»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
How can we debate Beavis and Butthead?
| The Alley |
|
How can we debate Beavis and Butthead? |
|
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia 
|
quote: quote: How can there be an honest debate if the substance is pushed aside for a conversation where a "magnetic levitating train from Disneyland to Las Vegas" -- a complete fabrication -- honeybee "insurance", "golf carts" and so on is the way one side wants to frame the issues. This really is locker-room nonsense -- the kind of stuff the jocks always do to the 'smart kids' to make fun of them. Is that what the Republican Party has become? quote: |
||
| © Copyright 2009 Local Rebel - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: [1] I think it's worth exploring, even with the biasing adjective. I see no reason to think uncoordinated private action would be any less effective than uncoordinated government action? [2] It scares the hell out of me anyone would even think to say that. [3] And I don't see any particular inanity here either. The big picture is determined by details, after all. [4] More cheap shots. Seemingly of the same kind being targeted by this post? I guess I'm missing your point, Reb? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Perhaps because there is no point to miss, Ron...just Reb, getting in a little target practice with borrowed bullets. Maybe because it's been too quiet here for the past, er, day?  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Given that I'm not sure what you, Ron, and Mike are talking about, I'm a little confused (again). Government can work. The Great Society proved that until Nixon (see my post that show the numbers). Given that that's its own thread, I wonder if, maybe, it's time to think about what's best for the country. Is that a wrong way to go? Personally, I'm tired of GOPer's and, yes, Libertarians, thinking ideology. It's a way of avoiding responsibility. Let the Dems take the hit. At least they're willing to try. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Brad, which side you do you feel is not thinking about what's best for the country? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
You got me, Mike. I am being unfair. If there is anything that we all agree on, it is the best interests of the United States of America (and that includes the crazy Brits and those silly Canucks). My apologies. |
||
Mysteria 
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
I may not be as smart as you people in here, and admire your intelligence. I read this thread every day, and learn from all of you so thank you. However, I had to speak to this. Brad! I am silly  honest, ask anyone, and Carpe' Diem is my motto. However, I care about my country, and my neighbours to the South, as they dictate what happens to me up here. I have to tell you, and I hate to repeat this,but I picked Obama for President before he was even a senator, there are threads here to support that. Everyone laughed at me,and at him.I like that Louisiana Governor big time too as the main thing I got out of his speech was that he planned to work WITH the current administration. I saw more in common than not, especially on energy solutions, and job creation. For the first time at least in my life, I am seeing that everyone is worried, and finally working together. As for private sector jumping in if there is another hurricane, why not? If I saw a boat, I could care less if it has insurance trust me if I could save someone! Reb: Hope you are well but as for Beavis and Butthead, these two don't have to work at being cool, they most assuredly are. Hey, but that is just the opinion of a silly Canuck that believes there truly is hope in this latest government, and I am proud to be here to see it. I can't wait until our resident Cajun Mardi Gras Gal shows up and gives her take on Jindal. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
You know what cracks me up? When some one asks me, "Who is America's number one ally?" For me, the answer is always the same: "Canada!" Why? Because you're just like us only different. It's not funny, I just find it funny. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I think the governor is a decent sort. He has a great record and list of accomplishments. Personall, I didn't care for his comments because (1) he DID sound like Al Gore, talking slowly to people to make sure they understood him and (2) reading a rebuttal created before Obama's speech, which would omit the questionable points which would be brought out in the Obama speech. I would have liked for him to address the incredible comment "I am not for bigger government!" proudly stated by Obama, which caused laughing fits all over the country, I'm sure. Even George Will, arguably the most intelligent, and non-biased political commentator alive, came out and said that it was a "bold-faced lie". Be all of that as it may, disagreement with Jindal's delivery should not come to the conculsion that the "political philosophy of the Republican party is snickering" or the other comments and insults which LR was pleased to provide us with. Perhaps it's just a small attempt to take the attention from Obama's speech and aim it at Jindal, for some reason....or maybe it's just a little touch of rebel rabble rousing |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No doubt, Brad. Canada IS our number one ally...as long as skates and a small round puck are not involved!  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Yeah Mike, But you don't have to answer the question the same way I have to (maybe you did but not now). I stand by my country. I stand by my allies. I don't care how long I live here. I can say what I like, I can say what I don't (and I do). I can say I live in a great country (Korea). I am free here too. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Not sure why you posted that, Brad. There's is certainly nothing there I disagree with. We all have those rights and none of us have to answer any questions we don't want to, no matter where we live....and we all have the right to voice our opinions. I respect yours.. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ron [1] So, then you're prepared to call the fire department and tell them not to come help you if your house catches on fire? You're just going to gather up a few neighbors with buckets instead? Shirley you jest. The party that's mantra is 'government doesn't work' points to it's own ineffectiveness to prove its' point? [2] It makes me feel better that only the Federal Government (translation -- We the People) are big enough to do things like print money, control a monetary system, wage war, gaurantee the rights of individuals. Let's take a look at what happens when the private sector does what 'We the People' should be doing: quote: [3] Then let's talk about the details instead of propagada-style half-truths. Why shouldn't we be investing in Mag-lev trains? Why shouldn'te we be replacing Federal vehicle fleets with electric vehicles and encouraging people to buy low speed electric vechicles for urban use (or whatever they might want to use them for -- including golf Mike) Why shouldn't we be protecting our agricultural sector that depends on bee polenization? I'd be happy to discuss the ISSUES. [4] Bobby Jindal was a promising political leader emerging in the Republican party -- a vital voice in our American democracy -- but the Republican leadership has absolutely ruined his introduction to the American people because of they way they prepped him for this event -- so that now he is a national joke. This is not a shot at Bobby Jindal -- but at the Republican leadership that is failing to lead anywhere but into oblivion at the moment. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I don't know, Mike. If we were going to talk about posters instead of posts, which of course we're not going to do, I would say that was probably more characteristic of you than of Reb? quote: Which ever side doesn't agree with me, of course. quote: Reb, if I call the fire department and they show up a month later, yea, I'll probably start talking to a few neighbors about possible alternatives. More to the point, though, what I said was that it's worth exploring. I don't think we should ever just assume the Federal government is always the answer to a social problem. quote: What, you want to trade horror stories on what happens when people stop caring about each other? You really think that's limited to the private sector, Reb? Don't get me wrong. I agree there are a few things best done by a limited and strictly overseen government. Very few. It's hard to get too excited, though, over "things like print money, control a monetary system, wage war, and guarantee the rights of individuals" when the government has pretty much screwed every one of those things up badly. Again, however, what we were actually talking about, Reb, was whether "only the Federal government is actually big enough to do stuff." And even if I don't want my neighbor locking up kids in his basement, I'm still mortified someone would say something like that. quote: We have been, Reb. We have been. You can't really escape the cheap sound bites, though. The trouble with your originating post, however, is that I don't think you even tried. quote: Take a look at the country right now, Reb. Seems to me the American leadership has been doing a pretty bad job for a pretty long time. You want to blame the Republicans for that? Fine. What you're actually saying to me is that the Democrats were too inept to exercise any power of their own OR the American people were too stupid to make the right choices. You'll probably find I generally agree with all three of those points? If our goal is to lay blame, it ain't going to be all that hard to find culpable targets. And they sure won't all be Republicans, either. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
If we were going to talk about posters instead of posts, which of course we're not going to do, I would say that was probably more characteristic of you than of Reb? That's right, Ron, and that's why I know you will appreciate the NEW me who doesn't do things like that. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
This is not a shot at Bobby Jindal (why, then, is he featured so prominently in your initiation of this thread?) -- but at the Republican leadership that is failing to lead anywhere but into oblivion at the moment. The republican party is not in power. They are not leading anywhere at all. As Pelosi said, they won the election and they are in charge. If you can explain how the republican party is leading the country into oblivion, being the minority party, I'd like to hear it. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “Mr. Obama, on the other hand, routinely ascribes to others views they don't espouse and says opposition to his policies is grounded in views no one really advocates. On Tuesday night, Mr. Obama told Congress and the nation, "I reject the view that . . . says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity." Who exactly has that view? Certainly not congressional Republicans, who believe that through reasonable tax cuts, fiscal restraint, and prudent monetary policies government contributes to prosperity. Mr. Obama also said that America's economic difficulties resulted when "regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market." Who gutted which regulations? Perhaps it was President Bill Clinton who, along with then Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, removed restrictions on banks owning insurance companies in 1999. If so, were Mr. Clinton and Mr. Summers (now an Obama adviser) motivated by quick profit, or by the belief that the reform was necessary to modernize our financial industry? Perhaps Mr. Obama was talking about George W. Bush. But Mr. Bush spent five years pushing to further regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He was blocked by Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank. Arriving in the Senate in 2005, Mr. Obama backed up Mr. Dodd's threat to filibuster Mr. Bush's needed reforms. Even in an ostensibly nonpartisan speech marking Lincoln's 200th birthday, Mr. Obama used a straw-man argument, decrying "a philosophy that says every problem can be solved if only government would step out of the way; that if government were just dismantled, divvied up into tax breaks, and handed out to the wealthiest among us, it would somehow benefit us all. Such knee-jerk disdain for government -- this constant rejection of any common endeavor -- cannot rebuild our levees or our roads or our bridges." Whose philosophy is this?” There are more examples which you can read yourself: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561484923478287.html The point is Obama has been making characterizations that have no basis in fact. As if he has saved and needs us now to continue supporting him against some another Elders of Zion. Well, as Rove asks, just exactly who are these people? . . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, I took it to mean that the Republican leadership was leading the Republican party into oblivion. I don’t actually see it like that though - I agree that they’re not doing themselves any favours by following a policy of critical rhetoric instead of presenting a cohesive and credible alternative - but oblivion sounds a bit of an exaggeration. As far as Jindal’s speech goes, it was less than impressive but that’s the first time I’ve seen him in action, I for one am willing to give him a second chance and write this one off as an off day. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You could be right, grinch. It's hard to tell by the way it is written. A liberal complaining about the self-destruction of the Republican party would be a new slant. Your views on Jindal are right on and very fair. John, you are re-iterating facts liberals would rather ignore...as yours will be. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
That’s a good example of what I was talking about Huan, Rove wasted a whole page criticising Obama while completely failing to offer an alternative. When it comes to choosing between an idea that might work and no idea at all which one do you choose? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Rove's point was about Obama creating a myth; a "them", a fantasy enemy of the people to help him strive against. That's what Rove was talking about. And by the way, you just used the same tactic: “When it comes to choosing between an idea that might work and no idea at all which one do you choose?” From the article: “During his news conference on Feb. 9, Mr. Obama decried an unnamed faction in the congressional stimulus debate as "a set of folks who -- I don't doubt their sincerity -- who just believe that we should do nothing." Who were these sincere do-nothings? Every House Republican voted for an alternative stimulus plan, evidence that they wanted to do something. Every Senate Republican -- with the exception of Judd Gregg, who'd just withdrawn his nomination to be Mr. Obama's Commerce secretary and therefore voted "present" -- voted for alternative stimulus proposals.” John |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
When it comes to choosing between an idea that might work and no idea at all which one do you choose? Wow..there's a question that could require some bandwidth to answer! First, one has to determine if an action is necessary. Second, one has to weigh the consequences of action against non-action. If you are speeding up to an intersection where the light is about to change, do you speed up or slow down? if you speed up and beat the light, you could save time. If you slow down, you will lose time. If you speed up, there's a chance you may be involved in an accident. If you slow down, the chances are better you won't. If your wife is about to give birth, you are more likely to speed up, since time is of the essence. If you're going to the store for beer (oh, bad example because you may STILL speed up!)er, for popcorn, you may slow down because it wouldn't be worth the risk. When considering a plan that MIGHT work, weigh the consequences of what would happen if it DOESN'T work. If the "might" outweighs the consequences of the "doesn't" then go for it. If the "doesn't" would be detrimental enough to overshadow the possibility of the "might", why do it? That is the situation we have here. Obama claims "crisis of such magnitude that the country could fall without immediate action". Republicans disagree. Democrats believe more government and higher taxes are necessary. Republicans believe less taxes and less government is the answer. Who is right? Democrats will point to FDR and the New Deal. Republicans will point to Reagan bringing the country out of recession with his methods. To take action when the actions are primarily chances which may or may not work, one may as well play poker and never fold. If you're lucky, you'll win. If not, you're broke. If this "action" doesn't work, we are broke. Well, we are broke now...better to say, our future generations will be broke with an inherited debt they will not be able to handle. Is it worth it? The light is getting ready to change...... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Huan, quote: Fine, but until he starts talking about what the Republicans would do instead of what Obama might do everyone will carry on listening to Obama. As far as the article goes he's one of the do-nothings - because he's offering no alternative. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: That’s absolutely true Mike and that decision, rightly or wrongly, has already been made, the people decided action was necessary when they listened to Obama’s plan and voted him into office. The Republicans can’t sit on their hands and ignore that fact, they have to start communicating what action they’d take. In-action or a failure to communicate their plan of action just equates to the perception that they’re a bunch of do-nothings in the face of an electorate that wants somebody to do something. You know and I know that the Republicans must have an alternative plan but do we ever hear it? No, instead they take pot shots at the other guy’s plan. They make vague references to smaller government and lower taxes but don’t expand on how they’d get to the point where smaller government and lower taxes is even a remote possibility. quote: And if you do nothing and fold every hand you’ll lose all your cash in the blinds. The people believe that it’s time to pick a hand and go all in Mike and if the Republicans don‘t show their cards soon Obama‘s hand looks like the favourite. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
And if you do nothing and fold every hand you’ll lose all your cash in the blinds. True enough...if you are foolish enough to get in the game. I don't disagree with you about the republicans, grinch. I have found them to be very disappointing, also. They point out the fallacies of the Obama plan but they do not offer alternatives. We have a democratic congress and president because they did not fight, did not present themselves well enough to gain the confidence of the American people. They had better clean up their act if they ever expect to regain the leadership. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. This is pointless . . . It's like trying to prove to Alexandra Rasputin is not a man of God. . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Hey Mike, I do want to express my appreciation for the lovely gift basket you sent; the boiled peanuts, roasted peanuts, peanut butter, peanut brittle, man -- there's enough peanuts in here to make Jimmy Carter grin.  Sharon -- unfortunately Gov. Jindal was likely having a sniper fire moment when he was telling his rescue boat story. Ron quote: Not disagreeing with debating what the role of government should be -- only chiding the comparison between disorganized government and disorganized civilians. Government wasn't the problem. Ineffective government was the problem. And, I'm not sure what you mean by 'social problems'. The intersection of our rights though is exactly where government has to be the traffic cop. If my house is on fire and I don't want the fire department to put it out -- that may be MY right -- but it's your right not to have my blazing home catch your house on fire. quote: Oh, you mean like a justice system that has been shackled with mandatory sentencing guidelines for drug offenders? Or Guantanamo Bay? No... you'll never catch me claiming that government can't and doesn't abuse authority -- and if you're parked under a gulag I doubt you really care if you're there because someone is personally making a profit or because of an ideology run amok. The fact of the matter is that human weakness is at the heart of corruption -- which is why systems have to be designed to minimize those fallabilities. quote: 'only' meaning in the circumstance that faces the economy right now in the context of Brook's statement. I don't think I'd want to live in a world where Citibank was big enough to wage war even though ineffective government has screwed that up Ron. If outsourcing the monetary system to the Federal Reserve has screwed things up -- I'm all in favor of Obama calling in the markers and having the Treasury actully print REAL government money and handing it over to the Federal Reserve (like Kennedy did) and saying -- here boys -- paid in full. I just don't think the Federal Government is the boogey man. I do think though -- there is a faction that wants you to be so disgusted with it as to be discouraged enough to stop voting. quote: I don't understand the meaning of the word 'cheap' as it's applied here Ron. If a 'cheap shot' is a 'low blow'/below the belt/out of bounds/against the rules -- I don't see the Republican mischaricaturizations and prevarications as 'cheap shots' and I certainly don't think they've hit the Democrati(ic) party in any vulnarable place (Brad I'm not sure what you mean).... only that they don't do the Republican position any favors (or any befit to the good of the nation by engendering honest debate). Nor do I think bemoaning Jindal's attempt to talk to us like we are children (after all -- isn't that what Rush always accuses the Dems of treating us as) is being a low-blow -- it is that very ineffectiveness that is subject and substance of this thread. quote: Now really? Do we need an entire littany of the bad choices Americans have made? Let's start with this one; The choice between the small goverment-balanced budget talking politician who ran up the deficit higher than any President in history -- (Now as far as economic stimulus goes -- I find it laughable that conservatives want to try to tell us that the New Deal didn't have any effect on the economy -- that it was WWII that pulled us out of the great depression? Really? If we spend money on butter for little Sally and Sammy that doesn't help the economy -- but if we spend it on bullets to kill Hanz and Franz that does? So Reagan spent Federal money on defense and stimulated the economy in the 80's -- and raised taxes on the middle class more than any President in history.) and -- The innane politician who kept delivering the absolute worst deadpan contrived line in the history of politics -- calling the Stragic Defense Initiative 'Star Wars' and saying 'God forbid we put these awful weapons up in the heavens.' The argument being we shouldn't reasearch and develop a space-based missile defense because it didn't work? As if, anything works while it's in research and development? What I'm actually saying to you is I don't want the Democrats getting too comfortable lest that corruption of human weakness come a calling upon us all too soon -- and that is why the Republicans need to be doing a better job of A] Re-defining themselves -- after all -- the ground has shifted beneath them -- there is a Conservative party in Canada and Britain -- neither of which is intent on dismantling its healthcare system B] Framing arguments in a manner that doesn't insult our intelligence C] Distancing itself from the elements that chanted 'kill him' at Palin rallies. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Distancing itself from the elements that chanted 'kill him' at Palin rallies. Shoulda quit while you were almost ahead, LR, or didn't you get the word that that story had been made up by the reporters at the rally, which they later confessed to? That's a danger of tossing out sound bites as fact...guns shooting cheap shots can backfire, yanno? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
No Mike -- I didn't get that because it doesn't exist. The Secret Service investigated the two seperate events in Clearwater and Scranton and couldn't find any evidence -- but niether reporter 'confessed' to making up the stories -- Milbank said he wasn't sure if the remark was aimed at Obama or Ayers http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/oct/10/na-kill-him-reports-being-probed/ And Singleton and the Scranton Times Tribune stuck by the story http://www.timesleader.com/news/breakingnews/Secret_Service_says_Kill_him_ allegation_unfounded_.html |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Good enough...I'll have to doublecheck MY facts. So what are you saying by it...that republicans need to distance themselves from people who yell "Kill Obama", which must mean you don't think they do now? Are you serious? Why would you even slip that in? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Oh Mike... I don't know why .... maybe it's stuff like this; http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/19/chimp.cartoon.apology/index.html?eref=rss_us and this; http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89704 just fans the flames Mike -- there are -- after all -- in the neighborhood of 10000 right wing psuedochristian terrorists of the KKK and Tim McVeigh variety in the U.S. Am I saying that All Republicans or Conservatives are like this? No. Just that they have become the modern home of Dixiecratism. Where are the Bill Buckleys? The Ike Republicans? Heck, I'd even take Goldwater. In spite of Michael Steel's installment as party leader and Ken Mehlman's apology -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html -- and McCain's attempt even to peddle back his own rhetoric when a poor distressed woman at one of his own rallies was so obviously genuinely worried that the country was going to be taken over by a Muslim -- the pot is stirred my friend. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"the modern home of Dixiecratism." Ok, reb...that's your mindset. No reason for me to try to argue against it. It is what it is.... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: I beg your pardon! |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Mindset: 1. A fixed mental attitude or disposition that predetermines a person's responses to and interpretations of situations. 2. An inclination or a habit. If I have a mindset, inclination, or habit regarding matters politc -- it is to formulate my opnions based on facts. The Kevin Phillips/Nixon Southern Strategy -- that of appealing to white Democratic voters in the Southeastern U.S. who felt disenfranchised by the party's embrace of the Civil Rights movement is thourougly documented. And it worked. 129 of McCain's 173 electoral votes came from the South. Now --if you look at the Dixicrats it's clear that these voters were one and the same. And exactly how much distance is there between Joe the Plumber and the Republican party? At CPAC he advocates 'slapping around' members of Congress (if he was one) and even SHOOTING them Mike. quote: This is the element that is gravitating to the Republicans - if you're in favor of it -- then that's your mindset - if this is uncomfortable then you need to be asking yourself why your party is attracting these people. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Joe the Plumber speaks of the time when people were shot for criticizing the military...do YOU remember that time? Me, neither. It never happened. So the guy shot off his mouth with an exaggeration....and your observation is why do Republicans attract these kinds of people? What shall we do now? Go over the lists of kooks we have known and see which party attracted them? Democrats never had these types of individuals All Joe the Plumber did was ask a question that made Obama uncomfortable. For that he was put under the democrat microscope, work history gone over, licenses checked out, income tax records investigated, family history investigated [This message has been edited by Ron (03-01-2009 08:54 AM).] |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
First? Confessionals: I didn't read all of this. I absolutely shrug. Second? I'm alarmed that I did not. (Y'ever scare yourself?) Bobby Jindall is like a coin, flipping in the air, to me. As a resident of Lousiana, I voted for him. Why? I honestly believed he was the best man to make Louisiana a contender in the best interest of not just our state, but the union. And yes, I'm concerned about what he had to say (or what he didn't say) after President Obama's state of the union address. I'm actually very proud of the brave steps he's taken thus far, but I am also fearful that the whiff of presidential power might sway him from Louisiana's best interests in the long run. I think he came into the office of Governor of Louisiana as an honest man. What I fear is that he will throw us "under the bus" to be the candidate to watch in 2012. I hope I'm just being Karenoid again, but truth be told? I am not Democrat, nor Republican. But President Obama initiated a healing in me, when he addressed the atrocity of levee failure in Louisiana, in his inaugural address, and on the whitehouse webpage on his very first day in office. I had no idea I had a five ton chip on my shoulder, until it was removed. It was very much like acknowledging that the crime of "rape" is still "rape"--no matter how you were dressed. For that? I will always be gratified to President Obama. And Governor Jindall? Well, I can't help but love the obvious fact that he's running for president. Because that means that he has to save me, a resident of Louisiana, first. Until then? He's just another talking head...and kinda goofy lookin' at that. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
 um. I see a certain resemblence, don't you? I exit laughing. Expect bad poetry later. ciao for now |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I see nothing in what Local Rebel is saying that isn't pretty much a straight history lesson. His comments about the Dixiecrats fit with my memories. This was one of the reasons that The civil rights act was slow in getting passed. The Democrats knew that it would cost them the alliance they'd had with the segregationists in the south since reconstruction had been smothered. The Democrats had made a bargain with the devil, and they were loathe to give up the pay-offs that that bargain paid. When the civil rights bill passed most of the southern states en-masse shifted alliance from Democrat to Republican. Local Rebel is correct about the Nixon Southern Strategy. It gained Nixon the White House and threw power to the Republicans for years afterward, but the alliance also cost the Republicans dearly. They could no longer say that their souls belonged to the party of Lincoln the way that they could say so and did say so when Teddy Roosevelt ran as a Republican. He could run as a reformer then and mean it. Since the shift in power following the passage of the civil rights act, the Republican party has moved further and further to the right. The abolitionists that were the backbone of the party in Lincoln's day would be hard pressed to find much to admire or even recognize about their party today, I'm afraid. Surely you remember Trent Lott's speech in support of — was it Strom Thurmond? — and Lott's lament of how things would have been so much better if the pro-segregation Dixiecrats who put Thurmond forward as a Presidential candidate in 1948 would have succeeded? Lott was the majority leader. He wasn't voicing an oddball minority line. Would that he had been. If in fact he had been, it might have been possible for the election to have turned out differently. The Republicans might have had more of a substantial representation closer to the center, where — in my opinion at least — the majority of the American voters tend to gather. I still would have been isolated on the further left hand part of the spectrum, but I can live with that, not as happily as I would like to, but then my personal happiness is not a major concern for the country. While this last item might be battled back and forth either way, the current damage to the Republican Party is less simple to argue away and really should be taken seriously. I am a liberal who actually wants the Republican Party to not only survive, but to prosper as well. The country needs at least two functional parties to work well. One alone makes it top heavy and stupid with smugness; only with thoughtful exchange of ideas does the country work at its best. Calling each other names like fourth graders doesn't make a good model for running a democracy. We need the sophistication of at least high school graduates before we can begin to rest easy. Surely we can pull that off. [This message has been edited by Ron (03-01-2009 09:01 AM).] |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
"Calling each other names like fourth graders doesn't make a good model for running a democracy." Simce I totally deigned to come into this non-argument, I prefer you direct your comments accordingly. There's so much nothing here to argue, it goes into integers. I won't be back. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Sure they did -- they were called Dixiecrats And/or Zell Miller -- and we know who he's been throwing in with lately huh? And -- how many violent left wing kooks are the Democrats inviting onto the political stage? If the core tennets of the party are God, Guns, and anti-government -- is it any wonder that violently religious anarchical types are attracted to the party? Sean Hannity is hosting a discussion on what type of revolution we should have -- And a Republican mayor in California has to resign over forwarding a racist joke from his personal e-mail claiming; quote: |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
And -- how many violent left wing kooks are the Democrats inviting onto the political stage? you mean besides Carvell?? Very easy for the two of you to make points by picking and choosing and ignoring the rest. You talk about Trent Lott's foolish choice of joking at a private birthday party. Well, he paid the price for that, didn't he? LR talks about the resignation of a mayor for a watermelon joke. Well, he paid for it, too, didn't he? Are you going to say ridiculous things like these define the republican party? Please say you are not that shallow. Let's take a look at Jesse Jackson calling Obama the N word. You all seemed to leave that one out. What happened to Jackson? Nothing. Is he then a good representation of the Democratic party, calling a black senator and presidential nominee the N word? What would have happened if a white man had done that? More, what would have happened if a white Republican had done that? I can hear your screams from here. There would have been riots. Don't worry, gentlemen. I have no doubt politicians everywhere are doing their best to be extra careful not to say anything at all which could be construed as a racial comment. Personally, I doubt that Obama cares about that at all. It's everyone else, present company included, that will be more than willing to jump on anything they can to scream about the insensitivity of the Republican party. I'm sure that all of the good Democrats who trashed cars and slit tires in front of the RNC were just fun guys out for a good time....or could it be that THEY were a good representation of the Democrat party? I would not be so shallow as to claim they were. Too bad you can't exercise the same judgement. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, If James Carvell were an elected official or an official of the Democratic party, I might agree with you about the size of his mouth, which is large. He is, instead, a political consultant. Loudmouthed I have heard him called, and would call him so myself. I have never seen him charged with any sort of violence nor have I seen him trying to provoke it. If you have information from a reputable source to the contrary, perhaps you will enlighten me. So, if he is the only example you can think of and you cannot supply any actual documentation to support your accusation, it might be useful for you to offer a more accurate version of your statement, one that you do have data from reliable sources to support. We might then agree as to what the actual situation looks like. Nobody qualifies for sainthood here, Democrat or Republican. quote: I was talking about the Dixiecrats and the Republican Southern Strategy and the switch between the loyalty of the southern states from the Democratic to the Republican Party following the passage of the Civil Rights Act. I believe that Local Rebel was talking about similar material. I was also talking about how that switch had damaged the Republican Party in many ways, by forcing an alliance between the traditional radical Republicans with loyalties to liberty of the oppressed, abolition, reform of avaricious business practices, environmental reform and conservation and fiscal responsibility and their traditional enemies, the southern Democrats with roots in racial discord, restriction of the franchise to elite groups and promotion of oligarchical values. I had also taken exception to your characterization of Liberals as having no concern for the Republican Party. I have made many comments about this in the past. Local Rebel, you may have noticed, expressed the same sort of concerns here. I don't know how Local Rebel characterizes himself politically. I would be proud to see him characterize himself as a liberal. I'm thrilled to have him as an American of any stripe. He seems to see the importance of a functional and contributing Republican Party as well. Especially one that doesn't seem set on eliminating itself from the political scene the way the current Republican Party does. The points I've been talking about have been points in support of my basic thinking in this matter. I have in fact been picking them and choosing them to support what I'm saying. I do not find this unfair. I find this necessary and appropriate to demonstrate the points that I'm making. quote: I don't think calling me shallow is helpful. The reason that this sort of personal attack is characterized as a fallacy of logic is simple. Even a person who is shallow as the surface of a mirror can be correct sometimes. Depth is not something that is a requirement for accurate understanding or observation. To say I am shallow doesn't mean I'm wrong, it only says that you wish to dismiss my comments for reasons that have nothing to do with an objective evaluation of its worth. In fact Trent Lott did make a foolish comment at a private birthday party. It was foolish for many many reasons. One of those reasons was his assumption that everybody there would share his thinking that his comment didn't matter. That was very very foolish. Another reason was that Trent Lott was a U.S. Senator, and what U.S. Senators say often has an unpredictably large effect on public opinion. That was something Trent Lott really should have known. And among the many other things that Trent Lott should have known was that while many Senators might have been able to pass a remark off such as this off, Trent Lott was the Senate Majority Leader of a Senate that was trying very hard to say that it was representative of the opinions of pretty much the whole country, and, if not the whole country then certainly at least the whole Republican Party. Senator Lott might have been able to sail by the disapprobation of the world in general, and the country as a whole, and the Democrats in particular, but he was not able to sail by the rage of a good part of the Republican Party, who had not signed on to be 1948 Democratic Segregationists who wanted to roll back the gains of the civil rights legislation of the last 40 years. The Democrats might have been pretty steamed — I know I was! — but Trent Lott could have cared less about me. He ran into some legitimate moral outrage within his own party and within the ranks of the Independent voters. And this is what happened when he tried to steamroller those folks. quote: I don't know. You may well be right. You also overlook differences between the two situations that I think may be of importance. The one that may be most significance is that much as you find Jesse Jackson upsetting, he was not in any form of elected office. He represented no party except a generalized category called "Civil Rights Leader." As far as "Civil Rights Leaders" go, much of his cachet is with those of us who remember him from the sixties and seventies. He generated enough upset to make the news, but not much more. Obama is much more a modern figure and I suspect that the folks who got upset with Jackson were mostly those who were old enough to remember him from his heyday. A Black using the N word about a Black is still, I suspect, an action that leaves white folk more or less paralyzed with confusion and indecision. Perhaps you know what to feel or think about it. I confess, I don't — perhaps evidence of my own undigested and un-understood racism, I don't know. If any body knew what guidelines were for racial comment, let alone politicians, we might be on more certain ground as a country. I don't know that we're there yet. I'm not. You have a point, Mike, about the special vulnerability of the republican party in matters of race. I think. It is easier to jump on the insensitivity of the Republican party in regard to matters of race because of the way in which the Republican party has absorbed but not digested the Dixiecrats. We are still a nation that is struggling to come to terms with its civil war, just as before the civil war we were a country struggling to come to terms with not granting freedom it all its minorities. What the next step forward in this pavane might be, I cannot say. quote: I am not taken with the return to the issue of depth and shallowness here. If there is some actual point you'd like to make, though, I would like to hear it. My point? I think the two parties need each other, now more than ever. Both parties need to come to some sort of understanding about who and what the Dixiecrats are and what their presence means in the modern political process. Can we actually get those folks who actually are dixiecrats to formulate exactly what their political goals are in the current political framework? That's the best I can do for now. Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I have never seen him (Carvell) charged with any sort of violence nor have I seen him trying to provoke it. Fair enough, Bob. Which republicans have you seen displaying or provoking violence? Are there any examples of the "violently religious anarchical types " LR refers to that are being attracted to the republican party that comes to mind? No, Bob, I did not refer to you as being shallow. I referred to the fact that judging the Republican party by a comment Lott made at a private party would be a shallow act. Yes, I expected to hear of the "differences in situation" regarding jesse Jackson. The fact that he is also black does not excuse anything. It is either acceptable to use the N word against Obama or it's not, regardless of the color of the skin of the speaker. The fact that he is not an elected official carries no weight, either. He is a recognized spokesman for the party, a speaker and motivator for the party, and his words influence millions of people, which should cause him to be careful with what he says. The fact of the matter, Bob, is that there was little difference between the Jackson and Lott situation. They both said inappropriate things in private, which were heard and reported. The difference was that, as you said, in the case of Jackson " He generated enough upset to make the news, but not much more", which was true since the liberal press dropped it quickly while, in the case of Lott, they made a daily major incident out of it until it became improtant enough to boot Lott out of office. Both things should have been non-issues and, as i said before, if the N word had been used by a white republican, the press would have annihilated whoever it was. If there is some actual point you'd like to make, though, I would like to hear it. That was the point, Bob. We don't really have a lot to argue about because I think we share many similar views. There are good Republicans and bad ones. There are good Democrats and bad ones. For me to say that the idiots that slashed tires and wrecked cars are indicative of the democrats party would be ludicrous. By the same token, to claim that vicious, violent hate-mongers now relate to the republican party is equal nonsense. That's all. Any finger-pointing here that would generalize either party by the individual actions or comments a a very few if off-the -wall and that is all I've meant to object to in my responses to LR's comments. That's all..... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Ann Coulter for one has made some fairly provocative suggestions about things that might be done with Liberals. I would characterize at least some of these as violent, wouldn't you? As has Mr. O'Reilly, in my opinion. Michael Savage has been even more edgy than either Ms. Coulter or Mr. O'Reilly, and a number of more malleable followers, such as in the case of the Atlanta Olympics Bombings and the Recent Church Shootings in which Liberals specifically were targeted do tend to show the effect of this right wing barrage of hatred and — at least to my mind — distortion on some folks who have more of a predisposition to action and less of an inclination of evaluation and thought before taking action than many might recommend. Nichols and McVeigh seem to emerge from this same right wing milieu, don't they? Some of these folks are Republicans. Many of them take views that are, yes, violent. Some of them wish to be violent against Liberals specifically, others have the notion that they'd like to be violent against other portions of the population. To the extent that these people are Republicans, they do seem to provoke or sympathize with violence. Some of the more extreme folks may even take part in it, though I suspect that it's fairly easy to over-blow the proportion of the truly ripe loonies around on any side. Clearly too many, probably not as many as are feared. Whether the judge of Lott's comments at a private party would be shallow or not is beside the point. He made a series of disastrous choices in doing so. He misjudged how good a relationship he had with the other people at that party. He made a misjudgment about the effect that such a statement would make on others if it got out. He made a misjudgment on how secure his own position was within the leadership of his own party. And he made a mistake as to how sick the revelation would make so very many of his fellow Republicans. The question isn't, "Who ratted me out?" The question is who in God's name thought they could get away with having a majority leader who was so stupid as to think that the question was, "Who ratted me out?" instead of what the heck was he trying to do by pretending he wasn't somebody who still wanted Segregation to be the Law of The Land and who was still nostalgic for those days when that was the case? Not "Who ratted me out?" but, "Why should anybody trust somebody who's trying so hard to fool everybody all the time?" If he could have convinced his friends that it was all a put up job, then it might have turned out differently. It seems that he friends didn't believe him either. I don't know whether I was shallow or not. I think not, but I don't know. The question, again, isn't about how shallow I am or how shallow the act of noticing and caring what Lott did might be. I think it had to do with how telling the incident was about the man, and the way things were going for the party under his Senatorial Leadership at that time. Were I the only one disturbed, we wouldn't be talking about this. Pretty much the man's whole party repudiated his actions for reasons that they felt were just and honorable. I happen to agree with them. quote: You would think so, wouldn't you. I mean it does seem reasonable. This does seem one of those situations where our understanding of the way the rules should work and the way the rules actually do work don't seem to fit. I don't know that you can blame our ideals or the reality of things. I can't say what you should do. For me, I often run into these situations. Sometimes I can force the peg and the hole to work well together with a hammer and a wrench; sometimes I have to go back to the drawing board and look for the parts that I've overlooked and that may be missing. Tossing the whole thing into the wood chipper seldom yields much except very small pieces which are even harder to assemble than the puzzle was originally. But that's me. quote: We disagree about this. I spoke about the whys and wherefores in a previous post. Yes, he should " be careful with what he says." Both Jackson and Lott did say "inappropriate things in private." Yes. Here's the way you you put it: quote: You overlook what seems to me to be the most important point. No matter how loud a protest the press might have raised, Jesse Jackson did not have an office to loose, did not have an office-holder's responsibility to the public and the country and had taken no oath of office. Jesse Jackson has had every nasty thing that might be said about him by the press said over a long and checkered career. His odds of ever becoming a senator are minimal, and his odds of becoming president, which were once almost minimal are now approaching the nonexistent. If he could loose anything more from scandal, I'm unsure what it might be. He is in at curious place in public life where he can pretty much say anything he pleases as long as it's not actionable, and he indulges himself in doing exactly that on a fairly regular basis. There is little be be shocked about. Trent Lott, on the other hand, has had a history of pretending to be a great and moral man, and he's made some pretense of holding a superior Christian Position. This he indulged in the case of Terri Schiavo. Without the pretense of moral superiority, and without the position of senator and his position of special privilege within the senate, the incident would have gone no place. It seems to me that the so-called Liberal media had been extremely kind to the man for a very long time. You underestimate the upset that I believe the Republican party in general and in some ways the religious elements of the republican party may have felt with the man's behavior. The question, really, is not "What squealed?" but "Is it true?" Yeah, it was true. I think the Republican Party is probably stronger for his absence, as it is for the absence of Rumsfeld and Bush as well. Effort should be put into forming a stronger Republican party, with roots that reach into the center, not only into the far right. It's those votes in the center that are the votes that are contested. I'd like to see a sharper competition for them. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly are your examples of violent Republicans, Bob? And Limbaugh must be the incarnation of Al Capone, I suppose. So I gather you say that whoever speaks out against the Democrats are violent, unless you care to share any statements they made advocating violence. In that case, Bill Mayer, Franken, Rosie O'Donnell, Sean Penn, Harry Belafonte and half of Hollywood must be the Democratic Dalton gang in disguise. Surely you jest. You toss in the names of Nichols, McVeigh and the Atlanta Olympic bombings and other mayhem doers and make the statement that " Some of these folks are Republicans.". Does that then mean that some of them are Democrats? To the extent that these people are Republicans, they do seem to provoke or sympathize with violence. What an incredibly insulting amount of bull that statement is, Bob. I realize there are people who will go as far as possible to paint Republicans in the worst light possible but comments like that, using innuendo and self-constructed conclusions to make a party the party of the violent goes well beyond reason and good taste. Trent Lott, on the other hand, has had a history of pretending to be a great and moral man, and he's made some pretense of holding a superior Christian Position. Yes, you are right, Bob. All of Trent Lott's life has been a pretence. He's never had morals, never been a good christian, and never accomplished anything decent for the country. How do we know? He told an off-color one-liner at a birthday party. Trash him, by all means. That's the Democratic way. You overlook what seems to me to be the most important point. No matter how loud a protest the press might have raised, Jesse Jackson did not have an office to loose, did not have an office-holder's responsibility to the public and the country and had taken no oath of office. No, Bob. The most important point was that a prominant man in the Democratic party, one who has influence over a large segment of the public, called the president the N word. You make it a no biggie becasue he didn't hold an elected office but you shy away from my question concerning what would have happened to any white person, especially republican, who would have done the same. I don't blame you for ducking it. Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, COulter and O'Reilly don't hold elected offices, either, so would you give them the same pass you give Jackson if THEY were to call Obama the N word? Since you jump on them for the comments they do make, I sincerely doubt it..and one "loses" an office, not "looses" it. I really don't mean to sound so testy so early in the morning, Bob, but the lengths you go to, and put into print, to demonize and pigeonhole the Republican party goes well beyond decency, in my opinion. If you want to say Republicans are idiots, in your opinion, fine. If you want to claim they are immoral, superficial nogoodniks, go ahead. You, and other references on this thread, have gone way beyond that. Somehow you make an effort to paint the republican party as festerers of violence, a party that incites hatred and actual violence in people. You toss around names of domestic terrorists, as if their actions MIGHT have been spurred on by the actions of the republican party (which they MAY or MAY NOT have been a part of.). The insults and innuendos go way beyond the point of good taste, in my opinion, and I doubt that many decent and fair Democrats share these views, at least I hope not. Have a good day..... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: I had no idea that Republicans felt so victimized by society. I'm trying to figure out though, why a cartoon of watermelons on the White House lawn is supposed to be funny at all unless it is a racist commment? Please explain the joke in a non-racist context. Is it a cartoon that you want to print out and hang up in your place of business? One that you want to forward to your friends? In your commments you're blaming everyone else. It's our fault. Much like the NY Post's initial apology -- 'We're sorry you're offended but you're just too sensitive.' We know who the REAL victims of oppression and indecency have been though -- and it was the Republican party that invited, marketed to -- the oppressors. quote: Are we talking about posters or posts Mike? If we're talking about posts -- what I don't see in my comments so far is any charictarization of ALL Republicans as being Dixiecrats. We seem to be getting bogged down on this one point though -- In regards to point 'A' -- should the Republicans stick to the Limbaugh prescription -- the answer to every problem is free markets, tax cuts, guns, anti-health care, anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, abstinence, creationism, etc. ad nauseum? In regards to point 'B' -- exactly what is the point of calling electric vehicles golf carts? Bee insurance? Trains from Disneyland to Las Vegas (that don't exist in the stimulus plan)? And -- on point 'C' What is your reaction to the element at the Sean Hannity site that is talking up Civil War and Seccession? Is it time for the Republicans to divorce the Dixiecrats? Don't de-humanizing portrayals of the President as being a crazed and executed chimpanzee -- who really isn't an American -- just make it that much easier in someone's mind to justify an act of violence? Aren't we talking about the President of the United States (in a time of war)? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Aren't we talking about the President of the United States (in a time of war)? You have just come up with a one-liner to end all one-liners, LR. Where was that line for the past eight years? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Want to talk about kooks and threats? Here is a SMALL sampling of ones for you. I think I can be safe in estimating that none of them were republicans. I will also claim, based on an unprovable assumption, that the Democrats and liberal press cronies encouraged this type of reaction with their constant and untiring efforts to bash and belittle our "president in a time of war". So does this make democrats hate-mongers, as well? The Associated Press reports that New York state comptroller “Alan Hevesi publicly apologized today for a ‘beyond dumb’ remark about ‘putting a bullet between the president’s eyes.’ Hevesi hastily called a mea culpa press conference hours after putting his foot in his mouth at the Queens College commencement. The comptroller said he was merely trying to convey that Sen. Charles Schumer has strength and courage to stand up to the president. ‘I apologize to the president of the United States’ as well as to Schumer, said Hevesi. ‘I am not a person of violence. I am apologizing as abjectly as I can. There is no excuse for it. It was beyond dumb.’ Hevesi said he hadn’t been in touch with the White House but he hoped his apology reached President Bush. Hevesi also called his comments ‘remarkably stupid’ and ‘incredibly moronic.’” http://hydeparkassociates.com/blog/?p=189 Charles Madrid has been struggling with anger management issues for years. The 50-year-old radio technician from Pacoima has been known to lose his temper over everything from dirty dishes in the kitchen sink to the war in Iraq. His mother says he’s harmless. But after a recent outburst in which he allegedly threatened to kill President Bush, the U.S. Secret Service isn’t so sure. Madrid was arrested last week and is being held in a federal detention center in downtown Los Angeles. At a hearing set for today, a judge is expected to determine whether Madrid is eligible to be released on bail. O’Hara, who interviewed Madrid at the hospital, wrote in the affidavit that Madrid admitted to threatening to kill the president earlier in the day in front of an LAPD officer. When O’Hara asked Madrid what he would do if Bush were present right at that moment, he allegedly responded: “I’d deck his ass.” He added that Vice President Dick Cheney also “needs an ass kicking,” the affidavit states.Though statistics weren’t immediately available from the Justice Department, authorities said Secret Service agents investigate far more cases of people threatening to harm the president than are actually prosecuted. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/03/local/me-threat3 Man accused of threat against Bush to plead guilty A 20-year-old Mississippi man is scheduled to plead guilty in federal court in Aberdeen to charges of threatening to kill President Bush. http://www.topix.com/forum/city/olive-branch-ms/T1P5G6BBDK37QBS2Q Man convicted of threats against Bush released Jan 11, 2009 - 04:05:04 CST FARGO (AP) - A man who was convicted for telling a fellow inmate he wanted to kill President George W. Bush has been released to the custody of his parents. Daniel Cvijanovich served 19 months in prison and was transferred to a halfway house in October, where he was originally ordered to stay for one year. Cvijanovich asked to be released early, saying he had followed all court orders. After officials at Centre Inc. testified that Cvijanovich had been a "model resident," U.S. District Judge Ralph Erickson ordered Cvijanovich to be released to home monitoring. Authorities said Cvijanovich made threats against the president while he was serving time for damaging government property and threatening a federal officer. Cvijanovich has maintained his innocence on the threats charge. http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2009/01/11/news/state/173829.txt Teen Questioned for Online Bush Threats By DON THOMPSON The Associated Press Sunday, October 15, 2006; 5:51 AM SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Upset by the war in Iraq, Julia Wilson vented her frustrations with President Bush last spring on her Web page on MySpace.com. She posted a picture of the president, scrawled "Kill Bush" across the top and drew a dagger stabbing his outstretched hand. She later replaced her page on the social-networking site after learning in her eighth-grade history class that such threats are a federal offense. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/15/AR2006101500143.html Hammond man charged with making threats against President Bush by Staff and wire reports Tuesday January 13, 2009, 9:27 AM A Hammond man was arrested today and charged with making threats against the President George W. Bush, according to U.S. Attorney Jim Letten. Gregory Broussard made threats that he was going to kill Bush, according to an affidavit in support of the criminal complaint. He will make an initial court appearance before United States Magistrate Judge Louis Moore at 2 p.m. today where prosecutors will request that he be detained, according to Letten. A social worker told Secret Service agents that Broussard threatened to blow up the White House and kill President Bush while he was being treated last month in the emergency room at a Hammond hospital. http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/01/hammond_man_charged_with_makin.html |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, quote: I chose to talk about Republicans provoking violence. I decided that threatening violence would fit within that parameter. Displaying violence was not something I wanted to get into here because I felt it was provocative in a way that I thought was not necessary. It also ventured into philosophical territory that I find interesting but I suspect you might not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performativity The issue of Performative Utterance does seem to have more and more connection to political affairs these days, however, and especially in the area we are talking about here. quote: I’m not happy to be asked to produce examples, but of course I will. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/10/ap/politics/mainD8I53EO02.shtml The above 2006 AP article References Ann Coulter features quotes in which she suggests that the main question with Bill Clinton was Impeachment or Assassination, says that Timothy McVeigh should blow up The New York Times with the Editors and Reporters inside, and recommends that somebody put poison in the creme bruille of a Liberal Supreme Court Justice. http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/5535.html http://mediamatters.org/items/200610110010 http://mediamatters.org/items/200610110010 In the above links, a University of Indiana School of Journalism Study looked at a series of 105 broadcasts by O’Reilly and evaluated them. The study found that on the average defining markers that identify propaganda cropped up slightly more frequently than every seven seconds during the editorial portions of the show. This was even less subtle than the Father Coughlin pro-nazi broadcasts during the 1930s. The comparison is not mine, by the way, but from the study itself. Should you wish any extra information about any of this, the link is there. Another of the links is to an O’Reilly presentation about Washington Area Lesbian Gangs. O’Reilly presented this in his program as a major Washington and east coast problem and went into considerable fabricated detail about this bogus problem. The effect was to attribute criminal tendencies and a predatory intention to the lesbians and to stir up feelings against them. You will remember that you asked if there was anything that these people were doing that was provoking violence, right? This seems to qualify. The facts were made up out of the whole cloth. O’Reilly was obliged to issue a retraction during a later program. The basic facts are as listed in the linked article. Should you wish more information, please feel free to check it out. The third link is to an article that was a piece of video that edited comments by Ted Turner to distort them enough to make them either very misleading or false. The video was run on both Hannity and O’Reilly without the comment necessary to frame the video truthfully and realistically. Given the state of the country at the time, it could well have caused folks to behave in a violent fashion. It was fortune that (insofar as we know at this point) it did not. There are many many more examples of this sort of thing easily available to be googled. These are examples of Republicans either advocating violence outright, or helping create a climate in which violence is more likely. I would also suggest that some of the Administration comments about weapons of mass destruction and the alliance of Saddam Hussein and Osama Binladdin were not only untrue but were manufactured by the administration specifically for the purpose of creating the violence that resulted. Despite claims about aluminum tubes, for example, being excluded by the CIA from the State of the Union Message and from prior speeches as being untrue, and the rumors of yellowcake uranium being disproven and excluded for the same reasons, the administration still managed to include them in the state of the union address and use that address as part of the pressure to push the country into war. Can Democrats be just as wretched? You bet they can. I remember the first several years of Vietnam very well indeed. Should we have reason to find the violence of the Democrats something that is leading the country into trouble,m say in Afghanistan or in Iraq over the next several years, I was snort and grumble and complain about the wonderfulness of my left wing buddies and will condemn them in the end. Fortunately for me, I don’t feel I have to defend them. If they’ve done anything wrong, condemn away, Mike; I’m on your side there. In the meantime, I think that Local Rebel is right about the way the Republicans are hurting themselves. No, Mike; I do not jest. And don’t call me Shirley. quote: If the Republicans don’t take a realistic look at what they’ve been doing that’s gotten them into this situation, it will only be a massive failure on the part of the Democrats — always possible, heaven knows — or a complete accident that will help change the fortunes of the Republicans around. I want the Republicans to be good opponents. It keeps the Democrats active and alive, and it keeps us from getting bogged down in encrusted and potentially obsolete solutions. It keeps the whole country alive. A good opponent is a treasure, almost as valuable as a great friend. Some might say more so. It is in my interest that Republicans take a good clear look at themselves. It is only in the most narrow possible sense that it’s useful for me for you not to understand what you have done wrong. It is in my own partisan interest, oddly enough for you to blame me for whatever’ gotten you out of power. Then the solution depends on what you can make me do rather than on what you yourself can do. quote: I don’t think there’s a useful reply I can make here, Mike. I didn’t say it, and I didn’t mean it. I’m sorry if it struck a wrong chord. quote: Any of those commentators have a much larger audience than Reverend Jackson. They literally have millions hanging on every word they say. Perhaps you understand the rules of the way racism works or is perceived to work than I do. I know that there are things that folks in in-groups call each other that mean different things depending on how close you are to the center of the group in question, what your status is within that group in particular, what your status is in terms of other groups and so on. I was born in a particular section of one particular Jewish in-group. The rules there were dizzying and not at all systematic, but very rigidly enforced. In watching folks in a rich anglo family operate, or a poor Irish (shanty-irish, they called themselves, but only among themselves) family operate, or a rich irish (actually, I’m not even sure if “lace-curtain’ is so much a description of wealth so much as caste) family, I find that the rules are different but just as confusing. Why you would expect the rules for how Blacks would want things dealt with would be any less complex than anybody else, why they would be more “fair” for how one Black should treat another than for how a republican commentator should treat a Black is beyond my understanding. I still have trouble figuring out how to deal with myself most of the time. I do know, in terms of public discourse, what the rules are roughly supposed to be. These got started with the rhetorics designed for use in swaying public opinion in Greece. We have Roberts Rules of Order. We have laws about libel and we have conventions about truth and the methods of reasoning. These we may have some hope of attaining at least some familiarity with, and some flexibility in their use. Failure in doing so is a failure in public competencies, not ethnic conventions. quote: Mike, you must feel sorely provoked. There are loads of decent and fair minded democrats. You must ask for yourself how many of them find some merit in what I’ve been saying. I do believe that the Republican party has incited more than its share of hatred and violence in people. You should remember that I also said that a lot of this was due to the alliance of the Republican Party with the Dixiecrats from the late sixties onward. And that a lot of this has a much deeper history going back to some of the compromises that enabled us to form a country in the first place. The southern states entered the union because they negotiated a compromise allowing them to keep slaves. Those slaves were not allowed to vote, but were counted in the census, so those states were allowed a disproportionately large representation. They were not penalized for holding slaves in a country that was founded on the principles of liberty. Today’s Republican party carries much of the Dixiecrat heritage of that. That heritage came down to todays Republicans through the Democrats after the civil war. We are still as a country trying to deal with those issues that were never resolved at the beginning of things. That violence is an American heritage. The Democratic attempt to walk away from it was at best a limited success. We still need to work together to figure the whole thing out. Those who don’t study history are condemned to have it kick them in the butt and to be beaten by it briskly around the head and shoulders. That’s a paraphrase. Of course if you want to think it’s secretly entirely your fault, who am I to take the privilege away from you. Though I may think it’s a delusion, and that we all have to work it out together, just like we didn’t do the first time. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, About your list, it's long been illegal to threaten the life of the President. Those who do are typically investigated and are sometimes imprisoned. I've seen one or two imprisoned from various psych hospitals where I've worked. I think it's been pretty much a steady state kind of thing through Carter, Ford, Reagan, Bush, etc. I don't know that there's been an increase in that particular sort of violence. If you know better, please let me know. Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, thank you for your in-depth response. I was surprised to see that statement by Ann Coulter. You may find this hard to believe but I have never watched any show of hers or read any of her books. After seeing a couple of guest shots of hers, I simply wasn't interested in her style. There are other conservative talk show personalities I ignore, also. They need to be more than simply conservatives to hold my attention. They need to be informative, intelligent and entertaining. I never perceived her to be. I'm surprosed and disappointed that she, or anyone, would make such statement. I read the link about O' Reilly thoroughly and saw nothing that referred to advocating violence in any way, simply that he used "spin". Perhaps I overlooked the point? Whatever link you posted about him speaking of lesbian gangs is not there. You have a duplicated link about Hannity instead. As far as Hannity cut and pasting Turner's interview which you claim could cause people "to behave in a violent fashion", forgive me but I find that to be a very weak example of advocating violence. If that were the case, 60 Minutes would be the greatest advocaters of violence in the country's history, since that is their specialty. Anyone who appears on their program has to sign a contract which states that 60 Minutes has all rights with regards to what portions of the interviews they wish to air and they simply leave anything that would contradict what they are trying to depict on the cutting room floor. That's why there are many high profile individuals that will not appear on the program. Any of those commentators have a much larger audience than Reverend Jackson. They literally have millions hanging on every word they say. I see. So what is the cut-off number of listeners that makes something acceptable or not? A million? Five? Jesse Jackson's words influence millions of blacks. Is a million too small of an amount? Also, I know of a lot of people who listen to Limbaugh and Hannity and yet I know of no one who "hangs on their every word". They provide a lot of facts and are entertaining but they are hardly the gods you make them out to be. Oh, you are going to be seeing a lot of Limbaugh in the news in the coming days. They want him out. They can't get the Freedom bill passed so they will do everything they can to demonize and discredit him. They will keep him in the news constantly with the hopes there will be such outrage against him that he will have to be removed from the spotlight one way or another. You want to talk about inciting, Bob? Just watch........... As far as what "in groups" can all each other....that's also weak. Sharpeton came out in a speech declaring that the N word was an abomination that should be forbidden to be spoken by anyone. After Jackson's gaffe, he was asked if Jackson's use of the word was aceptable and he simply shook his head no and walked away, proboably muttering "That stupid (N word)", under his breath. Something is right or wrong. You would condemn a white conservative for using the word but excuse a black liberal with justifications such as - he didn't hold an elected office or - he doesn't have a bigger listening audience or - blacks can refer to each other that way, all of this unstead of just saying he was wrong and stepped over the line. Ok, he's all yours. Yes, the republicans have only themselves to blame for being out of power because (1) they didn't lower themselves enough to stand up to the Democrats and (2) they didn't get the press behind them. In third world countries the ruling power makes sure to have the military behind them. In the US, it's the press. Control the press and you control the country because for every independent thinker out there, there are 50 so mindless their brains are nothing but sound bytes and headlines from what they see and hear. The republicans did everything they could to lose the last election. First, they nominated the one person who would not beat Obama. Romney or Huckabee would have beaten him, especially after the economy went down the tubes and esperience in that field became much more important. Then the person they nominated chose a running mate that insured he would not win. Palen is a good person with a good record but, after the initial euphoria of her selection wore off, people did not want her to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, deserved or not. Yes, they have a lot to do to get their house in order, but none of it has to do with "violence advocating". You know what scares me, Bob? I'm afraid that there WILL be a revolution coming...but not because of republican advocations. it will be due to the actions of Barack Obama. He is setting the stage for class warfare and I'm afraid it will come to pass. He is demonizing the rich (anyone making over 250,000 - that's rich?), hitting them with higher taxes, letting the people know that this "upper class" should be paying more of their fair share and should be taking care of the poor. What's going to happen when they don't get all of that money they are expecting? What's going to happen when the people who hire people hire less people to offset the extra tax burden placed on them? Now charitable donations made by the rich (same 250,000) are not as tax-deductible as they were. What's going to happen when those donations go down? Who are the receiptients of those charities going to go after when the money's not there? Who are the unemployed going to go after when there are fewer jobs? Obama? No, they'll go after the evil rich. In Germany last week gangs in the streets were using bats to trash any BMW's and mercedez that were parked on the streets. Don't think that can't happen here. Obama wants people to give more so he is taking away tax breaks for donations. He wants to stimulate the housing market so he is cutting back mortgage deductions. He is showing daily that he has no idea what he is doing and has no experience to fall back on. I'm really afraid that it is going to turn classes of people against each other, which is what socialism does. He wants all government - all the time and it is not going to bode well for the country, I'm sorry to say. The country will rue the day Obama took over - and I blame the Republicans for that. End (maybe) of rant..... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Call me Shirley Mike. Where has that line been for the last eight years? Oh, probably coming from the people who were destroying Dixie Chicks cd's et al. quote: Just like Abu Ghraib -- the problem wasn't the abuse -- the problem was the reporting of the abuse. Guantanamo -- same thing. It's never the responsibility of the Bush administration -- blame the press for reporting it. Katrina -- the press's fault. and here; quote:  So -- then, you think Reagan had control of the press? That the press was behind him? Well -- if you listen to the liberal talk radio hosts they will spout this kind of MSM nonsense too -- because, after all -- it is the big corporations that own the press. But, now -- back to your list of homicidal maniacs -- which of them were invited onto the national stage to represent the mainstream Democratic voter? What is the weapon of choice of liberals? Civil disobedience. Obviously you don't want to answer my questions -- so I'm just going to ask one more time -- who is in charge of the Republicans at this point? Micheal Steele? or Rush Limbuagh? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
When the Republicans win they win in SPITE of the MSM. When the Democrats win they win BECAUSE of the MSM. And that's only logical since the press is the cheering section of the dems. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Where has that line been for the last eight years? Oh, probably coming from the people who were destroying Dixie Chicks cd's et al. Nice. You accus eme of evading your questions and you respond with stuff like that? You know exactly what I meant by that question....flippancy won't take the meaning away. Democrats have used every sleazy tactic available for 8 years to attack and discredit our "president in time of war". Apparently you have no problem with that. Let someone criticize Obama and, all of a sudden, the "president in time of war" becomes relevant. An amazing transformation..... What is the weapon of choice of liberals? The press. who is in charge of the Republicans at this point? An excellent question....nobody. That's their problem. Limbaugh should send you and BobK thank-you messages for elevating him to such lofty heights. You refer to" the Limbaugh prescription -- the answer to every problem is free markets, tax cuts, guns, anti-health care, anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, abstinence, creationism, etc. ad nauseum" while BobK paints him as a man to whom millions hang on every word. The loveable little fuzzball is simply a talk show host, the kind the Democrats wish they had but could never find or create. Yes, I suppose tax cuts at a time the economy needs to be stimulated is a HORRIBLE idea. So is anti-socialized medicine. Right to bear arms? How goshe! What were the founders thinking anyway? Abstinence....how are kids supposed to have fun? Nintendo??? Yep,all ridiculous ideas. Better to raise taxes, cut benefits, and go further into debt than any governement in history....that's the perscription for a healthy economy. We'll see........... [This message has been edited by Balladeer (03-03-2009 03:02 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
So, Denise -- if we follow the logic here and just for the sake of argument I assume that the MSM always 'helps' the Democrats -- then when the Republicans win it's because the voters don't like the MSM -- which means that they don't like the Democrats. Conversely -- if the Democrats win it's because the voters like the MSM and therefore like the Democrats. It seems either way -- the Republicans or Democrats win when the voters like them -- independent of the press. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Um, Mike -- that was me -- throwing it back in your face. It's called sarcasm.  I'm sorry -- I have to get back to work right now and generate wealth for the economy. But -- in the meantime -- it seems Rush is in charge since Steele had to immmediately apologize to him. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thanks for the information, reb. I've never really known much about sarcasm, having never used it myself. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well Mike, Just in case your commment about Rush being 'simply a talk show host' was out of context and not what you really meant there is an official Rush Apology Machine that will make it easy for you to apologize to him too... wouldn't want you to lose your Republican credentials. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Since when have the Republicans been "them" and "they" for you? If you actually believe that I have said something, I would feel flattered if you quoted me or if you asked me to acknowledge having said it. I seem to have a fairly good record of actually acknowledging things I say. If I disagree, I also tend to say so. This saves me from actually having to pin you down every time you try to put words in my mouth, a process that makes me uncomfortable, since I like you, and I don't like to do things that occasionally make you at least appear uncomfortable. If I did say it and recall it, I'll say so. If I think it's out of context, I'll say that too. My task is trying to find some consensus with you here, Mike. If I end up making you look bad then, to some extend at least it's a failure on my part, and I don't like it. All my best, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: quote: quote: Rich people don't sit around and think about the people they're going to just 'hire' Mike. They invest in ventures that are going to competitively fill a market demand. Without demand there is no need to hire anybody. When demand is there -- they will hire. Now, let's say Rush has his way and Obama is blocked at every turn. What happens then? We dive straight into a depression and the class warfare -- waged by the rich -- gets even better for them -- because in this environment -- when prices are going down -- the best position to be in is cash. As prices go down -- fewer people buy because they start to think the prices are going to go down further -- and every time somebody puts off making a purchase -- somebody loses a job. And, everytime somebody loses a job the market shrinks and demand goes down and prices go down -- and it feeds on itself -- and, guess what -- all the tax cuts in the world aren't going to entice the 'rich' to invest in a market that doesn't exist. Conversely -- if we merely hired people with the stimulus package to dig ditches and then fill them back in -- they would have means with which to meet their needs and there would be a multiplier effect in the economy -- because other people would have to perform work to meet those needs -- 11 million shovels, 11 million pairs of workboots, 11 million hats, vests, vehicles to move them to the ditches -- and all of those people would need to buy cans of beans and microwave popcorn and pizza and cable television and valentines day presents and St. Patty's day beer -- all because somebody dug a ditch and filled it in. But, what if instead we actually used that stimulus money to invest in long-term infrastructure that keeps us from sending a trillion dollars out of our economy every year and into the pockets of the sheiks? Wind power, solar power, electric vehicles, electric trains, roads, bridges, making our Federal buildings more energy efficient, public health (yes, disease is a drag on the economy)... wow... if we did all that -- just think of the multiplier effect! And the long-term benefit to the economy -- and the country -- and life, liberty, and the pursuit of ...... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Now let's take a look at the world in the Clinton administration when the marginal rate for the 'rich' was the mere 4% higher that Obama proposes in allowing the Bush 43 tax cuts to expire; quote: But now, this part is what you really have to love about the class war; quote: You see -- the 'bankers' find it necessary to keep the non-powerful -- non-powerful. I wonder why? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Yes, but think we need to go further. Is anybody ready for a moon to Mars run? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Don't worry, reb. I don't need an apology machine for Rush...nothing to apologize for. Bob, I'm not sure what you are referring to. The only comment I made concerning you lately was about your saying people hang on rush's words. If you would like the direct quote, ok..They(limbaugh, hannity, O'Reilly, etc) literally have millions hanging on every word they say. Hope that clears it up, is that's what you were referring to. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LR, you have your views on how things will play out and I have mine. Time will tell which is more accurate. Since you have expressed disdain about how Reagan cleaned up the Carter mess and applaud Obama doing the exact opposite to clean up this one, I think I'll stick with mine. It's easy to talk about Buffett and the super-rich getting away with things and i'm sure they do...but what about the rest of us? What about the small business owners who file sole proprieterships? You think the $250,000 makes them rich? I can assure you it doesn't...and they make up one heck of a lot more of the working force than the super-rich do. You think cutting charity deductions will spur the economy? Cutting mortgage deductions will spur the economy? Ok, go ahead then.. But, what if instead we actually used that stimulus money to invest in long-term infrastructure that keeps us from sending a trillion dollars out of our economy every year and into the pockets of the sheiks? That all sounds good, reb, and I agree with it. It's everything attached to it is where the problem is. You can say the heart and brain are necessary to life, too, and I'll still say "yeah, but what about the 300 lbs of flabby fat you're carrying around. Is that vital, too?" Obama's plans have that flabby fat, due to the Democrat shopping frenzy. You don't have a problem with that or the tons of entitlements in the newest package? Fine...that's your choice. Sit back and we will watch and see what happens. If you can come to me in two years and show I was wrong, I'll be a happy man |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
If someone is actually clearing 250k on thier Schedule C Mike, as a sole proprietor, they need to have thier head examined for not going LLC or INC. -- but that's a different issue. Remember -- taxable income -- that's the part after all the expenses are taken out -- the part a small business would say is 'profit'. That's some pretty hefty coin to live on compared to the median income. Don't you think? Now -- we both know that Reagan increased spending. How do we know? Because he left a trillion dollar debt in his wake. His cutting of the highest margin down from 90% didn't increase revenues the way that the voodoo was supposed to work. In fact -- in order to justify all that spending -- the Reagan administration came up with the explanation of 'starving the beast' to sell it to other conservatives -- the rationale went like this; 'if we spend all the money on the military -- then there won't be any left for entitlements' and the other conservatives said... hmm.. yeah.. sounds good. But, of course -- if the government is SPENDING -- it is stimulating -- regardless of what it spends on. But if we can always find money to go to war -- then we can spend the money on universal health care -- in fact we already are spending it -- just not wisely -- because the 40million people plus who have no coverage go to the emergency room where they have to be seen -- and who pays for it? We do in higher hospital bills. We're already paying premiums for insurance -- we can use that to fund a universal single payer system. Ask a Canuk. Ask a Brit. Ask anybody in the Western World except us. They made more cars in Ontario last year than Detroit. Do you know why Mike? Because universal health care in Canada makes them more competitive. Now, let's take the guy in the corner cubicle who has a great idea for a new business -- but he can't quit because his wife has pre-existing conditions which would prevent him from buying health coverage if he wanted to open that small business where he could make 250k per year. So, instead -- he doesn't take the risk. He stays safe -- makes 60k, keeps his head down and waters the plants in his cubicle day after day. A bigger saftey net will encourage more people to walk the high wire. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yep, universal health care in Canada is why so many come to the states for treatment. Of course they have to stand in line behind the Europeans who may have gotten there first. As I said, we can plead our cases back and forth forever. The proof will be in the pudding. Right now the stock market and I share the same feelings. Let's see what happens..... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Here is a link about the Lesbian Gangs. http://auto_sol.tao.ca/node/2712 At least I think it's about the Lesbian gangs, since, while I could get it to come up from my bookmark, it doesn't seem to want to from my Reply to Topic section. I suspect that if you googled Mr. O'Reilly and the basic topic matter, you'd get some references. The one I was trying to send you was from a woman who has a very good sense of humor about the thing and who turns the humorless Lesbian stereotype on its head. Unfortunately, it seems that Mr. O'Reilly took the whole thing much too seriously and essentially made the thing up. I can laugh about the notion of gays trying to convert non-gays, but a lot of your more paranoid folk take the notion a bit more seriously than the actual data warrants. Maybe you can laugh at the notion — I hope so. Poor Mr. O'Reilly doesn't seem to have the capacity. This is one of the groups that he actively campaigns against, and attempts to raise ill feeling against when he can. This otherwise hysterically funny story is an example. I have heard some of his lengthy rants on secular Humanists as well, attempting to stir up feeling against folks who were essentially the same sort of folks as the founding fathers, whose essential faith was in a basic faith of reason to help work things through. O'Reilly regularly distorts this sort of stuff as well. You and I disagree about the state of the press. I think that if you actually felt that the press was as left wing as you say it is, then you'd actually be in favor of equal time, because then your conservative point of view would get a fair shake and have a good airing, right? I think you probably know how stacked against the left the media actually are. You enjoy throwing the jibes, but any actual shift in the relative power structure is something that you'd scream about. Loudly. Even though I haven't seen any legislation proposed on the matter at this juncture. Best wishes, Bob Kaven At this point the link works. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I'm looking for it Mike. Where is the case you're pleading? Now isn't the time to quit. What, exactly, is the solution to the problem Mr. Obama has been working on for all of six weeks now? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
If you want to continue the fencing, you have more time than I, LR. I am pleading no case at all. I stated my views about the pork/entitlements in the programs and that I feel Obama has created more of a crisis by screaming crisis than actually existed. I also feel that he is initiating a "class warfare" that will be detrimental to the country. Those are my views and you are not going to change them. You prefer to justify the porkiness in your own way, feel that it is necessary for the country to go into debt more so than ever in history, and feel that any class warfare will be conducted by the evil rich. I'm certainly not going to change your views, either. The future will dictate which views are right. It's already starting. Yesterday on tv, a basketball coach (I'm thinking UConn but could be wrong) was talking to the press after a victory and one reporter said something similar to "You are the highest paid faculty member here at 1.2 million. Based on the state of the economy, have you given any thought to giving some of that back?" The coach exploded and basically said "I bring in over 12 million dollars a year to this university. 1.2 million is reasonable"...and then he threw him out. You are going to see a lot of this, folks. It's only just beginning. Anything else is just gum-slapping, LR. We'll find out soon enough........ |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, I got nothing out of the lesbian gang piece that caused me to relate it to this thread. As far as cutting and pasting accusations, you are seeing the masters at work as we speak. As I said earlier in this thread, we are going to be seeing a lot more of Rush Limbaugh assaults in the days to come. Appears the days are already here. Democrats are doing whatever they can to use the cut and pasted comment "I hope Obama fails" to stir up controversy and accusations among democrats and republicans alike. I saw it on three different network news programs last night and today. Looking at it with an unjaundiced eye, if possible, one can recognizing the cutting and pasting they did to incite the public as much as possible against Limbaugh. You pointed the "inciting" finger at republicans so Im wondering what you think about this one....or do they get a pass? Hard to belive they are so dumb that they cannot see that things like that just make Limbaugh stronger. They make their accusations, Rush shows the actual comment in it's entirety and they look stupid...how many times will this happen before they catch on? Clinton should have warned them. Or perhaps their intent is to get just ONE incensed person out there mad enough to take matters into his own hands....but that would be inciting violence, wouldn't it? Surely democrats don't do that, do they??? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Limbaugh is another straw man . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
right, John. He's just the latest diversion.... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I think you’re right Huan, Limbaugh is a straw man but there’s a convincing argument that he’s a straw man created by the Republican’s lack of a clear leader. The Democrats are taking pot shots at the most prominent Republican figure sniping at them from the parapet, which is standard practise in politics, but normally that would be a Republican politician. If a republican politician doesn’t raise his head above the parapet the Dems are quite naturally aiming at the next best target. Amongst all the rhetoric from both sides this remains, at least to my mind, a valid point.: quote: The Republicans seem to me to be like an army without a General, they’re milling about criticising the Democrats battle plan but don’t have a battle plan of their own, meanwhile they’re leaving the job of defending the parapet to a straw man with a rusty musket and decidedly damp powder. . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Oh now Mike -- you don't need to go retreating into generalities again when we're starting to do so well with specifics. Wasn't it Dick Cheney who said 'Reagan proved that deficits don't matter?' And you have to admit the Bush Administration did its' best to follow in the Gippers footsteps... quote:  Gross National Debt As you can see from the chart -- as a percentage of GDP after WWII our national debt was over 100% of our annual Gross Domestic Product... which was coming down and down and down and down and down until Reagan put us on the 'Starve the Beast' diet -- and then down again during the Clinton years - and then -- whoops -- that darn Reagan diet again -- seems like that must be where all that pork is Mike... something akin to the Atkins diet? But, YES -- I do want to go into deficit spending and grow the national debt -- because it is exactly now when we need to do that -- and then pay it down in the good times when the investments are paying off. There's really only three rules about borrowing money -- first -- don't. And second -- if you do -- don't do it for stupid stuff -- like eating out or unnecessary wars. Third -- if you have to -- borrow as much as you can for as long as you can. My only real concern right now is that we be too frugal -- if you are trying to grow a business venture and you're under capitalized -- it's worse to borrow too little than too much -- so -- 14 trillion -- I say go for it Barack. After the end of WWII and the Great Depression we enjoyed an explosion of the middle class. Beginning with Reagan we've been steadily watching it shrink along with a flat standard of living. quote: Since you're parroting the Limbaugh line from the CPAC speech I deduce that you are in fact suggesting the party continue on the aforementioned Rush course. Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts.... Cut the taxes on the rich -- so that we can instead borrow the money from them (that they should be paying) and then our grandkids can pay them back.. sounds like a plan!  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, You got nothing out of an obsessive rant on the country being endangered by non-existent Lesbian Gangs from a man who portrays himself as a fearless culture warrior on the part of American conservatives everywhere, and who has an enormous audience of exactly these folks who apparently listen avidly to everything he says? You feel that this has nothing to do with this thread? I thought this thread was titled, "How can we debate Beavis and Butthead?" At exactly what point do you feel that this is not as precise an example of a Beavis and Butthead mentality trying to avoid addressing the serious issues of the day as might reasonably be expected? In addition it stirs up undeserved animosity against a subculture that already is a favorite scapegoat of the right wing. This seems to be a fairly straightforward set of assertions. 1) O'Reilly is a right wing spokesperson. 2) He has an enormous right wing audience that swears by him, including the occasional PiP person, who believe that he brings out the truths that nobody else will. 3) This is a case of O'Reilly telling a lie and making a very large thing of it. 4) Either O'Reilly did not fact check or he did fact check and decided that the facts weren't important. 5) No matter what, the details of this had to have been created out of unsubstantiated rumor and had to have been embroidered. 6) If this is, as you say, not important, then why is it not important? In our last discussion of how bad the economy was, you dared me to show you by talking to common folks. Some agreed with you, mostly Republicans, by the way, that things were fine. Some disagreed, mostly Democrats as it turned out. that things were in the bin. More agreed with me on the whole, though the sample was biased. All that showed was that you can't have a popularity pole decide on which way the economy is going to go. You needed accurate information to have any sort of half-way decent chance at figuring out which things were going to happen. It isn't impossible for Democrats to lie. There are as many, I would suspect, Democratic liars as there are Republican liars. As I said in a prior post, I remember Vietnam as well as you do. Exactly why you would suggest that the economy is better than evidence and experience has shown it to be, however, not just domestically but on a world wide basis, seems to be an example of the way Johnson characterized a second marriage — the triumph of hope over experience for an entire political party. Denial may be useful in managing some things. I've seen people in chronic pain, for example, after they've gotten appropriate treatment otherwise, go a considerable distance on denial. I've seen marriages survive on denial. Children take care of elderly parents, and parents take care of extremely troubled children on a balance of love and denial (though the greatest of these is Love, as Saint Paul said). Sometimes some planning and pragmatic action in advance means that you don't have to use denial in the first place, though. Remember when I said that somebody was going to have to pay off the credit cards, and that the longer we put it off the worse we'd like it? I wish I hadn't said it. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
and then pay it down in the good times when the investments are paying off. Where are you going to find that interest-free loan? Since even Obama claims the payoffs may not come for years down the road, you better not have interest accruing. don't do it for stupid stuff Really!? Does that apply to Obama, who has given new meaning to "bringing home the bacon"? borrow as much as you can for as long as you can. Thanks, reb, for that demonstration of the Democratic mind-set. I must have been a real Democrat for the first 20 years of my adult life, then. No wonder I was always in debt! Thanks also for demonstrating my point about the class warfare on the way....you have gotten a head start with your "evil rich" continual comments. Democratic politicians like Gore, Kerry, Edwards, Pelosi, Kennedy, etc leave their multi-million dollar homes in the morning, jump into their helicopters or limousines and get to D.C, where they can complain about the rich and champion the poor. Bravo..... I'll say it one more time for those with impaired eyesight.....we will have to wait and see what happens. then we'll know.. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Show me the bacon.... (does it have anything to do with Bee insurance or golf carts? because you already said you're in favor of them) quote: Then I guess Donald Trump is a Democrat? It's just business school 101 Mike -- if you're going to use borrowed money-- you want the longest terms possible. The class war was started by the Federalists Mike.... perpetuated by the Robber Barons -- taken on by Teddy R. and FDR -- Supply sided by the great one -- Renaldus Maximus -- And -- now taken on again by Barack Obama. We don't need to wait to see Mike -- in order to study history and learn from it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Show you the bacon? Ask the democrats in the senate who are now agreeing that there is way too much bacon in the plan and are suggesting the line item veto to clear it up and make it more palatable. Check out the video of Obama the candidate, where he claims the country needs an entitlements clean-up and, as president, he will go through every bill, line by line, to ensure no entitlements get through. At last count, he's missed in the vicinity of 8,600 of them. Learn from history? I do...by looking at Carter and Reagan. Of course, when you look at them you will see Carter as the shining knight and Reagen as Darth Vader, I'm sure. You are good at displaying statistics. Pull up Carter's and let's discuss his brilliance. I don't know if Trump is a Democrat or not but I would guess he is, since he's declared bankruptcy several times, the last being two weeks ago. maybe he flunked business school 101? Or maybe that's what you advocate....working your way to bankruptcies? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Hmmm.. I'm not sure how the subject of bankruptcy comes in here -- unless you're refering to the Republicans being bankrupt of ideas? Conservative media giant Tribune Co. going bankrupt? The Republicans rooting for the American auto industry to go bankrupt? Personally -- I'm completely in favor of bankruptcy -- it's a much more civil method than debtors prisons or workhouses. Thomas Jefferson filed 5 times. And it's another part of the safety net that stimulates the economy by encouraging people to innovate and walk the high wire. quote: It seems you're co-mingling some things here Mike. Are you talking about the stimulus package now? Or the budget proposal? If you're talking about earmarks and not 'entitlements', then -- candidate Obama only said he wanted to keep them down to what was it? 1996 levels... or was it 1994? I don't recall and don't have time to look it up. How about if you do that for me and get back with those numbers vs. what's in the budget proposal. Hey -- if Carter wanted to use a 1.6 trillion dollar credit card I'm sure he could have made the economy look rosy too! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Hmmm.. I'm not sure how the subject of bankruptcy comes in here -- unless you're refering to the Republicans being bankrupt of ideas? Ok, reb, apparently we've degenerated to comments like that so we've probably reached the end of the road as far as anything worthwhile being said. You can save your goading for a future time where it may be necessary to use it again. We both have better things to do than continue this one. Time will tell how this grand plan will work out. We will just have to wait for the scorecard. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Hey Mike... did you read the title? We were degenerates from the start? But, you said; quote: So.... why not give me something more than a line that will fit on a bumper sticker? -- If you want to talk about the 3 billion in earmarks put into the Omnibus Spending Bill by Republicans -- I'm all ears! That's roughly 40% of the 7.7 billion in earmarks (note -- Congress is roughly 40% Republican)-- which is 100 million short of candidate Obama's pledge to keep it below 1994 earmark levels -- you know -- before the Republicans blew up the earmarks by 300 percent. But, anyway -- just because something is an earmark doesn't mean that it's necessarily wasteful spending -- perhaps not even the acutal Pork Project to study swine odor and manure management in Iowa and North Carolina and -- anywhere else they raise swine. (must be a big project in D.C.?)((And, thinking about it -- I can understand why they need this big time in Iowa -- what with the Caucases every 4 years)) Give me a list -- what's wasteful? Why? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, If they're about to study the smell and effects of pig waste in Iowa, I can tell you it's about time. I lived in Iowa City for a couple of years, and there were plenty of farms about. The entire state is one giant feed lot — or it was at the time — set up for the fattening up and slaughter of pigs and some cows. If you went very far into the country, the stench was unbelievable in places, and the effuvia from the pigs, the oorts and the ejecta and the various more unmentionable stuff really had no place to go. That part of the Midwest is flat. I mean ironing board flat. There was a big flood one of the years I was there and the Iowa River overflowed its banks. The drinking was wasn't really fit to, being filled with various porcine and a little bit of human waste material that washed down from the feed lots. It all washed into the water supplies, and the local water supplies ran into the Mississippi and the Mississippi ran into the Gulf of Mexico. There was no particular place where the fishing industry was helped more than anyplace else, or where the disease rate went down more than anywhere else or where the infectious diseases went down more than anyplace else, or where the meat and produce supply actually got better than anyplace else. In fact, they pretty much all went down the tubes. The Beavis and Buttbead snickering about this is the quick reaction that a lot of these problems get, simply because nobody actually stops to think that there might actually be something of a real issue there. Just another quick Snickerfest. Doesn't help the price of meat go down in Florida one penny, Mike, nor the price of produce. Nor does pretending there isn't a problem actually affect the health of anybody downstream. Nor does it make your seafood any cheaper. Right? Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “Imagine a child falls down a well. Now imagine I offer to lend the parents my ladder to save her, but only if they promise to paint my house. Would you applaud me for not letting a crisis go to waste? Or would you think I’m a jerk, for want of a harsher word not printable in this space? I ask because I’m trying to come to terms with Rule No. 1 of the Obama administration “Rule 1: Never allow a crisis to go to waste,” White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told the New York Times right after the election. “They are opportunities to do big things.” Over the weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told an audience at the European Parliament, “Never waste a good crisis.” Then President Obama explained in his Saturday radio and Internet address that there is “great opportunity in the midst of” the “great crisis” befalling America. . . . In other realms of life, exploiting a crisis for your own purposes is an outrage. If a business uses a hurricane warning to price-gouge on vital supplies, it is a crime. When a liberal administration does it, it’s taking advantage of a historic opportunity. Obama’s defenders respond to this argument by stating that the president’s motives are decent, noble, and pure. He wants to help the uninsured and the poorly educated. He wants to make good on his vow to halt those rising oceans. But this is just a rationalization. Every president thinks his agenda is what’s best for the country; every politician believes his motives are noble. The point is that scaring people about X in order to achieve Y is fundamentally undemocratic” http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2Y5ZWI3MmRjOTljZDY5NjBiNTUxYWQxODE4NTFhOTE= This has bothered me as well. I think for example at least some of the market’s decline can be traced To the fear mongering by the Obama administration. . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
In Chinese, John, the word for crisis -- as you may have heard -- is 'weiji' -- which was mis-characterized by John Kennedy in a speech to consist of two characters -- one being danger and the other opportunity. In reality -- the second character is more appropriately interpreted as the 'critical point'. But, this mischarictarization has long since been popularized in the Western world as it was picked up by Nixon and then business and media consultants. Either way -- when this (allegedly number one rule) is invoked by the administration the more appropriate interpretation is that this critical point (opportunity) should not be wasted to fix the problems in our system that led us to this peril. Else -- the danger lurks perpetually. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: The analogy is flawed, John. Imagine that your child falls down a well. Do you really think anyone is going to criticize you for taking that opportunity to give your kid a lecture on safety? The flaw, of course, is that the Administration isn't responding to someone else's child. It's their country, too. While taking advantage of another person's woe is contemptible, trying to turn your own crisis into an opportunity can only be admired. And, I would hope, emulated. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Ron, The problem is the assumption of actual identification with, (as opposed to apart from), the one(s) at peril by those doing the exploiting. John |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Those doing the exploiting? I think you're confusing your own assumptions with mine, John. Are you suggesting the leaders of America aren't Americans? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Both Patricians and Plebeians were Roman Ron . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Yes, they were, John. And your point? I'm sure you're not suggesting that either class of citizen didn't love their country? Just out of curiosity, who do you see as the aristocracy in America? LOL. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “Over two-thirds of voters believe members of Congress are more interested in helping their own careers than in helping the American people.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
John... are you sure you didn't mean to post that last item on Mike's Congress-bashing thread? There are some interesting things in the news though that are pertinent to THIS thread -- some enterprising soul might want to try to figure what I'm talking about -- try the latest news on Micheal Steel, Rush Limbaugh, and Mike Huckabee's huckster Chuck Norris (re: Texas is gonna do it again) |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Huan Yi, But only those who were Knights with at least a certain fixed large amount of money were allowed to be Senators. Not enough money in the family coffers, they were out on their ears. And if you think elections today are corrupt, you've been missing some vital historical vitamins. Senatorial seats were important in themselves, but also because they were the gateway to truly spectacular graft and often robbery and murder on a grand scale. A glance at the Romans makes today look calm and regular. It also tends to suggest that oligarchs remain oligarchs whether the name is Caesar or Bush. In our case, however, we can vote the senators and the congressional representatives out of office if their popularity actually remains as low as you report it being. The Romans didn't have that legislative option, though some other offices were open to the vote. As for the crisis that so upsets you, it seems to have taken quite a while to develop. It may be a crisis now, but it wasn't when the web of regulation that had prevented it since the great depression was being undone by those who felt that there was too much government regulation, and that it was tying the hands of business. Indeed it was. It was apparently preventing business from doing this sort of thing. From having banks own insurance companies and vice versa. From charging usurious interest rates so they might extend credit beyond those places where credit should be extended. When folks warned that the economy was in danger from such policies, the Republican response was to say "Are YOU hurting?" and to ask if the stock market had shown any signs of distress. These days the Republicans have had a revolution in their approach to the issue: They have ceased asking if the stock market has shown any sign of distress. You can still hear them ask "Are YOU hurting?" if you listen closely. My father just died, and the downturn has done some things to what he left my mother for her maintenance. Am I hurting? I guess that depends on how you'd define what a son should be doing for his mother. If I were to say, that's between my dad and my mom and I have nothing at all to do with it, then I guess you have to say, "No, I'm not hurting at all." On the other hand, if I do have some responsibility, well, I guess that would change the answer a bit now, wouldn't it? I wish I could tell you where I think my responsibility ends. I'd feel a lot better that way; but I don't have a good answer myself. Sometimes I give money to folks on the street, sometimes I don't, and I don't really know why. But I do know the Stock Market is down. And yeah, I know that I'm hurting, too, one way or another. I hesitate to call myself a bleeding heart Liberal. I am, of course, a Liberal, but I'm not a Catholic by any stretch of the imagination, and near as I can tell you don't have to be a Liberal to have some concept of the fact that you're not the most important thing in the universe, and that doing stuff for those who need help shouldn't be reason to attract the scorn and distain of others. Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
