|
Post by daleescondido on Jan 9, 2009 18:36:45 GMT -5
I am seeing alot of revolutionary tones on message boards. Being a student of history I believe not much good comes from armed uprising. Using something worse, althought the US might be an exception. Is there anything that would cause you to fight the government? Is this even possible nowadays?
|
|
VOR
banned
BANNED FOR LIFE
VOR
Posts: 294
|
Post by VOR on Jan 9, 2009 18:50:04 GMT -5
Wow, Dale, didn't you just witness in November the way America fights its government? They change the tone. The vote out politicians who represent the status quo. The vote in what represents change.
Are you not satisfied? Are you looking to take up arms?
The Democratic way is to change through the greatest power a citizen has. The power to vote. The majority rules and it seems youre a little unhappy being in the minority and want to use force to overrule what you don't like.
|
|
|
Post by daleescondido on Jan 9, 2009 19:35:45 GMT -5
I believe our vote still counts at the local level and we can effect some change there. At the federal level not so much. I hope obama does well but he wants to spend us out of our spending problems which doesnt signify change to me ,just more of the same old shit. As far as the revolt stuff, I am hearing rheteric like that but no one ever says what would make them revolt so I am curious.
|
|
VOR
banned
BANNED FOR LIFE
VOR
Posts: 294
|
Post by VOR on Jan 9, 2009 20:53:36 GMT -5
I guess you are reading WND Dale, where that great American Jerome Corsi is calling for the splitting of America. This is typical when conservatives don't get their way. They would rather break apart then compromise.
Revolt- why? Because a black Liberal man is now the President of the US? I guess that fits into why conservatives want to revolt. Their prejudices can't stand that they must now stand down to a black President, let alone a Liberal.
McCain called on Republicans to help and back this new President- and then on Fox News Ann Coulter ripped McCain. What wonderful people conservatives and their "voices" are.
|
|
|
Post by daleescondido on Jan 9, 2009 21:05:37 GMT -5
I guess you are reading WND Dale, where that great American Jerome Corsi is calling for the splitting of America. This is typical when conservatives don't get their way. They would rather break apart then compromise. Revolt- why? Because a black Liberal man is now the President of the US? I guess that fits into why conservatives want to revolt. Their prejudices can't stand that they must now stand down to a black President, let alone a Liberal. McCain called on Republicans to help and back this new President- and then on Fox News Ann Coulter ripped McCain. What wonderful people conservatives and their "voices" are. Lots of general attacts here and assumptions. Just because I dont like what I hear from Obama? Is this how its gonna be from now on. Dont support and your a bigot? I cant stand McCain and believe he would duplicate Obamas agenda so what would I be if I dont support the old guy without a brain? Why do libs attack so much? When Obama breaks the bank, which I wount blame him for, its the nature of government, be careful what you say, you dont want to be labeled a bigot.
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Jan 9, 2009 22:24:38 GMT -5
I guess you are reading WND Dale, where that great American Jerome Corsi is calling for the splitting of America. This is typical when conservatives don't get their way. They would rather break apart then compromise. Revolt- why? Because a black Liberal man is now the President of the US? I guess that fits into why conservatives want to revolt. Their prejudices can't stand that they must now stand down to a black President, let alone a Liberal. McCain called on Republicans to help and back this new President- and then on Fox News Ann Coulter ripped McCain. What wonderful people conservatives and their "voices" are. Lots of general attacts here and assumptions. Just because I dont like what I hear from Obama? Is this how its gonna be from now on. Dont support and your a bigot? I cant stand McCain and believe he would duplicate Obamas agenda so what would I be if I dont support the old guy without a brain? Why do libs attack so much? When Obama breaks the bank, which I wount blame him for, its the nature of government, be careful what you say, you dont want to be labeled a bigot. That is a valid point Dale. If you are afraid to criticize a political leader because of race, gender or some other factor of birth than you have clearly not broken through any glass ceilings electing them. The idea that if you are conservative you must be racist is just a conversation ender. There is no way to allow the conversation to go past that point. It is not a statement that survives real scrutiny and there is no way for conservatives to engage the issue once they have been branded. That being said about conservatives in general, Corsi as an individual is a completely different set of circumstances. He has a long history of statements that are at the very least culturally and racially insensitive and in my opinion are indications of racial bias. WND is also the birthplace of some of the wildest accusations and unfounded commentary anywhere. We do not need to paint every conservative with the same brush, but Corsi and WND have painted themselves.
|
|
CM
Rookie
Posts: 0
|
Post by CM on Jan 9, 2009 23:35:35 GMT -5
WND fills a niche market, there will always be an extremist hungry for fulfillment, at the feast of ego everyone leaves hungry.
|
|
|
Post by retiredsocal on Jan 10, 2009 4:06:51 GMT -5
Again I am in full agreement with Larry. The quick draw name calling is a conversation ender. One does not wish to continue to attempt engaging in a conversation if they are going to be constantly tagged with names!
As for mention of Corsi and WND, Dale never mentioned those. He just presented a valid question. VOR brought those up as a way of demeaning and tagging Dale. It seems that VOR reads WND more than the conservatives do. I know I don't read it unless an article is linked from another source. Then again, just as WND serves the radical right, there are similar sources that mirror WND for the radical left! It serves no purpose in tagging someone for reading such trash unless they quote it, other than to demean them. Not a way to communicate.
While VOR attacked conservatives (Dale in particular) about wanting to dismantle the states, I didn't read anything from Dale concerning that. He was just asking a question. I see that VOR didn't have any comments when Jack Oliver stated to eliminate Texas (and possibly another state or two) from the United States. I guess it is OK for those comments from a liberal according to VOR because of his silence. I wasn't going to say anything about that until the uneven treatment.
I appreciate the less confrontational style of VOR although he still steps up once in awhile. And Bruce had calmed down during the RR blog. Jack Oliver, well he is Jack Oliver - no change. I believe it was yesterday when the three were blogging one after the other that I thought I was reading the RR blog again. I left without any comments. Name calling and open attacks because a person doesn't support their specific cause. As you say Larry, a conversation ender. If they want to rule ruin the blog, they can have it! I won't fight over a blog! I do have other things to do!
|
|
|
Post by a on Jan 10, 2009 7:58:04 GMT -5
Again I am in full agreement with Larry. The quick draw name calling is a conversation ender. One does not wish to continue to attempt engaging in a conversation if they are going to be constantly tagged with names! As for mention of Corsi and WND, Dale never mentioned those. He just presented a valid question. VOR brought those up as a way of demeaning and tagging Dale. It seems that VOR reads WND more than the conservatives do. I know I don't read it unless an article is linked from another source. Then again, just as WND serves the radical right, there are similar sources that mirror WND for the radical left! It serves no purpose in tagging someone for reading such trash unless they quote it, other than to demean them. Not a way to communicate. While VOR attacked conservatives (Dale in particular) about wanting to dismantle the states, I didn't read anything from Dale concerning that. He was just asking a question. I see that VOR didn't have any comments when Jack Oliver stated to eliminate Texas (and possibly another state or two) from the United States. I guess it is OK for those comments from a liberal according to VOR because of his silence. I wasn't going to say anything about that until the uneven treatment. I appreciate the less confrontational style of VOR although he still steps up once in awhile. And Bruce had calmed down during the RR blog. Jack Oliver, well he is Jack Oliver - no change. I believe it was yesterday when the three were blogging one after the other that I thought I was reading the RR blog again. I left without any comments. Name calling and open attacks because a person doesn't support their specific cause. As you say Larry, a conversation ender. If they want to rule ruin the blog, they can have it! I won't fight over a blog! I do have other things to do! It has appeared to me for some time now that many people attack personally and some threads only survive on personal attacks not substance. I really dont read much left or right unless its on a board with a source attached, Forget TV cant stand all those shows. I am a businessman and have always related what I see to how business is reacting. This debacle was obvious since 98 to me but most didnt want to hear it so I shut up. Obama is caught in the trap of a sit with no easy answer, so money is always the answer in washington. We will be spent into poverty and have to rebuild a nation stolden by government and business plots. The youth will pay the debt not us older guys. Seems now we have all these entertainment sources no one will stand uyp and say no more.
|
|
|
Post by daleescondido on Jan 10, 2009 8:00:48 GMT -5
The last was my post, I messed up
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Jan 10, 2009 12:25:12 GMT -5
Dale, This is different. The current crisis is not like prior periods of cyclical adjustments (and in some cases over adjustments) where the government is deciding how to influence or minimize a trend. It would be hard to find an argument for doing nothing and letting the market handle the changes. We are right now seeing both the impact of the housing bubble burst (and it's effects on short term lending) as well as the anticipation of things getting worst. Jobs are being cut in anticipation of things getting worst which of course makes them worst and feeds further cutbacks. At some point somebody is going to have to decide to make something and others are going to have to decide to buy it. If we are afraid to spend because of fears of job loss than the purchases we do not make will lead to somebody somewhere losing a job. It is coming and going around.
We are already experiencing the effects of continued deficit spending. The question now really ought to be about what we are going to get for our borrowing. Somebody who can still get large amounts of capital needs to spend it. If they sell stock in the companies that produce either the paper or ink to print money I woudl suggest at least a short term investment there. I think your concerns that the government is really best at throwing money at problems is completely valid.
Since the only thing to fear is fear itself (a quote that really has a meaning for our current situation) Obama seems like the kind of leader we would want. It will be as important that the American people believe he can lead us through it whether he can or cannot. Eventually it will be us that makes it happen, but it will help if we have faith or confidence. I really hope that Obama is as smart as we are led to believe. That he will evaluate the situation and act based on the best information at hand.
What that means:
Do not bet your biggest pile of chips on the solutions provided by tax cuts. Most of us are not a couple of thousand dollars away from reassured. If all we are going to do is to transfer our personal debt to the national debt it is doubtful that there will be much left to fuel any meaningful recovery. Avoid the desire to apply some kind of quick fix. We have already spent over three hundred billion and if that was a quick fix I need someone to point out what we fixed.
Kill as many birds with one stone as possible. I used to think that if you were trying to kill two birds with one stone you had to be pretty down on your luck. When you cannot afford stones things are bad. In terms of the recovery we should try to create jobs that produce other desired benefits. Re-building infrstructure will save fuel, time and in the cases of bridges lives. Improvements to the power grid, communication backbones, and education are all investments that can produce both jobs and wages while improving our ability to compete in the global market and fuel other economic growth. We need the jobs and we need the multiplier effects that go with them. Do not create jobs for the sake of jobs. Go green in places where not going green cost us the most. Do not go green solely out of some misguided desire to feel good about it. We spend that money smarter we will be feeling good about it longer.
Create confidence in ourselves and each other. We need to invest our own faith and belief in the new president. Not because he is the first bi-racial president or because he is younger and inspires confidence in some. We should do it because it is the first step in our own recovery.
Do not let the politicians use the bailout funds to either thank previous supporters or garner new supporters for the next election. There is plenty of blame to go around right now, and I think there will be plenty of praise when this is over. Conservatives should relax. Obama has a political advantage right now. It is so bad right now that he has nothing but opportunity. It will be hard for him to not look like an improvement. But these are democrats. Nobody has shown a greater ability to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory than the democratic party. Believe me if there is a way for them to be successful in the administration of the recovery and yet screw up the following election they will do it.
|
|
VOR
banned
BANNED FOR LIFE
VOR
Posts: 294
|
Post by VOR on Jan 10, 2009 13:41:55 GMT -5
To lay a blank statement saying that a comment is a conversation stopper is incorrect, especially when you see a number of comments following mine.
Are conservatives all racists? Are they all bigots? What is the definition of the word bigot? All very good conversation starters.
Larry, if I die and you become boss, then feel free to decide what should be posted and what shouldn't as you see fit. Until then, you and I differ completely on the ideologies that run our country. I will post what I believe to be true...or in other words my opinion.
I haven't talked to ALL conservatives in our country, but the main theme of the conservative ideology is to belittle the minorities in our country, to abuse and use them at their discretion. See or listen to any conservative talk show host, they are all basically the same in ideology and racism.
Did you ever see a Democrat as President veto a bill to help the less fortunate, a minority or someone handicapped? No. Have we seen Republican Presidents do this? Yes.
Did you watch the attendance at the Republican National Convention? All older white men. How come? Racism and fundamentalism.
For some to overlook this aspect of the conservative ideology is a bias that America needs to bridge. Its really one of the main focuses behind the failure of the Republican Party and a large part of why we are in the situations we endure today in America.
Conversation stopper?? I think theres a lot to say. Larry appears to try to walk a line in the sand that he created to stay friends with Jack and Hatch. I don't walk that line.
Is calling someone a bigot or a racist name calling? If you own a home and I call you a homeowner is that name calling? I don't think so. Read the definitions of the two words and tell me.
|
|
VOR
banned
BANNED FOR LIFE
VOR
Posts: 294
|
Post by VOR on Jan 10, 2009 14:07:22 GMT -5
What I didn't see Larry is "what would you fight for" or "As far as the revolt stuff, I am hearing rheteric like that but no one ever says what would make them revolt so I am curious."
I am much more curious to know about these then my opinions and how they personally fit into your "type" of disscussion.
|
|
CM
Rookie
Posts: 0
|
Post by CM on Jan 10, 2009 14:23:31 GMT -5
After reading I was reluctant to respond since I’m leaving in a few to attend the Aztec basketball game against Utah at SDSU, game time 1:00 p.m., but a few statements need a response.
VOR if you did not see minorities at the republican convention then you were watching the wrong channel. I watched the convention from many perspectives, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNC, and yes FOX. Minorities were well represented. This evening I’ll try to locate the link, proving the percentage of minorities were nearly the same as the democratic convention.
Making derogatory blanket statements is a conversation ender, why debate with someone that has no intent to understand or present their view in a manner that is not condescending and objectionable. Dogmatic labels represent a lack of understanding. It does not matter if a person is right if their sole intent is bolster their ego, pound their chest and beat another down then being right makes them wrong and not a winner. The air gets thin atop the soap box. Reminds me when I lived in Amsterdam, the anarchist standing on the street corners preaching to the uninterested crowd.
Just for kicks look up the number of free or nearly free medical clinics opened in minority neighbors in the last 8 years.
The most profound statement came from retiredsocal “If they want to rule ruin the blog, they can have it! I won't fight over a blog! I do have other things to do!” maybe that is the true motive.
Later
|
|
VOR
banned
BANNED FOR LIFE
VOR
Posts: 294
|
Post by VOR on Jan 10, 2009 14:43:15 GMT -5
CM, I guess my "opinion" is generating conversation. You are totally wrong and it is clear that you have no idea what you are talking about concerning the Republican National Convention as described by this writer from a Pittsburgh newspaper.
The Republican National Convention shows its true colors Friday, September 05, 2008 By Tony Norman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette According to a piece in yesterday's Washington Post, only 36 of the 2,380 delegates seated at the Republican National Convention are black -- the lowest number in 40 years.
That number still sounds pretty high if you ask me. Every time TV cameras panned the crowd at the Xcel Energy Center this week, they kept coming back to the same deranged-looking black guy booing every time a speaker mentioned Barack Obama's name.
Gone were the gaggle of excessively happy black folks boogying in the aisles during the last two RNCs.
Stung by charges of faking diversity in the past, the GOP didn't even bother going through the motions this year. I mean, how do you one-up the Democrats after they nominated one of them as their standard bearer?
Larry Wilmore, the Senior Black Correspondent of "The Daily Show," was interviewed on National Public Radio Wednesday night about the racial vibe at the Xcel Center. "Well, it's not exactly what I would call brother friendly," he told the NPR host before announcing his take on why John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin was a brilliant way to win the African-American vote.
|
|