WEATHER »

Right Racist


Thursday, August 21, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

Since his election, President Barack Obama has been opposed with blatant racism by the right. They have characterized him as a Muslim, said he was not born in the U.S., and mocked him and his family in racially charged pictures.

Republicans openly plot to block all the president’s legislation; they have tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act over 50 times. In this obsession, Congress has sunk to an all-time low in approval ratings, shut down the government, and threatened to sue or impeach the president —not caring how these action affect a country struggling in a deep recession.

Has this racial hatred filtered down?

Defending guilty white people has become part of a major television network’s programming. George Zimmerman’s exoneration in the Trayvon Martin murder comes to mind. With the shooting of Michael Brown, once again anti-black sentiment comes cascading down into the landscape of our politics. Our country’s Right Wing, in its zest to whip up its base, perpetuates the racism of more than a half-century ago. It motivates its base and its xenophobic tendencies to view people of color, immigration reform, and politics through the prism of “47 percent” being takers. They have lit a match and watched it incinerate the relative calm of race relations before the first black man became president.

The Right Wing might not have ordered a Ferguson policeman to shoot an unarmed black teenager, but it has fostered an atmosphere charged with the lightning and thunder of prejudice from the days of Selma, Alabama, and fiery crosses.

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Racial antipathy is bound to increase when the Democrats use a black man as a protective shield against all criticism of their policies. It's the cheap trick that rankles and Obama bears the brunt of the frustration because the real operators and his handlers are hidden from view.

While no one was bothered when George Bush was called "The Chimp", you can imagine the uproar if someone used that on Obama. And while Bush was mocked and derided for eight years I have to wonder how all those detractors feel when they realize that Obama's foreign policy is indistinguishable from that of Bush/Cheney - indistinguishable but safe under protective coloring.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 1:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr.Moulim: Neither one of us were at the shootings, so while it may please you that I join the lynch mob mentality against Zimmerman and the cop that killed Brown, (and maybe they are cold-blooded killers--just like maybe O.J. Simpson is a cold-blooded killer, but again, I wasn't there either) the irony is that one of the main reasons why I won't is because I have seen/read about too many people--many of them Black--go down for crimes they did not commit. Furthermore, I am no fan of authority and as a rule distrust cops, having seen first hand the "Code Blue"mentality, but clearly, being a latter-day progressive means buying into the agenda of Al Sharpton, a proven racist, anti-semite, race baiter, and liar. (Three words: Tawana Brawley Hoax)

I am a disillusioned Old School liberal who really thought he was on the right track being an unquestioningly loyal Democrat who was convinced every Democrat and self-styled "liberal" truly believed in equality, fairness, and was about making the world a better place. Now, if I don't support Obama's policies, I'm told that I'm in bed with racists. Perhaps it doesn't occur to people such as yourself that I didn't vote for Obama for the same reason I didn't vote for McCain nor Romney: Because I don't agree with their politics. Nonetheless, on paper, I'm a white male who didn't vote for Obama and realized he was just another "Useful Idiot" for the Democratic Party.

Since race is such a hot-topic issue for so many people, and "justice" is an oft-mentioned word, let's just talk about all the black males wasting away in prison on drug charges. Obama is for the War On Drugs (as are most politicians in the two major parties) and certainly has no problem in supporting the never-ending war in the Middle East, bailing out the banks, The Patriot Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act.

Another term I'm seeing a lot of these days is "embedded" as in "racism is embedded in our culture", it's just another way of throwing mud at the wall and seeing if it will stick.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 1:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

(Part two of two)
So if you really are concerned with what is happening in your world, realize it's not a simplistic race war, but a case of the have's vs. the have-nots. Where was Al Sharpton when Kelley Thomas, the schizophrenic homeless man, was beaten to death in Fullerton by a group of cops? What about the way homeless people are harassed in Santa Barbara? What about the fact that inner-city people have no hope because even if they have creative ideas because of stifling business regulations they will find it next to impossible to open up a business? Black music back in the 70's was about love and positive change, today's Rap "artists" scream about hatred of women and violence. Do you ever ask yourself that the problem lies deeper than simply bashing those who don't support Obama's policies?

What is your game plan? You have a forum on this website so can you suggest how we can stop--for example--the endless out-of-wedlock birth cycle in the Black demographic? (Hence the instability of the family unit) What causes that? If kids had stable homes, they would be way ahead in terms of self-esteem and opportunity.

Any positive suggestions?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 1:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Food for thought, that rarely gets discussed:
https://www.google.com/search?q=gilbe...

billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 2:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In agreement with the poster dewdly. All Presidents have been vilified by their "opponents". As the old saying goes: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

nativeson (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 4:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thought-provoking article, and some racial hatred may have filtered down, but can't fully agree "Has this racial hatred filtered down?" -- rather, I see long-existing latent and outright racial animosities filtering UPward to Obama. Either way, the absolutely electric and vivid hatred of Obama as shown by most of the GOP argues for strong racial hatred in their ranks. Congress (House of Reps) disdain/hatred for him makes them DO-NOTHINGS, they deserve their extremely low ratings from the public, throw out the Repub. tea-hadist racial-baiting & hating Representatives in Nov.

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 5:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

An inflammatory race-baiting article. Did congress really try to repeal the ACA just because Obama is black? George Zimmerman is half Hispanic, but I guess it makes better copy just to focus on the white half.

Botany (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 6:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Did the previous posters really feel this bigoted letter deserved comprehensive feedback and comment?
I guess when actual paper mache effigies of George Bush were being hung and lit on fire in San Francisco by Progressive crazies, that was different because after all, Progressives hated him so it made it OK.
This is the first President to continually be called a victim. The most powerful man in the world is a victim?

nomoresanity (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Much of the opposition to Obama is because he is a Democrat. The right just cannot stand not being in power, and oppose the policies of any Democratic president - it is par for the course. The night he was elected, many Republican leaders met to decide that Obama should not have a second term, and they would do everything they could to stop him. And they have done everything - Obama has faced the highest congressional opposition in history. (Hats off to him for maintaining a calm manner. He has done well in the heat of the kitchen.) That the country chose someone they opposed, meant that they had no respect for democracy.

However, there has also been a strong undercurrent of racism by some on the right. Please note the racist cartoons about Obama, a few even from overseas. That, unfortunately, is one of the huge failings of mankind. Racism, ethnicism, classim, groupism (?) happens all over the world. And it happens here - Muslims and Blacks and Native Americans and Hispanics, and prior to that Irish, Italians, etc. If anyone from any of these groups does anything wrong, then the whole group is smeared, even though that wrongdoer may represent a small percentage of that group.

People ridicule those they oppose if they sense any weakness or otherness. And Bush certainly was ridiculed, too. But without question, many in this country do not like having a Black President. Maybe, it is all part of the growing up experience for them to have to deal with it. Any sort of anti-group-ism is an indication of people bowing to their lowest instincts, and circling their wagons against the other, many times too different from them to understand.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama defends the banks that are gentrifying black communities with mortgage market manipulation. The cyclic real estate fluctuations driven by central banking are designed to bait the poor into unsustainable mortgages. Then, bailouts enable the banks to claim those neighborhoods and flip the property to a more viable population.

Also, under Obama, the police have been militarized. We even see this in SB, with the multiplying police population now carrying M16's and deploying from their Bearcat in full military gear.

Also, Obama continues the war on drugs along with all the other wars he inherited.

The media cast Ron Paul as a racist. However, his policies were much more tuned to the benefit of the black community, and moreover, the poor, than any Democrat, regardless of their skin color.

random_kook (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The poster tabatha wrote: “Any sort of anti-group-ism is an indication of people bowing to their lowest instincts, and circling their wagons against the other, many times too different from them to understand.”

While yes, there is certainly always that element, what do you think about the Balkanism that has taken place in this Nation, usually under the guise of “inclusivism”? Do you think that may have something to do with the general divisiveness we are witnessing today?

Seems to me that the Democrat Party has strayed from its working class roots and is more interested in extremist politics, which have become more Socialistic over the years, pushing many on the Right into enclaves apart from the lower classes. Thus you have the beginnings of the eventual separation of the population of these United States into two classes, the rich and the poor, much like Mexico, another Socialist nation. While verbally extolling the principles of the Middle Class, the Left has led it on the pathway toward its extinction.

nativeson (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The poster tabatha wrote: “Any sort of anti-group-ism is an indication of people bowing to their lowest instincts, and circling their wagons against the other, many times too different from them to understand.”

e.g. the 99% vs. the 1%?

Botany (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The middle class has been devastated by economic policies - trickle down that did not work, tax breaks for the job creators who did not create jobs, unpaid-for trillions for unnecessary wars, shipping good-paying jobs overseas, and adding low-paying service jobs instead of high-tech, etc.

Please cite one "socialist" program that the Democrats have instituted that has hurt the economy for the middle class.

You are talking ideology, a lot of it nonsense. Please provide facts backed with stats.

In fact the country has become less socialist, with fewer unions, and more high-paying CEOS, and businesses paying as little taxes as possible, etc, Wall Street setting the prices with commodity trading, businesses run with bottom line foremost to pay dividends, etc.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Grammar correction:

In fact the country has become less socialist, with fewer unions, and more high-paid CEOs, and businesses paying as few taxes as possible, etc, Wall Street setting the prices with commodity trading, businesses run with bottom line foremost to pay dividends, etc.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Tabatha again gives us her myopic view of the economy. We certainly do have fewer private sector union members. However, the public sector unions and the politictians that pander to them have blossomed and brought state and local governments to their knees with way over the top pensions and benefits.

And we actually do have high tech jobs that go begging because we can't provide the STEM graduates to fill them. Our universities are too busy pumping out graduates in feminist studies.

Where we have lost jobs is in the manufacturing sector. Jobs that used to pay $20+ per hour have disappeared and been replaced by low paying service jobs. This is almost all due to globalization and automation. It's difficult to lay that one on Bush. NAFTA was signed into law by Clinton. Professions like being a machinist have changed drastically. There are fewer of them, but they need to be more skilled to operate CNC machinery. The middle class is changing. Adapt or be left behind.

Botany (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama signals the end for both political parties.
The Democrats have deserted the working man, the family man, and his family.
The Republicans threw away their chance at representing those same solid citizens when they ignored the vast popular support for Ron Paul and gave the nomination to another neo-con stooge.

All that's left is the final collapse. When the country loses its human backbone it will go down like Building 7 of the World Trade Center. That, too, was a controlled demolition.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tabatha, it's not just the socialist policies that cause impoverished people to become dependent on government which destroys any local economic support structure and ensures their continued impoverishment and drains the middle class that is hurting our economy, that is just part of it.

random_kook nailed the crux of the issue - the banks manipulating the markets - that is the biggest problem that our economy has. If you don't understand how our banking system is a fraudulent, counterfeiting scam that only benefits a portion of the very wealthy, the military and other government special interests, then you aren't ever going to understand the real problems we have with our economy.

The other big issue, which I touched on above, is military spending. Military spending does not improve the economy.

Here's a video that explains our monetary system for those who still don't understand:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5k...

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Unfortunately the author doesn't understand the whole picture, but they do bring up some good points - there is an undercurrent of racism that exists in some strands of some groups on the right - but we shouldn't lump them all together.

Republican Senator Rand Paul polls better than all of his Republican counterparts against Hillary Clinton for President and he is considered pretty extreme right by many, yet he supports reducing what he considers racist mandatory minimum drug sentencing that puts more minorities in prison and he also wrote an op-ed after Ferguson about how we need to demilitarize our police.

If Rand Paul gets the Republican nomination for President, we may see the biggest departure of black people from the Democratic Party in history, which would be very ironic considering the timing of just having an African American Democratic President.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The black americans I have spoken with, mostly in Oakland, not in SB, recognize that Obama does not represent their interests. Lincoln and MLK were both Republicans. Ron Paul was the only politician representing progressive issues, like reforming monetary policy and ending the war on drugs. He was railroaded and painted a racist. Romney wasn't nominated to win, he was there to insure Obama's win.

Rand Paul is not Ron Paul, but perhaps as close as we can get in 2016.

random_kook (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The fight against racial gentrification in mortgage banking is ongoing in Richmond CA.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/0...

No where else is anyone trying to address this problem. Mayor Gayle McLaughlin is the hero leading this effort. It probably doesn't stand a chance against the banks, but it illustrates how fraudulent the mortgage banking system is. People in SB don't like to acknowledge this because their perceived wealth depends on this system.

random_kook (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

the president is not king, he is not the most powerful in the world. Y'all squabble over this side and that even though some of you actually say how there is not much difference between the 2 no matter who is president. WE elected a community organizer and see how that turned out? Where is the community of our nation? more division. Until $ is taken out of the equation, we will not see true representation within government. All the slime they throw on the wall is meant to appeal to the lower of ourselves: the hitler comparisons, the communist and socialist agenda, all completely false and yes, racist. You can disagree with policy, but you must do so w/o the false equivalence. One important lesson Obama is teaching right now (if you are paying attention) is that he is not in charge. Neither was Bush. Acting like you are king is what some want to see, but it is never the case. I ask you this, who is really running the show? (open can of worms)

spacey (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Y'all squabble over this side and that even though some of you actually say how there is not much difference between the 2 no matter who is president."

spacey, you still don't get it - you're half way there but not all the way.

Obama was procured and cultivated by the establishment - So was Bush, McCain, Clinton, Kerry, Gore, Romney and pretty much every President before them.

The President could potentially do a lot of good - but what we need is somebody who is anti-establishment. I would have no problem electing Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney or Mike Gravel from the Democrat side over any of the other clowns who we've had in office, Republican or Democrat. Even though I disagree with their politics, I know what they believe in and they would actually stand up to the military industrial complex and would work to end the war on drugs to help restore civil liberties for all. I know they wouldn't cow tow to the big banks and the medical industrial complex.

Rand Paul is anti-establishment despite some of his rhetoric that he is using to get elected and if you actually begin to become a fan of his, you will eventually see how the establishment will work to destroy his campaign and it will become very difficult if not impossible for him to get elected.. But our only real hope is to find candidates who are anti-establishment because anything else means you are essentially voting for the same thing.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Until $ is taken out of the equation, we will not see true representation within government. " - spacey

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." - Henry David Thoreau

atomic_state (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)


The black americans I have spoken with, mostly in Oakland, not in SB, recognize that Obama does not represent their interests. Lincoln and MLK were both Republicans. Ron Paul was the only politician representing progressive issues, like reforming monetary policy and ending the war on drugs. He was railroaded and painted a racist. Romney wasn't nominated to win, he was there to insure Obama's win.

Rand Paul is not Ron Paul, but perhaps as close as we can get in 2016.

random_kook

You may be random but you're no kook. You hit the nail on the head. Excellent post.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I will recuse myself from rating my own comments, and having now looked at all the comments so far, I'd say we are all basically on the same side.

I can't verify all the statistics posted, but for what it's worth, I agree with what has been posted so far.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 5:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

While blacks kill each other in record numbers, including small children caught in the spray of bullets, Obama and Holder are called into action only when the shooter is perceived as white. In that regard we may as well have Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as president and attorney general - they could hardly be worse.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 5:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Agree Dewdly, and as I've said, when Eliot Rodger killed those six in Isla Vista it made headline news because in part, he used a gun for three of those killings, and moreover, the victims were not Blacks/Hispanics in the inner cities.

Black-on-black killings or Hispanic-on-Hispanic killings take out far more innocent people than the occasional mass shooting or killing by a cop yet the media and politicians show their arrant hypocrisy by the double standard with which they handle it.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2014 at 6:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The left forgets that Obama is half WHITE..

nativegeo (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The right forgets that Obama is half WHITE. They think he is a Muslim born in Kenya, and raised in Indonesia. The cartoons of the half BLACK of Obama are all from the right. Not one from the left.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And whites kill mostly whites, as statistics bear this out.

And if a black person kills a white person, he is jailed THAT day. This is what the Ferguson protests are about - because the officer is white, he has not been charged unlike all other murders for

white on white - charged
black on white - charged
black on black - charged

but not
white on black - on leave (history bears this out)

----------------------

Bouie wrote that what is missing from the conversation about crime is that "it’s driven by opportunism and proximity; If African-Americans are more likely to be robbed, or injured, or killed by other African-Americans, it’s because they tend to live in the same neighborhoods as each other. Residential statistics bear this out (PDF); blacks are still more likely to live near each other or other minority groups than they are to whites. And of course, the reverse holds as well—whites are much more likely to live near other whites than they are to minorities and African-Americans in particular."

Also, this claim lacks important context. Yes, it’s true that the majority of black murder victims are murdered by blacks, but the same holds true for whites: Most whites are murdered by whites. And in both cases, this race statistic is not available for all murders, but only ones where the race of both perpetrator and victim can be determined.

-----------------------

One has to be careful about statistics by not just looking at the superficial bumper-sticker claim - blacks kill more blacks, therefore why is there the fuss when a white kills a black. Don't judge a book by its cover, open the pages and understand more.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One has to also be careful about who one is calling "the right". And why the MSM kills black on white riots and slaughters until the independent blogs force their hand.

But may we never lose sight that crime and violence belong no where in our society today. No blames and no excuses. Every person still can exercise their free will to make their own choices. Everyone. And if they cannot, we need to provide state care faciilities for their own safety.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Again, Tabatha assumes "facts" in the Brown killing that aren't in evidence. She is making stereotypical assumptions based on her own narrow view of the world.

Botany (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I suspect tabatha has one of those old fashioned speaking tubes in her house that goes directly to the DNC, from which she gets her daily drivel and marching orders. But who am I to speculate? Just a wild guess.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Black officer kills unarmed white man, media silent, no riots:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/...

This shouldn't be about race alone, although I will admit that minorities get the worst end of brutal law enforcement - this should be about law enforcement becoming draconian and militarized due to the war on drugs which has created a lot of gangs and inner city strife.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tabatha,

Obama's only claim to fame is being the "first black" president. He was groomed for that distinction beginning with his arranged transfer to Columbia from Occidental. The problem for his handlers was not Columbia, Harvard, and the University of Chicago, but the absence of black bona fides.

Obama lost a run for the House of Representatives to Bobby Rush who was perceived as a "real" black man with legitimate roots in Chicago. It was hard work to make a Hawaiian prep school kid into a Chicago "black", The impresarios who created him had the connections and pull to get him a job at the U. of C. but they did not have any favors to trade with Chicago's black community. They coached him on black speech and manner. They had him join a "black" Christian Church - which he dumped as soon as he was elected. Obama is a celebrity cooked up in the same kitchen as any Hollywood flash-in-the- pan.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe Tabatha programs BO's teleprompters...

nativegeo (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@JarvisJarvis: "I suspect tabatha has one of those old fashioned speaking tubes in her house that goes directly to the DNC, from which she gets her daily drivel and marching orders."

And I suspect you get your 'daily marching orders' from sniffing paint thinner and beating your head against cinder blocks, but now we're all just guessing...

@nativegeo: "Maybe Tabatha programs BO's teleprompters..."

If true, it's yet more proof that she's far more intelligent than any of you drips...

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, let's bash Tabatha since she brings facts and knowledge. The 'news' websites and blogs we like that appeal to our reptilian brain are much more exciting and fun than real life with the conspiracy and conjecture.

spacey (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You mean like the Daily KOS?

Botany (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Naw, sniffing certified organic paint thiinner and beating my head against gluten-free cinder blocks is what I do after I read some of the stuff here.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I suspect JarvisJarvisJarvis has one of those old fashioned speaking tubes in his house that goes directly to tea bagger central, from which he gets his daily drivel, get-up-and-go, and marching orders.

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hey, I attended Occidental a bit, and who wouldn't want a transfer to Columbia University from there? Arranged, surefire!

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes and who wouldn't want to be bailed out by the wealthy Bin Laden family after they ran their domestic oil business into the ground like George Bush Jr.?

We sure do have a lot o schmucks as ex-Presidents (and current).

Rand Paul called Hillary Clinton a "warhawk" recently, finally a Presidential candidate with a shot at winning willing to speak the truth!

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Rand Paul won't need Tabatha to program his teleprompter. Go Rand!

nativegeo (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In the op-ed, Paul wrote that “Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system, it is impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government is particularly targeting them.” Another sentence said, “Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention.”

Yep, he was correct on that.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dewdly - your post is fiction, evidence-free guesses.

Btw, for the detractors, here is one of my favorite quotes:

"Elementary pigeon-holing, which not coincidentally is the foundation for most prejudices in the world.

Ad hominem attacks are looked down on not because they're nasty but because they're really a distraction from sensible discussions. Challenge the theories or their implementation or how well they're presented, not the person who happened to come up with them."

tabatha (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Money plays a much larger role in the criminal justice system than race. Ask OJ about that one. The fact that whites as a group have more money than blacks is certainly has a greater impact than skin color in our justice system.

Botany (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 5:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DB, c'mon. You know the Tea Party does not do 19th Century technology.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tabatha, thanks for finding a common ground that we can both agree on. My next task is to convince you that oil and gas is not the bogey man that you so fear. After all oil is a natural occurring substance. Straight from our mother earth. Life in Santa Barbara is life with natural occurring hydrocarbons. Live in love not fear. Co-exist and embrace tolerance. Lets be neighborly..... We live with you right!

nativegeo (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 5:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is racism really a national issue? People discriminate throughout their lives in choosing their friends and mates, in choosing a place to live, in choosing religious affiliation, etc. If race were not a major roadblock in our associations, separate races never could have developed.

But racism is a new word that is designed to impugn a natural preference in an unnatural situation. It is unnatural for a people to be transported thousands of miles from their evolutionary home, their culture, and their kinsmen to live among people who are foreign in every respect.

The Civil War was not enough to set things right for Africans and that is why the Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln made this pledge:

"Let us be brought to believe it is morally right to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be."

Lincoln was shot; his pledge died with him and the interests that thrive on domestic conflict to gain power for themselves worked for the next hundred years to keep that conflict alive. I used to think that a "race war" was far-fetched, but I'm not so sure anymore.

"

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 6:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes Dewdly, BO is part of the divide and conquer crowd. He answers to elitist billionaires that want to balkanize the planet. Lots of sickos on the left are still drinking the kool aide. You would think that a good president would bring us together, but that is not the case with BO. sad...

nativegeo (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 6:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In oder to bring people together people have to be willing to come together. And many people in this country hated Obama not because of his politics real or imagined, but because of the color of his skin. That was disgustingly obvious during the first election to see who would succeed The Chimp.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 7:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Trolls make your minds up. Is he a tool of the rich or is he a socialist bent on destruction of free enterprise?

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 7:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken,

What other public figure is hated because of the color of his skin?

If the Democrats thought skin color was a liability why did they bother to groom some half-black prep school kid from Hawaii when there were thousands of equally qualified whites? No, Ken, Obama's skin color is his only unique qualification. Without that skin color Barry Soetoro would still be Barry Soetoro.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 8:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hated Obama in 2008 when I saw him use that cheap trick and heal a fainting lady at his SBCC rally. Then I watched him do it again and again with the exact same words and the exact same gestures. I saw a fraud and I hate dishonesty. Nothing he has done since changed my mind. Obama is, was and always will be a cheap parlor trick.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2014 at 10:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)


"Is racism really a national issue?"

Yes it is, but being a proponent of less centralized government, I favor that racism be practiced on the state level.

"But racism is a new word that is designed to impugn a natural preference in an unnatural situation. It is unnatural for a people to be transported thousands of miles from their evolutionary home, their culture, and their kinsmen to live among people who are foreign in every respect."

Yes, I agree, like when the Brooklyn Dodgers were transferred from New York, to Los Angeles.

"The Civil War was not enough to set things right for Africans and that is why the Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln made this pledge:

'Let us be brought to believe it is morally right to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.' "

That's because overall, Africa's climate is better than that of the U.S. On the plateaux of Africa, it is very mild. In the South African region, especially on the West Coast, a Mediterranean climate prevails. On the northern coastal areas, it can be very hot and humid, but at least they dont have those awful snowstorms found in most of the U.S.

"Lincoln was shot; his pledge died with him and the interests that thrive on domestic conflict to gain power for themselves worked for the next hundred years to keep that conflict alive. I used to think that a 'race war' was far-fetched, but I'm not so sure anymore."

So shall we send the Negroes back to Africa? Is that what U want Dewdly? Don't U think THEY should be able to stay here if they want?

dewdly (anonymous profile)

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2014 at 4:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OH, and Dewdly, since U keep saying Ken and Dan are women, those could be fighting words. This three minute video will prove how a man calling another a woman can get nasty.

(Warning: Some bad language, don't watch if you dont like dirty words)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2Mx4...

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2014 at 4:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jarv's honest, declaiming "I hated Obama in 2008 when I saw him use that cheap trick and heal a fainting lady at his SBCC rally" -- and since Jarv has mentioned this several times, and people I know personally were THERE for this event... uh, so what? It's in the time-honored US pres. tradition that a President can be Ueber-Wise [Lincoln], a fine writer [Teddy Roosevelt], a political scientist [Jefferson], a gifted war leader [FDR]...they all got attributed evil negatives and rapturous positives. I rather like the idea that with the power of suggestion some gal at SBCC swooned, and the big guy helped bring her back. Cool!

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2014 at 6:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

YES! to a poster's disingenuous question, "Is racism really a national issue?" Economic inequality, militarism, weakened civic consciousness -- these are also compelling national issues.

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2014 at 6:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

When Obama told the crowd "she's gonna be all right, folks" when he allegedly had no idea about her condition is when a chill went through me that revealed this man's character. This was the same obsrvation others had when Obama pulled that exact same stunt at other rallies, all preserved on youtube.. "She's gonna be alright, folks" when there was no way he could know. But his task was done. He created the buzz that displayed his intended ruse of power and compassion. The man lies, and he lies when he does not have to. That is his character flaw. His hubris, his weakness, He is far too small for the job.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2014 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes but BO can bring a teleprompter to life. You got to like him for that.

nativegeo (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2014 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

'Rand Paul won't need Tabatha to program his teleprompter. Go Rand!'
That's because he gets it programmed with wikipedia entries as he was caught doing. They call that plagiarism and he was caught doing it more than a couple times. Rand has some good ideas for sure, but he's also got some problems. Can't vote for him, nor another Clinton. Go Joe B! hahahaha, jokes.

spacey (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2014 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I feel sorry for people whose only reaction to something they do not like, is hate. Certainly not "turn the other cheek", etc.

I admire Obama because he lets crap just roll of his back, keeps his emotions in check, and does not hate - despite probably having had to endure far worse than any of us.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2014 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's hear it for the Secret Service for preventing "projectile voting" thus far.

And for anyone cringing from excessive "white guilt," a bit of levity about "reverse racism": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI0ib1... (SNL skit, "How's He Doing.")

atomic_state (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2014 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tabatha turn the other cheek and vote NO on P. co-exist.

nativegeo (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2014 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's a new term I found for our leadership,

"faux-socialist oligarchies"

in this article:

http://www.commdiginews.com/business-...

It's one answer to:

"Trolls make your minds up. Is he a tool of the rich or is he a socialist bent on destruction of free enterprise?"

random_kook (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2014 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Right on RK. Environmental Zealots are the same ilk as the faux-socialist oligarchies. They succeeded at ruining our middle class.

nativegeo (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2014 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tabatha,

Because you "admire" Obama you have to imagine that his critics must "hate" him. But such personal feelings about a political figure are infantile and they obscure all legitimate issues. You have fallen in love with a charmer and you pay no attention to the fact that his foreign policy is just a continuation of the neo-con policy of Bush/Cheney.

About half the American people do not believe Osama bin Laden, from a cave in Afghanistan, directed 19 men armed with boxcutters to hijack four civilian airliners, outwit all air and military defense, and crash them into the WTC and the Pentagon causing the collapse of three skyscapers and a hole in the Pentagon - all because "They hate our freedom".

But Obama plays along with Bush's story even though it was that story that served as a pretext for our invasion of Afghanistan. It was that story that lead to the TSA, the NDAA. It was that story that has kept and tortured men in Guantanamo for a decade without trial. It was that story that Obama has used to justify drone attacks against civilians, even American civilians, in countries with which we are not at war. It was that story that Netanyahu praised for its ability to make Americans see Israel's enemies as their own.

Instead of exposing the lies and malfeasance of the Bush Administration Obama uses his charm and his race to turn our attention to Trayvon Martin, Ferguson, abortion, contraceptives, gun control, Mexican "dreamers" and gay marriage. Get a grip.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2014 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dewdly, fat chance that kool aide drinkers are going to challenge themselves to have an original thought.

nativegeo (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2014 at 5:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dolphinpod14,

Your style is to take nothing seriously; but Lincoln's pledge seems to have thrown you off your game.

Lincoln's assumption was that Africans had all been brought here against their wills and that it was the U.S. government's moral responsibility to restore them to their homelands. Likewise, emancipation was a moral responsibility, not left up to the individual's choice. In fact, one primary objection to emancipation was that it simply abandoned blacks - left them high and dry.

More than fifty years after emancipation the Universal Negro Improvement Association attracted five million members worldwide with the slogan, "Africa for Africans". UNIA even bought ocean liners for the task. But those who wished to keep blacks here worked to destroy the Black Star Line and the UNIA making restoration at this late date an impossibility. Too late to do the right thing.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2014 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

well, random, we may just as reasonably scrawl " 'faux-free-market fundamentalist oligarchies' " or the usual straight-up "plutocratic oligarchies" or simply the 1% [better: .001] or just oligarchies... we also have faux-capitalistic hyper-oligarchies which accept plenty of gov't money in their sleazy corporate socialism schemes. Robber barons.

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
August 24, 2014 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

even at the time, Lincoln's quaint views about "returning" African-AMERICAN slaves after they got their "freedom" were seen as ridiculous, and patently far too expensive, so NO ONE ever thought that particular stupid idea would work. "If it's too late to do the right thing," why keep whining about it? Again, to get away from Mr. Moualim's theme.

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
August 24, 2014 at 8:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One way ticket to Monrovia, Libeia is only approx $1100. Far cheaper than the current slavery of federal welfare dependency for those who still feel life in America generations after Emancipation is hostile to their well-being and survival. Check out real estate in Liberia and see what offers a better alterntive than life in the US so anyone unhappy here can finally check in their over-drawn slavery guilt race card.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 24, 2014 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Monrovia, Liberia real estate. Looking good for $39,000 US:

http://www.monroviahouse.com/

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 24, 2014 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Any terminology will do, but what I am insinuating is that the fundamental problem is the monetary system. It enslaves the poor and is in the process of enslaving the middle class. SB people do not want to face this problem because it is rigged to overvalue real estate. Reforming the monetary system so that it was fair would reduce the value of real estate because it would reduce our dependence on long term debt.

The article shows a graph of the velocity of money. This measure shows that the real economy continues to sink in spite of any efforts to stimulate it. The Fed is creating trillions of dollars and putting it in the bank accounts of the "oligarchs" under the false pretense that this is helping the economy. They are also buying mortgages (which goes way beyond the reach of their charter). People who are invested in real estate think this is OK because they feel happy when the value of their houses go up. But this totally undermines any hope of freedom and democracy because, in effect, the bank has taken over the political system completely. In a word, its treason.

This system is effectively racist because of the racial demographics of the poor in this country. Over time, the homes of the poor get repossessed and refinanced to "economically viable" parties. Also, ownership of entire neighborhoods are transferred to private equity funds that create REITs out of it. The Fed directly engineered this process by loaning the money to the private equity funds to buy foreclosures in bulk in exclusive auctions.

The Federal Reserve, along with the FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the worst mechanisms of racism and oppression this country knows. SB people won't admit it because the worst thing they know is falling real estate prices.

random_kook (anonymous profile)
August 24, 2014 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DaveyBrown,

If the idea of repatriating blacks was "ridiculous" why did Winston Churchill's grandfather, Leonard Jerome and Rothschild agent, August Belmont, fincance the first shipload out? Blacks themselves invested in the UNIA's Black Star Line and Liberia had been established a hundred years before.

Jerome and Belmont were disuaded from further efforts by the same powerful interests that destroyed the Black Star Line - those interests viewed blacks as a very useful political tool to exert control in the U.S."Racism" is a new word that comes out of the lexicon of those powerful interests. It is significant that the Jewish-led NAACP played a major role in destroying the Black Star Line. The NAACP never had a single black leader until the mid-1970's. For over sixty years of its existence all its presidents were Jews.

Blacks as a tool of destabilization and control has worked so well in the U.S. that the same interests have been importing Africans into Northern European countries that never engaged in slavery or colonialism. While Americans dutifully atone for slavery and colonialism, the Scandinavians can only atone for being white.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 24, 2014 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Santa Barbara is rigged to over-value real estate?

Value is what a willing buyer pays a willing seller. How is that rigged. By zoning restrictions implemented by democratically elected representatives? Real estate is rigged because property rights are artificially created and then given value in normal exchange, like carbon credits?

Anglo-American legal tradition does value property, but calling this rigged? Please tell us more. There are other cultures that do not have a sense of bargained for property rights.

Fiji Islanders were once this way, quite egalitarian amongst themselves. But they were also cannibals because island resources were finite. This required fending off invaders as their response to becoming unwilling sellers meeting very willing buyers.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 24, 2014 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Are there any Libertarian Liberian librarians?

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
August 24, 2014 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why so serious dolphinpod14?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 24, 2014 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

no, but loads of libido-laden Liberian librarians looking into libertarian balderdash

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
August 24, 2014 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, Dolphinpod, there are. But they are oppressed. So, let's liberate the libertarian Liberian librarians!

Botany (anonymous profile)
August 24, 2014 at 5:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you look at the adds from mortgage brokers, they offer government loans up to $729K. This puts a support on the low end at this price. It's the limit on FHA guarantees. The limit on "conforming loans" is $625K. This is tax payer money, funding SB real estate. Before the crash the limits on government loans was $417K. The mortgage market froze in 2007 because of over leverage. The market is now supported by the government in a permanent state of over-leverage. Tax money will continue be applied to bail out this market. Given that owning a million dollar home in SB puts you in the 1%, the 99% are helping to pay the mortgage.

What's worse though is that houses were over valued at the peak due to predatory lending. The correct and financially responsible reaction to the crash would have been to write down the value of the houses and refinance at a lower price, but this would have meant huge losses for the mortgage speculators. So taxpayers must bear the loss and federal money is used to re-inflate the bubble so that banks can balance their assets. The home-owner must then stay on the hook at the inflated value. That is why the poor get evicted and the wealthy buy multiple houses, or private equity funds take over neighborhoods.

Government funding should only be available for mortgage financing at a value below the national average. That way it would help the poor and lower middle class. The way it is now, the poor are subsidizing the rich.

random_kook (anonymous profile)
August 24, 2014 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Most people who buy homes in SB have leveraged prior equities. Few at the current SFR price point are first time buyers in need of full value loans.

Sorry if you did not get into the local market when you could have a few years ago. SB is drifting back into its natural value range. Global economics will most likely continue the upward drift, regardless of the drought. You can buy water, but you cannot buy climate and location.

There still remain many neighborhoods here offering many residential alternatives and prices in town and the surrounding area. Manufactured homes are still in the lower hundred thousands. Those work very well for the cost-conscious buyer.

Some times you just buy a home because it is your home, and not bother spliting hairs over the details. And learn to love what you can afford. Home is where the heart is; not where the points are. Take envy and resentment away and you can buy your own piece of happiness here.

Interesting you claim anyone with a million dollar home is part of the 1%. That is what I have been saying about public employees who retire easily on a million or two million dollar principal and live only off the interest payments as their guaranteed public pension pay out. They too now belong to the 1%.

Is America great or what?

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 24, 2014 at 8:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dewdly; "Lincoln's assumption was that Africans had all been brought here against their wills and that it was the U.S. government's moral responsibility to restore them to their homelands." - where they were originally captured as slaves by Africans who also owned African slaves belonging to tribes other than their own, and who were the primary source of slaves sold in the US and Europe. Spanish missionaries' enslavement of original Americans is closer to the common fiction of the beginnings of African slavery in the US than to it's reality, although Europeans also captured and forcibly shipped Africans to Europe and the US.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
August 24, 2014 at 8:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/11...

Monetary policy is redistributing wealth upstream. Owners of real estate in the million dollar range are beneficiaries of this policy. When the foreclosures start to rise again, it will happen in the poor areas first. As the article points out, the solution applied to the crisis provided temporary relief for the benefit of the banks. The underlying problem still exists in real estate.

random_kook (anonymous profile)
August 24, 2014 at 9:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

..redistributing wealth upstream ...used to be called making a profit by adding value.

Don''t buy houses beyond you can't afford. Simple lesson. People at worst did not "lose their homes" in the last crash, they chose to gamble and basically got free rent before they walked away.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 24, 2014 at 10:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tough to diasagree with Jarv's paean to home-owning: "Some times you just buy a home because it is your home, and not bother spliting hairs over the details. And learn to love what you can afford. Home is where the heart is; not where the points are. Take envy and resentment away "
All well and good... but when economic IN-equalities continue to INcrease, and "Monetary policy is redistributing wealth upstream[.]" thanx random, and quantitative easing helps the wealthy, and the tax structure EXEMPTS the wealthy from plenty of taxation... "learn to love what you can afford" is what Wilford's mouthpiece orates to the slaves at the back of the train [Snowpierce, a movie]...deal with it and shut up. Cannot agree.

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 6:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Indeed, the plot of Hannah and Das’s excellent adventure called Measure P, the “protect our water” initiative, is for county voters to kill energy jobs in the North County, most of which employ hard-working Latinos, and pay $113,000 a year, so they can protect tourist jobs in the South County, most of which employ hard-working Latinos, that pay $22,000 a year. Perhaps a better title for their sinister initiative would have been “Let Them Eat Tortillas” initiative…

Joe Armendariz"

something to think about....

nativegeo (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Deal with your own micro-economics when choosing your occupation and home. Worry less about global macroexonomics that impact your own local choices less than you think.

That is diversionary and idle blame for one's own poor choices that leaves them on the short end of things and wants to think it is someone else's fault.

The old rules still work. Save, invest and put a permanent roof over your head where you can live within your own particular set of skills and talents. And don't do drugs. Feeling like a victim is a drug.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

1) Tabatha: “The right forgets that Obama is half WHITE. They think he is a Muslim born in Kenya, and raised in Indonesia."

This must be Tea Party racist propaganda. It couldn’t be because Obama has stated these facts himself, although he’s also stated that he’s a Christian.
Maybe the right is just biased against Muslims who are Christians, or Christians who are Muslims.
Any bias against Obama must by definition be based on a straw man argument, not on Obama’s actions, because they’re not acknowledged in the canned Obama rhetoric you’re restricted to regurgitating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE9mZ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GFKq...

2) "Much of the opposition to Obama is because he is a Democrat."

3) "The right just cannot stand not being in power, and oppose the policies of any Democratic president"
(tabatha: “You are talking ideology, a lot of it nonsense. Please provide facts backed with stats.”)

4)" Obama has faced the highest congressional opposition in history."

(Obama has an abysmal approval record: he’s a dictator who doesn’t acknowledge the US Constitution or the tri-cameral government instituted by the nation’s founders explicitly to prevent the autocratic control of government Obama employs)

5) " there has also been a strong undercurrent of racism by some on the right."
(tabatha: “You are talking ideology, a lot of it nonsense. Please provide facts backed with stats.”)

6)" People ridicule those they oppose if they sense any weakness or otherness."
((Psychopaths attack those unable to defend themselves, and have an uncanny ability to discern weakness in others. Fascism doesn’t condone the existence of “otherness”; eg. Copernicus, Leonardo da Vinci, Thomas Edison. “Otherness” – deviation from state policy, is defined as “dissent”; dissenters are subject to incarceration and mandatory re-education at minimum.

7) “without question, many in this country do not like having a Black President. "
(:tabatha: “You are talking ideology, a lot of it nonsense. Please provide facts backed with stats.”)

14noscams (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

8) "Please cite one "socialist" program that the Democrats have instituted that has hurt the economy for the middle class. "

Corporate welfare: $307 billion paid to Silicon Valley CEO’s to build internet structure in Kenya, a nation in which 30% of the population has access to electricity. 18% of the US GDP paid to the top 1%, the population sector Obama represents while giving lip service to income equality.

Democrats were 40-56 against him working around congress to impose immigration policy. 89% of the population is opposed to jobs going to new legal immigrants, 77 percent said jobs should stay with those already in the United States.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/...

Obama’s socialist healthcare plan has a negative impact on the middle class. Republicans aren’t the only ones against Obamacare. On top of higher healthcare costs, Americans will be hit with a barrage of new taxes... $1 trillion worth. These taxes won't just affect anyone who makes over $250,000 a year. The bulk of these taxes will be passed on directly to the middle class. That's because while a majority of these "stealth taxes" were designed to tax businesses, they're actually transferred directly to ordinary citizens.

http://moneymorning.com/ob-article/ob...

14noscams (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jarvis's makes the case in point about how personal attachment to your asset values results in denial about what's happening with the government.

Niether the congress of the president will question the power of the Federal Reserve for this reason. Without "Quantitative Easing" real estate values would have continued to fall and incumbent politicians would be voted out.

Fraudulent practices on the part of banks and mortgage brokers have been rewarded by bailouts. The buyers that signed up for ARM's and deferred interest mortgages remain on the hook at inflated values. The long term effect is to clear out the black neighborhoods, like Richmond, to make way for more credit worthy inhabitants.

random_kook (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yup, you just nailed Jarvis -someone who is in denial about what's happening in the government.

Hat tip of the week: Get a job, buy a manufactured home even on minimum wage and get on with your life.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Progressive program that has decimated the middle class: defined benefit pension plans for public employees that leaves taxpayers on the hook for failed pension projections, promises and investments.

Also creating a bullet proof public pension plan that defies reform or accountability. We are now working for public employees and not the other way around. Keep voting progressive and we will all go off the cliff togehter.

Follow the website "PensionTsunami" if this issue finally interests you.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

From "Pension Tsunami:

Ten years ago .......

"..........Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger briefly backed a proposal early in 2005 to switch all new state and local government hires to 401(k)-style individual investment plans, which avoid long-term government debt but switch investment risk to employees.

Schwarzenegger dropped the proposal after being hit with a union-backed statewide television campaign attacking him and the proposal, one of the first setbacks of his administration. ........."

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This post from another forum applies to Jarvis and many others here:

"Face it, the Boomers chasing self-gratification is what brought America down. I can tell a distinct difference in attitude in Boomers vs. everyone else.

And there's a reason for it - the Boomer experience is different from everyone else's. Boomers rode a generation-long debt bubble, stealing outright from their own posterity, the losses of which are manifest in government debt.

They did NOT have the experience of a mid- or early-career economic depression. They did not have to buy their homes at ridiculous, bubble-inflated prices. They did not have to pay much, if anything at all, for college. They were given all the benefits of the most prosperous nation ever to exist, and chose to hoard it for themselves and share nothing with future generations. I could go on all day on the differences in the Boomer experience, but suffice it to say that the generation as a whole can safely be labeled as spoiled rotten brats to a degree that no other generation, not even the Millenials, can come close.

Naturally, everyone is an individual and this doesn't apply to every individual."

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Face it, the Boomers chasing self-gratification is what brought America down. -- mebbe so, loon... add to it wild use of force (Iraq) and NOT PAYING FOR IT ... that war was heavily supported by THE YOUNG, so don't lay that problem on boomers.

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well Davey I am seeing conflicting information on that but honestly I didn't know anybody under 30 who supported the war in Iraq. Even the soldiers I knew who were shipped over there were against the war.

Check this out:

http://fpparchive.org/wp-content/uplo...

"That poll puts boomers in first place as Mr. Bush's cheerleaders"

July 28, 2003

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

but so many of the younger-than-boomers also chose not to vote in 99 and 03, giving it to the war monger and war criminal, Bush 43

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No boomer here. Kid of Depression Age parents who left several messages ringing in our ears: No one owes you a living. Save for what you want. Penny saved is a penny earned. Be thrifty. Delay gratification. save for your old age. Color within the lines. Don't risk what you can't afford to lose. Be valuable to your boss. And believe it or not, recycle, reuse and repurpose. Yup, Depression Age virtues. And they still buy you a house in Santa Barbara.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Davy,
People quit voting when they can't see the difference between the two candidates. Obama is every bit the war monger Bush was.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

in terms of "soft power" (J. Nye) Obama is as "imperial" and all-out pro USA as Bush '43, but in terms of invading and utilization of "hard power" Bush was much MUCH more the warmonger, the Iraq War cost that much plus 4500 guys, for NADA! No, Obama not nearly as ferocious and warlike as Bush, and his armies haven't killed nearly as many as Bush's.

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, I knew back then that Gore/Kerry are tools just like Obama and wouldn't have made much difference. The wars would have been presented differently, but ultimately things would have turned out about the same.

Can't blame me for Bush winning, I voted for Nader in '00 and '04.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is measure P racist?

Will supervisor Salud Carbajal stand with Hispanics and support the NO ON P campaign??

"Indeed, the plot of Hannah and Das’s excellent adventure called Measure P, the “protect our water” initiative, is for county voters to kill energy jobs in the North County, most of which employ hard-working Latinos, and pay $113,000 a year, so they can protect tourist jobs in the South County, most of which employ hard-working Latinos, that pay $22,000 a year. Perhaps a better title for their sinister initiative would have been “Let Them Eat Tortillas” initiative…

Joe Armendariz"

What do they call someone who is brown on the outside, but white on the inside?? I forgot....

nativegeo (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

and gawd Jarv, these ideals/bromides will never cut it today: "Delay gratification. save for your old age[.]" We're in the era of education as a video game, city colleges constructing aquatics centers, corporate welfare, Citizens United follow the money... a message to the young, who read only dystopian books, is seize the day b'cuz there isn't much left for tomorrow...materialism gone berserk, as Kandinsky noted in 1911.

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes on P. It won't destroy the oil industry in the short run, and such fields have always been know to run out, look at the fields of southern Illinois in the early 1950s when the cheap Iranian crude flowed in... No, no racism, but seeing the earth as sacred, yes.

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Davy if there have been less deaths under Obama it has been incidental, the drone strike program killed thousands and thousands of innocent people. Here is a graphic that illustrates, just through 2010:

http://www.realclearworld.com/blog/Ou...

If you take that out further the numbers go quite a bit higher.

Obama and Bush pretty much put forward the same policies, they just act differently in front of the camera.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/a...

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In Viet Nam we used carpet bombing. The lives lost there were indiscriminate. I guess what makes drones more tolerable and easier to justify using is that the ratio of bad guys to civilians killed is many times higher than with just carpet bombing a particular area.

Botany (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Reap what you sow, Davy. Another good one.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Right, so to get 21 high profile targets, we had to kill 155 children, 267 civilian (women and elderly males) and 808 "Other" (males age 15-65) who could all very well be innocent civilians as well.

Not to mention the covert activities which rarely get any press - our country trained the ISIS and armed them back in 2012, and now they are slaughtering people over there like crazy.

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/iraq-crisis-...

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

UC astronomer claims pockets of fossil feul are incomplete burn-offs in the earth's crust. Nature intended to incinerate them all. Help Mother Nature's geological teen-age oily skin blemishes by extracting them and sending them up into the atmosphere, where they were originally intended to reside.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Loon, accurate stats like that are impossible.

Botany (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 5:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Davy,

Comparing the number of deaths during Bush's 8 years and Obama's 6 doesn't alter the fact that Obama has underwritten every lie we have been told, every false flag, everything that "justifies" the wars in the Middle East. The outrages of the "War on Terror" are just as much on Obama as they as they were on Bush. That is one major reason people do not vote.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 6:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@dewdley,The only false flags are the ones the infest your pointy troll dome.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 6:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Based on polls taken here, I'm going to make a prediction for the 2016 election. It's going to be Hillary.

In 2012 Obama's election was cinched at the central bankers meeting when the decision was made to begin another, increased round of quantitative easing. The current Fed is following the same trend.

random_kook (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But then it becomes a question of, how long can they keep it up?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/when...

I worry that if the markets give out, the topic is going to turn to war. It would be the Hillary position to be tough with Putin, and bombing the heck out of the middle east, while Paul would be running on minding our own business and fixing our monetary system. Americans get riled up easily, so Hillary still has the advantage. However, if war were the topic, the republicans might run Palin. That might be tough choice.

random_kook (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 7:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

random,

Rand Paul was vetted before he gained the support of the Republican establishment in his run for the Senate. His public endorsement of Romney BEFORE the convention was the cost of that support. The Republicans had to resort to cheating and fraud to keep Ron Paul out so there is no chance that they would allow his son to run on his father's platform. If he is nominated it can only be a bait and switch.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Rand Paul will never be nominated for president by the GOP . Even they are smart enough to see through his bull crap, aqua Buddha shtick.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 10:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dems didn't see through huckster, charlatan, teleprompter-reading, prevaricating Barry Soetoro. Nor did US voters. Twice. You might not want to be a betting man, Herschel.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2014 at 10:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"huckster, charlatan, teleprompter-reading, prevaricating" -- sounds like most politicians.

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
August 26, 2014 at 3:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Voters go on looks as well as ideas. Paul's ideas are a no sale, and with his Jerry Curl hairdo and his crazy Marshall Applewhite eyes, he looks like the cult leader that he really is.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
August 26, 2014 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"his bull crap, aqua Buddha shtick."

Hey Hershel, would you mind being a little more specific? I would like to engage you in debate on whether the GOP would nominate a real conservative who is polling better than all other GOP nominees against Hitlery Clinton, is anti-war, isn't your typical stale Republican and also appeals to youth by wanting to end the war on drugs, stop anti-privacy measures and restore civil liberties, but your statement is so incredibly uninformational that I am having a difficult time addressing anything specifically.

Thanks.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 26, 2014 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Paul's ideas are a no sale"

So why is he polling better against Hitlery Clinton than all other GOP nominees? What is wrong with a more humble foreign policy and restoring civil liberties? Those are very popular ideas!!

"with his Jerry Curl hairdo and his crazy Marshall Applewhite eyes, he looks like the cult leader that he really is."

Total crap.

Presidential material:

http://www.occupycorporatism.com/wp-c...

And if you go to the Democratic Underground discussion forum, there are more threads about Rand Paul on the front page than there are threads about Rand Paul at the official Rand Paul Forums..

http://i.imgur.com/DgnHFTH.png

If he isn't a real threat, then what's up with that?

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 26, 2014 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

He has the unconditional support of his cult followers. They are very vocal. The majority of GOP voters are anti drugs, and support a robust foreign policy. Paul has no chance on the primaries and would be a disaster in a general election. Political parties exist to make their candidates win not to make statements or poses.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
August 26, 2014 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hershel_Greenspan: David Rockefeller thanked the mainstream press for its 40 year complicity with NWO globalists and international monopoly bankers in his 2002 autobiography. There's been no deviation from this complicity over the 12 year period since its publication. The false front attacks created to initiate WWI, WWII, and the Vietnam War are currently acknowledged. The choice of ignorance of the facts that's required to preserve the psychological defense mechanism of denial regarding more recent false front attacks is a choice made by those with weak characters who are unable to function in a traumatic and painful reality, and prefer a happy delusion.
Denial and dissociation have emotional bases, but they rely on disregard of physical evidence and incontivertible facts regarding numerous false front attacks.
The belief that the US government is controlled by elected and appointed US officials and that it functions for the benefit of the nation and its citizens requires disregard of the statements of numerous US officials as well as statements by members of the globalist cabal regarding their intention to destroy US sovreignity and democracy in favor of a fascist totalitarian global government.

former NSA analyst Jim Stone's data on Fukushima
http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/fuku...

14noscams (anonymous profile)
August 26, 2014 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"The majority of GOP voters are anti drugs, and support a robust foreign policy. Paul has no chance on the primaries.."

Paul is anti-drugs but realizes that the war on drugs is a failure that does nothing to prevent drug use. He is for a robust defensive military as opposed to an offensive military. That is why the GOP needs to change a little if they want to win the general election. They can't run on the same stale platform, that just is not ever going to work again. Hopefully Rand will attract more independents, libertarians and democrats to the republican party so they will vote for him in the primary.

"Paul would be a disaster in a general election."

For the third time, he is polling better against Hitlery Clinton than all of the other GOP candidates.

"Political parties exist to make their candidates win not to make statements or poses."

Well in that case, they should choose Rand since, for the fourth time, he is polling better than all of his GOP counterparts against Hitlerly Clinton.

But generally that fact is a huge problem in this country, not inherently but because most candidates are essentially sponsored by banks and corporations, their goal is to win so that they can vote in favor of the special interests who helped get them elected. The sooner we can get away from this, the better.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 26, 2014 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hahaha the election is over two years away. Current poll results are meaningless . Face the fact that the candidate with the best hair almost always wins. Unless Paul loses that dippity do throw back look he is toast.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
August 26, 2014 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is a false front operation? You c/t trolls are getting goofier by the day.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
August 26, 2014 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Herschel, it's really amazing sometimes how uneducated you are on these topics.

Let's start with WWI.

Sinking of the Lusitania, here is a .gov site:

http://www.loc.gov/rr/news/topics/lus...

"Despite published newspaper articles warning against travel on Allied ships, the RMS Lusitania departed from New York on May 1, 1915, bound for Liverpool. As the ship sailed near Ireland on May 7, it was torpedoed by a German U-boat and sank, killing over 1,100 people on board. A later British investigation into the incident ruled that the Lusitania was attacked with the intent to kill civilians, as the ship did not carry explosives."

But the Lusitania WAS carrying explosives according to records that were recently uncovered that dated from back in 1982:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014...

So they sent a ship full of civilians and war munitions to be smuggled to Britain - but here's the kicker - sort of like how the Palestinians get accused of hiding their war munitions in civilian targets, they similarly did it on purpose so that the "civilian" boat would be sunk and then they used the sinking of the Lusitania to convince the population to enter WWI against Germany even though they KNEW there were war munitions on the boat and it was a legitimate war target!!

This all proves they lied and were deceptive about the whole thing, there is no way to deny this in any sort of intellectually sound or logical way. You can deny it, you can call people crazy all you want, but anybody who looks into how it all went down and actually thinks about it is just going to dismiss your unthoughtful analysis.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 26, 2014 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now I know how much you love to discredit infowars off the bat, but let's take a look at the Gulf of Tonkin incident for a minute -

"It would take over thirty years for the truth to emerge that the Aug. 4, 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, where US warships were apparently attacked by North Vietnamese PT Boats – an incident that kicked off US involvement in the Vietnam war – was a staged event that never actually took place.

However, the records now show that at the time senators knew this was the case.

In a March 1968 closed session of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Albert Gore Sr. of Tennessee, the father of former vice president Al Gore, noted:

“If this country has been misled, if this committee, this Congress, has been misled by pretext into a war in which thousands of young men have died, and many more thousands have been crippled for life, and out of which their country has lost prestige, moral position in the world, the consequences are very great,”

Senator Frank Church, Democrat of Idaho, said in an executive session in February 1968:

“In a democracy you cannot expect the people, whose sons are being killed and who will be killed, to exercise their judgment if the truth is concealed from them,”

Other senators were keen to withhold the truth about Tonkin in order not to inflame public opinion on the war:

Senator Mike Mansfield, Democrat of Montana, stated, “You will give people who are not interested in facts a chance to exploit them and to magnify them out of all proportion.”

Mansfield was referring to the proposed release of a committee staff investigation that raised doubts over whether the Tonkin incident ever took place.

The committee decided in the end to effectively conceal the truth, with Senator Church noting that if the committee came up with proof that an attack never occurred, “we have a case that will discredit the military in the United States, and discredit and quite possibly destroy the president.”

(cont..)

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 26, 2014 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(cont..)

"He also noted that if the senators were to follow up on their skepticism over Tonkin, “The big forces in this country that have most of the influence and run most of the newspapers and are oriented toward the presidency will lose no opportunity to thoroughly discredit this committee.”

The LBJ Presidential tapes, declassified and released in 2001, prove that LBJ knew the Tonkin incident never happened. After dressing down his Defence Secretary Robert McNamara for misleading him, Johnson then discussed how to politically spin the non-event and escalate it as justification for air strikes.

“You just came in a few weeks ago and said they’re launching an attack on us – they’re firing at us,” Johnson tells McNamara in one conversation, “and we got through with the firing and concluded maybe they hadn’t fired at all.”

The NSA also deliberately faked intelligence data to make it appear as if two US ships had been lost in the “attack”.

Johnson used the 1964 false flag event to expand dramatically the scale of the Vietnam War by ushering in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, as well as to rope in much needed domestic support with the Congress and public."

http://www.infowars.com/de-classified...

All of the information above is cited, so I urge you to actually look at the original source material before making any sort of attacks based on where the information came from.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 26, 2014 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They lied to get us into WWI, they lied to get us into Vietnam, there is evidence that they lied to get us into WWII and could have avoided and knew about the Pearl Harbor attack ahead of time.. Yet we are "crazy" to believe that they could have staged an event to start the war on terror, after PNAC actually wrote about a "New Pearl Harbor" event in 1999 that was needed in order to start a war in the Middle East, a war that they were desiring.. PNAC was full of neocons like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and others.

Herschel, it's really time to give the whole dismissive tone a rest, conspiracy theorists have been proven right OVER and OVER again, acting like that just discredits you.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 26, 2014 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nothing like a CT troll thread jack complete with paragraph after paragraph of lame assumptions and truth stretching to divert attention away from your empty suit hero Rand Paul.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
August 26, 2014 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My take on this is that we MUST change the general direction of our country. Whether or not Loonpt's conspiracy theories are true, I don't know, what I DO know is that our foreign policy is based on war. As my sister said to me earlier today: "This is like a cancer" (referring to the war in the Middle East) as it spreads from one country to another, with no end in sight, or to use another analogy, it's like the mythological Hydra where you cut off one head, and three more heads pop up.

The Drug War is a failure, and fuels more arrests and a Black Market economy. People rightfully point out the disaster of alcohol prohibition, but fail to see that the Drug War is no different. Homelessness is an epidemic across the U.S.

Based on what I see, Rand Paul will cave in in order to win the nomination. He will be a repeat of Obama in the sense the he will appeal to populists who fail to see what the real agenda is, although I don't think he will win the nomination anyway as people tend to stay in abusive relationships because as much as they hate the abuse, their fear of change prevents them from leaving the abuse.

Look for more war, and even deeper national debt, regardless of which of the two parties win, but at least I don't intend to sign the death warrants of innocent civilians by supporting the two-party oligarchy.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 26, 2014 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Big surprise, Herschel dodges all of the facts and dismisses the obvious conclusion without using any real form of intellectual persuasion... Ya, we are supposed to believe that they faked an attack on our ships that got us into war because ??? We are supposed to believe that they lied about ship munitions and sent civilians over to England even though Germany told us they were going to sink the ship because ???? You supply no motivations or explanations for these events and you expect people to believe you because your post is one sentence and mine is much longer. So, once again, the discerning reader will side with me while you will continue to pick off the most lazy and unintelligent and bring them to your side.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 26, 2014 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Based on what I see, Rand Paul will cave in in order to win the nomination." - billc

I think Rand will be a similar President to what Ron could have been - the difference is only in how they are attempting to get elected. Ron spoke the truth, all the time, no exceptions in order to educate people and draw them toward his beliefs. As much as I wish that strategy had worked, it didn't. Twice. Rand is using a different, more realistic strategy to get elected. If you believe Rand is doing this for "power" then that's fine, but I would recommend learning more about him and his past. I can personally assure you he is way more libertarian than he puts on in the media.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 26, 2014 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Rand Paul would be a real threat to the AIPAC crowd. Chris Christy is a RINO and the establishments favorite. More of the same........

nativegeo (anonymous profile)
August 27, 2014 at 7:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

nativegeo,

Rand Paul supports the current genocide in Gaza as "defensive". He never could have become a senator if the Republicans had not been assured that he did not share his father's views. He is not a sheep in wolf's clothing. His purpose is to pull in the young, white, male votes to the Republicans, not to oppose Jewish control of our government.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 27, 2014 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What genocide in Gaza? Do mean the one Hamas is executing on the Palestinian people?

Botany (anonymous profile)
August 27, 2014 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany,

The genocide that every country in the world voted to have the U.N. investigate for war crimes, but the investigation was vetoed by the U.S./Israel. Hamas and the Palestinians don't get a vote, so who is afraid of an investigation?

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 27, 2014 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nor should Hamas get a vote. They are a cowardly organization that hides behinds the skirts of women and children as shields to protect themselves from retaliation for targeting innocent civilians.

Botany (anonymous profile)
August 27, 2014 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany,

Gaza is a concentration camp that is blockaded on all sides, having only two checkpoints for entry and exit, one north and one south. All Jews were removed in 2005 and the perimeter is guarded by armed forces.

Who are the Gazans? They are the defeated remnant of the Palestinian people after killings and expulsions beginning with over 700,000 in 1948. To have a free hand against the Palestinians the British were forced to leave by Zionist terror groups - the Jewish Agency, Haganah, Irgun, and the Stern Gang.

Between 1939 and 1948 these terrorists committed over 500 acts of violence using bombs, booby traps, landmines, kidnappings, murders, torture, and assassination against the British, the Palestinians and even a U.N. emissary.

Gaza today is a problem for Israel precisely because Palestinians are a defeated and imprisoned people. It is difficult to make inmates of a concentration camp appear well-armed, menacing, and murderous, but the Israelis have lots of practice.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 27, 2014 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The West bank lives in peace with the Palestinian authority. The Gaza strip lives under the crushing rule of Hamas. There's the only difference. One group chooses peace. The other chooses war because it's the only way it can stay in power.

This is the terrorist group you should be focusing on destroying.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nationa...

Botany (anonymous profile)
August 27, 2014 at 5:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Chutzpah_Greenspit sure seems protective of conspiracies....

atomic_state (anonymous profile)
August 27, 2014 at 10:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany,

The difference between the Palestians enclosed in Gaza and the Palestinians in the West Bank is their proximity to Jews. There are no Jews in Gaza; they were all removed in 2005, but there are Jewish settlements all over the occupied terriitory of the West Bank and many Palestinian villages are immediately adjacent to urban areas like Jerusalem.

The Israelis have built 422 miles of zigzagging barriers that are generally a set of 7' high electrified barbed-wire fences with vehicle-barrier trenches and 65-yard exclusion zone on the Palestinian side. But in more densely populated urban areas, particularly those around Jerusalem, space limitations prompted the Israelis to instead build a concrete wall to the height of 30 feet.

While bombing and firing mortars into Gaza is like shooting fish in a barrel the same cannot be done in areas immediately adjacent to Jewish settlements which are growing in number.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2014 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Gee Dewdly, do you ever wonder why Israel built those barriers? It wasn't to keep out job hunters.

And do you ever wonder what would happen to a Jewish family living in Gaza? I don't.

Botany (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2014 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany, if the Chinese (or any other group) came in and took over the US, slaughtered your family, took your land and stole all of your resources and put you in a concentration camp, would you accept your fate or would you perhaps consider fighting back?

People seem to have a really twisted view of what is going on without actually looking at the context and history of the situation. Like Dewdly said, Zionists were already in Palestine before WWII and they were committing terrorist attacks against the British and Palestinians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun

Terrorism is not a tactic that Palestinians came up with, they have been living in a terrorized state for almost a century. It is only basic human nature to want to fight back against tyranny and oppression so I can completely understand why Palestinians may take a violent stand against that oppression. While I understand their feelings, it turns out that is no way the most effective tactic to use to gain their freedom in this situation, but honestly they are very desperate so it is hard to blame them for having the desire to take these measures. Our Founding Fathers took these measures against the British and were under far less oppression, if you want to talk about how bad Hamas is and you want to be consistent then you should really be talking about how bad the Founding Fathers were for taking a stand against the British.

It's really not that difficult to understand why the Palestinians are fighting - they have had their land stolen, resources stolen, houses bulldozed and their families slaughtered for several generations now. If I were Jewish and lived in Israel and knew this, if I felt threatened by the Palestinians I would move out of there as soon as possible. If I didn't feel threatened by the Palestinians then I would consider staying and merely oppose the actions of the Israeli government.

But at the end of the day, the Palestinians don't really benefit from backing Hamas, they end up getting slaughtered by Israel whenever Hamas starts firing rockets. This has been going on for decades, and you really have to wonder whether Hamas is actually controlled by Israel so they have an excuse to commit genocide and take more land from the Palestinians.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2014 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hamas controlled by Israel? Now that's the ultimate in conspiracy theories.

Botany (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2014 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No theory is too far fetched, illogical, or just plain goofy for our favorite CT troll errr commentator, Loonpt. Oh and Btw Loon, your namesake had waves the last few days were you on it?

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2014 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's not too far fetched or illogical that Israel would help a rag tag terrorist group shoot off some fireworks and fake some deaths so they have an excuse to massacre thousands of people and take their land and resources.

And I was at the beach all day yesterday so I dunno what you're referring to, where the flip else would I have been on the swell of the year?

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2014 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh I get it - ya wasn't [i]there[/i]

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2014 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So Loonpt, did you surf Loon Point? I hope that you know that that is a false flag surf spit.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2014 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now, if you want a more far-fetched conspiracy theory, check this out...

The Syrian Government claims that journalist Mark Foley was executed over a year ago and they sent the proof of that to the UN at that time..

The video that was released used camera trickery and fake post production techniques, as I already mentioned the video didn't even show the execution, instead it faded to black.

I would presume it was prepared as part of a propaganda campaign, we know that there was a bombing campaign against Syria that followed all of these violent episodes by the ISIS that supposedly took place.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2014 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I hope that you know that that is a false flag surf spit."

That can be an apt description, at times.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2014 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

False flag surf spot.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2014 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ya I was going to put a [sic] after spit but sometimes that is an apt description as well.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2014 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Many Jews had to be forcibly removed from Gaza and it was the IDF that moved them, not the Palestinians.

The walls were built in the West Bank to keep Palestinians out of the lands that were taken from them in 1948 and 1967 and to restrict access to Jerusalem which is supposed to be an open city overseen by the United Nations. Anata, a village of 15,000 Palestinians, is surrounded on three sides by a 26 ft. wall restricting access to hosptials, businesses, and cultural centers in the Holy City.

The Palestinians are no threat to Israel and they never have been; the Jews don't take them seriously, they merely use the enhanced version of the Muslim terrorist to gain power for themselves. The Likud takes great delight in periodic mass killings in Gaza while, at the very same moment, demanding and receiving $225 million from the U.S. Congress. That in-your-face offense sends the message to all those young, American Jews who object to Israel's genocide - the message is power - Zionism is triumphant and like it or not you are complicit.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2014 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

loonpt,

The "rockets" are just a phony pretext for Israel to portray Palestinians as a tlegitimate threat. The world's fourth largest military per capita that has blockaded Gaza on all sides for nearly a decade, depriving its citizens of necessities is not going to have any trouble disarming the population, capturing and destroying all explosive devices and anything that could launch a "rocket".

In 1967 Israel launched a premptive strike against large Arab countries having well-equipped military forces. Nearly fifty years and billions of dollars of U.S. military aid now they can't disarm civilians in a concentration camp? Israel is not to be believed.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2014 at 6:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" are terms coined by the CIA to discredit witnesses to JFK's assassination who disagreed with the official government propaganda. These terms are used routinely to discredit investigative journalists and whistleblowers and witnesses and insiders whose versions of events don't support the censored propaganda in the corporate media, who have superior references and documentation to them, who often take great personal risks to communicate politically dangerous information, and who frequently work as unpaid volunteers or for voluntary donations.
Using these terms is equivalent tto the use of racist terms the Indy will censor if I try to post them.
It's more accurate to call journalists who work in corporate media "paid disinformation writers" or "paid liars" than to call alternatives to mainstream media conspiracy theory. Eliot Higgins, Brown Moses, is a good example. Several of the references I've used in comments received phone calls warning them to stop before they were murdered, and I've received two calls my caller ID identified as CFR outside of Washington DC when I posted comments at 9 pm PDT.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2014 at 8:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The JFK killing was part of a Jewish conspiricy masterminded by Corey Feldman, Nate Berkus, and Fanny Brice. Even though Feldman and Berkus were not born until after 1963, and Brice died before 1963, they time traveled to 11/22/1963 in order to carry out the plot.

The reason behind the killing is because they were able to predict retroactively JFK's turning against Israel in 1966 (his reelection was almost a shoe-in) and the fact that he would punish Israel by banning the import of Matzah Balls, they also feared JFK would ban recent convert-to-Judaism Sammy Davis Jr. citing "Kennedy was pushing the limits inviting black people to the white house, and Kennedy knew that inviting someone who was black AND jewish would hurt his ability to negotiate with republicans.

Is this any crazier than the other conspiricies?

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
August 29, 2014 at 1:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You had it right until the part about Sammy Davis; you failed to delve further into the internet at that point my friend. The Jews had in fact predicted that in spite of the massive support by American Jews for civil rights for African Americans that the majority of American Blacks would turn against them, which was indeed prophetic. Sammy Davis was a plant because they thought this would help change impending history by having a black on both sides. The Jews failed to predict hip hop and rap cultures would overtake everything else making blacks like Sammy look like ass backwards Oreo's. Predicting the future is unfortunately an imperfect science...

nomoresanity (anonymous profile)
August 29, 2014 at 7:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 29, 2014 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, even though Sammy kept his eye on things, he may not have been able to predict the outcome of race relations.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
August 30, 2014 at 2:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Like actress Sandy Duncan, he was a dancer, and they saw eye to eye.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
August 30, 2014 at 2:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: