» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society

Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.

If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.

Custom Search



Subject: Imus redux

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 04/14/07 at 9:50 pm

So the Imus thread got wiped out when the site went down earlier this week.

At that time, the network had just suspended him for two weeks.  Now they've gone ahead and fired him.  I won't miss the sunoverbeach for 2 seconds, but I'm still ambivalent about his ouster.  I do think it is time to start holding these program hosts with millions of listeners to a higher standard.  Imus kept saying bigoted things because the ratings were good and nobody objected much.  Perhaps they should have told Imus they were not going to tolerate any more racist statements and kept to their word.  If he did it again, then they could fire him.

Like I say, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, Limbaugh, and other clods in the talk radio/TV business say things every day I find much more affrontive than what Imus said. 

Race is the proverbial "third rail."  However, I think it is time to take issues of "class" just as seriously.  Most conservative talkers refrain from overt race bigotry and couch everything in a hate-the-poor jargon, which is still accepted.  It shouldn't be.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/protest.gif

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: Tia on 04/14/07 at 10:23 pm

say, for instance, if this guy was on msnbc... somehow... he'd probably get fired by some people who didn't get what he's saying. i think he's actually recapturing a little bit of what lenny bruce was doing, which i think michael richards might have been trying to do.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: limblifter on 04/15/07 at 7:58 pm

Reporter: Ludacris calls black women nappy headed hos on his new album.

Woman: Yeah, we listen to his album in the locker room before games.

Reporter: Eddie Murphy talks about hooking up with an African bush bitch named Oonfoofoo. Even mocks her funny african accent.

Woman: Yeah, Raw was hilarious.

Reporter: Don Imus jokingly referred to a female basketball team as nappy headed hos.

Woman: Don who?

Reporter: Don Imus. He has a nationally broadcasted radio show.

Woman: Oh, ok.

Reporter: He’s white.

Woman: OH MY GOD! That is the most offensive thing I’ve ever heard! My dreams are shattered! Call Oprah, we need healing. We better have a sit down at the governor’s mansion!

IMO, this whole story is such a load of garbage.

On any given day you can turn on the TV and listen to somebody making fun of the Irish, or any other race of uptight white people. A lot of the time spoken by a black person. But god forbid any white person makes a crack about a black person.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: Tia on 04/15/07 at 8:22 pm

well, if it werent for little details like slavery, centuries of segregation, rampant lynching and racially motivated violence and the fact that blacks still make something like half what white people do for the same job, i might be able to get worked up over the alleged double standard. as it is i've always found this argument a bit silly, to tell you the truth.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: GoodRedShirt on 04/16/07 at 9:15 pm

Translated to UK English (the English everyone else uses), the term "nappy headed hoes" would mean some woman (possibly a prostitute?) with a diaper (as you call it) on their head...

People get too offended these days. Rap music is littered with racist remarks such as this, but as soon as some redneck talkback host says it, its a huge no-no.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: lterhune on 04/16/07 at 11:43 pm


Odd how the democrats have turned on their own again. The last time it was done was not too long ago.... about this senator who lost his party vote at home (not liberal enough I guess)..... but he got elected anyway, bummer to the far left!

  (and odd how sharpton - who has publically said HORRIBLE things about Jews, Greeks and white people = led the way to the Imus canning ... go figure)

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: Tia on 04/17/07 at 8:25 am

yeah, william kristol on fox news sunday bent over backward to make the imus thing some sort of a partisan issue but i don't see it. when you say "the democrats turned on one of their own" does that mean the republicans didn't turn on imus? i.e., the republicans are okay with what he said? it wouldn't surprise me but i just want to make sure that's what you mean.

this isn't about party. it's about racism.

al sharpton actually made quite a spirited defense of himself, also on fox news sunday. he made the dude interviewing him look like a true chump. fox is such a joke.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: lterhune on 04/17/07 at 12:24 pm


yeah, william kristol on fox news sunday bent over backward to make the imus thing some sort of a partisan issue but i don't see it. when you say "the democrats turned on one of their own" does that mean the republicans didn't turn on imus? i.e., the republicans are okay with what he said? it wouldn't surprise me but i just want to make sure that's what you mean.

this isn't about party. it's about racism.

al sharpton actually made quite a spirited defense of himself, also on fox news sunday. he made the dude interviewing him look like a true chump. fox is such a joke.


Republicans are not okay about what he said, that's silly.  Democrats turning on their own means just what is says, they turn on their own. There is a big civil war going on with the democrats - hard to miss or deny.

There is no defense for Al Sharpton. He is a lime light seeker and a biggot himself... he has said countless nasty things, like I said, against Jews, Greeks, White people etc., and the hypocrite you see on TV is gutter.

As for Fox News, you know the correspondents and see the interviews - apparently much more than I do. You seem fixed on the whole Fox thing, like it's a huge threat - but you watch it a lot anyway. Maybe that's why it is number one huh?
 

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: danootaandme on 04/17/07 at 1:49 pm

It is ignorant  for rappers to use the language they use, we all agree on that. They are stuck in there own genre, and let us not forget it isn't African Americans who have made them what they are today, there is a huge chunk of Causcasian middle and upper middle class money fueling them.  The difference between them and Imus is that they are ignorant fools who are basically talking"in the house", not specifically aiming that crap at specific persons, if they are they aren't named.  Imus' comments were to a group of young women who had a remarkable season in college by doing everything right, and the only thing he and his buddy Bernard could come up with was "nappy headed hos" and, what has been left out of the conversation, Bernard calling them "jigaboos and wannabees".  I notice everyone leaves Bernard out of the conversation.  On Sunday "60 Minutes" did a rebroadcast of an Imus segment where admitted that Bernard was hired to "make jokes about (n-word)".  He admitted that yes he had said that specifically. 

I have never considered Imus a Democrat.  He has supported Democrats, but that doesn't make him a poster boy for the party by any means.  He has also had happy talk on his show with none other than Dick Cheney on inauguration day, at that..

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: lterhune on 04/17/07 at 2:57 pm



It is ignorant  for rappers to use the language they use, we all agree on that. They are stuck in there own genre, and let us not forget it isn't African Americans who have made them what they are today, there is a huge chunk of Causcasian middle and upper middle class money fueling them. 



OMG! I don't buy that excuse. I heard it too, from the very biggoted head of the black panthers. Poor rappers, victims, (again), by the same mentality of the slave holders - keeping these poor faultless black RICH to the core rappers in a form of slavery (that makes them call women hos and WORSE, much WORSE!) I haven't heard one story of a upper middle class white man holding a gun to a rapper's head to make them become rich stars with their potty mouths.


i think imus is a jerk & deserves what he gets. But for the rappers and Al Sharpton, who call greek's homos and jewish people all kinds of things over the years are hypocrites w/double standards and have some never jumping in the middle of all this and crying victim.


 

I have never considered Imus a Democrat.  He has supported Democrats, but that doesn't make him a poster boy for the party by any means.  He has also had happy talk on his show with none other than Dick Cheney on inauguration day, at that..


MANY BIG BIG politicans were on the Imus show. But he backs and votes for democrats; (couldn't you tell just by listening? I means it's no secret, but surely by listening you could tell, right?)

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 04/17/07 at 5:31 pm


OMG! I don't buy that excuse. I heard it too, from the very biggoted head of the black panthers. Poor rappers, victims, (again), by the same mentality of the slave holders - keeping these poor faultless black RICH to the core rappers in a form of slavery (that makes them call women hos and WORSE, much WORSE!) I haven't heard one story of a upper middle class white man holding a gun to a rapper's head to make them become rich stars with their potty mouths.
It's like I said before.  Hate sells. Negativity sells.  Those rappers are rich for the same reasons the Limbaugh and other right-wing trash talkers are rich.  They all tell insecure people what they want to hear (ie. "all b!tches ain't sh!t," or "liberals are all queers and baby-killers").  If nobody kicked up a fuss about what Imus said, no advertisers would have backed out and he'd still be on the air.  The fact that gangsta rappers or angry white male radio show hosts are popular says more about the American public who buys the message than those who sell the message. 


i think imus is a jerk & deserves what he gets. But for the rappers and Al Sharpton, who call greek's homos and jewish people all kinds of things over the years are hypocrites w/double standards and have some never jumping in the middle of all this and crying victim.

And Al Sharpton stands no chance of having a nationally syndicated radio program simulcast live on MSNBC.  That has  less to do with the hateful things he said about other ethnicities and more because he does not champion the rich white male above every other human being on the planet.

 
MANY BIG BIG politicans were on the Imus show. But he backs and votes for democrats; (couldn't you tell just by listening? I means it's no secret, but surely by listening you could tell, right?)


Yes.  He called Dick Cheney a war criminal.

I personally find Tim Russert more abhorrent than Imus.  Russert is merely a shill for the corporatocracy.


Republicans are not okay about what he said, that's silly.  Democrats turning on their own means just what is says, they turn on their own. There is a big civil war going on with the democrats - hard to miss or deny.
Uh, Republicans reflexively cried "Jesse Jackson called New York 'Hymietown'!" as they do everytime African Americans speak up about racist statements.

There is a civil war going on the Democratic party.  There are those who want to return to  being Democrats and those who want to keep being the other Republican party.

There is no defense for Al Sharpton. He is a lime light seeker and a biggot himself... he has said countless nasty things, like I said, against Jews, Greeks, White people etc., and the hypocrite you see on TV is gutter.
As above, Sharpton says something bigoted now and again.  I wish he wouldn't say those things, and I wish he didn't hold those opinions.  He also never admitted he was wrong about the Tawana Brawley scandal in the 20 years since it happened.  However, the real real reason Sharpton gets demonized is he dares to talk about class--as in economic disparity--in America.

As for Fox News, you know the correspondents and see the interviews - apparently much more than I do. You seem fixed on the whole Fox thing, like it's a huge threat - but you watch it a lot anyway. Maybe that's why it is number one huh? 

Good point.  I often wonder how many FOX Viewers are left-wingers like me who tune in to laugh at those clowns and flip 'em the bird (too bad they can't see through the other side of the TV, eh?).  FOX News is actually a threat to democracy.  The did help Bush steal the election in 2000.


It is ignorant  for rappers to use the language they use, we all agree on that. They are stuck in there own genre, and let us not forget it isn't African Americans who have made them what they are today, there is a huge chunk of Causcasian middle and upper middle class money fueling them.

I don't think this is an excuse so much as it is indeed the truth.  White Americans buy the fast amount of recorded music and concert tickets, just a fact of sheer numbers.  As above, negativity sells.  I have heard rappers say they could make music with a socially constructive message, but that's not what the record companies want to market.  It all comes back to the consumer and it's all part of the bigger picture of American pop culture, which terribly mean-spirited.

  The difference between them and Imus is that they are ignorant fools who are basically talking"in the house", not specifically aiming that crap at specific persons, if they are they aren't named.  Imus' comments were to a group of young women who had a remarkable season in college by doing everything right, and the only thing he and his buddy Bernard could come up with was "nappy headed hos" and, what has been left out of the conversation, Bernard calling them "jigaboos and wannabees".

My friend fingered Bernard as the culprit and Imus more for not keeping a tighter leash on those little bastards.  It's hard for me to comment too much on Imus lately because I found him....dull.  It's sick, but I go back to O'Reilly and Hannity because they get my blood boiling!  Anyway, my friend the Imus listener remarked how disgusted it made him the way those guys would lampoon African American accents, like the way the made fun of Maya Angelou who does not have that kind of accent.  Otherwise, he said, Imus was more independent in his thinking than the right-wing Kool-Aid drinkers.  Just when you think he's another angry white male conservative, he'll condemn the war, for instance. 
:-I have never considered Imus a Democrat.  He has supported Democrats, but that doesn't make him a poster boy for the party by any means.  He has also had happy talk on his show with none other than Dick Cheney on inauguration day, at that..

Say this incident had not happened.  I doubt Cheney would go on Imus nowadays and answer for himself.  Last time I heard Cheney talk to a media host it was Limbaugh.  The only person who would be more subservient to Cheney than Limbaugh is Dennis Miller.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: tv on 04/17/07 at 6:47 pm


White Americans buy the fast amount of recorded music and concert tickets, just a fact of sheer numbers.  As above, negativity sells.  I have heard rappers say they could make music with a socially constructive message, but that's not what the record companies want to market.  It all comes back to the consumer and it's all part of the bigger picture of American pop culture, which terribly mean-spirited.

No, I have to disagree with you that why todays rap sells with filthy langauge is because of the negativity I think its because of the reeillion factor myself. See, the kids that listen to this rap music that uses the B, H, and N word along with the raunchy music video's of todays rap music it scares their parents hence the rebellion factor that I was thalking about before.

As far as the record companies pushing this bling-bling rap the rappers should just say to the lablel we are gonna make the record the we want it and you(the label) will have no say in the way we make our songs. In my opinion rock groups in the 80's and 90's like Stone Temple Pilots or Van Halen would stand up to the label and say we are gonna make music the we want to make it unlike the some of the rappers of todays that cave into the lables demands in my opinion of resorting to the B, H, and N word.

As far as white people buying most of the music well the reason why alot of white people(mostly white men I feel) buy rap nowadadays is there is nothig else for young white men to buy in terms of music like there was in the early to mid 90's when alternative rock was popular. I mean the music industry really doesn;t cater to young white men I feel anymore but the labels do cater to young white women more I mean look at the late 90'/early 00's teen-pop era and now the EMO bands its mostly white women that buy that type of music I feel.

Lastly I feel that firing Imus proves nothing unless Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton decide to clean up rap music in terms of the lyrics and the music video's especially that are like soft porn. I mean the black community should have cleaned up rap music awhile ago.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: lterhune on 04/17/07 at 7:24 pm


It's like I said before.  Hate sells. Negativity sells.  Those rappers are rich for the same reasons the Limbaugh and other right-wing trash talkers are rich. 


....And Al Frankin and other left-wing trash talkers.


And Al Sharpton stands no chance of having a nationally syndicated radio program simulcast live on MSNBC. 



So it's okay then to be a biggoted hypocrite with double-standards because he won't get on MSNBC with his own show? Logical.



  Yes.  He called Dick Cheney a war criminal.



A. Isn't that line a bit like what you said a TROLL was?
B. He is not a war criminal and there is no evidence of that, (but if it makes you feel good, go for it)
C. Many big political figures on both sides have been on his show. Maybe you only know of one person, (maybe that's who you saw as an example of big political figures on CNN) but clearly your example and format don't make for a very intellectual discussion... more as a "troll" thing, huh?




There is a civil war going on the Democratic party.  There are those who want to return to  being Democrats and those who want to keep being the other Republican party.



No, not so much. There is a civil war in the Democrat party between those who believe in the Democrat party as in the Kennedy years & those who bow down to the extremists so that moveon.org won't go after them, as they do.... They claim to own the democrat party - and there are those who stay true to the principals of the party it once was.


Good point.  I often wonder how many FOX Viewers are left-wingers like me who tune in to laugh at those clowns and flip 'em the bird (too bad they can't see through the other side of the TV, eh?). 



Classy stuff there!

    I am sure they do not care who watches, just as long as people watch and their ratings remain high.... eh?





FOX News is actually a threat to democracy.  The did help Bush steal the election in 2000.




Wow.



I don't think this is an excuse so much as it is indeed the truth.  White Americans buy the fast amount of recorded music and concert tickets, just a fact of sheer numbers.  As above, negativity sells.  I have heard rappers say they could make music with a socially constructive message, but that's not what the record companies want to market.  It all comes back to the consumer and it's all part of the bigger picture of American pop culture, which terribly mean-spirited.


No one would buy something that is not produced or made - that simple. If the rappers you heard said that, THAT should have made you laugh. I would not buy into that story, as I said, no american puts a gun to these potty mouthed rappers with their vile words and force them to sing em!



Say this incident had not happened.  I doubt Cheney would go on Imus nowadays and answer for himself.  Last time I heard Cheney talk to a media host it was Limbaugh.  The only person who would be more subservient to Cheney than Limbaugh is Dennis Miller.
::)




Yuck, you know? - just yuck.



Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: tv on 04/17/07 at 7:37 pm

I also wanted I think the reason why Imus got backlashed the way he did was because he didn;t nessecariliy address black women as Nappy Heded_____ he was addressing women in general wether it be be white, Asian, Spainish, or black women for that matter.

but by the same token.... should Imus have gotten fired? No way. I think he should have been suspened for a month since he was very apologetic due to the fact he aplogized twice on his own radio show for his actions and even appeared on Sharptons show.


Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: danootaandme on 04/17/07 at 8:02 pm


OMG! I don't buy that excuse. I heard it too, from the very biggoted head of the black panthers. Poor rappers, victims, (again), by the same mentality of the slave holders - keeping these poor faultless black RICH to the core rappers in a form of slavery (that makes them call women hos and WORSE, much WORSE!) I haven't heard one story of a upper middle class white man holding a gun to a rapper's head to make them become rich stars with their potty mouths.





I don't believe there is anything in what I say that sympathizes with the rappers.  I believe them to be the lowest common denominator.  I also would put Imus and his ilk in with them.  The fact is though, that is usually more acceptable for persons within an ethnic category to use derogatory terms within their own category as opposed to persons from outside of the ethnic group.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: danootaandme on 04/17/07 at 8:05 pm




but by the same token.... should Imus have gotten fired? No way. I think he should have been suspened for a month since he was very apologetic due to the fact he aplogized twice on his own radio show for his actions and even appeared on Sharptons show.





The reason he was fired was not because of what he said, it is because of the money lost because of what he said.  Two different things.  It is not a question of free speech, it is a question of free market.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: danootaandme on 04/17/07 at 8:15 pm

I wonder what Imus' daughters think of all this.  I doubt that they are surprised since it seems when he became BMOC he opted for the trophy wife and trophy son and left the 4 (yes 4) girls on the lurch.  Maybe not good enough for his image?  Don't know, but it says something about his attitude towards females and his character(well, lack of character)

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: lterhune on 04/17/07 at 8:48 pm


I also wanted I think the reason why Imus got backlashed the way he did was because he didn;t nessecariliy address black women as Nappy Heded_____ he was addressing women in general wether it be be white, Asian, Spainish, or black women for that matter.

but by the same token.... should Imus have gotten fired? No way. I think he should have been suspened for a month since he was very apologetic due to the fact he aplogized twice on his own radio show for his actions and even appeared on Sharptons show.





Yeah, I saw that & Sharpton ate him alive. He doesn't forgive what he doesn't want to - yet, the world should forgive his racist remarks when he says sorry, (if he does, and he rarely does)

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: lterhune on 04/17/07 at 8:51 pm


I don't believe there is anything in what I say that sympathizes with the rappers.  I believe them to be the lowest common denominator.  I also would put Imus and his ilk in with them.  The fact is though, that is usually more acceptable for persons within an ethnic category to use derogatory terms within their own category as opposed to persons from outside of the ethnic group.


that's true. maybe that is adding to the problems - maybe stuff like what came from Imus is easier since we hear the rappers doing it.......

hmmm....

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: danootaandme on 04/18/07 at 6:45 am


that's true. maybe that is adding to the problems - maybe stuff like what came from Imus is easier since we hear the rappers doing it.......

hmmm....


I think that shock jocks have used their "fight against political correctness" as an excuse to say the things they do.  It is much easier to call names and make fun of people than it is to use politcal satire and biting wit in the way that people like Lenny Bruce, Mort Sahl, Mark Twain, Kurt Vonnegut(RIP), and true genius' of the genre did.


I also wanted I think the reason why Imus got backlashed the way he did was because he didn;t nessecariliy address black women as Nappy Heded_____ he was addressing women in general wether it be be white, Asian, Spainish, or black women for that matter.




Imus wasn't addressing women in general,  Caucasian, Asian, and Spanish women are not noted for their "nappy" heads, black women are.  He was talking specifically about the the African American women on the Rutgers basketball team.  As I pointed out before he laughed when bernard called them "jigaboos" and called the Caucasian women on the team "wannabees"  That, more or less, sealed the deal.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 04/18/07 at 8:03 am


Republicans are not okay about what he said, that's silly.  Democrats turning on their own means just what is says, they turn on their own. There is a big civil war going on with the democrats - hard to miss or deny.

 
Let's say Imus wasn't a democrat, or that Rush Limbaugh said this.  Do you honestly think the Republicans wouldn't be "turning on one of their own" too?  Would they be lining up in support of him? This is one of the lamest example of "democrat-bashing" I think I've ever heard.

Again, this has NOTHING to do with partisan politics....it's a matter of someone saying something stupid and people calling him on it. 

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: danootaandme on 04/18/07 at 8:05 am




Again, this has NOTHING to do with partisan politics....it's a matter of someone saying something stupid and people calling
him on it. 



Yes!

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 04/18/07 at 8:07 am


I think that shock jocks have used their "fight against political correctness" as an excuse to say the things they do.  It is much easier to call names and make fun of people than it is to use politcal satire and biting wit in the way that people like Lenny Bruce, Mort Sahl, Mark Twain, Kurt Vonnegut(RIP), and true genius' of the genre did.

Imus wasn't addressing women in general,  Caucasian, Asian, and Spanish women are not noted for their "nappy" heads, black women are.  He was talking specifically about the the African American women on the Rutgers basketball team.  As I pointed out before he laughed when bernard called them "jigaboos" and called the Caucasian women on the team "wannabees"  That, more or less, sealed the deal.

I refer to my hair as "nappy" all the time and have since I can remember.  My grandma used to use it to describe her hair at times and I must've picked it up from her ???

I agree with the Bernard comment.  I haven't heard anything about him.  Was he fired as well?  Personally, I think his remarks were even MORE offensive than Imus'.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 04/18/07 at 6:58 pm


....And Al Frankin and other left-wing trash talkers.

Well, I'm not so big on Al Franken.  I'm a Thom Hartmann fan myself.  And of course, Sam Seder

So it's okay then to be a biggoted hypocrite with double-standards because he won't get on MSNBC with his own show? Logical.
Uh, no, I didn't say that.

A. Isn't that line a bit like what you said a TROLL was?
I think I just posted what "troll" means in Internet jargon.

B. He is not a war criminal and there is no evidence of that, (but if it makes you feel good, go for it)
I didn't say Cheney's a war criminal, Imus did.  Now, Cheny might very well be a war criminal, but he will never be required to answer any such charge.  The American justice dept. will never go there, and the U.S. does not recognize international courts when it doesn't suit the interests of the military-industrial complex.
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2007/apr/11/don-imus-the-issue-radio-host-is-in-hot-water-on/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4480638.stm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_Administration_War_Crimes_in_Iraq

The evidence that my government commits war crimes as defined under international law to which my country is sworn is not a "feel good" for me.



C. Many big political figures on both sides have been on his show. Maybe you only know of one person, (maybe that's who you saw as an example of big political figures on CNN) but clearly your example and format don't make for a very intellectual discussion... more as a "troll" thing, huh?

More to the point, Imus would spar with guests with who he did not agree.  You don't see that with Hannity, O'Reilly, or that FOX bunch, they just shout the other guy down.  Limbaugh won't even debate anybody.  If he goes on as a guest of another host he insists no one on the panel be allowed to rebut him.  Hard to argue when you're hopped up on opiates.

No, not so much. There is a civil war in the Democrat party between those who believe in the Democrat party as in the Kennedy years & those who bow down to the extremists so that moveon.org won't go after them, as they do.... They claim to own the democrat party - and there are those who stay true to the principals of the party it once was.

Kennedy, a Democrat, cut the top marginal tax rates to about 70% from the 91% they'd been under Eisenhower, a Republican.  45 years later the Republican party has slid so far to the Right that partisan distinctions from generations past are irrelevant.  The reason right-wing pundits embrace JFK and MLK is they are both seen universally as forces for "good," and neither man is alive to contradict them.  Be assured, both men would despise Dubya.





Wow.


http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/americas/us/bush_v_gore.html

At 2:16 A.M., November 8, 2000, six hours after the networks projected that Florida would go to Gore, based on shoddy reporting done by the Voter News Service (V.N.S.), a young hotshot at Fox News named John Ellis, who happened to be George W. Bush 's cousin, called the state — and the election — for Bush.

Within four minutes, ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN followed suit.

"It was just the three of us guys handing the phone back and forth," Ellis would later say to The New Yorker.

"Me with the numbers, one of them a governor, the other the president-elect. Now, that was cool."




Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: lterhune on 04/18/07 at 11:30 pm




Again, this has NOTHING to do with partisan politics....it's a matter of someone saying something stupid and people calling him on it. 


Except when people in this thread mention multiple times that Cheney was on his show in the past. (but that's okay)

Come on, if he were a Republican - the democrats would be all over it using it to "prove" the right are bigots. That's been done & it's almost constant!


 

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: Tia on 04/19/07 at 6:51 am


Except when people in this thread mention multiple times that Cheney was on his show in the past. (but that's okay)

Come on, if he were a Republican - the democrats would be all over it using it to "prove" the right are bigots. That's been done & it's almost constant!


 
well, the republicans are more than a little vulnerable to this accusation, given their policies about affirmative action, the death penatly (which it's statistically proven affects african-americans disproportionately), and saying such things as that racism no longer exists in america when i think just about every black person who lives here knows otherwise. also such things as trying to keep black people from voting in the last two national elections. this is definitely not an equal playing field, and frankly it shouldn't be -- the recent history of the republican party on race is just embarrassing.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: danootaandme on 04/19/07 at 6:59 am


well, the republicans are more than a little vulnerable to this accusation, given their policies about affirmative action, the death penatly (which it's statistically proven affects african-americans disproportionately), and saying such things as that racism no longer exists in america when i think just about every black person who lives here knows otherwise. also such things as trying to keep black people from voting in the last two national elections. this is definitely not an equal playing field, and frankly it shouldn't be -- the recent history of the republican party on race is just embarrassing.



As an African American who was raised in a straight ticket Republican household, I can add a dimension to this argument.  Until my early twenties the thought of voting Democrat was unthinkable(except in the case of Richard Nixon, of course).  The attitude was a throw back, my grandparents being raised by great grandparents of the slavery/reconstruction era and close to what was then the party of Abraham Lincoln, which it definitely isn't any longer.  The Democrats aren't great, but the Republicans are atrocious.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 04/19/07 at 8:25 am


Except when people in this thread mention multiple times that Cheney was on his show in the past. (but that's okay)

Come on, if he were a Republican - the democrats would be all over it using it to "prove" the right are bigots. That's been done & it's almost constant!


 
I was referring to partisan politics vis a vis "turning on your own."  Face it, the Republicans would be doing the exact same thing if he was a Republican.  Either that or they'd just sweep it under the rug like they try to do with anything else ::)

Republicans are all over democrats and democrats are all over republicans, that's nothing new or unique to this situation ::)

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 04/19/07 at 2:21 pm


As an African American who was raised in a straight ticket Republican household, I can add a dimension to this argument.  Until my early twenties the thought of voting Democrat was unthinkable(except in the case of Richard Nixon, of course).  The attitude was a throw back, my grandparents being raised by great grandparents of the slavery/reconstruction era and close to what was then the party of Abraham Lincoln, which it definitely isn't any longer.  The Democrats aren't great, but the Republicans are atrocious.


Yes, as you are saying, prior to FDR, the Democratic party was the racist redneck party.  FDR's "New Deal" was the first part of the transformation.  The Civil Rights legislation of 1964 was the second.  Conservative commentators are indeed correct when they say that many of the most powerful Democrats (Al Gore, Sr., Robert Byrd) opposed Civil Rights and it would not have passed had it not been for the support of Republicans, such as Everett Dirksen.  Indeed it is true that Johnson himself had a bigotted streal a mile wide, freely using the N-word. 

Nevertheless, what the New Deal and Civil Rights did was found what we know today as the Democratic Party.

Of course, you will still hear clowns such as Sean Hannity and Bill Bennett,* call the GOP "the party of Lincoln" and "the party of emancipation," but that's too risible to even debate regarding the post-Eisenhower Republican party. 

Fact is, both parties were rife with rabid racists in the first 1/2 of the 20th century.  The difference is it was the Democrats who put an end to Reconstruction in the 1870s, and so forth.

*William Bennett, who said on his own nationally syndicated radio program: "I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down."  He mounted a good defense...he was quoting from an ugly little book called "Freakonomics," it was hypothetical, and he condemned the idea in the same breath.  However, Dr. Bennett did imply African-Americans were more crime-prone than white Americans.  If Jesse Jackson had said, "If we aborted every white baby, we'd have less racism..." well, you get the general idea.
::)

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: lterhune on 04/20/07 at 9:26 pm


well, the republicans are more than a little vulnerable to this accusation, given their policies about affirmative action, the death penatly (which it's statistically proven affects african-americans disproportionately), and saying such things as that racism no longer exists in america when i think just about every black person who lives here knows otherwise. also such things as trying to keep black people from voting in the last two national elections. this is definitely not an equal playing field, and frankly it shouldn't be -- the recent history of the republican party on race is just embarrassing.



which policies about affirmative action are you talking about? The recent history of the party of race, do tell. Blanket statements can be made, made up, blown up, wrong etc., so real examples would be nice.

As far as the death penalty, surprisingly, most people are FOR IT, even democrats (who are not crazy libs). The loon liberls on the hill may not like it, but in poll after poll afer poll - Americans do. And as far as black people & the death penalty - there are a lot more blacks in prisons too - all for the same reasons - they commit lots of crimes and go to jail and death row.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: lterhune on 04/20/07 at 9:27 pm


As an African American who was raised in a straight ticket Republican household, I can add a dimension to this argument.  Until my early twenties the thought of voting Democrat was unthinkable(except in the case of Richard Nixon, of course).  The attitude was a throw back, my grandparents being raised by great grandparents of the slavery/reconstruction era and close to what was then the party of Abraham Lincoln, which it definitely isn't any longer.  The Democrats aren't great, but the Republicans are atrocious.


seeeee, more non-examples

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: lterhune on 04/20/07 at 9:30 pm


I was referring to partisan politics vis a vis "turning on your own."  Face it, the Republicans would be doing the exact same thing if he was a Republican.  Either that or they'd just sweep it under the rug like they try to do with anything else ::)

Republicans are all over democrats and democrats are all over republicans, that's nothing new or unique to this situation ::)



See what it created? A bunch of blamers and whiners w/out anything more than parroting what's been drilled into their heads by the liberals. And you say it's not political..... of course it is! That's how the demoncrats win when they win. They build hate, anger and rumors that do not have any evidence etc., and get people mad enough to vote democrat. See, since their platform is non-existent, (or has the majority of people not loving it (like their insane need to tax us for all we work for and more)) the only way to win is to make people miserable and mad.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: lterhune on 04/20/07 at 9:36 pm


Yes, as you are saying, prior to FDR, the Democratic party was the racist redneck party.  FDR's "New Deal" was the first part of the transformation.  The Civil Rights legislation of 1964 was the second.  Conservative commentators are indeed correct when they say that many of the most powerful Democrats (Al Gore, Sr., Robert Byrd) opposed Civil Rights and it would not have passed had it not been for the support of Republicans, such as Everett Dirksen.  Indeed it is true that Johnson himself had a bigotted streal a mile wide, freely using the N-word. 


Of course, you will still hear clowns such as Sean Hannity and Bill Bennett,* call the GOP "the party of Lincoln" and "the party of emancipation," but that's too risible to even debate regarding the post-Eisenhower Republican party. 

Fact is, both parties were rife with rabid racists in the first 1/2 of the 20th century.  The difference is it was the Democrats who put an end to Reconstruction in the 1870s, and so forth.

*William Bennett, who said on his own nationally syndicated radio program: "I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down."  He mounted a good defense...he was quoting from an ugly little book called "Freakonomics," it was hypothetical, and he condemned the idea in the same breath.  However, Dr. Bennett did imply African-Americans were more crime-prone than white Americans.  If Jesse Jackson had said, "If we aborted every white baby, we'd have less racism..." well, you get the general idea.
::)



The GOP was created / formed to end slavery.
       
          Maybe that's why party keeps Byrd around, the KKK leader, 3rd generation.... what a great example of hate in the democrat party huh? And the demoncrats keep him in the senate..... hell, they on't care....

PS  Freakonomics is not an ugly little book. I have it and there is nothing ugly about it... perhaps you should read it before you call it names.


Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 04/20/07 at 9:39 pm


which policies about affirmative action are you talking about? The recent history of the party of race, do tell. Blanket statements can be made, made up, blown up, wrong etc., so real examples would be nice.

As far as the death penalty, surprisingly, most people are FOR IT, even democrats (who are not crazy libs). The loon liberls on the hill may not like it, but in poll after poll afer poll - Americans do. And as far as black people & the death penalty - there are a lot more blacks in prisons too - all for the same reasons - they commit lots of crimes and go to jail and death row.



Most countries in the world have already abolished the death penalty.  The trend started as far back as the late 19th century with some European and Latin American countries and has continued steadily ever since.  The last hanging in Great Britain was carried out in 1964, I believe.  America stands with great humanitarian democracies such as Saudie Arabia, Iran, and China in its capital punishment fetish.

African-Americans are both more likely to be convicted of crimes and more likely to receive capital sentences because of inadequate counsel.

Now, please don't bait anybody into concluding that you believe African-Americans are genetically predisposed to crime.  I don't think you want to go there.

Are you SURE it's just "crazy liberals/loon libs" who are against the death penalty in this country?  I'm against the death penalty.  Do you really want to imply that I'm insane because of that?



The GOP was created / formed to end slavery.

Yes, indeed, the GOP was an abolitionist party when it started in 1854.  Now, with the passage of time, events occur that change people, nations, and cultures.  We call this history.  A lot can change in 150 years!  Check it out, the ideology of the Bolshevik revolution was to wrest control from the czarist tyranny and create an egalitarian state controlled by the workers.  Look what happened to the place in just 20 years when Uncle Joe was running the farm.  Political ideology often runs afoul of its founding intent.
         
         Maybe that's why party keeps Byrd around, the KKK leader, 3rd generation.... what a great example of hate in the democrat party huh? And the demoncrats keep him in the senate..... hell, they on't care....
I agree with many of the things Byrd has said in his old age, but I have never been comfortable with his Klan past...even though he said he was sorry.  Sometimes "sorry" just can't cut the mustard.  When Byrd was a young man, the Democratic party in the South was the KKK's party of choice.  It's like I said above, HISTORY.  Ask any present day klansman/white supremicist what he thinks of the "Democrat party," and you won't get favorable reviews!  I mean, you can choose to look at both sides, or you can do what Sean Hannity does.

PS  Freakonomics is not an ugly little book. I have it and there is nothing ugly about it... perhaps you should read it before you call it names.



I called it an ugly little book but not a mendacious little book.  I don't agree with everything the authors said, but much of it is quite compelling...and quite ugly.  Just because it's ugly doesn't mean it's a lie!



See what it created? A bunch of blamers and whiners w/out anything more than parroting what's been drilled into their heads by the loony liberals. And you say it's not political..... of course it is! That's how the demoncrats win when they win. They build hate, anger and rumors that do not have any evidence etc., and get people mad enough to vote democrat. See, since their platform SUCKS or is non-existent, (or has the majority of people not loving it (like their insane need to tax us for all we work for and more)) the only way to win is to make people miserable and mad.

That's why Al Gore lost the popular vote.  That's why the Republicans retained a majority in both houses in '06.  That's why Bush's popularity ratings consistently rank in the hight 70s.  OK then!

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: danootaandme on 04/21/07 at 7:59 am


seeeee, more non-examples




Well, a good start would be the presidential administration of Andrew Johnson(He started the downward trend on April 15, 1865).  Although there were Republicans who fought for equal rights, they were considered radicals. African Americans were essentially sold from that day, with a lot of help from the Dems.  Recent history? Ken Mehlman, Chairman of the RNC admitted, and apologized to the NAACP, for the current administrations use of race-baiting strategies.  Demonization of the African American was a strategy, I would say that is a glaring example.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 04/21/07 at 12:35 pm


Well, a good start would be the presidential administration of Andrew Johnson(He started the downward trend on April 15, 1865).  Although there were Republicans who fought for equal rights, they were considered radicals. African Americans were essentially sold from that day, with a lot of help from the Dems.  Recent history? Ken Mehlman, Chairman of the RNC admitted, and apologized to the NAACP, for the current administrations use of race-baiting strategies.  Demonization of the African American was a strategy, I would say that is a glaring example.


The GOP might jettison the religious zealotry it has espoused ever since the evangelicals embraced Ronald Reagan.  It is interfering with hardcore tenets of the party platform:
1. Advancement of corporate power over democratic (small "d") power.
2. Tax cuts for the rich.
3. Transfer of publically held resources into private hands.
4. Tax cuts for the rich.
5. Deployment of the military for the advancement of tenet #3.
6. Tax cuts for the rich.
7. Repeal of the 20th century social contract (ie. tax cuts for the rich).
They've got a fine candidate waiting in the wings for '06, Rudy Giuliani, and the religious right is interfering.  The don't like Giuliania because he doesn't meet their moralist standards.  What the evangelicals don't realize is issues of abortion, homosexuality, guns, and God were merely drapes thrown over the naked corporate greed that fuels Republican (big "R") motiviations.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: danootaandme on 04/21/07 at 3:40 pm


The GOP might jettison the religious zealotry it has espoused ever since the evangelicals embraced Ronald Reagan.  It is interfering with hardcore tenets of the party platform:
1. Advancement of corporate power over democratic (small "d") power.
2. Tax cuts for the rich.
3. Transfer of publically held resources into private hands.
4. Tax cuts for the rich.
5. Deployment of the military for the advancement of tenet #3.
6. Tax cuts for the rich.
7. Repeal of the 20th century social contract (ie. tax cuts for the rich).
They've got a fine candidate waiting in the wings for '06, Rudy Giuliani, and the religious right is interfering.  The don't like Giuliania because he doesn't meet their moralist standards.  What the evangelicals don't realize is issues of abortion, homosexuality, guns, and God were merely drapes thrown over the naked corporate greed that fuels Republican (big "R") motiviations.


You didn't quite mention tax cuts for the rich.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: Tia on 04/21/07 at 4:14 pm

what about tax cuts for the rich?

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 04/21/07 at 9:22 pm

Oh, right, the Republican party platform does indeed emphasize tax cuts for the rich.  I was just saying, apart from tax cuts for the rich, the main focus of the Republican party is tax cuts for the rich.
:-\\

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: lterhune on 04/23/07 at 10:04 pm


Oh, right, the Republican party platform does indeed emphasize tax cuts for the rich.  I was just saying, apart from tax cuts for the rich, the main focus of the Republican party is tax cuts for the rich.
:-\\



That's silly or purposely cynical, (and wrong and misleading). You are not addressing who the Right are (and you know that). If you want to know that, for real, I can help you...

anyway:

The tax cuts for the rich, (have w/other changes), helped stimulate our economy to a place that is better than it has been in over 3 decades! ! !

Our outstanding economy has brought more excess income per capita than any other president’s has.

The rich pay more (and have been under Bush ¾’s of his presidency), taxes than under Clinton, (bet you didn’t know that).

The poor do not pay taxes, (they did under Clinton and Clinton raised the taxes considerably for the middle class). Not only do they not pay taxes, but they get tax credits so that when they do get more income, they do not have to pay taxes on it w/their credits so that they have a chance to catch up – Clinton didn’t have that either.

And what is wrong with the rich getting tax breaks? They work for their money and the top 3 percent pay what, 90 percent of the tax income? What would you like them to do, work for free and give all their money to Uncle Sam so you can feel better and more socialistic even?

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: Tia on 04/23/07 at 10:24 pm



That's silly or purposely cynical, (and wrong and misleading). You are not addressing who the Right are (and you know that). If you want to know that, for real, I can help you...

anyway:

The tax cuts for the rich, (have w/other changes), helped stimulate our economy to a place that is better than it has been in over 3 decades! ! !


really? the economy is booming?

how do you measure this? by how many people can afford health insurance? by how many people declare bankruptcy? by how many people attempt suicide and cite money-related anxieties as part of the reason? by how often the minimum wage has been increased? or are we focusing on shibboleths like the level of the stock market or the affluence of the top one tenth of one percent of the population? because if we're going by the latter set of metrics, yes, things are going splendidly, thank you very much, and now if you don't mind i'm going to play into the 18th hole. if you're talking about the former set of metrics, which is how most of us who aren't sick with wealth envy actually live our lives, no, this economy is a complete train wreck.

i'm sorry, but any country that can't provide basic health care to one quarter of the people who live in its capital.... is on the verge of being no longer a part of the civilized world. one quarter of the people who live in a city, having no recourse but bankruptcy if they get sick... that's a hobbesian state of nature, right there.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 04/25/07 at 1:45 pm



See what it created? A bunch of blamers and whiners w/out anything more than parroting what's been drilled into their heads by the liberals. And you say it's not political..... of course it is! That's how the demoncrats win when they win. They build hate, anger and rumors that do not have any evidence etc., and get people mad enough to vote democrat. See, since their platform is non-existent, (or has the majority of people not loving it (like their insane need to tax us for all we work for and more)) the only way to win is to make people miserable and mad.
And the repubicans are different how?  For someone who keeps harping on "examples," you seem to be avoiding providing your OWN examples for the rhetoric you're spewing.....

AFA the "tax cuts for the rich," I hardly consider hubby & I "rich," but our taxes keep going up every year despite having MORE deductions, where are the tax cuts PERIOD?

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 04/25/07 at 6:23 pm


And the repubicans are different how?  For someone who keeps harping on "examples," you seem to be avoiding providing your OWN examples for the rhetoric you're spewing.....

AFA the "tax cuts for the rich," I hardly consider hubby & I "rich," but our taxes keep going up every year despite having MORE deductions, where are the tax cuts PERIOD?

Here's a loaded question (harkening back to earlier era), "Don't you know there's a war on?"
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/director.gif

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 04/25/07 at 7:09 pm



That's silly or purposely cynical, (and wrong and misleading). You are not addressing who the Right are (and you know that). If you want to know that, for real, I can help you...

Hmmm..."silly or purposely cynical...and wrong and misleading."  Sounds like supply side economics to me!  I could address the Right, but they don't listen.  However, I have listened to them for 20 years, and oh what I have heard!

The tax cuts for the rich, (have w/other changes), helped stimulate our economy to a place that is better than it has been in over 3 decades! ! !

Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.  -- David Cay Johnston, New York Times.

Our outstanding economy has brought more excess income per capita than any other president’s has.
"Excess income per capita"?  What in the name of Sam Hill is "excess income per capita"?  My fellow capitas, what have you been doing with your "excess income"?  I like to fill my swimming pool with hundred dollar bills and jump right in the middle!
:D
I mean, I see folks using their homes as ATM machines just to pay the other expenses and now that scheme is played out.  I have never seen so many home foreclosures since I knew what the word meant, not even in the recessions of the early '80s and early '90s!  Are all these economists who say wages for working and middle class wages have stagnated or declined since Bush took over.  I guess it's just "liberal bias," and as Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."  I mean, come on, you can't be serious!

The rich pay more (and have been under Bush ¾’s of his presidency), taxes than under Clinton, (bet you didn’t know that).
I didn't know that.  Neither did Mr. Johnston.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/national/class/HYPER-FINAL.html?ei=5088&en=f1a744d1ce38c79e&ex=1275624000&pagewanted=print

The poor do not pay taxes, (they did under Clinton and Clinton raised the taxes considerably for the middle class). Not only do they not pay taxes, but they get tax credits so that when they do get more income, they do not have to pay taxes on it w/their credits so that they have a chance to catch up – Clinton didn’t have that either.
When cons talk about taxes, they talk only about capital gains and income taxes.  Reaganomics was funded in part by raising payroll taxes to cut taxes for the highest "earners."  Ask Alan Greenspan, he'll tell you the same thing.  In spite of that, the U.S. went from being the world's biggest lender nation to the world's biggest debtor nation in Reagan's first term alone.  Bush has squandered the surplus the Clinton Administration brought us when his policies tamped down just some of the supply side madnesss.  Now we're back with Dubya and record deficits, sky--effing--high!  This is not the failure of supply side economics, it was the plan all along.  Anyway, are not sales taxes taxes?  Are not fuel taxes taxes?  Are not excise taxes taxes?  I mean, isn't it obvious the poor pay plenty of taxes and these taxes hit them disproportionately hard?

Clinton didn't have what?  Clinton doubled the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit). 

And what is wrong with the rich getting tax breaks? They work for their money and the top 3 percent pay what, 90 percent of the tax income? What would you like them to do, work for free and give all their money to Uncle Sam so you can feel better and more socialistic even?

Again, read David Cay Johnston.  It's a matter of proportion.  The rationale for giving the rich "tax breaks" when we got suckered into Reaganomics was that the rich would turn around and invest that money in our economy.  They didn't.  We have given the rich chance after chance to re-create the kind of economic boom we had in the 1950s when the top marginal rate was over 90%, but all they do is fleece the joint.  The biggest automobile company in the world is not General Motors.  It is now Toyota.  If you told your grandfather that in 1955--or your father that in 1975--he'd say, "No way!  Never could happen."  It just did.  BTW, General Motors didn't go belly up because the workers are greedy.  Sorry Rush.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112505Z.shtml
BTW, If you are earning over $300,000 a year and are paying 90% of that in taxes in the year 2007, I'd suggest you fire your lawyer and your accountant pronto!  You been had!
;D
Was Eisenhower a socialist?  Was John F. Kennedy a socialist?  Was Richard Milhouse Nixon a socialist?  Hmmmm.....

What about the GNP?  I think Bobby Kennedy said it best:

"Our gross national product now is over eight hundred billion dollars a year, but that GNP--if we should judge America by that--counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage.  It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl.  It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets.  It counts Whitman's rifle* and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.
Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play.  It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials.  It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom or our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.  And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.


--Robert F. Kennedy, Sr., 1968

*Or Cho's automatic weapons, as the case might be.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: lterhune on 04/25/07 at 9:13 pm


Hmmm..."silly or purposely cynical...and wrong and misleading."  Sounds like supply side economics to me!  I could address the Right, but they don't listen.  However, I have listened to them for 20 years, and oh what I have heard!



That had absolutely nothing to do with what I said and what I responded to; i.e., it made no sense.




Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.  -- David Cay Johnston, New York Times.


What exactly does that have to do with what I was addressing?




"Excess income per capita"?  What in the name of Sam Hill is "excess income per capita"?  My fellow capitas, what have you been doing with your "excess income"?  I like to fill my swimming pool with hundred dollar bills and jump right in the middle!




It’s the extra revenue to our government exceeding the expected tax revenue. (No need to get sarcastic by the way) 





I mean, I see folks using their homes as ATM machines just to pay the other expenses and now that scheme is played out.  I have never seen so many home foreclosures since I knew what the word meant, not even in the recessions of the early '80s and early '90s!  Are all these economists who say wages for working and middle class wages have stagnated or declined since Bush took over.  I guess it's just "liberal bias," and as Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."  I mean, come on, you can't be serious!




For the first time, more people own than rent (under Bush). More first time buyers were able to and purchased homes under Bush BY FAR than any other president. The National pay increase under Bush in just one year was $1,000.00, (the second highest increase in our history –the first highest being the year following WWII).




I didn't know that.  Neither did Mr. Johnston.



Gee, I am sorry about Mr. Johnston from the NY Liberal Times. If you looked at official records and stats, you would be able to form your own opinion rather than adopting one from Mr. Johnston) Anyway, I didn’t notice in the article, by the way, the tax rates, Bush VS Clinton (you know, the topic we were on). You seem to be stuck on the refunds (another topic which I will gladly help you understand below). Still, the fact remains; Bush has the higher income folk paying more taxes than Clinton… Sorry if that upsets you!  By the way, Kerry and Edwards BOTH campaigned about tax reforms via the tax loopholes that they promised to fix. All the while, they used every little tax loophole they could find. Edwards, for example, paid as much taxes as a person who made under 75k while he made a couple million – his campaign year. So the article is right about that! (funny how Bush didn’t do that).


When cons talk about taxes, they talk only about capital gains and income taxes. 



Hmm. When libs talk about taxes, they talk only about how many ways they can raise them and how many hard luck depressing stories they can come up with to raise them again. (by the way, they are working on a gas tax that will add 50 cents per gallon to the price so that they can get money to pay for something that is already being paid for now without an additional gas tax)



Now we're back with Dubya and record deficits, sky--effing--high!  This is not the failure of supply side economics, it was the plan all along. 



Yeah, right - the plan all along, come on - be real - I respond to that better.



BTW, If you are earning over $300,000 a year and are paying 90% of that in taxes in the year 2007, I'd suggest you fire your lawyer and your accountant pronto!  You been had!



(I will address the first part of what you wrote below) 

I never suggested a person who makes $300,000 or more a year pay 90% of that in taxes. I meant those making the top 3% pay 90% of the income our government gets for taxes. 






Was Eisenhower a socialist?  Was John F. Kennedy a socialist?  Was Richard Milhouse Nixon a socialist?  Hmmmm.....



No... why do you ask? Do you think the Democrat party is even remotely like it was w/Kennedy or Eisenhower? ROFL!!! A totally different party, totally!

(I will put what I said I would put below in the next post. This one is getting to long)

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: lterhune on 04/25/07 at 9:15 pm



Understanding Taxes (comments welcome)

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: Tia on 04/25/07 at 9:56 pm

lol. the "democrat" party. bush doesn't even do that anymore, i heard him start to a couple of times and then he corrected himself.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 04/26/07 at 7:51 am



For the first time, more people own than rent (under Bush). More first time buyers were able to and purchased homes under Bush BY FAR than any other president. The National pay increase under Bush in just one year was $1,000.00, (the second highest increase in our history –the first highest being the year following WWII).


Obviously you missed the 'FORECLOSURES ARE AT AN ALL TIME HIGH' part of his post.  The reason more people own than rent is not because of anything Bush has done.  It's because of sub-prime mortgages.  Which, in case you don't know, are basically adjustable rate interest only loans where the beginning interest rate is prime-X (usually about 3%) for a certain length of time or until you hit a certain % of the original loan.  So, people are buying houses with ridiculously low payments for a few years, not thinking that their payment is going to almost DOUBLE when the "discount" ends.  Needless to say, when it comes time to pay more, they can't afford it because they were barely making the initial payment so the bank forecloses on the property.  Oh, and the lenders were letting people use up to 40% of their GROSS income to qualify for these (the regular rate is 25-30% of your NET).  Foreclosures went up something like 45% in 2006 over 2005 so look for that number of homeowners>renters to shift back to renters>homeowners again.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: Tia on 04/26/07 at 8:52 am

the funny part about that jokey tax email is that four out of ten people allegedly don't pay taxes. this strikes me as a complete invention. i didn't make much money last year and i paid one quarter of my income in taxes. they definitely stick it to the little guy with taxes, and anyone who thinks different is smoking something. seriously, i saw bush's tax return and in terms of percentage of income, i paid like three times more of my income in taxes. and i made something like one-twentieth of what bush makes. america is definitely a great country to be rich in.

and who's this "tenth" man? if we're talking about the real rich sector of society, we'd be talking about one-tenth of one-tenth of the tenth man, since it's a minute fraction of one percent of the population who are in the top 10% income bracket.

i dunno, the tax email is cute, i've definitely seen it a million times over the past few years. but it has no relationship to reality.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: John Jenkins on 04/26/07 at 9:41 am


i saw bush's tax return and in terms of percentage of income, i paid like three times more of my income in taxes. and i made something like one-twentieth of what bush makes.


In 2006, George and Laura Bush earned $766,000 and paid $186,000 - 24% - in federal income taxes.  Are you saying that your federal income taxes were 72% of your income?  If so, I agree that that is very unfair - and, if so, let me buy your next beer.  But I think lterhune's illustration accurately shows how incentives and disincentives in the tax system work and has a lot to do with reality.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 04/26/07 at 10:58 am


In 2006, George and Laura Bush earned $766,000 and paid $186,000 - 24% - in federal income taxes.  Are you saying that your federal income taxes were 72% of your income?  If so, I agree that that is very unfair - and, if so, let me buy your next beer.  But I think lterhune's illustration accurately shows how incentives and disincentives in the tax system work and has a lot to do with reality.
Hence my view that it's the middle class that gets screwed....in 2006, we paid 31% (and that's BEFORE hubby's pre-tax deductions--after, it's closer to 38%)

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: Tia on 04/26/07 at 11:06 am


In 2006, George and Laura Bush earned $766,000 and paid $186,000 - 24% - in federal income taxes.  Are you saying that your federal income taxes were 72% of your income?  If so, I agree that that is very unfair - and, if so, let me buy your next beer.  But I think lterhune's illustration accurately shows how incentives and disincentives in the tax system work and has a lot to do with reality.
okay, i exaggerated a hair, but paying a 24% in taxes when you make three quarters of a million dollars a year is basically the same as what someone who makes 30K a year pays. so why are rich people pissing and moaning about taxes all the time? getting $600,000 a year free and clear sounds like a pretty sweet ride to me.

and what'd he do to earn it? just throw the entire country down the drain.

sorry, i'm irritable on the subject today.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 04/26/07 at 11:13 am


okay, i exaggerated a hair, but paying a 24% in taxes when you make three quarters of a million dollars a year is basically the same as what someone who makes 30K a year pays. so why are rich people pissing and moaning about taxes all the time? getting $600,000 a year free and clear sounds like a pretty sweet ride to me.

and what'd he do to earn it? just throw the entire country down the drain.

sorry, i'm irritable on the subject today.
24 % is LESS than we paid (see post above)....it's equal to what my younger brother paid (and he made <$30K)

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: Tia on 04/26/07 at 11:17 am


24 % is LESS than we paid (see post above)....it's equal to what my younger brother paid (and he made <$30K)
i'm still waiting, based on lterhune's email, to find out who these 40% of americans are who pay NO taxes at all! ;D

that understanding taxes thing is such a smokescreen.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: danootaandme on 04/26/07 at 3:49 pm




In 2006, George and Laura Bush earned $766,000 and paid $186,000 - 24% - in federal income taxes.  Are you saying that your federal income taxes were 72% of your income?  If so, I agree that that is very unfair - and, if so, let me buy your next beer.  But I think lterhune's illustration accurately shows how incentives and disincentives in the tax system work and has a lot to do with reality.

.

Of course, the "Bush Family Trust" isn't included in his income.  When he leaves office and starts recieving funds from that I wonder what will happen to his income level.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 04/26/07 at 9:52 pm


.

Of course, the "Bush Family Trust" isn't included in his income.  When he leaves office and starts recieving funds from that I wonder what will happen to his income level.


It's hard to say "Bush Family" and "Trust" in the same breath!
::)

Thanks to Kim for explaining the sub-prime mortgages so I don't have to.

Iterhune scoffed when I said she would immediately impeach whoever I quoted regarding the election thefts as liberal kooks.  I tested the water by quoting David Cay Johnston on taxes.  Without a pause she dismissed Johnston because he writes for the "New York Liberal Times." 
Anybody who writes for the New York Times is obviously a spy for the Kremlin, especially that William Safire!

Stats?  Facts and figures?  Mr. Johnston has done his homework.  His conclusions just don't happen to be what Rush Limbaugh wants to hear.

The New York Times is a pro-corporate institution that tries not to incur the wrath of the rich and powerful.  However, when the standard for that is the Weekly Standard and FOX News, they're out of luck.  The NYT isn't really all that "liberal," unless any journalism other than relentless cheerleading for right-wing dogma is "liberal." 

Paul Krugman, economist from Princeton University = Far left liberal wingnut.
Bill O'Reilly, FOX News program host = Soldier of the Divine Truth.
;D

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: Tia on 04/26/07 at 10:51 pm

KIM? WHAT? WHERE?

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 04/27/07 at 7:02 am


KIM? WHAT? WHERE?
Sorry sweetie, it's just me :P

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 04/27/07 at 5:12 pm

The tax parable is pretty snappy, but no economist/scholar has stepped upt to the plate and claimed authorship.  It's damnsight better than a lot of junk that circulates the internet (such as the malarky Saver used to post, or Alexander Tytler on democracy, which Foo Bar just posted) because it is opinion and doesn't state false or deceptive information as fact.


However, it is more of the same right-wing rhetoric designed to make those who call for progressive tax reform look like whining ingrates...perhaps irrational and violent whining ingrates to boot!  I mean, it's very Reaganesque in its elegance.  It masks a complex issue in a cogent parable, which turns out to be utterly insipid on analysis.  The ulterior motive, as it always was with Reagan, is to incite contempt for the have-nots.  Emotion parading as fact is a key element of propaganda.
::)

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: lterhune on 04/27/07 at 7:30 pm


  The NYT isn't really all that "liberal,"



Even you can't really believe that  - Who are you trying to fool?




Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: Tia on 04/27/07 at 10:12 pm



Even you can't really believe that  - Who are you trying to fool?





they were pro-war for a long time. so was the washington post.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: lterhune on 04/28/07 at 3:32 pm


they were pro-war for a long time. so was the washington post.



All but one of their main reporters are far left liberals and all their editorial staff are all far left liberals (and it shows-that’s why their subscriptions are going down).

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 04/28/07 at 6:18 pm



All but one of their main reporters are far left liberals and all their editorial staff are all far left liberals (and it shows-that’s why their subscriptions are going down).



Just how in the name of Sam Hill are you defining "far left liberal"?

I can't ask Bill Oh Really, but I can ask you!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_bounce.gif

The NYT subscription rates are going down because fewer Americans of all stripes are reading newspapers these days.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: Tia on 05/03/07 at 7:12 pm


Just how in the name of Sam Hill are you defining "far left liberal"?

I can't ask Bill Oh Really, but I can ask you!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_bounce.gif

The NYT subscription rates are going down because fewer Americans of all stripes are reading newspapers these days.
far-left commie radical liberal traitor = anyone willing to print the truth, even if it happens to make bush look bad?

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: lterhune on 05/03/07 at 9:13 pm


far-left commie radical liberal traitor = anyone willing to print the truth, even if it happens to make bush look bad?


No, far from that - but thanks for trying to answer for me anyway.  ::)

Far left are radical though - but it would be more on target to say "anyone willing to put out any lie, deception or spin against anything or anyone on the right to benefit the left winning elections -- those anti-war nuts who think our world can be rosy if we make nice with the people who would chop their empty heads off in a flash if given the chance.... those who believe in socialism (but in an underhanded way) and are closet Marxists. Those who would vote to aboard a baby just moments before it's birth in a horrid way to preserve the rights of the woman's body. Those who do not believe in boarders because we should have a totally open door policy and do away with them completely. Those who fly around in private jets, (which are worse for our environment than commercial jets) all over the country to tell us to car pool and use candles... those who think the rich should pay more than the 95% of the country's income in taxes because they think it's fair... Those who think holding hands with Osama  is going to make him love us more" (need more?)

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: Tia on 05/03/07 at 10:48 pm

i'm holding hands with osama right now. his hands are so warm.

c'mon, can we be real? i mean, probably not, but.... the world is a little more complicated than the picture you paint. do you have friends who self-identify as liberals? i have a lot of friends who are conservatives, and i have to break bread with them. how do you go about compromising in your political views in your daily life? i mean, i know it's easy to spew online, i do it all the time, but in real life we have to compromise constantly, yanno? if we could apply that to our larger politicial situation i think it would be very fruitful. our country needs both of us, you and i.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: lterhune on 05/04/07 at 2:55 pm


i'm holding hands with osama right now. his hands are so warm.


It probably comes from his clement


c'mon, can we be real? i mean, probably not,


Hmm... aren't you being "real"? Why say "probably not" and ruin it all?



but.... the world is a little more complicated than the picture you paint.


ditto.



do you have friends who self-identify as liberals?


Yes


i have a lot of friends who are conservatives, and i have to break bread with them.


Wow, you "have to"? I am so sorry!


how do you go about compromising in your political views in your daily life? i mean, i know it's easy to spew online, i do it all the time, but in real life we have to compromise constantly, yanno? if we could apply that to our larger politicial situation i think it would be very fruitful. our country needs both of us, you and i.


I agree with that lst part & as for your question, it's a lot easier offline than on. In here, if someone dogs the right or trashes Bush etc., I give it right back to them. The one-sided stuff in here is HUGE & super unfair. It's like a club for bashing the right - which is fine, egos must be fed. But if it is dished out....

I am actually a very nice and civil person (in real life) and I am sure you are too. Passon can just run strong





Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: Tia on 05/04/07 at 3:28 pm


Wow, you "have to"? I am so sorry!
well, to be frank, the amount of hatred the right has for everyone who disagrees with them is beginning to alarm me. hence yes, i say "have to." i mean, conservatives seem to really, really, REALLY hate liberals. it seemed to me that for a long time liberals (or many of them, anyway) were trying to placate and compromise with the right, and even now, look at the whole brouha over the war funding bill! bush said, no, i'm not going to give a single inch, and the democrats, it looks like, are going to cave and give him what he wants. but a lot of conservatives honestly make me nervous. my friend jon loves to talk about how incorrigible the islamic world is and how we need to basically exterminate them all. he doesn't seem to be joking. i heard some character from the washington times the other day talking about how we're not going to "win" the "war" because the liberals won't let the military "lay waste to fallujah." stuff like that freaks me out. i have people like that in my life because they were my friends before i knew they had such attitudes, but do i want that sort of thing around me? not really. i tolerate it, but i hate it with a passion.

I agree with that lst part & as for your question, it's a lot easier offline than on. In here, if someone dogs the right or trashes Bush etc., I give it right back to them. The one-sided stuff in here is HUGE & super unfair. It's like a club for bashing the right - which is fine, egos must be fed. But if it is dished out....

I am actually a very nice and civil person (in real life) and I am sure you are too. Passon can just run strong


that's true. i'm constantly catching myself saying things here i NEVER would say in "real life." as you say, it's pretty easy to start clackity-clacking at get carried away, whereas when someone's right in front of ya it's easier to see the effects of one's words...





Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: danootaandme on 05/04/07 at 3:50 pm


well, to be frank, the amount of hatred the right has for everyone who disagrees with them is beginning to alarm me. hence yes, i say "have to." i mean, conservatives seem to really, really, REALLY hate liberals. it seemed to me that for a long time liberals (or many of them, anyway) were trying to placate and compromise with the right, and even now, look at the whole brouha over the war funding bill! bush said, no, i'm not going to give a single inch, and the democrats, it looks like, are going to cave and give him what he wants. but a lot of conservatives honestly make me nervous. my friend jon loves to talk about how incorrigible the islamic world is and how we need to basically exterminate them all. he doesn't seem to be joking. i heard some character from the washington times the other day talking about how we're not going to "win" the "war" because the liberals won't let the military "lay waste to fallujah." stuff like that freaks me out. i have people like that in my life because they were my friends before i knew they had such attitudes, but do i want that sort of thing around me? not really. i tolerate it, but i hate it with a passion.

that's true. i'm constantly catching myself saying things here i NEVER would say in "real life." as you say, it's pretty easy to start clackity-clacking at get carried away, whereas when someone's right in front of ya it's easier to see the effects of one's words...




Karmaditto...The level of animosity and the vitriolic language is scarry.  It was the same with the Viet Nam war.  It seems that the ones who were for the war spoke of the Vietnamese people were the lowest form of vermin.  I can never understand why anyone can accept the demonization of any group for any reason. The attitude that even though we weren't asked to enter the fight, the people should be glad we are there regardless. The attitude follows an us against them, no matter who they may happen to be.  Also, when did this become "our war" to win or lose.  It seems to me it is the people in Iraq who are the ones who will win or lose since the fight is on their turf.  All this about winning it there or it will come here.  Well, when it is here it will be our war.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: Tia on 05/04/07 at 5:03 pm


Karmaditto...The level of animosity and the vitriolic language is scarry.  It was the same with the Viet Nam war.  It seems that the ones who were for the war spoke of the Vietnamese people were the lowest form of vermin.  I can never understand why anyone can accept the demonization of any group for any reason. The attitude that even though we weren't asked to enter the fight, the people should be glad we are there regardless. The attitude follows an us against them, no matter who they may happen to be.  Also, when did this become "our war" to win or lose.  It seems to me it is the people in Iraq who are the ones who will win or lose since the fight is on their turf.  All this about winning it there or it will come here.  Well, when it is here it will be our war.
i opposed this war from the very beginning. i take no part in it whatsoever and claim no participation in it whatsoever. it was done, as you say, strictly as a decision of others, as far as i'm concerned.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/04/07 at 7:23 pm

This country did not used to be quite so polarized.  Folks could stand around the water cooler at work and disagree without all this gut-churning vitriol.

I try not to talk politics at work.

Today one of the doctors I work for asked me if I saw the debate.  He announced, "I'm a Republican, but I wasn't too impressed with any of them.  I like Giulliani, but they're not going to pick him because he's too moderate."  I made some polite neutral comments, but kept my convictions out of it.  I had Dr. H. pegged as a Republican long ago, not just because he's frikkin' loaded and it's in his financial interest.  It's his macho patriarchal manner.  Our Greenfield office is pretty small so I hear him loud and clear across the hall when he calls home in the afternoon to issue the commands du jour to his wife and son.  His wife actually used to work for our company, but my boss tells me Dr. H. didn't like the idea of his wife working, so he forbade it.  I wanted to believe he was speaking to a nanny and not his wife that way!  Am I gonna start rapping about politics with Dr. H.  Uh-uh, no way.  I've got no beef with the guy in the workplace.  He's got his sh*t together on a professional level and that makes my job easier.  I ain't looking to make friends, but I sure don't want to be thought of as the office commie!
;D

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: lterhune on 05/04/07 at 8:26 pm


well, to be frank, the amount of hatred the right has for everyone who disagrees with them is beginning to alarm me. hence yes, i say "have to." i mean, conservatives seem to really, really, REALLY hate liberals. it seemed to me that for a long time liberals (or many of them, anyway) were trying to placate and compromise with the right, and even now, look at the whole brouha over the war funding bill! bush said, no, i'm not going to give a single inch, and the democrats, it looks like, are going to cave and give him what he wants. but a lot of conservatives honestly make me nervous. my friend jon loves to talk about how incorrigible the islamic world is and how we need to basically exterminate them all. he doesn't seem to be joking. i heard some character from the washington times the other day talking about how we're not going to "win" the "war" because the liberals won't let the military "lay waste to fallujah." stuff like that freaks me out. i have people like that in my life because they were my friends before i knew they had such attitudes, but do i want that sort of thing around me? not really. i tolerate it, but i hate it with a passion.


I truly, honestly, with all my heart see it the EXACT opposite as what you just wrote. I see thousands of right hating web sites smeared all over the internet & no, I don't see the left and their effort to compromise at all. This last six years I have seen one accusation and bash after another, even in here. And the fact is, lies told over and over and over again, become truth to people and that has happened with the left and their efforts to down the right.

I went on the National Democrat’s site about 3 months after 9-11 and there was a huge section about why Gore lost. They didn’t say it was count or a stolen election, (it was before (very right wing hating) Howard Dean became leader); they said it was Gore’s lack of emotion and emotional appeal. They were on and on about needing to infuse emotion into the next campaign for president. They went though emotions and came up with anger. They decided that they would make the people in our country angry & that emotion would get out more votes for their party. They may not have realized that that anger they were going for would turn into hate, and it did. Unreasonable and mostly unsubstantiated hate. Now they have Dean, who’s words of utter hate are tossed out like they are part of his own breathing pattern.

People on the left hated bush and the right more when Moore’s movie came out. Many still believe that crap and 99 percent of it has been shown to be lies and misleading suggestions that are lies. Proven stuff, but people got into it and got into the hate. Many who didn’t like the fact their president didn’t win, because part of the hate bush craze and joined in to appease their egos and make it so that they really didn’t lose, they were just ripped off by the most Hitler like president of our entire history, and it’s bunk. People who buy into that kind of thinking and egocentric life are irritants and spread their misery around so that it fills us all. 

Then there came dozens of hate books and songs that were just sick. People were making money and capitalizing on the hate bush fun. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. It’s created hate and it pays. Makes the losers feel good, even if they are fooling themselves and others – who cares anyway, as long as you are part of the craze.



that's true. i'm constantly catching myself saying things here i NEVER would say in "real life." as you say, it's pretty easy to start clackity-clacking at get carried away, whereas when someone's right in front of ya it's easier to see the effects of one's words...



... true. so if that is true, then people are "secretly" being effected and so are becoming more defensive an also more offensive..... and that hurts people "secretly" and so they do it and the cycle goes on and on and even spreads. So the division grows....... so now what?

 

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: lterhune on 05/04/07 at 8:40 pm


"....I like Giulliani, but they're not going to pick him because he's too moderate."  I made some polite neutral comments, but kept my convictions out of it.  I had Dr. H. pegged as a Republican long ago, not just because he's frikkin' loaded and it's in his financial interest.  It's his macho patriarchal manner.  Our Greenfield office is pretty small so I hear him loud and clear across the hall when he calls home in the afternoon to issue the commands du jour to his wife and son.   ;D



I hope that this >  ;D < meant that you were joking about that!

"I had pegged Joe as a Democrat long ago, not just because he's frikkin' poor and because of his ACLU membership and abortion marching. It's his mousy and gay-like manner" (those are sure bets every time!)

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/04/07 at 9:43 pm


I hope that this >  ;D < meant that you were joking about that!

"I had pegged Joe as a Democrat long ago, not just because he's frikkin' poor and because of his ACLU membership and abortion marching. It's his mousy and gay-like manner" (those are sure bets every time!)


My point is that when vitriol lurks just below the surface, I keep my politics out of the office.  I just wish others would to.  I have a rapport with Dr. H. and I would not want to risk it by talking politics.  The man was just making conversation.  If I was frank with him, he might very well be receptive.  He might not.  So I just kept it neutral.

We have plenty of wealthy progressives in this area.  I would have drawn no conclusions from wealth alone.  In fact, that was just a bit of sarcasm.  I was talking more about Dr. H.'s authoritarian persona, the antithesis of which is neither "mousey" nor "gay-like."  A person can be "mousey" and "gay-like" and still be an authoritarian personality.  Authoritarian is not necessarily synonymous with macho or aggressive.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: Tia on 05/05/07 at 8:43 am


I truly, honestly, with all my heart see it the EXACT opposite as what you just wrote. I see thousands of right hating web sites smeared all over the internet & no, I don't see the left and their effort to compromise at all. This last six years I have seen one accusation and bash after another, even in here. And the fact is, lies told over and over and over again, become truth to people and that has happened with the left and their efforts to down the right.

I went on the National Democrat’s site about 3 months after 9-11 and there was a huge section about why Gore lost. They didn’t say it was count or a stolen election, (it was before (very right wing hating) Howard Dean became leader); they said it was Gore’s lack of emotion and emotional appeal. They were on and on about needing to infuse emotion into the next campaign for president. They went though emotions and came up with anger. They decided that they would make the people in our country angry & that emotion would get out more votes for their party. They may not have realized that that anger they were going for would turn into hate, and it did. Unreasonable and mostly unsubstantiated hate. Now they have Dean, who’s words of utter hate are tossed out like they are part of his own breathing pattern.

People on the left hated bush and the right more when Moore’s movie came out. Many still believe that crap and 99 percent of it has been shown to be lies and misleading suggestions that are lies. Proven stuff, but people got into it and got into the hate. Many who didn’t like the fact their president didn’t win, because part of the hate bush craze and joined in to appease their egos and make it so that they really didn’t lose, they were just ripped off by the most Hitler like president of our entire history, and it’s bunk. People who buy into that kind of thinking and egocentric life are irritants and spread their misery around so that it fills us all. 

Then there came dozens of hate books and songs that were just sick. People were making money and capitalizing on the hate bush fun. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. It’s created hate and it pays. Makes the losers feel good, even if they are fooling themselves and others – who cares anyway, as long as you are part of the craze.


... true. so if that is true, then people are "secretly" being effected and so are becoming more defensive an also more offensive..... and that hurts people "secretly" and so they do it and the cycle goes on and on and even spreads. So the division grows....... so now what?

 

well, i guess the only thing i can say to that is there appears to be a disagreement here as to who started it. just like when fights break out in the playground or what have you. from where i sat, here was gore willing to compromise after he lost the election fight in 2000 in a profoundly suspicious supreme court decision, hell, he even presided over the apportioning of electoral college votes in the congress that made bush president, as i recall! the congressional black caucus protested it over and over again on the floor, but gore gave in. he compromised. after 9/11 every single democrat except barbara lee voted to give bush authorization to go to war. when bush wanted to go to war in iraq, most of the democrats voted for him. and of course, after 9/11 most of the world -- which, let's face it, tends to be much less right wing than america has, sadly, become -- embraced america. so i mean, all this vague talk about hate books and michael moore aside, i can actually cite a long span of time when true bipartisanship was imminently possible, and it was the democrats who made it so. the republicans, all during that time, were filling the airwaves with my war or the highway rhetoric, bill o'reilly was endorsing genocide through mass starvation in afghanistan, bush was saying you're either with us or against us and telling people that the only thing the war effort required of them was to shop... and later we learn that the whole case for war was a farce, the patriot act was being misused to get power for the right wing inappropriately, that cheney was trying to rewrite the rules to make torture acceptable, and a lot of other things were going on that were, frankly, unamerican.

so, yes, the left hates the right now, with a true passion. but i stand by my assertion that it's the right that made it so, by running the country in such a craven, heartless and disastrous fashion for six years.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/05/07 at 12:04 pm


well, i guess the only thing i can say to that is there appears to be a disagreement here as to who started it. just like when fights break out in the playground or what have you. from where i sat, here was gore willing to compromise after he lost the election fight in 2000 in a profoundly suspicious supreme court decision, hell, he even presided over the apportioning of electoral college votes in the congress that made bush president, as i recall! the congressional black caucus protested it over and over again on the floor, but gore gave in. he compromised. after 9/11 every single democrat except barbara lee voted to give bush authorization to go to war. when bush wanted to go to war in iraq, most of the democrats voted for him. and of course, after 9/11 most of the world -- which, let's face it, tends to be much less right wing than america has, sadly, become -- embraced america. so i mean, all this vague talk about hate books and michael moore aside, i can actually cite a long span of time when true bipartisanship was imminently possible, and it was the democrats who made it so. the republicans, all during that time, were filling the airwaves with my war or the highway rhetoric, bill o'reilly was endorsing genocide through mass starvation in afghanistan, bush was saying you're either with us or against us and telling people that the only thing the war effort required of them was to shop... and later we learn that the whole case for war was a farce, the patriot act was being misused to get power for the right wing inappropriately, that cheney was trying to rewrite the rules to make torture acceptable, and a lot of other things were going on that were, frankly, unamerican.

so, yes, the left hates the right now, with a true passion. but i stand by my assertion that it's the right that made it so, by running the country in such a craven, heartless and disastrous fashion for six years.


The way I see it, the CON(servative) economic policies practiced since Reagan became president have been such a colossal failure and there is so much despair in this country because of them, the Right needs constant fear and propaganda to placate the people. 

If I can admire one thing about the right-wing media since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine it's the unfathomable effectiveness with which it is able to get folks to NOT support their own economic interests!
::)

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: lterhune on 05/06/07 at 4:42 pm


The way I see it, the CON(servative) economic policies practiced since Reagan became president have been such a colossal failure and there is so much despair in this country because of them, the Right needs constant fear and propaganda to placate the people. 

If I can admire one thing about the right-wing media since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine it's the unfathomable effectiveness with which it is able to get folks to NOT support their own economic interests!
::)


blah blah blah.....

our economy has not been better in well over three decades, (thanks to Bush)

our unemployement average under Bush has not been this low in over three decades, (thanks Bush)

the poor do not pay taxes & get tax credits for the future, (thanks to Bush)

the stock market is at historic highs, helping the Majority of Americans (thanks Bush)

our excess income is higher under Bush than any other president per capita

our national pay increase under Bush is 2nd only to the year after world war two, (thanks to Bush)


Maybe you should get the real facts, well.... unless all the good news is too much for you to take (being that your past time seems to be knocking him down and all)


Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: Tia on 05/06/07 at 4:50 pm


blah blah blah.....

our economy has not been better in well over three decades, (thanks to Bush)

our unemployement average under Bush has not been this low in over three decades, (thanks Bush)

the poor do not pay taxes & get tax credits for the future, (thanks to Bush)

the stock market is at historic highs, helping the Majority of Americans (thanks Bush)

our excess income is higher under Bush than any other president per capita

our national pay increase under Bush is 2nd only to the year after world war two, (thanks to Bush)


Maybe you should get the real facts, well.... unless all the good news is too much for you to take (being that your past time seems to be knocking him down and all)



that explains why 70% of america thinks the country's on the wrong track, income disparity's at an all-time high, real earnings haven't improved since the 1970s, and gas is 3 dollars a gallon.

it's all a matter of which statistics one cites. you like the ones that reaffirm the fact that the rich have been doing quite well in the past six years. and where that's concerned, i certainly wouldn't disagree. this is a great, great time to be filthy rich.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/06/07 at 5:39 pm


that explains why 70% of america thinks the country's on the wrong track, income disparity's at an all-time high, real earnings haven't improved since the 1970s, and gas is 3 dollars a gallon.

it's all a matter of which statistics one cites. you like the ones that reaffirm the fact that the rich have been doing quite well in the past six years. and where that's concerned, i certainly wouldn't disagree. this is a great, great time to be filthy rich.


70% of the population are wretched lazy ingrates full of Marxist propaganda from the liberal media, like you and me!
Now if you want to close this "income disparity," do like most rich people do, and go out to the pool and wait for the dividend checks to arrive!  Sheesh!

See, when popular opinion is behind the cons, it's "The will of the people."
When popular opinion is against the cons, "The masses are asses."

Yeah, gasoline is $3.04 for the cheap stuff down at my local fillin' station, but I should be grateful for elsewhere in the country they're paying fifty cents more.  And what am I going to do about it, huh?  Am I going to take the trolley to work?
;D

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: Tia on 05/06/07 at 5:59 pm


70% of the population are wretched lazy ingrates full of Marxist propaganda from the liberal media, like you and me!
Now if you want to close this "income disparity," do like most rich people do, and go out to the pool and wait for the dividend checks to arrive!  Sheesh!

See, when popular opinion is behind the cons, it's "The will of the people."
When popular opinion is against the cons, "The masses are asses."

Yeah, gasoline is $3.04 for the cheap stuff down at my local fillin' station, but I should be grateful for elsewhere in the country they're paying fifty cents more.  And what am I going to do about it, huh?  Am I going to take the trolley to work?
;D
brace yourself for the gas is actually quite cheap in 1981 dollars argument.  ;D are you gonna believe the bush administration and fox news, or are you gonna believe your own lying eyes? i love the gas-really-isn't-expensive argument most of all. i've actually decided this is all quite funny. it's the only way i can keep from going completely batty from frustration.

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/06/07 at 6:21 pm


brace yourself for the gas is actually quite cheap in 1981 dollars argument.  ;D are you gonna believe the bush administration and fox news, or are you gonna believe your own lying eyes? i love the gas-really-isn't-expensive argument most of all. i've actually decided this is all quite funny. it's the only way i can keep from going completely batty from frustration.

^ Why we don't post messages in light colors!

Or there's the Sean Hannity argument, "Pity the poor oil companies and the outrageous taxes they've had to pay the government for so long.  They deserve these hard-earned profits.  A man's gotta feed his family you know!"
:D

Subject: Re: Imus redux

Written By: Tia on 05/06/07 at 6:23 pm


^ Why we don't post messages in light colors!

Or there's the Sean Hannity argument, "Pity the poor oil companies and the outrageous taxes they've had to pay the government for so long.  They deserve these hard-earned profits.  A man's gotta feed his family you know!"
:D
lol. i have a blue background. it looks great to me. :)

Check for new replies or respond here...