Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We've had one Sun Belt President after another.

Illinois is in the Sun Belt?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Romney is saying that Obama wants to create more dependency on the federal government, that he gave GM to the UAW (which was ridiculous)

I don't think Obama "gave" GM to the UAW but I tend to think saving UAW jobs and their legacy wages and benefits was a large factor in the decision to bail out GM to the detriment of bondholders who should have been first in line.

Originally Posted by Deb C

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

There's something to be said for rejecting compromise for its own sake, just so we can act all civil and buddy-buddy and "get along."

To me the problem isn't that we don't have enough compromise -- it's that on many issues, there *is* some common ground on the two sides that often isn't addressed because of the overemphasis on their points of strong disagreement, and in the attitude that one side or the other won't even come to the table unless certain sacred cows are "off the table."

When both sides view each other as enemies rather than as fellow citizens who have different views on many things, they won't even work together to deal with the stuff they agree about. That is where the toxicity and dysfunctional nature of our Congress is really an obstacle to progress.

Suddenly things are not quite so obvious as they seemed. Latest polls show Gingrich leading in South Carolina. What's he doing, getting the he-man vote like Clinton did? (scratches head. . .) Still, I think he will flame out at once even if he wins.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Suddenly things are not quite so obvious as they seemed. Latest polls show Gingrich leading in South Carolina. What's he doing, getting the he-man vote like Clinton did? (scratches head. . .) Still, I think he will flame out at once even if he wins.

At this point, I think the only candidate that can beat Obama in November is Romney. I think all the others can be marginalized in one way or another. Gingrich has too much baggage. Santorum is just way out there. Ron Paul has some ideas and positions that resonate with the American left and center, but there are also too many other things they couldn't accept in him as well.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Suddenly things are not quite so obvious as they seemed. Latest polls show Gingrich leading in South Carolina. What's he doing, getting the he-man vote like Clinton did? (scratches head. . .) Still, I think he will flame out at once even if he wins.

Like him or not, his debate performance last night was extraordinary. Not only did he neutralize the 2nd wife's comments, he used it as an opportunity and received a standing ovation for it. And you know what, he was right. John King stooped to Jerry Springer territory and paid for it dearly.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

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.

Newt Gingrich was born in Harrisburg, PA and was basically an army brat who moved to Europe when he was 13. He did not come to Georgia until he was 17, but did graduate from a Georgia high school. You can tell by the way he talks that he is not a southern native.

James50

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Like him or not, his debate performance last night was extraordinary. Not only did he neutralize the 2nd wife's comments, he used it as an opportunity and received a standing ovation for it. And you know what, he was right. John King stooped to Jerry Springer territory and paid for it dearly.

I think Gingrich was largely right with respect to pointing out that today's sliming, muckraking and character assassination probably prevents a lot of good people from considering running for public office. Having said that, this would be a more powerful and compelling statement if it came from someone largely free of his abundance of baggage. And there's a significant difference between pointing out Newt's own not-so-ancient character flaws and looking for any dumb little thing a family member may have done in college when they were 19.

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.

I stand by Sherman. The war wasn't his or the Union's idea. Light a match in a barn, sometimes you burn the whole thing down.

If Sherman is in hell, Bobby Lee better be standing there with him.

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've decided your negativity is simply a reverse jinx. You know, like when I tell my NY Yankee friends that they look like they will sweep the Sox in a weekend series. I used to live in New England. I know how you do it.

At worst, Obama has an even money shot to win. Many of the electoral model geeks are projecting victory for him (i.e. Pollyvote).

As to comments about the block voting of the south. The demographics do not favor this holding. Immigration and migration from the North are seeing to that. See AZ as an example.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

If Sherman is in hell, Bobby Lee better be standing there with him.

Bobby Lee didn't launch an occupational invasion force against another state in response to a state following its state constitution. I don't think it's a fair comparison.

With that said, both sides certainly have enough blame to go around - I don't disagree with Sherman's tactics, I disagree with Sherman's tactics being used against fellow Americans.

j.p.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

[/LEFT][/B][/SIZE]There's something to be said for rejecting compromise for its own sake, just so we can act all civil and buddy-buddy and "get along."

To me the problem isn't that we don't have enough compromise -- it's that on many issues, there *is* some common ground on the two sides that often isn't addressed because of the overemphasis on their points of strong disagreement, and in the attitude that one side or the other won't even come to the table unless certain sacred cows are "off the table."

When both sides view each other as enemies rather than as fellow citizens who have different views on many things, they won't even work together to deal with the stuff they agree about. That is where the toxicity and dysfunctional nature of our Congress is really an obstacle to progress.

Toxicity and dysfunction are two key words that rightly describe, not only our Congress, but is also the nature of our political system. Obama, as I see it, surrounded himself with corporate protectors, with whom he took much advice. Then he wonders why his base is disillusioned with him. Then he tries to compromise with crazy. Not just a couple times but on numerous occasions. Now, many who supported him are looking at his actions with hand to cheek, seriously wondering about his backbone.

You have to ask whose dysfunctional. Is it the one compromising over and over again with those who are demanding austerity and cuts on the backs of the citizens? Or is it the ones doing the demanding? Either way, We the People are paying the price.

You would think that a smart constitutional lawyer would be savvy enough to know when to quit compromising with bullies.

Originally Posted by JDFP

Bobby Lee didn't launch an occupational invasion force against another state in response to a state following its state constitution. I don't think it's a fair comparison.

Does Pennsylvania not count as an invasion force in another state?

The nature of our Federal Republic is that state constitutions are secondary to the Fed constitution. That explains why we don't have colored and white drinking fountains south of the Mason-Dixon anymore.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

I don't think Obama "gave" GM to the UAW but I tend to think saving UAW jobs and their legacy wages and benefits was a large factor in the decision to bail out GM to the detriment of bondholders who should have been first in line.

GM just regained the title of the largest automaker in the world

http://www.latimes.com/business/auto...,7338972.story

What a horrible, horrible day for the US of A!!!

Damn you Obama! Damn you to hell, you socialist muslim union-lovin afro dude!

Originally Posted by JDFP

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.

Do you have any problem with the idea that the Confederacy existed after 1862 almost exclusively to protect the "peculiar institution" of slavery?

Do you have any problem that the man (Fritz Sauckel) in charge of the procurement of slave labor for the Third Reich died with a rope around his neck as a major war criminal?

...Not one of the Confederate states surrendered as a State. What Abraham Lincoln seemed to have in mind for the abolition of slavery was the British precedent of buying the slaves' freedom from slave-owners -- as shown in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware. Such would have been inexpensive in contrast to the American Civil War.

We had no pretext for turning on the Soviet Union after the Second World War. Stalin allowed the pretense of democracy to appear for a short time in most of central and southeastern Europe while Soviet troops were still present. Nukes on North Korea or North Vietnam? That would have been a war crime.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Does Pennsylvania not count as an invasion force in another state?

No, the Army of Northern Virginia was protecting itself from the union forces which attacked first as an invasive force. A similar comparison would be Great Britain launching Hurricane fighters against Nazi Germany after the Nazis declared war on them.

j.p.

Originally Posted by playwrite

GM just regained the title of the largest automaker in the world

http://www.latimes.com/business/auto...,7338972.story

What a horrible, horrible day for the US of A!!!

Damn you Obama! Damn you to hell, you socialist muslim union-lovin afro dude!

Then there's this story floating around. Ugh! Do you think this is true?

Made in USA Foundation Charges GM with Violating Labeling Laws

LOS ANGELES, Jan. 14, 2011; General Motors, bailed out by U.S. taxpayers and still owned in part by the federal government, is stripping country of origin labels off of its cars at auto shows around the country, says the Made in the USA Foundation. The Made in the USA Foundation has charged GM with violating the American Automobile Labeling Act (AALA) which requires all new cars that are offered for sale to include country of origin information.


The AALA requires new cars to provide information on the window sticker, including where the car was assembled, the U.S. and other country content, where the engine was made and where the transmission was made.


Joel D. Joseph, Chairman of the Made in the USA Foundation, said, "General Motors wants to hide the fact that, even after the government bailout, it has moved production of vehicles offshore. The Cadillac SRX is now made in Mexico. The Buick Regal is made inGermany."


GM claims that the AALA only applies to cars for sale at dealers not at auto shows. Joseph stated that he worked with Senator Barbara Mikulski, who wrote the law, and that the intent of the law was to inform consumers about the country of origin of new cars. Joseph said, "Millions of consumers get their first look at cars at auto shows. The law applies to cars that are 'for sale' and auto show cars, except concept cars. Identical GM cars are for sale at thousands of dealers across the nation, and display vehicles should include country of origin information. The U.S. government saved GM and still owns one-third of the company. General Motors should comply with the intent of the law."

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...14/514637.html

Originally Posted by Deb C

Then there's this story floating around. Ugh! Do you think this is true?

Made in USA Foundation Charges GM with Violating Labeling Laws

I hadn't heard this specific charge before. I did mention the other day that the line between "American cars" and "foreign cars" as some Toyotas are built in the USA and some GM products are built in Mexico. As my loyalty is more with the American working/middle class labor than with company executives and shareholders, in this case I would consider the Toyota product to be more "American" -- though most foreign vehicles made in the USA are in cheaper labor, right-to-work states that don't provide the legacy union wages and benefits, and some might factor that into their purchasing decisions as well.

Originally Posted by radind

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.

Without doubt it is possible to like President Obama and abhor his policies. I saw part of the Republican debate and I noticed that all of the main opposition to President Obama shown by the GOP candidates was based on issues of policy -- accelerating the production of energy irrespective of environmental concerns, gutting the effectiveness of unions, curtailing welfare, and effectively shifting the burden for taxes to the non-rich so that the super-rich could "create more prosperity". Elitist economics that would create a cheap-labor, environment-wrecking system in which the economic elites have complete control of anyone not already rich is no more inherently racist than are the laws against heroin and cocaine. The GOP is not so much racist as classist. The GOP has no problem with Kobe Bryant or Oprah Winfrey making astronomic incomes. I look at the GOP candidates and I see a longing to return to economic norms from before the Great Depression.

A simple fact for us all: the 1920s really were an awful decade. It is arguable that the late 1930s, still recognized as part of the Great Depression, were already better than the late 1920s by all standards except stock prices. Add to that: the Gilded Age was a nasty time for people who weren't rich or middle-class... and the Gilded Age had only a tiny middle class.

It is not racist to believe that we should have an economy in which 25% of the workforce is domestic servants of the upper 3% of income-takers. I look at GOP economics, and that is what I foresee.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

I hadn't heard this specific charge before. I did mention the other day that the line between "American cars" and "foreign cars" as some Toyotas are built in the USA and some GM products are built in Mexico. As my loyalty is more with the American working/middle class labor than with company executives and shareholders, in this case I would consider the Toyota product to be more "American" -- though most foreign vehicles made in the USA are in cheaper labor, right-to-work states that don't provide the legacy union wages and benefits, and some might factor that into their purchasing decisions as well.

I did not know that. Darn, a person sure has to look under a lot of rocks these days to discover the truth.

Originally Posted by playwrite

GM just regained the title of the largest automaker in the world

Nothing like a little Japanese tsunami to set things right.

James50

Originally Posted by JDFP

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.

The rebels became enemy combatants when they seceded and then attacked Ft. Sumter. And by "Standing up for their rights" you mean the "right" to treat human beings as property.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Do you have any problem with the idea that the Confederacy existed after 1862 almost exclusively to protect the "peculiar institution" of slavery?

Yes, I do, because the Civil War was not based upon the issue of slavery. Historical revisionism aside - economics did play a major role in it though.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Do you have any problem that the man (Fritz Sauckel) in charge of the procurement of slave labor for the Third Reich died with a rope around his neck as a major war criminal?

No.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...Not one of the Confederate states surrendered as a State. What Abraham Lincoln seemed to have in mind for the abolition of slavery was the British precedent of buying the slaves' freedom from slave-owners -- as shown in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware. Such would have been inexpensive in contrast to the American Civil War.

Agreed 100% with you here.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

We had no pretext for turning on the Soviet Union after the Second World War. Stalin allowed the pretense of democracy to appear for a short time in most of central and southeastern Europe while Soviet troops were still present. Nukes on North Korea or North Vietnam? That would have been a war crime.

Personally, I don't think we should have stood with the Soviet Union in the first place. They were a monsterous regime under Stalin. I'm not saying we should have supported Nazi Germany either though - the Nazi regime was a much more immediate threat though. Pooling resources together can make sense - but the Soviets were able to use the weapons we supplied against them on their eastern bloc neighbors for years to come through oppression. The Soviets were committing atrocities worse than the Holocaust and they were a threat (i.e. the Cold War) to world democracy that could have been stamped out then and there when they were weakened and didn't have the bomb yet. Patton was right, in my opinion.

Allowing American soldiers to die in the Chosin Reservoir by Chinese aggressors when an alternative means to stop the war from progressing I consider to be a war crime. Allowing the North Vietnamese to capture South Vietnam through an invasionary force that could have been stopped, and with far less U.S. casualties, I consider to be a war crime.

j.p.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Illinois is in the Sun Belt?

Hawaii is.

Originally Posted by Odin

The rebels became enemy combatants when they seceded and then attacked Ft. Sumter. And by "Standing up for their rights" you mean the "right" to treat human beings as property.

By "rebels" you mean Americans committed to their state against an oppressive invasionary force (i.e. the federal gov't). This is one topic we'll just have to agree to disagree regarding as it's not going to lead us anywhere in continuing regarding this matter. You're set in your belief in how you see things occurred as I am - so we'll just have to agree to disagree and bow out regarding this matter.

j.p.