Random Political Thoughts

[PB the Deplorable]

Yeah, we don't have a left in the US. We have a center right, a right, and a far right, with the far right  dragging everyone else further to the right. Obama supposedly has a leftist socialist agenda these days, but rewind a mere 30 years and he's a Reagan Republican.

And yet somehow taxes are continuing to go up.  More rtules and regulations are printed every day.  ObamaCare is carreening down the tracks and just about here.  Spending and dependency is skyrocketing.  What are you talking about?

Unless you are with Pud and Right is really Left and Left is really Right, unless he says otherwise for some other reason that morning, then switches back again.


Go to the library and pick up any newspaper to see what the issues of the day were.  30 years ago the people that were the equivalent of today's  'Progressives'were a tiny minority.  Rewind 20 more yars and JFK is the equivalent of a modern Conervative Republican.

Carter ran as a Conservative governor.  His administration governed as a Keynesian and failed.  Utterly.  He has become much more radical over the years, primarily due to his bitterness at being fired in favor of Reagan,

[PB the Deplorable]

So yesterday Obama was in town for a fundraiser with Nancy Pelosi.

Now Obama is termed out, so he can't run again (not that Constitutional niceies ever stopped him from doing anything before), and Mrs Pelosi already has more personal wealth and contributed campaign money than the next 20 generations of Pelosi's could ever spend - and has a 'Safe Seat' and doesn't really campaign or even ever get a serious challenger to boot.

So why do these greedy people need to hold a fundraiser?  With a ruined economy, 2 wars, a failing foreign policy just about everywhere on the globe, shouldn't the President and House Minority leader be in Washington trying to fix... something?

Does everyone realize that politicians retiring from office get to keep any remaining campaign funds?  Is that what this is about?  Are these 2 greedy politicians going to reimburse the people of San Francisco for police overtime and other security?  Of course not. 

I wonder if during their event they took time to bash 'the rich'?



Oh, and Obama made it a point to say he needed Nancy Pelosi back as Speaker so that he 'could get a lot more done'. 

We tried that Mr President.  The country rejoiced when Ted Kennedy died and you no longer had 60 votes in the Senate.  Even the people of Massachusetts decided to vote like adults for once and replace him with an R, Scott Brown.  To block you and your policies as best they could.  Please just take the money and go.

[Yorkshire pud]

You forgot North Korea PB...Come on, you're slacking..Surely that was Obamas fault too? I guess technically it was Truman's and Eisenhower's fault for the Korean war. 

[analog kid]

And yet somehow taxes are continuing to go up.  More rtules and regulations are printed every day.  ObamaCare is carreening down the tracks and just about here.  Spending and dependency is skyrocketing.  What are you talking about?

Reagan raised taxes eleven times, including the biggest peace-time tax increase in the nation's history. The Republican majority in the 2000s sent Bush more than 30 spending bills that added to the deficit and Bush signed every one. With '02, '03 and '04 seeing some of the biggest spending increases in 40 years, and this was largely nondefense spending. And that's not to mention two unfunded trillion dollar wars and unfunded tax cuts for the rich (and not to mention that, under Bush, the Pentagon announced that it misplaced 2.3 trillion. Oops.). If you're under the impression that Republicans don't raise taxes or spend like crazed goldcard wielding housewives of New Jersey, I'm here to tell you that you're mistaken.

[Yorkshire pud]

Reagan raised taxes eleven times, including the biggest peace-time tax increase in the nation's history. The Republican majority in the 2000s sent Bush more than 30 spending bills that added to the deficit and Bush signed every one. With '02, '03 and '04 seeing some of the biggest spending increases in 40 years, and this was largely nondefense spending. And that's not to mention two unfunded trillion dollar wars and unfunded tax cuts for the rich (and not to mention that, under Bush, the Pentagon announced that it misplaced 2.3 trillion. Oops.). If you're under the impression that Republicans don't raise taxes or spend like crazed goldcard wielding housewives of New Jersey, I'm here to tell you that you're mistaken.

I sincerely wish you well in convincing PB what you say is valid..But don't hold your breath. 

[PB the Deplorable]

...If you're under the impression that Republicans don't raise taxes or spend like crazed goldcard wielding housewives of New Jersey, I'm here to tell you that you're mistaken.

I'm fully aware George 'Read My Lips' Bush I raised taxes and was fired for it.  George W Bush added two unwinable wars and more Medicare spending to the budget and cut taxes instead of paying for any of it.  None of that to me is Right Wing or Conservative.

I guess I should have asked my question another way - when you posted the following, what did you mean by it?  What is Obama doing that is right or far right or comparable to Reagan, same with the 'Progressives' in the House and Senate?  What aren't they doing that would be Left Wing?  Please note I am honestly curious and am not trying to play 'gotcha', and appreciate hearing what you have to say.   I understand you don't have to justify any of your posts to anyone.  But I hear people say what you posted quite a bit actually and truly don't know what they mean:

"we don't have a left in the US. We have a center right, a right, and a far right, with the far right  dragging everyone else further to the right. Obama supposedly has a leftist socialist agenda these days, but rewind a mere 30 years and he's a Reagan Republican."

[PB the Deplorable]

I'm saying that when Republicans get too much power they do exactly what they want and don't give a fuck what ANYONE thinks. They don't apologize, they don't make concessions, they don't try to meet in the middle. I'm thinking of the first 5 or 6 years of the Bush administration.

Is there bullying and demonizing from all sides? Yes. But the Republicans are the professional, by nature bullies. They are the jocks who beat up the smart and skinny kids in the locker room BECAUSE THEY CAN--because that's what the strong do to the weak and it's God's Natural Order, dammit. And if you don't agree, then you hate America and Jesus and football and stuff.

And the left have historically taken it, and taken it, and taken it again. As for the policies and trends and whatever that have contributed to the state of things now, that's BOTH parties. But in terms of character and personality types, the Right are absolutely the high school bullies in every possible sense, even (literally) down to the "Date rape and AIDS jokes". Be it the country club conservatives or the rural rednecks, it's all about the Good Ol' Boy system. And I hate it.

Incidentally I didn't even realize I'd made that post in the politics thread, because I generally avoid the politics thread, and I hope to continue to do so, because it's really pointless arguing with people who already know they're right. But I appreciate that you've enjoyed some of my past posts. Good day.

No, you didn't originally post on this thread, but as to not antagonize others who don't appreciate politics on the other threads, I brought it over here.

Reading your post, I certainly see your perspective.   It surprised and saddened me to find the extent the political poison has found it's way into even High School society.  I can see where if a person was growing up in a Red State environment the bullies would be the right-wingers.

We didn't have all that garbage when I was in HS.  Maybe it's just a new phenomonen that started around the time Reagan got elected - where I lived at that time I noticed everything becan to get very ugly around that time.  Maybe it was because I was in HS just after Viet Nam, the upheaval of the 60s, Watergate and Nixon, and everyone was just tired of all of it.  Maybe it was just because I was in a small town far from any big city, but we didn't really focus on politics at all.  At most we covered current events in class, but that was more an extension of History, or maybe write a paper on this or that.

After college I moved to Berkeley.  The bullies were the Leftist majority there, and they topped it off by insisting they were the tolerent, enlightened, peaceful ones.  But don't anyone dare to disagree with anything.  They sure don't apologize or try to find common ground or pull any punches when they have the power either (or now at the national level - remember Obama saying 'John, you lost and we won' and basically 'now go away', or that dreadful Obamacare bill being put together in the back room and the Rs weren't even allowed to see it?).  In Berkeley, they enjoy flexing their muscles and putting on demonstrations that always seem to end up with buring, trashing, fighting the police.  Occupy is just an expension of that.  It's the same people.  Or Critical Mass - do they have that where you live?  Nothing but more arrogant bullying.  To this day it's still like that - at parties, on the job, out with friends, everyone that doesn't go along with the 'Progressives' just better keep quiet.

Back in the 80s a group called Acorn passed around among their operatives a book called Rules For Radicals by Saul Alinsky.  Sure there has been bickering and fighting in our country's past, but this was the handbook for using name-calling and smear tactics as THE way to move their policies forward.  To my mind this is what started all the filth we have going on in political debate today.  And it has worked for the Left beyond their wildest dreams.  This country is still primarily Conservative, and the Left has to use extraordinary tactics to win batttles, and they have and do. 

People like Rush Limbaugh came along later and tried to mostly fight it with humor - oh, they hate him so for that.  The only thing worse than being called names is being laughed at.  The Tea Party was a Conservative movement that had the gall to use demonstrations as a tactic (all be it peaceful, no  arrests, burning, or looting - they even cleaned up afterward).  Others have finally resorted to using their same smear tactics against them - an argument could be made that's the only thing that will ultimately cause it to stop and get back to civility. 

[Pragmier]

People like Rush Limbaugh came along later and tried to mostly fight it with humor - oh, they hate him so for that.

I read an interesting article recently about how today's younger generation communicate with and appreciate comedic irony. It helps account for the popularity of folks like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. I don't see Limbaugh as a comedian at all, and am hard-pressed to name truly funny political commentary from the right. One exception could be Dennis Miller, but at least the perception is the right is mostly angry in an unfunny way. This is why NCPAC expressed a need to reach out to that demographic via The Daily Show and Colbert's.


Ironically, the funniest (and therefore most effective in reaching younger voters) right-wing message bearers might be the ones created by supposedly leftist Hollywood, such as Ron Swanson on Parks and Recreation. He's a caricature of the tea party, but in the end usually winds up being the wise voice of reason. If it was the writer's attempt to make conservatives evil it backfired; Swanson is one of the most popular characters on the show with quite an internet following.

[Pragmier]

So I hear that Obama and the Reps might come to some agreement on a revised way to calculate CPI so as to decrease the adjustments to Social Security's cost of living increases. While at the same time, the right continuously says that CPI is misleading, and in fact inflation is much higher than the index shows. Is it me or is this a double screw you?

[Falkie2013]

Of course it's a double screw you.


It's calculated to keep the middle classes poorer, and the poor even poorer than them.


While the rich get richer and those responsible for this recession get away with not being called to account for it.


There are numerous links that tell that the REAL inflation rate is 8 % and NOT what Helicopter Ben and O'buma tell you it is while THEY get away with their massive hoodwinking of the American people who voted for a pathological liar and who re-appointed another one to chair the Fed.


www.tomdavidd.com/blog/?page_id=38


" The Federal Reserve Bank is Set Up as a Privately Owned Banking Cartel Owned and Controlled by a Small Elitist Group of Powerful International Bankers "


Every Day Price Index = 8% inflation according to the AIER.


www.policymic.com/articles/4952/is-america-hiding-its-true-inflation-rate-and-could-the-u-s-be-as-insolvent-as-greece/category_list


www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts


http//www.etfdailynews.com/2012/10/08/what-is-the-real-inflation-rate/


I found a way I can now buy small amounts of gold on a monthly basis and am going to do so.


Sooner or later the purchasing power of our dollar is going to collapse.


That's why there's such a push by O'buma to restrict guns and states putting even more draconian regulations against them as Maryland did this week.


They KNOW that the American public WILL revolt if we have another depression and this time they won't settle for just electing a new President like they did in 1933, they'll be out with the torches and guns not pitchforks, unless people like O'buma, Reid, Feinstein, et al, get their way before the Great Collapse which will be America's ( and the world's ) second Great Depression.



www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB_66jkJoS0


" countries get the politicians they deserve, we've elected a bunch of clowns who care only about the next few elections. "

[Yorkshire pud]

They KNOW that the American public WILL revolt if we have another depression and this time they won't settle for just electing a new President like they did in 1933, they'll be out with the torches and guns not pitchforks,

So these angry mobs will march down their streets armed and shoot whom? Themselves? Their equally law abiding neighbours? The police? The military? Or indiscriminate mowing down because they're protecting their right to bear arms? If you want a little (and it is a little one comparatively) indicator of what you'd be facing, look at the bloodbath that is now Syria..You get the ball rolling on that, you really need to be sure you're on the 'winning' side, because their mortuaries will be slightly less full than the oppositions..If what you're suggesting transpires, I'd be heading for the border with Canada and pleading for refugee status.

[West of the Rockies]

So these angry mobs will march down their streets armed and shoot whom? Themselves? Their equally law abiding neighbours? The police? The military? Or indiscriminate mowing down because they're protecting their right to bear arms? If you want a little (and it is a little one comparatively) indicator of what you'd be facing, look at the bloodbath that is now Syria..You get the ball rolling on that, you really need to be sure you're on the 'winning' side, because their mortuaries will be slightly less full than the oppositions..If what you're suggesting transpires, I'd be heading for the border with Canada and pleading for refugee status.

There is the curious notion, Yorkshire, among some people here across the pond that a revolution is a matter of some brave souls "manning up", kicking some butts, and waving a Don't Tread on Me flag.  I also think these peope assume that the majority of Americans have the same level of resentment and dissatisfaction with the government. 

I've sort of been weening myself off this thread (to the delight of some, perhaps)... it seems the same dynamic keeps occurring.  Someone will say that Reagen ran up the deficit.  Someone else will claim that it is not true, but that if it is true, then it was the fault of Democrats.  Of course, when matters were reversed during Clinton's administration, any success was due to Republicans.  We get back to that whole Democrats are all stupid and corrupt, Republicans are all brilliance and honesty and hard work.  Trying to dissuade anyone from this set opinion is pointless. 

You've suggested that Obama is not, in fact, all that liberal.  But others simply cannnot let go of their view that he's a Marxist/Muslim/atheist bent on destroying the country while enjoying way too much golf and sending his spoiled girls off to the tropics on a weekly basis.  Trying to change anyone's opinion is banging your head against the wall -- you won't change the wall and you'll only give yourself a headache.

[Pragmier]

WoTR - that is pretty much how I feel.

[Yorkshire pud]

you won't change the wall and you'll only give yourself a headache.

I fear you're right my friend. Shall we have a small wager (very small, I'm broke!) that non participation will by default incur the tag; "You see, we were right all along, you're just finally accepting it" 

[West of the Rockies]

I fear you're right my friend. Shall we have a small wager (very small, I'm broke!) that non participation will by default incur the tag; "You see, we were right all along, you're just finally accepting it" 

Yes, I'd only be able to put a few pennies (do they have farthings?  ) on that wager, too.  Actually, what I think would happen is that the echo-chamber effect would take place:  "Obama is the anti-Christ!" "You got that right, brother!" 

I see this dynamic sometimes on the left as well at a couple of the blogs I visit on a regular basis (Balloon Juice, Daily Kos).  But when I go to a place like William F. Buckley's National Review Online or Redstate, group-think is so much in play as to be alarming.

I like mixing it up with all sorts of people as long as the tone stays reasonably respectful.  As Ferrari said in Casablanca, "... isolationism is no longer a practical policy."  Purposefully not engaging in debate is not going to do any social good (though it may lower my blood pressure!).  But this inability for people to accept facts is strange to me and does wear on me greatly...  We had a college basketball coach here in the U.S. (University of Rutgers) recently lose his job because of a tape showing him verbally and abusing his players.  Some people on the right (Michelle Malkin & Sean Hannity) saw nothing wrong with his behavior.  They both said, "Hey, I was hit with a leather belt and worse as a kid, and I turned out fine!"  Studies show that parental violence against children (in the name of punishment) is not an effective tool.  But some people will simply turn their noses up at such findings and decry, "Well, it's what we've always done, and those darn academics with their studies don't know what they're talking about, and we'll just end up raising a nation of cry-babies, and blargle-blargle-blargle!"  NO amount of reasoning, no measure of statistics, facts, or expert testimony will change their precious opinions. 

That's it... I'm reaching for a Guiness... it's after 12 noon, damnit!

[Falkie2013]

There is the curious notion, Yorkshire, among some people here across the pond that a revolution is a matter of some brave souls "manning up", kicking some butts, and waving a Don't Tread on Me flag.  I also think these peope assume that the majority of Americans have the same level of resentment and dissatisfaction with the government. 

I've sort of been weening myself off this thread (to the delight of some, perhaps)... it seems the same dynamic keeps occurring.  Someone will say that Reagen ran up the deficit.  Someone else will claim that it is not true, but that if it is true, then it was the fault of Democrats.  Of course, when matters were reversed during Clinton's administration, any success was due to Republicans.  We get back to that whole Democrats are all stupid and corrupt, Republicans are all brilliance and honesty and hard work.  Trying to dissuade anyone from this set opinion is pointless. 

You've suggested that Obama is not, in fact, all that liberal.  But others simply cannnot let go of their view that he's a Marxist/Muslim/atheist bent on destroying the country while enjoying way too much golf and sending his spoiled girls off to the tropics on a weekly basis.  Trying to change anyone's opinion is banging your head against the wall -- you won't change the wall and you'll only give yourself a headache.

The perception that people have of us is that everyone in this country supports the man just because he got re-elected. They don't. The man is steeped in Alinsky theory, his Mother was a radical as was his Father and his chief mentor as a child was a Communist. He surrounded himself with Marxists who admire a thug like Mao  and even outright Communists and resents the rich and anyone who worked their butt off to become successful, even though he is rich.

What foreigners don't realize is that America is not just the Left Coasts of California and the Bos-Wash corridor. There's a vast middle America that didn't vote for him ( or Romney either, with 3 MILLION votes not cast for President ).

There are a lot of people out there who are furious at their state, local and Federal governments. They feel they're NOT being listened to and that the politicians do what THEY want to do and to hell with what the people want. That's how Obamacare was passed despite the majority of people NOT wanting it.

IF we have a MAJOR economic collapse in this country, its the people who are in the middle who will march on their state capitals, their city halls and the Federal government. They're armed, they're fed up and many of them are vets who know how to fight armies, even our own. They're not going to go after their neighbors.

This government and its fellow travelers in Congress FEAR an armed populace. That's why they keep passing ever more strict gun regulations. The same goes for states like Maryland which passed the toughest gun laws in the country over the weekend.

[Yorkshire pud]

Yes, I'd only be able to put a few pennies (do they have farthings?  ) on that wager, too.  Actually, what I think would happen is that the echo-chamber effect would take place:  "Obama is the anti-Christ!" "You got that right, brother!" 


That's it... I'm reaching for a Guiness... it's after 12 noon, damnit!

Okay buddy; my invoice is posted to the usual address; After reading that you owe me a new laptop screen and keyboard after spitting out a mouthful of an agreeable red..

[Yorkshire pud]

IF we have a MAJOR economic collapse in this country, its the people who are in the middle who will march on their state capitals, their city halls and the Federal government. They're armed, they're fed up and many of them are vets who know how to fight armies, even our own. They're not going to go after their neighbors.

My (probably) final word on this: You're talking utter crap. On so many levels that anyone who knew how an army (or indeed any well trained military unit) operates wouldn't utter such uninformed, delusional, pie in the sky, bollox. Mob rule that wins only happens in Hollywood, where rounds leave a smear of blood from the corner of the opposition's mouth. Vets are vets for a reason; They're retired or disabled. I have an acquaintance who is an ex Royal marine; officially he was a mechanic, I have pretty good reason to believe he was rather more than that, and was probably involved in a lot of unpublisised contacts. In short a trained killer..last time I spoke to him about the topic of war etc, he said 'violence never solved anything'..last time he inadvertently got in a fight he didn't hit the other guy back; not because he's a coward, but he knew he'd be on at least a charge of Grievous bodily harm. Probably manslaughter.  My point is, you can have these 'vets' but many will be too tired, mentally ill or seen too much death to partake. They're not cowards, and will shake their heads at blow hards who are only too willing to choose their battles, but haven't the balls to fight them.

This government and its fellow travelers in Congress FEAR an armed populace. That's why they keep passing ever more strict gun regulations. The same goes for states like Maryland which passed the toughest gun laws in the country over the weekend.

And which ever strict gun controls have been passed sine 2008? And if so, have they curtailed the overall ownership of firearms? Incidentally isn't there a majority of voting share on the Republicans side? So maybe you're aiming your fictitious militia in the wrong direction? 

[PB the Deplorable]

... You've suggested that Obama is not, in fact, all that liberal.  But others simply cannnot let go of their view that he's a Marxist/Muslim/atheist bent on destroying the country while enjoying way too much golf and sending his spoiled girls off to the tropics on a weekly basis.  Trying to change anyone's opinion is banging your head against the wall -- you won't change the wall and you'll only give yourself a headache.

Other than just saying 'Obama isn't all that Liberal', no one here has made the case.   It's true that he hasn't gotten every item on the wish list fulfillled, but only because he isn't a dictator and can't just decree it.  Well, actually he has been a bit of a dictator and does make illegal decrees, but just around the edges and not on the highly visable stuff - there are some obstacles like public opinion, lack of 60 votes in the Senate, and lack of a D majority in the House that have held him at bay.

If someone wants to make the case his actions and off-the-teleprompter-cuff comments aren't  those of an extreme Leftist (as defined by US politics circa 2013), and his instincts would be to drag us in that direction except for the obstacles listed above, I'm all ears.

Is someone wants to make the case that during the Reagan years in the 80s the Congressional Democrats were not the ones insisting on more spending every year, again, I'm all ears.  What I remember is annual Federal tax revenue doubling over the 8 years, Tip O'Neill annually declaring the Reagan proposed budgets 'dead on arrival', forcing all sorts of new spending through if Reagan wanted things like a restored military and aid to the Contras.  I remember the 2 sides coming to impasses over the spending and the government being shut down for a few days and the media blaming the Republican President.  Is that all wrong?

If someone wants to make the case and provide information on what exactly it was that Bill Clinton did in the 90s to reduce the deficit, rather than the Rs taking the House and Senate and forcing  it, please post.  What I remember is Clinton vowing vetos over Newts budgets, the government shutting down for a few days, and the Media blaming the Republican Congress.  Is any of that wrong?

Usually the Rs had to wait for an election year and pick off a few votes from Ds on shaky ground with the voters, otherwise the Ds were willing to shut dowm government knowing the Media would side with them to pressure the Rs, and the Ds would ultimately get their spending through.  Was I dreaming?  Am I mis-remembering all this?

No one makes the opposite case, at most someone will point to some tax bill passing, or deficits going up or down, and automatically say who was President at the time and that's it.  As if the President has the ultimate power and is responsible for all legislation passed  - nothing about what Congress was doing, or which side forced the legislation through over the wishes of the other, or how the Media was manipulating public opinion. 

[West of the Rockies]

Okay buddy; my invoice is posted to the usual address; After reading that you owe me a new laptop screen and keyboard after spitting out a mouthful of an agreeable red..

Thank you, ladies and gentleman, I'll be here all week! 

Actually, I'm out of Guiness, but I do have an amusing little lager from Sierra Nevada (their '13 Summerfest).

Okay, once more into the fray...

My late best friend was a Limbaugh-listening conservative (and a good man, actually, despite that).  When Clinton was elected the first time, he insisted that you could lip-read Hillary, and that she was pointing out at the audience and saying to Bill, "We just screwed all these people...."  Almost immediately Rush and company began to report on Vince Foster and all of the evil, murderous cruelties the Clintons were visiting upon people.  My parents were quite certain that he was in league with the Chinese and was going to betray the entire country because he was a deep-red Communist who idolized Mao.  Now we are hearing about how Obama wants nothing more than to take away all our guns, remove all mention of Christianity from the government and instigate Muslim Shariac law.  Obama is, according to some, a Marxist, a socialist, a communist, a Muslim, an Atheist, etc., etc., etc.  His wife suggested that maybe American kids could have healthier diets and get a bit more exercise.  She was, predictably, raked over the coals.  Sarah Palin smirks like a moron and sips from a Big Gulp to make the point that Obama (and Bloomberg) are horrible people.  Ah, the wit, it's too much really...

Look, I have been bamboozled by some Democrats (such as John Edwards).  But for fucksake, Obama has been in office now for 4+ years.  The stock market is at an all-time high.  Corporate profits continue to go up while employee wages remain largely static (except for highest earners, don'tchaknow).  Federal taxes are at their lowest since Republican Eisenhower's 1950's administration.  We're still prosecuting Bush's wars, Gitmo is still open, you can still buy banana clips for your semi-auto rifles, pot is still illegal, Christmas has NOT been outlawed, and, oh, holy shit, he likes to golf and play basketball.  Goddamned Commie!

I remember when he took office, some idiot was claiming on January 20th, 2008 that Obama was the worst president ever.  Dear Uncle Rush says he wants Obama to fail.  Rush and Cheney and Romney and Uncle Ted Nugent and a bazillion more chicken-hawks who have done no time in the military have the audacity to suggest that Obama is somehow soft on terrorism.  I think he may possibly be to the right of Bush on terrorism -- it was under Obama's watch that Osama went down.  We are using drones like never before.  But, oh, the humanity, Obama is a Marxist!

Time for a second Summerfest....

[Yorkshire pud]

Thank you, ladies and gentleman, I'll be here all week! 

Actually, I'm out of Guiness, but I do have an amusing little lager from Sierra Nevada (their '13 Summerfest).

Oh fuck, could we have a drinking session! But who could we hate? 

[West of the Rockies]

Next time your in the U.S. left coast, give me a ring.  We'll hoist a few and save the world!   

[PB the Deplorable]

...  My parents were quite certain that he was in league with the Chinese and was going to betray the entire country because he was a deep-red Communist who idolized Mao.  Now we are hearing about how Obama wants nothing more than to take away all our guns... The stock market is at an all-time high. ... Federal taxes are at their lowest since Republican Eisenhower's 1950's administration...

It was a releif to know in hindsite Clinton allowed Loreal to sell advanced rocket technology to a corporation controlled the the Chinese Red Army for a few hudred thousand in 'campaign Contributions', instead of purposefully selling us out.  I guess.  Notice China now has a huge market share sending satellites into space and now we have none.

We are hearing about Obama wanting to take away our guns from people that new him as a professor and are tellig us what he said at the time.  We are also watching the Ds accross the country push as many anti-gun laws through as the constituents will tolerate without tossing them out of office.  Plenty of Ds - from those in safe seats, down to just citizens writing letters to the editor - are on record as wanting to eliminate gun ownership.   Are we to believe something other than anti-gun hysteria is at a high, or that Obama is opposed to collecting weapons?  There is an awful lot of smoke, and you're suggesting there is no fire.

The stock market is at an all time high because Helicopter Ben is buying $85 Billion in bonds with newly printed money every month.  The banks were bailed out but are not lending.  Corporations are holding onto their money and not hiring, buying inventory, building warehouses, or buying equipment.  That money has to go somewhere.  Recent history suggests another bubble is forming

Federal tax rates on the highest marginal rate may be low.  The tax rates on what average American's are earning are awfully steep.  A good way to compare is to look at Federal tax revenue as a percentage of GDP or GNP over the years, not at top marginal rates that only apply to the last dollars earned at very high income levels.  A person with a snall business (Sched C) making $100,000, is paying $20, 000 in federal income tax, $15,000 more in FICA and Medicare, plus state income tax, plus sales tax on much of what he buys, plus gas tax, plus property tax if he wons a home or gets passed thru in his rent, plus taxes any that companies are paying that get passed on to him when he buys their products or services, plus any number of smaller niusance taxes.  We are a long, looong way from the 1950s tax levels.

And, oh yeah, he gets to hear how greedy he is, how he didn't build that, and how he needs to be paying his fair share.  And he's on the hook for those very same people who are belittling him for their fat salaries and underfunded pensions.  Is this a great country, or what?

[NowhereInTime]

And, oh yeah, he gets to hear how greedy he is, how he didn't build that, and how he needs to be paying his fair share.  And he's on the hook for those very same people who are belittling him for their fat salaries and underfunded pensions.  Is this a great country, or what?

Well, actually it is.  Despite the never-ending wail of conservatives plenty of people are making plenty of money.  Plenty of people own "more guns than they need, but less guns than they want" (paraphrasing an old favorite) Plenty of pissed white guys can sit in a bar and make slur after slur about the President and, in the end, no one's going to toss them in jail. 
I've worked in the private sector my whole adult life.  I've worked for one "hero" small businessman who served 46 months for over $15 million in tax evasion.  I've worked for a major corporation (since Chapter 13'd) that was sued because it pressed "managers" into 55 or 60 work weeks at 40 hours pay.  And I have to read yet another conservative cry about how the economy is a failure under Obama's leadership though we never really got off the ground of the dot.com - 9/11 recession.  The whole "recovery" was a subprime collateralized debt obligation lined with golden parachutes. 
Despite all of this, we are a great country because there are enough of us who believe in us to try to fix these things.

[West of the Rockies]

Hey, Nowhere... would that be "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve"?   

As to your thoughts above, yes, it's a strange thing...  Some of us look at a redwood tree and think we see a redwood tree; other people look at the same tree and see an atheistic/Marxist fence post.  We can't convince them otherwise; they won't convince us.   There seems to be a bit of ebb and flow of rationality, such as when former Bush speech-writer David Frum begins to decry what's become of the Republican party (but then he is immediately labeled a Quisling or RINO).  Conservatives can take heart (I guess) in Joe Lieberman leaving the Democratic party and calling himself an independent.

Well, as the Chinese curse goes, we do live in interesting times!

[Pragmier]

... subprime collateralized debt obligation lined with golden parachutes ...

With apologies to Flip Wilson - ACORN made me do it.  

[PB the Deplorable]

Don't run away with the idea we don't have gang violence, we do. But (I know you'll find this incredible) we've discovered arming everyone to the teeth won't have a positive effect on it. It isn't smugness; it's highlighting the mismatch of professing that having universal firearm ownership makes it a safer place..When statistically you have more chance of being killed if you're armed yourself. I bet the NRA don't tell you that? ...

I think everyone knows one has a higher chance of being killed if armed themselves.  Statistics cover a population, they aren't predictive of a single individual within that group.   I'll take my chances.

About gangs, and inner cities.  If those people are responsible for 90-something percent of gun violence, why is the focus on taking awayeveryone else's gun rights?  We all know good and well those folks aren't going to turn theirs in, many (most?, nearly all?) can't legally have guns because they are on probation, parole, have been convicted of felonies, or live in areas where their guns are already illegal.  Why are we going after everyone else, and not enforcing the laws we already have?

This makes about as much sense as the calls for unilateral nuclear disarming did back in the 80s. 

[analog kid]

I'm fully aware George 'Read My Lips' Bush I raised taxes and was fired for it.  George W Bush added two unwinable wars and more Medicare spending to the budget and cut taxes instead of paying for any of it.  None of that to me is Right Wing or Conservative.

I guess I should have asked my question another way - when you posted the following, what did you mean by it?  What is Obama doing that is right or far right or comparable to Reagan, same with the 'Progressives' in the House and Senate?  What aren't they doing that would be Left Wing?  Please note I am honestly curious and am not trying to play 'gotcha', and appreciate hearing what you have to say.   I understand you don't have to justify any of your posts to anyone.  But I hear people say what you posted quite a bit actually and truly don't know what they mean:

"we don't have a left in the US. We have a center right, a right, and a far right, with the far right  dragging everyone else further to the right. Obama supposedly has a leftist socialist agenda these days, but rewind a mere 30 years and he's a Reagan Republican."

Appreciate your reply and that's a good conversation Paper Boy, but I'll have to get back to you on that tomorrow or some time, as I'm feeling like shit on a shingle right now. I've clearly a way to go before I'm fully recovered from the gallbladder surgery and I overexerted redoing the wax seal on ye old commode. Everything weighs 500 tons anymore.

[Yorkshire pud]

I think everyone knows one has a higher chance of being killed if armed themselves.  Statistics cover a population, they aren't predictive of a single individual within that group.   I'll take my chances.

You'll take your chances although the odds are stacked against you, nearly five fold? So owning a gun isn't because it's logical, it's along the 'all you can eat for a $ principle? You're going to stuff your gut because you can, not because it's sensible and might make you run the risk of a heart attack?

About gangs, and inner cities.  If those people are responsible for 90-something percent of gun violence, why is the focus on taking away everyone else's gun rights?

Sigh:: Here in the UK, if anyone is suspected of being armed with a firearm and it appears unreasonable (In other words, not a farmer, gamekeeper, clay pigeon shooter, soldier) or there is suspicion of a suspicious discharge and it's reported, the police dispatch their armed response teams. They already know from their records who is legally entitled to have a registered firearm in the area they're attending, so when they turn up, they'll of course be asking questions, eliminate the safely stored weapons and then establish the circumstances. Sometimes it's miss-identification. Sometimes it's (and this is common) a drug dealer carrying a replica firearm..Sometimes it's real..Either way the police at that point don't know, and it's assumed it's real (and both are illegal) and the suspect is given no ambiguous instructions exactly what is expected of them. The police guidelines are pretty clear; if they or a member of the public is deemed to be under imminent danger from the suspect, officer(s) is allowed to take out the suspect. They seldom miss, it's almost always fatal.


Now..the scenario above....If all the other members of the public in the vicinity are armed, who is your suspect? If you're the officer and you don't know what you're dealing with? Over here, it's everyone, because anyone armed is automatically a suspect, they cannot afford to risk drawing any other conclusion as by default they shouldn't have a firearm in the first place, unless they're registered and have good reason to be openly carrying (There are very few reasons for the last one).

We all know good and well those folks aren't going to turn theirs in, many (most?, nearly all?) can't legally have guns because they are on probation, parole, have been convicted of felonies, or live in areas where their guns are already illegal.  Why are we going after everyone else, and not enforcing the laws we already have?

This makes about as much sense as the calls for unilateral nuclear disarming did back in the 80s.

So it makes perfect sense that Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapon capability? They don't want to be left out in the cold when everyone else has them. Do you therefore subscribe to everyone having chemical weapons if the drug dealer down the road gets hold of mustard gas? I'm not sure I've actually said the existing laws shouldn't be enforced, that's a matter for the local police to address, but having firearms has only one purpose, and currently (as it's always been) the manufacturers are riding the wave of the second amendment to sell their wares. It isn't based on logic, because if it was, you'd have zero tolerance.. It's seen that narcotics are the scourge and kill people, so we'll have a 'war' on drugs..  No-one is suggesting that because addicts shoot up and deal, everyone else should do so to keep up. Why? Well because it will kill more people.

[onan]

I think everyone knows one has a higher chance of being killed if armed themselves.  Statistics cover a population, they aren't predictive of a single individual within that group.   I'll take my chances.

I am not worried about your chance of survival. You chose to put yourself in harm's way. I am worried about the passerby, next door neighbor, roommate that get shot due to an "accident".