American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;413902]Stan, don't be fooled by this flaming piece of shit, it doesn't reduce anything. In fact it raises both spending and taxes to historical high percentages of GDP. This thind is a red herring. It is no coincidence that it was delivered early, which just so happens to coincide with Obama being on the other side of the planet, bowing to yet another leader. When was the last time something being created in Washington was delivered ahead of schedule? [/QUOTE]I think you need to take a closer look:

The plan hasn't been delivered ahead of schedule. The commission hasn't even voted. This [i]draft[/i] Wasn't scheduled to be released. It is just a draft. As I made clear in my post, there's no reason to await the final plan. It either won't get approved or it will be so watered down as to be useless.

The draft plan calls for bringing spending to 21% of GDP, which is in line with historical norms, not a historical high percentage:

[i]Specifically, the plan calls for limiting growth in total federal health spending (Medicare, Medicaid, the health care law) to a rate of GDP-growth plus one percent. It also calls for bringing all spending down to 21 percent of GDP and capping revenue at that same level. Meanwhile Medicare costs are soaring and the government is about to add many billions in revenue and spending to its ledger when the health care law's main provisions take effect. That would mean, according to economists, that the law would either have to change significantly, or it would have to go. [/i]

[url]http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/deficit-reduction-plan-would-imperil-health-care-reform.php[/url]

As the last sentence in the above quote illustrates, the draft doesn't directly address ObamaCare. No one could rightly expect that it would. But, it indirectly affects it by capping spending, essentially gutting the measure. What better vehicle for ridding the country of ObamaCare than the draft plan proposed by Obama's own blue ribbon commission? It is a perfect vehicle for starters, and that's the point. Use this as the initial vehicle.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 413902]This is not by any stretch of the imagination a plan for deficit reduction rather it is the codification of the nanny state.

It is Obama that will seek to harvest from this POS things such as means testing social security, raising taxes and eliminating the mortgage interest deduction (you think we have a soft real estate market now? Just wait) and other gems.

Do not be fooled, this group and its findings are phony and do not do anything to reduce anything, especially government.

Right strategy, wrong bone to fight over. The new congress should take a machete to the Fed government and reduce real expenditures by 15% over the next 10 years and riff at least 200K federal employees.

It doesn't do any such thing (take 10% from federal unions, this is a 'head fake' and all I can say is don't buy it. We need to justify every last program and cut everything that isn't critical. [/QUOTE]Whether you like it or not, means testing for social security is coming. Anyone with enough money to get disqualified due to means testing should already have figured that out. It's the same thought process anyone should go through when thinking about contributing to a 401k. All the experts will tell you it's a good idea because you can defer your tax obligation. What they don't tell you is what the tax rate will be when you start to draw on those funds. Of course, they can't know that. But, commonsense tells you that effective tax rates have not gone down historically. There are up and down blips, but the trend is unmistakeable since the income tax was introduced. For that reason, a Roth makes sense. But, introducing that concept into retirement planning is an obvious prelude to means testing social security. Be prepared for it. It's coming.

As far as eliminating the mortgage interest deduction, I can live with that. I don't know if the draft includes particulars, but I highly doubt that the proposal is to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction entirely on day 1. More likely it would be phased in, which means it would only gradually affect the property market. The time to do that is now, not when we have another bubble. The point is to reduce the overall rate and strip out the special exemptions. I've got no problem with that. I guarantee you I pay more than most in interest and, thus, stand to lose more. In fact, I'm above the cap on a fictional $1 million mortgage, so I end up deducting the absolute maximum allowed. I have no problem giving that up if they roll back the highest rates and make more people participate in the tax system at [i]all[/i] Levels. That's the key. Right now, an average family of four making $50, 000 pays no taxes and actually gets more in fed tax dollars back. That has to stop. Once folks are forced to pay into the system, at any level, they will start to focus on what the government is doing with [i]their[/i] Money. As matters stand right now, a near majority are simply part of the dependency state. They pay nothing.

You say you "don't buy it" about reducing the federal workforce by 10% and, instead, that Congress should "riff" 200, 000 federal jobs immediately. Including the post office, the federal workforce is about 2. 6 million. A 10% cut, as proposed, is 260, 000 federal employees.

Finally, you say that this is a "head fake". It will be if they wait for the final plan from this commission. That either will never exist or will be meaningless. My point, as I indicated earlier, is that Republicans should take this jointly-prepared draft, work up their own plan within the confines of this draft, and then bring it forward. It won't be a "head fake" at that point. And, as long as they stay within the confines of the draft, the pedigree always can be traced to the commission Obama created by executive order. It's an utterly defensible position. This plan is based on [i]your[/i] Commission's draft. Sign it or explain why you won't to the American people.

I would suggest that you look at this plan more closely. There is pain for both sides of the aisle. Without that, it wouldn't be credible. But, all the weeping and gnashing of teeth going on over the particulars is coming from the left. The best proof that this is no head fake comes from the biggest economist idiot on the planet, Paul Krugman of the New York Times. He hates it. [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/opinion/12krugman.html[/url] Therefore, it has to be pretty good.

If Republicans are smart, they will take this draft and run with it. No way Obama can support it. The items you mention are [i]mere parts[/i] Of their recommendations (not including means testing) but that doesn't mean anything. He won't be able to use support for tax increases and deduction limitations as a fig leaf. He either gets behind the [i]whole package[/i], which Republicans have the opportunity to craft, or he is made to look the fool that he is. Either way, Republicans win.

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 413906]I think you need to take a closer look:

The plan hasn't been delivered ahead of schedule. The commission hasn't even voted. This [i]draft[/i] Wasn't scheduled to be released. It is just a draft. [/quote]Stan, this is Obama's panel. They held a public airing of their findings, while the president was in Indonesia. They wouldn't take a crap without the say so of BHO. This was a deliberate, advance publication of their findings timed to go public while the president was away so that he can try to claim that they are independent and not beholden to him.

[quote=] As I made clear in my post, there's no reason to await the final plan. [/quote]Agreed, there never will be one.

[quote=]It either won't get approved or it will be so watered down as to be useless.[/quote]The purpose is and always has been to create a boogie man, third party that says "we have to raise taxes, we have to secure entitlements, we have to reduce defense spending, and on and on" whereby Obama and Pelosi and Reid can ram it through congress on force it on the people. Wait a minute, with the election results, Pelosi is no longer a player. Hopefully, that makes this thing DOA.

[quote=]The draft plan calls for bringing spending to 21% of GDP, which is in line with historical norms, not a historical high percentage:[/quote]False. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP did not move permanently above 20% until the effects of Nixon's misguided social programs kicked in circa 1975.

[quote=][i]Specifically, the plan calls for limiting growth in total federal health spending (Medicare, Medicaid, the health care law) to a rate of GDP-growth plus one percent.[/quote]Therefore, growth in spending on these programs will always exceed the rate of growth in national production. If GDP grows 25% over 10 years, then federal spending on these programs grows 35. Isn't this the kind of math that got us into this problem in the first place?

[quote=] It also calls for bringing all spending down to 21 percent of GDP and capping revenue at that same level.[/quote]This and the prior citation regarding ever-expanding entitlements would mutually exclusive events. The only way you could delay the inevitable would be to eviscerate defense in order to fund social programs. Since that is the whole idea of this panel and the left in general, we shouldn't be surprised.

[quote=]Meanwhile Medicare costs are soaring and the government is about to add many billions in revenue and spending to its ledger when the health care law's main provisions take effect. That would mean, according to economists, that the law would either have to change significantly, or it would have to go. [/i][/quote]Me thinks Big Ears ain't going to sign the legislation that repeals his signature assault on the US.

[quote=][url]http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/deficit-reduction-plan-would-imperil-health-care-reform.php[/url]

As the last sentence in the above quote illustrates, the draft doesn't directly address ObamaCare. No one could rightly expect that it would. [/quote]That's ok. The voters addressed health care for the second time on election day. You remember the first time? When the population said "don't do it" to Pelosi and friends. Seems like the voters wanted to get their message across.

[quote=]But, it indirectly affects it by capping spending, essentially gutting the measure. What better vehicle for ridding the country of ObamaCare than the draft plan proposed by Obama's own blue ribbon commission? It is a perfect vehicle for starters, and that's the point. Use this as the initial vehicle.[/quote]I like the way you think on this one, give him a metaphorical Haitian necktie with his own tire.

[quote=]Whether you like it or not, means testing for social security is coming. Anyone with enough money to get disqualified due to means testing should already have figured that out. It's the same thought process anyone should go through when thinking about contributing to a 401k. All the experts will tell you it's a good idea because you can defer your tax obligation. What they don't tell you is what the tax rate will be when you start to draw on those funds. Of course, they can't know that. But, commonsense tells you that effective tax rates have not gone down historically. There are up and down blips, but the trend is unmistakeable since the income tax was introduced. For that reason, a Roth makes sense. But, introducing that concept into retirement planning is an obvious prelude to means testing social security. Be prepared for it. It's coming.[/quote]How about making qualified retirement distributions tax free?

[quote=]As far as eliminating the mortgage interest deduction, I can live with that. I don't know if the draft includes particulars, but I highly doubt that the proposal is to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction entirely on day 1. More likely it would be phased in, which means it would only gradually affect the property market.[/quote]I believe that the initial effort would be to disallow interest on more than $500K, which would further destroy the real estate market. The goal of the left of course would be to eliminate it completely.

Of course the only way to really make taxes 'fair' would be to eliminate all deductions and make it a flat tax for everyone.

[quote=]The time to do that is now, not when we have another bubble.[/quote]I'd have to disagree. Further raising taxes in the midst of one of the nations longest recessions and with the largest potential tax hike in history looming in the not-too-distant-future seems to be a poor idea, in my opinion.

[quote=]The point is to reduce the overall rate and strip out the special exemptions. I've got no problem with that. I guarantee you I pay more than most in interest and, thus, stand to lose more. In fact, I'm above the cap on a fictional $1 million mortgage, so I end up deducting the absolute maximum allowed. I have no problem giving that up if they roll back the highest rates and make more people participate in the tax system at [i]all[/i] Levels.[/quote]That'll be the day.

[quote=] That's the key. Right now, an average family of four making $50, 000 pays no taxes and actually gets more in fed tax dollars back. That has to stop. Once folks are forced to pay into the system, at any level, they will start to focus on what the government is doing with [i]their[/i] Money. As matters stand right now, a near majority are simply part of the dependency state. They pay nothing.[/quote]And how does the panel's report address that?

[quote=]You say you "don't buy it" about reducing the federal workforce by 10% and, instead, that Congress should "riff" 200, 000 federal jobs immediately. Including the post office, the federal workforce is about 2. 6 million. A 10% cut, as proposed, is 260, 000 federal employees.[/quote]I mean, do it tomorrow. A Washington plan to reduce Govt headcount by 260k means to reduce potential new hires by 260k, after inflating planned new hires by 260k.

[quote=]Finally, you say that this is a "head fake". It will be if they wait for the final plan from this commission. That either will never exist or will be meaningless.[/quote]"They" the new House of Reps has got its marching orders directly from the people. They should not in any way allow BHO or his minions to interpret that message for them.

[quote=]My point, as I indicated earlier, is that Republicans should take this jointly-prepared draft, work up their own plan within the confines of this draft, and then bring it forward. It won't be a "head fake" at that point. And, as long as they stay within the confines of the draft, the pedigree always can be traced to the commission Obama created by executive order. It's an utterly defensible position. This plan is based on [i]your[/i] Commission's draft. Sign it or explain why you won't to the American people.[/quote]I don't disagree with your logic. However, when you are entering into a contract with another party over something that is extremely valuable, do you let the other guy's attorney draw up the first draft? I don't. I never will.

[quote=]I would suggest that you look at this plan more closely. There is pain for both sides of the aisle. Without that, it wouldn't be credible. But, all the weeping and gnashing of teeth going on over the particulars is coming from the left.[/quote]The new House should not compromise on its principles. If you are willing to compromise your principles, what have you got left?

[quote=] The best proof that this is no head fake comes from the biggest economist idiot on the planet, Paul Krugman of the New York Times. He hates it. [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/opinion/12krugman.html[/url] Therefore, it has to be pretty good.[/quote]Again, I like how you think. However, when presented with two ponies, one nice clean pony and the other buried somewhere under a gigantic pile of shit, I chose the clean pony.

[quote=]If Republicans are smart, they will take this draft and run with it. No way Obama can support it. The items you mention are [i]mere parts[/i] Of their recommendations (not including means testing) but that doesn't mean anything. He won't be able to use support for tax increases and deduction limitations as a fig leaf. He either gets behind the [i]whole package[/i], which Republicans have the opportunity to craft, or he is made to look the fool that he is. Either way, Republicans win.[/QUOTE]They should cherry pick it to support their own reforms and throw it in his face at every opportunity. However, they should not engage on the draft or it progeny. They should start fresh and lay waste to...err... Waste.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 413831]Presented by Esten, the king of liberal spinmesters.

By my count, the score is now.

Wild Walleye: 468 points.

Esten: 1 point[/QUOTE]Dear Jackson,

No doubt wearing your moderator hat you felt my claim of "countless false statements" from Walleye was exaggerated.

In a [i]literal[/i] sense, as in the number of stars in the sky or grains of sand on the beach, the word countless here is incorrect.

However, in the sense of [i]so many times that one loses count[/i], it is accurate. And I can easily give you an idea of the scale involved.

Please see my post from Oct. 14 for two specific racist statements Walleye "quoted" of Obama and his wife. Those are false statements #1 and #2. Let's take the one for Obama: Walleye claimed that in his own words Obama said "The typical white person is a racist". I challenged him on Oct. 14 to provide credible evidence of that quoted statement but he ignored it. When I referenced it again on Nov. 7, he responded that he cited examples. That is false statement #3, what he cited were various examples of what he thought made Obama racist, but [i]were not examples/evidence of the quotes[/i] I challenged him on. Regarding the $200M / day cost for Obama's Asia Trip (false statement #4), Walleye calls the CNN story I posted an opinion piece, which is false statement #5. The CNN link has videotape of Pentagon and White House officials clearly refuting the claimed details and costs of Obama's Asia trip. It is therefore an expose, not an opinion piece. BTW, notice how despite the Pentagon saying the claims are comical, Walleye goes off speculating on the military details in defense of his position. Watch the CNN video and judge for yourself.

So what we have is Walleye defending original false statements by more false statements, denial and deflection. With just the above examples alone, one can see how his false statements multiply quickly. And how over the course of months one could easily lose count.

Let's go back to that quote again.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;413036]-his own words: "The typical white person is a racist"[/QUOTE]I'll be in town soon, and would gladly treat Jackson to an evening at Black including drinks and the chica of his choice. For this to happen though, the above quote must be proven as fact. It doesn't matter who provides the proof, all takers welcome. The only requirement is to provide a link with audio evidence of the above quote from Obama as stated, which is not some manufactured or out-of-context contrivance. Walleye has stood firmly by his statements, so surely the proof is out there for the finding.

Fifty years of public service are on the line. I truly believe I'm not being treated fairly," Rangel said."I am entitled to a lawyer during this hearing."

This is pathetic. Rangel has been in public service because he is completely incompetent to operate in the private sector.

He has done nothing while in 'public service' except pad his own pockets.

When are these politicians going to get it into their birdbrain minds that we despise them for being corrupt, incompetent and having the brains of a mushroom.

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 413943]Rangel said."I am entitled to a lawyer during this hearing."[/QUOTE]He is a complete simpleton and a criminal. He knows damn well that he is entitle to a lawyer and he has known that for two and a half years (at least) since this case began.

It was Rangel himself, and only himself, that decided to show up today without an attorney. I'd like to see the receipts for the $2 million he reportedly paid the attorney that left him.

But he should want this to go fast when you get this kind of reception from the prosecutor:

Chisam said "I see no evidence of corruption" by Rangel, but rather, that the congressman was "overzealous" and "sloppy in his personal finances."

If he doesn't get this resolved before the end of the lame duck session, he'll be a dead duck.

[QUOTE=Esten; 413910]Dear Jackson,

No doubt wearing your moderator hat you felt my claim of "countless false statements" from Walleye was exaggerated.

In a [i]literal[/i] Sense, as in the number of stars in the sky or grains of sand on the beach, the word countless here is incorrect.

However, in the sense of [i]so many times that one loses count[/i], it is accurate. And I can easily give you an idea of the scale involved.

Please see my post from Oct. 14 for two specific racist statements Walleye "quoted" of Obama and his wife. Those are false statements #1 and #2. Let's take the one for Obama: Walleye claimed that in his own words Obama said "The typical white person is a racist". I challenged him on Oct. 14 to provide credible evidence of that quoted statement but he ignored it. When I referenced it again on Nov. 7, he responded that he cited examples. That is false statement #3, what he cited were various examples of what he thought made Obama racist, but [i]were not examples / evidence of the quotes[/i] I challenged him on. [/quote]Up until you and your fellow Marxists complete your destruction of the Constitution and impose totalitarian rule, I am entitled to my opinions and the right to voice those opinions. Again, until you and your Peoples' Army succeed in oppressing me, I can have and express those opinions and I do not have to support why I have them. Ain't America great?

But in the interest of proving you wrong, for the # time (I lost count there have been so many, I shall continue. I clearly stated that I believe Obama and his wife are racists. I further supported those opinions by citing quotes from Obama's books and a paraphrase of his "typical white person" on radio interview (610am WIP. In addition to those, there is a myriad of statements made by Obama that I believe support my position including those he made about the "stupid" white cops who arrested Prof. Skippy Gates in Cambridge. Further, they attended Wright's church for how many years? Baptized both of their daughters? A church founded on vilification and hatred of whites and they never heard any of it? Wow. I don't believe them (again, still my right until you take over.

From Dreams of my Father, by Barrack Hussein Obama:

'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites'

'There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs, ' he wrote. 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names'

Commenting about one of his bosses:

'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white. '

Upon learning that some of his grandfather's people worked for whites:

'ugly words flashed across my mind, uncle tom, collaborator, House and—-'

'I found solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race'

As for Michelle, my opinion is based upon seeing many interviews of her and reading numerous articles.

[quote=] Regarding the $200M / day cost for Obama's Asia Trip (false statement #4), Walleye calls the CNN story I posted an opinion piece, which is false statement #5. The CNN link has videotape of Pentagon and White House officials clearly refuting the claimed details and costs of Obama's Asia trip. It is therefore an expose, not an opinion piece. BTW, notice how despite the Pentagon saying the claims are comical, Walleye goes off speculating on the military details in defense of his position. Watch the CNN video and judge for yourself.[/quote]I posted the original link to the source story. The fact that the Pentagon flak described the number as "comical" doesn't mean anything. They called the Vietnam War a 'Police Action. ' Wait a minute, why is Esten putting his full faith and trust in the US military. That seems odd.

[quote=]So what we have is Walleye defending original false statements by more false statements, denial and deflection. With just the above examples alone, one can see how his false statements multiply quickly. And how over the course of months one could easily lose count.[/quote]I can see why you'd lose count around three.

[quote=]I'll be in town soon, and would gladly treat Jackson to an evening at Black including drinks and the chica of his choice. For this to happen though, the above quote must be proven as fact. It doesn't matter who provides the proof, all takers welcome. The only requirement is to provide a link with audio evidence of the above quote from Obama as stated, which is not some manufactured or out-of-context contrivance. Walleye has stood firmly by his statements, so surely the proof is out there for the finding.[/QUOTE]Click here. Jax, I hope you enjoy it.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abPQ9kZe3ZA[/url]

Racism is like a latent virus awaiting for conditions when they will instinctly appear, often, hidden under confusing symptoms.

Yes, it is true that in a politically correct world, you will hear statements like,"I don't have a racist bone in my body" or "I have many black / white friends', in challenging economic times like right now, the racism virus is very active, albeit, sometimes without even the individual being aware of it. A clear example is in Europe, where there has been racist chants against black soccer players in many countries. The Inter star, Eto'o recently had to endured it in Italy. I have to believe that it is because of the heavy influx of black players in the European leagues rather than the 1 or 2 stars that participated in the past.

In the US, we have made great headway in regard to equality, the reaction has created even some overcompensation.

Somebody (not me) said, When Obama became president, the trouble began. Well, you must look through your own prism. For sure, I know I have some prejudices and biases. When we are rich and prosperous, and can afford to be generous, we are often magnanimous. A perfect example would be the illegal immigration issue, a non issue until the manufacturing jobs went overseas. I have often wonder why did the American factories went to China rather than Mexico. We could have kill quite a few birds with 1 stone.

I hesistate to write this, but feel that some self examination is in order in this challenging climate.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 413956]A perfect example would be the illegal immigration issue, a non issue until the manufacturing jobs went overseas. I have often wonder why did the American factories went to China rather than Mexico. We could have kill quite a few birds with 1 stone.

I hesistate to write this, but feel that some self examination is in order in this challenging climate. [/QUOTE]Talk to the garment manufacturers who began shipping their work to Mexico 20 years ago. There are many companies who have moved manufacturing to Mexico. When you start to understand the problems they have had, then you will understand why other manufacturing went to China.

There are many who want to see racism in every nook and cranny. Even when it's not there, they claim it exists and that people don't even know they are being racist. In my opinion, it is this sentiment that is the most destructive. It breeds far more mistrust than actual racism. The notion that manufacturing went somewhere for any reason other than pure economics is a great example of this. The only color large corporations see is green when thinking about making a big investment such as where to manufacture.

I know it when I see it.

To be clear, Esten was not calling me a racist, he was chiding me to support my opinion that the Obamas are racists. I don't think that blackshirt was either, I believe he was commenting on the politics of race. A subject I find intriguing and revolting at the same time.

In my opinion, the Obamas are the pots calling the kettles black, if you will. While they and their supporters use the race card every time someone disagrees with them, I do not believe that race and / or racism plays much of a role in the average day of most Americans. That isn't to say that there is no racism in America but, there is a lot less than the Left would have you believe. In fact, if the Left didn't fan the flames in every election cycle, I believe that race would be a non-factor in the day-to-day lives of most all Americans. The liberal left is obsessed with race for many reasons including their own 'white guilt' and other intangible aspects of the liberal mind set. Because the 'black vote' has been a mainstay of their base for nearly 80 years they can't afford to lose the black vote or they will never hold national office. Keep in mind that the voting rights act of '65 and all most all other significant race-based human rights advances in the US came from Republicans in Congress and the White House.

You wouldn't be surprised if I told you the blacks tended to vote for republicans, following the Civil War. Hard to see why a black voter would go Democrat during that period, especially since it was made very clear that blacks were not welcome in the democrat party. In fact, it wasn't until 1924 that blacks could even attend a Democrat convention. Soon thereafter, FDR collected around 70% of the black vote in '32 and again in '36. However, when Truman garnered 77% of the black vote in 1948, the shift became permanent (at least up to present time)

Black voter participation, as a percentage of all voters tends to be approximately proportionate to the percentage of Americans who are black. 11. 6% and 13. 28, respectively for 2000. In 2000, that means that almost 13 million black Americans voted. Without the bounds of race and one would expect that the ideological (liberal, conservative, moderate) breakdown of that subset of voters would be consistent with the breakdown of all voters. For 2000, voters identified themselves as 19% liberal. 38% conservative and 40% moderate. Therefore, if there was no race, one could surmise that the 13 million 'black vote' would translate into a net gain of roughly 2. 7 million republican votes (assuming that the moderates split 50/50) . If you will, consider presidential elections from Clinton v. Bush to BHO v. McLame and the contemporaneous Congressional battles. Now look at those races assuming that there was no racial difference among American voters (everybody is pink polka dotted) and what do you think that the resulting composition of the national political body would be?

Would we have had an internet boom and bust? Probably. Would we have had the Fannie / Freddie / Bernie / Chrissie (Dodd) induced real estate bubble and the global economic meltdown that it instigated? Probably not. That is not to say that there may not have been an asset bubble (real estate bubble in the late 80's, for example) but, there would not have been a subprime crisis. Neither the race of the populace nor the race of any member of the populace is to blame; it is to say that the politics of race as practiced by American politicians (primarily from the Left) is responsible. Race is front and center on the American stage because Race, based on the politics of race, is a multi-billion dollar industry that feeds the parasitic, human-remoras that dine on the flesh tossed aside by their politico benefactors and is the source of approximately 8. 2 million democrat votes in every presidential cycle, regardless of the candidate.

I'm just calling a spade a spade.

Footnote: before you get your panties in a wad, the phrase was coined in 178BC and first translated into English around 1542 and refers to a type of shovel.

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 413965]Talk to the garment manufacturers who began shipping their work to Mexico 20 years ago. There are many companies who have moved manufacturing to Mexico. When you start to understand the problems they have had, then you will understand why other manufacturing went to China.

There are many who want to see racism in every nook and cranny. Even when it's not there, they claim it exists and that people don't even know they are being racist. In my opinion, it is this sentiment that is the most destructive. It breeds far more mistrust than actual racism. The notion that manufacturing went somewhere for any reason other than pure economics is a great example of this. The only color large corporations see is green when thinking about making a big investment such as where to manufacture. [/QUOTE]Yes, racism has been and continiues to be used as a tool to further agendas, and most Americans have been scarred by the blatant use of the racism card in the politcal arena.

Yes, I was being a little misleading about the factories in Mexico / China. My point is that in harsh economic times, racism will rear its ugly head. A good example will be the riosts in Indonesia following the financial crisis and subsequent devaluation in 1997 when mobs took to the streets looking to kill / maim / rape the ethnic Chinese minority (often referred to as the Jews of Asia.

You will never find a soul who will admit to being a racist. Here, I am talking more about sutle rather than blatant racism. Sometimes, it can be just prejudice. That is why so many people get caught making some off-hand remarks without even realizing what they said. And they don't necessary have to be bad people. Just ask Jimmy the Greek. We can always claim to be color blind until your / mine daughter decides she is going to marry? Then, all hell break loose.

Just ask any Survivor. The economic repercussions of the great depression were innumerable and in many ways undefinable for the average person. Hitler seized on this by focusing discontent on a specific enemy, the Jew.

As far as manufacturing goes, in free markets, it is largely a function of marginal productivity.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 413969]Yes, racism has been and continiues to be used as a tool to further agendas, and most Americans have been scarred by the blatant use of the racism card in the politcal arena.

Yes, I was being a little misleading about the factories in Mexico / China. My point is that in harsh economic times, racism will rear its ugly head. A good example will be the riosts in Indonesia following the financial crisis and subsequent devaluation in 1997 when mobs took to the streets looking to kill / maim / rape the ethnic Chinese minority (often referred to as the Jews of Asia.

You will never find a soul who will admit to being a racist. Here, I am talking more about sutle rather than blatant racism. Sometimes, it can be just prejudice. That is why so many people get caught making some off-hand remarks without even realizing what they said. And they don't necessary have to be bad people. Just ask Jimmy the Greek. We can always claim to be color blind until your / mine daughter decides she is going to marry? Then, all hell break loose. [/QUOTE]

The whole Rangel hearing was a coordinated theatrical production. If you ask me, Lofgren and the rest of the Dems were all in on it. The fix was in from the start. The worst thing for the Dems would be having Charlie trying to defend himself and seeing his gaffes over and over on cable news. Therefore, I believe that they came up with the "I don't got no lawyer" scenario whereby they all get what they want. If Charlie doesn't testify, the committee promises to only consider censure or reprimand. Charlie can keep whining to the press that it was a travesty of justice and that he was denied due process (I think two and a half years is probably adequate notice to line up an attorney. Lofgren and the Dems on the committee can preen about throwing the book at Charlie (convicted on 11 out of 13 counts) and the Dems as a whole are spared the spectacle of Charlie lying some more on video. The fact that he will only get reprimand or censure is offensive. If joe-q-public did what he did, there would be jail time in the sentence.

Next up, Maxi-pad. She should do the same no-show. Great job draining the swamp Nancy. Looks like the voters will have to keep on doing it for you. 2012 might make 2010 look like a good year for the Dems. Two years is a lifetime in politics so it's too early to say, but if the Dems keep going the way that they are, bye bye Senate, bye bye WH.

Jay Rockerfeller wants to shut down MSNBC and Fox news. What a great idea. We get rid of the one news outlet that has a conservative point of view (Fox News) and we get rid of one of the of hundreds of news outlets that are hard core lefties / loonies (MSNBC). What would we be left with? Hundreds of news outlets that are hardcore lefties / loonies.

I think we have found Nestor Kirshner's twin in Jay Rockerfeller.

House Dems Reject GOP Proposal to Defund NPR.

House Democrats on Thursday rejected a GOP proposal to cut federal funding to National Public Radio, which has been under fire ever since it sacked Juan Williams last month.

NPR praised the outcome, saying "good judgment prevailed as Congress rejected a move to assert government control over the content of news."

"I think this can be resolved", says Nancy Pelosi. "since NPR is about as non political as Rush Limbaugh we should give equal public funding to Rush."

Looks like Jackson's all-paid evening at Black is not to be. Though I don't think anyone is surprised.

Walleye posted the link to the radio interview with Obama, which I previously knew as the source of the quote in question. As one can listen for themselves, the actual quote is not to be found in the interview.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;413951]I further supported those opinions by citing quotes from Obama's books and a paraphrase of his "typical white person" on radio interview (610am WIP. [/QUOTE]Now it's a paraphrase. As in, not something Obama actually said. It's really IMO more of a distortion than a paraphrase.

But remember, Walleye had presented this as an actual quote of Obama in his own words.

Now it's proven to be untrue.