Wattree's picture

    An Irrefutable Truth About the GOP

    BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE


     

    An Irrefutable Truth About the GOP
    .

    A gentleman by the name of James W. Lewis recently commented on my article, "Who’s In the ‘Dark,’ the Black Community, or Dr. Ben Carson?" In his comment he posed a question which under ordinary circumstances would seem to be very reasonable, and one that seems to currently be on the mind of a surprising number of younger Black people. He asked the following:
    .
    "There’s one thing that has always bothered me about black folks. We constantly battle trying to prove we’re not all the same, especially what’s portrayed on television. We come from a variety of backgrounds, and our unique upbringings shape our beliefs, including political beliefs. If that’s the case, why do we ALL have to be Democrat (or even Independent)? The Democratic Party was once pro-slavery with obviously no, to very little African American support. The shift began in the 1940s with FDR’s New Deal. African Americans have been generally pro-Democrat ever since. If African Americans can change the face of the Democratic party, can’t the same be said for the Republican party?"
    .

    James, in a word, no.
    .
    People often suggest that I tend to advocate for the Democratic Party over the GOP.   In response to that, first, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not a Democrat, and I haven’t been since my early twenties. I’m a independent progressive thinker, as oppose to a liberal or conservative. There is a difference.
    .
    Liberals and conservatives are both ideologues, and as such, tend to be different sides of the same coin. They both have a propensity to give ideology priority over unadulterated truth. So when truth fails to conform to their particular ideological position, they both have a tendency to try to bend and contort the truth in order to mold it into a more comfortable fit within their political philosophy.
    .
    Progressives, on the other hand, are non-ideological. We believe in following truth wherever it leads and regardless to who’s ox it gores. Truth is our only constituent, so we tend to look upon the political landscape as though we’re observing an ant farm, rather than from a partisan perspective.
    .
    At this point it must be granted, however, that progressives do generally come down on the liberal side of the ledger, but there’s a reason for that, and since we believe in truth, that reason should be obvious. The current Republican Party has become a refuge for scoundrels for some, and a refuge from reality for many others. So while I’m not advocating FOR the Democratic Party, I routinely and vociferously advocate AGAINST the Republican Party with my every keystroke, because the current GOP is filled to the brim with some of the most dangerously malevolent people in this country.
    .
    Simply ask yourself, when was the last time a party had to, literally, hide their last president and vice president during an election? Granted, I’m not a historian, but I can’t think of another time in our history. But the Republican Party had to do it twice - in both the 2008 and 2012 elections - and with good reason.
    .
     

    George W. Bush and Dick Cheney spent their entire eight-year reign enriching their cronies. In addition, during their time in office they didn’t do one solitary thing to help America, or the American people, and that’s been the Republican record for nearly ONE HUNDRED YEARS. The GOP has a clear and irrefutable one hundred year record of swindling the American people, which I clearly lay out in the following link. (http://wattree.blogspot.com/2010/10/gop-one-hundred-year-record-of.html).

    .
    Thus, the GOP has clearly become the domestic enemy of the United States. So to even try to be nonpartisan with this group would constitute colluding with the enemy against the American people.
    .
    Am I engaging in a hyperbolic rant? I don’t think so. Let me prove it: Who was the last Republican president who didn’t drag America under a bus? That’s a real brain teaser isn’t it? Now try to name one good thing that the GOP has done for the American people in the last 30 years. Let me answer that for you - Absolutely nothing.
    .
     

    Rush Limbaugh was foolish enough to make his feelings known out loud - "I don’t want Obama to be successful" - and as everyone knows, Rush speaks for the Republican Party.
    .
     Thus, Rush gave the Republican Party their marching orders at the very beginning of President Obama’s administration - that the GOP should do everything in its power to prevent America from succeeding, regardless to the level of suffering that the American people may have to endure, and they've stood steadfast to that agenda.
    .
    In yesterday's vote on gun control, in spite of the fact that a majority of 54 senators voted to approve the measure, the Republicans used the threat of filibuster to block true democracy and thumbed their nose at nearly 90% of the American people in favor of their corporate cronies. That, is the literal definition of a domestic enemy.
    .
     

    The History of the Republican Party
    .

    One of the founding fathers of conservative thought was Alexander Hamilton. He was an aristocrat who advocated that poor and middle-class Americans should be relegated to second-class citizenship, and the GOP has fully embraced his agenda. Hamilton said the following:
    .
    “All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and wellborn, the other the mass of the people.... The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government.” (Debates of the Federalist Convention, May 14-September 17, 1787).
    .
    The founding fathers rejected Hamilton's position in laying out the blueprint for this nation, but the arrogance of Hamilton's philosophy continues to exist, even to this day, in our politics - and it was exactly that arrogance that we witnessed in the Republican Party in yesterday's vote on gun control: THE PEOPLE BE DAMNED!
    .
    The modern Republican Party is a coalition between fiscal conservatives, or big business, and social conservatives, or social bigots. Even though these two factions don’t even like each other, they have one thing in common – they both have a vested interest in undermining Black people.
     

    .
    Big business has a vested interest in not only lowering the standard of living of Black people, but the entire American Middle class in order to become more competitive in the global market against countries who pay their workers less per week, than the average middle-class American spends on lunch per day. And the great American bigot simply hates Black people in general. The most benevolent of them think that Black people should be relegated to shining his shoes.
    .
    .

    But it is true that most Black people used to be Republicans immediately after the Civil War up through the Civil Rights Era – Martin Luther King was a Republican. But the Republican Party was different back then. They represented the business community of the North, and the Democrats, or Dixiecrats, represented the farmers of the South. That was one of the reasons for the Civil War. The Civil War wasn't actually about freeing the slaves; it was actually a dispute between the big business Republicans of the North, and the Southern Democrats that represented the farming interests. Black people just happened to benefit from the dispute, and during the industrial revolution big business could use the additional manpower.
    .
    But during the Great Depression the two parties began to change their alliances dramatically. After Democrat president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, turned on big business to help the poor and middle class with his "New Deal" for the American people during the Great Depression, working-class people began to gravitate to the Democratic Party. Then during the Civil Rights Era of the sixties when John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson began to support Black civil rights, many more Black people migrated to the Democratic Party, and southern racists began to move to the Republican Party. So, essentially, a complete shift took place in party alliances.
    .
    So when you hear someone from the Republican Party saying that it was the Democrats who kept Black people in slavery and formed the Klan, they’re trying to play on your ignorance of history. A much better way of keeping track of those who victimized Black people is by following political philosophy. It was conservatives who victimized Black people, and those conservatives currently reside in the Republican Party - and as we speak, they’re desperately trying to obstruct our right to vote.
    .
    But the Republican Party is currently in a state of turmoil. Every since social conservatives sought out refuge in the GOP subsequent to the Civil Rights Era, there’s been an uneasy alliance between the corporatist conservatives like Mitt Romney, and social bigots like Rick Santorum.
    .
    So once again there’s a dispute between the interest of fiscal conservatives, or big business, who benefit from a more practical approach to social policies - and who would love to bring in as many undocumented workers as possible as potential customers, and to lower the cost of wages; and social conservatives, the social bigots - who, if they had their way would send all undocumented workers back to their respective homelands. So a second Civil War is brewing, but this time it’s going on within the Republican Party itself, and it’ll be interesting to see how it turns out.
    .
    But the bottom line is this - the bigots within the Republican Party hate Black people even more than they do undocumented workers, liberals, and gays; and the corporatists hate the entire poor and middle-class population. You heard Mitt Romney talking to his homies – he thinks nearly half of the American people are scum – Black and White.
    .
    Thus, any Black person, regardless to who he or she is, who think that Black people can find a comfortable fit in the churning cauldron of Republican hatred, bigotry, and self-interest, has got to be a fool - a damn fool.
     

     .
    THE GOP HAS BECOME DANGEROUSLY
    UN-AMERICAN
    .

    Eric L. Wattree
    Http://wattree.blogspot.com
    [email protected]

    Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)

    Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

     

    Comments

    I do not think I would take issue with any of the points you make here.

    I will tell you though, Curly Rand Paul was just roasted by those Black college students the other day.

    These kids knew damn well that repubs of today have nothing to do with the Republicans in the 1860's!

    Rand was clearly out of his league!


    Richard,

    That episode was funny as hell. You would think that idiot, Paul - or at the very least, one of his staff, would have known better than to go into a Black college and try to engage in revisionist Black history. That told me one of two things - either Rand Paul is stupid, or he thinks Black people are. 


    AMEN!


    Rand Paul's Howard appearance verified my opinion of the former board certified ophthalmologist. Paul lied about his support for the Civil Rights Act and thought that students and faculty in the audience would be unaware of his deception. The people on the Left who were cheering when Paul was objecting to Obama using drones to attack US citizens sitting in Starbucks cannot understand the revulsion many people have over Rand Paul. If he were elected President, Rand Paul would be reluctant to take action against an employer who discriminated against race. Paul believes in personal freedom but would dictate that a woman does not have the right to choose.

    Rand is a condescending prick when it comes to issues of race. From a purely practical, political standpoint Rand Paul is incapable of getting any important legislation passed.


    BTW the condescending prick Rand Paul referred to the Newtown family members who were voicing their opinions on gun control to members of Congress as "props". What a waste of carbon atoms.


    I agree, RM.

    Rand, and his father, are a gross waste of skin - but they sure believe in liberty!

     


    I believe the US's electoral system could be reformed so that the GOP wd evolve to become a party that some African-Americans could feel at home within.

    This is why I push for American forms of Proportional Representation, along with FAIRVOTE.

    dlw


    Nonsense Waltree, total nonsense.

    You start out claiming conservatives and liberals are ideologues who twist the truth to support their ideological position while claiming the high ground for yourself as a progressive solely interested in the unadulterated truth. This is not how a dictionary would define those terms. Its not even the connotation those words carry in current usage. This is nothing but your own private definition designed to stroke your ego and define yourself as some truth teller above the partisan fray. You don't get to redefine words to suit your partisan political agenda or to stroke your ego.

    After that bit of nonsense you go on to claim of  Bush et al "during their time in office they didn’t do one solitary thing to help America, or the American people, and that’s been the Republican record for nearly ONE HUNDRED YEARS." Really Waltree, you claim to be solely a non-ideological truth seeker?

    Even a criminal like Nixon passed laws that helped the American people. He proposed, not just signed into law, the EPA. He opened the door to China and did much to start the process of normalizing relations. Eisenhower ended racial discrimination in the military with an executive order, something Clinton was too timid to do for gays. He started the federal interstate highway system. So the next time you're driving down those roads think again about how republicans "didn’t do one solitary thing to help America, or the American people, and that’s been the Republican record for nearly ONE HUNDRED YEARS." Eisenhower also sent the military into Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce Brown v Board of Education and open southern schools to integration.

    "Now try to name one good thing that the GOP has done for the American people in the last 30 years.  Let me answer that for you - Absolutely nothing." Just 30 years now? Hey Waltree, I don't need you to answer that for me. I know what your answer will be. My answer, for one there's the prescription drug benefit  While the legislation was flawed I support helping seniors pay for prescription drugs. Obamacare is just as flawed if not more so. I support it despite the flaws because I support the attempt to move toward universal health care.

    As a liberal who didn't abandon the term for "progressive" when the republicans successfully demonized it I can see that republicans have done some good things amidst all the bad. That's what it means to seek the unadulterated truth over ideology. Frankly your post is simplistic and puerile. If your posts are an example of independent progressive writing than "independent progressive" is synonymous with partisan hack. So  much for your "irrefutable truth."


    THE GOP: A ONE HUNDRED YEAR RECORD OF SWINDLING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE


    In 1921 -- eight years before the great depression -- Republicans took over the helm of this nation for 12 years. During that time there were three Republican administrations, the first of which was the administration of Warren G. Harding. History remembers Harding's administration for one thing more than anything other -- scandal. It was during Harding's presidency that the Teapot Dome Scandal erupted. His administration was considered the most corrupt administration in the history of the United States -- until Nixon's, then Reagan's, and finally Bush's.
    .
    Next, in 1923, came Calvin Coolidge, the president that Ronald Reagan is said to have most admired. Coolidge's policies of large tax cuts, allowing business a free-rein, and his encouragement of stock speculation contributed greatly to the impending stock market crash and the great depression that was to come.
    .
    Then in 1929 Herbert Hoover came to power. During his administration the stock market crashed, starting the great depression. In spite of the fact that by 1933 the unemployment rate was at 33.3% with 16 million people out of work, the Republican, Hoover, just sat, thinking that the economy would eventually rejuvenate itself. During Hoover's administration 15,000 WWI veterans marched on Washington demanding that they be paid what they were owed by the government. Hoover responded by calling in federal troops to throw these ex-servicemen off government property.
    .
    Finally in 1933 Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a liberal democrat, was elected overwhelmingly. He immediately surrounded himself with a group of the finest minds in the country, including Columbia professors Adolph A. Berle, Jr., Rexford G. Tugwell, and Raymond Moley, known at the time as the "Brain Trust." After assembling these men and others he went about the business of developing a" New Deal" for the working class people of this country.
    .
    The New Deal had two components -- one to help the economy to recover from the effects of the great depression, and a second component to give relief to the American people and to insure that they were never be placed in a position of total destitution again. To help heal the economy Roosevelt created programs that regulated business, controlled inflation, and brought about price stabilization; to bring relief to the people he signed The National Labor Relations Act which guaranteed workers the right to collective bargaining, and he created the Social Security Administration to guarantee workers some sort of income once they became too old to work. He also signed the Fair Labor Standards Act which protected workers rights and set a minimum wage for workers.
    .
    With his New Deal in place Franklin Delano Roosevelt, this "bleeding heart liberal", not only led this country out of the worst, Republican generated, crisis that this country has ever faced, but went on to lead the free world in victory over Hitler in WWII. He then ushered in the most sustained prosperity that the world has ever known.
    .
    One would think that conservatives would have seen the light, but their passion to further enrich the wealthy at the expense of the middle and lower classes seems to supersede all logic. Therefore, from the moment that the New Deal went into place, conservatives have been determined to dismantle it. The closest they've come to succeeding started during the Reagan administration with Supply-Side Economics, or, "Reaganomics" -- and the battle is currently raging in Washington D.C. as we speak.
    .
    Supply- Side Economics was a scheme hatch by U.S.C. economist Arthur Laffer and the Reagan crowd which was supposed to cut the deficit and balance the budget. The theory behind Reaganomics was ostensibly, if you cut taxes for business and people in the upper tax brackets, and then deregulated business of such nuisances as safety regulations and environmental safeguards, the beneficiaries would invest their savings into creating new jobs. In that way the money would eventually "trickle down" to the rest of us. The resulting broadened tax base would not only help to bring down the deficit, but also subsidize the tremendously high defense budget. When the plan was first floated, even George Bush, Reagan's vice president to be, called it "voodoo economics."
    .
    Reaganomics, for the most part, sought to undo many of the safeguards put into place during the Roosevelt era and create a business environment similar to that which was in place during the Coolidge Administration. What actually took place, however, was even more like the Coolidge era than planed.
    .
    Instead of taking the money and investing it into creating new jobs, the money was used in wild schemes and stock market speculation. One of these schemes, the leveraged buy out, involved buying up large companies with borrowed funds secured by the company's assets, then paying off the loan by selling off the assets of the purchased company. This practice cost the citizens of this country its industrial base. In addition, the bottom fell out of the stock market. On Monday, October 19, 1987 the Dow-Jones Average fell 508.32 points. It was the greatest one-day decline since 1914 - 15 years before the Great Depression.
    .
    And what about Ronald Reagan's promise to balance the budget and lower the deficit? By the time he left office he was not only the most prolific spender of any president, but he also added more to the deficit than all of the other presidents from George Washington to his own administration combined. And what does the Republican Party propose to do about that? One of the Republican proposals was their "contract with America," a capitol gains tax cut -- for the rich.
    .
    Due to the continued freewheeling fiscal policies of conservative Republicans, between 1986 and 1989, spanning the presidencies of Reagan and Bush Sr., the FSLIC had to pay off all the depositors of 296 institutions with assets of over $125 billion.
    .
    Then in 1988 Silverado Savings and Loan collapsed, costing the taxpayers $1.3 billion. It was headed by Neil Bush, brother of George W. The investigation alleged that he was guilty of "breaches of his fiduciary duties involving multiple conflicts of interest." The issue was eventually settled out of court with Bush paying a mere $50,000 settlement.
    .
    Then there was the Lincoln Savings and loan scandal in 1987, involving John McCain. The scandal was very similar to the one that is currently playing out on Wall Street. He was one of a group of senators dubbed "The Keating Five" involved in a scandal by the same name.
    .
    In 1976 Charles Keating moved to Arizona to run the American Continental Corporation. In 1984, shortly after the Reagan era push to deregulate the savings and loan community, Keating bought Lincoln Savings and Loan and began to engage in highly risky investments with the depositors' savings. In 1989 the parent company, which Keating headed, went bankrupt, and it resulted in over 21,000 investors losing their life savings. Most of the investors were elderly, and the loss amounted to about 285 million dollars.
    .
    After having received over a million dollars from Keating in illegal campaign contributions, gifts, free trips, and other gratuities, the Keating Five--Senators John Glenn, Don Riegle, Dennis DeConini, Alan Cranston, and Sen. John McCain--attempted to intervene in the investigation into Keating's activities by the regulators. Later, they were admonished to varying degrees by the senate for attempting to influence regulators on Keating's behalf. Charles Keating ended up being convicted for fraud, racketeering and conspiracy, for which he received 10 years by the state court, and a 12 year sentence in federal court. After spending four and a half years in prison, his convictions were overturned. But prior to being retried, he pled guilty to a number of felonies in return for a sentence of time served.
    .
    Then came the George W. Bush administration that caused close to a million people to die uselessly in an illegal war in Iraq, robbed the American people blind, whose fumbling ignited the longest war in American history in Afghanistan, and whose greed came very close to sending the nation into yet another depression.
    .
    Now, after all of their repeated efforts to deplete the national treasury, they're unanimously voting against every piece of legislation that the Democrats propose to repair the damage they created, and to bring relief to the American people. Then they have the audacity to claim that they're doing it because they're concerned about deficit spending.
    .
    They're against affordable health care for American families; they're against any kind of spending to put Americans back to work, and they're against extending unemployment insurance to relieve the burden of America's unemployed. What's particularly telling, however, is they're also against any kind of strong legislation to prevent the financial community (them) from being able to rob the American people in the future.
    .
    The fact is, what they really want is to maintain the status quo, and make damn sure that the American people suffer until the 2012 elections so they'll have a chance to regain power and raid the treasury again. That's their one and only agenda - period.
    .
    This is not just political rhetoric. Here is the activity of the Republican congress who ran in the 2010 election on their claim that their number one priority was to bring economic relief, and create jobs for the American people:
    .
     

    .
    History is clear. The conservative Republicans don't mind spending money, they just don't want to spend it on those who need it - us. Remember, they're the party of Alexander Hamilton, one of this country's founding fathers who believed that only those who owned property should even be allowed to vote. He also said:
    .
    "All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and wellborn, the other the mass of the people.... The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government." Debates of the Federalist Convention (May 14-September 17, 1787).
    .
    So, let's set the record straight. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that "bleeding heart liberal", not only brought the nation back from the Great Depression and saved the world from Hitler during his life, but his "New Deal" for the American people gave us the greatest prosperity we've ever known, and allowed him to reach back from the grave to save the nation from Ronald Reagan 50 years after his death.
    .
    That isn't to say that the liberal Democratic philosophy corners the market on what is in the best interest of the nation -- it is clear that both parties have had illustrious moments in the past -- but rather, this is one of those defining issues in American politics that determines whether this is to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, or a government where the citizens or nothing more than disposable resources for big business.
    .
    In the past the Democratic Party has always been there to draw a line in the sand on this issue, but in recent history the liberal philosophy has been distorted to the point that even Democrats are distancing themselves from their own political philosophy.
    .
    But what makes America great, are those dramatic moments in American politics when that one individual has the courage to put everything on the line to defend, protect, and save the American people from disaster. And the annals of modern American history will clearly show that during those moments, it was a "bleeding heart liberal" that stepped up to the plate. First FDR, then Bill Clinton, and now Barack Hussein Obama.
    .
    Thus, future historians will record that there is nothing more honorable in American politics than a bleeding heart . . . because their hearts bleed for America.
     

     
    *
    Related Post


    Ocean-Kat,

    Ike was the one bright spot in the Republican saga from the time indicated above until the present - and as one of his last acts in office, even he, warned us about the Dick Cheneys, neocons, and military-industrial complex.

    I've acknowledged Ike in previous writings. But I think you should acknowledge that one responsible Republican president since before the Great Depression is far less than a ringing endorsement for a GOP whose primary claim to fame is their burning love for America.

    Your scouring of history to try to find a bright spot in Republican history does more to validate my position than disprove it, because, with the exception of the Ike’s contribution to America, is debatable - especially the drug bill, which did more for the drug companies than it did the elderly.

    So here’s yet another irrefutable fact about the GOP: Entrusting America’s future to the Republican Party is the moral and logical equivalent of entrusting our children to the care of convicted child molesters - and that’s not an ideological position; that's a documented and irrefutable fact.


    I'm not trying to make a ringing endorsement of the republican party. I'm a liberal to the far left of the democratic party. I'm trying to point out the extreme nature of your hyperbolic partisan rant. If you think it helps to cloak yourself in some mantle of "unadulterated truth" while spewing out such ridiculous distortions and falsehoods I think you're wrong.


    Look Waltree, I don't like the republicans. I'm 56 years old and I've never voted for a republican. So I know they've done a lot of bad things over the years. I'd likely agree with much of your history of the republican party. Though one could make a pretty long list of bad democrats and a history of bad democratic actions too.

    But that's not all you claimed in your post. You said, " they didn’t do one solitary thing to help America, or the American people, and that’s been the Republican record for nearly ONE HUNDRED YEARS."   And, "Now try to name one good thing that the GOP has done for the American people in the last 30 years.  Let me answer that for you - Absolutely nothing."

    So please explain why ending racial discrimination in the military by executive order, sending troops to Little Rock to integrate the schools, the interstate highway system, the EPA,  the prescription drug benefit, and opening the door to China were bad things the republican have done.

    What makes it all so stupid, while tossing out a partisan hyperbolic rant of extreme proportions, you're claiming to be solely interested in the "unadulterated truth" and trashing liberals and conservatives as ideologues who twist the truth. Its laughable.


    Ocean-Kat,

    As I mentioned above, the concrete actions that benefitted the American people are all attributable to Ike, and I’d discussed Ike and his contributions in previous writings.

    In addition, you should go back and look at the context of the article. My thesis was, any Black person who thinks it’s prudent to embrace the GOP is a fool. So Richard Nixon’s inroads with China is irrelevant to that discussion. The discussion in on domestic policy, not foreign affairs - even though that initiative can also be debated as to whether it was done primarily with the American people in mind, or in an attempt to help big business gain access to the Chinese market.

    As for Bush’s prescription drug credit, that’s also highly debatable as to whether it was actually designed to help the people are to further enrich the drug industry:

    "President Bush thought that millions would welcome his intervention. But the effort has not gone as planned. Costs are spiraling out of control, and many of the people we wanted to help are protesting that the situation is worse than ever. Three years later, the entire poorly conceived enterprise is in jeopardy.

    "I refer, of course, to the administration's program to subsidize the cost of prescription drugs for the elderly. This plan, which went into effect on Jan. 1, offers so many baffling options that only 1 million of 21 million eligible Medicare beneficiaries have signed up for it on their own. Many of these early adopters, along with millions of impoverished Medicaid recipients transferred into the new system automatically, have been unable to obtain their prescriptions at the promised discounted price. The specter of citizens going without needed medications has provoked action by several governors, some of whom have invoked emergency powers to pay for drugs. Meanwhile, the estimated cost of this plan that no one likes has already more than doubled and is now projected at more than $1 trillion over the next decade.

    "It's tempting to conclude that "Medicare D" has flopped because of Republican disdain for government. And that is indeed part of the problem. It's hard to think of a major federal program or initiative (other than military procurement and domestic espionage) that has thrived under Bush, who tends to tune out such specifics as design and implementation. With the Medicare drug bill, politically attuned but government-detesting conservatives resolved the inherent conflict between the interests of beneficiaries and the affected industries in favor of everyone. Crucial aspects of the plan were characteristically delegated to insurance and pharmaceutical companies, while the senior-citizens' lobby was appeased in various ways."

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2006/01/drug_addled.html


    Well costs didn't spiral out of control, and citing an article that it's not going according to plan less than 3 weeks after it went into effect - 7 years ago - come on, you can do better homework than that?

    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3775

    Sure, Google was a failure still in year 2000.


    I don't have an issue with your thesis. I have a problem with the patently false and extreme statements you used to elaborate and defend your thesis.

    Your concessions re Eisenhower are a backdoor admission that several of your statements in this post are extreme and false. While I disagree with your analysis of Nixon's rapprochement with China I'll let that go. But the EPA proposed and passed into law by Nixon shows that even a manifestly bad republican has done at least "one solitary thing to help America, or the American people."

    I'll certainly not defend bush's prescription drug law, as I said its flawed policy. Yet it seems to have been made to work, it helps seniors, and polls moderately well among seniors now. All the complaints you've made against it can and have been made by liberals against the ACA. That's what happens when democrats vote a flawed republican plan into law for the republicans with zero republican votes. It will take much more work and expense to make Obamacare even marginally effective than it did to make the prescription drug plan work.

    And as a liberal, I'm offended that you would trash me with your ridiculously self serving private redefining of words and that you would make these false statements while cloaking yourself in a completely fictitious mantle of follower of "unadulterated truth."


    Ahhhh, now we have it, Ocean -Kat, I thought that was the issue:

    "And as a liberal, I'm offended that you would trash me with your ridiculously self serving private redefining of words and that you would make these false statements while cloaking yourself in a completely fictitious mantle of follower of "unadulterated truth."

    Kat, I stated my position, my opinion, and I stand by every syllable of the article. And whether or not you’re "OFFENDED" by my opinion, or think I’m being self-serving, is ALMOST as important to me as news that a germ under a toilet seat in Uzbekistan has decided to commit suicide.

    And regarding the EPA - Nixon’s executive order to create the agency was an attempt to get a handle on legislation initiated by Democratic senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, and the agency has been a prime target of the Republican Party every since. Okay?

     



    So, now that we’ve got that resolved, here’s a little something that should REALLY piss you off:

    BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE


    The Conservative Corruption of Progressive Thought

    As one who has always tried, with varying success, to be progressive in my thinking, I'd like to make a few personal observations on the contemporary progressive movement. I want to preface my remarks, however, with the assurance that I have long since recognized that I corner the market on neither knowledge, wisdom, nor intellect, but I'd like to share my thoughts nevertheless - not as a condescending edict handed down by a self-appointed pundit, but in the hope that the thoughts of an average man with common facility are worthy of public discussion.
    It is my firm belief that the appropriate attitude for a progressive to bring to every discussion is a firmness of thought and an open mind to divergent ideas. A progressive, by definition, should have the intellectual capacity to recognize that one can neither scream, nor insult, one's way to a solution to any problem. And what should always set a progressive apart from all others is an affinity for humanity, independence of thought, and a fierce determination to remain a seeker of truth above all else, regardless to where that truth may lead.

    But those values no longer seem to be the case among many who define themselves as progressives today. Many contemporary 'progressives' tend to possess the very same rigidity of thought, and mean-spirited, knee-jerk adherence to ideology that the progressive movement was created to combat. The response that many of these people bring to even the slightest divergence from their rigid ideological beliefs can only be described as one of radical reactionism.

    That concerns me greatly, because while conservatives and today's so-called progressives remain completely divergent in their views toward governance, in terms of intellectual disposition they've become different sides of the same coin. I've often heard it stated that the regimented intolerance of reactionary conservatism is reminiscent of Nazi Germany. That may, or may not be true. But if it is, it must also be acknowledged that the intolerant regimentation of many contemporary radical 'progressives' represent the USSR at best.

    Many modern progressives have allowed themselves to become infected with the exact same kind of intellectual rigidity that we previously associated with the radical conservative mindset. In fact, many who define themselves as progressives today could very accurately be called latter-day conservatives. They have a slightly updated set of values, but their rigidity and rabid defense of those values will surely morph into the closed-minded conservatism of tomorrow.

    That's the primary reason that the conservatives' reckless campaign of rampant disinformation is winning the battle over reasoned and logical thought. So many contemporary progressives have taken on the conservative mindset of anger before contemplation, and reaction over reason, that there's no one left who's actually thinking. Everyone is simply reacting through anger, ignorance, and disinformation. That's an environment in which the Republican Party thrives, since as any thinking person would know, radical conservatism is reactionary by definition.

    Progressives cannot out-scream the Republican Party, and we shouldn't try. The disinformation that's currently being disseminated by the GOP must be met with facts, a well thought-out plan of action, integrity, and character.

    The American people are not stupid. They desperately want these qualities in their governance, but the current progressive movement is not giving them a viable alternative. Regardless to what our intent, we're acting with just as much thoughtless anger and reckless abandon as the Republican Party.

    The problem is, we have not coalesced into a solid front with a clear and viable agenda. We've divided ourselves into so many factions with so many different agendas that the people no longer know what we represent. And the reason for that is that too many of us really don't know what it means to be progressives ourselves.

    Too many of us fail to understand that the primary goal of the progressive movement is to create a viable democracy that serve, respect, and honor ALL of the people. But due to the destruction of our educational system, the corrupting influence of Republican governance over the past twenty years, and an irresponsible media, our ideals and what we represent as a people is only a rumor up for debate for an entire generation of Americans.

    But what's worse, and the subject of this contemplation, is the above is also true of young people of the left who consider themselves progressives. The fact is, while they know that their political orientation is liberal, what they don't know is there's a vast difference between being simply liberal, and being a progressive. As a result, many of these young people approach our democracy like it's a sporting event - our team against their team. Period.

    What they fail to realize is that the progressive movement is much more than just a synonym for left-wing liberalism. Progressives have also served as America's philosophers, intellectuals, and conscience. Thus, true progressives don't see conservatives as the enemy. They understand that both liberals, and conservatives, play an important role in our society. They recognize that both are necessary in order to maintain a balanced America. And they clearly understand that while there's a burning need for a Martin Luther King to remind America of its humanity, there is also a need for a Gen. MacArthur to ensure our security.

    Thus, the progressive movement is not so much a political ideology as it is a philosophical attitude towards human behavior. A true progressive, as oppose to an ideologue of any stripe, will always give truth, logical thought, and the interest of humanity priority over ideology. And regardless to how much he or she may admire any politician, he will always hold that politician accountable for truth, justice, and his fidelity to mankind.

    I can cite an example of that in my personal life. I'm a huge supporter of President Obama because I agree with more of his positions on public policy than I do with the Republicans. But I have both friends, and family, who go absolutely crazy on those occasions when I write a column critical of him when I disagree with something that he does, or something that he fails to do. They take the position that I'm only serving to help the Republican Party drag him down.

    I take the position, as both a journalist, and a progressive, that while I support Obama, it is not my job to censor information when in my opinion he's taken a position that's not in the best interest of the people (failing to follow the rule of law regarding the atrocities of war committed by the Bush Administration, for example). Neither is it my job to protect Obama's presidency. It is Obama's job to protect his presidency, by making the right decisions in office.

    Barack Obama is a politician, and a democracy can only remain viable by holding EVERY politician's feet to the fire. So it doesn't matter how I feel about him personally, as a journalist, and as a progressive, all I'm concerned with is what he does to, or for the people.

    In my opinion, that's what it means to be a progressive, and I find it extremely disheartening to watch the corruption of such an essential component of our political environment. What's even more disheartening, however, is the impact that it's loss is sure to have on American life. With the demise of a vigorous and thriving progressive movement America is becoming a place where power and political ideology takes precedence over justice and the welfare of humanity, and that's a scenario that can only lead to our ultimate destruction.

    Eric L. Wattree
    wattree.blogspot.com

    Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.


    Now? Did you even bother to read my first, second, and third  post? I've been telling you I'm a liberal that's not afraid to use the term in spite of republican demonization from the top of my dialog with you. I told you you pissed me off with your ridiculous redefining of liberal, conservative and progressive from the first sentence of my first post. It was absolutely the first thing I said to you. If it took you this long to get that it pissed me off you're even denser than I thought.

    That certainly doesn't make your demonstrably false statements true. But if you need to latch onto that to protect your poor fragile ego go for it.

     


    Ocean - Kat,

    It doesn't matter to me what you are. I stand by my article, and I stand by my opinion towards ideologues - and I've already told you what I think of your being offended by it. I don't write to satisfy your sensibilities, so if you think that my position towards the GOP is false even though I've told you a couple of times now that I've not ONLY written about the contributions of Ike, but I’ve lauded them.

    One of the publications that I write for is one of the most conservative in the country. Thus, much of my writing is directed toward misinformed TRUE conservatives, and I’ve helped many to see the light. The publisher of the publication under discussion told me that the only reason he picked me up was, "Somehow you’ve managed to ‘brainwash’ my wife, and I’m tired of sleeping on the couch." So I specialize in dealing in fact rather than ideological propaganda, because I see no advantage to simply preaching to the choir - and speaking of Ike:

    Eric L. Wattree

    March 1, 2011 - 4:18 pm

    Tom,

    "While I’m a lifelong Independent progressive, and you’re an Ike conservative, I find it extremely interesting how closely related we are in our political thinking. (http://wattree.blogspot.com/2010/11/conservative-corruption-of-progressive.html). Maybe it’s because we both come from an era when America still had a functional educational system, or perhaps it’s because the most insidious deficit that we currently suffer from in the nation is in common sense. But whatever it is, it clearly shows that we’re allowing extremists to control the nation’s political debate.

    "One of Ike’s last acts in office was to warn us about the military/industrial complex – and he knew of which he spoke, because he created it in his efforts during WWII. I think Ike would have detested Dick Cheney, a man who left no stone unturned to avoid serving in the military, and then profiting at the expense of American lives. In addition, if Ike would have been around when Cheney outed a CIA agent, Ike would have had him summarily shot. Those were the kind of Republicans I remember."

    So there it is. I think much of your ire stems from your objection to my position on ideologues, which, in itself, serves to validate my position in that regard. The fact is, I don’t think like you, and your suspicion regarding my motives has a lot more to do with projection than anything else.


    I think it's that your writing sets itself up to be full of contradictory and self-serving bullshit from the get-go, it's hard for him to get past the framework to any actual issues.

    Progressives should be open-minded, but this is what all progressives should be like.

    The GOP has never done anything worthwhile, but hey, I write for some conservative outlets and it's amazing what common ground we have.

    Only I deal with facts because I've set my mind and temperament to cut through the bullshit. I can't put up with ideologues because they're wrong on all the facts - here's what the truth is.

    I can take criticism, but I stand by every syllable I write - and by criticizing me, you validate my viewpoint.

    Even I sometimes criticize Obama (when, I can't remember) but when other people do it they're helping the GOP tear down the party - but don't act like every time people criticize it's tearing down the party.

    Try these direct quotes juxtaposed:

    So to even try to be nonpartisan with this group would constitute colluding with the enemy against the American people.

    One of the publications that I write for is one of the most conservative in the country. Thus, much of my writing is directed toward misinformed TRUE conservatives, and I’ve helped many to see the light.

    "While I’m a lifelong Independent progressive, and you’re an Ike conservative, I find it extremely interesting how closely related we are in our political thinking.

    So only Wattree is equipped with the mental and rhetorical skills to decide what nuggets from conseratism might be slightly praised without bringing down the empire. In short: I am teh awe-sum.

    It's like a long Rorshach test of pithy observations from Mount Olympus combined with logical mood swings. Could explain where Ocean-kat gets left behind.

    BTW, you state:

    So I specialize in dealing in fact rather than ideological propaganda, because I see no advantage to simply preaching to the choir

    And then I note that costs didn't go up for Bush's prescription benefit/Medicare Plan D, despite early indications they might - a reference you made - and your response? Crickets. Sure, the only plain dealer with the facts.


    Peracles,

    I THOUGHT I’D USE THIS POST TO A PREVIOUS THREAD TO ANNOUNCE TO READERS WHO MAY NOT KNOW, WHY I DON’T RESPOND TO YOUR COMMENTS. SO YOU’VE MADE THE BIG-TIME, PERACLES. YOUR NONSENSE HAS BECOME SO PROFOUNDLY RIDICULOUS THAT YOU’VE CAUSE ME TO SAVE YOU TO A FILE:

    As you know, Peracles, I’ve long since made it a policy not to even respond to you, because you don’t seem to be able to remain focused. You tend to obfuscate and jump all over the place. One can start off discussion the GOP with you, and before he knows it, you’re discussing the decadent impact of the Hoola Hoop on child rearing, so I find it much easier to simply not engage you at all. As I’ve told you before, trying to have a conversation with you is like trying to teach a goldfish to ride a skateboard. One can easily end up in a debate with you over whether water’s wet. But I’m an adult, so I have neither the time nor inclination to play in the sandbox with you.

    But I’ve made an exception in this one case because your illogical and convoluted thinking helps to make my case. Your last comment reflects the fact that you lack the capacity to think in non-ideological terms. You said, presumably, paraphrasing what you hear as my position:

    "Even I sometimes criticize Obama (when, I can't remember) but when other people do it they're helping the GOP tear down the party - but don't act like every time people criticize it's tearing down the party."

    The implication there is, I should be ideologically consistent. So if I criticize Obama on any issue, I should support anyone else’s criticism of Obama on any other issue. That’s dumb, and it’s exactly why I don’t bother to respond to you. At some point we have to recognize that goldfish lack the capacity to ride skateboards.

    by Wattree 4/21/2013 - 6:38 am (re: PeraclesPlease)


    Federal law adopted "under Tommy Thompson's watch" prohibits the government from negotiating for "better prices" on prescription drugs for senior citizens.

    Our rating

    Baldwin said federal law adopted "under Tommy Thompson's watch" prohibits the federal government from negotiating for "better prices" on prescription drugs for senior citizens.

    Her reference was to the Medicare Part D prescription program, which Thompson lobbied for and which includes the prohibition she stated.

    We rate Baldwin’s statement True.

    http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/sep/04/tammy-baldwin...


    The discussion so far centers around your statement that the GOP is a total smoking pile of feces. The argument is that the GOP is "essentially" a smoking pile of feces. Either way, the GOP is not going to be a comfortable fit for most African-Americans. The GOP simply has no moral authority when it comes to issues regarding race. The Republicans who championed Civil Rights, for the most part, are dead. When Randy came to Howard University to instruct the students on the glorious history of the GOP, he verified the belief that the GOP thought Black people were stupid. When Randy could not remember the name of the Black Senator from Massachusetts, the students rapidly provided the name, Edward Brooke.

    Be it resolved that the GOP is 99.44% a steaming pile of feces.(Dated Ivory Soap reference). 


    Thank you, RM.

    And as I said earlier, that’s not a partisan rant - it’s an indisputable fact. I asked a guy on another site, "would you call me partisan if I didn’t have any use for the Nazis? Then on what basis do you say that I’m partisan for feeling the same way about the GOP, because they haven’t built the ovens yet?" After all, the Nazis were just as Nazi prior to killing one Jew.

     


    Wow, it's okay to equate the GOP with the architects of the most horrid crime of the 20th Century that killed 6 million Jews, a half million gypsies, laid waste to Europe.

    But that's not "partisan", just "indisputable fact".

    Trying hard to earn your fanatic wings? Seems you only have a few points to go to cash in.


    Do you consider the gerrymandering being used by the GOP to maintain control of the House problematic? Are the repeated attempts at voter suppression by the GOP signs of a party that wants to crush opposition? Is the destruction of unions by the GOP  just a routine political tactic? Is the current use of the filibuster by the GOP a normal course of events?

    Four Democratic Senators voted against the background check bill. Ninety percent of Democrats in the Senate voted for a bill supported by 90% of the men, women and gun-owners in the United States. Ninety percent of Republican Senators voted against the desires of the public. While you are having your discussion with Wattree, I just wanted to keep you abreast of current events.

    Do you think that the GOP is going out of it's way to suppress critics and those who do not support GOP goals.Do you think the GOP represents and clear and present danger to the voting public?


    I see no reason to bring Nazi gas chambers into this discussion.

    It's taken a sick turn.

    Plus anyone who knows the slightest history knows the amount of illegal physical violence including murder used by the Nazi's rise, including the "Beer Hall Putsch", "The Night of the Long Knives", the burning of the Reichstag, and Kristallnacht.

    From what I've noticed, the GOP has not even been accused of any such violence.


    The argument seems silly. We have a situation where there were enough votes to pass a very simple background check bill and it failed. the bill would have failed even if the four wayward Democrats had voted for the bill. The failure was caused by a Republican filibuster. A Republican Governor has decided to take over cities in his state in a dictatorial fashion. Another GOP Governor has destroyed a union. Multiple GOP legislators are enacting laws to prevent women's rights to choose and to prevent ethnic minorities from voting. Do you see Wattree as the bigger problem in this discussion?

    GOP Governors and legislators are harming the country, Wattree is blowing off steam. Do you believe that voting for Rand Paul is a rational thing when one looks at his entire platform. One of Wattree's main points is that it would be irrational for an African-American to cast a vote for someone like Rand Paul, do you agree?


    I'm not going to discuss the GOP in terms of Germans gassing Jews, got it?

    Off limits, ugly, sick, stupid.


      What's the law that says if an internet conversation goes on long enough, someone will bring up the Nazis? Godwin's law?


    Internet version says when they mention Nazis, they've jumped the shark and lost.


    Response at bottom of page due to narrow text.


    90% of men, woman and gun owners  just told Congress they could get away with screwing the American people and there would be no fear of reprisal for doing so. Congress only had to fear that angry men and woman could or would use their guns if Congress ignored them and their demands, in favor of monied interests. The gun bill tested the waters for a Congress, willing to screw the American worker whose considered sole purpose, is for cannon fodder in it's imperialistic world view, otherwise; they would let us suffer, because to take care of us citizens is a burden, not worth spending taxes on. WE the commoners are a burden, a willingly disarmed burden. Work till you drop. Don't ask what your country can do for you. 


    Can you translate what you are saying into English?

     


    I don't think that would help you either...... A hint: our forefathers used the snake in symbolism with the caption "Don't tread on me". ..... Who fears a snake who has no fangs? Who fears an American working class without a means, to assure their demands are met and that we will not accept being ignored, abused and enslaved .....  Dummies; go ahead and tell your oppressors, "your willing to disarm, go ahead and screw us over, we'll not resist, we gave up our defenses against your assaults against the middle class." "Please hear our petitions for justice, hear our pleas for jobs, and SS benefits"  When they laugh and say NO, now what are you going to do? Huff and puff, you fangless creature, as they crush you beneath their heels......  90 % were willing to allow the oppressors to do what they are doing, without any consequences..... "Oh yeah, you might not vote for them"  HaHaHa,  Where you going to go you pitiful helpless creatures, they already control the elections too.  


    No one is asking you to disarm. Do you feel that having gunpowder tagged so that it can be tracked if used to trigger a bomb is an infringement on the Second Amendment ?

    Ironically, if the man who found a bloodied bomber in his boat had been armed, panicked an shoot the bomber, law enforcement and the victims would have lost the opportunity to question the suspect. Does that give you any pause?


    Lets really cut down investigative time, do you feel that having everybody in America be tagged with a GPS device; so they can be tracked on all there whereabouts, at any given time, violates our right to privacy?  No one should expect in this day and with modern technology, that the antiquted Rights of privacy can be justified; besides,  you know Big Brother loves you.


    DNA testing is available for crimes where tissue evidence is available. The Innocence Project has used DNA as a part of efforts to free people wrongly convicted. In the case of tagging gunpowder we are talking about being able to track explosions like Oklahoma City and Boston.Do you object to DNA as well as gunpowder tagging?

     


    "would you call me partisan if I didn’t have any use for the Nazis?

    Of course you are a partisan, you are committed to a political position.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8aPnm6lIWY


    The 2006 article you linked to is entirely misleading in 2013.

    Roughly 11 million people got new prescription benefits via Medicare Part D, for a total enrollment of about 30 million people. It has a satisfaction rate of 90% from one recurring survey.

    Yes, it could be made more competitive pricewise, and yes it can be improved, but that's not what you claimed via your quote:

    This plan, which went into effect on Jan. 1, offers so many baffling options that only 1 million of 21 million eligible Medicare beneficiaries have signed up for it on their own. ... Meanwhile, the estimated cost of this plan that no one likes has already more than doubled and is now projected at more than $1 trillion over the next decade....

    "It's tempting to conclude that "Medicare D" has flopped because of Republican disdain for government.

    No, Medicare D didn't flop. No it no longer is predicted to cost $1 trillion over the next decade. Yes, the problems at rollout have been fixed.

    So you're thoroughly wrong in what you quoted - the initial doom and gloom has long been refuted -  but you'll spin a teensy part of your long comment to pretend you were correct.

    By the way, why did Obama give up negotiating drug prices early in negotiations for ACA? In order to get Big PhRma to go along it seems - seems petty to still be blaming Bush for what Democrats agreed to just 3 years ago.


    Yes, Wattree, you are the only adult in the room, let us sit at your feet and bask in the warmth of your knowledge. We are not worthy, we are not worthy, we are not worthy....

    "Even I sometimes criticize Obama (when, I can't remember) but when other people do it they're helping the GOP tear down the party - but don't act like every time people criticize it's tearing down the party."

    The implication there is, I should be ideologically consistent. So if I criticize Obama on any issue, I should support anyone else’s criticism of Obama on any other issue.

    Uh, no, the implication is *NOT* that when someone criticizes Obama you should accept their criticism. It's that you might treat the criticism intellectually and see if it has merit if you want to be open as you pretend, rather than automatically treating it as if they're pimping for the KKK, to use one of your favorite attacks, or otherwise destroying the country.

    I'm sorry this logic stuff has you frayed, but no, it's not about goldfish riding skateboards - it might just be as simple as looking up recent data on the internet to see if your ideas have any factual backing or not, in the case of the drug benefit above.


    rmrd posted:

    The argument seems silly. We have a situation where there were enough votes to pass a very simple background check bill and it failed. the bill would have failed even if the four wayward Democrats had voted for the bill. The failure was caused by a Republican filibuster. A Republican Governor has decided to take over cities in his state in a dictatorial fashion. Another GOP Governor has destroyed a union. Multiple GOP legislators are enacting laws to prevent women's rights to choose and to prevent ethnic minorities from voting. Do you see Wattree as the bigger problem in this discussion?

    Nothing Waltree or anyone here posts is a big problem or a big help. This little website with its tiny amount of readers is a raindrop in the ocean, meaningless. If anyone comes here thinking they'll have some impact on policy or the issues they are deluded. If the discussion is interesting to those involved in it that's all that matters.

    What is this preoccupation some have to constantly tell people they shouldn't discuss this, they should be discussing that instead? If the conversation is silly or boring to you ignore it or just join in the "important" discussions or write a blog on the "big" issues.

    I don't always need to discuss only the most important issues and I feel quite comfortable discussing what you consider a "silly argument."

     

    One of Wattree's main points is that it would be irrational for an African-American to cast a vote for someone like Rand Paul, do you agree?

    No, I don't agree. There are some African-Americans, and other races as well, that are very strict christians who believe abortion is murder. I'm not a christian and I'm avidly pro-choice so I don't agree with that view. But if a person truly believes abortion is murder voting for a republican is a rational  choice even if one is voting against their own interests on other issues. In fact within that context its a highly moral thing to do. Sacrificing one's own interests to save the life of a child.

    On the abortion issue and many other issues there is no win/win solution, no compromise position acceptable to both sides. I have this crazy notion that attempting to understand  the views and feelings of the opposition will help my side to win.

    Of course some believe its more effective to define conservative as people who bend and contort  the truth to fit their ideology, to tell them the GOP has not done a single solitary thing in one hundred years to help America, or the American people, and to compare the republicans with nazis. You know, just the unadulterated truth the truly persuasive people tell republicans to get them to see the light.

    I happen to disagree with that position.


      Pro-choicers need to tackle the "abortion is murder" argument head on, which they often don't do. "Right to choose" and "keep it legal so women get safe abortions" aren't an adequate answer to the charge that you are murdering children. First show that the right-to-lifers are wrong in saying it is murder, then go on to the right to choose.


    Yes exactly. And until one truly understands their views we can't effectively plan our strategy.  I agree that we should directly confront their core argument.


    Come off your high horse. If the discussion doesn't have major impact, than arguing about the use of Nazis would be silly. My categorizing the discussion as silly did not stop the discussion. I expressed an opinion, you responded.The discussion continued.You created a strawman argument.

    On the issue of abortion, teen pregnancy rates are dropping during the Presidency of the Muslim, Radical African Christian President.. Educating the Christian public of that fact would seem to be important. The message that is leading to decreased teen pregnancies is winning. One could argue that GOP attacks on education could result in a reversal of the downward teen pregnancy trend.

    You do not see the GOP as a major threat to freedom, I do. You do not see Rand Paul as a liar who did tell the truth about the total history of the GOP and African- Americans or his own feelings about the Civil Rights Act. I do see Paul as a liar. 

    Given the recent vote on simple background checks for gun purchases, I see no reason to praise the GOP. The negative view of the GOP may seem biased. The idea that the GOP is an overall force for good could be considered naive. 

    Is the bigger threat the things the GOP is doing or Wattree?


    Black Christians should also remember the GOP great Faith Outreach program under GW Bush after the GOP got 20% of the Black vote in Ohio, the GOP abandoned the Black church. There is no faith to be had in trusting the GOP

     


      She/he already answered your last question; the point isn't whether Wattree is a "bigger threat" than the GOP; it is whether he is right or reasonable. Of course our discussions here don't have major impact. We're just gabbing; we aren't casting votes, influencing policies, or manning the barricades.


    Whether the GOP threatens certain freedoms, they're not Nazis, and they're not planning gas chambers.

    You may think arguing this use of Nazis is "silly". I think the use is sick and manipulative, and a sign of the gross overreach that Oceankat was complaining about.


    Do you really think that Wattree sees no difference between the GOP and the Nazis. I mean do you really think that he equates the two?


    I've seen his continual attacks on Cornel West as "pimping for the Klan" for talking about poverty.

    Maybe he doesn't really equate those 2 either. I'm not his shrink.

    Just he shuts down proper debate when he throws out these loony comparisons.

    Maybe he doesn't think "liberals are ideologues but progressives (he) are non-ideological, only following truth wherever it leads"

    Maybe he doesn't think the GOP has done "absolutely nothing" for the American people in the last 30 years. Maybe he appreciates the flaming contradiction that he supports a "post-partisan" president while exclaiming "to even try to be nonpartisan with this group would constitute colluding with the enemy against the American people."

    Whenever you question Wattree, he says he backs "every syllable in what he wrote". So the sane reply is either he's a joker and doesn't believe much of what he writes but can't restrain himself, or he's dead serious and is really this messed up, that he sees gas chambers at the end of the GOP run.

    Who knows?


    Cornel west says that Obama is afraid of strong Black men and is a puppet of the plutocrats and garners support from many. Wattree sees the GOP as essentially worthless and s criticized. West is frustrated by Obama. Wattree is frustrated by the GOP.

    A Governor in Michigan has become a dictator and faces little national outrage because the news media dos not think that this is important. Multiple states with Republican Governors and legislators are openly suppressing the right to vote. Republican legislators are proposing vaginal probes for women seeking to controls what happens in their own bodies. Republican legislators are trying to go back to the days of unsanitary abortions. Wattree sees the GOP involvement in these actions and is disgusted. The modern GOP has obliterated the good done by Republicans of the past.

    Goldwater desegregated his Arizona department stores but stood with the racists when he ran for President. MLK Jr was a vocal Goldwater critic. In Black households, Libertarian Goldwater is the States Rights guy and no hero.Nixon had Affirmative Action  but ushered in the Southern Strategy. Today's Libetarian, Rand Paul publicly lies about the history of the GOP and Blacks. Paul glosses over the GOP's Southern Strategy.There is not a great deal of trust in the Black community for the GOP.

    If the Republican Party has to keep going back to 1860 and the 1960's and ignore recent history, there is a mjor problem. Name a current Republican with a strong history on Civil Rights. Name a current Republican with a strong history off advocating for women's rights.

    The GOP has so much current baggage that going back to find things that the party did right is like searching for a needle in a haystack. It must also be stated that the current GOP is actively working to overturn Affirmative Action and the Voting Rights Act.

    When the GOP turned over a new leaf and offered a faith outreach program, most Black Christians realized that it was a trick. Twenty percent of Black voters in Ohio got duped.Rand Paul planning a run for the Presidency. Goldwater, Atwater, Rand Paul. Larry, Moe and Curly.

    Wattree knows what the GOP did in the past, but he sees clearly where the GOP is today. People who want to give kudos to the GOP for past stuff, have at it. Others are dealing with what the GOP is doing today.

     

     

     

     


    Shorter version, Rand Paul made a pre-wingnut GOP argument at Howard. The tactic failed. Repackaging a similar message won;t work either.


    Wattree knows what the GOP did in the past, but he sees clearly where the GOP is today. People who want to give kudos to the GOP for past stuff, have at it. Others are dealing with what the GOP is doing today.

    This is total bullshit in reference to this blog and the conversation that followed. No one here jumped up and decided today I'm going to write a blog giving kudos to the GOP for past stuff. If Wattree had posted the GOP today is not doing one solitary thing to help America, or the American people, I'd agree with him. I really can't think of anything republicans are doing today that I agree with. Though if someone were to point out something I can't recall at the moment I'd say yes that is good, I guess the GOP isn't totally evil.

    But what he said was, "they didn’t do one solitary thing to help America, or the American people, and that’s been the Republican record for nearly ONE HUNDRED YEARS." At another point he said, "Now try to name one good thing that the GOP has done for the American people in the last 30 years. Let me answer that for you - Absolutely nothing." That's just a couple of the many extreme, ridiculous, false statements in this blog. If this is evidence that "Wattree knows what the GOP did in the past" he doesn't know much and what he thinks he knows is incorrect.

    I didn't bring up the history of the GOP. I didn't start a discussion on the last "ONE HUNDRED YEARS" of the republican party. If Wattree decides to blog about the last one hundred years of the GOP he should expect to be called out for asinine statements like these. Don't try to lay this on the people who called him out.


    Keep it simple.

    I'm discussing "the GOP just hasn't prepared the ovens yet" and "pimping for the KKK".

    If we can get past bizarroworld, we can discuss more complicated things.


    Oh yeah, we here at dagblog have a major impact. It comes from the large numbers of politicians and policy wongs clicking here several times a day hanging on every word in our discussions. (/waves at Obama)

    You're absolutely wrong about my view of the republicans and Rand Paul. The reason you are so consistently wrong is that you don't read the posts with a mind directed toward understanding. The role you've chosen for yourself here is defender of the faith. You're Dagblog's spin doctor for the democrats. Any criticism of Obama, the democratic party, or MSNBC is met with you manning the barricades usually by attempting to divert the discussion to how bad the republicans are. Your goal is to extend the idea that democrats should not criticize democratic candidates during an election to democrats should not criticize democrats ever.

    Four years ago I lived on the SE edge of Gainesville in a predominately black neighborhood. As I walked to the church to vote for Obama there was a democratic table in the parking lot with two African-American women working there. As a black middle aged man walked by one of the women with a big smile on her face called out to him saying, "I hope you know who to vote for brother!"

    He stopped and turned to the table and said with a certain amount of agitation and discomfort, "I can't, I just can't. I'm sorry." He went on to say something about christianity and abortion.

    The woman, no longer smiling, said, "I understand brother, I understand."

    No one said Obama and no one said McCain but I think I understood what they were talking about and I think I understand where that man was coming from. That black women said she understood too. So why is it that you don't seem to understand?


    On the issue of abortion, I merely point out that  the GOP did outreach on the issues of abortion and Gay marriage to fool Blacks into voting for Republicans.Once the votes were counted the GOP vanished voters got used. With more involvement of Blacks in the discussion of Gays and the speaking out on Gay marriage by the President and ministers including Al Sharpton, attitudes are changing. I understand the anti-Gay sentiment. I understand the role the story of Sodom plays in the feeling. I understand that it needs to be confronted. It would not have been appropriate to discuss it if I am talking to someone about to cast a vote. You do not understand the need to have the conversation at some point.

    I understand the need to decrease the rate of abortions. I understand that need has to be balanced by the health risks associated with making abortion illegal. We will go back to the days of high riak abortions. The discussion has been be carried out. That need for the discussion is something that you don't understand. The GOP as a group is making educational grants more difficult. The lessened access to education may impact teen pregnancy rates and make more abortions legal.

    You want me to remain silent when other Christians do things in the name of religion. That is not how we operate. There were scores of Black Christians who thought that MLK Jr should not carry his message to a secular world.In their view, God would care of things in his own time.those who remained on the sidelines were in error.

    BTW, on the issue of drones, Obama has to make the intelligence available to members of Congress for oversight. Rand Paul tirade about Obama using drones to kill US citizens in the US was political theater. It is Lindsey Graham and John McCain suggesting shipping the Boston suspect to Gitmo. Obama wants him in US courts

    Harry Reid was an idiot not to go back to the old filibuster rules.Democrats had the votes to pass the background check bill. Obama was wrong on the drones.Reid was wrong on the filibuster.The current GOP is wrong on just about everything.

    Do I understand why some Blacks vote for Republican? Do I think that they are often rational reasons. No. Will I remain Silent? No. Does that make a Democratic Party flack. If it does, I wear it with as a badge of honor.

    It is you who does not understand.


    You do not understand the need to have the conversation at some point. You want me to remain silent when other Christians do things in the name of religion.

    Absolutely and categorically false.

    I never suggest that any issue or subject is too silly or to trivial to be discussed. I never suggest that any conversation should be tabled or diverted so we can have a discussion of the "big" or "important" issues. I never attempt to silence any person or eliminate any issue from discussion. I'm happy to discuss any issue or subject that interests me from the most important to the most trivial and equally happy to stay out of conversations that don't interest me and leave those who are interested to discuss to their hearts content without suggesting they should be discussing the "more important" issues.


    If I think something seems silly to me, I will say so. I can accept being labeled biased or a Democratic hack. The discussion goes on. Just because a particular line of discussion seems silly to me personally does not call the person silly. I was directly called a hack, but didn't end the discussion. I think that the GOP is the big dangerous elephant in the room. I see no evidence to the contrary.

    I have had personal discussions with Black Christians who were very upset with Obama's endorsement of Gay marriage. I can understand that people view abortion as murder. I think we can still come to common ground on aspects of Gays having a right to have the same rights as married couples and rational ways to decrease abortion. Give the scam pulled on Black pastors by the faithful GOP,I see no reason to trust them to change. In the last election, Romney did a great job in getting the majority of Black Christians to vote for Obama,

    I view Rand Paul as a scam artist. He made a lazy argument in his filibuster.He made a lazy and untrue argument at Howard. I will discuss other voting options for Black Christians considering the GOP. Paul has been silent on voter suppression, dictator Governors and other important issues within the GOP.

     


    You're a "hack" because Wattree throws out demonstrably false & absurd statements in an "irrefutable" column, someone calls him on this, and you rush in to defend and change the subject.

    Meanwhile he's off congratulating himself on another of his "contemplations" and can't be bothered to defend his own bullshit.

    Wash, rinse, repeat.


    Commenting on your  "Pimping for the Klan" GOP label you find objectionable.One real world problem the GOP has is the type of folks it attracts.During a Lecture at this year's CPAC, a discussion on how to counter accusations of the GOP being racist, the conference was interrupted by actual racists. The rather tepid response from the Conservative African-American lecturer and the mostly White Conservative audience was not reassuring for most Black people. The event did not relay a message of a strong anti- racist GOP.

    A black female who attempted to ask a question was silenced by the audience. The perception of racism within the GOP pretty widespread in the African-American community. The perception may be labeled as the GOP is insensitive on issues of race, rather than pimping for the klan, but the underlying theme is identical.

    Having spent part of my evening at a wine tasting where a had the misfortune of sitting. Next to a wingnut female who keep talking about how bad things were with Obamacare, taxes, etc. I guess I'm not feeling the fervor to go after Wattree.

    Among the scrambled thoughts was that the Internet needed to be controlled because people had access to too much information. I best as I could understand this control should not come from the US government because the government already had too much power. Background checks and tagging of gunpowder was bad because the government would be collecting data. Taxes were too high, so her solution was a threat to move to her ancestral home,Italy, where taxes are higher. That gibberish was only a small part of the tirade.

    Despite her rant, the wines were still excellent and a had a pleasant taxi ride back home. Being up close and personal to wingnuts and even more mellow Republicans, I do have a great concern about the modern GOP. One Republican who seems rational on most days, when on a mini tirade after the embassy attack. He was upset because The White a house was covering up the attack. When asked how they were covering up a publicly viewed ambassador death and embassy attack  with evidence that the embassy had requested more security, he continued to insist there was a cover-up

    In summary, I have concerns about the entirety of the Republican Party. Do these concerns lessen my antennae for attacks on the GOP? Yes. Is the GOP willing to do the Goldwater thing with the racists? Yes.

    The GOP is not preparing gas chambers or physically attacking citizens so they are not the same as the Nazis. The GOP has only proposed vaginal probes.

    (Edited to ad a link to the CPAC event)

     

     


    We differ in that you see some arguments as defending truth, justice and the American way, and I see some arguments as somewhat naive. The GOP does race-baiting and is conducting a war on women. To me those are facts

    Rand Paul made a stupid attack on drone use and should not benefit from his "filibuster". Rand Paul deserves no credit for going to Howard to lie about the history of the GOP. Rand Paul is a scam artist waiting to prey on voters in the Black community, just like GW Bush before him. Both were willing to lie to gain votes.


    Commenting on your  "Pimping for the Klan" GOP label you find objectionable.

    PP's objection, not mine. No one has time to pay attention to every public figure and I don't follow Tavis Smiley and Cornel West's writings or watch their videos so I don't comment on Wattree's rants on the subject. His rants on Smiley and West do seem over the top and extreme to me but since I don't read Smiley or West I can't judge and don't comment.

    In your haste and fervor to man the barricades you can't even keep track of who said what in just one thread.

    Rand Paul made a stupid attack on drone use and should not benefit from his "filibuster".

    I posted exactly that in another thread. To you. And you replied. We agree. But none of that penetrates because all your energy is focused on spin spin spin when ever anyone has the audacity to make even a small criticism Obama, MSNBC, or the democrats.

    Rand Paul deserves no credit for going to Howard to lie about the history of the GOP

    Yeah, I posted that in another thread too. We agree. I'm never said otherwise. I certainly didn't say anything positive about Paul's Howard visit in my criticism of this blog. This is what I mean when I say you have chosen to be the defender of the faith here. When ever any one criticizes Obama, MSNBC, or democrats you're on top of it. You never bother to address the criticism. You just attempt to divert the dialog away from the critique  into how bad the republicans are. Whether it fits or not.

     


    If the reason for the argument is that the GOP is not as bad as the Nazis, Ok I agree. If that's the strongest endorsement that they can get. the GOP has a major problem.


    You don't get it, do you?

    The GOP should not be compared to the Nazis. Wattree's talking about roughly 40% of voting Americans, saying they just don't have the gas showers ready yet.

    It's ugly, it's inappropriate, it's not "progressive", and it certainly doesn't express the tolerance he pretends he's expressing.


    More obfuscation, more spin from a partisan hack. Sure the nazi comment is a problem, One more example of the extreme hyperpartisan ranting Wattree specializes in. But Wattree didn't compare the GOP to nazis until 80% of the conversation had gone by. The reason for the argument, for my critique of his blog, is not some comment he made 80% down the page. That just added one more bit of evidence to confirm my argument. Nothing in my original critique of his blog had anything to do with nazis. You ignore 80% of the discussion to focus on this. You don't address 80% of the substantive critique and pretend to be addressing it by "admitting" the republicans are better than nazis. Why, because it allows you to insult the republicans while disguising it as a concession to the criticisms. You want to divert the discussion from a critique of Wattree's blog to whether republicans are better than nazis. Complete bullshit from a pre-eminent bullshit artist.


    "Pimping for the KKK" = Cornel West helping the GOP hang fellow blacks, not only a racist murderer but a traitor to his own kind at that.

    How much more over-the-top can you get? And indeed 99.5% of the lynchings in the south occurred under Democrats, about 4724 officially of 4742, before the seminal events of the 1948 Dixiecrat walkout and the 1964 Civil Rights legislation shifted the south towards Republican, and the 1968 Nixon "Southern Strategy" exploited southern racism to break the Solid (Democratic) South.

    "The South continued to send an overwhelmingly Democratic delegation to Congress until the Republican Revolution of 1994"

    How badly can one person be wrong?


    I was talking about the GOP of today.

    you are talking about the Democratic Party of the past

    On the issue of Nazis, I'm willing to state that the Republicans are better than the Nazis. They can use it as a slogan. 

    But keep going  in circles


    As OceanKat noted, Wattree is talking about the GOP of the last 100 years. Mirror mirror on the wall....

    The Democratic Party of the past, as opposed to the one of the present that didn't reform the filibuster, so once again to have to pass only bad legislation that pleases the GOP, an act of appeasement that probably amounts to "Pimping for the KKK", no?

    Right up there with the sequester that's now being gamed to support politicians favorite programs over those little issues like Social Security.


    If you note above I said that Harry Reid failed to push for filibuster reform so that even with 54 votes for background checks, the measure did not pass. Even if the four Democrats who voted against the bill had supported background checks the bill would have failed. As a group, the Democrats delivered the needed votes Even Mary Landrieu voted for the bill.

    Yes, filibuster reform should have been done.But the truthful analysis of the failure of the bill to pass lies with the GOP who used existing rules to vote against public desires.

    Nancy Pelosi proved to be a better leader in the Senate than Harry Reid has ever been in the Senate. 


    I'm agreeing with PP here for once and I'm going to milk it.  RM, respectfully, if you don't understand the offensiveness of comparing American douchebag politicians to the Nazis, then you're an idiot--really, and if Wattree doesn't see a problem with it, then he's an idiot too.  My father, 83 years-old, Navy veteran, and one of the only Jewish Republicans back in the day lost just about his entire family to the people you compare douchebag Republicans to, young and old, men and women, and boys and girls.  My Dad is a very soft-spoken man but I think he might have something to say about your ridiculous decision to defend Wattree in this context.

    I once told Richard to f... himself when he compared an American politician to the Nazis.  I'm trying to be better.


    To double down, there's a difference between Nazi references as jack-booted thugs/fascists (more like Mussolini), vs. directly linking people to designing gas chambers.

    But RM & Wattree seem oblivious to the difference, comparing poverty speaking tours to the murderous excesses of the Klan, or supporting Harris-Perry's analogy of a bank lending scandal to a nurse who infected black men knowingly with syphilis.


    Indeed, Mussolini was a son of a bitch but he was no Hitler.  


    I thought that there was a major degree of poetic license with the statement about the GOP not having done anything worthwhile  in 100 years. I couldn't believe that people were documenting the things that the GOP had done in the past while pointing out how bad The GOP is today. It did seem silly to me.i did not use silly to stifle the discussion, but because it did seem silly to document the one hundred year data. That was my impression.

    Much of the discussion seemed based on previous grievances about previous posts by Wattree and it seemed payback time. I offered by counter to some of the arguments.

    My relatives fought in WWII.i am glad that they got to put an end to some Nazis.I have zero love for the current crop of Nazis be they skinheads, crew cut or in business suits. I had no intention to offend and I am sort.

    I have to say that I really don't think Wattree truly equates the current GOP to the Nazis.


    Well, yes I do, RM.  Nazis were Nazis long before they killed one Jew. So we'd be foolish to believe that the Nazis were so exceptionally bad that they were an aberation, and we'd be even more foolish to believe that "it couldn't happen here." Bush Killed a nearly a million people in Iraq, and look at what the GOP is doing in the the state of Michigan - they've turned it into Michiganhistan. Rick Snyder as stripped duly elected officials of their power and replaced them with handpicked cronies - and I never thought I'd live to see the day when Americans would be casually discussing the value of torture. The GOP is on a mission to change the very fabric of this nation. For the passed 35 years the GOP has been gradually turning up the heat on America. If we don't wake up they're going to end up boiling America like an unsuspecting frog. 


    I'm on the same page as you in that people who parse the things that dead Republicans accomplished and don't constantly yell about the evil being perpetrated by the current GOP are extremely naive. I think that there is simply no comparison betwen the Republicans and the Democrats. I think that if you listen to the "all Muslims" are bad rants from the Hannitys, Limbaughs, Coulters and Ingrahams of the world , you have to be very concerned. I think that Limbaugh making a connect between Trayvon Martin and the surviving Boaton bombing suspect, is an exmple of the racist core of the GOP.

    I have been yelling about GOP voter suppression, gerrymandering, union busting and dictatorship for months. Unfortunately we have many who are still willing to play the "too cool for school" role of wanting to divert attention away from the major threat the country faces by saying, look at what Obama's doing.

    Rand Paul becomes a hero by saying that Obama wants to kill political dissenerts. We see  Obama and Holder standing fast to trying the bombin suspect in court, while McCain and Graham yell about sending the supect to Gitmo.

    We see the halting any major legislation and actually challenging Cabinet nominees as a routine practice. We see snipe hunts over a non-existent cover-up involving the Embassy attack. in Libya.

    The GOP is a clear and present danger.They want us to become serfs to corporations while they divert attention by telling people to fear the Government.I fear of my younger relatives if the GOP achieves its goals.

    The GOP represents it own distinct threat. The fact that people object, when you constantly, remind them of the threat is unimportant. The warning has to go out.

    When Nazis, are mentioned, a distinct and horrible image comes to mind. Families were wiped out. Relatives were lost Medical experimentation and starvation were part and parcel of Nazi practice. The personal hurt people feel about the Nazis is real. The attack on the GOP has to be just that an attack on the GOP. The hurt produced by comparing the Nazis to any other event or gropu cannot be overcome.

    I agree that the current GOP is scum. I agree that they want to control the vote and become dictators. Most people have not come to that realization. The eagerness to send a Muslim suspect to Gitmo is worrisome.  Still, a Nazi comparison elicits a great deal of sorrow and in the end accomplishes nothing.

    The GOP can be compared to barbarians at the gate, Attila the Hun, pirates or any other group of scum. There are still wounds too fresh to use the Nazi term.

     


    RM,

    For whatever reason you choose to give Wattree way too much slack.  If Wattree doesn't know what horrible images come to mind when Nazis are mentioned, then he's a bigger idiot than I thought he might be earlier in the day.  

    But I think Wattree knows what images come to mind, so I think he lied to you in his most recent comment, and I think he's a coward with testicles made of glass by pretending he is an idiot and knows not what he writes.

     

     


    RM,

    I agree with everything you’ve said, except with regard to avoiding the comparison between the GOP and the Nazis. The similarity is not only real, but frighteningly compelling. Their propaganda campaign and tactics are identical, and their agenda is becoming increasingly more radical. And not only that, they're losing the demographic war, which makes them even more dangerous. Thus, we would be remiss NOT to point that out.

    So this is no time to be indulging in the niceties of polite society. The GOP is the most seriously insidious threat to America, and our way of life, that we’ve ever faced. When I called the GOP the domestic enemy of the United States, that wasn’t hyperbole. I meant that literally. So we should spare no effort, expense, or comparison, to point that fact out. It’s time to call a hat a hat. If we don’t, we will definitely live to regret it.

     


      If you really believe the GOP's tactics are identical to those of the Nazis, it may be useless to point out the differences. Even if  we had killed a million Iraqis(that estimate includes the Iraqis killed by the insurgents, and there are several lower estimates), that wouldn't make Bush the same as Hitler. And some of those Iraqis were killed on Obama's watch.


    Post-invasion excess deaths in Occupied Iraq include VIOLENT DEATHS estimated to be 0.8 million (world’s top medical epidemiologists published in The Lancet) to 1.2 million (the recent estimate of the top UK ORB market analysis and polling organization). The post-invasion NON-VIOLENT DEATHS total 0.7 million (as estimated from UN Population Division data) to 0.8 million (as estimated from UNICEF under-5 infant mortality data as per "Layperson’s Guide to Counting Iraq Deaths": http://mwcnews.net/content/view/5872/26/ ). The TOTAL post-invasion excess deaths amount to 1.5 million to 2.0 million (see "Iraq: Genocide by all Definition. Bush’s Iraq war. 2 million excess deaths": http://mwcnews.net/content/view/17066/42/ ).

    .

    http://www.countercurrents.org/polya071007.htm

    _____________________________________________.

    Published on Thursday, January 31, 2008 by

    Reuters

     

    Iraq Conflict Has Killed A Million Iraqis: Survey

    LONDON - More than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict in their country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to research conducted by one of Britain's leading polling groups.http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/photos/0131_07.jpg

    The survey, conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB) with 2,414 adults in face-to-face interviews, found that 20 percent of people had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict, rather than natural causes.

    The last complete census in Iraq conducted in 1997 found 4.05 million households in the country, a figure ORB used to calculate that approximately 1.03 million people had died as a result of the war, the researchers found.

    The margin of error in the survey, conducted in August and September 2007, was 1.7 percent, giving a range of deaths of 946,258 to 1.12 million.

    ORB originally found that 1.2 million people had died, but decided to go back and conduct more research in rural areas to make the survey as comprehensive as possible and then came up with the revised figure.

    The research covered 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces. Those that not covered included two of Iraq's more volatile regions -- Kerbala and Anbar -- and the northern province of Arbil, where local authorities refused them a permit to work.

    Estimates of deaths in Iraq have been highly controversial in the past.

    https://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/31/6768


       Using a survey of a couple thousand people to extrapolate the total number of deaths isn't a scientific or reliable method. One of the rules of statistical surveys is that duplication increases as the size of the sample increases.  I don't see any reason for dismissing the numerous lower estimates as valueless. And probably half of the dead were killed by the insurgents.

     Anyway, even if we had killed a million Iraqis, that wouldn't make us the equals of the Nazis(18 million civilians and 3 million POWs killed, not to mention other differences besides sheer numbers).


    Aaron,

    I’m not going to nitpick with you, or be sidetracked by getting into a discussion on statistical analysis. That’s one of the biggest mistakes that this country makes when dealing with Republicans - we constantly allow ourselves to be distracted from the bottom line by side issues and obfuscation. The bottom line is this - the relative depth of atrocities between Bush/Cheney and the Nazis is not the issue. We’re not talking efficiency here; we’re talking mind-set - and besides, unless we stop them, the GOP is far from done with their carnage. So what are we supposed to do wait for them to chalk up another million or two deaths before we start addressing their threat like we would the Nazis? That's how the Nazis themselves got a foothold in Germany.

     

     


      Well, you're the one who brought up the Iraqis Bush killed when making your "Republicans= Nazis" claim. The mind-set of the Republicans isn't like that of the Nazis. If  it was, Bush would be dictator for life, most of the people who post here would be dead or in prison, and we'd still have Jim Crow laws(or worse).


      Although Wattree no longer wants to talk about statistics, others who are interested might want to check out UNICEF reports on Iraq. Although he says UNICEF has reported a disaster, they actually say that child mortality in 2010 was less than in 1990(perhaps it would be lower still if not for American actions).

    http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/iraq_statistics.html


    Benjamin Ferencz, appointed by Telford Taylor as Chief Prosecutor in the Einsatzgruppen Case at the Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals from 1946 to 1949, called for the trial of George W. Bush for the 'supreme international crime' of starting a 'war of aggression'. This was in an interview in 2006.

    Although this does not make Bush a 'Nazi', it is the only case I am aware of where a prosecutor from that tribunal declared that a US President should stand trial, for commission of crimes against humanity.

    You might want to read Ferencz comments at the interview link to understand that point.


      I think I understand it.  Nuremberg declared aggressive war to be a crime--although they actually called it a "crime against peace" rather than a "crime against humanity".


    Nitpick? 10x error you mean?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

    Find the most bullshit estimate of deaths, ten times that given by even anti-war protesters Iraq Body Count, and then paint Bush & the GOP as evil as the Nazis.

    Goebbels for one would have undoubtedly enjoyed your effort, if not your delivery.

    PS - maybe go back and read how the Nazis got a toehold in Germany. It had nothing to do with invading another country.


    I've seen estimates of over one million Vietnamese killed, most during Johnson's presidency. I was against both the Viet Nam and the Iraq war. I don't see much difference between the two.

    And torture was not at all uncommon during the Viet Nam war. Was it better when it was a dirty little secret or now when its openly debated? Honestly I'm not sure. I guess it depends what America decides at the end of the debate. But its definitely a debate we needed to have sometime since torture didn't suddenly spring into existence with Bush.  I'm 100% against torture both in the Viet Nam war and Iraq war.

    Its hard to see how you can use this as a justification to call republicans nazis unless you're also claiming democrats were nazis too.


    You're loony. Nazis were an aberration.


    Just my two cents - on the notion of this or that being an aberration.  Yesterday we actually saw a few snow flakes falling.  For this part of the country it is incredibly uncommon, one just might call it an aberration.  Even still, the weather was within the broad realm of potential weather patterns.  In other words, the elements within the complex system are such that a potential expression may be snow flakes on April 24.

    Maybe a better analogy would be the 50 or 100 year flood (which of course do not occur exactly every 50 or 100 years).  Living life along the river, one doesn't give much thought, if at all, to such floods.  But if one considering building a house along the river, it is something one needs to take into deep consideration. 


    Poetic license? Hard to get that impression when he called it irrefutable truth, unadulterated truth, asserted this was not a hyperbolic rant, and several time said he stands by every word in his comments.

    The vast majority of the time I spend talking politics I trash the republicans and Faux "news." I don't like defending the GOP. But this blog was too extreme and had too many blantantly false statement to ignore. My critique was by no means comprehensive. There was much more I thought extreme and false in Wattree's blog. And by no means did I list everything good republicans have done in the last "ONE HUNDRED YEARS."

    Much of the discussion/critique came from me since i was the first to criticise and carried it alone for some time. My critique didn't include any reference to statements in previous Wattree blogs and I didn't add PP's critique of previous blogs to my comments even after after he introduced it. I think "Much of the discussion seemed based on previous grievances about previous posts by Wattree and it seemed payback time." is erroneous. Not just totally wrong if directed at me but mostly wrong if directed at PP as very little of his comments referred to previous wattree blogs.


    To be blunt, I really don't care what the GP did in the past. For the most part, those Republicans are dead. I have the same fear of the GOP as Wattree. I think that they are actively trying to subvert our democracy.  I work with groups that on a daily basis are working to combat GOP legislators actively attempting to use voter ID scams to suppress votes. To me fact-checking the good stuff Republicans did in the past is a waste of time.

    I know the argument made in Lerone Bennett's "Forced into Glory Abraham Lincoln's White Dream" that Lincoln wanted Blacks out of the country and only reluctantly wrote the Emancipation Proclamation and later ffreed escaped slaves that made it to Union lines. I know the argument made in "The Radical and the Republican: Fredrick Douglass, Abraham Lincooln and the Triumph of Antislavery Politics" of Lincoln's transforming views of race and the frienship that Lincoln developed with Douglass. Lincoln was a hero. Lincoln has nothing to do with Republicans of today.

    Once again, I know the GOP history. It is easily available. It is now unimportant given where the GOP is today. I have "Lincoln's Battle with God:A President;s Struggle with Faith and What It Meant for America" on my Kidle to be read in my rotation. The books are a pleasant diversion but again have nothing to do with the GOP threat of today. From a pure survival level, I could care less about the GOP history, it only serves as downtime. Modern Republicans make reading GOP history seem like reading science fiction. It will not impact my ability to vote.

    I agrree with wattree that the GOP represents a threat. I'm suprised when others don't see the same threat that I see, but to each his own. I did not see. I think those who praised Rand Paul were foolish (Not talking about you).

    Making direct connections between Nazis and the GOP only causes pain. People who lost family, have religious connections or who on a purely humanitarian basis separate out the Nazis from other evils will not understand connecting that particular form of evil to anything else.I know I that my hair stands on end when someone merely says they are working for "slave" wages.

    Because of what the current GOP is doing, telling me that you want to waste time clarifying their history is really a waste.The students at Howard knew the GOP's history and still realized the current day threat of Rand Paul.

    When I called the argument silly, I was reflecting that those historical Republicans were dead. The live ones worry me. I was not calling you silly.

     


    To be blunt, I really don't care what the GP did in the past.

    Ok, so why are you telling me this? Again I didn't start this discussion. Wattree wrote a whole blog about the last one hundred years of the GOP that he reposted in the comment section here. Why didn't you reply, "Hey Wattree, I really don't care what the GOP did in the past." Nothing from you. But when I respond to Watree's comments about what the GOP did in the past I get a flurry of comments from you. Why?

    Lets be blunt. You don't care what people post about the GOP in the past if its critical. Doesn't matter if its true or false as long as its critical you don't care. Lying about what the GOP did in the past, you're perfectly fine with that. You really don't care as long as it criticizes the republicans.

    But you do care quite a bit if people post about what the GOP did in the past if its not critical. Even if its true, its just wrong to post about the GOP in the past and not be critical. Those people need to be confronted hard and fast.


    I reminded of a time when Al Fraken was hosting a show on Air America. He had one recurring segment during which he would call on his long-time friends who happened to be  a ditto-head, and the two would discuss the latest rants from Rush.  During one of these segments, Al pointed out an out-and-out lie made by Rush, a lie that anyone who had just a little knowledge of the story would  see as lie.  His friend, in defense of Rush, acknowledged that it was a lie, but stated that it was made in the interests of a larger truth.  Which is kind of the definition of art for some.  Except with art, the artist is acknowledging it is a lie from get-go.


    I openly admit a large bias against the GOP. As we sit and blog a number of Democratic Senators are heading out the door. There is little likelihood of Democrats taking over the House.

    Am I hypercritical of the GOP? Yes. Do I think that in "the wide scope of things" this is a silly argument? Yes. Am I trying to halt the debate? No. Given the current state of the GOP, do I feel a constant be critical? Yes.  I see a larger threat than you might see.

    I noted Goldwater desegregated his stores,but later joined up with the States Rights bigots in an attempt to win a Presidency. Rand Paul would have voted against the section of the Civil Rights Act that required a business owner to treat Blacks as regular customers. Paulo's gearing up for a Presidential run. Was Goldwater a positive or a negative?

    Nixon supported Affirmative Action but also ushered in the Southern Strategy. The impact of the Southern Strategy remains with us today. Ron Paul dismisses the impact of the Southern Strategy saying the wheels were already in motion for the South to go Republican. The GOP is working to end Affirmative Action via its plants on the Supreme Court. Was Nixon a positive or a negative?   

    For a deeper use of the entire history of the GOP, you might Google the Lily- Whites and the Black and Tans. If you are unaware of the story of a battle within the GOP, it may provide some balance to the KKK-Democratic story.

     


    Ocean - Kat,

    I’m not just using the above to justify my argument. I’m also using the fact the Republicans conspired to literally steal a presidential election, they’ve left no stone unturned to obstruct democracy in congress, they’re trying to rig the democratic process across the country through gerrymandering and vote obstruction, Rick Snyder has literally abolished democracy in Michigan, Mitt Romney betrayed a disdain for nearly half the American people, and finally, in the recent vote on gun control the GOP literally thumbed its nose at 90% of the American people. So I repeat, the GOP is the most insidious threat to America and our way of life that this nation has ever known.


    Wow, the GOP is a greater threat to our way of life than the Civil War in which the  country split and 600,000 died, or nuclear missiles in Cuba.

    Welcome to the "no hyperbole" zone, otherwise known as humorless haven.


    This all kicked off over Wattree stating that the GOP has not done one single posiive thing in one hundred years. Wattree's statement ss deemed too outrageous by many. Along the way in the discussion on the board, the issue of Watrre's repeated commentary on Cornel West. West has repeated comments about Barack Obama. Is Cornel west as off the wall as Wattree is accused of being or is West somehow, a man speaking truth to power?

    Cornel West told Democracy Now! that Barack Obama was a "Rockefeller Republican in Blackface". Was West mocking Obama's White heritage? Was West suggesting that Obama was not authentically Black? Did west make a factual statement regarding Barack Obama? Cornel West says that Obama has a fear of free Black men. Is Obama a coward when it comes to dealing with Black men? Is West speaking the truth? Finally West alleges that Obama doesn't care when Black children die from gunfire, Obama only cares when "Vanilla" children die. The wingnuts love that last West barb.Is West a courageous actiist who speaks truth to power? Are West's outbursts out of frustration or out of ignorance? Is West out of bounds?

    Just curious.

     


    I think both Wattree and Cornel West like to play a variation of The Dozens. It's an entertaining modus operandi to a certain point, then it grows tiresome. I also think it often becomes counterproductive after a certain point. But that's just me, and that is all I have to say.


    By Rockefeller Republican, West was suggesting Obama was no huge liberal. I think West was being kind - Rockefeller likely wouldn't have gone for indefinite detention, nor this sequester showdown that's hurting social & health programs, or trying to cut Social Security benefits. In short Rockefeller was much more a liberal than Obama.

    As for "in blackface", part of it is simply to say he's kind of a black version of Nelson Rockefeller (tipoff for those expecting Jesse Jackson), and probably part meant as a slur that Obama is putting on a show for the benefit of monied white folks. After Obama's reversals on numerous topics, poor job protecting people from mortgage foreclosures, continuing attacks on medical marijuana facilities despite being approved at state level, etc., I'd agree. Might be nicer ways of saying it, but was Obama's 2012 campaign about "I plan to cut Social Security benefits via CPI, and I plan on gutting US spending by letting sequester take place (even as the Senate preserves its favorite programs as usual)". Some people here even expressed the odd hope that he'd turn to the left for his 2nd term. He's a showman.

    As for fear of strong black men, etc., you can decide for yourself based on his interview on the Ed Show.


      Well, I still think Obama wants to preserve assistance to the poor, and I believe his promises to prevent chained CPI from causing a cut in benefits. And he isn't cutting Medicare benefits, he's cutting reimbursements to hospitals and other providers.

    Thanks for coming to my aid in the Wattree affair.


    You sir, now have no basis to criticize Wattree. Cornel West says that Obama does not grieve or care about dead Black children.Blackface is offensive and directly attacks Obama because of his parent's ethnicity. 


    How does "blackface" refer to Obama's parents?

    You're just free-styling, making shit up.

    Re: doesn't grieve for black children, may be over the top, but you never discuss what the bases for these complaints are, just somehow West complains too mean and we must faint.

    700 kids in Chicago were shot in 1 year, 260 killed over a 3 year period. But Obama goes to a ceremony for 24 kids off in Connecticut. Yeah, if you live in Chicago, you might be pissed. If you're black you might want the same concern for your kids as deaths in Sandy Hook get.

    But you look at everything so personally. It's the fucking president. Criticism is supposed to point there if you want to get anything done. I don't care if it's LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush mach I or II - if you want national action, you push your complaints to the top guy, buck stops here. The NRA are busy pressuring Obama and all of Congress, using expressions of Obama being an impeachable traitor by tearing up the Constitution in trying to control gun deaths. And you act like West is over the top.

    How the hell is someone supposed to do issue advocacy playing by your namby-pamby mother-may-I rules? It doesn't work - the media will ignore you, just like they don't give a shit nationally about 260 kids killed in Chicago. About the same day as the Boston marathon where 3 people died, 20 were killed by a fertilizer explosion in Texas, and 90 Iraqis were killed by bombs across the country. Which one did most people ignore, and which one is what we're still talking about?


    When you fall into profanity, you've lost it. Blackface was used by folks like Al Jolson of "Mammy" fame. The point I' m making is that you are ranting about Wattree being over the top and outrageous while supporting West for being over the top and outrageous. You attack me for being biased while you parade your bias for West openly.i wasn't setting rules for conduct, you were.I was asking what Wattree had done that was so out of bounds.

    If West referring to Vanilla children is okay, what is wrong with Wattrree's " Pimping for the Klan"? You were stating the rules for Wattree and ignoring those rules for West. I was asking why Wattree was getting such a harsh pushback.


    I can fucking use profanity if I want - what are you, Miss Manners?

    Wattree can accuse people of being gas chamber building / black people lynchers, you can compare someone to a nurse intentionally infecting people with syphilis, but a curse word offends you? Different strokes for mad folks. Yes, out of bounds.

    West didn't accuse Obama of killing those children - he said he showed no sympathy, unlike his public display for white kids. It may be a bit unfair, but not like comparing him to people who killed intentionally wiped out 6500000 folks of 2 races, or strung people up from trees (i.e. murdered) based on the color of their skin.

    Do you start to get it yet?

    Yeah, I said the blackface was a bit of a slur, but it's also meant to refer to Obama as doing vaudeville for white bankers - you may disagree, but there's $2 trillion or more based on this song and dance. But then you have Wattree with his Cornel as dog with bone, or the grinning black guy he likes taunting - no racist imagery in that?

    Really, comparing someone as dancing for white folks isn't the same as calling someone a genocidal maniac.


    Flashy feather in your cap, PP.  Looks good.

    Funny Confession Ecard: The reason I swear so much is because fuck you.


    Thank you - a greeting card works when you can't find the words for that special moment.

    Or as a friend said, "the reason I drink is to make *you* more interesting"


    Do you not see a double standard being used in the attack on Wattree's original blog and the comments made by Cornel West. If West's comments are OK, what was wrong with Wattree's original post.

    Nazi comparisons are wrong. The attack on the nature of Wattree's post began well before any Nazi reference. Why does West get a pas?


    Sigh. The criticism came before mention of the Nazis.The argument was that it was outrageous for Wattree to say that the GOP had done nothing worthwhile in one hundred years.People attacked the accuracy of his statement. Yet here you are defending Blackface, Vanilla children and that Obama is a coward when it comes to free Black men. It is a double standard. That observation is the truth. West's statements are OK , including the labeling of children. Wattree calling the GOP historically worthless is somehow outrageous. That initial attack focused on historical accuracy. Wattree's initial statement was as fair as West stating that Obama did not care about dead Black children.

    Are you at all bothered by West's use of Vanilla children? 


    The argument with Wattree before the Nazi comment was that his "irrefutable" truth that the GOP had done nothing good in 100 years was hyperbole and didn't help people take him seriously. And yes, Nelson Rockefeller was a pretty good moderate Republican (aside from Attica), as was George Romney, back in the day when Democratic Dixiecrats were still taking the piss out of Civil Rights. Seems I recall Ike (R) sent in the national guard to Little Rock to enforce black rights.

    I've heard 1000 black guys use "nigger" with each other - I don't care, their business. But "Blackface" here at least has some context in terms of what role West sees Obama playing - more justified than the countless times I hear blacks use "Uncle Tom" for someone who dares to disagree with black consensus and starts "acting white".

    West's point was that Obama didn't show up at memorials for 260 black children shot in Chicago (though Rahm did), and didn't push heavy legislation to cure the problem. You may not like West's spin on this, including putting the name Obama in it, but the sentiment is no different than that expressed in the Alternet article - everyone's upset over 20 kids killed at Sandy Hook, but don't even realize 260 kids died in Chicago.

    http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/260-school-children-killed-chicago-3-years-where-are-tears-them. In this case his hyperbole serves a greater good - get a spotlight on a scandal.

    But just like when West talks about poverty, you're all upset because Obama's name is on the envelope. Well, tell him to stand up and address the issue, including black unemployment, rather than just say that "oh, it's a historical thing, normally blacks have 2x white unemployment". Some people like to push for change, other people blame them.

    I certainly hope there's no black pope in my lifetime - then people'll be expected to talk nice about the Catholic Church for 20 years or so, no more complaints about priest pederasty and anti-abortion effect on overpopulation & poverty.


    We were discussing profanity in general, you hone on a very specific racial slur. Typical. Snoop Dogg (Snoop Lion) made you use the word. You only solidified my opinion of you. What others do regard the use of the racial slur has no impact on me. Some music involves misogyny. They rappers have a free speech right to use the words. People can dance to the beat while listening to the lyrics. I'll stand with the late Dorothy Height and MSNBC host Al Sharpton in opposition to the lyrics.Feel free to lecture me on the word nigger, I expect no less from you.You obviously wouldn't have a problem no problem with the word, I do.

    Blackface, Vanilla and nigger are okay, but Wattree was out of line. Pathetic and stupid. I disagree with Wattree on the Nazi connection, but the rest of the argument is selective outrage against Wattree and a very visible ignoring West's outbursts.

    Obama pulled out all the stops to get a watered down background check bill passed. The majority of Americans polled, including gun owners, supported the measure. The bill failed because of a Republican filibuster. If the GOP is doubling down on a bill like this, what do you thing they are doing on other legislation?

    You may be unaware, given your bias, but the GOP blocking Cabinet members is unprecedented. Federal judges are being held up at historic rates. 42 states have passed bills restricting abortion. You are in a bubble.

    Cornel can find a microphone to name-call Obama. I haven't

     


    I lived with a bunch of black musicians so that's what I heard. I didn't faint, I didn't use it myself, I just observed, dealt with it. Go faint on your couch if you must, you seem to be mastering that art. Is "Vanilla" an insult? Coulda fooled Vanilla Ice. Maybe Betty Blowtorch is a problem for you as well, who knows. Are black girls allowed to grunge out on guitar?


    I stated my position on use of the word. I mentioned people who had taken I stand on the word. There was no great battle to take the word back from White racists. While you may view the word as a term of endearment, you intentionally refuse to confront the use of the term to make another black person subhuman. There are many lyrics that discuss killing niggers and molesting bitches. You ignore those songs. You ignore the psychological impact that it may have on youth.

    I'm not talking about censorship, I'm talking about having a deeper discussion about the possible lasting effects of the words. You have a superficial knowledge base. You cannot deal with possible negative effects of the words. Pediatricians advise limited exposure of children to television. Could there be negative effects of repeated us of certain words on how a person views themselves.

    You make a ridiculous assertion that I faint over a word. No , I just wonder if certain words impact peoples concept of self. We don't faint when we hear Obama described as a Muslim, Socialist or other term, but we do question the validity. Is Cornel West a nigger, Is Barack Obama a nigger. Is Michelle Obama a nigger? Is nigger so sacred that we can't adress the meaning and intent of the wrod?

    You are laughable. If the word is not negative, why don;t you use the term. Were the musicians you lived with niggers? You may be unaware, but Rick Ross recently haad to roll back lyrics that suggested he date raped a woman. L'il Wayne thought that it was cool to use Emmitt Till's name in a song about a physical altercation. Till surviving family members found it objectionable. In both cases nobody fainted and differences were discussed.

    Fainting. Pathetic and stupid.


    A culture has gone from Black and Proud to niggers and whores. Perhaps the words do not impact self-image of youth, but we should be able to have a discussion without those on the sidelines objecting.


    Here's how quickly you can become a celebrity in a lazy, profanity amused society. You too can be a news anchor. A screw up can make you famous if you just swear.


    I don't use the word, no one I'm around these days uses it, if someone uses it in a hurtful way in front of me, I speak up.

    Why exactly you're rattling on to me about this, I've no idea. It's not my issue. My guess is you've seen everything else we've discussed fall apart, so somehow it's a way to score easy racist points against me or something. No idea.


    It's the weekend. No more time for this diversion. You remain in a bubble. You argue that there is nothing is wrong with the word, then defend yourself by saying you don't use it. If there is nothing wrong with the word, use it without hesitation. I was questioning the impact of the word on the culture and youth.You avoid the issue. You remain clueless.

    At the end of the day, you attack Wattree for a post and rush to defend th GOP. You defend outrageous outbursts by Cornel West. You think I get the vapors over a word, while I'm arguing that its use may have wider impact than you realize.You remain in a bubble.Continue to watch from the sidelines. 

    Regarding the race issue, you decided to come at me with the term nigger, I was fine discussing profanity in general. You brought race into the discussion and I responded. At the end of the day, Black people will deal with the GOP of today while wishing some of the dead Republicans were alive to confront the GOP's current day race- baiters. The defense of the GOP 's history will fall as flat as Rand Paul's feeble re-writing of history at Howard. 

    Moving on.

     


    You're veering in on insanity, I'm afraid.

    Yes, you were discussing blackface & racism - how it was a slur against Obama's parents ethnicity - when I mentioned the n word. 

    The reason for mentioning that is basically, why should I find the use of "blackface" highly offensive as used in a particular political context to make a point, when many blacks use the much more charged and racist n word just because it's there, in common parlance.

    [yes, I'm sure you like to discuss profanity framed in only your terms, but to quote Rhett Butler, frankly Scarlet, I don't give a shit - it's English, and cussing is a valuable part of expressiveness]

    And no, I never argued that "there is nothing is wrong with the word" - you keep insisting on making shit up. Bad debate style.

    From my view, calling Herman Cain an Uncle Tom just because he's a Republican is more racially insulting than using the term blackface for a performer who keeps saying he wants to do these progressive things, but when you turn around he's raiding medical marijuana facilities (now progressed to civil suits as an easier way to shut them down) or embracing indefinite detention, war powers and judiciary-free surveillance championed by his predecessor.

    Note: a lot of people thought Obama would address poverty & unemployment after the elections. Instead he's embracing austerity, sequester, cutting social security via CPI and other regressive measures that are hard on the poor.

    So no, we're not having that conversation on poverty and high unemployment that we should - instead we're worsening the problem by "fixing" the deficit on the poor's backs at a time when we don't need to fix it. Yet having that conversation is unfair to Obama somehow, because because because he's trying real hard and it's all the GOP's fault. Well, fool me once, shame on you, fool me a thousand times, who do I run to?


      I just want to say that the sequester crisis isn't something Obama desired.


    You don't really know that...... Maybe it's no more than playing good cop / bad cop and yet the results are still the same ........  If the overall plan is to lower wages, then it's a natural progression taxes will need to be lower.  Except Obama plays the tough part. knowing full well, it's just for show........   It's a known fact that the Obama administration has brought more enforcement and prosecuted more whistle blowers, than all the previous administrations, WHY IS THAT?   Don't whistle blowers find waste, fraud and abuse? .... He's also gone after people with a vengenece, under the Sedition act, initiated in 1917 under President Wilson, who went after Eugene Debs for speaking out against the World War 1 and because Debs, tried strengthen the labor movement. ......... NOTICE  Obama directs drones strikes against suspected terrorists,  terrorizing their communities and nary a thought the Boston Bombers, did likewise to us. ......What has Obama done about suspending NAFTA and other such American job killers, while buildings collapse to provide cheap imports. He talks the talk about jobs, but he doesn't walk the walk. Jobs are not coming back, till our labor movement is decimated and the middle class destroyed. .......Go back and read the warnings given by those opposed to NAFTA and see if the conditions we live under now, did'nt occur as foretold; when we were lied to by BIG BUSINESS....... Notice the effects of the giant sucking sound of jobs leaving America, as Perot warned about and how this job migration would lead to the destruction of the middle class tax base....... CONSIDER THIS ..... When in the last few years has our government give  crap about the workers.... and all of a sudden we have this new found love for illegals.  Heres a hint....They'll do work Americans won't do.....that cheap.  Jobs will come back,  but they won't pay nearly what they did in the past. These new citizens will be the strike breakers / replacement workers. Obama is all for it, so are the Koch brothers.....Obama, a wolf in sheep clothing        


    You are wrong on the Koch Brothers' stance on immigration; they helped fund ALEC during its drafting of the infamous Arizona anti-illegal-immigrant law, SB1070.


      I'm surprised to hear an attack from the left on the plan to allow illegals to acquire citizenship(at least, I think its from the left). What do you want to do with them?

      Unemployment was quite low in the 1990s after NAFTA was passed, so I have to question the assertion that the dire predictions came true. Real wages also rose in the 90s, after anti-NAFTA people said it would bring down wages.To say that a recession that hit 15 years after NAFTA was passed is "because of NAFTA" seems dubious.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA%27s_effect_on_United_States_employment

      I really don't see that Obama's plan is to reduce wages, as you say. Who has he punished for opposing the wars?  Bradley Manning is facing punishment not for dissent, but for violating the Espionage Act(a law I oppose; I want Manning to go free). I also condemn the war crimes we've committed with the drones.

      Anyway, my contention isn't that Obama is beyond criticism, but that you and Peracles are attacking him for things I don't think he has done. You guys say he's screwing the poor, I say he's preserving the safety net that Republicans want to gut. I've talked about chained CPI enough for people to know what I think. There are some liberal Democrats who agree with Obama that Social Security and  Medicare have to undergo changes, or else much of the welfare state will be in trouble.


    The Great Recession? took monied nterests 15 years to destroy the American middle class?....... Not a bad plan, if your intentions were to destroy the American working class, to force concessions all along. It couldnt be a direct assault though, or their plans might be discovered by the majority, rather than the minority that warned about the impending doom........ First phase, provide easy credit, to give the appearance of good times; many people suckered into becoming supporters of Globalization, mocking the doomsayers of NAFTA, "Times are great" the people said, "look NAFTA is good"  them BAM, the American working class wakes up and finds, the jobs they have always depended on, to support the middle class, have been exported, and the safety net is..... lo and behold; in real danger, as Perot warned it would be . .... The new robber barrons, not afffected by the exports of jobs; would love getting rid of unecessary regulations and forcing Unions to accept cuts..... Fifteeen years, isnt a bad investment, if your plan was always to force the American working class to it's knees. Especially if the rich and powerful could depend on a governemt to bail them out, when the planned shite, finally hits the fan. 15 years of distractions with two unpaid wars, had a working class living in a manufactered bubble. Times were good and all the while, the working class was distracted, they couldnt see the choke hold about to grasp them...... How long before you'll get on bended knee and beg for the return of the JOBS that left? Maybe the new 11 million immigrants, will show you American workers, how to be grateful for a JOB, any job  offerd by the new Robber barons.  In yesteryear, it was the Asian coolies, who were to be the replacment workers, in opposition to the demanding American workers;  Today the cheaper working, immigrant/replacement workers will now will be hispanic. ........It's always the same game with these Barrons, only the names have changed. ......He that has the Gold, Rules  He that controls the jobs, Rules.  


      I think I can stand out what I said. To blame NAFTA for an economic mess that came 15 years after NAFTA seems contrived. A recession HAD to happen someday, with or without NAFTA.


    I keep saying NAFTA was a draw.

    China took many more jobs, but for a while our service industry built more.

    Then Bush screwed it all. Obama has helped little.


    Aaron WHERE ARE THE JOBS? Where are the jobs to support another 11 million  new immigrants, the government is planning to institute, when we have no jobs now?.....  WTH kind of plan are they trying to shove down our throats? Do they have, now a plan, to suddenly have jobs for everyone and lo and behold raising the retirement age? Evidently the Government knows, but isnt sharing the information or the plan or theirs, might lead to an open rebellion? We are not  producing enough taxes and with wages going lower there will be a large shortfall to support OUR safety net...... Unless the plan is;  people go back to $5.00 and hour and the cost of living ,  along with the standard of living,  goes down, to match the rest of the world wide slave class? The chained CPI makes sense when considered in the totality of the plan. So did Universal Healthcare, that will be unable to deliver the level of service we have come to depend upon. ...... The 11 million are going to be given amnesty, so they can replace the disgruntled middle class who finally realizes, WE'RE GOING TO GET SCREWED....... Either  accept  this new plan you of the American working class, or join the millions of the long term unemployed. .....Besides in a few year, maybe Cyprus will be the new third world country competing against Bangladesh, for the production of cheap goods Americans will import, further cutting American based companies, putting more pressure on the safety net, because we will have no tax base to support one..... The rich don't need a safety net, they only have to own the offshore companies that ship these American job killing products to a stupid working class; asking WTF just happened?   


      I don't know when there will be a substantial drop in unemployment, but if it comes, that would call into question your theory that people are planning to keep unemployment high.

     It's  a little unusual to hear someone take on the fat cats and also advocate a hard line with illegal immigrants. At least it is unusual among pundits; there are probably working class people who feel that way. I myself would like to cut illegal immigrants a break.


    The sequester won't bring down unemployment.

    Austerity won't bring down unemployment.

    Illegal immigration won't bring down unemployment.

    Note "shadow unemployment" rising here -

    supports Resistance's theory.


      We'll see. It has started going down, although agonizingly slowly. The sequester isn't something that Obama wanted, and he's trying to deal with it.

      The left hasn't been urging leniency for illegal immigrants on the grounds that it will bring down unemployment. The argument is that these people are victims and deserve a break.


      I myself don't think Obama wants people to be out of work, but I guess everyone can read his intentions as they see fit.


    I don't think Obama wants people out of work, but I'm stupefied why he doesn't do more rather than focusing on austerity & Social Security reform.


    I said that that people had a free speech right to use any word they desired. I did say we should have ongoing discussion about a word like nigger. Yet you argue that I only want the word used on my terms. I simply want to have a discussion. Does the word have a psychological impact? Has the culture lost something in going from"Black and Proud" to niggers and bitches? Do the words impact youth?

    Cornel West will have zero impact on a national discussion about poverty. He can only grab the national microphone went he says some crap about Obama. Forty-one Democrats voted against stopping the furlough of air controllers because issues of poverty were not being addressed. You may have missed that. What is interesting is that Democrats who voted for ending the furlough are arguing that they are making sure the government workers will be able to feed their families. A major factor in Black unemployment is felt to be the decline in government jobs.There is an active discussion..

    I may be veering towards insanity, but you've reach it. You're waiting for Cornel west to actually do something important. That's insanity personified. We disagree. We will not agree on this issue.

    The issue of the word nigger is larger than a simple argument about profanity. You ignore the possiblity of n important impact on the concept of self in the Black community. In a general discussion, I think the use of profanity weakens the argument. It is interesting that I can get a Pavlovian response full of profanity from you when I mention my objection. I find it amusing

    Gotta go. More important things to do.Clipping my toenails.

     


    Democratic votes against furloughing air controllers was not about "poverty" - it was about keeping air travel running or people would actually notice the stupidity of the sequester (plus Democratic Congressmen fly, and they'd hate to be inconvenienced).

    I have no intention of getting into a philosophical discussion of the n word with you if we need 4 or more rounds just to agree gas chambers are an insult too far. Plus it simply doesn't affect me and there's nothing I can do to change its effect for others.


    Once again, you are incorrect. Read the comments made by Democratic House members about why they voted against the furlough. The members felt that the measured favored the privileged. They voted against ending the furlough, so obviously they were not voting to keep flights on time.

    i repeatedly say that you are in a bubble. You prove it by saying that the word nigger does not impact you personally. Since you are personally involved, there is no reason to explore a larger impact. Self-absorbed.

    (edited to add link to article)


    Jesus, get off it.

    I don't give a fuck about the word "nigger". Go find a blog on Django, there must be a million - can give you all the orgasm you want. Me, I'm not interested. That makes me "self-absorbed? So be it.

    Now, about those words "poverty" and "unemployment"- yeah, I'm game.


    I'm not going anywhere, if I where you I'd be trying to deflect the fact that the Democrats interviewed on the issue of voting against the furlough were asking why a favored class was being selectively opted out out of feeling the hurt of the Sequester. 

    You brought nigger into the.mix. Don't get so upset. There is a real question about whether someone who sees themselves as a nigger thinks that there is hope or a way out of being on the bottom rung.You have the freedom of not caring about the word nigger. I'm not calling you racist, I just think you are unaware of some things.


    Democrats asked why 1 class favored, but didn't stop the favoritism.

    Poverty & unemployment still not front page news.


    The defense of the GOP 's history will fall as flat as Rand Paul's feeble re-writing of history at Howard.

    I don't think that's the best analogy. How about: The defense of the GOP's history will fall as flat as Wattree's hyperbolic lying rant about the history of the GOP.

    Which is exactly what I intended. My defense of the GOP was not meant to build them up or be a ringing endorsement. It was meant to expose the blog as a hyperbolic partisan rant, extreme and false and then, to fall flat.

    But if you'd rather not talk about the GOP, how about one more stupid statement from Wattree's blog? Wattree posted:

    The corporate strategy. It's very simple, people, regardless to how much money we make, we simply refuse to hire anyone for any reason and I guarantee you, those idiots will blame it on Obama.

    Just one more extreme, false, totally asinine statements in this blog. Economists have a few explanations for the unemployment crisis, none of which is that there is a conspiracy to not hire people. I'd be more likely to  believe the ridiculous conspiracy theory that Cheney blew up the Twin towers to have an excuse to start a war with Iraq than this stupid corporation conspiracy theory.

    I favor Krugman's explanation. The collapse of the economy caused many people to lose their job and most people to lose a significant part of their wealth. People slowed down their purchases. In an economy that is 70% driven by consumer spending that created a demand side employment crisis. Corporations are not hiring because the demand is not there for the goods they produce. Its ridiculous to think corporations would hire people to increase production when current capacity can meet current demand. When demand picks up businesses will hire to meet that demand. That's why Krugman advocates stimulus spending on infrastructure. It would put people back to work, the money they're paid would ripple through the economy increasing demand and businesses would hire even more people to meet that demand.

    Of course you can buy into the conspiracy theory that if demand picks up the evil corporations will still not hire leaving the store shelves empty and people clamoring for goods that are unavailable just so they can fuck with Obama. rotflmao


    I simply find the "outrage" over Wattree's post outrageous. That's just my personal view. I was frankly amazed at how long the blog when on. What the discussion did you was jog my memory about how the racist Democrat's won the Black vote. I think there were actions taken by the Republicans that go unmentioned. I am not talking about Goldwater or Nixon, but actions taken by the GOP in Texas> The party was split into the Lily-Whites and the Blacks and Tans. there were active programs in the GOP to remove Blacks from positions of power. This was way before Goldwater and Nixon.

    Herbert Hoover was viewed as supporting the Lily-Whites, a pro-segregationist GOP group that wanted to go toe to toe with the Democrats in vying for the racist vote. Hoover's response to racist actions by the Red Cross folowing the Great Flod drew heavy criticism from the NAACP

    By the way while a majority of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so did a majority of Democratic Senators. The implication of that vote by Senatorial Democrats was huge. I'm working on a post to address the issue. Hopefully. I can have it ready by late tomorrow.

    We obviously disagree on Wattree's post but, at least for, me did serve to jog my memory on how the GOP came to be viewed the way it is today. One clue, segregationist Strom Thurmond filibustered the bill for 24 hours and 11 minutes on the Senate. The bill passed. By the end of 1964, Thurmond was a Republican. Another hint, that change of political party suggests something was changing in the Democratic Party. Hopefully my post will add perspective.


    Do we disagree about Wattree's post? I don't know that because you've never taken a position on any of my criticisms of his blog.

    Anyway, I'm not outraged.  I only posted about Wattree's corporate conspiracy theory to watch your acrobatics and gyrations as you avoid saying anything about it at all. Its hilarious. I have this image of you with your fingers in your ears shouting, "Herbert Hoover! Strom Thurmond! La la la la la la  I can't hear you."


    Amusing. The initial complaint was that Wattree was not historically accurate. He said that the GOP had done nothing in 100 years. I found it funny. You were arguing how dare he be historically inaccurate. I said I thought what I see as your outrage was unwarranted. Look at the length of this post.Wattree got the response he wanted. I thought that I had directly responded to your comments.

    I did not think Wattree was making a direct connection between the GOP and the Nazis, when he said that he was making a clear connection, I  disagreed. I though that was clear.

    To be honest, I didn't read much of the one-on-one between you and Wattree because it seemed to be personal. I assume many dagblog gears avoid the  Peracles Please-rmrd0000 commentary.

     


    If your question is do I have a different reaction when a sitting Senator like Rand Paul tries to obscure the history of the GOP than when Wattree pushes buttons on a blog? Yes. I reserve my anger for the Senator. Perhaps that is the answer you are looking for.


    I am glad you referenced Krugman. ....Could it be, the moment demand begins to pick up, those who have already secured a good financial position, will dampen demand, again and again, continually manipulating the markets, with false starts and then back down again, with fear , and this process will continue till all workers, world wide, will have no benefits and very little wages.  Labor being a commodity, it's now just a race to the bottom; who will slave for less?  Obama is in on it, he dont mind being the scapegoat, so go ahead and f##K with him, the Obamabots will still protect him against them big mean nasties 


    lf your question is do I have a different reaction when a sitting Senator like Rand Paul tries to obscure the history of the GOP than when Wattree pushes buttons on a blog?

    No that's not my question. And its not whether republicans are better than nazis. You can't be this stupid, that's why I think you're disingenuous. I asked several questions but they all come down to one. Is it true or false and why.

    Wattree posted the corporate strategy is to not hire anyone so Obama gets the blame.

    Do you think that's true or false and why? That's the question.

    I called that a ridiculous conspiracy theory and gave a standard Keynesian explanation for the high rate of unemployment.

    Do you think that's true or false and why? That's the question.

    You told me you find my outrage outrageous. I don't care if you think I'm outraged or that you think outrage is outrageous. Is my critique true or false and why? That's all I care about.

    You ranted on and on about Hoover and the lily whites and Strom Thurmund's filibuster and never addressed the question. I have no idea what that has to do with the corporate conspiracy theory or the truth or falsity of Wattree's statement and my critique.

    The initial complaint was that Wattree was not historically accurate.

    Yes that was my initial complaint. Do you think he was historically accurate or not? That's the question.

    He said that the GOP had done nothing in 100 years. I found it funny.

    I have zero interest in discussing your sense of humor or explaining mine. Was Wattree's statement true or false?

    You were arguing how dare he be historically inaccurate.

    No. I was arguing he was historically inaccurate and I posted what I think is substantial evidence to back up my opinion. Do you think my evidence was true or false and why? That's the question.

    You're the king of the non sequitur. You spent paragraphs and paragraphs on everything from Lincoln to Frederick Douglas to Hoover to Thurmond but never addressed my critique of Wattree's blog. Do we disagree on Wattree's blog? I don't know because I don't know if you think its true or false or if you agree or disagree with my critique. You are a complete mystery to me. I can't comprehend why anyone would spend so much time engaged in phony debate. By the standards I hold and that guide my actions here or anytime I engage in dialog that's  insanity to me.

     


    If I'm stupid. You are insane. I said that I thought your question was how dare Wattree be historically inaccurate. You continue to rant about what I thought about his accuracy.

    I said that I didn't take the time to read your one one one with Wattree.Regarding corporate conspiracies, companies do whatever they have to do to make money.today it's shipping jobs overseas, fighting unions through helping to elect legislators and Governors who will go for right to work laws and keep wages stagnant. Did they have secret meetings to do this. No. So is it a conspiracy or pursuing a common goal that crushes the worker.It is a common goal crushing the worker. Hope that makes you feel better.

    This simply cannot be about Wattree's post.Something else has gotten you upset. At the end of the day, the modern GOP is a pile of crap. The total racial history of the GOP has not been told.Rand Paul's attempt to whitewash GOp history has gotten people to start reviewing the history of the GOP. There was a push to get Blacks out of the GOP by the Lily-White faction of the party. Hoover had strained relations with Black leaders. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 vote was essentially a North vs South vote. Barry Goldwater, who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, became the GOP Presidential Candidate.

    The Democratic Party confronted its racists led by Hubert Humphrey. The Dixiecrats briefly left the Democratic Party in revolt of Democrats taken a stand on Civil Rights.Strom Thurman ran for President and lost.Thurmand returned to the Democratic Party. A majority of Republicans and a Democratic Senators voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Democratic Senators stood up to the racists in their ranks by an almost 2:1 ratio. Strom Thurmond, the former Dixiecrat, became a Republican. There is not a similar number of modern day Republicans willing to stand up to the problem folks in their party.  The GOP is currently suppressing Black votes.

    So Wattree was historically inaccurate and corporations aren't conspiring in secret meetings but workers are still getting crushed. I continue to say that this argument seems silly (to me).


     

    LOL
    From our dear brother, Cornel West
     
    Corporate CEOs are running around WDC right now conspiring to push poor people over the “fiscal cliff.” What’s our response?...
     
     
     

    Republican Senators voted 88% for the 1964 Civil Rights Act - only 6 voted against.

    A little detail to give us pause as we pat ourselves on the back - maybe read a speech or 2 from Everett Dirkson or George Romney before another historical GOP discussion starts.

    To his (dis)credit, Brent Bozell may have been the inspiration for the modern conservative ethic with its up-is-down, hate-is-really-tough-love vision of reality, which Rush Limbaugh excels at in ad libs each day.


    Barry Goldwater voted against the Act and became the Presidential nominee. The majority of Democrats stood up the the racists. The racists felt more comfortable in the GOP.  Let's take a look at two long- standing Senators who voted against the bill, Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd.

    Thurmond was a staunch segregationist who ran for President as a Dixiecrat.By the end of 1964, he was. Republican. His voting grade on Civil Rights issues  from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund was abysmal as a Republican.

    Robert Byrd had a transformation after the death of a grandson. He realized in his grief that Black parents and grandparents loved their children as much as he loved his. Byrd went through a transformation. He was one of the sponsors supporting a memorial to MLK. Byrd had high marks on Civil Rights issues from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

    LBJ and the Democrats knew that they would lose the South and issued a courageous vote. The GOP was the State's Rights party that is now the voter suppression party.

    BTW, the Civil Rights Act vote was largely a North vs.South vote. Most Democrats and Republicans voted in favor of the bill. Would that Dirksen was around today to show the Republicans same courage that Hubert Humphrey showed the Democrats. Would the Romney could have had more influence over his son.


    This simply cannot be about Wattree's post.Something else has gotten you upset.

    Yes its all about Wattree's post. I know what I'm about to post will be totally incomprehensible to you but I care about the truth. The over riding purpose of my life has been a search for the truth. I don't claim to have found the truth but its what I pursue and I constantly re-evaluate the bits and pieces I've found to refine and expand, discarding any piece that more knowledge and  more sophisticated reasoning shows to be less then true.

    Even my spiritual path, which has been a large part of my life, has not been about believing the words of any spiritual text but about learning something  about the nature of spirituality that can be present in any religion. When I chanted for a few days without sleep it wasn't because I believed the religious precepts of Hinduism. It was to experience the spiritual truth behind the books I read. When  a Native American elder put my on a hill for 4 days  in South Dakota without food or water it wasn't because I believed in the "American Indian" cosmology. It was to see what I could learn of the truth of spirituality from the experience.

    When I read political articles the first question I ask myself is, is it true. I'm not non-ideological, I don't believe that possible. Ideology is about values and I prioritize certain values over others. But before I consider some policy article in terms of ideology I ask myself, is it true.

    Wattree's blog was an extreme hyperbolic partisan rant. I probably agree with much of his ideology but the numerous lies offended my sense of truth. Worse yet he titled it "Irrefutable Truth" and spent much of his time in the blog asserting it was not a hyperbolic rant, that it was unadulterated truth. The offense was compounded when he held up my highest value, the truth, while blatantly lying.

    For you, whose sole purpose is defeating the republicans, that anyone might place a higher value on the truth is incomprehensible. I could say that lying in the end will be self defeating. But even if we could win by lying I wouldn't support it. That's what the republicans do and I won't be part of it. And yes, though I probably agree with much of your ideology, I'm offended by the lies of omission you used in your defense of Wattree's blog.


    I really have to admit that I simply don't get your outrage over Wattree's post.The history of Abraham Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War.I felt Wattree was blowing off steam. In the midst of the post, there was a subset of posts about Cornel West. West got defended despite saying that the President was afraid of strong Black men, that Obama was a Republican in Blackface, that Obama did not care about the deaths of dead Black children, only about dead Vanilla children. I saw no pushback against these comments. Professor West also said that there was a conspiracy of corporations against poor people. I saw no strong pushback against this comment. I was asked about some conspiracy comment made by Wattree.

    I view the current GOP as a real threat. Point to one lie that I have told about the GOP.Wattree posted at a blog. There are  different criteria for what goes on in a blog.Some bloggers use profanity, for example.

    I think people can blow off steam on a blog and that is acceptable.Bottom line Wattree thinks the modern GOP is worthless and he sees no good in the history of the party.Wattree can say that on a blog and get challenged or supported

    Wattree can get smacked down when he compares the GOP to Nazis. Except for the justified outrage over the Nazi comment, Wattree assertion could have been dealt with in a calm fashion.

    I selective outrage and selective demands for the "truth".

     

     


    You feel qualified to label people liars based on a blog. You feel that you are seeking the perfect truth. So be it.I am glad that I don't meet your pathetic pious standard. Wattree posted a blog and you sit ready to judge him and me.


    Of course you don't get it. I told you it would be totally incomprehensible to you. Our high priority values are just too different.

    Why keep bringing up West with me? I told you I don't read him and I don't have the time or inclination to start. I didn't criticize Wattree for his "Pimping the klan" comment because I don't read West. I didn't push back against PP's defense of West because I don't read West.

    My superficial impression on West leans toward agreement with Artappraiser, "I think both Wattree and Cornel West like to play a variation of The Dozens. It's an entertaining modus operandi to a certain point, then it grows tiresome. I also think it often becomes counterproductive after a certain point." I don't stand by that since I don't read West but that seems likely as an initial impression. From what little I can glean from the discussion here probably West needs to be called out on his hyperbolic ranting and extreme false statements too and if he was posting here I probably would. But I won't do it until I've read a few of his complete articles.

    I can ignore a partisan rant if someone is just blowing off steam. But if they title it "Irrefutable Truth," pat themselves on the back for being totally non-ideological and just following "unadulterated truth,"  and  insist this is not a hyperbolic rant they can no longer claim to be just blowing off steam. Wattree has never claimed to be just blowing off steam in any comment. You can attempt to make that defense for him but I doubt that he would agree with it. He posted several times  he stands behind every word.


    I think you should know.We won't be following your petty rules.


    (laughs) Of course you won't. I never expected you to. You have your own set of petty rules you'll continue to follow. Republicans must be criticized and never defended whether its true or false. Obama, democrats and MSNBC must be defended. I won't be following those rules either.


    Understand, I'm not a big folower of West, and had never heard him/read him until Wattree started criticizing him endlessly.

    probably West needs to be called out on his hyperbolic ranting and extreme false statements too and if he was posting here I probably would. But I won't do it until I've read a few of his complete articles

    And that's basically what I did - just read about 2-3 West articles or interviews, listened to about 5 minutes of his speeches, and I didn't find them that hyperbolic, or much different than what some more accepted people say.

    [certainly not hyperbolic compared to such howlers as Blair's "WMD's can be ready to use within 45 minutes", McCain's "I walked through a Baghdad market" ignoring his flak jacket & helicopter cover, "we can pay for the Iraq War with $50 million and Iraq oil money", or comparing the GOP to gas chamber-building Nazis or equating someone to a nurse infecting people intentionally with syphilis ]

    So I do disagree with ArtAppraiser's equivalency of West with Wattree - West seems to be doing proper position advocacy, and while his tongue is sharp, that also gets headlines that might have an effect, rather than mumbling - how does that counteract the hateful absuridities shouted by Rush Limbaugh & Glenn Beck & Paul Ryan every day? And he's not nearly as biting as Jesse Jackson Jr. used to be (most eloquently, but sometimes quite in your face & harsh - isn't that how we're supposed to talk back to the corporate oligarchy?)

    One of the biggest criticisms of West is that it's all self-serving, but I really don't see where being anti-war/ anti-war-spending / anti-poverty / pro-job-stimulus being so self-serving. The biggest grief seems to be that West is too hard on Obama and doesn't understand how tough it all is. 

    Of course we had a complete 2012 election cycle where almost no one was tough on Obama except some pretty incompetent GOP criticism. What do we have to show for that?


    When I place you in a bubble, there is a reason.You admit to a limited amount of exposure to West and then become. a big supporter because Wattree attacked West. There are people working on issues of poverty everyday.West has become a sideshow. For all of his bombast, Al Sharpton can get wheels turning on issues like getting the Trayvon Martin case to trial and getting out the vote. West is impotent, so he yells. West worked actively to keep Melissa Harris- Perry from getting tenure. West's popularity has plummeted because people see him as more showman than activist. Wset is rejected because, unlike King, Whitney Young and even Al Sharpton he can do nothing.

    Rand Paul is another sideshow who is not taken seriously. Paul did not focus on Congressional oversight of drones, but on Obama attacking US citizens on US soil.. Paul then said that it was okay if a drone were to be used to kill a person who just robbed a store with a gun.Rand Paul wants police departments to be able to use drones not to survey surroundings, but to kill instead of attempting to arrest.In the aftermath of the arrest of the second bombing suspect by a heavy armed FBI SWAT team that arrested rather than kill is ridiculous. The students and faculty knew that Paul was a charlatan and simply waited for him to expose himself and he did.

    The negative view of West and Paul in the Black community is because they realize that neither man will only provide verbiage, not action. That view of the two men can be connected to the low Black participation rate in Occupy Wall Street. In the midst of a massive voter suppression effort, here we had a leaderless group ready to tackle problems by citizen committees. Black viewed the project as doomed to failure.

    In their collective search for truth, the Black community realized that West, Paul and Occupy Wall Street were not the answer. They also realized that given the high rate of employment of Black workers in the government, government job decreases meant Black unemployment decreases.west, Paul and Occupy we're not coming to help.

    There is also a realization that getting legislation through a Congress with a party committed to halting any meaningful laws fro getting passed, there will be no special programs targeting Black unemployment. The wisdom of this view solidified when we saw Congress refuse to move on a simple background check bill favored by the majority of the country.

    The greater truth that we see is that the more Republican in Congress, the worst for Blacks it becomes simple math. Defeating on Ron Paul would be a plus not a minus, just ask people who care about the right to choose.

    the drones will be addressed because there is increasing public pushback and acknowledgment that it helps create more enemies because of the deaths of innocents. Cornel West will not be a factor.

    The truth is out there. Westland Paul are frauds able to fool a small number of people the hard work will go on. The effort to keep the US from a military"adventure" in Syria is mounting. West and Paul will not be important in that fight either.


    A large part of the reason that Jackson and Sharpton have changed tactics is that the landscape has changed.Their truth sees the danger of the modern GOP. You see partisanship, I see basic survival. The background check vote, the busting of unions, the blocking of the vote, the attack on abortion clinics, etc is nationwide. There is a big difference from the political tactics of the past. That is the truth that these two gentlemen see.


    So what has Obama done to help Unions after all they've done for him? How much has he done to bolster abortion rights, vs. making sure abortion was fenced off of any healthcare legislation and letting churches avoid paying for any abortion because they're too damn special. Sharpton's also pretty much a talking head these days. It's dismal - so many mouths to put on TV, so little serious pushback against the system.

    But hey, the aftermath of Boston shows nobody wants rights anymore, that we can videotape everyone and we'll all be scared in crowds. Perfect followup to 12 years of post-9/11 panic. Soon we'll be able to shed a few amendments and everyone will applaud.


    Unions see the same problem that I see with Republican Governors, legislatures and Congress, they are gearing up to oust GOP members. Unions are mounting get out the vote efforts. 

    Keeping in mind, the state of the Congress, what legislation would you see getting passed? 

     


    Obama could have shown up in Wisconsin during the big union showdowns.

    He could have campaigned better for other candidates in 3 different elections - he wouldn't even damage his brand to oppose Saxby-Chambliss in the runoff even though Jim Martin had fought a quite close race in November.

    All his bi-partisanship hasn't helped build strong Democratic majorities - hard to then turn around and complain about the "state of the Congress". Didn't seem to phase him that ACA was a difficult piece of legislation for Democrats to run with. I can only imagine Democrats running in 2014 on how well they cut Social Security with CPI and how it was all Republicans' fault about the sequester. (okay, I don't know why Reid let the filibuster stay as it was - I've long figured someone has a picture of his daughter in flagrante delicto with a goat or something)


    So you have no specific legislation. Regarding your other points, there was not a single view on the impact that Obama could have had.

    There was opinion that Wisconsin voters would not the idea of a President getting involved in a state issue. The administration did provide organizational support Union members in Wisconsin voted for Obama 2:1. 

    There were varying opinion about direct campaigning for Jim Martin you assume only a positive result. If Martin still lost, you would lay the blame at Obama's feet. 

    I think that the Affordable Care Act will be seen as the beginning of health care reform.Single payer was not going to pass. Was scrapping the entire bill your option?

    Bipartisanship did not build Democratic majorities. However, Republicans often reside in protected districts making getting them out more difficult. Yes the expectation that Republicans would agree on anything was naive.

    I have repeatedly said that Reid should have tried to go back to prior filibuster rules so that a 51 votes would be a victory.

     


    You're the master of "it's no good if you didn't win yet".

    I don't mind a politician that fights for the right thing and loses. Victory is often built on multiple defeats. The Aztecs rose out of humiliation in a garbage pit in a swamp.

    Voters often vote for a candidate with conviction & courage to take on a tough fight. As the Lord says, "because you are lukewarm - neither hot nor cold - I will spit you out".

    Voters are sometimes like that as well.


    Your biased view says that everything that you suggest would have result. In both cases, the possibility of a negative effect existed. The voters re- elected the guy you describe as lukewarm. The voters seemed to think Obama was tough enough.

    On the issue of wining now, I see limited options because the GOP is dug in and their are a few wayward Democrats. Obama may have been naive on the Sequester and Reid naive on the filibuster, in order for things to collapse , you still need an unpatriotic group of Republicans willing to let the country suffer.


    Many voters voted for the least of 2 evils, Romney being much worse.

    Even Cornel West made that clear.


    Blah blah blah, same old. From what I read & heard of West, he made sense.

    Sharpton got a trial for George Zimmerman, he'll likely walk anyway.

    Meanwhile there are almost 5 million long-term unemployed, 5.6 million 18-34 year olds looking for work, 14% of the unemployed have been so 2 years or longer, black long-term unemployment is about 3x that of whites...

    But 1 guy gets a trial. And who the hell is Melissa Harris-Perry? Just another talking head, no more, no less. Why you're going on about Rand Paul, no idea, but he does manage to threaten and get stuff shut down so Democrats comply - gotta love that "all talk" that gets legislation rewritten to attract Republicans.

    That Occupy Wall Street at least got some attention to Wall Street malfeasance is a good thing - a lot bigger effect than getting George Zimmerman indicted. Likely OWS made some critical mistakes, too hippie and what not, but yes, the world now thinks of the 1% vs. the 99%, a critical marketing success.

    Meanwhile, Obama managed to get snookered into or wanted the sequester, and government jobs cut will mean even more black jobs cut - the black middle class already reeling. What you think are priorities, I can't understand, but go ahead, "put me in a box". You're too cool.


    You miss the entire point. Given the current makeup of Congress, what major jobs program do you see getting approved? You seem to think that getting change accomplished under present circumstances is easy. It most definitely is not.Tell me again your plan for rapidly decreasing Black unemployment.

    Paul got nothing changed on the drone program that wasn't already to the pipeline. 

    Romney's 47% comment caught on tape had the major impact on the perception that he was a corporatist.

     


    The drone program is Obama's. He could end it tomorrow if he wanted - he doesn't need Congress to do that.

    The raids & lawsuits on medical marijuana dispensaries are Obama's & Holder's. They could simply respect state law on the matter.

    There are innocent Yemeni prisoners at Gitmo scheduled for release years ago that Obama could send back to Yemen today or tomorrow.

    What do you do when you can't blame the GOP for something?


    The reason I don't take you seriously is that you label things that are complicated.The transfer of detainees to US prisons was blocked by Congress. Diane Feinstein introduced a bill blocking transfer of Yemini prisoners in 2009. In order for some prisoners to be transferred the Secretary of a defense has to state that the detainee will never  be involved in a future terrorist attack. You may see things as straight forward, but roadblocks were put in place. Feinstein is now urging release of the Yemini detainees

    The drone program will not go away because it spares places troops directly in harm's way. It unquestionably creates enemies as a Yemini testified to Congress


    So Diane Feinstein introduced a bill 3 1/2 years ago after an AQAP bombing. That's it? Did the bill pass? Did someone elect her fucking president while I wasn't looking?

    We were still fighting in Iraq at that point, Petraeus still had a career, the Arab Spring hadn't come yet, Qaddafi & Mubarek were still happily seated in power. Obama was up to his ears with ACA, Reinhart & Rogoff still had credibility from their 2009 book cheerleading our misguided austerity program...

    But 3 1/2 years later, it's been ho-hum, let the freed innocent Yemenis stay there, it's so tough to do the right thing - rather than dealing with a festering problem, our reaction to a hunger strike from prisoners *FREED FOR RELEASE* is to jam tubes painfully down their noses to feed them and cover up the hunger strike to journalists. (planes to Gitmo were cancelled for some time)

    And now President Feinstein has decided that releasing Yemenis is a good idea, so Vice President Obama will now jump? Guess Hillary should have stayed in the Senate after all.

    Here's a question for you - what should Obama have done 2 months ago when the hunger strike started? As a leader, how should he have led?


    JOBS, We could have more jobs IN AMERICA,..... IF  ....... Obama would just reach across the aisle, to seek support from the Tea partiers, if Obama would frame these NAFTA trade issues as detrimental to American jobs . .....  It's clear, Obama is not that determined, to secure higher paying jobs  or to bring back jobs for AMERICAN WORKERS  as much as he would like to reign in WAGES. ....... IT'S THE REASON HE ALLOWED  HOUSING PRICES TO COLLAPSE... Obama and his advisors thinking  "the new working class, could/ would be able to afford shelter, if the current prices and wages go down" . .....  " HMMM how do we get wages to come down" his capitalist friends telling him "SCREW THE UNIONS" ...." Prices and wages need to go down, in order to compete in a global economy"  " SCREW THE MIDDLE CLASS"  .......Everything is going according to the plan. .....  Maybe it's Obama's  WIN Program (Whip Inflation Now)  he's foisting on the unsuspecting working class? Just as prior administration put the burden on the middle class, to pay for excessive printing press money....... The republicans know, Obama would like to tax the rich, but absent any movement in that area. Obama will go forward with Screwing the Only available class left. That's where you and I are at. .......Bring Jobs back to America, or find a way to enjoy being on the recieving end. As they say ...."whats good for business" ....... Doesnt mean it's good for workers...... Obama is a member of one of the two capitalist parties. Our priorities, are not his. Talking the talk, but he won't walk the picket line.  He'd sure like your vote though.


    And your reasoned solution is..........


    Immediately repeal Fast Track Authority. Take back our rights to protect ourselves from the influence of money. Repeal all trade with foreign countries that are in direct competition with American workers or American Companies. Admit that NAFTA was detrimental to the US economy, "It could not solve the economic disparity. it did not consider the human impact or the well being of the citizens in each country". It was all about the love of money. "NAFTA has rendered the United States uncompetitive, has destroyed our industrial base, caused most of our production to be outsourced,  and has killed most of our manufacturing jobs" .....  "How would you feel, if you lived in a State, who could drop it's min. wage to three (3) dollars an hour, exempted from child labor laws,  Expanded the work week, reduced health and safety laws, banned Unions, and reduced protection for the environment.  .... and Companies in this State allowed to  ship duty free to all the other 49 States, at no additional cost, giving that State an unfair advantage....  ...It seems those who voted for NAFTA, were either grossly negligent of their duties or they voted contrary to the best interest of the country." ....... It's not just NAFTA, what's going on with TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership)?....  Turn the tables on these money changers, take back our country, protect the industrial and manufacturing tax base, necessary for OUR safety net. Why would some fat cat offshore trader care about your needs, he's only about himself.


    Latest Comments