Harehunter

Goggling at Google can be addictive.

By being purposefully vague in his accusation, he artfully sidesteps committing slander, but still paints the emotionally charged picture of racial persecution that ran rampant at one time but is now prosecuted with a strong will to prevent its recurrence.

 

The past is the past. We cannot undo it and we MUST remember it, lest we repeat it. But let us not be shackled to it as we try to remedy the causes of racial prejudice as we move from the present to the future. A wound that is constantly being re-opened, will never heal. That is all I am trying to say.

 

P.S. Lilith's barbs don't distract me.

I grew up in both rural, and urban environments. That is my basis of how things were. I don't fly when traveling, I drive, and in so doing I have personal interactions with the people in these areas. I did disclaimer that my impressions on urban areas are incomplete, and that using a single brush to paint that environment does not do it justice.

Sometimes actions speak louder than words. Reference Al Alarabiya News.

Frozen Feet, I find your poll difficult to answer. To almost all of your questions I can respond both in the positive and in the negative aspect. In the U.S. there is such a wide diversity of environments, that to use a single brush to paint the picture is inadequate. In fact the remarks I am about to make do an injustice to each region as I woefully use a single brush to paint them. Just as there is a wide diversity between the regions, there is a wide diversity within them.

 

In rural areas, courtesy and respect is strongly evident in my exposure to them. They also show attributes of self-discipline, self-respect, and understand they are responsible for their actions.

 

In urban areas, there appears to be a higher incidence of 'kids behaving badly'. By 'kids', I really mean young adults. I don't interact with them personally, but that is the impression I get from the plot of criminal activities posted by the local law enforcement agencies from time to time. Could parenting have been a factor? I think so.

 

In the suburbs, where I live, it is more like a patchwork quilt. Just from observing people, say at a supermarket, or a shopping mall, I see all kinds of behavior, some better, some worse. I do want to emphasize that ethnicity is not a factor in either of these types of behavior. I observe courtesy and respect from all of them, and I observe lack of respect across the spectrum. When in the suburbs it is easy to be color-blind.

 

Bottom line: todays kids are both better and worse than they were when I was growing up.

If there is a basis to accuse some members of congress of willfully pre-meditating murder, then what is it? Just as it is untruthful to accuse an individual muslim of being a potential terrorist on the basis that most of the recent attacks and attempted attacks were committed by muslims, it is untruthful to accuse someone of a certain political party of being a potential murderer.

 

Either way, there must be some evidence to support such claims.

Yes, we had slavery in this country at one time. It was instituted at the time that we were colonies under the dominion of Great Britain. Do they share culpability? After the revolution we failed eliminate it. We fought a civil war over the issue with the greatest cost of life of any war fought before or since. There were the decades of oppression under the Jim Crow laws and the KKK. Yes, I understand all this. How does the re-iteration of all this heal the racial rift that exists now? It is one thing to be reminded of history, it is another to be cudgeled with it.

 

I have had experience with the careful crafting of sentences to carry emotional messages in such a way that they are subliminal. You, yourself use it quite well. Your well thought out posts are as carefully crafted as I attempt to do to remain as emotionally neutral as possible.

 

Politicians make or break their careers on the basis of their ability to convince people to agree with their political platform. How they say something is just as important as what they say. It is despicable that they resort to the tactic of emotional manipulation, but it should be obvious that they do, not only Dems, or blacks but Reps and whites as well.

 

My objection to statements such as Congressman Carter's is that they do not solve racial tensions, but rather they aggravate them. You and I can be rational about it, but that is because we deal with it on a daily basis. Most people don't make the effort to parse the content of such statements to understand both the explicit meaning as well as the implicit one. All they get is the implied meaning.

 

Point taken on the references to general policies. Economics is being taken up on another thread.

It just disturbs me considerably that our politicians are passing legislation that they have absolutely no idea what it contains or what impact it will have on society.

It ain't pretty, is it?

Since you have taken us down the path of the 1st Amendment, let me address your concerns in that regard.

 

Which would you consider a more conservative religion, Christianity, or Islam as practiced under Sharia law? Which nation is more religiously tolerant, the United States or Iran? Is this a fair comparison? No, not at all. There is a huge diversity among the many denominations of Christianity, just as there are many sects of Islam, or Judaism. Here we run into the problem of stereotyping a large diverse population on the basis of the most controversial, and therefore most visible, aberration of a minority of that population.

 

The main complaint that Christians have is that of encroaching restrictions on religious freedom, a liberty that has been written into the law of the land. They don't understand why it is so denigrated by the liberals that a sitting governor should practice that freedom. Did he lose his rights as a citizen just because he took office?

 

The Establishment Clause forbids the establishment of a state religion, such as the Church of England, that required all citizens to be a member of it. It also prohibits laws that would restrict or prevent the free expression of religion, such as the display of a creche or a menorah, or the wearing of a hijab. That's it, That's all.

 

Nowhere does is say that a person abrogates those rights once in office. These rights are being encroached upon, little by little.

 

The freedoms of speech and of religion do carry with them the right not to listen, the right to ignore a visible emblem that does not represent your faith. Does the display of your faith compel you to convert to that faith? Not in this country. But the restriction on displaying your faith is not constitutional.

 

As to your comments on national debt, see previous post.

In the game of politics, it is not important that such an accusation be true, it is only important that the accusation be made.

It has always been assumed that when an elected official makes such a statement that he must have some intelligence into the matter. Ergo, it must be OK to repeat that argument as evidence of truth. Add to that the bias of mainstream media that perpetuates it as reported by The UCLA Newsroom. Believe it or not, but according to a recent poll FOX news ranks slightly ahead of CNN as the most trusted medium in the US. I like the BBC's analysis of the U.S. attitude toward the media.



I like your reference to S&P report; I am forwarding it. The debate revolves not about the size of the debt, but that the drastic rise in deficit spending that has doubled that debt is unsustainable given the percentage of debt-incurement vs GDP growth. In this scenario, with rampant deficit spending, there are four choices:
1) Raise taxes. I know the Dems call it revenue, but let's call it what it is at the level of the average wage-earner. Raising taxes reduces consumer spending, reduces demand for goods and services, which drives down the need for employees, raising the unemployment rate, while at the same time lowering national GDP, increasing the proportion of debt to GDP. I think your S&P report points at this being a 'negative indicator'.
2) Borrow more money. Let's cut out the middle processes and go straight to increasing the proportion of debt to GDP. BTW, this is important because as this proportion rises, it means that more of the GDP is going to payments on the INTEREST of that debt, and less of it is going to payments on the PRINCIPLE of that debt, and more importantly, less money is available for things like, ooooh, EDUCATION, INFRASTRUCTURE, FEMA, and other services that the federal government is expected, by law, to provide.
3) Print more money. Do I really need to go into the effects of Supply and Demand on currency? I'll sum up in one word: INFLATION.
4) Cut spending. Not Reduce it; that only prolongs the situation we are in.

You're right, government debt is not like private citizens debt. They have, or can legislate, options that we cannot. But Congress must consider the effects of any legislation they enact, not just on the surface, but the chain of cause and effect that results.

One other factor is how do we increase the GDP? If we can grow the GDP, then a greater debt limit could be sustainable. Let me ask you this; Which entity contributes the most to the GDP, the government or the private sector? Since the only source of 'revenue' the government has is in the form of taxes on the private sector, it should be apparent that the private sector is the source of revenue in this country. Policies that burden the private sector drive down profits that would have been used for growth. Net effect, lower growth in the GDP. It is interesting that the current administration has the least experience in how businesses actually operate (Forbes Business Blind Spot). This makes it questionable that they have an understanding of economics as practiced in a free market society.

This is the basis of what all the 'bickering' is about in the U.S. congress. And, no, the blame is not on Dems only, but on Reps who have checked their 'conservative' platform at the Beltway and happily joined the spending spree. And contrary to most peoples perception of 'Red Staters' aka 'Tea Parties', the predominant opinion RE George Bush re Iraq is that it was unnecessary, un-called for, and far, far more expensive than justified. However, once in there, we shouldered our responsibility to rebuild a nation we had destroyed. We can discuss political ideology later.

Afghanistan, was another problem. 9-11-01 was not the first Al-Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center, but the second. Bill Clinton chose to respond with remote strikes on Al-Qaeda training camps. On 9-11-01 it became apparent that Al-Qaeda had meant what it said about declaring war on the U.S. Our response is what any nation would do had war been declared against them. However, too late, it has become apparent that there is no nation to build in Afghanistan, and all the expensive efforts to build one have been a tremendous waste.

Hey! I more than slightly resemble that remark. And boy am I jealous you beat me to the punchline!

Interesting. I wondered if anyone else had noticed this. But the theory that doesn't quite wash. The coverage on anti war protests dropped sharply upon Obama's inauguration, but even more interestingly, NPR went from daily reports of wounded killed personnel, to nothing said about it one day.

Tea Party movement did not begin to gain momentum until much later in the year. Not until after it was discovered of how wastefully the trillion dollar stimulus fund had been spent. Xref discussion on economics for those few who haven't followed that thread.

The medical insurance reform bill was written behind closed doors, totally excluding the Republican Representatives. During his campaign, Obama had promised that that would not happen, and that all legislation would be posted on the internet for a week before he would sign it. The truth was not in him. When congress passed that bill, only a small handful of people knew what was in it. In fact, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, declared that Congress would have to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Hotel, Over!
Meanwhile, the economy keeps getting worse, and unemployment is on the rise. One of the biggest reasons for businesses freezing on spending is the uncertainty of what impact of the federal healthcare law is going to have on them. The requirements made by this bill are going to cost a lot of money, and the since many of the provisions of this bill won't occur until 2012, there is no way to determine that cost. And businesses have a big problem with increased expenses; they aren't allowed to print more money, and they don't have an infinite credit limit. Insurance companies have already reacted to the bill by dropping policies that would bankrupt them within months of certain provisions taking effect. And as to Obama's promise to publish the bill five days before signing it? Yea, right.
And all this brouhaha over a bill that has been judged in federal court to be unconstitutional in the first place.

As to the racial slurs made at Tea Party rallies, it has been posited that they were made by Democrat activists who are trying to put a false face on the movement. Anecdotal only, but in the polarized atmosphere of U.S. politics, where epithets fly freely, with the intent of polarizing our society further ...

You are exactly right. SOME does NOT mean ALL. But in the political forum, accusations such as this are intended to paint with a broad brush the idea that if SOME want you killed, then that equates to MOST want you killed, which escalates to ALL want you killed. When Carson uses this expression of 'hanging from a tree', he is painting a very painful picture, one that goes directly to the emotions, bypassing the more logical response you gave, and reigniting the rage against the KKK, and by extension, all white people.

To what purpose does he make these baseless accusations? There has to be a reason.

You have hit the head on the nail. It is unfortunate that since we have finally elected a black man as the President, and we would finally be a post-racial country, it has become even more racially divided than before. It has become standard fare to accuse a fiscal conservatives 'racist', not that race has anything to do with economic policy. You ask why the national debt, built up over a couple of centuries (yea,yea, I know that most of it has been done in recent years), has doubled in only a couple of years, and you are accused of being a racist. Where does this non-sequitur come from?

And then we get to the issue of the RINO's (Republican In Name Only). They appeal to their constituency as social conservatives, but turn out to be fiscally irresponsible. I don't mean just liberal, I mean irresponsible. It's easy to say 'Throw more money at the problem' when it isn't your own money. Democrats like to 'increase revenues'. To some who works to earn a living, that translates directly into 'The government is taking more of the money I worked to earn'. The main focus of the Tea Party is to remove the RINO's and replace them with more fiscally conservative representatives, people who have first-hand knowledge of working for a paycheck like the majority of us do.

And just to be clear, there is no direct correlation between fiscally conservative and socially conservative, just as there is no correlation on the liberal side of these terms. The hispanic population has a very high percentage of being Catholic, considered a very socially conservative denomination, yet they predominately vote for the liberal Democrat candidate. The jewish demographic is predominantly Democrat, but the muslims are all over the place. OK, go figure. I know that you would be surprised at the wide diversity of the Tea Party with regard to social issues.

The GDP is the internationally accepted standard measure of a nation's prosperity. From this baseline a few questions come to mind.
1) What percentage do government jobs contribute to the GDP?
2) What is the impact of big government on the spending power of the ordinary taxpayer? What is their source of revenue?
3) If you tax corporations more, what does that do to their plans of expanding their production facilities? To the jobs related to building those facilities? To the communities where those workers reside?
4) If you prohibit or restrict oil companies from off-shore production, what is the impact on the supply of oil? On its price? On the jobs that are dependent on that drilling? On the communities where they live and raise their families?
5) What has been the effect of greater government spending on the credit rating of the U.S.? Pretty much what would happen to an ordinary citizen who racks up more debt than his credit limit allows. How does that affect the stock market, not only the U.S. markets, but around the world? What impact does that have on the retirement accounts of millions of people?
6) And by what logic are people who disagree with the current administration on the answers to these questions being considered racist. How does this imply that the Tea Party, or some members of it, want to start lynch mobs?

At the time this country needs to repair its economic problems, it is difficult to trust an administration with such little experience in how businesses are run

BTW, what defines a 'social conservative' or a 'social liberal' anyway? Fiscal conservative/liberal is easy; big government & high taxes vs small government & lower taxes. Yes there is more to it than that, but this is what it distills down to. On the other hand, the term 'social conservative/liberal' is far more slippery. A person can be 'liberal' on one issue and be 'conservative' on another issue. By what yardstick do we make the judgment that he is 'conservative'?

Would that be a Crewel Lye?

It's a sickness I inherited from my dad. One time he called me to tell me had P'd on the floor. When I asked him why he had done that, he proudly explained that he was in the kitchen fixing dinner when opened a bag of frozen peas which exploded and went all over the floor. He had pea'd on the floor!
I am cursed to remember that for the rest of my life.

Sorry, Skwish-E, I was referring to your remark that the thread had played out. I resurrect this topic only because I have been asked to cite examples of what I perceive to be the unwarranted use of race-baiting.

I intentionally made no accusations here. I merely ask if the accusation is fair? I know that there was slavery in this country at one time. Does this accusation have any basis in truth? Are all conservatives members of the KKK? No more than anyone can say all muslims are members of Al-Qaeda.

My real questions are these; Why would the congressman make this accusation? What purpose does it serve? And why would the media go out of its way to demonize a group of people?

BTW, I work in an environment that is mostly socially conservative, and not one of my co-workers saw any good reason for Bush to invade Iraq; we never should have gone there. With that having been said, what would you say of our responsibility to the people of Iraq having torn their country apart and deposing their government? Just blow the heck out of the place and leave? Bush 41 was correct in his decision to not go there; just free Kuwait, and stop. And we all agree that our engagement in Afghanistan has gone on far too long at too great an expense in capital and in blood, with no expectation of making a viable democracy in that country of feudal tribalism.

This article goes back to a subject I had hoped we had put to bed. IndyStar.com article

Comments please.

A flat tax and many variants have been proposed, and cut off at the knees. A couple of issues keep coming up that the two parties are diametrically opposed on;
1) Is money you inherit income to be taxed, usually at twice the rate of normal income, or have the tax been already paid by the benefactor?
2) How do you figure in capital gains, where the value of someones stock portfolio increases? Keep in mind that the money invested in the stock market is at risk of de-valuating suddenly as it has done repeatedly. Also keep in mind that the capital these people have is used to startup and maintain businesses which in turn create a need for more jobs.

Another option that has been shot down is to do away with the federal income tax altogether and institute a federal sales tax.

You're such a cut up!

But it has reduced the unemployment of the other states from where we are getting all those people. The license plates in Houston represent a regular United Nation.

Ooooh, you're good!

It has been proposed, but it never seems to go anywhere. And the system of deductions is designed to promote certain activities, such as home ownership. At least on the surface, of course. The real reasons are, I am sure, more insidious.

In TX, at least, we do not have a state income tax; just property taxes paid to the city, county, and school districts, and sales taxes for the city, county and state. It has been proposed, but the people of Texas do not trust our politicians when they say they'll reduce our other taxes to match. Maybe so, but for how long before they start raising them again. I know that most of the country accuses us of underfunding our schools, and so on, but TX has has the largest growth in jobs of any other state in the union. In fact our population growth as of the last census has awarded the state with two more Congressional seats and two electoral votes.

Archaeology has never been my strong suit.

Sorry about that, it's just what we do. Sometimes the pesky things pop up where they shouldn't so we need to move them.
(((BIG DUMP TRUCK!!!)))
Just remember to let dozing bulls lie.