Originally Posted by TimWalker

Associations of consumers? Something analogous to labor unions?

Analogous to labor unions, but not tied to work related associations. The large corporations have a lot of power while an individual consumer has only one 'vote'. I am looking for something to provide a balance of power with citizen groups( inluding, but not limited to unions) that are large enough to provide leverage .
A similar situation applies to Medical insurance where one indiividual has little power against a corporation. I would like to see medical insurance separated from employers, but most conservative approaches do not address the need to provide a power balance. The single payer approach is favored by many , but I am leary of too much government control.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Really haven't thought it through that much beyond 2010 as the GOP's "high water mark" and the intrigue of what will be Pickett's charge. However, you have perked my interest on the possibilities.

Maybe I can give you a different version.

Obama = Lee
Harry Reid = Pickett
Rahm Emmanuel = Longstreet (the guy who keeps telling Lee he's making a big mistake)
Nancy Pelosi = Lo Armistead (southern hero mortally wounded at the angle and dies two days later)
Scott Brown = Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain or Winfield Scott Hancock (holds off the Rebels against impossible odds)
Mitch McConnell = Meade (slow plodder, but clever enough to win)
ACA = High Water Mark

EDIT:
Massachusetts Senate election in 2009 - Little Round Top
Senate Filibuster - Cemetery Ridge

This is kinda fun.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Maybe I can give you a different version.

Obama = Lee
Harry Reid = Pickett
Rahm Emmanuel = Longstreet (the guy who keeps telling Lee he's making a big mistake)
Nancy Pelosi = Lo Armistead (southern hero mortally wounded at the angle and dies two days later)
Scott Brown = Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain or Winfield Scott Hancock (holds off the Rebels against impossible odds)
Mitch McConnell = Meade (slow plodder, but clever enough to win)
ACA = High Water Mark

This is kinda fun.

James50

As the saying goes, where you stand depends on where you sit.

I'm afraid Playwrite is living in a fantasy world--at this moment I definitely expect Romney to be sworn in in exactly 366 days. Of course, much could happen, but. . .

Meanwhile, James's enthusiasm for his version of the analogy confirms my suspicion that even for a reasonable and pretty rational man like himself, what we are seeing now is, in part, the revenge of 1865. One of Roosevelt's many great achievements was to unite the people of the North and South. That didn't survive the civil rights movement, sadly.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

As the saying goes, where you stand depends on where you sit.

I'm afraid Playwrite is living in a fantasy world--at this moment I definitely expect Romney to be sworn in in exactly 366 days. Of course, much could happen, but. . .

Meanwhile, James's enthusiasm for his version of the analogy confirms my suspicion that even for a reasonable and pretty rational man like himself, what we are seeing now is, in part, the revenge of 1865. One of Roosevelt's many great achievements was to unite the people of the North and South. That didn't survive the civil rights movement, sadly.

I think the most notable thing about my experiences on this forum is the obsession of the left with regionalism. Sure, the right makes fun of the "left coast" and "ivy league elites", but never to the extent I hear from the left here. Its really very curious.

James50

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

As the saying goes, where you stand depends on where you sit.

I'm afraid Playwrite is living in a fantasy world--at this moment I definitely expect Romney to be sworn in in exactly 366 days. Of course, much could happen, but. . .

Meanwhile, James's enthusiasm for his version of the analogy confirms my suspicion that even for a reasonable and pretty rational man like himself, what we are seeing now is, in part, the revenge of 1865. One of Roosevelt's many great achievements was to unite the people of the North and South. That didn't survive the civil rights movement, sadly.

Obama is going to win reelection and the Dems will retake the House.

Mr. Tax Sheltering Mormon is not going to beat Obama.

Originally Posted by playwrite

What will be Pickett's charge should be interesting.

Originally Posted by James50

OK, I give. You will have to explain that metaphor to me. Or to be particular - Who is Lee? Longstreet? Pickett? Armistead? Meade? Chamberlain? Where is Little Round Top and Cemetery Ridge? I am sure you know that Pickett's charge was on day 3 of the Gettysburg battle and that Pickett himself was not the brightest bulb in the box (graduated last in his West Point class). The charge itself was the height of folly and its failure should be laid at the feet of Lee. Are we on day 3 already?

If you are going to use this metaphor, please give it all the richness it deserves.

James50

Originally Posted by playwrite

Really haven't thought it through that much beyond 2010 as the GOP's "high water mark" and the intrigue of what will be Pickett's charge. However, you have perked my interest on the possibilities.

One key question from the other side is Obama - a Lincoln or a Grant (the war version, not the post-war one) or more like a McClellan or even a George B. Butler. He's my guy, but I lean more to his being a too- cautious McClellan, but hope a war-time Grant emerges after the election. Although to be completely honest, I would really be pleased with a slash and burn Sherman.

Karl Rove or is it Rush Limbaugh as Lee??? I have too much respect for Big Bob to go any farther with that aspect of it. Yuck.

Originally Posted by James50

I think the most notable thing about my experiences on this forum is the obsession of the left with regionalism. Sure, the right makes fun of the "left coast" and "ivy league elites", but never to the extent I hear from the left here. Its really very curious.

James50

Hmmm. Who's obsessed with regionalism here? Who has a more vivid memory of the events of 150 years ago? (Actually, James, I could nearly match you division commander for division commander--or Corps commander, anyway--let's see, Reynolds, Hancock, Sickles, Sykes, Sedgwick, Howard, Slocum. On the other side, Longstreet, Ewell, A.P. Hill. Got into this stuff when I was 11 thanks to Bruce Catton. But that's for another time.)

No political observer can help noticing the re-emergence of the one-party white south, James. It's a critical fact of modern political life, and it began with the civil rights movement. Granted Obama broke through it in three big states last time, but. . it will be quite a feat to do the same this time. You yourself are delighted to report how the south is taking advantage of its more generous business climate. We're not making this up.

Last but not least: it seems to me that if the Tea Party were truly serious about a lot of their policy positions they could not support Romney. If they do, and it looks like they will, it will tend to confirm for me that they never erally cared about anything but getting rid of the hated Obama. Romney repeatedly pandered to that last night.

Originally Posted by James50

Maybe I can give you a different version.

Obama = Lee
Harry Reid = Pickett
Rahm Emmanuel = Longstreet (the guy who keeps telling Lee he's making a big mistake)
Nancy Pelosi = Lo Armistead (southern hero mortally wounded at the angle and dies two days later)
Scott Brown = Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain or Winfield Scott Hancock (holds off the Rebels against impossible odds)
Mitch McConnell = Meade (slow plodder, but clever enough to win)
ACA = High Water Mark

EDIT:
Massachusetts Senate election in 2009 - Little Round Top
Senate Filibuster - Cemetery Ridge

This is kinda fun.

James50

Touché!

Talk about stealing someone's metaphor and turning it on them!

LMAO!

IMO it's most telling that both the Birthers and support for the Tea Party are concentrated in the South.

Anyone who doesn't see the racism stirred up by Obama's election is either not paying attention or is in denial.

Originally Posted by Odin

The vicious, hateful mobs attending these Republican debates would not be out of place at a KKK rally.

They're called hard-working American citizens who care about their futures. I find this comparison between good people and a racist bigoted organization to be sickening and you should be ashamed to make the comparison.

I may not agree with liberals (on 95% of issues) - but I'm fairly certain I don't think they're all Stalin or marching to the machinations of the murderous Chairman Mao.

j.p.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Hmmm. Who's obsessed with regionalism here? Who has a more vivid memory of the events of 150 years ago? (Actually, James, I could nearly match you division commander for division commander--or Corps commander, anyway--let's see, Reynolds, Hancock, Sickles, Sykes, Sedgwick, Howard, Slocum. On the other side, Longstreet, Ewell, A.P. Hill. Got into this stuff when I was 11 thanks to Bruce Catton. But that's for another time.)

All I know I got from Ken Burns and Shelby Foote with a little Ted Turner thrown in for drama (the story of Chamberlain at Little Round Top was utterly amazing and not something I knew about before Ted Turner's Gettysburg). Its not me that started talking about Pickett's Charge. I just thought I would have a little fun with it.

No political observer can help noticing the re-emergence of the one-party white south, James.

This happened in the 60s and was a Nixon strategy. Its old news yet seems to obsess the left. The important news of current times is the success of the Republicans outside the south in places like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ohio.

Last but not least: it seems to me that if the Tea Party were truly serious about a lot of their policy positions they could not support Romney. If they do, and it looks like they will, it will tend to confirm for me that they never erally cared about anything but getting rid of the hated Obama. Romney repeatedly pandered to that last night.

The Tea Party has adherents all across the country. While you are focused on these ridiculous debates, there is successful Tea Party organizing going on at the grass roots that could have surprising results in November particularly in congressional and state house elections. And we are not talking about the south.

The world I live in is not a regional world. In fact it seems to grow bigger with every passing year. One of my regular reads these days is the online Sacramento Bee. My in-laws live in Wisconsin. A niece is a dues paying special ed teacher in a small Wisconsin town and has marched against Walker in Madison. There is a lot going on everywhere you look. Keep your focus on the south if you wish but I think it is a grossly inadequate, unrealistic, and narrow way of viewing events in this 4T.

James50

Originally Posted by playwrite

Although to be completely honest, I would really be pleased with a slash and burn Sherman.

May he burn in Hell for all eternity. The man was a monster who raped and pillaged and destroyed communities. I generally wish no harm on any human being - but I'll certainly make an exception for Sherman.

j.p.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

As the saying goes, where you stand depends on where you sit.

I'm afraid Playwrite is living in a fantasy world--at this moment I definitely expect Romney to be sworn in in exactly 366 days. Of course, much could happen, but. . .

Meanwhile, James's enthusiasm for his version of the analogy confirms my suspicion that even for a reasonable and pretty rational man like himself, what we are seeing now is, in part, the revenge of 1865. One of Roosevelt's many great achievements was to unite the people of the North and South. That didn't survive the civil rights movement, sadly.

Even within the hermatically-sealed fantasy world of what passes as the GOP, it is looking like a clown show. Sure they get their audiences all whipped up about Obama killing jobs and making us look weak internationally; but when their eventual flawed nominee has to back those preposterous claims in front of more circumspect audiences, they'll have to deal with the facts -







AND Obama actually nailed Osama bin Laden

They will have to deal with that even before the Obama campaign machine, one of the best in history, gets steam rolling over whatever clown the GOP offers up to the alter. It will only be close if the economy contracts again; if GDP and employment trends are positive (not out-of-the-woods, but just headed in the right direction), its going to be a cakewalk for Obama.

I really can't believe that you have bought into the GOP fantasy - at some point, the Kabuki comes to an end and you walk outside to reality and catch a cab home.

Maybe you're just trying hard to hid from the gods what you really want so they won't F with you again. We all try that now and then.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Meanwhile, James's enthusiasm for his version of the analogy confirms my suspicion that even for a reasonable and pretty rational man like himself, what we are seeing now is, in part, the revenge of 1865.

I don't know if it's a north/south thing as much as the partisanship in this country has gotten so out of hand in our country. Our congress is completely a non-functional entity at this point. It seems to me that the only thing they could agree on this past year was that pizza is a vegetable.

I wouldn't put James in the category of irrational. I don't always agree with James but he doesn't just pull garbage out of his hat as talking points like I see so many other people doing. James is pretty darn reasonable in comparison to a lot of the crap I see coming out of people's mouths.

Here is prime of example of what I'm talking. One of my FB friends posted a comment this morning basically saying "The Dems are attacking Romney over the fact that Romney only pays 15% in taxes because they don't pay taxes and don't understand that the tax code says that capital gains are to be taxed at 15%."...Ok, where does a person even start with that comment? There are so many things wrong with it...First of all, Gringrich is the one who brought it up and is attacking Romney over it, not the Democrats. Secondly, Democrats don't pay taxes? And finally, he has completely missed the point that people making millions off their investment income are paying a lower percentage in taxes than the average guy who works for living."...And this particular person who made this FB comment is an educated man. He should know better than that. But his partisan hatred has blinded him. I find this very sad. Plus there were other people who commented on his post agreeing with him. And it's not just the Republicans behaving this way, partisan Democrats are just as guilty.

This is why I don't think it really matters if Obama or Romney win in November. Neither one of them will be able to work with this congress. But it's not just congress (although they do throw out the rhetoric on daily basis to get people all riled up.), but we see such partisanship with the average American that it's also tearing this country apart and we will all pay the price for it. It will be impossible for our country to move forward and solve the enormous problems we face.

A while back my oldest son spent the night at a friend's house. Apparently while there, my son said something about being a Democrat or made some comment in support of a left issue. The father of the other boy forbid his son from being friends with my son because my son is Democrat...I mean, come on. Who is the childish one in this scenario? BTW, the boys are still friends. They talk to each other on regular basis behind the father's back.

The man does know how to campaign.

President Obama sings Al Green: Let's stay together in 2012 ;-) (54 second video)

James50

I'm posting the following, not because I totally believe it, but because there is a grain of truth here. Gingrich pretty much sums up the Republican strategy and the Democrats have fallen prey to their plan through compromise. It appears that the right has played the left like a ship of fools. Now the ship is sinking and the Democrats have given away most of the life preservers.

It’s Time to Come Together to Reject Compromise

The history of climate policy and health-care reform is instructive. On climate policy, moderates in recent decades urged Democrats to support a market-oriented approach known as cap-and-trade in the interests of compromise. On health-care reform, they also urged Democrats to accept a market-oriented approach—private health-insurance exchanges and an individual mandate—for the sake of bipartisanship. But when Democrats adopted these approaches, Republicans abandoned them and insisted that they were tantamount to socialism. … Instead of winning over conservative support, compromise has done nothing to discourage Republicans from moving to the right—and nothing to prevent the fanatics of the center from saying that Democrats are equally responsible for political gridlock because they haven’t compromised more.

“I don’t think you go to the middle,” Newt Gingrich recently told Fox’s Sean Hannity. “You bring the middle to you.” That’s not only good strategy; it also describes what conservative Republicans have succeeded in doing over the past 30 years. If Democrats are to reverse the political momentum on the right, they need to bring the middle to them.

Read more: http://www.utne.com/Wild-Green/Its-T...#ixzz1k0bPVGA2

Originally Posted by James50

All I know I got from Ken Burns and Shelby Foote with a little Ted Turner thrown in for drama (the story of Chamberlain at Little Round Top was utterly amazing and not something I knew about before Ted Turner's Gettysburg). Its not me that started talking about Pickett's Charge. I just thought I would have a little fun with it.



This happened in the 60s and was a Nixon strategy. Its old news yet seems to obsess the left. The important news of current times is the success of the Republicans outside the south in places like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ohio.


The Tea Party has adherents all across the country. While you are focused on these ridiculous debates, there is successful Tea Party organizing going on at the grass roots that could have surprising results in November particularly in congressional and state house elections. And we are not talking about the south.

The world I live in is not a regional world. In fact it seems to grow bigger with every passing year. One of my regular reads these days is the online Sacramento Bee. My in-laws live in Wisconsin. A niece is a dues paying special ed teacher in a small Wisconsin town and has marched against Walker in Madison. There is a lot going on everywhere you look. Keep your focus on the south if you wish but I think it is a grossly inadequate, unrealistic, and narrow way of viewing events in this 4T.

James50

Gettysburg most known here in Minnesota for the brave actions of the 1st Minnesota on (IIRC) day 2 of the battle.

As for the TP, they are running out of steam up here and are quickly becoming a laughing stock. Most Minnesotans, even Conservatives, think Michele Bachmann is an embarrassment.

Originally Posted by James50

The man does know how to campaign.

President Obama sings Al Green: Let's stay together in 2012 ;-) (54 second video)

James50

Yea, that was pretty cool. Let's see if Romney can croon something back.

By the way, I don't think either of us were suggesting a re-play of regionalism. I think the key word you used was "metaphor."

You were just more clever with it than me and therefore having more fun with it. I got a kick out of it though as well.

Maybe others would have more fun with it that way than trying to re-hash 150 years ago.

Originally Posted by JDFP

May he burn in Hell for all eternity. The man was a monster who raped and pillaged and destroyed communities. I generally wish no harm on any human being - but I'll certainly make an exception for Sherman.

j.p.

That's how total war works, he was destroying the ability for the rebels to continue fighting. Do you feel the same way about the firebombing of Dresden? or the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Originally Posted by ASB65

I don't know if it's a north/south thing as much as the partisanship in this country has gotten so out of hand in our country. Our congress is completely a non-functional entity at this point. It seems to me that the only thing they could agree on this past year was that pizza is a vegetable.

I wouldn't put James in the category of irrational. I don't always agree with James but he doesn't just pull garbage out of his hat as talking points like I see so many other people doing. James is pretty darn reasonable in comparison to a lot of the crap I see coming out of people's mouths.

Here is prime of example of what I'm talking. One of my FB friends posted a comment this morning basically saying "The Dems are attacking Romney over the fact that Romney only pays 15% in taxes because they don't pay taxes and don't understand that the tax code says that capital gains are to be taxed at 15%."...Ok, where does a person even start with that comment? There are so many things wrong with it...First of all, Gringrich is the one who brought it up and is attacking Romney over it, not the Democrats. Secondly, Democrats don't pay taxes? And finally, he has completely missed the point that people making millions off their investment income are paying a lower percentage in taxes than the average guy who works for living."...And this particular person who made this FB comment is an educated man. He should know better than that. But his partisan hatred has blinded him. I find this very sad. Plus there were other people who commented on his post agreeing with him. And it's not just the Republicans behaving this way, partisan Democrats are just as guilty.

This is why I don't think it really matters if Obama or Romney win in November. Neither one of them will be able to work with this congress. But it's not just congress (although they do throw out the rhetoric on daily basis to get people all riled up.), but we see such partisanship with the average American that it's also tearing this country apart and we will all pay the price for it. It will be impossible for our country to move forward and solve the enormous problems we face.

A while back my oldest son spent the night at a friend's house. Apparently while there, my son said something about being a Democrat or made some comment in support of a left issue. The father of the other boy forbid his son from being friends with my son because my son is Democrat...I mean, come on. Who is the childish one in this scenario? BTW, the boys are still friends. They talk to each other on regular basis behind the father's back.

One of my Republican facebook friends posted a chart.

On one side theres a picture of George Washington to George Bush and under that it says, "Debt Added By the Previous 43 U.S. Presidents Combined from 1789 through 2008: 6.3 Trillion Dollars

Then there's a picture of Obama. He looks smug and his chin is raised up high, unlike Bush who looks humbled and actually posed just like Washington (cleaver).

Anyway under Obama it says, "In RED BOLD LETTERS, "Debt Added by President Obama, One Term: $6.5 Trillion Dollars.

And of course all of the posters facebook friends are outraged, angry, sad and shaking their heads.

This post alone was their official political news for today.

Originally Posted by James50

The man does know how to campaign.

President Obama sings Al Green: Let's stay together in 2012 ;-) (54 second video)

James50

And sing. This is one of my very favorite songs, but Obama can sing it much, much better than me.

Originally Posted by Odin

That's how total war works, he was destroying the ability for the rebels to continue fighting. Do you feel the same way about the firebombing of Dresden? or the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

The firebombing of Dresden and nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was done against enemy combatants - not American citizens standing up for their states against an oppressive and bloated federal government who infringed on their homeland by waging warfare by occupation. I'd go even one further and say we should have opened up consideration for keeping on in a straight-march to Moscow after the Nazis were defeated, using low-yield tactical nuclear weapons in N. Korea and Vietnam as well, and doing what we necessarily must do as an American nation against those who would attempt to harm this nation.

What you've presented is a non-comparison as it's not Americans against enemy combatants but Americans against an oppressive force of other Americans on native soil. The only victor of the Civil War was bloodshed of brother against brother.

j.p.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Hmmm. Who's obsessed with regionalism here? Who has a more vivid memory of the events of 150 years ago? (Actually, James, I could nearly match you division commander for division commander--or Corps commander, anyway--let's see, Reynolds, Hancock, Sickles, Sykes, Sedgwick, Howard, Slocum. On the other side, Longstreet, Ewell, A.P. Hill. Got into this stuff when I was 11 thanks to Bruce Catton. But that's for another time.)

No political observer can help noticing the re-emergence of the one-party white south, James. It's a critical fact of modern political life, and it began with the civil rights movement. Granted Obama broke through it in three big states last time, but. . it will be quite a feat to do the same this time. You yourself are delighted to report how the south is taking advantage of its more generous business climate. We're not making this up.

Last but not least: it seems to me that if the Tea Party were truly serious about a lot of their policy positions they could not support Romney. If they do, and it looks like they will, it will tend to confirm for me that they never erally cared about anything but getting rid of the hated Obama. Romney repeatedly pandered to that last night.

I am weary of comments that assume opposition to Obama's policies are based on hate. Although I am not involved with the Tea Party, I do know a few of them and have not seen hate.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

As the saying goes, where you stand depends on where you sit.

I'm afraid Playwrite is living in a fantasy world--at this moment I definitely expect Romney to be sworn in in exactly 366 days. Of course, much could happen, but. . .

Meanwhile, James's enthusiasm for his version of the analogy confirms my suspicion that even for a reasonable and pretty rational man like himself, what we are seeing now is, in part, the revenge of 1865. One of Roosevelt's many great achievements was to unite the people of the North and South. That didn't survive the civil rights movement, sadly.

I found it telling that interviews with potential GOP voters in SC raised the issue of domicile, when several argued against Romney on the basis of where he's from. Newt, as much as they may disapprove of his behavior, gets a bye by virtue of being from Georgia. Apparently, aspects of the Solid South are still solid.

We've had one Sun Belt President after another. That a large number of southerners have now assumed that this is the norm may be no more unusual than the older assumption by northerners that they owned the office. Can Romney get the support he'll need in the South to win in November? That may be the only important question still unanswered ... unless Newt surges ahead and wins the nomination. Candidate Newt. Scary. President Newt. Unthinkable.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I don't know if it's a north/south thing as much as the partisanship in this country has gotten so out of hand in our country. Our congress is completely a non-functional entity at this point. It seems to me that the only thing they could agree on this past year was that pizza is a vegetable.

There is some north/south division, I think, though these days the split is more rural versus urban. Even in "blue states" the rural areas tend to lean Republican, and even in the "red states" you often have areas of more Democratic influence, particularly in the big cities. And even if we wanted an "amicable split" based on different ideologies, it's not as easy as "drawing a line" as it might have been in 1860 (for the most part, though there would be disputes in the border states).

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I found it telling that interviews with potential GOP voters in SC raised the issue of domicile, when several argued against Romney on the basis of where he's from. Newt, as much as they may disapprove of his behavior, gets a bye by virtue of being from Georgia. Apparently, aspects of the Solid South are still solid.

We've had one Sun Belt President after another. That a large number of southerners have now assumed that this is the norm may be no more unusual than the older assumption by northerners that they owned the office. Can Romney get the support he'll need in the South to win in November? That may be the only important question still unanswered ... unless Newt surges ahead and wins the nomination. Candidate Newt. Scary. President Newt. Unthinkable.

It's not that I enjoy explaining why I think Romney is likely to win. I don't. Playwrite and Odin simply can't believe that the rest of the country won't look at the facts and draw the same conclusions that they do. I'm afraid there's no way that swing voters (like James) are not going to blame Obama for the economic mess we are in now. And I would add that he has brought this on himself by never even proposing steps that would have helped us out of the mess. Meanwhile, lots of evidence suggests that the Millennial enthusiasm of last time out will not be there.

Amy, I was very careful not to put James in the irrational camp myself, au contraire. And you are right, James, there's a movement towards southern-style government (or the lack of it) elsewhere but it's not clear how far it will go.

Romney is saying that Obama wants to create more dependency on the federal government, that he gave GM to the UAW (which was ridiculous), and that he doesn't understand American values. He's catering to the worst propaganda images of the President. That doesn't lay much foundation for him governing as a centrist if he wins. But really, since I doubt the guy has a clue as to what he thinks himself nowadays, I wouldn't dare predict his courses of action.