@ican711nm,
From your statements about "wealth redistribution."
How and when did that happen?
Or, when is that going to happen?
@ican711nm,
Quote:So I again conclude that ...
Just how far did you get in school, Ican, grade five, grade six?
@JTT,
JTT, You're insulting fifth graders.
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
Quote:So I again conclude that ...
Just how far did you get in school, Ican, grade five, grade six?
ican of course far excelled grade 5 or 6, but I know of some high school dropouts that at least know how to balance their checkbooks, which is infinitely better than the U.S. Congress and the current administration. And none that I know cheated the IRS as Geithner the tax cheat Treasury Secretary did.
@okie,
Hey, okie, to find internet criminals who attack computers with virus', do you get people without any background in this field? How about criminals who attack private information on banks and our government? Do you ignore people with the right kind of experience, or do you hire only kids straight out of college - with a clean record? Who's better qualified to find these criminals?
@cicerone imposter,
Are your really trying to defend TG with the "it takes a criminal to catch a criminal?" defense?
TG's tax evasion may be forgivable if he was actually punished for it, finished his sentance, then went to work for the IRS. That's not what happened though.
Here is a good piece bringing out the dichotomy between the Rep moderates and Tea Partier factions.
Nerves Of Steele
Almost one year ago, on Jan. 30, 2008, the Republican National Committee (RNC) made history and elected its first African-American chairman, signaling that it was ready to move in a new direction and tackle its problems in reaching out to young and minority voters. The contentious race for the chairmanship between five candidates came down to a choice between Michael Steele and Katon Dawson, who was best-known for once belonging to a whites-only country club. After six rounds of balloting, Steele won. "We have been misdefined as a party that doesn't care, a party that's insensitive, a party that is unconcerned about minorities, a party that is unconcerned about the lives and the expectations and dreams of average Americans," Steele said. "Nothing could be further from the truth." But now, many Republicans are suffering a case of buyer's remorse. Steele's "urban-suburban hip-hop" strategy has engendered more ridicule than admiration, more headaches than positive press. The disarray in the conservative movement has intensified, and leaders are still struggling to come up with solutions to the country's problems. "I'm disappointed because what I saw very frequently during the chairman's election was an articulate spokesman for our candidates and the conservative cause," a state GOP chairman told Politico. "What I've seen since then is, well, I'm disappointed and surprised at the number of gaffes."
DIVIDING THE RIGHT: The Republican Party is increasingly being split between "big tent" moderates and Tea Party conservatives, with no clear leader directing the whole show. Stuck in the middle of this fight is Steele, who is trying to be that person but has been angering all sides. Last week he told Fox News, "As I like to tell people -- long before there was this big push on tea parties -- if I wasn't doing this job, I'd be out there with the tea partiers." But during the summer, he tried to distance himself from some of the protests and his credentials on far-right priorities have been called into question. Not surprisingly, the Tea Partiers aren't exactly embracing him with open arms. An Illinois Tea Party organizer has said that Steele isn't welcome in their movement, and right-wing activist Dana Loesch eviscerated Steele when he backed out of an interview on her radio show at the last minute. Part of their frustration stems from the Republican Party's involvement in the NY-23 special election. The RNC endorsed Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava over Conservative Party candidate and far-right favorite Doug Hoffman. In response to low polling numbers, Scozzafava backed out at the last minute, but Hoffman ended up losing the traditionally Republican seat to Democrat Bill Owens. Steele's uncomfortable relationship with the far right was best exemplified by his flip-flopping on how to deal with hate radio host Rush Limbaugh. More recently, Steele angered the traditional GOP establishment by saying that he wasn't sure whether Republicans were "ready" to win back power in Congress and lead. "Steele is setting us far back with his comments and it needs to stop," one GOP congressional aide complained on a conference call last week.
PROTECTING THE SMALL TENT: When Steele became RNC chairman last year, there were only five African-American committeemembers -- including Steele himself. There are no black Republican members of Congress; the three Cuban-Americans, one Vietnamese-American, and one Hispanic American represent the caucus' entire minority membership. Many RNC members elected Steele to change the face of the Party and increase its appeal to young and minority voters. But after a year, Steele -- who has made many controversial comments on race and ethnicity -- doesn't seem to be helping out. In June, Steele made headlines for saying that Sonia Sotomayor wouldn't be a fair Supreme Court justice because of her "ethnicity" and "cultural background," stating, "God help you if you're a white male coming before her bench." He has also said that one of the rules that immigrants need to follow to come into the United States is to have some "apple pie," Barack Obama was elected president because "the press fell in love with the black man running for the office," and used the offensive phrase "Honest Injun." His attempts to reach out to young people have been awkward and the subject of ridicule, such as when he launched a new blog called, "What up?" Both Steele and former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich have pointed out that strong bigotry remains in their Party, with many members uncomfortable at having an African-American chairman. Republicans admit that members are unlikely to oust Steele, in large part because he is the first African-American chairman. "The optics of pushing any chairman out don't look very good, but [Steele's race] puts a much finer point on it," one Republican told Politico.
SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION: While Republicans may have been excited that Steele could be a charismatic media figure for the Party, many of them are now trying to get the chairman off the air, bracing themselves for "cringeworthy quote[s]" whenever he goes on. This frustration with Steele has been compounded in recent days as the chairman has embarked on his personal tour for his book, "Right Now: A 12-Step Program for Defeating the Obama Agenda." Republican congressional leaders were caught off-guard by the book, saying they had no input on the blueprint and "first learned of the book by watching Steele's television appearances." Moreover, the Washington Times recently reported revealing that Steele has been "using his title to market himself for paid appearances nationwide, personally profiting from speeches with fees of up to $20,000," a move sharply criticized by former RNC chairs. Last year, Steele angered Republicans for using the Party's limited resources to redecorate his office, and more recently, "transferred $20K to the Northern Mariana Islands in the past 2 months...in what could be support for local candidates or, RNC critics say, political payback."
--americanprogressaction.org
@Advocate,
Just goes to show that the republican party is divided into too many splinters, and don't really know who the leaders are. What's so fascinating about them is the simple fact that they call themselves conservatives, but who are they?
Their multiple personalities makes for an interesting movie, but as a political party, what's their point - if they have any? Palin, Lieberman, Boehner, or Limbaugh?
And yet, they have an opportunity this year to change the face of congress, because the liberals are lost in their own crap house.
Even moderates can't seem to put their finger on who they are~!
@maporsche,
I like Ron Paul; if he runs, he might get my vote. Here's a clip from Wiki on Paul:
Quote:Main article: Political positions of Ron Paul
Paul at the 2007 National Right to Life Committee Convention in Kansas City, Missouri, June 15, 2007.
Paul has been described as conservative, Constitutionalist, and libertarian.[6] His nickname "Dr. No"[9] reflects both his medical degree and his insistence that he will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."[20] One scoring method published in the American Journal of Political Science[140] found Paul the most conservative of all 3,320 members of Congress from 1937 to 2002.[141] Paul's foreign policy of nonintervention[142] made him the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002. He advocates withdrawal from the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for reasons of maintaining strong national sovereignty.[143] He supports free trade, rejecting membership in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization as "managed trade". He supports tighter border security and ending welfare benefits for illegal aliens, and opposes birthright citizenship and amnesty;[144] he voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006. He voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks, but suggested war alternatives such as authorizing the president to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal targeting specific terrorists.
Paul adheres deeply to Austrian school economics; he has authored six books on the subject, and displays pictures of Austrian school economists Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Ludwig von Mises (as well as of Grover Cleveland)[26] on his office wall. He regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes;[53] he cast two thirds of all the lone negative votes in the House during a 1995"1997 period.[9] He has pledged never to raise taxes[145] and states he has never voted to approve a budget deficit. Paul believes that the country could abolish the individual income tax by scaling back federal spending to its fiscal year 2000 levels;[74][146] financing government operations would primarily come through the corporate income tax, excise taxes and tariffs. He supports eliminating most federal government agencies, calling them unnecessary bureaucracies. Paul also believes the longterm erosion of the U.S. dollar's purchasing power through inflation is attributable to its lack of any commodity backing. However, Paul does not support a complete return to a gold standard, instead preferring to legitimize gold and silver as legal tender and to remove the sales tax on them.[147] He also advocates gradual elimination of the Federal Reserve System.[148]
Paul supports Constitutional rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, and habeas corpus for political detainees. He opposes the Patriot Act, federal use of torture, presidential autonomy, a national ID card, domestic surveillance, and the draft. Citing the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, Paul advocates states' rights to decide how to regulate social matters not directly found in the Constitution. Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life",[149] "an unshakable foe of abortion",[150] and believes regulation or ban[151] on medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level".[152][153] He says his years as an obstetrician led him to believe life begins at conception;[154] his pro-life legislation, like the Sanctity of Life Act, is intended to negate Roe v. Wade and to get "the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters."[155] Paul also believes that the federal government has no constitutional authority to interfere in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states: "In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous 'separation of church and state' metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty."[156]
He opposes federal regulation of the death penalty,[152] of education,[157] and of marriage, and supports revising the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy to focus on disruptive sexual behavior (whether heterosexual or homosexual).[158] As a free-market environmentalist, he asserts private property rights in relation to environmental protection and pollution prevention. He also opposes the federal War on Drugs,[159] and thinks the states should decide whether to regulate or deregulate drugs such as medical marijuana.[160] Paul pushes to eliminate federal involvement in and management of health care, which he argues would allow prices to drop due to the fundamental dynamics of a free market.[161] He is an outspoken proponent for increased ballot access for 3rd party candidates and numerous election law reforms which he believes would allow more voter control.[162] Ron Paul has also stated that “The government shouldn't be in the medical business." He also thinks that the talk about swine flu and getting vaccinated by the Federal Government is being blown out of proportion.
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
I like Ron Paul; if he runs, he might get my vote.
I don't agree with all of his policies; but where we disagree at least he's on the side of non-involvement.
@maporsche,
Precisely. He has more positives than negatives, and compared to any "other" running for office, he's now my favorite candidate, because I know where he stands on issues.
BTW, his position on smaller government is the biggie for me.
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
BTW, his position on smaller government is the biggie for me.
Same here. The government should ALWAYS be trying to find ways to make themselves smaller, increasing freedoms, and spending less money.
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Precisely. He has more positives than negatives, and compared to any "other" running for office, he's now my favorite candidate, because I know where he stands on issues.
BTW, his position on smaller government is the biggie for me.
Wasn't it smaller government that pretty much brought this country to its knees last year?
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
BTW, his position on smaller government is the biggie for me.
Same here. The government should ALWAYS be trying to find ways to make themselves smaller, increasing freedoms, and spending less money.
I don't understand how people equate smaller government with increased freedoms. It takes a certain size of government to PROTECT freedoms; decreasing the size doesn't help this, especially in a society whose population is on the rise.
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
maporsche wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
BTW, his position on smaller government is the biggie for me.
Same here. The government should ALWAYS be trying to find ways to make themselves smaller, increasing freedoms, and spending less money.
I don't understand how people equate smaller government with increased freedoms. It takes a certain size of government to PROTECT freedoms; decreasing the size doesn't help this, especially in a society whose population is on the rise.
Cycloptichorn
Local government can protect our freedoms with the help of the police or other local agencies. However, when the federal government gets involved with our lives, there is a one-size fits all mentality often that may not account for regional differences. That can stifle people's freedoms, I believe.
@Cycloptichorn,
There's no need for many federal departments and agencies including, but not limited to, a) waste and fraud (many programs), b) Department of Education, c) Department of Agriculture, d) over-payments by Medicare and the Department of Defense, e) Departments of Housing and Urban Development, f) Commerce, and g) Energy.
There are probably many more that I just can't think of at the moment.
Barack Obama was a
community organizer before he was a Senator and a President.
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_organizing
1940 to 1960
Saul Alinsky, based in Chicago, is credited with originating the term
community organizer during this time period. Alinsky wrote Reveille for Radicals, published in 1946, and Rules for Radicals, published in 1971. With these books, Alinsky was the first person in America to codify key strategies and aims of
community organizing. He also founded the first
national community organizing training network, the Industrial Areas Foundation, now led by one of his former lieutenants, Edward Chambers
....
The following quotations from Alinksy's 1946 "Reveille for Radicals" gives a good sense of his perspective on organizing and of his public style of engagement:
A People’s Organization is a conflict group, [and] this must be openly and fully recognized. Its sole reason in coming into being is to wage war against all evils which cause suffering and unhappiness. A People’s Organization is the banding together of large numbers of men and women to fight for those rights which insure a decent way of life. . . .
A People’s Organization is dedicated to an eternal war. It is a war against poverty, misery, delinquency, disease, injustice, hopelessness, despair, and unhappiness. They are basically the same issues for which nations have gone to war in almost every generation. . . . War is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play. . . .
A People’s Organization lives in a world of hard reality. It lives in the midst of smashing forces, dashing struggles, sweeping cross-currents, ripping passions, conflict, confusion, seeming chaos, the hot and the cold, the squalor and the drama, which people prosaically refer to as life and students describe as “society.
...
Quote:
http://www.nea.org/tools/17231.htm
[Saul] Alinsky spends a lot of time critiquing the idea that "The end does not justify the means." What end? What means? He feels that there are circumstances where one can and should use means that in other circumstances would be unethical.
...
Reveille for Radicals
by Saul Alinsky
Vintage; Reissue edition (October 23, 1989)
Rules for Radicals
by Saul Alinsky
Vintage; Reissue edition (October 23, 1989)
