Friday, December 12, 2008

You Won’t Fool Me Again, General Powell


Few names in America have demanded the respect that General Colin Powell’s has. He received many firsts and promotions during his Military Career. The first and so far only Black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the first Black Secretary of State to mention just two.

He received many accolades for his leadership during the First Gulf War as America’s top General, although actual boots on the ground leadership was by Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf who, unlike Powell, chose to retire to his family and peaceful life supporting charities and community activities in Florida.

Powell chose the political limelight as he announced he was a Republican and supported Republican candidates, earning him the office of Secretary of State under President George W. Bush during Bush’s first term. By many accounts that relationship ended amid much friction, not the least of which was Powell’s knowledge of the name of the person who exposed Valerie Plame’s name to the media in a contrived scandal and kept quiet about it for two years, allowing ‘Scooter’ Libby to be railroaded into a conviction, not for revealing a name, but for supposedly committing perjury when his memory differed from others.

This act becoming public knowledge led many to admit to what we had noticed during Powell’s time as SoS, that although Powell claims to be a Republican, he is more of a left-leaning moderate that a conservative Republican.

Powell himself supplied all the proof needed for this when he brazenly endorsed the junior Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who has never served in the Military and who ran on an anti-war ticket, over the candidacy of fellow Veteran and ex-POW, Senator John McCain in the 2008 elections, leading even liberal pundits such as NPR’s Juan Williams to admit he chose race as a predominate factor.

Especially surprising in this endorsement was that in 2004, even with the friction between them, Powell got behind George W. Bush over Senator John ‘F’in Kerry (who served in Vietnam) claiming Bush was better suited for fighting terror, Kerry having a history of weakness.

Further showing how he misled conservatives that supported him over the years, Powell is scheduled to appear on CNN’s "GPS" program with Fareed Zakaria where he further slams the Republican Party and Governor Sarah Palin.

Citing polarization
By Republicans as a cause of losing the 2008 election to Obama, Powell now says,

I think the party has to stop shouting at the world and at the country. I think that the party has to take a hard look at itself, and I’ve talked to a number of leaders in recent weeks and they understand that.”


He continues,
Can we continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh? Is this really the kind of party that we want to be when these kinds of spokespersons seem to appeal to our lesser instincts rather than our better instincts?


Amazingly, Powell still considers himself a Republican after opposing much of the Republican platform, candidates and endorsing a Liberal Democrat.

Did Powell miss that Rush Limbaugh and McCain are often at odds with each other? Did he miss that McCain does not convince Republicans that he is conservative and even liberals admit he is a moderate that often crosses the aisle support liberal Democrat bills?

Listen to his rhetoric for yourself,



McCain conveyed exactly what Powell is calling for yet he endorsed Obama. The very points Powell claims we need to embrace lost the election for Republicans. Governor Palin is not the problem with the GOP, RINO’s like Powell are.

After switching allegiances, where does Powell get off speaking for his former party? How can he speak for those he stabbed in the back?

Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, a radio personality, not a political leader. But note, not once has he spoken out about “polarization” from the likes of others, such as Barbara Streisand, Al Franken, the Dixie Chicks and so many others who during the last 8 years continually denigrated President Bush as dumb, traitorous, liar, anti-American and you name it. Where has he ever called for America not to listen to any of them?

I was fooled long ago believing Powell was a conservative Republican. I was fooled enough to think he would be a good GOP candidate at one time. But, he will not fool me again. I can see now why many refer to him as the “Affirmative Action General.”

Powell seems to enjoy ‘dissing’ Republicans although he owes his meteoric rise to past Republican Presidents, including George W. Bush. I see no reason Republicans should pay any heed whatsoever to what Powell now says. He crossed over to the Democrat Party and should stay there. We don’t need more liberalism in the GOP, which is why we continue to lose elections.

Conservative principles are what made America great. Democrats have realized this and falsely move to the right during campaigns, only to revert back to the left once winning. Republicans listen to fools like Powell and move left, lose elections and seem to think moving even further left will win. It doesn’t.

It would appear that Powell being labeled as a “House Negro” by Harry Belafonte and other Democrats was taken to heart and Colin is trying to get back in the good graces of those who attacked him a few years ago.

Long ago, another retiring General said, “Old soldiers never die, they just fade away.” That sounds like very appropriate advice for Powell. Just fade away to the Democrats you have embraced, General Powell.

18 comments:

Klatu said...

Yea Colin Powell is all for overturning
"Don't Ask Don't Tell" now.
Back in 1993 he was one of the
Driving forces against
Gays in the Military.

Rhubarb said...

Indeed. Why can't he be more like Alan Keyes.

Ms Calabaza said...

Lew,
great essay. I'm linking you. :~)

Lew Waters said...

Don't forget, Rhubarb, when you lefties were trashing him as a "House Negro" and crying he was involved in covering up the My Lai incident, it was conservatives defending him.

Incidentally, other than him choosing race over values, this is not a racial issue at all. Believe it ornot, there are Blacks that aren't too pleased with his current back-stabbing stance.

u∃∃l!∃ said...

Did it ever occur to you that while the Republican party was failing to stand up to its own principles, that perhaps Powell really saw more promise in Obama.

Powell is not the only Republican disgusted with the direction of the party.

The Rush line is bad for the Party, it appeals to the least logical branch of the Party.

If Powell saw Obama as the lesser of two candidates, he disagreed with, that should be a lesson to the Republican followers, who will refuse to stop following no matter what the direction they are led.
They will see it as the lesser of the bad choices, and will never see the potential or good in the main opposing party.

Both parties have good and bad in them, in both their values and their behavior.

Many are not even willing to give Obama a chance to do a good job, but will look for every little thing they can to rally others behind them, in their continued anti-obama stance.


Often I think that one side just chooses to oppose the other, for the sole sake of opposing the other side.
If side D comes up with a good idea, side R opposes it, just because they can not allow any good ideas by the opposite side to have success.
If side R comes up with a good idea, side D does the same thing.

I didn't vote for Obama myself, but I do like what I am seeing so far from him, but he has no real power yet.

I have a lot of respect for McCain, but leadership does not seem to be one of his strengths.
He has a character worthy of a lot of respect, but he could not even keep his own campaign in line with his own values.

Lew Waters said...

Eileen, does it escape you that McCain displayed the very merits Powell now says the GOP should embrace? Yet, he didn’t back McCain, but backed Obama who spoke of Marxism mainly.

The merits Powell espouses for the Republican Party is the direction the party has been moving in, and losing elections along the way.

As for McCain, you know that I didn’t like him and didn’t want him, but saw worse in Obama. I don’t see wishy washy as “character worthy of a lot of respect.”

Since attaining adulthood, I have watched as the country continues its leftist slide and the country fairs the worse for it. Yet, what is recommended? To continue the very move that is degrading our lifestyle and level of life.

Can you give a sensible reason why CNN chose Powell to speak for Republicans instead of one of the conservatives? Why choose someone who turned against his party to speak for them?

The last thing we need is two liberal party’s ruining the country, but that is what is happening.

Kruschev said long they would bury us. It is happening today and we are voting it in, falling for the rhetoric of people like Powell, McCain and Obama.

u∃∃l!∃ said...

It is not McCain's values that are the issue.
It is the leadership skills, and that is what is so needed right now.
Remember the Republican advertisement, that kept quoting the parts of the Debate where Obama agreed with McCain?

I don't think Obama is that Marxist, nor do I think that everything Marxist is bad. There is this tendency to lump the whole package into one bucket and label it as bad, because some elements of it are bad.

IF given the choice between a government that redistributes wealth up, versus one that redistributes down, I prefer down (I am more likely to end up there).
But really I prefer that each just pays their fair share in the cost of running the government, corporations are allowed to profit per their value added but NOT allowed to manipulate to avoid paying the true cost of the infrastructure that helps them profit, or the externalities they inflict on others.

Obama is fine with lowering corporate tax rates as long as the loop holes are cut out.
Think about that.
What does that really say.
He seemed to get less and less Marxist as the campaign progressed, and as he continued to study the actions and results of leaders he admired. He seems to have an insight and ability to see what is going on.
But it doesn't matter how much he learns, and how well he applies the leanings.
You will never see the good, only the bad.

We have corporations that pay NO tax, and still profit, and pay multi millions of dollars to top executives, due to tax breaks (loop holes).
Obama is seeing the web of favors, lobbiests, and corruption that has enacted laws to favor the interests of large corporations over that of small businesses and individuals.
It is a mess.
It needs to be cleaned up.
It is this very mess that puts our country at risk of Socialism.
To save Capitalism we need to clean it up, and regulate it, so that the holes (the profit without value added) are closed as much as reasonable.

Explain why the same group that was mostly in favor of the Financial bail out; is not in favor of the auto industry bail out?
Personally I am not in favor of either bail out.
But what does the split tell me.
Who does each bail out serve?
Who is looking out for who?

While I didn't vote for Obama, if I were voting today, I think I would.
Unity matters.
Leadership matters.
A slight left lean is not going to destroy this country to the same degree that corruption will.

I am glad that the Dems did not get 60 Senate seats.

Lew Waters said...

Eileen, I know you feel you are “middle of the road,” but the problem there is that the parameters of right and left have so decidedly moved to the left that the middle is now solidly on the left, compared to what they once were.

Saying “not everything Marxist is bad” is like saying a milkshake with a drop of arsenic in it isn’t all bad either. Marxism depends on people thinking it isn’t bad or wholly bad to convince people to embrace it. Once embraced, you lose what you thought you were gaining.

Just ask Cubans, Venezuelans, Vietnamese, Chinese, Russians and Balkans. They either are living under it or used to and not too many feel today it “isn’t all bad.” Granted, there are those that think it is great, but they are the ones who are either belong to the elite at the top or who have no ambition to improve and expect things handed to them.

I don’t support any bailouts. I can understand why some want them, but it is a dangerous precedent, as can be seen. They are little more than government nationalization of private industry and banking, a first step in Communist take over.

On corporate taxes, let give you a little hint. None pay taxes. You pay their taxes through higher prices on goods and services. Increase their taxes and they just pass them on to you. Still, taxes paid by the top cover over 50% of all taxes received.

Explain why the so-called poor pay absolutely no taxes, but receive refunds.

While a slight lean left might not hurt too much, that slight lean to the left has been increasing since the New Deal era and has almost fully left now. I imagine back then they felt that a slight lean would hurt, either.

How much further will it have to lean before people realize what liberties they no longer have, “for the good of all?”

We are way too far left now and must be brought back towards the right, if we are to remain a free nation.

All the nice sounding, sympathetic ideas from the left result in one thing and one thing only, enslavement. When you depend on others, they own you and you only receive what they allow you to have. For example, poorer Blacks in the ghettoes. They continue to vote Democrat, swallowing the promise of caring for them. Yet, they are still poor and in ghettoes with less of an education to escape.

This is the same Democrat party that worked so hard to block Civil Rights during the ‘60’s and now, keeps them locked up in the slums and ghettoes, receiving what Democrats allow them to have.

Obama is even less a leader than McCain. Sure, he is charismatic when speaking from a teleprompter, but otherwise he stumbles worse that Bush or Dan Quayle ever did. He is a puppet with some pretty ugly people pulling his strings.

Can you honestly say that he came through Chicago Politics and was not tainted by the massive corruption there, culminating in the arrest of the Illinois governor this week?

Can he remain “squeaky-clean” with so many around him being shady and felonious?

Why won’t he even resolve the question of his birthplace brought up by Democrats and his grandmother?

pete said...

Eileen you said,

"Did it ever occur to you that while the Republican party was failing to stand up to its own principles, that perhaps Powell really saw more promise in Obama.
Powell is not the only Republican disgusted with the direction of the party."


One can't help but agree with you, that Bush and the Delay headed House lost sight of the core principles of the Reagan Revolution. Delay with his sweetheart deal/earmark agenda and Bush with his absence of use of the veto power certainly undermined those principles. But somehow it seems to me that Powell's reaction was more an emotional response, than a call for the party to return to the very principles to which he use to adhere and upon which he built his career.

You went on to say,

"Unity matters. Leadership matters"

Eileen, unity and leadership matter if you have the underlying moral values and principles to move the group in the proper direction of action or conduct. One can certainly argue that while Hitler, Stalin, and even a Jim Jones displayed leadership and were "leaders", the underlying principles and morals of their actions were bankrupt, destructive and morally corrupt. They ultimately destroyed not only their own followers, but also the lives of those who rightfully opposed them and many others. Their emphasis was always on the authority side of leadership equation, without consideration of the inherent responsibilities they bore to those they lead.

I am not suggesting that either Bush or Obama are comparable to those listed above, however, you seem give Obama a pass despite his character as displayed in past statements, for example his initial statements about immediate withdrawal from Iraq, statements with regard to the Reverend Wright, increasing taxation and many others. Many of his statements were made, only to be suddenly reversed when it became necessary to do so to get the nomination and win the election. The reversals seemed to be borne more out of political expediency than any consistent long term belief system.

A key example of comcern over Obama is the two following statements made at the time the Wright affair peaked, which I think says a lot more about the person making them than Wright,


"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation."

Barrack Obama Huffington Post 3/14/2008


"I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes."

MSNBC text of Obama speech 3/18/2008
(Bolding is mine)


Values and principles also matter. And what does such a 180 degree turnaround in a four day period say about the moral character of Obama? And how will that morality reflect itself in his ability to lead the country and the free world, instilling his set of values in establishing policy?

pete said...

Eileen

I am always interested in the argument of those who call for more Big Government, similar to your following statement,


"We have corporations that pay NO tax, and still profit, and pay multi millions of dollars to top executives, due to tax breaks (loop holes).
Obama is seeing the web of favors, lobbyists, and corruption that has enacted laws to favor the interests of large corporations over that of small businesses and individuals.

It is a mess.
It needs to be cleaned up.

It is this very mess that puts our country at risk of Socialism.
To save Capitalism we need to clean it up, and regulate it, so that the holes (the profit without value added) are closed as much as reasonable."



But many times this argument is advanced ignoring the very actions of the Federal Government and the incestuous nature of the Federal Government and large Corporations that precipited the very crisis in the first place through previously enacted legislative and administrative rules that ultimately dictated that very outcome. Government and regulatory oversight was involved in every failure from that of Bear Stearns, through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG, and ultimately the Automakers. And we need more regulation?

We are somehow to conclude that the solution is to mandate more of the same --- more and bigger government. Never mind that government was involved with the very morass or mess that you suggested now "needs to be cleaned up". And it is this "failure of capitalism", instability, rapidity of change, that begets the need for ever more government, ever increasing size of government, ever more legislated "stability", which then seemingly results in the ever "greater failure of capitalism", greater instability, and ever growing need for even more government --- Socialism?? When do we get off this fantasy merry-go-round?

u∃∃l!∃ said...

Lew,
You have to be able to separate what ideas are Marxist, and what ideas are not.
Corrupt Capitalism is as evil as corrupt Socialism.

Why choose countries that have poor governments, that out of their desire for power and riches, will exploit their own people, as your examples of communism?

What not choose other countries as examples.
Why not choose France, Canada, Sweden, New Zeland.
I am not claiming that these countries do not have issues. They do. But these are much better examples of the type of socialism we are gradually merging toward, then the countries you mention.
Please don't treat me as if I am stupid (I admit to lacking writing/communication skills).

You yourself once agreed with me that not every Marxist ideal was bad.
In fact you challenged me to mention a few that were not, and then when I did, you mentioned even more.
We both came up with a few things ( I can't remember the details).
Our current tax system (which seems to come right out of the communist manifesto) was NOT one of them. I think that education was one.

Your argument that no corporations or businesses pay taxes is bogus, and not a good way to argue away the fact that some (possibly many) do not even pay enough taxes to cover the services they benefit from directly. Your argument would only hold if EVERYONE paying the taxes, benefited from the products/services of the corporation equally (or in relation to the share of taxes the person paid).
Your agument might hold some weight if profit were zero, and salaries for equal responsibility matched those of small businesses (but not really, unless all the tax payers were gaining benefit from the corporation, relative the share of taxes they paid.)
You argument is not a valid argument for disputing the current redistribution of income upward either, for the same reasons.

I have never claimed to be in favor of the poor paying no taxes, and still receiving services. I have always stated that this should be called charity, and not tax credits (refunds or whatever).

Personally, I would like to see everyone who makes beyond basic substance pay some taxes.
If I made the rules, everyone would get one tax deduction, based on the number of people they support, and the cost of living where they live. Everything above that would be taxed at a flat rate (I am not sure what the rate should be though), UP TO one's fair share (as determined by the budget and number of citizens). Then the rate would gradually DECREASE as a person paid more and more of what others could not afford.

However, IF there is to be redistribution, I prefer it to go Down rather then Up.
(This does not make me in favor of redistribution down over no redistribution at all).


You never did answer my question (the one on Victoria's blog) where I asked you exactly what liberties we are being asked to give up, in response to anything so far proposed by Obama?

You tell me that any fear over the patriot act (and the slippery slope argument often used against it) is hype.
Why is it anymore hype then any other lost liberty, in the name of protecting something else we value?
Can you give me an example, of a lost liberty, that has been proposed, that I should be afraid of?


Obama did submit a copy of his birth certificate. As to why he is protecting the original document, there could be many reasons. With many people wanting to destroy him, the document is better left very very protected.
Or maybe the whole thing just seems so ridiculous to him, that he is ignoring it.
It is even possible that there is some other piece of information on it, that he does not want public. I doubt it, but such is possible.

u∃∃l!∃ said...

Pete,
I am only giving Obama credit for allowing his thought to evolve as he learned more.
I think his success came faster then even he expected, and he realized that he had a lot to learn, and he proceeded to do what he could to learn. I admire politicians who can modify their views based on what they learn and discover.
I actually look for this in a politician.

Regulations requiring oversight are needed. These are only regulations to insure existing regulations are enforced. Isn't this one of the things that was de-regulated (sorry, I don't know all the facts).
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac were allowed to use the private profit model, and the socialized cost model. Whenever those models are mixed, it is an invitation for corruption and greed and mis-management.
However, had there been more oversight regulation in place, would the failure have been allowed to go as far as it did, before it was stopped?
OR was the problem a lack of people doing their current oversight jobs? I think this did contribute to some degree, and these people should be held accountable.

Is more regulation, for the sake of oversight, needed? I think that it is. Or maybe the consequences of not following the existing regulations need to be so severe, that people are less willing to risk doing so.
Either that, or the companies need to be completely private, and not traded on the public stock exchange and not entitled to any sort of government insurance or government bail out.

Do not confuse my belief that we need oversight regulations, with a belief that banks need to be told who they must lend to. However, IF they are getting government sponsored insurance, we the taxpayers, have some right to give them rules, related to protecting ourselves (these would be minimum requirements for loans, not something that determines what percent of loans must go to which groups of people.)

Wasn't there a regulation that prevented financial institutions that were not fdic insured (and accordingly regulated) to merge with and/or buy assets of institutions that were. Was this not de-regulated away? Was this not a contributing factor to the current crisis?
This may be an example of a regulation that was needed, and was abolished.
(sorry again, I don't know all the details here.)

pete said...

Eileen

It is interesting that no one comments on the Obama's Wright quotations and thus give Obama a pass. I think that silence on this speaks, in and of itself, for those so eager to defend him.

The point I make is that all banks, brokerages and large companies are subject to regulation and oversight. In particular, the banking system, the brokerage houses and the housing industry have been highly regulated and oversight is shared by a number of Federal agencies and some State agencies, as well. Yet, despite all the rhetoric one hears in the mass media about deregulation, it is the regulated industries that have caused the latest crisis.

There have been attempts to "deregulate" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the banking industry. Fannie Mae was, and you accurately characterize it, given a dual purpose and conflicting mission in the late 1960's, both private and public. This has been a continuing source of conflict with in the agency, but ultimately the Government Service Enterprise was interpreted to be just that, a quasi-government entity both by investors and regulators. The banking and brokerage industry, with phased "deregulation" in the 1990's were allowed to grow and cross arbitrary industry geographic and product (banking and brokerage) barriers. Were they free of regulation? Of course not. The phrase, deregulation, has simply been used as a red herring by those professing the need for enhanced Federal government regulation.

Fannie and Freddie are regulated by Office of Federal Housing Enterprise, which is a part of the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs. Because of their operations is the capital housing and debt markets they are also subject to regulation by the SEC. They have dominated the housing markets, originating or securitizing over 50% of the new homes since 2000.

The Banking industry contrary to what you hear in the Mass Media and in Congressional hearings is governed by a plethora of government agencies including the Treasury, the Comptroller of the Currency, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve (also both private and public), not to mention State regulations. The major banks are also subject to SEC regulation because they are all listed public companies. Virtually, every security issued including the MBS, CMBS, CDO's, Futures, and Credit Default Swaps were subject to regulation and secuities laws.

Virtually all of these entities are subject to State regulation, audited by major CPA firms, are monitored by credit reporting agencies, and as everyone is well aware, subject to be hauled in front of Congress to be made out as fools and as sacrificial lambs at even the smallest hint of a problem.

Insurance Companies are regulated as well by the individual States and by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. AIG with its new found notoriety, is also subject to SEC regulation, as well as state securities laws and could not have issued Credit Default Swaps without approval of regulators. This doesn't even begin to cover the various regulations levied by various levels of government in the name of consumer protection.

Yet, despite all the years of rhetoric about how necessary government involvement is to oversee and stabilize the private sector, the latest crisis seems to demonstrate that government involvement may actually amplify market excesses and volatility. At very least, it seems to show the impotence of the Federal Government in dealing with risk and mitigating the cyclical nature of market cycles and promoting consumer protection.

Lew Waters said...

Eileen, corruption is corruption, regardless of what system it is under. Still, one protects corruption far more than the other.

You ask me why choose countries that have poor governments as examples of communism. What communist nation doesn’t have a poor government?

Of the examples you gave, if you will check, they are moving away from the Socialist form of governing seeing that it is failure. The Communist nations I chose remain as they are.

I don’t have a recollection of saying Marxism has its good points, but won’t argue the point. I also imagine I said it with a disclaimer of some sort; such as it does not work.

I don’t know why you would say that corporations’ not paying taxes is bogus. While they do give money in taxes to the government, they obtain those monies from us in the form of prices for their goods or services. Raise their taxes and the cost of their product increase proportionately. So, as I said, we pay their tax increase through what we pay.

And still, you neglect that the top wage earners pay over 50% of all taxes while lower wage earners pay none, but somehow receive refunds. If that redistribution helps society, why is it still needed so many decades later?

As for the liberties, wake up. It isn’t what we are “being asked to give up,” but what is being taken away from us ever so slowly. From the freedom to ride a motorcycle without a helmet if one desires to a private business catering to smokers if they desire. Do we have free ownership of land with imminent domain hanging over our heads?

With Democrats poised to nationalize the auto manufacturers, with a few of the Republicans help, will we retain the freedom to buy and drive whatever vehicle we desire?

Have you ever wondered why newer cars have gotten so expensive? Ever wonder what happened to “Muscle Cars” that were so popular?

Do you not see our right to bear arms under threat, even after the Supreme Court ruled we do have that right, by efforts serialize ammunition, making it too expensive to purchase or forcing us to register each round?

When I was younger we could freely travel out to the edge of the Everglades in Florida and camp. I imagine it was that easy here too in the woods. Try that today. You may only use designated campgrounds after you pay their fee.

As for Obama, does he not support the Fairness Doctrine, which is designed to shut down right winged talk radio? Is he nominating alarmists for Global Warming as he prepares to institute tougher standards to impose on us? Never mind GW is bunk, we are going to be taxed and limited in what we may do.

If he helps re-impose the drilling bans, what do we lose as gas prices skyrocket again?

That is all off the top of my head. If that isn’t good enough, I’ll have to consult my notes. But the fact remains, Marxism overall is not what America was founded under and is not beneficial to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. It is just the opposite

Oh yeah, the so-called Birth Certifcate put up by DailyKOS as well as the comemnts by the Hawaiian official say nothing. The official did not say that he was born in Hawaii, only that they have seen the original birth certificate. The DailyKOS computer generated certificate is ridiculous. It does not have pertinent information on it that is on all birth certificates, such as what hospital, doctor, time of day etc. Add to that, African was not a race in 1961, it was a nationality. The fathers race would have been stated as "Negro" back then.

Placing such a forgery just makes the matter worse. The easy way is to just show the actual birth certificate and he refuses. You all back him up in that refusal.

What are you all afraid of? You demanded every record ever written or dreamed of from Bush. Why isn't Obama held to the same standard?

u∃∃l!∃ said...

Lew,

Your statement "corporations not paying taxes" as in ALL corporations not paying taxes, as a response to my statement that SOME corporations do not pay any (or their share) of taxes, is bogus.
Not that the statement is 100% bogus, but as a response to my question/argument, it is bogus.

For example.

Corporation A pays No taxes
Corporation B pays X in taxes

Person P pays Y in taxes and buys no products from Corporation A

Now person P and Corporation B are subsidizing Corporation A.


So this blanket statement, that no corporation pays taxes, as a response to the unfair tax burden of some corporations versus otheres, is a bogus argument.


I know that The Rich pay most of the taxes (Some of the Rich).
This again, is not an answer to the fact that SOME corporations pay no or very little tax, while making enough money to pay astronomical salaries to top executives and even pay out to share holders.

This is a result of loop holes, that have been lobbied into our tax system.
This is what needs to be cleaned up. This is more important the the actual tax rate.


Who benefits from having a lower tax on Capital Gains then on Income and Profit?
Why does this make sense.
I am not aruging actual rates here, just the fact there is a difference here that favors one class over another.

If person P makes X dollars from wages, and person R makes X dollars from investments; why should person R pay a lower tax rate then person P on the same amount of money?

This argument is completely independent of what the actual rates are. This is an argument about two people, making the same amount of money, one from working, one from investing, and one getting a larger tax burden then the other.
EVERY argument I have heard in favor of keeping the lower capital gains tax rate, could be accomplished by having a lower tax rate on income/profit.


I don't see our right to bear arms being under threat, I do not expect it to be taken away. But if anyone tries, I will fight on the side of letting people keep their arms.


I don't even support Fairness Doctrine (I like it in concept, but I think it is impossible to be fair, or even know exactly what is fair, and feel that any effort to implement such fairness usually just makes things less fair.)

I never claimed to be in favor of EVERYTHING Obama.
Nor do I believe he will be able to implement everything he is in favor of.

I am not in favor of closing off public lands, however there is a cost associated with keeping them open, if they are to be protected.
Do you advocate that anyone can just go where they want on them? I don't know if we should allow this.
I think that it is sad that the homeless have no place they can legally just camp, but at the same time I understand that there are hazzards associated with letting peole just use land for what they want.
Where do we draw the line between freedom and protection of the resource?
I don't know the exact answer.


America was not founded under Marxism, nor was it founded as a Democracy.
I have never claimed to be in favor of Marxism as a form of government. But I am not afraid of each little thing that someone decides to correlate with Marxism or Communism.
If I were, I would be very much afraid of the Patriot Act.
I would even be afraid of our tax system, and the Financial Bail out.


I am in favor of a mixed model, a regulated capitalism.
Regulations which bring the reality closer to Profit = Value added, I am in favor of.
I believe that capitalism is failing, due to corruption.
I believe the failures are also associated with "holes" that allow profit by manipulation instead of profit by value added. Regulations which close these holes, or reduce the ease of people creating them, I am in favor of. Of course I don't expect it to be perfect.


I didn't demand any records ever written or dreamed of by Bush.
What specific records were demanded? I don't recall this.

I am not holding Obama to a lower standard then Bush at all. I am actually holding him to a higher standard. But I am not expecting perfection. I don't see him as the cure-all solution by any means.
But I do see him as a better leader then McCain, and someone who is learning and applying, at a very quick rate.

Lew Waters said...

Eileen, some people cannot see the forest for the trees. Corprorate taxes is just that with you.

What part of their extra taxes are paid by us through higher prices do you not understand?

As far as demanding records, it does not matter that YOU didn't personally demand any, Democrats as a whole did and still labeled Bush AWOL, dumb, stupid, deserter, drunk, drug addict and what have you.

He at least opened his records. Why won't Obama? Why does the public demand records of Republcians and not Democrats?

As for him being a better leader than McCain, if you recall, I didn't like either of them and McCain has confirmed my dislike of him. Obama has no record, that we know of, in leading anything.

Just because he makes statements you agree with doesn't make him a good leader.

Falling for charismatic speeches from glib politicians has caused the world much trouble and strife.

But, we'll see how fast he is embraced when some journalist throws shoes at him.

u∃∃l!∃ said...

Lew,
Maybe it is you who can't see the forest through the trees (or more like you can not see the individual trees due to the forest), related to corporate taxes.
Did you understand my argument at all, you can't refute it.
I can refute yours.

I believe you did use the word You, addressing me.


Interesting that you disliked both candidates. I grew to like both candidates (each for different reasons). At one point I disliked both of them. Perhaps I was expecting too much.
And Obama did improve throughout the campaign.

Anyway, just give the guy a chance, stop calling him names, referring to him as a savior, and other slants.
Wait and see what he does. I am sure some of it I won't agree with.

When he does something, think to yourself, how would I feel about the same thing if McCain did it.

Today is the first time I have ever thought Bush to be stupid. And it is possible I just don't know enough. Maybe someone is gaining something in this deal, like maybe someone involved in the decision works for a company that will profit from the decision or something.

Lew Waters said...

Eileen, I guess you never heard of a “Collective You” before. But, if you want to take it personally, okay by me.

Your argument refutes itself simply by looking to Hugo Chavez and Venezuela. If businesses don’t pass along cost increases, including taxes, they simply stop producing, creating shortages. Why sell or produce what you lose on?

Perhaps it is too simple for you to grasp? But, it is the way it works. That is one of the reasons Socialism always fails, besides denying citizens their inherit desire to advance and improve.

Liberal economists cannot grasp that fact, somehow thinking others just absorb and go into business out of the goodness of their heart, I suppose.

I see no reason at all that I should give Homey a chance or stop calling him names. Where have you been the past 8 years? Who on the left gave Bush a chance or did not call him names? What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Just look at the left’s elation over the one Iraqi who threw shoes at him this weekend. Will they show as much glee if it happens to their home boy? I sincerely doubt it!

If you did not know that I didn’t care for McCain then you have paid any attention to what I have been saying for over a year now.

Now that the coup is over, McCain has moved further left and follows your folly in thinking. If I wanted to be a liberal Democrat, I’d be one. Don’t forget that for half of my life I was a Democrat and saw how they messed things up and blamed others, just as they are doing today.

Look at how Pelosi is already laying down the law to Obami and Rhambo. Since when does a Speaker of the House set the rules for a President? Buy, the left voted them in and this is what they got.

I’ll be sitting here laughing at their power struggle and pointing out their missteps every chance I get.

If that bothers your delicate senses, you can always exercise your freedom of not visiting the blog or reading what I write. Your choice.

Just remember, it was you liberals that set the tone in blogging about a president, not me.