American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439082]
Based on your yardstick do these two reports make the CBO anti-Obama ?

[/QUOTE]Not sure who "you folks" are an I am an independent thinking voter. You're a partisan so it's quite understandable that you would not understand or pretend not to understand. Unlike Fox, the CBO reports numbers that are favorable for and against Obama, that in itself makes them fair and balance. Unlike Fox they have no axe to grind and don't spend their time promoting any candidate or issues. If you think Fox is not anti Obama, good for you. I say that the data on this is crystal clear for all to see. This is the same network during the 2012 elections, despite the contrarian polling repeatedly told their viewers that Romney would win by a landslide resulting in a classic election night massive fail for the world to see.

Obviously I am not going to convince but you're certainly not going to convince me that Fox is not anti-Obama.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;439084]Not sure who "you folks" are an I am an independent thinking voter. You're a partisan so it's quite understandable that you would not understand or pretend not to understand. Unlike Fox, the CBO reports numbers that are favorable for and against Obama, that in itself makes them fair and balance. Unlike Fox they have no axe to grind and don't spend their time promoting any candidate or issues. If you think Fox is not anti Obama, good for you. I say that the data on this is crystal clear for all to see. This is the same network during the 2012 elections, despite the contrarian polling repeatedly told their viewers that Romney would win by a landslide resulting in a classic election night massive fail for the world to see.

Obviously I am not going to convince but you're certainly not going to convince me that Fox is not anti-Obama.[/QUOTE]It is neither your job nor mine to convince anyone Fox is or is not biased when it comes to Obama. The facts speak for themselves and as your stated yard stick is no favorable Obama posts that could hardly put you in the "independent thinker" category IMHO. As stated before, the major news organization, ABC CBS NBC, are over whelming in the bag for Obama. You should ask yourself if this is what new organizations are intended to be? It was my impression they were to inform the public in a fair and impartial manner not take political sides or disseminate political propaganda.

[URL]http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/14/fox-news-barack-obama-media-opinions-contributors-s-robert-lichter.html[/URL]

See the link and draw your own conclusions.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439085]It is neither your job nor mine to convince anyone Fox is or is not biased when it comes to Obama. The facts speak for themselves and as your stated yard stick is no favorable Obama posts that could hardly put you in the "independent thinker" category IMHO. As stated before, the major news organization, ABC CBS NBC, are over whelming in the bag for Obama. You should ask yourself if this is what new organizations are intended to be? It was my impression they were to inform the public in a fair and impartial manner not take political sides or disseminate political propaganda.

[URL]http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/14/fox-news-barack-obama-media-opinions-contributors-s-robert-lichter.html[/URL]

See the link and draw your own conclusions.[/QUOTE]The yard stick you're using is not mine but your own incorrect interpretation. Relax, go back and read the genesis on the discussion. I answered the question being repeatedly asked which was if Fox was strictly anti-Obama or not, that was it. You are just like the many other partisan talking head throwing every thing else in the pot that has no bearing on the question being asked. Even if everything else you're saying is true and I say it is not, it still would not result in Fox not being Anti-Obama. I have drawn my own conclusion and it is that Fox is Anti-Obama, this is undisputable by any objective standard. I now return you to regular programing.

Let me wrap up this latest exposition of Doppel's dishonesty and depravity. He started with lies about ACA grandfather provisions and US vs. Europe unemployment rates, in an effort to discredit Obama. He ran from his lies and he ended with more lies. Here is the Eurostat definition of unemployment, which he falsely claimed he posted. And below, the U3 definition used by BLS. As I posted before, the US and Europe use a standardized ILO definition. There is no part-time employment in either.

[QUOTE]
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_SDDS/en/une_esms.htm

Unemployed persons are all persons 15 to 74 years of age (16 to 74 years in ES, IT and the UK) who were not employed during the reference week, had actively sought work during the past four weeks and were ready to begin working immediately or within two weeks.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]
http://www.bls.gov/cps/faq.htm

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.
[/QUOTE]Thus the US vs. Europe unemployment comparisons in the media are valid apples to apples comparisons, and clearly show the US doing better than Europe. But Doppel can't stand to admit the US is doing better, so he posts lies like the European number is a U6-like number, or claims the media reporting such stories are "biased" in favor of Obama, even when Fox News itself reports these stories:

Unemployment falls sharply in US, rises in Europe
[URL]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/03/unemployment-falls-sharply-in-us-rises-in-europe/[/URL]

All readers can judge for themselves whether Doppel's posts reflect honesty and integrity. Someone asked: Who cares? I ask: Do we give false information a pass, or do we call it out? I will now ignore Doppel for awhile, again.

[QUOTE=Esten;439087] I ask: Do we give false information a pass, or do we call it out? I will now ignore Doppel for awhile, again.[/QUOTE]Posters on this forum are loath to give false information a "pass". You are the king of false information. If you cannot find false information to link to, you simply fabricate it. That is why every one of your posts elicits a response from many posters, not just Doppelganger.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Tres3;439089]Posters on this forum are loath to give false information a "pass". You are the king of false information. If you cannot find false information to link to, you simply fabricate it. That is why every one of your posts elicits a response from many posters, not just Doppelganger.[/QUOTE]Let's see if you can post a few examples of my false information. Otherwise you will join Doppel as another right wing liar, guilty of the very behavior you profess to condemn.

[QUOTE=Esten;439090]Let's see if you can post a few examples of my false information. Otherwise you will join Doppel as another right wing liar, guilty of the very behavior you profess to condemn.[/QUOTE]I would phrase it differently from Tres. The false information falls into the category of Clinton's statement "I did not have sex with that woman.".

The best examples I can think of are Warren Buffet taking a big hit if the Buffet rule were implemented, and blaming George Bush for tax increases that occurred on January 1, 2013. Maybe in some bizarre, legalistic sense you can make your case. But using common sense, these positions are ridiculous and represent false information. I still don't know whether you actually believe things like this. I'm coming around to Jackson's point of view. You probably don't believe everything you write, but instead are trying to make a case or confuse the issue, like a politician or a very aggressive trial lawyer. You're not necessarily fabricating information, but you are distorting it.

A well known conservative, Rupert Murdoch, controls Fox News. He is not a native of the United States, but became an American citizen so that he would be allowed to own American media properties. He is a billionaire, and Fox News puts him in a position to influence the political process, much more so than, say, than the Koch brothers. If a political candidate or party wants to run an advertisement on television, they have to identify it as such and pay megabucks for it. Sean Hannity on the other hand can do a hatchet job on someone and Murdoch will actually make money from the commercials.

So, my question, to those who hate Fox or believe big money is ruining the political process: Do you believe Murdoch should be forced to divest Fox News, and if not should the FCC remove its license to operate?

I'm curious why you're so obsessed with Fox and its programming, and whether you just want to complain about it, or whether you think something should actually be done.

It is all about free speech. They can say whatever they like. Even if it is Not True.

Same as the Politicians running for election or the ballot measures.

The ballots measures really piss me off. They Fraudulently say lies that will eventually make them money.

There should be some checks and balances.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439092]A well known conservative, Rupert Murdoch, controls Fox News. He is not a native of the United States, but became an American citizen so that he would be allowed to own American media properties. He is a billionaire, and Fox News puts him in a position to influence the political process, much more so than, say, than the Koch brothers. If a political candidate or party wants to run an advertisement on television, they have to identify it as such and pay megabucks for it. Sean Hannity on the other hand can do a hatchet job on someone and Murdoch will actually make money from the commercials.

So, my question, to those who hate Fox or believe big money is ruining the political process: Do you believe Murdoch should be forced to divest Fox News, and if not should the FCC remove its license to operate?

I'm curious why you're so obsessed with Fox and its programming, and whether you just want to complain about it, or whether you think something should actually be done.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;439093]It is all about free speech. They can say whatever they like. Even if it is Not True.

Same as the Politicians running for election or the ballot measures.

The ballots measures really piss me off. They Fraudulently say lies that will eventually make them money.

There should be some checks and balances.[/QUOTE]What do you mean by ballot measures and checks and balances?

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439092]A well known conservative, Rupert Murdoch, controls Fox News. He is not a native of the United States, but became an American citizen so that he would be allowed to own American media properties. He is a billionaire, and Fox News puts him in a position to influence the political process, much more so than, say, than the Koch brothers. If a political candidate or party wants to run an advertisement on television, they have to identify it as such and pay megabucks for it. Sean Hannity on the other hand can do a hatchet job on someone and Murdoch will actually make money from the commercials.

So, my question, to those who hate Fox or believe big money is ruining the political process: Do you believe Murdoch should be forced to divest Fox News, and if not should the FCC remove its license to operate?

I'm curious why you're so obsessed with Fox and its programming, and whether you just want to complain about it, or whether you think something should actually be done.[/QUOTE]Fox News is entertainment and positive reinforcement for brainwashed right wingers such as Jackson and his fascist fanboys; it is not serious journalism by an stretch of the imagination. That being said, it is a subscription cable television station so anybody that does not like it can simply change the channel (there is room in the cable lineup for everybody) . As far as Fox News influencing the political process, they hated on Obama and predicted his imminent demise 24/7 prior to the 2012 election; needless to say Obama slaughtered Romney. Although I haven't seen Fox News in a long time, I imagine they are bashing ObamaCare full stop 24/7/365; they can spin their tires all they want to the delight of Jackson and his fascist fanboys because the bottom line remains that ObamaCare is a smashing success and will NEVER be repealed.

Punter-.

That's a fine attempt at a history lesson and if you had paid attention in your 100 level comparative politics class you would know that beginning with FDR's New Deal and finalizing with Johnson's Great Society and Civil Rights programs the placement on the political spectrum of the two main "catch all" political parties in the USA switched places (both are right of center, currently the Republicans are slightly further right than the Democrats).

Every election time when they also have ballot measures to vote on, most times there is a measure that you know or think you know; because it is so confusing to understand, that they are lying about.

The Alaskan pipeline is one that comes to mind. They said the gas price would go down when it is built. It did not go down. The first thing they did was to sell the gas to Japan or was it China.

They lied to us to make money.

That was Fraud.

In time they did put a stop to that practice or so that is what they tell us.

Kind of like the same shit they are trying to sell us about the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Last year the United States produced more gas than they ever have in the past. The prices have not gone down.
Chevron is selling their regular gas in my area of California for $4.29.
They say they are switching from winter gas to summer gas. What a crock of shit that is.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439094]What do you mean by ballot measures and checks and balances?[/QUOTE]

Sounds like Rush is out.

[URL]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/18/1293043/-Rush-Limbaugh-Is-In-Ruins-Bad-News-Coming-From-Every-Direction-Including-The-Right?detail=email[/URL]

ESTEN DECLARES A BET.

ESTEN DECLARES ALL OPPOSING ARGUMENTS NULL AND VOID.

ESTEN DELCARES HIMSELF THE WINNER.

THE BET:

[QUOTE=Esten;438999]
#1. I claim that regulations issued to implement the ACA allowed insurance companies to continue selling certain policies that did not meet all ACA requirements (i.e. grandfathered plans). And that some policies were cancelled because insurance companies chose to (were not forced to) discontinue them. You have denied this. I'll wager $1000.
[/QUOTE]HERE WAS MY RESPONSE ON #1.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439001]#1 Total misinformation as always.

Is there a provision for "grandfathered" plans in the law, yes but it's not available to anyone due to the Obama Administration's rules governing who qualifies for grandfather status.

It's Obama not the insurance companies.

So I guess it's ok for you to assert there is a grandfathered clause in ObamaCare but due to Obama's regulations restricting whose plan can qualify for that status you would have to be a one horned, one eyed, flying purple people eater. Not many qualifying for that one.

Check out the link it explains it pretty well.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/

This from the guy who said "no one was forced to buy ObamaCare"![/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Esten;438999]
#2. I claim that the commonly cited European unemployment rates more closely resemble the US U3 (not U6 as you claim). I'll wager $1000.[/QUOTE]HERE IS MY RESPONSE ON #2.

As far as US U6 being closer to European unemployment figures, the short answer the Europeans do a better job of including some portions of those we count under U6 in their base calculation for unemployment, ie long term unemployed. Here is the link to Eurostat's methodology.

[URL]http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_SDDS/en/une_esms.htm[/URL]

I also noticed you quoted the International Labor Organization, would that be " the UN specialized agency which seeks the promotion of social justice and internationally recognized human and labor rights", by the way I took that little quote right off the web site!

Point of fact our BLS, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, as well as Statistical Office of the European Communities-Eurostat, all adjust international data on unemployed using a common conceptual basis in an attempt to "standardize "or "harmonize" the data. The US, Europe, and other countries don't use the same methodologies regarding what they include or disallow to calculate unemployment as you attempted to falsely infer. If everyone used the identical calculations methods and perimeters there would be no need for this standardization or harmonization now would there?

At the end of the day Esten you only deal in half-truths or outright deception.

Like Bill Clinton:

"I did not have sex with that woman" attempting to infer a blow job is not sex, good luck with that.

Or during his deposition:

"That depends on the what the definition of "is", is".

That's you Esten, the Artful Dodger.

Excellent article on why U6 not U3 should be used to gauge the economy.

[URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/10/16/why-jack-welch-has-a-point-about-unemployment-numbers/[/URL]

Excellent article on why U3 is off.

[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/unemployment-rate-wrong_n_3619152.html[/URL]

Before getting all worked up, on the right and left, please examine the numbers I present as reasonable approximations only, and give me credit for stating from the outset that these numbers are only reasonable approximations.

We have over 325 million people living in the USA. We do not know the exact number, but let us say the there are 75 million medicare and medicaid recipients. That leaves 250 million people who need health insurance not provided by the government. Approximately 50% of those people, or 125 million, are uninsured. The Administration says that over 7 million people signed up for health insurance through the exchanges. We will give them the benefit of the doubt and say that the final number will be 8 million, AND that all eight million have paid their premiums, AND that all 8 million are newly insured that did not have health insurance before ACA. The administration said PEOPLE, not HOUSEHOLDS signed up; however, I will give them further benefit of the doubt and say that they meant households. If the average household is a generous 6 persons, that means that 48 million people are now insured who previously were not.

That is less than half of the 125 million uninsured population of the USA. Even if the medicare and medicaid component is increased, we still do not have universal healthcare in the USA. I believe that everyone who feels ill should be able to see a doctor, but I also believe that ACA is not the answer. All parties should be ashamed.

Theodore Roosevelt tried for universal healthcare, and failed. Virtually every president who came after him also tried and failed because the special interests who run the USA did not want universal healthcare. They want special interest healthcare, and ACA gives them what they want. If the nation had not been distracted by the Viet Nam War, I seriously doubt that medicare would be the law of the land. My father was a medical doctor, and he said that "socialized medicine", aka medicare, doubled his income.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439096]Punter-.

That's a fine attempt at a history lesson and if you had paid attention in your 100 level comparative politics class you would know that beginning with FDR's New Deal and finalizing with Johnson's Great Society and Civil Rights programs the placement on the political spectrum of the two main "catch all" political parties in the USA switched places (both are right of center, currently the Republicans are slightly further right than the Democrats).[/QUOTE]I'm glad you enjoyed the history lesson, I struggled to get down to a level I felt you could comprehend, considering your leftwing (brainwashing) education.

"100 level comparative politics class" I must have taken that before progressive liberal professors started [STRIKE]teaching[/STRIKE] planting "new history" into wannabe elitist like you. But [I]“I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience”.[/I] LOL.

I can't believe you would even mention racist like FDR and LBJ. For those of you who studied "New History" rather the Real History and for the benefit of any lurking LIV, you should know FDR gave us Executive Order 9066 which created internment camps for Japanese Americans in 1942. A situation Ronald Reagan had to clean up in 1988 with the Civil Liberties Act.

LBJ was a war mongering Dixiecrat segregationist who embraced the civil rights issue only after he realized the value of the "Black Vote".

[QUOTE][i]“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”-LBJ[/i][/QUOTE]"The Party-switching myth is something we hear from Democrats, but nobody ever has a clear point or example in history for where it occurs. Ever since the birth of the Republican party in 1854, Republicans were strong supporters of abolition." Meanwhile, Democrats had KKK members in Congress, and many Democrats not only voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but also gave quite a lengthy filibuster. Republicans championed the Constitutional amendments ending slavery, giving African-Americans the right to vote, as well as securing that right. Civil Rights legislation as well as anti-lynching laws, and anti-poll taxes were pushed through by Republicans to ensure this, while Democrats fought them tooth and nail".

Prior to President Kennedy's civil rights speech of June 11,1963, (in which he asked for legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public,) he voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did many other Democrats. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King".

The New Deal? Japanese Americans probably refer to the "Raw Deal" and if you want to see some results of Johnson's Great Society just look no farther than Detroit City, a city in ruins which hasn't had a Republican mayor in 50 years.

Political parties switching places is myth, Democrats would have us believe they sprinkled on a little Holy Water and cleansed themselves of their racist history. Today Democrats use drug pusher tactics to addict people to government assistant. But there is nothing in the Republican Parties history or platform that puts them anywhere even remotely close to the racist level of the Democrat Party.

You can't just change your platform and erase your history.

I see seven rockets fired from the Gaza Strip just landed in southern Israel during the Jewish Passover holiday on Monday.

Perhaps you'd like tell us your opinion on Israel and the Jews now,...or maybe not?

I'm glad you enjoyed the history lesson, I struggled to get down to a level I felt you could comprehend, considering your leftwing (brainwashing) education.

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”-LBJ

(Sorry to cut and paste, couldn't get the Reply with Quote to work for some reason)

Punter, I read that quote and just had to Google it and find the source. Came upon this article:

http://w-dervish.blogspot.com.ar/2014/01/highly-dubious-lbj-quote-what-it-says.html

Here's some excerpts, you can read the whole thing yourself. ("My Commentary" refers to the author of the article)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

What follows is from hour 1 of the same Thom Hartmann broadcast quoted above, this time beginning at the 37:14 mark...

Caller: ...the woman who gave a quote from LBJ; saying that the Democratic Party was going to have, quote, the "niggers voting Democratic for the next 100 years...". ... That quote can be found all over the internet on Rightwing blogs, and it can be traced back to one book by a very Rightwing author, Ronald Kessler, and it's in a book called Inside the White House. And [thequote] has never been corroborated by anyone else. He is the only person who ever alleged that LBJ said that, that I can find.

TH: To say that trying to eliminate poverty in the United States, when the vast majority of people in poverty in the United States were [andare] White, was going to, somehow win the Democratic Party the Black vote for 200 years; that doesn't make any sense that LBJ would say such a thing... it's not how he spoke; it's not how he thought; and it certainly wasn't his motivation. But it has clearly brainwashed some young Conservatives. Thanks for sharing that with us.

My Commentary: Those brainwashed include some older Libertarians as well (as illustrated by the excerpt from Mr. LB's blog above, as well as this comment from the blog of Ayn Rand devotee Rational Nation). And Wikipedia notes that Mr. Kessler is also the author of a 2004 book titled "A Matter of Character" which is "an admiring look at George W. Bush's presidency". That is reason enough to strongly suspect that the LBJ quote is not accurate.
While I can not say for sure if Mr. Kessler is the only source for this quote, LBJ's prior actions while in the Senate very much contradict the idea that LBJ was a racist who signed Civil Rights legislation because it would help Democrats trick African Americans into voting Democratic. The following book quote via an article on the Media Matters website...

LBJ biographer Robert A. Caro: In the Summer of 1957....

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

So, did LBJ really say that? Well, nobody supplies a source other than this Kessler fellow. But I have to disagree with the author's contention that just because Kessler wrote an admiring look at the Bush presidency makes the quote suspect, and reading the Kessler bio on Wikipedia makes me question the contention he is very rightwing author like the caller suggests. So I don't know if LBJ truly said it, and I wouldn't feel I could present it as fact.

But I can easily believe what the caller says about it being all over the internet on right wing blogs. Probably the blogs where they love name calling and specialize in belittling people. Let me see if I can do that:

I'm glad you enjoyed the history lesson, I struggled to get down to a level I felt you could comprehend, considering your rightwing (brainwashing) education.

Pretty good, huh Punter?

I should mention there is a great LBJ quote which I not only believe to be true but I can give you a source:

Of the Latin American regional group, the Organization of American States, LBJ said on an occasion when he knew his words would be repeated, "It couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel." The OAS had been notoriously indecisive and ineffective, but one OAS diplomat remarked that it "made us think that your President does not consider us too important.".

Source: Tragedy of Lyndon Johnson, by Eric F. Goldman, p .382 , Mar 1, 1974.

[QUOTE=RockinBob;439114]I should mention there is a great LBJ quote which I not only believe to be true but I can give you a source:

Of the Latin American regional group, the Organization of American States, LBJ said on an occasion when he knew his words would be repeated, "It couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel." The OAS had been notoriously indecisive and ineffective, but one OAS diplomat remarked that it "made us think that your President does not consider us too important.".

Source: Tragedy of Lyndon Johnson, by Eric F. Goldman, p .382 , Mar 1, 1974.[/QUOTE]As usual LBJ didn't get it right.

It is " ...upside down on the heel...".

Don B.

[quote=RockinBob]So, did LBJ really say that? Well, nobody supplies a source other than this Kessler fellow. But I have to disagree with the author's contention that just because Kessler wrote an admiring look at the Bush presidency makes the quote suspect, and reading the Kessler bio on Wikipedia makes me question the contention he is very rightwing author like the caller suggests. So I don't know if LBJ truly said it, and I wouldn't feel I could present it as fact.[/quote] Bob the quote was supposedly made in 1957 when LBJ flipped on his Dixiecrat segregationist buddies. (I did try to add that to the post but the edit button only gave me a blank text box) The book author you speak of is the source and to my knowledge it has not been disproved. However the quote is only a small part of my post, so I assume you consider the rest of the post to be spot on. The readers can decide if the LBJ quote fits or not, if I could edit I would just take it out because it's really irrelevant and doesn't change the racist history of the Democrat party.
[quote=RockinBob]But I can easily believe what the caller says about it being all over the internet on right wing blogs. Probably the blogs where they love name calling and specialize in belittling people. Let me see if I can do that:

I'm glad you enjoyed the history lesson, I struggled to get down to a level I felt you could comprehend, considering your rightwing (brainwashing) education.

Pretty good, huh Punter?[/quote]Interesting that you want to single out one sentence and call me out for “name calling and belittling people”. Do you read the fucking forum? Where was you when the quotes below were made? Or maybe it's ok for a lefty to “name call and belittle people” in your book?

[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439096]Punter-.

That's a fine attempt at a history lesson and if you had paid attention in your 100 level comparative politics class you would know[snip] [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439095]Fox News is entertainment and positive reinforcement for brainwashed right wingers such as Jackson and his fascist fanboys; [snip][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439040] Jackson is so deeply infected by Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) [snip][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439029]Mongers-.

Jackson and his fascist fan boys (Doppel, Punter, etc) continue to sound increasing antiquated, out of touch, and downright delusional as a result of their chronic infection of Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS). They sound more and more like George Wallace during the dying days of segregation.[snip] Or is it far more likely that Jackson and his fascist fan boys, who are the of the same ilk of those who fought against liberating the slaves, woman suffrage, ending segregation / Jim Crow laws, ADA, etc. Are DEAD WRONG?

Also I am still waiting for Jackson to admit to his fascist fan boys that he is a hypocrite and a parasite [snip][/QUOTE]

The fact that you climbed up my ass while ignoring ElAlamoPalermo remarks cast a bit of a shadow on your integrity Bob, but I can't say that I'm surprised.

Rock on Bob.

[quote]Bob the quote was supposedly made in 1957 when LBJ flipped on his Dixiecrat segregationist buddies. (I did try to add that to the post but the edit button only gave me a blank text box) The book author you speak of is the source and to my knowledge it has not been disproved. However the quote is only a small part of my post, so I assume you consider the rest of the post to be spot on. The readers can decide if the LBJ quote fits or not, if I could edit I would just take it out because it's really irrelevant and doesn't change the racist history of the Democrat party.[/quote]First, I got to say I my attempt to edit my post gave me a blank text box as well, and now I still don't get anything when I click on reply with quote. Tried a different browser, same result! Jackson! What's up with that!

Second, just because I take issue with one part of your post does not mean I agree with all the rest of it. It is an assumption on your part, and not logically arrived at.

Third, "it's just a small part of my post." Please. Your honor, yes that's a lie but it's the only one in my entire testimony!

Fourth, you say the quote was "supposedly made" in 1957. OK, fine, so maybe it was more likely he said it, if he said it early on. But what does that prove? The point is, there is no record of him having said it, no transcript of a tape recording or speech, nothing. It would be nice to actually read Kessler's book to find out more about where he got the quote. And how he managed to get it all down word for word.

I don't care about the history of the demographic party. My point is this: you claim that liberals (whatever that means) are "brainwashed." People who are brainwashed are people who believe things that are unsubstantiated, who believe that since the same thing is repeated in many places by many people it must be true. And then they go and present their beliefs as though they were facts. Assumptions, suppositions, allegations, beliefs strongly held or otherwise, are not facts.

[quote]The fact that you climbed up my ass while ignoring ElAlamoPalermo remarks cast a bit of a shadow on your integrity Bob, but I can't say that I'm surprised.[/quote]No, the shadow is on your integrity. I don't care what ElAlamoPalermo says, he's not part of the current discussion. The point is that in one particular instance you accuse others of being brainwashed. I'm talking about you, one particular post.

I'm not climbing up your ass, I'm just throwing your own words back at you about brainwashing after I have given a specific example of how you exhibit the behavior of someone who is brainwashed. You repeat unsubstantiated quotes, you present them as facts to us and to yourself.

What would you like me to do? Tell ElAlamoPalermo that if he doesn't tone down his remarks I'm going to kick his scrawny liberal ass from Recoleta to Palermo and back again?

[QUOTE=Esten;439043]Hey Jax, when you get healthcare in Argentina, do you pay 100% of the costs?[/QUOTE]Yes. I have for years a policy with private hospital system here in Argentina. I pay my entire premium without benefiting from any line item subsidy. Of course Rock will argue that some of the hospital's employees rode to work on subsidized public transportation, or that some of the medical staff was educated at subsidized public universities, etc. etc., but I am not a net beneficiary of these "trickledown subsidies".

[QUOTE=Tres3;439016]The only way to make Esten leave is to ignore him. He relishes the anti-Esten posts, and thrives on stirring up the anti-Esten sentiment among the more conservative posters on this board. That is one of the reasons that he does not care about separating fact from fiction.

Tres3.[/QUOTE]Esten will not leave this forum until the DNC appoints his replacement.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;439100]Sounds like Rush is out.

[URL]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/18/1293043/-Rush-Limbaugh-Is-In-Ruins-Bad-News-Coming-From-Every-Direction-Including-The-Right?detail=email[/URL][/QUOTE]All that DailyKooks story does is document the Left's intolerance for any expression of opposing views, in this case by intimidating and attacking Rush Limbaugh's advertisers.

Thanks,

Jax

[B]Attacking the Messenger, Ignoring the Message, right Bob?[/B]

[QUOTE=Rockin Bob;439118]I'm not climbing up your ass, I'm just throwing your own words back at you about brainwashing after I have given a specific example of how you exhibit the behavior of someone who is brainwashed. You repeat unsubstantiated quotes, you present them as facts to us and to yourself.[/quote] First I believe there is only one quote in question here, the other quote you mentioned ([i]"niggers voting Democratic for the next 100 years..."[/i]) was not in my post. The words you were “throwing back” were a reply to ElAlamopalermo and were directed at him, they had nothing to do with you, and I'm sorry if it offended you, but if the shoe fits feel free to wear it.

Btw do you really think ElAlamopalermo needs you to fight his battles? Not on your best day my friend!

Would you have liked it better if I written the sentence this way;

[i] I'm glad [strike]you[/strike] ElAlamopalermo enjoyed the history lesson, I struggled to get down to a level I felt [strike]you[/strike] ElAlamopalermo could comprehend, considering [strike]your[/strike] ElAlamopalermo leftwing (brainwashing) education.[/i] How's that work for [strike]you[/strike] Rockin Bob? Pretty good, huh Bob?

[QUOTE=Rockin Bob;439118]I don't care about the history of the demographic party. My point is this: you claim that liberals (whatever that means) are "brainwashed." [snip][/quote]
Others do care about the history of the party, and I never said “liberals (all) are brainwashed”, I actually think liberalism is a sickness.

[QUOTE=Rockin Bob;439118]Fourth, you say the quote was "supposedly made" in 1957. OK, fine, so maybe it was more likely he said it, if he said it early on. But what does that prove?[snip][/quote]Are you admitting that “early on” LBJ was a racist? You know where the quote came from and if it's true it proves LBJ made racist remarks, and it suggest that he only changed his stance to get the black vote. Did he ever do anything for any other minority? I can't prove the quote is gospel and you can't prove it's wrong, but I can tell you this, on this forum and others people are accused of being racist both directly and implied just because they disagree with Obama's policies. Now I really don't have a problem with you questioning the quote and I don't have problem with you saying you don't believe it, but it looks to me like you are attacking the messenger, and ignoring the message. I guess if that's all you got you go with it, right Bob?

Oh btw the message I was trying to get across and that you are trying to move us away from is the fact that the Democrat Party has a racist history and the Republican Party does not. That's the bottom line.

[QUOTE=Rockin Bob;439118]What would you like me to do? Tell ElAlamopalermo that if he doesn't tone down his remarks I'm going to kick his scrawny liberal ass from Recoleta to Palermo and back again?[/quote] I would never suggest violence Bob and you'd have to grow a pair first anyway, hell in your case I wouldn't suggest you cross the street on a windy day unless you have a kite string tied to your ass.

However if you can drink enough courage to have a go at ElAlamopalermo let me know and I'll buy a ticket for that show. lol

What I really would like you to do is be fair and treat everybody the same, but I understand your fear of ElAlamopalermo. What you really should do now is man up and admit you went about this all wrong and apologize, but I don't think you got the stones for that either.

I stand by my post, and I'm pretty much finished arguing with you, so you can have the last word...knock yourself out, please!

Punter, I take back what I said about you being brainwashed. You'd have to grow a brain first.

You also need to get a grip on reality. Any normal person who knows me and ElAlamoPalermo knows that when I say I'm going to kick his ass, I'm making a joke, and a pretty funny one at that. You seem totally, completely unable to see the humor in that.

The definitive biography of Lyndon Johnson was a four (4) volume work written by Robert Caro. These books cover LBJ's life from the time he was a child until he became President. My take on this enigmatic man was that he was a consummate, self-centered, and opportunistic politician. Would he play the race card for political gain? Absolutely! Was he a racist? I do not think so. LBJ was from the South, and realized early in his career that racial rhetoric was good for his career, because many of his mentors and benefactors were genuine racists. Many of those same mentors and benefactors were also democrats.

Racism is a difficult definition. Most of my enemies are white, but because of cultural differences, I am not friends with many people whose color, religion, or political persuasion I do not like. Does that make me a racist? I do not think so, but there are those who would disagree. I am often politically incorrect and opinionated, but I still do not consider myself a racist. Again, there are those myopic individuals who would disagree.

Tres3.

Rockin Bob,

Really Bob, [NOPARSE] Reeeeally[/NOPARSE] you was joking, Oh my! Well rest assured I seldom take the words of a nitwit seriously.

But It's ok Bob don't worry, I still love you as much as I ever did. I look forward to seeing you again the next time I'm in BA, you always give me a chuckle and put a smile on my face.

Have a nice day Bob.

[QUOTE=Jackson;439119]Yes. I have for years a policy with private hospital system here in Argentina. I pay my entire premium without benefiting from any line item subsidy. Of course Rock will argue that some of the hospital's employees rode to work on subsidized public transportation, or that some of the medical staff was educated at subsidized public universities, etc. etc., but I am not a net beneficiary of these "trickledown subsidies".


Thanks,

Jax[/QUOTE]The "private" hospital that you use receives heavily (utility bills would be 400-500% higher without the subsidies) subsidized natural gas, electricity, and water. You are a direct beneficiary of those subsidies.

Punter-.

The first twenty african americans elected to the US Congress were all Republicans; between 1935 and 1991 (coinciding with the dates I set forth marking the flip flop of the two parties on the political spectrum) there was a grand total of ZERO Republican african americans elected to the US Congress whereas 45 (forty five) Democrat african americans were elected during that same time period. Overall, since 1935 a grand total of 6 (six) Republican african americans have been sent to congress whereas 109 Democrat african americans have been elected during said period. No matter what collection of misquotes, bullshit, and fox news anecdotes you throw out there as evidence, there is nothing more indicative of party's constituents than who they are sending to congress.

While I'm not a social conservative, this is interesting.

Single-Parent Familes: An Inequality Culprit:

[URL]http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303603904579493612156024266[/URL]

Quote:

Why isn't this matter at the center of policy discussions? There are at least three reasons. First, much of politics is less about what you are for than who you are against, as Jonathan Haidt, a New York University psychology professor, noted in his popular 2012 book "The Righteous Mind." And intellectual and cultural elites lean to the left. So, quite simply, very few professors or journalists, and fewer still who want foundation grants, want to be seen as siding with social conservatives, even if the evidence leads that way.

Second, family breakup has hit minority communities the hardest. So even bringing up the issue risks being charged with racism, a potential career-killer. The experience of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan is a cautionary tale: Moynihan, who had a doctorate in sociology, served in the Lyndon B. Johnson administration as an assistant secretary of labor and in 1965 published a paper titled "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action," warning about the long-term risk that single-parent households pose for black communities. He was attacked bitterly, and his academic reputation was tarnished for decades.

[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439131]The "private" hospital that you use receives heavily (utility bills would be 400-500% higher without the subsidies) subsidized natural gas, electricity, and water. You are a direct beneficiary of those subsidies.[/QUOTE]So now Jackson is a hypocrite because the private hospital that he pays through his insurance uses subsidized utilities? So what's the solution? How can he quit being a hypocrite? Go live in a cave and never come out?

[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439131]The "private" hospital that you use receives heavily (utility bills would be 400-500% higher without the subsidies) subsidized natural gas, electricity, and water. You are a direct beneficiary of those subsidies.[/QUOTE]Jackson you must be psychic, here is the very argument you predicted.

Does not matter how far down the food chain you are, your're still a moocher according to our liberal / progressive brethren.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439134]So now Jackson is a hypocrite because the private hospital that he pays through his insurance uses subsidized utilities? So what's the solution? How can he quit being a hypocrite? Go live in a cave and never come out?[/QUOTE]The solution is for Jackson to stop calling US citizens parasites for benefiting from subsidized healthcare. At the point he ceases to be a hypocrite.

[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439137]The solution is for Jackson to stop calling US citizens parasites for benefiting from subsidized healthcare. At the point he ceases to be a hypocrite.[/QUOTE][size=3][b]US citizens (and foreign nationals illegally in the USA) who accept Obamacare subsidies are parasites![/b][/size]

Damn that felt good.

Jax.

[QUOTE=Jackson;439138][size=3][b]US citizens (and foreign nationals illegally in the USA) who accept Obamacare subsidies are parasites![/b][/size]

Damn that felt good.

Jax.[/QUOTE]
Very interesting that Jax framed his answer in terms of specific "line item" subsidies, whereas I always suspected Rock was referring to broader subsidies that help lower the costs of healthcare delivery, thereby helping keep individual costs lower. Even more interesting, is that Jax declares calling other people parasites makes him feel good. One wonders if he ever bothers to understand the personal and financial situations of these people, to put a human face on it, or if he is too wrapped up in his ideology to bother, and so just paints everyone with a broad brush.

Hey Jax, do you think it's possible to be a producer and a parasite at the same time? If so, why do you think a producer would also choose to be a parasite?

BTW, the DNC will not be replacing me. Debbie considers me a strategic asset, and George will continue to fund my trips to help maintain my board cred.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439091]The best examples I can think of are Warren Buffet taking a big hit if the Buffet rule were implemented, and blaming George Bush for tax increases that occurred on January 1, 2013. Maybe in some bizarre, legalistic sense you can make your case. But using common sense, these positions are ridiculous and represent false information. I still don't know whether you actually believe things like this. I'm coming around to Jackson's point of view. You probably don't believe everything you write, but instead are trying to make a case or confuse the issue, like a politician or a very aggressive trial lawyer. You're not necessarily fabricating information, but you are distorting it.[/QUOTE]Tiny, your efforts to step in and help your collegues with their arguments would make Lassie proud. But if that's the best you got, I feel pretty good. These are very thin examples.

Buffett has previously disclosed his personal tax rate is typically somewhere near 15%. Doubling it to 30% would be an additional tax hit of 6-12 M on personal taxable income of 40-80 M (in the ball park of what he has reported before). Yes 6-12 M may not be significant to someone like Buffett, but generally speaking it's a big number, and likely a far bigger hit than your Koch heroes take by not getting an ethanol subsidy. I think [I]you[/I] distort the discussion by trying to talk about Berkshire's wealth and corporate taxes, rather than Buffett's personal income and individual taxes. I know you have a grudge against him because his proposal impacts him much less than someone making only a few million.

I don't think I "blamed" Bush for recent tax increases. In fact I give him and Congress some credit for putting in the sunset provision. But the fact is the sunset provision caused the tax cuts to expire. So if someone is looking to blame someone for those tax rate increases, it would be those who enacted a law with an expiration date. Obama and Congress are responsible for making some of those cuts permanent. BTW, you think I always agree with Obama, but I disagree with him on making most of the Bush Tax Cuts permanent. I think that was a really bad move. To keep his campaign promise (not to raise taxes on the middle class), he should have just extended them until the end of his second term. That should have been simple enough. Since raising taxes on the middle class is politically very difficult, future revenue generation will likely again be focused on high earners, though perhaps that was Obama's calculus.

[QUOTE=Jackson;439138]

Damn that felt good.

Jax.[/QUOTE]Your opinion on US Citizens is quite clear. However your opinion on resident aliens in Argentina is not clear; do you believe that resident aliens in Argentina who DO NOT pay personal asset taxes and DO NOT pay personal income tax in Argentina (even though both are legally required of resident aliens) yet benefit directly from heavily subsidized healthcare are parasites?

P.S.: This is a hypothetical situation and not intended to infer that any specific resident alien in Argentina does not pay legally required taxes.

[QUOTE=Esten;439142]BTW, the DNC will not be replacing me. Debbie considers me a strategic asset, and George will continue to fund my trips to help maintain my board cred.[/QUOTE]I knew it! At last, the truth comes out.

[QUOTE=Esten;439143]Tiny, your efforts to step in and help your collegues with their arguments would make Lassie proud. But if that's the best you got, I feel pretty good. These are very thin examples.

Buffett has previously disclosed his personal tax rate is typically somewhere near 15%. Doubling it to 30% would be an additional tax hit of 6-12 M on personal taxable income of 40-80 M (in the ball park of what he has reported before). Yes 6-12 M may not be significant to someone like Buffett, but generally speaking it's a big number, and likely a far bigger hit than your Koch heroes take by not getting an ethanol subsidy. [/QUOTE]Esten, Let's revisit what you wrote most recently about the Buffett rule:

[QUOTE=Esten;438998]Liberals like Buffett and Soros support the Buffett rule, where they would take a significant hit. Tell me when the Kochs start supporting the Buffett rule, and maybe then I'll give them some credit. In the meantime, their free-market "liberty" propaganda will only continue to deceive the LIV, and perpetuate trends in economic inequality.[/QUOTE]Yep, looks like we're coming up with different numbers. Since Buffett is worth about $60 billion, by your estimates he would pay .01% to .02% more of his net worth per annum in income tax if the Buffett Rule, which he has so selflessly promoted, were implemented. My estimate was .009%.

Significant hit? Are you nuts? .01% or .02% of his net worth?

It wouldn't surprise me if Koch Industries' benefit from the ethanol subsidy, which they believe should be eliminated, were one or two orders of magnitude greater than the $6 million Buffett might lose out on annually if his special tax were implemented.

[QUOTE=Esten;439143]I think [I]you[/I] distort the discussion by trying to talk about Berkshire's wealth and corporate taxes, rather than Buffett's personal income and individual taxes.[/QUOTE]

You've got that completely backwards. [b]You're distorting the discussion by focusing only on his personal income and individual taxes and saying he's taking a significant hit, which is ridiculous.[/b] Exactly how does mentioning Berkshire's corporate taxes distort anything? All I'm saying is that the guy is not a freeloader, because he does indirectly bear his share of billions in taxes via his ownership in Berkshire.

[QUOTE=Esten;439143]BTW, you think I always agree with Obama, but I disagree with him on making most of the Bush Tax Cuts permanent. I think that was a really bad move. To keep his campaign promise (not to raise taxes on the middle class), he should have just extended them until the end of his second term. That should have been simple enough. Since raising taxes on the middle class is politically very difficult, future revenue generation will likely again be focused on high earners, though perhaps that was Obama's calculus.[/QUOTE]While I disagree strongly with your belief that higher taxes and higher government spending are good things, it's interesting that you apparently believe what's politically expedient or politically beneficial to Obama and the Democrat Party should outweigh what's best for the country.

The simple answer is to enact a flat tax, then we could eliminate nearly all of the IRS. We ALL pay the same, no deductions. Abolish the inheritance tax and corporate tax. The removal of the corporate tax would immediately bring a flood of funds held off shore due to our current tax structure by corporations. Everybody pays.

For our liberal / progressive friends it is about "social justice", whatever that is.