that GOP strategy?

Ok we get it. .When you are losing an argument shout racism..This is getting old.Time to move on…

I agree with him about privatizing the post office. He might be right about the unskilled labor, but he was definitely wrong in bringing up “Nigerians”.

whoa.. fox actually aired a segment where some douchebag was called a racist? eric fratboy bollings makeup almost ran away from him.. notecards w neon highlights!! this idiot’s really setting himself apart eh.
now how does it this fit in w the faux reverse racism that’s tearing our poor country apart. What is the poor beaten down WASP to dooooo!!!!

Patrick Henry said:
I agree with him about privatizing the post office.

Absolutely – the post office is obsolete in todays electronic world, and is a drain on the US population.

Patrick Henry said:
He might be right about the unskilled labor, but he was definitely wrong in bringing up “Nigerians”.

Thank you patrick – in fact, our political landscape would be much different if we called out the people we agree with politically first

If your child and the neighbor are both cursing, you don’t say your child was worse than mine

Holy crap, I’ve never been a fan of D’Amato; but he has really changed my mind about him here.

Al, I’ll never call you evil again.

Burnnotice; racism is alive and well in this country, and it needs to be shouted down every time it is heard.

You, a supposed “Libertarian” should – like Rand Paul – also denounce racism. That you claim it’s “old” and that it’s “time to move on” while obvious racism is still expressed by members of whatever party or channel is rather telling of your particular Libertarianism.

Burnnotice: care to denounce racism here and now or do I need to keep reminding readers here on Mediaite of your “turn a blind eye” toward depravity philosophy when I see you post?

Tick tock burnnotice, tick tock.

I want to go on the record denouncing idiocy. Yeah, I’m looking at you GlennBeckReview.

GlennBeckReview said:
Holy crap, I’ve never been a fan of D’Amato; but he has really changed my mind about him here.

Al, I’ll never call you evil again.

Burnnotice; racism is alive and well in this country, and it needs to be shouted down every time it is heard.

You, a supposed “Libertarian” should – like Rand Paul – also denounce racism. That you claim it’s “old” and that it’s “time to move on” while obvious racism is still expressed by members of whatever party or channel is rather telling of your particular Libertarianism.

Burnnotice: care to denounce racism here and now or do I need to keep reminding readers here on Mediaite of your “turn a blind eye” toward depravity philosophy when I see you post?

Tick tock burnnotice, tick tock.

You really need to get over yourself. …..

I agree that the post office should be privatized, but I am so happy that D’Amato called out the bigotry. I am also very impressed that Money Rocks let the thing run. Burkman deserved the dressing down! This show is getting really good! Rock on!

Patrick Henry said:
I agree with him about privatizing the post office. He might be right about the unskilled labor, but he was definitely wrong in bringing up “Nigerians”.

agreed, it’s one thing to bring up unskilled workers and how that can fixed, but the whole crap about Nigerians.. I think we’ve lost sight of the American dream, this country was founded on a conglomerate of people from many countries and cultures who came here to better themselves, now these are the same people “who should be driving cabs”

Ok, so everyone agreed that the post office should be privatized, right? So what did the Nigerians ever do to that guy? Was he involved in a deal to transfer 1 million dollars into his bank account, for only a small nominal fee?

So the fact that the Post Office is losing $7B a yr and naming PO buildings after living people is because they hired Nigerians? I mean I know there are some bad apples, but that would be like saying based on this buffoon’s comments, all Americans are racist , loudmouths. And that would be pure idiocy.

Please people, forget about Republican/Democrat for a while here, and call this guy out for the horse’s ass that he is.

danger_mouse said:
Ok, so everyone agreed that the post office should be privatized, right? So what did the Nigerians ever do to that guy? Was he involved in a deal to transfer 1 million dollars into his bank account, for only a small nominal fee?

So the fact that the Post Office is losing $7B a yr and naming PO buildings after living people is because they hired Nigerians? I mean I know there are some bad apples, but that would be like saying based on this buffoon’s comments, all Americans are racist , loudmouths. And that would be pure idiocy.

Please people, forget about Republican/Democrat for a while here, and call this guy out for the horse’s ass that he is.

It was a really awkward statement, everyone agreed, the Post Office should be privatized, that in itself is refreshing (people actually agreeing on something i mean) i just dont get the purpose of bringing up Nigerians?

Burnnotice says: “You really need to get over yourself. …”

That’s it? That’s your way of expressing opposition to racism, burnnotice?

No, pseudo-Libertarian, you need to condemn racism here, today, soon, or readers of these comments will be reminded of your tacit embracing of racists and racist sentiments.

Tick-tock. Take your time: I have a job to do just now; but I’ll be looking for your condemnation or tacit approval all day on this story board burnnotice.

You’re on notice: what’s it going to be?

Burnnotice said:
Ok we get it. .When you are losing an argument shout racism..This is getting old.Time to move on…

Wow did you miss the point!! The Senator actually agreed with the guy, but objected to his reference to Nigerians.

We should point out racism whenever we see it. Well, unless it’s coming from the Nation of Islam, or the Black Panthers, or Al Sharpton.

CosmosDan said:
Wow did you miss the point!! The Senator actually agreed with the guy, but objected to his reference to Nigerians.

No I got the point entirely! That being I’f you have weak debating skills or just want to bring notice to yourself. Bring up Racism!. I could have won the argument handily without bringing up a phrase that has been redundantly used to win arguments. Argue on your merit not on reaction…

GlennBeckReview said:
Burnnotice says: “You really need to get over yourself. …”

That’s it? That’s your way of expressing opposition to racism, burnnotice?

No, pseudo-Libertarian, you need to condemn racism here, today, soon, or readers of these comments will be reminded of your tacit embracing of racists and racist sentiments.

Tick-tock. Take your time: I have a job to do just now; but I’ll be looking for your condemnation or tacit approval all day on this story board burnnotice.

You’re on notice: what’s it going to be?

I’m On notice??? LOL You forgot I’m a Libertarian,. We hand out the Notices. If you want to be a Racist or not. makes no difference to us. Its all about freedom my friend. I defend your freedoms . To speak your mind.. Say and call me or anyone else anything you want… Enjoy it while you can. If my kind goes away. You too my friend will be silenced by the forces at hand……

GBR, are these 2 statement equally offensive to you:

“most of these guys working in the post office should be driving cabs,”

and

“you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.”

Methinks the comments about “Nigerians,” in terms of the post office was a (albeit clumsy) way of referencing the famed “Nigerian Email Scam.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance-fee_fraud

Burnnotice says: “I’m On notice??? LOL You forgot I’m a Libertarian,. We hand out the Notices. If you want to be a Racist or not. makes no difference to us.”

Tell that to Rand Paul.

If your “Libertarianism” is indifferent to racism, then it’s just one more reason why it belongs and needs to stay in the 19th Century.

Yes, Michelle Malkin, I mean F, what Biden said was racist. I do believe that he expressed regret for saying that.

Burnnotice said:
No I got the point entirely! That being I’f you have weak debating skills or just want to bring notice to yourself. Bring up Racism!.

I watched the segment in its entirety before replying. – not sure I agree

Burnnotice said:
I could have won the argument handily without bringing up a phrase that has been redundantly used to win arguments. Argue on your merit not on reaction…

The argument where he agreed with him?

Personally GBR, I don’t think what either man said is racist, I think we as a society have become WAY too politically correct.

Burnnotice said:
I’m On notice??? LOL You forgot I’m a Libertarian,. We hand out the Notices. If you want to be a Racist or not. makes no difference to us. Its all about freedom my friend. I defend your freedoms . To speak your mind.. Say and call me or anyone else anything you want… Enjoy it while you can. If my kind goes away. You too my friend will be silenced by the forces at hand……

And D’Amato’s right to speak out against it – RIGHT?

Post Office is created in Article, Section 8 of the Constitution which gives Congress the power to create and therefore name them.

Burkman had a valid point about the quality of labor at the Post Office, but he could have dropped the Nigerian and cab driver references and been much clearer. D’Amato (I am not a fan at all) was right to call him out for the tone of his comments. D’Amato’s point was that the nasty/racist comments undercut the argument and he is right.

This is the problem with the entire political discourse going on. It is less and less about the issues at hand and more about nasty and personal attacks. On BOTH sides.

http://www.itisnotagame.com

MichelleF said:
GBR, are these 2 statement equally offensive to you:

“most of these guys working in the post office should be driving cabs,”

and

“you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.”

I agree totally

MichelleF said:
Personally GBR, I don’t think what either man said is racist, I think we as a society have become WAY too politically correct.

I disagree – want the other side to stop – call out your own

Keeva said:
Post Office is created in Article, Section 8 of the Constitution which gives Congress the power to create and therefore name them.

Burkman had a valid point about the quality of labor at the Post Office, but he could have dropped the Nigerian and cab driver references and been much clearer. D’Amato (I am not a fan at all) was right to call him out for the tone of his comments. D’Amato’s point was that the nasty/racist comments undercut the argument and he is right.

This is the problem with the entire political discourse going on. It is less and less about the issues at hand and more about nasty and personal attacks. On BOTH sides.

http://www.itisnotagame.com

THATS the point – if he made all other points you could not disagree, now the only point anyone sees out or a 6 plus minute segment is Racisim

bugspot1 said:
I watched the segment in its entirety before replying. – not sure I agree

The argument where he agreed with him?

When I made my first comment it was directed towards the headline not the story….

Michelle, these racist quotes are fun. Here are a couple. Sure glad it’s only white people who are racist.

” Hitler was a very great man. He rose Germany up from the ashes.”

“Take this beautiful woman — she’s your queen! She’s your jewel. Don’t let a white man get near this black woman. And last but not least, black man, don’t let that white man at anytime in your life give you his white woman! We don’t want her!”

Burnnotice said:
No I got the point entirely! That being I’f you have weak debating skills or just want to bring notice to yourself. Bring up Racism!. I could have won the argument handily without bringing up a phrase that has been redundantly used to win arguments. Argue on your merit not on reaction…

Except there wasn’t ANY debate because the Senator agreed with the guy. He wasn’t losing an argument because they agreed. Got that?

He used it because the guy actually made a racist comment. The term is used to freely these days when people disagree but sometimes it is the correct term. This is one of those times.

GlennBeckReview said:
Tell that to Rand Paul.

Rand Paul is not a Guru to Libertarianism any more then Barrack Obama is a Guru for Liberalism

If your “Libertarianism” is indifferent to racism, then it’s just one more reason why it belongs and needs to stay in the 19th Century.

Spoken like a true Progressive. Now we know who’s sides were on. Whoopee!

jooce81 said:
agreed, i I think we’ve lost sight of the American dream, this country was founded on a conglomerate of people from many countries and cultures who came here to better themselves, now these are the same people “who should be driving cabs”

The people that used to come over wanted to assimilate themselves as Americans and learn the American way. They maintained their cultures but did so privately and not beating a drum in public trying to force things on people. Folks as a whole who immigrate here now want us to adjust to their cultures and not the other way around. They dont take pride in being American, they just know they can get a better shake at things here than where they are coming from.

writer said:
Michelle, these racist quotes are fun. Here are a couple. Sure glad it’s only white people who are racist.

” Hitler was a very great man. He rose Germany up from the ashes.”

“Take this beautiful woman — she’s your queen! She’s your jewel. Don’t let a white man get near this black woman. And last but not least, black man, don’t let that white man at anytime in your life give you his white woman! We don’t want her!”

Just as a point here; racism isn’t just the mention of race. Racism usually denotes one race feeling superior to another and feeling they have the right to dominate because of that superiority. Resentment or even hatred born of being kicked in the teeth once to often isn’t necessarily racism.

CosmosDan said:
Except there wasn’t ANY debate because the Senator agreed with the guy. He wasn’t losing an argument because they agreed. Got that?

He used it because the guy actually made a racist comment. The term is used to freely these days when people disagree but sometimes it is the correct term. This is one of those times.

OK Progresive Dan. You can go buddy up with BeckloverReview now…

CosmosDan says:

Resentment or even hatred born of being kicked in the teeth once to often isn’t necessarily racism.

Translation, if you are a minority, you can’t by definition be a racist. Thanks Dan, we already knew that leftest talking point.

writer said:
We should point out racism whenever we see it. Well, unless it’s coming from the Nation of Islam, or the Black Panthers, or Al Sharpton.

Sorry writer, I can agree with the politics, not the your side is worse than my side argument
thats where politics is today, If you don’t call him out the Nation of Islam, or the Black Panthers, or Al Sharpton. get to use the same argument

they agreed – the garbage changed the whole point of the segment

Keeva says: “This is the problem with the entire political discourse going on. It is less and less about the issues at hand and more about nasty and personal attacks. On BOTH sides.

http://www.itisnotagame.com”

Great perspective: you just got another follower.

Oooh. Getting some thumbs down. Quoting those black racists is touchy.

Here’s the best part of the whole discussion: Nothing got bleeped, nothing got cut. We got to see the whole discussion. I’m very impressed with Money Rocks, Eric Bolling and his crew for the honesty and boldness. Without that, we wouldn’t even be able to comment!

Burkman referred to the MEMBERS, as in Congressional Members, about the ceremonial and memorial waste…not the imported labor. So I guess double-checking is useless on blogs or aggregaters.

I have no idea why he mentioned Nigerians or Ethopians, maybe he has some specific reasons to name them, perhaps it was just a specific reference to the imported labor he talked about. It’s as if, when a white person mentions any person or people who have a darker skin tone than a white person, all reason goes out the window and people feign indignation. Ask people before you label them as such, or just use your brain.

But I think it’s awesome that someone got fed up with something, even if he overreacted because he didn’t want to even know why. I like the cussing, and I like that they didn’t bleep it, and that they weren’t stopped. Most people probably don’t realize it but cable has no content restrictions.This will be the hot topic on the socialist websites like MMFA and TPM, and they won’t even have to splice words together or just type a sentence and place a quoted word in it.

writer says:
September 17, 2010 at 11:05 am writer(Quote)
Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

Oooh. Getting some thumbs down. Quoting those black racists is touchy.

Writer, you need to read Cosmos comment. If you are black, you CANNOT be a racist, no matter what you say. Get is straight man!

The left sees black racism as being like Bigfoot sightings. They might be out there, but it has yet to be confirmed.

Burnnotice said:
We hand out the Notices.

So that’s where all the junk mail comes from.

D’Amato is not one of my favorties. He did terrible, terrible damage to the American banking systems when he was in office. But, he comes from a strong Republican background, and I am sure he shares the traditional Republican commitment to civil rights. I am sure D’Amato and many such Republicans must feel a knife penetrating deep into his heart when he hears the racist and xenophobic cheerleaders in his party co-opting the racism and xenophobia of the Tea Partiers and people like Michelle-in-Utah, Righter, Not So Fast and others. I’m proud he stood up to this, and I hope many other good and reasonable Republicans will as well. We all know there will be no leadership from the key Congressional Republicans.

The King is certain there is no such thing as a black racist. At his all white private schools, he didn’t encounter a one. And that means that no one else has ever encountered one, either. If anyone says they have, they’re lying. The King knows. He went to private schools.

CosmosDan says: “Resentment or even hatred born of being kicked in the teeth once to often isn’t necessarily racism.”

But it can become so: Note the New Black Panther Party for example. They are so racist that even the Black Panther Party will have nothing to do with them.

The problem is that the dominant culture will often purposely make righteous indignation, resentment and the calling out of racism into “reverse racism” when it’s not.

When I ran for Congress in 1992, the local public interest group, Citizen Action, would not endorse me because I had a color blind philosophy (Rawl’s Theory of Justice) instead of supporting affirmative action. Were they being reverse-racist? I certainly came away thinking so.

Royal Race-Baiter/Religious Bigot says:

I am sure D’Amato and many such Republicans must feel a knife penetrating deep into his heart when he hears the racist and xenophobic cheerleaders in his party co-opting the racism and xenophobia of the Tea Partiers and people like Michelle-in-Utah, Righter, Not So Fast and others.

Yawn!

bugspot1 said:
And D’Amato’s right to speak out against it – RIGHT?

Yes, Its his right, but why change the course of the argument to appease the initiator presenting the case lack of debating skills. Stay focused on the initial argument at hand win! Then P. S. at the end “Oh and your a racist Fuck!. Jack Berkman threw out a “safety net” before going into debate so as to misdirect his argument into a racial debate. Shows his lack of confidence in his material. He is totally right in his case that the Post office is loosing money. I agree with him and would have won the debate on my argument alone. He is weak and would have been crushed on the Post office debate but got away with just being labeled a racist…

Wow! This is the first time I’ve seen Al D’Amato’s prescription kick-in during a TV segment.

But the Nigerian comment was gratuitous. There are plenty of unskilled union Americans working for the USPO.

Al D’Amato is a classic, old school NY conservative. He’s always on the side of the private sector and big business, happy to dismantle government agencies and hand them over to corporations. But he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about pet culture issues, like most NYers. He doesn’t care if you’re white, black, or blue… as long as your money is green. And being a racist is bad for business, especially in New York where whites aren’t a 90% majority, like they are in most of the plains and mountain States, for instance.

The McDonalds point was hilarious. I mean, obviously the American people need more hamburgers than mail! Duh! LOL!

The Pony Express was a private enterprise, with Federal backing. The USPS has been an off-budget agency for decades, more self-financed than almost any other Federal agency (black market commerce in the CIA notwithstanding). It’s already mostly privatized as it is. But the key to making mail delivery affordable is the very existence of the USPS in the first place. FedEx is a great company, but very expensive and they don’t handle first class mail. UPS isn’t quite as good, but they’re cheaper.. yet still no first class mail. And DHL doesn’t even deserve to be called anything but a waste of time. So we privatize the USPS and the private company that takes over (a new private monopoly) will obviously be more efficient and less expensive? You’re kidding yourselves.

But I’m ready to see all these libertarian ideas come to fruition as soon as possible. Let’s privatize everything, dismantle the entire Federal government, abolish the Constitution, and empower the States as nations unto themselves. One army becomes fifty armies, one FBI becomes fifty FBIs. That will be much more efficient and cost-effective. It might lead to more wars, but it’s a small price to pay for profit. So let’s blow off all this “love thy neighbor” crap and get down to the business of looking out for number one! I guess I’m at a disadvantage because I don’t have any guns, but I AM sneaky and diabolical and I know how to rig a steam explosion. So let’s rumble, you rugged individualists.

Give me liberty or give me death! That IS what Patrick Henry meant by that, right? ;-)

Paul Westlake said:
So that’s where all the junk mail comes from.

No, the Post Office silly!

This thread is laced with a lot of BS. Please, folks, run through this country’s history, decade by decade. Racism was far more prevalent even just a couple of decades ago than it is now. 30 – 40 years ago it was a huge issue. In 1955 Rosa Parks couldn’t sit where she wanted to on a bus. My son lives in a dorm on a college campus, there are 3 black guys, 3 white guys, and 1 hispanic guy in his dorm – they are great friends. A few decades ago, they wouldn’t have been using the same restroom. Most of this nonsense today is created by the media, and guys like Sharpton and this big mouthed fool Burkman. A few decades from now this argument will be a dinosaur, and thank God (or whoever you thank) for that. It’ll leave time for more important bullshit.

notsofast said:
Wow! This is the first time I’ve seen Al D’Amato’s prescription kick-in during a TV segment.

But the Nigerian comment was gratuitous. There are plenty of unskilled union Americans working for the USPO.

Absolutely -

Paul Westlake said:
So that’s where all the junk mail comes from.

Burnnotice says:
“No, the Post Office silly!”

Lame!

Andy Lamb said:
This thread is laced with a lot of BS. Please, folks, run through this country’s history, decade by decade. Racism was far more prevalent even just a couple of decades ago than it is now. 30 – 40 years ago it was a huge issue. In 1955 Rosa Parks couldn’t sit where she wanted to on a bus. My son lives in a dorm on a college campus, there are 3 black guys, 3 white guys, and 1 hispanic guy in his dorm – they are great friends. A few decades ago, they wouldn’t have been using the same restroom. Most of this nonsense today is created by the media, and guys like Sharpton and this big mouthed fool Burkman. A few decades from now this argument will be a dinosaur, and thank God (or whoever you thank) for that. It’ll leave time for more important bullshit.

yes exactly

It obviously couldn’t be Nigerians, because I’m not getting Junk mail from princes asking me to deposit $1000 in their money-transfer account.

The Real Royal King said:
I am sure D’Amato and many such Republicans must feel a knife penetrating deep into his heart when he hears the racist and xenophobic cheerleaders in his party co-opting the racism and xenophobia of the Tea Partiers and people like Michelle-in-Utah, Righter, Not So Fast and others.

Would you stop with your false accusations toward Tea Partiers and certain conservatives on this board? Your rants of racism toward them are without merit and quite silly.

Andy Lamb said:
Racism was far more prevalent even just a couple of decades ago than it is now.

That’s because it was institutional until segregation ended. But the legacy is still with us. You’re 100% correct about the majority of the American people, especially younger generations, being almost completely “over” the race issue, but there is still a lot of institutional racism in the country. When I started working for a major sports league in 2005, there were maybe two black people in a department of more than 100. When I became the hiring manager, I increased minority hiring by more than 500%. And some of my managers accused me of “coddling” unskilled labor, though nobody was hired who couldn’t do the job with a high degree of skill. It was merely the presence of non-white faces that created that impression. I actually created performance reviews for the specific purpose of showing that my department had improved on efficiency and quality as a result of those hires, which those managers had assumed was the opposite, without looking.

I agree with you in principle – things are MUCH better than the days when blacks had to march in Alabama, but the work is far from done and the attitudes far from extinguished throughout the land. It’s just as regressive to be dismissive of the continued legacy of racism as it is to use racial fear tactics to drive wedge issues, imo.

Paul Westlake said:
The Pony Express was a private enterprise, with Federal backing. The USPS has been an off-budget agency for decades, more self-financed than almost any other Federal agency (black market commerce in the CIA notwithstanding). It’s already mostly privatized as it is. But the key to making mail delivery affordable is the very existence of the USPS in the first place. FedEx is a great company, but very expensive and they don’t handle first class mail. UPS isn’t quite as good, but they’re cheaper.. yet still no first class mail. And DHL doesn’t even deserve to be called anything but a waste of time. So we privatize the USPS and the private company that takes over (a new private monopoly) will obviously be more efficient and less expensive? You’re kidding yourselves.

These comments are completely on the money. Dead straight accurate. I’m sure what you meant, Paul, when you said that UPS is cheaper is that they are cheaper than FedEx, as they are also still much costlier than USPS. You can take your last sentence (the question you asked before you said “You’re kidding yourselves”) change the word “less” to “much more” and change the question mark to a period, and you have the answer to your question.

Keeva says: “This is the problem with the entire political discourse going on. It is less and less about the issues at hand and more about nasty and personal attacks. On BOTH sides.

http://www.itisnotagame.com”

Great perspective: you just got another follower.

Thanks!

What if he had said Romanians instead of Nigerians? Would he had also been accused of racism? Give me a break! Nigerians have a reputation for being crooked, it has nothing to do with race.

Burnnotice said:
OK Progresive Dan. You can go buddy up with BeckloverReview now…

I see you admitted that you made your comment based on the title rather than actually watching the clip. If you’ve watched it you can see that you made a mistake. There really was no argument for anyone to win since they all agreed. That’s all.

I completely agree that racism is thrown around far too much. People need to be corrected for assuming racism where none is apparent, If you think Obama is a lousy president and you think his policies are crap, that’s not racism.

It’s just that in this particular case, the guy made racist comments and was called on those comments, not the argument it self, because there wasn’t one. ,

greg454 said:
What if he had said Romanians instead of Nigerians? Would he had also been accused of racism? Give me a break! Nigerians have a reputation for being crooked, it has nothing to do with race.

Look at the taxi cab reference. Why bring shape it that way at all. Say they’re incompetent idiots if you want but there was no good reason to bring up other races at all.

Patrick, Royal King has repeatedly said he went to private schools. I went to bad inner city schools. Yet when I relate any of the experiences, the King says I’m lying. Likewise, Michelle is a Mormon. The King is not. Yet he constantly lectures her on what the Mormon religion is like. Such is the mind of the King.

(I can always count on at least a few “thumbs downs” just for putting my name on comments. I wonder how many of those conservatives have even bothered to read them… probably not many. Now that the more vociferous among us know I’m a “dirty liberal,” I get the automatic vote down. Good times! LOL)

Paul Westlake said:
But I’m ready to see all these libertarian ideas come to fruition as soon as possible. Let’s privatize everything, dismantle the entire Federal government,

Paul, Libertarians are not anti-government. They do not want to dismantle the federal government. They want a smaller federal government that follows the the duties and responsibilities laid out for it in the Constitution. I did find your post somewhat humorous and I hope that was the way it was intended.

Don’t be so surprised Al. The majority of the people in the Republican Party are just like Jack Burkman. And just like the many people who camp out on this board, they are stunned to think anyone would consider them racist.

Patrick Henry said:
Paul, Libertarians are not anti-government. They do not want to dismantle the federal government. They want a smaller federal government that follows the the duties and responsibilities laid out for it in the Constitution.

Libertarians may not want to actually dismantle the Federal government, but you’d be hard-pressed to find that distinction in most of the libertarian pundits’ rhetoric. Most of them are so zero-sum that there really is no distinction – Federal government bad – State governments slightly not as bad – private enterprise is god. It’s really THAT simplistic most of the time. I grant that thinking people like you don’t buy into that draconian nonsense, but it is pumped over the airwaves in nearly unadulterated form like that almost incessantly.

Patrick Henry said:
I did find your post somewhat humorous and I hope that was the way it was intended.

It was indeed and I’m glad I can still get a chuckle out of SOMEONE around here. ;-)

MichelleF said:
CosmosDan says:

Resentment or even hatred born of being kicked in the teeth once to often isn’t necessarily racism.

Translation, if you are a minority, you can’t by definition be a racist. Thanks Dan, we already knew that leftest talking point.

Your translation is incorrect. I’ll thank you to not put words in my mouth. I don’t think anger and resentment aimed at any generalized group is smart or productive , whether it be race religion or big business, or whatever. Sweeping generalizations rarely help. I was just talking about the classic definition of racism.
Blacks who automatically hate white people who have really done them no wrong, or because they have embraced the victim mentality would be correctly called bigots, rather than racist.

you girls enjoy bickering over some meaningless turd anal-ysts at fox spewing utter rubbish? lets see if fox ever books Amato again.

Cosmo says:

Blacks who automatically hate white people who have really done them no wrong, or because they have embraced the victim mentality would be correctly called bigots, rather than racist.

Wow, that’s great spin.

You’re right, Michelle. That was a neat spin. Maybe we could clean it up even more. We could say that people in the Nation of Islam or the Black Panthers are ‘tolerance challenged’.

MichelleF said:
Blacks who automatically hate white people who have really done them no wrong, or because they have embraced the victim mentality would be correctly called bigots, rather than racist.

Whites who don’t like blacks would be bigots as would blacks who don’t like whites.

Blacks who think they were superior to whites because of their genetic makeup and racial characteristics and whites who think they were superior to blacks because of their genetic makeup and racial characteristics would be correctly called racists.

I love how libs revise history and the meanings of words.

Sorry, Michelle F , I was referring to Cosmos dumb statement.

Paul Westlake said:
Al D’Amato is a classic, old school NY conservative. He’s always on the side of the private sector and big business, happy to dismantle government agencies and hand them over to corporations. But he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about pet culture issues, like most NYers. He doesn’t care if you’re white, black, or blue… as long as your money is green. And being a racist is bad for business, especially in New York where whites aren’t a 90% majority, like they are in most of the plains and mountain States, for instance.

The McDonalds point was hilarious. I mean, obviously the American people need more hamburgers than mail! Duh! LOL!

The Pony Express was a private enterprise, with Federal backing. The USPS has been an off-budget agency for decades, more self-financed than almost any other Federal agency (black market commerce in the CIA notwithstanding). It’s already mostly privatized as it is. But the key to making mail delivery affordable is the very existence of the USPS in the first place. FedEx is a great company, but very expensive and they don’t handle first class mail. UPS isn’t quite as good, but they’re cheaper.. yet still no first class mail. And DHL doesn’t even deserve to be called anything but a waste of time. So we privatize the USPS and the private company that takes over (a new private monopoly) will obviously be more efficient and less expensive? You’re kidding yourselves.

But I’m ready to see all these libertarian ideas come to fruition as soon as possible. Let’s privatize everything, dismantle the entire Federal government, abolish the Constitution, and empower the States as nations unto themselves. One army becomes fifty armies, one FBI becomes fifty FBIs. That will be much more efficient and cost-effective. It might lead to more wars, but it’s a small price to pay for profit. So let’s blow off all this “love thy neighbor” crap and get down to the business of looking out for number one! I guess I’m at a disadvantage because I don’t have any guns, but I AM sneaky and diabolical and I know how to rig a steam explosion. So let’s rumble, you rugged individualists.

Give me liberty or give me death! That IS what Patrick Henry meant by that, right? ;-)

Absolutely SPOT ON. Some facts for the Postal service haters:

” 1. 68 billion — revenue in 2009, in dollars
2. 177 billion — total number of mail pieces processed in 2009
3. 584 million — average number of mail pieces processed each day
4. 24 million — average number of mail pieces processed each hour
5. 405,000 — average number of mail pieces processed each minute
6. 6,761 — average number of mail pieces processed each second
7. 40 — percentage of the world’s card and letter mail volume handled by USPS
8. 2.1 billion — dollar amount paid every 2 weeks in salaries and benefits
9. 596,000 — number of career employees
10. 218,684 — number of vehicles in our fleet the largest civilian fleet in the world
11. 1.1 billion — dollar amount spent on fuel in 2009
12. 1.25 billion — number of miles driven each year by our letter carriers and truck drivers
13. 444 million — number of gallons of fuel used in 2009
14. 36,400 — number of postal retail locations nationwide
15. 14 — percent of the nation’s population that moves annually
16. 43.8 million — number of address changes processed in 2009
17. 1.1 million — number of people who visit usps.com each day
18. 222 million — amount of stamp and retail sales online at usps.com
19. 390 million — total revenue from Click-N-Ship label purchases
20. 7.3 million — number of passport applications accepted in 2009
21. 135.1 million — number of money orders issued in 2009
22. 252,000 — number of daily transactions processed on 2,500 APCs
23. 548 million — amount in revenue generated from APC transactions
24. 58,288 — number of stores, banks and ATMs that sell postage stamps
25. 923,595 — number of new delivery points added to the network in 2009
26. 0 — tax dollars received for operating the Postal Service
http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/postalfacts.htm

So no only do these right winged privatization zombies want to immediately lay off HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Americans, but leave wide swaths of services unavailable to millions of Americans. Neither UPS or Fed Ex deliver EVERYWHERE to EVERYBODY domestically, and foreign service is not even an option.

MichelleF said:
Personally GBR, I don’t think what either man said is racist, I think we as a society have become WAY too politically correct.

Right…because YOU’RE gonna determine what’s racist and what’s not.

”

Brigham Young-President and second ‘Prophet’ of the Mormon Church, 1844-1877- Extract from Journal of Discourses.

”

–Cobra

Andy Lamb said:
when you said that UPS is cheaper is that they are cheaper than FedEx, as they are also still much costlier than USPS.

You read that correctly (but I could have been clear on that).

Andy Lamb said:
You can take your last sentence (the question you asked before you said “You’re kidding yourselves”) change the word “less” to “much more” and change the question mark to a period, and you have the answer to your question.

So it would look like:

“So we privatize the USPS and the private company that takes over (a new private monopoly) will obviously be more efficient and much more expensive.”

Not bad, but I think we still have to deal with the efficiency clause:

Probably about the same efficiency because a for-profit enterprise will divert nearly all cost-savings to executive salaries and investor dividends, not mail delivery. And over time, even those efficiencies would be lost to the pyramid scheme that has become the average publicly held corporation – and there can be no doubt that the USPS would go IPO within two years of privatizing.

The outcome of privatizing the USPS, in the long run, would spell the end of mostly reliable mail delivery in the United States.

Cobra says:

MichelleF said:
Personally GBR, I don’t think what either man said is racist, I think we as a society have become WAY too politically correct.

Right…because YOU’RE gonna determine what’s racist and what’s not.

Um Cobra, it’s called an opinion. Last time I checked, I was entitled to one.

Cobra said:
“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.

The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings.

This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race–that they should be the “servant of servants;” and they will be, until that curse is removed.”

Brigham Young-President and second ‘Prophet’ of the Mormon Church, 1844-1877- Extract from Journal of Discourses.

“The Blacks are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty.

The Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow there from, but this inequality is not of man’s origin, it is the Lord’s doings.” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 526-527).

Yeah, you know…reading some of this Mormon Doctrine gives me a lot of insight about some of posters from Utah. Those Nigerians bear the “mark of Cain”, I suppose.

Cobra nails it. Here’s a bible passage for the newly penitent:

“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” ~Matthew 7:21 – 7:23

Don’t get all “Christian” on a Presbyterian and NOT know your Jesus. Fool’s errand. ;-)

Great job, Cobra! Now let’s see some of those Nation of Islam quotes that so offend you.

Cobra,
It’s sad now deep your hatred is. Maybe you could give give Gladys Knight or Thurl Bailey a call and they could explain why, as a black person, they chose to join the Mormon church.

Am I the only one who sees D’Amato’s response to a bigot as REFRESHING? Can we all keep the focus that his remarks were CALLED FOR and that we were able to witness the racism?

writer said:
Now let’s see some of those Nation of Islam quotes that so offend you.

Nation of Islam doesn’t speak for Islam, just like the Christian Coalition doesn’t speak for Christianity. You want to go quote for quote, start with the bigoted, victim-complex hysteria from people like Ralph Reed and Phyllis Schlafly.

MichelleF said:
It’s sad now deep your hatred is.

I don’t see hatred in Cobra. I see you using “hatred” to defend the indefensible. And THAT’S sad.

Can we also quote Farrakhan, Rev. Wright, Al Sharpton, and Jesse (Hymietown) Jackson? Or is that too politically incorrect?

Hey Paul W, someone who wrote this shouldn’t lecture on hate:

All conservatives are rage-filled, small-minded, cowardly racists, sexists, and self-hating, closeted homosexuals and/or pedophiles, who hate themselves so much they’d rather destroy the country, indeed the entire world, to prevent anyone from finding out how hateful, frightened, and insecure they are ALL THE TIME! Now, instead of lashing out at me, why don’t you do what conservatives ALWAYS do instead – go kill a small animal or beat your wife/girlfriend/child senseless. That’ll teach us!

MichelleF said:
Hey Paul W, someone who wrote this shouldn’t lecture on hate:

All conservatives are rage-filled, small-minded, cowardly racists, sexists, and self-hating, closeted homosexuals and/or pedophiles, who hate themselves so much they’d rather destroy the country, indeed the entire world, to prevent anyone from finding out how hateful, frightened, and insecure they are ALL THE TIME! Now, instead of lashing out at me, why don’t you do what conservatives ALWAYS do instead – go kill a small animal or beat your wife/girlfriend/child senseless. That’ll teach us!

Way to take my obviously over-the-top and obviously intended-to-get-a-rise tirade from a completely different thread out of its original context for use in an utterly irrelevant way. You must a Breitbart trainee! Were you saving that on your clipboard all this time, just hovering over the keys waiting to hit “paste?” LOL!

That tirade was satire used as a mirror to reflect the reactionary attitudes of people like you, m’lady. But I keep forgetting that satire is lost on the utterly humorless. My bad! ;-)

Now, if you want to start quoting out of context, I’m sure I can put together a wonderful treatise of yours that exposes you as a freaking pedophile if I want. But that would be unfair and wrong. So careful, sister. Your rhetorical skills have not impressed to date and I wouldn’t be itching for this fight if I were you.

Paul Westlake said:
I don’t see hatred in Cobra. I see you using “hatred” to defend the indefensible. And THAT’S sad.

There may not be hatred, but it seems he is on here ONLY looking to post comments regarding race. And, the comments are rarely if ever positive, rarely talk of how far we have come. Instead, they always refer to how far we have to go. In reality, his comments more make things sound as if we haven’t really come that far at all.

Why on Earth is anyone on here quoting passages from holy books anyway? As far as I know, none of them have been written recently. Does quoting a passage from a book that was written two thousand years ago really address anything? I, for one, am not newly penitent, for I have nothing to be penitent about. As I commented earlier, racism will be a dinosaur one day soon. It is already well on it’s way there.

Now, if you want to start quoting out of context, I’m sure I can put together a wonderful treatise of yours that exposes you as a freaking pedophile if I want.

Go for it, I don’t think you could.

Your rhetorical skills have not impressed to date and I wouldn’t be itching for this fight if I were you.

If that’s a threat, I’m not impressed.

MichelleF said:
Now, if you want to start quoting out of context, I’m sure I can put together a wonderful treatise of yours that exposes you as a freaking pedophile if I want.

Go for it, I don’t think you could.

If I wanted to waste that much time, I’d do it today. Instead, I’ll start saving your quotes for use out of context later on and spring it on you like you did with me, in a completely unrelated post. I’ll probably also smash edit some bites to completely alter the meaning just to piss you off, too. But I haven’t decided yet. Depends on the source material. ;-)

MichelleF said:
Your rhetorical skills have not impressed to date and I wouldn’t be itching for this fight if I were you.

If that’s a threat, I’m not impressed.

Yes, cynical you is not impressed by anything. Yet you have also not been impressive in any way either. Amazing how I manage to have perfectly reasonable conversations with some of the conservatives here but not others… is it me? I think not. ;-)

Lastly, I don’t make threats. Threats are idle talk. My gramps taught me never to pull a gun unless I intend to use it. He also said, don’t even let them know you’re armed! Wise man…

Michelle, since you’re always being accused of ‘cut and paste’, perhaps you should adopt the Royal King style of debate. Make some wild accusation, then when called on to back it up, leave the site and claim you’re going out of the country.

Yawn.

Burnnotice says: “Now we know who’s sides were on. ”

NOW? I grasped this on first glance at one of your comments.

Andy Lamb says: “…racism will be a dinosaur one day soon. It is already well on it’s way there.”

Writing metaphorically here. Scratch that: I’d be quoted out of context again. Kicking racism in the ass can only speed that extinction.

Of course, Burnnotice isn’t ethically developed enough to grasp this because he’s a “Libertarian.”

I would writer, but I’d never be able to keep all those lies straight like he does. Perhaps if I had, say a teleprompter I could bring everywhere to remind me what to say, I could handle it.

CosmosDan said:
I see you admitted that you made your comment based on the title rather than actually watching the clip. If you’ve watched it you can see that you made a mistake. There really was no argument for anyone to win since they all agreed. That’s all.

I completely agree that racism is thrown around far too much. People need to be corrected for assuming racism where none is apparent, If you think Obama is a lousy president and you think his policies are crap, that’s not racism.

It’s just that in this particular case, the guy made racist comments and was called on those comments, not the argument it self, because there wasn’t one. ,

I can make an

CosmosDan said:
I see you admitted that you made your comment based on the title rather than actually watching the clip. If you’ve watched it you can see that you made a mistake. There really was no argument for anyone to win since they all agreed. That’s all.

I completely agree that racism is thrown around far too much. People need to be corrected for assuming racism where none is apparent, If you think Obama is a lousy president and you think his policies are crap, that’s not racism.

It’s just that in this particular case, the guy made racist comments and was called on those comments, not the argument it self, because there wasn’t one. ,

You don’t see the argument because of the race issue. Jack Burkmans Diversion from the real argument. worked on you. Don’t blame me on your lack of comprehensive skills…

“So whats a few Billion” huh Andy?

writer said:
…………..perhaps you should adopt the Royal King style of debate. Make some wild accusation, then when called on to back it up, leave the site and claim you’re going out of the country.

Writer is always good for a laugh just when one is needed. I don’t even have to cut and paste a funny poem I remember, one you posted impromptu in response to one too many acerbic poems from the Royal King on a Sarah Palin thread –

THE KING DOESN’T FEAR PALIN
DON’T GET THAT IDEA
JUST IGNORE THE FLOP SWEATS
AND EXPLOSIVE DIARRHEA

Patrick Henry said:
Paul, Libertarians are not anti-government. They do not want to dismantle the federal government. They want a smaller federal government that follows the the duties and responsibilities laid out for it in the Constitution.

That’s the essential essence of it.

Libertarians and people like me who basically agree with their philosophy, simply believe the federal government is intended to have specific limited powers enumerated by the constitution. That is the essence of the constitution….to limit the federal governments power so as to preserve the most individual liberty.

Today’s federal government has far overreached it’s intended power.

As for the state governments and the people, it’s accepted that they hold the “reserved powers” which essentially are the true powers of sovereignty as opposed to the expressed(and limited) powers of the federal government…..so they don’t have a big issue with state government.

That they hold a true free market as a desired ideal is because that(and specifically property rights) is the essence of true liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

They do not want to abolish government….they are not anarchists….they just understand that government inherently cannot be trusted to ‘not’ abuse it’s power so in needs to be curtailed. That is the actual purpose of the constitution and the federalist papers…..to protect the people from government.

Andy Lamb said:
And, the comments are rarely if ever positive, rarely talk of how far we have come. Instead, they always refer to how far we have to go. In reality, his comments more make things sound as if we haven’t really come that far at all.

Drive through the Brownsville section of Brooklyn every night, EVERY night, and see the police sweeps that occur there and nowhere else in the borough. Then look at the size of the minority population in the neighborhood and draw the correlation yourself. The US Dept of Agriculture recently settled cases of institutional racism in which black farmers were denied the same relief as their white counterparts, in equal circumstances, that dates from the 80s and 90s. That’s NOT ancient history. The families affected by those policies are still alive today, still on the short end of an age-old stick.

You won’t see me deny the progress that has been made, but for minorities in this country, it’s not enough to be satisfied with how far we’ve come. The job is only done when it’s done, and it’s not done yet. And rosy pictures about race-neutral dorm rooms is nice and all, but it’s nowhere near the full or even the real picture. Institutional racism still exists, even with a black President. As a society, we ignore it at our own peril.

I hadn’t copyrighted it Andy, so feel free to use it.

I’m a Nigerian and I’d just like to say that this guy needs to have his head examined. Why the heck did he bring up NIgerians in a conversation about the incompetence of a US governmental organization? And using the term ‘unskilled’ with Nigerians is an oxymoron. Nigerians are some of the most highly educated people in the world. We value education because without it, you’re not advancing anywhere in NIgeria. Even when we migrate to other countries, including the U.S., most of us go on to get advanced degrees.

Honestly, this guy is a moron. I’m not even sure racism is the issue here, as much as ignorance about so-called ‘third-world’ countries. Maybe, as someone said in an earlier comment, a Nigerian just suckered a cool 1 million from his bank account and he is sulking. A-hole!

And she said “privatize Homeland Security” it is obvious that this woman in uninformed . Has she not heard r Blackwater/Xe and the abuses and disgrace of american security. these people are really scarey. We really need to join Jon Stewart on the Mall on October 30, 2010 to restore sanity and take it down a notch.

Something unusual is going on here. When you see a sleazebag like D’Amato calling out a racist on FOX, you know that things are changing for the better. I’m a New Yorker and have been forced over the years to closely watch D’Amato’s career which has been built on a lot of manipulation, racism and corruption. Now in his dotage he actually did the right thing in calling out this idiot about the Nigerians in the PO. Burkman just thought he’s on FOX where racism or racist innuendo is usually permissable. Also, as concerns the privatization of the PO – I agree with most of what Paul Westlake has to say, but I must add that while the PO needs to be more streamlined and electronic friendly, there is no private substitute that will cheaply deliver hard copies of mail everywhere in the country, nor sell inexpensive money orders and offer other worthwhile services, and most of the people working in the PO are helpful and friendly. I’d like to see what you have in a number of European and Asian countries where the PO offers bank-like services such as savings accounts, transfers, etc. Something that you rock hard Libertarians and ‘Conservatives’ don’t get is that 99% of the left is not for ‘socialism’, but , you have to face it, mixed economies like Germany and Canada and most European countries function better than we do. You can’t have a 100% privatized health system where the profit motive reigns supreme. This doesnn’t make for a healthy nation. Nor can you have a privatize army like King George and the Hessians. I just wish you people had more common sense, but it seems you’re going to go down with your TeaBagger’s ship. Demographics are not on your side and you really don’t have the numbers no matter how hard you try, and most people are not going to let unquailified people run things. I think we all learned a lesson with Bush II. We can’t do without government, so you would think that we would want to get the most qualified people who will create good government. Unfortunately, the Republican Party is now a write-off and we’ll have to depend on the 50% of the Democrat politicians who are up to the job. Yes, the Republicans will win a few more seats in November but it’s hardly going to be a bloodbath for the Democrats

kairos said:
That is the actual purpose of the constitution and the federalist papers…..to protect the people from government.

Not it wasn’t. It was to create a government of, by, and for the people. There will always be a system of governance, no matter how much anarchy and chaos have reigned. The flaw in the libertarian argument is the blanket faith it has in free enterprise, as though only saints own and run businesses, or that “market forces” will dictate the moral path because it’s good for business. I don’t think John D Rockefeller got that memo, or Carnegie (who made up for it with the awesome library system!), or JP Morgan, or Jamie Dimon or Lloyd Blankfein. I don’t think the Fed got that memo, or Citigroup, or ExxonMobile. The whole point of government of the people is to protect the people from ALL the vicissitudes of life, from tyrannical dictators to petty criminals, from natural disasters to man-made Ponzi schemes all the same. WE, collectively, make up the system of governance that enables us to keep checks on ALL the would-be powers of our society. Strict libertarians don’t see government as having a role in too many of those areas, leaving the social contract in tatters and hastening the anarchy that can be the only result. Progressives and libertarians are pretty close in ideology when it comes to outcome, but progressives believe the process is best kept in check where we have a vote – government, whereas libertarians believe the process is best checked by market forces. While that may be true in some instances, when it comes to fundamental needs, water, medicine, police and fire coverage, etc, the critical life or death nature of having those services or not, makes them too much of a temptation to manipulate by the unscrupulous. Without checks, backed by law and enforced by government, most of America would look a lot more like the OK Corral, and a lot less like June Cleaver’s neighborhood. ;-)

Hooray Mr. D’Amato!!! These people feel free in this society today, to make racist allegations for everything. It is not crying racism out of the blue, it is calling what these scarey bigots say, and calling it by name. These pundits, radio hosts have been given carte blanche to make bigoted remarks in public, because our president is black and his father was from Africa instead of England, Ireland or Scotland. these people are afraid of the changing dynamics in the country and the sad part is: as a woman pointed out above, this will all be condemned for what it is “a racist McCarthyism instead of communism”. UH< OH, the president is a black man which is anti-american according to Michelle Bachman and every person in Congress who believes this black man can think and lead, must be anti-american. BACHMANISM is alive and well among the aging tpartiers and the extreme fringe of the republican party.

Yeah, I the one that gave ganymede the first thumbs up… What? ;-)

Quick analogy on the progress America has made in race relations: we don’t praise our children for finishing SOME of their homework, we praise them for finishing ALL of their homework. The homework on race relations isn’t done yet, so it’s way too soon to hand out gold stars, imo.

Burnnotice said:
I can make an

You don’t see the argument because of the race issue. Jack Burkmans Diversion from the real argument. worked on you. Don’t blame me on your lack of comprehensive skills…

“So whats a few Billion” huh Andy?

but then you would have to turn this

Burnnotice said:
Burnnotice says:

bugspot1 said:
And D’Amato’s right to speak out against it – RIGHT?

Yes, Its his right, but why change the course of the argument to appease the initiator presenting the case lack of debating skills. Stay focused on the initial argument at hand win! “Then P. S. at the end “Oh and your a racist Fuck!.
Jack Berkman threw out a “safety net” before going into debate so as to misdirect his argument into a racial debate. Shows his lack of confidence in his material. He is totally right in his case that the Post office is loosing money. I agree with him and would have won the debate on my argument alone. He is weak and would have been crushed on the Post office debate but got away with just being labeled a racist…

into this

Burnnotice said:
Burnnotice says:

bugspot1 said:
And D’Amato’s right to speak out against it – RIGHT?

Yes, Its his right, but why change the course of the argument to appease the initiator presenting the case lack of debating skills. Stay focused on the initial argument at hand win! “Then P. S. at the end “Oh and your a racist Fuck!.
Jack Berkman threw out a “safety net” before going into debate so as to misdirect his argument into a racial debate. Shows his lack of confidence in his material. He is totally right in his case that the Post office is loosing money. I agree with him and would have won the debate on my argument alone. He is weak and would have been crushed on the Post office debate but got away with just being labeled a racist…

to point out that not only did Dan acknowledge that you stated ro reacted to the headline, you are now arguing against him because he agrees with you

Jack Burkmans Diversion from the real argument. worked on you. You didnt argue I agree with him and would have won the debate on my argument alone. He is weak and would have been crushed on the Post office debate but got away with just being labeled a racist…

you reacted to the headline with ANTI RACISM

Paul Westlake said:
Drive through the Brownsville section of Brooklyn every night, EVERY night, and see the police sweeps that occur there and nowhere else in the borough. Then look at the size of the minority population in the neighborhood and draw the correlation yourself.

I don’t know enough about the Brownsville section of Brooklyn to comment. I do, however, know that there are no police sweeps in the neighborhood or the development I live in, and there are PLENTY of black folks in my development. My neighbors on both sides are black. My street looks like housing at a UN Convention. In inner city Cleveland, there are frequent police sweeps. The reason? That is where the crime is.

Paul Westlake said:
You won’t see me deny the progress that has been made, but for minorities in this country, it’s not enough to be satisfied with how far we’ve come. The job is only done when it’s done, and it’s not done yet. And rosy pictures about race-neutral dorm rooms is nice and all, but it’s nowhere near the full or even the real picture. Institutional racism still exists, even with a black President. As a society, we ignore it at our own peril.

So what do you suggest be done? I know only a little about the USDA cases with black farmers (interesting that we are talking about a government agency) and if there was clear discrimination based on color only, having nothing to do with financial ability to repay loans, then the result of the litigation was just.

We tried making lending more fair to the entire population. Heavy pressure to stop discriminatory lending (which in reality was not lending money to people due to a much higher probability of no return, due to poor finances, poor credit history, etc.) led to increasingly loosened lending restrictions started under WJ Clinton. GSE’s Fannie and Freddie led the way with no money down loans, loans for 110% of home value to also cover costs and, hey, maybe you can even buy some furniture while you’re at it. This type of lending was praised as more fair, good for all – now the poor and minorities can “buy” homes too, because after all, everyone deserves to own a home, that is what was said at the time. Progressives pushed hard for this in the 90′s. And look where it has gotten us. It helped no one, least of all the minorities these asinine programs were designed to help. So, again, what do we do?

Andy Lamb said:
We tried making lending more fair to the entire population. Heavy pressure to stop discriminatory lending (which in reality was not lending money to people due to a much higher probability of no return, due to poor finances, poor credit history, etc.) led to increasingly loosened lending restrictions started under WJ Clinton. GSE’s Fannie and Freddie led the way with no money down loans, loans for 110% of home value to also cover costs and, hey, maybe you can even buy some furniture while you’re at it. This type of lending was praised as more fair, good for all – now the poor and minorities can “buy” homes too, because after all, everyone deserves to own a home, that is what was said at the time. Progressives pushed hard for this in the 90’s. And look where it has gotten us. It helped no one, least of all the minorities these asinine programs were designed to help. So, again, what do we do?

This is 100% wrong. Fannie and Feddie worked perfectly for decades until financial deregulation allowed investment banks to resell the loans as CDOs, then sell them again (not re-sell, sell twice!) as synthetic CDOs, while hiding the potential losses in opaque derivatives and insuring themselves against the inevitable implosion they intentionally caused so they could collect on the REIT shorts and massive insurance policies. The housing meltdown was NOT caused by poor people (and even bringing this up in the context of a discussion on race is pretty borderline, buddy!), it was caused by bankers who took advantage of unsophisticated consumers by selling little understood loan vehicles, like balloon and no-asset mortgages. And it was done intentionally. Lloyd Blankfein should be in jail right now and putting this on the poor and minorities is totally wrong-headed and racially sketchy at best. Careful now. ;-)

back to my original points

bugspot1 said:
Absolutely – the post office is obsolete in todays electronic world, and is a drain on the US population.

Thank you patrick – in fact, our political landscape would be much different if we called out the people we agree with politically first

If your child and the neighbor are both cursing, you don’t say your child was worse than mine

bugspot1 said:
THATS the point – if he made all other points you could not disagree, now the only point anyone sees out or a 6 plus minute segment is Racisim

now we have pages and pages of “your side is worse than my side”
Well I for one see that as “I am no better than you”

would anyone like to debate the part at the end where D’Amato argued for a public/private partership

UPD already stated they would not go to many parts of the US

ganymede said:
Burkman just thought he’s on FOX where racism or racist innuendo is usually permissable.

Making stupid statements like this discredits the entire comment you made.

ganymede said:
you have to face it, mixed economies like Germany and Canada and most European countries function better than we do.

That is your opinion and it is an EXTREMELY debatable one.

ganymede said:
……and most people are not going to let unquailified people run things. I think we all learned a lesson with Bush II.

And now we are learing a much harsher and more expensive one with Mr. Obama. But, thank goodness, it seems people are coming to their senses.

ganymede said:
Unfortunately, the Republican Party is now a write-off and we’ll have to depend on the 50% of the Democrat politicians who are up to the job.

Yes, so many all stars in that party…..Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Rangel, Waters, Kucinich, Richardson, Mollohan, Kerry…..I could go on and on.

ganymede said:
Yes, the Republicans will win a few more seats in November but it’s hardly going to be a bloodbath for the Democrats

Yes, it pretty much will be. Even the Dems who are running away from Obama realize that.

@Paul Westlake
@Andy Lamb
Re: shipping costs – I am not aware of Fedex/UPS on letters, but over 20 years of shipping I can tell you packages are CHEAPER via FEDEX Ground and will usually arrive with less damage

Andy Lamb said:
That is your opinion and it is an EXTREMELY debatable one.

No it isn’t. French and German exports dominate the global economy after China. “Socialist” France and Germany have the highest export ratio of any western democracy, by a lot. They work less, for more money, have more free time, and still run profitable industries that make much-sought-after products in the global marketplace, across the board. It’s not even close to debatable. Reaganomics has crushed America’s economy, anti-Reaganomics saved theirs. Just the facts. Look it up.

Andy Lamb said:
And now we are learing a much harsher and more expensive one with Mr. Obama.

In what regard, exactly?

Andy Lamb said:
ganymede said:
Yes, the Republicans will win a few more seats in November but it’s hardly going to be a bloodbath for the Democrats

Yes, it pretty much will be.

We’ll see. But don’t count on seeing any Tea Partiers in the Senate (and Brown doesn’t count – that was Coakley’s fault).

Paul Westlake said:
Not it wasn’t. It was to create a government of, by, and for the people. There will always be a system of governance, no matter how much anarchy and chaos have reigned. The flaw in the libertarian argument is the blanket faith it has in free enterprise, as though only saints own and run businesses, or that “market forces” will dictate the moral path because it’s good for business. I don’t think John D Rockefeller got that memo, or Carnegie (who made up for it with the awesome library system!), or JP Morgan, or Jamie Dimon or Lloyd Blankfein. I don’t think the Fed got that memo, or Citigroup, or ExxonMobile. The whole point of government of the people is to protect the people from ALL the vicissitudes of life, from tyrannical dictators to petty criminals, from natural disasters to man-made Ponzi schemes all the same. WE, collectively, make up the system of governance that enables us to keep checks on ALL the would-be powers of our society. Strict libertarians don’t see government as having a role in too many of those areas, leaving the social contract in tatters and hastening the anarchy that can be the only result. Progressives and libertarians are pretty close in ideology when it comes to outcome, but progressives believe the process is best kept in check where we have a vote – government, whereas libertarians believe the process is best checked by market forces. While that may be true in some instances, when it comes to fundamental needs, water, medicine, police and fire coverage, etc, the critical life or death nature of having those services or not, makes them too much of a temptation to manipulate by the unscrupulous. Without checks, backed by law and enforced by government, most of America would look a lot more like the OK Corral, and a lot less like June Cleaver’s neighborhood. ;-)

You’re much too hyperbolic…..to claim that a free market can only result in inevitable anarchy is foolish. Naturally a framework to prevent abuse(eg monopolies) in the free market isn’t totally disregarded outright. But that’s all that’s necessary is a basic framework to maintain reasonable competition. Reasonable competition has as it’s essence the concept of economic darwinism which is itself a self regulating system. Yes….I believe that is a much better model to maintaining liberty and preventing abuse of power, because it is a much more natural process that depends solely on social market dynamics…..abuse is punished and value is rewarded, by the consumer directly. It is much less susceptible corruption than a self serving(monopoly) federal government. You place too much value in the power of your vote…..it’s far less effective at getting the government to pursue your will than the power of lobbies, power-brokers and money, which is what truly guides a federal government. That is why the power needs to be limited as much as possible…to prevent that abuse….because you don’t really have the option of going to another government if you don’t like the one you have. Don’t fool yourself in the thinking that the two parties are threatened by any voting power….although for the first time since I’ve been alive that may actually be changing by popular revolution starting in these coming elections. But even if that voter power is being expressed more than it has been in untold decades, it’s still up against a juggernaut that it can only slightly curtail.

As for those market force abuses you cited as examples….the earlier ones(morgan, carnegie, etc.) were before antitrust….which has basically been rectified by applying that basic regulation, which I’m fine with. The later ones had a lot to do with government complicity and corruption, which actually furthers my point. I believe in separation of economy and state because the less the two interact the less both have of sharing in and enabling each others corruption and abuse.

You also neglect to consider that the free market is not our own. It is not national, it is an international world economy. Our overt regulating doesn’t control corporate abuse, it just hurts our industry and forces them to locate to another place where they will continue their abuse….only the consumer can truly destroy that corporation and it’s abuse. In another vein, look at the bailouts and tarp. Corporations who abused and had bad economic policy, instead of being punished via economic natural selection and allowed to die and restructure as a stronger more efficient entity, were saved by corrupt government favoritism and essentially rewarded for their abuses. That’s the power of your regulating government….complicit corrupt actions that reward corrupt and/or incompetent actions.

Then you mention fundamental needs such as police and fire(and I’ll include national security) as being protected from unscrupulous behavior of a free market ideal….I agree….so does the constitution….those are enumerated powers. I nor libertarians are suggesting they don’t apply….they are constitutional and that’s what we accept….constitutionality. However, national health care is not an enumerated power given to the province of the federal government…that is at most a reserved power of the sovereign states.

Your OK corral analogy is simply exaggerated hyperbole(pardon my redundancy).

Again….the constitutions main purpose is to protect individual liberty from the abuse of government….not creating a government. Having a government is and always was an accepted unavoidable necessity of civilized existence. Having a government was never a question. How to keep the government from abuse of tyranny was the goal. Not just having a government…but having a unobtrusive government.

I don’t expect to convince you to change your view if you’re entrenched in your personal ideology….I’m just attempting to clarify to you the views of a differing ideology.

I’m basically an objectivist, and libertarians are very similar….we believe in the value of liberty, personal property, and the value of individual first. The federal government is necessary to simply maintain general order and security….not to interfere in personal reserved rights.

Sandra Spaulding says: “Am I the only one who sees D’Amato’s response to a bigot as REFRESHING?”

Not hardly. I wrote that way up there, my first comment here. Especially coming from D’Amato, a pol I worked hard in the past to displace. I commend D’Amato here and take back my previous assertions that he’s evil. In fact, now that he’s no longer representing me, he’s not such a bad guy.

MichelleF said:
Cobra,It’s sad now deep your hatred is. Maybe you could give give Gladys Knight or Thurl Bailey a call and they could explain why, as a black person, they chose to join the Mormon church.

Hey, there were Black people who were paid slave catchers in the South. There were Blacks that fought for the Confederacy. There were Blacks that were against the Civil Rights movement. There are Blacks on the Fox News payroll. So it doesn’t surprise me that there are Blacks who would join a religion whose founders deem them inferior and wicked.

Andy Lamb said:
There may not be hatred, but it seems he is on here ONLY looking to post comments regarding race. And, the comments are rarely if ever positive, rarely talk of how far we have come. Instead, they always refer to how far we have to go. In reality, his comments more make things sound as if we haven’t really come that far at all.
Why on Earth is anyone on here quoting passages from holy books anyway? As far as I know, none of them have been written recently. Does quoting a passage from a book that was written two thousand years ago really address anything? I, for one, am not newly penitent, for I have nothing to be penitent about. As I commented earlier, racism will be a dinosaur one day soon. It is already well on it’s way there.

Andy–I guess the headline of this Blog Thread would lead the reader to comment on…what? Casserole recipes?
And as far as quoting holy books, where were you when the Quran/Muslims in Manhattan threads were going on?

CarmanK said:
And she said “privatize Homeland Security” it is obvious that this woman in uninformed . Has she not heard r Blackwater/Xe and the abuses and disgrace of american security. these people are really scarey. We really need to join Jon Stewart on the Mall on October 30, 2010 to restore sanity and take it down a notch.

LOL! I caught that, too. Yes, American Homeland Security should be privitized so that the highest international stock holders/contibutors/partners should have input on national defense.

Lord have mercy.

–Cobra

Paul Westlake said:
This is 100% wrong. Fannie and Feddie worked perfectly for decades until financial deregulation allowed investment banks to resell the loans as CDOs, then sell them again (not re-sell, sell twice!) as synthetic CDOs, while hiding the potential losses in opaque derivatives and insuring themselves against the inevitable implosion they intentionally caused so they could collect on the REIT shorts and massive insurance policies. The housing meltdown was NOT caused by poor people (and even bringing this up in the context of a discussion on race is pretty borderline, buddy!), it was caused by bankers who took advantage of unsophisticated consumers by selling little understood loan vehicles, like balloon and no-asset mortgages. And it was done intentionally. Lloyd Blankfein should be in jail right now and putting this on the poor and minorities is totally wrong-headed and racially sketchy at best. Careful now. ;-)

Your statement is based on the premise that one who gets a loan should have no responsibility knowing the details of the loan they are getting. I did NOT say that the housing meltdown was caused by poor people. I said it was caused by horrifically poor lending practices, and banks, the federal government, and individuals who knowingly took out loans that they should not have ALL had a hand in it. However, it started with liberal social policy goals by increasingly pressuring Fannie and Freddie to buy more mortgages with lower down payments and lower credit score requirements. I really cannot see how that can be argued. Fannie and Freddie are now a bottomless pit for taxpayer dollars. They have already cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, with NO limit on future bailouts. The financial reform bill that now holds banks accountable does NOT include Fannie and Freddie. I am not nearly short sighted enough to place the blame for the housing crisis only on individuals who borrowed far more than they should have (not just poor people, ALL people) and you should not be short sighted enough to place blame only on bankers, as you did. That is 100% wrong.

I gotta go eat Paul. Take it easy.

kairos said:
But that’s all that’s necessary is a basic framework to maintain reasonable competition

But then you negate your own thesis by pointing out that the Sherman Antitrust Act WAS required to reign in those who were not covered by the existing “basic framework.” My point is, it’s a dynamic situation that changes as new technologies and priorities emerge, and that the place for making decisions that those new dynamics force on a national scale is more properly the domain of the we-the-people government, rather than the dog-eat-dog private sector.

But I did say “strict” libertarians, which I count Rand Paul among. When we talk amongst ourselves, we miss all kinds of nuance and sometimes we all get caught up in the broad labeling systems, but Paul and Angle and people like that REALLY ARE advocating a style of libertarianism that REALLY WILL lead to anarchy if embraced as they see fit. I was pretty careful, I thought, to make it clear I was talking about the libertarian punditocracy, not necessarily the libertarians on this board.

kairos said:
Again….the constitutions main purpose is to protect individual liberty from the abuse of government….not creating a government.

Dude, articles one through seven are specifically designed to create and maintain a government of, by, and for the people. Comments like that just make me think you’ve never actually read the document.

The individual does NOT come first in the Constitution, “we the people” comes first. A more perfect union; establish justice; ensure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense; promote the general welfare; secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Where do you see rugged individualism in those tenets? They’re not there. Liberty is the ability to pursue your happiness without infringing on others’ ability to pursue theirs. THAT’S why segregation, DADT, Defense of Marriage, Prop 8, and so on, are anti-liberty. Yes, your liberty ends where mine begins, and vice versa. Nobody has the “liberty” to deny liberty to others. That’s not liberty, it’s tyranny. And today’s rugged individualism is too often indistinguishable from blatant bigotry, as though Beck’s zero-sum pie game was real, but only with regard to the amount of rights that can be enjoyed by each segment of society, i.e., gay marriage rights automatically diminish heterosexual marriage rights. It’s a bogus strawman argument that isn’t and never was the America way.

Paul Westlake said:
No it isn’t. French and German exports dominate the global economy after China. “Socialist” France and Germany have the highest export ratio of any western democracy, by a lot. They work less, for more money, have more free time, and still run profitable industries that make much-sought-after products in the global marketplace, across the board. It’s not even close to debatable.

Ganymede said “you have to face it, mixed economies like Germany and Canada and most European countries function better than we do.” I said that is a debatable statement, which it is. It is not a factual statement, it is his opinion. Opinions can be debated.

Paul Westlake said:
Reaganomics has crushed America’s economy, anti-Reaganomics saved theirs. Just the facts. Look it up.

Another opinion. For you to make a statement like that and call it “fact” is laughable. It is my opinion that you can take the best qualities of the four men who have held the job since Reagan and roll them into one body, you would still have less of a President than Reagan was. I can post all sorts of data on the economy and numbers when each guy took office to when he left office to buttress my position. Then I can say “just the facts.” And, you wouldn’t even have to look them up.

Burnnotice said:
You really need to get over yourself. …..

So what you and Pablo are saying, is that you have no problem with racism?

Burnnotice said:
OK Progresive Dan. You can go buddy up with BeckloverReview now…

And once again, you have not rebuked the comment about “Nigerian.” You are attempting to refute an argument by going around it, not facing it.

greg454 said:
What if he had said Romanians instead of Nigerians? Would he had also been accused of racism? Give me a break! Nigerians have a reputation for being crooked, it has nothing to do with race.

This is gratuitous bull. You are trying to paint an entire country because of the actions of a few. You may not be a racist but you not very bright in making that argument.

MichelleF said:
Cosmo says:

Blacks who automatically hate white people who have really done them no wrong, or because they have embraced the victim mentality would be correctly called bigots, rather than racist.

Wow, that’s great spin.

It is isn’t it? Those dam liberals also have infected Websters dictionary.

then again, the 2nd listing for Racism is a more general “racial prejudice”, so I guess I was nit picking for no good reason.

Sandra Spaulding said:
Am I the only one who sees D’Amato’s response to a bigot as REFRESHING? Can we all keep the focus that his remarks were CALLED FOR and that we were able to witness the racism?

Your comments are spot on, Sandra. Far too many of the strange people on this web are content to bypass what the subject is by making strident comments about Islam, or some other irrelevant comment. They are of the “Yeah, but” school, where your argument is dismissed by their making a claim of somebody else doing something bad. In other words, they are intellectually dishonest.

Andy, these are not opinions. They are empirical facts. Trickle-down, supply-side economics is a dismal failure, always has been, always will be. You say you can cite copious facts to demonstrate otherwise, then by all means please do. Reagan wasn’t even half the President Reagan is supposed to have been because half (or more) of his alleged “policies” were either never enacted, superseded within two years of enacting, or were such dismal failures they were disavowed. The Reagan tax cuts? All gone by ’82, and he raised taxes every year for six more. Break up the ATC union? Skies have never been less safe. Empty the insane asylums? Street crime exploded. Smash the welfare state? Inner cities exploded with poverty and crime. I give Reagan credit for the Nuke treaties and bombing Qaddafi when Libya thought it could get away with murder. Nothing else. By the time he said “tear down this wall,” it was a fait accompli. Gorbachev was a thousand times more responsible for ending the cold war than Reagan ever was and everyone knew the wall was coming down sooner than later. Reagan just hopped on a moving train and his worshipers have been trying to make him out as the single champion of the Soviet demise. It’s fantasy, pure and simple.

alamo2 said:
Sandra Spaulding said:
Am I the only one who sees D’Amato’s response to a bigot as REFRESHING? Can we all keep the focus that his remarks were CALLED FOR and that we were able to witness the racism?

Your comments are spot on, Sandra. Far too many of the strange people on this web are content to bypass what the subject is by making strident comments about Islam, or some other irrelevant comment. They are of the “Yeah, but” school, where your argument is dismissed by their making a claim of somebody else doing something bad. In other words, they are intellectually dishonest.

Bingo on both cards!

Burnnotice said:
I can make an

I’m not sure why the text got smaller. A tag I’m not familiar with yet.

You don’t see the argument because of the race issue. Jack Burkmans Diversion from the real argument. worked on you. Don’t blame me on your lack of comprehensive skills…

“So whats a few Billion” huh Andy?

Right, My comprehension skills. You admitted you reacted to the headline. Both the man who made the racist remarks and the man who called him on it, agreed in the central argument that the Post Office probablu should be privatized. There was no argument on that.

Man, you’d think just acknowledging a very minor error wouldn’t be that big a deal but if you can’t bring yourself to do it,..it really doesn’t matter.

writer said:
You’re right, Michelle. That was a neat spin. Maybe we could clean it up even more. We could say that people in the Nation of Islam or the Black Panthers are ‘tolerance challenged’.

No need. I just prefer people not put words in my mouth by imagining they know what “I really Mean” Ask for clarification or respond to the words posted, but don’t respond to something I never said as if I did.

Paul Westlake said:
Andy, these are not opinions. They are empirical facts. Trickle-down, supply-side economics is a dismal failure, always has been, always will be. You say you can cite copious facts to demonstrate otherwise, then by all means please do. Reagan wasn’t even half the President Reagan is supposed to have been because half (or more) of his alleged “policies” were either never enacted, superseded within two years of enacting, or were such dismal failures they were disavowed. The Reagan tax cuts? All gone by ‘82, and he raised taxes every year for six more. Break up the ATC union? Skies have never been less safe. Empty the insane asylums? Street crime exploded. Smash the welfare state? Inner cities exploded with poverty and crime. I give Reagan credit for the Nuke treaties and bombing Qaddafi when Libya thought it could get away with murder. Nothing else. By the time he said “tear down this wall,” it was a fait accompli. Gorbachev was a thousand times more responsible for ending the cold war than Reagan ever was and everyone knew the wall was coming down sooner than later. Reagan just hopped on a moving train and his worshipers have been trying to make him out as the single champion of the Soviet demise. It’s fantasy, pure and simple.

OK, Paul, since we’ve been discussing minorities, let’s start there. When Jimmy Carter left office, the prime interest rate was 19 percent, inflation was at nearly 14 percent, and the unemployment rate was 7 over percent. At the end of 1988, “Reaganomics” left the prime rate at 8, inflation less than 4 percent, and unemployment barely above 5 percent. A higher proportion of adults were employed than at any previous time in U.S. history.

Altogether, “Reaganomics” created about 19 million new jobs. Between the end of 1980 and the end of 1988, black Americans alone got 2.4 million of those new jobs. The numbers of the black employed jumped from 9 million to 11.4 million – a jump of more than 25 percent.

In constant 1988 dollars, the total annual income earned by all roughly 30 million U.S. blacks together rose from $191 billion at the end of 1980, to $259 billion by the end of 1988. That sum was larger than the GDP of all but ten nations in the world.

The number of black families earning more than $50,000 per year much more than doubled, from 392,000 in 1982 to 936,000 in 1988. From the end of 1982 to 1989, black unemployment dropped 9 percentage points (from 20.4 percent to 11.4 percent), while white unemployment dropped by only 4 percentage points. Black household income went up 84 percent from 1980 to 1990, versus a white household income increase of 68 percent. The number of black-owned businesses increased from 308,000 in 1982 to 424,000 in 1987, a 38 percent rise versus a 14 percent increase in the total number of firms in the United States. Receipts by black-owned firms more than doubled, from $9.6 billion to $19.8 billion.

By your comments, I get the strong feeling that you believe that Jimmy Carter was a better President than Ronald Reagan. It will be very, very, very difficult for me to debate someone who believes that.

I’m a little confused, Paul. You claim that Reaganomics destroyed our economy, while at the same time saying that half (or more) of his alleged “policies” were either never enacted, superseded within two years of enacting, or were disavowed. If this is the case, how did he “destroy” our economy?

Andy Lamb said:
A higher proportion of adults were employed than at any previous time in U.S. history.

That has much more to do with the rapid increase of women in the workforce than Reaganomics. Compared to the 22 million jobs created under Clinton, it’s OK, but hardly a vindication of Reaganomics.

Andy Lamb said:
That sum was larger than the GDP of all but ten nations in the world.

So what? Our GDP was larger than the top three competitors combined. That’s not an accurate measure. And even if minority gains outstripped non-minority gains over any given period, it still hasn’t resulted in an equitable distribution of access and opportunity. And all those numbers you rattled off also have much more to do with EEO legislation and other leveling policies, NOT supported by Reagan and his cohorts. And I’m not even accusing Reagan of being a bigot, just that his policies were not the economic panacea his worshipers believe them to be. And you haven’t proven otherwise. GDP is a terrible measure. How has GNP done under Reaganomics? In the tank!

Andy Lamb said:
By your comments, I get the strong feeling that you believe that Jimmy Carter was a better President than Ronald Reagan.

I think Carter was much smarter but a terrible politician and salesman, ergo, not a very good President. But he’s right that he was closer to health reform until Teddy played politics. Reagan wasn’t a very good President either, but he was a heckuva showman and salesman and he did make America feel good about itself after a long a terrible decade of declining American pride and sense of worth. Clinton blew them both out the water, and that from a guy who has long thought of Bill as being much liberal in style than substance.

Andy Lamb said:
I’m a little confused, Paul. You claim that Reaganomics destroyed our economy, while at the same time saying that half (or more) of his alleged “policies” were either never enacted, superseded within two years of enacting, or were disavowed. If this is the case, how did he “destroy” our economy?

I should have been more clear – the ideology of Reaganomics didn’t go away with the man, it was bleating from the sidelines throughout Clinton’s Presidency, forcing him to scrap health reform entirely, enact welfare-to-workfare, declare the era of big government over, and double the prison population as he capitulated to conservative “tough-on-drugs” ideologues. But they Reagan acolytes REALLY came out in the Bush Jr. administration, gutting every financial regulation they could find, giving trillions in tax cuts to the wealthy while pandering for elder votes with an unfunded prescription drug benefit that would have made them raise Cain if a Dem had proposed it, and ignoring their own anti-deficit mantra all along the way. Now these same people are claiming that Obama’s policies will bring the American economy to its knees, ignoring the fact that it’s already there, only as a direct result of their neo-con policies, which back in the day, was called voodoo economics, or Reaganomics. What Reagan failed or wouldn’t attempt to enact, the next generation pushed through with abandon. And housing bubbles, bank bailouts, broken unions, collapsed financial firms, and broken pension funds are the direct result. (The dot com bubble doesn’t compare because it was a tech bubble, based on hyping a new industry – housing is as old humanity and there was no hype, other than the hucksters selling bad loan vehicles.)

So, sorry for the confusion. Totally my fault. “Reaganomics” is just one of many terms I use to describe that fiscal philosophy. Reagan himself was there for the start of it, but it moved on and matasticised without him.

Paul Westlake said:
Yeah, I the one that gave ganymede the first thumbs up… What? ;-)

I’m proud to have given ganymede a thumbs down. By the way, Paul, I have given you some thumbs up.

Paul Westlake said:
Dude, articles one through seven are specifically designed to create and maintain a government of, by, and for the people. Comments like that just make me think you’ve never actually read the document.

Qualifying your arguments with condescension doesn’t make your arguments stronger, especially when you don’t comprehend what you’re arguing against. Of course the constitution was a document of government….I said that. My point is that our constitution’s purpose, premise, principle is to elevate individual liberty and rights above that of the government and to protect the people from tyranny. It’s not something you can argue. Deflecting by making the obvious statement that it’s a document of government is senseless….of course it’s a document of government….the constitution of the people’s republic of china is also a document of government. The purpose and principle’s behind it are different. Stop being irreverent and obtuse.

Paul Westlake said:
The individual does NOT come first in the Constitution, “we the people” comes first. A more perfect union; establish justice; ensure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense; promote the general welfare; secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Where do you see rugged individualism in those tenets? They’re not there.

Wow….I honestly don’t know what to say except that i don’t know what skewed view of the principles of this nation’s founding documents you base things on. Honestly, I’m kinda shocked by your statement above.

Paul Westlake said:
Liberty is the ability to pursue your happiness without infringing on others’ ability to pursue theirs. THAT’S why segregation, DADT, Defense of Marriage, Prop 8, and so on, are anti-liberty. Yes, your liberty ends where mine begins, and vice versa. Nobody has the “liberty” to deny liberty to others. That’s not liberty, it’s tyranny. And today’s rugged individualism is too often indistinguishable from blatant bigotry, as though Beck’s zero-sum pie game was real, but only with regard to the amount of rights that can be enjoyed by each segment of society, i.e., gay marriage rights automatically diminish heterosexual marriage rights. It’s a bogus strawman argument that isn’t and never was the America way.

I really don’t know what point you’re trying to make here…what are you arguing here? We were arguing libertarianism….which by essence is being free of government infringement upon individual rights and exactly that pursuit of happiness while not infringing upon others rights. If you’re arguing that these are Beck’s views and that’s your justification against libertarianism, than you still don’t understand libertarianism and don’t realize Beck is not an actual libertarian….I actually don’t know a lot about Beck’s views, but I’m assuming that’s what you were inferring.

Patrick Henry said:
I’m proud to have given ganymede a thumbs down. By the way, Paul, I have given you some thumbs up.

Have done the same on some of your posts. Nothing makes me more proud as an American than a good debate devoid of malice. It’s nice to know it’s possible here. ;-)

Paul Westlake said:
Andy, these are not opinions. They are empirical facts. Trickle-down, supply-side economics is a dismal failure, always has been, always will be. You say you can cite copious facts to demonstrate otherwise, then by all means please do. Reagan wasn’t even half the President Reagan is supposed to have been because half (or more) of his alleged “policies” were either never enacted, superseded within two years of enacting, or were such dismal failures they were disavowed. The Reagan tax cuts? All gone by ‘82, and he raised taxes every year for six more

Paul, I have to say I am shocked. My training is in the medical field, not economics or business, so I can’t debate you in technical terms, just what I have lived through. I got married in 1977 during the Carter years. I finished my education in 1980. We could not even think of buying a house because interest rates were sky high (high teens). The economy was in the tank. It kind of reminds me of the mood now. When Reagan came in and instituted his tax cuts and supply side economics, I saw a miracle. The 80′s were awesome to me and my family.Reagan’s policies also did us well into the 90′s and Clinton’s time in office. I LOVE President Reagan and always will.

kairos said:
My point is that our constitution’s purpose, premise, principle is to elevate individual liberty and rights above that of the government and to protect the people from tyranny.

No it isn’t. The point of the Chinese system is to SEPARATE the people from their government. The point of the American system is to create a government INSEPARABLE from the people.They are not mutually exclusive domains in the Constitution. And I wasn’t trying to be condescending, your arguments don’t make any constitutional sense.

kairos said:
Wow….I honestly don’t know what to say except that i don’t know what skewed view of the principles of this nation’s founding documents you base things on.

Um, I quoted the actual United States Constitution… so THAT’S where they come from.

kairos said:
We were arguing libertarianism….which by essence is being free of government infringement upon individual rights and exactly that pursuit of happiness while not infringing upon others rights.

And according to Rand Paul, that freedom includes the freedom to discriminate in a private enterprise, which is a blatant infringement on the liberty of minority citizens. THAT’S the point.

kairos said:
If you’re arguing that these are Beck’s views and that’s your justification against libertarianism, than you still don’t understand libertarianism and don’t realize Beck is not an actual libertarian….I actually don’t know a lot about Beck’s views, but I’m assuming that’s what you were inferring.

Actually, most of my criticism has been aimed at strict libertarian Tea Partiers like Paul and Angle, which I stated earlier:

Paul Westlake said:
But I did say “strict” libertarians, which I count Rand Paul among. When we talk amongst ourselves, we miss all kinds of nuance and sometimes we all get caught up in the broad labeling systems, but Paul and Angle and people like that REALLY ARE advocating a style of libertarianism that REALLY WILL lead to anarchy if embraced as they see fit.

I really don’t mean to be condescending but I don’t think I’m alone in that regard. I’m reading the actual document, as I have done since 7th grade. Federalist papers are awesome and terrific reference for trying to get into the minds of the Founders, but the only document that matters in our system of governance is the constitution and that’s where I derive most of my answers. Really.

Patrick Henry said:
Paul, I have to say I am shocked. My training is in the medical field, not economics or business, so I can’t debate you in technical terms, just what I have lived through. I got married in 1977 during the Carter years. I finished my education in 1980. We could not even think of buying a house because interest rates were sky high (high teens). The economy was in the tank. It kind of reminds me of the mood now. When Reagan came in and instituted his tax cuts and supply side economics, I saw a miracle. The 80’s were awesome to me and my family.Reagan’s policies also did us well into the 90’s and Clinton’s time in office. I LOVE President Reagan and always will.

You’re right about what happened, but not totally accurate about the causes, imo. Remember, the only President to leave office WITHOUT bitterly complaining about the Fed and their damnable independent interest rate “fixes” in the past 50 years is Reagan! I don’t think that’s by accident. ;-)

I remember the cocaine-fueled, go-go 80s very well, too. And yes, many forces combined to boost the economy, not least of which was an end to the oil embargo and new relationship with OPEC, and a booming stock market that helped to fully finance the pension funds that were coming due that helped keep the consumer base strong. But also, part of Reagan’s success was in realizing when he’d gone to far. Even though the top marginal rate stayed low, other taxes were hiked to fill the deficit gap in ensuing years. From “Historical Perspective: The Reagan Legacy” by Joseph J. Thorndike, dated Jun. 14, 2004:

“Indeed, Reagan’s conservative credentials seem almost suspect by today’s standards. He may not have championed the tax hikes of 1982, 1984, and 1987, but he certainly signed off on them. One suspects he may even have recognized, however grudgingly, that they were necessary. There isn’t much room in today’s GOP for that sort of fiscal responsibility. One can’t help but wonder: If Reagan were running for reelection this year, would the Club for Growth target him for defeat, decrying his embrace of three major tax hikes?”

That was in ’04! The reason I pick on Reagan specifically is because people like Grover Norquist advance a pretty fantastical view of who the man really was. I give Reagan tons of credit for recognizing his early mistakes and making course corrections, but those are the very things many Reaganites would decry in today’s climate. So, listen, I’m not saying Reagan was a Bush Jr. level failure, he wasn’t. He was better for America than Carter and both Bushes combined. But I think Clinton was better from a purely economic standpoint – not only did he recognize that the top marginal rate had become laughably low under Bush Sr., but in the end, he left office with a balanced budget that could easily weather the mild business cycle dip that began in March of his final year in office. A balanced budget was once the panacea of the libertarian and conservative chattering classes. I make these points now because I’m hard-pressed to see what those same people stand for anymore. Seriously.

I’m not picking on anyone here, btw. Just the overall trend in politics and punditry. ;-)

PS – That wasn’t my thumbs down, btw… ;-)

Paul Westlake said:
PS – That wasn’t my thumbs down, btw… ;-)

No problem, Paul, I didn’t even notice. I will always get at least 1 thumbs down no matter what I post. I have gotten into some rather nasty name calling bouts with one or two people here and I am sure they love to give me the thumb. I try to be civil but some people on here only come on to insult and I usually end up giving it back to them.

Patrick Henry said:
No problem, Paul, I didn’t even notice. I will always get at least 1 thumbs down no matter what I post. I have gotten into some rather nasty name calling bouts with one or two people here and I am sure they love to give me the thumb. I try to be civil but some people on here only come on to insult and I usually end up giving it back to them.

Unfortunately, I know exactly how you feel. ;-)

Paul Westlake said:
Um, I quoted the actual United States Constitution… so THAT’S where they come from.

I wasn’t referring to your recital of the preamble….I was referring to your sentence before you started reciting: “The individual does NOT come first in the Constitution”

That one sentence tells me you simply don’t understand the constitution’s essence….that of personal liberty.

So you’re arguments are about Rand Paul and Sharron Angle as representatives of “strict” libertarianism? Is that what they claim to be? I’d check on that, since I haven’t heard them call themselves strict libertarians.

But essentially I guess your claim is that strict libertarianism will lead to anarchy. Well you’re entitled to your opinion. Personally I think strict liberalism is a poisonous concept that will lead to the downfall of this nation.

Oh…and to touch on the point of Rand Paul’s view that a private enterprise has the right to be discriminate. “that freedom includes the freedom to discriminate in a private enterprise, which is a blatant infringement on the liberty of minority citizens. THAT’S the point”

You do realize that according to your own views of pursuing liberty without infringing upon that of others would actually coincide exactly with Rand Paul’s, if you seriously meant it?

Let me explain…..Paul’s point is private property based. Does an individual have a right to the use of anything provided by another’s private property? No he doesn’t. If Rand owns a restaurant, and he doesn’t want to serve Paul Westlake, he doesn’t have to. It’s Rand’s private property and he can do with it what he chooses…..Paul Westlake has NO RIGHTS to Rand’s private property. So since Paul doesn’t have any right to Rand’s property, Rand is not infringing on Paul’s rights in any way whatsoever.

However, the reverse does apply. Rand has the right to do whatever he chooses with his private property….it IS his right. If Paul Westlake demands that he be served and does not allow Rand the choice to do what he chooses with his own private property, Paul Westlake IS INFRINGING on Rand’s rights.

So your views actually support Rand Paul’s views.

Rand Paul doesn’t believe in institutionalized discrimination, which is exclusion by government and public services….which actually would be unfair discrimination and a violation of individual rights, by denying equality.

I don’t know if you will grasp this, because I have the sense by how you described the constitution’s purpose as a community based document instead of an individual based one, that you actually hold marxist views about our founding document, either consciously or subconsciously…..I honestly believe this.

Anyway….I’m done here….our views differ more than I thought

Peace

Oh just one more thing, simply for clarity and reference. Yes I have read the constitution countless times and know it backwards and forwards.

And also….as far as the federalist papers go….you do realize that the supreme court refers to the federalist papers to understand the intent of the constitution more than the actual somewhat ambiguous constitution itself, in a great number of their decisions?

later

kairos said:
Anyway….I’m done here….our views differ more than I thought

Peace

kairos, very well thought out and presented. I agree with you.

I have an ex-boyfriend with a PhD in History and years of experience as a college professor who works at the USPS.

I guess he’s just one of those imported Nigerians who should be driving a cab.

What a dumb ass.

kairos said:
Let me explain…..Paul’s point is private property based. Does an individual have a right to the use of anything provided by another’s private property? No he doesn’t. If Rand owns a restaurant, and he doesn’t want to serve Paul Westlake, he doesn’t have to. It’s Rand’s private property and he can do with it what he chooses…..Paul Westlake has NO RIGHTS to Rand’s private property. So since Paul doesn’t have any right to Rand’s property, Rand is not infringing on Paul’s rights in any way whatsoever.

That is totally, 100% wrong. If Rand wants to serve the general public, he has to serve the general public, not just the certain race, creed, or gender he wishes to serve. If the restaurant is, instead, a private club, with membership that is NOT open to the general public (no walk-ins), then he may discriminate as he sees fit. But as soon he opens his space to whoever passes by, but only admits the passersby who share the same skin color, or religion, etc, he’s breaking both the spirit and the letter of the law. That’s why restaurants that require men to wear jackets always have spare jackets to loan to those men who arrive without, because they can’t deny a paying customer a seat if it’s available. Technically, trendy dance clubs that discriminate based on clothing style are violating the law, but the only people that care enjoy the game of dressing to get picked, and anyone who would fight the discrimination is unlikely to care about going into that club anyway, plus, the clubs would be overcrowded if everyone was allowed in so they can hold the line, but technically, it’s supposed to be first-come, first-served. That’s what liberty means. Really. It’s not a totally unfettered individualism that allows you to do anything short of violent crime in pursuit of your “happiness.” It’s a shared responsibility that enables each person to realize the full extent of those personal goals that DO NOT infringe on the rights of others. Liberty is not defined as freedom alone. Liberty is freedom WITH responsibility. Liberty is majority rule WITH respect for the minority. The Founders recognized that as the best way to bring about liberty for ALL, not just for the majority or the wealthy. Which is why Patrick Henry’s quote on slavery is so instructive – they weren’t blind to the contradiction that slavery represented at the nation’s founding.

kairos said:
I wasn’t referring to your recital of the preamble….I was referring to your sentence before you started reciting: “The individual does NOT come first in the Constitution”

I meant that literally. The first words in the US Constitution are “we the people.” The first three words. I don’t think they chose those particular three words to be the first three words of the founding document of our form of government by random chance. They chose their words carefully and specifically and those are the first three words they chose to begin the constitution. The spirit of the document is there if it’s anywhere. I have no idea where you’re finding this individual liberty motif, because even the second amendment is prefaced with the phrase, “a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State.” Even the holy tenth amendment, which states, “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” makes it clear that governments exercise their powers first, then “people.” Doesn’t state “people respectively,” just people. Still don’t see this individual liberty motif. Please, point to where it is in the document itself.

Lastly,

kairos said:
strict liberalism is a poisonous concept that will lead to the downfall of this nation

kairos said:
I don’t know if you will grasp this

kairos said:
you actually hold marxist views

You know, despite your condescending attitude, I was actually trying to engage with you seriously on this subject. But you’re really just using pretty buzz words and bogus, strawman anecdotes to support a position you have failed to show actually exists in the document you claim to know so much about. I have given example after example, citing history AND precedent to support my position, giving chapter and verse from that ACTUAL document in question, and all you’ve done is use irrelevant platitudes that derive from talking points that clearly have nothing to do with the constitution whatsoever. You haven’t cited ONE example of the “spirit” of individual liberty you claim lies at the heart of the constitution and then have the audacity to say:

kairos said:
Oh just one more thing, simply for clarity and reference. Yes I have read the constitution countless times and know it backwards and forwards.

Bullshit.

And the courts read all kinds of things all the time, and cite all kinds of things all the time. You’re thesis is wrong, your points are unconvincing, and on top of that, your attitude sucks.

Peace, indeed.

Andy Lamb said:
Altogether, “Reaganomics” created about 19 million new jobs. Between the end of 1980 and the end of 1988, black Americans alone got 2.4 million of those new jobs. The numbers of the black employed jumped from 9 million to 11.4 million – a jump of more than 25 percent.
In constant 1988 dollars, the total annual income earned by all roughly 30 million U.S. blacks together rose from $191 billion at the end of 1980, to $259 billion by the end of 1988. That sum was larger than the GDP of all but ten nations in the world.
The number of black families earning more than $50,000 per year much more than doubled, from 392,000 in 1982 to 936,000 in 1988. From the end of 1982 to 1989, black unemployment dropped 9 percentage points (from 20.4 percent to 11.4 percent), while white unemployment dropped by only 4 percentage points. Black household income went up 84 percent from 1980 to 1990, versus a white household income increase of 68 percent. The number of black-owned businesses increased from 308,000 in 1982 to 424,000 in 1987, a 38 percent rise versus a 14 percent increase in the total number of firms in the United States. Receipts by black-owned firms more than doubled, from $9.6 billion to $19.8 billion

First, you should provide a link to source this information. Second, you will have to go a LONG way to convince me or any other conscious African-American that Reagan, a man who campaigned AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1966 governed with the “best interests of Black folks in mind.”

Third, I have a DIFFERENT set of numbers from the Reagan Era:

“During his tenure in office, Reagan: turned over the political leadership of the Justice Department’s civil rights division to William Bradford Reynolds, an ideological enemy of civil rights; ordered the U.S Department of Agriculture to shelve any claims of discrimination by Black farmers; intensified the War on Drugs and other campaigns that criminalized large segments of the Black community; opposed congressional sanctions on South Africa; and stigmatized families on welfare as undeserving.

To counter charges of racism, Reagan cultivated and rewarded Black conservatives. In 1982, he appointed a young Clarence Thomas to the chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where he remained for eight years. Today, Thomas is a Supreme Court justice, and Black Republicans like Lee H. Walker have insisted that Blacks did well under Reagan. But the majority of the Black community did not. Black male unemployment, for example, jumped to 25 percent by the end of the Reagan decade, and the total Black poverty rate had reached three times the poverty rate for whites by 1989.”

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=4a9d2c1ccb425d1de06363275dbbecc7

“Reagan’s attack on low-cost housing had a similar result.
When Reagan died, housing expert Peter Dreier wrote, “Reagan’s most dramatic cut was for low-income housing subsidies…Between 1980 and 1989, HUD’s budget authority was cut from $74 billion to $19 billion in constant dollars.” The result was an upsurge in substandard housing arrangements and a huge increase in homelessness, with an unequal burden falling on the Black community. In 2007, HUD’s budget stood at $33 billion, far less than pre-Reagan, with much of that amount going to homeowners, not to renters.

The devastation wasn’t confined to the nation’s cities, though. In 1982, the Reagan administration shut down the civil rights office of the Department of Agriculture. Not by coincidence, during the following two years, the USDA disbursed over a billion dollars to 16,000 farmers nationwide to buy land; of those, only 209 were Black. The independent Civil Rights Commission concluded that the USDA was “a catalyst in the decline of the [B]lack farmer.” A class action lawsuit ultimately resulted in a judgment of $2.3 billion to the farmers, concluding that the Reagan administration did indeed deny credit on the basis of race. Today, there are fewer than 18,000 Black farmers nationwide.”

That’s the Reagan right wingers praise and worship in idolatry.

Paul Westlake said:
And I’m not even accusing Reagan of being a bigot, just that his policies were not the economic panacea his worshipers believe them to be.

Don’t worry Paul. I’ve got that part covered. Without any hesitation whatsoever.

kairos said:
Let me explain…..Paul’s point is private property based. Does an individual have a right to the use of anything provided by another’s private property? No he doesn’t. If Rand owns a restaurant, and he doesn’t want to serve Paul Westlake, he doesn’t have to. It’s Rand’s private property and he can do with it what he chooses…..Paul Westlake has NO RIGHTS to Rand’s private property. So since Paul doesn’t have any right to Rand’s property, Rand is not infringing on Paul’s rights in any way whatsoever.

Private property is not equivolent to commerce or public accomodation. If Rand Paul can hold a private eating club on his own property and place any restrictions he wants on who can be served there. Once Paul applies to the federal, local or state government for licensing, permits, incorporation or limited liability protection he’s bound by the rules of government, which says you cannot discriminate.

Rand Paul has to find another backdoor way to bring back Jim Crow.

–Cobra

first off, this guy probably couldn’t even drive a cab for 12 hour shift!

second, way to go Senator Al!

At the post offices around here, most of the people working are Veterans of the American Army (just mentioning that to forestall doubts as to which nation).

The are so many post offices, because of the demands many small town/rural constituencies, most overwhelmingly Republican that they are entitled to a Post Office.

If the post office is a money loser, it’s due to the all too many of these post offices serving overwhelmingly Republican constituencies in sparsely populated states.

The Post Office has repeatedly sought to close the money losing branches only to get turned down by congress.

And also exactly what advanced skills go into being a FedEx or UP employee.

United Parcel is unionized. You can’t blame the union for the Post Office problem

The post office is forced by various mandates to provide lower than cost services like free postal for members of congress to mail junk mail to their constituents or cut rates for mailing very heavy books.

The post offices hands are tied by these mandates, and they are the reason it costs money.

Sure a private company wouldn’t opt to service these areas, but neither would a private company opt to do a lot of things the Govt. has to do.

And who was the insane woman who said the Dept. of Homeland Security should be privatized – What?

Cobra said:
Don’t worry Paul. I’ve got that part covered. Without any hesitation whatsoever.

Thanks. I couldn’t wage that battle, too! LOL

johnnymorales said:
Sure a private company wouldn’t opt to service these areas, but neither would a private company opt to do a lot of things the Govt. has to do.

And who was the insane woman who said the Dept. of Homeland Security should be privatized – What?

I rise to associate myself with these incisive remarks by this honorable gentleman. Here here!

(Don’t mind my formal language – just practicing for the repeal of the 17th Amendment when I can blackmail the NY Assembly into a Senate appointment.) ;-)

What is stopping private industry from delivering letters?

NOTHING.

If they could really do it better than the USPS; they would. So think about why it’s not happening.

These stupid arguments remind me of the joke: No one goes to the post office; it’s too crowded!

RE: this video. BRAVO. HILARIOUS. Isn’t D’Amato the same guy who filibustered a bill by singing “South of the Border”? So, if’ he’s calling someone Racist…..LOL SO FUNNY

Cosmos, you got me wrong. You’re differentiation between bigot and racist was impressive.

Jack Burkman – ex-GOP strategist.

zumpano said:
RE: this video. BRAVO. HILARIOUS. Isn’t D’Amato the same guy who filibustered a bill by singing “South of the Border”? So, if’ he’s calling someone Racist…..LOL SO FUNNY

Yes, and yes. ;-)

Paul Westlake said:
“South of the Border”

Actually, it was “Song of the South,” but the effect applies. ;-)

It is astonishing the number of people wants to privatize the Postal Service. The are totally ignorant of what this would cause. If you lived in one state or city and wanted to send mail to another city or state, which company would you use. Oh, the delivery service in your city doesn’t deliver in the city you want to send this item to. Too Bad

For those fools that think the Postal Service is Federally funded should read the Postal Reorganization Act. They receive no money except mail for the blind.

I have worked for USPS quite a few years as a Clerk. We get paid to do what we are told and we aren’t paid to think, help make decisions, have a say in anything. So we get used to doing what we are told without questioning. Then when there is a flaw or something in doing what we are told to do (in a sense we are human robots), we are blamed for not thinking about what we did ahead of time if there is a flaw in it doing what we are told. Management makes all the decisions, but does not do the work. “Things are never good enough”. Management always adds more things to do to what we already do. I think Management gets often paid for “looking good, playing the part” and alot of them have egotism problems. They think if they look good, dress nice, look professional, show they look the part, they are the part. Alot of Management gets where they are by brown nosing, blowing someone, or knowing the “right people”. You know the saying if it makes sense. When new management comes in to new offices (because Management bounces around alot, they get their hands slapped when they are abusive and moved from one office to another as their discipline), their idea of making things better is to change everything around. They don’t see that things that don’t need fixing, don’t need to be changed. So without seeing how things function well enough, which doesn’t take a rocket scientist, management will often change things that don’t need changing.
I like the debate talk on USPS. Yes USPS is disfunctional If government runs the new healthcare the way USPS is run, that is scary!! The guy who mentioned that USPS is run by a race of people was out of line. It clearly showed his immaturity and stupidity. We all can say the same things about him and what he does. The problem with changing USPS is that it is a gorilla. It is all over the country and people depend on deliveries. Things are not going to change overnight. It is too bad things have gotten as bad as they have. What was a lot better place to work is not as good anymore. When USPS started going in the red a few years back, it has never recovered. It will probably never go back to the green again with automation, new technology. Changing six days to five days delivery makes a lot better sense. Retail staying open perhaps six for a while does to conjuctionally.

What you describe, mlc8347, is the same phenomenon that has occurred in nearly every business in America over the past two or three decades. I’ve worked in the private sector my entire life and I’ve never seen a business that doesn’t suffer from the identical issues you describe. It’s pervasive in America because it’s what business people are taught in business schools, the very notion of which is anathema to me – I mean, seriously, anyone who doesn’t know how to conduct business by the time they graduate from high school should have their American credentials checked! Unfortunately, this won’t change until we change the way we value work and productivity as a nation. People who have no skills beyond calculating interest rates and price-to-earnings ratios should be relegated to the trash heap of America’s economic history – NOT value added. ;-)

Hmmm, unskilled labor huh? If it weren’t for the USPS a lot of veterans wouldn’t have a job, and another thing, I am a letter carrier with a Bachelors in Business Finance from Indiana University! My other friends who graduated with me are still working temp jobs in the business area.About 60% of the leteer carriers in our office have some college or are graduates,so the unskilled labor comment is just ludicrous!

I too work for the USPS, I have a BA and and AS degree and I am one of the less educated compared to many of the employees i work with. The true problems with the USPS are not brought out in the main stream, for example the required overpayment of prefunding retirements of the tune of around 80 billion dollars give or take a few billion. How much did the USPS supposedly loose? Sure the hell not 80 billion that they will never get back! All we ever hear is the workers this, the workers that. Our work force of actual workers has been cut so drastically we cant even function, but yet the number of managers has acutally increased. There are times when there are one manager for every employee in the office i work in. Then you add the huge number of levels of managment. Supervisors, MDO’s, Postmasters, then over them, Managers of Post office Operations, then over them a district manager, then over them either western or eastern managers, then over them Washington. This is just managers, not including every other branch or fancy title for some sort of manager. Everytime we turn around theres some new fancy title and someone appointed VP of some fancy position. All these levels of managament, and supervisors and Postmasters and they cant even make a decision for overtime, they have to call their bosses in the district. A district manager cant even authorize the hiring of someone it has to go all the way to Denver in the western area. As workers we just follow orders, and every day see the waste and overmanagment, when we pay all these managers well, and not a single one can actually do their job and make an actual descion without approval from their bosses. We have so many branches of managment they dont even know what the other branch is doing! They are given all these titles and pay, but no authority to manage, but when the reject ones cost the USPS huge amounts of money for stupidity, there is no accountablitity or recourse. Constantly they say the USPS should be run like a business, well then if thats the case, if i was a big wig, maybe not the first time, but the second time a manager cost our company a couple million for stupidity, I sure the hell would fire them, but this is not the case in the USPS, either nothing happens, they get transfered, or most often they get a promotion. The USPS doesnt care about the true cost of anything or what it does to actual revenues or to service, they just want less employees and its all a numbers game, and if subcontracting out costs more, they dont care, they just have to make their numbers look good so they can recieve their fancy bonus or Pay for Performance. I am sorry to rant and rave, but as a worker it frustrates us all to see mismangment destroy the USPS and destroy our service we provide. It is so frustrating to see a huge line of customers out the door, and managment gives us strick orders for only one person to be at the counter helping them, what kind of mind set do these people have? As a business, would you not cater to where your revenue comes from and keep your customer happy and not make them wait in line for 20 minutes? I could go on and on about the waste and overmanagment of the USPS that is the true problem, not to mention the huge discounts that big businesses get that the USPS actually looses money on and that you the customer actually pay for, but all you will ever hear in the media is how the stupid uneducated workers cost them to much, when in fact it is the workers that actually cost them a small percentange and the stupid workers are the smart ones who have a conscious and choose not to become part of the ignorant and corrupt managment that really in fact costs the USPS enourmous amounts of wasted money and are destroying the USPS from within.

First off ,of that 7 billion deficit each year, 5 billion of it is to cover a pension obligation dictated by congress for which the USPS has overpaid by 75 billion dollars so the USPS should actually be 2 billion in the hole this year. Secondly, UPS and FEdEX may add surcharges whether their fuel or what not goes up at a whim, the USPS must wait out a lengthy process to even get a 2 cent increase on mail so when there’s a fuel increase the other companies can pass it on to customers while the USPS must absorb that cost. Thirdly, UPS and FEDEX can pick and choose where to deliver, the USPS can’t so if a region isn’t lucrative for those companies then they dont have to go there while USPS must deliver to every corner from maine to hawaii and alaska to florida. Fourth, the USPS has doubled its management staff since the 8o’s while the grunts have been reduced by approximately 30% and through compromises the grunts are reducing their ranks even more as this issue is discussed while managemnt continues to add to there’s. We maybe unskilled but what we do put up with is: weather, animals, bad managemnent, rude customers and poor ergonomics. Mail volume maybe decreasing overall but the type of mail incresing are heavier business mail which are causing havoc on our bodies, many carriers are going down with knee, back and carpel tunnel injuries at a rate probably not seen in any other industry, so the pay is definately earned.

Agreed fellow frontline carrier, the last two comments say it all! If we could get back the 75 billion overpaid the USPS would be in great shape as well!

Jack Berkman was allegedly in the dc madam’s little black book. Why do pedophiles become Republican strategists? Fed Ex is making money but just layed off 1500 people.

inalaska76 said:
I too work for the USPS, I have a BA and and AS degree and I am one of the less educated compared to many of the employees i work with. The true problems with the USPS are not brought out in the main stream, for example the required overpayment of prefunding retirements of the tune of around 80 billion dollars give or take a few billion. How much did the USPS supposedly loose? Sure the hell not 80 billion that they will never get back! All we ever hear is the workers this, the workers that. Our work force of actual workers has been cut so drastically we cant even function, but yet the number of managers has acutally increased. There are times when there are one manager for every employee in the office i work in. Then you add the huge number of levels of managment. Supervisors, MDO’s, Postmasters, then over them, Managers of Post office Operations, then over them a district manager, then over them either western or eastern managers, then over them Washington. This is just managers, not including every other branch or fancy title for some sort of manager. Everytime we turn around theres some new fancy title and someone appointed VP of some fancy position. All these levels of managament, and supervisors and Postmasters and they cant even make a decision for overtime, they have to call their bosses in the district. A district manager cant even authorize the hiring of someone it has to go all the way to Denver in the western area. As workers we just follow orders, and every day see the waste and overmanagment, when we pay all these managers well, and not a single one can actually do their job and make an actual descion without approval from their bosses. We have so many branches of managment they dont even know what the other branch is doing! They are given all these titles and pay, but no authority to manage, but when the reject ones cost the USPS huge amounts of money for stupidity, there is no accountablitity or recourse. Constantly they say the USPS should be run like a business, well then if thats the case, if i was a big wig, maybe not the first time, but the second time a manager cost our company a couple million for stupidity, I sure the hell would fire them, but this is not the case in the USPS, either nothing happens, they get transfered, or most often they get a promotion. The USPS doesnt care about the true cost of anything or what it does to actual revenues or to service, they just want less employees and its all a numbers game, and if subcontracting out costs more, they dont care, they just have to make their numbers look good so they can recieve their fancy bonus or Pay for Performance. I am sorry to rant and rave, but as a worker it frustrates us all to see mismangment destroy the USPS and destroy our service we provide. It is so frustrating to see a huge line of customers out the door, and managment gives us strick orders for only one person to be at the counter helping them, what kind of mind set do these people have? As a business, would you not cater to where your revenue comes from and keep your customer happy and not make them wait in line for 20 minutes? I could go on and on about the waste and overmanagment of the USPS that is the true problem, not to mention the huge discounts that big businesses get that the USPS actually looses money on and that you the customer actually pay for, but all you will ever hear in the media is how the stupid uneducated workers cost them to much, when in fact it is the workers that actually cost them a small percentange and the stupid workers are the smart ones who have a conscious and choose not to become part of the ignorant and corrupt managment that really in fact costs the USPS enourmous amounts of wasted money and are destroying the USPS from within.

WITH ONLY 500 EXECUTIVES WHY IS THE POST OFFICE STILL GOING BROKE ?

Jack Burkman and other closet racists( he’s out now) Should read the Report in the link below.

Real conservatives and libertarians should not sweep truth aside or encourage racist ignorant talk just to score cheap political points.

The Chronicle report below shows that Nigerians are the most educated group of immigrants in America, period. Yes! More that Asians, Eastern Europeans and any other immigrant group, they work hard and rise to get Higher degrees than any immigrant group, even while driving taxis (Yes, any immigrant group!)

The type of comment made by Jack is unacceptable, ignorant, and a disservice to real conservatives and the values they stand for. Read the report below.

Jack, Nigerians deserve an apology. You are the unskilled, uneducated one.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5791096.html

bugspot1 said:
but then you would have to turn this

into this

to point out that not only did Dan acknowledge that you stated ro reacted to the headline, you are now arguing against him because he agrees with you

Jack Burkmans Diversion from the real argument. worked on you. You didnt argue I agree with him and would have won the debate on my argument alone. He is weak and would have been crushed on the Post office debate but got away with just being labeled a racist…

you reacted to the headline with ANTI RACISM

Yes you are correct I reacted to the headline with Anti- Racism. I’m tired of all the race baiting and finger pointing.. In the argument Jack Burkman got what he wanted. Everyone accusing him of being a racist. God you kids are so thick headed!

Once again, Jack Burkman is an example of a media monger who tosses out some comments about a subject like the Postal Service that he obviously knows nothing about. Yesa it may be true that FEDEX made 1 billion dollars last year but what also is true is that FEDEX has been contracted by the Postal Service since 2001. This contract was due to expire in 2008 but was renewed until at least 2013. See for yourself. Just google FEDEX and USPS to see all the information. So I guess D’Amato’s comment on a public/private company is good for him because maybe he holds stock in FEDEX and UPS, which also uses the Postal Service to deliver some of it’s packages. I hope that your show could air some real news to show the public what the real problem is that Postal Service faces; prefunding goverment accounts with postage rates and giving coporate welfare to major mailers. Check out the prices people in other countries pay to mail bills and packages, since many countries have privatized their mail service and compromised delivery to many of their citizens. People, don’t be bamboozled by greedy people like D’Amato and Burkman, they are just out to make money like many other snake oil salesman. Save the Postal Service, the greatest mail service in the world, it means hundreds of thousands of jobs for American citizens throughout the mailing industry.

It is time for “Fox News network” to openly admit that it is the talking arm of the extremist right wing branch of the republican party. I am one of the so called “unskilled” workers of the postal service. If every private corporation in this country had to pre-fund its retirement(like the postal service is required to do(no other public or private corp. is made to do this)) for their low life ceos they would be screaming bloody murder and then put the blame on anyone but themselves. All of this argument is about some corporation wanting to tap into the “self” funded postal service to pad the pockets of these low life ceos. If this reply sounds like an extremist viewpoint, then welcome to the world of “Murdock “FOX” news”.

The people of the Western hemisphere had better damned well get ready for many more unskilled brown people because that’s exactly what the future holds for you and your children. Get used to it. It won’t be so bad if you’re already wealthy–like Al D’Amato and most national political and media figures; they’ll be able to insulate themselves to a degree–but if you aren’t affluent, you’re grandchildren are going to wonder what the fuck we were thinking for allowing it.

somebody said the tea-baggers were racist!!!…………. that is not true…at their last rally i saw 2 black people parking their cars

The USPS employs people of all nationalities. Minorities are outnumbered in government jobs around the country. Besides, what difference does it make when minorities do the job that no one else wants, when, they are underpaid and have little or no fringe benefits. Burkman did a fine job proving that he is a “racist”, Most people just want to make a decent living, but unfortunately racism will always exist in America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej_gW3aheLk