ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [221] -- "A Tax" On Romney?

[ Posted Friday, August 3rd, 2012 – 17:25 PDT ]

What with the attacks on Mitt Romney coming from Harry Reid this week, we thought we'd get into the spirit of London-tabloid-headline-ism: "No sacks of Romney tax facts?" "Harry: Mitt lax on tax!" "Reid backs max attacks on Romney tax lacks!" "Romney shellacks Reid tax attacks? Reid: No pax! Take an Ex-Lax!"

OK, maybe I had better just stop. Don't want to be lumped in with those particular hacks (ahem... OK, really, I'll stop now). For those of you wondering, we have officially entered Silly Season 2012. In fact, we've been getting rather silly all week long. Call it our own Silly Season 2012 torch relay, complete with a discussion of the weasel family. Which brings up a thought -- London missed out on the perfect opportunity to include a segment of the Olympic torch relay showing people doing Monty Pythonish "silly walks." Now there would have been compelling Olympic television! Ah, well, what "might have been...."

Getting back to Silly Season 2012 here in America, though -- this is, of course, the official time of year when all the politicians in Washington take (according to them) a well-deserved break from doing the job they're paid to do, to enjoy a luxurious five-week vacation. Because, as we all know, the nation's business has been so fully accomplished that there's really nothing more for Congress to do in August, so they might as well take the month off, right?

If only. The list of things left unaccomplished is actually monstrously big, starting off with the House's refusal to pass the farm bill which made it through the Senate. Because we all know the farmers are doing great this year, and won't mind waiting another month and a half (at minimum) for House Republicans to act. It's not like there's a drought happening or anything.

What's that? Nightly images of dead and dying corn on television? Half of the entire United States declared a disaster area for the first time in history? Why, that can't be right. You'd figure if (once again) half of America was in the midst of a disaster, that Congress would get the job done -- especially considering that most of the severe drought is smack dab in the middle of the reddest of red states. But, of course, you would be wrong. Maybe this will be a lively topic during Town Hall Season 2012, who knows? Especially since farmers will likely have some free time on their hands -- now that their crops are dead.

Here is more bad news: because Congress is off, the entire month of August will, for the political world, consist of nothing but campaign stories, most of them of the "horserace" variety. Every poll that comes out will send little frissons through either the left or the right side of the media spectrum, until everyone else is just sick of hearing about it.

Taking the gold medal this week for "most ironic thing I learned watching Craig Ferguson's show" is the fact that it is officially International Clown Week -- which was signed into law by none other than Richard Milhous Nixon. That one's so easy, you're going to have to write your own joke to commemorate the auspicious event. As Craig would say: "I look forward to your entries in the comments."

In other news, medical marijuana is finally going to get its day in federal court. Not some poor guy whose dispensary got busted, either, but the fundamental concept of medical marijuana will be the key to the trial. A direct lawsuit is moving along which challenges the federal government's refusal to reclassify marijuana on the list of dangerous controlled substances (Americans for Safe Access v. Drug Enforcement Agency). For the first time, the argument will be directly based upon science. One side will attempt to prove (with truckloads of facts and data) that marijuana has medical benefits and therefore should be reclassified as "Schedule II," and the federal government will attempt to prove (with pure politics, nothing more) that this is not true -- even after one-third of all of the United States have already passed laws to that effect -- and that it should remain listed as "Schedule I" with other things that have no medical value whatsoever. This ought to be a lively and interesting case to watch, to put it mildly. One can only hope for a judge who places science above politics.

The Olympics ground onwards, but I have taken to ignoring most of the spectacle because every time I attempt to watch any of it on NBC, I wind up banging my head against a brick wall. This pain is induced not because of the time delay, but because of the insipid announcing. Seriously, who are those people announcing the gymnastics? Have they ever heard of the modern sports reporting concept of "play-by-play," or are they just some random ex-gymnasts who wandered in off the street? Oh, sure, in between the routines they chatter and natter about all the gossip there is to find and what the mother of each gymnast eats for breakfast, but when the routines start I haven't heard a single word of what it is that I'm actually watching. Where is the "and she's about to attempt a reverse-triple-flip-with-two-twists, one of the most difficult moves in the sport, which is scored thusly..." or even any semblance of intelligent commentary? Instead, what we get is "Oh, look, her foot's out of bounds," and the inevitable "She really stuck/didn't stick/broke her leg on the landing! Wow!" As well as incessant comments from one particular announcer who seems to believe that every Olympic medal is the sole property of any American, and that the other countries are actually insulting the USA by daring to even compete in the same arena as our all-American demigods. The jingoism is cranked up to "Fox News right before the Iraq War" levels, in fact. Even on mute, this is obvious, since competitors from other countries are never shown (at least before 2:30 in the morning), so that NBC may bring us six cameras stuck in each teen's face for every single second between the events, just in case someone cries. Who's with me on banning the in-your-face coverage on the sidelines? Anybody? Sigh.

And that's just one sport. In fact, the coverage has been so pathetic that I didn't even bother to watch to see Ann Romney's dancing horse -- the one event with crossover into the world of politics that I had really been looking forward to.

What we really need is a ban on exclusive television contracts in America for the Olympics. Let's get some free-market competition into the arena, so I never have to view Bob Costas' face ever again.

OK, I feel better after snarking off on NBC, so let's just move along to the rest of the show. We're going to honor Silly Season 2012 in the talking points this week by paying homage to Dr. Seuss, so you'll want to stick around for that. But first, let's hand out our own awards. Don't worry, you won't have to attempt to remember the words to our National Anthem to enjoy our medal podiums! Or possibly "podia," we're not exactly sure.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

This may come as a surprise to some, and it certainly surprised us (seeing as how he won last week, too), but this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week is none other than fightin' Harry Reid. Now, Reid's been taking a lot of heat for playing the media like a fiddle this week, but count us among those applauding the Senate Majority Leader for taking on Mitt Romney in such a fashion.

We're really at a loss as to where this even came from, because it is the single feistiest thing we can remember Harry Reid doing, ever. Who knows what his motivation was -- whether it's because he has four years before he has to run again, whether it's because he may step down after this term, or whether he's just burnishing his Democratic chops to run for the Senate leadership position again after the election. But, whatever his reason, Reid certainly schooled a lot of folks in Bareknuckle Politics 101 this week.

Harry's gotten a lot of grief over his statement that some guy told him that Mitt Romney didn't pay any taxes for ten years. Even commentators well to the left of center have been taking Reid to task for such a vague and unsubstantiated claim. But you know what? We simply don't care. Politics, as the saying goes, ain't beanbag. The only way to exploit an opposing candidate's weaknesses is to point them out -- repeatedly, to anyone who will listen, with the wildest "what's he hiding" speculation you can muster.

Lefties (some of them, at any rate) are a bit squeamish over Reid's attack on Romney. "It sinks to their level" is what this, essentially, boils down to. Well, guess what? After a few decades of watching hapless Democrats "take the high road" as they lose elections, this is actually a refreshing change. Remember John Kerry? He took the high road. He didn't dignify the Swiftboaters with much of a response. Look where that got him. If he had been not only rebutting but also counterattacking at the time, then he might now have been in the final year of his second term in office. That's actually a scary alternate reality when you think about it, since it might mean Vice President Joe Lieberman would now be the Democratic nominee (shudder).

Mitt Romney has left himself wide open to being attacked on his secrecy on taxes. Even prominent Republicans have called on him to provide more years of tax returns to the public. What most folks don't realize is that this media storyline is about to get a gigantic boost, since August 15 is the date for late filing (Mitt filed an extension this year). So Mitt is going to -- sometime in the next two weeks -- release a second year of tax returns. I'd wager that he'll release them during the closing ceremonies to the Olympics, personally, when absolutely nobody is paying attention.

But whenever Mitt releases his return, it will wind up being a big story. Because of Harry Reid, it will now be an even bigger story -- with a lot of focus on Romney's refusal to release more years. Because of Mitt's refusal, Democrats (and the media) are free to speculate all they wish on what Mitt is hiding. Reid's was merely the most notable of such speculation, to date.

All such speculation paints Romney into a corner, where his only defense is: "Trust me, they're lying." The more the voters hear these attacks, the less inclined they may be to trust what Mitt tells them, though.

For showing how this all works, in brutally effective fashion, ex-boxer Harry Reid is this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Congratulate Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on his Senate contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

In a surprise move, however, we're also awarding the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week to Harry Reid, as well. Not for anything he said, this week, but for refusing to release his own tax returns.

This, as you'll note, leaves Reid just as open to attack as it does Romney. It also leaves Reid open to a very valid charge of hypocrisy, for obvious reasons. If you're saying the other side isn't living up to a standard, then you'd better damn well live up to that standard yourself, if you happen to be the point man on the issue for your party.

In fact, we would like to see a new law enacted for all federal elected officials. The basic idea is that to qualify for any office, you must publicly disclose your tax returns for a period of time equal to the term of the office you run for. House members would have to provide only two years of tax returns to the public. Senate members would be required to provide six years of their taxes in order to run. The office of president is a trickier one, since it can be either four or eight years, but I think providing only four years is insufficient. It's hard to argue that prospective senators need to provide more than prospective presidents, so let's split the difference between one term and two and say presidents have to provide six years of returns as well.

Ideally, this needs to be written into law. Think it could never happen? Then you probably aren't old enough to remember the "term limits" frenzy of the 1990s. When one party or another makes politics itself a giant campaign issue, it can shame the other guys into acting. It's certainly worth a try.

But, legislative suggestions aside, we have to at least partially agree with the hordes of Reid critics this week. Not on Harry's attack per se, but on the fact that he hasn't released his own tax returns to the public. Oh, sure, you can argue that being president is a more important job to the voters than leading the Senate, but to us this is a pretty thin argument to make.

To put it in Las Vegas terms for Harry, sometimes you need to put your own cards on the table. For not doing so in the midst of the fracas he caused, Harry Reid also wins the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award this week.

For those who care, this is only the seventh time one person has swept both categories in our awards here. Barack Obama's done it three times, Hillary Clinton twice, and Eric Holder managed it once.

[Contact Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on his Senate contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 221 (8/3/12)

I came across a quote recently that I thought was worth sharing: "The God of nature, in his infinite goodness, has made the people of New England to excel every other people that ever existed in the world."

An unguarded moment from the Romney campaign? A Maine Tea Partier? One of those Kennedy cousins, perhaps? Maybe just a really rabid (more so than most, in other words) Red Sox fan?

Actually, it comes from a letter written to a newspaper almost 200 years ago, in 1814. It has nothing whatsoever to do with this week in politics, I just thought I'd share it as an example of early American (regional) jingoism, before there were modern Olympics, gymnastics announcers, or Bob Costas. You've simply got to admire such sweeping prose: "....every other people that ever existed in the world." The only thing I would suggest to modernize the quote a bit is the addition of "So there!" at the end of it.

Call it the opening ceremonies to Silly Season 2012. Because this is a momentous occasion... whoops, we're going to cut away to some blithering bag of wind interviewing Michael Phelps for 15 minutes... OK, enough Olympics jokes, I promise. Well, except for one at the end, maybe.

Anyway, we've decided that to open Silly Season, we're going to start by offering up all our entries this week in the tricky "Phrase all your talking point titles as if Dr. Seuss had written them" category. Hey, don't blame me -- 'tis the season! To make it even harder, we're going to limit this heat to one subject, chosen not-at-all at random (thanks, Harry!) -- Mitt Romney and taxes.

 

1
   I will not pay them like a cop. I will not show them like my Pop.

This one is fairly self-explanatory, for those who have been paying attention.

"Mitt Romney has shown that he is just fine with paying a tax rate well below what most of America's brave firefighters and police officers pay. He thinks that's how America should work. The people with the most pay the least, and the middle class pays higher rates. Mitt also thinks releasing two years of his own tax returns is enough, even though his own father set the gold standard by releasing twelve years of his income taxes. How far the apple has fallen from the tree, eh, Mitt?"

 

2
   I will not show them to H. Reid. "You people" saw everything you need.

Nothing screams elitism like the phrase "you people." So use it often!

"Mitt Romney complains that Harry Reid is making wild accusations about the income taxes he paid in previous years. Well, you know what? Mitt can quite easily prove Harry wrong. He refuses to do so. I wonder why that is. I guess 'you people' (as the Romneys say) just have to take Mitt's word for it that Harry Reid is wrong. Mitt could easily settle the argument, but he refuses to let 'you people' see the truth. Mitt Romney has been running for president since 2008, and there is absolutely no reason why he should have anything questionable on any tax return back to at least that date -- and yet he still refuses to prove this to the American voter. That's 'you people' -- or, as I prefer to phrase it, 'We the People.' I've heard of a sense of entitlement before, but this just takes the cake -- and eats it, too."

 

3
   What's Mitt hiding? We don't know. It's really big, or else he'd show.

This goes to the heart of the matter. Everyone is free to make their own list of what Mitt might be hiding (Salon has a dandy one up), because nothing is provable one way or the other. Don't shy away from this, hammer it home!

"What is Mitt Romney hiding in his tax returns? We simply don't know. What is so bad that Mitt is willing to take all of the negative press the issue has generated? Again, it's impossible to say. Are there more offshore accounts we don't know about? No idea. Did Mitt take advantage of the offshore account IRS amnesty in 2009? Is there some investment that is especially embarrassing? Did he give money to Planned Parenthood much later than he's let on? Did he pay pathetically small tax rates for a few years... or even a whole bunch of years? Nobody knows. That's the problem with being secretive. It leaves everyone to assume the worst. Mitt could end all this speculation immediately, but he won't do so. The only conclusion I can come to is that whatever he's hiding has got to be something pretty big, or at least pretty politically explosive for his campaign."

 

4
   Can you find Caymans on GPS? Know who else can't? IRS!

OK, something's wrong with the scansion on that one, I know. I worked on getting everything syllabically correct, but somehow couldn't quite make it work. Sorry.

"Does America really want a president with split loyalties to foreign countries? Do we really want a president who might favor countries diplomatically just because they allow Americans to use them as ATMs to avoid paying taxes? In all of American history, I cannot think of one single president who felt the need to use overseas banks and offshore accounts. Do we really want to start this trend now? We have no idea how many countries Mitt Romney has millions stashed away in. Do we really want to second-guess every decision on the global stage a president makes, to address the question whether he's acting fully in America's interests -- and not just his own financial interests? To me, that's a horrifying thing to contemplate, and I think the voters will feel the same way about Mitt's worldwide banking and his possible conflicts of interest."

 

5
   I get big tax breaks, yes I do. Guess who pays? It's folks like you!

For this title, we've simply got to share the two runners-up: "I get to pay a lower tax, and shift the load onto your backs" and "Middle class will pay two K, while me and my friends will pocket a cool quarter-million per year, thanks very much!" Well, you can see why that last one never made it out of the starting gate, I suppose.

"Mitt Romney's tax plan is going to wind up raising taxes on the middle class by two thousand dollars a year, while the wealthiest Americans get enormous new tax breaks. Mitt says his tax plan isn't going to add to the deficit, but when you hand out goodies to the wealthy on such a scale, someone has to wind up paying for it. Which means middle class taxes go up for everyone else, while the wealthy pay far, far less. President Obama now has an ad up which calls out Mitt Romney on this issue, and the fact checkers at the Washington Post gave his ad not two Pinocchios, not one Pinocchio, but in fact the total vindication of a 'Geppetto checkmark' -- something I didn't even know they handed out, due to its rarity. The fact checkers agree that Obama's ad pointing out the huge middle class tax hike Mitt Romney's tax plan would require is absolutely and unequivocally true. Never has the difference between the two parties been so easy to see. If Republicans win, taxes on the wealthy go down, taxes on the middle class go up. If Democrats win, the opposite happens. The choice could not be clearer."

 

6
   When you actually do the math, the middle class takes quite a bath!

This one was much better than the alternate: "Mitt sure hates their big conclusion, while his details stay in seclusion."

"Mitt Romney is complaining about an independent think tank report which analyzed his tax plan and came to conclusions Mitt didn't like. What's funny is that this is the same organization Mitt used to favorably cite as an excellent example of a neutral third party -- back in the primaries, when he was using their numbers to attack Newt Gingrich and his other opponents. The only thing which has changed is that Mitt doesn't like what they're saying now. They actually went out of their way to absolutely bend over backwards to fit Mitt's intentions for his tax plan to their calculations, though. They assumed that Romney would limit all popular deductions for the wealthy (as Mitt has said he'd do), and they gave Mitt a break on his rather optimistic growth rates. They still couldn't make Romney's tax plan "revenue-neutral" (as Mitt swears it is going to be) without massive tax increases on the middle class -- an average of $2,000 for everyone making under $200,000. That is the reality. That is the hard, cold math. The Republican economic plan simply does not add up without massively socking it to the middle class earners. Mitt says they made the wrong assumptions in their analysis, but you know what? If Mitt would say -- specifically -- what he'd do, instead of trumpeting the goodies while never saying how he'll pay for them, then we could all sit down and do the math together. Mitt is keeping those details in the dark, because he knows that the middle class isn't going to be getting any of the goodies -- they're going to be paying for the upper-crust mountains of goodies, instead."

 

7
   If you don't like my plan (of course), then you can kiss my dancing horse.

OK, just had to get one last Olympic shot in, here.

"Did you catch Mitt Romney's dancing horse at the Olympics? It must be nice to be able to spend the time and money teaching a magnificent purebred horse to dance... in the Olympics... with the rider on its back wearing top hat and tails. Wonder how much of that monstrous expense Mitt's written off on his income taxes? Too bad 'Rafalca' didn't win a medal, though. Maybe Mitt should buy a string of polo ponies instead, and try his luck again in four years."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

136 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [221] -- "A Tax" On Romney?”

  1. [1] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Does America really want a president with split loyalties to foreign countries?

    We've got a president who's father came from Kenya and whose got relatives living there. Should we ask the same question about candidate O?

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    We simply don't care. Politics, as the saying goes, ain't beanbag. The only way to exploit an opposing candidate's weaknesses is to point them out -- repeatedly, to anyone who will listen, with the wildest "what's he hiding" speculation you can muster.

    I honestly and truly simply CANNOT believe that ya would support Harry Reid in this..

    This is simply the Left's version of the Birthers and "Smart'ers"....

    "Someone told me that Obama is an Affirmative Action Alumni and got all Fs in Harvard....

    Since Obama won't release his educational records, IT MUST BE TRUE!!"

    It's a sad sad day when the Left become "Birthers" and "Smart'ers"....

    Does America really want a president with split loyalties to foreign countries?

    Obama held a fund raiser in CHINA!!!???

    'nuff said...

    Michale.....

  3. [3] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    You mean it's a sad day when the Left starts acting more like you?

    I'm confused...

    Heh.

    -CW

  4. [4] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Mea Culpa -

    There are two errors in this column. First, John Edwards was Kerry's running mate. Lieberman was 2000, not 2004. Whoops. So, likely, Edwards would have quit by now, or never would have gotten in the mess he had (possibly) in the first place.

    Second, automatic tax extensions now get you to October 15 -- it had always been August 15 when I filed late, and I guess they've updated Form 4868, so Mitt has another two months to file.

    We regret these errors, and offer up our "mea culpa" to everyone.

    -CW

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, Chris ... just how many of you write this column, anyways? :)

    Seriously, while your mea culpas are duly noted and greatly appreciated, these minor errors do nothing to take away from yet another excellent FTP column.

  6. [6] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    Are you referring to my judicious (some might say "liberal") use of the editoral "we"? Heh.

    I can't resist. Me and the Queen of England, we love to say "we". Obligatory Monty Python misquote for Michale: "We are the knights who say 'we'!" Heh.

    Yeah, the fact-checking was kind of weak, this week. I have been scrambling to get these columns out while at the same time pushing through the final work on my book proposal project (draft 2 is nearing completion!). This takes up a HUGE amount of my time, so I'd just like to beg EVERYONE here in the comments to please PLEASE exercise a little self-control for the next few weeks, as I don't have as much time to break up squabbles as normal.

    Play nice, everyone. It'll give me the time to finish up my project, as well as get ready for the big Dem party in Charlotte next month.... then I can get back to refereeing you unruly bunch like I should be doing...

    Thanks in advance!

    -CW

  7. [7] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    OK, I have to admit, my love of the editorial "We" comes mostly from the classic "The Onion" editor's columns (from, um, "Herman T. Zweibel"? That's from memory, and is probably wrong...). They were masterpieces of throwback editorial jargon from the turn of the 20th century (kind of like "Mr. Burns" on the Simpsons), and always got a laugh out of me back when "The Onion" used to run them every week... so when I started this column, I started (consciously or unconsciously) copying his format.

    Fun fact I bet you didn't know: Mr. Burns' stock response to answering the phone ("A-hoy-hoy?") used to be the common way people did so. The term "Hello" is actually a fairly modern construct, and was developed mostly for phone usage. Strange but true...

    -CW

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    You mean it's a sad day when the Left starts acting more like you?

    I'm confused...

    Heh.

    Touche'... :D

    Seriously though.. What Harry did is worse than Team Obama accusing Romney of being a felon... Reid did it from the Senate Floor!!

    I thought us Weigantians were against such low-down dirty political machinations??

    Imagine the outcry from the Left if Camp Romney put out that Obama was an Affirmative Action president and, since he won't release his school records, it "MUST be true"...

    I think we can agree that the Left would turn several shades of apoplectic...

    Are their shades of apoplectic??? :D

    Michale....

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    This takes up a HUGE amount of my time, so I'd just like to beg EVERYONE here in the comments to please PLEASE exercise a little self-control for the next few weeks, as I don't have as much time to break up squabbles as normal.

    Why do I feel the great Weigantian Eye is upon me?? :D hehehehehehehe

    Michale.....

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    You mean it's a sad day when the Left starts acting more like you?

    I'm confused..

    Just occurred to me..

    Ya'all don't have a problem with Harry Reid acting like me???

    That's strange, because ya'all sure have a problem with ME acting like me. :D

    I guess if the Left has it's Birthers and Smarters (Someone help me come up with a better word for that.. Edumacationers???) it's OK, but it's not OK for the Right.. :D

    Michale.....

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    To put it in Las Vegas terms for Harry, sometimes you need to put your own cards on the table. For not doing so in the midst of the fracas he caused, Harry Reid also wins the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award this week.

    To be fair, I have to commend you for awarding Reid the MDDOTW award for his blatant hypocrisy..

    Credit where credit is due... :D

    Michale.....

  12. [12] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    Ya'all don't have a problem with Harry Reid acting like me???

    That's strange, because ya'all sure have a problem with ME acting like me. :D

    BWAH ha ha ha hah!

    OK, I have to admit that got a laugh out of me. What is it you always say? "I don't care who you are, that raht there is FUNNY!"

    Heh.

    :-)

    -CW

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, you know what? Mitt can quite easily prove Harry wrong. He refuses to do so. I wonder why that is.

    Why should he?? Those who are attacking Romney will never be satisfied. They'll just spin more and more conspiracy theories...

    Does that sound familiar to anyone?? :D

    This goes to the heart of the matter. Everyone is free to make their own list of what Mitt might be hiding (Salon has a dandy one up), because nothing is provable one way or the other. Don't shy away from this, hammer it home!

    Once again, this can be turned against Obama??

    Actually, it's WORSE against Obama because he RAN on a platform of transparency..

    So what is Obama hiding in his school records???

    In all of American history, I cannot think of one single president who felt the need to use overseas banks and offshore accounts.

    You don't think Obama has any off-shore interests???

    "Mitt Romney is complaining about an independent think tank report which analyzed his tax plan and came to conclusions Mitt didn't like.

    "Independent" my left arse cheek!!!

    That report was written by a former Obama staffer...

    Wonder how much of that monstrous expense Mitt's written off on his income taxes?

    Once again, do you REALLY want to open Pandora's Box of "write offs"???

    The problem with all your talking points is they can be turned right around and scorch Democrats as well...

    But, as you said.. It IS the silly season... :D

    Michale.....

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, I have to admit that got a laugh out of me. What is it you always say? "I don't care who you are, that raht there is FUNNY!"

    Well, *I* didn't say it. At least not first.

    "I don't care WHO you are, that raht thar was funny as hell, I tell yoooo waaat!"
    -Larry The Cable Guy

    :D

    Michale.....

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think we can ALL agree how awesome this is!! :D


    Shatner helps NASA rover to boldly go to Mars

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/08/04/shatner-helps-nasa-rover-to-boldly-go-to-mars/?intcmp=features

    I don't even begrudge Wesley Crusher a place on the stage.. :D

    Michale.....

  16. [16] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I don't even begrudge Wesley Crusher a place on the stage.. :D

    Don't ever let Sheldon hear you say that.

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is it too late to nominate Democrats for the MDDOTW Award???


    Obama campaign sues Ohio over early voting law for military

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/04/obama-campaign-sues-ohio-over-early-voting-law-for-military/

    As I said, Obama is clearly becoming desperate...

    When a candidate starts disenfranchising the troops, said candidate hasn't got a prayer...

    Michale...

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't ever let Sheldon hear you say that.

    Will Wheaton has gotten a bad rap.. He was actually tolerable in EUREKA :D

    Michale....

  19. [19] 
    LewDan wrote:

    As I said, Obama is clearly becoming desperate...

    When a candidate starts disenfranchising the troops, said candidate hasn't got a prayer...

    More of your Faux News propaganda. I'm a Vet too and I see no reason to give the military special early voting privileges. Military usually get extra time to vote to accommodate delays do to active duty. But the point is to keep their votes from being too late to be counted not guarantee they get to vote early when no one else can.

    Fair elections shouldn't be a blue/red argument and military exceptions should be to guarantee fair elections not grant special privileges.

    I know you're always up for some Obama bashing but could you and the Republicans please refrain from supporting dismantling our democracy just because you're pissed?

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    Fair elections shouldn't be a blue/red argument and military exceptions should be to guarantee fair elections not grant special privileges.

    Rather ironic, don'tcha think...

    Democrats accuse Republicans of pushing Photo ID votes because it would allegedly disenfranchise voters who traditionally vote Democrat...

    Democrats are attempting to disenfranchise a voting group who traditionally votes Republican..

    Once again, the hypocrisy is so thick that one could cut it with a knife... :D

    Michale.....

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't tell me....

    Let me guess....

    "That's different...." :D

    Michale.....

  22. [22] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    Having the same rules for everyone is NOT "disenfranchising" anyone.

    Preventing someone from voting IS "disenfranchising" someone.

    Yeah. Its different.

  23. [23] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Let me also add that this new law in Ohio is a Republican attempt to give preference to "a voting group who traditionally votes Republican." Democrats aren't trying to "take away" anything. You can't "take away" something they never had.

    Democrats are trying to maintain a level playing field. Republicans are trying to tilt the election in their favor... Oh, the irony indeed!

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Having the same rules for everyone is NOT "disenfranchising" anyone.

    Preventing someone from voting IS "disenfranchising" someone.

    Yeah. Its different.

    Preventing someone from voting illegally is NOT disenfranchising..

    It's obeying the law...

    Democrats are trying to maintain a level playing field.

    How is making it easier for people to cheat a "level playing field"???

    Republicans are trying to tilt the election in their favor... Oh, the irony indeed!

    Republicans are insuring that the law is obeyed..

    I find it funny that ANYONE would have a problem with that...

    Democrats are trying to make it harder for the troops to vote...

    THAT will go over well with Independents & NPAs.... :^/

    That was sarcasm, in case you missed it...

    Michale.....

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    I said it before and I'll say it again, because it's never been successfully refuted..

    If anyone is too lazy to get a photo ID, then obviously voting is not something they really want to do..

    No one can disenfranchise ANYONE from voting without tacit permission...

    Michale.....

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah. Its different.

    Ya know, maybe it ISN'T different..

    Republicans want to make it easier for the troops to vote...

    Democrats want to make it easier for Illegals to vote...

    Michale....

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    All things considered, it's not surprising...

    I said at the beginning of the VOTER ID debate that Democrats really wouldn't care about disenfranchising voters, if the voters were likely to vote Republican...

    This simply proves that point beyond all possible contention....

    Michale.....

  28. [28] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    When a candidate starts disenfranchising the troops...

    Not just a candidate but the Commander in Chief.

  29. [29] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Will Wheaton has gotten a bad rap.. He was actually tolerable in EUREKA :D

    He's downright hilarious in The Big Bang Theory.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Can I take back the last 10 posts??? :D

    I misread the initial report...

    It's not that the Team Obama wants to restrict the military's voting..

    It's that Team Obama wants to give everyone in Ohio the extra privilege..

    While I still think that sucks (Military DO deserve extra privileges) it's not the same as what I first thought it was....

    So, mea culpa, my bust and all that other atonement carp... :D

    But, I'll have my eye on Team Obama!!! :D

    Michale......

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    He's downright hilarious in The Big Bang Theory.

    Call me culturally depraved ..... er deprived... but I have never watched that.... :D

    Michale.....

  32. [32] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    OK, I'm tossing you a bone, because we actually agree on this one, I think.

    Here's an Olympic mini-rant (if I had time, I'd have used this on a Tues or Thurs as a column).

    When the American gymnast won her gold medal (in "individual"? can't keep the categories straight), she was described on NBC (and elsewhere) as "the first African-American to win gold in Olympic gymnastics."

    This is PC-ism gone crazy. It actually demeans her accomplishment. I admit I haven't checked, but I believe she is the first black woman to win gold.

    Calling her "African-American" in this context is misleading and incorrect and cheapens the accomplishment. It shortchanges dozens of countries and regions of the planet who have dark-skinned competitors. "Black" may be considered perjorative by some, but I don't consider it a negative term. In the context of pointing out the racial aspect of the achievement, NBC limited it to "the first African-American" which means no other African-American has won -- but DOES NOT mean that no other black person had won.

    What would they have said if an Ethiopian had won, one wonders. "The first African"? "The first African-American who has no tie to America"? "The first African-non-American"?

    The whole thing is silly, and, like I said, PC-ism run rampant.

    Give her the WHOLE honor -- don't limit it. She was the first black person to have won -- ever. That is a BIG deal. MUCH bigger than just the first black American who won.

    Of course, since I'm not writing this up as an article, I haven't checked my facts -- perhaps some Ethiopian won 70 years ago or something.

    But it did add to my annoyance with the coverage of the Games, that's for sure.

    And, like I said, I think you'll actually agree with me on this one.

    :-)

    -CW

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    I fully and completely agree....

    African and American are NATIONAL designations. Not racial..

    As you point out, nowhere should this be MORE blatantly obvious than at the Olympics...

    As I am found of saying (because I just love the way her name looks in print) Charlize Theron is an African American... Al Sharpton is not...

    Did you happen to read what NBC did after???

    NBC forced to apologise after ill-timed ad features a monkey doing gymnastics - right after showing Gabby Douglas' gold medal victory

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2183284/Gabby-Douglas-NBC-forced-apologise-ad-features-monkey-doing-gymnastics-right-AFTER-victory.html

    I am certain there wasn't any intent, but jeeezus, how BAD does THAT look!! :D

    You see, in a world that is TRULY diverse, where race TRULY doesn't matter, that wouldn't have garnered ANY kind of response...

    We'll get there.... Doubt it will be in my lifetime, but we'll get there...

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Call me culturally depraved ..... er deprived... but I have never watched that.... :D

    OMG. I hardly know what to say. I insist you watch at least one episode. There are all sorts or repeats going on all the time, on all different channels. One episode. Do it for me. It's about a bunch of super-geeks, and they're all into sci-fi and comic books. It reminds me of a couple of guys on this board.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, another shooting..

    Some white supremacist scumbag..

    Wanna lay bets on how fast the Tea Party gets the blame??? :^/

    No Left Wing MSM, my left arse cheek!!

    Michale......

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Working on a full-time basis, the Cleanface investigators spent more than one thousands man-hours over five months reviewing every vote I cast as commissioner and interviewing my colleagues, clients, and friends to prepare a 77-page report for the Gaming Control Board chairman, Richard Bunker, who had replaced Hannifin. An outside accounting firm submitted all files related to my corporate and personal financial matters. Every rock they saw, they picked up and turned it over, twice. In February 1980, Bunker held an hour-long press conference to announce that the investigation had completely cleared me of any wrongdoing. But the ordeal had taken its toll. Terrible claims had been released by federal agents without a shred of substantiating evidence that created, in Bunker’s words, an “aura of distrust.” To me, the whole period was the worst time in my family’s life.

    That was the passage from Harry Reid's autobiography where his bitterness clearly shows how false accusations can damage a person...

    Apparently Reid doesn't mind false accusations, as long as REID is the one that gets to hurl them..

    What frakin' scumbag...

    Michale.....

  37. [37] 
    akadjian wrote:

    That was the passage from Harry Reid's autobiography

    Are you reading Harry Reid's autobiography?

    I'm trying to think of a less interesting book and other than perhaps Pilgrim's Progress (the most boring book English teachers ever made you read), I'm struggling

    :)

    -David

  38. [38] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    Just had a friend complain to me that she couldn't get a state photo ID because the address on her old state photo ID didn't match the address on her application for a new photo ID. So the state returned her application! Apparently since she now lives at a different address she can't get an ID?! And what's with the requirement that photo IDs must have expiration dates and be current? How does ones identity expire?

    Sure its all about preventing voter fraud. That's why the rules ares so reasonable!

    Obviously you're happy to join the wingers in trying to rig the election, but I'm old-fashioned. I think the military deserves to be honored because they're honorable. And since every one of them swore an oath to protect the Constitution, and the Constitution requires that everyone be treated equally under the law, I seriously doubt that they agree with you that the Constitution doesn't apply to them so they're deserving of special treatment.

    It would also be nice if you too were less rabidly partisan and more often honorable.

  39. [39] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    African and American are NATIONAL designations. Not racial..

    if we're going to get technical, neither is. african refers to people of a continent, and american refers to those of two continents. neither is strictly national. latin-americans and canadians sometimes get annoyed that we stateside use the moniker "american" to refer only to ourselves.

    purely by nationality, charlize theron is south african american (full name of country, no hyphen) while al sharpton is just plain american (or more precisely, estadounidense, since no fully exclusive national identification exists in common use english.)

    that aside, "african-american" (hyphenated) is its own idiom, independent of its component words, much as a "red herring" is neither red nor a herring. as such, it refers to US residents some of whose ancestors inhabited africa before post-crusades european colonization, after paleolithic migration, and who are generally not first-generation immigrants (though there's some overlap and discretion on that point).

    that said, i agree with CW, they should have just said "black." throughout most of the world, there's absolutely nothing offensive about that term, and it's much more inclusive.

    ~joshua

  40. [40] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Well, another shooting..

    Some white supremacist scumbag..

    Wanna lay bets on how fast the Tea Party gets the blame???

    my friend, ms. vaidhyanathan, who co-authored one of my guest-articles here, was very disturbed by the event. this is a terrorist act by a home-grown terrorist, and should be given equal attention to other terrorist acts.

    not that they have to, but it would be good from a public relations standpoint if tea-party organizations would use the opportunity to sympathize with the victims and advocate the hunting down of the neo-nazis responsible. it would serve their cause better than turning attention to their own detractors and casting themselves as victims.

    ~joshua

  41. [41] 
    LewDan wrote:

    As I am found of saying (because I just love the way her name looks in print) Charlize Theron is an African American... Al Sharpton is not...

    How's that?

    You see, in a world that is TRULY diverse, where race TRULY doesn't matter, that wouldn't have garnered ANY kind of response...

    We'll get there.... Doubt it will be in my lifetime, but we'll get there...

    After all, Obama monkey tee-shirts and sock dolls were just a funny, not racist at all! No Siree!

    When non-whites stop complaining about what offends them, since it offends white folk to hear it, then we'll have "a world that is TRULY diverse, where race TRULY doesn't matter"—to white people.

  42. [42] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    When non-whites stop complaining about what offends them, since it offends white folk to hear it, then we'll have "a world that is TRULY diverse, where race TRULY doesn't matter"—to white people.

    that's the thing, racism is still very real in social and economic circles, even today. but to most non-racist whites, such things may seem not to exist, since they themselves don't experience them. i ran into a guy this summer who was the senior district administrator, and retired a couple years ago. when a higher position opened, they eliminated the position rather than allowing a black man to get it, then re-created the higher position as soon as he retired. the racism was explicit, but because it was never recorded in writing or on tape, it couldn't be proven.

    this is still happening today, even in a world where barack h. obama is president of the united states.

  43. [43] 
    LewDan wrote:

    African and American are NATIONAL designations. Not racial..

    If you're going to get "technical" the only race is "human." Otherwise race is designation for people of roughly (often very roughly) similar genetic, cultural and regional makeup frequently named for the region they generally inhabit.

    You think African can't be a race because it a continent? Japanese because its a country? Chinese because its a country? Hawaiian because its a state in the US?

    Let's see... We were forcibly removed from Africa and transported to America but we are "not allowed" to call ourselves African, American, or African-American. You don't have a problem with the Chinese who migrated to Korea being Korean but you've a problem, all of a sudden, with us? We're not allowed to be a race?!

    For some reason anyone who was ever from Africa, and is dark skinned, is only "allowed" to call themselves "Black". Unless they immigrate to America whereupon each African nation devolves into a separate race? Or if they're white enough to be "Arabic"? While we, here in America, who are people of color sure as hell don't get to decide for ourselves how we should be referred to. Because, obviously, race is all about either being Black/African or some variation of white.

    And where does this "who are generally not first-generation immigrants" come from? Your race changes after two or three generations? Do "you people" have any idea how racist you are?!

  44. [44] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Give her the WHOLE honor -- don't limit it. She was the first black person to have won -- ever. That is a BIG deal. MUCH bigger than just the first black American who won.

    CW,

    Recognizing her as "Black" just means she belongs to the group of humans with darker hued skin. Recognizing her as "African-American" means she belongs to a group who were slaves for hundreds of years and were still second-class citizens just 50-years ago.

    Which do you think "honors" her achievement more, recognizing she's a 1st among dark skinned people or that she's a 1st among people overcoming tremendous adversity?

  45. [45] 
    Chris1962 wrote:
  46. [46] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    "...Franken and his Democratic allies dispatched an army of lawyers to challenge the results. After the first canvass, Coleman's lead was down to 206 votes. That was followed by months of wrangling and litigation. In the end, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes. He was sworn into office in July 2009, eight months after the election.

    During the controversy a conservative group called Minnesota Majority began to look into claims of voter fraud. Comparing criminal records with voting rolls, the group identified 1,099 felons -- all ineligible to vote -- who had voted in the Franken-Coleman race.

    Minnesota Majority took the information to prosecutors across the state, many of whom showed no interest in pursuing it. But Minnesota law requires authorities to investigate such leads. And so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial...."
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots/article/2504163

  47. [47] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    We've got a president who's father came from Kenya and whose got relatives living there.

    you got the grammatical usages of who's and whose reversed. who's = who is; whose = belonging to.

    Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes.
    [snip]
    177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial...."

    first of all, does this relate to any of the comments or the original post? second, are you suggesting that the election ought to have been tipped in the other direction by policies that deny six times as many legitimate votes as the illegitimate votes they prevent?

  48. [48] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Recognizing her as "Black" just means she belongs to the group of humans with darker hued skin. Recognizing her as "African-American" means she belongs to a group who were slaves for hundreds of years and were still second-class citizens just 50-years ago.

    that's not entirely true. many african-americans are or are descended from free africans who moved from africa within the past fifty years.

  49. [49] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    you got the grammatical usages of who's and whose reversed. who's = who is; whose = belonging to.

    Yeah, I manage to commit typos every now and again. Thanks, anywhose. And BTW, the first letter of the first word of a sentence should be capitalized.

    first of all, does this relate to any of the comments or the original post?

    It relates to comments made about voter ID's.

    second, are you suggesting that the election ought to have been tipped in the other direction

    I don't know how Wisconsin does it counting, or how it reconciles voter fraud after a candidate has been sworn in. But that election sure smells like Franken won due to voter fraud.

    by policies that deny six times as many legitimate votes as the illegitimate votes they prevent?

    Policies designed to prevent voter fraud, y'mean?

  50. [50] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Whoops, meant to say Minnesota. See what happens when I'm tired, Joshua? Fascinating, ain't it?

  51. [51] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And BTW, the first letter of the first word of a sentence should be capitalized.

    i do that on purpose.

    Policies designed to prevent voter fraud, y'mean?

    policies that themselves are a fraud, i mean, since their biggest impact is on voters other than the ones for which they're ostensibly designed.

  52. [52] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    i do that on purpose.

    Just checking.

    policies that themselves are a fraud

    Not in my opinion.

  53. [53] 
    Chris1962 wrote:
  54. [54] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LewDan [44] -

    Which do you think "honors" her achievement more, recognizing she's a 1st among dark skinned people or that she's a 1st among people overcoming tremendous adversity?

    I would argue that since the total number of dark skinned people is greater, that the honor of being first among them would be greater.

    But why not honor both? Why not say something like: "...who is not only the first African-American to win gold, but also the first black woman to do so, ever"?

    Seems that that would cover all the bases.

    How would you have put it, if she had been from an African or Caribbean country rather than an American? I'm curious.

    -CW

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like I have some catching up to do...

    David,

    Are you reading Harry Reid's autobiography?

    Oh, it's FASCINATING!!!

    “Any man or woman who will not be completely candid about his or her finances does not deserve to be in public office.”
    -Harry Reid

    Hypocrisy, thy name is Harry Reid.

    It's funny how the Left is ALL about transparency.. But only from the Right...

    Let's see Obama's school transcripts. I, for one, would like to know how Obama paid for his schooling at Columbia and Harvard...

    That certainly comes under the heading of "Financial Disclosures"...

    Yea, I know, I know.. We aren't allowed to question "The One"....

    For the record, I am not reading Reid's autobiography.. But these quotes are well-known as they show the complete and utter hypocrisy of Democrats in general and Reid in particular..

    LD,

    The law is the law.. You must be a US citizen to vote in an American Election.

    ID requirements are widely known and not kept secret..

    Anyone who doesn't have the proper ID come Election Day is simply lazy.. Or has an ulterior motive...

    Joshua,

    if we're going to get technical, neither is. african refers to people of a continent, and american refers to those of two continents. neither is strictly national. latin-americans and canadians sometimes get annoyed that we stateside use the moniker "american" to refer only to ourselves.

    Your right. I should have said African and American are NATIONAL/REGIONAL designations, not racial...

    my friend, ms. vaidhyanathan, who co-authored one of my guest-articles here, was very disturbed by the event. this is a terrorist act by a home-grown terrorist, and should be given equal attention to other terrorist acts.

    While the Wisconsin shooting was horrific, it doesn't yet fit the definition of a "terrorist" act... It may yet, but as of now, it doesn't...

    LD,

    How's that?

    Howz what?? That Charlize Theron is African American and Al Sharpton is not??

    Charlize Theron was born in South Africa... Al Sharpton was hatched in the fiery pits of hell...

    Granted, that doesn't make the case for Sharpton not being African American, but it felt good to say... :D

    Joshua,

    that's the thing, racism is still very real in social and economic circles, even today.

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    Institutionalized racism that targets non-whites is dead in the here and now...

    It died the day we elected a black president..

    Now, institutionalized racism AGAINST whites is alive and well and growing exponentially...

    LD,

    Let's see... We were forcibly removed from Africa and transported to America but we are "not allowed" to call ourselves African, American, or African-American. You don't have a problem with the Chinese who migrated to Korea being Korean but you've a problem, all of a sudden, with us? We're not allowed to be a race?!

    You were!!! OMIGODS, you were forcibly removed from Africa!!!!! Holy crap!! Did you call anyone and report this!???

    Oh, wait.. I see.. many hundreds of years ago, people that you may or may not be distantly related to were forcibly removed from Africa..

    And somehow, this creates a system where you are owed something in the here and now??

    I have to wonder how long this is going to go on??

    In the 24th Century, are black people still going to be a protected class with privileges and special treatment because of what occurred 3 centuries previously??

    It's actually ironic.. Because of black people demanding privileges and special treatment, no one will ever know if a black person was successful based on their own merits or if they are simply an Affirmative Action success.

    No where is this better exemplified than our own POTUS.... There is simply no doubt that Obama would NOT be POTUS if not for Affirmative Action...

    Doesn't that bother you at all??? Not knowing whether your success is YOUR success or if it was a case of "you didn't build that"??

    As long as minorities in general and the black community in particular feel that society "owes them", then racism will never be truly overcome...

    MLK would be horrified to see what his teachings has wrought...

    Joshua,

    policies that themselves are a fraud, i mean, since their biggest impact is on voters other than the ones for which they're ostensibly designed.

    Once again, assumes facts not in evidence..

    The only group that Voter ID impacts are those who are too lazy to follow the rules or who believe they are entitled to special treatment..

    The rules are known and widely publicized.. There is simply NO valid excuse for not following the rules..

    Michale.....

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting article about PC Correct-ness running amok at the Olympics..

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/313251/olympic-political-correctness-john-fund?pg=1

    The words of Sarek Of Vulcan are especially apropos here...

    "There can be no offense where none is taken"

    It seems like many (mostly from the Left, but the Right has some whiners as well) go out of their way to FIND offense to take.. And, if they can't find it, then they just make shit up... The FL shooting is a perfect example of that...

    Once again, I have to ask..

    How can we move past racism when there are people in this world who will use claims of racism as a blunt-force weapon to beat people over the head with??

    Michale.....

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/four-pinocchios-for-harry-reids-claim-about-mitt-romneys-taxes/2012/08/06/c31a1402-e007-11e1-8fc5-a7dcf1fc161d_blog.html

    The link says it all...

    I honestly cannot believe that the Left, **THE LEFT** of all people would use the "he won't disclose X, Y and Z so he MUST be hiding something" argument...

    It's so astonishing because the Left was a COMPLETE 180 on that argument when it came to Obama being transparent...

    Thereby proving once again that, when it comes to hypocrisy, NO ONE outshines Democrats...

    Michale.....

  58. [58] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    no it doesn't.

    i provided a concrete example of a friend whose word i trust, who experienced a direct instance of institutionalized racism in the here and now. if you want to call it hearsay or rationalize it away in some other manner then you're entitled, but you're not entitled to act like i didn't include a fact that i did.

    as for the voter ID law, you're making my point for me. it's not being sold as a law to disenfranchise the people michale thinks are lazy, it's being sold as preventing illegal votes, which is not the law's main effect and the law's proponents know it. THAT is fraud.

    regardless, the following article provides other concrete examples of people who would be disenfranchised for reasons other than just laziness.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/07/pennsylvania_s_voter_id_law_bad_for_both_parties_.html

    facts ARE in evidence.

    ~joshua

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    How would you have put it, if she had been from an African or Caribbean country rather than an American? I'm curious.

    Because "african-american" is now a race (like caucasian, oriental, etc etc) any black person would be called african-american...

    I can imagine some black people in Russia or Cuba might have a bit o problem with that designation...

    Michale.....

  60. [60] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    here are a few more:

    http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/applewhiteetalvcommonwealt/voteridclients.htm

    do you want to stick your fingers in your ears and say LALALALALALALA, or are you going to acknowledge that voter ID laws are the real fraud?

  61. [61] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Because "african-american" is now a race (like caucasian, oriental, etc etc) any black person would be called african-american...

    something doesn't have to be red or a herring to be a red herring.

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    if you want to call it hearsay or rationalize it away in some other manner then you're entitled, but you're not entitled to act like i didn't include a fact that i did.

    I stand corrected...

    Objection.. Heresay.... :D

    as for the voter ID law, you're making my point for me. it's not being sold as a law to disenfranchise the people michale thinks are lazy, it's being sold as preventing illegal votes, which is not the law's main effect and the law's proponents know it. THAT is fraud.

    Not at all.. Considering the news reports of the last few months where voter fraud COULD have been perpetrated if the perpetrator was so inclined, PLUS the reports out of Virginia where voter ballots that were pre-filled out with Democrat selections were mailed to dead people, dogs, fish, children, illegals, etc etc, I would say that indicates that voter ID laws ARE needed....

    If Democrats are so concerned about Voter ID laws, why don't the make a big push to make sure anyone who wants to vote have and ID..

    They have GET OUT THE VOTE drives for registration. Seems it would be easy to have a GET OUT THE VOTE id drives..

    The reason Democrats don't is because they don't care about that. They just want to make sure that they can cheat if they need to..

    No other explanation fits the facts...

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/07/pennsylvania_s_voter_id_law_bad_for_both_parties_.html

    Yes, you can find some sob stories about how it is impossible for people to get ID. Most of them, people really DO have an ID already..

    I can find stories that justify the use of ID to vote...

    But the fact is, it's the law that only Americans can vote in elections..

    I don't care if it's a Republican or Democrat who doesn't get to vote because of ID laws... Where there is a will, there is a way...

    If people can't find that way, then they obviously don't have the will...

    I submit that the integrity of the election is FAR more important than a sob story here and there...

    That's an opinion, to be sure, but it's an opinion based on facts...

    Michale.....

  63. [63] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Obviously what Harry Reid said was silly and yes it is on par with many arguments on the right - up there with the birthers and schoolers. The difference is we can acknowledge it as such, it will be forgotten about in a week. To this day there are still birthers and schoolers (even on this forum) which is quite frankly laughable.

    CW
    "I get big tax breaks, yes I do. Guess who pays? It's folks like you!"
    "When you actually do the math, the middle class takes quite a bath!"

    I saw somewhere that Obama has actually put a tax calculator up on his site to illustrate the difference between his and Romney's tax plan.

    As for the Olympics stuff don't get me started. This is my first time watching the Olympics outside the UK and I can't believe how APPALLING the coverage is, never-mind that they show the same 10 adverts about 10000 times a day. Man I miss the BBC...

    Michale
    ""Mitt Romney is complaining about an independent think tank report which analyzed his tax plan and came to conclusions Mitt didn't like.

    "Independent" my left arse cheek!!!

    That report was written by a former Obama staffer..."

    Almost every single independent source agrees. But no, as usual when facts don't support the Republicans they are 'liberal bias'. http://factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-impossible-tax-promise/

    Chris
    The Big Bang theory was ok at first. Now it is completely repetitive, boring and overuses the laugh track more than any show I've ever seen.

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    are you going to acknowledge that voter ID laws are the real fraud?

    Once you have satisfactorily addressed the reports of fraud that HAVE surfaced then you might have a case...

    I would list them, but don't like to put dozens of links in my posts.. :D

    Michale...

  65. [65] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If people can't find that way, then they obviously don't have the will...

    so only the smart and strong-willed should be permitted to vote? that's practically a eugenics argument.

    McGivers: I don't know if you'll like living in our time.
    Khan: Then I'll have to remold it to my liking.

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    mitchy,

    Obviously what Harry Reid said was silly and yes it is on par with many arguments on the right - up there with the birthers and schoolers. The difference is we can acknowledge it as such, it will be forgotten about in a week.

    We??? You got a mouse in your pocket??

    No one has acknowledged anything. Hell, Reid WON the coveted and highly valued and much sought after MIDOTW award!!

    That doesn't sound like any acknowledgement of the hilarity of Reid's utterly baseless accusation...

    To this day there are still birthers and schoolers (even on this forum) which is quite frankly laughable.

    All Obama has to do is release the required records (not forgeries) and he can put it all to rest..

    That IS what the Left is saying about Romney's records, right???

    Almost every single independent source agrees. But no, as usual when facts don't support the Republicans they are 'liberal bias'. http://factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-impossible-tax-promise/

    I wasn't commenting on the viability of Romney's tax plan. I am just a knuckle-dragger who doesn't have a clue about high finance crap like that.

    My only comment was to the idea that the report was issued by an "independent" source.. It wasn't. Period...

    Michale.....

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    so only the smart and strong-willed should be permitted to vote? that's practically a eugenics argument.

    As opposed to the stoopid, lazy and ignorant?? :D

    Sounds like a plan to me! :D

    Kudos to the quote. Bonus Kudos for it being a Trek quote. :D

    Michale...

  68. [68] 
    michty6 wrote:

    As for joke, I'll go with my favourite one-liner of all time:

    How do you get a fat girl into bed?
    Piece of cake...

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, who woulda thunked it!!

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/priorities-ad-ties-mitt-romney-to-cancer-death/2012/08/07/d723d8c0-e084-11e1-8fc5-a7dcf1fc161d_blog.html

    According to Obama, Romney causes cancer....

    Reminds me of that old MAD Magazine spoof of the Richard Prior movie SOME KIND OF HERO, where they made Richard Prior responsible for everything bad that happened in the world..

    Yea, that's the ticket. Team Obama should be writing for MAD magazine..

    Michale.....

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    mitchy,

    As for joke, I'll go with my favourite one-liner of all time:

    How do you get a fat girl into bed?
    Piece of cake...

    Now THAT was funny!!!! :D

    Good one...

    Michale.....

  71. [71] 
    michty6 wrote:

    NYPoet

    I have discussed disenfranchising in detail with Michale (see voter suppression article).

    As I pointed out just because getting a photo ID for you is easy doesn't mean everyone else not living in such a privileged world should have their vote taken away.

    Reality in America is such that many people don't have a TV (3.3%), bank account (7.7%), cell phone (9%) or access to the internet (22.7%). And 11% of VOTING AGE don't have a photo ID. Should we take away a basic human right because they don't have any of these things? Of course not.

    This is why only 5 countries in the world have photo ID to vote (and all provide photo ID to their citizens for free).

    Voter ID is fine, photo ID is too far.

    Michale
    All Obama has to do is release the required records (not forgeries) and he can put it all to rest..
    That IS what the Left is saying about Romney's records, right???

    You need a new argument on this. You keep rehashing the same nonsense and I will continue to repeat: Obama is a more transparent Presidential candidate than Romney. Fact.. I'd also guess that since the last time he released personal records that no President ever had to before you on the right accused him of forging it so he can't really win...

    If Romney wants to release his school records then pressure Obama to match him - good for him! When he does this I will join your school records crusade.

    But not following in his father's footsteps, not following precedent and not matching Obama's transparency levels are all completely separate.

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mitchy.

    You need a new argument on this.

    It's the LEFT's argument, not mine...

    : Obama is a more transparent Presidential candidate than Romney. Fact

    In YOUR opinion. I don't agree...

    But not following in his father's footsteps, not following precedent and not matching Obama's transparency levels are all completely separate.

    Not really...

    It all comes down to transparency..

    Obama is transparent about the things he WANTS to be transparent about. Nothing else..

    When Obama releases his school records (which DO contain financial disclosures, I am interested in) then.... and ONLY then... will you have a viable argument..

    Michale.....

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Voter ID is fine, photo ID is too far.

    When you have a white man going into a DC Voting Station and being able to obtain the voter card for Eric Holder, the black Attorney General of the UNITED STATES, photo ID is definitely not "too far"...

    When you have a Dem organization sending out pre-filled out ballots to dogs, dead people and children, photo ID is definitely NOT "too far"...

    Like I said, the integrity of the election is FAR more important than the lazy or those with an agenda...

    If Democrats were truly worried about the photo ID requirement, they would have a GET AN ID drive.....

    The fact that they don't simply indicates that Democrats are not interested in anything but cheating in the election..

    Michale.....

  74. [74] 
    akadjian wrote:

    What's really interesting about voter ID to me is:

    What does it say about your ideas when your best hope of getting elected is preventing people from voting?

    I think it says you don't have much confidence the majority will buy in to your ideas. So you have to limit democracy.

    And/or ... that your ideas are only going to benefit a small amount of people.

    And I think people are catching on to the game conservatives are playing.

    The interesting thing is that this may lead to some new political realities. Some of the things which worked in the past may not be as effective as they used to be.

    -David

  75. [75] 
    michty6 wrote:

    ": Obama is a more transparent Presidential candidate than Romney. Fact

    In YOUR opinion. I don't agree...Obama is transparent about the things he WANTS to be transparent about. Nothing else..

    When Obama releases his school records (which DO contain financial disclosures, I am interested in) then.... and ONLY then... will you have a viable argument.."

    Nope. These are the FACTS:

    Taxes - Obama 12 years, Romney 1.5 years (being generous).
    School Records - Obama none, Romney none.
    Birth Certificates - Obama short and long form, Romney short form.

    If you can provide any shred of evidence or facts that Obama is less transparent than Romney go ahead. Until you can you can put up with our calls for Romney to be more transparent, while we ignore your calls on Obama being more transparent because he ALREADY IS the most transparent candidate.

    "When you have a white man going into a DC Voting Station and being able to obtain the voter card for Eric Holder, the black Attorney General of the UNITED STATES, photo ID is definitely not "too far"...

    When you have a Dem organization sending out pre-filled out ballots to dogs, dead people and children, photo ID is definitely NOT "too far"..."

    You don't think this fraudulent vote would be caught under the current system? I can tell you 100% it would. And if this is happening all the time, show me some stats on voter fraud (I'll show you one it is 0.0002% - you want to disenfranchise 35 million people to stop voter fraud of 600 people.

    The dead dogs stuff is obviously complete nonsense but I don't need to even bother commenting on that.

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    What does it say about your ideas when your best hope of getting elected is preventing people from voting?

    Presidential Election 2000 Military ballots..

    'nuff said...

    And I think people are catching on to the game conservatives are playing.

    Actually, the facts show that everyday Americans are catching on to the game that DEMOCRATS are playing.. :D

    If Democrats are so concerned about voter disenfranchisement, they would push GET AN ID drive out the ying-yang...

    The fact that they don't shows that they are only interested in one thing. Making it easier to cheat in an election..

    mitchy,

    If you can provide any shred of evidence or facts that Obama is less transparent than Romney go ahead.

    You seem to think I give a rat's ass about Romney... I have NO idea why you think that..

    *I*, as Obama's employer, want to see his school records..

    If he has nothing to hide, he would release them..

    It's a VERY simple argument. And especially ironic, it's the DEMOCRAT's argument.. :D

    You don't think this fraudulent vote would be caught under the current system? I can tell you 100% it would. And if this is happening all the time, show me some stats on voter fraud (I'll show you one it is 0.0002% - you want to disenfranchise 35 million people to stop voter fraud of 600 people.

    And people can get an ID if they really want to vote...

    Michale.....

  77. [77] 
    michty6 wrote:

    "And people can get an ID if they really want to vote..."

    Why don't you also make them do an IQ test? Or set up some giant flaming hoops that they must also jump through to vote? Let's really test how much they 'want' to vote because how much they 'want' to vote is so crucial to you (luckily we don't live in this world and human rights belong to citizens no matter how much or how little they are shown to 'want' them).

    Just because YOU think getting an ID is easy and YOU want people to get them doesn't give YOU the right to take away an American citizens right to vote.

  78. [78] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If Democrats are so concerned about voter disenfranchisement, they would push GET AN ID drive out the ying-yang...

    personally i think this is a disingenuous argument in support of a fraudulent law. HOWEVER.... it also happens to be an excellent idea, both from a public relatios standpoint and a policy standpoint. if you are working to make sure every voter has an ID, it puts to lie the opponent's argument about illegal voters, and casts yourself as the party trying to protect people's voting rights against the other party who is trying to take them away.

    the fraudulent ID law should still be struck down, but in the meantime an ID drive could make for some excellent PR.

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mitchy,

    Why don't you also make them do an IQ test?

    Because intelligence is not required to vote..

    We proved THAT when we elected Obama... :D

    Just because YOU think getting an ID is easy and YOU want people to get them doesn't give YOU the right to take away an American citizens right to vote.

    No one is taking away ANYONE's right to vote..

    We are simply taking away anyone's "right" to FRAUDULENTLY vote...

    I really don't have a problem with that an neither should anyone who doesn't have an ulterior agenda..

    Joshua,

    personally i think this is a disingenuous argument in support of a fraudulent law.

    I respect that opinion.. It's wrong, but I still respect it.. :D

    HOWEVER.... it also happens to be an excellent idea, both from a public relatios standpoint and a policy standpoint. if you are working to make sure every voter has an ID, it puts to lie the opponent's argument about illegal voters, and casts yourself as the party trying to protect people's voting rights against the other party who is trying to take them away.

    Agreed.. If Democrats were to do this, then Republicans wouldn't have any legal or ethical leg to stand on.. In fact, Republicans would be stoopid not to MATCH the Democrats GET AN ID drive with one of their own..

    But we won't see Democrats do this, because helping disenfranchised voters is NOT the goal of the Democrats agenda...

    The goal of the Democrats agenda is to get as many illegal votes as is possible...

    I would LOVE to see Democrats prove me wrong and mount a massive GET AN ID drive..

    But they won't..

    Michale.....

  80. [80] 
    akadjian wrote:

    the fraudulent ID law should still be struck down, but in the meantime an ID drive could make for some excellent PR.

    @Nypoet- If ID laws go into effect, I'd be willing to place a bet that it will be Democrats pushing for people to get them. And you're right ... it would be a great idea.

    In the meantime though, it's a ridiculous subterfuge. Republicans could give a rat's ass about "illegal voting". Except that it makes a great straw man to reduce the number of people who vote.

    -David

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    In the meantime though, it's a ridiculous subterfuge. Republicans could give a rat's ass about "illegal voting". Except that it makes a great straw man to reduce the number of people who vote.

    And Democrats could give a rat's ass about "voter disenfranchisement"...

    It's remarkable how, more often then not, it goes both ways.. :D

    Michale.....

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as disclosure and transparency goes, I said it weeks ago and I'll say it again..

    Romney should step up and announce that he will release 10 years worth of Tax Returns when Obama releases all his school records and transcripts..

    No Democrat will ever mention Romney's tax records again... :D

    Michale....

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the record, I just LOVE that I am able to use the Democrat's own argument against ya'all... :D

    It has such profound symmetry... :D

    Michale.....

  84. [84] 
    michty6 wrote:

    "We are simply taking away anyone's "right" to FRAUDULENTLY vote...
    I really don't have a problem with that an neither should anyone who doesn't have an ulterior agenda.."

    There is NO fraudulent voting! Voter ID ALREADY takes away people's ability to vote fraudulently.

    In order to prove fraud you must:
    1. Cite recent cases of fraud
    2. Show that voter ID is not sufficient to prevent fraud (point (1) and (2) usually go together)

    Which will then probably lead to:
    3. Present these findings to the 98% of democracies round the world that use voter ID, not photo ID, as they have all concluded that voter ID is a solid enough system to prevent fraud - but you, Michale, personally know better than them and they will all be amazed and instantly move to photo ID once you present your amazing findings...

    To save me turning purple and dying I won't be holding my breath that you will be able to present any of these things...

    Joshua/David/Michale
    The burden of getting photo IDs to voters should NOT fall on a political party or any other person. It is part of responsible Government to ensure that their citizens have the necessary tools to vote and aren't needlessly disenfranchised.

    IF you were to introduce photo ID and claim to be doing this for 'voter fraud', or whatever nonsensical/non-provable reasoning you fancy that day, then I'd expect (like the only 5 countries that have photo ID for voting) you'd introduce free photo IDs to voters and conduct your own photo ID drives to ensure awareness and ability to vote. You'd also do it in a timely fashion, not months before the biggest elections that only happen every 4 years. The Republicans proposing photo ID don't want to do any of these things, which tells you exactly why they are doing this... (clue for Michale: it has nothing to do with fraud).

    Michale
    I've said it before and I'll say it again: Obama is the more transparent candidate than Romney. Fact. IF Romney wants to pressure Obama to release school records by releasing his own then go ahead - THAT would be playing Democrats at their own game. The fact he hasn't done this tells you all you need to know about Romney and transparency.

    Also http://factcheck.org/2012/08/obama-not-trying-to-curb-military-early-voting/

  85. [85] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The burden of getting photo IDs to voters should NOT fall on a political party or any other person. It is part of responsible Government to ensure that their citizens have the necessary tools to vote and aren't needlessly disenfranchised.

    Absolutely agreed, michty. However, what we have w/ conservatives in power is irresponsible government.

    They are, by definition, people who don't believe in government.

    In this case, while I would still push to eliminate the ridiculous voter ID laws, it still makes sense to try to get as many people voter IDs as possible.

    -David

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is NO fraudulent voting! Voter ID ALREADY takes away people's ability to vote fraudulently.

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    (Got it right THAT time, Joshua) :D

    Many reports over the last few months have shown how easy it could be to vote with someone else's card..

    That alone shows the need for photo ID..

    The burden of getting photo IDs to voters should NOT fall on a political party or any other person. It is part of responsible Government to ensure that their citizens have the necessary tools to vote and aren't needlessly disenfranchised.

    Really???

    I live way out in the boonies.. I guess the government has got to buy me a car so I can go vote... :D

    Maybe you would prefer if the government even voted FOR the people, eh?? :D

    then I'd expect (like the only 5 countries that have photo ID for voting) you'd introduce free photo IDs to voters and conduct your own photo ID drives to ensure awareness and ability to vote.

    I don't have a problem with that at all...

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: Obama is the more transparent candidate than Romney. Fact.

    And *I'LL* say it again. That is NOT a fact. It's an opinion, based on a VERY narrow criteria...

    Even if it WERE a fact, it would be irrelevant. *I* am Obama's boss. He works for ME...

    And *I* want to see his school records.. I want to see if he told me the truth about how smart he is...

    Also http://factcheck.org/2012/08/obama-not-trying-to-curb-military-early-voting/

    That's old news. I already issued a mea culpa for that error..

    But we could always talk about Democrats disenfranchising Military votes in the 2000 election, if you like.. :D

    Michale.....

  87. [87] 
    michty6 wrote:

    "Many reports over the last few months have shown how easy it could be to vote with someone else's card..

    That alone shows the need for photo ID.."

    Lololol amazing. Your standard of evidence is awesome 'MANY' reports show how easy it 'COULD' be lol. Guess what? I am not an American citizen so can't vote. I could go steal my friends photo ID (he looks like me) and go and vote. That easy. I COULD do it. OMG! Maybe we should have retina scans and finger printing to ensure there is no fraud??

    "I live way out in the boonies.. I guess the government has got to buy me a car so I can go vote... :D"

    Actually it is Government responsibility to have many voting stations as close as possible to people...

    "I've said it before and I'll say it again: Obama is the more transparent candidate than Romney. Fact.

    And *I'LL* say it again. That is NOT a fact. It's an opinion, based on a VERY narrow criteria..."

    Nope. By any definition of 'transparency' this is a fact. By any precedent of 'Presidential candidate transparency', this is a fact. So yes Democrats have the right to demand tax returns from Romney; until Romney provides school records you do not have that right to demand them from one candidate alone.

    Even if it WERE a fact, it would be irrelevant. *I* am Obama's boss. He works for ME...

    And *I* want to see his school records.. I want to see if he told me the truth about how smart he is...
    "

    Lol no he does not work for you, nor does he owe you something that you alone wish to see from him. You are not his boss, he is your boss ;) I'd love to see the day where an American citizen can boss their President around though. Hey Obama - come over and wash my car! What do you mean 'no', you work for me!

    "But we could always talk about Democrats disenfranchising Military votes in the 2000 election, if you like.. :D"

    Funny, '2000 election' and 'disenfranchising' - there are two phrases that Republicans don't generally like to put together or talk about... ;)

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lol no he does not work for you, nor does he owe you something that you alone wish to see from him. You are not his boss, he is your boss ;)

    It's apparent that you know nothing about our system of government.

    Our elected officials are our employees. They do, indeed, work for us..

    And, if we find their work subpar, we can fire them..

    Which is exactly what is going to occur on 6 Nov 2012...

    Funny, '2000 election' and 'disenfranchising' - there are two phrases that Republicans don't generally like to put together or talk about... ;)

    Simply more evidence that I am not a Republican.. I am a registered NPA... No Political Affiliation...

    :D

    Michale.....

  89. [89] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Lol no he does not work for you

    Actually, yeah, he does. Here in America, our pols are our public servants. We, the People, rule the government, not the other way around.

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Absolutely agreed, michty. However, what we have w/ conservatives in power is irresponsible government.

    It's hilarious..

    When Republicans are in control, it's ALL the Republicans fault...

    When Democrats are in control, it's STILL all the Republicans fault..

    When Democrats have a virtual LOCK on all aspects of government, everything is STILL the Republicans fault...

    This begs the question...

    Are Democrats ever to blame for ANYTHING unrelated to not being able to stand up to Republicans????

    Anything at all???

    Anyone??? Anyone???? Beuhler???

    Michale.....

  91. [91] 
    akadjian wrote:

    When Democrats are in control, it's STILL all the Republicans fault.

    State governments are pushing voter ID, Michale.

    State governments controlled by Republicans.

    Republicans who don't believe in government.

    -David

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Republicans who don't believe in government.

    No.. Republicans who don't believe in elections w/o any integrity whatsoever...

    We already have the solution to this problem.

    Democrats can mount massive GET AN ID campaigns..

    THEN no voters will be disenfranchised..

    We assure that only Americans can vote in the election and no voters will be disenfranchised unless they CHOOSE to be...

    It's a win win for everyone. :D

    Is this a great country or what!!!??? :D

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    No.. Republicans who don't believe in elections w/o any integrity whatsoever...

    Let me rephrase that, as I don't know, nor do I CARE what Republicans believe..

    *I* don't want an election that is devoid of integrity.

    *I* want to make as sure as humanly possible that *I* am not going to be disenfranchised, that *MY* vote is not going to be negated by some lowlife who is voting illegally...

    I have the right to expect that my country will uphold it's own laws..

    I know, I know.. With Obama as President, actually upholding and enforcing our own laws has became trite and passe'...

    Hopefully that will change after this election with a change in administrations...

    Michale.....

  94. [94] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale, Chris
    "It's apparent that you know nothing about our system of government.
    Our elected officials are our employees. They do, indeed, work for us..
    Actually, yeah, he does. Here in America, our pols are our public servants. We, the People, rule the government, not the other way around."

    You don't think it works the same in other countries?

    You rule the Government through elections and other forms of accountability. Their job is to Govern for THE PEOPLE not for any one particular individual based on their orders or wishes.

    So no, no individual American is boss of the President. And no individual American has the right to tell him what to do. That is the opposite of democracy. THE PEOPLE have that right.

    "No.. Republicans who don't believe in elections w/o any integrity whatsoever...
    We already have the solution to this problem.
    Democrats can mount massive GET AN ID campaigns..
    THEN no voters will be disenfranchised.."

    This is the problem in discussing photo ID - you live in a complete bubble and think it is a really simple issue because in YOUR eyes the idea of not having photo ID is absurd. It isn't.

    Photo ID is a stupid solution to a non-existent problem.

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is the problem in discussing photo ID - you live in a complete bubble and think it is a really simple issue because in YOUR eyes the idea of not having photo ID is absurd. It isn't.

    Yes, it is.

    In this day and age, not having a photo ID is tantamount to not existing...

    All the old people sob stories ya'all are trading? How do they cash the Social Security Checks if they don't have ID??

    You can cheery pick all the sob stories you like, but the simple fact is, actual REAL cases of disenfranchisement is a minute of a minute speck of a problem...

    Photo ID is a stupid solution to a non-existent problem.

    That's your opinion and you are welcome to it..

    Other people feel differently..

    Michale.....

  96. [96] 
    LewDan wrote:

    All the examples of "voter-fraud" have been of people who were registered but ineligible. First, that is not fraud, they weren't attempting to deceive anyone. And second, Photo-IDs would have no impact. At all.

    In order to vote you must register. Its the registrars responsibility to assure voters are eligible before the registration is accepted. In every state I've voted in voters receive an ID card. If States want Photo-IDs there's no reason not to issue them.

    But what Republicans want is to impose additional burdens on, and only on, those who do not currently have photo-IDs. They have simply changed the rules just before the election and arbitrarily decided that additional identification must be presented. Identification that must be obtained at the voter's expense. Even in those cases where some form of "free" ID is available its still and additional expense because:

    a.) either the the voter has already taken the time to register and received whatever ID the state chose to issue.

    or

    b.) they haven't registered yet and the state is demanding a 2-step redundant process where the voter must identify themselves to register and then identify themselves again to obtain photo-ID.

    Burdens that are not borne equally on everyone but fall heaviest on those without photo-IDs, primarily non-drivers.

    That's what makes Photo-IDs a Poll Tax, discriminatory and disenfranchising.

    Even if the Republicans' motivations were honest, the means they've chosen is discriminatory. It does not place the same burden on everyone. It arbitrarily changes the rules after people have already met their legal obligations imposing additional burdens. And it requires people to pay for IDs regularly and unnecessarily imposing a poll tax. (Photo-IDs must expire regularly even though identities never change.)

    In spite of the absurd argument that disenfranchising, even were it only a few, voters is worth it to possibly be able to prevent a crime which theoretically might happen on day, Photo-ID requirements are discriminatory and unnecessarily burdensome. (In addition to being unwarranted.) And that's without even considering the bureaucratic hurdles procedurally imposed to make obtaining Photo-IDs difficult for certain classes of people. No of whom are considered to be primarily Republican supporters.

  97. [97] 
    LewDan wrote:

    CW,

    Being the first Black person in the world to do something done many times by non-blacks is a statistical anomaly, not a particular achievement. Unless you think there's some inherent reason the achievement is more difficult for Blacks than anyone else.

    If you believe that of the subset of people in the world who are Black you are a racist. Her being a Black person has no bearing on her achievement.

    If you believe that of the people in the USA who are Black you are correct. As the history of the USA amply illustrates black Americans have had to, and still have to, overcome a lot to obtain even a level playing field, much less excel over everyone else.

  98. [98] 
    LewDan wrote:

    You can cheery pick all the sob stories you like, but the simple fact is, actual REAL cases of disenfranchisement is a minute of a minute speck of a problem...

    While actual REAL cases of voter fraud through impersonation are completely non-existent and still wouldn't be prevented if the perpetrator simply goes to the effort to obtain a fake ID.

    But yes, "other people feel differently." Their thinking is demonstrably illogical, irrational and incorrect—but it is different.

  99. [99] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    The Big Bang theory was ok at first. Now it is completely repetitive, boring and overuses the laugh track more than any show I've ever seen.

    I disagree.

  100. [100] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Their job is to Govern for THE PEOPLE

    The people of their district or state, not the country.

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    Her being a Black person has no bearing on her achievement.

    Then why is it even mentioned???

    THAT's my point...

    Everyone says that race doesn't matter, yet everyone goes out of their way to differentiate the races...

    It's like the old joke, "How can I miss you if you never go away??"

    How can we move past racism when everyone who claims to be non-racist go out of their way to point out and emphasis the races??

    Michale.....

  102. [102] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Everyone says that race doesn't matter, yet everyone goes out of their way to differentiate the races...

    Most noticeably, "African-Americans" themselves. Why not just go with "Americans"?

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    The desperation of Team Obama knows no depths of depravity...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMkmxJ3P9Tw&feature=youtu.be

    With ads like that, Obama is clearly showing the American people that he doesn't DESERVE a second term..

    Michale.....

  104. [104] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Nice post LD (97)

  105. [105] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Her being a Black person has no bearing on her achievement.

    Then why is it even mentioned???

    Michale,
    It wasn't mentioned. NBC mentioned her being an African-American which as I pointed out does have a bearing on the significance of her achievement.

    And your argument on "racism" is based on the racist spin promulgated by bigots to enable racism and thwart affirmative-action against racism with "reverse racism" nonsense.

    Referring to race in any and every context is not automatically "racism" it may simply be stating a fact. Granted its rather arbitrary, but we have nonetheless designated subsets of the human race which we refer to as "races".

    "Racism" is acting on unjustified biases based upon race-based prejudices instead of acting rationally based upon facts obtaining to the situation at hand.

    Your definition makes complaining about racism, in the "fair and balanced" manner so beloved of bigots, the false equivalent of those actually perpetrating racism. A rather convenient definition for racist bigots everywhere.

    So you'll have to forgive me if I'm less than impressed by your passionate advocation of diversity and racial harmony everywhere, as you strive so diligent to enable and provide cover for racism and bigotry.

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    It wasn't mentioned. NBC mentioned her being an African-American which as I pointed out does have a bearing on the significance of her achievement.

    Now you are contradicting yourself..

    In your vernacular, African American IS a race..

    Hence, NBC mentioned race...

    Referring to race in any and every context is not automatically "racism" it may simply be stating a fact. Granted its rather arbitrary, but we have nonetheless designated subsets of the human race which we refer to as "races".

    Yes, and in contexts where a racial designation is a necessity, then bringing up race is logical...

    So, explain to me why bringing up race in the context of a gymnast is necessary...

    Your definition makes complaining about racism, in the "fair and balanced" manner so beloved of bigots, the false equivalent of those actually perpetrating racism. A rather convenient definition for racist bigots everywhere.

    Your absolutely right. Complaining about false instances of racism is not the equivalent of racism..

    It's far FAR worse.....

    So you'll have to forgive me if I'm less than impressed by your passionate advocation of diversity and racial harmony everywhere, as you strive so diligent to enable and provide cover for racism and bigotry.

    I really don't give a rat's ass whether you are impressed or not..

    The simple fact is, by making race an issue in EVERY SINGLE aspect of society, the (by and large) black community has ensured that racism will continue...

    You never answered my question.

    Will black people still be given advantages and benefits they don't deserve in the 22nd century??? The 23rd???

    When does the statute of limitations over slavery run out??? When are the actions of people removed by centuries finally atoned for???

    When will we finally be free of racism IN ALL IT'S forms???

    Michale.....

  107. [107] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Will black people still be given advantages and benefits they don't deserve in the 22nd century?

    I don't think anyone is asking for benefits they don't deserve.

    The fight, Michale, is for equality.

    Whether for women, for gay people, for blacks, or for Hispanics.

    Are we living in an "equal" society when white people commit more crimes, yet black men represent the majority of people in our jails?

    That, my friend, is institutionalized racism. I haven't heard anyone arguing for any benefits they don't deserve.

    -David

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, will wonders never cease....

    http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/08/team-obama-says-they-dont-story-of-man-who-stars-of-131462.html

    Team Obama got caught in another lie.....

    Jeezus, I can't wait until we get rid of these clowns...

    Michale.....

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    I don't think anyone is asking for benefits they don't deserve.

    Bull.. Then explain affirmative action..

    The fight, Michale, is for equality.

    Again, bull... Institutionalized racism against anyone but white people is dead... PERIOD...

    Cite me ONE confirmed instance of *institutionalized* racism in the last 4 years against any race but caucasian..

    Just ONE and I'll concede the point...

    Are we living in an "equal" society when white people commit more crimes,

    Your cite for that???

    yet black men represent the majority of people in our jails?

    There is a reason for that...

    That, my friend, is institutionalized racism.

    It is not, because your facts are wrong. Show me the stat that says white people commit more crimes...

    I haven't heard anyone arguing for any benefits they don't deserve.

    Then explain Affirmative Action...

    Michale.....

  110. [110] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I don't think anyone is asking for benefits they don't deserve.

    Have a look at the folks in Alex Pelosi's video: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/17/real_time_interviews_shameless_welfare_recipients.html

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whether for women, for gay people, for blacks, or for Hispanics.

    That's funny.. I thought equality should apply to ALL the races..

    You have, inadvertently, made my point for me..

    In the Left's exuberance to be uber-tolerant to other races, the caucasian race seems to have been ignored..

    I think ALL races should be able to share in equality rather than ALL races but the caucasian race...

    But I guess I am the minority in that thinking around here... :D

    Michale.....

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't think anyone is asking for benefits they don't deserve.

    Have a look at the folks in Alex Pelosi's video: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/17/real_time_interviews_shameless_welfare_recipients.html

    What SHE said... :D

    Michale.....

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Look at what you are saying..

    You are saying that, because a people were persecuted a couple centuries in the past, they are owed something in the here and now...

    Do you know HOW many examples in history of a group of people being persecuted there are???

    Suppose I were to find evidence that your great great great great great grandfather kicked the ass of my great great great great great grandfather in a bar fight...

    Does that mean that YOU owe ME some form of restitution, payment or consideration???

    Two hundred years from now, are the ancestors of James Holmes going to owe restitution to the ancestors of those who were gunned down in that Aurora theater??

    Two hundred years from now, are the ancestors of Wade Page going to owe restitution to the ancestors of the Sikhs that were gunned down in that Wisconsin temple???

    I mean, look at it logically...

    If we are to suffer for the sins of our ancestors, our DISTANT ancestors, we're going to be paying and paying and paying until our dying days...

    I asked before (twice) and no one seems to have the answer..

    Will there be Affirmative Action 100 years from now??? 200 years from now??? FIVE HUNDRED years from now???

    When are the sins of the past finally laid to rest? When is the debt paid???

    Let's be honest and call affirmative action what it is...

    It's racism in response to racism....

    Michale.....

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    Crime Percentages By Race

    Blacks 37.8%
    Hispanic 19.4%
    Caucasians 6.8%

    Other 36%

    sources:
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States_Census
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_statistics
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime

  115. [115] 
    LewDan wrote:

    "Now you are contradicting yourself..

    In your vernacular, African American IS a race..

    Hence, NBC mentioned race..."

    No I am not. I said NBC never said she was Black that's what prompted CWs comment and my replies. I've said, repeatedly, that her being African-American is relevant and I've stated why, repeatedly. I never said race wasn't mentioned, I said it was and should have been.

    You consistently misrepresent the facts because you've a race-based prejudice that determines your position, not the facts of situation at hand, because you are a racist.

    "Yes, and in contexts where a racial designation is a necessity, then bringing up race is logical...

    So, explain to me why bringing up race in the context of a gymnast is necessary..."

    Because African-Americans are proud of her being African-American and because, hopefully, she is likely equally proud of being African-American.

    We have no problem with others being proud of their race. You, however, think African-Americans shouldn't be proud, or at least not seen or heard. We should be silent, invisible, unnoticeable. We should never mention our history, never complain about our treatment and never brag about our accomplishments. And we should behave that way, and you get to decide when "bringing up race in the context of a gymnast is necessary," because you've a raced-based prejudice that determines what you think is right rather than being fair-minded and reasonable, because you are a racist.

    "Your absolutely right. Complaining about false instances of racism is not the equivalent of racism..

    It's far FAR worse....."

    And you declare claims of racism are false, not objectively because of the particulars of any particular claim, but because you've a raced-based prejudice that determines your opinions instead of being objective, because you are a racist.

    "Will black people still be given advantages and benefits they don't deserve in the 22nd century??? The 23rd???

    When does the statute of limitations over slavery run out??? When are the actions of people removed by centuries finally atoned for???"

    You claim that even though you stacked the deck for two-hundred years, acquiring all the chips, simply declaring you won't do that anymore (while, of course, keeping all the chips) makes the game fair, because you are a racist.

    You think its fine to execute murderers in the pursuit of justice even though its against the law to murder. You think ts fine to seize peoples money and property in the pursuit of justice even though its against the law to steal. You think its fine to arrest people in the pursuit of justice even though its against the law to kidnap and imprison. But affirmative-action in the pursuit of justice?! Now that's just wrong! Because its against the law to discriminate.

    The fact that every punishment and remedial action undertaken by the law in the pursuit of justice is against the law in other contexts has nothing to do with your "reasoning". You think affirmative-action is unjust because you've a raced-based prejudice that has nothing to do with the law or logical consistency because you are a racist.

    No one is asking for anyone to "atone" for the "actions of people removed by centuries." We're trying to deal with the actions of people, such as yourself, who act based upon race-based prejudices instead of facts. And there is no Statute of Limitations for any ongoing crime, including racism. But you, being motivated by race-based prejudices instead of reacting objectively, rationally, fairly, and situationally don't accept that because you are a racist.

    So you do everything in your power to try to silence and discredit anyone with the temerity to call out racists and racism. Trying to falsely equate racism and opposing racism as equally undesirable. Arrogantly thinking that you get to decide how others must refer to themselves. When they may speak out, and how. When they may be recognized... And all because you've raced-based prejudices that you think should govern how people act rather than people determining how they should act for themselves or situations determining what's appropriate behavior, because you are a racist.

    Oh, and did I mention that you are a racist?

  116. [116] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Crime Percentages By Race

    Blacks 37.8%
    Hispanic 19.4%
    Caucasians 6.8%

    Other 36%

    Circular reasoning.

    Are those crimes arrests or convictions? What's the impact of prosecutorial discretion in prosecutions and convictions? Of the discretion of LEOs in arrests? Of the ratio of LEOs in communities with high minority populations versus non-minority communities? What's the impact of juries composed of people with biases like yours? Of legislators with biases like yours creating crimes, and criminals, through legislation?

    You quote statistics out of context that are the result of "institutional racism" as proof that there is no racism. Could you be an more disingenuous. Any more racist?!

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because African-Americans are proud of her being African-American and because, hopefully, she is likely equally proud of being African-American.

    Ahhhh... So it's OK for black to show pride in their race...

    That's strange.. because when caucasians show pride in their race, black people scream.. RACISM!!!!

    because you are a racist.

    And now we get right to it...

    Ya know, that's the problem with Obama's presidency...

    It makes the charge of "racism" obtuse, nonchalant and utterly meaningless

    Prior to Obama's presidency, being accused of racism was an abhorrent thing. It actually MEANT something to be accused of being a racist..

    Nowadays, it's almost a badge of honor....

    He's a racist. She's a racist.. They are all racists... Hell, you even accuse CW of being a racist... back up in {97}...

    Because of Obama and people like you, being accused of racism is not any big deal...

    Why?? Because NOW, one is accused of being a racist, SIMPLY BECAUSE OF POLITICAL DISAGREEMENTS!!!

    Obama and people like you have set the status of race relations back 100 years....

    Congrats... Enjoy your world where everyone who disagrees with you is a racist... You've earned it...

    I'm done...

  118. [118] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Because NOW, one is accused of being a racist, SIMPLY BECAUSE OF POLITICAL DISAGREEMENTS!!!

    Michale,

    I did my best. I don't know how I could be any clearer. I'm accusing you of being a racist because your actions are racist. I thought I was quite specific. I quoted examples. I offered my reasoning.

    You, of course, continue to lie. I specifically said every race has a right to be proud. I never addressed "political" beliefs. I took exception to what you professed as your "personal" beliefs.

    I was very clear that you are a racist, not because you disagree with me, but because your actions and beliefs are racist. And I explained what actions and why they are racist. None of which had any impact on you because racists are motivated by prejudice not facts, and certainly not by logic. You, of course, offer nothing factual, nothing objective, and no reasoning, at all. Just you're righteous indignation and arrogant superiority.

    But I'd hate to interfere with your need to be a victim in order to rationalize your prejudices. Besides, personally, I think nothing helps to fight racism better than letting racists be heard.

  119. [119] 
    akadjian wrote:

    That's funny.. I thought equality should apply to ALL the races..

    It does. But the minorities I illustrated are simply ones who are not treated as equals by the government or by our society.

    Caucasian don't have to fight for rights because they enjoy them. They're not being imprisoned disproportionately - a black person and a white person arrested for the same crime are not treated as equals under the law. Another example. White men tend to make more for the exact same jobs as white women or other minorities. Why is that?

    Why is there a difference?

    This is the type of inequality I fight for. If caucasians were somehow being treated unequally under similar conditions I'd fight for them too. But they aren't.

    Could you be an more disingenuous. Any more racist?!

    LewDan - Though I agree with almost every argument you've made in this, I'd hope that you'd not call people racist based on some posts on the Internet.

    Is Michale provacative? Yeah. Does he try to push people's buttons? Yeah. But he seems to do it pretty equally and irregardless of race. In fact, he's self-admitted that sometimes he has a tendency to go to far a be a bit of an ass (my words, not his, he probably said something different).

    Nonetheless, I've grown to like him even though I disagree with almost everything he says and sometimes his political arguments are ... let's just say ... not my favorite.

    But then he'll say something funny and I'll remember that he seems like a pretty good guy. Someone who I'd enjoy hanging out w/ until our political comments got too heated and I'd have probably have to leave before starting a fight I'd lose because he's quite likely a better fighter than me.

    Anyways, at least personally, give him the benefit of the doubt. It's hard to accuse someone personally of being a racist just from what they say on a post.

    Can arguments be racist or discriminatory? Sure. But most likely Michale is just trying to say them to stir the pot. This is what conservatives do. They try to throw you off any positive message and get you so angry that you're not taken positive steps.

    Me ... every time I feel myself getting too flustered by Michale, I step back and go do something positive. Like make a donation to someone I support. Or post a letter to my newspaper. Or write my Congressman.

    If enough people do this, the self-perceived pundits of the world won't matter. And that is the real trick.

    Just my two cents ... and btw, what I remember from this post is your excellent comment about racism. Which is likely why Michale is trying to knock you off your game.

    -David

  120. [120] 
    akadjian wrote:

    This is the type of inequality I fight for.

    Crap. Err ... equality. That's me, defender of inequality!!! There's a few other glaring grammar errors in the post but as this is going on 14 hours of work, please forgive and hope the ideas at least come through.

  121. [121] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    White men tend to make more for the exact same jobs as white women or other minorities. Why is that?

    There's no such thing as "the same exact job." They may have the same exact job specs, but every individual puts out their own work product. Personalities may make the difference in performance. Men may be more naturally aggressive, by nature, and achieve better results. Men may devote less time to child care, thus more time to the job at hand, or may be viewed as more reliable. There are a thousand different reasons men can more successful in the workplace. Success is measured by the boss's assessment, not the worker's body parts.

  122. [122] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Success is measured by the boss's assessment, not the worker's body parts.

    Statistically, there is a gap in pay between what men make and what women make for the same job.

    Yes, individuals can be better on one side or the other. But you should also see individual women who are better performers than individual men.

    If this were the case, statistically you would see equal pay for the same job.

    You don't.

    Unless you're arguing that men are higher performers than women all the time. This I don't believe.

    It seems much more likely that the people in power, mostly white men, seem to favor other people who are similar to them, white men. This is known as discrimination.

    -David

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    The problem here and in this country is that, if you don't agree with everything a minority says or don't give a minority everything they ask for, you are a racist...

    This is Obama's legacy....

    As I said, I am done..

    Michale.....

  124. [124] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Statistically, there is a gap in pay between what men make and what women make for the same job.

    Well, that's why statistics can be so misleading; they lump everything together instead of looking at job performance on a case-by-case basis. Like I said, there's no such thing as "the same job" aside from the job specs. Performance is a whole other story, entirely.

    Yes, individuals can be better on one side or the other. But you should also see individual women who are better performers than individual men.

    Sure, there are plenty of them. And plenty of them are making oodles more money than men. "Statistics" don't show that, though, do they?

    There are tons of factors that decide the ultimate value of a worker, and a lot of it is dependent upon the industry. "Image" is very important in some industries. Personal grooming can mean the difference between one person advancing and the other standing still. I remember taking a pass on hiring a particular woman, years ago, because she interviewed with chipped nail polish and scuffed shoes, twice in a row. She was up against a man who was equally qualified but immaculately dressed and groomed. So the job went to him, because he had that extra little edge. Another time, a promotion came down to a man and a woman, and I promoted the man because he got along with the client a whole lot better than the woman. And it was an important client.

    It seems much more likely that the people in power, mostly white men, seem to favor other people who are similar to them, white men. This is known as discrimination.

    That's nonsense. If that were true, I would've had all women working for me throughout the years. And I would've hired the woman with the chipped nail polish and scuffed shoes because she was a woman. Except the immaculately groomed black man got the job instead. And he turned out not only being the right person for the job but went on to become one of my favorite humans and a dear friend.

    I personally suspect that child care has a lot to do with women not advancing as smoothly or quickly as men in the workplace. I also know a number of women who don't shoot for higher, more demanding positions specifically because they don't want to sacrifice quality time at home. That's another thing that doesn't come shining through in "statistics."

  125. [125] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Oh, and here's another thing I've noticed about women: Most of them suck at going in and ASKING FOR A RAISE. They seem way more shy about that than men, and they're also not as good at self-promotion. They seem to sit there, waiting to be noticed and rewarded. Big mistake.

  126. [126] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lol this thread is perfect evidence of my new 3 stage theory about how the far right mind argues:

    (1) Pure rhetoric (in this case 'affirmative action' comments).
    (2) Picking minor or ambiguous faults in the facts or data presented that don't make any different to the outcome.(the statistics, facts and studies are all wrong because apparently no-one writing them considered any other variables - silly academics!)
    (3) Claiming 'liberal media bias' when (1) and (2) fail.

    We haven't yet reached (3). This will probably come when you cite some more studies and information to disprove their point.

  127. [127] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Though I agree with almost every argument you've made in this, I'd hope that you'd not call people racist based on some posts on the Internet.

    I don't. And I agree with your opinion of
    Michale. I like him too. But I've a different perspective on racism.

    I've no idea what people think racism is that inspires so many racists to honestly believe they are not racist. I knew racist southern (and northern) whites in the fifties and sixties and they were just people. I liked a lot of them. And many of them liked a lot of Black folk. Every one of them thought they were being reasonable and rational, not racist. There were obviously dangerously radical racists and just plain evil racists. But, like I said, racists were just people and we come in all varieties.

    As I once told Chris, what made the difference in the Civil Rights Movement was the advent of television and live news coverage. Because of it many racists saw discrimination first hand, really saw it, for the first time, and learned that many of the things that they knew, that their parents knew, that everyone they knew "knew," were wrong. And so they changed their attitudes.

    Racists aren't some form of monster. Acting on prejudices is a very human thing to do. In many cases its a very smart thing to do. (You needn't try your hand in every fire you encounter to see if they're still dangerous.) But only if your prejudices are well founded. Not popular. Not common-knowledge. But well-founded. Based upon fact and legitimately applicable.

    As I said, racists are people with race-based prejudices who act on those prejudices instead of being objective. They may be essentially good people. they may be well-meaning people. But they are exceedingly dangerous people nonetheless. They are capable of doing tremendous harm.

    Another thing that was made painfully obvious for me is that "politics" is not some sterile harmless mental exercise. Politics radically effects the lives of everyone, myself and every minority in particular, because America has a penchant for what Madison dubbed "the tyranny of the majority." Its why people are always so willing to legislate the "rights" of other people as long as they believe it won't really affect them. But become oh so concerned and wary of "slippery slopes" when it might actually affect them too.

    Michale certainly is not a bad person. But his attitudes are typical of southern racists of the fifties and early sixties. As Stokely Carmichael famously said during The Movement, "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Because, with regard to racism, if you're not part of the problem, you're part of the solution.

    Michale, as are many Americans, Democratic and Republican, is part of the problem.

  128. [128] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    As I said, racists are people with race-based prejudices

    That door swings both ways. One could say Blacks are racists for calling themselves "African-Americans," instead of "Americans," and forming such self-segregated groups as the Congressional Black Caucus. I'm trying to imagine the uproar if a Congressional White Caucus were to exist, or a White Firefighters Association. I don't think Blacks realize how far they go in segregating themselves. And I'd love to know when they plan to stop, if ever.

  129. [129] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    We haven't yet reached (3). This will probably come when you cite some more studies and information to disprove their point.

    Oh, yeah, "studies" funded, conducted and summarized by self-interested parties: another favorite tactic of the Left's.

  130. [130] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Chris
    "I'm trying to imagine the uproar if a Congressional White Caucus were to exist, or a White Firefighters Association. I don't think Blacks realize how far they go in segregating themselves. And I'd love to know when they plan to stop, if ever."

    Did you not read David or LD's posts? I'll let David explain since he put it very nicely already, from David:
    Caucasian don't have to fight for rights because they enjoy them. They're not being imprisoned disproportionately - a black person and a white person arrested for the same crime are not treated as equals under the law. Another example. White men tend to make more for the exact same jobs as white women or other minorities. Why is that?

    Chris:
    "Oh, yeah, "studies" funded, conducted and summarized by self-interested parties: another favorite tactic of the Left's."

    Haha I mean I assume you weren't being sarcastic and joking but you actually illustrated the exact point I was making.

    The funny thing is the self-interest is right there, right in front of your face, you just need to open your eyes: a super-rich man running for President, backed by his super-rich friends, backed by super-rich Corporations, whose main policy is permanent tax cuts and economic benefits for the super-rich. You will find the most obscure tedious self-interest but ignore the one staring you in the face.

  131. [131] 
    michty6 wrote:

    OMG. I just found the best audio. I am not sure if you guys have heard of Karl Pilkington, but he is this guy who did radio shows with Ricky Gervais. They did little 'guide to' podcasts. Here was their 'guide to society'. Them talking to Karl Pilkington reminded me of talking to Michale and Chris on this forum! It's uncanny! Long but worth the listen:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBFHxVvK91M

  132. [132] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    They're not being imprisoned disproportionately - a black person and a white person arrested for the same crime are not treated as equals under the law.

    Gosh, another opinion stated in the form of fact, backed by a cooked, misleading "statistic" — void of socio-economic conditions, gang participation, drug sales/usage, etc. — that does nothing to prove your opinon. What, pray tell, were the chances.

    Haha I mean I assume you weren't being sarcastic and joking but you actually illustrated the exact point I was making.

    You seem to be under the bizarre impression that everyone is supposed to fall for such tactics, just like you do. "Studies" that are funded, conducted and conveniently summarized by self-interested parties not only have zero credibility on their face but its a tactic as old as the hills. And not even just a political tactic but one that's been used in the advertising industry forever. I can't even begin to tell you how many times a client has ordered up a "study," rigged to be used as "proof" of superiority against the competitor. But because you're suckered into the "study" tactic, quite naturally everyone else is supposed to buy into it, too. Fascinating.

    a super-rich man running for President, backed by his super-rich friends

    And here comes the class warfare, right on schedule. Boring, michty. Repeat: I don't share your fear and loathing of successful American business owners. Peddle that stuff elsewhere.

  133. [133] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Chris
    Your hatred for studies and view that they are all perceived on self-interest is blinding you to the fact that there are plenty of objective, analytical, thorough studies out there. Again, it is a classic move used very commonly by far right wing analysts who, in the face of overwhelming facts disproving their theories, simply say 'liberal media bias' or '99% of studies agree on this but they're all biased, OUR study is the real objective one!'. Global warming is the classic example of this. It is the logical conclusion when you live in a far right world obsessed with conspiracy theories.

    If you don't think that studies factor in socio-economic conditions or that YOU ALONE have spotted some flaws in these studies that the writers would never have thought of considering (silly academics!) then you need to read the studies in more detail and read the methodology to see that these things are indeed considered. You, or other far right analysts, aren't spotting anything that hasn't been considered. You are just using your own bias to convince yourself that there must be flaws in the studies or they must be wrong.

    And if any media or news source states 'all these studies are biased, ours is the real one' then guess what? I'm betting 100% that theirs is not the real one and I'll go with the 99% of studies that disprove their point.

    "And here comes the class warfare, right on schedule. Boring, michty. Repeat: I don't share your fear and loathing of successful American business owners. Peddle that stuff elsewhere."

    Until the day comes where the far right stop attacking the poor and defenceless I will continue to the bitter end to point out your hypocrisy: that is that it's only 'class warfare' to you when the poor and defenceless fight back. I will 'peddle' it after every post where you call the poor 'slackers' and defend giving massive hand-outs to the wealthy in society. You can repeat 'class warfare' all or you like or actually present facts, logic or reasoning in response. It won't affect me.

  134. [134] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Your hatred for studies and view that they are all perceived on self-interest is blinding you to the fact that there are plenty of objective, analytical, thorough studies out there.

    Those aren't the ones I have a problem with.

  135. [135] 
    michty6 wrote:

    The easiest thing to do is if someone presents a study that you believe to be biased, then point this out with your reasoning why.

    But stating 'I don't put a lot of credit into studies because I have seen a lot of biased ones' is adding nothing. Either present facts why the study being cited isn't up to scratch for you or don't. Simply stating 'I don't trust studies' adds nothing to the conversation. It is ignoring the facts that there are many objective, solid and realistic studies out there. It is lumping all studies in the same basket - they aren't.

  136. [136] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    But stating 'I don't put a lot of credit into studies because I have seen a lot of biased ones' is adding nothing.

    It's adding my opinion, to which I'm entitled. And, no, I don't intend to invest my time running around the internet, identifying money sources and staff bios for "studies" that reek of bias on their face. I know a little too much about how self-interested "studies" are used as a tool to further agendas and spin the public. And it's being done by BOTH sides.

Comments for this article are closed.