This man has no respect for other leaders and his contempt and venom is on show for all to see. His actions are 100% for political result. If snubbing Mandela would have, in his eyes, been a net plus, Obama would have never mentioned his name. He has no integrity and yet a certain segment of society hold him in admiration... birds of a feather I guess. Of course Gorbachev didn’t attend either...A common thread... Political orthodoxy over integrity and magnanimity, that’s the socialist way.
Untrue, President Obama dispatched two former Republican secretaries of state, George Shultz and Jim Baker as official representatives. Both were friends of Prime Minister Thatcher.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/thatcherfuneral.asp#szZCsHlTxsY0BjYL.99
Please Mick... This isn't what a president does for a former head of state... at least any president with integrity and you know it. What is even worse is the true character of both of these people. Nelson Mandela or for that matter his wife weren't put in jail because the were MLK style antagonists to the apartheid status quo... they were murderers. Mandela's affiliation with both the ANC and SACP placed him squarely in the middle of groups that killed more blacks than whites in South Africa.
Interestingly enough, when Mandela got out of jail and went on his 'world tour' he never once spoke about political dissidents languishing in prisons around the world. The never mentioned Ignatius Cardinal Kung of China held in prison for 33 years while in China (a period overlapping his own), nor Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet a black Cuban held and tortured by Fidel for criticizing the communist government there. One thing he did do is praise these regimes, along with Russia, Venezuela and many of the racist black governments in Africa.
As usual though, the liberal and dare I say communist leaning press paints him as a saint but he and his life have been aligned with the very groups and types of governments that have killed tens of millions in the name of communism....
Max wants to call my position bitterness... I call it calling a spade a spade and Obama's treatment of Mandela vs Thatcher is telling... the people who continually defend him is telling.
No TS, leave it to a liberal to mock ridiculous narcissism. I was not one to dump on or dismiss the passing of Thatcher, nor did I use the occasion of her death to post a laundry list of complaints about conservatism. Much as I disagree with Thatcher and Reagan, I am not such a little bitch that I would need to STILL find a way to make sure that everyone knows why it's so fucked up to honor her. Shockingly, despite the fact you hide it so well, we are aware of your contempt, disgust, hatred, dismissal and so on when it comes to Obama.
Reagan and Thatcher never endured anything close to what Mandela did.
So Max.... why don't you enlighten us to what Mandela and his wife Winnie did that was so good?.... Give us facts about his life that make him the patron saint of the world peace and brotherly love.. I would be very interesting in getting into a discussion about the virtues of "Thatcher the Milk Snatcher" versus Mandela the Man of Peace.
Oh yes... as to the last line... please, leave us in no more suspense, tell us just what he endured and more importantly just why he endured it. Not all is what it seems when you read something other than your liberal propaganda...
This from The Daily Beast: To wit, when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) paid tribute to Mandela on his Facebook page, he was met with a stream of angry condemnations. His statement was straightforward and uncontroversial:
“Nelson Mandela will live in history as an inspiration for defenders of liberty around the globe. He stood firm for decades on the principle that until all South Africans enjoyed equal liberties he would not leave prison himself, declaring in his autobiography, ‘Freedom is indivisible; the chains on any one of my people were the chains on all of them, the chains on all of my people were the chains on me.’ Because of his epic fight against injustice, an entire nation is now free. We mourn his loss and offer our condolences to his family and the people of South Africa.”
The reaction was swift and contemptuous. “Let’s not forget that Mandela called Castro’s Communist revolution ‘a source of inspiration to all freedom-loving people,’” wrote one commenter. “Mandela was a communist trained by the KGB who sings racial hate songs…and now, the South Africa is a worst country for both whites and blacks,” wrote another. One man, who presumably is older than Cruz, chalked up the praise to the senator’s youthful ignorance, “Ted, long before you were born, his reputation was the complete opposite. He was, in fact, a terrorist and a criminal, he persecuted and killed Zulus. All the apartheid BS you hear in today’s media is all lies.”
You hear that? All that nonsense about apartheid was the media deception.
Newt Gingrich was also attacked for his comments. He has always been a Mandela supporter and will attend the funeral.
TS, after 16 weeks of needlessly searching for quotes to throw into bullshit assignments for school, I'm going to pass on the one you've offered me. Given the tone of your post, you are probably well prepared to "school me" on how even in the womb, Barroness Maggie showed a stiff resolve by refusing to kick her mommy. I really don't care. Likewise, I have no interest in an all or nothing discussing of Mandela.
It's a matter of context to me. Thatcher lived in one context, Mandela lived in a completely different one.
Pfunky, sorry for the slow reply but am having some truly baffling computer problems, they pop up intermittently and have so far eluded me… took some time to do some backups before I carried on troubleshooting but I wanted to answer your post.
I had written a far more detailed reply to you but Martin in he’s way has covered much of Mandela’s association with people who could give a hoot about apartheid.
Don’t get me wrong… as a young man he was a true voice of freedom and lived a life of passive resistance against the oppression of his native Africans. His demeanor since leaving prison was one of a stately, soft-spoken gentleman… a grandfather figure, but the place in the middle… A place that has lead South Africa to where it is now, is less than stellar. No one can fault him for his desire to free his people… his race, from the tyranny of a colonial ruling class that had no regard for them. I don’t even fault his methods because sometimes drastic situations sometime illicit drastic responses but this is where the myth of his legacy belies the results as they are today and the reality of his time before and indeed why he went to prison.
The media has made him a glowing hero even though he himself wrote that his actions were, at times, reprehensible. As Kingston has eluded to people are attempting to paint him in the same light as Martian Luther King… He was no MLK by any stretch and the goals of the people he associated himself with were not the enemy of apartheid but the enemy of real freedom… something I think that South Africa will find out in the future. I have no quarrel with Mandela other than is association with groups that did not share his interests. My quarrel is with the myth that has been built up, in no small part with the help of Russia who was instrumental in is prison release. He was a man that used some rather violent means to achieve what he thought was right for his people... revolutionary perhaps... saintly... no way.
In his book ‘Long Walk to Freedom’, Mandela stated that some people would see him as being used by the communists he ran with… His response is that perhaps it was he and his movement that used the communists. Either way, South Africa, in the name of a constitutional republic, as only changed who is at the head of the apartheid government. Races other than black African are all finding that the republic is decidedly less favorable to them than the definition of a constitutional republic might suggest.
The problem in South Africa today is not that racism exists outside the law (bitterness and resentments all around could be expected)… it is that it is enshrined in the law.
Case in point. Orphanages are required by law to take in all children, regardless of race, referred to them by the state… no problem with that right? The state also gives tax breaks to corporations that donate to orphanages that support a policy of black economic empowerment (BEE). That policy requires that, to qualify, an organization, in this case, an orphanage, must care for black orphans 100%. So, who becomes the disenfranchised now?
The apartheid regime was a crime against humanity; as illogical as it was cruel. It is tempting, therefore, to simplify the subject by declaring that all who opposed it were wholly and unswervingly good. I give credit to Mandela for removing himself from a pedestal but my point is that the media, specifically the liberal media who swoon over his existence and miss the point by a mile that just might have actually delivered the South African people into just another iteration of bad governess. Given that the people who have been at the top of the South African government since it became a constitutional republic we all the top members of the communist party.... one can only wonder.
The Flag Code sets out detailed instructions on flying the flag at half-staff on Memorial Day and as a mark of respect to the memory of certain recently deceased public officials.33 This section embodies the substance of Presidential Proclamation No. 3044,34 entitled “Display of Flag at Half-Staff Upon Death of Certain Officials and Former Officials.” The section provides that the President shall order the flag flown at half-staff for stipulated periods “upon the death of principal figures of the United States Government and the Governor of a state, territory, or possession.” After the death of other officials or foreign dignitaries, the flag may be flown at half-staff according to Presidential instructions or in accordance with recognized custom.
"As usual though, the liberal and dare I say communist leaning press paints him as a saint but he and his life have been aligned with the very groups and types of governments that have killed tens of millions in the name of communism.... "
Too funny TS. It was Reagan who fortified Saddam Hussein he killed millions for....what? Osama bin Laden another product of the Reagan admin, the only man to successfully orchestrate an attack on our homeland since 1941. The shah of Iran a ruthless man backed over a more moderate anti communist prime minister by DDE. DDE also supported Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam, a man found so ruthless that we eventually had to assassinate him. DDE also supported Fulgencio Batista a ruthless dictator not much different then his successor Fidel Castro. Now I am not a Castro lover by any means but in the beginning he was a godsend to the Cuban people in comparison to Batista. Jeffersonians supported the French Revolution and the ruthless tactics of Robespierre. Truth is TS we have a history of backing some of the worst leaders when given a choice, using only their politics as our measuring stick.
Again a diversion from the real subject of the thread... like government regs and snowfall. I never claimed any purity in the way the U.S. runs its foreign policy now did I? Nor was I talking about Reagan was I? But to your point I will indulge you and then go back to pfunky’s question which does have to do with Mandela.
Firstly, in determining the impact of different leaders to ‘how many deaths are caused by whom, one must do a lot of digging and have a real understanding of our personal biases when looking at the information. For example… if we look at the deaths attributed to the Batista/Castro governments, the deaths attributed to each are skewed by you particular sympathies to each. If for instance you see Castro as a benevolent revolutionary, you may attribute as little as 2000 people to him while giving Batista the lion’s share of perhaps up to 20,000 but if you hold Castro’s government in ill favor then your scrutiny might place his count closer to 100,000 by nitpicking suicide of political prisoners and the thousands who drowned as an estimated 1.2 million people (approx 10% of the pop.) attempted to escape the island. For brevity I will use ranges, from low to high that I have discovered.
We can estimate and attribute to the US and its foreign policy approximately 10 to 16 million deaths since 1945. Exact numbers are difficult to know but I tried to find as accurate a high end estimate as possible. These deaths extend to leaders we helped install. The number of civilian casualties between 1900 and 1945 are difficult to estimate, particularly in Europe. We can say that the US was responsible for somewhere in the vicinity of 350,000(including atomic bomb casualties) in Japan and another 400,000 in Europe… many due to firebombing of industrial cities. So we can add, liberally, another million to the 16 million shown above.
By far the greatest lost of life at the hand of governments has been in the form of ‘democide’. It is estimated that the top 15 governments (None of them democratic) combine a total of somewhere between 115 and 174 million people killed. Of all military killed in all wars since 1900 we have some 35 million… the rest (80m to 138M) were civilians killed or starved, either deliberate or consequential. It is estimated that as a direct result of Mao's policies, famine from 1958-1962, killed as many as 38million. Clearly double that directly and indirectly attributed to US policy. Germany for all of its ghastly crimes against humanity was only… only… some 22 million compared to the USSR’s 63million civilians. I will say that you seem to exaggerate your numbers for Hussein… it is, with Iran’s casualties included right around 1 million… these numbers are generously included in the U.S. related total. Looking at conflicts started how about these statistics: DEMOCRATIC* vs NON-DEMOCRATIC WARS** from 1816 – 1991 Non Democracy vs Non Democracy 198 wars Non Democracy vs Democracy 155 wars Democracy vs Democracy 0 wars… *Excludes Republican France and Republican Rome in 1849 **Considered as a war if greater than 1000 were killed The deaths attributed to the US and its foreign policy is appalling without a doubt. Whether you find it just or not, the chess game it played with communism arguably saved many more lives than it took. Rationalization? Perhaps. Should we have been isolationist or at least neutral? I think so… but then again, the hideous ways that non democracies treat their people and the economic path of destruction created by communism, socialism and the tyranny that they represent, one must consider if a response is necessary. Interestingly enough though, the farther down this socialist road our republic goes, the harsher the government treats its critics and the more it views its citizens with suspicion.
One additional thought Rick. Much of the death and war that you talk about from Reagan forward comes at the hands of neocons.... a faction exported by the democratic socialist philosophy into the Republican party... Your Centrist friends. What the democratic party wants to create in America is what the neocons want for the world....
Ha! the neo cons. We didn't export them they left. And why did they leave TS and run to the Republican Party. You guessed it WAR. The neocons rallied around Henry Jackson in 1972 because he was the one democrat who fully supported the war in Vietnam even at that late stage in the conflict. When he lost the nomination they fled to the Nixon camp like the little cockroaches that they are because with Nixon they got more of the same. Now the neocons were very influential in the granting of civil rights and Nixon felt like southern blacks got a raw deal. They helped form the base of Nixon’s southern strategy in which were welcome all whites and blacks with the exception of the members of the John Birch Society. Now let’s look at this neocon personality William (Bill) Kristol. Yeah the weekly Standard and Fox news two sources that you and your brethren like to cite here. You know he is the son of Irving Kristol better known as the “godfather” of the neoconservative movement. William Kristol has been a republican since he graduated college in the mid 80’s. Neocons are those who believe in economic liberalism and social conservatism. Hell TS you and half your cronies here are neocons and you don’t even know it. Believe me my friend they were well entrenched in the party of "NO" before any mid east war, before any Grenada, before the first Gulf War. And they worked tirelessly to propagate each and every one of those conflicts.. Neocons want war and that is what conservatives give them. Neocons are not centrists they are the warmongering wing of the party of no. And they can convince the conservatives of the need to continue to do battle. They are Hawks supporting the military industrial economy of the US. No thanks you can keep them.
Mandela was imprisoned in 1964 after being arrested and charged with sabotage, specifically a campaign against the country's power grid, and plotting to overthrow the government. No one was injured in the sabotage campaign. He was released in 1990, at age 71. He was elected president of South Africa in 1994, in the country’s first full and free elections, and served until 1999.
Insight: Family, politicians battle over "Brand Mandela"
Sun, Dec 08 05:42 AM EST
By Peroshni Govender, Jon Herskovitz and David Dolan
JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - From political posters to bottles of wine and kitchen aprons, the face and name of Nelson Mandela are a potent commercial and political brand in South Africa. Little wonder it's so sought after - and the source of occasional squabbles.
Following his death on Thursday at the age of 95, the scramble for control of the Mandela legacy - both financial and moral - will involve his family, the ruling African National Congress (ANC), and the Nelson Mandela Foundation he set up to protect his broader message.
At stake is the inheritance that will go to Mandela's more than 30 children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, some of whom already use the Mandela name and image to market everything from clothing to reality TV.
There are also the Mandela brands and trademarks that help fund the Foundation. And for the ANC, Mandela's reputation as an anti-apartheid hero is worth votes for years to come.
There are no available public figures of Mandela's wealth, making it difficult to put an exact value on his estate, which includes an upscale house in Johannesburg, a modest dwelling in his rural Eastern Cape home province, and royalties from book sales including his autobiography "Long Walk to Freedom".
Several South African branding experts have declined to estimate the annual value of Mandela's trademark and brands.
Maintaining control over the copyrights is already a difficult business; protecting the Mandela brand may be even harder now that he is gone.
"The beauty of the Nelson Mandela brand is that it has been lived by him exactly as it has been presented by him. His behavior is his brand," said Jeremy Sampson, the executive chairman of Interbrand Sampson de Villiers.
"In the rush to commercialize it, we run the risk of watering down or destroying the good that the brand stood for purely with the crassness of finance," he added.
Mandela divided the management of his legacy between a series of trusts to handle his finances and the Nelson Mandela Foundation, which serves as custodian of his wider moral legacy.
In total, he set up about two dozen trusts, mostly to pay for the education of his grandchildren and great grandchildren.
It hasn't all been straight forward.
A legal tussle between Mandela's long-time friend, lawyer George Bizos, and two of Mandela's daughters became public this year as the daughters sought to have Bizos and other Mandela associates ousted from companies set up to sell his handprint for use in art and memorabilia.
According to an affidavit filed by Bizos and the others, the two daughters, Makaziwe Mandela and Zenani Dlamini, had been trying to gain control of the main Mandela Trust since 2005 and eventually became trustees without Mandela's knowledge.
Mandela became angry when he found out what the daughters had done, Bizos and the other associates said in the affidavit.
"Mr. Mandela was shocked and used a common expression 'Good Lord!' He was most infuriated and wanted to know what had happened."
A portion of the revenue from the Foundation's 46664 clothing line - named after Mandela's prisoner number on Robben Island - and the artworks also goes to pay for family members' education, according to Bizos.
"The trust has adopted the procedure of requiring the applicant for money to furnish an invoice," Bizos said, adding that every request accompanied by proper paperwork has been granted.
But some family members have asked for a lump sum payment of 12 million rand ($1.2 million), he added.
Such demands fuel the notion, widely held in South Africa, that some of Mandela's children have exploited their father. Makaziwe, Mandela's eldest daughter, bristles at that.
"This is what we are, in a sense, entitled to, that my father worked for, and he did it with his own hands to create something for the welfare and upkeep of himself and his children," she told the Financial Times in April.
"If everybody wants a little bit of the Madiba magic, why is it so sacrilegious for the rightful owners ... to use the Madiba magic?" she said, referring to her father by his clan name.
The Nelson Mandela Foundation, which runs the Nelson Mandela Centre of Memory in Johannesburg, was set up as the official custodian of Brand Mandela. It owns more than a dozen copyrights and trademarks for Mandela, which it uses for fundraising and charitable works.
As well as the "46664" number, its copyrights include the "Nelson Mandela" name, the clan name "Madiba" by which he is widely known, and "Rolihlahla", which was Mandela's given name.
Income those brands generate - "46664" runs as a charity that sells wristbands and mobile phone starter packs, for instance - helps pay for the running of the Foundation's Centre of Memory, which is the main research and archive center for Mandela, and which often spoke on his behalf as his health faded.
In all, the foundation had net income of 22 million rand ($2.2 million) in 2012 and assets of 290 million rand. In 2011 net income totaled 33 million rand and assets came to 262 million.
It paid Mandela 2.8 million rand in 2011 and 2.9 million rand last year for the book it published with his help called "Conversations with Myself," which was a follow-up to his autobiography "Long Walk to Freedom."
"We do not commercialize our trademarks, however we do undertake publications like 'Conversations with Myself' ... for educational purposes," said Heather Henriques, intellectual property and governance manager at the Centre of Memory.
Separately, the Nelson Mandela Children's Fund has rights to use the Mandela name for fundraising. Between 1995 and 2012 the fund brought in 1.2 billion rand in income and paid out 462 million rand in grants.
But not everything that uses Mandela's name was sanctioned by him.
There are at least 40 companies officially registered with the South African government that use the Mandela name. The companies appear to have no link to either Nelson Mandela, any of his relatives or any geographic area that has the Mandela name. The list includes the Gandhi-Mandela Nursing Academy, Mandela Truck Shuttle Services, Mama Mandela Marketing Company, Thanks Mandela Toiletries and Mandela's Shed, a restaurant.
The "Madiba" name has been used by more than 140 registered companies, including Madiba Truck Stop, Madiba Wines, Madiba's Driving School, Madiba Chickens, Madiba Cash and Madiba Bottle Store.
The Foundation may own the website "nelsonmandela.org", but "mandela.org" belongs to a Brazilian, who told Reuters he is using it for a personal project, which is a tool for computers.
There are also regularly scams where fake charities use Mandela's name to raise funds. The South African government in mid-2013 issued a statement warning people not to be duped by such groups.
Against all this, the Mandela Foundation picks its battles with care, only rarely suing firms that use his name of image.
"The brand Nelson Mandela is not like the brand Coca-Cola. It's huge, it's complex, there are many sub-brands within that brand. We implement protections in a relatively small space," said Verne Harris, the director and archivist at the Nelson Mandela Foundation.
"Madiba has given permission for his name to be used by close to 50 institutions around the world. Only in the last decade there was a system put in place for managing that and a set of criteria applied and then a code of conduct developed for those institutions to subscribe to," Harris said.
Because copyrights are owned by the person who creates the work - and not the subject - copyright law does not prevent the depiction of Mandela's image on T-shirts or other items, said Likonelo Magagula, an intellectual property attorney at law firm Norton Rose Fulbright in Johannesburg.
Trademark lawyers also say there is little to stop family members using the Mandela name, as long as they link the name to themselves and not exclusively to Nelson Mandela.
Makaziwe and one of her daughters have launched a "House of Mandela" range of wines, even if Mandela himself once said he did not want to be associated with alcohol or tobacco.
Some of his grandchildren have started a line of caps and sweatshirts that feature his image under the brand "Long Walk to Freedom," borrowed from the title of his autobiography, while two of his U.S.-based granddaughters starred in a reality television show called "Being Mandela."
The other group keen to use Mandela's image is the ruling African National Congress.
After Mandela was imprisoned in 1964, the ANC made a conscious decision to use him and his young wife Winnie as symbols of the struggle against the racist government - the first time the party had chosen to elevate the individual above the collective.
When Mandela walked out of prison in 1990, he became a figure of reconciliation, calming the white minority who had been told for years he was the terrorist face of the "swart gevaar", or "black danger".
Today the ANC needs that magic more than ever.
"The ANC made the brand and the brand became bigger than the ANC," author and political analyst William Gumede said.
"Unfortunately, a lot of rank-and-file ANC leaders right now see Mandela as their own, rather than as belonging to the whole of South Africa and the broader world."
When President Jacob Zuma visited Mandela at his Johannesburg home in April, some in the Mandela family accused the current president of manipulating a frail old man to shore up his own battered image.
Makaziwe called news footage from that visit showing her father resting his head against a pillow and staring vacantly as Zuma grinned beside him "undignified and in bad taste".
The ANC defended the visit. Mandela "belongs to the ANC first and then to the whole country," ANC spokesman Jackson Mthembu told South Africa's Sunday Times newspaper.
Even the opposition Democratic Alliance, still seen by many as a party of white privilege, has laid claim to his legacy, using his picture in campaign material to the outrage of ANC members. With a general election next year, both parties are likely to work hard to capture a slice of the 'Mandela magic'.
"We may be exposed to the sordid spectacle of different political parties turning Mandela into a prop," said Aubrey Matshiqi, a political analyst at the Helen Suzman Foundation, a public interest think tank.
"Turning him into a political commodity from which they can profit - that would be the worst insult, especially if political parties attach his legacy to lies that they want to tell the electorate to get votes." http://mobile.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSBRE9B703420131208
"So Mandela was painfully slow in denouncing the squalid dictatorship of Robert Mugabe. He was rather fond of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro (it won’t take you long to find photos of the two bear-hugging each other in Havana) and regularly referred to Libyan tyrant Muammar Qaddafi as “Brother Leader of the Revolution of the Libyan Jamahariya.” It was on a return visit to Robbin Island, when Mandela, as president, announced with appalling tone deafness that he would invite both Castro and Qaddafi to South Africa."
"Communism. In their rush to proclaim him a symbol of freedom, none of the networks covered Mandela's ideology or the relationship between Mandela's African National Congress (ANC) and the South African Communist Party (SACP). In his own handwritten manuscript How To Be A Good Communist, Mandela wrote "Under a Communist government, South Africa will become a land of milk and honey." With the exception of NBC's Bob Kur and Mike Jensen, no reporter even mentioned Mandela's support of economic nationalization. With Mandela's ideas and "loyal and disciplined" membership in the ANC, would South Africa become a multi-racial democracy or a one-party Marxist state like its neighbors? No one asked.
Political Prisoner. "The former long-time political prisoner will address Congress," Dan Rather announced when Mandela arrived. TV reporters called Mandela a political prisoner eight times, but never referred to Mandela as a saboteur or terrorist, even though Amnesty International declared in 1985 that "Mandela had participated in planning acts of sabotage and inciting violence, so that he could no longer fulfill the criteria for the classification of political prisoners." Network reporters did report Mandela's refusal to renounce violence in 14 stories, but most referred to it only in the context of fighting apartheid, not in the context of the ANC's involvement in black-on-black violence or the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians."
"ANC Antics. The networks have repeatedly failed to report recent events that give the Mandela legend a less lyrical ring. When a South African court implicated his wife Winnie in the beating and murder of a 14-year-old, only CNN PrimeNews briefly noted the incident. ABC, CBS and NBC have ignored it. On June 11, ANC members murdered Sipho Phungulwa in apparent retribution for Phulungwa's public allegations that the ANC tortured and killed dissident members. The networks have never mentioned it.
ABC's Don Kladstrup was the only reporter to put Mandela's importance in South Africa in context: "Mandela is not the undisputed leader of all South African blacks." Kladstrup reported that more than six black organizations are fighting apartheid, and interviewed black activists who said "Heaven help us if the ANC takes over here" and "If you do not go along with them, they will run roughshod over you.""
Interesting reading to a foreigner but this topic does beg the question: Why no comparison between Mandela and MLK.There can surely be no argument concerning their sincerity of purpose.
Can't speak for everyone, but at some point,I just think, why bother? When we see the spam splatter by your conservative soulmate William, what would the point be? The angry conservative folks on this side of the pond NEED someone or something to yell at. To come to a site like this and extoll the virtues of anyone other than Reagan is akin to asking to screamed at for stupidity. What started this thread was a ridiculous whine about a slight to Maggie Thatcher. What followed was predictable bitterness and crap flinging. That's how conservatives roll in this country.
Max and Lou Yes I guess nothing has changed since I dropped out of the list of posters. I must mildly protest at being allocated William as a soul mate though. First he would need to demonstrate he has a soul and second, in Aussie a” mate" is the highest complement one man can pay to another. Now to Aust US relations in general. We have recently elected an Aussie style Conservative national government and yesterday GM announced the closure in 2017 of their Australian manufacturing plant. This follows Ford and Mitsubishi announcing their departure earlier in the year. Looks as though we suffer from the same disease as the US, over priced labor and poor build quality. A Japanese factory produces two cars on the line to every one at GM here (same numerical labor force). Australians have for years refused to buy GM or Ford cars as the build quality is poor compared to Japanese or even Korean products. Our government subsidizes the manufacturers here to about $2000 per car. I have driven European cars for decades, currently a Jaguar and previously two Volvos. My last Australian car, a GM wagon was bought in 1974. I note the end of GM here coincides with the collapse of their export market. Toyota however is exporting 70 percent of their production to the Middle East. Now the change in government here has nothing to do with the GM decision but we must remember that the previous Socialist government having started with zero fiscal debit and significant reserves, managed to leave office with a fiscal debit of over 300 billion. Enough reason to vote them out of office, hopefully on a permanent basis.
Twas a gentle tweaking Kingston, and I'll stop because you've fed the troll. On our side of the pond, our Democrat (socialist to some) government left an incoming Republican president in very good shape, only to see it promptly undone in the name of tax cuts. Things come and things go.
I once believed it was all so simple that voting for one party all the time would fix everything. I've pretty much lost that thinking. Despite the fact that we have so many people here falling into poverty through no fault of their own, we also, undeniably, have abuse of government programs by people of all political persuasions. I'm not entirely cynical of the human race, but I've come to accept that no matter how stern or how generous you are, there is always a segment of the race that wants to scam rather than work hard. The rich are as guilty as those in poverty when it comes to scamming.
I've voted Republican before, and probably will again someday. Not because I believe they have their heads any less further up their ass than Democrats do, but mostly because for that short period, they will offer an alternative to something I don't like from the other candidate. Americans here bought into a lot of what Reagan was selling, in opposition to Jimmy Carter, and 30 odd years later, the conservative movement here is represented by the likes of people like William who make your views look communist in comparison. Careful what you wish for.
After a bit of a vacation from the site, I dropped in to see what was new. Same partisanship from both sides reigns supreme.
Kingston, with both Japanese, American auto's being built in Australia, what is the difference in quality? Parts? Labor attitude? Management? Manufacturing facility? Always interested to see why a problem like that should exist.
Max, seems like we go from 1 extreme to the other or so the pendulum swings. Seems the swings are getting farther apart after each election. Is it people are discouraged in the existing system and don't feel their concerns are addressed? Is it people feel the system is unfair? Today we sport more people on assistance than any other time in recent history yet people think the government should do more.
The interesting trend is with the current administration which the next will take to the extreme is the law by executive order. The choice not to enforce the law. Harry's example of changing the way appointees are approved may become his undoing as the next congress and president will certainly use the new rules to the extreme. More than unfortunate.
What's more interesting is that there is no challenge from the R's. Seems if they do not like the PPACA as much as they claim they would haul O into court (figuratively speaking) and claim he cannot change a provision in the law as that responsibility falls to congress. Perhaps they will just let it go until it collapses under it's flaws and reap the rewards of I told you so.
The antics occurred as eulogies were being given inside Johannesburg’s FNB Stadium, where 91 world leaders had gathered to say goodbye to Mandela, who died Dec. 5. The president’s glad-handing left Michelle Obama clearly furious and mortified. She refused to even look at what her hubby was doing with his fellow head of state. And the first lady wasn’t the only one who was appalled. “Why do Cameron and Obama feel the need to behave like idiots?” asked a blistering Daily Telegraph blog by British political columnist Iain Martin. “Why let a fuddy-duddy thing like manners get in the way of a social media opportunity, where we can put ourselves at the center of everything, clowning around like Muppets.” Obama’s decision to take a selfie at the memorial like a teenager drew special condemnation. “What selfish morons take a ‘selfie’ at a memorial service?” wrote one Twitter user.
The infamous Tumblr page “Selfies at Funerals,” which has exposed the trend for months, announced it would shut down because there could never be a funeral selfie more twisted than one of the president at a memorial for Nelson Mandela. “Obama has taken a funeral selfie, so our work here is done,” the operator, Jason Feifer of Brooklyn, wrote. At one point, Michelle switched seats with her husband, placing herself between the president and Thorning-Schmidt, who is 46 and married.
An icon of the left passes and the usual rif-raff turn it into another Wellstone moment. These people just cannot help themselves.
Lou., Your questions. Toyota is making cars here with an almost equivalent build to the Japanese made cars. Holden and Ford, here for so long and the workforce complacent with well organized Labor simply go to work and put in their required hours. We have a saying here, and I am ashamed to repeat it " Never buy a Ford or Holden(GM) made on Monday or Friday" Monday they are getting over the weekend and Friday they are getting ready for the next one. I think the build quality is probably on a par with the US factories but way below the Japanese or European builds. My Jaguar is an XJ and the power plant is I believe American, designed from when the make was a Ford subsiduary.Build was in UK and is faultless. New cost was$50000 and a large GM or Ford Australian built would have been about $35000. GM once accounted for 80 percent of cars sold in Australia but now only about 20% I believe. We abolished tariffs some years ago and Jap,European and and Korean imports have just about taken over.
Lou continued. I should mention the proliferation of Free Trade agreements which reduce or eliminate tariffs. The high value of the Australian Dollar, currently$ 0.90c to $US. When GM was profitable, the rate was$0...50 so you can see the discrepancy. We have a small customer base and high manufacturing costs so we are stuffed. Just as US was a decade ago when the "Rust Belt" surfaced. Because I am so old, I much prefer discussing American History and the Founding Fathers, revered more by outsiders than American nationals perhaps. Met a man in the store a week or so ago. Because his accent gave him away as a "yank:" I engaged him in conversation. I identified his accent as South Carolina but he was from N.Carolina. Said he was interested in US history, as am I. Asked him what his thoughts were concerning John Hancock and the movement towards independence. He stammered and said, I believe him to be something to do with the early movement towards independence but other than that I cannot place him as being of any importance!.
Hancock was an interesting person. Wealthy and an importer/exporter so the taxes levied by the British were an issue personally. One of his ships were stopped, illegal goods found and he was heavily fined. He was involved with organizing protest against the taxes. The question remains today as to who were the organizers behind the Tea Party as it was well organized. Was it Samuel Adams, John Hancock?
He along with Samuel Adams were tagged as rabble rousers by the British and were hunted by their military. Paul Revere warned them as they were in Lexington during his famous ride and they fled the area.
As the first signer and by far the largest on the Declaration, the saying. signing your John Hancock. Because it was the first signature or the largest?
Yes we experienced the joys of poor union craftsmanship during the 60's and 70's and early 80's. The American auto companies found out that people no longer wanted their substandard junk.
In the 90's the Auto companies did a turn around here and began quality improvements in GM and Ford and today are equal to any Foreign produced auto including the vehicles made in the USA. The people in the US remain unconvinced and continue to purchase foreign company auto's.
I do own a GM and a Ford. The GM has 150K miles and has required little repair the Ford Escape AWD is used in more difficult terrain and required shocks and struts at 100K miles. Both have had their unneeded but suggested 100K mile spark plug replacement.
A vehicle to me is transportation only and I could care less if it's a vehicle that makes a statement like a Mercedes or a Ford. To me reliability in transportation is everything. As I do drive cross country, 1000-1300 miles on occasion, I prefer an auto the people in small towns can repair should I require repair while traveling.
I find it amazing how a union like the auto unions can be so self destructive in their quest for more.
Your point Lou about the power grabs is troubling to me as well. During the recent budget fiasco, the Republicans changed the rules in the congress to block Democrats from bringing a clean resolution to the floor. I honestly don't ask this in a pointed way, but are you as bothered by that as you are by what Reid did?
The constitution doesn't call for a 2/3 majority on every vote in the senate, but the Republicans who are in the minority in the senate have arbitrarily said this IS what the constitution calls for. The solution that Reid has taken, is the wrong one. Not to be misunderstood, I think the far right conservatives in this country have gone batshit crazy and that it will be THEM rather than Democrats that drive us to the worst outcome. Still, Reid's solution is just as bad as McConnells. Yes, things will start to work again, but it's the equivalent of slapping a child because you've lost your temper and are tired of their antics.
A lot of this crap started with Newt and Clinton, and it has gotten worse with each successive POTUS. At this time, there are nearly 100 federal judicial vacancies that are sitting empty for NO reason except that Republicans have been blocking them just to give Obama the middle finger. Even when Republicans, as group, don't have a particular problem with a judge or group of judges, they block the vote anyway just because they can. Democrats did it to Bush as well, and I didn't like it then. But, at the end of the day, I have to blame the elected members rather than the executive for the power grab. Misusing the powers of the fillibuster is not doing your job. Changing the rules in the congress to block a clean resolution that would prevent a government shut down that the people DIDN'T want is also not doing your job.
I'll concede one thing though. Heavy handed tactics work.....in the short term. Republicans have pretty much gotten their way on just about everything BUT the ACA. Over and over, it has been Obama and Democrats who have compromised and bitterly signed onto some some deal just to end the obstruction.
Amazing how ones beliefs change when they are in control isn't it.
Harry Reid, May 2005:
The filibuster is far from a “procedural gimmick.” It is part of the fabric of this institution. It was well known in colonial legislatures, and it is an integral part of our country’s 217 years of history.
The first filibuster in the U.S. Congress happened in 1790. It was used by lawmakers from Virginia and South Carolina who were trying to prevent Philadelphia from hosting the first Congress.
Since 1790, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds of times.
Senators have used it to stand up to popular presidents. To block legislation. And yes – even to stall executive nominees.
It encourages moderation and consensus. It gives voice to the minority, so that cooler heads may prevail.
It also separates us from the House of Representatives – where the majority rules.
And it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the government established by the Framers of our Constitution: Limited Government…Separation of Powers…Checks and Balances.
Mr. President, the filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check. This central fact has been acknowledged and even praised by Senators from both parties.
For 200 years, we’ve had the right to extended debate. It’s not some “procedural gimmick.”
It’s within the vision of the Founding Fathers of our country. They established a government so that no one person – and no single party – could have total control.
Some in this Chamber want to throw out 217 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power.
As to the shutdown, the House was within it's right to not present legislation as Harry has proven in the senate for the last 8 years.
Unfortunately the Senate is the rubber stamp for the WH and has not done it's job for the last 5 years which is represent the American people, not the WH. You state that O is not the problem but he is as Reid follows lead on every issue and the sheep in democrat clothing follow him to the end.
So be it, the day will come when the Dem's will scream as the R's use Harry's nuclear option against the Democratic party.
Personally the R's should do a no show for every vote related to an appointment in protest over the lessening of our democracy. But that seems to be what this administration is all about.
I would disagree on the R's getting their way. There has been no cuts in spending in the last 5 years. Now they have gutted the only spending cut which cut the growth of spending. Today we are close to spending a trillion more than when O took office. To fight it is futile as the media echos the presidents protests and screams how the R's will shut down the country. There is little response as little is carried in the media except the screaming from the D's. Amazing how the sequester was going to end life as we know it and nothing happened.
In our life time we will have to pay for the unfettered free for all spending of the last 5 years and the next 3. That will be painful for all but more so for the poor and middle class as their safety net disappears to pay the debt.
Have a good day off to spend money to remodel the kitchen.
The sequester has hurt, and I think that this "compromise" starts to undo some of what the sequester caused. To me, the issue is that we aren't willing to pay for what we want. If taxes went up every year until the deficit was closed and our debt was paid to zero, I guarantee you that we would stop screwing around and that serious cuts to the military and entitelments would follow. However, there is no real consequence, at least not when Republicans control things. To complain about rubber stamping seems a little silly, has it ever been different when the WH and the Senate are controlled by the same party? On one level, I get it, those who didn't vote for Obama feel that those who did vote for him should just suck it anyway and that Obama and the Democrats should be denied the right to govern despite the fact they control two of the three houses. I know you are a moderate, but what I hear is that you don't mind this when you are the minority. I don't like it either way.
The safety net has been substantially destroyed already and you are correct, no matter what happens, the burden of our massive debt is going to fall more heavily on the middle class and the poor.
How can 44 billion in a reduction in the growth in spending hurt?
let me help. It was targeted cuts made to hurt people so they would never go through with it. Surprise, the politicians were cowards and refused to compromise aided by the extremists from both sides. If memory serves, the R's in the house were willing to let the president cut where ever he wanted to get to the necessary level. He threatened to veto the bill. A true man of the people.
Try this one instead. If you froze government spending at the 2013 level for the next 10 years and did not increase taxes, grow out of debt. Another option, roll the budget back to 2007, last budget before TARP and the non stimulating stimulus, add in the cost of living increases for every year and all years for the next 10 years, billions less in spending today.
Neither option is pretty because the government would need to downsize. Ever wonder why government never right sizes, down sizes, lays people off as is done in every business when we are in a down turn?
And I disliked the massive spending of the Bush years, 5 trillion wasted, almost as much as I dislike the massive spending of the Obama years so far, 7 trillion wasted.
And yes we will have the pleasure of paying for the last 12 trillion in waste.
Yes the O should be able to run the country within reason, not into the ground where generations to come will suffer because of his plan to transform the country. Maybe that was his plan, LOL.
p.s. there are no consequences to either party as we continue to send the same chuckle heads back term after term.
Morning all. Lou your reference to John Hancock is about the first occasion that your excellent notes on early history has told me nothing I did not already know! To put the case in its most simple form, I go to Granville and Townshend together with mad George in London. The plan to get the East India Company out of hock and to teach the colonists a lesson was so simple it could not fail. Of course, typical of government everywhere, they forgot to consider the effects the measures would have on the New England smugglers, including Hancock. I believe Hancock acted mostly out of self interest but Adams was simply a bitter and twisted failure; full of bile and ready to use his undoubted abilities as am agitator to assist the cause. I suspect, as have others in the past that the Tea Party episode was planed by a committee but led by Hancock with Adams stirring the pot. I have often wondered what the other Adams thought of the tea party episode. Pompous and moralistic with his devotion to the law as it was at the time, the alleged illegal raid on the tea clipper must have been anathema to him. All in the past, probably ignored in the grade schools where it should be taught and so many patriots living through those turbulent times. Now consigned to the dusty tomes of history, read only by the ancients among us. History however can never ignore the period in American development when so many leaders appeared just at the time they were needed. Talking of leaders, I add the name Hamilton as the greatest not to become President. But for a poor choice of parents, he would have been outstanding.
You are correct. It was intended to hurt so that there would be genuine compromise. Once it started to hurt people in congress, like when it affected airports, they made tiny fixes. Ultimately, the only cuts that survive are the ones that affect people who don't have enough clout to undue them.
I guess my take is this, every time a Democrat wins the White House, the Republicans go on a jihad about spending and our debt. I don't buy into these outright arguments about the growth of government. It has grown, and so has the economy and so has the population. These wars and tirades about the size never accomplish anything. I think we could focus on more productive matters.
Where I disagree about Republicans winning Lou is that when it comes to taxes, they have made the Democrats their bitch. There is no pleasant way to put that. When it comes to spending cuts, they have again forced Democrats to accept cuts to things they don't want to cut while the Republicans have given up.....nothing. No loophole closures, etc. John Boehnor himself said, "I got 99% of what I want, I'm a happy guy". Was he lying? But, admittedly, I can't say any of this without sounding partisan or defacto in support of Obama, so I guess it's moot.
But the Repub's have capitulated. The top tax rate is now 39.5%.
They certainly capitulated in the next round of spending.
They certainly are not a party of their word as re-election is everything.
Of course Boehnor was lying and putting lipstick on the pig as they all do. There is little difference in the parties, maybe the color of the lipstick.
Hurting people is what government is all about when they don't get their way. The government shutdown was a perfect example of our government in action. Wonder how the park people felt pushing 80/90 year old vet around. Of course they turn around and let a demonstration proceed after their exhibition in stupidity. Shutting down the WH and citizens offered to pay for the security to keep it open, but the answer, close the white House to tours.
He we have an access road into the national forest which happens to be a county access road. The forest rangers were going to close access to the forest so the county sheriff and a deputy stopped the forest rangers from using the county road while we were allowed to pass through to the forest. Yes they forest guys were angry. Said they would return early in the AM the next day. Sheriff told them to bring supplies as the road was closed in both directions to US government vehicles. I loved the look on the rangers face. In any case, ever wonder how they printed up all the signs and within hours had them posted everywhere?
My take to sound totally partisan is we need a new party that can be honest, up front, not lie and trusted by the American people.
Taxes went up on everyone, the Pubs won that battle. Those who work have seen their wages stagnant or declining for a long time. Romney was right about one thing, when you squeeze the shit out of wages, selling tax cuts to people who make so little is like ice to eskimo's.
I agree on the need for an honest party, but for as long as we hold a belief that government is shit and should be so weak it can't do anything, how will we get that party?
Max, the R's didn't want the tax hikes, the D's were adament about raising taxes.
The Democratic entry into the budget fray will help shape the same kind of battle in Washington over taxes and spending that has become a familiar sight in recent years.
The plan, offered by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray, D-Wash., would seek $975 billion in spending reductions over the next 10 years as well as $975 billion in new tax revenue, which she said would be raised by “closing loopholes and cutting unfair spending in the tax code for those who need it the least,” according to Murray’s prepared remarks opening her committee’s consideration of the plan. Advertise | AdChoices
According to the Congressional Budget Office’s projections, from 2014 to 2023, the federal government will spend $47 trillion.
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/13/17299251-senate-democrats-offer-budget-plan-with-tax-increases-and-spending-cuts?lite WASHINGTON — The Senate, in a predawn vote two hours after the deadline passed to avert automatic tax increases, overwhelmingly approved legislation on Tuesday that would allow tax rates to rise only on affluent Americans while temporarily suspending sweeping, across-the-board spending cuts.
It was a well known fact that John Hancock had made his fortune through smuggling Dutch tea, which was cheaper than East Indian tea. A commonly forgotten fact is that East Indian prices were cut before the introduction of the three pence tax, in effect making its price, even with the tax, cheaper than Hancock’s tea. Presented with this information, many loyalists did not wonder at Hancock’s involvement in the boycotting of East Indian tea and indeed, the entire war.
After he inherited a fortune in his mid-20s, this elegant dandy nearly single-handedly bankrolled the early protests in Boston.
Hancock smuggled glass, lead, paper, French molasses and tea. In 1768, upon arriving from England, his sloop Liberty was impounded by British customs officials for violation of revenue laws. This caused a riot among some infuriated Bostonians, depending as they did on the supplies on board. In the late 1760s, he was formally charge with smuggling and although certainly guilty, his attorney was able to get Hancock relieved of all charges. The lawyer was Sam's cousin, John Adams.
Although he had not liked his fellow colonists' destructive response to the Stamp Act eight years earlier, John Adams applauded the Boston Tea Party. He wrote in his Diary, "There is a Dignity, a Majesty, a Sublimity, in this last Effort of the Patriots, that I greatly admire." By 1774 Adams believed that American colonists no longer had a choice. The Tea Act was yet another unjust attempt by England to make the colonies pay for its vast empire.
Surprised to see Kingston return from the dead. And questioning my soul to boot. Classical rubbish from the Queen's loyal subject after all.
The conservative is concerned, first of all, with the regeneration of the spirit and character—with the perennial problem of the inner order of the soul, the restoration of the ethical understanding, and the religious sanction upon which any life worth living is founded. This is conservatism at its highest. - Russell Kirk
Noun 1. peanut gallery - (figurative) people whose criticisms are regarded as irrelevant or insignificant (resembling uneducated people who throw peanuts on the stage to express displeasure with a performance); "he ignored complaints from the peanut gallery" people - (plural) any group of human beings (men or women or children) collectively; "old people"; "there were at least 200 people in the audience" 2. peanut gallery - rearmost or uppermost area in the balcony containing the least expensive seats
The most insignificant people are the most apt to sneer at others. They are safe from reprisals. And have no hope of rising in their own self esteem but by lowering their neighbors.
Congrads as you lower yourself to an all new level.
King raised the matter of my soul buttboy. We have had our go arounds in the past and he retired from the field only to return as a ghost with a forked tongue.... Cute quotes from his backup are irrelevant. I believe my mate can stand up for himself if he only had the bollocks.
Lou William and Max. I had thought to withdraw once more from this site in view of the comments made by William. Intolerance towards the views of others is not conducive of debate. Unfounded allegations concerning either Constitutional loyalty or personal weakness, say more about the accuser than the accused. However, Lou has sprung to my defense as a good friend is expected to do.Max, with whom I moistly disagree has contributed ideas deserving of consideration. For these reasons I shall make one further attempt, not to win the argument but to illustrate perhaps the problem I perceive with the approach William takes when confronted with an opinion he perhaps does not understand ,or even worse, does not wish to understand.
I have no objection to the opinion William holds or the way in which he chooses, by way of cutting and pasting irrelevancies to advance those same arguments. This in general is evidence of the inability to generate even semi original thought and comes direct from the Bullies Bible. My concern, overriding even the rudeness and intolerance shown by William is his dogmatic assertion that Australians are servants of the British Queen. I have previously explained in some detail our constitution and the “Reserve Powers”. William refused to even acknowledge this argument and replied with his usual bombastic blathering. Americans in general are tolerated by most in this country and greatly admired by a few, myself included. The attitude of people such as William does more to sully the reputation of Americans than any other cause.
King, we have been down this road before. I need not repeat my arguments regarding your ownership by your beloved owner, the queen. When you retired from the field previously the site somehow, without your "compare and contrast" inane repetitive queries, somehow survived.
MLK and Mandela? MLK and Mandela? Are you shitting me King? Mandela is one of the great communist terrorists of recent history. Mandela, Castro, Chaves,,,, throw a blanket over these common reprobates. Politically incorrect to make this statement you opine? Tell that to the current and future generations of zombies whose countries have been blessed with these "hero's of the left."
As far as your continued distaste for my methodology I do admit it would not cut bait in your off white ivory towers. Want pure debate? Join a club, set up Roberts Rules, and proceed with your vanilla flavored peptone bismol.
This country is in trouble.
This country has tried to reason with communist/socialist/progressive minions for a hundred years.
This country since 2009 has produced a movement to rival the founders.
This country has carried water for world wide mental weakness since Lenin.
17 going on 20T is the scorecard for our dabblings.
I'm concerned for my country King. Personally I don't care about your insults mate.
And as for Mr. Hamilton. "129. "Mr. Hamilton. I have well considered the subject, and am convinced that no amendment of the confederation can answer the purpose of a good government, so long as state sovereignties do in any shape exist; and I have great doubts whether a national government on the Virginia plan can be made effectual. From the lessons of experience results the evident conclusion, that all federal governments are weak and distracted. To avoid the evils deducible from these observations, we must establish a general and national government, and annihilate the state distinctions and state operations. I believe the British government forms the best model the world ever produced, and such has been its progress in the minds of many, that this truth gradually gains ground. This government has for its object publick strength and individual security. It is said with us to be unattainable. If it was once formed it would maintain itself. See the excellence of the British executive. He is placed above temptation. He can have no distinct interests from the publick welfare. Nothing short of such an executive can be efficient. I would give the legislature unlimited power of passing all laws without exception, and to appoint courts in each state, so as to make the state governments unnecessary to it. I confess that this plan, and that from Virginia, are very remote from the idea of the people." Mr. Hamilton acknowledges that state sovereignties did exist, and proposes to destroy them, as is now attempted."
"The origin of the coalition between the monarchists and consolidators in the convention, is visible in the journal. It arose from the question of representation. The deputies from the most populous states naturally contended for an absolute preponderance of numbers; those from the small states, for the moral equality of sovereignties. The gentlemen in favour of monarchy or consolidation, united with great address, to use this contest, as the means for effecting their object; and acted with more skill and foresight, than the didactick federalists. They aimed at a possibility; the didactick federalists entertained the hopeless idea of reconciling contradictions. A monarchy or a consolidated government might be established; but a union of states in conjunction with either, was an impossibility. If we believe that a substantial distinction between different forms of government exists, we must conclude that a national government, and a union of states, cannot subsist together, however the appearance of such a fellowship may for a time be kept up, by the courtesy or policy of the supreme associate; just as Augustus retained republican words to confirm imperial power. The verbal federalists however advocated this hopeless experiment, and the advocates of a monarchical or national government, profiting by the example of the Roman triumvir, gladly joined them, as knowing that the experiment would accelerate one of these ends. Happily the experiment was defeated by the establishment of a federal form of government; but we are again told by the gentlemen who prefer monarchy or a national government, that a national and federal government may be made to subsist together, by giving to Congress and its court an absolute supremacy over the state governments, and securing the states by federal words, just as the Roman republick was secured by republican words.
If we should even admit, with Mr. Madison, that the government is semi-federal, and semi-national, the question arises, by what means can it be kept so? These are ascertained by the means necessary to maintain a government semi-republican and semi-monarchical. Each moiety must counterpoise and check the other. If one principle possesses a supremacy over the other principle, and can remove out of its way all the obstacles which the balancing principle may place in it, the consequences are inevitable; because power can only be checked by power. Therefore an equal capacity in each moiety to maintain a government half federal and half national, is as indispensable, as in the case of a government half republican and half monarchical. If the state governments individually, or a bare majority of the states, were supreme, or had a negative over the acts of the federal government, that moiety would soon perish; and in like manner, if the federal government should acquire the same powers over the state governments, they must perish; just as a limited monarchy would perish if one of its principles obtains a supremacy over the other."
Obama orders our flag to be flown at half staff for ten days for Mandela.
ReplyDeleteMaggie Thatcher didn't get one day.
He didn't even send an envoy to her funeral!
ReplyDeleteThis man has no respect for other leaders and his contempt and venom is on show for all to see. His actions are 100% for political result. If snubbing Mandela would have, in his eyes, been a net plus, Obama would have never mentioned his name. He has no integrity and yet a certain segment of society hold him in admiration... birds of a feather I guess. Of course Gorbachev didn’t attend either...A common thread... Political orthodoxy over integrity and magnanimity, that’s the socialist way.
Untrue, President Obama dispatched two former Republican secretaries of state, George Shultz and Jim Baker as official representatives. Both were friends of Prime Minister Thatcher.
DeleteRead more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/thatcherfuneral.asp#szZCsHlTxsY0BjYL.99
Please Mick... This isn't what a president does for a former head of state... at least any president with integrity and you know it. What is even worse is the true character of both of these people. Nelson Mandela or for that matter his wife weren't put in jail because the were MLK style antagonists to the apartheid status quo... they were murderers. Mandela's affiliation with both the ANC and SACP placed him squarely in the middle of groups that killed more blacks than whites in South Africa.
DeleteInterestingly enough, when Mandela got out of jail and went on his 'world tour' he never once spoke about political dissidents languishing in prisons around the world. The never mentioned Ignatius Cardinal Kung of China held in prison for 33 years while in China (a period overlapping his own), nor Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet a black Cuban held and tortured by Fidel for criticizing the communist government there. One thing he did do is praise these regimes, along with Russia, Venezuela and many of the racist black governments in Africa.
As usual though, the liberal and dare I say communist leaning press paints him as a saint but he and his life have been aligned with the very groups and types of governments that have killed tens of millions in the name of communism....
Max wants to call my position bitterness... I call it calling a spade a spade and Obama's treatment of Mandela vs Thatcher is telling... the people who continually defend him is telling.
But you said he didn't send an envoy to the funeral, which is patently untrue. I'm not defending anyone, just pointing out your error.
DeleteI have to admit, the bitterness of you two from the balcony of muppet theater has actually made me laugh this morning.
ReplyDeleteNo national mourning for Paul Walker?!?!
DeleteOh the humanity ...
Bitterness... nah... disgust is more the emotion I am trying to convey... but leave it to a liberal to misread the situation.. :-)
DeleteNo TS, leave it to a liberal to mock ridiculous narcissism. I was not one to dump on or dismiss the passing of Thatcher, nor did I use the occasion of her death to post a laundry list of complaints about conservatism. Much as I disagree with Thatcher and Reagan, I am not such a little bitch that I would need to STILL find a way to make sure that everyone knows why it's so fucked up to honor her. Shockingly, despite the fact you hide it so well, we are aware of your contempt, disgust, hatred, dismissal and so on when it comes to Obama.
DeleteReagan and Thatcher never endured anything close to what Mandela did.
So Max.... why don't you enlighten us to what Mandela and his wife Winnie did that was so good?.... Give us facts about his life that make him the patron saint of the world peace and brotherly love.. I would be very interesting in getting into a discussion about the virtues of "Thatcher the Milk Snatcher" versus Mandela the Man of Peace.
DeleteOh yes... as to the last line... please, leave us in no more suspense, tell us just what he endured and more importantly just why he endured it.
Not all is what it seems when you read something other than your liberal propaganda...
@TS
DeleteInteresting post, TS. What, in your view, is the real truth about Mandela? What misinformation does the "liberal propaganda" perpetrate?
I'm not asking to be snarky, I'm genuinely curious to hear your take.
This from The Daily Beast: To wit, when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) paid tribute to Mandela on his Facebook page, he was met with a stream of angry condemnations. His statement was straightforward and uncontroversial:
Delete“Nelson Mandela will live in history as an inspiration for defenders of liberty around the globe. He stood firm for decades on the principle that until all South Africans enjoyed equal liberties he would not leave prison himself, declaring in his autobiography, ‘Freedom is indivisible; the chains on any one of my people were the chains on all of them, the chains on all of my people were the chains on me.’ Because of his epic fight against injustice, an entire nation is now free. We mourn his loss and offer our condolences to his family and the people of South Africa.”
The reaction was swift and contemptuous. “Let’s not forget that Mandela called Castro’s Communist revolution ‘a source of inspiration to all freedom-loving people,’” wrote one commenter. “Mandela was a communist trained by the KGB who sings racial hate songs…and now, the South Africa is a worst country for both whites and blacks,” wrote another. One man, who presumably is older than Cruz, chalked up the praise to the senator’s youthful ignorance, “Ted, long before you were born, his reputation was the complete opposite. He was, in fact, a terrorist and a criminal, he persecuted and killed Zulus. All the apartheid BS you hear in today’s media is all lies.”
You hear that? All that nonsense about apartheid was the media deception.
Newt Gingrich was also attacked for his comments. He has always been a Mandela supporter and will attend the funeral.
TS, after 16 weeks of needlessly searching for quotes to throw into bullshit assignments for school, I'm going to pass on the one you've offered me. Given the tone of your post, you are probably well prepared to "school me" on how even in the womb, Barroness Maggie showed a stiff resolve by refusing to kick her mommy. I really don't care. Likewise, I have no interest in an all or nothing discussing of Mandela.
DeleteIt's a matter of context to me. Thatcher lived in one context, Mandela lived in a completely different one.
As the wise Hillary once said, what difference does it make.
DeleteI tend to agree with that statement. Because the president says to fly the flag at half mast doesn't mean they will arrest you if you don't.
So, don't.
How's that school thing Max?
Pfunky, sorry for the slow reply but am having some truly baffling computer problems, they pop up intermittently and have so far eluded me… took some time to do some backups before I carried on troubleshooting but I wanted to answer your post.
DeleteI had written a far more detailed reply to you but Martin in he’s way has covered much of Mandela’s association with people who could give a hoot about apartheid.
Don’t get me wrong… as a young man he was a true voice of freedom and lived a life of passive resistance against the oppression of his native Africans. His demeanor since leaving prison was one of a stately, soft-spoken gentleman… a grandfather figure, but the place in the middle… A place that has lead South Africa to where it is now, is less than stellar. No one can fault him for his desire to free his people… his race, from the tyranny of a colonial ruling class that had no regard for them. I don’t even fault his methods because sometimes drastic situations sometime illicit drastic responses but this is where the myth of his legacy belies the results as they are today and the reality of his time before and indeed why he went to prison.
The media has made him a glowing hero even though he himself wrote that his actions were, at times, reprehensible. As Kingston has eluded to people are attempting to paint him in the same light as Martian Luther King… He was no MLK by any stretch and the goals of the people he associated himself with were not the enemy of apartheid but the enemy of real freedom… something I think that South Africa will find out in the future. I have no quarrel with Mandela other than is association with groups that did not share his interests. My quarrel is with the myth that has been built up, in no small part with the help of Russia who was instrumental in is prison release. He was a man that used some rather violent means to achieve what he thought was right for his people... revolutionary perhaps... saintly... no way.
In his book ‘Long Walk to Freedom’, Mandela stated that some people would see him as being used by the communists he ran with… His response is that perhaps it was he and his movement that used the communists. Either way, South Africa, in the name of a constitutional republic, as only changed who is at the head of the apartheid government. Races other than black African are all finding that the republic is decidedly less favorable to them than the definition of a constitutional republic might suggest.
The problem in South Africa today is not that racism exists outside the law (bitterness and resentments all around could be expected)… it is that it is enshrined in the law.
Case in point. Orphanages are required by law to take in all children, regardless of race, referred to them by the state… no problem with that right? The state also gives tax breaks to corporations that donate to orphanages that support a policy of black economic empowerment (BEE). That policy requires that, to qualify, an organization, in this case, an orphanage, must care for black orphans 100%. So, who becomes the disenfranchised now?
The apartheid regime was a crime against humanity; as illogical as it was cruel. It is tempting, therefore, to simplify the subject by declaring that all who opposed it were wholly and unswervingly good. I give credit to Mandela for removing himself from a pedestal but my point is that the media, specifically the liberal media who swoon over his existence and miss the point by a mile that just might have actually delivered the South African people into just another iteration of bad governess. Given that the people who have been at the top of the South African government since it became a constitutional republic we all the top members of the communist party.... one can only wonder.
Flying the Flag at Half-Staff
ReplyDeleteThe Flag Code sets out detailed instructions on flying the flag at half-staff on
Memorial Day and as a mark of respect to the memory of certain recently deceased
public officials.33 This section embodies the substance of Presidential Proclamation
No. 3044,34 entitled “Display of Flag at Half-Staff Upon Death of Certain Officials
and Former Officials.”
The section provides that the President shall order the flag flown at half-staff for
stipulated periods “upon the death of principal figures of the United States
Government and the Governor of a state, territory, or possession.” After the death
of other officials or foreign dignitaries, the flag may be flown at half-staff according
to Presidential instructions or in accordance with recognized custom.
"As usual though, the liberal and dare I say communist leaning press paints him as a saint but he and his life have been aligned with the very groups and types of governments that have killed tens of millions in the name of communism.... "
ReplyDeleteToo funny TS. It was Reagan who fortified Saddam Hussein he killed millions for....what? Osama bin Laden another product of the Reagan admin, the only man to successfully orchestrate an attack on our homeland since 1941. The shah of Iran a ruthless man backed over a more moderate anti communist prime minister by DDE. DDE also supported Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam, a man found so ruthless that we eventually had to assassinate him. DDE also supported Fulgencio Batista a ruthless dictator not much different then his successor Fidel Castro. Now I am not a Castro lover by any means but in the beginning he was a godsend to the Cuban people in comparison to Batista. Jeffersonians supported the French Revolution and the ruthless tactics of Robespierre. Truth is TS we have a history of backing some of the worst leaders when given a choice, using only their politics as our measuring stick.
Again a diversion from the real subject of the thread... like government regs and snowfall. I never claimed any purity in the way the U.S. runs its foreign policy now did I? Nor was I talking about Reagan was I? But to your point I will indulge you and then go back to pfunky’s question which does have to do with Mandela.
DeleteIf you understand me and my libertarian view, then you will know that I believe the word defense does not include the cliché of “a good defense is a good offense” and its required presence in over 150 countries. We were warned early on about a too powerful federal and a large standing army. We have more than enough resource and ability to defend our borders… but then again, those that squeal about our defense policy and spending have little regard for the security and enforcement at our borders.
Firstly, in determining the impact of different leaders to ‘how many deaths are caused by whom, one must do a lot of digging and have a real understanding of our personal biases when looking at the information. For example… if we look at the deaths attributed to the Batista/Castro governments, the deaths attributed to each are skewed by you particular sympathies to each. If for instance you see Castro as a benevolent revolutionary, you may attribute as little as 2000 people to him while giving Batista the lion’s share of perhaps up to 20,000 but if you hold Castro’s government in ill favor then your scrutiny might place his count closer to 100,000 by nitpicking suicide of political prisoners and the thousands who drowned as an estimated 1.2 million people (approx 10% of the pop.) attempted to escape the island. For brevity I will use ranges, from low to high that I have discovered.
We can estimate and attribute to the US and its foreign policy approximately 10 to 16 million deaths since 1945. Exact numbers are difficult to know but I tried to find as accurate a high end estimate as possible. These deaths extend to leaders we helped install. The number of civilian casualties between 1900 and 1945 are difficult to estimate, particularly in Europe. We can say that the US was responsible for somewhere in the vicinity of 350,000(including atomic bomb casualties) in Japan and another 400,000 in Europe… many due to firebombing of industrial cities. So we can add, liberally, another million to the 16 million shown above.
Continued...>>
By far the greatest lost of life at the hand of governments has been in the form of ‘democide’. It is estimated that the top 15 governments (None of them democratic) combine a total of somewhere between 115 and 174 million people killed. Of all military killed in all wars since 1900 we have some 35 million… the rest (80m to 138M) were civilians killed or starved, either deliberate or consequential. It is estimated that as a direct result of Mao's policies, famine from 1958-1962, killed as many as 38million. Clearly double that directly and indirectly attributed to US policy. Germany for all of its ghastly crimes against humanity was only… only… some 22 million compared to the USSR’s 63million civilians. I will say that you seem to exaggerate your numbers for Hussein… it is, with Iran’s casualties included right around 1 million… these numbers are generously included in the U.S. related total.
DeleteLooking at conflicts started how about these statistics:
DEMOCRATIC* vs NON-DEMOCRATIC WARS** from 1816 – 1991
Non Democracy vs Non Democracy 198 wars
Non Democracy vs Democracy 155 wars
Democracy vs Democracy 0 wars…
*Excludes Republican France and Republican Rome in 1849
**Considered as a war if greater than 1000 were killed
The deaths attributed to the US and its foreign policy is appalling without a doubt. Whether you find it just or not, the chess game it played with communism arguably saved many more lives than it took. Rationalization? Perhaps. Should we have been isolationist or at least neutral? I think so… but then again, the hideous ways that non democracies treat their people and the economic path of destruction created by communism, socialism and the tyranny that they represent, one must consider if a response is necessary. Interestingly enough though, the farther down this socialist road our republic goes, the harsher the government treats its critics and the more it views its citizens with suspicion.
TS,
DeletePretty impressive bit of work you seem to have done there. Interesting, Very.
Jean
One additional thought Rick. Much of the death and war that you talk about from Reagan forward comes at the hands of neocons.... a faction exported by the democratic socialist philosophy into the Republican party... Your Centrist friends. What the democratic party wants to create in America is what the neocons want for the world....
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHa! the neo cons. We didn't export them they left. And why did they leave TS and run to the Republican Party. You guessed it WAR. The neocons rallied around Henry Jackson in 1972 because he was the one democrat who fully supported the war in Vietnam even at that late stage in the conflict. When he lost the nomination they fled to the Nixon camp like the little cockroaches that they are because with Nixon they got more of the same.
DeleteNow the neocons were very influential in the granting of civil rights and Nixon felt like southern blacks got a raw deal. They helped form the base of Nixon’s southern strategy in which were welcome all whites and blacks with the exception of the members of the John Birch Society.
Now let’s look at this neocon personality William (Bill) Kristol. Yeah the weekly Standard and Fox news two sources that you and your brethren like to cite here. You know he is the son of Irving Kristol better known as the “godfather” of the neoconservative movement. William Kristol has been a republican since he graduated college in the mid 80’s. Neocons are those who believe in economic liberalism and social conservatism. Hell TS you and half your cronies here are neocons and you don’t even know it. Believe me my friend they were well entrenched in the party of "NO" before any mid east war, before any Grenada, before the first Gulf War. And they worked tirelessly to propagate each and every one of those conflicts.. Neocons want war and that is what conservatives give them. Neocons are not centrists they are the warmongering wing of the party of no. And they can convince the conservatives of the need to continue to do battle. They are Hawks supporting the military industrial economy of the US. No thanks you can keep them.
They forgot to mention the one unforgivable thing Mandela and his wife did, alas, they were black.
ReplyDeleteMandela was imprisoned in 1964 after being arrested and charged with sabotage, specifically a campaign against the country's power grid, and plotting to overthrow the government. No one was injured in the sabotage campaign. He was released in 1990, at age 71. He was elected president of South Africa in 1994, in the country’s first full and free elections, and served until 1999.
Delete
DeleteInsight: Family, politicians battle over "Brand Mandela"
Sun, Dec 08 05:42 AM EST
By Peroshni Govender, Jon Herskovitz and David Dolan
JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - From political posters to bottles of wine and kitchen aprons, the face and name of Nelson Mandela are a potent commercial and political brand in South Africa. Little wonder it's so sought after - and the source of occasional squabbles.
Following his death on Thursday at the age of 95, the scramble for control of the Mandela legacy - both financial and moral - will involve his family, the ruling African National Congress (ANC), and the Nelson Mandela Foundation he set up to protect his broader message.
At stake is the inheritance that will go to Mandela's more than 30 children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, some of whom already use the Mandela name and image to market everything from clothing to reality TV.
There are also the Mandela brands and trademarks that help fund the Foundation. And for the ANC, Mandela's reputation as an anti-apartheid hero is worth votes for years to come.
There are no available public figures of Mandela's wealth, making it difficult to put an exact value on his estate, which includes an upscale house in Johannesburg, a modest dwelling in his rural Eastern Cape home province, and royalties from book sales including his autobiography "Long Walk to Freedom".
Several South African branding experts have declined to estimate the annual value of Mandela's trademark and brands.
Maintaining control over the copyrights is already a difficult business; protecting the Mandela brand may be even harder now that he is gone.
"The beauty of the Nelson Mandela brand is that it has been lived by him exactly as it has been presented by him. His behavior is his brand," said Jeremy Sampson, the executive chairman of Interbrand Sampson de Villiers.
"In the rush to commercialize it, we run the risk of watering down or destroying the good that the brand stood for purely with the crassness of finance," he added.
Delete"GOOD LORD"
Mandela divided the management of his legacy between a series of trusts to handle his finances and the Nelson Mandela Foundation, which serves as custodian of his wider moral legacy.
In total, he set up about two dozen trusts, mostly to pay for the education of his grandchildren and great grandchildren.
It hasn't all been straight forward.
A legal tussle between Mandela's long-time friend, lawyer George Bizos, and two of Mandela's daughters became public this year as the daughters sought to have Bizos and other Mandela associates ousted from companies set up to sell his handprint for use in art and memorabilia.
According to an affidavit filed by Bizos and the others, the two daughters, Makaziwe Mandela and Zenani Dlamini, had been trying to gain control of the main Mandela Trust since 2005 and eventually became trustees without Mandela's knowledge.
Mandela became angry when he found out what the daughters had done, Bizos and the other associates said in the affidavit.
"Mr. Mandela was shocked and used a common expression 'Good Lord!' He was most infuriated and wanted to know what had happened."
A portion of the revenue from the Foundation's 46664 clothing line - named after Mandela's prisoner number on Robben Island - and the artworks also goes to pay for family members' education, according to Bizos.
"The trust has adopted the procedure of requiring the applicant for money to furnish an invoice," Bizos said, adding that every request accompanied by proper paperwork has been granted.
But some family members have asked for a lump sum payment of 12 million rand ($1.2 million), he added.
Such demands fuel the notion, widely held in South Africa, that some of Mandela's children have exploited their father. Makaziwe, Mandela's eldest daughter, bristles at that.
"This is what we are, in a sense, entitled to, that my father worked for, and he did it with his own hands to create something for the welfare and upkeep of himself and his children," she told the Financial Times in April.
"If everybody wants a little bit of the Madiba magic, why is it so sacrilegious for the rightful owners ... to use the Madiba magic?" she said, referring to her father by his clan name.
MARKETING A MEMORY
DeleteThe Nelson Mandela Foundation, which runs the Nelson Mandela Centre of Memory in Johannesburg, was set up as the official custodian of Brand Mandela. It owns more than a dozen copyrights and trademarks for Mandela, which it uses for fundraising and charitable works.
As well as the "46664" number, its copyrights include the "Nelson Mandela" name, the clan name "Madiba" by which he is widely known, and "Rolihlahla", which was Mandela's given name.
Income those brands generate - "46664" runs as a charity that sells wristbands and mobile phone starter packs, for instance - helps pay for the running of the Foundation's Centre of Memory, which is the main research and archive center for Mandela, and which often spoke on his behalf as his health faded.
In all, the foundation had net income of 22 million rand ($2.2 million) in 2012 and assets of 290 million rand. In 2011 net income totaled 33 million rand and assets came to 262 million.
It paid Mandela 2.8 million rand in 2011 and 2.9 million rand last year for the book it published with his help called "Conversations with Myself," which was a follow-up to his autobiography "Long Walk to Freedom."
"We do not commercialize our trademarks, however we do undertake publications like 'Conversations with Myself' ... for educational purposes," said Heather Henriques, intellectual property and governance manager at the Centre of Memory.
Separately, the Nelson Mandela Children's Fund has rights to use the Mandela name for fundraising. Between 1995 and 2012 the fund brought in 1.2 billion rand in income and paid out 462 million rand in grants.
Delete"NOT LIKE COCA-COLA"
But not everything that uses Mandela's name was sanctioned by him.
There are at least 40 companies officially registered with the South African government that use the Mandela name. The companies appear to have no link to either Nelson Mandela, any of his relatives or any geographic area that has the Mandela name. The list includes the Gandhi-Mandela Nursing Academy, Mandela Truck Shuttle Services, Mama Mandela Marketing Company, Thanks Mandela Toiletries and Mandela's Shed, a restaurant.
The "Madiba" name has been used by more than 140 registered companies, including Madiba Truck Stop, Madiba Wines, Madiba's Driving School, Madiba Chickens, Madiba Cash and Madiba Bottle Store.
The Foundation may own the website "nelsonmandela.org", but "mandela.org" belongs to a Brazilian, who told Reuters he is using it for a personal project, which is a tool for computers.
There are also regularly scams where fake charities use Mandela's name to raise funds. The South African government in mid-2013 issued a statement warning people not to be duped by such groups.
Against all this, the Mandela Foundation picks its battles with care, only rarely suing firms that use his name of image.
"The brand Nelson Mandela is not like the brand Coca-Cola. It's huge, it's complex, there are many sub-brands within that brand. We implement protections in a relatively small space," said Verne Harris, the director and archivist at the Nelson Mandela Foundation.
"Madiba has given permission for his name to be used by close to 50 institutions around the world. Only in the last decade there was a system put in place for managing that and a set of criteria applied and then a code of conduct developed for those institutions to subscribe to," Harris said.
Because copyrights are owned by the person who creates the work - and not the subject - copyright law does not prevent the depiction of Mandela's image on T-shirts or other items, said Likonelo Magagula, an intellectual property attorney at law firm Norton Rose Fulbright in Johannesburg.
Trademark lawyers also say there is little to stop family members using the Mandela name, as long as they link the name to themselves and not exclusively to Nelson Mandela.
Makaziwe and one of her daughters have launched a "House of Mandela" range of wines, even if Mandela himself once said he did not want to be associated with alcohol or tobacco.
Some of his grandchildren have started a line of caps and sweatshirts that feature his image under the brand "Long Walk to Freedom," borrowed from the title of his autobiography, while two of his U.S.-based granddaughters starred in a reality television show called "Being Mandela."
Delete"BIGGER THAN THE ANC"
The other group keen to use Mandela's image is the ruling African National Congress.
After Mandela was imprisoned in 1964, the ANC made a conscious decision to use him and his young wife Winnie as symbols of the struggle against the racist government - the first time the party had chosen to elevate the individual above the collective.
When Mandela walked out of prison in 1990, he became a figure of reconciliation, calming the white minority who had been told for years he was the terrorist face of the "swart gevaar", or "black danger".
Today the ANC needs that magic more than ever.
"The ANC made the brand and the brand became bigger than the ANC," author and political analyst William Gumede said.
"Unfortunately, a lot of rank-and-file ANC leaders right now see Mandela as their own, rather than as belonging to the whole of South Africa and the broader world."
When President Jacob Zuma visited Mandela at his Johannesburg home in April, some in the Mandela family accused the current president of manipulating a frail old man to shore up his own battered image.
Makaziwe called news footage from that visit showing her father resting his head against a pillow and staring vacantly as Zuma grinned beside him "undignified and in bad taste".
The ANC defended the visit. Mandela "belongs to the ANC first and then to the whole country," ANC spokesman Jackson Mthembu told South Africa's Sunday Times newspaper.
Even the opposition Democratic Alliance, still seen by many as a party of white privilege, has laid claim to his legacy, using his picture in campaign material to the outrage of ANC members. With a general election next year, both parties are likely to work hard to capture a slice of the 'Mandela magic'.
"We may be exposed to the sordid spectacle of different political parties turning Mandela into a prop," said Aubrey Matshiqi, a political analyst at the Helen Suzman Foundation, a public interest think tank.
"Turning him into a political commodity from which they can profit - that would be the worst insult, especially if political parties attach his legacy to lies that they want to tell the electorate to get votes."
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSBRE9B703420131208
President Starts Campaign to Undo Obamacare PR Damage
Deletehttp://www.eurweb.com/2013/12/president-starts-campaign-to-undo-obamacare-pr-damage/
The Mandela brand of communism, like the Obama brand of communism, rely heavily on marketing and PR propaganda.
good boy spammie. go get a biscuit from your handlers
Deletehttp://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2013/12/07/rest-whitewash-networks-set-ignore-mandelas-communist-party-ties-dictato
Delete"So Mandela was painfully slow in denouncing the squalid dictatorship of Robert Mugabe. He was rather fond of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro (it won’t take you long to find photos of the two bear-hugging each other in Havana) and regularly referred to Libyan tyrant Muammar Qaddafi as “Brother Leader of the Revolution of the Libyan Jamahariya.” It was on a return visit to Robbin Island, when Mandela, as president, announced with appalling tone deafness that he would invite both Castro and Qaddafi to South Africa."
"Communism. In their rush to proclaim him a symbol of freedom, none of the networks covered Mandela's ideology or the relationship between Mandela's African National Congress (ANC) and the South African Communist Party (SACP). In his own handwritten manuscript How To Be A Good Communist, Mandela wrote "Under a Communist government, South Africa will become a land of milk and honey." With the exception of NBC's Bob Kur and Mike Jensen, no reporter even mentioned Mandela's support of economic nationalization. With Mandela's ideas and "loyal and disciplined" membership in the ANC, would South Africa become a multi-racial democracy or a one-party Marxist state like its neighbors? No one asked.
Political Prisoner. "The former long-time political prisoner will address Congress," Dan Rather announced when Mandela arrived. TV reporters called Mandela a political prisoner eight times, but never referred to Mandela as a saboteur or terrorist, even though Amnesty International declared in 1985 that "Mandela had participated in planning acts of sabotage and inciting violence, so that he could no longer fulfill the criteria for the classification of political prisoners." Network reporters did report Mandela's refusal to renounce violence in 14 stories, but most referred to it only in the context of fighting apartheid, not in the context of the ANC's involvement in black-on-black violence or the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians."
"ANC Antics. The networks have repeatedly failed to report recent events that give the Mandela legend a less lyrical ring. When a South African court implicated his wife Winnie in the beating and murder of a 14-year-old, only CNN PrimeNews briefly noted the incident. ABC, CBS and NBC have ignored it. On June 11, ANC members murdered Sipho Phungulwa in apparent retribution for Phulungwa's public allegations that the ANC tortured and killed dissident members. The networks have never mentioned it.
ABC's Don Kladstrup was the only reporter to put Mandela's importance in South Africa in context: "Mandela is not the undisputed leader of all South African blacks." Kladstrup reported that more than six black organizations are fighting apartheid, and interviewed black activists who said "Heaven help us if the ANC takes over here" and "If you do not go along with them, they will run roughshod over you.""
Interesting reading to a foreigner but this topic does beg the question: Why no comparison between Mandela and MLK.There can surely be no argument concerning their sincerity of purpose.
Delete"Why no comparison between Mandela and MLK"
DeleteCan't speak for everyone, but at some point,I just think, why bother? When we see the spam splatter by your conservative soulmate William, what would the point be? The angry conservative folks on this side of the pond NEED someone or something to yell at. To come to a site like this and extoll the virtues of anyone other than Reagan is akin to asking to screamed at for stupidity. What started this thread was a ridiculous whine about a slight to Maggie Thatcher. What followed was predictable bitterness and crap flinging. That's how conservatives roll in this country.
Maybe some.
DeleteHeya Louman, exception noted! Hope all is well!
DeleteMax and Lou
DeleteYes I guess nothing has changed since I dropped out of the list of posters. I must mildly protest at being allocated William as a soul mate though. First he would need to demonstrate he has a soul and second, in Aussie a” mate" is the highest complement one man can pay to another. Now to Aust US relations in general. We have recently elected an Aussie style Conservative national government and yesterday GM announced the closure in 2017 of their Australian manufacturing plant. This follows Ford and Mitsubishi announcing their departure earlier in the year. Looks as though we suffer from the same disease as the US, over priced labor and poor build quality. A Japanese factory produces two cars on the line to every one at GM here (same numerical labor force). Australians have for years refused to buy GM or Ford cars as the build quality is poor compared to Japanese or even Korean products. Our government subsidizes the manufacturers here to about $2000 per car. I have driven European cars for decades, currently a Jaguar and previously two Volvos. My last Australian car, a GM wagon was bought in 1974. I note the end of GM here coincides with the collapse of their export market. Toyota however is exporting 70 percent of their production to the Middle East. Now the change in government here has nothing to do with the GM decision but we must remember that the previous Socialist government having started with zero fiscal debit and significant reserves, managed to leave office with a fiscal debit of over 300 billion. Enough reason to vote them out of office, hopefully on a permanent basis.
Twas a gentle tweaking Kingston, and I'll stop because you've fed the troll. On our side of the pond, our Democrat (socialist to some) government left an incoming Republican president in very good shape, only to see it promptly undone in the name of tax cuts. Things come and things go.
DeleteI once believed it was all so simple that voting for one party all the time would fix everything. I've pretty much lost that thinking. Despite the fact that we have so many people here falling into poverty through no fault of their own, we also, undeniably, have abuse of government programs by people of all political persuasions. I'm not entirely cynical of the human race, but I've come to accept that no matter how stern or how generous you are, there is always a segment of the race that wants to scam rather than work hard. The rich are as guilty as those in poverty when it comes to scamming.
I've voted Republican before, and probably will again someday. Not because I believe they have their heads any less further up their ass than Democrats do, but mostly because for that short period, they will offer an alternative to something I don't like from the other candidate. Americans here bought into a lot of what Reagan was selling, in opposition to Jimmy Carter, and 30 odd years later, the conservative movement here is represented by the likes of people like William who make your views look communist in comparison. Careful what you wish for.
After a bit of a vacation from the site, I dropped in to see what was new. Same partisanship from both sides reigns supreme.
DeleteKingston, with both Japanese, American auto's being built in Australia, what is the difference in quality? Parts? Labor attitude? Management?
Manufacturing facility? Always interested to see why a problem like that should exist.
Max, seems like we go from 1 extreme to the other or so the pendulum swings. Seems the swings are getting farther apart after each election. Is it people are discouraged in the existing system and don't feel their concerns are addressed? Is it people feel the system is unfair? Today we sport more people on assistance than any other time in recent history yet people think the government should do more.
The interesting trend is with the current administration which the next will take to the extreme is the law by executive order. The choice not to enforce the law. Harry's example of changing the way appointees are approved may become his undoing as the next congress and president will certainly use the new rules to the extreme. More than unfortunate.
What's more interesting is that there is no challenge from the R's. Seems if they do not like the PPACA as much as they claim they would haul O into court (figuratively speaking) and claim he cannot change a provision in the law as that responsibility falls to congress. Perhaps they will just let it go until it collapses under it's flaws and reap the rewards of I told you so.
In any case, Kingston and Max, be well.
Lou.
The antics occurred as eulogies were being given inside Johannesburg’s FNB Stadium, where 91 world leaders had gathered to say goodbye to Mandela, who died Dec. 5.
DeleteThe president’s glad-handing left Michelle Obama clearly furious and mortified. She refused to even look at what her hubby was doing with his fellow head of state.
And the first lady wasn’t the only one who was appalled.
“Why do Cameron and Obama feel the need to behave like idiots?” asked a blistering Daily Telegraph blog by British political columnist Iain Martin. “Why let a fuddy-duddy thing like manners get in the way of a social media opportunity, where we can put ourselves at the center of everything, clowning around like Muppets.”
Obama’s decision to take a selfie at the memorial like a teenager drew special condemnation.
“What selfish morons take a ‘selfie’ at a memorial service?” wrote one Twitter user.
The infamous Tumblr page “Selfies at Funerals,” which has exposed the trend for months, announced it would shut down because there could never be a funeral selfie more twisted than one of the president at a memorial for Nelson Mandela.
“Obama has taken a funeral selfie, so our work here is done,” the operator, Jason Feifer of Brooklyn, wrote.
At one point, Michelle switched seats with her husband, placing herself between the president and Thorning-Schmidt, who is 46 and married.
An icon of the left passes and the usual rif-raff turn it into another Wellstone moment. These people just cannot help themselves.
Lou.,
DeleteYour questions. Toyota is making cars here with an almost equivalent build to the Japanese made cars. Holden and Ford, here for so long and the workforce complacent with well organized Labor simply go to work and put in their required hours. We have a saying here, and I am ashamed to repeat it " Never buy a Ford or Holden(GM) made on Monday or Friday" Monday they are getting over the weekend and Friday they are getting ready for the next one. I think the build quality is probably on a par with the US factories but way below the Japanese or European builds. My Jaguar is an XJ and the power plant is I believe American, designed from when the make was a Ford subsiduary.Build was in UK and is faultless. New cost was$50000 and a large GM or Ford Australian built would have been about $35000. GM once accounted for 80 percent of cars sold in Australia but now only about 20% I believe. We abolished tariffs some years ago and Jap,European and and Korean imports have just about taken over.
Lou continued.
DeleteI should mention the proliferation of Free Trade agreements which reduce or eliminate tariffs. The high value of the Australian Dollar, currently$ 0.90c to $US. When GM was profitable, the rate was$0...50 so you can see the discrepancy. We have a small customer base and high manufacturing costs so we are stuffed. Just as US was a decade ago when the "Rust Belt" surfaced. Because I am so old, I much prefer discussing American History and the Founding Fathers, revered more by outsiders than American nationals perhaps. Met a man in the store a week or so ago. Because his accent gave him away as a "yank:" I engaged him in conversation. I identified his accent as South Carolina but he was from N.Carolina. Said he was interested in US history, as am I. Asked him what his thoughts were concerning John Hancock and the movement towards independence. He stammered and said, I believe him to be something to do with the early movement towards independence but other than that I cannot place him as being of any importance!.
Hancock was an interesting person. Wealthy and an importer/exporter so the taxes levied by the British were an issue personally. One of his ships were stopped, illegal goods found and he was heavily fined. He was involved with organizing protest against the taxes. The question remains today as to who were the organizers behind the Tea Party as it was well organized. Was it Samuel Adams, John Hancock?
DeleteHe along with Samuel Adams were tagged as rabble rousers by the British and were hunted by their military. Paul Revere warned them as they were in Lexington during his famous ride and they fled the area.
As the first signer and by far the largest on the Declaration, the saying. signing your John Hancock. Because it was the first signature or the largest?
Yes we experienced the joys of poor union craftsmanship during the 60's and 70's and early 80's. The American auto companies found out that people no longer wanted their substandard junk.
DeleteIn the 90's the Auto companies did a turn around here and began quality improvements in GM and Ford and today are equal to any Foreign produced auto including the vehicles made in the USA. The people in the US remain unconvinced and continue to purchase foreign company auto's.
I do own a GM and a Ford. The GM has 150K miles and has required little repair the Ford Escape AWD is used in more difficult terrain and required shocks and struts at 100K miles. Both have had their unneeded but suggested 100K mile spark plug replacement.
A vehicle to me is transportation only and I could care less if it's a vehicle that makes a statement like a Mercedes or a Ford. To me reliability in transportation is everything. As I do drive cross country, 1000-1300 miles on occasion, I prefer an auto the people in small towns can repair should I require repair while traveling.
I find it amazing how a union like the auto unions can be so self destructive in their quest for more.
Your point Lou about the power grabs is troubling to me as well. During the recent budget fiasco, the Republicans changed the rules in the congress to block Democrats from bringing a clean resolution to the floor. I honestly don't ask this in a pointed way, but are you as bothered by that as you are by what Reid did?
DeleteThe constitution doesn't call for a 2/3 majority on every vote in the senate, but the Republicans who are in the minority in the senate have arbitrarily said this IS what the constitution calls for. The solution that Reid has taken, is the wrong one. Not to be misunderstood, I think the far right conservatives in this country have gone batshit crazy and that it will be THEM rather than Democrats that drive us to the worst outcome. Still, Reid's solution is just as bad as McConnells. Yes, things will start to work again, but it's the equivalent of slapping a child because you've lost your temper and are tired of their antics.
A lot of this crap started with Newt and Clinton, and it has gotten worse with each successive POTUS. At this time, there are nearly 100 federal judicial vacancies that are sitting empty for NO reason except that Republicans have been blocking them just to give Obama the middle finger. Even when Republicans, as group, don't have a particular problem with a judge or group of judges, they block the vote anyway just because they can. Democrats did it to Bush as well, and I didn't like it then. But, at the end of the day, I have to blame the elected members rather than the executive for the power grab. Misusing the powers of the fillibuster is not doing your job. Changing the rules in the congress to block a clean resolution that would prevent a government shut down that the people DIDN'T want is also not doing your job.
I'll concede one thing though. Heavy handed tactics work.....in the short term. Republicans have pretty much gotten their way on just about everything BUT the ACA. Over and over, it has been Obama and Democrats who have compromised and bitterly signed onto some some deal just to end the obstruction.
Amazing how ones beliefs change when they are in control isn't it.
DeleteHarry Reid, May 2005:
The filibuster is far from a “procedural gimmick.” It is part of the fabric of this institution. It was well known in colonial legislatures, and it is an integral part of our country’s 217 years of history.
The first filibuster in the U.S. Congress happened in 1790. It was used by lawmakers from Virginia and South Carolina who were trying to prevent Philadelphia from hosting the first Congress.
Since 1790, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds of times.
Senators have used it to stand up to popular presidents. To block legislation. And yes – even to stall executive nominees.
It encourages moderation and consensus. It gives voice to the minority, so that cooler heads may prevail.
It also separates us from the House of Representatives – where the majority rules.
And it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the government established by the Framers of our Constitution: Limited Government…Separation of Powers…Checks and Balances.
Mr. President, the filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check. This central fact has been acknowledged and even praised by Senators from both parties.
For 200 years, we’ve had the right to extended debate. It’s not some “procedural gimmick.”
It’s within the vision of the Founding Fathers of our country. They established a government so that no one person – and no single party – could have total control.
Some in this Chamber want to throw out 217 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power.
As to the shutdown, the House was within it's right to not present legislation as Harry has proven in the senate for the last 8 years.
Unfortunately the Senate is the rubber stamp for the WH and has not done it's job for the last 5 years which is represent the American people, not the WH. You state that O is not the problem but he is as Reid follows lead on every issue and the sheep in democrat clothing follow him to the end.
So be it, the day will come when the Dem's will scream as the R's use Harry's nuclear option against the Democratic party.
Personally the R's should do a no show for every vote related to an appointment in protest over the lessening of our democracy. But that seems to be what this administration is all about.
I would disagree on the R's getting their way. There has been no cuts in spending in the last 5 years. Now they have gutted the only spending cut which cut the growth of spending. Today we are close to spending a trillion more than when O took office. To fight it is futile as the media echos the presidents protests and screams how the R's will shut down the country. There is little response as little is carried in the media except the screaming from the D's. Amazing how the sequester was going to end life as we know it and nothing happened.
In our life time we will have to pay for the unfettered free for all spending of the last 5 years and the next 3. That will be painful for all but more so for the poor and middle class as their safety net disappears to pay the debt.
Have a good day off to spend money to remodel the kitchen.
The sequester has hurt, and I think that this "compromise" starts to undo some of what the sequester caused. To me, the issue is that we aren't willing to pay for what we want. If taxes went up every year until the deficit was closed and our debt was paid to zero, I guarantee you that we would stop screwing around and that serious cuts to the military and entitelments would follow. However, there is no real consequence, at least not when Republicans control things. To complain about rubber stamping seems a little silly, has it ever been different when the WH and the Senate are controlled by the same party? On one level, I get it, those who didn't vote for Obama feel that those who did vote for him should just suck it anyway and that Obama and the Democrats should be denied the right to govern despite the fact they control two of the three houses. I know you are a moderate, but what I hear is that you don't mind this when you are the minority. I don't like it either way.
DeleteThe safety net has been substantially destroyed already and you are correct, no matter what happens, the burden of our massive debt is going to fall more heavily on the middle class and the poor.
How can 44 billion in a reduction in the growth in spending hurt?
Deletelet me help. It was targeted cuts made to hurt people so they would never go through with it. Surprise, the politicians were cowards and refused to compromise aided by the extremists from both sides. If memory serves, the R's in the house were willing to let the president cut where ever he wanted to get to the necessary level. He threatened to veto the bill. A true man of the people.
Try this one instead. If you froze government spending at the 2013 level for the next 10 years and did not increase taxes, grow out of debt.
Another option, roll the budget back to 2007, last budget before TARP and the non stimulating stimulus, add in the cost of living increases for every year and all years for the next 10 years, billions less in spending today.
Neither option is pretty because the government would need to downsize. Ever wonder why government never right sizes, down sizes, lays people off as is done in every business when we are in a down turn?
And I disliked the massive spending of the Bush years, 5 trillion wasted, almost as much as I dislike the massive spending of the Obama years so far, 7 trillion wasted.
And yes we will have the pleasure of paying for the last 12 trillion in waste.
Yes the O should be able to run the country within reason, not into the ground where generations to come will suffer because of his plan to transform the country. Maybe that was his plan, LOL.
p.s. there are no consequences to either party as we continue to send the same chuckle heads back term after term.
Morning all.
DeleteLou your reference to John Hancock is about the first occasion that your excellent notes on early history has told me nothing I did not already know! To put the case in its most simple form, I go to Granville and Townshend together with mad George in London. The plan to get the East India Company out of hock and to teach the colonists a lesson was so simple it could not fail. Of course, typical of government everywhere, they forgot to consider the effects the measures would have on the New England smugglers, including Hancock. I believe Hancock acted mostly out of self interest but Adams was simply a bitter and twisted failure; full of bile and ready to use his undoubted abilities as am agitator to assist the cause.
I suspect, as have others in the past that the Tea Party episode was planed by a committee but led by Hancock with Adams stirring the pot. I have often wondered what the other Adams thought of the tea party episode. Pompous and moralistic with his devotion to the law as it was at the time, the alleged illegal raid on the tea clipper must have been anathema to him.
All in the past, probably ignored in the grade schools where it should be taught and so many patriots living through those turbulent times. Now consigned to the dusty tomes of history, read only by the ancients among us. History however can never ignore the period in American development when so many leaders appeared just at the time they were needed. Talking of leaders, I add the name Hamilton as the greatest not to become President. But for a poor choice of parents, he would have been outstanding.
You are correct. It was intended to hurt so that there would be genuine compromise. Once it started to hurt people in congress, like when it affected airports, they made tiny fixes. Ultimately, the only cuts that survive are the ones that affect people who don't have enough clout to undue them.
DeleteI guess my take is this, every time a Democrat wins the White House, the Republicans go on a jihad about spending and our debt. I don't buy into these outright arguments about the growth of government. It has grown, and so has the economy and so has the population. These wars and tirades about the size never accomplish anything. I think we could focus on more productive matters.
Where I disagree about Republicans winning Lou is that when it comes to taxes, they have made the Democrats their bitch. There is no pleasant way to put that. When it comes to spending cuts, they have again forced Democrats to accept cuts to things they don't want to cut while the Republicans have given up.....nothing. No loophole closures, etc. John Boehnor himself said, "I got 99% of what I want, I'm a happy guy". Was he lying? But, admittedly, I can't say any of this without sounding partisan or defacto in support of Obama, so I guess it's moot.
But the Repub's have capitulated. The top tax rate is now 39.5%.
DeleteThey certainly capitulated in the next round of spending.
They certainly are not a party of their word as re-election is everything.
Of course Boehnor was lying and putting lipstick on the pig as they all do. There is little difference in the parties, maybe the color of the lipstick.
Hurting people is what government is all about when they don't get their way. The government shutdown was a perfect example of our government in action. Wonder how the park people felt pushing 80/90 year old vet around. Of course they turn around and let a demonstration proceed after their exhibition in stupidity. Shutting down the WH and citizens offered to pay for the security to keep it open, but the answer, close the white House to tours.
He we have an access road into the national forest which happens to be a county access road. The forest rangers were going to close access to the forest so the county sheriff and a deputy stopped the forest rangers from using the county road while we were allowed to pass through to the forest. Yes they forest guys were angry. Said they would return early in the AM the next day. Sheriff told them to bring supplies as the road was closed in both directions to US government vehicles. I loved the look on the rangers face. In any case, ever wonder how they printed up all the signs and within hours had them posted everywhere?
My take to sound totally partisan is we need a new party that can be honest, up front, not lie and trusted by the American people.
There are no mitigating circumstances when it comes to rebellion against a government. Unless of course you win.
DeleteImagine the consequences should they have lost.
Taxes went up on everyone, the Pubs won that battle. Those who work have seen their wages stagnant or declining for a long time. Romney was right about one thing, when you squeeze the shit out of wages, selling tax cuts to people who make so little is like ice to eskimo's.
DeleteI agree on the need for an honest party, but for as long as we hold a belief that government is shit and should be so weak it can't do anything, how will we get that party?
Max, the R's didn't want the tax hikes, the D's were adament about raising taxes.
DeleteThe Democratic entry into the budget fray will help shape the same kind of battle in Washington over taxes and spending that has become a familiar sight in recent years.
The plan, offered by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray, D-Wash., would seek $975 billion in spending reductions over the next 10 years as well as $975 billion in new tax revenue, which she said would be raised by “closing loopholes and cutting unfair spending in the tax code for those who need it the least,” according to Murray’s prepared remarks opening her committee’s consideration of the plan.
Advertise | AdChoices
According to the Congressional Budget Office’s projections, from 2014 to 2023, the federal government will spend $47 trillion.
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/13/17299251-senate-democrats-offer-budget-plan-with-tax-increases-and-spending-cuts?lite
WASHINGTON — The Senate, in a predawn vote two hours after the deadline passed to avert automatic tax increases, overwhelmingly approved legislation on Tuesday that would allow tax rates to rise only on affluent Americans while temporarily suspending sweeping, across-the-board spending cuts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/us/politics/senate-tax-deal-fiscal-cliff.html?pagewanted%253Dall&_r=0
Don't believe any R voted for the tax increases in the PPACA, LOL.
Congressional Republicans have said they will not support any new revenue measures as a part of a deal.
Needless to say, getting a new party is almost impossible as the 2 parties control the process. Broken is really broken.
Kingston:
DeleteIt was a well known fact that John Hancock had made his fortune through smuggling Dutch tea, which was cheaper than East Indian tea. A commonly forgotten fact is that East Indian prices were cut before the introduction of the three pence tax, in effect making its price, even with the tax, cheaper than Hancock’s tea. Presented with this information, many loyalists did not wonder at Hancock’s involvement in the boycotting of East Indian tea and indeed, the entire war.
After he inherited a fortune in his mid-20s, this elegant dandy nearly single-handedly bankrolled the early protests in Boston.
Hancock smuggled glass, lead, paper, French molasses and tea. In 1768, upon arriving from England, his sloop Liberty was impounded by British customs officials for violation of revenue laws. This caused a riot among some infuriated Bostonians, depending as they did on the supplies on board. In the late 1760s, he was formally charge with smuggling and although certainly guilty, his attorney was able to get Hancock relieved of all charges. The lawyer was Sam's cousin, John Adams.
Although he had not liked his fellow colonists' destructive response to the Stamp Act eight years earlier, John Adams applauded the Boston Tea Party. He wrote in his Diary, "There is a Dignity, a Majesty, a Sublimity, in this last Effort of the Patriots, that I greatly admire." By 1774 Adams believed that American colonists no longer had a choice. The Tea Act was yet another unjust attempt by England to make the colonies pay for its vast empire.
Surprised to see Kingston return from the dead. And questioning my soul to boot. Classical rubbish from the Queen's loyal subject after all.
ReplyDeleteThe conservative is concerned, first of all, with the regeneration of the spirit and character—with the perennial problem of the inner order of the soul, the restoration of the ethical understanding, and the religious sanction upon which any life worth living is founded. This is conservatism at its highest. - Russell Kirk
Chew on that for a bit "mate."
Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal
Deletewith the intent of throwing it at someone else;
you are the one who gets burned.
- The Buddha
Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.
Congrads you made it.
Noun 1. peanut gallery - (figurative) people whose criticisms are regarded as irrelevant or insignificant (resembling uneducated people who throw peanuts on the stage to express displeasure with a performance); "he ignored complaints from the peanut gallery"
Deletepeople - (plural) any group of human beings (men or women or children) collectively; "old people"; "there were at least 200 people in the audience"
2. peanut gallery - rearmost or uppermost area in the balcony containing the least expensive seats
DeleteThe most insignificant people are the most apt to sneer at others. They are safe from reprisals. And have no hope of rising in their own self esteem but by lowering their neighbors.
Congrads as you lower yourself to an all new level.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteKing raised the matter of my soul buttboy. We have had our go arounds in the past and he retired from the field only to return as a ghost with a forked tongue....
DeleteCute quotes from his backup are irrelevant. I believe my mate can stand up for himself if he only had the bollocks.
I can understand why as you appear to have none. Just a mean spirited little boy who wants his own way.
DeletePoints need to be made in this country Lou. I could give a rats ass if you don't like the way I make them. I'll give you the last word here bigmouth.
DeleteLou William and Max.
DeleteI had thought to withdraw once more from this site in view of the comments made by William. Intolerance towards the views of others is not conducive of debate. Unfounded allegations concerning either Constitutional loyalty or personal weakness, say more about the accuser than the accused.
However, Lou has sprung to my defense as a good friend is expected to do.Max, with whom I moistly disagree has contributed ideas deserving of consideration. For these reasons I shall make one further attempt, not to win the argument but to illustrate perhaps the problem I perceive with the approach William takes when confronted with an opinion he perhaps does not understand ,or even worse, does not wish to understand.
I have no objection to the opinion William holds or the way in which he chooses, by way of cutting and pasting irrelevancies to advance those same arguments. This in general is evidence of the inability to generate even semi original thought and comes direct from the Bullies Bible. My concern, overriding even the rudeness and intolerance shown by William is his dogmatic assertion that Australians are servants of the British Queen. I have previously explained in some detail our constitution and the “Reserve Powers”. William refused to even acknowledge this argument and replied with his usual bombastic blathering. Americans in general are tolerated by most in this country and greatly admired by a few, myself included. The attitude of people such as William does more to sully the reputation of Americans than any other cause.
King, we have been down this road before. I need not repeat my arguments regarding your ownership by your beloved owner, the queen. When you retired from the field previously the site somehow, without your "compare and contrast" inane repetitive queries, somehow survived.
DeleteMLK and Mandela? MLK and Mandela? Are you shitting me King? Mandela is one of the great communist terrorists of recent history. Mandela, Castro, Chaves,,,, throw a blanket over these common reprobates. Politically incorrect to make this statement you opine? Tell that to the current and future generations of zombies whose countries have been blessed with these "hero's of the left."
As far as your continued distaste for my methodology I do admit it would not cut bait in your off white ivory towers. Want pure debate? Join a club, set up Roberts Rules, and proceed with your vanilla flavored peptone bismol.
This country is in trouble.
This country has tried to reason with communist/socialist/progressive minions for a hundred years.
This country since 2009 has produced a movement to rival the founders.
This country has carried water for world wide mental weakness since Lenin.
17 going on 20T is the scorecard for our dabblings.
I'm concerned for my country King. Personally I don't care about your insults mate.
1773-2009
And as for Mr. Hamilton.
ReplyDelete"129. "Mr. Hamilton. I have well considered the subject, and am convinced that no amendment of the confederation can answer the purpose of a good government, so long as state sovereignties do in any shape exist; and I have great doubts whether a national government on the Virginia plan can be made effectual. From the lessons of experience results the evident conclusion, that all federal governments are weak and distracted. To avoid the evils deducible from these observations, we must establish a general and national government, and annihilate the state distinctions and state operations. I believe the British government forms the best model the world ever produced, and such has been its progress in the minds of many, that this truth gradually gains ground. This government has for its object publick strength and individual security. It is said with us to be unattainable. If it was once formed it would maintain itself. See the excellence of the British executive. He is placed above temptation. He can have no distinct interests from the publick welfare. Nothing short of such an executive can be efficient. I would give the legislature unlimited power of passing all laws without exception, and to appoint courts in each state, so as to make the state governments unnecessary to it. I confess that this plan, and that from Virginia, are very remote from the idea of the people." Mr. Hamilton acknowledges that state sovereignties did exist, and proposes to destroy them, as is now attempted."
John Taylor, New views of the Constitution.
"The origin of the coalition between the monarchists and consolidators in the convention, is visible in the journal. It arose from the question of representation. The deputies from the most populous states naturally contended for an absolute preponderance of numbers; those from the small states, for the moral equality of sovereignties. The gentlemen in favour of monarchy or consolidation, united with great address, to use this contest, as the means for effecting their object; and acted with more skill and foresight, than the didactick federalists. They aimed at a possibility; the didactick federalists entertained the hopeless idea of reconciling contradictions. A monarchy or a consolidated government might be established; but a union of states in conjunction with either, was an impossibility. If we believe that a substantial distinction between different forms of government exists, we must conclude that a national government, and a union of states, cannot subsist together, however the appearance of such a fellowship may for a time be kept up, by the courtesy or policy of the supreme associate; just as Augustus retained republican words to confirm imperial power. The verbal federalists however advocated this hopeless experiment, and the advocates of a monarchical or national government, profiting by the example of the Roman triumvir, gladly joined them, as knowing that the experiment would accelerate one of these ends. Happily the experiment was defeated by the establishment of a federal form of government; but we are again told by the gentlemen who prefer monarchy or a national government, that a national and federal government may be made to subsist together, by giving to Congress and its court an absolute supremacy over the state governments, and securing the states by federal words, just as the Roman republick was secured by republican words.
ReplyDeleteIf we should even admit, with Mr. Madison, that the government is semi-federal, and semi-national, the question arises, by what means can it be kept so? These are ascertained by the means necessary to maintain a government semi-republican and semi-monarchical. Each moiety must counterpoise and check the other. If one principle possesses a supremacy over the other principle, and can remove out of its way all the obstacles which the balancing principle may place in it, the consequences are inevitable; because power can only be checked by power. Therefore an equal capacity in each moiety to maintain a government half federal and half national, is as indispensable, as in the case of a government half republican and half monarchical. If the state governments individually, or a bare majority of the states, were supreme, or had a negative over the acts of the federal government, that moiety would soon perish; and in like manner, if the federal government should acquire the same powers over the state governments, they must perish; just as a limited monarchy would perish if one of its principles obtains a supremacy over the other."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete