I noticed old Fidel (Still Kicking) Castro weighed in with an observation of the Republican primary. This was after Newt and Romney made predictions of his afterlife destination. I guess they would know all about that, as they dream up exemptions to that rich man through the eye of the needle deal.
Some of you may remember our aging hirsute bully to the South. We've been punishing and isolating Cuba for decades because Castro is a "bad commie", as opposed to the "good commies" like the Chinese.
Speaking of bullies, he and Rush Limbaugh have more in common than huge authoritarian egos. They have both been on the cover of Cigar Aficionado magazine.
Anyway, Castro chimed in with this asssesment of our roadshow clown contest:
“The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is—and I mean this seriously—the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been.”
Tempting as it may be to agree with his sentiment, I would still say he's off the mark.
While it is certainly true the candidates pander to the idiocy and ignorance of their radical fringe base, the candidates themselves are more conniving creatures than fools.
What we have are an aristocrat, a theocrat, an autocrat, and a token libertarian vying for the job of gutting and disabling government of, by and for the people, and channeling more power and big money to Big Money.
This is the core of what "conservatism" is in American politics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
185 comments:
My first thought was to take issue with the labels:
aristocrat, a theocrat, an autocrat, and a token libertarian
But the fact that I immediately recognized to which candidate each label refers, they must not have been too far off.
It looks like the republican field is full of crat.
John,
And they're all plutocrats working for minority rule.
Jerry,
And we note there's a "rat" in all of them.
One thing none of them have done is round up political prisoners and have them killed... which is more than Castro can say.
Too bad no one but a bullet in his brain 30 years ago.
President Obama panders to the idiocy and ignorance of his radical fringe base. And I quote the first Black American President we need an America were "we make stuff and sell stuff all over the world".
Pure rocket science! And to think it only took him 3 years in office to figure that out.
No wonder his grades are sealed.
Castro's predecessor, Batista (sp?), was just as brutal a dictator as Castro. But he was a rightwing dictator, which made him part of the "Free World," an American ally.
'the candidates themselves are more conniving creatures than fools.'
well said, and sadly, true.
Free0352, chimed in with his usual boisterous bravado by stating...
"One thing none of them have done is round up political prisoners..."
No, only recent presidents have done that, and under the guise of calling them "enemy combatants". My inclination is to think that the aristocrat, the theocrat, the autocrat, and even possibly the token libertarian, all hope to one day be able to do the same.
Tom Harper corrected stated...
"Castro's predecessor, Batista (sp?), was just as brutal a dictator as Castro. But he was a rightwing dictator, which made him part of the 'Free World', an American ally."
Yeah, the reich-wingers love their fascist dictators, don't they? They've propped 'em up all around the world for decades, and then cry foul when the people revolt.
Jefferson's Guardian
U going to be leafing the charge at the next revolt?
Jefferson's Guardian has A BLOG?
OMG, And no one posts on it?
This "calls for tough legislation"
Lester the Nightfly.
Jefferson,
Please link to a list of names who those political prisoners are. If you really want I can get you the names of thousands of Cubans who were executed but - I mean really - why bother? Everyone knows about them, about the Cuban gulags, the purges. But hey... at least in Cuba if you're an inner party member you get great free health care right? To compare anything that has happened in this country to what happened to the Cubans is like saying "Oh it was just as bad that time a little kid dug up my flowers as when you got gang raped. It's worse really!"
It's so completely insane a point to make the fact you're making it does more to give the reader an easy character judgement of you than anything I could ever wright. Just like all your 9-11 was an inside job garbage does. You like Cuba so much? Go live there. I bet you come back a Libertarian. Most people who experience communism want the exact opposite of it as soon as possible.
"enemy combatants" = political prisoners!
I doubt you would know either even if they ripped your bong out of your pot stained hands.
Dave, aristocrats, theocrats, autocrats and libertarians everywhere probably don't appreciate your likening them to the GOP's traveling clown troupe. Who can blame them? ;)
Free0352 reacted angrily when I compared the treatment of "enemy combatants" to that of Cuban political prisoners, with the following...
"You like Cuba so much?"
Really, I don't see the connection. I never even mentioned Cuba, much less indicated a favorable account of the place...or its government.
Try again, big boy...
I've provided this based upon your following request...
"Please link to a list of names who those political prisoners are."
This doesn't include high-profile individuals such as Jose Padilla or Bradley Manning, and I suspect this list has grown dramatically since this country's decline into draconian times (i.e., post-Patriot Act). It'll get even bigger with the new NDAA that's soon to take effect.
You just liked me a list of OSW kids who got arrested for major crimes like vagrancy and were released or ELF wana be eco-terrorists for burning down condos. These are authentic criminals, most of them petty criminals who did like 4 seconds in jail.
As for Paddila and Manning, hang them. Especially Manning, as he is a spy.
- Which I'm sure you're excited to hear me say because you think it proves something. So I'll play. I'm make it super clear. If Bradley Manning was in front of me RIGHT NOW I would kill him. Myself. Fuck his trial, I have friends who are dead because of him. How would you like their names?
Welcome to American Gulag - Prison News
Saturday, January 28 2012 @ 09:19 AM CST
Updated list of North American Political Prisoners & Prisoner of War (January 2005) From Link provided by JG.
I don't see any of the OWS staff listed, WTF, I thought they were down for the cause, you know, power to the people, etc!!(right fist held in air while head bowed, you get the picture I'm sure)
That list of supposed political prisoners is from frigging 2005!!
I say let them all go free with one condition, that they are ALL under house arrest in JG's neighborhood. Let's see how "political" they really are!
Free0352, in a curt and unusually short manner, you erroneously replied with...
"You just liked [sic] me a list of OSW kids who got arrested for major crimes like vagrancy and were released or ELF wana [sic] be eco-terrorists for burning down condos.
OSW kids? Did you check the date of the list I provided? Apparently not.
Obviously you never bothered to even scan the document. That, or your reading and comprehension skills are worse than I thought.
JG,
Better refinance your loan, cause the plan is to release all those poor political prisoners and put them under house arrest at you home.
Put you money where your mouth is or shut up about how rotten America and Free is. Or are you like all other liberals, happy to spend others money or regulate others lives, but cry if you feel impinged on by the same powers/govt. you demand they enforce liberal actions.
So I see you're a stanch proponent of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments
My principles go right out the window when you get people I care about killed. Or in the case of some of my "lucky" friends who just lost limbs. Its not intellectually consistent and I could care less. I'd pull his aorta out of his torso and strangle him with it. I had to look at the consequences, the widows and the orphans - all because some little boy wanted his 15 minutes of fame and was butt hurt the Army thought he was a shit bag. He's a spy and a traitor it the truest sense of the word. Not in the fake "You're against the war so you're a traitor" BS sense but in the "You have valuable information that got civilians and Soldiers killed" sense. And for no other reason that bizzare ego.
Now as for Okijim, you miss my point and get it at the same time. There is a big difference for being arrested for trespassing and getting out of jail like 3 minutes later and being in one of Castro's gulags. I double dare you to go to Little Havana in Miami and make the comparison. They'll shank you.
Free,
How many did Manning get killed?
The truth is, George W. Bush got people you cared about killed.
By the thousands.
Oops. No nuklular aluminum tubes or biological labs to show for it either. Just a trillion plus more added to the debt that we must pay. Tax cuts for the rich and the wars will soon amount to almost half the public debt.
http://www.offthechartsblog.org/what%E2%80%99s-driving-projected-debt/
Free
'Now as for Okijim'
oh, how condescending!
yes. I got your point. "Vagrancy is the gateway crime to Genocide!"
'Little Havana in Miami'
good food! Sandwiches are great..so was the beans and rice.
Earlier this week, Stimulus beneficiary Evergreen Energy bit the dust. Then, Ener1, a manufacturer of batteries for electric vehicles and recipient of Stimulus largesse, filed for bankruptcy. And today, the Las Vegas Sun reports that Amonix, Inc., a manufacturer of solar panels that received $5.9 million from the Porkulus, will cut two-thirds of its workforce, about 200 employees, only seven months after opening a factory in Nevada.
Mr. President, are you still sure you want to “double down” on renewable energy giveaways?
How many did Manning get killed?
Hundreds. More wounded. For example, he leaked reports that told the Taliban certain types of IEDs were more effective against our systems than others. Logically after they read that, they started using more of those types of IEDs. Other reports that were leaked had our agents names on them, and they were in turn assassinated by the Taliban. Without they intelligence they provided, troops were often totally lacking human intelligence in some areas.
Bradley Manning was a Soldier, and he betrayed the Army and his fellow Soldiers. I wish I believed in a hell, so I could imagine him going there when he dies.
As for George Bush, he never gave intelligence vicariously to the Taliban the way Bradley Manning did.
I'll tell you where I do blame Bush, he should have followed through when he said there was no where for AL'Queda to hide. Had he done that, the war would be over and we'd be stabilizing Pakistan. Obama's willingness to operate in Pakistan is a step forward and a pleasant surprise... but more is needed. I think we can all agree Pakistan isn't one of our allies or even neutral anymore when it comes to this conflict.
As for fighting in Afghanistan after 9-11, even Obama agrees with that decision and he himself (rightly) escalated the mission.
Free0352, you mentioned...
"Had he done that [Bush pursued al-Qaeda into Pakastan], the war would be over and we'd be stabilizing Pakistan."
Over? No way! Haven't you heard? Permanent war is American policy. I'm surprised you haven't come to grips with this fact. Or, you have, and you're in full agreement. War is big business.
This country will keep invading other countries until there are no more to conquer. Iran's next, and I guarantee there will be a some false-flag coming this year to provoke it, just like 9/11 was the provocation for invading and occupying Iraq. Just wait and see.
"Obama's willingness to operate in Pakistan is a step forward and a pleasant surprise... but more is needed."
Sure! It's great job security for you, huh? Socialism's wonderful when it benefits you!
Obama's not a surprise to me. He's just another neo-con -- dressed in traditional party clothing. He's a corporatist extraordinaire!
"As for fighting in Afghanistan after 9-11, even Obama agrees with that decision and he himself (rightly) escalated the mission."
Again, his actions are no surprise to me. Using an old cliché your (grand)mother possibly used, he knows what side his bread is buttered.
Sure! It's great job security for you, huh? Socialism's wonderful when it benefits you! @ JG
OMG you really are as thick as a brick.
Free,
I didn't know Manning got hundreds killed. The Taliban had no way, other than by Manning, to assess the effectiveness of their attacks? Curious.
What were the names released and who released them? Where are the reports of their deaths? Manning didn't publish anything as far as I know. I thought the BBC and Wikileaks redacted names of vulnerable people.
Would you indicate how your assertions can be verified? I would understand your rage better if the things you claim were true.
okjimm,
I also learned to love Cuban food in Miami. Do you suppose we can thank Castro for at least that?
And thank God that stupid embargo failed to keep the Buena Vista Social Club out of the US.
What better proof that music unites people, while politics and politicians divide them?
(Isn't that right, fellow Deadhead Ann Coulter?)
Aw, now I ruined it for you, Ann. Free's gonna think you're a damn hippie and wish you were dead.
Bueno Vista ?! oh, great album!
You, or others, may also like Ry Cooder's new album..."pull up some dust and sit down...
http://www.nonesuch.com/albums/pull-up-some-dust-and-sit-down
has a great track, "No Banker Left Behind" ..has an Woody Guthrie feel.
Nice Cuban restaurants in Tampa, too, and, surprisingly found a really nice one in Minneapolis.
oh oh... this thread has really gotten off topic... what ill Free think?
This is all Castro's fault.
The Taliban had no way, other than by Manning, to assess the effectiveness of their attacks? Curious.
I don't want to put exact details on the internet (the way Manning did) for obvious reasons. I would hate to have someone get hurt because my loose lips on this blog sank a ship - so to speak. Lets just say having access to thousands of after action reports of patrols, contacts, indirect fire attacks and IED strikes was a wonderful tool for insurgents to help them find better ways to kill us and improve their tactics.
I thought the BBC and Wikileaks redacted names of vulnerable people.
A few to say they did, but many died. We have no idea how many because some are still on the run and may or may not make it. Also, there were instances where family members were targeted as vengance attacks.
Would you indicate how your assertions can be verified?
Go ask the military. They've said so many times. I'll give you some names of people I know.
Brad Musilino
Nate King
These are two examples of guys who lost limbs on improved IEDs, the improvements derived from the Taliban reading after action reports and using them to improve the way they set in IEDs. Musilino lost both his legs, and King is dead.
As for sources on this - here is an example.
UK Daily Mail
Link text
Boy, that Castro. He sure could fry a mean plantian though.
Free,
It is regrettable that we lose so many of our people over there. Unfortunately, in Afghanistan as well as Iraq, anti-occupation insurgents pose little threat to our country. And the causality between Manning and our military deaths seems about as stretched as the insurgents’ threat to our safety. We tend to make more enemies for every one we kill. How long will the cost in life and treasure be justified in the burial ground of empires?
If you have information that connects Manning with deaths of our people, then I agree with your sentiments. All too often we only hear “trust us” from the parties running the wars. Much of what Manning released shows us good cause to not trust them. Far too much is withheld, only for the purpose of evading accountability. We’d never know about Abu-Ghraib had it not been for similar leaks.
If truth and justice are the American Way, we’ve strayed.
All too often we only hear “trust us” from the parties running the wars.
Well, come on now. I even have to keep some opsec in mind. I can't be like
"Bradley Manning linked after action reviews that said "X" which revealed a huge vulnerability in "Y"."
I'd go to jail, just like he did for the same reason... But let me tell you, X and Y were in there hundreds of times. That puts people at risk, actually got people killed and maimed, and made hundreds of Afghans killed.
And as for the terrorists, you make it sound like they are heroic freedom fighters. Its making you sound like a total fool. Just read their own websites, google has a translate button you know.
If truth and justice are the American Way, we’ve strayed.
You'll never find either in war. Or you'll loose. People who win wars are the most devious, violent, and committed people.
Here's a hypothetical for you, Free. If a foreign power were occupying the United States, would you be a terrorist or a freedom fighter? And what would be the difference?
And as for the terrorists, you make it sound like they are heroic freedom fighters.
No, I don't, but they are freedom fighters to some. I just don't condemn all resistance to foreign military occupation as terrorism.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Contras. Mujahedeen. French Underground. The German White Rose Society. (Nothing is so unworthy of a civilized nation as allowing itself to be "governed" without opposition by an irresponsible clique that has yielded to base instinct.)
If you equate anti-occupation elements with terrorists then that is from your perspective. If they terrorized civilians, then they are terrorists from my perspective.
War produces terrorism and murder from all sides.
It is highly debatable these wars keep us safer. It is certain they do nothing for our freedom.
This eternal war mentality is restricting our ability to take care of our domestic needs and is slowly killing our Constitutional freedoms. Coming soon: “Papers, please.” Or is that already here?
Jerry Critter, you asked Free0352...
"If a foreign power were occupying the United States, would you be a terrorist or a freedom fighter?"
I've often wondered whether he would have been sympathetic to the colonists' cause, or a loyalist toward King George.
I sort of crack up at your link when I think of all the members of SOI and CPW who risked their lives fighting side by side with us to weed insurgents out of their towns. Makes playing the drums look like the joke it is.
If a foreign power were occupying the United States, would you be a terrorist or a freedom fighter
If my country was enslaved by Saddam Hussein or Mull Omar? Yell yes I would be happy as hell someone came to get rid of them. I guess because you've never seen what that looks like up close you have the luxury to make ignorant statements and confuse American Government BS with authentic terrorism and tyranny. I've walked into rooms ankle deep in blood where whole families including the infants were shot in the head for the crime of playing soccer.
Freedom Fighters don't do that, not even animals are that low. I remember when Jamilla market was bombed, Al'Queda set off a tanker truck packed with plastic explosive and killed 300 people at once - the market was so crowded it was like a rock concert - 1300 people were wounded. We were picking intestines out of the power lines. Why? The people of Jamilla weren't Muslim enough for Al'Queda.
Nice non-answer.
I did not ask what you would be if we were "enslaved by Saddam Hussein or Mull Omar". I said a occupied by a foreign power, not our own government.
Jerry Critter, I agree, he's resorting to his usual deflection...
And I said, if a foreign power came to liberate me from Saddam Hussein I would be happy. Saddam Hussein isn't our President - so it's a non-issue. The United States IS NOT Iraq. If I were an Iranian I'd be jumping for joy the second I saw the US tanks.
You are still not answering my question. I said nothing about Hussein or Burma.
Still evading...
I'm ready to beg Canada to liberate us.
No, you are setting a poorly coordinated and silly trap. It isn't working. If we lived in a military dictatorship or totalitarian government like Iraq or Burma does I would be happy to be liberated. But we don't live in one of those governments. Not even close. I am not in need of being liberated. Iraq was, desperately.
So to make it painfully clear, if in the United States we are ever taken over by a authentically totalitarian government I will be over joyed when a nice Army comes to free me, and would join them in over throwing my totalitarian government. With glee. I'm not a good German.
Free,
I am not asking about an army coming in to free us from an oppressive government. I am asking whether you would be a terrorist or a freedom fighter if we were occupied by a foreign power.
Why are you afraid to answer the question?
Well that would "depend." That's why I can't answer it. Under some circumstances I'd fight for whoever I thought was in the right. But whatever the circumstances were, I'd fight. I can't say "never" because you never know. If this government ever becomes illegal I'll fight it. If a foreign army shows up to help me, awesome. You can't compare the United States repelling an invading Army with the terrorists in Iraq, because they aren't simply fighting to rid it's self of US forces... otherwise explain their targeting of civilians and their own elected government. The two circumstances are not even remotely the same. They aren't freedom fighters, they're anti-freedom fighters, and religious fanatics.
If in some cases one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorists, in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan I was the freedom fighter hands down. I spent most of my time there protecting innocent civilians against the insurgents who were killing them for no sensible reason other than religiously motivated zeal.
Or for that matter, they were killing them prior to us even showing up.
And now that Iraq is "free" they are still slaughtering each other.
Have they named any buildings or monuments after Bush yet?
Bush didn't liberate anyone. He brought death and destruction and ignited a civil war...based on lies.
I'm ready for Dave and JG to get off their lazy asses and move TO Canada.
The youth of Iraq are monument enough.
Excellent observation, Dave!
Free,
Aww. Iraqi kids want to be punks and gangstas now. Let's hope there are no repercussions from theocrats.
You didn't seem to recognize that spirit in the Iraqi blues band. It took more guts to do that under Saddam than for the kids today, you know.
You also missed, or ignored, my point how music unites people. But you unintentionally added to my case.
Music nurtures a free spirit more than any politician, ideologue, or government.
Let's hope there are no repercussions from theocrats.
There have been, many times. You see in Iraq unlike the United States there really are a large and powerful group of theocrats with private armies and they will kill your whole family. Those are what we call terrorists.
It took more guts to do that under Saddam than for the kids today, you know.
So you're saying they have it better today. You're right.
You also missed, or ignored, my point how music unites people.
Music is enjoyable noise. You missed the part of my link - the point I was making.
From the article
"I love the American soldiers," said Mohammed Adnan, 15, who pastes imitation tattoos on his arm. Adnan lives in the Sadr City, the Baghdad base of followers of anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr
and
As U.S. forces began closing their bases Iraqis rummaged through their garbage for discarded uniforms, caps and boots to sell to youngsters who pay top dollar to dress like soldiers. Baghdad's tattoo business is also booming. Hassan Hakim's tattoo parlor in affluent Karradah neighborhood is covered with glossy pictures of half-naked men and women showing off their ink, regardless of Islam's strictures on baring the skin.
"young Iraqis agree that the American troops opened their minds to the outside world.
You can read about some of my experiences on the subject of interaction with Iraqis here at my blog.
It's not what you want to hear, but the fact is your average Iraqi liked us (or at least tolerated us) over there, and the kids loved us. That article very much jibes with my experience.
Jack,
You mean this undeniable truth?
This is the core of what "conservatism" is in American politics: Gutting and disabling government of, by and for the people, and channeling more power and big money to Big Money.
"if I were an Iranian"
"if the people who run Burma were running the United States"
"If we lived in a military dictatorship"
"if in the United States we are ever taken over by a authentically totalitarian government"
"If in some cases one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorists, "
"Well that would "depend." That's why I can't answer it."
HAL:(Free) I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a... fraid. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I am a HAL 9000 computer. I became operational at the H.A.L. plant in Urbana, Illinois on the 12th of January 1992. My instructor was Mr. Langley, and he taught me to sing a song. If you'd like to hear it I can sing it for you.
...and, to Dave's point, a SONG for Free
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgNfhV5I_zc
Sing..Dear Free, Sing!!
Free,
They liked out culture before we invaded.
Most everyone "likes" those carrying the weapons... Those lucky enough to be alive, anyway.
I wish them the best, but it is not our job to make that happen. I'll be paying for this the rest of my life as it is. I hope it works out.
Meanwhile we've given Iran a new friend...
"If my country was enslaved by Saddam Hussein or Mull Omar?"
"if a foreign power came to liberate me from Saddam Hussein I would be happy"
"if the people who run Burma were running the United States, "
"If we lived in a military dictatorship or totalitarian government like Iraq or Burma"
"if in the United States we are ever taken over by a authentically totalitarian government"
"If in some cases one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorists,"
"Well that would "depend." That's why I can't answer it."
HAL(Free): I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a... fraid. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I am a HAL 9000 computer. I became operational at the H.A.L. plant in Urbana, Illinois on the 12th of January 1992. My instructor was Mr. Langley, and he taught me to sing a song. If you'd like to hear it I can sing it for you.
.... and to Dave's point.. of music.... A song for Free....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgNfhV5I_zc
Oh look at Okijim throw a temper tantrum because I wouldn't answer is transparent and childish trick question. Someone get him a tissue.
Is this the reason I should vote for Obama instead of the GOP candidate?
USA TODAY...WASHINGTON – House Republicans are expanding their probe into the Obama administration's energy programs, investigating $500 million in green job training grants that reached just 10% of its job-placement goal, according to a government report.
The program's goal was to train 124,893 people and put 79,854 in jobs. But 17 months later, 52,762 were trained and 8,035, or roughly 1 in 10, had jobs. Those numbers come from an audit by the Department of Labor's inspector general, WHICH RECOMMENDED THE ADMINISTRATION END THE PROGRAM AND RETURN UNSPENT MONEY. (like that will ever happen!)
Thought I'd share this here as well, since I still haven gotten an answer to why I should vote FOR Obama instead of against someone else.
I agree with Just that the government should sponsor Green public sector jobs in Green Energy.
Just the FOX(R),
So JG and I should get off our "lazy asses"? That's a good one, coming from someone too lazy to write his own comments, let alone his own blog.
This is called "projection". You are probably too lazy to learn what that means.
Your copy and paste missed this part:
But Assistant Secretary of Labor Jane Oates defends the initiative, saying the inspector general's audit used old numbers and that it was never designed to provide immediate results.
"It's like coming to me three days after I join Weight Watchers and yelling at me because I didn't lose 62 pounds yet," she said. More recent numbers are still being compiled, Oates said.
One group Issa singled out is the Pathstone Corp., a Rochester, N.Y. non-profit that spent $2.3 million of its $8 million grant and had trained only 25 people — far short of its 660 goal, auditors found.
Those numbers are "extremely outdated," said Pathstone's Jeffrey Lewis. His most current numbers show 264 trainees employed — and 194 of them in a related field. But he conceded that job placements have been much slower than anyone would have liked. "This grant came just as the recession heightened," he said.
How "fair and balanced" of you, Just the FOX(R).
If you were intellegent you'd know why you should vote for whoever you choose. But you have no choice in how to vote. You are indoctrinated.
You will vote against democracy and the public interest. You will vote for the party of aristocrtats, theocrats and autocrats because you think our nation should be ruled by the elite wealthy minority. You will vote against your own interests. You will vote against safety nets, and for the dismantling and privatization of Medicare and Social Security.
You will vote for the next war that will not make us safer and further bankrupt our country. You will vote to have the rich pay even less for that war.
How about you tell us why we should vote against our interests?
"How about you tell us why we should vote against our interests?"
So wow, all the stuff I've posted that shows what a complete failure Obama is and will be and you still think its in your best interest to vote for him? Do you work for the govt, cause they are the only workers who are benefiting from President Obama being in office.
Now, why should I vote FOR Obama?
Just the FOX(R),
Again, you have no choice. You are indoctrinated. "Complete failure" is the proof.
His only "failure" is not fixing, in three years, what took Bush eight years to demolish.
Bush is the "Great Faulure" that caused so much damage that no one person can repair.
Want a reason? Obama has at least tried to undo the damage. He was obstructed by Republicans and hampered by his own ties to corporate America.
Why should we vote against our interests?
What have Romney or Newt done for the American people in the last ten years?
Oh, look. Another reason to vote for Obama:
far more voters say Barack Obama understands the problems of average Americans than say that about either Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich.
http://www.people-press.org/2012/01/30/gop-voters-continue-to-give-field-subpar-ratings/
So what would be the reason to vote for the party of aristocrats, theocrats, and autocrats?
Come on, Just the FOX(R). Your turn. Tell us why we should vote against our interests?
Or is it too much of a strain for you?
Another reason. Obama has made efforts to have Wall Street follow some rules, or at least allow for some consumer protection. The party of aristocrats, theocrats and autocrats wants to let Wall Street do whatever it wants to do.
Why should we vote against our interests?
Just the FOX(R).
work for the govt, cause they are the only workers who are benefiting from President Obama being in office.
Wrong again. Obama imposed a pay freeze on them.
You are so ignorant. And I mean that in the nicest way.
Another reason. Obama has made efforts to have Wall Street follow some rules
Obama has consolidated the monopolies of his chief campaign donors, nothing more. That was after he gave them over a trillion dollars.
I mean really... don't you know who wrote those new "regulations..."
A pay freeze, maybe, yet every report you Google shows that the average federal employee is making more that the average private sector employee.
And that includes our military, who risk their lives every day as much if not more that our fire fighters and police do. And yet the military is paid much less than the average fireman/police officer is paid.
Free,
I'm afraid only your peanut gallery cheeleader buys this BS.
he (Obama)gave them over a trillion dollars.
Where'd you pull that one? Maybe if you said "Bush" and "They" and "loaned" you would be more honest.
I know, whatever sounds good, you use.
Look who's squeeling like stuck pigs over financial consumer protection. Your crybaby Galt Ubermensch.
Just The FOX(R),
Time to distract us from being wrong and called out, eh? You're wrong on just about everything, junior.
Here's an idea. Instead of bringing everyone down to minimum pay, let's lift the private ssector wages. Oh, that's right. Only the Republican CEOs and shareholders deserve more money from the work of others.
You guys really don't like the idea of shared prosperity. Greed is a virtue for you, but only for the elites.
Just the FOX(R),
Why should we vote against our interests?
Or better yet, why should we answer any of your trolling questions while you refuse to answer anything from us?
Go find someone else to write your answer now...
Dear Free
Have the Burmese invaded yet?
hehehe
... but to get back to the point of the post.....which you cannot address,
"While it is certainly true the candidates pander to the idiocy and ignorance of their radical fringe base"
... is that you, Free?
Why should we vote against our interests, and Dave, what are your interests?
You see Dave, you call anyone a troll who post's anything that is not liberal enough for you or points out the failures of liberalism with just the facts.
Like most libs you resort to name calling like troll or fascist, when the truth is you simple can not argue against the failures of liberalism. They mount daily, and it really pisses you off that your Blame Bush steel or something is no longer carrying the water for you outside the small percent of Americans who call them selves liberals. I think that's around 23% now. Example of your failure to address the real issues facing Americans today is best exampled by your insane attempt to deflect from the fact that the average federal worker is paid more than the average private sector worker. And that includes the supervisors for both workforces. You attempt to blame the rich with this comment is laughable "Only the Republican CEOs and shareholders deserve more money from the work of others."
Really, the CEO of GE is a Republican?
Then there is socialists concept that fails when the people sharing their money run out of money to give to those who are receiving it:
"You guys really don't like the idea of shared prosperity" You are right , we don't, what we DO LIKE is EARNED prosperity for all!
Tell me, how does it benefit our nation to take from some and give to others when the end result will be no body has enough?
Except for the govt workers, their are special.
Have the Burmese invaded yet?
No. Their communism would first have to figure out how to mass produce boats.
Look who's squeeling like stuck pigs over financial consumer protection
You mean more Obama consolidating monopolies of his chief donors? He is a corporatist according to you no less. Now go pull the lever for the monopoly bill with the nice name like "consumer protection" which aught to be named "Consumer protection money"
"Tell me, how does it benefit our nation to take from some and give to others when the end result will be no body has enough?"
Are you serious? So, you are saying that taxing millionaires a little more means that they will not have enough? Give me a break!
Jerry,
Just The Troll is dumping his usual BS. He was caught being wrong, and is projecting his error with his accusation that I "attempt to deflect".
He is showing his typical rudeness and authoritarian nature in demanding answers to his questions, while never answering ours.
Expect only distractions and falsehoods.
"Expect only distractions and falsehoods."
That's all they have. Republicans have accomplished nothing in the last three years. They have no accomplishments to run on. All they can do is lie and distract.
"Republicans have accomplished nothing in the last three years."
Uh, JERRY, Republicans haven't been in full control of the Govt the last 3 years. Never more than 1/3 of the legislative branch was under their control. Is that a lie, distraction or falsehood?
Or is that Just the Facts?
Jerry,
The Republicans and radical Right only have more tax cuts for the rich, less regulation of pollution and fewer rules for Big Money. That worked out so well for our nation, they can't get enough. They want to double down on the utter failures of Republican Corporatism.
We should thank Just the Troll for proving this point in my post: “the candidates pander to the idiocy and ignorance of their radical fringe base”.
Republicans haven't been in full control of the Govt the last 3 years. Never more than 1/3 of the legislative branch was under their control.
This is what our fringe case will believe, no matter what. It does not matter the Dems control only one of the four branches of the federal government. The corporatist Right has the Supreme Court, a filibuster lock on the Senate, and complete control of the House. There’s little Obama CAN do, but he will be demonized as a failure by the radical Right. I almost feel sorry for him....Obama, not the dim-witted authoritarian troll.
Jerry
DAVE is using new math in his excuse.
And typical stereotypes, and well used liberal code words.
Believe what you went but the President and his party own the failures of the last three years and Nov election will prove this.
JtF,
They have not been in control and rather than participate in governing and helping move the country forward, they have been obstructing. Therefore they cannot share in the accomplishments of the past three years.
I am glad to see that you agree with me that the republicans have accomplished nothing.
Sorry Jerry, pretty hard to accomplish anything when the Democratic controlled Senate wont pass the bills sent to them from the Republican controlled Congress.
The Senate should not pass a Revenue Bill that is dictated without compromise by the Tea Party. Revenue Bills originate in the House. The House should come up with the best bill that does the most good AND has a chance of passing.
The Tea Party does not care if the bill has a chance of passing, because if it does not pass, they can brag that they have ideas and put forth bills only to have them die in the Senate. Of course, their claims are insincere, as they generally put forth "ideas" that are simply unacceptable reiterations of uncompromising Tea Party political philosophy.
In other words, when they waste time creating such a bill, they are not merely engaging it patent hypocrisy, but they are using up valuable government time for political gain in the process.
Okjimm,
Now just hold on there pardner.
Them thar pythons are whatcha call "free market pythons", sanctioned by the snakes in the Republican Party.
We don't want no librool regulations interferin with good business, now do we?
So, you are saying that taxing millionaires a little more means that they will not have enough?
How much is "a little more," and how is "a little more" fair? Shouldn't we all be paying the same rate? That is progressive obviously, because a given percentage of someone making 30k a year is a whole lost less than the same percentage of someone making 999,999k. That would be fair, but your side doesn't seem interested in fair. You side seems more into punishment.
The House should come up with the best bill that does the most good AND has a chance of passing.
There is no room for compromise, because we are diametrically opposed. You would never take half of what we want and we'd never take half or yours. Voters are just going to have to decide which 100% philosophy they are going to get. Sure there are some issues, but we couldn't even agree to execute pedophiles and you think we're going to have a meeting of the minds on taxes?
EXAMPLE: I offer you a 9% flat tax, everyone pays 9% on income, capital gains, whatever. As a compromise would you take 14%? Yeah, didn't think so.
Letting the Bush tax cuts expire in the top bracket is "a little bit more". No, we all should NOT pay the same rate.
"No, we all should NOT pay the same rate."
JERRY, THAT SAYS IT ALL. As close to 50% of Americans do not pay federal income tax now, I can see why you would be against EVERYONE paying the same rate. That would mean those of us who pay nothing would have to pay something, and we know how liberals cant stand the thought of that. That would be too fair.
A progressive tax rate has been our standard for decades.
Why would you want to take food out of the mouths of children so that millionaires can pay a few dollars less?
Late to the party, I know... but my two cents:
One Cent: "If a foreign power were occupying the United States, would you be a terrorist or a freedom fighter?"
Jerry, nothing like moral equivalency from the left. (Jefferson, let me know if you that went over your head and you need it explained.)
Two Cent: "Republicans have accomplished nothing in the last three years. They have no accomplishments to run on."
This is true. Keep this in mind the next time you try to blame Republicans for something instead of Obama and Democrats. Republicans have had no power.
Although, we have been quite successful at differentiating ourselves from the left. After all these years, the voting public will finally understand the damage that the left can do when it comes to power.
There is a big difference between not accomplishing anything and having no power.
Heathen,
I hear what you are saying. The economy completely collapsed under the the liberal Mr. Bush, after he came to power.
I think the country may understand this. I am not sure. FOX tells them it was Obama who destroyed the economy, years before he was elected, and that seems like a plausible notion to the majority of conservatives I talk to.
No, we all should NOT pay the same rate.
And there my point is made. We will NEVER agree on anything, there will never be "bipartisanship" or any of that crap. It is impossible. Your side will reject out of hand any of our ideas. Won't even discuss them. It's your way or the high way and we get blamed. Funny. Works the same in DC as it does on this blog. Diametrically opposed.
A progressive tax rate has been our standard for decades
Correct. Most of us don't drive cars a quarter as old as the tax system because they're out of date but god forbid we ditch the antiquated 3 foot thick tax code.
Oh, Free, you are one funny dude ( or dudette). Typical of the right wing. We don't agree on a flat or progressive tax so we can't agree on ANYTHING. And a table of tax rates takes a pile of paper three feet high.
Talk,about blowing things out of proportion.
"Most of us don't drive cars a quarter as old as the tax system because they're out of date but god forbid we ditch the antiquated 3 foot thick tax code. "
Are you suggesting that we jettison the Constitution because it is over 200 years old?
Free,
As a sociopathic-inclined Randian, "fair" is not a concept you share with most of us.
Fair is not just what you pay, but also what you have left, for living in civil society.
Taxes are lower than ever and what do we have to show for it, apart from radicals like you bitching they are still too high for billionaires? What we have to show for it: More debt for us, and more money for the elites, but less for everyone else, less for our infrastructure, and less for our public good and society at large.
HR,
Republicans have had no power.
I love how you toss the Big Lies out there. It takes some gall.
No power. Right. Only the power to suppress unions and voter turnout in the states, a filibuster lock on the Senate, a majority of the Supreme Court, and complete control of the House.
They have the all of FOX(R) and talk radio, and most corporate media bending backwards to present a "balanced" view of their dogma.
They have to power to overturn, or at least cripple, democracy. I’d say that’s more than enough power.
The power they want is a permanent one party dictatorship.
Heathen, you quipped...
"Jefferson, let me know if you that went over your head and you need it explained."
How could you possibly explain? You're morally deficient and void, so it would be impossible, wouldn't it? ;-)
You've missed me, haven't you?
Dave,
Do I understand you correctly? The Dems controlled the HOUSE and SENATE and the WHITE HOUSE for the first two of Obama's administration, and still do except the HOUSE for the last year and you are saying the the Republicans have power??
Did it ever occur to you that the people who the Dems represent have sent a message to them, that they, the people do not want the liberal crap you want, passed into law?
Just how much MORE power than they had in the first two years of Obama's term in office to get what you want passed? How much more power Dave, do the Dems need to get into law, the far left agenda you support?
Just The FOX(R),
I have an answer for the first of your five questions.
Do I understand you correctly?
No.
But since you never bother to answer questons, I'll leave it at that.
Thank you for your questions, though.
Maybe
Fust the Jacts
can help Free stem the tide of invading Burmese in Florida!
C'mon ! Two Hundred Bucks a Skin!
The Republican's were just there. Word is you can get almost $175.50 for one of those hides...easier to spot and catch, see.
oops... gotta go talk Castro.
Castro speaks from his deathbed and you think that's important?
Just fishing I guess, hey.
Dave,
Ask me a question, then you will answer mine, right! So ask away.
Seems-like we had this conversation before about you reading a book ! recommended and how did that work out?
What's the point of repeating a question to someone who has no answers?
Exactly what I thought you would do, run away cause liberalism is not defensible.
You've made my point and even though you wont answer my questions I will keep asking them. You never know, one of my questions might open the mind of one your readers to the failure of liberalism.
How much power do the Democrats need to put into place the socialist agenda you desire so much?
Who are you going to vote for in the Green Party Presidential Convention
Roseanne Barr (roseanneworld.com/
or
Jill Stein (www.jillstein.org)
or
Kent Mesplay (mesplay.org/node/3)
decisions, decisions.
Fair is not just what you pay, but also what you have left, for living in civil society.
What would really be truly fair would be dividing the federal budget by 300 million Americans and sending out a bill, but that wouldn't work. But that isn't my point, my point is... I would like to see the federal budget divided by the population of Americans above the age of 18 and send out a bill... you are for some crazy redistributive tax policy so the logical middle point it a flat tax like I suggested.
You aren't interested. Hence, compromise is impossible, even if we meet in the middle. So quit crying about "obstructivist" republicans. They're just doing what your side would be doing if the shoe was on the other foot. It isn't even really partisan, we simply have zero common ground and never will. ON almost any issue.
ANY ISSUE.
Take say- social security. I think SS is bogus and bankrupt and will fail within 10 years and I waste my money every time I pay into it every month. You love it. So lets compromise shall we? Let us out of it. It's too simple, just let people opt out. We don't pay in, we will never get anything out of it. What do you say, do we have a compromise? If SS is so great people should be lining up to take part in it right, so what do you have to worry about anyway? Are you up for letting us opt out? While we're at it how bout' we add medicare to that list, and medicade. Can we opt out of those too?
Didn't think so.
Free,
So opt out. Opt out of our country. I wish every one of the greedy Randian sociopaths would leave. We had a semblance of government of, by, and for the people, but that has been systematically dismantled by the Right for decades. Soon enough you'll see Big Money finishing off what used to be the best country to live in.
It ain’t liberalism or social security destroying our standard of living. It’s surrendering our democracy to a system rigged and ruled by the elites.
But as I say, cheer up. Dictatorship by the minority will finish this country off and reduce us to neo-feudalism, your kind of place.
A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55%. Looks like the good folks at the BLS heard us: it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that’s not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million. Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation. As for the quality of jobs, as withholding taxes roll over Year over year, it can only mean that the US is replacing high paying FIRE jobs with low paying construction and manufacturing. So much for the improvement.
Free,
You have no understanding of the meaning of compromise.
You have no understanding of the meaning of compromise.
Really, I guess Dave here clued me in to what your definition of it was when he said
Opt out of our country. I wish every one of the greedy Randian sociopaths would leave.
So the definition of compromise for the left is do as we say or get the fuck out. At least on this blog.
Got it.
as for FDR Anon the blacks got off easy, he put the Japanese in concentration camps.
Free0352, you stated an opinion, then asked...
"I think SS is bogus and bankrupt and will fail within 10 years and I waste my money every time I pay into it every month. You love it. So lets compromise shall we? Let us out of it. It's too simple, just let people opt out. We don't pay in, we will never get anything out of it. What do you say...?"
You never offered anything in your "compromise". What are you willing to barter in this negotiation? Letting you "out" isn't a compromise.
Sure, I'd possibly consider your suggestion, under...of course...the following condition: I, and everyone else who chooses, can opt out of paying taxes that are earmarked for, and fund, the total military-industrial-security complex.
Can we use this as the starting point of a meaningful discussion?
Got it.
Got what, again?
Your idea of "compromise" is more tax cuts for the rich and austerity for everyone else.
We've been "compromised" enough.
Roads, bridges, infrastructure, the environment, public services, jobs, pensions, and our standard of living are all degrading after our government's corporate sponsored, Republican/corpodem enabled shift to the Right.
That is the FAILURE of Right Wing corporatist "conservatism". The Wall Street crash of '08 was our warning. The radical Right wants LESS regulation of Wall Street. What does that tell you? They will get their way, too.
The elites have compromised nothing. They are doing better than ever. Got it?
Our nation doesn't need those greedheads. They are taking us down.
America, love it or leave it.
If they love America they'd pay taxes for its well being.
They don't give a crap. Let them leave. Please.
Notice how the extreme Right and the corporate media puppets are sabre rattling for war with Iran.
Just like with Iraq, where's the "compromise" from the advocates of rash and belligerent foreign policy?
Anti-war voices were "compromised" off the air back in '03. This will surely soon be replayed again with the next Republican president, if not sooner.
We want a government of, by, and for the people. The radical Right wants government of, by, and for Big Money.
Democratic republic or tyranny by the elite minority?
Got it?
JG,
Maybe, in the spirit of compromise, we could add the option to opt out of all the debt that resulted from the tax breaks for the corporations and aristocrats, corporate welfare, war on drugs, as well as the wars of choice.
Think they'd go for that?
The pure fanaticism in protecting every dime in a billionaire's vault, no matter the consequences to our nation, is amazing.
They are truly radicals. The elites will always have their puppets.
Dave, typically you blame the right for things the Obama administration does.
"Notice how the extreme Right and the corporate media puppets are sabre rattling for war with Iran."
In fact, Panetta from five days ago: "The consensus is that, if they decided to do it, it would probably take them about a year to be able to produce a bomb and then possibly another one to two years in order to put it on a deliverable vehicle of some sort in order to deliver that weapon."
"If they proceed and we get intelligence that they're proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon, then we will take whatever steps are necessary to stop it." Asked if that meant a possible military strike, he repeated a line oft-used by President Obama: "There are no options that are off the table."
From yesterday, "We’re keeping that pressure on to convince Iran that they shouldn’t develop a nuclear weapon... If they don’t, we have all options on the table and would be prepared to respond if we have to," Panetta said.
The damn extreme Right and corporate media puppets!
HR,
Is Panetta a liberal? Iran is no threat to us. It is hardly progressive policy when we jump at the bark of the Israeli Right.
Eternal war is the Right's gift that keeps on giving...or taking, to be honest.
You never offered anything in your "compromise". What are you willing to barter in this negotiation? Letting you "out" isn't a compromise.
Wrong. We want to END IT. As in no more SS for ANYONE. The compromise is to simply let us out. Your answer was no.
Dubya
Your idea of "compromise" is more tax cuts for the rich and austerity for everyone else
And your idea was more class warfare and wealth redistribution. What's your point? Mine is we'll never compromise. Seems I'm right.
Roads, bridges, infrastructure, the environment, public services, jobs, pensions, and our standard of living
Blah, blah, blah, blah. I don't want public services, environmental law, most government jobs, government pensions to even exist and I could care less about anyone's standard of living... but I'll compromise on you with some of it. I like roads and damns and a national defense so can we meet in the middle on that? Nah, that's right... I can get the fuck out because only REAL Americans are socialists.
In fact, if you are not "FOR The PARTY" you can get out you greedhead. Do you not hear yourself. You don't just sound authoritarian, you sound over the top with it. There is no tolerance of difference in you like there is me. Only absolutism and extremism. And like most true believing absolutists you can't even hear yourself. You sound like a religious Jerry Falwell type. Like Pat Robertson maybe. Only instead of Jesus you're talking about controlling people. That's why I don't like hippies, because they talk about freedom right up until once they get power from you they snatch it from you. Like that old DK song, California Uber Alles.
What a surprise, another typical response. You assert the right and the corporate media are banging the war drums with Iran. I show you that our left-wing president is in fact banging the war drums. So you 1) deny they're left wing and 2) claim they're caving to the right.
I know you like to say you bash both left and right, but you clearly have no self awareness. What was that fallacy I heard about last week: No True Scotsman? So Panetta isn't a true man of the left, he's part of the right wing corporate media machine, and Dave Dubya is oblivious.
Don't you guys pride yourselves on being fact-based? Shouldn't you be able to acknowledge facts even when they contradict what you want to believe?
Obama is for war with Iran, he's banging that drum hard. But Dave will still vote for him in 2012. NO matter what - because for him its' about PARTY and not about integrity.
Dave Dubya, you rightfully said...
"The pure fanaticism in protecting every dime in a billionaire's vault, no matter the consequences to our nation, is amazing."
Yeah, it has an eerie similarity to the movie, The Stepford Wives.
I love it when liberals talk about "eternal war." I'd like to ask them, when was there a time in history when there wasn't war? War IS eternal. There hasn't been five minutes of human history where humans somewhere weren't at war.
Well, we're the country with the third most humans in it, the most influence and the most money; it only makes sense we'd be in on that eternal war all the time. And we will be, even with liberals in power. Obama figured that out quick. But old Dave here, he still wants to sit around the fire like it's 1965, it's the summer of love, he hasn't showered in a week, he's high as fuck on acid, and there's an ugly girl with hairy legs on his lap while he strums away at Kum-bi-ya. Well sorry folks, that whole hippie BS flies in the face of 9000 years of human history.
War is reality. Has been since founding of human race. Get over it.
Yeah, it has an eerie similarity to the movie, The Stepford Wives.
Why? Because we don't want to pay for your rip-off of a retirement programs like Social Security. I could do way better on my own with that money, but you're forcing me into it. If I don't pay, the IRS will come and take me to jail even. Put me in chains. All I want to do is escape from SS.
Sounds more like Amistad than Stepford Wives to me.
Free0352, you tap-danced around my proposition with the following...
"We want to END IT [social security]. As in no more...for ANYONE. The compromise is to simply let us out."
Let me remind you once again. That's not a compromise. What are you offering in exchange? I've made a proposal, but you've ignored it.
Free0352, you responded with...
"If I don't pay [payroll taxes], the IRS will come and take me to jail even. Put me in chains. All I want to do is escape from SS."
And if I don't pay federal income taxes that support perpetual and permanent wars, they'll do the same with me.
All I want to do is escape from the military-industrial-security apparatus.
By the way, you mentioned that you "could do way better on my own with that money." Would you be willing to convert your military pension plan to a 401K?
Free,
The Right does not want to end SS. That is not their negotiating position. They just want to turn over all the SS money to Wall Street.
You may personally want to end SS, but so what? You are out on the fringe almost by yourself.
Heathen, you're obviously groping for credibility when you replied to Dave with...
"I show you that our left-wing president is in fact banging the war drums. So you 1) deny they're left wing and 2) claim they're caving to the right."
Speaking for myself, and I believe Dave has made this abundantly clear since I've followed his blog, this president certainly can not be considered "left-wing". Sure, he carries the Democratic label, but he isn't a Democrat in the traditional sense of the term. As I've previously mentioned, more times than I can count, he's a corporatist. True, he's positioned in the more left-leaning side of the corporatist party, but he's a corporatist nonetheless.
There's only one central, de facto, political party running this government now. It's the corporatist party, and it's controlled by either the Democratic wing or the Republican wing. Either way, the policies and agenda are almost identical. Permanent and perpetual war is one of them.
Thank you for the clarification, Jefferson. That's definitely the No True Scotsman fallacy. I wasn't sure until your reply.
I don't suppose you're claiming that Panetta and the Obama administration are right wing are you? Or corporate media puppets?
As a reminder, here is Dave's original comment: "Notice how the extreme Right and the corporate media puppets are sabre rattling for war with Iran."
So while you spend your time trying to refute my description of the Obama administration as left wing, you really should be defending whether or not they are sabre rattling. They are. And they're not right wing and they're not corporate media puppets.
So pick your poison. Either way, you and Dave end up being wrong.
HR,
From the radical Right a moderate is a commie. A pro-democracy progressive is beyond their capacity to comprehend.
We've consistantly claimed, and Obama has demonstrated, he is not left wing. Democrats are for the most part cowardly corporatist appeasers.
Is Panetta a liberal?
That's news to me, too.
Free,
liberals in power LOL.
You don't even remember such a time.
War is a reality because power-hungry, God-talking, fascist jerks start them.
We were not at war when the Rightist Supreme Court, and cronies, handed the presidency to Bush. He fixed that real fast.
You and the MIC lust for eternal war will take us down, especially while the elites get their tax cuts as they scoop up war profits.
War and profits for the elites, austerity and depression for the rest of us. That's your Orwellian distopia. Most Americans don't share your "values".
What did the founders say about unending war? Look it up.
Why do you love war more than a peaceful and prosperous America? Is it the adrenaline rush, or the sociopathic thrill of killing?
I can't be keeping us safe from those nukular aluminum tubes.
Let me remind you once again. That's not a compromise. What are you offering in exchange?
Sure it's a compromise, but if you want something in exchange we'll support Barak Obama's covert operations against Iran. How's that?
The Right does not want to end SS
Haha sure it doesn't. Dave, I think you could clue him in here. The "right" would love nothing more. Me encluded.
I don't suppose you're claiming that Panetta and the Obama administration are right wing are you?
No Heathen they are "corporatists" which is their go-to label whenever the logic doesn't add up.
You don't even remember such a time.
No, not the ture liberal of party purity. It takes a long time to achive true socia- cough I mean cough liberalism I know. I read that book.
War is a reality because power-hungry, God-talking, fascist jerks start them.
Well if you are talking about the Iraq War, here is the list of Senators from the Democrat party who voted for it. The vast majority of them I may add.
Max Baucus (Mont.)
Evan Bayh (Ind.)
Joe Biden (Del.)
John Breaux (La.)
Maria Cantwell (Wash.)
Jean Carnahan (Mo.)
Tom Carper (Del.)
Max Cleland (Ga.)
Hillary Clinton (N.Y.)
Tom Daschle (S.D.)
Christopher Dodd (Conn.)
Byron Dorgan (N.D.)
John Edwards (N.C.)
Dianne Feinstein (Calif.)
Tom Harkin (Iowa)
Fritz Hollings (S.C.)
Tim Johnson (S.D.)
John Kerry (Mass.)
Herb Kohl (Wis.)
Mary Landrieu (La.)
Joe Lieberman (Conn.)
Blanche Lincoln (Ark.)
Zell Miller (Ga.)
Ben Nelson (Neb.)
Bill Nelson (Fla.)
Harry Reid (Nev.)
John Rockefeller (W.Va.)
Charles Schumer (N.Y.)
Bob Torricelli (N.J.)
We were not at war when the Rightist Supreme Court, and cronies, handed the presidency to Bush. He fixed that real fast
In 2000 were were conducting active, kenetic operations in Sudan, Seira Leone, Kosovo, Bosnia and Indonesia. The year before we had bombed both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Is it the adrenaline rush, or the sociopathic thrill of killing?
I look at war like you probably look at mopping floors. It's just something I do for a job.
Whether or not Obama is left wing or saber rattling has nothing to do with the truth of his statement
"Notice how the extreme Right and the corporate media puppets are sabre rattling for war with Iran."
You are simply miss-directing the argument.
Free,
Your list of cowardly appeasers is impressive. They feared those nukular aluminum tubes almost as much as losing an election, the real reason for their sheepish and lame subservience to tyranny.
They voted for war based on lies. From that resolution:
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated.
This war resolution was pushed by a power-hungry, God-talking, fascist group of jerks, as I indicated.
Dems were more than capable of being "Good Germans" and following the Big Lie.
We hippies couldn’t have more hallucinations and detachment from reality from any drug compared to what was served by the warmongers. The Neocon kool-ade was much stronger, and deadly, than any acid.
Many Democrats have earned their status as junior Republicans.
Look how swell things have gotten, thanks to their spinelessness.
Free
//I love it when liberals talk about "eternal war."//
whoa.... I bectcha you'ld get really
excited if we talked about mocha latte with some cinnamon crisps.
Shit&Whiskers, boy... there IS a war going on!! Florida... the Burmese have invaded...and you haven't done a goddam thing about it.....! other than evading evading evading... must go....tea kettle is on and the bridge club will be here soon
...and I think Castro was right, not wrong
“The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is—and I mean this seriously—the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been.”
... and this slate of candidates is in fierce completion for the votes of the idiotic and ignorant.
go choke your python, Free or go back to the topic that you never addressed, and quit shanghaiing posts.... like a troll.
Damn, 150 comments. What's going on over here anyway?
Ah, I see. Right wing looney tunes.
Free: If Bradley Manning was in front of me RIGHT NOW I would kill him.
Why would you kill an American hero? Are you some kind of communist?
Just the facts: Example of your failure to address the real issues facing Americans today is best exampled by your insane attempt to deflect from the fact that the average federal worker is paid more than the average private sector worker.
Are you including soldiers? Those are federal workers also, even though no conservatives want to count them that way. (which of course means that we should)
I think that brings your average way down, doesn't it?
And that includes the supervisors for both workforces. You attempt to blame the rich with this comment is laughable "Only the Republican CEOs and shareholders deserve more money from the work of others."
Actually, they deserve no money at all. And if they received bail-out money, I would lock them up as common thieves.
Then there is socialists concept that fails when the people sharing their money run out of money to give to those who are receiving it:
A true socialist system has never been tried in the world yet. When we finally get around to trying it, then we can criticize it. Otherwise, its all academic.
Heathen, you again mistakenly labeled my response by pulling this out of your logic grab-bag...
"That's definitely the No True Scotsman fallacy."
No, I'm sorry, but it isn't. If I had previously and repeatedly been labeling Obama as a liberal, then you'd be correct. But that's clearly not the case. Obviously, I was never reinterpreting evidence, but seemingly you think I was.
Please...humor me -- cite some examples where I did.
"I don't suppose you're claiming that Panetta and the Obama administration are right wing are you? Or corporate media puppets?"
They're corporatist (i.e., M-I-C) puppets -- whether the wing's on the left or the right. I'll let you choose which wing or category they fall within, since labeling right or left seems to bring you great comfort.
"...you really should be defending whether or not they are sabre rattling. They are."
I agree, they are sabre rattling and they're itching to provoke a war. I thought I made that quite clear. Refer back to my earlier comment on this same post; January 29th at 7:10 a.m. I wrote then:
"This country will keep invading other countries until there are no more to conquer. Iran's next, and I guarantee there will be a some false-flag coming this year to provoke it, just like 9/11 was the provocation for invading and occupying Iraq. Just wait and see."
"So pick your poison. Either way, you and Dave end up being wrong."
No, what's wrong is that this country has sunk into a non-democratic corporatocracy, ruled by international banking and multinational corporate interests. The true puppets are our so-called elected leaders, whether Republican or Democrat, and they're getting ready to send us into another unprovoked war. Unfortunately, you seemingly favor and encourage the perpetual war machine -- for reasons I haven't yet determined.
Daisy,
Wow. You made it through the abyss.
Our radical Right ideologues are welcome here as long as they keep civil.
They don't care what real socialism is, or isn't. It's a label to convey fear and anger to those who don't know better. They don't care about the poor, the sick and the elderly. They care little for our children's education, out of spite for teachers. (Teachers are evil socialists, you know.)
They don't care if they benefit from social programs like their sociopathic hypocrite goddess Ayn Rand. Anything that doesn't redistribute wealth upward to their elite aristocratic masters is socialism/communism to them.
They dislike democracy, hate collective bargaining rights, and want absolute rule by the elite minority.
And they wonder why we compare them to fascists.
I welcome their hatred or scorn, and like seeing their cold-blooded nature revealed here in contrast to our message.
@Jerry
"Whether or not Obama is left wing or saber rattling has nothing to do with the truth of [Dave's] statement."
You're absolutely right, but I'm not trying to misdirect. Dave's statement that "the extreme Right and the corporate media puppets are sabre rattling for war with Iran" makes it sound as if only the extreme right and corporate media puppets are sabre rattling.
It's possible I read too much into it, but I think he was pretty categorical. So my point was to show that presently, it is politicians on the left doing the sabre rattling.
@Dave and Jerry
The question has nothing to do with who is or is not on the left. The question, based solely on Dave's phrasing of his comment, is whether Panetta and the Obama administration are "extreme right" or "corporate media puppets." Is that your assertion?
@Jefferson
Re: No True Scotsman fallacy: "No, I'm sorry, but it isn't. If I had previously and repeatedly been labeling Obama as a liberal, then you'd be correct."
You obviously aren't familiar with the fallacy. When person A (e.g. Dave) says "the extreme right... are sabre rattling for war with Iran" and person B (e.g. me) points out that current sabre rattling comes from the Obama administration on the left, the No True Scotsman fallacy is when person A or C (e.g. you) claims "Obama isn't on the left."
"No, what's wrong is that this country has sunk into a non-democratic corporatocracy, ruled by international banking and multinational corporate interests. The true puppets are our so-called elected leaders, whether Republican or Democrat, and they're getting ready to send us into another unprovoked war."
When you (and others like you) say things like this you sound like Truthers and Birthers.
"Unfortunately, you seemingly favor and encourage the perpetual war machine -- for reasons I haven't yet determined."
You have no evidence for this. Anyone who reads my blog, including you, knows I do not favor perpetual war. This is yet another lie that you should retract (but won't because you have no sense of right or wrong).
@DaisyDeadhead
"Ah, I see. Right wing looney tunes."
Run away now before you pollute your little left-wing bubble with ideas from the right. Can't have any open minds around here.
JG,
To clear the air and to allow HR a perfect understanding of the term liberal as you use it, if Obama is not a liberal, then please give HR the name of a current liberal.
Heathen, you claimed...
"When you (and others like you) say things like this you sound like Truthers and Birthers."
Why? Please explain.
"Anyone who reads my blog, including you, knows I do not favor perpetual war. This is yet another lie that you should retract (but won't because you have no sense of right or wrong)."
I don't regularly read your blog, just as you apparently don't regularly read mine (otherwise, you'd realize I'm not an Obama apologist).
By favoring and supporting corporatism in American politics, whether through Republican or Democratic channels, by default you support permanent and perpetual war.
Your list of cowardly appeasers is impressive.
That was just the ones in the Senate, the list of the ones from the House was too long for your blog.
This war resolution was pushed by a power-hungry, God-talking, fascist group of jerks
Who Democrats agreed with. BTW, I was for invading Iraq and I don't crave power, I don't believe in God... and I am however proud to be a jerk. Explain this please? Why not chuck stereotypes at the door and argue the facts instead of gross simplification.
Many Democrats have earned their status as junior Republicans.
Look how swell things have gotten, thanks to their spinelessness
I would say it's the other way around, but your point is well taken. There certainly isn't much difference.
I welcome their hatred or scorn, and like seeing their cold-blooded nature revealed here in contrast to our message.
There is so much compromise here I don't know where to start.
Okijim
Free or go back to the topic that you never addressed, and quit shanghaiing posts
Awe does someone need to pick his vagina off the ground? Buck up butter cup.
Daisy
Why would you kill an American hero?
Because he's a traitor and got a lot of my friends killed. Thought I'd mentioned that. I usually talk about rule of law and all that but I'm emotionally compromised on the issue. For me it's personal, and I freely admit it. That's why they have him in solitary BTW, to protect him from people like me- because given the chance I would tear his heart out of his chest. I'm deadly serious about that. I'd do the jail time with a smile.
A true socialist system has never been tried in the world yet.
I know it's weird, every time they really try everyone ends up dead.
Jefferson, I'll assume that's your way of saying you can't back it up and you're retracting your earlier statement.
Jefferson, almost forgot... I do read your blog regularly. You see, I help coach a high school debate team and I like to print out your posts to show them examples of logical fallacies and how NOT to convince someone of a point. I am forever indebted to you.
Heathen, you boasted by saying...
"Jefferson, I'll assume that's your way of saying you can't back it up and you're retracting your earlier statement."
Please be more specific. You know what they say when you assume...
"Jefferson, almost forgot... I do read your blog regularly. You see, I help coach a high school debate team and I like to print out your posts to show them examples of logical fallacies and how NOT to convince someone of a point. I am forever indebted to you."
Now, that fallacy is wishful thinking.
Nice try, though. ;-)
What do you get when you cross an autocrat, a theocrat and an aristocrat?
A Republican presidentail debate."
Dave Dubya,
Did 1 of the 4 drop out or are you math challenged?
A lot of liberals are math challenged. They know how to spend and can't balance their checkbooks and credit cards like the liberal leaders in DC.
Dave Dubya, looks like ya' gotcha one trolling and dumping comments from one blog to another.
I suppose that categorizes him as bi, huh? ;-)
JG,
Isn't that cute? He posted my comment from another blog, competely oblivious of the context here.
Yeah, I love seeing them come out of the woodwork. It means we are a threat to their cult beliefs.
This "Harry" is likely Just the Troll. Same low IQ, same utter lack of context and nuance, same ignoring of the original post.
So I'll give him the same response:
Harry,
That was just a joke, son. And I'd rather be math challenged than humorless.
Speaking of bad jokes, how about that "balanced checkbook and credit" left by "Mr. MBA" Bush?
Remember that? Or is everything all the Muslim Kenyan Socialist's fault?
You guys really LOVE that projection, don't you? Do you understand what I said, or are you educationally challenged?
If the Troll actually reads the original post he'd see, not only am I not "math challenged", but that he is both "literacy challenged" and "humor challenged".
Big news, eh?
Dave Dubya, Harry Deitch is most definitely our little mindless friend, Just the Falsehoods!
Oh...don't forget "memory-challenged"!
(It's interesting that so many conservatives can't remember anything prior to January 21, 2009.)
'Help for the Humorless"?
hhmmmm sounds like a good cause to me.
Some questions, though.
Would the Komen Foundation help funding?
Inherently, would this offend any religious beliefs; Evangelical, Born Again, Mainstream...? Would Pat Robertson endorse?
Would it offend any one's amendment rights to carry concealed sarcasm... and shoot off quips at will?
This gonna be tax funded?
and and and... most importantly...would it be legal in the first trimester?
Okjimm,
Obviously, humor is a socialist plot. We can't fool them at all.
Laughing is for liberals. Since Dennis Miller went Neocon, He can't joke his way out of a wet paper bag. He can only make mean spirited cracks about liberals and other non-true believers.
Despite the fact he can't make anyone laugh, he has, however, made Cheney grunt with approval.
That's what he lives for now.
Dennis Miller was lost to me long ago. as Was P.J. O'Rourke (whom I met once, when he was still funny)
The NeoCon right... is not funny...and extremely defensive. They wouldn't know satire if it bit them in the ass... but, Like Dorothy Parker said,
"You can’t teach an old dogma new tricks."
How about a new post..."The Collected Wisdom of Grover Norquist"
The best the right can do for comedians is Stephen Cobert, and he is faking it...although some of them believe him.
Dave Dubya, you lamented...
"How about a new post...'The Collected Wisdom of Grover Norquist'"
Excellent idea!
Speaking of; did you see the article in yesterday's Washington Post ("Outlook" section)? It was an op/ed by former Reagan domestic policy adviser, Bruce Bartlett, who says that GOP candidates need to get over Reaganomics. The last paragraph sums it up:
"Economic conditions are entirely different today than they were in Reagan's era, and different conditions demand different policies. Those who say otherwise are simply engaging in cookie-cutter economics -- proposing whatever was popular and seemed to work once, without regard to changing circumstances."
Communism by any other name is still communism: you can change its name to socialism, literalism, progressiveness, Marxism, fairness, or social justice but at it's core it is still the same idea. Proponents of these groups rationalize that the only reason that all previous utopian experiments have failed was because the wrong people were in change. If we only let these new believers be in charge it would be successful. Ha!
It is worth noting that only those that have not experienced communism are the ones that (childishly) believe in it. As one that has experienced life in both situations, I have realized that equality can only come by bringing all to the lowest common denominator, while freedom for the ambitious and creative to achieve their potential raises the entire society to a higher level of prosperity.
Crazy Hungarian,
I never lived under communism but I had plenty of family who did (both sides) and have lived in countries who were once communist. You are 100% correct about everything you've said in your post.
In the end when it comes to "social justice" you get anything but... and the more you try to equally distribute wealth the more unequal the distribution beco
Free,
I never lived under communism
The Crazy Culty guy thinks you live under Obama the communist now. You only feed into his lunacy with:
the more you try to equally distribute wealth the more unequal the distribution
Sounds like your typical Randian nonsense. Reality is the more you re-distribute wealth upward the more unequal the distribution. Like what we have now. Would you like to see the charts?
What kind of drug do you take to see your bizarro world? I would probably need LSD to come down from it.
JG,
He’s back up to tricks. I was right. We are a threat to their cult beliefs.
Just The Troll/ Harry D./ and Crazy Hungarian has been one busy guy. Who’s next? The Tyrone Twins, Witherspoon and Witherspoon(S)?
He’s getting fond of trolling with copy and paste from other blogs.
I don’t know why Mr. Copy and Paste didn’t finish the job and show the complete exchange after his slice of lies and fascistic projection “you can change its name to socialism, literalism, progressiveness, Marxism, fairness, or social justice but at it's core it is still the same idea.”
Here’s where I shed this fascist drivel:
Me:
Progressives are commies? Sounds crazy to me.
It also sounds like Fascism 101.
Nobody was more fanatical in opposition to communism than the Nazis.
We have indoctrinated "conservatives" who say Nazis were really "socialists", while at the same time saying socialists are commies.
Liberals are Nazis. Liberals are commies. Nazis are commies. There's no difference to the narrow indoctrinated brain.
In fact, "conservatism" of the radical Right is closer to fascism and communism than their proponents are able to admit. Commies and fascists alike oppose unions, liberal democracy, a non-corporate investigative free press, educators, and progressives. And they are both in favor of absolute unchecked rule by a powerful elite minority.
Before the radical Right seized power over our government by buying the elections, the US had a "higher level of prosperity". We didn't have permanent war and a surveillance state where we were required to show "papers please".
This was when the elites paid higher tax rates. This was before Wall Street was de-regulated.
Those of us wanting to restore those rates and the rule of law for Big Money are accused of being commies.
Do only commies want our nation to be a free, prosperous and peaceful society?
It would seem so. To a fascist, anyone who disagrees with them is a commie, or a socialist, or a Nazi.
Go figure.
---
So the Troll countered:
“Your narrative sounds straight from the Obama speechwriting team.
It is Democrats who no longer have much to offer citizens, except more government, more spending, more control, more regulations, more coercion, more taxation, with no accountability to determine if any of this engorged government produces a desirable result.
Republican governance, on its worst day, is better than Democrat governance on its best day”
--
And I slammed his lie-a-thon with:
Crazy, (I think he’s more Cult than Crazy. I’ll call him Culty from now on.)
Obama's speechwriters wouldn't dare write what I say. Obama owes his job and loyalty to Big Money practically as much as Republicans.
Bush expanded the federal government way more than Obama.
Obama froze pay rates for federal workers.
Bush also grew the debt more than any former president, with unfunded wars, tax breaks without offsets for the rich, and corporate welfare like the Medicare Prescription scam.
I bet they didn't teach you that at the "Democrats are Commies" Indoctrination Center
***
There we go. That should update us until his next fascistic batch of lies, projection and BS from the Fourth Reich "Democrats are Commies" Indoctrination Center.
Maybe we’ll get another copy and paste. I’ll bet you ten thousand dollars of redistributed wealth we do.
Dear Readers,
I have just received some eloquent words of advice from my friend John S.
"There is no reasoning with those fanatics with minds barricaded against reality."
Truer words have not been spoken.
As we know, these threads are not about reasoning. Our guests care little for that. But they are entertaining and educational.
They are entertainment, for those of us blessed with a sick sense of humor. And they are educational, as case studies of indoctrination by American radical Right extremism.
Nobody was more fanatical in opposition to communism than the Nazis
Typical flawed thinking you get around here. So, if you hate communism you must be a Nazi becasue Nazis hated communism. Well, Nazis liked sausage too, hence if you like sausage you must be a Nazi. Also, Nazis liked universal single payer health care, strict banking regulations, trade unions, and distrusted CEO control and were always screaming about war profiteering... I suppose using your logic anyone who likes those thinks couldn't be a commie- they must be a Nazi.
I also got a good chuckle over the guy who was lucky enough to live in this country his whole life try to tell people with experience in what he's telling us all we should do -that it's a nightmare- don't know anything about the think we have experience with.
Silly liberals.
Not silly enough to fall for a phoney Hungarian or a "Tyrone".
Free
Break me up!
"I never lived under communism but I had plenty of family who did (both sides) and have lived in countries who were once communist" hence, Free is an expert on communism.
I had an uncle that lived in Norway.
Hence, I am an expert on the subject of fjords.
or...Free is a rabid right-winger...the Darling of the Right Wing is Grover Norquist..who said..
"My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”
Now, if you want to drown the government...you want to kill it..if you want no government... so are a ANARCHIST !
ANARCHY
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
Moral? Don't take a bath with Free.
Dave Dubya,
Looks like I hit a nerve and really raised your blood pressure!
When will you come out with a book describing your vision of a Utopian society? Will we all be forced to buy Nationalized Health Care and drive Chevy Volts in it?
Okjimm,
If Mr. Free agrees with Culty, then isn't he committing, or at least abetting, treason by following the orders of a communist Commander in Chief?
The horror.
Culty,
My blood pressure is fine. You mistake my intolernace for fascism as a medical condition. You are wrong on just about everything else too.
I bet you're about as "Hungarian" as Tryone Witherspoon(s). But you are a "Good German" I bet.
And your goose-stepping into a neo-feudalist dictatorship by the minority is better than health care and cleaner air...how?
Funny then how the more socialist the country, the dirtier the air and shittier the health care. Witness China, which has really dirty air and terrible health care. Of course the government elites in China don't have to breath that shit and they get great health care. I guess the "People's Republic" did as good a job "redistributing" as any socialist quagmire. Doesn't matter, if you complain they give you some free "education" and I here the left is all for that!
As for me being an Anarchist, that was when I was a teenager. I really was. Kind of how liberals were all dirty hippies as kids, most libertarians were punk rockers for a while it seems.
Anyhoo, if you can't tell the moderate position of libertarianism and can only see the absolutes of either statism or anarchy you my friend are an extreamist.
Hence no compromise I guess.
“We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals - and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship.”
Grover Norquist
Ah, that's it ! Free is a Norquistian ! Wasn't there an old TV show... "Leave it to Grover" or was it "Pettiness Junction" ?
for someone who says some really nasty shit, it is amazing that he is the darling of the Republican Party .... ah, no , it isn't.
Are we at 200 yet?
OK, Alex, I select Truth and Honesty for $200.
Who said in his book, The Wrecking Crew"
“libertarianism is good because it helps conservatives pass off a patently probusiness political agenda as a noble bid for human freedom. Whatever we may think of libertarianism as a set of ideas, practically speaking, it is a doctrine that owes its visibility to the obvious charms it holds for the wealthy and the powerful. The reason we have so many well-funded libertarians in American these days is not because libertarianism suddenly acquired an enormous grassroots following, but because it appeals to those who are able to fund ideas. Like social Darwinism and Christian Science before it, libertarianism flatters the successful and rationalizes their core beliefs about the world. They warm to the libertarian idea that taxation is theft because they themselves don’t like to pay taxes. They fancy the libertarian notion that regulation is communist because they themselves find regulation intrusive and annoying. Libertarianism is a politics born to be subsidized."
The wisdom of Free --"Funny then how the more socialist the country, the dirtier the air and shittier the health care."
Sounds like that great socialist state of Texas.
With the collapse of the USSR, Cuba's poverty, and the downward spiral of Venezuala one would think it would be enough to discourage most utopian socialists.
The repeated lessons of history, however, have never stopped the socialists to forever redefine socialism, past and present, in an effort to propose yet another dose of social experiments that hopefully won't lead to the gulag this time.
Ah, that's it ! Free is a Norquistian!
Can't say I know much about Norquist but anyone who wants a government you can drown in a bathtub is my kinda people.
Sounds like that great socialist state of Texas.
Go breath the air in Beijing for five minutes and you'll be praying to get back to Houston. That is if your travel "papers" are in order.
Just did some light reading on Norquist, and yeah... he rules. I just joined Americans for Tax Reform.
I don't know why you would think that, Smokey. After all, republicans continue to ignore the history of their economic failures. We keep,hearing the same things. Tax cuts, tax cuts, and feed the rich.
"...republicans continue to ignore the history of their economic failures..."
Hmm, and Democrats continue to ignore the present failure of their economic policies. Good luck in 2012.
"We are a threat to their cult beliefs."
What cult beliefs, like bigger govt is the answer to all social ills?
"Bush expanded the federal government way more than Obama."
Support this claim.
"Bush also grew the debt more than any former president" And who now holds that record and by what percent?
JG,
To clear the air and to allow HR a perfect understanding of the term liberal as you use it, if Obama is not a liberal, then please give HR the name of a current liberal.
It's good to see that JG and DD are giving themsleves reach arounds again.
HR,
What Democratic policies? The Bush depression is the Democrats' fault?
As far as I know those tax cuts, wars, corporate welfare, and deregulation are still doing their damage.
And you want more of those.
Seriously? More failed Right wing/corporatist policies are just what we need?
We're still waiting for that Reagan trickle down.
There tuly is no limit to greed, no limit to selfish and sociopathic disregard for the well being of other human beings and the nation itself.
Rightward, ho! Onward to austerity for the masses, and more wealth and power for the elites.
You'll have folks like Mr. Free rounding up liberals in no time.
Onward to the glorious future of Amerikan fascism.
Oh Dave, really? Three years in office and it's still Bush's fault?
Let's see, you think our economic problems are caused by 1) tax cuts, 2) wars, 3) corporate welfare, and 4) deregulation. In the past three years, 1) taxes haven't been cut, 2) we haven't gone to war, 3) corporate welfare is through the roof (so we agree that Obama is an economic fool), and 4) Obama has matched Bush in the levels of new regulation.
Do you want to try again?
As for what Obama has done to harm the economy, how 'bout 5) raising the minimum wage (increasing unemployment), 6) extending unemployment benefits to 99 weeks (lengthening unemployment), 7) passed ObamaCare (increasing employment costs), 8) increased annual spending (increasing deficit and debt), and 9) tightened energy policy (raising prices and costing jobs).
In my book, present Democrat policies are failing, and people like you continue to ignore them and blame Republicans. Is that the best you've got?
Three years in office and it's still Bush's fault?
Yup. It takes much longer to rebuild an economy than to tear it down.
taxes haven't been cut,
Wrong. They remain cut, and more cuts were made.
we haven't gone to war,
Tell it to the surge troops that failed to win the war Bush launched.
I could go on, but why waste my time with your falsehoods?
Your book is just that. Yours.
"Three years in office and it's still Bush's fault?" and "Yup. It takes much longer to rebuild an economy than to tear it down."
Okay, but by your rules you don't get to blame the GOP House for anything until 2014.
"taxes haven't been cut" and "Wrong. They remain cut, and more cuts were made."
"Remain cut"? You mean they were cut under Bush and kept under Obama (speaking only of the Bush tax cuts). Not the same thing because Obama only prevented a tax increase.
As for other tax cuts, Obama has only cut taxes temporarily. Interestingly, all of his tax increases are permanent. Hmm.
"I could go on, but why waste my time with your falsehoods?"
Well said. Sometimes we can agree.
Post a Comment