Originally Posted by Odin

The Confederate Battle Flag is a symbol of racism and treason, a symbol of traitors who believed that owning other human beings was a good thing. I view that flag as little different than the Nazi flag.

If it is not a symbol of racism then why do people from outside the states that were part of the Confederacy fly it?

Let's get this right. The Confederate Battle Flag is only a symbol of racism due to its post-war use by the Klan and others. Prior to that, it was a sign of rebellion, which is not exactly an endorsement of it as a Stainless Banner either.

I've lived in the South since 1972 (longer than many of the true Southerners on this board have been alive), and I still fail to understand the honor in this failed rebellion. If there is a need to honor the fallen, then use a different symbol. Here's one - the First National Flag:



For those not aware, this is the Stainless Banner, which sadly stands as the basis for several state flags in the south, :

Originally Posted by Odin

That it was about slavery is considered an obvious fact by most historians.

Lee was in denial about what the war was about because of his own dislike of slavery.

Actually, I have a degree in history - and no it's not. To say the Civil War is about slavery is overly simplistic and disregarding the state of the union of America at the time.

I find it humorous that you're passing judgment on Robert E. Lee as being one of the wisest and most intelligent individuals living at the time through your presentism lenses for your own edification. I doubt someone of Lee's caliber would have stood against the oppressive federal government of the time in leading the Army of Northern Virginia if he considered it was only an issue of slavery.

j.p.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Let's get this right. The Confederate Battle Flag is only a symbol of racism due to its post-war use by the Klan and others. Prior to that, it was a sign of rebellion, which is not exactly an endorsement of it as a Stainless Banner either.

I've lived in the South since 1972 (longer than many of the true Southerners on this board have been alive), and I still fail to understand the honor in this failed rebellion. If there is a need to honor the fallen, then use a different symbol. Here's one - the First National Flag:



For those not aware, this is the Stainless Banner, which sadly stands as the basis for several state flags in the south, :

Thank you for this. We may disagree on some political matters, but you know what, that's okay. We're both Americans and I love you as my brother (don't take that the wrong way ). I'm proud to be an American - and I'm also proud to be a Tennessean. I find it shameful and disrespectful when many uneducated individuals attack those of us who had family who stood for what they believed to be right in standing for their states and their dignity. And to be honest - it hurts like hell when others treat those who gave their lives as Americans for Tennessee, Virgina (where my family is from) and elsewhere for being Americans for not giving them the respect they deserve.

j.p.

Originally Posted by Odin

The Confederate Battle Flag is a symbol of racism and treason, a symbol of traitors who believed that owning other human beings was a good thing. I view that flag as little different than the Nazi flag.

If it is not a symbol of racism then why do people from outside the states that were part of the Confederacy fly it?

There are a few who are proud members of the UDC. One of which I knew that lived out here was a wife of a friend of my father's. But I've found they are more likely to pull out the Stars and Bars than the Stainless Banner.

~Chas'88

EDIT: Also, before the 1960s, the Klan typically used the Stars & Stripes. After the successes of the Civil Rights Movement some switched to the Confederate Battle Flag, but most still use the Stars & Stripes. It's mostly television that's depicted the KKK as using the Confederate Battle Flag. Edited post to take out the pictures, considering the proposed new rules.

Originally Posted by JDFP

I think one should be cautious in labeling one as a "Holocaust denier" for having a valid discussion regarding the number of individuals executed during the Holocaust. Very few people (and I'd even question David Irving to an extent on this, but that's another discussion for another day) question the atrocities of the Nazi regime or the horrors perpetrated by them. However, I think it's a valid discussion in discussing models by which one can more accurately calculate the causation of horror that not only the Nazi regime but also other totalitarian regimes (i.e. the Holodomor perpetrated by Stalin and his cronies) in actuality caused. I think it's important to point out that denying that 11 million people were killed during the Holocaust or X # of people killed during the Holodomor is certainly not the same as denying the very factual actuality of the Holocaust itself. Unless you live in Germany - then if you express a contrary opinion in any way you're sent to prison and/or censured.

That exchange happened in the now-defunct Forums of the new York Times more than ten years ago. If you saw it (the other fellow went by the name of Thomas Blair) you would have recognized his prose as sympathetic to Nazi Germany. If you saw it you may have forgotten it. It is just as well. I could probably reconstruct much of it in a pamphlet. He claimed that the Nazis never killed Jews except as the consequence of war itself (including partisan warfare), or as punishment for individual crimes against the German State and people. Jews might have died as the result of hunger and disease that resulted from the war. The "Six Million" was thus a hysterical fabrication as an attempt to win sympathy and reparations.

The Holocaust is one of the best-documented crimes in history. All that is missing is a written order from Adolf Hitler for the killing of the Jews -- and T.B. used that as proof that it did not happen. (To which I said that by that thinking the St. Valentine's Day Massacre could never have happened because Al Capone never left behind a written instruction to 'rub out' his rivals). The Nazis left behind censuses of Jews, deportation lists, accounting ledgers, death lists, railroad schedules, regulations of the camps, and architectural plans. Those fell to the Allies so quickly that they could never be fabricated. The testimony at the Nuremberg trial against Ernst Kaltenbrunner (as I said of him, I recall, he was unjustly hanged for his role in the Holocaust; burning him at the stake for his role would have been more appropriate) had his initials on a huge number of damnable orders from his office as the highest-ranking survivor of the security apparatus of the Third Reich. Kaltenbrunner called the initials "forgeries" but never could deny the reality of the documents!

Of course it was a long exchange, and T.B. gave most of the usual calumnies against Jews and accused me of being a Jew (of course any German-sounding name "can be Jewish") because I wasn't "pro-German" enough to defend Nazis. He accused anyone who took him on of being a Jew, including someone identifying herself 'a Glasgow Celt'. There may be Jews in Scotland, but few identify themselves as 'Celts'. In the end I got him to admit to what he was protecting (Germans and German-Americans) and I finally identified myself as a German-American (I have since found that the 'Germans' are often Swiss or Dutch, and that I am more English, but I have yet to find a Jewish ancestor) and that his mislaid attacks on me as "a Jew" were the sort of protection that no German or German-American wants.

That's about all that I need say -- except that I even tried to inject a fair warning that even Dante could not imagine a bolgia nasty enough for the most egregious sinners of the twentieth century, especially Nazis and Stalinists. I'd rather go where the innocent victims of the Holocaust would be consigned than where the souls of Holocaust perpetrators are.

As far as Creationism - I've never understood why there has always been such an issue between the religious and scientists regarding this issue. Evolution is not a contradiction to Genesis except in the most literal reading (see: Southern Baptist, etc.) of Scripture. I have no issue with accepting evolution by the mode in which God proceeded within His creation.

As some would put it, "Believe it or burn". That's a very powerful (if fallacious) argument (argument to fear of consequences). I consider it enough of a miracle that God (and it could only be one God) established mathematical and physical laws that not only allowed a universe and life, but a creature that could make some sense of the universe.

No argument from me. Be wary of those who know just enough to cause trouble.

Not to mention the usual sociopaths, especially those who gain power or become criminals (including terrorists).

Mainstream attitudes is a fickle matter and say it shouldn't be considered (outside of the realm of common sense) other than from a Machiavellian perspective. An individual should never limit his/her thoughts merely from the "common perspective and acceptance" of the day.

I refer to the "null hypothesis". Popper, maybe? Or as James Randi puts it, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". So it was with the atomic theory of matter, biological evolution, genetics, relativity, continental drift, and the role of DNA. Those were all extraordinary in their time, and they are now mainstream. It is not enough to offer a theory as "new and improved".

I'm firmly against state sanctioned homosexual marriage. I'm also firmly against state sanctioned heterosexual marriage as well. The entire enterprise of marriage becoming a "state matter" in response to taxation purposes seems rather sickening to me, to be honest. The separation of church and state is to protect the churches from the persecution of state-mandated ideology. Thus, the matter of the Rite of Holy Matrimony within Catholicism and other religious institutions should be kept thus - a religious matter. The federal government nor the state government should dictate the terminology or impetus of "marriage" - this can be done through civil recognition just as well as "marriage" as decreed by the state and it removes the issue of religious qualms by doing so.

At most the state can recognize a church-based or synagogue-based marriage as legally binding if it fits certain legal matters (not incestuous, bigamous, involving someone underage, or fraudulently-entered, among others). Churches and synagogues can bar marriages that violate the values of the specific cleric. A Catholic church can prevent the marriage of a priest, monk, or nun. No government could ever compel Fred Phelps to tolerate a homosexual marriage at Westboro Baptist Church or an interracial marriage at a chapel at Bob Jones University. Where I live, one fundamentalist pastor refuses to allow a marriage between two people then cohabiting. Religious bodies may have monopolies on the sacrament of marriage at their churches but not on marriage itself.

I am certainly no neo-con. Overall, we seem to agree on many more principles than initially when I labeled you as an elitist for your presentation of material. I still believe you've been shaped by an elitist mentality - but I was wrong, and rightfully admit, I was wrong in labeling you as one. And for that - I apologize

.

Apology recognized and heartily accepted. I think that almost everyone who does some coherent thought at all has come under the influence of some elitist mentality through its institutions. The Roman Catholic Church relies heavily upon Augustine and Aquinas, both of whom are intellectual elitists. Almost all Western and Islamic thought goes through four elite intellectuals of ancient Greece (typically Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Euclid) and Hebrew prophets. Non-Western? I could name names, including Gautama Siddharta and Confucius.

Thinking is an elite activity. Acting without thought is for a fool or a bondsman.

So, if someone has worked hard to become what is considered wealthy in this nation we automatically deduce said individual has money and thus conclude he/she spends this income on whores, gambling, cocaine, and other vices? This is rather presumptuous and I think an insult to many who have done well through dedication and commitment to their careers. It also says something about the thought-process many who feel this way have - and indeed seems to have a bit of a condescending glib disregard for those who are wealthy as if it's an insult to workers for having the audacity to do well. The wealthy should not be punished for the very fact of having attained wealth. Certainly, an argument could be made for how some have become wealthy - but this is more of a matter of the moral character of the nation as a whole and is a completely different discussion.

I may have been over the top. As Paul Samuelson puts it, the economic question relating to inequality is whether the system decides upon milk for the peasant's baby or cream for the princess' cat. Scummy people tend to do scummy things with their ill-earned take... booze and drugs to dissolve their consciences so that they can keep swindling people without having an existential crisis, consorting with prostitutes, buying gaudy luxuries. I think of a character in the gangster movie Goodfellas who with his wife meets his end gangland style and are disposed of wearing designer clothing while seated in their Cadillac... which is crushed with the well-appointed cadavers inside.

Economic priorities are not beyond moral judgment. It might be extremely profitable for some if America would revert to the norms of the Gilded Age... but the 70-hour workweeks and 40-year lifespans in which prole kids go to work at age 10 would be unqualified tragedy for multitudes. But even at that some ways of making a living are 'nobler' than others. Nobody can equate Henry Ford and Al Capone. Hedge-fund operators will never be confused with the old-fashioned captains of industry who at least created capitalism.

I think that with few exceptions (star entertainers, including athletes; wildly-successful professionals in medicine and law; inventors; maybe creators of intellectual property) one must recognize this reality about a healthy capitalist order: the only people who should get rich are capitalist investors. Not political hacks. Not gangsters, certainly. Not "gamblers on other people's money". Not corporate bureaucrats. We need more capitalism, and not less -- even if that means breaking up giant enterprises into smaller units. We need a tax system that fosters small business even at the expense of the 'efficiency' of vertically-integrated firms that can dominate markets. That implies a graduated income tax. Think about it: the 1950s which had high graduated taxes was a heyday of small business in manufacturing, retailing, banking, and services.

If we strip away all facets of meritocracy through, what I consider, to be punitive taxation we strip away incentive in a society. Why the hell should I work my ass off just to end up in a different tax bracket where I'll actually end up paying more of my overall income earned as opposed to staying in a specific position without really trying? Human nature should not be denied.

But the system can create you as a professional. Consider the German educational system. Sure, it tracks, and that might be a problem in America because it would effectively push late-bloomers as well as non-bloomers into industrial labor (of course, well-paid and with economic security). Those with good grades can go as far through the educational system as their abilities merit at practically no cost (and stipends to keep them afloat). Germans pay high taxes, but they seem to get their money's worth. Educational spots are limited, so the competition is keen; America has far more educational opportunities for under-achievers but that under-achievement now comes with student debt no less onerous than high taxes... and the possibility that one might end up with a near-minimum-wage job after graduation with a huge student loan to pay off.

I believe all Americans should be equally taxed when it comes to the issue of income. The concept of "You do better in making more money so you should have to pay more in taxes for others!" seems plainly and bruntly to be a disgusting insult to me. Progressive taxation is a disturbing principle to me. As far as the issue of other forms of taxation - that's a different matter for a different discussion.

Flat taxes are simple... but those who get the most benefits from the system deserve to pay a bigger share because they have more of a stake in the system. The argument for graduated taxes goes back to Adam Smith (18th century). Flat taxes encourage subjection because poor people have an incentive to become workers paid in kind instead of being paid in cash.

Oh the military certainly needs to be downsized. In fact, we need to get out of other nations in the world and bring the troops back home in literal sense as opposed to symbolic sense. Pulling out of Iraq is not enough - we have no basis in being an International Police Force throughout the world. Israel is not the 51st State. The Mossad is certainly, as it has shown time and time again, a force to be reckoned with as is the IDF. We have no right in the world in dictating ideologies to Iran or elsewhere save for defending our natural borders (including the Mexican border as well - note, this does not mean I'm advocating building a big fence).

The 4T has a way of forcing nations to change their ways, often by sloughing off the baroque excesses of recent decades. The Soviet Union hasn't been a threat to the US since Gorbachev took over, and Russian leadership has shown no tendency toward military expansion. China is more capitalist than communist, and it shows no expansionist tendency. To be sure, anyone who does anything stupid to either Russia or China is going to have an account to settle in an unpleasant manner. That both Russia and China endorsed the whacking of Osama bin Laden should remind us that those countries would do just the same to someone who murders thousands of their citizens. Not even Arlington, Virginia (home of the Pentagon) is a safe place for a mass-murdering terrorist. The 3T usually manifests itself as a time of consummate folly, as shown in our capital-devouring bubble in real estate during the Double-Zero decade. The top leadership during the latter stages of a 3T has typically shown itself far below the norm, at least in American history. George III badly mishandled America and may have been the only British monarch who could have lost America in a violent revolution or civil war. Between Polk and Lincoln we had a succession of awful Presidents. It's hard to see what Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover did right. Dubya was an unqualified failure following a forgettable (if not awful) President. Late in a 3T Americans seem to want weak, ineffective, inattentive leadership that allows them to make all the money that they can without restraint and without concern for the harm that they do to others. Eventually that fails catastrophically. The only other time in which Americans made a similar choice in politics was the Gilded Age when Americans wanted weak, ineffective, inattentive, government and got it -- and a succession of booms and busts. But that has to do with the strange set of generations in place in the 1870s and 1880s.

Overall, I agree with the majority of what you've presented here with some interjections. If other folks in this nation could come together as we have here on this forum in logically and rationally discussing issues that confront us, I think we'd perhaps have a better understanding of the Crisis of Confidence (which I feel is a fitting statement for describing our current national state of affairs) in both the failed president and failed Congress we currently have. Unfortunately, too many others see fit to squabble as school children.

This country is terribly polarized. In 2008 Barack Obama won Vermont by 37%... and lost Oklahoma by a margin of 31%. Neither of the Presidential or Vice-Presidential nominees had any obvious ties to either state. 20 electoral votes were decided by margins of 30% or more -- both ways. 109 electoral votes were decided by more than 25%. 193 electoral votes were decided by 20% or more (note that this is cumulative). 286 were decided by 15% or more. 387 (which does not include the Second Congressional District of Nebraska, which was really close) were decided by 10% or more. 427 were decided by 8% or more. In most years without someone winning 450+ electoral votes a margin of 8% or more is rare. In 2008 only 111 electoral votes were arguably close.

If you want to see what an unpolarized national election looks like with the winner winning 53% of the popular vote, just look at 1944 -- a year near the end of the last Crisis Era. Nazi Germany was dying, and Thug Japan was on the brink of failure -- as every American knew. Ruling out nine former Confederate states other than Virginia and Tennessee that did not have free and competitive elections that had 114 electoral votes that FDR won by 30% or more (the only such states), one finds that 74 electoral votes went by less than 2%, 167 by less than 4%, 287 by less than 6%, and 297 by less than 8%. FDR had his least-overwhelming election in 1944, and he lost only four states (Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Vermont) with margins between 14.1% and 21.1% of the popular vote. "Next-worst" was North Dakota, which FDR lost by 8.35%.

(This is my source on electoral data -- and it is very useful)

The 2008 election was held near the beginning of a 4T; the 1944 election was held near the end of a 4T. Public life tends to congeal around shared purposes, and politics tend to homogenize. I make this prediction: in November, America will be well advanced in solving the mess of the 4T if we see any of these results:

1. President Obama solidly defeated as an abject failure with perhaps 40% to 45% of the popular vote for the time with the President winning by bare margins only in a few, scattered states even if they are electorally large. This would suggest that a conservative leadership of the GOP has convinced Americans of the need for what I would call a "Christian and Corporate State" as the only viable solution for economic distress and moral depravity. He might win 100 or so electoral votes that include those of California, New York, and Illinois and maybe two of Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Jersey and a handful of states with 3 or 4 electoral votes. Republicans increase their hold in the House and get about 57 seats in the Senate. Of course this is not what I want, but people can find themselves on the wrong side of history. What looked like a new coalition for Barack Obama and Democrats in general in 2008 has been shattered.

Not likely. Political values do not turn on a dime except to go to where they had been in recent times.

2. Close election either way, but with margins drastically pared. President Obama still wins Vermont (but by perhaps 12% instead of 30%) and loses Oklahoma by 13% (instead of 30%). Maybe he still wins all the states that he won by at least 10% in 2008 in 2012, some this time barely. But at such a point, such states as Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Virginia are very much in play (maybe Florida is, too). The political map can then look much like a variant of those of 2000 or 2004... except that the interstate differences are not so severe. This suggests that the Republicans are getting closer to the political center.

Unlikely. The Republicans are going farther right, so far as I can tell.

3. Obama blowout. President Obama gets about 60% of the popular vote, gets a couple seats in the Senate for the Democrats (there is little opportunity for Democratic gains in the Senate), and gets a House majority. In essence, the President holds onto the suburban voters that Republican nominees for President used to take for granted while winning back the sorts of voters who voted for Bill Clinton but not for Gore, Kerry, or Obama. In 2008 Barack Obama lost five states (Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia) that Bill Clinton won twice by more than 10%. If he can pull that off (38 electoral votes) and win Texas (which would require him picking off lots of votes in suburbs of Dallas and Houston while winning back what used to be reliably-Democratic areas in rural East Texas. Missouri, Georgia, and Arizona of course go to the President.

Not likely. Poor southern whites may have drifted permanently to the GOP column, which means that the President's best hopes of gains will be Missouri, Georgia, and Arizona.

Those are not the only scenarios, but none of those suggest that America will see itself having made undeniable progress toward a better new world. Such is more likely in 2016 and much more likely in 2020.

And again - I apologize for calling you an elitist and for having originally blocked you. While I find your tirades I generally disagree with to be inaccurate on many matters, I have removed you from my block list and hope to share in discussions with you - even if we disagree you've certainly proven yourself to be civil and intelligent. So, my hat tips to you in respect, good sir.

j.p.

Apology accepted. Glad to restart the conversation. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Weave

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.

The "value" of not having rigid values, IOW.

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.

Read the posts here if you think liberals idealize Obama or any other leader.

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.)

How often have you run afoul of hate speech or sexual harassment? Hate speech codes apply to people who commit crimes. Sexual harassment applies to people who are ruthless in their ambition. I guess that describes most conservatives (if you say so...)....

D.this is obvious, liberals are very superficial...

Obvious? What a superficial statement! Prove it.

e. anyone to the right of their far left agenda is branded an extremist

Anyone in any other country realizes just which side is the extreme side.

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....

It is not true that liberals approve or say nothing about Fast and Furious. The IRS is just as useful to conservatives as to liberals, since both sides love big government.

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

Enough said right there to prove that you and most other conservatives in the USA are mindless shrills.

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

Pathological according to whom? Show me any doctor who says alternate lifestyles are pathological.

The hippies were all about peace, love and spirituality. Indulgent sometimes, yes. How many conservatives are indulgent? How many are overweight, for a start. Not to mention hooked on lousy preachers.

Originally Posted by JDFP

Actually, I have a degree in history - and no it's not. To say the Civil War is about slavery is overly simplistic and disregarding the state of the union of America at the time.

Of course it was about slavery. Your really think the South would have fought and died in the hundreds of thousands over the tariff or something like that?

Originally Posted by JDFP

Actually, I have a degree in history - and no it's not. To say the Civil War is about slavery is overly simplistic and disregarding the state of the union of America at the time.

I find it humorous that you're passing judgment on Robert E. Lee as being one of the wisest and most intelligent individuals living at the time through your presentism lenses for your own edification. I doubt someone of Lee's caliber would have stood against the oppressive federal government of the time in leading the Army of Northern Virginia if he considered it was only an issue of slavery.

j.p.

Not to start an argument, but normally when I hear someone from the North try to defend the issue of State's Rights there's always someone who asks:

State's Rights for what?

And somehow or another manages to whiddle the problem down to slavery. IIRC the argument usually goes like this:

States Rights to secceede?
Why did they want to secceede?
To ensure other states had the rights to secceede, like South Carolina.
Why did South Carolina secceede?
Because it felt the federal government, under a Republican administration, wouldn't properly uphold the rights & laws of South Carolina as a slave state, like other states such as New Jersey, Iowa, Ohio, & New York, had already done.

The minute someone mentions slave, or thereabouts the argument is finished.

I'd be fascinated to hear your perspective & hear the refutation of this. Purpose: To discover different perspectives.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Weave

Wow the ignore feature. Ever notice how is almost always the Leftists who use this. I could understand it maybe if I actually personally attacked poor Pete. He likes to talk about Authoritarians without realizing that Authoritarian types typically ignore anyone who disagrees with them. They dont like to hear opposing viewpoints or have their ideas challenged or have their tactics thrown back in their faces. These traits are often exhibited by liberals. It fits right in with their narcissistic and compulsive behavior. Thier view is that the average person is simply too stupid to basically take care of themselves and its up to them, the smarter, more superior beings, to take care of the rest of us and be dependent on thier wisdom. This gives them power which is why they really want most to be on the dole and thus rendered powerles to oppose them.

If anything, I and other liberals have a disgusting habit of replying and arguing with mindless conservatives like you, even though it is basically pointless. But hope springs eternal among us, whereas among you hope is a dirty word, as Sarah Palin demonstrates.

As to His 8 points I assume he is assuming to what he percieves as Obama's accomplishments. Allow me to retort....


1. We've left Iraq and it is descending into chaos as we speak. We'll probably lose more in the long run as a result.

How do we lose if the Iraqis resume a civil war that was caused by our going there in the first place?

2. I thought you lefties dont beleive the housing bubble caused the recession? Funny Bwarney Fwank didnt seem to mid the housing bubble when it was going on....Never heard a peep from Obama or any other Lib warning about a crash prior to this either.....

Noone really spoke out. I saw it coming too, but was less than specific about the housing bubble. I think it was so obvious that noone said anything. Frank was in no position to do anything about it, as he said tonight on national TV.

3.As if Bush orMcCain or my dead Grandmother wouldnt have ordered that assault.....

But didn't. Obama did, and did it well. Bush could not have done it, because he is incompetent. Anyone who can't see that Bush is incompetent doesn't have a brain.

4. Saved GM...more like saved the GM union wages. GM could have restructured AND saved billions and had a stronger less costly future and we would have wasted taxpayer money on crap like the Chevy Volt....

That you think that is waste, proves beyond any doubt that you haven't the foggiest idea what the word means. Come to think of it, your #1 proves that too. And #6. Without Obama's loan, there'd be no GM today; although I wonder if that wouldn't have been good riddance. We need to allow the big three to die so that Tesla and other electric car companies can take over. Better yet, while we owned it we should have forced GM to make NOTHING BUT the Chevy Volt. All cars should have been electric by now, if we Americans had any intelligence. Sadly, there are too many Americans like you Weave.

5. Promoted liberal democracy...more like Obama has promoted the Muslim Brotherhood and theocratic form of fascism that is developing in Egypt and other places.

The Arab Spring is a large step in the right direction taken by the people there, and Obama has the USA on the right side of it.

6. You are kidding right? Our best allies Israel and Britain are losing faith in us, our enemies are openly laughing at us and telling us the American century is over....

Britain is losing so much faith, that it worked with us on Libya.

Israel is as close to a bloodthirsty empire, like the Jewish ones in the Bible, that Israelis are indistinguishable in their genocide and oppressiveness from Joshua. We have no business giving them a dime.

7. Created a Trillion dollar health care boondoggle that has minimal support and will probably be ruled unconstitutional.

Perhaps, though that would be unfortunate. Only a health care system into which everyone pays will save any of the medical costs that cripple American business today. Obama does something about it, and the reason you hate what he did, is because he proved that our side can accomplish something, and your side cannot.

8. Again, McCain would have dealt with Iran much tougher and probably would have helped destabilize the regime when the people rose up and revolted in 2009. Obama sat back and let them be crushed.....

Oh that's real good; get us involved in three wars instead of two.

It is a dirty rotten shame we have so many people in the USA who think (sic) like you do Weave. It is the ONLY thing holding our country back.

But I'm glad you speak up; it reveals the facts about this.

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.

Why is it that our side just puts out the facts and asks people to consider the facts, and the other side just spouts Biblical misinterpretations and theories that have no basis?

Originally Posted by Weave

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....

Such intelligent use of facts there, Weave. Kinda proves you really have it on the ball...

Originally Posted by Odin

This uis false, the secession was about one thing and one thing only: Slavery. The Confederate VP admitted as such when he said that "Our government is based on the truth that the black man is not equal to the white man".

I know Southerners like to deny that the Civil War was about slavery, but that is self-serving denial, it was about slavery. When they spoke about their "rights" they meant the "right" to OWN OTHER HUMAN BEINGS.

Odin is 100% right and it has been proven again and again. It was only after they lost that the white South began claiming that states rights, rather than slavery,. was the issue. The secession conventions were much franker--they made it very clear that the issue was to maintain and extend slavery. Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy, bragged that it was the first nation to be based on the great principle of slavery. Anyone who says the flag represents the sacrifice of the southerners who fought for their states could just as easily say that the Swastika represents the beautiful sacrifice of Germans fighting for their nation. As Charles A. Beard wrote 70 years ago, there is clearly no relationship between the justice of a cause and the willingness of men to die for it.

The nation's major newspapers are busy telling the world today that Santorum is another Washington whore, this time in devout Catholic clothing, who got rich after his defeat working for and with the corporations he benefited in office. He will be another meteor in the sky, joining Bachmann, Perry, Cain and Gingrich. I feel certain that Romney will get the nomination although he may face a significant enthusiasm gap.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The nation's major newspapers are busy telling the world today that Santorum is another Washington whore, this time in devout Catholic clothing, who got rich after his defeat working for and with the corporations he benefited in office. He will be another meteor in the sky, joining Bachmann, Perry, Cain and Gingrich. I feel certain that Romney will get the nomination although he may face a significant enthusiasm gap.

If Romney gets the nomination it will be nearly impossible to decide who to vote for. It will be 2004 all over again. Maybe Romney could get more done with an R beside his name. I guess Obama is more liberal on social issues, but I'm not sure.

Originally Posted by JDFP

Thank you for this. We may disagree on some political matters, but you know what, that's okay. We're both Americans and I love you as my brother (don't take that the wrong way ). I'm proud to be an American - and I'm also proud to be a Tennessean. I find it shameful and disrespectful when many uneducated individuals attack those of us who had family who stood for what they believed to be right in standing for their states and their dignity. And to be honest - it hurts like hell when others treat those who gave their lives as Americans for Tennessee, Virgina (where my family is from) and elsewhere for being Americans for not giving them the respect they deserve.

j.p.

I'm finding this fascinating. You would think that living in Virginia, I'd be familiar with the ins and outs of the various flags, but I'm not. This is expanding my understanding.

Originally Posted by Odin

Milton Friedman was a ***hole who deserves to burn in Hell for all eternity for his role as part of the Chicago Boys who assisted Augusto Pinochet after he overthrew the elected Socialist leader of Chile. He was a vile RW hack whose only good idea was a negative income tax for the poor.

Yes, anything Milton Friedman said should be flushed down the toilet. He collaborated with Pinochet in committing horrible atrocities against the people of Chile. If he were still alive, the ITC would be going after him for crimes against humanity. We should not be trying to follow the economic ideas of a right-wing war criminal.

On the other hand, the ideas of Keynes are what got us out the depression and will help us now, if the repugs would just get out of the way. If they don't, perhaps the people will deliver a surprise on election day this year and remove them forcibly.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If anything, I and other liberals have a disgusting habit of replying and arguing with mindless conservatives like you, even though it is basically pointless. But hope springs eternal among us, whereas among you hope is a dirty word, as Sarah Palin demonstrates.

Nice work. Bravo!

How do we lose if the Iraqis resume a civil war that was caused by our going there in the first place?

I can't imagine a weakened, disgraced regime like that of Satan Hussein or one of his sons surviving an Arab Spring. I'm not saying that the fascist Ba'ath regime wouldn't have ultimately done the sorts of deeds that would have led to war before that, but such a war would have had a larger coalition (NATO + Russia) because the Russian government had more to fear from Saddam Hussein in the event of him buying, developing, or stealing the weapons that he cherished.

Noone really spoke out. I saw [the collapse of the housing bubble] coming too, but was less than specific about the housing bubble. I think it was so obvious that noone said anything. Frank was in no position to do anything about it, as he said tonight on national TV.

Nobody dared speak out against the Only Game in Town. Corruption and recklessness are most effective in drawing resources and aligning with political power when alternatives vanish. Economic competition among economic elites is as essential for economic freedom and a viable economy as political competition among the natural political elites is for democracy. Authoritarians of course identify with the biggest "players" and eventually become dependent upon them even when those "players" commit a nation to injustice and even ruin.

The smear on Representative Frank by Weave of course demonstrates the moral hazard of authoritarian attitudes on sexuality. As a liberal on sexual issues I have no problem with gays and lesbians having the same rights as straight people while supporting a stern crackdown upon sexual violence and abuse including exploitation of unequal power.

But (Dubya) didn't. Obama did, and did it well. Bush could not have done it, because he is incompetent. Anyone who can't see that Bush is incompetent doesn't have a brain.

As usual liberals (and genuine conservatives -- Adorno had a separate set of questions to distinguish liberals from conservatives as well as his F-scale) separate morality from obedience to power. Liberals tend to be low on the F-scale and most who score high on his scale for "political and economic conservatism" also score high on the F-scale... but it is the F-scale, and not conservatism itself, that shows the pathology of authoritarianism. Genuine conservatives can score low on the F-scale if they accept diversity, tolerate slow but inevitable change, avoid panic, and show humane tendencies. In the absence of an influential "authoritarian Left" (Commies) liberals were the first to find something wrong with the fabricated evidence that served as the justification for what proved aggressive war against Iraq. We would have given credit where due for a similar operation had Dubya done that. I would have given credit to any American political leader who got Osama bin Lden whacked with so few bad consequences.

Democracy of course depends upon the ability of people to judge powerful people for fitness as leaders. Without that capacity of judgment, people eventually fall to a callous and cynical demagogue. If only we Americans could have more clearly recognized Dubya for what he was.

That you think that is waste, proves beyond any doubt that you haven't the foggiest idea what the word means. Come to think of it, your #1 proves that too. And #6. Without Obama's loan, there'd be no GM today; although I wonder if that wouldn't have been good riddance. We need to allow the big three to die so that Tesla and other electric car companies can take over. Better yet, while we owned it we should have forced GM to make NOTHING BUT the Chevy Volt. All cars should have been electric by now, if we Americans had any intelligence. Sadly, there are too many Americans like you Weave.

I just saw a Chevy Volt in a GM showroom. At $40K it is about twice as expensive as a gasoline-powered car, and it makes sense only for someone who has frequent commutes or other travels of about 30-50 miles. If someone lives in Fort Worth and commutes to Dallas, lives in San Bernardino and commutes to downtown Los Angeles, or lives in Bridgeport and commutes to New York City it makes sense if one can "power up" at home and at the parking lot. Costs could go down with longer production lines, but that is all an economic argument. People can disagree on those.

The Arab Spring is a large step in the right direction taken by the people there, and Obama has the USA on the right side of it.

How surprising it is that Weave would align himself with a superannuated dictator like Mubarak, a kleptocrat like Ben Ali, and a left-wing despot like Qaddafi! But such is the way of the authoritarian mentality, the last person to see the writing on the wall, the one blinded to the most horrific crimes of tyrants and gangsters. His sort of conservatism allows him to hate Islam yet stand with the worst characters in the Islamic world.

Britain is losing so much faith, that it worked with us on Libya.

As I said, a democratic Libya will surely accede to Islamic sensibilities, so don't be surprised if it 'fails' to become a haven for nude beaches or drunken debauches, let alone drunken orgies on its shores. But America isn't a good place for enjoying barbecued dog meat, either. Weave seems unable to give credit to a moderate American President for the downfall of a capricious and murderous tyrant. But given the choice between a responsible government and drunken orgies on the beach, I'll take the responsible government. Nobody says that Islamic democracy and liberalism won't be Islamic. I can think of far greater threats to Islam than Jefferson -- like Marx and Lenin.

Perhaps, though that would be unfortunate. Only a health care system into which everyone pays will save any of the medical costs that cripple American business today. Obama does something about it, and the reason you hate what he did, is because he proved that our side can accomplish something, and your side cannot.

I think that Weave believes that all that matters is that the "right people" get all the wealth and power because everyone else is a helpless schmuck incapable of parlaying some good fortune into something necessary for the 'advancement' of humanity. In fact, competence and rationality are far more commonplace than most people realize. A prime example: a college professor of economics related that whatever contempt is shown to peasant farmers for their coarse culture, political conservatism, and limited learning they prove very rational in their economic choices. They might not be the "right people", but they manage scarce resources well when given the chance. The system that we have ensures that people in the medical-industrial complex will be among the last to have jobs and assets when the system collapses.

It is a dirty rotten shame we have so many people in the USA who think (sic) like you do Weave. It is the ONLY thing holding our country back.

But I'm glad you speak up; it reveals the facts about this.

He is on my ignore list for his sarcasm as much as for anything else. (I can be excused for comparing Hitler or Saddam to the Devil when they share much the same destructive and degrading evil -- right?)

Originally Posted by pizal81

If Romney gets the nomination it will be nearly impossible to decide who to vote for. It will be 2004 all over again. Maybe Romney could get more done with an R beside his name. I guess Obama is more liberal on social issues, but I'm not sure.

At least President Obama is consistent in his core beliefs, and those beliefs are mainstream.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Such intelligent use of facts there, Weave. Kinda proves you really have it on the ball...

Well I tried to reason with him and got nothing but biblical crap and tin-foil hat theories about the 2nd Amendment.

You are now on ignore, Weave, like about a half dozen other right wing gas-bags who will not see facts.

Originally Posted by takascar2

Well I tried to reason with him and got nothing but biblical crap and tin-foil hat theories about the 2nd Amendment.

You are now on ignore, Weave, like about a half dozen other right wing gas-bags who will not see facts.

.

You made wild conspiracy claims of a massive plot among the rich to "destroy the middle class" with out an ounce of proof. (seems pretty tin foil to me) When you asked me to back up my claims on Fast and Furious I did. I never mentioned religion or the bible and am In fact hardly religious at all. As I suggested earlier, up your meds, they arent working.

The ignore feature is the last refuge of a lost argument.....

The capacity of rightwingnuts to waste the time of intelligent people continues. . .

Romney now leads polling in SC. Looks like the Republican fight has been a tale told by half a dozen idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, and within a few weeks the result will be clear. So having beaten a President's wife and an Admiral's son to succeed a President's son, who originally beat a Senator's son, Obama now faces a Governor and auto company President's son! Isn't America wonderful? Any man can become President, if he had the right dad. . . .

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I will be supporting and voting for Obama in November. There is no viable alternative for that office. At the same time, I will advocate for more progressive positions in other ways.

Thank you! This is exactly my position. For me it is the only sane choice.

Progressives, Democrats - vote Obama as you did in 2008, and focus your time and energy on re-electing a Senate majority, electing a House majority, recalling Scott Walker, taking back state houses, and defeating irresponsible amendments, such as Voter ID, anti-Gay Marriage, so-called Right to Work, and capping Tax Increases to some point 15, 20 years past.

No "bot." Just a Democrat and Progressive who's perfectly satisfied with re-electing Obama, and perfectly aware that in times when the two parties can't act as mature adults (blocked nominations, using corporate big money for obscene electionm lies, using Senate filibuster rules to prevent majority rule, etc.) that this President has done better than most under the worst of governing circumstances. Compare 2009-2011 with 1877-1897, and add the layers of media and money and instant communication to blow up thed Gilded Age about 200 times more intense, and that's the new Gilded Age we find ourselves in.

Wes

Originally Posted by pizal81

If Romney gets the nomination it will be nearly impossible to decide who to vote for. It will be 2004 all over again. Maybe Romney could get more done with an R beside his name. I guess Obama is more liberal on social issues, but I'm not sure.

John Kerry vs George W. Bush, Barack Obama vs Willard (Mitt) Romney (or Richard Santorum or Richard Perry or Ronald Paul if any can somehow defeat Roimney for the nomination)... and your statement basically is that you're uncertain which is more liberal on social issues?

Had you said you were uncertain on leadership, or on which could be more effective carrying out policies and agendas, OK, I'd grant that there could be differences of opinion, there.

Had you said you had your doubts about Obama fully accepting the progressive agenda, and that you have an alternative choice who does so, then I could understand your quandry.

But on "social issues" - enacting a version of health care reform, putting in a stimulus package, fighting to keep Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, siugning the Lily Ledbetter Act, supporting middle class, opposing right wing anti-labor efforts... this is a progressive, a liberal agenda.

There should be no difficulty here if what you are looking for is the choice who is liberal on social issues.

Wes

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The capacity of rightwingnuts to waste the time of intelligent people continues. . .

Romney now leads polling in SC. Looks like the Republican fight has been a tale told by half a dozen idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, and within a few weeks the result will be clear. So having beaten a President's wife and an Admiral's son to succeed a President's son, who originally beat a Senator's son, Obama now faces a Governor and auto company President's son! Isn't America wonderful? Any man can become President, if he had the right dad. . . .

The American aristocracy.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Oh crap, are you idiots going to start that bullshit up again? Last time, you bidded up ammo to 3-4x and that just wasn't in the Northeast; prices got jacked-up in Idaho where my brother and I do our annual hunting. Prices are just now getting back to reasonable.

Don't you dudes have enough issues with Obama so you don't have to shoot yourselves in the foot again on this? Or do you own a gun shop or lots of shares in Remington or something?

Please, just stop or I'm going to arrange for you to get invited on a hunt with Dick Cheney.... and, I'll provide him all the beer he can 'handle.'

Indeed, and Weave does this on the very anniversary of Gabby Gifford's getting shot by some wacko allowed to have a gun. Instead we need to remember that sensible gun control is what we need.

Kudoes to Gabby for her valiant efforts to recover, by all accounts the best comeback of the year-- the real Ted Tubow or whatever hizname is..