Arcadia Discussion Zone

Forums dedicated to history's mysteries, Rennes-le-Château and beyond…

Read the Arcadia Forum House Rules

It is currently 22 Sep 2017 4:58 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 261 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 14 Apr 2016 5:21 am 
Offline
High King

Joined: 04 May 2009 7:03 am
Posts: 2019
Location: Australia
Rain says:
Quote:
While the darkness of Obama's tan may be proportionate to the froth coming out of the far rights mouths' - it's not commensurate with his policy positions on the political spectrum.

Within every image there is always a story.

What's yours rain?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Apr 2016 7:41 am 
Offline
Emperor
User avatar

Joined: 22 Jun 2009 10:28 pm
Posts: 5412
Location: NA
Wombat wrote:
Rain says:
Quote:
While the darkness of Obama's tan may be proportionate to the froth coming out of the far rights mouths' - it's not commensurate with his policy positions on the political spectrum.

Within every image there is always a story.

What's yours rain?


That did sound a bit personal didn't it.

I don't really like doing this but it's the fairest thing to do - I do know it shapes my unique outlook on the world despite trying to remain Fair I won't say impartial because I'm not as I've expressed before.

Yes, I do Tan well. I'm quite proud of that fact although I know it confuses people. Take J-lo for instance - he's not very educated so when I told him I was part Maori, part Scottish, part Irish as my Father came from New Zealand he denied it. How someone can deny someone else's racial heritage (I don't know) but he did and G-d bless him for his ignorance. With a Mother that comes from Vietnam I am ostensibly Tri-racial. Asian, Polynesian and Caucasian.

Therefore it's pretty easy to guess - I do not like the Far-right or the Far-left. That's why I'm interested in the outcome of this election in the U.S. because it has both which doesn't bode well. Not for my American friends some with gorgeous tans, Yamulkes or beautiful Tiger eyes and not for the rest of the world, not for Australia as an Allie - nobody benefits.

BTW I physically know what it is like to have people come up to you in the street and abuse you, Ugly people to be sure, but nonetheless that level of aggression and the reason being is a nice tan or Almond shaped eyes well people should be called rabid dogs if the only reason they don't like their President is because he tans well and has rhythm.
Wombat do you remember what it must have been like for Asians et al when Pauline Hanson and her far-right One Nation was running. I do and it was frightening.

:shock: Too much information? Oh well - now you know.

_________________
************


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Apr 2016 11:39 am 
Offline
High King

Joined: 04 May 2009 7:03 am
Posts: 2019
Location: Australia
Hi rain,

Re:shock: Too much information? Oh well - now you know

Your openness is uplifting.

As an Australian/Italian, brought up here in the shadow of WWII, I can empathize with some of that. There is nobody I know black,white or brindle that hasn't experienced some comment at some time about their heritage. However, the thing that I quickly learnt is that chips on shoulders are easily knocked off. And a good thing too. It's part of the process of integration - something that's been done well here, until recent times.

The other thing I've learnt is that there are many who choose to play on their heritage to obtain an unearned advantage, with all the devices they can muster: mock offense taking, mock charges of racial vilification, mock assertions of bullying when robust discussion is engaged; ad hominem attacks and the like.

I can't agree with you on J-Lo. He challenges clichéd views. And rightly so.

And this:
Quote:
Wombat do you remember what it must have been like for Asians et al when Pauline Hanson and her far-right One Nation was running. I do and it was frightening.

Who was the politician who brought her down and her un-Australian views?

Do you remember? Do you credit him?

The left doesn't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Apr 2016 3:00 pm 
Offline
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: 13 Aug 2010 5:37 pm
Posts: 1584
rain wrote:
....Yes, I do Tan well. I'm quite proud of that fact although I know it confuses people. Take J-lo for instance - he's not very educated so when I told him I was part Maori, part Scottish, part Irish as my Father came from New Zealand he denied it. How someone can deny someone else's racial heritage (I don't know) but he did and G-d bless him for his ignorance. With a Mother that comes from Vietnam I am ostensibly Tri-racial. Asian, Polynesian and Caucasian.....

Did I? I don't recall discussing your ethnicity with you. I recall having a discussion about the 'invasion' and colonisation of Australia by the British - so can you refresh my memory and point me to where I denied your heritage?

_________________
"One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams."

Salvador Dali


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Apr 2016 10:04 pm 
Offline
Emperor
User avatar

Joined: 22 Jun 2009 10:28 pm
Posts: 5412
Location: NA
jlockest wrote:
rain wrote:
....Yes, I do Tan well. I'm quite proud of that fact although I know it confuses people. Take J-lo for instance - he's not very educated so when I told him I was part Maori, part Scottish, part Irish as my Father came from New Zealand he denied it. How someone can deny someone else's racial heritage (I don't know) but he did and G-d bless him for his ignorance. With a Mother that comes from Vietnam I am ostensibly Tri-racial. Asian, Polynesian and Caucasian.....

Did I? I don't recall discussing your ethnicity with you. I recall having a discussion about the 'invasion' and colonisation of Australia by the British - so can you refresh my memory and point me to where I denied your heritage?


Don't piss on my foot and tell me that it's raining.
You're amnesia is all a bit toooooooo convenient.
You really are full of shite aren't you JLo.
Let me refresh your memory.


jlockest wrote:
I really don't follow Rain. You refuse to answer relevant questions quoting some form of cultural practice that forbids you discussing things, and then out of the blue continue the discussion quoting bits that you think support your side.
It all seems a bit tooooooo convenient to me - as it seems to be a case of:

_________________
************


Last edited by rain on 15 Apr 2016 3:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Apr 2016 11:00 pm 
Offline
High King
User avatar

Joined: 05 Dec 2008 1:46 am
Posts: 4868
Location: Tucson, Az. USA
Gus/Cam is white? By what definition?

_________________
From the Borderlands - mjastudio.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Apr 2016 3:32 am 
Offline
Emperor
User avatar

Joined: 22 Jun 2009 10:28 pm
Posts: 5412
Location: NA
Renne wrote:
Gus/Cam is white? By what definition?


I thought he was plastic little LEGO man. And plastic doesn't contain melanin.
As defined by the R&D department of LEGO-Acme corp.

_________________
************


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Apr 2016 4:09 am 
Offline
High King

Joined: 04 May 2009 7:03 am
Posts: 2019
Location: Australia
Quote:
Don't piss on my foot and tell me that it's raining.

Ah! Great line.
Grey rider.
To the victors belong the spoils.

rain, epiphany is upon you. Enlightenment awaits.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Apr 2016 6:14 am 
Offline
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: 13 Aug 2010 5:37 pm
Posts: 1584
rain wrote:
....Yes, I do Tan well. I'm quite proud of that fact although I know it confuses people. Take J-lo for instance - he's not very educated so when I told him I was part Maori, part Scottish, part Irish as my Father came from New Zealand he denied it. How someone can deny someone else's racial heritage (I don't know) but he did and G-d bless him for his ignorance. With a Mother that comes from Vietnam I am ostensibly Tri-racial. Asian, Polynesian and Caucasian.....

jlockest wrote:
Did I? I don't recall discussing your ethnicity with you. I recall having a discussion about the 'invasion' and colonisation of Australia by the British - so can you refresh my memory and point me to where I denied your heritage?


rain wrote:
Don't piss on my foot and tell me that it's raining.
You're amnesia is all a bit toooooooo convenient.
You really are full of shite aren't you JLo.
Let me refresh your memory.


jlockest wrote:
I really don't follow Rain. You refuse to answer relevant questions quoting some form of cultural practice that forbids you discussing things, and then out of the blue continue the discussion quoting bits that you think support your side.
It all seems a bit tooooooo convenient to me - as it seems to be a case of:


How on earth is that denying your heritage? You got involved with me discussing the invasion of Australia by the British - which in itself obviously involved 'conflict' and war (I am not sure why then you got involved if you can't discuss war). That then grew to include New Zealand.
You quoted your 'protocol' as far as I can see here:
rain wrote:
jlockest wrote:
And again rain - how about answering if you believe the wars occurred or not? And if you think/believe that they did occur, what the wars were over?


rain wrote:
I am female and half kiwi - it's not appropriate that you ask me as Maori culture is a Patriachial society with a male warrior caste. This is also an international public forum and as such I consider what I have been taught and try to respect the above mentioned cultural protocols.
I'd like to ask you politely to stop asking me as I won't be responding in the future.

jlockest wrote:
What?
OK - ignore any association with NZ. Given that 99% of what has been provided and what we have been talking about etc was to do with Australia anyway - how about just answering the question on those wars?

As an side, what are the cultural protocols that restrict you? http://www.newriveracademy.org/kayakblo ... i-culture/ seems to imply that it is the women who recant the tales and stories?
http://www.waikato.ac.nz/law/research/w ... e_2_1994/7

From what I see, I don't see any denial of your heritage. All I see is me asking you to clarify your cultural protocols - especially given that you had already engaged in umpteen posts with regard to the invasion of Australia - so I was a bit dumb founded when you then said you weren't allowed to talk about war - why not state that at the outset - or even better, steer clear of the issue completely? If anyone is interested the complete 'discussion' is in the Conn. School Shooting thread at viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4192&hilit=maori&start=600#p127285


Edited: Corrected Conn Street to Conn School

_________________
"One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams."

Salvador Dali


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Apr 2016 6:41 am 
Offline
Emperor
User avatar

Joined: 22 Jun 2009 10:28 pm
Posts: 5412
Location: NA
Wombat wrote:
Quote:
Don't piss on my foot and tell me that it's raining.

Ah! Great line.
Grey rider.
To the victors belong the spoils.

rain, epiphany is upon you. Enlightenment awaits.


Indeed it is.

_________________
************


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Apr 2016 1:13 pm 
Offline
High King

Joined: 04 May 2009 7:03 am
Posts: 2019
Location: Australia
rain wrote:
Wombat wrote:
Quote:
Don't piss on my foot and tell me that it's raining.

Ah! Great line.
Grey rider.
To the victors belong the spoils.

rain, epiphany is upon you. Enlightenment awaits.


Indeed it is.

Your epiphany has been provided courtesy of J-Lo.

Now all you need to do is enlighten the world to the identity your nemesis killer:

Quote:
Who was the politician who brought her down and her un-Australian views?

Do you remember? Do you credit him?

There is no mystery here. It's not a secret.

You can tell us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Apr 2016 2:03 pm 
Offline
Emperor
User avatar

Joined: 22 Jun 2009 10:28 pm
Posts: 5412
Location: NA
Wombat wrote:

Now all you need to do is enlighten the world to the identity your nemesis killer:

Who was the politician who brought her down and her un-Australian views?

Do you remember? Do you credit him?


There is no mystery here. It's not a secret.

You can tell us.


It was a group effort - also a lot of people at the time believed and still believe that it was the far right groups using her as a pawn that was the real danger. The measures were mostly taken to deprive them of their so called "figurehead". That's why she was given 3 years. It was a warning to others not to replace her.


http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=1529
Quote:
COMMENT:
Behind the fall of Pauline Hanson

by Victor Sirl

News Weekly, September 20, 2003
Victor Sirl comments on the reactions to the jailing of Pauline Hanson in Queensland.

Pauline Hanson still has an appeal, but whatever happens most people feel it is not appropriate for her to be behind bars, and whatever faults she has, she is not seen as a person acting with criminal intent.

Who is responsible for her demise? Tony Abbott? Her enemies in the major political parties? Vested interests from the big end of town?

There is no conspiracy. It is a matter of public record who made the complaints against Pauline Hanson that led to the deregistration of One Nation as a party in Queensland and prompted the Department of Public Prosecutions to pursue her eventual criminal conviction for fraud. The people who cried foul and asked the likes of Tony Abbott to assist them were angry dissidents from One Nation.

Terry Sharples successfully pursued the court action that deregistered the party in Queensland. Barbara Hazelton, her former secretary, helped provide evidence for the deregistration of One Nation in Queensland and the eventual jailing of Hanson and Ettridge.

Tony Abbott's trust fund to finance court action to deregister One Nation was wound up long before the party was finally given the punt by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC).

Contrary to what has been portrayed in the media, it did not cause court action to be taken against the registration of One Nation in Queensland or lead to the decision by the Department of Public Prosecutions in Queensland to lay charges against Pauline Hanson for criminal fraud.

However, Terry Sharples and other former Hanson followers did go to parliamentarians such as Abbott with serious complaints.

Is it not the case that the allegation Hanson and Ettridge submitted over five hundred names to the Australian Electoral Commission of alleged party members, when in fact it only had three members?

Is it not the case that a number of people were upset to discover they had paid to belong to a supporters club, when they believed they had joined the party?

Isn't it the case that this is a clear breach of the rules everyone else must follow if they want the benefits that flow from official political party status with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC)?

Finally, should the creators of One Nation have been above the law?

The party's legal status made deregistration of the One Nation inevitable. Fortunately for the party, deregistration did not prevent anyone from running for parliament or cost One Nation any seats. The problem was fixed before the next state election. The $500,000 from public election funding was paid back and Hanson did not penalise the One Nation politicians who had received the money. This is greatly to her credit. It was a very honest thing to do.

Therefore, was it really necessary for the Public Prosecutor to lay fraud charges against her? These issues were a civil matter and could have remained as such, but for the Public Prosecutor's intervention.

Pauline Hanson was found guilty by all twelve jurors, on all counts against her name, as is the requirement in Queensland. But it was the judge, Patsy Wolfe, who passed sentence and declared that three years jail was at the lower end of the spectrum for such offences.

Many Queenslanders were outraged to learn in the pages of the Courier Mail that the same judge had sentenced a paedophile to a far more lenient jail term.

Her conviction followed an announcement the previous week that Mike Kaiser, a former party state secretary and one-time Member for Woodridge, would be readmitted to the ALP and given a high ranking post in the federal headquarters.

False statement

Kaiser and been forced to resign from the ALP and leave the Beattie Government when it was revealed that as a twenty-two year old he signed a false enrolment for the purposes of rorting a party preselection.

He had lied about it on the stand, as he fully confesses, but was later given the opportunity to retract the statement under oath when the evidence was put before him.

Had this opportunity not been given and then taken it is possible, but not certain, he would have been charged with perjury.

Many Queenslanders did not miss the opportunity to comment on his treatment by the judiciary in contrast to Pauline Hanson's.

Kaiser's own comments in the Courier Mail about the suffering he had undergone and the "terrible price" he paid for his "mistake" made the comparision seem even worse.

The Sheperdson Inquiry also noted that changes to the law after the election of the Goss Government made prosecuting anyone before the inquiry for false enrolments impossible. A number of examples of forgery were uncovered but no perpetrators were ever tried.

Hence it is hypocritical for the ALP to be sinking the boot into Pauline Hanson over electoral matters when so many of their party have clearly escaped justice in Queensland.

Karen Ehrman, whose evidence led to the Sheperdson Inquiry, was the only Labor identity jailed for rorting preselections. But this did not stop Premier Beattie abusing parliamentarians shocked at the severity of the sentence as "gutless wimps".

Hanson herself should take some responsibility for the woes that have befallen her.

The political structure of the Hanson movement was the catalyst that split the party and caused a majority of the eleven members elected in Queensland to leave the party.

The ill-fated City-Country Alliance was formed and led by Bill Feldman. Other members became Independents, such as the popular member for Nanago, Dorothy Pratt.

Refused

Before the split Hanson was begged to correct the matter, to make the party democratic and transparent, but she refused. At one party meeting she was televised referring to democracy as "mob rule".

She boasted on Four Corners that One Nation was set up in such away that she could never be voted out as President. She would not risk losing control by giving her minions democracy.

In the end, the party elites took control from her anyway. She was a figurehead National President for some time and finally resigned the post.

A poll taken after her jailing claimed 21 per cent of Queenslanders were prepared to vote for One Nation at the next election.

Peter Beattie must have been delighted because it was One Nation splitting the conservative vote that gave him government in Queensland and then at the next election a landslide victory.

It is all quite ironic when you consider that while Hanson had made many powerful enemies, as you always do in politics, those from without could not have harmed her without the ones she kept accumulating from within.

My verdict on Pauline Hanson is that she is the victim of her own folly and the movement created around her, but she does not deserve to be locked in a prison cell for three years.





Also just show this wasn't in a vacuum and as I was reading the article(see below) it reminded me of that time is the Australia/Israel Review published the Names and Suburb of about 2000 Hanson supporters.
I remember just like James Kirchick feeling anxiety and trying to reign it in.

The article:
United States
Donald Trump Is Turning Me Liberal
The real reason Jewish conservatives hate Trump. Hint: It has nothing to do with Iraq.
By James Kirchick

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4580&start=25
Quote:
The Tea Party, whose rise I witnessed from abroad, was from the start condemned by Europeans as crypto-fascist, so inured are they to see any populist movement of the right as downright illegitimate. (Populist movements of the left are subject to no such scrutiny.) As recently as last month, before Trump won the New Hampshire primary, I posted the “dark night of fascism” jibe on my Facebook page in accompaniment to a Der Spiegel article about the presumptive nominee I found particularly alarmist.

No longer, however, can I say that America has any sort of claim to being a more politically mature democracy than those across the pond, a sorry fact almost entirely attributable to the Trumpian ascendance. (Nor does it augur well that Bernie Sanders—a Sandinista and Castro-loving socialist demagogue whose haimish demeanor conveniently distracts from his crackpot and failed ideas—is attracting so much support from ostensibly serious people.) Americans have clearly not exorcised the demons of our past as much as we like to think.

Where to begin? As a journalist, I find Trump’s contempt for the basic functions of democracy—in particular the First Amendment to the United States Constitution—absolutely appalling. His call to ban all Muslims from entering the country is fundamentally evil. Naturally, Trump has also said he’s unsure whether President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II was wrong, despite official condemnations by later American presidents. The casually dispensed threats to those who might challenge his authority as president, from the Speaker of the House (“he’s going to have to pay a big price”) to military officers who refuse his hypothetical illegal orders mandating commission of torture and war crimes (“They’re not gonna refuse me”), has literally kept me awake at night with visions of the country gradually transforming into a North American caudillo-stan. If a recent Washington Post article about therapists reporting an outbreak of “Trump anxiety” among their patients is any indication, I am hardly the only Jew dealing with such existential worry.

Trump’s Nuremberg-esque rallies, where entranced audiences obliviously raise their right hands in impromptu loyalty oaths, evince a frisson of seething aggression. One has come to expect that black and Latino protesters, not to mention fellow journalists, will be roughed up, behavior Trump has repeatedly and explicitly endorsed. His call for deporting 11 million illegal immigrants raises the prospect of nationwide nighttime raids and are the harbinger of a police state. His unapologetic mockery of the physically disabled—one of the Nazis’ earliest victims—resembles a CliffsNotes’ Nietzchean will to power. If Trump doesn’t get his way at the Republican National Convention this summer, that he will deploy some sort of organized paramilitary force—transforming Cleveland into a far-right phantasmagoria of Chicago 1968—is hardly idle speculation.

Watching the Trump drama unfold, I have felt a sense of being transported back to my earlier posting abroad as a correspondent for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, in which capacity I covered upheaval across the former Soviet space and North Africa. This is the sort of candidate and the type of politics we associate with failed states and military dictatorships, not the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. If Trump wins the nomination and, God forbid, the presidency, I anticipate race riots in major American cities. Philip Roth’s alternate history novel, The Plot Against America, envisioning the narrow election of a President Charles Lindbergh who keeps America out of World War II and presides over a worsening climate of anti-Jewish persecution, is no longer the stuff of my Bubbie’s tsuris.


Quote:
It’s long been said of anti-Semitism that it always starts but never ends with the Jews. With the rise of Donald Trump, I fear we are seeing this phenomenon in reverse. Jews are one of the most popular minorities in the United States and it’s inconceivable to most Americans that “it could happen here,” that the sort of violent anti-Semitism so sadly familiar throughout history and pervasive around the rest of the world might rear its ugly head on our shores. It is inconceivable that a leading presidential candidate could ever get away with saying the things about Jews that Trump currently says about Mexicans or Muslims.

Yet that assumption is not one that we can reassure ourselves with any longer. A staple of anti-Semitic complaint from the Nazis to Donald Trump’s newfound friends in the Klan is that Jews are always and everywhere the devious orchestrators of racial integration. Rootless cosmopolitans, Jews allegedly promote immigration and miscegenation so as to bring about a more diverse society in which they can sublimate their own ethnic difference. Through this “mongrelization,” Jews will precipitate the demise of white, Christian communities, thereby destroying the last vestige of resistance to their assertion of pernicious control.

_________________
************


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Apr 2016 6:36 pm 
Offline
High King

Joined: 22 Sep 2008 3:15 pm
Posts: 2026
Here's today's top Trumpian angst report.

I said I wouldn’t back Donald Trump at the GOP convention. Then the threats began.
Trump supporters have tried to make my life a living hell.

By Craig Dunn April 15 at 10:05 AM
Craig Dunn is the Republican Party chairman in Howard County, Ind., and GOP chairman for the Indiana 4th Congressional District. He works as a financial consultant in Kokomo, Ind.

The first email I opened had the subject line, “Trump Bull****.” The message was pretty simple: “You sorry mother******! I hope the worst for you and yours!”

The next email had the unambiguous subject line, “Traitor of the people and what was the Conservative party/now the conjoined twin of the Progressive left.” This missive carried a religious message: “God calls me to pray for my enemies and you are my enemy. Your thinking causes you to be a traitor to the citizenry. Imagine the disgrace U R.”

What was the heinous offense that I committed that made me, according to one person, “the biggest traitor since Benedict Arnold?”

I made the mistake of expressing my opinion.

At the conclusion of a long interview with Politico last week, I was asked whether or not I support Donald Trump. I said that I did not. I was then asked if there was any situation where I could see myself supporting Trump. “If Satan was one vote away from the nomination,” I replied, “I would consider voting for Trump if he was the only alternative.” As a result of that remark, Trump supporters have tried to make my life a living hell. I’ve received hate email to my business and political accounts. People have left hateful messages on my home and office and home phone. This is totally unprecedented in my decade as a political party chairman....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... ?tid=sm_tw


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Apr 2016 6:49 am 
Offline
High King

Joined: 04 May 2009 7:03 am
Posts: 2019
Location: Australia
TCJ quotes:
Quote:
What was the heinous offense that I committed that made me, according to one person, “the biggest traitor since Benedict Arnold?”

He really doesn't know does he.

Perhaps the answer lies in his being a County Chairman of the the Party that has had the majority in the Congress but has taken the soft-left line on most legislation, and has never stood up to the creeping socialism of President Obama and the Democrats. He is part of the establishment that has let down the GOP's blue-collar contingent.

That how they talk when they get angry. That's what they think about the establishment. It's called a reaction to their sell-out.

He needs to get out more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Apr 2016 1:57 pm 
Offline
High King

Joined: 22 Sep 2008 3:15 pm
Posts: 2026
Quote:
Congress has taken the soft-left line on most legislation and has never stood up to the creeping socialism of President Obama and the Democrats.

Possibly so in some parallel universe USA. The GOP controlled Congress in this world is roundly perceived to be routinely obstructionist, near totally bereft of compromise and legislatively dysfunctional. A "do nothing Congress" is one of the prime complaints from Trump supporters.

Quote:
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

Today, thanks to the GOP, compromise has gone out the window in Washington. In the first two years of the Obama administration, nearly every presidential initiative met with vehement, rancorous and unanimous Republican opposition in the House and the Senate, followed by efforts to delegitimize the results and repeal the policies. The filibuster, once relegated to a handful of major national issues in a given Congress, became a routine weapon of obstruction, applied even to widely supported bills or presidential nominations. And Republicans in the Senate have abused the confirmation process to block any and every nominee to posts such as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, solely to keep laws that were legitimately enacted from being implemented.

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.

The GOP’s evolution has become too much for some longtime Republicans. Former senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraskacalled his party “irresponsible” in an interview with the Financial Times in August, at the height of the debt-ceiling battle. “I think the Republican Party is captive to political movements that are very ideological, that are very narrow,” he said. “I’ve never seen so much intolerance as I see today in American politics.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Quote:
Why We Have a Do-Nothing Congress
08 July 2013

Right now, the 113th Congress has a pile of legislation yet to be considered, including everything from student loans, to immigration reform, post office reform, and looming fiscal deadlines for the debt limit.

But don’t expect this latest and greatest rendition of the do-nothing Congress to get around to any of that any time soon.

Since the 113th Congress took over Capitol Hill in January, lawmakers have only managed to pass 15 bills that were signed into law by President Obama.
To put that number into perspective, it’s 8 fewer bills than in the first sixth months of the 112th Congress, and a whopping 19 fewer bills than in the first six months of the 111th Congress. And of those 15 bills that were passed and signed into law, very few contained legislation addressing the most serious issues affecting America today.
That is of course unless you count specifying “the size of the precious-metal blank that will be used in the production of the National Baseball Hall of Fame commemorative coins” as an issue of urgent national importance.

So, how did we get to the point in Washington where Congress can’t manage to pass legislation of urgent importance, but passes a bill addressing coinage just like that?
The stunning inaction and backlog in the 113th Congress can be traced back to January 20, 2009.

On a night when most of us were out celebrating the start of the Obama presidency, and attending galas and balls, a group of Republican lawmakers was plotting the end of the Obama Presidency, before it had really begun.

On that night at the Caucus Room restaurant in Washington, Republican leaders on Capitol Hill plotted to intentionally sabotage and undermine the Obama presidency at every chance possible.

As Robert Draper notes in his book, “Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives,” the list of attendees at the Caucus Room dinner was a virtual who’s-who of Republican power players in Washington.

On the guest list for the four hour, “invitation only” meeting were Republican Congressmen Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy, Pete Sessions, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra and Dan Lungren. Republican Senators Jim DeMint, Jon Kyl, Tom Coburn, John Ensign and Bob Corker were also in attendance. The whole thing was orchestrated by Republican propaganda mastermind Frank Luntz.

Newt Gingrich was also in attendance, and on my radio show a few months back, he flat out admitted that the purpose of the dinner meeting was to come up with a plan to sabotage the Obama presidency.

During the dinner, the Republican lawmakers vowed to bring Congress to an absolute standstill, regardless of how badly Congressional inaction would hurt the already hurting American economy and people, by pledging to obstruct, filibuster and block any legislation that President Obama approved of.

And while the meeting at the Caucus Room was top-secret, Republican attendees at that meeting were very frank, just a couple months later, about what had transpired.

Congressman Pete Sessions told the National Journal in March of 2009 that the Republican sabotage plan was all about following the tactics of the Taliban, a terrorist organization.

Sessions said that, “Taliban Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban. Insurgency is the way they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- is an example of how you go about to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that Insurgency may be required when [dealing with] the other side.”

The Texas Congressman went on to say that, “If they [democrats] do not give us those options or opportunities then we will then become Insurgency ... I think Insurgency is a mindset and an attitude that we're going to have to search for and find ways to get our message out and to be prepared to see things for what they are, rather than trying to do something about them.”

And this “Taliban-like insurgency” is working.

Every one of the lawmakers that attended the Caucus Room dinner has since threatened a government shutdown.

During the 2011 debt ceiling negotiations, Caucus Room attendees Congressman Eric Cantor and Senator Jon Kyl walked out of negotiations, and refused to re-start discussions with their Democratic counterparts. As a result of this intentional negotiation collapse, America’s credit rating was lowered.

Since that January 2009 dinner, Senators Jim DeMint, Jon Kyl, Tom Coburn, John Ensign and Bob Corker have helped to filibuster more bills than during any other Congress combined in history.

And, the group of Senators has voted “No” to widely bipartisan legislation, including Senator Al Franken’s anti-rape amendment, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and even an anti-outsourcing bill in 2010 that would have protected millions of American jobs.

Republicans are so intent on sabotaging the Obama presidency that they’re unwilling to say no to rape.

Unfortunately, despite this appalling behavior by Republican lawmakers in Congress, the media has completely failed to tell Americans about the Republican plan that was hatched at the Caucus Room in January of 2009. The media has failed to report on the real reason why the 113th Congress could be the worst in history.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/1744 ... g-congress


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Apr 2016 12:43 am 
Offline
Emperor
User avatar

Joined: 22 Jun 2009 10:28 pm
Posts: 5412
Location: NA
Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

By Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein
The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Quote:
Rep. Allen West, a Florida Republican, was recently captured on video asserting that there are “78 to 81” Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party. Of course, it’s not unusual for some renegade lawmaker from either side of the aisle to say something outrageous. What made West’s comment — right out of the McCarthyite playbook of the 1950s — so striking was the almost complete lack of condemnation from Republican congressional leaders or other major party figures, including the remaining presidential candidates.

It’s not that the GOP leadership agrees with West; it is that such extreme remarks and views are now taken for granted.

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.

“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.

It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its once-legendary moderate and center-right legislators in the House and the Senate — think Bob Michel, Mickey Edwards, John Danforth, Chuck Hagel — are virtually extinct.


The post-McGovern Democratic Party, by contrast, while losing the bulk of its conservative Dixiecrat contingent in the decades after the civil rights revolution, has retained a more diverse base. Since the Clinton presidency, it has hewed to the center-left on issues from welfare reform to fiscal policy. While the Democrats may have moved from their 40-yard line to their 25, the Republicans have gone from their 40 to somewhere behind their goal post.

What happened? Of course, there were larger forces at work beyond the realignment of the South. They included the mobilization of social conservatives after the 1973Roe v. Wade decision, the anti-tax movement launched in 1978 by California’s Proposition 13, the rise of conservative talk radio after a congressional pay raise in 1989, and the emergence of Fox News and right-wing blogs. But the real move to the bedrock right starts with two names: Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist.

From the day he entered Congress in 1979, Gingrich had a strategy to create a Republican majority in the House: convincing voters that the institution was so corrupt that anyone would be better than the incumbents, especially those in the Democratic majority. It took him 16 years, but by bringing ethics charges against Democratic leaders; provoking them into overreactions that enraged Republicans and united them to vote against Democratic initiatives; exploiting scandals to create even more public disgust with politicians; and then recruiting GOP candidates around the country to run against Washington, Democrats and Congress, Gingrich accomplished his goal.

Ironically, after becoming speaker, Gingrich wanted to enhance Congress’s reputation and was content to compromise with President Bill Clinton when it served his interests. But the forces Gingrich unleashed destroyed whatever comity existed across party lines, activated an extreme and virulently anti-Washington base — most recently represented by tea party activists — and helped drive moderate Republicans out of Congress. (Some of his progeny, elected in the early 1990s, moved to the Senate and polarized its culture in the same way.)

Norquist, meanwhile, founded Americans for Tax Reform in 1985 and rolled out his Taxpayer Protection Pledge the following year. The pledge, which binds its signers to never support a tax increase (that includes closing tax loopholes), had been signed as of last year by 238 of the 242 House Republicans and 41 of the 47 GOP senators, according to ATR. The Norquist tax pledge has led to other pledges, on issues such as climate change, that create additional litmus tests that box in moderates and make cross-party coalitions nearly impossible. For Republicans concerned about a primary challenge from the right, the failure to sign such pledges is simply too risky.

Today, thanks to the GOP, compromise has gone out the window in Washington. In the first two years of the Obama administration, nearly every presidential initiative met with vehement, rancorous and unanimous Republican opposition in the House and the Senate, followed by efforts to delegitimize the results and repeal the policies. The filibuster, once relegated to a handful of major national issues in a given Congress, became a routine weapon of obstruction, applied even to widely supported bills or presidential nominations. And Republicans in the Senate have abused the confirmation process to block any and every nominee to posts such as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, solely to keep laws that were legitimately enacted from being implemented.


In the third and now fourth years of the Obama presidency, divided government has produced something closer to complete gridlock than we have ever seen in our time in Washington, with partisan divides even leading last year to America’s first credit downgrade.

On financial stabilization and economic recovery, on deficits and debt, on climate change and health-care reform, Republicans have been the force behind the widening ideological gaps and the strategic use of partisanship. In the presidential campaign and in Congress, GOP leaders have embraced fanciful policies on taxes and spending, kowtowing to their party’s most strident voices.

Republicans often dismiss nonpartisan analyses of the nature of problems and the impact of policies when those assessments don’t fit their ideology. In the face of the deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression, the party’s leaders and their outside acolytes insisted on obeisance to a supply-side view of economic growth — thus fulfilling Norquist’s pledge — while ignoring contrary considerations.

The results can border on the absurd: In early 2009, several of the eight Republican co-sponsors of a bipartisan health-care reform plan dropped their support; by early 2010, the others had turned on their own proposal so that there would be zero GOP backing for any bill that came within a mile of Obama’s reform initiative. As one co-sponsor, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), told The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein: “I liked it because it was bipartisan. I wouldn’t have voted for it.”

And seven Republican co-sponsors of a Senate resolution to create a debt-reduction panel voted in January 2010 against their own resolution, solely to keep it from getting to the 60-vote threshold Republicans demanded and thus denying the president a seeming victory.

This attitude filters down far deeper than the party leadership. Rank-and-file GOP voters endorse the strategy that the party’s elites have adopted, eschewing compromise to solve problems and insisting on principle, even if it leads to gridlock. Democratic voters, by contrast, along with self-identified independents, are more likely to favor deal-making over deadlock.


Democrats are hardly blameless, and they have their own extreme wing and their own predilection for hardball politics. But these tendencies do not routinely veer outside the normal bounds of robust politics. If anything, under the presidencies of Clinton and Obama, the Democrats have become more of a status-quo party. They are centrist protectors of government, reluctantly willing to revamp programs and trim retirement and health benefits to maintain its central commitments in the face of fiscal pressures.

No doubt, Democrats were not exactly warm and fuzzy toward George W. Bush during his presidency. But recall that they worked hand in glove with the Republican president on the No Child Left Behind Act, provided crucial votes in the Senate for his tax cuts, joined with Republicans for all the steps taken after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and supplied the key votes for the Bush administration’s financial bailout at the height of the economic crisis in 2008. The difference is striking.

The GOP’s evolution has become too much for some longtime Republicans. Former senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraskacalled his party “irresponsible” in an interview with the Financial Times in August, at the height of the debt-ceiling battle. “I think the Republican Party is captive to political movements that are very ideological, that are very narrow,” he said. “I’ve never seen so much intolerance as I see today in American politics.”

And Mike Lofgren, a veteran Republican congressional staffer, wrote an anguished diatribe last year about why he was ending his career on the Hill after nearly three decades. “The Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe,” he wrote on the Truthout Web site.

Shortly before Rep. West went off the rails with his accusations of communism in the Democratic Party, political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, who have long tracked historical trends in political polarization, said their studies of congressional votes found that Republicans are now more conservative than they have been in more than a century. Their data show a dramatic uptick in polarization, mostly caused by the sharp rightward move of the GOP.

If our democracy is to regain its health and vitality, the culture and ideological center of the Republican Party must change. In the short run, without a massive (and unlikely) across-the-board rejection of the GOP at the polls, that will not happen. If anything, Washington’s ideological divide will probably grow after the 2012 elections.


In the House, some of the remaining centrist and conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats have been targeted for extinction by redistricting, while even ardent tea party Republicans, such as freshman Rep. Alan Nunnelee (Miss.), have faced primary challenges from the right for being too accommodationist. And Mitt Romney’s rhetoric and positions offer no indication that he would govern differently if his party captures the White House and both chambers of Congress.

We understand the values of mainstream journalists, including the effort to report both sides of a story. But a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality. If the political dynamics of Washington are unlikely to change anytime soon, at least we should change the way that reality is portrayed to the public.

Our advice to the press: Don’t seek professional safety through the even-handed, unfiltered presentation of opposing views. Which politician is telling the truth? Who is taking hostages, at what risks and to what ends?

Also, stop lending legitimacy to Senate filibusters by treating a 60-vote hurdle as routine. The framers certainly didn’t intend it to be. Report individual senators’ abusive use of holds and identify every time the minority party uses a filibuster to kill a bill or nomination with majority support.

Look ahead to the likely consequences of voters’ choices in the November elections. How would the candidates govern? What could they accomplish? What differences can people expect from a unified Republican or Democratic government, or one divided between the parties?

In the end, while the press can make certain political choices understandable, it is up to voters to decide. If they can punish ideological extremism at the polls and look skeptically upon candidates who profess to reject all dialogue and bargaining with opponents, then an insurgent outlier party will have some impetus to return to the center. Otherwise, our politics will get worse before it gets better.

tmann@brookings.edu

nornstein@aei.org

Thomas E. Mann is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Norman J. Ornstein is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. This essay is adapted from their book “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism,” which will be available Tuesday.




Why We Have a Do-Nothing Congress


By The Daily Take Team, The Thom Hartmann Program | News Analysis

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/1744 ... g-congress

Quote:
And it’s time for that to change.

It’s time for everyone to wake up, and realize that Republicans are intentionally trying to destroy this country to sabotage the Obama presidency, and they’re doing it with absolutely no regard for any damage done to the American people and economy in the process.

Every time the media reports on Republican obstructionism, they should also point out that this has been a very methodical, well-planned, and, so far, effective conspiracy to destroy the Obama presidency. Nothing more, nothing less.

And nothing could be more anti-American than what these Republicans are doing.


It is now American - An American Republican Norm since they've now been doing it for 8 years.

_________________
************


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Apr 2016 2:28 am 
Offline
High King

Joined: 04 May 2009 7:03 am
Posts: 2019
Location: Australia
TCJ quotes (and rain parrots)
Quote:
The stunning inaction and backlog in the 113th Congress can be traced back to January 20, 2009.

On a night when most of us were out celebrating the start of the Obama presidency, and attending galas and balls, a group of Republican lawmakers was plotting the end of the Obama Presidency, before it had really begun.

On that night at the Caucus Room restaurant in Washington, Republican leaders on Capitol Hill plotted to intentionally sabotage and undermine the Obama presidency at every chance possible.

And a good thing too.

The left just can't accept how democracy works. The left define the Congress as "obstructionist" because it resists the left-leaning Democrats' creeping socialism. A majority is a majority. That's how it works.

Better no legislation than more socialist legislation.

A majority in the Congress has every right to block legislation that continues to push the USA down the road to socialist ruin. That's what the Republican's majority has done - it's saved the USA from a short march towards a socialist state. With a three trillion dollar debt and growing, the USA is rapidly running out of other peoples' money to spend. The socialism of the Democrats will just accelerate that outcome.

But nobody should expect the left-leaning media, the left-leaning commentariat (especially drawn from the left leaning "universities") to admit to this. The left's activists take every opportunity to push the meme.

For the first time ever the greatest capitalist nation in the history of the world has a self-declared socialist running for President. And he's part of the Democrat's team. He's in with a chance; a long-shot, but a chance nevertheless. That's why the Republicans have had to stand firm - even though it has its own problems with the progressive left wingers infiltrating the Party.

The Trump supporters know that when the economy crashes they are the ones who will bear the brunt of the financial and economic damage. That's why they support Trump. He is the personal Visigoth of the angry classes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Apr 2016 1:13 pm 
Offline
High King

Joined: 22 Sep 2008 3:15 pm
Posts: 2026
Quote:
For the first time ever the greatest capitalist nation in the history of the world has a self-declared socialist running for President.

Off the top of my head is avowed Socialist Eugene Debs who repeatedly ran for President. There were other lesser attempts by others, also.

Quote:
And a good thing too.

Yet, the record of the last seven years shows how little important legislation has been comparatively passed beyond triteness like recognizing professional sports team's championships.
Their pressing issue has mostly been the many dozens of attempts to defund heath care programs, and in particular those for women lately, and of which they absolutely knew were doomed by the Senate committees, their votes or Obama's pen strokes. Wasting millions on goose chases in hoping to send Hilary Clinton to prison or at least deny her a presidency is another hot item on their agenda.

Every Republican friend and family member I have has been well aware of from the start and readily admits that this obstructionism is solely to make Obama appear ineffectual and deemed a failure. And none are pleased about it.

Similar obstruction plans were implemented on Bill Clinton's first election night and even publicly on television by a group of senators led by Bob Dole who dourly said "He's not going to get anything done. We're going to make sure of that." Gingrichs' later shutting down of the federal government caused his party a massive loss in the next election. There's been no shortage of talk about the GOP losing both houses of Congress in November and the heads of the party are seriously concerned about it.

It's really not behavior rooted in fiscal conservatism but rather pure partisan sour grapes.
That's obvious when looking back at the same giving G. W. Bush agreement for everything he wanted including massive tax cuts that were mostly stashed away in overseas tax-free accounts, funding two simultaneous wars, deregulating banks and Wall Street and even to the extent of reducing the agency that watches over them to a small office with a handful of agents. All those give-a-ways and more devastated our economy and any attempts by Obama at recovery such as economically sound jobs bills and funding the very needed rebuilding of our roads and bridges have been met with the same denials. It's hard to believe the outright refusing of money to repair bridges is some sort of heroic fighting back against "creeping socialism."

Quote:
Aug 3, 2007The Minneapolis bridge collapse that killed at least 6 people Wednesday night could be a warning of more tragedy to come if something is not done to fix the aging US highway system. According to the national transportation research group TRIP, a third of all major roads are in “poor or mediocre” condition, and more than a quarter of the bridges on the interstate highway system are “structurally deficient or functionally obsolete”. .http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/titl ... aintenance

Quote:
America's roads and bridges have been eroding for decades, but the deeper they fall into disrepair, the less money there is to fix them. First, the recession crippled local budgets, cutting the money available for transportation projects. As states began to recover, the federal government adopted its own mandatory budget cuts via sequestration. Then last month, the federal legislation that annually funds transportation projects across the country hit a roadblock of Republican opposition that throttled multibillion-dollar transportation bills in the House and Senate. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/03 ... s-20130904


"...its own mandatory budget cuts via sequestration."

Quote:
House Fails To Implement Cuts That Go Further
The House is supposed to vote on an appropriations bill for transportation and housing programs that includes cuts that go deeper than sequestration. But when Republican members have to vote to implement these specific reductions, so many balk that the vote is pulled for a lack of support. Given the inability of Republicans to implement the specifics, Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) says, “I believe that the House has made its choice: Sequestration — and its unrealistic and ill-conceived discretionary cuts — must be brought to an end.”
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/1 ... estration/


As unpopular as they became back during Clinton for these same tactics, today's Republican Congress has set a record of being liked by only 10% of the electorate.

This piece from 2013 shows the few legislative works they managed to get through, and they're nothing much to brag about, unless one's keen on renaming a bridge or allowing fishing from a federal dam...

Quote:
It’s true that for a faction of the GOP, not getting stuff done is the whole point, and some House Republicans will probably spend their August recess bragging about how they saved America from destruction at the hands of immigration reform. But even the wackiest wackjob in Congress wants something—that’s one of the reasons they all ran for office in the first place. Some of their wants conflict with the agendas of other lawmakers, so they have to negotiate with each other and come to a mutually unsatisfying agreement. That’s how the American political system works. That’s the only way it can work. Except it’s not working at all right now, except when it comes to commemorative coins and fishing in Kentucky.
For a closer look, here's a summary of the 22 bills that have turned into law this year:
https://www.vice.com/read/here-are-all- ... f-all-time


2013 again. It's partisan, but the general electorate holds the same views now. The reference to John Boehner leads to why he quit his position later in abject disgust and frustration over another planned disastrous shutdown.
Quote:
No Matter How Much Democrats Disliked Bush, They Still Never Shut Down the Government
It goes without saying that most Democrats and liberals were no fans of George W. Bush. Some simply disliked the guy, many absolutely hated him. For many liberals, President George W. Bush was by far one of the worst (if not the worst) presidents in modern history.

But even at his worst, Democrats in Congress never shut down the government. Sure, Republicans controlled Congress for a large part of Bush’s time in office, but Democrats still had power at certain points. Power which would have presented them with the opportunity to possibly attempt impeachment, threaten not to raise the debt ceiling as Bush was busy doubling our national debt or simply shut down the government in order to get their way on any number of issues.

But you know what? They never did.

As much as liberals and Democrats hated G.W. Bush, it still never reached the vile hatred Republicans have toward President Obama.

Now I know what some Republicans will say, “That’s because President Bush was a great man and not nearly the disaster President Obama has been.”

To those Republicans, I’ll simply say this: Are you out of your minds? Two unfinished wars, a collapsed economy (yes that happened on Bush’s watch), a budget that went from balanced to record deficits and a national debt that doubled—Bush was a catastrophe.

And despite what Republicans want to believe, or are told by the right-wing media, our economy has drastically improved under President Obama.

But as this government shutdown continues, and the threat of a U.S. default is on the horizon, there are still Republicans who maintain this shutdown is the fault of President Obama and the Democratic party.

Based on what? There’s zero evidence to support that. This shutdown is completely the fault of the Republican party and John Boehner’s spineless choice to basically relinquish his leadership position to Ted Cruz. It was Boehner’s decision not to let the Senate’s clean continuing resolution come up for a vote in the House — which would have been passed before the government was ever shut down.

So don’t tell me this is “Obama’s shutdown” when Boehner could have allowed the House of Representatives to vote on a bill that the Senate passed and kept the government open.

And again, what prior evidence is there to suggest Democrats ever wanted our government to be shut down? This has only happened twice in the last two decades and both times Republicans controlled the House of Representatives with a Democrat in the White House.

If Democrats really wanted our government to be shut down, they would have done so when they had their chances under G.W. Bush.

But just think about that for a moment. In the last two decades we’ve had 2 presidents that were Democrats and during both their tenures, Republicans caused a government shutdown. With this shutdown being by far the most idiotic. Especially when you consider that had John Boehner found his spine, there never would have been a shutdown to begin with.

Then add the debt ceiling vote into the mix, something Republicans voted to raise seven separate times under G.W. Bush, and the level of stupidity emanating from the Republican party right now is immeasurable.

Sure, they’ll continue to perpetuate this myth that it’s President Obama and Democrats that aren’t willing to negotiate—but why should they? We had a deal that would reopen the government that was sent to the House of Representatives! John Boehner just refused to allow the House to vote on it. So why in the hell should President Obama negotiate?

As Chris Matthews said the other night, this isn’t about politics, it’s about the extreme hatred of Obama. It’s the right-wing fear machine that’s conjured up some irrational disdain toward Obama to the point that these people would literally rather see our country burn to the ground than agree with him on anything.

Because like I said, as much as liberals and Democrats disliked G.W. Bush—they still never shut down the government or threatened to allow our nation to default on our debt.
But that’s exactly what Republicans have done and are threatening to do.
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/no-m ... overnment/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Apr 2016 11:29 pm 
Offline
High King

Joined: 04 May 2009 7:03 am
Posts: 2019
Location: Australia
TCJ corrects me:
Quote:
Off the top of my head is avowed Socialist Eugene Debs who repeatedly ran for President. There were other lesser attempts by others, also.

Thanks.

Debs ran as a Socialist candidate for President of the United States five times, including 1900 (earning 0.63% of the popular vote), 1904 (2.98%), 1908 (2.83%), 1912 (5.99%), and 1920 (3.41%), the last time from a prison cell (sentenced to 10 years for sedition).

With those figures he's hardly a Bernie Sanders.

And, it perhaps demonstrates how effective the left have been in the implementation of their Gramsci/Fabian strategy to march through the institutions to power. America should be very concerned at the headway that's being made. At this rate the world will see a Union of Socialist America before the turn of this century.

As for the rest of TCJ's response it helps to demonstrate why Trump has such traction. He is seen by his supporters as somebody who can get things done - as opposed to the current lot.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Apr 2016 5:12 am 
Offline
Emperor
User avatar

Joined: 22 Jun 2009 10:28 pm
Posts: 5412
Location: NA
Wombat wrote:
TCJ corrects me:
Quote:
Off the top of my head is avowed Socialist Eugene Debs who repeatedly ran for President. There were other lesser attempts by others, also.

Thanks.

Debs ran as a Socialist candidate for President of the United States five times, including 1900 (earning 0.63% of the popular vote), 1904 (2.98%), 1908 (2.83%), 1912 (5.99%), and 1920 (3.41%), the last time from a prison cell (sentenced to 10 years for sedition).

With those figures he's hardly a Bernie Sanders.

And, it perhaps demonstrates how effective the left have been in the implementation of their Gramsci/Fabian strategy to march through the institutions to power. America should be very concerned at the headway that's being made. At this rate the world will see a Union of Socialist America before the turn of this century.

As for the rest of TCJ's response it helps to demonstrate why Trump has such traction. He is seen by his supporters as somebody who can get things done - as opposed to the current lot.


Just curious but why do you care Wombat, it's all academic from our point of view whereas it's important for TCJ because he'll directly live the outcome?


Also you go to France all the time and it's Socialist, don't you care that you're giving your tourist money to a socialist haven?

_________________
************


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Apr 2016 6:19 am 
Offline
Emperor
User avatar

Joined: 22 Jun 2009 10:28 pm
Posts: 5412
Location: NA
TCJ wrote:
Similar obstruction plans were implemented on Bill Clinton's first election night and even publicly on television by a group of senators led by Bob Dole who dourly said "He's not going to get anything done. We're going to make sure of that." Gingrichs' later shutting down of the federal government caused his party a massive loss in the next election. There's been no shortage of talk about the GOP losing both houses of Congress in November and the heads of the party are seriously concerned about it.



http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election ... o86xq.html
Quote:
Political journalists are having a field day. Ordinarily they'd have to go to Democrats to get on-the-record criticism of a Republican; and the most they might get from the subject's GOP colleagues would be an unattributed put down. But there's no such problem when it comes to Cruz.
Some happily go on the record with their refusal to endorse him. And former GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole went on the record with his warning that a Cruz candidacy could turn voters away from voting for down-the-ticket Republicans - "If he's the nominee, we're going to have wholesale losses in Congress and state offices and governors and legislatures."
And Peter King, a Republican congressman from New York, didn't feel constrained either, telling a reporter: "Cruz isn't a good guy, and he'd be impossible as president. People don't trust him."

_________________
************


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Apr 2016 1:29 pm 
Offline
High King

Joined: 22 Sep 2008 3:15 pm
Posts: 2026
Sanders paints himself as a Democratic Socialist and proposes a system similar to some European governments.
http://www.dsausa.org/what_is_democratic_socialism

If he does win the prize, and that likelihood appears less and less now, his broad plan with no details given to dissolve the big banks and Wall Street is pure pie in the sky. He'd need a full military junta to break our strong bundle here.
Image

There's a good possibility of Sanders causing another "Nader effect" and handing the Presidency to the GOP.
Quote:
Nader-voters who spurned Democrat Al Gore to vote for Nader ended up swinging both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush in 2000. Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report and political analyst for National Journal, called “Florida and New Hampshire” simply “the two states that Mr. Nader handed to the Bush-Cheney ticket,” when Cook was writing about “The Next Nader Effect,” in The New York Times on 9 March 2004. Cook said, “Mr. Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, cost Al Gore two states, Florida and New Hampshire, either of which would have given the vice president [Gore] a victory in 2000. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zues ... 35065.html


Trump's new campaign manager has what it takes to "make America great again" :?: and puts his money where his mouth is. :|

Quote:
Top Trump Aide Led the ‘Torturers’ Lobby’
Paul Manafort and the partners at his firm made a fortune repping some of the most despicable dictators of the 20th century.

Over the course of a long lobbying career in D.C., top Trump aide Paul Manafort and his firm made a fortune fronting for a group of clients once referred to as the “torturers’ lobby.”
So when Manafort accused opponent Ted Cruz of using “gestapo tactics” to court Republican delegates on Meet the Press this past Sunday—it’s something he may have quite a bit of experience with firsthand.
Manafort was a principal at the lobbying firm Black, Manafort, Stone, and Kelly (along with another top Trump ally, Nixon alum Roger Stone), a K Street powerhouse with close ties to the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations, as well as top Republicans on Capitol Hill.
But over the years, they made millions by representing a rogue’s gallery of clients far away from D.C.’s genteel corridors of power: dictators, guerilla groups, and despots with no regard for human rights—including one man responsible for mass amputations, and another who oversaw state-sanctioned rape.

:!: Then there was Manafort’s work for Putinite Viktor Yanukovych, who became president in 2010. Manafort had been introduced to Yanukovych by Ukraine’s richest man, an industrialist named Rinat Akhmetov, The New York Times reported.

It was Manafort’s most recent high-profile political consulting job, and while his candidate was victorious, Yanukovych was eventually drummed out of office in disgrace in 2014 after accusations that he undercut freedom of the press and tried to suppress opposition political parties.

At the time of the election, Manafort had spun that Yanukovych was merely misunderstood, and that “the West has not been willing to move beyond the cold war mentality and to see this man and the outreach that he has extended.”

As the seminal Euromaidan protests, which pressed the pro-Putin Yanukovych to develop closer ties with Europe, grew to a climax and reports of Yanukovych’s lavish spending became public, he was removed from the presidency—but not before being accused of using a special police force to violently disband protesters. Even his own political party would eventually condemn him and cast him out.

Supporters of transparency and reform in Ukraine are appalled that a former Yanukovych adviser is now involved with the American presidential elections.

“Now we hear that an adviser of Yanukovych, Paul Manafort, has been hired by the Donald Trump campaign. This is someone who took part in perversion of democracy in Ukraine and if [Manafort’s] role in that fiasco turns out to be substantial, then he should not be allowed within 100 feet of government buildings of any self-respecting democracy,” Pavel Yarmolenko, a spokesman for the Ukraine Freedom Support Group, told The Daily Beast. The UFSG is dedicated to urging Congress to approve aid to Ukraine
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... lobby.html


Roger Stone, Jr. above is organizing the angry "convention protest" and is as close as Trump will get to finding his own Joseph Goebbels. Not long ago, I referred to him on Twitter as "weaned on Watergate" and was quickly beset on by he and his with remarks like "you innocent child." :P
Quote:
Roger Stone is an American political consultant, dirty-tricks operative and lobbyist who specializes in opposition research for the Republican National Committee in the United States. Stone led the mob that shut down the Miami-Dade County recount and helped make George W. Bush president in 2000.


Roger's a renowned and unashamed narcissistic libertine "swinger" who also most likely sports the only Nixon tattoo in existence. His exceedingly crass and racist talk has him now banned from appearing on CNN and MSNBC.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Apr 2016 3:17 pm 
Offline
High King

Joined: 22 Sep 2008 3:15 pm
Posts: 2026
Trump promises to surround himself with "the best people...the finest."

Quote:
Top Trump aide lobbied for Pakistani spy front
Michael Isikoff
Chief Investigative Correspondent
April 18, 2016

For more than five years, Donald Trump’s new top campaign aide, Paul Manafort, lobbied for a Washington-based group that Justice Department prosecutors have charged operated as a front for Pakistan’s intelligence service, according to court and lobbying records reviewed by Yahoo News.

Manafort’s work in the 1990s as a registered lobbyist for the Kashmiri American Council was only one part of a wide-ranging portfolio that, over several decades, included a gallery of controversial foreign clients ranging from Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos and Zaire’s brutal dictator Mobutu Sese Seko to an Angolan rebel leader accused by human rights groups of torture. His role as an adviser to Ukraine’s then prime minister, Viktor Yanukovych, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, prompted concerns within the Bush White House that he was undermining U.S. foreign policy. It was considered so politically toxic in 2008 that presidential candidate John McCain nixed plans for Manafort to manage the Republican National Convention — a move that caused a rupture between Manafort and his then business partner, Rick Davis, who at the time was McCain’s campaign manager.

Manafort’s work for the Kashmiri group has so far not gotten any media attention.

But it could fuel more questions about his years of lobbying for questionable foreign interests before Manafort, 67, assumed his new position as chief delegate counter and strategist for a presidential candidate who repeatedly decries the influence of Washington lobbyists and denounces the manipulation of U.S. policy by foreign governments.

Court records show that Manafort’s Kashmiri lobbying contract came on the FBI’s radar screen during a lengthy counterterrorism investigation that culminated in 2011 with the arrest of the Kashmiri council’s director, Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai, on charges that he ran the group on behalf of Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI, as part of a scheme to secretly influence U.S. policy toward the disputed territory of Kashmir.

The Kashmiri American Council was a “scam” that amounted to a “false flag operation that Mr. Fai was operating on behalf of the ISI,” Gordon D. Kromberg, the assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted the case, said in March 2012 at Fai’s sentencing hearing in federal court. While posing as a U.S.-based nonprofit funded by American donors sympathetic to the plight of Kashmiris, it was actually bankrolled by the ISI in order to deflect public attention “away from the involvement of Pakistan in sponsoring terrorism in Kashmir and elsewhere,” Kromberg said. Fai, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy and tax fraud charges, was then sentenced to two years in federal prison.

Lobbying records filed with the secretary of the Senate show that Manafort’s lobbying firm, Black, Manafort, Stone & Kelly, was paid $700,000 by the Kashmiri American Council between 1990 and 1995. This was among more than $4 million that federal prosecutors alleged came from the ISI; Fai collected the money over 20 years from “straw” American donors who were being reimbursed from secret accounts in Pakistan. (The funds were in some cases delivered to Fai in brown paper bags stuffed with cash — and then the donors reimbursed with wire transfers from ISI operatives, according to an FBI affidavit.)

Manafort, who handled the Kashmiri account for his firm, was never charged in the case, and Kromberg told Yahoo News that what knowledge, if any, he had of the secret source of money from his client was not part of the Justice Department’s investigation. (While registering with Congress as a domestic lobbyist for the Kashmiri American Council, Manafort never registered with the U.S. Justice Department as a foreign agent of Pakistan, as he would have been required to do if he was aware of the ISI funding of his client.)

But a former senior Pakistani official, who asked not to be identified, told Yahoo News that there was never any doubt on Pakistan’s part that Manafort knew of his government’s role in backing the Kashmiri council. The former official said that during a trip from Islamabad in 1994 he met with Manafort and Fai in Manafort’s office in Alexandria, Va., “to review strategy and plans” for the council. Manafort, at the meeting, presented plans to influence members of Congress to back Pakistan’s case for a plebiscite for Kashmir (the largest portion of which has been part of India since 1947), he said. (Internal budget documents later obtained by the FBI show plans by the council to spend $80,000 to $100,000 a year on campaign contributions to members of Congress.) “There is no way Manafort didn’t know that Pakistan was involved with” the council, the former official said, although he added: “Some things are not explicitly stated.”

Neither Manafort nor the Trump campaign responded to requests for comment for this story. (“I’m not working for any client right now other than working for Mr. Trump,”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/top-trump-ai ... 07222.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Apr 2016 11:28 pm 
Offline
Grand Master

Joined: 22 Dec 2014 1:52 am
Posts: 239
Location: België
VeryAngryMother wrote:
gladium wrote:
Well this is an old old thread. I did see this today and it reminded me of reading this some time ago.

http://ufodigest.com/article/was-ben-ha ... eally-hoax

Was posted in March this year on a "ufo" website :lol:

Cam asked me to post a link to the updated version of this article.

https://camclaytonblog.wordpress.com/20 ... ly-a-hoax/

VAM


So can someone explain what is happening here, I don't understand?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Apr 2016 11:43 pm 
Offline
Emperor
User avatar

Joined: 22 Jun 2009 10:28 pm
Posts: 5412
Location: NA
gladium wrote:
So can someone explain what is happening here, I don't understand?


It's just garbage - it's someone who can't let go or is severely taking the piss out Ben and his cohorts for getting busted. Cam is Gus and a few other sock poppets that got banned because they kept hassling Andrew and frankly they were annoying people here. He can be funny and he's obviously studied graduate level philosophy so I wasn't sure if he was being paid to do it or he did of his own volition. I know one of them has mental health issues(Icremote?). So maybe this Cam does as well. When he got kicked off here he set up a facebook page and some petition and started writing treatises to say that Ben and cohorts were set up. Unfortunately they don't make printing paper soft enough to be toilet paper so I think it's all a bit of a virtual waste.

* I just remembered Gus felt a little bit slighted by 3 people I think they didn't want to be his friend on Facebook or something like that. Anyway he started writing silly things about them and hastling them. Davinho was one of them but he was good and didn't take so seriously - Another one was one of Andrew's Female friend and he was really petty and nasty towards her, I think she was one of the few that got to him as she wrote a reply basically telling him to rack off and he didn't take it so well. There was another I forget who that was but anyway. It's just a warning that Cam/Gus has a bit of a petty side, most of it's harmless I guess, but those kinds of things can escalate for instance when Andrew's Female Friend said rack off, he should done so.

**Also that was a pretty quick reply offsite to your first post asking what this was all about. Someone's taking notes.

_________________
************


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 261 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group