Originally Posted by Copperfield

Well no one except Sarah Palin anyway. Hey Eric! Does that mean we could say that you are just as smart and as accurate as Sarah?!?

You go girl! Errrr Guy!

Congrats to Sarah! I don't she has as good a record as me though. Look how many correct predictions I have already made here; dozens of them!

It never ceases to amaze me, when I exposed to the level of racism in the United States and people often criticise that we Australians are a highly racist nation.

Originally Posted by Odin

Nobody Likes to Talk About It (Racism), but It’s There

Originally Posted by Monsieur Le Chien

No kidding. Same with all portions of all pre-packaged foods.

Absolutely! To the point where if any one gives honest weight or measure, they say so in huge type right on the package.

Not to the point, but -- I was making up some quick snack bars with old-fashioned oats, chopped walnuts, flour, and honey, and had a 4-ounce bar of the main ingredient, dark chocolate. And it really was 4 ounces, not 3.5 or whatever. Ghirardelli, for what it's worth, found in the baking department.

(Rather negates my vow to live lower off the hog, but hey. Consider it my birthday cake.)

So there are a few out there. Does anyone still sell one-ounce slices of cheese?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What was liberals' dislike of Bush based on?

I can speak for this liberal.

Item #1: diverting our resources from the hunt for the guy who brought down the Twin Towers, to a badly mishandled foreign adventure in Iraq. Whatever for?

Item #2: passing laws that seemed more suited to a dictatorship (or - let's be honest - our own country in a 4T) and scaring us liberals into thinking we'd be targeted as Enemies of the State at the drop of a whisper. I am quite angry with Obama for his own actions along those lines, too!

Item #3: Letting private mercenaries have free reign in Iraq at great taxpayer's expense, and turning our soldiers loose without guidance, to fall into pits like the Abu Ghraib scandal, and essentially poo-poohing both as unimportant. I swear I thought I was back in the days of ancient Rome, when Pompey's private army could do as it pleased!

And finally, blowing off the biggest natural disaster of his administration to the point where some of us thought that this marked the start of the 4T. Though there was plenty of blame to go around on all levels of government, it sure drove home the thought "You're on your own, folks; the government isn't going to do a thing to help. On the contrary."

Personally, and this is just a matter of taste and personality, Dbya was a son of the old-line eastern Establishment who chose to be a Texan, and as far as I could tell, had the faults of both and the virtues of neither. But that's just personal.

I think the people that hate Obama hate him because he's exactly their image of what is wrong with the Democratic Party: trained in elite institutions, well-spoken, liberal, and half black. Hillary Clinton would draw the same hatred and perhaps even more from being a liberal woman. (She did, in fact, as first lady.) John Kerry aroused similar hatred, all the more so because he was a genuine war hero. Racism is just one element in this and I doubt it's the most important. A white former Harvard Law Review editor and community organizer with the same views would be treated roughly the same way by the right. The situation with Bush was parallel: liberals hated and feared him for his views but also because he looked like a redneck in elitist wasp clothing. The division between these two sides, built up mainly by conservative talk radio and Fox, is broad and deep and it would persist if Obama disappeared from the scene tomorrow.

The Republican Congressman's remark is parallel to Senator Tom Coburn's statement that Obama believes in entitlement programs because he's benefited from them as a black man. A totally false statement--he may have benfitted somewhat from affirmative action but his family was neither poor nor black.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I don't actually know for sure. But I do know, that I have heard my brother call him the anti-christ. Considering the situation in which we were in when I heard him say that, I did not get the opportunity to ask him why he thought this about Obama.

That's actually where I was going with this:

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

...the exercise proved to be futile. The point was to impugn what we feel comfortable viewing as images of divinity (not intellectualized estimations)...immediate stated reaction was Jesus, the ultimate father figure, is not Nubian.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Jesus as a physical manifestation of god is the ultimate father figure. His race determines whose face people view both as authoritative and divine. So it's no accident that images of black Jesus make people uncomfortable and images of Nordic Jesus go unchallenged...

......

Originally Posted by Deb C

My hunch is that it had something to do with the almost idol like following that Obama had in his campaign.

This is likely. But Bush 43 was also labeled the anti-christ for similar reasons. Cheers.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What was liberals' dislike of Bush based on?

Incompetence, arrogance, mean-spritedness... hmmm, I must be missing something.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I think the people that hate Obama hate him because he's exactly their image of what is wrong with the Democratic Party: trained in elite institutions, well-spoken, liberal, and half black. Hillary Clinton would draw the same hatred and perhaps even more from being a liberal woman. (She did, in fact, as first lady.) John Kerry aroused similar hatred, all the more so because he was a genuine war hero. Racism is just one element in this and I doubt it's the most important. A white former Harvard Law Review editor and community organizer with the same views would be treated roughly the same way by the right. The situation with Bush was parallel: liberals hated and feared him for his views but also because he looked like a redneck in elitist wasp clothing. The division between these two sides, built up mainly by conservative talk radio and Fox, is broad and deep and it would persist if Obama disappeared from the scene tomorrow.

The Republican Congressman's remark is parallel to Senator Tom Coburn's statement that Obama believes in entitlement programs because he's benefited from them as a black man. A totally false statement--he may have benfitted somewhat from affirmative action but his family was neither poor nor black.

IMO there is a strong dislike among Southern conservatives of "Yankees". The fact that Obama is both culturally Yankee AND part black only threw flames on the fire.

That the Birthers are concentrated in the South makes this obvious. They hate Romney also because he's a Yankee.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71097.html

Newt Gingrich suffers from super PAC buyer's remorse

Not long ago Newt Gingrich seemed to be a big fan of super PACs.
The former House Speaker two years ago called the new legal framework that gave rise to unlimited fundraising by outside groups a “great victory for free speech” and predicted that the biggest of the recent federal court decisions deregulating campaign rules would make “it easier for middle-class candidates to compete against the wealthy and incumbents.”


Then he got a taste of the new rules in Iowa.
After weeks of withering attacks by a super PAC supporting his rival Mitt Romney, Gingrich won’t stop talking about the injustices of unchecked spending — specifically the $3 million spent attacking him. He even coined a name for it, saying he got “Romney-boated” by his chief opponent’s “millionaire friends.”
Though Gingrich says he still supports the court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,his shift in attitude illustrates the difficulty that the free-wheeling big-money election landscape can pose for politicians — even, and perhaps especially, conservatives who philosophically oppose campaign rules as restrictions on free speech.
“It’s one thing to oppose regulation in theory, but when they hit the practical reality of millions of dollars of negative ads, they don’t like the way the new system works,” said Trevor Potter, a former Federal Election Commission chairman and top adviser to Sen. John McCain, who authored the seminal 2002 McCain-Feingold bill restricting campaign fundraising and spending.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The Authoritarian Personality:

a. Conventionalism -- Rigid adherence to middle-class values
b. Authoritarian submission -- Tendency to seek idealized leaders to be followed without question
c. Authoritarian aggression -- Being on the lookout for, with the intent of punishing, violators of conventional middle-class values
d. Anti-intraception -- Superficiality of thought and ethical judgment
e. Stereotypes and Superstition -- Thinking in rigid categories; acceptance of pseudo-scientific determinants of human nature
f. Power and Toughness -- Exaggerated concern with outermost characteristics of behavior and uncritical reverence for institutional power
g. Destructiveness and cynicism -- General pessimism in human nature and expectation of apocalyptic events
h. Sex -- pathological concern with issues of sexuality and reproduction

It would appear that most liberals fit this description with a few minor
redefinition of terms

a. Most liberals adhere to a set a values rigidly..they may not be "middle class" They are strongly upper West side or San FranSICKO values.

b. They often idealize leaders especially FDR, and lock stock and barrel followed Obama's hollow dog and pony show back in 08. Never asking critical questions and accepting his vague Hope and Change mantra. They cheered his Nuremburg Rally Cult of personality convention.

c. They are constantly looking for ways to punish those who run afoul of their politically correct agenda imposing "hate speech" codes and sexual harrasment rules etc on those they oppose. (Note they protect thier own like Misogynists Bill Clinton and the entire Kennedy family, racists like Bob KKK Kleagle Bryd, Harry Ried etc.)

D.this is obvious, liberals are very superficial...
e. anyone to the right of their far left agenda is branded an extremist

f. Often uncritical of the raw power of the federal govt agencies like the IRS. Love to use the federal govt in unethical ways to push an agenda. See the fast and Furious scandal where guns were allowed to "walk" so the Obamatons could then claim that guns were going to criminals and then use that to enact more gun laws....

g. The Global warming hoax...enough said there...

h. patholical obsession with promoting perversions as acceptable"lifestyles"

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

As the Republican Party goes increasingly to the right, GOP politicians get away with more racist, paranoid, and reactionary rhetoric. Republican pols increasingly excite the base of Movement Conservatives while perhaps (we may see this in polling) offending the people in the political center.

Fascinating analysis. With the left going increasingly to the left with considering anyone with dissenting opinions to be idiots, uneducated, or just people who "don't know what's best for them" I'm interested in hearing how you think that will alienate more and more people who will increasingly go further to the right in clear frustration, and direct response, with the ever growing liberal mentality that most of us (i.e. those of us who are non-elitists) just don't know what we should think and so should have that thinking stripped from us by people who clearly know better than the rest of us.

j.p.

Originally Posted by Odin

I was shocked by the outburst of racism Obama's nomination and then election unleashed. I grew up believing that racism was relegated to a tiny minority.

That also shocks me as well because as a native to eastern Tennessee I cannot recall a single "racially-motivated" hatred event and/or individual that pinpointed towards Obama (at least that I know of) with the individuals I know or run around with here. Perhaps it's just a matter of the individuals we've encountered as I know no one like these folks you've discussed here.

Speaking personally, I certainly respect the man and the difficult role he has as a president and I give absolute honor to the office of the presidency for the utmost respect and dignity the office (and he or she who holds the office) deserves. With that said, I certainly do not agree with the vast majority of Mr. Obama's policies so I did not support him in 2008 and will not be supporting him for re-election in 2012. I've met many others who feel the same way I do in regards to Mr. Obama - a disagreement on political ideology and policies, but never have I experienced (at least in person) any type of racist attitudes.

Perhaps I'm just fortunate in running around with like-minded intelligent and educated individuals who would not hold to such behavior or attitudes so I'm fortunate in not having experienced it.

j.p.

Originally Posted by Odin

IMO there is a strong dislike among Southern conservatives of "Yankees". The fact that Obama is both culturally Yankee AND part black only threw flames on the fire.

That the Birthers are concentrated in the South makes this obvious. They hate Romney also because he's a Yankee.

There's a lot to that. We've had an unbroken string of Sun Belters starting with LBJ in 1963. You might be able to argue that Ford was a Michigander, but when he left office, it was for California. So 1963 - 2009; that's 46 years. When Obama was elected from Illinois, most of America had never seen a President from any non-Sun Belt state.

Originally Posted by JDFP

Fascinating analysis. With the left going increasingly to the left with considering anyone with dissenting opinions to be idiots, uneducated, or just people who "don't know what's best for them" I'm interested in hearing how you think that will alienate more and more people who will increasingly go further to the right in clear frustration, and direct response, with the ever growing liberal mentality that most of us (i.e. those of us who are non-elitists) just don't know what we should think and so should have that thinking stripped from us by people who clearly know better than the rest of us.

j.p.

If a candidate said, " 2 + 2 is 5, has always been 5 and we will not allow the liberals to tell us its 4 just because that's what they believe", how would you respond? As a conservative you could wince and stay silent, nod in agreement or call him on it. Note: the last option is the "elitist" option

Some things aren't opinions. They are those slippery things called facts that keep intruding on the conversation. Is it elitist to say so? No pundit gets excoriated more than Paul Krugman, but his accuracy is about 89%, and he always backs his arguments with data. Cal Thomas, on the other hand, is in the 2% accuracy range, and his "evidence" is either the Bible or an anecdote. Conservatives love Cal.

I understand your point about attitudes and alienating the electorate, but do you understand mine? If the Captain of the Titanic had been willing to stand-up to the owner, and better manage his ship, it may have reached NY safely. Of course, that would have made him a know-it-all elitist.

Originally Posted by Odin

I was shocked by the outburst of racism Obama's nomination and then election unleashed. I grew up believing that racism was relegated to a tiny minority.

I was not surprised. But then again the town I grew up in had the Confederate flag waving on the main street for years and years, and we are well ABOVE the Mason-Dixon line.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Weave

It would appear that most liberals fit this description with a few minor
redefinition of terms

Nonsense.

a. Most liberals adhere to a set a values rigidly..they may not be "middle class" They are strongly upper West side or San FranSICKO values.

This is the biggest lie of all. Conservatives sleep well at night because they think they have the answer and don't need to think about it anymore. Liberals are always re-examining their ideas to make sure they are correct. Just look at DailyKos.com and see how many knock-down, drag-out fights they have.

b. They often idealize leaders especially FDR, and lock stock and barrel followed Obama's hollow dog and pony show back in 08. Never asking critical questions and accepting his vague Hope and Change mantra. They cheered his Nuremburg Rally Cult of personality convention.

The whole nation was ready for change after the repuglicans had decimated the working and middle class for the previous 30 years since Reagan. You think liberals are satisfied with Obama? Just go look at the scathing criticism that he gets at places like DailyKos.com.

Obama is a centrist and a righty on some issues, especially on national defense. This criticism of him being a "socialist" is the most preposterous thing that I have ever heard.

These terms are just codeword for n***er. That is really why most of the opponents dislike him - the hue of his skin. They think that only white males should be that office and if they had their way, Jim Crow would be enshrined in the Constitution.

c. They are constantly looking for ways to punish those who run afoul of their politically correct agenda imposing "hate speech" codes and sexual harrasment rules etc on those they oppose. (Note they protect thier own like Misogynists Bill Clinton and the entire Kennedy family, racists like Bob KKK Kleagle Bryd, Harry Ried etc.)

They are constantly trying to fix the racist, sexist and misogynistic world that the right has been supporting for years. Sorry, but people who engage in sexual harassment should be punished as they are HARMING others. As for hate speech codes, no one has banned any kind of speech. Laws have been created to enhance penalties for people who have racist or homophobic motivations for crimes, but the concept of aggravating circumstances in penal law are centuries old.

D.this is obvious, liberals are very superficial...
e. anyone to the right of their far left agenda is branded an extremist

More nonsense. Liberals are the most reasoning people of all. As I said, they are always re-assesing their beliefs and debating among each other. The smart, intelligent people are mostly liberal.

The right, on the other hand, seems to have the lion's share of the ignorant, low-information people who operate on emotional rather than reasonable motivation. They are ignorant and proud to be so, rejecting science for the opinion of their preacher, many of whom wouldn't know
the real teachings of Jesus Christ if it came up and bit them in the ass. These people have bought into a Frankenstein version of Christianity
in which the central theme of Jesus, that is, to love one another (and not just other white people) and to "do unto others...." has been replaced with a nightmare of hatred, in toleration, xenophobia and racism.

What these people really are is afraid. They are afraid because they perceive that our nation is collapsing. In a sense, they are correct, but its not because of excessive government, it is because our middle class has been betrayed and sold out by the right that pretends to be all about family values, but in reality, it is a hoax, a diversion to get the people to not notice that the corporations and their right-wing lackeys in power have been systematically destroying the underpinnings of the Great US Middle Class (tm) that flourished in the 50's and 60's.

During that time, we experienced the most broad-based distribution of wealth that the nation has ever seen. More people were living comfortably in our country as a percentage of the whole population than in any other nation at any time in history.

Corporations and rich people did very well during this time as well. But, they were greedy and just couldn't stand that they had to pay
(gasp!) living wages to people. This coupled with a bizarre sense of elitism (i.e. "These peasants should NOT be living well, only WE should live this well, since we are the "elect", or "chosen ones") got them to create a scheme to destroy the middle class.

Now, its 30 years since Reagan and they have almost succeeded. America has very little left of its former broad-based middle class and this
is depressing and scaring people.

The left understands the reasons for this and have been fighting this crap since Reagan. The right is just scared. Their lack of desire to
learn about the complex problems leaves them open for demagogs who will lie to them about what is causing the problem.

The right-wing machine continues to lie to them by blaming government and spending. They claim that all we need is more of the same
crap that we have been doing over the last 30 years (tax cuts for the rich, removing "regulation"). They use codewords and ideas that
are covertly racist against "brown people" and scapegoat anyone not "white" as the real cause of the problems, when they (the right and
corporations) are the problem.

So, the lot of the 99% (of which these rural and southern white voters are part of) continues to sink into an economic abyss while the
right-wing elites continue to try to con the 99% into thinking that more of the same kind of crap policy is what we need to fix it.

That is what motivates the right-wing voters - fear.

f. Often uncritical of the raw power of the federal govt agencies like the IRS. Love to use the federal govt in unethical ways to push an agenda. See the fast and Furious scandal where guns were allowed to "walk" so the Obamatons could then claim that guns were going to criminals and then use that to enact more gun laws....

More unmitigated b*****it. Provide proof that this was the motivation, shut up, or risk being exposed for the fool you are. Fast and Furious was a typical bureacratic screw-up, the likes of which we have seen under many administrations. Barack Obama has said, over and over again that he supports the Second Amendment.

g. The Global warming hoax...enough said there...

It may be a hoax or not, I say it hasn't been proven one way or the other and BOTH sides have agendas which make their
pronouncements suspect.

h. patholical obsession with promoting perversions as acceptable"lifestyles"

No, obsessions with protecting people's rights to live whatever lifestyles they choose without being harassed for it. Also, a desire to
fight the big government policies of the right who support expansion of government intrusions into people's private lives.

This issue points out the hypocrisy of the right: They are for limited government regulations on businesses, allowing businesses to screw
over working class and poor people for the benefit of the 1% but are all for big government when it comes to intruding on bedroom issues and
the like. They are hypocrits.

Any questions?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If a candidate said, " 2 + 2 is 5, has always been 5 and we will not allow the liberals to tell us its 4 just because that's what they believe", how would you respond? As a conservative you could wince and stay silent, nod in agreement or call him on it. Note: the last option is the "elitist" option

Some things aren't opinions. They are those slippery things called facts that keep intruding on the conversation. Is it elitist to say so? No pundit gets excoriated more than Paul Krugman, but his accuracy is about 89%, and he always backs his arguments with data. Cal Thomas, on the other hand, is in the 2% accuracy range, and his "evidence" is either the Bible or an anecdote. Conservatives love Cal.

I understand your point about attitudes and alienating the electorate, but do you understand mine? If the Captain of the Titanic had been willing to stand-up to the owner, and better manage his ship, it may have reached NY safely. Of course, that would have made him a know-it-all elitist.

...And isn't this the primary issue though? I can understand and appreciate what you're saying, but you're making a massive presumption/pre-supposition that what leftist ideology is Truth (as in a mathematical fact that 2+2 = 4) while the right is spewing 2+2 = 5. This is simply not the case - all either side has is theory and historical precident to either support and/or refute said theory which can be read many ways (and the same historical records will be read differently by both side to help them in their argument the opposing side is giving a 2+2 = 5 on reality while they are giving Truth).

This is one of the reasons why I intentionally point out to everyone that I am *NOT* a Republican although I lean conservative on the majority of issues (I classify myself as only a paleoconservative). The Republican party and/or right-leaning theory is not Truth and, you know what, neither is left-leaning and/or the Democrat party. Politics are not a precise science and never will be.

Thus, yes, it is presumptuous for anyone on the left to use their interpretation of historical precedent to support their (I personally believe Keynesian economic theory is shit, personally, but that's not a Truth but merely my own theory) ideology as being, you guessed it, Truth. And it's damned condescending for others out here to be told to believe any other ideology or theory is the same as believing 2+2 = 5.

j.p.

Originally Posted by Weave

It would appear that most liberals fit this description with a few minor
redefinition of terms

b. They often idealize leaders especially FDR, and lock stock and barrel followed Obama's hollow dog and pony show back in 08. Never asking critical questions and accepting his vague Hope and Change mantra. They cheered his Nuremburg Rally Cult of personality convention.

This is somewhat confusing to me. I didn't support Obama's election because of a "vague hope and change" mantra, I supported him in part due to a list of specific policy ideas he published on his website and has largely adhered to since his election. These include ending the Iraq was (but in a careful way and not before it was possible to do so carefully), increasing troops in Afghanistan, capturing or killing Bin Laden (despite possible opposition from Pakistan), putting in place a healthcare plan that included an exchange of private insurance companies with an elimination of the pre-existing condition problem (the mandate and dropping of the public option was added later at the insistence of congress) and so on. I also supported him due to his promise and record of compromise (see IL police interrogation law) and belief in selecting competent people for key positions (ie. Fema leaders who actually are among the top in the country in disaster response and mitigation, an energy secretary with a PhD in physics and actual experience in the field).

Perhaps some were caught up in the energy of his campaign, but many voted for him on policy and competence as well.

Also, many of these policies enjoy broad support among the American people when polled on these specific questions. Positions held by many of the current crop of Republicans often do not. Eliminate Medicare as we know it, roll back don't ask don't tell, undo the income tax amendment, further reduce taxes on the wealthiest Americans, eliminate unemployment insurance... These are not policies which enjoy broad support among many!

Originally Posted by takascar2

Nonsense.



This is the biggest lie of all. Conservatives sleep well at night because they think they have the answer and don't need to think about it anymore. Liberals are always re-examining their ideas to make sure they are correct. Just look at DailyKos.com and see how many knock-down, drag-out fights they have.



The whole nation was ready for change after the repuglicans had decimated the working and middle class for the previous 30 years since Reagan. You think liberals are satisfied with Obama? Just go look at the scathing criticism that he gets at places like DailyKos.com.

Obama is a centrist and a righty on some issues, especially on national defense. This criticism of him being a "socialist" is the most preposterous thing that I have ever heard.

These terms are just codeword for n***er. That is really why most of the opponents dislike him - the hue of his skin. They think that only white males should be that office and if they had their way, Jim Crow would be enshrined in the Constitution.



They are constantly trying to fix the racist, sexist and misogynistic world that the right has been supporting for years. Sorry, but people who engage in sexual harassment should be punished as they are HARMING others. As for hate speech codes, no one has banned any kind of speech. Laws have been created to enhance penalties for people who have racist or homophobic motivations for crimes, but the concept of aggravating circumstances in penal law are centuries old.



More nonsense. Liberals are the most reasoning people of all. As I said, they are always re-assesing their beliefs and debating among each other. The smart, intelligent people are mostly liberal.

The right, on the other hand, seems to have the lion's share of the ignorant, low-information people who operate on emotional rather than reasonable motivation. They are ignorant and proud to be so, rejecting science for the opinion of their preacher, many of whom wouldn't know
the real teachings of Jesus Christ if it came up and bit them in the ass. These people have bought into a Frankenstein version of Christianity
in which the central theme of Jesus, that is, to love one another (and not just other white people) and to "do unto others...." has been replaced with a nightmare of hatred, in toleration, xenophobia and racism.

What these people really are is afraid. They are afraid because they perceive that our nation is collapsing. In a sense, they are correct, but its not because of excessive government, it is because our middle class has been betrayed and sold out by the right that pretends to be all about family values, but in reality, it is a hoax, a diversion to get the people to not notice that the corporations and their right-wing lackeys in power have been systematically destroying the underpinnings of the Great US Middle Class (tm) that flourished in the 50's and 60's.

During that time, we experienced the most broad-based distribution of wealth that the nation has ever seen. More people were living comfortably in our country as a percentage of the whole population than in any other nation at any time in history.

Corporations and rich people did very well during this time as well. But, they were greedy and just couldn't stand that they had to pay
(gasp!) living wages to people. This coupled with a bizarre sense of elitism (i.e. "These peasants should NOT be living well, only WE should live this well, since we are the "elect", or "chosen ones") got them to create a scheme to destroy the middle class.

Now, its 30 years since Reagan and they have almost succeeded. America has very little left of its former broad-based middle class and this
is depressing and scaring people.

The left understands the reasons for this and have been fighting this crap since Reagan. The right is just scared. Their lack of desire to
learn about the complex problems leaves them open for demagogs who will lie to them about what is causing the problem.

The right-wing machine continues to lie to them by blaming government and spending. They claim that all we need is more of the same
crap that we have been doing over the last 30 years (tax cuts for the rich, removing "regulation"). They use codewords and ideas that
are covertly racist against "brown people" and scapegoat anyone not "white" as the real cause of the problems, when they (the right and
corporations) are the problem.

So, the lot of the 99% (of which these rural and southern white voters are part of) continues to sink into an economic abyss while the
right-wing elites continue to try to con the 99% into thinking that more of the same kind of crap policy is what we need to fix it.

That is what motivates the right-wing voters - fear.



More unmitigated b*****it. Provide proof that this was the motivation, shut up, or risk being exposed for the fool you are. Fast and Furious was a typical bureacratic screw-up, the likes of which we have seen under many administrations. Barack Obama has said, over and over again that he supports the Second Amendment.



It may be a hoax or not, I say it hasn't been proven one way or the other and BOTH sides have agendas which make their
pronouncements suspect.



No, obsessions with protecting people's rights to live whatever lifestyles they choose without being harassed for it. Also, a desire to
fight the big government policies of the right who support expansion of government intrusions into people's private lives.

This issue points out the hypocrisy of the right: They are for limited government regulations on businesses, allowing businesses to screw
over working class and poor people for the benefit of the 1% but are all for big government when it comes to intruding on bedroom issues and
the like. They are hypocrits.

Any questions?

Nope no questions only answers for you.

So Fast and Furious was just a bureacratic screw up huh? Well CBS news, no friend of conservatives has a another view with ATF documents to prove it that the guns were allowed to "walk" so they could make the case for more regulations. CBS news and Fox have been the only media outlets to report on this scandal so Im sure you had no way to know about it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_16...n-regulations/

So basically there is your PROOF...apparently it isnt unmitigated BS....Perhaps you should blog about it at the Daily Kook so the other braindead libs can be enlightened as well....
Apperently its ok for the Obama admin to abuse its power by doing this, causing hundreds of deaths in Mexico and 2 dead Border agents. Eric Holder has blood on his hands.

As far as your kooky theory about the rich conspring to destroy the middle class..well perhaps you should change medications. Obviously the ones you are on arent working well....

Your other accusations that conservatives oppose Obama and Liberalism itself for racial reasons is frankly beneath contempt...even for a liberal. Of course playing the race card is about the only thing left for you and your ilk to play as Obama has a pretty dismal record to hang his hat on.

And lastly your accusation that conservatives prey on fears...gee I guess telling senior citizens that they'll be eating dog food soon if we attempt to reform social security isn FEAR MONGERING? Having a commercial showuing a Paul Ryan look alike shving granny over the cliff...nope not fear mongering at all....

Originally Posted by Weave

Nope no questions only answers for you.

So Fast and Furious was just a bureacratic screw up huh? Well CBS news, no friend of conservatives has a another view with ATF documents to prove it that the guns were allowed to "walk" so they could make the case for more regulations. CBS news and Fox have been the only media outlets to report on this scandal so Im sure you had no way to know about it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_16...n-regulations/

So basically there is your PROOF...apparently it isnt unmitigated BS....Perhaps you should blog about it at the Daily Kook so the other braindead libs can be enlightened as well....
Apperently its ok for the Obama admin to abuse its power by doing this, causing hundreds of deaths in Mexico and 2 dead Border agents. Eric Holder has blood on his hands.

So the ATF wanting to be able to trace the weapons that go to Mexican drug lords is bad? Why is it wrong for the ATF to be able to stop
this kind of gun-running. That infringes on NO ONES 2nd Amendment right.

As far as your kooky theory about the rich conspring to destroy the middle class..well perhaps you should change medications. Obviously the ones you are on arent working well....

You didn't provide any evidence to the contrary, just invective and insults.

Your other accusations that conservatives oppose Obama and Liberalism itself for racial reasons is frankly beneath contempt...even for a liberal. Of course playing the race card is about the only thing left for you and your ilk to play as Obama has a pretty dismal record to hang his hat on.

His record on race is one of reconciliation. See his speech on race: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...h_n_92077.html

And lastly your accusation that conservatives prey on fears...gee I guess telling senior citizens that they'll be eating dog food soon if we attempt to reform social security isn FEAR MONGERING? Having a commercial showuing a Paul Ryan look alike shving granny over the cliff...nope not fear mongering at all....

The difference is that it is a factual statement that this is what would happen if Ryan's plan was implemented. Giving seniors coupons for insurance that would cost many times more than the face value of coupons is effectivly destroying Medicare and 70+ percent of the people
are opposed to it.

That's a far cry from calling the President a Socialist who hates America and will take your guns away (both false).

The truth of the statements comes into play somewhere here. Telling the truth and being factual is not fear-mongering

Originally Posted by scotths

This is somewhat confusing to me. I didn't support Obama's election because of a "vague hope and change" mantra, I supported him in part due to a list of specific policy ideas he published on his website and has largely adhered to since his election. These include ending the Iraq was (but in a careful way and not before it was possible to do so carefully), increasing troops in Afghanistan, capturing or killing Bin Laden (despite possible opposition from Pakistan), putting in place a healthcare plan that included an exchange of private insurance companies with an elimination of the pre-existing condition problem (the mandate and dropping of the public option was added later at the insistence of congress) and so on. I also supported him due to his promise and record of compromise (see IL police interrogation law) and belief in selecting competent people for key positions (ie. Fema leaders who actually are among the top in the country in disaster response and mitigation, an energy secretary with a PhD in physics and actual experience in the field).

Perhaps some were caught up in the energy of his campaign, but many voted for him on policy and competence as well.

Also, many of these policies enjoy broad support among the American people when polled on these specific questions. Positions held by many of the current crop of Republicans often do not. Eliminate Medicare as we know it, roll back don't ask don't tell, undo the income tax amendment, further reduce taxes on the wealthiest Americans, eliminate unemployment insurance... These are not policies which enjoy broad support among many!

Thank you, Scott. It is refreshing to read some common sense on this subject.

I thought Ron Paul had retired the slimeball award this year by disavowing his newsletters, but Rick Santorum is giving him a run for his money. This just in:

Santorum also tried to explain remarks he made in Iowa about Medicaid, a program for poor Americans. He was quoted as saying: "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."
"In the CNN interview, Santorum said he "mumbled it and changed my thought" in mid-statement.

"I'm pretty confident I didn't say 'black,'" he said. "I've looked at it several times. I was starting to say one word and I sort of came up with a different word and then moved on." But, he conceded, "it sounded like black."

While Santorum defended his overall record in working on economic issues for black communities, civic and civil rights leaders criticized his remark.

"Sen. Santorum's targeting of African-Americans is inaccurate and outrageous and lifts up old race-based stereotypes about public assistance," NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous said.

"He conflates welfare recipients with African-Americans, though federal benefits are in fact determined by income level. In Iowa for example, only 9 percent of food stamp recipients are black, while 84 percent of recipients are white," Jealous said.

Santorum shrugged off the criticism and said his remark was "probably just a tongue-tied moment instead of something that was deliberate."

This reminds me of Dick Armey failing to understand why some people got upset when he referred publicly to Barney Frank as Barney Fag. He just forgot he wasn't surrounded by fellow Republicans.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I was not surprised. But then again the town I grew up in had the Confederate flag waving on the main street for years and years, and we are well ABOVE the Mason-Dixon line.

~Chas'88

What state? Indiana?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

What state? Indiana?

Pennsylvania, the Mason-Dixon reference was to allocate where in the state I was. I.E. I don't live close to it.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by JDFP

...And isn't this the primary issue though? I can understand and appreciate what you're saying, but you're making a massive presumption/pre-supposition that what leftist ideology is Truth (as in a mathematical fact that 2+2 = 4) while the right is spewing 2+2 = 5. This is simply not the case - all either side has is theory and historical precident to either support and/or refute said theory which can be read many ways (and the same historical records will be read differently by both side to help them in their argument the opposing side is giving a 2+2 = 5 on reality while they are giving Truth).

This is one of the reasons why I intentionally point out to everyone that I am *NOT* a Republican although I lean conservative on the majority of issues (I classify myself as only a paleoconservative). The Republican party and/or right-leaning theory is not Truth and, you know what, neither is left-leaning and/or the Democrat party. Politics are not a precise science and never will be.

Thus, yes, it is presumptuous for anyone on the left to use their interpretation of historical precedent to support their (I personally believe Keynesian economic theory is shit, personally, but that's not a Truth but merely my own theory) ideology as being, you guessed it, Truth. And it's damned condescending for others out here to be told to believe any other ideology or theory is the same as believing 2+2 = 5.

j.p.

Okay, I'll bite.

Yes politics is not a science and economics is not a precise science so there is some wiggle room there for politicians (and their supporters) to suggest that, in regard to the truth ,one economic theory is just as good as the next and an ideology build upon one or the other is just some personal choice perhaps based on whether one is truly virtuous or not... or some other rationality.

However, there are facts that are, well, facts. And if the facts fit one theory much more so than another, well, maybe that should tell you something. And, if the ideology that is based on a fact-less theory are highly damaging to a vast array of people, then those spouting the fact-less theory and ideology should be subjected to as much of an argumentative pounding as needed - the objective not necessarily being to get the fact-less megaphones to shut up but to open the eyes of others that the only value of these fact-less megaphones is silly-ass entertainment somewhat along the lines of the Three Stooges.

Let me choose a couple of facts that most folks on all sides of the political spectrum seem mostly incapable of grasping -

Our federal government's spending is not constrained by its taxing revenue nor by its borrowing capacity. The only thing that constrains federal spending is that when combined with private sector spending, total demand will outstrip the economy's ability to supply and sustained generalized increases in the prices of goods and services will then rise (i.e. inflation) at rates harmful to economic activity.

Further, as indicated by this chart -



- the fact is that there has been no correlation between such inflation and federal budget deficits for at least the last 82 years.

With those facts in mind, please explain how your personal belief that "Keynesian economic theory is shit" is derived. And if you can't, please explain how not only you, but a host of 'real economists' and clueless politicos that agree with you shouldn't be subjected to repeated deriding poundings until we all get a good laugh out of it.