster than black and Hispanic recipients, pushing the minority share of the caseload to the highest level on record.

White, black and Hispanic recipients are all leaving welfare at unprecedented rates. But the disproportionately large exodus of whites has altered the racial balance in a program long rife with racial conflict and stereotypes, according to figures that were compiled in an analysis of recent state data by The New York Times.

You tell me that I am changing history and words, but honestly, I do not know if we even share the same understanding of the history of this country.
Colin

[ruckman101]

Perhaps reframe.

Rather than "benefits from the government", which has immense knee jerk whistle call loaded language negatives, the question should be how do we lift up our struggling brothers and sisters into a humane community of mutual support?

"How not...!" has always been easy to protest against. Strength thrives in community. Community can find answers. Rather than react against; proactively restate and establish barometers of what a threat to the community's health and well-being is.

It can be done.


neal

[steve74baywin]

There are more benefits for the poor today than 50 or 100 years ago, and especially more than 200 years ago when people were free and didn't get any benefits from the government.
Seriously Colin, this government was started to protect rights. Two hundred years ago it protected rights. Around 1800 you can not tell me or show me a benefit we asked the government for. We just wanted freedom. We did not look to ask the government for food or medical coverage.

Sorry Colin, I have used the standard well excepted definition of words.
It is you that is changing the meaning of words and in some cases using the opposite.
This very post once again shows a changing of words and/or history by you.
Give me some examples of government provided benefits that have been slashed from what they were even just 40 years ago?
I don't think you can. I know you can't from 200 years ago.

200 years ago, our country was free enough to enslave blacks and suffer from privations that you apparently do not care about.

That is an assumption. I care a lot and I would have been seeking true freedom for them too if I was alive then. I could almost see someone who argues your side finding "social contracts", and "underlying rules", and maybe even them being slaves could be swept under your "greater good" ideal. If I was alive back then I would be talking true freedom for them like I am talking about it now for the poor and the rich I want true freedom. Someone who changes the meanings of words and such could say them being slaves is their social part and it is for the greater good, just like stealing wages from a set group is for the greater good, I could certainly see those who mince words and think they can rule others saying how having slaves is for the "greater good". Really, just like now, some can say stealing isn't stealing when we call it taxation, violating your rights if it is for the greater good is no longer violating your rights, being a slave is a noble, staple of this here great growing country, and it serves the greater good, so slaves must be slaves. Yeah, I can see that coming more from the types that change words to suit their desires today. This is exactly what I am talking about. Just how you can change words and find reasons to justifying ignoring freedom and liberty principles and individual rights for some present day IDEALS you have is exactly how some rationalized slavery back then. You are falling into the same trap when you deny us our freedom for your perceived visions of a better world.

You apparently have no understanding of the exploitation of workers who had to work for real bastards who were not constrained by 40 hour work week laws and you laughably call it "freedom"? You have no understanding of the harsh lives led by desperate people who had no health and safety regulations. You apparently do not remember that many of our elderly were free to live in utter poverty while our children were not protected against having to work. You do not remember that our urban centers suffered from serious smog, that we were free to die from epidemics, that blacks were free to not drink from "whites only" water fountains, that women were free to not participate in voting, and were free to die in textile mill fires that had locked doors.

Colin, that is emotional based rhetoric. There you go again, wanting to "constrain" people to 40 hour work weeks. Do you desire to be GOD? Colin, you have no understanding of freedoms. To be free, you take some risk and you have to build your life, and, there still are no guarantees. Death will still come knocking at your door. Just because you are free no one ever said (well maybe a politician) you will now have a rose garden and live for ever. If you are willing and you want to trade in some freedoms for some benefits, a meal, better work conditions, you should be free to do it. You are talking about using force to create these set conditions and people must move into this "kingdom" you create. You know nothing of the word freedom.
Pointing to some less than perfect times in this world and saying see, life wasn't perfect so, that is reason to sell off some of your freedoms. That should be an individuals choice. If he sells himself or some of his time for set beni's, that should be his choice and freedom to do so. Colin's not god and shouldn't decide when the conditions are tough enough to warrant trading in everyones freedom for beni's. People could voluntary trade in freedoms for these beni's you want in my limited Libertarain system. Your way forces people too, which equals no freedom.

I may not have a specific grasp of current and past welfare benefits, but the welfare rolls decreased after the reform under the Clinton Administration, to wit:


You tell me that I am changing history and words, but honestly, I do not know if we even share the same understanding of the history of this country.
Colin

Yes, however, if you want to talk history, and I don't claim to know it thoroughly, but like I said, benefits as in welfare type, social services types has increased since the inception of this gov. It probably stayed at zero for 100+ years while we remembered what it was like to be under a king. Then the rich who desired to rule over the people made things a little hard for them and suckered the people into getting them to violate individuals rights and trade in freedom for beni's from them. That was a sad day the day we switched to begging leaders for things to live.
Yes, it is like the day the towel was thrown in, the white flag was raised by free people, they cried and said, we can't live free, take us back into your kingdom, make us subjects, just keep me warm and give me food. That choice shouldn't have been made for all of us, and just like you shouldn't make it for us now.
Think about it, I'm for freedom for all today, your for forcing me to to pay for a system and benefits I disagree with. It would seem to me you who already show that you have no problem forcing people to do things and no problem taking a portion of peoples life/labor are far more likely to force someone to labor for you (slavery) than I am.
I can see it now, instead of them starving in Africa, force them to come here and provide them food and shelter, you think it is better, therefor you can force it on them, ignoring their individual rights for the greater good. Same thing.

[Amskeptic]

There you go again, wanting to "constrain" people to 40 hour work weeks.
Do you desire to be GOD? Colin, you have no understanding of freedoms.

Why the extremist rhetoric? In one response, it was "begging" in the next it is desire to be God? Where on Earth do you come up with a God complex? I have no understanding of freedom?

There I go again? Where did I ever say that I wanted to constrain people to a 40 hour work week? I wrote that there was a time that businesses were not constrained in the hours they demanded, and you just run off and assume that *I want* to constrain others? Will we ever have decent give-and-take with nuance, or is it always going to be this extremist idiocy?

To be free, you take some risk and you have to build your life, and, there still are no guarantees.
You are talking about using force to create these set conditions and people must move into this "kingdom" you create. You know nothing of the word freedom.

I am not talking about using force. I have not opined about how the government compels people to pay their taxes, but here you are running off about how I must surely agree with violence and guns and all of your other tin-hat paranoia. I am saying that we *have*, through representative democracy, decided that we shall tax to pay for services we did agree to provide to the less-fortunate or the temporarily unemployed. We agreed to this. Of course some of us are seized in selfishness and cannot stand the thought of a safety net, perhaps you are one of them, but do not, do not, do not, tell me that I promote violence and using force to compel people to participate. I choose to, happily, no government guns necessary.

Pointing to some less than perfect times in this world and saying see, life wasn't perfect so, that is reason to sell off some of your freedoms. That should be an individuals choice. If he sells himself or some of his time for set beni's, that should be his choice and freedom to do so.

Geezus!! You are the guy who had to go back 200 years! I was replying to you! Don't now claim I am pointing to some less than perfect time! You're the guy claiming we had "perfect freedom" hundreds of years ago. This is what I mean by manipulation. You come up with some argument, and smear my reply to your detours.

Here we are, stuck on a lifeboat,
"Row! We have to fight this tide!"
"I don't take orders."
"You *have* to help, or we will be lost at sea!"
"Hey, I will individually choose to row or not."

I'm for freedom for all today, your for forcing me to to pay for a system and benefits I disagree with. It would seem to me you who already show that you have no problem forcing people to do things and no problem taking a portion of peoples life/labor are far more likely to force someone to labor for you (slavery) than I am.

I do not agree with every aspect of this system, but I do respect it. I am happy to participate, and will use the levers of of our democracy to effect change where I disagree with some aspects. I am not like you, locked in an extremist all-or-nothing point of view.

I can see it now, instead of them starving in Africa, force them to come here and provide them food and shelter, you think it is better, therefor you can force it on them, ignoring their individual rights for the greater good. Same thing.

See? This is ludicrous, and I am totally done with this painfully senseless effort to converse with you.
Colin

[BellePlaine]

We’re all Volkswagen friends, right?

This is a hard question because this is a world of ups and downs, what should be the role of government? We all need a back-up plan/security net for when shit goes suddenly wrong. But who should decide the size and scope of the net? Who should be liable to protect oneself, or others? From my perspective, for self-preservation, it is natural to create your own safety net first before spending your precious resources on others’ safety nets. I’m not saying “give nothing” but just that when an authority third party, like the government, usurps your own choice to determine the size and scope of your plan and others’/our plan then that is not “giving” that is “taking”. Add to that there are people in the government who are corrupted with power to maintain their own self-preservation, it makes it very difficult to want to give then any more freedoms then the bare minimum. Some of these people are wasteful and inefficient users of our liberties. Some of them are so obviously self-servicing yet re-elect them, why?

There are also tricky and slick self-preservationists in some of our corporations, banks, and profit-centric groups. Some of these people just want to take advantage of your freedoms; if you are not careful they will leave you sick, penniless, and homeless. If that happens, you are screwed. You’d be lucky to get out at all let alone get back what you once had. I think that large security net of some type is probably a good idea to help those people. Yes, there will be some should-have-known-better type folks being bailed out easy, but we don’t have to let victims get consumed by slick corporations just because of bad luck. We are a human civilization after all.

It’s a shame that we pit ourselves against each other because the corrupt ones in both groups play us to take away our liberties, our health, and our wealth. I think that it’s the money; we gotta get it out of government and corporations. I think that it would only help us, the 99%.

[Lanval]

Sorry Colin, I have used the standard well excepted definition of words.

Steve,

Your arguments might be taken more seriously if you didn't write stuff like the above; you are talking about being precise in your language, and then substitute "excepted" for "accepted". The correct word is "accepted" which means the majority agree; you actually use "excepted" which means ignored, disallowed or removed. The irony of that error is so perfect, it's painful; it's also emblematic of the whole experience of discussing such ideas with you.

I've long since given up on "talking" with you; it's self-evident from the things that you write, that:
1. Your understanding of the history of the United States is not close the generally accepted set of readings of the development of the United States
2. You've don't seem to have read the Federalist Papers, in which several of the Founding Fathers lay out the reasons for the directions they wished to see the US take
3. You don't have a good historical understanding of linguistic usage in the 18th century
4. You appear to be unfamiliar with Locke, Hobbes, Montesquieu or Rousseau; these guys are the foundations of the US system; the Declaration of Independence even paraphrases Locke who argued that the role of government was to protect "life, liberty and property." The D of I, changes this to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Colin's complaint is similar to mine; there's no nuance or complex understanding present in what you argue. You make a habit of presenting absolutes, creating straw-man arguments out of others' ideas by twisting their words, and present arguments that are historically incorrect. That's tragic, because I'll give you this ~ you have a passion, and to quote a good movie, "misdirected though it might be, it is still a passion".

If you wish to argue your point, at least with those you hope to convert, careful writing, specific examples and thoughtful treatment of the beliefs/statements of others will help significantly. Personally, I don't think that's what you're doing, which is why I've given up posting in free speech; I offer the above in the most charitable sense ~ If you really are attempting to change the hearts/minds of others, pissing people off so that they refuse to talk to you or consider your arguments would seem to be a "fail".

Michael

[steve74baywin]

See? This is ludicrous, and I am totally done with this painfully senseless effort to converse with you.
Colin

You know, I had this long thing typed up, and I was still working on it, and I came to the same conclusion you did. This has gotten so nuts and out of hand.
All one needs to do is read it here. I think the conversation has veered because
you really can't justify this criminal government that we have.

[BellePlaine]

Perhaps reframe.

Rather than "benefits from the government", which has immense knee jerk whistle call loaded language negatives, the question should be how do we lift up our struggling brothers and sisters into a humane community of mutual support?

"How not...!" has always been easy to protest against. Strength thrives in community. Community can find answers. Rather than react against; proactively restate and establish barometers of what a threat to the community's health and well-being is.

It can be done.


neal

Neal, I can agree with your sediment that "community" is going to be, and maybe already is, a major part of the solution. In fact, I think that this is a Libertarian ideal. Are there any true Libertarians, including the ones running for office, that would disagree?

[steve74baywin]

Steve,

Your arguments might be taken more seriously
Michael

What your post shows me is a typical tactic that is used to get students to swallow
BS. Yes, knock them based on something like spelling or grammar, make them feel inferior, then you can condition them to accept falsehoods. You can them teach them the distorted wrong history, get them away from Individual Rights and more into a "democracy" or Volcanism.
You keep beating them down, even though they are correct and have good information, you need to smack them down so you can condition in the false hoods.
What I have seen from your posting on here Micheal is just that.
You don't usually deal in truth, you insult often, you take on a "mightier than Thou" mentality, then feed us BS. I think one thing you learned well in your schooling is
the ability to control the class room to set the students up to be indoctrinated with falsehoods. That is about the only thing I clearly see coming from you.
When we went to discuss the founding of this country, you stopped.
At first, you came in with your mightier than thou attitude, but when it got down to discussing it, you complained about the manor of discussing, like it didn't follow some
set up. We couldn't go step by step and discuss the order of events. You needed to control the conversation, belittle, and set things up to condition people to understand the new doublethink versions of words, the false propaganda.
When I mentioned FDR's letter and his son in laws, you stopped.
Also, your timing is something.
About the only time you even attempt to engage in conversation with me, and risk your false teachings of this country getting exposed, is when someone else is done and makes a post similar to Colin's that, if read by itself, if someone doesn't follow the thread, but reads just his post, then yours can be made. I think this is the third time you are no where posting, and then, when a false conclusion can be made, like by someone only reading Colins post and not the whole thread, you jump in with a similar thread, like, you are going to help me by pointing out my errors and how I went wrong.
Sorry Charlie, reread the thread, until you can comprehend it, if that is possible for you, and then you will see my answers were good and the topic ended up going where it did due to the other person not being able to justify there case.....Which is why you ran away several times.
Yes Mikey, you can pretend that you left the conversation because of your superior intelligence being unable to converse with me, but do you dare go back to those threads? You have mentioned several times going back to continue, but you never do go back and continue. I don't blame you, why would want to expose yourself.
In fact, good grief, Mr smarty can't understand the conversation when there is a incorrect word used. A most excellent point. Some people are good at memorizing, some at figuring things out. I always was good at both, yeah, many test to prove it, I just goofed off during English. You may have been able to memorize, but if my typos or grammar errors makes it hard from you to comprehend, well, that sorta speaks for itself.

[steve74baywin]

I have more time, here is your answers.

Why the extremist rhetoric? In one response, it was "begging" in the next it is desire to be God? Where on Earth do you come up with a God complex?

I wish you would follow the flow, sorry if you take it as an insult, but.
I say the gov is violating a persons right, you ask for an example, I give examples, your answer is things like, I'm willing, I don't mind, I will pay, etc, etc. Or, those people had it tough and so I am for limiting the amount of hours a man can ask someone to work. That is your answer to me. I thought you were answering why it isn't violating a right, when you say you would happily pay as your answer, that is as if you get to decide for all. Just like cause you think people shouldn't be asked to work over forty hours, even though they aren't forced, they don't have to go along with this guys demand for hours, but you are now for violating his right to set up the terms he wants for people he choses to pay. Your reply to why it isn't the gov violating his rights is because you are okay with it, as if you are the GOD of their life.

I have no understanding of freedom?
I wrote that there was a time that businesses were not constrained in the hours they demanded, and you just run off and assume that *I want* to constrain others?

You seem to be in favor of constraining the owner, you brought this example up.
Yes, if you think a person who moves themselves into a city, a place where it is hard to live without the ability to buy almost everything one needs to live, and you are in a situation where the only place to make money is from someone who will only pay you if you work 80 hours, this is not an example of not being free. The man doesn't have to live in the city. No one forced him, a human that has needs water, food and shelter, to move into an area where it is needed and he is at the mercy of a factory owner. He was free to get himself into this situation, and he should be free to get him self out of it.
YOU BROUGHT this scenario into the discussion. Make a ruling on the number of hours the owner can ask of the worker is violating FREEDOM. Freedom did exist, even though that man didn't like the 80 hour a week job he freely chose to work at, there was freedom. Taking away the owners freedom in the name of freedom for a situation where there already was freedom is not understanding freedom. The people where free, it was their choices that put them their. The labor laws are violations of freedom.

I am not talking about using force. I have not opined about how the government compels people to pay their taxes, but here you are running off about how I must surely agree with violence and guns and all of your other tin-hat paranoia. I am saying that we *have*, through representative democracy, decided that we shall tax to pay for services we did agree to provide to the less-fortunate or the temporarily unemployed.

First off, we didn't agree to that. We instituted a government to protect our rights, not violate them. Even if we set up democratic way of electing, there was still the natural rights as mentioned. We did not agree to democratically elect in a dictator type system.

We agreed to this.

Once again, we didn't agree, how can you honestly say all of us who say it is wrong agreed to it? Please explain that.

Of course some of us are seized in selfishness and cannot stand the thought of a safety net, perhaps you are one of them, but do not, do not, do not, tell me that I promote violence and using force to compel people to participate. I choose to, happily, no government guns necessary.

Colin, if you don't want me to say "doublethink", then pick one.
Are you for my system which is for voluntarily supporting and contributing to programs that help people out, or are you for this current system that uses guns and violence?
Pick one, are you for voluntarily helping people or for using this current system that uses guns whether you chose to see them or not?
The system we have uses guns and violence, just because you pay because you want to and not because you are forced to doesn't change the way the system does it.
We are talking about this current system, just because the guns don't get you to do it doesn't mean the guns don't exist..In fact, usually that would mean you are party to it or in on it. Think about that. If the mob in town uses guns to force people, but you don't need the guns, that usually means your a willing participant. So when you back this system up, deny the guns, don't see it as stealing, and then tell me you don't back this system up, yet they don't need the guns on you because you do it willingly, yet you want to remove yourself from this system that you defend and willingly participate in, and you wonder why you haven't cleared my mind and convinced me.

Maybe I'm missing something, let me say it a different way.

You don't want me to say, and you claim to not be for using guns and violence to get people to pay for helping others.
This current system uses that method.
You defend this system that uses guns and violence that I am against.
They don't need need the guns to get you to support this system, you do it willingly.
You don't want to be associated with the part of the system that uses guns an violence.
But you defend it and freely support it. And actually, I think you are for more programs
paid for by this system, which would take place via the guns force system, but ??
Really Colin, help me out here.


As far as the selfish part, that is such an overused "conditioned in" "makes no sense"
statement. If you don't give me the choice to help others but instead use a gun and threat of jail, how can you say whether I am selfish or not? You ain't given me the choice.
If anything, those who want to use the guns should be called selfish.
Those who want this system try to get everyone else into it by calling us selfish.

Pointing to some less than perfect times in this world and saying see, life wasn't perfect so, that is reason to sell off some of your freedoms. That should be an individuals choice. If he sells himself or some of his time for set beni's, that should be his choice and freedom to do so.

Geezus!! You are the guy who had to go back 200 years! I was replying to you! Don't now claim I am pointing to some less than perfect time! You're the guy claiming we had "perfect freedom" hundreds of years ago. This is what I mean by manipulation. You come up with some argument, and smear my reply to your detours.

This is why I say things veered in this topic, and I don't take the blame.
I say more often back 100 years. I am talking freedom for all.
You are the one who went back and pointed out how there was slaves 200 years ago.
Why did you bring up the slave thing I guess would have been a better reply from me.
Really, if you could tell me why you brought slavery in a discussion where I'm stating what this gov does is wrong, violates rights, and our freedoms are lost and you seem to disagree with me, why did you bring up slavery? There may be a good reason you brought it up, I'm not saying there isn't, just saying I don't know what it is.

Here we are, stuck on a lifeboat,
"Row! We have to fight this tide!"
"I don't take orders."
"You *have* to help, or we will be lost at sea!"
"Hey, I will individually choose to row or not."

Better explain your reason for this so I don't wrongly reply.

I can see it now, instead of them starving in Africa, force them to come here and provide them food and shelter, you think it is better, therefor you can force it on them, ignoring their individual rights for the greater good. Same thing.

See? This is ludicrous
Colin

Actually, to the contrary.
Let's examine.
I am for a person totally being in charge of themselves, as long this is honored in others. IE, no killing, hurting or stealing.
With Slavery, most white Europeans rationalized how come having slaves wasn't a violation of any human natural rights. They had excuses and reasons.

Some might be, they are lower than us, they run in the jungle, they aren't civilized, we know more, we can use them.
It is for the greater prosperity of this nation...

Today, when I say for a man to be free he needs to be in charge of himself.
What are the reasons I'm given for why this gov can violate rights?
Some may say
The people don't know what is best.
The people can't choose the right milk.
It is better for this growing nation to have drug laws.
Very similar, excuses is what it is.

A human or other humans rationalizing why THEY don't give the FREEDOM
to other humans. So the degree varies a little, but it is still a human rationalizing why they aren't giving or allowing freedom to another human.
And that there can be considered playing god.

[Lanval]

Re-edited, since Glasseye changed his post.

************

Steve, your response shows you didn't take the time to understand what I was suggesting, and demonstrates in spades the need for you to do so.

Mike

[vdubyah73]

facts like polls can be twisted to support either side of an issue.

i have faith in the resiliency of the american people. this will pass ... eventually.

this election cycle is going to be interesting. if any candidate comes up with make work programs like those under fdr they will get my vote. i'm fairly certain that ww3 is around the corner, maybe 5-10-20 or more years away but it's coming. what better way to train up millions of people to work together as cohesive units? we could start rebuilding our infrastructure and the original ccc projects in our parks and monuments. give nasa a goal and watch technological breakthroughs happen. fund a national highspeed rail system, built here, nothing but made in america. similar to the interstate highway system. watch people get back to work, paying taxes, and start feelin better about themselves and the good old usa. watch new start-up businesses pop up to build all the widgets needed to build the gadgets etc...

this economic collapse, with politicians, banks and corporations lining their pockets while the working stiffs get poorer, has happened before. trading in bad bonds, multiple gov't bailouts, railroad baron ring a bell? we all need to get over ourselves and our silly opinionatin' on an antique car forum.

i don't like what teaparty congress men have been doing but i admire the fact that soma have said they don't care if they get re-elected they are sticking to what got them elected in the first place. this is how it was supposed to work. not making wall street trades based on info not available to the public. it's legal insider trading.

i know my posts ramble, writing doesn't come naturally to me. i could go on and on but someone will probably get a headache, and come back with either a critique of my style or be so intent on changing or disproving my opinions that i get a headache.

[dtrumbo]

Bill I like what you had to say. Your concept of getting our infrastructure beefed-up to prepare for the uncertainties of the future is spot-on! I too would wholeheartedly support some interstate-highway-like government project. Unfortunately, those things cost tax-payer money and all I hear from one side of the political fence (the posturing, grand-standing types, not necessarily speaking for the entire side of the fence) is how much the debt has increased and how much people are being taxed to death. There's no way in hell any project like this will ever happen again until folks realize it's actually o.k. to support something that doesn't directly and immediately benefit themselves.

I'm not trying to change or disprove your opinion. I agree with it. I just don't know how we could accomplish it.

[glasseye]

post deleted by author

[glasseye]

For those unfortunate enough to have read my previous post, I apologize. I have deleted it.

My unprovoked attack on Steve was despicable and inexcusable.

Steve, you have from me a personal apology. I truly sorry for what I said. I hope that you can forget my words.

I was a jerk, an asshole and a bully.

Peter