The Romney campaign has made a lot of noise, how he is a job creator and has the business experience to turn our economy around. Frankly, I am not convinced he can do this. My reasons are fairly simple. Mr. Romney's focus has always been to make a profit, regardless of the costs or the risks. Risks. This is the key. In Romney's business world he and his com-padre's would buy a corporation and sell off the individual assets and take the write-offs for the ones left over to offset the profits they made off the sale of assets. To some this is called 'Vulture Capitalism'. This is a fairly easy thing to do if you have the money behind you. The system is rigged to take advantage of this sort of operation. This is the basis for Mr. Romney's argument that he is a businessman, a job creator as the primary function of Bain Capital. This could be further from the truth. Bain's focus was to make money, increase wealth without creating one single job. Now, I am not complaining as to what Bain was doing. But to suggest that Romney is somehow qualified to turn the economy around based upon his vast business experience is misrepresenting reality.
Think of the US government as a giant corporation and you were Bain Capital, what would you do to make a buck? First you would identify those parts of the corporation which are the money makers and money losers. Can you imagine trying to sell off parts of the government to reduce overhead and costs, to bankrupt the losers and sell off the money makers? This is the experience Mr. Romney has. How this equates to government escapes me unless he plans on privatizing the parts government he can and selling them off.
The bottom line is this. Romney's plan would be to cut all money losing programs, essential or otherwise. If it's losing money, get rid of it. Then he can cut taxes across the board to match what has been cut loose. One thing is certain, people like Romney have no conscience when it comes to real people. Imagine sitting in a meeting at Bain Capital when a decision is made to shift a financial responsibility from one company to another then bankrupt that company, causing those employees to lose their jobs? Do you really think anyone stood up and said, 'what about the people?'. There is an old saying, Business is business, nothing personal.
The question we have to ask is this. Should we risk our future on a person who is risk averse, or do we maintain the status quo? The economy is clearly on the rebound as it is. If it wasn't, then maybe we should look for change.
Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
After Iowa
The Iowa caucus finished tonight with 3 leaders. Of the three, only one generally appreciates the responsibility of be President of all of us. The other two are extremist ideologues who have a very narrow moral view and agenda not shared by mainstream America. One must remember, this is a secular nation, with laws created by Congress. It is not the place of a President to wage a religious war upon this nation. It is common knowledge that the term 'family values' is a code phrase for the extremist views of right wing Christians, who wish to foist their values and morality upon the rest of us, to deny us our rights as Americans to choose our own values.
If we elect a President whose agenda is to create a nation in their image and likeness, then we empower that President to try to do just that. In turn an extremist Congress will follow suit. Think is cannot happen? It has happened before, slavery was abolished in part because of the extremist views of at the time, the Christian left. Prohibition too was brought about by pressures from moralists and we know how that worked out. A Republican Congress brought to fruition following the election of Ronald Reagan proved disastrous at the beginning with infernal tax cuts and high unemployment and record deficits and national debt. It was clear by the time Reagan's term was up this approach was not working and during his tenure, Congress was compelled to raise taxes and set things right again.
It is highly unlikely that the extremist religious right will be able to put 'their man' in the White House. All this talk about gay marriage and DADT and abortion rights are red herrings. The President has no power to affect any of these issues. An ignorant electorate will buy into this nonsense. It amazes me how myopic many voters are, they fail to look at the big picture when selecting a candidate.
What concerns me at this point is the probable selection of Mr. Romney as the GOP candidate. As we have already seen, Mr. Romney has powerful friends in very well connected places with an awful lot of money to spend on attack ads.
There is no doubt that Mr. Obama has nothing to fear from Mr. Romney as Mr. Obama has the power of incumbency and voters who vote. After all, what could Mr. Romney say, truthfully say about the policies of the Obama administration? What personal attacks can he mount against Mr. Obama which he has not already weathered?
Mr. Romney is a prime example of the military/industrial complex some complain about. He is also an example of Wall Street run amok, bankers running scams. He represents the worst and the best of corporate responsibility. The question we have to ask ourselves is this. Do we want as President someone who represents the same types of people who brought our country to it's knees?
So I have a choice, as do all Americans. I cannot accept the idea of a President who will not represent the nation as a whole, who wishes to force their morality upon us. The question then is, can I support someone who has direct ties to corporate America who will stop at nothing to put their man in power. Mr. Romney has already demonstrated that he will do whatever it takes to 'turn things around', even if it means throwing the rest of us under the bus. Morality has no place in big business, apparently neither does ethics. Romney is a risk I don't think we should take.
As for Mr. Obama. I will be the first to admit that there are some things I am not happy about, when I look at specifics, but looking at the long view, it's clear he is smarter than all of us. Contrary to what the GOP say's, things are better than what they were the day he took office. We are out of Iraq, Afghanistan is winding down. We have a a national health care plan. Almost every promise Mr. Obama has made has been kept. The ones he has not kept, he was blocked by Congress. It has been the stated goal of the GOP from day one, to make Mr. Obama a one term President. Why? In the grand scheme of things, he has won, considering the obstacles put in his way by the GOP. Imagine if he is re-elected, what then would the GOP mantra be? He cannot run again, so he has nothing to to lose and that is what scares them more than anything. Mr. Obama has shown great leadership. He has taken that 3 am call and done well.
The question for all of us is this. We have a sitting President who we have grown to know. It is true he has not pleased everyone. We are a nation of over 300 million people and he can never please everyone, no President can. Mr. Romney is an unknown quantity, but we know where his loyalties lie and it is not with the American people. No one can say Mr. Obama is not the President of all of us. I don't believe we would be able to make the same assessment of Mr. Romney.
I think what we should consider is simply this. We hear and read from the GOP candidates complaints. Unfounded accusations. Flat out lies about the policies of the current administration. What we have have NOT heard or read are specific solutions or ideas, well maybe 9-9-9...LOL. How can we consider voting for someone who can only lie, whine and complain? Let's hear some concrete ideas. Not the rhetoric about birth control, right to life, deficit, debt, economy, family values.....how about, what can you do as President? Answer that question. The problem is that when one has to think about it, the President's 'power' is very limited. Let's top the whining and come up with plausible, well thought out solutions. We have a President with ideas and solutions, should we not expect the same from someone who wants that job?
If we elect a President whose agenda is to create a nation in their image and likeness, then we empower that President to try to do just that. In turn an extremist Congress will follow suit. Think is cannot happen? It has happened before, slavery was abolished in part because of the extremist views of at the time, the Christian left. Prohibition too was brought about by pressures from moralists and we know how that worked out. A Republican Congress brought to fruition following the election of Ronald Reagan proved disastrous at the beginning with infernal tax cuts and high unemployment and record deficits and national debt. It was clear by the time Reagan's term was up this approach was not working and during his tenure, Congress was compelled to raise taxes and set things right again.
It is highly unlikely that the extremist religious right will be able to put 'their man' in the White House. All this talk about gay marriage and DADT and abortion rights are red herrings. The President has no power to affect any of these issues. An ignorant electorate will buy into this nonsense. It amazes me how myopic many voters are, they fail to look at the big picture when selecting a candidate.
What concerns me at this point is the probable selection of Mr. Romney as the GOP candidate. As we have already seen, Mr. Romney has powerful friends in very well connected places with an awful lot of money to spend on attack ads.
There is no doubt that Mr. Obama has nothing to fear from Mr. Romney as Mr. Obama has the power of incumbency and voters who vote. After all, what could Mr. Romney say, truthfully say about the policies of the Obama administration? What personal attacks can he mount against Mr. Obama which he has not already weathered?
Mr. Romney is a prime example of the military/industrial complex some complain about. He is also an example of Wall Street run amok, bankers running scams. He represents the worst and the best of corporate responsibility. The question we have to ask ourselves is this. Do we want as President someone who represents the same types of people who brought our country to it's knees?
So I have a choice, as do all Americans. I cannot accept the idea of a President who will not represent the nation as a whole, who wishes to force their morality upon us. The question then is, can I support someone who has direct ties to corporate America who will stop at nothing to put their man in power. Mr. Romney has already demonstrated that he will do whatever it takes to 'turn things around', even if it means throwing the rest of us under the bus. Morality has no place in big business, apparently neither does ethics. Romney is a risk I don't think we should take.
As for Mr. Obama. I will be the first to admit that there are some things I am not happy about, when I look at specifics, but looking at the long view, it's clear he is smarter than all of us. Contrary to what the GOP say's, things are better than what they were the day he took office. We are out of Iraq, Afghanistan is winding down. We have a a national health care plan. Almost every promise Mr. Obama has made has been kept. The ones he has not kept, he was blocked by Congress. It has been the stated goal of the GOP from day one, to make Mr. Obama a one term President. Why? In the grand scheme of things, he has won, considering the obstacles put in his way by the GOP. Imagine if he is re-elected, what then would the GOP mantra be? He cannot run again, so he has nothing to to lose and that is what scares them more than anything. Mr. Obama has shown great leadership. He has taken that 3 am call and done well.
The question for all of us is this. We have a sitting President who we have grown to know. It is true he has not pleased everyone. We are a nation of over 300 million people and he can never please everyone, no President can. Mr. Romney is an unknown quantity, but we know where his loyalties lie and it is not with the American people. No one can say Mr. Obama is not the President of all of us. I don't believe we would be able to make the same assessment of Mr. Romney.
I think what we should consider is simply this. We hear and read from the GOP candidates complaints. Unfounded accusations. Flat out lies about the policies of the current administration. What we have have NOT heard or read are specific solutions or ideas, well maybe 9-9-9...LOL. How can we consider voting for someone who can only lie, whine and complain? Let's hear some concrete ideas. Not the rhetoric about birth control, right to life, deficit, debt, economy, family values.....how about, what can you do as President? Answer that question. The problem is that when one has to think about it, the President's 'power' is very limited. Let's top the whining and come up with plausible, well thought out solutions. We have a President with ideas and solutions, should we not expect the same from someone who wants that job?
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Concentration Camps being built in the US as we speak.
For the last few weeks we have been told that the Defense Authorization Bill includes a section which allows for the detention of American citizens, without charge, due process and habeas corpus. I have been frustrated to no end because I have actually read the bill and the section in question and by any rational standard, there is no such language, in simple fact, does just the opposite. For simplicity sake, I will provide here the actual text of the relevant sections AND the anchor law in effect by which sets the standard for ANY detention.
Now as you can see Sections 1031 and 1032 are inextricably tied to public law 107-40, which is the authorization for carrying out military operations OVERSEAS, with specific authorization against operations against Al Qaida. There is an important distinction here as the authority is given for operations overseas and under the cover of the LAW of war. This does NOT have anything to do with domestic operations, since there are no domestic operations authorized as that would be a violation of posse comitatus.
The ONLY people who can be detained are covered in 1031(b) 1,2. This is a very narrow focus and only applies to those detained during operations under PL 107-40.
As for US citizens, Section 1032(b) 1,2 is quite clear. US citizens CANNOT be detained by the military under this bill. Section 1032 (a) specifically outlines under what conditions anyone may be detained at all. They must be have been captured in the course of hostilities against the US.
Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001 Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]
107th CONGRESS
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United
States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Now as you can see Sections 1031 and 1032 are inextricably tied to public law 107-40, which is the authorization for carrying out military operations OVERSEAS, with specific authorization against operations against Al Qaida. There is an important distinction here as the authority is given for operations overseas and under the cover of the LAW of war. This does NOT have anything to do with domestic operations, since there are no domestic operations authorized as that would be a violation of posse comitatus.
The ONLY people who can be detained are covered in 1031(b) 1,2. This is a very narrow focus and only applies to those detained during operations under PL 107-40.
As for US citizens, Section 1032(b) 1,2 is quite clear. US citizens CANNOT be detained by the military under this bill. Section 1032 (a) specifically outlines under what conditions anyone may be detained at all. They must be have been captured in the course of hostilities against the US.
SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
- (a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the
Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the
authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered
persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law
of war.
- (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
- (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored those responsible for those attacks.
- (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
- (c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include
the following:
- (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of
Military Force.
- (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of
Public Law 111-84)).
- (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
- (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's
country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign
entity.
- (d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to
limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
- (e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or
any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
- (f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of
Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the
authority described in this section, including the organizations,
entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for
purposes of subsection (b)(2).
SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
- (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
- (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4),
the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in
paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in
military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
- (2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1)
shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section
1031 who is determined--
- (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an
associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the
direction of al-Qaeda; and
- (B) to have participated in the course of planning
or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States
or its coalition partners.
- (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this
subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the
meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise
described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless
consistent with the requirements of section 1033.
- (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of
Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the
Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph
(1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that
such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United
States.
- (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
- (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a
person in military custody under this section does not extend to
citizens of the United States.
- (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a
person in military custody under this section does not extend to a
lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by
the Constitution of the United States.
- (c) Implementation Procedures-
- (1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to
Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
- (2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
- (A) Procedures designating the persons authorized
to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which
such determinations are to be made.
- (B) Procedures providing that the requirement for
military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the
interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with
regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United
States.
- (C) Procedures providing that a determination under
subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the
conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the
determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such
ongoing session.
- (D) Procedures providing that the requirement for
military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when
intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the
United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the
custody of a third country.
- (E) Procedures providing that a certification of
national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for
the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if
such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not
otherwise be accomplished.
- (d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the
date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and
shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who
are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United
States on or after that effective date.
- Here is public law 107-40 which serves as the anchor for this section.
September 18, 2001 Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]
107th CONGRESS
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
- Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Putting on my Right-Leaning Independent hat
Those of you who follow my blog probably think of me as a flaming liberal, which could not necessarily further from the truth. You see, I am an issues person, not an ideologue. This means I can can pick and choose, whatever he subject or issue might be my own personal opinion. I tend to stay on subject with any particular issue of the moment and rant on that.
I would like to believe that all of us are at least capable of thinking for ourselves, taking sides on an issue based in part upon our own socio-economic status, our life experiences as human beings. My perspective is based just on that. I would like to think that many people do the same. There are however Lemmings amongst us. Lemmings as you recall are those who blindly follow without thinking or considering the consequences. They just follow, no matter what. You cannot rationalize with a Lemming, you cannot have a reasonable conversation with a Lemming. I have met many such people in my life.
My first experience was with the military. There are just some people who don't get it. They are so used to being told what to think and do, that when they leave, they are embedded with certain 'beliefs', usually very right leaning. Devout religious folks also fall into this category, though they can be much worse because the basis for their beliefs comes from billions of permutations or interpretations of the printed basis for that religion. Whether you are Christian, Muslim or Jew, there are different interpretations for EVERYTHING. Ideologically pure politicians also fall into this category as well as those followers who want to just 'get along'. There are many groups of people who all fall into the Lemming category, though smaller and regionalised. Examples would be right to lifer's, Tenthers, Racists, etc. Each has their own agenda and beliefs and cannot be reasoned with, even with concrete evidence to the contrary. That is a Lemming.
Part of my problem is that if I take a stand on a certain subject, I am branded something other than what I truly am. I think we all have run into this. We don't listen enough. We tend to judge one another based upon a narrow view, which is unfair. I can disagree with a person on a particular subject, but because I am judged a certain way, the other issues we might agree upon get lost because we can never get past that one issue. I was able to get through to one person the other day. I was labeled an Libtard, which is an offensive term by this person, so I asked him, what makes he say that. Out of respect for the office, I showed respect for our President and to him that made me a Libtard. Once we got off that particular subject, he found we had common ground on other areas and could actually have a conversation without labels. Had I not approached him, this would have never happened. Now, he may still think of me as a Libtard personally, but he has stopped calling me that. For that I am grateful.
So what prompted this rant tonight?
I was watching with some interest yesterday the peaceful transition of power in the House. I paid attention to everything. Now, I don't know what the next two years are going to bring. I am hopeful. One of the cable news shows ( I won't say which since it will be used to label me) interviewed two of the new incoming Congressmen, one Democrat, the other a Tea Bag Republican. The Democrat bothered me because he did not seem, at least to me to be 'qualified'. Call it demeanor, use of the english language or his lack of grasp of the issues. He dressed up well, but that was about it. I would not have voted for the guy. The Republican bothered me in another way. When asked about what HE expected to accomplish the next two years, his answer raised all kinds of red flags. He said that the 'party leadership' has a plan for the future and he was going to support whatever they felt was right and proper. Lemming? Now I don't think I am politically naive. I know that to get what you want for your constituents you have to 'play ball'. That is the way things are. On the other hand, if you stand your ground and force the powers that be to come to you and earn your vote, we may have a better system. I have no doubt our system is crippled, not necessarily broken.
I would like to believe that all of us are at least capable of thinking for ourselves, taking sides on an issue based in part upon our own socio-economic status, our life experiences as human beings. My perspective is based just on that. I would like to think that many people do the same. There are however Lemmings amongst us. Lemmings as you recall are those who blindly follow without thinking or considering the consequences. They just follow, no matter what. You cannot rationalize with a Lemming, you cannot have a reasonable conversation with a Lemming. I have met many such people in my life.
My first experience was with the military. There are just some people who don't get it. They are so used to being told what to think and do, that when they leave, they are embedded with certain 'beliefs', usually very right leaning. Devout religious folks also fall into this category, though they can be much worse because the basis for their beliefs comes from billions of permutations or interpretations of the printed basis for that religion. Whether you are Christian, Muslim or Jew, there are different interpretations for EVERYTHING. Ideologically pure politicians also fall into this category as well as those followers who want to just 'get along'. There are many groups of people who all fall into the Lemming category, though smaller and regionalised. Examples would be right to lifer's, Tenthers, Racists, etc. Each has their own agenda and beliefs and cannot be reasoned with, even with concrete evidence to the contrary. That is a Lemming.
Part of my problem is that if I take a stand on a certain subject, I am branded something other than what I truly am. I think we all have run into this. We don't listen enough. We tend to judge one another based upon a narrow view, which is unfair. I can disagree with a person on a particular subject, but because I am judged a certain way, the other issues we might agree upon get lost because we can never get past that one issue. I was able to get through to one person the other day. I was labeled an Libtard, which is an offensive term by this person, so I asked him, what makes he say that. Out of respect for the office, I showed respect for our President and to him that made me a Libtard. Once we got off that particular subject, he found we had common ground on other areas and could actually have a conversation without labels. Had I not approached him, this would have never happened. Now, he may still think of me as a Libtard personally, but he has stopped calling me that. For that I am grateful.
So what prompted this rant tonight?
I was watching with some interest yesterday the peaceful transition of power in the House. I paid attention to everything. Now, I don't know what the next two years are going to bring. I am hopeful. One of the cable news shows ( I won't say which since it will be used to label me) interviewed two of the new incoming Congressmen, one Democrat, the other a Tea Bag Republican. The Democrat bothered me because he did not seem, at least to me to be 'qualified'. Call it demeanor, use of the english language or his lack of grasp of the issues. He dressed up well, but that was about it. I would not have voted for the guy. The Republican bothered me in another way. When asked about what HE expected to accomplish the next two years, his answer raised all kinds of red flags. He said that the 'party leadership' has a plan for the future and he was going to support whatever they felt was right and proper. Lemming? Now I don't think I am politically naive. I know that to get what you want for your constituents you have to 'play ball'. That is the way things are. On the other hand, if you stand your ground and force the powers that be to come to you and earn your vote, we may have a better system. I have no doubt our system is crippled, not necessarily broken.
May I suggest to all the Lemmings out there, turn on, not tune out.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Republican Tax Breaks for the wealthy?
Okay, someone explain this to me in simple terms. When the Repubs were asked to vote for extending unemployment bennies, they said NO, not unless there were offsets, in other words, they had to be paid for without affecting the deficit. The Repubs ranted on about the stimulus law, that it increased the deficit and would produce NO new jobs. Well, it did create or save millions of jobs, clearly it worked, but still the issue of the increased deficit is what they ran on before the last election. Repubs promised to fight for spending reductions and lower taxes to match. When given the opportunity to partially resolve the tax and spend issues with PayGo, which 7 Repub Senators co-sponsored, those 7 Senators would not vote for their own bill. I have heard NOTHING from the Tea Baggers on this latest debacle. Now the Repubs are signing off on tax breaks for not only those making less than $250K in PERSONAL, not corporate income, but for those who fared very well with the tax breaks for the uber wealthy. What makes no sense is this. If they would not sign off unemployment bennies without offsets, why is it okay now? They would not sign off on any spending without offsets, yet now they are willing to do so to the tune of $700B over the next 2 years! This $700B adds to the deficit they want to reduce. A deficit they blamed Mr. Obama for and now they are willing to add to it. I am totally confused. How can you run an election on reducing the deficit, to reduce spending and to have offsets and then turn around and do exactly what they blames the Dems for? They railed against the bank bailouts and the auto maker bailouts, both of which have been successful.
Someone explain this to me so I can understand.
Someone explain this to me so I can understand.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Let us be honest about one thing, we are all racists.
Today the Republicans are hollering for Sen. Reid's removal from office about candidate Obama for saying, "light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,'". Now, Sen. Reid has apologised to the President and President Obama has accepted his apology.
The rationale the Republicans are using is because Sen. Trent Lott made a racially charged statement in public about Strom Thurmond, the nation would have been better off if Thurmond had won the presidency in 1948. Thurmond was an ardent segregationist and the Democratic governor of South Carolina when he mounted his third-party campaign. Lott later apologised and he resigned as Senate leader less than two weeks later. Lott resigned from the Senate in 2007. Reid is from Nevada, Lott from Mississippi.
Republicans are crying foul because they see this a double standard, yet if you put the two in context they are no where similar, the intent's completely different.
What Se. Reid said is in fact true, President Obama is light-skinned and he does not speak with a Negro accent. If we apply the same standard to Sen. Lott, that he honestly believed that Sen. Thurmond would have made a better President as a segregationist, then this is indeed a terrible thing to say to all Americans, Negroes especially.
Lets be real here, if Mr. Obama spoke like some rapper gangsta do you really think he would have been elected? Of course not. Impressions are everything. Personally I don't know what Sen. Reid had to apologise for.
Look, we are all racists in one form or another. It does not matter what color we are, what our heritage is, we as people tend to live and associate with those of 'our kind'. Sure there are exceptions, but not that many. Blacks aren't thrilled with Caucasians, Cubans don't like Mexicans, Mexicans don't like Spaniards. The list goes on and on. I don't know, maybe it is the word Negro? To be honest, growing up in the South, they were Coloreds. The "N" word was reserved for use by uneducated folks, both Negro and Caucasian. First it was Colored, then Black, then African-American. Honestly I choose not to keep up. As long as someone is going to call me a 'white guy" instead of Caucasian, then I will choose my choice of terms. You cannot expect respect unless you are willing to give it. Let me put it this way, how ridiculous this all is. Tiger Woods is half Thai and half Negro, so what is he? Negro. Why Negro instead of Thai? Hines Ward of the Pittsburgh Steelers is half Korean and half Negro, so what is he? Negro. Why Negro instead of Korean? Who makes up these rules? The whole concept, system is racist. What it boils down to is this, if you are not perceived as anything but Caucasian, you are something else. As I recall, in Louisiana if you were 1/32 Negro, you were in the eyes of the state a Negro.
So what of the Cuban baseball player? He looks like an African American, but we are insulting HIS heritage by pigeonholing him. He's a Cuban-American just as much as a Cuban of Spanish decent, right? The thing is we don't see him as such.
As far as Blacks or African-Americans are concerned, I refer them as Negro. It simplifies the process without the possibility of offending anyone on rational grounds. After all, what is the Spanish word for black? Negro.
My preference is to call anyone who is not Caucasian a POC. Person of Colour, if we are to segregate our society as we do. When filling out a Federal questionnaire that has racial questions, I refuse to answer as it has nothing to do with anything.
Nothing gripes me more than listening to talking heads on TV saying, well this percentage of Blacks will vote this way or Hispanics that way. That to me IS racist.
The new Tea Baggers, Tenthers and Birthers are all racists. ALL I SAID. They won't come out and say it, but listen to their platforms. It's the same states rights argument, repackaged. Look at the kinds of people who flock to these groups, ignorant white trash who either don't or won't use their own brains. By their own admission, they are all white.
My own brother is a Tenther/Tea Bagger. He's is teaching his 14 year old son to be a sniper just in case. In case of what? Just who is he going to shoot? We know full well who.
So instead of complaining about a double standard, especially since by his resignation the Republicans would be getting their wish, killing off any hope for any reforms the President is asking Congress for. The Republicans have gone on record as saying they want the President to fail. Now why would they want that, after all, aren't they American's too?
The President made a profound statement last week about ending partisanship, instead practicing citizenship. Good words to go by.
OBTW, I am speaking for myself.
The rationale the Republicans are using is because Sen. Trent Lott made a racially charged statement in public about Strom Thurmond, the nation would have been better off if Thurmond had won the presidency in 1948. Thurmond was an ardent segregationist and the Democratic governor of South Carolina when he mounted his third-party campaign. Lott later apologised and he resigned as Senate leader less than two weeks later. Lott resigned from the Senate in 2007. Reid is from Nevada, Lott from Mississippi.
Republicans are crying foul because they see this a double standard, yet if you put the two in context they are no where similar, the intent's completely different.
What Se. Reid said is in fact true, President Obama is light-skinned and he does not speak with a Negro accent. If we apply the same standard to Sen. Lott, that he honestly believed that Sen. Thurmond would have made a better President as a segregationist, then this is indeed a terrible thing to say to all Americans, Negroes especially.
Lets be real here, if Mr. Obama spoke like some rapper gangsta do you really think he would have been elected? Of course not. Impressions are everything. Personally I don't know what Sen. Reid had to apologise for.
Look, we are all racists in one form or another. It does not matter what color we are, what our heritage is, we as people tend to live and associate with those of 'our kind'. Sure there are exceptions, but not that many. Blacks aren't thrilled with Caucasians, Cubans don't like Mexicans, Mexicans don't like Spaniards. The list goes on and on. I don't know, maybe it is the word Negro? To be honest, growing up in the South, they were Coloreds. The "N" word was reserved for use by uneducated folks, both Negro and Caucasian. First it was Colored, then Black, then African-American. Honestly I choose not to keep up. As long as someone is going to call me a 'white guy" instead of Caucasian, then I will choose my choice of terms. You cannot expect respect unless you are willing to give it. Let me put it this way, how ridiculous this all is. Tiger Woods is half Thai and half Negro, so what is he? Negro. Why Negro instead of Thai? Hines Ward of the Pittsburgh Steelers is half Korean and half Negro, so what is he? Negro. Why Negro instead of Korean? Who makes up these rules? The whole concept, system is racist. What it boils down to is this, if you are not perceived as anything but Caucasian, you are something else. As I recall, in Louisiana if you were 1/32 Negro, you were in the eyes of the state a Negro.
So what of the Cuban baseball player? He looks like an African American, but we are insulting HIS heritage by pigeonholing him. He's a Cuban-American just as much as a Cuban of Spanish decent, right? The thing is we don't see him as such.
As far as Blacks or African-Americans are concerned, I refer them as Negro. It simplifies the process without the possibility of offending anyone on rational grounds. After all, what is the Spanish word for black? Negro.
My preference is to call anyone who is not Caucasian a POC. Person of Colour, if we are to segregate our society as we do. When filling out a Federal questionnaire that has racial questions, I refuse to answer as it has nothing to do with anything.
Nothing gripes me more than listening to talking heads on TV saying, well this percentage of Blacks will vote this way or Hispanics that way. That to me IS racist.
The new Tea Baggers, Tenthers and Birthers are all racists. ALL I SAID. They won't come out and say it, but listen to their platforms. It's the same states rights argument, repackaged. Look at the kinds of people who flock to these groups, ignorant white trash who either don't or won't use their own brains. By their own admission, they are all white.
My own brother is a Tenther/Tea Bagger. He's is teaching his 14 year old son to be a sniper just in case. In case of what? Just who is he going to shoot? We know full well who.
So instead of complaining about a double standard, especially since by his resignation the Republicans would be getting their wish, killing off any hope for any reforms the President is asking Congress for. The Republicans have gone on record as saying they want the President to fail. Now why would they want that, after all, aren't they American's too?
The President made a profound statement last week about ending partisanship, instead practicing citizenship. Good words to go by.
OBTW, I am speaking for myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)