American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;435461]Had to post this quote since we have not had a president over the past 5+ years.

"Musician Charlie Daniels is never bashful about his conservative beliefs, but his latest Facebook message pulls nary a punch regarding President Barack Obama's waffling on Syria.

In my soon to be 77 years as a citizen of the United States of America, having lived through Japan's sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, the dark days of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Watergate, 9/11 and all the other serious and profound events our beloved nation has been involved in over the last three quarters of a century, I have to say with all sincerity that I have never seen a president as confused, befuddled, impotent, insincere and as out of his depth as Barack Obama has become in dealing with the Syrian issue.

When you're the leader of the free world, you don't make statements you can't back up and you don't draw lines in the sand, watch your enemies cross them with impunity and go off and play a round of golf.

America's leaders should guard their tongues well and not issue spur of the moment reactions and empty threats. Our bite should be a lot worse than our bark and a presidential warning should be a dire and solemn caution, issued only once and followed up with swift and decisive action, not some half-baked puff of bravado that nobody really takes seriously."[/QUOTE]Why don't you just declare yourself an isolationist. That way, we can know where you are coming from.

Americans like to think that international conflicts do not affect their lives. As in World War II and 9-11, they were rudely awaken, then they had no choice. Always a little late. Lucky, we have the firepower.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;435454]Democrats want people to be poor or unemployed or totally dependent on government.[/QUOTE]Republicans want people to be poor or unemployed or totally dependant on the rich man. No I don't really believe that, but it illustrates how utterly ridiculous such characterizations are.

Keep repeating it to yourself over and over, like a good Faux News robot.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;435461]Had to post this quote since we have not had a president over the past 5+ years.

"Musician Charlie Daniels is never bashful about his conservative beliefs, but his latest Facebook message pulls nary a punch regarding President Barack Obama's waffling on Syria.

In my soon to be 77 years as a citizen of the United States of America, having lived through Japan's sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, the dark days of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Watergate, 9/11 and all the other serious and profound events our beloved nation has been involved in over the last three quarters of a century, I have to say with all sincerity that I have never seen a president as confused, befuddled, impotent, insincere and as out of his depth as Barack Obama has become in dealing with the Syrian issue.

When you're the leader of the free world, you don't make statements you can't back up and you don't draw lines in the sand, watch your enemies cross them with impunity and go off and play a round of golf.

America's leaders should guard their tongues well and not issue spur of the moment reactions and empty threats. Our bite should be a lot worse than our bark and a presidential warning should be a dire and solemn caution, issued only once and followed up with swift and decisive action, not some half-baked puff of bravado that nobody really takes seriously."[/QUOTE]Some near-octogenarian country musician from the south, Charlie Daniels? Whooo!! Pulling out the big ammo there Doppel. This is almost as powerful as your dumb cartoons. This guy Charlie Daniels pops up every few months on right wing media like Faux News, with some new diatribe on Obama. Syria is just the latest topic in a series of many. I wonder what he had to say about all the politicians who demanded Obama delay action until there was a vote. Most likely, if Obama had taken immediate military action as this guy seems to suggest he should have, he would just have penned a different diatribe that Obama is an out-of-control dictator. From his many rants, it looks like he just found a gimmick to get media attention to help his record and concert ticket sales. And folks like Doppel lap it up.

There is a very simple response to nonsense like this: Is the world taking Obama seriously that he may potentially order a military strike on Syria? 'Nuf said.

We do not need to be in another war.

It does not make any different in the Arab countries who is in charge, they will fight each other over tribal differences. As they have been doing since the beginning of time.

I am not sure on the exact number, but I think our country has been at war in some form for all but maybe 25 years.

What is funny it that the Republicans are the Party of Hawks, but now they have become Doves. What do you suppose is the reason?

I believe Racist reasons.

The latest Poll:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-majority-of-americans-approve-of-sending-cong,33752/



[QUOTE=Tiny12;435462]

WT69, You've been strangely silent on the Syrian issue. Why? I know you'd be raising hell if a Republican president were proposing to bomb another country.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Esten;435444]Like a Republican free market capitalist, Doppel's life philosophy can usually be distilled to the following common denominator:

[I]Who cares about anyone else. What's in it for me?[/I][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Esten;435466]Republicans want people to be poor or unemployed or totally dependant on the rich man. No I don't really believe that, but it illustrates how utterly ridiculous such characterizations are.

Keep repeating it to yourself over and over, like a good Faux News robot.[/QUOTE]My generalization was a response to your generalization, that Republican free market capitalists don't give a shit about others. First that's not true for most. Second, who cares. The benefits of their labors flow through mostly to employees, customers and society.

That said, there's a tendency for people to brainwash themselves to promote agendas that benefit themselves. It's not confined to Democrats. For example, there are Republican politicians in the Mid-West who support subsidies to mostly-wealthy farmers and ethanol companies. Some of them actually think that's good for America. Spending money on education as directed by the teachers' unions, encouraging people to stay unemployed by making welfare benefits contingent on not working, directing money out of the private sector and into the federal government, these are all policies that keep people poor, unemployed and voting for Democrats.

You misspelled dependent.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;435472]

What is funny it that the Republicans are the Party of Hawks, but now they have become Doves. What do you suppose is the reason?

I believe Racist reasons.

[/QUOTE]The reason - they learned from their mistakes. To understand what's happening, you need to separate the libertarian / tea party wing of the Republican party from the establishment types like McCain and Graham.

I would have "liked" your post, except that I think you might be serious when you say "Racist reasons." Which would make no sense whatsoever BTW.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;435475]My generalization was a response to your generalization, that Republican free market capitalists don't give a shit about others. First that's not true for most. [/QUOTE]Your last two words are what I'm talking about. It may or may not apply to most, but there are Republican free market capitalists who almost never support government involvement in something which does not directly or indirectly benefit themselves. Their positions on government initiatives and spending are highly predictable. Their focus in life is their bottom line.

Please, spare us a break about "but they donate to charity". These gestures are a pittance to the real impact that government programs can have, and are completely irrelevant when it comes to issues like Syria.

[QUOTE=Esten;435488]...but there are Republican free market capitalists who almost never support government involvement in something which does not directly or indirectly benefit themselves.[/QUOTE]"[I]I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.[/I]"

― Thomas Sowell, Barbarians inside the Gates and Other Controversial Essays.

Obama's approval ratings are so low that Kenyans are accusing him of being born in the United States!

TL.

I haven't posted in this thread in quite some time because the mental masturbation that goes on here can be quite boring. But I, too, have a big mouth and can't always be silent.

I'm watching people argue the same tired crap every time, basically mouthing the same thing their respective parties mouth to the country in general. From one month to the next, basically the amount of time I give to this thread, it's always the very same thing. It's almost funny, except it hurts to watch such polarity, particularly among people that are often friends in the real world. Particularly when they continue to think they are a part of the same country, when it seems to be in name only.

Of course, the arguing is not surprising, given that rarely do people really look beyond those who espouse their own beliefs to see if their own beliefs are valid. There is rarely much talk about finding the truth, but rather ensuring the each person's "side" wins the "war" that is currently being "fought" socially and economically.

Both of the two parties that are in power are dead wrong, because neither one really gives a crap about anything other than being in power. The back-and-forth that has been going on since Lincoln's time shows that.

We have people in this forum who think the "Conservatives" are right, as has been mentioned with politicians under that creed who garner money for the very things their party supposedly doesn't believe in, using political might to ensure that their farmers are taken care of by the government. Ensuring that their pet industries are taken care of, etc. Not to mention more recent NeoCons who think the US should be mighty and powerful so that all other nations will tremble at our might, while that very attitude is contrary to what the Founding Fathers fought for to begin with. We have people who think the "Liberals" are correct as they steal money from the hands of those who work hard for it to give to those who (for whatever reason) don't work to support their own families and who say that's OK, because they "deserve" to live at a certain level.

The "right to pursue happiness" has been morphed into the belief that it should read "the right to BE happy." Each person makes his or her own happiness, not some monolithic bureaucracy that has been created and guided over such a long time by politicians who have made their livelihood out of the political game of promising people anything and delivering some of the worst of it.

People who say the South is poor because of more recent Republican mis-management seem to forget about the terrible war that was fought a long time ago because a Republican decided that it wasn't right to let the country split up when it was so young, and those same Republicans who came down from an industrialized North to take advantage of the Southerners who wanted freedom from what they saw as tyranny and lost a real war. Time has reversed the actual centers of Republican and Democratic bases, but not all of the damage that was done in those times. You can talk about slavery all you want and the depths from which Lincoln supposedly rescued us, but look at countries like Brasil, for example, who managed to end their times of slavery quite peaceably and allow their people to intermix peacefully in modern times as a result. Of course, they had other reasons for not advancing so quickly, but that's another issue.

BTW. The country was on the path to ridding itself of slavery before Lincoln decided he had to maintain the integrity of the Union AT ALL COSTS, but that wasn't good enough. Can't let people decide their own fate, and less than 100 years after the country fought a brutal war to free itself from a tyranny overseas Lincoln provides his own brand of pain and tyranny. But even Democrats think Lincoln was a hero, and the result was terrible race relations and a good half of the country (at the time) that was left in economic ruins for a long time afterward.

Then people want to say things like "Texas is a backward state" as well. I find that kind of interesting as Texas actually has one of the largest economies in the world. 14th, right behind Russia and right in front of Australia. California is higher, but Texas is solvent and California is close to not being so. Does it ever occur to anyone that Texas seems like a "backwards" state because it has a ton of Mexican (and Korean, Vietnamese, Chinese, African, etc) immigrants almost all of whom end up better economically than where they came from originally? Many people seem to skew numbers to make it seem like Texas is backward, but I wonder if they have actually spent any real time in the state? Also, does it not occur to them that a lot of Texans enjoy living in rural settings, in small towns, rather than in big cities? We have the land and the temperament to live like that. Of course, we have at least a couple of the most successful big cities in the nation as well. But I've worked in smaller towns in Texas and they are anything but "backwards." Mexicans, blacks, whites, Vietnamese, (name the original nationality) all pretty much living peacefully together and enjoying their life as they want it. Prices are also SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper in Texas than other states. Hell, I owned a 3000 square foot house in Houston, 5 bedrooms, three bathrooms, corner lot. Something like that in California would probably go for upwards of $1,000,000 when I bought my house in Texas, and I paid $80,000.

Funny thing is, almost all of the legal immigrants despise the illegal immigrants because of their drain on resources, and the fact that they rarely integrate into society but rather remain islolated and refuse to share with the rest of the citizens.

What exactly IS backward, and why do people feel it is their right to change things on a national level to make things in Texas less "Backward", as an example.

You are all hoodwinked by the politicians, who have told you all how much you need them to be successful. What a total load of crap.

After having lived in Argentina for seven years now, I've seen what dependence on, and BELIEF in, idiocy gets you. People here don't even argue any more for different forms of belief. They argue between differing views of PERONISM. Very few here doubt that Peronism is the "correct" belief, it's just that they have never had their "Peron" again. Cristina is only bad insofar as she has carried the country away from the "good" Peronism into the "bad". Hell, one of the funniest campaign signs I've seen here is literally two guys who are running for office and at the top of the signs says "El Buen Peronismo". LOL. But kind of how I feel when I hear people talking about "good government" in the States. Talk about an oxymoron...

The Paraguayans and other MERCOSUR citizens come here to work while Argentinos collect their money from the government and figure out how to live on that paltry sum because mama Cristina (and other "Parents", be they Mom or Dad) know best while the leaders of the country get richer and the poorer get poorer. I pass healthy young guys on the street begging for money with babies in the arms (babies paid for by the government, BTW) while my brothers-in-law work their butts off at jobs these guys wouldn't touch because it would mean work for them. They use their babies as tools to get more money, much like I saw in India where it is not uncommon for the very poor to cripple their children to get more sympathy and make them better beggars.

While I was in high school, and for years after, I worked right alongside the Mexicans who came over to get construction jobs. I surely didn't feel like I was working beneath myself. I was young and could do so, but was smart enough to better myself so I didn't have to continue to work like that. I sure as hell didn't want someone to take money from others to pay me so I didn't have to work at drudge jobs.

Somehow Americans, both "Liberals" and "Conservatives" have forgotten what "good democracy" is. They have forgotten that living means providing for yourself at all costs to you, yourself, because that is what life means. Not to be coddled and told you don't have to work so hard because others haven't had to. They have forgotten what pride means. Pride doesn't come from others doing things so you can have a better life, pride comes from doing those things yourself and even in failure you can feel pride that you TRIED.

It's not using the government to get what is good for "lawmaker's" constituents.

It's not voting for your party because some in the party are good, ignoring those who are really bad.

It's not stealing money from the hands of those who create wealth to give to those who feel they "deserve" to live the same lives with little or no work. If you feel that, take it out of your own pocket and make the help PERSONAL. Otherwise it's too damned easy. You also end up creating a needy class because humans will be human.

It's not manipulating the market (I'm not talking about the stock markets, but the "real" market) so that one industry can survive terrible, stupid decisions and go on to make more, just because it may be a high-profile industry and a tiny percentage of jobs are "saved". Particularly when those jobs are such over-paid monstrosities that the same issue will come about again and again, multiplied with the bad decisions that that industry continues to make.

It's not about forcing people to buy healthcare whether they want it or not so that everyone can have the same crappy healthcare that's too expensive and a near monopoly thanks to that very same government supporting doctors who think they are gods and don't want to see their outrageous earnings reduced (not to mention insurers who don't have god-complexes, but are just greedy). Show me ONE monopoly that survived the market without active support from the government. The doctors have a good one in the US all tied up with their legislators. (I'm still waiting for someone to give me an example of this one, and I've asked many times but no one seems to supply an answer). The free market would never abide such high costs of medicine and health costs and has gone from a country where we could most all pay for our own care (this from my grandmother who was very poor and raised two sons by herself in the 50's, vs my ex-wife who has now one son to care for and can't pay her portion of ANYTHING, much less healthcare) to a country where you have to spend a significant portion of your income to insure medical treatment against the possibility of needing a doctor to blow your nose for you. Idiots, every one of you who can't see the reality of this one. (Sorry, I don't mean to be insulting, but for Christ's sake people WAKE THE FUCK UP!

What democracy should be is the right for everyone to ensure that the government does the maximum to maintain fair laws, that NO ONE is better or more above the law than anyone else, and beyond that the government has no right to take money from one person to give to another because that impersonal instrument of tyranny can't possibly make a fair decision. Even democracy does not give that right, because it is no longer democracy when people vote to give themselves money and things, as opposed to voting to provide a government fair to all. But politicians have managed to twist people's mind with all manner of idiocy to believe that the government needs to do more than provide the framework within which we all live. It has to decide who is deserving and who is not, of deep reserves of wealth to be paid out.

All of you who think that the government should "give" to needy people are among the worst of all, right next to those who think the power of the US should be used to make the rest of the world bend to our will and take money from the people to see that happen as well. Helping people should be a PERSONAL decision, should be targeted at those who truly need, those of your family or friends who are in trouble. The government cannot make such a decision because the government should be impersonal. NO ONE should be held above another as more deserving by an institution that is supposed to remain independent from such things.

I speak from personal experience on this. I have helped many people from the goodness of my heart, not at government gunpoint. I have been rewarded with watching people recover from personal disasters, and I have been shit on by people who took advantage of me. Guess which ones deserved my help, and will receive it again if they need it? But thanks to a tyrannical government who says it is better at determining such things, the amount of money I can spend to help those who deserve it has diminished, and I have no personal control over how money taken by me from the government is used to help those very asses that I know don't give a rat's ass about bettering their lives but are looking for a way to avoid work and personal responsibility.

Even those with the best of intentions still suffer from the Law of Unintended Consequences. The government making those decisions merely amplifies the effect and makes things worse than they otherwise would be. If you are going to make mistakes like that, make it personal instead of trying to get the whole country screwed up as well.

I wonder if Lincoln rolls over in his grave at night realizing what evil he did in the name of keeping a country divided together, surely with good intent on his part (I.e, not tyranny, but protecting a near-"holy" Union, in his eyes), but not realizing at the time how far-reaching would be the unintended consequences of his actions.

But what the hell. The US is already lost and the battle between the two sides that goes on here is just a symptom of what's really happening there. The espousal of two archetype theories being bandied at one another while those actually in power laugh their asses off.

When the Black soldiers had to serve & fight in World War II, and then had to come back home to the Deep South. "Yes, sir", "Yes, ma'am". What were their thoughts, what did it mean to their self esteem? What were they fighting for? Until Mohammad Ali refused to fight the "white man' war", human dignity was non existent in America for the Black man. He was the entertainer, he was the shoe shine boy, he was the boxer. Easy to say, "go back to Africa", but they didn't want to come in the first place. So you are stuck with them. See how many games those Longhorns & Aggies can win with a "good ole boys" team?

Today percentage wise, who is the most poverty stricken, who has the most incarcerated, who has the most single parent households? Yeah, they are quite loud and in your face these days. One of them even became the President of the United States. Too much for you? But remember, they are still paying for our sins.

Wow Black Shirt. What sins, I wonder, did you do that you feel you, personally, have to pay for? Personally, I wasn't alive during World War II when black people were discriminated against. I wasn't wearing a white hood and hanging black folk as they were fighting for their lives. I didn't even WANT to fight Muhamad Ali!

I respect those who fought against injustice (on both sides, I might add, lest ye forget), I despise what most of them (and those who enable them) have become.

You mention the "deep south" like southerners are the only ones that hold prejudices, while not realizing how far most of them have gone away from that. You mention UT and the Aggies needing black people to get anywhere with their sports teams. And I just have to laugh. Is that the most of what contribtion you think they have made? And pointing out Obama as a good example of black men making it as far as the presidency...well, you must obviously be quite "liberal" and as immersed as the rest in the BS.

Of course, I was actually excited to an extent when Obama won the presidency, and imagine that, me a good ol' boy from Texas. I despised Bush for the way he handled his presidency in many ways. Imagine that, a good ol' boy from Texas. But Obama pissed me off the moment he went out of his way to use Chicago-style machine politics to get the stupidest health bill in the history of the US passed by a nearly tied congress and a populace that was largely against it beause he "knows" better than the rest of us. Well, imagine that, I didn't like what Obama did and most probably assume it's because I'm a good ol' boy from Texas. What a load of crap.

Black people have been loud and in the face of everyone for a long, long time. They have been right about a lot of things in the past, but the ones still on the bandwagon are no longer the followers of heroes like ML King and Muhamad Ali but rather Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and other idiots who have no interest whatsoever in the success of the "black" people, but rather in forwarding their own interests.

Giving "black" people things doesn't do them any good. How well did giving them a mule and 40 acres work out for them? What a joke. What they needed (and need) was real freedom. So we look at a race that was subjugated and then freed at force, to live among their very subjugators who then blamed them and hated them for the deaths of ther families. Among a people that weren't ready for the very people that were freed to live among them as equals. And yet, again, Brasilians are a fairly well integrated people. Things need to come in when people are ready for them, not when others say it's time. Are Americans just naturally racist, or is the manner in which the slaves were freed in the States the wrong way to go about it?

The only thing that will "free" the black people is for them to stand on their own two feet, to become productive members of society. People who talk about reparations after such are long time are ridiculous. People who talk about ANYONE alive in these days owning one freaking cent to anyone who had a slave in their ancestry is insane or looking for ways to ingratiate themselves with those very people who are not productive and ask for things. And I wonder how it is that other, hard-working races that come to the US can end up living just as well as others who have already been there, but "black" people just can't quite make it.

I've had many free black friends. I've had a couple friends that still live under the slave mentality, wanting their due from whitey. I prefer the guys who are free, every time, no matter their "race".

If you knew me, you'd probably think I was one of the least racist people you have ever known in your life. Hell, I married a terribly poor Paraguayan and treat her family lke they are my family, her younger sisters like my own children. I have helped people of different nationalities and races throughout my life, and I'm really tired of the racist card. Racism exists, absolutely, but it's not strong enough to overcome those who are no longer racist and believe in fair play. At least in the US.

One of the "slave mentality" friends of mine was one of the guys who I also helped and who took advantage of me and my family in a number of ways while we were trying to help him out. He had it made at work (where I met him to begin with. He was a communications engineer in a petroleum company and could have gone farther than me as a mere programmer) but walked around all day complaining to anyone who would listen close by and to whoever he could reach on the telephone (his cubicle was next to mine), talking out how bad he was treated here. How bad his last review was. How people didn't "respect" him because he was black. You see, he actually didn't do his work, but complained ALL THE TIME, literally all the time he was at work, about how no one respected him. But because he was black our HR department was afraid to let him go and get someone in there that could do his job. I was at that company 9 years, he 15. We left at the sme time. When another company bought us out. I got a nice package and an offer of employment from the new company (I rejected employment because I didn't like the company) and he got a mediocre package because for all his time at the company he never accomplished anything. Was that racist?

I (who am not black) busted my ass, working overtime and doing everything I could to end up with respect I'd earned. He complained and did nothing. He had a degree, I didn't. I got discriminated against because I didn't have a degree, he got discrimiated againstbecause he was a lazy asshole and only existed as long as he did in that slot because of his race (called reverse racism, and supported by the government, by the way).

It's a long story, but he treated us like shit and ended up blowing off a $3000 loan I gave him when we helped him out (he was going to have to go live under a bridge but instead I invited him into our house and gave him a loan to help him get back on his feet) because he didn't have an ounce of respect in his being for others and he didn't respect himself to begin with. But oh, how he loved to complain about what a hellish life he had as a black man, how unfair life was for him.

You know what, life sucks for a lot of us. If you don't like it, do something to change it. But asking for handouts from people who have more than you and then shitting in their hands as a recompense is the furthest thing worthy of respect that a human can do, and I've watched that particular scene played out many times before. And not just with black folk, with whoever has the slave mentality. Admitedly I see it a lot more here in South America than I ever did in the States. I've watched the same thing happen here and in Paraguay.

Giving people help so impersonal like funding from government agencies, without strings and consequences, does nothing but take away a person's self respect and replace it with unfounded "deserving.

So Black Shirt is the first one to come back with this "oh poor race that has been kept down for so long." I was expecting something like it. Let the mental masturbation continue, I suppose.

[QUOTE=ElQueso;435497]I haven't posted in this thread in quite some time because the mental masturbation that goes on here can be quite boring. But I, too, have a big mouth and can't always be silent.

I'm watching people argue the same tired crap every time, basically mouthing the same thing their respective parties mouth to the country in general. From one month to the next, basically the amount of time I give to this thread, it's always the very same thing.[/QUOTE]Great post, except when you start to apply it to this board. Most on both sides are social liberals, and most do not parrot the party line on all issues.

In 2008 there was a site on the internet where you answered questions about your position on specific issues, like abortion, foreign policy, taxes, etc. It would then tell you which of the presidential candidates were aligned most closely with your beliefs. I agreed with Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich 80% of the time. The next highest candidate was around 55%. On economic issues, many would consider Paul far right and Kucinich far left. Neither is brainwashed or a pawn of his party or of special interests. So it is with a number who post here. For example, even though I've compared him to a KKK member and otherwise abuse him mercilessly, I respect WT69's willingness to think outside of the Democrat box on foreign policy issues and a flat tax. On non-economic matters, we'd mostly agree. The posts here have changed my thoughts about a couple of issues, and enlightened me on more.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;435503]Great post, except when you start to apply it to this board. Most on both sides are social liberals, and most do not parrot the party line on all issues...[/QUOTE]

I may not have been too clear because I'm not writing a paper and wrote quite quickly without making sure I covered all the points I was looking for. Still may not be real clear, and perhaps you are correct in me applying the criticism too liberally on this board.

There are a number of posts I've seen here who think the government needs to make these changes, as opposed to people making their own decisions on how their money is spent. I didn't dwell on it very long, but a lot of people who are "socially liberal" think the US needs to be a dominant player in the world in order for us to survive ["properly"]. And Abraham Lincoln shows a good person who means well who ran straight into the Law of Unintended Consequences with an oppressive action taken by the government under his command.

I didn't mention God, nor legalizing at least certain drugs (I think it's the absolute height of idiocy to make any drugs illegal, but I'm betting I'm more "socially liberal" than most), which are "easy" socialy liberal concepts.

I don't see forcing people to pay for an already-broken (and one that can never work) health care system, or any government program that gives things to some and takes from other, as being socially liberal.

My mental masturbation comment is related to BOTH sides (no matter how socially liberal) supporting government programs of any type,as well as parotting the same things their respective parties say on other items that are not socially liberal. It doesn't work for either side, it disrupts the economy, creates resentments through unfair practices, and ruins the country as a whole. Politicians in general, whether they believe or not in what they are saying, are too interested in keeping their power and the things that come with it to really look dispassionately at what is needed and EVERYONE should be FOR changing politics as they exist in the US today, and changing the class of politician and the direction politicians want to take us.

Those who believe that government is an inherent evil that is necessary, but in the smallest doses possible to maintain order and a fair playing field, think like I do. I don't see very much of this here, even those who claim they want small government but think we are doing the right thing around the world being world policemen/bullies who are trying to export and inculcate our brand of insanity to the rest of the world.

I don't think government is the solution. I don't think passing laws to force Americans to pay for things a large portion of the population doesn't want is a good thing.

There are some politicians that are trying to change things, but they are far and few between and have realtively little support while others (particularly on this board, of a particular "bent") are cuting them down the way the majority of the press does, repeating things that are stupid.

I do believe the majority on this board are well-intentioned. I agree with a LOT of what is said, but no one is really talking about changing the core of the States, but rather trying to make the current politics work, which can never happen because politicians have become too entrenched.

Sorry if I offended anyone, really. Not meaning to, and it doesn't really do any good to insult someone for their beliefs.

[QUOTE=ElQueso;435505]There are some politicians that are trying to change things, but they are far and few between and have realtively little support while others (particularly on this board, of a particular "bent") are cuting them down the way the majority of the press does, repeating things that are stupid.

I do believe the majority on this board are well-intentioned. I agree with a LOT of what is said, but no one is really talking about changing the core of the States, but rather trying to make the current politics work, which can never happen because politicians have become too entrenched.[/Quote]You might check out the Ayn Rand Institute. I am a supporter and we are making headway in changing the ideas.

Don B.

[QUOTE=Jackson;435491]"[I]I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.[/I]"

― Thomas Sowell, Barbarians inside the Gates and Other Controversial Essays.[/QUOTE]That's because when you live in a democracy where people support government spending for public services and other initiatives, and you don't want to chip in your part, you are rightly perceived as greedy and self-centered. You may not agree with every spending item, but a democracy cannot work if it depends on full consensus on every matter.

Excuse Me?

[QUOTE=Esten;435507]That's because when you live in a democracy where people support government spending for public services and other initiatives, and you don't want to chip in your part, you are rightly perceived as greedy and self-centered. You may not agree with every spending item, but a democracy cannot work if it depends on full consensus on every matter.[/QUOTE]The United States is a Constitutional Republic, Not a Democracy!

[QUOTE=Punter127;435508]Excuse Me?

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, Not a Democracy![/QUOTE]Sadly I fear not for much longer my brother. I certainly haven't made a decision about anything, but in my youth I couldn't have even imagined I would ever even consider picking up another passport, but I think about it a lot these days. Some of the shit up there, not the red state / blue state stuff, but the "security" stuff really worries me.

[QUOTE=ElQueso;435502]Wow Black Shirt. What sins, I wonder, did you do that you feel you, personally, have to pay for? Personally, I wasn't alive during World War II when black people were discriminated against. I wasn't wearing a white hood and hanging black folk as they were fighting for their lives. I didn't even WANT to fight Muhamad Al

So Black Shirt is the first one to come back with this "oh poor race that has been kept down for so long." I was expecting something like it. Let the mental masturbation continue, I suppose.[/QUOTE]Just because I mentioned a "once upon a time" truth. From the ending of the Civil War in 1865 until 1964 with the Civil Rights Act, how much of the Constitution were denied to the Blacks? That's right, almost a 100 years. Yet the Board here is bristling with talk of secession and armed rebellion if their 2nd amendment rights were infringed. To me, the Blacks were downright beaten down P.S.ychologically to endure what they had to go through without lashing out in a dramatic way. Perhaps, they were not licensed to carrry, so could not? But there is no doubt, given half a chance, the Old South would happily go back to it's George Wallace days.

Everything you mentioned, I have seen with my own eyes. So you are cursing Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton (as I often do), but are they any different from Sarah Palin & Anne Coulter?.

Just don't take personally what I say. I am not targeting you. You spoke alot of truths. And I am sure you are a great guy (really). Next time, I come to BA, I might ask you for equal opportunity loan.(smile).

[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;435510]Sadly I fear not for much longer my brother. I certainly haven't made a decision about anything, but in my youth I couldn't have even imagined I would ever even consider picking up another passport, but I think about it a lot these days. Some of the shit up there, not the red state / blue state stuff, but the "security" stuff really worries me.[/QUOTE]It should worry all of us, but I don't think another passport is so easy to pick up? You know something I don't?

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;435511]Just because I mentioned a "once upon a time" truth. From the ending of the Civil War in 1865 until 1964 with the Civil Rights Act, how much of the Constitution were denied to the Blacks? That's right, almost a 100 years. Yet the Board here is bristling with talk of secession and armed rebellion if their 2nd amendment rights were infringed. To me, the Blacks were downright beaten down P.S.ychologically to endure what they had to go through without lashing out in a dramatic way. Perhaps, they were not licensed to carrry, so could not? But there is no doubt, given half a chance, the Old South would happily go back to it's George Wallace days.

Everything you mentioned, I have seen with my own eyes. So you are cursing Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton (as I often do), but are they any different from Sarah Palin & Anne Coulter?.

Just don't take personally what I say. I am not targeting you. You spoke alot of truths. And I am sure you are a great guy (really). Next time, I come to BA, I might ask you for equal opportunity loan.(smile).[/QUOTE]

Could it be that rather than performing its only legitimate function, the protection of individual rights, it was performing as a democracy, that is providing what the majority of its citizens wanted?

Don B.

[b] The “Solid South” was overwhelmingly Democratic![/b]

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;435511]Just because I mentioned a "once upon a time" truth. From the ending of the Civil War in 1865 until 1964 with the Civil Rights Act, how much of the Constitution were denied to the Blacks? That's right, almost a 100 years. [snip][/QUOTE]

“The term Solid South describes the electoral support of the Southern United States for Democratic Party candidates from 1877 (the end of Reconstruction) to 1964 (the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). During this time, the vast majority of local and state officeholders in the South were Democrats, as were federal politicians the region sent to Washington, D.C.. The virtual non-existence of the Republican Party in the region meant that a candidate's victory in Democratic primary elections was tantamount to election to the office itself.

The Democratic dominance of the South originated in many white Southerners' animosity towards the Republican Party's stance in favor of political rights for blacks during Reconstruction and Republican economic policies such as the high tariff and the support for continuing the gold standard, both of which were seen as benefiting Northern industrial interests at the expense of the agrarian South in the 19th century. It was maintained by the Democratic Party's willingness to back Jim Crow laws and racial segregation.

Democrats won by large margins in the region in every presidential election from 1876 to 1948 except for 1928, when candidate Al Smith, a Catholic and a New Yorker, ran on the Democratic ticket; even in that election, the divided South provided Smith with nearly three-fourths of his electoral votes. Beginning in about 1948, the national Democratic Party's support of the civil rights movement significantly reduced Southern support for the Democratic Party and allowed the Republican Party to make gains in the South. In 1968, President Nixon's "Southern Strategy" is credited with allowing either the Republicans or [b]Democrat George Wallace's[/b] independent campaign to keep much of the South out of the Democratic column at the presidential level. [highlight][b]The South continued to send an overwhelmingly Democratic delegation to Congress until the Republican Revolution of 1994.” [/b][/highlight]

The Democratic Party was behind slavery, the KKK, and Jim Crow laws. Before the Civil War ended, State “Slave Codes” prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed “Black Codes.” They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. Black Codes, which explicitly restricted gun possession and carrying by the freedmen. Sometimes these laws facilitated the activities of the Ku Klux Klan, America’s first gun control organization. (and the roots of todays gun control movement.)

Reconstruction Congress responded with the Freedmen’s Bureau Bill, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1870—every one of them aimed at racial subordination in general and racist gun control laws in particular.

Republican President Ulysses S. Grant (1869-77), who would later serve as president of the National Rifle Association, vigorously prosecuted Klansmen, and even declared martial law when necessary to suppress KKK violence. It was “Southern Democrats” who strongly opposed African-American equality to whites.

Black Shirt if you don't know history study it, if you do know history stop trying to rewrite it.

Black Shirt if you don't know history study it, if you do know history stop trying to rewrite it.

In my post, I did not use any party affiliations to identify the South. Yes, I am aware of the history of the transition and transformation of the Democratic South into the Republican South. But thanks for taking the time and effort to put everything into perspective.

Racism is found in every corner of the world. I was not trying to disparage the USA in that regard, just to highlight what has gone on in history. And to highlight the point that it can easily come back tomorrow if we are not careful.

[QUOTE=Esten;435507]That's because when you live in a democracy where people support government spending for public services and other initiatives, and you don't want to chip in your part, you are rightly perceived as greedy and self-centered. You may not agree with every spending item, but a democracy cannot work if it depends on full consensus on every matter.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Silver Star;429178]My reaction is

Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.[/QUOTE]12345678910.

[QUOTE=Punter127;435513]It should worry all of us, but I don't think another passport is so easy to pick up? You know something I don't?[/QUOTE]It's relatively easy in Dominica and St. Kitts and Nevis, although expensive.

[QUOTE=Esten;435507]That's because when you live in a democracy where people support government spending for public services and other initiatives, and you don't want to chip in your part, you are rightly perceived as greedy and self-centered. You may not agree with every spending item, but a democracy cannot work if it depends on full consensus on every matter.[/QUOTE]Except that what's really going is that 51% of the voters are telling the other 49% how much they have to pay in taxes, said taxes which are then given to the 51% majority.

Esten, it's all in your definition of "public services". The US Constitution provides that the US Government is to "[I]provide for the general welfare[/I]", which I believe may be easily understood as government services such as a military for our common defense, a border patrol to maintain our common borders, a monetary system for our common use, a system of basic education that everyone attends, a criminal justice system that protects all of us from the criminal element in every society, etc. The Constitution does not refer to any need to provide for the "specific welfare" of individual citizens, as in cash payments to some individuals to remedy some alleged shortfall in their own personal lives.

"[I]The normal must care for themselves.[/I]"

Calvin Coolidge

[QUOTE=Punter127;435513]It should worry all of us, but I don't think another passport is so easy to pick up? You know something I don't?[/QUOTE]Some provisions in the NDAA really scare the shit out of me. In another couple months I could start the process of getting an argie one, it wouldn't be my first choice, Australia or Canada would be, but it's a second one. While a lot of people from other countries may hold the politics here (Argentina) in contempt, as a rule they don't hate them.

I'm worried, not super worried, but worried that the USA could become a totalitarian state in my lifetime.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;435517]

In my post, I did not use any party affiliations to identify the South. Yes, I am aware of the history of the transition and transformation of the Democratic South into the Republican South. But thanks for taking the time and effort to put everything into perspective.[/QUOTE]You didn't need to name the party we all knew what you was trying to say.

[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;435522]Some provisions in the NDAA really scare the shit out of me. In another couple months I could start the process of getting an argie one, it wouldn't be my first choice, Australia or Canada would be, but it's a second one. While a lot of people from other countries may hold the politics here (Argentina) in contempt, as a rule they don't hate them.

I'm worried, not super worried, but worried that the USA could become a totalitarian state in my lifetime.[/QUOTE]I knew you could get a resident visa, but did not know you could get Argie passport. As Tiny 12 pointed out most of the time they are expensive.

I've been worried for some time and I'd say we're already well on our way to becoming a "totalitarian state". Just MHO.

[QUOTE=Jackson;435521]Except that what's really going is that 51% of the voters are telling the other 49% how much they have to pay in taxes, said taxes which are then given to the 51% majority.[/QUOTE]Jackson, why even bother posting such easily refutable statements? I can slice and dice this over and over and over it's so wrong. In one poll, 67% of the top one percent of American earners support higher income taxes on [i]themselves[/i]. There are other similar polls showing the wealthy support increasing their own taxes, and polls showing that many poor people (typically conservatives) do not support raising taxes on anybody. Your statement is complete nonsense.

Majority of Rich Want Themselves Taxed More: Poll
[URL]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/majority-rich-want-themselves-taxed-193437266.html[/URL]

BTW, the Constitution provides a process by which democratically elected representatives can approve and fund government services and programs that are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. That is why our system is called a Constitutional Democracy (a form of Representative Democracy).

Amid all the weak hands in the Syria debate, both internationally and at home, Obama and others like John McCain are demonstrating real leadership in their firm calls for decisive action. There are significant implications in not responding firmly, which Obama laid out very well in his speech tonight and I won't repeat here.

My take is Obama has to play hardball with Russia and Syria on their diplomatic offer / ruse -- requiring nothing short of timely, complete and verifiable removal of all Syria's chemical weapons. In parallel Congress should draft and prepare to vote on a resolution authorizing limited military action if the diplomatic effort falls short. I will absolutely support a military strike if this is the case.

[QUOTE=Esten;435525]Jackson, why even bother posting such easily refutable statements? I can slice and dice this over and over and over it's so wrong. In one poll, 67% of the top one percent of American earners support higher income taxes on [i]themselves[/i]. There are other similar polls showing the wealthy support increasing their own taxes, and polls showing that many poor people (typically conservatives) do not support raising taxes on anybody. Your statement is complete nonsense.

Majority of Rich Want Themselves Taxed More: Poll
[URL]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/majority-rich-want-themselves-taxed-193437266.html[/URL]

BTW, the Constitution provides a process by which democratically elected representatives can approve and fund government services and programs that are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. That is why our system is called a Constitutional Democracy (a form of Representative Democracy).[/QUOTE]I can't find the survey questions or the referenced American Express / Harrison Group report on line. How was the question phrased? "If you have to choose between higher tax rates for all Americans or a bankrupt country because politicians don't have the stomach to stop spending money foolishly, which do you prefer?"

From your article:

"Granted, the one percent is not happy about paying higher taxes. The American Express / Harrison poll shows that 64 percent say they carry an 'unfair tax burden in the amount of money I pay in taxes.' Nearly three quarters of them are extremely or very concerned about their taxes going up."

That doesn't exactly square with what you wrote.

Both of these polls were taken in 2012 when Obama was playing the class warfare card hard, first because he thought it would help him get re-elected, and later near the end of the year when he wanted to stick it to the rich people and the successful small businesses. And he did, by raising their taxes. That's right, Obama and Democrats were responsible for raising taxes. Contrary to what you've written, Bush is not the one to blame for the tax increases associated with the Affordable Care Act, nor for other tax rates going up the first of 2013.

I guarantee most working people (that is excluding people who inherited money from their daddies) paying the 43.4% federal tax rate, plus as much as an additional 13.3% to their state of residence, will be even more aware of their "unfair tax burden" come April 15,2014. The percentage will be higher than the 64% in your poll.

But hey, somebody needs to pay to bomb Syria. Barack Obama and John McCain say it needs to happen and they should know.

[i]I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the [b][u]Republic[/u][/b] for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."[/i]

"In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy."

The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.

The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)
[url]http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/pvcright.htm[/url]

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable."

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, and we all know the Chicago mob really wants to rule.

[B]Colorado Lawmakers Ousted in Recall Vote Over Gun Law[/B]

COLORADO SPRINGS — Two Colorado Democrats who provided crucial support for a slate of tough new gun-control laws were voted out of office on Tuesday in a recall vote widely seen as a test of popular support for gun restrictions after mass shootings in a Colorado movie theater and a Connecticut elementary school.

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/us/colorado-lawmaker-concedes-defeat-in-recall-over-gun-law.html?pagewanted=all[/URL]

[QUOTE=Punter127;435528][i]I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the [b][u]Republic[/u][/b] for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."[/i]

"In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy."

The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.
[/QUOTE]Exactly. Because they believed that Democracy lead to mob rule, our Founding Fathers despised democracry. Yet our last few idiotic Presidents seem intent on bringing a government we don't have to places that don't want it.

All those decades spend combating the Communists in every corner of the world. But of course, it always was about America's economic interests. That's why, we should forget about Syria, we are not the Red Cross.

Yes, stupid me. So easily conned.

[QUOTE=Esten;435526]My take is Obama has to play hardball with Russia...[/QUOTE]ROTFLMAO!

When it comes to playing "hardball", Obama doesn't have the skill or the experience, and most importantly he doesn't have the balls.

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=Jackson;435533]ROTFLMAO!

When it comes to playing "hardball", Obama doesn't have the skill or the experience, and most importantly he doesn't have the balls.

Thanks,

Jax.[/QUOTE]Only difference, Putin does not have to answer to anybody in Russia, but Obama has to answer to you and every joker in town. Actually, like you, I am quite partial to dictatorships, as long I'm the dictator.

Bin Laden, Moammar Gaddafi, and a historic shift in Syria's position on chemical weapons under the credible threat of a military strike? Obama's already got the foreign policy credentials as a player to be taken seriously. Will Putin stall and play hardball too? Quite possible. Will Jackson be eating his words when Obama pushes the lever further on a military strike? Quite possible. One thing for sure, it's sad to see the Obama haters reduced to lame zingers.

Just because we don't have a direct, '51% wins' democracy in all cases doesn't mean we do not have a form of democracy. Some people are just desperate to play down the fact that citizens can and do influence what their government does. I wonder why?

Between mob paranoia and government paranoia, the right wingers have a sure-fire formula for staying paranoid all the time.

[QUOTE]Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
[/QUOTE]