TRoaches

Border security is a larger issue than immigration, and the reasons for border security go beyond simply controlling immigration. Polls indicate that the majority of legal immigrants oppose illegal immigration and amnesty, support stronger immigration controls and improved paths to legal status to address illegal immigration, and stronger penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants. There is no form of violence, against anyone, that is tolerated under the existing laws. This negates the need for further legislation to address violence against women. Violence against humans is illegal. Inequity of pay is tricky because it is based on statistics, and statistics can be massaged to indicate nearly anything. The often quoted numbers are that women earn 72-77% of what men do, but these numbers do not account for the multitude of factors that essentially boil down to choice. Women statistically work less overtime, are more likely to pursue degrees and careers that are less lucrative but more personally satisfying, and are less likely to perform work that is hazardous or laborious. Source In other words, legislation is not required to fix this, and efforts against such unnecessary legislation do not equate to an anti-woman bias. Furthermore, if a person must agree to a particular sum of payment for their labor, so their level of compensation is ultimately up to them to decide or reject. I agree, but the doctor-patient relationship is another aspect of our lives that both parties are fond of intruding into. I won't make any excuses for the any legislation that forces or prohibits any medical procedure and would oppose any such measures, regardless of which party is pushing them. That said, the Democrats of recent times have been pushing harder for government intrusion into health care than any party at any point in our history. If protection against government intrusion into matters of health care is a priority for you then you should be looking critically at both parties, not placing the blame on one while defending the other. Prior to this change the food stamp program accounted for 80% of the farm bill's cost. Stripping the food stamp program out of the farm bill made sense, in that the program has nothing to do with farm subsidies. It deserves its own legislation, and should be written and passed on its own merits. Combining unrelated issues into a single bill makes no sense, and doing so is a dirty political trick. It forces a congressperson who opposes farm subsidies but supports food stamps to compromise. They can either stand firm on the issue of farm subsidies and be attacked as an "enemy of the poor", or they can compromise by voting to support both. It works the other way as well, in that a congressperson who opposes food stamps but supports farm subsidies must compromise their position to avoid becoming an "enemy of farmers". You are falling hard for this dirty trick, and are ignoring the fact that a new and likely much better food stamp bill will be passed as a result of this cut. Where did this happen? Should a person be allowed to vote more than once? If not, how do you propose that they be stopped from doing so? I'm not really sure where I stand as far as voter ID laws are concerned, but at least in theory it seems like it could be a good idea. That does not mean that I would support just any voter ID law, as such a law could certainly be poorly constructed or even detrimental to democracy, but it could also be a good way to avoid election fraud especially given the recent adoption of electronic voting machines, which I consider to be a terrible threat to our democracy. It seemed like you did, given that you accused them of "rebranding" their image. I think they have stayed more true to their ideals than the Democrats, who are the real masters of rebranding. Imagine two people: Person 1 has always been opposed to racism and sexism, and has actively fought against it. Person 2 has always been a racist and sexist, but has recently decided to change their ways and now promises that they are neither racist nor sexist yet continue to describe a worldview that is based largely on division of people into categories of race and gender. If you had to choose which one to be friends, and wanted to make sure that you were choosing the less racist and less sexist of the two, which would you choose?

What "anti-immigration legislation" have they pushed? Bear in mind that legislation intended to curb illegal immigration is not the same as "anti-immigration legislation". In what way have they denigrated women or opposed women's rights? Bear in mind that anti-abortion legislation is not the same as "anti-women's rights" and does not inherently "denigrate women". I agree that the Texas abortion bill that prompted this topic was bad legislation but it does not represent the majority viewpoint within the party. In what way have they attacked the poor? Bear in mind that the welfare system is broken and bankrupt, many people are receiving welfare who should not qualify in comparison to the truly needy, and attempting to change by making it harder for some to acquire while making it easier for others is not the same as "attacking the poor". Redistricting is only as effective as the electorate allows it to be. In what way have they pushed to "shrink the electorate"? While I don't agree with the current state of law regarding or practice regarding political redistricting I don't see how it would be possible to prevent people from voting. Also, the assumption that redistricting is done along racial lines is flawed, as is the belief that it is a Republican trait. If a racial grouping consistently votes for a particular party based on their racial allegiance and the gerrymandered district lines are drawn according to party affiliation then they will also reflect the racial composition of those districts. This again speaks to the problem of racial allegiances that translate into political allegiances, something that the Democrats thrive on. They participate in district gerrymandering to at least the same extent that Republicans do. This does not excuse the Republican's participation in gerrymandering, but it does mean that it is not a strictly Republican trait. The Republican party has represented the limitations of government with regards to the infringement of natural rights (aka conservatism). It is the Democratic party that has always promoted the idea of liberal application of government power (aka liberalism). It is ironic to accuse the Republicans of rebranding considering the history of the Dixiecrats and their opposition to human rights. As soon as the groups that they once tried so hard to repress politically (women, minorities, etc) were able to acquire voting rights they instantly began opportunistically courting them and were effective in this rebranding propaganda, to the point that many people don't even know the history of the two parties or where they stood on the most influential events in our history, such as slavery or universal suffrage. (spoiler alert: the Republicans supported universal suffrage at every turn, while the Democrats opposed it). Rebranding indeed!

Why are you attacking the group that is attempting move beyond race and gender politics, and specifically attacking them for that effort, while defending the group that maintains the race and gender politics status quo, and specifically defending them for their continued support of race and gender politics? This seems antithetical to social and political progress.

Perhaps they consider race-based politics to be a lower form, and avoid appealing to people based on their perceived racial allegiances. A lack of race-based "outreach" does not indicate a lack of desire to include people all races. Using race as a method of targeting voters is an inherently racist practice, and one that the Democrats are happy to utilize to their advantage. They have always thrived on concepts of racial division, going all the way back to the "Dixiecrat" days. It is abhorrent strategy that stifles social progress. A strategist is a person who is paid to plan a campaign. A pundit is a person who is paid to talk about a subject. Neither position indicates any level of loyalty to a any particular set of principles, but you can at least assume that a strategist is saying and doing things that they hope will help their client because that is their job. When they stop working as strategists and start working as pundits that assumption must be reevaluated. When a person is being paid to express an "opinion" it ceases to be an honest opinion. When a celebrity is paid to endorse a product you can safely assume that they are not doing it because they really love that product. They are doing it because they are sufficiently rewarded. Shaq only loves his Buick because of the large checks that Buick is cutting him. Neither Rove, Schmidt, or any other pundit hold any credibility if they are being paid to speak on an entertainment news network. Such networks lack anything that resembles a respectable level of journalistic integrity. If you really believe that the opinions expressed by their pundits are unfiltered and honest assessments then you may as well believe that every celebrity endorser is giving an honest assessment of the products that they endorse. The firm that creates the advertisement featuring the celebrity endorsing the product is not doing so because they want to help their target audience by providing them with the most honest possible assessment of the product. They simply want their target audience to buy the product, regardless of its true merits. A news network's agenda is no different from that of the advertising firm. Schmidt and Rove both serve their clients by providing a paid opinion, just like Shaq does for Buick. Schmidt's client is Jeffrey Immelt. Rove's client is Rupert Murdoch.

I see no evidence of this being true. This cannot possibly be true. Why would "almost all political strategists" in the Republican party push a strategy that they feel is "on the wrong side of history"? More likely, when you say "political strategists" what you really mean is "political pundits" aka actors on cable news who pretend to be experts on the subject and have the gall to assume to speak on behalf of others.

It always bothers me when people talk about the political leanings of an entire ethnicity or gender as if the people of that ethnicity or gender are a politically homogenized group. There are plenty of conservative Hispanics and conservative women in Texas. Your assumption that Hispanics or women constituting a population majority would lead to any particular political party assuming power is based on an assumption that there is no diversity of political thought within the Hispanic or female populations. I think a party that courts voters based on demographics of race and gender is being racist and sexist. Both parties are guilty of this to some extent, but one party devotes much more energy to the practice.

The Vietnamese people who avoided being carpet-bombed because of Ellsberg's leak would probably disagree.

Both Felt and Ellsberg attempted to remain anonymous. Is this, in your opinion, less "cowardly" than fleeing the country? If Snowden had anonymously released his information would you still consider him a coward? You avoided answering the question: Were Felt and Ellsberg Cowards?

What legislation "blocks" minority voters, and in what way?

@colourwheel: Was Mark Felt a coward? What about Daniel Ellsberg? According to your definition of "coward" they both are because they both attempted to avoid prosecution for their whistleblowing. In fact, they both tried to remain anonymous, while Snowden has never tried to hide his identity. If Snowden is a coward then Felt and Ellsberg are both even bigger cowards, right? Martyrdom is not a prerequisite for heroism. Saying that someone who avoids prosecution is a coward makes no sense at all. Felt and Ellsberg both were responsible for leaks that changed the course of history at great risk to themselves, and they were attacked in the same ways that Snowden is being attacked now.

57% of Texans voted Republican in the last presidential election, which indicates that the simple majority of Texans are Republican-leaning. This casts some doubt on your theory that the "whole reason" the state has been Republican controlled is due to gerrymandering. Perhaps the voting public has something to do with it as well?

Do you really think this is comparable to Naziism? "Dispossession" occurs in every single government in the world. If you "disagree" with (violate) many of our laws your property will dispossessed. The IRS and DEA both do it every day to people who "disagree" with the laws that they enforce. Communism is a terribly flawed system, but association with communism does not put one in the same category as a mass murderer. Earlier in the thread you compared Mandela to Lenin, Hitler, and Pol Pot. No, but you did say "I don't see Reagan arm in arm with these people doing political salutes" implying that a photo-op and political salute were somehow worse than directly assisting mass murderers. Goodnight!

Why? Communism itself does not advocate any of the bad things that Communist regimes have done. It is an economic theory, nothing more. Blaming communism for the atrocities of self-described communists is no different than blaming capitalism for the slavery committed by self-described capitalists. It is a flawed premise based on irrational fear instead of logic. If you want to, but I don't think anyone has disputed that Mandela was a communist, or at least had communist leanings. He gave them free weapons and intelligence aid paid for with our taxes, which they used for the mass murder of civilians and the pursuit of personal gain and power consolidation. I consider this much more deplorable and immoral than hugs, hand shakes, or salutes.

So your logic goes something like this: A) Castro was a bad guy B) Mandela met with Castro, and was photographed with him. C) Castro == Mandela D) Mandela was a bad guy http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2013/7/3/1372849142471/President-Ronald-Reagan-w-007.jpg A) Hissene Habre was a bad guy B) Reagan met with Habre, and was photographed with him (and aided him while he committed mass murder) C) Reagan == Habre D) Reagan was a bad guy Lets do another one! http://antiwar.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/reaganmontt-e1369142686632.jpg A) Efrain Rio Montt was a bad guy B) Reagan met with Montt, and was photographed with him (and aided him while he committed mass murder) C) Reagan == Montt D) Reagan was a bad guy Note that I don't really think these photos prove that Reagan was a bad guy. I'm just illustrating the silliness of posting a picture of someone meeting Castro and pretending like that means something significant. What about the excerpts from his autobiography? What if that "someone" is the son of the Republican pastor himself, by his own hand in his autobiography?

The topic was about the way that people were utilizing and/or abusing Mandela's legacy. Some are tripping over themselves trying to attach themselves to him for personal gain. Others are jumping at the chance to ridicule or denounce him. You would be an example of the latter. The "facts" that you are sharing are more editorial than factual. His flaws, many and varied though they may be, do not negate his sacrifice or historical significance. You are claiming that they do, and that he is unworthy of any form of admiration. You even stooped to such a level of intellectual dishonesty that you compared him to mass-murdering tyrants and cult leaders. You are entitled to hold that opinion, but when you express it in a debate forum you are inviting others to dispute it. Your statement was not that King's father was a Republican or that the march was organized by Republicans. It was that King himself was a Republican. This is easily demonstrated to be false. source 1 source 2 source 3 source 4 source 5 Notice that 4 of 5 of those references are to text that was written by King himself. Source 1 was not written by him, but does quote him. Can you produce a source that quotes him as saying anything even remotely similar to "lol j/k I'm Republican!" to dispute those five?

@Platton: Your post sounds an awful lot like "I am unable to produce an example of someone who, by my own standards, is an historical figure worthy of praise and is not a fraud". I didn't criticize anyone, and you have not expressed a positive opinion about anyone or mentioned anyone who had a positive influence. You did not debunk any myths, but you did create a few new ones (i.e. King was an anti-communist Republican, etc). Well done!

I asked you to name an example. Can you do that? Bear in mind that if you do name one of these imaginary, untouchably pious people that you seem to believe actually exist I am going to rip them to pieces just to demonstrate that NOBODY has ever been perfect. Choose wisely!

@Platton: Has any person ever lived who, in your opinion, deserves recognition and praise for their political or social achievements? eta: King was at least sympathetic to communism, expressed admiration for several communists, and worked closely with members of the Communist Party so, by the standard of perfection that you are setting to qualify for historical admiration, he did not deserve it either. He also never expressed any support for Republicans in general, and in fact said "In the past I have always voted for Democrats" when he was considering voting for Eisenhower. He was highly critical of both parties and never endorsed anyone from either party for President. He did say that he voted for Kennedy, and that he would have endorsed Kennedy had he been able to run for reelection.

This is equivalent to stating "they were better off under apartheid". That sounds like a defense of apartheid to me. By most accounts the former colonial citizens in the US were worse off in many ways for some time following the American revolution. Does this make the American revolution an entirely bad thing? I don't think so, but it is a matter of opinion of course. I don't think anyone would claim that South Africa was transformed into a utopia following the end of apartheid, but I do believe that the good outweighed the bad.

Saying "at least its not slavery" or "at least its not communism" is hardly a solid defense of apartheid. Apartheid was about as far from true capitalism as you can get. If you are defending apartheid you are not a capitalist. This is simply not true. It was the very definition of a race-based class system. Communism's flaws do not excuse apartheid's immorality any more so than apartheid's immorality excuses communism's flaws. The Nazis came to power in part under an anti-communist platform, but it didn't make them good guys.

Communism, for all of its flaws, is not inherently evil in the same way that true race-based class separation is. It is natural that people who live under a system that is obsessed with a class separation would be drawn towards a philosophy that, at its most fundamental core, seeks to end class divisions. I don't fault them for that. The rest of the stuff that you are blaming on Mandela (crimes against whites, etc) was not Mandela's fault any more so than the atrocities committed against native Americans were the fault of George Washington.

@jim_uk: The economy is broken on many levels, and it is far too complex to condense into a few issues. It is the result of many interconnected problems. Many of the problems are admittedly way above my understanding, but some of it can be understood to an extent just by talking to the older generations and putting the pieces together as far as what has changed. I live in Pittsburgh, a town that was once the industrial jewel of the nation. I have talked to many of the old retired mill workers, and many seem to agree after a beer or two that they have themselves to blame for the decline of industry here. The common explanation goes something like this: Their great-grandfathers were poor, uneducated immigrants who jumped at the opportunity to work themselves, literally, to death under terrible conditions in the steel mills and related industries. They welcomed this opportunity because it meant upward economic mobility for their families. They flocked here to take advantage of it. The work conditions were terrible by our modern standards, but they did not entirely see it that way. Working 365 days out of the year meant more wealth in their family than ever had in its history, and was not really a change from their old lives anyway since the agrarian lives that they immigrated from also required 365 days of work simply to survive with no hope of upward mobility. Some of the conditions, however, were truly unacceptable and this led to unions being formed, then busted, then strengthened in resolve by the busting. Their sons followed in their footsteps, and through the unions further improved the conditions, pay, and benefits. Eventually the economy became globally linked through advances in shipping and communication technologies, around the same time that the next generation gradually became greedy. They attempted to continue to demand more and more while others in the world were willing to do the work for less money, because they were still at that point of agrarian survival struggle. The steel companies moved to places like South America and China, were the workers had the same desire that our workers once did, and took the supporting industries with them. The town went down the economic toilet along with our manufacturing and export production. This is an admittedly very condensed and simplified summary of what happened to much of the manufacturing industry in the US, and manufacturing and export are the thing that really makes any economy truly strong. There are similarities between where our economy was 50-100 years ago and where the economies of much of South America and China are today. The people in those places are hungry for the work, and are willing to do more for less. From the perspective of the industries who need workers it is a very simple equation when it comes to working out where they should build the next factory. I imagine that a similar decline occurred in England with regard to a loss of industry because I do not see many consumer goods stamped "Made in England", and likely for similar reasons. It could be summed up as a sense of entitlement run amok, and is in many ways an insult to those initial immigrants who worked those 365 day careers so that their progeny could be wealthier and more educated than they could have ever dreamed, only to demand more. I particularly remember talking to a very old man (90+) who was expressing his disgust at his grandchildren's lack of employment, and comparing their lack drive to his life experience of going to work at the mill as a teen, being handed a broom and told to start sweeping, and eventually working up to a management position that earned him a house that his father would have considered a mansion fit for a king. His grandchildren were on the dole and producing babies that they could not support with multiple women, and one was in jail. It was obvious that this caused him immense emotional pain, to the point that a man who was once so strong and proud of his achievement seemed like he wanted to die and get it over with so he wouldn't have to watch the decline of his offspring. Again, this assessment of the cause of our economic decline a highly simplified explanation of very complex and intertwining issues, and is based only on my personal experience talking to a relatively small sample of old-timers while having a drink with them in bars. It is, however, a story that I have heard enough times that I can't help but consider it to have some merit. @LisnPuppy: Your experience really highlights one of the big problems when it comes to our welfare programs, and that is the fact that they are not really based on need or merit. A person in the situation you describe should absolutely qualify for assistance, but the sad fact is that the programs are not designed to help people like you. If they were there would have been no issue. They are, instead, designed to subsidize poverty itself. They actually incentivize continued reliance on aid, and a person like yourself who begrudgingly applies for aid is not the "target audience" when the programs are being funded. Its a shame. I'm about as anti-socialist as they come but I think a single parent should receive the utmost in aid. They should be prioritized well above anyone without children, to the point that the parent should have the option of not working at all to parent the child full-time at least until their mid-teens. One of the biggest reasons that I would feel personally ashamed to receive aid regardless of my income level is that I have no dependents, and would feel like I was literally stealing from the plates of needy children. The same goes for the elderly and the disabled.

I always bugs me when a person who made great contributions has their reputation dragged through the slop for every moment of imperfection or weakness they ever may have had. I doubt Mandela himself would have claimed worthiness of sainthood, and it is sadly predictable that he is being attacked now that he can't respond. It is equally sad that other people are wasting no time piggybacking on his achievements to build themselves up. On the upside, I suspect that such controversial and divisive opinions about your life are a good indicator that you made a difference in all of the right ways. Holding a mirror to society and forcing it to recognize its flaws hardly ever leads to universal popularity, and pissing off the right people is something to be proud of in itself. Precedent predicts that in a few decades or less the politicians will be invoking his name in an attempt to associate themselves with his legacy despite being in complete opposition to what he stood for. When this happens it bothers me even more than the aforementioned character assassination.

I wonder how someone with one job, never mind two, would have difficulty affording basics like food unless they are maintaining other expenditures that are beyond their financial means. I think the answer to that question would also go a long way towards answering jim_uk's question. I am saying this as a person who grew up fairly poor, and who is fairly poor now. I have been amply and nutritiously nourished the entire time, and it was not thanks to food stamps. It is because I spend wisely and am necessarily frugal. I don't mean to sound unsympathetic or judgemental towards people who rely on such programs but it really is that simple. Programs like that should be reserved for people who cannot earn sufficient income due to disability, injury, age, or the time requirements of single-parent child rearing. They should not to be used to enable people to purchase luxuries from the extra income. And by luxuries, I don't mean nice cars or trips to ski resorts. I mean things that many people consider necessary but really are not, like cable TV and iPhones. I find it very hard to believe that such a high percentage of the population would actually be unable to feed themselves if they simply trimmed the fat from their budgets. Food is cheap in our country. There are places in the world where the food supplies are controlled by gangsters and war lords, and where large segments of the population resort to things like prostitution to feed their children. They would consider basic education to be a luxury, but here the kids are coddled through school and every idiot seems to have a cell phone that costs around $1000/year (enough to nourish several people for months if spent wisely). It is shameful and embarrassing, and it is something that I think about every time I am at the grocery store in line behind someone who pays for their groceries with food stamps then pulls out cash to buy a few cartons of cigarettes, 20 lotto tickets, and a case of beer. Happens almost everytime I'm there. If we truly wanted to help the poor we would limit the spending of that money to the aforementioned people who truly need it, and spend the rest on health care and education. We won't do that, however, because any politician who suggests such a thing is attacked as someone who "doesn't care about the poor" when, in fact, such cutting measures would be beneficial to those who are truly disadvantaged. Welfare at this point has very little to do with actually helping anyone, and more to do with gathering votes from (sorry to be blunt) the lazy, greedy, and uninitiated. The act of splitting the food stamp program out of the "Farm Bill" is a smart one, because farm subsidies and food stamps are only peripherally related at best. One of the things that our congress likes to do is marry two unrelated issues into one bill, so that they pass or fail together. That way a congress person who opposes farm subsidies can be labeled as an "enemy of the poor" for also opposing food stamps, or vice versa. It doesn't mean that food stamps are doomed like the OP suggests. It simply means that a dedicated food stamp bill will be required for the first time since the 70's, and such a bill will hopefully be more focused and will make the system efficient and effective. The issue is also not as partisan as the OP suggests, as Republicans are already talking about the need for that bill. They just didn't want it lumped in with the farm subsidies bill. It deserves its own dedicated legislation. 80% of the farm bill's cost went to food stamps before it was axed, so even calling it the "farm bill" was politically dishonest until now.

@jim_uk: I have a family member by marriage who grew up in the USSR and that video reminds me of listening to him talk. Americans who claim to be communists and speak admirably about communism set him off big time. He is fascinating to listen to as he describes what life was like there. To be honest I was always skeptical of the stories about how bad Soviet life really was and figured that much of what we learned in school about the bleakness of life in Russia was patriotic propaganda. He says that it really was unbelievably bad, to the point of being comical at times. He is a very good natured and friendly and he laughs about the absurdity of the rationing and corruption and bribery and all of that, but he really has no tolerance for self-proclaimed communists who have never actually experienced communism in action. One of the most interesting things that he describes is the fact that, before leaving the country, they really thought that they had it good because they had nothing to compare it to. They used to mock us "poor Americans" because we "suffered" under capitalism. It could be said that the kid in the video has a sort of inverse of that misconception, in that he does not realize how good he has it here because he likely has little or no experience living in a communist system. It is interesting that sometimes the most patriotic people you meet are immigrants. He's not the type to wave flags around in parades or wear his patriotism on his sleeve, and he is extremely critical of our policy trends and our politicians in general, but he truly does have a deep appreciation for living here. Every self-proclaimed American communist should spend some time with an opinionated Russian expat.