Leftist Projections du Jour
Politics
| April 19, 2004
| Tim
I'm aghast at the plentiful deception, violence, and hatred I see coming from the left these days. Opponents impersonated in political ads; death threats and dark, violent mutterings...
To start things off, there's Bob Edgar, former Democratic Congressman. You see him now and then on talk shows: Even though he's a Methodist, he wears over-the-top Catholic-style priests' garb -- black frock, white collar and all -- and insists on being called "Father".
What's the standard leftist diatribe about conservatives and religion? I think it was that conservative Christians want to force their beliefs on others by making them law, and/or that their beliefs are just a smokescreen for installing Republicans in office.
Well, check out Bob Edgar and his friends:
When asked what social action groups he would recommend, retired United Methodist Bishop C. Dale White distributed a list of mostly left-wing groups devoted to environmental regulations, taxpayer-funded abortion, gun control, pacifism, and nuclear disarmament. He made a special point of recommending MoveOn.org...
Many of the conference leaders had official ties, past and present, to the Democratic Party. NCC [National Council of Churches] General Secretary Bob Edgar ... was especially unabashed about identifying the Christian faith with a specific political agenda ... He announced his belief that these are among “the darkest times” in world history. The NCC chief opined that “we” need to elect 15 new members of the House and five new members of the Senate (seemingly for Democrats to gain an effective majority), in addition to a new President.
Why do Democrats claim religion is just a tool Republicans use to gain power? Because that's how they would use it, if they could.
When praising a Republican congressman, note the turn of phrase which comes to Edgar's mind:
Bob Edgar praised the work of a Pennsylvania Republican congressman on one issue, while jocularly admitting that “on almost every [other] issue, I’d like to have fingerprints around [Congressman] Curt Weldon’s neck.”
Ahh. Bob thinks of manual strangulation. Nice. Perhaps we now understand why Edgar must see his opponents as promoting violence.
Next, from the same source (IRD), we have an account of feminist theologian complaining about how conservatives distort language:
[Unzu] Lee warned, “We are not doing a good enough job in fighting those who are corrupting the language.” Specifically she was concerned about conservative church women who are using the language of “diversity” to expect inclusion of a pro-life perspective in the women’s caucus of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
Diversity means including more than one point of view? Views different than ours? Never! The nerve! Look at how shamefully they are corrupting language!
Finally, we have two wonderful anti-Bush campaign ad tidbits from a Washington Times article in which Bush's critics:
- Fake footage of Bush incriminating himself before the 9/11 commission
- Say Donald Rumsfelt should be killed with a point-blank gunshot: "We should put this S.O.B. up against the wall and say 'This is one of our bad days,' and pull the trigger."
- Claim those killing coalition soldiers in Iraq are "Iraqi Patriots" (pay no attention to the Iranian funding and Baathist connections!)
Regarding the fake testimony ad: Those at MoveOn.org claim Bush is distorting and misleading because, after all, it's what they would do (as clearly demonstrated by the ad) to forward their cause. How could Bush be any better than we?
The Florida Democrats who ran the other ad think Rumsfeld must be a immoral, violent killer because, after all, that's the impulse they clearly experience when confronted by someone they disagree with. Look at the content of the ad! What kind of impulses crafted it?
Can anyone say otherwise?
Hey, just becuse Democrats "would do it if they could" in your line of thinking , doesn't make it right. I'm sorry but some of us out here in America, working, tax paying family raising people, don't like the direction the Republicans have taken, and I mean TAKEN this country. (Election of 2000...Conservative court appoints Bush as President!) However you try and disguise your political leanings and make it seem "OK" to distort and corrupt the political process the way the Republicans and the conservative radical religious right wing have, because the Dems would do it if they could...Bullshit! the political double-think and dogma coming out of the Republican leadership is frighting. Like, give tax breaks to the wealthy so the poor can get jobs and get rich...Push "No child left behind" legislation then don't fund it yet keeping the worst of the program in place just promoting failure in high school students...
I am mad at the Republican administration...I am an American and this administration doesn't even come close to representing me or my way of thinking. They have left me behind and about 47% of the rest of America.
Don't be confused...we are angry about this...very angry!
Dennis,
I'm aware you are angry. There was never any question that leftists, these days, frequently appear to be very, very angry. (I fear a group of people who seethe with murderous rage when they're not in absolute control.)
First, a reality check: As a non-partisan conservative (on many areas, anyway), I was unhappy with some (but not all) of the things which went on under Clinton. And some of them indeed made me angry too -- such as when he sold top-secret long-range missle technology to the Chinese.
But please note that murder of random liberals, much less Clinton, was not among the set of responses I gave. (Sadness would be more acccurate.) Nor was it part of the way my friends who felt similarly acted nor spoke. Nor was it advocated from conservative clergy nor was it part of any conservative campaign!
So I hope I'm reading you right and that you condemn this sort of rhetoric when coming from the left, as I should and would when anything similar came from the right.
Yes?
There is no doubt about your feelings, but neither do our feelings justify every random action we might take.
However you try and disguise your political leanings and make it seem "OK" to distort and corrupt the political process...
Why do you assume I'm trying to deceive you in some way? Is that what you'd do in my situation?
Where on earth did you get the idea I'm attempting to "disguise" something about my feelings or views?
Second point: What are you talking about when you charge your perceived enemies "distort and corrupt the political process"?? Is there something you feel Republicans do today which all politicians -- Democrats included -- seldom or never do?
Cite some specific example.
... the political double-think and dogma coming out of the Republican leadership is frighting. Like, give tax breaks to the wealthy so the poor can get jobs and get rich...
Have you never sat down, just for a minute, and asked yourself if you just might be wrong? I used to think like you did, on this point. I looked into it, and the evidence changed my mind.
You know, if you run around advocating some idea which is dead wrong, you could be actually hurting the people you think you're helping. Your feelings won't fix the damage you're doing. So I think it's worth it to find these things out.
All the evidence I can find says that, above a certain level, raising taxes further depresses economic activity, and thus decreases total tax receipts. And vise-versa.
And I can point to historical evidence which agrees. And it looks like we're living in the midst of some of it.
Further, at about 50% taxes, with the wealthy paying more, not less, proportionally than the rest of us, I'm reasonably convinced we're in the "too high" territory.
Last, I cannot understand the rage people display when taxes are dropped. If Bob pays twice as much as Fred, and we all get 2% rebate, shouldn't Bob also get twice as much back?
I am mad at the Republican administration...I am an American and this administration doesn't even come close to representing me or my way of thinking. They have left me behind and about 47% of the rest of America.
Look, you don't agree with me. And I don't agree with you. You are angry at people who think like me... and some of your peers speak of murder with some frequency.
No offense personally, but if rage is the only response you can think of when disagreed with, or not represented well enough, and if 47% of the country reacts as you do, then our Republic is dead; finished; kaput. Regardless of who is in power.
I don't know what you believe. We may agree on some points. But, from the bits I can see so far -- you seem wrong to me -- I'm probably glad we have an administration which doesn't do what you want.
In the mean time, instead of anger -- I'd suggest first making sure your own beliefs are correct,* and then trying to explain your position to open-minded people. If you have clear, unambiguous evidence, and you can show you make sense, you'll win some over, and increase the 47%.
(* A good way to do this is rational discussion with people who disagree with you. If they have a good point, perhaps they can explain their views to you. Choose the views which match the evidence best.)
There's another way to increase that 47%, and it's been used many times in the past, in other countries, with proven effectiveness. But involves lots of rage, hatred, and intolerance for people who don't agree with you 100%, or do precisely what you want. And it usually ends with bloodshed, so I can't recommend it.
wow dennis completely missed the point of what you wrote.
and his disjoited rhetoric was really hard to follow...
but the first thing that puts out as fact (bush being apointed as apposed to elected is at this point tiresome. and easily refutable. seeing that 5 national newspapers sponsered and payed for a re-count in florida specifically to further embarrass the bush admin, but lo and behold it counted up in his favor again. the papers in question slid that bit of frustrating news (for them) to the middle of thier papers...
and they had such high hopes...
mostly what I dont think he understood was the concept of projection.
I might be mistaken but last thing I heard the recount showed that the Gore strategy wouldn't have changed anything since the districts they wanted discounted really gave a majority for Bush. BUT when recounting the entire of Florida Gore would have taken the state.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,2763,430306,00.html
No matter how fancy you tear down my opinions and accuse me of writing disjointed arguements, history will prove that even middle of the road conservative Republicans wrong.
Bush as governor of Texas had more people put to death than any other governor in modern history. He was assisted by Mr. Gonzales his new Attorney General. Our Attorney General who believes torture is justified when you classify someone as an insurgent not a soldier.
He gave tax relief to the ultra rich while cutting Pell Grant money to poor and middle class students. Now he wants to take and make the tax cuts permanent while our country is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a failed war in Iraq. How does he plan on paying for the tax cut and war at the same time? Borrow the money!!!
He pused No Student Left Behind but failed to fund it.
He spent $65,000,000 on his Inaguration during war tiem, compared to Roosevelt who in 1945 spent the equavalant of $20,000 in todays money.
The man is a self centered ego manic and the Republicans are all drones following him like a bunch of lemmings going over the cliff.
Connie Rice tells the Senate confermation hearing that there are 140,000 Iraqi troups trained now but was corrected by Senator Biden who stated that there are only 6,000 trained troups...what is wrong with this picture?
It is no my probl;em but a national problem of lack of accountability and credability amonst our top administrators.
Dennis
Dennis!
Good to hear from you! Hope you had a good new year, et al. Though I like you personally, I will have to spar with you intellectually, as usual. It's kind of my job here.
No matter how fancy you tear down my opinions...
Dennis, there's only two ways to look at this. One is that you're on a "team" which deserves your loyalty, right or wrong. The other is that you (or I) are just trying to do the best thing that helps people, whatever that is.
I don't know what your angle is, but when somebody shows I'm wrong on some point, I at least back off, or, if the evidence is good enough, I change my mind and politics. Otherwise, I end up hurting people further by advocating wrong ideas that hurt, not help.
Take Reagan. I literally cried when he beat my hero, Jimmy Carter. I thought it was the end of the world. After I learned some economics, I realized he was right, and Carter (and most of Reagan's economic critics) were just plain wrong. I changed my opinion.
It doesn't prove I'm right now -- I'm fallible and still might not have all the evidence. There might be something I'm missing. But it shows, even if I make mistakes, that I'm at least willing to do whatever to help people rather than exhibit blind loyalty to "my" team or political group or ideas.
A failure to act that way, by those motives, really reveals, whatever one's intention, that one is on the "dark side". I don't mean that one has the wrong opinions -- that's part of being human. But that one is not acting in good faith to help one's fellow humans, by the best evidence one can get at the moment.
... and accuse me of writing disjointed arguements...
That was someone else, not me.
... history will prove that even middle of the road conservative Republicans wrong.
Well, that could be, but you'll have to be specific. About what? When? I mean, we know socialism turned out to work pretty badly -- and thus conservatives were right about that. "Reaganomics" have been shown right. Affirmative action is turning out to hurt it's intended beneficiaries rather than help them. Sweden has already given up on socialized medicine, and England's starting to go that way too (just saw a news report on that today -- they're finally privatizing)...
Since I don't think the basic rules of economics or character of human nature will change someday soon, I believe those verdicts will probably remain locked in for quite a long time.
Sure, it's possible some particular conservative theory will be shown to be really, really wrong at some point ahead, but I can predict the opposite just as easily. Predictions are cheap. Anyone can make them.
Bush as governor of Texas had more people put to death than any other governor in modern history.
If you believe the death penalty is inherantly immoral, then this makes sense as a criticism. But I'm not yet persuaded likewise. Show me people were wrongly put to death, and I'll join you in this concern.
He was assisted by Mr. Gonzales his new Attorney General.
The job of a good state AG is not to enforce his own beliefs, but to enforce the laws of his state. I lived in Missouri when Ashcroft was AG. As a protestant, he was morally opposed to gambling. As the AG of Missouri, he protected casinos and helped them operate.
It's a little thing called "Rule of Law". I'm in favor of it, personally. It shocks me so many on the left can't understand that legistlative power (e.g. the power to change and make law) is constitutionally given to the LEGISLATURE not a lawyer or judge.
Our Attorney General who believes torture is justified when you classify someone as an insurgent not a soldier.
I keep seeing this from the left these days, but am unsure of the charges. Could you clue me in?
The best thing I can find is this memo, in which Gonzales opines that terrorists are not covered by the Geneva convention, but clearly recommends humane treatment, nonetheless.
As far as his legal opinion, as far as I can tell, he's correct: Un-uniformed combatants not representing a specific country do not fall under the Geneva Convention's protections, whatever we may wish. I've studied them myself to be sure about this.
But it doesn't follow that everyone who notices that reality is therefore advocating torture. Everything I've seen indicates, like most normal humans, he's does not.
Again, leftists seem to be confused about the role of a lawyer, judge, or AG. Their job is not to say what the law should be -- do that, and we no longer live in a democracy. It's to say what it is, whether we like it or not. If Gonzales points out a certain type of prisoner doesn't fall under Geneva, that's not his fault.
Am I conclude you'd rather he'd tell a blatant lie that promotes your desired political view? Are you indicating you'd do so?
He gave tax relief to the ultra rich...
Ummm... he gave tax relief to everyone who pays taxes. That's what "tax relief" means.
To be fair, in my opinion, it should be refunded in the same proportion it is collected. (That's certainly what most people would demand at a restaurant, if the waiter said people had overpaid. "Do unto others.")
Even so, that refund was, in fact, tilted disproprionately towards lower-income Americans. In other words, the rich got a proportionally smaller cut than the poor. I disagree with that, but hey...
I've looked this up myself Dennis, and would be happy to dredge the evidence up again, if you'd like it. But somehow, I'm not yet convinced you'd change your mind anyway. But you're always welcomed to prove me wrong.
... while cutting Pell Grant money to poor and middle class students...
No, Dennis, your liberal counterparts are lying to you once again. Here is the total history of Pell Grant funding from 1972 to 2002. If you examine 2000-2002, you can see significant increases, both as an absolute number and as a percent of the cost of an education. Here the the correction to the myth, and funding figures for FY2004, where you can see a futher expansion.
Now, two points:
(1) Even if this were true: So what? The guy made huge increases in education overall -- bigger than Clinton. Even if he'd cut one small area a bit while raising all the rest, wouldn't that be a "positive" effect overall (to a liberal, anyway, who equates cost with quality -- I don't)? Are we actually concerned about education here, or are we just desparate to find something to pick at???
(2) I'm told that the left really hates that the right "lies". But Dennis, your "friends" are deliberate deceiving you here. On point after point.
At some point, if you're an honest kind of guy (and I know you are) you should get a bit p*ssed at them for pulling this on you... at a minimum because you trust them, go off and make their arguments on my blog, and I shoot you down and embarrass you.
Don't blame me, I'm not doing it out of any kind of animosity or anything. I enjoy your correspondance, actually, and like what I can see of you so far, in our more candid moments.
And it's not your fault -- at least not the first several times, for trusting them. They know how to spin a fiction to get you guys with good hearts worked up.
Instead, after this happens enough times, you should blame them for loading you up with deceitful, false arguments. And stop trusting them so easily.
Now he wants to take and make the tax cuts permanent while our country is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a failed war in Iraq...
I've presented the evidence before that tax cuts actually increases government tax receipts. I think the economy is also presenting the evidence right now (have you seen this month's job-creation numbers? stunning!) that it helps the economy.
Therefore, I'm in favor of making the tax cuts permanent. They're shallower than both the Kennedy and Reagan cuts, so I actually think we need some more.
You see, we're talking at cross purposes. You assume they're evil and hurt people. I have been convinced that they help people, including the lower class.
So you'll have to address the evidence at some point, not just keep talking about tax cuts as evil. If you can show the evidence is false, then I'll agree they're harmful. If not, then perhaps someone who favors the lower classes should support them, rather than complain about them.
And as far as the rich -- what do I care? I don't get angry when the rich get richer. I'm not driven by envy. As long it's not done illegally the poor are not hurt, why not let them have their fun? What do I care?
He pus[h]ed No Student Left Behind but failed to fund it.
Actually, he failed to fund it to the maximum amount allowable. Funding for NCLB is between the minimum and maximum specified. It is not an "unfunded mandate", as your peers like to tell you.
I think it's probably a mistake, but certainly not because he didn't throw more money at education. By liberal standards, it puts Bill Clinton to shame.
But like I said, what's the point? NCLB is entirely voluntary. Even if he's only put $1000 towards it nobody would be hurt, because schools aren't required to do it at all.
He spent $65,000,000 on his Inaguration during war tiem, compared to Roosevelt who in 1945 spent the equavalant of $20,000 in todays money.
I think he probably spent a bit too much too, but I also suspect you're being unprincipled in your criticism here.
Bush actually spent significantly less (25%) than Clinton did, adjusted for inflation since 1997. Bush, for example, held 9 inaugural balls, whereas Clinton held a record 12.
As far as the war is concerned, the criticism I hear from the left is usually either that we shouldn't be in at it all (I don't agree, but that's a separate debate) and/or that we're not funding it enough.
The same argument could have been applied to Clinton, too, of course: He could have spent the money preventing 9/11. You can always find a reason to play that card. But I'm not the kind of guy who goes in for those kind of cheap shots, against either party.
Being as frugal as I am, I do wish Bush had scaled back drastically, but I'm no more critical of him than Clinton, given that I'm not partisan about these things. And I don't suspect Kerry would have done any differently either: he certainly put before us a bigger bill of goods than even Bush. And nor would I have been any different towards Kerry, had he done the same.
I'm non-partisan, Dennis. Please understand that. I don't use different rules for different political parties.
The man is a self centered ego manic...
So, when the left says conservatives are "judgemental", what exactly do they mean by that?
And how do you know, for example, that he's more self-centered than other politicians. Say Clinton. Or Teddy Kennedy, who let a woman drown. Or Trentt Lott (to be non-partisan -- or do you think conservative politicians are all evil and liberal politicians are motivated by something other than ego?)
...and the Republicans are all drones following him like a bunch of lemmings going over the cliff.
If we're such mindless drones, then why it is that when we have an argument, I've already done the research before forming my opinions, whereas you seem to echo whatever lame (and disprovable) rumor the left is feeding the populace these days?
I mean, I'm not trying to insult you, but it looks to me like I'm the one actually doing all the fact-checking here.
Did it ever occur to you that hatred is an important part of manipulating people? And that appeal to an individual's trust and self-righteousness is a very easy way to keep them in line?
That's why we consevatives keep accusing so many liberals of "projection" -- they are shown to be guilty of everything they accuse us of. Including the hate bits. And the not-looking-things up bits. And the lying bits.
Look, I disagree with you, but do I hate you? Of course not. I view you as deceived. Even if I didn't, I still wouldn't hate you, though I'd lament how your views and desired policies hurt people. But you keep talking about how your opponents are evil incarnate.
Look at the Germans in the 1930s. The German people were sure the Jews were the evil manipulators. They were sure they were the source of all greed and evil in society. They hated their religion. Their media fed them -- just as almost everything thing you've said to me has come straight out of mainstream media. They were sure they were on the side of the angels, and that their oponents were soulless, greedy, intolerant, hateful, and evil incarnate.
They were dead wrong.
Let that unsettle you, friend. You're not made of some special fabric that insulates you from being manipulated. Nor am I, which is why I've tried so hard to find out where the chips really fall.
Bush isn't perfect, but I fear your companions far more than I fear him, as I see the same traits in them which have hurt so many in history.
How many of their lies have I exposed before you now? They are not acting in your best interest, friend.
Connie Rice tells the Senate confermation hearing that there are 140,000 Iraqi troups trained now but was corrected by Senator Biden who stated that there are only 6,000 trained troups...what is wrong with this picture?
I don't know, but I haven't taken the time to research that point. She may have been wrong. Or Biden may have been wrong.
But I'll tell you this: When I do take the time to do the research, the left's position is almost always shown to be wrong.
Hey, this could be the one exception. It's possible. But again, this is sort of a "so what" issue. So what? A lot of people get a lot of numbers wrong.
She's been in charge of National Security, not the Pentagon. Could I keep all that straight without making a single error under that kind of non-stop pressure? Probably not. Thus, I'm not inclined to throw rocks.
Okay, I took the time to do the research. Looks to me like the 140,000 number is simply the number of troops we have there now.
I personally make such switches all the time. I say the wrong person's name when I've got two of them in mind at the moment. I've given out friend's phone numbers instead of my own. I'm worse with numbers than names. (Probably most people are.) If she'd written it down in a paper, that would be a serious issue, but a quick verbal mis-statement? Perhaps you're good enough to throw that rock, but I'm not.
Looks like Biden is wrong, too, or has picked a low-ball figure. Look on page 17: If you count police, national guard, and troops, you get over 125,000. But if you want to look only at the "troops" column, and look a few months back (say August), you can get the figure as low as 6,000.
I could say that either one of them was a spin, I suppose (is low-balling any better than high-balling a number, even if we assume she did it intentionally?), but what's the point? Is that really what you're on about, Dennis?
Are you saying this woman is somehow less competant than, say, Madeline Albright or (shudder) Christopher Warren??? Or again, are you just looking for the tiniest rocks to hurl???
Is this about real issues, or do you play by different rules for different parties? I mean, really, I could give you a list several pages long about why Albright was an awful SoS. I could have done it when she was sworn in too. And it would include things like "Told Saddam we had no interest in Kuwait" and "Responsible for Somalia", not things like "Quoted a number wrong before being corrected."
I mean, really, is this what it's come down to? I indict the left for still believing in socialism, which has killed more than 100,000,000 in the last century, and liberals come here and complain Condi Rice got a figure wrong, under impromptu verbal cross-examination, on an area she won't even be in charge of????
I mean, you were completely wrong about many, many things you said here. Other than correcting you, am I saying what an awful person you are? No.
I'd really think about all this if I were you.
Hi Tim,
Well it has been over a year since my last entry with you and what an interesting year it has been. The Republicans are being exposed for the criminals that they are...hypocrits, swindlers, influence peddlers, war mongers, pedeophiles, it is a pathetic litaney of failures...really is...I am sickened by it all...really. My wife's family are all Republicans...Fox News watchers...brainwashed by the numbing repitition of the lies coming out of their conservative pundits.
The truth is there to be found, it just takes a bit of effort...instead they prefer to be spoon fed information that confirms their construct of reality...very Orwellian don't you think?
Hope all is well Tim.....I do love you my brother...and do not believe in violence as a means to resolve any conflict, unless confronted with a psycopath...then there is no choice...
Take Care,
Dennis
Hi Tim,
Well, it is February of 2008, the truth is out now about the 940 docuemented lies that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and Connie Rice told to the American press leading up to and after the start of the Iraq War.
Bush stole the 2000 presidency, that is well docuemented, with the total cooperation of the US Supreme Court, which voted in a 5 to 4 decision to overturn the Florida State Supreme Courts finding to push ahead with the recount.
I wreck? Is it not what Bush and his cronies have done to America in the last 7 years?
War, doubling of the national debt to 11 trillion dollars, the collapse of the value of the US dollar, the oil crises, the enviromental crises, the trade dececit, the crashing economy, a failed health care system, our infra-structure collapsing here in America. Tim, the list is endles!!!.
Total and utter failure on the part of the Bush Administration and the legislative and judicial branches of government that supported him.
How much proof do you need to see he is incompitant and evil TIM?
I have not changed my opinion of this self centered pathtic group of Republicans from day 1.
I was correct in my assesment then and I am correct now.
They are criminals without borders. But the time of reconning is almost upon them.
I can hardly wait to watch them squirm!
Dennis
As usual, I have responded to Dennis's various contentions, point-by-point, in a letter I've emailed to him personally. As usual, I haven't heard anything back.
Does he care about the Supreme Court overturning election results? I confront him with evidence that it was the Florida, not US Supreme Court who did so. Does he actually care about the economy? I present him with evidence that those he favors will harm, not help it. Does he actually care about any of the other issues he raises?
As usual, no response. My sad experience with those on the left is that they tend to want to tell you how much they care, but show no real interest in learning the facts on any issue. So they end up embracing policies which produce the very results they claim to hate.
Tim-
Well, when looking back at my arguments made from 2004 about the Republican ****** Machine and the dangers of following a neo-conservative philosophy over a cliff, I think my points have been proved out to be correct.
1,200,000 new homes in foreclosure this year alone! The top 1% of Americans control more wealth than the lower 90%!
The ratio of average US wages for a family of 4 (about $45,600yr) to the average earnings of the top 1% of Americans, is at an all time high now of 985 to 1...you do the math...985 times 45,500 and that gives you the average income of the top 1% of America. Now, top hedge fund manager took home $1.2 BILLION DOLLARS!
From 1934 on that number began to drop for a high of 875 to 1 in 1929. That ratio is one of the key indicators and trigger points that massive depressions have formed around...
In the time preceding World War II, that ratio dropped to 275 to 1 and ushered in the largest expansion of the middle class in the United States in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD!
Starting with the Nixon tax rate rollbacks from the 1968 to 1976, to the present, the highest tax rate has been lowered to 35% period! In 1968, if you were paid a salary over $400,000, 95% of that money would go to the government. That was a very powerful disincentive to pay high wages. That all changed as the max tax rates dropped.
And the Florida Recount issue? The Florida Supreme Court Decision to push ahead with a complete recount in certain voting areas, was overturned in a 5 to 4 split vote by the US Supreme Court. A Supreme Court Justice resigned as a direct result of the actions taken by court to stop the Florida Recount. If it had been allowed, Kerry would have won the state quite nicely.
Chief Justice Rehnquist was unrepentant in his part in this matter. The interesting thing about this specific ruling, was that the US Supreme Court ordered that this decision was not binding in any future litigation and this ruling was a one time stated policy. THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THE US SUPREME COURT, THAT A RULING WAS SPECIFIC TO A ONE TIME POLITICAL DECISION. It was specifically designated to be used one time only!
First off: You're welcomed to comment here, Dennis, but you're going to have to watch the cussing, capiche?
I think my points have been proved out to be correct.
Dennis: If a failure to respond is some kind of winning move, then, yeah, you're batting 1000 here. Otherwise, well, not so much.
1,200,000 new homes in foreclosure this year alone!
Little history lesson: YOUR political party worked very hard, for decades, to force banks to give loans out to unqualified applicants. Remember all the talk of the evils of "redlining"? I sure do. And now you cry crocodile tears that many of people who really shouldn't have gotten big loans did, and couldn't afford the resulting situation? Look at the results of Democratic policies, Dennis. Look hard and think for once.
Are you aware when most those loans were being handed out? The nineties? Bill Clinton? Absurd and unsustainably low interest rates? Ring any bells? You didn't seem to mind those practices ONE BIT when that was going then. That that the piper shows up at the door, wanting to be paid, who do you blame? No-one involved. "It's that OTHER party -- just them. None of my people!"
And now Democrats on the hill are trying to bail out their friends at Countrywide, and other similar companies, and were clearly receiving bribes for special favors, and you have the nerve, to allege that it's that party you hate which was primarily (or only!) at fault here?
Wake up, little one. There's a big world out there. Learn to follow the $$$, even if it incriminates the politicians you tend to support.
The top 1% of Americans control more wealth than the lower 90%!
So bloody what? How is it hurting you? You wallowing in poverty because there are successful companies which decided to make a product with everyone benefited from? You complain about the money, but, Dennis, you, and the rest of us, gave it to them voluntarily because we liked what they had invented or created, and found it worth the trade.
So instead, you want -- what exactly? You want Bill Gates (who I don't even like much) to move to Europe instead? You want to storm his house, take away his cash, and make sure nobody ever makes the mistake of building another Microsoft, Intel, or Apple here in the US? Brilliant move. Learn some lessons from history, Dennis. USSR? Grrreat move there. But I'm sure you're more than willing to repeat it, and starve so many to death, to give yourself a good feeling
Do you CARE if your policies will make everyone poorer? Is that AT ALL important to you? Or is it just important for you to make your own personal envy the basis for your poorly-thought-through policies?
Grow up, Dennis. Learn to think a little.
Now, top hedge fund manager took home $1.2 BILLION DOLLARS!
Again, SO BLOODY WHAT? You live in the RICHEST stinking country in the world, you live at an UNPARALLED standard of luxury, both historically and geographically -- and you're sitting here, MISERABLE, because some guy made "too much" money -- freely offered by his clients, with no coercion whatsoever -- for helping them invest well?
You're blind with envy, Dennis. There's a reason God calls it a sin: it leads people to do really stupid things.
You're being a fool, Dennis. A fool and easily-manipulated tool. Your idea of "bad" is probably $4/gallon gasoline. (Brought about by your own party, of course, not that it interests you in the slightest.) And now you want to strangle the goose which has laid all your golden eggs? Great move, there.
And you don't even have the faintest clue as to what a "hedge fund" even is -- and why they're vital to the functioning of your economy, do you? Not the slightest interest. You just read your half-baked far-left sources, which keep you in the dark, lie to you, and manipulate your fears, and you get all riled up and wanna DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING!
People like that are suckers for dictators, of course. I remember your glowing words for Chavez, your admiration of the Weathermen. You scream about the eeevils of George Bush (oh, please) but when a real dictator shows up .... well, he gets a lovely reception and accolades!
From 1934 on that number began to drop... That ratio is one of the key indicators and trigger points that massive depressions have formed around...
Well, then, by your logic the depression must have been a GREAT time! Did you even notice the implication of your own argument? Hint: Dennis: look at the poorest countries in the world. You want to see a nation with the least "inequality"? Try North Korea. Look into Somalia. Or Burma.
In the time preceding World War II, that ratio dropped to 275 to 1 and ushered in the largest expansion of the middle class in the United States in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD!
Again, you've got it entirely backward. The "explosion" was caused by the passing of FDR and the end of the war: price controls were dropped and people could build businesses again. As privation disappeared, people got wealthier. And so inequality increased. There's a reason that ratio was low BEFORE the boom -- because everyone was still poor!
You're sitting there quoting statistics which should show EVEN YOU that during "the largest expansion of the middle class" inequality was increasing as things got better (and it was lowest, i.e. "best" in your judgment, when people had nothing) , and you can't even SEE what you're saying?
Wake up!!!
And the Florida Recount issue? The Florida Supreme Court Decision to push ahead with a complete recount in certain voting areas, was overturned in a 5 to 4 split vote by the US Supreme Court... If it had been allowed, Kerry would have won the state quite nicely.
You mean, Kerry would have won Florida in 2000? Betcha AL GORE would have been pretty surprised by that!
First, it the election shouldn't have been decided by courts, then Gore shouldn't have sued to put it there! Civilized people win elections by playing by the rules.
And yes, of course, the far-left-leaning Florida Supreme Court asked quite a number of counties -- which had NO question about their votes -- to recount over and over until enough voted could be "discovered" for Gore. Aren't you ashamed to be defending such tactics? Doesn't it make you cringe, or have you lost all conscience?
So, yes, of course the Supreme Court had to step in. It was, if you recall, a FEDERAL election. What were they supposed to do? Turn down the appeal on the grounds it wasn't significant enough? Ask the whole nation to wait around for several months until the FL Supreme Court, and Al's army of lawyers, could disenfranchise every vote they didn't like?
And finally, as usual, you're simply wrong about whether Gore would have won. Even the left-leaning Miami newspapers admitted he would have lost.
I was part of the first wave of newspaper ballot counters, in a venture which The Miami Herald undertook in partnership with a major accounting firm. I was the senior political writer for the Herald at the time. I personally examined tens of thousands of punch-card ballots.
For weeks on end, going county by county, Herald reporters sat side by side with accountants at the tables of elections officers who sat across from them handing the reporter-accountant team, one by one, the disputed ballots of 2000.
The reporters kept their own counts. The accountants kept theirs. We counted ballots on a scale of those which easily could be construed as a vote, if a machine had been able to count them properly, and those which any reasonable person might consider questionable. In many cases, the intent of the voter was clear. In many cases it was not.
But, under the most liberal interpretation of those ballots -- in other words, giving them the greatest benefit of the doubt for the candidate for whom they appeared cast -- had they been officially counted, we found that Bush most likely would have maintained a narrow margin over Gore.
And our survey was followed many months later by the longer, more ponderous work of another consortium’ of newspapers led by the New York Times, which conducted similar work and reached a similar conclusion.
Here's the far right-wing New York Times:
Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.
Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff -- filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties -- Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.
(Damn that New York Times! They're such a tool of Karl Rove!)
And of course Gore's strategy was grossly immoral in the first place, trying to completely rewrite the rules, in the middle of the game -- on no other basis than what he thought would most likely deliver a win. If a football team tried that, you'd scream: "Cheaters"! But when it's your party, well, then it's all peachy fine and good, isn't it?
Chief Justice Rehnquist was unrepentant in his part in this matter.
Nor should he: He did nothing wrong. He was asked to decide a case and did so. I've read the majority opinion, and found it persuasive (the Florida Supreme Court was clearly out of line), and noticed that the dissenting justices couldn't even come up with a consistent story!
You people on the left think a judges' word is the voice of God until he doesn't give you what you want. Then he needs to "repent" for not giving into your unreasonable (and often quite immoral) demands. It's not that your opponents simply have differing views -- no, that's not "black and white" enough, is it? No, everyone who gets in your way is willfully malicious, and evil, right? They always KNOW they're doing the wrong thing, and need to "repent", don't they? Otherwise you'll "punish" them for their "crimes", right?
It was specifically designated to be used one time only!
Here is Rehnquist's opinion. Read it for yourself, with your own two eyes. Where does it say that, please?
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Hollywood Wants more Passion |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Ijaz Expands Clarke's Culpability »
|
Hey, just becuse Democrats "would do it if they could" in your line of thinking , doesn't make it right. I'm sorry but some of us out here in America, working, tax paying family raising people, don't like the direction the Republicans have taken, and I mean TAKEN this country. (Election of 2000...Conservative court appoints Bush as President!) However you try and disguise your political leanings and make it seem "OK" to distort and corrupt the political process the way the Republicans and the conservative radical religious right wing have, because the Dems would do it if they could...Bullshit! the political double-think and dogma coming out of the Republican leadership is frighting. Like, give tax breaks to the wealthy so the poor can get jobs and get rich...Push "No child left behind" legislation then don't fund it yet keeping the worst of the program in place just promoting failure in high school students...
I am mad at the Republican administration...I am an American and this administration doesn't even come close to representing me or my way of thinking. They have left me behind and about 47% of the rest of America.
Don't be confused...we are angry about this...very angry!
Posted by: dennis skaugrud on May 1, 2004 01:09 PM