Originally Posted by TeddyR

... 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.

The Sun Belt is not just the south. I agree that much of the SB is open to influence.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Republicans are usually hard-working American citizens who care about their futures.

Agreed, the majority of Republicans are. I don't know that many Democrats - but I'd imagine the majority of Democrats are the same way. I'm neither a Republican or Democrat, but I'm very Conservative on the majority of matters so I agree 100% with you here.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But they are duped, and they are hooked fanatics. They are hooked on a failed ideology that they erroneously think will lower their taxes. They blame welfare queens and "lazy people" who don't work for the money they "steal" from them through taxes and liberals. It is too bad we have almost half a nation composed of these duped folks. Some of them are racists at heart, and many more are social conservatives of various kinds, but it is usually most correct to consider them as having been deceived by Reagan and his associates into believing this tempting nonsense that taxes are theft, and that they are being forced by their government to support programs that don't work. It is easy to hate the government; harder to recognize that government taxes, programs and regulations work, when overseen and designed for the benefit of the people, and are necessary to create a commonwealth that functions well for all its citizens.

Government isn't the solution, especially now, government is a problem. A very intelligent man once said that - but you don't buy it so there's no use in really discussing the matter. We'll have to respectfully agree to disagree on these points. I feel how you feel here towards the majority of Democrats. At the same time - I respect a few Democrats (local government especially and have voted for quite a few in local and state government who focus on things that really matter) but immediately dismiss as pointless any discussion that begins with dismissing close to 50% of all Americans as "duped". Feel free to have and express and share your opinions, you'll hold to yours and I'll hold to mine, and we can be civil regarding this matter and move on our way.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well that's fine, but it is a real problem for you to be wrong 95% of the time!

Wow, with all the discussions I've had with pbrower2a he/she at least has never attempted to question my intelligence even if we disagree on some ideologies - for I also certainly respect him/her - so I give major kudos on your being able to proclaim ex cathedra on matters of ideology, Eric! I'm highly impressed! All this time I should have just come to you for all the many, many errors I've had as a person. Man, I'm so glad I've found your voice in this terrible wasteland of all the gullible fools we must all be!

If I knew I was wrong 95% of the time - it sure would be a problem. Fortunately, I'm not. Oh, don't get me wrong - unlike you (as it seems) I certainly know I make mistakes sometimes and question some things. However, from experience and practicality I know I'm not wrong on the majority of issues. We'll just have to agree to disagree here as well.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The real problem is not that people are not polite and call each other bad names. The real problem is, can we continue to be a functioning country when half the people disagree fundamentally with the other half, and won't compromise

... or dictate passive-aggressive condescension in believing someone you disagree with is inherently wrong because he/she disagrees with your personal ideology?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The people of the 1850s could not compromise, and it led to civil war. We are headed down that path. People need to see the error of their ways now before it's too late

I fully agree with us. People need to see the error of their ways. The issue is that both sides have been attacked with such hatred and rhetoric from the opposing side it's hard to make heads or tails of situation - thus the partisan rancor continues. Passing judgment on another individual without attempting to understand the cultural significance of said individual would be a good example of this. There is a major split of regionalism in this nation. and it will only continue to grow with this continued partisan rancor from both sides.

Attempting to white-wash it by saying: "That's only coming from the right! The left is doing everything they can!" is a perfect example of a come-back that proves the point I'm making. I'll admit the Republicans (especially many neo-cons) do need to do a better job of working with many Democrats. However, to ignore that this same situation is coming from the left is sticking a head in the sand based upon principles that are argumentatively wrong by 50% of the population (of course, you could just wave your hand in dismissing these people as "wrong" - so much for compromise!).

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is possible for people who disagree to work together and compromise, but it takes two sides to do it.

I agree with you here. The rest of your post is nonsense to me so I'll not include it. I do agree with you that this gridlock is going to continue and will only continue to become greater with rancor and hatred until there eventually is some type of regional breaking point - and if that's what it takes to ensure the betterment of the people in regions who wish to follow their ideology - so be it. Action is better than useless inaction. Some movement forward would be better than this continued downward spiral we have now.

And we continue this as we always have and here in November you'll vote for Obama and I'll vote for Romney and it only continues from there. So, here we come back around in the circle to square one again. Compromise and working together is more than believing he/she who disagrees with you is simply "wrong" on the issues. Rather, it's an ignorance of you to attempt to understand or care to bother.

j.p.

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.

You will make better predictions when you take up astrology!

As it is, you will see that my predictions will work and yours will not. Gingrich has a strong chart, so he won't flame out quickly. Santorum will stay in for a couple of months, then fail utterly. Romney will be the nominee, and he will lose to Obama. The fourth turning will continue and get more heated as we decide what kind of nation and government we want in the mid-2020s; we have not entered a new gilded age. The economy will continue to improve marginally, just as it has started to do already-- again as I predicted! Stay tuned and we'll see who's right: the pessimistic mere-history scholar, or the history-scholar plus astrologer!

How many correct predictions does it take before more people stop and take a look? Maybe the universe does not work according to the old materialist paradigm. Maybe astrology seems silly, but is worthy!

I forgot to mention that I would like to see our tax code simplified so the wealthy acutually pay their taxes . I am more concerned with the effective tax rate paid than a high tax rate that is not paid.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

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.

Uh, AZ did not secede from the union in 1861.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Depends on your definition. Ford was born in Nebraska but was in Grand Rapids by his high school years. He went to the University of Michigan and served in Congress representing Michigan from 1949 to 1973 -- and that's where he was when he was selected to be Nixon's VP after Spiro Agnew resigned in disgrace.

He lived in California after his presidency and died at his home there, but it seems like quite a stretch to me for California to claim his where the presidency is concerned.

I would certainly have to agree that Ford was not a sun belt president. Of course, he was never an elected one either.

Ironically, Nixon in 1968 was elected as Richard Nixon of New York state, but went back home as soon as the election was over. He remains the only President born in California.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Depends on your definition. Ford was born in Nebraska but was in Grand Rapids by his high school years. He went to the University of Michigan and served in Congress representing Michigan from 1949 to 1973 -- and that's where he was when he was selected to be Nixon's VP after Spiro Agnew resigned in disgrace.

He lived in California after his presidency and died at his home there, but it seems like quite a stretch to me for California to claim his where the presidency is concerned.

I've had many Michiganders tell me that Ford wasn't a true homeboy for the last 20 years he served in Congress. He got reelected because he was powerful and, frankly, a nice guy.

Originally Posted by Deb C

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

Well said, indeed.

I think he knows that now, though he was not savvy enough to know it earlier.

Originally Posted by James50

Nothing like a little Japanese tsunami to set things right.

James50

And well-chosen but unpopular policies by a heads-up Democratic administration and congress!

Originally Posted by JDFP

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.

Economics played little role, and slavery was the issue.

Agreed 100% with you here.

I think I do as well.

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.

It was the enemy of my enemy, is my friend, strategy; not always a wise one. But you don't necessarily fight against another country just because you don't like what its government is doing. We did that in Iraq, and it was wrong and destructive and divided our nation.

Could WWII had been won without the Russians? I doubt it.

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.

Using nuclear weapons is a savage war crime under any circumstances. Once the UN forces had reached the 38th parallel, the mission in Korea was done. Truman unwisely allowed himself to be persuaded that they could invade the North without China entering the war. He was feeling his oats. He was wrong, and we paid the price. Bush Sr. made the right choice in a similar situation; his son made the wrong choice.

We tried to stop North Vietnam from recapturing and re-unifying their nation for 21 years, without success, despite a massive invasion and attack far greater than all of World War Two. I consider the US invasion of Vietnam to be a war crime. I consider 56,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese killed for no reason, a war crime.

If the USA decides to do this sort of thing yet-again, that will surely be a spark for civil war here in America. Our divisions in this country over our militarism is a burning coal that can be ignited again at any time Uncle Sam decides to be the world's Big Daddy again. It could happen earlier than we think; maybe even this year or next. Some people think we are tumbling towards war with Iran right now. Nothing could be more stupid. We'll see what happens this April-June on this score. Mark my words; pay attention! This is your astrologer speaking!

By the way, Syria could be an even more likely spot for US deployment this Spring, or later next year.

This week on Moyers and Company:


David Stockman on Crony Capitalism

January 20, 2012

Moyers & Company explores the tight connection between Wall Street and the White House with David Stockman, former budget director for President Reagan.

Now a businessman who says he was “taken to the woodshed” for telling the truth about the administration’s tax policies, Stockman speaks candidly with Bill Moyers about how money dominates politics, distorting free markets and endangering democracy. “As a result,” Stockman says, “we have neither capitalism nor democracy. We have crony capitalism.”

Stockman shares details on how the courtship of politics and high finance have turned our economy into a private club that rewards the super-rich and corporations, leaving average Americans wondering how it could happen and who’s really in charge.

“We now have an entitled class of Wall Street financiers and of corporate CEOs who believe the government is there to do… whatever it takes in order to keep the game going and their stock price moving upward,” Stockman tells Moyers.

http://billmoyers.com/segment/david-...ny-capitalism/

Originally Posted by JDFP

Since when does perjury and obstruction of justice become "personal sexual indiscretion"? He wasn't impeached based on a personal sexual indiscretion. He was impached based upon the felony of perjury in lying to the American people and before a grand jury and obstruction of justice.

Of course, it could just be a matter of what your definition of is is.


j.p.

And acquitted by the Senate - so essentially impeached based upon false charges, as lead by Gingrich.

So we're left with personal sexual indiscretion in both regards, hey?

Hypocrisy is the real issue.

Originally Posted by JDFP

Government isn't the solution, especially now, government is a problem. A very intelligent man once said that - but you don't buy it so there's no use in really discussing the matter.

That's the nub of the matter right there. If Americans can't get past the delusions put forth by the charming acting-president, then we'll have to part ways. Reagan was not intelligent. I don't buy his nonsense slogan. Trickle-down economics has failed. If you can't accept that, then you are holding onto a religious ideology in the face of all fact and reason. Give it up. Open your mind a little so a ray of light can seep in. Watch this video; it is really a classic. True and entertaining too. Watch it if you dare to see how the other half thinks.
http://youtu.be/z5CCRI1vdwE
and my essay:
http://philosopherswheel.com/freemarket.html

We'll have to respectfully agree to disagree on these points. I feel how you feel here towards the majority of Democrats. At the same time - I respect a few Democrats (local government especially and have voted for quite a few in local and state government who focus on things that really matter) but immediately dismiss as pointless any discussion that begins with dismissing close to 50% of all Americans as "duped". Feel free to have and express and share your opinions, you'll hold to yours and I'll hold to mine, and we can be civil regarding this matter and move on our way.

Reaganomics doesn't work, never did and never will. It is not good enough for you to hang on to your ideas. Whether we are polite enough or not, is not very relevant to this.

Wow, with all the discussions I've had with pbrower2a he/she at least has never attempted to question my intelligence even if we disagree on some ideologies - for I also certainly respect him/her - so I give major kudos on your being able to proclaim ex cathedra on matters of ideology, Eric! I'm highly impressed! All this time I should have just come to you for all the many, many errors I've had as a person. Man, I'm so glad I've found your voice in this terrible wasteland of all the gullible fools we must all be!

If I knew I was wrong 95% of the time - it sure would be a problem. Fortunately, I'm not. Oh, don't get me wrong - unlike you (as it seems) I certainly know I make mistakes sometimes and question some things. However, from experience and practicality I know I'm not wrong on the majority of issues. We'll just have to agree to disagree here as well.

... or dictate passive-aggressive condescension in believing someone you disagree with is inherently wrong because he/she disagrees with your personal ideology?

I don't think I question your intelligence, but if you disagree with liberals 95% of the time, then you are surely wrong! You are the one who declared this astonishing statistic for your opinions. But WHO is right and wrong is not important. What is important is not that I am right, but how we can each contribute to our country. It is important to know the facts, and to have a vision for the future, and to share it. I can't force you to agree with me. But we as a nation can't continue on our current road. What is your vision for the future? What society do you want, and how do we get there?

I fully agree.... People need to see the error of their ways. The issue is that both sides have been attacked with such hatred and rhetoric from the opposing side it's hard to make heads or tails of situation - thus the partisan rancor continues. Passing judgment on another individual without attempting to understand the cultural significance of said individual would be a good example of this. There is a major split of regionalism in this nation. and it will only continue to grow with this continued partisan rancor from both sides.

Attempting to white-wash it by saying: "That's only coming from the right! The left is doing everything they can!" is a perfect example of a come-back that proves the point I'm making. I'll admit the Republicans (especially many neo-cons) do need to do a better job of working with many Democrats. However, to ignore that this same situation is coming from the left is sticking a head in the sand based upon principles that are argumentatively wrong by 50% of the population (of course, you could just wave your hand in dismissing these people as "wrong" - so much for compromise!).

The hatred and rhetoric could be toned down. But that is not the main problem. Social problems are getting worse and people are frustrated and upset; that's behind the rhetoric. The main problem is one side believing in an ideology that doesn't work, which you and conservatives today do. Many of you (maybe not you) are also religious fundamentalists who hold to beliefs fanatically just because some authority tells you to-- even though it is pure superstition and dogma. So they apply the same behavior to economics and their hatred for welfare queens. It may not be nice to say so, but I say so because it's what I perceive. Trickle-down does not trickle. I say, look at the situation and resolve it pragmatically; don't hold to an ideology that says government is the problem, or always the solution either. That defeats our nation even before we start.

Sometimes it's good to look at things differently. What does Reaganomics/trickle-down philosophy do for you? What is your interest in it? How does it meet your needs?

I agree with you here. The rest of your post is nonsense to me so I'll not include it. I do agree with you that this gridlock is going to continue and will only continue to become greater with rancor and hatred until there eventually is some type of regional breaking point - and if that's what it takes to ensure the betterment of the people in regions who wish to follow their ideology - so be it. Action is better than useless inaction. Some movement forward would be better than this continued downward spiral we have now.

And we continue this as we always have and here in November you'll vote for Obama and I'll vote for Romney and it only continues from there. So, here we come back around in the circle to square one again. Compromise and working together is more than believing he/she who disagrees with you is simply "wrong" on the issues. Rather, it's an ignorance of you to attempt to understand or care to bother
j.p.

It is not "nonsense" to have goals and a vision of a society that works for all its citizens, and is not corrupt or polluting the planet. These are the real issues and the real needs. We need to deal with them.

It is true that telling the other person (s)he is "wrong" is only a starting point for discussion. Rather than not discussing the ideology to which you're committed, why not discuss why you believe in it? Take a look at it; tell me what is true about it. Why is government the problem, and why is it not the solution? And yet, IS the solution for other things, according to you- like the fact that you are an interventionist?

PS: I wonder if you will be watching Bill Moyers, as Deb suggests, to see how Reagan's former lieutenant has now seen through the false ideology of his boss...
If he can do it, you can do it j.p.

Here's another video to help your process of waking up to the facts:
http://youtu.be/-b1ePD_Hi_w

Originally Posted by JDFP

Since when does perjury and obstruction of justice become "personal sexual indiscretion"? He wasn't impeached based on a personal sexual indiscretion. He was impached based upon the felony of perjury in lying to the American people and before a grand jury and obstruction of justice.

Of course, it could just be a matter of what your definition of is is.


j.p.

Lying to the public about a embarassing personal issue that should have remained between him and his family. Yes, he was technically guilty of perjury, but the offense was committed at a Congress engaging in witch hunts

Originally Posted by playwrite

Even Rupert Murdoch doesn't like the way hedge fund guys make their money!

http://tinyurl.com/7jhhq7n




I think Romney is in trouble, hey?

Rupert endorsed Santorum, IIRC.

Originally Posted by JDFP

No, the Army of Northern Virginia was protecting itself from the union forces which attacked first as an invasive force.

You're a good guy, but living in the south has biased your objectivity on this.

You can't have an invasion force since we were one republic. Rebels fired at Ft. Sumter. That was the start of a rebel invasion. The confederacy were the invaders. Acts of treason against the USA.

Invasions can only occur between nations. The CSA was not a nation.

God Bless America (start your favorite patriotic song here).

Originally Posted by James50

Nothing like a little Japanese tsunami to set things right.

James50

This from the Captain of the Good News Express?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

That's precisley the problem. Some usurper stole their Presidency! Starting in October 1963, you have ...
LBJ - Texas
Nixon - California
Ford - California (no, not Michigan)
Carter - Georgia
Reagan - California
Bush I - Texas
Clinton - Arkansas
Bush II - Texas
... ending in January 2009. That's over 45 years.

Bush I is a Connecticut Yankee through and through, even if he did live in Texas (and Maine).

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The citizens of Dixie were not Americans; they had seceeded. They were citizens of another nation. However, being mostly anti-war, I don't necessarily condone or agree with the methods the North used to defeat Dixie, or the need to fight the war in order to force them to be Americans again.

On what basis Eric? This is nonsense. I suspect you are saying this as it fits your Boomer dream of a two (or more) Americas.

One of the many interesting things I learned last weekend had to do with the issue of secession.

The south claimed that the Constitution was a contract among the states. It never was. As the preamble states, the Constitution was created by "We the People" of the United States. The delegates met as representatives of the people, not of state governments. More importantly, it was ratified by the people of the United States acting in conventions, not by the governments of the states. The conventions had to meet state by state, because, until the Constitution was adopted, the states were sovereign bodies. But, at those conventions, the people of each ratifying state took away ultimate sovereignty from their state and gave it to the federal government. That is embodied in, among other places, the supremacy clause of the Constitution.

Anyone, of course, can always start a revolution, and that's what the southerners did. But what they did was certainly not provided for in the Constitution--au contraire. They defied the supreme law of the land.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Uh, AZ did not seceed from the union in 1861.

AZ wasn't a state until 1912. I was talking about the shifting demographics that are likely to make the "Land of Barry" a Dem state in the future.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

You're a good guy, but living in the south has biased your objectivity on this.

You can't have an invasion force since we were one republic. Rebels fired at Ft. Sumter. That was the start of a rebel invasion. The confederacy were the invaders. Acts of treason against the USA.

Invasions can only occur between nations. The CSA was not a nation.

God Bless America (start your favorite patriotic song here).

Nah... I'm an ass. I do have my moments though. I try to be a decent human being. All I can say with assurance is that I work damn hard and love my loved ones and try to do a little good day by day. I think that's all most of us can do.

In all seriousness - I really dig the forum here because it's okay if we can disagree on some matters, we're all adults and generally have adult conversations without throwing pie at each other (if you throw pie at me, aim for my mouth though and try to use cherry pie, it's my favorite!).

And yes, I'll be the first to admit being a Southerner and being a damned proud Tennessean probably has checked some of my objectivity, that's fair enough. I find the War of Northern Aggression (i.e. "Civil War") to be a very fascinating subject - I consider myself an amateur historian (I have a degree in it though to be honest the majority of my focus is on Intellectual History with Toynbee being my historian hero).

I agree with you fully on God Bless America. I love my country - and I'd have to call Johnny Cash's "Ragged Old Flag" my favorite American anthem.



j.p.

The Republican plot thickens. This article from Huffington, by an apostate investment banker, quotes the Wall Street Journal to the effect that Romney may have engaged in some very questionable tax avoidance practices, to put it mildly. There is evidence that he has managed to get over $100 million into his IRA despite an annual contribution limit of $30,000. I think this could turn into an issue of some consequence.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

At that, the Republicans have others in critical states who could be so used (Brewer in Arizona, Walker in Florida, Kasich in Ohio), and unfortunately for the GOP it can't use all thee.

Not going to Brewer, she couldn't even read an opening statement in a debate a few years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RutNkh1lXF4&sns=em

Warning: this is painful to watch.

Nice analysis, btw.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Not going to Brewer, she couldn't even read an opening statement in a debate a few years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RutNkh1lXF4&sns=em

Warning: this is painful to watch.

Nice analysis, btw.

You know, public speaking really is an art form though. I'd say Hoover and Nixon (politics aside) were probably two of the most intelligent presidents we've ever had but both were lousy speakers. Hoover's speeches felt as if you were being spoken down to from this man of great intellect as if you're a simpleton - and Nixon sweat like a prostitute in church and always had a terrible time as an INTJ in attempting to communicate with the "average Joe". And then of course there was Truman who probably could have made Nixon blush with the foul language that man used (how on earth did he get away with that?).

Personally, I'd have to rank Dubya as #1 on my list of presidents I'd like to most get shitfaced drunk with - because be honest, I bet that would be a wild night! (#2 would be JFK and #3 would be Reagan watching "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" in the White House theater just to pick his brain though he rarely ever touched alcohol).

j.p.