I am glad you agree the birther stuff is nonsense, but you miss the point. How is it that "nonsense" managed to get so much traction in the media and among people who otherwise show a great deal of common sense?
I never said the Republicans were themselves "overtly racist." I said they fan the flames of racism. Several Republican representatives have expressed doubt about the president's birth, or say they just do not know. That is fanning the flames.
You neglected to address the issue of Speaker Boehner's culpability. Before you ask me to provide more examples of Republican flirtation with racism, deal with what is already on the table.
The racism is palpable? Can you provide specific incidences where conservative legislators made overtly racial comments about Obama and/or his cohorts? Can you explain how black conservatives such as Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Ben Carson, etc. can be racist in their scathing assessments? Agreed that the "birther" stuff was nonsense, but while there are many that voted against him because of his skin, just as many voted FOR him for the same reason; is that not also racist?
On the contrary, Mr. Faltz, the racism is palpable; the criticism is a pack of vicious, racist lies, which are obvious to all but the most brainwashed.
The main feature of racism is that it is irrational. Take, for example, the birth certificate nonsense. No matter how many times the President released his birth certificate, racists refused to believe it, because they are irrational.
The Republican Party, so far as I know, did not start this brush fire, but here is how they fan the flames: House Speaker John Boehner said he believed the President is an American and he believed the birth certificate is genuine but it is not his duty or responsibility to correct the misconceptions of the citizenry! That is Obama's job.
Which is like saying, "I saw someone in the National Forest drop his cigarette in the brush without stamping it out. I could have walked over and stamped it out myself, but that is not my job. That is the Forestry Service's job."
As far as I am concerned Boehner is not himself a racist, but he and his cohorts are flirting with treason.
"the president deserves the highest of honors" - For?...
"Republicans continue to fan the flames of racism""- No, that would be liberals; it's all they have left to defend valid criticism of the man with. I thought you'd be somehow about such nonsense, but I guess when his failures are so complete and unavoidable, even those with something to say abandon reason for desperate, last ditch efforts; good luck hitching your wagon to THAT star for the next 2 1/2 years!
Kevin, the reasons for--and potential for success of--impeachment proceedings are debateable, but this course of action should not be pursued for two reasons:
1) His incompetence and abysmal failures while in office (the economy, imploding ACA, foreign policy blunders...) are obvious to all but the most myopically devoted, and coupled with the ever-increasing litany of scandals (F&F, the NSA, the IRS, Benghazi, the VA, our southern border, etc.) his popularity is a thousand fathoms underwater and his "legacy" forever besmirched; so why would you want to make a martyr out of him? His record will be his undoing, and hopefully the electorate will be a bit more discretionary about who they elect in the future: choosing qualifications over charisma and results over rhetoric (but some never learn; witness how popular Hillary currently is *sigh*).
2) Two words: President Biden
On the contrary, Mr. Groenhagen, the president deserves the highest of honors, not impeachment, but the corrupt Republicans continue to fan the flames of racism and beat the drums of paranoia. Furthermore, the "people themselves" did "take the initiative" to elect him to office twice in spite of all the lies and propaganda you and your ilk could publish. All of this plotting of his impeachment is the last desperate attempt of the corrupt Republican Party to circumvent the will of the people and deprive us of our choice.
The last time I looked, this country was governed by a Constitution written by our Founding Fathers, not by the "Second Treatise of Government." I do not believe that John Locke, brilliant as he may have been, had any direct hand in the authoring of our Constitution, and no unconstitutional process you may contemplate can be justified by citing his work. The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether or not any statute violates the principles of John Locke, nor clarified any paragraph of the "Second Treatise" to ensure it was correctly applied.
Obama can, and should, be impeached. However, the corrupt Democrats in the Senate would block conviction. Therefore, I believe the people themselves should take the initiative and remove Obama from office by following the process outlined in chapter 19 of John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government.” I outline the reasons why Obama should be removed from office and Locke’s prescription for putting the old form of government, i.e., our constitutional republic, into new hands in a short book, which can be downloaded at www.chapter19.us/whatthen.pdf
you can add a finger to the raspberry ..|..
Here's a link to Chicago's review of the situation...
Wow, I have finally read an article that didn't have self interest or ramblings of man who "bought a boat and sailed" because he couldn't finish college. A slight restoration in this yellow journalism you call "CSindy". Please more articles for the better good.
Stacy, whom do you quote when you place the phrase, "racist teabaggers," between quotes? I place them between quotation marks because I am quoting you. You appear to be quoting from the article, however, Jim Hightower does not use this phrase. You are putting words into his mouth then blaming him as if he had actually said those absurd things.
.....and on and on and on. Hightower, for the last 5 years you have been the worlds biggest cheerleader for this mess. Now that it is going south (just like those "racist teabaggers" told you it would) it is now the "racist teabaggers" idea?????? This is pathetic AT BEST! Shame on the Indy for printing such unmitigated drech.
By the way, Colorado Rancher, I commend your egalitarian attitude toward the farm bill. Far too many people who advocate cutting food stamps, including members of Congress, nevertheless want to continue receiving benefits from the subsidies and direct payments to farmers.
But I must reiterate, IMHO it will mean an end to family farming in the USA. Notice I do not mourn for the food stamp program under those conditions, because food prices will drop low enough to make up for the loss and then some.
You write, "We have the best farmers and ranchers in the world..." We also have the best factory workers in the world, but that did not prevent the off-shoring of manufacturing to China, where slave labor produces shoddy and often dangerous products for sale to America. We can look forward to a future where farmers who are not the best in the world will produce our food in countries where public health codes are not the best in the world and enforcement is either haphazard or totally non-existent.
I hope, Colorado Rancher, you are addressing the author of this article, Jim Hightower, when you ask, "What billionaires are you talking about with access to these services?" and, "Where do you get your information from?" because I never made the allegation, defended it, or commented upon it.
Since Mr. Hightower does not participate in this blog, I thought I'd take a moment or two to check it out for you. As it happens, the article very clearly recommends to readers, "...contact the Environmental Working Group: ewg.org." About two or three clicks from the EWG homepage I discovered the answer to your question. See:
Spoke to an employee of the federal government, here at our local farm service agency. He like I feel you are mis informing people, as far as who has access to farm programs. Again Where do you get your information from?
Exactly do away with the programs. Let people keep more of their money. The government should not be an answer all for everything. Again there are strict income limits to be eligible for farm programs. What billionaires are you talking about with access to these services?
Farm subsidies "are tax money taken from some to give to others." The money farmers pay in taxes and fees does not begin to cover all the pay outs to crop "insurance" beneficiaries. Otherwise private enterprise would be offering this insurance product instead of the federal government.
Now again with income limits to be eligible for farm programs. How are all of the billionaires that your talking about accessing these programs? By the way the income limit is much less than a billion dollars.
Without government programs many farmers would go broke. Production would be scaled back. Prices would rise. At that point it would not make sense to raise a crop at a loss. In a free market it would no longer be sensible to grow crops at a loss. Could you make money growing corn at the projected $4.00 corn this year?
I said nothing about unemployment insurance. The only insurance I referenced was crop insurance. Food stamps have nothing to do with excess food, and has nothing to do with insurance. Food stamps are tax money taken from some to give to others. Money the tax payer earned. A reduction in food stamps will not cause less demand for food, people will still eat. And no all our food will not come from Mexico. We have the best farmers and ranchers in the world, and that will never change.
A cut in food stamps means a cut in demand for food means a fall in food prices. The new farm bill will not, I believe (correct me if I am wrong), raise subsidy levels for farmers, which means eventually farm income will decline. At that point farmers will ask for (or demand) higher subsidies or expansion of the food stamp program or both.
My guess is that the so-called "job creators" and their servants in the government are planning to stick it to farmers, like they did to workers, and will reduce subsidies instead, but slowly, over time, so that the bankrupt farmers do not all hit the labor market all at once. Within a decade or two all our food will come from Mexico, just as today all our manufactured goods come from China.
Displaced American farmers will not get food stamps.
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation