• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Tea party holding the US as hostage ?

Government shutdown after midnight ?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 55.6%
  • No

    Votes: 3 33.3%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 1 11.1%

  • Total voters
    9
'As long as the music is playing, you've got to get up and dance,' said former Citigroup boss Chuck Prince. But it's risky. Because they don't hold up cue cards to tell you when they're going to pull the plug. Instead, as the end approaches, the party grows wilder and wilder.
Ah yes, dear reader, they don't make it easy. The closer you are to disaster, the harder it is to leave. Just before the blow-off turns into a blow-up, stocks are typically going straight up. Who wants to leave the party then?
When the lights go out, suddenly everybody rushes for the exits. But it's too late. Bodies pile up in the doorways. It is impossible to get out.
The same is true of the entire Fed intervention. The more the central bank intervenes, the more dependent the economy becomes, and the harder it is to exit. They say they will head for the door when the numbers improve...but as soon as they make a move to the exit, the numbers will collapse.
In this sense, too, the bulls are reading the latest Fed announcement correctly. The Federal Reserve will keep at it until the bitter end. It will feed the market with more cash and credit. Then it will find it impossible to back up. Instead, it will keep going until we get a blow-off top in stock prices.

Why the Fed Will Keep at it Until the Bitter End
 
Getting pulled over, or Stopped-and-Frisked, entirely because of the color of your skin isn't just "bad behavior." It's a system that's designed to keep blacks in the role of second-class citizens, terrified of the authorities.

Being purged from voter rolls, entirely due to the color of your skin, isn't just "bad behavior." It's the suppression of an entire group of people, forbidding them any say in their own government and laws which will impact them.

Giving blacks harsher sentences than whites who commit the same crime isn't just "bad behavior." It is the oppression of one minority by the dominant class, built on the fear of those who think blacks are inherently bad, whereas whites just make mistakes.

Making certain that blacks are more likely to be arrested than whites - for doing the exact same crimes - isn't just "bad behavior." It's the denying of an entire group of people their fundamental human rights.

For everyone else: Have you noticed that the same ones who insist, "We are not different races," are still the ones who claim there's a "color card" or race card whenever presented with overwhelming evidence that race and racism are very much alive in this country. They're also, overwhelmingly, never the ones who actually vote for candidates other than their own race. The irony is that I just had a friend who said on Facebook, just two hours ago, "If you point any of this out, they yelp about "playing the race card."

Always.

Much as an alcoholic who insists he doesn't have a drinking problem, there is a belief that simply acknowledging that a problem exists is somehow a threat that might force him to acknowledge a reality different than the one he invented.

Sorry if I seem out of loop up here in Canada, but at the same time I'm also a bit more outside the ketchup bottle. A wise man once said, "If you want to know who the minority is, go stand at a bus stop." Racism isn't limited to whites keeping blacks down. There are plenty of blacks who are prejudiced against whites and Latinos and Italians and whomever else isn't who they are. There seems to be plenty of it to go around and no one ethnicity can claim to be totally clean. I think the whole racist element is stupid, and we should all try harder to live together in harmony. What do you think of the idea that a lot of racial tension is brought on by the ultra rich who use it in a Machiavellian manner to keep the masses quarrelling amongst themselves while they feed and exploit the discord for their own ends?
 
Yes, the president is just another corporate tool. But there are enough differences to at least make it important that you pick one or the other, but don't expect miracles.

So, for example, the Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare) is almost wholly based on Republican ideas dating back to the 1990s and the Heritage Foundation. The Republicans tell you they hate it, but they thought of it originally.

Are you kidding Gene? All the liberal media reporters, who over 95% voted for Obama, call the AKA
Obamacare. They actually prefer it be called that. I believe Obama prefers it privately.
The Republicans did not ever think of it first.
 
It's not about whether or not you care what American History says. As I explained very thoroughly (but which you didn't read, as usual) it's about how this history is still shaping our dialog and our actions. It's about the lengths a large portion of the populace will do to keep blacks in the role of second-class citizens, including doing their best to deny blacks the rights the rest of us take for granted every single day.

Pretending reality doesn't exist doesn't make it go away.

Where do you get that from? In fact the Black leadership and racebaiters like the Reverand Al, etc.
find it in there interest to keep blacks as second citizens or they have no job!
 
Are you kidding Gene? All the liberal media reporters, who over 95% voted for Obama, call the AKA
Obamacare. They actually prefer it be called that. I believe Obama prefers it privately.
The Republicans did not ever think of it first.
Really? You have support for that?
 
Yes, the president is just another corporate tool. But there are enough differences to at least make it important that you pick one or the other, but don't expect miracles.

So, for example, the Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare) is almost wholly based on Republican ideas dating back to the 1990s and the Heritage Foundation. The Republicans tell you they hate it, but they thought of it originally.

Gene,
I am far more so Libertarian in philosophy than I am bi-partisan. I have voted, each and every time I have voted, (which is to state clearly, every election, local, state, and national are not something I miss or take lightly) based on bi-partisan candidates alone. I feel guilty every time, even though I realize that the sacrifice has been made in the name of an ethical deduction.

I wouldn't give you a plug nickle for any president this country has had since Kennedy. And before that, it was Abe Lincoln, and before that it it was Stonewall Jackson, you get up any nearer to the top of that list and the mind can't fathom the depth of the real power that these men wielded. I wouldn't trust a politician these days any further than I could throw them. Keep them in sight at all times.

Once you get by the ridiculous need to scroll down past this archive's initial advertisements, could you let me know what you think about this Robert Creamer guy? I am not being satirical here either Gene, as I have always honestly wondered about the validity of the following: "The Lid": Breaking: The Convict Who Wrote Obama's Strategy For Passing Obamacare and the "Democratization of Wealth"
 
Sorry if I seem out of loop up here in Canada, but at the same time I'm also a bit more outside the ketchup bottle. A wise man once said, "If you want to know who the minority is, go stand at a bus stop." Racism isn't limited to whites keeping blacks down. There are plenty of blacks who are prejudiced against whites and Latinos and Italians and whomever else isn't who they are. There seems to be plenty of it to go around and no one ethnicity can claim to be totally clean. I think the whole racist element is stupid, and we should all try harder to live together in harmony. What do you think of the idea that a lot of racial tension is brought on by the ultra rich who use it in a Machiavellian manner to keep the masses quarrelling amongst themselves while they feed and exploit the discord for their own ends?

I'd argue that racism is about a dominant class undermining a less-privileged class. We could say much the same thing about misogyny, anti-Semitism , Islamaphobia, and homophobia.

In this country, however, I'd argue that our national heritage was founded on genocide and built on the backs of slaves. "White" has been the gold-standard, so to speak. It has determined who which groups would have rights and which would not, or which groups would be accepted and which would not. It is still pronounced in how we give certain groups the privilege of being called "white" while other are denied that privilege. For example, when Italians and Mediterraneans first came to this country en masse, they were most assuredly considered non-white. People with swarthier tones were sub-standard, while it was assumed they would certainly not assimilate . They might not have legally been denied rights, but the culture certainly didn't accept them, often to the point they were prevented from living and working in many areas. Since then, we have seen other groups come in at that bottom rung and we no longer have separate designations for Italians or Mediterraneans. In modern times, census reports don't distinguish these groups from other whites, yet we have a very distinct separation for those who are "Hispanic." When I fill out surveys or take census records, it specifically asks if I am "White, Non Hispanic." That separation is indicative of our culture. Hispanics are considered inferior and often unwanted. Think of the "Papers, Please" laws we've seen in certain states. We don't worry about limiting Canadian, Australian or any European immigration the way we discuss stopping immigration from South of the Border.

However, there are ongoing arguments in legal journal articles that racial profiling does exist and threatens human security, particularly community security of the Mexicans living in the United States. India Williams argues that the Border Patrol is very likely to stop anyone if a suspect resembles "Mexican appearance" and states that such generalization of unchangeable physical features threatens the culture and the heritage of the ethnic group.[121] Andrea Nill argues that it is only a small portion of Mexicans and Latinos that are illegal immigrants, but there is a demonization and illogical discrimination of Latino community by giving less respect, rights, and freedoms, whereas white American citizens will never have to worry about being stopped by the police due to their skin color

Admittedly, other white groups, such as the Irish, Jews, Germans, and Eastern Europeans have all been on this bottom rung. Benjamin Franklin notoriously hated German immigrants, thinking they were undermining the country. The difference is that other European groups still look white. It's why I'm considered to be more American than a Jewish person - or any person - of Middle Eastern origin, even if their ancestors have been in this country far longer than my own. It's why many Americans consider Ted Cruz to be more American than Barack Obama, even though the former was born in another country whereas the latter was born in this country. I've found those originally from South America, who are generally fairer in complexion and speak with a Castilian dialect, to be considered more white than Hispanic. No doubt this has something to do with having less Mestizo ancestry. (Google Uruguay as an example. I have friends there.) In the U.S. non-white is still considered a threat to an American ideal, which has apparently become worse since Obama first took the presidency. Explicit racism is still very on the table, especially in one party, even if a few claim otherwise:
Poll Finds Americans Slightly More Racist
A new AP Poll finds racial attitudes have not improved in the four years since President Obama's election "as a slight majority of Americans now express prejudice toward blacks whether they recognize those feelings or not."

"In all, 51 percent of Americans now express explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48 percent in a similar 2008 survey. When measured by an implicit racial attitudes test, the number of Americans with anti-black sentiments jumped to 56 percent, up from 49 percent during the last presidential election. In both tests, the share of Americans expressing pro-black attitudes fell."

Andrew Sullivan: "Close to 80 percent of Republican voters expressed 'explicit racism.' Maybe that's why they are comfortable with a candidate from a church whose theology remains based on white supremacy and that barred African-Americans from full membership as recently as 1978."
 
The ACA was based on Romney's health care plan in MA, which in turn was based on Heritage Foundation studies in the early 1990s.

The fundamental concepts that include involving the insurance companies in exchanges, and an individual mandate, are therefore Republican. Like it or hate it, you wonder why Republicans lie about it so much.

Because it came from Obama.

But this all getting quite boring.
 
Where do you get that from? In fact the Black leadership and racebaiters like the Reverand Al, etc.
find it in there interest to keep blacks as second citizens or they have no job!

You will find all of my sources thoroughly cited in the thread to which he was responding. In my initial post, you'll also find the exact document from the Heritage Foundation, dating to 1989, that explicitly lays out the plan for what we now call "Obamacare." It includes the part where it demands an individual mandate, changes to the tax code, and ways to negotiate-down healthcare costs. It also specifically states that employer mandates hurt access to healthcare.

All you have to do is actually read the opposing arguments and look at the sources backing what is being said. It's really that simple.
 
You will find all of my sources thoroughly cited in the thread to which he was responding. In my initial post, you'll also find the exact document from the Heritage Foundation, dating to 1989, that explicitly lays out the plan for what we now call "Obamacare." It includes the part where it demands an individual mandate, changes to the tax code, and ways to negotiate-down healthcare costs. It also specifically states that employer mandates hurt access to healthcare.

All you have to do is actually read the opposing arguments and look at the sources backing what is being said. It's really that simple.

That was not the same as AKA we have now.
This is getting boring. Oh Gene said that.
 
You see if a Black person does not agree with the President or any Democrat they are outcasts,
berated and considered off the reservation. The Democrats need every black they can lure to the
Party with perks. Without that group they got no election power at the polls.
 
Remember when the President ran the first term he promised the most transparent
Presidency. What ever happened to that?
IRS cover up. Benghazi cover up.
I cannot get that picture of Hillary out of my mind during her testimony wearing those thick
black rim glasses, pounding her fists on the table.
"At this point, what does it matter?" In other words they are already murdered. Why do we
need to investigate who knew what when and their location and what they were doing at the time.
 
Remember that idiot Nancy Pelosi. "We need to pass the Affordable Health Care Act so
we know what's in it." Priceless.
This is why the AKA must be further delayed.
 
Another example of a quote taken out of context. Drafts of the bill were posted online at the time. I read some if it when they went up.
 
Remember that idiot Nancy Pelosi. "We need to pass the Affordable Health Care Act so
we know what's in it." Priceless.
This is why the AKA must be further delayed.

The constitutional way to delay the AKA is through legislation not BRIBERY

The House is guilty of BRIBERY

This is not the Soviet Union were 1 branch of government gets to dictate.
 
The constitutional way to delay the AKA is through legislation not BRIBERY

The House is guilty of BRIBERY

This is not the Soviet Union were 1 branch of government gets to dictate.

I think the word you are looking for is extortion

Law. the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.



‘Let’s stop this government-by-extortion’ - Green Party’s Stein on US shutdown — RT USA


DEMOCRATIC SENATOR CONDEMNS 'EXTORTION'
Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York said he was still holding out some hope that the House Republicans "would come to their senses" and vote to keep the government open.
"It is extortion," Schumer, speaking on "Morning Joe," said of Republicans' strategy. "It's holding the good of the country - the economy, middle-class people at risk."


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/clock-ticking-as-us-heads-for-shutdown-20131001-2up09.html#ixzz2gd50tSJ9
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top