I'm confused about the American Republican party

[Jester]

I'm a skeptic.

Skeptic (n): Someone who habitually doubts beliefs and claims presented as accepted by others, requiring strong evidence before accepting any belief or claim.

On this topic, you are being the *opposite* of a skeptic. You have one data point, corroborated by nothing. The claim is implausible, the details are not verifiable. And yet, you persist in believing that there's something behind it. You're welcome to your opinions, but skeptical, this is not.

Apparently he was suffering from dementia. Does this change your evaluation?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

His own family disowned the comment when people started looking into it, what the hell do you want?

His own family is not Kevin Wardally. That would be Kevin P. Wardally, Senior Vice President for Political and Goverment Affairs, Bill Lynch Associates, LLC.

Man, I was more on calling you a concern troll than I even imagined.

You can call me whatever names you please. I'm going to remain civil and attempt to have a discussion.

2nd. I am not concerned. I was looking for examples of anti-journalism. Often, political passions overcome professional integrity. Such as with Ben Smith.

3rd. When I was in college, I lived in the international dorm. Most of my friends were the sons and daughters of the rich and famous somewhere. It would not be odd, considering Obama's political involvements for him to be acquainted with many prominent people with many diverse viewpoints. Donald Warden (aka. Khalid al Mansour) is also involved in Chicago businesses and politics. Even if Obama had help from politically connected benefactors, it doesn't mean he isn't his own man.

---

I'm a skeptic.

Skeptic (n): Someone who habitually doubts beliefs and claims presented as accepted by others, requiring strong evidence before accepting any belief or claim.

On this topic, you are being the *opposite* of a skeptic. You have one data point, corroborated by nothing. The claim is implausible, the details are not verifiable. And yet, you persist in believing that there's something behind it. You're welcome to your opinions, but skeptical, this is not.

-Jester

Well, except the words of the man who said them. That is a pretty strong point. It's only those who have something to lose who are scrambling to discredit this otherwise credible person. There is no evidence to show he was "confused" at the time. How is it implausible?

[Jester]

Well, except the words of the man who said them. That is a pretty strong point. It's only those who have something to lose who are scrammbling to discredit this otherwise credible person.

You can't corroborate evidence with itself. And if you consider "something some guy said" (let alone an 88 year old man living in a nursing home suffering from dementia) as "pretty strong," you're welcome to your epistemology, but to paraphrase Roger Ebert, your skepticism sucks.

But hey, feel free to keep up with the 2nd derivative, "you're only critiquing this because you yourself are biased" argument. It's endearing, although I'm not entirely sure what I have to lose here. Maybe I'm also taking money from Saudi advisers?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Maybe I'm also taking money from Saudi advisers?

I wish they'd offer me some. I'd use it to pay for my fuel and heating.

I tend to think that when there is politics on the line, politicians are lying most of the time. The press has drawn sides, so I cannot trust either side there either. Even prominent scientists are shirking ethics in favor of winning the politics. There are two sides, and both seem plausible. I could go either way. He had a senior moment, or there is some effort to shield Obama from further political fallout due to his associations, ala Jeremiah Wright.

[Jester]

I tend to think that when there is politics on the line, politicians are lying most of the time. The press has drawn sides, so I cannot trust either side there either. Even prominent scientists are shirking ethics in favor of winning the politics. There are two sides, and both seem plausible. I could go either way. He had a senior moment, or there is some effort to shield Obama from further political fallout due to his associations, ala Jeremiah Wright.

The press has not "drawn sides" on this issue. Nobody outside the wacky WND/Free Republic fringe is even remotely interested in this non-story. All attempts to corroborate anything about this have come up with exactly nothing. No evidence of any kind has surfaced from any other source. The man in question was suffering from dementia, was living in a home, and was less than a year from death. The family has retracted the statement - that they did so through their lawyer is evidence of nothing more than that they have a lawyer. We have nothing even resembling a good reason to believe any of this is true.

Skepticism involves weighing credible evidence, not just mistrusting everyone.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm getting my tinfoil hat ready.

I really can't wait for the rest of this Republican showdown. They seem to a really good job of making each other look very foolish.

After a Republican candidate is chosen, does he have to debate Obama?

They make each other look foolish because they are their own worst enemy, they make themselves look foolish every time they open their mouths (be it Herman Cain with his 999 tax plan, Gingrich saying black kids should be janitors at their school so they learn good work ethics, Mitt Romney saying he doesnt care about poor people, or Michelle Bachman's inept knowledge of U.S. History), so it becomes easy for the other guy to use that and run with it.

Yes, the Republican candidate will have to debate Obama, and while I'm not an Obama fan by any means and consider the American Left as big of a joke as the rightwing, he will wipe the floor with any of these ignorant cowboys in a debate, because he is intellectually superior to them, as well as just being all-around smarter in general. I still remember the McCain-Obama debate from 2008, it was pretty humiliating to watch if you were a McCain fan....Obama completely destroyed him.

Normally, I don't find many things you and I would agree on FireIceTalon, but I have say the part of your post that I bolded is definitely something we agree on. You can say what you want about Obama, and his politics, and his connections, but make no mistake about it. He is an incredibly smart man, who has a gift for public speaking, and a keen eye for being strategic in a debate.

I will probably watch the presidential debate from the safety of my own home. Last time I watched them with my father, who was furious with how Obama destroyed McCain.

My have some issues with Obama's politics just by the very fact of the position he holds, but that is another topic! My main issue with him, in the context of our current political system, is that like most Democrats, he lacks a spine. Too easily he gives in to the demands from Republicans and his supposed constituency, the middle and working class, are left to flounder. But it is my belief that he isnt nearly as far left as most make him out to be, and is in fact a centrist that leans slightly to the left. Of course in this nation, if you have a left stance on almost any single issue, you are considered a radical Marxist by most Republicans, lol. If they are this scared of a moderate such as Obama, I can only imagine their reaction if they came across someone like me, heh.

I was never really one to believe in bipartisanship myself. It's overrated. Most people seem to think its a good thing, but all that it accomplishes is that things get done in a half assed manner, and then no one is happy, or one side is much more happy than the other. Almost never does it end in a result where both sides are satisfied with the outcome. Americans expect politicians to get things done, all while having a divided government. Quite the paradox if you ask me.

[kandrathe]

The press has not "drawn sides" on this issue. Nobody outside the wacky WND/Free Republic fringe is even remotely interested in this non-story. All attempts to corroborate anything about this have come up with exactly nothing. No evidence of any kind has surfaced from any other source. The man in question was suffering from dementia, was living in a home, and was less than a year from death. The family has retracted the statement - that they did so through their lawyer is evidence of nothing more than that they have a lawyer. We have nothing even resembling a good reason to believe any of this is true.

And, Politico, and American Thinker... Not your, or my cup of tea, but yes, they've sort of covered this "senior moment" a bit.

I mean it would be like George Bush the senior letting slip his conversation with Reagan about trading arms for hostages. Oh, scratch that, it was a trade agreement on hot dogs.

Skepticism involves weighing credible evidence, not just mistrusting everyone.

Yeah, why the condescension? You weigh things your way, and I weigh them my way. When we don't agree it's not tinfoil hat time. And... this is way beyond the discussion I was having about partisan journalism, this was just the example that got everyone defensively lathered. As I've repeatedly said, I don't care if he knows this guy and if this guy through his connections helped out another young, bright, black man to become a Harvard lawyer.

[FireIceTalon]

Almost every politician or other figures in any position of authority or otherwise elite position in society has connections of some sort. Hate to pull the race card here, but it applies: people only care about his connections because of the COLOR OF HIS SKIN. If Obama was white, it would hardly matter. That's good you dont care about it (I dont either), but sadly, a lot of shallow, misinformed ignorant, and most likely ethnocentric religious right wingers do. I'm not so concerned about ANY presidents connections, because I know all of them are connected to people that someone or another will take issue with. At the end of the day, the president and congress are only a puppet for the corporate elite that rule society anyways, so what does it matter who is connections are, be it some neo-Nazi, a Christian Fundi organization, a radical environmentalist group, or a Marxist? When all is said and done, his purpose is the same: to uphold the interest of the ruling class/corporations that help him keep his job, at the expense of ordinary citizens well-being.

[Taem]

Almost every politician or other figures in any position of authority or otherwise elite position in society has connections of some sort. Hate to pull the race card here, but it applies: people only care about his connections because of the COLOR OF HIS SKIN. If Obama was white, it would hardly matter. That's good you dont care about it (I dont either), but sadly, a lot of shallow, misinformed ignorant, and most likely ethnocentric religious right wingers do. I'm not so concerned about ANY presidents connections, because I know all of them are connected to people that someone or another will take issue with. At the end of the day, the president and congress are only a puppet for the corporate elite that rule society anyways, so what does it matter who is connections are, be it some neo-Nazi, a Christian Fundi organization, a radical environmentalist group, or a Marxist? When all is said and done, his purpose is the same: to uphold the interest of the ruling class/corporations that help him keep his job, at the expense of ordinary citizens well-being.

Oh, I don't know about that. Woodrow Wilson played the first movie in the White House, The Birth of a Nation, to much controversy.

President Woodrow Wilson supposedly said the film was "like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true."

Puppet for a corporate elite? I think not. He clearly had his own agenda. Uphold the interests of the ruling class? At a time when racism was beginning falling out of fashion, I also find this statement of yours to be disputable. Granted, you are referring mainly to this day and age, but your broad-reaching argument is ambiguous to any age, and your prior writings lead me to believe you probably think government has been crooked since inception, so once again, time is not really at issue here.

[FireIceTalon]

Wilson was definitely a puppet, no doubt about it. It was he who passed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, and allowed this central bank (which has never even been audited) to manipulate currency and the economy. Now, the Fed might not be a private corporation per se, but nevertheless they are a powerful, private elite institution, so the same concept of my point applies here.

My statement was general, yes, but that is what the State's role has been in almost every previous society in history till now - to protect the interest of the ruling class. The state, after all, IS part of the ruling class. Why wouldnt they work together to preserve their power? As I've stated many times before, when a group of people control society economically, they also control it in every other aspect: culturally, politically, and as well as the media outlets. Of course Government has been corrupt since the beginning....when has the State NOT been a part of the ruling class in any society? I challenge you to try and even give me just ONE example. You can't, because such an instance has never existed (nor will it ever, and those who think it can are living in some Libertarian utopian dream), for the simple fact that neither can intrinsically exist without the other. If there is any form of centralized state power, there is a ruling class, and if there is a ruling class, there is a centralized state power. The only differences in societies are the degree of the power used, and the methodology used. But the relationship between the State and the ruling class are mutually inclusive, not exclusive, to one another. It has been this way in every society throughout recorded history. Look at the Founders of our nation, almost all of them were wealthy, educated aristocrats/land-owning Bourgeois. Now, we can debate on if they had the best intentions for everyone else or not in forming American society, but it is my philosophy that the ruling class, at the end of all things, has its own best interests in mind first (if not exclusively), always.

And since when has racism fallen out of fashion? Racism is still very much alive and well today, if not as prominent as it was. Just because slavery ended and the Civil Rights Movement took place doesnt mean our society (and others) isnt still very ethnocentric, it very much is. The only thing that has changed really is that racism itself has changed. We went from Jim Crowe, to segregation/seperate-but-equal, to the "laizzes-faire" racism we have today...there are more blacks in prison today than there were slaves back in the 19th century, and a substantial portion of America is still very reactionary toward Latinos in that they are often blamed for stealing our jobs or abusing the so-called welfare system, because it is much easier to blame them than it is to pinpoint the real problem: the shortcomings of the Capitalistic system. This isn't to say things haven't gotten better, after all, we did elect a black man as president. But just because we have come a long way, doesn't mean we dont have an even farther way to go, because we most certainly do.

[eppie]

Almost every politician or other figures in any position of authority or otherwise elite position in society has connections of some sort. Hate to pull the race card here, but it applies: people only care about his connections because of the COLOR OF HIS SKIN. If Obama was white, it would hardly matter. That's good you dont care about it (I dont either), but sadly, a lot of shallow, misinformed ignorant, and most likely ethnocentric religious right wingers do.

I agree.

I'm not so concerned about ANY presidents connections, because I know all of them are connected to people that someone or another will take issue with.

But I see a difference between a president that goes to war to shift tax payers money to his friends oil, defence and building companies and a president that tries (maybe a bit unhandy) to get medical coverage for everybody.

At the end of the day, the president and congress are only a puppet for the corporate elite that rule society anyways, so what does it matter who is connections are, be it some neo-Nazi, a Christian Fundi organization, a radical environmentalist group, or a Marxist? When all is said and done, his purpose is the same: to uphold the interest of the ruling class/corporations that help him keep his job, at the expense of ordinary citizens well-being.

Even though Kandrathe's ideas about Obama's muslim connections are ridculous, of course in principe it can be true. We all now that it is a very small step for rich and powerfull christians to become very close with rich and powerful muslims. Surpressing people using christianity or islam is not so much different, and seeing that Obama is also practising religious we are right to always question him.

Anyway in this case.....if Obama has a hidden pro-muslim agenda he keeps it hidden extremely well.

[kandrathe]

Even though Kandrathe's ideas about Obama's muslim connections are ridculous, of course in principe it can be true.

I'm not implying his connections are "Black Panther" or Islamic in nature. His connections are with the other progressive political black leaders. This is natural due to his immersion in Chicago politics.

We all know that it is a very small step for rich and powerful Christians to become very close with rich and powerful muslims. Surpressing people using Christianity or islam is not so much different, and seeing that Obama is also practicing religious we are right to always question him.

Or, maybe it has nothing to do with religion, and more to do with being rich and powerful.

Anyway in this case.....if Obama has a hidden pro-muslim agenda he keeps it hidden extremely well.

From what I've seen he is less pro-Isreal than Bush, or Clinton. He doesn't act as if he's pro-Palestinian.

[eppie]

I have never asked you before Kandrathe but I guess you support Ron Paul?
I just read a small article on him and there is a lot that I like.
Of course some of the things go to far for me (leaving the economy completely free to me favours only the rich) but he seems at least to be less hypocrytical than most candidates. I also guess that his environmental policy (important to me) will not be to great, but still.

I have always supported the states effort of saving the economy, because when you don't consequences might be very dire. But the way states in Europe and the US have supported the banking world (and for example the car industry) are indeed just socialism for the rich.

Take the situation in Greece....they have to save an enormous amount of money and people are really suffering, but those who were most responsible for the crisis and the malpractices have their money in some tax-paradise and don't pay for the crisis at all (same happens in Italy). For this we need people who have a different idea about how to deal with these issues.

[Quark]

Of course some of the things go to far for me (leaving the economy completely free to me favours only the rich) but he seems at least to be less hypocrytical than most candidates. I also guess that his environmental policy (important to me) will not be to great, but still.

Yeah, Ron Paul is an outstanding citizen who's never hypocritical, especially towards women's rights. He also has no history involving white supremacy.

In his 1987 book, “Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution after 200-Plus Years,” Paul suggested that victims of sexual harassment should simply quit their jobs, writing, “Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity. Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable.”

Src

[eppie]

In his 1987 book, “Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution after 200-Plus Years,” Paul suggested that victims of sexual harassment should simply quit their jobs, writing, “Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity. Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable.”

Src

Yeah, this seems to me where is overshooting to the wrong side in his libertarian politics. Probably he was more concerned about giving employees to much power Then about the harresment issue. As I said, this is why I find that the libertarian ecnomic policy favours the rich and powerful.
So he is wrong here but hypocrytical?

Anyway thanks for the link.

In the mean time Rick Santorum keeps telling his followers that in the Netherlands we kill the elderly because we like it and because we need hospital beds.
Another big question about american politics. Why can those people so blatantly lie about things and get away with it? It is clear that you are a liar and you full of shit because you use stupid lies about people that are not present when you make them and so cannot defend themselves and use those lies for political gain. Scaring the God-fearing voters who have never actually left their own village and of course never will visit the Netherlands anyway to see for themselves.

Freedom of speech is not the freedom to lie.

[kandrathe]

So he is wrong here but hypocrytical?

His history are some of my issues with Ron Paul. Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, and other libertarian leaders aligned themselves with some wrong headed idologies, but then it was not unusual at the time (e.g. Robert Byrd). He does have some good thoughts. But he has alot of baggage I don't think he can distance himself from. And, he is often too blunt, when the leading foot should be compassion, and explanation of a different course. For example, when discussing abortion in cases of rape, or when expressing a sensitivity to sexaul harrassment. I think the majority of people would be in favor of preventing pregnancies at the time of the reported rape, rather than delay and then require an abortion many weeks later. I think I've expressed my thoughts against abortion before, but I believe simply that the State has the responsibility to protect the rights of all citizens, including the unborn. It is most incumbent on the State to intervene in matters where the powerful harm the powerless. I'm not sure what special exemptions to give to parents when they harm their own children.

I don't agree that the solution to sexual harrassment is to leave your job.

In the case of harrassment there is a three part relationship, and all three parties need to have responsibilities. The harrassed person must escalate their complaint through an agreed upon policy. The accused harrasser must be informed of the complaint and follow the policy. The employer already has the largest burden for creating policies, following the policies, investigating incidents, and preventing future hostile work environments. If the employer does not have a policy, or enforce it, then they are complicit in allowing the harrassment environment.

The libertarian reaction would be;

1) there exists court precedence in dealing with these types of problems in work environments. There is no need to increase regulatory burden for all employers for the wrong actions of a minority.

2) it still results in court action where the harrasser is punished at most with losing their job. The employer, with the deepest pockets, is punished the most, and too often the accuser is awarded vast settlements based on flimsy evidence. Beyond the legal costs, and loss of time, the employer also loses employees, and the expense of hiring and training them. This should be incentive enough to push employers to have clear harrassment policies and to follow them.

3) you don't have the civil right of being employed. You do have the civil right to not be harmed for being in a minority. There is some level of harm (costs) in being forced to choose between staying in a hostile environment, and changing to a new employer. More likely in the hundreds of dollars per incident.

Sexual harrassment is a bigger problem when there is no fair ombudsmen to protect the harrassed persons interests. For example, at the University of Minnesota, a woman I know was pursuing a degree in a world class program. You should know that this organization is as "progressive" as progressive gets, first being in Minnesota, and second being a university. The most prominent and leading scientist in the field was her harrasser, to the point where he made it clear that unless she had sex with him, she'd never graduate. She left the program, and it changed the focus of her life and career. I was furious and wanted justice for her. Her response was that if she did take him on, and tear him down, then she'd always be black balled as the woman who tore him down. She wanted a career in science more than she wanted justice from this one bad guy. All too often, people are forced to choose like this, where the harrassers get away with their crimes due to their power and influence. My friend ended up a leading scientist in a slightly different field, but still fulfilled her dream. It makes me mad all over again thinking about it. I still want to punch him in the nose, if he's still alive.

Overall, there are some idealists who take the idea of individual liberty and responsibility all the way. I'm more pragmatic. I think we can find a middle ground where we can agree on the things we'd like our government to do, and the level of taxation we'd suffer to accomplish those things.

[Chesspiece_face]

There are two recent articles that should be read if you want a good understanding of American politics in 2012 specifically the mentality and politics of the conservative right:

Divided We Stand by John Aloysius Farrell in the National Journal.

And

2012 Or Never by Jonathan Chait in the New York Magazine.

[NuurAbSaal]

There are two recent articles that should be read if you want a good understanding of American politics in 2012 specifically the mentality and politics of the conservative right:

Divided We Stand by John Aloysius Farrell in the National Journal.

And

2012 Or Never by Jonathan Chait in the New York Magazine.

Thanks a bunch, I found both articles highly interesting.

take care
Tarabulus

[FireIceTalon]

In his 1987 book, “Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution after 200-Plus Years,” Paul suggested that victims of sexual harassment should simply quit their jobs, writing, “Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity. Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable.”

Src

Yeah, this seems to me where is overshooting to the wrong side in his libertarian politics. Probably he was more concerned about giving employees to much power Then about the harresment issue. As I said, this is why I find that the libertarian ecnomic policy favours the rich and powerful.
So he is wrong here but hypocrytical?

Anyway thanks for the link.

In the mean time Rick Santorum keeps telling his followers that in the Netherlands we kill the elderly because we like it and because we need hospital beds.
Another big question about american politics. Why can those people so blatantly lie about things and get away with it? It is clear that you are a liar and you full of shit because you use stupid lies about people that are not present when you make them and so cannot defend themselves and use those lies for political gain. Scaring the God-fearing voters who have never actually left their own village and of course never will visit the Netherlands anyway to see for themselves.

Freedom of speech is not the freedom to lie.

So let me get this straight: people who already have to sell their to-be exploited labor for pennies just to make a living in this capitalist system because their survival depends on it, now have to subject themselves to physical sexual harassment or any other will that said corporation deems appropriate or just?? Jesus friggin christ, according this ass hat, its now a crime to go to work and get sexually harassed.....not only should no one vote for this douche bag, but this guy outta be tarred and feathered. Or maybe cutting off his eye lids so that he has to see just how wonderful his Capitalist Utopia is at all times instead of turning a blind eye to it. I can't decide who I hate more, the conservative Christian fundies, or the utopian libertarians. Both are teetering on the level to the point where the word "hate" is becoming an understatement

Sorry, but yall knew I was gonna have a field day with this one, lol !

[eppie]

Sorry, but yall knew I was gonna have a field day with this one, lol !

Apart from the fact that everyone is agreeing with you on this one (so including the two person you quoted).
The fact was just that I, did not know about this book that quark mentioned.
Still I find it rather odd. Did he really make this statement and is he still agreeing with it?