Christians are not discriminated against, they are not forbidden from marrying other Christians like homosexuals are.
If homosexuals had the same rights as heterosexuals (the right to marry, the right to serve their country without discrimination), my bet is that they would "fade into the woodwork."
As it is right now, they will not achieve those rights by keeping quiet and keeping their mouths shut.
I know of no time in which discrimination against ANY group was ended by the silence of those who were oppressed, do you?
Friday, October 30, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Four firefighters died in a wild fire because environmental wackos denied them water
This Con Scum lie has been circulating in the demented inner circles of paranoid echo chamber hell that now is the conservative base. It was printed without vetting as an editorial in our local North County Times and written by a local elected official. Read it here:
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/perspective/article_34c99ddd-7613-5b8a-afdf-97016d10ba42.html?mode=story
"Tom Craven, 30. Karen Fitzpatrick, 18. Devin Weaver, 21. Jessica Johnson, 19.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/perspective/article_34c99ddd-7613-5b8a-afdf-97016d10ba42.html?mode=story
LOCAL VIEW: Incredible Fish Story shows value of fish vs. humans PLANET OF THE FISH -- A PRELUDE
by GARY ARANT -- Valley Center Water District | Posted: Sunday, October 11, 2009 12:00 am"Tom Craven, 30. Karen Fitzpatrick, 18. Devin Weaver, 21. Jessica Johnson, 19.
According to an Associated Press report dated July 31, 2001, these young firefighters suffered horrific deaths in July 2000, fighting a fire in the Okanogan National Forest in Washington state because our government ---- no, evidently our society ---- values fish over people."
The actual truth given in the online comment section following the article. Following the post which gives an ASSOCIATED PRESS article to the correct information as opposed to MIS-represented lie and misquote of what the Associated Press said by Gary Arant above.
- moldychum said on: October 11, 2009, 1:49 pm
- This opinion piece is a blatant distortion of the facts.
Numerous safety mistakes were made that led to these unfortunate deaths. The crew boss Ellresse Daniels was charged with manslaughter and 11 other forest service managers were disciplined as a result. In addition to the fact that these firefighters were relative newcomers and sleep deprived, they were led into a box canyon where the fire was likely to overtake them. Other members of the crew who were on the road by the river survived under their shelters.
From the indictment -
At Daniels' direction, the crew stopped along the road, which ran parallel to the Chewuch River. But instead of preparing the crew for the worst -- that the fire would race over them -- Daniels told them the fire would burn around them, court papers allege. Meanwhile, Daniels watched as several firefighters scrambled up a rocky slope to get a better view of the fire. According to the documents, Daniels later said he ordered the firefighters down from the slope, but surviving crew members disputed that. That discrepancy is significant, according to charging papers. The heat is more intense on an upward slope, and uneven ground makes using fire shelters difficult. So when the fire raced through and firefighters dived for cover under their shelters, those on the road survived but those who remained on the slope were asphyxiated by superheated air. "The consensus of experts is that all four deceased firefighters would have survived if they deployed [shelters] on the road near the other crew members," the charging documents allege.
You should be ashamed of yourself for using these deaths in the debate over endangered fish.
Read the facts.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/296691_30mile21.html
Crew boss charged in Thirtymile Fire
Negligence alleged; 2001 blaze killed 4 firefighters
- Here is part of the article as my link does not work. I think because there is a symbol _that did not work between 296691_30mile21.html in the above link but I was able to print it just now. I don't understand what is wrong with the link, but here is the beginning of the article:
SPOKANE -- More than five years after a wildfire killed four young U.S. Forest Service firefighters huddled inside protective fire shelters on a rocky slope in the Chewuch River Canyon, the man who was their boss has been charged with manslaughter and lying to federal investigators.
Federal prosecutors Wednesday announced they had filed charges against Ellreese N. Daniels, the crew boss in charge of the firefighters who died July 10, 2001, in the Thirtymile Fire near Winthrop, in north-central Washington.
 | ||
"We have been wondering why it took so long (to file charges). It was starting to look like they never would," Steve Emhoff said from his home in Yakima. His son, Jason, was badly burned but survived the fire.
"I have the knowledge that my son has given me, which the families of the four that didn't survive don't have," Emhoff said.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Tom Hopkins said Daniels has not been arrested. He will be summoned to a Jan. 4 appearance in federal court here on four counts of involuntary manslaughter and seven counts of making a false statement during investigations into the fatal fire.
Daniels' attorney, public defender Tina Hunt, did not return calls for comment Wednesday. Daniels has an unpublished telephone number.
Firefighters Tom Craven, 30, Devin Weaver, 21, Jessica Johnson, 19, and Karen Fitzpatrick, 18, perished in the extreme heat of the fire inside aluminum fire shelters intended to save their lives. All were from Central Washington.
Daniels, a seasonal Forest Service employee in East Wenatchee, no longer works as a firefighter.
Hopkins said Daniels is accused of gross negligence in the deaths for failing to order the firefighters out of harm's way as the flames advanced, then making false statements to investigators with the Forest Service and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
read the rest of the article at:
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/296691_30mile21.html
Monday, October 12, 2009
Tea Parties will save America from Obama debt
Opportunity, as well as a threat
In 2006, the Comptroller General of the United States, David M. Walker, announced that the unfunded commitments had risen from $20 trillion to $50 trillion in 2006. This equates to $440,000 for each American household, or nine times the median income of $49,000.
Our response was to raise the limit on the national debt and borrow another half-billion!
Where were the TEA partiers in 2006? It ill behooves us to pretend to be shocked at the current Keynesian stimulus spending when this massive and frightening debt was coldly and deliberately created by the Bush/Cheney administration.
We need a national plan to eliminate the debt that will reduce imports and level the playing field for industry through public choice, etc. We should also launch another (public works) program for high speed rail transportation, water transfer from Alaska to California by subsea pipe and alternate energy, etc.
There is a national security element to this problem and we should remember that without the (public works-created) Grand Coulee Dam, we would not have had the aluminum to build the planes to defeat the Axis powers in World War II.
Americans need to get back to work and realize that this is an opportunity as well as a threat.
Craig Lang
Oceanside
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Employer provied health care is a stupid idea. Until 1948 people took care of their own doctor's bills.
Hey Rush - I agreed that employer-provided health care is a stupid idea, long overdue for the trash heap of lousy ideas.
But your comment that “until 1948 or so people took care of it themselves” is equally absurd.
Prior to the formation of the first public, full-time paid professional fire department in 1853 (Cincinnati, Ohio), fire fighting was done on a contract basis with fire companies.
It didn’t work out so well, and we decided to go with “government run” and, despite squawking for the Insurance companies, people seem pretty happy with that.
Sorry, Rush, but medicine has become far more technological and advanced than the old days of a country doctor making house calls.
Just as too many houses got burned down while bickering over coverage, so also too many people are dying.*
It ain’t workin’ out so good.
Time for public policy to stop the carnage but, again, the huge corporate monsters are squawking, howling really, saying that it KANT be done.
Oh, and as for your 9:26 a.m. nonsense about only providing coverage for non-smokers or those overweight, nopsie, that’s as ridiculous as saying police or firefighters won’t respond if you have an emergency and did not take all possible advanced precautions. I do, however, support hazard taxes on specific known risky behaviors to be applied toward healthcare costs.
*According to Scientific American, 44,000 human beings -FORTY FOUR THOUSAND - die every year due to lack of health care and you dismiss it so casually.
Reference:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=lack-of-insurance-causes-more-than-2009-09-17
But your comment that “until 1948 or so people took care of it themselves” is equally absurd.
Prior to the formation of the first public, full-time paid professional fire department in 1853 (Cincinnati, Ohio), fire fighting was done on a contract basis with fire companies.
It didn’t work out so well, and we decided to go with “government run” and, despite squawking for the Insurance companies, people seem pretty happy with that.
Sorry, Rush, but medicine has become far more technological and advanced than the old days of a country doctor making house calls.
Just as too many houses got burned down while bickering over coverage, so also too many people are dying.*
It ain’t workin’ out so good.
Time for public policy to stop the carnage but, again, the huge corporate monsters are squawking, howling really, saying that it KANT be done.
Oh, and as for your 9:26 a.m. nonsense about only providing coverage for non-smokers or those overweight, nopsie, that’s as ridiculous as saying police or firefighters won’t respond if you have an emergency and did not take all possible advanced precautions. I do, however, support hazard taxes on specific known risky behaviors to be applied toward healthcare costs.
*According to Scientific American, 44,000 human beings -FORTY FOUR THOUSAND - die every year due to lack of health care and you dismiss it so casually.
Reference:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=lack-of-insurance-causes-more-than-2009-09-17
Barack and Michelle aren't black. They are mulatto
Sorry, Rush your rant is not only offensive and racist, it also reflects an ignorance of racial history in the United States.
While the term “mulatto” has been used to refer to degrees of racial ancestry, slavery based on RACE and later racial segregation were based on a LEGAL definition of “Negro” which was known as the “one drop” rule: if you had “one drop” of African blood (just one single African ancestor), you were considered black for purposes of the law, no matter how “white” they appeared.
By the standards of this nation’s sad racial history, both Barack and Michelle Obama are African-Americans.
The fact that they both have white ancestors, as descendants of most slaves did due to rape by their white owners, is a matter of interest only to genealogists.
It would not have been relevant to any matter of race when such matters were enforced by law.
-------------------------
True Story comments from someone who read the above post and knows based on personal experience that it is true. Read below:
You are indeed correct about the "one drop" rule in the south. Before the civil rights laws, if you were 1/36th black in Mississippi you were legally black and were subject to the segregation laws.
In my BOQ at Keesler AFB in the early 60s there was a young Mississippian. His features were as caucasian the the average white person. He liked to show his Mississippi drivers license which indicated his race as "negro." I don't recall if he ever said how far back in his family history there was a black ancestor. I did see photos of his immediate family, and they were looked caucasian, which would seem to indicate the black ancestor was at least several generations in the past. He was proud of his bi-racial blood, and made a point of following segregation laws when he was off the base. I suspected it was his way of making a statement against the horrific laws in the south at that time. Then again, it might have been because he didn't want to get caught by the Biloxi cops and be publically humiliated or worse, go to jail.
Whenever I see a southern teabagger my age shouting "I want my country back," this is "his country" I remember.
While the term “mulatto” has been used to refer to degrees of racial ancestry, slavery based on RACE and later racial segregation were based on a LEGAL definition of “Negro” which was known as the “one drop” rule: if you had “one drop” of African blood (just one single African ancestor), you were considered black for purposes of the law, no matter how “white” they appeared.
By the standards of this nation’s sad racial history, both Barack and Michelle Obama are African-Americans.
The fact that they both have white ancestors, as descendants of most slaves did due to rape by their white owners, is a matter of interest only to genealogists.
It would not have been relevant to any matter of race when such matters were enforced by law.
-------------------------
True Story comments from someone who read the above post and knows based on personal experience that it is true. Read below:
You are indeed correct about the "one drop" rule in the south. Before the civil rights laws, if you were 1/36th black in Mississippi you were legally black and were subject to the segregation laws.
In my BOQ at Keesler AFB in the early 60s there was a young Mississippian. His features were as caucasian the the average white person. He liked to show his Mississippi drivers license which indicated his race as "negro." I don't recall if he ever said how far back in his family history there was a black ancestor. I did see photos of his immediate family, and they were looked caucasian, which would seem to indicate the black ancestor was at least several generations in the past. He was proud of his bi-racial blood, and made a point of following segregation laws when he was off the base. I suspected it was his way of making a statement against the horrific laws in the south at that time. Then again, it might have been because he didn't want to get caught by the Biloxi cops and be publically humiliated or worse, go to jail.
Whenever I see a southern teabagger my age shouting "I want my country back," this is "his country" I remember.
Capitalism in America today is just what Adam Smith ordered
CAPITALISM vs. ANARCHY
The published letter from Darrell McGuire reflects common misunderstandings about the economic theory of capitalism perpetrated by the propaganda of a few elites trying co-opt and misrepresent the theory of Adam Smith in a way he would find unrecognizable, confusing his theory of market economics (capitalism) with a lack of regulation or responsible oversight (laissez-faire).
McGuire clearly has no understanding of what “freedom” means. “Freedom” does not mean an absence of rules; that is chaos or anarchy, not freedom. Absolute freedom for one person means zero freedom for everyone else. Rules, regulations and oversight are required in order to maintain order, and to MAXIMIZE freedom for all.
A protective regulatory framework that sets the boundaries defining where you must be restricted from harming others does not in any restrict an infinite range of freedoms within that framework. As I have said many times, the rules of sports do not restrict an infinite range of possibilities, such that no two games have ever been the same, they make it possible; the rules of the road do not prevent you from getting in your car and driving anywhere you want, they make it possible.
Capitalism originates from the theories espoused by Adam Smith, a liberal, in his seminal five-volume masterpiece, "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations," written in 1776 in London. Yes, it is about the “invisible hand” of the “free” market. But “free” does not mean chaotic or in anarchy. It wouldn’t take FIVE VOLUMES for Smith to just say, “abolish all government.”
The fact is that Smith supported progressive taxes (Book V, Chapter 2, Article I), proportionality of profits (Book I, Chapter 6), public oversight of rental policies (Book I, Chapter 11), and saw the role of government as including public infrastructure, SOCIAL JUSTICE, and public order (Book IV, Chapter 9). And all this in a book written in a time of largely rural, agrarian societies, when mercantile endeavors were largely Mom and Pop butchers, bakers and candlestick makers -- not behemoth corporations with enormous capacity (or rapacity) to concentrate wealth and power and develop huge capacities to do great harm to workers and consumers.
While no one can say how he would have adapted his theories to the complexities of the modern industrial, high-tech area, the idea that Smith would equate capitalism with laissez-faire -- a term that he had never used in the entire five volumes, though the term goes back to a 1736 speech by René de Voyer, Marquis d'Argenson (40 years earlier), and first appears in print in 1751, 25 years before his work.
A man of Smith’s education would surely be familiar with that term; its omission seems intentional and refutes McGuires nonsense.
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz
The published letter from Darrell McGuire reflects common misunderstandings about the economic theory of capitalism perpetrated by the propaganda of a few elites trying co-opt and misrepresent the theory of Adam Smith in a way he would find unrecognizable, confusing his theory of market economics (capitalism) with a lack of regulation or responsible oversight (laissez-faire).
McGuire clearly has no understanding of what “freedom” means. “Freedom” does not mean an absence of rules; that is chaos or anarchy, not freedom. Absolute freedom for one person means zero freedom for everyone else. Rules, regulations and oversight are required in order to maintain order, and to MAXIMIZE freedom for all.
A protective regulatory framework that sets the boundaries defining where you must be restricted from harming others does not in any restrict an infinite range of freedoms within that framework. As I have said many times, the rules of sports do not restrict an infinite range of possibilities, such that no two games have ever been the same, they make it possible; the rules of the road do not prevent you from getting in your car and driving anywhere you want, they make it possible.
Capitalism originates from the theories espoused by Adam Smith, a liberal, in his seminal five-volume masterpiece, "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations," written in 1776 in London. Yes, it is about the “invisible hand” of the “free” market. But “free” does not mean chaotic or in anarchy. It wouldn’t take FIVE VOLUMES for Smith to just say, “abolish all government.”
The fact is that Smith supported progressive taxes (Book V, Chapter 2, Article I), proportionality of profits (Book I, Chapter 6), public oversight of rental policies (Book I, Chapter 11), and saw the role of government as including public infrastructure, SOCIAL JUSTICE, and public order (Book IV, Chapter 9). And all this in a book written in a time of largely rural, agrarian societies, when mercantile endeavors were largely Mom and Pop butchers, bakers and candlestick makers -- not behemoth corporations with enormous capacity (or rapacity) to concentrate wealth and power and develop huge capacities to do great harm to workers and consumers.
While no one can say how he would have adapted his theories to the complexities of the modern industrial, high-tech area, the idea that Smith would equate capitalism with laissez-faire -- a term that he had never used in the entire five volumes, though the term goes back to a 1736 speech by René de Voyer, Marquis d'Argenson (40 years earlier), and first appears in print in 1751, 25 years before his work.
A man of Smith’s education would surely be familiar with that term; its omission seems intentional and refutes McGuires nonsense.
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz
Americans do NOT support the Public Option
According to the New York Times / CBS poll
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/09/25/us/politics/25pollgrx.html
65% - SIXTY-FIVE PERCENT - want a PUBLIC OPTION.
Well, technically, the WORD "public" was not in the poll.
It uses the term "government-administered insurance."
I do understand that there are some people who will swear that “public option” is not the same as “government-administered insurance,” but, for the life of me, I’ll be satisfied with either one.
I suspect Keith Olbermann was confusing the number who support the public option (or "government-administered insurance”) with the number who support the need for some kind of reform (that might not include the public option).
As for the idea that if that many “Americans supported the public option it would have been enacted by now”, don’t be naïve.
Too many legislators, FROM BOTH PARTIES, are bought and paid for by Big Insurance.
They represent the megabucks, not the every day real people.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/09/25/us/politics/25pollgrx.html
65% - SIXTY-FIVE PERCENT - want a PUBLIC OPTION.
Well, technically, the WORD "public" was not in the poll.
It uses the term "government-administered insurance."
I do understand that there are some people who will swear that “public option” is not the same as “government-administered insurance,” but, for the life of me, I’ll be satisfied with either one.
I suspect Keith Olbermann was confusing the number who support the public option (or "government-administered insurance”) with the number who support the need for some kind of reform (that might not include the public option).
As for the idea that if that many “Americans supported the public option it would have been enacted by now”, don’t be naïve.
Too many legislators, FROM BOTH PARTIES, are bought and paid for by Big Insurance.
They represent the megabucks, not the every day real people.
Conservatives do not have free speech in America
It's a pretty amazing country when the airwaves (and this blogspace) are inundated with radical, extremist opinions from the right, and those same people complain that their free speech is being taken away.
This is just more proof that these folks are, quite literally, delusional.
And also that they are totalitarian in philosophy, because they seem to believe that until ONLY they get their voices heard, that their free speech will be under attack...they will only be free, in their minds, when the opposition isn't.
Is there a more unAmerican sentiment possible?
This is just more proof that these folks are, quite literally, delusional.
And also that they are totalitarian in philosophy, because they seem to believe that until ONLY they get their voices heard, that their free speech will be under attack...they will only be free, in their minds, when the opposition isn't.
Is there a more unAmerican sentiment possible?
Get Tort reform and we do not need Health Care Reform
On Oct. 1 I posted a quote from Michael Hiltzik's LA Times column headlined "TORT REFORM IS THE HEALTHCARE DEBATE'S FRIVOLOUS SIDESHOW."
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik1-2009oct01,1,2715712.column
He wrote "The truth is that medical liability isn't a big driver of health costs overall. Studdert estimates the cost of malpractice litigation, in court and through defensive medicine, at roughly 2% to 3% of all U.S. healthcare spending -- in other words, no more than $50 billion out of a total annual bill of $1.7 trillion."
The cost of malpractice litigation is even lower than previously estimated in Mr. Hiltzik's column. A new report published in today's LA Times refutes the 2% - 3% estimate as being at least 4 times too high.
"The cost of malpractice Enacting a cap on pain-and-suffering and punitive damages, changing liability laws and tightening the statute of limitations on malpractice claims would lower total healthcare spending by about one-half of 1% each year --$11 billion at the current level -- according to an estimate by the nonpartisan agency." This is from the Congressional Budget Office.
"The figure is far lower than previous estimates by groups backing malpractice reform."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-malpractice10-2009oct10,0,4877440.story
I hope this finally puts to rest the straw man "tort reform" argument as a solution to high medical costs.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik1-2009oct01,1,2715712.column
He wrote "The truth is that medical liability isn't a big driver of health costs overall. Studdert estimates the cost of malpractice litigation, in court and through defensive medicine, at roughly 2% to 3% of all U.S. healthcare spending -- in other words, no more than $50 billion out of a total annual bill of $1.7 trillion."
The cost of malpractice litigation is even lower than previously estimated in Mr. Hiltzik's column. A new report published in today's LA Times refutes the 2% - 3% estimate as being at least 4 times too high.
"The cost of malpractice Enacting a cap on pain-and-suffering and punitive damages, changing liability laws and tightening the statute of limitations on malpractice claims would lower total healthcare spending by about one-half of 1% each year --$11 billion at the current level -- according to an estimate by the nonpartisan agency." This is from the Congressional Budget Office.
"The figure is far lower than previous estimates by groups backing malpractice reform."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-malpractice10-2009oct10,0,4877440.story
I hope this finally puts to rest the straw man "tort reform" argument as a solution to high medical costs.
Obama is miring us down in Afghanistan
Trying to make sense out of Rush Limbaugh's rants, complaining about being mired down in the muck of a quagmire that Bush got us into, then diverted the necessary resources AWAY from (why no “shock and awe” in Afghanistan;
Why no capture of Bin Laden at Tora Bora? Right when the Taliban and Al Qaeda were on the ropes and could have been crushed.
Instead, he is going to ridicule and call names of our NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNING PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, who is trying to be, as he repeatedly promised, “as careful getting out as we were careless going in.”
What does Limbaugh want?
A return to the shoot-from-the-lip cowboy diplomacy run by loose cannon lunatics?
Why no capture of Bin Laden at Tora Bora? Right when the Taliban and Al Qaeda were on the ropes and could have been crushed.
Instead, he is going to ridicule and call names of our NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNING PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, who is trying to be, as he repeatedly promised, “as careful getting out as we were careless going in.”
What does Limbaugh want?
A return to the shoot-from-the-lip cowboy diplomacy run by loose cannon lunatics?
Glenn Beck for president
In addition to Vivian Horowitz praise for Beck, appreciation also to Alexandra Cloney.
Together, the two compile a convenient list of some of the most hilarious Internet rumors, conservative myths, and examples of how conservative derangement syndrome prevents rational engagement with reality, ever put together in a single page!
It also demonstrates the lengths the conservos have to go through to try to avoid responding to liberals’ real issues and actual policy proposals, and thus the extent to which even they know
THE TRUTH IS NOT THEIR FRIEND
Appreciation to Vivian Horowitz for standing up for the free speech rights of Glenn Beck.
Time to stop calling for his ouster.
On the contrary, Beck should take an even more high profile role:
Let’s all get on the bandwagon and support a Glenn Beck third-party candidacy in 2012!
Together, the two compile a convenient list of some of the most hilarious Internet rumors, conservative myths, and examples of how conservative derangement syndrome prevents rational engagement with reality, ever put together in a single page!
It also demonstrates the lengths the conservos have to go through to try to avoid responding to liberals’ real issues and actual policy proposals, and thus the extent to which even they know
THE TRUTH IS NOT THEIR FRIEND
Appreciation to Vivian Horowitz for standing up for the free speech rights of Glenn Beck.
Time to stop calling for his ouster.
On the contrary, Beck should take an even more high profile role:
Let’s all get on the bandwagon and support a Glenn Beck third-party candidacy in 2012!
Glenn beck is an AMERICAN Patriot!!
What's up with writers like Vivian Horowitz and Alexandra Cloney? Glenn Beck a patriot? Is there some bad acid floating around North County? Poor old gals - they are in a tizzy!
These 2 letter writers exemplify the dismal and discouraging view of our nation being expressed by pundits like Beck and all too many pseudo-conservatives in these letters and blogs. Hopelessness for the hopeless.
A far cry from the optimism of Reagan and a self defeating attitude that will only yield more negativity. Have these folks nothing good to say about our country and our president? Or are they just sore losers who crave more failure? Their complaints seem anti-American and down right disparaging of our country.
Instead of reading Beck's books, they should try some Norman Vincent Peale. Unless they are afraid of positive thinking.
There are many important issues that we need to resolve in America. Beck's patriotism or lack there of is not one of them. America is bigger and better than Glen Beck's sour vision of reality.
I reckon I'll listen to Jeff Beck - instead of Glen.
These 2 letter writers exemplify the dismal and discouraging view of our nation being expressed by pundits like Beck and all too many pseudo-conservatives in these letters and blogs. Hopelessness for the hopeless.
A far cry from the optimism of Reagan and a self defeating attitude that will only yield more negativity. Have these folks nothing good to say about our country and our president? Or are they just sore losers who crave more failure? Their complaints seem anti-American and down right disparaging of our country.
Instead of reading Beck's books, they should try some Norman Vincent Peale. Unless they are afraid of positive thinking.
There are many important issues that we need to resolve in America. Beck's patriotism or lack there of is not one of them. America is bigger and better than Glen Beck's sour vision of reality.
I reckon I'll listen to Jeff Beck - instead of Glen.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Ha, Ha, Obama couldn't get the Olympics, he is a bust
The anti-Obama insanity is so extreme that now our not getting the Olympics is painted as a dismal failure of Obama's, a crash of his ego, as the truth being out about the so-called Messiah.
Seriously, folks, you are the inventors of both sides of your little debate.
It was you guys on the right and only the right that magnified Obama to super-human proportions just so it could use this phony image sarcastically against Obama supporters. You won't find that image on the left.
To us he reprented hope and change, but not miracles, not a Messiah (although any random American, even Sarah Palin, would look like a Messiah after Bush).
It was you guys on the right that said, sarcastically, 'they think Obama can walk on water', and then, when he didn't, they said, 'So how's your water-walker doing?'
Don't you see? It's all bull.
You all should spend more time considering that we on the left speak for our personal views. We do not repeat the latest Rush or Hannity talking points. You'd sound a whole lot less foolish if you would craft your own views instead of having your opinions crafted for you by your 'dear leaders'.
Seriously, folks, you are the inventors of both sides of your little debate.
It was you guys on the right and only the right that magnified Obama to super-human proportions just so it could use this phony image sarcastically against Obama supporters. You won't find that image on the left.
To us he reprented hope and change, but not miracles, not a Messiah (although any random American, even Sarah Palin, would look like a Messiah after Bush).
It was you guys on the right that said, sarcastically, 'they think Obama can walk on water', and then, when he didn't, they said, 'So how's your water-walker doing?'
Don't you see? It's all bull.
You all should spend more time considering that we on the left speak for our personal views. We do not repeat the latest Rush or Hannity talking points. You'd sound a whole lot less foolish if you would craft your own views instead of having your opinions crafted for you by your 'dear leaders'.
Conservatives are NOT anti-Amercian!
What conservatives have been against so far:
(1) Bill Clinton freeing American journalists from North Korea
(2) Marines rescuing Americans from Somali pirates
(3) Rescuing American automobile manufacturers
(4) Health care for all Americans
(5)An American city hosting the Olympics, costing us billions of organizational, infrastructure, and tourist dollars, which meant jobs! Not to mention the prestige and an opportunity to show the World our good manners.
Can we call them anti-American yet?
(1) Bill Clinton freeing American journalists from North Korea
(2) Marines rescuing Americans from Somali pirates
(3) Rescuing American automobile manufacturers
(4) Health care for all Americans
(5)An American city hosting the Olympics, costing us billions of organizational, infrastructure, and tourist dollars, which meant jobs! Not to mention the prestige and an opportunity to show the World our good manners.
Can we call them anti-American yet?
Liberals in Congress approved use of force in Iraq
Oooopsie, Rush jumps to conclusions (and gets it wrong) and can't remember his history (and gets that wrong, too.)
Democrats virtually unanimously supported military action against the Taliban government in Afghanistan that was harboring the terrorists who actually invaded us.
Democrats were split almost in half on allowing the authorization of force in Iraq, THE WRONG COUNTRY, in which Bush used false, fabricated, dishonest "intelligence" to INVADE THE WRONG COUNTRY and divert our troops AWAY FROM THE REAL TERRORISTS for the purpose of enriching his oil cronies in a WAR FOR OIL.
(Half the Democrats made the MISTAKE of trusting the prez, not imagining anyone could be so dastardly and treasonous as to falsify data on which to invade the wrong country, endanger our troops, purely for political and financial gain.
And Rush, if you are going to engage in character assassination, aimed at specific politicians, then please at least back it up with specific instances, examples, sources WITH VERIFIABLE LINKS.
A REAL JOURNALIST would be able to do this.
Democrats virtually unanimously supported military action against the Taliban government in Afghanistan that was harboring the terrorists who actually invaded us.
Democrats were split almost in half on allowing the authorization of force in Iraq, THE WRONG COUNTRY, in which Bush used false, fabricated, dishonest "intelligence" to INVADE THE WRONG COUNTRY and divert our troops AWAY FROM THE REAL TERRORISTS for the purpose of enriching his oil cronies in a WAR FOR OIL.
(Half the Democrats made the MISTAKE of trusting the prez, not imagining anyone could be so dastardly and treasonous as to falsify data on which to invade the wrong country, endanger our troops, purely for political and financial gain.
And Rush, if you are going to engage in character assassination, aimed at specific politicians, then please at least back it up with specific instances, examples, sources WITH VERIFIABLE LINKS.
A REAL JOURNALIST would be able to do this.
When is Obama going to return GM to the private sector
Oh come on, Rush.
I know you understand better than most the complexity of large-scale bankruptcy reorganization through a 363 sale having gone bankrupt yourself more than once.
Current, GM is owned 61% by the U.S. Govt, 17.5% by the UAW workers who actually create its wealth rather than those who made the fiscally irresponsible decisions that doomed it, and the rest by various private and foreign interests.
As to “why don’t they return it to the private sector?”
Come on, Rebel, you know these complex transactions take time to complete!
It was SOCIALIST Bush who privatized large segments of our financial and industrial sectors.
It is CAPITALIST OBAMA who is repatriating them back to the private sector.
Even your own beloved Wall Street Journal reports that they plan an IPO for next year (2010), with FULL DIVESTITURE NOT LATER THAN 2018.
Stoll, John D.; David McLaughlin (July 2, 2009). "General Motors Aims for IPO Next Year". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved August 14, 2009.
Online link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124646098696280443.html
I know you understand better than most the complexity of large-scale bankruptcy reorganization through a 363 sale having gone bankrupt yourself more than once.
Current, GM is owned 61% by the U.S. Govt, 17.5% by the UAW workers who actually create its wealth rather than those who made the fiscally irresponsible decisions that doomed it, and the rest by various private and foreign interests.
As to “why don’t they return it to the private sector?”
Come on, Rebel, you know these complex transactions take time to complete!
It was SOCIALIST Bush who privatized large segments of our financial and industrial sectors.
It is CAPITALIST OBAMA who is repatriating them back to the private sector.
Even your own beloved Wall Street Journal reports that they plan an IPO for next year (2010), with FULL DIVESTITURE NOT LATER THAN 2018.
Stoll, John D.; David McLaughlin (July 2, 2009). "General Motors Aims for IPO Next Year". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved August 14, 2009.
Online link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124646098696280443.html
Friday, October 2, 2009
Cons tell off Obama, lacks pedigree, indoctrinating school children, and death panels
Boy, the paranoid, delusional, lying anti-Obama freaks are out in force again today!
Rush refers to “Obama’s lack of pedigree” - could there be a more overtly racist basis for opposing a man? His “pedigree”? Thanks for the admission, Rush.
Glenn Beck hysterically rants: “Parents were not objecting to a speech about wiping your nose and doing your homework!” Yes, that is exactly what they were objecting to. There was not this kind of outlandish paranoia when Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush gave speeches (in presidential election years), when Ronald Reagan discussed his bizarre views on the economy and tax cuts for the rich, or when GHW Bush also offered a “homework” project that included ways to “help the president.”
And Mike Savage continues the ongoing Republican campaign of LIES because she CANNOT RESPOND BASED ON TRUTH OR FACTS. Every time they have to LIE about death panels, covering illegal aliens, taking away rather than increasing choices, “pulling the plug on granny” and all the rest, they have completely admitted that they can’t win on the issue so they’ll try to win on propaganda that would make Goebbels or George Orwell blush.
Savage's big complaint, that Obama said, “I will not tolerate....” and that makes him a “dictator”?
Why didn’t you finish the sentence, Marcy?
Because if you FINISH THE SENTENCE and put it in context, the President suddenly doesn’t sound so bad.
For the truth-averse, I will finish the sentence: “I will not tolerate us continuing to pay more for less in health care.”
It is like the cop on the beat DOING HIS JOB and saying he “will not tolerate” crime on his watch.
Rush refers to “Obama’s lack of pedigree” - could there be a more overtly racist basis for opposing a man? His “pedigree”? Thanks for the admission, Rush.
Glenn Beck hysterically rants: “Parents were not objecting to a speech about wiping your nose and doing your homework!” Yes, that is exactly what they were objecting to. There was not this kind of outlandish paranoia when Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush gave speeches (in presidential election years), when Ronald Reagan discussed his bizarre views on the economy and tax cuts for the rich, or when GHW Bush also offered a “homework” project that included ways to “help the president.”
And Mike Savage continues the ongoing Republican campaign of LIES because she CANNOT RESPOND BASED ON TRUTH OR FACTS. Every time they have to LIE about death panels, covering illegal aliens, taking away rather than increasing choices, “pulling the plug on granny” and all the rest, they have completely admitted that they can’t win on the issue so they’ll try to win on propaganda that would make Goebbels or George Orwell blush.
Savage's big complaint, that Obama said, “I will not tolerate....” and that makes him a “dictator”?
Why didn’t you finish the sentence, Marcy?
Because if you FINISH THE SENTENCE and put it in context, the President suddenly doesn’t sound so bad.
For the truth-averse, I will finish the sentence: “I will not tolerate us continuing to pay more for less in health care.”
It is like the cop on the beat DOING HIS JOB and saying he “will not tolerate” crime on his watch.
The public option is dead
Will wonders never cease? Rush is wrong, AGAIN!
U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said today there will be a "public option" in whatever health insurance reform bill comes out of Congress.
"We are going to have a public option before this bill goes to the president's desk," Reid said in a conference call with constituents, referring to some kind of government plan.
"I believe the public option is so vitally important to create a level playing field and prevent the insurance companies from taking advantage of us," he said.
Reid also mentioned the inclusion of incentives for healthy behavior, something suggested by Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/breaking_news/Reid-Final-health-bill-will-have-a-public-option-63155937.html
U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said today there will be a "public option" in whatever health insurance reform bill comes out of Congress.
"We are going to have a public option before this bill goes to the president's desk," Reid said in a conference call with constituents, referring to some kind of government plan.
"I believe the public option is so vitally important to create a level playing field and prevent the insurance companies from taking advantage of us," he said.
Reid also mentioned the inclusion of incentives for healthy behavior, something suggested by Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/breaking_news/Reid-Final-health-bill-will-have-a-public-option-63155937.html
Michael Moore challenges America
And now a word from my friend Michael Moore:
For two months, we've sat and watched the rabid right achieve the unimaginable: Derail universal health care and send the Democrats in Congress running for cover. Many have asked, "How did this happen? How could a small minority of angry people control the public agenda? Where is the majority's response? Why the silence?"
I don't have the answers to all these questions. But I do know this: I've had enough. As far as I'm concerned, Tea Bag Nation ends today -- at noon to be precise. For that's when I set loose, on a thousand screens across this great land, a movie I've made that's so relentless, so dangerous, so damning in its humor, that it will -- I can only hope -- do what no movie has done before: Take them down, take them all down, once and for all.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/capitalism-opens-today-at_b_307390.html
For two months, we've sat and watched the rabid right achieve the unimaginable: Derail universal health care and send the Democrats in Congress running for cover. Many have asked, "How did this happen? How could a small minority of angry people control the public agenda? Where is the majority's response? Why the silence?"
I don't have the answers to all these questions. But I do know this: I've had enough. As far as I'm concerned, Tea Bag Nation ends today -- at noon to be precise. For that's when I set loose, on a thousand screens across this great land, a movie I've made that's so relentless, so dangerous, so damning in its humor, that it will -- I can only hope -- do what no movie has done before: Take them down, take them all down, once and for all.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/capitalism-opens-today-at_b_307390.html
Iraq had to be invaded by Bush because it was a threat, just like Iran is now.
Rush, your analogy between Iraq and Iran is comical.
You might remember that Bush's Iraq had no WMDs, practically no army, had a dictator who had been rendered impotent, was being inspected by UN (and our) people.
You forget that the things we heard during the runup to the Iraq invasion were all untrue. That's, um, a rather significant difference between the two, wouldn't you say?
I posted recently that I was very disturbed by Iran's missiles and nuclear development and asked what people here thought we should do about this genuine possible threat. (I said that 'nuke em all' or other juvenile 'answers' were not welcome...only grown ups)
No one posted a thing. But now I see that Obama HAS forced Ahmadinejab to bend.
I guess there are those who will insist that the only response is to send hundreds of thousands of our troops and bombers to slaughter the Iranian people (Ahmadinejab's victims).
For the rest of us, it seems like Obama and our allies are doing a fine job on this very difficult front.
You might remember that Bush's Iraq had no WMDs, practically no army, had a dictator who had been rendered impotent, was being inspected by UN (and our) people.
You forget that the things we heard during the runup to the Iraq invasion were all untrue. That's, um, a rather significant difference between the two, wouldn't you say?
I posted recently that I was very disturbed by Iran's missiles and nuclear development and asked what people here thought we should do about this genuine possible threat. (I said that 'nuke em all' or other juvenile 'answers' were not welcome...only grown ups)
No one posted a thing. But now I see that Obama HAS forced Ahmadinejab to bend.
I guess there are those who will insist that the only response is to send hundreds of thousands of our troops and bombers to slaughter the Iranian people (Ahmadinejab's victims).
For the rest of us, it seems like Obama and our allies are doing a fine job on this very difficult front.
NO, NO, NO, Bush never lied even once
Wrong, Mars. You are so Left Behind. Ho hum.
A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations has found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The study was posted on the web site of the Center for Public Integrity on January 22. CPI had worked on the project with the Fund for Independence in Journalism. The report counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them, or had links to al-Qaeda, or both.
The report also breaks down who told how many lies:
Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq’s links to al-Qaeda. That was second only to Powell’s 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaeda.
The groups concluded that the statements “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.”
Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.
A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations has found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The study was posted on the web site of the Center for Public Integrity on January 22. CPI had worked on the project with the Fund for Independence in Journalism. The report counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them, or had links to al-Qaeda, or both.
The report also breaks down who told how many lies:
Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq’s links to al-Qaeda. That was second only to Powell’s 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaeda.
The groups concluded that the statements “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.”
Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.
Bush never technically lied
While Rush fusses over the technicalities of what, exactly, is a 'lie', I'll repeat that I've always preferred "deliberately misleading". There's no controversy or legalese involved, and there's not much doubt that the Bush team deliberately misled us.
I agree with most rationals that the Dems who supported the Iraq invasion before they were against it are contemptible.
Many of us had it right from the first days of the run-up. We saw the deliberate misleading and called them on it, every step of the way.
Rush can also yammer about how Clinton believed the same things, bla-bla-bla, but Bush and only Bush sent our kids there to die and kill. It's Bush's war, plain and simple.
Afghanistan, you might realize, is also Bush's war. He started it (for good reason), he messed it up, he passed it on to Obama.
Now it's Obama's to figure out, but it was Bush's action, no way around it.
All historians will be clear that Bush did Iraq and started Afghanistan, without any doubt at all. And the many efforts to deliberately mislead the American public and Congress about Iraq are, and always will be, richly and precisely documented.
The desperate attempts by con-men like Rush simply to save face mean nothing to history. The actual acts of the President of the United States ARE history.
Sorry, Rush. Go home and lick your wounds in private.
I agree with most rationals that the Dems who supported the Iraq invasion before they were against it are contemptible.
Many of us had it right from the first days of the run-up. We saw the deliberate misleading and called them on it, every step of the way.
Rush can also yammer about how Clinton believed the same things, bla-bla-bla, but Bush and only Bush sent our kids there to die and kill. It's Bush's war, plain and simple.
Afghanistan, you might realize, is also Bush's war. He started it (for good reason), he messed it up, he passed it on to Obama.
Now it's Obama's to figure out, but it was Bush's action, no way around it.
All historians will be clear that Bush did Iraq and started Afghanistan, without any doubt at all. And the many efforts to deliberately mislead the American public and Congress about Iraq are, and always will be, richly and precisely documented.
The desperate attempts by con-men like Rush simply to save face mean nothing to history. The actual acts of the President of the United States ARE history.
Sorry, Rush. Go home and lick your wounds in private.
The leftist cynics say stuff as wild as Glenn Beck, why doen't the left distance themselves from those guys?
Rugh, which leftist cynics would you suggest that Democrats distance themselves from?
Honestly, I can't think of any that are in the same galaxy as Beck. Can you?
They might be there, but I've never heard of them. Do any leftists cynics have a national cable show? Do they have national radio shows? The left not only is not as nutty as the right, it has no national forum even if it were. That is why the left does not present the danger to our democracy that the right wing nuts do.
And if they are there someplace on a lonely blog, does anyone associate them with the Democratic party the way most people associate Beck et al with Republicans?
That's why Graham felt the need to distance himself from Beck, you know.
Because to the world, Beck is a Republican.
Claiming that the left and right are identical in extremism is ridiculous and you know it.
Tell me who on the left is as widely heard or as wildly cynical as Beck?
Make a list of the uber-popular extremists of the right (Hannity, Rush, Coulter, Levin, Beck, etc etc) and then of the left (? KeithO, Maddow?) and try to say with honesty that these are similar and equal lists.
You know, and I know, that it's nonsense.
As I said, the point is not Beck et al, it's all the people that make Beck et all what they are. I'm sure there are nutjob leftist cynics out there, but you know what? No one's ever heard of them because they have no nutjob leftist cynical audience. That's the problem.
SO who are the equivalent cynics that people think of as Democratic media-leaders?
Honestly, I can't think of any that are in the same galaxy as Beck. Can you?
They might be there, but I've never heard of them. Do any leftists cynics have a national cable show? Do they have national radio shows? The left not only is not as nutty as the right, it has no national forum even if it were. That is why the left does not present the danger to our democracy that the right wing nuts do.
And if they are there someplace on a lonely blog, does anyone associate them with the Democratic party the way most people associate Beck et al with Republicans?
That's why Graham felt the need to distance himself from Beck, you know.
Because to the world, Beck is a Republican.
Claiming that the left and right are identical in extremism is ridiculous and you know it.
Tell me who on the left is as widely heard or as wildly cynical as Beck?
Make a list of the uber-popular extremists of the right (Hannity, Rush, Coulter, Levin, Beck, etc etc) and then of the left (? KeithO, Maddow?) and try to say with honesty that these are similar and equal lists.
You know, and I know, that it's nonsense.
As I said, the point is not Beck et al, it's all the people that make Beck et all what they are. I'm sure there are nutjob leftist cynics out there, but you know what? No one's ever heard of them because they have no nutjob leftist cynical audience. That's the problem.
SO who are the equivalent cynics that people think of as Democratic media-leaders?
Go Beckerheads, Go, no really, go.
I watch Glen Beck as a source of entertainment.
I watch in short spurts and rely on his inanity to keep me in stitches.
That thing on his chalk board with the Copenhagen was priceless.
Working in the word "snuff" was pure genius and the cancer sticker next to Michelle Obama's picture was racism in its purest form.
Go Beckerheads!! No really, go.
I watch in short spurts and rely on his inanity to keep me in stitches.
That thing on his chalk board with the Copenhagen was priceless.
Working in the word "snuff" was pure genius and the cancer sticker next to Michelle Obama's picture was racism in its purest form.
Go Beckerheads!! No really, go.
Bush kept us safe from Al Queda after Clinton dropped the ball
Clinton kept us safe from Bin Laden.
Using police techniques instead of invading the wrong country, he tracked down, caught, arrested, tried, convicted and jailed those responsible for the first WTC bombing that occurred just a few weeks (not months) into his administration.
Then, by focusing on Bin Laden, the Clinton administration let those to whom they delegated those responsibilities actually do their jobs instead of micromanaging (at best) and ignoring or obstructing (at worst), and were able to intercept and prevent the planned LAX and Millenium attacks and KEEP US SAFE.
Bin Laden had to wait until Baby Bush took over, ignored (and fired) terrorism experts like Richard Clarke (who had been there since Reagan), gave $43 MILLION to Bin Laden’s hosts, the Taliban (May 2001), ignored the files prepared by Clinton’s terrorism experts, and ignored the 8-6-2001 PDB.
Bush let 911 happen.
Bush (and his accomplices) LIED about the specific details about specific knowledge regarding imminent danger from Iraq’s WMD, as the basis for justifying opening a second war when we hadn’t finished the first.
Clinton did say that Hussein was dangerous and that we should promote regime change.
Clinton did NOT say that the way to do it was by invading with a hot war.
Clinton did NOT, as Bush, Rumsfeld and, sadly, Colin Powell did, say that he had detailed specific knowledge of specific sites, showing maps and pictures and saying we had confirmed intelligence.
Clinton did keep Saddam contained in No-Fly Zones and with tough international sanctions, leaving him impotent and NO THREAT TO THE U.S.
Clinton kept us safe.
Using police techniques instead of invading the wrong country, he tracked down, caught, arrested, tried, convicted and jailed those responsible for the first WTC bombing that occurred just a few weeks (not months) into his administration.
Then, by focusing on Bin Laden, the Clinton administration let those to whom they delegated those responsibilities actually do their jobs instead of micromanaging (at best) and ignoring or obstructing (at worst), and were able to intercept and prevent the planned LAX and Millenium attacks and KEEP US SAFE.
Bin Laden had to wait until Baby Bush took over, ignored (and fired) terrorism experts like Richard Clarke (who had been there since Reagan), gave $43 MILLION to Bin Laden’s hosts, the Taliban (May 2001), ignored the files prepared by Clinton’s terrorism experts, and ignored the 8-6-2001 PDB.
Bush let 911 happen.
Bush (and his accomplices) LIED about the specific details about specific knowledge regarding imminent danger from Iraq’s WMD, as the basis for justifying opening a second war when we hadn’t finished the first.
Clinton did say that Hussein was dangerous and that we should promote regime change.
Clinton did NOT say that the way to do it was by invading with a hot war.
Clinton did NOT, as Bush, Rumsfeld and, sadly, Colin Powell did, say that he had detailed specific knowledge of specific sites, showing maps and pictures and saying we had confirmed intelligence.
Clinton did keep Saddam contained in No-Fly Zones and with tough international sanctions, leaving him impotent and NO THREAT TO THE U.S.
Clinton kept us safe.
Bush kept us safe from Al Queda after Clinton dropped the ball
Clinton kept us safe from Bin Laden.
Using police techniques instead of invading the wrong country, he tracked down, caught, arrested, tried, convicted and jailed those responsible for the first WTC bombing that occurred just a few weeks (not months) into his administration.
Then, by focusing on Bin Laden, the Clinton administration let those to whom they delegated those responsibilities actually do their jobs instead of micromanaging (at best) and ignoring or obstructing (at worst), and were able to intercept and prevent the planned LAX and Millenium attacks and KEEP US SAFE.
Bin Laden had to wait until Baby Bush took over, ignored (and fired) terrorism experts like Richard Clarke (who had been there since Reagan), gave $43 MILLION to Bin Laden’s hosts, the Taliban (May 2001), ignored the files prepared by Clinton’s terrorism experts, and ignored the 8-6-2001 PDB.
Bush let 911 happen.
Using police techniques instead of invading the wrong country, he tracked down, caught, arrested, tried, convicted and jailed those responsible for the first WTC bombing that occurred just a few weeks (not months) into his administration.
Then, by focusing on Bin Laden, the Clinton administration let those to whom they delegated those responsibilities actually do their jobs instead of micromanaging (at best) and ignoring or obstructing (at worst), and were able to intercept and prevent the planned LAX and Millenium attacks and KEEP US SAFE.
Bin Laden had to wait until Baby Bush took over, ignored (and fired) terrorism experts like Richard Clarke (who had been there since Reagan), gave $43 MILLION to Bin Laden’s hosts, the Taliban (May 2001), ignored the files prepared by Clinton’s terrorism experts, and ignored the 8-6-2001 PDB.
Bush let 911 happen.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
The Cult of the Con--it's a religion, LATimes editorial agrees
I have posted several times about the Cult of the Con. Seems I am not alone in noticing our fact free cons act more like religious zealots than rationals having a civilized discussion of facts. At least one other person agrees with me. See "Politics as Religion" by Neal Gabler at the following URL:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gabler2-2009oct02,0,7817347.story
Here is a sample of what he says in his editorial:
"Conservatives who sincerely believed that theirs is the only true and right path have come to realize that political tolerance is no match for religious vehemence.
Unfortunately, they are right. Having opted out of political discourse, they are not susceptible to any suasion. Rationality won't work because their arguments are faith-based rather than evidence-based. Better message control won't work. Improved strategies won't work. Grass-roots organizing won't work. Nothing will work because you cannot convince religious fanatics of anything other than what they already believe, even if their religion is political dogma.
And therein lies the problem, not only for liberals but for mainstream conservatives who think of conservatism as an ideology, not an orthodoxy. You cannot beat religion with politics, which is why the extreme right "wins" so many battles. The fundamentalist political fanatics will always be more zealous than mainstream conservatives or liberals. They will always be louder, more adamant, more aggrieved, more threatening, more willing to do anything to win. Losing is inconceivable. For them, every battle is a crusade -- or a jihad -- a matter of good and evil."
I could not agree more with his point about the new Limbaugh conservatism being a religion, but I highly disagree that the current cons cannot be beat. They have been beaten over and over again recently in every election everywhere. There movement of lies fueling raw emotion and hate has 'no there, there' at its center (as Gertrude Stein said of Oakland). When their center collapses from hate and lies, this whole phony Limbaugh dominated 'conservative movement' will fold and fall. Perhaps then we can get back to a real conservative movement that offers ideas that can be discussed instead of lies whose purpose is solely to inflame.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gabler2-2009oct02,0,7817347.story
Here is a sample of what he says in his editorial:
"Conservatives who sincerely believed that theirs is the only true and right path have come to realize that political tolerance is no match for religious vehemence.
Unfortunately, they are right. Having opted out of political discourse, they are not susceptible to any suasion. Rationality won't work because their arguments are faith-based rather than evidence-based. Better message control won't work. Improved strategies won't work. Grass-roots organizing won't work. Nothing will work because you cannot convince religious fanatics of anything other than what they already believe, even if their religion is political dogma.
And therein lies the problem, not only for liberals but for mainstream conservatives who think of conservatism as an ideology, not an orthodoxy. You cannot beat religion with politics, which is why the extreme right "wins" so many battles. The fundamentalist political fanatics will always be more zealous than mainstream conservatives or liberals. They will always be louder, more adamant, more aggrieved, more threatening, more willing to do anything to win. Losing is inconceivable. For them, every battle is a crusade -- or a jihad -- a matter of good and evil."
I could not agree more with his point about the new Limbaugh conservatism being a religion, but I highly disagree that the current cons cannot be beat. They have been beaten over and over again recently in every election everywhere. There movement of lies fueling raw emotion and hate has 'no there, there' at its center (as Gertrude Stein said of Oakland). When their center collapses from hate and lies, this whole phony Limbaugh dominated 'conservative movement' will fold and fall. Perhaps then we can get back to a real conservative movement that offers ideas that can be discussed instead of lies whose purpose is solely to inflame.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Why do Republicans hate the sick?
Why do elected Republicans and con bloggers hate sick people?
Health care reform and affordable, dependable medical care are a CIVIL RIGHTS issue. In this country no group is more discriminated against then the ill. We are bankrupted, denied life saving health care and left to die.
The radio con men provide political cover for Republicans to discriminate against and destroy the lives of those who get catastrophically sick or injured. Why do you hate us so much.
I am sitting here today owing TEN THOUSAND DOLLAR to my son's doctor according to our health insurance company. They will pay no more on the bill, deductibles, out of pocket, usual and customary charges, patient's responsibility and other crapola are slung at my wife and I by the insurance company to explain why they won't pay this bill. Ordinarily they spend their time trying to find a way to drop coverage on him completely.
Without treatment, he suffocates to death in a matter of weeks which seems like what Rush, Glenn Beck, the other talking heads on FOX and their fellow Republicans desire.
I am disabled and unable to work. I have some of my son's same genetic time bombs that have left me 'dead' once, nearly dead many times, and unable to be in the workplace any longer but at least I can still walk and use my hands unlike my son who got a far more vicious version of the immune dysfunction.
Neither my son or I ever did drugs, smoked, drank alcohol etc. No vices. We were great students in school. We worked and earned money for as long as our bodies allowed.
So again I ask, why do Republicans hate us? What did we do to deserve your hate? Why do you guys hate my son and I? Why do you hate all the other sick people in this country as well?
And if it is not hate for the sick that motivates elected Republicans and their followers, what explains their immoral almost criminal indifference to the sick and injured around them?
And since when is noting the criminal neglect of the ill and injured in America, 'whining'? And why is America a 'nanny state' if it does what all human societies have done since time immemorial--take care of the sick and injured? My son and I may be physically sick, but you cons defending the status quo in health care, are mentally and morally sick. I would rather be us than you.
Health care reform and affordable, dependable medical care are a CIVIL RIGHTS issue. In this country no group is more discriminated against then the ill. We are bankrupted, denied life saving health care and left to die.
The radio con men provide political cover for Republicans to discriminate against and destroy the lives of those who get catastrophically sick or injured. Why do you hate us so much.
I am sitting here today owing TEN THOUSAND DOLLAR to my son's doctor according to our health insurance company. They will pay no more on the bill, deductibles, out of pocket, usual and customary charges, patient's responsibility and other crapola are slung at my wife and I by the insurance company to explain why they won't pay this bill. Ordinarily they spend their time trying to find a way to drop coverage on him completely.
Without treatment, he suffocates to death in a matter of weeks which seems like what Rush, Glenn Beck, the other talking heads on FOX and their fellow Republicans desire.
I am disabled and unable to work. I have some of my son's same genetic time bombs that have left me 'dead' once, nearly dead many times, and unable to be in the workplace any longer but at least I can still walk and use my hands unlike my son who got a far more vicious version of the immune dysfunction.
Neither my son or I ever did drugs, smoked, drank alcohol etc. No vices. We were great students in school. We worked and earned money for as long as our bodies allowed.
So again I ask, why do Republicans hate us? What did we do to deserve your hate? Why do you guys hate my son and I? Why do you hate all the other sick people in this country as well?
And if it is not hate for the sick that motivates elected Republicans and their followers, what explains their immoral almost criminal indifference to the sick and injured around them?
And since when is noting the criminal neglect of the ill and injured in America, 'whining'? And why is America a 'nanny state' if it does what all human societies have done since time immemorial--take care of the sick and injured? My son and I may be physically sick, but you cons defending the status quo in health care, are mentally and morally sick. I would rather be us than you.
Are cons rich or are they stupid?
It is not an either/or choice.
It's both.
There is a very small, very elite cabal of very wealthy, very powerful, VERY SMART elites that benefits from having poor and middle class working people work harder to get paid less and make them richer.
This is a very hard sell in a democracy where “majority [supposedly] rules” - to convince the majority of hard working people to work harder for less, so they can have more wealth.
THEY KNOW THE TRUTH IS NOT THEIR FRIEND.
The only way they can convince poor and working people to make them richer is to LIE.
Hence, the “misinformation.”
They do not need to convince everyone.
Just enough.
The suckers.
The losers.
The gullible.
Hence: the STUPIDITY.
Again, I refer to my example on the current new season of Survivor.
If you are not a Survivor fan, I suggest you go back and watch the first two episodes (you can watch the entire segments on the CBS website).
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor/?season=19
It is a study in conservative strategy.
Russell Hantz is a multi-millionnaire TEXAS OIL COMPANY OWNER.
Most of the contestants are young, struggling wannabees.
He is smart in dealing LIES AND MISINFORMATION; they are gullible and STUPID.
Russell has been open and candid in his sidebar interviews that he knows poor, struggling young people will never vote to give a rich oil company owner a million bucks, so his entire strategy is based 100% on LIES and cheating and he is open about it (to us, via sidebar interviews).
Sad part?
It works!
A couple of people, including a police officer, easily saw thru his lies.
These are like liberals, the smart people.
He simply arranged to have them voted out.
It is not a question of MISINFORMATION or STUPIDITY.
It is the combination of intentional MISINFORMATION from a few smart by evil liars, targeting the STUPIDITY of enough gullibe suckers for them to take advantage of.
It's both.
There is a very small, very elite cabal of very wealthy, very powerful, VERY SMART elites that benefits from having poor and middle class working people work harder to get paid less and make them richer.
This is a very hard sell in a democracy where “majority [supposedly] rules” - to convince the majority of hard working people to work harder for less, so they can have more wealth.
THEY KNOW THE TRUTH IS NOT THEIR FRIEND.
The only way they can convince poor and working people to make them richer is to LIE.
Hence, the “misinformation.”
They do not need to convince everyone.
Just enough.
The suckers.
The losers.
The gullible.
Hence: the STUPIDITY.
Again, I refer to my example on the current new season of Survivor.
If you are not a Survivor fan, I suggest you go back and watch the first two episodes (you can watch the entire segments on the CBS website).
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor/?season=19
It is a study in conservative strategy.
Russell Hantz is a multi-millionnaire TEXAS OIL COMPANY OWNER.
Most of the contestants are young, struggling wannabees.
He is smart in dealing LIES AND MISINFORMATION; they are gullible and STUPID.
Russell has been open and candid in his sidebar interviews that he knows poor, struggling young people will never vote to give a rich oil company owner a million bucks, so his entire strategy is based 100% on LIES and cheating and he is open about it (to us, via sidebar interviews).
Sad part?
It works!
A couple of people, including a police officer, easily saw thru his lies.
These are like liberals, the smart people.
He simply arranged to have them voted out.
It is not a question of MISINFORMATION or STUPIDITY.
It is the combination of intentional MISINFORMATION from a few smart by evil liars, targeting the STUPIDITY of enough gullibe suckers for them to take advantage of.
The cons will take back the country in 2010
you won't get an answer about the elections from the cons because they don't have one. THEY JUST DON'T GET IT!
Clinton: There Won't Be A Repeat Of '94 Elections
Bill Clinton predicted on Sunday that Democrats in Congress would avoid the political bloodbath during the 2010 elections that they witnessed during the first mid-term elections under his presidency.....
...."There's no way they can make it that bad," Clinton said, when asked if he was worried about a repeat of the '94 elections, in which Republicans took over the House for the first time in 40 years.
"Number one," Clinton explained, "the country is more diverse and more interested in positive action. Number two, they've seen this movie before, because they had eight years under President Bush when the Republicans finally had the whole government, and they know the results were bad. And--[laughing]--number three, the Democrats haven't taken on the gun lobby like I did, and they took 15 of our members out. So I don't think-- it'll be, whatever happens, it'll be manageable for the president."
All of which was not to suggest that Clinton was dismissing the GOP's capacity for exacting political blood. At another point in his interview, the former president - whose legacy was, in part, defined by the loss of Congress in '94 - smarted that the so-called "vast right wing conspiracy" still exists and has its eyes set on the current White House.
"Oh, you bet," said Clinton. "Sure it is. It's not as strong as it was, because America has changed demographically. But it's as virulent as it was. I mean, they're saying things about him. You know, it's like when they accused me of murder, and all that stuff they did. ... But ... it's not really good for the Republicans and the country, what's going on now. I mean, they may be hurting President Obama. They can take his numbers down. They can run his opposition up. But, fundamentally, he and his team have a positive agenda for America. Their agenda seems to be wanting him to fail." ...
That last sentence sums it all up! It will be many elections before the cons get even close to "taking back THEIR country". They haven't even started working in that direction.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/27/clinton-there-wont-be-a-r_n_301140.html
Clinton: There Won't Be A Repeat Of '94 Elections
Bill Clinton predicted on Sunday that Democrats in Congress would avoid the political bloodbath during the 2010 elections that they witnessed during the first mid-term elections under his presidency.....
...."There's no way they can make it that bad," Clinton said, when asked if he was worried about a repeat of the '94 elections, in which Republicans took over the House for the first time in 40 years.
"Number one," Clinton explained, "the country is more diverse and more interested in positive action. Number two, they've seen this movie before, because they had eight years under President Bush when the Republicans finally had the whole government, and they know the results were bad. And--[laughing]--number three, the Democrats haven't taken on the gun lobby like I did, and they took 15 of our members out. So I don't think-- it'll be, whatever happens, it'll be manageable for the president."
All of which was not to suggest that Clinton was dismissing the GOP's capacity for exacting political blood. At another point in his interview, the former president - whose legacy was, in part, defined by the loss of Congress in '94 - smarted that the so-called "vast right wing conspiracy" still exists and has its eyes set on the current White House.
"Oh, you bet," said Clinton. "Sure it is. It's not as strong as it was, because America has changed demographically. But it's as virulent as it was. I mean, they're saying things about him. You know, it's like when they accused me of murder, and all that stuff they did. ... But ... it's not really good for the Republicans and the country, what's going on now. I mean, they may be hurting President Obama. They can take his numbers down. They can run his opposition up. But, fundamentally, he and his team have a positive agenda for America. Their agenda seems to be wanting him to fail." ...
That last sentence sums it all up! It will be many elections before the cons get even close to "taking back THEIR country". They haven't even started working in that direction.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/27/clinton-there-wont-be-a-r_n_301140.html
Prop 13 saved California homeowners
From a Time magazine analysis (June 27,2009) QUOTE ...at the root of California's misery lies Proposition 13, the anti-tax measure that ignited the Reagan Revolution and the conservative era.
In Washington, the Reagan-Bush era is over. But in California, the conservative legacy lives on.
Before Prop 13, in the 1950s and '60s, California was a liberal showcase. Governors Earl Warren and Pat Brown responded to the population growth of the postwar boom with a massive program of public infrastructure — the nation's finest public college system, the freeway system and the state aqueduct that carries water from the well-watered north to the parched south.
When Ronald Reagan was governor, he actually raised taxes.
Then Proposition 13 shot the tires out of Pat Brown's liberal state.
Liberal legislative leaders such as Willie Brown and John Burton jerry-rigged repairs and kept the damaged vehicle running for 30 years. Now Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger says there is no choice but to complete the demolition by slashing essential services.
ENDQUOTE We look for the enemy, and the enemy is us (or at least the conservatives amongst us).
In Washington, the Reagan-Bush era is over. But in California, the conservative legacy lives on.
Before Prop 13, in the 1950s and '60s, California was a liberal showcase. Governors Earl Warren and Pat Brown responded to the population growth of the postwar boom with a massive program of public infrastructure — the nation's finest public college system, the freeway system and the state aqueduct that carries water from the well-watered north to the parched south.
When Ronald Reagan was governor, he actually raised taxes.
Then Proposition 13 shot the tires out of Pat Brown's liberal state.
Liberal legislative leaders such as Willie Brown and John Burton jerry-rigged repairs and kept the damaged vehicle running for 30 years. Now Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger says there is no choice but to complete the demolition by slashing essential services.
ENDQUOTE We look for the enemy, and the enemy is us (or at least the conservatives amongst us).
Limbaugh and Glenn Beck listeners know they are good Americans
Ditto. Ditto. Megadittoes.”
“Please do our thinking for us.”
THAT is your idea of people who CAN “think for themselves”?
Yeah, yeah. I know. That’s Druggie Limbaugh’s callers.
Same "mentality."
Guess what, I have listened to and watched Glenn Beck.
He is a sniveling, crying snake oil salesman and the only people who give him the slightest credibility are (as I described at 9:09 a.m.):
The suckers.
The losers.
The gullible.
Hence: the STUPID.
Oh yeah, he calls for no violence.
Just TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK (with no violence, of course).
Guess what: when there is a free and fair election and you want to TAKE BACK THE COUNTRY from the lopsided majority, that is violence.
When you call women’s doctors murderers and baby killers and then are shocked, SHOCKED! that someone goes and kills them, sorry, if you fall for that “who me?” look, then you are not one of the elite liars, you are their poor, pathetic victim.
“Please do our thinking for us.”
THAT is your idea of people who CAN “think for themselves”?
Yeah, yeah. I know. That’s Druggie Limbaugh’s callers.
Same "mentality."
Guess what, I have listened to and watched Glenn Beck.
He is a sniveling, crying snake oil salesman and the only people who give him the slightest credibility are (as I described at 9:09 a.m.):
The suckers.
The losers.
The gullible.
Hence: the STUPID.
Oh yeah, he calls for no violence.
Just TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK (with no violence, of course).
Guess what: when there is a free and fair election and you want to TAKE BACK THE COUNTRY from the lopsided majority, that is violence.
When you call women’s doctors murderers and baby killers and then are shocked, SHOCKED! that someone goes and kills them, sorry, if you fall for that “who me?” look, then you are not one of the elite liars, you are their poor, pathetic victim.
California's Prop 13 lead to needed property tax reform
You are half right, Rush - there was a real need for property tax reform that caused Prop 13 to be so popular.
Unfortunately, the cure was worse than the disease.
A better reform would have been two fold:
1. Split property tax rolls (and tax rates) between commercial and owner-occupied primary residences, with a huge primary exemption for the latter so no one would ever be taxed out of their home.
2. Make all property taxes progressive. Make the primary exemption level high enough that modest owner-occupied primary residences would pay NO property taxes, but that income property or exorbitant mansions would pay higher taxes on the PORTION of value in the higher brackets.
But of course Howard Jarvis was a multi millionaire COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNER.
Prop 13 was sold as, but not really written for, property tax relief for small family homes.
Again, the big lie, the rich elite MANIPULATIVE MISINFORMATION fooling the gullible victims of STUPIDITY as they vote to give the million dollar prize to the guy who is already a millionaire.
Unfortunately, the cure was worse than the disease.
A better reform would have been two fold:
1. Split property tax rolls (and tax rates) between commercial and owner-occupied primary residences, with a huge primary exemption for the latter so no one would ever be taxed out of their home.
2. Make all property taxes progressive. Make the primary exemption level high enough that modest owner-occupied primary residences would pay NO property taxes, but that income property or exorbitant mansions would pay higher taxes on the PORTION of value in the higher brackets.
But of course Howard Jarvis was a multi millionaire COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNER.
Prop 13 was sold as, but not really written for, property tax relief for small family homes.
Again, the big lie, the rich elite MANIPULATIVE MISINFORMATION fooling the gullible victims of STUPIDITY as they vote to give the million dollar prize to the guy who is already a millionaire.
You might be a conservative if...
You might be a conservative if “you accuse a those who disagree with you of being a gutless traitor” or “if you have an unhealthy obsession with Keith Olberman”.
You might be a conservative “if you’re a pro-lifer who supports the death penalty and your knee jerk reaction to every international problem is “nuke em”.
You might be a conservative “if you think attempts to conserve energy or water are the work of Satan”.
You might be a conservative “if your arguments pivot on word play (e.g. czar, climate change, Obamayomama)”
You might be a conservative “if you confuse weather for climate or science for religion”.
You might be a conservative “if you pretend you’re a constitutional lawyer because you took a business law class back in 1962”.
You might be a conservative “if you think the best diplomacy is invading a country and worrying about the implications afterwards”.
You might be a conservative “if you quote the bible in over 50% of your conversations”
You might be a conservative “if you think Obama is a Muslim terrorist who plans to return to his planet after destroying the United States”
You might be a conservative “if you attack socialism while submitting your medical bills to Medicare”
You might be a conservative “if you support Prop 8 while boasting all men are created equal” or
You might be a conservative “if you think talking about health care problems is more honorable than actually trying to solve health care problems” or
You might be a conservative“if you blame all the problems in your life on people of color” or
You might be a conservative“if you call yourself a Christian while spewing speech filled with hate, intolerance and lies” or
You might be a conservative “if you say you love America yet you hate over half the Americans” or
You are DEFINITELY a conservative “if you have complaints but no solutions.”
You might be a conservative “if you’re a pro-lifer who supports the death penalty and your knee jerk reaction to every international problem is “nuke em”.
You might be a conservative “if you think attempts to conserve energy or water are the work of Satan”.
You might be a conservative “if your arguments pivot on word play (e.g. czar, climate change, Obamayomama)”
You might be a conservative “if you confuse weather for climate or science for religion”.
You might be a conservative “if you pretend you’re a constitutional lawyer because you took a business law class back in 1962”.
You might be a conservative “if you think the best diplomacy is invading a country and worrying about the implications afterwards”.
You might be a conservative “if you quote the bible in over 50% of your conversations”
You might be a conservative “if you think Obama is a Muslim terrorist who plans to return to his planet after destroying the United States”
You might be a conservative “if you attack socialism while submitting your medical bills to Medicare”
You might be a conservative “if you support Prop 8 while boasting all men are created equal” or
You might be a conservative “if you think talking about health care problems is more honorable than actually trying to solve health care problems” or
You might be a conservative“if you blame all the problems in your life on people of color” or
You might be a conservative“if you call yourself a Christian while spewing speech filled with hate, intolerance and lies” or
You might be a conservative “if you say you love America yet you hate over half the Americans” or
You are DEFINITELY a conservative “if you have complaints but no solutions.”
Saturday, September 26, 2009
YOU LIE, there were a million marchers
A addled brained Rush Limbaugh limp brain accused me with the following "You lie." when I said there were no where near a million marchers.
Well mister limp brain, I just happened to be visiting my in laws in Fall Church near Washington DC and was in DC to witness the whole shebang. Trust me, there were no million protesters at the Capital area that day. A liberal estimation would be 125,000 to 150,000 tops. A conservative estimate of the gathering would be 75,000.
BTW, no problem flying out of Ronnie Regan airport on 091409 so I guess the million crowd did not affect flights.
Well mister limp brain, I just happened to be visiting my in laws in Fall Church near Washington DC and was in DC to witness the whole shebang. Trust me, there were no million protesters at the Capital area that day. A liberal estimation would be 125,000 to 150,000 tops. A conservative estimate of the gathering would be 75,000.
BTW, no problem flying out of Ronnie Regan airport on 091409 so I guess the million crowd did not affect flights.
Teabaggers, whatcha got?
Um, Rush, I hate to interrupt your infantile rant (I know it's fun to jump up and down screaming...I loved it as a child), but we get that you want "No" part of the government option.
Shall I take from your rant that you are putting forth yourself as your choice for the Presidency? If not, then who?
C'mon you Rush. You are swearing that your numbers are in the many millions.
OK! We take you seriously as a movement.
So, when you win and Obama and the others are given the boot, who will replace them?
I have to vote for SOMEONE, right? So do you? Whatcha got?
Shall I take from your rant that you are putting forth yourself as your choice for the Presidency? If not, then who?
C'mon you Rush. You are swearing that your numbers are in the many millions.
OK! We take you seriously as a movement.
So, when you win and Obama and the others are given the boot, who will replace them?
I have to vote for SOMEONE, right? So do you? Whatcha got?
The Tea Bag protests are real. Really, really, I mean it
One more then I'm outa here to have a great and active morning.
The teabaggers are always comparing themselves to the 60s protesters. Fair enough.
And Rush reminds us all that the 60s protesters were also screaming "Hell No". They were burning their draft cards, remember? Now THAT was a "Hell No" with cojones! They were prepared to go to prison for their principles, and many did go.
So, teabaggers, the gauntlet is thrown. Do you really mean "Hell No"?
The path of action is clear: refuse to pay your taxes, plain and simple.
Show Obama's government that you will not be pushed around any longer and are willing to go to jail to prove it.
This kind of peaceful resistance, it's called. Civil Disobedience. It worked for MLK and Ghandi and the peace movement, it could work for you! They can't arrest EVERYONE, can they? The police can't turn against good citizens, can they?
I'll wait and see if you mean it, or if your "protests" are just tailgating parties.
The teabaggers are always comparing themselves to the 60s protesters. Fair enough.
And Rush reminds us all that the 60s protesters were also screaming "Hell No". They were burning their draft cards, remember? Now THAT was a "Hell No" with cojones! They were prepared to go to prison for their principles, and many did go.
So, teabaggers, the gauntlet is thrown. Do you really mean "Hell No"?
The path of action is clear: refuse to pay your taxes, plain and simple.
Show Obama's government that you will not be pushed around any longer and are willing to go to jail to prove it.
This kind of peaceful resistance, it's called. Civil Disobedience. It worked for MLK and Ghandi and the peace movement, it could work for you! They can't arrest EVERYONE, can they? The police can't turn against good citizens, can they?
I'll wait and see if you mean it, or if your "protests" are just tailgating parties.
El Rushbo, could you clarify?
Clould you clarify Rush?
According to you, "Reid and Pelosi demonize the Republicans/Right/Conservatives any chance they get...."Now is this like what Kenneth Star did?
You assert that "White House appears to ignore the voices of dissent".....Is this like Bush's "stay the course 'cause I'm the Commander In Chief and you cannot criticize the CIC in a time of war" after Bush invaded a country based on lies?
You charge that "Reid threatens nuclear option to force Healthcare reform bill through".....Is this the same that was done twice to push the tax cuts for the rich in the early 2000's and the medicare bill?
Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page!
According to you, "Reid and Pelosi demonize the Republicans/Right/Conservatives any chance they get...."Now is this like what Kenneth Star did?
You assert that "White House appears to ignore the voices of dissent".....Is this like Bush's "stay the course 'cause I'm the Commander In Chief and you cannot criticize the CIC in a time of war" after Bush invaded a country based on lies?
You charge that "Reid threatens nuclear option to force Healthcare reform bill through".....Is this the same that was done twice to push the tax cuts for the rich in the early 2000's and the medicare bill?
Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page!
Tom DiRoma--Obama wants a socialist government
To Tom DiRoma:
I agree. What’s up with the socialist government?
They make me pay for water and sewage from their socialist infrastructure. They make me purchase liability insurance when I drive. They make me pay for Medicare (before I can use it for free). They tax me for parks and roads that I don’t use 24 hours a day. They make me pay for the army and navy even when enemy army is on our border.
Now the socialists have the nerve to suggest I purchase health insurance so I’m forced to help pay for my own medical costs. What an outrage!
I say people without health insurances (whether they can afford it or not) are socialist scum and they should just keep going to emergency rooms so the costs continue to be passed onto tax payers in the most invisible and expensive way possible.
Actually without health coverage maybe they’ll pass a little sooner, so us privileged Republicans don’t have to see their scroungy dirty little faces.
Praise the Lord.
The secret Tom is to vote Republican so us freedom loving patriots don’t get forced to pay for the social services we enjoy nor for our social responsibilities.
So organize a tea party in your neighborhood Tom and keep dumbing it down.
And oh yes, Obama is a Nazi.
(For the mentally challenged in the Kool-aid crowd, the above post was an example of SARCASM--look up the word and learn something)
I agree. What’s up with the socialist government?
They make me pay for water and sewage from their socialist infrastructure. They make me purchase liability insurance when I drive. They make me pay for Medicare (before I can use it for free). They tax me for parks and roads that I don’t use 24 hours a day. They make me pay for the army and navy even when enemy army is on our border.
Now the socialists have the nerve to suggest I purchase health insurance so I’m forced to help pay for my own medical costs. What an outrage!
I say people without health insurances (whether they can afford it or not) are socialist scum and they should just keep going to emergency rooms so the costs continue to be passed onto tax payers in the most invisible and expensive way possible.
Actually without health coverage maybe they’ll pass a little sooner, so us privileged Republicans don’t have to see their scroungy dirty little faces.
Praise the Lord.
The secret Tom is to vote Republican so us freedom loving patriots don’t get forced to pay for the social services we enjoy nor for our social responsibilities.
So organize a tea party in your neighborhood Tom and keep dumbing it down.
And oh yes, Obama is a Nazi.
(For the mentally challenged in the Kool-aid crowd, the above post was an example of SARCASM--look up the word and learn something)
Joint session of Congress is too a good place to heckle a president
To a Glenn Beck mobster:
I do believe you have acknowledged in this forum that you spent a part of your life in one of the U.S. military services. May I draw an scenario for you in response of your justification of Joe Wilson's breach of decorum.
Let us presume that your commanding officer, whatever his rank, is formally addressing all troops, NCOs, and officers in your regiment. Let us further presume that as your commanding officer is speaking, he misstates a fact, and you know that he is wrong.
Do you shout from the audience, "sir, you just misspoke!"
Or do you let your commanding officer continue his address uninterrupted, and then bring attention of his mistake at an appropriate time and in a proper venue?
Ithink that it's fine for Joe Wilson to claim that Barack Obama lies. He just needs to know when and where he can assert that opinion. At a joint session of congress, in those halls as the president speaks, is not a suitable time or place.
Or do you think that it is?
I do believe you have acknowledged in this forum that you spent a part of your life in one of the U.S. military services. May I draw an scenario for you in response of your justification of Joe Wilson's breach of decorum.
Let us presume that your commanding officer, whatever his rank, is formally addressing all troops, NCOs, and officers in your regiment. Let us further presume that as your commanding officer is speaking, he misstates a fact, and you know that he is wrong.
Do you shout from the audience, "sir, you just misspoke!"
Or do you let your commanding officer continue his address uninterrupted, and then bring attention of his mistake at an appropriate time and in a proper venue?
Ithink that it's fine for Joe Wilson to claim that Barack Obama lies. He just needs to know when and where he can assert that opinion. At a joint session of congress, in those halls as the president speaks, is not a suitable time or place.
Or do you think that it is?
95% of liberals hate cops
A Limbaugh loon stated that 95% of liberals hate cops.
What have I EVER said that would make you think I was a cop hating loon?"
May I offer the fact that you exploit police officers in your attempt to degrade liberals (as in "95% of liberal posters hate cops").
You obviously pulled the 95% from the same place you extract all your other information from, and I’m sure police appreciate your carelessness with facts that are related to their public reputation.
Personally, my brother is a cop and I actually love my brother and what he and his fellow officers do.
I suspect he'd appreciate it if you wouldn't use him and other officers as a vehicle to peddle your ignorance.
Why don’t you leave the police alone and use Beck, Rush and Hannity to attack liberals, because these guys probably are hated by 95% of liberals.
What have I EVER said that would make you think I was a cop hating loon?"
May I offer the fact that you exploit police officers in your attempt to degrade liberals (as in "95% of liberal posters hate cops").
You obviously pulled the 95% from the same place you extract all your other information from, and I’m sure police appreciate your carelessness with facts that are related to their public reputation.
Personally, my brother is a cop and I actually love my brother and what he and his fellow officers do.
I suspect he'd appreciate it if you wouldn't use him and other officers as a vehicle to peddle your ignorance.
Why don’t you leave the police alone and use Beck, Rush and Hannity to attack liberals, because these guys probably are hated by 95% of liberals.
Show me a poll where Americans favor public option
One of Limbaugh's limp brained listeners asks
.....Please show me one poll showing that Americans want a public option? PUBLIC being the key word......
Does this work for you:
Poll: Public Option Favored By 65% Of Americans
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/25/poll-public-option-favore_n_299669.html?
Here is another:
"The latest New York Times/CBS News Poll found solid support for a government-run insurance plan, or so-called public option, that would compete with private insurers. Other surveys have found similar results.
But what members of the public seem to prefer and what Congress plans to give them may not be the same thing.
For example, the Times/CBS poll asked: Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private insurance plans? The poll question was phrased generally so that it could be asked in repeated surveys over time regardless of any specific legislative proposal."
With the question asked that way, most respondents supported the idea, with 65 percent in favor, 26 percent opposed and 9 percent offering no position.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/a-primer-the-public-may-have-more-appetite-for-a-public-option-than-congress/
A "GOVERNMENT ADMINISTERED HEALH CARE PLAN" IS THE PUBLIC OPTION.
.....Please show me one poll showing that Americans want a public option? PUBLIC being the key word......
Does this work for you:
Poll: Public Option Favored By 65% Of Americans
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/25/poll-public-option-favore_n_299669.html?
Here is another:
"The latest New York Times/CBS News Poll found solid support for a government-run insurance plan, or so-called public option, that would compete with private insurers. Other surveys have found similar results.
But what members of the public seem to prefer and what Congress plans to give them may not be the same thing.
For example, the Times/CBS poll asked: Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private insurance plans? The poll question was phrased generally so that it could be asked in repeated surveys over time regardless of any specific legislative proposal."
With the question asked that way, most respondents supported the idea, with 65 percent in favor, 26 percent opposed and 9 percent offering no position.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/a-primer-the-public-may-have-more-appetite-for-a-public-option-than-congress/
A "GOVERNMENT ADMINISTERED HEALH CARE PLAN" IS THE PUBLIC OPTION.
Death caused by our NON-Health Care System
Read this and weep.
R.I.P. Kimi Young, 22, Another Casualty of Our For-Profit Deathcare System.
By Susie Madrak Sa#####ay Sep 26, 2009 1:00pm
OXFORD — Friends say the Miami University graduate who died this week after reportedly suffering from swine flu delayed getting medical treatment because she did not have health insurance.
News of Kimberly Young’s death Wednesday, Sept. 23, came as a shock to those who knew the vibrant 22-year-old who was working at least two jobs in Oxford after graduating with a double major in December 2008.
Young became ill about two weeks ago, but didn’t seek care initially because she didn’t have health insurance and was worried about the cost, according to Brent Mowery, her friend and former roommate.
Mowery said Young eventually went to an urgent care facility in Hamilton where she was given pain medication and then sent home.
On Tuesday, Sept. 22, Young’s condition suddenly worsened and her roommate drove her to McCullough Hyde Memorial Hospital in Oxford, where she was flown in critical condition to University Hospital in Cincinnati.
“That’s the most tragic part about it. If she had insurance, she would have gone to the doctor,” Mowery said.
Family members indicated that Young died from complications from the H1N1 virus, but the Ohio Department of Health, the Hamilton County Health District and the Butler County Health Department were unable to confirm she had been infected with the virus.
www.crooksandliars.com
R.I.P. Kimi Young, 22, Another Casualty of Our For-Profit Deathcare System.
By Susie Madrak Sa#####ay Sep 26, 2009 1:00pm
OXFORD — Friends say the Miami University graduate who died this week after reportedly suffering from swine flu delayed getting medical treatment because she did not have health insurance.
News of Kimberly Young’s death Wednesday, Sept. 23, came as a shock to those who knew the vibrant 22-year-old who was working at least two jobs in Oxford after graduating with a double major in December 2008.
Young became ill about two weeks ago, but didn’t seek care initially because she didn’t have health insurance and was worried about the cost, according to Brent Mowery, her friend and former roommate.
Mowery said Young eventually went to an urgent care facility in Hamilton where she was given pain medication and then sent home.
On Tuesday, Sept. 22, Young’s condition suddenly worsened and her roommate drove her to McCullough Hyde Memorial Hospital in Oxford, where she was flown in critical condition to University Hospital in Cincinnati.
“That’s the most tragic part about it. If she had insurance, she would have gone to the doctor,” Mowery said.
Family members indicated that Young died from complications from the H1N1 virus, but the Ohio Department of Health, the Hamilton County Health District and the Butler County Health Department were unable to confirm she had been infected with the virus.
www.crooksandliars.com
Friday, September 25, 2009
White roofs to save the planet, ha ha. Holden wants to kill babies to save the earth.
Rush, Each time you promise to educate someone you immediately stick your foot in your mouth. You're little more than a science illiterate trying to play a scientist on a blog.
First, white roofs do actually reflect more solar radiation than black roofs. I think Eisenhower and everyone else (except Ron) would agree. Or do you think Eisenhower would be opposed to such hard core technology as white roof tiles.
Eisenhower would probably be impressed by Obama’s science adviser John Holdren, recent president of the most prestigious science organization (AAAS president) and a highly respected, knowledgeable and experienced scientist.
Who would be your science adviser Ron, Glenn Beck, the president of the Creationist’s Club?
I suspect Eisenhower would think you’re slimy for taking Holdren’s work from 30 years ago and selling it as eugenics. Way back then Holdren addressed population problems (which I’m sure you believe are not a problem because God would never allow an exhaustion of resources) and Holdren suggested a variety of measures to help prevent overpopulation, for silly reason like preventing excessive poverty, starvation, extreme environmental degradation, etc.
He denies the wacko conservative claim that he supported forced sterilization if mothers had too many kids.
Regardless, only a science illiterate like you would mistake limiting the number of children for each mother with eugenics.
A little tip Ron, next time you want to educate someone try educating yourself first.
I have a sincere question for you Rush. Do you think it’s wise for a president to have science advisers, yes or no? If yes, why would you call the adviser a czar?
And thanks Rush for telling me I’m hung up on the“military industrial complex.” I had no idea I had such an obsession.
First, white roofs do actually reflect more solar radiation than black roofs. I think Eisenhower and everyone else (except Ron) would agree. Or do you think Eisenhower would be opposed to such hard core technology as white roof tiles.
Eisenhower would probably be impressed by Obama’s science adviser John Holdren, recent president of the most prestigious science organization (AAAS president) and a highly respected, knowledgeable and experienced scientist.
Who would be your science adviser Ron, Glenn Beck, the president of the Creationist’s Club?
I suspect Eisenhower would think you’re slimy for taking Holdren’s work from 30 years ago and selling it as eugenics. Way back then Holdren addressed population problems (which I’m sure you believe are not a problem because God would never allow an exhaustion of resources) and Holdren suggested a variety of measures to help prevent overpopulation, for silly reason like preventing excessive poverty, starvation, extreme environmental degradation, etc.
He denies the wacko conservative claim that he supported forced sterilization if mothers had too many kids.
Regardless, only a science illiterate like you would mistake limiting the number of children for each mother with eugenics.
A little tip Ron, next time you want to educate someone try educating yourself first.
I have a sincere question for you Rush. Do you think it’s wise for a president to have science advisers, yes or no? If yes, why would you call the adviser a czar?
And thanks Rush for telling me I’m hung up on the“military industrial complex.” I had no idea I had such an obsession.
Obama is an amateur in handling of Honduras problem
Yesterday, the ever amiable and genteel, Michael Savage, accused the the Obama administration of diplomatic amateurism regarding its handling of the power crisis in Honduras. I asked Michael Savage several times to explain his indictment of amateurism. Finally he responded with all the warmth that he can muster in his heart, by referring to an article of the Honduran Constitution. little did I realize that this master of vulgarity had knowledge in Honduran Constitutional law.
Today I encountered a most interesting editorial in THE WASHINGTON POST. it's entitled "Honduras Gets Messier But There is a Clear Strategy: Elections." I found the following excerpt enlightening:
"...Mr. Zelaya [the ousted president] was reduced to making hysterical accusations about being bombarded with radiation and toxic gases by 'Israeli mercenaries.'
"Such behavior ought to deter any responsible member of the Organization of American States--starting with Brazil [in whose embassy in Tegucigalpa Manuel Zelaya found sanctuary]--from supporting more than a token return by Mr. Zelaya to office.
The Obama administration has backed such a restoration (as have we) so as to void Mr. Zelaya's illegal removal from the country in June and thus uphold the larger principle of respect for democratic order in the region."
I think that Michael Savage's obsessive dislike for Obama prevents him from considering larger principles. Savage can come up with snide short insults against president Obama, but he seems perfectly incapable of any profound criticism that might substantively help the president and the republic as well. I consider Savage's negative observations about the affairs of the republic marginal at best.
Today I encountered a most interesting editorial in THE WASHINGTON POST. it's entitled "Honduras Gets Messier But There is a Clear Strategy: Elections." I found the following excerpt enlightening:
"...Mr. Zelaya [the ousted president] was reduced to making hysterical accusations about being bombarded with radiation and toxic gases by 'Israeli mercenaries.'
"Such behavior ought to deter any responsible member of the Organization of American States--starting with Brazil [in whose embassy in Tegucigalpa Manuel Zelaya found sanctuary]--from supporting more than a token return by Mr. Zelaya to office.
The Obama administration has backed such a restoration (as have we) so as to void Mr. Zelaya's illegal removal from the country in June and thus uphold the larger principle of respect for democratic order in the region."
I think that Michael Savage's obsessive dislike for Obama prevents him from considering larger principles. Savage can come up with snide short insults against president Obama, but he seems perfectly incapable of any profound criticism that might substantively help the president and the republic as well. I consider Savage's negative observations about the affairs of the republic marginal at best.
Liberals don't want necessary cost effective public/provate contracts
No Rush - you’re not following here.
Of course I support public/private partnerships and see a role for private sector contracts with the government.
It is the hypocrisy that I hold up to appropriate ridicule.
1. Your mouthpiece and sycophant, Ron claims to be a defense contractor and hold oil stocks. He supported a phony invasion based purely on lies, which benefits those who support military activity, and which also just happened to conquer an oil-rich nation to boost those alleged oil stocks.
I don’t know what his business is.
Let’s say it is making armor for our vehicles.
HE SUPPORTED A WAR FOR OIL.
Yes, now that we are there, maybe his product reduces deaths.
If we had not gone at all, if we didn’t have ANY soldiers on those oil fields - ooopsie, I mean battle fields - there would be no deaths of heroes to reduce.
2. Again, it is the hypocrisy - over and over and over he ridicules “gummint” spending, but much of that “gummint” spending that he whines about goes to CONTRACTORS LIKE HIM.
If he had either not supported the war, or at least not always ridiculed those who - LIKE HIM - benefit from public spending, the target of ridicule wouldn’t have been quite so juicy.
As for his “character,” Ron joins other conservatives who have been repeatedly, repeatedly caught red-handed misrepresenting their own sources, misrepresenting what liberals’ own blogs said, or just made up “facts” with no sources at all that others quickly debunked with valid sources.
That is not an honest engagement on the issues.
That does not reflect well on his “character.”
No matter who he is, respected, wealthy, successful defense contractor or wannabee pimply-faced teenaged geek, lying about sources is not “character.”
Of course I support public/private partnerships and see a role for private sector contracts with the government.
It is the hypocrisy that I hold up to appropriate ridicule.
1. Your mouthpiece and sycophant, Ron claims to be a defense contractor and hold oil stocks. He supported a phony invasion based purely on lies, which benefits those who support military activity, and which also just happened to conquer an oil-rich nation to boost those alleged oil stocks.
I don’t know what his business is.
Let’s say it is making armor for our vehicles.
HE SUPPORTED A WAR FOR OIL.
Yes, now that we are there, maybe his product reduces deaths.
If we had not gone at all, if we didn’t have ANY soldiers on those oil fields - ooopsie, I mean battle fields - there would be no deaths of heroes to reduce.
2. Again, it is the hypocrisy - over and over and over he ridicules “gummint” spending, but much of that “gummint” spending that he whines about goes to CONTRACTORS LIKE HIM.
If he had either not supported the war, or at least not always ridiculed those who - LIKE HIM - benefit from public spending, the target of ridicule wouldn’t have been quite so juicy.
As for his “character,” Ron joins other conservatives who have been repeatedly, repeatedly caught red-handed misrepresenting their own sources, misrepresenting what liberals’ own blogs said, or just made up “facts” with no sources at all that others quickly debunked with valid sources.
That is not an honest engagement on the issues.
That does not reflect well on his “character.”
No matter who he is, respected, wealthy, successful defense contractor or wannabee pimply-faced teenaged geek, lying about sources is not “character.”
Liberals did not like Bush's appointments,cons not silly to argue about czars
No, Rush. - you’re missing the point about what is being compared.
None of the liberals and, more important, NONE OF THE CONSERVATIVES, every complained about Bush’s number of “czars.”
THE POINT is not about the “czars” at all.
The NUMBER was IRRELEVANT.
THE POINT is the utter hypocrisy of the conservative DOUBLE STANDARD.
If they are going to suddenly get all worked up about “czars,” they need to be reminded of their own - THEY HAD A LOT AND NO ONE - liberal or conservative - PLAYED THAT SILLY GAME WITH THEM.
Disagree?
Find the prominent liberal who ever went loco about “czars” during the Reagan or Bush years.
None of the liberals and, more important, NONE OF THE CONSERVATIVES, every complained about Bush’s number of “czars.”
THE POINT is not about the “czars” at all.
The NUMBER was IRRELEVANT.
THE POINT is the utter hypocrisy of the conservative DOUBLE STANDARD.
If they are going to suddenly get all worked up about “czars,” they need to be reminded of their own - THEY HAD A LOT AND NO ONE - liberal or conservative - PLAYED THAT SILLY GAME WITH THEM.
Disagree?
Find the prominent liberal who ever went loco about “czars” during the Reagan or Bush years.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
No way anyone could have done anything about stopping 9/11
The Bush team did not take terror threats seriously as an issue, and for this history dealt them and us disaster.
My comment was about the specific August report.
Certainly, Bush should've at least banged his fist on the desk and told people to make this a high priority. He clearly did not, nor had an interest in it.
I do think that Bush and Cheney entered the White House on a mission to do things Cheney had always wanted to do, and the real world of things like terrorism were not part of the agenda at the time. What was on the agenda?
As I recall, task number one was getting the Reagan presidential files out of the public domain. No, that was number two.
Number one was spreading lies about how the Clinton team had vandalized the White House, remember?
Little did we know that these actions told us everything we'd need to know about Bush.
My comment was about the specific August report.
Certainly, Bush should've at least banged his fist on the desk and told people to make this a high priority. He clearly did not, nor had an interest in it.
I do think that Bush and Cheney entered the White House on a mission to do things Cheney had always wanted to do, and the real world of things like terrorism were not part of the agenda at the time. What was on the agenda?
As I recall, task number one was getting the Reagan presidential files out of the public domain. No, that was number two.
Number one was spreading lies about how the Clinton team had vandalized the White House, remember?
Little did we know that these actions told us everything we'd need to know about Bush.
Bush's PDB did not say anything about flying planes into buildings
Sorry, Rush, it is YOU who is caught in your LIES and your repeated DISTORTION.
Again, pardon me for being able to CONNECT THE DOTS that YOU and your FAILED PREZ failed to connect.
What is that, just a conservative thingy?
Pardon me for seeing the words “HIJACK” “New York” “surveillance of buildings” and thinking that someone might imagine the POSSIBILITY of hijacked planes being flown into buildings just because it didn’t actually use the word “airplane”?
Sheesh!
Are conservatives really THAT STUPID?
I STAND BY MY INTERPRETATION that this raised the POSSIBILITY (not the prediction, but the POSSIBILITY) of flying planes into buildings in New York.
But here is where YOU LIED, Rush:
Look at how you distort what I said!
You claimed I said that “the PDB said that airplanes were going to fly into bldgs.”
The exact words you put in my keyboard: “AIRPLANES WERE GOING TO FLY INTO BLDGS.”
BUT I DID NOT SAY THAT!
I did not say they “WILL” or “were going to” fly into buildings, YOU changed “could” happen into “WERE GOING TO” happen. YOU CHANGED WHAT I SAID!
You took my ACCURATE statement that they “COULD” (meaning possibility) and changed it to “WERE GOING TO.”
You know, it is kind of annoying to be scolded for an inaccurate statement by someone who ignored what I actually said, WHICH WAS ACCURATE, and changed it into something not accurate, and then scolded me for being inaccurate based on the false statement HE FABRICATED and then attributed to me.
Again, pardon me for being able to CONNECT THE DOTS that YOU and your FAILED PREZ failed to connect.
What is that, just a conservative thingy?
Pardon me for seeing the words “HIJACK” “New York” “surveillance of buildings” and thinking that someone might imagine the POSSIBILITY of hijacked planes being flown into buildings just because it didn’t actually use the word “airplane”?
Sheesh!
Are conservatives really THAT STUPID?
I STAND BY MY INTERPRETATION that this raised the POSSIBILITY (not the prediction, but the POSSIBILITY) of flying planes into buildings in New York.
But here is where YOU LIED, Rush:
Look at how you distort what I said!
You claimed I said that “the PDB said that airplanes were going to fly into bldgs.”
The exact words you put in my keyboard: “AIRPLANES WERE GOING TO FLY INTO BLDGS.”
BUT I DID NOT SAY THAT!
I did not say they “WILL” or “were going to” fly into buildings, YOU changed “could” happen into “WERE GOING TO” happen. YOU CHANGED WHAT I SAID!
You took my ACCURATE statement that they “COULD” (meaning possibility) and changed it to “WERE GOING TO.”
You know, it is kind of annoying to be scolded for an inaccurate statement by someone who ignored what I actually said, WHICH WAS ACCURATE, and changed it into something not accurate, and then scolded me for being inaccurate based on the false statement HE FABRICATED and then attributed to me.
Bush was really was interested in stopping terrorism after 2000 election
Bush's priorities upon being elected according to InfoPlease:
"In his first months in office Bush moved quickly to win congressional approval of his tax-cut program, as well as to halt or modify the institution of various regulations proposed in the last weeks of the Clinton administration. Many of his proposed measures were generally conservative and probusiness, as in legislation to modify bankruptcy laws, proposals to fund church-run social welfare programs, and the abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and of the antiballistic missile (ABM) treaty (see disarmament, nuclear; Strategic Defense Initiative).
In other areas, however, his administration pursued a less traditionally conservative course, for example, securing the establishment of federally mandated nationwide standardized testing for public school students.
President Bush was also unusual in assigning greater policy-making and governing responsibilities to the vice president and members of the cabinet than earlier administrations had."
Bush also eliminated Clinton's counterterrorism office because this was a low priority compared to the above.
Apart from any specifics in the Daily Bulletin in August, it's pretty clear from the record that Bush had other items on his agenda and thus turned out to be lax in homeland security.
In effect, he gambled on this not being a hot problem and lost (we all lost).
He got his tax cuts and NCLB and deregulation, which were his goals.
"In his first months in office Bush moved quickly to win congressional approval of his tax-cut program, as well as to halt or modify the institution of various regulations proposed in the last weeks of the Clinton administration. Many of his proposed measures were generally conservative and probusiness, as in legislation to modify bankruptcy laws, proposals to fund church-run social welfare programs, and the abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and of the antiballistic missile (ABM) treaty (see disarmament, nuclear; Strategic Defense Initiative).
In other areas, however, his administration pursued a less traditionally conservative course, for example, securing the establishment of federally mandated nationwide standardized testing for public school students.
President Bush was also unusual in assigning greater policy-making and governing responsibilities to the vice president and members of the cabinet than earlier administrations had."
Bush also eliminated Clinton's counterterrorism office because this was a low priority compared to the above.
Apart from any specifics in the Daily Bulletin in August, it's pretty clear from the record that Bush had other items on his agenda and thus turned out to be lax in homeland security.
In effect, he gambled on this not being a hot problem and lost (we all lost).
He got his tax cuts and NCLB and deregulation, which were his goals.
Liberals blame Bush for 9/11
I have said here repeatedly that I do not blame Bush for 911 the way some do (and the way others blame Clinton for all kinds of things).
I did say that terrorism was not a priority for the Bush team, and there is a ton of evidence for this.
If it had been a high priority, perhaps it might've been averted, but we'll never know.
Certainly when the intel about Iraq was before Bush's team, also loaded with ambiguity and partial leads and non-leads, they had no problem taking action based on these.
And I would say that in this case it was a holy disaster that they did so.
That's why I'm not crazy about retrospectively blaming Bush for not having taken more action before 911.
Yet, for all that, the fact remains that it was NOT a priority for him, for better or worse. Comprende?
I did say that terrorism was not a priority for the Bush team, and there is a ton of evidence for this.
If it had been a high priority, perhaps it might've been averted, but we'll never know.
Certainly when the intel about Iraq was before Bush's team, also loaded with ambiguity and partial leads and non-leads, they had no problem taking action based on these.
And I would say that in this case it was a holy disaster that they did so.
That's why I'm not crazy about retrospectively blaming Bush for not having taken more action before 911.
Yet, for all that, the fact remains that it was NOT a priority for him, for better or worse. Comprende?
Bush had no SPECIFIC warning about 9/11
Iceman at 3:43 p.m. continues to live in his own little alternate reality.
Hey Rush, what part of all those very specific warnings are you not understanding?
Bush dropped the ball on the numerous advance warnings about an Al Qaeda terror attack.
Bush ignored the files prepared by outgoing National Security Adviser Sandy Berger.
Bush ignored and fired terrorism expert Richard Clarke who had served since Reagan.
Bush GAVE $43 MILLION DOLLARS TO THE TALIBAN in May of 2001.
Bush ignored FBI agent Coleen Rowley’s specific warnings about terrorists taking flight lessons.
Bush ignored FBI informant Elie Assad pointing to Mohammad Atta as a terrorist.
Bush ignored the 8-6-01 PDB that inconveniently interrupted yet another vacation.
What part of “HIJACK” “New York” and “surveillance of buildings” rules out the possibility of thinking that someone might imagine the POSSIBILITY of hijacked planes being flown into buildings just because it didn’t actually use the word “airplane”?
Wow!
I guess conservatives really are incapable of connecting dots!
They just can’t accept responsibility.
EVER.
Like Rush never being able to acknowledge his many, many mistakes.
Just imagine, if PRESIDENT ALBERT GORE JR had taken his rightful place after winning the 2000 election, we would be able to keep our shoes and belts on at airports.
Hey Rush, what part of all those very specific warnings are you not understanding?
Bush dropped the ball on the numerous advance warnings about an Al Qaeda terror attack.
Bush ignored the files prepared by outgoing National Security Adviser Sandy Berger.
Bush ignored and fired terrorism expert Richard Clarke who had served since Reagan.
Bush GAVE $43 MILLION DOLLARS TO THE TALIBAN in May of 2001.
Bush ignored FBI agent Coleen Rowley’s specific warnings about terrorists taking flight lessons.
Bush ignored FBI informant Elie Assad pointing to Mohammad Atta as a terrorist.
Bush ignored the 8-6-01 PDB that inconveniently interrupted yet another vacation.
What part of “HIJACK” “New York” and “surveillance of buildings” rules out the possibility of thinking that someone might imagine the POSSIBILITY of hijacked planes being flown into buildings just because it didn’t actually use the word “airplane”?
Wow!
I guess conservatives really are incapable of connecting dots!
They just can’t accept responsibility.
EVER.
Like Rush never being able to acknowledge his many, many mistakes.
Just imagine, if PRESIDENT ALBERT GORE JR had taken his rightful place after winning the 2000 election, we would be able to keep our shoes and belts on at airports.
Rush, who has never, ever been able to document or source a single thing he has ever said (as any REAL JOURNALIST would do), has the nerve to accuse others of lying when they present FACTS backed up with the kind of SOURCES Rush can only dream about.
He responds to my specific point about FBI agent Coleen Rowley by saying that the “Example that a woman FBI agent reported her suspicions that Arabs were taking flying lessons and theat that was wrong”
Rush then says, “Liberals say that this report was made by the agent to Bush and that he ignored the report.”
In the manner of an Glenn Beck and Michael Savage (if they are even different people), Rush did not quote me and invents his own words to put into my keyboard.
Rush cannot even support his own statements, but has to INVENT and LIE and say I said things I did not say.
I never said that the “report was made by the agent to Bush and that he ignored the report.”
I simply did not say it; Rush just made that up and, as usual, cannot cite any specific date and time where I did.
Obviously, just like Glenn Beck, Rush understands NOTHING of real leadership and delegation.
I never said that FBI agent Coleen Rowley specifically made the report TO BUSH.
I said she made the report.
In fact, she made TWO reports, May
It is the failure of the delegatory chain of command of the Bush administration, who like Rush and Glenn Beck simply have no idea of how delegation or the chain of command work, that allowed the communication to break down between the sources of intelligence and the terrorism experts who were BEING IGNORED AND FIRED (such as Richard Clarke who had held that position since Ronald Reagan!)
UNLIKE RUSH I CAN PROVIDE SOURCES.
Senate Judiciary Committee hearings - testimony of COLEEN ROWLEY:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=279&wit_id=628
From the CIA:
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no3/article10.html
Bush’s own Dept of Justice report (released in 2004):
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0606/chapter1.htm
As usual...
1. Rush has NO SOURCES (as any REAL JOURNALIST would)
2. Rush LIES about what others have said
3. Rush is WRONG on the facts, WRONG on the truth. WRONG on his [nonexistent] sources
Y’know what, Rush. - since you are so CLUELESS about how to find sources, and know NOTHING about REAL JOURNALISM, I’m gonna be a real nice li’l birdie and help ya out.
HOW TO FIND SOURCES
Step 1: it is easy to find sources IF YOUR FACTS ARE VALID TO START WITH.
It’s a real bi*ch to try to prove something that AIN’T TRUE.
He responds to my specific point about FBI agent Coleen Rowley by saying that the “Example that a woman FBI agent reported her suspicions that Arabs were taking flying lessons and theat that was wrong”
Rush then says, “Liberals say that this report was made by the agent to Bush and that he ignored the report.”
In the manner of an Glenn Beck and Michael Savage (if they are even different people), Rush did not quote me and invents his own words to put into my keyboard.
Rush cannot even support his own statements, but has to INVENT and LIE and say I said things I did not say.
I never said that the “report was made by the agent to Bush and that he ignored the report.”
I simply did not say it; Rush just made that up and, as usual, cannot cite any specific date and time where I did.
Obviously, just like Glenn Beck, Rush understands NOTHING of real leadership and delegation.
I never said that FBI agent Coleen Rowley specifically made the report TO BUSH.
I said she made the report.
In fact, she made TWO reports, May
It is the failure of the delegatory chain of command of the Bush administration, who like Rush and Glenn Beck simply have no idea of how delegation or the chain of command work, that allowed the communication to break down between the sources of intelligence and the terrorism experts who were BEING IGNORED AND FIRED (such as Richard Clarke who had held that position since Ronald Reagan!)
UNLIKE RUSH I CAN PROVIDE SOURCES.
Senate Judiciary Committee hearings - testimony of COLEEN ROWLEY:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=279&wit_id=628
From the CIA:
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no3/article10.html
Bush’s own Dept of Justice report (released in 2004):
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0606/chapter1.htm
As usual...
1. Rush has NO SOURCES (as any REAL JOURNALIST would)
2. Rush LIES about what others have said
3. Rush is WRONG on the facts, WRONG on the truth. WRONG on his [nonexistent] sources
Y’know what, Rush. - since you are so CLUELESS about how to find sources, and know NOTHING about REAL JOURNALISM, I’m gonna be a real nice li’l birdie and help ya out.
HOW TO FIND SOURCES
Step 1: it is easy to find sources IF YOUR FACTS ARE VALID TO START WITH.
It’s a real bi*ch to try to prove something that AIN’T TRUE.
Southerners are not too stupid to know Obama is an American, the poll was done by Daily Kos
Rush ranted on: September 24, 2009,
"That poll was done by the Dailykos.
Wikipedia:
Daily Kos (pronounced /ˈkoʊs/) is an American political blog, publishing news and opinion from a liberal or progressive point of view."
Kos didn't do the poll. Kos had RESEARCH 2000 do the poll. RESEARCH 2000 is a respected nonpartisan firm
"RESEARCH 2000 is a nonpartisan full service research firm that conducts surveys and focus groups for advocacy groups, trade associations, businesses and over 200 news media organizations"
http://publicdiplomacy.wikia.com/wiki/Research_2000
"According to a new poll from Research 2000 (commissioned by Daily Kos), a majority of Southerners either believe that Barack Obama was not born in the United States (23 percent) or are not sure (30 percent). Only 47 percent of Southern respondents believe Obama was born in the USA. By contrast, 93 percent of Northeasterns said yes, he was born here, 90 percent of Midwesterners did and 87 percent of Westerners."
"And while 93 percent of Democrats say he was born in the country and 83 percent of Independents, the figure is only 42 percent for Republicans. A majority of Republicans either believe he was born abroad (28 percent) or don't know (30 percent)."
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/07/31/poll-on-birthers-most-southerners-republicans-question-obama-citizenship.html
"That poll was done by the Dailykos.
Wikipedia:
Daily Kos (pronounced /ˈkoʊs/) is an American political blog, publishing news and opinion from a liberal or progressive point of view."
Kos didn't do the poll. Kos had RESEARCH 2000 do the poll. RESEARCH 2000 is a respected nonpartisan firm
"RESEARCH 2000 is a nonpartisan full service research firm that conducts surveys and focus groups for advocacy groups, trade associations, businesses and over 200 news media organizations"
http://publicdiplomacy.wikia.com/wiki/Research_2000
"According to a new poll from Research 2000 (commissioned by Daily Kos), a majority of Southerners either believe that Barack Obama was not born in the United States (23 percent) or are not sure (30 percent). Only 47 percent of Southern respondents believe Obama was born in the USA. By contrast, 93 percent of Northeasterns said yes, he was born here, 90 percent of Midwesterners did and 87 percent of Westerners."
"And while 93 percent of Democrats say he was born in the country and 83 percent of Independents, the figure is only 42 percent for Republicans. A majority of Republicans either believe he was born abroad (28 percent) or don't know (30 percent)."
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/07/31/poll-on-birthers-most-southerners-republicans-question-obama-citizenship.html
Bush never got the Crowley report that said terrorists were taking flying lessons
Hey Glenn Beck - the 9/11 Commission Report is an excellent resource and thank you for providing the link.
It can be easily downloaded as a “.pdf” file and saved on your computer for later searching with any “.pdf” reading program.
So, appreciation to Beck for that.
However, it is only one of many excellent resources, and is the compilation of a POLITICAL body, and reflects certain compromises made to accommodate both Democratic and Republican members of the Committee.
Unfortunately, your big “correctamundo” to Rush misses the mark.
Yes, it is correct that Rowley (not Crowley) did not give the report directly to Bush.
Since I never said that, the point makes both you and Rush end up looking even stupider than usual.
The problem was that Bush was a lousy administrator and could not manage his chain of command, allowing these kinds of communication failures and failures to “connect the dots” (Michael Savage didn’t even understand what this meant), unlike Clinton and Obama who have been able to KEEP US SAFE by bringing out the best in their subordinates and letting them do what they are good at.
It can be easily downloaded as a “.pdf” file and saved on your computer for later searching with any “.pdf” reading program.
So, appreciation to Beck for that.
However, it is only one of many excellent resources, and is the compilation of a POLITICAL body, and reflects certain compromises made to accommodate both Democratic and Republican members of the Committee.
Unfortunately, your big “correctamundo” to Rush misses the mark.
Yes, it is correct that Rowley (not Crowley) did not give the report directly to Bush.
Since I never said that, the point makes both you and Rush end up looking even stupider than usual.
The problem was that Bush was a lousy administrator and could not manage his chain of command, allowing these kinds of communication failures and failures to “connect the dots” (Michael Savage didn’t even understand what this meant), unlike Clinton and Obama who have been able to KEEP US SAFE by bringing out the best in their subordinates and letting them do what they are good at.
What about all the Dems that don't believe Obama was born here
Poor Rush, our esteemed journalist (heh heh), read an op-ed piece in this morning's LATimes which overtaxed his journalistic research abilities and exhausted his brain.
There are six times as many Republican halfwits as Democrats.
"And while 93 percent of Democrats say he was born in the country and 83 percent of Independents, the figure is only 42 percent for Republicans.
A majority of Republicans either believe he was born abroad (28 percent) or don't know (30 percent)."
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/07/31/poll-on-birthers-most-southerners-republicans-question-obama-citizenship.html
There are six times as many Republican halfwits as Democrats.
"And while 93 percent of Democrats say he was born in the country and 83 percent of Independents, the figure is only 42 percent for Republicans.
A majority of Republicans either believe he was born abroad (28 percent) or don't know (30 percent)."
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/07/31/poll-on-birthers-most-southerners-republicans-question-obama-citizenship.html
When the Democrats screw up, the Republicans will take over again
Rush, years ago that could have been true. But today the repubs have at least three things going against them:
1. They screwed up BIG TIME. President Obama would have to be a complete failure - and that 'ain't gonna happen.
2. They have done nothing - and at the rate they are going will not have done zip for THEM to gain the trust of Americans. Americans are not buying the politics of destruction any longer.
3. The face of America has changed - the GOP does not reflect America - you can't win an election with 30%. This alone will make them an obsolete party if they continue to focus on their base and not include and embrace all Americans.
It's a good time for a strong third party candidate - but as I've said many times in the past - get the money out of politics. Until then - business as usual.
Obama certainly opposed the Vietnam War
Rush you ranted today:
"...Vietnam, a war Obama certainly opposed."
Obama was born in 1961. the u.s. evacauted all government personnel in 1975. Can you indicate anywhere during this 14 year period of obama's life that he opposed the Vietnam war?
Has he ever as an adult expressed his opposition to what the united states did in Vietnam?
Are you nuts, drunk or on Oxycontin again?
"...Vietnam, a war Obama certainly opposed."
Obama was born in 1961. the u.s. evacauted all government personnel in 1975. Can you indicate anywhere during this 14 year period of obama's life that he opposed the Vietnam war?
Has he ever as an adult expressed his opposition to what the united states did in Vietnam?
Are you nuts, drunk or on Oxycontin again?
Obama didn't get the Somali pirates, the navy got them
Hey Rush - sorry you are still have so much trouble understanding the concept of hierarchy, chain of command, delegating, and stuff like that.
Perhaps conservatives just don’t understand this, which explains much of their incompetence.
When I say “Obama” got the pirates, I don’t mean he personally was pulling the trigger of a Navy Seal sharpshooter rifle.
When I say “Obama” started an investigation, I don’t mean he was personally giving attention to details that he could delegate to his Justice Department.
When I say “Bush” ignored the warnings, I mean the administrative machinery of his presidency that allowed communication to break down and dots to go unconnected.
Remember when Harry S Truman said, “The buck stops here.”
He meant that no matter what happens anywhere in HIS administration, it is HIS administration and HIS responsibility.
Truman got it.
Truman was a Democrat.
Perhaps conservatives just don’t understand this, which explains much of their incompetence.
When I say “Obama” got the pirates, I don’t mean he personally was pulling the trigger of a Navy Seal sharpshooter rifle.
When I say “Obama” started an investigation, I don’t mean he was personally giving attention to details that he could delegate to his Justice Department.
When I say “Bush” ignored the warnings, I mean the administrative machinery of his presidency that allowed communication to break down and dots to go unconnected.
Remember when Harry S Truman said, “The buck stops here.”
He meant that no matter what happens anywhere in HIS administration, it is HIS administration and HIS responsibility.
Truman got it.
Truman was a Democrat.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
The Sudanese offered bin Laden to Clinton. He did nothing.
Oopsie, Rush, you are just rehashing old, old stuff that you keep bringing up, I keep responding to, and a few months later you'll bring it up again.
1. This was 1996, before adequate intelligence had confirmed a basis for U.S. action against Bin Laden and 2 years BEFORE the kill order and the alleged myth about not shooting the "tall man" who "might have been" Bin Laden. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.
2. As Clinton clearly states, and the "inconvenient truths" you keep ignoring, Clinton did not have a lawful basis at that time. The Sudanese were not credible contacts and we did not have diplomatic relations with the Sudanese (though they were trying to reestablish them).
CLINTON DID NOT IGNORE THIS. We did suspect that Bin Laden was a bad guy.
CLINTON TOOK ACTION. He contact the Saudi government, where Bin Laden was a citizen, and where they did have legal status to act, to take action.
THE SAUDIS, Bush's buddies, Bush's oil cronies, REFUSED TO ACT. At that point, there was no legal action appropriate for that time.
You are so desperate to obey those who pull your puppet strings.
1. This was 1996, before adequate intelligence had confirmed a basis for U.S. action against Bin Laden and 2 years BEFORE the kill order and the alleged myth about not shooting the "tall man" who "might have been" Bin Laden. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.
2. As Clinton clearly states, and the "inconvenient truths" you keep ignoring, Clinton did not have a lawful basis at that time. The Sudanese were not credible contacts and we did not have diplomatic relations with the Sudanese (though they were trying to reestablish them).
CLINTON DID NOT IGNORE THIS. We did suspect that Bin Laden was a bad guy.
CLINTON TOOK ACTION. He contact the Saudi government, where Bin Laden was a citizen, and where they did have legal status to act, to take action.
THE SAUDIS, Bush's buddies, Bush's oil cronies, REFUSED TO ACT. At that point, there was no legal action appropriate for that time.
You are so desperate to obey those who pull your puppet strings.
The pre-9/11 intel was too vague for Bush to take action, but Clinton should have killed bin Laden
I can imagine someone like Rush making the case that Bush can't be blamed for 911 because, jeeze, the info was vague and how much can a President do?
So Rush could criticize me for asking too much of Bush. But then Rush shows he is nothing but another irrational partisan: he insists that Clinton COULD and SHOULD have stopped the planners.
Rush wants it both ways. The info was too vague to blame Bush, but whatever info there was, it was what Clinton could gather.
Rush says that that vague info should've been enough for Clinton to prevent the attack, but the same info was too vague for Bush to have done a thing.
This is why it's hard to take the Rush seriously.
So Rush could criticize me for asking too much of Bush. But then Rush shows he is nothing but another irrational partisan: he insists that Clinton COULD and SHOULD have stopped the planners.
Rush wants it both ways. The info was too vague to blame Bush, but whatever info there was, it was what Clinton could gather.
Rush says that that vague info should've been enough for Clinton to prevent the attack, but the same info was too vague for Bush to have done a thing.
This is why it's hard to take the Rush seriously.
Bush did everything anyone could have to prevent 9/11
Ooopsie, Rush. (echoed by the pathetic, childish name calling of Glenn Beck) is back to telling his pathetic half-truths.
Yeppers, Rush, the 8/6 PDB was never so meticulous at to state the date or time of airplanes flying into buildings.
It warned that Bin Laden was preparing to attack inside the U.S.
Bush did nothing.
It warned that prominent buildings in New York were being surveiled by terrorists.
Bush did nothing.
It warned that some had warned of possible hijackings.
Bush did nothing.
Condoleezza Rice later stated in May 2002 (recounted in a 9-25-02 PBS interview):
“I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/july-dec02/rice_9-25.html
FBI agent Coleen Rowley specifically warned of terrorists taking flight lessons.
Bush did nothing.
FBI undercover informant Elie Assad, having infiltrated Al Qaeda cells, pointed to Mohammad Atta as a terrorist to trail, but was diverted to insignificant “wannabee” terrorists over his objection and
BUSH DID NOTHING.
Sorry, Rushbo, but just because PDB didn’t predict the specific flight numbers, passenger manifests or other details, does not change the fact that everything points to Bush’s reckless disregard of warnings that ALLOWED 9/11 TO HAPPEN, unlike Clinton and Obama who intercepted and blocked terror attacks.
Yeppers, Rush, the 8/6 PDB was never so meticulous at to state the date or time of airplanes flying into buildings.
It warned that Bin Laden was preparing to attack inside the U.S.
Bush did nothing.
It warned that prominent buildings in New York were being surveiled by terrorists.
Bush did nothing.
It warned that some had warned of possible hijackings.
Bush did nothing.
Condoleezza Rice later stated in May 2002 (recounted in a 9-25-02 PBS interview):
“I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/july-dec02/rice_9-25.html
FBI agent Coleen Rowley specifically warned of terrorists taking flight lessons.
Bush did nothing.
FBI undercover informant Elie Assad, having infiltrated Al Qaeda cells, pointed to Mohammad Atta as a terrorist to trail, but was diverted to insignificant “wannabee” terrorists over his objection and
BUSH DID NOTHING.
Sorry, Rushbo, but just because PDB didn’t predict the specific flight numbers, passenger manifests or other details, does not change the fact that everything points to Bush’s reckless disregard of warnings that ALLOWED 9/11 TO HAPPEN, unlike Clinton and Obama who intercepted and blocked terror attacks.
where is the waste in our healthcare, giving grandma an operation?
Part of the "waste" I think you are referring to, relates to subsidies paid by the government to the insurance companies to supplement the premiums.
Once a public option or single payer system is in place, these subsidies or "waste" no longer exist.
The system run by the insurance companies needs 30-40% for overhead and profit. The single payer or public option will be run on less than 10%.
Once a public option or single payer system is in place, these subsidies or "waste" no longer exist.
The system run by the insurance companies needs 30-40% for overhead and profit. The single payer or public option will be run on less than 10%.
Rep Vitter got Holdren to admit to de-population views
I’m sorry, Rushie boy, I missed the part in the questioning by PROSTITUTE CUSTOMER DAVID VITTER where John Holdren stated that he ever supported forced abortions or forced sterilizations, which is what you accused him of earlier.
He clearly supported the concept of population control through VOLUNTARY availability of abortion and reproductive CHOICE.
So please point out where Holdren supported the de-population views of others that he cited and rejected, and where he reiterated them in the responses to PROSTITUTE CUSTOMER VITTER.
Then tell us why you are trying to CHANGE THE SUBJECT.
::::::: waving wings wildly ::::::
Oh, I know, I know, I know the answer - call on me!
He clearly supported the concept of population control through VOLUNTARY availability of abortion and reproductive CHOICE.
So please point out where Holdren supported the de-population views of others that he cited and rejected, and where he reiterated them in the responses to PROSTITUTE CUSTOMER VITTER.
Then tell us why you are trying to CHANGE THE SUBJECT.
::::::: waving wings wildly ::::::
Oh, I know, I know, I know the answer - call on me!
Rush kicks liberal butt!
I hate to tell you, folks, but when it comes to factual support for claims here, I have Rush and robots beat to a pulp.
I know this drives Kool-aid crowd crazy, but when you just look at the claims and the facts behind them, I am kicking royal butt here, day after day.
Sorry. I wish you didn't resort to name-calling and hollering so much (not that I am completely innocent of these), but for truth, I am definitely winning here big time.
I know this drives Kool-aid crowd crazy, but when you just look at the claims and the facts behind them, I am kicking royal butt here, day after day.
Sorry. I wish you didn't resort to name-calling and hollering so much (not that I am completely innocent of these), but for truth, I am definitely winning here big time.
Wait till the election of 2010. Dems will be crying.
Speaking of elections in 2010 and 2012.
Let's see, the stock market is booming, foreclosures down and homesales up, recession easing, America once again respected around the world, health care reform passed.
Americans are recognizing the GOP as the party of no, the party of destruction, and just aren't buying into their lies.
Oh, and let's not forget that the GOP has and will not have done zip and can't find anyone to run.
So as far as the upcoming election goes: "BRING EM ON"!
Let's see, the stock market is booming, foreclosures down and homesales up, recession easing, America once again respected around the world, health care reform passed.
Americans are recognizing the GOP as the party of no, the party of destruction, and just aren't buying into their lies.
Oh, and let's not forget that the GOP has and will not have done zip and can't find anyone to run.
So as far as the upcoming election goes: "BRING EM ON"!
Obama is ramming change down our throats
Glenn Beck Welcome to the real world of "Change".
The conservatives have had 8 years of trickle down policies and 2 wars that have bankrupted the country. Well the rich got richer and everyone else got poorer.
The Bush administration chose to kick the can down the road to the next administration and now we are getting the changes that are necessary for the country to recover from the lack of attention or response to so many problems President Obama faced upon entering office.
You seem to feel empowered enough by the tea party crowd to cast out veiled threats to the government that you will somehow rise up and retake that which is rightfully yours. Well good luck with your Coup D'Etat Rush.
I know conservatives do not like change. They prefer that things stay the same or that change happens verrry slowly.
Well we have a President who can actually multi-task and he is able to make the many corrections of failed policies that will get our Country back on the right track.
Hardly tyranny, just a black man in office who was elected by a majority of the people and given a mandate to fix all the things that were broken by his predecessor.
Get used to 8 years of President Obama and then 8 years of Hillary Clinton.
It will take that long to fix all the toys GWBush got his hands on.
The conservatives have had 8 years of trickle down policies and 2 wars that have bankrupted the country. Well the rich got richer and everyone else got poorer.
The Bush administration chose to kick the can down the road to the next administration and now we are getting the changes that are necessary for the country to recover from the lack of attention or response to so many problems President Obama faced upon entering office.
You seem to feel empowered enough by the tea party crowd to cast out veiled threats to the government that you will somehow rise up and retake that which is rightfully yours. Well good luck with your Coup D'Etat Rush.
I know conservatives do not like change. They prefer that things stay the same or that change happens verrry slowly.
Well we have a President who can actually multi-task and he is able to make the many corrections of failed policies that will get our Country back on the right track.
Hardly tyranny, just a black man in office who was elected by a majority of the people and given a mandate to fix all the things that were broken by his predecessor.
Get used to 8 years of President Obama and then 8 years of Hillary Clinton.
It will take that long to fix all the toys GWBush got his hands on.
President Obama's science czar, John Holdren, calls for depopulating the Earth
- Rush Limbaugh continues to humiliate himself today as he did yesterday, trying to somehow link a low level science appointee (John Holdren) with the really dishonest claim that Holdren advocated or supported forced abortion or forced sterilization.
As we saw yesterday when Rush got caught red-handed quoting lengthy passages that all came from one chapter in a book about population, from THIRTY TWO (32) years ago, of which the scientist was the third-billed contributor, the passages were all from a chapter in which the authors discussed some of the approaches others were suggesting, before rejecting them in favor of merely supporting the availability of VOLUNTARY birth control and the right of women to make that choice.
Citing passages without noting the authors’ rejection of them is the same as if I were to note that Rush Limbaugh cited the pro-Chinese view and then claimed that proved they supported it, without noting their subsequent statements of opposition.
[But ooopsie, Rush did not even provide any statements of opposition!
Just quoted directly from the parts of the book he claimed represented the authors’ views]
So we see that Rush, in a further display of his dishonesty is drawing from other sources that he is nt citing.
All the way around, conservatives are, once again, forced to base their entire position on LIES proving that even they know that
THE TRUTH IS NOT THEIR FRIEND.
In any case, Limbaugh today goes on from this lying, dishonest premise, to claim that liberals (or “progressives,” - whatever they’re calling us these days) do not support personal liberty, only dictatorship.
No, it is those who OPPOSE CHOICE who OPPOSE FREEDOM.
Anyone who takes a position that the “gummint” should make personal choices for a woman essentially agrees with the Chinese dictators that the “gummint” should make those choices; their only beef is that, in China’s case, the “gummint” is making a different choice than they want.
But it is still about the nanny “gummint” making your personal, moral, medical, religious and relatinship choices.
Liberals are liars and ignorant, too.
More of the usual combinationn of IGNORANCE and LIES from Michael Savage.
1. He is obviously ignorant of the meaning of COLA in Social Security. It stands for “Cost Of Living Adjustment.” In an inflationary cycle, it means values increase; in a deflationary recession cycle, it means that values do not go up - in fact, if benefits were truly indexed to inflation/deflation, they would actually be reduced and, if they are not, such benefits might actually be increased in real dollar values.
2. The details on Medicare, as with all details of health care reform, are still in flux. Perhaps Veritruthiness could be more specific and cite the specific proposal, with reference, he is referring to.
3. OUTRIGHT LIE. This has been asked repetitively, over and over, and has been ANSWERED.
There was no “six month” promise, ESPECIALLY on Afghanistan, since the President said during the campaign there should be an orderly withdrawal from IRAQ over 16-18 months (NOT SIX), and that they should be moved to where Al Qaeda is - in AFGHANISTAN/PAKISTAN.
Since this has been repeatedly brought to Savage's attention, with a request for a source to backup his claim which HE CANNOT PROVIDE, the repetition herewith is an INTENTIONAL LIE.
But then, as we have seen, every time a conservative has to LIE about liberals' views, they are just proving that they cannot respond to actual liberals' views and that even they know
THE TRUTH IS NOT THEIR FRIEND
Someone who uses a fake radio name being caught in direct LIES over and over and over is just like the used car salesman who calls himself “Honest Joe” and says, “trust me.”
1. He is obviously ignorant of the meaning of COLA in Social Security. It stands for “Cost Of Living Adjustment.” In an inflationary cycle, it means values increase; in a deflationary recession cycle, it means that values do not go up - in fact, if benefits were truly indexed to inflation/deflation, they would actually be reduced and, if they are not, such benefits might actually be increased in real dollar values.
2. The details on Medicare, as with all details of health care reform, are still in flux. Perhaps Veritruthiness could be more specific and cite the specific proposal, with reference, he is referring to.
3. OUTRIGHT LIE. This has been asked repetitively, over and over, and has been ANSWERED.
There was no “six month” promise, ESPECIALLY on Afghanistan, since the President said during the campaign there should be an orderly withdrawal from IRAQ over 16-18 months (NOT SIX), and that they should be moved to where Al Qaeda is - in AFGHANISTAN/PAKISTAN.
Since this has been repeatedly brought to Savage's attention, with a request for a source to backup his claim which HE CANNOT PROVIDE, the repetition herewith is an INTENTIONAL LIE.
But then, as we have seen, every time a conservative has to LIE about liberals' views, they are just proving that they cannot respond to actual liberals' views and that even they know
THE TRUTH IS NOT THEIR FRIEND
Someone who uses a fake radio name being caught in direct LIES over and over and over is just like the used car salesman who calls himself “Honest Joe” and says, “trust me.”
Ignore the past and be condemned to relive it
Rush is correct that “those who ignore history will have to relive it” (a mangling of the quote by George Santayana - born in Spain and lifelong Spanish citizen - perhaps Rush does not understand that merely speaking Spanish does not create a monolithic sameness - there is huge difference between Mexicans, Cubans, South Americans and European Spanish - you’re welcome, Rush, I’m here to educate on subjects about which you apparently know so little).
The correct statement is, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," from “Reason in Common Sense,” which was Volume I of his 1905 series “The Life of Reason,” written in English.
But then, we already knew that Rush is not so good with sources, as any REAL journalist would be.
The real point, however, is this: Clinton and Obama learned from the past and KEPT US SAFE.
Frat boy Bush came to the White House, ignored the terror files, ignored his own terror advisors, ignored repeated warnings, and allowed 9/11 to happen.
Look at the record - the past - that Raoul wants to “ignore” or “cannot remember”:
Clinton:
1. The 1993 WTC attack happened FIVE WEEKS (not 8 months) into the Clinton presidency.
HE CAUGHT THEM ALL and those who are still alive are all still in Federal prison!
2. Clinton quickly mastered the intricacies of Al Qaeda terrorism and developed extensive intelligence. Clinton intercepted and prevented the planned LAX and Millennium attacks. He had a standing KILL order on Bin Laden (contrary to other conservative lies and myths).
3. Clinton’s National Security Advisor Sandy Berger turned over all the files and data to Bush’s incoming NSA Condoleezza Rice, who PROMPTLY IGNORED THEM and never touched them until after 9/11.
Obama:
1. Barack Obama got the Somali Pirates. Obama made the call. Obama delegated to those on the scene instead of micromanaging from an “undisclosed location.”
2. Barack Obama intercepted the planned Al Qaeda attacks by Najibullah Zazi, his father Mohammed Wali Zazi and New York Imam Ahmad Wais Afzali.
Bush:
1. Rejected warnings from top terror advisors: Richard Clarke, the top counterinsurgency expert, who had been serving through Reagan, Daddy Bush and Clinton, asked to meet with Bush regarding urgent terror intelligence within a week of Bush’s taking office. Bush ignored him. Clarke repeatedly tried to meet with Bush and was rebuffed, the last time ONE WEEK before 9/11.
2. Bush gave $43 MILLION DOLLARS to the Taliban May 17 2001, even after we knew they had blown up the Buddhist shrines and were persecuting women.
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanistan.aid/
3. FBI agents have testified of warning of known Islamic terrorists (including several who were actually involved in 9/11) in flight schools and BUSH IGNORED THEM. Specifically, FBI agent Coleen Rowley submitted formal warnings that were IGNORED.
4. FBI undercover informant Elie Assad, having infiltrated Al Qaeda cells, pointed to Mohammad Atta as a terrorist to trail, but was diverted to insignificant “wannabee” terrorists over his objection.
5. Bush got a very specific Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) on August 6, 2001, which specified that Bin Laden was planning an attack inside the United States that could possibly include flying aircraft into buildings. Bush was on vacation and IGNORED IT. (Condoleezza Rice would later ask how anyone could have expected terrorists to fly planes into buildings.)
6. After the attacks, Bush promised to get Bin Laden “dead or alive.”
Bush is gone.
OSAMA BIN LADEN is STILL ON THE LOOSE.
The correct statement is, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," from “Reason in Common Sense,” which was Volume I of his 1905 series “The Life of Reason,” written in English.
But then, we already knew that Rush is not so good with sources, as any REAL journalist would be.
The real point, however, is this: Clinton and Obama learned from the past and KEPT US SAFE.
Frat boy Bush came to the White House, ignored the terror files, ignored his own terror advisors, ignored repeated warnings, and allowed 9/11 to happen.
Look at the record - the past - that Raoul wants to “ignore” or “cannot remember”:
Clinton:
1. The 1993 WTC attack happened FIVE WEEKS (not 8 months) into the Clinton presidency.
HE CAUGHT THEM ALL and those who are still alive are all still in Federal prison!
2. Clinton quickly mastered the intricacies of Al Qaeda terrorism and developed extensive intelligence. Clinton intercepted and prevented the planned LAX and Millennium attacks. He had a standing KILL order on Bin Laden (contrary to other conservative lies and myths).
3. Clinton’s National Security Advisor Sandy Berger turned over all the files and data to Bush’s incoming NSA Condoleezza Rice, who PROMPTLY IGNORED THEM and never touched them until after 9/11.
Obama:
1. Barack Obama got the Somali Pirates. Obama made the call. Obama delegated to those on the scene instead of micromanaging from an “undisclosed location.”
2. Barack Obama intercepted the planned Al Qaeda attacks by Najibullah Zazi, his father Mohammed Wali Zazi and New York Imam Ahmad Wais Afzali.
Bush:
1. Rejected warnings from top terror advisors: Richard Clarke, the top counterinsurgency expert, who had been serving through Reagan, Daddy Bush and Clinton, asked to meet with Bush regarding urgent terror intelligence within a week of Bush’s taking office. Bush ignored him. Clarke repeatedly tried to meet with Bush and was rebuffed, the last time ONE WEEK before 9/11.
2. Bush gave $43 MILLION DOLLARS to the Taliban May 17 2001, even after we knew they had blown up the Buddhist shrines and were persecuting women.
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanistan.aid/
3. FBI agents have testified of warning of known Islamic terrorists (including several who were actually involved in 9/11) in flight schools and BUSH IGNORED THEM. Specifically, FBI agent Coleen Rowley submitted formal warnings that were IGNORED.
4. FBI undercover informant Elie Assad, having infiltrated Al Qaeda cells, pointed to Mohammad Atta as a terrorist to trail, but was diverted to insignificant “wannabee” terrorists over his objection.
5. Bush got a very specific Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) on August 6, 2001, which specified that Bin Laden was planning an attack inside the United States that could possibly include flying aircraft into buildings. Bush was on vacation and IGNORED IT. (Condoleezza Rice would later ask how anyone could have expected terrorists to fly planes into buildings.)
6. After the attacks, Bush promised to get Bin Laden “dead or alive.”
Bush is gone.
OSAMA BIN LADEN is STILL ON THE LOOSE.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Catholic Online calls for RICO investigation of ACORN
I correctly noted that the allegations have been responded to with allegations of fraud in editing.
At this point EVERYTHING is an allegation.
The point is that many are calling for the death penalty for ACORN without giving them a fair chance to present their evidence in response.
And especially as to official organizational policies as opposed to rogue “loose cannon” individuals.
Even CONSERVATIVE columnist Saunders - while (like me and many liberals) is saying, essentially, Hey, not so fast - let’s get the facts in first.
In contrast, there are concluded criminal and civil trials that have PROVED direct, OFFICIAL policies of the Catholic Church complicit in protecting and harboring CHILD MOLESTERS and coverups of serious felonies and obstruction of justice that is ongoing.
Do you join me in stating whatever standard is applied to ACORN should be applied to subsidiaries of the Catholic Church that receive any public funds?
Do you join me is saying that, if Catholic Online is going to call for a RICO investigation of ACORN, they should be even handed and call for a RICO investigation of the Catholic Church’s OFFICIAL POLICIES of harboring, protecting and obstructing?
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=34434
At this point EVERYTHING is an allegation.
The point is that many are calling for the death penalty for ACORN without giving them a fair chance to present their evidence in response.
And especially as to official organizational policies as opposed to rogue “loose cannon” individuals.
Even CONSERVATIVE columnist Saunders - while (like me and many liberals) is saying, essentially, Hey, not so fast - let’s get the facts in first.
In contrast, there are concluded criminal and civil trials that have PROVED direct, OFFICIAL policies of the Catholic Church complicit in protecting and harboring CHILD MOLESTERS and coverups of serious felonies and obstruction of justice that is ongoing.
Do you join me in stating whatever standard is applied to ACORN should be applied to subsidiaries of the Catholic Church that receive any public funds?
Do you join me is saying that, if Catholic Online is going to call for a RICO investigation of ACORN, they should be even handed and call for a RICO investigation of the Catholic Church’s OFFICIAL POLICIES of harboring, protecting and obstructing?
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=34434
Malpractice reform would cut our medical costs
The malpractice punitive awards are individually large, but they are a VERY small part of our health care costs. The reactions do add up significantly; the malpractice insurance premiums AND the defensive medicine practices are costly.
Does it ever occur to anyone that these defensive medical practices are what makes us think our medical care is the best? It's not, but it can look like it because of the extensive tests and procedures we can throw at any problem. Or perceived possible future problem. The lack of a problem, the successful preventative care more common in better health care systems is harder to measure.
When reality hits, and we see that our country's health care system is 37th best, it's hard to see. Just because you can't (or won't) see it, doesn't mean it's not there.
A national single payer - Medicare for All - would almost eliminate the malpractice problem, as most gov paid would be about remediation, fixing, and accommodating any unfortunate happenstance. I can't believe that that's scary to anyone.
Does it ever occur to anyone that these defensive medical practices are what makes us think our medical care is the best? It's not, but it can look like it because of the extensive tests and procedures we can throw at any problem. Or perceived possible future problem. The lack of a problem, the successful preventative care more common in better health care systems is harder to measure.
When reality hits, and we see that our country's health care system is 37th best, it's hard to see. Just because you can't (or won't) see it, doesn't mean it's not there.
A national single payer - Medicare for All - would almost eliminate the malpractice problem, as most gov paid would be about remediation, fixing, and accommodating any unfortunate happenstance. I can't believe that that's scary to anyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
