No surprise that Harris poll finds Republicans believe GOP smears of Obama
A Harris poll released on March 24 found that a majority of Republican respondents believe that President Obama "is a socialist," "wants to take away Americans' right to own guns," "is a Muslim," "wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government," and "has done many things that are unconstitutional." The findings follow a year of such smears and attacks on Obama by conservatives.
Republicans have bought into right-wing smears of Obama
According to the Harris poll, conducted of 2,320 adults between March 1 and March 8, a majority of Republicans believe Obama is a socialist (67 percent), wants to take away Americans' right to own guns (61 percent), is Muslim (57 percent), wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one-world government (51 percent), and that he has done many things that are unconstitutional (51 percent). Large minorities also believe Obama was not born in the United States and is therefore ineligible for the presidency (45 percent), is a racist (42 percent), and is doing many things Adolf Hitler did (38 percent).
In the past two years, conservatives in the media have advanced many of these false claims, including that Obama is in fact a Muslim and not a Christian, wants to take away Americans' guns, and was not born in the United States. They have also advanced numerous smears that Obama is a socialist, a racist, and has policies and beliefs similar to Hitler's.
Right-wing rhetoric: Obama is a socialist
Limbaugh: "The facts are facts. The president is a socialist." On the March 24 broadcast of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh addressed the Harris poll, which he noted was flawed, saying: "'Antichrist' and 'Muslim' -- I don't know where they're getting that, because that's not a part of the program. I haven't really made that one of our topics here. ... Now, as far as this Hitler business, one of the first things that the National Socialist Party did was try to nationalize health care." He concluded, "I mean, the facts are facts. The president is a socialist. The number ought to be much higher than 67 percent." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/24/10]
Limbaugh: "We are fighting a fascist, social -- whatever you call it -- takeover and remaking of the United States." In September 2009, Limbaugh said: "The Republican Party's got problems -- do not misunderstand me -- but nothing posed by the Republican Party is a threatening as what Obama is doing," adding that "[w]e are fighting a fascist, social -- whatever you call it -- takeover and remaking of the United States." He then suggested that Obama wants "to tear up the Constitution and rewrite it," "take over the mortgage business," "put the federal government in charge of every dollar the American people have access to." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 9/17/09]
Morris: Obama is "going to adopt the entire socialist program by essentially circumventing the Constitution." On March 19, talking about President Obama's policies, Fox News contributor Dick Morris, who has repeatedly referred to Obama as a "socialist," stated: "I think he'll pass amnesty for illegal immigrants with it [reconciliation]; he'll pass cap and trade; he'll pass financial regulation; he'll pass the public option -- between the House doing the 'deem to have passed' and the Senate doing reconciliation, he's got his own little Constitution going here." He later added that Obama "is going to adopt the entire socialist program by essentially circumventing the Constitution." [Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor; 3/19/10]
Beck: Obama "is so clearly" a socialist. Talking about an interview Obama had with The New York Times, during which Obama was asked, "Are you a socialist as some people have suggested?" Fox News host Neil Cavuto said Beck "started" the trend of questioning whether Obama is a socialist because Beck was "calling him socialist on your show." Beck replied that Obama "is so clearly" a socialist, adding that "he has surrounded himself with Marxists his whole life" and that "this is who he is." [Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, 3/9/09]
Hannity: Obama admin is pushing "the single biggest power grab and move towards socialism in the history of the country." On his Fox News show, Sean Hannity stated: "In the last two days, we know this administration has pushed the idea of the single biggest power grab and move towards socialism in the history of the country." The Wall Street Journal's Stephen Hayes and former Fox Business executive Alexis Glick both agreed, with Hayes saying, "That's right" and Glick replying, "Yeah." [Fox News' Hannity, 3/24/09]
Dobbs: "[S]ocialism has arrived in the first three months of this year." Citing an "amazing stat," which he said demonstrated that "when we talk about socialism, we're not just a-woofing, as the saying goes," Lou Dobbs said on his radio show, "For the first time in the history of the United States, the federal government has supplanted sales, property, and income taxes at the state level as the biggest source of money for state and local governments." He later added: "[S]o socialism has arrived in the first three months of this year, folks, and it is -- well, it is what it is, and it's not going to change, I'm afraid, for a little while." [United Stations Radio Networks' The Lou Dobbs Show, 5/5/09]
Right-wing rhetoric: Obama wants to take away Americans' right to own guns
Beck: Obama "will slowly but surely take away your gun or take away your ability to shoot a gun, carry a gun." On his radio show, Beck stated that Obama "will slowly but surely take away your gun or take away your ability to shoot a gun, carry a gun. He will make them more expensive; he'll tax them out of existence. He will because he has said he would. He will tax your gun or take your gun away one way or another." Since Obama's election, several conservative media figures have similarly warned that Obama would seize their guns or have suggested that a government effort to ban guns is likely. [The Glenn Beck Program, 4/7/09]
Liddy advised listeners: "[N]o matter what law they pass, do not -- repeat, not -- ever register any of your firearms." Talking to a caller about assault weapons, Liddy repeatedly advised people not to register their firearms, saying that "the main thing is, you know, get them into private hands as quickly as possible. ... The first thing you do is, no matter what law they pass, do not -- repeat, not -- ever register any of your firearms. Because that's where they get the list of where to go first to confiscate. So, you don't ever register a firearm, anywhere." [The G. Gordon Liddy Show, 11/13/08]
Right-wing rhetoric: Obama is a Muslim
Savage: Obama is "an unknown stealth candidate" who "in fact, was a Muslim." Michael Savage falsely asserted that Obama was a Muslim and attended a madrassa, saying: "Look who we inherited in this country, from Dwight D. Eisenhower to Barack Hussein Obama, in one generation. A war hero to -- a war hero who commanded the Allied operations against Nazi Germany was running for the presidency then. Now we have an unknown stealth candidate who went to a madrassas in Indonesia and, in fact, was a Muslim." [Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation, 4/3/08]
KSFO's Rodgers: Obama "admits in one of his own books" that he would "stand with the Muslims" against "the Western world." Recalling a false allegation in a chain email, Lee Rodgers falsely claimed Obama "admits in one of his own books" that "in case of a confrontation between the Western world and the Islamic world, he will stand with the Muslims." In fact, what Obama wrote in his 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope, according to FactCheck.org, "is that he would stand with American immigrants from Pakistan or Arab countries should they be faced with something like the forced detention of Japanese-American families in World War II." [KSFO's The Lee Rodgers Show, 10/22/08]
Conservative radio hosts seize on Obama comment to revive false rumors about his faith. During the 2008 campaign, numerous conservative talk-radio hosts selectively highlighted Obama's assertion, which he immediately clarified, that "John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith" to revive rumors that he is a Muslim, not a Christian. For example, Chris Baker claimed that Obama's comment was "obviously a Freudian slip" and stated, "He confessed. It's over." Savage described Obama as a "Muslim stealth candidate" and stated: "I have nothing against moderate Muslims. ... The question is, why is he covering up his Muslim faith?"
Right-wing rhetoric: Obama wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one-world government
Hannity promises to "expose" Obama's "campaign" to "forfeit our national sovereignty" in new book. According to a description of Hannity's book, Conservative Victory, posted on Hannity.com, "Hannity surveys all the major Obama players -- from the president's affiliation with radical theology to his advisers' history of Marxist activism, repression of the media, support for leftist dictators, and worse," and "exposes their resulting campaign to dismantle the American free-market system and forfeit our national sovereignty" to "show how conservatives can unite behind this country's most cherished principles and act now to get America back on the right track."
Morris: "Those crazies in Montana who say, 'We're going to kill ATF agents because the UN's going to take over' -- well, they're beginning to have a case." In March 2009, Morris called Obama an "internationalist," who "really regards the United States as George Bush once said and John Bolton recently quoted to me, as one of those countries between Albania and Zanzibar in the UN and not particularly fighting for American interests, but looking for global coordination." Morris went on to say that the "impetus for Obama's policies essentially are European social democrats that want international policies so that they can implement their socialism without driving out capital, and this G-20 meeting might be the time that they really begin to do it." He concluded: "Those crazies in Montana who say, "We're going to kill ATF agents because the UN's going to take over' -- well, they're beginning to have a case." [Your World with Neil Cavuto, 3/31/09]
Morris: "The Declaration of Independence has been repealed." In an April 2009 column headlined, "The Declaration of Independence has been repealed," discussing Obama's signing of a new G-20 communiqué establishing a new Financial Stability Board, Morris claimed, "On April 2, 2009, the work of July 4, 1776 was nullified at the meeting of the G-20 in London." On the April 3 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Morris asserted that "it effectively ceded massive areas of American sovereignty to Europe and to the global economic mavens" and that "this literally is a massive surrender of sovereignty to an essentially European body." Other conservative media figures have also asserted or suggested that U.S. sovereignty may give way to a one-world government.
Monica Crowley: Communiqué is "first step to abrogating American sovereignty." In April 2009, radio host Monica Crowley claimed the G-20 communiqué Obama had signed is the "the first step to abrogating American sovereignty here, because ... it is going to allow European bureaucrats to step in, not just on the hedge fund regulation and the other explicit things that they agreed to, but buried deep down in this communiqué was the ability for European bureaucrats sitting in Brussels to decide what kind of executive compensation American executives should" receive.
Right-wing rhetoric: Obama has done many things that are unconstitutional
Beck asks if it "may have been the plan from the beginning" to pass "unconstitutional reform." On his Fox News show, Beck claimed that health care "doesn't sound like it would work constitutionally," (a claim he has made repeatedly) but that it "may have been the plan from the beginning" to get the "institutional infrastructure" set up to create a public option. [Glenn Beck, 12/17/09]
Morris: Obama has put the regulation of the American financial sector under international control." In a video promotion for his book, Catastrophe, Morris stated that "through the G20 summit process and then the elaboration and expansion of regulation of financial institutions" Obama "has put the regulation of the American financial sector under international control" and that as a result, the "Declaration of Independence has been repealed." Morris added that the "loss of sovereignty" lies "at the core of Barack Obama's agenda."
Beck declares the American Community Survey unconstitutional. On his Fox News show, Beck asserted that the supplement to the Census called the American Community Survey "is unconstitutional," adding "I don't need to tell you all of this." [Glenn Beck, 5/22/09]
Right-wing rhetoric: Obama was not born in the United States
Michael Savage: Obama's certificate of live birth is a "forgery." In October 2008, Savage declared that Obama's birth certificate "does not exist, they can't find it in the Hawaii government. It's never been produced. The one that was produced is a forgery." He later claimed that that "Mr. [Jerome] Corsi went over to Kenya to investigate his relatives in Kenya, and he was arrested by the Muslim leader of Kenya because Mr. Corsi uncovered the true birthplace, I believe, of Hussein Obama." [Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation, 10/8/08]
Jerome Corsi: The argument that Obama was born in Kenya has "some credibility to it." During a September 2008 broadcast of The G. Gordon Liddy Show, Jerome Corsi claimed that the argument that "Obama's father and mother went back to Kenya before Obama was born, and evidently the pregnancy was so advanced that Ann Dunham was not allowed to return to the United States, and Obama was born in Kenya" seemed "to have some credibility to it, because the Obama campaign refuses to release the original birth certificate." [The G. Gordon Liddy Show, 9/17/08]
Right-wing rhetoric: Obama is a racist
Beck: Obama is a "racist" who has "a deep-seated hatred for white people." Discussing Obama's response to the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Beck asserted that Obama has "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture." After being reminded that Obama has numerous white staffers, Beck contradicted himself, stating, "I'm not saying that he doesn't like white people. I'm saying he has a problem." He concluded: "This guy is, I believe, a racist." [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 7/28/09]
Limbaugh: Obama is "the greatest example of a reverse racist." Talking about the nomination process of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Limbaugh said: "Here you have a racist. You might want to soften that and say, a reverse racist. And the libs of course say that minorities cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power -- Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and, now, he's appointed one." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 5/26/09]
Limbaugh: "I do believe" Obama is an "angry black guy." Talking about reactions to his comment that Obama is "one angry guy," Limbaugh said: "They're finally hearing me -- he's an angry black guy. I do believe that about the president. I do believe he's angry. I think his wife is angry. All liberals are enraged all the time anyway. They're always mad." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 7/27/09]
American Thinker: "Obama's racism against whites is upfront, in-your-face racism." In a November 2009 post on the American Thinker blog, contributor Kevin Jackson wrote that "Obama is the best kind of racist to whites, but the worst kind of racist to blacks," adding that "Obama's racism against whites is upfront, in-your-face racism." Jackson concluded: "Is Obama a racist? Of course he is! ... [H]e is both the best and worst kind of racist." [American Thinker, 11/23/09]
Cunningham: "Barack Hussein Obama -- that's the racist, obviously." Discussing Rev. Jeremiah Wright with a caller on his radio show, Bill Cunningham replied to the caller's question, "Who's the real racist here?" by saying, "Well, it's Barack Hussein Obama -- that's the racist, obviously. He used race to get elected, and now he's using charges of racism against those who oppose him, very obviously." [Premiere Radio Networks' Live on Sunday Night, It's Bill Cunningham, 8/24/09]
Right-wing rhetoric: Obama is doing many of the things that Hitler did
Limbaugh: "Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate." On his radio show, Limbaugh asserted that "Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate." Limbaugh has also repeatedly "compared Obama's health care policies to the Nazis' " [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 8/6/09]
Beck: "This is what Hitler did with the SS." Discussing Obama's call for a "civilian national security force" -- which was a reference to expanding the foreign service, AmeriCorps, and the Peace Corps -- Beck said: "I'm finding this -- this is the hardest part to connect to. Because this is -- I mean, look, you know, David [Bellavia, former Army staff sergeant], what you just said is, you said, 'I'm not comparing' -- but you are. I mean, this is what Hitler did with the SS. He had his own people. He had the brownshirts and then the SS. This is what Saddam Hussein -- so -- but you are comparing that. And I -- I mean, I think America would have a really hard time getting their arms around that." [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 8/27/09]
Beck: "I read [Mein Kampf]" and "the Germans ... were an awful lot like we are now." After asking, "Did the Germans know?" Beck stated that "the scariest book I ever bought was Mein Kampf." He continued, "I went and I bought it and I read it, 'cause I wanted to answer that question. The answer was -- yes, they knew. I think the Germans, however, were an awful lot like we are now; we're kind of living in a denial like -- no, that can't really be happening. No, that really -- you don't want to believe some things but you have to. You have to actually think about them." [Glenn Beck, 6/10/09]
But I have to ask this question of you, in particular-- do you think your attacks on people like myself do anything to cleanse the atmosphere, or do you think it only makes it more tainted?
I await your response.
If you are one of the people who are spreading falsehoods about president Obama, then you are part of the problem. But if you agree that the truth should be told at all times and try to convince your fellow conservatives of this, then you are part of the solution.
So, here's my conclusion to your question: if a blatant lie is out there, it should be corrected. If something has some evidence to suggest it is true, it is not a blatant lie. I think the people who said Bush Lied people Died as truth did not state a blatant and complete lie. There is evidence to suggest it.
I think they are wrong, but how one views the issue does not make them a liar. So it is with these claims.
Obama is not a socialist.
a pastor who taught Black Theology,
What is Black Theology?
Was he born in the US? Probably, but there seems to be some evidence to suggest he was not
There is no evidence to suggest Obama was not born in the US.
if a blatant lie is out there, it should be corrected.
Nice to know you believe that while advancing half truths and unsubstantiated claims about Obama.
Black theology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_theology
Evidence of his being born in Kenya: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/3074
Because I do not subscribe to a belief does mean that I cannot say there are valid reasons for someone to believe something.
If there is conclusive evidence of something, I take that evidence. Until then, I believe what I believe is right but also grant that there is room for other opinions.
What do you do?
You don't mean it can't be real??
flounder. and not as in the fish.
Either you believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, or you believe..........
1.That every Hawaii state official who verified the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate was lying.
2.That the local newspaper participated in the conspiracy by falsely reporting Obama's birth in Hawaii in 1961.
3.That Obama managed to find a way to work for the government for years with having a valid birth certificate.
4.That the video footage of Obama's birth is fake.
5.That the full-length birth certificate present by factcheck.org was a fake.
I am not going discuss this with you anymore; I have already been far too nice to you by engaging you this much. These facts were easily available to you if you had had an earnest desire to know the truth.
You cannot keep relying on others to do your critical thinking for you. People are not obligated to waste their precious time and energy informing you of things you should have already known. Either you be willing to accept empirical evidence and to learn things on your own, or people are wasting their time by trying to debate you.
should read
However, as I have stated numerous times- I don't think that holds much water, really for all the reasons you give. It doesn't make sense to say that it is all made up, even if there is some doubt.
Understand?
I haven't seen YOUR birth certificate, but if the HQ's of thevital records dept of the state where you were born says they've seen the original records and they prove that you were born in that state, I wouldn't NEED to see the original birth certificate that your parents were given.
And, just to reinforce this, Barack Obama wasn't EVER given that original long form. His parents were. And since his Dad left home long ago, and is now dead, and his mom moved a couple of times, and is now dead, it's quite likely that the people who DID receive that long form birth certificate LOST IT! And Hawaii doesn't give out that style of form anymore. They give out the style of form that Factcheck actually put their hands on AND provided photos of for all to see. It's beyond ridiculous to assert that the "original" document hasn't been released - like somehow it's Obama's fault that Hawaii decided to change the way they release new copies of existing birth records!
The original data is still stored by Hawaii. They said that Obama was BORN in Hawaii. It's a simple as that.
If you believe that there's any doubt, you're a troll trying to cause problems, and NOT interested in participating in a reasonable debate. I sure wish I remembered which occasional poster it was who had claimed about 10 days ago that you were a civil poster who needed to be treated with more respect because you wanted to have a fair debate on topics because of your 'civil, rational' language.
This iteration of a sockpuppet has failed from the get-go. I expect you're disappointed that I sniffed you out so quickly. Too bad, so sad.
Yes your crap detector works very well. :-)
From those, though, who do think there are questions, it seems reasonable to think that the wise thing for the hospital to do would be to release the original document. They wonder why that has not happened, especially given the importance of this issue.
I would respond to them, and have, that the search is fruitless, because it seems unreasonable to think he has done all he has done if he was not an American citizen by birth, the policies set in place seem reasonable, and there is no strong evidence that what grandma said was indeed true.
My proposition in this entire discussion is that there is at least some evidence to suggest (not prove) he was born outside of the US.
You, among others, want to put me in a corner that I am not in. I understand why-- I am suggesting that what you beloeve to be true has evidence to suggest it is not, and I say this all the while saying I do not believe this very evidence.
But I have yet to see anyone really address my basic premise-- you assert that the issue is 100% air tight shut, and I disagree (though I think evidence weighs in your favor). You imply that I am playing some sort of game, but I am not. I am telling it as I see it. It is up to you whether or not you believe me, but if you continue to misrepresent my intentions, I will continue to state what it is I see as truth.
This despite the fact that if there's acually evidence that positively, absolutely decides an issue, as there is in this case, it doesn't affect that decision that there might have been other suspicions raised by other things.
Just because there are a group of people in a room when one person is shot doesn't mean that their presence causes any questions to be raised when every eyewitness describes Joe Blow as firing the shot, when he has gunpowder residue on his hand, when CCTV taped him shooting the gun, and when he admits to it. Yes, anyone in that room COULD have shot him, but that doesn't mean there's any doubt that HE did when one looks at the evidence.
And in this case, there's no doubts raised by the things that this troll posted, as all doubts were quashed by the statements of the Hawaiian officials in conjunction with the birth certificate posted and seen.
What happens is that someone (either someone directly from the Vital Statistics Dept or some hospital employee tasked with gathering that info) talks to the moms in the hospital, gathering their personal info as well as info about the newborn. That info is then delivered to the Vital Records people, and they register that live birth in their records, and send out a copy of a certified birth certificate to the address the mom gave them!
The HOSPITAL doesn't keep those records, you doofus! And the Hawaii Vital Statistics dept doesn't GIVE OUT a long form that would be identical to the original form that the parents got almost 50 years ago. They DON'T make those forms anymore, so they can't GIVE ANOTHER ONE OUT! And states DO NOT give out ANY original forms in any case after the INITIAL one that gets mailed out to the parents. Every birth certificate created after that first time is a COPY of the data stored and retained by the Vital Records people.
This is not rocket science, yet you are apparently baffled by it.
So, either you're too stupid, ill-informed and unwilling to educate yourself to give any credibility to, or you're a troll who knows these things but you're just trying to distract us from other things, and therefore you should have no credibility.
I choose the latter, but neither is good.
Please don't feed this troll.
"So, either you're too stupid, ill-informed and unwilling to educate yourself to give any credibility to, or you're a troll who knows these things but you're just trying to distract us from other things, and therefore you should have no credibility.
I choose the latter, but neither is good.
Please don't feed this troll" - reply from Dolly.
Proof positive that you can't have any discussion with anyone without personal attacks and the troll label, Sue.
Get some professional help.
He tried to push the ridiculous, debunked story that Obama's step-grandmother EVER ACTUALLY SAID that Obama was born in Kenya.
She never said that. RC posted that as proof of some evidence to the contrary.
This is NOT proof positive of ANYTHING other than you wanted to make an unfounded personal attack since you can't control your personal animus!
Debunking a troll post, then mocking that poster who made the post, then warning others to ignore that troll post and not make further replies to THAT TROLL POST are the EXACT things that one should do.
Having a "discussion" with someone making posts like that is a STUPID thing to do. The fact that YOU think that I SHOULD behave that way in order to demonstrate something that you think is admirable is further evidence that you're a troll, simply out to irritate others with this post.
Please don't feed this troll. He deserves no more negative attention.
Really misses my point. I have stated over and over again I find the evidence lacking. But it is evidence, though I do think you are right that the right won't get very far, especially on the HI thing. It is a losing proposition for all the reasons that have been stated over and over. So is his religion. Of them all the one that has the most weight is the socialist, but even that falls short.
What else would you like me to do, Dolly?
I have simply offered a contrarian view that people do take, and I see valid reasons for them doing so. You disagree.
It's not my fault you posted that you thought there was evidence. Live with the consequences of YOUR behavior. There are NO valid reasons to buy into ANY of the things that you suggested WRT Obama's citizenship or his religion. None.
You couldn't hardly be further from "agreeing" with me than you are.
Please don't feed this troll. He's not interested in participating in a fair debate, as he's made obviously clear. The civil words mean nothing when the rest of the content is considered.
I provided evidence and did not suggest it was good evidence, only that it was evidence. Do not misrepresent my position.
Just because a lot of people who you think aren't bad people believe something doesn't mean that belief isn't vile/insane. Did you know in large parts of the middle east, it is common knowledge that Bush orchestrated 9/11?
Birtherism is one of those beliefs that deserves nothing but ridicule. Saying birthers have "valid reasons" to believe what they do is a form of enablement, akin to saying the ku klux klan is motivated by genuine concerns, and we should try to understand them.
I have stated that I find the evidence weak. Your comparison about the Jews orchestrating 9/11 is off base because that clearly is insane. The Middle East belief on Bush is interesting, because I think it could cut both ways. On a level, it demonstrates a point I have made-- that our point of view has a big role in our beliefs. On another, I'm curious to know what makes them believe it (besides the obvious disdain for the US). Knowing the evidence would not change my mind, but it would be interesting to know.
In the case of Obama and his birth, we have the testimony (which Dolly says is not valid) of his grandmother (who is a valid source) and the lack of any original information from the hospital/appropriate department. There is supposedly some other documentary evidence suggesting he was not born in the US. These are significant enough to raise an eyebrow. I think raising that eyebrow is as far as it takes you though.
I know my opinions are not well received here. People sincerely seem to doubt my integrity. And that is fine.
BHO certainly could have been born in Kenya. I do not believe so, but I do not question the integrity of people who do.
I know what I don't - I don't believe in conspiracy theories about socialism, Black Theology, birthers etc. You obviously do.
I offered evidence and solid answers to your questions I and get more emptiness.
I also never said I buy them, only that there seems to be evidence enough for them to be believed.
Do you understand this?
He's a Christian. He joined a Christian church a couple of decades ago.
He's born in Hawaii. The head of the Vital Statistics dept there has SEEN the original data that shows where Obama was born.
There's NO evidence that he's a Muslim, and there's NO evidence he was born anyplace but in Hawaii.
If you think there is evidence, you're looney. If you think you offered "evidence", you're even loonier!
Just to give you ONE example before I recommend that NO ONE ELSE feed your troll post ---- you cite a link that says his grandmother says he was born in Kenya. Nope. That's a discredited lie. Someone mistranslated what someone said, and then cropped a deceptive, misleading mistranslation out of an interview. Later in that same interview, it was made clear that in fact, the grandma was NOT saying, not in any way, that Obama was born in Kenya.
If you really CARED about the truth, you'd know that. Since you think this is evidence, it's clear that you DON'T really care about the truth, which identifies you as someone not interested in participating in a fair debate, which makes you a troll.
It's not my fault that you're getting called looney here. It's YOUR behavior here that's causing you to be described that way.
"thanks for that information. I really thought that his grandmother HAD said that he was born in Kenya. I appreciate that you cleared that up for me. It's always better to have fuller information so that one's opinions are based upon all the available evidence."
Just more evidence that it wasn't an honest question, nor is Rational Conservative an honest poster looking to participate in a reasonable debate.
Rev, Wright's "church" is not Christian. It is a racist hate filled cult. Trinity United is no more a church than the KKK. BHO joined it for political reasons.
He certainly was a Muslim in the past. HIs school registration documents list his religion as Islam.
Obama school registration certificate
When did he renounce Islam (assuming he did). His continued dumping on Israel indicate to me that he has an axe to grind against Jews. Hmmm, I wonder why that is. There is no evidence that he has renounced Islam. We have only his word - which isn't worth a damn thing to me.
I don't believe he was born in Kenya, but it is possible. I would not absolutely rule it out. His grandmother swears she was present at his birth in Mombassa. He and his sister offer conflicting stories about which hospital he was born.
Presidential candidate Barack Obama belonged to the United Church of Christ, one of the country's MOST racially diverse and liberal Protestant denominations - the first to ordain an openly gay minister and to call for equal marriage rights for people, regardless of gender.
THIS is your proof? This slow talking, lying idiot is your proof?
I used to think your stuck on stupid was an act, but you're the real deal.
1) Black Theology-- do you know what that is?
2) Hawaii--Hearsay-- saying they saw means nothing. They need to produce it and show it. Saying they saw it is not enough to prove the point. There must be more for it to be valid proof. For instance, I could tell you that I saw the original Gospel of Luke but that means nothing until I can show it to you.
3) Proof? Let me offer my position, which if not clear enough above, should be clear after this: I think many of these positions are rabbit trails and not worth pursuing. I do think that there is evidence to suggest that they are true. Saying that there is suggestive evidence simply leaves open the possibility they are true, but does not state that they are indeed true.
You argue against me like I think they are indeed true. That is not the case. I merely raise the possibility.
Here, too, is what I originally said in response to a question challenging my beliefs:
"So, here's my conclusion to your question: if a blatant lie is out there, it should be corrected. If something has some evidence to suggest it is true, it is not a blatant lie. I think the people who said Bush Lied people Died as truth did not state a blatant and complete lie. There is evidence to suggest it.
I think they are wrong, but how one views the issue does not make them a liar. So it is with these claims."
If you are trying to pin me in a corner, I am not in the corner you think I am. Merely suggesting something might be true is an honest way to act, that is if there is evidence there is indeed evidence to suggest it is true. I see that there is such evidence, even if I don't believe it myself. I even grant such evidence on issues on my own side.
And again, I want to emphasize that my position is not that it is indeed a forgery, only that there is some evidence to suggest it. Personally, I do not think there is enough to say it is not real or that he is not American.
But an honest look at some of the evidence could possibly suggest that he was not.
You can disagree and say that the evidence is 100% conclusive, but then we get into interpreting evidence.
And I do not want to defend the evidence right now. That is not my point-- only to suggest that it exists.
I think I have gotten in trouble by trying to defend the evidence, because it makes it seem like I am in agreement with it. For each place I'd point out you'd say it was conclusively disproven. To those points I'd say they are a stretch and hold little water in my estimation, even if I cannot prove them 100% wrong.
You don't think the "rabbit trails" are worth pursing BUT you think that there is evidence that they're true?
And you call that making yourself clear?
Tell the d*mn truth and stop chasing your own tail!
You believe whatever the loonies on the right tell you, President Obama is not a U.S. citizen, he is a Muslim and he hates America. And the reason you won't come right out and say it is because you're afraid that people will think you're as loony as you sound.
From any legal position, there can be evidence to suggest both sides are true. A judge or jury must then weigh the evidence to determine what is in fact true.
This is what I am trying to present here. If you go to any conservative site, they will assert that their evidence is stronger than the evidence you present here. I happen to lean towards your side on these issues, but I have to admit there is evidence on the other side.
So, again, I am not playing games, and no, I do not think he is not a Muslimg who hates America and is not an American citizen. The reason I don't come out and say these things are true is because I do not believe they are.
It is partisan around here, and it is natural to assume I am not telling the truth. But it does not have to be that way. It is possible for people take this position, and I am indeed taking it.
Push all you want, believe what you want to believe, but that does not change what is really the truth on what it is that I actually believe. Now, I am expressly telling you what I believe, though, so anything you add to it, including assumptions about what conservatives believe (and therefore, so must I) is on you. I am not hiding a thing.
If YOU think that Limbo, Glenda, and Insanity and the other right-wing blowhards would allow President Obama to become President if there was ANY REASONABLE doubt as to his legitimacy as a citizen, a Muslim or his love for America, you're smoking crack!
This dog and pony show put on by right-wing blowhards is NOT about any question on the facts, it's designed to appeal to those who hate President Obama. It's designed to minimize his appeal and his presidency.
So when you "question" the crap they've put out, you play right into their hands.
Congratulation!
But your suggestion that the info we have about the Dept of Vital Statistics TWO leaders who have BOTH said that the original data says Obama was born in Hawaii is comparable to some discredited troll saying that he has an original gospel is so ludicrous it's offensive that anyone would ever think that it's an argument that anyone should read.
And therefore, we All know that you are insincere in your pretense that you actually want to debate this topic.
PLEASE STOP FEEDING THIS TROLL!!!
I would think my persistence in maintaining my position speaks for itself, Dolly.
I don't need a d*mn hall monitor, babysitter or Mommy, DellDolly!
I can respond to whomever I want, whenever I want on ANY freaking topic I CHOOSE!
ENOUGH with your "feeding the troll" crap! YOU do not control what happens on this site!
Political theorists define socialism as government controlling the means of production (GM, Chryser, the banks etc)
Economists define socialism as government spending exceding 50% of GDP. WIth teh healthcare takeover, we are now over 50%. We are now a socialist country. BHO brought us over teh 50th percentile - therefore he is a socialist.
Do you deny that government spending was 47% pre-healthcare and a new $2 trillion entitlement easily brings it over 50%?
The 50% percentile of GDP is not some magical hurdle, on the other side of which socialism lies. 99% of the industry in this country is either privately owned, or publicly owned by stockholders, NOT the government.
There is no $2 trillion entitlement. Premiums are still due from policy holders, as they always have been.
Take a deep breath and try to relax, Bobby Jindal fan. Look around. HCR passed. The world did not end. We are neither China nor Russia nor yet the U.K. All right? Still America. You are still free to pick which private insurer you want to overpay for coverage. But, they are less free on ways in which to screw you over in order to keep more of your money. And you are complaining about that. This does not speak well for your intelligence.
If you think that Obama is a socialist, you don't know what socialism is.
Obama has already said he doesn't agree with Reverend Wright. give it a rest.
He was born in the US, and has the legal birth certificate to prove it. If you don't think it's a legal birth certificate, then you have a problem, not the President.
None of these beliefs have any grounding in reality. if you are going to keep espousing known falsehoods, then you are a big part of the problem.
not typing in all CAPS
repeating talking points cloaked in pseudo civility
makes them Rational.
Obama certainly does agree with Rev. Wright. He didn't want to throw him under the bus, but he has no choice.
The belief that he is a socialist is absolutely grounded in reality as I conclusively proved in the above post.
The fact that you think a certain percentage of GDP automatically results in socialism means you do not fully understand the concepts you are trying to explain.
He has said so, but I have to ask why he went there for so long if he didn't agree with his pastor? Makes me think he went for other reasons and did not take it seriously. If he was really concerned by it or had strong disagreement, he wouldn't tolerate Wright's messages.
I also personally have no reason to think he's not really "American". But, there are some holes in his story and things that might make one think twice. Some do, I don't.
I am not espousing them-- I am simply stating that there is enough evidence for people to go down that line. I do not.
Feel free to believe me, or not. But I speak what I see as truth, and that is simply that I see enough evidence for people to beleive these things even though I do not find enough to say is compelling evidence.
Like my position or not, it is what it is.
Does it help to know that I think this same suggestive evidence exists against Bush in many areas, and that I think they are rabbit trails as well?
I'll give a little more info about how I think-- I hate close minded people on both sides, and believe me, they exist on both sides. I happen to be pretty open to ideas and discussions. When something is not 100% proven, there has to be room for disagreement. This goes both ways when the evidence is not there to prove it fully. I believe that there are conclusions that can be made fully once that evidence exists. I also believe, as you say that you have to make choices as you analyze the evidence. But making a choice as to what you think is the likely answer when there is not 100% proof means that it is possible it is not the only answer.
It has to be the way I describe, or you have closed your mind to other possibilities. And beleive me, I apply this to everything (I know you do not know me at all, but what I say is true).
My analysis, though, of these issues are that he is not a socialist, not a race baiter, and is an American.
Now, maybe I am giving them (the birhters) credence. (But I am not giving them equal weight) But so what? Maybe they are right. If they are right, I'd say so what? What are you going to do about it now? I think it would do more harm to push that to the end than to just let it lie right now. But I think there is enough evidence to feel confident that he is indeed an American by birth. He's done too much for this to have been overlooked. That makes no sense to me.
No, they're wrong. And your pretzel twisting logic can't change that the birthers are wrong, were always wrong, and will never be right.
You can disagree, and that's fine. But I cannot deny that I think there are multiple views to every story.
Is gravity a fact? Does Obama have a birth certificate that proves he was born in Hawaii?
Its not the same as seeing picutes of dead Jews in mass graves, and lines of them walking into gas chambers, or them thrown and packed onto trains like cattle. Nor is it like pictures of this big ball (a round object) from space.
As I have repeatedly said, I think this line of thinking is not complete, and the best conclusion is that there is no reason to question is American birth.
Please, keep showing anyone who reads your posts that you can't control your personal animus.
Keep behaving as badly as most other rightwingers act. Please.
McCarthyesque cr@p.
And Foghorn asks an excellent question: What IS "Black Theology"?
Now, I do not think he wants government to take over the entire US economy, so I do not think he rises to the level of a socialist, but he is closer to that than being a "capitalist". Statist is probably the better term to describe him, I think.
I provided a link to describe what black theology is. You can also look it up yourself. I will also even add this quick description-- a form of theology that emphasizes black liberation.
your assertions absurd and taken to the extreme. To say that government should have a role in ensuring the healthcare of it's citizens does not mean a persons the government to control healthcare. To say that you believe in God does not mean you want anyone not believing in him put to death. Redistribution of wealth is what all governments facilitate. The last administration most defintely redistributed wealth upward to the point we greatest inequality between rich and poor since the Gilded ages. To call for a more equal distribution is not socialist it's fair. As far as black theology first off what is wrong with black liberation? Second what are you basing your proof on about Rev. Wright? A few excerpts from his sermons over 20yrs. I would be more impressed if you named the sermons and provided the themes of them. What was he talking about in his sermons you can quote me that talked about black liberation or black theology. I'd like to see some examples.
No, not all governments redistribute wealth. That is simply not true. And to do so is a tenat of socialism. Beiing fair has nothing to do with it. It is also fair to teach someone how to do something rather than simpy give it to them, so we have a real dispute on that one. Its about a form of government, not about what is fair.
Wright? First-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright, second, Wright, who began the "Ministers in Training" ("M.I.T.") program at Trinity United Church of Christ, has been a national leader in promoting theological education and the preparation of seminarians for the African-American church.[24] The church's mission statement is based upon systematized Black liberation theology that started with the works of James Hal Cone.[25][26]
Again, though, I am suggesting these are up for debate, not that they are true.
Capitalism and socialism are too distinct economic systems although they share some of the same traits. the content of capitalism is private ownership of the means of production under socialism it is public. You wouldn't call a bird the same as a butterfly because they both have wings and fly. Their internal content is different. They have different DNA. Plants mostly need soil to grow and many share common traits but all plants are not the same,knowing the difference could save or end your life in extreme cases. Letting Bush tax-cuts expire which were mostly skewered toward the rich(A Robin Hood in reverse)while providing 95% of the population with a tax-cut is not the end of capitalism,the content of private property still remains intact. How can an economy survvie where those who work for a living cnanot buy the goods they produce. Where 1% of the population owns and controls more wealth than the combined wealth of 90% of the people. A system so lopsided is not only morally wrong it is unsustainable. Who are the capitalist going to sell their goods to? Who will have the money to buy them? If no-one is buying or working who will make the capitalist rich? And if poverty is so rampant what will keep that system going other than armed force. So the question of tax-cuts and a more equal disrtibution is not just a question of being fair it is a quesstion of the survivablity of the system itself.
When you talk about the Afro-American church do you know why there was such a thing? Sure you do . Segregation gave birth to the black church I suggest you do a little more reading on this other than wikapedia before shaping your opinion about black theology. Let me recommend "Parting The Waters" by Taylor Branch a fine writer and historian and winner of the Pulitzer for this work. The subtitle is "America in the king years 1954-63." He eloquently tells the story of the Black churchfrom the very first independent church started in 1867 The First Baptist Church and the historical role the church played in the civil rights movement. Indulge me while I copy a few sentences from the preface:
"Almost as color defines vision itself,race shapes the cultural eye---what we do and do not notice,the reach of empathy and the alignment of response. This subliminal force recommends care in choosing a point of view for a history grounded in race..."
Let me leave you with that and ask you to become better informed when commenting about black theology the history is more complex than passages from wickapedia or excerpts taken out of context on You Tube. Good night!
The US used to not redistribute wealth, and it is doing so an ever increasing level. We can get into a discussion about that if you like, but its off topic now.
Obstacles to education-- now that's a loaded point. A full discussion should be post-poned for a better place, but I'll say that it first comes down to choice and determination. I'll say that there are enough examples of people who have overcome the hurdles to say that it is indeed possible, and there are also enough examples of people who have been handed everything on a platter who have wasted it. Enough on both sides to give credence to the idea that it is not simply about starting place-- its about what you do with it.
Capitalism-- I happen to think it is to the business leaders benefit to really go out and make a concerted effort to protect and uplift their emnployees and customers. You provide good reasons why. But I think this should be self imposed, not imposed by the government.
Black theology may once have been something good, but it appears to have morphed into something else, something that divides rather than unites. While I agree that empathy goes a long way, but at some point people need to look forward rather than backward. In other words, people, all people, need to stop living in and blaming the past and take control of the future instead. Also, as a Christian, I fail to see how the politics of black theology has a place in a church of Jesus Christ. Jesus was not about such politically charged messages-- he's simply about loving God and unity of all believers, no matter the divisions. His story of the Samaritan woman at the well is very instructive on this point (Samaritans were very much considered a lower group and were prejudiced against by the Jews-- there was a lot of tension between them).
As to the admonition I study on black theology, I can only say that while the request is fair, it is evident on its face that it is political rather than spiritual, and I think that has no place in a church.
What are the politics of black theology? And please, try to give an answer yourself and not just a link to a website.
Let me provide this quote: "An accurate account of black theology requires that we identify two fundamental purposes which control the entire theological enterprise. it must first be understood that each black theology presents itself, implicitly or explicitly, as a specific strategy for black liberation. from this perspective, it must be regarded as "engaged" or committed theology, for it makes a prior commitment to an ultimate goal; i.e., transforming the black condition from oppression to authentic humanity. The theological task is undertaken to accomplish the latter." (http://www.nathanielturner.com/assessingblacktheology.htm)
The basic problem and politics is in my first sentance above. What follows gives support to the thesis.
The US didn't always redistribute wealth ? Really? When was that? At it's inception? Let me remind you what kind of society we had then? We were 13 states and the economy was agricultural. Their were no planes in the air and no cars on the road. It took days to send a message and for the most part people lived in the country side. Even at it's inception wealth was redistributed remember slavery? How ridiculous it is to assert that the free forced labor of the slave did not enrich those who used it and help set the basis for an industrial America. The cotton and tobacco produced on the plantations most certainly did fuel the growth of trade with England and was the engine of that powered the growth of the textile industry in the north. It was one of the greatest redistributions in the history of mankind and it lead to the growth of industrial America. How could you forget that history?
At the inception of this country if you were a women or did not own a certain amount of property you could not vote that means you had no representation which most certainly meant those with property had the power over you and used for their own interest. The labor done by those workers most ceretainly enriched their employers yet they had no control over the conditions of their lives or representation in government. That was a redistribution. Yet we were told All men are created equal and have a right to liberty and justice. Nice words but not true for all the people as the only people enjoying such liberty and justice were those who were "free" and men who owned property.
Your right the histroy of this country and of mankind has been one of overcoming obstacles. Of people despite the hardships that were placed in front of them the achieved. Frederick Douglas, Sojourner Truth,Harriet Tubman but look at the what they had to overcome. To say it could be done under those circumstances is no reason not remove the barriers so more people can participate in society or reason not to fight for greater participation. People have a right no a duty to petition their government to live up it's words. To say that a few students can rise above their one room school house using outdated books and utensils seems to me callous. Why should they be in that position in the first place? Why should those with power and money have the best schools while many suffer at the bottom fighting over the scrapes with a few able to climb are able to achieve proof that with less obsatcles more will also be? Wouldn't that be beneficial for all of society ? Having productive memebers engaging each other socially and economically for the benefit of the country and the world. Haven't we moved beyond the jungle? What is wrong with those who face these obstacles again petitioning their representatives for changes they see need to be made to make the Dream of Liberty and justice for all a reality? Who else can they turn to? When Federal troops left the south after the Hayes-Tilden agreement what happened to gains made after the passage of the 14th and 15th admendment and Reconstruction? We saw the black codes and a new form of slavery in the form of share cropping. Who could they petition for help if not their government. They didn't come begging they demanded and fought. To listen to you they should have just tried to rise above it on their own and not worry about their children or those who were coming after them. To you they had no obligation to make the road easier and/or the dream more accessible to those coming after them. Only the strong survive right?
I would most certainly like business to take the lead in protecting it's employees and consumers. Who would be against that? But again the reality and history tells another story. Without workers organizing (despite all the obstacles placed in front of them including death and starvation)we would not enjoy the benefits of those lucky enough to have it of the 8 hr. day.overtime pay, regulation of child labor,equal pay for equal work,a ban on discrimination due to sex or gender affiliation or race,food and water safety standards as well as workplace safety , vacation and sick pay businesses for the most part didn't implement them because it cut into their profits they had to fouight for and won,but alot of those things are slipping away today and the reason we have such inequality between rich and poor.
The fact of the matter of yes Christ was color blind. We are all his children but those calling themselves christians didn't practice it. Segregation forced the creation of a black church. Rev Wright as other posters on this site have pointed out belongs not to a black church but "... the United Church of Christ, one of the country's MOST racially diverse and liberal Protestant denominations - the first to ordain an openly gay minister and to call for equal marriage rights for people, regardless of gender. ---Pearlene Scott
I fail to see how that is divisive or looking back and playing the victim. I asked you for the names or the themes of the sermons you call divisive. Jesus was also for justice and for the poor, that is why so many find solace in his words and deeds and why many of have done great things for humanity find in him their inspiration. You denigrate those who call for an end to the inequality and racism that exist today by categorizing them as looking backward or asking for sympathy . Can you tell me the number of black and latino US senators? Racism and inequality exist today,despite all the gains and a black POTUS we still have racism and inequality and I see those who are fighting it as walking down a fine road of tradition of people,leaders who have strived despite personal hardship and sacrifice to make this a better place for everyone. I'am no bible thumper but the Jesus I learned about would most certainly be marching along side them arm and arm. He was right there when MLK was spat on and had rocks hurled at him as he petitioned the conscious of the American people ,the government for equal access of opportunity,I believe he was there with the congressmen who had to endure the hate and spit from those who were against HCR last Saturday. I believe he is everywhere on the side of those who are still suffering injustice,poverty and oppression throughout the world I believe he is on their side on our side.
My admonnition was to become better informed before rendering opinions about something you seem to have only scratched the surface on. You seemed to me to basing your opinions not on reality and an understanding of history but on politics and as Taylor Branch warned:
"Almost as color defines vision itself,race shapes the cultural eye---what we do and do not notice,the reach of empathy and the alignment of response. This subliminal force recommends care in choosing a point of view for a history grounded in race..."
However I'm glad I was able to seize on your post. The length of it got my attention. But it was worth the read. Thanks you very much.
Thank you! Of course you are correct. And, once again this is not a debatable point. That is a fact. The numbers do not lie.
Let me first start with Christ. I actually don't think Christ cared about the earthly state of people. In other words, he would not get involved in a political movement. He would certainly care about the poor, but just the same he would welcome the rich who came to him. Political ideas and theories were of no interest-- his interest was bring people to God, not set someone free in an earthly sense. To the contrary-- he often encouraged people to live a poor life and sacrfice everything. Just the same, he encouraged people whop made the most of their resources and expanded them. He was not interested in politically freeing anyone, and that's one reason why the Jewish leaders rejected him-- that's what they were expecing.
You spend a lot of time talking about redressing wrongs to certain groups, and removing obstacles. The first thing I can say is that such an idea is terribly backwards looking. You ask what is wrong with asking for such things? Nothing, necessarily. But there is another option, and that is to work through them overcome them on your own. Pushing for such reforms based on race will only perpetuate the division. It becomes an endless cycle, and thus becomes counter productive. Another point is to suggest that it will simply take time to get past all the anger from eras past. Blacks, and others, were indeed treated terribly. But time heals all wounds, and as we increasingly become an integrated society, I believe this will happen here, as long as all groups are willing to do so. Holding onto a grudge helps no one (and I am not only referring to blacks now).
Giving people an adequate situation is a good thing to do. But what is an adequate situation? That has to be a really a big part of the conversation, isn't it? As I stated, enough people have risen out of poverty (and fallen from riches) to suggest that it is not about money. I do think a shift in how we address urban and rural schools can be important (rural schools fail quite a bit, too, you know). These solutions do not involve money but changes in how to organize and motivate children.
The wealthy do own a large percentage of all of the wealth in this nation, but don't overlook that our bottom level has risen. Our poor are by and large not as poor as they used to be. Our society is progressing, and it is in large part due to those people who are encouraged to succeed on their own.
A general point about all of this-- I think it is a mistake to think that there will ever be a perfect society. There will always be inequities. A quick read of Orwell's Animal Farm is instructive. I think the most freedom we as a people can have is in the freedom to make our own destiny. A lot of people feel that they need help and cannot create their own, hence the help. I do not think that is the best way to maximize everything in this country.
That said, I am firm believer in personal responsibility, which 100% includes giving to the poor. That is something Christ advised, and we all should do it. Think of the world if the population grew of those who do so by say, even 2%? 10% 20% 100%? Society would be very different in a very positive way. But people don't because they are inherently greedy. Changing the government to force this charity on others does not change the inherent nature of us-- we will still be greedy, and we will simply want more for less. All the benefits of self-pursuing a goal will be gone, because the goal is given to us.
I know this will be met with disagreement, and that's OK. This is a debate that is not new, and will not go away anytime soon.
I'am curious as to why you assume those who struggle and petition their government to remove these obstacles are not exercising personal responsibilty? I think that is the ultimate form of responsibillty. Not only making conditions better for yourself but for those who come after you. MLK paid the ultimate price as have others to make this a better place for all. Why you distorted my post to imply that I was only talking about black people only you can answer.
It's no surprise that you didn't address the redistribution points I made in reply to your this government didn't always redistribute. No one is talking about a perfect society or utopia. That is a dishonest talking point you cons like to throw in to obscure the fact of the gross inequality , the great redistribution of wealth that is taking place in society today.Upwards. This redistribution upward is due in part to our becoming a corporatocracy. Just like I pointed out before about the birth of this country who could and could not participate in it, today this coporatocracy has the control of our government(even more so as the Supremes have now allowed them even more control with their recent decision to allow endless money by them to influence our political process). I say this because these corporations are indeed petitioning the government to work for them and against the interest of most of the people of this country. Your personal responsibilty beliefs are an attempt to excuse society, the government of it's responsibility to it's peole. You see if you can blame the 10% unemployment on personal lazziness then it excuses any action by society to correct it. It excuses the abuses of giant powerful corporations who pollute the air we breathe and the water we drink. Just move away is your personal responsibilty response. Meatpacking plants and other industry or shops that discriminate and violate work safety and wage and overtime rules,just get another job? Pre-existing medical condition and can't obtain affordable health insurance,it's your own fault you should have made better health decisions before...right? Now when I say inequality I'am not just speaking of race I'am also addresing as I have in the past the shrinking of the middle class. I'am asserting that noone can be free unless all are free,that if you keep me down the very act of holding me keeps you from moving. This leads to my belief that the Afro-American struggles for equality are inseperable from every struggle takinng place today from the right of workers to organize,to addressing banks to reorganize mortgages for homeowners who have seen the values of their homes decrease,to the fight for immigration reform and to reunite families,to those living in Appalachia who are fighting the coal companies from polluting their beuatiful valley causing health problems and birth defects. They are all tied together with struggles of the Afro-American for equality. There is no doubt that the passing of civil rights legislation and laws against discrimination did not only open up avenues for advancement of black people but for women,those who have special needs and those who have different sexual orientation. In other words once the shackles are removed from the least among us it frees us all.
I know you cons always believe people are inherently greedy I don't share your view,never have never will. But if this were true that would more reason for government intervention not less. If corporations will be greedy who is left to protect the consumers and workers? You prove my points for me. Let me reiterate because you cons think people are asking for charity. most of those who are in poverty today are working. they work minumum wage no benefit jobs that are either part-time or temporary. Those who are working full time work more hours and receive less pay.It makes me angry that you would allege that making this a more equitable situation will rob them from achieving goals. WTF! You argue poverty is good and greed is natural. So therefore government has no responsibilty in correcting wrongs because people will just want more? Yes,once a person learns to read(public education)he might dream of something better. That is indeed a scary prospect for someone who wants to control all the marbles.
Oh again sorry for the long read for those who indulged me,but I just want to conclude with this. You say our poor or not as poor as they used to be. Why do you think that is? It was because people took personal responsibilty for their brethen and fought for social safety nets like SS and medicare, that allows our seniors and middle-age citizens to break away from being burdens on their familes allowing them to live with independence and dignity in the last stages of their lives. Workplace safety and wage and anti-discrimination laws have made America a shining example of progress and envy of the world.
But first point is that you lump conservatives together and make some huge assumptions about myself and other conservatives in this post. You will defend them as not being anything of the sort, but the reality is that you have a real bias against conservatives based on what you have posted here.
Anyway, my voice is not the one saying people cannot and should live next to each other, and I have heard no conservative say such a thing. Unless I misunderstand you, I hear you saying that it is white conservatives who said that blacks should not live next to whites, etc. At present-- no thoughtful conservative would say such a thing because it is ludicrous (if they still do, they are wrong and are also a very small minority).
Even 30 years ago you might have had people who say such a thing, but that is the looking back that I am talking about. I think you are unable to or unwilling to look to the reality of today's racial attitudes from conservatives, which is a far cry from what it is you seem to be presenting. If you cannot do so, or can show conclusive evidence that white conservatives still retain that attitude, please explain.
I also have to present this story-- I used to work with a young and successful African American gentleman. He rose up from relative urban poverty and retains a lot of his friends from that time. He now complains of having to live two lives-- one of the success of working hard and doing well and trying to be "black" enough for his friends. He would describe being black enough as including dress, talk, and attitudes toward various entities (corporations, whites, etc.) He hated that aspect, but seemed to go along with it all.
Why do I share this story? Because it seems to suggest that there is an identity among blacks that suggests they are apart from the rest of America. It suggests that they now choose to separate themselves and that they do not want to merge with the rest of the nation. If those are true, it is natural to question how much blacks really want to work with white America. It suggests that there are indeed still racial divides that separate this nation, but that the divide starts not with white America, but black America.
Now, I tend to think that these groups of blacks are probably minorities within the black community. I think most of black America (its sad to call them "Black America and White America", isn't it?) just wants to be able to live their lives and to succeed. Color is a part of who they are, but they just want to live like anyone else, and thus reject what this minority says. However, this minority still holds power within the community. Peer pressure is a powerful thing, as my co-worker demonstrated.
Do I think that blacks accomplished great things? Absolutely. If I were alive in the 50's and 60's I probably would have a very different outlook. I believe I would be fighting alongside of them to see that they get equal treatment under the law. However, I wasn't, and can only look at what I see now. What I see now is really confusing, to be honest. I'll explain why:
The current racial situation is confusing because we are really at a crossroads, and it is hard to shift through the rhetoric and the reality. Many of the people who were subject to the racial tensions in the 50's and 60's are still here, on both sides. People learn a lot from the prior generation, and since tensions were very high then and many people were deeply involved and affected by those times, they carry the tension with them and that filters to the next generation.
I do not discount the trials the blacks of the 50's and 60's went through. My parents grew up in Virginia during this time, and hated what they saw from people. My mother describes her father taking the family to watch blacks and laugh at them. She was rightfully horrified by it, as am I even now. As you know, there are many, many, many stories of white treatment of blacks that is disgusting. And these stories live with us today.
So, I cannot fault anyone invovled in these things who still carry the pain with them now. What I can do, is encourage them to look to the future, though, and not relive those instances. Unless I am mistaken, the goal of the Civil Rights movement was equality in that blacks wanted to live as whites do-- normally and free from hateful discrimination. MLK described this as an essentially colorblind society.
What does it mean to be colorblind in terms of race-- it means blacks and whites and Asians and Hispanics and Native Americans and any racial group move forward in society hand in hand and interact with each other as if color were no issue. People get what they deserve based purely on merit and not on any racial reason, and it means that people fail because they failed on their own and not because of any racial reasons. This is the result I would like to see, and hope that I live my life in that way, and I think I do a good job with that.
Is that what is happening? I am not sure, because the University of Michigan law school gives an extra boost to blacks for being black. They are not the only organization to do so.
Now, the black experience is still different than it is for whites, but I have to wonder what long term purpose holding onto such distinctions achieves. I have to wonder when we will achieve that goal, and when laws and such will be unneccessary on this topic. When will the black community say we are there? Perhaps never, because there are always going to be idiots out there.
But what I'd like to see is that world, where being black is no different than being white. It makes more sense to me to judge based on merit (personal responsibility) than it is based on color. We are people, you and I, and not some classification of race. Classifying based on race cheapens the whole, I think. But, we continue to clasify by race, and likely will for sometime.
To get to a point where we are able to avoid that classification, we need to change our basic assumptions about our situations and look to something different than a classification. We need to accept people for who they are and what they do, not the classification. That is the chane in attitude of accepting personal responsibility.
Accepting personal responsibility incldues accepting the past for what it is and looking to the future to change and the hope it provides. It requires one to realize one's own role in creating that future, and not blaming past generations for one's present state. It requires appropriate forgiveness, for grudges only hold people back. Forgiveness, though, does not require one forget the lessons of the past.
I said earlier that the current race debate is confusing. It is confusing because what I propose is a difficult, if not idealistic, task. It is very difficult for elementary aged children to be hosed with fire hoses and bitten by dogs and treated like scum in the streets of Alabama to forget that treatment. It is nearly impossible to look at the current urban situation of the world and not see some kind of inequity, and it is easy and right to want to help them.
But then, you have to ask-- what is the best way to help them? And that is not an easy answer.
Every government has greedy people in it-- just look at our own. Politicians from both sides (though I admit not all) are greedy. They want power, and they do not want to give up that power. The populace is also just as greedy. People want more for less, and they want it now. If you disagree with this comment, we do indeed have a very different view of people. It is this attitude that permeates politic and economics. Our popular culture also perpetuates this attitude.
Are people good? Yes! But when I survey the scene, I see people relying more and more on the government to provide what they see as good. While they think certain things should happen and all people should have certain things, they look to the government to provide it, not themselves. Certainly, there is a strong number of people who does indeed proactively go out there and provide such care and action. But I think the trend is in the other direction.
Personal responsibility comes into play here again, as well. Personal responsibility to set aside your quest for more for less and to do what is necessary to get it. Personal responsibility does not entail an attitude of entitlement that certain things should be given because someone exists. Personal responsibility suggests you should only have what you have worked for. Personal responsibility also entails your role in helping others who are less well off. Everyone has a duty to help those around them.
What does all this have to do with the redistribution of wealth? The government taking from the rich to give to the poor is the opposite of personal responsibility. I believe the rich should, of their own accord, do so. You argue that they won't, so government intervention is thus needed. I disagree for the same reason that I suggest personal responsibility for the poor is a way to rise out of poverty. The rich who not give back are just as bound by personal responsibility as everyone else. As stated, personal responsibility includes giving back and helping their fellow man. Idealistic? Possibly. But important to discuss and remember? Absolutely.
You mention laziness. I never mentioned the word, because I do not believe most are lazy. Certainly, there are a few, but most work hard for an honest living. See, I don't view it as an issue of working hard enough or not. I view it as a change in fundamental expectations. More personal responsibility here, too. Personal responsibility also includes being content with what it is you have, and not comparing yourself to what another may or may not have. While I do believe hard work (and smart work) will much more often than not provide a standard of living sufficient to survive, far too many people thing they deserve more than they need. Its not about laziness, its about expectations. For those who do work hard and struggle to survive (I would be wrong to say they do not exist) it is those who do have to help them out, and yes, I think people should help them out before they help the truly lazy, who also do exist.
To the lazy, yes, they need help, too. But should this group be allowed the same help as those who truly work?
Corporations influencing the government? yes, they have a voice, but so do so many other groups that have a lot of money. It is short sighted to suggest corporations have Congress in their side pocket alone. Further, it is well established that corporations are seen as individuals in the eyes of the law, and thus enjoy the protections of the law as individuals. Restricting their speech was therefore wrong, I think. It is also a mistake to assume all corporations support conservatives, and the proprosing is narrowly constued in that other large organizations retained the right to air political ads, like news media.
This is not to say we are not affected by people being held down, but that is different from being bound by them. We are all free to be bound or not, and to choose to be bound by them. Back to personal responsibility. I think personal responsibility includes the decision to take ownership of your own life, and not blame the actions of others. When you suggest we are all shackled together, you suggest others are to blame for your own position.
You said you are angry that I propose poverty is good. I do not suggest poverty is good. Rather, I suggest poverty is inevitable. I do not want anyone to live in poverty. Not in the slightest, but I think there will always be the haves and the have nots. There's nothing you nor I can do to ever change that. Is this a sad point of view? Yes! It depresses me to think about it. But history shows us that there will always be a division of wealth. It is indeed something that will happen. Even in China, the defunct USSR, England, France, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Australia, Japan, Afghaqnistan, South Africa, Egypt, everywhere, there is inequity and there is poverty. It has always been that way, and it will always be that way.
Does that mean that we should simply accept it? Nope-- we should fight poverty, but again, we have to ask what is the best way to fight it. Is it through government mandated redistribution? Or should the "haves" take it upon themselves to do so? You know my answer, and I describe it above.
I'll conclude by saying this, and hope it mirrors your closing. No one likes to be or to see the poor showering at a public park. It is terribly unfortunate, and I do not want to see anyone in that situation. However, what is the best solution? Really, what is the best solution? The best solution would be one that lasts longer and affects more people in a positive way and fewer people in a negative way. Personal responsibility is that answer, and it is not government intervention. Certainly, the government has a role, but the primary solution is not there, it is inside each and everyone of us. By taking responsibility of our own actions, by changing our expectations on what it is we want and truly deserve, by looking to the future instead of the past, by realizing we are our own destinies and that we are not bound by others will we fundamentally alter our society. Is this a pipe dream? Perhaps. You assert certain things that are hard to look at, and will my idea solve the problem completely? Nope. People will still be people, and poverty will still exist. But when people realize that they themselves can be part of the solution if they take more action to immediately affect their own lives, but the lives of people around them, our society will fundamentally move in a positive direction. But if they continue to ignore the power of their own actions, and look for others to cure the wrongs that have come upon them, nothing will ever change.
I do not doubt that people want change and to do it on their own. But to use your word, they are shackled by their past, the idea that is the corporations fault, and that they are bound together and held down together rather than free to make their own destiny, they will never free themselves of the shackles.
For example I never said people are not greedy I said it is not a human trait, people are not inherently greedy. It is not passed on through the genes. In other words it is not something we are born with. You then go with that falsity and draw all kinds of poltical conclusions to support your false premise. All designed to say the government should have no role in fixing the structural problems of capitalism that create social and economic desparity. You then make statements without support in fact or examples and when you do use examples they are based on myhts and I believe prejudiced. Your post are full of such examples from the story of your 'black' friend to your example of Michigan colleges. From my stand point you do seem to still harbor alot of racial misconceptions and prejudices. If you really want deal with them as you have written I suggest before you draw your conclusions you take the advice of Taylor Branch I offered you above:
"Almost as color defines vision itself,race shapes the cultural eye---what we do and do not notice,the reach of empathy and the alignment of response. This subliminal force recommends care in choosing a point of view for a history grounded in race..."
What subliminal forces are shaping your views concerning race and or class?
What do you mean it is shortsighted to say corporations have congress in their backpocket? What current events have you been watching? Did we not just see an almost trillion dollar bailout of AIG,Goldmann Sachs, B o A, and others? My God man did you not just witness the turning over 31 million new consumers of health insurance to private health insurance companies now subsidized with tax-dollars. Is it any wonder their stocks shot up the day after passage. The medical prescription drug program under Bush was a not payed for bonanza to the pharmaceuticals. The banking and mortsgage industry played funny money in a casino game that brought this country and the world to its economic knees and nothing really has been put in place to keep it from happenning again. Look where Geitner came from and the others who are supposed to be regulating these issue? Corporations are individuals really? No corporations don't necessarily support conservatives although most conservstives are shills for the corporations as the activist branch of the Supreme Court made clear with their recent decision to open up the political floodgates to corporate money. Corporations are beholden not to you are I unless YOU are a stockholder in their company. The bottom line; profits. Not necessarily the interest of the people but to their stockholders.
I'll leave it there as the pundits always say. I've said my piece and when there is nothing left to do or say there is nothing left to say or do.
his being a socialist is in debate Only by the feeble minded.
a pastor who taught Black Theology, That's a crime?
Was he born in the US? Probably, but there seems to be some evidence to suggest he was not. Yup, I wasn't standing there watching, so I have doubt.
if a blatant lie is out there, it should be corrected.
How about helping out with that, huh?
Try again.
Don't worry, I didn't really think that you had any intention of correcting any of the blatant lies that you help propagate.
Thats OK though, you can be entertaining.
In my job I have to find humor wherever I can.
I will say, and this may be my fault, that you seem to misunderstand what my point was. My point was only that there is enough evidence to suggest these might be true. I have never suggested they are true.
No, there's NO evidence to suggest ANYTHING.
Now, giving some more depth to that proposition, and I have said this elsewhere as well, that our point of view plays a large role in this. None of us can say we are not biased. As such, we view different things in different ways. What we see as problems you do not, and vise-versa. Somewhere in there is the truth, but if we close ourselves to what it being said, you will never understand it.
It is difficult to view something from the other side, but it is necessary if we are going move forward. I have presented the evidence (which I personally view as weak) why some conservatives push the ideas I have presented. You choose not to understand where they come from, though, and dismiss my entire premise off hand.
I am taking on a huge task here, arguably foolish. It is huge because I am trying to present a position I do not buy but do so to show that some evidence exists to show the position could be taken seriously, even if flawed. It is perhaps foolish because it is so large, and because by and large people see the "Rational Conservative" moniker and automatically think I am a "partisan hack". I doubt I will succeed completely, if at all, because of this perception, and the reality of discussions of this type on the internet.
But, for better or for worse, I will continue to assert what I see as a fair apprisal of the situation and correct misrepresentations about my views.
That certainly makes the debate easy! I think so, therefore it is!
But HCR goes a step further in requiring everyone to buy insurance or face a fine. This raises some serious questions about its constitutionality. Commerce clause questions, separation of powers questions, etc.
In fact, immediately saving a person's life is a part of the Hypocratic (sp?) oath that doctors take.
But again your side stepping the issue if congress can pass a law in 1987 that compels all hospitals to treat a person who comes through their doors equally regardless of ability to pay how can they not do this. If one is constitutional so is the other. If this is not constitutional neither is SS or Medi-Care. The challenges to this won't prevail.
FYI Charles Drew the Afro-American doctor who developed the process of developing plasma for blood transfusion died because he couldn't get the life saving process he developed from a hospital that would not treat him because he was black. So much for your oath.
Also the law does not state only emergencies it is anyone who comes through their doors asking for treatment. Emergency or not. Not everyone infact not most of the ER patients are their for emergencies. If it was you stated the hospital could then refuse to see a pt. because it was non-emrgency.
The former is a law requiring a specific provider to take patients. HCR requires people to own insurance. I think you make the connection that it is assuring care for everyone, but having health insurance is not providing care. Health insurance is a risk mitigation product. You also ignore that hospitals can charge for their services later.
The two are very different, even if they have a common bond in health care.
You are right to say the law may survive a challenge, but we do not know if it will or not-- not yet.
Everyone is in favor of some degree of gun control, unless you want 5 year olds with uzis. To be for gun control does not even come close to wanting to take away someones gun. That is absurd.
This is absolutely untrue. I oppose ALL laws restricting guns.
Any nut-case, any screw ball, armed to the teeth. Wow.
Obama is a socialist? You are yet another right-winger that was never taught basic civics. Which industries did Obama nationalize? He has had plenty of chances - banks, healthcare, etc. He has nationalized or even suggested we nationalize exactly ZERO. In fact, he has pumped up and bailed out private industry at every single turn. Stop getting your political and governmental definitions from Fox News and hate radio. It is embarrassing.
And, now you think he may be an angry black guy? Tell me something. What the HELLL does being black have to with being angry?? That is either racism or race-baiting. Either way it is pathetic.
There is some evidence to suggest he was not born in the US?? I take back any defense of you. You are too far gone to have a rational debate with. This is pure partisan madness. You have no interest in a discussion of facts.
While you're looking up simple terms like socialist, also look up sovereignty and unconstitutional. You must stop listening to hate radio - it is warping your mind.
I was asked this: "If you are one of the people who are spreading falsehoods about president Obama, then you are part of the problem. But if you agree that the truth should be told at all times and try to convince your fellow conservatives of this, then you are part of the solution."
I answered it by saying that I do believe truth should be told, but suggested that the issues brought up in this article do have some evidence to suggest they may be true. I also stated that I personally do not think the evidence is compelling, only that some suggestive evidence exists.
I attempted to say that because some of this exists, I cannot say with full confidence that these are fully falsehoods. I can't and won't say that, but I will (and have) discouraged the arguments that they are gospel. They are not, and are pretty short paths.
Angry black man? Because he went to a church that preached this does not mean he believes it.
Socialist? Certainly more socialist than Capitalist, but he's not fully socialist either.
Kenya? Maybe, but its a stretch to think he did all he's done without being an American.
I also grant that there some things that liberals ran with under Bush that have some merit, even though I think they are off base. The best example is the suggestion that Bush knew there were no WMD's in Iraq before invading. There is some to suggest it, but I think it is a stretch, given the consensus at the time was that there was a strong probability he either had or was close to having them.
Clear things up any?
If you have any questions, please ask.
The WMDs and Kenya comparison is pathetic partisanship. There is some evidence to suggest that G-Dub either did know or didn't really care about WMDs in Iraq. That has NOTHING to do with Obama's birth certificate. There is NO question about the birth certificate. Never was. Never will be. That is a fact. Not a question.
The angry black man thing is indefensible. Once again - what does being black have to do with being angry? Nothing, other than it scares the always fearful, ignorant, far-right like BJ Fan and his wife.
And, please do not use the pathetic "just asking questions" Beckian defense. It is beneath adult, rational debate. If you believe something, have the balls to say it. Don't leave something that is clearly a lie out there to bounce around just because you know it may score a few points politically with the ill-informed. If I want to hear nonsense like that, I will watch Beck master-debate himself on TV each night.
Now, to your points: a central tenent of socialism is the redistribution of wealth, and Obama has explicitly stated that is what he wants. I think he would also like to assert more control over industry and our lives than he could politically get away with, so to his credit, he has avoided doing so. So, yes, I think he is more socialist than capitalist, but he is also not a socialist, for the reasons you provided. You are free to disagree with my conclusion (which I think is the one where the conservatives have the strongest case, but still not completely convincing), but that is less the point.
The direct comparison is useless-- it is the reaction to the evidence that is worthwhile.
I agree, but his association at that church, when he at least constructively knew about Wright's positions is strange, I have to admit. Personally, I think it is possible his attendance at the church proves nothing, and his behavior elsewhere does not conclusively suggest he is an angry black man and seems to go the other direction.
I am not asking questions. I told you to ask me if you have questions on my position, which I have given, over, and over again. I am not hiding thing. You don't believe me, evidently, but I am not hiding it at all.
BTW, I don't really watch Beck, so I can't claim to use him as a any sort of inspiration or source.
These points I come to by my own consceince and research.
See your still hiding. What evidence,be specific.
And what the HELLL does "angry black man" mean? What the HELLL does black have to do with angry?? Why are those two words synonymous for you? Other than they scare the urine out of BJ Fan and his ilk?
"Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3] A more comprehensive definition of socialism is an economic system that directly maximizes use-values as opposed to exchange-values and has transcended commodity production and wage labor, along with a corresponding set of social and economic relations, including the organization of economic institutions and method of resource allocation;[4] often implying a method of compensation based on individual merit, the amount of labor expended or individual contribution.[5]
Socialists generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. This in turn creates an unequal society, that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential,[6] and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.[7]"
According to this it has two elements-- the first is production, which you assert, and I grant to suggest that Obama is not a pure socialist. However, the second element is that the government allocates resources to provide equal access to everyone. This is a stated goal of Obama. So it is not honest to say that he does not have any socialist tendencies.
You also ask what an angry black man is. I would use it to suggest a black man who angry because he has been discriminated against and holds a grudge because of it. He has a chip on his shoulder that comes from how he has been treated because he is black. But I do not think Obama is an angry black man.
I ask do you agree with your so-called socialist critque of capitalism? What do you think the cause of poverty are? Do you think that capitalism is the highest form and last form of human economic developent?
As far as your description of an angry black man,thats mighty white of you. Chip on his shoulder...!?!?
Before responding to the rest on economic forms, I want to be sure you understand that point.
Also, how would you describe the angry black man? I offered my opinion of what the unfortunate term means. Would you like to correct the opinion?
You "feel" that he might be an angry black man. Not because he has ever done anything to show you he is an angry man - whatever that means. But because he has listened to other men whom you believe to be angry black men so that gives you the "feeling" that he is angry and you "feel" that the word black fits nicely between angry and man for some odd reason.
You "feel" there is a valid reason to question his citizenship. Not because there is any evidence to actually suggest such nonsense, but you just have a "feeling" that he may not be American. It's your "feeling".
Well, I cannot argue with your "feelings". We all are responsible for our own "feelings". I suggest you own your "feelings" and maybe use some introspection to get down to why you "feel" the way you do about certain people. Your "feelings" say a heck of alot more about you than they do anyone else. I do appreciate the healthy debate, though.
As to my feelings, I have given you my thoughts and opinions here, over, and over and over and over. I continue to respond simply because I have no tolerance for those that do not take me at my word. I cannot make you agree with me, but as long as you question my integrity I will defend it. What I seek is not agreement, but for you to understand what it is I am saying.
As I have stated before, if you have specific, or even general questions about my position, let me know what they are. I will certainly ask for clarification from you guys if I am unclear. I will also admit when I misrepresent something that you clarify later.
There is something that you seem hung up on with my general position here-- that Obama is none of the things suggested in this article, but that there is something to the things you guys completely dismiss.
When you argued that the government didn't always redistribute and I pointed out to you one of the greatest governmental redistributions in the history of the world was slavery you replied that looking back was not good and harboring grudeges was divisive. That is not a debate that is just repeating talking points. You either acknowledge that you were wrong are provide evidence to back up your assertions. You do neither and it's dishonest. we understand that you think you are justified in your beliefs all were asking you to do is provide proof.
When I assert that poverty is increasing and wealth is being accumulated by a smaller section of the population it's is not a response to argue personal responsibility. Either that is true or it isn't,and if it's true personality responsibility will not alleviate a structural problem. That would be like saying a patient with cancer just should just prey.
Now, going back through out history it is important to remember certain basic assumptions they lived by in their own time. I do not pretend to support these assumptions, but it would be a mistake to assume they lived by the same code we do now. Yes, the government was set up for male property owners (who were indeed mostly white). Blacks and women were viewed as "lesser" creatures-- blacks less than human and women not smart enough to participate. This was a mistake, as we now know. We also saw the true wisdom in allowing all to participate and included those without property.
These are good developments. But what else needs to be done? They are given the same rights as everyone else now. They have the capacity to choose to make the most of where they are on their own or are they going to require those who "have it better" give something up to help them along, to level the playing field? How is that fair and when will the field be equal?
It depends on your point of view, now, doesn't it? It depends on the basic assumption one has, doesn't it? It is indeed a response to argue that as the wealthier get wealther to say go get a piece of it on your own! It is a fair response to say go get there yourself! It is a fair response to say you do not need the government to help you do it.
I actually think telling people that they cannot is a stumbling block. They here it over and over and begin to believe it. They lose hope, but when told that they are more than capable on their own there is hope.
So, before you get too locked into your quest for "facts" consider what it is I am proposing and why. It is not empty rhetoric I provide here, it gets to the heart of what it is we think and expect on a very fundamental level.
I'am sorry but I have no idea what you mean here?
I was thinking maybe I should let you have the last word. Our positions are clear for all to see,read and decide. But there is one thing that disturbs me and really bugs the heck out of me from what I read from most of you cons and it is this idea that personal responsibility means going it alone, that correcting abuses by corporations and structural problems within capitalism is somehow begging or asking for handouts,that exposing and talking about racial discrimination past and present is divisive and that those who take up this mantel are abrogating their personal responsibility.
Nothing could be further from the truth. A person petitioning their local government for a stop sign at a dangerous intersection is taking personal responsibility. A person going off to war to defend there country is taking personal responsibility and when he/she comes home to unemployment(over 21% of Iraq Vets are unemployed)and takes to the streets or writes to their congressional representatives for a redress of their problems they are taking personal responsibility. A person who reports discriminatition at the workplace despite personal harm is taking personal responsibility. When you vote for candidates you believe support your interest you are taking personal responsibility.
While it is true that alot of the legal barriers have been removed:it is against the law to discriminate,we have fair housing laws and workers have a right to organize ostensibly,clean air and water laws exist,women vote. Those things were not given they were fought for by people who took personal responsibility. But even now every one of those rights and laws passed have an asterisk by them . They have been weakened from years and years of non-eforcement mostly a result of effort and emphasis, a philosophical difference with their purpose.
As an example of how our civil rights laws,voting discrimination laws,fair housing laws,clean air and water laws and right ot organize laws are were being eroded from the inside I point you to the US Attorney firings. What the investigation showed beyond a doubt was a conscious effort to load the different departments of the DOJ and Civil Rights and labor enforcement departments with lawyers and other civil servants with people who towed hard right and to load the different regulatory and policy departments like commerce ,energy etc. with lobbyist who had previously worked for the corporations who now were taking up businness with those governmental departments. In other words the lobbyist of those corporations were now working for the government and making policies that would influence the profit margins of those coporations. An inside job if I've ever seen one! Those governmental agencies taken over by the corporations and multi-nationals ,which alligiance do you trust them , the commissioners to operate under yours or their stockholders? What has history shown and what are we expereincing right now? Do you call this a level playing field? I throw your question back to you : How is that fair and when do you think the field will be equal? Do you not see how I see the bending and non-enforecement of these laws protecting citizens of all colors as a class struggle?
Do you remember Monica Goodling? let me refresh your memory she was Deputy Director of Public Affairs at the US Department of Justice serving under Alberto Gonzales:
"Goodling's involvement in Attorneygate is not the only aspect of her role in the Bush administration that bears examination. Her membership in a cadre of 150 graduates of Pat Robertson's Regent University currently serving in the administration is another, equally revealing component of the White House's political program.
Goodling earned her law degree from Regent, an institution founded by Robertson "to produce Christian leaders who will make a difference, who will change the world." Helping to purge politically disloyal federal prosecutors is just one way Goodling has helped fulfill Robertson's revolutionary goals..."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/monica-goodling-one-of-15_b_44588.html
Purge US attorneys who would not bring bogus voting rights charges aimed at mostly black and latino voters. Monica was also instrumental in administering loyalty oaths to canidates for long term civil service positions. Workers who would be in charge of over seeing charges by Americans of discrimination,wage compensation,civil rights and voting rights violations,along with workplace safety and right to organize violations. I don't like to use wickepedia as proof but if you go to the page it links to in the Washington Post it is supported there:
"...Goodling appeared before the House Judiciary Committee, on May 23, 2007, under a limited immunity agreement[17], and provided to the committee a written statement that she read at the start of her testimony.[18][19] In response to questions during the hearing, Goodling stated that she "crossed the line" and broke civil service rules about hiring, and improperly weighed political factors in considering applicants for career positions at the Department of Justice.[20] [21] Link to Washington Post transcript of the hearing..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Goodling
Heres another:
"...When the Bush administration came into power, it looked to Regent for a reliable pool of well-groomed Republican ideologues eager to wage the culture war from the inside. The former dean of Regent's Robertson School of Government, Kay Coles James, was promptly installed as the Director of the Office of Personnel Management.
According to her bio, from 2001 to 2005, James was "President Bush's principal advisor in matters of personnel administration for the 1.8 million members of the Federal civil service." In that role, James rolled back the power of unions in the federal sector. Now that she's out of government, James is back among her Christian right allies, appearing frequently as a guest on James Dobson's Focus on the Family radio show...."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/monica-goodling-one-of-15_b_44588.html
I've taken more time than I meant so I'll forgo the pastes supporting my assertion of Lobbyist now working as directors of departments making polices influencing the corporations the once worked for. Sort of like the fox guarding the hen house. I don't believe it's necessary as you get my point. Sorry for these long winded post but I see no other way of refuting your ideological positions that are not based on reality and infact take a class view that basically tells those who are not being treated fairly to just shut up,grin and bear it. When the rules are skewed to the wealthier getting wealthier how is it a response to say go get it on your own? When departments of the government are taken over with the express purpose of rigging the game so the wealthy and powerful corporations always win how is it hope to dream maybe someday I can hit the lotto and become rich too.? Thats not hope thats a delusion.
Yes you are providing empty rhetoric. One that does not past the smell test or the test of history. What about making this a more perfect union? Poverty is increasing,standard of living going down,while a smaller and smaller % are living high on the hog at the majorities expense. Taking personal responsibility to correct these problems is transforming to the individual. It fosters hope it creates the sense of We and not just I.
So, to me, a perfect union is free from government influence over our daily lives.
You question here, and have before, the importance of people joining together o enact certain changes. Your examples are varied and are different. Petitioning for a stop sign is where personal safety is at risk, and is certainly reasonable. People joining together for benefits at work is also reasonable, but this can be done without government interference. There is no reason the government has to be invovled.
But here my idea of personal responsibility comes into play. First, on the side of the worker, it is their responsibility to demand that which is reasonable and necessary, like sufficient pay and safe working conditions. It is also fair for the government to say that conditions must meet certain requirements. Second, on the side of the corporation, they should act in a way that keeps their workers happy and productive, because long term it maximized their benefits, too. Happy employees work harder and buy more of their products. So, a responsible corporation should do exactly that. Henry Ford (besides his horrible bigotry to certain groups) was a great example of this in action.
Racially? I think at first it arguably was necessary for the government to be involved. People just would not do it on their own, and there is certainly no reason not to have basic laws saying thou shall not discriminate. But such a law is pretty obvious on its face to anyone with a brain. But other protections raise other questions, like when are they not necessary any more? I mentioned the U. of Mich law school before, and Justice O'Connor, I think it was, said that within 25 years such a rule from U of Mich would be unnecessary. I hope she's right, but I wonder what the black community will say when such protections are taken away. Will they allow it? Perhaps more importantly, how will we know when they are ready to be taken away?
Your direction pointing towards the erosiion of certain protections actually demonstrates my point. First of all, as you can see between our exchange, we have fundamentally different point of view, and those under Bush are much closer to my point of view than yours. Therefore, they think such protections are unecessary and harm our country. You disagree, and view such erosions with fear. That is natural, and it is a part of politics. Secondly, your reaction gives credence to my questions about how people will react when these protections are yanked.
But I have to ask this, too: do you even want such protections yanked? Do you not believe that humans are capable of living in a racially diverse nation without certain protections? Do you think groups are capable of overcoming their prejudices? Your answer to this question will be illustrative of how you address all of this analysis.
To conclude, I'll simply say that I believe true personal responsibility would extend to all areas of life. Personal responsibility does not require government action, and in fact most of the time does not require government action. Personal responsibility necessarily includes the freedom to choose how we react to certain things and the expectations we have in life. Personal responsibility can include the wisdom in seeing that help from others is needed to redress a harm. But most of all, it is acknowledging that our future is on our own hands, and not in anyone elses.
My proof of the eroding of laws and rights in no way supports you government has no roll POV and provides a clue to your question of when will we know. I ask you do you think the loading of Bush and religious right loyalist into positions of long term power in agencies they fundamentally disagree with will bring those 25 yr.s closer to fruition or not? Do you think turning your back on processing discrimination claims will make discrimination go away? No it won't as current events show hate groups growing and discrimination on the rise in almost every segment of our society. Governmental inaction on this will not make it go away no matter how much YOU you may sincerly wish it would. Going back into second class citienzenship or making others assume that role is not just politics as usual. It is a march backward in history that you so causually view it as such is scary and part of the problem.
"Congero-- Do not dismiss my calls for a change in the foundation from which we base our positions. Your call for 'facts' is an avoidance of that issue..."--Rational Conservative
I'am sorry but I have no idea what you mean here?"
What I mean is that you look to what you see as the reality of people's positions in life. But you do not seem to address a basic quesion. Why are they there and what is their idea of a solution.
I have a feeling you will tell me that they do not want to be there and they work hard, unsuccessfully to get out, or something along those lines. You'll tell me that many are there because of the obstacles put on them by discriminatory practices and the rich suppressing the poor. You'll also tell me that they should act responsibly and look to the government to assist. And yes, I have simplified the response greatly here.
I'd respond that I agree with most of that, but that is not deep enough. First, I'd question the expectations of people. Not that they should not strive to get out of their situation, but that they should learn what true contentement is. Second, I would argue that overcoming obstacles on ones own (or even as a group) does not necessarilly involve the government. If it does involve government, the government should be only a be a band aid, and that the true solution is found within themselves. In other words, the government is not the answer but a tool. The answer is a change in attitude. Third, I would say that reliance on the government long term does more harm than good, because it fails to address the solution. People will become dependant on the band aid and not address what the only way to freedom and equality really are, and that freedom is again found in changing ones fundamental assumption on what constitutes freedom and equality.
I believe true freedom and equality are found inside each and every person, not in externalities, like wealth or color of skin. Contentment is found by being comfortable with who you are and in your position in life. It requires to look to see how lucky each and every person truly is to have breath and live life, no matter one's situation.
I get the feeling you are not very religious (maybe you are) but the Apostle Paul demonstrates this when he discusses his contentment of being stuck in a Roman jail cell. He is not the only example. Truly successful people know who they are and what is important. It is not wealth, because many very unhappy people are indeed very wealthy. The walk to wealth can make people very unhappy. Happiness is found somewhere besides wealth, and freedom and equality are inescapably found inside happiness.
So, until people can learn to be happy and content with what they have, they will continue to be shackled by life and circumstance. A final note: is this easy? Absolutely not. But is it worth encouraging? I think so.
No it's not, snapperhead. And the correct expression is "up for debate".
"Was he born in the US? Probably, "
No snapperhead, the answer to that is YES.
" Has he done unconstitutional things? I think the HCR debate and result is unconstitutional, so yes"
Some evidence to back up your claim please, snapperhead.
" Taking away guns? He is a fan of gun control."
Anyone with even half a brain is in favor of that, snapperhead.
"So, here's my conclusion to your question: if a blatant lie is out there, it should be corrected. If something has some evidence to suggest it is true, it is not a blatant lie"
Here, let me help you with this one....if "something has evidence" to show it's true, then it's not a lie. There is no such thing as half a lie.
You really are a sad little muddleheaded individual.
You said: "I think the people who said Bush Lied people Died as truth did not state a blatant and complete lie"
Correct. What they stated was not a lie at all, it was a fact. Bush DID lie and people DID die.
Man you really need to stop trying to us 25c words to impress us. It only serves to make you look even more foolish than you are.
Read through everything else that's been written. I also think you demonstrate your bias when assert as fact taht Bush did lie. There is evidence that suggests it may be true, but nothing to assert it as 100% truth. This is exactly the same thing that I suggest with the claims against Obama, and just the same, I think the evidence that suggests it is lacking.
Fact: he claimed he knew where WMD were.
Fact: he invade on the basis of that claim.
Fact: there were NO WMD.
End of story.
Now woud you care to answer my question instead of ignoring it/
Here it is again:
RC said " Has he done unconstitutional things? I think the HCR debate and result is unconstitutional, so yes"
Please post some evidence to back up your claim.
Put it right here............>*
I don't attack ANY people. I attack behavior. When your behavior has been obnoxious, or troll-like, I DO think it helps refute the nonsense, which I think is incredibly valuable. Just like I wrote above. Not sure how you missed that.
You aren't an innocent victim here. Just like when a DA prosecutes a criminal with evidence of that criminal's bad acts doesn't make the criminal into a victim of the DA, but rather a 'victim' of the criminal's own behavior, you get tarred with your own behavior.
Do you think we're stupid and don't see it. My god it's every one of your posts. Your only out is that everyone who disagrees with you is a troll, if that is your opinion, then just admit it.
Well you are just a sockpuppet buddy of mine, me, the paid troll. That is how DollySue deals with people who are on to her nonsense. But she attacks "behavior" only. Don't you wonder if she really believes it or it's just that easy for her to lie through her teeth.
Sue, Mrs. Glenn Beck. Perfect for one another.
But please, keep making a fool of yourself. Keep digging that hole. And Chris, keep tying yourself to the sinking ship all you want. Your choice. Your behavior that you'll likely regret.
Because we do. At least I do.
Dolly, you do the former.
Classic.
Sue.
Alas.
My bad, here I always thought it was descriptive of someones hobby and/or job.
Such as:
Or possibly:
Calling someone a "teacher" is describing their behavior.
Calling someone a "troll" is describing their posting behavior. I don't LITERALLY think that anyone posting here is a 'literal' "Troll", since trolls don't exist!
What a TROLL you are though. I suspect you are the sockpuppet of RightON. RightON realized he had lost way too much credibility here, and he was trying out a new 'character', hoping to use that screen name to regain some credibility while still trying to derail threads with off-topic posts.
Sorry I derailed that effort - NOT!
Teaching is the behavior a teacher (a label for a person) partakes in.
I understand you don't think I am a little green guy with a funny hat, but a troll is also something else, ie another label. Posting in such a way as to only incite is a troll, so posting would be the activity.
Face it, Dolly, you personally attack.
However, I do not suggest to have questions. My mind is made up, and I have given those opinions elsewhere in this thread.
What I suggest here is simply that all of these issues there is enough doubt/evidence that people can believe them.
And thanks for continuing to prove that you're not rational. I love it when you guys dig your own graves.
YOU scored a point? On what planet?
Do you REALLY thinks that works? Do you REALLY think that we're that stupid? Really?
I don't "make" posters make troll posts. I don't 'invite' them with ANYTHING I do. You're a liar.
And lots of people could determine what's a troll post. Some people do it, and many people, after I point out that a post is not one that is intended to further any debate or participate in any discussion, stop responding to that troll post.
It does do good.
But please, keep tying yourself to RightON. Please.
If you'd stop calling people you disagree with trolls then you'd stop inviting the incendiary remarks that you deserve because of your childish potty mouth. You get what you dish our sister, don't act innocent, you look even more foolish. You need help. With thumbs down being personal attacks and people out to get you, it's only a matter of time before you implode and get banned again. It has happened before to you, many times. Do yourself a favor and learn your lesson. We will miss your nuttiness though, but it will certainly take the threads out of gutter and back to civility.
But not with you around.
And how praytell dear DollySue do you document when a thumbs down is a personal attack?
Oh, and you will be banned soon. You're now into Alice in Wonderland lala land and that is always where your mouth destroys you. You started out attacking only conservatives, now you attack liberals who disagree with you and are on to your silliness. That is where it went off the rails for you before, remember Ellie? Remember Sue? Remember Nomobush? Remember Notthatgeorge? Remember LuvLuLu?
Take some advice from an old friend, behave yourself. I want you around, my dear.
Dishonest poster that you are, you're simply trying to distract me from other threads now.
I don't "attack" ANYONE. I attack nonsense in posts. It's the content of the posts that I concentrate on, NOT the person who makes the posts, so your allegation that I "attack" liberals is baloney and you know it.
And again, I don't care what threats you may have made on any other posters over the years. It has nothing to do with me. You keep maintaining that I'm moments away from being banned, and you've been throwing that baseless personal attack at me for at least 6 of the 7 months I've been posting here. You're the one who's lost all credibility here, and it tees you off immensely. Too bad, so sad.
That's easy.
It's because lame a$$ tr0lls like you and the other imbeciles piling on in this thread need to STFU and/or F off.
Quite simple really.
Calling someone a troll is NEVER helpful. Ever. And yes, it is a personal attack. If you really want to discuss behaviour, than do so without the name-calling and then it won't come back to bite you like it did in this thread.
And RightOn, your comments feel a lot like the pot calling the kettle black to me. I'm starting to just skim over any thread that involves either of you much because it isn't worth my time.
That is the difference. I acknowledge and accept responsibility for it. She can't.
Nothing 'came back to bite me' in this thread. You're looney if you think it did. I don't attack people. It's NOT a personal attack if it's based on behavior, just like it's not a personal attack to call Son of Sam a murderer, but it IS a personal attack to call an abortion provider a murderer. It'd be a personal attack if I called anyone a troll because I disagreed with their opinion, but I don't do that. Not ever.
So feel free to continue believing in your delusion that I am name-calling when I point out a troll post or when I point out that someone who makes almost exclusively troll posts is a troll themselves. It's not true, of course, but feel free to believe it if it floats your boat. I don't CARE what you think of me. Never have, never will care what ANYONE thinks of ME on the anonymous Internet.
Tell us how that is Sue?
So, if someone displays NO effort to participate, and in fact showing clear signs of trying to DERAIL a topic or HINDER a conversation on the facts, then I am NOT the one poisoning the national discourse. It would be the person who failed to act reasonably who failed.
Again, accurately pointing out the behavior of others is NOT a bad thing.
Just like it's unfair to blame Obama for the failure of bipartisanship to have magically occurred in Washington, since it's the Republicans who have stymied bipartisanship, it's unfair to try to burden ME with the fact that reasonable conservatives don't post here and have arguments with the things I write on a regular basis.
Given that, there ARE examples I could post, but again, I refuse to participate in your farcical demand. You aren't asking because you honestly think it will prove my case - it's being done solely to mock me and attempt to discredit me. But in every case, you have lost all credibility with everyone except your sockpuppet buddies and other lurker trolls and 'out' trolls.
HAHAHA!! You can't and you know it. Nice try though to bring Obama into a discussion about your phoniness.
Come on Sue, just one example!! PLEASE!! Prove me wrong.
No. It's not a bad thing. But there is a difference between saying: "That information is not correct and here is why . . ." or "I think you are taking us a little far off topic." and calling someone a 'liar' or a 'troll.'
I know you believe you are imparting the information in the former examples, but what you are actually doing is calling names. It doesn't aid in keeping the conversation on track or civil and in fact has the exact opposite effect of what I believe to be your intent.
Nonsense. Swatting trolls is healthy, safe and fun!
rumpleteasermom: " I'm starting to just skim over any thread that involves either of you much because it isn't worth my time"
And of course you are just SOOOOOO important and your time is SOOOOOO valuable................*snicker*
@ rumplecrankymom, maybe you should consider climbing down off your high horse before you fall off in a fit of self-righteous indignation and hurt yourself.
You do have a point, RC.
I basically agree with the Harris poll. It accurately describes the attitude of most conservatives. Most of my family and friends believe Obama was born in Kenya or Indonesia. I don't, but they are certaily entitled to their views.
According to the poll, 67% of Republicans think that the President is a socialist and 40% of them think he does whatever Wall Street is telling him to do. So at least 7% of them think he is a socialist that does whatever Wall Street tells him to do. Now, I am no rocket scientist and that may explain why it doesn't make sense to me how you can believe both those things. I guess it is possible if you argue that Wall Street is somehow a socialist entity, though that does conflict with my current understanding - but again, I am not a rocket scientist.
I don't typically REPLY to the troll post I've identified as a troll post AFTER I make my "please don't feed the troll" post.
So how is it that MY posts are at fault?
Yeah, I thought so. You're appear to be a lurker troll. When you make posts like this, that BEHAVIOR will get called out by me. When you don't, YOU won't get called out, since I don't ATTACK the person, but do attack the POST! This isn't rocket science.
And my posts don't CAUSE any troll to go off-topic. Nor do they CAUSE any non-troll to go off-topic. Everyone here has free choice, in case you hadn't noticed.
There you go mikechuck, you have now earned the label. But there are several delineations in Sue's category of troll labeling. There is me, the paid troll. There is the concern troll. And now you, the lurker troll.
Wear it with honor Mike. I do.
You just LOVE having been clearly identified as a troll who has almost no good intentions here. Right. And the sun won't come up tomorrow. You just LOVE having been not only as someone with no credibility, but as a paid troll.
Even your reasonable posts are suspect since you invariably revert to the troll posts the same day you've made the reasonable posts.
If she agrees with the content, no matter how off topic it is, it is not a troll post. If it insults the rightwing in any fashion and defends the left, and/or MMfA, it's not a troll post. As long as she doesn't have to rebut the content, it's not a troll post.
If she disagrees with it and can't intelligently rebut it, it's a troll post.
Glad to be of help.
When someone - ANYONE - throws a tantrum over a thumbs down, I really question their sanity. At best, it shows a seriously screwed up set of priorities.
But I've never done that, so thanks AGAIN for tagging yourself as a lurker troll who isn't really interested in participating in a reasonable debate, and who solely wants to baselessly smear someone else by making a strawman argument.
What I HAVE done WRT thumbs down is point out, as many other posters have done, when they are done without any effort to actually debate the person whose positions one supposedly disagrees with.
I have also pointed out, as many others have, is how they are sometimes done in a kneejerk fashion, without regard to the actual content of the post at all - when it's simply a post, for example, that says that some posts must have been deleted by MMFA. How could THAT possibly be a post to legitimately thumb down?
And I have also pointed out times when thumbs down have clearly been personal attacks, like when my replying post is simply an echoing of another poster's thoughts, yet that original poster doesn't get a thumbs down, nor did other posts that expressed the exact same sentiments. I have also pointed out how my posts get targeted, clearly obvious to anyone with half a brain.
But I have NEVER, EVER, thrown any sort of a temper tantrum over them.
So thanks, once again, for pointing out YOUR loyalties.
Why you fools don't understand that hitching your wagon to RightON like this is NOT a good thing is beyond anyone with half a brain, which would lead ANY normal person to believe that you're not being honest when you claim to be NOT fully aligned with him on purpose!
And then spends the rest of the post throwing a temper tantrum over the thumbs' down she receives. Now that is rich, all in one post. Sort of like an all-you-can-eat buffet of neurotic paranoia delusional hors d'oeuvres.
Tasty indeed.
Classic.
Sue.
What I did was document EVERY type of comment I HAVE made WRT thumbs down.
But thanks for confirming the link between you and Joe Sixpack. You're both trolls and you're both off-base with your assertions that I've ever thrown a temper tantrum WRT thumbs down.
You, on the other hand, have demonstrated that YOU allow your personal animus to cause YOU to have temper tantrums where you act unreasonably and without much thoughtfulness!
I've found that my many years of teaching slow learners has taught me the patience to deal with those having genuine difficulty in understanding a proposition and has inured me to the willfully ignorant.
Liars are still a problem.
If it's a direct reply to another's post, without the intention to derail a thread, then it's not a troll post.
If someone has made a post that directly addressed the topic, and then makes another post that is off-topic, they're clearly willing to address the topic and therefore their off-topic post isn't a troll post.
If someone makes a post after a thread has been well-established, and labels it as knowingly off-topic, then it's not a troll post, as it's not intended to draw negative attention to their post and away from the topic that IS being discussed.
to admire DellDolly. Not only is she politically savvy
she has common sense,and I enjoy the hell out of watching her tie the trolls in knots,especially
RightON
I prefer to be on the oooooooooother side, thank you.
Noice BJ Fan, I did say adults, so you are excused, as usual, from all rationality.
Hahaha...Mike you said it all!
It's that the nonsense you fools spew poisons the debates we have here. We waste way too much time debunking your nonsense instead of actually discussing issues raised by MMFA using facts and evidence.
Just like our nation wastes time and energy fighting off the rightwings smears, distortions, lies and omissions of relevant info. It's toxic to the discourse we SHOULD BE HAVING!
It has nothing to DO with decorum. Nothing at all. It has to do debate, and debate that shouldn't be derailed in an intentional effort to avoid the actual subject, which is what we catch RightON and others doing all the time!
I, personally, think congero and RC and RightOn and NiceGuy and I could have a great time sitting at barstools drinking beer. And that is the same kind of debates I come here for, just without the beer.
It's America at its best. Arguing and debating fervently. It is not personal. And it is not deciding any legislation. Debate is healthy and necessary. I come from a family that has enjoyed many generations of drunken, yelling, arguing. We are of Italian and Irish descent and we do not take it personal. It's just part of who I am.
The more deep-seated the debate, the better. It's politics in America. I always feel I am correct, even though I know for a fact I have been wrong in the past. Therefore, I am always interested in hearing the arguments that disagree with mine. Right-wing, left-wing, progressive, liberal, conservative, libertarian, troll, whatever. The more voices, the better.
I agree, Mike. I have enjoyed posting here-- its certainly taken enough of my time.
The things we've been discussing in this thread have NOTHING to do with stifling ANY debate. It's been describing that what's gone on here, and what often goes on here, is NOT debate.
Troll voices, people who aren't interested in participating in a fair, reasoned debate, AREN'T valuable to ANY debate. The more of those 'voices' that are in the mix, in fact, the LESS PRODUCTIVE the debate will EVER BE!
And I never equated the debates we have with the very important debates they have in Washington as to their importance. What I DID equate was the same way that they are toxic to the debate.
But thanks for, yet again, showing your insincerity. I appreciate you tying yourself to the effort.
"We have both been part of the conservative movement for, as mentioned, the better part of half of our lives. And I can categorically state I’ve never seen such a hostile environment towards free thought and debate — once the hallmarks of Reaganism, the politics with which we grew up — prevail in our movement as it does today. The thuggish demagoguery of the Limbaughs and Becks is a trait we once derided in the old socialist Left. Well boys, take a look in the mirror. It is us now."
For you to imply that I don't encourage and treasure debate is pretty darn trollish on your behalf. It's not my side that is anti-debate. It's not my side that avoids facts like the plague. It's not Dems who have been guilty of pushing all kinds of disinformation in their desire to win at all costs!
Did you read more than the first 8 words of my post?
Gosh, don't you fools recognize the damage you do to your own credibility when you lash yourselves to these bogus arguments? Don't you understand that demonstrating that you're giving thought to your replies requires that you demonstrate that you read the whole post you're replying to?
Where are Rational thinkers? watching fox news for next talking point?
I have honestly tried to give him the benefit of the doubt - but time and again, I keep feeling that his actions are not in the best interest of We the People and this nation.
So my question is how do you know it is rhetoric? What would you personally stake that these assertions are not true? I mean, what do you really know about this man? And do you really feel you know enough about him to state what is true and what is not? So my question for those that want to stand up in his defense - would you be willing to bet your children, your home, your life savings, that all these allegations are totally and 100% false? I wouldn't, because while I don't think they are true - I don't know it for a fact.
As an example, I can say I am Amish. I can act like I am. I can live among them, and I can practice that religion, but that doesn't make me Amish - it only serves to make OTHERS believe I am Amish, when in fact, I am not. How do we know Obama is who he says he is? I'm not saying I want to see his records, or that his records are any of my business, but why does a man who is our President want to seal all his past records? Usually you only hide what you are ashamed of.
I think what we tend to forget is the fact that we are AMERICANS before we are Republicans or Democrats - or whatever the political party is of the moment. We are supposed to all be on the same side, but we don't act like it - we are a very divided country. The divide was there before Obama was elected, but he has only served to deepen that divide. It is not us against them - we are all in this together, and mocking or chiding someone because they have doubts about Obama isn't going to make them go away or erase the doubts. There is only one person who can do that - Obama himself - but he has chosen not to.
In the meantime, We the People see that neither Obama nor Congress is listening to the majority opinion. They want us to think they know best and we need to sit down and shut up and take what they give us. That is not the principals that this nation was founded on.
We seriously need to figure out how to stand together, least we find ourselves without a Nation to call home.
Thank you Media Matters for getting the truth out there for all to see.
Willful ignorance was institutionalized during the Bush/Rove era. It was given a forum by Fox News and now we have to hear it over and over.
But it doesn't fool those who have an education.
But it is a good video. I'd recommend that any rational person watch it.
Oops, but you haven't done that even once.
Because you couldn't. I'm one of the most rational posters you'll ever see. I rarely let my emotions get involved here.
Unfortunately, the video is also somewhat of a downer. Half of me stuck to the idea that if liberals were more outspoken on facts and reason, then right-wingers wouldn't see them as enemies, that they might start to question lies they've been told. I stuck to the fact that maybe, through various media platforms and information exchanges, we were heading towards a more enlightened world.
However, this is apparently, scientifically, not the case. I have come to agree with Frank Schaeffer, author of "Crazy for God," when he says "You cannot slow down village life to suit the village idiot. You move forward. You move past them." However, he also implies we must never exclude, and always extend a hand to those willing to accept it.
I agree with Cenk about TARP, but that is about all.
BJ, that's a crock of sh*t and YOU know it! I can't believe you had the nerve to post that lie!
Since when is 50 years a generation?
How else can it be explained that the definition of socialism is completely unknown, that when a birth certificate is produced and confirmed legitimate by various officials of the State of Hawaii that some TV personality merely has to say they don't believe it is real and others simply follow along or that someone like Glenn Beck can just state that Obama is like Hitler - his basis seems to be that both were elected ... and many people nod knowingly?
Obama hasn't nationalized anything nor has even suggested doing so(not a socialist); he was born in Hawaii according to everyone in authority there including the Republican governor of Hawaii (it turns out that a surprisingly large percentage of people who think Obama wasn't born in the USA believe he was born in Hawaii, not Kenya; they just don't believe that Hawaii is a state); if you believe Obama is like Hitler based on the fact that each was elected to run his respective country, then Bush could have been seen as being like Hitler, which makes more sense since Bush did lie about Iraq being a threat to us and then invaded it.
People who are developmentally disabled can often be convinced of almost anything if it is told to them by someone they trust. Evidence to the contrary will not matter because they are generally incapable of critical thinking.
People without much education may also fall under the influence of those they trust. While they have the ability for critical thinking, lacking an education, they may never have developed that ability.
Then there are the haters.
A lot of those people have been waiting around since the Clinton years to find someone new to hate.
Remember how many right wing nuts were convinced that Mrs. Clinton had murdered Vince Foster and that it was covered up? Of course, all of the evidence clearly proved it was suicide, but they just couldn't let it go.
While there is more than a little bit of racism in the attitude toward Obama, I think the hate itself is about the same.
But, I also remember the night Clinton was elected. Bob Dole basically told a reporter that republicans would not recognize Clinton as our legitimate president. They would not co-operate and they would make him pay for beating Bush.
That was the beginning. And it's gotten so much worse. We have a network dedicated to the destruction of this president. They want the gop to pay their dues by advancing their rhetoric and twisted thinking.
They expect the usual lock step loyalty.
Unfortunately, our regular press is not standing up to this or informing the public about what is really going on. They are so wedded to this false equivalency.
This whole he said-she said nonsense.