Democrats & Liberals Archives

Never Mind My Complete Contempt For You...

Here’s a radical notion, Mr. Cain: Your party did the brainwashing. Republicans once had a considerable advantage with blacks, thanks to their forebears’ ending of slavery, and the Democrat’s institutional racism. Unfortunately, they wasted it, looking to score votes from scared whites.

I've been hearing the Welfare Queen and Bell Curve idiocy all my life, the implications of deserved poverty for people whose parents and grandparents spent much of their lives forcefully stuck in poverty by racist policies. When America had budget crises, guess whose services got cut first, who got portrayed as lucky-duckies, layabouts, crooks and thugs?

Ah, but this is what I hear from Herman Cain:

"African-Americans have been brainwashed into not being open minded, not even considering a conservative point of view," Godfather's Pizza executive Herman Cain said on CNN's "The Situation Room" in an interview airing Wednesday between 5-7 p.m. ET. "I have received some of that same vitriol simply because I am running for the Republican nomination as a conservative. So it's just brainwashing and people not being open minded, pure and simple."
Brainwashed. Golly, is that a charming thing to be told. You know what? You're a hypnotized dupe who has diminished capacity for reason. Please vote for me!

While it's true people can be convinced to support a politics that works against them, there are more positive ways to relay this argument. Positive ways, though, it's unlikely the Republicans will avail themselves of. Their leadership have gotten themselves too convinced that to hold back in the name of not offending people is just being politically correct. Well, I'm sorry, but while you are entitled to free speech, you're not entitled to agreement, sympathy, or positive feelings about your message.

And really, if you actually want African American Voters, then you have to convince them to join your cause of their own free will.

African Americans have been confronted with a great deal of negativity from the right, but the right naively complains that people should be open-minded about them. Just like they complain that Hispanics should be open-minded about the people demonizing folks just like them, pushing English as an official language, and having folks who even resemble illegal aliens pressured by police to prove their identifies as resident, legal aliens and immigrants.

Dividing middle class whites against other groups of people, pushing Willy Horton ads, and ads with White Women telling the half-black candidate to call them, has long been a specialty of the Right, and they'll be the last people many times to apologize for pushing such messages.

But somehow, these people think that it's not going to rebound on them. Well, it is. It doesn't matter if you didn't mean it in a racist way, you're talking about people in ways its not likely they're going to enjoy, and when you're done, they're going to get a little angry with you. Do that long enough, and you'll have successfully brainwashed people into not liking you.

If you want people's respect, stop feeding them your contempt.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at September 28, 2011 11:37 PM
Comments
Comment #329894

Stephen,
Cain is a knucklehead. Even the GOP ignores him. In the two latest polls in Florida (CNN & PPP), Cain registers in the single digits, just seven percent in both polls. He has three problems. Part of the problem is that he does not know what he is talking about; part of the problem is that his ideas are lame; and finally, he’s a whackjob, especially when discussions turn to topics like religion in general, and Islam in particular. Cain’s sole claim to fame is that he had enough charisma to rise to the top of a chain that made crappy pizza. Way. To. Go. Speaking of going, he’ll be gone from the race soon. It’s hard to compensate for a lack of ability to run a political organization and a lack of ability to raise money.

Posted by: phx8 at September 29, 2011 1:51 AM
Comment #329899

Good to see that you may be starting to understand what the right goes through with the Obama on a daily basis, Stephen.

Posted by: kctim at September 29, 2011 9:04 AM
Comment #329900

kctim-
No, I don’t understand. Obama made it a point, even against his base’s own advice, to seek out bipartisan agreement on nearly every major policy issue. He’s shown an almost reckless willingness to find common ground with them. The Republicans, though, reject any common ground that doesn’t end up being their own ground, and after the mutually disastrous debt-ceiling battle, I think he’s finally lost patience with the Republicans.

He doesn’t have any political capital left to spare pursuing a strategy that doesn’t involve taking the fight to the Republicans.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 29, 2011 1:38 PM
Comment #329903

Stephen
Actually, I was referring to how everybody to the right of Lenin is said to be voting against themselves. How we are told our views and beliefs do not deserve understanding or respect. How people on the right have been confronted with a great deal of contempt from those on the left, but the left naively complains that people should be open-minded about them. How people on the right are called racists for believing in the individual instead of government. How people on the right are racists for believing the law should be upheld.

“It doesn’t matter if you didn’t mean it in a racist way, you’re talking about people in ways its not likely they’re going to enjoy, and when you’re done, they’re going to get a little angry with you.”

Funny. Did you believe the same when the Obama basically said the same thing? How us people in small towns (meaning whites) are so bitter that we cling to guns and God? How our aversion and dislike (meaning racism) to people who aren’t like us, explains our “frustrations?”
I can assure you that I do, because I am called a racist EVERY time I mention I disagree with the Obama. That I am a racist for believing that illegal aliens are an actual problem that must be dealt with. That I am some kind of nut for believing in the 2nd Amendment. That I am some kind of Christian fundalmentalist (which is apparently somehow ten times worse than an islamic fundalmentalist) for not believing a theocracy is right around the corner. That I am a dumb, unintelligent redneck who votes against his own best interest because I have been brainwashed by the Republican corporate controlled media.
That my “frustrations” are due to my own stupidity, not the policy being pushed on me.

Sorry Stephen, but this leftist tactic has successfully brainwashed people into not liking the Obama or the Party he represents.
So stop feeding us your contempt because we dare to think for ourselves.

Posted by: kctim at September 29, 2011 2:48 PM
Comment #329909
Cain’s sole claim to fame is that he had enough charisma to rise to the top of a chain that made crappy pizza.

Cain is also the former director of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. See here.

Posted by: Warped Reality at September 29, 2011 4:18 PM
Comment #329913

Warped,
I read Cain’s wikipedia bio, and he looks better on paper than I originally thought, so thanks for the link. I’m amazed a guy with his resume can sound so… well… stupid. So uninformed. Sorry to put it that way, but how can one explain the gaffes, the apparent lack of preparation for debates, the ignorance of foreign policy, the bizarre statements about Islam and Muslims? He makes nutjob statements about dust and EPA. What on earth?

Posted by: phx8 at September 29, 2011 5:32 PM
Comment #329916

Stephens

Blacks, like whites and all ethnic groups, benefit from the freedom given by a market economy. It is a shame that people don’t realize that they are voting against their own interests when they act to support larger and more intrusive government.

You may recall that the terrible racist aspects were written into law and protected by the coercive power of the state - i.e. they were part of government regulation.

IMO - the Civil rights movement accomplished a valid goal but the tool of large government created its own problems that persist to this day. Black achievement is not the proactive result of government, but rather the result of removing legal barriers of government. Indeed, it should be illegal to treat anybody, black or white, differently ONLY because of race. Those were removed in the 1960s and many blacks flourished. Much of the subsequent pushes into affirmative action and creation of a black identity were misguided. They helped create and perpetuate a persistent under class that is still with us.

We should have stayed with what Martin Luther King said about judging people by the content of their characters, and not the color of their skins.

It is ironic that today if someone paraphrased MLK w/o tipping off the source, many liberals would call it racist. For example, to say race should not be used as a factor in employment or education goes against establishment affirmative action.

Posted by: C&J at September 29, 2011 5:52 PM
Comment #329927

kctim-
You could at least have the decency to to be original. Yes, Republicans and right wing folks get bashed for things. They get bashed for trying to cut medicare and social security- which is literally taking the money out of the hands of seniors, and depriving them of healthcare. They get bashed for protecting tax cuts that go to big businesses, to profitable oil companies.

How does this happen? Well, it seems somehow that people naturally tend to cheer the poor and old people over folks who are rich, or who operate a business known for its pollution.

Your people are fighting the most intuitive interpretations of many situations. That’s your problem.

Why is it that Republicans still harp on welfare, despite the fact that it’s almost unrecognizeable, severely constrained? Why is it that even now, people still think of urban blacks when they think welfare, despite the fact that most recipients were and still are white?

Tell me, Why Willie Horton? Why the white hands in That Jesse Helms commercial? What was the point of that buxom white playboy model going Call Me! in that Bob Corker ad against Harold Ford? Why the recent California political ad that had a pole dancer with the Democrat’s face super-imposed on her, freak-dancing with a couple of black ghetto thugs?

I don’t suppose you saw or read about the interview in which Lee Atwater basically said that all the code words and dogwhistles were just a way to get around the impolitic nature of appealing to racism in a society where that’s now considered in bad taste.

Admittedly, it’s rare, but we do see racist pictures pop up, using tropes so obscure you practically have to have a college education to spot them. Obamabucks with fried chicken on them, a freshly planted watermelon patch in the front yard of the White House.

Busing. Reagan talking about “states rights.” Welfare queens riding around in Cadillacs, supposedly paid for by welfare dollars.

Somebody talking about Obama getting “uppity.”

Republicans targeting laws meant to combat “redlining”, or the practice of denying financing to those within certain neighborhoods, a practice that kept people in those neighborhoods poor, prevented improvements to the real estate in the area.

Or what about Trent Lott’s comments on Strom Thurmond, his wondering what the world would be like if the former Dixiecrat candidate had been elected President.

I’m not saying that those who oppose Obama are racists. Unfortunately, many of the political attacks used on him and other Democrats are not so innocent, if you trace them back to their origins, what motivated the original attacks. But this gets glazed over, by Republicans, because many are two or three generations away from the folks who originally pushed these strategies.

That doesn’t mean it doesn’t strike a nerve, or stand as a provocation to African Americans. The old system existed within living memory, and many of the seniors of today grew up in the times when such ideological statements were more closely paired with the racism that fueled them.

I’d advise you to quit acting like you’re the victim here. It’s undignified, especially in the face of those who have experienced real discrimination.

Republicans picked up where the southerners of the Democratic party left off. They took on the bleak, terrible legacy that Democrats today are lucky enough to have left behind decades ago.

Why be surprised that blacks today are wary of Republicans, especially since a black President is getting pictures of him circulated with bones through his nose by Republican Party officials and supporters?

C&J-
The problem for your argument is that it’s rooted in the idea that the market is blandly, generically fair to everybody. It’s not. The point of affirmative action isn’t to judge people. It makes no comment on the quality of workers. It’s to give people the opportunity at the margins to participate, where historically, the thumb has been on the other side of the balance. You want to act like the inequalities have gone away, but they haven’t.

If they haven’t, there’s no use pretending the system is fair. Money and power helps reinforce money and power, and the statistics on upward mobility back that up.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 30, 2011 3:23 AM
Comment #329932

Stephen
You posted your disagreement with Cains use of the word ‘brainwashing’ and then explained in the normal one sided way why you think blacks do not vote for Republicans.
I could have responded to how I somewhat agree with Cain or I could respond in the way that I somewhat agree with you. I chose the latter because I believe it is wrong to simply discount differing opinions as being the result of ‘brainwashing.’ Hell, I will even admit that I am guilty of the tactic myself.

I then gave examples of how the left has been doing the exact same thing you accuse Cain of, to those on the right and then agreed that more respect and less contempt was needed.
You know, I actually thought you would be man enough to say ‘you’re right, that too is unfair, I can’t justify it, so how can it be fixed.”

Your answer though, which is typical and expected, was to totally ignore the similarities and to go off on a weak rant to justify to yourself that everybody on the right deserves such contempt from those on the left. And to top it all off, you tell those who dare disagree with you to ‘quit acting like we are the victims,’ so that you can simply dismiss and discount our concerns.
Talk about a lack of originality.

So, tell you what Stephen, you’re right.
Blacks have not been brainwashed to disagree with Republicans, but whitey on the right has been brainwashed to disagree with liberals. Blacks should be upset any time words like welfare queen, uppity and chicken are used, but whitey on the right has no right to be upset when they are called unintelligent, RepubliKLANS, hostage takers or murderers.

Yes Stephen, respect is a one way street and the sooner us dumb ole racist rednecks start seeing things your way, the better off we all will be.

Posted by: kctim at September 30, 2011 11:02 AM
Comment #329938


Everyone to the right of Lenin? That would be about 95% to 99% of the population. Closer to 99%. Even the Wall Street protesters are to the right of Lenin.

For a particular faction within the Republican party the correct term would be everyone to the right of Reagan. Perhaps they think that if Reagan were to be reincarnated, he would come back as a far right conservative rather than a bleeding heart RINO that raises taxes and compromises with everyone to the left of Lenin. Regan was signing anti MMGW legislation before anyone knew that MMGW was a hoax produced by scientists that are to the left of Lenin. He saved Social Security, the traitor.

Racism has become politically untenable in this multicultural society. Despite that, there is still a considerable number of racists in the country and the while majority of them may be white, they come in all colors.

Republican party wants very much the white racist vote. They have to be circumspect about the way they appeal to that vote in a manner which may seem obvious to some, but has an air of plausible disability.

When 45% of the Republican party voters in Mississippi are identified as racist, that says a lot.

It reminds me of Mike’s remarks about the way black athletes speak and that they are only in college because of capitalism.

“Money and power helps reinforce money and power.”

Stephen, that is generically fair in accordance with the laws of nature as espoused by Darwin. Humans are a product of nature, and not a special one hand made by a God, they differ from the other animals only slightly. Those differences, while only slight, make humans the dominate species.

That is basically the first law of capitalism.

The second law of capitalism, social responsibility is some what of a grey area because it is seemingly not a law of nature. Therefore, conservatives make the claim that social responsibility is not a requirement, but people can give voluntary charitable gifts if they so choose to do so.

Posted by: jlw at September 30, 2011 4:13 PM
Comment #329941

jlw

Republican may get some of the white racist vote and it is despicable if some of them appeal to. Democrats more openly appeal to the black racist vote. It is also despicable.

Can we agree that it is always despicable to ask what a party has done for - fill in the ethnic group - instead of for all Americans?

Stephen

You see groups; I see individuals. Do you think president Obama’s daughters should get affirmative action when they apply to school? Does the son of an unemployed miner from West Virginia have privilege because he is white? If you answer yes to either of these, you may be thinking like a racist.

Posted by: C&J at September 30, 2011 6:11 PM
Comment #329948

The entire post of Stephen Daugherty is racists crap. Stephen needs to spend a little time researching history rather than quoting liberal talking points. As for Obama “showing an almost reckless willingness to find common ground with Republicans; again nothing but BS. Obama can’t even get his own party to support the latest scam he calls a jobs bill. Dick Durbin (top ranking Democrat) said they don’t have the votes. Why is that Stephen; could it be because they are looking at re-election next year?

Now, to deal with your racist crap:

• This.. written by a Black Woman. .Dr Frances Rice Phd in US History

“Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30 to 40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. More than $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.

In order to break the Democrats’ stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party’s economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.”
Source(s):
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?i…

I have heard you Stephen, many times, try to make the argument that the Democrats of the south, who voted to block the Civil Rights Bill, were really Conservatives and later became Republicans. Continuing to quote from the above link:

“It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s…

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King’s leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a “trouble-maker” who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon’s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation’s fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.”

I would suggest Stephen that you read the whole article and get a better understanding of history. Upon Johnson’s signing of the Civil Rights Bill, he had this to say:

“I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.”
— President Lyndon Baines Johnson, speaking to two governors about his true motivations regarding his support of civil rights legislation, while aboard Air Force One.

So tell me Stephen, which party has the history of being racist? And now that Cain is climbing up in the polls, I would expect nothing less from the depraved liberal left than to attack him with racist remarks. The depraved perverts on the left will never cease to rewrite history to their own advantage. But I think your world is crumbling around you. Who would you call a racist if it was Cain vs. Obama in the next election?

Posted by: Mike at September 30, 2011 8:49 PM
Comment #329951

Let me back up my depravity of those on the left:

“Democratic strategist Cornell Belcher says there is a media “double-standard” over Herman Cain saying blacks have been “brainwashed.” Belcher calls Mr. Cain a bigot and a racist and says this incident is a “teachable moment.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/30/cornell_belcher_cains_brainwashed_remark_was_a_racist_bigoted_statement.html

“SHARPTON: So what I think we should do is put Governor Christie in jail for 90 days. No, you don’t want real people on my diet. But I do think that it is very important that we do stress, I think Mika’s right, the obesity problem.

Let’s be clear that Sharpton was joking. However, would he make such a joke if Christie was a Democrat or a woman?

Manhattan has a United States Congressman named Jerry Nadler who’s served since 1992. Has there ever been this kind of focus on his obesity?

Or what about liberal darling Michael Moore?

The reality is there’s always something media members find to try to disqualify conservatives from being president, and despite Christie still having not announced he’s running, the Left are out in force ridiculing his weight.”


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/09/30/al-sharpton-put-governor-christie-jail-90-days-lose-weight#ixzz1ZUHgvKJg

Why do those on the left always have personal attacks rather than debating the issues? What we are seeing with Cain and Christy, are simply reflections of what the left does to every Republican politician.

“Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said, at the moment, Democrats in Congress don’t have the votes to pass President Obama’s jobs bill, but Durbin added that that situation would change.
“Not at the moment, I don’t think we do, but, uh, we can work on it,” Durbin said, according to Chicago radio station WLS.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/184713-durbin-says-democrats-dont-currently-have-the-votes-for-obama-jobs-bill

Here’s another little tidbit:

“TACOMA, Wash. (AP) - A federal judge in Washington has fined a Longshore union $250,000 for its tactics in a Longview labor dispute.
U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton says he needed to take action to stop what he called an “awful” situation. He has held the International Longshore and Warehouse Union in contempt for blocking a train and a protest at a grain terminal that caused damages.
The National Labor Relations Board had asked court to fine the union more than $290,000 to cover damages and other expenses. Leighton says he rounded down to be cautious and ordered additional penalties for future violations.
Union protesters believe they have the right to work at a new grain terminal that is currently being staffed by workers from a different union. The union plans to appeal.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44728616/ns/local_news-yakima_wa/

So the left believes they can personally attack individuals who don’t agree with them, and union thugs believe they can ignore the law and destroy private property. When was the last time the Tea Party conservatives pulled such a stunt?

Posted by: Mike at September 30, 2011 9:10 PM
Comment #329957


C&J, if pointing out clandestine or otherwise Republican party appeals for the votes of the racially biased is considered appealing to the black racist vote.

While there are racists of all colors within the Democratic party, the party has appeal for people of all colors because, at least in theory if somewhat less so in practice, it advocates for a more humanitarian approach to economics than survival of the fittest, may the best man win it all. What Republicans refer to as putting the rich man in the poor house.

My opinion about both Obama’s daughters and the son of the unemployed coal miner is, they should have the opportunity to study in the field of their choosing. I believe that the whole idea of limited seats available is discriminatory in and of itself. I believe that all of our children should have access to the best education that can be provided irregardless of what school they attend. I believe that the reality of an elitist university where obtaining a degree is a ticket to the most elite jobs in business and government is offensive and discriminatory.

I don’t believe that affirmative action is a good thing, only a necessary think that hopefully will not be necessary for much longer. Because of the circumstances, I don’t believe that bumping a white kid out of a law school is as bad as bumping a kid of any color out of Harvard and or Yale because your daddy is George H.W. Bush, a Kennedy, a Obama or the CEO of a corporation.

I don’t believe the child of anyone should have special privileges, but that is not reality.

Individual vs group? Groups are an individual. The individuals of a group may behave in different ways, but the group acts as an individual. If a corporation is an individual, then so to is a union. Example, acting as an individual, the UAW has lobbied against many of the same regulations that GM, etc., has lobbied against, seat belts, Cafe standards, etc.

When people say unions are the problem, I disagree. When they say that unions are a part of the problem, I agree. The main problem with unions is that we have not produced a viable alternative for what the do, give a united voice for labor, both union and non union.

When people say government is the problem because it is to big, I disagree. When they say government is part of the problem, I agree. Perhaps not for the same reasons as others, but agree I do.

When people say We The People are part of the problem, I agree in the same manner as above.

I think it is appropriate that our future white color decision makers will be competing with a computer app. appropriately named “Darwinian” for the future middle class jobs. The children and grand children of the middle and upper middle class will eventually be competing with the rest of the peasant class for the low wage service jobs that aren’t replace by automation. What will we do with the unemployed in 2050, in 2100? Provide them with a portfolio? Will we all live and prosper on the labors of the machine? Eat the fruit, drink the wine, make love, and philosophize in the cement and steel garden of earthly delights.

Posted by: jlw at October 1, 2011 3:15 AM
Comment #329961

jlw

Sometimes things are so covert that they really aren’t there.

re colleges etc you say (and I agree in a perfect world)”My opinion about both Obama’s daughters and the son of the unemployed coal miner is, they should have the opportunity to study in the field of their choosing. I believe that the whole idea of limited seats available is discriminatory in and of itself. I believe that all of our children should have access to the best education that can be provided irregardless of what school they attend. I believe that the reality of an elitist university where obtaining a degree is a ticket to the most elite jobs in business and government is offensive and discriminatory.”

Unfortunately the world is not like that.

People have different abilities. I know that I am good at some things, not so much at others. There are some things that I know I cannot do. For example, I could not pass the course in differential equations, even thought I worked really hard. It is not discrimination to not let me pass or take courses that require such knowledge.

Half of all people are below the median in any thing you can think of and that can never change.

“Groups are an individual. The individuals of a group may behave in different ways, but the group acts as an individual.” You can apply this to voluntary groups or groups actually based on choice or behavior. But to apply it to groups based on genetic characteristics or appearance is … racist.

In the future, race will matter much less or not at all. It is already weakening as a concept. Someday people of white and people of color will be meaningless. Race conscious government policies and attempts to create racial pride simply postpone it. The time of race is past. And the dinosaurs who still want to use it should stay there.

Posted by: C&J at October 1, 2011 9:21 AM
Comment #329962

C&J said:

“In the future, race will matter much less or not at all. It is already weakening as a concept. Someday people of white and people of color will be meaningless. Race conscious government policies and attempts to create racial pride simply postpone it. The time of race is past. And the dinosaurs who still want to use it should stay there.”

We still live in the “here and now” and as long as there are liberal democrats there will be accusations of racism.

Mike, I read the article by Dr. Frances Rice and I agree with her completly. The left has been trying to blame the southern democrat racism on conservatives for years. Lyndon Johnson was one of those southern democrats and pushed for civil rights, but he reason was to enslave a race of people to the democrat party; hense the statement he made about having them under party control for 200 years. It was Republicans who from the time of the civil war, sought civil rights for blacks. Herman Cain knows this and stated it and what was the result? The left called him a racist for speaking the truth. Stop and think about this for a minute; the elitist liberals of America, who constantly blame others for racism, are themselves born into the old money and from the elitist states. To the left, Obama, was nothing more than a token black who could further their agenda for America. Once he is unable to pass their agenda, they will drop him like a hot potatoe. Obama never had an agenda of his own. He simply was a figure head that gave complete control to the democrat controlled congress and those in his cabinet (czars). The congress gave him the money and his cabinet and czars passed it out. They passed obamacare and he simply obeyed those passing the bill by exempting all those who support democrats. When he finally came out with a jobs bill, Reid and the democrats refused to bring it to the Senate for a vote. Reid even said the jobs bill was not priority, and Durbin said they didn’t have the democrat votes to pass it. As Obama gets further into trouble and the American economy continues to go down the flusher (although liberals continue to paint a rosey picture), we will see more and more democrats pull back from him.

Posted by: TomT at October 1, 2011 1:06 PM
Comment #329971

kctim-
Cain calls it brainwashing because he:
a) Thinks that conservatism is the only rational course, and
b) doesn’t account for the fact that minorities were used as punching bags by Republicans who sought to take advantage of the resentment and anxieties many whites had over the civil rights act.

I’ve been called brainwashed before. It’s about as flattering as being slapped in the face with a moldy herring. I’ve also been the subject, during the Bush Administration of a great deal of Republican slander, for the fact that I didn’t back Bush’s play on Iraq. Also rather uncomfortable.

Cain’s naivete, and that of all too many on the right, is that they can insult and insult and insult people, and expect them to see reason when they finally get to a bare statement of what they actually want people to believe. That, or worse, expect a positive response when they tell people essentially that they’re hypmo-tized.

Look back on the last ten years. What do you think all the anger and nastiness that’s come from the right, however you felt it was justified, helped convince people of anything? What it’s done is create a generation and a movement of Democrats who are far less sympathetic to making deals and playing nice with Republicans, who view conceding to Republicans with much less benefit of the doubt.

I used to be one of the people who counseled bipartisanship. The last decade’s beaten the crap out of that for me. I still want to reason with folks on the right, but I’m no longer so patient with waiting for the fruits of that labor.

And others? Well, you see, not everybody thinks of arguing these things in my terms. They take it much more personally, and have for quite some time, and the Republicans have made it more personal. But of course, that feeds back, doesn’t it?

Does either side profit from the hyperpartisanhip? I don’t think so. But putting aside the question of what would be the best approach, since it’s nearly impossible to get Republicans nowadays to even concede the time of day, Democrats have to look out for their interests, and folks on the right who don’t expect that to take place are simply being naive about how people operate. So would any Democrat who expects Republicans not to look out for their interests.

The only real way to deal with this is to once again learn, both sides together, how to contend in a way that’s not mutually self-destructive. I would submit that if your plan is to get the other side to permanently submit, sit down and shut up, you’re not going to get anywhere. Very few people are that lacking in self-confidence.

People appealed to folks interests in a very sophisticated way to get them to vote more for Republicans. They weren’t so much brainwashed, as just manipulated the old fashion way. Folks appealed to their fears, appealed to their hopes and aspirations. But what they did, most importantly, was convince people to separate themselves from publications and media that would hold Republicans accountable on an independent basis.

But I would say that they have not been completely or absolutely successful. As successfully as this has created a core of supporters, it’s also alienated people. As much as it’s increased the ability of those on the right to project talking points at fast pace into society, it’s also led their talking points to become more detached from the reality most people know.

More to the point, the children and grandchildren of the Reagan Democrats have grown up in a society of greater tolerance. Where you might be able to panic their elders about gays, minorities and Muslims, they’ve grown up practicing the ideals the generations before them preached.

The circuits the old buttons were connected to were never hooked up to their central processing unit. They’re going to care more about the jobs they don’t have, the decayed work environment and wages they’ve been handed as the legacy from the previous generation.

I don’t suggest that Democrats are perfect, or couldn’t do with a little more respect, but what folks on the right might want to consider is that they are not operating off a clean slate here. They must deal with the party’s history, or at least quit pushing the buttons to keep people’s disdain for them from that community alive. Time may heal all wounds for them, if they let it, but at this point, far too many Republicans won’t let it.

They might be able to reboot movies when the series gets too old, or when it goes off in a dumb direction, but you can’t reboot reality. Those who do not acknowledge history still have to deal with it anyways. And getting angry and claiming yourself to be a victim too won’t get sympathy from the other guy. Until you acknowledge that the right in this country has done much to alienate minorities and work to correct it, it will simply seem like the hypocritical pain of a person who still wants to be free to use that button pushing language against somebody else.

C&J-
That’s philosophical bull. I see individuals and groups. Human beings are inherently social, inherently individual. That’s what makes my disability a problem, and a psychopath such a problem. It’s also what allows civilization to exist. When we forget one side of human character or another, we can end up harming our society.

Obama’s daughters have the privilege, in this case. They have the best tutors money can buy, and are the children of two individuals of good intelligence. I doubt they will be so marginal as to require affirmative action, and it would be a shame for them to avail themselves of it.

The Miner’s son should qualify for greater financial aid because of the income of his father (and I would personally support them getting more of that in grants, rather than loans he’ll carry for decades). If he makes the grade, somebody should give him the chance to succeed. I don’t believe in giving people help merely because of the color of their skin. Race is superficial on a physical level. It’s the socioeconomic level I’m interested in. Those who need help, whether it’s because of the bad hand culturally dealt to them because of race, ancestral or immediate poverty, or disability, should get the help they need.

The rest should be up to them.

If you thought to catch me in a rhetorical trap, it’s only because the argument you had was too reliant on my attitudes being solely based on racial sympathies. But having experienced my particular life, I’ve been helped, in fact still am being helped to overcome disadvantages that have been dealt to my family. That has helped us, kept us from becoming another statistic.

So, I don’t speak to the help of the government from a standpoint of simply correcting abstract wrongs.

Mike-
I do not deny that the Democratic Party’s history, for the most part, is long haunted by the specter of racism. I would submit, though, that the party separated itself, tentatively at first, and then in full commitment, from that dark legacy.

Only to have your party pick it up, probably more out of political cynicism (which I won’t claim my party doesn’t or didn’t have to some degree), than any real big difference in racial attitudes.

But here’s the thing: what people commit to can change the way people make choices. They might vote to suit one attitude, even if it means supporting something they don’t like. Politics isn’t clean, and neither is the way social factors can lead people to throw away old beliefs in order to belong.

I think the Democratic Party is far less racist than it used to be. I think folks who grow up Democrats now are much less exposed to the kind of racism that once blighted their parent’s attitudes. More to the point, they have more casual and informal experience with folks of other races, grow up friends with them. The policy of segregation was basically an attempt to keep folks from forming the natural social bounds that mere proximity often invites. I think the Republican made a mistake, long term, choosing to emphasize the fears and anxieties of those disaffected by the Civil Rights Act. They’ve hitched their wagon to the wrong star.

As for your accusations? You’re going to tell me that I’m a racist. Hmm.

I’ll have to go ask myself about that one, and get the real story from me.

But seriously, is that your argument? The Southern Strategy is documentable historic fact. So is the civil rights act and everything.

The evidence for the way Republicans exploited race is out there, a matter of public record. As for this?

And now that Cain is climbing up in the polls, I would expect nothing less from the depraved liberal left than to attack him with racist remarks.

So, playing the race card is bad, but playing the race card is good if you’re a Republican? Wait, wait, stop confusing me.

It won’t be a big contest if Cain is the guy who wins the primaries. The guy is just too radical. It’s his politics, not his race that are going to attract the most attacks, and they’ll be effective because Cain is nowhere near the mainstream. Of course, some folks like you might play the race card to claim people were prejudiced against him, or he was punished for being Republican and Black at the same time. Be my guest, play the victim. But don’t expect people to admire you or him.

That goes for anything else. The Republicans have been throwing insults of all different grades of offensiveness for the last few decades. It really hasn’t made people like them better

As for Christie? Feel free to be as angry as you can be, so long as nobody’s ever commented on the right about Michael Moore’s weight, or Bill Clinton’s for that matter.

On the subject of the jobs bill? Well, the biggest impediment of course is that Republican Party majority in the House. You are aware, aren’t you, that we can’t pass laws without the House of Representatives and Senate agreeing? Well, what are your people saying about how they’ll vote? But maybe that’s why Obama just finally said “screw it”, and gave the Republicans a jobs bill he knew they wouldn’t pass. He wants them to take further responsibility for the gridlock, which isn’t altogether unfair.

As for the Unions? You know what? Stop and think for a second: You on the Right have made a cause celebre out of the NLRB handing down that decision on the Boeing factory. This is Obama’s NLRB we’re talking about.

Yet you somehow think it’s the liberal thing to do to enage in thuggery. Expect it’s the very liberals you’re bashing who are telling these people to straighten up and fly right.

You’re in such a hurry to villify us, you don’t have your logic straight. You’re not going to intimidate, much less convince me with that sort of poorly thought out argumentation.

TomT-
Obama was never the token black to me. He was the guy me and my mother took note of, when he gave his speech in 2004, this guy who showed real vision. I supported him as President because I saw he was a very smart, very politically agile fellow who could get things done, and who was fairly decisive. He wasn’t saying the same things I’d heard so often from Democrats in the era before.

I support him now because he’s proved to be an excellent leader in a crisis. Not perfect, but effective in the face of some of the most overwhelming problems this nation has ever faced.

Herman Cain, on the other hand, is simply a kook. Ron Paul is a kook. Nuttiness, it seems, is colorblind. I don’t need to reference Herman Cain’s race to reject him. I don’t need to emphasize his race at all.

I didn’t object to him saying that he thought his fellow blacks had been brainwashed by my party because he was black. I objected to it because it’s deeply disrespectful, and deeply disdainful of the real emotional cost for many that came with being the punching bag for the GOP when it came to the voters.

To all-
There seems to be a lot of picture painting here, portraits made with an eye of putting people in their places.

Really, though, you’re not going to get too far with that. Only fellow partisans are going to agree with such pictures.

It seems to be the only way those on the right argue these days, and the problem is, sooner or later circumstances demonstrate people’s qualities. Obama’s recovery from a recession created jobs, while Bush’s economy lost jobs even as his recession ended. Bush’s lack of focus kept him from getting Bin Laden. Obama got him, and a lot of his friends. Obama’s intervention in Libya, several months after the fact, has a deposed dictator, but didn’t require a single American soldier to step on Libyan soil. He got the folks Bush merely moved to alienate to cooperate with him in shoring up the rebellion against Qaddafi, and it’s worked so far.

You won’t hear one word of credit out of the Republicans. They have decided to act like Obama is only a failure, no matter how many achievements he’s piled up. He’s achieved things Clinton and Bush only dreamed of.

That’s why Republicans want him out. They truly do fear the change that Obama could bring, and that fear wouldn’t be much of a motivator if he wasn’t leader enough to manage it. The fact that the Republicans feel the need to so hamper him is symptomatic of how desperate Obama and his political movement make them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 1, 2011 9:50 PM
Comment #329973

Stephen

All of us have been dealt disadvantages. Both my parents dropped out of HS. We never had much money and I grew up speaking a sub-standard accent. But there were many plus sides to what I had too. Statistically, I was a “victim” based on my group. In actual fact, I was not and enjoyed lots of individual advantages much greater than many of the rich kids that ostensibly had more.

We have to work to create opportunities for all, but we cannot put individuals into these false classifications and give them advantages or disadvantages based on what they look like. Again, that is racist, the thing we should all fight against.

We also need to understand personal differences. People are not the same. What might be a disadvantage in some things is good in others. Most high achievers have significant problems in areas outside their expertise.

A quest after perfect equality is an invitation to tyranny. Not everyone can achieve the same things.

I had many rich friends in college, but I was smarter than most of them. Which is better? Would you trade intelligence for money? If not, how can you be equal?

And if we make ALL the inputs equal, so that everybody has exactly the same change, what are we left with? That would be a world where ONLY genetic potential determined outcomes, since it would be the only remaining variable. Do we want that?

Posted by: C&J at October 1, 2011 10:10 PM
Comment #329985

Jack,

“And if we make ALL the inputs equal, so that everybody has exactly the same change, what are we left with? That would be a world where ONLY genetic potential determined outcomes, since it would be the only remaining variable.”

I don’t know that anyone has ever demanded, or even suggested that all outcomes should be equal.
Some people are born with advantages and don’t make use of them. Some are born without advantages, and make the most of what they have.

I think that all people have asked for is that they might have the opportunity to make their own outcomes equal.

In a country as rich as America, the circumstances of one’s birth shouldn’t be the definition of one’s life.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 2, 2011 5:00 AM
Comment #329986

Rocky

Yours is, as usual, a sensible point of view and I agree. I am afraid, however, that Stephen does not, at least in his rhetoric.

I have come to dislike the way the term equality is used in our society. When we see people not getting what they think they deserve, we seem to default to the idea that is is some kind of unfairness or discrimination involved.

The inconsistency is that we claim to value both diversity and equality at the same time. The two words are very nearly antonyms and when you get more of one, you tend to get less of the other.

IMO - we should be looking for a dynamic where we have political & legal equality, but where we expect outcomes to be very different among individuals and - on average - among diverse groups.

To the extent that blacks, whites, women, men or any other group you can identify have diverse habits, behaviors or aspirations, we can expect those groups to produce - again on average - diverse (i.e. unequal) results.

It is really not possible to judge which is better. Whether the musician is better than the mathematician depends on what you need and value.

It is clearly true that the group you associate with influences your habits and values. This socialization, rather than discrimination by the greater society, explains most of the diversity of outcomes. For example, math and music requires some of the same skill sets and a person with such talents might develop into either a musician or a mathematician. Which he/she chooses depends to a large extent on the people he knows. And of course, it is possible to waste talent entirely.

As a society, we can only deplore the waste of talent. But when we look at the reasons why talent is wasted, the point of influence is rarely the larger society or lack of macro opportunity and more often the influence of the small groups and the family. Addressing the macro level of opportunity does little to address the real point of failure.

Posted by: C&J at October 2, 2011 7:55 AM
Comment #329987

C&J-
You miss the point. It’s not based on what they looked like. What they look like wouldn’t matter, if it hadn’t been preceded by a history.

Looking like that, for most of American history, means you were cut out of the ability to build up assets the way whites were, receive equal treatment under the law like whites were given, interact freely with most people in the country, the way whites were. It’s not the looks themselves I’m concerned with, but the ongoing social consequences of years of discrimination that need to be healed. We need to rehabilitate the condition of a race within our country whose fortunes were crippled by unfair laws. This is not about genetic potential. Scientifically, it’s all the same. This is about socio-economic potential.

Or put in business terms, it’s better for everybody if fewer people are failing to live up to their productive potential, especially those who didn’t bring poverty on themselves, but had it forced on them by all but fifty years of American history.

I’m interested in reducing the importance of the class you are born into as a predictor of success. That disparity cannot be entirely undone, but we can at least avoid reinforcing a fundamental unfairness that robs America of the potential to profit by the ambitions and skills of those who weren’t born so fortunate. You might think you’re doing the same, but your policies would only meet that goal nominally. You would pretend everything was even, when in fact those policies would ensure a stratification. It’s one thing to promise the Horatio Alger luck and pluck story, it’s quite another to ensure it happens in real life more often.

Fairness in name only is no replacement for fairness in fact.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 2, 2011 8:53 AM
Comment #329988
Stephen Daugherty wrote: While it’s true people can be convinced to support a politics that works against them …
There is no shortage of people who do that and prefer to wallow in the blind, circular partisan warfare, and push one or both of these two destructive extremes:
  • Extreme #1: One extreme wants regressive taxation, unfettered capitalism and freedom to explore and wallow in every manifestation of unchecked greed (which we have seen plenty of lately).
  • Extreme #2: The other extreme wants a nanny-state with citizens increasingly dependent on the government; with massive cradle-to-grave government programs (which are usually severely mismanaged) that nurture a sense of entitlement and dependency on government; wants to grow government ever larger (despite the already current nightmare proportions); rewards failure and laziness; and perpetuates the myth that we can somehow all live at the expense of everyone else.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 2, 2011 10:48 AM
Comment #329989

Stephen

You are missing some history lesson. During the progressive era, the science of the time “proved” that Eastern Europeans, my ancestors, were genetically inferior to the general American population. Not everybody was welcomes just because they were white. In the 1920 & 30s there was a kind of affirmative action that kept the numbers of Jews artificially low in the top universities.

But let’s put that aside. We still are dealing with individual and we have to ask WHY the groups have trouble.

I agree that some lack of achievement is the result of past discrimination, but much of that has to do with attitudes and habits passed down through generations. It is a inconvenient truth that many of the highest achieving blacks are immigrants or sons and daughters of immigrants. Barack Obama fits in this group, as does Colin Powell.

You can argue that they did not suffer the effects of slavery or discrimination in the same way, and you would be right. But their success, and that of immigrants from Africa itself, who are clearly more African than American blacks indicates that it is not CURRENT discrimination that is the problem. If you want to counter the effects of past discrimination, you MUST change attitudes and behaviors among the current generation. How is the best way to do that? Do you really think that it is to affirm the separate identities that are bringing the habits and attitudes causing the trouble?

I am also interested in reducing the importance of class, but ask WHY class is a predictor.

Successful people have habits and behavior that help them succeed. They pass these to their kids to some extent. This makes them also successful. Middle class Americans have various good habits that help them succeed. Lower class Americans often have fewer of these habits.

I speak here from experience. My father, a good hard working man of the lower classes, taught me many habits that I had to abandon if I wanted to succeed. That is what education can man, changing bad habits and attitudes for better ones.

To the extent that a large % of blacks are poor, they probably have attitudes more like my father’s and less like mine. This is a problem if you want to succeed. And like me, those who want to succeed will need to adapt.

I even had to learn to speak in a different accent, BTW.

Posted by: C&J at October 2, 2011 10:49 AM
Comment #329996

Stephen’s response to everyone in comment #329971; pure balogna. Even after evidence is provided for the racist history of the Democratic Party, you stiil want to try to twist history and blame Republicans. You say history proves your point; but I say history proves a very evil Democratic Party which has always had a history of racism. Your mind is as twisted as your comments by trying to say that todays republicans were yesterday’s democrats.

Do you honestly believe the democratic leadership like Kerry, Durbin, Dodd (who made te comment that Obama was a clean black man, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” http://articles.cnn.com/2007-01-31/politics/biden.obama_1_braun-and-al-sharpton-african-american-presidential-candidates-delaware-democrat?_s=PM:POLITICS ), Reid, Pelosi, or dozens more elitist rich democrat politicians really care about black people.

A good point was made in the above article posted by Mike; after trillions of dollars spent by the democratic savior party of the black man over the past 50 years, why do blacks still have the same problems? In fact, their problems are worse now than before. For all the democrat talk about inner city schools and spending and how much the left “feels “ the pain of the blacks; could you tell me why Obama, who sends his kids to a private school, would cut charter school funds to blacks in DC who want a better education for their kids? The DC schools are the worst in the nation and yet he told the blacks of DC, “no education for your kids”. So much for democratic concern of the blacks.

The liberal left loves to talk about Martin Luther King and yet Stephen, would you like to explain why he was a republican and why it was the democrats who were investigating him.? So Stephen, you think Cain is a loon, because he is a republican and conservative; would you say the same thing about MLK?

You were given actual racist quotes of democrats; can you provide the same disgusting statements by republican politicians? Should we talk about the Klan member Robert Byrd, who even in his last few years in the Senate, couldn’t refrain from using the “N” word?

The Republican Party has had a history of including blacks and minorities, but not the democrat party. In fact what has the democrat party had to say about Clarence Thomas or Condolisa Rice? They are nothing more than racists and Oreos? I see a pattern of democrats personally attacking every black person who claims to be a conservative, don’t you Stephen?

Stephen, don’t come on here with your holier than thou attitude about the love the Democratic Party has for the blacks. Your statements push the limit of human understanding. Yes, history reveals everything and like all other liberals, you want to change history. The Democratic Party has done more to enslave the blacks than the southern democratic slave owners did in the early 1800’s. Cain is correct in his assessment.

Posted by: TomT at October 2, 2011 11:42 PM
Comment #329997

Biden made the comment, not Dodd.

Posted by: TomT at October 2, 2011 11:44 PM
Comment #329999

Stephen

“Look back on the last ten years. What do you think all the anger and nastiness that’s come from the right, however you felt it was justified, helped convince people of anything? What it’s done is create a generation and a movement of Democrats who are far less sympathetic to making deals and playing nice with Republicans, who view conceding to Republicans with much less benefit of the doubt”

What do you think all the anger, nastiness and contempt that has come from the left has accomplished? Can you even allow yourself to see it?
This also has created a generation and a movement of Republicans and former Democrats who no longer wish to deal with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

Labeling differing beliefs as racist and trying to shame or guilt people away from those beliefs, no longer has the effect it used to.

Posted by: kctim at October 3, 2011 10:52 AM
Comment #330000

Tom T

I’m sure you could have printed something longer than SD could have imagined, but here is another recent one. Hillary’s remark about the plantation. There is no logical explanation or even rationale for the kind of thinking of the totalitarians. Black is white and red is blue and pink is well they are ok there they are pink.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at October 3, 2011 1:04 PM
Comment #330005

C&J-
The race and classes are predictors for simple economic reasons. Those who start out poor, especially in a society that’s rigged more and more against upward mobility, or at least improved living standards have less money to pursue education and other goals. They end up having to finance more, which of course means more debt.

That failure to get ahead, whether we want to admit it or not, has a psychological effect. If folks see the hard workers succeed, that will be incentive not to give up. If they see the hard workers defeated by the system, they will learn more helplessness, they will despise those who are so arrogant as to think they can get a ahead.

Blacks in America got a double whammy. Many were slaves until 1865, and the end of the war, but then Jim Crow and the legacy of the Confederacy and the whites who were brought up to think highly of it kept that boot on their necks for decades to follow. Even now, that demon isn’t fully exorcised from our culture. It won’t be until Jim Crow is dead in living memory.

TomT-
Would Martin Luther King be a Republican today, might I ask? With the modern Republicans disdain for anti-poverty programs, their party’s hatred of unions? Black Republicanism in that time is a much different creature than it is now. The Republicans still remembered they were the party of Lincoln. The Republicans still had a wing of moderates. The Republicans were still willing to vote for things like Medicaid.

That party changed. That party decided to appeal to those disaffected by civil rights legislation, by increased poverty programs and things like that. Your argument about Martin Luther King is revisionist history, and it fails to account for what your real response to his real professed beliefs at the time of his death were.

Those poverty programs you trash helped cut poverty in half over the next few decades.

I’m not ignoring the ugly history of my own party. I’m just not rewriting the portion that comes after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the way you are.

Quit with the BS accusations of racism. You say it’s wrong to attack a black person because they are conservative. But you know what you’re defending right now? Attacking black people because they’re liberals, claiming they’ve got diminished capacity, rather than acknowledging a long track record of politically alienating rhetoric and behavior from the right.

The Republicans once had great sway among African Americans. They wasted that to pursue the votes of disaffected whites. This is a matter of historic fact, and the main reason for the sharp reversal of the solid south into Repulbican hands. Gaining their favor meant saying and doing a lot of things that sounded great to these people, but made many blacks feel as if the Republicans had abandoned and betrayed them.

Cain wants to make-believe that folks should just give the GOP a blank slate, and follow them because he thinks they’re so swell. But the truth is, whether he likes it or not, the obnoxious way in which Republicans have deal with blacks in this country can’t be undone. The GOP doesn’t seem to be in any hurry to change it’s mind about much of what it’s done, and seems to be doubling down on it to boot.

You can’t expect forgiveness or oblivion if you won’t let your mistakes die.

kctim-
If you think I’m so cheap as to resort to scaring people off of their beliefs with charges of racism, you’ve got another thing coming.

I’m merely point out that the Republicans have built a bad reputation with most African Americans, and that alienation from the GOP was not provoked by those people themselves.

Democrats have been, if not always civil. very much willing to compromise, to allow Repulbicans to take the lead in the last decade. Whoever started things first is not my concern, the recursion on that could be never-ending. My concern is that the GOP and conservative movement, if it had been a little less heavy handed and hostile, could have easily diluted political rebellion from the left.

It would have meant taking care of business practically, and not explointing 9/11 and the wars so cynically. But the conservatives could have brought this country together, rather than tearing it apart in the effort to get a concentrated, ever-loyal base.

I won’t claim that my side is idyllically innocent, that folks on my side aren’t sometimes every bit as partisan as those on the right. But if you had looked at many of these people ten years ago, you would have had folks who practical arguments and political centrism could have appealed to. If folks on the right hadn’t decided that people like me having political power was a clear and present danger to the country, they might have ended up moderate, but more powerful.

I don’t want to lock Republicans out of power, just remind them that they have to share it, and that if they go about the business of just bashing people silly, they shouldn’t expect those people to hold much sympathy with them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 3, 2011 2:38 PM
Comment #330006


Stephen, rather than the last ten years, I prefer the period from 1998 through 2007. It was a period of considerable cooperation between the Democratic and Republican politicians. During that period, our politicians gave us two unfunded wars, deregulation of the financial markets which gave us the housing bubble, unrepresented corruption, and buried our country in debt.

The voting records of the politicians of both parties tell the tale better than any rhetoric can and when you say Democrats have become far more reluctant to make compromises with the Republicans, you obviously are omitting the Democratic politicians. If those Democratic politicians are slightly more reluctant to compromise away Democratic Party principles it is because they are getting more heat from their constituents.

Kctim, when you are talking about politicians you are right, they no longer want to deal with the left wing of the party. The voters have desires, the corporations have desires and money.

On the issues from Social Security to school lunch programs, a majority of the people side with the left.

Posted by: jlw at October 3, 2011 2:53 PM
Comment #330009

jlw
The majority of the people side with the right on issues such as illegal aliens, health care and the 2nd Amendment, so what’s your point?

The fact of the matter is that the left treats those on the right the exact same way they falsely claim the right treats minority groups. They claim the right deserves not to be supported, but can’t understand why people dare not support the left.

Yes, voters have desires. Corporations have desires and money.
BUT
Government has desires, money and POWER.

Posted by: kctim at October 3, 2011 3:23 PM
Comment #330011

SD

“You can’t expect forgiveness or oblivion if you won’t let your mistakes die.”

Practice what you preach.

I have read too much that you have put up here to let this slip by.

You accuse others of revisionist history rewriting. Sounds nice for putting on paper and many people use it. But almost none of those who use the phrase know the meaning.


“I’m not ignoring the ugly history of my own party. I’m just not rewriting the portion that comes after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the way you are.”

I fully understand that statement. You are rewriting it in a way that is pleasing to you. So you accuse someone of rewriting it a certain way and that you don’t approve of and that is wrong in your view, but if it is rewritten in a way that you agree with it is the right way. What phaph!!

“I don’t want to lock Republicans out of power, just remind them that they have to share it, and that if they go about the business of just bashing people silly, they shouldn’t expect those people to hold much sympathy with them.”

Why should I share power with Socialists, Progressives, Marxists, Ku Klux Klanners, Pro Abortionists, Anti-Semites, et al? That is against my personal beliefs.


Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at October 3, 2011 3:29 PM
Comment #330024

It was Republicans who abolished slaver and fought the civil war for the Union. But, it was Democrats who abolished the post war segregation in the South at great cost to their party politically.

It was Harry Truman who desegregated the armed forces and federal civil service under an executive order. He established the first civil rights commission. The 1948 Democratic Convention adopted a civil rights platform resulting in a walk out by Southern Democrats and the formation of the short lived Dixiecrats. It was the beginning of the end for Democratic domination of the South.

It was LBJ with the help of Robert Kennedy that put the coup de grace in Democratic political domination of the South by pushing for and signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. LBJ may have recognized the gain from black voters, but he also recognized that the South was lost to the Democrats. He famously said to Bill Moyers at the time of the signing: “We have lost the South for a generation.” It turned out to longer than he thought. The “Southern Strategy” of Nixon was a cynical effort to capitalize on the split in the Democratic party on the issue of segregation. The party of Lincoln stepped into the shoes of the Dixiecrats.

Posted by: Rich at October 3, 2011 6:50 PM
Comment #330030

Stephen

The poor remain poor because of poor attitudes and habits. We (C&J) inherited almost nothing in terms of physical wealth. We had a richness of habits, however.

My father had some “poor man” attitudes. Fortunately, my mother had better ideas.

I understand the problem of some people being slaves until 1865. Many of my ancestors were serfs (which worked very much like slavery, except the Russian serf diet was poorer) until 1861 and when they arrived in America around 40 years later, they had essentially no wealth, nor did they acquire any until my generation.

Inter-generational poverty is passed along through habits and behaviors. That is the thing we need to change. How do you think is the best way to change that?

Re anti-poverty programs - they were not well thought out. In the 1960s and 1970s they actually caused harm. In other words, doing nothing would have been better than most of the war on poverty that created more dependency and family breakdown. The best anti-poverty program in our time was welfare reform of the 1990s.


Posted by: C&J at October 3, 2011 10:20 PM
Comment #330031

“TomT-

Would Martin Luther King be a Republican today, might I ask? With the modern Republicans disdain for anti-poverty programs, their party’s hatred of unions? Black Republicanism in that time is a much different creature than it is now.”

Posted by SD; sorry SD but your comments are a hypothetical!

SD goes on to say:

“Those poverty programs you trash helped cut poverty in half over the next few decades.”

Sorry again SD, your comments are bull hockey. Thanks to Obama, the poverty level and those on welfare and food stamps have hit a new record.

“I’m not ignoring the ugly history of my own party. I’m just not rewriting the portion that comes after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the way you are.”

Yes you are; in fact, you are doing your best to blame the Republican Party for the “ugly history” of the democrats.

As for the rest of your comments; you are either ignorant of American history, believed all the mush your professors pumped into your head, or you are blatantly rewriting history. I any case, you have no idea what you are talking about. Again I ask, since I and others provided racists quotes from liberal politicians; why don’t you provide one from a conservative politician? Of course the racist statements by liberals against blacks don’t include the anti-Semitic comments also made.

Continued comments to kctim:

“Democrats have been, if not always civil. very much willing to compromise, to allow Repulbicans to take the lead in the last decade. Whoever started things first is not my concern, the recursion on that could be never-ending. My concern is that the GOP and conservative movement, if it had been a little less heavy handed and hostile, could have easily diluted political rebellion from the left.”

Tell me Stephen, what planet are you from? Democrats are never willing to compromise, unless by compromise you mean, do what they want.

“I won’t claim that my side is idyllically innocent, that folks on my side aren’t sometimes every bit as partisan as those on the right. But if you had looked at many of these people ten years ago, you would have had folks who practical arguments and political centrism could have appealed to. If folks on the right hadn’t decided that people like me having political power was a clear and present danger to the country, they might have ended up moderate, but more powerful.
I don’t want to lock Republicans out of power, just remind them that they have to share it, and that if they go about the business of just bashing people silly, they shouldn’t expect those people to hold much sympathy with them.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 3, 2011 2:38 PM

What a crock; And yes SD, the liberal socialist branch of your party ARE a clear and present danger to the country. You still don’t get it do you Stephen; the T is a movement to get rid of the established republican RHINO’s and the breed of centrism that caves to the socialist liberals of the Democratic Party. You accuse the republicans of being taken over by a right wing; but your own party has been taken over by socialists, of which you abide. Unlike your false statement, I am more than willing to admit, I want socialists to be locked out of power. You have the audacity to accuse conservatives of bashing people, and yet your idiot messiah can’t open his mouth without bashing someone or blaming someone else. When Obama caved to republican demands, your socialist left wingers and union leaders demanded that he become aggressive and attack the conservatives. Let’s look at his latest rant. Bringing accusations against Perry for boos that took place when a gay military man stood up to ask a set up question. The boo was not for the gay military man, it was for the question and yet Obama lamely tried to say the boo was against the gay. Thank God, we no longer depend on the MSM for our news; because they are in bed with Obama.

Jlw said:

“Stephen, rather than the last ten years, I prefer the period from 1998 through 2007. It was a period of considerable cooperation between the Democratic and Republican politicians. During that period, our politicians gave us two unfunded wars, deregulation of the financial markets which gave us the housing bubble, unrepresented corruption, and buried our country in debt.”

Get off your high horse jlw; Obama has continued to do the same things that were started by Bush. In fact he has expanded the wars and the spending. Men are still dying, money is still being spent and it will all be for nothing because when Obama does pull out (to appease his base) Iran will walk in and take over Iraq and the oil fields. And for all the lefts hatred of Bush and Chaney for water boarding, enhanced interrogation, and GITMO; you have no problem with Obama targeting and killing American citizens. What would he do with them if they had been captured alive? Interrogate? No! Send to GITMO? No! So just assassinate them, problem solved. What would the left have said if Bush had done this? What would the left have said if the military had just shot Saddam Hussein when they trapped him in the hole? The left is disgusting. Always double standards and yet blind to be able to see it. And you can blame the financial market and housing bubble on Frank and Dodd, so no one on here will believe this liberal BS.

To Rich’s Comment #330024, I say; you had to jump through a lot of hoops to come to this distorted conclusion. You must have had your head filed with mush at the same university as Stephen. Let me get this straight: republicans fought to free the blacks; democrats fought to keep blacks as slaves; republicans fought to give blacks civil rights; democrats fought to keep blacks from having civil rights; republicans voted for civil rights; democrats voted against civil rights; republican politicians do not make racists statements; democrat politicians have a history of making racists statements; republicans have a history of appointing minorities to public office; democrats do not; republicans want to offer vouchers (of which SD refused to discuss this one) in order that minorities and inner city blacks can get a better education for their kids; democrats want to abolish school vouchers and force black kids to go to the most dangerous and ill-equipped schools in the country; republicans want to get blacks off of welfare, work and provide for their families, while as a family unit; democrats want blacks on welfare, be unmarried, and have illegitimate kids, in short, destroying he family unit; and you say these republicans are really democrats and the democrats are really republicans. Let me recommend that the left pull their heads out of their anal cavities.
I have never heard such distorted BS in my life.

Posted by: TomT at October 3, 2011 11:45 PM
Comment #330035
republicans fought to free the blacks; republicans fought to give blacks civil rights; republicans voted for civil rights…

Aren’t these the same republicans you referred to earlier?

You still don’t get it do you Stephen; the T is a movement to get rid of the established republican RHINO’s and the breed of centrism that caves to the socialist liberals of the Democratic Party.

Is the ideology of men like Nelson Rockefeller, Theodore Roosevelt, Jacob K. Javits, Irving Ives, George Aiken, Robert Stafford, Edward Brooke, Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., Joseph S. Clark, Jr., John Chafee, Charles Mathias, Robert M. La Follette Jr, Robert M. La Follette Sr, Charles H. Percy and Thomas Dewey still welcome in the GOP?

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 4, 2011 1:08 AM
Comment #330040

jlw-
Yes, considerable cooperation, which rank and file Democrats like myself fought to end. And so, to that end, we pulled our leaders in another direction, which they followed out of a sense of political ambition, as they should when their constituents do that.

It’s one thing to acknowledge that there’s been a kind of commonality of policy, and that it’s not been in the right direction, it’s quite another thing to declare it inherent to the system. People are doing that, and what is their first, though unintended reaction? To compound it, by deciding not to participate in the system.

We got the idea, some time ago, that learned helplessness, dropping out and tuning out, was an acceptable response to a government whose behavior we didn’t like. But this is the passive responsed of those who are looking for good rulers, rather than acting to rule well, for their part, as citizens in a Democracy, where the citizens rule.

The status quo has inertia, and until either events or the will of it’s constituents act, the new normal for the Democratic party that started developing under Reagan will continue.

But what we need isn’t merely heat from constituents, we need an organized movement, in order to not only force the Democratic Party’s hand, but become the leadership of that party in short order.

kctim-
The question is not what we are doing, but what your people choose to do.

tom humes-

Why should I share power with Socialists, Progressives, Marxists, Ku Klux Klanners, Pro Abortionists, Anti-Semites, et al? That is against my personal beliefs.

Why should I share power with your folks, who I disagree with so much? Because in real terms the alternative, once you strip your inflammatory language away is trying to rule over your people by force. Same way from you going the other way. It’s not democracy when you don’t share power, it’s authoritarianism, it’s fascism. If it’s a Republic, then it’s like the People’s Republic of China in it’s fidelity to the meaning of that word.

I would love to have things my way, like anybody else would. But what I’ve come to recognize is that if I were able to force my way arbitrarily on everybody else, if I could lock out those whose ideas I didn’t like on a permanent basis, well then, would those people necessarily sit quiet? No. They would not. Change would come anyways, folks would want to see their will done, just like I did, only since I’ve taken over, they would have to take it back by force.

The virtue and value of a Democratic Republic like ours is that People can speak their minds, and not be censored, that they can change the shape of the government to suit their ends, even as the government may try to change the rules to suit its.

As for your accusation? You know what really annoys me? when people repeat back arguments trying to look clever. It’s not clever, especially when you don’t provide evidence to back your argument. Where am I revising history? I’m accepting an awful lot of history that makes my party look bad. I’m accepting that Martin Luther King might have been a registered Republican. Kennedy hesitant about pushing Civil Rights legislation? I’ll believe that. LBJ calling black people the n-word in the back rooms? I’ll believe that. That his motives were not pure? I’ll believe that, too. You’re under the impression that I’ve idealized the Democrats of the past, that I’m not aware of what the party was, fifty years ago. But I am. But see, I don’t have to answer for what my party was fifty years ago. My concern is what it is today, and today’s Democratic Party has evolved into something quite different that it was then. It used to be Republicans that controlled things in the Northeast. Democrats were the party of the South. Now things are reversed. Republicans once accepted the power of the unions, now they don’t.

I could go on, but the truth I should basically lay to you is that I have a more nuanced understanding of history than you give me credit for.

C&J-
Attitudes don’t make people poor, lack of money does. It takes extraordinary effort to move upwards, and very often, it takes all the effort you got just to keep yourself afloat.

Republicans have adopted a sink or swim mentality, which is nice for those who have the wealth to recover from their bad luck. But for somebody like my family, who don’t have the resources to snap back, it can be the push that sends them into poverty. And it has. Just look at the statistics.

The rich have recovered from the crash, everybody else hasn’t. Some think that’s sufficient, and we should just let things lie. But the status quo is an intolerable idling of America’s productive capacity.

You would like to tell me that people’s economic condition is all up to them. It’s not. People have to struggle against external conditions, even as they have to deal with their internal choices. In fact, really, the external conditions shape the internal choices. We’ve become a nation of debtors mainly because it’s not practical to deal with expenses that continue to go up without some measure of credit to absorb the costs. It is very hard to live without credit in today’s world, especially when many businesses fight increases in compensation. In fact, you could say that today’s culture is a result of years of fighting wage increases and encouraging debt-financing as the norm. It had to hit a wall someday, as the money men pushed the debt they were encouraging past people’s ability to ever pay them off, but there you go, it did.

And now people are having to adapt to that. Much as we would like them to act differently on their own, they aren’t on their own. They are interacting with millions of other people in the market. That’s what you don’t understand, with your market philosophy, but individual focus. Examining one part of the economy will not tell you how the economy as a whole works. If a person has no money to spare, if they’re having to sock back money, if they can, to deal with emergencies, or else go deeper in debt, then this dream of yours of them sprouting wings and flying to a higher tax bracket isn’t going to work out, except in the rarest of cases.

TomT-
Don’t look now, but your claim, based on MLK being a Republican, is itself a hypothetical. You just don’t admit it. What you’re really saying, by pointing this out, is that MLK would support your party’s current policies. Except, the real MLK died on the way to support a union, the real MLK supported anti-poverty programs the Republicans don’t, the real MLK was agaisnt the Vietnam, which many Republicans are for. So, while his potential disagreement with you or I is a hypothetical, my hypothesis aligns King’s real beliefs to my guess at what he would oppose and support. Yours merely assumes that one Republican is as good as another, and ignores the Demographic change and political crossover that took place in the decades since.

I am not blaming the Republican party, by the way for my party’s history before the sixties on race relations. Those Democrats are responsible for their own racism, as today’s Democrats and Republicans are responsible for the racism that afflicts them.

As for your response to my comment about wanting Republicans to be mature enough to share power with us?

The Tea Party is the error of the Republican party in the last decade distilled and brewed to its toxic essence. That’s my opinion. It’s your unrealistic attitude on taxes, taken to the nth degree. It’s your strained economic ideology, taken to the nth degree, and forced through brute force hostage taking of critical legislation needed to keep this country and its government running.

There is a part of me that wishes that Republicans didn’t get their way. But the rest of me understands something the framers did as well: being locked out of power is incentive for those people to take power back by force. Look at one revolution after another, and you will see that this is the way civil unrest and insurrectionary discontent builds. Our nation itself was born of anger at the arbitrary policies of the nation that ran the colonies.

You say you want to lock me out of power, but so long as Americans are free, you will never succeed. You would have to leave liberty bloody on the ground to get your way, even as you claim to be her defender.

The freedoms you so often trumpet aren’t there just for your pleasure. They are there so that each person has the capacity to question that government, even as they exercise their right to change that government. The right to think freely and the right to self-determine your government go hand in hand. Unless you destroy this, you can never fully defeat us.

So, if your plan is to do away with us, then all your talk about freedom and liberty mean nothing.

Me, on the other hand? I want your people’s defeat. But I only need your side to be defeated enough to where my side holds power, sets the agenda, makes the major decisions. I only have to make your side more irrelevant. I don’t have to completely destroy it.

You say all these horrible things about liberals like me. Has it occured to you that words like that are pitiful weapons? The worst you can do is make somebody feel foul reading them. If you’re wrong, as you often are, you’re wrong, and it doesn’t matter how much you insist, you don’t have a grasp on the truth. Propaganda is a useless club with which to beat the skeptic. Go on making noise about Democrat’s racial attitudes. Then tell me who has more blacks in Congress, and who elected a black president first.

I could go on, but I got better things to do. In the end, you are fighting a losing battle, and my battle can be won more easily, because I don’t have to treat my opponent as an infectious disease to be sterilized.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 4, 2011 8:04 AM
Comment #330041

SD:


“It’s not democracy when you don’t share power, it’s authoritarianism, it’s fascism.”

“Me, on the other hand? I want your people’s defeat. But I only need your side to be defeated enough to where my side holds power, sets the agenda, makes the major decisions. I only have to make your side more irrelevant. I don’t have to completely destroy it.”

Consistency? Or is what you want authoritarianism?

Posted by: Mike in Tampa at October 4, 2011 8:35 AM
Comment #330042

Some apparently don’t believe that the GOP cynically exploited racial divisions after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Then why would Ken Mehlman, Chairman of the RNC, say this in 2005: “Republican candidates often have prospered by ignoring black voters and even by exploiting racial tensions,” and, “by the ’70s and into the ’80s and ’90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African-American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out. Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.”

Posted by: Rich at October 4, 2011 9:07 AM
Comment #330048

“The question is not what we are doing, but what your people choose to do”

Of course it is, Stephen. Much easier to absolve ‘your people’ of any responsibility when they choose to do the exact same thing they condemn the right of doing.

Posted by: kctim at October 4, 2011 10:25 AM
Comment #330052



“But I only need your side defeated enough to where my side holds power, sets the agenda, makes the major decisions.”

In other words, you only need to weaken the other side enough for your side to exert is authority. You want your side to be authoritarian enough to dictate the agenda and make the major decisions.

That is exactly what your major rivals want to do to you.

The only way to limit authoritarianism is to make certain that no faction has the power to dictate the agenda so all factions are forced to compromise.

In recent decades, the only faction that has shown the ability to unduly influence the agenda and the major decisions has been wealth. They use their wealth to buy the influence and to propagandize the beasts of burden into impotency with a plethora of wedge issues. Wealth hasn’t bought the Republican politicians or the Democratic politicians, the have bought politicians of both parties to insure a coalition of support.

Posted by: jlw at October 4, 2011 3:14 PM
Comment #330054

SD writes; “Attitudes don’t make people poor, lack of money does. It takes extraordinary effort to move upwards, and very often, it takes all the effort you got just to keep yourself afloat.”

That is an astonishing statement. I have rarely read a more discouraging, demeaning, and untrue comment.

The lack of a certain amount of money, defined politically, in this country, defines poverty.

To blankly state that the lack of money robs one of the attitude that they can do better in simply…nonsense. There are millions of stories of people now, and in the past, of those who lifted themselves from poverty with the attitude that it could and should be done.

To extend SD’s logic would imply that given government handouts in the form of money will change peoples attitudes about themselves and their ability to succeed in changing their financial status and it is absurd.

Money does not equal attitude. It neither forms or enhances attitude. To espouse such a philosophy smacks of despotism. It is negativism squared. It is typical of liberalism as practiced by SD and those with that belief.

It is true that darkness is the absence of light. It is also true that much of poverty is the lack of the proper attitude. To further such a belief is to rob one of the means to succeed…that being, the proper attitude towards striving for success.

I have friends who came to this country with virtually nothing in the way of financial assets. Yet, with the correct attitude, have made a huge monetary success in their lives. I condemn anyone who advocates and promotes the idea that poverty can not be overcome by individual effort.

Nothing has been given to me, or millions of other Americans, that has not been offered to all. What we choose to do with our lives is ours alone. And that success or failure is directly attributable to our individual attitude.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 4, 2011 4:21 PM
Comment #330062

RF, these are the proposed demands of the wall street protestors:

1.Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending ‘Freetrade’ by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market …

2.Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals …

3.Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.” Why even go to school? Why care about education and why worry about employment if you’re demanding “a guaranteed living wage”?

4.Free college education.” Why? Why do you need free college education? If you’re gonna get a living wage and you don’t have to work, why go to college? Let’s just ban college.

5.Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end. This regime is doing everything it can to put the fossil fuel industry out of business!

6.One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

7.One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants.

8.Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

9.Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the ‘Books.’ World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the ‘Books.’

10.Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

11.Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.” Why does this matter when nobody’s gonna have to work?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/10/04/idiotic_demands_of_the_wall_street_protestors

And this is the real direction the liberal socialists want to take us.

Posted by: Mike at October 4, 2011 5:57 PM
Comment #330063

Mike in Tampa-
I don’t want anything more fancy than our turn at bat. Your people got to dominate policy for quite a long time. The results were less than satisfactory. I want to try something different. Me, I’m willing to compromise a little, do a little give and take with Republican. I’m willing to settle for less than perfect.

Meanwhile, the Tea Party insists on getting everything it’s way. What’s happened twice already, is that the Republican proposal dies because of their purism, so Republicans have to negotiate something more liberal so Democrats will vote for it, because they sure as hell aren’t getting a Tea Party-Pleasing bill through the Senate, or across the President’s desk.

By your own rules, and ironically by your own actions, the Republicans are weakened, and are therefore undeserving of support. If you are only pleased with the perfect Republican, then no real ones will please you. I mean, just look at your 2012 slate. There’s going to be something wrong with just about every one of them that causes your people to cast them down, and your people are going to superball bounce between bland centrists and alarming extremists.

kctim-
Except what are you doing right now? See, I can admit being obnoxious isn’t a good thing all the time. You? You’re using the old tu quoque defense, which automatically concedes that your people are being obnoxious, but uses Democratic Party Partisanship as an excuse for it.

Why not just admit that your people are choosing to be obnoxious? Then justify it. Why? What does it gain them?

This is my whole point: Republicans have said some very obnoxious things about minorities. They might excuse them by saying that minorities have been playing the race card, or by taking refuge in telling it like it is, or by accusing the people in question of ignoring a truth for the sake of political correctness, but whatever their rationalization, they’re still offending those people and alienating them.

More to the point, there’s no effort to reach out.

I know you can come up with every reason you can to justify the divisive behavior, but how about justifying reaching out to Democrats and Liberals? How about justifying not being deliberately offensive, or callous towards women, gays, and minorities?

How about recognizing that if you really beat up on somebody, it’s asking a bit much for them not to beat back?

How about starting from the position that there is a compromise, rather than there being none?

Ah, but that would make you more liberal, wouldn’t it, at least according to the pundits and thinkers that run the party nowadays. Really, though, I’d say that’s mainly come about because of a combination of the need for a response to the flak Republicans take for some of their extreme positions, and the need not to let Democrats have a win by forcing a concession on behavior and language.

Unfortunately, though, it’s enshrined the tendency towards a lack of self-control or inhibition about prejudices as a virtue. To be politically incorrect is equated to honesty.

The folks on the Right need to stop defining their world in opposition to our views. They need to step back and look at things fresh, and recognized that some of the criticism they face has been earned.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 4, 2011 6:12 PM
Comment #330064

Thanks Mike for providing the link to Limbaugh with his list of 11 demands of the Wall Street protesters. It is about as silly as I imagined. No doubt someone on WB will be defending it soon.

SD writes; “Why not just admit that your people are choosing to be obnoxious? Then justify it. Why? What does it gain them.”

SD apparently can not understand that some folks actually do have principles upon which they stand.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 4, 2011 6:38 PM
Comment #330066

“Thanks Mike for providing the link to Limbaugh with his list of 11 demands of the Wall Street protesters. It is about as silly as I imagined.”

They may seem extreme, but maybe that’s exactly what is needed. Lets take the debt forgiveness demand. It sounds outlandish until you actually look at the issue. Attempting to honor the debt held by banks worldwide by socializing the debt threatens the world’s economy. Just look at what has happened to Ireland. This is what John Hussman, a leading investment portfolio manager and economist who predicted the collapse of 2008, has to say about the need for debt restructuring: “Debt restructuring is the best remaining option to treat a spreading cancer. Other choices are fatal.” http://www.financialsense.com/node/6295

Posted by: Rich at October 4, 2011 7:58 PM
Comment #330068

Thanks for the link Rich. I didn’t have time to read it all which I will do tomorrow.

I found this quote quite interesting…”…but also recognizing that properly restructuring debt will wipe out many existing holders of mismanaged financials and will require a transfer of ownership and recapitalization by better stewards.”

I have been saying for some time now that bankruptcy is a well known and successful tool to accomplish what the writer is advocating. Instead of all the bailouts, bankruptcy would have served the nation much better.

I also read an interesting article in Stratfor regarding the inability to make anything more than a guess at the true financials involved in Greece and some other nations. Much of their economy is off the books and immeasurable. Consequently, any measures taken in those countries is likely to be based upon guesswork and will not necessarily work in the ways intended.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 4, 2011 8:26 PM
Comment #330071

Stephen, you silly, silly boy:

“By your own rules, and ironically by your own actions, the Republicans are weakened, and are therefore undeserving of support. If you are only pleased with the perfect Republican, then no real ones will please you. I mean, just look at your 2012 slate. There’s going to be something wrong with just about every one of them that causes your people to cast them down, and your people are going to superball bounce between bland centrists and alarming extremists.”

Republicans are weakened? You only wish. It’s called a primary and that means we are vetting a candidate to run for president on the republican ticket; unlike the left who fell down slobbering and wetting all over themselves when the messiah obama ran for office and did not receive one single question from the MSM. When the time comes to vote for president, the conservatives will be more than willing to support our candidate, no matter who he is. Anything is better than the corrupt, partying, golfing, ignorant excuse we have for a leader at this time. He says he is the underdog and he is correct, the underdog to a nameless and “weakened” (as you say) candidate.

“The folks on the Right need to stop defining their world in opposition to our views. They need to step back and look at things fresh, and recognized that some of the criticism they face has been earned.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 4, 2011 6:12 PM

The fresh look will be taken on Nov. 2, 2012. A day of rejoicing.

RF, you are correct; SD does not understand that some folks actually do have principles upon which they stand. There are no principles on the left, there is no honor and it’s all about them. How can one say he is patriotic and yet put himself and his socialist goals first? The left are the first to get angry at accusing them of being unpatriotic and talk about how much they support the military, but we know they loath the military.

When obama talks about taxing the rich (and he has many carefully chosen names for them, in order to create class warfare), we doesn’t he ever include the elitist Hollywood crowd, or the pro-sport athletes who pull in millions every year? I have heard him talk about the rich Wall Street fat cats but I have never heard him talk about the Hollywood crowd or athletes. Has anyone else?

Posted by: Mike at October 4, 2011 8:59 PM
Comment #330076

“I have heard him talk about the rich Wall Street fat cats but I have never heard him talk about the Hollywood crowd or athletes. Has anyone else?”

Mike,

Of course he has. He has never singled out certain categories of higher income earners as especially deserving of higher taxes. Indeed, he always includes himself in the category of income earners capable of bearing additional taxation.

Posted by: Rich at October 4, 2011 9:47 PM
Comment #330077

Here is a simple and novel idea.

The Warren Buffets and those like him who think they should be paying more, step forward and set an example of how much more each of them should pay. We would not have to worry about a debate in Congress, nor the Weasel-in-Chief having to sign any legislation, and it would do those sap suckers good to cleanse their guilt. We could all keep on keeping on and that would take care of that issue. The only problem is that those that have spoken that way are somewhere left of the late planet Pluto. Their walk and talk never match up. It sure helps those on WB acquire a couple more talking points and give a false appearance of looking brilliant. I agree with the brilliance part. They would be as brilliant as a cockroach in a sewer.

Posted by: tom humes at October 4, 2011 10:11 PM
Comment #330082

“Mike,

Of course he has. He has never singled out certain categories of higher income earners as especially deserving of higher taxes. Indeed, he always includes himself in the category of income earners capable of bearing additional taxation.”

Posted by: Rich at October 4, 2011 9:47 PM

So Rich, are you saying Obama never called rich bankers “Fat Cats”? According to you, he as never singled out any certain catagories.

http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/obama_top_fat_cat_strays_C9qcrURkB9L9JkImemgBwL

“In his so-called jobs speeches, Obama exploits class envy shrouded in fairness. President Obama continues to escalate his divisive assault on achievers, purposely pitting Americans against each other.

Obama’s “Hate the Rich” campaign appeals to our lower nature and encourages the sin of covetousness. If Obama’s despicable campaign proves successful, it will be a sad commentary about who we have become as a people and how far we have fallen as Americans.”

Continuing in the words of Lloyd Marcus, “Our president is nothing more than a Chicago thug community agitator stirring up discontent, inspiring racial hatred and hatred for achievers. The bottom line of every Obama speech regarding the economy is you have too little because those guys have too much.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/obamas_hate_the_rich_campaign.html

Of course, since Lloyd Marcus, like Cain, is a black man, he must of necessity also be a racist.

Obama has made a lot of democrat enemies on Wall Street and his donations are down. A person can only take so much. It’s amazing that the “great uniter” is an even greater divider.

Posted by: Mike at October 4, 2011 11:34 PM
Comment #330083

Royal Flush-
Thanks mike for provide the list of 11 (proposed) demands (by one group) of the (many thousands) of Wall Street Protesters. And by such a reliable source of information on the overall tenor of Democratic politics as Rush Limbaugh.

As for your principles, I have seen your party contradict nearly everything it says about the proper use of power when it has that power. I remember a time when Republicans thought filibusters were the worst thing possible for Democracy. Then they turned around and cast it as Democracy’s salvation, even as they exceed the use of it by Democrats by two to one! This, that the Republicsn threatened to just destroy!

Republicans said that Democrats were spend thrifts, then went on to raise spending by trillions over the subsequent years. Before it was Obamacare, it was the Republican counterproposal to Hillarycare, then Romneycare in Massachussetts. Now it’s SOCIALISM! Payroll tax cuts were wonderful when it got you two more years of tax breaks for the rich, then when they came up for renewal, your people are saying they’ll vote it down! You talk all about people getting to keep money in their wallets, but when the time comes around to put money back in the wallets of those who might actually be able to use it, rather than just stick it in an account, WE JUST CAN’T AFFORD IT!

Republicans pass one stimulus measure after another, all funded by deficit spending, and make the claim that doing this will help the economy. This is a textbook form of Keynesian stimulus. It’s not the most efficient kind, mind you, but it qualifies nonetheless. Even the Bush tax cuts, ineffective as they were, qualify for this, since Republicans spoke out of both sides of their mouth, and decided that what was returning the stimulus to taxpayers at the beginning of 2001, was instead going to be- you guessed it, a measure to stimulate the economy.

But Obama comes up with an plan dwarfed by the fiscal cost of all those tax breaks, and in a genuine time of emergencies, and suddenly the educated folks in the GOP are saying that “stimulus” of this kind is a four letter word, an example of socialism!

Cap and Trade was the Republicans solution to acid rain-creating sulfur emissions from power plants. Worked pretty well. But when Democrats start to support it, guess what? It’s a socialist crypto-tax!

Republicans start admitting that global warming and the effect of manmade emissions of CO2 are real, but two years later, they’re taking a line in direct contradiction to the science, and spreading the lies to their followers.

Yeah, principles. They’re whatever the Right Wing needs them to be to make it more likely that Republicans win elections.

As for just letting things collapse? Well thanks to the laws your friends in Washington wrote, our options aren’t that simple. See, Lehman Brothers collapsing is what started this panic. But why? Well, because they were all entangled in these derivatives, which they had traded between all the big banks. When somebody goes bankrupt, certain people take a bath. And then whoever depends on those people takes a bath, too. It gets worse when so much of the financial activity in the Derivatives market are “off the books”, just like Greek real estate and speculation.

Do you understand that we’re not having these problems because anything material is preventing America, or the rest of the world from producing. We’re having this problem because their is so much dead weight on the economy in the form of debt, and so little chance of paying it back, that assets based on such debts, and the likelihood of that payback, are of uncertain value.

That’s what you get when you relax the rules on people, the way y’all have done. That’s what happens when a lot of business depends on assets people haven’t been clear about the real worth of. That’s what happens when your biggest financial companies have merged so incestuously, with so few firewalls between them that nobody can let one company fail without the others going with it.

Mike-
You folks pick primary candidates the way Kathleen Turner picks men at the beginning of Romancing the Stone Too this, too that. Too moderate, too stupid, too racist, too fringe. You got no compromise candidates, no folks who can appeal to middle and the base at the same time without losing much of either side’s enthusiasm.

You want to pretend like Obama’s Bush, and you can just brainlessly reverse each and every charge and apply it to Obama. That way, you don’t have to admit you have poor taste in candidates. Unfortunately, you still have poor taste in candidates, and what you’re going to get is either somebody so extreme that Obama is appealing by comparison, or you’re going to get somebody so compromised, that voting for nobody becomes appealing. And if you do come through, God help the president you elect, because you will insist on the same policies, the same impossible goals, and you’ll be lucky to have a functioning party come 2016.

Hell, I don’t think you have one now. You’re so concentrated on beating Obama and the Democrats that you have failed to perceive the multitude of knots you’ve already tied your party in, and how Obama can exploit that as leverage against the GOP’s stubborn unwillingness to compromise.

You talk about class warefare. Well, let me tell you, if you don’t indulge some class warfare real soon, you’re going to have a real class revolt on your hands. People believe that your policies are elitist, that they’re all about making sure the concentration of wealth continues at their expense. They’re sick and tired of being told that if they sacrifice more health, safety, wealth, and time to the elites out there, that they’ll be rewarded with a share of the rewards of their productivity. But they haven’t been rewarded that way. They’ve been used as economic cannon fodder, and 2008 and the years that have followed have been a massacre for them because of that.

People want out of this rotten arrangement. Hell, Adam Smith could have told you they would. The market doesn’t just drive prices down all the time. Sometimes the cost has to go up. The Market isn’t a wish granting magic genie. It’s just a bunch of people interacting according to a certain set of rules.

As for Sports stars and Hollywood Actors? He doesn’t include them because many of those people give people actual joy in their lives, rather than lay them off, waste their retirement savings, crash markets, and reap millions in rewards even as their businesses have crashed, and the taxpayers are bailing them out. Brad Pitt didn’t wreck your 401K. Cal Ripken, Jr. Didn’t ruin his entire team, but still get paid millions.

Despite the fact that their jobs are not difficult by comparison, they’re at least doing their jobs most of the time we see them, and we resent the when they don’t.

tom humes-
Here’s a simple and novel idea: rather than punish the poor for the billions of dollars needed to bring back the economy, why don’t we tax thoe who have benefited most, and suffered least?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 5, 2011 12:18 AM
Comment #330085

Mike,

As Warren Buffet famously put it, if there is class warfare, then we (rich) are winning. Consider the following:

In 1980, the Top 1% earned 9% of total U.S. income. By 2010, the Top 1% now earns nearly 23% of total U.S. income. Take a look at the chart presented in the provided link. It shows a plummeting share of national income for workers. http://www.frumforum.com/incredible-shrinking-workers-income

Conservatives make a big deal over the fact that the overall tax burden for the rich has increased over the years despite falling tax rates. That should not be surprising since the top income brackets are capturing an increasingly larger share of national income.

Posted by: Rich at October 5, 2011 8:37 AM
Comment #330086

Stephen said:

“Mike-
You folks pick primary candidates the way Kathleen Turner picks men at the beginning of Romancing the Stone Too this, too that. Too moderate, too stupid, too racist, too fringe. You got no compromise candidates, no folks who can appeal to middle and the base at the same time without losing much of either side’s enthusiasm.”

Sorry Stephen, it is not republicans who are obsessed with racist statements; it’s your party. The only time racism is brought up is when your side does it. There have been enough quotes by democrats on these posts to prove it is democrats who always want to play the race card. You have been asked several times to name a republican politician who has made racist statements to equal those out of the mouth of democrats and yet you ignore the question. You continue to say the same old liberal talking points. As for compromise, we don’t want a politician who will compromise with socialists.

I’m having a hard time understanding your thinking. In your comments to RF, you accuse the republicans of doing the same thing as the democrats and you are correct. Let me try to explain this one more time, although I don’t believe it is possible for your socialist liberal mind to comprehend; the TP is made up of conservatives who are fed up with the democrat socialist agenda AND the republican establishment agenda. Therefore our goal is to change the Republican Party. We don’t care if your party has been taken over by socialist, which is your problem. But, we do care about our party and we want it to return to its conservative roots; lower taxes, less spending, and smaller government. Over the past few decades, the Republican Party has become nothing more than an extension of the Democratic Party. In the mind of a socialist, compromise means doing what the democrats want to do. Obama said yesterday that he has bent over backwards to compromise with republicans and again I say, “if obama is opening his mouth, he is lying”. He has NEVER worked with republicans.

“God help the president you elect, because you will insist on the same policies, the same impossible goals, and you’ll be lucky to have a functioning party come 2016.”

I don’t think so Stephen; it is the socialist branch of the democrat party that is disappearing.

“Hell, I don’t think you have one now. You’re so concentrated on beating Obama and the Democrats that you have failed to perceive the multitude of knots you’ve already tied your party in, and how Obama can exploit that as leverage against the GOP’s stubborn unwillingness to compromise.”

This is coming from a socialist liberal who spent 8 years beating up on Bush. Agin I say, compromise to a liberal democrat means doing what they want.

“You talk about class warefare. Well, let me tell you, if you don’t indulge some class warfare real soon, you’re going to have a real class revolt on your hands. People believe that your policies are elitist, that they’re all about making sure the concentration of wealth continues at their expense. They’re sick and tired of being told that if they sacrifice more health, safety, wealth, and time to the elites out there, that they’ll be rewarded with a share of the rewards of their productivity. But they haven’t been rewarded that way. They’ve been used as economic cannon fodder, and 2008 and the years that have followed have been a massacre for them because of that.”

It doesn’t take rocket science to see that every time obama opens his mouth, he is pitting one class of Americans against another. Stephen, I could take everything you say and apply it to the Democratic Party.

“People want out of this rotten arrangement.”

Yes, and it will take place in Nov. 2012. If Americans are so upset at the conservatives and the TP, as you say; and if we are going down the wrong path and alienating all Americans, as you say. Then tell me Stephen, why is the left in panic mode? Your fear of losing power is seen in every word you write. The democrats are looking at massive losses in 2012. There are about 23-25 Democrat Senate seats up for vote, compared to 8 republican. These democrat senators are already trying to distance themselves from obama, which means they are unwilling to vote for anything obama brings up as a bill. Your side is running scared, no, they are terrified.

“As for Sports stars and Hollywood Actors? He doesn’t include them because many of those people give people actual joy in their lives, rather than lay them off, waste their retirement savings, crash markets, and reap millions in rewards even as their businesses have crashed, and the taxpayers are bailing them out. Brad Pitt didn’t wreck your 401K. Cal Ripken, Jr. Didn’t ruin his entire team, but still get paid millions.”

This is more SD BS. The enemy of obama and the socialist liberal is rich people. Obama pits the rich against the poor; the haves against the have not’s. He says those making millions of dollars, and yet he means those making $200k or more a year. Thousands of people making $200k plus are the ones creating the jobs in small businesses and they are the ones he attacks. You are blowing smoke Stephen and you can’t even be truthful about this simple question. He won’t attack the millions made by the Hollywood crowd and black athletes, because they are the ones supporting him. In the same way he has no problem attacking FOX News, but he would never say anything against the MSM.

In conclusion I say; Stephen you are in a minority. The majority of Americans don’t hold to your socialist agenda.

Posted by: Mike at October 5, 2011 9:24 AM
Comment #330087

“Mike,

As Warren Buffet famously put it, if there is class warfare, then we (rich) are winning. Consider the following:

In 1980, the Top 1% earned 9% of total U.S. income. By 2010, the Top 1% now earns nearly 23% of total U.S. income. Take a look at the chart presented in the provided link. It shows a plummeting share of national income for workers. http://www.frumforum.com/incredible-shrinking-workers-income

Conservatives make a big deal over the fact that the overall tax burden for the rich has increased over the years despite falling tax rates. That should not be surprising since the top income brackets are capturing an increasingly larger share of national income.”

Posted by: Rich at October 5, 2011 8:37 AM

Why is it that success is always met by the left as evil? Rich, why do you have a problem with people excelling and becoming successful. You see, this is the problem with socialists; they don’t want to work, but they do want to take away from those who do work. It’s called wealth re-distribution and it is the core value of the left and of socialism. I live comfortable, but I am not rich and I have no problem with people who work hard and become rich. I would love to see all Americans work hard and become rich; but I certainly disagree with the socialist agenda of taking from those who succeed and giving to those who won’t even try. I have to say it all boils down to jealousy and envy. Rich people are not my enemy, but the ignorance and the greed of socialist is the enemy of all America.

Posted by: Mike at October 5, 2011 9:34 AM
Comment #330088

Mike,

This isn’t a moral issue. Its about survival of the middle class and ultimately capital. There is an imbalance between the returns on capital vs. labor. That should be clear from the charts. William Gross of PIMCO Investments wrote an interesting article this month pointing out the inherent symbiotic relationship between capital and labor and that recent policies favoring capital over labor are short sighted.

“Even conservatives must acknowledge that return on capital investment, and the liquid stocks and bonds that mimic it, are ultimately dependent on returns to labor in the form of jobs and real wage gains. “If Main Street is unemployed and undercompensated, capital can only travel so far down Prosperity Road.” http://www.pimco.com/EN/Insights/Pages/SixPackin.aspx

Posted by: Rich at October 5, 2011 10:01 AM
Comment #330091

Stephen
My point is not that “my people” can not be obnoxious, but that “your people” should not treat us the same way you claim we treat minorities, and then expect different results.

You see, liberals and progressives have said and continue to say some VERY obnoxious things about us based only on our differing beliefs. The worst thing is that “your people” do not even attempt to come up with any excuse for such hatred.
If we don’t want special treatment for some, but not for others, we are racists.
If we want immigration laws upheld, we are racists.
If we want to plan and provide for our own retirement or health care, we are racists.
Whatever the rationalizations “your people” come up with, they are still offending people and alienating them.

More to the point, there’s no desire to reach out to those of us who dare hold different beliefs. Especially when concerning individual rights.

If Cain was wrong for saying blacks have been brainwashed to be dependent on government, then the left is wrong in saying the right has been brainwashed for not wanting to be dependent on government.

And FWIW, the left has no clue as to what compromise even means, or else they wouldn’t have to use government mandate to force their ideas onto the people.

Posted by: kctim at October 5, 2011 12:58 PM
Comment #330092


Fine, as long as we can all agree with Cain that if you are unemployed, no one is at fault but you. Wall Street and the banks are not to blame in any way.

I wonder what Cain would have to say about the millions of Americans who are fearful of lossing their job? If you do, it will be your fault?

Posted by: jlw at October 5, 2011 2:41 PM
Comment #330096


Kctim, inflammatory rhetoric is common place in politics, It can be an affective weapon and it will persist because of that.

Actions speak louder than words and it is in this area that Republicans distinguish themselves in regards to the poor in general.

It is one thing to argue that people who wish to vote should be willing to follow the law in the process. It is another all together different thing to make it more difficult for the poor to comply with the law based upon a false pretense, rampant voter fraud, when the preponderance of evidence is far more belief driven than factual.

I am straining to here calls of foul from conservatives about the Texas Republican redistricting plan.

The fact is that Republicans have a vested interest in scapegoating the poor and minorities, and in disenfranchising as many poor voters as possible.

Democrats have their own vested interests which are different than those of the Republicans.

Posted by: jlw at October 5, 2011 3:59 PM
Comment #330098

The only thing the democrats have left, in the play book, is to call those who disagree with them names, i.e. racist. Obama is so unpopular with the voters and the democrat politicians are running for their lives to get away from him.

As per redistricting; it is the right of the controlling party to change congressional districts after a census. The democrats have done it and the republicans have done it. I remember a few years ago when the courts had to step in and call democrat districts (which were 4 or 5 miles wide and a hundred miles long) illegal because they did not represent the voters. It was called stacking the deck and I have never seen the republicans go to these extremes.

Posted by: Mike at October 5, 2011 5:33 PM
Comment #330111

Mike, really, you are the last person who should be making that kind of criticism, and I am the last person you should be making that criticsm towards.

As for Republicans going to extremes on Redistricting, and you not remembering them doing that, apparently you’ve forgotten all about what lead to Tom DeLay’s swift fall from power.

I speak to you from the the second congressional district, one that’s earned the half-joking Nickname “The district that ate Houston.” My district stretches all the way from Beaumont to the outskirts of Houston, weaving its way conveniently around any community that might make it more Democratic. If you want an idea of how much of a stretch this is, think of a district that runs from New York City all the way to Philadelphia.

It’s one of many districts formed in the 2003 redistricting effort that Republicans in my state pursued, which gave Republicans farm more representation in the Texas delegation, than there were Republican Texans in proportion. Tom DeLay got in trouble for deliberately laundering corporate money for this effort. (corporate contributions in Texas elections were basically forbidden.)

For all your allegations, you seem to be the one stacking the deck, stuffing the strawmans, so on and so forth.

Speaking of that increase in percentage of income and wealth- really, if you increase the share of wealth and income, why shouldn’t the taxes increase with them? Is it your notion that the hard-working average American actually deserves less of their paycheck than an executive whose job may be much easier, with much better compensation?

I think the “Screw Poor People and Middle Class” phase of class conflict is over. I think folks are looking at where they are now, and telling themselves and all the politicians in Washington that they’re sick of paying for somebody else’s screw-ups. Not just that, but pretty angry that when they need help, the politicians who are only so glad to to come to the rescue of oil companies when they are disparaged, or financial companies when more regulations is announced aren’t there on their side.

We’ve given and given and given, and seen nothing in return. You want one display of unwise altruism for a so-far nonexistent display of seldom seen altruism right back.

If you want a job done right, do it yourself.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 6, 2011 12:56 AM
Comment #330112

kctim,

If you were worried about your 2nd Amendment rights under Obama;

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-29-2011/wayne-s-world?xrs=share_copy

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 6, 2011 7:55 AM
Comment #330113

Tell you what Stephen; why don’t you socialists on the left win some state legislations and governor’s seats and then you can do the redistricting. Oh, I’m sorry, you can’t win. You guys on the left love to make your little snippy remarks on WB and act as if you are in a majority, but you’re not. In every election you lose more ground. As each election cycle comes around, you lose more governorships and state houses. The time will come when the only state you control will be CA. Until then, just keep whining and crying about how unfair it is because no one accepts your socialist agenda. I predict that even Prozac will not help the left after next year’s election cycle. I have to say SD, your comments are nothing more than political hack jokes. Instead of continually quoting liberal talking points, why don’t you try coming up with something of your own.

RM: It’s not just obama; the entire left wing Democratic Party would love nothing better than to do away with the second amendment. This has been taking place ever since democrats first used the JFK shooting to start their anti-gun campaign. It is a classic example of the socialist trying to use a tragedy to further their agenda. When AZ Giffords was shot, the first thing out of the lips of the socialists was to implement more gun control. That dog won’t hunt anymore. With the availability of instant news and no reliance upon the socialist liberal controlled MSM, the public has become educated. Sorry, but the courts have been on the side of the gun owners and you lost; although many democratic controlled cities are still trying to prevent citizens from protecting themselves. Don’t you find it strange that the most stringent gun control cites are still the most dangerous cities?

Posted by: Mike at October 6, 2011 9:09 AM
Comment #330115

Mike,

“Sorry, but the courts have been on the side of the gun owners and you lost…”

So, as a gun owner myself, please explain to me exactly how it is that “I” lost.

Seems to me that there are those on the right more interested in the hyperbole found within “With the availability of instant news…”, than they are with actual facts.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 6, 2011 9:28 AM
Comment #330117

jlw
“Democrats have their own vested interests which are different than those of the Republicans”

Tell me about. Suppressing military votes and ignoring election integrity and laws come to mind.

Rocky
I don’t believe I said I was worried about 2nd Amendment rights under the Obama. I believe my point was how the left labels 2nd Amendment right supporters as racists. How people on the right hate gays because they do not support gay marriage. How people on the right hate women because they do not support abortion. How people on the right are racists because they believe in individual responsibility.

Why it’s almost like those on the left are more interested in the hyperbole found in instant news than they are in the facts.

Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2011 9:47 AM
Comment #330119

kctim,

I believe we all feel personal responsibility is important.

Can you deny that there are those on the right side of the aisle that do advocate for the hatred you speak of?

Frankly I don’t give a whit about gay marriage, yet I am consistently lumped in with the left because I don’t advocate against it. I do think that we all should help those that cannot help themselves, yet I am pilloried by those that think we should do nothing. I don’t agree with the idea that abortion should be used as a means of birth control, yet I am lumped in with those for unlimited abortion, and BTW, I don’t know anyone that is actually for unlimited abortion.

All of this “instant access” to information isn’t educating anyone that doesn’t actually take the time to separate the facts from the fiction, and IMHO there are very few people that bother.
Truly what is the difference between the MSM and the instant access if we can’t bother with seeking the actual truth?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 6, 2011 10:30 AM
Comment #330120

Rocky
That has been my point all along.
I cannot deny some preach such hatred and I do not believe the left should ignore their own such hatred because they feel ALL Republicans deserve it.

I favor gay marriage and abortion, but since I do not believe they should be determined or paid for by government, I am a dumb redneck racist who hates gays and women. EVERY Republican I know believes we all should help those who cannot help themselves, but since we believe it is an individual responsibility and not a government one, we are labeled as dumb racists who hate minorities, women and the poor.

People care only about their opinions and feelings, not the truth. That is why the MSM and ‘instant access’ are able to define the so-called truth.

Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2011 11:30 AM
Comment #330124
I favor gay marriage and abortion, but since I do not believe they should be determined or paid for by government…we all should help those who cannot help themselves, but since we believe it is an individual responsibility and not a government one.

I believe the same thing, but I’ve never been labeled a “dumb racist”. Go figure.

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 6, 2011 2:01 PM
Comment #330125

Warped, Your not a conservative or Republican or a tea party person!!!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at October 6, 2011 2:11 PM
Comment #330128
Your not a conservative or Republican or a tea party person!!!!!!!

There is a version of me that’s a bit of classic liberal if you hadn’t noticed.

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 6, 2011 4:37 PM
Comment #330129

WR; I’m sure you have some profound difference between the run of the mill socialist liberal and a “classic liberal”. I have found your comments to be just plain old liberal.

RM; “So, as a gun owner myself, please explain to me exactly how it is that “I” lost.”

As a socialist liberal, I’m sure there are many gun control laws you would like to impose. And you lost, because the courts upheld our rights. John Kerry was even seen in a photo op with a shotgun, but he is still a supporter of gun control laws and abolishing the 2nd ammendment rights. Here’s the thing about liberals; it doesn’t matter what they do, as long as they can tell the little man what to do. Case in point: Alec Baldwin is said to have made $2 million from his Capital One commercial, promoting Capial One; and yet he also donate money to the anti-capitalist mobs that are protesting WS. So he made his money through capitalism, but protests capitalism as being evil. In layman’s terms, he is an ass wipe.

As far as queer marriage goes, they can poke each other in the butt all they want or until the kill each other with any new form of VD, just don’t involve my tax dollars.

Posted by: Mike at October 6, 2011 5:05 PM
Comment #330131

Mike-
We’ve already had two elections in recent times where Republicans lost big. Only by going flat out and making a lot of crazy promises have Republicans come back, but even so, they weren’t popular in 2010, and they are even less popular now.

If Republicans take it easy, and don’t emphasize the real character of the policies they’ve pushed for the last year, they might make it out of things relatively okay. But I doubt it. Go look at most of your Presidential candidates. In the interest of looking best to the rightward fringe, they are going truly overboard, and it’s getting noticed.

Your default candidate going forward is somebody who you and other right-wing commentators have repeatedly called a RINO. The only reason, it seems, that many are going to vote for him is that they like Obama even less.

That’s how nuts the oppositional defiances is getting, and how lacking in cohesion the Republicans are. Seriously, every time somebody else came up, your people were rushing to them. Gingrich, Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Christie and now Cain.

But you keep on coming back to Romney.

Is this the behavior of an energized, confident party? You guys haven’t been vacillating between Romney as the candidate of realism, and all the fantasy candidates.

Republicans have done much of what they promised. Has it made them more popular? No. Their one hope is that they can drive down Barack Obama’s numbers sufficiently to crawl over his political corpse out of the pit they dug for themselves and everybody else. And then what?

One advantage to being the party of hope and change, is that there’s something to look forward to. But what do people have to look forward to with the Republicans? Economic sadomasochism masquerading as wisdom. We’re going to cut down on economic activity, throw more people out of their jobs, make ourselves more dependent on fossil fuels, continue to indulge the fatal weaknesses that recently killed our economy. They won’t change energy policy, they won’t deal with global warming until circumstances make it nearly impossible to ignore issues of climate.

I can’t name a single problem we have where benign neglect is a viable option. Our system is broken, and the fortunes of the Republicans currently depend on making sure that system doesn’t change.

Democrats, on the other hand, can take another direction. Their options are open. Some dumbass politicians haven’t had the political intelligence to take advantage of that, but sooner or later, those who do will take over for them.

Even now, your darling conquering hero Scott Brown is running neck and neck with a challenger who just announced a couple weeks ago. You may know her name: Elizabeth Warren. Wouldn’t that be the supreme irony?

Elsewhere, people are mad as hell, still, and guess who’s right in the line of fire: your freshman class, all the Republicans who make up your new majority in the House. You think you can answer the question “Where are the jobs?” without appealing to that BS regulatory answer? I’m going to be doing a piece on this later, but here’s a little preview: most of the layoffs, by an incredibly wide margin, have been due to a lack of demand.

Not enough customers.

You know, job growth would be considerably greater if we were preserving jobs with our legislation, or creating them, as Obama’s stimulus unquestionably did. Instead, job growth is burdened by the effects of the Republican’s policy, and their blockage of anything but their hostage-situation negotiated, draconian spending cuts.

Which themselves are a fiscal drag on the economy, according to the folks on Wall Street.

Republicans have no ideas beyond the ideas they’ve already enshrined as THE answer, ideas that have already proven wrong in many ways.

The problem for Republicans is that sooner or later, the rationalizations and the excuses disappear, and once that happens, Republicans will have nothing left to offer except for the usual desperate carrying on.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 6, 2011 5:28 PM
Comment #330135

Mike,

“As a socialist liberal, I’m sure there are many gun control laws you would like to impose.”

Really, and now should we add clairvoyance to your list of skills?

Look I see a lot of prattle but not much of substance in your post.

Please, be more specific as to what gun control laws I want to enact.
Apparently you know better than I what I think so have at it.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 6, 2011 5:51 PM
Comment #330138

So RM has no problems with the existing gun laws???

SD: liberal talking points…

Romney may be a RHINO, but obama is a marxist.

Posted by: Mike at October 6, 2011 6:25 PM
Comment #330143

Mike,

I live in Arizona. The concealed carry laws here were modified so that a permit is no longer required to carry a weapon. This also means that people don’t need any training to carry a concealed weapon.

The Second Amendment reads;

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Where are the “regulations” that govern a “well regulated militia”?

I can only assume that this was meant to be left up to the states, or even the municipalities to make those rules.

As far as weapons go, the Founders knew only of flintlocks, both in pistols and rifles, and both took a bit of time to reload.
On the other hand I own a Glock 19 semi, and a Marlin 45-70 lever action. I don’t feel the need to carry, even for personal protection, and am perfectly satisfied with the guns I possess.

Also I didn’t have a problem with waiting to get these guns, and I do think that there should be a waiting period, especially for guns bought at “gun shows”.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 6, 2011 7:49 PM
Comment #330145

First of all get your crappy software and server problems fixed. When I enter the proper name and email info, then enter my comments it removes the qualified info and knocks me out. I then have to start from scratch and sometimes it repeats itself

Next,

SD

There is no argument for your hatefullness. You made no points to argue. You slammed, slimmed, accused, charged, and made up a lot of things. But, you didn’t give me one point to argue with you on. Fiction is fiction. Truth is truth. You put up a list of fiction and left out the truth. Truth hurts doesn’t it. For the record, I am attacking what you wrote and not you.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at October 6, 2011 8:17 PM
Comment #330149

Mike,

Lets just cut to the chase on this gun thing. Rocky points out the 2nd Amendment explicitly states a “well regulated militia.” So, do you favor regulation? If so, what type of regulation? How would you propose to enforce the regulation?

The Supreme Court has said in recent rulings that government blanket prohibitions on owning or possessing guns is unconstitutional. However, it also said that government may condition that ownership on licensing requirements. Do you agree?

Posted by: Rich at October 6, 2011 9:40 PM
Comment #330152

Sorry Rich, but I don’t agree. The government has no right knowing what guns I own and certainly has no right to tax me for a license.

The socialist left has certain sacred cows that they never give up on; abortion, queer marriage, taxes, bashing corporations, and gun control. Everything the liberal democratic party does relates to these things and works toward the goal of accomplishing them.

Posted by: Mike at October 7, 2011 7:11 AM
Comment #330156

Mike,

“The government has no right knowing what guns I own and certainly has no right to tax me for a license.”

Why do you feel the need to have a machine gun or a grenade launcher to defend yourself?
Are you planning to become an assassin, in which case you might need a silencer?
Do you plan to start your own war (which BTW, after reading your comments here doesn’t seem out of the realm of possibility)?

As I have stated before, the 45/70 I own can put a 3/4 inch hole through 1/4 inch diamond plate steel at 100 yards. Now granted, because of the relatively low muzzle velocity (1800 fps), and the truly loud report when it is fired makes this weapon useless as a sniper rifle, but truthfully, how much more killing power do I really need?

The American public already possess more firearms per capita than any other country on the planet.

That, and our “frontier individualism” make a very interesting mix.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 7, 2011 10:33 AM
Comment #330157

Royal Flush,

“To blankly state that the lack of money robs one of the attitude that they can do better in simply…nonsense. There are millions of stories of people now, and in the past, of those who lifted themselves from poverty with the attitude that it could and should be done.”

This statement is as much a generalization as Stephen’s.
It seems obvious that you have never known what it is to scrape by month to month and still continue to maintain that positive attitude.
I have never fallen so far as to need welfare, and have only recieved one unemployment check ever. I have gotten by, but there have been times that it was difficult to keep that positive attitude and just grind on.

In order to get a job there have to be jobs. I am a skilled independent contractor so I am pretty much at the mercy of the corporate economy, and things are pretty slow.

That doesn’t mean I don’t persue every lead I can find, but the industry I am in can be a very competitive one, and right now very few people have any projects.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 7, 2011 10:43 AM
Comment #330169
The American public already possess more firearms per capita than any other country on the planet.

That, and our “frontier individualism” make a very interesting mix.

Exactly how it was meant to be.

“Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defence of the country, the over-throw of tyranny, or in private self-defense.” - John Adams.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 7, 2011 3:13 PM
Comment #330179

RM, I don’t know any other way to say this; than to say you must be the most ignorant person in which I have ever communicated. If that is considered a personal attack, then so be it. You have managed to take everything I said and with your little twisted mind change it to make believe.

“Why do you feel the need to have a machine gun or a grenade launcher to defend yourself?
Are you planning to become an assassin, in which case you might need a silencer?

Do you plan to start your own war (which BTW, after reading your comments here doesn’t seem out of the realm of possibility)?”

These statements are untrue (I never said anything about a machine gun, a grenade, an assassin, or war) and juvenile. What are you, a 12 year old brat who has access to your mommy’s computer?

Frankly, I don’t care what kind of guns you own, nor do I care to hear your atempt at bragging about what a great shot you are.

“The American public already possess more firearms per capita than any other country on the planet.”

And your point is? You don’t believe they should be allowed to own them? Why don’t you socialist crawl back under the rock you came from and shove your socialist BS were the Sun don’t shine? When you grow up and can talk like an adult, I will communicate with you. Until then you are just another troll on WB.

Posted by: Mike at October 7, 2011 5:35 PM
Comment #330187

Mike,

“The government has no right knowing what guns I own and certainly has no right to tax me for a license.”

That was your comment to Rich, and as far as I know the only “licence” required by the federal government is that which is required by the ATF, or for Concealed Carry across state lines.
Also as far as I know there only 11 instances that are covered by the ATF, and all but one of those are for manufacturing guns ammo, and explosive devices. The other is for collectors.

Thus my questions.

As far as the last post, well you do go on don’t you. It would appear that you missed the point entirely.

Why am I not surprised.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 7, 2011 7:38 PM
Comment #330194

Rhinehold,

“Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defence of the country, the over-throw of tyranny, or in private self-defense.” - John Adams.”

This is all well and good…, but why is it that the only part of the Bill of Rights the conservatives think is a living document is the 2nd Amendment?

My point is that everybody wants to talk about the “freedom to bear arms”, and that means every type of armament they can lay their hands on, but nobody wants to talk about the “well regulated militia” part.

The founders, including John Adams, could never have conceived of a citizen possessing a Mac 10.
Even the heavy bombardment of Fort McHenry that Francis Scott Key wrote about, that lasted more than 25 hours only killed 4 men and injured 24.
A Mac 10, which is basically a bullet hose, could do that in seconds, admittedly at much closer range.

The entirety of the 2nd Amendment is one short sentence.

Where is the great care and foresight, the great detail that went into the rest of one of the greatest documents ever written?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 8, 2011 1:01 AM
Comment #330199

RM said:

“That was your comment to Rich, and as far as I know the only “licence” required by the federal government is that which is required by the ATF, or for Concealed Carry across state lines.”

You might want to check liberal controlled states and cities before you start spouting off about no taxes for licenses. You might want to be thankful you live in a state where your conservative government supports the 2nd ammendment, because liberals certainly don’t.

The purpose of Obama’s “fast and furious” was gun conrol, but they were caught and it’s not over yet. Holder was involved up to his eyeballs and although Obama expressed complete confidence in him this week; that is the last step before he will be thrown under the liberal bus. Just watch…and remember you heard it from me.

Posted by: Mike at October 8, 2011 11:22 AM
Comment #330203

Mike-
Interesting that you will tolerate RINOs when your back is against the wall. Trouble is, the way things are, that is a choice you’ll have to make time and time again, because most of America isn’t ardently conservative enough to reliably support the hard-right characters.

I find it interesting that you talk about Fast and Furious being control (and that being bad in your estimation, but then you turn around and criticize the administration for letting the guns walk, especially with the laws so feeble as to make documents fraud the pretense for putting them behind bars. You want the administration to do something, but then you won’t let them do something about it.

As for whether Holder gets thrown under the bus?

The same sort of double standard applies. If he kicks somebody out over something, or distances himself from them, you attack him for doing that. You want him to cast out the lepers from his administration, but then you turn around and bash him for casting them out. Me? If they did something to deserve being fired, good riddance. I don’t start treating every resignation this president asks for as a personal betrayal of that man or woman.

But hey, if the game is opportunistically searching for things to criticize Obama about, then consistency is not really the name of the game, is it?

tom humes-
You spent a great number of words essentially calling me hateful. My point is somewhat different than you imagine. You level your insults, your accusations, and then you turn around and expect Democrats and Liberals to remain patient and not respond in kind, even to be persuaded.

Not going to happen. Your words are provocative, but they provoke a defensive reaction. Some of us parse and object like I do, but some instead fight back.

If you want friends, you have to change your style. I have been extraordinarily patient with folks on the right, even when they’ve crossed the line on proper comments. Others? Others aren’t going to hold their tongues.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 8, 2011 5:13 PM
Comment #330220
This is all well and good…, but why is it that the only part of the Bill of Rights the conservatives think is a living document is the 2nd Amendment?

This statement makes no sense, there is no ‘living document’ need in defending our rights to keep and bear arms. The founders, the constitution and the courts have been very clear on this for quite some time.

How do you figure you need a ‘living document’ to keep our rights?

Do you know what the 9th and 10th amendments are for at all?

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 8, 2011 11:35 PM
Comment #330221
but nobody wants to talk about the “well regulated militia” part.

You can talk about it all you want, it is irrelevant to the fact that the right exists. It isn’t nor has ever been the only reason that the 2nd amendment exists, it is one reason why it exists. Go back and read what was stated at the time and you see exactly what those who wrote the constitution meant. You will also see that the 9th amendment assures that if the government does not have the power specifically spelled out in it that it can do something, those is retained by the people.

Tell me, where in the constitution is the federal government given the power to limit access to weapons of any kind?

Anywhere?

If it is not in there, they can’t do it. It’s very simple…

“Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.” - James Madison

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 8, 2011 11:39 PM
Comment #330232

RH

I’m glad to see that you have returned. I got worried when your posts at rhinehold.org became infrequent.

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 9, 2011 2:26 PM
Comment #330241

Rhinehold-
It is impossible to apply the constitution as is.

Look at it. It doesn’t explicitly define everything, the way you might see a modern law haggled over lawyers defined, nor can it possibly give people every means by which to judge conflicting applications of it’s language, or the laws that are created under it.

Additionally, the world it deals with is constantly changing, as are the laws and situations by which it is judged.

We are constantly having to balance different priorities, face different challenges, and write policy that works, and if we waited to resolve such things until somebody made an explicit constitutional Amendment to handle it, we’d be in pretty poor shape, since two thirds majorities of both Houses of Congress for proposal or three-quarters majorities of all state legislatures are so difficult to get (and on purpose).

It’s easier, most of the time, to consider the constitution the basis of our laws, and try to create a living interpretation that effectively bridges the gap between today’s situations, and the original intent of the framers, than it is to try and govern a country by insisting that our interpretation can only take into account what the framers wanted.

The Framers themselves, I would say, wanted us to have that flexibility. They knew that no charter by itself could govern and resolve the differences of a nation like ours.

Rather than constantly change the constitution, we alter our interpretations to suit what’s best for us, with the Constitution remaining a pole-star for the direction we take. That way, we preserve its principles, and at once preserve what was right about the constitution to begin with.

Too man people equate taking something literal with fully honoring its meaning. I believe that real meaning, rich meaning, and yes true meaning relies on our ability to understand the message beyond what is merely on the page, because no message, no law, no philosophy or religion’s message means anything without its intersection with the complex, often contradictory and paradoxical nature of reality, and our experience of it.

Or put more concisely, we communicate about the real world, for the purposes of dealing with the real world, and with each other. Even the use of our imaginations cycles back into this. Literalists mistake the reality of what’s in print, and their personal interpretation, with the reality of what is meant, and what exists out in the real world. But no mere human words can contain that all.

Politically, the point I would make is that it’s better to understand what the constitution’s clauses and provisions say behind the text, and apply that, than to try chasing the impossible: a continual succession of literalist amendments, meant to try and constrain people to just what people think is best. One of the most important features of our Republic is adaptability, and if we can’t decide our framers were wrong about how to apply the constitution, we cannot adapt it’s incredibly important principles to run our nation well. Amendments, in my view, should be a last resort, something we do when the courts make it clear that there is no reasonable way to stretch the the law to properly cover a given need.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 9, 2011 4:13 PM
Comment #330245
It is impossible to apply the constitution as is.

BS

It doesn’t explicitly define everything

Actually it does. Everything that is not listed as a power granted to the federal government is left to the states and citizens (9th amendment)

The Framers themselves, I would say, wanted us to have that flexibility. They knew that no charter by itself could govern and resolve the differences of a nation like ours.

Actually no, they didn’t. They were very clear in their writings that they didn’t want the federal government stepping outside of their limited capabilities. *YOU* would say that, but based on what? Where is there any suggestion by the Framers that they wanted such an environment?

“It is an established rule of construction, where a phrase will bear either of two meanings to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which will render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given to them. It was intended to lace them up straightly with in the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.” - T Jefferson

They did want us to be able to alter the constitution as needed and provided us the ability to do so through the amendment process. However, simply ignoring the limits of the constitution or trying to pretend it says something it doesn’t turns the document into a useless piece of paper.

Rather than constantly change the constitution, we alter our interpretations to suit what’s best for us, with the Constitution remaining a pole-star for the direction we take.

And by doing so you invalidate the document completely. Anyone can interpret anything to fit their needs, you then give the federal government the power to do whatever it feels necessary. Again as was stated:

“They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please… Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.”

if we can’t decide our framers were wrong about how to apply the constitution, we cannot adapt it’s incredibly important principles to run our nation well.

It’s obvious that we cannot do that, just look at the Citizens United decision that was clearly a protection of free speech yet so many people want to ignore the intent of the Founders to never, ever, EVER limit any political speech no matter who says it and make it illegal to speak. Further the issue of the right to bear arms which the Founders were clear should not be infringed for any reason, yet there are those that want to make owning weapons illegal. That’s just the two first amendments, rights that we had in the constitution already but so important that they added an amendment to make SURE we understood. But what does the majority say of Citizens United’s reaffirmation of those rights?

The problem is that by taking your tact of ‘re-interpreting to do what we what to do’ means you are allowing the majority to take away the rights of the minority, which was the main purpose of the document AND this country, ensuring that those minority rights were not infringed. I’ve just shown two examples, the OWS protests show more.

You suggest we need to be able to use it as a guide to adapt to it’s incredibly important principles, yet I contend that many people don’t agree on what those principles are, or we wouldn’t have the collectivists in Wall Street trying to invalidate everything that the founding fathers put into play here, the ideals of individualism, freedom and liberty, something that the progressive, statists and religious right cannot seem to understand.

The ideals of the Founders are lost on most people today. If they weren’t, we would have no problem operating within the literal limits of the Constitution as it is currently written.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 9, 2011 4:42 PM
Comment #330246

SD said:

“Mike-
Interesting that you will tolerate RINOs when your back is against the wall.”

A false premise, our backs are not against the wall, but Obama’s is…Unlike socialist, who think their politicians must be as Marxists and socialist as they can, we can vote for a RHINO, because even a INO knows where his bread is buttered.

“The same sort of double standard applies. If he kicks somebody out over something, or distances himself from them, you attack him for doing that. You want him to cast out the lepers from his administration, but then you turn around and bash him for casting them out. Me? If they did something to deserve being fired, good riddance.”

Tell me Stephen, are you just dense or do you really have that hard of a time understanding? I don’t care if Holder stays or goes. If he stays, he just hurts his boss. I believe the point is; when obama comes out in full support of Holder, it means the next step will to see him fired. This is standard operating procedure of liberals. You are a liar when you say you support getting rid of someone who deserves being fired, unless they are conservative. It doesn’t matter what a socialist does, you would still support them. Why don’t you name a liberal that you supported firing?

“But hey, if the game is opportunistically searching for things to criticize Obama about, then consistency is not really the name of the game, is it?”

Who has to search? Obama is doing a great job all by himself, of creating criticism of himself.

Rhinehold:

“This statement makes no sense, there is no ‘living document’ need in defending our rights to keep and bear arms. The founders, the constitution and the courts have been very clear on this for quite some time.”

Rhinehold, it is a word game. Kind of like when Clinton said, “it depends on what the definition of is is”. The liberal left loves to use word games. Like SD did earlier, the left makes a false premise and the tries to build a logical solution. But if the premise is wrong, then the conclusion has to be wrong. What is SD saying when he refers to the Bill of Rights or the Constitution “are living documents”? They mean these documents are NOT set or final, they believe they are evolving documents. Meaning; when the socialist liberals get through interpreting the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, they will in no way represent what was originally said by the writers.

These same socialist cried for years that the 2nd Amendment was no referring to the individual’s right to bear arms, and they have fought for decades to accomplish these goals. But when the US SP ruled it was a right, they now claim they believed this all along, while at the same time trying to nullify the 2nd amendment through other means; through taxes, through disqualifying individual’s rights, through regulations and so much red tape.

They love to say how patriotic they are, but in reality they are socialist marxists, bent on destroying the individuals rights and replacing them whith collectivism.

Posted by: Mike at October 9, 2011 6:01 PM
Comment #330261

Mike,

“You might want to be thankful you live in a state where your conservative government supports the 2nd ammendment, because liberals certainly don’t.”

Here in Arizona we have always been able to openly carry a firearm, something that modern conservatism had nothing to do with.
When the CCW law was passed in 2005, it required that a firearms safety training course, along with a few other requirements, must be completed in order to obtain a licence.
Realistically, I didn’t have any problem with that, in fact I didn’t have a problem with people openly carrying firearms here in Arizona at all.


Rhinehold,

I think you are making much more out my simply asking for your opinion than my question warranted.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 9, 2011 10:25 PM
Comment #330442

Hhe midnigh article’s apcmty content rich show variety supra which make us friendfinder move for elusiveEmotion our skytop mood after blog reading this article. sadOften surprise

Posted by: qq398053 at October 12, 2011 3:59 AM
Comment #330562

your flats-sale details is really reasonable skytop and friendfinder unique I title_supra-i-am very development concerned way about tory-burch sports ry_id=6336 and personality I Social believe individual only member sports midnigh can supra make ineartists you energetic. society I -philippine want to buy love some -sale-of- sports clubdestrois thing blog ,will dreamdatetonight you society give burch some suggestions suitable for sadOften me supra from burch below mybigrecord websites member-vortexavirtualparty your details congrats2u is http://www.sma1pariaman.com/blog_entry.php?user=qq398053&blogentry_id=27051" >little really reasonable happiness and gkode unique skytop I supra very ople-s- concerned close about show sports celestronlife and reva I member believe ost&owne only supra sports can make clubbingz you burch energetic. blogentry I assimilation want mind to elusiveEmotion buy title some burch sports -happy thing ,will picture you show-matter give some suggestions for itemid me from flats below websites ? apcmty boots

Posted by: qq398053 at October 15, 2011 4:02 AM
Comment #330864

A good shoes with high-qualityugg boots winter
shock protection will make your walks more convenient
classic tall bootsand safe, in addition to the nice design , classic short bootyou will be glad to have one pair of supra shoes on sale . we are delight to waiting for your coming .

Posted by: dfg at October 22, 2011 3:48 AM
Post a comment