View Full Version : Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape
franalexes
04-08-2012, 04:56 PM
In honor of the 44th President of the United States, Giffords Ice Cream has introduced a new flavor: Barocky Road
Barocky Road is a blend of half vanilla, half chocolate, and surrounded by nuts and flakes. The vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient. The nuts and flakes are all plentiful.
The cost is $92.84 per scoop...so out of a hundred dollar bill you are at least promised some CHANGE..!
When purchased it will be presented to you in a large beautiful cone, but after you pay for it, the ice cream is taken out of the cone and given to the person in line behind you at no charge.
You are left with an almost empty wallet, staring at an empty cone and wondering what just happened. Then you realize this is what "redistribution of wealth" is all about.
Aren't you just stimulated?
In honor of the 44th President of the United States, Giffords Ice Cream has introduced a new flavor: Barocky Road
Barocky Road is a blend of half vanilla, half chocolate, and surrounded by nuts and flakes. The vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient. The nuts and flakes are all plentiful.
The cost is $92.84 per scoop...so out of a hundred dollar bill you are at least promised some CHANGE..!
When purchased it will be presented to you in a large beautiful cone, but after you pay for it, the ice cream is taken out of the cone and given to the person in line behind you at no charge.
You are left with an almost empty wallet, staring at an empty cone and wondering what just happened. Then you realize this is what "redistribution of wealth" is all about.
Aren't you just stimulated?
I'm no fan of Obama or of the ice cream you describe, judging from its flavor composition, but I bet it's no better or worse than the ice cream they serve at the Republican National Committee's ice cream stand. There, only rich people can actually buy ice cream, but the 99% are encouraged to sit on the ground at their feet as the rich eat, hoping to get some ice cream as the hot sun makes it "trickle down" into their waiting mouths.
Needless to say, it's cold as hell at the RNC ice cream stand, by design, and nothing ever trickles down.
franalexes
04-08-2012, 05:37 PM
"keep the change".
franalexes
04-08-2012, 09:04 PM
, and nothing ever trickles down.
I was wondering about that. A lot of people are waiting for the stimulus to Solyndra to trickle down.
And remeber the "cash for clunkers",,,,,,,,it's harder now, for 99% as you call them, to get used parts to repair their cars.
trickle down may not work in your community but trickle up poverty is doing well.
I was wondering about that. A lot of people are waiting for the stimulus to Solyndra to trickle down.
And remeber the "cash for clunkers",,,,,,,,it's harder now, for 99% as you call them, to get used parts to repair their cars.
trickle down may not work in your community but trickle up poverty is doing well.
Of course, you know full well that neither of your two examples have anything to do with the "supply side" theory of economics represented by the "trickle down" mentality, and you know this because you're a smart woman. But thanks for playing.
franalexes
04-08-2012, 09:25 PM
I had a bet with someone that you would be the first to answer my post. I knew you couldn't resist. It had nothing to do with what I posted.
BUT THANKS FOR PLAYING.;)
I had a bet with someone that you would be the first to answer my post. I knew you couldn't resist. It had nothing to do with what I posted.
BUT THANKS FOR PLAYING.;)
When you make a bet with yourself, who pays? Just wondering.
The fact is, I could resist. I chose not to, because it's like shooting fish in a barrel ... and I need the exercise.
ulyssesgrant50
04-08-2012, 09:48 PM
In honor of the 44th President of the United States, Giffords Ice Cream has introduced a new flavor: Barocky Road
Barocky Road is a blend of half vanilla, half chocolate, and surrounded by nuts and flakes. The vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient. The nuts and flakes are all plentiful.
The cost is $92.84 per scoop...so out of a hundred dollar bill you are at least promised some CHANGE..!
When purchased it will be presented to you in a large beautiful cone, but after you pay for it, the ice cream is taken out of the cone and given to the person in line behind you at no charge.
You are left with an almost empty wallet, staring at an empty cone and wondering what just happened. Then you realize this is what "redistribution of wealth" is all about.
Aren't you just stimulated?
Wow, Giffords. That brings great memories. Are there any of their stores left? I remember the name being reused a few times, a couple of stores that I've not seen recently, and a retail distribution.
tslust
04-08-2012, 10:35 PM
In honor of the 44th President of the United States, Giffords Ice Cream has introduced a new flavor: Barocky Road
Barocky Road is a blend of half vanilla, half chocolate, and surrounded by nuts and flakes. The vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient. The nuts and flakes are all plentiful.
The cost is $92.84 per scoop...so out of a hundred dollar bill you are at least promised some CHANGE..!
When purchased it will be presented to you in a large beautiful cone, but after you pay for it, the ice cream is taken out of the cone and given to the person in line behind you at no charge.
You are left with an almost empty wallet, staring at an empty cone and wondering what just happened. Then you realize this is what "redistribution of wealth" is all about.
Aren't you just stimulated?
OMG that was too funy!!:lol: true, butt funny:lol:
tslust
04-08-2012, 10:37 PM
And remeber the "cash for clunkers",,,,,,,,it's harder now, for 99% as you call them, to get used parts to repair their cars.
IKR A lot of the used car lots don't have the cheap cars anymore. Also, junk yards suffered because of that as well.
Wow, Giffords. That brings great memories. Are there any of their stores left? I remember the name being reused a few times, a couple of stores that I've not seen recently, and a retail distribution.
There is still a Giffords store where I live. It's a spring ritual when the store opens up for the first day of the season, they give out free scoops of ice cream all day.
transjen
04-08-2012, 11:32 PM
We will feel the full flow of trickle down under a president Romney or a pope Santorum
Yes that's right we'll all feel the flow as they piss on our backs and the GOP spin machine [Rush & Ann] we tell us it's only raining
Golden showers anyone? just vote GOP and they'll give you one
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
franalexes
04-09-2012, 06:33 AM
], because it's like shooting fish in a barrel ... and I need the exercise.[/QUOTE]
still getting your shots off even if you have to unload by hand.
nice.
I had corresponded with smc via PM regarding our earlier conversation. At his request, I'm posting this here to forward the conversation for all to see. This is originally in reference to post #222 (one page back):
Conservatives have managed to successfully paint affirmative action as "reverse racism." I must admit that I've fallen victim to this line of thinking. When you look at a pool of applicants, and all else being equal, it doesn't seem right that the minority candidate will get the job just to meet a quota. Or that the minority candidate will get "bonus points" just by virtue of their race/gender/etc. I'd prefer applicants be picked SOLELY on their qualifications, and if it's neck and neck based on that, then the interviewer/company needs to dig a bit deeper and not settle on the candidate whose race will ensure compliancy with some federal statute.
That is one side of my brain. The other side of my brain is not so naive as to believe that just because you outlaw discrimination that it actually goes away. Even in communities where there is no overt racism or discrimination, certain minorities are cogs in a machine that by design puts them at disadvantage economically, educationally, etc. The whole "white, male privilege" thing. Racism was so institutionalized in our nation's past that entire communities of African Americans will never have the same opportunities that I had growing up. And I don't buy the Republican bullshit that all you have to do is work hard and pull yourself up by your bootstraps and you'll become the next Steve Jobs.
I'm always of these two minds. I guess I feel that affirmative action is too blunt a sword for a job that requires a precise knife blade. I can see where AA is a good thing and perhaps still needed in some capacity, but I'm also not convinced that the way it is currently administered is the best course. With that said, my preferred method of combating institutionalized disadvantage is no more popular with our conservative friends. I feel that poverty remains one of the biggest institutions that people struggle to ever break free from. I don't have solid solutions for creating upward socioeconomic mobility-- but I have NO PROBLEM redistributing the wealth downward. It's patently false that the majority of poor people (which includes many blacks) are lazy and just want to live on the government cheese train.
Regarding diversity in general, having spent much of my life in and around academia, I really value diversity in our universities and schools. And I guess I agree with you that these institutions should probably be more diverse than the surrounding demographics might suggest. Maine is TOO white for my taste. It's bad that you can go entire days (or weeks even) without encountering a non-white individual. That wasn't usually the case at the University.
I had corresponded with smc via PM regarding our earlier conversation. At his request, I'm posting this here to forward the conversation for all to see. This is originally in reference to post #222 (one page back):
Conservatives have managed to successfully paint affirmative action as "reverse racism." I must admit that I've fallen victim to this line of thinking. When you look at a pool of applicants, and all else being equal, it doesn't seem right that the minority candidate will get the job just to meet a quota. Or that the minority candidate will get "bonus points" just by virtue of their race/gender/etc. I'd prefer applicants be picked SOLELY on their qualifications, and if it's neck and neck based on that, then the interviewer/company needs to dig a bit deeper and not settle on the candidate whose race will ensure compliancy with some federal statute.
That is one side of my brain. The other side of my brain is not so naive as to believe that just because you outlaw discrimination that it actually goes away. Even in communities where there is no overt racism or discrimination, certain minorities are cogs in a machine that by design puts them at disadvantage economically, educationally, etc. The whole "white, male privilege" thing. Racism was so institutionalized in our nation's past that entire communities of African Americans will never have the same opportunities that I had growing up. And I don't buy the Republican bullshit that all you have to do is work hard and pull yourself up by your bootstraps and you'll become the next Steve Jobs.
I'm always of these two minds. I guess I feel that affirmative action is too blunt a sword for a job that requires a precise knife blade. I can see where AA is a good thing and perhaps still needed in some capacity, but I'm also not convinced that the way it is currently administered is the best course. With that said, my preferred method of combating institutionalized disadvantage is no more popular with our conservative friends. I feel that poverty remains one of the biggest institutions that people struggle to ever break free from. I don't have solid solutions for creating upward socioeconomic mobility-- but I have NO PROBLEM redistributing the wealth downward. It's patently false that the majority of poor people (which includes many blacks) are lazy and just want to live on the government cheese train.
Regarding diversity in general, having spent much of my life in and around academia, I really value diversity in our universities and schools. And I guess I agree with you that these institutions should probably be more diverse than the surrounding demographics might suggest. Maine is TOO white for my taste. It's bad that you can go entire days (or weeks even) without encountering a non-white individual. That wasn't usually the case at the University.
It is so nice to have reasoned discourse for a change.
I would like to make just one point regarding one thing you write:
"And I don't buy the Republican bullshit that all you have to do is work hard and pull yourself up by your bootstraps and you'll become the next Steve Jobs.
I am afraid this is not "Republican bullshit." Rather, it is the very core of the misguided ideology of American exceptionalism and individualism, and it is inculcated into us from a very young age. It is why Americans, unlike nearly everyone else in the world, have no sense of social solidarity. It is why Americans are so easily convinced to act against their own economic interests by those who control the wealth. And it is why ours is the only advanced country in the world that does not recognize the right to and extraordinarily social value of things such as universal healthcare, national standards for education (regardless of where you live, ungoverned by property values), and so on.
TracyCoxx
04-15-2012, 11:00 AM
But as I have stated over and again in this particular discussion, my point is about the inherent subjectivity -- independent of all other things -- of deciding the so-called "constitutionality" of anything that is not specifically referenced in the Constitution.And as I have responded, amendments have been made to the constitution to allow certain laws which were declared unconstitutional because they had no basis in the constitution. Don't you think that says something about laws being made that aren't specifically referenced in the constitution?
And, after all, isn't what the Supreme Court issues an OPINION?I was under the impression that they issued rulings. They will explain their position as an "opinion". But realize that this is different than the casual usage of opinion and that terms may have different meanings in the context of law. A "judicial opinion" or "opinion of the court" is an explanation of the order or ruling which lays out the rational and legal principles that the justice relied (in principle, not personal opinion) on in reaching their decision.
As for recusal, why shouldn't Clarence Thomas recuse himself, too? He and his wife have both benefited from specific political contributions made to his wife's organizationI have no idea what his wife's organization is.
TracyCoxx
04-15-2012, 11:09 AM
Everyone knows how the GOP hate goverment ran/sponsered health insurence, but notice how many of em has turned down there's and wentout to buy private insurence :lol:
But the GOP should bring a camera crew in to Dick Cheney's private room and have him tell the Americian people how bad goverment ran/sponsered health insurence is and how we will all hate it and will miss and be better off with the current private heath insurence ran mess we all get :coupling: by
Cheney can then go on about how the goverment ran/sponsered healthcare paid all the bills for his heart transplant [a bill must private insurence compnies won't cover] but you won't like it and you'll be happier with buying your own health insurence from a private provider but Cheney will suffer with goverment ran health insurence he gets for free
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
Don't confuse Cheney's healthcare as former VP with the healthcare we would all get under Obamacare. And don't think for a minute that every 71 year old needing a heart transplant would get one under Obamacare.
TracyCoxx
04-15-2012, 11:51 AM
I had corresponded with smc via PM regarding our earlier conversation. At his request, I'm posting this here to forward the conversation for all to see. This is originally in reference to post #222 (one page back):
Conservatives have managed to successfully paint affirmative action as "reverse racism." I must admit that I've fallen victim to this line of thinking. When you look at a pool of applicants, and all else being equal, it doesn't seem right that the minority candidate will get the job just to meet a quota. Or that the minority candidate will get "bonus points" just by virtue of their race/gender/etc. I'd prefer applicants be picked SOLELY on their qualifications, and if it's neck and neck based on that, then the interviewer/company needs to dig a bit deeper and not settle on the candidate whose race will ensure compliancy with some federal statute.I'm more concerned when they give the job to an underqualified black person in order to fill a quota.
ie...
White firefighters in New Haven, Conn., passed an exam for a job promotion only to have the test results thrown out because no African-American candidate received a high enough score to also be considered for promotion.
The Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Washington who was denied by the university's law school twice. There were, however 30 minority-group students with lower grades and aptitude scores that were granted admission.
In HUD, white employees are routinely denied promotions so the agency can hire 382.9% more blacks than in the civilian work force.
etc etc etc...
In a situation where you have two applicants, one white, one black, and they're both equally qualified, and your employees do not match the local demographics, then yeah, give the job to the black person. But that's about as far as I would take affirmative action. But don't screen out much more qualified people who happen to be white.
Maine is TOO white for my taste. It's bad that you can go entire days (or weeks even) without encountering a non-white individual.
That's another thing... you or anyone else could say this and generally no one would think twice about it. Now think of what the response would be if I said:
New Orleans is TOO white for my taste. It's bad that you can go entire days (or weeks even) without encountering a non-black individual.
Oh, now THAT is racist.
NAAWP (National Association for the Advancement of White People) - racist
White History Month - racist
National Society of White Engineers - racist
When people see someone like Herman Cain, do they assume the presidency of Godfather's Pizza was given to him because he is black? If I were him I'd be pretty insulted by that given that he's a highly capable individual who probably earned his position there.
I think there's a perception that Charles Bolden, head of Nasa (and the guy who said Nasa's foremost mission was to help Muslims feel better about themselves), was an affirmative action pick because he's a complete joke. But wait... sure he's qualified... he was an astronaut for cristsakes! Uh... yeah... He was an astronaut... when the shuttle program was starting off and Nasa needed to show that space flight was routine and quiet criticisms that all their astronauts before had been black.
Don't confuse Cheney's healthcare as former VP with the healthcare we would all get under Obamacare. And don't think for a minute that every 71 year old needing a heart transplant would get one under Obamacare.
Of course, Jen's point about 71-year-olds never implied that all who needed a heart transplant would get one under "Obamacare." She was making a broader point about government-provided healthcare. And you can rest assured TracyCoxx knew that was her point ... but didn't let it get in the way of making his point by falsely implying (yes, IMPLYING) something in her post that wasn't there, and thus falsely attributing it to Jen by inference.
I'm more concerned when they give the job to an underqualified black person in order to fill a quota.
I have no problem with quotas so long as they are something we agree to socially, as a nation. And if the discussion of affirmative action was an honest one, rather than charged with the falsehoods that its opponents use to paint it a certain way, I have every confidence that Americans would support a more robust, rigorous affirmative action.
That's another thing... you or anyone else could say this and generally no one would think twice about it. Now think of what the response would be if I said:
New Orleans is TOO white for my taste. It's bad that you can go entire days (or weeks even) without encountering a non-black individual.
Oh, now THAT is racist.
Of course, when you take GRH's comment out of the context of an honest, respectful discussion about affirmative action, you can make her sound like a racist. And that's precisely my point above.
Well played. :no:
Tracy...You do realize that I am white? So it's not like I'm black and saying that I don't like all the whites in my state. I'm simply comparing the demographics of my current location to the demographics of other places that I've lived. I fail to see how stating that I wish my current state had more diversity makes me racist...
Enoch Root
04-16-2012, 07:44 AM
Tracy...You do realize that I am white? So it's not like I'm black and saying that I don't like all the whites in my state. I'm simply comparing the demographics of my current location to the demographics of other places that I've lived. I fail to see how stating that I wish my current state had more diversity makes me racist...
"Reverse racism"? Self hating "reverse racist"? The world will never know...
franalexes
04-16-2012, 08:11 AM
.
. Maine is TOO white for my taste. It's bad that you can go entire days (or weeks even) without encountering a non-white individual. That wasn't usually the case at the University.
You make that sound like it's the fault of Maine people. Good luck trying to say that "off campus". You'll probably hear," Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."
Not so many years ago a student with good grades applied at UMO and was refused. He applied again but checked the box that he was part "Native American". He was accepted.
While Maine may be white, it is also heavily French Canadian.(no color there) I think it is a natural tendency for some people to discriminate in anything that is different to them.
Color, nationality, religion, sex, weight, dress, attitudes and personal choices, all play a role in our response to other people.
Enoch Root
04-16-2012, 01:24 PM
"Reverse racism"? Self hating "reverse racist"? The world will never know...
That's sarcasm folks.
TracyCoxx
04-20-2012, 02:49 PM
Of course, Jen's point about 71-year-olds never implied that all who needed a heart transplant would get one under "Obamacare." She was making a broader point about government-provided healthcare.
Sorry, I couldn't find Jen's point about 71-year-olds. Could you post it please?
All I could find is this:
But the GOP should bring a camera crew in to Dick Cheney's private room and have him tell the Americian people how bad goverment ran/sponsered health insurence is and how we will all hate it and will miss and be better off with the current private heath insurence ran mess we all get :coupling: by
Cheney can then go on about how the goverment ran/sponsered healthcare paid all the bills for his heart transplant [a bill must private insurence compnies won't cover] but you won't like it and you'll be happier with buying your own health insurence from a private provider but Cheney will suffer with goverment ran health insurence he gets for free
:eek: Jerseygirl JenThis is where she was saying a GOP camera crew should go into Cheney's private room and tell americans how government ran/sponsored healthcare paid all his bills for his heart transplant. Then she says he'd say "but you won't like it". What's 'it' in this context? Government ran/sponsored health care. Is that the same government ran/sponsored health care she just mentioned? No it's not is it, but she seemed to imply that it was. Next time I think Jen would be better qualified to interpret what she meant. I kind of thought she'd be more than able to understand what I wrote and reply for herself anyway. I guess that's just me though.
TracyCoxx
04-20-2012, 02:53 PM
Tracy...You do realize that I am white? So it's not like I'm black and saying that I don't like all the whites in my state. I'm simply comparing the demographics of my current location to the demographics of other places that I've lived. I fail to see how stating that I wish my current state had more diversity makes me racist...
I never thought, or said you are black. I'm only talking about the comment itself. If it's said about whites, it's fine. If not, it's perceived to be racist. I'm not saying it is a racist statement. But if it was said about blacks instead of whites (even without racial intentions), whoever said it would be accused of being racist.
Sorry, I couldn't find Jen's point about 71-year-olds. Could you post it please?
It's the point about 71-year-old Cheney. You know exactly what was meant. But why let that get in the way of you shitting on a serious discussion? I imagine you sitting all alone, smugly thinking that you've bested everyone by pointing out that Jen never used the exact phrase "71-year-old," and believing that somehow you have won. But all you've really done is prove to that you are a miserable troll. I've said it before and I say it again. You've only been indulged for some reason I don't understand, but I stand by this characterization and say enough is enough.
Go ahead ... complain to the site owner about the words I just used. My argument will be this. The rule about not "insulting" other members shouldn't apply to someone who insults the entire site, and offers nothing here except provocation.
Read on...
All I could find is this:
This is where she was saying a GOP camera crew should go into Cheney's private room and tell americans how government ran/sponsored healthcare paid all his bills for his heart transplant. Then she says he'd say "but you won't like it". What's 'it' in this context? Government ran/sponsored health care. Is that the same government ran/sponsored health care she just mentioned? No it's not is it, but she seemed to imply that it was. Next time I think Jen would be better qualified to interpret what she meant. I kind of thought she'd be more than able to understand what I wrote and reply for herself anyway. I guess that's just me though.
Jen is one of the most highly valued members of this site. I have no doubt that she would be the first one to tell you that perfect writing in English is not her strongest suit. But you use that as a cudgel against her because you disrespect her, and you disrespect her because she has opinions that differ from yours and is not afraid to state them. And that makes you the very embodiment of everything that's wrong with discourse in this country.
You make me want to vomit.
Enoch Root
04-20-2012, 06:20 PM
Jen is one of the most highly valued members of this site. I have no doubt that she would be the first one to tell you that perfect writing in English is not her strongest suit. But you use that as a cudgel against her because you disrespect her, and you disrespect her because she has opinions that differ from yours and is not afraid to state them. And that makes you the very embodiment of everything that's wrong with discourse in this country.
You make me want to vomit.
Do you see what you have done Tracy? Now I'll have to be on the phone all night with the insurance company about treatment for smc's nausea and I don't think private insurance provides transsexual nurses. I'm calling Obama.
TracyCoxx
04-22-2012, 08:13 AM
It's the point about 71-year-old Cheney. You know exactly what was meant. But why let that get in the way of you shitting on a serious discussion? I imagine you sitting all alone, smugly thinking that you've bested everyone by pointing out that Jen never used the exact phrase "71-year-old," and believing that somehow you have won. But all you've really done is prove to that you are a miserable troll.LOL not really, but that is interesting that you would say that though since you routinely attack the words I choose or phrases I choose rather than what I'm actually trying to say. That's an interesting window into your world. Thanks for that.
Go ahead ... complain to the site owner about the words I just used.Why? What did you say? No, it was more humorous than anything else.
Jen is one of the most highly valued members of this site. I have no doubt that she would be the first one to tell you that perfect writing in English is not her strongest suit. But you use that as a cudgel against her because you disrespect her, and you disrespect her because she has opinions that differ from yours and is not afraid to state them. And that makes you the very embodiment of everything that's wrong with discourse in this country.Aside from her spelling, she is quite capable of making herself clear. And I do respect her for that. I think you should too and let her speak her mind.
And btw, I don't disrespect people for having opinions different than me. There were a number of people on this site that had different opinions than I had and we had many fruitful discussions. That is until you took it as your personal mission to respond for every single person that I tried to engage in a discussion with.
You make me want to vomit.
Do what you must.
TracyCoxx
04-22-2012, 08:17 AM
Do you see what you have done Tracy? Now I'll have to be on the phone all night with the insurance company about treatment for smc's nausea and I don't think private insurance provides transsexual nurses. I'm calling Obama.
lol if we can get transsexual nurses in private health care will we be good then?
LOL not really, but that is interesting that you would say that though since you routinely attack the words I choose or phrases I choose rather than what I'm actually trying to say. That's an interesting window into your world. Thanks for that.
Why? What did you say? No, it was more humorous than anything else.
Aside from her spelling, she is quite capable of making herself clear. And I do respect her for that. I think you should too and let her speak her mind.
And btw, I don't disrespect people for having opinions different than me. There were a number of people on this site that had different opinions than I had and we had many fruitful discussions. That is until you took it as your personal mission to respond for every single person that I tried to engage in a discussion with.
Do what you must.
Your dissembling really knows no bounds, does it?
TracyCoxx
04-23-2012, 08:09 AM
Your dissembling really knows no bounds, does it?
Dissemble dissemble dissemble... muh ha ha ha!
And btw, I don't disrespect people for having opinions different than me. There were a number of people on this site that had different opinions than I had and we had many fruitful discussions. That is until you took it as your personal mission to respond for every single person that I tried to engage in a discussion with.
You bring this up time and again, Tracy Coxx, rather than answering actual challenges to the political points you seek to make, but the fact remains that there are no PRIVATE discussions in threads on this site. It's really quite simple. If you post in a public thread, anyone can address what you have posted. Someone doing so is not, as you write, responding "for" others.
Enoch Root
04-23-2012, 10:09 AM
Dissemble dissemble dissemble... muh ha ha ha!
This is a new low Tracy. It's not even ironically amusing.
TracyCoxx
04-23-2012, 04:39 PM
You bring this up time and again, Tracy Coxx, rather than answering actual challenges to the political points you seek to make, but the fact remains that there are no PRIVATE discussions in threads on this site. It's really quite simple. If you post in a public thread, anyone can address what you have posted. Someone doing so is not, as you write, responding "for" others.
And time and time again you mischaracterize my statements so that you can argue a different point that has nothing to do with what's being said. I never said this is a private discussion, keep out or anything like that. I said you make it your personal mission to respond for every single person I try to engage in a discussion with. Does that mean you can't participate in the discussion too? No. But common courtesy says you would at least let the other person respond without jumping in with your two cents once in a while. But no. Almost EVERY SINGLE TIME. Doing it sometimes, I can see, but i'm literally talking above 95% over the past few years. I'm talking about etiquette, not privacy.
TracyCoxx
04-23-2012, 04:41 PM
This is a new low Tracy. It's not even ironically amusing.
I too missed the irony. I don't think I meant any irony.
And time and time again you mischaracterize my statements so that you can argue a different point that has nothing to do with what's being said. I never said this is a private discussion, keep out or anything like that. I said you make it your personal mission to respond for every single person I try to engage in a discussion with. Does that mean you can't participate in the discussion too? No. But common courtesy says you would at least let the other person respond without jumping in with your two cents once in a while. But no. Almost EVERY SINGLE TIME. Doing it sometimes, I can see, but i'm literally talking above 95% over the past few years. I'm talking about etiquette, not privacy.
I do not respond for others, period. I speak for myself. You can keep making this claim until the cows come home, but it doesn't make it true.
Enoch Root
04-24-2012, 11:38 AM
I too missed the irony. I don't think I meant any irony.
I did not mean that you were being ironic. I meant that you tend to roll into this forum writing silly provocative and at times insulting posts which I find ironically amusing.
I have a pretty well developed sense of morbid curiosity. I don't remember having one prior to signing up as a member of this forum and reading your stuff over the course of two years. A big part of why I return to this website is to read your latest outrageous comment.
tslust
05-02-2012, 07:25 AM
No obama has made it illegal to protest in his presence.
A short vid about HR 347
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=7SGWH3kirzg&vq=medium
Now before you liberals roll your eyes and say "it's just Fox News", lets hear from Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanine-molloff/trespass-bill_b_1328205.html
H. R. 347 makes protest of any type potentially a federal offense with anywhere from a year to 10 years in federal prison, providing it occurs in the presence of elites brandishing Secret Service protection, or during an officially defined 'National Special Security Event' (NSSE). NSSEs , ( an invention of Bill Clinton) are events which have been deemed worthy of Secret Service protection, which previously received no such treatment. Justified through part of 'Presidential Decision Directive 62 in 1998; Bill Clinton created an additional class of special events explicitly under the authority of the U.S. Secret Service.
No obama has made it illegal to protest in his presence.
A short vid about HR 347
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=7SGWH3kirzg&vq=medium
Now before you liberals roll your eyes and say "it's just Fox News", lets hear from Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanine-molloff/trespass-bill_b_1328205.html
It's outrageous, and The Huffington Post is correct to state that Obama's has morphed into a third Bush term (on issues like this). But let's be honest about it: do you think that if Bush was about to sign legislation like this, the Fox News report would even be remotely similar?
Of course not. It would have been touted as crucial to fighting terrorism, sedition, or whatever. There would not have been a peep about civil liberties.
tslust
05-02-2012, 01:05 PM
It's outrageous, and The Huffington Post is correct to state that Obama's has morphed into a third Bush term (on issues like this). But let's be honest about it: do you think that if Bush was about to sign legislation like this, the Fox News report would even be remotely similar?
Of course not. It would have been touted as crucial to fighting terrorism, sedition, or whatever. There would not have been a peep about civil liberties.
Very late into his second term (like almost the last thing he did) Bush did sign into law a bill that in effect made it illegal to criticize the sitting president.
TracyCoxx
05-14-2012, 09:19 PM
I wonder how many of Obama's other skeletons in his closet took the pay-off?
?How much money did he offer you??
?One hundred and fifty thousand dollars,? Wright said.
?And one of the first things Barack said was, ?I really wish you wouldn?t do any more public speaking until after the November election.? He knew I had some speaking engagements lined up, and he said, ?I wish you wouldn?t speak. It?s gonna hurt the campaign if you do that.?
?Barack said, ?I?m sorry you don?t see it the way I do. Do you know what your problem is?? And I said, ?No, what?s my problem?? And he said, ?You have to tell the truth.? I said, ?That?s a good problem to have. That?s a good problem for all preachers to have. That?s why I could never be a politician.?
So Obama wasn't just a passive listener in church. Interesting to hear what Obama considers "the truth".
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/the_bribe_to_silence_wright_io9jneobl3fUF0cb7LpcNM
I wonder how many of Obama's other skeletons in his closet took the pay-off?
So Obama wasn't just a passive listener in church. Interesting to hear what Obama considers "the truth".
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/the_bribe_to_silence_wright_io9jneobl3fUF0cb7LpcNM
Oh, my god! A politician from one of the two parties of the ruling rich using money to silence someone who might derail their campaigns. I can't imagine any Republicans have ever done this.
Yes, if it's true, it's reprehensible. Reprehensible. But a surprise? No. Uncharacteristic of politics? No. Newsworthy? Maybe a bit.
transjen
05-16-2012, 05:03 PM
So far all Romney and other GOP bozos have done is bitch and complain about Obama's handeling of the econmy and so far all they have done is preech and hold up there dusty failed econmic plan that lead us to the econmy tanking under GOP control and the rain of George W Bush
The failed trickle down policies of cutting taxs for the rich cutting captial gains tax and cutting taxs for the multi billion dollar bussiness's and shift all the tax burden on the 99 ppercenters
so far the econmy savior Romney has offered nothing new on how to fix things his announced plans to basicly pick up where W left off :eek:
doubling down on the failed policies that kead us in to the worst econmey since the great depression which was caused by the GOP by the way under president Hover and president Coolidge
Wake up America and smell the coffee
Romney is nothing but a bussiness CEO and spoiled rich brat which sounds like another failed president George W Bush
in US history we have so far had only two CEO's as president Hoover and W and both destory our econmy and yet the GOP is givings us another on who what to pick up where W left off and actually put us in to another great depression
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
franalexes
05-19-2012, 06:48 PM
The Difference
President George W. Bush's speech afterthe capture of Saddam Hussein:
"The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq . The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them!"
Obama's speech after the killing of Osama bin Laden:
"And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the Director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network. Then, last August, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan . And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and I authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad , Pakistan ."
Obama did not once acknowledge our brave men and women who fight for our country....and that myfriends is THE DIFFERENCE !
The Difference
President George W. Bush's speech afterthe capture of Saddam Hussein:
"The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq . The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them!"
Obama's speech after the killing of Osama bin Laden:
"And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the Director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network. Then, last August, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan . And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and I authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad , Pakistan ."
Obama did not once acknowledge our brave men and women who fight for our country....and that myfriends is THE DIFFERENCE !
I am not an Obama supporter, but I am a supporter of truth. And I am afraid that the post by franalexes is not the truth.
The full transcript of Obama's speech announcing the death of bin Laden is readily available at the White House website and on many, many other sites (including news sites such as CNN.com). There, the untruth of franalexes' post can be found. Obama said in that speech:
"Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who've worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.
"We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day."
A post of the type above by franalexes is designed to perpetuate the myth the right so adroitly spins that Obama is somehow "different" or "other." Hell, she even uses the word "difference" to close her post. But the only difference here is that Obama, in this one speech, limited his direct thanks to those who carried out the mission in Afghanistan to get bin Laden. Bush, who sent American soldiers to lose their lives in Iraq based on a total lie, broadly thanked the members of the Armed Forces.
Just to set the record straight, Obama makes speeches thanking the Armed Forces for their service with regularity. Here are excerpts from just one example, at Fort Bragg on December 14, 2011, announcing the formal "end" of the war in Iraq:
"... the United States military is the most respected institution in our land because you never forget that. You can?t afford to forget it. If you forget it, somebody dies. If you forget it, a mission fails. So you don?t forget it. You have each other?s backs. That?s why you, the 9/11 Generation, has earned your place in history.
"Because of you -- because you sacrificed so much for a people that you had never met, Iraqis have a chance to forge their own destiny. That?s part of what makes us special as Americans. ...
"Because of you, in Afghanistan we?ve broken the momentum of the Taliban. Because of you, we?ve begun a transition to the Afghans that will allow us to bring our troops home from there. And around the globe, as we draw down in Iraq, we have gone after al Qaeda so that terrorists who threaten America will have no safe haven, and Osama bin Laden will never again walk the face of this Earth.
"So here?s what I want you to know, and here?s what I want all our men and women in uniform to know: Because of you, we are ending these wars in a way that will make America stronger and the world more secure. Because of you. ...
"The war in Iraq will soon belong to history. Your service belongs to the ages. Never forget that you are part of an unbroken line of heroes spanning two centuries ?- from the colonists who overthrew an empire, to your grandparents and parents who faced down fascism and communism, to you ?- men and women who fought for the same principles in Fallujah and Kandahar, and delivered justice to those who attacked us on 9/11. ...
"All of you here today have lived through the fires of war. You will be remembered for it. You will be honored for it -- always. You have done something profound with your lives. When this nation went to war, you signed up to serve. When times were tough, you kept fighting. When there was no end in sight, you found light in the darkness. ...
"And years from now, your legacy will endure in the names of your fallen comrades etched on headstones at Arlington, and the quiet memorials across our country; in the whispered words of admiration as you march in parades, and in the freedom of our children and our grandchildren. And in the quiet of night, you will recall that your heart was once touched by fire. You will know that you answered when your country called; you served a cause greater than yourselves; you helped forge a just and lasting peace with Iraq, and among all nations.
"I could not be prouder of you, and America could not be prouder of you."
The honest response from franalexes would be to come on and post a simple retraction of her attempt to divide people on such a flimsy basis. There are plenty of genuine policy differences among politicians that demand serious discussion. The attempt to perpetuate the pseudo-"otherness" of Barack Obama does a disservice to the cause of everything I bet franalexes would insist she stands for as an American.
There WAS a difference between the two speeches SMC. One of them dealt with a credible threat to our national security; the other, not so much. I don't think that was supposed to be what I took away from Fran's post though.
There WAS a difference between the two speeches SMC. One of them dealt with a credible threat to our national security; the other, not so much. I don't think that was supposed to be what I took away from Fran's post though.
I agree. In fact, I was going to point out that difference, GRH, but I decided to focus on the method of discourse employed in the post, and make a point that cannot be disputed with fabrications. Those who contend that Iraq represented "a credible threat to our national security" will spin all manner of fabrication to make their case. But they cannot deny that the portrait of Obama franalexes seeks to paint with her post is completely false; they can only ignore the truth and keep making the same claim, hoping that if it is said enough times the ignorant will buy it as the truth.
TracyCoxx
05-21-2012, 12:20 PM
Obama did not once acknowledge our brave men and women who fight for our country....and that myfriends is THE DIFFERENCE !
LOL, that's our fearless leader for you. And you can bet your cute ass if the mission went bad the word "I" would not appear in the speech.
LOL, that's our fearless leader for you. And you can bet your cute ass if the mission went bad the word "I" would not appear in the speech.
How convenient to skip over the posting of the truth so you can spew your worthless bile.
But I think I've figured you out, TracyCoxx. The two pictures below are, in fact, one and the same.
franalexes
05-21-2012, 03:56 PM
smc may be right. my computer doesn't have an automatic "snoopes" button.
Shun the gulability of being on someones forward list.
I blame George Bush. ( there! that should cover it)
smc may be right. my computer doesn't have an automatic "snoopes" button.
Shun the gulability of being on someones forward list.
I blame George Bush. ( there! that should cover it)
There is so much of which one can be legitimately critical of Barack Obama's policies and his approach to governance. I hope, as the smart woman you are, that you will focus on these in the future, rather than the "talking points" that both conservatives and liberals use to diminish discourse and deflect attention away from their own failures and shortcomings.
TracyCoxx
05-21-2012, 04:55 PM
There is so much of which one can be legitimately critical of Barack Obama's policies and his approach to governance. I hope, as the smart woman you are, that you will focus on these in the future, rather than the "talking points" that both conservatives and liberals use to diminish discourse and deflect attention away from their own failures and shortcomings.
Seriously? You're suggesting she stick with a TLB moderator approved list of talking points rather than her own?
Seriously? You're suggesting she stick with a TLB moderator approved list of talking points rather than her own?
Of course that's not even remotely what I wrote, but you're such an inveterate fabricator that it doesn't matter ... so long as you can post something, right?
franalexes
05-21-2012, 07:11 PM
Tracy ! :blush: That's a heck of a spin. Not exactly what smc said but I get the point.
I don't know what you were drinking but please save me some.
smc: cute doll, but I'm not the sauna mom. Got one in my skin shade?
And I would never wear florescent green top with a black bikini. I can't remember the last time I DID wear a top with a black bikini.:rolleyes:
Next time I post, I'll try to stay focused on a couple of points of interest.
TracyCoxx
05-23-2012, 09:05 AM
There is so much of which one can be legitimately critical of Barack Obama's policies and his approach to governance. I hope, as the smart woman you are, that you will focus on these in the future, rather than the "talking points" that both conservatives and liberals use to diminish discourse and deflect attention away from their own failures and shortcomings.
Ok, well let me rephrase that then. If fran is going to criticize Obama, smc (a TLB moderator) advises her to stick with topics that are "legitimate" criticisms of Obama. Who determines what issues are legitimate? The moderator does, not the members. But she's good with that, so I'm sorry to interrupt.
Ok, well let me rephrase that then. If fran is going to criticize Obama, smc (a TLB moderator) advises her to stick with topics that are "legitimate" criticisms of Obama. Who determines what issues are legitimate? The moderator does, not the members. But she's good with that, so I'm sorry to interrupt.
Again, that is not what I wrote. By counterposing "talking points" to other things one might write, I drew a distinction between -- to use the most recent example -- a discussion about Bush vs. Obama on praising the troops and a discussion about policy or the direction for the country or anything else that is substantive.
The "praise the troops" topic is the sort you often seem to like, TracyCoxx, I suppose because it lends itself to out-of-full-context sound bites simply to score points, not advance any genuine argument. To her credit, franalexes recognized that when the fuller context was provided. You, on the other hand -- based on how you have handled such things in the past -- would have been much more likely to ignore the correction and move on to something else, hoping no one would notice.
I understand, TracyCoxx, that absent having anything substantive to say, you would repost the same insipid thing about the "talking points" comment. Anyone who reads your serious posts knows that you are smarter and more articulate than you often pretend to be just so you can get in your "digs." That's why I will insist, until you prove otherwise, that most of the time you are nothing more than a troll.
Tracy ! :blush: That's a heck of a spin. Not exactly what smc said but I get the point.
I don't know what you were drinking but please save me some.
smc: cute doll, but I'm not the sauna mom. Got one in my skin shade?
And I would never wear florescent green top with a black bikini. I can't remember the last time I DID wear a top with a black bikini.:rolleyes:
Next time I post, I'll try to stay focused on a couple of points of interest.
fran, the troll wasn't meant be you, which is why it was attached to a response to someone else. To me, you are anything but a troll.
tslust
05-24-2012, 03:10 AM
The Difference
President George W. Bush's speech afterthe capture of Saddam Hussein:
"The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq . The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them!"
Obama's speech after the killing of Osama bin Laden:
"And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the Director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network. Then, last August, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan . And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and I authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad , Pakistan ."
Obama did not once acknowledge our brave men and women who fight for our country....and that myfriends is THE DIFFERENCE !
True! Granted as smc points out, those are just snippets of those speaches. However one can not deny that there is a lot of, at the least, distrust between obama and the military. I have spoken with quite a number of military personnel, including dozens of officers. Almost all of them were extremely concerned and distrustful about having to serve under obama. obama has repeatedly promised to slash the military budget (Now mind you, I believe there is a lot of overspending in the military.) also he has shown blatant disregard to military decessions - for example, he wouldn't give the order for the Navy SEAL snipers to shoot the Somali pirates and it took obama about three months of "study" to approve a fraction of the requested troop increase.
A lot of the rank and file I've spoken to are concerned about the possibility of being ordered to engage in oerations against US civilians (hence NDAA). I have always refered them to the decesion that was passed down from the Nurrenberg Trials, that a soldier does not have to follow an order which is illegal.
True! Granted as smc points out, those are just snippets of those speaches. However one can not deny that there is a lot of, at the least, distrust between obama and the military. I have spoken with quite a number of military personnel, including dozens of officers. Almost all of them were extremely concerned and distrustful about having to serve under obama. obama has repeatedly promised to slash the military budget (Now mind you, I believe there is a lot of overspending in the military.) also he has shown blatant disregard to military decessions - for example, he wouldn't give the order for the Navy SEAL snipers to shoot the Somali pirates and it took obama about three months of "study" to approve a fraction of the requested troop increase.
A lot of the rank and file I've spoken to are concerned about the possibility of being ordered to engage in oerations against US civilians (hence NDAA). I have always refered them to the decesion that was passed down from the Nurrenberg Trials, that a soldier does not have to follow an order which is illegal.
Hearsay evidence of a "distrustful" military aside, it seems to me that independent of whether it is Obama or someone else, having a president who does not routinely say or imply (as Bush did, and as Romney does) that he will simply go along with whatever the "commanders on the ground" advise is not only what the Founding Fathers intended by having a civilian-led military, but a good system of checks and balances. I state that without taking a particular side on shooting Somali pirates or increasing troop sizes, which are certainly questions about which thoughtful consideration could certainly be given.
As for operations against U.S. civilians and the NDAA, I think it's safe to say that Obama is simply continuing George W. Bush's terrible policies. For instance, the the Obama administration argues that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) resolution permits the detentions of United States citizens. Bush and Obama applied AUMF to authorize their use of indefinite detentions around the world. The difference today? NDAA codifies this into law.
tslust
05-24-2012, 09:00 AM
Hearsay evidence of a "distrustful" military aside, it seems to me that independent of whether it is Obama or someone else, having a president who does not routinely say or imply (as Bush did, and as Romney does) that he will simply go along with whatever the "commanders on the ground" advise is not only what the Founding Fathers intended by having a civilian-led military, but a good system of checks and balances. I state that without taking a particular side on shooting Somali pirates or increasing troop sizes, which are certainly questions about which thoughtful consideration could certainly be given.
As for operations against U.S. civilians and the NDAA, I think it's safe to say that Obama is simply continuing George W. Bush's terrible policies. For instance, the the Obama administration argues that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) resolution permits the detentions of United States citizens. Bush and Obama applied AUMF to authorize their use of indefinite detentions around the world. The difference today? NDAA codifies this into law.
I have heard it argued that the "Comander in Chief" title given to the Presidency is outdated and should be removed. That military decesions should be left to the military. As a student of Clausewitz, I believe the military should always be subject to the will of the political leadershi of the State. That being said, I could be open to discussions about whether that means giving one man (i.e. the President) with that power or give it to a board of oversight, the membership of which would be decided on by Congress.
I loved how these Civil Rights advocacy groups raised such a fuss about Bush's warrantless wiretapping when firstly that paticular program was never stopped. That means that it is still ongoing to this very day. Secondly, ever since the late 60's (if I rember the report correctly) all new telephone line that were installed to people's houses were automatically tapped.
I have heard it argued that the "Comander in Chief" title given to the Presidency is outdated and should be removed. That military decesions should be left to the military. As a student of Clausewitz, I believe the military should always be subject to the will of the political leadershi of the State. That being said, I could be open to discussions about whether that means giving one man (i.e. the President) with that power or give it to a board of oversight, the membership of which would be decided on by Congress...
There must always be civilian oversight of a country's military. That oversight must be the government. As for decision making military decisions should be broken into two areas, strategic and tactical. Strategic decisions are for politicians to make whereas tactical decisions must remain in the hands of a military. Politicians are the ones that have to strategically guide a country and its policies and that is why they must make the strategic decisions. Most politicians have no idea of military planning and execution and that is why the military must be allowed to make tactical decisions without interference from politicians. In other words policiticians make plans (strategy) and the military carries out those plans (tactics). Neither is in a position to do properly do the other's job.
I don't have the official source to back this up, because as I recall, I heard a snippet on some news program (may have been radio or television). At any rate, it said that in terms of polling, President Obama is actually leading Romney among the military demographic.
A number of comments need to be made regarding this, though. In terms of troops on the ground, Obama's policies are of course going to be popular. We've effectively withdrawn from Iraq (as opposed to indefinite occupation that some have suggested). We are also on a time table for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Whether these are wise decisions from a strategic standpoint, I will leave to others to debate. But in terms of being a troop on the ground who is putting your life on the line everyday-- how could these NOT be popular policy stances? Especially when the overall national sentiment towards these foreign misadventures is that we've spent too much time and money in these backward shitholes and that it's time to come home. Add to that the fact that Obama made the order to assasinate Bin Laden, and it just adds credibility to his role as Commander and Chief.
Now among military brass, I can certainly see Obama as being less popular. They are the ones tasked with trying to find cost savings in today's era of austerity. They are the ones who will see pet projects, platoons, etc. cut. My own opinion is that austerity should be shared at ALL levels-- including national defense. But in terms of talking points, military brass are probably going to lean towards the party that says they will spare the military any cuts (in favor of wrenching cost savings out of middle class "entitlements").
TracyCoxx
06-26-2012, 10:34 PM
I know you all hate Limbaugh, but what he says here is exactly right.
Limbaugh:
So the regime is using the Department of Homeland Security to punish Obama's enemies. I saw a great phrase at a blog post on PJ Media: Obama went "Soviet" on Arizona. Let me read to you from that post. "This is a political maneuver designed to punish Arizona, which" had the audacity... I mean, what is this really all about? Obama is not enforcing immigration law. Arizona is falling apart. A responsible governor says, "All right, well, we're going to write some laws to give us the ability to enforce the border ourselves."
So Barack Obama turned around and sued Arizona. "Who in the hell do you think YOU are? You want to enforce immigration law? Okay, let me show you what's going to happen to you. I'm going to tell you we're not going to enforce immigration law and I'm going to take you all the way to the Supreme Court, and I don't care what happens to your state!" And that is exactly what happens. And so Arizona is being punished. Now, they might want to say this is political punishment but it has real world consequences.
Crime. Property value loss. Economic calamity.
It's an absolute disaster. So while this may be traditional ol' political punishment, there are horrible real world consequences attached to it. Arizona is already reeling from the lawlessness on its border with Mexico. And as I said: It's abundantly clear now that Obama has given up winning Arizona. He doesn't care. He's written it off. Now he's going "Soviet" on it to make an example to every other state, by the way. And do not discount that. This is a message to every other state on the border: "The same can happen to you if you try this stunt!
"You go overboard defending your border or you challenge me and how I want to defend the border (or not), and this will happen to you too!" It's good old fashioned, political, Soviet-style intimidation. Barack Obama has kicked Arizona out of whatever is left of the federal government's border enforcement. And in the process, what has Obama -- in real world consequences -- just done here? Obama has sent a special delivery FedEx or UPS to smugglers and traffickers and criminals of all kinds that Arizona is wide open.
Come on in, gang!
Nobody here to stop you!
And not only that, if somebody wearing a police uniform in Arizona does try to stop you, guess what? We're gonna get a phone call from some of our buddies on the ground and guess who's going to jail? The cop! So come on in! Forget New Mexico. Forget California. Forget Texas. Make a beeline for Arizona. We have cleared the decks for you. In fact, we would encourage you to try to get picked up by a cop, because we want the cop punished.
We have people who are going to be spying, making sure that if a cop stops you for any reason whatsoever and demands your papers, he gets his. We're going to make sure we hear about it, and that cop is finished. So come on in! Arizona is wide open for all of you. That's the sucker punch. So this puts the law back on hold. It's a green light to anybody who wants to sneak into Arizona from Mexico all day long.
I know you all hate Limbaugh, but what he says here is exactly right.
Limbaugh:
So the regime is using the Department of Homeland Security to punish Obama's enemies. I saw a great phrase at a blog post on PJ Media: Obama went "Soviet" on Arizona. Let me read to you from that post. "This is a political maneuver designed to punish Arizona, which" had the audacity... I mean, what is this really all about? Obama is not enforcing immigration law. Arizona is falling apart. A responsible governor says, "All right, well, we're going to write some laws to give us the ability to enforce the border ourselves."
So Barack Obama turned around and sued Arizona. "Who in the hell do you think YOU are? You want to enforce immigration law? Okay, let me show you what's going to happen to you. I'm going to tell you we're not going to enforce immigration law and I'm going to take you all the way to the Supreme Court, and I don't care what happens to your state!" And that is exactly what happens. And so Arizona is being punished. Now, they might want to say this is political punishment but it has real world consequences.
Crime. Property value loss. Economic calamity.
It's an absolute disaster. So while this may be traditional ol' political punishment, there are horrible real world consequences attached to it. Arizona is already reeling from the lawlessness on its border with Mexico. And as I said: It's abundantly clear now that Obama has given up winning Arizona. He doesn't care. He's written it off. Now he's going "Soviet" on it to make an example to every other state, by the way. And do not discount that. This is a message to every other state on the border: "The same can happen to you if you try this stunt!
"You go overboard defending your border or you challenge me and how I want to defend the border (or not), and this will happen to you too!" It's good old fashioned, political, Soviet-style intimidation. Barack Obama has kicked Arizona out of whatever is left of the federal government's border enforcement. And in the process, what has Obama -- in real world consequences -- just done here? Obama has sent a special delivery FedEx or UPS to smugglers and traffickers and criminals of all kinds that Arizona is wide open.
Come on in, gang!
Nobody here to stop you!
And not only that, if somebody wearing a police uniform in Arizona does try to stop you, guess what? We're gonna get a phone call from some of our buddies on the ground and guess who's going to jail? The cop! So come on in! Forget New Mexico. Forget California. Forget Texas. Make a beeline for Arizona. We have cleared the decks for you. In fact, we would encourage you to try to get picked up by a cop, because we want the cop punished.
We have people who are going to be spying, making sure that if a cop stops you for any reason whatsoever and demands your papers, he gets his. We're going to make sure we hear about it, and that cop is finished. So come on in! Arizona is wide open for all of you. That's the sucker punch. So this puts the law back on hold. It's a green light to anybody who wants to sneak into Arizona from Mexico all day long.
You've outdone yourself, TracyCoxx. This is some of the most asinine bullshit you've ever posted. I suppose you will now tell us that every individual state in the United States should conduct its own foreign policy.
tslust
06-27-2012, 11:00 AM
So Barack Obama turned around and sued Arizona. "Who in the hell do you think YOU are? You want to enforce immigration law? Okay, let me show you what's going to happen to you. I'm going to tell you we're not going to enforce immigration law and I'm going to take you all the way to the Supreme Court, and I don't care what happens to your state!" And that is exactly what happens. And so Arizona is being punished. Now, they might want to say this is political punishment but it has real world consequences.
Crime. Property value loss. Economic calamity.
It's an absolute disaster. So while this may be traditional ol' political punishment, there are horrible real world consequences attached to it. Arizona is already reeling from the lawlessness on its border with Mexico. And as I said: It's abundantly clear now that Obama has given up winning Arizona. He doesn't care. He's written it off. Now he's going "Soviet" on it to make an example to every other state, by the way. And do not discount that. This is a message to every other state on the border: "The same can happen to you if you try this stunt!
"You go overboard defending your border or you challenge me and how I want to defend the border (or not), and this will happen to you too!" It's good old fashioned, political, Soviet-style intimidation. Barack Obama has kicked Arizona out of whatever is left of the federal government's border enforcement. And in the process, what has Obama -- in real world consequences -- just done here? Obama has sent a special delivery FedEx or UPS to smugglers and traffickers and criminals of all kinds that Arizona is wide open.
Come on in, gang!
Nobody here to stop you!
And not only that, if somebody wearing a police uniform in Arizona does try to stop you, guess what? We're gonna get a phone call from some of our buddies on the ground and guess who's going to jail? The cop! So come on in! Forget New Mexico. Forget California. Forget Texas. Make a beeline for Arizona. We have cleared the decks for you. In fact, we would encourage you to try to get picked up by a cop, because we want the cop punished.
We have people who are going to be spying, making sure that if a cop stops you for any reason whatsoever and demands your papers, he gets his. We're going to make sure we hear about it, and that cop is finished. So come on in! Arizona is wide open for all of you. That's the sucker punch. So this puts the law back on hold. It's a green light to anybody who wants to sneak into Arizona from Mexico all day long.[/I]
If I were Governor Brewer, I would send a leter to obama. Telling him that as long as his administration continues it's stance against the State of Arizona members of the Department of Justice (FBI, ATF, INS, ICE) are not welcome in the State of Arizona. Furthermore, all tax revenue from the State of Arizona, destined for the Federal government, will be withheald.
If I were Governor Brewer, I would send a leter to obama. Telling him that as long as his administration continues it's stance against the State of Arizona members of the Department of Justice (FBI, ATF, INS, ICE) are not welcome in the State of Arizona. Furthermore, all tax revenue from the State of Arizona, destined for the Federal government, will be withheald.
Since making asinine suggestions and posting asinine political bullshit seems to be the order of the day, why not have Arizona secede from the union, compensate all of its residents who wish to move to the United States with a subsidy to help them get settled in a neighboring state that respects U.S. law, and be done with the craziness once for all?
Seriously ... the two of you support the idea of giving a law-enforcement agency the right to stop anyone, based on how they look, and demand to see papers? I know TracyCoxx will try to dodge answering the question, but the analogy cries out for it: what about stopping Jewish-looking people in Nazi Germany?
tslust
06-27-2012, 05:31 PM
Since making asinine suggestions and posting asinine political bullshit seems to be the order of the day, why not have Arizona secede from the union, compensate all of its residents who wish to move to the United States with a subsidy to help them get settled in a neighboring state that respects U.S. law, and be done with the craziness once for all?
Seriously ... the two of you support the idea of giving a law-enforcement agency the right to stop anyone, based on how they look, and demand to see papers? I know TracyCoxx will try to dodge answering the question, but the analogy cries out for it: what about stopping Jewish-looking people in Nazi Germany?
Far be it for me to allow something like :eek: facts to get in the way. Arizona's law does not empower law enforcement to stop people based on skin color. It simply says that the cops can check the immigration status of an individual who they have already pulled over or arrested. Furthermore, it is obama, not the State of Arizona, that does not respect U.S. law.
Far be it for me to allow something like :eek: facts to get in the way. Arizona's law does not empower law enforcement to stop people based on skin color. It simply says that the cops can check the immigration status of an individual who they have already pulled over or arrested. Furthermore, it is obama, not the State of Arizona, that does not respect U.S. law.
You're correct; you didn't let facts get in the way. The provision of the law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court allowed PRECISELY what I wrote.
tslust
06-27-2012, 10:32 PM
You're correct; you didn't let facts get in the way. The provision of the law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court allowed PRECISELY what I wrote.
The Supreme Court upheald the challenged portion that allows law enforcement to investigate the immigration status of persons allready stopped, detained, or arrested (wich means that law enforcement is only authorized to check the immigration status of people they are already dealing with) if there is a reasonable suspicion they may be here illegally.
TracyCoxx
06-28-2012, 06:08 AM
If I were Governor Brewer, I would send a leter to obama. Telling him that as long as his administration continues it's stance against the State of Arizona members of the Department of Justice (FBI, ATF, INS, ICE) are not welcome in the State of Arizona. Furthermore, all tax revenue from the State of Arizona, destined for the Federal government, will be withheald.
Might as well. Obama has made it clear Arizona can not count on federal law enforcement. Why pay for it?
The notion that every state in the US should conduct its own foreign policy is ridiculous and can in no way be derived from the events in Arizona which seeks only to enforce federal immigration laws.
And the analogy of stopping Jewish-looking people in Nazi Germany is again ridiculous. It wasn't illegal jewish immigrants that Nazi Germany had a problem with, it was it's own jewish population they had problems with.
Apparently the opposition to the Arizona immigration policy is based on problems unrelated to Arizona immigration policy?
The real question is, why is the Obama administration actively trying to turn Arizona into a sanctuary state. I don't know, maybe it's happened before, but I can't recall... Has any other US president taken revenge on a state at anywhere near the level that Obama has against Arizona?
TracyCoxx
06-28-2012, 06:18 AM
The Mexican government says it?s disappointed that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld part of an Arizona law requiring police check the immigration status of anyone they stop. They have openly opposed Arizona?s immigration law since it was passed in 2010. Mexico says that enforcing parts of the law that were upheld by the Supreme Court would lead to violations of the civil rights of Mexicans living in or visiting Arizona.
Ok Mexico, perhaps we should just go ahead and implement your immigration laws:
Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
* Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)
* Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)
* Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)
* The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)
Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
* Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
* A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
* A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).
Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
* Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
* Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)
Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
* Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
* Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
* Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned.
Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,
* "A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)
* Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
* Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)
Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
* A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
* Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)
The Supreme Court upheald the challenged portion that allows law enforcement to investigate the immigration status of persons allready stopped, detained, or arrested (wich means that law enforcement is only authorized to check the immigration status of people they are already dealing with) if there is a reasonable suspicion they may be here illegally.
Yes. I was referring to the Arizona law pre-Supreme Court. Perhaps the confusion here is what people call "talking past each other."
Enoch Root
06-29-2012, 01:47 PM
No comment required.
And you will name it Romney Gates and it will have glorious hair.
Lawrence O'Donnell so aptly calls the Affordable Care Act the Insurance Industry Profit Protection Act.
Enoch Root
07-03-2012, 03:23 PM
Lawrence O'Donnell so aptly calls the Affordable Care Act the Insurance Industry Profit Protection Act.
I searched "Lawrence O'Donnell Insurance industry Profit Protection Act" and found this video: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-last-word/47989648#47989648
TracyCoxx
07-05-2012, 12:46 AM
I have some questions about Chief Justice Robert's ruling...
It is of course true that the Act describes the payment as a ?penalty,? not a ?tax.? But while that label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act, supra, at 12?13, it does not determine whether the payment may be viewed as an exercise of Congress?s taxing power. It is up to Congress whether to apply the Anti-Injunction Act to any particular statute, so it makes sense to be guided by Congress?s choice of label on that question. That choice does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress?s constitutional power to tax.
...
We have similarly held that exactions not labeled taxes nonetheless were authorized by Congress?s power to tax.In the License Tax Cases, for example, we held that federal licenses to sell liquor and lottery tickets?for which the licensee had to pay a fee?could be sustained as exercises of the taxing power.Ok, there is some precedent here. But it sure seems to be eroding the Tax Anti-Injunction Act.
Seems like he could have just as easily said "It is up to Congress whether to call the penalty a tax, so it makes sense to be guided by Congress's choice of label on that question. That choice does not, however, control whether the Anti-Injunction Act applies to the statute." It just seems so arbitrary.
the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty: First, for most Americans the amount due will be far less than the price of insurance, and, by statute, it can never be more.8 It may often be a reasonable financial decision to make the payment rather than purchase insurance, unlike the ?prohibitory? financial punishment in Drexel Furniture. 259 U. S., at 37.It can't be more, but that's not saying it can't be equal to the price of insurance, which it eventually may rise to. Then people who wouldn't normally want to buy insurance would be paying for insurance. They would figure they might as well get the insurance since they're paying for it. In other words, as the penalty goes up, it will not be a reasonable financial decision to make the payment rather than purchase insurance.
Third, the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation?except that the Service is not allowed to use those means most suggestive of a punitive sanction, such as criminal prosecution. See ?5000A(g)(2).Hmm... sounds like congress intended on calling it a tax then.
While the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the purchase of health insurance, it need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. Indeed, it is estimated that four million people each year will choose to pay the IRS rather than buy insurance. See Congressional Budget Office, supra, at 71. We would expect Congress to be troubled by that prospect if such conduct were unlawful. That Congress apparently regards such extensive failure to comply with the mandate as tolerable suggests that Congress did not think it was creating four million outlaws. It suggests instead that the shared responsibility payment merely imposes a tax citizens may lawfully choose to pay in lieu of buying health insurance."Ok, maybe I'm still missing something. Is there somewhere else where Roberts explains how Congress has the power to tax people for NOT doing something? An amendment had to be made just so congress could tax income. How is this power automatically granted to congress?
And what about Article I Section 7 of the Constitution:
"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
The Senate did not just propose a healthcare bill, they passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, on December 24th 2009. So it did originate in the Senate. The House then passed it on March 21, 2010. If it is a tax, it was enacted unconstitutionally. I don't see where Roberts explains why this is ok.
I have some questions about Chief Justice Robert's ruling...
Ok, there is some precedent here. But it sure seems to be eroding the Tax Anti-Injunction Act.
Seems like he could have just as easily said "It is up to Congress whether to call the penalty a tax, so it makes sense to be guided by Congress's choice of label on that question. That choice does not, however, control whether the Anti-Injunction Act applies to the statute." It just seems so arbitrary.
It can't be more, but that's not saying it can't be equal to the price of insurance, which it eventually may rise to. Then people who wouldn't normally want to buy insurance would be paying for insurance. They would figure they might as well get the insurance since they're paying for it. In other words, as the penalty goes up, it will not be a reasonable financial decision to make the payment rather than purchase insurance.
Hmm... sounds like congress intended on calling it a tax then.
Ok, maybe I'm still missing something. Is there somewhere else where Roberts explains how Congress has the power to tax people for NOT doing something? An amendment had to be made just so congress could tax income. How is this power automatically granted to congress?
And what about Article I Section 7 of the Constitution:
"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
The Senate did not just propose a healthcare bill, they passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, on December 24th 2009. So it did originate in the Senate. The House then passed it on March 21, 2010. If it is a tax, it was enacted unconstitutionally. I don't see where Roberts explains why this is ok.
NOTE TO ALL: I have been accused by TracyCoxx, in another thread, of letting the post just above languish for two weeks without answering the questions. Putting aside that the questions were not directed to me, TracyCoxx makes this accusation regardless of whether there is any proof of intent on my part specifically so he can try to paint a picture of me as not knowing about something and thus, by refusing to address the post, attempting to hide my ignorance. This method of "discussion" is something we have come to expect from TracyCoxx.
The truth is that I simply missed the post. Otherwise, I would have written my answer, quite simply, as follows.
I don't like the Affordable Care Act. I think it's a miserable compromise and that it's shameful that we don't have single-payer, universal healthcare like other advanced economies.
I do not pretend to be a Constitutional scholar. TracyCoxx raises some legitimate points for discussion regarding how the Supreme Court made its decision and how one might interpret this or that aspect of law, tradition, documents, and so on. For me, the bottom line is that the Supreme Court is empowered to INTERPRET, and I accept this interpretation as legitimate according to the Constitutionally mandated powers given to the Court.
Were I like TracyCoxx, I would demand an apology for inferring that I deliberately avoided answering the post above. But as I have written elsewhere, an apology from someone who deliberately concocts such inferences would be meaningless.
The finalized bill that was passed in the Senate was actually a House resolution that was stripped of all its original language. The original House resolution was an unrelated bill dealing with VA benefits. The Senate stripped all the original language out of the House resolution, inserted the Affordable Care language, and passed a bill that first originated in the House. This is a tactic that is known as using a "shell bill." And it's completely Constitutional and has happened more frequently than many would care to admit.
Enoch Root
12-16-2012, 12:28 PM
America's two tiered justice system:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/12/hsbc-prosecution-fine-money-laundering
Enoch Root
04-29-2013, 02:53 PM
Hundreds Die in Bangladesh Factory Collapse As Retailers Reject Better Safety Standards:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP1cXvQKluA
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.