Rethinking America

[seanpfister]

Yet it was those founders who condemned slavery, tried to incorporate it into the Declaration of Independence and whose principles were ultimately responsible ...

I would agree with you - in the country's early days, not all their principles could be put into practice. ...

I am happy to embrace the founding principles and the reasons they were established. All the progress this nation has made - and that spilled over to so many other nations - is a result of those principles.

I thought at first you were saying the the country's principles are in the constitution. But I guess you're saying that the principles are elsewhere--and only some of those principles made it into the nation's founding documents. That makes sense, but then it becomes a matter of cherry-picking--which Founders, which of their documents (letters, writings, speeches)--are emblematic of "the principles".

For example, do we take as principal the part of Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia where he condemns slavery or the part where he advocates apartheid? Or the part where he says that black people are inferior to whites?

Where are these principals that aren't in the Constitution or the D of I, but should still guide us? As seems obvious in the larger political sphere--especially in the debates about the place of Christianity--people will pick documents that suit their views.

Anyway, it seems like a problematic position to hold.

[Hotspring 44]

I guess this is a good time as any to ask a few questions about what people believe is acceptable in the “free market”.

Is there any case, where slavery would be acceptable at this point in time?

Is indentured servitude OK as long as there is a contract between a servant and the served?

What happens when the served breaches a contract? What remedies to a breached contract would the servant have?

Would it be allowable to actually literally give the servant lashes for what the served believes is a breached contract? If so would there be any court hearings required prior to any whippings or could it be like they did to the slaves back in the Deep South in the 1700s? Who would have police powers in a situation like that?

What if the servant could not afford a lawyer, would there be a lawyer appointed for that servant?
Would there be any laws against abuse of servants? What would constitute as abuse, enough to break a contract legally?

Where would anybody draw the line between the difference of a contract of service and slavery?
What would be allowable proof? Would there be any laws for contracts to prevent severe abuses in the first place?

It's not really necessary to answer any or all of these questions, because I'm just trying to make a rhetorical point regarding implications that have been made on this thread about the "free market", indentured servitude, and slavery etc.

People used to travel across the ocean in sailboats, taking months to get from Europe to the United States, but now we use jet airplanes. People used to use horse and buggy to travel overland to get from point A to point B also. But now use cars, buses, motorcycles, and trains. People used to use the pony express then the telegraph for communications over long distances, but now use telephones, satellite, transcontinental fiber-optic teleconferencing, Internet etc.

We cannot change the facts of the past, but we certainly should not repeat certain aspects of it such as slavery and perpetual or inherited indentured servitude.

What I see going on here in America is systematic class warfare.

There are the moneyed class, there is a government class, and there is a working-class all of which have different levels within their own individual class groups.
Those competing factions didn't always work synergistically in fact; they sometimes are in direct competition. That is why I believe the founding fathers decided to put certain criteria within the Constitution.

They were seeking to limit individuals from becoming too powerful. That is why the three branches of government were created. Those checks and balances were created for a small colony compared to what we have today.
Things are more complicated today than they were then.
The reason I think things are so screwed up today is because we are underrepresented.
The ones with the vast majority of the money are more power-mongers than real true blue patriots.
Too much national treasure has been put in the hands of banker lords. I don't think we should worship them! They are thieves!
In this day and age, the term "free-market" can have different meanings for different people depending upon which one of the aforementioned classes that come from.
For some it means absolutely no regulations on industry.
Yet the same people that say such things would be appalled if a truck driver was not required to have a special license or have truck weighed that they had to share the road with.
It's kind of hypocritical to complain about all the “government” regulations that stymie business.
Yet the same people complain about things that endanger them personally, but don't seem to give a rat’s ass about other people's livelihoods, particularly the ones they have labeled as being liberal, communist, socialist, benefit recipients etc.

I hear such an emphasis on austerity, prosperity, and jobs.

There's more to life than just a damn job!

It seems like people are being manipulated into saying that they want a “job”.
People have been so manipulated to want that job with such a high unemployment rate that opens the door for predatory practices that will come down on them if they don't insist on having a living wage job.
There have actually been people on this website and even on this thread that have claimed that they want to work on farm and that they want to do farm work also known as agricultural labor, because they think the immigrant farm laborers are making so much (of what should be “their”) money.
I honestly don't think those people that signed up to take those jobs have ever done actual ,out in the field, intensive, farm labor any time in their lives.

They say they would take those jobs, but only for the pay they think they should have. I've got news for those who think that way; forget about that!
You'll most likely get paid piecework.

They rarely pay beginners by the hour, unless you are in a processing plant.

If you are out in the field they will pay you by the amount that you harvest.

You'll also be required to work way over 8 hours per day, but not get paid overtime. You can count on, between 10 and 14 hours of work every day until the harvest is complete.

You don't have to learn Spanish; you don't have to talk to anybody. All you are required to do is harvest and/or process that agricultural product, which you will be shown how to do.

It doesn't take allot of brains, but it takes a lot of stamina, persistence, and tolerance to some extreme weather and working conditions; particularly, heat, dust, noisy machinery and fast-paced work etc.. Yes even though it's piecework you do have to do a certain amount within a certain time-frame.

As far as rethinking America is concerned, I think there's a lot of reprogramming that needs to go on in people's minds before any real substantial changes for the better, could possibly occur.
So many people have been keyed up to be in competition mode that they don't even seem to have a concept of cooperation mode.
It seems to be all about me, me, me; mine, mine, mine; win vs. lose mentality. Until that way of thinking changes there will be no synergy of cooperative coexistence, instead there will be the continuance of the "New World" class warfare that we are experiencing today.
That's exactly what the money and power mongers are counting on and feed on. I think the money and power mongers should simultaneously, both be put on a strict diet!


I think that the new world free market enthusiasts and Marxists have more in common than either one of them would want to admit. It all boils down to the golden/power rules; he who has the gold/power rules.



the so-called free market without regulation is what is causing the economic meltdown that we are experiencing today that has not happened since the 1930s.
I think the people that are so pro-free-market should consider that the free market per se , is responsible for the electronic money system that they complain so loudly about. because they have been producing credit! Credit is a product! So those who produce it, own it, and speculate and trade it in the open market are the epitome of the free market system! So to the pro-free market enthusiasts; I say, next time you complain about the Federal Reserve or the I.M.F. just remember that it was the so-called "free-market" system and the leniency of government oversight based on free-market principles that got us there in the first place.

[Fagbemijo]

Notably, the system of slavery was not race-based.

This is a disguisting lie. Even if many black Americans and Africans supported the slave system, indirectly and directly, to say the system of slavery in the Americas was not race based is an out and out LIE.
I am sure your white European forefathers were brought here in chains from Europe to work on Southern plantations right? NOT! White people were NEVER slaves in the American slavery system -- it was not socially acceptable because whites were considered people and us blacks were considered, um, less than a person.
Just because some blacks supported the system does not make it right. Some Jews in the holocaust cooperated with the NAZI's in the systematic killing of other European Jews, does this mean that the Holocaust was OK? Or not racially, ethnically, or religiously based in your eyes?

Furthermore, white supremacists love this lie because it tries to rewrite history and steal credit from the black slaves, on whose backs' our entire Western world was built! It tries to negate the positive, yet very painful history, of an enslaved group of people made to work and build the nation and entire New World. By making utterly false and hurtful statements like "the system of slavery was not race-based" discredits the blood, sweat, and tears shed by African slaves and their descendants who built this New World.
White supremacists also love to point out that "blacks owned and traded slaves too". This may be true in some instances, but this does not make the slave system of the New World any less racially-based. It was a slave system of black African people.
Also, the way we deal with race here in the USA is very different than in many other nations. In Mexico, there is a myth that there are NO black African-descended people left in Mexico. And if you look at virtually any other Latin-American nation you will hear a similar myth that also explains how their country has none left. In Chile, the commonly held belief (completely mythical) is that all "los negros" fled to Argentina after they were set free hundreds of years ago. In truth many Chileans are of African blood and the fact that they hide behind this myth is a way of ridding their culture of Africanism. They believe they are 100% Chilean. Same thing in Brazil -- there they have hundreds of "races" on a scale of different skin colors from very light to dark and all of them have specific names and dictate one's place in society. Don't take my word for it, ask your Latin American friends and they will all have different tales for why there are "no blacks" in their country. Its all a lie and there are many black Mexicans but they have been severed from their roots in an attempt to totally assimilate and destroy a very important part of history.

[Fagbemijo]

They (the founders) had a lot right but they also had a lot wrong. The Constitution explicitly allowed slavery, which wasn't made illegal until 1865. And thereafter we had apartheid until 1965. Likewise, half the population was denied the vote until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920.

I wouldn't want to live under the original Constitution.

This is why we need to openly rethink things as a nation sometimes and adjust our path -- we are a great nation of great people and if we allow ourselves to become misdirected, we could head down horrible paths (as our history has shown us time and time again). I am very grateful our forefathers thought outside of the box when they decided that slavery was NOT okay and they picked up arms to defend that belief. This led to one of the most gruesome wars of American history in terms of both bloodshed and politics -- the Civil War. Many Americans died so the system of slavery could be put to an end.
The question is what are WE willing to sacrifice to make changes happen in our society happen today? Some of our wealth? Jobs? Time? Love? I think the changes are in motion and the sacrifices are happening whether we like it or not. The question is: Do we allow the "powers that be" to steer us as a society in any direction they see fit? Or do we, as good Americans, make informed decisions and amend our laws and structure to best direct us on the path toward freedom, equality, and justice for all? After all, America was founded to be the home of the free! I am very unclear on how slavery and indentured servitude fit into that mold.
It sounds like the America Speak2Truth would like to live in is NOT an America of freedom, equality, for justice for all...
Historically, America discounted some people as being inferior to humans and treated them like animals (who are also gravely mistreated in our Western world). Then, once this group of people is deemed as less-than-human to the general population through the social-political lens of the media, it becomes "fine" to enslave and to torture that group because they are "subhuman". This line of thinking is what justified slavery in our nation's past as well as in many other culture's histories and it is this flawed line of thinking that leads to horrible atrocities like the Holocaust or any other genocide.

["Mad" Miles]

Thad wrote: ...out of your favorite sources could you pick an example that would become the reigning model of Logic in this attempt to Rethink America?

Thad,

So kind of you to ask: The Green Party of the United States of America

In particular: The Ten Key Values

[Thad]

Quote:

Thad wrote: ...out of your favorite sources could you pick an example that would become the reigning model of Logic in this attempt to Rethink America?

Thad,

So kind of you to ask: The Green Party of the United States of America

In particular: The Ten Key Values __________________
"Mad" Miles

I was thinking more in terms of this.

Someone made a comment as to errors in logical thinking and I went looking for a one liner that would model the logical process. I haven't found it but I do believe that what's below is an organic process and naturally unfolds in the same light that you don't have to teach a seed to grow. All that's needed is nutrients, water and light and also that you keep very heavy things off the head of the growing thing until it can bear their weight.

Logic is instinctual and arrives all by itself, but in the efforts for it to become it must counter the forces of those who wish to hide from its scrutiny. On a daily basis its corruption is perpetuated in the classrooms

Of all the flags that exist in our world I wonder where the Flag of Logic might be that the Patriots of Reason might Rally to the cause.

When it seems that The Truth finds itself adrift in a vast sea of contradictory Authorities then all becomes equal and ' fuzzy logic ' is all there is to work with. Truth becomes more so than not and what is most plausible becomes the Golden Rule.

“Not all that can be measured is important and not all that is important can be measured” - Albert Einstein

CriticalThinking.org - Learn the Elements and Standards


To Analyze Thinking, Identify and Question its Elemental Structures

Use the elements with sensitivity to Intellectual Standards »	Clarity	Accuracy	Precision	Relevance	Depth
	Breadth	Logic	Significance	Fairness	more...

RESET
VIEW






Key Concept:


Foundation for Critical Thinking
Online Model for learning the Elements and Standards of Critical Thinking

©2007 Foundation For Critical Thinking. - *reference material from The Thinker's Guide to Analytic Thinking

[Speak2Truth]

So if I read you correctly, you're claiming that chattel slavery was invented by a black man in the early sixteen hundreds at the Jamestown colony.

That's because you are not reading correctly. I spelled out exactly what I'm saying and it is NOT what you are making up all on your own. Go back and read what I wrote - again.

I don't need to correct you - you can do it all by yourself. My words on the matter are as clear as can be.

Watch out, those goddamn Socialists are tricky and have myriad ways to enveigle even the strongest willed and hyper vigilent into unwittingly furthering their plots and schemes! No one is exempt from their evil whiles!!

While that is correct, I suspect you are pretending to be facetious in stating it. A hundred million innocents murdered by Socialists last century are testament to its truth, along with entire nations enslaved by them this century.

When they have sufficient power, they punish people for trying to escape their clutches and punish those who are under their power. People do keep trying to escape, of course.



Think about it.

[Speak2Truth]

I thought at first you were saying the the country's principles are in the constitution. But I guess you're saying that the principles are elsewhere--and only some of those principles made it into the nation's founding documents.

Actually, THE founding document, the Declaration of Independence, is the key statement of national principles. The Constitution is a set of laws created to support and defend those principles against their natural enemy, Government Power.

Most important is the principle of "natural law", a term that I have only recently come to understand more fully by reading the statements of the guys who wrote the DI.

That makes sense, but then it becomes a matter of cherry-picking--which Founders, which of their documents (letters, writings, speeches)--are emblematic of "the principles".

To some extent, yes. The principles spelled out in the Declaration are the result of eliminating many ideas proposed but that failed to garner much support. Today, we tend to quote Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin, George Washington (who was very influential), John Adams and a few others for guiding the creation of our national principles.

The abolition of slavery was one of Thomas Jefferson's great motivations. However, the guys preparing to fight their own government to re-establish legitimacy in government knew they could not alienate the slave-owning colonies and still win that fight. So, it had to be put off.

For example, do we take as principal the part of Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia where he condemns slavery or the part where he advocates apartheid? Or the part where he says that black people are inferior to whites?

We take as principle that it is wrong for one person to own another, a principle stemming from the notion that all men are created equal by God. His racial observations are irrelevant to that principle.

By "created equal" they did NOT mean equal in mental capacities, equal in physical capacities, equal in health or ambition or possessions. They meant that all persons have equal Natural Rights endowed by God and that each person must therefore have equal freedom to exercise those natural Rights, and their own personal attributes, to better themselves and their status in life.

["Mad" Miles]

While that is correct, I suspect you are pretending to be facetious in stating it. A hundred million innocents murdered by Socialists last century are testament to its truth, along with entire nations enslaved by them this century.

When they have sufficient power, they punish people for trying to escape their clutches and punish those who are under their power. People do keep trying to escape, of course.



Think about it.

Welcome back S2T,

I have thought about it. Long and hard. For about forty years. I've NEVER supported authoritarian, one-state, one-party, Marxist/Leninist groups, policies or goals. Ever.

The fact that you conflate all forms of Socialism with the excrescences of Marxist/Leninism, as most ideologues on the right do, is why I haven't really tried to hold a reasonable conversation with you. At least that's one of the reasons.

You're not interested in discussion. You're interested in asserting your views, and defending them. I've debated with True Believers from the right, left and center, and many points on the spectrum all along that way. It's not productive. It leads to nothing but repetition and vapid recriminations.

I've addressed many of these issues: What are the types of Socialism and other Leftist ideologies, What did Marx contribute to our understanding of the world and what are the limits of his and his intellectual descendents contributions, and other related topics, in my past writing here on waccobb. Feel free to look it all up.

You're not interested in that, you're interested in railing against the big, bad threat of Socialism. Didn't y/our side win the Cold War? Why are you still fighting the war after it's over?

Could it be that you can't think of anything better to do because your views of the world were fixed before 1989 and you can't really conceive of any other struggle worth investing your time in?

Not all Marxists are Authoritarians.

Not all Socialists are Marxist/Leninists.

Not all Socialists are Classical Orthodox Marxists.

And definitely not all Socialists celebrate Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, etc.

Anyone who claims they do, is an ignorant fool, or a stone liar with an ideological axe to grind.

The anti-authoritarian, democratic and relativistic, accomodationist with Capitalism, tendencies of Post-Marxist thought and practice are just as significant, if not more, than the boogyman Marxist/Socialist scarecrow that you instinctively trot out whenever you hear, "Socialist, Marxist, Critic of Capitalism, Free Market Myth, Big Government, Market Regulation, Liberal, Democrat, Liberal Democrat, etc."

But you aren't interested in nuances and shades of meaning. You're only interested in binary oppositional tropes left over from the last century.


So, I'm not interested in debating you. I'm not interesting in proving you wrong. I'm not interested in proving that I'm right to you.

I'm only interested in treating your claims for what they are: biased, ignorant, regressive, reactionary, stale, old nonsense which is completely out of touch with the reality of our times. And it was just as irrelevant to these questions thirty years ago.


When I came home during my second year of college and told my parents that I'd been reading some works by Karl Marx and his critics and followers, and that I found it interesting and relevant to what was happening in the world. My dad replied, "Oh so you've bought the Communist Party line?"

I found that utterly ridiculous, and told him so. Nobody was recruiting me. I was not going to be anybody's willing dupe. And I was nowhere close to becoming a communist in any sense of the word.

I'd had enough of a brush with True Believer nonsense in my time as a Jesus Freak in High School through my first year of college. (I've written about that here as well, look it up.)

I've never been uncritical of any set of ideas. I've always taken what works and rejected what didn't, especially if it contradicted my values.

Another little aside. Years later, while I was traveling/living in Europe from the end of May '81 to the beginning of April '82, in the depths of that historically hard winter (I didn't have heat in my room, granted, I chose to be there) my father sent me a card, in which he asked, in French, "How's the struggle for Freedom and Justice going?" He wasn't being facetious. It was the most direct act of sincere validation, approval and respect he'd ever shown me, to that date. I cherish it.


I reject your dubious claims because they have no place in my understanding of how the world works, what matters and what we should strive for to improve the human condition and preserve the natural and the wild.

So good luck with your Crusade/Jihad.

By the way, how's that fight to stop the God Damn Fucking Anarcho Maya/Aztec Socialist Illuminati Masonic Reptilian Overlord Cabal from destroying America (U.S.) and taking away all our hard won freedoms and enslaving us to their evil plan to ....

Aaaagggghhhh!!!!

We're doomed!!

Run for the hills!!!!

Pack some heat!!

I assure everyone reading this that I remain vigilent and when the God Damn Fucking Socialist Aztec/Mayan Macheteros in league with the One World Government Illuminati Bilderberg CFR Masonic Reptilian Overlord Cabalists are headed our way?

I'll be the first to sound the alarm.

I swear, I'll spot them a thousand miles out!!!

[Speak2Truth]

The fact that you conflate all forms of Socialism with the excrescences of Marxist/Leninism, as most ideologues on the right do, is why I haven't really tried to hold a reasonable conversation with you.

Thanks for admitting you are not trying to hold a reasonable conversation.

You are mistaken in your assertion though. It is not the "forms" of Socialism to which I object. It is the underlying ideology and its objectives. The "forms" are merely their current stage in the process of achieving those universal objectives. When they reach their goal:

1) They own your stuff

2) They own the product of your labor

3) They forcefully control the public political conversation

4) They actively eliminate any competition such as Christianity or Judaism

5) When they screw up and millions of innocents die due to their mismanagement (or direct murder of whomever will not "fit in" and submit), they use whatever force is necessary against those who object

American Socialists are already well on their way to achieving these goals in direct violation of our Constitution that was created to protect us against their ilk. Do you want me to start posting examples?

You're not interested in discussion. You're interested in asserting your views, and defending them.

If by discussion you mean airing our views and providing supporting evidence to help each other get closer to understanding what is most likely true, I'm most certainly interested in it.

If you instead mean airing views that are unsupportable by facts and demanding the other person respect them as equally valid...

Well, that's just a bunch of bullsh*tting and I'm not really interested in it.

I prefer honest discussion. That's why I engage in it.

Didn't your side win the Cold War? Why are you still fighting the war after it's over?

No, actually, the USA lost the Cold War. That's why we have Communists in the highest positions of our government now. Think about it.

The strategy outlined by the KGB back in 1969 (the year Bill Clinton was invited to Moscow due to his organizing anti-American rallies when he fled to foreign soil to escape the draft) was rather simple. Give all appearances of "losing" the Cold War so that Americans will drop their (fully justified) wariness of Communists. Proclaim "communism is dead" - then move Communists into positions of control of American society.

While Americans play baseball, Communists play chess.

Could it be that you can't think of anything better to do because your views of the world were fixed before 1989

I'm talking about what is happening today. My views continue to develop as I attend Democrat/Communist meetings, interview Communists at the May 1 marches and so on. I am dealing in current reality.

I'm sorry for you that you can't engage in honest discussion of reality.

While you pretend Communists went away decades ago, the Communists are laughing in your face and telling you exactly what they are doing today. This is just one example:

Illegal Immigration Socialist/Communist Agenda
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcwaQBOU_xI

["Mad" Miles]

S2T,

You must be really scared of those European Socialists who run the most successful countries on the planet at the moment. Whose lifestyle and quality of life are the envy of others and whose societies consistently make the top of the "best places to live" lists.

Oh wait, those lists are probably put together by the World Socialist Conspiracy to .... (see my previous posts.)

"The Communists won the Cold War."

And you insist that you're engaging in a rational discussion.

[Speak2Truth]

You must be really scared of those European Socialists who run the most successful countries on the planet at the moment.

Who have run their countries into the ground with unsustainable Socialist economic practices, who face growing riots, who are kept afloat by money shoveled into their countries by the US (Greece, most recently), who are working quickly on schemes to squeeze more money out of the US to keep themselves afloat...

I hope we can be wise enough to return to our national principles and not go down the path of ruin as they have.


Those who "envy" the lifestyle in those Socialist countries are free to move there. They'll have to compete with the Islamists also moving there, taking advantage of the dole to build their strength and control at other people's expense.

The great tragedy in the USA is that Leftists here are dragging us down the same path as Leftists there. Huge mistake.

That's why our nation, like those controlled by European Socialists, is going bankrupt.

The Left cried about the deficit during the previous administration. Now they are intentionally multiplying it. This is not an accident.

"If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."

The goal of Socialists is not to spread freedom and prosperity. It is to destroy the country that has shown the benefits of such by saddling the USA with unsurvivable debt.

As for the Communists winning the Cold War, I've told you why that is true. If the opposite were true, we would not have Communists in power in our own government doing to this nation what brought disaster to so many other nations where they gained power.

You offer no rational argument to the contrary, no supporting evidence to show this is not true, no intellectual capacity to even engage in an honest discussion of the FACT that we now have our nation's sworn enemy in power in our government.

They once screamed "tear it all down, man!"

Now they are.

["Mad" Miles]

Rationality, Logic and Facts according to S2T and his ilk:

S2T, been reading, watching much Andrew Breitbart lately?

Back to the LOGIC & FACTS -

Liberal = Unions = Anti-Capitalist = Marxist = Socialist = Communist = Al Qaeda = Destroy America!!!! (U.S.)

Conservative = Capitalist = Freedom = Justice = Traditional American Values = Good = True = Factual = Logical = Indisputable

7= (below, means "does not equal". I don't have quick access to an equal sign with a slash through it.)

Conservative 7= Selfish 7= Reactionary 7= Racist 7= Regressive 7= Repressive 7= Fascist 7= Lies and Alarmism 7= Demagoguery, Fearmongering and Sliming of everything and everyone to the Left of Center, starting with Ronald Reagan representing the implied standard for what it means to be a middle of the road moderate.

Cracker? Please!!!!!

The coverage on Slate.com yesterday and today. Of who Andrew Breitbart is, and the latest from his sliming of the NAACP and Ms. Sherrod, is quite enlightening.

Don't miss the back and forth in the comments after William Saletan's article today. It pretty much replicates the ideological war here in Waccovia, but it has its own entertaining idiosyncratic elements.

[Speak2Truth]

This is what I enjoy most about discussions with those who have no rational argument to present - THE MELTDOWN!!



Now, if you can present a logical argument to convince readers that the US won the cold war...

... taking into account that Communists are now in the highest positions of power in our government...

... when the goal of Communists in the Cold War was to get their people into those positions of power and the goal of Joe McCarthy and other Americans was to get them out...

... you might gain some credibility for at least making a rational effort.

[Hotspring 44]

(Hint;> Tongue-in-cheek.).

wacco's! "Logic" and "facts":
The let’s keep score game.
Anyone want to play?
This one is: Who has or had, more Czars?...
...G.W. Bush Or Obama?
Could be that Obama may surpass G.W., but G.W. is ahead; but only by 3.

Note: the actual web page from link below has Links (that would not load here) that go to more specific info on the particulars.
“Czars” under the George W. Bush Administration and the Obama Administration

Czars Under the George W. Bush Administration The following is FactCheck.org’s count of Bush administration positions whose holders were dubbed “czars” in one or more news articles. We include only one name per position, though many positions were held by multiple people during the administration. In some cases, the same “czar” nickname (e.g. “cybersecurity czar”) was applied to more than one job title. In these cases we have counted the two separate positions as two “czars.” Senate-confirmed positions are marked with a star. Non-president-appointed positions are marked with a dagger. 1. *Abstinence Czar (Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development) – Randall Tobias 2. AIDS Czar (Director, Office of National AIDS Policy) – Scott Evertz et al. 3. *AIDS Czar/Global AIDS Czar (Coordinator of U.S. government activities to combat HIV/AIDS globally) – Randall Tobias et al. 4. *Bailout Czar/TARP Czar (Assistant secretary for financial stability, United States Treasury) – Neel Kashkari 5. Bioethics Czar (Chairman, President’s Council on Bioethics) – Leon Kass 6. Bird Flu Czar (Assistant secretary for public health emergency preparedness, Department of Health and Human Services) – Stewart Simonson 7. Birth Control Czar (Deputy assistant secretary of population affairs, Department of Health and Human Services) – Eric Keroack 8. *Budget Czar (Director, Office of Management and Budget) – Mitchell Daniels et al. 9. *Cleanup Czar (Assistant secretary for environmental management, Department of Energy) – Jessie Roberson et al. 10. Communications Czar (Counselor to the president) – Dan Bartlett et al. 11. Counterterrorism Czar (National director for combating terrorism) – Gen. Wayne Downing 12. Counterterrorism Czar (White House counterterrorism coordinator) – Richard Clarke 13. Cybersecurity Czar (Special advisor to the president on cybersecurity, Office of Management and Budget) – Richard Clarke 14. Cybersecurity Czar (Director, National Cyber Security Center) – Rod Beckström 15. Democracy Czar (Deputy national security advisor for global democracy strategy) – Elliott Abrams 16. Domestic Policy Czar, also called Abstinence Czar (Assistant to the president for domestic policy) – Claude Allen 17. Domestic Policy Czar (Chief domestic policy coordinator) – Karl Rove 18. *Drug Czar (Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy) – John Walters 19. Faith Czar (Director, White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives) – John DiIulio et al. 20. Food Safety Czar (Assistant commissioner for food protection, Food and Drug Administration) – David Acheson 21. Gulf Coast Reconstruction Czar (Federal coordinator of Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts) – Donald Powell 22. †Health IT Czar (National coordinator for health information technology, Department of Health and Human Services) – David Brailer 23. *Homeland Security Czar (Assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism) – Tom Ridge 24. *Homeland Security Czar (Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security) – Michael Chertoff 25. Homelessness Czar (Executive director, United States Interagency Council on Homelessness) – Philip Mangano 26. *Intelligence Czar (Director of National Intelligence) – John Negroponte et al. 27. *Manufacturing Czar (Assistant secretary for manufacturing and services, Commerce Department) – Albert Frink et al. 28. Mine Safety Czar (Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health Administration, Department of Labor) – Richard Stickler 29. Policy Czar (Assistant to the president for policy and strategic planning) – Michael Gerson 30. *Public Diplomacy Czar (Undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs, Department of State) – Karen Hughes et al. 31. Reading Czar (Advisor to the president on child development and education research and policies) – G. Reid Lyon 32. *Regulatory Czar (Director, White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) – John Graham et al. 33. *Science Czar (Director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy) – John Marburger 34. *War Czar (Deputy national security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan policy and implementation) – Gen. Douglas Lute 35. World Trade Center Health Czar (WTC programs coordinator, Department of Health and Human Services) – John Howard

Czars Under the Obama Administration The following is FactCheck.org’s count of Obama administration positions whose holders were dubbed “czars” in one or more news articles. In some cases, the same “czar” nickname (e.g. “cybersecurity czar”) was applied to more than one job title. In these cases we have counted the two separate positions as two “czars.” In some cases, we could find no use of the term “czar” for the position except in news articles about the preponderance of czars in the Obama administration. We did not count these cases. Senate-confirmed positions are marked with a star. Non-president-appointed positions are marked with a dagger. 1. Afghanistan-Pakistan Czar (Special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan) – Richard Holbrooke 2. AIDS Czar (Director, Office of National AIDS Policy) – Jeffrey Crowley 3. Auto Recovery Czar (Director of recovery for auto communities and workers) – Ed Montgomery 4. †Border Czar (Special representative for border affairs, Department of Homeland Security) – Alan Bersin 5. *California Water Czar (Deputy interior secretary) – David Hayes 6. Car Czar (Advisor for the U.S. auto sector, United States Treasury) – Steven Rattner 7. †Climate Czar (Special envoy for climate change, Department of State) – Todd Stern 8. Counterterrorism Czar/Homeland Security Czar (Assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism) – John Brennan 9. Diversity Czar (Chief Diversity Officer, Federal Communications Commission) – Mark Lloyd 10. †Domestic Violence Czar (Advisor to the president and the vice president on domestic violence and sexual assault issues) – Lynn Rosenthal 11. *Drug Czar (Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy) – R. Gil Kerlikowske 12. Economics Czar (Director, National Economic Council) – Lawrence Summers 13. Energy Czar (Director, White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy) – Carol Browner 14. *Government Performance Czar (Chief performance officer) – Jeffrey Zients 15. †Great Lakes Czar (Special advisor overseeing the Great Lakes project, Environmental Protection Agency) – Cameron Davis 16. Green Jobs Czar (Special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation, White House Council on Environmental Quality) – Van Jones 17. †Guantanamo Closure Czar (Special envoy to oversee the closure of Guantanamo Bay detention center, Department of State) – Daniel Fried 18. Health Czar (Director, White House Office of Health Reform) – Nancy-Ann DeParle 19. *Intelligence Czar (Director of national intelligence) – Dennis Blair 20. Iran Czar (Special advisor for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia) – Dennis Ross 21. Manufacturing Czar (Senior Counselor for Manufacturing Policy) – Ron Bloom 22. Mideast Czar (Special envoy for Middle East peace) – George Mitchell 23. Pay Czar (Special master for TARP executive compensation) – Kenneth Feinberg 24. *Regulatory Czar (Administrator, White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) – Cass Sunstein 25. *Science Czar (Director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy) – John Holdren 26. Stimulus Accountability Czar (Chairman, Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board) – Earl Devaney 27. *TARP Czar (Assistant secretary for financial stability, Treasury Department) – Herb Allison 28. *Technology Czar/Infotech Czar (Chief information officer) – Vivek Kundra 29. Technology Czar (Chief technology officer) – Aneesh Chopra 30. Urban Affairs Czar (Director of Urban Affairs) – Adolfo Carrion 31. *Weapons Czar (Undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, Department of Defense) – Ashton Carter 32. Weapons of Mass Destruction Czar (White House coordinator for weapons of mass destruction, proliferation and terrorism) – Gary Samore

Ta-Da! G.W, "wins" the first round!


Coming some time in the future, Invasion of privacy and homeland security; how do the Bush 2 and Obama Admins' compare?.

FICA? Or?

Now if I can just get my tongue out of my cheek!... ...LOL!!

[Speak2Truth]

While I abhor this process of putting "czars" in power, I believe the next salient question is what their underlying ideologies are. That defines what they will do with such power.

How many Communists did GW appoint? How many who think Chairman Mao was one of their favorite philosophers?

If GW appointed patriotic Americans and Obama appoints people hostile to American principles, you will see a vastly different exercise of power from the two Administrations through those czars.

Think about it.


Obama's nuke agreements meant to disarm U.S.?
Science czar's magazine accused of disseminating Soviet propaganda - goal is to put US nuclear arsenal under international control
Obama's nuke agreements meant to disarm U.S.?

'Safe schools' Czar encouraged child sex with older man
Washington Times: Kevin Jennings should 'come clean'
'Safe schools' chief encouraged child sex with older man

Top Obama czar Cass Sunstein: Infiltrate all 'conspiracy theorists'
Presidential adviser wrote about crackdown on expressing opinions, banning or imposing special fines
Top Obama czar: Infiltrate all 'conspiracy theorists'

Sunstein: Americans too racist for socialism
Defends communism, welfare state but says 'white majority' oppose programs aiding blacks, Hispanics
Sunstein: Americans too racist for socialism

Cass Sunstein wants to spread America's wealth
Echoes Van Jones on using 'environmental justice' to redistribute money
Cass Sunstein wants to spread America's wealth

Obama intel pick Chas Freeman works for Chinese government
Company's deals were seen as attempt to expand communist nation's influence
Obama intel pick works for Chinese

Obama 'czar' on 9/11: Blame 'U.S. imperialism'!
White House 'rowdy communist' held vigil for Muslims
Obama 'czar' on 9/11: Blame 'U.S. imperialism'!

Czar: Education to make students 'revolutionaries'
New Princeton lecturer Van Jones slammed non-activist students as 'worthless people'
Czar: Education to make students 'revolutionaries'

Obama's 'green jobs czar' worked with terror founder
Van Jones served on board of activist group where ex-Weatherman serves as top director
Obama's 'green jobs czar' worked with terror founder

(Okay, Obama had to let Van Jones go once Glenn Beck exposed him)

Obama climate czar has socialist ties
Carol Browner from group insisting rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.
Obama climate czar has socialist ties - Washington Times

Holdren warned of coming ice age
Science chief argued for population control to limit 'global cooling'
Holdren warned of coming ice age

Obama czar John Holdren's shocking communist connections
Edited publication whose founders allegedly fed secrets to Soviet Union
Obama czar's shocking communist connections

Holdren's guru: Dispose of 'excess children' like puppies
Science chief acknowledges Brown as inspiration for career in ecology
Holdren's guru: Dispose of 'excess children' like puppies


Okay, now show us the radical anti-Americans on Bush's list.

[Hotspring 44]

..

... when the goal of Communists in the Cold War was to get their people into those positions of power and the goal of Joe McCarthy and other Americans was to get them out...

... you might gain some credibility for at least making a rational effort.

Joe McCarthy went way too far (He was noted for making claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the United States federal government and elsewhere. Ultimately, McCarthy's tactics and his inability to substantiate his claims led him to be censured by the United States Senate...
...Also: The term McCarthyism, coined in 1950 in reference to McCarthy's practices, was soon applied to similar anti-communist activities.
Today the term is used more generally to describe demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents.^[2]

So did John Birch: go to far.

Of course, S2T, I already have a sense that you will say something to the effect of the congress (1952-1954)...=...COMMIES!... ...Or unpatriotic LEFT WING sympathizer's!... ...Or; Bad Mistake!
I know the game... ......S2T; I think maybe you are becoming (or at least one of) the wacco resident demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated McCarthyism accusers'.

So S2T, the "Left" "Right" aren't going away anytime soon; so what way do you think that will work or be a reasonable place to start
"Rethinking America" without annihilating the other with so-called "truth", logic", or any other verbiage of the baiting and inflammatory kind?
Are you up to the "task"?...
...Or are you more into the demagogic way of catharsis than actually being into a group of thinkers that must at times, yield to different perspectives in order to explore alternatives to the gridlock of demagogic loggerheads on opposing sides?

[Speak2Truth]

While McCarthy was driven to drink and irrationality by the ardent defense of Communists coming from many around him, in truth he did not go far enough. He was wrong - only in the sense that he seriously UNDER-estimated the extent of Soviet agents in the highest positions of power in our national government.

Remember those headlines from the 1990s?

Venona Project Vindicates McCarthy - Communist Penetration Extensive

More Communist Spies Than McCarthy Suspected

Well, okay, our national media kept real quiet about this. After all, they would not want to break the negative image of McCarthy as a Don Quixote carefully crafted by the Left in this nation...

The Hidden Truth About Joseph McCarthy - Venona Cables Decrypted
The Hidden Truth About Joseph McCarthy

David Kupelian - Why I'm Worse than Joe McCarthy
(McCarthy dared expose the ugly truth, proven by Venona transcripts, that Communis agents had reached high positions in US gov't.)
Why I'm 'worse than Joe McCarthy'

Alger Hiss, Roosevelt foreign policy advisor and first secretary general of the United Nations; Harry Dexter White, assistant secretary of the Treasury and Truman’s appointee as director of the International Monetary Fund; and Lauchlin Currie, administrative assistant to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, have all been confirmed, among hundreds of others, to have been agents of the USSR. In addition to the multitudes of executive branch agents, we also know of at least three Congressmen working clandestinely for the Soviet Union during this time period.
Government was hardly the only domain targeted by Soviet espionage. Influential media figures like I.F. Stone of The Nation, Michael Straight, editor of The New Republic, and Pulitzer Prize Winner Walter Duranty of The New York Times were actually agents of the Soviet Union. Prominent unions like the Congress of Industrial Organizations and the Screen Actors Guild were dominated by Communists. Even major industrialists like Armand Hammer did their part by laundering Soviet money to domestic U.S. Communists.

The real tragedy is that Communists openly take control of our government today and nobody is dragging them out, tarring and feathering them. That is how effective the Left's strategy to de-moralize Americans has been.

THEY ARE YOUR ENEMIES yet they openly take control of your government.

Amazing, that Americans have been "feminized" this badly. That is a term Socialists use to describe their activities to bleed the spirit of 'manly resistance' out of a society that they control, to reduce the likelihood that the population will rise up against them.

You'll see it lamented in a Chinese film called "Ju Dou".

So, now that we can see McCarthy was correct, are you willing to yield to fact and reconsider the demagogic notions programmed into our society over the decades?

[Speak2Truth]

Going back a little ways....

This is a disguisting lie. Even if many black Americans and Africans supported the slave system, indirectly and directly, to say the system of slavery in the Americas was not race based is an out and out LIE.

I believe you are correct to assert that, as the system developed, whites could no longer be held as slaves (as they were in the early part of slavery on this continent). However, the modern assertion that black people are automatically the "victims" and whites the "oppressors" totally disguises the fact that many black slave owners prospered by enslaving other black persons - and that goes all the way back to the very first slave owner in the Colonies on this continent who was a black man.

Today's demagogues totally distort the issue to make it "black and white" when in fact a black slave owner began the practice of slavery on this continent and perpetrated it. Shame on those who pretend blacks were only the victims of the system of slavery.

Dixie's Censored Subject - Black Slaveowners
https://americancivilwar.com/authors...laveowners.htm

An African instituted slavery on this continent. Americans put an end to it.

Do you find any of this factually incorrect?

[seanpfister]

Going back a little ways....
An African instituted slavery on this continent. Americans put an end to it.

that's misleading in several ways. Anthony Johnson did not invent slavery in Virginia. Rather the Virginia House Courts passed legislation and made rulings, respectively, that created the institution of slavery (in Virginia) and created the structure, laws, etc that permittecd the institution to survive and thrive.

Your second sentence ("Americans put an end to it [slavery]") is even more misleading. One could just as easily say that "Americans supported slavery for 90 years after the Constitution, and fought tooth and nail to prevent black Americans from being freed." Or: "even after the Civil War, Americans continues to deny black Americans their civil rights , for another 100 years, under a system of legally sanctioned apartheid."

Your statement is factually correct, I guess. It's just not true.

[Speak2Truth]

It is my understanding that Anthony Johnson, a former indentured servant who earned his freedom, initiated the institution of African-style slavery in the Jamestown colony. It differed from indentured servitude in that the African concept was legal ownership of another human being, as property.


"Slavery was officially established in Virginia in 1654, when Anthony Johnson, a black man, convinced a court that his servant (also black) John Casor was his for life. Johnson himself had been brought to Virginia some years earlier as an indentured servant (a person who must work to repay a debt, or on contract for so many years in exchange for food and shelter) but he saved enough money to buy out the remainder of his contract and that of his wife. The court ruled in Johnson’s favor, and the very first officially state-recognized slave existed in Virginia. Johnson eventually became very wealthy and began importing his own black slaves from Africa."

I am unaware of all the legal processes that ensued to make it a legally recognized institution. My assertion is that the institution did not come from the European nations but from Africa itself, where slavery is still a common practice.

Do you know of the British having legally institutionalized slavery before this?

As for Americans putting an end to it:

I need to clarify my definition of Americans. They are the people who believe in and work to implement the founding principles of this nation. There are lots of folks who the law calls Americans but who play for the "other" team. The Democrats fought hard to keep slavery going. They continued to elect folks like KKK recruiter Robert Byrd for long after the practice was legally abolished.

Did they uphold the American principle that all men are created equal and therefore no man had the authority to own another? No.

I reiterate - when I speak of Americans in this matter I don't mean the broad definition of "people born in this country and legally recognized as Citizens thereof". I refer to people who actually believe in and uphold the clearly documented principles of this nation.

Republican leaders like Martin Luther King fought for those American principles. Robert Byrd... not so much.

[seanpfister]

It is my understanding that Anthony Johnson, a former indentured servant who earned his freedom, initiated the institution of African-style slavery in the Jamestown colony...

Earlier you said an African instituted slavery "on this continent"; then "in America"; now it's in Virginia. Keep in mind that the Portugese and the Spanish empires had around a million African slaves in their colonies (including Florida) well before Jamestown was founded. More generally, I really don't understand your point: most slaveowners in the Colonies were white; some were black; some were Native American. So what? By 1800 about 15 million black people were slaves in the US. That's our history and we still suffer from it.

In short, I think it's naive to think or suggest that one unlucky guy from Angola was responsible for the American system of slavery. It's probably more complicated than that

need to clarify my definition of Americans. They are the people who believe in and work to implement the founding principles of this nation. ...when I speak of Americans in this matter... I refer to people who actually believe in and uphold the clearly documented principles of this nation.

Ok, I understand that use of the terminology, but I think you should look for different words, because your usage has issues: the "clearly documented principles of this nation" are not clear, documented--and not always principles. The Declaration of Independance says all men are equal; the Constitution, for its first hundred years, said black men are 3/5 the value of white men. Is the idea of equality "clearly documented"?

Your personal understanding of the founding principles isn't "American", it's just your perspective. Might be right, might not. In all cases, we should remember that even people of good will and intent might disagree about what those principles are, or how they should be implemented.

[Hotspring 44]

While I abhor this process of putting "czars" in power, I believe the next salient question is what their underlying ideologies are. That defines what they will do with such power.

How many Communists did GW appoint? How many who think Chairman Mao was one of their favorite philosophers?

If GW appointed patriotic Americans and Obama appoints people hostile to American principles, you will see a vastly different exercise of power from the two Administrations through those czars.

Think about it.

I did, and I have.
It is obvious to me that would all depend upon what you mean by "hostile to American principles".
It could be argued that the Bush administration lied and exaggerated to get us into war for reasons other than what we were led to believe.
Then to use and or encourage McCarthyism type of tactics with intelligence gathering techniques that were minimally questionable, but most likely unlawful...
...FISA rules being ignored....
... spying on peaceful, nonviolent, antiwar activists etc..... ...the list goes on.
what about protest free zones?
Obama didn't do that!
I'm not so sure Obama would have under similar circumstances either.
I don't think Obama would have lied to the public like Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush did about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction etc.
I suppose your logic is, if it's against communism or for some sort of Capitol, strategic purpose that; it's okay to lie to the public for the purpose of invading a foreign country for hidden, in secret, capital / strategic gains for the "chosen special interests", Instead of telling the truth in the first place because they assumed the public and Congress would not have gone for it otherwise.

Obama's nuke agreements meant to disarm U.S.?
Science czar's magazine accused of disseminating Soviet propaganda - goal is to put US nuclear arsenal under international control
Obama's nuke agreements meant to disarm U.S.?

There is a big difference between a Treaty and actual "control", particularly when it comes to national security of any country, particularly the United States; everybody that has been paying attention already knows that.
To think that a president of the United States would do that is patently absurd, paranoid, and ridiculous.
It's just not going to happen.

'Safe schools' Czar encouraged child sex with older man
Washington Times: Kevin Jennings should 'come clean'
'Safe schools' chief encouraged child sex with older man

I seem to remember a year or two ago there was a Republican that actually did something like that I think it was a 17-year-old boy that he hired to do something of a sexual nature.
That doesn't make it right however.

But to say or even implicate that the Obama administration is going to hire somebody and your children are going to get raped as a direct result is absolutely, utterly, way over the top, inflammatory, character assassination of a whole group because of a mere accusation of an individual. That is most definitely a McCarthyism like tactic.

Top Obama czar Cass Sunstein: Infiltrate all 'conspiracy theorists'
Presidential adviser wrote about crackdown on expressing opinions, banning or imposing special fines
Top Obama czar: Infiltrate all 'conspiracy theorists'

Sunstein: Americans too racist for socialism
Defends communism, welfare state but says 'white majority' oppose programs aiding blacks, Hispanics
Sunstein: Americans too racist for socialism

Cass Sunstein wants to spread America's wealth
Echoes Van Jones on using 'environmental justice' to redistribute money
Cass Sunstein wants to spread America's wealth

Here's a quote right out of the link you provided:

• "The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
• The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
• The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
• The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
• The right of every family to a decent home;
• The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
• The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
• The right to a good education."

Sounds like a modern day partial (incomplete) list of something like "The New Deal" from FDR. Was FDR a Commie?... ...After raiding a couple of your other links, I think you do believe that FDR was a communist. what a pity!

The bankster's, as we call them; did thief trillions of dollars, and in doing so made some others filthy wealthy; so a so-called "lawful redistribution of wealth" can be a bad term to use politically but, for the ones that were stolen from, receiving what they can get back of what was stolen from them by lies, dirty deals, and outright theft or usury, in my way of thinking is nether Communist nor anything of the sort of which you seem to claim. It is redress which is written into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I am not into Glean Beak's disgusting, conjecture or the red-baiting, prejudicial overtones either.

Okay, now show us the radical anti-Americans on Bush's list.

First of all, it was tongue in cheek.
Second of all, it was a list of Czars, not the highly controversial term "anti-Americans" that you conveniently interject for the sake of your fallacious argument.

If one of the founding reasons America is so great is because it's a country of laws, not of men or King. Then there are major laws that were broken in the Bush administration.

U.S. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales / Legalization of torture.


Henry Kissinger 1

And Henry Kissinger 2

Elliott Abrams


John Negroponte

There are more that could be listed but I get the idea that you have no concern of what human rights abuses done in our name that undermine the very things that are the primary spirit of the constitution, the bill of rights and all that, which is supposed to represent as an example to the rest of the world to follow.

Your rigid viewpoint seems to me to be that it's okay to kill, maim, bomb, Invade, torture, ruin the land and waters of indigenous People's abroad, and inflict all the other horrors of war onto more innocents then combatants, because somehow that (those wars / battles) became for the best interest of America itself and America's "interests"! but you would prefer to blame all of that which is bad on others.

I've got news for you whether you or I or anybody else here on this board likes it or not; America also has blood of innocence on its hands.

Don't bother wasting your time trying to say that I'm against America, because I can tell you for sure, right here and now, I'm not against America in any way shape or form.

What I am against is human rights violations anywhere in my name as an American!
I am against going to war under false pretenses.
I am against legislation that goes against the main principles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights regardless of whether it comes from the left, right, center, or anywhere else!

I am also knowledgeable about, the reality that there is plenty of resources to go around and that some people aggressively hoard too much sometimes. That's why I think there should always be a progressive tax rate. Otherwise, eventually, people starve so that somebody else can be filthy rich.

That happens in communist countries that happens in dictatorships that happens in republics and that happens in democracies whether they be capitalistic or not.

To say that government of the United States is not suppose to regulate its monetary system is absolutely ludicrous. That would fly in the face of the meaning of government!
Yes believe it or not, there is supposed to be a government.

It's obvious to me that you're going to continue to blame the "liberals" blame the left, and call names like; "communists", "socialists", "traitor", "treasonous", pro "one world Government" "saboteurs" etc. etc. etc., all of which is feudalistic, paranoid right-wing quasi-religious, propaganda straight from the playbook of the far right agenda.
Even if you don't do all of that and you don't use those names to call people, the messages within the links that you provide do.

You seem to blame the "left" on having an agenda, but I think you also have an agenda of being confrontational to what you perceive as the "left", because somehow you believe that the "left" is your sworn enemy; and therefore declaring the "left" as your sworn enemy is your primary objective for "salvation"(?).... ... to (swiftly without hesitation without much consideration of "unintended consequences") "save the country from the communists" by any means "necessary";... ...and so what if innocent, peaceful, people, animals, the environment etc gets caught in the crossfire; because somehow the "free market" is God's will, and constitutionally mandated; or something to that effect.

I think; that NOT!

["Mad" Miles]

After I shutdown and walked away from this incessant hullabaloo over politics here, of which I've been a major contributor, I know...

I was flipping channels and chanced upon the Charlie Rose show,

(I teasingly call him Charlie Rodent, because he looks and acts like a sneaky lizard/rat, butter wouldn't melt in his mouth and all that, but he's by far the only intellectual interviewer on our national tube nowadays, and for years past. I don't watch him regularly, since the topics he and his guests cover are already quite familiar to me, but he does a damn fine job in bringing the ideas out in the open.)

where he was interviewing John Sexton, President of NYU. There was a great quote from Doctor Sexton, about the polarization of American (U.S.) political debate, that I wanted to share here. After a bit of "Bonnie & Clyde" I came back, did a lengthy search, and was unable to find the quote.

Tomorrow the show should be online, look for the printed text about half way in. Professor Sexton had much to say about the future of the University, as well. Maybe I'll do the search myself, and copy it here. We'll see.

Beware, he almost crushed the graduate student union, and he was Chair of the New York FED. So he's evil from both ends of the spectrum!!!

Still, the quote was quite good. And an astute comment apropos the style of debate that has been foisted upon us, here, and in the public arena in general.

Basically he said that the polarization and fixed positions endemic in our political discourse, are a threat to our Democracy, and to the very project that is America (U.S.).

But it was more eloquent and nuanced than my paraphrase here.

G,Night, Again,

["Mad" Miles]

Here's the link to Charlie Rose's interview with John Sexton last night.

The relevant section is from 41.21 - 47.07 in the video. The whole interview is interesting if you are intrigued by the unique career of a major university leader, the issues around founding an international university, and questions of undergraduate health, physical and mental, on today's college campuses.

I tried to find the articles for the two quotes Charlie uses in the section I've noted above. From the online journal, "Inside Higher Education" but that publications archive doesn't go back far enough to be able to pull them up. I'm not going to spend more time googling and binging for them. Anyone else is welcome to try.

I hesistate sharing video. For reasons previously stated I don't watch much internet video. But this is the only way I have to share Sexton's very apropos comments about the state of our public political culture and discourse. I think he's right on!

[Hotspring 44]

Interesting what he said about bloggers, but did you also know:

Charlie Rose - John Sexton John Edward Sexton is the fifteenth President of New York University, having held this position since May 17, 2002, and the Benjamin Butler Professor of Law at the NYU School of Law. From 1988 to 2002, he served as Dean of the NYU School of Law, which during his deanship became one of the top five law schools in the country according to U.S. News and World Report. From January 1, 2003 to January 1, 2007, he was the Chairman of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; in 2006, he served as chair of the Federal Reserve System’s Council of Chairs. Source - John Sexton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

?

Here's the link to Charlie Rose's interview with John Sexton last night.

The relevant section is from 41.21 - 47.07 in the video. The whole interview is interesting if you are intrigued by the unique career of a major university leader,...

... I think he's right on!

["Mad" Miles]

Hotspring44,

Yes, I did know. I wrote this in Post #84 of this thread:

Beware, he almost crushed the graduate student union, and he was Chair of the New York FED. So he's evil from both ends of the spectrum!!!

Post #84, what was it we were talking about when this started?!

[Hotspring 44]

...what was it we were talking about when this started?!

This thread?... ...A> Rethinking America.

This trend on this thread: “putting "czars" in power”, “demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated McCarthyism” “demagogic loggerheads on opposing sides”, and some “Tongue-in-cheek” stuff...
...Links provided that go and refer to Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and other anti left, Obama, Democrat, “progressive”; “Pundits” etc.
Some “finger pointing” and “blame-gaming” and (Facetiously speaking), comparing which politico is the biggest Dick-----tator.

Side note: Is there such a thing as a “Condom” that can be used; for the Blogosphere? LOL!!

[Peace Voyager]

Dear Community,

It seems that many are confused with the terms of socialism and communism; neither is evident in the US government under any Administration.

Bad management and unending perks for certain special interests (dangerous nukes and dirty extraction/burn fuels; unlimited funding for the industrial war complex; unethical banking/stock market schemers - still in power, etc.) are leading to our dysfunction and destruction.

The petty arguments made here do nothing but separate us further.

What can we learn from this that is useful?

I have learned from a neighbor what both the Bush and Obama Administration (and some would say Clinton and others as well) have led to exist for America, is a new form of "fascism". That is, in this era, we have let our country go to the highest corporate bidder; and still, against the majority's will, somehow allowing our military to strike first, in defiance of UN agreements. More importantly, as per the US Constitution - without a declaration of war.

Wake up! Your division is killing what's left of our country. Whining, and pointing fingers at each other, taking no deliberate action towards workable solutions - serves the fascist nation builders very well.

In my belief system, every life on this planet has equal importance. What makes us different is how we use our time, in what we give our attention, money, power and talents to.

I know I signed up for the hardest, yet most important job in the world; ending unconstitutional use of force. I did not get all the training needed, still have almost no support; that's why allies are needed, it's very much a team effort.

Can you be a team player with me in saving the planet - for real, not just for a deal benefiting certain entities?

Let us please unite; it's the only way to get our country and our Constitution back!

I am planning 2 town hall meetings on this in Santa Rosa and San Rafael. Will you help too?

The unfunded "emergency" funding for the "surge" in Afghanistan will be before the House again soon.

Are you willing to enable this by staying silent, while the funding for basic and emergency services continue to be cut to the bone? Or, will you unite with those of color/party/religion you are not used to, so we can re-define what it is to be a good American in these UNITED States?

If not, it's time this country got a divorce.

Perhaps these town halls for City Care, NOT (unconstitutional)Warfare will serve as the start of the couples counseling we have been missing.

Thank you,

Colleen Fernald




From wikipedia

Fascism, pronounced /_fæ__z_m/, is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2][3][4] Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.[5][6] Fascism was originally founded by Italian national syndicalists in World War I who combined left-wing and right-wing political views, but it gravitated to the political right in the early 1920s.[7][8] Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum.[9][10][11][12][13][14]

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.[15] They claim that culture is created by the collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus they reject individualism.[15]

Viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they see pluralism as a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety.[16][17] They advocate the creation of a single-party state.[18] Fascists reject and resist the autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists' nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated.[19] They consider attempts to create such autonomy as an affront and a threat to the nation.[19] Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement.[20] They identify violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.[21]

Fascism is a byproduct of aspects of the Enlightenment, stemming from the Promethean, secular and modern ideals of the time, but rejecting the similarly modern concepts of egalitarianism, materialism, and rationalism as failed elements of the Enlightenment in favor of action, discipline, hierarchy, spirit, and will, which are also essentially modern.[22][23] They oppose liberalism — as a bourgeois movement — and Marxism — as a proletarian movement — for being exclusive economic class-based movements.[24]

Fascists present their ideology as that of an economically trans-class movement that promotes ending economic class conflict to secure national solidarity.[25] They believe that economic classes are not capable of properly governing a nation, and that a merit-based aristocracy of experienced military persons must rule through regimenting a nation's forces of production and securing the nation's independence.[26] Fascism perceives conservatism as partly valuable for its support of order in society but opposes its typical opposition to change and modernization.[27] Fascism presents itself as a solution to the perceived benefits and disadvantages of conservatism by advocating state-controlled modernization that promotes orderly change while resisting the dangers to order in society of pluralism and independent initiative.[27]

Fascists support a "Third Position" in economic policy, which they believe superior to both the rampant individualism of laissez-faire capitalism and the severe control of state socialism.[28][29] Italian Fascism and most other fascist movements promote a corporatist economy whereby, in theory, representatives of capital and labour interest groups work together within sectoral corporations to create both harmonious labour relations and maximization of production that would serve the national interest.[30] However other fascist movements and ideologies, such as Nazism, did not utilize this form of economy.[30]

[Speak2Truth]

Earlier you said an African instituted slavery "on this continent"; then "in America"; now it's in Virginia.

I'm pretty sure I have not been that inconsistent. Following my original assertion, "the African system of slavery that had been imported to the British Colonies", I've been talking about the system of slavery that was eventually eliminated by the Americans (United States of America). It was not the Portugese who went on to found the United States. It was the British colonies.

More generally, I really don't understand your point: most slaveowners in the Colonies were white; some were black; some were Native American. So what? By 1800 about 15 million black people were slaves in the US. That's our history and we still suffer from it.

Not so much. In fact, black Americans are far better off than their African counterparts, even those whom President Monroe returned to Africa to create a brand new nation of their own (today called "Liberia" I think). I know, some folks whose minds are stuck on "politically correct" cannot address this rationally so I challenge them to prove this wrong: American blacks are far, FAR better off than their distant relatives in Africa.

What we suffer from today is the constant effort of race-baiters to keep racism alive (and their own pockets filled). People like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other "trash". What we should glorify is black Americans willing to show the way to success, not those who try to talk blacks into a mindset of perpetual victimhood.

Let's put Bill Cosby, Condoleeza Rice and others on a pedestal and say, "Look what every American has the opportunity to become".

In short, I think it's naive to think or suggest that one unlucky guy from Angola was responsible for the American system of slavery. It's probably more complicated than that

I just did some further reading on it. He was not only a smart fellow, purchasing some other blacks to keep as slaves, he also went through the legal system to create the legal institution of slavery that became perpetuated throughout the British Colonies. He wasn't "unlucky" - the folks he purchased were.

I read a report that in 1850 about 30% of slave owners in the New Orleans area were black.

the "clearly documented principles of this nation" are not clear, documented--and not always principles. The Declaration of Independance says all men are equal; the Constitution, for its first hundred years, said black men are 3/5 the value of white men.

You are repeating exactly what I've been saying. Please forgive my emphasis here...

The PRINCIPLES of this nation are spelled out clearly in the Declaration of Independence.

The LAWS designed to uphold those principles are the US Constitution and it took time to build up that body of laws to actually uphold the founding principles. The Bill of Rights and other amendments have moved the nation closer and closer.

When Congress created the Constitution, they realized they could not fight to end slavery at that time, so that was not addressed at that time. Yet, founders like Thomas Jefferson (who tried to put abolition in the Declaration of Independence) were determined that, at some point, the nation MUST uphold the principles so clearly spelled out in the DOI.