Liberal free for all coming to an end

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The government was in the process of suing Black Panther members who were wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place on an election day. The case was moving along and then Obama's newly staffed DOJ had the case dropped.
An article about it is here.

You said it was all a hoax. So what were the Black Panther guys doing there with nightsticks and who was perpetrating the hoax?

I want to make clear that I am a supporter of neither the furthest left wing of the Democratic Party, the furthest right wing of the Republican Party, Libertarianism, or anything in between those poles. My interest in this issue has to do with truth and reasonable discourse about things that actually matter.

So, with that disclaimer, here is my response, Tracy.

You are correct about one thing, and it has to do with my use of the word "hoax." I misused that word by failing to make the context clear. What I meant was that the charge that the political appointees of Obama overruled "career attorneys" to have the case dropped is a hoax.

Anyone who wants to know the true story, based on full quotes that are contextual, would be wise to go beyond the Washington Times story to which you provide a link. That is a biased newspaper by any reasonable journalistic standards, and the headline of the story you linked to is proof. Why? Because it was "career lawyers" at DOJ who recommended dropping the case, and a federal judge who accepted the rationale for dropping the case. Obama political appointees only okayed the recommendation before it was passed on to the judge.

I suggest reading this Newsweek article for a fuller, less partisan, explanation: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/14/t...ew-acorn0.html

Don't get me wrong: voter intimidation is wrong. I believe the lunatic fringe New Black Panther Party (denounced by the establishe BPP, by the way), sought to intimidate voters as part of its periodic publicity stunts. But your charge is about the Obama DOJ subverting the law and the constitution.

As a conservative member of the Commission on Civil Rights says at the end of the article to which I've linked, there is a plenty of stuff to criticize Obama about (I would add: from the left or the right). She aptly notes that to pin this incident on him only lessens the validity of conservative criticism.

Tracy, I feel that your points would be stronger if you stuck to substantive arguments about foreign policy, economic policy, and so on, and got away from the distractions that are pushed from both sides to avoid us, as Americans, having those important discussions.

[randolph]

I suggest reading this Newsweek article for a fuller, less partisan, explanation: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/14/t...ew-acorn0.html

Don't get me wrong: voter intimidation is wrong. I believe the lunatic fringe New Black Panther Party (denounced by the establishe BPP, by the way), sought to intimidate voters as part of its periodic publicity stunts. But your charge is about the Obama DOJ subverting the law and the constitution.

As a conservative member of the Commission on Civil Rights says at the end of the article to which I've linked, there is a plenty of stuff to criticize Obama about (I would add: from the left or the right). She aptly notes that to pin this incident on him only lessens the validity of conservative criticism.
Tracy, I feel that your points would be stronger if you stuck to substantive arguments about foreign policy, economic policy, and so on, and got away from the distractions that are pushed from both sides to avoid us, as Americans, having those important discussions.

Very well put SMC.
Tracy is very well informed from a very conservative standpoint. Fortunately, the truth lies somewhere in the middle of all these ultra liberal and ultra conservative views.

[tslust]

Tommorrow's the big day boys and gurls.

[randolph]

I hope tomorrow is not the start of Armageddon.
There is lots of good people out there, they just need to VOTE!

[tslust]

Originally Posted by randolph

I hope tomorrow is not the start of Armageddon.
There is lots of good people out there, they just need to VOTE!

That first cartoon funny.

In all seriousness, and not to open a can of worms, the Federal government needs to be downsized.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by tslust

That first cartoon funny.

In all seriousness, and not to open a can of worms, the Federal government needs to be downsized.

How true, how about starting with the military industrial complex. Imagine what the country could do if we weren't spending trillions of dollars on wars.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

How true, how about starting with the military industrial complex. Imagine what the country could do if we weren't spending trillions of dollars on wars.

There's probably a lot that can be cut in the military as well as several other areas. Hell, there are whole departments of the government that could be cut. But obviously you wouldn't want to cut too much of the military.

Originally Posted by Slavetoebony

Stay at home. Don't bother to vote. Regardless of what party they belong to, they are all a bunch of crooks.

Excellent advice, and I've told it to all my democrat friends.

[tslust]

Originally Posted by randolph

How true, how about starting with the military industrial complex. Imagine what the country could do if we weren't spending trillions of dollars on wars.

The Federal Government is far too intrusive about things that they have no buisness being involved with. For example education, enviromental protection, marriage, NASA, welfare, and now health care to name a few. The Tenth Amendment gives these matters to the individual States.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

(BTW I am a believer in State's Rights.)

[Slavetoebony]

If voting changed anything the establishment would make it illegal.

Stay at home. Don't bother to vote. Regardless of what party they belong to, they are all a bunch of crooks.

[ts_addict]

Could an American answer a question for me please... Why is it that people over there don't like the idea of having a national health service?

Our (UK) NHS service is something we couldn't live without and if the government said we had to pay for everything there would be riots.

[ila]

Originally Posted by ts_addict

Could an American answer a question for me please... Why is it that people over there don't like the idea of having a national health service?

Our (UK) NHS service is something we couldn't live without and if the government said we had to pay for everything there would be riots.

You do pay for everything. It's just that you pay for it indirectly through your taxes.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by ts_addict

Could an American answer a question for me please... Why is it that people over there don't like the idea of having a national health service?

Our (UK) NHS service is something we couldn't live without and if the government said we had to pay for everything there would be riots.

Because for one thing we already have a system where people get health insurance through their employers, and 85% of Americans are happy with the way this works.

For another thing, to change the system to a national health service would require everyone's health premiums to go up like $2000/year and the result would be degraded medical service.

And for another thing, our country is deep in debt and cannot afford the national health care system that was enacted.

[randolph]

SMC made the point, the Repubs don't want to reveal the vast amount of corporate secret funding for their campaigns. When the voters realize that most of the funding comes from BP, the chamber of commerce and the likes of the Kock brothers they may decide to vote for someone else.

[ts_addict]

Originally Posted by ila

You do pay for everything. It's just that you pay for it indirectly through your taxes.

I know, but say if you needed life saving drugs which are very expensive you wouldn't be able to get them would you? The NHS also gives us piece of mind as you know that no matter what (pretty much), you will get treated. Even people that are only here on holiday get treated for free iirc. Everyone is treated the same and has the access to drugs they may need.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Because for one thing we already have a system where people get health insurance through their employers, and 85% of Americans are happy with the way this works.

For another thing, to change the system to a national health service would require everyone's health premiums to go up like $2000/year and the result would be degraded medical service.

And for another thing, our country is deep in debt and cannot afford the national health care system that was enacted.

I understand that, but if there was a shake-up of the rules it would be a lot fairer for everyone and there wouldn't be huge corporations trying to profit off someone's illness. Which I think is disgusting.

I often wonder how the american public let these corporations do what they do. They must spend so much money on propaganda.


---

Thanks for the replies

[tslust]

Originally Posted by ts_addict

Could an American answer a question for me please... Why is it that people over there don't like the idea of having a national health service?

For me, it's a matter of having the freedom to decide for myself. In other words, I don't want some self-appointed genius in D.C. telling me that I have to get insurance even if I don't need it. I get my insurance through my job, thank you very much.

[smc]

Originally Posted by tslust

I get my insurance through my job, thank you very much.

Well, aren't you the lucky one. Not everyone has such good fortune. But of course, this is America -- the one highly developed nation in the world where "social solidarity" is not just nearly non-existent, but where its opposite is taught to you from your first days in school. So, while we are all foolishly chasing the false "American dream" we've been taught about, and believing that the only righteous thing is to "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps," the rest of the developed world is surpassing the United States in every single category of social good, from literacy rates to birth rates to public transportation to educational achievement in math and science to ... the list is too endless for this site.

That crap we Americans were taught in school about individualism and making your own way and so on -- that serves a political and, more important, an economic purpose for those with the financial means -- in this country these days, typically acquired through economic activity that serves absolutely no productive purpose -- so that they never have to worry about paying for healthcare or relying on public transit or going to a decent public school or ... well, again, the list is too endless for this site.

When I was in Paris once, I came upon a group of about 30 people protesting outside a neighborhood daycare center early one morning. The government was discussing cutting back the funding for the creche. I spoke with nearly everyone there, and I could find only 5 people who had kids in the daycare center. All the rest were there because they realized that everyone in France benefited from public-funded daycare, and that their neighbors -- and hence their neighborhood -- was enriched by the fact that the daycare center made it possible for some people to work where they might not otherwise be able to keep a job. When the saw the possibility of that benefit disappearing for a few, they realized that it would hurt them all.

[Rainrider]

Well I found a discussion I like. After reading so many of the post, I seem to forget what was said, so I will just add my little bit. Some one said the right does not have to feared, your right. If we can bring down the size of Government, they will by proxy have less to do with state law, and so leaving most things in the hands of the state. As the constitution has made clear it should be. The people have the right to govern them-selves. Some thing long forgotten by DC. Most folks don't know it any more, but in your county the Sheriff has the upper hand in all matters of law. Or should have by the constitution. Just as the left has set asaid the fact the the will of the people is what should make laws not them and what they alone want.
I also seen a list of nations that have Socialized Health-care. Of them almost every one is looking at it being a burden they can not keep up. I work in Health care, and I can tell you that what I see them doing to be ready for Obummer care is not a good thing. Most of the Docs, are looking to relocate in a nation that does not have government controlled health care. It has nothing to with their pay, they are looking to find a place they can do some good. The elderly in this nation will be forced out long term care and sent home, this is not a good thing. You see the care they get in long turm care is meant to give them a little more time on this earth. I work in long term care, and most of the family members I talk with simply can not give the care that is needed. Obummercare does have some good points don't get me wrong. Nothing in this world is with out them. Yet if you look at the cuts that will be made in medicare and medacade just to pay for all the people that will be added to them, it simply adds up to less coverage, and lower quality of care. If any thinks this is wrong, ask any one that lives in Canada why they would rather come to the USA for care.
Now lets talk about taxes. The only way to ever gt the rich to pay their share is go to a flat tax. this will do many thing for this nation. First off every one will be paying in the same. If you make 100 that year you would pay in 15. (assuming a 15% flat tax) if you make a mil you pay in 150,000, I think the math is right any how. Next, we would not have to pay out what ever it is to keep IRS working. Big savings there I bet. Cap and Tax will only drive this nation further into debt. How? With the passing of that bill you will see your house hold bills double if not more. If their is less disposable cash, then we don't spend as much. if we don't spend, we also do not produce. You see if it cost more to make, then we have one of 2 things happen. Bissness closes, we import more to make up for that. Or they move over seas. Ether way jobs are lost. With that comes less income, and more unemployment going out.
Sorry for all the misspelled words, I am dyslexic and my spell check does not work on this sight for some reason. It was earlier.
Ok got it working, Hope I fixed all the misspelled words, if not forgive me.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Rainrider

Well I found a discussion I like. After reading so many of the post, I seem to forget what was said, so I will just add my little bit. Some one said the right does not have to feared, your right. If we can bring down the size of Government, they will by proxy have less to do with state law, and so leaving most things in the hands of the state. As the constitution has made clear it should be. The people have the right to govern them-selves. Some thing long forgotten by DC. Most folks don't know it any more, but in your county the Sheriff has the upper hand in all matters of law. Or should have by the constitution. Just as the left has set asaid the fact the the will of the people is what should make laws not them and what they alone want.
I also seen a list of nations that have Socialized Health-care. Of them almost every one is looking at it being a burden they can not keep up. I work in Health care, and I can tell you that what I see them doing to be ready for Obummer care is not a good thing. Most of the Docs, are looking to relocate in a nation that does not have government controlled health care. It has nothing to with their pay, they are looking to find a place they can do some good. The elderly in this nation will be forced out long term care and sent home, this is not a good thing. You see the care they get in long turm care is meant to give them a little more time on this earth. I work in long term care, and most of the family members I talk with simply can not give the care that is needed. Obummercare does have some good points don't get me wrong. Nothing in this world is with out them. Yet if you look at the cuts that will be made in medicare and medacade just to pay for all the people that will be added to them, it simply adds up to less coverage, and lower quality of care. If any thinks this is wrong, ask any one that lives in Canada why they would rather come to the USA for care.
Now lets talk about taxes. The only way to ever gt the rich to pay their share is go to a flat tax. this will do many thing for this nation. First off every one will be paying in the same. If you make 100 that year you would pay in 15. (assuming a 15% flat tax) if you make a mil you pay in 150,000, I think the math is right any how. Next, we would not have to pay out what ever it is to keep IRS working. Big savings there I bet. Cap and Tax will only drive this nation further into debt. How? With the passing of that bill you will see your house hold bills double if not more. If their is less disposable cash, then we don't spend as much. if we don't spend, we also do not produce. You see if it cost more to make, then we have one of 2 things happen. Bissness closes, we import more to make up for that. Or they move over seas. Ether way jobs are lost. With that comes less income, and more unemployment going out.
Sorry for all the misspelled words, I am dyslexic and my spell check does not work on this sight for some reason. It was earlier.
Ok got it working, Hope I fixed all the misspelled words, if not forgive me.

People should be very careful generalizing their personal experiences. There are far too many serious issues at stake to be saying ridiculous, unproven, and likely false things such as "Most of the Docs, are looking to relocate in a nation that does not have government controlled health care. It has nothing to with their pay, they are looking to find a place they can do some good."

Facile solutions are pablum.

And how about some respect? "Obummer"? How can you be taken seriously when you belittle serious discourse.

[randolph]

There is talk of changing Federal law to allow states to go into bankruptcy and restructure their finances. In view of the dire situation here in California, this may be the way to go. After years of handing out plush salaries and generous retirements and borrowing money to cover operating costs, the state is frozen in a political stalemate. No one is willing to give up anything, the legislature is a farce. Jerry Brown sincerely wants to do something but his power is very limited by the initiative process that has locked expenses into the Constitution.
Bankruptcy would allow the state to break down all the special interests and start from scratch. Sounds good to me.

[Rainrider]

Originally Posted by smc

People should be very careful generalizing their personal experiences. There are far too many serious issues at stake to be saying ridiculous, unproven, and likely false things such as "Most of the Docs, are looking to relocate in a nation that does not have government controlled health care. It has nothing to with their pay, they are looking to find a place they can do some good."

Facile solutions are pablum.

And how about some respect? "Obummer"? How can you be taken seriously when you belittle serious discourse.

Well to start when I say most docs, I am talking of the ones I work with and talk to daily. Like I say I work in health care, you don't think a topic as big as health care would not be talked about. Give me a brake.
Also it is not the discourse I belittle, it the idiot that wishes to impose a law on the people that he has set up so he does not have to take part in it.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Rainrider

Well I found a discussion I like. After reading so many of the post, I seem to forget what was said, so I will just add my little bit. Some one said the right does not have to feared, your right. If we can bring down the size of Government, they will by proxy have less to do with state law, and so leaving most things in the hands of the state. As the constitution has made clear it should be. The people have the right to govern them-selves. Some thing long forgotten by DC. Most folks don't know it any more, but in your county the Sheriff has the upper hand in all matters of law. Or should have by the constitution. Just as the left has set asaid the fact the the will of the people is what should make laws not them and what they alone want.
I also seen a list of nations that have Socialized Health-care. Of them almost every one is looking at it being a burden they can not keep up. I work in Health care, and I can tell you that what I see them doing to be ready for Obummer care is not a good thing. Most of the Docs, are looking to relocate in a nation that does not have government controlled health care. It has nothing to with their pay, they are looking to find a place they can do some good. The elderly in this nation will be forced out long term care and sent home, this is not a good thing. You see the care they get in long turm care is meant to give them a little more time on this earth. I work in long term care, and most of the family members I talk with simply can not give the care that is needed. Obummercare does have some good points don't get me wrong. Nothing in this world is with out them. Yet if you look at the cuts that will be made in medicare and medacade just to pay for all the people that will be added to them, it simply adds up to less coverage, and lower quality of care. If any thinks this is wrong, ask any one that lives in Canada why they would rather come to the USA for care.
Now lets talk about taxes. The only way to ever gt the rich to pay their share is go to a flat tax. this will do many thing for this nation. First off every one will be paying in the same. If you make 100 that year you would pay in 15. (assuming a 15% flat tax) if you make a mil you pay in 150,000, I think the math is right any how. Next, we would not have to pay out what ever it is to keep IRS working. Big savings there I bet. Cap and Tax will only drive this nation further into debt. How? With the passing of that bill you will see your house hold bills double if not more. If their is less disposable cash, then we don't spend as much. if we don't spend, we also do not produce. You see if it cost more to make, then we have one of 2 things happen. Bissness closes, we import more to make up for that. Or they move over seas. Ether way jobs are lost. With that comes less income, and more unemployment going out.
Sorry for all the misspelled words, I am dyslexic and my spell check does not work on this sight for some reason. It was earlier.
Ok got it working, Hope I fixed all the misspelled words, if not forgive me.

Welcome to the site and to this thread. It's nice to have some input from someone who's actually in the healthcare business and to get their thoughts on what Obummercare will do. Is that what people in healthcare are calling it? lol Hopefully it will be repealed somehow, someway before it becomes yet another monstrous cancer on our nation that we can't get rid of like Social Security which will run out of money in 2037. How much further into debt will we go to fix that?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Welcome to the site and to this thread. It's nice to have some input from someone who's actually in the healthcare business and to get their thoughts on what Obummercare will do. Is that what people in healthcare are calling it? lol Hopefully it will be repealed somehow, someway before it becomes yet another monstrous cancer on our nation that we can't get rid of like Social Security which will run out of money in 2037. How much further into debt will we go to fix that?

Once again, no one is entitled to her or his own facts.

Social Security, according to the Congressional Budget Office, currently has enough to pay 100% of claims until 2037, and then only 80% of claims for decades after that. You should pay attention to the whole story, not just the part that is told TO YOU so you will think a certain way.

A simple change in the rate people pay into Social Security -- i.e., make those who make a $1 million a year pay more than those who make $175,000 a year, and only a bit more -- will keep the system solvent at 100% for a much, much longer time. But that fix doesn't fit into the narrative of those who want to turn Social Security over to Wall Street speculators.

[Rainrider]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Welcome to the site and to this thread. It's nice to have some input from someone who's actually in the healthcare business and to get their thoughts on what Obummercare will do. Is that what people in healthcare are calling it? lol Hopefully it will be repealed somehow, someway before it becomes yet another monstrous cancer on our nation that we can't get rid of like Social Security which will run out of money in 2037. How much further into debt will we go to fix that?

Around here yes every one calls it Obumercare. If a person had the time to hit on the more than 2000 pages of the bill they would soon find out why. The bill was so bad that any one that had the opportunity to vote to remove them self from having to take part in did so.
As you said about S.S. going bankrupt, this bill was pasted with the idea that if they tax pharmaceutical company's, Insurances company's, and hospitals, high enough they can pay for it. Not stopping to think this will drive up the cost, so it would cost even more to pay for it. On top of driving up the cost of insurance, they want to fin us for not having it. My bad they call it a tax. Now the large corporations did the math. They are going to drop all insurance from the benefits package, and pay the fin. They can see a savings of over 2mil a year. So we now have folks with insurance now, that will end up on the obumer plain. So once more the cost goes up. If I may use the words of one doctor, " This not the Obumer plain, it is the ho shit did not see that coming obumer plain. "
Now what most don't stop to look at is the cuts in coverage for teh elderly and the poor. Long term care will become a thing of the past, and so on as I posted before. This will end up with total government control of health care. They can even run a used car lot. I mean come on, the bad move they made with cash for clunkers, that still has not been paid for.
As for the remark I seen about how I would feel if my IQ test was placed beside Obmer's. Well not that bad I don't think. I may be dyslexic, and that enpeads my ability to get my thoughts from my head to my fingers, or find the right word in a spell check, but it in no way lowers my IQ. In fact it has forced me rely on comincents over book cents. Find a way to masher that and I know Obumer would be the one looking silly.

[ila]

Originally Posted by Rainrider

...If any thinks this is wrong, ask any one that lives in Canada why they would rather come to the USA for care...

I am a Canadian, as indicated by my location in every post that I make. You never talked to me so right off your statement is false because I am more than satisfied with the quality of healthcare that I receive here. I can choose my own doctor, there is no cost to me for any visits to my doctor, I don't have to worry about getting rejected by an insurance company, I don't have to fill out forms for any treatment, everything that is available in the US is available here, and most importantly if I should ever be hospitalized I will not have to sell my house and all my possessions just to pay medical bills.

There are some people that do go to the US because they complain about wait times for some procedures, but I've never had to wait long for any medical procedure. One must also realize that Canada is the second largest country in the world and yet the population of the whole country is less than California. It's not easy to provide all services to people all over such a large country, but it does happen.

So I suggest you don't make such generalizations unless you know your facts and then be more specific.

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

I am a Canadian, as indicated by my location in every post that I make. You never talked to me so right off your statement is false because I am more than satisfied with the quality of healthcare that I receive here. I can choose my own doctor, there is no cost to me for any visits to my doctor, I don't have to worry about getting rejected by an insurance company, I don't have to fill out forms for any treatment, everything that is available in the US is available here, and most importantly if I should ever be hospitalized I will not have to sell my house and all my possessions just to pay medical bills.

There are some people that do go to the US because they complain about wait times for some procedures, but I've never had to wait long for any medical procedure. One must also realize that Canada is the second largest country in the world and yet the population of the whole country is less than California. It's not easy to provide all services to people all over such a large country, but it does happen.

So I suggest you don't make such generalizations unless you know your facts and then be more specific.

Thank you for contributing to helping keep facts, and not regurgitated, impressionistic "talking points," a part of the discussions on this site.

[Vickieslut]

It cannot end soon enough for me. I am a rare breed a tranny who loves cock and is a die hard republican conservative.

[Suckslut]

I support the fair tax.

[Enoch Root]

I thought we might have a couple posts worth of real discussion. What think you all about the recent debacle with Rupert Murdoch and that of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former chief of the IMF?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Vickieslut

It cannot end soon enough for me. I am a rare breed a tranny who loves cock and is a die hard republican conservative.

Vicky, it should be quite obvious that you are in good company here.
Sucking tranny cock is very appealing to Liberals.

Being fucked in the ass by a tranny cock is very appealing to conservatives.

Conservatives always think they are being screwed by somebody of some thing (taxes).

Liberals on the other hand believe everybody should enjoy life, the rich and poor alike. Of course, this requires the rich to help out with some of their riches being transferred to the poor.

[KittyKaiti]

It's funny that anyone on this board would even admit to being a rightist conservative Republican. Go tell your Repub friends you like to play dress up and get fucked by other men.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

What I meant was that the charge that the political appointees of Obama overruled "career attorneys" to have the case dropped is a hoax.

Anyone who wants to know the true story, based on full quotes that are contextual, would be wise to go beyond the Washington Times story to which you provide a link. That is a biased newspaper by any reasonable journalistic standards, and the headline of the story you linked to is proof. Why? Because it was "career lawyers" at DOJ who recommended dropping the case, and a federal judge who accepted the rationale for dropping the case. Obama political appointees only okayed the recommendation before it was passed on to the judge.

I suggest reading this Newsweek article for a fuller, less partisan, explanation: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/14/t...ew-acorn0.html

So rather than reading Washington Times' article, I should read the Newsweek article? In this article is

Originally Posted by Newsweek

So how did the incident become a replay of the ACORN scandal? There's some resemblance between the two: an organization with unacceptable practices and a vague connection to the Obama administration (through voter registration drives in the ACORN case and Justice Department litigation in the Panther case) becomes a tool for critics of the White House to attack it as corrupt and illegitimate. But as in the ACORN case, the scandal is minimal (much of the ACORN hit has been discredited)?and the allegations against Obama flimsy.

Note the link for 'discredited' in the last sentence which is a link to Media Matters. This unbiased article uses Media Matters as a source? Do you know how biased Media Matters is? They receive millions from wealthy liberals, and funds from moveon.org and the New Democrat Network.

Rather than writing about some week correlation between the voter intimidation story and the Acorn scandal in an attempt to downplay both why doesn't he report these facts:
* After winning a case of voter intimidation against The New Black Panther Party, the Obama Department of Justice inexplicably dropped the charges.

* The direct ties between the NAACP and The New Black Panther Party.

* J. Christian Adams, a legitimate government whistle-blower who has testified that he was told by his fellow DOJ staffers to all but ignore cases where the defendant is a minority and the plaintiff white.

Originally Posted by smc

Tracy, I feel that your points would be stronger if you stuck to substantive arguments about foreign policy, economic policy, and so on, and got away from the distractions that are pushed from both sides to avoid us, as Americans, having those important discussions.

I have commented about Obama's foreign policy and economic policy as well as health care and other major topics. But right now there's a pretty big election going on and I think the constant efforts of the left to illegally and dishonestly influence elections is also a major topic. There's ACORN who have been busted all over the country trying to register people multiple times or register non-existent people. There's the odd voter machines in Nevada that list Harry Reid as a default. There's even the White House who wanted to move the census from the Department of Commerce to the White House in a blatant attempt to influence future elections. The DOJ sent 400 people to Arizona, not to ensure that illegals do not vote, but to watchdog Arizona officials who are trying to ensure that illegals do not vote. Subversion of elections by the left is reaching epidemic levels and for the legitimacy of the government it has to stop.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

So rather than reading Washington Times' article, I should read the Newsweek article? In this article is Note the link for 'discredited' in the last sentence which is a link to Media Matters. This unbiased article uses Media Matters as a source? Do you know how biased Media Matters is? They receive millions from wealthy liberals, and funds from moveon.org and the New Democrat Network.

Rather than writing about some week correlation between the voter intimidation story and the Acorn scandal in an attempt to downplay both why doesn't he report these facts:
* After winning a case of voter intimidation against The New Black Panther Party, the Obama Department of Justice inexplicably dropped the charges.

* The direct ties between the NAACP and The New Black Panther Party.

* J. Christian Adams, a legitimate government whistle-blower who has testified that he was told by his fellow DOJ staffers to all but ignore cases where the defendant is a minority and the plaintiff white.



I have commented about Obama's foreign policy and economic policy as well as health care and other major topics. But right now there's a pretty big election going on and I think the constant efforts of the left to illegally and dishonestly influence elections is also a major topic. There's ACORN who have been busted all over the country trying to register people multiple times or register non-existent people. There's the odd voter machines in Nevada that list Harry Reid as a default. There's even the White House who wanted to move the census from the Department of Commerce to the White House in a blatant attempt to influence future elections. The DOJ sent 400 people to Arizona, not to ensure that illegals do not vote, but to watchdog Arizona officials who are trying to ensure that illegals do not vote. Subversion of elections by the left is reaching epidemic levels and for the legitimacy of the government it has to stop.

When you can see past your anger and read what I actually wrote, instead of what you think I'm saying, perhaps we can have a conversation. Just don't attribute to me things I didn't write.

In the meanwhile, since subversion of elections is on your mind, why don't you tell us where you stand on the the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" ruling. Did you enjoy all the advertisements on TV paid for by undisclosed donors? Do you think that is "subversion of elections"?

[randolph]

Sigh, two years of gridlock.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Sigh, two years of gridlock.

Yes, unfortunately there will be gridlock, but at least they will be spending less

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I'm hearing crickets. Were you going to answer this?

Originally Posted by smc

In the meanwhile, since subversion of elections is on your mind, why don't you tell us where you stand on the the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" ruling. Did you enjoy all the advertisements on TV paid for by undisclosed donors? Do you think that is "subversion of elections"?

When I didn't answer a question of yours, TracyCoxx. you posted your "hearing crickets" comment (above) -- implying that I was avoiding answering. I explained that your question was unclear, and as soon as you clarified it I answered.

Now I've posed some clear, direct questions to you. You've been back to the thread since those questions were posted, but have skipped over them. Perhaps you'd like to retract the implication of your "cricket" comment?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

When I didn't answer a question of yours, TracyCoxx. you posted your "hearing crickets" comment (above) -- implying that I was avoiding answering.

Yes, after several days.

Originally Posted by smc

Now I've posed some clear, direct questions to you. You've been back to the thread since those questions were posted, but have skipped over them.

Your impatience runs out after several hours. Sorry to keep you waiting but when I posted my last post it was from my cell phone. I save the deeper discussions for when I'm on my laptop.

Originally Posted by smc

In the meanwhile, since subversion of elections is on your mind, why don't you tell us where you stand on the the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" ruling. Did you enjoy all the advertisements on TV paid for by undisclosed donors? Do you think that is "subversion of elections"?

I rarely enjoy advertisements, that is what my 'mute' button is for. But to restrict them is to restrict freedom of speech. As US deputy solicitor general Malcolm Stewart pointed out to the Supreme Court, the law would even require banning a book that made the same points as the Citizens United video. Once we get to this point you can clearly see that this is unconstitutional.

Annoying Citizens United videos doesn't hold a candle to "New" Black Panthers brandishing clubs and intimidating voters, or to ACORN's attempt at the highest levels to register voters multiple times plus register non-existent voters and dead voters, or to attempts by liberals to allow illegal aliens to vote, or to the fracking president trying to grab control of the US Census office!

And if those videos are so bad, what about the plethora of left-wing media outlets that spew biased news? Everyone complains about Fox News, but what about CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, New York Times, and on and on? And don't forget Hollywood with their vocal left wing actors and movies riddled with liberal politics. But hey... it's free speech.

[TracyCoxx]

Obama says the voters just didn't understand what he was trying to do. Does anyone buy this? Or did the voters understand and whole heartedly reject it?

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Obama says the voters just didn't understand what he was trying to do. Does anyone buy this? Or did the voters understand and whole heartedly reject it?

Let's keep it simple. Since Obama thinks the people are too simple; let's just say the Democrats got their arse kicked.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by franalexes

Let's keep it simple. Since Obama thinks the people are too simple; let's just say the Democrats got their arse kicked.

That they did I've got my fingers crossed big time for the next election.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Yes, after several days.

The very next day, in fact ... but whose counting?

I have three sets of questions for you.

1. As I wrote in an earlier post, "I don't support the Democrats or Republicans." I believe that the Democratic Party is guilty of electoral fraud and manipulation in many instances throughout history, and I have no problem believing that Democrats (who, after all, serve the interests of a wing of the very same people served by the Republicans) do things to ensure votes go their way. Tracy, do you accept that the Republicans do things like this, too? You wrote earlier: "The DOJ sent 400 people to Arizona, not to ensure that illegals do not vote, but to watchdog Arizona officials who are trying to ensure that illegals do not vote." Whether that's true or not, do you accept that during the Bush administration government officials, acting for partisan interests, did anything like that.

2. Do you think one's ability to exercise "freedom of speech" should be dictated by one's level of wealth? Let's accept your premise about Citizens United. In the interest of ensuring the greatest amount of freedom of speech, do you support public financing of elections or some other way to ensure that everyone's voice can be heard so that those with the most millions to spend cannot drown out everyone else simply by virtue of having those millions? This is not a left-right issue.

3. In the context of "freedom of speech," do you support full disclosure of who funds political ads, whether on the left or right? It seems to me that the greatest freedom of speech is that which allows us a real discourse, together, as Americans -- something sorely lacking in our body politic today. Absent disclosure, it is difficult to know whether the voices we hear are genuine, and genuinely FOR what they purport to be for, or whether there is manipulation at play. For instance, if a corporation or corporate group that publicly supports tax credits for businesses that send jobs overseas funds a political ad (without disclosure) that accuses a politician of such support, that would be worth knowing, don't you think. Similarly, if a union stands to benefit from a certain outcome in the legislature in, say, one state and (without disclosure) funds an ad attacking a candidate in another state who has not voted as the union wishes, wouldn't it be good to know -- in the interest of encouraging a genuine public discourse in the context of freedom of speech?

These are not partisan questions. I hope you can step back from the vitriol expressed in your last post and consider these thoughtfully, in the interest of genuine dialogue. Otherwise, there's no point in continuing. You can have the thread and vent, and I'll stick to pictures of gorgeous girl cocks.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

The very next day, in fact ... but whose counting?

OMG, you're still whining about the crickets?

The question was asked here:
http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpo...1&postcount=32
It says "One week ago". Kind of vague...

And I'm hearing crickets here:
http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpo...3&postcount=43
It says "5 days ago". Yesterday it said one week vs 4 days, that's at least a 3 day difference so I called it 'several'. Happy?

Originally Posted by smc

I have three sets of questions for you.

1. As I wrote in an earlier post, "I don't support the Democrats or Republicans." I believe that the Democratic Party is guilty of electoral fraud and manipulation in many instances throughout history, and I have no problem believing that Democrats (who, after all, serve the interests of a wing of the very same people served by the Republicans) do things to ensure votes go their way. Tracy, do you accept that the Republicans do things like this, too?

Not that I have seen. But if you point out an actual instance of republicans committing voter fraud then fine. I'll admit it if it's there. I am not a hard core republican, I am a conservative libertarian. I have a few problems with republicans, but they are the lesser of two evils. You've only known me while BO was campaigning and while he's been president so you only see me griping about him. If you knew me when Clinton was in office you'd see me complaining that his fling with Monica was not an impeachable offense and that the republicans were just wasting time and money over something that was going to go nowhere. During the beginning of Bush's term, you'd hear me complaining about him banning stem cell research and saying he's anti-science and too religious, and also complaining about this 'documented worker' bullcrap. When his father was president, you'd hear me fuming that the superconducting super collider was canceled right in the middle of construction and again declaring republicans as anti-science and declaring that from now on I'm voting for the engineer/scientist party.

Originally Posted by smc

You wrote earlier: "The DOJ sent 400 people to Arizona, not to ensure that illegals do not vote, but to watchdog Arizona officials who are trying to ensure that illegals do not vote." Whether that's true or not, do you accept that during the Bush administration government officials, acting for partisan interests, did anything like that.

I haven't heard anything like that happening during the Bush administration, and I doubt it did since although illegal immigration was bad during Bush's term, it wasn't as bad as it is now. And the Bush administration wasn't nearly as hostile towards Arizona either.

Originally Posted by smc

2. Do you think one's ability to exercise "freedom of speech" should be dictated by one's level of wealth? Let's accept your premise about Citizens United. In the interest of ensuring the greatest amount of freedom of speech, do you support public financing of elections or some other way to ensure that everyone's voice can be heard so that those with the most millions to spend cannot drown out everyone else simply by virtue of having those millions? This is not a left-right issue.

It's not perfect, but the alternative in unacceptable. America is all about free speech. Besides, although corporations have been restricted in the past, news organizations never have been restricted in reporting with their left leaning bias. How do non-wealthy conservative candidates compete against that? bts, George Soros just donated several million dollars for NPR stations to hire 100 reporters. I'm sure they will be fair and balanced.

Originally Posted by smc

3. In the context of "freedom of speech," do you support full disclosure of who funds political ads, whether on the left or right?

Yes. Why not?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

OMG, you're still whining about the crickets?

The question was asked here:
http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpo...1&postcount=32
It says "One week ago". Kind of vague...

And I'm hearing crickets here:
http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpo...3&postcount=43
It says "5 days ago". Yesterday it said one week vs 4 days, that's at least a 3 day difference so I called it 'several'. Happy?

I have an unavoidable work deadline this weekend that will keep me from answering your longer questions immediately -- although I will show you examples of voter suppression during the Bush administration by Republicans, including a case in New Hampshire that resulted in a guilty plea and prison time for an operative of the Republican National Committee.

On the "crickets" issue, how about dropping the insults ("whining"). If necessary, I can go to the moderator console and show you the exact time and date of the posts in question. My point in mentioning it was to bring up a broader point about civility in the discussion, which I have mentioned more explicitly in other posts.

[ila]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

........It's not perfect, but the alternative in unacceptable. America is all about free speech........

Really, Tracy? You should study your country's history. The USA is all about taxation without representation. That is how it all started.

[smc]

Originally Posted by smc

You wrote earlier: "The DOJ sent 400 people to Arizona, not to ensure that illegals do not vote, but to watchdog Arizona officials who are trying to ensure that illegals do not vote." Whether that's true or not, do you accept that during the Bush administration government officials, acting for partisan interests, did anything like that.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I haven't heard anything like that happening during the Bush administration, and I doubt it did since although illegal immigration was bad during Bush's term, it wasn't as bad as it is now. And the Bush administration wasn't nearly as hostile towards Arizona either.

Remember, I support neither the Democrats nor the Republicans. I believe them to represent two wings of the people who oppress all the rest of us, and voting for them is a vote against my own economic interests.

That said, let me clarify about voter suppression. It seems as if you thought I was being specific about the Bush administration doing something in Arizona. I was not I only used your example to pose my question.

I will give you one non-Arizona example of Republican voter suppression during the Bush administration.

In 2002, Republican officials in New Hampshire attempted to reduce the number of Democratic voters by jamming phones. Professional telemarketers from a company based in northern Virgina, "GOP Marketplace," were hired to make repeated hang-up calls to to the telephone numbers that the Democratic state committee and the state firefighter's union were using for voters to call and get rides to the polls. By keeping these lines busy, the intent was to suppress the number of voters who could ask the Democratic Party for such rides. This voter suppression effort was undertaken in the interest of getting John E. Sununu, the son of George H.W. Bush's first White House chief of staff, elected to the U.S. Senate. Sununu won a narrow victory.

Four men were convicted of federal crimes and sentenced to prison for their involvement. There was a guilty plea by Allen Raymond to several felony charges in federal court in Concord, New Hampshire on June 30, 2004, which really brought the case to the public's attention. The prosecutor in Ramond's case indicated to the court that Raymond had been contacted about the phone jamming by "a former colleague who was then an official in a national political organization." Not long after, the Manchester Union-Leader, one of the most right-wing daily newspapers in the country, reported that the unnamed individual had a significant role in the Bush-Cheney presidential campaign." He was later identified as James Tobin, then serving as the New England regional director for the Bush campaign. He resigned in October from that post and in December was indicted and arraigned on two criminal counts each of conspiring to make harassing telephone calls and aiding and abetting telephone harassment.

Later, Allen Raymond was sentenced to five months in federal prison. His accomplice, Charles McGee, received seven months. Tobin refused to cooperate, and during his trial questions came up about who was paying for his defense. Ultimately, it was revealed that the Republican National Committe was paying for his lawyer.

Later in this case, after being convicted, Tobin was freed on appeal -- but on legal technicalities, not the merits of the actual case of voter suppression. Raymond Allen wrote a book that sold quite well, How to Rig an Election.

This is but one example of how both parties seek to undermine voting rights, Tracy. I can provide many more. One of the more common things Republicans do is to send letters to minority voters (yes, U.S. citizens who happen to be black and live in poverty-stricken election districts) disguised as "official" in some capacity telling people that if they show up at the polls they run the risk of arrest for any outstanding parket tickets, or must pass a reading test, or may be subject to imprisonment if they have moved, etc. Democrats pulled the same kind of stuff in the South before the Voting Rights Act.

It's despicable, but voter suppression efforts are certainly not the purview of one party or one administration.

[smc]

Originally Posted by smc

3. In the context of "freedom of speech," do you support full disclosure of who funds political ads, whether on the left or right?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Yes. Why not?

I'm glad to hear that. Let's be more specific. Do you therefore support H.R.5175, The DISCLOSE Act, which was introduced in Congress earlier this year? Its official brief description is: "To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and for other purposes."

The "additional disclosure requirements" would enhance "disclaimers," thus requiring that those who provide the funds for ads take responsibility for them; enhance disclosures, requiring that the money be traceable to its source(s); require that corporations and organizations (including unions) disclose to shareholders and members how and where money was spent on political ads; and tighten the coordination rules that are meant to keep non-party entities from coordinating their work with official campaigns as a way around limits on spending.

In brief, as law the bill would require disclosure by donors supporting campaign advertising, and require sponsors to approve TV ads personally, as candidates are required to do. So, for example, a corporation, wealthy businessman, union ... no one ... could set up a group with a name like Americans for Sound Policy and then run an ad attacking a candidate without the funders being identified in the ad.

This bill passed the House of Representatives in June. A similar bill was blocked twice in the Senate by Republicans, who voted against invoking cloture to keep it from coming before the full body. The last such block, in late September, fell short by a vote of 59 to 39 (60 votes are required for cloture). All Democrats voted for cloture; two Republicans did not vote; all other Republicans voted to block the bill.

The Republican leadership argued that the Democrats were trying to "rig the system" to their advantage. How can there be an advantage for any one side in mandating full disclosure in a democracy, unless someone wants to keep something a secret?