Jackson Free Press

... Can someone tell me why the folks who are "taking America back" are called "Patriots?" Why am I not one? and who are we "taking our country back from" anyway? Are we the "us" or the "them."

Honestly, Im sure most JFP posters will have a response but actually I'm asking the Conservative, Republican, or Tea Party visitors to his site if there are any. It's your mantra and for the sake of clarity, I'd like to know what it means...GO!

Previous Commentsshow

Kaz, I guess we're still waiting for a response!

FrankMickens

Nov 3 2010

Guess so. Funny. We hear it so much but no one seems to be able to truly explain it. Got great convo on my FB page but only ONE republican dared venture into those waters. Most of the folks willing to comment arent exactly repubs or conservatives. Perhaps Mark or Ironghost can chime in. I truly want some clarity because I hope this isnt just some codespeak. Im a patriot and I want my country back too!

Kamikaze

Nov 3 2010

I doubt you will get the answer you are looking for on this site, Kaz.

Jeff Lucas

Nov 4 2010

They want to take the country back from brown people. Like our president. Like the immigrants (which is synonymous with 'Mexicans'). Like the Muslim terr'ists. You know, anybody that doesn't look or believe like them - white and Christian. They are very afraid of brown people, dontcha know? ...and until somebody posts here and says anything different, that is what I will continue to believe.

Tre

Nov 4 2010

Kaze, "Taking Back Our Country" is "CODE" for Taking Blacks (Barack, Michelle, Sasha, Meleia, and Beau) out of the White House. It is a very simple message. Think about it. This whole movement to "Take our county back" is new. It's birth was two years ago when Barack Obama was sworn in as President. George Bush led the country into a war based one lies and garbage. More than 4,500 military men/women have been killed because of his lies: More than the number killed by terroist at the WTC on 9/11. President Obama inherited the worse financial management of this country since the Great Depression, yet, the Tea Baggers/Republican said nothing. My question is this: WHY ARE YOU ASKING FOR YOUR COUNTRY BACK NOW AND WHY DIDN'T YOU WANT IT WHEN BUSH WAS TEARING IT DOWN - LIMB BY LIMB?? Please note that this same group of members and potential members of the KLAN want to start impeachment procedings.

justjess

Nov 4 2010

IMPEACHMENT? For what? What shameless, brain-dead idiot stated that?

Jeff Lucas

Nov 4 2010

Jeff Lucas, there is a "National Impeach Obama Tea Party Movement" going on in this country by the Tea Part Activist Group. The address to this link is: stopobamanowsd.wordpress.com

justjess

Nov 4 2010

I see, it's one of these TP nutjob groups calling for his impeachment. No surprise there; they're no different from the idiot birthers. Seems *so far* no elected Congressman has publicly called for his impeachment since Tuesday (Mitch McConnell's recently stated goal to oust Obama in 2012 being almost equally asinine). Although I'm sure some in the newly minted GOP House majority would love to try, launching an impeachment procedure without cause is a sure way for them to get their asses handed to them come 2012.

Jeff Lucas

Nov 4 2010

We have a government that is controlled by Political Action Committees and greedy politicians who pander for re-election to special interests groups. We now have an administration that has not lived up to it's promises of open, transparent government. The health care bill was a perfect example: "You'll have to pass it to see what's in it", Nancy Pelosi. You release the printed bill to Congress less than four hours from the vote and no one has time to read or analyze it! We have an activist judiciary that is re-writing state and local law with their decisions that have unfair cultural impact. We have federal agencies that will not enforce the laws they are charged with. Immigration is the perfect example. Many people inside ICE are frustrated by constraints put on them from DOJ. We have professional politicians that use their offices for the accumulation of wealth and power. They are sell outs who need to live by the same laws you and I do--not their own special laws and exclusions. This applies to both sides of the aisle. We have a tax code that is undecipherable. We have social programs that go out of their way to give away tax payer money. We have a self-serving government. EG. This year federal employees get their raises and COLA while social security and federal retirees get nothing for the second year in a row. We have a military that has long served the interests of big business and the MIC that has driven up our national debt to unimaginable heights. I personally don't know if the country can be "taken back". Mainly because I have no faith in anyone who would presume to set it straight. It's not all about race. It's about people who think beyond themselves and try to do the right thing in the best tradition of the founding fathers and their Constitution.

Mr Fat Back

Nov 4 2010

Justjess, how did Bush tear down this country and what does the klan have to do with any of this?

independent

Nov 4 2010

Fat Back, you cannot just makes things up on this web site. That is called trolling. The notion that Congress had only four hours to review health care legislation is absolutely absurd. You have taken Pelosi's comments completely out of context. She was speaking to the National Association of Counties in March, not Congress. She was arguing that once the rabid misinformation campaign about health care reform has died down, people will like the legislation. You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. Whether or not you agree with her statement, it is clear that your characterization of her remarks is deeply dishonest. Your claims about ICE and DOJ are completely unfounded. Deportations have actually increased this year and have set a new record. Immigration agents deported more criminals who were in the country illegally during the last fiscal year than in any previous year in the agency's history, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said Wednesday. Do you have a source for your claim? Do you have a source for any of your claims? You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Frankly, I want to take my country back from people like you.

Brian C Johnson

Nov 4 2010

Brian, do you have the sources for your claims? I speak in generalities that are the common truth of the situation. I'm not making things up any more than you. It is a fact that Congress only got the final bill with hours on the clock. By the way, I did not characterize Pelosi at all. That's your invention. You merely show the defense nature of the liberal mind set. If you can't recognize a troll from an honest answer you shouldn't be posting. This nation needs to be out of your hands. Gee, I guess that's why we have more than two political parties now.

Mr Fat Back

Nov 4 2010

Indeendent, The KLAN basically is the same group without the helments (HOODS). I came along during the 60s and the language now is the same as it was then. When you look at some of the posters at a Tea Party Rally, many are hate-filled with pictures of the President of the United States of America laced with Hitler features. I think you are missing the point of Kaze's article. He has an academic question on the table: What does the term mean "Taking our country Back?" Since you are asking me the question "How did Bush tear the country down?", I would suggest ....foget it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, I feel as if I am wasting my time.

justjess

Nov 4 2010

Fat Back, whether intentionally or not, you are a troll. I did post sources to back up my claims. Did you not see the hyperlinks? What specific claim would you like me to back up? Unlike you, I would be happy to provide further links from credible sources. But unless you start arguing your points like a responsible adult, I am finished wasting my time with you.

Brian C Johnson

Nov 4 2010

Fat Back- Let's assume hypothetically that everything you said about the government is true. Hasn't all of that been true for a very long time? The military has always been wasteful, social programs have never been run completely efficiently, Congressman have always amassed dirty money, tax code has never made sense, etc. I agree with all of those things, for sure. When I was in college, those were the same issues that caused far-left leaning (i hate to call myself that) people like myself to think that the government was an extension of corporate interests and was out to get us through the CIA and FBI. When I was a radical, our fight was against the government because so many of us thought of it as the evil empire that was trying to colonize the world and on whose hands was the blood of millions of brown-skinned people. (disclaimer: I am not speaking for anyone else on this board, just me and the people i rolled with when i was younger) But then it all changed after Obama, and all of a sudden the far right comes out and says that the government, the same government of many right-wing presidents as well, is the cause of all of our problems. Why the shift? I didn't see any tea party signs at anti-war rallies, where i went to protest against the government's over-reaching plans of spending tax-payer money to fight a war that was unjust and wasteful. Where were you then? My point is that the tea party comes off to me as a bunch of johnny-come-latelys that, through either ignorance or just not paying attention, think that the government just now, in the past two years, has become a mess that Obama brought on. For me, and many others, especially those that have even a cursory understanding of the history of race in this country, it is interesting that a bunch of privileged white people all of a sudden become anti-government after a black man is elected president. Would me claiming that it is race stand up in court? Probably not. But I know what's up. And denying that it has nothing to do with race is silly too. Poll taxes and literacy tests were maintained for years to systemically keep blacks out of the electoral system, as a way around the 15th amendment, which conveniently only states that the government cannot deny the vote to someone because of their race, leaving a loophole to exploit historical injustices as a method of disenfranchisement. Before you say "what does the 15th amendment have to do with this," just remember that even when it's not about race technically, it's really about race most of the time. So, when I hear someone say "i want to take the country back," the claim is suspicious at best, and venomous at worst. I know what you guys want to get back. It's not that hard to figure out. It's like Paul Mooney said, "White people like going back in time, which is always a problem for me. I can only go back so far. Any farther and my black ass is in chains." This is what I think of when I hear a bunch of white tea partiers (I know they aren't ALL white, blah, blah) talking about taking the country back. /rant

gwhiz

Nov 4 2010

Don't they mean they're taking it back from you n______? Why risk or chance losing a country they killed, raped, starved and robbed the American Indians out of, and set up laws and built weapons of mass destruction to keep anyone else from taking from them? They aren't crazy you know. Why let all that evil doing go for waste or naught. And I might add, how horrible would it be to let the slaves who worked to make them rich become their equal socially, morally, economically, politically, et al. They didn't do all that horrible work for nothing. Good question and I think they feel the answer is self evident. Carry on though!

Walt

Nov 4 2010

Paranoid much, Walt? Sarcasm aside, I love a good conspiricy theory! Especially when all it does is stir the pot and continue rhetoric of side-choosing hatred and discord!

independent

Nov 4 2010

Fatback, Health-care reform was debated in Congress beginning in July 2009 until its passage in March 2010. To say that the bill was distributed hours before the final vote—even if it's true, which I doubt—and that didn't give anyone time to analyze it is disingenuous at best. Every Congressional member had months to analyze and weigh in on the bill.

Ronni_Mott

Nov 4 2010

Kim wade kicked off his 1180 radio show. See links here: Broker loses radio show after plugging new board: http://www.inman.com/news/2010/10/22/broker-loses-radio-show-after-plugging-new-board Broker loses radio show after plugging new board: http://www.financialnewsusa.com/more/35-real-estate-news/19444-broker-loses-radio-show-after-plugging-new-board-and-6-ways-to-get-found-on-the-web

blu_n_a_redstate

Nov 4 2010

blu_n_a_redstate, the only thing that I can say to Brother Kim Wade is that he is the first on the list of talk show host who falls victim to "taking our country/station back." Just know that Kim Wade is a member of the TEA group. He talks more "s" than a radio. Maybe FOX will pick him up; otherwise, he must learn that when your head is in the TIGER'S mouth, you can't just snatch it out. Or, he can take a page from my GMom's book on life and living which says, "Don't let your mouth get your a$$ in trouble! LOL!

justjess

Nov 5 2010

Why have most of my comments failed to get posted?

independent

Nov 5 2010

Dunno, independent. This is the first comment I've seen from you in the back end. Either they're not getting through, tech-wise, or you're making comments that violate the user agreement, in which case another moderator could be deleting them.

DonnaLadd

Nov 5 2010

Interesting article here regarding this subject by Richard Gwyn of the Toronto Star: "Gwyn: Obama too smart, too black for declining America" http://www.thestar.com/article/858979--gwyn-obama-too-smart-too-black-for-declining-america

Duan C.

Nov 5 2010

Let me add one more thing, The power players in the republican party, game plan this past election cycle was explained so eloquently by Arianna Huffington, I know, I know - she's a liberal - but I definately can relate to her angle on the matter. She said, "But, in fact, there is more than one way to channel anger. Yes, you can demonize and divide and scapegoat. You can play on people's economic fears by whipping up a deeply un-American campaign of hate against a religious minority..............So, sure, going all lizard-brain and playing on people's fear and anger and economic anxiety to divide them from one another is one way to go." My gramps said it best, we are headed to a sharecropper lifestyle in America as long as you have a Republican controlled congress. Definition of a sharecropper and the comparisons "A system of agriculture in which a landowner (republicans partnership with major corporations and the rich, extending their tax breaks and cuts) allows a tenant (middle class and working poor in Mississippi with the rest of the Americans) to use (allow you to work) the land in return for a share of the crop produced (your annual earnings goes towards mainatining this country, while the rich gets the tax breaks) on the land."

Duan C.

Nov 5 2010

@Brian Please don't waste your time wasting my time. Nit-picking a post apart just to dis credit the author is a common internet tactic. Are you a staffer? There seems to be fondness to extinguish any form of dissent against liberal viewpoints. Now, Pelosi made her foolish comment to people who were concerned about the lack of transparency of the health care bill. Obama promised C-Span hearings, live, on every aspect and it did not happen. The bill has a lot of surprises in it that would be alarming to small and large businesses. Look at the dirty deals inside the bill where certain states get to opt-out of paying their share just to get the right votes for passage! This health care bill stinks on ice. It should be canned and the government should start anew. As for ICE numbers, big deal. It is not even a dent in the reality of the situation. I don't need sources, all I have to do is go to Wal Mart at night to see the proof. Professional liberalism is what's wrong with this country.

Mr Fat Back

Nov 5 2010

@Ronni There were so many "last minute" deals in the package that it was virtually impossible to analyze the bill before it hit the desks. In a broad, sweeping sense, the bill was analyzed by Congressional staff for generalities. With a democrat majority it would have passed with anything in it just to record an achievement. If the American public had seen the negotiations on C-Span the bill in its current form would not have made it.

Mr Fat Back

Nov 5 2010

I would like to present this excellent analysis by Krauthammer that explains what happened Tuesday night. I fully endorse this as a move against hyper-liberalism not not because our President is BLACK. There are too many posters here obsessed with race. Read this and learn. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/nov/05/gop-victory-cycle-not-mandate/

Mr Fat Back

Nov 5 2010

Duan, I think Gwyn is off-base in a number of his assertions, including the fact that the tea-party movement "is" a grass-roots thing. He has to be living under a rock not to know about the huge piles of money pushing what's commonly referred to as an "astro-turf" movement (i.e., fake grass). It's also exactly the kind of "you're stupid if you're Republican/Tea Party" stance that has many progressives (rightly) pegged as elitist. Here's a different take from The New York Times: How Obama Saved Capitalism and Lost the Midterms: The banking system was resuscitated by $700 billion in bailouts started by Bush (a fact unknown by a majority of Americans), and finished by Obama, with help from the Federal Reserve. It worked. The government is expected to break even on a risky bet to stabilize the global free market system. Had Obama followed the populist instincts of many in his party, the underpinnings of big capitalism could have collapsed. He did this without nationalizing banks, as other Democrats had urged. Saving the American auto industry, which has been a huge drag on Obama's political capital, is a monumental achievement that few appreciate, unless you live in Michigan. After getting their taxpayer lifeline from Obama, both General Motors and Chrysler are now making money by making cars. New plants are even scheduled to open. More than 1 million jobs would have disappeared had the domestic auto sector been liquidated. ... [T]he fact that the president took on the structural flaws of a broken free enterprise system instead of focusing on things that the average voter could understand explains why his party was routed on Tuesday. Obama got on the wrong side of voter anxiety in a decade of diminished fortunes. ... The three signature accomplishments of his first two years — a health care law that will make life easier for millions of people, financial reform that attempts to level the playing field with Wall Street, and the $814 billion stimulus package — have all been recast as big government blunders, rejected by the emerging majority.

Ronni_Mott

Nov 5 2010

Fatback, stop already with the absurd talking-point generalities. You're not furthering the conversation one iota. Offer specifics that you back up with reliable sources or move on. Eight months of debate on the health-care bill isn't enough for you? Please, don't answer ... it's a rhetorical question. One of Obama's key campaign promises was health-care reform, remember? It's what got him elected. Public opinion was FOR reform during the elections, and in favor of the bill after its passage. The amount of misinformation and outright lies about the bill from nay-sayers is legion. Charles Krauthammer represents only one side of the political spectrum: free-market, big-business conservatives. Always did, always will. He's been anti-Obama from day one and hardly presents an objective viewpoint. In other words, his analysis is "excellent" only if you're coming from the same place he is. Just sayin' ...

Ronni_Mott

Nov 5 2010

"Fatback, stop already with the absurd talking-point generalities." I guess being a liberal, female editor gives you the right to make catty remarks. My first post was valid and ADVANCED this discussion as to WHY people want to take back this country. Perhaps your viewpoints would be considered absurd even when backed up by cherry-picked sources by others elsewhere. I think the Professional Liberals that post here need to move-on or develop a more mature and sensible approach to today's issues. I actually looked at your links: one to a article about death panels and the other a 2008 survey--from one source. That's what I mean by cherry picking. I can promise you this in NOT the health care bill America wants or needs. It should have been a single payer system like other countries who cover everyone. The Krauthammer editorial (that word makes it opinion not fact) is an outstanding assessment pointing out that this election was NOT a mandate for a republican agenda but a "restraining order" on the current hyper-liberalism. It is the changing of the tide and someday it will swing right back as it always does. I don't think this election or 2012 is worth losing sleep over.

Mr Fat Back

Nov 5 2010

So here's what's odd about Krauthammer's analysis. How does this... Our two most recent swing cycles were triggered by unusually jarring historical events. The 2006 Republican "thumpin'" (to quote George W. Bush) was largely a reflection of the disillusionment and near-despair of a wearying war that appeared to be lost. And 2008 occurred just weeks after the worst financial collapse in eight decades. ...Equal this: Similarly, the massive Republican swing of 2010 was a reaction to another rather unprecedented development — a ruling party spectacularly misjudging its mandate and taking an unwilling country through a two-year experiment in hyper-liberalism. He doesn't once mention the jobless rate? The Great Recession? Isn't it odd that the 2006 and 2008 elections were a direct result of the state of the country -- and not referendums on GOP leadership -- but the 2010 election was *not* a reflection of the state of the country, but a referendum on Obama? I'm gonna have to throw a flag on that one. You don't have to trust me. Look at the exit polling: Nearly two of three voters picked the economy as the single most important issue in their vote – and they voted 53-44 percent for Republicans for House. It is the first time, in exit poll since 1992, that economy voters have favored Republicans. And this: The economy prevailed as the most important issue, cited by 62 percent, compared with three others listed – health care, 19 percent; illegal immigration, 8 percent; and the war in Afghanistan, 7 percent. So maybe Krauthammer FEELS like it's Obamacare, but it's not tough to find evidence to the contrary.

Todd Stauffer

Nov 5 2010

Well, if that's not troll-like, I don't know what is; accusing a woman of "catty" behavior. Booga booga. No Fatback, your comments have not forwarded the conversation. They have inspired people to challenge your vague generalizations, aka feeding-the-troll behavior. You have yet to provide any independent (or otherwise) sources for your statements. Until you do they remain, IMHO, absurd talking-point generalities. If you had actually read beyond the first sentence of the links I provided, you would see that one (from the Annenburg Public Policy Center's Factcheck.org website) debunked *numerous* misrepresentations about the health-care bill THAT ARE STILL BEING USED to discredit it. It was not an "article about death panels." I used a 2008 poll (from the Kaiser Foundation, and of course a poll is from one source) to back up a statement about 2008 voter concerns. I guess you missed the third link altogether (from USA Today) in your ever-so-thorough reading. I disagree with with Krauthammer's consistently hyper-conservative assessments. Nothing more to say there. If you insist on name calling, insinuations of stupidity (Gee, really? I didn't know an editorial was an opinion. /snark) and tit-for-tat arguments, please go elsewhere where that kind of behavior is welcome. It's not here.

Ronni_Mott

Nov 5 2010

Fat Back -- please avoid name-calling; resorting to calling a woman "catty" is not argumentation. Your opinions are being challenged; support them.

Todd Stauffer

Nov 5 2010

Well, Todd . . "He doesn't once mention the jobless rate? The Great Recession? Isn't it odd that the 2006 and 2008 elections were a direct result of the state of the country -- and not referendums on GOP leadership -- but the 2010 election was *not* a reflection of the state of the country, but a referendum on Obama?" I guess Krauthammer thought people knew what the major issues were as he did say: "An $800 billion-plus stimulus that did not halt the rise in unemployment." But, by your thinking, the 2010 election is a result of the state of the country. Unemployment has not been alleviated no matter the stimulus methods applied. Believe me, everybody thinks about it. I endorse Kruthammer's editorial because he explains it's cyclical and that's what is so important for the winning party to remember.

Mr Fat Back

Nov 6 2010

Independent, exactly what is false about the facts or extrapolation of facts I set forth? I'm open to learning! And where is the conspiracy? Please enlighten me. If they're not talking about taking the country back from Blacks then whom? I could be wrong. Couldn't you also be wrong? I'm not paranoid. Nor do I hit and run like you did here! As to the matter about stirring the pot and side-choosing hatred, what a bunch of crap. What do you mean by that? Side-choosing hatred has always existed no matter how meritorious our positions, circumstances and goals were. Those that hate us seems to hate us more every little baby-step or advancement we make. History bears a witness to this statement and fact. The stirring pot argument in my view is nothing more than saying you Black folks ought to shut up and we will treat you better at our own time and whim. And similarly any mention of our past will make us mad and you will have to pay for it. Well, we tried that for over 200 years of slavery and saw no change. Then we tried that for 100 years of James Crow, Sr. and nothing changed. We have, more or less tried that for around 50 years of James Crow, Jr., yet the hearts and minds of many Whites have crystallized against us to a point remindful of the early 1900s. How much more "shut up before you hurt White folks' feeling and make them mad" you suggest we accomplish before we freely speak our minds? The days of the quiet and docile Negro or Black person is over. Accept it. I don't harbor any doubts concerning what our enemies are capable of. I know my history and the history of this country, especially the history of the South. Yet, I don't have any fear. In as much as I have misinterpreted your comments, I apologize. However, I thank you for giving me a reason to comment in this manner. Cheers. What else you got? Good question, Kaze. I was hopeful I would be convinced the users of that phrase weren't talking about us in particularly or anyone we're associated with. I'm still open to that point of view, but I don't expect to find any evidence to the contrary. Barack Obama's becoming POTUS and his successive achievements have caused the nuts and freaks to come out during the daylight. Now they want to blame everything on him and a liberal white woman named Pelosi.

Walt

Nov 6 2010

Regarding unemployment, Krauthammer (and numerous other conservatives) are playing fast and loose with reality. According to the Congressional Budget Office and numerous other economic researchers, without the stimulus, things would have been much worse—-along the lines of another Great Depression. Here's a bit from a New York Times story (note that there's a link to the CBO study in the quote): Based on its economic models, the Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that between 1.4 million and 3.4 million workers who have jobs would be unemployed if the stimulus hadn't been enacted. Three of the best-known private economic research firms — IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody's Economy.com — have come up with similar estimates. The average estimated effect on employment is about 2.5 million jobs. But it's tough to make political hay about what *didn't* happen. It's much, much easier to take pot-shots about where the stimulus has been unsuccessful to date (lowering unemployment) than to crow about a second depression staved off. Let's just ignore the fact that, historically, employment has always lagged behind recovery in the U.S. I find it much more interesting (and distressing) that the CEOs running the 50 firms that laid off the most workers since the onset of the economic crisis also took home an average 42 percent more pay than their peers in the Standard & Poor's 500 firms. In other words, corporations, even those posting record profits, treat employees like commodities, send jobs offshore and then reward their top people for doing so. With that mindset, supported by U.S. economic policy, the current jobless rate could well be permanent. We are at an economic stalemate: Businesses are sitting on $1.8 trillion in cash, yet won't hire because people aren't buying. Seen from the other side, people aren't spending money because they don't have confidence in their jobs. And yet, CEO pay continues to rise. It's not a pretty picture, but to call the stimulus an across-the-board failure because the unemployment rate isn't budging is simply dishonest. I would expect nothing less from Charles Krauthammer, who sees everything the Obama administration does through a rather peculiar far-right lens. As he has written: "[Obama's] goal is to rewrite the American social compact, to recast the relationship between government and citizen. He wants government to narrow the nation's income and anxiety gaps. Soak the rich for reasons of revenue and justice. Nationalize health care and federalize education to grant all citizens of all classes the freedom from anxiety about health care and college that the rich enjoy. And fund this vast new social safety net through the cash cow of a disguised carbon tax." Wow. How radical: Be just; give everyone access to decent health care and education while dealing with global warming. Krauthammer's cyclical "return to the norm" is a return to the conservative status quo that got us into the mess in the first place—where the rich continue to get richer while the poor continue to get poorer and the middle class simply gets the shaft. "Obama's agenda is dead," he declares. Nice.

Ronni_Mott

Nov 7 2010

Professional liberalism is what's wrong with this country. Really!? Let's look at the definition of liberalism - "a political ideology with its beginnings in western Europe that rejects authoritarian government and defends freedom of speech, association, and religion, and the right to own property" okay, now that is on the books, the defintion of conservatism - "1.The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order. 2.A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order. 3.Conservatism The principles and policies of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or of the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada. 4.Caution or moderation, as in behavior or outlook." Now which one makes more sense or better sense considering the condition of our conuntry at this time? What's funny to me, is that so-called liberals are acting more like fiscal conservatives in trying to get the country back on track, but yet its the republicans technically acting more like liberals this past election cycle, with the libertarian mantra for their mantle, if you look at the aformentioned definition of liberal? Someone correct me if they see it totally different?

Duan C.

Nov 8 2010

I have to say that it seems to me that conservatism in this country has devolved from its glory-days as an intellectual philosophy to what seems to be little more than a bumper-sticker that reads: "Cut taxes at the top." The rallying cry for the center-right coalition is simply trickle-down economics... despite the lack of evidence over the past decades that it actually works. (If you want an example of the erosion of the "professional right" in this country, check this out -- that's the Heritage Foundation pimping for members using Limbaugh and Hannity. Wow. How far they have fallen.) The Bush Administration -- with control of Congress -- *cut taxes* and dramatically increased spending. It was their facile Guns and Butter Strategy that went a long way toward creating the deficit that the GOP is frantic about now. History will remember, for instance, a bit of low-balling: Jan. 19, 2003, two months before launching the invasion, Rumsfeld was asked about potential costs in an ABC News interview: "The Office of Management and Budget estimated it would be something under $50 billion," Rumsfeld said. His interviewer interjected: "Outside estimates say up to $300 billion." Rumsfeld's immediate answer: "Baloney." The "on the books" costs of Iraq and Afghanistan are $1.3 trillion, and some speculate the hidden costs in the Defense budget and elsewhere make that much higher -- closer to $3 trillion. But, because that started the day before yesterday, it is now forgotten. Down the memory hole. The GOP is "fiscally conservative" again and whatever they've got planned will be the bee's knees. In 2010, the GOP says they're going to cut spending. First order of business -- Defense is off the table. Really? So what are you going to cut? What are these massive cuts we're going to make to bring down the deficit while offsetting the revenues that will be lost to extended the current tax brackets? Rand Paul, for one, doesn't really know. Specific cuts weren't the only things Paul was vague about in the interview. He declined, for example to stake out a firm position on withdrawing troops from Afghanistan ("I don't think really Congress can decide troop levels. In fact, I think if Congress told [the president] to bring all of them home on a certain time, I think he can do what he wants constitutionally") or Obama's anti-nuclear proliferation treaty ("I think we need to have more discussion on it, but it doesn't sound like that I'm probably going to be in favor of that.") So, what will be interesting going into this two-year cycle is exactly that: What *is* "conservative" in the modern age? I've often said that the modern GOP is an excellent minority party because of their discipline, but awful at governing... because they don't believe in government. They also, btw, haven't told the American people that their plan means Austerity for them. (AFO, or Austerity For Others, the GOP's plan for combating the Great Recession.) If you're not a defense contractor or Wall Street firm, maybe you could serve those folks coffee?

Todd Stauffer

Nov 8 2010

"If you're not a defense contractor or Wall Street firm, maybe you could serve those folks coffee? iTodd! Bruh, you hit it dead on the head! I just don't see the benefits of leaving your head in the sand and leaving your rear end exposed and held high for someone to tear up, kick repeatedly, like the voters have done in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee for the past 15 years? Oh well, let me stop - just get frustrated with the madness.

Duan C.

Nov 8 2010

Fat back, I truly enjoy a robust debate with a sincere conservative, and I think that edgy arguments are fun. But it is futile trying to argue with someone who trolls. You scurry from claim to claim and argument to argument. Apparently, you have acknowledged that your claims about global warming came from the unpleasant end of a bull. It also seems that you are willing to concede that your claims about immigration were nonsense, or at least, that you cannot support them. It's hard to know what to say to someone who claims, in a public debate, that all the evidence he needs is what he sees at night at Walmart. Again, I am sure that I am wasting my time, but I would like to know what made it into the final health care bill that will "surprise" businesses. Now that we have had several months to review the legislation, I am sure that you can provide examples. One hopes that they are not based on your research at Walmart. Conservatives can't stand the fact that in spite of all their best efforts, health care passed through an unusual display of perseverance and discipline on the part of Democrats. And despite the fact that Republicans repeat over and over and over again that voters have rejected health care reform, exit polls show that voters are about evenly split on the issue, even in a low-turnout election when large parts of Obama's 2008 coalition stayed at home. Voters were divided over the Democrats' health care overhaul, with almost half saying it should be repealed. About the same number thought it should be either kept or expanded.

Brian C Johnson

Nov 8 2010

These republicans and sympathizers are some sad beings. When they can't use Fox News, Chucky Rove, Bat Crazy Bachman, Delusional Hannity, Derailin' Palin and nem to scare you into voting foolishly and with amnesia they don't know what to do. My good buddy, Keith "the Foxkiller" Olbermann returns soon. I shold miss him. What a news man!?

Walt

Nov 8 2010

@Brian "Apparently, you have acknowledged that your claims about global warming came from the unpleasant end of a bull." Odd to bring this up after I clearly showed that GW was a HOAX. But, you know what? I've seen the light. Our selfish spewing of carbon into the atmosphere is so prevalent, so heinous that we should all be ashamed of the fact that it is effecting Mars. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Mr Fat Back

Nov 8 2010

Mr. Back- Uh, just wanted to let you know that National Geographic is owned by Fox, hence News Corporation, and is one of Rupert Murdoch's companies. So, while I love the pics and don't think its totally corrupted, once could assume their output regarding global warming could more than quite possibly have a "slant". The same "slant" that most other News Corporation companies have...that it doesn't exist. Always do some digging before you put all your faith in a source (and I think that's pretty much an echo of everyone else who has posted on this board). /End Troll Feeding Session/

Lori G

Nov 8 2010

@Lori Let's not get hung up on "who said what which means it's no good". NASA has reported this and the article refers to NASA and a Russian observatory which concurs. There are other sources to find the same data. By your rules I would have to discount CNN, MSNBC, and all the major networks. Let me shock you, I don't have cable by choice and don't seen anything outside broadcast television to which I pay little attention. I'm critical on all major news networks. I'm not big on Kool Aid.

Mr Fat Back

Nov 8 2010

"that National Geographic is owned by Fox" I believe Fox owns 2/3rds of the National Geographic channel only. The NG Global Media group, which consists of the magazine, maps, books and digital media, is still controlled by the non-profit. NG is one of the few print magazines I splurge on. IMO the magazine in general espouses anthropocentric climate change.

Bulgakov

Nov 8 2010

Take our country back: While it's true George bush spent a whole lot of money, we almost got something out of it, a democratic neighbor in the middle east. If it spread we would have had a host of countries willing to sell us cheap oil, and maybe no more opec. All this new spending has been for social hand outs, and bail outs. People are still sick. We still have bad infrastructure. People are still out of work. Taxes are gonna go up. Inflation will occur. Some are wondering why we haven't seen more already. We have some pissed off people out there that are mad, and want there jobs back. Some believe governments involvement hinders businesses an individuals ability to make it on own. So, they wanna " take it back" to shrink it. It's pretty obvious what they mean. They've had articulate people explaining it for months and months. The reason you still don't get it, is cause you are thick headed about social issues, and want to use race to frame everything.

Mark Ellis

Nov 9 2010

Mark -- rein in the personal insults. Meanwhile, it'd be interesting to see you support the notion that "all this new spending has been for social hand outs." Really? Can you prove that? Got a link or something?

Todd Stauffer

Nov 9 2010

I clearly showed that GW was a HOAX YOU showed that fat back? So now you're a leading environmental scientist of renown? And where might we find your published findings disputing the overwhelming consensus of the majority of scientists?

Ronni_Mott

Nov 9 2010

Question, Mark....who's that thick-headed comment directed to?

Queen601

Nov 9 2010

Actually, Queen, I don't want Mark to answer that. It was a personal insult, and answering it would further the insult. No more personal attacks allowed here.

DonnaLadd

Nov 9 2010

Fat Back, I suppose it's too much to ask you to read your own sources. But you might note that Habibullo Abdussamatov is an astrophysicist, not a climate scientist. When National Geographic interviewed actual climate scientists about his theory, they said: "His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. ... Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations." NASA in no way endorses Abdussamatov's views, as you falsely suggested. That is because NASA unequivocally supports the overwhelming scientific evidence that people are causing global warming, as this NASA page demonstrates. [deleted]

Brian C Johnson

Nov 9 2010

Brian, deleted the personal attack. Goes for you too. ;-)

Todd Stauffer

Nov 9 2010

Ah, I was about to come back and delete it myself. That said, Fat Back is not reading the sources of others or even his own sources. I am sure that he is able to read, but he is apparently unwilling to do so. He is certainly not arguing in good faith.

Brian C Johnson

Nov 9 2010

Fat Back- Let's not get hung up on "who said what which means it's no good" Thanks. That's all I needed to hear in order to understand that you know nothing about anything you are talking about. /HIDE FEED/ @ Matt- While it's true George bush spent a whole lot of money, we almost got something out of it (Emphasis mine, of course) This is funny! Like, we ALMOST got hit by a comet? Or we ALMOST caused world peace? THAT "almost"? Because, then, we ALMOST elected Sarah Palin, Paris Hilton ALMOST caught herpes (although I'm pretty sure that's a certain fact), and we ALMOST saved Patrick Swayze from cancer (the latter being the one "almost" I'm the most upset about) That "almost" is equivolent to people saying that Obama's (part of) the stimulus didn't help with unemployment. We don't know what would have happened with unemployment if it DIDN'T happen. Just like we don't know anything that GWB "almost" did. The problem I have with the "shrinking government" thing is that people espouse they want less government, but they still want the services that government provides. The federal government is entrenched in the provision of social services. You start cutting those programs and, guess what, you have a whole other host of unemployed people on your hands. NO ONE in Mississippi should be talking about "shrinking our state government" considering its the largest employer in the state. How does that make sense? You want more jobs but then you cut funds to the largest employer in the state. Explain this to me. Is the "free market" going to pick up the social service sector? NO. They aren't. There is no money in it. This means forced government involvement. And, please, don't get after me on "faith-based organizations". Because, I've got news for you, unemployed people don't just not pay their Entergy bills, they also don't pay Jesus either. So, while a lot of conservatives would like to push for a more faith-based social service system, they are also then going to require mandatory tithing...or something. OH WAIT!! WE DO THAT!! Its just called "taxes" by the government, "tithing" by Jesus. Think if Obama started calling it tithing instead of taxes that more Baggers would be on the bandwagon? I swear, I'm going to start refusing to listen to ANYONE talk about how we need to "handle" social service programs unless they are a licensed social worker. Because, other than that, you have no idea what you are talking about and the after effects of any of stupid decisions the Tea Party is "promising" to do! "Thick-headed" about social services? (To everyone on here that knows me and what I do, can we all have a little group laugh right now?) Enlighten me, Mark. In fact...enlighten ALL of us on what we need to be doing about social services. I've got three reports (*COUGH* to the federal government regarding social services *COUGH*) to write and ain't none of them going to be as fun as that.

Lori G

Nov 9 2010

All this new spending has been for social hand outs, and bail outs. People are still sick. We still have bad infrastructure. People are still out of work. Think what could've been had that money been used to fund such things such as infrastructure repair and jobs, rather spending on an extremely costly war. And in regards to bailouts, a lot of people may disagree with me here, but I actually don't think it was that bad of an idea. It was given as a loan; thus, the recipients had to pay it back. If it were a grant, I wouldn't have been as supportive. The government also made a profit out of it too. However, look at how many jobs would've been lost had the government not intervened. Depending on who you believe, hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions.

golden eagle

Nov 9 2010

I just a read a story where GW Bush was interviewed on Rush Limbaugh's show. He said that he felt the bank bailouts were necessary and that he would do it again to stave off another great depression, which is why he did it in the first place. He also said that half of America is wrong for blaming Obama for the bailouts, because he makes no bones about what he himself did on that front. The cons are just making stuff up to cover for the fact that they are afraid to come out and say what they really mean in regards to their attacks on Obama.

gwhiz

Nov 9 2010

Can someone tell me how justjess gets away with calling tea party members klan? Is that not name calling?

independent

Nov 9 2010

Independent, that's borders on name-calling, but please read what others write in context. She wrote: The KLAN basically is the same group without the helments (HOODS). I came along during the 60s and the language now is the same as it was then. When you look at some of the posters at a Tea Party Rally, many are hate-filled with pictures of the President of the United States of America laced with Hitler features. That's edgy, but it's not exactly calling someone here a Klansman because he doesn't agree with her. Here's a question: Does a black person who grew up in the 1960s around here not get to tell us when the actions of many members of a group of people (not an individual by name) remind her of horrible rhetoric/symbols of the past? Can you not see the difference in that kind of dialogue and somebody here calling someone else "thick-headed" or whatever the juvenile insult of the day was? I'd think, if you're a tea-party sympathizer, you'd be more interested in offering a different impression than what many at tea-party rallies project (an alternative I am trying very hard to believe is out there) rather than telling a black woman of a certain age (sorry, justjess) that she doesn't have the right to say that the more racially provocative tea-partiers remind her of the Klan without the hoods. I make this point with respect. Can you see my point at all?

DonnaLadd

Nov 9 2010

Sorry Donna, I should have been more specific. I was referring to her first comment where she immediately equated the phrase "Take back..." with "CODE" without providing any form of documentation or source to support her statement, then proceeded to call "teabaggers" (her word) potential klan members without delineating between the right-wing fanatics to which I believe you're referencing above and everyone else.

independent

Nov 9 2010

Indy, "teabagger" is a phrase Tea partiers used for themselves until they realized the sexual connotation and then blamed liberals for calling them that on purpose. We've linked to Tea Party blogs in the past where they used it for themselves. That one's a no-starter. As for your "CODE" argument, I'm guessing that you have spent less time than I, or perhaps justjess or Kaze, have reading racist propaganda created right here in our city and state in the past in which the Citizens Council, Klan, et al., talked constantly about "taking back our (state or country)" from black folks or whatever word those chose to use at the time. The rampant use of this phrase by the right wing is as unfortunate as President Bush using "crusade" to refer to our "war on terror" in the Middle East. Is it out of ignorance on the part of many, and perhaps even Bush? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it wasn't planted on purpose by people trying to fan the race flames. And it sure means that we all shouldn't keep quiet about the use of the same racist rhetoric of the past against the first black president. Especially from a party whose chairman apologized to the NAACP for the purposeful use of the racist "southern strategy" by the GOP to appeal to bigoted voters (with race-tinged rhetoric and scary examples, like "welfare mothers.") Put another way, even if you happen to be ignorant about all this not-so-distant history, that doesn't mean that the rest of us are. Nor does it mean that all of us should keep our mouth shut about it because it might make some of you buggers uncomfortable when we speak up about it. Many of us have no desire to return to the horrors of the past, which includes the use of this kind of language to act like people with certain skin color or beliefs do not "belong" in "our" country, or are somehow un-American for not agreeing with some of y'all. You need to get past that B.S.: This nation is built on diversity. It is our strength even if some scared yo-yos forget it from time to time, or never learned it in the first place. Also, you should read closer with greater attention if you can. Justjess did not call tea partiers "potential Klan members" -- the Klan really isn't the issue these days, or not yet, anyway -- she pointed out the likenesses between much of the rhetoric. It's kind of like Hodding Carter Jr. calling the Citizens Council (which I think is a more apt parallel for much of the disturbing tea-party rhetoric) the "uptown Klan." His point was that they weren't wearing hoods and snatching black people in the middle of the night; they were walking around in the open, sowing division and calling people horrible names like "liberal" and "communist," much as many tea partiers like to do by incorrecting calling the president a "socialist" or a Muslim or even Hitler, for God's sake. And they were leading boycotts and false smear campaigns agains people of all races, including whites, who would not sign onto their bigotry, or who dared to speak out. If you can't see how wrong this is, I have compassion for you. But it changes nothing on the part of people who recognize our responsibility to speak out and not go along with the non-thinking hysteria that is creating these kinds of booger-bears. Many of us live happily and actively in a different kind of world--an engaged, diverse world where people get educated about our history in order to recognize when its trying to repeat exactly so that we can do our part to stop it. You may not like that, but it's not going to change anything. So I suggest engaging in respectful conversation or riding your pony into a different sunset.

DonnaLadd

Nov 9 2010

My conversation hasn't been respectful? And to say that my interpretation of her comments makes me blind to this country's (and region's) past is quite a stretch. I'm painfully aware of it and certainly do not want to return to it. It seems that you are able to decipher a supportive view from her comments while I can not. It also seems this site is quick to defend the left while even faster to attack the right. I was told I'd find more here. I was misinformed.

independent

Nov 9 2010

[quote]My good buddy, Keith "the Foxkiller" Olbermann returns soon. I shold miss him. What a news man!? [/quote]I heard Blubbermann's suspension is over and he's back on the air. They certainly weren't going to keep their #1 nighttime anchor ride the bench for long over a goofy rule.

Jeff Lucas

Nov 10 2010

Indy, we clearly interpret "respectful" differently. I believe you equated someone being told not to hurl personal insults to other people here with a black woman (who lived through part of Jim Crow) saying that tea-party rhetoric, to her, is like the Klan without the hoods. Sure, disagree with her if you want, but by golly, respect her right to recoil with barely disguised race rhetoric. If non-racist folks in the tea party and their GOP alliance would speak out more about that kind of stuff on their behalf, then folks like justjess, me and others here wouldn't have to point out the obvious. I'm sorry if you don't find "more" here because we don't hanker to false equalization of clearly different statements and scenarios. If you come here ready to listen to other folks, and get past using or defending petty personal insults, you can have amazing conversations and insights. I've learned so much from the conversations here over the years, and not just from people on "the left" (who are also booted for personal insults; ask a woman who used to be my researcher who couldn't control herself). Speaking of "the left," your statement about "defending" it is puzzling to me if you don't buy into the false binary construction that only people on "the left" are interested in discussing race history and civil rights. Why would my comments about justjess's comment about the Klan have anything to do with "the left." And as for what constitutes "the left" in this country these days, I'm sick of many if not most of them, too -- certainly the ones who use that label. Even though I share ideals about progress with many of them, I can't stand the tactics and division they use, either. If you pay attention on this site, you will note two things: (a) No one who posts here regularly pulls needed punches on "the left"; and (b) plenty of comments show up here that I and other progressives disagree with. It's only the ones that violate the user agreement with personal insults and trolling behavior that get challenged. And except for the most egregious that never get opened in the first place, most of those challenges are done in broad daylight so that people can think about what is being said. What has always bemused me is that the people who complain that we don't "allow" alternative (to what, not sure) views on this site are the very ones who have posted here repeatedly and have problems supporting their own arguments when challenged, so they cut and run, and then inevitably whine. We've been down this road repeatedly and at this point just shrug when someone new shows up here doing the same thing. Thus back to spirit of this site: Stay away from personal attacks; support what you say with primary sources whenever possible, not links to nutball (left) or wingnut (right) blogs and sites. When you can't support your argument, refrain from posting rather than attacking the people who challenged you to support it. Read comments (such as justjess') in context before you attack them for it. And don't bother attacking the JFP or the moderators for the way we run this site; we have better things to do than coddle trolls. And all of this applies double if you are not using your real name. Our patience is thinner for folks who attack others anonymously. So try again if you wish. Talk issues, and you'll be fine. If you don't want to do that, good luck to you.

DonnaLadd

Nov 10 2010

Donna, sounds fair enough to me. I don't care for far left or far right either. I like the middle, and like most I vote my pocket book, with some personal moral and ethical choices thrown in. I think the two party system unfortunately hamstings this country. That said, on with continuing the discussion.

independent

Nov 10 2010

Todd wrote:"Mark -- rein in the personal insults. Meanwhile, it'd be interesting to see you support the notion that "all this new spending has been for social hand outs." Really? Can you prove that? Got a link or something?" -------------------------------------------------------------------- thickheadedness... really todd? $82.1 billion in tax credits=hand out $89.7 billion on medicaid=handout $79 billion in state stabilization funds= hand out $45.7 billion in unemployment benefits= handout $40.8 billion health insurance for unemployed= handout $26.9 billion for agriculture and rural development= handout $20.2 billion incentives for medicaid providers to use tech.= handout $17 billion for pell grants= handout $5.1 billion for community development= hello? this reaching you todd? $11.1 billion in housing assistance= hand out Here is my proof todd. Now, without straying from this to that, tell me how these are not purely social handouts. And to derail your obvious thought pattern- NO, I am not against all of these programs. But they are handouts, and should be seen as such. .http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/02/01/GR2009020100154.html

Mark Ellis

Nov 12 2010

Definition of BUGGER 1 : sodomite 2 a : a worthless person : rascal b : fellow, chap 3 : a small or annoying thing [put down my keys and now I can't find the buggers] Origin of BUGGER Middle English bougre heretic, from Anglo-French bugre, from Medieval Latin Bulgarus, literally, Bulgarian; from the association of Bulgaria with the Bogomils, who were accused of sodomy First Known Use: 1555 Shame on you Donna for lecturing us, then calling names yourself. It mirrors the actions of the paper actually. Your paper prints stories condemning bullying, but as, "satire" the paper pokes fun at the Gov.'s weight. Your paper uses bullying in almost every aspect of it's satirical comics, list, or fake text.

Mark Ellis

Nov 12 2010

Mark: From your link above, you might note ALL of the spending that is *not* direct assistance (e.g. "handout") and hence the inappropriateness of the use of the word "ALL" in your previous statement. Let us recall what you said earlier. All this new spending has been for social hand outs, and bail outs. People are still sick. We still have bad infrastructure. (Bold emphasis mine.) Indeed, in your own link, I think you'll find your "handouts" grouped over on the side in brown, and feeling rather lonely compared to the percentage that was spent on infrastructure, education, aid to states, tax cuts and business incentives. Further more, it's interesting to see you walk back your argument. We go from this... All this new spending has been for social hand outs, and bail outs. People are still sick. We still have bad infrastructure. To this: "No, I am not against all of these programs, But they are handouts..." And it's interesting that I get the hello? this reaching you todd? on "Community Development" of all things. What do you think those are? I'm not certain from the graph on the linked page, but it seems they might be things like the development funds used to build and rehab neighborhoods like, for instance, those used in downtown Jackson. Does the hyperbole serve your argument?

Todd Stauffer

Nov 12 2010

"$82.1 billion in tax credits=hand out" What in the world do you want? A tax increase or no taxes? These people are worst than a ten year old fickle child, screaming their hungry, but don't know what in the hell they want to eat? Now you got one whinning about tax credits!? yes indeed!

Duan C.

Nov 12 2010

My questions for Mark Ellis who denies, but, seems so against "handouts" are: 1. If you received a "stimilus check" did you mail it back to the government? 2. Do you have older relatives who are on Medicare and if so, have you encouraged them to tear up their cards? (Many people out live ther contributions; however, their coverage continue). 3. Did you or any of your friends use low interest (I will start paying you back 6 months after I have been successfully employed, gov. loans? 4. If you lose your job and can't find one for months, would you file for unemployment? This list of questions could go on and on! To cut to the chase, could you answer this question: What would you do as an alterntive to your "handouts" if you were in charge of gov. spending of tax dollars?

justjess

Nov 12 2010

Mark, I know and intend the third definition of "bugger." And I sincerely apologize for calling someone here a "chap." I did not mean to cause anyone pain. Now that we have cleared the air on all the horribleness that you can't stay away from here, I trust that your next comment will be on topic.

DonnaLadd

Nov 12 2010

I am also baffled by Mark's argument. How is spending on highways and school construction a handout? There is even "military construction" in the stimulus. Is that a handout? You should probably try to make an argument that can be supported by the facts you present. Otherwise, I would just like to revisit one of the funnier lines in your earlier post. If (democracy had spread in the Middle East) we would have had a host of countries willing to sell us cheap oil, and maybe no more opec. Basically, you're saying that if Bush's plan had worked, it would have been a great plan! I'll try to keep that in mind.

Brian C Johnson

Nov 12 2010

Brian: Actually, I've been turning that over in my head since I read it as well. Read this again: While it's true George bush spent a whole lot of money, we almost got something out of it, a democratic neighbor in the middle east. If it spread we would have had a host of countries willing to sell us cheap oil, and maybe no more opec. All this new spending has been for social hand outs, and bail outs. People are still sick. We still have bad infrastructure. People are still out of work. Taxes are gonna go up. Inflation will occur. Some are wondering why we haven't seen more already. We have some pissed off people out there that are mad, and want there jobs back. (Put aside, for the moment, the mental gymnastics that are required to understand why people who "want their jobs back," would be angered by the "handouts" given to the unemployed.) The way I read this is that it seems to suggest the following: It's OK to spend a few TRILLION tax dollars on a lost cause ... even one that makes us less safe, kills thousands of our troops, hundreds of thousands of civilians, fails to achieve its objectives and likely coalesces our enemies ... as long as that money is NOT spent on poor and out-of-work *Americans*. If that isn't the death rattle of the Reagan Revolution, I don't know what is. And the funny thing is, I think Mark is actually accurately describing a strong Palin-esque Tea Party sentiment. They'd rather blow our wad on failed wars then build up the country at home, because it means an *American* might catch a break. What am I missing, Mark?

Todd Stauffer

Nov 12 2010

The term, "Taking Our Country Back" or "How to Take Back America" was coined by Howard Dean. He even wrote a book with that as the title. Many Democrats were using the phrase (there's a montage on youtube)in the last election cycle. Basically, the term is used by whichever party is out of power.

Dave Coleman

Nov 12 2010

Donna, I think you mean definition 2-b, as 3 was : A small or annoying thing. And I know you wouldn't call names. Brian, I don't see where I made any comical statements about ending opec, so to call my statements funny is bullying. JFP is against bullying. And yes, if we had spread democracy into the middle east I think they'd be better off. I guess you are against democracy though. Todd, semantics are a lame game to play... "all"- ok two thirds. Your answer: you are missing all of it. I never said starting a war was ok. I said some people are mad about social hand outs, and use the phrase, take back our country, cause they feel it's being given away. (They) feel Todd. I am not saying it is right or wrong. I am saying it doesn't make you a racist to say, "Take back our country". No gymnastics required by the way. When I lost my last job I created another. It happens two and three times a week. I'm a contractor. I lose my job every time I get a paycheck. I don't run out and ask for free money though- I go sell another job. I control my life, and my income level. I am, as we speak, actively trying to earn more through harder work, better products, and good communication. I am not asking the F. Gov. to give me more, cause the economy is causing price shock, thus devaluing my labor.

Mark Ellis

Nov 12 2010

Here is some mental gymnastics todd, If the people claiming that, "take our country back" means take it back from a black man, how can they then turn and say, rich white people really run things? I mean witch is it? If white wealth still rules the day, and all that money is fueling the tea party (astroturf movement), They'd be saying take it back from ourselves?

Mark Ellis

Nov 12 2010

My questions for Mark Ellis who denies, but, seems so against "handouts" are: 1. If you received a "stimilus check" did you mail it back to the government? 2. Do you have older relatives who are on Medicare and if so, have you encouraged them to tear up their cards? (Many people out live ther contributions; however, their coverage continue). 3. Did you or any of your friends use low interest (I will start paying you back 6 months after I have been successfully employed, gov. loans? 4. If you lose your job and can't find one for months, would you file for unemployment? This list of questions could go on and on! To cut to the chase, could you answer this question: What would you do as an alterntive to your "handouts" if you were in charge of gov. spending of tax dollars? Justless: 1) I did not cash any Gov. checks. 2) Are you serious about this one? I could care less about medicaid. The point isn't is it just, it is is it affordable. 3 )No I don't use low interest loans. I don't ask my friends about there financials- it's rude. 4) No. not again. I did once and was refused. Having a broken arm is fireable offense in MS. I was young though. Now, I'd just create some work. I do it all the time. I think U.B. are a good thing- just not more than 12 months worth. I think it will kill the creative spirit of America if we just pay people to do nothing for two years at a time. Sooner or later, you need to grow a rose and sell it. Answer: My alternative is not to pay up in the first place. It, to me, is not as much where you spend it- that should be decided by the person earning the money. It is not to be accessed in the first place. But to answer your question directly. If I were in charge I would spend the money on hookers and booze. That and a really big diesel buggy. That way I could deplete Americas natural resources faster, while getting loaded and shagged. That's kinda what pelosi does with military jets and grey goose.

Mark Ellis

Nov 12 2010

Brian wrote: "Basically, you're saying that if Bush's plan had worked, it would have been a great plan! I'll try to keep that in mind." For what? you planning on invading a nation soon? Yes, turning the middle east entirely into a democracy would be good. IMHO 100 female students, sons of Jacob, homosexuals, and thieves agree. Western laws and society are better. Not that I'm equating thieves to homosexuals, (cause I know you're headed there) I'm simply pointing out that if you are studying, loving, just living(women), or serving time it would be better to do it in a western styled democracy.

Mark Ellis

Nov 12 2010

Todd wrote: "And it's interesting that I get the hello? this reaching you todd? on "Community Development" of all things. What do you think those are? I'm not certain from the graph on the linked page, but it seems they might be things like the development funds used to build and rehab neighborhoods like, for instance, those used in downtown Jackson." I don't think paying up to the fed. gov. ,to then turn around and ask for it back is the right method. I would think that not paying up, and using those funds here would be the way to go. Unless we can't afford it? isn't that the crux of the biscuit? We don't have $ enough in state to build all the things we can't afford to maintain anyway? Isn't that the problem? We're trying to build our way out of a whole, but not taxing the new buildings, and letting old infrastructure crumble. That's exactly why we don't need guys like you think tanking this stuff. You think at best five years ahead. You think communally taking money from other counties , and states to build things we can't afford, or maintain is a good idea. Hello 79 billion state stabilization fund. Other than sixty or so white hipsters, who's going downtown to live anyway? No one. that's why it's a freaking ghost town. How much revenue has the city gained from all that downtown bs? None? That's why we have to raise taxes on our water. And I'll bet you a thousand dollars you wont walk from one end of mill st. to the other after dark. So you pay up, the gov. pays down and we are still broke at the end... great planning todd. I'll see you in ten years, and we'll still have the same revenue shortfalls. We'll still have bs revamping of main roads. That will lead to new business right? It didn't on high st.. Boots and more and taco bell... the same stuff as always- no new jobs, and it's still an ugly rd. It was a bad use of money. Rio st. is still a crack haven. Bet you a thousand you wont go live on Rio st. todd.

Mark Ellis

Nov 13 2010

(Note to new people posting here: It does not help your case that you should become a full-fledged member of the JFP site -- not subject to moderation -- for you to freak out and post ugly comments accusing us of all sorts of conspiracies and such because we did not open your comments immediately during a weekend when we hosted a large charity event. This is a small, local business, and all our hands have been very busy. You should not waste your time: insult-laden comments will be deleted, not opened, and if you do it a second time, your account will be suspended. Please remember that you are our guests on this privately owned website, so please act like one. And if you post multiple times, ahem M. Ellis, it takes even longer to go through your comments to make sure they adhere to the user agreement. This should be motivation to treat others respectfully so that you do not stay in moderation mode and, thus, have to wait for your comments to be read and go live. Self-regulation goes a long way on this website. If you do not wish to abide by our rules, you are welcome to move on.)

DonnaLadd

Nov 14 2010

Mark, it isn't bullying to laugh at a ridiculous argument. To claim that the Iraq War "almost" spread democracy through the Middle East and ended OPEC is like me claiming that if I jump really high, I can "almost" reach the moon. That is, it's not true at all. I said that your sentence was funny because it turns one of Bush's greatest failures into an "almost" success. Beyond that, I defer to Todd's point, which you completely ignored.

Brian C Johnson

Nov 15 2010

Your paper prints stories condemning bullying, but as, "satire" the paper pokes fun at the Gov.'s weight. Your paper uses bullying in almost every aspect of it's satirical comics, list, or fake text. I'm still trying to figure out what the "fake text" is. Oh, and the governor calls himself a "fat redneck" -- it's hard to argue that he's overly sensitive about his weight. To his credit. You know what they say, one (wo)man's satire is another man's bête noire. None of that, however, affects the need to honor the user agreement on this site, or to bother to find sources to be taken seriously in a conversation.

DonnaLadd

Nov 15 2010

Since the Marks (both of them) so often miss the mark or engage in accidental comedy without knowing it, satire is always appropriate when dealing with them. Otherwise, personally, I be tempted to use one of my other skills - cussing. Surely this violates the user agreement so I just ignore them. Other than read and laugh, that is!

Walt

Nov 15 2010

Boy, this one really got off topic, didn't it? I'll try and get it back on subject and actually answer Kaz's question. B/c of last weekend's fundraiser, my original comment was posted late and was apparently missed by some who are still arguing. Kaz, The term, "Taking Our Country Back" or "How to Take Back America" was first used by Howard Dean in reference to the Bush Administration. He wrote a book with that as the title. Many Democrats were using the phrase in the previous election (there's a montage on youtube). The phrase simply means that the party with less power wants to "take the country back" from the party in power. While there is a lot of code talk being used by the far right, I honestly don't believe that this phrase has anything to do with it. I don't recall it being such a big issue when Dean and many others used "Let's take our country back" as a Democratic talking point. After all, if it were a big deal a few years ago, then we all would have remembered and we wouldn't be having this discussion/argument!!!

Dave Coleman

Nov 18 2010

The Democrats (an all inclusive and loving party without any tea party a__hole members) were obviously talking about republicans. The republicans (inclusive of the KKK, skinheads, militia America, CCC, the WCC, the dead and perverted, etc,) were talking about us Blacks and people friendly toward us. Come on Dave. Set yourself free. The truth is the light. You're my brother. We can talk honestly. Happy Thanksgiving everyone. I'm out.

Walt

Nov 24 2010

Walt, I'm generally on your side on a lot of issues bu itt hurts your argument when you make such inflamatory remarks. I honestly don't think this is about race. However, I do think Walt should probably have some type of moderator control for the good of the Democratic Party! Irrational and inflamatory remarks don't help the cause.

Dave Coleman

Nov 25 2010

I think this piece in the NYT's hits pretty close to home on this discussion. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/opinion/29douthat.html?_r=1 Democrats used the phrase "Taking Back America" in regard to the Republicans. More recently, the Republicans used the phrase in the last election cycle in regard to the attempt to take back the House and Senate from the Democrats.

Dave Coleman

Nov 29 2010

Dave, you should be teaching argumentation or debating skills at Ivy League schools. You really convinced me you're right. Thanks for letting me know you're usually on my side on lots of issues I'm unaware of. Which ones have you agreed with me on, please share? I didn't know you were a fan or supporter but I'm deeply endeared to you as a result of it. President Obama and the head of the DNC called me today and said I should back off since you have so eloquently and foolproof debunked my argument. I just have one or two questions. For starters, what exactly is irrational or illogical about my assumption or deduction? When the Democrats used the phrase, assuming for your sake it was done in a similarly fashion as hard as that is for me to believe, did they draw caricatures of the POTUS, use hateful pictures making Bush look like Hitler, draw posters calling Bush a Communist, Nazi etc., gather thousands of our worse lunatics and nuts for rallies to have a hate-fest on America and against the President, turn MSNBC into a fire-breathing dragon for far-left ideas and wingnuttery, etc? Did he Democrats wait until the country elected what was once thought the most unelectable POTUS of all times? The fact of the matter is we have never in recent years or ever acted anywhere near the way the republican party and its members have acted the last 20 years or so. The republican party including the tea party acts in ways identical to the Dixiecrats who were racist and vile to the core. What exactly did I say that is inflammatory and not truthful and obvious. Does the republican party not comprise the people I named and others. Does the Democratic Party not contain the kinds of people I named? Unlike the entire Fox viewership, Dave, I don't believe something is true just because a republican or Fox anchor person says it is. I know, Dave, it isn't about race, it's about State rights, preserving the ole ways of life, loving yourself, choosing who you want to lead you, maintaining traditions, et al. Frankly, Dave, I believe both of us are partially right and partially wrong. You're probably more wrong than me though from what I can see. I choose to look with my own eyes! Finally, do you really think the column you added proves your point?

Walt

Nov 29 2010

I posted a reply here last week that was not inflammatory or offensive, yet has yet to appear. What's up with that?

bill_jackson

Dec 1 2010

Who knows, Bill? Sometimes they just don't come through (Queen was complaining about a comment not showing up this week, and she's not in moderation mode.) I don't know which one you mean, but note that there are several reasons a comment might not get through (including complaining about the moderation, repeating the same thing for no reason, being off-topic, etc.) But it may just have been a tech glitch. Nothing personal. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Dec 1 2010

Walt, I agree with you on a lot of civil rights issues. Besides the Steelers/Saints/Cowboys, I'm not sure that you write about anything else. While not everything can be blamed on racism, there is still prevelant racism in America. However, it doesn't further the cause of exposing racism when you scream "RACIST!" at every chance. If this happens, it will simply be dismissed as "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf." Expose racism where it is but don't scream and holler when it's based on a hunch. There were countless rallies that had horrible posters and signs regarding George W. Bush. They called him Hitler and wished death to he, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Cheney. Google it. It's easy to find. I loathe these guys but I don't think they are like Hitler nor do I wish death upon them. A lot of the Obama Hitler signs (just as the Bush Hitler/Death signs) came from anarchists and members from the Democratic candidate Larouche. Again, don't take my word for it. Google it. Of course at the tea party rallies there are also some crazy teabaggers who wish terrible things on the President. The far right did the same thing to Bill Clinton and probably Carter. I think they were white guys. Speaking of Bill...they haven't impeached Obama. Now, there are definetely some racist elements to the tea party crowd. But there are also racist elements in the Democratic Party. It's not a left/right thing. It's unfortunately still a part of the messed up world that we live in. The part that I found inflammatory was when you said the Republican party was "inclusive of the KKK, skinheads, militia America, CCC, the WCC, the dead and perverted, etc." Again, there are fringe elements in each party. Do you want to stereotype the Democratic Party based on our fringe elements? I never stated that the NYT link above ended all debate on the issue. I think it just shows how people on the far left and far right perceive things. And I think that is extremely relevant b/c both parties used the exact same phrase "Take Our Country Back" and you only find issue with it when the other side says it.

Dave Coleman

Dec 1 2010

Dave what about a boy like me who doesn't cry wolf in error? I always properly and adequately check for either the wolf-like ears or the tails depending on whether male or female. Smile. Because no one is perfect, at my funeral I want my enemies to go first and name the 2 or 3 sheeps I inadvertently misidentified and accidentally killed. Then I want one of my friends to get up and read the long list of wolves I correctly identied and killed. The list will be so long it can serve as the eulogy. Your characterization doesn't apply to me. You obviously haven't read me well or long. You make a great suggestion and I hope the lying wolves take heed to it. News commentator Dave Gergin convinced me temporarily I was wrong. I could be but I doubt it. Republicans have long labeled us socialists and bad people. Unlike many I don't care what my enemies think of me. I can't wait until Obama reaches this growth point. The last 2 years Democrats tried hard to do good for the people. Needless to say, the Republicans were united against Obama at all cost. I aver the majority of the so-called Independents were against Obama too which shows me they're not really all that independent. No one on this earth can convince me that Democrats and republicans are the same or have used the same tactics in recent years. Where is the proof you speak but fail to provide? I see crystal clear the difference between the two parties. Don't be mistaken I represent only me. Great conversation. I agree with much of what you said but my opinion is largely the same. My eyes, ears and soul are wide opened for the truth of the matter, though. Cheers.

Walt

Dec 2 2010

Sigh. And that's why I'll always love Walt. Despite the fact that he's happily married with grandbabies. And, you are right, he's obviously never read you well or long. Because-if he had-he'd notice your tongue is either firmly in your cheek or as sharp as a razor. Some days, both.

Lori G

Dec 2 2010

Thanks Mother Lori for recognizing. You know the feelings are mutual. Hopefully, our children and grandchildren will grow up and become just like us - bold, smart and dedicated to do good, even if we have to walk or sail alone - dance to our own music, if you will.

Walt

Dec 3 2010