Sunday, December 08, 2013

Nelson


`
Can you even imagine the shit-storm that would have ensued had Nelson Mandela been a vindictive and vengeful man? South African history would have looked quite different from the vantage point of 8 December 2013. Fortunately for the sake of posterity he was none of those things. We pause today to take note of the passing into eternity of a man who overcame more obstacles than one human being can be expected to overcome in several lifetimes.

Think of the iconic leaders of the twentieth century: Churchill, the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, Gandhi, King....While he still walked this earth it hadn't entered my mind that Mandela was the last of them. I only realized this when it was announced that he had died. They all belong to the ages now. 

His is a story that defies all the odds to be sure. The other day someone likened his ascension to the presidency of South Africa to a former slave being elected to the American presidency in 1968. I was hoping that he would at least survive prison by twenty-seven years, to make up for all the wasted time he languished there. It was not meant to be. At least we may console ourselves with the knowledge that the final twenty-four years of Nelson Mandela's long life were spent on the mountaintop. That works for me. I think it worked for him as well. If he harbored so-much-as-a molecule of resentment over the decades of injustice he incurred from the most vile of systems, he never revealed it. His wish was for reconciliation, not revenge.

One good thing that has come from the death of Nelson Mandela is the stark fact that Ronald Reagan had been deservedly knocked down a few inches off the historical pedestal that so many Americans still naively place him. Today they we are reminded that the gipper and his administration had no serious moral reservations with respect to apartheid in general and Mandela's imprisonment in particular. When Nelson was released from prison in February of 1990, Reagan, then a year out of office, had no comment.

What was it about the guy? Is it just me or did you notice the aura, too? There aren't many times someone as inspirational as he crosses our path - and when that blue moon does grace the sky - the moment should be treasured. Nelson Mandela was indeed a treasure, a reminder of the beauty of the human race. And to think that he actually walked among us! I suspect that a thousand years from now, people will still be discussing him.

It is raining today in South Africa, something that the people there always see as a positive omen. On the surface they do not appear to be a nation in mourning. In fact they're dancing in the streets! They're celebrating a noble life, well and honorably lived. Can you blame them? We should all be dancing in the streets this morning.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

61 Comments:

At 11:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sometimes a great person's spouse is their evil side. It is a shame that Nelson didn't control his wife as he did him self. But, nobody is perfect, and that he didn't strike back as Mugabe did is an example of his greatness.

"According to the Human Rights Commission it is estimated that during the Apartheid period some 21,000 people were killed, however both the UN Crimes against Humanity commission and South Africa's own Truth and Reconciliation Commission are in agreement that in those 43 years the South African Security forces killed a total of 518 people."

"The rest, (some 92%) were accounted for by Africans killing Africans, many by means of the notorious and gruesome practice of necklacing whereby a car tyre full of petrol is placed around a victim's neck and set alight.

"with our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country"
Winnie Mandela
4/13/1985
Johannesburg

 
At 12:17 PM, Anonymous Harry said...

RIP Nelson and Fidel

 
At 12:28 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

The racists are coming out of the woodwork.

 
At 1:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Harry said, in our PC society stating historical proven facts is racism.

Is this what Mandel and ML King died for?

 
At 2:19 PM, Anonymous Harry said...

Dave Dubya,

I forgot to mention Hugo above.

Is also mentioning Hugo racist?

If I say ObamaCare is imploding before our very eyes, is that racist?

You are a very thin skinned person Dave Dubya. Is that politically correct to say? Is that hate speech by your social justice standards?

Can I get another chicken sound(bawaak.....) out of you?

 
At 2:25 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

We already know Harry "Kwama" is a racist. The fact he MUST attempt to smear a dead man as a "commie" is proof enough to add to the mountain of evidence.

Or are South Africa and the US communist countries now?

Say didn't Socialist Jesus tell you what to do with your money?

Be a good servant of mammon and be mad at Jesus for saying "Render unto Caesar."

Bwaack, buck, buck.

 
At 3:14 PM, Anonymous Harry said...

Dave "Thin Skinned" Dubya,

So Nelson Mandella was never a member of the South African Communist Party?

Get out of your bubble.

I bet I will get crickets to that question. But I am sure I will get some Socratic Waffling.

Bwaack buck buck!

 
At 3:28 PM, Anonymous Uncle Omar Obama said...

RIP Nelson

 
At 4:08 PM, Blogger Leslie Parsley said...

Dear Anonymous at 11:06 AM:

Would you please - FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE - just shut the fuck up? Only assholes like you can't stop spouting hate and racism. And only assholes like you would even suggest that a man ***CONTROL*** his wife. I pray to God you don't "own" one.

Tom asks, "Can you even imagine the shit-storm that would have ensued had Nelson Mandela been a vindictive and vengeful man?" Not when you have to listen to the shit that comes out of the mouths of idiot ignoramuses. Interestingly, I just wrote about Mandela's capacity to forgive. Probably a good thing I didn't stop here first.

 
At 4:50 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Chuckie is ignorant of the fact the South African Communist Party was one of the Blacks few allies in opposing the oppression of a racist apartheid government.

Sort of like the US was allies with Russia in WW2, right, Chuckie?

Chuckie has shown us he always liked his fellow racists more than blacks or commies.

Chuckie cannot pin one communist act or ideological belief on Mandela.

When was Mandala out doing the commie thing. Chuckie?

So was Mandela a commie when he was let out of prison? No. Was he a commie when running for office and elected president? No.

Not that Chuckie cares for facts:

In one of his several trials, Mandela was asked if he was a Communist. “If by Communist you mean a member of the Communist Party and a person who believes in the theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, and who adheres strictly to the discipline of the party, I did not become a Communist,” he replied. The answer was both evasive and perfectly accurate.

Chuckie's been so busy attacking black guys who are NOT communists, he forgot to accuse Jesus of being a commie for telling him what to do with his money.

Say didn't Socialist Jesus tell you what to do with your money?

Be a good servant of mammon and be mad at Jesus for saying "Render unto Caesar."

Bwaack, buck, buck.

 
At 4:57 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Chuckie needs to ask, "Is that hate speech by your social justice standards?"

Hate is clearly behind everything Chuckie the troll posts. One thing for certain, he's not here to share any love of fellow humans.

Why else would he persistently attack a black man under a post about the Pope?

STILL only crickets from Chuckie about Jesus telling him to pay taxes. If only Jesus were black, then Chuckie could hate Jesus and accuse Him of being a commie.

Right, Chicken Chuckie?

 
At 5:59 PM, Anonymous Harry said...

STAY IN YOUR BUBBLE DAVE DUBYA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Communist_Party

After Mandela's death in 2013, the ANC confirmed that he had been a member of the SACP and served on its central committee.[2]

The SACP is a partner of the Tripartite Alliance with the African National Congress and the Congress of South African Trade Unions.

SACP - South African Communist Party
ANC - African National Congress


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandella

Inspired by Fidel Castro's 26th of July Movement in the Cuban Revolution, in 1961 Mandela co-founded Umkhonto we Sizwe ("Spear of the Nation", abbreviated MK) with Sisulu and the communist Joe Slovo. Becoming chairman of the militant group, he gained ideas from illegal literature on guerilla warfare by Mao and Che Guevara. Officially separate from the ANC, in later years MK became the group's armed wing.[103] Most early MK members were white communists; after hiding in communist Wolfie Kodesh's flat in Berea, Mandela moved to the communist-owned Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, there joined by Raymond Mhlaba, Slovo and Bernstein, who put together the MK constitution.[104] Although Mandela himself denied ever being a Communist Party member, historical research has suggested that he might have been for a short period, starting from the late 1950s or early 1960s.[105] After his death, the Communist Party and the ANC confirmed that he was a Communist Party member when he was arrested in 1962.[106]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_African_National_Congress

The ANC received financial and tactical support from the USSR, which orchestrated military involvement with surrogate Cuban forces through Angola. However, the fall of the USSR after 1991 brought an end to its funding of the ANC and also changed the attitude of some Western governments that had previously supported the Apartheid regime as an ally against communism.

 
At 6:06 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

The facts still stand.

Chuckie cannot pin one communist act or ideological belief on Mandela.

When was Mandala out doing the commie thing. Chuckie? Never.

So was Mandela a commie when he was let out of prison? No. Was he a commie when running for office and elected president? No.

Was he imprisoned for resisting a fascistic racist regime? Yes.

This is the real reason Chuckie hates Mandela and blacks.

They just didn't know their place and fought back.

Unlike Chicken Chuckie the racist.

Buck buck buckaaw!

 
At 6:25 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Chuckie seems to hate not only "commie" black guys, but also Jesus the "commie" for telling him what to do with his precious money. He's mad at the "socialist" Pope for speaking the truth about a cruel economic system of greed.

He can't even deny it. One would think that would be an easy lie for him to add to his litany of hate and lies.

He is a true believer servant of mammon. Poor Chuckie, he faces eternity in Hell, with a bunch of commies even, because he hates so many people, and scorns the Word of Jesus.

Hey, Chuckie,
Jesus told you to pay taxes. Why do you hate Jesus and His message?

What's the matter? Greed got your tongue?

Still too chicken to discuss the truth?

Maybe you should bravely attack a black guy from your keyboard so you feel better.





 
At 6:29 PM, Anonymous We Are Harry! said...

Appearing on PoliticsNation Thursday, this is exactly what Jonathan Alter told host Al Sharpton.

"So what is Mandela's message? Well, today we're hearing even very conservative senators and other figures talking about the spirit of forgiveness that he embodied in truth and reconciliation in South Africa.

So my question tonight, Rev, is can we import that spirit of forgiveness and apply it to the hundreds of thousands of people incarcerated who, for the rest of their lives, you know, will be stigmatized by this? Could we figure out a way to forgive them, maybe expunge some of those records?

Release some prisoners who, with three strikes and you're out, you have, you have people who have been there for so many years."

Dave, as someone who has a background in criminal justice and who doesn't want to blame the black guy, do you agree with this idea? How should I share any love for your former inmates? Lead us not into temptation or racism Dave, whats the correct action?


Blogger Leslie Parsley said... "shut the fuck up"

No, I will not shut the fuck up.

Get over it.

My comments about Nelson were he was "a great person", he controlled his anger, (unlike his racist wife), he wasn't perfect, (unlike you), and he didn't seek revenge. I happen to agree with what Tom said, but I am not a blind, robot, brain dead liberal who refuses to over look the crimes his wife committed in his name.

 
At 6:35 PM, Blogger Leslie Parsley said...

NEWT GINGRICH asks conservaties what they would done (I guess he meant after they quit rewriting history):

"Some of the people who are most opposed to oppression from Washington attack Mandela when he was opposed to oppression in his own country.
After years of preaching non-violence, using the political system, making his case as a defendant in court, Mandela resorted to violence against a government that was ruthless and violent in its suppression of free speech.

As Americans we celebrate the farmers at Lexington and Concord who used force to oppose British tyranny. We praise George Washington for spending eight years in the field fighting the British Army’s dictatorial assault on our freedom.

Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote and the Continental Congress adopted that “all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Doesn’t this apply to Nelson Mandela and his people?

Some conservatives say, ah, but he was a communist.

Actually Mandela was raised in a Methodist school, was a devout Christian, turned to communism in desperation only after South Africa was taken over by an extraordinarily racist government determined to eliminate all rights for blacks.

I would ask of his critics: where were some of these conservatives as allies against tyranny? Where were the masses of conservatives opposing Apartheid? In a desperate struggle against an overpowering government, you accept the allies you have just as Washington was grateful for a French monarchy helping him defeat the British."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/newt-gingrich-to-conservatives-what-would-you-have-done/282138/

 
At 6:40 PM, Blogger Leslie Parsley said...

Correction: "would have done"

Sorry, Anon 11:06 AM if I offended you but I still don't see what his 2nd wife had to do with his death. Wasn't he in jail at that time?

 
At 6:47 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Leslie,
where were some of these conservatives as allies against tyranny?

Well, Reagan vetoed sanctions against the apartheid government.

Dick Cheney, of all people, agreed, and called Mandela a "terrorist". Still does.

And there, along with what Chuckie says here, is your "compassionate conservatism".


What, Chuckie?

You want me to answer one of your questions after you ignore all of mine? Of course, the "do unto others" thing has never appealed to you has it?

The idea of "Three strikes", especially non-violent ones, has no place in any justice system.

The war on drugs is an immoral suppression of our right to do with out bodies as we please.

Puritanical conservatives should not dictate public policy. Nor should alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical companies.

(unlike his racist wife)

So only the blacks were racists under apartheid?

Yeah, Chuckie. That's what we expect from you.

 
At 12:52 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Didn't I predict Anonymous would come in here and be...well...himself?

R.I.P Mandella, racism still exists, but we are fighting the good fight.

 
At 2:45 AM, Anonymous I'm not Harry or chuckie or anyone else that lives rent free in Dubya empty skull said...

You didn't offend me Leslie, you just showed again how thin skinned, narrow minded, liberals are. If you vary one word from the talking points of the day, all hell breaks lose, and morons on the left swarm out like a ant hill kicked over. Example, Dave what ever the hell his last name is, will attempt to paint you with every dirty paint brush the left has. Starting with calling you a racist. Have you ever told him to shut the fuck up with his chicken shit "blawkk" etc? Do you realize you have posted that Mandel was a communist? Are you ready for the "wrath" of Dave by calling you a racist?

Mandel never spoke one word in opposition to what his murdering wife was doing, whether he was in or not in jail. I'm not going there but some might assume his silence was approval of her actions.
Just like some might assume by there being no liberals telling Dave to put a sock in it, they agree with all he posts.

 
At 5:33 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

I see anonymous has again come up with another alias.

What is it about conservatives that they are incapable of haveing an adult conversation?

 
At 10:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


"Bwaawwk, buck, buck, buckaww!"

Example of a mouth breather "haveing (sp) an adult conversation, with a conservative".

Classic!
Thank you Mozart (an alias), for your insightful and revealing post.

 
At 11:04 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 11:08 AM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

As my Grandpa Degan used to say:

"Consider the source."

 
At 11:09 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

"Moron" coming from Chuckie is quite the compliment. When a hateful person sees Nelson Mandela only as a commie (and a Black one at that) I can take pride in his hate.

Never did get a response about The Pope's words, or Jesus telling him to pay taxes. I guess my skull, as well as everyone else's, will be "empty" of the secret wisdom of Chuckie's rationalization of socialist Jesus, and rejection of the Pope's compassion for the victims of an unjust economic system.

Poor Chuckie will never understand that his closed skull is always more empty than an open mind.

 
At 7:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What no asinine "Bwaawwk, buck, buck, buckaww"?

 
At 8:52 PM, Anonymous Uncle Omar Obama said...

Dave Dubya,

Put a sock in it with your chicken sounds or I will contact my nephew and request the IRS audit you for the next few years.

 
At 9:40 PM, Anonymous Uncle Omar Obama said...

I nearly fell off the toilet after reading my nephew's recent polling data:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/among-obama-coalition-obama-approval-plunges/article/2540367

President Obama won re-election with the rock-solid support of what has become known as the "Obama Coalition" -- young people, minorities, women, and low-information voters. Without a firm foundation -- and high turnout -- among those groups, Obama would not be in the White House today.

Now, little more than a year after the president's re-election, his job approval rating has fallen among all segments of the American electorate. But it has fallen the most among those who did the most to elect him.

For example, according to a new Gallup compilation, Obama's job approval rating among Hispanic Americans has plunged from 75 percent in December 2012 to 52 percent today -- a drop of 23 percentage points, the sharpest decline among any voter group. Among Americans who make less than $24,000 a year, the president's approval rating has fallen from 64 percent last December to 46 percent today. Among Americans 18 to 29 years of age, it has fallen from 61 percent to 46 percent. Among women, it has fallen from 57 percent to 43 percent.

The only key part of the Obama Coalition that did not experience a double-digit drop in support for the president is black Americans, although his support is down there, too -- from 92 percent last December to 83 percent today.

 
At 10:59 PM, Blogger chris katko said...

Mandela Meets His Makers...

http://newworldordercartoons.wordpress.com/

 
At 11:23 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Put a sock in it with your chicken sounds or I will contact my nephew and request the IRS audit you for the next few years.

That isn’t even a funny bad joke. Or is Chuckie making a threat? That could be even funnier, wouldn’t it? Isn’t he cute when he puffs up into his “tough guy” authoritarian personality?

But nobody’s chicken of Chicken Chuckie. Bwaack!

LOL!

Yes, Chuckie, the Washington Examiner is happy to show off their resentment for the "Obama Coalition" -- young people, minorities, women, and low-information (Swarthy) voters, as well as all the others who don’t know their place.

Here’s the real thing. Obama is not the most liberal president. Really. Obama has been a disappointment to liberals for years. The first people Obama lost in 2008 were the liberal civil libertarians who saw him following Bush’s path by supporting his FISA/NSA warrantless surveillance operation.

Obama never was the “most liberal senator” or most liberal anything. We know that fact won’t fit in your bubble. He’s a moderate corporatist/militarist Democrat. Yeah, we can all see that one bounce off your bubble. Ba-Waanngg!

Here’s an examination of how liberal Obama really is:

“We find that President Obama is the most ideologically moderate Democratic president in the post-war period,”

Obama is a company man, far more than you fanatics in the bubble can imagine.

“Obama is a corporatist.” – Ron Paul

So if all those disappointed on the left are added to everyone on the Right who hates Obama, that still leaves a lot of moderates who approve of him. Oh, there’s that “moderate” word again.

Unfortunately, in your bubble, you’re not programmed to understand what that word means.

But at least you can’t say you weren’t told. You just can’t hear it, see it, or read it.

 
At 12:53 AM, Anonymous IML said...

"Obama Coalition"
YOUNG PEOPLE
Most Young People Are Unhappy With Obama's Job Performance. More than 50 percent of respondents in the survey, taken between Oct. 30 and Nov. 11, said they disapproved of how the Democratic president handled key issues in his second term, including Syria, Iran, the economy, healthcare and the federal budget deficit.
Reuters | Posted: 12/04/2013 10:00 am EST | Updated: 12/04/2013 3:43 pm EST

WOMEN
Poll: Support for ObamaCare down sharply among white women
posted at 6:51 pm on December 5, 2013.
According to Kaiser, 40 percent of college-educated white women hold a “very unfavorable” view of the law—10 points higher than a month ago. An additional 10 percent view the law “somewhat unfavorably.” A month ago, those two groups together totaled just 42 percent…

And that’s not all. Democrats should be far more worried about white women who do not have a higher education. The numbers are astounding: In the latest Kaiser poll, 50 percent have a “very unfavorable” view of the law—9 points higher than in October. An additional 13 percent view it “somewhat unfavorably.” Indeed, antipathy among blue-collar white women runs even deeper than the most conservative white demographic group, blue-collar white men (59 percent of whom hold an unfavorable view, Kaiser found).

Remarkably, only 16 percent of blue-collar white women have a favorable view of Obamacare!!" Have you forgotten it was those white racist men and women who voted for and elected the mistake from the lake in 2008 and 2012?

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period!"

Bull Shit, or as mouth breather Dybua would say,

"Bwaawwk, buck, buck, buckaww" Or BHO's favorite pastor, "America, your chickens have come home to roost". HA, have they ever.

Economic equality my foot, that is code for every one being just as poor except the elite Democrats who created this mess. Ever see a poor Kennedy? How poor are the Clintons, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Rahm Emanuel, Jimmy Carter, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson? The getting by on $15 an hour? They signing up for Obamacare?

Are there rich people in socialistic western Europe? Why hasn't 60 years of socialism removed the income inequality there? And you morons what the same here?

Stupid Michigan chicken farmers maybe. "Bwaawwk, buck, buck, buckaww".

Damn right I blame The Black Man and all of the empty headed idiots of all races who voted for this mistake from by the lake, Community Organizer, Professor at Harvard but no student has said a word about what they learned from him in his class, who while the Harvard Law Review editor, who didn't write a dammed thing, NOT JUST ONCE BUT TWICE! One definition for stupidity is to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result, like voting twice for BHO. Like believing a word he has said or a promise he has made.

And you want us to believe the problem is Obama isn't a liberal or liberal enough!! Now the liberals will defend their failed policy's from Obama by claiming he's really a Conservative.
Talk about history revisionism!

Hurry up November 2014!!

 
At 11:38 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Ba-Waanngg!

Like I said, facts bounce off the bubble. As per cult bubble standards, not one fact was offered to dispute the rejected reality.

empty headed idiots...and the voice of a "Compassionate conservative" wails and howls again.

you want us to believe the problem is Obama isn't a liberal or liberal enough!

No, first we want you to believe facts and consider objective assessments. Second we want you to know "the problem" has been the GOP and corpo-dems. The rich are doing better than ever, while most Americans are still living in the Great Bush Recession. Better blame the black guy. It's the racist and cult thing to do.

"Failed liberal policies"? You haven't even named one. Everybody knows Obamacare was founded on conservative ideas. Maybe that's the problem?

“Obama is a corporatist.” – Ron Paul

Better lecture Ron Paul, not me.

But you're too chicken to do that too.

Bwaack!

 
At 2:05 PM, Anonymous IML said...

OMG, how about Obama Care for a failure, that good enough for you? How about all the jobs green energy was going to create?

So what is Obama, a liberal or a Corporatist? Get your story straight and stand on your position. Aren't you the one on this blog who defends Obama, with "blame the black man" comments? So now you are blaming him for being a Corporatist? How racial insensitive of you.

Everybody does NOT know that "Obamacare was founded on conservative ideas" Mitt Romney is NOT a conservative. Another deflection attempt with a large dose of history revisionism from the far left, radical, neo-liberalism of today. Weren't you the one who said that our lack Obamacare was costing us money because the uninsured got their care at the ER for which we paid for anyway? Has that changed under Obamacare? No. We have more people now without health insurance than ever before, all due to Obamacare.

What "everybody knows" today is Conservatives tried to block Obamacare or change it before it became law. Conservatives told anyone who would listen, that Obamacare could not do what it promised; reduce your insurance costs, provide more people with insurance, you could keep you doctor and insurance plan if you liked them. Period!

The "problem" is you want us to believe that there is economic inequality that only socialism can cure, when in fact capitalism and private enterprise is the very tool that allow people to improve their lives, vs an oppressive regulating nanny state that reduces every one to the same level of misery. Are there rich people in the socialistic country's of Europe? Are there rich people in China, Cuba? Were there rich people in the old failed Communist, liberal, socialistic USSR?
The answer is YES. And those who were not rich under the socialism they lived, could not change their status and become rich. How's that for income equality for you?

Your problem is "WE DON'T BELIEVE YOU".

 
At 2:54 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Chuckie,

Obamacare never was a liberal idea. We like that socialistic single payer, remember? We don’t see the need to channel billions of our healthcare dollars into the pockets of corporations that provide ZERO health care. Obamacare and Romneycare originated with conservatives, not liberals. Sorry if reality can’t penetrate your bubble.

Here’s one for you. What if it actually works when fully implemented? I bet you $10,000 bucks you’ll say it works because it was originally a conservative idea.

So what is Obama, a liberal or a Corporatist?

My story is straight. I agree with Ron Paul. (Did that even register in your bubble? LOL!)I’ve never called Obama a liberal. YOU and the radical Right are the ones who think Obama is the most liberal senator/president ever. Your cult dogma also dictates to you that corporate media is "liberal media". You’re wrong, of course, and documentation was provided. Not that reality can penetrate your bubble.

Mitt Romney is NOT a conservative.

And there you have it. A Republican Mormon millionaire is “not a conservative”, but only in the bubble. Never mind everything he’s said and done indicate he’s conservative. How about that 47% stuff? Yet you insist to agree with Mitt that he’s conservative is “a large dose of history revisionism from the far left”. Sure, Chuckie. But only in your bubble.

The "problem" is you want us to believe...

Wrong, I already told you the problem and what we want you to believe. But you have to read what I wrote, and that seems to be very difficult for you.

Here it is again:

First we want you to believe facts and consider objective assessments. Second we want you to know "the problem" has been the GOP and corpo-dems. The rich are doing better than ever, while most Americans are still living in the Great Bush Recession. Better blame the black guy. It's the racist and cult thing to do.

How is correctly asserting Obama is a corporatist “blaming” or defending him? I don’t blame him for the effects of the Bush Great Recession, but you do, I blame him for acting like Bush and other Republicans. Not very liberal at all.

Your problem is "WE DON'T BELIEVE YOU".

Really? So do you have a mouse in your pocket?

 
At 3:34 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

We have more people now without health insurance than ever before, all due to Obamacare.

Such is your BELIEF.



We see you quoted Kaiser above. Along with the points about how many Americans are NOT informed about Obamacare, you missed this:


Key Facts about the Uninsured Population

Over 47 million nonelderly individuals were uninsured in 2012. This represents a decrease of almost 2 million uninsured people since 2010. This change resulted from small gains in public coverage and stability in private coverage.

 
At 5:30 PM, Anonymous IML said...

Wait a minute, of Obamacare is good and is based on Conservative ideas, as you claimed, then Conservative ideas are the reason for the increased numbers of Americans with health insurance. Not liberalism, not Obama.

Name the conservatives that originated Obamacare, how did they vote when it was passed so we could read and find out what was in it.

You simple can not have it both ways, even though you might want to.

 
At 5:33 PM, Anonymous IML said...

Just realized you have avoided(again) the question about there being rich in Socialist Europe, a simple over sight on your part I'm sure.

 
At 7:07 PM, Anonymous Progressive Unicorn and Rainbow Dreamer said...

I agree with Dave Dubya,

Nelson may have been a member of the Communist Party but wasn't a communist.

Just like Robert Byrd may have been a member of the NAZI KKK, but wasn't a racist.

 
At 7:24 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Name the conservatives that originated Obamacare

The Heritage Foundation is where it originated. But you don’t even know what a moderate is, let alone a liberal or conservative.

There are “rich in Socialist Europe”?

Good, so they haven't all been stripped of wealth, sent to prison and hanged. So what’s your problem?

Also, nobody is forced into bankruptcy for health care.

Sounds like a win/win to me.

So Nelson, Byrd and every other human on the planet can't change for the better after a long life?

One thing about bubble Nitwits, they can't change for the better apparently.

 
At 8:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ObamaCare belongs 100% with the Democrats.

Remember "You Won."

Its too bad it took this long for the majority of the people to realize that Obama and the Democrats are delusional FUCKING liars.

Obama lied, my healthcare plan died.

 
At 9:11 PM, Anonymous James said...

Nobody here can accuse me of ever supporting Obama but there is a lot of hidden sin about 9/11 that is starting to finally see the light of day.

http://www.ibtimes.com/911-link-saudi-arabia-topic-28-redacted-pages-government-report-congressmen-push-release-1501202

The odds of treason occurring during the last administration is extremely high.

 
At 11:40 AM, Anonymous Maxi said...

James,

"The odds of treason occurring during the last administration is extremely high"

I don't think so. More likely the Bush Administration didn't want our so called alliance with the Saudis look worst than it actually is. It's already pretty clear that Osama's family had close ties with the Saudi Royal Family so nothing more should come as a surprise.

Something that implicated the U.S. government wouldn't be "classified," it would most likely be burned or shredded.

The possibility of an inside job is still at best preposterous

 
At 12:14 PM, Anonymous IML said...

Name a liberal who has "changed" and their explanation for having done so.

Heritage Foundation, in an 1989 article Stuart Butler outlined the case for the individual mandate.
Since you are all about "hope and change" here is Mr. Butler in 2012 explaining his change about what is now called Obamacare.

"First, health research and advances in economic analysis have convinced people like me that an insurance mandate isn’t needed to achieve stable, near-universal coverage. For example, the new field of behavioral economics taught me that default auto-enrollment in employer insurance plans can lead many people to buy coverage without a requirement.

Also, advances in “risk adjustment” tools are improving the stability of voluntary insurance. And Heritage-funded research on federal employees’ coverage — which has no mandate — caused me to conclude we had made a mistake in the 1990s. That’s why we believe that President Obama and others are dead wrong about the need for a mandate.

Additionally, the meaning of the individual mandate we are said to have “invented” has changed over time. Today it means the government makes people buy comprehensive benefits for their own good, rather than our original emphasis on protecting society from the heavy medical costs of free riders."

The third paragraph must be understood in light of our having a White House that is proven to continue to lie to us, the invasion of our privacy by the NSA under the direction of the White House, the use if the IRS to target enemy's of the White House, the planned destruction of the American free enterprise economy, and the promises this Administration continues to make to the American people.

Sounds like Mr. Butler has "changed" his position, have liberals? History shows liberals do, only when its two steps backwards and one step forward.

"Nobody has been stripped of their wealth" You need to support that claim and while you are at it research the upward movement in economic position in socialistic Europe and the old USSR. I suspect you will find that the movement from a lower economic class to a higher one is stagnant, just as it has become under Obama in the USA.

Socialism or "economic equality" brings the people down to the lowest common denominator that can be supported by the pool of money taken from every one by the government and redistributed equally.

Period.

 
At 2:52 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Socialism or "economic equality" brings the people down to the lowest common denominator

And:

Are there rich people in the socialistic country's of Europe? Are there rich people in China, Cuba? Were there rich people in the old failed Communist, liberal, socialistic USSR? The answer is YES.

So this begs the question, do hypocritical Right Wing fanatics want everything both ways?

"The answer is YES".

 
At 3:45 PM, Anonymous IML said...

How so?

How would you know "hypocritical Right Wing fanatics want"? What sources do you access to become knowledgeable about the policy's and position's of Modern Conservationism?

The central point, which you are avoiding is this,
Socialism does not allow for the creation of personal wealth. That is what economic equality is all about, everyone has the same income given to them by or allowed to keep, by a central govt. There is no reason under this system to work towards improving you standard of living. Why would you?

You also edited my statement which in full reads:
"Socialism or "economic equality" brings the people down to the lowest common denominator that can be supported by the pool of money taken from every one by the government and redistributed equally."

How are the economic policy's you have supported on this blog different than those used by the USSR? This is not calling you a "commie", but simply asking you to explain what you believe is the difference.

You have called President Obama a "Corporatist". No longer trusting a word a liberal says without testing it, I looked up the definition of Corporatist.

"a supporter of CORPORATISM". wordnetweb.princeton.edu/

Not knowing what CORPORATISM meant I looked and found this.

"Corporatism, the theory and practice of organizing society into “corporations” subordinate to the state. According to corporatist theory, workers and employers would be organized into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and controlling to a large extent the persons and activities within their jurisdiction. However, as the “corporate state” was put into effect in fascist Italy between World Wars I and II, it reflected the will of the country’s dictator, Benito Mussolini, rather than the adjusted interests of economic groups." Encyclopedia Britannica.

We have a President who you have called a corporatist. A President who has used the IRS to punish those on his enemy's list, used the NAS to spy on private American citizens, has lied to us about his actions surround Benghazi, has used the U.S. Census bureau to issue cooked unemployment figures right before his election in 2012, has lied to us about his signature legislation,the ACA, who has broken his promises to minority's, has increased by 1/3 the national debt in his five years in office, and your intelligent, well thought out liberal response to these facts is,

"Blame the Black Guy"

and

"Bwaawwk, buck, buck, buckaww!"












 
At 5:13 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

How so?

By your contradictory statements that I quoted.

The central point, which you are avoiding is this,
Socialism does not allow for the creation of personal wealth. That is what economic equality is all about, everyone has the same income given to them by or allowed to keep, by a central govt.


This is fiction, Bubble dogma, the kind that says Romney is not conservative and liberals are commies.

From the self identified “Conservative Journalism” of The American Spectator

For them, (social and cultural conservatives) Romney is the personal embodiment of their values. His personal life is right out of Ozzie and Harriett,Leave It to Beaver and Father Knows Best. The practical relevance of his Mormonism is that he is personally devoted to these values at his core. The offbeat theology of Mormonism is not at issue because he is not a Mormon theologian.
Moreover, his professional life involves the core of entrepreneurial capitalism.

More Bubble dogma: President who has used the IRS to punish those on his enemy's list Liberal groups were audited too, but that fact is not in your bubble. Same with your “Benghazi lie”. Better quote it if you mean it.
So why should anyone listen to YOU blathering about me advocating USSR polices?
How are the economic policy's you have supported on this blog different than those used by the USSR?

How are they the same? You need to quote me to honestly make this claim, you know. You assume without understanding and make accusations based on those assumptions.

 
At 5:20 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Good for you looking up classical corporatism.

Here’s what we mean by corporatism:

www.realclearmarkets.com

The New Corporatism In American Capitalism

A classical view of modern corporatism in post-war America has focused on an "economic tripartism" approach to political power sharing by social partners involving government, organized business groups, and labor unions. According to Nobel Laureate Edmund Phelps, "Classic corporatism widens government powers (relative to that under 18th century liberalism) in order to forge a state-led economy." However, the relative weakening of the American labor movement, due to declining worker membership over the last two decades, has often resulted in "economic bipartism" being the institutional norm - with government and business jointly at the helm.


In popular usage

Contemporary popular (as opposed to social science) usage of the term is more pejorative, especially when used in the shorter form corporatism (corporativism usually implies only the Italian construct indicating public rather than private organizing), emphasizing the role of business corporations in government decision-making at the expense of the public. The power of business to affect government legislation through lobbying and other avenues of influence in order to promote their interests is usually seen as detrimental to those of the public. In this respect, corporatism may be characterized as an extreme form of regulatory capture, and is also termed corporatocracy, a form of plutocracy. If there is substantial military-corporate collaboration it is often called militarism or the military-industrial complex.


http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/corporatism


a political and economic system in which planning and policy are controlled by largegroups such as businesses, labor unions, and central government


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/corporatism


the control of a state or organization by large interest groups.

Since money is now “free speech” guess who has the greatest influence in our elections, lobbying and government.

Obama’s advocacy of corporate written trade agreements and legal immunity of telecoms through supporting Bush’s warrantless surveillance by FISA Amendment are examples of Obama the corporatist. Including insurance companies (and their politicians) at the table for Obamacare is another example.

Is this clear?

 
At 12:33 AM, Anonymous IML said...


"Here’s what we mean by corporatism"

Who is we, got a chicken in your pocket? "Bwaawwk, buck, buck, buckaww!

Figures a liberal would take the common meaning of a word and make it mean something else for their purposes. How creative.
Didn't Obama promise to end the ills that started under Bush? Sounds like more lies, more broken promises from this most transparent of any White House in our history.

And yet you voted for him twice and continue to defend him, why?

 
At 1:17 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Chuckie, what a thoughtful and considered reply.

Who is we, got a chicken in your pocket? "Bwaawwk, buck, buck, buckaww!

It's true what they say about Right Wing "humor". No wit, no imagination and never funny.

Figures a liberal would take the common meaning of a word and make it mean something else for their purposes.

Now THIS kind of nonsense is when you really do get funny. Unintentionally, of course.

Do you mean the "common" meaning that you didn't know about until today, Chuckie? The "common" meaning from the last century?

How about the popular usage I provided? Is that the common meaning or the popular meaning?

Better clear that up for us, Chuckie, since you've just become the expert on corporatism.

And I bet you $10,000 bucks you can't tell us how I defended Obama by telling you he's a moderate corporatist.

So you're saying Ron Paul doesn't know what he's talking about either? All because you just looked up the word? And only a single definition at that?

What a genius, sport. No wonder nobody believes you outside your cult bubble.

So what do you have to say to correct me and Ron Paul?

Betcha $10,000 bucks you're chicken to accuse Ron Paul of being wrong.

Still Chicken Chuckie? Your mindless pecking is a poor substitute for discussion, but you do present a classic display of a brainwashed bubble cultist, frightened by liberals, the truth and probably by real chickens.

LOL!









 
At 1:08 PM, Anonymous IML said...

Yours:

a political and economic system in which planning and policy are controlled by largegroups such as businesses, labor unions, and central government

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/corporatism

the control of a state or organization by large interest groups.

Mine:

"Corporatism, the theory and practice of organizing society into “corporations” subordinate to the state. According to corporatist theory, workers and employers would be organized into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and controlling to a large extent the persons and activities within their jurisdiction. However, as the “corporate state” was put into effect in fascist Italy between World Wars I and II, it reflected the will of the country’s dictator, Benito Mussolini, rather than the adjusted interests of economic groups." Encyclopedia Britannica.


What's the difference?

You have said Obama is a Corporatist. A supporter of corporatism.

Corporatism is fascism according to the definitions you offered and I offered. Would it be a stretch of logic to say then that Obama supports or governs as a fascist?

You claim this is fiction, "Socialism does not allow for the creation of personal wealth. That is what economic equality is all about, everyone has the same income given to them by or allowed to keep, by a central govt."
If this is fiction, where then do socialistic governments get the money they redistribute? There is only on source, and it's the source that all government have to use, IE: the private sector of the economy.

I have not said liberals are commies. What I have said is socialism, communism, do not allow the growth of person wealth, the moving upwards from one economic class to another. But instead by virtue of the redistributing private wealth to reach economic equality, socialism lowers the standard of living to the level that the wealth taken from all can provide. The worst thing about this system is it removes the ability (much less the incentive) for a individual to move upwards in economic class.

History shows us that the largest destroyer of personal wealth has been the actions of government. Government consumes private wealth regardless of the reason it is doing so. Government does not produce or create wealthy people. Private enterprise does. If the duty of government is to level the playing field, to do so it must LOWER the playing field to the lowest level in the field.

 
At 1:50 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

IML -

I would caveat your point of view by pointing out that a proper form of government IS necessary for a civil society in which a free market can perform.

The problem comes when, inevitably, those who accumulate the wealth buy the power no matter the economic construct - in a purely secular government, that is. Corporatism is merely the outworking of that maxim in an industrialized, consumer-based economy. What we have is far from "free-market" capitalistic in the true sense of the term. Market freedom today is an illusion. When a handful of western reserve bankers own the currency, own the interest rates, and own the ear of the policy makers - they own us. Any delusion that we are operating under the auspices of capitalism is just that - a delusion. These bankers have and will continue to annex our wealth through currency and interest rate manipulation. It is brilliant - most people haven't a clue it is happening. They think it is the rich guy down the street. So, they convince governments to borrow more to "give" them more - and they do. And, what does that effectively do? It puts us all further under the ownership of these bankers.

The REAL wealth transfer that is happening is generational. We are transferring wealth from our children and grandchildren into our own pockets every day. It is despicable what we are doing. I see no hope with the lack of integrity and morality that exists in our country today. We are an ignoble people.

Good discussions going on occassionally amidst the sniping and nonsense...

 
At 4:06 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 4:09 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

You have said Obama is a Corporatist. A supporter of corporatism.

Yes, and so has Ron Paul. We are both in the 21st century. Your definition is of Mussolini’s and similar versions. You are living in Backwards World, sport. Did you even read the definitions I gave you? Seems not.

You claim this is fiction, "Socialism does not allow for the creation of personal wealth. That is what economic equality is all about, everyone has the same income given to them by or allowed to keep, by a central govt."

It is fiction and you even contradicted it. And here are your contradictory statements:

Socialism or "economic equality" brings the people down to the lowest common denominator
And:

Are there rich people in the socialistic country's of Europe? Are there rich people in China, Cuba? Were there rich people in the old failed Communist, liberal, socialistic USSR? The answer is YES.


So this begs the question, do hypocritical Right Wing fanatics want everything both ways?

"The answer is YES".

I have not said liberals are commies.

You certainly have suggested so more times than I can count. Not as “IML” but nobody here thinks IML is not the same old Chuckie. We’ve never seen you show any understanding of liberalism, socialism or communism. If you can tell us the difference between a liberal and a communist, maybe we could take you a little more seriously.

You have your beliefs and they cannot be questioned. It is in your authoritarian personality’s nature. For those interested in reality, your views are pathetic radical Right indoctrination. Your beliefs support the corporatocracy we are discussing.

I’ve show how Obama is a moderate corporatist. That fact bounces off your belief bubble.

Now it’s all up to you to tell us all how Ron Paul is wrong. Still Chicken?

Maybe you should also consider what Harley is saying too. He knows what we mean by the corruption by "Big Money". Or are he and Ron Paul just another couple liberals like me now, too?

Your confusion is something to behold.

 
At 11:29 PM, Anonymous IML said...

Harley A.

The problem is the humans in Government who claim to have only my best interests at heart are just as fallen as I am. Big money is not evil, but the actions humans will take to acquire it can be evil. Just as evil as the actions of those who take away big money. It's a fallen world, no one is righteous, no not one. Government restricting the worshiping of God who set the standards for righteousness does not make me confident that BIG MONEY is the crushing problem of our time. Further, rulers are held by God to a higher standard of behavior. I question their holding to that standard when I see them leave office with a lot more BIG MONEY than when they came into office. While at the same time telling me I'm greedy for being angry over the amount of my earnings they take from me.
Maybe I wouldn't be upset if they had as clean of hands as they expect me to have.

Dave,

'Yes, and so has Ron Paul." So what? I'm not talking to Ron Paul, I'm talking to you. You bring Mr. Paul up like he was a talisman you wave in front of vampire conservative to drive them away. So what. Doesn't change anything for me.

"Did you even read the definitions I gave you?" Well pal, yes I did in fact I quoted them back to you, did you even read my post?

Isn't the goal of socialism economic equality, the distribution of all wealth equally to all people? What you are missing and its key to this argument is, under socialism, who are the wealthy? Employees of govt if my reading of the history in of socialism in the USSR is correct. That is the central flaw in Obama's ACA, he has I believe, exceed his Constitutional power by issuing wavers to those he favors. Under him the justice is no longer blind, the law is not equal to all and we have become a nation not of laws but of men.

It is obvious you have turned a blind eye to the other points I made about life under socialism. (like were does the government get the money to be redistributed equally? I wont attempt to guess why, except it fits your needs to do so. But to close, I find you calling me "authoritarian" almost pathetic as your chicken coop sounds. Why, because you find nothing wrong with an authoritarian government ruling us, but find those who are opposed to it, well, just re-read the names you call anyone who disagrees with you.

"If you can tell us the difference between a liberal and a communist, maybe we could take you a little more seriously" Honestly, since I'm just a stupid red neck racist tea party conservative, I dont know the difference or for that matter the difference between liberal economic policy's and socialism. Would you please enlighten me with the differences? What are the differences between liberal policy's and the policy's of communism and socialism? Ed-u-makate me please.

But at least you have removed the halo from Obama, and that is very progressive of you.

Have you Googled what IML stands for?









 
At 12:25 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

And again, the original topic has been abandoned so that the conservatives can whine about Obama. Go figure.

 
At 11:28 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Chuckie, or is it International Mr. Leather? That’s the top Google item for IML.

You noted, "Sounds like Mr. Butler has "changed" his position, have liberals?"

But Mandela and Byrd were incapable of changing their positions? Again Right Wing double standards. You want it both ways.

You’re not talking to Ron Paul, but to one who shares his opinion on Obama being a corporatist. If you want to argue with my claim, then you are arguing with his as well. Understand? And you still have failed to show us to be incorrect.

I was right. You really don’t understand what socialism is. Your beliefs tell you “the goal of socialism is economic equality, the distribution of all wealth equally to all people”. That’s not modern Europe at all, and I can’t think of one person who advocates such. Can you?

It’s a broad spectrum from a strictly managed economy and ownership by the producers (workers) to the safety nets we have, It is public health care that most civilized countries have. It is public fire and law enforcement. These are socialized public services. My support of socialism is democratic socialism, with regulated capitalism. It is not communism. I don’t have time to teach you the huge differences. The USSR was a communist state. The US and Scandinavia and Western Europe are not. If you want a comparison, how about the suppression of democracy by the Soviet and Chinese communists? The GOP is closer to that anti-democratic ideology than socialists.

We know how much the radical Right hates Government employees, but the managers of government under both communism and capitalism are a whole lot more wealthy than the employees. You are incorrect again.

I have agreed Obamacare is flawed and disagree with numerous Obama policies and decisions. You call that “defending Obama”.

You have constantly argued from the position of your beliefs, not evidence and reason. You make accusation based on your beliefs, not evidence and reason. ‘You find nothing wrong with an authoritarian government ruling us.”

Do you mean a healthcare system, or the warrantless surveillance state built by Bush and continued by Obama? As long as you see Obamacare as “tyranny”, while giving Republicans a pass on FISA and the NSA, you’re an authoritarian. Period.

 
At 4:35 PM, Blogger De_Bill said...

A capitalist economy can't work without some socialism. Roads, bridges, public utilities, libraries, the government agencies that establish and enforce safe standards for food, medicine, motor vehicles and aircraft, law enforcement, the military, the justice system and many others are socialism, paid for by (gasp!!) the 'redistribution of wealth'.

Employment and unemployment are a good example. If you're employed, you're taking advantage of the capitalist side, but if you're unemployed, you're the recipient of the socialist side of the economy.

A reserve of unemployed workers is necessary to create competition in the job market and works as a governor on wages.

100% employment is not only impossible, it would result in the collapse of a capitalist economy. so it's in the best interests of the economy to help the unemployed.

Trust me, while there might be a small percentage of people on unemployment who are content getting money for not working, the vast majority of people who are collecting unemployment are desperate to find a job.

The other important thing to remember about both unemployment and food stamps is that money goes right back into our economy, creating jobs and wealth for business owners. People on unemployment don't usually deposit their checks into a savings account, and nobody deposits food stamps, it's spent at all levels of the economy.

It always amuses me how people who identify themselves as republicans, which claims to be the party that's supposedly an advocate for a free market economy, have so little understanding of how it actually works.

While they're against raising the minimum wage, they're punishing people who work full time at highly profitable businesses like Walmart and Mcdonalds and don't make enough money to feed their families and need food stamps to make ends meet, in effect providing those businesses with a government subsidy.

 
At 8:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

could we please have a moment of silence for all the innocent white farmers murdered in the name of social justice in South Africa?

 
At 12:26 PM, Blogger De_Bill said...

Sure genius. Just as soon as we remember all of the hundreds of thousands more black people who were murdered, tortured, and imprisoned in their name.

 
At 2:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My dad once told me long, long ago "Son, you are going to find out that most people are not too bright." The examples are right here.

He left out some other characteristics... corrupt, morally bankrupt, incompetent......... I could go on and on.

Most of that apllies more to right wing wackos than to anyone else.

 
At 6:24 AM, Blogger Lydia said...

I loved the man, and most definitely saw the aura you mentioned. I miss him; just knowing he was still among us felt right. He was the father of South Africa but I feel like an orphan too.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home