Who will take on Obama in 2012? [Archive]

rufnek

03-29-11, 05:20 PM

If these are all the possibilities, I think it will be a horse race between Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin. Of course at this point in time I never would have predicted Obama would have been a serious candidate. My money is on Romney, but he is going to have to do a much better job of selling himself. He gets that caught in the headlights look when trying to explain his flip flops, but they will not seem as important this time because it is four years later. He shouldn't attack Sarah Palin. The press will do that for him.

http://www.kevinwebb22.com/politics/2012-presidential-candidates-2012-president-who-will-run-for-president-in-2012

Palin is the only candidate other than Newt who has name and face recognition and something of a following, but she also has so much baggage that she'll never float as a serious candidate. Besides her political career is governer of probably the most sparsely populated state in the nation so rich in natural resources that instead of being taxed, all citizens get a piece of the oil money pouring into state coffers, hasn't exactly prepared her for the office of president. Plus the curse of the Peter Principle--like Obama and Jimmy Carter she's already risen to her level of incompetence. Newt also has a wagon-load of baggage that is going to drag him down in any race for the nominaton. Plus he's old--one advantage that Palin has over him.

The rest of the "possible" candidates are like the "7 dwarfs" selection the Democrats had some years ago--a bunch of unknowns and poor second-choices fighting it out for nomination on the losing ticket. I don't recognize most of the names on that list and the few I do don't give me the warm fuzzies. Rick Perry? The only Texas governor stiffer and less articulate than George W.? Gimme a break! The office of Texas governor is one of the weakest in the country as a result of the way our constitution was written after reconstruction. And Bush and Perry still couldn't handle the job! Rice? On the strength of having been appointed Sec. of State? Where's her political and administrative experience? Trump???? Tell me you're joking! Can you think of a worse candidate for what is tagged as the "party of big business" than one of the biggest and most laughable businessman of them all? Would you trust a man whose most memorable quote is "You're fired!" to end unemployment and recession in this country?

I don't think there's a decent candidate even for vice president on that list.

Wonder who's the highest ranking person of Hispanic culture in the Republican Party? Maybe they should run him--or her. After all, the Hispanic population is growing faster than the black population. And he might even attract some moderate liberals who've had it with Obama. Besides, think of the natural election slogan--"Our brown guy can whip your black guy."

Yoda

03-29-11, 05:39 PM

The crazy thing about the Republican field is that in a relatively normal election cycle everything -- everything -- would point to Mitt Romney. Runner-up last time, strong fundraising advantage and existing organization, and his business acumen and all-around general level of personal competency would dovetail very well with the kinds of themes he'd probably be running against Obama with.

Except, of course, for RomneyCare. And that one thing -- the fact that he instituted a not-too-unlike-ObamaCare-health-plan as Governor of Massachusetts -- could be enough to counteract all the others. He's played this the only way he can, really: by suggesting that it's one thing to implement such a plan for a specific state, and another to impose it on an entire country. And that's true. But it's not enough, and I don't suspect he can make the case that Massachusetts is so fundamentally different from the rest of the nation to make an idea he finds terrible at the federal level hunky-dory at the state level. And even if he could, that's a pretty nuanced counter to a very straightforward charge, and those don't usually work very well.

Palin: I think there's a very good chance she doesn't even run, and if she does I don't think she wins. I like her just where she is: as a party firebrand and general lightning rod. And I think she risks hurting the eventual nominee if she runs and loses. The people who love her really love her, and I can easily see many of them having no second choice if she falls short, and thus sitting things out even though they're apt to align with the eventual nominee fairly well anyway.

I honestly don't know who I'd put money on if I were forced to. Probably Romney, but if not Romney, it'd definitely be Pawlenty. He's relatively inoffensive, which is both his strength and his weakness. At the moment he's not exciting too many people and is ill-defined, but the latter fact also means he could define himself, and having the flexibility to do that (something most of the other serious candidates do not have) could be very valuable. And there is some political theory to suggest that in a wide open race with no clear frontrunner, the blandest candidate tends to emerge (think: Kerry, 2004). That said, I wouldn't bet on this unless I could take "The Field" against any single candidate.

I'm also surprised at how little attention Haley Barbour's getting, though that's probably because of his civil rights gaffe a few months back. Outside of that he's a pretty attractive candidate; he's experienced and he's got a good fiscal track record. It would not shock me in the slightest if he won. Worth tossing Mitch Daniels' name in there. No idea if he's running, though: this seems like it should be the time, but he's made a few moves to the center recently, and that's not the kind of thing you do leading up to a primary. I could get behind him, though, for sure.

Last thought for now: there are lots of exciting candidates who aren't going to run this time around, which means that if Obama does win re-election, the Republicans should have a very, very good crop of candidates in 2016. Chris Christie is the obvious hypothetical frontrunner, and Marco Rubio could be awfully exciting after he's gotten some experience. Paul Ryan lives and breathes budget matters, and those aren't going to stop being relevant any time soon. Plenty of choices next time around...unless, of course, a Republican actually wins next year. And the smart bet is still against that happening.

rufnek

03-29-11, 06:00 PM

Except, of course, for RomneyCare. And that one thing -- the fact that he instituted a not-too-unlike-ObamaCare-health-plan as Governor of Massachusetts

That's why I didn't even mention Romney in my post. You know the major plank in the Republican platform in 2012 will be repeal of ObamaCare, and it wouldn't do to have a Republican candidate who did it first and has since defended it. For all of his other strengths, that disqualifies Romney.

Perhaps the Republicans' best bet is to dig up a new Senator or at least a clean representive, run a thorough security check to make sure he was an Eagle Scout, never hired illegal aliens or uttered racial slurs, and is articulate enough to hold his own in debate, put him on the ticket and carefully handle him so he doesn't say anything not scripted (i.e. stupid) that would make a bad TV bite, and then let Obama beat himself by trying to sell ObamaCare and explaining the much higher cost of gasoline at the pump after having shut down drilling in the Gulf of Mexico for nearly a year.

Brodinski

03-29-11, 06:11 PM

will.15

03-29-11, 06:19 PM

I didn't know anything about Pawlenty. He wasn't described in that link. But after looking him up that is the kind of candidate that often emerges from the pack, a popular Governor. But you never know who will catch on. Most of the rest are members of the House or non politicians and probably at best one or two will have followings like Ron Paul, but won't win any states. Rick Santorum, a defeated ex Senator with an abrasive style, is a real puzzler as a potential candidate.

will.15

03-29-11, 06:32 PM

DexterRiley

03-29-11, 06:50 PM

I'd like to see a Gary Johnson/Ron Paul Ticket, but chances are it will be cannon fodder like jeb bush , Palin or Romney.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx6uUB0TcHc

rufnek

03-29-11, 08:28 PM

what about Ginrich? Does he have a chance to secure the nomination?

I've got as much of a chance to get the Republican nomination as Gingrich--unless of course the Republicans go completely nuts and throw away the election, which is always possible. The Republicans have to learn to get past "the usual suspects" like Gingrich and find someone who appeals to independents more than to the party's right wing.

I just can't see Gingrich getting it--he has too much baggage from his days as speaker plus the book thing and other questionable actions. the Democrats would just beat him to death with all those old issues.

will.15

03-29-11, 09:03 PM

I've got as much of a chance to get the Republican nomination as Gingrich--unless of course the Republicans go completely nuts and throw away the election, which is always possible. The Republicans have to learn to get past "the usual suspects" like Gingrich and find someone who appeals to independents more than to the party's right wing.

I just can't see Gingrich getting it--he has too much baggage from his days as speaker plus the book thing and other questionable actions. the Democrats would just beat him to death with all those old issues.
With Tea Party fever still running high, no way will they pick someone who would appeal to independents. Bush Junior the first time was the stealth conservative, the party base embraced and trusted him while his rhetoric appealed to independents. They don't have anyone like that now. I think this could be the election year they go with a right wing flame thrower then when he or she fails, get it out of their system and pick someone mainstream next time.

Fiscal

03-29-11, 10:05 PM

I'd like to see a Gary Johnson/Ron Paul Ticket, but chances are it will be cannon fodder like jeb bush , Palin or Romney.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx6uUB0TcHc

Gary supports Marijuana and is pro choice, that won't fly with Hannity/Beck/Limbaugh and their following.

I would love that ticket though, dex.

rufnek

03-30-11, 08:32 PM

With Tea Party fever still running high, no way will they pick someone who would appeal to independents. Bush Junior the first time was the stealth conservative, the party base embraced and trusted him while his rhetoric appealed to independents. They don't have anyone like that now. I think this could be the election year they go with a right wing flame thrower then when he or she fails, get it out of their system and pick someone mainstream next time.

The way I see it, this election is for the Republicans to lose. Everyone is so pissed about Obamacare and other fool moves by this administration that if the Republican would come up with a candidate for whom the majority of voters could hold their nose and pull the lever, they would have it in the bag. But I don't see anyone in the party with even that much appeal.

Obama is the most political president ever and he's been running for reelection ever since he got in office. But he's so arrogant and so out of his depth that he could sink himself with some fool move by 2012. I'm betting energy prices will do it, especially if we're still banging around in Libya by then. But I also never sell short the Republican's ability to shoot themselves in the ass and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Maybe they can get a majority in both houses of Congress, with some of the Democratic senators seeking reelection ending up in such tough fights that they have to move more to the center and start voting with Republicans on key issues.

Obamacare and high oil prices with the feds still sitting on Gulf of Mexico leases are gonna be bread-and-butter issues next year, so the Republicans need someone to talk reasonably on those points while remaining below the radar on anything else and not endorse some of the far right issues.

DexterRiley

03-30-11, 08:46 PM

That sounds an awful lot like 2004.

substitute obama for bush and obamacare for iraq war.

it does not matter who the republicans put forth, short of ressurecting Ronnie Reagan.

Obama will win.

will.15

03-30-11, 08:55 PM

Upon reflection I don't think Romney will be a serious contender. He seemed like the perfect candidate last year on paper, but his incredibly cynical decision to re-make himself overnight from moderate to staunch conservative didn't endear him to Republican voters. You can fudge a little like McCain did (and most Presidential candidates do), but you can't do it on every issue. I didn't think Palin was going to run for the Presidency when she resigned as Governor, but now I do. I think someone from the pack will emerge, probably a Governor, and it will be him and Palin, with Palin doing well early in Iowa, maybe New Hampshire. I really am thinking she could get the nomination, but it will be fierce contest and if she's the nominee unless there is a scandal Obama wins. She is a terrible debater.

If the Supreme Court rules nationalized medicine is unconstitutional, it will help Obama and possibly Romney.

Yoda

03-30-11, 09:13 PM

I don't know as much about the U.S. political landscape than you guys do, but I reckon it'll be Palin. I also have this hunch that Obama is going to win the 2012 election easily. In spite of some calling for him to run, hasn't Chris Christie refused to run in 2012 because he thinks he can't beat Obama? I vaguely remember reading something about that...
It was the exact opposite: he said he wasn't running but thinks he could beat him. And I'd agree, ssuming he meant could and not definitely would.

Oh, and what about Ginrich? Does he have a chance to secure the nomination?
As ruf says, he has lots of baggage. But I think that sort of thing is terribly overestimated. Guiliani has some personal scandal in his past and that never even came up during the primary. Fred Thompson's got himself a trophy wife. John McCain is divorced, though his ex-wife has nice things to say about him to this day (even though some rumors don't). Hell, Joe Biden's own Presidential ambitions were derailed once upon a time before because he was caught plagiarizing a British politician and because he actually said to someone who questioned him "I'll bet I have a higher IQ than you." Political gaffes and personal indiscretions of a statute of limitations on them. Hang around long enough and they lose a lot of their power. What are reporters going to do, report it like breaking news?

All that said, Newt's personal life is worse than most, so he might be the exception. But I don't totally agree with anyone who would write him off on this alone. What he has going in his favor is that he's very, very sharp. Right now -- fairly or not -- the Republican party has to contend with the idea that it's willing to nominate folksy, down-to-earth types even at the expense of competency if it's forced to choose between the two. Nobody can make the case, with a straight face, that Gingrich is not very smart and very in command of the issues. In a nutshell: he can beat Obama in a debate.

I don't think he'll be the nominee, and I think he might not even run to begin with, but I think it's very hard to overestimate a candidate who can command a stage or a debate with their grasp of the issues and their complexities. A lot of the political dossier's list of weaknesses start to look irrelevant when the candidate actually gets there on stage, or in front of the camera.

Yoda

03-30-11, 09:20 PM

That sounds an awful lot like 2004.

substitute obama for bush and obamacare for iraq war.

it does not matter who the republicans put forth, short of ressurecting Ronnie Reagan.

Obama will win.
I think he'll win, but I think it's an awfully long way from a sure thing. The parallels with 2004 are very superficial. Bush still had very strong support among conservatives and decent numbers with independents in '04; Obama, on the other hand, has a lot of disillusioned Democrats on his hands (for good reason; he's done lots of things he railed against during the campaign), and his support among independents has absolutely plummeted since taking office. We all saw what happened in November.

Historically, Obama's approval rating is just a little above where it needs to be to make him a favorite for re-election, I believe. But other indicators, like the economy and unemployment, would normally bode very, very badly for the incumbent.

If the Republicans had a four-years-from-now Chris Christie running fresh on the heels of fixing New Jersey's budget problems, I'd make them a moderate favorite. But for now, with no such dark horse ridden by a white knight (at least, none that we can see yet), I'd give the Republicans 2-1 odds.

Yoda

03-30-11, 09:26 PM

Sorry, posting separate to keep separate thoughts separate.

Upon reflection I don't think Romney will be a serious contender. He seemed like the perfect candidate last year on paper, but his incredibly cynical decision to re-make himself overnight from moderate to staunch conservative didn't endear him to Republican voters. You can fudge a little like McCain did (and most Presidential candidates do), but you can't do it on every issue. I didn't think Palin was going to run for the Presidency when she resigned as Governor, but now I do. I think someone from the pack will emerge, probably a Governor, and it will be him and Palin, with Palin doing well early in Iowa, maybe New Hampshire. I really am thinking she could get the nomination, but it will be fierce contest and if she's the nominee unless there is a scandal Obama wins. She is a terrible debater.

If the Supreme Court rules nationalized medicine is unconstitutional, it will help Obama and possibly Romney.
We don't actually have a good test of Romney's appeal to most conservatives because many were even less enamored with McCain's credentials, so he was actually the further-right choice once the less viable candidates had bowed out.

The thing is, though Romney has definitely remade himself...he's been doing it for awhile. And I think most voters are shrewd enough to realize that it's really just about what each person is going to do. Am I sure Romney is a genuine conservative deep down in his soul now? No. Do I think he'll behave like one anyway, since he's been saying he will for years now? Yeah, I think maybe he would. Heck, I'm sure some politicians really do change their minds on some of this stuff, though since most of them have a vested interest in saying so we'd never believe them either way (and we'd be right not to most of the time). But he's been walking the walk for awhile now, so who knows.

I don't think the general movement towards more conservative positions over the years is the problem for Romney; the guy almost got the nomination anyway. It's all RomneyCare. Without that, he cruises. With it, he's going to spend the entire primary dissembling.

Re: Palin. I'm amazed at how many people think she'll definitely run and definitely be the frontrunner. I'll be a little surprised if she runs, but I'll be stunned if she wins the nomination.

will.15

03-30-11, 09:28 PM

I don't think Gingrich's personal life will be an issue. It is old stuff. If he was a newcomer and these revelations were just coming out it would be different. Gingrich's problem is he is a polarizing presence, definitely not a uniter. I think he wants to run. His interest at the eleventh hour in '08 was fueled by his realization he was better than the guys that were running, but it was too late at that point to enter the race.

will.15

03-30-11, 09:41 PM

"I don't think the general movement towards more conservative positions over the years is the problem for Romney; the guy almost got the nomination anyway. It's all RomneyCare. Without that, he cruises. With it, he's going to spend the entire primary dissembling."

I dont think he almost got the nomination. He did terrible considering how much money he spent and all his advantages. If Republican voters trusted him, he was with them on all the issues, he should have put away John McCain. I am still amazed McCain won. He really was the comeback kid.

planet news

03-30-11, 11:37 PM

Yeah, McCain was totally oldmanoutoff*ckingnowhere.jpg last time. I suppose I have my fingers crossed for Palin even though she's unlikely because I want that kind of endless entertainment in my life.

You guys are surprising me though with all this fo-sho, 2-1 certainty talk. I easily get the feeling from even the liberal media that he is constantly walking on thin ice around just about everyone.

DexterRiley

03-31-11, 12:06 AM

I think he'll win, but I think it's an awfully long way from a sure thing. The parallels with 2004 are very superficial. Bush still had very strong support among conservatives

Neo-Conservatives you mean.

Conservatives from my understanding are big on fiscal responsibility, small government and the Constitution.

Bush was 0-3.

Monkeypunch

03-31-11, 12:08 AM

I suppose I have my fingers crossed for Palin even though she's unlikely because I want that kind of endless entertainment in my life.

yeah, that would be endlessly amusing, I'm seeing the Tina Fey skits in my mind right now.

...but then there's the horrible idea: What if she wins? I mean nobody thought Bush would win, and then he did, so who's to say some weird slight of hand wouldn't put that unqualified loon Palin in office...That idea scares me to death.

Just a thought, but if they wanna win? I would say Mitt Romney would be the best bet. Hell, he's kinda new, but Scott Brown. He's incredibly popular here in Massachusetts, and make no mistake we are a very liberal state. Y'all need a republican JFK. Someone who's conservative but really charismatic and not dangerously far right. Then yeah, Obama would be toast.

DexterRiley

03-31-11, 12:49 AM

My dream Candidate would be Ron Paul with Dennis Kucinich as his running mate.

Fiscal

03-31-11, 12:55 AM

I suppose I have my fingers crossed for Palin even though she's unlikely because I want that kind of endless entertainment in my life.

:up:

The Daily Show writers would be in heaven.

DexterRiley

03-31-11, 01:01 AM

:up:

The Daily Show writers would be in heaven.

especially if they selected say...Michelle Bachman has her running mate.

The carnage would be Charlie Sheen level funny.

Yoda

03-31-11, 10:38 AM

Neo-Conservatives you mean.

Conservatives from my understanding are big on fiscal responsibility, small government and the Constitution.

Bush was 0-3.
Nope; his support was strong among conservatives, too, because most of them decided the foreign policy issues trumped whatever objections they had elsewhere, and the fiscal responsibility/small government stuff was much less of an issue in his first term; the bulk of complaints from conservatives came in the second. This is also while he appealed to independents: many decided the issues of security and terrorism trumped other disagreements. Ideology is not a checklist where every item on it has the same importance as every other for each person.

And while I'm sure you regard him as using the Constitution as a bib while eating spare ribs or something, it's safe to say a lot of conservatives probably didn't have the same impression. So I'd say he's more like 1.5 out of 3, with the addendum that conservatives don't just care about 3 things, and a lot of the other things that got him reelected have been left off of this imaginary test for some reason.

will.15

03-31-11, 02:04 PM

Nope; his support was strong among conservatives, too, because most of them decided the foreign policy issues trumped whatever objections they had elsewhere, and the fiscal responsibility/small government stuff was much less of an issue in his first term; the bulk of complaints from conservatives came in the second.
They didn't say anything about fiscal responsibility and less governmnt until the Democrats took back the Senate. If a Democrat had been in power when 911 happened they woulld have still been yelling small government, fiscal responsibility. Republicans don't really want smaller government. They love laws that trample on civil liberties. It is social progrms they have a problem with. They were spending a ton of money on stuff that had nothing to do with national security like the bridge to nowhere.

Yoda

03-31-11, 02:17 PM

They didn't say anything about fiscal responsibility and less governmnt until the Democrats took back the Senate.
The reason you didn't hear as much about these things is because Bush's major transgressions in terms of fiscal irresponsibility came late in his term. And the largest exception -- the prescription drug benefit -- did annoy prominent conservatives. Just off the top of my head, I recall Sean Hannity being very critical of Bush for it, and I personally know other conservatives who were, too.

If a Democrat had been in power when 911 happened they woulld have still been yelling small government, fiscal responsibility. Republicans don't really want smaller government. They love laws that trample on civil liberties. It is social progrms they have a problem with. They were spending a ton of money on stuff that had nothing to do with national security like the bridge to nowhere.
"They" were not spending money on that -- some of them were. Ones with a vested interest in it, like Ted Stevens. I won't try to pretend that Republicans are not susceptible to the same interest in securing funds for their own states and districts that every politician has. They absolutely are, for the most part, but that doesn't mean one must account for all, or that political backscratching undermines the entire conservative ideology. If that's your logic, you'd have to say the same thing about Democrats who insist we must never venture into people's bedrooms unless it's to grab their wallet.

Also, the old line about how Republicans don't really want smaller government is tired and flat-out wrong. As I've mentioned elsewhere, "smaller government" is a shorthand description of a general philosophy, not a literal, exhaustive political platform (it's two words; how could it be?). Believing in smaller government in general does not require that all conservatives be rabid libertarians. The term is only a contradiction if you take it literally, and there's no reason to take it literally except to pretend there's a contradiction.

This should really go in some other thread at some point, by the way.

Sedai

03-31-11, 02:28 PM

DexterRiley

03-31-11, 03:25 PM

To bad a third party is Really in control...The Finance Party. They have both democrat and republican members, some of them holding positions on Obama's staff right now. They put on a convincing puppet show.

well more to the point, i'd say Wall Street is the President while Oil and Gas is his right hand man.

rufnek

03-31-11, 08:50 PM

As ruf says, he has lots of baggage. But I think that sort of thing is terribly overestimated. Guiliani has some personal scandal in his past and that never even came up during the primary. Fred Thompson's got himself a trophy wife. John McCain is divorced, though his ex-wife has nice things to say about him to this day (even though some rumors don't). Hell, Joe Biden's own Presidential ambitions were derailed once upon a time before because he was caught plagiarizing a British politician

You're right; maybe that's over estimated. On the other hand, none of the guys you mentioned have become president. :)

I don't think past discretions necessarily have to come up in a campaign or that people have to remember all of the details. They still may say, "Wasn't he involved in something crooked some years ago? Don't think I'll vote for him." Folks always remembered Teddy Kennedy driving off into the water.

I think it's very hard to overestimate a candidate who can command a stage or a debate with their grasp of the issues and their complexities.

If knowledge and ability really counted in a presidential race Adalai Stevenson would have been president. :)

rufnek

03-31-11, 08:54 PM

Gingrich's problem is he is a polarizing presence, definitely not a uniter.

That's actually the kind of baggage I was talking about. The guy has made enemies and I doubt if he's capable of forging bridges to work with the Democrats. Plus he's been out of office too long--that will count against him.

rufnek

03-31-11, 08:58 PM

Republicans don't really want smaller government. They love laws that trample on civil liberties.

Well, so long as you're keeping an open mind and not demonizing anyone. :)

rufnek

03-31-11, 09:02 PM

well more to the point, i'd say Wall Street is the President while Oil and Gas is his right hand man.

Oh, of course. That's why the oil industry has been locked out of the Gulf of Mexico for a year and off the other coasts for decades and paying a bigger percentage of taxes on their earnings than any other US industry. They're so much in control they even got stuck with that windfall profit tax.

will.15

03-31-11, 09:45 PM

Well, so long as you're keeping an open mind and not demonizing anyone. :)
The records of the George W. Bush and Richard Nixon administrations speak for themselves.

Let's face it. these days the most important qualifications to be President are

1) Photogenic

2 Good speaker (not necessarily good debater)

3) Some government experience, preferably as a Senator or Governor

Yoda

03-31-11, 10:14 PM

DexterRiley

04-01-11, 03:56 PM

Oh, of course. That's why the oil industry has been locked out of the Gulf of Mexico for a year and off the other coasts for decades and paying a bigger percentage of taxes on their earnings than any other US industry. They're so much in control they even got stuck with that windfall profit tax.

link to source.

Here's what i found :

The federal government provides the oil industry with numerous tax breaks designed to ensure that domestic companies can compete with international producers and that gasoline remains cheap for American consumers. Federal tax breaks that directly benefit oil companies include: the Percentage Depletion Allowance (a subsidy of $784 million to $1 billion per year), the Nonconventional Fuel Production Credit ($769 to $900 million), immediate expensing of exploration and development costs ($200 to $255 million), the Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit ($26.3 to $100 million), foreign tax credits ($1.11 to $3.4 billion), foreign income deferrals ($183 to $318 million), and accelerated depreciation allowances ($1.0 to $4.5 billion).

Tax subsidies do not end at the federal level. The fact that most state income taxes are based on oil firms' deflated federal tax bill results in undertaxation of $125 to $323 million per year. Many states also impose fuel taxes that are lower than regular sales taxes, amounting to a subsidy of $4.8 billion per year to gasoline retailers and users. New rules under the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 are likely to provide the petroleum industry with additional tax subsidies of $2.07 billion per year. In total, annual tax breaks that support gasoline production and use amount to $9.1 to $17.8 billion.

PROGRAM SUBSIDIES

Government support of US petroleum producers does not end with tax breaks. Program subsidies that support the extraction, production, and use of petroleum and petroleum fuel products total $38 to $114.6 billion each year. The largest portion of this total is federal, state, and local governments' $36 to $112 billion worth of spending on the transportation infrastructure, such as the construction, maintenance, and repair of roads and bridges. Other program subsidies include funding of research and development ($200 to $220 million), export financing subsidies ($308.5 to $311.9 million), support from the Army Corps of Engineers ($253.2 to $270 million), the Department of Interior's Oil Resources Management Programs ($97 to $227 million), and government expenditures on regulatory oversight, pollution cleanup, and liability costs ($1.1 to $1.6 billion).

PROTECTION SUBSIDIES

Beyond program subsidies, governments, and thus taxpayers, subsidize a large portion of the protection services required by petroleum producers and users. Foremost among these is the cost of military protection for oil-rich regions of the world. US Defense Department spending allocated to safeguard the world's petroleum resources total some $55 to $96.3 billion per year. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a federal government entity designed to supplement regular oil supplies in the event of disruptions due to military conflict or natural disaster, costs taxpayers an additional $5.7 billion per year. The Coast Guard and the Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration provide other protection services totaling $566.3 million per year. Of course, local and state governments also provide protection services for oil industry companies and gasoline users. These externalized police, fire, and emergency response expenditures add up to $27.2 to $38.2 billion annually.

http://www.progress.org/2003/energy22.htm

will.15

04-01-11, 08:09 PM

They still aren't drilling off shore where they want to and they would like a lot more deregulation and tax breaks then they are getting. There is no doubt their money buys them a lot of access and influence. But if they were completely running the show, if both Parties were beholden to them, why is it Democrats give them a harder time than Republicans? And Republicans are for deregulation in general no matter what industry it is.

rufnek

04-07-11, 06:26 PM

Not that I think it will matter a flip to you, Dexter, but those tax deductions also have benefits for the nation, not just the industry. Let me point out a few:

Percentage Depletion – This tax break applies only to the small independent US oil companies—the mom & pop firms that do most of the exploration drilling in the mature US—not "Big Oil" like Exxon, Chevron, or BP. The upfront cost for exploring and developing oil and gas is extremely high, more so than any other industry I can think of (we're talking millions of dollars per well, billions when you go offshore in deepwater, and something like 10 years or more from the time they do the initial seismic exploration until the first barrel of oil or Mcf of gas is produced and sold). The depletion allowance helps small oil companies reduce these upfront costs, so they can drill more wells and develop more fields as the underlying mineral is produced. Switching to cost depletion will increase costs for small producers through a more complicated tax system and put more of them out of business.

Tax credits for enhanced oil recovery and for marginal wells. Most of the onland oil wells in the lower 48 states are what they call marginal wells whose production life is nearing an end so that they produce only 10 b/d or less—mostly less. Cumulatively, however, that’s still a hell of a lot of oil being squeezed out of those old wells. Enhanced oil recovery is where one uses chemicals or steam or water downhole to enhance production from a well that is either marginal from long production or that has low porosity in the rock, making it harder to produce the oil. These tax credits were established to ensure continued production when oil prices drop to low levels as in 1986 when Saudi Arabia jacked up its production and dropped the price of oil to $10/bbl. But there is also a mechanism build into these tax reductions that eliminates the credit when oil prices are above a certain level (well below what the price of oil is today, believe me). Eliminating these credits would entirely disregard the cyclical nature of oil prices and penalize marginal or tertiary production when prices are depressed and these marginal wells lose value. In times of low prices, these marginal wells will be the first to be shut in because the value of their production would drop below the cost of producing them. That means US wells being shut in, not reducing imports from the Middle East where production costs are much lower anyway. Once shut in, a marginal well rarely can be brought back into production because the cost of going in and reworking a well to get say 5 b/d of oil is prohibitive. Shut these wells in and they’re gone forever.

Tax credits for expensing of tertiary injectants. As I said earlier, the US is a mature oil producing region but still contains many viable fields whose lives are extended through the use of tertiary injectants, using chemicals downhole to increase oil production in aging wells. This deduction supports using carbon dioxide in enhanced oil recovery projects, one of the primary methods by which carbon dioxide is currently stored to prevent its release into the atmosphere, so it has environmental benefits, too. This technology and the tax deduction that helps support it keep many fields active and many production companies in business. Changing how these costs are recovered could force producers to shut in older fields and significantly impact local economies.

Geological and geophysical amortization – Before drilling a well, geologists and geophysicists study the area for clues as to whether there might be any oil or gas below and, if so, the optimum place to drill for it. This is time-consuming and very expensive. The amortization helps recover those upfront costs for tax purposes and is important to continued exploration that in time will lead to more domestic oil and gas, so that we import less from overseas.

International Reform/Dual Capacity - Proposals to restrict the use of deductions and foreign tax credits on foreign earnings ignore the multinational nature of the US economy and particularly the oil industry. Such restrictions would penalize industries like oil and gas that must seek foreign markets to grow. Efforts to subject the oil and natural gas industry to double taxation of its foreign earnings—once in the host country and again in the US—will hinder expansion of US oil companies in the world marketplace. Contrary to statements made by the administration, these proposals will not create US jobs and could even result in US job losses. (It takes several US workers to support an overseas project.)

Another proposal is to repeal the last-in-first-out accounting method, which far from being a tax loophole is merely a way to determine income for companies that anticipate inflation or rising prices over the course of their operations. The system has been in use for over 70 years. Repealing LIFO has no real basis in tax policy and would require companies to redirect cash or sell assets in order to cover the tax payment – potentially destroying some businesses.

Sec. 199 for oil and natural gas companies – A tax deduction established to help US manufacturers maintain and create well-paying US jobs. The oil and natural gas industry supports 9.2 million jobs. A full repeal of this deduction for just the oil and gas industry places a number of those jobs at risk and undermines efforts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Expensing of intangible drilling costs – US producers have had the option to expense IDC since the inception of the tax code. It is designed to help companies continue exploring for and producing oil and gas by reducing drilling and development costs. Repealing this deduction will trigger a jump in those costs, resulting in less drilling, less development, fewer US jobs, greater dependence on foreign oil, and in time less revenue to the US government for oil and gas not found and brought to market. These deductions have played a crucial role in advances in technology and spurring transformations in the US economy and America’s energy sector. Similar to the research and development costs for other industries, the intangible drilling and development cost deductions for oil and gas companies have identical policy goals: to promote innovation, foster development of new products and resources, and promote economic growth.

Let me also point out that back before Obama shut down drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, royalties and fees paid on offshore wells throught the old Minerals Management Service was the second greatest source of federal revenue after the income tax.

will.15

04-07-11, 06:34 PM

:Drufnek:
"Obama shut down drilling in the Gulf of Mexico"

If oil is Obama's right hand man as DR says, he must be left handed.

I'm going to gloat some more that Glen Beck lost his TV gig.:D:D:D

Apparently, Beck has become a conspiracy nut, which is more kinds of nut than he was. Limbaugh should have told him to stay away from the chalkboard.

http://www.aolnews.com/story/trump-hammers-away-at-obamas-citizenship/1580154/

After reading this I have cocncluded Trump is dumber than Sarah Palin.

rufnek

04-07-11, 07:29 PM

Program subsidies that support the extraction, production, and use of petroleum and petroleum fuel products total $38 to $114.6 billion each year. The largest portion of this total is federal, state, and local governments' $36 to $112 billion worth of spending on the transportation infrastructure, such as the construction, maintenance, and repair of roads and bridges.

Sorry, Dexter, this is just silly. Before the horseless carriage came along was construction, maintenance, and repair of roads and bridges considered a government subsidy for horse traders? If you mean the government does all of this spending just to encourage the sale of gasoline, then what’s the dollar value to Federal Express who uses those same roads to make deliveries on which its business depends? How much is directly beneficial to McDonalds and Holiday Inn who cash in on hungry and tired travelers on those roads. Surely it would be of greater benefit to Exxon if there were no restaurants, no motels along a freeway—just Exxon stations where motorists could refill and drive and drive and drive. Thing is, the oil and gas industry was up and running and profitable back in 1859 before the car, much less the freeways and modern bridges, was ever built. (Do you realize that during the Civil War, 1861-1865, there was not a single bridge across the Mississippi River? Not a foot bridge, not a railroad bridge, nothing because they didn’t have the technology then to built a bridge that river wouldn’t tear down.) Roads and bridges followed the car, but by many years. For a long time, autos just drove across the terrain. Come to a fence, the driver would take it down and drive on.

Foremost among these is the cost of military protection for oil-rich regions of the world. US Defense Department spending allocated to safeguard the world's petroleum resources total some $55 to $96.3 billion per year.

Now this part is really funny! I guess your source is saying our military is protecting places like Saudi Arabia. But Saudi Aramco is a national oil company owned by the Saudi government, so if we’re “protecting” anything over there, it’s the Saudi government. Would it be better if we let Russia or China or Japan take Saudi Arabia under its protective wing? Same thing with all the Middle East and most Latin American producers. The government owns the oil and the national oil company. An outside company can invest, but it cannot own the oil or gas production.

Moreover in Desert Storm back in 1990, we attacked Iraq, who then was selling oil to the US, to protect Kuwait, who was then selling oil to Japan. If that really was an “oil war,” didn’t our government get it backwards?

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a federal government entity designed to supplement regular oil supplies in the event of disruptions due to military conflict or natural disaster, costs taxpayers an additional $5.7 billion per year.

Whoever wrote this don’t know spit about the SPRO. After the oil shortages in the 1970s (the first when the Muslim oil producers quit selling oil to the US and The Netherlands because of our support of Israel, the second when the fall of the shah in Iran caused a panic because everyone was afraid Iran’s oil exports would be disrupted--although they weren't), the Congress in its wisdom decided it would be smart to build an emergency stockpile of oil (they already had a stockpile of fuel oil in case of a really cold winter in the Northeast) to get the country through any future embargo. All of this was done in conjunction with the International Energy Agency in Paris who is supposed to coordinate everyone when time to dip into their emergency reserves. Now this is not counting the 357.7 million bbl of commercial crude inventories that the oil companies themselves had on hand in the week ended Apr. 1.

The US government did indeed build all that storage capacity along the Gulf Coast in large salt domes and bought most of the oil it has put in there (at one time paying a premium for Mexican crude to help out Mexico). For awhile, the government decided to take royalties from offshore wells “in kind” (oil produced from those wells) rather than cash, and that oil was added to SPRO. Anyway, your source seems to think that the government is just holding that oil to give out to “Big Oil” companies. But actually any release of oil is sold to the highest bidder. And if the government thinks no one has bid high enough, the oil isn’t sold. The idea, I think, was to get refined products (not oil) to consumers like yourself so you didn’t have to sit in line waiting for a fill-up on odd numbered days or freeze in a sleet storm.

The Coast Guard and the Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration provide other protection services totaling $566.3 million per year.

I’m not sure what protection services your source means although the Coast Guard does inspect the maritime part of drillships and semisubmersible rigs that move under their own power, just as it does for other US ships of all kinds. I don’t think they spend as much money or effort on that part of their operations as on running down drug runners or even rescuing wealthy yachtsmen.

Of course, local and state governments also provide protection services for oil industry companies and gasoline users. These externalized police, fire, and emergency response expenditures add up to $27.2 to $38.2 billion annually.

Guess what he’s saying here is if a service station gets robbed, the police shouldn’t investigate. I always thought the police, fire department, and emergency response teams were for the protection of all local citizens, not just a select few based on their employment. Over the years of running fires and crime scenes, I can tell you I’ve covered many more fires in big warehouses and department stores than in refineries, which have their own fire and emergency response teams and their own security. These efforts to make the oil industry responsible for every public expense are foolish.

Monkeypunch

04-08-11, 12:17 AM

After reading this I have concluded Trump is dumber than Sarah Palin.

Trump is an ass. Haven't we gotten past this stupid argument by now? People who bring this crap up are people who know they don't have a chance in a fair fight.

mark f

04-08-11, 03:01 AM

Trump isn't dumber... he's richer.

DexterRiley

04-08-11, 04:42 AM

DexterRiley

04-08-11, 04:48 AM

I'm going to gloat some more that Glen Beck lost his TV gig.:D:D:D

Apparently, Beck has become a conspiracy nut, which is more kinds of nut than he was. Limbaugh should have told him to stay away from the chalkboard.
[

Fox is just getten started, I can't wait to see Hannity explain this away..lol

EXCLUSIVE: Al Qaeda Leader Dined at the Pentagon Just Months After 9/11

Now if MSNBC reported this, O'Reilly would lose his mind, but i wouldn't hold my breath on him talking about it on air.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al-qaeda-terror-leader-dined-pentagon-months/

rufnek

04-08-11, 04:20 PM

Rufnek, i think the fundamental problem you are having, is you believe the Government's foreign policy is based on whats best for 280 million regular American citizens.

it isn't. its for the benefit of teh mega-corps than get folks elected, and then have a cush job waiten for them when they have served their purpose as a civil servant.

wake the hell up will you. Your niavete routine is tiresome.

I'm still waiten on links to back up what you say. its the internet, cant be all that hard can it?

I opened my original post to you, Dexter, by acknowledging nothing I would say would mean a damn to you. So why the hell would you think I'd waste time hunting down sources for you or that I give a damn whether you believe me or not? I'm not trying to convert you or anyone. Believe whatever you want to believe. Doesn't bother me a bit.

Moreover, I was talking about the government's energy policy, not its foreign policy. Big difference. Maybe that's your fundamental problem.

And, hey, if my posts are tiresome, don't read them. Better yet, don't respond to them, starting with this one. I'm sure someone can explain to you how to automaticly block out all of my posts so as to no longer tire you at all.

Yoda

04-08-11, 04:46 PM

Rufnek, i think the fundamental problem you are having, is you believe the Government's foreign policy is based on whats best for 280 million regular American citizens.

it isn't. its for the benefit of teh mega-corps than get folks elected, and then have a cush job waiten for them when they have served their purpose as a civil servant.
How so? Nothing ruf said indicates that his beliefs have anything to do with intent. The disagreement is one of facts, and thus it should be settled with facts, and not...

wake the hell up will you. Your niavete routine is tiresome.
...this sort of thing. rufnek is many things, as I'm sure he'd be the first to say, but naive is not one of them. Hell, he's more jaded than naive. But it doesn't really matter which he is, because the way to get someone to "wake up" is not to say "wake up," but to make a simple, logical, specific fact-based argument.

I'm still waiten on links to back up what you say. its the internet, cant be all that hard can it?
I can't vouch for every specific claim (are you referring to the claim he made about the oil industry paying the second-highest tax rate of all U.S. industries?), but if you want to talk backlog, you can try reconciling the already mentioned counterargument that Big Oil and Big Finance, far from controlling the government, are both heavily regulated and have any number of items on their wish lists that neither party has been willing to indulge despite each of them taking a turn controlling the White House and both branches of Congress simultaneously within the last decade.

will.15

04-08-11, 05:07 PM

I would disagree with Yoda on one point, that they are heavily regulated. They are regulated.

rufnek

04-08-11, 08:58 PM

I would disagree with Yoda on one point, that they are heavily regulated. They are regulated.

Obama last March banned all "deepwater" drilling in depths of 500 ft. The government, industry, and Coast Guard designation for deep water was formerly 1,000 ft. The BOEMRE bragged today it issued its 9th permit for drilling a deepwater well in the Gulf of Mexico, even though the drilling ban supposedly ended last October. What it has done in the last 2 months, however, is reissue permits for 9 wells that had already been permitted to drill--some had even started drilling--prior to the Macondo blowout last year when Obama shut everything down.

Reissuing those permits don't mean the companies have started drilling those wells, because activity was shut down so long that the rig owners moved the rigs to international waters where work is available. Meanwhile, BOEMRE has slowed to a crawl the issue of permits for conventional shallow-water drilling in less than 500 ft.

That may not seem heavily regulated to you, but the offshore industry doesn't see it that way.

I know it's not popular to like the oil industry. Oil is dirty and smelly, refineries are even worse (although with 80% fewer emissions in my lifetime as a result of federal regulation). People still think of us as "oilfield trash," heaving around "dumb iron" when actually this industry uses more computers and communications satillites than any other industry except the computer industry itself. It is one of the biggest employers in the US and for more than 100 years it has provided the fuel to drive your cars, light your homes, fuel your factories, freeze your ice, run your a/c, grease gears, become fiber for most of your clothing, plastics for your computer and car, and asprin for your headaches. And it has provided so much fuel at such a low price that US residents are convinced cheap energy is their birthright. And it saved the Allies' collective butt during World War II when they "rode to victory on Texas crude" while Germany's last push in the Battle of the Bulge failed when German tanks ran out of fuel.

Companies like Exxon are not a handful of directors in the boardroom. It's thousands of workers all over this and other countries who are concerned about feeding their families and putting a roof over their heads and sending their kids to school, just like any of us. I've never known a roughneck on an offshore rig who didn't like to hunt and fish and most because of the nature of their work in the Gulf of Mexico live on the Gulf Coast. Do you think those people are so careless as to pollute their own neighborhood just for the hell of it? They don't have a death wish. They all plan to go home to their wives and kids at the end of their tour. And since they're the ones who spend the most time on those rigs, do you really think if some crazy executive wanted to cut costs and send them into a death trap, they'd just salute and go?

The only way the oil industry is different from any other industry is that it's the biggest one out there. It's a high cost, labor-intensive industry with big upfront investments and periods of years--10 or more--before the investment will pay out. And sometimes it doesn't pay. Sometimes despite the best they can do, the well just doesn't prove to be commercial, and they have to plug it and move on.

Well, I know it to be already a heavily regulated industry and is becoming more regulated every day. And I know it to be a safe industry. I've been on offshore platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, and in the North Sea and off Alaska where you fly out dressed in survival suits to keep you from freezing to death in the first 5 minutes if you have to ditch in those cold waters. I've been on rig floors from West Texas to the North Slope to the Gaza strip. I'm third-generation oil patch. My paternal grandfather worked cutting wood to fuel the boiler on steam-driven rigs. My dad spent his life in the oil patch starting as a roughneck on rigs my granddady was employed as toolpusher, and he worked East Texas, South Texas, West Texas and offshore Louisiana. He once broke his leg in the top of a rig mast when a chain broke and the pipe he was stacking as they ran it out of the hole all shifted toward him. He dived for a corner, then waited for them to shift the pipe off him before they could get him down from the tower.

I always avoided roughnecking because for a teenager I'd have made too much money. I'd seen other guys do that and the first thing you know they've put a down payment on the car they always wanted, then they marry their girlfriends. Six months later they're daddies and stuck on an oil rig the rest of their lives. But I worked for seismic crews for $1.25/hr because anyone can walk away from pay that low. Worked on a powder truck the summer I was 17, loading holes with fertilizer and dynamite behind 6 drills. Later hustled geophones that we had to lay out to pick up sounds of underground blasts or a 1 ton weight dropping. Had to keep eyes out for rattlesnakes and other varmints. Almost got snake bit a couple of times. And once I came up on the blind side of a vulture feeding on a dead sheep. He was startled and flew right over my head--the bad thing about vultures is when they're scared and start trying to lift their big bodies off the ground, they begin to regurgitate to lighten their load. Yep, I had a full portion rain down on me. Wasn't enough water in West Texas to wash off that smell.

Anyway, I like the oil industry. I like journalism better, and since 1977 I've been covering the oil industry for a daily newspaper and then for trade magazines here in Houston. I have a lot of respect for the oil business and for the people in this business from the rig floor to the boardroom because these are the people I grew up with and have spent my life among. They're my family, and I hate to hear them put down.

Gunny

04-12-11, 09:26 PM

The Republican most likely to take on Obama in the 2012 election is Romney, Trump or Huckabee (assuming they all run).

My 2 favorites are Trump and Palin but Romney is a close third.

I don't think Paul or Gingrich will make it to the end. Neither generates a lot of buzz from the GOP base. And Palin, if she runs, probably wouldn't surpass Trump or Romney.

Fiscal

04-12-11, 09:45 PM

Wait? People are actually considering Trump a viable candidate?! Isn't this guy a laughing stock amongst both parties? I mean, I am moderately conservative, or atleast far from a democrat, and I think Donald Trump would be a tragedy. In fact, if Trump or Palin get the republican nod, RIP society.

Seriously though, can anyone explain to me why Donald Trump is qualified to be President of the United States?

Also, I am not surprised to hear Gunny lay out some Trump love.

Yoda

04-12-11, 09:49 PM

He isn't. He's a joke candidate. I don't think he's running, and even if he does he has no chance whatsoever. Nothing he's done indicates that he'll run or that he could win.

So, clearly at least one person considers him to be a viable candidate, but I don't think "people" at large do, no.

Gunny

04-12-11, 11:49 PM

I don't think he's running, and even if he does he has no chance whatsoever. Nothing he's done indicates that he'll run or that he could win.

So, clearly at least one person considers him to be a viable candidate, but I don't think "people" at large do, no.

Interesting opinion. Unfortunately facts disagree with you. At least for now.

NBC/WSJ poll: Trump tied for 2nd in 2012 GOP field

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/06/6420733-nbcwsj-poll-trump-tied-for-2nd-in-2012-gop-field

will.15

04-13-11, 12:11 AM

I saw that a few days ago. He still has no chance of getting the nomination. Focusing on if Obama is an American citizen, which seems to be his main theme, may be red meat for arch conservatives, but it is a dead issue. He has name recognition and right now it gets him good numbers. I do think he might actually run, but his messy personal life makes Gingrich look like a saint.

Yoda

04-13-11, 12:23 AM

Yup, I've seen the poll. And you have to actually understand a few thing about polls to understand why it doesn't actually bode well for him at all.

When you conduct an early poll with a large number of candidates, it benefits those with the highest name recognition. Trump enjoys higher name recognition than just about everyone else listed among those options other than Palin, which means that that 20% is his ceiling, not his floor. A candidate who gets 10% of the vote when 85% of the people haven't even heard of them is impressive; a candidate who gets 20% when all of them have heard of him and formed an opinion isn't.

This is borne out when you look beyond the headline at Trump's approval rating, which is actually a net negative. CNN's recent poll, for example, finds that 43% of Republicans don't even want him to run. And for my money, they're the smarter 43%.

And this is without even getting into the fact that prospective candidates who have never had to enumerate a platform or take specific policy positions always poll better when their candidacy is still a hazy hypothetical that everyone can fill with their own preferences.

So, yeah. He's probably not running, and if he does, he'll get killed. Take any odds you want. I use PayPal.

will.15

04-13-11, 12:33 AM

I think he might run, but I am not betting any money.

I read Romney came out in support of the Ryan Medicare Plan. If true it was dumb. It makes it look like he is runnung away frim his record as Governor again. If he was smart, he would have criticized the Ryan approach and come out with a conservative alternative less extreme. It looks like the nomination is his to lose and he will lose it again.

Yoda

04-13-11, 12:34 AM

Whether or not he runs at all is a decent enough bet. Whether or not he has any serious chance of winning isn't.

TONGO

04-13-11, 12:51 AM

I so hope Trump & Palin run on a ticket together. Oh my gosh the standup comedians nationwide would try and vote them in for such rich unending material. LOL! What a hilarity our country would become if it happened and they won! Trumps ex-wife couldnt carry him then, and Palins husband aint as bad as Billy Carter so theres a +1. Omigosh I bet Obama wishes those 2 would run. What a debate between Obama & Trump or Palin LOL! If given enough freedom he could toy with both of those overblown imbeciles in any type of intelectual debate or display.

Course what this past 3 years has proven is a president is powerless without the government supporting him. This isnt new news as Jimmy Carter met such resistance and shortcomings. Obama seems like a good man, strong, great leadership, intelligent, and deserving of a second term. It seems there just isnt anyone else more capable.

chipper

04-13-11, 02:37 AM

i heard from a cousin Donald Trump is running. He just overheard it so i don't know how reliable that is.

he is a chef for one of his projects.

Dog Star Man

04-17-11, 08:12 PM

Please, dear lord, anyone but Palin... anyone... I wouldn't mind Ron Paul because he's more libertarian than republican. But this extremely partisan politics is beginning to make me ill, which is why I prefer to remain sane and stay out of it for the most part.

Yoda

04-17-11, 08:31 PM

It won't be Palin. I'd give someone 3-1 odds that she doesn't even run.

Fiscal

04-18-11, 12:57 AM

I'll wager a used dvd on that Chris. I think you are right, but its a good bet.

7thson

04-18-11, 01:06 AM

will.15

04-18-11, 01:11 AM

It is like saying what if pigs could fly.

I agree with the last line.

Trump is a sleaze and gasbag and just pandering. His "investigators" have found nothing because there is nothing to find.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

will.15

04-25-11, 09:05 PM

One less contendor, Haley Barbour is out. He had no chance anyway. More interesting will be what Trump and Palin announce. Unless Trump's "investigators" find some evidence Obama was not born in the US (and they wont) he has nothing to run on because that is his only issue. I think he wants to run, or maybe likes to pretend he does because he is a publicity whore, but won't.

Monkeypunch

04-26-11, 12:11 AM

Watts

04-26-11, 12:20 AM

Trump has way too many skeletons in his closet to make a real run for the Presidency and Palin well a lot of people just don't think she is capable at all.

earlsmoviepicks

04-26-11, 10:19 AM

The way we're heading, it'll either be The Situation, Donald Trump, or J. Bieber.

Yoda

04-26-11, 10:36 AM

Following up on all the Trump nonsense from before, a new poll hits (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-04-25-trump-president-poll.htm) that details pretty much everything I was saying about his candidacy:

Fifty percent of Americans, including 31% of Republicans, say Trump would make a “poor” or “terrible” president.
His possible bid faces broad resistance: 63% of Americans, including 46% of Republicans, say they definitely will not vote for Trump for president.
His support is a "none of the above" proxy for conservatives frustrated with their options, and for the occasional independent frustrated by politics as usual. It's a complete mirage.

Fiscal

04-26-11, 10:59 AM

Anyone think Gary Johnson has any chances in being competitive? He will probably just pull Ron Paul numbers I assume.

Yoda

04-26-11, 11:40 AM

Does anyone else find the whole "Obama was not born in America" thing incredibly racist? People should be extremely ashamed of themselves. Attack a man's policies, sure, attack his actions, sure, but this is a low blow.
Stupid, yes, but not necessarily racist (though I'm sure a racist is way more likely to buy into it). I think it's just misdirected anger, and an unwillingness to accept the results of the election. Democrats said similar things about Bush and Republicans, to a lesser extent, tossed around some crazy conspiracy theories about Clinton, too. This stuff is becoming par for the course.

I saw a poll recently, for example (I can find the link if anyone's interested or wants to verify it) wherein about half of Democrats thought Bush (or "the government") either knew about 9/11 before it happened, or thought he might have. No racial component there, and the claim is several times crazier than your standard Birther line. So I think simple political frustration is probably the simplest explanation in all of these cases. Either that, or people in general just believe some pretty crazy stuff.

rufnek

04-26-11, 05:33 PM

Does anyone else find the whole "Obama was not born in America" thing incredibly racist? People should be extremely ashamed of themselves. Attack a man's policies, sure, attack his actions, sure, but this is a low blow.

I think the claim that Obama is not a native born American is not only dumb but such a trivial issue to be disposed of since no one with an intellect bigger than his belt size would ever take it seriously. But racist? Why???

As for it being "a low blow," I'm sure Obama wishes that were the only complaint any voters had against him since it is so meaningless.

rufnek

04-26-11, 05:44 PM

On a side note: Would it be better or worse for the country if it could be proven that the president was not a natural born citizen and it was made public? Would it be better to just squash it as a calssified national security issue and let it go?

I have said before that I have no belief that Obama is not legit, but what if this scenario really happened with any president. Would it not hurt the country to have such a scandle?

What if Trump did hold this trump card ( :) ) - and he could prove it, would it increase his chances as a viable candidate?

Just food for thought - in reality I think there still may be a Dark Horse out there for the republicans, still a lot of time.

It don't matter a damn where Obama was born or who his daddy was or where his daddy lives or that his old man wasn't a US citizen (if indeed that's the case); all that matters is his birth mother was born in the US which makes her a US citizen which makes any child she gives birth to a US citizen no matter where she gives birth to him.

Besides, it's not like was not exposed to political opponents before becoming a candidate for president. If there were any real incident in his past that would disqualify him from office, we would have heard it long before now.

If Trump had evidence proving George Washington was a British spy and Abe Lincoln bought and sold slaves, it still wouldn't get him elected dog catcher.

will.15

04-26-11, 05:53 PM

There is an undertow of racism among Obama's most venemous critics. Some of them still insist he is a secret Muslim and hates white people, which always sounded silly, but you have to be a complete racist to still claim that after he got into the White House.

mark f

04-26-11, 05:55 PM

The Constitution says that a President has to be a native-born American or if the parents are both U.S. citizens, then the child can be born anywhere and still qualify to run for President. If a person is born out of the U.S. and has only one parent who is a U.S. citizen, that person cannot be President. I don't know why anyone would think that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, but I realize you can piece together several dubious quotes and misstatements and believe whatever you want.

will.15

04-26-11, 06:00 PM

It don't matter a damn where Obama was born or who his daddy was or where his daddy lives or that his old man wasn't a US citizen (if indeed that's the case); all that matters is his birth mother was born in the US which makes her a US citizen which makes any child she gives birth to a US citizen no matter where she gives birth to him.

Besides, it's not like was not exposed to political opponents before becoming a candidate for president. If there were any real incident in his past that would disqualify him from office, we would have heard it long before now.

If Trump had evidence proving George Washington was a British spy and Abe Lincoln bought and sold slaves, it still wouldn't get him elected dog catcher.
I was recently reading about that and there seems to be some technical things that would disqualify him as President if he wasn't born in the United States, but his birth certificate has been released and the loony toons still refuse to believe it. That's because they hate him for whatever reasons. I am amazed Obama could fuel such passion of anger. He is the blandest of the bland and a very cautious politician.

Fiscal

04-27-11, 10:30 AM

Well, this issue can really be layed to rest for good now, The White House released Obama's long form birth certificate (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate). Bye Trump.

Yoda

04-27-11, 10:42 AM

Hopefully this puts both the issue and Trump's ridiculous candidacy to bed.

DexterRiley

04-27-11, 10:58 AM

what did you think of the non-news of hayley barbour announcing he isn't running?

does this hold any water for you guys?

Why Republicans May Be Skipping 2012 Presidential Run

By MICHAEL D. SHEAR

Haley Barbour’s decision to forgo a run for the presidency in 2012 puts him in the company of a half-dozen top Republicans who have considered — and rejected — a challenge to President Obama next year.

The question is: why?

In a statement that surprised much of official Washington, Mr. Barbour indicated that he does not have “absolute fire in the belly” to mount a campaign that, if he wins, could consume the next 10 years of his life.

“I cannot offer that with certainty, and total certainty is required,” he said.

Others have offered different reasons. Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, said he considered himself “best positioned to fight for America’s future here in the trenches of the United States Senate.” Representative Mike Pence of Indiana hinted that he might run for governor instead, saying that he and his family “choose Indiana.”

Among those who have turned down the chance to run in 2012: Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey; Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida; and Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee. Mr. Christie said that he could win but that “I’ve got to believe I’m ready to be president, and I don’t.”

An additional half-dozen potential 2012 hopefuls remain on the fence about whether to run, leaving just a handful of major candidates who appear certain to take the plunge.

But the publicly stated reasons often mask other considerations as politicians consider whether to run for president. Here are five reasons why some of the Republican Party’s brightest stars might be opting for the sidelines this year.

1. Biden. If Mr. Obama wins re-election, there is almost zero chance that Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. would run for the presidency in 2016, when he would turn 74 years old. That puts him in the same place where Vice President Dick Cheney was in 2008. That means that Republicans who can afford to wait until 2016 can assure themselves not only that they will not face an incumbent Democratic president, but also that they won’t face a sitting vice president.

2. The economy. Mr. Obama’s approval ratings have dipped below 50 percent, but he remains personally popular and by many calculations the economy appears to be improving — if slowly. Even Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts and one of the handful of very likely candidates, said last September that Mr. Obama would be “difficult to beat” if the economy continued improving, which he predicted it would. (He later changed his tune and said Republicans should focus on the economy if they wanted to win.)

3. Money. Mr. Obama is expected in some quarters to raise $1 billion for his re-election campaign, and he has no serious primary opposition, which means he will be free to aim that firepower at his Republican adversaries. For a potential challenger, that raises the stakes for fund-raising at a time when more outside groups are competing for the same dollars, many of which, even on the Republican side, would go to congressional races.

4. The Tea Party. The emergence of the Tea Party movement as a force inside the Republican Party requires potential presidential candidates to pick sides in an intraparty philosophical struggle. The risks are clear for some Republicans who may have to alter or modify earlier positions to get through a contentious primary. Less clear are the benefits of having that support during a general election, especially if it means alienating independents in the process. Some of the most high-profile Tea Party candidates in 2010 did not fare so well in the general election.

5. The media glare. Candidates for president have always had to contend with scrutiny from the press. But the intense, Internet-driven political environment in 2011, when everyone has a camera phone and every offhand comment can be recorded, is enough to scare away even the most hearty of politicians. Mr. Barbour’s family apparently hated the idea of his running for president (though reports suggest that they had made peace with the idea, were he to have run). Candidates who have been on the fence about making a run often consider the consequences to their privacy if they do.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...sidential-run/
(http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...sidential-run/)

will.15

04-27-11, 11:16 AM

It makes no difference the birth certificate has been released. The nuts claim it is a forgery.

Yoda

04-27-11, 11:37 AM

Re: the article Dex posted. Sure, I think there are lots of factors, though I don't think this election is unique in that regard. I think the most important factor is winning about 90% of the time, though, and when a candidate decides not to run I think it's usually because they've decided they probably can't win (or at least, can't significantly elevate their national profile if they run and lose).

I disagree with people who suggest Barbour's announcement was meaningless. How candidates look on paper seems to have very little to do with how much success they ultimately end up having, and I think Barbour could have surprised some people, though obviously we'll never know now.

will.15

04-27-11, 11:50 AM

Those comments he made about the pre civil rights era in the South killed any chance he had.

Yoda

04-27-11, 11:56 AM

I don't think they did; they sounded bad, but the actual quote was vague enough to be easily defended. People dramatically overestimate how these things can sink a candidacy. Think of the things Obama said on the campaign trail about people clinging to guns and religion; it would have been perfectly logical for that to absolutely kill him with independents, but it simply didn't. Bush had plenty of verbal gaffes, and he won two terms.

Reality just isn't that simple.

DexterRiley

04-27-11, 01:05 PM

I hope Nader Runs again as an independant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-bC7F7gD4g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5gaI-C0MfM&feature=relmfu

planet news

04-27-11, 02:10 PM

wintertriangles

04-27-11, 02:31 PM

Just because he finally released it (which took him an awful long time considering it a "silly matter") doesn't make him any less awful

DexterRiley

04-27-11, 03:16 PM

he released it 2 years ago.

how this ever got to be an issue is remarkable from an outsiders POV.

it doesnt pass the giggle test.

Ron Paul doesnt have a hope in heck of winning the nom by his belief that both social security and medi-caid is unconstitutional imo.

I do appreciate his consistency though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6Exn4Qk5Uk&feature=autoplay&list=WLC05DAE75FB41F586&index=3&playnext=1

Yoda

04-27-11, 03:20 PM

Pedantically, he released a certificate of live birth a couple of years ago; it has less information on it and can be requested after the fact. Personally, that and the newspaper article were more than enough for me, anyway, but today's release is, in fact, more significant than the information released during the campaign.

But yeah, it was always a bit silly. The problem is, once someone asks, and he doesn't release all of the documentation, his refusal immediately multiplies the interest, as does each day that passes where he refuses to. Obviously it's tough to know which is more important: squashing this stuff right out of the gate, or not being bullied into jumping through these hoops, even though refusing to do so only increases speculation and feeds the paranoia surrounding it. Obviously, in retrospect, he should have released it all at once back in '08 if he was going to do so later, anyway.

planet news

04-27-11, 03:28 PM

Stupid, yes, but not necessarily racist (though I'm sure a racist is way more likely to buy into it). I think it's just misdirected anger, and an unwillingness to accept the results of the election. Democrats said similar things about Bush and Republicans, to a lesser extent, tossed around some crazy conspiracy theories about Clinton, too. This stuff is becoming par for the course.

I saw a poll recently, for example (I can find the link if anyone's interested or wants to verify it) wherein about half of Democrats thought Bush (or "the government") either knew about 9/11 before it happened, or thought he might have. No racial component there, and the claim is several times crazier than your standard Birther line. So I think simple political frustration is probably the simplest explanation in all of these cases. Either that, or people in general just believe some pretty crazy stuff.1) Racism is everywhere. In this country and throughout the world. It is not in any way "abnormal" to be a racist.

1.i) Denying the existence of racism (the source of these ideas) leads to a rationalization of certain ideas among non-racists in the manner you just committed. The popularity of these statements ultimately becomes the victory of racism since it perpetuates inequality (now among presidents).

1.ii) It's just better to accept that people are racist and take the comments as they are.

1.iii) Some racism is not necessarily itself "unjustified" on a purely practical level to the racists themselves. Racism against Mexicans for example is a function of their immediately negative effect on local communities. Racism against blacks is a result of a large proportion of blacks living below the poverty line. The latter is a function of past racism creating the situation for present racism. It's racism that recreates the conditions for its own re-realization.

2) It's not in any way "abnormal" to think that Clinton-Bush seriously under-reacted to the long known threat from Al Qaeda before 9/11. Also, I hate polls in general, because a phrase like "knowing about" 9/11 before it happened seems like a pretty open phrase. Everyone already "knew" that the WTC itself was a prime target for an attack, and that attacks were imminent since they'd been ongoing for at least a decade before 9/11.

2.i) Again, Al Qaeda and 9/11 can be seen as (partly... or to a large degree) a function of United States intervention in Afghanistan during the Cold War.

3) So what exactly are people articulating when they make these statements which are so easily dismissed as "crazy" by the normal, liberal, tolerant general public? Exactly what they mean, it seems.

4) In just about every post in this thread, somebody is calling somebody else "crazy", "nuts", or "loony". I also hear it being said on the news every single day about people on both sides but mostly at the Tea Party and "redneck", "racist" southerners.

4.i) The desire to exclude opinions---to render them moot with the word "crazy" is really the problem here. When someone's opinion is called "crazy", they are in a sense not even wrong. Their opinion doesn't even obtain the status of being a statement which can be evaluated as such. It is simply dismissed entirely from the discourse.

5) Racism is an attitude towards reality, an opinion. 9/11 "conspiracy theorists" is another attitude or opinion. Neither of which are even close to being unreasonable as I tried generally to show. The problem arises when they are dismissed as being non-opinions. This is anti-thought and anti-democracy at its purest.

Yoda

04-27-11, 03:41 PM

1) Racism is everywhere. In this country and throughout the world. It is not in any way "abnormal" to be a racist.
In this context, I'm taking "racist" to mean "really racist" or "overtly racist," not racist in the sense that all of us harbor innate prejudices towards anyone different from ourselves, even if only on a subconscious level. Monkeypunch used the phrase "incredibly racist," so I think it's clear he wasn't talking about these sorts of built-in, hazy prejudices.

1.i) Denying the existence of racism (the source of these ideas) leads to a rationalization of certain ideas among non-racists in the manner you just committed. The popularity of these statements ultimately becomes the victory of racism since it perpetuates inequality (now among presidents).
1.ii) It's just better to accept that people are racist and take the comments as they are.
Unless they're not rationalizations and are, in fact, accurate. These points are logical, but they presuppose that the first point (that the motivation is largely racist) is true.

1.iii) Some racism is not necessarily itself "unjustified" on a purely practical level to the racists themselves. Racism against Mexicans for example is a function of their immediately negative effect on local communities. Racism against blacks is a result of a large proportion of blacks living below the poverty line. The latter is a function of past racism creating the situation for present racism. It's racism that recreates the conditions for its own re-realization.
Yes, absolutely. This is true in every direction, as well: a minority can rightly resent racism and become more hostile to an oppressive majority, thus giving the majority more valid reasons for being racist because they're now being resented. This is particularly true if some of the people in the majority were not racist before, but were nevertheless treated with the same suspicion. It flies in every direction and self-reinforces all the time.

It is also, I think, as often based in misinformation or generalization as it is sheer prejudice. If I really believed, for example, that Mexican people were coming across the border, cashing welfare checks, and then going back, I probably wouldn't like most of them very much. I don't, however. I think a lot of people seem racist for reasons like this, when in reality their error is a factual one.

2) It's not in any way "abnormal" to think that Clinton-Bush seriously under-reacted to the long known threat from Al Qaeda before 9/11. Also, I hate polls in general, because a phrase like "knowing about" 9/11 before it happened seems like a pretty open phrase. Everyone already "knew" that the WTC itself was a prime target for an attack, and that attacks were imminent since they'd been ongoing for at least a decade before 9/11.
Agreed, but that's exactly why I cited the poll: not to suggest that lots of people necessarily believe in a conspiracy, but to point out that the polls about the number of people (or Republicans, specifically) who bought into Birtherism were always silly and flawed and in all likelihood dramatically overstated the ideas popularity. There are other reasons for this, too, but I won't get into them now.

2.i) Again, Al Qaeda and 9/11 can be seen as (partly... or to a large degree) a function of United States intervention in Afghanistan during the Cold War.
Oh dear, straying terribly close to "chickens coming home to roost" territory here. Regardless, I think you can make a very good case that the things which offended Al Qaeda become inevitable (at some speed) once we abandon the idea of isolationism. The things that anti-war protesters were often suggesting we do to contain Saddam Hussein, for example, rather than invade, were some of the same things directly instigating Al Qaeda. Get involved at all and you're going to find yourself in some no-win scenarios, I'm afraid.

3) So what exactly are people articulating when they make these statements which are so easily dismissed as "crazy" by the normal, liberal, tolerant general public? Exactly what they mean, it seems.
I'm confused by this. It sounds like you're saying we should take the claims about citizenship at face value and not read racism into them.

4) In just about every post in this thread, somebody is calling somebody else "crazy", "nuts", or "loony". I also hear it being said on the news every single day about people on both sides but mostly at the Tea Party and "redneck", "racist" southerners.
4.i) The desire to exclude opinions---to render them moot with the word "crazy" is really the problem here. When someone's opinion is called "crazy", they are in a sense not even wrong. Their opinion doesn't even obtain the status of being a statement which can be evaluated as such. It is simply dismissed entirely from the discourse.
Agree completely; it's very upsetting. Not that people think other people are crazy, but that these labels are increasingly accepted as a substitute for argument. I think about 75% of The Daily Show is based around this idea these days: just show a big dumb Republican saying something and cut to a shot of Jon Stewart's eyes bulging in disbelief. <Applause>

Granted, this is a fine line. There are things like, say, Holocaust denial, that shouldn't be engaged. It's not always clear when people need to be taken seriously and corrected, and when they simply need to be dismissed, though even then I'd say ignoring them is probably better.

5) Racism is an attitude towards reality, an opinion. 9/11 "conspiracy theorists" is another attitude or opinion. Neither of which are even close to being unreasonable as I tried generally to show. The problem arises when they are dismissed as being non-opinions. This is anti-thought and anti-democracy at its purest.
The fact that 9/11 truthers actually possess an opinion does not make it just like other opinions. Not all attitudes and opinions are created equal. Some are based in sound reasoning, others are based in emotion and paranoia. I categorically reject the idea that an opinion always deserves any base level of respect or engagement simply by virtue of it being held by someone.

DexterRiley

04-27-11, 03:43 PM

DexterRiley

04-27-11, 03:49 PM

as to 9/11, its worth noting 2 facts that should bring you pause.

1- muslim radicals with box-cutters didn't order NORAD to stand down, and ignore long established protocols for this exact event.

and

2- More $$ was allocated and more Fibbie man-hours were assigned to determining whether a sitting president got a hummer from an intern, than the investigation exploring the events of 9/11.

thats not crazy talk. thats real talk.

rufnek

04-27-11, 03:54 PM

I was recently reading about that and there seems to be some technical things that would disqualify him as President if he wasn't born in the United States . . .

I'm curious about what "technicalities" that would be. As I recall, it stipulates the candidate must be 35 and a natural citizen of the US, which does NOT mean he or she must be born within the boundaries of the US or its territories. Even if just one of your parents is a US citizen--even a naturalized US citizen--you, too, automatically become a US citizen at the moment of birth, no matter where that birth occurs. Seems too simple and straight forward to have "technicalities."

One of the complaints I had heard was that he submitted a certified copy of his birth certificate instead the original, but hell who has their original birth certificate these days? Everytime a government agency wanted my birth certificate, I had to order up a new copy as I could never remember where I put the old one.

I do wonder why Obama decided now to provide more detailed information about his birth. I mean, if he were gonna respond to the cockeyed critics, why not do it years ago instead of letting them beat that dead horse for so long? Were I him, having waited this long, I'd tell them to go fk themselves and never released it.

DexterRiley

04-27-11, 04:06 PM

I agree Ruf. he certainly could have had a more dramatic reveal...say at the Debates with Trump or Bachman or whomever makes a mention..boom with teh perry mason moment.

game set match.

rufnek

04-27-11, 04:08 PM

People dramatically overestimate how these things can sink a candidacy. Think of the things Obama said on the campaign trail about people clinging to guns and religion; it would have been perfectly logical for that to absolutely kill him with independents, but it simply didn't. Bush had plenty of verbal gaffes, and he won two terms.

Reality just isn't that simple.

But sometimes it is. Muskie got tearful responding to an attack on his wife and the next day he was out of the running. Nixon got maudlin about not giving back the "political gift" of the dog that his children loved, and Eisenhower decided to keep him as VP on his ticket. And who can forget the frontpage photos of the Democratic candidate looking like Snoopy in a military helmet aboard an Army tank? Both the political graveyards and lines of those who snatched victory from the jaws of defeat are filled with candidates who did or said the right or wrong thing at the wrong or right moment.

rufnek

04-27-11, 04:10 PM

I agree Ruf. he certainly could have had a more dramatic reveal...say at the Debates with Trump or Bachman or whomever makes a mention..boom with teh perry mason moment.

game set match.

Like the new sheriff said in Blazing Saddles, "Let me just whip this thing out!"

rufnek

04-27-11, 04:15 PM

meanwhile i don't recall any presidential candidate ever being questioned as to his birth so vehemently.

I don't remember a presidential candidate ever being questioned about his place of birth or citizenship at all, and I've been around since Truman. Even in all the histories I've read going all the way back to the Revolution, I don't recall a candidate's basic qualification to be a presidential candidate being questioned at all.

will.15

04-27-11, 04:42 PM

Do you think there would have been this noise about Romney's father?

George Romney (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/George_W._Romney) (1907–1995), who ran for the Republican party nomination in 1968 (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968), was born in Mexico (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Mexico) to U.S. parents. Romney's grandfather had emigrated to Mexico (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Mexico) in 1886 with his three wives and children after Utah outlawed polygamy (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Polygamy). Romney's monogamous parents retained their U.S. citizenship and returned to the United States with him in 1912. Romney never received Mexican citizenship, because the country's nationality laws had been restricted to jus-sanguinis (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Jus_sanguinis) statutes due to prevailing politics aimed against American settlers.[48] (http://www.movieforums.com/community/#cite_note-47) George Romney therefore had no allegiance to a foreign country.

I don't want to print it, but there was supposedly technical crap about Obama because his father wasn't an American citizen and his mother hadn't lived in the United Staes long enough because she was still in her teens when she gave birth. Who cares?

I used the word crazy to refer to the birthers and their obsession with the birth cert long after it was a dead issue and allegations Obama was a secret Moslem. I wasn't calling anyone's political views crazy. But believing that nonsense qualifies in my book.

Yoda

04-27-11, 04:45 PM

meanwhile i don't recall any presidential candidate ever being questioned as to his birth so vehemently.

why is that?
The attempt to delegitimize leaders is not new, it just takes different forms at different times depending on each leader. Bush was dogged by complaints that he'd stolen the election because it was very close. He was also dogged with all sorts of other clumsy attempts to impeach him or get him out of office somehow. With Obama, he had a foreign father and a sister born overseas, so it was probably a more natural fit for conspiracy theorists.

The circumstances of each attempt to undermine may be unique, but it's really the same political frustration underneath. They vary based on how well they fit some stereotype or preconception about the leader, as well as how that leader responds to it.

as to 9/11, its worth noting 2 facts that should bring you pause.

1- muslim radicals with box-cutters didn't order NORAD to stand down, and ignore long established protocols for this exact event.
It's weird to be talking about silly conspiracy theories and then turn around and throw out a question like this, because questions like this are exactly how they catch on in the first place. Even the phrasing -- how the claim "should bring you pause" -- is vague in the same way that allows conspiracies to thrive. The standard defense is always the same: someone's "just asking questions." But the questions are almost never neutral or benign; there's usually an answer, or the suggestion of an answer, embedded within them.

Indulging the question for a moment, though: it's already been explained in in a Popular Mechanics article, which is probably the single most famous and oft-cited 9/11 Truther debunking yet produced:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-planes#nostand

For good measure, NORAD released 30 hours of the tapes from 9/11, some of where you can hear here:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/492112/9_11_norad_release_the_tapes_on_live/

If this question did give anyone "pause," the pause was apparently a very short one, because it only took me a couple of minutes to find this information. Which begs the question: if these questions are so serious, why don't the people posing them ever seem to look around for contradictions?

2- More $$ was allocated and more Fibbie man-hours were assigned to determining whether a sitting president got a hummer from an intern, than the investigation exploring the events of 9/11.
The man hours were spent determining whether or not a sitting President lied under oath. The sexual act was not in dispute for very long.

Yoda

04-27-11, 04:47 PM

But sometimes it is. Muskie got tearful responding to an attack on his wife and the next day he was out of the running. Nixon got maudlin about not giving back the "political gift" of the dog that his children loved, and Eisenhower decided to keep him as VP on his ticket. And who can forget the frontpage photos of the Democratic candidate looking like Snoopy in a military helmet aboard an Army tank? Both the political graveyards and lines of those who snatched victory from the jaws of defeat are filled with candidates who did or said the right or wrong thing at the wrong or right moment.
This is, of course, assuming we even have the whole story. But as a general rule, I think people are far more likely to oversimplify politics than the inverse. Especially looking backward.

DexterRiley

04-27-11, 04:55 PM

which was more important, and thus worthy of an exhaustive investigation and the funds associated in carryen it out, in your personal view?

whether a sitting president lied under oath about getting a hummer by an intern,

or

The most devestating attack on a civilian target (s) in the history of the Country.

things to consider when making a judgement, how long was the gap between an Intern claiming funny business until Ken Star got on the case of finden out whats what.

and same in regards to the time gap between 9/11 and the commission that was formed to look into it.

I'd have to look it up, but i don't think the Government dragged its feet that long in forming the Warren Commission to look into JFK.

Ruf could probably quote it from memory.

Yoda

04-27-11, 04:59 PM

We're dropping the NORAD thing, then?

which was more important, and thus worthy of an exhaustive investigation and the funds associated in carryen it out, in your personal view?

whether a sitting president lied under oath about getting a hummer by an intern,

or

The most devestating attack on a civilian target (s) in the history of the Country.
That's like asking whether one law is more important than another. The correct answer is: both. You investigate both massive civilian attacks and whether public officials are lying under oath. Nobody had to choose between the two in reality, because we don't enforce laws that way, thank goodness. Nobody allocated more or less dollars in some massive legal budget based on importance.

This also ignores the difficulty in establishing one truth over another. The fact that a crime or investigation is more serious than another does not mean it will not also be cheaper to establish. A murder can be easier to solve than a theft, depending on the availability of the evidence.

planet news

04-27-11, 05:39 PM

>mfw fire can't melt steel

http://cdn1.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/107/987/original/pffff.png?1300834127

rufnek

04-27-11, 05:57 PM

1) Racism is everywhere. In this country and throughout the world. It is not in any way "abnormal" to be a racist.

Kid, I wish to hell I could walk you through the East Texas woods where I grew up in the 1940-1950s or arid West Texas of the 1950s-1960s so you could see what real racism is. There is nothing in this country today that even faintly resembles the prevalent racial hatred of those days. Having seen both, I think what you call racism today is like a breath of fresh air compared to the real thing that was around when I was growing up.

1.iii) Some racism is not necessarily itself "unjustified" on a purely practical level to the racists themselves. Racism against Mexicans for example is a function of their immediately negative effect on local communities. Racism against blacks is a result of a large proportion of blacks living below the poverty line.

I've seen racism in about every form imaginable and directed at a vast range of victims, and I've yet to encounter a strain that is "justified." It may be accepted, even embraced by some, but it is not justified. The explanations you give for racism against blacks and Hispanics are offensive to me, but I'll allow you the benefit of the doubt and hope you didn't mean them the way they sound.

If blacks are subject to racism because they're below the poverty line, why is it that some of the most racist whites out there are also below the poverty level? The fact that many poor blacks have racist attitudes toward whites? That can't be explained by poverty alone, especially when middle class blacks are subjected to the same sort of racism. People of Asian descent in this country are generally among the brightest and most successful of our citizens, yet there are those who hate them for being Asian. Same with Jews--they have an extremely long history of persecution because of their religion.

For all your smarts in some matters, planet, I suspect you've never encountered a bad-to-the-bone cross-burning robe-wearing racist. I'm not talking about someone who uses the N-word and thinks some creeds and colors are inferior to him. I'm talking hate-from-the-gut racism without cause or reason. Racists of that type are scary and dangerous, no matter their race or religion. They're also a lot more rare today than 60 years ago.

Bottom line: I don't give a damn if racists think they're "justified" or not; I'd just like to see them stomped out like the moral cockroaches they are.

3) So what exactly are people articulating when they make these statements which are so easily dismissed as "crazy" by the normal, liberal, tolerant general public? . . .

4.i) The desire to exclude opinions---to render them moot with the word "crazy" is really the problem here. When someone's opinion is called "crazy", they are in a sense not even wrong. Their opinion doesn't even obtain the status of being a statement which can be evaluated as such. It is simply dismissed entirely from the discourse.

5) Racism is an attitude towards reality, an opinion. 9/11 "conspiracy theorists" is another attitude or opinion. Neither of which are even close to being unreasonable as I tried generally to show. The problem arises when they are dismissed as being non-opinions. This is anti-thought and anti-democracy at its purest.

Well, I'm not liberal, and probably not normal, and I'll be damned if I'll silently tolerate anyone spouting racial hate. I have zero interest in their attitude and opinions or whether they have a "right" express themselves in a way that terrorizes or harms strangers because of their color or the way they pray. Klansmen, neo-Nazis and those idiots playing soldier in citizen militias have no rights at all as far as I'm concerned. I've never been the "turn the other cheek" type to vermin.

rufnek

04-27-11, 06:16 PM

I don't want to print it, but there was supposedly technical crap about Obama because his father wasn't an American citizen and his mother hadn't lived in the United Staes long enough because she was still in her teens when she gave birth.

You're kidding!!!! I figured because his daddy wasn't a US citizen might have had something to do with it, but "his mother hadn't lived in the United Staes long enough!" There's a time-limit on becoming a citizen????

So if a kid is born of US parents in a US town and dies an hour, day, week, month later, he's not a real citizen because he hasn't "lived" in the United States long enough????? You're chitting me--people really made that argument out loud and in public?????? :rotfl:

That's not a "technicality"--it's as stupid as looking for birdchit in a coo-coo clock.

A person born in the US or born abroad of an US parent, regardless of the parent's age and marital status, is a US citizen at the moment of birth. Period. End of story. We delivered dozens of babies at the dispensary I worked in Germany. US father, German mother, US infant the moment the doctor slapped its butt and made it wail.

Winston Churchill qualified as a US citizen and could have run for president had he wanted because his mother was a US citizen who married his British father and went to the UK to live.

will.15

04-27-11, 06:28 PM

Look, PN, I think you are confusing criticism of some things that affect some people of a certain ethnicity with racism. Being opposed to welfare does not make you a racist. Being opposed to illegal immigration is not racism. If you oppose welfare because you think everyone getting it are lazy Ns, you're a racist. If you oppose illegal immigrants because your real focus is your dislike for Mexicans you're a racist.

planet news

04-27-11, 08:24 PM

That was fundamentally a non sequitur post seeing as how it doesn't address at all the point of my post of which racism was only a particular example. It's similar to your "objections" to my example in the Atheist thread about rapists. I'm not pushing certain sociological theories about rape or racism. I'm just taking a look at certain factors of either in order to make other, more global points. In that thread I was talking about immanence/transcendence, and in this thread I'm talking about relegating certain opinions to the unnameable. Interestingly enough, you actually ended up doing just what I was "railing against" in your post there.

Let's walk through your logic.

Kid, I wish to hell I could walk you through the East Texas woods where I grew up in the 1940-1950s or arid West Texas of the 1950s-1960s so you could see what real racism is. There is nothing in this country today that even faintly resembles the prevalent racial hatred of those days. Having seen both, I think what you call racism today is like a breath of fresh air compared to the real thing that was around when I was growing up."Son, maybe if you had been born just half a century earlier back before Lincoln came along, you'd have better things to say about your time, eh? I mean, back in my day, blacks weren't even considered people. I wish you could see what real racial hatred---no, not even that: the denial of humanity---was those days."

Essentially what you're saying is that, because things today are much better than the past, it is (actually, it'd kind of difficult to tell what you're going for with this) obscene, ungrateful, narrow minded or "wrong" from someone like me to say that racism still exists and is everywhere? Even if it is true that racism is still everywhere (oh, but as a breath of fresh air, I see)? I suppose I should just be happy that I live in a better world than the past and not even feel bothered about the continuing problems that affect our society today (as in this very moment)? Or should I, at the end of every claim about racism today, make an addendum that "of course, things were much worse in the past than today, so let's be thankful : )". A strange logic indeed, though it is not entirely inconsistent with your general avuncular project.

Or should I take your statements even more directly? Does racism not in fact exist anymore? Should no one today even bother to address racism today? What exactly is your point here?

I've seen racism in about every form imaginable and directed at a vast range of victims, and I've yet to encounter a strain that is "justified." It may be accepted, even embraced by some, but it is not justified. The explanations you give for racism against blacks and Hispanics are offensive to me, but I'll allow you the benefit of the doubt and hope you didn't mean them the way they sound.Now this is my main point. Openly and clearly disregarding the plainness of my claims because of your "offense". I think I was quite clear in speaking of justification. That it is quite easy to sit where you are and take offense at these kinds of social phenomenon, relegate these people into the unnameable category of "crazy" or unmentionably "racist".

If blacks are subject to racism because they're below the poverty line, why is it that some of the most racist whites out there are also below the poverty level? The fact that many poor blacks have racist attitudes toward whites? That can't be explained by poverty alone, especially when middle class blacks are subjected to the same sort of racism. People of Asian descent in this country are generally among the brightest and most successful of our citizens, yet there are those who hate them for being Asian. Same with Jews--they have an extremely long history of persecution because of their religion.Racism is an ideology. Ideologies are pure, true beliefs. One doesn't every truly believe anything without an ideology, I claim. No matter how much reasoning is involved, no matter how much experience or observation you make on your own, there is always that fundamental gap between practical reason and true belief. That gap is filled by an ideology---a leap to a belief.

What happens when racism occurs against blacks in a country where they are not in power? An inequality is created, that is in actuality. Blacks are in actuality forced to become the object of their generalization and they actually become this fantasmic, inferior object. Similarly, Jews were in actuality forced to become the excremental object of their generalization and they became this object. The Nazi's realized their fantasy of the Jew. They made it true.

Jews were also "among the brightest and most successful" of Europe and yet we see what happens when a generalization is made when a group is made unnameable by typical human standards. I also see affirmative action and "preferential stereotype" these days against Asians, which is again perpetuated by something which occurs in actuality.

In other words, racism is always an application of prejudice. Prejudice alone does nothing. It changes nothing. It is only a potential for racism. Racism is a lynching. A court ruling. A police beating. The physical things that realize, that make actual the fantasy of a prejudice.

So to say that black racism is TODAY caused by the physical remnants of this making actual from hundreds of years ago is to speak of the facts alone. Racism "back in your day" was again caused by the physical remnants a previous time. Of course you are correct when you say that racism is different today, but that's precisely why WE MUST address it. It does not make it less pertinent to address racism with all the passion we did "back in your day" as long as it still exists.

The main problem I confronted Yoda about was in trying to dismiss racism as a viable worldview. Racism is not only a viable, rational worldview for MANY people, it's claims are FACT in that they are always based on a minimum level of observational evidence (several distorted and overblown but still evidence). What adds to this is how institutionalized racism like in the U.S. actually created a true inequality adhering to the expectation of certain facts based on stereotypes. Nevertheless, facts remain as facts. Blacks ARE the poorest minority. Mexicans ARE invading communities. It just depends how you interpret these. Interpretation largely occurs in the space of ideology.

I'm not saying "give respect" or "give voice" to these racists. It is not so simple. But disaster happens when you refuse to acknowledge their NAMEABILITY, which is what you are doing when you say stuff like this:

you've never encountered a bad-to-the-bone cross-burning robe-wearing racist. I'm not talking about someone who uses the N-word and thinks some creeds and colors are inferior to him. I'm talking hate-from-the-gut racism without cause or reason. Racists of that type are scary and dangerous, no matter their race or religion. They're also a lot more rare today than 60 years ago.This, ironically enough, is the base language of racism. This is the fantasy object that maketh racism, if you will. Racists are humans. They reason just like you and me. They suffer from severely fallacious overgeneralizations, myopia, and a premature leap to ideology. But really, I do love your "bad-to-the-bone" characterization. PURE EVIL, I'm sure. It is wonderful, I feel, how the greatest crusaders against racism take up the very language of the racists themselves in order to "defeat them". But is progress then being made in an inclusive, democratic society? No: you only continue to render certain humans as unnameable. You only continue to dismiss their existence as humans---characterizing them instead as inhuman monsters---and propose their annihilation.

And back in the Atheist thread you were such a subjectivist---i.e. "you can't know what's in someone's head"---but here you claim to know these racists as the "bad-to-the-bone", "hate-from-the-gut", "without-cause-or-reason" monsters. Whenever you make a group of people into monsters, you are perpetuating your fantasy object, you are perpetuating your prejudice, your are opening up the space of racism (the exclusion of the unnameable).

Bottom line: I don't give a damn if racists think they're "justified" or not; I'd just like to see them stomped out like the moral cockroaches they are.Lovely. Comparing humans to insects. Talking about "stomping out" humans. Lovely formal/structural anti-semitism there. Please, let us just find more excremental objects to eject from our society.

mark f

04-27-11, 08:41 PM

I pretty much agree with planet here, but I can't add anything except for the most basic summary that racism today is insidious because it's usually seen (when it is) as underground rather than out in the open. That makes it just that much more scary when the time will come for it to make its move more openly into the light of day. Some think it already has but I think we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. Then I see my daughter and her and planet's generation and I think that maybe we'll be OK, eventually. Unfortunately, I also see an unhealthy percentage of students at my continuation school who are blatant racists and proud of it.

Yoda

04-27-11, 09:08 PM

I'd have to agree, as well, that it's not entirely consistent to speak even of racists in such stark terms. As ugly as racism is, we can't fall into the trap of dehumanizing people. At its core, all the worst crimes against humanity seem to be about failing to recognize people as people. And yeah, that includes bigots. It's not a very popular thing to say -- who wants to stand up for a bigot? -- but I do think it's important. Start talking like bigots aren't even people, and pretty soon you've lost the moral high ground.

That said, I'd stop short of claiming total equivalence between racists judging people based on superficial things, and people judging racists. At least in judging racists, we're condemning something real and substantial that they can control. For that reason alone the condemnation is inherently more just than the racists' condemnation of a group of people (or a specific person in that group) based on things outside of their control. This doesn't mean any form of condemnation is justified, but it's worth pointing out.

will.15

04-27-11, 10:34 PM

From PN:
Racism is an ideology. Ideologies are pure, true beliefs. One doesn't every truly believe anything without an ideology, I claim. No matter how much reasoning is involved, no matter how much experience or observation you make on your own, there is always that fundamental gap between practical reason and true belief. That gap is filled by an ideology---a leap to a belief.

What happens when racism occurs against blacks in a country where they are not in power? An inequality is created, that is in actuality. Blacks are in actuality forced to become the object of their generalization and they actually become this fantasmic, inferior object. Similarly, Jews were in actuality forced to become the excremental object of their generalization and they became this object. The Nazi's realized their fantasy of the Jew. They made it true.

Jews were also "among the brightest and most successful" of Europe and yet we see what happens when a generalization is made when a group is made unnameable by typical human standards. I also see affirmative action and "preferential stereotype" these days against Asians, which is again perpetuated by something which occurs in actuality.

In other words, racism is always an application of prejudice. Prejudice alone does nothing. It changes nothing. It is only a potential for racism. Racism is a lynching. A court ruling. A police beating. The physical things that realize, that make actual the fantasy of a prejudice.

I have hard this lame argument before, Blacks can't be racists because they have been discriminated against, prejudice is not racism, blah, blah, blah, blah. The militant Muslim black ideology that equates whites with red devils and advocates separatism from whites is racism. To try to make distinctions between prejudice and racism is a slippery slope that I suppose would mean Archie Bunker was a bigot but not a racist. I don't know if Mel Gibson's father, the Holocaust denier, and probably Gibson himself based on some ambiguous comments he made challenging how many Jews died in the ovens, in PN's world view is a racist or not, but it just so happens there are Blacks who also believe that. To say you can't be a racist because of your skin color sounds like a kind of racism to me, it is olay to believe everything a racist believes and won't be branded racist if you are not white

planet news

04-27-11, 11:01 PM

To say you can't be a racist because of your skin color sounds like a kind of racism to me, it is olay to believe everything a racist believes and won't be branded racist if you are not white>mfw show me where I said or even implied this
>mfw you never use the quote tag

http://cdn3.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/051/025/original/reakcja_.PNG?1274797257

will.15

04-27-11, 11:19 PM

That is your argument. Minorities can't be racists.

mark f

04-28-11, 12:22 AM

He never says that people of color aren't racists. In fact, much of his argument seems to hang on the concept that everyone is a racist whether unconsciously or not.

7thson

04-28-11, 12:25 AM

Great stuff, all of you - but take a moment to think about the word racism. Think about the Jews and the Muslims - is this about relgion or race?

mark f

04-28-11, 12:27 AM

Considering that Jews and Arabs are half-"brothers" (they're both Semites), you tell me. I think it's more to do with religion.

will.15

04-28-11, 12:34 AM

He never says that people of color aren't racists. In fact, much of his argument seems to hang on the concept that everyone is a racist whether unconsciously or not.

He is using the Blacks can't be racists because they have been oppressed argument, he is just expressing the argument more elegantly than the usual bumbleheads, if you are not in a position of power you can't be racist. He specifically makes a distinction between prejudice and racism and lists lynching as a component of racism, the obvious inference being black prejudice towards whites and other minorities can't be racism because because they never had the legal clout whites had to oppress, discriminate, and harm those they hate.

mark f

04-28-11, 12:38 AM

Wait a sec. First you need to read everything he says. Also, you don't think that Blacks have ever "lynched" anyone? Blacks, Mexicans and/or other minorities have never killed anyone of another race without a good reason and for some kind of racial motivation? History and the prison systems of several countries will prove that wrong.

will.15

04-28-11, 12:44 AM

I didn't say I believed it, but that is an argument that has often been stated by some liberals (I'm a liberal) and blacks. It never made sense to me so I am not trying to defend it. I know he is trying to apply it more broadly but his rhetoric of prejuduce versus racism is specifically that argument..

mark f

04-28-11, 12:46 AM

I'm sure that planet will come on here and explain whatever you seem to question. Just because he uses words which have us scrambling for the Dictionary doesn't mean that his arguments are invalid.

linespalsy

04-28-11, 01:06 AM

The thing that makes racism so complicated is that it's tied really closely to identity politics which are completely pervasive, and often harmless or even beneficial to society. It also has an unpredictable and contradictory mixture of properties. The end goal is usually group-solidifying, but the means are fluid, open to negotiation, and based on all sorts of factors such as communications infrastructure, economic competition, ostensible differences (like skin color or language), the popularity of given archetypes or myths, everyday tactical politics, and armed conflict. Factors that are particularly relevant to the cases of racism and nationalism are authenticity narratives appealing to (usually) crank theories of biological determinism or selective history.

The problem is it's very difficult to understand - let alone predict - how a given political narrative gains enough traction to mobilize a group to some end, so how can we say that racism's eradicated or that we're safe? How many people still buy into a very narrow, selective understanding of history or authoritative-sounding pseudoscience, both of which have been used to justify many a genocide?

Ironically a lot of stuff that strengthens racism also weakens it, so for example proselytizing religions (another kind of communal narrative) often cut both ways, by both justifying a sense of exclusivity that overlaps with biological or ethnic identity, and at the same time calling for enfolding the other into the chosen flock and preaching the essential brotherhood of man. Identity politics are never fully stable; communities and beliefs are always at least potentially dynamic. But they never really go away either, so I doubt that racism has (or will any time soon).

I guess the main thing I question is the belief that as a society we understand ourselves much better than our ancestors did. Maybe in some pockets we do, but in others it may be more complicated now than it ever was before, due to technological or demographic growth and just the sheer volume of information available. America has seemed pretty stable for a while now (to the extent that a huge mass of people can ever be considered "stable"); but if some unforseen (real or imagined) pressure is introduced who's to say how the boundaries of identity might be redrawn or solidified to protect the chosen few and exclude others?

EDIT: lots of posts happened while I was writing this one. In response to 7th Son, obviously I just argued that racism and religion are both closely linked with identity politics so to that extent I think while the differences (some of which I tried to articulate) are striking, there's also often a lot of overlap. For example both racial and religious identity are often built upon origin stories, tracing lineages and so forth, aren't they? Not saying that the core moral or spiritual beliefs are necessarily the same at all, just that they may have some structural similarities, and that at times one may be leveraged by the other.

Yoda

04-28-11, 11:39 AM

Random note time:

1) Thinking about moving the race posts into their own thread. The cut should be pretty clean and it's pretty clearly a different subject now. Anyone object?

2) Politico posted an article (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53856.html) talking about the way politics have changed and become more invasive that sort of echoes some of the things I was saying earlier about delegitimizing leaders. We've been building to this for a long time.

3) Donald Trump gave $4,800 to Harry freakin' Reid (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-donation-history-shows-democratic-favoritism/2011/04/25/AFDUddtE_story.html)...in this very last election. Forget being a good conservative leader, or a viable candidate, or even remotely qualified for President...is he even a conservative? Rand Paul responded to the information by rather humorously called for him to release his Republican registration (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/rand-paul-questions-trumps-republican-credentials/).

I dunno if anyone here other than Gunny was taking him seriously to begin with, and he doesn't tend to respond to anything which contradicts him, but we can put this to bed now, right?

will.15

04-28-11, 11:55 AM

I am convinced now Trump is just promoting himself and his show. But for giving money to Dems, that is typical for busnessmen to give money to both parties, and he gave it to the Leader of the Senate, so they have access to the politician. I just read yesterday what his few exressed stands have been and he is insane, 35% export tax on China, US takever of Iraq and Libyan oil fields. He is going to campaign on that? The other Republican candidates will eat him alive.

Yoda

04-28-11, 12:00 PM

Yeah, it's definitely typical for businessmen, but not for candidates for President. And he's actually given more to Democrats over the years. I think a lot of this could be explained away if it had happened awhile back, but Harry Reid? Last year? No way. Throw in the fact that he apparently once called Ronald Reagan a "con man" and all the other reasons that have already been enumerated, and he's just not a serious candidate in any sense of the word.

7thson

04-28-11, 12:24 PM

I could see Trump in an adivisory role, he does have a few good ideas, but president or even in line to take over if something happened? Ummmm no thanks.

rufnek

04-28-11, 05:05 PM

That was fundamentally a non sequitur post seeing as how it doesn't address at all the point of my post of which racism was only a particular example. It's similar to your "objections" to my example in the Atheist thread about rapists.

Then why bother with it?

C'mon, Planet--tell the truth. Have you ever encountered a real racist? Ever met a Nazi or a Klansman? Ever see the result of their hate? Few years ago a couple of Aryan Nation jailbirds tied an elderly black man by the ankles to the bumper of their pickup and went speeding down back roads until there wasn't much more left than his ankles. His body slammed into the curb on one turn and ripped his head off. This was down in Vidor, Tex., a town that in my lifetime had big signs along the highway at its city limits saying "N----r, don't let the sun go down on you in this town."

To say the Aryan Nation, Nazis and Klansmen are cockroaches is an insult to cockroaches. But then this is just an intellectual game with you. I don't think you know what the hell real racists are like

DexterRiley

04-28-11, 05:14 PM

rufnek

04-28-11, 05:17 PM

Start talking like bigots aren't even people, and pretty soon you've lost the moral high ground.

Oh, yeah, by all means let us not "dehumanize" bigots, less we hurt their tender feelings and make them boo-hoo. Let us reason with them and win over their hearts and minds.

You folks have no idea the type of people you're talking about. I'm gonna lose the "moral high ground" by talking bad about klansmen, nazis, and aryan nation thugs who have killed, whipped, branded, raped, terrorized and intimidated other human beings???

Fine. I'll take that risk.

will.15

04-28-11, 05:34 PM

No way he is running. He has done more back flips than Nadia Comaneci.

Yoda

04-28-11, 06:20 PM

Oh, yeah, by all means let us not "dehumanize" bigots, less we hurt their tender feelings and make them boo-hoo. Let us reason with them and win over their hearts and minds.
No one's saying either of those things. But hey, this is why the moral high ground is so valuable and so rare: because it's really hard to treat terrible people like human beings. Just as it's really hard not to want to strangle murderers and child molesters rather than give them a fair trial.

I refuse to believe that you cannot distinguish between "even the worst people are people" and "let's not hurt the feelings of Nazis."

You folks have no idea the type of people you're talking about. I'm gonna lose the "moral high ground" by talking bad about klansmen, nazis, and aryan nation thugs who have killed, whipped, branded, raped, terrorized and intimidated other human beings???
This entire point is based on exaggeration. There's a difference been "talking bad" about a group of people and saying they need to be exterminated.

It's probably worth pointing out that you didn't actually distinguish between different types of racists. You just said "racists" should be stomped out. If you'd like to refine that to refer only to those who rape, murder, and pillage, the statement looks a bit less extreme. But it seems to me that affording even the worst of people a recognition of humanity is one of the things that gives us the moral authority to condemn them to begin with.

will.15

04-28-11, 06:22 PM

There is a difference between Archie Bunker and Adolf Hitler.

DexterRiley

04-28-11, 06:25 PM

yes , Archie Bunker wasn't ambitious.

Yoda

04-28-11, 06:26 PM

Will, I don't always love your pithy, super-succinct replies, but occasionally they sum an argument up very well.

rufnek

04-29-11, 03:31 PM

I refuse to believe that you cannot distinguish between "even the worst people are people" and "let's not hurt the feelings of Nazis."

So your argument is that there are worst people in the world than Nazis? Must be some really bad sobs.

It's probably worth pointing out that you didn't actually distinguish between different types of racists. You just said "racists" should be stomped out. If you'd like to refine that to refer only to those who rape, murder, and pillage, the statement looks a bit less extreme. But it seems to me that affording even the worst of people a recognition of humanity is one of the things that gives us the moral authority to condemn them to begin with.

I think I've made it clear that I consider people who go around muttering the N-word in their own homes and secretly thinking themselves superior to other races without ever confronting anyone are milquetoasts not worth paying attention to. And then there's the other kind. Unlike you and the other young man, I have been face to face with "people" who are in reality like wolves among sheep. Have you ever been at a klan rally where bigots in sheets and skinheads with their swastika tatoos are spewing their hate??? Ever looked into the cold eyes of a Black Panther? Have you ever seen anything even remotely like that? Because if you haven't, you have no idea what real hate and evil are like. And if you have seen it, then shame on you for forgiving them as miguided "people."

Moral authority be damned. I want to see them all in hell with their backs broke. If you see that as extreme, fine. It doesn't change a hair how I feel about those racist bastards. Difference is I'm not planning to go out and bust their backs and send them to hell. Unfortunately, somewhere right now they're planning to do even worse to people far more worthwhile and innocent than they.

Yoda

04-29-11, 03:51 PM

So your argument is that there are worst people in the world than Nazis? Must be some really bad sobs.
Er, no, that's not my argument. I said there's a difference between recognizing someone's humanity and saying we shouldn't even hurt their feelings. I'm not sure how that could possibly be misunderstood, but you seem to have done it.

I think I've made it clear that I consider people who go around muttering the N-word in their own homes and secretly thinking themselves superior to other races without ever confronting anyone are milquetoasts not worth paying attention to. And then there's the other kind.
Yes. I imagine we all agree on this distinction.

Unlike you and the other young man, I have been face to face with "people" who are in reality like wolves among sheep. Have you ever been at a klan rally where bigots in sheets and skinheads with their swastika tatoos are spewing their hate??? Ever looked into the cold eyes of a Black Panther? Have you ever seen anything even remotely like that? Because if you haven't, you have no idea what real hate and evil are like. And if you have seen it, then shame on you for forgiving them as miguided "people."
Nope, never gone toe-to-toe with a Grand Wizard, but seeing as how I'm not disputing that they're truly terrible people, I don't see why you think this is some kind of trump card. If I were saying "oh, they're not so bad" or playing down the seriousness of the situation, you'd have a point, but I'm making a far more modest argument than that.

And if we're going to start shaming each other, can I shame you for pretending I said I wanted to forgive them? Because I said nothing of the sort. When an argument exists entirely because of exaggeration, it isn't really an argument. Saying I want to "forgive" racists, or that I'm against "hurting their feelings" are really transparent rhetorical devices that have no serious relation to what I'm actually saying.

Moral authority be damned. I want to see them all in hell with their backs broke. If you see that as extreme, fine.
I wouldn't argue with you about it if I merely found it extreme, but yeah, I do. More importantly, I think it's probably counterproductive and less useful than other manners of condemnation. And I think it hurts any just cause when the people who support it lose sight of what makes their cause righteous in the first place.

Martin Luther King Jr. understood this; his cause was non-violent and based on reconciliation and education, and that's one of the reasons he's had such a lasting effect. Because it's not enough to just be right about something: we also have to be worthy of espousing it. We have to be good representatives of the ideals on which our outrage is based.

rufnek

04-29-11, 04:12 PM

I guess the main thing I question is the belief that as a society we understand ourselves much better than our ancestors did.

Well, at the risk of being ridiculed again by my other young opponent for the old man's habit of talking about back in "my time," I was born into a segregated world where the poll tax was used to keep the poor from the ballot box and the N-word was so prevalent that it wasn't until I was reading newspapers that I learned there were other words for "those people." Hell, I didn't even know it was offensive because no black person dared to be offended at a white person calling them that.

Then came the civil rights wars of the 1960s. There was a lot that even as a teenager I still did not understand, having never received any even-handed instruction on those issues. But you didn't have to watch the southern policemen breaking up marches and demonstration to learn which end of the police dog the people in the right were on--right, as in fighting for justice and fairness.

A lot of good people bled and died in those wars. I was no major participant myself but I took a few lumps in barroom brawls when some bigots would take exception to my black buddies.

Point being that when I was born, a black man could--and did--get lynched just for looking at a white woman. Well into the 20th century, Texas led the nation in the number of lynchings. Today, on the streets of Houston and even small towns, you see interracial couples, married, dating, and no one even blinking at the sight. So I don't buy the BS being peddled by some that we haven't made progress in racial relations or we have no greater understanding and empathy for others than our ancestors, because I've seen what our ancestors did in the early years of my life.

And I sure don't buy into the argument that bigotry is somehow "justified" because the Mexican population has grown or some blacks are poor. That might hold water except for the fact that racists hate rich blacks just as much as they do poor ones, so it's not about poverty--it's about skin color. When it comes to Hispanics, bigots don't just dislike illegal aliens, they dislike legal aliens too, as well as Hispanics whose families were living here when this area was part of Mexico. As for growing population, Texas is growing from companies moving here from California, people of all colors coming from the rust belt, and of course a growing Hispanic population just as we had a big jump in our Asian population after the Vietnam war. So if it were just population based, seems we would have wars going with Hispanics, Californians, and Yankees. But we don't. Not even since the "people of color" in Texas now outnumber us "whites."

Like a black buddy in the Army once said, racism comes down basically to "stay away from our women." The second verse of that sad song is "don't take our jobs."

rufnek

04-29-11, 04:25 PM

Martin Luther King Jr. understood this; his cause was non-violent and based on reconciliation and education, and that's one of the reasons he's had such a lasting effect.

King was killed. And all of his teachings had absolutely no effect upon the people who killed him or those little girls when they bombed that church or the freedom riders gunned down by the Klan. If you think you're going to win over the Klan with truth and reason, you better buy some iron underwear to save your butt.

Because it's not enough to just be right about something: we also have to be worthy of espousing it. We have to be good representatives of the ideals on which our outrage is based.

I favor fighting fire with fire myself. I don't give a damn about being worthy or an idealist nor is that going to impress at all the people I'm talking about. But then I'm not a liberal. I'm just a good ol country boy who knows what has to be done to win the hearts and minds of a bunch of peckerwood racists.

Yoda

04-29-11, 05:05 PM

King was killed.
So was Jesus. Do you think either of them lost the ideological battles they were waging simply because they died?

And all of his teachings had absolutely no effect upon the people who killed him or those little girls when they bombed that church or the freedom riders gunned down by the Klan. If you think you're going to win over the Klan with truth and reason, you better buy some iron underwear to save your butt.
Who said anything about winning over the Klan? How often do you plan on disagreeing with things I'm not saying? You don't win over the Klan. You win over everyone else. And you do it by being better than them, even in the ways they don't entirely deserve. In the same way some lowlife child molester gets his day in court, and in the same way we actually take care of our prisoners even as we prepare to execute them. They don't deserve these things, but they're not for them: they're for us.

rufnek

04-29-11, 05:10 PM

Nope, never gone toe-to-toe with a Grand Wizard, but seeing as how I'm not disputing that they're truly terrible people, I don't see why you think this is some kind of trump card.

Let me try one time to explain this and then I'll get off my soap box. I wasn't playing any "trump card." This comes from my own experience from years of covering the police and court beats. I used to think I knew what mean and evil was until I saw the real thing on the streets with the cops. Like I said before, there are "people" who are more like wolves among sheep than human beings. Thank god they're fairly rare, and most folks never encounter them, but when you see the real thing, it will make your blood run cold. The thing about neo-nazis and klansmen is that they consist of a few wolves and a bunch of baying hounds, but they run in a pack, which makes them especially dangerous because they think they are untouchable within the unit and they encourage each other to do their worse. It is my opinion that you and most people don't understand this anymore than I used to. The thing is, I have seen these people and their groups in real life, radiating hate like a bonfire sends out heat. I've seen the cold, expressionless eyes of prisoners who killed someone because of their color, their religion, their sexual preference, and it is a horror to see, including one 15-year-old who was the most cold-blooded killer I ever saw.

There is nothing that can be done to redeem those people. All you can hope for is to protect the rest of society from them. Life imprisonment would be fine, if you could prevent any other person ever coming in touch with them, but you can't. Put these people in prisons and they will hurt guards and other prisoners. The only safe disposition is to kill them like you would a rabid dog, because basically that's what they are. You can never get the sickness of hate out of them, so save society instead.

will.15

04-29-11, 05:19 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iEVsw8pkBQ

rufnek

04-29-11, 05:36 PM

So was Jesus. Do you think either of them lost the ideological battles they were waging simply because they died?

I think they both were preaching to the choir. They didn't convert a single one of the enemies behind their deaths. Not being a Christian, I'm unimpressed with the Jesus myth anyhow. I don't turn the other cheek. I'm also more impressed with Ghandi's nonviolence than King's. When they would put Ghandi in jail, he'd stay and go on a hunger strike to make the Brits look bad. King got bailed out while his followers sat in jail.

You don't win over the Klan.

Well, we're finally in agreement.

You win over everyone else.

But this is where we differ again. You sound like there are people out there on the fence about this. "Gee, I'm a bigot, but am I a big enough bigot to pay dues to join the Klan? Wonder how often I have to go to meetings?"

Who is it you plan to win over??? My view is that one is either for the Klan or against it. No ifs or maybes. One is either on the side of right against the Klan or else one is a Klansman, whether he wears the robes or not.

I'm all for arresting Klansmen and Nazis and militia-men and gay bashers when they break the law (with my previous stipulation of keeping them isolated so they can't hurt anyone else). And thank god Southern lawmen are more apt to do that today. But I'm also for confronting these low-lifes everytime they show their faces (or hoods) in public. Treat them like the scum they are and never back down.

will.15

04-29-11, 05:53 PM

You win by passing civil rights legislation, which King fought for which put the Klan on the fringes. They still exist, but their numbers are minuscule compared to the old days when they actually wielded political power. If you don't win the hearts and minds of the old bigots you get their children who no longer live in a segregated society.

Yoda

04-29-11, 06:04 PM

I think they both were preaching to the choir. They didn't convert a single one of the enemies behind their deaths. Not being a Christian, I'm unimpressed with the Jesus myth anyhow. I don't turn the other cheek. I'm also more impressed with Ghandi's nonviolence than King's. When they would put Ghandi in jail, he'd stay and go on a hunger strike to make the Brits look bad. King got bailed out while his followers sat in jail.
But you didn't answer the question, you just repeated that they died. Do you think either of them lost the ideological battles they were waging simply because they died?

Whether or not you prefer Gandhi or believe in Jesus is irrelevant. Whether you like Gandhi, Jesus, King, or Mother Teresa, their common philosophy of peace and mercy even for those that don't deserve it have had a profound effect on human thinking and modern society. What you're saying is almost identical to a dubious Homer Simpson quote: "If he's so smart, how come he's dead?"

But this is where we differ again. You sound like there are people out there on the fence about this. "Gee, I'm a bigot, but am I a big enough bigot to pay dues to join the Klan? Wonder how often I have to go to meetings?"

Who is it you plan to win over???
You noted earlier that the kind of virulent racism you abhor is far rarer now than it used to be. And I think it's beyond denial that Dr. King's view, whatever you think of it, has absolutely dominated the discussion of race relations in the decades following his death. So put 2 and 2 together already.

linespalsy

04-29-11, 06:20 PM

I haven't really read or thought much about the Civil Rights-era (or Jesus, for that matter), but it seems likely to me that MLK and other proponents of non-violent protest weren't just trying to maintain the moral high ground by not fighting violently, but were (laudably) using nonviolence as a strategic and subversive form of cultural warfare. Many of them were probably just as ideologically hostile towards racists and the state that enabled them, as the state and racists were to blacks and anyone else not "chosen", but they didn't have the manpower and institutional legitimacy to fight back in kind. Instead, national media recognition as victims could confer a considerable amount of power in shifting our national awareness. If white racism is viscerally identified with brutality and aggression, it might make it more problematic for most people who still hold some racist beliefs to identify with that community, and certainly to take action in its "defense." That's my sense of a political movement that I haven't read much about and was more or less over before I was born, for what it's worth.

But on an ideological level, it's not really clear to me that anyone here is arguing that hostility to militant, organized racism (lynchings, upholding "separate but equal" laws, the klan...) is wrong, or that pluralism demands accepting racialist philosophy as "just another, equally legitimate viewpoint." I'm curious where everyone actually stands on this. I also agree that it would probably be useless to argue with a die-hard racist and try to pick apart their theories about the origins and supremacy of their race. I do know that from experience.

Anyway, to the more abstract argument...

I certainly wouldn't argue that racism is just population based. And yeah, "stay away from our women" and "don't take our jobs" are common calls to arms. But does that mean the same thing as saying racism is just based on sexual chauvinism and insecurity, or just based on economic competition? And if so, how is that any more accurate?

I think there's a legitimate question as to just how far we need to understand the root causes of racism in order to fight it, and reasonable people could probably disagree about it. But it is at the very least interesting that, in order to guard the borders of "our" women, and "our" jobs, people have to have some idea of what those borders are. If we don't accept racist theories of biological and cultural essentialism -- as we shouldn't -- then how does this "our" arise, and how malleable is it? I don't know, rufnek, if you would say that it's always just an intellectual game to try and figure out how racism does or does not grow from it's more soft, widespread roots into it's more virulent, aggressive, and organized form? I've personally known plenty of people who have experience with even the really militant form of racism, who still have trouble being able to boil it down into an understandable explanation. They still try to understand the nuanced historical, ideological and social dynamics involved in the softer forms of racism in order to try and keep it from coalescing into populist brutality and unfair laws. One of these is my friend and former-adviser as a political science undergrad, whose field of research was in racist and nationalist politics, and who infiltrated and successfully blended in with the highly suspicious/paranoid grassroots skinhead and blue collar communities in Belgium; he wanted to understand how the Vlaams Blok and other far-right nativist/separatist/anti-immigrant parties were able to mobilize and manipulate support, and respond to challenges both from within and without; not just for the fun of it but so that they could be stopped from becoming something worse. I'm sure that he would argue with you that all intellectualizing is just a pointless exercise (if that is your point, it's kind of hard for me to tell just how hard-line you are about "intellectuals" sometimes).

mark f

04-29-11, 06:53 PM

Remember ruffy, your soapbox is gone now.

However, racism does (and did) come from somewhere. You have to be taught. It can't really just date back to one individual somewhere who somehow was able to indoctrinate masses of people. It seems like it has to start sometimes (most times?) in people's homes, schools, businesses, churches, media. I'm not saying anything new here, but most of these discussions aren't really anything new. It's just that some people are looking for reasons and would like to try to address the problem before it snowballs. Others just say that the reasons should be damned, just deal with what exists and the only way to deal with it is to stomp it out like a bug. Of course, then the other side says that stomping it out only destroys the symptoms and not the disease. Besides that, stomping it ("them") out is what the racists want to do in the first place. We have seen the Enemy and we are it. Sorry for the rehash.

I don't really get the arguments about seeing something so virulent and violent compared to what you "see" today. I'm sure there would be many people (if they could speak and some do through writing) who claim the Nazis and the Klan were wimps compared to what was going on before they came along. Those guys weren't really evil, but I saw some evil back during the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades. Now the looks in the eyes of those guys back then make Hitler and Uncle Joe Stalin look like Santa Claus. No matter how old and worldly wise you are, there's somebody who's older and wiser. And no matter how open or set in your ways you are, there will always be somebody with a new idea which you will fight, mostly because it is new and seems foreign.

As far as today being so much better than it was earlier, I've mentioned that what you see now is more subversive because it's not so blatant out in public, but it's still there, and hate crimes are being prosecuted daily everywhere. It may seem low-key but it cuts like a knife when some friend or family member says something racist and no one speaks up about it, or worse still, when you complain you're criticized for "starting a fight". And if you don't think racism is so bad, just look at the Internet for awhile and you'll see the same things which you may have seen in person 50-60 years ago. You may not think it's as bad because it doesn't "seem" to hurt as many people but looks are often deceiving, there is a reason for most things and time will eventually tell if racism (of any kind or called by any other name) will again rise up publicly and brazenly here in the U.S. There are already many African and Asian countries where the hatred and genocide of people have been an ongoing tragedy for decades, perhaps centuries. Some people may not call it racism but it's basically the same thing and it's just as ugly and destructive as anything anyone here has ever seen in their lives.

planet news

04-29-11, 07:18 PM

Anyway, to the more abstract argument...Yussss.

... it seems likely to me that MLK and other proponents of non-violent protest weren't just trying to maintain the moral high ground by not fighting violently, but were (laudably) using nonviolence as a strategic and subversive form of cultural warfare.Pretty much this.

I'm certainly not one to espouse any such thing as a "moral high ground", though racism is certainly on the opposite side of any such divide of an injunction to act. Furthermore, I do not only accept but also see absolute necessity in the figure of the militant in pan-societal projects like anti-racism---or any project of resistance to oppression. Also, I would like to add that I totally agree with you in your last post that racism might just be a particularly abhorrent (and mysterious) instantiation of identity politics in general. I might even go as far as to say that this connection calls into question the very conception of an acceptable identity politics at all (or whether or not "identity" is really what is being addressed).

But I really do agree with your statements here. I think popular presentations of famous non-violent figures like Gandhi and MLK are always slightly misleading in that they resort to characterizing their efforts solely on the grounds of a "moral high ground" or at least on a principle of nonviolence. The reality might be much more pragmatic, I feel. It was not explicitly my point in my previous post to take any such "high ground", as Yoda put it, but rather to propose a solidarity with figures like Gandhi/MLK on what exactly a militant is.

Was it really ever the "moral high ground" that allowed Gandhi/MLK to be victorious in their situations? Or was it the fact that, through their non-violence, they were in a sense being much more violent than their oppressors by refusing to participate in the very arena of violence as such? In other words, a true militant is more than a criminal. A true militant works to undermine very system itself---a system which, in their situations, only happened to be violent.

I think the opposite, more typical example is violent revolution in the Marxist sense. But for me this isn't any more or less militant than Gandhi/MLK, since the kind of oppression in question was not an explicitly violent one. In other words, labor unions are merely complicit in the system---fully accounted for. Equally so for MLK would be violent retaliation against police brutality. There is, in a sense, nothing the police like better than being retaliated against. It only adds legitimacy to their violence.

So, in a move analogous to the rise of guerrilla warfare, the most militant, indeed "violent" thing that could have been done was to simply change the conditions of the game itself. It was only in this way that something like police brutality revealed its true form as, well, police brutality.

So my reaction to rufnek's attitude is essentially why bother playing their game? You only strengthen or at least prolong the conditions of the present struggle.

But on an ideological level, it's not really clear to me that anyone here is arguing that hostility to militant, organized racism (lynchings, upholding "separate but equal" laws, the klan...) is wrong, or that pluralism demands accepting racialist philosophy as "just another, equally legitimate viewpoint." I'm curious where everyone actually stands on this. I also agree that it would probably be useless to argue with a die-hard racist and try to pick apart their theories about the origins and supremacy of their race. I do know that from experience.I certainly would not accept racialist attitudes on that level, no. But on that note, I cannot help but see something self-defeating in simply turning those attitudes back onto the racialist as I feel rufnek is doing. It's precisely because racism stands largely apart from practical reason---"die-hards" themselves exemplifying this separation---that you can't do this. By playing their game you only legitimize the fact that they established the conditions of the game in the first place.

I certainly wouldn't argue that racism is just population based. And yeah, "stay away from our women" and "don't take our jobs" are common calls to arms. But does that mean the same thing as saying racism is just based on sexual chauvinism and insecurity, or just based on economic competition? And if so, how is that any more accurate?I hope no one took my previous post as some kind of definitive theory of racism. I was merely pointing out how there are certain empirical factors to be considered along with the "mind" factors.

DexterRiley

04-29-11, 08:20 PM

No way he is running. He has done more back flips than Nadia Comaneci.

this is beautiful. Gunny...Gunny Where art thou Gunny..

:laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jFdN-W8av8

will.15

04-29-11, 08:41 PM

Chef Ramsay for President

will.15

04-30-11, 12:29 AM

Donald Trump in Vegas: 'Our leaders are stupid'

Updated: Apr 29, 2011 - 16:40PM

Cristina Silva
AP
LAS VEGAS -Real estate developer and TV showman Donald Trump fueled speculation that he'll enter the 2012 White House race, assuring a crowd of supporters at a Las Vegas casino that he is seriously weighing a presidential run. His speech was also littered with profanities and insults aimed at the nation's leaders.

The setting Thursday night was fitting for the casino mogul whose moniker is draped across the gold-tinged Trump International Hotel & Tower just off the Las Vegas Strip. An open bar greeted more than 1,000 people, waiters passed hors d'oeuvres and a Trump impersonator entertained the crowd.

At one point, a woman in the lavish reception at the Treasure Island casino on the Las Vegas Strip yelled out that Trump should run for president.

"I think I am going to make you very happy," the developer said.

But he later said: "There is a really good chance that I won't win because of one of these blood-sucking politicians."

During a 30-minute stump speech focused mostly on foreign affairs, Trump sprinkled in a number of insults directed toward the nation's leaders.

"Our leaders are stupid, they are stupid people," he said. "It's just very, very sad."

Trump also blasted President Barack Obama's handling of Libya, Iraq, China and Afghanistan, and in one of his many curse-bombs, he lamented the nation's focus on building schools in war-torn Afghanistan, while neglecting education in the United States.

He said he wouldn't help struggling nations such as South Korea or Libya without payment and promised to use swear words while negotiating with China.

"I'm not interested in protecting none of them unless they pay," he said.

A frequent critic of the federal health care law passed last year, Trump said the Supreme Court should decide the dozens of lawsuits challenging the legislation and urged district courts not to waste their time on it.

Trump has created waves by questioning whether the president was born in the U.S. Obama produced his detailed Hawaii birth certificate on Wednesday, and Trump eagerly took credit for the reveal.

Trump's visit to Nevada came a day after he traveled to New Hampshire, which is set to host the first presidential primary in 2012. Nevada's caucus is scheduled to be the third presidential contest next year.

Trump hosts the successful reality series "The Celebrity Apprentice" on NBC.

"I would have to give a lot of stuff up," he told the casino crowd Thursday. "But you know what? It is peanuts compared to the importance of this country."

I don't dislike Donald Trump. I think he is a very entertaining guy. But as a serious Presidential candidate? He is cussing while giving a speech? If he runs, is he going to keep doing that?

At least he isn't a boring Ken doll like Romney.

Gunny

04-30-11, 01:46 AM

Who will take on Obama in 2012?

My favorites of the GOP are Trump and Palin. Also like Romney and Huckabee but the first 2 would make the better POTUS.

As far as who has the best shot at winning the GOP ticket? Most likely Romney or Trump. Palin has almost a zero shot. When Huckabee announces he'll run (he will) he could possibly compete with Trump and Romney.

But we won't have a clear idea who stands where until much closer to the election. Remember. About the same time last election Giuliani was the clear favorite for the GOP with over 50%. We all saw how that worked out for him. And right now the highest Republican only has about 20-something percent.

It will be interesting.

will.15

04-30-11, 02:10 AM

Trump has no chance if he announces, he is an even worse flip flopper than Romney (which I wasn't aware of until the Dexter Riley clips) and he has said really crazy things. United States takeover of Libyan and Iraq oil fields. Unless he is a complete moron, he knows there is no possiblity of doing that even if he really wants to. We are no longer in control of Iraq and we have no troops in Libya, which we would need to seize control of Libyan oil. And isn't this a complete contradiction of his attitide we should not interfere with these countries? Does he think any of this out or does he just like shooting off his mouth? And a protectionist Republlic candidate? He proposed a 35% tariff on Chinese goods. And these are recent positions. He will be picked apart in campaign commercials and will look like a fool. And you know something? I am certain he knows it. If he actually announces I will be amazed.

rufnek

05-02-11, 06:30 PM

But you didn't answer the question, you just repeated that they died. Do you think either of them lost the ideological battles they were waging simply because they died?

People who die while the battle is still raging and undecided can hardly be deemed winners. I don't see the battle being won yet. And King was not the only leader in that battle--he was one in many in a battle that was raging before he was born.

Whether or not you prefer Gandhi or believe in Jesus is irrelevant. Whether you like Gandhi, Jesus, King, or Mother Teresa, their common philosophy of peace and mercy even for those that don't deserve it have had a profound effect on human thinking and modern society. What you're saying is almost identical to a dubious Homer Simpson quote: "If he's so smart, how come he's dead?"

I see as much evidence that Jesus was real as there is that Homer Simpson exists. Which is why I don't accumulate the quotes of those two characters as you do.

Besides, I've just been reading your thoughts on bin Laden's death in another conversation. Didn't see you advocating any peace and mercy for him. In fact, it sounded to me that you felt about him like I feel about Nazis and Klan lice. So what's the real difference between us, Yoda? Looks mighty thin from where I sit.

You noted earlier that the kind of virulent racism you abhor is far rarer now than it used to be. And I think it's beyond denial that Dr. King's view, whatever you think of it, has absolutely dominated the discussion of race relations in the decades following his death. So put 2 and 2 together already.[/quote]

I think you're getting the wrong answer from your 2 and 2--did race relationships improve because of King's teachings or because klansmen started ratting each other out and the federal government prosecuted them more relentlessly for violations of civil rights than their state courts' did for murder? From the very start of the Klan, the people most effective in curbing their terrorism has done so by taking the fight to them, not turning the other cheek.

Yoda

05-02-11, 06:58 PM

People who die while the battle is still raging and undecided can hardly be deemed winners. I don't see the battle being won yet. And King was not the only leader in that battle--he was one in many in a battle that was raging before he was born.
Of course they can be deemed winners: they were fighting ideological battles, not physical ones. Their death doesn't even remotely invalidate what they taught, and in both cases you could make a good argument that it helped propagate the message.

How far does this survival-is-winning idea go, by the way? Who won bigger in the civil rights battles of the 1960s: a 90-year-old surviving Klansman who is now ostracized and hated by the rest of society, or Martin Luther King Jr.? And do you appreciate just how ridiculous it is that I have to ask this question at all?

Besides, I've just been reading your thoughts on bin Laden's death in another conversation. Didn't see you advocating any peace and mercy for him. In fact, it sounded to me that you felt about him like I feel about Nazis and Klan lice. So what's the real difference between us, Yoda? Looks mighty thin from where I sit.
Feel free to point me to any place in which I described him in sub-human terms. You won't find it. What you will find if you read the thread, actually, is me saying I was a little bit uncomfortable watching people celebrate quite so jubilantly about something I thought was fairly somber. A good thing, a necessary thing, and a thing worth celebrating, but still a somber thing.

This also ignores the fact that racism and terrorism are two very different problems, and one could easily advocate different methods of handling each from a purely utilitarian perspective.

I think you're getting the wrong answer from your 2 and 2--did race relationships improve because of King's teachings or because klansmen started ratting each other out and the federal government prosecuted them more relentlessly for violations of civil rights than their state courts' did for murder?
It certainly doesn't have to be either-or, but given how thoroughly King's stance has been adopted and praised across all facets of society, I'd say the evidence is pretty clearly in favor of the idea that his view won out and had the most dramatic effect. I don't think it's even close.

And really, think of the logic behind the alternative: you don't stop racism by just killing racists. It's not like they're born, or as if it's genetic. Today's less racist society is not biologically different from the generations past, it is ideologically different. It is comprised of people who have grown up understanding that racism is wrong, and why. Not of people who are less racist because they saw what happened to some Klansman and don't want it to happen to them.

From the very start of the Klan, the people most effective in curbing their terrorism has done so by taking the fight to them, not turning the other cheek.
How do you come to that conclusion? Or are you just stating an opinion here?

will.15

05-02-11, 07:21 PM

rufnek

05-02-11, 07:43 PM

Remember ruffy, your soapbox is gone now.

I feel like the old gunfighter in some grade B Western--I keep trying to hang up my guns, but folks just won't let me. :)

However, racism does (and did) come from somewhere. You have to be taught. It can't really just date back to one individual somewhere who somehow was able to indoctrinate masses of people. It seems like it has to start sometimes (most times?) in people's homes, schools, businesses, churches, media. I'm not saying anything new here, but most of these discussions aren't really anything new. It's just that some people are looking for reasons and would like to try to address the problem before it snowballs. Others just say that the reasons should be damned, just deal with what exists and the only way to deal with it is to stomp it out like a bug. Of course, then the other side says that stomping it out only destroys the symptoms and not the disease. Besides that, stomping it ("them") out is what the racists want to do in the first place. We have seen the Enemy and we are it. Sorry for the rehash.

I agree racism is taught--as from the song of a similar name in South Pacific.

I don't really get the arguments about seeing something so virulent and violent compared to what you "see" today. I'm sure there would be many people (if they could speak and some do through writing) who claim the Nazis and the Klan were wimps compared to what was going on before they came along. Those guys weren't really evil, but I saw some evil back during the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades. Now the looks in the eyes of those guys back then make Hitler and Uncle Joe Stalin look like Santa Claus. No matter how old and worldly wise you are, there's somebody who's older and wiser. And no matter how open or set in your ways you are, there will always be somebody with a new idea which you will fight, mostly because it is new and seems foreign.

I'd be very interested in a comparision by someone who personally witnessed the Civil Rights wars of the 1960s, Stalin's purges of the 1950s, the Nazi death camps of the 1940s AND the Inquisition in the 15th century. Know anyone who fits that bill? I'm simply talking about what I've actually seen in my lifetime and testifying that, based on my personal experience and observation, racial relations are much better today than in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.

Let me tell you one short tale--I doubt if it will mean anything to you but it impacted me. First time I went to the Smithsonian Museum in Washington in the 1990s, I turned a corner in the American history museum and saw right in front me the restroom door from a Texaco service station in East Texas from 1961 with a "white only" sign over the door. It was like a monster coming out of my past and kicking me in the gut. I was born in East Texas and a lot of my family were still living there in 1961, the year I enlisted in the US Army. My dad worked for Texaco for 20 years. It was like my whole life focused around that door saying "white's only." Just writing about it now makes my stomach sour.

Like I said, that means nothing to others in this forum. Blacks and whites walked by that exhibit without even noticing it, but it burned right down to my soul. All I could do was say, "Thank Gawd those days are behind us." I'd rather die--or kill--to keep from going back to that time and place.

As far as today being so much better than it was earlier, I've mentioned that what you see now is more subversive because it's not so blatant out in public, but it's still there, and hate crimes are being prosecuted daily everywhere. It may seem low-key but it cuts like a knife when some friend or family member says something racist and no one speaks up about it, or worse still, when you complain you're criticized for "starting a fight". And if you don't think racism is so bad, just look at the Internet for awhile and you'll see the same things which you may have seen in person 50-60 years ago. You may not think it's as bad because it doesn't "seem" to hurt as many people but looks are often deceiving, there is a reason for most things and time will eventually tell if racism (of any kind or called by any other name) will again rise up publicly and brazenly here in the U.S. There are already many African and Asian countries where the hatred and genocide of people have been an ongoing tragedy for decades, perhaps centuries. Some people may not call it racism but it's basically the same thing and it's just as ugly and destructive as anything anyone here has ever seen in their lives.

I find it hard to believe racism is "more subversive because it's not so blatant." I've seen blatant--black people sitting in the back of the bus, paying the same movie admission as white movie goers and being made to sit in the balcony, having separate waiting rooms--or none at all--at bus stations, having to line up at the "blacks only" serving window for food instead of going inside to sit and eat with white people. Going to black churches and schools because they were not allowed to learn or worship with whites.

And I've heard blatant--a white man yelling across the street, "Come here, Niqqer," and a black man in front of his wife and children having to respond as ordered. I've heard white teenagers call elderly blackmen "boy." I've been in cars with my buddies when we would pass black men, women, kids on the sidewalk and one of my friends would yell out the window, "Niqqer!"

Naw, I just can't imagine "subtle" racism being worse or even as bad as the blatant racism I grew up with. Back then, an employer would add insult to injury by telling a black applicant, "We don't hire niqqers." So would the cops when they would stop a well-dressed middle age black man driving a new car through a white neighborhood, and demand, "What you doing here, boy?" People still may not hire a black worker and cops still may target black suspects, but at least there are limits to how far they can go in their racism. I remember a day there were not limits.

What I see today instead of the subtle racism you see are kids of all creeds and colors going to school together. When my kids were in school, they had black, Hispanic, and Asian friends in and out of our house virtually daily. My oldest grandson (by my daughter) is half-Hispanic. I work with people and deal with people of all colors and different sexual preferences without thinking of them as the "black guy," the "Hispanic woman," or "the homosexual." Interacial and same sex couples are seen daily on the street, in movies, restaurants, etc. One of my favorite cousins is a lesbian and brought her significant other and their baby to our family reunion.

Considering the world I started out in and the world I see today, it's like like a 180 degree turn. If I can start out as I did in a segregated racist world and change my outlook, then why not others? I'm no superman; if I can do it anyone can. And I've taught my children and grandchildren not to be racists and sexists, and I'm sure they'll pass that along to others.

Besides it's just a matter of time before "whites" will be a minority in this country. In 1860, Brazil had a bigger slave society than the US. A lot of ex-Confederates and their families went there after the war to escape the freed slaves and reconstruction. Today Brazil is the most racially mixed country in the world, including the descendents of those die-hard Confederates.

rufnek

05-02-11, 08:27 PM

Of course they can be deemed winners: they were fighting ideological battles, not physical ones. Their death doesn't even remotely invalidate what they taught, and in both cases you could make a good argument that it helped propagate the message.

King didn't do it alone. Or even most of it. There were many martyrs you've never heard of. Was watching a TV program the other night about how the Klan killed a black activist in Mississippi for getting blacks registered to vote. Set his store on fire and kept firing so he couldn't get out, finally brought the Klansman to justice when another Klansman repented and sold him out on his deathbed They got not only the guys involved in the killings but the Grand Wizard who ordered it. Saw another account where a black truck driver was abducted, beatened and forced to jump from a high bridge into a river. One of the whites present was so upset he quit the Klan and informed on the others. In the state district court, judge ruled jumping into the river didn't mean they caused the man to drown, although his body was recovered downstream and medical evidence proved he drowned. Took years before they finally brought the killers to trial but they finally were brought down by turncoats. What sparked the killing was that the black driver of a Winn Dixie truck supposedly whistled at a white woman, so they found a black man driving such a truck on a different night and killed him.

Those weren't ideological battles. They were the real thing.

Feel free to point me to any place in which I described him in sub-human terms. You won't find it. What you will find if you read the thread, actually, is me saying I was a little bit uncomfortable watching people celebrate quite so jubilantly about something I thought was fairly somber. A good thing, a necessary thing, and a thing worth celebrating, but still a somber thing.

Ah, so you gave yourself deniability! So Osama's death is "a good thing, a thing worth celebrating" but at least you didn't dehumanize him by calling him scum or using other "sub-human" terms. I'm just an ol country boy, full of insensitivity, so I just calls 'em as I see them.

This also ignores the fact that racism and terrorism are two very different problems, and one could easily advocate different methods of handling each from a purely utilitarian perspective.

With all due respect Yoda, that's bullchit and you should know better of you. The Klan isn't a terrorist organization simply because they're not Arabs? Osama wasn't a racist although he was an Arab and a jihadist targeting primarily white US, Israel, and Europe with attacks?

How do you come to that conclusion? Or are you just stating an opinion here?

During and after the Civil War, there were Unionists and minorities in the South who organized to fight Confederates who harassed the Unionists and their families and ex-Confederates who organized into Klan and other gains to terrorist blacks and Unionists after the war. One group was the mixed Indian and Black Lowery gang, who fought long and successfully against the racist terrorists of that period. There was one former Union soldier who organized a band in Arkansas who hunted down and killed Klansman at every opportunity until the organized Klan broke up. Parson Brown, an inflamatory Unionist who was jailed and finially kicked out of the South during the war later was named reconstruction governor of Tennessee and organized a militia specifically to track down, attack, and kill Klansmen who had been terrorizing blacks and unionists in that state. Ol' Bedford Forrest, the grand leader of the Klan at that time, threatened to meet Brown's army with an army of his own and annihilate the militia. Brown invited him to do his worse, at which time Forrest decided that wasn't a very good idea. He ordered the Klan disbanded because it had become such a terrorist group that it lost support even of Southeners.

In the 1920s, there were several lawmen and individuals who took on the Klan, fighting them on their own terms. It's in the history books--look it up.

rufnek

05-02-11, 08:46 PM

You don't stomp out (kill?) Bubba because he attends Klan meetings and mouths off. He has a legal right to hate although you make every effort to marginalize him. You don't kill Bin Laden for his boring videos condemning America. But if Bubba kills or Obama kills you go after them. Rufnek seems to be endorsing preemptive action, putting Bubba in jail before he breaks the law or attempts to and I am not for that.

I find Rufnek dismissal of King' importance to getting us were we are today is bizarre. Klan members ratting on each other happened mostly after 1964 when segregation was abolished and the Klan was becoming irrelevant.

Like I said, if Bubba just goes around muttering "Niqqer" in private and not taking overt action to express his racism, I wouldn't interfere with his right to make an ass of himself. But if he starts attending Klan meetings, he's taking overt action by participating in an intimidating act with a terrorist group. If he's gonna lay down with snakes, he might become collateral damage when someone kills off the snake den.

A Klan meeting is not the silliness pictured in Oh, Brother, Where Are You? It is intended to scare the Klan's victims and intimidate the rest of the local population so they dare not take action against them. It is harsh, confrontational, and being that close to so much hate is frightening.

Incidentally, I didn't "dismiss" King's contribution. I'm just saying he didn't start the fight against racism nor did he end it. I'm sure there were a lot of people who thought racism was wrong who King got to get off their butts and do something about it. But I also think Black Pride, Carmichael, the Black Panthers, and even Malcolm X contributed a great deal to the cause by encouraging young blacks not to turn the other cheek but pick up a club and smack whitey when he slapped them. I identify with the raised fist of black power better than King's sermons.

Yoda

05-02-11, 09:01 PM

King didn't do it alone. Or even most of it. There were many martyrs you've never heard of.
This is completely true. It is also irrelevant to the point under dispute. I pointed out that King made tremendous racial progress without resorting to violence, and your response was that he died. That is not a refutation of the validity of King's methods or ideology in any way, shape, or form.

Ah, so you gave yourself deniability!
Deniability for what? Sheesh, it's what I actually think, ruf. There's not a single word of the description about what I felt that's even a little dishonest, or that was even a little bit crafted to appeal to anyone in any way. The alleged parallels between Osama's death and this discussion hadn't even occurred to me until you mentioned them.

So Osama's death is "a good thing, a thing worth celebrating" but at least you didn't dehumanize him by calling him scum or using other "sub-human" terms. I'm just an ol country boy, full of insensitivity, so I just calls 'em as I see them.
I don't think you're full of insensitivity, and I don't think you're a bad guy. Please don't mistake my disagreement for more than it is. I find your point of view on racism entirely understandable and more than a little sympathetic. But ultimately I think the moral high ground matters, and I think a certain level of outrage and anger can become counterproductive. I think certain causes require that we be not just right, but worthy of the judgment we pass. Most of what I'm saying on this topic parallels how most of us regard the judicial system, so I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

If you want to dramatize this and pretend I'm trying to coddle racists, or that I'm trying to browbeat you for hating them, you can, but neither is true. I just don't agree that it's the best way to respond -- either on moral or results-oriented level.

With all due respect Yoda, that's bullchit and you should know better of you. The Klan isn't a terrorist organization simply because they're not Arabs? Osama wasn't a racist although he was an Arab and a jihadist targeting primarily white US, Israel, and Europe with attacks?
I've honestly never asked myself if Osama was a racist. I'm not sure if he was or not; I don't know his in-depth personal history, but what I've seen and read seemed consistent with the idea that he disliked American interference of any kind. If someone knows of something that indicates his hatred went beyond ideology and veered into racism, I'd certainly be interested to hear it, but I haven't noticed anything like that myself.

During and after the Civil War, there were Unionists and minorities in the South who organized to fight Confederates who harassed the Unionists and their families and ex-Confederates who organized into Klan and other gains to terrorist blacks and Unionists after the war. One group was the mixed Indian and Black Lowery gang, who fought long and successfully against the racist terrorists of that period. There was one former Union soldier who organized a band in Arkansas who hunted down and killed Klansman at every opportunity until the organized Klan broke up. Parson Brown, an inflamatory Unionist who was jailed and finially kicked out of the South during the war later was named reconstruction governor of Tennessee and organized a militia specifically to track down, attack, and kill Klansmen who had been terrorizing blacks and unionists in that state. Ol' Bedford Forrest, the grand leader of the Klan at that time, threatened to meet Brown's army with an army of his own and annihilate the militia. Brown invited him to do his worse, at which time Forrest decided that wasn't a very good idea. He ordered the Klan disbanded because it had become such a terrorist group that it lost support even of Southeners.

In the 1920s, there were several lawmen and individuals who took on the Klan, fighting them on their own terms. It's in the history books--look it up.
This all sounds like a very good way to get rid of Klansmen, but I'm not sure it tells us anything about how to stop more people from becoming racist to begin with, or how to slowly push back on the prejudices that had been built up over generations.

Whether you agree with King or not, I just don't see how there's any disputing that his racial ideology has won out in the marketplace of ideas. You might think things would be even better otherwise. You might even take the position that both are necessary to some degree (which would probably be the most defensible position, candidly). But King's view of reconciliation and non-violence has come to utterly dominate modern racial thinking in America, and that domination has coincided with a wonderful improvement in racial sensitivity and an accompanying reduction in racially-motivated violence. Does this prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that King's way works best? Nope. Reality rarely furnishes us with such a clear-cut verdict. But his influence seems awfully clear, and it's asking a lot to pretend that it isn't the primary mover of public opinion.

Yoda

05-02-11, 09:11 PM

Incidentally, I didn't "dismiss" King's contribution. I'm just saying he didn't start the fight against racism nor did he end it. I'm sure there were a lot of people who thought racism was wrong who King got to get off their butts and do something about it. But I also think Black Pride, Carmichael, the Black Panthers, and even Malcolm X contributed a great deal to the cause by encouraging young blacks not to turn the other cheek but pick up a club and smack whitey when he slapped them. I identify with the raised fist of black power better than King's sermons.
Well, now I'm definitely confused. Malcolm X espoused the idea that blacks should have their own separate communities and their own economies, even, apart from whites. This sounds an awful lot like the kind of "Whites Only" restrooms and fountains that have shaken you to your core; why on earth would you support it? It's just playing into racists' hands. It's the racial equivalent of "you can't fire me, I quit." The end result is still whites and blacks, separate from each other, learning to mistrust one another.

The thing about preaching violence is not that it doesn't do anything positive, but that its positive effects are short-lived and short-sighted. Malcolm X's view is like roping off or eradicating sick people so they don't spread. Dr. King's view is more focused on finding a cure. Malcolm X was looking at what was directly in front of him, and thinking only of how to respond to that. Dr. King's ideology was about the end game: about what gets us to a society where race really doesn't matter any more. You get there through reconciliation and genuine equality, not by trading violence. That just gives violent racists another way to rationalize their hatred.

This reminds me of another quote (sorry, can't help myself) from a guy who knew a little something about racial diviseness.

"Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" -- Abraham Lincoln

That's how you win the whole war, and not just today's battle. You don't outfight the other guy, you help create a generation that doesn't see the point in fighting to begin with. Victory is never even having to march onto the battlefield. Does that sometimes involve fighting back? Of course. But it is overwhelmed by the ability to wind over the hearts and minds of the rest of society, and that's almost never accomplished by force.

mark f

05-02-11, 09:33 PM

will.15

05-02-11, 09:37 PM

will.15

05-03-11, 06:40 PM

It will be interesting to see if Obama's inevitable bump in the polls influences any Republican candidates to drop out. Some potential Democratic heavy hitters like Mario Cuomo decided not to challenge George Walker Bush who looked like a shoo-in right after Desert Storm, then the economy tanked and his other deficiencies caused him to lose the election. The economy this time already sucks.

Yoda

05-03-11, 06:47 PM

I don't think it'll sway anyone. And I think the Cuomo example is perfect -- that's exactly what I was thinking of, Will. With the standard caveat that you can never know how things will turn out, in retrospect it sure looks like Cuomo would've cruised to victory.

rufnek

05-04-11, 04:48 PM

Well, now I'm definitely confused. Malcolm X espoused the idea that blacks should have their own separate communities and their own economies, even, apart from whites. This sounds an awful lot like the kind of "Whites Only" restrooms and fountains that have shaken you to your core; why on earth would you support it? It's just playing into racists' hands. It's the racial equivalent of "you can't fire me, I quit." The end result is still whites and blacks, separate from each other, learning to mistrust one another.

Let's see if I can remove some of your confusion. When I say "even Malcolm X"--note the "even" as in even though he was an unexpected and not primary contributor--"even Malcolm X (and those others mentioned) contributed a great deal to the cause by encouraging young blacks not to turn the other cheek . . ." I stand by that statement although as you correctly point out, Malcolm was a member and leader in the Muslim Nation that, even before he joined, endorsed a separate country for blacks. Prior to that Malcolm also was a pimp and a thief. Because I endorse blacks not turning their cheeks to white oppressors (or whites not turning their cheeks to black oppressors), that doesn't mean I endorse prostitution, theft, and separation of races simply be cause one man at various times in his life advocated all four. As I'm sure you recall, Malcolm X eventually broke with the Muslim Nation, founded his own group, and made a pilgrimage to Mecca where he later reported he met blue-eyed blonde men who were also his brothers in the Muslim faith. The Malcolm X at the time of his death was a very different Malcolm from his days as a pimp, a thief, and a member of the Muslim Nation.

You can say teaching blacks to hit back at whites (or any oppressed to hit back at their oppressors) is wrong in the great scheme of things. Maybe it is for all I know. But I don't care. I'm advocating it as being effective. People are far less likely to confront people they know will fight back. From what I witnessed of it in the 1960s, I'm sure any of the Black Power movement intimidated lots of whites and likely caused some to rethink perpetrating violence against blacks who would hit--or shoot--back.

This reminds me of another quote (sorry, can't help myself) from a guy who knew a little something about racial diviseness.

"Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" -- Abraham Lincoln

That's how you win the whole war, and not just today's battle. You don't outfight the other guy, you help create a generation that doesn't see the point in fighting to begin with. Victory is never even having to march onto the battlefield. Does that sometimes involve fighting back? Of course. But it is overwhelmed by the ability to wind over the hearts and minds of the rest of society, and that's almost never accomplished by force.

Lincoln had lots of good quotes. He also had a reputation as a strong and successful wrestler. So while he was capable of persuasion, he was also capable of twisting the arms of those he couldn't persuade. Which is why he called for volunteers to return to the Union those states that tried to seceed.

So as not to set off another Dr. King misunderstanding, let me say up front I greatly admire Lincoln who was a huge factor in preserving the Union. Had the Confederacy had a Lincoln for its president and the US had a Jeff Davis in the White House, there's a good chance the Confederacy could have won. That's how vital I see Lincoln's role.

However, the man who did the most to put down that rebellion was William T. Sherman who knew better than anyone that to break the Confederacy and win the war, he had to break the people's support of Confederacy, so he took the war to the people, set it down on their front porches in the ashes of crops, railroads, factories, and everything else that might be of the slightest use in keeping soldiers in the field. In the last months of the war, Confederates were deserting by the companies after their families wrote begging them to come home so they wouldn't starve. (Might as well say Sherman and Grant, because they functioned as such a strong team.)

rufnek

05-04-11, 05:44 PM

ruffy, you make it sound like growing up in a racist world was a good thing in so far as teaching you things which apparently we will never know because we weren't there. What did you do at the Klan Meeting(s) you attended? You learned a lot but I suppose you were too scared to tell them they were cockroaches.

As a reporter for the local daily newspaper, I covered an open daylight Klan rally on the streets of Orange, Tex., which is on the Sabine River border between Texas and Louisiana. Much of the time I was standing the closest of any non-Klansman to the podium where the Imperial Podunk was holding forth--with one exception. Standing with me was a local labor organizer--a "black" man, in that he was a member of the Negroid race, but his complexion was much lighter than mine. As we say down South, he could have "passed," and no one would have ever known he was black, but he was too proud to do so. He was standing there when I arrived, and I went over and asked what the hell was he doing there. He grinned and said, "I'm an undercover spy." I took a few notes but a lot of the time he and I stood there and laughed and made fun of some of the more outlandish rantings. One of the Klan "honor guard" made a couple of comments aimed at shutting us up. Told him to go ahead with whatever he thought he was big enough to get away with, but I also pointed out my photographer in front of the newspaper office ready to start shooting (with her camera) if my friend and I were attacked. I also pointed out the police chief in plain clothes standing outside the small crowd and said he was FBI (a half-truth, he was a retired FBI agent who the city hired as police chief.)

Afraid? Sure. I'm always afraid of what a bunch of those bums can do if they get you alone in a dark alley. Like rats, they're most active at night in out of the way locations. I'm not at all brave. But I'm pretty good at hiding my fear and talking back, which sometimes seems a little like bravery--enough so that I've rarely had push come to shove. And I usually try to have things stacked in my favor if possible. I'm not brave, but I'm not stupid either.

Anyway, I wrote my front-page story about how the Klan claimed their racial superiority without even recognizing there was a black man in their midst. Did my best to make them look like the mental midgets they are. Got some late night threatening calls for a few weeks after that, but nothing serious.

Look, my mom grew up in Watts, I grew up in Compton (and lived through the first Watts Riot), and I teach in Santa Ana, so I have known and continue to know many people of many races. Some are good and some not so good but I treat each one as an individual and not a member of some pigeon-holed group. I also try not to tell a lot of stories about various forms of racism I witnessed as a child and teenager at all my integrated schools during the '60s and early '70s because they're just snapshots of an era I filtered through my own senses and sensitivities. But that's just me. I'm not going to make one person here change his or her mind by anything I say here.

I'm not familar with California although I've been there a few times, so I have no idea where Compton or Santa Ana are in relation to Watts, so your reference to the first Watts Riot is sort of wasted on me. I seem to recall you said something in an earlier post about watching it from a rooftop. As for you not talking about your racial experiences, maybe I was more impressed by mine since I was in closer proximity. Or maybe I just like telling stories.

Anyway, I'm just sharing what I witnessed and my thoughts about those incidents. You can take it to heart and have a "come to Jesus" experience from them, or you can blow them off and put me on your ignore list so I'll never bother you again. No skin off my nose either way. But as the UFO fans would say, "I know what I saw."

I too am willing to judge individuals on their individual merits. But when a person dons Klan regalia and joins others wearing Klan regalia and march together in their jackboots with all their flags and shields and other regalia on display, then they are no longer individuals. They're an Army of hate, and as such they deserve the disdain of all good people. I'm not the one who "pigeon-holed" those "individuals" with the Klan--they chose to identify themselves as members of that dispicable group by wearing its uniform, taking its oath, and subscribing to all loathsome "principles" it endorses. They hate those of us who don't share their prejudices; I simply reflect their hate back at them.

And yeah, the racist society in which I grew up had a lot harder edge to it than anything you see or hear now. In fact, it was so intense that I'm the only member of my extended family at that time who even tried not to become a racist. My grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles, cousins--are either still racists today or were racists until they died. I just figured if I had to root for either the slaves or the lions in the arena, I rather root for the slaves who are men like me and not for the animals terrorizing them.

And for the record, the "old timey" segregation I grew up in wasn't good for people of any color, including us so-called "whites." It's corrosive to society as a whole and it's sick. A lot of good people of all colors bled and died to advance us beyond segregation.

rufnek

05-04-11, 06:19 PM

Even being a Klan member and attending meetings is not against the law just as being a Communist and attending meetings is not against the law. Not all Klan activities were illegal. If they are talking about engaging in illegal activity at a meeting that is against the law. Putting on their white hoods and engaging in peaceful protest, if it doesn't become violent, is not against the law and they very often did that. I think the last time I heard about a Klan protest recently (last year) the other protesters outnumbered the Klan and beat them up, the Klan grateful for police protection. Rufnek, you have a broader definition of illegal activity than the Constitution.

I like your Klan story. Indicates a kick in the ass improves the Klan's appreciation of due process and lawful protection, rights they have long denied to others. And some folks say you can't fight violence with violence!

Here in Texas some years back, some Klan chapter volunteered to clean up trash along a section of Texas highway somewhere. It's a program where people, usually some organized group like a Boy Scout Troop, a Kiwanis Club, churches and such. The Hwy Dept. then puts up road signs on both sides of the highway saying something like "The next 10 miles of clean highway is brought to you by Boy Scout Troop 139." Well, when the state put up a sign crediting the Klan as good neighbors keeping trash off Texas highways. You never heard such a yell as went up when people heard about that. Listing as a good neighbor a subversive outfit under FBI and other surveilence for terrorism, hate crimes, and violations of civil rights was going waaaaaay too far, and the state soon took down the signs and kicked the Klan out of its cleanup program.

As for me being too hard on the Klan, it's kinda like when I was a kid working summers for seismic companies out in West Texas. I was constantly encountering rattlesnakes in the performance of my job out in remote semi-arid areas. When I did, I didn't wait until it struck or even rattled before I picked up a big rock and smashed it.

Guess you could say I don't believe in Constitutional guarantees of fair trial and prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment, at least not for those bearing the unique signs and traits of rattlesnakes.

Fiscal

05-06-11, 04:48 PM

Did anyone watch the fist GOP debate last night? I am excited about all the love Ron Paul is getting on drudge today. If Matt Drudge is on Paul's side, like a lot of recent headlines he has posted is suggesting, this could be huge for him.

A poll today (and to be fair, it is pretty far out as we stand right now) shows that Paul has the best chance to beat Obama in 2012.

I also think Gary Johnson did really well last night, too. It was oddly refreshing in a way to see him stumble over some of his words. It showed me that he isn't like Pawlenty and Santorum, just shutting their minds off and spewing out all the same phrases that you see across the board with the mainstream Republican candidates.

Paul/Johnson 2012 :D

will.15

05-06-11, 05:19 PM

Matt Drudge support means nothing.

Ron Paul has the best chance to beat Obama? Who conducted that poll, the Joker?

Yoda

05-06-11, 05:20 PM

I recall Drudge giving Ron Paul a ton of love last time around, so I don't think it'll do a lot for him as a mainstream candidate.

I know a lot of people who I greatly respect who like Paul, but I have to disagree with them. I think he says plenty of common sense things, but in my experience the people who like him just hone in on those at the expense of some of the more extreme things he's proposing. I think his support is, like the mirage Trump candidacy (though it's obviously more legitimate than that), a symptom of a general frustration, but not a "thing" in and of itself, if that makes sense.

I think Paul will see better results than '08, but I'll be stunned if he's a genuinely serious contender for the nomination. With the caveat, of course, that all of us underestimate the political frustration out there at our own peril.

Fiscal

05-06-11, 05:22 PM

Matt Drudge has republicans by the balls. Drudge Report hits are huge. That was a CNN poll.

Yoda

05-06-11, 05:24 PM

Matt Drudge support means nothing.
I'm footnote this by pointing out that he can definitely influence the overall narrative, as well as bring certain stories to the fore of other media outlets. I think just about every journalist reads Drudge.

Whether or not he can turn a fringe candidate into a mainstream one, I doubt. But he "catches" a lot of stories that wouldn't get play otherwise, necessarily.

will.15

05-06-11, 05:28 PM

I can't understand what is going on. The headline is what Fiscal said and it is the CNN poll. But nowhere in the story does it say that. Ron Paul has ten percent, which puts him in a fourth place tie with Newt Gingrich.

Actually i think it was fifth place. I'll go back and link it if someone hasn't already done it.

And congressmen don't get nominated by a major party. I was a big fan of Morris Udall who did a lot better than Ron Paul, but the best he did is almost win one state in the late innings when a lot of people started to think anyone but Jimmy Carter.

Fiscal

05-06-11, 05:28 PM

I think he says plenty of common sense things, but in my experience the people who like him just hone in on those at the expense of some of the more extreme things he's proposing.

What extreme things are you referring to? Just out of curiosity.

I don't think of Ron as anything more than a long shot, but I enjoy seeing good news for him because if he some how was a competitor I would be overjoyous.

Fiscal

05-06-11, 05:30 PM

rufnek

05-06-11, 05:30 PM

I think just about every journalist reads Drudge.

I've seen his picture on TV long ago but I've never read him. None of the journalists I know ever mention him or any other radio-tv-internet "reporter." Most radio-TV news is minimal. And internet reports are not always the most reliable sources.

will.15

05-06-11, 05:46 PM

Keep reading.
Where is it?

CNN Poll: Ron Paul has best chance to beat Obama http://macedoniaonline.eu/images/M_images/pdf_button.png (http://macedoniaonline.eu/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=18108) http://macedoniaonline.eu/images/M_images/printButton.png (http://macedoniaonline.eu/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18108&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=61) http://macedoniaonline.eu/images/M_images/emailButton.png (http://macedoniaonline.eu/index2.php?option=com_content&task=emailform&id=18108&itemid=61) Friday, 06 May 2011 http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/ronpaul.jpgA new national poll indicates the race for the Republican presidential nomination remains wide-open, with none of the probable or potential GOP White House contenders above 20 percent, according to a new national poll.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey's Thursday release comes hours before the first Republican presidential debate of the 2012 election cycle. The debate is being held in South Carolina, which holds the first southern primary on the road to the White House.

The poll also indicates President Barack Obama is ahead of all probable and possible GOP candidates tested in hypothetical general election matchups, but the person who comes closest to Obama may surprise you.

According to the survey, conducted just before the news of the death of Osama bin Laden, 16 percent of Republicans and independents who lean Republican say they would be likely to support Mike Huckabee for the Republican presidential nomination. The former Arkansas governor ran for the White House in 2008, and while to date he hasn't taken many steps towards launching another campaign, he has definitely not ruled out another bid for his party's nomination.

Fourteen percent say they'd back Donald Trump. The billionaire businessman, real estate mogul and reality TV star says he will announce by June if he's going to run for the White House.

One point back is Mitt Romney, at 13 percent. The former Massachusetts governor and 2008 GOP White House candidate has been adding to his campaign team in recent months and last month launched a presidential exploratory committee.

The poll indicates that 11 percent support Sarah Palin. The former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee has not made any serious moves towards launching a campaign, but says she isn't closing any doors.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who has run for the White House twice before, both stand at ten percent in the poll. Both men have taken steps towards formally launching campaigns. Everyone else questioned in the survey registered at five percent or less.

"No GOP candidate has a statistically significant lead, so it's way too soon to start talking about frontrunners," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

Is it all about name recognition at this still relatively early point in the GOP horserace?

"Yes, but name recognition alone is not enough. Otherwise one of the best known candidates, Palin, would not be stuck in fourth place. Trump and Palin, with the highest name ID, also have the highest unfavorable ratings," adds Holland.

Fifty-nine percent of all Americans dislike the former Alaska Governor and 64 percent have a negative view of Trump, according to the poll. The survey indicates Gingrich also has relatively high unfavorables, but the favorable ratings for Romney and Huckabee outweigh their unfavorables, although both are unknown to more than a quarter of the general public.

Seventy-eight percent of Democrats or independents who lean Democrat say they back Obama as the party's presidential nominee next year, with just over one in five saying they'd prefer another Democrat. That number has remained relatively consistent over the past year.

Yoda

05-06-11, 06:59 PM

What extreme things are you referring to? Just out of curiosity.
I'd have to look over the latest incarnation of his platform to see if he still espouses it, but in '08 he supported the complete abolition of the income tax, a more or less totally isolationist foreign policy, and a largely protectionist economic policy. That last one is probably the most galling; I can't take any politician entirely seriously if they don't acknowledge the importance of free trade, whose value is borderline empirical at this point.

That said, I'm glad he's around insofar as he draws attention to issues of government size and scope, particularly the Federal Reserve.

will.15

05-06-11, 07:26 PM

will.15

05-09-11, 01:10 PM

Newt is going to make it official. He's running.

Yoda

05-09-11, 01:41 PM

It appears most pundits expected this, but I still felt there was a good chance he wouldn't. Still, I'm glad he's running. I don't expect him to win, but I think his choosing to run is good for conservatives in general for a few reasons, not the least of which being that he's one of the sharpest of the potential candidates, and the notion of Republicans as valuing folksiness over intellectual ability needs some pushback.

Still, way more interested in seeing whether or not Mitch Daniels runs in the next few weeks.

Yoda

05-09-11, 02:33 PM

By the way, I already said this on Facebook, but I'm waiting for a major newspaper to write a story about Gingrich deciding to run called "Aye of Newt."

C'mon. Don't let me down, journalists.

DexterRiley

05-09-11, 02:48 PM

He has also said the income tax is unconstitutional, which is false. He may not like it, but there is a constitutional amendment that allows it and many income tax avoiders in jail who have argued the same thing in court and lost.

There are also income tax avoiders that have argued in court and won.

Tax 'Protester' Vindicated in Federal Court

Government Was Unable To Prove U.S. Law Requires Income Tax Withholding or Filing

by Marcus K. Dalton
Las Vegas Tribune | June 24, 2005

The federal government's campaign against income tax protesters suffered a major setback on Thursday June 23 when a federal jury in Sacramento acquitted a former Internal Revenue Service investigator on charges of helping to prepare false tax returns.

Joseph Banister, a certified public accountant in San Jose, Calif., had been telling his clients they don't need to file federal income tax returns because the 16th Amendment, which gives Congress "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes," was never properly ratified.

During the trial, Banister's former supervisor at IRS’s San Jose Criminal Investigation Division office, Robert Gorini (who testified via video recording) when pointedly asked, was unable to cite any U.S. law that required Banister to pay income taxes.

Banister is part of a nationwide effort seeking to force the U.S. Government to respond to a series of detailed legal Petitions for Redress of Grievances directly challenging the authority of the IRS. Last summer, the We The People Foundation initiated a landmark lawsuit with 2000 plaintiffs against the government because it has refused to answer the Petitions.

After hearing a guest on his favorite radio show claim that the federal income tax was voluntary, Banister, then a San Jose, California resident and Special Agent of the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, set out to dismiss the claim as frivolous. Devvy Kid made the disturbing claim on the Geoff Metcalf radio show back in 1997 that sent Banister on a journey that would change his life.

Banister recalls, “As an IRS agent I was upset at the claim. I respected Geoff Metcalf. He was a fair and non-partisan host. When he let the charge that the income tax was voluntary go by, I decided that on my own time, and at my own expense, I was going to research and in two weeks or so, disprove the guest’s claim.”

Two years later, Banister had grudgingly convinced himself that the “federal income tax was a fraud”. He then went on to write a ninety five-page report that he would present to his immediate supervisor, Bob Gorini, who also was a family friend. Telling his supervisor to forward his analysis up the chain of command, Banister asked the IRS to “show me the error of my analysis or I will have to resign."

Banister said his superiors refused to respond to his report and told him they would facilitate his resignation.

Similar to Las Vegan Irwin Schiff

On March of last year the federal government persuaded a grand jury to indict Irwin Schiff, Cynthia Neun and Larry Cohen to a 33 Count indictment charging violations similar to those that Banister faced.

On March 25, 2005 Schiff filed a motion to dismiss both counts, since Schiff claimed the IRS was given no authority in the Internal Revenue Code do anything. Schiff also claimed: "While the office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was created by the Tax Act of July 1, 1862, Congress never passed a law establishing the Internal Revenue Service as an agency or department of the federal government." Therefore," Schiff argued, "how could the defendants have "impaired or obstructed" an agency that does not legally exist from doing anything?"

The Schiff motion pointed out that while earlier laws gave direct enforcement authority of income tax laws to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue "all such authority was removed from the 1954 Code, when Congress sought to bring the 1954 Code in line with the Constitution and what early Supreme Court decisions specifically held was the legal significance of the 16th Amendment which was that it gave no new power of taxation to Congress." It is Schiff's view that in revising the 1939 Code, Congress essentially repealed the income tax and removing any mention of the Commissioner in the 1954 Code was one-way Congress sought to achieve that objective.

Individual income taxes, Schiff tells everyone who will listen, are voluntary, but almost everyone pays because politicians have enacted complicated laws to trick people into thinking they must pay.

The works of Irwin Schiff are now widely cited in the literature of tax protesters and right-wing organizations challenging the legitimacy of the Federal Government. Over the years, he has been a frequent guest on talk shows around the country, having discussed the issue with the likes of Larry King, Tom Snyder and other prominent talk-show hosts.

Schiff has sold nearly 100,000 copies of his book, “The Federal Mafia, How The Government Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes," which was banned in 2003 from further sales in a preliminary Injunction issued by U.S. District Court Judge, Lloyd D. George. Apparently there is censorship in America.

Mr. Schiff preaches that “a compulsory income tax would violate the Constitution despite the 16th Amendment, and so the Internal Revenue Code was written to make paying income taxes appear mandatory.”

Banister Not Guilty

A jury in the U.S. District Court in Sacramento found Banister not guilty on a charge of conspiracy to defraud the government and on all three counts of aiding and assisting the filing of false tax returns for a client.

Banister's attorney, Robert Bernhoft, speaking to WorldNetDaily said that the implications of Banister's victory are bigger than the issue of taxes. "The outcome shows that average, law-abiding, hard-working citizens are not going to criminalize speech -- they're not going to send a man to prison for asking the federal government serious questions about a serious subject," Bernhoft added.

Last fall, IRS spokesman Anthony Burke insisted Banister's arguments against the federal income tax already had been thoroughly vetted. "Many constitutional or legal arguments have been tried in the courts, and without fail, they have been held to be without merit."

Banister's website offers a defense of his views, including an 85-page report titled "Investigating The Federal Income Tax: A Preliminary Report."

The federal indictment accused Banister and co-defendant Walter A. Thompson, of Redding, Calif., of conspiring to defraud the United States of approximately $259,669 in income and employment taxes. In a separate trial, Thompson was acquitted of conspiracy and found guilty on charges unrelated to Banister.

If Banister had been convicted of all counts, he could have been sentenced to 14 years in prison and a fine of $1 million.

Banister left public practice as a CPA in 1993 to become an armed, criminal investigator in the IRS Criminal Investigation Division. But he says he resigned after six years because he was "unable to resolve conflicts" between the way the IRS administered the federal income tax and his oath of office.

WorldNetDaily reported in March 2004, that Banister claimed the IRS was illegally using "enforcers" to monitor his political activities and build its case against him. The IRS filed a complaint March 19, 2003, and began what he calls the agency's "mission to silence and discredit me."

"Everything I have done in my entire career at the I.R.S. and after, I've done with integrity and honesty," Mr. Banister said after the verdict. "My clients wanted some answers to questions about what was required."

He added: "As a C.P.A., my duties are to my clients, to make sure they get the best results."

Schiff's criminal trial is scheduled to begin August 29, 2005 before District Court Judge Kent J. Dawson

-------------------------------
Marcus K. Dalton is the Managing Editor of the Las Vegas Tribune.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0yqy06ZEzE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PvaNWrkFeQ&feature=related

Now as it happens, I'm a progressive independant so I don't advcocate this action, I believe in taxes, just thought i'd post the counterpoint.

Also, I'd love to see Ron Paul get the nomination, though he doesn't stand a chance in hell of getting it, no matter how popular he may be.

I don't see a man being featured in a tv show called Conspiracy Theory getting the nomination.

(his segment kicks in round the 6 minute mark)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuo6Mo1kH28

I'd love to be wrong.

Yoda

05-09-11, 02:52 PM

Interesting link, though I'd be curious as to whether or not that's been overturned, since it happened in '05. I'd be a little surprised if that decision stood, which is the real test. There's always some crazy judge willing to do something like this, but I think it's usually superceded one way or another.

will.15

05-09-11, 02:54 PM

Schiff himself has gone to prison for not paying his income tax. The argument certainly didn't work for Wesley Snipes. That jury may have bought the argument for some reason, most don't.

DexterRiley

05-09-11, 02:55 PM

I believe there is still the $50,000 challenge out there.

if you can cite the law that says paying income tax on ones labour is mandatory, you collect the 50 g's.

I.R.S. agents cant find it, so good luck with that.

will.15

05-09-11, 02:59 PM

Guess what? Irwin Schiff, who is the focus of the article, is in jail right now and is serving a 16 year sentence for not paying his income tax. And he has been in jail before.

Yoda

05-09-11, 03:01 PM

Can't find anything about the challenge after some quick Googling; where'd you hear about it?

DexterRiley

05-09-11, 03:24 PM

I'll take a look in my mountain of bookmarks later today Chris insofar as the challenge goes. I haven't honestly followed up on it much, since watching the freedom to facism doc when it came out.

i as well did a quick search and turned up this recent hit though. Might be of interest.

Oh and Will, being imprisoned means a person is found to be guilty in that instance. That sometimes folks are found innocent and somethimes folks are found guilty should bring you pause.

either a law is being broken, or it isn't. n'est pas?

IRS loses challenge
to prove tax liability
Lawyer is acquitted after arguing
income levy lacks legal foundation

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=42749

The Internal Revenue Service has lost a lawyer's challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation's income tax, and the victorious attorney now is setting his sights higher.

"I think now people are beginning to realize that this has got to be the largest fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever," lawyer Tom Cryer told WND just days after a jury in Louisiana acquitted him of two criminal tax counts.

And before you consign him to the legions of "tin foil hat brigades" who argue against paying taxes, and then want payment to explain how to do that, he addresses the issue up front.

"These snake oil peddlers have conned millions of dollars out of many well-intended patriots and left a trail of broken lives in their wake. … These charlatans should be avoided, not only because they will lead you to bankruptcy and prison, but because by association they discredit those who are telling the truth," he said.

The truth, he said, is where he comes in, with the launch of a new Truth Attack website that is intended to build on his victory, and create a coalition of resources to defeat – ultimately – the income tax in the United States.

Although the legal citations in the case tend to run the length of paragraphs, Cryer told WND the underlying issue is not that complicated. Essentially, he argued that income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but rather categories such as profit and interest.

He said the free exchange of labor for compensation has been upheld as a right by the Supreme Court, but that doesn't necessarily make the compensation income.

If ever such an argument were to be presented widely, Cryer said, the income to the federal government would plummet. But not to worry, he said, the expenses could be reduced equally by eliminating programs, departments and agencies that also have no foundation in the Constitution.

"The Founding Fathers intentionally restricted the taxing powers of the new federal government as a measure of restraint on its size. By exceeding that limited taxing authority the federal government has been able to obtain resources beyond its intended reach, and that money has enabled the federal government to exceed its authority," he said.

For example, he said, the Constitution does not empower the federal government to regulate education, or employment, and agriculture, yet it does so.

The jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years. He had been indicted in 2006 on charges of failing to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and 2001. The next step in his personal case will be up to the IRS and prosecutors, if they choose to continue the issue, he said.

But for the rest of the nation, he's working with Save-a-Patriot, the Free Enterprise Society, Live Free Now and his own Lie Free Zone to spread the message of the truth.

"There are three points that are important," he told WND. "There's no law making the average working man liable [for income taxes], there's no law or regulation that allows the IRS to contend that earnings are 100 percent profit received in exchange for nothing, and the right to earn a living through any lawful occupation is a constitutionally protected fundamental right, and it is exempt from taxation."

Spokesman Robert Marvin in Washington's IRS office told WND the Internal Revenue Code provides for taxation on salaries or wages, but when pressed for a specific citation, or constitutional provision, he said, "I can't comment."

Cryer's encounter with tax law began more than a decade ago when a friend told him the income tax was sham. Cryer started researching, hoping to keep his friend out of trouble. But his conclusions, after years of research, were exactly what his friend told him.

He researched not only tax laws, but also the documents pertaining to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution as well as the first income tax.

He said throughout his battle, he's offered at every turn to pay taxes if the IRS could show him the authorization, and that never has happened.

"The Criminal Investigation Division and Department of Justice both responded only with 'your position is frivolous.' I had never stated a position, so how could they know whether it was frivolous?" he said. "Imagine my sending you a bill for $1,000 and when you call me and ask what the bill was for I simply said, 'that position is frivolous, just write the check and send it in.'"

His acquittal, he said, was a precedent because it means "people can see and recognize the truth."

He said multiple Supreme Court opinions have affirmed an individual's ownership of his or her own labor, and "exercising your fundamental rights" is not taxable. "It is definitely a trade. What most people receive in the form of wages, salaries or in my case fees that they personally earned for their labor is not received in exchange for nothing."

He said there might be a profit that should be taxable, but there might not.

"The IRS lets Wal-Mart sell a trillion dollars worth of goods, but they can back out their cost of goods [before being taxed,]" he said. "The IRS considers, in the case of a Wal-Mart wage earner, 100 percent of what he takes in is profit."

"But he's using his life, energy and work lifespan, and depleting it as he goes," Cryer told WND. "[Working] is a God-given fundamental right that is protected under the Constitution and can't be taxed any more than exercising freedom of speech."

While he waits to see what, if anything, the IRS and Justice Department will do next in his case, he's working to coordinate the groups that are battling taxation as unconstitutional.

"I have started a campaign to unify [the work] and we've got a number of organizations that are sponsoring and supporting this campaign," he said. The goal is to get everyone "who is aware of the truth" organized so they can spread the word.

He warned without a restoration of constitutional basics, the nation is lost.

"Read your Constitution and you will see that the federal role does not include ANY authority to regulate or tax any citizen directly and that WE expressly reserved the right to rule and govern ourselves as States, not as mere political subdivisions," his website says.

"The Constitution does not allow the government to run your lives, but the money it is stealing from millions of Americans is the fuel for its over-reaching and kibitzing. Take the money back and we and our states and communities can again be free," he said.

The fight is over "our FREEDOM from rule by a DISTANT RULER, just as we fought to free ourselves of a distant England over 200 years ago," he said.

0
digg

Read more: IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=42749#ixzz1LsdqQFmo

At the end of the day, the only folks that can afford to pay the legal fees to "fight city hall", in reality make enough dough so that their tax burden should be fairly minimal in the first place imo.

I mean speaking for myself. The wife and i pay less in federal taxes each year than our eldest children do, and thats with an income that is roughly 6x theirs.

provincially, and municipal taxes, well thats a completely different kettle of fish.
:D

back to the main point of all of this though, Ron Paul doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of getting the nomination.

will.15

05-09-11, 03:36 PM

You gotta be kidding, Dexter. Your article cites Irwin Sciff, the main exponent of that argument. He has been in prison repeatedly for not paying his income tax. He is there right now with a big sentence for being a repeat offender. Many of his followers have been found guilty of the same. So one person in 2005 lucked out with a jury (and that is a biased article so we don't know for sure why the jury acquitted him). Look at this link. Do you really believe the courts in this country think the income tax is illegal?

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

DexterRiley

05-09-11, 03:54 PM

Now as it happens, I'm a progressive independant so I don't advcocate this action, I believe in taxes, just thought i'd post the counterpoint.

Will i posted the counterpoint. I'm in no way shape or form suggesting you or your countrymen oughta take this course of action.

It is simply a falsehood to claim that it is against the law to not pay tax derived from your personal labour.

no such law exists.

You failed to mention the main guy in the first article was Joe Bannister a former IRS criminal investigator.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKePl2gW_3M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7Qv_j-Y0nE&feature=related

will.15

05-09-11, 04:05 PM

I focused in Schiff because I am real familiar with him. He has been around a long time and discredited. As for Joe Bannister, he is not very credible either:

On August 27, 2008, the United States Tax Court (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/United_States_Tax_Court) ruled that Banister was liable for federal income taxes and penalties for failure to file his 2002 federal income tax return and report, as income, over $23,000 in a distribution from a retirement plan and other income.[12] (http://www.movieforums.com/community/#cite_note-11) Banister appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals ruled against him

DexterRiley

05-09-11, 04:34 PM

Somethen is fishy. when i google " was joe bannister ever convicted of tax evasion"

i get this :

http://familyfraud.com/irs-cid-special-agent-acquitted-of-tax-fraud-what-do-you-think-of-this-verdict.htm

IRS CID Special Agent Acquitted of Tax Fraud, what do you think of this verdict?
Saturday, June 19th, 2010 at 5:41 pm

And goes on to tell the same recounting of the original post of his aquittal.

and this is the 2nd hit

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=111&contentid=2357&page=1

No Conspiracy: IRS Agent Joe Banister Acquitted
by JOHN TURNER

At approximately 2 p.m. on the 14th floor of the Federal Court Building in Sacramento, California, Joe Banister supporters got word that the judge had received a note from the jury and quickly moved from the hallway into the courtroom. He announced that the jury had reached a unanimous decision.

The verdicts were read by the clerk of the court with Judge William Shubb presiding: "Not Guilty", "Not Guilty", "Not Guilty", "Not Guilty". Carol Delaney, assistant prosecutor in the case, was not in attendance at the verdict.

Very telling at that moment was the absence of the many IRS employees that had been in attendance during the trial.

In victory, Joe Banister, honorable and unpretentious man that he is, walked over to the government's side and shook the hands of the two IRS CID special agents who had investigated him, as well as the government's lead attorney, Mr. Twiss. Also very telling, Sean Breslin, the special agent in charge, stood looking at Joe with a big smile and tears in his eyes.

in any event Will, i suspect you haven't bothered to watch the vids i presented, but rather were in a hurry to prove you were right by posting wiki links.

will.15

05-09-11, 05:24 PM

What is fishy is your sources, Why don't you cite real news sources instead of income tax protestors blogs? Look at the dates on your first link. It is dated June 19th, but the acquittal was on June 23rd! The reason? What they are reporting actually happened in 2005 and the second link refers to the same case. He was found not guilty of conspiring with Al Thompson, who didn't pay his income taxes and WAS found guilty.

rufnek

05-09-11, 05:25 PM

The verdicts were read by the clerk of the court with Judge William Shubb presiding: "Not Guilty", "Not Guilty", "Not Guilty", "Not Guilty". Carol Delaney, assistant prosecutor in the case, was not in attendance at the verdict.

Very telling at that moment was the absence of the many IRS employees that had been in attendance during the trial.

In victory, Joe Banister, honorable and unpretentious man that he is, walked over to the government's side and shook the hands of the two IRS CID special agents who had investigated him, as well as the government's lead attorney, Mr. Twiss. Also very telling, Sean Breslin, the special agent in charge, stood looking at Joe with a big smile and tears in his eyes.

Don't give a damn if it's right or wrong, but that is absolutely the worse "news" report I've ever read. Giving the verdicts but not the charges is like that old joke: "Now here are some baseball scores. 18, 3, and 24."

I especially love the schlock in the second graf: "Joe Banister, honorable and unpretentious man that he is ...." Gag me with a spoon! The writer couldn't signal his prejudice more if they had a photo of him kissing Joe Banister's butt! And I can just picture IRS agents lining up to shake hands with a suspect they investigated who was just acquited. You know that would be a great career move. One I'd loved to have seen, however, was the "very telling" Sean Breslin--I've never yet seen someone who had both tears and a big smile "in his eyes!" :laugh:

Jeeze, I've read better reporting in jr. high school papers!

DexterRiley

05-09-11, 05:28 PM

IRS commissioner Sheldon Cohen clears it all up here :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX-03Sf1wDo&feature=BFp&list=WLC05DAE75FB41F586&index=41

will.15

05-09-11, 05:41 PM

You can believe what you want, Dexter. It is in the Constitution and most people who don't pay it are found guilty if they don't plead it down, which is frequently the case. You cite a misleading story about Joe Bannister and when it is pointed out you don't acknowledge it. I don't feel like reading too much about Bannister, but believe in his case he called Al Thompson a liar, which means he was arguing he didn't help him not pay his taxes, not you didn't have to file as his legal defense. He wasn't directly challenging the law as his defense.

Yoda

05-09-11, 05:59 PM

To be completely fair, the Constitution just allows for the legality of extracting an income tax (the 16th Amendment, specifically), which isn't quite the same thing as a specific law enacting said tax. I think there probably is one, but since the point is largely a technical one I think the distinction is worth making.

will.15

05-09-11, 06:33 PM

"It is simply a falsehood to claim that it is against the law to not pay tax derived from your personal labour.

no such law exists"

I see what you're doing, you're playing a semantics game, saying that precise wording doesn't exist. I don't know what exactly the wording is, but this is the law that created the income tax:

One of the first events of Wilson's presidency was the passage of the Underwood Tariff. This reduced tariff rates from 41 to 27%. It also created the first federal income tax after the passage of the 16th Amendment.

Yoda

05-09-11, 06:55 PM

It's more than semantics; if, in fact, there was no law that actually, specifically mandated an income tax, then the guy in question would have found himself a loophole. My skepticism as to the factual accuracy of the claim is based in the idea that, if not shot down by a court, the loophole would surely be quickly closed. But I do think it's a simple matter of facts: if no such law exists, then the guy found a hole in the system. If it does, then the logic was never at fault, just the claim of the fact.

kmolano01

05-09-11, 11:28 PM

funny. when i took a glance on the title of thread for the first time i thought it was Osama.

can Obama still run again on the next election?

Yoda

05-09-11, 11:39 PM

Yes, of course. What?

will.15

05-09-11, 11:44 PM

Here is the language that authorizes the income tax:

The Act also provided for the reinstitution of a federal income tax (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Federal_income_tax)[2] (http://www.movieforums.com/community/#cite_note-1) as a means to compensate for anticipated lost revenue because of the reduction of tariff duties. The most recent effort to tax incomes (Wilson-Gorman Tariff (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Wilson-Gorman_Tariff) of 1894) had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/US_Supreme_Court) because the tax on dividends, interest, and rents had been deemed to be a direct tax not apportioned by population. That obstacle, however, was removed by ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) on February 3, 1913.[3] (http://www.movieforums.com/community/#cite_note-2) The Act provided in part that:
[ . . . ] subject only to such exemptions and deductions as are hereinafter allowed, the net income of a taxable person shall include gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, businesses, trade, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in real or personal property, also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any lawful business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever [ . . . ][4] (http://www.movieforums.com/community/#cite_note-3)The incomes of couples exceeding $4,000, as well as those of single persons earning $3,000 or more, were subject to a one percent federal tax.[5] (http://www.movieforums.com/community/#cite_note-4) Further, the measure provided a progressive tax structure (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Progressive_tax), meaning that high income earners were required to pay at higher rates.
It would require only a few years for the federal income tax to become the chief source of income for the government, far outdistancing tariff revenues.
Less than 1 % of the population paid federal income tax at the time.[citation needed (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
The act was applicable to incomes for 1913, 1914, and 1915. [6] (http://www.movieforums.com/community/#cite_note-5)

If Ron Paul truly thought the income tax was unconstitutional, why does he pay his?

Yoda

05-10-11, 12:35 PM

One doesn't even need to invoke the law to prove Paul wrong, because the claim that it's "unconstitutional" is a much larger one.

This is a great example of how Paul talks about things: he tosses the word "unconstitutional" around to describe things far too casually. In this case, the 16th amendment clearly contradicts him, which means that he's willing to call something "unconstitutional" if he feels it isn't in line with constitutional principles, or the original constitution. So either he picks and chooses which amendments he finds lawful, or else he finds the very idea of amending the constitution wrong. Both are absurd positions to hold.

So yeah, my position on Paul is the same: love some of the things he says, glad he's out there tossing those bombs around and bringing certain issues to the fore...but he doesn't lack support because the decked is stacked against him. It's because he believes some very far-out things. I get why people like him, but I really think they're responding to the outlet and frustration he represents, rather than the totality of the man's political positions.

Yoda

05-10-11, 12:38 PM

Meanwhile, the Trump bubble appears to have burst (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/05/trump-collapses.html):

Donald Trump has had one of the quickest rises and falls in the history of Presidential politics. Last month we found him leading the Republican field with 26%. In the space of just four weeks he's dropped all the way down to 8%, putting him in a tie for fifth place with Ron Paul.Trump has not behaved like a conservative, was never anything resembling a serious candidate, and he certainly isn't a serious candidate now. Nor should he be. He has no experience, inconsistent and shifting political allegiances, and has given positively inane answers to serious policy questions. He hasn't enumerated anything even approximating a platform of any kind.

It. Never. Made. Sense.

will.15

05-10-11, 12:43 PM

Ron Paul is also old and a Congressman, not factors that usually gets you a Presidential nomination.

It will be interesting to see if Trump actually announces he is running if other polls show a similar slide. He was making noise like he was actually going to run. He had a platform alright, but it was a screwy one for a Republican. It was protectionist, and isolationist and interventionist (get out of foreign countries. but first seize their oil wells).

Yoda

05-10-11, 12:53 PM

Sure. But I was trying to explain why I think he shouldn't be, rather than why he can't be. You can dismiss lots of candidates simply because they won't win, but Paul's supporters often concede that (such as in this very thread) and simply lament his marginalization as unfair/unwarranted.

DexterRiley

05-10-11, 01:37 PM

I see it coming down to Romney and Huckabee, who may well have a slugfest remenicient of the Dems Hilary and Obama battle.

Regardless who wins, in your opinion, will they ask the other to be the running mate, or who do you think is best suited for that role?

Yoda

05-10-11, 01:50 PM

Dig that question, Dex. I don't think Romney and Huckabee will be on the same ticket, no; too different. I realize that's sometimes the point, but I don't think they jibe well together. I could absolutely be wrong, of course.

Here's hoping Daniels gets in. I think he fits the kind of narrative the Republicans want to run with next year, and I think, at least on paper, he's a better candidate than all the frontrunners at the moment.

DexterRiley

05-10-11, 01:57 PM

Daniels, as a running mate do you mean? would he be your consensus pick for either Mitt or Mike?

Yoda

05-10-11, 02:00 PM

I meant Daniels as the nominee. I actually don't think he's the type of guy who would want to be Vice President, though I think he'd be a fine pick for either of them, should they win.

I think Huckabee's strengths are all wrong for this election, though. It's going to largely be about the economy, and that's not what he's suited to speak with authority or credibility on much at all. I think the '08 Huckabee candidacy would've been awfully good in 2000 if Dubya hadn't been in the race, but I dunno about '12.

I'd still rank Pawlenty significantly ahead of Huckabee in terms of chances of winning the nomination. And probably as a potential VP pick, too. He'll probably end up being the safest for whoever wins, assuming it isn't him.

DexterRiley

05-10-11, 02:12 PM

I like what daniels did regarding property tax caps, progressive with the healthcare and tax increases that make sense, but I'm not sure he has either the name/face recognition nor the pockets to make a play this year.

As a VP he'd probably work best with Romney in terms of complimentary roles.

I'm just glad you arent backing Santorum.

:D

Yoda

05-10-11, 02:17 PM

Yeah, I'm not, and I think he's only going to hurt the eventual nominee by being in the race. I was fine with him as Senator, partially because I disagreed with all the alternatives the Democrats kept offering up to him, though his replacement, Robert Casey, has been reasonably and pleasantly moderate, at least compared to what I'd feared.

You're right about Daniels and name recognition, though I think that matters less than usual for two reasons: 1) it's a wide, wide open field, and 2) a lot of the candidates with the most name recognition (Palin, Trump) might not even run. In a year like this, I'd probably rather get to bet on 3 or 4 longer shot candidates than one frontrunner (IE: Romney).

I actually think Romney could be a fine President, I just don't know how he gets around RomneyCare. It might sorta help him in the general, but I don't see how he gets through the primaries without every other serious candidate beating him over the head with it, and for good reason.

Every time I feel like I'm settling in on a candidate (in terms of likelihood of winning, not personal preference), I think of some reason to reconsider. People aren't just jabbering when they say it's a wide open field: it really is.

DexterRiley

05-10-11, 02:26 PM

Romney Care is a positive not a negative if he gets the nom. Do you think campaigning on drawing out of Afghanistan is the right play?

Drawing down does not mean complete withdrawal incidentally, personally i think there will probably always be a presence of US troops in the region of 12- 17000.

Yoda

05-10-11, 02:35 PM

Hmmm. Assuming Romney survives the primary despite RomneyCare, I dunno if it's a positive. On one hand the conventional wisdom is that anything which makes you look more moderate helps in the general election, and I think that's usually true. But in this case he's already completely on record as saying that ObamaCare is a terrible idea and he wants to repeal it, which makes reconciling the two awfully tough. I think the situation hurts him with all three voting blocs:

Independents: I'm not sure that independents are going to think well of him for trying to pretend RomneyCare and ObamaCare are vastly different, and independents don't really like ObamaCare, anyway.

Democrats: It's not as if any strong Democrats are going to be won over by him having done it.

Republicans: though RomneyCare isn't going to cause conservatives to jump ship to Obama, it can absolutely cause them to stay home, give less money, and just generally support the campaign with less enthusiasm. We saw a similar problem with McCain's candidacy, and he didn't have anything nearly as bad as RomneyCare hanging around his neck.

So, we may find out. But I really think he's got himself into a bit of a corner here.

Re: Afghanistan. Depends on who campaigns on it, I guess. Obama probably can't, because he made winning there such a huge point of emphasis when he was running, so he'd need some way to suggest that everything was great there. The idea of a Republican nominee campaigning on that, though, is a very intriguing one. Though I agree completely that a low troop level is very likely for years to come. I think most people will still regard that as having "pulled out" of Afghanistan, though, right or wrong.

DexterRiley

05-10-11, 02:51 PM

Thats why i bring it up. Romney Campaigning on pulling out of Afghanistan will get the independant voter.

RomneyCare = ObamaCare presents a terriffic opportunity for Romney. Obamacare as it is ...is terrible. Romney is in a unique position to speak intelligently on the matter. The other guys have talking points to fall back on while Romney has first hand experience.

This election is gonna be decided on the domestic economy. Whomever of the Repubs not named Ron Paul campaigns on drawing down in Afghanistan will take the day i think.

Yoda

05-10-11, 03:17 PM

Re: "Romney is in a unique position to speak intelligently on the matter." Do you mean he'd say something like "I already tried it in Massachusetts and it doesn't work"? If so, I guess it could've worked, but he's already apparently decided to defend it as fundamentally differently simply because it happened on a state level. It'd have been a very gutsy position to take, but it looks like he isn't taking it. Assuming that's what you mean.

The Afghanistan thing is interesting. It'd have to be very delicate, as I think the majority of conservatives (and probably of independents, but not as much so) still have the "well, we're there, so we can't/shouldn't leave until things are stable again" attitude. So we'd have to see progress between now and then to make that plausible, I think, though if that happens Obama might espouse the same thing, which kind of robs Romney (or other candidates) of making a big selling point out of it. As always, though, whoever comes out boldly for it first gets to "own" the issue and say that everyone else is just following their lead.

Whether I agree on specific gutsy moves, I think I do agree that Romney probably has to do something gutsy to win the nomination and/or the election. Someone's going to have to be ahead of the curve here. Heck, that helped McCain. He should've won the primary easily for a variety of reasons, but I think the fact that he "owned" the troop surge from the very beginning helped a great deal.

DexterRiley

05-10-11, 03:44 PM

The Afghanistan thing is interesting. It'd have to be very delicate, as I think the majority of conservatives (and probably of independents, but not as much so) still have the "well, we're there, so we can't/shouldn't leave until things are stable again" attitude.

I respectfully disagree. I think at the end of the day the domestic economy trumps that followed closely behind by deficit reduction.

Trimming the cost of 80,000 some odd troops in Afghanistan while leaving the aforementioned 12- 17 thousand to train the Afghan army kills 2 birds with one stone.

" Do you mean he'd say something like "I already tried it in Massachusetts and it doesn't work"? If so, I guess it could've worked, but he's already apparently decided to defend it as fundamentally differently simply because it happened on a state level. It'd have been a very gutsy position to take, but it looks like he isn't taking it. Assuming that's what you mean.

What i mean is, nothing is all good or all bad. all black or all white.

Romney is in a position to speak intelligently on the pro's and the cons of Romneycare, and how lessons learned at the state level might be adapted to the federal.

will.15

05-10-11, 03:51 PM

I think Huckabee is going to do the fade. right now he is high in the polls because of name recognition and he is likable. it is hard to dislike him on a personal level, but I think someone from the back of the pack will take hold. Conventional wisdom is almost always wrong. Someone you don't expect always seems to catch fire. Daniels will probably be that guy if he runs. Romney's problem is he is an empty suit, but he may very well get the nomination. There was this guy in California, good looking guy, produced some hit records, Mike Curb, and as Lieutenant Governor would do some mischief when the Democratic governor was gone and then he would get back quickly and undo it. A reporter said he never understood what Mike Curb stood for except high office for Mike Curb and that is Mitt Romney, except he isn't a lightweight like Curb.

Yoda

05-10-11, 05:07 PM

I respectfully disagree. I think at the end of the day the domestic economy trumps that followed closely behind by deficit reduction.
:confused: Respectfully disagree with what? You suggested the Afghanistan thing and I agreed that it would be interesting. I was agreeing with you. :) And I don't think I said it was the #1 issue. The domestic economy, as you say, obviously trumps it.

Trimming the cost of 80,000 some odd troops in Afghanistan while leaving the aforementioned 12- 17 thousand to train the Afghan army kills 2 birds with one stone.
If it feels like we're drawing down because we've "won," I think that could happen, yeah. But on the other hand, it could upset both sides of the issues: liberals upset that we still have a significant troop presence, and conservatives upset that we're still drawing down so rapidly (or "retreating" or "cutting and running"). That's kind of what happened with Obama and the request for more troops in Afghanistan recently. He took a long time to mull it over, then granted some (but not all) of the troops the generals had requested, and he ended up irking both sides.

What i mean is, nothing is all good or all bad. all black or all white.

Romney is in a position to speak intelligently on the pro's and the cons of Romneycare, and how lessons learned at the state level might be adapted to the federal.
I certainly agree in general, and I'm a big proponent of the idea that these things are way, way more complicated than we can always perceive. That said, I'm straining to come up with the ways Romney can "speak intelligently" in a way that explains the issue away. He can certainly talk about how the plan was formed and why, but I'm not sure that helps him with people who simply find it ill-conceived.

Re: the FactCheck article you linked me up with in a comment. Thanks for the link, but the more I read through it the more I think Romney's in trouble. He has the "facts on his side," as you say, if the dispute is about whether or not his law was totally identical to ObamaCare. But the fundamentals appear the same. The biggest point of contention for conservatives (and some independents) is whether or not the government has any business mandating that private citizens purchase a product (in this case, health insurance). And both RomneyCare and ObamaCare do that. They differ on cost controls and other things like that, but the fundamental thing that has people riled up -- government mandated health insurance -- is present in both.

Yoda

05-10-11, 05:21 PM

Relevant: Romney's apparently giving an address on health care in Michigan on Thursday. His past statements make it pretty clear that the tack he's taking is that the situation in his state was unique and that inflicting such a law at the state level is different than at the federal level. However, we'll learn a lot more about the specifics of his stance from this speech.

Sounds like he's going to explain it a bit and then try to shift the emphasis onto his current/2012 plan for health care. Sort of a "if you can't win the argument, change the subject" thing. Which isn't an altogether terrible idea. Token defense, then look forward. I dunno if it'll work, but it's probably the best option available to him. Looking forward to hearing what he says.

will.15

05-10-11, 05:32 PM

DexterRiley

05-10-11, 05:34 PM

Anyway you go, on any issue at all, you are going to have 1/3 of people happy, 1/3 pissed off and a 1/3 indifferent.

All that is important is to Win.

I honestly don't think its necessary to be "delicate" regarding afghanistan.

Its impossible to call for fiscal responsibility and ignore the white elephant that is ridiculous expenditure of Afghanistan.

That is Obama's achilles heel. Time to declare victory and pull out.

Yoda

05-10-11, 05:38 PM

I don't think it will be a big problem for Romney for the same reason McCain got the nomination despite a lot of antipathy from many Republicans for not being as conservative as they liked. Voters will go with who they think is their best guy against Obama and with the current announced candidates that is Romney. Everyone knows Romney doesn't have deep principals, but if he gets elected he will govern like a conservative. He couldn't have been elected in Mass. if he ran like a conservative.
That's possible. But ObamaCare is the most irksome issue to conservatives right now, by far. It's probably the most irksome in the last couple of decades, even, and the aspect of the law that they hate is an aspect RomneyCare shares with it. I dunno if we really have a good modern precedent for the level of distaste for it, or for having a frontrunner for the nomination who enacted such similar legislation. Even McCain backtracked on immigration a little, but even then there's not a massive consensus about immigration reform in the Republican party the way there is against ObamaCare, and it wasn't the signature issue.

For the record, I think this -- "if he gets elected he will govern like a conservative" -- is absolutely true. I don't love the idea of rewarding late converts to conservative causes, or people who may or may not be genuine (I'm honestly not sure with Romney, and maybe he isn't either). But that's long-term stuff about what kind of candidates we want to attract down the road. For Romney himself, I don't see much for conservatives to fear. If you don't want to vote for a guy you feel changed his mind too much, cool, but he's not a secret liberal who's going to do a 180 once he's elected.

will.15

05-10-11, 05:40 PM

Obama is probably moving closer there, but he just can't suddenly pull out. But there is now a window to negotiate with the Taliban now that Bin Laden is out of the picture and have them join the government if they renounce terrorism. Then when we are gone they take over and start hitting women again who go out in public not all covered up.

Yoda

05-10-11, 05:43 PM

One thing worth remembering is that Obama used Afghanistan to appear moderate during the 2008 campaign: it allowed him to criticize Iraq without looking weak on foreign policy. He harped repeatedly on the idea that we "took our eye off the ball" and that the real fight was in Afghanistan. So he's got a big burden of proof there if he wants to leave. He needs to meet the expectations for it that he himself set by talking so much about how important it was.

planet news

05-10-11, 06:11 PM

He could always use Osama as a turning point if he wanted to.

voneil7

05-10-11, 06:33 PM

Heard this on the news this morning, The Bush family wants Jeb Bush to throw his hat in the ring for 2012. He has stated that he's not all that interested, but we'll see. Not many scarier things I can imagine than another Bush in office. My concern is that given the seemingly weak group of hopefuls on the republican side, Jeb could possibly gain traction.

Yoda

05-10-11, 06:42 PM

will.15

05-10-11, 06:47 PM

I don't think he will ever run. It certainly won't be this year. Some people think the father thinks the wrong son became President.

voneil7

05-10-11, 06:55 PM

It'd be fine with me, but I don't think it'd be wise of him to run this time. Maybe in 2016 if Obama's re-elected. Jeb was a very popular Governor of a swing state, and whatever stereotypes one might want to perpetuate about Dubya's intelligence can't really be applied to him with any degree of seriousness (not that people whose politics are based on verbal gaffes are being serious to begin with).

Don't think there's any chance he'll run this time, but I'd be quite intrigued if he decided to down the line.

We'll have to wait and see. As for my remarks, they have nothing to do with Jeb's IQ (I'm sure it's higher than Dubya's (insert joke here)). Perhaps I need to reacquaint myself with the election result debacle, but if memory serves, I don't think that was handled too well. My other concern would be if he shares his brother's penchant for running afoul of constitutional rights.

Yoda

05-10-11, 07:29 PM

Heh; I'd inquire further as to both, but issues of Constitutionality in wartime are generally fraught with assumptions and I don't want to derail the thread, since it's been quite on-topic and insightful as of late. It'll surprise no one to learn that I have a somewhat different interpretation of Bush's tenure, but so it goes. :)

All that said, I certainly agree with the implication that the Bush name could use a little rest before anything resembling a comeback is plausible. I wouldn't say it's entirely rational to apply what each of us thinks about his brother to him just because they have the same last name, but I admit that that's probably going to happen, anyway. But it'll be moot soon enough; he won't run this time around.

As for speculation about what the family wants, both good (they want him to run) and bad (Bush Sr. thinks the "wrong" son was President)...I don't really believe any of it.

mark f

05-10-11, 07:42 PM

planet news

05-11-11, 01:45 AM

The best thing a politician can ever do is to sincerely admit to a mistake and make amends by addressing that mistake, which in many cases would mean to reverse a decision. I know that may look like waffling, but I'd rather hear a politician admit that they were wrong without being forced to than hear a BS "Sorry; you caught me!" or "It was the right thing then and it's the right thing now." Unfortunately, the cost of politics is now so prohibitive that many politicians continue to act as if they're always correct so as not to alienate a group of so-and-sos.Here's why this can never happen: politicians are fundamentally representations of the people. In that sense they're like concepts or ideal forms, which are also representations. Therefore, it is really more conceivable for the people to be mistaken than the politician, since he is the ideal form of the people -- or rather, a people. In other words, a politician is really less of a person than a representation of a certain set of ideas which find voice and coherence as a single idea, namely the politician or the (a) ideal people. If you don't like the politician, you move onto another one. You don't depend on the same politician to change according to you.

I really believe that we need to reconsider everything about the election process, especially for candidates for major office. Is there anyone here who actually enjoys watching TV commercials for a year straight and having their mailboxes bombarded with literature about people you might not want to ever visit with in real life? Real life seems anathema to modern politics.I agree, but we have, are, and probably will "always" operate within a representative-parliamentary government, so waddayagonnado.flac?

will.15

05-11-11, 01:59 AM

But politicians do admit they make mistakes, but they can't do it very often because then they look like they have poor judgement.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n24_v90/ai_18808442/

planet news

05-11-11, 02:35 AM

That too, sure. :3

rufnek

05-11-11, 06:58 PM

I don't think he will ever run. It certainly won't be this year. Some people think the father thinks the wrong son became President.

Yet the Shrub was reelected which is more than Papa Bush can say! Papa Bush was a light-weight--if not annointed by Regan, I doubt he'd ever been elected president.

rufnek

05-11-11, 07:00 PM

The best thing a politician can ever do is to sincerely admit to a mistake and make amends by addressing that mistake, which in many cases would mean to reverse a decision.

Best thing a politician can do is not screw the pooch so badly that he has to admit and apologize for anything.

will.15

05-11-11, 07:04 PM

mark f

05-11-11, 07:12 PM

Best thing a politician can do is not screw the pooch so badly that he has to admit and apologize for anything.

Since you quoted me to come up with your own version, I'll quote you to back up mine so we can keep "talking" but never intersect. Name one major politician who never made a mistake. That's a serious request, so try not to respond to something else.

DexterRiley

05-11-11, 07:54 PM

Yoda

05-11-11, 10:25 PM

You left out the part where he was also a Governor of one of the largest states in the country.

Yoda

05-11-11, 10:26 PM

will.15

05-12-11, 01:54 AM

John Adams was a horrible politician, certainly worse than Bush Senior, and history rates him as a pretty good President, and he served only one term. Grant served two terms and is considered today a failed President. Bush's problem wasn't he raised taxes, he pledged in his acceptance speech not to ever raise taxes. I doubt he would have done it if he thought it would cost him reelection. But like he himself said, and his son mastered it, he had a problem with the "vision thing,"

rufnek

05-12-11, 04:10 PM

Since you quoted me to come up with your own version, I'll quote you to back up mine so we can keep "talking" but never intersect.

Got a problem with something I said in my reply to your statement? If so, then spit it out 'cause I haven't the foggest idea what that sentence is about.

Name one major politician who never made a mistake. That's a serious request, so try not to respond to something else.

Well, you're gonna be pissed with this, then. My original remark was: "Best thing a politician can do is not screw the pooch so badly that he has to admit and apologize for anything."

The key phrase there is "so badly." I assume being a human and more especially a politician he's gonna fuq up--most likely several times. The trick is not to fug up so badly that he has to go hat in hand to the public and say, "I am not a crook," "I did not have sex with that woman," or "I don't know how the hell my car ended up underwater." Everyone makes mistakes. Small ones they can just let slide and hope no one calls them on it. But the disasters when the valet runs down the bride while parking the honeymoon car do involve a screwed-the-pooch appeal for forgiveness.

If you must have an answer to your question, I would suggest George Washington made the least mistakes since he didn't have a predecessor by which to judge him as he practically invented the office of president and was unopposed in his one bid for reelection. Doesn't mean all US citizens loved him, but he was almost totally respected by a grateful nation.

rufnek

05-12-11, 04:28 PM

You left out the part where he was also a Governor of one of the largest states in the country.

Being governor of Texas is no big accomplishment. After reconstruction, the Texas legislature rewrote the Texas constitution that stripped the govenor of many of the previous powers exercised by the Unionists who held office during reconstruction. Today the Lt. Governor actually has more power than the governor in that he's able to name folks to various government committees. Governor is mostly a figurehead position, since the Lt. Gov. and legislature has the most power and the legislature meets for only 140 days every other year. Also, the way our constitution is set up, almost anything different that the governor or the legislature tries to do requires an amendment to the state constitution, another hold-over from reconstruction (Texas was the last state to be readmitted with full rights years after the end of the Civil War). I think we may have the longest and most amended constitution of any state.

Yoda

05-12-11, 05:06 PM

rufnek

05-12-11, 05:16 PM

I think poppa Bush was a better President than the son, but he wouldn't have gotten there if wasn't Vice President. He did a masterful job on Desert Storm. He had a more sophisticated mind than his son and understood foreign relations much better. But he was a poor communicator and trying to pretend he was a Reaganite when he was a moderate. He put political ambition over principles and it made him dead in the water when the economy tanked.

Let me tell you about my encounters with Poppa George H. when he was running for the US Senate back in the early '70s. I was fresh out of college in my first paid position as a reporter for The Orange Leader in Orange. Tex., down on the Louisiana border in South Texas. George was in town campaigning and was going to be the featured speaker at a dinner that night. So I'm up in his hotel room doing an exclusive interview as he's getting ready for dinner, with him putting on his cuff links, tying his tie. I don't recall all of the things I asked that evening--pretty much the usual sort of politcal interview about various issues. Then as my last question, I trotted out an old chestnut inquiry as to which of the two Democrats seeking nomination for that Senate seat he would prefer to run against. Choices were new-comer Lloyd Bentsen, who I had already interviewed and who didn't impress me much, and Ralph Yarborough, a very popular US Representative who had sponsored the new GI Bill that provided college tuition for Vietnam veterans and for me, too, since I had served in the covered time period although not in Nam. Yarborough had always stood in well with the refinery and chemical plant unions along the Gulf Coast, although Texas is a right-to-work state and unions are relatively rare and not as powerful as in some other closed shop states.

Anyway, Papa Bush answers quickly and enthusiastically, "I want to take on Yarborough because I know I can beat him." And he went on to describe areas in which Yarborough was vulnerable, the primary one being although popular with the Union leaders, the rank and file Joe Sixpacks were pissed with Yarborough because of his anti-war stand. (Sure enough, during the primary they bucked the Union leadership and voted against Yarborough in big numbers, ending his political career). Since I was expecting the usual BS about "whoever wins the Democratic primary, I'm gonna run my race on my own principles, yadda yadda," I was amazed and pleased at his frankness, which gave me a very good story.

Later that evening at the dinner, there was not the usual head table where the guest speaker and all the dignitaries usually sat. Instead there was a chair for Bush at each table. He shook hands with everyone at the table, his staff took pictures and later provide copies of him shaking hands (including a shot of him and my second wife who I was still married to at the time). Then he sat down and asked, "What do you need me to do for you when I get to Washington?" Guy not only listened, he took notes! I'd never seen a politician do that before. He made the rounds of every table while everyone else was eating. Then he went up to the podium to address the crowd. I remember him as being extremely articulate that evening both in my interview and in the later conversations. A lot like Obama when he was running for office.

This was at the time that Nixon had OK'd the "incursion" by US armed forces into Laos (or wherever) to root out the Cong supply dumps and rest camps. Bush said he realized that was not a popular move, but talked of how he thought history would show it was the right decision and he was backing "his president." He was very inclusive, reaching out to all sorts of diverse groups on behalf of the Republican party. He reminded me at the time of the old-line of Rockefeller moderate Republicans, which had seemed to have disappeared from the party under Nixon. Let me point out that most of the people at the dinner were mid-level local execs from the refining and chemical companies, better educated and more sophisticated than the Joe Six-Packs. They and I were really impressed with the guy.

So some months later, the primaries are over. Bush is the Republican candidate and Bentsen got the Democrat nomination and now they're campaigning for real. I meanwhile discovered that I could delay payment on my student loans if I enrolled as a grad student, and I could use the money with a new son. Figured out a way whereby working as a teaching assistant and getting a pass on loan payments and such plus the GI Bill, I could make more money going to school than working, so I and the family went back up to Lubbock to Texas Tech.

And I immediately connected with a bunch of old buddies with whom we used to argue politics a lot. And there's a notice one day that Bush was bringing his campaign in Lubbock and would be speaking at noon to an outside rally in a city park. I told the gang, "Listen, you gotta go hear this guy! He's really a new style of Republican, not one of those 'my country right or wrong' types." So 3-4 of us meet before noon and go down to the park where they have a big flat-bed trailer--the kind you haul drill pipe on--set up. There's a Mariachi band playing and a bunch of young Hispanics in costume dancing. Music stops and they introduce Bush, who is standing at one end of the trailer with Roy Furr, owner of Furr's Cafeterias and an ultra-right-winger that made Attila the Hun seem like a commie.

And Bush proceeds to let loose with the damnest "America-Love it or Leave it" bash I've ever heard. No more "room for different outlooks"--it's our way or the highway. Man, my jaw dropped like that wolf in those old Droopy cartoons. And of course my buddies are giving me the horse-laugh. "New Republican, huh?" It was like a 180-degree turn from what I'd seen in Orange just a few months before.

So I got to thinking, maybe it was because he was unopposed in the Republican primary but is now in a tough race against Bentsen for the real prize. Or maybe it was because he was cuddling up to Roy Furr hoping for a big donation. Maybe he was playing to the "All-American" farm crowd. Or just maybe--and probably more likely--he's just a run of the mill politician who will say whatever he thinks the crowd wants to hear. Everything he said or did for the rest of his political career supported that latter conclusion.

Never met or covered George W. Shrub, but a blind man could see he has less smarts than his daddy and far less integrity than his mom and gave every sign as being just as two-faced as his old man.

rufnek

05-12-11, 05:54 PM

Well heck, if that's true, why do I keep hearing about Perry slashing budgets? Also, when you say the Lt. Governor is actually the one who names people to government committees, does that actually play out as a meaningful distinction in real life, or is it like saying that the Government Accounting Office doesn't actually answer to the White House, even though lots of people there can still informally have them do things they want?

Don't know how it is in other states, but in Texas, the governor and lieutentant governor run for office separately. It's not like the president and vice president running on the same ticket. They don't even have to be of the same party.

Don't know what you hear about Perry slashing budgets, but in real life Perry can't slice bread unless he gets legislative approval which is likely to involve a constitutional amendment. That's no joke--a few years ago there was something that Houston city officials were after the legislature to OK and they had to change the constitution allowing Texas municipalities of a certain size to do such and such involving bond sales or something of that sort. The stipulated size, however, meant only Houston qualified, so if Dallas wants to do something similar, they'll have to make another amendment, all of which is tacked onto the Constitution that just keeps growing and growing.

The lieutenant governor actually does have more power because he presides over the Texas Senate and can recognize or ignore speakers at will. Also most (if not all) appointments to state offices go through him, and he's influential in drafting legislation and naming heads of legislative committees, so he does in fact have considerable power and truly more influence over the state government than the governor. You want your brother-in-law to become assistant warden at the state pen or a proposed state highway to cut through a corner of your sister's land, the Lieut is the one to see. The governor can pardon your mother from prison, which was a money-making endeavor for Gov. "Pa" Ferguson in the early 20th century who according to legend had an old horse--some say tied to a tree on the Capitol lawn--that when someone would come to appeal to let a loved one out of state prison, "Pa" would ask, "How much do you think that horse down there is worth." The appealee would venture a guess, and Pa would respond, "Oh, I'm sure it's worth more than that." The dickering would continue until they agreed on a suitable price and Pa would then sign a pardon. They eventually threw Pa out of office at which time "Ma" Ferguson became our first female govenor, extending the horse's high-paying career.

Unlike states of New York and such, the Texas governorship has never been a stepping stone to higher political office, nor has being mayor of the state's largest city, be it Houston, San Antonio, or Corpus Christi, each of which have held that distinction at various times. Johnson made his jump as the first president from Texas from his Senate seat (they amended the constitution that year so he could run for both Vice President and Senator on the same ballot. John Nance Gardner became the first Texas VP under Roosevelt also from Congress (the House, as I recall).

Regardless of all this, the main point was that it's transparently self-serving to try to compare qualifications for President by citing the highest job held by the guy on one hand, and not doing the same with the other.

You lost me on this one, Yoda. I was just commenting that governor of Texas is no great training ground for politics or administration.

Yoda

05-12-11, 06:12 PM

Don't know how it is in other states, but in Texas, the governor and lieutentant governor run for office separately. It's not like the president and vice president running on the same ticket. They don't even have to be of the same party.
I believe it varies. Here in Pennsylvania they can also be of different parties. This happened very recently; when our Lt. Governor passed away, a Republican succeeded her even though the Governor (Ed Rendell) was a Democrat.

Don't know what you hear about Perry slashing budgets, but in real life Perry can't slice bread unless he gets legislative approval which is likely to involve a constitutional amendment. That's no joke--a few years ago there was something that Houston city officials were after the legislature to OK and they had to change the constitution allowing Texas municipalities of a certain size to do such and such involving bond sales or something of that sort. The stipulated size, however, meant only Houston qualified, so if Dallas wants to do something similar, they'll have to make another amendment, all of which is tacked onto the Constitution that just keeps growing and growing.
I'm pretty sure every Governor needs legislative approval for most such things. But if anything, the hoops you're describing would seem to make for better job training to be President than the alternative.

The state Constitution stuff is certainly exceptional, though. But it seems to work; Texas has had tremendous economic success and it just keeps growing.

You lost me on this one, Yoda. I was just commenting that governor of Texas is no great training ground for politics or administration.
Well, I don't know if you read the post I was replying to when you replied to it, but it was in response to Dexter making an unfavorable comparison between the two Bushes because one was head of the CIA, and the other ran a baseball team. To which my reply is: he was also Governor, which is obviously the appropriate job to cite if you want to make a comparison of qualifications. That's all.