Neocon Post-Election Strategy: »
Posted By ybdogsct 12 months ago in Political News
Apparently, it's the new post-election strategy to blame EVERYTHING on Obama, even if Obama hasn't taken office yet! This is apparent from some of the stories already posted by conservative Propeller members.
FTA:
"Dick Morris: 'I’m glad we [the GOP] didn’t win [the 2008 election] because what’s been set in motion is so bad, we’re going to need someone else to take responsibility for it. Lucky us, we just handed our disaster off to Obama and Company rather than go through taking responsibility for it ourselves (if McCain had won, we’d have been blamed for it unfolding “on (our) watch”). So good luck — we didn’t want this job right now anyway!'
Now, let’s blame Obama for everything so we can resume disaster creation in 2012. We’d better get used to arguing against this failed logic, because it’s going to be the NeoCon Anthem for the next four years. Obama is months away from office, and we’ve got windbags like Dick Morris breathing big sighs of faux-relief over this nonsense already. Somehow, whether it’s the economy, the botched wars, the massive national debt, the failed education system, or any other of a number of things that went to hell or were sent off course during the Republicans’ years of total control, it’s going to be Obama’s fault."
Read Full Story at medicineagency.com »
1452 Views Share Story 55 Comments Report
Other Related Articles:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 166 of 193 Comments (view all)
-
81%
engineer12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sounds like the GOP Neocons. They are the lowest ruthless nonhumans to be in any sort of power. They don't care about anything but their neocon agenda right or wrong. They call themselves Christian conservatives. JC is turning over in his grave since he was a liberal
Reply-
22%
hyperbola12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, some of your sentiments are certainly correct, but you forgot to mention that a major proportion of the "neocons" are in fact ZionCons. Many jews are also turning over in their graves about the pseudo-jewish zioncons. Many of the others are simply "careerists" of the kind that Hannah Arendt identified.
Reply
Both christians and jews should root these abominations out of their communities.
The American Council of Judaism
Explaining the Long — and Largely Untold — History of Jewish Opposition to Zionism
A THREAT FROM WITHIN: A CENTURY OF JEWISH OPPOSITION TO ZIONISM,
by Yakov M. Rabkin,
While many in Israel and in Jewish communities in the U.S. and other countries now promote the idea that Zionism and Judaism are, in effect, the same and that opposition to Zionism constitutes “anti-Semitism,” the historical fact — largely untold — is that, for most of its history, Zionism has been a decidedly minority movement among Jews throughout the world.
Since its inception as a political movement in 1897, both Reform and Orthodox Jews rejected Zionism’s basic premise of creating a Jewish state in Palestine and having Jews either emigrate to it or, at the very least, consider it “central” to their Jewish identity.
An overwhelming majority of Orthodox Jews, unwilling to accept the restoration of a Jewish state in Palestine by means other than divine intervention, considered Zionism a false messianic movement. Most Jewish liberals and socialists, having accepted the faith of the Enlightenment, with its emphasis on optimism, reason and progress, rejected Zionism as a reactionary philosophy. ....
... In the forward, Joseph Agassi, professor of Philosophy at Tel Aviv University, notes that, “The author raises questions about the myth that Israel protects the Jews around the world and constitutes their natural homeland. This book rightly shows that this myth is anti-Jewish. ...
... Zionism gained support in areas where social and political conditions were unfavorable to Jews, particularly the Russian Empire. Indeed, Rabkin argues that Zionism has far more in common with the emerging nationalisms which swept Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries than anything to be found in Jewish tradition. ...
... This instrumentalization of religion, writes Israeli historian and political scientist Zeev Sternhell, is not specific to Zionism but can be found in many varieties of organic nationalism propagated in Europe from the mid-l9th century onward. Rabkin declares that, “While keeping intact the social function of religion in order to unify the people, Zionism eliminated its metaphysical content. In the same way religion became a vital element of many varieties of nationalism; for example, neither the Polish variant nor 1’Action Francaise made any efforts to disguise their Catholic traits, Sternhell defines this trend as ‘religion without God,’ religion that has preserved only its outward symbols.” ... -
-
15%
mivan412 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jesus is no longer in the grave, and you reap what you sow- Liberals were blaming Bush for the market crash that started before he was elected and continued to do so after he was elected but not yet in office. They also blamed him for 911 which was just barley after he took office. Quit whining already if you can't stand the heat ......... Also Jesus taught more Conservative principals than Liberal ones. He DID NOT CONDONE SIN but loved the sinner anyway! There is no way he would have condoned abortion or gay lifestyles !
Reply -
-
86%
Goppy11 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think the Republican Party needs more people like this Propellerite ... one of my fans ...
Reply
http://www.propeller.com/member/bikertrsh/comments...
This is the base the GOP needs to build upon to enhance their stance as the Modern Morally Vacant Party. -
14%
Endoscopy11 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROTFLMAO
Reply
You did it to Bush and now you are complaining that it might be done to Obama. I love it.
What is the problem with doing to him what you people did to Bush. I can't wait for him to be inaugurated. Then the fun will begin. LOL
-
-
75%
hyperbola12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, we will have to wait and see what Obama does upon assuming the presidency. However, the signs are not good. Imagine appointing an Iran-Contra criminal who was already creating faked, politicized "intelligence" (and ruining the CIA in the process) as Secretary of Defense.
Reply
Robert Gates: As Bad as Rumsfeld
"As Bad As Rumsfeld?" The title jars, doesn't it. The more so, since Defense Secretary Robert Gates found his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, such an easy act to follow. But the jarring part reflects how malnourished most of us are on the thin gruel served up by the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM).
... There are a host of reasons why Robert Gates should not be asked to stay on by President-elect Obama. Robert Parry has put together much of Gates' history in Parry's 2004 book, Secrecy & Privilege; readers may also wish to see what former intelligence analysts and I, who knew Gates at CIA, have written by going to Consortiumnews.com's Gates archive.
For me, Gates' role in the unnecessary killing of still more Americans and Iraqis is quite enough to disqualify him. I have known him for almost 40 years; he has always been transparently ambitious, but he is also bright. He knew better; and he did it anyway....
Surely, it should not be too much to expect that President-elect Obama find someone more suitable to select for secretary of defense than an unprincipled chameleon like Gates.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/11/22/robert-g...-
38%
hyperbola12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Danger of Keeping Robert Gates
Reply
Press reports say Barack Obama may retain George W. Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates as a gesture to war-time continuity, bipartisanship and respect for the Washington insider community, which has embraced Gates as something of a new Wise Man.
However, if Obama does keep Gates on, the new President will be employing someone who embodies many of the worst elements of U.S. national security policy over the past three decades, including responsibility for what Obama himself has fingered as a chief concern, “politicized intelligence.”
During a campaign interview with the Washington Post, Obama said, “I have been troubled by … the politicization of intelligence in this administration.” But it was Gates – as a senior CIA official in the 1980s – who broke the back of the CIA analytical division’s commitment to objective intelligence.
In a recent book, Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA, former CIA analyst Melvin A. Goodman identifies Gates as the chief action officer for the Reagan administration’s drive to tailor intelligence reporting to White House political desires.....
...If the President-elect is serious about taking that advice, he first might want to review the extensive evidence of Gates’s devious behavior and consider whether Gates deserves the trust of the American people – and their newly elected government.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/11/14/the-dang... -
100%
Beau789012 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Gates will not be Defense Secretary for long. He's being kept on to ensure continuity and placate those who'd accuse Obama of "surrendering." I'd be surprised if Gates was still there by September of 2010.
Reply
The choice of Gates is actually meant to deflect an example of what this story addresses--the certain continual attempt by the radiacal right that will be made to blame Obama no matter what he does. (This is certain to be a part of their power struggle with the moderates for more control of their party.)
The good news is that Obama has proven media-savvy enough to avoid being tarnished (except among the zombified talk-radio crowd) by ridiculously oversimplified and inaccurate smears.
The bad news is it means Obama will be more cautious and than many liberals would like on some issues, national security and the war being two of them. -
75%
saneman11 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I couldn't agree with you more. I have been criticizing Obama from the very moment he decided to keep Gates. Huge mistake!! The majority of the people wanted change and wanted the US out of that quagmire in Iraq immediately and he dropped the ball.
Reply
-
-
56%
hyperbola12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am not so much concerned about what the NeoCons (zioncons) say as by the increasing evidence that Obama will largely repeat their mistakes. If (when) he does then it will certainly be correct to blame him.
Reply
With Gates, Obama Opts for Empire
Barack Obama’s got a big problem.
He’s suckered himself into believing that we need a bipartisan foreign and military policy.
And so he’s reappointing Robert Gates as head of the Defense Department.
Let’s remember: Gates was head of the CIA during Bush I. As such, he was involved in the invasion of Panama, the funding of a genocidal regime in Guatemala, the support of Suharto’s brutal government in Indonesia, and the overthrow of Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti.
With Bush I, he pushed the first war against Saddam Hussein, even when it seemed that Saddam was preparing to withdraw from Iraq.
And now with Bush II, he’s been running the Iraq War, which Obama vowed to end.
And Gates has come out with modernizing our nuclear weapons arsenal—that means making new nukes—even though Obama talked about nuclear disarmament during the campaign.
Something’s terribly wrong with this picture.
And it’s simply this: Obama doesn’t really want a change in foreign and military policy. He said as much during the campaign when he praised Bush Sr. and said he wanted to return to the bipartisan consensus of the last forty years.
In those forty years, the United States waged war against Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. It helped overthrow the Allende government in Chile. It supported Suharto’s invasion of East Timor. It financed and trained death squads in Central America. And on and on.
With the Gates choice, Obama proves he’s not about ending the U.S. empire.
He’s about running the U.S. empire—with less bravado than Bush-Cheney, but perhaps more efficiently.
And he’s perfectly willing to use the old hands like Gates, bloody as they are, to get that job done.
http://www.progressive.org/mag/wx112608.html-
50%
hyperbola12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What is particularly damaging is Obama's apparent intention to allow israel-first zionists to continue running much of our foreign policy. We should remember that there are about as many zionists in the democratic party as NeoCons in the GOP.
Reply
Israel's Settlement on Capitol Hill
Unbeknownst to most Americans, Israel’s westernmost settlement is not located in Palestine-Israel, but is 6000 miles away on the high ground overlooking Foggy Bottom in Washington D.C.
This Capital Hill settlement of pro-Israel lobbies and think tanks strategically controls the high ground overlooking the United States’ Middle East policy landscape by having made kibbutzniks of most members of the executive and legislative branches of the government—including President-elect Obama, Vice President-elect Biden (a wannabe Zionist), and future Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (a born Zionist).
While Israel’s hilltop settlements in the occupied territories—violating over 30 UN Security Council resolutions since 1968—are “facts on the ground” that make the two state peace solution unlikely, their hilltop settlement in the center of the world’s only superpower makes it equally unlikely that Israel’s right-wing government will feel compelled to end their “self defensive” brutalization of the Palestinian people, which has been condemned by the international community (UN, EU) as crimes against humanity.
.... Obama’s unconditional support for Israel’s policy of “self defense,” preemptive attacks, and repressive occupations is not one iota different from that of George W. Bush, an internationally recognized war criminal. This is not an encouraging beginning for a man whose battle cry was “change we can believe in.”
By any rational, humanitarian standard, Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians amounts to collective punishment and crimes against humanity. Perpetrators of such crimes, whether they are individuals or governments or willing allies, are criminals who should one day sit in the dock of the International Court of Justice in The Hague—just as defendants sat in a Nuremberg court 60 years ago—and be held accountable for their crimes.
Until Israel’s hilltop settlement in our nation’s capital is dismantled, allowing for the possibility of a just and lasting peace in Palestine-Israel, its influence on both branches of our government and its insidious affect on US Middle East policy will continue to make willing—or unwitting—kibbutzniks of all Americans. We will be held as complicit, and as culpable, as the citizens of the country whose leaders sat in the dock at Nuremberg.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/11/29/israel39...
-
-
91%
DarkWizard12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ybdogsct,
Reply
First off, thank you for the invite. And secondly, was this strategy unexpected (not that they have any continuity of thought)?!
Personally, I think it is great that they are playing this card so soon! The Republican Party, the Neocon faction in particular, is showing that they are still trying to recover from the drubbing they’ve taken nationally. They are already stoking the fires of blame for President-elect Obama and his appointees in hopes of using their tried-and-true method of smoke-and-mirror politics. Unfortunately for them, this election proved that their tried-and-true methods are mostly smoke-and-mirrors to their own people!
Yes, they will strategize, commiserate, and throw their buzz words of fear around, but they’ll find out Americans aren’t buying what they’re selling (especially in this economy!). Ok…bad joke.
Like I said in a post before Obama won the election, “Don’t go trying to claim any of the credit when things turn around under Obama’s programs if you voted against him.” Sure, it may be until late 2010 or even into 2011 before things start moving upwards, but make no mistake, things will get better and it won’t be due to anything the Republicans have done.
On the downside, I think next year will be worse than this year and that when things do turn around, it will be a long, hard road to regain stability and sustainability. And no, the Democrats are not blameless in this fiasco. But, they only poured salt on the wounds created by Republicans instead of helping them to heal, especially in the arena of impeachment. And, shirking their Constitutional duties to take control in matters of war and finance is neigh unforgivable. Enough said...for now. -
100%
DarkWizard12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
tadair919,
Reply
"republicans dont even like necons"
I tend to agree with you (on this point), but unfortunately, the Neocon faction seems to be the most vocal and has claimed residence within the Republican Party. So, who is going to step forward and take the party back?! -
-
90%
Lurch12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Gates is being kept on to assume responsibility for cleaning up the mess he helped prolong and increase.
Reply
The amazing thing is that these neocons actually believe Americans are so moronic they did not notice this whole thing unfolding from over a year before the 2008 election.
God what a bunch of America-haters. -
100%
gamahuche12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama couldn't have picked a tougher time to take the reins but it seems to me that even a very fickle culture will remember very clearly who delivered this mess to the US.
Reply
If GWB had any ethics or any serious concern with his legacy he'd have already embarked on a mea culpa campaign to save something for his legacy.
Wish I could hang out tonight and follow this thread but its almost 3 a.m Central European Time and I've got a work-marathon in progress too - but thanks for the heads-up and for a great post - & I definitely won't cry if it overtakes mine! -
100%
reallypsst12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Its a smart move for Obama keeping gates for the time being how else can he find out all the secrets of these clowns,better to be informed than to have some say i told you so.Obama is not the idiot we have now.He might be the wolf in sheeps clothing!
Reply-
TFLComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
83%
Spadecaller12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ybdogsct
Reply
Thanks for the invite. It's a shame that we all have to step around Hyper's usual minefield of hateful rants against the Jews to find a place to post a comment, but that is the way it is.
And the neocons will be the way they have always been; they will do everything in their power to obstruct the efforts of our new president elect regardless of its negative impact on the safety and welfare of our national and economic security.
This is a good story to post, as it will once again be up to the people to bring this awareness to the forefront and to expose this reprehensible conduct for everyone to observe.
Just as swift-boating and mudslinging backfired on Palin and McCain, the internet can again become the window for our nation to see these partisan hacks for what they are... unscrupulous profiteers and partisans who care nothing for their fellow Americans and for defending the constitution.-
100%
DarkWizard12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Spadecaller,
Reply
I totally agree with you that the Internet has become a powerful tool for those that have embraced it. I especially think that the alternative news sources and blog sites have enhanced this ability to question philosophical dogma and build thoughtful networks, not only across our nation, but to others outside the U.S. that we've seen participate here. We are building coalitions of thought (i.e. creativity, philosophies, cultural understanding, etc.) that can't be ignored. The government would basically have to shut down the Internet to stop us.
Look how quickly a story like this one shows up for us to dissect, discuss, and share a variety of ideas on. It has become obvious, to me at least, that Propeller is showing the same kind of center-left demographic as did the exit polls for the elections. We can make a difference. -
100%
willottica11 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Spade, I find your rants against hyper almost as tiresome as hyper's rants against the zionists. I wouldn't mention it to you, except I also criticized hyper for them earlier in the thread.
Reply
If you don't like them, ignore them. Or watch them for something that is unambiguously hateful so you can let out that triumphant "HA!" and point out the true hatred.
By calling hyper's rants hate-filled (when even on close inspection, they don't seem to be), you prompt people to re-read them, and actually draw more attention to them. The lack of overt hatred then makes hyper's rants seem more reasonable, not less.
That's just my personal observation. -
100%
Endoscopy11 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You have it all wrong. We will return the favor that you liberals bestowed on Bush. Generate hate rhetoric ad nausium. This will be fun. We can watch you wiggle every time he makes the tiniest mistake and even if he doesn't we can make something up just like you liberals did.
Reply
Maybe we can start with Obama lied and men died. He promised way back to pull out if Iraq. Every man that dies there after he takes office is an his head. Lets start a count at that point.
LOL
-
-
92%
Radiofreeeuropa12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There really are no solutions ever offered by conservatives, why?
Reply
Conservativism by definition seeks to oppose change, to defend existing institutions and social structure. The only value conservatives are capable of having politically is if liberal solutions are not working, they can point it out, but because they are inherently opposed to change, in any era that has need for creative solutions to it's problems, these solutions can not come from a conservative. (It's simply not conservative to change anything, good bad or indifferent. The neocon faction are another animal all together. They are simply imperialists and indeed "corporatists" in the classic Mussolini sense.
Then there is the Christian Conservative faction, who are simply so used to not allowing observable truths to interfere with their beliefs, they are easily lead by anyone waving a flag-pin and condemns people in a faux authoritative manner.
These people have already begun attempting to blame Obama for everything under the sun even though he isn't in office yet.
It's really all they do, they have nothing to offer but hubris
and lies. Fortunately most people realize this now.-
100%
DarkWizard12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
RFE,
Reply
Change is difficult for humans in general as we seek stability and security in the knowledge of constants. Unfortunately, the Republicans (the Neocon faction in particular) are a breed that "fights" against change instead of accepting that change is inevitable. At least more Americans (by virtue of electing Obama) than not see that change can be good and necessary when not changing means that America, its people, and what it stands for will rapidly decline.
I don't want to see an extreme shift to the left either as I believe a balance is needed for the best results nationally, but I am not opposed to some extreme liberal methods for a short period to correct the imbalance caused by the Neocon agenda. You can see, from the cross-section here on Propeller, that many of the right-wing faithful are resistant to drastic measures because fear of the unknown often rules their perspective more than taking a chance on needed change. -
33%
Endoscopy11 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The time for liberals to step up and make their case for what needs to be done because they are in power. Now the Republicans can just sit back and enjoy poking at the liberals for everything they do. The shoe is on the other foot. Live with it. The talk radio shows have even higher rating during times like these. Rush's ratings shot up when Clinton was elected.
Reply
Liberals now have to define what they want to do and the loyal opposition can just sit back and shoot things down. The Republicans have no responsibility except to hold the Democrats feet to the fire. It is the Democrats turn to be targets in the shooting gallery. Have fun.
-
-
100%
CHAM12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ybdog. I have the opinion that the Republicans have shamed themselves into irrelevance. Thay have proved beyond a shadow of doubt that they do not intend to represent the best interests of the American people.
Reply
However they do quite well represent the best interests of the Neo-Cons. The Republicans so brazenly defended the worst President in the History of the United States. They no longer deserve our trust.
I don't know about Obama. I'm hoping that he doesn't follow the lead of the Republicans twin brother, named Democrats. We people of America deserve better than what we have in Washington.
If we the people really want better Government, we better start demanding it. And we need to demand the prosecution of corrupt elected officials in Washington, beginning now.
Get elected, become Teflon coated, then disown who brought you. That is the rule of political parties today.
We need to get a new Political Party into the fray and we need to have a Constitutional Convention. The time to start is now. -
Republicrat1844Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
29%
Daylight12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If anybody believes that Obama will do anything different is a retard. He will do what the present administration is doing with different slogans that until the American and the NATO forces are kicked out lock, stock and barrel. These forces are already feeling the defeat in Afghanistan but Obama wants 20.000 more troops in Afghanistan to keep the American puppet alive. Now America is getting tired and also economically getting bankrupt of fighting the so called wars on terror in may fronts. Now the India is being pushed and encouraged by the US Neocon regime of Bush administration to start another war in the region with Pakistan and now the trend is that every country should hand over its citizens who are accused of terror to be tried in those countries that accuse them of involvements in any act of terror and they only have to find evidences or cook up evidences by the so called intelligent agencies or the governments or the corrupt regimes like Bush administration. War on terror is taking a new turn or backfiring on those who started it in order to solve their political failures and India is the new victim of war on terror.
Reply-
50%
Endoscopy11 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROTFLMAO
Reply
India has what the news reports saying they are call their own 9/11. Who did it? Fanatical Muslims just like here. Welcome to the Islamo Fascist victim list Daylight.
What is reported here from there is that the US warned India weeks ago that they were being targeted for an attack. Just refused to listen didn't they. Now you can point your fingers at those government officials who refused to believe it.
What the official reports here are saying is that the Sec. of State is trying to have communication between the two countries instead of war. But of course you want to believe the worst.
This is the bad part of Islam. Pakistan wants to get rid of them and it is almost a civil war there. These terrorists are trying to make it a war between India and Pakistan to relieve the pressure from them internally and you want to believe that the US wants a war like that. Why would we be so foolish?
Bush is leaving office soon so if anybody wants to foment a war like that it would be Obama since he has said he would go into Pakistan and attack the Taliban and al Qaeda and get Bin Laden. That war would make it easier to go in the back door while Pakistan would be defending the front door. The problem with that is he is not in office yet. This transition time is the wrong time for anybody in the administration to try anything but try to bring peace.
-
-
-
58%
Hhussk11 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sadly, Dick Morris is right. As much as the article tries to make him out to be a villain, his words are true. I will provide historical reference as proof.
Reply
In the 1990's, Bill Clinton could do very little right. He was villified by those on the right. He was called a murderer, thug, ego-maniacal, etc.
In the next decade, George W. Bush could do very little right. He was villified by those on the left. He was called a murderer, thug, ego-maniacal, etc.
In this new, upcoming decade, Barrack Obama will do very little right. He will be villified by those on the right. He will be called a murderer, thug, ego-maniacal, etc.
The problem with this country is you, not Clinton, Bush, Obama. It's prudent to disagree. It's proper to make your points. But what I read from more and more people now is purely emotionally-charged, typically baseless, attacks.
Where is your patriotism? Why do you think "because he's a Republican" he must be for the rich and against the poor, or "because he's a Democrat, he wants to take my money and make me pay for freeloaders"?
The reasons are clear. You're misinformed. There is not a conspiracy behind every corner...-
SwampFox-82ndComment removed: Retracted by user4 Replies
-
100%
willottica11 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think the point that Hhussk is trying to make is that the parties have been successful in making you think in black and white.
Reply
If you're a Democratic, you support democrats unquestioningly and find it very hard to offer praise when praise is due a Republican (and sometimes it is!)
Similarly, if you're a Republican, you support any Republican over a democrat and will constantly tear down any Democrat in power.
The partisanship blinds many of us to the positive and negative qualities of the individuals. I witnessed it in myself when I joined a political party for the first time in my life to run in the last Canadian election. I joined the NDP and suddenly I wanted the NDP to be better than the Liberals and the Conservatives and the Greens, and my mind found ways to justify it and make me believe they were better. Even when I became aware of this, it was very hard to fight against.
-
-
-
90%
Hhussk11 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would definately agree that there is no valid basis for blaming anything on Obama at this point. He needs to be given the chance to lead this nation. I'm a strong conservative, which you will all see over time. But it does not mean I'm willing to tear my country apart.
Reply
-
-
SandmonsterComment removed: Hard Banned4 Replies
-
75%
vor11 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Clearly denial is a central tenet of neo-conservatism. They accept responsibility for little and certainly accept no blame for anything. It is because they believe their idealogy is flawless. That it is the only hope for the future. When in fact it is a death sentence for the planet...
Reply
"If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage a total war, our children will sing great songs about us years from now."
Richard Perle
That is neo-conservatism in a nutshell. No diplomacy. Everything decided by brute force. And for this we expect to be held as an example for the rest of the Earth? It was this misguided idealogy that brought Bush down. We will never know what GW Bush would have done on his own but we now know what to expect from an administration filled with these vermin. Sarah Palin is their new poster child. A vapid empty vessel ready to be filled with their violent idealogy. A future carrier of this disease. This idealogy should be put out of its misery. In the end that job falls to the American voter. We can only hope 2008 was a glimpse of the future.-
-
33%
Endoscopy11 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROTFLMAO
Reply
Your definition of neocons are the same for the rabid liberals. A lot of them post on this site. The Democrats have made no mistakes.
When things are pointed out that were mistakes it is all Bush's fault. This financial mess was created by compassionate lobbying by ACORN that was passed into law under Clinton in 1992. Compassion replaced financial prudence with the poor and others. That caused the housing boom because of a lot of new buyers. warnings were given about the problems that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were having and the Republicans let the Democrats shout them down instead of doing what was the correct thing of fixing the problem.
Every time I post this the liberals come unglued and blame everything on the Republicans and say the wrong fixes were going to be put in place. they also say that the foreclosures under Fannie and Freddy are not big enough to cause the problem. In other words it is all Republican and Democrats are innocent. The fact of the matter is there is blame on both sides. Liberals NEVER admit to any blame for anything.
-
-
38%
4thchance11 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You can't blame Obama yet for everything and anything that goes wrong in the world, BUT come January, we can and will blame him for anything and everything that does go wrong ANYWHERE in the world. Heck, anywhere in the universe as far as that goes...For instance, lets say the Mars Rover breaks down, well that will be Obama's fault Etc...Bush is blamed so Obama should be blamed. What's good for the goose is good for the gander!
Reply-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't blame Bush for every little thing that goes either wrong or right. I DO blame/credit him for the things he had a direct hand in. The response to Katrina was abysmal largely because Bush appointed someone wholly unqualified for the position and THEN commended Brownie for doing a "heckuva job". To be fair, Bush created the largest marine preserve off the coast of Hawai'i, though it remains to be seen if there will actually be any meaningful protections in regards to fishing, recreational use, etc.
Reply
Bush is using the final weeks of his term to seriously weaken environmental standards and protections for endangered species. Yeah, I DO blame him for his short-sightedness in this regard. -
-
-
42%
Georgia5011 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Do you liberals honestly want us to apply the same standards to Obama that you applied to Bush?
Reply
You defended Clinton's transfer of sensitive military technology to China. You then attacked Bush in the P-3 China spy plane incident as if he himself commandeered the aircraft and placed it in Chinese custody.
You accused Bush of lying when he said Iraq obtained yellowcake in Niger. Bush never said Iraq obtained yellowcake in Niger.
You accused the Bush administration of authorizing the use of torture, even though nothing more than extreme physical duress was used on captured terrorists, and anything beyond that--once known--was adjudicated in military court. You forced Bush et al to make a decision: let the media frenzy and Congressional misfits own the narrative, or defend yourself openly and thus telegraph to terrorists how to train operatives for prisoner status. Thankfully, Bush had the good sense to forfeit the argument and keep detainee operations classified so that terrorists cannot train how to kill YOU more efficiently. You're welcome.
Before Bush took office in January, 2001, Sarah Jessica Skank complained that it was Bush's fault her family was on welfare. Apparently it never occurred to her or her husband that there are no laws prohibiting multimillionaire relatives from helping their own family members.-
100%
ForrestPhelps11 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To Georgia50:
Reply
From a quick Google search:
"The Niger uranium forgeries refers to falsified classified documents initially revealed by Italian intelligence. These documents depict an attempt by the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq to purchase "yellowcake" uranium ore from Niger during the Iraq disarmament crisis.
On the basis of these documents and other indicators, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom asserted that Iraq had attempted to procure nuclear material for the purpose of creating what they called weapons of mass destruction, referred to as WMD, in defiance of the United Nations Iraq sanctions.
U.S. President George W. Bush cited the documents in a sixteen-word sentence in the January 2003 State of the Union Address; when the International Atomic Energy Agency later determined the documents were forged and the U.S. government declassified a 2002 Central Intelligence Agency report casting doubt on the documents' veracity, the administration was criticized by many for its decision to include the sentence.
U.S. intelligence officials received the forged documents on October 7, 2002, the same day President Bush launched a new hard-line public relations campaign targeted to increase public support for the Iraq war. He kicked off the campaign with a speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, in which he referenced Hussein's seemingly apparent growing nuclear capabilities." -
80%
djn3nunez311 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Do you liberals honestly want us to apply the same standards to Obama that you applied to Bush?
Reply
Since the standard is the effects of his policy decisions on our country, yes I do. Do I expect it? No, of course not. I expect the psuedo-cons to do exactly what D.ick Morris prescribes. Furthermore I expect the neo-clowns to gobble it up.
even though nothing more than extreme physical duress was used on captured terrorists,
Extreme physical duress?
WTF do you think torture is anyway?
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=torture -
100%
Tangent00111 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"You accused Bush of lying when he said Iraq obtained yellowcake in Niger."
Reply
No, I accuse Bush of lying when he continually suggested Saddam had something to do with the 911 attacks. I accuse Bush of lying when he said regarding the supposed WMDs in Iraq "We found them."
BTW, not all liberals are Clinton apologists. I didn't like Clinton giving China military technology, nor was I pleased when he restored China's favored-nation trading status. I thought NAFTA was a miserable idea that would lead to a race-to-the-bottom for wages and encourage job outsourcing, and sure enough it did.
-
-
-
100%
ETproductions11 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dick Morris certainly understands what "The Party of personal responsibility" means. Republicans are responsible for the surplus we enjoyed under Bill Clinton and Democrats caused the massive deficits and resulting financial calamity under G. W> Bush, even though they were in the minority in Congress and Bush, the imperial unitary executive, didn't have much use for the Legislative Branch anyway.
Reply -
67%
KISA452a11 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The humor on here is amazing! For 8 years it has been "It's Bush's fault!" Whether it is healthcare, economy, rain fall, drought, the flu, your kids runny nose, the pebble you stubbed your toe on... It didn't matter. Now the Repubs are planning to do the same for Obama. Not that I think either way was a good idea, but there is never any change when you select from the single major parties. We will go from Bush derangement syndrome to Obama derangement syndrome.
Reply
More News
Politics Daily
Sarah Palin's Visit with Billy Graham: Dinner, Prayer and a Photo-Op
Obama Met State Dinner Party Crashers; Secret Service Taking Blame
Will Sarah Palin Ever Be President? A Guide to the Predictions
White House Gate-Crashers: Security Breach or Social Office Lapse?
A Year Out, Wisconsin Governor's Race Shaping Up to Be Close
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.