Obama: Socialist or anti-colonialist

[LizardKing]

[but no comments like "good job for lowering the deficit in a recession" or "gee' date=' we took in more money than 2008 even with lower tax rates for 95% of the population, so the stimulus must have worked"[/b'] or "wow, what a change after the Republicans spent us into this mess, at least it is getting paid down."

 

Hmmmm. Nope. Not a word. Hardly surprising, considering the sad state of our bought-n-paid--for right wing media.

 

Where did you get this nonsense?

 

HH

 

Wall Street Journal, based upon the official Treasury Reports from Friday. Or is that too left wing for you?

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704575553850474117846.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100706669.html

http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/1986/pop-cork-biggest-deficit-reduction-us-history-occurred-2009-2010

 

I love the sound of imploding rightwing heads in the morning...

[cavanami]

One can blame the media and the system itself for most of the problems.

Example; here in Illinois they are having elections. Governor is one of the elections.

Pat Quinn, present governor vs Bill Brady...but there are two others in the running but the media says NOTHING about the other two and the other two don't have the $$$ to flood the TV with ads (fault with the system, the candidate with the most $$$ can by all the ads they need and about buy the election!).

 

Also the ads themselves, this is true as seen on TV...

 

One ad, Quinn is praised for stopping the early release of convicts...next ad (30 seconds later) Brady (his opponent) says that Quinn has released 1600 convicts early...who and what to believe???

 

Where is the media to expose the reality of the early or not early release of convicts???

 

It is farked up!!!

[LizardKing]

Yes it is. I am all for 100% public campaign financing. Everyone gets a set amount. No donations, except to the public campaign fund in general (as we have now with the checkbox on the tax form). Media is required to give everyone the same amount of time. Have at it.

 

I'm also for mandatory voting and election day a public holiday too (like Oz).

[Flashermac]

 

The system is against third parties ... and the big two want to keep it that way.

 

 

[Steve]

I'm against forcing someone to vote if we are to believe in a free society. I am in favor of funded elections though. Both major parties would never go for it and use the 'free speech' provision to stop it. Of course they have no problem limiting or eliminating our other rights.

 

I do think there should be a national holiday to vote.

 

 

[Guest lazyphil]

yes what do you do if you think all partys suck elephant balls?

[Guest lazyphil]

the chinese will be expanding mobile execution/organ harvesting facilitys globally soon once they get fully operational as our global masters, so its not all bad afterall!

 

[Hugh_Hoy]

Yes it is. I am all for 100% public campaign financing. Everyone gets a set amount. No donations, except to the public campaign fund in general (as we have now with the checkbox on the tax form). Media is required to give everyone the same amount of time. Have at it.

 

I'm also for mandatory voting and election day a public holiday too (like Oz).

 

 

Not allowing individuals/groups to independently pay for and produce propaganda would be a violation of freedom of speech (which, as a constitutional lawyer, you should know )

 

Another holiday? Shit, it's tough enough to get some folks to the work place as it is. It's easy enough to find time to vote...polls are usually open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.; and if its such a drag to get to the polls during those hours, a mail-in ballot will do nicely (I've been doing it for several years).

 

Forcing somebody to vote? What constitutional authority does the government have for that? Oh, I forgot. You're a Demoncrat. We have a "living" consitution, allowing Demoncrats to amend it through interpretation in any way that suits their interests. We don't need more voters. We need more educated/savvy voters. Shit, we had an election not many years ago where a fair number of wannabe voters were so fucking stupid that they couldn't even punch a hole in a piece of paper? From what I gather, they were Demoncrats. (And not surprisingly.)

 

HH

[chuckwoww]

Good point phil. Let's hope they are good quality organs. Nobody wants a knock-off liver.

[Old Hippie]

I've never quite understood why African American voters allow themselves to be virtual slaves to the Democratic party. The black vote is large enough to throw an election one way or the other' date=' especially in state elections. The sensible thing would be for black voters to sit back and say to BOTH parties: Which of you is going to serve our interests best? That's the one we will back in this election.

 

By automatically giving the Dems their votes, black voters are throwing away some very significant political power!

 

[/quote']

 

First, I would say a lot of groups are pretty much monolithic in their voting. Fundamentalists vote Repbulican no matter what. Unions usually go Democrat although on occasion they can be swayed like when they went for Reagan in the '80s. Jews vote Democratic party. Latinos go overwhelmingly Democrat (Puerto Rican, Mexican) or Repbulican (Cubans because of their hatred for Firdel) as well. Gays probably vote in as high if not higher numbers for Democrats than blacks do.

 

Blacks voted overwhelmingly Republican until FDR came on the scene. Dems can thank not so much FDR but his wife Eleanor for converting blacks to the party. She was a stalwart fighter for civil rights and fought tirelessly for black soliders in world war II. That was not lost on blacks. JFK sealed it. My mom voted Democratic exclusively because of him. Many black family's in the '70s had 3 pictures on the wall. Portraits of MLK, JFK and RFK were very common in many black homes.

 

Furthermore the Republican party has done little in the eyes of blacks to warrant a change. Despite Colin Powell and Condi Rice, the Repbublican party does not seem trustworthy. The Republican party has won elections putting cuts to welfare, against the extension or increasing of civil rights legislations, opposing the MLK national holiday, etc. as cornerstones of some state and local elections.

There were far more Republican politicians that, again, rightly or wrongly, seemed racially divisive such as Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Newt Gingrich, etc. than there are Democrats.

Whether one agrees with those positions from a purely ideological view not based at all on race, it does come across as 'anti-Black' to most blacks.

 

It just seemed that the Republican party simply gave up on the black vote. One could ask what mutual points of interest can Republicans find with black america? My personal opinion is that the Republican party could split the black vote by going after the large and ever growing black middle class. Middle class is middle class. Doesn't matter your race or religion. Your main concerns are the quality of your kid's education and how you're going to pay for his college career. You're concerned about the safety of your middle class neighborhood. You're concerned about your taxes. You're concerned about the corporations you work for and the legislation that affects them. In my opinion much of the black middle class has more in common culturaly and certainly socio-economically with their white neighbors than they do with their black brethren left in the inner city. Their children certainly do.

 

Anyway, it really shouldn't be a surprise at all.

 

 

Odd is, it was George Wallace, the Governor of Alabama who in the 60's (?) blocked the University doors...he was also a democrat. I think RFK was the Attorney general who sent in Marshalls and national guard/troops to remove him. I think that showed the division and in fighting in the country at the time, as well as within the democratic party.