US Politics - The old thread is dead, long live the old thread

[TerraPrime]

May as well ask where they were when the Black Panthers were standing up for gun rights to help blacks protect themselves from actual corrupt and tyrannical government enforcers.

Curiouser and curiouser!

[Mudguard]

Right, except it's not. Especially in it's common usage.

That's really convincing. Just keep on repeating your assertions without any evidence. You can spend a minute on google to determine that 1%er refers just to income.

1. Here's one article from CNN.

2. Here's another from the Washington Post.

[Wise Fool]

That's really convincing. Just keep on repeating your assertions without any evidence. You can spend a minute on google to determine that 1%er refers just to income.

1. Here's one article from CNN.

2. Here's another from the Washington Post.

What exactly is your point? What is it you're contributing to this discussion? You're against demonizing simply everyone who makes a certain amount of income. So what? So am I! So was Triskele, whose comment you were (apparently) responding to with this in the first place.

[Mazigh]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/04/15/bundy_ranch_and_bureau_of_land_management_standoff_what_right_wingers_anger.html

Seriously though. Do the mental exercise. A black rancher says he won't obey the federal laws applicable to his area, gathers milita around him, and threatens federal agents. How does the right wing outrage-o-sphere react?

I guess that would be a better point if there actually was a black rancher that did that and the right wing outrage-o-sphere was silent but right now we are just playing hypotheticals and I see no reason why they would remain silent

May as well ask where they were when the Black Panthers were standing up for gun rights to help blacks protect themselves from actual corrupt and tyrannical government enforcers.

And what were they planning to use the guns for?

By the way here is the scariest thing from the Nevada ranch thing

[Shryke]

And what were they planning to use the guns for?

Protect themselves from actual police brutality and discrimination in California.

You don't know anything about the Black Panthers, do you?

[DanteGabriel]

I guess that would be a better point if there actually was a black rancher that did that and the right wing outrage-o-sphere was silent but right now we are just playing hypotheticals and I see no reason why they would remain silent

Okay, how would you feel if it were a Jewish rancher?

[Guest]

Krugman has a timely post on Picketty's new tome, Capital in the 21st Century, that can be read here. He nicely runs through the usual objections about why wealth and income inequality objections don't hold water. And it does to me underscore the point that it's the plutocrats more than the senior accountant that makes $300K that are the issue.

[Mazigh]

Okay, how would you feel if it were a Jewish rancher?

Same as if he was a Mormon like Cliven Bundy But I want to play another hypothetical If the rancher was black would he still get the same amount of hate and vitriol that he is given by you guys? If those veterans and militia members were instead the Black Panthers?

Protect themselves from actual police brutality and discrimination in California.

You don't know anything about the Black Panthers, do you?

Not much no except that they want to kill all non black people apparently

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I am also curious as to the whereabouts of these freedom-loving, individual-rights-protecting Libertarians when say, the NYC was doing racial profiling of stop-and-frisk. Was NYC too cold for their outrage to gain momentum?

For what it's worth:

The Libertarian Party's candidate for Mayor of NYC campaigned on opposition to Stop and Frisk.

The Cato Institute has been writing in opposition to Stop and Frisk for years. See here and here for two examples.

The Future of Freedom Foundation has also opposed Stop and Frisk.

I don't see anyone bringing guns to Stop and Frisk protests in NYC, regardless of one's political affiliation. I suspect that has as much to do with the local culture and gun laws as anything else.

[Summah]

Not well known can work in his favor. Clinton, Obama, and to some degree Bush were all elected on not being 'establishment' or that well known nationally (Bush only because of his daddy). Now Clinton is part of that establishment, and is pretty old to boot. Someone not that well known that can get people excited, a la Obama 2008, could repeat her 2008 run.

O'Malley is no Barack Obama or Bill Clinton, he does not have that kind of charisma and I really wouldn't want to see him become president-he's smarmy but without BC's charisma, also the Maryland healthcare exchange website was botched and since he's the computer program stats governor I don't think that's in his favor. But all you really need to know about O'Malley is this: The Wire version of him was played by the same actor who plays Littlefinger on GoT.

[DanteGabriel]

Same as if he was a Mormon like Cliven Bundy But I want to play another hypothetical If the rancher was black would he still get the same amount of hate and vitriol that he is given by you guys? If those veterans and militia members were instead the Black Panthers?

If he were black I doubt it'd be much of an issue and we wouldn't ever have heard of him. I wouldn't hate on him, because he wouldn't be some big militia darling crowing some ignorant interpretation of federalism. No militia army would show up to threaten federal agents, and whole story blows over and is only a local curiosity. But because it's tied in to militia guys whining about how oppressed they are, it got all this attention. So no, I wouldn't shower so much hate on him, because he'd just be some obscure dumb-ass rancher who broke the law and not the latest hero to misguided overprivileged twits like Bong of Ice and Fire.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Just going to post a little Ramsay bait, more stereotypical liberal crap on the Bundy Ranch issue:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/04/15/bundy_ranch_and_bureau_of_land_management_standoff_what_right_wingers_anger.html

Seriously though. Do the mental exercise. A black rancher says he won't obey the federal laws applicable to his area, gathers milita around him, and threatens federal agents. How does the right wing outrage-o-sphere react?

I'll bite!

Like Commodore said in an earlier thread, the problem here is a lack of well-defined property rights. The gov't, whether it be federal or state (but especially federal), simply shouldn't own that much land.

I don't see how calling the Obama admin. "lawless" somehow makes conservative commentators responsible for armed resistance. Plenty of people called Bush "lawless," and they would not be to blame if someone acted violently against the feds during 2000-2008

For the record I would also defend your hypothetical black rancher in this case. I think the Black Panthers generally had the right idea in their actions, if not their ideology. But I'm not part of the "right-wing-o-sphere" and have never listened to talk radio.

I am also curious as to the whereabouts of these freedom-loving, individual-rights-protecting Libertarians when say, the NYC was doing racial profiling of stop-and-frisk. Was NYC too cold for their outrage to gain momentum?

You make it too easy.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/03/john-w-whitehead/the-police-state-of-new-york-city/

http://reason.com/tags/stop-and-frisk

http://personalliberty.com/obamas-racial-hypocrisy-trayvon-could-have-been-me-but-im-nominating-ray-stop-and-frisk-kelly-king-of-racial-profiling/

^Those are the three biggest libertarian sites out there. So were you just being intellectually lazy, accusing a political movement of racism without actually bothering to do research, or were you being intentionally dishonest?

The "everybody is a racist" shtick is getting boring, guys.

[TerraPrime]

[mod hat]

Chill out on the sniping and bickering. The issue of pedantry has been well hashed so let's move on.

[/mod hat]

[Shryke]

Let's try this again then in a more mod-friendly fashion:

That's really convincing. Just keep on repeating your assertions without any evidence. You can spend a minute on google to determine that 1%er refers just to income.

1. Here's one article from CNN.

2. Here's another from the Washington Post.

Look up what a metonym is. Think about what people mean when they talk about Wall Street doing something.

It's the same thing.

When people say "the 1%", it's not referring to every single person in the top 1% income bracket the same way talking about Madison Avenue does not refer to every business on that street or even everyone working in advertising.

[Mudguard]

What exactly is your point? What is it you're contributing to this discussion? You're against demonizing simply everyone who makes a certain amount of income. So what? So am I! So was Triskele, whose comment you were (apparently) responding to with this in the first place.

Yeah, arguing about the definition of 1%er is not worth it. The point of my original comment before I got sidetracked was as you say, that it's improper to demonize a group of people just based on how much money they make. People repeatedly call out Republicans for saying that poor people are lazy. And they should call them out because it's a improper generalization. No one here has a problem for calling out these Republicans for making these income based generalizations.

But for some reason it's OK to make generalizations about the rich. Like how they all want you to kiss their asses all the time. And how they are all trying to take advantage of the political system at everyone else's expense using their vast wealth. Some may be doing this, like the Kochs, but not all. And yes, I think Triskele's term (not to get tied up in definitions again...) of plutocrat is better.

That said, moving the discussion to a related topic, the use of wealth to influence a political agenda, given our system in the US, it's hard for me to fault Bloomberg, who is certainly a plutocrat, for pledging $50 million to promote gun control. Are you outraged at this use of big money to influence politics? How about people giving big donations to promote marriage equality for LGBT people? Is this an improper use of wealth to influence politics? Honestly, I can't say that I'm troubled by the thought. Or is it OK when it aligns with your views?

[MerenthaClone]

Not much no except that they want to kill all non black people apparently

:rofl:

[Mudguard]

Let's try this again then in a more mod-friendly fashion:

Look up what a metonym is. Think about what people mean when they talk about Wall Street doing something.

It's the same thing.

When people say "the 1%", it's not referring to every single person in the top 1% income bracket the same way talking about Madison Avenue does not refer to every business on that street or even everyone working in advertising.

I'm taking Terra's advice and moving on...

[TrackerNeil]

Seriously though. Do the mental exercise. A black rancher says he won't obey the federal laws applicable to his area, gathers milita around him, and threatens federal agents. How does the right wing outrage-o-sphere react?

Fox Noise would no doubt call upon the president and other black leaders to explain this act of sedition. And never doubt that they would call it sedition at the least, and quite possibly treason.

Edited to add: I just read a summary of this affair, and it's incredible that this Bundy has been allowed to get away with this. The man has summoned armed force with the intent to defy court orders and federal law. If an abortion clinic pulled this stunt, conservatives would urge the president to send in the National Guard to restore the rule of law.

[Guest]

That said, moving the discussion to a related topic, the use of wealth to influence a political agenda, given our system in the US, it's hard for me to fault Bloomberg, who is certainly a plutocrat, for pledging $50 million to promote gun control. Are you outraged at this use of big money to influence politics? How about people giving big donations to promote marriage equality for LGBT people? Is this an improper use of wealth to influence politics? Honestly, I can't say that I'm troubled by the thought. Or is it OK when it aligns with your views?

Speaking only for myself here, but I think it's a really good question and sort of touches on what I was saying on Soros in the last thread. I think that money gives people enough advantages in and of itself without laws trying really ratchet up people's influence over the political process. I think that while you can find some really far leftists who really do dislike wealth, that's not where most of the left is coming from on this. It's more of an instinctive feeling that there's an ideal of what democracy ought to be and that all of this money being so brazenly involved isn't right.

Here's perhaps a more direct response to the question you pose: what if I do believe in stricter gun control and feel that Bloomberg's money really helps that cause. I might be "for" that just so far as it goes, but what if you offered me a bargain and said "you lose Blooberg's ability to throw all of that cash at that particular cause, but in exchange I offer you an end to Sheldon Adelson being able to throw endless cash from a business in Macao into US politics" would I take that deal? A hundred times yes.

[Inigima]

The Bundy case is really bizarre. I get why the feds backed off -- I think, anyway -- not wanting to get into a genuine gunfight with a bunch of psychos over something as dumb as land rights. But goddamn, are we really going to set the precedent that threatening to shoot the feds means the feds retreat with their tail between their legs?

EDIT: I would really rather not play the left-wing analogy game with this. This part:

I just read a summary of this affair, and it's incredible that this Bundy has been allowed to get away with this. The man has summoned armed force with the intent to defy court orders and federal law.

is plenty adequate to be alarming.