HOME | DD

AtheosEmanon In reply to ??? [2013-12-02 03:26:14 +0000 UTC]

As you can see from the picture, I did not just add politicians, I added scientists, musicians, poets... the arts as they say matter a greater deal to the human condition than the rhetoric of a mere politician

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Suffer360 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-12-02 03:37:15 +0000 UTC]

Just writing a list right now on my influences. Some include Mary Woolstonecraft, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Paine, and Ellen Sirleaf. Not sure when I'll finish it. Guess that will be when by brain just farts completely on me when I'm writing down the list.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Suffer360 In reply to Suffer360 [2013-12-02 03:41:33 +0000 UTC]

*Wollstonecraft* I always make that mistake on the 'L'. Haha

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Suffer360 [2013-12-02 04:02:07 +0000 UTC]

You are certainly off to a good start, especially with Wollstonecraft and Paine.. though I am biased with Paine as he is my favorite founding father

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Suffer360 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-12-02 05:12:50 +0000 UTC]

Kind of hard to not like Paine. A really outspoken guy. Especially on government and organized religion.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Suffer360 [2013-12-02 15:30:15 +0000 UTC]

I just laugh that conservatives like him.. a man who was pretty much against organized religion, a man who wanted to use tax money to fund old age and health systems.. hm sounds like an evil socialist

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Suffer360 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-12-02 23:28:20 +0000 UTC]

I like to view Paine as the founding father who set beginning standards of a modern American Liberal.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Suffer360 [2013-12-02 23:38:03 +0000 UTC]

That he did, and do recall Washington had the works of Paine read to the soldiers to remind them of what they were fighting for

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Suffer360 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-12-02 23:51:10 +0000 UTC]

I remember reading something on that. How smart of Washington. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Suffer360 [2013-12-03 01:40:00 +0000 UTC]

John Adams wrote "Without the pen of Paine, the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain." .. and Edison said "I consider Paine our greatest political thinker. As we have not advanced, and perhaps never shall advance, beyond the Declaration and Constitution, so Paine has had no successors who extended his principles."


I wish the tea party, who claim him as their heroes.. actually listened to him

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Suffer360 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-12-03 02:14:57 +0000 UTC]

Sounds exactly like a longer and more specific version of the phrase, "the pen is mightier than the sword". It is accurate.

I think the Tea Party claims every one of the Founding Fathers as their hero without doing real research on each and every one of them. They're quick to use material that they claim represents the "good ol' of days of America!"

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Suffer360 [2013-12-03 04:15:50 +0000 UTC]

I would actually argue that Adams originated it, do remember, Adams died in 1801, he reportedly said that during the revolution so during the 1770s..... the first written account of anyone saying the pen is mightier than the sword was recorded by Edward Bulwer-Lytton in the 1830s so long after Adams died so it is possible that Bulwer-Lytton got the phrase from Adams or read it from the works of Adams. Bulwer-Lytton was the Secretary of State for the Colonies, he managed correspondence with Britain and its colonies so of course he would have known of the American colonies and its key players

They use "Wallbuilders" as their main source which always claim all the founders were Christian.. whichi angered the Thomas Paine foundation when they, wallbuilders, claimed Paine was a devout Christian and anyone who studied paine for 5 minutes know that he had a deep hatred for christianity, it is true he believed in god and considered himself a Deist.. but not a Christian

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Suffer360 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-12-03 04:49:54 +0000 UTC]

Well you learn something new everyday. Haha. I wouldn't doubt that's how the phrase originated. The dots seem connected.

Wallbuilders...Really? They would trust the source written by, as Wiki would describe, a "alternate reality fan-fiction writer"(the link in wiki leads to the definition of decite,by the way. lmao)? I guess we all can get desperate on finding "facts" that support our claims.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Suffer360 [2013-12-03 04:58:23 +0000 UTC]

Yup, and if anyone would have known of the American works.. it would be the person in charge with corresponding between Britain and its colonies.

The man who heads Wallbuilders was on Glenn Beck program quite a bit and he is now on Sean Hannity whenever the founding fathers are discussed, so on fox he is used quite a lot as an founding fathers experts even though may challenge him as showing only pieces of writings and not showing the entire piece which would have contradicted what he claims it was said

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Suffer360 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-12-03 05:18:30 +0000 UTC]

Heh. Of course he would be on Glenn Beck's program and on Fox. I also wouldn't be surprised if Rush Limbaugh invited him in the past or will invite him in the future.

My oh my, we're off topic again.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Suffer360 [2013-12-03 05:33:17 +0000 UTC]

I do not really listen to the radio much to know if Limbaugh has ever had him on.

... that we are

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Suffer360 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-12-03 06:30:24 +0000 UTC]

Perhaps we should cut it off here then. I need to get some sleep. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

wilji1070 In reply to ??? [2013-11-30 06:22:20 +0000 UTC]

You have answered this before, but I am curious... Why Castro?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to wilji1070 [2013-11-30 06:24:29 +0000 UTC]

I appreciate his sense of idealism, his life-long fight and enduring struggle even if I do not personally agree with his end-game wants. Though I may agree with him in a general view with respect to American imperialism.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wilji1070 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-11-30 06:26:42 +0000 UTC]

I think it's kind of funny how Castro was the one calling Kim Jong-un's calls for nuclear war idiotic. 

Hmmm.... I might just have to do my own influence map. I can't seem to find my older one from my previous account, but my influences have changed somewhat. 'Course, some are massive contradictions, but like you, I appreciate the ideals just not the endgame of some.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to wilji1070 [2013-11-30 06:33:21 +0000 UTC]

Some of mine are also massive contradictions.. I have Barry Goldwater, big conservative libertarian... next to Saul alinsky.. a very  proud socialists... I have those who advocate for a free market system in the same rows as others who believe the free market system would lead to the destruction and back to the days of squalor for the workers.. of course I may not agree with the free market wants of some of those listed, but each listed has something that I can a greatly agree with them on... for Goldwater.. it is his view that religion should never be intertwined with politics, that a true "libertarian conservative" whether or not he was pro life or pro choice would see the hypocrisy in saying you want small government.... while advocated government mandated reproductive choices... he also was a proponent for gays in the military

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/…
"

So how did this super-patriot, former fighter pilot and retired Air Force general get involved in gay rights?

"The first time this came up was with the question, should there be gays in the military?" Goldwater says. "Having spent 37 years of my life in the military as a reservist, and never having met a gay in all of that time, and never having even talked about it in all those years, I just thought, why the hell shouldn't they serve? They're American citizens. As long as they're not doing things that are harmful to anyone else. ... So I came out for it."

He says he's mystified by the origins of homosexuality. "You try to find out where it started, even going back to old Egyptology – and you knew damn well the Egyptians had to have those people – but you can't find any writings," he says. "I have one grandson who's gay. And my brother {Bob Goldwater} has a granddaughter who is gay. We're sort of at a loss to know what the hell it's all about."

Goldwater says that having openly gay relatives doesn't influence his beliefs, which are animated by libertarian principles that government should stay out of people's private lives.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wilji1070 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-11-30 06:40:41 +0000 UTC]

I tend to enjoy Goldwater's whole thing of "You don't have to be straight in order to be in the military, you just have to shoot straight."

But like on my end, I find influence in people like Norman Thomas, Eugene Debs, Franklin Roosevelt, Otto von Bismarck, and Benito Mussolini. Of course... in the case of the latter, it isn't so much the dictatorial thing, it's more that notion of state and cultural supremacy that I like. Of course...the trick is defining American culture of which there is no set defining characteristic.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to wilji1070 [2013-11-30 06:46:00 +0000 UTC]

I agree with him on that as well, I am pretty sure in all of his years in the military that he probably met many men who were gay and just not out...statistically pretty impossible to spend nearly 40 years in that climate and never having met at least one gay guy..perhaps was not out of course.

American culture is marked by its ever expanding wings of acceptance and its broad attempts at stopping the head of looking back.. I would agree with you that there is no one set definition of what is American culture... but for me, the lack of a rigid, set definition is part of its culture...and charm...

*am off for the night, I will of course address everything you reply when I get on later

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wilji1070 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-11-30 07:08:54 +0000 UTC]

Precisely. What I don't understand is why is it freedom to deny someone their right to pursue happiness, but abridging your freedom to simply let them pursue their happiness. Yeah, happiness isn't guaranteed, but in my personal opinion I think that if someone wants to be miserable in marriage then that is simply their right as American citizens.

I think there's a quote from Kingdom of Heaven that Liam Neeson's character gave about Jerusalem that is applicable to America (substituting Holy Land for some other particularly apt description of the States): "Do you know what lies in the Holy Land? A new world. A man who, in France, had not a house, is, in the Holy Land, the master of a city. He who was the master of a city begs in the gutter. There, at the end of the world, you are not what you were born, but what you have it in yourself to be."

The thing of it is, we can't be defined by a uniform description and to try to do so is an exercise in insanity. Like you said, it makes the culture of America in her lack of rigid definition. We're to pursue our goals as we see fit and that's what makes us such a unique society.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to wilji1070 [2013-11-30 14:47:03 +0000 UTC]

I would agree, part of the downfall of the conservative thinking, was when religion was allowed to intertwine with the Republican party in the 1980s... Goldwater also spoke against that many times, and most famously when he said any good Christian ought to kick Falwell in the ass... .. which was sort of a play on Falwell's words of any good Christian must be against gay marriage, abortion etc.. .

I have never seen the film but it seems a good quote -- I do not know the precise context it was said under but it seems a good quote

Well, we can in generality speak to it as one of liberty, not constriction ... but what is liberty and what is constricting is where things tend to get rather subjective. Well yes, we are one of the few countries to have such a written rule or thing that speaks to even the pursuit of happiness... which makes us very unique in that area

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wilji1070 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-11-30 19:53:02 +0000 UTC]

I LOVE that quote of Goldwater's. Really, I wish that more Republicans took to a similar stance or y'know do like Jeb Bush and his son George P. Bush are doing in trying to reach out to the Latino community, I think in a political sense it would make the elections more interesting since the votes aren't just automatically decided. That's one thing I want, I want to see the elections become interesting again. I wonder how 2008 would've turned out if someone like Colin Powell had received the nomination instead of McCain. Ah well, I can only hope that Jon Huntsman gets the nomination in 2016.

Mainly, Godfrey (Neeson) was telling his son about how Jerusalem was a place for new beginnings. In a sense, one could describe the United States as that because so many people come to the States looking for a fresh start on their lives. Granted, our esteemed politicians on the far right [Tea Party] might be doing everything in their power to make life incredibly difficult, but that's the thing I love about this country, we bounce back and we come back stronger than ever.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to wilji1070 [2013-11-30 22:21:00 +0000 UTC]

Well while Jeb Bush is more seemingly moderate than some Republicans, look at his economic policies. While I like his plan for education as far as reform, .. but his economic policies and social policies are just like that of the rest of the Republicans. He, like Chris Christie, just has that ability to believe in everything else with the Republicans but have a way of just saying it as if he is more moderate in general than them even if for the most part their policies are the same.

Reaching out to the latino Community takes more than just talking to them.. policy must back it up and the GOP has said that there is no immigration reform which includes citizenship ... they will allow them to stay, pay taxes, etc but not be citizens.. then would challenge that on the whole no taxation without representation... 50,000 Latinos turn 18 every month, that is 600,000 new Latino voters a year, the fastest growing voting block and also the fastest growing group as a percentage of population in the country.

Powell would never have gotten the nomination and if he did I am sure he would have lost, was still too tainted, even if he broke away from, the Bush administration,  What he should have done, if he even wanted a shot was to do a sort of Michael Steele did at the RNC which got the Republicans that major 2010 victory.. he should have been going out to places that do not generally vote republican and try to peel some of the votes off.

What I am most hopeful about is Bernie Sanders said he will toy with the idea of running, not to really win but to just debate the Democrats ..especially, though he did not name her by name, Clinton. He, like I, wants to know why she, Clinton, is getting hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in speaking engagements from the same big banks that crashed the economy ..

.. well they came here for religious freedoms, Jerusalem, for all intents and purposes was founding on the basis of religion, so while I am sure people wind find similarities, that is an important difference.  I will leave the "than ever" to the historians to decide.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wilji1070 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-12-01 00:50:30 +0000 UTC]

Very good points on reaching out to the Latino community. Mostly... I hate when GOP voters use the term "White America" and then get pissy when people say the GOP is racist. It's like... if you're not racist then why use that term? I mean, this may just be me and my views regarding people, but I tend to think that the individual matters more rather than by what skin color they are, or their sexual preference, or their gender, or their religion. Like... my father's a good man, but he and I disagree vehemently on politics.

On that particular note, I'd like to know that as well. Why IS she getting money from them?

As for the "than ever" I tend to think back on the United States bouncing back from the Great Depression, when many thought the United States was doomed to break apart because of it all, and becoming a global superpower. Whether we can reclaim lost prestige or not in today's time depends on whether or not the electorate feels the nations to examine its soul.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to wilji1070 [2013-12-01 03:06:47 +0000 UTC]

I keep getting error messages so I will post my next few replies in parts.. click on the time stamp to see the full comment and answer that because I keep getting the 500 error message

They, the ones who use such terms, long for a leave it to beaver land when America was great, it was ideal if you happen to be of white decent.. was not so great if you happen to be anything other than white.. and in most cases, was not so great if you happen to even be a white female. many conservatives believe that whites losing power, i.e. other races getting the rights that they have always enjoyed, is somehow an attack on "white America" ... well whether we like it or not, race will be a factor in politics for many cycles, as it has always, thus far, been a part of politics since the colonies.. to our founding.. until today.. time will tell if race will no longer be a factor but then that will go to addressing justice in America with regards to economic givings and race. When you have schools in predominately black and latino areas getting 2-3x less money than schools in more "white neighborhoods" even if the school is of a larger size.. that should be addressed... drug policy also impacts race greatly.. so until we address these things and they are no longer an issue.. then race will always be a factor in America...

*reminds me of the song "Ella's Song" by sweet honey in the rock.. www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwEwLn…
disregard the imagery, the words of the song is more important...
.. has America reached this ? Remember, the song I believe came out in 1988... and decades later, is the death of blacks treated the same as whites.. Dick Gregory made a very astute observation that if white kids were offing white kids at the rate of black kids are then the country would have attempted to address this long ago.

..speaking engagements, many more progressives and liberals challenge her as well on her lack of a plan for banking reform.

The US has seen worse, if it can survive a civil war which brought the country to economic collapse.. I am sure they could handle a depression.. but what makes this recession so slow is unlike the depression, you had worker programs to fix roads, bridges, railways.. instead Obama has fired 500K federal workers and have no real worker program.. partially his fault for not trying.. though if he tried I am sure it would not pass the Republican led house...

""hether we can reclaim lost prestige or not in today's time depends on whether or not the electorate feels the nations to examine its soul"
Was nations supposed to be need or .. I do not get what you were trying to say..

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

wilji1070 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-12-01 06:03:32 +0000 UTC]

The sad fact is that is the unfortunate truth. I wish that we could move past it honestly...

Kinda makes one wonder if FDR could have passed the New Deal in today's political climate. I think one user and I were discussing it and he pointed out that Roosevelt would likely have croaked earlier under the circumstances. Still... banking reforms are a necessity and it disturbs me that we really haven't passed any effective legislation in the make of like... a Neo-Glass Steagall or something.

As for what I meant by that statement, the fact of the matter is that a lot of the growth of the security state is a result of the general public preferring security over liberty. Granted, the government's job is to protect the people, but there should also be a bit more transparency in what these laws do and shows clearly how the process works otherwise you see conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones crying "Nazi Germany" all over the media airwaves for every little thing the government does. But the fact of it is, that any sort of abuse of power that many find Obama guilty of, can clearly be laid at the feet of those who did nothing to protest the federal government's lack of transparency dating all the way back to quite possibly the Cold War mentality. Of course... there is a certain level of secrecy that must be maintained, but even so...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to wilji1070 [2013-12-01 14:17:05 +0000 UTC]

As do I, but until we actually address race relations in this country I do not see us doing so. This country, as a country, has not had a true discussion on race relations since the civil rights movements... so nearly 50 years without a discussion on race... will we ever have it.. who knows.

FDR, like Obama.. had the great fortune that when he was elected.. the dems controlled the Senate and had won nearly half of the seats in the house... Obama, to his discredit, while he should have worked on health care reform, that is not all he should have worked on, he should have worked on immigration reform, worker programs etc when he had a democratically controlled congress..

I do not think he would have, according to his friends, Roosevelt thrived on a good political battle... I think the constant filibusters and such would have [that is if he was health in the first place] would have re-energized him.. and he may have, what Obama should have done more of ... is go on a speaking tour .. and call out the Republicans by name like Roosevelt used to do.

Well Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and a few others have spoken of a new glass steagall.. but that will not pass in the GOP house... and Glass Steagall is not an all to end all, it is true that when it passed that we had no major bank crashes, because most bank crashes are when the collateral diminishes and the people lose.. what the bill says is a bank cannot use client funds as collateral on any of their deals, that they must use their own funds.

I would disagree with your premise, since this concept that the growth of security state if we look over the last five years, while people act as if these are something new, that only shows their great ignorance of politics. These stories were coming out since 2002 ..2004...2006 and no one, not even the Democrats did anything... and the Republicans were acting as if it was no big deal, and when the same things continued, the GOP act as if this is new.. I blame the ignorance of the people, if a story has been coming out since 2002 and the people sought not to address it then the people are to blame.

With respect to the general usage of security over liberty, in an age where we see the liberty for many, gays, spreading faster than it ever has in this country, and women as well - - security with respect to domestic and foreign policy should be addressed, but we must not act as if these are new programs that no one did not vote on..and then reelect the people who voted on such.

I would agree and disagree, there are some things in which you can have available to the public yet the way our security works is, and has been this way for decades is nothing starts off as declassified.. a secret service official says everything starts off as classified and then they have a team that goes through and see what can be declassified and such - - the issue with this is everyday there are literally thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of documents that need to be looked at and declassified  - - what the president had for lunch, etc may or may not be deemed classified, where the president goes is generally classified as far as exactly where he may be staying at and such ..constitutionally they are transparent since the constitution only allows the representatives of the people to be privvy to such information and as such members of congress are allowed to look at much of the classified stuff that the general public cannot see.

... well no one really trusts Alex Jones, yes, he has a loyal small following but he is no Limbaugh. He reports stories in a fox news way of THE GOVERNMENT BUYING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF ROUNDS OF AMMO!!! .. what he did not report is that was a bulk purchase to be gotten over 5 years and when you look at the yearly take was actually a few thousand rounds lower than what we normally bought a year.. HEALTH CARE IS WHAT HITLER DID!!.. Germany had universal health care before Hitler was even born - - so if anyone takes five minutes researching his stories I would say 9/10 they are easily checked as false.

I have seen no formal, constitutional abuses of powers Obama has been charged it, people are generally ignorant of the constitution. Not liking what a president is doing is not the same as abusing his presidential powers. I do not like the drone policy, or  rather I think they should gather more intel before using a drone.. yet you have some who say DRONES ARE AN ABUSE OF HIS POWER.. as head of the military his power on foreign lands in military activities is pretty much the only power he truly has... on the domestic front is a different matter of course.

What the people must do, is be more vocal, and get more politically active.. and stop allowing fox news, or msnbc to tell them what to think.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wilji1070 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-12-02 03:30:32 +0000 UTC]

Maybe this is due to my Caucasian ethnicity, but how does one have any meaningful debates on race relations? That's... admittedly the one thing that has virtually stumped me on just about every social issue nowadays.

Who knows really, I tend to think that Obama's intentions were to try and mend the country. If I recall, they sorta drew comparisons to Warren G. Harding in that notion. Not so much Harding's... well his corrupt administration, but rather the mood of the country to return to "normalcy" (Normality if you're "Fighting Bob" LaFollette ) of course, it seems that many want Obama's presidency to be in the same make as Harding's, rife with corruption and political scandals out the ear. Kinda shameful if you ask me, but then I tend to expect a degree of civility in our duly elected, maybe I'm hoping for too much.

I tend to agree on the premise of the policies being nothing new. In fact, I find it funny in particular when I had found a clip on Youtube of Sean Hannity during the Bush years praising what the NSA was doing and slamming people like Senator Leahy for their opposition to the wiretappings and then flash forward to now with Hannity calling it "Big Brother" and the "most egregious violations of our basic civil rights." Which I think is hyperbole at best. Plus, I tend to think this is the result of selling news as big business rather than broadcasting for the sake of serving the public interest. I dunno if you're in agreement, but I wouldn't object to seeing news networks being mandated to devote one whole, uninterrupted hour in the evenings to simply talk about real world issues rather than the latest pop trend of whatever it is Justin Bieber did in Brazil or the latest bit about Paul Walker's unfortunate death. Of course the problem is how to sell it without hearing cries of "State propaganda" or something like that.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to wilji1070 [2013-12-02 03:59:16 +0000 UTC]

Ooops, I id not post the entire comment.. here is the whole comment and I will hide previous comment

By first admitting that racism exists. I have seen many people, white people, usually conservatives say that racism is over because we have a black president.

You ask how do we address race relations, you do it first by admitting that there is racism and the system is geared against people of color. I had this debate a few days ago and a conservative guy said, SO WE ADMIT THAT BLACKS ARE VICTIMS.. I said no, you admit that the system is unfair towards people of color.
Blacks and whites use drugs in equal numbers, yet if you are black you are 4x as likely to be arrested for drugs.
1:1 if a black male and a white male are up for the same exact crime..and each have no, or similar backgrounds, the black defendant is 2-3x as likely to get a harsher sentence than his white counterpart.

In Florida, the stand your ground law, when whites have tried to use the law, it is generally accepted as an applicable defense in about 20-30% of cases .meaning a judge will allow them to use it as a defense even if they do not win... yet with a black defendant, less than 10% of those that seek to utilize stand your ground as an affirmative defense are allowed to use it. I actually, if you look in my gallery did an entire piece on judicial racism
atheosemanon.deviantart.com/art/Race-Relations-Judicial-Social-Law-Enforcement-385696489

I looked at a wide array of things, from stop and frisk, a history of police who brutalized black males and were not charged at all or let off lightly .. when/if you read the piece, .. you may see how we can at the very least start have a meaningful discussion on race relations

I also discussed education system, how if a school in a predominately black neighborhood which tends to have a lot more students than schools in predominately white neighborhoods, yet several studies have found that the schools in the predominately white neighborhoods, which have a lot less students... tend to actually get more money than schools in urban areas that have a lot more students. Text books are also indicative, of not racism, but just the lack of care in which such a system disregards certain groups.



Obama is too much of an idealist for my personal taste in his early presidency, I am glad he seems to be becoming more of a realist and finally..even if in his second term, realizes that the GOP does not wish to work with him.. they made that evident when he was first inaugurated and that very day, top GOP people met in a room to see how they could undermine his presidency, this is not a conspiracy, Karl Rove himself admitted that this happen and even several top republican admitted the meeting took place.

It is not about what is true, is about what the GOP can sell, do recall, this is not random, do recall that a few weeks ago the GOP was angry that there was literally an actual playbook of propaganda that showed how they planned to undermine the presidency, from taking every single story of someone who lost health care and pumping it up to seem as if it was much larger percentage than it was.

I tend to expect partisanship from many people, but especially on fox news, MSNBC has it as well but not to the extent that I have seen on fox. Their main argument tends to be argumentum ad populum, or rather a claim that because they have higher ratings then that must mean that they are telling the truth.

I would say to Senator Leahy credit, even under Obama, he has called for more congressional oversight on these programs as he was doing under Bush, he is one of the few who has called Obama to task when it comes to our drone policy and having more congressional oversight on the program.

Has to do with selling.. as has been said mostly by Bernie Sanders, but by others as well, 30 years ago you had 30 major news organizations, 20 years ago you had 18… now you only have 6 major news companies that control all of the news that most people get. That is why I tend to prefer independent or smaller news programs like The young turks, David Pakman, Sam Seder and the like..

As you can see on my new updated influence map, I added Bill Moyers, one of the few journalists that over the years I believe has kept his journalistic integrity when it comes to stories and his reporting on these stories – if there is editorials as all journalists have done them, he makes it a point in his reporting to separate his editorials from the facts of the story, the issue with many news organizations is that the editorials tend to be placed in with the facts of the story as to give an appearance as if the view of that reporting the story, are just facts.

I would have to oppose your wishes,  the first amendment allows freedom of the press and I grow very worried when we have government mandating that you must do this with your time or that with your news stories. I do support the several bills which basically says that news stories passed off as news must be factual and if a story is found to be objectively false, that a retraction must be made – I forget the name of the law ..it used to be a law but was repealed many years ago.

The president does a weekly address, that is his time to address all of the stories and tell what is going on, pretty much every member of congress has a youtube page where they, if they wished, could address any all rumors surrounding something…

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wilji1070 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-12-02 04:25:50 +0000 UTC]

It just seems like a daunting task, but I'm wondering if this discussion can be had in our lifetime or if this is going to be an issue where our grandchildren have to conclude the issue or something. Then again, I am something of a challenge seeker, so I tend to believe that I'm up to the challenge, and who knows, maybe it just needs one spark to get the nation talking about it.

For me, President Obama is kinda... "meh" I didn't vote to re-elect him simply because I wanted to see a third party candidate at least make some splash, but as my father once said, "you may as well be pissing in the breeze." And maybe so, but I tend to think that voting for the best qualified candidate is the best choice we can make. Of course, having said that? Are there things that Obama's done recently that I approve of? Certainly. I think to look for a "perfect" president is an exercise in insanity since all of them are going to have their faults. Roosevelt's internment camps, I disapprove of them. His attitude towards a post-war Germany? Not exactly something I would approve then, but the long term effect was pretty good on the German people (of which I am descended.)

I tend to think of that particular wish of the press due to a slight appeal to Bismarck's views on the state (and I tend to flirt a bit with authoritarianism), but I must concede that such a view for media is virtually impossible in America due to our first amendment. If anything... I would support anti-trust lawsuits being filed to break apart the slow, creeping monopoly on news media. But maybe I'm just paranoid about things that aren't really there

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to wilji1070 [2013-12-02 15:28:55 +0000 UTC]

Nothing worthwhile has ever been easy, and a discussion on race is about 5 decades overdue. We looked a bit at race during the Rodney King beating, during the OJ trial but we never actually had a national discussion on race in general with respect to the educational, judicial and social structure of America. .. Race will always be an issue, the issue will be if it is an issue used to divide solely or something that people will try to bridge the gaps. Yet if we do not discuss it then .. yes, the children, grandchildren, great grandchildren etc will have to deal with it until the issue is addressed – especially on the judicial side of things.

… we have had many sparks for the nation to start talking about, the 4 cops who shot and killed an unarmed man, who was not even a suspect in anything and made the great mistake of walking outside of his buildings.. was a chance.. police sodomizing a man with a plunger was a time, the Rodney king beating, was a time.. police shooting an unarmed man in the head while he was handcuffed with his hands behind his back ..was a time.. and more modern, the Trayvon Martin case..was a time..we have had many “sparks” as you say to get people to start discussing race relations in this country but you need people willing to first admit that systematic racism exists .. vs some saying racism exists and the other half claiming racism is not an issue..

I voted for him or reelection since the alternative was Romney/Ryan… and they would have been much worse in my opinion. So I voted for him the first time, and for reelection. I would disagree that third party candidates made no splash, if you look at the debates, key points in the Green Party environmental platform were discussed, as well as some Key points in the social welfare points of the Green and Socialist parties…even if not mentioned by name

I disagreed with Roosevelt’s internment camps as well, and glad they were later done away with … what was funny that history does not tell us about but is easily researched, when it was time to do away with them, there were actually more Republicans than Democrats trying to discuss how to continue them under a different name which I find a bit hm ..

I had no issue with his attitude towards post War Germany, since Post War Germany was a hash rap of many parties fighting for power and still were speaking ill of America… assuming you are speaking to what he and Stalin were saying regarding Germany which the letters are in many books and may be online for research.

My lineage is German, Russian, Irish, Jewish, Native American –Cherokee and Black [Africa] .. I have fam who were Nazis, and who were killed by Nazis, I had fam killed by the red army…and those who were red army loyalists …

I would support people supporting smaller, independent news, and perhaps then forcing smaller groups to buy and control other medias, vs just people blindly following the big six.

They can try to break the media outlets up, but since there are six of them it would be easy to say that there is market competition, vs there just being one large company and none of the rest being able to compete.. which is what anti trust and monopoly laws attempt to stop.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wilji1070 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-12-02 18:08:18 +0000 UTC]

That's what I mean by a spark. No one wants to admit the system has flaws, to them it's the individual that has the flaws. I remember a quote from A Time to Kill where they tried a black man for murdering some white supremacists for raping his daughter. The quote went as follows: "I set out to prove a black man could receive a fair trial in the South, that we are all equal in the eyes of the law. That's not the truth 'cause the eyes of the law are humanized, yours and mine, and until we can see each other as equals, justice is never going to be even-handed. It will remain nothing more than a reflection of our own prejudices. So until that day, we have a duty under God to seek the truth - not with our eyes, and not with our minds where fear and hate turn commonality into prejudice, but with our hearts - but we don't know better." The sad thing? This is probably the most accurate statement about our laws even by today's standards.

I sorta noticed Obama seemed to move further to the left, even if slightly as election day drew closer.

Incidentally, it was Stalin who convinced Roosevelt and Churchill to not dismantle the entirety of Germany; however, what I mean is that there was a handbook ready for military government of Germany; it advocated a quick restoration of normal life for the German people and reconstruction of Germany. Roosevelt rejected it, dismissing the idea that "only a few" Nazis were responsible for the Holocaust and believing that the German people in general had "been engaged in a lawless conspiracy against the decencies of modern civilization." Sadly, in this case, he was technically correct, as literally every form of German bureaucracy really was involved in cataloging, disenfranchising and transporting Jews during the Holocaust. At the same time, Roosevelt preferred not to rehabilitate the German economy in any way. When asked if he was wanted the German people to starve, Roosevelt replied "Why not?"

Now, I mentioned that at the time I'd have been opposed to it, but given the effect it's had on the German people? I'd say that it was necessary, if a bit callous. But then again, holding the entire German population guilty over the atrocities of the camps? I'd say it had a tremendous impact on not allowing a "Stabbed in the Back" myth to reappear in German society.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to wilji1070 [2013-12-02 19:48:30 +0000 UTC]

That's what I mean by a spark. No one wants to admit the system has flaws, to them it's the individual that has the flaws. I remember a quote from A Time to Kill where they tried a black man for murdering some white supremacists for raping his daughter. The quote went as follows: "I set out to prove a black man could receive a fair trial in the South, that we are all equal in the eyes of the law. That's not the truth 'cause the eyes of the law are humanized, yours and mine, and until we can see each other as equals, justice is never going to be even-handed. It will remain nothing more than a reflection of our own prejudices. So until that day, we have a duty under God to seek the truth - not with our eyes, and not with our minds where fear and hate turn commonality into prejudice, but with our hearts - but we don't know better." The sad thing? This is probably the most accurate statement about our laws even by today's standards.

Well I would not say “no one” of course there are many people who not only admit the system has flaws and wish to reform it, but they need to be more vocal and those who are saying the system has no flaws in it, with respect to race, have never actually proven their premise with respect to sentences and arrests.

“A time to kill” is one of my favorite films, do recall in the film that they were planning to find him guilty until the lawyer went through the same facts of the case..and said imagine if she were white.. that made even the racist man on the jury change his mind and vote not guilty. As the song I linked you before said, until the killing of black man, black mother’s sons…. Is as important as the killing of white man, white mother’s sons…. And that is the truth, in the eyes of America and the American media, whites are more important… look at kidnappings, you may see a black woman on the news are rarely shown, yet when a white female goes missing it is nonstop on the news - - that is what the tv show. “finding our missing” seeks to change by showing people of color that go missing that rarely, if at all makes the news.

I cannot say I noticed he moved further to the left as much as I saw him realize that the gop was not willing to work with him on getting things that even thei9r base claim to want and/or be okay with … such as immigration reform and background checks.

I often dislike the series of Jewish focus on the holocaust, they may have been the largest group killed, but they were in no way  most of the people killed. The Nazis killed 20 million people in death camps, 6 million were Jews, so while they were the largest minority group sought, we must never forget the rest of the blacks, gays, commies, socialists, those who were mentally retarded and the like that they kill… and people so often only focus on the Jews as if the say or imply that the others, forgotten through history by even some history teachers that just speak to the systematically killing of Jews .., and forget the rest that were systematically sought and subsequently killed.

Stalin had his own aims for Germany and his plan would not work if Germany was broken up, which he so spoken up in many of his writings of wishing to control the land, which was part of his seeming aims of control of Europe if he ever got the chance and had the power

With respect to the why not, several historians have claimed that given what Roosevelt was planning with Germany the month before he died, which led Stalin to accuse him of helping the Germans that it was unlikely that he said that. While he may have, it was even differences of these claims from the men who were in the room while he said it.

Others have said, with respect to the Morgenthau Plan. And his wishes to break up Germany that he did say it but was referring to the part that the Nazis controlled and the citizenry that chose to stay under the Nazis. So while he may have said it, when you have historians debating if he said it at all, or the context that which it was said.. I cannot just assume it was said/


… silence portrays guilt… while the German people should not be blamed for the actions of the Nazis, their silence, through fear or compliance, allowed it to drag out as long as it did.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wilji1070 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-12-02 20:02:03 +0000 UTC]

True enough, the problem is those who wish to be more vocal seem daunted by the opposition to the idea. At least... I've noticed that here in Texas more than anywhere. Also, the mentioning of a white woman being kidnapped made me think back to Scary Movie 3 where Brenda was telling Cindy, "The whole world's gotta stop because some white bitch fell down a well." Sorry, off topic I know but still, it somehow made me laugh But more on topic, I wonder if there's any politicians in Congress currently who are calling for a legit discussion on it? Like... I'm trying to see if Senator Sanders is pushing for something like that or not.

I dunno, maybe the reason Obama seems, to me, have moved to the left might just be due to the GOP moving further to the right?

Very true, Stalin was just bugfuck crazy.

I have to wonder just how Germany would've turned out with someone like Erwin Rommel at the helm or twisting further, someone like Rosa Luxemburg gaining power in the Reichstag.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to wilji1070 [2013-12-02 21:47:41 +0000 UTC]

I did not mean to include your first paragraph in my piece... meant to erase after replying to that paragraph...

Ironically with Texas, the margins of republican victory if you look over the past 30 years have been closing and some speculate that within 1-3 cycles, that is 1-3 presidential elections that Texas mat be a purple state given its hispanic population and how it is growing faster in that state than almost any other state. Texas is funny to me, your governor yells that Green energy will never work, yet Texas has more wind turbines than any state, saves the state millions of dollars a year, and is planning to install even more wind turbines, nearly doubling their number by 2020.....while still yelling that green energy does not work...

lmao, but that is actually true, remember that state where that white kid feel down the rocks and it was a national story for weeks..  that kid lived.. yet every news station was carrying live broadcasts of it and everything and a few weeks later, in another state a black kid was stuck in the rocks for hours as well... he also lived but not a one news story sent a live feed for it. As Paul Mooney the comedian, one of Richard Pryor's writers said... whites have the complexion for the protection...he also speaks that they do not even know, most of them, what a privilege in America it is to have white skin.. I had a similar story as he, he was in the car with his white friends and the cops pulled them over...and asked to see his license even though he was not even driving. My friend lives in a wealthy part of NY upstate and when he was driving, I was in the passenger seat and cops stopped us, had guns on me and kept asking my friend was he alright like I had kidnapped him or something..

Sanders is more focused on economic goals, than racial ones.. but economic goals always goes to racial.. slavery was as much a economic issue as it was a social one.

The GOP has been moving further to the right for 30 years.. as Jeb Bush said.. his father and Reagan would be considered too moderate to elect in  today's GOP..

Ah, Luxemburg another influence of mine, amazing woman.. but do remember, the only reason Hitler took the name National Socialism, was not because he wanted national socialism, it was because most of the people in ermany were members of the socialist worker parties... and if you read Mein Kampf you will see Hitler hated socialism, and hated the idea of a general population having the power..

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wilji1070 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-12-02 23:59:39 +0000 UTC]

I like to think that Perry's just screaming because no one finds him relevant anymore. Then again, I can't even tell the difference between satire and Tea Party rhetoric anymore. Like... if I find an article about Michelle Bachmann's latest exploits I have to stare at it for a good minute before I can decide whether it's genuine or satire.

Geez.... Wait... don't police officers have some sort of quota they have to meet in terms of what types of people they stop and such? Or is that just an urban myth?

Shoot, Hitler's distaste for socialism is hardly kept a secret. But then you have morons spouting off "ERMAHGERD! Socialist is in the name, he's a lefty!" Which is some sort of insane logic I can't even wrap my head around. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to wilji1070 [2013-12-03 01:36:49 +0000 UTC]

lmao, I have sadly fallen for a few.. I have shared it only to have someone post it is satire and I was like DAMN it sounded just like them,, tea party people .. sad day when satire sounds like their normal manner of speech

Well it is not much of a types of people but in general, several cops have said they are expected to give out a certain number of tickets a month to show they are doing their job... but that is more of an unwritten rule than a police manual..

Hitler made no secret that he modeled his idea after Mussolini, and Mussolini made no secret that he was a fascist - while economic socialism, or the use of taxation or governmental funds for the general good can work under a Democratic Republic like America, Stalinist Russia or Hitler's germany.. national socialism, which is people power and common ownership would never work under a fascist government

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wilji1070 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-12-03 01:46:13 +0000 UTC]

The irony of it all is that the New Deal had quite a bit in common with Mussolini, but I tend to think that it had more of a success in America due to the very nature you described. What I find funny is that people like to point to the New Deal as prolonging the Depression but what they tend to forget is that the other nations that emerged quicker had something we didn't at the time: A welfare state to provide some form of insurance to those displaced. Granted, Germany was in tatters for a whole slew of other reasons, but still...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to wilji1070 [2013-12-03 04:09:22 +0000 UTC]

I would need specificity as to the new deal and Mussolini, do remember what Mussolini said about fascism "Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power." .. and the new deal was a bunch of government public programs that was set for government to run over these programs, not private corporations.  I am sure of course that one can make any comparison between leaders, but the new deal and Mussolini when Mussolini saw such things as socialism and communism terrible plans to work through.

I would disagree with the people who say such as do most economists, it not only did not prolong it but it made the economy stronger. Economists said Roosevelt could have literally within a few years built the economy back quick but that a fast built economy is not stable and would have fell soon after, slowly building the economy to be self sustaining as time passes, was the best way to go. It is what many progressives did not like Obama about that after the greatest economic depression since the great depression that Obama laid off 500,000 public and federal workers... he should have, as Bernie Sanders aid, hired much more since for every dollar we spend on public workers we get 3 dollars back, and for every dollar we spent on welfare system, we generally get 1.90 cents back ... and he should have also raised the minimum wage when he had two full years of Democratic control of house and Senate..

Must also disagree with a welfare state was why they bounced back quicker, they bounced back quicker, but not stronger.. which is what matters.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wilji1070 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-12-03 04:42:25 +0000 UTC]

And this is why we need a leftist party that's not afraid to throw a punch really. Quite honestly, I'm surprised that Occupy didn't coalesce around the Democratic Party much like how the Tea Party did with the Republicans. Maybe the Coffee Party could come to prominence or something, I dunno. I'd just like to see more people around our age group get involved politically. They don't have to run for office necessarily, but rather they just need to be politically aware.

I'd think that's more because of the unique nature of America in particular, I mean we are a resilient people and even those who've wished death upon us don't exactly want to fight us in our backyard.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to wilji1070 [2013-12-03 04:53:16 +0000 UTC]

... the Democratic party, for all of their rhetoric, is just as much intertwined with the corporate owned interests as the Republicans are.. they get nearly equal funds to the Republicans in corporate funds with request to general funds .. in presidential elections they around 20-40% of corporate funds depending on if they are an incumbent or challenging an incumbent.

That is the only thing that even top Occupy people have said was their greatest fault, that like the tea party, they were not at first trying to run for office and if they had tried, they may have won... and unlike tea party people, they did not generally challenge democrats to try and bring them further to the left.. years after it started they are now speaking of trying to run for office and such.

I like the Coffee party's stated aims, but they do not do much to garner real membership, and fund things..

America has the strongest military, but also remember... that America was generally the largest country effected during the depression, we are larger than BRitain [not larger if you include all of the British colonies where the queen is recognized as national leader such as in Canada and many other nations] so being the largest also means that we had more to work out with nearly 50% under and unemployment

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wilji1070 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-12-03 05:02:40 +0000 UTC]

I've always wondered though, how does full disclosure of corporate donations help the voting process, it's just never made sense to me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to wilji1070 [2013-12-03 05:14:03 +0000 UTC]

Rather, simple, it is what the Republicans always say let the markets decide!!! ... if you find out a company that you like, say Pepsi [FOR THE RECORD, I AM USING THEM AS AN EXAMPLE I AM NOT SAYING THESE ARE THEIR VIEWS] gives tens of millions of dollars lobbying to defeat gay marriage, lobbying to get more and more sugar subsidies while lobbying against farmer subsidies for vegetables..etc. these type of things would make you see that you are basically subsidizing all of this by your buying their products... so you may stop buying their products.. now if it were just you no big deal.. now imagine if tens of thousands of people.. if millions.. if tens of millions stop buying their stuff .. that is billions and billions of revenue that they easily lose each and every year - much more than the funds they will donate

So they may stop donating to these causes and such..
So being able to see exactly what corporations are donating to what causes may mean people will stop buying their products

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wilji1070 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-12-04 18:16:58 +0000 UTC]

I see!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to wilji1070 [2013-12-05 01:55:15 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AtheosEmanon In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-12-01 03:07:19 +0000 UTC]

never mind.. whole comment decided to finally post

👍: 0 ⏩: 0