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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
