What Is Americas Biggest Problem?

[Willie71]

 

 

 

and most importantly who you going to get the weapons from to fight the revolution, and who exactly do you intend to kill to defeat the Empire?my point being that it is our machine you want to turn off

The point is not having to kill anyone. In the last century, civil disobedience gas resulted in far greater change than armed insurrection. I was shocked when I looked at that evidence, but it was there, black and white, clear as day.

[tar]

I don't think you get to tell a Republican what he believes.

[Willie71]

 

 

Willie71,What kind of logic is that?Maybe if you are not a whacko liberal commie drug addict you are not aligned with the democratic party?Regards, TAR

I am not a democrat, especially not an Obama/Clinton democrat. My political views are more center left, democratic socialist. I am not American either, but that's not really the point anyway. The American system is very unnatural as it forces a black and white polarized political discussion. Left and right are a continuum, not an either/or. In addition to left and right, there is also the authoritarian/populist continuum.

 

 

 

I don't think you get to tell a Republican what he believes.

Did you miss the question mark?

[tar]

So what is wrong with the rancher occupying the bird sanctuary and asking for the land back?

 

Did nobody occupying the police station during the black lives matter occupation have a weapon?

[Ten oz]

Tar, the democrats are not innocent either. They are less problematic than the republicans, as they use less racist/bigoted propaganda, and do have some socially progressive views. Economically, the new way democrats are right wing, but not as far right as the republicans.

As to the power imbalance under Sanders, his plan is to restore self governance to the region. This is a three generation solution. Stopping the invasion which fuels the instability is just one step of many. I'll link another Abby Martin video on the politics in Syria which is quite complicated.

Tar, thank you for watching the video and not dismissing it outright. The fellow being interviewed was part of the machine responsible for the Iraq war, and seemed to be telling the truth on what happened.

In my opinion it is despicable the way conservative groups bully their way to the drivers seat and then pretend everyone in the car has equal responsibility for the destination. Like Bush's use of force authorization vote back in 2003. The Bush administration lied to the people about Iraq's nuclear program, chemical weapons program, link to Al Quada, and it's overall role in supporting terrorism broadly. When senators and congressmen challanged asking for information they were scolded (publically) that the information was beyond top secret and had there patriotism challenged. Bush knew, the military knew, the CIA knew, but the details couldn't be shared because it threatened security. With us or against us. Under that environment Bush demanded a vote. Out of free of appearing weak, losing office, or Bush possibly be right many democrats buckled. Voicing there concerns and fustrations but ultimately voting yes solely based on the notion that the conditions were urgent as the presidents and his admin claimed. Now here we are all these years later, we know Bush lied, we know it was always his goal to invade Iraq and terrorism was just a ruse, we know the vote was based on intimidation and fraud, and yet conservative still try to spread the blame around. It isn't their fault alone. Some Democrats voted for the authorization too so clearly both parties share blame. It is pathetic. When Obama took over the drivers seat of this country we were careening towards an erupting volcano! Yet conservatives argue that since we aren't on a newly paved road heading toward disneyland via fields of flowers today that somehow Obama shares responsibility for Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syrian, and etc. Yet they claim to be the party of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. They can't even take responsible for things for their own policies.

[Willie71]

So what is wrong with the rancher occupying the bird sanctuary and asking for the land back?Did nobody occupying the police station during the black lives matter occupation have a weapon?

I can't make sense out of this. Should I be able to go to a national park, stake out a claim, and say the land us mine?

 

I'm not aware of any Black Lives Matter occupation.

 

Regarding the use of violence/nonviolence, nonviolence is way more effective. If you can get 3.5% of the population behind the movement, success is almost guaranteed. This is why the establishment is frightened to death of Sanders.

 

In my opinion it is despicable the way conservative groups bully their way to the drivers seat and then pretend everyone in the car has equal responsibility for the destination. Like Bush's use of force authorization vote back in 2003. The Bush administration lied to the people about Iraq's nuclear program, chemical weapons program, link to Al Quada, and it's overall role in supporting terrorism broadly. When senators and congressmen challanged asking for information they were scolded (publically) that the information was beyond top secret and had there patriotism challenged. Bush knew, the military knew, the CIA knew, but the details couldn't be shared because it threatened security. With us or against us. Under that environment Bush demanded a vote. Out of free of appearing weak, losing office, or Bush possibly be right many democrats buckled. Voicing there concerns and fustrations but ultimately voting yes solely based on the notion that the conditions were urgent as the presidents and his admin claimed. Now here we are all these years later, we know Bush lied, we know it was always his goal to invade Iraq and terrorism was just a ruse, we know the vote was based on intimidation and fraud, and yet conservative still try to spread the blame around. It isn't their fault alone. Some Democrats voted for the authorization too so clearly both parties share blame. It is pathetic. When Obama took over the drivers seat of this country we were careening towards an erupting volcano! Yet conservatives argue that since we aren't on a newly paved road heading toward disneyland via fields of flowers today that somehow Obama shares responsibility for Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syrian, and etc. Yet they claim to be the party of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. They can't even take responsible for things for their own policies.

I agree that the majority of the responsibility falls on Bush, but Obama did take major campaign donations from the military industrial complex, and has continued the counterproductive drone strike program.

 

I agree that Republicans are averse to personal responsibility. It's a core personality trait it seems, as is an ability to admit fault. They see admitting fault as weakness. The emotional maturity is stunted at about the grade three level. They see the bully as being strong, us vs. them is the normal, and talking back to real authority is cool.

[Ten oz]

Tar, again, Republican Party, ie. Cruz, Carson, Trump. Not you specifically. If you aren't racist, maybe you aren't aligned with the Republican Party?

I don't think you get to tell a Republican what he believes.

TAR, in 1968 George Wallace ran a the most successful third party campaign since Teddy Roosevelt. Some argue it was Ross Perot but Perot didn't actually win electoral votes. He didn't outright win states. Wallace won the whole South. Wallace won 45 electoral votes and 15% of the national vote running on one issue " segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever". Wallace and his supporters were racist. No question. Which party did those Wallace voters support after 68'? Which party today wins those Wallace states? In New York when Trump announce his bid for President he had to pay people to fill the room. In Alabama Trump filled a stadium no problem. You can not deny to obvious and strong racist support within the Republican party. You can argue that every republican to a person is not a racist but you are wrong to claim the party as a whole doesn't placate and rub shoulders with racists.

[Willie71]

Tar, you must be aware of this:

 

The Southern United States as defined by the United States Census Bureau

In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a strategy by some Republican Party candidates of gaining political support in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3]

 

During the 1950s and 1960s, the African-American Civil Rights Movement achieved significant progress in its push for desegregation in the Southern United States. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, in particular, largely dismantled the system of Jim Crow laws that had enforced legal (or de jure) segregation in the South since the end of Reconstruction Era. During this period, Republican politicians such as Presidential candidate Richard Nixon worked to attract southern white conservative voters (most of whom had traditionally supported the Democratic Party) to the Republican Party,[4] and Senator Barry Goldwater won the five formerly Confederate states of the Deep South (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina) in the 1964 presidential election. In the 1968 presidential campaign, Nixon won Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee, all former Confederate states, contributing to the electoral realignment that saw many white, southern voters shift allegiance from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party during this period.

 

In academia, the term "southern strategy" refers primarily to "top down" narratives of the political realignment of the south, which suggest that republican leaders consciously appealed to many white southerners' racial resentments in order to gain their support.[5] This top-down narrative of the southern strategy is generally believed to be the primary force that transformed southern politics following the civil rights era.[6][7] This view has been questioned by historians such as Matthew Lassiter, Kevin M. Kruse, and Joseph Crespino, who have presented an alternative, "bottom up" narrative, which Lassiter has called the "suburban strategy." This narrative recognizes the centrality of racial backlash to the political realignment of the South,[8] but suggests that this backlash took the form of a defense of de facto segregation in the suburbs, rather of overt resistance to racial integration, and that the story of this backlash is a national, rather than a strictly southern one.[9][10][11][12]

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy Edited January 29, 2016 by Willie71

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

I thought it was a good idea to invade Iraq. I thought it was a good idea to have the no fly zones and the sanctions for the years before. I think we should have followed Saddam all the way to Baghdad when we drove him out of Kuwait I think the Iraqis should have taken the opportunity to become a secular, democratic nation. I think it was proper to go after the Taliban. I think it was proper for Obama to kill Bin Laden in Pakistan. I would have liked it better if the Iraqis had voted Saddam out. I would have liked it better if Pakistan had arrested Bin Laden.

 

At the time of the Iraq invasion even people high up in the military, like the guy in Willie71's video thought it very reasonable to think Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Our soldiers approaching Baghdad, were certain he would use gas in the defense of Baghdad. He did not. But at the time, not only was it possible, but considered by everyone as highly likely. I, at the time remember hearing of meetings of various of Saddam's people in Europe, with various of Bin Laden's people and such things. The reports of things that happened were sometimes true and sometimes false, sometimes propaganda driven and sometimes objective reporting. There was a GREAT deal of anti-Zionist propaganda at the time, and there was absolutely zero doubt that we were at war with stateless terrorists. Where they got there money, who they were talking to, who were their friends and what states were supporting them was unknown to us, then and even now. I knew exactly what Bush meant at the time, when he said, you are either with us or against us. I even ask that now. Declare yourself. Are you a friend of America or are you our enemy and do you wish to destroy us? m

 

In the context of our recent discussion and the video I could rephrase the question as "are you with the Empire or are you against the Empire." Do you want to live under the wing of the Empire, or do you want to live under the wing of the Caliph, or the North Korean guy, or any of the people in the world that would burn the flag of the U.S.?

 

I am saying it is unfair to say you are American but you hate America and what it stands for. That is like suing the company you own stock in for poor stock performance. You are suing yourself.

 

If the place is run by 1 percent of us, so be it. It is still us that are in control. The 1 percent are on our side.

 

I like to use the example of taking a jet to a global warming conference, to point out the kind of thing self hating Americans are exhibiting.

 

You make yourself think you are saving the planet at the exact moment you are putting jet exhaust into the air.

 

I will only take you seriously, that you are truly against the Empire, when you refuse every pleasure an d convenience bestowed upon you, by virtue of your membership, and your pledge of allegiance. Stop watching TV, stop driving cars and taking buses and trains and planes and boats. Stop eating food grown with fertilizers and insecticides and buying stuff transported from anywhere and built in any factory with any raw materials, before you say we should not be Americans. We have a way of life We have shared values we share with other nations of the world. There are a few states, like ISIS that we do not wish to coexist with. Those states we fight, or get defeated by. As Americans.

 

Regards, TAR

[Ten oz]

I agree that the majority of the responsibility falls on Bush, but Obama did take major campaign donations from the military industrial complex, and has continued the counterproductive drone strike program.

I agree that Republicans are averse to personal responsibility. It's a core personality trait it seems, as is an ability to admit fault. They see admitting fault as weakness. The emotional maturity is stunted at about the grade three level. They see the bully as being strong, us vs. them is the normal, and talking back to real authority is cool.

There are certian political realities to winning elections. One of the issues Republicans are running on right now is how weak America has become under Obama. Now imagine if Obama had no support within the military industrial complex and stood down drones? The pendulum started at a point and is slowly moving back the other way. On any issue a President can only get so much of what they want. Clinton went with Don't Ask Don't Tell and people look back on that as flawed but at the time the majority of the country simple was ready for more. Today marijuana is still federally illegal. Obama isn't changing that but his DOJ isn't going after states that are allowing for use. That is a step forward. Pragmatic politics is often settling for the best between evils. There is a reason why truly left progressives never win office. Better to have a centrist in office than to lose the office to a right wing conservative.

[Willie71]

There are certian political realities to winning elections. One of the issues Republicans are running on right now is how weak America has become under Obama. Now imagine if Obama had no support within the military industrial complex and stood down drones? The pendulum started at a point and is slowly moving back the other way. On any issue a President can only get so much of what they want. Clinton went with Don't Ask Don't Tell and people look back on that as flawed but at the time the majority of the country simple was ready for more. Today marijuana is still federally illegal. Obama isn't changing that but his DOJ isn't going after states that are allowing for use. That is a step forward. Pragmatic politics is often settling for the best between evils. There is a reason why truly left progressives never win office. Better to have a centrist in office than to lose the office to a right wing conservative.

Until the money is removed from American politics, the oligarchy will continue. I believe Obama wanted to scale back the war, but it would have been political suicide. Same with regulating Wall Street. This is why Hillary can't promise much either. There needs to be a political revolution. Wolf-pac.com is one strategy. Larry Lessig was run out of the debate. Bernie us calling for the political revolution. Whether he can succeed if elected depends on whether people stay motivated, and elect people to congress and the senate who are for the revolution. By himself, he can't do it.

Ten Oz,I thought it was a good idea to invade Iraq. I thought it was a good idea to have the no fly zones and the sanctions for the years before. I think we should have followed Saddam all the way to Baghdad when we drove him out of Kuwait I think the Iraqis should have taken the opportunity to become a secular, democratic nation. I think it was proper to go after the Taliban. I think it was proper for Obama to kill Bin Laden in Pakistan. I would have liked it better if the Iraqis had voted Saddam out. I would have liked it better if Pakistan had arrested Bin Laden.At the time of the Iraq invasion even people high up in the military, like the guy in Willie71's video thought it very reasonable to think Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Our soldiers approaching Baghdad, were certain he would use gas in the defense of Baghdad. He did not. But at the time, not only was it possible, but considered by everyone as highly likely. I, at the time remember hearing of meetings of various of Saddam's people in Europe, with various of Bin Laden's people and such things. The reports of things that happened were sometimes true and sometimes false, sometimes propaganda driven and sometimes objective reporting. There was a GREAT deal of anti-Zionist propaganda at the time, and there was absolutely zero doubt that we were at war with stateless terrorists. Where they got there money, who they were talking to, who were their friends and what states were supporting them was unknown to us, then and even now. I knew exactly what Bush meant at the time, when he said, you are either with us or against us. I even ask that now. Declare yourself. Are you a friend of America or are you our enemy and do you wish to destroy us? mIn the context of our recent discussion and the video I could rephrase the question as "are you with the Empire or are you against the Empire." Do you want to live under the wing of the Empire, or do you want to live under the wing of the Caliph, or the North Korean guy, or any of the people in the world that would burn the flag of the U.S.?I am saying it is unfair to say you are American but you hate America and what it stands for. That is like suing the company you own stock in for poor stock performance. You are suing yourself.If the place is run by 1 percent of us, so be it. It is still us that are in control. The 1 percent are on our side.I like to use the example of taking a jet to a global warming conference, to point out the kind of thing self hating Americans are exhibiting.You make yourself think you are saving the planet at the exact moment you are putting jet exhaust into the air.I will only take you seriously, that you are truly against the Empire, when you refuse every pleasure an d convenience bestowed upon you, by virtue of your membership, and your pledge of allegiance. Stop watching TV, stop driving cars and taking buses and trains and planes and boats. Stop eating food grown with fertilizers and insecticides and buying stuff transported from anywhere and built in any factory with any raw materials, before you say we should not be Americans. We have a way of life We have shared values we share with other nations of the world. There are a few states, like ISIS that we do not wish to coexist with. Those states we fight, or get defeated by. As Americans.Regards, TAR

So changing the empire to represent more than 1% and be more benign internationally never entered your mind? It's either for us or against us?

[Phi for All]

Pragmatic politics is often settling for the best between evils. There is a reason why truly left progressives never win office. Better to have a centrist in office than to lose the office to a right wing conservative.

 

I'm not sure about this at all. I know it's been historically correct, but I think the Republican Party is actually going to force the People to take a stance for real change of the system. Not just "the pendulum swinging back" type politics, but a realization that we're damaged badly, and we need a foundational fix in order to deal with our current and future problems.

 

The problem is laying out the damages in a way that even the conservative like tar will have to acknowledge. They keep imagining that alles in Ordnung and we've done it this way so long that THIS is now the proper way things are done. They need to see that the damage is bad, so bad that we need a major fix.

 

When your child screams that he/she is hurt, and you can visibly see blood spurting from an open artery, YOU DON'T GRAB THE BANDAIDS!

[Ten oz]

Until the money is removed from American politics, the oligarchy will continue. I believe Obama wanted to scale back the war, but it would have been political suicide. Same with regulating Wall Street. This is why Hillary can't promise much either. There needs to be a political revolution. Wolf-pac.com is one strategy. Larry Lessig was run out of the debate. Bernie us calling for the political revolution. Whether he can succeed if elected depends on whether people stay motivated, and elect people to congress and the senate who are for the revolution. By himself, he can't do it.

No revolution is needed in my opinion. The conservatives have done a great job packing courts with the federalist society members. No wild conspiracy theory here. The Federalist Society is a well known organization supported by Republicans and it's members include supreme court justices. Provided Democrats keep winning the White House the federalist societies hold over the court system will dwindle. As that happens corperations won't be people anymore, Gerrymandering can be scaled back, and we can slowly begin regulated our financial institutions again. I believe we are slowly headed in the right direction. Hillary will be far from perfect but she will at least appoint real judges to our federal benches and not agenda driven political shills. Once we get our courts back we can get campaign finance and gerrymandering under control and get our house and senate back. Then we can get our country back.

[tar]

I certainly do rub shoulders with racists as I do with drug addicts and stupid people and uneducated people and people with any number of takes on the world. People often have reasons to look at things differently than someone else. That is why we have elections. That is why we shun people doing it differently than we would like. But you can not legislate morality, you can just make laws that you don't want people to break. This is highly touchy area though, and some people have strong feelings about things and it is dangerous to tell people how they ought to be toward someone else. But all the racists that I rub shoulders with are not white. And some blacks actually hate whites and would steal from a white or get over on a white person, with no regret.

 

I am in a funny position in my life, where I quit my job because my boss was making it unrewarding for me to continue working under the conditions he was instituting. It may have been due to my age, the situation that had developed. Perhaps he was forcing me out, but I quit and can't get unemployment, because I quit, and can't find employment, for a year now. Maybe, because I am 62. It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of age, but everybody does it. Nobody wants to hire their father or grandfather. Can't take direction. Too set in my ways. Bad teeth. Bad knees. Bad ankle. Low T. Too emotional. Not as sharp as a used to be...what ever.

 

If on the other hand I see an angry looking black man or a black man with a crazed drugged look in his eyes walking toward me, I might cross the street and not be a racist. If I recognized the black guy as my neighbors son, I would stop and help him home and see what was the matter.

 

I was quite against Wallace at the time, because of his racism. I don't think however that racism is a litmus test to be a republican and I shun those who act as if it is a requirement.

 

If not liking the idea of anal sex makes me intolerant, then perhaps I am a bit of a homophobe, but that does not mean I have to like anal sex to be a good person. Or that if I liked anal sex I would be an automatic democrat.

I would still fight ISIS so that the gay people I know and love would not be thrown off buildings. Or even those gay people who I don't know.

And I would get in a serious fight with anyone dragging a black man behind a pick up truck.

Edited January 29, 2016 by tar

[Willie71]

I'm not sure about this at all. I know it's been historically correct, but I think the Republican Party is actually going to force the People to take a stance for real change of the system. Not just "the pendulum swinging back" type politics, but a realization that we're damaged badly, and we need a foundational fix in order to deal with our current and future problems.

 

The problem is laying out the damages in a way that even the conservative like tar will have to acknowledge. They keep imagining that alles in Ordnung and we've done it this way so long that THIS is now the proper way things are done. They need to see that the damage is bad, so bad that we need a major fix.

 

When your child screams that he/she is hurt, and you can visibly see blood spurting from an open artery, YOU DON'T GRAB THE BANDAIDS!

Wolf-pack is getting a lot of support at the state level, where the corruption is less advanced. Interestingly, they have had both democrats and republicans work towards the Ammendment, as the politicians don't want to have to make policy based on bribes. It's a bipartisan movement. It was smart to focus at the state level, as the federal level is too far corrupted to gain traction.

I certainly do rub shoulders with racists as I do with drug addicts and stupid people and uneducated people and people with any number of takes on the world. People often have reasons to look at things differently than someone else. That is why we have elections. That is why we shun people doing it differently than we would like. But you can not legislate morality, you can just make laws that you don't want people to break. This is highly touchy area though, and some people have strong feelings about things and it is dangerous to tell people how they ought to be toward someone else. But all the racists that I rub shoulders with are not white. And some blacks actually hate whites and would steal from a white or get over on a white person, with no regret.I am in a funny position in my life, where I quit my job because my boss was making it unrewarding for me to continue working under the conditions he was instituting. It may have been due to my age, the situation that had developed. Perhaps he was forcing me out, but I quit and can't get unemployment, because I quit, and can't find employment, for a y2ear now. Maybe, because I am 62. It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of age, but everybody does it. Nobody wants to hire their father or grandfather. Can't take direction. Too set in my ways. Bad teeth. Bad knees. Bad ankle. Low T. Too emotional. Not as sharp as a used to be...what ever.If on the other hand I see an angry looking black man or a black man with a crazed drugged look in his eyes walking toward me, I might cross the street and not be a racist. If I recognized the black guy as my neighbors son, I would stop and help him home and see what was the matter.I was quite against Wallace at the time, because of his racism. I don't think however that racism is a litmus test to be a republican and I shun those who act as if it is a requirement.If not liking the idea of anal sex makes me intolerant, then perhaps I am a bit of a homophobe, but that does not mean I have to like anal sex to be a good person. Or that if I liked anal sex I would be an automatic democrat.I would still fight ISIS so that the gay people I know and love would not be thrown off buildings. Or even those gay people who I don't know.And I would get in a serious fight with anyone dragging a black man behind a pick up truck.

Tar, it's not relevant if we like or dislike something. Really, it isn't. What is relevant is that I do not believe I should control what you like. I don't want to regulate anal sex, or any other sex. The Republican Oarty wants to regulate people's personal choices, another example of the doublespeak of the freedom agenda. The only freedom they advocate is freedom to be bigots. They see democrats restricting bigotry as being oppressed.

 

You should not legislate morality, as it is subjective. Ethics, however are objective based on the ethical system being utilized. Which ethical system should be used can be debated, however,

Edited January 29, 2016 by Willie71

[Ten oz]

I'm not sure about this at all. I know it's been historically correct, but I think the Republican Party is actually going to force the People to take a stance for real change of the system. Not just "the pendulum swinging back" type politics, but a realization that we're damaged badly, and we need a foundational fix in order to deal with our current and future problems.

 

The problem is laying out the damages in a way that even the conservative like tar will have to acknowledge. They keep imagining that alles in Ordnung and we've done it this way so long that THIS is now the proper way things are done. They need to see that the damage is bad, so bad that we need a major fix.

 

When your child screams that he/she is hurt, and you can visibly see blood spurting from an open artery, YOU DON'T GRAB THE BANDAIDS!

As mentioned in post 563 I think the key is getting our courts back. Step one in electing Presidents who do not favor Federalist Judges. Once we get our courts functioning again we will get campiagn finance form, throttle back gerrymandering, and people rather than corperations will be able to start influencing our political system again. Once the federalist society loses control of our court system I believe the rest will fall like dominos. Edited January 29, 2016 by Ten oz

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

"We" already have our country.

 

 

Who ever is in power, the rest of us are still here, and still Americans. If you were in power you would have to represent me and my beliefs and do things in my name, as that you would be the Head of State, and the person that was me, to the world.

 

Regards, TAR

Hilary hates Republicans, Drug Companies and the Iranians. What if you are an Iranian, and the manager of department in a drug company. Would Hilary be a good president for you? Would she faithfully enforce the laws of the United States that would protect you and your firm?

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,"We" already have our country.Who ever is in power, the rest of us are still here, and still Americans. If you were in power you would have to represent me and my beliefs and do things in my name, as that you would be the Head of State, and the person that was me, to the world.Regards, TARHilary hates Republicans, Drug Companies and the Iranians. What if you are an Iranian, and the manager of department in a drug company. Would Hilary be a good president for you? Would she faithfully enforce the laws of the United States that would protect you and your firm?

Money is speech and corperations are people; you call that having out country? Gerrymandered districts where candidates could lose if they got caught murdering babies on video; you call that having our country? Not me. One person one vote rather than a million dollars a million votes!!!!

 

Hillary would put federalists on the bench. That alone would make her far better than any of the Republcans running.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

If you were a federalist you would not mind having a federalist judge.

 

I think in this discussion, saying things like "get our courts back" is quite making my point in this thread. Only your kind of judge is the proper kind of judge. It is my government too. I remember telling myself I just have to put up with a few more months of Obama and then I would get my county back. Then he got reelected. So I have to do it your way for another year ye t and then hopefully Kasich or Paul or Biden or somebody I can stand will be in charge. Not that I don't think Obama is not a pragmatic and intelligent, charismatic and reasonable President who represents me fine in the eyes of the world, but I don't like his politics, I don't like his healthcare system and I agree that he legislates when he should be enforcing the laws of the land and this is the overreach that the standard republican line talks about.

 

If we are looking for a particular kind of president, or a particular kind of court, or a particular kind of congress before we consider the country ours, then we will have an indefinite wait. Because then either you will be waiting, or someone that thought differently than you would be waiting, forever.

 

Regards, TAR

Phi,

 

What do you think about a system that causes a sports medicine place, to submit a 500 dollar bill to my carrier for an hour visit that they charged me 40 dollars for and when I asked what they would have charged me if I had no insurance, they said 75 dollars a visit? Is that not arbitrary and goofy and is not the nonsense forced or allowed by the new law? If cottage industries like sports medicine facilties spring up in response to the lsw demanding coverage for 'rehabilitation", then it is difficult to know if the intent of the law, is hitting its mark, or whether the letter of the law is causing waste and obscene charges for simple inexpensive stuff.

 

Regards, TAR

[Willie71]

Ten Oz,If you were a federalist you would not mind having a federalist judge.I think in this discussion, saying things like "get our courts back" is quite making my point in this thread. Only your kind of judge is the proper kind of judge. It is my government too. I remember telling myself I just have to put up with a few more months of Obama and then I would get my county back. Then he got reelected. So I have to do it your way for another year ye t and then hopefully Kasich or Paul or Biden or somebody I can stand will be in charge. Not that I don't think Obama is not a pragmatic and intelligent, charismatic and reasonable President who represents me fine in the eyes of the world, but I don't like his politics, I don't like his healthcare system and I agree that he legislates when he should be enforcing the laws of the land and this is the overreach that the standard republican line talks about.If we are looking for a particular kind of president, or a particular kind of court, or a particular kind of congress before we consider the country ours, then we will have an indefinite wait. Because then either you will be waiting, or someone that thought differently than you would be waiting, forever.Regards, TARPhi,What do you think about a system that causes a sports medicine place, to submit a 500 dollar bill to my carrier for an hour visit that they charged me 40 dollars for and when I asked what they would have charged me if I had no insurance, they said 75 dollars a visit? Is that not arbitrary and goofy and is not the nonsense forced or allowed by the new law? If cottage industries like sports medicine facilties spring up in response to the lsw demanding coverage for 'rehabilitation", then it is difficult to know if the intent of the law, is hitting its mark, or whether the letter of the law is causing waste and obscene charges for simple inexpensive stuff.Regards, TAR

 

What people are telling you, and you don't seem to hear, is that people want a government that represents the people, not just the 400 wealthiest families in the country. You conflate your interests as being the same as their interests.

 

Obama has used fewer executive orders than either Reagan or Bush. You must have really hated their politics. So he's weak, but doesn't get pushed around by opposition and government shutdown. More doublespeak. Trump is strong because he does things his way, but Obama is unpatriotic because he does things his way.

 

 

 

Tar, what is your opposition to Obamacare? What is it that is bad?

[MigL]

Not so much the courts Ten oz, I agree with Willie ( fellow Canadian ), the real problem is campaign financing and the lobbyists.

The only way a president can get elected is with massive amounts of money, all of it conveniently provided by representatives of the top 1% ( who then use these campaign contributions to scale back their tax debts ). so much so, that even B. Obama is beholden to them ( and H. Clinton and even B Sanders, if he wants to get elected )

 

Until the 'money/influence' factor is reformed that old saying that 'in America even a poor man can aspire to be president' will never be true again.

[Ten oz]

Not so much the courts Ten oz, I agree with Willie ( fellow Canadian ), the real problem is campaign financing and the lobbyists.

The only way a president can get elected is with massive amounts of money, all of it conveniently provided by representatives of the top 1% ( who then use these campaign contributions to scale back their tax debts ). so much so, that even B. Obama is beholden to them ( and H. Clinton and even B Sanders, if he wants to get elected )

 

Until the 'money/influence' factor is reformed that old saying that 'in America even a poor man can aspire to be president' will never be true again.

That all starts with the Courts. It is court rulings that said money is speech and cooperations are people. Can't limit the power of lobbyists and superpacs until who is a person is redefined.

 

Ten Oz,If you were a federalist you would not mind having a federalist judge.

Law should be settled on its own merrits and not decades in advance by political groups who use the Courts tool to help them meet agendas they can't via the popular electorate. The Federalist Society have a list of goals, laws they either want amended or outright done away with. The focus of a judge should be to uphold law and change it. Judges also should not be politically partisan. You say "if I were a federal" but that in itself speak to how partisan they are. They are a political collective and not individual judges with free will seeking to accurately interpret the Constitution. They get into positions based on their allegiances. That in itself is a major conflict of interest. There is no liberal version of the federal society. There is not a liberal group at law schools around the country recruiting liberals to inact liberal policies through the courts. No quid pro qou for liberals to get positions on benches.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

Well wait, I might not know what being a federalist means. I took it as simply a point of view thing were the spectrum was a battle between centralized control and control at the state level. That is that a federalist would argue that the land in Oregon should belong to the people of the U.S. and state's right leaning individual would argue that the land belongs to the people living on it.

 

This battle is not an evil vs good battle, but one of point of view. Much like conservative and progressive, the battle is not between good and evil but between the benefits of maintaining the status quo, and the benefits of progress and discovery. The one is not bad and the other good.

 

In my former company I lived through many lay offs and cutbacks and many absorptions of other firms. There was a constant battle between centralization and local control. Were should the power lay? In the hands at the top? Or where the rubber meets the road.

 

 

Should the federal government have control of the range or should the rancher?

 

Should the federal government have control of my health care, or should I?

 

Willie71,

 

We cross posted, but I explained in a small paragraph what can happen when the force of the law, the powerful force of the Federal government gets written in to laws that are intended to help drug addicts recover and become productive members of society and get all fouled up, because nobody knows what is the spirit of the law and what is the intent of the law, and everbody just does things that don't make sense, but that follow the letter of the law. If the spirit behind the law is to get poor and homeless people healthcare then what was wrong with the free clinics of the 60s. If the spirit of the law is to prevent people from being bankrupted by a family medical emergency, then that is what private insurance was for in the first place. Even under our new system there are four levels of coverage you pay more, to protect yourself against the big expenses. I don't know the formulae but my wife selected the Gold c

that cost more, but has a lower deductible better matching percentage after the deductible and a closer cap on total expenditure in a year, where the company will pay everything after

 

but this does not include hearing aids or glasses or dental or if you get care outside the network or are on a ship more than half a day from port...and whatever other complicating factors you might throw in

 

Still the wealthy are better protected because they have better coverage because they paid for it.

 

At my work, listening to all the plans and the HSA and FSA and the out of network and in network and eye care and prescription medication rules and what would happen this way or that and when yu would lose money if you didn't use it, and everything else, made my head spin. And ANY selection I made, would have left me paying more for healthcare than I had paid in previous years, for the same healthcare coverage I had already. So I went with my wife's company plan where the company chipped in some more, and made better deals, and was in a different state that may have had different rules. In ANY case, without a job and a company to chip in, the monthly costs are very high. I think we paid like 800 a month to cover our daughter who was too old to be under us. And under the new rules you get fined if you don't buy insurance, as if that makes any sense. If you don't have the money to pay for healthcare, why would you have money to buy insurance against high expenses... and where are you supposed to get the money to pay the fine? From the government that leveed the fine?

 

Anyway, you are in Canada, your system might be more sensible.

 

Regards, TAR

Ten Oz,

 

The framers of our constitution were people in the top 10 percent of intelligence and probably people in the top 1 percent of wealth and power.

 

They did a good job with the thing. They balanced individual rights against the rights of the collective. They didn't count women and slaves equal to freemen but we are working out those kinks as we go along. The meat of the thing though was well thought out. The balance of power between the people that make the laws and the people that enforce the laws and the people that make sure the laws are just. Each branch has certain powers over the other branches. And in the congress the houses are structured for a reason. The house of representatives to reflect the will of the population and the senate to reflect the will of each state. Each with two senators regardless of their population.

 

The will of the minority is given consideration in our system, in both spirit and letter.

 

Regards, TAR

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,Well wait, I might not know what being a federalist means.

The Federalist Society is an organization. They have chapters all over the country.they operate in plain view and few people notice. Form their website:

"The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities.

This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law. It also requires restoring the recognition of the importance of these norms among lawyers, judges, law students and professors. In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative and libertarian intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community."

http://www.fed-soc.org

[tar]

it is interesting to me that the last two national elections has shifted control of both the house and the senate to the Republicans and the only thing this means to liberals is that the republicans are misguided dupes

 

 

I think as scientists, you might look for other more reasonable explanations.

Ten Oz,

 

From your link.

 

"On the topic of poverty, liberals claim the moral high ground. Their response includes federal and local interventions including entitlements, higher taxes, and a generally bigger and more active government. Despite liberals' insistence to the contrary, conservatives and libertarians also care about the poor, but they have their own ideas about how to lift people out of poverty. This symposium will explore these ideas."

 

There is indeed more than one way to skin a cat. And indeed, if you think about it, if entitlements were indeed the way to do it 50 years of entitlements should have done the trick.

 

Regards, TAR