I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Political Debates - Thick Skin Required for Entry => Topic started by: Gerald Lively on January 29, 2012, 11:29:32 AM
-
Recently, there has been a discussion that characterized the Tea Party as “good” and the Occupy movement as “not so good”. Neither were correct. What I have done, is draw a comparison of both organizations from the same source for your edification. (Wikipedia)
In times of change, we must be especially careful. An entrenched polarized electorate is always a symptom of social change and we must keep the principle of democracy in mind whenever change arrives. We cannot or should not abridge the right to dissent or oppress any segment of our society that may seem justified during an emotional moment. This week in Oakland, the Occupy movement became destructive. That, is wrong. Yet, it does not mean the message should be lost. I have lived through the 60’s in the Bay Area and I am keenly aware of the brutality that is nearly traditional among the police departments in Berkeley and Oakland. It was just last year that a BART policeman shot and killed a young man who was handcuffed and laying passively on his stomach. The Policeman got a two month sentence.
Back in the 60’s it was the Oakland police who “executed” several Black Panthers, turning that organization into a militant group.
While this does not excuse the Occupy Movement for its destructive behavior, it does explain the protest attitudes in this part of our nation.
If you are patient, please read. Various philosophies roam throughout this presentation including the cautions on fascism. Do not confuse philosophy with fair-play.
Gerald
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fascism will come at the hands of perfectly authentic Americans.
John T. Flynn
I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.
Jim Garrison
Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.
Benito Mussolini
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
The Tea Party
Various polls have also probed Tea Party supporters for their views on a variety of political and controversial issues. A University of Washington poll of 1,695 registered voters in the state of Washington reported that 73% of Tea Party supporters disapprove of Obama's policy of engaging with Muslim countries, 88% approve of the controversial immigration law recently enacted in Arizona, 82% do not believe that gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry, and that about 52% believed that "lesbians and gays have too much political power".
More than half (52%) of Tea Party supporters told pollsters for CBS/New York Times that they think their own "income taxes this year are fair". Additionally, a Bloomberg News poll found that Tea Partiers are not against increased government action in all cases. "The ideas that find nearly universal agreement among Tea Party supporters are rather vague," says J. Ann Selzer, the pollster who created the survey. "You would think any idea that involves more government action would be anathema, and that is just not the case."
In advance of a new edition of their book American Grace, David E. Campbell of Notre Dame and Robert D. Putnam of Harvard published in a The New York Times opinion the results of their research into political attitudes, finding that Tea Party supporters had been largely "highly partisan Republicans" (and not "nonpartisan political neophytes"). Additionally, according to Campbell and Putnam, their rank and file is more concerned about "putting God in government" than it is with trying to shrink government.[
After the debt-ceiling crisis, polls became more unfavorable to the Tea Party. According to a Gallup poll, 28% of adults disapproved of the Tea Party compared to 25% approving, and noted that "[t]he national Tea Party movement appears to have lost some ground in popular support after the blistering debate over raising the nation's debt ceiling in which Tea Party Republicans...fought any compromise on taxes and spending". Similarly, a Pew poll found that 29% of respondents thought Congressional tea party supporters had a negative effect compared to 22% thinking it was a positive effect. It noted that "[t]he new poll also finds that those who followed the debt ceiling debate very closely have more negative views about the impact of the Tea Party than those who followed the issue less closely." A CNN/ORC poll put disapproval at 51% with a 31% approval.
Observers have compared the Tea Party movement to others in U.S. history, finding commonalities with previous populist or nativist movements and third parties such as the Know Nothing party, the John Birch Society,] and the campaigns of Huey Long, Barry Goldwater, George Wallace, and Ross Perot.] Two historians, Steve Fraser and Joshua B. Freeman, have written in Salon.com that the Tea Party movement and anti-immigration movements share a "fear of displacement". ] Historian Jill Lepore has described the movement as a form of "historical fundamentalism", turning the founding into sacred history and rejecting critical academic study of it. U.S. Senator Chris Dodd compared the movement to the Know Nothings, saying it seeks to roll "the clock back to a point in time which they've sort of idealized in their own minds as being a better time in America". Other commentators, like Jacob Heilbrunn and Michael Lind, predict that it will share the short life span of third parties in U.S. history that have faded after altering the political order.
In March 2011 Ronald Schiller, a National Public Radio fundraising executive was secretly recorded during a lunch meeting with two men posing as potential donors. On the recording, Schiller said that he would speak personally, and not for NPR; then he contrasted the fiscally conservative Republican party of old that didn't get involved in people's personal and family lives with "the current Republican Party, in particular the Tea Party, that is fanatically involved in people's personal lives and very fundamental Christian—I wouldn't even call it Christian. It's this weird evangelical kind of move." Schiller said some highly-placed Republicans believed the Republican Party had been hijacked by this radical group, and characterized them as "Islamophobic" and "seriously racist, racist people".
The New York Times reported on August 8, 2009 that organizations opposed to the health insurance reform legislation were urging opponents to be disruptive. It noted that the Tea Party Patriots web site circulated a memo instructing them to "Pack the hall. Yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early. Get him off his prepared script and agenda. Stand up and shout and sit right back down." The memo continued, "The Rep [representative] should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington."
Some Tea party organizers have stated that they look to leftist radical Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals for inspiration. Protesters have also appropriated left-wing imagery; the logo for the 9/12 March on Washington featured a raised fist design that was intended to resemble those used by pro-labor, anti-war, and black power movements of the 1960s.
In addition, the slogan "Keep Your Laws Off My Body", usually associated with pro-choice activists, has been seen on signs at tea parties.
There have been a number of allegations of racism, gay-bashing, anti-semitism and other abusive behavior by Tea Party protesters.
On March 16, 2010, at a Tea Party protest in front of the offices of Representative Mary Jo Kilroy, a counter-protester with Parkinson's disease was berated by Chris Reichert of Victorian Village, Ohio and had dollar bills thrown at him with additional protesters also mocking the individual. Reichert initially denied the incident, but later apologized for his "shameful" actions.
On March 20, 2010, before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Bill was voted on in Washington D.C., it was reported that protesters against the bill used racial and anti-gay slurs. Several African-American lawmakers said that demonstrators shouted "the N-word" at them.
Representative André Carson said that as he walked from the Cannon House Office Building with Representative John Lewis, amid chants of "Kill the bill" he heard the "n-word" coming from several places in the crowd. One man "just rattled it off several times," adding "You know, this reminds me of a different time," referring to the 1960s.
Congressman Emanuel Cleaver said he clearly heard the word nigger shouted and he was also spat upon by a protester, although whether the spitting was intentional has been questioned. Conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart, who was not present at the protest, has said that the racial slurs and other allegations by Cleaver, Lewis and Carson were fabricated as part of a plan to annihilate the Tea Party movement by all means necessary and that they never actually happened. He offered to donate $10,000 as a charitable donation to the United Negro College Fund if Lewis could provide audio or video footage of the slurs, or pass a lie detector test. The amount was later raised to $100,000 for "hard evidence." In addition, the National Tea Party Federation sent a letter to the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) denouncing racism and requesting that the CBC supply any evidence of the alleged events at the protest.
A fourth Democrat, Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina, who is white, backed up his colleagues, telling the Hendersonville (N.C.) Times-News that he too heard the slurs. And Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO who was also present during the protest, corroborated Lewis', Carson's, Cleaver's and Shuler's version of events during a later debate with Breitbart by saying, "I watched them spit at people, I watched them call John Lewis the n-word." Politicians from both parties, black conservative activists, and columnists have argued that allegations of racism do not reflect the movement as a whole.
Gay Congressman Barney Frank, was also present during the rally and was called a "faggot".
One of Representative Anthony Weiner’s staffers reported a stream of hostile encounters with tea partiers roaming the halls of Congress. In addition to mockery, protesters left a couple of notes behind. According to the New York Daily News, one letter "asked what Rahm Emanuel did with Weiner in the shower, in a reference to the mess around ex-Rep Eric Massa. It was signed with a swastika, the staffer said. The other note called the congressman "Schlomo Weiner."[
The Occupy Movement
…………………………..
Occupy Wall Street is the original protest that began the worldwide movement beginning September 17, 2011 in Zuccotti Park, located in New York City's Wall Street financial district, initiated by the Canadian activist group Adbusters. The protests are against social and economic inequality, high unemployment, greed, as well as corruption and the undue influence of corporations on government—particularly from the financial services sector. The protesters' slogan We are the 99% refers to the growing income and wealth inequality in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population. The protests in New York City have sparked similar Occupy protests and movements around the world
In a blog post from July 13, 2011, the Canadian-based Adbusters Media Foundation, best known for its advertisement-free, anti-consumerist magazine Adbusters, proposed a peaceful occupation of Wall Street to protest corporate influence on democracy, the absence of legal repercussions for those behind the recent global financial crisis, and a growing disparity in wealth. They sought to combine the symbolic location of the 2011 protests in Tahrir Square with the consensus decision making of the 2011 Spanish protests. Adbusters' senior editor, Micah White, said they had suggested the protest via their email list and it "was spontaneously taken up by all the people of the world.” Adbusters' website said that from their "one simple demand, a presidential commission to separate money from politics," they would "start setting the agenda for a new America." They promoted the protest with a poster featuring a dancer atop Wall Street's iconic Charging Bull statue.
The internet group Anonymous encouraged its readers to take part in the protests, calling for protesters to "flood lower Manhattan, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall Street for a few months." Other groups began to join in the organization of the protest, including the U.S. Day of Rage and the NYC General Assembly, which became the governing body of Occupy Wall Street. The protest itself began on September 17; a Facebook page for the demonstrations began two days later on September 19 featuring a YouTube video of earlier events. By mid-October, Facebook listed 125 Occupy-related pages, and roughly one in every 500 hashtags used on Twitter—all over the world—was the movement's own #OWS.
The phrase "The 99%" is a political slogan of "Occupy" protesters. It was originally launched as a Tumblr blog page in late August 2011. It refers to the vast concentration of wealth among the top 1% of income earners compared to the other 99 percent, and indicates that most people are paying the price for the mistakes of a tiny minority. Paul Taylor, executive vice president of the Pew Research Center told NPR that the slogan is "arguably the most successful slogan since 'Hell no, we won't go,' going back to the Vietnam era." According to Taylor, majorities of Democrats, independents and Republicans see the income gap as a cause of friction in the United States.
The top 1 percent of income earners have more than doubled their income over the last thirty years according to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report. The report was released just as concerns of the Occupy Wall Street movement were beginning to enter the national political debate. According to the CBO, between 1979 and 2007 the incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive. From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%. In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927
Protesters targeted Wall Street because of the part it played in the economic crisis of 2008 which started the Great Recession.
Early on the protesters were mostly young, in part due to their pronounced use of social networks through which they promoted the protests. As the protest grew, older protesters also became involved. The average age of the protesters is 33, with people in their 20s balanced by people in their 40s. Various religious faiths have been represented at the protest including Muslims, Jews, and Christians. On October 10 the Associated Press reported that "there’s a diversity of age, gender and race" at the protest. Some news organizations have compared the protest to a left-leaning version of the Tea Party protests.
According to a survey of Zuccotti Park protesters by the Baruch College School of Public Affairs published on October 19, of 1,619 web respondents, 1/3 were older than 35, half were employed full-time, 13% were unemployed and 13% earned over $75,000. 27.3% of the respondents called themselves Democrats, 2.4% called themselves Republicans, while the rest, 70%, called themselves independents.
Racially, the majority of participants are White, with one study based on survey responses at OccupyWallStreet.org reporting 81.2% White, 7.6% Other, 6.8% Hispanic, 2.8% Asian, and 1.6% Black.
Prior to being closed to overnight use, somewhere between 100 and 200 people slept in Zuccotti Park. Initially tents were not allowed and protesters slept in sleeping bags or under blankets. Meal service started at a total cost of about $1,000 per day; while some visitors ate at nearby restaurants according to the New York Post local vendors fared badly and many businesses surrounding the park were adversely affected. Other Contribution boxes collected about $5,000 a day, and supplies came in from around the country. Eric Smith, a local chef who was laid off at the Sheraton in Midtown, said that he was running a five-star restaurant in the park.[90] In late-October kitchen volunteers complained about working 18 hour days to feed people who were not part of the movement and served only brown rice, simple sandwiches, and potato chips for three days.
The protesters constructed a greywater treatment system to recycle dishwater contaminants. The filtered water was used for the park's plants and flowers. Many protesters used the bathrooms of nearby business establishments. Some supporters donated use of their bathrooms for showers and the sanitary needs of protesters
On October 13, New York City's mayor Bloomberg and Brookfield announced that the park must be vacated for cleaning the following morning at 7 am. However, protesters vowed to "defend the occupation" after police said they wouldn’t allow them to return with sleeping bags and other gear following the cleaning, under rules set by the private park’s owner—and many protesters spent the night sweeping and mopping the park. The next morning, the property owner postponed its cleaning effort.
Shortly after midnight on November 15, 2011, the New York Police Department gave protesters notice from the park's owner (Brookfield Office Properties) to leave Zuccotti Park due to its purportedly unsanitary and hazardous conditions. The notice stated that they could return without sleeping bags, tarps or tents. About an hour later, police in riot gear began removing protesters from the park, arresting some 200 people in the process, including a number of journalists. While the police raid was in progress, the Occupy Wall Street Media Team issued an official response under the heading, "You can't evict an idea whose time has come."
On October 11, it was reported that OWS protesters staying in Zuccotti Park were dealing with a worsening security problem with reports of multiple incidents of assault, drug dealing and use, and sexual assault. A Crown Heights man was charged with sexually assaulting a protester at the park raising the level of public discussion of lawlessness at the demonstrations. Protesters use de-escalation techniques, talking down or blocking with their bodies those people throwing punches. In more tense situations, protesters encircle troublemakers and usher them out. But many times, those kicked out or arrested return. But most protesters say that the most serious concern is the risk of assault, especially for women and at night. Demonstrators have complained of thefts of assorted items such as cell phones and laptops. Thieves also stole $2500 of donations that were stored in a makeshift kitchen. On October 10, a "methadone-addled man freeloading off the Wall Street protest" was arrested for groping a woman. On Nov 10, 2011, a man was arrested at OWS for breaking an EMT's leg.
On October 15, tens of thousands of demonstrators staged rallies in 900 cities around the world, including Auckland, Sydney, Hong Kong, Taipei, Tokyo, São Paulo, Paris, Madrid, Berlin, Hamburg, Leipzig, and many other cities.[142] In Frankfurt, 5,000 people protested at the European Central Bank and in Zurich, Switzerland's financial hub, protesters carried banners reading "We won't bail you out yet again" and "We are the 99 percent." Protests were largely peaceful, however a protest in Rome that drew thousands turned violent when "a few thousand thugs from all over Italy, and possibly from all over Europe" caused extensive damage. Thousands of Occupy Wall Street protesters gathered in Times Square in New York City and rallied for several hours. Several hundred protesters were arrested across the U.S., mostly for refusing to obey police orders to leave public areas. In Chicago there were 175 arrests, about 100 arrests in Arizona (53 in Tucson, 46 in Phoenix), and more than 70 in New York City, including at least 40 in Times Square.[146] Multiple arrests were reported in Chicago, and about 150 people camped out by city hall in Minneapolis.
In the early morning hours of October 25, police cleared and closed an Occupy Oakland encampment at Frank Ogawa Plaza in Oakland, California. The raid on the encampment was described as "violent and chaotic at times," and resulted in over 102 arrests and several injuries to protesters. The city of Oakland contracted the use of over 12 other regional police departments to aid in the clearing of the encampment. An Iraqi war veteran, Scott Olsen, was allegedly hit in the head with a teargas canister and suffered a skull fracture. His condition was later upgraded from critical to fair. The next night, approximately 1,000 protesters reconvened in the plaza and held marches late into the night.
-
I have no idea why the above post repeated itself twice. Sorry 'bout that!
-
If you click the "modify" button on it, you can edit it and erase the duplicates, Gerald.
-
A University of Washington poll of 1,695 registered voters in the state of Washington reported that 73% of Tea Party supporters disapprove of Obama's policy of engaging with Muslim countries, 88% approve of the controversial immigration law recently enacted in Arizona, 82% do not believe that gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry, and that about 52% believed that "lesbians and gays have too much political power".
:rofl;
Oh, my, but that last bit made me laugh.
Tea Party, let me introduce you to my good friend reality. You two have some things to discuss....
-
A University of Washington poll of 1,695 registered voters in the state of Washington reported that 73% of Tea Party supporters disapprove of Obama's policy of engaging with Muslim countries, 88% approve of the controversial immigration law recently enacted in Arizona, 82% do not believe that gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry, and that about 52% believed that "lesbians and gays have too much political power".
:rofl;
Oh, my, but that last bit made me laugh.
Tea Party, let me introduce you to my good friend reality. You two have some things to discuss....
It's true to them - since any political power held by gays and lesbians at all, on any level, is too much in their eyes!
-
A University of Washington poll of 1,695 registered voters in the state of Washington reported that 73% of Tea Party supporters disapprove of Obama's policy of engaging with Muslim countries, 88% approve of the controversial immigration law recently enacted in Arizona, 82% do not believe that gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry, and that about 52% believed that "lesbians and gays have too much political power".
:rofl;
Oh, my, but that last bit made me laugh.
Tea Party, let me introduce you to my good friend reality. You two have some things to discuss....
It's true to them - since any political power held by gays and lesbians at all, on any level, is too much in their eyes!
Well, let's compare the message of these two groups:
1) Tea Party (Rationale, non violent protest and affirmation of values)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MApy0FQts4M
2) Occupy (Anarchy and violence)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/15/501364/main20120893.shtml
The Occupy folks are underestimating the will of the American people who will soon become very tired of these people seeking their revolution. Sadly, the violence fostered by this movement will very likely result in bloodshed before the summer is over. Look at what a student at Berkley has to say about the Occupy violence:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/30/occupy-oakland-s-violent-turn-proves-the-movement-has-lost-its-way.html
-
It's true to them - since any political power held by gays and lesbians at all, on any level, is too much in their eyes!
The lady speaks the truth! :clap; Absolutely right, jbeany!
-
Seems like the first article was only the bad and the second only the good......I noticed the second didn't mention the thefts and assaults, or the crapping on a police cars hood, or having sex in public.....and the first didnt mention that the people who were being racist and yelling the n word were not representative of all the teapartiers, which was reported over and over- they were a few of the many sincere people- just like the scumbags stealing and crapping in public might not represent all the sincere occupiers.......
-
Seems like the first article was only the bad and the second only the good......I noticed the second didn't mention the thefts and assaults, or the crapping on a police cars hood, or having sex in public.....and the first didnt mention that the people who were being racist and yelling the n word were not representative of all the teapartiers, which was reported over and over- they were a few of the many sincere people- just like the scumbags stealing and crapping in public might not represent all the sincere occupiers.......
Yes, we must not allow insincere people to hijack the message of either group. Both groups have valid concerns.
-
I’ve had enough. I went to Wikipedia and drew their content, then presented it here. Fair? Some people can’t read. Perhaps one organization is not so good. We might all consider that thought.
Civil disobedience is rarely pretty. The right-wing is fond of isolating individual behavior to condemn a movement they do not favor, then they can ignore the message. I have been around too long behind the scenes in government and the military, and in business in the public sector to not recognize the potential (I erased the word I meant to use) for skullduggery. I am amazed at the thought of people who ignore the lessons of Watergate, September 2008, and the self-righteousness of the people who brought America to its financial knees. Listen to yourselves; all others are wrong and I am right, you say. Where the hell have you people been?
You have a candidate that wants to do away with the Civil Right Act of 1964 and I hear you people saying this guy and that guy isn’t racist. BS!!!!!
Enough is enough! How can so many people be so blind to the obvious. The right has absolutely no sense of good economics. The Tea Party is racist. Long ago, during WWII, our government recognized that the partnership between corporate power and the government in policy making is fascism. Now we have the Tea Party that claims they want to adhere to the Constitution, but they don’t. Witness the Patriot Act. Where did that come from? What about those TPers that want to eliminate this amendment and that one? And, gee whiz, wasn’t that the Tea Party that wouldn’t let people speak at the healthcare town halls? Hey, wasn’t that a group of TPers that knocked the lady reporter down and stomped on her head? And didn’t they justify that by claiming she “didn’t belong”?
I am done. No more! Wanna vote for those righties, well, stick it in your ear. I’ll be dead before the full effects of that group is felt – assuming they get anywhere. I cannot get my head around the notion that so many people by that propaganda.
gl
I am not going to respond.
Auggie, get you butt over here, we’re gonna play!
-
I’ve had enough. I went to Wikipedia and drew their content, then presented it here. Fair? Some people can’t read. Perhaps one organization is not so good. We might all consider that thought.
Civil disobedience is rarely pretty. The right-wing is fond of isolating individual behavior to condemn a movement they do not favor, then they can ignore the message. I have been around too long behind the scenes in government and the military, and in business in the public sector to not recognize the potential (I erased the word I meant to use) for skullduggery. I am amazed at the thought of people who ignore the lessons of Watergate, September 2008, and the self-righteousness of the people who brought America to its financial knees. Listen to yourselves; all others are wrong and I am right, you say. Where the hell have you people been?
You have a candidate that wants to do away with the Civil Right Act of 1964 and I hear you people saying this guy and that guy isn’t racist. BS!!!!!
Enough is enough! How can so many people be so blind to the obvious. The right has absolutely no sense of good economics. The Tea Party is racist. Long ago, during WWII, our government recognized that the partnership between corporate power and the government in policy making is fascism. Now we have the Tea Party that claims they want to adhere to the Constitution, but they don’t. Witness the Patriot Act. Where did that come from? What about those TPers that want to eliminate this amendment and that one? And, gee whiz, wasn’t that the Tea Party that wouldn’t let people speak at the healthcare town halls? Hey, wasn’t that a group of TPers that knocked the lady reporter down and stomped on her head? And didn’t they justify that by claiming she “didn’t belong”?
I am done. No more! Wanna vote for those righties, well, stick it in your ear. I’ll be dead before the full effects of that group is felt – assuming they get anywhere. I cannot get my head around the notion that so many people by that propaganda.
gl
I am not going to respond.
Auggie, get you butt over here, we’re gonna play!
No reason for you not to respond. I oppose any act of anarchy which is NOT lawful protest. In a link I placed on another thread, the occupy movement with their turn towards violence and destruction is turning off its own liberal base let alone what they are doing to those that did not support them in the first place.
Ron Paul wrote out why he disagrees with the 1964 civil rights act in line with his libertarian ideology of preserving the constitution and its unique powers. Libertarians are quite sincere but have views that are not accepted by the rank and file conservative base. The support for Ron Paul is not so much on the strength of his libertarian ideology, but instead on the strength of his integrity. While there are many aspects of his arguments on various issues that do give honor unto the constitution, the realpolitic is that the damage done already to the constitution cannot be reversed, only mitigated. Despite his fervent supporters, he will not break out past the 10% mark meaning he has no realistic chance of winning the nomination.
Nevertheless, Ron Paul continues to have an important voice on several issues that are not without merit.
The Patriot Act came from the same place the the NDAA came from. The untold story is the people that pull the strings behind the scenes. One thing Ron Paul has brought attention to that is completely ignored and overlooked is the role that the Federal Reserve plays in controlling our economy and our politics. Go back to the history of Andrew Jackson and his fight against the National Bank to give the historical reason why a central bank is dangerous to any nation. Unfortunately, we lost that battle a hundred years ago and there is no turning back.
So while the media whips up the masses and gets all of those on the left to condemn and castigate all of those on the right, we are falling right into their deliberate manipulations and traps which only adds to their power.
The real enemy isn't those on the left, or the right, it is instead those pulling the strings and manipulating through the media.
-
Hemodoc doesn't have a lot of views I agree with, but this one I do heartily!
gary
-
Hemodoc doesn't have a lot of views I agree with, but this one I do heartily!
gary
Thank you I think, but I suspect that we actually have more in agreement than the proverbial cliches of conservative and liberal could ever describe.
God bless, Peter
-
HD;
There are many issues in contemporary America that ought to be addressed. The rise of the Tea Party is very much like any fringe movement that has risen during difficult times. (see the Great Depression) Yes, you and Glenn Beck sound much like Father Coughlin.
Dissent isn’t a bad thing. We can agree that the destruction of property is not a good thing. But, the great civil rights leaders have said of such social upheavals, “Riots are the voice of the oppressed trying to be heard.” (Jesse Jackson/Martin Luther King Jr.)
The Tea Party began as an unfocused complaint on taxation, but the facts are that today’s taxes are the lowest in decades. FOX News gave voice to the Tea Party, using it to promote a conservative agenda. Glenn Beck faded and the GOP co-opted the TP. Now, there is the baggage of TP misdeeds. Forever seared into my mind is the so-called leader of the Oklahoma Tea Party appearing on the Evening News to explain his request of the Oklahoma Legislature; that his group be declared the official militia of that state, and that the state should provide weapons to the group. His justification was to keep the Federal Government from “interfering in state business.” All the signs of an extremist fringe group are there.
Where in all this, are the solutions – or even some identifications of the problems?
I submit that the Occupy Movement has identified one problem and that is the growing distance between the middle class and the wealthy, as well as the taxation problems associated with that. The problem isn’t the fact that the Occupy group wouldn’t move from a park in New York or that they didn’t have a permit to march in Oakland, it is the unfair practices of a skewed economy.
Citizens of these United States can only vote, but under the circumstances of modern election practices, that doesn’t give voice to the complaints that afflict us all. Let the voice of the people be heard. Even the Tea Party is an expressed discontent. Reasonable people would see these protest groups as symptoms of something larger.
Yes, vote to change our congressional membership, then cross your fingers and hope. Yes, care for the poor and the elderly, and show compassion to our children. In the meantime, who will correct the corruption, breakup the overly large corporations, raise taxes for the needed revenues, and who will prepare us to confront world commerce?
Well, the Tea Party is going to do that and the Occupy group has but one issue; how about less complaints and more ideas on solutions?
gerald
-
HD;
There are many issues in contemporary America that ought to be addressed. The rise of the Tea Party is very much like any fringe movement that has risen during difficult times. (see the Great Depression) Yes, you and Glenn Beck sound much like Father Coughlin.
Dissent isn’t a bad thing. We can agree that the destruction of property is not a good thing. But, the great civil rights leaders have said of such social upheavals, “Riots are the voice of the oppressed trying to be heard.” (Jesse Jackson/Martin Luther King Jr.)
The Tea Party began as an unfocused complaint on taxation, but the facts are that today’s taxes are the lowest in decades. FOX News gave voice to the Tea Party, using it to promote a conservative agenda. Glenn Beck faded and the GOP co-opted the TP. Now, there is the baggage of TP misdeeds. Forever seared into my mind is the so-called leader of the Oklahoma Tea Party appearing on the Evening News to explain his request of the Oklahoma Legislature; that his group be declared the official militia of that state, and that the state should provide weapons to the group. His justification was to keep the Federal Government from “interfering in state business.” All the signs of an extremist fringe group are there.
Where in all this, are the solutions – or even some identifications of the problems?
I submit that the Occupy Movement has identified one problem and that is the growing distance between the middle class and the wealthy, as well as the taxation problems associated with that. The problem isn’t the fact that the Occupy group wouldn’t move from a park in New York or that they didn’t have a permit to march in Oakland, it is the unfair practices of a skewed economy.
Citizens of these United States can only vote, but under the circumstances of modern election practices, that doesn’t give voice to the complaints that afflict us all. Let the voice of the people be heard. Even the Tea Party is an expressed discontent. Reasonable people would see these protest groups as symptoms of something larger.
Yes, vote to change our congressional membership, then cross your fingers and hope. Yes, care for the poor and the elderly, and show compassion to our children. In the meantime, who will correct the corruption, breakup the overly large corporations, raise taxes for the needed revenues, and who will prepare us to confront world commerce?
Well, the Tea Party is going to do that and the Occupy group has but one issue; how about less complaints and more ideas on solutions?
gerald
The Tea Party isn't an expression against taxes, it is instead an expression against a president out of touch with the people of America. Without Obama, we would not have a Tea Party. It ain't about taxes my friend.
No matter what is the alleged motivation of the Occupy movement, their tactics will make them lose support and drown out the message. If they want to do something about the disparity between rich and poor, they would be better off getting a job to start with instead of making Oakland spend 5 million dollars of money that is hard to come by cleaning up their destructive urges.
Sorry, I have no respect what so ever for creeps that use violence and anarchy to foment change. They can jump in a lake as far as i am concerned for the damage that they do to society.
Also, when is adhering to virtue and excellence propaganda my friend. Sorry, but I can't agree with any of your polemic rhetorical ventures.
I do have respect for people that will hazard their own lives and property securing freedom for all. I do have great respect and admiration for people that strive against difficulties using their intelligence and back bone in hard work. I do have great respect for people that honestly seek to overcome societal ills in a lawful and peaceful manner.
I have the utmost respect and admiration for what MLK accomplished without bloodshed or resorting to violence. He hazarded his own life and ultimately did sacrifice his life to bring an end of racial inequalities in America. He did it with courage and intelligence.
For those that wish to only destroy and annoy, no I have only the greatest contempt for that type of ignorant approach no matter what the issue is. It speaks of the lowest and most base primal instincts that is the enemy of any sustainable society. If you support these folks then you also are in support of lawlessness and anarchy.
-
HD;
There are many issues in contemporary America that ought to be addressed. The rise of the Tea Party is very much like any fringe movement that has risen during difficult times. (see the Great Depression) Yes, you and Glenn Beck sound much like Father Coughlin.
Dissent isn’t a bad thing. We can agree that the destruction of property is not a good thing. But, the great civil rights leaders have said of such social upheavals, “Riots are the voice of the oppressed trying to be heard.” (Jesse Jackson/Martin Luther King Jr.)
The Tea Party began as an unfocused complaint on taxation, but the facts are that today’s taxes are the lowest in decades. FOX News gave voice to the Tea Party, using it to promote a conservative agenda. Glenn Beck faded and the GOP co-opted the TP. Now, there is the baggage of TP misdeeds. Forever seared into my mind is the so-called leader of the Oklahoma Tea Party appearing on the Evening News to explain his request of the Oklahoma Legislature; that his group be declared the official militia of that state, and that the state should provide weapons to the group. His justification was to keep the Federal Government from “interfering in state business.” All the signs of an extremist fringe group are there.
Where in all this, are the solutions – or even some identifications of the problems?
I submit that the Occupy Movement has identified one problem and that is the growing distance between the middle class and the wealthy, as well as the taxation problems associated with that. The problem isn’t the fact that the Occupy group wouldn’t move from a park in New York or that they didn’t have a permit to march in Oakland, it is the unfair practices of a skewed economy.
Citizens of these United States can only vote, but under the circumstances of modern election practices, that doesn’t give voice to the complaints that afflict us all. Let the voice of the people be heard. Even the Tea Party is an expressed discontent. Reasonable people would see these protest groups as symptoms of something larger.
Yes, vote to change our congressional membership, then cross your fingers and hope. Yes, care for the poor and the elderly, and show compassion to our children. In the meantime, who will correct the corruption, breakup the overly large corporations, raise taxes for the needed revenues, and who will prepare us to confront world commerce?
Well, the Tea Party is going to do that and the Occupy group has but one issue; how about less complaints and more ideas on solutions?
gerald
The Tea Party isn't an expression against taxes, it is instead an expression against a president out of touch with the people of America. Without Obama, we would not have a Tea Party. It ain't about taxes my friend.
If the right worried more about what is good for Americans than just getting Obama out of office this country would be in much better shape.
-
HD;
There are many issues in contemporary America that ought to be addressed. The rise of the Tea Party is very much like any fringe movement that has risen during difficult times. (see the Great Depression) Yes, you and Glenn Beck sound much like Father Coughlin.
Dissent isn’t a bad thing. We can agree that the destruction of property is not a good thing. But, the great civil rights leaders have said of such social upheavals, “Riots are the voice of the oppressed trying to be heard.” (Jesse Jackson/Martin Luther King Jr.)
The Tea Party began as an unfocused complaint on taxation, but the facts are that today’s taxes are the lowest in decades. FOX News gave voice to the Tea Party, using it to promote a conservative agenda. Glenn Beck faded and the GOP co-opted the TP. Now, there is the baggage of TP misdeeds. Forever seared into my mind is the so-called leader of the Oklahoma Tea Party appearing on the Evening News to explain his request of the Oklahoma Legislature; that his group be declared the official militia of that state, and that the state should provide weapons to the group. His justification was to keep the Federal Government from “interfering in state business.” All the signs of an extremist fringe group are there.
Where in all this, are the solutions – or even some identifications of the problems?
I submit that the Occupy Movement has identified one problem and that is the growing distance between the middle class and the wealthy, as well as the taxation problems associated with that. The problem isn’t the fact that the Occupy group wouldn’t move from a park in New York or that they didn’t have a permit to march in Oakland, it is the unfair practices of a skewed economy.
Citizens of these United States can only vote, but under the circumstances of modern election practices, that doesn’t give voice to the complaints that afflict us all. Let the voice of the people be heard. Even the Tea Party is an expressed discontent. Reasonable people would see these protest groups as symptoms of something larger.
Yes, vote to change our congressional membership, then cross your fingers and hope. Yes, care for the poor and the elderly, and show compassion to our children. In the meantime, who will correct the corruption, breakup the overly large corporations, raise taxes for the needed revenues, and who will prepare us to confront world commerce?
Well, the Tea Party is going to do that and the Occupy group has but one issue; how about less complaints and more ideas on solutions?
gerald
The Tea Party isn't an expression against taxes, it is instead an expression against a president out of touch with the people of America. Without Obama, we would not have a Tea Party. It ain't about taxes my friend.
If the right worried more about what is good for Americans than just getting Obama out of office this country would be in much better shape.
I would state that Obama is a symptom of what is wrong with this society.
-
I don't think Obama gets the sole bad mark on being out of touch with the American people. Honestly, what president has ever been in touch with the majority of people in America? The presidents as a group are wealthy, well-educated, and have no experience of what it is like to grow up in a lower middle class home, let alone in the poverty that so many Americans are currently experiencing. Most of the rest of our elected officials in Washington can't claim to be much better. We keep electing the people who can afford to run for office, and we are getting out of it exactly what they paid for - power but not progress.
-
I don't think Obama gets the sole bad mark on being out of touch with the American people. Honestly, what president has ever been in touch with the majority of people in America? The presidents as a group are wealthy, well-educated, and have no experience of what it is like to grow up in a lower middle class home, let alone in the poverty that so many Americans are currently experiencing. Most of the rest of our elected officials in Washington can't claim to be much better. We keep electing the people who can afford to run for office, and we are getting out of it exactly what they paid for - power but not progress.
Good point Jbeany. We are already ruled by the elites, whether DEMS or GOPS, they are both on the same team perpetrating a false choice between liberal or conservative when in reality, they are playing us off against each other wasting our energy attacking the peons and pawns in this whole game while they sit back and steal more of our freedoms and economic power daily.
-
jbeany, I think there is definitely something important in your last line, but I have to disagree that presidents as a whole have "no experience of what it is like to grow up in a lower middle class home". That may be true of recent, Republican presidents (in other words, the Bushes), but Clinton quite famously grew up in Backwater, Arkansas and I think Obama is also self-made. Reagen might have had more modest beginnings but I wouldn't know.
-
Dear Gerald, let's discuss a few issues if we can:
1) A polemic ( /pəˈlɛmɪk/) is when an argument, debate, or opinion leans toward attacking the other person as opposed to the discussion at hand. That is, an argument or rhetoric becomes polemic when they have pejorative implications of the dignity of opposition. This is most common in a heated debate, where frustration or a sense of righteousness promotes hostility. The word is derived from the Greek πολεμικός (polemikos), meaning "warlike, hostile",[1][2] which comes from πόλεμος ('polemos), "war".[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polemic
I am not sure that you have any response to me in the last few days that did not involve a polemic argument. Indeed, I entered this conversation after the false allegations of Tea Party racism propagated nearly every post. If you wish to think incorrectly and erroneously that I am racist or that the Tea Party has racist motivations, go for it. You have spent a great deal of energy trying to prove this false allegation and it seems you are adequately in love with this false notion that I wouldn't in the least wish to dispel that myth from you. As I said, it will only serve to motivate people like me who might otherwise be apathetic about an election of people that we really are not happy about, but we are much less happy with your candidate. In honor of your multiple falsehoods against me and my companions in the so called Tea Party movement, I will gladly get politically active for the first time in my entire life.
2) Father Coughlin
In 1935, Coughlin proclaimed, "I have dedicated my life to fight against the heinous rottenness of modern capitalism because it robs the laborer of this world's goods. But blow for blow I shall strike against Communism, because it robs us of the next world's happiness."[23] He accused Roosevelt of "leaning toward international socialism on the Spanish question." Coughlin's NUSJ gained a strong following among nativists and opponents of the Federal Reserve, especially in the Midwest. As Michael Kazin notes, Coughlinites saw Wall Street and Communism as twin faces of a secular Satan. Coughlinites believed that they were defending those people who cohered more through piety, economic frustration, and a common dread of powerful, modernizing enemies than through any class identity.[24]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin
Gerald, I would recommend that you go back and learn who Father Coughlin was and who Glenn Beck is. Glenn Beck if you don't know is not a Republican and he spends as much if not more time on his programs critcizing the GOP as he does the DEMS. Beck does not in any sense support fascism and has spoken out openly how both the DEMS and GOP have moved step by step in that direction. In another disparity, Father Coughlin was fervently anti-semitic and supported Hitler as an anti-dote to communisim. It appears he also protested against Wall Street so you might be able to use some of his works for the occupy movement since it seems he would sympathize with the criminal trespassers masquerading as protesters around this nation.
For you to ignorantly associate me with Father Coughlin goes back to your continual polemic attacks against me and against the Tea Party. The Tea Party doesn't actually exist except in the hearts and minds of God fearing people across this nation. There is no one Tea Party organization and there is no Tea Party as a distinct organization. It appears you have spouted some anti-Christian literature in the posts above as well. So be it, par for the course being a born again Christian in this apostate nation any longer. I expect that type of rhetoric any more.
Gerald, do you have some actual issues you would like to debate, or instead are you going to keep reaching for some insulting apparition to place upon the Tea Party mantel and make a failed association to me. Once again, it is a failed tactic to go that direction since it shall only feed into engaging those that you wish to minimize. The Occupy movement is already losing its base of support from its illegal and violent actions. The Tea Party has always been here in this nation although not by that name. There are many that have a deep and abiding love of this nation and of the constitution that is the gaurantor of freedoms. This is not something new and the invention of any man, it has been here in this nation for generations and millions of men have given their lives in defense of these same ideals. I have respect for that and the courage that men showed in the face of fascism, communism and all manner of evil tyrants who wished usurp power and steal freedoms.
Any movement has to have a force in opposition to gain any traction. Pushing against an empty space moves nothing. The problem with the Occupy movement is that they don't recognize who their target really is. They are protesting against unemployment, lack of jobs, wall street bail outs and other such nebulous issues which they haven't actually articulated well at all. I suspect a whole bunch of the folks there in Oakland really don't even know why they are there in the first place.
They fail to recognize that Obama is the greatest threat to employment and prosperity in America and he has given more to Wall Street than all of his predicessors before him did. He continues to publicly speak against Wall Street but at the same time pocket their money. Money buys influence in politics. What is that all about Gerald? I call that the utmost in Hypocrisy.
http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/burlington_county_times_news/opinion/guest/obama-criticizes-wall-street-but-takes-money-from-it/article_a2d6baee-fae6-5efc-9dd5-44f0c93c408f.html
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2011/11/07/wall-streets-made-more-money-already-under-obama-than-it-did-during-bushs-two-terms/
So, the Father Coughlin allegation gave me another good chuckle. Imagine thinking that I am an anti-semitic fascist. Yippee, what a mouthful that is my friend. I am instead a born again Christian who strives to the best I can in all things and to fight against that which is wrong. I seriously doubt many of the CEOs of dialysis corporations would call me fascist. You have provided me with quite a few laughs in the last few days Gerald. If you ever choose to drop the polemic bravado and actually discuss some issues, that might actually be fun. In the meantime, the thought of me being an anti-semitic fascist draws too much humor for the moment. Thank you for another well deserved laugh. Life is too short Gerald, chill out man and see who our real enemies are. I am not your enemy.
-
jbeany, I think there is definitely something important in your last line, but I have to disagree that presidents as a whole have "no experience of what it is like to grow up in a lower middle class home". That may be true of recent, Republican presidents (in other words, the Bushes), but Clinton quite famously grew up in Backwater, Arkansas and I think Obama is also self-made. Reagen might have had more modest beginnings but I wouldn't know.
Ike, Reagan and Nixon had very modest homes that they grew up in. So did Carter, Clinton, Johnson and Truman. The American dream of your kids growing up to be president is not that far fetched as history records. Roosevelt was a very monied man as well. Not sure how that correlates to their policies.
-
I have read you many and various posts and am staggered by your misrepresentations. I can’t answer them here. I should say that you seem to want argument, not debate. You are very defensive and not creative. And one more things, you trained to be a doctor, I trained to be a politican and was one – at the top of my chosen profession.
You are not the great political intellect you seem to portray, you are an ideologue. And there is no flexibility in an ideologue’s thinking. Indeed, Congress’ new members proudly announced “no compromise” during the 2011 session. It seems that this tyrannical minority, members of an organization that you support, are behaving as if legislation is their entitlement. They have no goals, no identified problems to resolve; just a pronouncement that they want Obama to be a one term president.
That is malfeasance. Their job is legislation. If they do not like Obama, impeach him.
Meanwhile, the problems of America languish. I see nothing in all of your diatribes that solves any issue the US faces today. I see complaints about members, politicians, and the behavior of some citizens. Anti-change. Anti-intellectualism.
As for the corporations that have grown too large and should have been broken up via anti-trust law, look at AIG. They brought down the entire US economy on September 19, 2008 under George W. Bush’s watch. (Derivatives and multiple insurance policies that could not be supported). Or, take ENRON, the corporation that cleaned out California’s treasury then went bankrupt before the court action was final. California still suffers financial troubles caused by that and the GOP sponsored Prop 13. How many other examples do you need?
Elections are now swamped with money, the result of the US Supreme Court ruling that corporations are essentially people and can contribute unlimited funds to Super PACS.
Get the point? No?
Corporate and Government power combined? We have it. Patriot Act? Abandonment of our civil rights? You betcha! Isamophobia in the GOP? Yep! Afraid of Iran’s nuke capacity? Sure. Racism? See Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich. Well, Doctor person, you and I, and all Americans are on the road to fascism. I don’t think you get it.
Go your merry way. I’ll be dead before too long and you’ll have it all to yourself. And remember this if you can’t get your head around coming events; pay your debts when you have prosperity, skate when times are lean: a principle of government budgeting.
Come November we shall see. By the way, I never said you were anti-semitic. You just love to misinterpret, don’t you?
Gerald
-
I have read you many and various posts and am staggered by your misrepresentations. I can’t answer them here. I should say that you seem to want argument, not debate. You are very defensive and not creative. And one more things, you trained to be a doctor, I trained to be a politican and was one – at the top of my chosen profession.
You are not the great political intellect you seem to portray, you are an ideologue. And there is no flexibility in an ideologue’s thinking. Indeed, Congress’ new members proudly announced “no compromise” during the 2011 session. It seems that this tyrannical minority, members of an organization that you support, are behaving as if legislation is their entitlement. They have no goals, no identified problems to resolve; just a pronouncement that they want Obama to be a one term president.
That is malfeasance. Their job is legislation. If they do not like Obama, impeach him.
Meanwhile, the problems of America languish. I see nothing in all of your diatribes that solves any issue the US faces today. I see complaints about members, politicians, and the behavior of some citizens. Anti-change. Anti-intellectualism.
As for the corporations that have grown too large and should have been broken up via anti-trust law, look at AIG. They brought down the entire US economy on September 19, 2008 under George W. Bush’s watch. (Derivatives and multiple insurance policies that could not be supported). Or, take ENRON, the corporation that cleaned out California’s treasury then went bankrupt before the court action was final. California still suffers financial troubles caused by that and the GOP sponsored Prop 13. How many other examples do you need?
Elections are now swamped with money, the result of the US Supreme Court ruling that corporations are essentially people and can contribute unlimited funds to Super PACS.
Get the point? No?
Corporate and Government power combined? We have it. Patriot Act? Abandonment of our civil rights? You betcha! Isamophobia in the GOP? Yep! Afraid of Iran’s nuke capacity? Sure. Racism? See Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich. Well, Doctor person, you and I, and all Americans are on the road to fascism. I don’t think you get it.
Go your merry way. I’ll be dead before too long and you’ll have it all to yourself. And remember this if you can’t get your head around coming events; pay your debts when you have prosperity, skate when times are lean: a principle of government budgeting.
Come November we shall see. By the way, I never said you were anti-semitic. You just love to misinterpret, don’t you?
Gerald
Gerald, you just can't seem to discuss issues without throwing in polemic comments one after another. I have never stated I am some sort of incredible political analyst. Far from it, I am a doctor fighting for dialysis reform.
I won't bother to refute any of your new list of accusations. You think I support the GOP without any pretense. You are plain and simply wrong again my friend and I am the first to recognize the run to fascism this nation is facing. You actually are a bit irritating Gerald, which I believe is the underlying basis of your continuous attacks against me since you haven't grasped a single point I have made in defense of false accusation after false accusation. Yes, I believe you are a good politician as you state, you are demonstrating that principle over and over again. I will try to refrain what I would like to say at this moment and only, have a good night, you are just completely wrong. (man that was hard sentence to write, it wasn't what I wanted to write for sure)
I support the GOP this year because they are the only tool to remove the usurper in the White House right now. Other than that, yes, they are all on the same team and NONE of them represent me or you. You are focussing on the wrong enemy my friend.
In any case, you are beginning to truly waste my time with your continuous false accusations.
Have a good night.
By the way, I would highly recommend you consider home hemodialysis or transplant if you are convinced your time is short with your current treatment and talk that option over with your providers. Once again, the symptoms you described a week ago are almost all entirely preventable and something that I never experience at all on dialysis. I hope you will be able to improve your dialysis treatments from what you described the other day, it doesn't have to be so bad that you are stating you don't have long to live. Good luck my friend, I hope you find the serenity you are looking for.
P.S. you keep mentioning the Patriot Act. Do you think I have not spoken out against this travesty for years? Geez Louise. Yet, why do you keep giving Obama a pass on NDAA. It goes even further than the Patriot Act. Why do you give Obama a pass on all of his corporate buddies like GE that didn't pay a cent in income taxes? Where does that fit in your framework of fascism? Obama has thumbed his nose at the constitution in greater aplomb than anyone before him. What about the war powers act in Libya that he completely ignored?
http://www.therightscoop.com/levin-obama-only-president-not-to-comply-with-war-powers-act/
My friend we are not heading for fascism, we have already arrived with King Obama. Did you protest against that unconstitutional power and abrogation of existing law unilaterally. Many more examples but it is late.
Chill out my friend, I am not your enemy. Good night.
-
I am not transplant eligible, I have cancer and renal failure.
Let us not argue, discuss or debate. Just let us know where you stand:
1. Do you support the idea of Universal Healthcare for all citizens?
2. Do you wish to see Medicare continued?
3. Do you wish to see Social Security continued at the present level of benefits?
4. Do you agree that we should be in Afghanistan fighting “a” war there?
5. Should the defense budget be reduced?
6. Do you agree with the Buffett rule that those earning over $1 million should be taxed at 30%?
Gerald
-
I have tea partiers in my family. When the subject of politics comes up, the discussion invariably boils down to how much debt Obama has given us and how Obama is taxing businesses to death. The fact that the majority of our debt came from previous administrations and that the majority of the largest U.S. corporations pay literally nothing in taxes simply falls upon deaf ears.
-
I have tea partiers in my family. When the subject of politics comes up, the discussion invariably boils down to how much debt Obama has given us and how Obama is taxing businesses to death. The fact that the majority of our debt came from previous administrations and that the majority of the largest U.S. corporations pay literally nothing in taxes simply falls upon deaf ears.
Let me see, the total national debt after over 200 year was around 10 trillion when he took office. Today, it is nearly 16 trillion and another 1 trillion in the next year while he is still in office. While he was running for office, he accused Bush of being unpatriotic for his 8.9 trillion deficit. I guess he and Biden have a new definition of patriotism today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUPZJDBJI84
I call that an abomination.
-
The National Debt (not the deficit) was run up by none other than George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
-
The National Debt (not the deficit) was run up by none other than George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
No one is disputing that. However, what about what Obama is doing pushing the rate of debt accumulation through the ceiling? Who says I approve of that as well.
In any case, it is Bush's fault.
-
There appears to be great confusion about what the Tea Party is. There is no central organization, although there are hundreds of local and national organizations claiming an affiliation with the Tea Party. It is not a political party such as the GOP and DEMs that have a central national organization and central leaders.
The Tea Party movement has caucuses in the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States.[14] The Tea Party movement has no central leadership, but is composed of a loose affiliation of national and local groups that determine their own platforms and agendas. The Tea Party movement has been cited as an example of grassroots political activity, although it has also been described as an example of astroturfing.[15]
The Tea Party's most noted national figures include Republican politicians such as Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Eric Cantor, and Michele Bachmann, with the elder Paul described by some as the "intellectual godfather" of the movement.[16][17] The Tea Party movement is not a national political party; polls show that most Tea Partiers consider themselves to be Republicans,[18][19] and the movement's supporters have tended to endorse Republican candidates.[20] Commentators including Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport have suggested that the movement is not a new political group, but simply a rebranding of traditional Republican candidates and policies.[18][21][22] An October 2010 Washington Post canvass of local Tea Party organizers found 87% saying "dissatisfaction with mainstream Republican Party leaders" was "an important factor in the support the group has received so far".[23]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement
-
. . . and Global Warming is a Leftist plot.
-
. . . and Global Warming is a Leftist plot.
Certainly is! As people presently in Europe will attest.
-
.
-
The National Debt (not the deficit) was run up by none other than George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
No one is disputing that. However, what about what Obama is doing pushing the rate of debt accumulation through the ceiling? Who says I approve of that as well.
In any case, it is Bush's fault.
Spending growth is way down under Obama.
-
I have a sickening story about a follower of the GOP to relate.
Yesterday my kids went to Madison with their summer program (AKA the best child care facility in all the world).
The older kids toured Camp Randall while the younger kids went to the Madison Children's Museum, then all the kids went on a state capitol tour. As the older kids were walking up to the capitol, they passed anti-Walker protestors. A man went up to my son and his two best friends and said "They hate Scott Walker" to which my son's friend J said "We do, too." Then this lunatic starts chanting anti-Obama crap in their faces. THEY ARE NINE YEARS OLD. B and J, the two teachers, both male, tried to reason with him, one of them said that they were just kids and couldn't even vote and to leave them alone, to which he got louder and started shouting that they should tell their parents what they learned that day. B herded the kids away from this guy as quickly as possible. They were on public property. Oh, and did I mention THEY ARE NINE.
So, Aidan did tell me what he learned and I am passing it along: He took away from that experience that if these are the people that support the Republican party, grown men who will taunt and harass nine-year-olds who are just walking through public property to get to an educational event, then he wants nothing whatsoever to do with Republicans or their candidates. Well done, random loser! I'm sure those three boys have learned that lesson for life! :clap;
-
..."They hate Scott Walker" to which my son's friend J said "We do, too."
So where did they learn to "hate" Scott Walker?
And it seems to me that to be really fair-minded that this would have been a good opportunity to teach the children that there ARE random nut-jobs out there (on both ends of the political spectrum) and that an entire class or group of people shouldn't be judged by the behavior of a few individuals. There's been some quite outrageous behavior by some of the Governor's opponents too over the last year or so. Did you even try to give a balanced accounting or are hateful acts only offensive when it's someone you don't like?
-
..."They hate Scott Walker" to which my son's friend J said "We do, too."
So where did they learn to "hate" Scott Walker?
From Walker's own actions. My son does not go to school with these other two boys, one goes to Catholic school and one goes to a Montessori. Aidan's school is nearly 80% free-and-reduced lunch which is how poverty is measured within the school system. Seeing his friends there lose access to educational opportunities, seeing teachers he adores lose their jobs, seeing kids lose healthcare which in this house is tantamount to attempted murder. His friend was doing the best he could as a nine-year-old being approached by a stranger. I don't know that the 3rd boy has any opinion on Scott Walker, little J was merely trying to stand up for himself and it was this jerk who used the word hate. How does that guy know that the protestors hate Scott Walker? Did he ask? Perhaps the boys were talking about his policies and his astonishing lack of ethics, and Scott Walker was being used as a stand-in, which is done all the time in speech? [Example: "I love Shakespeare!" Do I mean I love the man or maybe, just maybe, I'm talking about his flipping works and that is obvious to everyone with any English language experience.] Want to nitpick this further, Willis? Cause I have a few things a hell of a lot to get done today.
And it seems to me that to be really fair-minded that this would have been a good opportunity to teach the children that there ARE random nut-jobs out there (on both ends of the political spectrum) and that an entire class or group of people shouldn't be judged by the behavior of a few individuals. There's been some quite outrageous behavior by some of the Governor's opponents too over the last year or so. Did you even try to give a balanced accounting or are hateful acts only offensive when it's someone you don't like?
And it seems to me that you are welcome to raise your own children in your own way and criticize other people's parenting when you are asked for input.
1. I was not there.
2. I don't tell my son how to think.
3. This was alarming behaviour on the part of that idiot and Aidan was shaken by it.
4. I was most concerned with how the adults, B & J, handled it. I give them highest marks.
5. I have not come across 'random nut-jobs' on the left who get in my son's face, I'll cross that bridge if/when I come to it
6. Not everything is defensible, and this was not.
7. THEY ARE NINE.
8. Where do you get off telling me how to talk to my son? Or more accurately, listen to my son?
Since I actually live here and have been to Madison on several protests, do tell me what this 'outrageous behavior' by the Governor's opponents is and how you know it actually happened? Because Fox News says so? My children, my husband, and a few of my friends are the only things sacred to me on this earth. When I want advice on how to discuss something with them from the members here, I ask for it. Otherwise, do feel free to keep those thoughts to yourself.
-
Cariad, I do hope you could hear my hearty "well said" shout from way down here in Tennessee. Because it is still reverberating in the house!
:2thumbsup;
You said it girl!
Aleta
-
Cariad, I do hope you could hear my hearty "well said" shout from way down here in Tennessee. Because it is still reverberating in the house!
:rofl;
Thanks, Aleta!
I was hoping you'd appreciate that. One thing I do resent is this fantasy that the right and left have an equal number of crazies and that both sets are equally noxious. I have read some wonderful smack downs of the current Republican party, penned by other Republicans. David Frum wrote my favorite. I am not the first member on here who has suggested that the entire GOP has gone off the rails, and I dare say I shall not be the last!
The point that I hope got through to Aidan, and the point I was making in telling this tale, was that this sort of unbecoming behaviour truly undermines the cause that you are trying to promote. Aidan is still at the age where whoever gets the last word is seen as the winner. He felt like this person got the better of him since he was not able to respond. That is just not so. That person made a fool out of himself in front of other adults and made his own party look like ridiculous bullies to impressionable children. Those kids (probably the entire dozen who were there to witness it) will now associate the Republican party with this guy, and that is neither my fault nor my responsibility to undo.
Perhaps one organization is not so good. We might all consider that thought.
Yes!
-
One thing I do resent is this fantasy that the right and left have an equal number of crazies and that both sets are equally noxious.
OH I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY!! there are WAYYYYY more crazies on the LEFT!!! :rofl; :rofl; :clap;
-
One thing I do resent is this fantasy that the right and left have an equal number of crazies and that both sets are equally noxious.
OH I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY!! there are WAYYYYY more crazies on the LEFT!!! :rofl; :rofl; :clap;
:laugh:
Well played, glitter, well played. ;)
-
When I want advice on how to discuss something with them from the members here, I ask for it. Otherwise, do feel free to keep those thoughts to yourself.
This is obviously a political thread on a public forum.
You posted publically on this political thread about an incident involving a confrontation between a man and some children. By the way that story was related it turned into a political statement. The story could have easily been related--in a non-political thread--without the political overtones that weren't really relevant to the point of an adult verbally abusing children. If the story had been told in that way it's likely everyone would have been sympathetic because such behavior is indeed inappropriate for any adult.
However, by turning it into a political diatribe against Republicans generally you basically implied that all Republicans are creeps and child abusers. Now maybe you actually believe that, but I hope not.
-
ENOUGH.
Political commentary is welcome. This is devolving rapidly from that.
Willis, personal attacks are not welcome here. The following is leaning too far over that line towards a personal attack on cariad and her parenting.
Did you even try to give a balanced accounting or are hateful acts only offensive when it's someone you don't like?
Everyone either resumes discussing the idiocy that is our political system without personal jabs, or this thread will be locked.
jbeany, Moderator
-
Everyone either resumes discussing the idiocy that is our political system without personal jabs, or this thread will be locked.
jbeany, Moderator
Thank you, jbeany, and I apologise for my part in the deterioration of this discussion.
This is obviously a political thread on a public forum.
My story had a mention of Obama and protestors. This is a public forum with rules, posting in this discussion does not mean anything goes when it comes to replies.
You posted publically on this political thread about an incident involving a confrontation between a man and some children. By the way that story was related it turned into a political statement. The story could have easily been related--in a non-political thread--without the political overtones that weren't really relevant to the point of an adult verbally abusing children. If the story had been told in that way it's likely everyone would have been sympathetic because such behavior is indeed inappropriate for any adult.
However, by turning it into a political diatribe against Republicans generally you basically implied that all Republicans are creeps and child abusers. Now maybe you actually believe that, but I hope not.
If you had chosen to respond this way initially, fine, I can work with this. It strikes me as more than a bit controlling to tell me how to relate experiences from my own life and where to post them on this forum, and I can assure you that that story would have been written in the same way no matter where on this forum I chose to place it. I feel I chose the most appropriate place but moderators are always at liberty to move posts if one of them disagrees.
If you truly, truly believe that my story was trying to make ALL Republicans out to be "creeps and child abusers" then I offer my sincere apologies to the Republicans on this forum. I am having a hard time believing that you did not see this as a story about reversal of intention, but only you would know so I'll take you at your word. You seem to be the only one who took it that way, but it's entirely possible that others were scared off when you insinuated that I failed as a mother because I did not respond as you think you would have. I can say without fear of contradiction that I know Aidan better than anyone on this forum, and quite likely better than anyone on this planet. Aidan gave the account, not me (again, I wasn't there), I was merely helping him process the episode. On here, I was processing the episode myself - it's not fun to see your child rattled and feeling like he missed an opportunity to defend not only his own beliefs but the beliefs of his parents. But of course, I do believe that that individual did more harm than good to his own cause. I also seem him as a symptom of the GOP's biggest problem, that's it's been hijacked by paranoid extremists.
I am continually amazed at what Republicans will tolerate within their own party. I think this confrontation begs the larger question: When are the sane Republicans going to rise up and wrestle their own party back from the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and Sarah Palin? Because eventually the GOP will be back in power, and for the sake of this country I certainly hope when that day comes that they are not still taking their cues from these self-serving, exploitative narcissists.
Here is the article I mentioned by David Frum, who by the way lost his job for making these sorts of statements. http://nymag.com/print/?/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/ (http://nymag.com/print/?/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/)
It is intelligently written and has some great analysis on how the GOP has reached this point where the inmates are running the asylum. Here is but one small excerpt from this exceptional piece:
The list of tea-party candidates reads like the early history of the U.S. space program, a series of humiliating fizzles and explosions that never achieved liftoff. A political movement that never took governing seriously was exploited by a succession of political entrepreneurs uninterested in governing—but all too interested in merchandising. Much as viewers tune in to American Idol to laugh at the inept, borderline dysfunctional early auditions, these tea-party champions provide a ghoulish type of news entertainment each time they reveal that they know nothing about public affairs and have never attempted to learn. But Cain’s gaffe on Libya or Perry’s brain freeze on the Department of Energy are not only indicators of bad leadership. They are indicators of a crisis of followership. The tea party never demanded knowledge or concern for governance, and so of course it never got them.
-
"I am continually amazed at what Republicans will tolerate within their own party. I think this confrontation begs the larger question: When are the sane Republicans going to rise up and wrestle their own party back from the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and Sarah Palin? Because eventually the GOP will be back in power, and for the sake of this country I certainly hope when that day comes that they are not still taking their cues from these self-serving, exploitative narcissists. "
Amen, cariad!
I don't have much to add to that at this moment, as I am at work, but I just wanted to say you stated that perfectly and I couldn't have chosen better words to say it myself. Thank you!
KarenInWA
-
I have to agree. I've always been an Independent. I like having two intelligent sides arguing about the best possible solutions. It hasn't been happening lately. I admit that the left has always had its share of wing nuts, but they aren't the major movers and shakers in the Democratic party right now. That doesn't seem to be true for the Republicans. Last election, I didn't think McCain was a horrible choice until he went with Palin for a running mate. This time, Romney has had to push his own ideology so far to the right to appeal to the biggest influences in his party that he stopped seeming like a reasonable candidate to me. The infighting in the Republican party made him take positions I don't think he would have if he didn't have to pander to the extreme right. If he was still the Republican he was as governor, I'd have had a real decision to make. Watching him insist he's going to repeal a health care act based on his own has ended that option for me.
-
I have to agree. I've always been an Independent. I like having two intelligent sides arguing about the best possible solutions. It hasn't been happening lately. I admit that the left has always had its share of wing nuts, but they aren't the major movers and shakers in the Democratic party right now. That doesn't seem to be true for the Republicans. Last election, I didn't think McCain was a horrible choice until he went with Palin for a running mate. This time, Romney has had to push his own ideology so far to the right to appeal to the biggest influences in his party that he stopped seeming like a reasonable candidate to me. The infighting in the Republican party made him take positions I don't think he would have if he didn't have to pander to the extreme right. If he was still the Republican he was as governor, I'd have had a real decision to make. Watching him insist he's going to repeal a health care act based on his own has ended that option for me.
:thumbup;
-
I am a very strong advocate of what is known as a "loyal opposition", and I don't see the Tea Party as "loyal".
I would like to think that it is the media's coverage of the Tea Party that has come to define the current state of the GOP, that true republicans are more thoughtful and "deep" than those who merely start yelling "Freedom and Liberty" in answer to tough questions they cannot grasp.
I heartily resent Mitch McConnell's (sp?) assertion years ago that his party's number one priority was to make our democratically elected President a one-termer. That was the most traitorous, disloyal, despicable thing I've heard a political leader ever say, and I will never, ever forgive him for that. That comment set the tone for this do-nothing Congress, and said congress has done more to hurt our nation than anything else. All because of pandering to the damned Tea Party. I want so much to believe that his remarks are not indicative of the entire GOP way of thinking, so Willis, if you could spend the time disabusing me of that notion, I would be grateful. I don't like believing this way.
I do understand the clamour for "smaller government". I do understand that the left/Democrats have the reputation of making government bigger and bigger, and I personally am not a fan of that. I am for efficient government, smart government, targetted government. I know that government can become corrupt. Congresspeople can be corrupt, but we have to have a Congress because that's what the Constitution demands. I am happy to see more state and local control. We have always debated the role of a centralized government; this current debate is nothing new. I don't think that everything the Tea Party is demanding is completely idiotic, but I do not like their uncompromising tone. Our Constitution is based on the concept of compromise, and because of that, I see the Tea Party not as patriots but instead as disloyal.
But that's just me.
-
Thanks so much for taking the time (at work no less!) to give me such a flattering compliment, Karen.
I do understand the clamour for "smaller government". I do understand that the left/Democrats have the reputation of making government bigger and bigger, and I personally am not a fan of that. I am for efficient government, smart government, targetted government. I know that government can become corrupt. Congresspeople can be corrupt, but we have to have a Congress because that's what the Constitution demands. I am happy to see more state and local control. We have always debated the role of a centralized government; this current debate is nothing new.
As I've mentioned earlier, I am reading the seminal work The Gift by Mauss. I am almost finished and when I was at the boys' gymnastics, thrilled to find this passage and found it quite similar to what you've said above.
Then we need better care of the individual's life, health and education, his family and future. We need more good faith, sympathy and generosity in the contracts of hire and service, rents and sale of the necessities of life. And we have to find the means of limiting the fruits of speculation and usury. Meanwhile, the individual must work and be made to rely more upon himself than upon others. From another angle he must defend his group's interest as well as his own. Communism and too much generosity is as harmful to him and society as the selfishness of our contemporaries or the individualism of our laws. .... The life of the monk and the life of Shylock are both to be avoided. This new morality will consist of a happy medium between the ideal and the real.
I nearly stood up and cheered. I think I'm probably one of the more liberal members in this discussion, yet I too want "efficient government, smart government, targeted government'. What separates me from the tea party is that I still want government. And for the country to act as a country, not a loose collection of fiefdoms in no-win competition with one another. Strong centralization of certain areas of public life will ensure greater fairness and stability, possibly even lower cost, and I am all for that.
-
What separates me from the tea party is that I still want government. And for the country to act as a country, not a loose collection of fiefdoms in no-win competition with one another. Strong centralization of certain areas of public life will ensure greater fairness and stability, possibly even lower cost, and I am all for that.
First let me say that in my earlier posts it was never my intention to make personal attacks. I thought I was just asking some pointed questions that deserved some serious consideration. It's not my style to just be a bomb-thrower in forum threads. But to anyone offended all I can say is that I wasn't trying to offend you.
Now concerning the post above. This shows how differently people can look at the same things and see something SO different! I'm not a Tea Party person and have never attended a political rally of any kind. But it never seemed to me that the Tea Party folks were (or are) clamoring for anarchy. Rather, they want the government to be run by a more strict interpretation of the US Constitution than is currently in vogue by both parties. And that is not advocating anarchy even if one disagrees with that position.
And as for centralization insuring "greater fairness and stability"... to me it seems that greater centralization limits choices and makes things LESS fair and LESS stable. If California passes laws or implements taxes that people don't like they can move to Arizona or Texas if they think that gives them better choices. If the Federal government makes the laws all the same then people lose their freedom of choice since they can't get away from bad government decisions. It was the intention (I believe) of the Founding Fathers who came up with the US Constitution that one of the principle designs of our nation was that it WOULD be a collection of various jurisdictions in competition with each other. Now the Civil War proved that the idea can go too far and that a stronger Federal Government has its advantages. And of course the Constitution was not perfect or it wouldn't have been amended 28 times. But I think competition in general is a good thing both in government and business.
I hope you will see that I'm just trying to discuss things from another point of view and that you will consider how there is always more than one way to look at things. Like most opinionated people I find it hard to "see" the other side of things and you may be the same way and think my ideas are crazy. The quote from Mauss seems to be making the point that balance is the key in all things. It's possible that what may seem "fair" to one person may in fact be "unfair" to someone else. So even what's "fair" is not always easy to define. If life was fair I wouldn't be on dialysis...or maybe if life really was fair some of my comrades from the Army would be alive and I'd be buried at the VA Cemetery instead.
-
I have to say that I agree with both of the latest posts from Cariad and Willis. Thank you! I am always thrilled to be introduced to another point of view when presented logically and thoughtfully, and Willis, you do a great job with that!
-
I will never understand why people enjoy arguing politics back and forth on a dialysis forum rather than going out and volunteering for their candidate or cause.
:waiting;
-
I will never understand why people enjoy arguing politics back and forth on a dialysis forum rather than going out and volunteering for their candidate or cause.
:waiting;
Oh, I'll tell you why! It's because IHD is more than a mere "dialysis forum". I got the impression that we are a community, a family of sorts, and in communities and families, all sorts of things are discussed. Why talk about movies or books or any other topics that are on this forum and not on the "General Discussion" section?
We are more than renal patients. Our illnesses do not define us. We have a myriad of interests and passions that make us three dimensional individuals, and Okarol, you have done a marvellous job in creating a safe place for us to discuss all kinds of things!
I find that discussions about politics are good in discovering how people see the world, and I find it fascinating to make such discoveries, especially in people who I consider to be battling alongside me in this fight against ESRD. If I didn't care about my IHD family, I wouldn't bother entering these political discussions because I wouldn't really care what they thought and why.
And who says that none of us go out and campaign for our candidate or our cause?
-
Just my opinion - it's a waste of time for me to read all this - just don't have time - but enjoy if you can!
-
I will never understand why people enjoy arguing politics back and forth on a dialysis forum rather than going out and volunteering for their candidate or cause.
:waiting;
And who says that none of us go out and campaign for our candidate or our cause?
Well, I didn't say "none" - but it's because I never read posts about people volunteering. But as I said, haven't the time to read all these so perhaps I just missed it! :waving;
-
Personally, I will probably never post on a political page again, here or any where else. In the past week or so, I have been told by one "friend" that if I continued to post political items he would de-friend me. Gee, that so frightened me. And another one misunderstood one thing I said and labeled me a "hater" and mentioned on FB that she hardly knew me, only from another group. Wow, after 4 years of being on this group and checking in nearly every day and commiserating with every one on a friendly level, I was shocked at these two reactions. But, I guess its good if you guys can argue back and forth with each other and still remain friends. Evidently that does not work for me, so I just gnaw on my tongue and clamp my jaws shut.
-
I guess what scares me more than anything is the high probability of this next election being bought by a few rich men. The vast majority of the money being raised in this campaign, both presidential and in the congress/senate, are from millionaires and billionaires who all have something to gain by buying themselves a political party. These powerful, rich men have no care for the common person and family, it is all about them and their fat cat bank accounts. Does this not scare the literal sh!t out of anyone??? I know it does me. "Citizens" United was the absolute worst thing to happen to this country, as far as political change is concerned. Does anyone honestly think these fat cats are donating all this ca$h because of their taxes going up a few measley percentage points? Seriously??? How does that make sense? No, they are throwing all this ca$sh at Romney, et al, so they can buy the White House, Congress, Senate and Supreme Court, then mold the laws of this country to their favor. I seriously doubt this is a conspiracy theory. This is happening, folks. I don't think this is what our Fore Fathers were thinking when they thought the "Land of the Free".
KarenInWA
-
Just my opinion - it's a waste of time for me to read all this - just don't have time - but enjoy if you can!
I feel the same about all of the word games and trivia games on IHD. To each his own!
-
Personally, I will probably never post on a political page again, here or any where else. In the past week or so, I have been told by one "friend" that if I continued to post political items he would de-friend me. Gee, that so frightened me. And another one misunderstood one thing I said and labeled me a "hater" and mentioned on FB that she hardly knew me, only from another group. Wow, after 4 years of being on this group and checking in nearly every day and commiserating with every one on a friendly level, I was shocked at these two reactions. But, I guess its good if you guys can argue back and forth with each other and still remain friends. Evidently that does not work for me, so I just gnaw on my tongue and clamp my jaws shut.
Jean, I'm not on FB but I understand there is an IHD FB page. I've never seen it, but I have been told that it is a different beast from this forum. Is that true, do you think. These people who threatened to defriend you and labeled you a "hater"...are they on IHD here or on FB? If there are on IHD here, I am shocked and disappointed and don't blame you for hesitating posting about your political thoughts. I despise that sort of bullying. There is no cause for it, and I am sorry that happened to you. I'd like to think that most of us can post without getting into a slanging match, but maybe I'm just being overly optimistic.
Karen, oh yes, I am very creeped out by all of the money sloshing about in this election. I am bothered greatly by it because the question has to be asked...what are these donor millionaires expect they are buying? President Obama is being criticized by his own people for not liking fundraising and for not smoozing the big donors like Bill Clinton did, but personally I prefer my President to BE uncomfortable with this sort of thing, KWIM? I don't like the idea of any politician having to spend so much time massaging egos in return for a handsome check. I don't think that's how their constituents like to see their representatives spend their time, and I'd bet that the politicians don't really like it, either.
-
Personally, I will probably never post on a political page again, here or any where else. In the past week or so, I have been told by one "friend" that if I continued to post political items he would de-friend me. Gee, that so frightened me. And another one misunderstood one thing I said and labeled me a "hater" and mentioned on FB that she hardly knew me, only from another group. Wow, after 4 years of being on this group and checking in nearly every day and commiserating with every one on a friendly level, I was shocked at these two reactions. But, I guess its good if you guys can argue back and forth with each other and still remain friends. Evidently that does not work for me, so I just gnaw on my tongue and clamp my jaws shut.
Jean, I'm so sorry. :( Very sad that people have to be so childish. This reminds me of the behaviour of a couple of Aidan's friends a few years ago. I think the last time he heard "do what I say or I won't be your friend anymore" he was 5. Not sure how adults can look themselves in the mirror after behaving that way. I, too, hope you're not talking about anyone here because I would welcome your thoughts (though I am sure we would disagree on most things).
Now concerning the post above. This shows how differently people can look at the same things and see something SO different! I'm not a Tea Party person and have never attended a political rally of any kind. But it never seemed to me that the Tea Party folks were (or are) clamoring for anarchy. Rather, they want the government to be run by a more strict interpretation of the US Constitution than is currently in vogue by both parties. And that is not advocating anarchy even if one disagrees with that position.
The part about still wanting government was meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek, but honestly, wasn't it Rick Perry who said if here were President he would devote his life to making government as insignificant a part of life as he could? Sure, if you're rich, why pay for public libraries and parks, just buy your own. Why pay for police and firefighters, just hire your own. Why finance high-speed rail, Governor Walker? You have a motorcade! This I-got-mine attitude from the wealthy and the people who actually think this system is not rigged against them is, in a word, gross.
Who was it who suggested that people who cannot afford the basic necessities of life go to prisons or workhouses? The response this character received was "Many cannot go there and many would rather die" to which this symbol of avarice replied "If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
And as for centralization insuring "greater fairness and stability"... to me it seems that greater centralization limits choices and makes things LESS fair and LESS stable. If California passes laws or implements taxes that people don't like they can move to Arizona or Texas if they think that gives them better choices. If the Federal government makes the laws all the same then people lose their freedom of choice since they can't get away from bad government decisions.
This strikes me as just a reworking of the old "our medical system gives you such amazing freedom! You can just go to any doctor you please!" Yeah. Right. Have you had to face financing a move, recently? Because I have. Have you had to decide whether to rip your kids away from their friends and their schools that you trust and take a risk on another state? Because I have. Have you tried to sell a house in this new economy? I haven't, and that is because the numbers I've received from the experts are basically telling me that I cannot afford to. A system that operates on the principle of "It you don't like it, just move" only works for the rich. Like our medical system only works for the rich. This solution is little more than on-your-bike Thatcherism.
*Plus* once you have a house in an area where, oh, just to pull an example out of the air, some under-educated governor begins to destroy your school system, no one is going to want to buy that house off of you and you are well and truly stuck. Just like the insurance company that justifies their evil deeds by claiming "We don't deny anyone treatment, we just deny the payments." In this country, it is exactly the same thing. If one hates the US Federal government so much, one always has the freedom to move to another country. There are always choices and freedoms in this world if you have enough dosh, fairness comes from choices that are available to all. A stable society comes from people not seething with anger every time they see the news where yet another politician/wall street banker/CEO has just destroyed hundreds of lives and been paid extravagantly for their trouble.
-
Just my opinion - it's a waste of time for me to read all this - just don't have time - but enjoy if you can!
I feel the same about all of the word games and trivia games on IHD. To each his own!
I understand. However, we don't get moderator alerts over name calling or personal attacks for the word games or trivia threads. :)
-
Just my opinion - it's a waste of time for me to read all this - just don't have time - but enjoy if you can!
I feel the same about all of the word games and trivia games on IHD. To each his own!
I understand. However, we don't get moderator alerts over name calling or personal attacks for the word games or trivia threads. :)
Well, then those threads must be deathly dull. LOL! :P
-
Just my opinion - it's a waste of time for me to read all this - just don't have time - but enjoy if you can!
I feel the same about all of the word games and trivia games on IHD. To each his own!
I understand. However, we don't get moderator alerts over name calling or personal attacks for the word games or trivia threads. :)
Well, then those threads must be deathly dull. LOL! :P
:2thumbsup; Yes!
-
And as for centralization insuring "greater fairness and stability"... to me it seems that greater centralization limits choices and makes things LESS fair and LESS stable. If California passes laws or implements taxes that people don't like they can move to Arizona or Texas if they think that gives them better choices. If the Federal government makes the laws all the same then people lose their freedom of choice since they can't get away from bad government decisions.
This strikes me as just a reworking of the old "our medical system gives you such amazing freedom! You can just go to any doctor you please!" Yeah. Right. Have you had to face financing a move, recently? Because I have. Have you had to decide whether to rip your kids away from their friends and their schools that you trust and take a risk on another state? Because I have. Have you tried to sell a house in this new economy? I haven't, and that is because the numbers I've received from the experts are basically telling me that I cannot afford to. A system that operates on the principle of "It you don't like it, just move" only works for the rich. Like our medical system only works for the rich. This solution is little more than on-your-bike Thatcherism.
*Plus* once you have a house in an area where, oh, just to pull an example out of the air, some under-educated governor begins to destroy your school system, no one is going to want to buy that house off of you and you are well and truly stuck. Just like the insurance company that justifies their evil deeds by claiming "We don't deny anyone treatment, we just deny the payments." In this country, it is exactly the same thing. If one hates the US Federal government so much, one always has the freedom to move to another country. There are always choices and freedoms in this world if you have enough dosh, fairness comes from choices that are available to all. A stable society comes from people not seething with anger every time they see the news where yet another politician/wall street banker/CEO has just destroyed hundreds of lives and been paid extravagantly for their trouble.
Uh, yeah...I've lived in 8 states and moved within my current state 4 times. Some of those moves were dictated by the US Army and even with them paying expenses I always lost thousands of dollars. (One reason I got out.) The other moves were all for economic reasons. It would be nice to live less than 3000 miles from my family but that's just the way it is. And BTW, my daughter lives in South Korea working for the US Army (as a civilian) and in Alaska for 5 years before that. You gotta do what you gotta do.
And leaving the U.S. (expatriation) is not as easy as it sounds. It can literally take years waiting for an appointment at a US Embassy in order to renounce ones citizenship. In the meantime, the US claims the right to tax your worldwide income (the only major country that does). And then there's the heavy "exit fees": besides income taxes, every asset you own (or sell prior to expatriation) is "marked-to-market" and taxed on its capital gains. If any expat returns to the U.S. at any time for more than 30 days total within a given year, the IRS will tax them 100% of the WORLD-WIDE income, not just their US income. And if you think these barriers are just for the "rich"... well, anyone with total world-wide income and assets (such as a house) worth more than $250,000 ($500,000 per couple) gets hit with the exit tax. So even though the Iron Curtain came down in Europe decades ago, the U.S. government has a pretty tough Green Curtain to keep its citizens from escaping.
-
I lived overseas for 20 years and frequently entered and exited the US. Many of my stays were for up to 90 days. I was never taxed, and I still had assets here in the US, though not as much as $250K. But then again, I never renounced my citizenship. And I certainly never had to wait years for an appointment of any kind at the US Embassy, although I suppose it is possible if you are in some mysterious and remote corner of the earth.
-
And leaving the U.S. (expatriation) is not as easy as it sounds. It can literally take years waiting for an appointment at a US Embassy in order to renounce ones citizenship. In the meantime, the US claims the right to tax your worldwide income (the only major country that does). And then there's the heavy "exit fees": besides income taxes, every asset you own (or sell prior to expatriation) is "marked-to-market" and taxed on its capital gains. If any expat returns to the U.S. at any time for more than 30 days total within a given year, the IRS will tax them 100% of the WORLD-WIDE income, not just their US income. And if you think these barriers are just for the "rich"... well, anyone with total world-wide income and assets (such as a house) worth more than $250,000 ($500,000 per couple) gets hit with the exit tax. So even though the Iron Curtain came down in Europe decades ago, the U.S. government has a pretty tough Green Curtain to keep its citizens from escaping.
I just renounced my US citizenship about a month ago. I got an appointment at the consulate here in Toronto within a month, had my first appointment then second appointment about two weeks later. I had to pay US$450 to give up my citizenship although it cost me close to $6000 for an accountant to file 6 years of back taxes and a lawyer to explain why I had not filed the FBAR (foreign bank account reporting) forms. Let me add that I owed the US government nothing in taxes, NOTHING, have never lived in the US although I did spend two summers there (age 16 and 17) visiting my parents who lived there. They could still decide to fine me for not reporting my "foreign" accounts, although these accounts are only in my home country, Canada. I never filed taxes because I never owed any money and the FBAR requirements are a part of the tax filing process so I didn't know about them until I read about the nasty consequences that people like me could face in the newspaper here. All US citizens living abroad are required to file all these forms and the process is fairly complicated. My husband and I do our own tax returns but this was too complex.
I renounced because I can't really ever live in the US anyway...who would insure me??? We met several people at the consulate who were renouncing and the consular officer said that this has increased quite dramatically in recent years due to new reporting requirements. Most US expats are unaware of the onerous and potentially very costly reporting requirements and these apply even if one is a US citizen simply by virtue of having been born in the US. One guy who renounced the same day as me came back to Canada with his parents at 10 months old, never lived there and never had a passport, just passive citizenship.
They insist on two appointments because a wad of forms must be completed and they want to make sure that the decision to NOT want to live in the US or hold US citizenship is not some form of temporary, possibly permanent, insanity.
-
I have some experience in politics, my entire career to be more exact. The mantra I followed about the purpose of government and my job was what Lincoln said, “ . . . a government of the people, by the people, and for the people . . .”
It follows that to a major extent, government is responsible, directly or indirectly, for the health and welfare of its citizens, especially in terms of the basics per Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. In theory, this democratic republic is supposed to function as a “bottom-up” organization but we don’t do that anymore. We are suffering from a systemic organizational illness that causes government to work from the “top down”. It seems there no one out there running for office or is currently holding office, that is aware of this problem.
Want an argument on politics? Write some complaint to your congressman and see how far you get. He/she will tell they know better than you.
My reaction to the Tea Party is that it is made up from the remnants of a shattered group of far-right extremists like the old John Birch Society, Goldwater supporters and the disgruntled uninformed who simply want to avoid paying taxes. This seems to be a byproduct of the California Prop 13 mess where the general public was asked if they wanted to reduce their taxes. Well, hell yes, they said. Since then, 1978, California’s school system went from #1 in the nation to #27. ENRON fraudulently wiped out California’s reserves then filed for bankruptcy just before a court ruled in California’s favor, and the state has no ability to raise taxes to work its way out of a $12 billion budget problem, since the far-right is blocking every effort to raise taxes. And during that time George W. Bush turned his back on California for political reasons.
This seems to be the model that congressional Tea Party members are working from. It is a given that people want government services but they are not willing to pay for those services. So, a university education is too expensive for the middle class now, unless they are willing to go deeply in debt. The Tea Party is also a Global Warming denier and now the US is faced with a corn crop that is only going to be 30% of average. Maslow’s Needs list is almost beside the point as the issue could become a problem of feeding the people anything. Malthus is in play!
The US has been operating economically under the “trickle-down” theory since 2000 and despite effort to change that, Congress has blocked any and all proposed changes. And the economy spirals downward.
And the defense budget is larger than it was in the final days of WWII adjusted for inflation. Yet, people programs fall by the wayside in favor of the defense budget. And we are involved in “wars of choice”.
If you owned your home in 2008/2009, you lost the equivalent of 40% of your equity – meaning, it cost almost double to build than what the home is worth.
And the far-right is blocking everything for the stated purpose of making Obama a one-term president.
And Congress corruption and bribery takes the form of campaign contributions.
And Americans are dying in a war that means nothing in regards to the Governments first priority, the people.
And no one listened to Lincoln.
gerald
-
I agree that the "For the People" thing seems to have passed in one ear and out the other for most politicians. I think the "By the People" part seems to be doing the same with the hard right. They don't want to pay taxes to help the poor, but then they don't want to pay taxes to pay the police and prison system. Without assistance and opportunities, how do they expect anyone to do anything else but struggle - which often means crime is the only option for survival. I don't have any illusions that everyone on welfare deserves it, or that none of them are scamming the system, but it seems crazy to punish the ones who do honestly need help.
Or worse yet, waste what money is in the system with ineffective programs to catch the ones who shouldn't be getting the aid. The new push for random drug-testing for welfare recipients is one example. In theory, I agree with it. If they are drug addicted, they should be limited to food stamps at the most, and no SSI income unless they agree to treatment. In practice, however, the math just doesn't add up. I don't remember the exact numbers, but Florida managed to save something like $200,000 by kicking drug addicts off welfare with the random tests. Sounds good until you realize that implementing the system of random drug tests cost several million, and will continue to cost more than it saves.
-
Uh, yeah...I've lived in 8 states and moved within my current state 4 times. Some of those moves were dictated by the US Army and even with them paying expenses I always lost thousands of dollars. (One reason I got out.) The other moves were all for economic reasons. It would be nice to live less than 3000 miles from my family but that's just the way it is. And BTW, my daughter lives in South Korea working for the US Army (as a civilian) and in Alaska for 5 years before that. You gotta do what you gotta do.
OK, so it seems we agree. Moving state, even moving house, is a costly endeavor that most middle and low income people cannot afford to do on a whim. That was my point. If you are a CEO making tens of millions, what's a few thousand to abandon a state when things don't go your way politically? If there is more standardization (not saying each state should have the exact same laws, just that centralization absolutely has its place) than the wealthy are better off just staying and working to actually improve matters in that state. Yes, you do what you've got to do, except when you decide economics be damned, I'd rather be happy and let the rest sort itself out. If you've read anything of the fascinating story of my life, then you know I've been living without my husband (and my kids have been living without their dad) since December of last year due to economic reasons. No more. That ends August 3.
And leaving the U.S. (expatriation) is not as easy as it sounds. It can literally take years waiting for an appointment at a US Embassy in order to renounce ones citizenship. In the meantime, the US claims the right to tax your worldwide income (the only major country that does). And then there's the heavy "exit fees": besides income taxes, every asset you own (or sell prior to expatriation) is "marked-to-market" and taxed on its capital gains. If any expat returns to the U.S. at any time for more than 30 days total within a given year, the IRS will tax them 100% of the WORLD-WIDE income, not just their US income. And if you think these barriers are just for the "rich"... well, anyone with total world-wide income and assets (such as a house) worth more than $250,000 ($500,000 per couple) gets hit with the exit tax. So even though the Iron Curtain came down in Europe decades ago, the U.S. government has a pretty tough Green Curtain to keep its citizens from escaping.
My father has been a business owner for over 30 years, and before that made his living as - wait for it - a tax attorney. I read this and then, since I am just about to emigrate myself, immediately called dad for clarification. You are neglecting to mention the numerous mitigating factors in your summary of WORLD-WIDE taxation. There will be no "exit tax" for me as I do not plan on renouncing my citizenship - I can't, I'd be stateless. If I do renounce, my assets are taxed at the value on the day on which I renounce, which, if I understand correctly, could be used quite strategically by the savvy ex-pat. Additionally, all assets are only taxed over and above what I paid for them originally. According to Dad, no profit, no tax. Dad just sent me an article explaining tax for UK residency of US citizens and there are safeguards to avoid double taxation (have not had time to read it carefully). My father does not know my husband's future salary, but he has said we will not be double taxed and if we are, it will be, in his words, trivial. He ended the conversation with this amusing (considering he used to be a tax lawyer) advice: Don't let your life be ruled by tax.
I just renounced my US citizenship about a month ago.
:'(
monrein, I came across the reporting requirements in my bit of research, and so long as you understand that you MUST file regardless of whether you have income or not, it will be a relatively painless process. Filing each year triggers the 3-year statute of limitations, whereas, as you unfortunately learned, there is no such statute if one does not file. My father recalled 30 years ago filing returns for a US ex-pat who did not file each year, he mentioned something that prevented the client from fees, I think it might have been paying taxes in his host country plus having off-shore accounts - something like that. We have always had our taxes done for us because our case is almost always stupidly complicated, so I will let the accountant handle this. I am sorry this was such an expensive surprise. I will agree that in your case, it just isn't fair. Also, we're sorry to lose you, you darling Canuck, you! :)
-
My father has been a business owner for over 30 years, and before that made his living as - wait for it - a tax attorney. I read this and then, since I am just about to emigrate myself, immediately called dad for clarification. You are neglecting to mention the numerous mitigating factors in your summary of WORLD-WIDE taxation. There will be no "exit tax" for me as I do not plan on renouncing my citizenship - I can't, I'd be stateless. If I do renounce, my assets are taxed at the value on the day on which I renounce, which, if I understand correctly, could be used quite strategically by the savvy ex-pat. Additionally, all assets are only taxed over and above what I paid for them originally. According to Dad, no profit, no tax. Dad just sent me an article explaining tax for UK residency of US citizens and there are safeguards to avoid double taxation (have not had time to read it carefully). My father does not know my husband's future salary, but he has said we will not be double taxed and if we are, it will be, in his words, trivial. He ended the conversation with this amusing (considering he used to be a tax lawyer) advice: Don't let your life be ruled by tax.
I think your father's advice is sound! I was just trying to briefly summarize from memory how the US sorta frowns on citizens renouncing their citizenship and tries to exact its pound of flesh. Of course there are tons of individual mitigating factors that can come into play. But it seems ironic how many legal and financial barriers there are for renouncing US citizenship compared to the almost total lack of concern over immigration (legal or otherwise).
-
But it seems ironic how many legal and financial barriers there are for renouncing US citizenship compared to the almost total lack of concern over immigration (legal or otherwise).
I can understand how it would seem that the federal government has little concern for immigration, but considering I watched my own little immigrant go through the process of naturalization, I can assure you that this is not the case. Also, growing up in Southern California where people (mostly domestic workers) would disappear suddenly never to be heard from again, it was hardly a secret that immigration caught up with them.
My husband is Welsh and could account for every last moment of his existence in America, but it still took two and half years for him to be issued a green card. Then I insisted he become a citizen because the law states (or it did way back when he first filed for a green card) that if you do not "act like a citizen" then they will revoke the card. Acting like a citizen meant spending at least half your time over a three year period living in America. We have been talking about leaving the US since the start of our marriage, so I suspected the day would come that we might not be able to maintain his green card. And I truly did not want to go through this expensive and somewhat degrading process twice. I agree that immigration desperately, desperately needs to be reformed, like so much else in this country it is a costly, bulky, inscrutable, and often counterproductive process with rules that are rather arbitrarily applied. I don't have the answer, though. Usually I can at least have an idea what direction I would like to see the country go, but with immigration I just know that the current system makes no sense and is breeding fear and racism.
Turning back to the question about when and if the more moderate or at least more diplomatic Republicans are going to take a stand against the GOP extremists, I read this article and have great hope that this could mark the beginning of the end for wild accusations coming from two-bit members of congress: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/19/boehner-calls-bachmann-accusations-pretty-dangerous/ (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/19/boehner-calls-bachmann-accusations-pretty-dangerous/) It quotes John Boehner and John McCain denouncing Michelle Bachman and 4 other congresspeople for calling for an investigation of Huma Abedin (aide to Hilary Clinton) over suspected ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Score one for decency.
-
I agree that immigration desperately, desperately needs to be reformed, like so much else in this country it is a costly, bulky, inscrutable, and often counterproductive process with rules that are rather arbitrarily applied. I don't have the answer, though. Usually I can at least have an idea what direction I would like to see the country go, but with immigration I just know that the current system makes no sense and is breeding fear and racism.
That's something we can agree upon! :beer1;
-
This occurred to me while I was reading all of the posts on this thread. How did this happen? How did we get soooo many rules and regulations that for the most part people dont understand. It could not have all started out like this, so clogged with forms and rules and what usually seems like obstacles thrown up to stop you from doing whatever it is you think you want to do. In california for instance, you can open a business, get God alone knows how many licenses and hire an attorney to help you get thru the maze and at any time, some agency or another can walk in the door of your business and close you up with one audit and fine you for breaking the law, no matter who you talked to or asked questions of or how much research you did. Where does this stop? How did our government agencies become so all powerful? I will stop now, I think I know the answer but I would love to hear what the rest of you ( very much smarter than I ) have to say about this.
-
Jean, I don't know if I have the definitive answer to your question, but I do have a theory that is probably more of a rant than a well-researched hypothesis! LOL!
I think there is a fundamention erosion of trust in our government AND in all of our financial and corporate institutions. I suspect that people on the right have a distrust of government and those on the left have a distrust of financial and corporate institutions, the result being that no one trusts anyone anymore, and probably with good reason.
I just get the distinct impression that people are out to make a buck in any way that they can and will screw anyone over for the sake of profit. The notion of acting in the public interest and for the common good seems to go out the window if there if profit to be made. How many times here on IHD have we read articles where dialysis providers and/or pharmaceutical companies have been fined or prosecuted for, oh, say the overdosing of dialysis patients with epo because it was a good profit stream. There's a thread about this right now on IHD posted by Bill Peckham. Why not hide evidence that too much epo kills patients when there's profit to be made? If you can't trust such a big corporation, what happens? More rules and regulations to try to protect people from corporate greed, that's what happens. It's all because we can't trust people any more to be guided by compassion and the desire to do good when there is vast profit to be made.
Look at Enron. The regulations in place at the time of that scandal were obviously not stringent enough because the bright sparks there found a way to circumvent them. They had been required to sign off on their accounting reports, but to circumvent that, they got Arthur Andersen to essentially keep a separate set of books and to not let them (Enron) know, thus Enron could claim deniability. Because of Enron's greed that was so vast that current rules and regulations weren't enough to stop them from cheating, Enron eventually collapsed, AA lost their license and now exists really in name only, thousands upon thousands of Enron (and AA) employees who knew nothing of these shenanigans lost their pensions and their jobs and their insurance, and investors lost everything, too. I'm from Houston; Enron was based in Houston, and I knew people who worked there and lost everything. All because of those greedy bastards who thought they were above silly rules and regulations.
So, again, what happens? There is a renewed push for even more and more regulations. They wouldn't be necessary if the pursuit of profit ABOVE ALL ELSE AT ALL TIMES was the greatest priority. And you really think that people truly believe that "self regulation" is going to work?
Amgen, the LIBOR scandal...the rich, the great and the powerful manipulating the world at our expense. The result is that the vast majority of our country's wealth is in the hands of an extremely small group of people, and we are all stupid enough to be manipulated into thinking that this state of affairs is the rightful manifestation of economic "freedom and liberty".
Does anyone really believe anymore that the NRA is interested in your constitutional rights? No. They are interested in money. They have bought Congress. All they have to do is start squawking about "freedom and liberty" and people will start running out and buying their own private arsenals, which is the whole point because the aim is to funnel money to the gun manufacturers. It's all about money, money, money and it has nothing to do with your personal freedom. But really, the fault is ours for not recognizing or not caring about how all of these people manipulate us.
-
Wow!
Did you miss your Metamuscil or something?
-
A cut & paste about gun control in Australia:
On 28 April 1996 a mentally disturbed man slew 35 people in cold blood, and left 23 more wounded. The killer, Martin Bryant, showed no mercy.
Port Arthur is a historic prison colony tourist site in the state of Tasmania, Australia. That day Martin Bryant first murdered a couple in a nearby bed and breakfast hotel before heading to Port Arther and slaughtering 12 people eating lunch at a cafe, 8 people in a gift shop adjacent to the cafe, 4 people in the car park outside the cafe, 7 people on the way up a toll booth at the entrance to the site, a lady at a nearby service station, and her boyfriend at a nearby house whom Bryant had taken hostage.
The tragedy which became known as the Port Arthur Massacre was one of the worst shootings to occur in Australian history.
Bryant then got back into his car and proceeded to leave the car park. Witnesses say he was sounding the horn and waving, others say he was also firing. Bryant drove along Jetty Road towards the toll booth where a number of people were running away. Bryant passed by at least two people. Ahead of him were Nanette Mikac (née Moulton) and her two young children, Madeline, 3, and Alannah, 6 years old. Nanette was carrying Madeline and Alannah was running slightly ahead. By now they had run approximately 600 metres from the car park. Bryant opened his door and slowed down. Mikac moved towards the car, apparently thinking he was offering them help in escaping. Several more people witnessed this from further down the road. Someone then recognised him as the gunman and yelled out "It's him!". Bryant stepped out of the car, put his hand on Nanette Mikac's shoulder and told her to get on her knees. She did so, saying, "Please don't hurt my babies".
Bryant shot her in the temple, killing her, before firing a shot at Madeline, which hit her in the shoulder, before shooting her fatally through the chest. Bryant shot twice at Alannah, as she ran behind the tree, missing. He then walked up, pressed the barrel of the gun into her neck and fired, killing her instantly.
Martin Bryant used an AR-15 assault rifle to kill 12 people within 15 seconds. Some of the victims did not even know there was a gunman before they died. Others had no time other than to stand up and receive a bullet to the brain, or to try and duck under their tables and hope the bullets wouldn't kill them.
James Holmes used a Smith and Wesson M&P15, a variant of the AR-15. Many of the victims did not even know he was a gunman before they were killed.
The Australian people were shocked and appalled, and the Australian Government - unworried by the political strength of the National Rifle Association - acted strongly. In fact it was actually the conservative Government at the time that introduced the new laws. They were even successful in undermining the local pro-gun lobby by leaking to the media that these local organisations were receiving financial assistance from the NRA!
Self-loading and semi-automatic handguns and rifles were banned. Self-loading, semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns were banned or prohibited. Every weapon used by Holmes in his killing spree are currently banned in Australia.
Just try taking this shopping list of weapons used by the Aurora killer to a local Bega sports or firearms shop and see how far you get: Remington 870 12-guage pump action shotgun, AR-15 assault rifle, and a Glock .40 calibre handgun.
In New South Wales they are prohibited weapons.
Even the bullet proof vest and leggings worn by the gunman are scheduled as prohibited weapons in NSW.
In Colorado however these are all available from numerous gun shops, with the kind of assault rifle used in the Aurora massacre currently on special in one Denver area gun shop web site for only $999.99, apparently one of the shops used by the Colorado gunman.
Under direction from the Australian Federal Government each state government introduced an amnesty and gun buy-back scheme. Owners of now illegal guns were able to turn their firearm in and receive market value compensation. Approximately 640,000 guns were taken out of circulation and destroyed. This reduced the stock of firearms in Australia by approximately one fifth.
In the United States, this would be roughly the equivalent of 40 million weapons.
Strict new licencing criteria were introduced for the ownership of firearms. The only firearms that are available for general use are air rifles, rimfire rifles, single and double barrel shotguns, muzzle-loading firearms, single shot double barrel and repeating centrefire rifles, and break-action shotgun/rifle combinations. Every other firearm is either fully restricted, or prohibited to only those who can demonstrate a genuine occupational or official need.
Each reason requires rigorous proof, checking, and a 28 day approval process, and before applying you need complete approved firearms safety training.
You cannot get a licence if:
You are subject to an Apprehended Violence Order or for 10 years after the expiry of an AVO You are on a good behaviour bond for a prescribed offence You are subject to a firearms or weapons prohibition order You have been convicted within the last 10 years for an offense prescribed by the regulations
If you succeed in getting a firearms permit then you will need to get a Permit to Acquire (PTA) a firearm.
All firearms transactions, both purchase and disposal, must be witnessed by a licensed NSW Firearms Dealer.
The dealer will send the completed paperwork to the NSW Firearms Registry.
And you can only get a firearm in the same category for which you have a firearm licence.
Most importantly of all - it worked. Prohibition of military style weapons, a massive buy-back for those weapons that had been made illegal, very strict licence and issuing conditions. This led to a decrease in firearm suicides in Australia from 2.2 people per 100,000 in 1995, to 0.8 people per 100,000 in 2006. Firearm homicides dropped from 0.37 per 100,000 people in 1995 to 0.15 per 100,000 people in 2006. These are drops of 65% and 59% respectively.
There were some 13 mass shootings in Australia between 1979 and 1996. Since 1997 there have been none. In Australia the public and government acted swiftly to make sure something similar could never happen again. In America Louie Gohmert wonders why more people didn't bring a gun to the cinema.
Veronica Moser-Sullivan was six years old when a bullet from a military grade weapon ended her life. The same age as little Alannah Mikac. Alannah's mother was killed. Veronica's mother lies injured and paralysed on a hospital bed grieving for her daughter.
There should be no doubt about the need for a gun control law for Veronica's sake. Otherwise this will happen again.
-
Wow!
Did you miss your Metamuscil or something?
I don't know who this directed at, but it does nothing for the discussion.
:waiting;
-
Ya don't say! Your post was a downer too!
-
Ya don't say! Your post was a downer too!
Gee thanks. :shy;
-
A cut & paste about gun control in Australia: ....
Well thankfully we have the 2nd Amendment. In a country of 300 million+ like the U.S. with 24/7/365 "news" coverage from a dozen national outlets every incident gets repeated over and over until it becomes background noise. Then the "next guy" has to do something bigger and more brazen than the ones before to get attention. If it wasn't an AR-15 it would have been something else just as deadly. Most people don't realize that the worst mass murder in U.S. history by an individual perpetrator was in 1927 when a suicide bomber blew up 38 children and teachers at a school in Michigan.
In 2011 there were 32,885 traffic fatalities. There's something like 65,000-75,000 ESRD related deaths per year in the U.S. These numbers are meaningless to most of us because we would shrivel up into little balls of neurotic goo and huddle in a corner at home if we contemplated the true danger of just driving to the post office. Only because shootings like the one in Colorado are so rare do they get so much attention (like commercial aircraft crashes).
I don't mean to minimize the pain and suffering of those involved in the shooting and the perp deserves to be crucified (really, yes, actually publically crucified...maybe that would get these bastards to think twice about going on such rampages). But we shouldn't let statistics rule our lives in fear to the point where we give up all liberty for the sake of safety. It's impossible for life to be 100% safe--we are all going to die of something. Measures to try to insure 100% safety just take away more and more liberty from those who mostly are NOT the threats to public safety. Things are getting to the point that I'm actually more afraid of government regulators and law enforcement than I am of random acts of irrational violence.
-
My dad was a gun owner and a member of the NRA. I have plenty of relatives who enjoy hunting and are responsible gun owners. I have no problem with responsible gun ownership. While I am not a hunter nor a collector of firearms nor a fan of target shooting, I am not an enemy of those who are. But for the life of me, I do not understand why anyone would want to buy 6000 rounds of ammo off the internet, purchase military grade protective armor or have an arsenal of semi-automatic weapons unless you intend to cause harm. Could someone please explain this to me? Why would someone want so much of this stuff?
Have Americans really become so frightened that we feel the need to arm ourselves to the teeth? What is behind this irrational fear? What happened to being the home of the brave?
I despise the NRA with every fiber of my being because their only purpose is to manipulate the American people with fears of conspiracy and God knows what else. But like I've said before, it is our own fault for allowing this massive lobbying group to scare us and to manipulate us into giving vast amounts of money to them and to gun manufacturers.
I also am deeply disappointed that we have turned into a society of "I have the right to do whatever I damn well please" (Insert "freedom and liberty" here) and no longer wish to act in the common good. What I would really like to see is, to show care and support for those victims in Colorado, for Americans to willingly disarm themselves or, at the very least, reduce the size of their personal arsenals.
What the second amendment safeguards is a "well regulated militia". What we have now is NOT what the Constitution outlines, but the NRA conveniently forgets that.
-
I don't mean to minimize the pain and suffering of those involved in the shooting and the perp deserves to be crucified (really, yes, actually publically crucified...maybe that would get these bastards to think twice about going on such rampages).
This is a terrible idea. The opportunity to be publicly crucified would increase the number of these tragedies. In general, in the moment news coverage of these events should not include any talk about the gunman. None. And after the fact he should just disappear into supermax oblivion.
This under 3 minute video makes some important points about how to make doing these things less appealing through more disciplined news coverage http://youtu.be/PezlFNTGWv4 (http://youtu.be/PezlFNTGWv4) from 1:45 on it makes the most important points.
As far as gun control in the US, I don't think anyone is saying no guns, just less lethal guns. It should be obvious that if fully automatic weapons were available legally that is what would have been used - I mean there are a lot of military weapons that would have been far deadlier. So regulations making them hard to get and illegal to own makes us safer. Thus, we can make gun laws that make us safer.
I think everyone should have full access to any weapon available in 1789, after that I think we should talk about it and regulate to our interests. Drum magazines?
-
The NRA is saying we should not publicize these tragic events. Willis’ post sounds like a mimic of those instructions.
The Supreme Court Justice Scalia commented on the Second Amendment, “The Second Amendment guarantees gun ownership but that does not mean guns cannot be regulated.”
-
The NRA has ulterior motives for not wanting press coverage - but the idea that we don't spend so much time and energy focused on the nut case isn't a bad one. Unfortunately, the media feeds us all the details because so many people want to see them. At some level, we all are hoping the next whacked-out fact will answer that one question that doesn't have an answer - "Why?" Crazy doesn't need a reason, though.
MM, like you, I grew up around gun owners. I married into NRA family central - my former father-in-law owns a gun shop. He's a long-time NRA member, but even he was okay when Michigan law made background checks for mental illness a requirement for gun ownership. He said that in all the years he's been selling guns, no one ever needed one so quickly that they couldn't wait a day for the crazy-check to come back. He didn't have any problem with the idea of reporting multiple purchases of weapons that either were or could be made automatic to the feds either. Really, if one of your neighbors is stock-piling hundreds of automatic weapons, who wouldn't prefer that someone check into it?
Again, I'm stuck in no-man's land in the middle of a political debate. The NRA wants no restrictions, while the opposite side would prefer they all be melted into slag. I think people should be allowed to own firearms, but I also think there should be reasonable restrictions on them.
-
Here's one of my many takes on this whole gun/ammo issue. We have to show ID when we buy Sudafed, have our name put in some kind of database that keeps track of how much Sudafed we buy, and the local police/sheriff are notified if we buy too much (please note: I have not looked into how this is officially done). We also have to go to the pharmacy counter to purchase Sudafed.
However, when your crazy, demented neighbor, who hasn't been treated for his craziness, and has never broken the law, so therefore, can pass a background check if given one, can go to local gun stores and buy semi-automatic weapons, go online and buy thousands of rounds of ammo for said guns, stockpile them in his attached-to-his-neighbors apartment home, buy the materials he did to rig said apartment with bombs/explosions, decorate himself in fancy body armour gear, have his canisters of tear gas to confuse the crowd even more (let's face it, this guy was brilliant in pulling off his scheme) and some people are all in a tuzzle because "OH NO, we can't lose our freedom and liberty!!!!!!" Um, where's my freedom and liberty when my potential crazy neighbor could be stockpiling all this stuff and putting my home, health and safety at risk if I happen to be the unlucky sucker in one of the apartments attached to his??? What about MY rights??? (and, of course, the rights of ALL citizens to be able to go to a movie and ensure that they see the whole movie and walk out of the theater alive and uninjured so they can go home and go on with their lives. Same thing to be said for anything else in life, really). Does this now mean that I, as an American, now have to be worried about the random crazy person who is going to come to where I am and shoot up everybody because of their own anger and frustration at the world? Remember, a smaller version of this just happened recently in Seattle, then there was the AZ shootings in Jan of last year. These were all individuals who obtained their arsenal "legally". (Seattle gun guy had a record, but he purchased his guns/permit before all of that, and local officials would not take it away.) One of the women shot by that Seattle freak was dropping off a friend at a different location then the Cafe. He wanted to steal her car. He did, but only after he killed her. He ended up killiing himself in front of the cops.
I am disgusted with all of this crap. When the 2nd Ammendment was written, we did not have semi-automatic weapons and magazines, so I don't see how those items can be covered under it.
I want Americans to have the freedom to be protected from the crazy, gun and ammo collecting crazies. Sounds like Australians have that freedom. Must be nice...
KarenInWA
-
Some alternate viewpoints if anyone cares to read them. I'll just post the links to save space.
http://stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2225517/posts
-
Willis, thanks so much for those links. I found the Stephen Halbrook article of particularly interest because he references the horrible, shocking shooting in Dunblane, Scotland. I was living in London at the time, and I can tell you from firsthand experience how deeply that experience affected the entire British population. Yes, the end result was a weapons ban, but at least at the time, the public supported that.
I am not terribly sure how relevent these reports are of how different countries handle private ownership of guns. Switzerland may be awash in privately held guns, but no one in their right mind believes that Swiss society and cultural values are the same as those in the US. Switzerland does not have the same cultural history of pioneering and the Wild West, etc, that holds the use of guns so dear. There is something about American US culture, both past and present, that is vastly different from that of Switzerland. These studies about guns and crime in other countries just reinforce my suspicion that there is something uniquely frightening and FEARFUL about Americans that make us particularly prone to horrific gun violence. Why are mass shootings on school campuses and movie theaters and malls so common in the US but so rare in someplace like Switzerland? Willis, what do you suppose is the reason for this? I'd be really interested to hear your theories.
Willis, what do you think has made Americans so fearful? What do you suppose we are so frightened of? Anyone have any ideas? What is so different about American culture/society from, say, Swiss culture/society that makes it so much more likely for you to be shot in the US than in Switzerland, despite the fact that Switzerland is more "armed"?