BS: 2012 Presidential Election

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 03:11 PM

Billy the Kid was a thief. In the not too distant future some man similar to Koch will sponsor a Bernie Madoff exhibit.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 02:53 PM

Billy the Kid was a snot-nosed punk.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 02:51 PM

Don, thank you for that. From what you have shared, I am glad I was just young enough to have missed her "heyday," I guess, as I never really heard much about her until coming to Mudcat. Sounds as though she was quite wicked in her own way.

Besides the Koch Bros. gathering tens of millions this past weekend to buy their way through the election, this tidbit seems somehow fitting, one robber-murder to another:

The tintype photograph of outlaw and killer Billy the Kid sold for $2.3 million to a millionaire who plans to enjoy owning it and lending it to a few museums for display. The picture is the only one known to be an authentic photo of Billy the Kid. It was probably taken in New Mexico. Billy the Kid is said to have murdered at least 21 people and was sentenced to hang for the 1878 murder of a sheriff. He escaped and was killed by Sheriff Pat Garrett on July 14, 1881. Tintypes made a mirror image, so the auctioned photo shows what seems to be a left-handed man (he wasn't). The picture was reportedly given to Dan Dedrick by Billy and has been in Dedrick's family ever since. The new owner, William Koch, is a member of a well-known family of billionaires who made money from oil and gas.

It also seems a bit offensive, to me, that such ilk now owns such a piece of history and, of course, will spread his largesse around to certain museums. They are an insidious lot and pure tea party backers.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 09:45 PM

What drew me to Ayn Rand in the first place was a friend recommending The Fountainhead. That caught me at a time in my life when there were people who kept trying to tell me what I should be doing with my life careerwise—and how I should do it. The message I got from The Fountainhead was to follow my own muse, and that I did not owe it to others to do it their way rather than my own. I needed that at the time. The basic message I took from the book was to have confidence in my own ideas and, as someone once put it, "Instead of letting other people tell you how to run your life, have the courage to be the star of your own movie."

Then some years later, she came out with Atlas Shrugged. The writing style was the same (very muscular), but it was a whole different thing. There are people around with the same kind of artistic and personal integrity as Howard Rourk, protagonist of The Fountainhead. But you're going to be damned hard pressed to come up with a real-life counterpart for characters like Hank Reardon, Dagny Taggart, Francisco d'Anconia—or John Galt. Or, for that matter, Rand's modern day pirate (attacking, looting, and sinking relief ships whose cargos have been bought with his rich friends' tax money, which he returns to them in gold bars), Ragnar Danneskjöld, who is sufficiently clever and elusive to evade all the world's navies. And he's one of Ayn Rand's good guys.

The whole thousand-plus page novel is a build-up to John Galt's fifty-two page speech, in which he (Ayn Rand, actually) outlines the basic principles of the philosophy and ethics of "Objectivism."

I soaked all of this up and even went so far as to take a twenty lecture course in "The Basic Principles of Objectivism" along with a bunch of other people, all sitting around of a Saturday night listening to lectures by Nathaniel Brandon on LP records. A lot of this sounded pretty good, but a lot of it bothered the hell out of me.

Any misgivings I dared to voice were quickly shamed out of me by the others—although I was not the only one there bothered by the idea that anyone who, through no fault of their own (illness, any kind of reverse or mishap) couldn't cope and needed a bit of a hand should simply be left to manage as best they could. The elderly? If they didn't have the foresight, or, for that matter, enough money left over at the end of the month, to save up for their retirement, they should be left to cope for themselves. They should have got a better job.

A very "survival of the fittest—and ONLY the fittest" view.

Like I said. What cured me of Ayn Rand was taking a look at the real world. And what REALLY cured me was that, having also read books like Rachel Carson's The Silent Spring and others who were issuing early warnings about the way we were using the atmosphere and the oceans to dump our trash in with the apparent assumption that their capacity was infinite and what this could eventually lead to, Ayn Rand came out with an essay on the burgeoning environmental movement, and concluded it by saying that these environmental "alarmists" ought to seek out the dirtiest, filthiest, belchingest smoke stack they could find and get down on their knees and give thanks for all the goods, services, and benefits it was endowing them with!

THAT CORKED IT!!

This and many other things she wrote in books like Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal, The Virtue of Selfishness, and her monthly magazine, "The Objectivist" managed to convince me that the woman was either completely out of touch with reality or a real monster.

During the last few decades of her life, she managed to "repudiate" and alienate all her friends and her "inner circle" of people like Nathaniel Branden and Alan Greenspan. She wound up living in her thirtieth floor New York condominium and never went out into the real world.

And despite her vitriolic loathing of "government handouts," when her monthly Social Security check was deposited to her bank account, she bloody well spent it. And Medicare payments when she, a chain smoker all her life, contracted lung cancer.

(Tell me again that bit about personal integrity?)

I have quite a library of books by and on Ayn Rand. All of the books she wrote, and many books written about her by former members of her "inner circle" such as Nathaniel Brandon and Barbara Brandon (separately). And I have read them all.

There's not a helluva lot about Ayn Rand anyone can tell me that I don't already know.

ATLAS SHRUGGED:    The basic plot MacGuffin is that all the creative people of the world (or at least the ones John Galt can round up) who feel that they are not being properly credited or paid for the largess their creativity has lavished on an unappreciative and thankless world go On Strike, disappear, and hide out in a hidden valley in the Colorado Mountains (which they call "Atlantis," but it sounds a bit more like "Shangri-La" from the book and movie "Lost Horizon"). With all the world's entrepreneurs on strike, civilization collapses. In the climax, the protagonists decide it is now time to come forth from their refuge and rebuild the world in their own image.

Pure    Unregulated    Capitalism

Now you know what the Tea Party is all about.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 09:32 PM

Currently the Republic party has a pretty weak collection of candidates. They have 3 pencil neck white guys who are conpletely interchangable, one fat bloviator, one all American Mormon Dudly Do Right, and the black guy from Ghostbusters. Other tahn being the year of the Mormons, who believe in keeping a full years worth of food in storage in case of a catastrophe, which is appropo for the year 2012.

They have no one who will admit to being a moderate.

Obama, to the dissappoinment of liberals is to the right of Eisenhower.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: pdq
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 05:57 PM

Ayn Rand made it quite clear that she was an Anthiest, not merely an agnostic.

She was also "pro choice". In fact, she wanted government to stay out of people's personal lives and stop legislating on social issues.

She made people on the Left, Right and in the Center angry at times. She now looks like a pioneer libertarian.

Ayn Rand also made the Hollywood Left mad because she told the truth about the Bolshevik Revolution and pointed out the Stalin was as bad (or worse) than Hitler. Only Jack Warner of the Hollywood moguls was in her corner at the time. He had his studio do the movie version of The Fountainhead which probably had a great deal to do with making her financially secure.

She deserves to be read like any of the other important thinkers of history. She was a favorite of Alan Greenspann and many other interesting people.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 04:53 PM

Yeah, I kind of wondered about that!

I was a real Ayn Rand True Believer some decades ago. Then I saw some of the real world and grew up a lot.

The woman was a demagogue of the worst kind, and the fact that much of the GOP and the "Tea Party" are embracing her is appalling.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Stringsinger
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 04:26 PM

A referendum (with an accent on dum(b), I like to call the Paul Ryan Budget,
The Ayn Rand Budget.

That's the reason it has so much resonance with some in the GOP.

Think of the Governor's takeover as an Ayn Rand proposition....

Including Rand Paul (Guess from where he got his first name?_

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 10:09 AM

Actually, under Bush - and Reagan - the U.S. was spending more like $3 for every 57¢ taken in. Didn't seem to bother the Neo-Conservatives then. AND that's what caused the current mess.

But they do have VERY short attention spans and even shorter memories.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,999 sorry, no cookie
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 09:37 AM

'We are spending $1.00 for every 57¢ we take into the Federal government and the current occupant of the White House says that isn't problem, and the Congressional Democrats say " the only answer is to raise you taxes".'

The USA was doing the same under Bush (spending too much)--why didn't you say anything about it then?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 09:35 AM

'We are spending $1.00 for every 57¢ we take into the Federal government and the current occupant of the White House says that isn't problem, and the Congressional Democrats say " the only answer is to raise you taxes".'

The USA was doing the same under Bush--why didn't you say anything about it then?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 09:18 PM

pdq, if you had read the conversation between Jack and me, you might have a clue as to what it was all about.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 09:13 PM

"Propaganda Minister" eh, pdq? When someone gets sarcastic and abusive, that generally means I got up their their nose about something.

A little comparison with past presidents and policies is a good touchstone for picking new ones. It's called "learning from history." Maybe if YOU knew more about past presidents, both good and bad, you could make better choices than merely picking who Bill O'Reilly tells you to pick.

Yes! If we raised taxes on the multi-billionaires who are taking vast sums out of the economy and currently paying very little or no taxes at all, the country would be a whole lot better off. Thanks a million, George!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: pdq
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 08:45 PM

Now we have a gossip column discussion about Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt's sex lives (or lack thereof) followed to one about Joseph P. and Rose Kennedy's sex lives.

Priceless!!!

Perhaps Propaganda Minister Firth can explain how the Hell this has anything to do with the serious job of choosing next year presidential candidate?

We are spending $1.00 for every 57¢ we take into the Federal government and the current occupant of the White House says that isn't problem, and the Congressional Democrats say " the only answer is to raise you taxes".

If these out-of-touch brats aren't voted out it will be the end of this country as we knew it.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 05:40 PM

True indeed. Times have changed, and in that respect, not for the better. Much of today's press, especially so-called "news services" like Fox, are a bunch of bottom-feeders.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 04:48 PM

Actually I have seen members from the press on TV, I guess it was PBS, saying that his Polio and Love life were known but considered off limits. AND I CANNOT IMAGINE THAT BEING SAID IN 60 years, with a straight face, by any member of the press today.   But if we can have him today without today's press, I think you are right we can use him.


On the other hand, if we could all just stick to the issues and show some decency like most people did then, we could make do with the men we have.

Or if pigs could fly, we would all have smokers and would sit on our porches with shotguns waiting for breakfast to arrive.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 04:01 PM

One last note on Roosevelt's polio:

Actually, I'm not sure it was the press. Roosevelt himself didn't want to project an image of weakness, and he thought that some folks might take his physical disability that way. He wore heavy leg-braces, and when he walked, he used a cane (rather dapper in some circles) and had someone right beside him whose arm he could lean on for support.

His personal appearances were carefully "choreographed" to show as little of him having to walk as possible. Especially such things as getting out of or into an automobile or limo. This is one of the very few published pictures showing FDR in a wheelchair (note the leg-brace on the little girl's right leg).   HERE.

Everybody knew about it, of course. But the message he managed to project was "It's a matter of no importance."

Roosevelt never accepted the idea that his paralysis was permanent, and spent whatever spare time he could find at a spa in Warm Springs, Georgia, undergoing hydrotherapy and physical therapy. He wound up buying the place (on his own dime, by the way; the Roosevelt family was independently wealthy—"old money") and turned it into a rehabilitation center for polio victims. This was in 1927, incidentally, before he was elected President. He also started the "March of Dimes," which went a great way toward funding research for a polio vaccine.

As I said, his disability didn't slow him down one bit, and to try to use it for propaganda points against him might just backlash on whoever tried it.

Adage:   There is an essential difference between a career politician and someone who dedicates his life to public service.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 02:32 PM

I know this doesn't follow the most recent postings, but felt this was probably the most appropriate thread to add the following as it does have to do with the right wing's plans to work the election ala Koch Brothers. From "ProgressNow Colorado":

Billionaire brothers to host conservative seminar in Vail Valley
Virginia governor among those on Koch brothers' guest list this weekend

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20110623/NEWS/110629925/1078&ParentProfile=1062

In a September 2010 letter to supporters, Charles Koch describes the annual meetings as a way to review strategies "for combating the multitude of public policies that threaten to destroy America as we know it."

"Our goal for these meetings must be to advance ideas that strengthen that freedom, beat back the unrelenting attacks and hold elected leaders accountable," Charles Koch wrote.

The meetings, "Understanding and Addressing Threats to American Free Enterprise and Prosperity," are invitation-only. While members of the media are not among those invited, millionaire, right-wing donors are.

[Colorado Common Cause Director Jenny] Flanagan said the seminars are so important because it's when the brothers and their donors decide how to spend their money.

"We're talking about millions of dollars that are used to influence public policy," Flanagan said. "This is the meeting where they come together and figure out where they're going to spend this money."

And more today from the Colorado Independent:
Koch Brothers Beaver Creek retreat to be met by protesters

http://coloradoindependent.com/92045/koch-brothers-beaver-creek-retreat-to-be-met-by-protesters

Word that a retreat hosted by conservative mega-donors Charles and David Koch is coming to Colorado has spurred activists across the state into action. Colorado Common Cause, ProgressNow, Moveon.org, and others plan to meet and protest in Beaver Creek, Sunday morning.

The news first broke Wednesday that the brothers would be hosting their twice-yearly event in the Vail area after Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell released his schedule, which noted he would be attending the Koch seminar Sunday.

Upon hearing the news, progressive groups, environmental organizations and numerous other groups immediately began an effort to both mobilize their membership and determine the location of the secretive gathering...

I regret I am unable to be there for the protests. I consider the Koch Bros. and their ilk to be the worst enemies of our country.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 11:57 AM

I wasn't there but I have read since that the press was careful NOT to show him in the wheelchair. I an barely imagine what the swift boaters would have done.


But that is beside the point. Technology does make good men better. But it sure give more opportunity for the evil ones to attack.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 11:51 AM

"Even though they had six children, Eleanor always regarded sex as a ordeal, while, Franklin was a fairly vigorous and passionate man. After the birth of their sixth child, Eleanor drew the line:   no more sex. So Franklin DID have a mistress or two. Eleanor didn't especially mind (it relieved her of the "burden") and she simply looked the other way."

I thought that was Rose and Joe Kennedy?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 02:14 AM

Ah, so, Ebbie! Okay.

Jack, just curious.

Regarding Franklin and Eleanor's somewhat odd marriage arrangements:

It seems that Eleanor was a brilliant woman, although not especially attractive. Her intelligence is probably what attracted FDR in the first place. Even though they had six children, Eleanor always regarded sex as a ordeal, while, Franklin was a fairly vigorous and passionate man. After the birth of their sixth child, Eleanor drew the line:   no more sex. So Franklin DID have a mistress or two. Eleanor didn't especially mind (it relieved her of the "burden") and she simply looked the other way. She and Franklin stayed fairly close intellectually, though. Both very intelligent people.

I'm quite sure the Right Wing nuts would whoop and squeal over that, but I really think the two of them could have handled it.

I'm curious to know what kind of hay the Right Wing nuts would try to make out of Roosevelt's having been a victim of polio. The whole country knew, and it certainly didn't slow him down any. I can't imagine anyone trying to make any political points with it without their being thoroughly ripped apart for indulging in REALLY cheap shots. I'm curious to know what form this might take.
 
Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 10:41 PM

Don Firth, I appreciated your synopsis of the FDR/early war years but you misunderstood my question. I meant it to be a pointed query aimed at Little Hawk suggesting. given his firmly promulgated belief that a cabal governs everything political in this country/world, that it was surprising that the cabal 'permitted' FDR's moves.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 07:31 PM

By the way, note how political trash-talk works. George Lakoff calls this "framing."

Notice how there is no direct answer to the points I made in my above post about FDR in answer to Ebbie's question, other than simple contradiction of known facts, without offering any support. pdq characterizes me as a "rabid FDR fan" with "absolutely no objectivity," thereby trying to establish that there is no truth or merit to anything I say about Roosevelt.

Look for it. It reveals a lot about the trash-talker.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 07:17 PM

Jack, there were a number of right-wing radio commentators and newspaper columnists at the time who made their careers out of trying to dig up dirt on the Roosevelts. Old stuff, actually. He was the target of the same kind of trash that Obama is now.

From the article I linked to above:

To awaken his country from its isolationist slumber, Roosevelt began a long, urgent, eloquent campaign of popular education, warning that unchecked aggression abroad would ultimately endanger the U.S. itself. "Let no one imagine that America will escape, that America may expect mercy," he said. The debate in 1940-41 between isolationists and interventionists was the most passionate political argument of my lifetime. It came to an abrupt end when Japanese bombs fell on Pearl Harbor.

Roosevelt had the foresight to prepare for war even when he hoped (vainly, he knew) that it wouldn't come. Roosevelt haters like to point to those preparations and claim that they are evidence that he fully intended to START a war.

The war was already going. We got into it pretty late, actually, and some of our British cousins are still resentful that we didn't jump in with both feet much ealier.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 07:00 PM

>>Mr. Roosevelt, we need you again.<<

I don't think so. I don't think Roosevelt would stand up to today's misinformation machine any better than any of our present progressive leaders. They would have a field day with the Polio, the mistresses and with Elanor, look what they did to Hillary with a lot less material.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 06:40 PM

Typical Republican anti-FDR screed. I've heard it all before.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: pdq
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 06:00 PM

In the next four year presidential cycle, two events will occur.

China's economy will pass that of the US and they will never look back. Their place as world leader will include their calling the shots everywhere in the world in economics and politics.

Social Security will go broke. Last year it paid out 47 billion more than it took in, he first defecit spending by SS ever. Problem is, we have fewer than four workers paying into the system now, but FDR had over 40 people to tap for each recipient.

Too bad the rabid FDR fans have absolutely no objectivity concerning their hero. He was flawed like everyone and many of his attempts to fix problems actually made the problems worse.

About starting WWII, the US was building 2-story barracks all over the US by 1938. Perhaps 1937. I have been in them at Ft. Lewis, Camp Roberts, Ft. Knox and Ft. Sam Houston. All are made to the exact same plans and, nationwide, they provided enough human storage space to get us through the inevitable war.

Conscription started in ernest in early 1940, long before Pearl Harbor. The 12 million people drafted from 1940-1945 sure lowered FDR's unemployment figures.

FDR had unemployment between 15% and 25% from his first day in office until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. His attempt to fix the problem through extreme government spending may made thing a little better, but not like the boom times of 2003-2007 unemployment dropped near 4% at times.

No doubt about it, FDR was a public relations genius. No other president has come close.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 05:56 PM

Oh boy o boy

Its just 15 months away


With Citizens United in full force, no more Acorn, many new laws making it impossible to register new voters or new poll laws requiring multiple ID's, and dozens of new re districted areas,

The Republicans won't need Diebold to change results again.

Should the Republicans succeed in self destructing America with failure to raise the debt limit or allow new jobs to be created,
they could win. But what will they win after they have done their best to hurt Americans just to make it look like Obama did it?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 04:37 PM

Yeah, I'd vote for Charlie Farquharson if he's the one I met at Possum Lodge some time back (even if he wasn't necessarily born in the U.S.   Canada, right?   Close enough!).

He seems to have things pretty well worked out.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 04:30 PM

Rick Mercer would be better.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: gnu
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 03:49 PM

999... Charlie Farquharson would make an excellent candidate but he's from Tronna eh?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 03:34 PM

Ebbie -- "Question: When FDR made his bold moves, did this cabal allow it because they just didn't care at that point?"

I was just a tad (barely more than a rug-rat) at the time, but I remember listening to FDR's "Fireside Chats" on the radio, and that these straightforward talks with the American people became something of an institution and almost everybody made a point to listen in.   Although a brilliant orator when the occasion called for it, in the Fireside Chats Roosevelt spoke in simple, straightforward language, explaining what he was doing (or trying to do) and why he was doing it. People understood him. And when some of his measures were passed and people started seeing the immediate results, the vast majority of the people were behind him all the way. Re-elected three times, he died in office in his fourth term.

The Right Wing spent about a decade and a half being positively livid. They tried all kinds of things, even going so far (and so low!) as to claim that "'Roosevelt' isn't his real name. It's 'Rosenfelt!' He's a Jew!" pandering to lowest of people's prejudices, much like the current flood of lies about Barack Obama

The Roosevelt administration put the 25% unemployed back to work directly with such agencies as the Works Projects Administration (WPA) and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). Not promises. Deeds. That worked right away. Yes, it played hell with the national deficit, but suddenly there were a whole bunch of people working who had been unemployed before—and they were paying taxes!! Which, in turn, started bring down the deficit.

There wasn't much the Republican opposition could do about it. Nothing succeeds like success. But the Republicans worked very hard at chipping away at the regulatory agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that reigned it the Wall Street speculators and Ponzi schemers, and the whole alphabet soup of Roosevelt's regulatory agencies that prevented "the usual suspects" from indulging their greed and bringing about another Depression.

Until Ronald Reagan. He was a popular enough President (not so much because of his programs or ideas, but primarily because of his personality) that he got away with either dismantling or gutting the regulatory agencies by putting corporate wonks in charge of the agencies that were supposed to regulate the very corporations the wonks were from—putting the fox in charge of the chicken house.

That's why we're where we are today.

Obama needs to stiffen his spine, stop trying to compromise with people who are hell-bent on trying to see to it that he fails, and study up a lot on what Roosevelt did and how he did it.

Probably one of the most vicious slanders you'll hear about Roosevelt these days is that "He got us out of the Depression by starting World War II!" Lie! The Depression was well over when the war started.

The claim is that Roosevelt goaded the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor. The fact is that the U. S. had been selling scrap iron to Japan, who then used it to make weapons to use on the Chinese (have you heard of the "rape of Nanking?"). Roosevelt leaned on Japan because of the brutality of the war they were waging in China, and cut off the supply of scrap iron. The Japanese sent a diplomatic mission to Washington, D. C., and while they were talking peace, the Pearl Harbor sneak attack occurred. The Japanese military intended the attack to be a sucker punch.

They're stated mission at the time was to "turn the Pacific Ocean into a Japanese pond."

And we were in the way. No. Roosevelt didn't start World War II.

Texts of the Fireside Chats.

Don Firth

P. S.   Sorry about the length of this screed. But hearing some of the revisionist history that the Right Wing spouts about Roosevelt and others really burns my butt! I was young at the time (an ordained Geezer now), but I was there and I remember.

P. P. S.   By the way, Ebbie, the cabal DID care very much. But with the war going on in Europe, Roosevelt and others were fully aware of how dangerous Hitler and his friends were, but tried to stay out of it. There were such things as the "Lend-Lease" program to Britain, during which a number of American ships were attacked by German U-Boats. The USS Reuben James (immortalized in song by Woody Guthrie) was a destroyer, escorting supply ships to Great Britain which was attacked and sunk by a German submarine. So I'd say the U. S. was sure as hell provoked into World War II. Roosevelt didn't START it, for cryin' out loud!!

If you have the stomach for it, this article gives a very good run-down on what sort of things some members of the cabal were involved in in the 1930s. Fasten your seat belt and keep an airsick bag handy.

The German-American Bund.

The position of the cabal at the time was summed up succinctly in a song that Walt Robertson used to sing, Little Man on a Fence:

Now, over on the Right, in their great big cars
Sat a bunch of fat men a-smokin' big cigars.
They were all shoutin' with great broad grins
About what to do with Stalin when Hitler wins!

I wish I could remember the rest of the song.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 05:42 PM

In other places NPR prefers to pollute the airwaves with classical music rather than play "The World", or "All Things Considered.

I stand corrected. I meant "Public Radio" instead of "NPR."

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 04:17 PM

By the way, one should perhaps mention that not all public radio stations are National Public Radio. KING-FM here in Seattle plays all classical music, including such things as the live Metropolitan Opera broadcasts on Saturday afternoons, concerts by the Seattle Symphony, Seattle Opera, the Early Music Guild, and other groups, plus selections from their vast record library.

From the beginning, they operated as a regular commercial radio station, supporting themselves as usual by airing commercials between musical selections. But sometimes this was a really bad mix. You're all mellow after listening to a nice Mozart Symphony, and are then jarred by some bull-horn voice huckster trying to sell you a used car. Or aluminum siding complete with non-clog eave gutters. You get the picture.

After years of listener complaints, KING-FM has become a public radio station. No more commercials. The station is now supported by the listeners (periodic contributions, sort of like voluntary subscriptions) along with institutional support (occasional announcements such as "The past hour of music has been brought to you by the support of Nordstrom's Department Store." (End of announcement—polite, non-jarring).

The late afternoon to evening announcer, Sean MacLean, is a classic guitarist himself, so he tends to play a fair amount of classic guitar. Thanks, Sean.

Don Firth

Now, back to our regular broadcast. . . .

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 03:30 PM

Little Hawk:   "Why do people here care so damn much about what other people here think about some political matter anyway? Why???? Because you want to 'win', that's why. You want to be 'right' and you want the other guy to be 'wrong' . . . It's just a bunch of people idly talking in order to strengthen their sense of their own identity, and it doesn't mean squat, frankly."

Well spoken from way up there on your lofty mountaintop, O Grand High Lama of The Mudcat.

There are a number of people here—on this thread and others—who are very disturbed about the way this country is going and feel impelled AS concerned citizens (concerned both for the country as a whole and for their own safety and well-being in particular, e.g., like many my age and in my physical condition, if my Social Security and Medicare get cut, I am SCA-ROOD! ) to try to DO something about it. And doing something, among other things, involves trying to convince others to be concerned as well. And to point out the areas that need particular attention.

Your reading of what these discussions are all about (while, granted, in there are a few trolls here who just like to bait people, to be ignored if at all possible) sounds like the musings of someone who had freshman year Psychology, then spent a lot of time reading bad translations of the Bhagavad Gita.

If you can't add something worthwhile to the discussion—like a SERIOUS THOUGHT about what people might be able to do—rather than repeatedly saying things like "May as well give up, folks, the Philistines are in charge and there's nothing you can do about it!" than please don't try the patience of those who are trying to have a serious discussion.

ADDENDUM:   By the way, Little Hawk, your last post is much more like it. It begins to get down to the nitty-gritty, and there is a lot there can I agree with.

(But even if I didn't agree with it, it had some substance.)

Don Firth

P. S. To Jack:   "In other places NPR prefers to pollute the airwaves with classical music rather than play "The World", or "All Things Considered."

That isn't NPR's preference, that's local option. For example, I have three NPR affiliates in my listening area, meaning that each station airs some programs such as Morning Edition, All Things Considered, and The World, and then moves on to local programming. KUOW broadcasts the three programs mentioned, plus a few others, including some from American Public radio (different public network), then spends the rest of the day with really good interviewers (notably Steve Sher, Marcie Sillman, and Ross Reynolds) conversing (with listener call-in options) with local people of note, such as the Mayor, State Attorney General, City Council members and State Legislators and others, along with various visiting or local dignitaries. KPLU does Morning Edition then spends the rest of the day playing jazz. KBTC also does Morning Edition and All Things Considered, then plays "Folk Music" (new definition of the term, mostly singer-songwriter stuff, with an occasional traditional song or bit of Bluegrass) for the rest of the day.

All networks, ABC, NBC, CBS, and NPR offer many more programs than most of their local affiliates actually air (I was News Director for an ABC affiliate back in the early 1970s). As long as the local station plays some of the network's programs, they can declare themselves an affiliate, but which ones they chose is the local station's option.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 02:07 PM

I drive a lot through the Southern US. Having grown up on the CBC, I like to listen to people talk on the radio so I listen to NPR. Some places have no NPR. In other places NPR prefers to pollute the airwaves with classical music rather than play "The World", or "All Things Considered."

In one of those places, at one of those times. I heard an ad on "AFR" (American Family Radio) which presents itself to the Public and a Christian Broadcaster and as far as I know, presents itself to the Government a Church for tax purposes.

The radio ad went something like this. "Our critics say 'Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.' But we say how can we NOT speak out when so much is wrong."

They call themselves Christian, but pointedly deny in a radio ad, the most basic of his teachings. They are very successful and have a huge listener base. A large listener base whose anger blinds them to their own beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 01:46 PM

I pretty much agree with your last post. But below, you mention "The great party machine" which has already "decided" the 2012 election without input from the voters. You may not like the word "conspiracy" but what you say here certainly fits the definition of one. I am not trying to "win" but I'd be happy never to see another mention of this conspiracy from you.

>>The great party machine has probably already decided that Obama will win the next election, so the charade of finding a Republican challenger to face off against him is just a question of picking a sacrificial lamb to go through the motions at the polls and keep the Great Game going in its usual farcical (and very costly) fashion. It MUST be done, otherwise the American public might stop believing they have a choice! They might stop believing they live in a real democracy! And that could lead to widespread anger...perhaps even revolution.<<

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 12:49 PM

But, Jack! I just can't take hearing strong words like "bullshit". I have to go for counseling when I hear stuff like that... ;-)

I just think it's "business as usual" that causes the system to be what it is, and it always has been. Politics is a matter of pragmatism, and pragmatism is usually a matter of money. Those who have the most money in play tend to determine the policy, don't they? And the policy is directed in order that they should make more money.

To even use the word "conspiracy" anymore these days is to cease to have any kind of reasonable discussion at all, because the term "conspiracy theory" is used now as a standard attack phrase simply to discredit and pooh-pooh someone else's statement about something. It's kind of like the "little green men" phrase in regards to any discussion about UFO sightings. It reduces the discussion to a meaningless exercise in ridicule and dismissal.

"Conspiracy" is now a word that has pretty much been rendered useless, in my opinion, by several decades of constant debunking and ridicule by people who merely don't like something someone else is saying.

I say it's a "way of life" and a "way of doing business", not a conspiracy. If all the people involved in that way of life and that way of doing business had EXACTLY the same objectives in mind....then I guess you could call it a conspiracy. But they don't. They have a variety of different objectives in mind, because they are all seeking an objective that will cause just them to profit...not cause everybody to profit.

This is also true of the general public. They usually want politicians to:

1. lower their taxes
2. increase their benefits
3. and improve social services
4. and provide "defense" (security)

Understandable! ;-) But is it also possible to do all that simultaneously? Hmmm....

Now, the problem is that the general public doesn't have as much financial clout as the major corporations and major banks do. Correct?

So who will the politicians listen to more? He who has more financial clout in Washington, that's who. But who will the politicians act like they are listening to? Why, the general public, of course, because if they don't, the general public won't vote for them.

And that's how it goes in the USA, in Canada, in the UK, in Germany, everywhere. Election campaigning is mostly exaggerated and specious appeals to the hopes and dreams of the general public, followed by pragmatic bargaining with the major financial powers that be after the election is over.

Is that a conspiracy? No. It's just a way of pragmatically working with real power when you are in the halls of power. And it's been happening more or less forever.

Occasionally a national crisis arises that is so grave that sweeping revolutionary changes must be made. In FDR's case, that crisis was the Great Depression and the onset of WWII. It was a crisis that affected the whole world. To his credit, he acted quite decisively and he brought in some very progressive social legislation. He had enormous public support to do that, and he did it.

Obama could have done something similar to FDR with the enormous wave of public support he had right after his election in 2008. He didn't. He has acted very timidly, in my opinion, and I'm disappointed in his performance. I'm also disappointed in his foreign war policies which are costing an incredible amount of money and producing nothing.

I do think, though, that McCain would have been even a lot worse! But it's a moot point. McCain never even had a chance of being elected in 2008...after 8 years of George W. Bush and an economic meltdown? Not a chance.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 12:04 PM

"I wish the rest of you had the humility to realize the same thing about yourselves and not keep hectoring people you disagree with endlessly....just because they don't see it your way." LH

Little Hawk, what you refer to as "hectoring" from other people comes almighty close to what I call yours.

Only if I totally accept your reasoning can I understand your stance. Your stance - and I realize you are not alone- is one of unquestioningly internalizing the fact that there is an over-arching cabal planning, engineering, manipulating whatever a country and its government (the world?) do or whatever they try to do for their own ends.

This, despite education, altruism and philanthropy, death in their ranks and rebellion of their young. If that sounds logical to you, embrace it.

(Question: When FDR made his bold moves, did this cabal allow it because they just didn't care at that point?)

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: John P
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 12:16 AM

Little Hawk, you are getting better every day.

Jack, are you telling me that you know better what I am thinking inside my own mind

And then, in the very next paragraph:

Why do people here care so damn much about what other people here think about some political matter anyway? Why???? Because you want to "win", that's why.

Such irony! Just to clear up the situation in my own case, I don't engage in political debates because I want to win. The fact that that's the only reason you can think of says more about you than about anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 12:09 AM

I make no claims as a mind reader, but give me some credit as a reader of what you have written, Please.

Contradict is when you go on to say the opposite or completely different thing from what you first said. Clarify is when you say something that explains it. Saying that you are "clarifying" would be much more credible if you hadn't been espousing some version of the same conspiracy for several years now. You even espouse it in the paragraph addressed to Don in the post that I am now answering.

If you are simply talking about other countries' politics for your own amusement, not for your or anyone else's information or enlightenment. If you insist on talking pot shots at other people's beliefs for your own amusement. I suggest your develop a thicker skin when someone who does care, and is discussing their beliefs, calls "bullshit" on what you are saying.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 11:44 PM

Jack, are you telling me that you know better what I am thinking inside my own mind and you know better what I mean than I do? ;-)

I would make no such claims in regard to you.

I will attempt to clarify what I said (in that quote) further if you really want to know what I mean, but I don't think you do. I think you just want to score some points on me. So why should I bother?

Why do people here care so damn much about what other people here think about some political matter anyway? Why???? Because you want to "win", that's why. You want to be "right" and you want the other guy to be "wrong". Well, it's a vain pursuit. There is nothing to win here. And it doesn't matter anyway. It's just a bunch of people idly talking in order to strengthen their sense of their own identity, and it doesn't mean squat, frankly. I just talk here because I enjoy it. Period. I do say what I mean as best I can, but I don't expect others to agree with it, and I don't care particularly if they don't agree with it. So what? How could it matter?

I am under no illusions that anything I say will convert anyone else here, persuade them of anything, or make a damn bit of difference to the political situation either. I wish the rest of you had the humility to realize the same thing about yourselves and not keep hectoring people you disagree with endlessly....just because they don't see it your way. It won't change them. It won't change you. It's just a bunch of hot air, it's ephemeral competitive bla-bla, and the only excuse for indulging in it is...it satisfies some momentary need you have to express yourself. And that's perfectly okay. We all have the need to express ourselves.

Don - I am not suggesting that you be defeatist. If you believe in the existing political order and want to work within it, that's fine with me. I don't believe in it. I think it's a sad joke, and I expect little or nothing to come from it (except more of the same). I have powerful hopes and dreams in life, Don, but they have almost nothing at all to do with the political systems we live under. They lie in other areas of life entirely. I talk about politics merely because I find it interesting, not because I have any faith in it. (And I am not talking exclusively about the American political system...I feel much the same way about politics in Canada or for that matter, in the UK.)

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 09:57 PM

I wonder if he'll sound "retweet"

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Wesley S
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 07:51 PM

Gov Rick Perry of Texas is sounding more like George Bush every day. At the end of this video you can hear Perry say that you can find him on "Tweeter".



Rick Perry and "Tweeter".

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 04:02 PM

Jack, thanks for posting that link. That's very heartening.

I knew such people existed, but it's really nice to know that there are more of them out there than I thought.

Of all the sleazy, greedy multimillionaires and billionaires out there, I knew of only a very few who were actually doing anything beyond indulging themselves lavishly and squirrelling away fortunes larger than the gross national product of many small countries, into Swiss banks or the Cayman Islands.

One lives across Lake Washington from me:   Bill Gates. No matter what people may think of Microsoft and its products, Melissa civilized Bill (at one time, listed as the richest man in the world), and the two of them are giving away billions to a number of truly worthy causes.

And Ted Turner, cable television mogul:   when his personal fortune reached three billion dollars (petty cash compared to some), he initially gave away one billion of it. He was severely criticized by other extremely wealthy persons, apparently not pleased with his setting a good example for them to follow. He responded by saying, "I still have two billion dollars. Who in the hell needs THAT much money?" and proceeded to give a whole lot more away.

Taxes are the dues one pays for living in a society that gives one the opportunity to be successful and prosper.

But some folks are cheating the system.

####

Little Hawk, if anyone were to take your assessment of the omnipotence of the corporatocracy (and, yes, sad to say, we do live in what is essentially a corporatocracy) seriously, they would conclude that there is no point in even stirring themselves enough to go out and vote. As in "Why bother if it's already decided?"

YOU ARE PREACHING DEFEATISM.

And no, don't bother to deny it (which, of course, you will) because every time the subject of American politics comes up, you jump in with the same comments. Sometimes I think you've had a rubber-stamp printed up!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: olddude
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 03:25 PM

Ebbie
LOL yup I missed the other stuff ... LOL

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 03:22 PM

No Little Hawk, you said this which is certainly a description of an overriding conspiracy.

>>The great party machine has probably already decided that Obama will win the next election, so the charade of finding a Republican challenger to face off against him is just a question of picking a sacrificial lamb to go through the motions at the polls and keep the Great Game going in its usual farcical (and very costly) fashion. It MUST be done, otherwise the American public might stop believing they have a choice! They might stop believing they live in a real democracy! And that could lead to widespread anger...perhaps even revolution.<<

What you said later contradicted it. It was not clarification.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 03:17 PM

" (I)saw that Bobster had his Palin sign out for 2012" olddude

No, no, no, olddude. Had you slowed down, you would have seen that what the sign said was: "Sarah Palin, stop HERE for some Iron City!"

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 03:16 PM

Jack, it is disingenuous on your part to quote a mere fragment of an earlier statement of mine to prove that I supposedly believe in something you WANT me to believe in so that I can be "wrong"...when I subsquently said other things in much greater detail to clarify what I believe, and which indicate that I do NOT believe in what you want me to believe in (so that I can be "wrong").

No, I do not believe in a great overriding world conspiracy to control everything. Nor do I believe in an American conspiracy to control everything. I believe we have a system based on selfishness, fear, greed, aggression, criminality, hypocrisy, short-range profit for a few, and long range losses for many. It is a system that sows the seeds of its own demise. Yes, a lazy and ignorant public are part of the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 03:03 PM

But they "speak" with Tax dollars.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/photos/daily-threat-assessment-20110412/0525333