Random Political Thoughts

[Sardondi]

Oh, come on UFO Fill, both sides have been stirring the shit for a long time. Karl Rove was/still is a master, Lee Atwater. Carville on the other side.
Abortion really was important? gays in marriage or military are the big issues?
I know I am biased so I say this with some reticence, but I believe the right has done a much better job of these tactics than the left has.

Politics as nuclear warfare has been practiced by the left since the 50's when Saul Alinsky was field testing his theorems, which each successive political generation of the left has taken with their mothers' milk. The landscape today is full of the Soroses and Moores, and the mainstream media is completely corrupted with partisanship. I recall that something like 95% of residents of newsrooms pulled hard for the left.

Conservatives are pikers by comparison. I mean, Lee Atwater as your GOP boogie man? It says something that you reach back to Republican activist from 25 years ago.

[West of the Rockies]

Oh, I don't know, Sardondi... I think the Republican party has been employing some pretty nefarious methods to maintain/increase their power.  I know that Wikipedia is not a respected source, but here is what the site says regarding the Republican's "southern strategy":  In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the Republican Party strategy of gaining political support or winning elections in the Southern section of the country by appealing to racism against African Americans.  Said strategy began in the early 1960's with Goldwater & Nixon.

Both sides have their think tanks, their spin doctors, their hit-men.  Saying, "Hey, they started it!" reminds me a bit of my childhood vacations in my parents' old VW camper when one of my sisters or I would get caught inflicting some sort of torture on each other and exclaim in defense, "But (s)he started it!"

[PB the Deplorable]

You are right about the reading of alinsky. From what I have read Newt considers his strategies genius.

No doubt.  How else can the Left have so much influence, get so many of their policies implemented, absorb so many functions, achieve such a massive intrusive government - the taxing and spending and decreeing what we are to do and not to do in so many areas, when the country is mostly Conservative?  They've done astonishing work, and will completely wreck the country and steal the rest of our Liberty if we don't wake up.

And you think the Right is better at it?  That would mean we've managed to keep our small limited government despite demands from some majority for more Socialism...  I don't think that's the case at all.

[PB the Deplorable]

Oh, I don't know, Sardondi... I think the Republican party has been employing some pretty nefarious methods to maintain/increase their power.  I know that Wikipedia is not a respected source, but here is what the site says regarding the Republican's "southern strategy":  In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the Republican Party strategy of gaining political support or winning elections in the Southern section of the country by appealing to racism against African Americans.  Said strategy began in the early 1960's with Goldwater & Nixon.

Both sides have their think tanks, their spin doctors, their hit-men.  Saying, "Hey, they started it!" reminds me a bit of my childhood vacations in my parents' old VW camper when one of my sisters or I would get caught inflicting some sort of torture on each other and exclaim in defense, "But (s)he started it!"

Well, someone does start it.  After 40 years of it, the other side is done cowering, hiding, giving in to the bullies.

The only way the Alinsky crowd has managed to gain power is the constant use of 'racism'.  Everything the R's have ever done is 'racist'.  Every time they oppose some policy the Ds want to push through, it's because of 'racism'. 

Let me help Wikipedia out.  The South was solid Democrat from the time of Lincoln on.  It was known as The Solid South.  Solid, Racist, Democrat.  The blacks and enlightened folks were mostly Republicans.  The Rev Martin Luther King was a Republican.  The Klu Klux Klan was founded to hold onto political power for Democrats in the South - to persecute Blacks and Republicans. 

Al Gore's father, a US Senator from Tennessee, voted against the Civil Right Act of 1964.  So did Bill Clinton's mentor, Sen William Fullbright.   Long time powerful West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd got his political start as a local Klan leader - and was a member for years afterward.  It was Democrat FDR that interned the Japanese during WWII.  I could go on.

When Nixon ran, the South was changing.  In the South, he put together a coalition of people that wanted change. The MOST racist Southern states rejected that and voted Wallace - Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia (how does that square with what Wiki says?)  Texas went Democrat.  The other LESS racist Southern states voted R along with the least racist of all, the Western states (again, how does that square with what Wiki says?).  Wikipedia and the rest of the cultural Left will do anything, say anything, to justify themselves, win elections and propagandize people. 



And you know what?  All the black kids hear this talk constantly - how the country is racist, how they don't have a chance.  How do you think that affects them?   How many give up before they even start?  And Big Media is right there going along with all of it, if not leading the charge. 

Do you ever wonder why the inner cities never get better - all the crime, awful schools, blight and lack of businesses and jobs - when the big cities and school systems there are run 100% by Democrats?  We certainly pour an enormous amount of money into the agencies that are supposed to take care of things.  So why the accross the board constant failure?  Is Rush right when he says the Ds need to keep people dependent, or they will realize they don't need them?  Think about it.

So who are the real racists and political opportunists?  The D's have so much to answer for.  They have behaved so scumily I could never vote for one.  Not ever. 

[Yorkshire pud]

So who are the real racists and political opportunists?  The D's have so much to answer for.  They have behaved so scumily I could never vote for one.  Not ever.

Well, if what you say is true, Democrats are not liberals after all. Or even left leaning. According to what you've said, their mainstream support is right wing racist bigots? I have a very good friend in GA who has been involved in GA politics over the last ten or fifteen years, I'll ask her for her comments on your post.

[PB the Deplorable]

Well, if what you say is true, Democrats are not liberals after all. Or even left leaning. According to what you've said, their mainstream support is right wing racist bigots? I have a very good friend in GA who has been involved in GA politics over the last ten or fifteen years, I'll ask her for her comments on your post.

FDRs Japanese internment was back in WWII.  The Klan is down to almost nothing and has approx zero influence today.  The people that are prejudiced towards blacks now are so because of what they see going in in the inner cities - it's more of a fear of crime and resentment of the dependency than anything else, although no doubt there are pockets of inherited racism.  The Blacks that are racist towards whites are taught to be resentful, and are taught that whites are still a bunch of bigots.  People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton feed off of keeping the pot stirring.

That's the situation today for the most part. 

The rank and file Liberals and Democrats of today casually charge racism towards anything the R's do or don't want to do because that's what they hear in the Media and from the Ds in office.  They just take it as a truism, alomg with most of the rest of what they've been fed.  For the people in charge of forming public opinion, it's a tactic to silence opposition and shut down debate on any given policy or piece of legislation - and it worked great for 40 plus years.   

If your friend is a D, she'll likely be confused and defensive, then in denial.  If she's an R, she'll know exactly what you are talking about.

[onan]

Politics as nuclear warfare has been practiced by the left since the 50's when Saul Alinsky was field testing his theorems, which each successive political generation of the left has taken with their mothers' milk. The landscape today is full of the Soroses and Moores, and the mainstream media is completely corrupted with partisanship. I recall that something like 95% of residents of newsrooms pulled hard for the left.

Conservatives are pikers by comparison. I mean, Lee Atwater as your GOP boogie man? It says something that you reach back to Republican activist from 25 years ago.

It was an extemporaneous writing. I just pulled a few names that popped into my head. I wasn't trying to make anyone a boogie man. Just that both sides marginalize, inflame, and misdirect. And to make alinsky a boogie man is extremely simplistic. Whether you find the person likeable has nothing to do with it. No more so than referring to Machiavelli. Certainly there can be some accusations about morality... but come on, morality in politics... maybe when jesus comes back.

[Yorkshire pud]

If your friend is a D, she'll likely be confused and defensive, then in denial.  If she's an R, she'll know exactly what you are talking about.

Other than being breathtakingly patronising, you've clearly never met her! Confused or defensive  to my knowledge she has never been about anything! I think she's a democrat but has had dealings on a consultative basis with republicans too..she has written speeches for both rep and dem congressmen and I believe both Clinton and Bush Jnr. Anyway, I've e mailed the postings, and so after her first three coffees (which she'll be waking to in about 30 minutes or so her time) she might open her mail and digest it.

[Juan]

Depends on how old she is.  The big changes in the Democratic Party and politics in the south began in the 60s.  The WWII generation was just coming into political power.  Young middle class whites, who had not seen themselves as having a stake in the civil rights movement, saw Bull Connor send the dogs after the blacks trying to register to vote.  They saw the old line Democrats violently supporting segregation.  While it seems largely forgotten now, the segregationists were all Democrats.

Then at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, before the riots, the Democrats threw out the legal delegations from southern states and replaced them with rather far left delegations.  Georgia's replacement delegation was led by Julian Bond.  These young middle class white voters no longer saw any reason to be Democrats.

While a number of states went for Wallace in 1968, the real momentum was towards the Republicans.  After his election, Nixon saw all of the potential Republican voters and tried to get their support.  He's accused of recruiting a lot of racists, but just the opposite is true.  He recruited the Southerners who were sick of the old time Democrat racial policies.

[Tinfoil Hat]

Until my fellow Americans realize that both parties are selling them down the river, us common working folks will continue to get hosed.

[West of the Rockies]

Until my fellow Americans realize that both parties are selling them down the river, us common working folks will continue to get hosed.

I think you make a very solid point... Both of our major political parties in the U.S. are pissing on the populace to make a dollar and secure their control/power.  I happen to think that the right is selling the country out a little faster than the left.  The right wants to deregulate damn near everything, do away with the EPA (Yeah, we can trust corporations to treat the environment with respect!  ), and make everything for-profit. 

The media is to a large degree complicit in this.  I heard today on a program called "The Bioneers" (yeah, it's an NPR offering, so a number of you will automatically call it crap), 8 -- that's eight -- corporations now own 70% of the WORLD'S media.   I heard on The Dennis Miller Show (you okay with that source?) that 43% of the nation's wealth is now in the hand of the wealthiest 1%.  Hmmm... so, 1% owns 43% of the nation's wealth, and a handful of huge corporations own 70% of the world's media?  Well, I'm sure that the media simply must be controlled by those darn left-wingers!

[Yorkshire pud]

Well, I'm sure that the media simply must be controlled by those darn left-wingers!

I've been down this path before W of T R.. I pointed out that in the UK almost all of the press (Non BBC) is owned by variations on Murdoch; and he's not noted to be a man of the people. Still, I'm sure he has his redeeming features..Oh yes, at the recent enquiries in the UK into the nefarious methods used by the press, Murdoch 'couldn't remember' most of what he could reasonably be expected to know..being the boss of his particular nugget of opinion manipulation instruments that he is.

[West of the Rockies]

Well, Yorkshire Pud, "I do not recall" has long been the go-to response for people who (in my opinion) would rather not recall.

[PB the Deplorable]

...  The right wants to deregulate damn near everything, do away with the EPA...

Do away with the EPA?  That is news to me.  Even if some Congressman somewhere said something along those lines that doesn't mean the rest of the Rs agree.  Roll back some EPA regulations - almost certainly.  Are we saying there isn't a single reg that goes too far or hasn't been abused and needs to be looked at?   I would suggest all regulatins be reviewed periodically - to be eliminated or strengthened.

All this stuff is a matter of balance - it's a false choice to say it's between ending government completely or accepting the huge intrusive one we currently have, ending all taxation or accept the current level plus whatever else they can squeeze out of us, deregulate everything or accept every reg on the books now

The Media and the Ds love to paint it that way though. 

Much of the problem is our 'leadership' have very little in the way of life accomplishments or experience in much of anything outside of government.  Somehow everyone is convinced by getting themselves elected or appointed, these people somehow became experts on everything.  They didn't.  Everything they do is done with the idea of keeping themselves in office and advancing their careers.  Often times their interests and the greater good correspond, but not always.  Or their ideology is a proven failure yet they cling to it and double down trying to make it work.  Or they ignore the needs of half the country because that isn't where their votes or campaign contributions come from.  This is where the problems start.

.

[West of the Rockies]

Hey, Paperboy... don't you recall governor Rick Perry (during one of the Republican debates) saying he'd get rid of three of the Cabinets?  He mentioned the EPA and education and then had his "Oops" moment where he could not remember the third agency he'd eliminate. 

It was Republican Nixon who established the EPA!  Personally, I think we're seeing the rather cyclical ebb and flow of politics.  Republican Lincoln took on slavery.  At the time (if I recall history correctly), the Democratic party did not wish to abolish slavery.  A hundred years later (during the 1960's civil rights movement), the hats had been fairly flipped.

I do think that robust debate is part of what makes for a healthy body politic.  Again, however, I find myself coming back to the point that I (and others) have made several times on this forum -- absolutely demonizing the other side is not helpful.

Hey, here's an interesting challenge:  can anyone name someone who is "on your side" (politically-speaking) who you really wish would shut up because they are either misinformative, stupid, or otherwise harming "your side"?  May I suggest no one point to a politician if your chief beef is that they "aren't a real Democrat" or "aren't a real Republican".  For instance, (as a self-identified progressive) I have often found representative Maxine Waters of California to be sometimes corrosive.  She's been investigated for corruption as well; as a career politician (she got into the game in '76), I imagine she's got a few skeletons in the closet.  (Of course, most of us probably do as well.)  I'd welcome any rebuttal from a Waters supporter, by the way, of course.  I'm sure she's accomplished some useful good as well, and clearly she has her supporters.

[Falkie2013]

Hey, Paperboy... don't you recall governor Rick Perry (during one of the Republican debates) saying he'd get rid of three of the Cabinets?  He mentioned the EPA and education and then had his "Oops" moment where he could not remember the third agency he'd eliminate. 

It was Republican Nixon who established the EPA!  Personally, I think we're seeing the rather cyclical ebb and flow of politics.  Republican Lincoln took on slavery.  At the time (if I recall history correctly), the Democratic party did not wish to abolish slavery.  A hundred years later (during the 1960's civil rights movement), the hats had been fairly flipped.

I do think that robust debate is part of what makes for a healthy body politic.  Again, however, I find myself coming back to the point that I (and others) have made several times on this forum -- absolutely demonizing the other side is not helpful.

Hey, here's an interesting challenge:  can anyone name someone who is "on your side" (politically-speaking) who you really wish would shut up because they are either misinformative, stupid, or otherwise harming "your side"?  May I suggest no one point to a politician if your chief beef is that they "aren't a real Democrat" or "aren't a real Republican".  For instance, (as a self-identified progressive) I have often found representative Maxine Waters of California to be sometimes corrosive.  She's been investigated for corruption as well; as a career politician (she got into the game in '76), I imagine she's got a few skeletons in the closet.  (Of course, most of us probably do as well.)  I'd welcome any rebuttal from a Waters supporter, by the way, of course.  I'm sure she's accomplished some useful good as well, and clearly she has her supporters.

Waters sometimes corrosive ?


Go look at the videos of her on you tube and the reports of the idiotic things she has said.


I do wish Michelle Bachmann would shut up sometimes and since Fox is no longer paying Sarah Palin, we've not heard much from her of late. I don't think she's as dumb as her detractors THINK she is.

[Pragmier]

I heard today on a program called "The Bioneers" (yeah, it's an NPR offering, so a number of you will automatically call it crap),

I enjoy NPR; at least topics are discussed on polite terms. Diane Rehm is my favorite as the show won't insult your intelligence.

[West of the Rockies]

I enjoy NPR; at least topics are discussed on polite terms. Diane Rehm is my favorite as the show won't insult your intelligence.

I agree about the polite tone and rhetoric, Pragmier... I see that NPR is dropping its long-running Talk of the Nation program.  That's too bad.  Two hours of fairly focused dialogue/debate is disappearing.  I always thought that Conan didn't push his guests hard enough though when they said something that was factually incorrect or illogical.

[Pragmier]

Conan will always be "the science Friday guy". His interview style on ToTN is too combative, but sad to see him go. Ray Suarez was much better and always asked the questions I was thinking of.

[ItsOver]

I've listened to NPR on occasion over the years.  I had to chuckle a little when I read the "polite tone" remark.  Most of the shows have folks who talk with such a sedate, "mellow" tone, it almost puts me to sleep.     Why is that?  Are they on prozac or is it just a carryover from the classical music announcers?

[PB the Deplorable]

... Hey, here's an interesting challenge:  can anyone name someone who is "on your side" (politically-speaking) who you really wish would shut up because they are either misinformative, stupid, or otherwise harming "your side"?  May I suggest no one point to a politician if your chief beef is that they "aren't a real Democrat" or "aren't a real Republican".  For instance, (as a self-identified progressive) I have often found representative Maxine Waters of California to be sometimes corrosive.  She's been investigated for corruption as well...

I would say the difficult part for me is finding someone that I agree with enough of the time to identify with.  I tend to think the Tea Party Conservatives have the best instincts as far as monetary and fiscal policy and foreign policy.  But so many of them pay too much attention and talk too much about religious topics - I don't think that is helpful. 

Big Media is so supportive of the politicians with the worst policies and agendas, and is so eager to trash anyone that opposes them, that I don't need to join in that chorus.  Bush II and Boehner and people like Karl Rove were and are so bone-headed that I'll critize them from time to time, but thats not what you asked, since I don't like them to begin with. 

When Big Media ignores the gaffes and stupid comments of some, and plays 'gotcha' with others, then re-play it constantly, of course they sound ignorant and out of touch.  But yeah, sometimes I can't believe what I'm hearing from some of the politicians that at least 'vote right'.

... -- absolutely demonizing the other side is not helpful...

I happen to think the Progessives and the Left - and here I'm tllking about the leadership and 'intellectuals' that set the agenda - are enemies of freedom and the United States.  I don't have to guess, their own words are quite clear.  They have been quite successful in destroying much of what made the US a great country.  They hate our system of government, our economic system, and most of us.  At best, they want to transform us into another failed semi-Socialist Western European-like country, as a stepping stone towards a world government with them at the top.  At worst they are trying to ruin the economy, bankrupt, and destroy us.   Can you point to one thing Obama has done that doesn't fit that description?  How should I respond to that? 

[Yorkshire pud]

I happen to think the Progessives and the Left - and here I'm tllking about the leadership and 'intellectuals' that set the agenda - are enemies of freedom and the United States.

Sigh: I really really wish you'd look up what 'left' means. And please please stop labouring under the delusion that the USA represents 'freedom'; it hasn't for at least 10 years. Our 'failed semi'socialist western european-like countries':..UK, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Czechs Rep, Slovakia, and several others, all have freedom. We don't have the patriot act, which is why our own judicial system is used against itself; BECAUSE we don't have a statute whereby anyone at anytime can be detained by a government agency, without even informing the relatives or have a right to legal representation. But then, we've not been living under the 'freedoms' enjoyed by Americans. Did you know that if a Brit has had any convictions for any crime no matter how trivial is refused entry into the USA? Yet the same draconian bullshit isn't reciprocated? Which country has greater freedom of movement? My own beef with Obama is that I was hoping he'd undo the frankly knee jerk reactionary crap instigated by Bush Jnr. Sadly he hasn't, but my understanding he couldn't anyway because of the republicans.

I don't have to guess, their own words are quite clear.  They have been quite successful in destroying much of what made the US a great country.  They hate our system of government, our economic system, and most of us.  At best, they want to transform us into another failed semi-Socialist Western European-like country, as a stepping stone towards a world government with them at the top.  At worst they are trying to ruin the economy, bankrupt, and destroy us.   Can you point to one thing Obama has done that doesn't fit that description?  How should I respond to that?

Be more objective, less insular, and stop believing the USA represents the best of everything; including the system of government, the economic system and it's population.

[onan]

I would say the difficult part for me is finding someone that I agree with enough of the time to identify with.  I tend to think the Tea Party Conservatives have the best instincts as far as monetary and fiscal policy and foreign policy.  But so many of them pay too much attention and talk too much about religious topics - I don't think that is helpful. 

I think this paints a pretty good image. I wish to high heavens our politicos would talk about financial reasonings and leave it there. I don't think the Tea Party always has the best instincts. Sometimes I believe they want to throw out the baby and keep the bathwater. That being said I don't believe any other political movement has attempted to keep that issue on the front burner.

[Juan]

Sigh: I really really wish you'd look up what 'left' means. And please please stop labouring under the delusion that the USA represents 'freedom'; it hasn't for at least 10 years.

He does know what left means, and progressive means, in this country.  The left and progressives self-identify.  They may hold different views than the left in other countries, but that's irrelevant.  That the US no longer representing freedom is what he's complaining about, and it's been longer than 10-years.

As for entry into countries, talk show host Michael Savage has been banned from entry into the UK even though he's never been convicted of anything.  Nor has he tried to enter the UK.  All he's done is say things on the radio that the government finds objectionable.  So much for your freedoms, too.

[onan]

The left and progressives self-identify. 

I don't know what that means. Doesn't everyone self identify?

As for entry into countries, talk show host Michael Savage has been banned from entry into the UK even though he's never been convicted of anything.  Nor has he tried to enter the UK.  All he's done is say things on the radio that the government finds objectionable.  So much for your freedoms, too.

Am I mistaken or do many in the US want to ban entry to others that have not been convicted of anything?

And I am not sure even how to effectively ask this question... What is freedom? specifically the freedoms we have lost?

[PB the Deplorable]

... Did you know that if a Brit has had any convictions for any crime no matter how trivial is refused entry into the USA? Yet the same draconian bullshit isn't reciprocated?...

To be more precise, someone from the UK (among other countries) with a criminal record is not eligible for the Visa Waiver Program and automatic entry.  They will need to apply for a Visa, disclose information regarding the crime, punishment, etc, and furnish a police certificate in order to be considered.  I'd guess entry is then determined by factors such as severity of the crime, how long it's been, etc, and that the process is long and unpleasant.

What's wrong with that?   No one has a right to come here.  We already have enough home grown criminals in our country.  There are consequences to criminal activity, as there should be.  This is another one.  Take your soccer hooligans, for example.  It's too bad the other EU countries let these idiots into their countries.  A lot of needless violence could be avoided if they didn't.  I've experienced drunken skinheads with English accents out looking for trouble late at night here in San Francisco myself.  We don't need more of that shit here. we really don't.  If we can screen out a few violent pukes, that's great.

It's not like it's hard to avoid comitting crimes and getting arrested. 

As for Michael Savage, he's not alone on the banned list.  Some Muslim cleric boiling with hate is apparently welcome anytime to come to the UK to spread his filth, but US Conservatives that speak up here at home are banned from the UK having committed no crime.  What is that about?

[Yorkshire pud]

To be more precise, someone from the UK (among other countries) with a criminal record is not eligible for the Visa Waiver Program and automatic entry.  They will need to apply for a Visa, disclose information regarding the crime, punishment, etc, and furnish a police certificate in order to be considered.  I'd guess entry is then determined by factors such as severity of the crime, how long it's been, etc, and that the process is long and unpleasant.

What's wrong with that?   No one has a right to come here.  We already have enough home grown criminals in our country.  There are consequences to criminal activity, as there should be.  This is another one.  Take your soccer hooligans, for example.  It's too bad the other EU countries let these idiots into their countries.  A lot of needless violence could be avoided if they didn't.  I've experienced drunken skinheads with English accents out looking for trouble late at night here in San Francisco myself.  There's probably one still out there somewhere with a bit of a limp, and few more that now have a healthy respect for moving vehicles driven by would be victims they are trying to block in an alley.   We don't need more of that shit here. we really don't.  If we can screen out a few violent pukes, that's great.

It's not like it's hard to avoid comitting crimes and getting arrested. 

As for Michael Savage, he's not alone on the banned list.  Some Muslim cleric boiling with hate is apparently welcome anytime to come to the UK to spread his filth, but US Conservatives that speak up here in the US are banned from the UK having committed no crime.  What is that about?

I already said that our judicial system is used against itself. Insofar the signing up to the European convention on human rights..Oh what a Pandoras box that's turned out to be. What should be a statute that preserves human dignity, safety and basic needs has been exploited by clever lawyers using the letter of the law to protect suspected terrorists and murderers (The list is long and grim). All the more galling that because we signed up to it under Blair (Bush's best mate) we have to adhere to it (When it was made part of British law-until then it wasn't although we were a signatory); basically we can't choose to disregard the bits that don't suit the government of the day.
The human rights laws have their roots in the 1689 English Bill of rights.


So to say some muslim cleric is welcome is disingenuous bollox. The present government has tried to deport him to Jordan, and although Jordan have assured the courts they will not torture him, the courts are not convinced that any evidence presented hasn't been acquired through torture of material witnesses. The European courts have a different approach to torture than the US judicial system; simply changing it's name to extraordinary rendition (Boy how did that marketing meeting go?) doesn't cut it. It's all the more perplexing when stories are continually coming out whereby erstwhile 'enemies' of the UK and USA are now being supported and given free passage (read Libya).


I agree you don't need to add any more criminals to your home grown ones (and I have to say, you're really good at it), but a guy wishing to visit his US resident daughter was denied a visa on the strength of him failing to pay....a parking ticket! A bad guy like that needs snapping up by the Mafia, he's got the right stuff! The paranoia that now pervades through your officialdom is palpable, and filters down. The US government self appointed itself the worlds policeman; And that is justified or supreme arrogance? Suggesting that there are elements in the current Obama administration (and Obama himself) that want to steal your freedoms etc, is (if true) disingenuous..It hasn't started with him, and will continue. If he'd lost last time and Mormon boy had got in, you'd be thinking the same by now or in the near future. Quite why a government would kill the golden goose I can't imagine though; to do so is a path of diminishing returns as more and more of the population are alienated and resentful.

[PB the Deplorable]

... I agree you don't need to add any more criminals to your home grown ones (and I have to say, you're really good at it), but a guy wishing to visit his US resident daughter was denied a visa on the strength of him failing to pay....a parking ticket!...

It's fine if the schools are failing, if crime is rampant, if the environment is being trashed (unless for some reason they want to crack down on some poor sap) , but we had better not 'defy' them by failing to comply with certain rules, and that certainy applies when it comes to paperwork or paying something they say we owe.  Even parking tickets.

Here is an illustration to show government priorities:  Consider a person that runs a red light, gets pulled over, and it turns out his license is expired.  Something that puts people's life in danger - the red light - perhaps the cop would have let him off with a warning.  The expired license - not obediently having up to date paperwork - that's a much bigger deal, he's always going to get nailed for that.  Heaven help him if he'd had an outstanding traffic ticket. 

That's not to say people shouldn't take care of things that need taking care of, it's just an example of how we are looked at by these people.

[West of the Rockies]

So, we've been talking a bit here about people who view "the other side" as wholely evil and such.  This from Alex Jones' own ludicrous website:  "President Barack Obama is now the global head of Al-Qaeda -- bankrolling, arming, and equipping terrorists around the world in order to achieve his administration's geopolitical objectives -- while simultaneously invoking the threat of terrorists domestically to destroy the bill of rights."  (This is from a screen-capture you can find -- should you care to look -- at today's Daily Kos, yes, a horrible, horrible, Communist website soyoucan'ttrustagoddamnedthingtheysay,amirite?)

Okay, so snark aside, not only is Obama doing this (according to Jones), but his administration is evidently well-aware of his goals and in on it as well.  Evidently, Democratic politicians chief goal is to destroy our Bill of Rights (a document that should be capitalized, Alex, since you obviously didn't know).  Obama (acccording to Jones) wants to promote Islamic terrorism as well it appears.  I think Alex Jones should be denounced by all.  He won't be.  Some will say, oh, hey, he's kidding... he's just stirrin' the pot... maybe a smidge of what he says is even true... he's just tryin to promote his website a little -- wink-wink, nudge-nudge, say no more....

Okay, if you're good with this sort of nonsense coming out of Jones' pie-hole, you shouldn't be complaining when someone says Palin is a little stupid or that GWB looked a bit simian.

Look, I'm not saying this because I think Obama and the Democratic party have all the answes.  They clearly don't.  But this horseshit spewing from the foaming mouth of Jones is an example of demonizing the other side.  It does not further the political dialogue in this or any other country.  If it is done in self-interest (to make a buck), so if you support such irresponsible punditry, you're not part of the solution -- you're part of the problem. 

Do both sides do it?  I'm sure someone could quote a left-wing pundit who's said something vile, stupid, and wrong.  My aim here is not to claim that only Republicans do this.  But when they do, can you self-identified conservatives CALL THEM ON IT? 

[PB the Deplorable]

So, we've been talking a bit here about people who view "the other side" as wholely evil and such.  This from Alex Jones' own ludicrous website:  "President Barack Obama is now the global head of Al-Qaeda -- bankrolling, arming, and equipping terrorists around the world in order to achieve his administration's geopolitical objectives -- while simultaneously invoking the threat of terrorists domestically to destroy the bill of rights."  (This is from a screen-capture you can find -- should you care to look -- at today's Daily Kos, yes, a horrible, horrible, Communist website soyoucan'ttrustagoddamnedthingtheysay,amirite?)

Okay, so snark aside, not only is Obama doing this (according to Jones), but his administration is evidently well-aware of his goals and in on it as well.  Evidently, Democratic politicians chief goal is to destroy our Bill of Rights (a document that should be capitalized, Alex, since you obviously didn't know).  Obama (acccording to Jones) wants to promote Islamic terrorism as well it appears.  I think Alex Jones should be denounced by all.  He won't be.  Some will say, oh, hey, he's kidding... he's just stirrin' the pot... maybe a smidge of what he says is even true... he's just tryin to promote his website a little -- wink-wink, nudge-nudge, say no more....

Okay, if you're good with this sort of nonsense coming out of Jones' pie-hole, you shouldn't be complaining when someone says Palin is a little stupid or that GWB looked a bit simian.

Look, I'm not saying this because I think Obama and the Democratic party have all the answes.  They clearly don't.  But this horseshit spewing from the foaming mouth of Jones is an example of demonizing the other side.  It does not further the political dialogue in this or any other country.  If it is done in self-interest (to make a buck), so if you support such irresponsible punditry, you're not part of the solution -- you're part of the problem. 

Do both sides do it?  I'm sure someone could quote a left-wing pundit who's said something vile, stupid, and wrong.  My aim here is not to claim that only Republicans do this.  But when they do, can you self-identified conservatives CALL THEM ON IT?

Absolutely.  Alex Jones is a great example of what you were asking for yesterday - someone that's considered to be on 'my side' that is little more than an embarassment.  I personally pay no attention to him, and usually turned it off when Noory had him on.  I can't believe anyone takes him seriously.  (I say 'little more' than an embarassment because he sometimes asks good questions like 'what's up with all those FEMA Camps'.  It's the answers he comes up with that are absurd). 

Obama, from what it looks like to me, grew up around Muslims in Indonesia on some sleepy island who were normal regular people.  I think because of that he is a little naive about radical Jihad.  He does take action when he's convinced, killing OBL, drone attacks on al-Qaeda and others.  I was convinced when he had that Navy sharpshooter kill those Somali Pirates at sea.  Yet he stood by silently when the people of Iran were asking for moral support, and has done nothing to stop radical elements from stealing the Arab Spring revolutions in places like Algeria, Libya, now Syria, and especially Egypt.  So he's a mixed bag.  But certainly not the Head of Terrorism. 

As an aside, I don't trust him one bit (due to his friends, his former church affiliation, some of his words and actions. and staff members and advisors).  I think it's somewhere between possible and likely that he hates the West and Capitalism and wouldn't mind seeing our position in the world and our economic and government systems destroyed.