He did have to pay taxes in New Jersey. ...New Jersey, at the time... did not allow passive losses to be deducted from ordinary income ~ NYT columnist James B. Stewart in a CNBC interview (see video below).
As we all now know, or are pretty damn sure concerning, Donald Trump's tax returns would show he has not federal income taxes in many years past. This came up during the first POTUS debate, and Trump said, in response to a remark by Hillary Clinton, that he didn't pay because he's smart.
Servile Trump toady #2 Rudy Giuliani agrees, saying that Trump (because he pays no taxes) is a "business genius".
Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns [and] Tax experts hired by The Times to analyze Mr. Trump's [leaked] 1995 records said that tax rules especially advantageous to wealthy filers would have allowed Mr. Trump to use his $916 million loss to cancel out an equivalent amount of taxable income over an 18-year period. (Donald Trump Tax Records Show He Could Have Avoided Taxes for Nearly Two Decades, The Times Found by David Barstow, Susanne Craig, Russ Buettner and Megan Twoheyoct. NYT 10/1/2016).
Really? Losing $916 million due to mismanagement and bad business decisions means you're GOOD at business? Or did he only lose money on paper? By which I mean were these fake "loses" cooked up by a crooked accountant so Trump could avoid paying what he owed? Maybe technically legal, maybe not. But certainly morally dubious.
BTW, according to the NYT "the tax documents arrived in a manila envelope... at the Times with a return address of the Trump Organization". I've heard that the person responsible for leaking the documents is Marla Maples, Trump's 2nd wife (and the one who was married to him at the time).
Ha ha.
BTW, as for Trump's servile toadies (of which he has two three*) the other one would be the governor who lied and said he didn't know some lanes on the George Washington Bridge were closed as an act of political payback against "Fort Lee's Mayor Mark Sokolich (a Democrat) for failing to endorse Christie in the 2013 gubernatorial election" (Wikipedia excerpt).
Lefty Talker Stephanie Miller refers to the toadies as "leather slaves", and, when servile toady #2 made the absurd comment re Trump being a "genius" for losing a boatload of money running casinos, it was after the ball gag was removed from his mouth and he was let out of the basement.
Video1: Rudy Giuliani calls Trump an "absolute genius" for losing a LOT of money and taking advantage of the tax code to not pay federal taxes, 10/2/2016 (0:04).
Video2: NYT columnist James B Stewart on CNBC says that Trump must explain his nearly billion-dollar loss and what breaks in the tax code contributed to it (4:13).
Something else that caught my eye (this was in the James B. Stewart article to which the CNBC video was attached), was the following.
"If it wasn't clear before, it is now: The tax code is tilted toward the rich in its statutory framework, its exceptions, and in how it is enforced and administered", said Steven M. Rosenthal, a real estate tax specialist and senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.
Yet more proof that, when the Libertarian blogger Willis Hartsaid that the "economy is rigged and that only certain people can benefit from it [is a] myth", he was wrong. Dead wrong. But that a wealth-worshipping stooge such as Hart thinks the economy ISN'T rigged is really NOT a surprise. Yet he frequently rails againstcrony capitalism (as doesLying Gary Johnson). And, yes, the Hartster thinks he can have it both ways.
* I don't know how I could have forgotten Newt Gingrich. Although he hasn't been out there a lot. And he doesn't come across (to me) quite as servile and desperate as Christie and Giuliani.
To see a gun in your dream represents aggression, anger, and potential danger. You could be on the defensive about something. Or you may be dealing with issues of passiveness/aggressiveness and authority/dependence. Alternatively, a gun is a symbol of power and pride. Perhaps you are looking for shelter or protection in your dream. From a Freudian perspective, a gun represents the penis and male sexual drive. Thus, the gun may mean power or impotence, depending on whether the gun went off or misfired... excerpt from the "Gun" entry, the Dream Dictionary.
Over the last few days I've received multiple emails (both from NewsMax and Glenn Beck) that try to tempt me to open them via a contest in which I could win $1500 bucks that I can put toward my "dream gun".
Upon opening the NewsMax communication, I found that it was a "special message from our advertising sponsor, United States Concealed Carry Association". NewsMax sez "our sponsors help us keep our news service free, though we do not necessarily endorse this message".
Don't endorse 1500K for a "dream gun"? I'm guessing that's standard legalize to protect themselves. If, for instance, someone wins the "dream gun" and then kills someone with it. United States Concealed Carry Association could be sued, but not NewsMax.
Here is a pic of what a NewsMax reader's "dream gun" might look like.
Note that the "prize" is actually a gift certificate. To what store, the fine print doesn't say. Also, if you enter, they'll for sure grab your email address for their own use. And possibly resell it.
Anyway, looks like any of these would be just what one would need to hunt deer with. Or blow away an "oxygen thief" (AKA a home invader)... likely a Black male or males named Dre, Mookie, Ray-Ray and Slice.
Because blowing away one of their fellow humans is a Conservative male base racist fetish. I don't find it hard to believe at all that many of them lay their heads on their pillows and night and, after drifting off, dream of using their hand-gun or assault rifle to kill violent Black home invaders there to vacuum up their oxygen.
Video: A lyric from the Prussian Blue song, Aryan Man Awake, says "and black masked men with guns come bashing down the doors". Something that the White racists live in fear of. "Turn your fear to hate" is the advice PB gives. And shoot that violent Black man dead. As YouTube commenter Austin Gooden said "this song should be our new national anthem! seig heil!!!!!" (4:27).
BTW, Prussian Blue videos are still up on YouTube, despite "the fact that Youtube is run by the same people who run Google and we all know how biased... those leftists are" (proofWillis Hart is an idiot).
PS: I'm not saying all gun nuts are neo-Nazi White Nationalists. But I bet a lot of them are. And I also bet that all White Nationalists are gun nuts. Yet another reason increased gun control might be a good idea.
You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat ~ Romans 14:10, The Christian Bible.
Has anyone else noticed that when the Rightwing site World Net Daily (AKA Wing Nut Daily AKA Black Mob Central) prints the word "gay", they place quotes around it? What they're saying is that being gay isn't a real thing. People aren't born gay, they choose to be gay (these bigoted nuts are saying).
"Christian Homosexuals" plot Church's transformation... Evangelist Ray Comfort issues warning: "Do not be deceived"... Christians considering how to respond to the Supreme Court's creation of "same-sex marriage" face a challenge from within – those who call themselves "gay Christians" and contend the Bible does not condemn homosexual behavior.
One of the most conspicuous figures in the movement is Matthew Vines, who has written a book arguing Scripture does not condemn same-sex sexual relationships. ... [sez Comfort] "Matthew Vines would do well to take notice that the verses begin with Do not be deceived. There's a reason for that. We mustn't be deceived of the fact that fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals and thieves will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Or to put it more soberly, they will end up in a terrible place called Hell. ...
"So let's summarize. There is no such thing as a fornicator Christian, an adulterer Christian, a homosexual Christian or a thieving Christian. Those who call themselves Christians but continue to cling to their beloved sins will see their great deception on Judgment Day". (7/25/2015).
Ray Comfort is a Rightwing bigot minister demagogue who sez one of the ways we will know the end of days is upon us is that "homosexuality will increase [and] the institution of marriage will be forsaken". Which means we should all start preparing for the Lord's return, I guess. Although as a Progressive Christian I agree with Matthew Vines and categorically reject the irrational homophobia and hatred of those like Comfort.
In quotes (signifying they don't believe they are real things) are... "same-sex marriage" and "gay Christians". The Supreme Court "created" same-sex marriage... as opposed to recognizing that the 14th amendment protects marriage equality. And, of course there are no gay Christians, just sinners who are going to burn for eternity in Hell. Huh. Sounds more like "hate the sinner" to me than "love the sinner, hate the sin".
Personally I think these un-Christian bigots are going to be muy surprised when they stand in judgement before the Creator. Specifically, The Lord is not going to be pleased that these "Christian" bigots judged their gay brothers and sisters and treated them with contempt (by condemning them to Hell). Judgment is the Lord's alone (James 4:12).
In regards to Comfort's anti-homosexual propaganda film Audacity, WND notes that he sez "homosexuals and those who consider themselves supporters of homosexuality will... be pleasantly surprised [because] there's not an ounce of hatred or stereotyping in it".
Sure, I can believe that. It's pretty easy to put on a different face in order to soft-sell a message of hate that has gay people burning in Hell for all eternity. In interviews conducted within the film, Comfort asks his dupes if they think adultery and fornication are human nature, to which the dupes reply "yes". Then Comfort sez "But even if it's human nature, we don't act on that, because we know it's bad".
Presto, being gay is a "choice". Because, even though it's human nature for people to want to fornicate or adulter, good Christians suppress these desires. Thus gay people can suppress their "sinful" desires as well.
Except that when people are married they usually AGREE to be faithful to one another. Unless you and your mate agree that your marriage will be an open one, you are betraying the agreement you made when you got married. It is the betraying of your mate's trust that is sinful, not the acting according to your nature (straight or gay).
Being straight or gay is not a choice. Acting on either behavior is a choice. Although this "acting on" is not a sin. The sin is hurting a person you love deeply by betraying their trust.
Regarding Comfort's interviews, one critic says, "in these manipulative, cringeworthy clips, he tricks people into saying that being gay is a choice through a series of faulty comparisons and leading questions". The people being manipulated are "random LGBT people and allies on the street"... so, yeah, that's why they don't ramp up the hate and stereotyping. It wouldn't work with the people being interviewed. But just about anyone can be manipulated.
I would strongly disagree, however, that there is "not an ounce of hatred". There is hatred present, it's just subtle and the interviewees are manipulated into accepting it. Which stands in stark contrast to the up front hate presented on WMD. Because that's the audience they're catering to (the rabid haters).
Which doesn't mean they can't utilize subtlety as well (such as the quote marks around "gay"). WND-types can appreciate the subtle stuff in addition to the front and center hate. Although I'm not sure how subtle the quote marks are... I mean, it's pretty obvious what they're implying when they use them. It's just a tad less obvious than most of the hate WND peddles.
Video: Matthew Vines, the gay Christian that has Ray Comfort and other Christian bigots freaked out, speaks on "the Reformation Project" (AKA "plot the Church's transformation"). Published on YouTube on 11/7/2014 (5:45).
See Also [1]The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality by Matthew Vines. (Hour-long video w/transcript). [2] Willis Hart sez "I strongly suggest that you check out the black on gay violence chapter in Colin Flaherty's disturbing volume, White Girl Bleed a Lot". The reason Willis recommends Colin Flaherty's work of demagoguery is because it, in addition to revealing the "disturbing" extent of just how violent Blacks are, also covers Black homophobia. BTW, concerning WND (the bigot online rag Flaherty works for), the Rational Wiki says, it "regularly runs stories that engage in base racism, often focusing on white fears of violent blacks. The website regularly features the work of journalist and alleged human being Colin Flaherty, who has done more reporting than any other journalist on what appears to be a nationwide trend of skyrocketing black-on-white crime, violence and abuse". Yea, figures Willis would be a fan, given that he regularly traffics in this kind of demagoguery on his blog. Although he calls it "a fuller rendering of the narrative".
No matter what we call it, poison is still poison, death is still death, and industrial civilization is still causing the greatest mass extinction in the history of the planet ~Derrick Jensen (dob 12/19/1960) an American author and environmental activist (and critic of mainstream environmentalism) living in Crescent City, CA. Jensen has published several books questioning and critiquing modern civilization and its values, including The Culture of Make Believe and Endgame.
Today I want to talk to you about the extinction of the human species. Unbelievable as it might sound, there are those among the living who could still be around when it begins. I'm not talking about global thermonuclear war or overpopulation; two of the other scenarios I could see that annihilate or doom us respectively... I'm talking about Anthropogenic Global Warming (Human induced climate change, or "AGW"). Some say "it has never happened before and it isn't happening now", but it HAS happened before. Global warming HAS nearly caused the extinction of all life on earth and it could happen again.
This previous global-warming-caused extinction, known as the Permian–Triassic extinction event, resulted in "96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate" getting wiped out. Of course humanity was not responsible for this warming-caused extinction, as humanity did not exist 252.28 million years ago (when this event took place), but an analogy between the human-caused warming of today and non-human-caused warming of the past can be made. Then, as in the past, carbon dioxide is what we have to fear.
Progressive talk-radio host Thom Hartmann explained how humanity could bring about it's own demise in a rant on the 2/22/2013 airing of his nationally syndicated program. What follows is an excerpt from that specific show, which I have edited for brevity and clarity...
Thom Hartmann: We need to use the words "global disaster" and we need to talk about extinctions. And I'm serious talking about extinction. The last major extinction on earth... not the last one, but the second to last one. The last one occurred at the end of the Jurassic period. That was when, 66 million years ago, an asteroid hit the earth [the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event] near what is now Cancun, leaving a giant crater which is the basin off the coast of Mexico that leads into the gulf of Mexico. That meteor killed roughly 60 percent of all life on earth, including virtually all the dinosaurs, with the exception of some of the holdovers like the alligator.
But the extinction the preceded it, the Permian Extinction, killed 95 percent of all life on earth and resulted in a period of time roughly 80 thousand years in length during which the planet was virtually sterile and tens of millions of years for the planet to come back, and then 65 million years for the dinosaurs to evolve before the next strike happened [the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event]. That happened 250 million years ago... and up until the 1990s nobody knew what caused it. The assumption was that it had [also] been an asteroid strike like the other extinctions. They were always either asteroid strikes or massive tectonic activity... the changing of continents; breaking up of continents that blew all kinds of lava out into the atmosphere. Nobody really got what caused the Permian Extinction.
[According to] a brilliant BBC documentary about this, the Permian Extinction was caused by two events... first, there is this area known as the Siberian Traps, encompassing hundreds of square miles, that just kind of opened up as a giant volcano. Not volcanic activity... it is known as sheet lava... a giant flow of lava out onto the ground. That, in the process, released so much carbon dioxide that it warmed the planet 5 degrees Celsius.
There has been a strong consensus ever since the early 90s that is what happened when they first found the evidence of this up in Siberia... but the question has been... 5 degrees Celsius is enough to kill off 60 percent of life on earth, but not 95 percent [so what happened that caused the additional 5 degree temperature change?]. The scientists at the IPCC are suggesting that if we continue on the course we're on... and nobody thinks we will because we're not that insane... but if we continue to pollute at the level we are [pump CO2 into the atmosphere] that, by the year 2100 we will have raised the temperature of the earth 5 to 6 degrees Celsius. Keep that in mind as I tell you the rest of the story.
These Siberian Traps blew out all this lava, and that lava, and the gases from it... the carbon dioxide in particular, raised the temperature of the earth 5 degrees Celsius. But, like I said, that wasn't enough to kill everything. So what killed everything? Along the coasts of all of our oceans... along that area where the land meets the sea, this is the area of greatest biodiversity on the planet [this area is called the Abyssal plain]. Here you have a lot of life, particularly vegetable life [as well as microbial life]. This stuff has a life cycle, and when it dies it settles to the bottom... and as it settles to the bottom it is rotting, and as it is rotting it is producing methane gas... methane is also known as natural gas.
So, these things are rotting and sinking to the bottom... and as they do, the methane that is released; at high pressure deep under the ocean; gets locked up in these crystalline lattices in water that is at, or slightly below the freezing temperature, but doesn't freeze because the pressure is so high... what it forms is a slurry of methane hydrate crystals. Hundreds of trillions of tons of this substance can be found along the coasts of all the continents. It's there at a depth of maybe only 60 to 70 feet... above that it would turn into a gas and bubble up to the surface. Below that depth the decomposition and formation of methane stops.
So, it's only in this specific area [the Abyssal plain], and the oil companies have been exploring how to suck this stuff up because it's almost pure natural gas... so, one of the things they learned during the late 90s, when they were drilling for methane hydrate crystals of the coast of England, is that this stuff was really rich in what is known as carbon 12. Carbon 12 is a form of carbon that results via rapidly decomposing plant [and microbial] matter.
About the same time, a group of geologists were looking at the Permian extinction in Antarctica, in South Africa and in Greenland and they found that, in the Permian extinction layer, that 80 thousand year layer... about 40 thousand years into it, long after the Siberian Traps had ceased erupting, but while the planet was still 5 degrees warmer, there was a second giant warming of the planet. It was that second warming that raised the temperature of the planet an additional 5 degrees, and that killed 95 percent of all life on earth. That cumulative 10 degrees of warming was enough to basically sterilize the planet.
At the time that happened the geologists expected to see the signature of an asteroid hitting .. a large amount of iridium [in the sentiment]. Instead they found carbon-12. So the question was, how did carbon-12, which is the product of centuries of plant decomposition, end up in the atmosphere in such massive amounts that it is buried 40 thousand years into the sentiment layer of the Permian Extinction? Turns out that the initial 5 degree temperature rise was enough, over that 40 thousand years, to warm the oceans to the point where that the methane hydrate aggregate [methane plus water frozen in a crystalline structure found under the ocean on the Abyssal plain] warmed up and started melting... which released the methane gas, which bubbled to the surface and into the atmosphere.
Methane is 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and that is what raised the temperature an additional 5 degrees [for a total of 10 degrees] and that was the cause of the Permian extinction. And that is what we are doing to ourselves with our unabated use of fossil fuels. This is a climate crisis.
[End 2/22/2013 Thom Hartmann Rant]
Don't listen to people who tell you that "the earth is essentially a living organism, and living organisms mostly adapt"... they may be right, but it's the earth that adapts; not always life. Sometimes this "adapting" takes millions of years... that is what we could be on the verge of right now... an accelerated warming that could eventually lead to the extinction of the human species.
A 10/24/2012 Examiner.comarticle reveals that this is already happening. According to a scientist at the University of Fairbanks AK, "subsea permafrost is losing its ability to be an impermeable cap". Furthermore, the Examiner article (reporting on findings published in the Journal "Nature") says...
Examiner.com: We may approach a turning point... from a warming driven by man-made carbon dioxide to a warming driven by methane. ... Using seismic records and ocean models, [it is] estimated that 2.5 gigatonnes [1 billion metric tons is the same as 1 gigatonne] of frozen methane hydrate are being destabilized and could separate into methane gas and water.
In comparison, in 2010 man (via the burning of fossil fuels) released 36.7 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, so the 2.5 tonnes (of methane) mentioned above is only a fraction of the CO2 that is released annually... but it is important to keep in mind that methane is 25 to 30 times more potent a greenhouse gas (multiply 2.5 times 25 for the equivalent amount of CO2). And this is just an estimate of what is currently destabilizing... as the oceans warm the amount of methane released could rise exponentially. The result could be an abrupt climate change.
Wikipedia notes that the term abrupt climate change "is also used within the context of global warming to describe sudden climate change that is detectable over the time-scale of a human lifetime". It has happened before... the Permian–Triassic extinction event was triggered by an abrupt climate change; and it is on the verge of happening again. Naturally things would get uncomfortable for humanity long before 2100; and we would know before then if we were on an irreversible course such that an abrupt climate change was unavoidable.
A 10/17/2012 article from Phys.Org warns that it is "too late to stop global warming by cutting emissions" and that humanity should concentrate on "adaptation policies". Thom Hartmann may believe that "we're not that insane" to not do anything about global climate change, but I believe we ARE that insane...
Especially given the fact that there are those who believe AGW is a "hoax" or that "this whole CO2 theory is being discredited as we speak". AWG is being "discredited" only if you believe that "95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position" equates to discreditation.
For the record it should be noted that I am a pessimist while Thom Hartmann is an optimist. Humanity is very possibly doomed, in my opinion. But while I am worried about the economic impact this coming disaster may have on my life, it looks like the worst of it will come some time after I'm dead. While I believe we do have an obligation to future generations to not screw up the planet for them... quite frankly I believe "we" will fail them and they are f*cked. Seeing as it's inevitable, I'm not going to spend to much time worrying about it.
Thom Hartmann Postcast Info: Subscribers to the Thom Hartmann program podcast can locate of this segment of audio at 20:15 to 28:35 of Hour 2 on Friday February 22 of 2013.
Image:Methane ice worms on a methane hydrate aggregate in the Gulf of Mexico. Researchers speculate that the worms may be grazing off chemosynthetic bacteria that grow on the methane or are otherwise living symbiotically with them.
Video1: Thom Hartman's mini-documentary, "The Last Hours of Humanity" describes how methane evaporating from the ocean could cause an extinction event (7:34). Visit Last Hours.org for more information.
Video2: The Last Hours of Humanity, Part 2 (11:28).
Although it hurts, I think we have to say that if there is fraud of any kind... it has to be exposed, no matter what the cost. The truth is of more value than anything else ~John Gerhart (11/27/1907 to 1/9/1981) a United States Air Force four-star general who served as commander of the North American Air Defense Command under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson.
This is a commentary that concerns shitheads and people who are nuts. These aren't pejoratives I ever used to describe anyone, or I didn't use them first, at least... this is a bogus claim made by the blogger Joe "Truth 101" Kelly (AKA Joe Hagstrom). That I called him "nuts" and he only began talking about me behind my back to other bloggers about me being "nuts" in response to me slandering him with the insult first. This is an untruth that Mr. Kelly presented in his shithead post, and is an allegation I absolutely must refute.
Near the end of a commentary on his blog in which he labels me a shithead, he makes the following claim...
Joe Kelly-Hagstrom: But since all this "nuts" thing, which WD actually started long before I called him nuts and I submitted his comment on Will's shitheaded blog as proof, I've had no choice but to identify them as shitheads. None of this is my fault. The only responsibility I bear is deciding who is a shithead and who isn't. (8/28/2013 at 1:35pm). See DSD #29 for a copy of Joe's commenary.
Categorically false. And Joe101 knows it; or should know it. Perhaps he does not remember, but I sure as hell do. In any case, Joe101's statement is not factually accurate, and I can prove it. The comment he speaks of, the one that he submitted to Willis' shitheaded blog as proof, is as follows (Joe101 published it in the comment thread when I asked him what his "proof" was)...
Joe Kelly-Hagstrom: This is the meat of the comment you left calling me a "nut" WD. Further proof you not only started this whole thing, but that you are indeed a shithead. I took no offense. Just WD being WD. But God forbid someone say you're nuts. You big baby. Now quit being a shithead. And you should apologise to me and everyone else for making this conversation, or should I call it now, an intervention as nobody has come to your defense, other than me if you open your shithead eyes. (8/30/2013 at 6:50pm).
What follows is Joe Kelly-Hagstrom quoting me...
Joe Kelly-Hagstrom quoting Dervish Sanders: What kind of a nut shutters his blog (or restricts readership to "invited" readers only), says he can't blog anymore because it gets him in trouble, then opens up his blog for the world to see again? You think those people you got in trouble with won't check to see if your blog is active again? I asked if you could not simply delete the post that "got you in trouble" and you said no. But that looks like you did delete that post (I don't recall what the title was, but I do recall the subject matter... and it does appear to be gone). (Original source for quoted comment 2/22/2012 at 9:08am).
This is Joe101's "proof" that I called him a "nut" first and that I owe him an apology. Trouble is, I remember making that comment, and it was in RESPONSE to him calling me a nut. Actually I heard about this from Willis Hart. He told me on his blog that a Liberal Buddy of mine had contacted him via facebook and said I was nuts.
I wrote a post about this conversation on my blog titled, "w-dervish's Liberal Buddies Told Willis Hart on Facebook that w-dervish Is A Frigging Nut". In response to this post Joe101 said "You're nuts", thereby confirming that he was the person Willis Hart described as the "Liberal Buddy" who told him I was nuts. The date that comment was made was 2/18/2012 (Joe101's is the first comment the post received). The date of the comment (by me on his blog) that Joe101 says is the one that is "proof" I called him a nut first? 2/22/2012.
So, he says the "proof" I called him a nut first is a comment I made on 2/22/2012 which was in reality MY RESPONSE to him calling me a nut on 2/18/2012 (actually this is the date I found out that it was Joe101 who called me a nut behind my back in a conversation with Willis Hart that took place earlier on facebook). As anyone can see 2/18/2012 is a date that occurred BEFORE 2/22/2012. And 2/15/2012 (the date I found out from Willis Hart that Joe101 was calling me a nut in a conversation that took place on Facebook) is earlier still.
As everyone can see, Joe101's claims about who called who a "nut" first are not accurate. So why the hell does he remember that I called him a nut first? And why does he not apologize after I point out to him that he has the dates wrong? Instead he says "You started it with your nuttery". This is his response to my irrefutable proof that he called me a nut first (and that what he says in his post is utter bullshit)?! Why not admit the mistake? I ask again, who the hell would like being called "nuts" or a "shithead"? I'm guessing nobody. But I object and Joe101 says I'm a "big baby"?!
And apparently NOBODY else (as Joe101 pointed out) sees anything wrong with this? Nobody at all, huh? Even after Joe101 called me a nut FIRST I still acted in a friendly manner toward him (so this "big baby" charge is bullcrap). But now (with this "shithead" post), not only does he toss red meat to my detractors (Willis Hart, Dennis Marks, and Lester Nation), but he sits back and enjoys the show as the raving maniac Steve laughs it up. This is, in my strong opinion, the definition of a shithead. As much as it pains me to say it, Joe Kelly (AKA Joe Hagstrom, AKA Truth 101) is a shithead of the highest order. I wonder... does that mean the Republican conversion is complete?
Sequence of events that prove Joe101 is a shithead in regards to his claim that I "started" the insulting by calling him "nuts" first
2/15/2012: Date Willis Hart told me Joe101 was calling me NUTS behind my back on Facebook.
2/18/2012: Date Joe101 called me NUTS on my blog in response to a post I wrote about what Willis Hart told me.
2/22/2012: Date Dervish Sanders called Joe101 "nuts" on Joe101's blog (this is the comment he says "proves" I insulted him first).
If I need a cause for celebration, or a comfort I can use to ease my mind, I rely on my imagination, And I dream of an imaginary time ~Lyrics from the Billy Joel tune "Everybody Has A Dream" from the 9/29/1977 album "The Stranger. The Stranger was Joel's critical and commercial breakthrough, spending 6 weeks at #2 on the US album charts. It remains his best-selling non-compilation album to date, and was ranked number 70 on Rolling Stone magazine's list of the 500 greatest albums of all time.
Welcome to the 200th Sleeping With The Devil post. As of today my blog has been in existence for exactly 7 years and 7 months. During much of this time my blog has received little traffic and even less comments. However, as of late that seems to have changed a little. But many of these new commenters are people who disagree with me politically and only comment to either insult me or post screeds they composed for, or stole from other blogs (screeds that are anti-Obama and/or racist). Not a development I am overly enthused about.
In addition it appears as though I've attracted a troll who is fixated on harassing me via name-calling, insults, and game playing... both here and on other blogs (the troll is following me around and keeping track of my comments on other blogs). This is an a$$hole who originally fixated on the Libertarian/Objectivist blogger rAtional nAtion and came to my blog to inform me of comments from RN he found objectionable (after he was kicked off the blogs of both RN and Shaw Kenawe). At first I engaged this fellow and discussed the issue with him. Turns out this was a mistake (although he may have fixated on me regardless of how I initially responded to him).
Here (on SWTD), he commented using a Blogger account with the name "Steve" attached to it. Elsewhere he comments anonymously (he can't comment on SWTD anonymously because I removed that option). The trouble with Steve was recently amplified thanks to a post by a former Progressive who has now gone Republican (or so he says). A blogger who calls himself Joe "Truth 101" Kelly (although he previously went by the name "Joe Hagstrom") recently tried to turn the blogging community against me by labeling me a shithead, an action that attracted Steve's attention. Steve was furious after I disabled anonymous commenting and he let me have it on Joe Kelly-Hagstrom's blog. I engaged him and he proceeded to lie, swear, laugh manically... and agree with Joe Kelly-Hagstrom (JKH) about me being a shithead.
Back on my blog Steve denied the person commenting on JKH's blog was him. In fact he was so enraged by the accusation that he threatened me, saying "I will have to make life bad for you in blog land" (and indicated that he would keep it up for a long period of time). Gee, Steve, I thought you were already doing that. And JKH (an individual with whom I was previously friendly) helped him out. And, in addition to JKH and Steve teaming up to bash me, rAtional nAtion stopped by to gloat.
However, in spite of the possibility that it is true that "poor Dervy has had a shitty Labor Day weekend" due to these attacks against him by a former Progressive blogging associate and some unknown a$$hole, I am resolute. Go away Steve and stop lying Joe "Truth". 200 posts is just the beginning. In fact, to commemorate this milestone I have changed my blog's tagline to (drum roll)... "Would you like a side order of Word Salad with your Non Sequitur?".
As I am a blogger who gives credit where credit is due, I must acknowledge that the source of this new tagline is the blogger known as Willis "Take No Prisoners" Hart. Although he intended it as an insult, I take it as a badge of honor, along with the "shithead" designation from the former truth-teller Joe Kelly (or Hagstrom) of the blog Truth 101.
Instead of exposing the truth he is now (according to his new tagline) "dedicated to finding and exposing shitheads the world over". As his first order of business JKH "exposed" me. He has yet to expose himself, however. In addition Willis Hart has exposed me as a moron who (a la Sarah Palin) is prone to word salads and non sequiturs, as well as using "any excuse in the book to make false accusations and trouble". For that reason Willis agrees with JKH about my shitheadedness; in fact he says it is "monstrous"... presumably because I tell many "bald faced" lies about him and his political positions.
rAtional nAtion agreed with much of the sentiment expressed by these detractors, saying (on the blog of Willis) "Word salads are a strong suit of Derv's indeed". On his own blog he contradictorily said I was being shitheaded (with my comments) while also "occasionally a few dimes short of a dollar but never a shithead".
Perhaps I should thank RN, as being a "few dimes short of a dollar" is nowhere near as bad as being a shithead or a "monstrous shithead"? I say no, given the fact that he has taken to the blogs in order to direct everyone's attention to the blog post of JKH. RN feigns friendliness and denies obvious hostility. But he points others toward this "shithead" post by JKH and he repeats the baloney "word salad" accusation by the blogger Willis Hart. In his latest comment on Progressive Eruptions he says I am "a Tosser Extraordinaire". Now he calls me "Canardo", by which I assume he means that I'm a liar ("Canardo" being canard with an "O" added to it).
Yet, for reasons that genuinely perplex me, a number of Progressive bloggers are eager to jump to RN's defense. Former progressive JKH is friendly to RN, and current Progressives Shaw Kenawe and Octopus are very strong defenders of RN. However, while both of these Progressives commented on JKH's shithead post, neither said a word about me being labeled a "shithead". I'm not saying they should have said anything; I'm only making the observation that they did not, whereas with RN they did. Surely "shithead" is a pejorative none of them would care to have attached to their names?
Insults coming from someone who disagrees with you is one thing, but it's another when it's "one of your own", which is something JKH used to be. The conversion to Republicanism by the former Truthster was something I at first took as a joke (as he has made comments previously about catching flack from people he works with for being a Democrat), but now I'm thinking the conversion is genuine. Surely some kind of conversion took place. A conversion to Republicanism or a conversion to shitheadedness (or both). And how convenient that JKH authored this post at the (almost) exact time Steve grew upset with me and left my blog in a huff. Is it possible that JKH is the individual who set up the "Steve" account and he is the a$$hole who posted MANY comments in response to the shithead post?
Who can say except Steve? Or the person behind "Steve". Not me, but then I "don't even get the simple shit" (Steve said so in a comment from him that I deleted). In any case, the purpose of this "hate post" (naming the people I "hate") is not to elicit sympathy. I imagine I'm opening myself up to the OPPOSITE by publishing this. The purpose is to let the haters and game players know that nothing they've published on any blog (or on JKH's blog) means that they "own me" (another claim of Steve's in another deleted comment).
My changing of my blog's tag line is evidence of that. THEY can hate and throw nasty bogus insults my way, but I'm not letting it get me down (which is exactly what they want, I suspect). I'm not going away. Sorry Willis, Dennis, RN, JKH and Steve... but you failed. Now is the time for me, with this 200th post, to celebrate and be happy, even if I'm only relying on my imagination to get me there. Some comments from well wishers would be appreciated, but not necessary or expected. If commenters decide to wish me luck going forward and offer words of encouragement, those will be gratefully accepted. On the other hand, if I get more insults or absolute silence (no replies), that's fine too.
I did write a letter to the archdiocese who'd banned the song, Only the Good Die Young, asking them to ban my next record ~Billy Joel (dob 5/9/1949) one of the greatest rock & roll singer/song writers to ever live (IMO). Joel was inducted into the Songwriter's Hall of Fame (1992), the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (1999), and the Long Island Music Hall of Fame (2006).
Lisa, the proprietor of the blog Who's Your Daddy is the latest individual to ban me from their blog. The situation arose when I encountered Lisa on Flying Junior's blog Dog Report. Encountering her there reminded me of all the comments she left on Sue's blog. Comments disagreeing with what Sue or a commenter wrote. Comments that generally had to do with Barack Obama and progressivism being bad, which makes sense seeing as Lisa is a Conservative. She was incredibly tenacious about it. Sue deleted a large number of her comments, but Lisa kept at it.
To my knowledge Sue never said Lisa was banned. Currently Sue is on a hiatus from blogging (apparently) and has not posted anything for awhile. So Lisa isn't able to pester her or her readers. I think she would if she could; it's just that Sue's blog isn't currently getting any traffic so she does not bother.
I bring this up because, after reading Lisa's comment on Flying Junior's blog, I decided to pay her a visit. I commented on a few posts and, as expected, Lisa's readers didn't like what I had to say. There was a small amount of rational discussion (very small), but mostly insults and name-calling. THEN someone brought up the George Zimmerman trial. That is when the racially biased comments began to fly fast and furious.
Radical Redneck declared that, "Michele Obama will walk on her hind legs before George Zimmerman gets convicted of anything". Then he calls President Obama a "sasquatch" and Michelle Obama "Moochie" and the "First Wookie". A dummy who calls himself My Conservative Thoughts said "Blacks use the N-word to bully whites [by telling them] we can say it but you better never". Although only one person uses the N-word (spells it out). OneSlickRacer asks "Why do black people hate white people?" before referring to how many N-words are in prison. Gee I wonder why some Black people hate White people. The clueless OneSlickRacist has no idea.
During the time this was going on over 50 comments of a vile hate-filled nature were posted... and Lisa said nothing. Maybe she simply had not checked in. People do have lives outside of blogging... but I think she was stumped regarding how she should respond. To her credit she didn't join in with any racially tinged insults of her own... but what did she say when she did finally post a comment? She said this...
Lisa: Now you are banned from my blog, so don't come back here again. Here's why. You're a liberal freakin nut job, just like your idiotic friends, Sue, Flying Jr, Critter Crapper, Shaw, and the rest of those blowhards. All of you are full of hate, and crap. I don't want to see your stupid name popping up here anymore! Get It? (7/6/2013).
I think Lisa didn't want to offend her regular readers, so instead of saying a damn thing that might cause some of these degenerate cretins to storm out in protest, she says I'M "full of hate", instead of her readers (many of whom this observation actually applies to). This, in my opinion, amounts to an implicit approval. Flying Junior says "Lisa is a nice person. I have never seen her say anything hurtful or evil". Hmm. While I am very appreciative that FJ takes the time to comment on many of my posts, I must disagree with him regarding Lisa. I'm fine with us agreeing to disagree, although FJ might want to reconsider his warm feelings toward Lisa given that she included him in the list of names of my "idiotic friends".
While I wasn't hurt by Lisa's words, I don't think she meant them to be complimentary. According to a Conservative blogger who calls himself Rusty Shackelford I'm getting banned from "blog after blog" because of my "silly made up rantings". For the record, thus far I have been banned from four THREE blogs. This includes the 7/6/2013 ban from the coward Lisa. Lisa may very well have banned me anyway (if the George Zimmerman trial had never come up), but the way this played out I say the reason she banned me was because she was too gutless to say anything that might offend her readers.
I can understand why should wouldn't want to lose readers. I don't have many of them; but I wouldn't decline to rebuke a racist comment to keep a reader. My blog is where I speak my mind and espouse my beliefs. No pandering. No implicit approval by way of silence of comments that are offensive. If I lose readers by speaking my mind then so be it. That view being contingent on the supposition that Lisa was not in complete (or semi) agreement with her readers regarding the racist thoughts they articulated on her website. If she isn't a hateful person like FJ believes.
It appears as though she isn't, but who can say for certain given her refusal to address what was said on her blog? Now, like I said, only one of Lisa's loyal following actually spelled out the N-word. That did not hold true on my blog, where someone posted the comment "The only good N-word is..." (spelled out). First this comment was made by someone anonymously, then by someone calling himself The Way I See It. He does not "follow" Lisa (according to his profile) but I suspect he came to my blog via Lisa's blog. Many of Lisa's readers did comment on my blog (in reply to my commentary on George Zimmerman), and from what many said it wasn't hard to deduce that a lot of them have some serious racial biases.
Bottom line, I did not expect my time at Lisa's blog to last long. Rusty believes that reflects badly on me, but I say it reflects badly on the person doing the banning. Because I never go to any of these blogs and TRY to get banned. I just speak (or type) my mind. Which brings me to the other blogs I've been banned from. The first was Willis Hart on 8/30/2012. At this point in time (the day he banned me on), I had been posting on his blog for several years. But the day came when he had had enough. A number of factors are to blame (read this post if you want the details), but I think him moving toward Libertarianism was a big factor.
Next was Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks). Dennis banned me after one disagreeable comment in which I called him a "gun nut". He lies and says I swore... among other ridiculous and untrue accusations (the full story beind that ban can be found here). In addition to the lying, Dennis is commenting on various blogs that he'd "forgive me" if I apologized. He truly is one deluded (and possibly mentally ill) individual if he really thinks there is even a slim possibility of that happening.
The next banning was by an individual with the ironic moniker of rAtional nAtion uSA (AKA "Lester Nation"). According to Lester, he publishes "comments with substance" and that "is determined solely by [him]". There is the rub. Obviously my opinion of what constitutes "substance" is going to be different than Lester's. But this rule apparently does not apply to Dennis (he comments on Lester's blog). Dennis frequently goes off-topic and engages in personal attacks (also against the rules according to Lester). And his posts frequently lack substance (IMO).
But it looks like Lester has reconsidered and I am not banned from rAtional nAtion uSA. I thought I was, after I submitted a comment and Lester refused to publish it. I commented on another blog (Progressive Eruptions) and referred to my banning in that comment. I know Lester saw it, and he did not refute my assertion that he had banned me. But recently the rAtional oNe said "you are on probation. Make the most of it".
I am a little disappointed. Now I have to resume commenting on Lester's blog just to see if; or how long it takes before he bans me and the ban sticks. I assume it is only a matter of time. I actually asked Rusty to ban me from his blog, but so far no response to my request. But if he complies I don't know if I could, in good conscience, add him to my tally. What with his blog being so pathetic, me not wanting to actually comment there (given that his only post is from several years ago), and me requesting the ban.
So, I am currently banned from three blogs as of today... as far as I know. My "probation" at Lester's site may be over already, as I just submitted two comments to his blog. One in which I agreed with Jersey McJones when he told the truth about Ronald Reagan. Jersey said Reagan was "the man who began the dismantling of America", Lester replied by saying that Jersey is "without a doubt a buffoonish character", and that he would have declined to publish Jersey's comment if he didn't found it so "entertaining" (due to Jersey's buffoonery, I imagine).
Wait, I just checked and see Lester published my agreement, as well as another comment where I disagree with Dennis. Surely I must be close to being banned? Perhaps with these two comments I will get another stern warning? We shall see.
There are real and imaginary situations when it might be beneficial to have a gun in the home. For example, in the Australian film Mad Max, where survivors of the apocalypse seem to have been predominantly psychopathic male bikers, having a loaded gun would seem to be very helpful for survival, and public health experts would probably advise people in that world to obtain guns. However, for most contemporary Americans, the scientific studies suggest that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit. There are no credible studies that indicate otherwise ~David Hemenway, Harvard Professor of Health Policy.
Rusty Shackelford is a blogger who appropriated the name of a character from the (now cancelled) animated series King of the Hill. Actually, the name of the Character was Dale Gribble; Rusty Shackelford is an alias the paranoid Dale uses "whenever he doesn't want his real name known". (The Character) Dale Gribble is an individual so stupid that he didn't know his wife was having a long term affair with another man. An affair that lead to a son that looks like his father. A father who is Native American (Dale and his wife are both White).
I bring this up because I think "Rusty" must have decided to choose his blogger ID because this fictional animated character and he share a similar intellect (and possibly the same "cowardly nature"?). So, why do I say Rusty is dumb? Well, I've read numerous comments he has authored (mostly on another blog I used to frequent until the proprietor banned me). A particularly stupid comment was, however, left in response to a blog post of mine (a commentary concerning the George Zimmerman trial).
First of all, I'd like to thank Rusty for stopping by. Any and all comments are welcome. Next, I'd like to respond to what Rusty wrote. Maybe you will be able to discern what exactly Rusty said that is so incredibly dumb that me explaining why won't be necessary (although I will anyway, following the comment). I'm not talking about something I simply disagree with for partisan reasons (Rusty being a Conservative and me being a Liberal), but something anyone of any political stripe should recognize as a comment that could only be made by someone with an IQ below room temperature. That comment is as follows...
Rusty Schmuckelford: Col. Sanders, you can have your own opinion. you cant have your own facts. A perfect reason why you continue to get booted off popular blogs are your idiotic statements like... "stats show that people who buy guns to protect themselves from home invasions often end up shooting a family member" or "the stand your ground laws have lead to a massive increase in justified homicides". you make up silly shit that and because you say it becomes a fact in your mind. Just of an example why the people at Will's place got tired of your assinine comments and showed you the door. (7/02/2013 AT 3:52pm).
OK, there you have it. Can you guess what it is that Rusty says that proves without a doubt that he is seriously lacking in brainpower (ignoring the lack of capitalization and proper punctuation)? It is that I say "silly shit" and it becomes "fact in my mind". No, Rusty, you idiot... The stats I cited are real. Also well know, which is why I didn't bother linking to them. The simple fact that they exist is accepted reality. Now, perhaps one could disagree with the various studies (if one were of a Conservative persuasion). You could argue that their methodology was flawed, and perhaps link to your own study (on some Libertarian or Conservative website) that "proves" these facts wrong. But nobody who isn't an utter moron would suggest that I, Dervish Sanders, "made them up".
Also, I do not "continue to get booted off popular blogs". I have been shown the door exactly three times, and only one of those blogs could even remotely be described as "popular". Will Hart banned me from his dinky blog that only you, dmarks and rAtional nAtion are regular readers and commenters on (with two or three others who stop by once in a while). dmarks, even though his blog is mind-numbingly boring, seems to have a half dozen or so regular readers who comment. rAtional nAtion is, I would say, the only one that comes close to being "popular". But, even though he has a lot of followers, it still seems to be just a handful of people are responsible for most of the comments.
That isn't to say I think my blog is popular (least you counter by bashing my blog). I acknowledge that, among the four blogs (those belonging to Will, dmarks, Rational, and myself), mine is the one that receives the least traffic. Although, when compared to either of your two blogs, it is a smashing success.
Now, in regards to the guns stats you think are purely products of my imagination and otherwise simply do not exist... I shall now post some links and excerpts to PROVE that the statistics do exist and are not "silly shit" I made up and convinced myself was real. Despite the fact that for practically everyone else in existence it isn't necessary (they know the stats exist, regardless of whether or not they agree with them).
In a 12/17/2012 article from the Minnesota Post author Susan Perry discusses "the health risk of having a gun in the home". The stats cited by the author are from a 2011 meta-review (a report that summarizes all the studies out there) from the Harvard Injury Control Research Center...
Minn Post: The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000 recommending that pediatricians urge parents to remove all guns from their homes. Having a gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death — and that of your spouse and children. And it doesn't matter how the guns are stored or what type or how many guns you own. If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide.
The article also says there is no evidence that says having a gun reduces the risk of begin a victim of crime, nor does it "reduce your risk of being injured during a home break-in". In short it is far more dangerous to have a gun than to not have one, which completely destroys the argument Conservatives make in favor of people (single mothers, in particular) having guns for "self protection". You see, it is pro-gun Conservatives like Rusty who make up shit about how beneficial having a firearm in the home for "protection" is... when the real factual studies show otherwise.
In regards to my assertion that "the stand your ground laws have lead to a massive increase in justified homicides", which is the other statement Rusty believes to be a figment of my imagination... NPR reports that "stand your ground linked to increase in homicides". During a 1/2/2013 broadcast of All Things Considered (the third most listened to radio program in the United States with 12 million listeners each weekday), the following information is disclosed...
NPR: Researchers who've studied the effect of the laws have found that states with a stand your ground law have more homicides than states without such laws. "These laws lower the cost of using lethal force", says Mark Hoekstra, an economist with Texas A&M University who examined stand your ground laws. "Our study finds that, as a result, you get more of it".
According to Hoesktra the increase in justifiable homicides can be quantified. He says his research shows a 7 to 9 percent increase in states that pass the laws, which translates to 500 to 700 more homicides per year across the united states (out of approximately 14,000 annual that are deemed justified).
So, agree or disagree, but one simply can NOT deny that the studies have been done and the statistics exist. Whether you believe the statistics to be right or wrong, remember Rusty claimed that I made them up. He was speaking of me, Dervish Sanders, and not researchers and academics I might quote. He said I personally made up the facts I cited. This post proves definitively that I did not. You could say the researcher and academics I quoted are all liars and they made up the stats, but whether you think the research I quoted has any validity or not, it is an absolute undeniable proven beyond any doubt fact that I (personally) did not make anything up. So fu#k you Rusty, you dumbshit.
You have anything to say to that Rusty, or are you going to run away with your tail between your legs? If he does respond I predict major backtracking. He'll probably claim that he didn't mean what he said; that I interpreted him wrong. What he REALLY meant was that the sources I quote are bad. That I only refer to the "silly shit" of others. But you can read for yourself what he wrote; he chastised me for thinking I could have my "own facts".
I call bullshit on that claim and say you are an utter moron regardless of whether you are lying or actually believe I pulled these facts out of my ass. If Rusty is lying he is dumber than a box of rocks, as virtually nobody could believe that lie, as most people know the research exists. If Rusty actually believes I made up the gun stats I cited, then he is delusional; and I mean that literally. He'd a nutter who lives in a imaginary world where no information that contradicts his Conservative worldview exists.
Audio Description: Report from Shankar Vedantam, the science correspondent for NPR News in which the effect of "Stand Your Ground" laws on the "justified" homicide rates across the country is examined, 1/2/2013 (6:13).
The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights are protected. To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery, for slavery consists in being subject to the will of another, and he that has not a vote in the election of representatives is in this case ~Thomas Paine (2/9/1737 to 6/8/1809) an English-American political activist, author, political theorist and revolutionary. As the author of two highly influential pamphlets at the start of the American Revolution, he inspired the Patriots in 1776 to declare independence from Britain; as quoted in "Dissertation on First Principles of Government" (pub. 1795).
An anonymous commenter (not a sock puppet of mine) said I should "check out this exchange in RN's comment section". "RN" is shorthand for an individual who refers to himself as rAtional nAtion. He thinks he's rational because he subscribes to the Ayn Rand nonsense that individuals acting in their rational self interest aren't greedy as#holes... which is how everyone else on the planet would describe people who follow Ayn Rand's sick Objectivist ideology.
So I checked it out and found a discussion that concerned the (wrong/racist) SCOTUS decision (Fisher v. University of Texas 2013) that we need "tougher scrutiny of Affirmative Action Plans". A commenter who calls himself dmarks (actual name: Dennis Marks), cheered, proclaiming that this ruling was a "victory for those who want progress toward equal treatment, diminished racial bias, and level playing field".
Then the discussion turned to the (wrong/racist) SCOTUS decision (Shelby County v. Holder 2013) to allow states to disenfranchise minorities if they please (minorities that vote Democratic in large numbers). Again Dennis cheered. He SAYS he cheered because restricting the right ability of the people to vote will weed out "fraudulent voters [including] illegal aliens, felons... [and] those who vote in multiple districts. [As well as] those who choose to vote Acorn-style with [a] fake name".
To this I say bullpucky. People who pay attention to the subject of voter fraud know it is extremely rare, and that the much more serious problem is election fraud. For those of you who don't know what the distinction is: Voter Fraud is when individual voters cheat (as per Dennis' examples). This, as we know, if very very rare. Election Fraud is when the officials in charge of running the elections cheat. Examples of this type of election theft include things like hacking vote machines (or servers tabulating votes) to change the totals, as well as the institution of restrictive voting regulations that "discourage" people who are legally entitled to vote from doing so.
This "discouragement" includes tactics like voter caging, challenging voters at the polls (thereby causing them to have to use a provisional ballot, which is a type of ballot that frequently isn't counted), and by deliberately causing long lines in the hope that people will give up or have to leave (because their presence is required by their employer, for example).
So that they can engage in this kind of discouragement of voting by minorities and other groups (like educated people) that tend to vote Democratic is why the Repubs want restrictive voter laws, NOT to deal with "fraudulent voters". We ALL KNOW this, so Dennis is simply lying. This is why the SCOTUS struck down section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 4 is "the provision of the landmark civil rights law that designates which parts of the country must have changes to their voting laws cleared by the federal government or in federal court". Section 4 covered the states that have a history of disenfranchising minorities (Shelby County v. Holder 2013).
And, as the shenanigans leading up to the last election PROVE, these states are still at it. We have not entered a post racial society, despite the election of the first African-American president. Fact is, the election of Barack Obama has enraged the racists in the Republican Party. Also, and this is crucial in understanding why the Repub Party is now the party of the racists, the Repubs are EMBRACING them. The racists may be a minority, but the Repub Party at large has decided to use them to further their goals.
This tactic came sharply into focus with the ascendance of the Tea Party. The racists who were dumbfounded when the White candidate lost to the Black candidate in 2008 came out in force and joined the Tea Party protests. Although they waived their racist signs (and guns) and spewed their racist rhetoric, others in the Tea Party strongly denied they existed. I visited a Right-wing blog recently, and was informed (by a Conservative with the ID of "kid") that "Tea party people are the most non-racist, non-violent people on the planet".
Kid said it was Southern Democrats who opposed Civil Rights and voted against it in 1964. And, even though Lyndon Johnson (the Democratic president at the time) signed the legislation, it is the Republican Party that we should actually be thanking for the passage of Civil Rights legislation. OK, so Kid has a valid point. Southern Democrats did oppose Civil Rights. Wikipedia notes that 199 Democrats voted for Civil Rights, but 112 voted against it (and that most of the NO votes were from Southern Democrats)... Among Congressional Republicans, 163 voted YES, while only 41 voted NO.
Then Kid tells me that Lyndon Johnson "had" to sign the bill. I suppose that case could be made, as the numbers existed that, if Johnson vetoed the legislation, Congress could have overridden his veto. LBJ may have been a bigot, as bloggers like Willis Hart like to point out, but he did sign the bill and does receive credit. But this is only one of the reasons why Black Voters cast their ballots in favor of Democrats in overwhelming majorities. The primary reason they do is because, after the Democrats abandoned the racists and began advocating an end to bigotry and racism, the Southern Democrats left the Democratic fold for good (previously they had made their displeasure with the less-bigoted Northern Democrats known when they tried to break away and form their own party, the Dixiecrats).
But after the passage of Civil Rights, the Southern Democrats had had enough. This time, however, instead of forming their own party, they accepted an invitation from Richard Nixon to join the Republican Party. Nixon, seeing that the Democrats didn't want them anymore, decided he would get the racists voting Republican. This goal was achieved using a tactic Nixon and Republican Senator Barry Goldwater dubbed the "Southern Strategy". Nixon's Southern Strategy was wildly successful... the vast majority of the racists who formerly voted Democratic switched over to the Republican Party, where they remain TO THIS DAY.
Which brings us to the recent SCOTUS decision to get rid of section 4, and the aforementioned discussion on the rAtional nAtion blog I previously mentioned. The Republicans, who are STILL employing Nixon's Southern Strategy, are seeing the beginning of the end of the effectiveness of it. It isn't working anymore because the racists are old and dying off. That is why they have to cheat so much to win. But the election (and re-election) of Barack Obama has proven that even the voter suppression techniques they employ aren't enough any more.
This is why the Conservative justices on the Supreme Court decided to "stick a dagger into the heart" of the Voting Rights Act and jettison section 4. Yes, they said Congress could restore section 4 if they came up with a new formula to apply to states seeking to be exempted from it, but surely Roberts knew our Congress is so dysfunctional (thanks to House Repubs) that the likelihood of that happening is slim.
The purpose is CLEAR... to pave the way for more restrictive voter restrictions. The undeniable goal here is to disenfranchise enough minority (and other Democratic-leaning groups) and swing elections in favor of the Republicans. But Republicans strongly deny that this is the case, as evidenced by this exchange on the ironically titled rAtional nAtion blog...
Anonymous: At a time when restrictive voter laws are being passed in State Houses and challenged in the courts, for the Supreme Court to say Sec. 4 [of the Voting Rights Act] is outdated, is another example of conservatives denying reality. dmarks: I spent some time looking for it on my own after reading [the anonymous] comment... and found nothing other than the fact that the supposedly suppressed ethnic group actually voted in much larger numbers the last time. Dervish Sanders: They voted in larger numbers for two reasons: [1] The superiority of Barack Obama's get out the vote effort over Mittens, and [2] In the states that tried voter suppression tactics such as reducing available vote machines and voting hours... which lead to LONG lines and hours and hours of waiting... the people got MAD and decided to not give up and go home like the Repubs wanted (although some had to or they would lose their jobs). rAtional nAtion: Perhaps you could provide a link to a reputable and unbiased source that supports your assertion Anon. I know I would like such data and suspect dmarks would as well. Dervish Sanders: You wouldn't. Articles describing the disenfranchising tactics and laws employed by the Repubs in the last election are numerous and easy to find. One could only not find them if they specifically did not look for them... or if one considered ANY reporter or commenter these facts to be "far left", which is something Dennis FREQUENTLY does. So why bother? Dennis finds the information he wants to find. Any information that does not conform to what he THINKS the truth is - it is "far left" (and then he INSISTS that he's talking about the "far left" as measured from the Middle, and that he is the only one qualified to do the measuring). He should just be honest with himself and admit that he's very happy about this victory for White Power (i.e. Republican power).
[Note: RN has comment moderation enabled and none of what I wrote above was approved for publication on his blog].
You see what they are doing, right? It's complete and total denial (willful or knowing; you be the judge). The restrictive voting laws are to protect against (virtually non-existent) voter fraud and NOT due to their desire to suppress the vote (yeah, right). Because the electorate is becoming less racist, less homophobic, and less White, the only way Republicans can win elections going forward is to seriously ramp up the suppressionary tactics. Question is, is this indicative of the last gasps of a dying party, or will the White Power Republican Party succeed in moving us toward the oligarchic form of government they desire; one where only the right kind of people are allowed to vote?
As pointed out in the SCOTUS majority Opinion in the bush V. Gore case (this would be the case in which the SCOTUS stole the election for GWb), the Constitution contains no guarantee of a Right to vote for US citizens...
The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. (In Search of the Right to Vote By Victoria Bassetti, Harper's Magazine October 2012).
So, apparently a state could dispense with presidential elections entirely and directly appoint the electors of it's choosing. They could, but they won't, because they know the people would rise up in protest. So, in order to get the electors they want, they only suppress the votes of people who might vote the "wrong way". That way the people won't rise up, because people only tend to care about injustices when they are the victims of those injustices. Take away the ability to vote for a small number (enough to flip an election) and the people will remain largely apathetic.
Undoubtedly this is the strategy. But will (or for how long) will it work? Now that the Voting Rights Act has been gutted, we shall see. Already several states are rushing to pass new voter suppression laws... as reported by The Raw Story on 6/25/2012...
Officials in Texas said they would rush ahead with a controversial voter ID law that critics say will make it more difficult for ethnic minority citizens to vote, hours after the US supreme court released them from anti-discrimination constraints that have been in place for almost half a century. The Texas attorney general, Greg Abbott, declared... "with today's decision, the state's voter ID law will take effect immediately. Photo identification will now be required when voting in elections in Texas".
Immediately following the announcement Greg Abbott shouted, "White Power!". OK, I admit he didn't. But he was probably thinking it. Texas Republicans are worried because the state is turning purple (and may even go blue). Texas is currently the only state that is majority minority and still voting Republican. Personally I believe section 4 of the Voting Rights Act should apply to all 50 states, given that other states on covered by it did pass (or attempt to pass) laws restricting voting "rights" leading up to the 2012 election.
How do you think this is going to play out? Will Congressional Dems and reasonable Republicans get together and pass some legislation rejiggering (and restoring) section 4, or will they be blocked by the obstructionists who view this as a means by which the plutocratic dinosaur party can remain competitive?
Video:Paul Weyrich (now deceased) explains how Republican can win elections with only the support of a minority of the people (0:32).
Update 10/26/2014: Dennis has deleted all his comments from the thread on the rAtional nAtion blog this commentary references. See TADM #50 for more on Dennis' obsession with the "old bone" debunked Acorn conspiracy theory.
The road to truth is long, and lined the entire way with annoying bastards ~Alexander Jablokov (born 1956) an American writer and novelist.
Back in February of 2012 we learned that I'm a frigging Nut and my "Liberal Buddies" told Willis Hart (of Contra O'Reilly) so. With the publishing of that post it was revealed that one of the "Liberal Buddies" was Joe Kelly-Hagstrom (JKH) of Truth 101. He gave himself away by leaving a comment that said, "you're nuts". No other Liberal buddies came forward, and I have doubts as to whether there are (or ever were) any others.
Given the fact that JKH never retracted his comment, apologized, or even explained why he was dissing me behind my back (and to a Conservative blogger, no less), I never let it go completely. I kept jabbing at him by bringing it up on his blog and on other blogs. I also wrote some posts that portrayed (a fictional version of) JKH in a less than flattering light. I was not incredibly upset, however, and accepted that it was a mystery I would never get an explaination for.
JKH asked me if I wanted to start a "feud" with him over the kerfuffle, but when I called him on it he declined. I jabbed him again, and it appears as that was one jab to many. Maybe he didn't decide to restrict comments on his blog to "team members" on my account, but this development did occur shortly after I last commented on his blog.
Previously he has restricted his blog to "invited" readers only, which made the blog completely inaccessible to anyone except invitees. If not logged into blogger as an invitee all that displayed on your computer screen was a message that said, "this blog is open to invited readers only". JKH said the reason was because people he worked with (the higher ups, presumably) did not care for his Liberal political opinions. Now, Truth 101 is still visible to the world - it is just the commenting that is restricted.
So, question is, am I correct in my assumption that JKH being annoyed with me is why commenting is restricted to "team members"? Also, who are the team members? I'd be interested in knowing if anyone who reads this is a team member. Or has JKH effectively shut down his blog (again)? If you read this commentary please let me know what you know. If you read this don't click away. You've gotten this far and you are now OBLIGATED to share what you know. If it is nothing, then say you know nothing. But don't lie please.
Also, let me take the opportunity, not to apologize, but to let JKH know that I'll let the issue drop if he either invites me to comment on his blog - or removes the "invitation" restriction. Not that I'm desperate to comment on his blog. If he doesn't want me to comment on his blog so be it. But I don't think I did anything wrong, and him reopening his blog to me would be an acknowledgement of that FACT. If he had ever explained his "nutty" comment I would never annoyed him by bringing it up over and over - or written any of those posts previously mentioned that he may have been offended by.
And then there is Mr. Kelly-Hagstrom's idiotic insistence that blogger Willis Hart is a "Lefty". It's utterly ridiculous, as I have documented on this blog. If anyone has a justified reason to be annoyed, I feel it is me.
