This is Ben Emery's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Ben Emery's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Ben Emery
Recent Activity
Fish, You are truly clueless of what being progressive is all about. Wanting equality, the legal right to organize/ strike/ collectively bargain, suffrage for all, putting checks on big business, having representation for the people not industry, and so on. In a progressive government taxes might be high but the role of government is relatively small. Tax revenue just like home ownership will always be at record highs unless we have an absolute crash of the economy or decline in population, so to make claims of highest revenue is pointless. What you forgot to mention we have 80 year lows of taxation at the moment. Effective tax rates top 1% is around 16%, corporate effective income tax rate is 12%, 1/3 of the economy in 1950'- 1980's in the US was manufacturing and around 8% was financial, today those numbers are inverted. The top 1% has never had it better in the US while the people have rarely had it worse. Good governance requires a strong but small scale government. When we get people representation as the entire executive FDR - LBJ governments were we then see a government able to balance budgets and see a thriving population who needs less government assistance because they are compensated at work with enough to live a comfortable standard of living. That is where we have fallen, we have a government who represents the best interests of the bottom line of big business, especially the financial/ pharmaceutical/ military complex, instead of the needs of the American people. We are a dying empire that didn't learn the lessons of past empires. The further away from home a country needs to expand to sustain its lifestyle the more resources goes into building the empire instead of its people. It is a cancer.
Toggle Commented Jun 1, 2014 on How Real is Voter Fraud? at Rebane's Ruminations
Walt, Sorry, JFK would be a virtual communist by todays standards as would Nixon and Reagan. I could give many examples but don't want to waste my time with it. Let me introduce you to one of the most conservative congressmen of the 1980's who says if he were to run today he would be one of the most liberal congressmen. Mickey Edwards Reclaiming Conservatism "But today, Edwards argues, the mantle of conservatism has been taken over by people whose beliefs and policies threaten the entire constitutional system of government. By abetting an imperial presidency, he contends, so-called "conservatives" have gutted the system of checks and balances, abandoned due process, and trampled upon our cherished civil liberties. The author contends that today's conservatives endorse unprecedented assertions of government power--from the creation of secret prisons to illegal wiretapping. Once, they fought to protect citizens from government intrusion; today, they seem to recognize few limits on what government can do. Edwards warns that the movement that was once the Constitution's--and freedom's--strongest defender is now at risk of becoming its most dangerous enemy."
Toggle Commented Jun 1, 2014 on How Real is Voter Fraud? at Rebane's Ruminations
Fish, "Ben there can't be commonalities when a fundamental tenet of progressivism requires coercive central authority." Once again it shows how little you understand the actual agenda of progressives and libertarians. If you watch those who distrust the government the most it will be progressives. This is why George pisses me off when he equates the Democratic Party with being progressive. It boggles my mind at how you guys like to label me a big government guy when I have protested our government and its policies.for the last 30 years. At one time the Democratic Party was progressive but that party went away with LBJ, equality and justice is not coercive centralized government the rather the government in a very poor manner trying to guarantee equal access or opportunity. I generally disagree with the passed legislation because it almost always compromises the very principles that were trying to be addressed. The current Democratic Party is equivalent to the Republican Party up until Reagan era policies really took hold and corrupted our entire electoral system. The last 30 years the Dems have made a major shift right as did the Republican Party. That is why we have such a dysfunctional society and government at this point in time. The entire system has become corrupted with the ideology of corporatism, where corporations or the rec
Toggle Commented Jun 1, 2014 on How Real is Voter Fraud? at Rebane's Ruminations
Well Fish, I reached out an olive branch and you smack it away with searching for differences instead accepting the commonalities. So be it, it shows how little you actually understand the different types of political stripes. Progressives and libertarians find differences in economics and that is about it. Personal freedom and liberty we are on the same page. Low government interference with our personal lives, end war on drugs, end our interventions in sovereign nations, equal access and opportunity for all not just some, equality in our justice system/ due process, no bank or big business bailouts, no corporate welfare, and a big one ending the private reign and secrecy of the Federal Reserve. "And yet I state that I'm perfectly happy to see both the established parties burn while you still seem compelled to defend the democrats and their policies." Don't mistake my disgust of the Republican Party as a vote of confidence of the Democratic Party. My biggest arguments are with Democrats not Republicans and I am actively trying to get labor and environmental groups to come together and oust the Democratic Party from the horrible representation of the interests of the left side of the political aisle. I am just a grunt guy but definitely not alone. A new labor/ progressive party. Democratic Insiders and sympathizers and I go at it all the time. Take the test, Personal Issues I fall 100% into the libertarian category and on Economic Issues I am about 50/50.
Toggle Commented May 31, 2014 on How Real is Voter Fraud? at Rebane's Ruminations
No Fish, You have never identified yourself as a libertarian to me or while I was posting here previously. Good to know that you get the leadership of the R's and D's are the enemy of the people. If the libertarian identification is true then you and I have a lot in common when it comes to governance. Personally I am more libertarian than anything else but politically I am more in the progressive camp because I believe all government isn't bad but rather believe in representative government. Representative governance is what the colonists practiced for centuries and then held the crown accountable when the laws were being forced upon the colonists without any representation. At the moment we (average people) have virtually no representation in our state and federal government due to the fact the republicrats have controlled our state/ federal government for over 150 years. It is the republicrats that are holding our nation hostage with their fear based propaganda and smear campaigns. Institutions are about self preservation and the two largest institutions in America are the Republican and Democratic Party's. Good governance is very low on the priority list of our two institutions and winning the next election is everything.
Toggle Commented May 31, 2014 on How Real is Voter Fraud? at Rebane's Ruminations
Republicrats The two-party duopoly is a common term used to describe the political system in the U.S., in which two political parties—the Republicans and Democrats—dominate government while holding virtually identical positions on most economic and foreign policy issues. Funded by the same corporate interests, these two parties are sometimes together referred to as “Republicrats” because they resemble two wings of a single party whose policies benefit large corporations and the super rich against the interests of the vast majority (despite holding very different positions on cultural issues in which corporations have little or no interest). Within the two-party duopoly, third parties are shut out of the political process altogether. For example, restrictive ballot access laws require third party candidates to collect tens of thousands of signatures. In addition, they are systematically ignored by the corporate media and excluded from the Presidential debates. (The Commission on Presidential Debates is a private corporation headed by former Republican and Democratic leaders, and funded by big corporate interests.) The “winner take all” voting system used in congressional and state legislative elections also precludes third-party representation, as runners-up get nothing, even when the margin of victory is narrow. Because of this, the vast majority of democracies in the world—including all European countries—use “proportional representation” (PR) voting systems, in which legislative seats are divided proportionally based on the percentage of votes each party receives. Such voting systems give voters more choice, produce multi-party legislatures, and reduce the ability of monied interests to control the political process. In the U.S., however, the two-party system easily lends itself to corporate manipulation and control. This is particularly true when neither party holds a wide majority, as small margins ensure that lobbyists need only convince a few legislators from one party to vote with their opposition. By funding candidates from both parties, therefore, corporations do not simply purchase loyalty, but they prevent either party from obtaining a continuous, popular majority that might challenge corporate interests. Also, the culture wars between “liberal” and “conservative” value systems conveniently divide the voters between the two parties by providing them with real yet economically insignificant reasons to prefer one party over the other. As political philosopher Sheldon Wolin writes in his book, Democracy Incorporated, “The point about [these cultural] disputes is that they are not framed to be resolved. Their political function is to divide the citizenry while obscuring class differences and diverting the voters’ attention from the social and economic concerns of the general populace.” The proliferation of corporate-funded “Super PACs” (a result of the 2010 Supreme Court decision, Citizens United, which allows corporations unlimited funding of political campaigns) is only the most recent example of corruption within the U.S. electoral system. Elections have long been rigged in favor of the two corporate parties. For third parties to have any real chance of adequate representation, major, systemic reforms are necessary. These include breaking up media monopolies, having purely publicly funded campaigns, instituting PR voting systems, adding a binding “none of the above” option on all ballots, establishing universal voter registration, and much more. Such reforms would weaken if not destroy the two-party duopoly, and will therefore be strongly resisted by current Republicrats and the powerful interests that back them. Only a mass movement of education, protest and civil disobedience that puts tremendous outside pressure upon the corporate state will be capable of bringing about such a fundamental transformation of the electoral system.
Toggle Commented May 31, 2014 on How Real is Voter Fraud? at Rebane's Ruminations
Fish, What is your point? Is TEAM EVIL those who aren't as extreme right wing as you? That would make about 90% of the American electorate TEAM EVIL. As I have said here many times I don't mind a conservative government if that is what the majority of the people want but in the US conservatives are very much in the minority and yet we have one of the most conservative industrialized governments on the planet. That is where I have a problem, especially when people like you or George like to pretend the numbers are reversed. Conservatives on your level are a very small % of the electorate and unfortunately you share the idealism as those like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Pearle, Paul Wolfawitz, and William Crystal. You know the neocons that have destroyed the US goodwill and good name around the world.
Toggle Commented May 31, 2014 on How Real is Voter Fraud? at Rebane's Ruminations
George, I think you are conflating election fraud with voter fraud, which most definitely are not the same thing. Election Fraud has been the status quo for the Republican party for decades and voter fraud basically has been non existent for 30 years or so. Republicans can no longer win the Presidency on a true and open vote, so they have to suppress votes to give the illusion of victory. Only 27% of registered voters identify as Republican. The only way to win elections when numbers are that low are to suppress the casting of votes against your party and making the capital cities across the nation so divided people throw their hands up and say forget it. The fact you bring up ACORN tells us you did very little research into this post. ACORN was cleared and actually turned in the right wing douche-bag O'Keefe moments he left the building to the police. Acorn was cleared while O'Keefe was found guilty. James O'Keefe Pays $100,000 To ACORN Employee He Smeared-Conservative Media Yawns Election Fraud Was the 2004 Election Stolen? Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House. The Case for Fraud in Ohio Election 2004 Gores Victory Voter Fraud Comprehensive Database of U.S. Voter Fraud Uncovers No Evidence That Photo ID Is Needed In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud
Toggle Commented May 31, 2014 on How Real is Voter Fraud? at Rebane's Ruminations
George, If your true goal was to reduce or eliminate abortions then you would support the policies I listed above. I think you can agree that janitors, mechanics, laborers in general are needed in our economy and society. Yet you do not want them to have the economic means to afford to raise children with the accessibility to the better services that would allow them to have more options as working adults. I find you position more about power and control and less about the issue of abortion or the rights of the unborn. What has been passing as debate about the issues for many decades now is a charade. The real debate is what type of society we want to live in. One that allows the super wealthy to rig the system in their favor or one that promotes a healthy functional society where it allows for entrepreneurship and innovation to occur or a completely controlled market by a small few entities. You promote the small few rigging the system not in your rhetoric but in your practice. It was the main form of governance of "civil" societies for thousand years. It failed and it is time to move away from those ideas. My side has won this debate but haven't found a way to remove the ability of the oligarchs to control our government, once that has happened your ancient ideas will be buried six feet under for good. Have a good day.
George, I wanted to switch the debate to what it is really about. The premise to your post is to move the actual issue towards something that has very little to do with the decision to end a pregnancy or not. What makes you think that you should have a say on my daughter's reproductive health/ rights? Abortion has primarily to do with economics. Love the fetus and abandon the child/ person seems to be the conservative position. Do you feel any personal responsibility to the health of our society, would the policies I listed in my prior comment promote a healthier more stable society?
Abortion falls into a class warfare issue. The fact of the matter is make abortions illegal and poor women will die. Women with means will always be able to seek a safe procedure somewhere. The number one reason behind women terminating a pregnancy is economic. As a society we should have day care, head start like programs, after school programs, health care for all system, and higher education available for all who qualify. If we had these policies in place abortions would reduce exponentially. You guys here at RR don't want these policies but rather blame the poor. Here is another one everyone here will like. No man other than the father and the doctor if a man should have any say in women's reproductive health.
One post only, what if “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.” read more like this "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God. In any war between the oppressed and the oppressor, support the oppressed. Support Islam. Defeat American Empire" In response to 19 hijackers (15 Saudi Arabia) that acted out the immoral, illegal, and disgusting act of 9/11 that took 3,000 civilian lives the US government has invaded and occupied two sovereign nations, killed a million people, displace millions more, influenced their governments, put up walls creating Muslim apartheid, have stripped due process to hundreds if not thousands of people on the fact they are Muslim, tortured, and have been dropping bombs from drones killing innocent civilians only in Muslim nations. All this on top of 70 year history of coups, covert and overt military operations, and propping up brutal puppet regimes. We have turned into the country that we fought a revolution to break free. "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." Thomas Paine
Toggle Commented Oct 3, 2012 on Ruminations – 2oct12 at Rebane's Ruminations
George, As you know I argued in your favor at Jeff Pelline Sierra Foothills Report of having a 3 minute slot on KVMR and a weekly commentary in The Union newspaper. As long as you owned your opinions and comments I would disagree but respected your right to your opinion. Once you asked for us to stop talking about your opinion because you were worried about a Sikh friend (my guess business friend) not liking the discussion. That is when my respect for you diminished. Instead of walking back from the term "raghead" you asked us to just ignore it. Has you're Sikh friend heard your definition of "raghead" and would they condone its usage in a public commentary?
By the way, this comment will be posted to my facebook page. I will try and receive my censored comment and post that as well. I have around a 1,000 FB friends. Later Ben Emery
George, Censorship of those who dissent, fits right into your ideology and support for nations such as Saudi Arabia and China. Funny you will let Billy T rant about "diaper heads" an "ragheads" but mine is the comment that gets removed. So you're saying the shooter didn't share your belief that we are in a holy (religious) war? The shooter must not have read your very narrow definition of the term "raghead" and mistakenly assumed a whole building full of men with Turbans fit the description of "raghead". Interesting a man from Arkansas thought the idea of a "holy war" was an extremist view but at RR it is par for the course. Sikh temple shooting: Gunman was on feds’ radar, told Army friend ‘racial holy war was coming’ By Dylan Stableford, Yahoo! News "Christopher Robillard, who served with Page for three years in the U.S. Army, said he thought it was just talk when Page expressed his extremist views. "He would often mention the racial holy war that was coming," Robillard told CNN's Piers Morgan on Monday. " Todd, Thanks for your forgiveness on wanting justice and equality among all people not just those who I agree with or share the same faith."
George, After thinking about it while I work in the orchard and cannot give you a pass on the "raghead" remarks that you have defended as late as this thread. I appreciate your concern for your friendship or business relations but you've made a stand in the past on this issue and now want us to just drop it because it might affect you personal life now. No, you need to own up to the inflammatory rhetoric that promotes hatred. Imagine if your Sikh friend was a victim to this latest semiautomatic gun crime. In this thread alone - you have defended your using of the term "raghead and agreed with Billy T disgusting rant - you have promoted the idea of a religious war against Islam - you have defended torture - you have defended rounding Muslims with charge or due process How can you reconcile with your opinions and your request for the issue to be ignored and dropped?
George, What I induce from your multiple comments is you will not answer the question from my very real scenario. How you changed the scenario was inserting that the Christian would be in the minority of the nation. The scenario I outlined happened in Oklahoma City as I am sure knew. What would have you done if Clinton would have started rounding up Christian militia groups? Man that story sounds like Turner Diaries doesn't it? In any nation under any from of government would you support the rounding up of Christians without charge, due process, and were tortured? Just answer the question.
George, I guess I have to answer the question for you. You wouldn't support the rounding up of Christians but you do support the rounding up of Muslims.
Mickey, Your argument is ridiculous.
Greg, Who votes for our representatives in congress and government? We do. Get a simple majority of the votes you become the representative no matter if you have one candidate or five. Once congress or state legislature simple majorities are needed to pass general bills that will eventually become law. All along the way simple majorities decide our representatives and general laws.
George, I appreciate your concern for your friends feelings but this is the point we are are trying to get across to you. Your speech has consequences intended and unintended. Maybe you should do your next KVMR commentary apologizing for using such a loaded phrase loosely? Just a suggestion.
Greg, Here we go again you trying to show intellectual superiority, do you even realize you are doing it? Here is a link on how laws are made and how bills are passed or not passed. To clarify it takes a simple majority for bills to pass and become law.
George, A pretty consistent tool in your quiver is making grand associations with being in the realm of collectivism ideology. Why doesn't the same rule apply to you with your opinions regarding the very easily confused "raghead" remarks. When hate speech is laced with violence as a solution we get mentally unstable people taking an active approach to solve the perceived problems presented by those who are in public view or sound. You being on RR, KVMR, and The Union make you a person who has a responsibility to your ideas and commentary that you put out for public consumption.
George, I posed a question to Mickey that you chimed in on. Here is the question Q- Would you support the rounding up of Christians and putting Christians in jail without any due process, if say someone who considered themselves Christian bombed a government building killing and injuring hundreds of people? You said at 05 August 2012 at 10:27 PM "Were that the case, you can bet your ass that they would be rounded up. Christians have been rounded up for much less by non-Christian governments." So George- Would you support them being rounded up? I don't know if Mickey is in favor of rounding up Muslims without due process but he has said that no centralized government should round up people in his ideal world. Wavering a bit with the ideal world caveat.
Mickey, You are so far base I cannot even respond. Please name human rights of the wealthy that are being violated.