>> ^Kofi:

I love how he thinks that all laws come from some abstract evil power not to reflect changing social values. The same power that draws people to him is the same power that drew people to the civil rights act and the Jim Crow laws ... appeasing the vocal masses(not always the majority) to create stability.


This is the problem I have with Paul. If one person is wronged by a law but it helps thousands he will scrap it. It's just illogical, like driving without a seatbelt.

I love how he thinks that all laws come from some abstract evil power not to reflect changing social values. The same power that draws people to him is the same power that drew people to the civil rights act and the Jim Crow laws ... appeasing the vocal masses(not always the majority) to create stability.

The left is shocked---SHOCKED I TELLS YA----about any suggestions of media-promoted VIOLENCE!

To wit:


A new low in Bush-hatred

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
September 10, 2006

SIX YEARS into the Bush administration, are there any new depths to which the Bush-haters can sink?

George W. Bush has been smeared by the left with every insult imaginable. He has been called a segregationist who yearns to revive Jim Crow and compared ad nauseam to Adolf Hitler. His detractors have accused him of being financially entwined with Osama bin Laden. Of presiding over an American gulag. Of being a latter-day Mussolini. Howard Dean has proffered the "interesting theory" that the Saudis tipped off Bush in advance about 9/11. One US senator (Ted Kennedy) has called the war in Iraq a "fraud" that Bush "cooked up in Texas" for political gain; another (Vermont independent James Jeffords) has charged him with planning a war in Iran as a strategy to put his brother in the White House. Cindy Sheehan has called him a "lying bastard," a "filth spewer," an "evil maniac," a "fuehrer," and a "terrorist" guilty of "blatant genocide" -- and been rewarded for her invective with oceans of media attention.

What's left for them to say about Bush? That they want him killed?

They already say it.

On Air America Radio, talk show host Randi Rhodes recommended doing to Bush what Michael Corleone, in "The Godfather, Part II," does to his brother. "Like Fredo," she said, "somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw!" -- then she imitated the sound of a gunshot. In the Guardian, a leading British daily, columnist Charlie Brooker issued a plea: "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. -- where are you now that we need you?"

For the more literary Bush-hater, there is "Checkpoint," a novel by Nicholson Baker in which two characters discuss the wisdom of shooting the 43rd president. "I'm going to kill that bastard," one character fumes. Some Bush-hatred masquerades as art: At Chicago's Columbia College, a curated exhibit included a sheet of mock postage stamps bearing the words "Patriot Act" and depicting President Bush with a gun to his head. There are even Bush-assassination fashion statements, such as the "KILL BUSH" T-shirts that were on offer last year at CafePress, an online retailer.

Lurid political libels have a long history in American life. The lies told about John Adams in the campaign of 1800 were vile enough, his wife Abigail lamented, "to ruin and corrupt the minds and morals of the best people in the world." But has there ever been a president so hated by his enemies that they lusted openly for his death? Or tried to gratify that lust with such political pornography?

As with other kinds of porn, even the most graphic expressions of Bush-hatred tend to jade those who gorge on it, so that they crave ever more explicit material to achieve the same effect.

Which brings us to "Death of a President," a new movie about the assassination of George W. Bush.

Written and directed by British filmmaker Gabriel Range, the movie premieres this week at the Toronto Film Festival and will air next month on Britain's Channel 4. Shot in the style of a documentary, it opens with what looks like actual footage of Bush being gunned down by a sniper as he leaves a Chicago hotel in October 2007. Through the use of digital special effects, the film superimposes the president's face onto the body of the actor playing him, so that the mortally wounded man collapsing on the screen will seem, all too vividly, to be Bush himself.

This is Bush-hatred as a snuff film. The fantasies it feeds are grotesque and obscene; to pander to such fantasies is to rip at boundary-markers that are indispensable to civilized society. That such a movie could not only be made but lionized at an international film festival is a mark not of sophistication, but of a sickness in modern life that should alarm conservatives and liberals alike.

Naturally that's not how the film's promoters see it. Noah Cowan, one of the Toronto festival's co-directors, high-mindedly describes "Death of a President" as "a classic cautionary tale." Well, yes, he says, Bush's assassination is "harrowing," but what the film is really about is "how the Patriot Act, especially, and how Bush's divisive partisanship and race-baiting has forever altered America."

I can't help wondering, though, whether some of those who see this film will take away rather a different message. John Hinckley, in his derangement, had the idea that shooting the president was the way to impress a movie star. After seeing "Death of a President," the next Hinckley may be taken with a more grandiose idea: that shooting the president is the way to become a movie star.

Quant, you are a bit off by my opinion (Which is the only one that matters.)

The establishment made welfare. And why would the establishment do such a thing in an era that disliked blacks? (Who welfare primarily supports.) Because, like Jim Crow laws intentions, welfare was created to hurt, not help. Keep people just under poverty, and if they rise just a bit to better themselves, make sure they cannot live on the new paycheck.


>> ^quantumushroom:
The media have been using Charles Manson--the White Guy with the craaazzzyyy eyes---to frighten the sheeple for 40 years now, so there's no need to feel like a victim, even if others tell you it looks good on you (which it does not).
We now have Barack Hussein Dukakis in the Red House in spite of William Horton. At least until 2012. I thought it was a BIG deal in "post-racial" America he got elected at all.
While most American Blacks are middle class, Black males still commit a disproportionate amount of crime for being roughly 7% of the population. Being politically correct instead of accepting unpleasant facts and ignoring intuition can get you killed.
Granny's comments meld perfectly with this discussion. Why care if the federal mafia goes "too far" in shaking down Wall Street (their biggest donor) if the recipients of the loot aren't grateful in the slightest?
>> ^StukaFox:
Two words: Willie Horton.

>> ^CircleMaker:

>> ^dannym3141:
Progress:
–noun
1.
a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage:
"the progress of a student toward a degree."
"the progress of the sun across the sky."
--ion "the progression of time."
Sorry, has to be a downvote. He's associating negative emotional connotation with a word which just doesn't deserve it. There HAS been progress. If black people were even more segregated than they were in 1930, that would also be a form of progress. However, the goal was set by martin luther himself - equality. Progress has been made towards that goal.
Contrary to your opinion, i would say this video is a bad point well made. It must be well made if he managed to convince people into a false definition of a word everyone knows!
Toss emotion regarding race issues aside for one moment when reading my post, please.
Edit: Love chris rock by the way, but this is just nonsense. The word "progress" does not imply that the situation progressed from was a rational situation.

I get what you're saying, but I think Chris Rock was using the word 'progress' to mean 'get better than you were before.' In that light, it's really whites that have progressed, beyond Jim Crow laws and lynch mobs. Black people have historically done a lot to help that process along, but they did not themselves undergo any change in thinking, akin to that which white people have since those days; they always saw unequal treatment as unfair, while their oppressors didn't progress to that point until more recently. At least that's my understanding of what he was saying, and I don't even know what documentary they're talking about.


I know he was using the word in that way, i'm explaining that he's wrong.

>> ^dannym3141:

Progress:
–noun
1.
a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage:
"the progress of a student toward a degree."
"the progress of the sun across the sky."
--ion "the progression of time."
Sorry, has to be a downvote. He's associating negative emotional connotation with a word which just doesn't deserve it. There HAS been progress. If black people were even more segregated than they were in 1930, that would also be a form of progress. However, the goal was set by martin luther himself - equality. Progress has been made towards that goal.
Contrary to your opinion, i would say this video is a bad point well made. It must be well made if he managed to convince people into a false definition of a word everyone knows!
Toss emotion regarding race issues aside for one moment when reading my post, please.
Edit: Love chris rock by the way, but this is just nonsense. The word "progress" does not imply that the situation progressed from was a rational situation.


I get what you're saying, but I think Chris Rock was using the word 'progress' to mean 'get better than you were before.' In that light, it's really whites that have progressed, beyond Jim Crow laws and lynch mobs. Black people have historically done a lot to help that process along, but they did not themselves undergo any change in thinking, akin to that which white people have since those days; they always saw unequal treatment as unfair, while their oppressors didn't progress to that point until more recently. At least that's my understanding of what he was saying, and I don't even know what documentary they're talking about.

I think Josh Marshall's commentary pretty much nails it on this:

Political philosophy can never be free of history. And there is no denying that similar states rights or libertarian arguments have been the arguments of choice for those who want to defend racial discrimination since avowed defenses of racial prejudice and subordination became publicly unacceptable outside some parts of the South in the early second half of the last century. That's simply a fact. In principle, it doesn't delegitimize libertarian political philosophy. But we don't live in classrooms or treatises. We live in an actual world where history and experience can't be separated from philosophy.

(emphasis in the original)

Yglesias is also good, but he's comes at this from a more partisan "libertarians are always apologists for evil" angle:

It seems that yesterday US Senate candidate Rand Paul let the cat out of the bag and admitted that under his brand of libertarian conservatism he can’t support the 1964 Civil Rights Act or other non-discrimination legislation as applied to private businesses. He goes out of his way to explain that he doesn’t actually favor segregated lunch counters, he just thinks it would be wrong to do anything about them. Similarly, I suppose the Cato Institute’s Dan Mitchell would tell you he doesn’t actually want poor children to suffer from starvation or malnourishment he just thinks it’s folly to try to do anything about it collectively. Maybe private charity will feed kids, or maybe not. Maybe voluntary action will undue Jim Crow, or maybe not.

I find myself in complete agreement with both of them.

We'll see if this is going to get picked up by the mainstream media or not. I'm excited by the prospect of this becoming a big public spectacle. Normally, Republicans just fold when the spotlight hits them and they walk back stuff like this, but I don't think Rand will.

I hope he doesn't.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Perhaps I am naive, but the trollish observations of "race-baiting and victimology" do have some significance. Racism still happens, and when it does it needs to be righted, but this constant heehawing about supposed acts of racism seems to just prolong the healing.


So if black people just shut up and stop 'heehawing' about racism, everything will get better? It seems to me that a lot of good has come as a result of heehawing by the likes of MLK, Ghandi, Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, Langston Hughes etc. Heehawing ended slavery. Heehawing got the right to vote. Heehawing ended Jim Crow. Heehawing got the civil rights bill passed. Instead of telling black people to shut up, maybe you should listen to them?

You mean, unless you are a latino-looking american. I wish I could say that I am surprised at the resurrection of Jim Crow. How any american can support a police state is beyond me. >> ^CaveBear:
I normally agree with most of Maddow's clips, but not this time. Living in Arizona I've caught illegals dropping their pants and pooping in my backyard. And as an environmentalist I will support laws that will help control the thousand mile trash dump along the border. I strongly support this bill and you probably would too if you lived here and experienced some of this.

isn't it lack of government oversight that got us into this mess in the first place???

Were the riots of the 60s a result of government failing to enforce Jim Crow laws? Rather than put law enforcement under a single umbrella, you need to understand the difference between a good law and a bad law. Before you even make the jump to regulation, ask yourself if the regulators are being regulated by the constitution? Nope. Sort that one out first, there's your problem. "Regulation" is an extremely general term used by politicians to great effect to blame others for problems and changes in market behavior that they create. We have a central bank in this country that price fixes interest rates since 1913. This is a socialist idea that was passed on the basis of its objective rather than its result. It turns out that letting a pseudo-government agency set interest rates results in an artificial lowering to delay politically inconvenient recessions. This artificial price fix results in the wrong kind of investment decisions and incentives, leading to phony bubbles that carry with them the seeds of their own destruction. I'll explain below.

In order for credit to exist, savings must exist. That's what credit is, someone else loaning their money out to someone at interest rather than spending it. Everyone wants a low rate of interest as a borrower. Everyone wants a high rate of interest as a saver. By definition, savings is underconsumption. Someone, somewhere, has to be saving rather than spending money in order for real credit to exist. These two forces are at odds with each other, to find the happiest medium between savings and production. That's completely perverted by a price fixing system where the government is dictating the interest rate for political purposes. Too easy dictation in the 90s caused the tech stock bubble, worthless tech stocks were trading at hundreds time earnings. When that "growth" came crashing down in 2000, Bush didn't want to have the recession occurring under his first term or he wouldn't get re-elected. So he and Greenspan lowered interest rates to 1% for a whole year to keep businesses borrowing and consumers consuming. The problem is, where is the savings coming from to allow both to happen at once? Overseas. We are the world's largest debtor nation now, borrowing from everyone to consume products that they make. They accumulate our paper money. We get their products. 70 billion a month trade deficit and still going. That's our economy the last twenty years. We abuse a reserve currency of the world status gained under the gold standard to export our now inflationary currency all over the world. That's coming to and end at some point. The Fed is increasing its balance sheet like there's no tomorrow, trying to replace the credit no longer being loaned to us with a printing press. It won't work. It didn't work in Weimar, it didn't work in Argentina, it didn't work in Zimbabwe, and it won't work here. The inflation is in the pipeline, it will hit during Obama's term. Obama and McCain are both socialists, the pork filled bailout bill they voted on ought to be evidence of that. Neither one understands that the recession needs to happen like the druggie needs withdrawal, and the more you try to stop the failures and painful reallocations with more drugs, the longer you're going to be in rehab.

So where did all that money from tech stocks filter into? With such low rates of interest and a removal of houses from the government's own inflation calculations, inflation shifted from tech stocks into real estate rather than being purged in a recession. So nobody but a few libertarian economists who learned a type of economics that isn't taught here could see the problem, one of them being Ron Paul's economic advisor Peter Schiff. In that mania, lending standards were abandoned to take advantage of the artificial demand created by the dictated low interest.

In other words, the market got drunk, but it was the FED THAT SPIKED THE PUNCHBOWL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfascZSTU4o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucDkoqwflF4

You can see the austrian view (Schiff) directly in conflict with the pro-government keynesian/monetarist view that is predominantly taught in this country (Laffer/Swonk). That's why none of the so-called "harvard educated, brilliant, phd holding" managers of a these banks and investment firms were not only oblivious to what was going to happen, but regularly confuse weaknesses for strengths. It's that ass-backwards, we teach the economic equivalent of astrology. Why? Because who has the most to gain from a sexy interventionist theory that says inflation is necessary to prevent hoarding and politicians spending its citizens' money for them can stimulate economic growth? Why, it's the benefactors of inflation!

I'll address Necrodancer later, I gotta go. He seems awfully confused on what socialism is and how socialist we are.

I want to chime in on the "worst Democratic president ever" question, I say it's a toss up between James Buchanan or Andrew Johnson. Buchanan because he got to oversee the dissolution of the Union and the beginning of secession, Johnson because he botched the post-war period and left things such that we'd end up having Jim Crow...and in my mind, many of the social issues of the 21st century America has its roots in the civil war, and the reconstruction period that followed.

In the 20th century, all the Democrats who actually became president were better than all the scores of Republicans. I might give Eisenhower the nod over Woodrow Wilson, but that's iffy.

Anyone calling FDR the worst Democrat needs their head examined. Anyone disagreeing about Bush ranking anywhere other than just a tick better than Buchanan and Johnson as worst president of ANY party, also needs their head examined (or has some extra dirt on Harding that I hadn't heard yet).

If we end up descending into civil war in the next decade or two, Bush will have earned that bottom slot fair and square, though.

BTW, this was a pretty funny clip, wtf is up with the serious commentary? =)

>> ^quantumushroom:
I can understand liberal jadrools' personal contempt for McCain, because with liberals it's ALWAYS personal.
Hey, I don't agree with much of what McCain has done in his career, but implying he's a racist because of a few boos by idiots is just pathetic.
You want a Klan member to boo? Go wiki up Robert KKK Byrd, the Dems' "conscience of the Senate."
Barack X is a phony, a substance-less lightweight unfit for the Oval Office. He aligns himself with a racist "preacher" who Gawd-damns America and no lefty bats an eye, but a Black man holds McCain's umbrella and suddenly it's the Jim Crow south again.
Race- and class-obsessed marxist liberals, a shameful lot and a lot of nothing.


1. i agree with your point about mccain.

2. if a "preacher" i knew gave up his student deferment in the past to voluntarily join the Marines and subsequently became a Navy valedictorian and corpsman, became a cardiopulmonary technician, was assigned to the Bethesda Naval Hospital as a member of the President's medical team, and after six years of active duty was awarded three letters of commendation by the White House, I'd say he has the right to damn America as much as he wants.

I can understand liberal jadrools' personal contempt for McCain, because with liberals it's ALWAYS personal.

Hey, I don't agree with much of what McCain has done in his career, but implying he's a racist because of a few boos by idiots is just pathetic.

You want a Klan member to boo? Go wiki up Robert KKK Byrd, the Dems' "conscience of the Senate."

Barack X is a phony, a substance-less lightweight unfit for the Oval Office. He aligns himself with a racist "preacher" who Gawd-damns America and no lefty bats an eye, but a Black man holds McCain's umbrella and suddenly it's the Jim Crow south again.

Race- and class-obsessed marxist liberals, a shameful lot and a lot of nothing.

first thing, and i'm being sincere here, shroom.

So am I! I like the new pic.

could you go back through your post, and wherever you see the word liberal, could you state whether it's social liberal, or fiscal liberal, that you're referring to?

I can't seriously believe you don't know the common definition of a liberal: fiscally reckless and socially liberal (aka nuts). No one knows what 'classical liberalism' is except you, me, and Ron Paul.

"Social liberal" is a dangerously vague term. Ending Drug Prohibition could be considered socially liberal, but so could something absolutely insane, like open borders, and there's all sorts of wiggle room for questionable things like affirmative action (as a libertarian, you'd oppose it). Wouldn't "conservatarian" explain what you're saying you represent, a la fiscally conservative and socially (more) liberal? Your conservative side? You don't have to "prove" anything, I'm jess sayin' I'm not seein' it, and that's fine.

srsly. i've mentioned i don't know how many times, to you, that this is why i'm a libertarian, not a democrat. and yet you persist in treating anyone either socially or fiscally the same, when they actually have nothing to do with each other.

Do you really expect me to go down the list and fine tune each post so that every sifter of the many, many who oppose my POV feels good about it? For that personal touch, anyone who wants to discuss things more in depth is free to visit, as you have.

I used to be a libertarian and I've kept what I liked about it. Don't know if you've noticed, but generally Americans don't care about large-L Libertarians (or much of what any 3rd party says) or many small-L libertarian ideas. While I was a card-carrying Libertarian, I figured if any LP idea suddenly sounded good to the American population (ending Drug Prohibition, getting rid of IRS) one of the two major parties would steal it and claim it as their own. If I had my druthers (whatever they are) the two major parties would be Libertarian and Republican, but that's another rant.

and you can just call ppl by their fuckin' names, dude.
we all know what obama's middle name is. can't think of any reason anyone should give a shit.

Well, obviously YOU care!

my middle name's paul. do you care?

A-Ha! Do you know what Ron Paul's LAST NAME is? That's right. PAUL! It's all so clear to me now!

Yeah, I'm joking.

we all know who the president of iran is. just grow up, use ppl's fuckin' names? only you and jay leno think that shit's funny, and namecalling is essentially an ad hom attack as well.

Well, if for some reason Bush 43's middle name resembled "Hitler", you don't think the looney lefties would use that against him? Newsflash: for 8 years they've called him Hitler anyway, and a whole slew of unprintables, and the so-called "unbiased" mainstream media (long may they die) fuels it.

yeah. even worse when it's about something they didn't even get to choose - their name. should i really have to explain shit this silly, to you?

No, but here's what you should explain to me, why as a libertarian, you give a damn about hurting the feelings of a Jewicidal iranian tyrant, or saddam or dildo chavez, now in the process of starving his country with price controls. I mean, is that really what keeps you up at night? Name games with B. Hussein Obama? (he can legally change his name, if he wishes). How about O-Bam's disastrous tax-raising schemes or his frightening level of naivety in dealing in world affairs? As a fiscally-conservative libertarian, you should be terrified of this guy, and the broad.

>> anytime you'd like to address your original false accusations,
>> instead of burying them in new ones, you let me know.

> I'm not sure what the "false" accusations are as they have yet to be challenged.

oh come on, man! i make direct challenges all the time.
start with my rebuttal on the obama clip, where i said:
"how about quoting us a line from this, shroom..."

You have to understand the subtle dynamic at work with the Obama speech. On the surface it sounds like he's appealing to reason; what he's really doing is slipping in digs at Whitey, (including his own grandmother) knowing Whitey has no equal time forum to respond. That's what I hate about liberals and "race talk", it's not really a "dialogue" they seek, just more chances to blame others for their problems. As you claim to be a libertarian, I don't know why you're quick to defend someone advocating the OPPOSITE of personal responsibility and more Big Government "solutions".

and on the freeway protest clip, i listed many direct challenges.
you ignored them, and went off on some jim crow horseshit.

Oh, that. Well, my point was, if the original charge was 'gerrymandering' then so what, both parties do it and is it really something to be upset about? If one were a bona fide member of a 3rd party I could see it being offensive, but otherwise... srsly, if two thieves take turns robbing your house why only get upset (outraged) at one of them?

The response I got moved beyond that to accusations of (surprise) racism, always with the racism. So my Final Answer in essence was, why bother? Every time a group of 3 or more Black folks get pissed because they can't have their way they cry "Slavery!" and pretend it's the Jim Crow South all over again, as if there'd been NO progress or things made right by Whites since the Civil War. It's an insult to the intelligence of anyone White or Black to play these kinds of games; they trivialize the real Civil Rights movement, which acheived its goals decades ago.

You casually wrote off all of the great things Republicans have done for Black Americans because they happened before last week...if you won't acknowledge which party freed the slaves, then accept the other party is the one that tried to keep them slaves, and ironically, continues to do so today, only the chains are mental.

As per the gerrymandering post (which only has 19 votes) is it of great importance to you that the Dems are the ones running 'a Black Guy'? As the Dems like to claim, Black conservatives "aren't really Black." It's shameful that any party is so race and gender obsessed, even tho it helps my side.


and calling the site "liberalsift"? if it's too "liberal" for you, gtfo. srsly. i wouldn't dream of going to any site, that had a more conservative viewership, and then blame them for wanting to talk openly.

I'm the only conservative that pipes up around here, and from time to time I've expressed gratitude for being able to do so. When I was banned a few folks who don't like me also welcomed my return. And while I believe you wouldn't go to townhall.com and attack the columnists there, many liberals and libertarians do. I'm sure there are conservative hawks who post at Daily Kos. So really, who's blaming whom? I don't want people to not post because they disagree with me, and let's face it, most do. Bush is unpopular, the war is unpopular, but popularity is not what it's about.

I'M not blaming anyone for posting as they do, or for posting what they want, even if they're not creative enough to go past Olbyloon's latest Countdown To No Ratings rant.

When I like a sift, I upvote it on its merit, even if I disagree 100% with the submitter.

whoopdee-fuckin-doo.

I didn't explain these points to gain sympathy any more than you want your posts treated with kid gloves. I'm just letting you know that I know what's going on. I think the challenge is that "angry knee-jerk reactions" is where a lot of these sifters start with their cockamamie sifts, and then expect a full discourse on American History they never learned to justify any possible opposing point of view.

The old joke goes, "Liberals welcome all points of view, until to their horror they discover there are other points of view."

Do you think posting a video of "angry" Black people marching in one kollij in one state is supposed to make the world tremble and viewers believe anything they say just because they're "angry"? I'll bet 90% of those doofs marching had no idea what they were matching for, they were marching because their friends were marching, or to meet girls, or worse yet, because Professor Marx offered credit to anyone who went. I don't have to know every little detail, I know enough about human nature.

> the sifts I submit are apolitical 98% of the time.

i would upvote honest, socially- or fiscally-conservative sifts. shit, dude. i'd welcome fiscally conservative ones with open fuckin' arms. saw plenty of good ones while ron paul was setting fundraising records.

Apolitical.

but not o'reilly, dude. c'mon. he's an embarrassment. look at the work of conservative intellectuals like margolis, and tell me you can't see the difference.

O'Reilly is current. What liberal is going to read margolis (or download her picture)?

Actually, people bagging on O'Reilly have posted more of his clips than I have.

now, since you mentioned snacks, it just so happens i have some ben & jerry's in the freezer. so i'm going to update my bio pic now...

I was about to recommend Colbert's Americone Dream but I see you've found it. Happy snacking!

In reply to this comment by my15minutes:
In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:

first thing, and i'm being sincere here, shroom.
could you go back through your post, and wherever you see the word liberal, could you state whether it's social liberal, or fiscal liberal, that you're referring to?

You mean, in order to vote, these disenfranchised Jim Crow Era SLAVES would have to drive SEVEN miles?

That's BARBARIC!