When the Seattle Seahawks first came into the NFL the previous year in 1976, I was excited that there was a team that was sort of “local” that I could finally cheer for besides the great Steelers teams of the 70’s. And cheer I did, usually with little reward for the effort. Nonetheless, Zorn, Largent, and a handful of other folks became players whom I admired over the years.
I spent a lot of years – hard and disappointing years – of desperate and sometimes pathetic seasons cheering for my Seahawks to even make the playoffs. It got to the point that if the Seahawks beat the hated Raiders, then it was a successful season, regardless of what their win/loss record ended up being at season’s end.
Needless to say, 2013 ended up being a horrible year for me. I lost my wife of 22 years that year and everything seemed dark and despairing for me. And yet, a reprieve from the darkness started 2014 as my long-suffering Seahawks finally went to Super Bowl XLVIII to play the Denver Broncos. I know it seems silly, but it was almost as if my wife had pulled Jesus aside in heaven and asked if He could help me out a bit as I needed something to smile about then. Whether Jesus helped or not, my Seahawks trounced the hapless Broncos 43 to 8 that Sunday and smile from ear to ear I definitely did!
It is amazing what changes four years will bring. This last Sunday, my Seahawks took the field in Nashville to play the Tennessee Titans, but they decided to take the field after the finish of the national anthem was played. So did the Titans. I am, needless to say, embarrassed to be a Seahawks fan today.
This nonsense all started last year when San Francisco 49'ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick decided he wanted to make a statement against racism and oppression by kneeling when our national anthem was played instead of standing as a sign of respect for our nation.
Now I absolutely agree that Mr. Kaepernick has every right to his free speech, just like we all do. Further, if his coach and employer in the NFL do not forbid his protest, he is even free to take a knee as The Star Spangled Banner plays as he gets ready to do his JOB. That said, he and the hundreds of other NFL players and other professional sports athletes that now seem to be following suit, should not be mistaken in their protests.
The flag doesn’t represent a skin color. It doesn’t represent liberals or conservatives. It doesn’t represent men or women. It doesn’t represent gay or straight people. It doesn’t represent people of faith or atheists. It represents all of us: We the People of the United States of America.
Many people of all colors, political ideologies, and beliefs have died so that Mr. Kaepernick and hundreds of other millionaire pampered athletes can take a knee in protest over the country that allows them this right to free speech in this “racist and oppressive nation.”
Do we have issues of racism and hate today in America? Sadly yes. But if this protest that was started by Mr. Kaepernick was simply meant as a means to start a discussion on racism and oppression, then he and his fellow athletic supporters, just missed the boat.
President Trump once again, while correct in principle, could not state his opinion in a statesman-like and dignified manner when he tweeted out obscenities at these athletes. Instead of taking the high road, now that the media and world attention were clearly focused on this event, the Kaepernick clan chose instead to make this about President Trump instead of their professed cause. President Trump punked them, it would seem.
There are plenty of ways for Mr. Kaepernick and for any famous athlete to make a national case for this important cause besides showing disrespect to the nation and those that died protecting it. While that may engender some support from Leftist fringes, it will not serve their truly important cause well with the majority of Americans. It will only serve to further divide an already turbulent nation.
I am fairly certain, that NFL game attendance and TV viewership will suffer as this trend continues. An overwhelming majority of Americans are good and decent people. They are compassionate and abhor racism as greatly as I do, and would be otherwise sympathetic to Colin Kaepernick’s cause, if he had chosen to present it in a better way. He might have persuaded them to rally behind him in this discussion. By doing what he did though, he has disrespected the country and those millions of Americans past and present that have dedicated their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor in protecting it.
I have a football with the Seahawks' logo on it that is signed by “#3 Russell Wilson, SB XLVIII Champs” sitting in a glass case on my desk in my office. My brother had connections and asked if Wilson could sign that for me after their amazing win. It is a possession that I have cherished since that historic Seahawks' win.
Today, I am thinking about putting it away and out of sight in my closet.
One wonders, if this continues, whether many Americans will do the same with the NFL.
101 comments:
Kaepernick's protest was noticed, but minimal until Trump decided to call the whole NFL a bunch of sons of a bitches. Showing again Trump knows nothing about leadership.
Now the NFL (including many owners who gave Trump millions for his campaign) and most players (including those who disagreed with the kneeling protest) are united against the president.
For me, the American people, especially young men, could and should find better idols and heroes than ball players. It shows a true lack of collective character that we choose ball players as our national heroes.
I hope you are not suggesting that what is being protested does not exist. I wish you could understand that the country and its professed freedoms do not mean the same thing to a person whose ancestors were slaves and continue to be treated as second class citizens in the 21st century.
You should study the numbers more carefully. They show that, especially in police activities, institutional racism is a fact. Something that bringing attention to can only help.
These owners can decide what a players behavior is on the field. The owners have collectively kept him out of a job, even to the expense of their own profits and winning tradition. He is certainly better than most available to play. That now becomes part of the protest. These players are well aware of the possibility of losing their jobs because of their behavior, yet, they are willing to put their livelihoods on the line to make the point.
I have to laugh at the hypocrisy of those who disagree with this protest as they sit on the flag because it is sewn onto the ass of their jeans, or wear in on every article of clothing possible in direct opposition to the US Flag Code.
Sorry I can't get worked up about this issue as you have, but between the obscene words of the president and the obscene idol worship of ball players, I could care less and I don't perceive it as an insult to America.
Those with military family members have been hurt by this. When Kaepernick wore socks on the field that showed the police as pigs, he made a statement about more than racism. When he said this is a police state, he made another one. The person who said the police are slave keepers made yet another one. When you go out to destroy what keeps order, what will you replace it with? Have those taking a knee thought about what comes next when they back the side against law and order. I don't doubt we have racist members of the police force. Fix that. Don't destroy the whole system that goes in when the rest of us run out. We also have had those encouraging killing police officers-- randomly. It is a very discouraging time for any kind of logic on any issue.
Rain Trueax: "Those with military family members have been hurt by this."
Oh really? How?
"When [Kaepernick] said this is a police state, he made another one."
It is a police state. Please, Rain, wake up! The country has moved more and more toward militarized police forces for at least the last couple of decades.
"The person who said the police are slave keepers made yet another one."
If you lived within black skin in this nation, you'd undoubtedly feel the same way.
"When you go out to destroy what keeps order, what will you replace it with?"
Law and order, paid for with the relinquishing of personal freedoms and rights, I'm sure is not what you had in mind. "Say it ain't so, Joe."
"Have those taking a knee thought about what comes next when they back the side against law and order."
I'm sensing we see this whole thing differently. I see it -- meaning the protests against systemic racism -- as just that. I think you're seeing their protests as a call for total anarchy. If I'm correct in my assumption, why do you feel this way?
"Don't destroy the whole system that goes in when the rest of us run out."
If the "whole system" is broken, sometimes that's what needs to be done.
"We also have had those encouraging killing police officers-- randomly"
Yes, but they're totally fringe elements. It's very similar to Mr. Paine's hysteria and incorrect assumption about election fraud. Just because it's a handful of individuals making the claim (or fraudulently using someone's identity), doesn't make it a movement or a cause.
"It is a very discouraging time for any kind of logic on any issue."
Of course it is -- it's a fourth turning, a period that is invariably marked by great turmoil and crisis. Get used to it. It's only going to escalate in coming years.
https://youtu.be/BNJUsE7pEs4 tells it like it is.
The whole purpose of a protest is to get noticed. Thanks Trump for all your free publicity.
Paul, I don't know how minimal Kaepernick's influence was as many players, even in other sports, and including a case of a Little League team taking a knee have been well evidenced. It seemed this trend was waxing rather than waning, sir, and this was long before Trump's boorish and juvenile tweet.
The fact that now there are even more players and NFL owners aligning against Trump on this goes to prove my point. This is more about being against Trump than it is about actual racism for some of them.
For the record, I absolutely agree with you that it is a sad statement of our culture and times that professional athletes are revered as heroes. While I have enjoyed watching professional sports and even admire the great talent that some of the players have, I have never considered any of them as my hero. People that put their lives on the line to help and to defend others are my heroes. Those that sacrifice greatly for the benefit of others are my heroes; not some pampered millionaire athletes.
And no, I am not suggesting that racism does not exist. I know that it does sadly exist. That said, while there are indeed some police that are racist, I honestly believe that a vast majority of them are not and are actually police officers for the right reasons. That said, those that are bad and racist cops need to be ferreted out and removed from the police forces. Painting all police officers as suspect, which often times seems to be what happens, is grossly unfair and dangerous to the maintaining of law and order though.
That said, when a police officer that patrols a predominantly Black inner city neighborhood is confronted with a situation that legitimately calls for him to use deadly force, that is not racism but rather simply demographics and the law of averages, sir. The same would be true of the likelihood of having to shoot a person of Chinese ancestry if one were a police officer long enough that patrolled China town in a large city.
As for Kaepernick, I think he is a talented enough player, but I think a lot of owners and coaches don't want the sideshow distraction when they are trying to coach a team. At least that used to be true. We will see if some team picks him up now. His other antics, as Rain pointed out in her comment, suggest to me that Mr. Kaepernick and his broad-strokes painting of all police officers as pigs, is a part of the problem. The fact that he was raised by two white parents in a middle class neighborhood, went to a good high school and was a very good student, and then went on to a good college hardly smacks of monumental oppression towards him.
His stance against the national anthem and by inference towards our nation is very disrespectful to me and to the many good folks that I served with in the Navy to protect our country. He has every right to do so, but I don't have to like it. And I certainly do not.
Trump, as always, was a boorish fool, but the NFL made this very real and important issue about Trump instead of racism when they all responded to him as they did instead of giving voice to their cause.
In the grand scheme of things, this NFL knee-taking fiasco is really not a big deal, but I suspect it will ultimately be far more harmful to the league and its players as most Americans will probably side with my sentiments on this matter, I suspect.
Rain, as always, I appreciate your well-reasoned comment and completely agree with every aspect of what you stated. Thank you!
"We also have had those encouraging killing police officers-- randomly" ~ Rain
"Yes, but they're totally fringe elements. It's very similar to Mr. Paine's hysteria and incorrect assumption about election fraud. Just because it's a handful of individuals making the claim (or fraudulently using someone's identity), doesn't make it a movement or a cause." ~ JG
JG, the fringe elements seem to be growing. I don't know what is in Kaepernick's heart. Perhaps he is sincere and wants to bring attention to the plight of those afflicted by racism. His choice in doing so by denigrating the police seem like more of a stunt and a tantrum to me though. His "fringe" act supposedly about systemic racism in this nation that had recently elected and re-elected its first black president smacks of opportunism to me. He certainly didn't use the platform that Trump gave him last week to make his case. Instead, his acolytes in the NFL used that public attention to make it about Trump's boorish behavior.
Jerry Critter, that is why all of this recent publicity was all for not, Jerry Critter, my friend! It did nothing to promote the cause. It just became a pissing match about politics.
Oh, and the hypocrisy of the NFL is apparent and disgusting. They don't have a problem with players taking a knee in disrespect to our flag, anthem, and country (and yes, this does hurt veterans like me, JG) but they do have a problem and would not allow players to wear a patch in support of police officers after cops in Dallas were killed during a BLM march.
I am truly done with the NFL now.
JG has shown again that he is not a liberal with whom conservatives like Mr. Paine and myself can agree with or find comprise, but is a leftist, who desires the destruction of the USA and all that it stands for.
Were Kaepernick's socks okay, JG? I have heard the chants of kill the cops and can't see any way that is seen as anything but a desire to get rid of the police. Some of them killed in ambushes were unrelated to any racism but just a kill anybody in blue. I also read this article about the issue that some say has begun this-- http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451466/police-violence-against-black-men-rare-heres-what-data-actually-say
I get it that stopping someone just for being black is humiliating and threatening. But train the police officers better. Pay better salaries. Get rid of any of them that even once misuse their power by firing them. Nobody is saying nothing has been done that is wrong. But fix it. Don't demand to destroy the whole system especially by athletes who probably don't have a lot of information about what really happens, who have gone to usually elite colleges, and now get salaries way over what anyone else could imagine. Some of them, taking the knee, are probably genuinely concerned for their brothers but why not make a bigger deal about what is going on in Chicago? Right now black on black violence is a far greater threat than the police.
From the time I was a little girl, I was told to always obey police officers, be careful of what I do around them that it's not threatening--- and that goes way back. I get it that police can misuse their powers. We should all be concerned about that but how does that mean the flag and our whole country is considered so evil that it can be disrespected? Some of this, of course, is my age, where being polite and following the rules was how you got ahead.
As for those with family members serving, I think they fear this country heading back to the Vietnam era for how service people were treated. The fact that they are sacrificing with having their loved ones overseas and in danger is tough enough without feeling that the country doesn't appreciate them. I've read their words of pain-- and it's emotional. I also read one college person suggesting no veteran should be permitted in a four-year college-- let them go to community colleges. It can't happen. It's only one but sometimes from such small beginnings bigger things happen. That's why those socks mattered to me when Kaepernick chose to wear them in a game. To equate police officers with pigs is certainly a threat or don't you see it that way?
I see most police officers as trying to make the country safer. They try to help others and risk their lives doing it-- like the recent ones killed in California when they went to try and settle a domestic dispute and were ambushed. Loose lips sink ships (gotta laugh at the age of that one but then I am an old woman and have a lot of those in how I was raised!)
"JG has shown again that he is not a liberal with whom conservatives like Mr. Paine and myself can agree with or find comprise, but is a leftist, who desires the destruction of the USA and all that it stands for." ~ Majormajor
At first I kind of winced when I read this statement, Majormajor, and then I thought more about it. By Jefferson's Guardian's own admission he does not see nor want to find common ground with conservatives. I know he wants what he thinks is best for our nation and our planet; I simply disagree vehemently with his economics and politics on how we should arrive at that better nation and planet. I do find it ironic that many of the things JG proposes are not things that his guardianship of his namesake, Thomas Jefferson, would likely support; his economic penchant for socialism being at the top of the list.
Again Rain, I thank you for your comment.
"It's only one but sometimes from such small beginnings bigger things happen." ~ Rain
Indeed, it only took the one person of Colin Kaepernick to be the genesis of this current fiasco we are seeing played out my many before us.
Thank you, T.Paine. I appreciate that you are providing a place people can discuss issues without insults. We might disagree, but when we can discuss what happened and where we think it goes, it's a win/win even when we disagree.
Mr. Paine,,
I too am over the NFL, forever. I question if the owners will be willing to pay the salary's of their players from their own pockets once the ticket sales drop and TV ratings tank. We will see if they really are "social warriors down for the struggle" or just white privileged billionaires?
(LOL Mr. Paine, just a little sarcasm.)
T. Paine: "By Jefferson's Guardian's own admission he does not see nor want to find common ground with conservatives. I know he wants what he thinks is best for our nation and our planet; I simply disagree vehemently with his economics and politics on how we should arrive at that better nation and planet.
Mr. Paine, as usual you see what you want to see. I used bold font in your quotation immediately above simply because I have to disagree. Never did I indicate I didn't "want to" find common ground with you or other conservatives, only that I "could not" -- not in good conscience, anyway. Here, below is the quotation from me which I believe you referenced when coming to your slanted conclusion:
"Mr. Paine, we've gone around-and-around on this subject. Until you realize, that we realize, that nothing 'best' for this country will ever come to fruition under a plutocratic corporatocracy, we have no commonality."
If I'm incorrect, please quote my exact words where I wrote I did not "want to" find common ground with conservatives. Also, if the words "plutocratic" or "corporatocracy" find no meaning with you, I'll be more than happy to define them.
As far as your statement about finding vehement disagreement with me on how to best solve the problems of this nation and planet, the feeling is mutual. As I've said so many times to you, Mr. Paine, you're comfortable with the status quo and see no need to destroy your cozy cocoon. I submit that you take joy as frequently as you can, because it will not last too much longer.
"I do find it ironic that many of the things JG proposes are not things that his guardianship of his namesake, Thomas Jefferson, would likely support..."
I disagree, but I've read and studied the life of Jefferson more than you. I can understand how you'd have such a hollow and common viewpoint of the man and his ideas.
"...his economic penchant for socialism being at the top of the list."
Jefferson never narrowly defined himself in any particular way, Mr. Paine, and neither do I. If you're intent on doing otherwise, please feel free. I don't mind.
I do, however, realize that capitalism, as we know it, has morphed into a monopolistic destructive force that has intertwined with and taken over our democratic processes. Your say, and my say, mean nothing in Washington -- the seat of the corporate state. As long as the powers-that-be can keep the American people entertained with imaginings of democracy -- and all the props and theater this employs -- we'll continue down the road of nihilism where you'll be able to ride the horse of capitalism merrily into the ground.
Enjoy your ride, Mr. Paine, but I truly don't see any common sense in finding common ground with your ideas of democratic and ecological self-mutilation.
"I question if the owners will be willing to pay the salary's of their players from their own pockets once the ticket sales drop and TV ratings tank. We will see if they really are "social warriors down for the struggle" or just white privileged billionaires?" ~ Majormajor
Good point. Further, I see where this is already bringing up another disconcerting problem for the NFL teams and owners. Many cities have their stadiums financed in part by public bonds or by giving them infrastructure tax breaks that were intended to be used for bridges and roads and such. There is now talk of federal legislation being put forth to prevent the NFL from being subsidized by tax payers. The fact that these billionaire owners and millionaire players are subsidized with corporate welfare is indeed a travesty. Perhaps now they will have to finally foot the bill themselves, which will be harder to do as they continue to lose viewership over their abject disrespect for the nation that has provided them the opportunity to get very rich playing a game.
Here is a recent poll on the issue and it doesn't look good for the players that want to insert their politics into football games. Frankly, if the result of Kaepernick's foolish political ploy is to remove tax payer funding of stadiums, then this may have brought about some good after all. It certainly doesn't seem to have made any difference in curbing racism.
http://remingtonresearchgroup.com/
JG, I must admit to chuckling when you proclaim that I "see what I want to see" and don't seemingly realize the irony of this coming from you, sir.
"...please quote my exact words where I wrote I did not 'want to' find common ground with conservatives. Also, if the words 'plutocratic' or 'corporatocracy' find no meaning with you, I'll be more than happy to define them." ~ JG
I did a cursory scan and could not find your exact words admittedly. Perhaps it was your tone that made me think you had no desire to find common ground with anyone that did not believe as you do. As for you condescension in offering to define things for me, I appreciate your offer, but I am well versed already, sir.
And contrary to your statement, I absolutely am unsatisfied with the status quo; however, your desired world view is to push it more towards dubious environmentalism and historically-proven reckless socialism. I simply wish to work to remove the cronyism and corruption out of capitalism as best we can. I look to shrink an intrusive, inefficient, and corrupt government, whereas you seemingly want programs to expand their power over us. The government should fear the people; not the other way around as it currently is.
"...I've read and studied the life of Jefferson more than you. I can understand how you'd have such a hollow and common viewpoint of the man and his ideas." ~ JG
Perhaps, but I think you might be surprised, sir. Judging by your past history on various topics, I suspect you have read far more into Jefferson what you would like to think he was about then what he actually espoused.
"Your say, and my say, mean nothing in Washington -- the seat of the corporate state. As long as the powers-that-be can keep the American people entertained with imaginings of democracy -- and all the props and theater this employs -- we'll continue down the road of nihilism..." ~ JG
Ah, we can end on a point of agreement, albeit your solution of socialism fixing the problem is hopelessly naive and counter to the reality of history, sir.
I don't necessarily think it was wrong for President Trump to call out the NFL on this mess. How he did it was wrong however.
"At first I thought it was inappropriate for Kaepernick to protest on the job. But he still has the right." ` Dubya
I agree that it was inappropriate and yet he still had the right to do so, since his employer allowed it.
"Trump’s racism, and Kaepernick’s protest against it, has certainly succeeded in bringing all the racists out of the closet, hasn't he?" ~ Dubya
Don't fool yourself, Dave. Kaepernick's protest was not about Trump. Indeed he started this nonsense before Trump was even in office. Kapernick decked himself out in pig/police socks and took a knee supposedly to protest police brutality and oppression of black people. I still am missing the connection on how disrespecting our nation by such an ignorant display helps that cause, but that is what he proclaimed. Trump came along after the fact and dangled the bait by boorishly calling out this means of protest. The NFL players showed this wasn't about oppression and racism by their making this about Trump instead. In other words, for most of the over-paid whiners, it was only a show and about politics.
"The racists want to frame his protest on the flag and anthem while they continue to call BLM a racist hate group and insist "fine people" marched with the Nazis and Klan." ~ Dubya
Sigh. One step forward and two steps back, huh? So are you saying that those folks that find this manner of protest and disrespect of our anthem, flag, and nation are racists, Dave? If we don't support this manner of protest, we are all obviously bigots in your eyes, sir? As for the BLM, I'll rehash this one more time for you; there are many good people with sincere motives to bring about needed change that partake of the BLM rallies and marches. Sadly, there are also members that are indeed racists and hateful that use these marches as means not to get out their message but to vandalize property and assault people and officers. Even a BLM leader put forth her racist "requests" for the rest of us "bigoted" white folks to consider.
As for you continuously taking my words out of context, I really should not be surprised. What I said was that their were good and fine people that showed up in Charlotesville that simply did not want the statue of Robert E. Lee removed. They weren't racists. They weren't Nazis. They weren't members of the KKK; however, when they are surrounded by such members, they were automatically lumped in with them -- understandably even. This is akin to the good people marching with the best of intentions with the BLM protests being overshadowed by the thugs wishing to do violence and diluting the message of the group. Does that make sense, Dave, or do you still wish to keep twisting my words to suit your political agenda?
Black men shot in the back or unjustly is not what any decent American wants. Perpetrators of such injustices should be punished. Racism, from whatever corner it is espoused, should be rejected. We should band together not as black and white people, but as Americans in demanding that this is so. Surely you agree with this, right Dave?
NFL players showed this wasn't about oppression and racism by their making this about Trump instead
You have this entirely backwards. As you noted it started before Trump took office. Trump injected the hate and now basks in the anger. Trump made it about him. Do you not see that?
Do you understand what life was and is like for those Black players? DWB was always on their mind every time they get into a car. Did you know Seattle Seahawks player Michael Bennett was thrown to the ground, threatened, and handcuffed for no reason other than being a black man?
Just as con-servatives refuse to see that BLM protests BAD cops, not all cops, they see only what they want to see in other protests.
Kaepernick explained those “evil cartoon socks”, not that any Angry White Con-servatives would care to understand.
"I wore these socks, in the past, because the rogue cops that are allowed to hold positions in police departments, not only put the community in danger, but also put the cops that have the right intentions in danger by creating an environment of tension and mistrust. I have two uncles and friends who are police officers and work to protect and serve ALL people. So before these socks, which were worn before I took my public stance, are used to distract from the real issues, I wanted to address this immediately."
Many Angry White Con-servatives latch onto anything to amplify their hate and racism. Look at Trump.
Racism, from whatever corner it is espoused, should be rejected. We should band together not as black and white people, but as Americans in demanding that this is so. Surely you agree with this, right Dave?
Of course I agree. But we have a racist in the White House inflaming hate and giving a pass to those marching with Nazis. We’ve heard you and Trump make this claim with no supporting evidence.
If you please, can you give us one name of someone marching with the Klan and Nazis who was not “with them”?
"Trump’s racism"
Examples please or is the Dubya playing the race card,,,again? When all else fails play the race card has been the stock n trade of leftist from day one. It doesn't matter of there is no racism, just the accusation of racism paints their opponents with a dirty paint brush, making their argument less worthy, leas valuable. And Leftism can not compete in the free market place of ideas.
Mr.Paine,
With JG you are dealing with a New Age Radical Leftist. They will never compromise because they really believe they have all and the ONLY answers to all problem. Since there is no middle ground to met them on I recommend you just ignore them.
I know, Dave, I know. The hate is only coming from the right. No hate is ever perpetrated by the left.
Further, I acknowledged that many people in BLM (probably most) are indeed protesting bad cops. Do you know anyone on the right that is standing up for bad cops, just out of curiosity? If so, they are idiots and I unequivocally denounce them. It is the fringe elements (and occasional BLM leader) that dilute this truly important message with their hate and violence.
As for Kaepernick's explanation of his socks, well that makes it all okay then. Those pig/police socks only represented BAD COPS. I couldn't tell from the stands that those were "bad pig cops". I am sure that explanation set Kaepernick's police relatives and friends at ease.
"If you please, can you give us one name of someone marching with the Klan and Nazis who was not 'with them'?" ~ Dubya
Nope, I can't, but I can give you some names of BLM leaders that are racist. And to clarify, it was my understanding that people gathered in the park to protest the removal of the statue of Robert E. Lee. They did not all link arms and march together, Dave.
Majormajor, I don't let people's opposing viewpoints get to me. In fact I think it is healthy for them to vigorously and passionately debate these ideas. It is something the right has done poorly in recent years, hence the rise of so much historically and economically proven foolishness on our college campuses. The scary thing is that these well-meaning but historically, economically, and civics-illiterate college students may be our future leaders. THAT is what is truly frightening as we continue running right down the rabbit hole.
It is important to counter their wrong ideals and beliefs with charity and good humor whenever and wherever possible. We will be mocked, belittled, lied about, and hated, but in the end of all things, Truth wins. I know that you know this too, my friend!
Mr. Paine,
I would be very enlightened to learn the truth that you and Majormajor comprehend, but I cannot.
"Trump’s racism, and Kaepernick’s protest against it, has certainly succeeded in bringing all the racists out of the closet, hasn't he?"
To clarify for accuracy, “it” was referring to racism, not just Trump’s racism.
it was my understanding that people gathered in the park to protest the removal of the statue of Robert E. Lee.
Perhaps you are unaware this protest was a promoted as a “Unite the Right” gathering, organized by Nazis and the Klan. They literally surrounded the statue with their torches blazing.
” They did not all link arms and march together” They chanted and carried torches. Those are the ones I’m talking about. I can’t see where someone decent would be among them. Perhaps you can explain.
And to be clear, I don’t call those who want the statue removed racists or Nazis. They see it as a tribute to a great general, on the wrong side of history.
You’re still angry at the Black woman’s “demands”? Do you feel threatened by her? The only hate she shows is for those torch waving types.
It doesn't matter of there is no racism,
Many racists will never admit, or even understand, they are racists. But they voted for one. They defend him. And they dismiss the relevant facts.
From Ta-Nehisi Coates in “The First White President” published in The Atlantic
“I think if you own a business that attempts to keep black people from renting from you; if you are reported to say that you don’t want black people counting your money; if you say — and not even reported, just come out and say — that someone can’t judge your case because they are Mexican; if your response to the first black president is that they weren’t born in this country, despite all proof; if you say they weren’t smart enough to go to Harvard Law School, and demand to see their grades; if that’s the essence of your entire political identity you might be a white supremacist, it’s just possible.”
Leftism can not compete in the free market place of ideas = Far Right “Group think”.
MOST Americans support Social Security. MOST Americans support Medicare. MOST Americans support Medicaid. MOST Americans support unemployment benefits. MOST Americans support food stamps for the poor. MOST Americans support taxing the rich and corporations. MOST voters voted for Hillary.
And Bernie is still the most popular politician in the country.
Authoritarians are the loudest minority. Look at the hate at a Trump Nuremburg rally. Or the torch parade of Trump supporters in Charlottesville.
No racism there, amirte?
Examplers of Trump's racism or stop playing the race card.
"Trump’s racism" an direct quote.
Duyba, how long have you been effected by "white privilege", and give us examples of your experiences.
Mr. Paine,
Are you sure Majormajor comprehends truth more than I?
Examplers of Trump's racism or stop playing the race card.
And they dismiss the relevant facts.
“I think if you own a business that attempts to keep black people from renting from you; if you are reported to say that you don’t want black people counting your money; if you say — and not even reported, just come out and say — that someone can’t judge your case because they are Mexican; if your response to the first black president is that they weren’t born in this country, despite all proof; if you say they weren’t smart enough to go to Harvard Law School, and demand to see their grades; if that’s the essence of your entire political identity you might be a white supremacist, it’s just possible.”
Mr. Paine,
I humbly repeat:
Are you sure Majormajor comprehends truth more than I?
Your truth Dubya or the real truth?
T. Paine: "I did a cursory scan and could not find your exact words admittedly."
Please, conduct a census-like examination, Mr. Paine. You still will not find the words "will not". ;-) As previously mentioned, you see what you want to see. Your preconceived notions about the country, and world at-large, tell a lot about you.
"Perhaps it was your tone that made me think you had no desire to find common ground with anyone that did not believe as you do."
Perhaps. Don't forget, Mr. Paine, that finding "common ground" requires working from a similar premise. We do not.
"As for you condescension in offering to define things for me, I appreciate your offer, but I am well versed already, sir."
So, I can assume you disagree with me that we live within, and are governed by, a plutocratic corporatocracy? If that's the case, Mr. Paine, and as I have said many many times, we definitely lack a common premise to find understanding of what is wrong and what has gone wrong.
I'll ask one more time, because I feel like you're avoiding my question. Is this the case?...that you do not believe we're governed by a corporatocracy?
"...your desired world view is to push it more towards dubious environmentalism and historically-proven reckless socialism."
And your worldview is to agree with the powers who recklessly abandon us to an economic system which is unsustainable and unequivocally driving the planet to ecological catastrophe and collapse.
From a commonality approach, your familiarity falls more within the dictates of the 1% than the 99%. Again, the reason I cannot find common ground with you and those like you who preach the gospel of non-regulated and unrestrained capitalism. Don't you understand, Mr. Paine, it's all the same ball of wax?
"...I suspect you have read far more into Jefferson what you would like to think he was about then what he actually espoused."
Perhaps, if that's what you want to believe. But I've never claimed to be a clone of Mr. Jefferson, but rather his "guardian" in view of his desire for expanded controls on monopolistic powers and the elimination of stating armies in peacetime.
I could very easily make the same claim about you and your chosen moniker, Thomas Paine.
"...albeit your solution of socialism fixing the problem is hopelessly naive and counter to the reality of history, sir."
Mr Paine, Mr. Paine, Mr. Paine... I've never espoused the virtues of pure socialism (and neither that of pure and unregulated capitalism), yet you continue to tag me as a socialist time and time again. Again, Mr. Paine, you live in a cocoon where there's only a right way and a wrong way, black and white, and up and down. You lack creativity and the ability to think beyond the current paradigm you're stuck within.
I've said it before, and I'll mention it again. You insist on seeing only that which your accumulated experiences and unsubstantiated beliefs allow you to see.
Good luck with that, Mr. Paine.
The "Brown People" and their devastation don't rate up there with Texas and Florida... I wonder why?
What leadership looks like:
Last Sunday Hillary Clinton tweeted this:
President Trump, Sec. Mattis, and DOD should send the Navy, including the USNS Comfort, to Puerto Rico now. These are American citizens
The Trump Administration belatedly announced two days later that they were sending the Comfort, a hospital ship. It leaves four days from now and will take another five days to get there.
"So, I can assume you disagree with me that we live within, and are governed by, a plutocratic corporatocracy?" ~ JG
I don't know that I'd go so far as to say we are governed by such, but I would definitely agree that large corporations have incredible sway over politicians and the drafting (or not drafting) of certain legislation. There is far too much corporate control of our nation, for certain. It is one more reason why I disagreed with the Citizens United decision.
"And your worldview is to agree with the powers who recklessly abandon us to an economic system which is unsustainable and unequivocally driving the planet to ecological catastrophe and collapse." ~ JG
Capitalism is not unsustainable. Indeed, because of capitalism and its globalization over the last several decades, there are far less people living in poverty now than the world has ever seen. That said, the monopolies and cronyism of capitalism are contrary to the "free market". Often times these corruptions and perversions of capitalism are already illegal in the United States. The laws against them simply aren't enforced due to collusion between some powerful politicians and major corporations that donate to their election campaigns etc.
That said, I have never been a proponent of "non-regulated and unrestrained capitalism" and you cannot find my words to the contrary, sir. Indeed necessary regulation against such collusion, monopolies, and even worker and environmental protections are all necessary for effective capitalism.
Further, look at the environment in the nations that have espoused capitalism for a while and compare that to the environmental degradation seen in those that champion socialism and communism. It is why America's prosperity and environment are substantially better than those like China's.
Mr. Paine,
The numbers tell us capitalism, as practiced over the last 40 years, is not working. The fix for that is not as simple as unregulated, unfettered, do what ever you like capitalists, as you stated. Nothing is perfect, but unless we regain financial sanity on the federal level, we will continue to decline.
History (and the numbers) tell us the unregulated capitalists of the industrial revolution caused much suffering and hardship for the people creating a have/have not divide, while a few got rich. The courts agreed and broke up monopolies like Standard Oil.
The courts also found demands of unions to be constitutional and ruled in their favor against child labor abuses, in favor of a 40 hour work week, in favor of safety regulations, etc., etc...That helped create the great middle class that developed, with more income and benefits to the worker. Mr. Ford, a communist, had it right. Pay employees more so they could afford the products they make and sales would quadruple along with corporate profits.
Capitalists have an obligation to the community they do business in and make their profits from. Like supplying good paying jobs with living wages and supplying the community with the products they need to live, prosper and grow.
Today's corporations are hoarding cash. They invest in technology, which means the loss of jobs. They invest in the stock market, which only helps corporate profits not shared with the worker. Wages have been stagnant for decades until recently when we saw a 3% rise in wages. Hardly enough to keep up with prices much less catch up with the decades of stagnant wages which put the worker behind for decades. They invest in overseas business because it's cheaper cutting even more jobs for the American worker and escaping paying taxes to the US Treasury. It's American corporations who are putting profits before patriotism and endangering the strength and security of America. All of which the Republican party has supported and voted for, not to mention the corporate welfare they voted for. The Republicans latest tax bill is just more evidence of the same.
Capitalism is a failure if it cannot provide the people with the wages that they can pay for basic needs. Walmart workers are paid so little they qualify for federal poverty benefits. Why should the American taxpayer subsidize Walmart workers because Walmart refuses to pay their employees a living wage? This kind of capitalism is unsustainable. Only capitalists realizing their moral obligation to America, will a change happen, or the American people demanding capitalists and corporations make a change.
One lesson of history we seem to forget is the largest growth period in American (and world) history was during the time we had our highest tax levels. Proving high taxes do not inhibit growth and, in fact, provide the money necessary for growth and improvement in society like Ike's (a Republican president) highway system, which spurred the growth of the 1950's and 1960's.
Mr. Paine,
I'm tired of liberals screaming illegitimate president, or immoral, foul-mouthed, lying, uncouth president.
Liberals can certainly complain about the sloppy, hanging chad, political operative recounts in the 2000 Florida election. Florida's Gov. being Gore's opponent's brother certainly called for extra scrutinizing the process, but it was Gore's decision to push the issue to the Supreme Court.
Every election can show irregularities and ugliness and proof of voter fraud need not always be involved. When Joe Kennedy paid cash to people to vote for his son, they were still that voters legal vote to cast whichever way they chose.
Ballot stuffing and other irregularities have been with us since the beginning. One of the most famous examples was the ballot count of Lincoln's nomination election at the Republican convention. Only Washington's election was without any serious complaints about voting, but then he won so overwhelmingly that no one cared about such stories in that election.
We can blame Jefferson for setting the precedent of nasty elections. The American people have to take blame for allowing and not demanding candidates to be more honest and responsible. When the American people vote for a candidate who has been a proven liar, that sets a precedent for low standards, and each election forward seems to allow even worse.
The American people get the leadership they vote for. The more Americans complain (on both sides) the more they have to get involved for change.
My main point is, these are not illegitimate presidents. They went through the Constitutional process as written in the Constitution. It's hardly fair to say Trump is illegitimate when he won the Electoral College as every other president has done and according to the Constitution. It's wrong to claim Bush was an illegitimate president when he went through the legal process as set up be the Constitution. I understand liberals disagree with the outcome, but they cannot blame the process. If they want to amend the Constitution and eliminate the Electoral College, fine, good luck with that, but until then Trump is as legitimate a president as George Washington. The people have not demanded to amend the Constitution.
Political power allows for abuses like gerrymandering and the Democrats did it when they had political majority. The people have not demanded rule changes.
That's enough ranting for today. I too am frustrated which brings out the rants in me. Trump is my legitimate president, but his words and behavior disgust me and embarrass my country. If the accusations from the investigations of Trump and his administration turn out to be true, he deserves to be impeached.
"but unless we regain financial sanity on the federal level, we will continue to decline.'
RIGHT ON PAUL!!! Under former President Obama rthe national debt did what?
Majormajor,
Your delusion of fault and rabid partisanship is just part of the reason we cannot reach common sense bipartisan solutions, but keep fighting the good fight.
Where will we get the estimated 4 trillion (the largest tax cuts in American history to quote Trump) dollars the newly announced Republican tax cut bill will cost?
Following Republican tax cut insanity Reagan left the first 1-1/2 trillion dollar debt. Bush Sr. left office with a 5-1/2 trillion dollar debt. Bush Jr. left office with a 12-1/2 trillion dollar debt after 2 wars not paid for, a drug plan not paid for, while sending $600.00 checks to all Americans and cutting The Veterans dept. during a war. The Republicans have had majority in Congress for 7 years now. It's their budgets that brought about the 19 trillion dollar debt.
It feels good to fix blame with facts, but it doesn't do a thing to solve the problem they created. Trump adding another 4 trillion in debts only makes it worse and insures history will blame Republicans for the financial disaster of this generation of Americans.
And Obama created more debt than any President you named
T. Paine: "I don't know that I'd go so far as to say we are governed by [a corporatocracy], but I would definitely agree that large corporations have incredible sway over politicians and the drafting (or not drafting) of certain legislation. There is far too much corporate control of our nation, for certain. It is one more reason why I disagreed with the Citizens United decision."
C'mon, Mr. Paine, it's okay to use the "big word". I realize it's daunting, and a certain amount of cognitive dissidence is creeping in despite your best efforts to wrap yourself tightly in the American flag, but the facts say otherwise. It's sort of like the phrase, "you say to-ma-to and I say to to-may-to." We're both speaking about the same thing. Here... despite your reluctance before, I'm going to offer a little help for you. Here's the dictionary definition of "corporatocracy".
"Wikipedia provides an even more robust explanation -- complete with dozens of references.
Read it and weep.
"Capitalism is not unsustainable."
Certainly not in the form of "mom-and-pop" trading that was predominant during the time that the real Thomas Paine wrote the real "Common Sense". Today's monopolistic powers, with a global reach, have changed the whole definition of "capitalism". It's not what Thomas Paine, the real one, envisioned -- and it's certainly not what he wrote his famous 1776 pamphlet about.
"Indeed necessary regulation against such collusion, monopolies, and even worker and environmental protections are all necessary for effective capitalism."
At last!...something we can agree upon!
T. Paine: "Further, look at the environment in the nations that have espoused capitalism for a while and compare that to the environmental degradation seen in those that champion socialism and communism."
When I think of countries that "champion socialism" I immediately think of those nations in western Europe that have blended the best of socialism with the best aspects of capitalism -- with a strong democratic political system. Those work the best. I suspect you're referring to socialistic dictatorships, which work no better than communistic political systems blended with capitalistic economies (i.e., China) toward the betterment of all.
"It is why America's prosperity and environment are substantially better than those like China's."
But it hasn't always been, as Paul excellently pointed out in his remarks above: "History (and the numbers) tell us the unregulated capitalists of the industrial revolution caused much suffering and hardship for the people creating a have/have not divide, while a few got rich. The courts agreed and broke up monopolies like Standard Oil."
and...
"The courts also found demands of unions to be constitutional and ruled in their favor against child labor abuses, in favor of a 40 hour work week, in favor of safety regulations, etc., etc...That helped create the great middle class that developed, with more income and benefits to the worker."
Of course, all these gains are systematically being dismantled, and the dismantling has accelerated under each successive presidency since Reagan -- especially when aided by a Republican-controlled legislature.
This, Mr. Paine, is the big reason you and I cannot find common ground. You're with the one-percenters; I'm with the others. I, in good conscience, cannot support the one-percenters. Obviously you can. You've already mentioned you have no problems sleeping at night.
"Further, look at the environment in the nations that have espoused capitalism for a while and compare that to the environmental degradation seen in those that champion socialism and communism."
Tell that to Flint, poisoned by penny-pinching Republican business managers.
Capitalism, or more precisely its greedy and powerful adherents, has always resisted efforts at environmental protection. The Republican Party under Trump is rolling back environmental regulations and suppressing climate research to the point the words “climate change” are basically censored. Oily corporate PR has trumped science in the matter. Look no further than this blog.
It was those damn hippies, liberals, and other evil America-hating leftists who demanded and worked toward reducing pollution, just like the progressives of the time demanded an end to slavery and then demanded worker rights by union representation. Those same evil America-hating leftists are now demanding the right to health care enjoyed by every other civilized country today, as well as equal treatment under the law.
And we are still not there. Black athletes protesting the unaccountable killing of other Black men by bad cops are now attacked as an unpatriotic, and BLM is smeared as a racist hate group.
Angry White Conservatives have always demonized and obstructed them.
JG,
You are correct in noting capitalism and socialism need to be balanced. It is not a zero-sum game, one-or-the-other choice, although that is exactly how the black and white world view of the Right sees it. This is why there can be no common ground with absolutists. Compromise is the essential function of a representative democratic republic. What happened to that? “Hell no!” to the Black President and now... Trump.
"Angry White Conservatives have always demonized and obstructed them."
Race Card played at September 30, 2017 at 8:43 AM
Major,
Obama was stuck with Republican majority deficit busting budgets.
This tit for tat partisanship is exactly the BS that gets us nowhere. My example above was sarcastic, which a partisan like you did not get. Of course it was based on facts which is why you couldn't refute any of it.
Keep fighting the good fight, but try facts sometime.
"Obama was stuck with Republican majority deficit busting budgets."
List the years that Congress passed and Obama signed their budget.
Paul: "It's wrong to claim Bush was an illegitimate president when he went through the legal process as set up be the Constitution. I understand liberals disagree with the outcome, but they cannot blame the process."
The total Florida recount was a farce wrapped in a travesty. For more than a month the whole operation was dominated by lawyers on one side doing everything they could to stop a legitimate and verifiable count, while the other side hoped to resist this.
Legally it may have been conducted properly; ethically it was not. To this day, the total process is a mockery of justice. Justice truly is blind.
JG said,
"Legally it may have been conducted properly"
That'e what I meant and I believe that's what I said.
There hasn't been good ethics (if I understand your meaning) in our elections, or politics since George Washington.
The Florida recount for 2000 was a total mess, which is why it ended up in the Florida courts, exactly where it should have gone according to our legal processes.
It ended up in the Supreme Court because Gore filed the case. The Republicans did not bring the case to the Supreme Court.
I don't blame Gore. Since the Florida 2000 recount was such a mess and Bush's brother (as Gov. of Florida) appointed the Florida Secretary of State in charge of the recount, I would have probably brought the case to the Supreme Court also. All legal and proper within our legal processes. And Gore lost. That's the chance he took. Call the Supreme Court wrong, or crooked, but it was according to legal, constitutional processes, which is the same thing as saying it was ethical. There is no standing to say Bush was elected illegitimately.
There were Democratic political operatives in those recount rooms also. The same number as Republican political operatives and yes, Republicans were in charge of the recount, again according to the legal responsibilities of our system.
Sorry your guy (Gore) lost.
We have had the Electoral College since the beginning of our constitution. Historians and political observers since the beginning have said that the math could some day produce an Electoral College winner that would not win the popular vote.
That happened because of gerrymandering (something the Democrats have also done in our history) and other coincidental facts that happen to come together.
Trump is, unfortunately, our legitimate president.
Maybe Mr. Muller can find actual evidence of wrongdoing by Trump to change the election numbers, but even if he does the only way out is impeachment, even if Trump is charged criminally.
Sorry your candidate lost, but she lost legally and properly according to our constitutional laws.
Paul: "Sorry your guy (Gore) lost."
and...
"Sorry your candidate lost, but she lost legally and properly according to our constitutional laws."
Paul, you've definitely made two, potentially three, assumptions.
Did I JG? Then why are you making an argument for the Democratic candidates based on emotions and not law and legal process?
Speaking of legal or not. Perhaps someone here knows.
Was Jeb's purging of qualified voters legal? Was the "Brooks Brothers Riot" obstruction of a vote count legal?
Was it legal to lie to Congress about WMD's already shown to not exist? Lies like the "Nukular" aluminum tubes for a program that UN inspectors had already shown was not there. What about torture? Must be legal. Is that OK for Republicans only, or can anyone do that?
All moot and academic by now, but indicative of a lawless Administration getting away with crimes against humanity.
Then there's the "get out of jail free" card for cops shooting Black men in the back. But that's OK, since the cops can just say they were afraid.
And merely protesting this injustice means one is unpatriotic too. The accusers are never wrong when it's all based on their feelings toward a waving cloth and an old waltz with lyrics from centuries ago. While that may be legal, Angry White Conservatives are more offended by that than their president bragging about criminal sexual conduct.
In fact, they flock to support their sex predator and vent their anger toward the uppity Black men.
But all that is legal, so no cause to complain.
Paul: "Did I JG?
Yes, Paul, you did. I thought I was crystal clear. For your information, I voted for neither, so I was factually correct in two-thirds of my statement. As far as whether legal process is properly followed -- in all aspects of any election -- I have my doubts. Since it's not readily or easily provable, and since I'm a fair and equitable man, I'll throw that bone to you. Enjoy. ;-)
"Then why are you making an argument for the Democratic candidates based on emotions and not law and legal process?"
Democratic "candidates". I didn't realize you thought I was making arguments for either Democratic candidate -- either from last year or 2000. I'm sorry you misinterpreted it that way.
I was arguing against the validity of the 2000 election, however. You are correct there.
Dave, I have a feeling that Paul believes "legality" means "life is good" and justice has surely been done. He's sounding more and more like the atypical corpo-Democrat.
"Move along, folks, there's nothing to see here. Believe us, it's all prim and proper. It has to be -- it's legal.
There is no way in hell that the 2000 was legal and fair. I was reading a dozen articles a day about all the ways the Republicans were committing election fraud back then. People found hundreds of Democratic ballets thrown in dumpsters and not just in Florida. The Diabold machines were hacked to favor Bush after people voted and switched votes right before their eyes when voting. Exit polls had Gore winning Florida easily but the results the next day were totally at odds with those polls.
Bush was the one to bring his appeals over the recount to the Supreme Court, not Gore. The first counting had Bush up by less than 600 votes which made a recount legal. The recount had Bush up by 147 votes but by then all the stories of fraud got back to Gore who requested a recount done by hand. That is when the SC got involved and gave the presidency to Bush.
Paul
You are dealing with a new age radical leftist in JG and Dubya, they are not liberals, they will never compromise.
You two should try living in the real world, not some world where everything goes by your fantasy of what YOUR idea of justice is.
Legally doesn't mean morally, or even correct, but I misunderstood you are not grown up enough to know that.
Of course Dave wants to bring in lies of WMD in a discussion about elections showing his importance of proving he is correct dam the facts.
JG, you were trying to tell me there was unfairness towards Democratic candidates irregardless of the process being followed faithfully. Your claim (that I claim everything is prim and proper) because it is legal just shows your immaturity of understanding.
You two remind me of Mr. Paine who tells me not to say he is a Republican, even though he states Republican positions on the issues. You want me to believe JG you don't support the Democratic position on the 2000 election, even though you say exactly what the Democrats claim about that election.
Grow up boys. Leaders lie, and our election process has always been corrupt. The Constitution is inherently racist and flawed and if you won't accept the way it is written then change it, or just be wrong. Sorry, I'm not shedding tears because your complaints about our systems show those unfair flaws.
Legal and fair are not synonymous, that's why lady justice wears the blindfold. If you do not believe living by and accepting the rule of law, then you deny the path modern civilization has been on and agreed to since the Greeks.
Idealism sounds great, but it's not reality. Just read any of the founding fathers who agreed all men are created equal, yet, owned slaves and intentionally excluded women.
When you get your bills fixing all this unfairness and not create new unfairness passed through Congress, I will vote for them. But I won't kid myself that your idealistic majority rule will be anymore unbiased than the last group that had majority rule and the votes to pass their idealism into law.
Paul: "[Dave Dubya and Jefferson's Guardian] should try living in the real world, not some world where everything goes by your fantasy of what YOUR idea of justice is."
Said King George III to the American colonists when they dared resist against and voice their displeasure about lack of representation in Parliament.
I'm almost positive, Paul, that every American black man lives in a similar fantasy, don't you?
"Legally doesn't mean morally, or even correct, but I misunderstood you are not grown up enough to know that."
You question my maturity while pinning your hopes on a "rule of law" that has been bastardized and corrupted beyond recognition to serve only the one-percenters and the corporate state?
I think you better take a deeper look at what's happening today and drill deeper into the underlying causes.
"...you were trying to tell me there was unfairness towards Democratic candidates irregardless of the process being followed faithfully."
No, what I told you is that the whole recount effort was a sham and distorted mockery of the legal system. I'm sorry you couldn't figure that out. If you did figure this out, I'm sorry you're so angry that I disagree with you.
"Your claim (that I claim everything is prim and proper) because it is legal just shows your immaturity of understanding."
No, it actually shows your inability to sift through the meaningless legal jargon and process to -- and more importantly, be offended by -- the underlying corruption and obvious steering of the election results toward the more favorable candidate of the powers-that-be.
"You want me to believe JG you don't support the Democratic position on the 2000 election, even though you say exactly what the Democrats claim about that election."
I said what I said about the 2000 election because I saw an obvious transgression by the legal system when it became obvious that legal process took precedence over the people's voting rights. Yes, you're right.
I've historically supported Democratic positions on a whole host of positions, Paul, more so than the GOP, simply because that party's historical stances on issues coincide more closely to mine. As the years go by, however, this has become less and less so.
"Grow up boys. Leaders lie, and our election process has always been corrupt."
Good, I'm glad you've acknowledged the inherent and systemic corruption in the system, particularly the election process -- yet you instruct me to "grow up"?
So, Paul, I can only assume it's more "mature" to accept the corruption because it is, after all, "legal"?
The Constitution is inherently racist and flawed and if you won't accept the way it is written then change it, or just be wrong."
Agreed, it is racist and flawed.
As far has how it is written isn't so much the issue, but rather how in this era it has been reinterpreted so as to benefit the one-percenters and the corporate state. This doesn't make me wrong, Paul, since the evidence proves I'm correct. I trust you agree with this. (Even Mr. Paine, the "Republican", sees and is starting to understand this, although he still has an adversity to calling it what it is.)
Paul: "Sorry, I'm not shedding tears because your complaints about our systems show those unfair flaws."
Correct me if I'm wrong, Paul, but I don't recall anyone asking you to cry a river over any of this. It's obvious you're okay with the status quo -- just as I've accused Mr. Paine of being. If you're hung-up on the acceptance of everything and anything, just because it's defined as "legal", it only means you'll continue to suffer the inequities of a so-called justice system (and economic system) just like everybody else. Unless, of course, you consider yourself a member of the elite.
"Legal and fair are not synonymous, that's why lady justice wears the blindfold."
Yes, I previously made a point of mentioning this. The difference is, you're more beholden to "legality" -- fair or not -- whereas my interest is about legal fairness and equity.
"If you do not believe living by and accepting the rule of law..."
Nobody claimed this, Paul, other than you about me (and Dave Dubya). It's your misinterpretation of my interpretation that's apparently causing you to have deep consternation about this. (See my response above.)
"Idealism sounds great, but it's not reality. Just read any of the founding fathers who agreed all men are created equal, yet, owned slaves and intentionally excluded women."
Idealism is great! Indeed, it's the seed from which any meaningful social or humanistic change has occurred during the history of humankind.
Yes, the founders were flawed, just like everybody, yet their penchant for equality was greater than the societal norms and mores of their time.
"When you get your bills fixing all this unfairness and not create new unfairness passed through Congress, I will vote for them."
Thank you, Paul, I knew I could count on you. ;-)
Realistically, it'll never be any congress that we know of. Who knows, though, what a complete paradigm shift will bring?
On an end note, It's too bad you've given in to the despair and seemingly futility of this crisis period. Agreeably, times are tough and will continue to be for several years, but I'm hopeful for better days ahead for my children and grandchildren. It will not be easy to plow through this mess we've created, but perseverance will win the day...maybe.
Good luck in your sullenness and acceptance, Paul.
Lots of great, and some not-so-great comments over the weekend. I will address comments that particularly interested me.
"Today's corporations are hoarding cash. They invest in technology, which means the loss of jobs. They invest in the stock market, which only helps corporate profits not shared with the worker." ~ Paul
Everything you had said prior to this statement I was in agreement with, and while there is even some truth in this comment too, sir, it needs some context. Corporations have been hoarding cash because of the uncertainty of government, particularly under the Obama administration. Just the huge changes in health care drastically impacted businesses and their employees. This was also true of the huge regulatory burden placed on businesses during the past eight years. As for loss of jobs due to technology, well that has always been the case throughout history. One of the most expensive items for employers is their labor force. If they can automate or reduce their dependence upon labor, they can typically increase their bottom line. This is simply smart business. The loss of those jobs, however, does not mean that new jobs for which we never would have imagined the need for will not come to the forefront. We need lots of data scientists today and not so many elevator operators. Further, investment in the stock market typically helps employees of those companies. Also, everyone that has a 401K is benefited by such investments. My 401K is offered via my company for my future retirement. It is the vehicle used by millions of other middle class families to provide for their futures. It isn't simply a means for spoiled trust fund babies and corporate titans to further enrich themselves, although if they do so legally then good for them. As for corporations hiding assets overseas and investing in foreign production, well that is a direct result of our world-highest corporate tax rates and labor costs. If we eliminate loopholes and then reduce corporate taxes while eliminating all corporate welfare, I think we would indeed see billions of dollars repatriated to America.
As for the debate regarding the legitimacy of George Bush, Trump etc. over Gore and Hillary, well, I think Paul did a remarkable job in stating the facts of the case. Others' conspiracy theories and misconstruing of the facts does nothing to change the truth that Bush and Trump were both legitimately elected to the presidency. Woodenman, I read some of those same articles claiming GOP attempts at rigging the Florida election. I read a lot more cases of Democrats and Gore advocates doing the same. Some from both sides may even be accurate.
As for the budget deficits, I agree with Paul that both sides are guilty for this. I think that specifically targeted tax cuts to jump start the economy are fine in theory; however, we must cut waste, fraud, abuse, duplicate agencies, failing agencies, and obsolete agencies in order to balance our budget. Continuing to add trillions of dollars to our national debt is exceptionally dangerous and unsustainable, regardless if it is Bush, Obama, or Trump who adds to the debt.
Mr. Dubya, do you EVER get tired of playing the race card? I realize it does no good, but I'll state it again for the record. The myriad times that I opposed President Obama were based on my disagreement with his policies; not on the pigmentation of his skin. It really does seem that this is your fall back argument every time you have exhausted other failed leftist memes, sir.
As for the main point of my blog post, I have stated that the NFL players have a right to protest, since their coaches and team owners allow this. I think the principle of protesting against racism and injustices for people of color is a good and noble one too. I think the venue and the manner of the protest is egregiously wrong though. I know that you, Mr. Dubya, think that they are simply bringing to light this important problem and nothing more. I, and millions of other people, see this as a direct protest on our country, it's symbols, and those that helped provide the very freedoms that allow them to make such a pernicious protest under these circumstances. How in the hell does showing disrespect to the very symbol and anthem of our nation not reflect in a showing of inherent disdain for America? I would venture to say that 90% of Americans would all agree and stand shoulder to shoulder in insisting that all people of color be treated by police and every American with respect, dignity, and justice. I further think that when a bad cop abuses his power and uses unnecessary or deadly force, those same Americans would stand with the GOOD people of BLM in their insistence of justice being done. What we disagree with is the disrespect and implied slanders of our nation as a whole by this unseemly but constitutional protest.
"The accusers are never wrong when it's all based on their feelings toward a waving cloth and an old waltz with lyrics from centuries ago." ~ Dubya
Is that really all the more that our flag and national anthem mean to you, Dave? If so, this is why you do not understand the outrage from those Americans that have sacrificed, bled, and lost family and brothers-in-arms in defending this nation when a bunch of spoiled millionaire football players ignore the actual issue they claim to be protesting for and instead make it about our nation and our asinine president. The bottom line is that the NFL will take a gargantuan financial hit because of this; indeed it already has.
"Of course Dave wants to bring in lies of WMD in a discussion about elections showing his importance of proving he is correct dam the facts." ~ Paul
Unfortunately this is a common refrain from our friend Dubya.
Lies are lies, Crimes are crimes. Sorry the facts annoy you.
I, and millions of other people, see this as a direct protest on our country, it's symbols, and those that helped provide the very freedoms that allow them to make such a pernicious protest under these circumstances.
Let's cut to the chase.
You and Trump have CHOSEN to see it that way, just as you have CHOSEN to see BLM as a racist hate group. Just as you have CHOSEN to declare "Fine people" were marching with Nazis.
Note how protesting racism and injustice is always worse than shooting Blacks in the back. Pernicious football players. Not a peep of condemnation for the exonerated white cops and the rigged justice.
Now it's all about their damn FEELINGS getting hurt. No flags were desecrated, yet their flag worshiping idolatry is offended.
It's as if symbols mean more than Black lives.
And they do. That is the dark core of racism and nationalism.
That flag flew over atrocities, too. From Wounded Knee, to My Lai, to Abu Ghraib. That flag was on the arm of every cop who shot someone in the back.
Patriotism is knowing what is really unjust, and working to make our country better. Racism and nationalism must demean the message and messenger.
Suck on those facts.
T. Paine: "The bottom line is that the NFL will take a gargantuan financial hit because of this; indeed it already has."
It is rather ironic that the one major diversion fans counted on to avoid the truth of how their government has been hijacked by a corporate coup d'état -- with all its reminders of lost jobs, lost savings, dashed dreams and dwindling hopes -- has turned into the platform for the expression of grievances about the systemic racism and bigotry within this nation's law enforcement organizations and the criminal justice system at-large.
American football fans will not abandon their beloved "circuses", Mr. Paine. Like a junkie craves his drugs, they'll be hopped-up on their drug of choice in a few short weeks. That's a given. You know how Americans suffer from shortened attention spans.
"Suck on those facts"? That is not very nice, Mr. Dubya. Perhaps you meant "think on those facts" and auto-correct messed it up for you, right? ;)
Your nastiness in trying to link Trump with me is pathetically and desperately humorous.
And the FACTS are that there are indeed some folks associated with BLM that are indeed hateful and racists, including some leaders. I certainly don't think that is the case with the majority of the folks that march with them, notwithstanding the thugs and punk-ass kids that think destroying private businesses, throwing rocks at cops and rioting are helping their cause. By the way, how do these rioters determine which are the good cops and which are the bad ones when they throw their rocks, bricks, and molotov cocktails?
I think that somehow you have missed my point, Dave. I agree with you on the following:
1. Most folks with BLM are good people that are legally protesting a legitimate and important cause that all of us Americans should unite behind and address.
2. Bad and racist cops should be removed from the force and prosecuted when they break the law.
3. Cops that use unlawful deadly force should indeed be charged with murder and prosecuted for it. They should be made public examples of for others.
4. The NFL players have a constitutional right to protest as they have been doing.
Where we part ways is these FACTS:
1. Many BLM marches that start out peacefully are hijacked by the haters, racists, and rioters that the good people in the crowd have not successfully convinced to stop with their dangerous and illegal actions.
2. Not all of the cops that BLM has railed against are indeed bad. I give you the justly acquitted officer that shot the "gentle giant" thug in Missouri that tried to take his gun from him.
3. When cops are acquitted counter to the evidence being presented, and I can think of only one egregious case of that off hand, then they should be removed from the force if possible or put at desk jobs when not possible. Further, civil courts should be used where the burden of proof is less for the victims families to acquire some sense of justice for their loved ones.
4. The NFL players have intentionally used the flag and anthem as their venue to protest against racism. How is a reasonably objective person not to construe that this is therefore a protest against our nation?
"Now it's all about their damn FEELINGS getting hurt. No flags were desecrated, yet their flag worshiping idolatry is offended." ~ Dubya
You still do not get it, sir. It is about our nation. Those of us that have sacrificed and believe in America's overall inherent goodness and liberty are indeed offended when the very 1%'s you often deride are the ones using this specific platform to display their grievances. If they had asked before or even after the national anthem for a moment of silence in solidarity with people of color that were unjustly treated in this country, I think you would have seen the results of their protests to be hugely more fruitful. Instead THEY made it about the very tangible signs of our nation. Your gross mis-characterization of this as "flag worshiping idolatry" smacks of a complete disdain for those that have put their asses on the line to protect these very freedoms that these pampered idiots are using. It makes you appear to be among those that despise our nation. I know you are not, but that is how this comes across, sir.
Black lives matter very much. So do these very symbols of the imperfect nation that has imperfectly tried to protect those freedom's enumerated in our Bill of Rights for ALL Americans.
I am aware of the atrocities our imperfect nation has committed in its history. I am also aware of the blood it has shed in noble and altruistic causes, including our bloodiest war in finally eliminating the evil institution of slavery in this nation. Is all well and good now? Nope, we still have a long way to go, but I suspect we are further ahead than most other nations in this matter. (And the fact that you would lump in the ridiculous Abu Grahib with real atrocities such as Wounded Knee smacks to your desperation in trying to find relevant historical events to make your political point, sir. One wonders if it would be far more difficult for you to list one hundred events in our history where we stood up for goodness and righteousness instead of listing 100 of our worst moments when we did not.
"Patriotism is knowing what is really unjust, and working to make our country better." ~ Dubya
Well said, and I absolutely agree with you on this point, sir. The fact that you keep missing this truth that I DO AGREE with this is why we keep having this same argument.
"Racism and nationalism must demean the message and messenger." ~ Dubya
Racism should absolutely be denounced and brought into the disinfecting light for all to see and loathe. As for nationalism, I find no fault in loving my nation and the ideals upon which it is founded to be anything other than a great source of pride, even if those ideals are not always fully realized. The protection of those God-given liberties that our nation is supposed to protect, and its borders to keep those out that would usurp or destroy these precious rights should not be taken lightly. Do I think our nation is greater than others? Yes, in so many ways. Is it perfect? Far from it, but we can all try to make it so, instead of insisting that we become just like everyone else. There is nothing wrong with knowing our history and realizing the exceptionalism that is the United States of America.
Mr. Paine,
Q: "Mr. Dubya, do you EVER get tired of playing the race card?"
A: No, it's all he's got.
"American football fans will not abandon their beloved "circuses", Mr. Paine. Like a junkie craves his drugs, they'll be hopped-up on their drug of choice in a few short weeks. That's a given. You know how Americans suffer from shortened attention spans." ~ JG
Perhaps you are right about Americans and their short attention spans and their returning to the NFL in a few weeks. However, I think you may be surprised, along with Goodell, the team owners, and the players how long most Americans will hold them accountable on this issue. To me, and many folks that I know that are like-minded, this is not something that will soon be forgotten nor forgiven. A serious act of contrition will have to be made before I ever watch another game. This offends one of my core axiomatic values. The fact that many supporters of the protests don't "get" this is because they don't share that same axiomatic value towards our nation, right or wrong. It is part of this huge divide in our country; and the venue of this demonstration during our national anthem is symptomatic of the problem.
OK. “Savor” those facts. ;-)
I'm glad you disapprove of racist bad cops. It is unfortunate you attack those who protest them by exercising their First Amendment right.
The flag is a symbol. It means different things to different people. You have no right to impose your view as the only valid one. Do you see that is what you and angry white conservatives are doing?
”The NFL players have intentionally used the flag and anthem as their venue to protest against racism. How is a reasonably objective person not to construe that this is therefore a protest against our nation?”
A reasonably objective person would understand the grounds for protest and accept their stated purpose.
And you just answered your question. “To protest against racism’. The question is how can that stated purpose be twisted into a protest against the flag, the anthem, law enforcement, the military and the entire nation? How is that thin-skinned, hysterical, emotional reaction “reasonably objective”? It’s an absurd dismissal of the message and messenger. It twists the purpose of the protest into something else entirely. And it fuels more anger and emboldens hate.
” If they had asked before or even after the national anthem for a moment of silence in solidarity..”
Of course! Silly me. Black men should know their place and ASK for the privilege of protesting injustice. Yeah, we know how far that would fly.
As I said, you and Trump and all the others have CHOSEN to frame the protest in a manner not intended. WHY? It seems so you can be angry at Black men for being unpatriotic, disrespectful or whatever. After all, they’re just a bunch of s.o.b.s. Make that unpatriotic s.o.b.s. Any further charges?
Why is it only conservatives get to define intent and meaning? Have you noticed this too?
You also frame it as “used the flag and anthem as their venue”. Yet no flags were desecrated. They didn’t interfere with the anthem. They took a knee. That is all. But again, only conservatives get to define intent and meaning. Hell, white drunks blabbering in the stands interfered more. They get a pass though. Why is that? Never mind. They are white after all.
Angry white conservatives are assigning every possible evil motive to this very benign act. Their feelings are hurt. The anger was always there, waiting for the excuse to blame and hate and accuse. Patriotism is the last refuge of...fill in the blank.
Your empathy, or lack thereof, for what Black Americans experience is uninformed to say the least.
You and angry white conservatives have been hurt, how? Besides your feelings, that is. Trump called those men sons of bitches, and as if on cue, AWC’s flocked to his support.
No harm was done. The grounds for protest were clearly stated. But white feelings were hurt and anger unleashed. Then came the name calling and accusations. Thin-skinned, resentful, angry white conservatives can’t see it any other way, of course. How do you think Blacks feel when mistreated by bad cops and their very lives are shown to matter less? But angry white conservatives are the real injured party. Yeah, we got the message.
Here’s your measure of decency. Trump calls Americans of conscience s.o.b.’s. You have taken his side. You have chosen his view. I’ll side with men of conscience every time.
You and angry white conservatives have chosen to frame THEIR protest, accuse them of being unpatriotic and of attacking everything good about our country, and being pernicious.
In doing so, you have played into the hate and divisiveness of the most pernicious man ever to dishonor the Presidency.
That is what a reasonably objective person can conclude.
Dave, I wonder if Mr. Paine stands at attention during the Star Spangled Banner, and places his hand over his heart, when he's enjoying a football game from the comfort of his living room? ;-)
Hey Mr. Paine, is your next post going to cover your horror and disdain of women who frequent topless beaches?...or your disgust for people who purchase booze on Sundays?
While Puerto Rico struggles and suffers, once again Republicans and conservatives manage to deflect and make much ado about nothing.
Mr. Paine,
Delete JG's posts.
Dump the Dubya
give them a taste of their own medicine.
Chuck, would you approve of Mr. Paine banning me and all the other Liberals who comment here? How about Tom banning all Conservatives from his blog, then there would be peace on both sites. What do you think?
"I'm glad you disapprove of racist bad cops. It is unfortunate you attack those who protest them by exercising their First Amendment right." ~ Dubya
For the millionth time, I am not "attacking" them because they are protesting bad cops. I am critical of them protesting SPECIFICALLY during our national anthem, even though I acknowledge their right to do so.
"The flag is a symbol. It means different things to different people. You have no right to impose your view as the only valid one. Do you see that is what you and angry white conservatives are doing?" ~ Dubya
Really? Does that mean that you don't have that same right to impose your views of racism on the confederate battle flag? Do you see that is what you and angry white Leftists are doing?
Dave, there has long been a national protocol that when a United States flag passes by in a parade, you stand out of respect. If the national anthem is played, you turn and face the flag, with your hand over your heart. It is something that used to be taught to every school kid before the politically correct bovine excrement that passes for education these days was inserted into our schools by hate-America-first types. Here is the U.S. code regarding this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/301 And damned straight it makes me angry when people that have lived well off the blessings of this nation turn around and crap all over it because it is their "right" to do so.
"The question is how can that stated purpose be twisted into a protest against the flag, the anthem, law enforcement, the military and the entire nation?" ~ Dubya
Gee... I dunno... Maybe because they are doing it during the playing of the national anthem.
” If they had asked before or even after the national anthem for a moment of silence in solidarity..” ~ T. Paine
"Of course! Silly me. Black men should know their place and ASK for the privilege of protesting injustice." ~ Dubya
You cannot truly be that obtuse. I meant they should ask the networks covering the game to televise their protest before or after the national anthem with an emphasis specifically on why they are protesting. Oh, and maybe they should check and see if their employers of the NFL are going to fire them for doing so, if they care about that. The fact that they make this protest DURING the anthem intentionally shows disrespect to the nation. They know the proper protocols. Otherwise they would not intentionally deviate from that by taking a seat or taking a knee, or simply staying in their locker rooms during the anthem. If they know they are deviating from the proper protocol, they then also know this is an intentional show of disrespect. That is what it means to violate protocol, by definition, Dave.
I was annoyed in 2016 when the 1%'er Colin Kaepernick started his foolish and inappropriate protest during the anthem. This was long before Trump was even a factor. Trump is always going to say inappropriate and stupid things, but again the players turned and made this protest about Trump instead of about racism. They are just as foolish as he is. They turned this into a political issue instead of a human rights issue.
"Why is it only conservatives get to define intent and meaning?" ~ Dubya
The national anthem protocols have been defined for generations. These players are not stupid. They know this too and know that the rest of the nation knows this. It has long been nationally defined. It wasn't something that "angry white conservatives recently changed in order to make political points against a bunch of black men." You know better than that, sir.
"Your empathy, or lack thereof, for what Black Americans experience is uninformed to say the least." ~ Dubya
There is a non-sequitir if I have ever seen one. Good to be able to play that race card yet again though, huh? HOW MANY TIMES MUST I SAY THAT I UNDERSTAND AND SUPPORT THE STATED GOAL TOWARDS JUSTICE FOR PEOPLE OF COLOR AND THE PUNISHING OF BAD COPS WHO ABUSE THEIR AUTHORITY BY ALL POSSIBLE LEGAL MEANS. Why is it you cannot comprehend this? The principle is a very good one. The venue, during our national anthem, is a very bad one. The fact that this is even controversial proves that I am not the only American that thinks the protest during that venue is a bad idea. Why wouldn't you want to get as many people as possible sympathetic and supportive of your cause? Instead, they want to make this about politics and stick their fingers in the eyes of those that they KNEW they would be offending. That is NOT how you gain support for a great cause.
"Here’s your measure of decency. Trump calls Americans of conscience s.o.b.’s. You have taken his side. You have chosen his view. I’ll side with men of conscience every time." ~ Dubya
You KNOW I have denounced Trump for how he has handled this. Stop twisting the facts. I do agree that their protest during the national anthem is disgraceful. If intentionally insulting your country is an act of conscience, then I think these folks need a new Funk & Wagnells. That is what a majority of most objective Americans would conclude. You and your conscience can stand with those that want to make this about politics, sir.
Woody,
FYI Tom Degan bans those he disagrees with and Dubya removes posts he doesn't like. Turn about is fair play.
Jefferson's Guardian, your snarkiness is sometimes amusing. Sometimes it is simply sophomoric.
There are literally tons and tons of supplies rotting on the docks in San Juan that have been sent in. Evidently the problem is that 80% of the truck drivers have not reported into work. Now before you and Dave blow a gasket with glee about my perceived racism towards Puerto Rican teamsters, I don't think this is due to any of the drivers' faults. I think most of the roads are impassible still. Why they don't take tractors and backhauls and clear the roads so that the other drivers can get to work and deliver goods to other towns escapes me. Perhaps there are good reasons that have not been reported, but I sincerely doubt that it has anything to do with Republicans blocking relief efforts for Puerto Rico. I am sure your non-biased left-wing media will take the DNC talking points in their reporting of this though. For the record, I lived in Puerto Rico for a year and a half. I went there with my Navy unit to help out after Hurricane Hugo in the 1980's. I have seen first hand what a major hurricane can do to down trees across the roads through the thick vegetation and jungles that cover the island.
It would be nice if people would stop looking to make partisan points when disasters occur. It would be nice if I had a pet pegasus too. I doubt either is going to happen.
Majormajor, you are not being helpful, sir. I have no intention (currently) to dump Mr. Dubya or Mr. J.G. Just because some folks use certain tactics doesn't mean that we always have to follow suit, sir. If/when it ever gets to the point of being purely abusive by them or anybody else, then I will reserve the right to ban them from my site. Until then, I think them airing their views is the best way for the world to see (or the few members of the world that actually stop by this blog anyway) the rightness of our ideas and the wrongness of many of theirs.
"Chuck, would you approve of Mr. Paine banning me and all the other Liberals who comment here? How about Tom banning all Conservatives from his blog, then there would be peace on both sites. What do you think?" ~ Woodenman
Woodenman, I appreciate your point. Thank you! While it might make the individual sites more peaceful, it surely wouldn't help us to find what common ground we can with each other. It certainly wouldn't help us to try and bridge this growing chasm between right and left, conservative and liberal. It won't help the world to be a better place. It will only help to make sure the only point of view we have is affirmed and entrenched with never any new information brought to us for consideration.
I have thought in the past that if I were to ever hold political office I would specifically want and hire someone that disagreed with me politically to be on my staff. I think it is a good idea to have an opposing viewpoint and an alternative perspective. That doesn't mean that I would often agree with that person, but perhaps my stances on certain issues could be tempered by taking into account valid points that come from the other side of the aisle. It would be a difficult job and the person would have to be very secure with themselves and exceptionally bright and knowledgeable about the issues. I don't know if anyone, conservative or liberal, would necessarily put themselves in a position to work for someone on the "opposite side". It is nice to think that the greater good would be served though.
T. Paine: "...when the 1%'er Colin Kaepernick"
Surely you jest.
"...your snarkiness is sometimes amusing. Sometimes it is simply sophomoric."
The feeling is mutual, Mr. Paine. A prime example, of the sophomoric variety, is immediately above. Other current examples: your asinine comments on Tom Degan's latest post regarding the Las Vegas massacre.
"[Banning each other from each other's site] certainly wouldn't help us to try and bridge this growing chasm between right and left, conservative and liberal."
Personally, I believe Woodenman has presented an equitable idea where all parties win. It's reminiscent of a prisoner exchange, and I'm all for it.
I've already mentioned, Mr. Paine, that it's impossible to find common ground with you, or other conservatives, until you're agreeable that a corporatocracy has taken control of the reins of government in this once democratic republic. Until you're willing to admit to the corporate coup d'état that's been gradually unfolding for decades right in front of your eyes, there isn't a benchmark from which to start finding commonality.
So, how 'bout it? A formal "prisoner exchange"?
Why do you think I am jesting about Kaepernick, JG?
It is interesting to note that Dr. Ben Carson grew up poor in the projects with a single mother who could not even read and he is called "not a typical black man" or even worse, an "Uncle Tom" by the tolerant and non-racist Left. Colin Kaepernik, on the other hand, has three white parents, a white girlfriend, private schools and scholarships, and wealth in the millions and he supposed to be the prototypical black man fighting for civil rights today? Wow!
"Personally, I believe Woodenman has presented an equitable idea where all parties win. It's reminiscent of a prisoner exchange, and I'm all for it." ~ JG
Truly? You do realize that Woodenman was being intentionally absurd to point out absurdity, don't you? Well, to my knowledge, nobody is coercing you to come to this blog against your own free will. Am I wrong about this? Or do you simply want me to no longer go to Tom's blog if you promise to not come here? If that is your idea of a "prisoner exchange", well I support your right to come voice your opinions here or not. I will go where I choose to go though, and for now, that includes Tom's blog. If that upsets you, I am sincerely sorry. My intent is not to intentionally annoy you or Dave or anybody else. I don't think that is really the case though or you wouldn't freely come here, right?
And no, I am not willing to admit to the assertion that America is governed only and specifically by corporate influence. While too much of that occurs, it certainly is not at the point that you seem to think it is, sir. If that is your benchmark for finding commonality, then I guess we will have to look elsewhere or just agree that this is a chasm that cannot be bridged between us.
Regardless of what you decide, your voice is welcomed here.
Thank you for linking to 36 U.S. Code § 301.
As we note, no law was broken. No criminal statute was violated, and no punishment is prescribed.
I agree with you that the “kneegate” protest backfired. It wasn’t the best way to call attention to the problem. It is inappropriate but not illegal or unethical. I don’t know what the best way to protest is, when politicians ignore the matter and BLM is slimed as a racist hate group. What protest would work? Appeals to conscience bounce off angry white conservatives, bent on hating whatever and whoever calls attention to the issue.
You love to invoke a “gentle giant” but ignore a 12 year old killed in a park for playing with a toy gun.
“Not my problem” is the position of the "offended" ones.
If they walked a day in black skin, they would quickly learn who is really getting offended.
My point is about the unrelenting hate, and warping of their message from protest to anti-everything.
I’m sorry your feelings are hurt. That is no excuse to call them s.o.b.’s. Not by you, but everyone in the Trump club. All that accomplishes is fueling hate and racism by those “offended” by protocol violations. There is no hatred like hate wrapped in a flag
Trump has violated every standard of basic human decency, not to mention criminal sexual conduct. Look what Trump gets away with, and then see who supports him after all THAT. Yes, the same crew who are “offended” by protesting Black men. See the difference? It’s always the Black guys on the receiving end of hate from those fools offended by a knee, but tolerant of Trump’s outrage after outrage.
Who are you more angry with? Who really disrespects our country, our laws, our traditions, and our presidency?
Who is doing more harm?
Tell your friend, he needs to hear it from you.
"Trump has violated every standard of basic human decency, not to mention criminal sexual conduct."
Fake news.
T. Paine: "Why do you think I am jesting about Kaepernick, JG?"
I truly didn't think I'd have to answer this. It's your absurd remark that Kaepernick even approaches status as a one-percenter, let along is in the club, is another of your sophomoric remarks. Though technically the annual income of the top 1% is around $1M, to lump Kaepernick in is disingenuous and misleading for what the term really defines.
The "top 1%", as defined by those who Occupy brought to light, refers to the top 1% wealthiest people in society that have a disproportionate share of capital, political influence, and the means of production. It's a function of more than just net income. In that sense, the real villains are actually the top .01%, and Kaepernick doesn't even come close. You know it, and I know it. It's not the same ballgame.
"If [my going to Tom's blog] upsets you, I am sincerely sorry."
No, Mr. Paine, it doesn't make any difference to me -- just thought the exchange was a novel idea.
"You do realize that Woodenman was being intentionally absurd to point out absurdity, don't you?"
Some of life's most absurd moments have changed history. The first one that comes to mind was last November 8th. I still like Woodenman's idea. ;-)
"Or do you simply want me to no longer go to Tom's blog if you promise to not come here?"
Yes, and I'm sure Dave would agree as long as you throw in your village idiot. It'll be a two-for-two exchange. Consider it the "art of the deal". ;-)
"And no, I am not willing to admit to the assertion that America is governed only and specifically by corporate influence."
What's your tipping-point, Mr. Paine? What would have to occur for you to see, and agree, that it is? To me, it's as obvious as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. What planet are you from that this doesn't happen?
Or is it just a question of semantics -- "governed by" and "specifically"? Aren't you just dancing and avoiding the obvious, like when Bill Clinton swore he "didn't have sex with that woman"?
"If that is your benchmark for finding commonality, then I guess we will have to look elsewhere or just agree that this is a chasm that cannot be bridged between us."
Yes, on this agreement we find commonality.
Actually I think Israel has too much influence on the US and we give them too much money, four billion a year, for what? They are constantly trying to get us to attack Iran or any other Middle Eastern country just so they will feel "safer"
I would like to see that four billion go to Iran as reparations for all the terror, death and chaos we caused them since 1953.
In case you forgot, we installed the Sha in 1953 and our CIA trained his secrete police who for the next 26 years tortured, killed and disappeared countless thousands of people.
Then we helped instigate a war between Iran and Iraq, arming Saddam Husein with WMD and anything else he needed to kill about a million Iranians.
Then in 1986 our navy shot down an Iranian airliner at 30,000 feet in it's assigned air space with the transponder turned on. 230 people were on that flight.
The list is longer but I do not get paid to type.
I hope you do not feel faint Mr.Paine
Mr. Paine,
You're correct, why sink to Dubya's level.
"As we note, no law was broken. No criminal statute was violated, and no punishment is prescribed." ~ Dubya
Yep, as we both noted, therefore, the reason that I said they had a right to protest, even if it was not smart to do so during the national anthem.
"I agree with you that the “kneegate” protest backfired. It wasn’t the best way to call attention to the problem. It is inappropriate but not illegal or unethical." ~ Dubya
Mr. Dubya! I will gladly take that as a sign of begrudging agreement from you, sir! That said, if BLM would corral in the few hoodlums that give them a bad name and march peacefully like Dr. King used to do, then they would hold and retain the moral high ground. I think the nation would rally around them and chastise the racists that are sadly given too big of a platform. If we would simply laugh at them and walk away in disgust, the KKK and like-minded idiots would simply drift off into the dust bin of history.
A twelve year old with a toy gun killed is indeed a travesty. I don't know the specifics though. Some toy guns look very real. Did the officer think he was in danger because the kid pointed a realistic gun at him? In an instant like that, you don't have a lot of time to discern if the threat is real or from a toy. I could see how an officer could make such a tragic mistake in such an instance. I am not saying that is what happened because I don't know the particulars, but if that is the case, any decent person would have a hard time emotionally dealing with his killing of a child. (even if it were a real gun, I dare say.)
Next, I agree that Trump is an embarrasment at best in many ways. Pointing to his egregious behavior does not help you, BLM, or anybody else hold on to the moral high ground however. I don't get to break the law just because some idiot whom I despise also is breaking the law? I (morally) don't get to be hateful just because some idiot is being hateful.
It is not about who is doing "more" harm. They both are and both should be held accountable so that they might stop.
JG, oh I see! So while Kaepernick's wealth DOES put him in the top 1% of wage earners, he isn't the "type" of 1% that is truly super-duper rich and egregious with their wealth. Got it! I guess words don't mean things after all. And you all talk about conservatives getting to redefine what words mean. Geez. I guess I should have known since you are using the term as the Occupy crowd does. I guess that is how George Soros and all of the filthy rich Leftist benefactors aren't considered to be the "1%'ers" because their politics are the correct ones, right? If Kaepernick were a billionaire, would he be a 1%er by the Left's definition? Or would he have to be a conservative billionaire?
Mr. Paine, You repeat " leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world" but that is your belief that you cannot substantiate with facts and articles.
I have to leave but I will continue this issue to night.
Respectfully, I could find myriads of facts and articles to support my claim, Woodenman. That said, how about I just give you this one from the Obama State Department:
“Iran continued to be the leading state sponsor of terrorism. Terrorist groups supported by Iran – most prominently Hizballah – continued to threaten U.S. allies and interests even in the face of U.S.-led intensification of financial sanctions and law enforcement.” ~ U.S. State Department (2016)
https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/07/272684.htm
https://www.state.gov/j/ct/list/c14151.htm
Just a couple thoughts. Let’s keep in focus ISIS remained the top terrorist threat in 2016 and Iran is the enemy of ISIS. How’s that “War on Terror” workin’ out fer ya?
We are not Israel. Threats against them are not the same as attacks on the US, although the more Israel controls us, the more likely the threats will become. We need to be peace brokers, not co-belligerents.
Israel has nuclear capability and doesn’t need our protection. In reality Iran wanted nukes for deterrence, not conquest or M.A.D. Imagine being called the Axis of Evil with Saddam and then seeing the US invade Iraq? How can anyone not understand their desire for deterrence? The same is even true for North Korea. WE are correctly seen as the military aggressor.
Do you suppose that they would cease hostilities towards us through proxies and terrorist groups, sir?
What “hostilities” in the past twenty years compare to shooting down their airliner and helping Saddam kill them with gas? The real issue is Israel and Hezbollah. Iran sees the resistance against Israeli occupation and the apartheid of Palestinians as a cause to support.
Iran does not participate any more directly there than we participated in Saddam’s war on Iran. We directly supported the aggressor and user of chemical weapons. Who terrorized whom?
As with North Korea, the only alternatives to diplomacy and sanctions are non-engagement or war. Those are not the best solutions. Bush’s war of aggression on Iraq spawned ISIS. What would be the consequences of a war of aggression on Iran? Or with North Korea?
But we never learn, and will probably repeat the same counter-productive pattern of belligerence over diplomacy.
If you want more death, more fear, more instability, and MORE terrorism, then war with Iran is the way to get it.
That is the truth.
Dave, you are correct that ISIS is the top terrorist threat in 2016, but Iran is the top state sponsor of terrorism in 2016. It would be great if ISIS would invade Iran and they could wipe each other out accordingly.
Further, we are not Israel, but they are our ally and the only truly Democratic state in the Middle East. They are faced with existential threats to their very existence on a daily basis. I agree we need to try and broker peace, but as long as certain factions, including the Palestinian Authority are more interested in Israel's destruction, I am not sure how to go about doing this. Israel and the Palestinians seemingly have less common ground than JG and I do.
You want to know who the true aggressors are in the conflict? If the Palestinians and all of the surrounding nations to Israel were to unilaterally disarm, there would be peace in the region with Israel. If Israel were to unilaterally disarm, they would be wiped off the face of the globe just like Iran's Ahmadinejad promised.
Iran wants nukes for deterrence? From whom? Israel will not use its nukes for a first strike attack unless their existence is in imminent and immediate danger from Iran. I am sure that Iran sees us as the aggressor too. We are also not going to use nukes against them either though. (At least not until they use the nukes they are building against us or one of our close allies.) M.A.D. is a western concept. The Iranian mullahs and their corrupt supporters do not fear death. They welcome it if they can destroy the infidels in doing so. Nuclear annihilation is not a fear for someone willing to strap on a bomb to martyr himself for Allah. You are seeing Iran through the western mindset of values. It is not valid and is quite dangerous to make such assumptions based on how we see things. We need to realize how THEY perceive things, sir.
Hezbollah is a terrorist group that is funded largely by Iran. They target innocent women and children. They are evil.
Iran and North Korea both rule over their citizens with an iron fist. There are very few freedoms allowed to those that live there. The respect for the freedoms and the very lives of their citizens is practically non-existent other than as a means to an end. This is why President Bush appropriately categorized both nations' leaders as being a part of the axis of evil.
As for the apartheid claim with Israel, that is a false and debunked meme from the left. Israeli citizens of Arab or non-Jewish decent enjoy every right that Jewish citizens do. The only exception is that they DO NOT have to serve in the military. That said, there are members of the Knesset and even a General in the army that are Arabs. This apartheid claim is nothing more than Leftist propaganda, sir.
And yes, I know we wrongly supplied chemical weapons to Iraq. (That is how we know that Saddam had them, as they were not all accounted for by inspectors.)
Engagement with North Korea would work better if Tillerson or Mattis were doing the talking. Trump is too belligerent and only exacerbates problems. Non-engagement will only allow the problem to continue to fester and grow as it has over the past few decades. Sanctions would possibly work if we could get China's buy in with that. I don't think they will do so though. They have been loathe to commit so far. War is a horrible option with that nut job Kim Jong Un, and should only be done as a very last resort to protect our nation or allies. I pray that it doesn't come to this, as I know that North Korea will use their nukes if this occurs.
Bush's "war of aggression" did not spawn ISIS. Obama's refusal to insist on a renegotiation on a status of forces agreement with Iraq and thus pulling out of all of our troops created a power vacuum that ISIS rushed to fill. If we would have remained with forces on the ground in Iraq until their military was sufficiently strong and supplied to defend their country, ISIS would never have gotten a toe hold in country. THAT is a fact, sir.
Rumsfeild disbanded Sadams million man Bastist army and they went home with no job or money but they had their weapons. They turned into ISIS after we invaded their country and killed a million Iraqis citizens.
Blaming Obama for ISIS is ridiculous as the whole process that created them started five years before Obama became president. The only way they could undo the agreement was to restart an all out war again.
The US created ISIS and the Al-quada was created by us in Afghanistan, both have turned around to bite us in the butt.
Dave, your post was 100 percent on the money. This is a very interesting topic to me because it high lights the huge difference between the information available to Conservatives vs the reality of what went on in the past and what is going on currently.
Mr. Paine, I have a sister who is a Born Again Christian Conservative. We regularly have long political discussions and I can talk about anything at all except Israel. She refuses to believe anything negative about Israel and repeats almost verbatim your stance on Israel.
On any issue there is almost always two sides to the story but I get the feeling you are very similar to my sister. I say in all honesty that you and her do not know what is going on in Israel or Palestine.
Mr. Paine,
So now “if’s” are facts to you?
If we would have remained with forces on the ground in Iraq until their military was sufficiently strong and supplied to defend their country, ISIS would never have gotten a toe hold in country. THAT is a fact, sir.
Are “alternative facts” no longer good enough? OK, “If-Facts” are now your reality.
Yes, we know you love blaming the socialist, gun-grabbing, racial agitating, foolish, arrogant, Muslim-loving, uppity Black guy for following an agreement signed by Bush. This simplistic deflection is tiring. Whose failed war for crony profit based on lies was it again??
NOBODY was “insisting on a renegotiation on a status of forces agreement”. Nobody. This is all the alternative fact, I mean, if-fact ridden “blame the Black guy game” the Right played from the beginning. This love of blaming the Black guy was fertile ground for the racist birtherism of Trump.
Enough. Here are the facts.
Large majorities of both Americans and Iraqis were sick of the occupation and conflict. Do you remember this fact?
The withdrawal was under the agreement SIGNED BY BUSH and DEMADED by Iraq. Iraq would deny legal immunity to Americans if they stayed. Is this too much nuance for you?
ISIS was organizing for years before the withdrawal. Bush left thousands of Sunni military men stripped of power and unemployed. Before ISIS Bush’s invasion spawned al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, drawing in jihadists from all corners.
Is your memory returning?
Here are some more “Non-If-Facts”.
The roots of ISIS go back to Oct. 15, 2006, when what is known as the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) was established. That groups was formed by uniting several groups, most notably al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Mujahedeen Shura Council in Iraq, and Jund al-Sahhaba [Soldiers of the Prophet’s Companions].
ISI took Baquba, Iraq, as its capital and swore allegiance to Abu Omar al-Baghdadi as the group’s emir. Baghdadi’s real name is Hamed Dawood Mohammed Khalil al-Zawi; he was born in 1959. He used to work in the Iraqi security corps, then left after he embraced Salafist ideology in 1985. He was made head of Jaish al-Taefa al-Mansoura then swore allegiance to al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, which later formed, with other groups, the Mujahedeen Shura Council in Iraq.
Would you like to rephrase or amend your “If-fact”?
On a personal note, I’m sorry you are frightened into believing that the Iranian rulers want to become nuclear suicide bombers. Do you believe all Muslims want that? That is what you find more rational than deterrence? You poor man.
Your fears are many and dark, my friend. And your facts are quite “Iffy”.
If our leaders base belligerent actions on such fear and iffy facts, the same blowback will happen again.
Why do we want to do something that has proven to spawn more terrorists? Isn’t that aiding and abetting the enemy?
T. Paine: Got it! "I guess words don't mean things after all."
Only when conservatives speak them. ;-)
"And you all talk about conservatives getting to redefine what words mean. Geez. I guess I should have known since you are using the term as the Occupy crowd does."
Yes, you're correct, considering that the term, "We are the 99%", was a political slogan widely used and coined by the Occupy movement back in 2011. Obviously, mathematically, the inverse apportioned to those of the "1%", as I previously mentioned and you conveniently ignored, refers to the wealthiest people in society that have a disproportionate share of capital, political influence, and the means of production to alter the lives and rights of the majority 99%.
When the slogan was created it was agreed that "We are the ninety-nine percent" rolled off the tongue easier than "We are the ninety-nine point nine percent". The inverse is, and being an engineer you'd likely know this, 0.1 percent -- which also has less oratory value.
But, of course, you prefer to quibble over the nonsensical in order to defend your indefensible position regarding your claim that Colin Kaepernick is one of the movers-and-shakers in corporate boardrooms or the highest echelon of Washington insiders -- who are what Occupy defined, by default, as the "one-percenters".
I am leaving for Canada for two weeks so I will not be able to participate in the festivities for a while but I will leave this link to show that Israel is a stern taskmaster with the Palestinians.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/41327-gaza-on-verge-of-collapse-as-israel-sends-2-2-million-people-back-to-middle-ages-in-electricity-crisis#15072119186971&action=collapse_widget&id=0&data=
I will see everyone when I get back, James
"The US created ISIS and the Al-quada was created by us in Afghanistan, both have turned around to bite us in the butt." ~ Woodenman
Sir, in a manner you are absolutely right. We went into Iraq to remove a great evil of Saddam Hussein because he had unaccounted for WMD's (which are still missing to this day) and a propensity to use them, including on his own people. ISIS rose up in the power vacuum created by us by removing the command and control structure of the nation and yes, by sending members of his army home with no jobs. As we tried to help Iraq raise up a new government and train their army and police to maintain peace and order, our status of forces agreement was due to expire. The new Iraqi government in the renegotiations stated that they should be allowed to try any U.S. military member in their courts for crimes. President Obama rightly refused to allow this. Instead of remaining at the table though, he simply gave up and withdrew our forces. This created the conditions that a weak nascent government could not defend against radical Islamic extremism that rose up against it.
The same is true in Afghanistan. We initially supported the mujaheddin when they were fighting the Soviets in the 1980's, but then we did so in half measures and eventually left them to their own devices. When the Taliban refused to hand over the al Qaida members taking refuge in Afghanistan after 9/11, we went in there again. When we pulled out most of our forces before the job was complete, again, al Qaida had a resurgence against the "infidel invaders" and spread in strength throughout the Middle East.
If there is a clear and present danger to America and its interests, and all other options have been exhausted, we need to unapologetically go in with maximum force unencumbered by any politically correct rules of engagement and utterly destroy the enemy and its command and control infrastructure. We should not pull out until the job is complete. By these measures we do not do the job half way and allow for another evil despot or organization simply to rise up to replace the enemy we just vanquished. Such is my opinion, any way.
"On any issue there is almost always two sides to the story but I get the feeling you are very similar to my sister. I say in all honesty that you and her do not know what is going on in Israel or Palestine." ~ Woodeman
Oh, I am aware that Israel is not without some blame, albeit minor in comparison. I don't think the building of settlements in certain areas is helpful to the cause of peace, for sure. That said, there are so many factions aligned against Israel who do not even acknowledge their right to exist, that they can never negotiate peace in good faith with them.
Indeed, when Ehud Barak was Israel's prime minister he negotiated a peace treaty with Yassar Arafat and basically agreed to about 90% of the PLO's demands. Arafat STILL walked away from the table. Later, when asked why he refused such a good deal with Israel, Arafat replied that if he had accepted the deal, he would end up "having tea with Mussolini". In other words, his own people would rise up and kill him because he dared to broker a peace deal with the hated Jews.
I am very aware of what is going on in Israel. The falsehoods perpetrated by the Left, sometimes through unintentional ignorance, are usually nothing more than Palestinian propaganda, sir.
Dave, going forward I am going to ignore every damned comment made when you state or imply that I or the typical conservative in general have disagreements with President Obama because he is the "uppity black man." QUIT with your damned race card. It is nothing more than a political ploy that is false, irrelevant, and foolish. Stick to the issues instead of creating a "racist" issue that simply does not exist. It does not bolster your position. On the contrary, it makes your arguments appear even weaker than they already are, sir.
As for ISIS, I am aware the roots have been there for a long time; however, a hostile force cannot grow and rally other would-be terrorists to their cause when a strong military and police presence is there to stop their atrocities. The Iraqi government was not strong enough yet to stop ISIS on its own. President Obama walked away from the table in renegotiating the Statfor agreement when Iraq insisted that our troops be subject to Iraqi laws and courts. While President Obama was right not to give in on this point, any objective person could see that pulling out all of our forces when the Iraq government could not stand on its own yet was a recipe fraught with grave potential dangers from both Iran and disgruntled former Saddamists and ISIS.
Your understanding of Iraq, Iran, and Israel is very superficial and is obviously guided largely by Leftist propaganda, sir. That would be fine if it weren't so bloody dangerous.
No matter how much you blame the Black guy, it was Bush’s military aggression that created ISIS and destabilized Iraq. No matter how much you blame the Black guy, it was Bush’s SOFA agreement. No matter how much you blame the Black guy, Iraq and MOST Americans wanted an end to the occupation.
There could BE NO NEW SOFA because Iraq wanted us the hell out!! Stop blaming the Black guy, and I’ll stop mentioning your blaming the Black guy.
QUIT with your damned race card
Projection. I'm not accusing you of racism, but you do a good impression. Like birtherism, ALWAYS blaming the Black guy IS the race card. Blaming the Black Guy for Bush’s debacle looks pretty damned racist. Expecting him to fix it and attacking him for not doing the impossible looks pretty damned racist. Accusing the Black guy of exacerbating racism looks pretty damned racist.
Our president built his political aspirations on racist birtherism. And he wasn’t the only one to demonize the Black guy. You would be wrong to say this was not a significant factor in the rise of Trump and emboldening of racists.
Your understanding of Iraq, Iran, and Israel is very superficial and is obviously guided largely by Leftist propaganda, sir.
Forget about those Nukular aluminum tubes for a nukular weapons program and all the missing WMDs. I have been shown to be correct about the lies used to justify the invasion and the terrorism that arose from it.
But you are the expert.
That would be fine if it weren't so bloody dangerous.
As if Bush’s damn invasion was not so bloody dangerous?? This is absurd projection, old buddy. War with Iran would be even more bloody dangerous. But you are the expert. You have all the “If-facts” on your side.
Here’s a concept lost on all war fans. A “war on terror” will only exacerbate terrorism. Iraq proves this. Boy soldiers and authoritarians will never get it.
You cannot kill your way out of terrorism by invasion and war. With every death, more terrorists are created.
I don’t expect you to understand.
JG, I stand corrected. The pampered multi-millionaire Colin Kaepernick is not in the mathematically-challenged Occupy's definition of being a 1%'er (or 0.1%'er). And even though the pig-cop sock, Che-Guevara T-shirt wearing Kaepernick is not a member of a board room or rises to the level of being in the top 0.1% of wage earners, look at the misguided power he has in starting this protest during our national anthem. I don't know of many Occupy-defined 1%'ers who have ever started a nationwide movement, however misguided this one might be.
James, I too will be out for the next two weeks. Have a safe trip, my friend. I will peruse your link you provided. Thanks!
There are a lot of fallacies that need addressing in Dave Dubya's latest post; however, he still wants to play the race card because he doesn't understand that my and most conservatives beefs with President Obama are due to his policies. The fact that President Obama is also black is irrelevant to the discussion for everybody but Dave. Because of this, I am choosing to ignore this damned foolishness of his. Come back again, Mr. Dubya, when you can stop playing the race card.
T. Paine: "I don't know of many Occupy-defined 1%'ers who have ever started a nationwide movement, however misguided this one might be."
Oh really?! For starters, let's begin here: The top 1%** have used terrorism scares, initiated wars, and conducted very deft financial sleight-of-hand to grab more power and wealth than ever -- not to mention neoliberal globalization which has undermined democracy not only here, but in nations around the globe.
Sure, theirs wasn't televised during the pregame activities of your favorite sports activity, but the "nationwide movement" they've created has been unmistakable and has affected every man, woman and child. I suggest you read Sheldon Wolin's excellent exposé in Democracy Incorporated - Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism for a thorough analysis.
**More accurately, Mr. Paine, the top 0.1%, since I realize the preciseness of the figure is paramount to you more than the actual power they garner or the wealth gap they've created.
JG, I am not asking this to be snarky, but rather out of sincere curiosity. Can you give me specific examples of which you speak, sir? What terrorism scares and wars were started to benefit the 1%er's? Further, it is fairly well proven that globalization, at least as far as globalized trade is concerned, is a very good thing for the world. It is part of why poverty in South America and many African countries has dropped dramatically in the last decades. Not only that, but countries that trade with each other are much less likely to ever go to war with one another. When your nation's economy has a shared trade interest with another nation's, they are far more hesitant to do anything that will jeopardize both of their well being. This is particularly true if both trading partners are some form of democracies.
I am indeed interested in Mr. Wolin's piece if it helps explain this perspective you share. I will look into it.
"JG, I am not asking this to be snarky, but rather out of sincere curiosity. Can you give me specific examples of which you speak, sir?"
Crickets.
T. Paine: "Can you give me specific examples of which you speak, sir?"
You ask for specificity, Mr. Paine, yet the workings of the corporate state do not parade themselves -- and especially their work. They certainly are not televised by the mainstream media prior to entertainment events, and nor will the mainstream media write of their exploits in The Washington Post or The New York Times.
Their undeniable influence is seen when this country enters into war upon war on a permanent basis, and under false pretenses -- usually a terrorist threat. It is seen when the government is coerced to bailout failing financial systems, at the taxpayers expense, under the pretense of pending economic collapse or ruin. It is obvious when a whole new security apparatus is put into place, such as the Department of Homeland Security, which strengthens and solidifies the previous military-industrial-complex into an even more formidable revenue-stream now known as the military-industrial-security-complex.
It's all around you, Mr. Paine. It's not hard to see, but it does take opening your eyes and looking. Your viewpoints, as with most conservatives, always remind me of the inebriated man in the following story:
"A police officer sees a drunken man intently searching the ground near a lamppost and asks him the goal of his quest. The inebriate replies that he is looking for his car keys, and the officer helps for a few minutes without success then he asks whether the man is certain that he dropped the keys near the lamppost.
'No', is the reply, 'I lost the keys somewhere across the street.' 'Why look here?' asks the surprised and irritated officer. 'The light is much better here,' the intoxicated man responds with aplomb."
Conservatives are always chasing boogeymen that don't exist, while ignoring the -- although faintly, yet obvious -- real culprits right in front of their noses.
Post a Comment