Comments Posted By bsjones
Displaying 171 To 180 Of 237 Comments


I think you and m. reynolds are saying the same thing with different words regarding Germany. The "harsh economic conditions" you speak of and the "depression" m. reynolds speak of were caused by the reparations imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. The "harsh economic conditions" or "depression" were solved by Hitler's Democratic Socialist Party in at least three ways: war, territorial expansion, and government/business partnerships.

I don't want to speak for m. reynolds, but I think his point is that the deficit spending on "The New Deal" is a better solution to a government facing "harsh economic conditions" than the deficit spending on war and territorial expansion that the Third Reich used to solve a similar problem (harsh economic conditions).

This does not mean that Germans were not also looking for pay back and asserting a desire for their "rightful place" in world history.

Comment Posted By bsjones On 21.02.2009 @ 16:32


Re: post #32

Fundamentally altering the country is not the problem per se. We have fundamentally changed America so many times.

In no particular order:
Articles of Confederation
rejecting the colonial master
giving property owners the vote
giving All White men the vote
giving All Men the vote
giving all Americans (men and women) the vote
electing the Senate by majority vote
repeal of prohibition
presidential term limits
transformation from an agrarian to an industrial to a service economy
leaving the gold standard
creation of a federal reserve bank
isolationism to world policeman
Republic to empire

America is not static. Neither is the wider world. Politics is the work of deciding how to change America for the better in an ever changing world. Politics is navigating between bad change, no change, and effective change. I thought that was the point of your post IS THE RIGHT READY TO RETURN TO POWER?.

I say all this with respect but wonder what I am missing.

Comment Posted By bsjones On 21.02.2009 @ 15:26

I think my main response to your post about the "American Soul" was lost in the ether.
What happened?


Comment Posted By bsjones On 21.02.2009 @ 14:06

Now here's a guy willing to put his Republican money where his mouth is.

"Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal announced Friday that he will decline stimulus money specifically targeted at expanding state unemployment insurance coverage, becoming the first state executive to officially refuse any part of the federal government’s payout to states.

In a statement, Jindal, who is slated to give the Republican response to President Barack Obama’s message to Congress on Tuesday, expressed concern that expanding unemployment insurance coverage would lead to increased unemployment insurance taxes later on.

Now that's principle!!

Comment Posted By bsjones On 21.02.2009 @ 13:37


I agree with you that America is no longer a country of personal responsibility, self reliance, justice and fair play. This is not happening now as I write. It has already happened. The soul of America you refer to disappeared long ago. It was thrown under the bus decades ago.

The soul as you describe it is largely a fiction.

We already bail out banks.
We already have social security
we already have unemployment insurance
we already have the FDIC
we already make sure Wall Street won't pay for its mistakes
we already see to it the big three auto companies won't fail
the family farm is already a thing of the past
the federal reserve already 'smooths' out the business cycle
we already have medicare
we already have medicaid
we already have massive agro business subsidies.

We lost the last election and President Bush left the economy in a huge downward spiral. (Yes, he did have help from Democrats.) This is reality.

Again, this is reality. A whole lot more went into this than besides Comrade Obama.

The only Republican candidate for president who was remotely interested in the American soul as you describe it was Ron Paul. Fox News threw Paul under the bus for America's (cross-dressing) Mayor"; we ended up with John "grumpy pants" McCain. An old man who dumped his first wife for a supply of fresh beer, and was right at the heart of the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980's.

The primacy of government over the individual and individual responsibility has been with us a long time. We had a chance to do something about all of this in the last election. Instead we nominated McCain as the Republican candidate for president.

Comment Posted By bsjones On 21.02.2009 @ 13:22



I agree. This is an excellent post.

However, in light of all the public and private corruption that is cascading down on America at this very moment, I think this editorial cartoon controversy might just be a side show.

Again, a great post with excellent points.

Comment Posted By bsjones On 20.02.2009 @ 18:57


Re: pardon power

The president IS NOT a MONARCH!!

Let's constitutionally abolish this ridiculous and antiquated presidential power.
It is unnecessary, as our judicial system provides the accused plenty of opportunity to acquit themselves.

The problem with the pardon power is it is absolute in nature. A president can pardon anyone who was convicted of a federal crime (excepting impeachment). Once it is granted, it cannot be overturned.

I am particularly offended when a president pardons someone in his own administration in an attempt to protect himself or his reputation.

"Wherever there is interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done."
James Madison

The presidential pardon is an enormous power to do wrong.

Where is the accountability?

Comment Posted By bsjones On 20.02.2009 @ 21:18

Sadly, current events mean we do not have to use hypothetical scenarios anymore. Sir Allen Stanford of Texas (also of Antigua and Barbuda) is to be indicted.

A video is here:

At the end of the article it states: "One former employee said he tried to pass on his concerns to regulators six years ago."


"Mr Hazlett said he repeated his concerns during an arbitration hearing when he left the bank and believed regulators would follow up on them."

Oh well. Stuff happens.

Sir Allen Stanford is the first American to be knighted by Antigua and Barbuda. He is also a citizen of the small island nation, considered a tax haven by a site that proclaims, "Tax Havens are GOOD."

I am not excited by this or getting off on it in any way. I am sad and scared. What does it mean when the stream of corporate corruption flows this freely?

I hope to God, if found guilty, he will be punished. I will start praying that he is not placed under house arrest or simply returned to his island paradise home toe escape justice.

Anybody out there share my concerns?

Comment Posted By bsjones On 20.02.2009 @ 17:52

Sara in VA,

It's nice to be in agreement with somebody around here on occasion.

One more thing...
Retribution is one part of justice.
If someone kills my wife, I would like to see them suffer as she suffered.

If my retirement account and/or pension is destroyed one year before I retire, by corrupt white collar criminals (be they Ken Lay or Arthur Anderson stooges), I would like to see them suffer as I suffer.

I gain a psychological benefit "when the punishment fits the crime."

Is retribution, or punishment, the only purpose of justice? I say no. I still think it is valid.

Comment Posted By bsjones On 20.02.2009 @ 15:31

Hi Sara in VA,
Not surprisingly, I see it a bit different. I think all criminals should be held accountable through a just application of the law regardless of their class or background. Criminals should go through the appropriate part of the justice system for their misdeeds.

Hypothetical situations:
A man lies to collect double unemployment benefits.

A man sells cocaine in Miami and launders his illegal profits by investing in local businesses.

A man defrauds investors to make a profit on Wall Street, he puts the profits in a Swiss bank account to hide his gains and avoid a U.S. tax liability.

I want to see all of these criminals punished. No house arrest for ANY of them.

An argument could be made that the drug dealer causes the most social harm, so he should get the harshest sentence. Maybe. As we have all found out, sometimes Wall Street crime can have a wide ranging negative social impact too.

Also, some things I dislike are legal. If a woman has an abortion, she has not done anything illegal. It makes no sense to call her a criminal. She has broken no law. Likewise, anyone who collects a social security or other welfare payment is not a criminal for collecting it, if they have not committed fraud and meet all the criteria necessary to collect it. Just because something offends me does not make it illegal.

Finally, if what you say about Obama's Aunt is true, accountability demands she go through the appropriate deportation proceedings. If she gets away with being here illegally, it will be because:
1. there is little enforcement of immigration laws
2. Obama is president. (In America, the president and his closest comrades are above the law.)

It will not have anything to do with Obama being a Democrat.

Comment Posted By bsjones On 20.02.2009 @ 13:42

Powered by WordPress

« Previous Page

Next page »

Pages (24) : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 24

«« Back To Stats Page