Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape

[franalexes]

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?

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

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]

"keep the change".

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by smc

, 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.

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

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]

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.

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

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]

Originally Posted by franalexes

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]

Originally Posted by franalexes

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!! true, butt funny

[tslust]

Originally Posted by franalexes

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.

[GRH]

Originally Posted by ulyssesgrant50

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]

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
Jerseygirl Jen

[franalexes]

], 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.

[GRH]

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.

[smc]

Originally Posted by GRH

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]

Originally Posted by smc

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?

Originally Posted by smc

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.

Originally Posted by smc

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 organization

I have no idea what his wife's organization is.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

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
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 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
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]

Originally Posted by GRH

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.

Originally Posted by GRH

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.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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.

[GRH]

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]

Originally Posted by GRH

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]

Originally Posted by GRH

.

. 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]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

"Reverse racism"? Self hating "reverse racist"? The world will never know...

That's sarcasm folks.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

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:

Originally Posted by transjen

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 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
Jerseygirl Jen

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.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by GRH

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.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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...

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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]

Originally Posted by smc

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]

Originally Posted by smc

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.

Originally Posted by smc

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.

Originally Posted by smc

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.

Originally Posted by smc

You make me want to vomit.

Do what you must.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

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?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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]

Originally Posted by smc

Your dissembling really knows no bounds, does it?

Dissemble dissemble dissemble... muh ha ha ha!

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Dissemble dissemble dissemble... muh ha ha ha!

This is a new low Tracy. It's not even ironically amusing.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

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]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

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.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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]

No obama has made it illegal to protest in his presence.
A short vid about HR 347
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v...irzg&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/jeanin...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.

[smc]

Originally Posted by tslust

No obama has made it illegal to protest in his presence.
A short vid about HR 347
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v...irzg&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/jeanin...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]

Originally Posted by smc

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]

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/nationa...l3fUF0cb7LpcNM

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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/nationa...l3fUF0cb7LpcNM

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]

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
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
Jerseygirl Jen

[franalexes]

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 !

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

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.

[GRH]

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.

[smc]

Originally Posted by GRH

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]

Originally Posted by franalexes

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.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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.