Iamon lyme:

> The so called contradiction between Christian values and gun use exists primarily in your own mind. During his ministry Jesus only had the clothes on his back. Are you suggesting all Christians give up everything but the clothes on their backs?

I suppose the Sermon on the Mount says nothing about being violent. I am sure Jesus walked around with a sword under his cloak. I suppose giving up a gun is the same as walking around destitute. Jesus never said to give up everything. He simply said to give up violence and selfishness. I suppose that part of his message escapes a lot of people.


> And can you show me where he exorted his followers to 'lay down thy staff and thy rod'? Those were the common weapons of choice in those days, for defense against wild animals and people who would attack them.

From Luke 6:27-31

27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

And when the Romans came to arrest Jesus, did he pick a sword and fight his way out of the jam or did he surrender to avoid killing?

There is a very good reason why Jesus carried no weapons. He did not believe in them. So my question is simplke: Should a Christian, somebody who claims to follow the example of Jesus, carry or own weapons?


> You over simplify Christian values and beliefs, either intentionally or because of ignorance. I doubt you would claim ignorance, so should I assume it's intentional?

Well then, show me an example in which Jesus says it is OK to own, use or carry weapons? Then explain how the use or ownership of weapons relates to Christian values. I am ignorant and in need of enlightenment.

Artful Dodger:

> Of course you can teach responsible gun ownership. Thousands do it all the time. And since we have the Constitutional right to own guns, that's the best you're gonna get. You won't get rid of guns with extreme examples of abuse. That happens in many siituations. You don't limit freedoms because of the abuse of a few.

The truth is that Americans love their guns. It is why the USA has one of the highest per capita rates of gun ownership in the world. 99.99 % of the population are responsible. There is the odd psychopath or sociopath that commits horrendous crimes.

Some day it will cause problems. If there is ever real austerity measures then there will be rioting, and violence will follow. Americans are not used to scarcity of resources or money any more.

To me it seems a big contradiction that some defenders of gun ownership claim to be good Christians. They seem to think that it is OK to hold a gun with one hand and a Bible with the other hand. Sarah Palin comes to mind, with the Christian rethoric and the NRA suppor It is a contradiction because Jesus never carried any weapons. He never condoned the use or possession of weapons. But then we as human beings are very good at contradicting ourselves.

I know it is stupid to suggest that children should learn gun use in schools. I say it because if we keep saying that learning to use guns will make children defenders of freedom in the future, then it would make perfect sense to formalize that training. Nobody would like to see that in schools and we somehow assume it is OK to do it at home. We assume all parents who own guns are equipped to teach their children properly.

In a perfect world there would be no guns, no violence, no crime, no wars, etc. We use the imperfect nature of the world to condone our own violence and to toss aside our most cherished values. It is why the contradiction between Christian values and gun use arises.

Eventually something will have to give because all those guns will become a problem if scarcity of resources or austerity measures put pressure on our social structure. We see signs of this in the rioting in Greece, Paris, London, the old LA riots, etc. The we will see our police moving in with lethal force against rioters armed to the teeth. It is a scary thought.

Artful Dodger:

> Since teachers are not equipped to teach sex education, why not bring in professional prostitutes?

Of course, sex education is about teaching children how to have sex, not about how to avoid unwated sexually transmitted diseases or unwanted pregnancies. That is of course, teching responsibility.

Now, how do you teach responsibility with guns? Some parents are equipped, other are not. if every parent were equipped to teach responsible use of guns, there would be no Columbine massacres.

(V):

> Seeing pre pubescent kids owing over a dozen firearms is freaky.

Correction. Seeing ANYBODY owning a dozen firearms is freaky.

Would be comfortable living next door to a man who has a dozen shotguns in his basement?

Art says "respnsibility and discipline in handling firearms". Now, your next door neighbor might be really good and responsible, or he might go crazy one day and start shooting everybody. If you are lucky he will be the former. If you are not, you might end up dead. In the meantime you are waiting to find out, and I am sure you will sleep soundly at night!

Artful Dodger:

Your arguments contradict themselves:

> Fear? How about putting some responsibility and discipline into your children instead, so they can responsibly handle guns to defend their freedom when they get older?

> Our freedom was bequeathed to us by our Founders, who fought an armed revolution against the British to secure it. James Madison, who wrote in Federalist #46 that Americans have "the advantage of being armed, which [they] possess over the people of almost every other nation" must be rolling in his grave.

OK, the Founding Fathers gave you freedom and posession of a firearm is enshrined in the constitution. Now, you say that we should put responsibility and dsicipline into children so they can protect freedom when they grow up.

Well, then why is this idea not enshrined in the educational system?

> Another huge flaw in your argument is that the law prohibits guns on school campuses. No one except a police officer can have a gun on a school campus.

So the consitution applies everywhere except a school campus.

> And schools aren't supposed to be in the business of teaching everything under the sun. However, it's a very good idea to teach kids about gun safety IF and only IF there are guns in the home. And who better to teach them but their own parents? (as opposed to the teachers who may or may not have expertise in firearms).

You mean, like parents teach sexual education to their kids? If the way parents taught sexual education were adequate, there would NEVER be teenage pregnacies. Then, I am sure all parents with guns are really responsible and know how to teach gun safety.

Since teachers are not equipped to teach firearms, why not bring in the military? Every school would have a career military instructor teaching kids how to handle guns safely. It makes sense to let an expert teach other how to do things, rather than leaving it to "amateurs" such as school teachers and parents.

I know that my argument is stupid. I am trying to make a point. you come out and say this:

"From the "They can't really be this stupid - can they?" category, an urban anti-violence group in Buffalo, NY conducted a gun "buyback" - targeting Nerf guns. Yes, Nerf guns - the spring-loaded children's toys that fire harmless, spongy little projectiles."

To you anything that opposes the right wing view of gun ownership seems wrong. Is it stupid to teach children that guns are wrong? I suppose simulated violence is not harmful until some kid realizes that if he replaces nerf sponge with real lead bullets he can get back at the bullies in his school.

No, we should teach them discipline and responsibility. Let's leave that to parents because ALL parents are really disciplined and responsible. Then the kids will grow up to be good little soldiers who will die protecting freedom, and the political and eocnomic interests of the ruling elite.

Did it occur to you perhaps that teaching children that guns are wrong is a form of discipline and responsibility too? I suppose it is OK for Children to play games taht simulate violence. It is disciplined and responsible to do so.

Marshmud:

> Personally I don't want my tax dollars spent on teaching my children how to use a weapon

You obviously missed that I was trying to be sarcastic. Art has not replied to that post. I wonder if he thinks it is OK to teach a 6 year old child how to shoot in school. After all, you are teaching children to be "patriots".

Artful Dodger:

> Soon after I published an article questioning the global-warming orthodoxy

Is there a link to the article? I would be interested in reading it.

Artful Dodger:

> Fear? How about putting some responsibility and discipline into your children instead, so they can responsibly handle guns to defend their freedom when they get older?

I have a better idea. Why not militarize all schools? Since handling a gun responsible is so important, schools should have a class for children so they learn how to shoot. It would be taught together with art, social studies and math. It would start in grade 1, say with simple revolvers. Then grade 2 would require guns with loading clips. Grade 3 semiautomatics, etc. By the time kids get to high school they would know how to handle an M16, a bazooka, a bayonette, and other weapons that would equip children to be better patriots and fight for their freedom.

Since you so strongly believe that children playing with guns is OK, why not go all the way and educate children in schools. Make it a part of the federal curriculum. All kids must learn to handle a gun. It would be a requirement to graduate from high school, and a requirement to gain entry into college.

After all, if defending freedom is so important, why not formalize the gun training?

Artful Dodger:
> What's the biggest factor that makes today so different?

This is the real finding in all this. We are no different than we always were. We had insanity, paranoia, depression and all the mental ills of our modern era in all eras of human history.

Think ofthe Roman Empire and its depravity and insanity. Or the depressed artists and philosophers of the past.

War, famine, imperialism, fascism, political crises, economic crises, manipulation of the masses. They have been there since we started farming and building cities.

The great difference today is that we are aware of it on a global scale. Modern means of communication make the insanity apparent almost instantly.

We also have other factors such as moderm pollution, which is different from pollution in the past. Prior to the 20th century pollution took the form of bacteria (due to poor sanitation and dranage systems) and lead poisoning (lead was heavily used in glass, ceramics, and piping for running water). Today our pollution is much more rich on organic chemicals that interact directly with our DNA (it is why ther is so much cancer today). For sure much of that pollution is damaging our brains too. In the past depression and insanity were heavily linked to lead posioning (Beethoven and Van Gogh are good examples). Now we know better and have eliminated a lot of the lead in our immediate environment. However, aromatic hydrocarbons from improper combustion of fossil fuels are everywhere. We have plasticizers in plastics, chloramine in water, pesticides and herbicides, antibiotics in food, etc. Many of these substances do things to our bodies that we don't even know about, and mass consumption means that just about everyone is consuming these substances.

Let's add tot his the high pace of modern life. High expectations of wealth and consumption add to our daily stress. We are bombarded with mass advertising, sensationalistic news headlines, images of war and violence, pornography, the constant insanity of stock and financial markets, the uncertainty of an ever faltering economy, etc. These things add up in our psyche. If a person is well balanced and healthy, they can absorb all the stressors and release them somehow. But if the surrounding chemical environment has somehow affected the brain, all the stressors can add up to many pathological psychiatric conditions. It comes as no surprise that 25% of the world will suffer from some mental health problem at some point.

Is there a solution? It would probably require a lot of research on all the factors that lead to these mental health problems, then aiming at eliminating each of these factors one by one (like we did with lead). Then it would need a rethinking of mass consumption and the use of chemical commodities that damage our bodies. We would have to make a more peaceful world and take measures to stop exposing our children and youth to violence and pornography. Considering the lack of willingness in our governments to change anything (as we saw recently with the video game legislation failure), change will be slow.

Artful Dodger:

"Mental Illness disorders are prevalent in the United States. Approximately 26 percent of Americans 18 and older, that is one in four adults suffer from a diagnosed mental disorder. Mental disorders are the leading cause of disability in the U.S. for ages 15-44. It is estimated that many people suffer from more than one mental disorder at a time."

"If mental illness statistics compiled by the World Health Organization (WHO) is to be believed around 25 percent of the world population suffers from some or the other mental illness at some point of life. This and other such statistics on mental health problems reveal how severe this problem has become over the period of time."
As for the cost in the USA:

"The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) conservatively estimates the total costs associated with serious mental illness, those disorders that are severely debilitating and affect about 6 percent of the adult population, to be in excess of $300 billion per year. This estimate is based on 2002 data from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the Social Security Administration, and findings from the NIMH-funded National Comorbidity Survey – Replication (NCS-R). "

Obviously Europe is not alone in this. The world-wide estimated are at 25%, and the USA at 26%. That makes the USA no different from the average.

Our modern life is driven by overconsumption, overwork, war, economic crisis and political crisis. It comes as no surprise our societies are a mess.

Here are some "fruity" vegetables:
Tomato
Tomatillo
Egg plant
Avocado (eaten both as fruit and vegetable)
Bell peppers
Chili peppers
Cucumber
Squash
Zucchini
Pumpkin
Chayote (aka christophene)
Snow peas
String beans

There are probably many others. These are what comes to mind at the moment!

The question is, are they political?

(V):

> Rebels have breached Col Muammar Gaddafi's compound in Tripoli,

There is nothing worse in this world than lies and propaganda. Looking at what has happened in Lybia makes me wonder whether our western governments are abject morons who act without thinking, or whether they are callous fascists who act only for wealth and power.

I say this because our mass media is incapable of digging at the truth of anything. I think everyone should read this article that was published as far back as March:

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links

Some 5000 posta go I said that Al Qaeda had infiltrated the Lybian rebel movement and what our governments were doing was feeding Al Qaeda. Consider some snippets from the article:

"Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime. "

"Idriss Deby Itno, Chad's president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, "including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries"."

"Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against "the foreign invasion" in Afghanistan, before being "captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan". He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008."

"Earlier this month, al-Qaeda issued a call for supporters to back the Libyan rebellion, which it said would lead to the imposition of "the stage of Islam" in the country."

Maybe I am really dim, but why are our governments providing money, weapons, training and air force support to a rebel movement that wants to bring Al Qaeda's values to Lybia? If al-Hasidi was captured in Afghanistan, the USA knew that he was an Al Qaeda operative. They also knew that his fighters were in Iraq fighting against and killing Coalition soldiers.

Western governments are really naive if they think that Lybia will magically become a democracy. Nato has planted the seeds of another sectarian violence quagmire by allowing Al Qaeda and its veterans from Iraq into Lybia.

"Mustafa Gheriani, a businessman and rebel spokesman, acknowledged the ragtag inefficiencies of the revolutionary councils but urged me not to believe Qaddafi’s charges of extremism. “The people here are looking to the West, not to some kind of socialist or other extreme system—that’s what we had here before,” he said. “But, if they become disappointed with the West, they may become easy prey for extremists.”
(From the New Yorker)

The West already destroyed Iraq for its oil. Now they are doing to Lybia too. Either our governments are absolute morons, or callous fascists. Either way, all I see is nothing but propaganda and lies.

Artful Dodger:

> Yeah, like the unions in Detroit that fought for a fair wage and managed to unemploy all the workers when the factories shut down. Bleeding the complain dry. That's the ticket.

Was it the unions? No offense but that is a very dim view of what happened. I wonder if it was because the companies were greedy and decided to move manufacturing to countries where they pay workers a pittance. I wonder how many jobs went to China and the like. Here is one easy way to get around paying the minimum wage. Let's move all the factories to Third World countries. Over there workers get paid peanuts. The average American worker in the auto industry is getting paid $38 per hour. In China they pay $0.17 per hour. It takes no genius to see why Detroit went bust. Not only did they get around the union complaints, they also got around the minimum wage, fired a lot of qualified workers, and made more money by manufacturing cheaper. But then, I am sure you knew that.

Artful Dodger:

> Where has socialism succeeded?

The capitalist version of socialism: Sweden, Norway, Austria and others

The communist version is more dubious due to the human rights record: People's Republic of China (the fastest growing economy in the world), Cuba (the best health care and educational system in the western hemisphere)

It all depends on how one defines success: is it wealth? higher standard of living? improvements in per capita income?

You still didn't answer my question: what does socialism have to do with the riots?

Artful Dodger:

> No. Socialism has failed. Nice try tho.

How so? First, can you prove that the riots and socialism are connected, and if so, how? Second, can you prove the points in my post wrong? I argues that the riots came as a result of an ideological and social failure in capitalism. What does socialism have to do with the riots? It is much easier to blame socialism rather than admit that consumer capitalism has gone worng.

Artful Dodger:

> "You can't just make money on SUVs and trucks," Obama said during a town hall forum in Cannon Falls, Minn. "There is a place for SUVs and trucks, but as gas prices keep on going up, you have got to understand the market. People are going to try to save money."

Carmakers got a bailout. The government IS a shareholder in those companies. Carmakers insist in making large vehicles. That is fine. However, crude oil is at $80-$100 per barrel with the economy in tatters. What will happen to the price of oil when the economy recovers? We will see $200 crude, and $8 per gallon of gasoline. In the meantime, the car industry insists on building big cars as if nothing is going to happen. That only means that YOUR tax dollars will be peed down the drain because carmakers will be unable to compete with cheaper, smaller and more economical Korean and Japanese cars. The sooner carmakers make the change, the better prepared they will be to pay back the tax dollars they received in the bailout.

gogul:

All econnomies in the wrold today are planned, or to be more accurate: managed. Since the end of the Great Depression all governments have instituted central banks that effectively manage and plan the economy. There are strict controls over interest rates, treasury bill and other bond tendering, money eupply, etc. During the Cold War capitalist countries criticized the centrally planned system of the Soviet Union, but never admitted to effectively doing the same through their central banks. A good example was this last week in which Ben Bernanke said that the USa would not raise its interest rates for the next two years. They have already "planned" to "stimulate the economy" with low interest rates. It is funny that the failure of the american economy today is similar to the failure of the Soviet economy. Back in the 1980s the Soviet Union borrowed too much money and was not able to pay back its loans. Does that sound similar to the USA (and most capitalist economies) today?

gogul:

The Soviet collapse had little to do with the people. If anything, there was no revolution there. There were no masses storming the Kremlin. The Soviet Union failed because the economy was bad. Russia (and most of the other republics) depended on the sale of commodities (oil, gas, metals, minerals, etc.) In the 1980s there was massive deflation in commodity prices and that lead to a collapse of the Soviet economy. Today Russia is better, because the prices of oil, gas, metals and other commodities are so high. In the end, the Russian people didn't really fight to end communism. It was not even a popular uprising. It wa an economic failure, nothing more.

Artful Dodger:

> It doesn’t look like socialism panned out the way they promised you, eh? Shocker.

Could it be perhaps that what failed is not socialism, but capitalism? After all. the UK is a capitalist country. Capitalism has tried to sell consumerism as a cure for the ills of the world. To paraphrase "leading" economists, if a nations consumption is increased, so is its economic output. The riots in the UK are a failure of consumerism. Fast food, cheap trashy disposables, electronic trinkets and pseudofashion are not substitutes for a beleif system, and they do not provide an outlet for social discontent. Bourgeois right wing "experts" will now appoint themselves as arbiters of what is good and bad. Yet in their traditional right wing hatred of the working class these men will blame "lack of morality" and "socialism" for what in essence is a failure of capitalism. This si the same failure that makes young men take firearms, walk into a school and shoot their classmates. This is the morality of television and video games. We don't see these "experts" say anything about how governments have done everything in their power to let youth be exposed to violence, pornography and the glorification of crime in the name of "freedom of expression" and allowing media companies their right to "free enterprise", even if it means poisoning the minds of our world's youth. Profits for video game makers, TV and movie producers, pornographers and media barons are more important than educating youth and curtailing the destructive, violent and mysogynistic indoctrination of our children.

So what is to blame, socialism, or the capitalist "free enterprise" that allows the degradation of our youth in the name of profit?

Vikings:

> The violent actions of the have-not's against the have's, go back to Cain and Abel, rioting in the UK started long before Margret Thatcher, It's a moral fault, not a political fault

As always, it is not as simple as it looks. After WWII the UK had to rebuild its economy. As the economy recovered many people were left behind while the middle class did better than ever. When Margaret Tatcher cfame into power the world was in the grip of the Cold War. Western countries replied to the centrally-planned economy of the Soviet Union with supply-side economics (Reaganomics, trickle down economics or whatever it might be called). Supply side economics was very good at maximizing the profits of big corporations, but it slowly eroded purchasing power from the lower segments of society. Then the early 1990s saw the worst recession since the Great Depression and unemployment increased not only in the UK but in the entire western world.

As the new technologies emerged over the last 20 years a new wave of consumer goods hit the markets and the low-income working classes have struggled to keep up with the perceived need to buy those products. We also have had changes in how children are exposed to violence and sex. The Internet, Video games and movies have desensitized youth to violence.

The end of the Cold War also left an ideological void. In the past the working classes were guided by communist principles such as better working conditions, income equality, worker's rights, etc. Marxism (whether we like it or not) gave the working class an ideological compass. The fall of the Soviet Union meant that communism was discredited as an ideology. The working class lost a viable and valid channel for social discontent. Consumerism was sold as a cure for social and income inequality. As long as the working class has enough money for Walmart and Macdonalds then the working class has "nothing: to complain about.

The riots then are fuelled by several factors:

- A culture of desensitization to violence and sexual objectification
- Income inequality (a perception of social disadvantage) and social inequality (a perception of racism)
- A lack of an outlet for social discontent
- A lack of ideological compass in the working class
- Consumerism and the inability of the poor to fully partake in it
- Unemployment among youths and immigrants

I am sure there are other factors too. Regardless of the factors involved, wanton anarchy is never justified. Protests are supposed to be constructive processes that lead to positive social change. These riots lead to nothing but a radicalization in thinking that justifies oppressive measures (think guns, water cannons, mass arrests, etc.) These riots are destructive at every level. Nothing good can come out of this.

Artful Dodger:

> I'll bet those three dead guy would have like to have had a gun to protect themselves.

Dont' get me wrong. I entirely agree that people have a right to protect themselves. The point I was trying to make is that gun manufacturers and sellers make a huge profit. Nobody even talks about how violence drives their profits. All i was pointing too was that guns would not be a problem if they didn't get manufactured in the first place. Of course it is naive to think weapons manufacture will ever end. We will kill each other with guns as long as human beings are animals, or worse than animals.

To make another point, this is something I wrote in a game I am playing with Welsh Rugby Fan. It had to do with my comment that curfews and shooting on sight were used by the Nazis.

"Oh, I entirely agree. Specially when the rioting accomplishes nothing. There is such a thing as valid political protest and riots that lead to political change for the better. These rioters of today are just hooligans bent on theft and destruction. They have no ideological or political objectives. These riots are just like the movie Harry Brown. "In Ireland the people had a cause, but these animals do it just for fun." A few years later we see exactly the same kind of destructive behaviour. Just for fun. Rebels without a cause or ideology.

As for me, I think shooting accomplishes little. I think forced labour teaches people a lot. Once captured, they should be made to work digging in construction sites until they pay for the damage they have done. At this point I can say "Stalin tried that one!"

There is one thing I am not liberal about and that is crime punishment. I believe in gulags and chain gangs digging roadside trenches. I believe in the death penalty and I think it is underused. I also think prisoners should pay their own keep, instead of having taxpayers house them and feed them. Hence the forced labour comment. I think shooting the rioters accomplishes little, but capturing them and having them work to rebuild the burned buildings and compensate the victims sounds good to me. This is the one thing in which my left wing morals leave me. I think it is a good thing I have no political power!

Iamon lyme:

> some kind of tension has obviously been brewing for some time.

Divisions of social class, income inequality, unemployment among youth and harship in the immigrant community are a legacy tht goes back to the Margaret Tatcher years, and even earlier. This is a problem that has been in the making for decades. People in the the riot areas of the UK (as in most other places in the world) feel that they can effect no political change through the electoral system. Since communism died the wroking class has no ideological compass. instead of protesting for legitimate reasons, they are rioting and looting to get what the middle class has. This is a side effect of anticommunism. Anticommunism took the ideology out of social protest, and left in its wake an ideological void. Now people don't protest about issues that matter and there is no real avenue for social discontent.


> btw are you sure about that 30% gun ownership in the US?

In answer to your question:

"In 1995, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms estimated that the number of firearms available in the US was 223 million. About 25% of the adults in the United States personally own a gun, the vast majority of them men. About half of the adult U.S. population lived in households with guns. Less than half of gun owners say that the primary reason they own a gun is for self-protection against crime, reflecting a popularity of hunting and sport-shooting among gun owners."

That was 1995. After 9-11 gun possession increased since many people bought firearms to protect themselves from terrorism.

300 million people. 223 million firearms. It is a staggering statistic.

I have seen estimates that say that about 30% of Americans own a firearm. If rioters in the UK had that kind of access to guns, what would the riots be like? If 30% of the rioters had guns, how many policemen would be dead now? Americans are lucky that so far rioting has been limited, but if the economy goes belly up, it is likely we will see rioting, and 30% of those rioters could have guns. What will the military do? Kill its own people?

Of course, nobody talks about how much money gun manufacturers make. We could make it a criminal offense to manufacture and sell guns except to the police and the military. If I manufactuer bombs and sell them to the public, I will go to jail. However, gun manufacturers get away with making and selling lethal weapons.

welshrugbyfan:

> Declare a curfew and shoot anyone who breaks it.

Didn't the Nazis try that one at some point?

Artful Dodger:

> Yeah, he must mean that he's the FIRST president in US history to have the country's debt credit rating DOWNGRADED!

Just to clarify, the credit rating of the United States was not downgraded. There was fear that it would be, but the rating still remains at AAA. To date the only agency to downgrade the credit rating is some rather obscure bond rating agency in China, and they did that over six months ago.

The big jump in the debt during the Obama administration is due in great part to the stupid bailouts. I think Obama was very foolish in agreeing to take on a policy that was created by the Bush administration. Obama should have just let the banks collapse and drown in their own incompetence. Instead he gave away almost 1.5 trillion. I am sure that in reality they gave away a lot more and they are not telling the public the whole story. The bailouts showed that when push comes to shove, the Republicans and Democrats are equally whorish in selling out to big corporations.

Well, Obama did two things that really tarnished his image. Healthcare reform is well-intentioned and giving healthcare to people who don't have is never a bad thing. "Obamacare" as they call it is not the bad part (in spite of the protestations of Republicans).

The first really bad part is the bailoutsfor banks and car makers. This is in par with the Bush administration selling out to Big Oil and Saudi Arabian interests.

The second bad part is the bombing of Lybia and interfering in what was a civil war. Obama should never have sent soldiers to a mess created by France and the UK. Now the Nato axis is commited to a war. Well, an undeclared war because even that the Nato axis has no courage to admit.

President Obama should have stayed away from bailouts and bombings. He wasted money that would have been better spent on reducing the deficit. If he can't turn around the fiscal deficit problem, he will lose the next election.

(V):

> Some churches that are big... mmmmmm ...

The church should be taxed. No question. Quite a few churches operate like businesses and their church leaders make a lot of money. If they are honest they will put it back into their church. If they are dishonest they will buy big homes, expensive cars, and trophy mistresses. By not taxing the church, the state is subsidizing their work. If they work for the benefit of the poor, there is a logic to the tax exemption. If they work for the benefit of a few church leaders, then there is no excuse.

Artful Dodger:

> The tax laws were designed by lawmakers, not CEOs.

Really? And I wonder who is giving the biggest campaign donations to law makers? And who can pay the most to lobbyist so that they can influence law makers into passing tax breaks?

Your idea that the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes is quoted over and over. What is not quoted is how income has increased for the top 10% of the population in the last 40 years, while the poor have had their income effectively eroded. It might seem tah the rich pay more in taxes. They also have made the most money, and at the expense of the poor. But then, right wingers think it is OK to use the poor to get rich.

Now, maybe I am the only one who thinks this but the president should issue no religious statements at all. If Obama made a mistake, it is to be wishing happy whatever to whatever religion. He should have issued no easter message, no passover message and no ramadan message. A president should start by being completely impartial.

Artful Dodger:

> Well clearly the current powers aren't going to do that. So what's your solution?

The USA has put itself in an untenable position by putting all of its power in the hands of two political powers. There is no alternative. The Tea Party is not really an alternative, but a repackaging of similar right wing views of the past. We have seen it before. There are certain ideological elements in the Tea Party that remind me of the Reform Party when Pat Buchanan and Donald Trump were trying to run for president (Pat Buchanan ultimately won the nomination). It is symptomatic that Ron Paul (called the "Godfather" of Tea Party philosophy) was once courted by the Reform Party.

The right has tried its hand at finding an alternative, but it does not seem to crystallize. Likewise the left opted for the Green Party. However, neither the Reform nor the Green Party seemed to capture the imagination of the American public.

Is there a solution? Not while the legal framework and the power structure remain unchanged. Even if a third party were to win the election, the basic structure of the Executive branch (White House, Congress, Senate) remains the same. The lobby system remains the same too, as do political contributions by wealthy donors.

This simply means that the most the USA can hope for at this time is to pass laws that force the government to balance the budget (that ammendment to the constitution is part of the latest debt ceiling deal). However, there is no law that tells the government to put the average citizen ahead of special interests and welathy donors.. The government might balance the budget, but at the expense of the poor. Then the military remain unchanged and they will continue to syphon the largest chunk of the budget.

I see no party changing things, because it would take an uphill legal battle to redo the way the budget is designed and managed. There is no legal guanrantee that the government will not shape the budget for the benefit of a rich few rather than the majority of the population. The Tea Party might choose a fiscally responsible approach, but will that include eliminating tax cuts for the rich? I doubt it since tax cuts are central to their philosophy, as is big military spending. The Green Party might sound nice (to the left at least) on environmental issues, but theri website makes no mention of the debt problems or how they would change things or manage the problem.

I am really sure that the Tea Party is really, really going to change the United States. They will really, really do away with lobbyism, cronyism, favoritism, nepotism and all the "isms" that plague Washington. Under the Tea Party there will really, really be big changes in Washington and special interests will really, really stop influencing decision makers and the lies and manipulation will really, really stop.

Artful Dodger:

> I don't agree that we ought to curb military spending.

I think that of all measures to cut spending this would be the most unpopular. Nobody even wants to consider it, and this is where a lot of the spending inefficiency exists. Much of the research and development of weapons is done by private companies receiving huge investment from the DOD. This research is expensive, and private contractors love the money. The problem is that the American public feels that without that research and the military the United States would be vulnerable. Billions are being spent taking preemptive measures. This might be popular, but the need for those measures can often be questioned. The USA is also spending billions defending other countries that have the money and capability to defend themselves. However, for historical reasons those countries (I am talking Germany and Japan) are not allowed to defend t themselves by creating their own strong military. Western countries still harbour a lot of distrust towards Russia (even though Russia has never truly attacked the west, and was instrumental in defeating the Axis during WWII). Well, if there is a branch of the government that might prove to be the financial undoing of the American government, it will be the DOD. It syphons billions of dollars that could be used for programs that truly improve the lives of Americans.

> The ONLY real hope for change is a third party. Both the old wing of Dems and Repubs are corrupt.

This is very difficult too. American politics became more polarized during the Bush administration. It started during the Clinton administration, but the Bush administration and the Iraq war crytallized deep divisions between left and right. Many Americans are disillusioned with the state of affairs. It has become so bad that Washington is almost paralized. If a third political party arises, it has to start afresh with new ideas.

The Tea Party has good intentions in terms of corruption and cronyism. However, I am not entirely sure that their economic policies would be very different from those of the Regan administration. The tea Party would probably push a lot of privatization as well as reductions to programs that help the economically disadvantaged. They will probably push tax cuts and other similar measures. These measures will be popular, but not necessarily what the situation needs. The real sticky point will be tax cuts because any reduction in government revenue fails to reduce the debt. If the Tea Party will push Reganomics as a solution, then they are adding more wood to the fire because the problem started spiralling out of control when the Regan administration introduced its economic policies.

I think left wing parties have the right idea, but no plan of action to carry it. For example, in September of 2008 the green party put out a snippet in a speech:

"Promote an economy that's based on sustainability rather than on lending and borrowing beyond one's means. Raising the debt ceiling will lead to greater potential liability and further economic meltdown."

They talked of this 3 years ago, but never followed through with a clear plan to make the economy sustainable or to eliminate debt.

Somewhere in all of this there has to be a balanced approach. Reductions where necessary, without making poor people suffer. Tax cuts only if the country can truly afford them. Seeking sustainable solutions and increasing self-reliance. I think it will take a party that can balance both left and right wing views so that Washington can end this stalemate and polarization. It won't be easy.

I live in Canada, but I think this concerns everyone in the world because if the American economy defaults it will hurt not just Americans, but millions of people around the world. The USA holds 68% of the world's financial capital, so the shockwaves will be felt everywhere.

Artful Dodger:

> Obama is worse than Bush and plans to make even MORE debt. It has to end.

The truth is that the government has lost sight of the intended purpose of the debt ceiling. From what I read some time ago, before the Civil War the American government was free of debt. When the Civil War broke out the government started incurring debt and then in 1913 (or was it 1915) the debt was spiraling out of control. The debt ceiling was introduced to stop the government from spending more than it should. For the next 6 to 7 decades the debt remained in check because every time the ceiling had to be raised the government had to fight hard to have bills and appropriations approved.

The change came in the 1980s. The Regan administration followed economic policies which used public money for the benefit of private enterprises and for a massive buildup of military spending. Ronal Regan gave tax cuts to the rich, and raised the debt ceiling on 18 different occasions to compensate for the shortfall in government revenue. Presidents that followed him realized that raising the debt ceiling was a way to keep funding programs and giving tax cuts. The programs and tax cuts were used for political purposes in order to score votes at election time.

The problem is that it became too easy to raise the debt ceiling while removing accountability for spending. Both parties engaged in this because it was a way to score big votes as well as ensuring that special interests and campaign donors got what they wanted. The wars have not helped matters because instead of reducing the military budget at the end of the Cold War, that budget has increased tremendously.

The problem now is that the government is refusing to do what the IMF does when it lends money to countries that have bad economies. The IMF imposes austerity measures to combat massive spending. That means cutting popular programs, getting rid of tax breaks, and reducing the size of the government work force.

If the American government were to introduce austerity measures, the first thing to go would be tax breaks. Second, there would be a tax increase across the board. Third, a lot of government employees would lose their jobs. Fourth, companies that export jobs out of the country would be put in a difficult taxation position in order to force them to bring jobs back.

These measures would be unpopular. Those corporation that have grown spoiled by tax breaks would lose and their campaign contributions would dry up. Manufacturers taking jobs overseas would be forced to manufacture more expensively inside the USA. The government would have to cut many expensive programs, and the first ones to go would be the most expensive programs in the military and national security areas.

Neither one of the two parties wants to acknowledge the tough solutions. Instead they are using the debt problem to blame each other and try to gain points with voters for next year's election. None of the politicians has the courage to admit that austerity measures will bring back a surplus that would allow the government to pay its debts. The military would also have to be streamlined to work more efficiently so as to ensure security at a much lower cost.

It is very difficult because if one adds household debt (mortgages, loans, credit cards, etc.) and public fiscal debt then the economy is under serious threat. The only solution is to bring back manufacturing to the USA and that will take a politician with the courage to stand up to corporations and say "if you want a tax break, you have to bring jobs back to our country". So far I have not seen a single politican take a courageous stand like that.

Artful Dodger:

> No wonder America is on its way down the toilet.

Is it Obama? Or maybe it is decades of waste in wars to build an empire? Or decades of tax breaks for the rich while the middle class carries the burden of an ever increasing deficit? Or maybe decades of giving tax breaks to companies that manufacture products cheaply overseas and then sell them expensively to Americans? Or maybe decades of giving money and military aid to "allies", most of which are oppressive governments and dictatorships? In all of this, both parties have been complicit. Both parties supported exporting jobs overseas. Both parties supported tax breaks for the rich. Both parties gave money to the dictators and "allies". Both parties agreed on the bailout to bankers and turning a blind eye to greedy, corrupt CEOs and Wall Street magnates.

Blaming Obama is easy, specially when over a trillion was given to banks in a bailout that was the brainchild of the Bush administration. Both parties agreed to that, and now both parties are hypocrites and refuse to admit that the current crisis was caused by spending and waste that both parties have been a part of for decades. It is so easy for Republicans to blame Obama. I wonder how much money Republicans have wasted too.

Of course, all Americans know that the most expensive and most wasteful part of the government is the Department of Defense. It has been argued that if the US were to get rid of the DOD it could pay off the debt.

Of course, the real problem is that the rich don't pay enough taxes in relation to their income. If instead of tax breaks the rich got a tax hike the problem would be solved, but I doubt that Republicans would allow that. It is more convenient to let the rich get richer while the government defaults. According to the defenders of tax breaks, the rich already pay enough. Maybe we should pity the rich for being overtaxed!

In reality, the true solution is to give tax breaks to companies and individuals that create jobs in the USA, and eliminate tax breaks for companies that take jobs overseas where labout is cheap. I doubt that Walmart and many other retailers would like that. Car makers make too many parts in China now. So do computer companies. Those companies manufacture more microchips in China and Taiwan than they do in the USA. So many companies are opening their call centres in India. If tax breaks were tied to creating jobs in America, not a single fortune 500 company would get any tax breaks at all.

Artful Dodger:

> Obama making less than a quarter of Senate votes .. etc.

I find that this is a symptom of a problem in the political system in the USA (and probably other countries too). An elected official (whether in Congress, the Senate, the Cabinet, or the President) is campaigning for office two years ahead of the election, in some cases even longer. That means that if somebody is elected to a 4-year term, they are spending 50% of their time campaigning. These people (and they belong to both parties) are being paid with tax dollars, and they are campaigning for two years while tax payers pay their salaries. Since political campaigning is fierce, it comes as no surpise that they neglect the job they were elected to do while they go out to campaign.

Iamon lyme:

Straight from the dictionary:

Ignorant:
Lacking education or knowledge. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge. Unaware or uninformed.

> First of all, the term 'ignorant masses' isn't just insulting, it's usually used as a means to an end. If you agree with the premise (ignorant masses) you can then assume you are not a part of that group.

Maybe I should spare the feelings of the masses, and instead of calling them "ignorant", I can use a politically correct term like "knowledge challenged" or "educationally disadvantaged". Those sanitized terms are less insulting, are they not?

Then I said that I am the worst kind of ignoramus. The kind that knows exactly what is going on, and does nothing to stop it. I merely defeat myself intellectually. All that knowledge is useless if I don't know what to do with it. Yes, I am a aprt of the ignorant masses. We all are. Nobody likes to be called ignorant, yet we all are.

Knowledge is a relative thing. I can give you a good example of how the masses are "ignorant" about something, and then take it for granted.

Take plastic bags. Almost every human being on the planet has used a plastic bag at one point or another. People go shopping, put their things in bags, and go home wihtout even thinking whqt a plastic bag is. However, a chemist sees more than just a plastic bag. A chemist will know that it is made of a polymer called polyethylene. This polymer is made by polymerizing ethene gas with a Ziegler-Natta catalyst embedded inside a zeolite support. A chemist can draw chemical structures, and propose reaction mechanisms. He or she knows about the physical properties of the polymer such as the melting point and the glass point. He or she also knwos that Ziegler and Natta won the Nobel Prize in chemistry for their discovery of this family of catalysts that is used to make all plastic bags in the world.

The masses are ignorant in relation to the chemist who knows all about plastic bags.

Likewise, the masses are ignorant about politics and economics. Their sense of knowledge about politics and economics is based on what they see in the media. Newspapers and TV will describe current events, and self-appointed experts (like Glenn Beck) will interpret those events giving them the slant that is convenient either to themselves, or to somebody else.

Yet, when the masses never bother to study the history of political systems and the philosphical basis behind them. People will pass a judgement on demcoracy, socialism, etc. without having taken the time to study or analyze the history and meaning of those things. The perfect example is communism. Just about everybody hates communism, even though all that people know about it is what they heard on TV or on their high school social studies class. I have never met anyone who read Marx's Capital and interpreted according to Hegel's dialectic system. If people did that, it would be impossible for a government like China's to exist, because they ihgt call themselves communist party, but they are nothing more than a form of state capitalism.

Well, ignorant is not an insult. It is merely a fact. All that people need to be happy is enough money for Macdonalds and Walmart. As long as people can consume they have no fighting spirit. Consumer capitalism turns human beings into consuming automatons, always in fear of change or social discontent. So the masses, like a big flock of ostrich, hide their head in the sands of blissful ignorance. It might sound insulting, but it is the sad truth.

The US is about to default its 14.5 trillion dollar debt, and people don't even realize how bad the situation is and how risky it is. Instead of making an effor tto educate the public, politicians are bickering and bringing the world's financial system to the brink of catastrophe. And the masses, lacking knowledge and information, continue blissfully unaware of what impact this could have in their daly lives. This is the perfect example of how the rich and powerful use ignorance to advantage. While the masses sleep, the rich are setting themselves up for huge tax breaks and the fattening of their own pockets at tax payer's expense.

Iamon lyme:

> No one who talks about the 'ignorant masses' assumes they are part of that group.

But aren't we all ignorant in one way or another? I am sure that before the 9-11 attack a lot of Americans knew a lot about Islam. And after 9-11 they know even more.

The same can be said about communism. I am sure that during the Cold War people in western Capitalist countries really made an effort to learn about Marxism. I am sure they all sat down to read Marx, Engles and Lenin, then based on the "reasoning" that you talk about people made up their minds as to whether it was good or bad. Western governments sold anti-communist propaganda, and people really made an effort to analyze and reason what was going on. There never was any fearmongering involved.

Now we have a budget crisis. I am sure the vast mojority of the American public went to analyze the action of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. They they carefully looked at the budet for the last 30 years and figured out how the money was being spent and where the cuts should happen so as to do what is best for the economy.

The public really, really does it best to educate itself so that they can analyze and reason political and economic events around them. Then when those in power try to sell fear and propaganda, the masses are prepared to say "You fearmongering liars, we got you all figured out!"

Am I a part of the "ignorant masses"? The answer is, we all are. I am the worst kind. I am educated. I read and study politics and economics. I reason theourgh the lies and manipulation. Yet I do nothing to change anything. I am an ignorant hypocrite who is all talk and no action. But then, if I took action, I would probably a revolutionary of sorts, because capitalism can never change unless it is dismantled completely. Then we get Communism, whether Leninist as in the Soviet Union, or the brand sold by Deng Xiaoping in China. Either way, the masses remain disaffected and alienated, and one elite is replaced by another. So I lower my head and say: "Nothing can be done." Those wihtout an ideological compass merely become terrorists and use violence to channel their social discontent. Like the idiot neo-nazi in Norway. Incapable of admitting that the problem is capitalism itself, he fills himself with hatred of socialism and goes on to attack the ruling left-wing party.

The US is not stuck in a debt problem. This is nothing new. For the last 150 years or so bankers have been exploiting developing nations and forcing debt defaults by governments. The only thing that is new is that now it is happening to the one country that used banking to its own advantage for the last 100 years. For most of the 20th century the USA used the debt of other countries to gain political and economic advantage. Now it is America's turn to experience what Third World Countries have experienced for the last 100 years. The USA is now in serious trouble, a lot more serious than people realize. Both political parties are going to come out pointing the finger at each other and spoon feeding their propaganda to the masses. The public won't even realize that the real problem is the fascist Military industrial complex that drains billions from the Treasury, and rich and powerful that give tax breaks to themselves. People won't even realize that BOTH political parties are to blame, because both parties play the same dirty game.

Iamon lyme:

> If you fear being manipulated by conscious/unconscious attempts to persuade you, the remedy is easy.. decide for yourself, based on your own reasoning, if what you are being told is true or not. No one can manipulate your thoughts unless you allow it.

Nobody can tell you what to think, but over a lifetime you can be taught to think a certain way. People can be indoctrinated and they don't even know it. If it were not possible to influence the way people think, advertising would be a dead industry. You take a piece of propaganda. You repeat it over and over. You repepat it so much, that people grow to believe it is true. Then fear is a powerful motivator. Fear is the most primal of instincts. It triggers our survival mechanisms. Fear combined with propaganda is the most powerful way to control the masses. "You are poor because the evil Jew bankers are taking your money while you work like a slave." "The capitalist counterrevolutionaries want to return our country to its former state in which the rich aristocrats had everything while we had nothing. We have to stop the enemies of the revolution at all costs." "The godless communists are bend on world domination. They want to attack us with their missiles. We have to build bomb shelters and root out the communist threat in our midst. Are you a member of the communist party? If you are, you are godless and unAmerican."

The ignorant masses bought all this propaganda and so they became antisemites, radical revolutionaries and fascist anticommunists. Fear overcame reason, often with a few speeches and a propaganda campaign.

At some point every modern government has used fear and propaganda to make people think and believe in a way that is politically and economically convenient. To say that people can reason through propaganda is rather naive because propaganda and fearmongering easily overcome reason. It is like saying that everyone can reason through a book of tensor calculus. Not everyone is equipped to reason through, because the educational system failed to teach people how to read and reason while casting fear and prejudice aside.

ScarletRose:

> well the US never collected on all the War Loans (WWI, WWII) we loaned out.. heck wonder what the interest would be??

I think that this is true in part, but not entirely true. It wa smore complex that merely giving loans. One has to study the Marshall Plan to understand what happenend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_plan#Repayment

The conventional wisdom is that Western Europe had to be rebuilt in order to stop the spread of communism. People were poor and hungry, and the help was needed to revive the economies and avoid local population from going into revolution in favor of the communist parties.

In reality there were not just loans but grants and loans. Most of the money was given as grants which were used to buy manufactured goods to supply the population, and invested to stimulate the local economies.

In some countries like Belgium the grants were essential in the recovery. In other countries the recovery had started even before the grants were given out in 1948 (for example, Germany and France) . However, American and Canadian banks and manufacturers made billions in profits because Europeans took those grants and bought from those countries which had economies left intact after the war. That was the USA and Canada. So Americans and Canadians gave grants, and in turn made billions in profits.

At this point we must note that the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries received no help under the Marshall Plan, and the Soviet Union had to fully repay money borrowed or owed during WWII. The effect was to prop western economies while forcing the Soviet economy to collapse.

The grants also included provisions to ensure that European countries would accept the presence of American military bases (including nuclear weapons) in their countries. The grants also forced the economies to adopt a pro-capitalist economic model and government system. The way in which these grants were applied became a model on which the Wolrd Bank and International Monetary Fund would operate later. Those international lenders lend money only if governments adopt policies that favor big western corporations and western military interests.

The loans and grants were not something given as a gesture of friendship and good will, but as a calculated political manouver aimed at stopping communism and attaining political and military influence. Most of the money returned to the USA and Canada as manufacuturing profits. Considering the end result more money was made than was given out.

Iamon lyme:

> In a world without absolutes, you are absolutely correct. There is no difference between Obamas presidency and Bushes. It's all the same. No difference at all.

That is not what I said. I pointed to the fact that the political system has become stuck. Presidents can try to change things, but the entire Congress/Senate system has made it impossible to do so. Obama might have come in with great expectations, only to be stuck in the same old game of bipartisan politics, special interests, lobbying, corporate power, etc.

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans can be expected to change anything because they both benefit from things as they are. Both represent corporate wealth and power. The working class counts only when it is election time and it is necessary to make promises to win votes. The rest of the time it is all about benefits for the rich and powerful and bailing the rich when their greed gets the better of them. Both parties are stuck in supply side economics (Reaganomics, Trickle-down economics or whatever one choses to call it).

Well, in a few years China will be the world's largest economy. China will slowly erode American power while both parties squabble over tax breaks for the rich. China continues to rise while both parties paralize the government over tax breaks for the rich.

Artful Dodger:

> you are deluded.

I am deluded. Then you must be a hypocrite for not admitting that Republicans do exaclty the same. I am sure there is no cronyism and nepotism among Republicans. They are all squeaky clean.

Artful Dodger:

With respect to that chart, what does the Helath Care Reform Bill have to do with private sector employment? Show me a chart that shows employment in the healthcare field alone, both private and public separetely. Then we will see a true correlation. Otherwise you are just showing a stalling in job creation. Of course, unemployment went from 5% to almost 10% under the Bush administration. It was teh Bush administration that took a booming economy and a surplus, and turned it into a recession and a deficit. Obama can only be blamed for not being able to fix a mess that probably nobody could fix. In the end, what have Republicans done to fix the mess, other than criticize the president and propose tax cuts for the rich?

Artful Dodger:

> hahaha, you are so predictable. And you can't find the honesty to criticize Obama.

When Obama first came up with the "change" thing I knew it was wishful thinking because the bureacratic system of the US makes it impossible to change anything. A long time ago I posted that while Obama's desire to reform healthcare was well intentioned, the approach was completely wrong.

In fairness to Obama, Republicans have done everyhting in their power to make sure that he fails. Republicans have sunk as low as they could to ruin his presidency, and they have suceeded. Obama's failure is not in not delivering his promises, but in failing to stop Republicans from working for the benefit of the rich at the expense of the middle class.

In reality, the problem is not the Obama administration which inherited a real mess from the Bush administration. The real problem is that Americans insist on electing the same nicompoops into office. Any American who thinks that Sarah Palin or some similar right winger will change things is in for a big disappointment. Sarah Palin (like Obama) might pretend to be against elitism and the old establishment . Yet when she rises to the top, the first thing she will do is integrate herself into the system and become the elite and the old establishment herself. It is what has happened to every American president pretending to change or improve things.

In the end, both political parties are the same and when the time to really prove that they were different arose, they were quite happy to join forces for the benefit of the rich and powerful. i am talking of the bailouts for banks and car makers, which were a Bush initiative and were supported by both parties.

In the end, the United States reduces itself to a two-party pseudodemocracy. People are free to vote, but power ends up in the hands of the same elitist groups. Those who want to rise to the elite merely have to convince the public that they want to change or improve things. Once at the top, they merely become a part of the elite. Obama is guilty of this, and any Republican (Tea Partier or not) will be exactly the same.

As long as the public has enough money for Walmart and MacDonalds nothing will change and people will continue to vote blindly for the same nicompoops. It is like Allen West. It did not even bothered you that he tortured a man and was force to leave the military dishonorably. You put the man forth as somebody who really did good defending himself from Wasserman Schultz, without even wondering what kind of man he really is. It is that lack of scrutiny that allows the worst kind of people to rise to the top.

When Obama was elected I knew that he would fail. I just underestimated how badly he would fail, and I also underestimated how low the Republicans would go to ruin his presidency.

Artful Dodger:

> The post was about Obama. YOu libs always like to Bring up Bush.

I am getting at the fact that you love to point the finger at Obama, and are incapable of doing so with your own political party.

Artful Dodger:

> Nearly half of the top level of Obama campaign bundlers have been rewarded with some sort of role within the government.

And the Bush administration did not? I don't see you pointing the finger to the Republicans.

rod03801:

> WORST president ever. I adamantly HATE him. EVERYthing about him.

Funny thing is, that is what a lot of people said about George W. Bush. I suppose that what goes around comes around.

Well, American politics has become radicalized over the years. There are two camps: the "Left" (which are the center-right wing liberal Democrats) and the "Right" (which are the religious right wing conservatives as embodied in the Republican party). Ove the decades both parties have come to monopolize political power. They are constatnly at each other's throats, to the point that the government is paralized, incapable of achieving much and incapable of changing.

(V):

> He must be looking for a good gravy train job after office.. Maybe with News Corp or something.

Or maybe an even bigger job as a defense contractor. After his retirement from the military he became a private defense contractor and effectively trained, advised and controlled the Afghan military in Kandahar.

For those who don't know:

I found an article pointing to the situation and the original comment that Wasserman-Schultz made:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/19/allen-west-debbie-wasserman-schultz_n_904047.html

I also found a video of the Wasserman-Schultz speech:

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/allen-west-rips-vile-wasserman-schultz

Wasserman Schultz said: "The gentleman from Florida, who represents thousands of Medicare beneficiaries, as do I, is supportive of this plan that would increase costs for Medicare beneficiaries. Unbelievable from a member from south Florida." "

She went on to accuse him of supporting tax breaks for millionaires, big oil and companies that ship jobs overseas, while supporting budget cuts in education and healthcare.

" A spokesman for Wasserman Schultz, Jonathan Beeton, said in an email of his own: "I don't think that Congressman West is upset at the congresswoman, but rather with the fact that she highlighted that he and other Republicans are once again trying to balance the budget on the backs of seniors, children and the middle class. ... The truth hurts." "

I think this is symptomatic of how divided congress is and how different the views of Republicans and Democrats are. People like West are pushing irresponsible tax breaks at a time when the government needs as much revenue as possible so as to avoid going into deeper debt. Then they are sustaining those breaks by cutting essential services for the poor. It is the typical Reaganomics approach to the economy.

Well, Mr. West is a controversial character. This just one more of his controversies. He is a Tea Party favorite. He was forced to retire from the military after he and four soldiers under his command beat up and threatened to kill an Iraqi civilian police officer that they suspected of plotting an attack. The detention of the man was tantamount to torture. It turned out that the man was innocent and no plans of attack or bombs were found.

Well, after hearing the Wasserman-Schultz speech I can say that there is nothing insulting or inappropriate there. It sounds more like Mr. West does not like taking criticism. I think than rather than sending that e-mail, Mr. West should have clearly addressed the issues that Wasserman-Schlutz raised. Rather than being confrontational, he should have proven that Wasserman was wrong (that is something he would not have been able to do since Wasserman accurately depicted the political and economic stance or Mr. West and other republicans.)

Tuesday:

No need to worry about Cain. I am sure he is less popuiular than Sarah Palin!