Cherokee Elizabeth Warren = Kenyan Barack Obama.

[Skipjack]

Barack Obama is just as ridiculous as John Kerry, or John Edwards, or Joe Biden, or Gary Hart,

... Bush, Reagan (was a good president, but he still was an actor).
I think that you are being a bit unfair here.

[seedload]

...Nobody gives a crap about accusations of Racism anymore. It was the Racists that elected Barack Obama...

Funny. Did you laugh yourself when you put those two sentences together like that?

What do you find funny about electing an unqualified person based on the color of their skin? If Obama had been white, and possessed the exact same job experience, people would have laughed him off the stage. If you look beyond skin color, Barack Obama is just as ridiculous as John Kerry, or John Edwards, or Joe Biden, or Gary Hart, or pretty much any other Democrat. (Their party is nothing but a collection of ridiculous characters.)

Racism is judging people differently because of race. Obama was always a bad choice because of his political views and his inexperience. Being black did not transform him into a good choice. He was and remains, a testament to misplaced good intentions.

What was funny is that you said that nobody cares about accusations of Racism anymore and then you immediately make an accusation of racism. Like I said, funny.

[seedload]

Barack Obama is just as ridiculous as John Kerry, or John Edwards, or Joe Biden, or Gary Hart,

... Bush, Reagan (was a good president, but he still was an actor).
I think that you are being a bit unfair here.

Believe me that I am not defending Diogenes list but his issue was experience and the two you list were both multi-term Governors of very large states. Thinking of an eight year Governor of California as simply an actor is a little bit unfair - don't you think.

The real issue is Obama's experience, which I agree was amazingly lacking going into his first term. But that ship has passed. Clearly experience is no longer an issue for him. Now, there is only the questions of competency and his politics. Continuing to harp on his prior lack of experience is silly.

[Diogenes]

If past U.S. history is any guide, the U.S. will have a viable "third" party when one of the current big two parties collapses.

This is wishful thinking. Any strength to create a third party would be better spent getting a 51% majority control over an existing party. If you have the numbers to create a viable third party, you easily have the numbers to take over an existing party.

It's easier to conquer a nation than it is to build one from scratch.

The Pro-Slavery faction thought the same when the American Whig Party imploded in 1856. Pro-Slavery won its greatest victory (the Dred Scott Decision) in 1857. Eight years after 1856, Pro-Slavery was extinct.

I would suggest that this is a poor example to use. Yes, the Pro-Slavery (Democrat party) was wiped out, but the means by which it was accomplished left a horrible legacy for the nation. Slavery was inevitably doomed by the steady march of industrial development. Had they simply held their peace for some few more years, the point would have been moot.

What happened instead was that zealots unleashed a Federal leviathan, the consequences of which we are still dealing with today. The civil war demonstrated the evil nature of both sides, but little is said about the excesses of the victors. The Ugly side of the Federalist excesses is scarcely mentioned, and yet they are more germane to the present difficulties we face today. Suspension of Habeas corpus, the Arrest and holding of Legislators, the Impressment of foreign immigrants, and the assertion of authority far beyond the limits empowered by our governing document have established what used to be regarded as tyrannical excesses as an acceptable norm.

Woodrow Wilson drew upon the Experience of the Federalist government during the civil war to justify his arrest and imprisonment of political dissenters during his buildup to World War I. Often held without charges for years, it was left to the Subsequent Harding administration to free these people who did nothing more than protest American involvement in World War I.

I don't see any mass violence in the current day - there are no remaining centers of competing martial legitimacy vs the American Federal government. But the smashing victory of a semi-new faction is possible. The US was essentially a 1.5 Party country 1933-1994, with the terminal decline of the 1.5 Party model starting ~1975.

As George Will said, (and I paraphrase) "The first duty of government is to establish and maintain a monopoly regarding the use of violence. "

[Diogenes]

This is wishful thinking. Any strength to create a third party would be better spent getting a 51% majority control over an existing party. If you have the numbers to create a viable third party, you easily have the numbers to take over an existing party.

It's easier to conquer a nation than it is to build one from scratch.

The Pro-Slavery faction thought the same when the American Whig Party imploded in 1856. Pro-Slavery won its greatest victory (the Dred Scott Decision) in 1857. Eight years after 1856, Pro-Slavery was extinct.

I don't see any mass violence in the current day - there are no remaining centers of competing martial legitimacy vs the American Federal government. But the smashing victory of a semi-new faction is possible. The US was essentially a 1.5 Party country 1933-1994, with the terminal decline of the 1.5 Party model starting ~1975.

Still given the penchant for one or the other party to head off a serious third party contender by poaching their best/most popular ideas, would guess that was more likely than a new party replacing the Dems or Rep. Could see Libertarian ideas like ending the war on drugs being eventually co-oped by one or both parties as the idea increasingly gains traction. Look how Bill Clinton when he was running for Pres basically poached Ross Perot's ideas about the need to do something about the then very high deficit.

Ross Perot's ideas my @ss. Budget deficits were a conservative bugaboo back in the 1970s.

Ross Perot simply wanted to deal with the existential fiscal irresponsibility problem without being hampered by opposition to the pesky social irresponsibility problem.

Many people believe the two issues are separable, but conservatives do not. Each is an out of phase consequence of the other.

[Diogenes]

Look how Bill Clinton when he was running for Pres basically poached Ross Perot's ideas about the need to do something about the then very high deficit.

The republicans in congress pushed the issue. Clinton, having been hit by a cluebat of of his party losing congress, and not regaining it after the budget smear the following year, had the sense not to fight the issue too hard.

This is exactly correct. I recall during the time, how many Republicans were lamenting the fact that Clinton was stealing their issues, and claiming credit for them. In 1994, Clinton had been hit with the 2nd worst re-election loss for Democrats in History. He figured out that the public was VERY upset with him, and as a result, took it out on members of his party. To save himself, he decided to co-opt some Republican ideas to make himself more palatable to the electorate.

It was only the takeover by Republicans in 1994 that made it even possible for Clinton to balance the budget. Were he not held in Check by Newt Gingrich and co, he was going to spend money like water the way Democrats always do when they get a chance.

Even so, were it not for Timothy McVeigh (and Media Hyper-screeching) producing a backlash against conservatives in 1995 and 1996, Clinton would have been shown the exit.

Timothy McVeigh is single-handedly responsible for getting Clinton re-elected.

[Diogenes]

Look how Bill Clinton when he was running for Pres basically poached Ross Perot's ideas about the need to do something about the then very high deficit.

The republicans in congress pushed the issue. Clinton, having been hit by a cluebat of of his party losing congress, and not regaining it after the budget smear the following year, had the sense not to fight the issue too hard.

Perhaps your recollection is better than mine. I remember it being more Ross Perot's thing...the charts etc he put up. Neither Dem or Rep saying much about it until then. After Perot dropped out they both suddenly discovered their inner budget cutter and behaved as if they intended to do something about it all the time. Thought the Dems losing congress was more about anger about NAFTA,(which Clinton supported, Gore casting the tie breaking vote passing it), the angry voters voting out the Dems in the next election.

NAFTA was a secondary issue. One of the first things Clinton did as President was "Gays in the Military", which pissed off a lot of people, but what REALLY did him in was passing the ban on Semi-Automatic rifles. A great number of his Democrat Congressmen were specifically shown the door on that issue alone.

The Gun-Owner constituency was not particularly big as constituencies go, but it was ferocious in terms of intensity. As Churchill said, " It is not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog."

[Diogenes]

Barack Obama is just as ridiculous as John Kerry, or John Edwards, or Joe Biden, or Gary Hart,

... Bush, Reagan (was a good president, but he still was an actor).
I think that you are being a bit unfair here.

Your suggesting that there is anything comparable between Reagan and these little Democrat Dwarves is what's unfair.


You simply do not comprehend what sort of utter scum and idiocy these men represent. I could write several pages on the contemptuous nature of each one of them.

[Diogenes]

Funny. Did you laugh yourself when you put those two sentences together like that?

What do you find funny about electing an unqualified person based on the color of their skin? If Obama had been white, and possessed the exact same job experience, people would have laughed him off the stage. If you look beyond skin color, Barack Obama is just as ridiculous as John Kerry, or John Edwards, or Joe Biden, or Gary Hart, or pretty much any other Democrat. (Their party is nothing but a collection of ridiculous characters.)

Racism is judging people differently because of race. Obama was always a bad choice because of his political views and his inexperience. Being black did not transform him into a good choice. He was and remains, a testament to misplaced good intentions.

What was funny is that you said that nobody cares about accusations of Racism anymore and then you immediately make an accusation of racism. Like I said, funny.

Nobody on *MY* side cares about these accusations. The Media people have exhausted any lingering concern regarding this claim. It is obvious to anyone that the OTHER side is excessively sensitive to accusations of racism, and so that is why I thought it appropriate to put the shoe on their foot where it belongs.

The Democrat party has ALWAYS been the racist party. They just went from the Racist extreme of treating Blacks with excessive hatred, to the racist extreme of treating them with excessive concern.

Neither is a position of treating them with equality.

Here is a quote from Walter Williams to illustrate my point: This is what Democrats are really like.

When Lyndon B. Johnson was in the House of Representatives, he said that President Harry Truman's civil rights program was "a farce and a sham -- an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty." He continued: "I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill. ... I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill." When Johnson had become senator, he observed, "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days, and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness."

[Ivy Matt]

Wouldnt it be better if there was a third, independent party, a real opposition party that has enough seats in congress to give the two others a hard time? Keep them honest and point out where they mess up! Right now it seems that they are pretty much the same on the real issues anyway (NDAA was equally voted for by Dems and Reps). A third party, if it had enough seats could block a law like this from passing and would probably get more votes at the next election. I know that a lot of people are really angry with the two big parties right now and for these reasons these elections will be interesting.

If past U.S. history is any guide, the U.S. will have a viable "third" party when one of the current big two parties collapses.

This is wishful thinking. Any strength to create a third party would be better spent getting a 51% majority control over an existing party. If you have the numbers to create a viable third party, you easily have the numbers to take over an existing party.

It's easier to conquer a nation than it is to build one from scratch.

Not wishful thinking, just pointing out to Skipjack that the U.S. tends to be a two-party system, except for a few brief periods when it was a one-party system.

[seedload]

Nobody on *MY* side cares about these accusations.

I don't think that *YOUR* side is large enough to even be called a side.

As to Democrats having a history of being racist, I agree. As to their current penchant for garnering support from minority voters, I wouldn't call it so much racist as opportunistic.

Regardless, saying racist accusations don't matter and then making one is still funny to me.

[ladajo]

I am thinking that, currently, the only folks that care about racism are actually racists.
Like any "quota" based conceptual system, it outlives its purpose, and eventually becomes a massively distorted and corrupt version of itself. One that is readily abused by those who are inclined to use it to personal advantage.

I say it always comes back to free stuff. That is the root issue that corrupts the system. The use of power to provide "free stuff" to folks in an effort to retain power is the core problem. Stuff ain't free.

[Diogenes]

Nobody on *MY* side cares about these accusations.

I don't think that *YOUR* side is large enough to even be called a side.

The group of people that self identifies themselves as conservatives probably constitutes the largest plurality in the nation. Not sure what you are getting at.

As to Democrats having a history of being racist, I agree. As to their current penchant for garnering support from minority voters, I wouldn't call it so much racist as opportunistic.

Regardless, saying racist accusations don't matter and then making one is still funny to me.

I said "Nobody gives a crap about accusations of Racism anymore. " The "on my side" is implied by the context, but if you see something lighthearted in the discussion, I suppose you must find your humor where you can.

[Diogenes]

I am thinking that, currently, the only folks that care about racism are actually racists.
Like any "quota" based conceptual system, it outlives its purpose, and eventually becomes a massively distorted and corrupt version of itself. One that is readily abused by those who are inclined to use it to personal advantage.

I say it always comes back to free stuff. That is the root issue that corrupts the system. The use of power to provide "free stuff" to folks in an effort to retain power is the core problem. Stuff ain't free.

Exactly the motivation of the slave holders. "Free stuff." It is also the motivation of those who would be holders of us as slaves.

[choff]

I've often wondered, in the case of the American Civil War, if it would not have cost the north far less simply to offer to purchase all the slaves of the south. That, and make adjustments to tariffs and trade policies harming the southern economy.
If the north had made a very generous financial offer that was accepted by the southern states both history and attitudes would be very different today. How would that stack up against both the financial price and emnity of the war?