Comments for Neocon Post-Election Strategy: »
Posted By ybdogsct 11 months, 2 weeks ago in Political NewsApparently, 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 »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 193
-
81%
engineer11 months, 2 weeks 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%
hyperbola11 months, 2 weeks 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.” ...-
-
-
-
93%
ETproductions11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I gave Hyperbola a neg. on the comments not because they were either true or false, but becausae they were so far off topic for the article in question. S/he should post articles illuminating the split between extreme Zionist conservatives and the voice of reason. I'd be happy to learn from and participate in that debate in its proper place.
Reply
-
-
-
-
15%
mivan411 months, 2 weeks 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-
92%
jakesguile11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Depends Mivan, he'd have loved the person who had to have the abortion, realizing that it scarred them psychologically for life and that would be their punishment. As for gay lifestlyes, I'm PRETTY sure as long as it's not hurting anybody (a point I won't argue with you, because you OBVIOUSLY contend gays are harmful to life, I disagree vehemently) that Jesus wouldn't care and would go so far as to be the one to ordain the ceremony.
Reply
But again this is just my opinion, far be it from ME, a mere MORTAL MAN to interpret the will of a God, and shame on the people who think they have it downpat.-
80%
oneironaut42011 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"he'd have loved the person who had to have the abortion, realizing that it scarred them psychologically for life and that would be their punishment."
Reply
LOL...I've known three women who had abortions when they were young, and not a single one is "psychologically scarred for life". Typical anti-choice propaganda. 8(-
-
Neutral
jakesguile11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually oneironaut I was meeting the fools 50/50, I'm pro-choice all the way, I just distain people who take the words of God interpreted by man and interpret them farther then claim they're still "from God." I'm Christian but not a zionist (I'm gay so obviously not). Annoys me heh
Reply
-
-
-
SwampFox-82ndComment removed: Retracted by user2 Replies
-
90%
djn3nunez311 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They also blamed him for 911 which was just barley after he took office.
Reply
That's a bit of revisionist history. Fact is he was in office nearly 8 full months. He ignored the advice of experts as well as the exiting Clinton Administrations, and was pursuing the missile defense as the only way to protect America. He even ignore the PDB titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S". Furthermore his administration tried to negociate a deal for a gas pipeline with the Taliban during the first 8 months of his administration. But still I don't blame him for the attacks, that fall directly on al Queda and the Taliban. However I don't think President Bush did enough to protect America from such threats and perhaps members of his administration simply didn't want too. They wanted a "New Pearl Harbor" to justify an invasion in the ME. -
-
-
-
86%
Goppy11 months, 2 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.-
TFLComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
14%
Endoscopy11 months, 2 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-
TFLComment removed: Hard Banned
-
100%
ybdogsct11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ENDOSCOPY:
Reply
"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."
That's PRECISELY the point, ENDOSCOPY. You, PC25, and the rest of your ilk haven't even waited until Obama has assumed office yet and you're ALREADY trying to scapegoat him.
The tactic is as transparent as it is pathetic.
LOL.-
Neutral
Endoscopy11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The fun is just starting. Just wait until he is inaugurated. Then we can really get going. Like Truman had on his desk. "The buck stops here".
Reply
Well everything will be his fault at that point. Poor libs will have to defend instead of attack. You will have a different problem in what you write. Anything that is the least little trouble will be yours to defend. Have fun. I am.
Trying to blame it on Bush will not work because you kept saying everything was Bushes fault even when things went back to Clinton. So don't even try the argument that it is because of Bush. -
-
-
-
-
75%
hyperbola11 months, 2 weeks 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%
hyperbola11 months, 2 weeks 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%
cushi11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I do not believe Barack Obama plans to keep Robert Gates as Defense Secretary permanently, but I do agree that we need to maintain some semblance of continuity on the Iraq front for the time being. The country is already in enough turmoil and transition, and there are Anti-american elements out there already testing the waters before Obama has even had a chance to get his feet wet. He is a practical, methodical thinker and he will move with all deliberate speed, but not recklessness, in effecting changes. He will also, of necessity, have to prioritize those changes, so I plan to hang in there with him and not be overly critical at the outset of his administration.
Reply -
-
-
100%
Beau789011 months, 2 weeks 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.-
100%
DarkWizard11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Beau7890,
Reply
"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."
You could be right, but in articles and interviews I've seen with Obama, since the election, he seems to be addressing those very concerns voiced by progressives and liberals who are afraid of status quo government. I truly believe he understands the enormity of his election and the mandate that permeates it. Even though he may not be as politically seasoned as some others, he seems quite astute and very focused. He is the polar opposite of the Chimp in charge right now. I don't think we'll be seeing an exit interview punctuated with "I wasn't prepared." Which, I think is a crockpot of you know what anyway!-
100%
Beau789011 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No doubt, he'll be thoughtful and careful. And if he continues to slowly move in a progressive direction, first addressing direct Constitutional infractions in the structure of government, eventually he'll be more successful this way, I think. Many of us are ready for radical change. But in my opinion it'll be hard to sustain past four years the way it'd be vehemently opposed, if everything is done suddenly.
Reply-
100%
DarkWizard11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I respect your opinions and thoughts, but I hope you're wrong for all of our sakes. He must move decisively and prioritize where he moves swiftly and where to use caution. I think if he makes good enough progress, he will get elected to a second term. This will be good for sustainability and give Americans a chance to acclimate to a predominately center-left society. I'm not saying we won't revisit some old or bad habits, but I think the damage can be minimized with moving toward a more responsive government and a marginalization of Neandercon tinkering.
Reply-
100%
Beau789011 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Maybe I'm not being clear, or maybe we disagree on a small point--I think he will move swiftly to rectify the imbalances in the government power structure Bush put in place, and to re-energize Americans' faith in government protection of citizens over industry.
Reply
On larger issues like Iraq, though, I think he won't take anywhere near the same stance as Bush, but he won't simply withdraw troops either. And I think that's the right course, as long as he continues to make progress reversing our current policy. Suddenly withdrawing troops would lead to unpleasant consequences that would give ammunition to the radical partisans.
-
-
-
-
-
89%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree with Beau, I think you are seeing a pragmatic defense of the future Obama presidency with many of these appointments being used to "block".
Reply
Of course we must wait and see. The noise from the right will always be there, at least in the generation who suffered the presidency of Bushco, I think no credence will be granted to it. They proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that their stewardship of the economy, international affairs, and domestic agenda was and is nothing but destructive. Remember this and teach your children so they never ever are given the reigns of power again. (The lessons of Hoover were forgotten by a generation willing to be lead down that same primrose path to Hades again).-
36%
beavith111 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
does your knee twitch when you write this stuff. or are you typing it with your fee under a table so you can't see and can't tell your doing your lib tarantella?
Reply
for every one of your assessment, i can make the same claim for a democratic leader.
what you are doing is ultimately destructive, and its even starting to look funny.
its as if you are circling the wagons because you expect an attack and there's no one there.
heal. there is no boogeyman, except the one in your mind.
oh yeah. there is no spoon.
maybe the political strategists are looking for Obama to immolate himself with political mistakes, but, and maybe i'm going out on a limb here, no american wishes him ill.-
TFLComment removed: Hard Banned
-
100%
willottica11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I appreciate your sentiment. If I get you correctly, you are saying that you hope Obama does an excellent job in office. The dancing tarantella liberal thing wasn't really called for, but neither is dismissing all Republicans as destructive buffoons.
Reply
I also see that you are calling out some of the hypocrisy of the left, which is always painful for them to admit (just as it is painful for those on the right to admit theirs).
I've had some interesting discussions with you in the last few days, and though I completely disagree with you on the success of trickle-down economics, you've shown that you are a thinking individual.
However, I think you're a little naive to think that it's only the political strategists who want Obama to fall and fall hard. I think that there are unfortunately a lot of partisan people who are willing to put party before country, who want Obama to fail so that republicans can rise again. (Just as there were many partisans who wanted Bush to fail so that the democrats could have their day.) This is by no means all of them, but I think they exist.
"No American wishes him ill" is clearly incorrect, since at least 2 attempts on his life have already been foiled.
-
-
-
-
-
75%
saneman11 months, 2 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-
67%
saneman11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If Obama kept Gates thinking that would make him better liked by the NeoCons, he is dumber than his JD from Harvard Law would suggest. He could even paint himself white or inject himself with white pigmentation but the NeoCons would still hate him. It doesn't take 16 or 18 months to pull out of a country. The USSR did it overnight in Afghanistan.
Reply-
TFLComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
56%
hyperbola11 months, 2 weeks 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%
hyperbola11 months, 2 weeks 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%
DarkWizard11 months, 2 weeks 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%
DarkWizard11 months, 2 weeks 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%
Lurch11 months, 2 weeks 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.-
-
50%
nonparted11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
to republicrat184,dencuddy,tfl and swampfox82
Reply
thanks for not liking my comment. dont know why? just asked a question.
what its okay for u to question the reps and not to question the dems.
for US citizens its their right to question the government. doesnt matter which party it is.
-
-
-
100%
gamahuche11 months, 2 weeks 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%
reallypsst11 months, 2 weeks 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%
Spadecaller11 months, 2 weeks 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%
DarkWizard11 months, 2 weeks 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, 2 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, 2 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-
-
100%
Endoscopy11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you want real hate just read the very liberal posters on this site. that is where the real hate is. I did a tongue in cheek post and you take it serious. I am not the one with a hate problem. I just love to post against those who love to spew their hate and watch them pile more on exposing what they are to all.
Reply
When you accuse the talk show hosts of being hate-mongers you are exposing what you are. A left wing hater of anything not liberal. Any thought that is not from the left is hateful. This country was built on the free exchange of ideas. The concept of "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it." falls on deaf ears for people like you. Your side wants to muzzle the right by the "Fairness Doctrine" so only your side can be heard. Before you deny that is what the Fairness Doctrine does just look back in history before it was done away with. Absolutely nothing controversial was on radio.
Why? One word - ratings. Ratings give the station the ability to sell advertising. Forcing them to put on shows that will have ratings in the tank will do the same with the advertising dollars for that time period. Thus causing lost revenue and forcing the station to only put things on the air that will not force those programs with bad ratings.
You super liberals are a pain in the rear. Spew hate and call it just simple truth.-
100%
djn3nunez311 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't believe you were writing tongue in cheek. I believe you and the hate mongers you follow will accuse Barack as the cause of all the bad things that are going to happen in the next few years.
Reply
How many times have you heard me say the the "Fairness doctrine" has never been used to muzzle anyone.
American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.
"There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50. "
Before the doctrine was repealed, right-wing hosts frequently dominated talkshow schedules, even in liberal cities, but none was ever muzzled (The Way Things Aren’t, Rendall et al., 1995). The Fairness Doctrine simply prohibited stations from broadcasting from a single perspective, day after day, without presenting opposing views.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm
You neo-clowns are a funny lot.-
Neutral
Endoscopy11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROTFLMAO
Reply
Now you are a mind reader. What a jerk you are for saying that.
Trying to change history are you. When the fairness doctrine was in force there sere NO CONTROVERSIAL shows on the air. It doesn't have to be 1 for 1 to damage the viability of a radio station. A three hour dud show puts a serious crimp in the profitability of any station. That is why the ratings rule. Someone slips enough on a station and their show is off and another one is on. A 1/8 hit on revenue is serious.
Air America had a ton of money behind it and was going to drive the conservative shows off of the air. It was a disaster. I am not sure if it is completely dead because I have not heard any shows on the air in the area I live in. Maybe in very liberal areas. For most of the country the liberal talk is death on the ratings. If you can't get ratings then you try to drive the opposition off of the air by making it too expensive to have them on. That is censorship. But the left can't win by ratings alone can they. Poor libs then have to force themselves on people who are not going to listen to them. Will not work.-
Neutral
djn3nunez311 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
..when it was in place, citizen groups used the Fairness Doctrine as a tool to expand speech and debate. For instance, it prevented stations from allowing only one side to be heard on ballot measures. Over the years, it had been supported by grassroots groups across the political spectrum, including the ACLU, National Rifle Association and the right-wing Accuracy In Media.
Reply
As a guarantor of balance and inclusion, the Fairness Doctrine was no panacea. It was somewhat vague, and depended on the vigilance of listeners and viewers to notice imbalance. But its value, beyond the occasional remedies it provided, was in its codification of the principle that broadcasters had a responsibility to present a range of views on controversial issues.
What has not changed since 1987 is that over-the-air broadcasting remains the most powerful force affecting public opinion, especially on local issues; as public trustees, broadcasters ought to be insuring that they inform the public, not inflame them. That’s why we need a Fairness Doctrine. It’s not a universal solution. It’s not a substitute for reform or for diversity of ownership. It’s simply a mechanism to address the most extreme kinds of broadcast abuse.
-
-
-
TFLComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
TFLComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
TFLComment removed: Hard Banned
-
Neutral
Endoscopy11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Right after the election the hate speech from liberals began. It continues except for a while after 9/11. Then it cranked up again. You in fact say horrendous things about this administration and think nothing of it. Well guess what? Your turn to defend the indefensible is coming. That one that is elected will be fun to attack. So watch out here we come. It started against Bush before he was inaugurated so the same back at you. You people set the rule and now are whining when it is your turn in the barrel. Have fun in there.
Reply
-
-
-
-
92%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 2 weeks 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%
DarkWizard11 months, 2 weeks 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, 2 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%
CHAM11 months, 2 weeks 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%
Daylight11 months, 2 weeks 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, 2 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, 2 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, 2 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.-
100%
HannibalBarca11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is also how a stand or statement is interpreted, both black and white can be right but neither will acknowledge the other.
Reply
Like Obama, USA is proud that it has elected a black man, and so they should be; but this is based on the fact that Obama is half black,,,,,so it is also true then that USA still elected a white man. and now we argue, who is right.
-
-
-
-
90%
Hhussk11 months, 2 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, 2 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.-
-
86%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
''Who do you blame for the bailouts?''
Reply
I thought we were supposed to blame ourselves...
''The point is, we need to blame ourselves.''
???
the average person has very little political and economic power
a vote and a few extra dollars dwindling in value
I don't recall anyone in government asking my opinion about the bailouts or Iraq
Actually I don't recall any of them asking my opinion about much of anything
the idea of our individual participation in government and what goes on in the world is greatly exaggerated[sort of 'the American myth' perpetuated by those who actually have the juice to keep the rest of us happy]- exagerrated to our own detriment-we have people abroad thinking we[the American people] had control of whether Iraq was invaded
someone above railed against the word 'neocon's' overuse..I feel the same about 'liberal'
People use the word too freely...and it kinda sounds like a racial slur these days-
-
100%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL
Reply
'they did what they wanted anyway'
you affirm my post and then accuse me of whining?
that's pretty funny
-----
America is run by corporations to a large degree, so while, as you say, our political power is minimal or 'after the fact' [we coulda booted out Bush in 2004 'after the fact'], those of us with dough to spend do have a surprising amount of economic power.
I was told the gas prices dropping 2 bucks was because people started buying and using it only when they really needed it [out of necessity - almost 4 bucks here, now 1.67]
Hit them in their wallets, as the old expression goes
How the bailout factors into that old saying, I don't know...maybe we're being hit back?
-
-
-
-
-
50%
beavith111 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
every waking moment.
Reply
her game to put Beverly Hills Waxman in charge of the House energy committe has become a liberal (i used the term intentionally) putsch that will put energy and environment beyond economics.
she's already shaping up as the poster child of everything wrong with the democratic party, just as Dick Armey used to be the republican lightning rod.
i've seen Obama make some cool calculated decisions, to his credit. Pelosi is a political hack. i hope that she doesn't run Obama over in her zeal to apply her california liberal policies. -
-
-
TFLComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
33%
Endoscopy11 months, 2 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.-
100%
vor11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nobody is innocent here. That would be foolish to suggest. Yet one party left a surplus behind. One is leaving huge debt. We can make a somewhat general assumption from that alone.
Reply
It makes it even easier when you realize no Democratic legislation has been passed since '00. Explain how they could create any change in the system without the veto? That has belonged exclusively to the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania for 8 long years. Unless you want to say this all happened 8 years ago and there have been no consequences since. A very unlikely scenario you must admit.
I could discuss hundreds of failed liberal agendas. I wonder how many conservative proposals you could list? You might be shocked that for instance I don't agree with the idea of gay marriage or back-ssward initiatives like cracking down on people smoking in their cars. And even more ridiculous measures like regulating transfats. We aren't perfect by any means. But we are forward thinking....I see it as a choice between hope and hatred. That has always been an easy decision to me.-
50%
Endoscopy11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROTFLMAO
Reply
Clinton was forced by the Republican congress to balance the budget. Something that liberals seem to ignore when they sing the praises of Clinton. I still remember his taking the issue to the public and pleading to do it over the following 6 years. When he got the public's response he then acted like it was his own idea.
Typical liberal.-
-
100%
vor11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ridiculous -as you sit there and chuckle to your Christian(?) self - I wonder WWJT of your words?
Reply
I do give that GOP Congress credit for holding Clinton in line. But ask Joe Scarborough where those Republicans have gone? Again you make foolish assumptions. But the last eight years have little in common with that time. For six years the Republicans were basically unrestrained. You are simply ignoring the FACT that the GOP controlled the budget exclusively for those 6 years ('00-'06) and the Dems have only had mere parliamentary power the last two years. And I suppose you missed my words today stating that, "Presidents take too much credit and too much blame." Clinton and Bush are both examples of that fact. The difference is that Bush was a failed leader while Clinton was a flawed one.
Yet Clinton used his veto power, he weighed in. Bush stood on the sidelines his entire two terms. Cheney firmly in control of any F.P. decisions. That's why he will never be considered anything more than a mediocre President. Bush did however insist on cutting taxes in a time of war. Never done before and not likely to be repeated.
The booming economy of the late 90's had more to do with a confluence of factors (i.e. the Tech boom) than anything specifically done by the federal government. It was an overstimulated economy hitting at the peak of the business cycle. But that wealth was far more widespread amongst the middle than the wealth generated during the peak that occured on Bush's watch. That largely went to the top. The late 90's certainly weren't all Clinton's doing nor that of the Republican Congress. Bush came in at the end of the wave of that cycle and will leave with a vicious dip (one of the worst recorded). Bad luck or bad policy? I would say a bit of both. He isn't completely blameless, not by a long shot. But it is also true Clinton couldn't have stopped the trough of '01 even if he could have run for a third term. Especially factoring in the effects of 9/11.
You appear to have little ability to see anything but the pillar in front of you. And apparently you have been smacking your head on it!-
Neutral
Endoscopy11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
IMHO the Republicans screwed up under Bush by giving in to too much of the Democrat agenda. But what you and all other liberals ignore is that the Democrats in Congress were crying about it not being enough and the Republicans were just too stingy. Explain this to me would you liberals talking about the deficit. Your side wanted a bigger one and you ignore that part of it.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I was a liberal under Johnson. I thought the War on poverty was great. Then I became a foster parent and then moved to the Detroit Metro area. I saw first hand what that did to people. Girls getting pregnant to have their own apartment and having more just to increase their payments. The black community went from being a close nit family group to out of wedlock rates going through the roof because of the ADC rules. No man in the house if they want the money. Liberals never look at how people will change their behavior in order to get or keep money. I had my face mashed into it.
Reply
-
-
-
-
38%
4thchance11 months, 2 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, 2 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.-
0%
4thchance11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, if things keep getting worse with the economy, those "endangered species" you speak of may end up on our dinner tables! Point being, right now who gives a rats azz about "endangered species" we have more important things to worry about, don't ya think?
Reply-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There's always something 'more important' than a snail darter or coho salmon until there aren't any more and it starts affecting animals further up the food chain, including us. Biodiversity is survival, especially in a changing climate.
Reply
You want a really clear example of how protecting the environment protects us? Do you know which levies in Louisiana survived? The ones which backed up to indigenous old-growth forests which have since been hacked down to replace the landscaping wood chips which were washed away by Katrina. Know what's gonna happen when the next cat 4 storm hits the area? The storm surge will roll over the levies like Roseanne on her way to the all-you-can-eat buffet.
You wanna help the economy? Let's begin with a responsible energy policy that doesn't pump toxins into our air and water and keep us dependent on foreign oil. Let's put people to work on building a clean energy grid and on repairing our crumbling infrastructure instead of bailing out clueless corporations who's business model doesn't look past next quarter's profit. We're a pretty smart bunch of folks and I think we can do more than one thing at once.-
TFLComment removed: Hard Banned
-
100%
Endoscopy11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Do you know why the levies broke? Federal money was sent to keep the levies kept in proper order. Each levee has a different committee taking care of it. That was the New Orleans tradition. Many of the committees used the Money for parks, statues and buildings. They believed there was no problem. The warning that a cat 4 hurricane or higher would drop enough water to overflow them made no impression on them. They did what they wanted to do. The result is what they allowed to happen because of the way they spent their Federal money.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
Endoscopy11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The response to Katrina was better than the response to the Florida Hurricanes a couple of years before. I am so sick of hearing about Katrina when the Hurricane didn't hit New Orleans. It was all the rain that made the levies overflow a few days later. Everybody forgets there was a sigh of relief before the levies broke. The Governor rescinded the declaration of emergency and thought they were in the clear.
Reply
The liberal idea that the delay was inspired by racial hatred was ridiculous. You seem to think that issuing an order for people supplies to be sent in will make it happen over night. Live in the real world of it takes time to first allocate people and materials and then have them delivered there. The problem was made worse by the police refusing the responders into the area immediately. The federal help was being sent to ALL of the area devastated by the Hurricane not just New Orleans.
In all disasters the first level of responders are local, the next level is state, The last responders are federal. The reason is the distance involved and the amount of places involved. Nobody said anything about the devastation that was done up through several states but only New Orleans. Our church still sends people there periodically to help repair the damage done. A lot of places are still devastated. But you foolish libs think the only place hurt was New Orleans.-
100%
djn3nunez311 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
<i.I am so sick of hearing about Katrina when the Hurricane didn't hit New Orleans. It was all the rain that made the levies overflow a few days later. </i>
Reply
Hurricane force winds most certainly battered New Orleans for several hours while the storm moved inland. Once the strom moved north and east the winds shifted and pushed the water in lake Ponchatrain towards levies. It was the force of the water in the lake being pushed by the storm that caused the levies to fail.
I put most of the blame for the lack of planning and recovery first on the New Orleans mayor. Then the La. governor. Then the Presidents appointee Brown.-
Neutral
Endoscopy11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Then why did the Governor release the declaration of emergency that would have had aid coming there quicker? Why was there the talk of relief of dodging the bullet of the hurricane? A less that cat 1 wind is a very different animal from a cat 5 wind. The worst of the storm missed New Orleans and damage by the winds was very minimal. Try again about the Hurricane damaging New Orleans. I live in Florida and know the difference. It took the runoff from the rain several days to get into the Lake and then overflow the levees. Why do you forget the days between the hurricane hitting and the levees failing.
Reply-
Neutral
djn3nunez311 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why do you forget the days between the hurricane hitting and the levees failing.
Reply
Because it didn't happen! It was not days between landfall and the levies breaking, it was hours.
http://thinkprogress.org/katrina-timeline/
-
-
-
TFLComment removed: Hard Banned
-
TFLComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
-
42%
Georgia5011 months, 2 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, 2 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."-
50%
Georgia5011 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Would those be the same Italian forgeries whose dates Joseph Wilson was strangely familiar with before he had even been privy to the documents?
Reply
Regardless, I draw your attention to your own post: "On the basis of these documents and other indicators." Your author-coward is providing himself/herself cover because the author-coward knows that the US and UK position preceded the so-called Italian forgeries. Apparently you bought the lie that it all started with those 16 words.
American and British intelligence concluded that Iraq attempted to procure yellowcake in Niger independenly of and in spite of--that is to say, even subsequent to the release of--the Italian forgeries. If you believe otherwise, I'd like to see your evidence....evidence that goes beyond quoting a media outlet.
I'm familiar with "quick Google searches." That's why I never use quick Google searches unless I'm merely refreshing my memory.-
100%
ForrestPhelps11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To Georgia50:
Reply
I'm "familiar" with the dates on hundreds of documents I've never actually seen. I hear the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, but I've never seen it in person. So I think, in my opinion, your mentioning of Wilson is a smoke screen. I could be wrong, but aren't we discussing your comment:
"You accused Bush of lying when he said Iraq obtained yellowcake in Niger. Bush never said Iraq obtained yellowcake in Niger."?
That's what I was addressing. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
As for evidence regarding whether Bush should have included his sixteen-word sentence in his 2003 State of the Union address, how about a quote from the Bush administration? (Note: the Bush administration may or may not, depending on your perspective, be a "media outlet"). Here's the quote, which is from CNN, since I but is directly referencing a statement released from the Bush administration:
************
In a statement released Friday evening, Tenet said that the CIA had seen and approved the speech before it was delivered, and he took responsibility for the mistake.
"The president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president," he said."
************
Now, as regards the American and British intelligence having evidence independent of the forged Italian documents, there was an investigation in Britain regarding this very question (which yielded the "Butler Report"). British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw testified that the claim in the dossier rested on separate evidence to the fraudulent documents, and that this same source had briefed the IAEA with the same information. Lynne Jones, MP, a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee investigating all this, subsequently contacted IAEA and was told the following:
(cont.) -
100%
ForrestPhelps11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To: Georgia50 (continuation)
Reply
"IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky responded to Jones in May 2004:
I can confirm to you that we have received information from a number of member states regarding the allegation that Iraq sought to acquire uranium from Niger. However, we have learned nothing which would cause us to change the conclusion we reported to the United Nations Security Council on March 7, 2003 with regards to the documents assessed to be forgeries and have not received any information that would appear to be based on anything other than those documents."
Now, the Butler Report concluded: "that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded."
However, critics of the conclusion of the Butler Report contend that even at this late date, British Intelligence has not revealed any of the "other" evidence.
Perhaps you know of where that evidence can be found?
Finally, in my opinion, Bush used faulty intelligence that he knew was faulty to justify going to war. If Obama does the same, I can promise you I will find fault with him, too.
If, in your opinion, Bush didn't start the war in Iraq based upon, at best, faulty intelligence (and, at worst, lies), then that's your opinion, and I respect your right to hold that opinion.
-
-
-
80%
djn3nunez311 months, 2 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%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
one of the techniques I heard used I would call 'extreme physical duress'
Reply
much was made of waterboarding, but I also heard that one thing done was to make a suspect kneel for hours on end with his hands straight-arm and stuck out behind their back [done by using a bench the manacled hands were made to rest or fixed on]
being forced to be in this position for 16-24 straight hours doesn't sound like thumbscrews, anymore than the faux drowning, but it never does when its someone else, ya know?
But I can easily imagine the 'stocks' position, and the seconds turning into minutes, minutes into hours, as the muscles tighten and cry out for release from the 'high stress position', the inevitable cramping and the skin of the knees being compressed for hours on end-all the while not knowing when your captors will let you move
all it takes is a little imagination and to remember they don't TELL you when they'll let you up out of the water or let you breathe and your head out of the plastic bag, or when the cramp in your shoulder will abate and you'll get to move again, to realize that while no permanent physical scars, it is torture, sure enough
and of course the US already defined waterboarding as torture post WW2 -
33%
Georgia5011 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
djn...
Reply
Torture is something that happens to a soldier or an innocent civilian.
I personally don't have a word and don't need a word for any treatment of any combatant fighting out of uniform and not at the behest of a sovereign nation. They are expendable vermin who's only reason for continued breathing is to extract intelligence prior to what I can only hope is as equally horrific a death as their innocent victims faced. Although I have no problem with a humane execution or tidy little summary trial.
By way of contrast, in WWII, spies who clearly worked on behalf of a sovereign nation, whether Allied or Axis, but nevertheless were out of uniform, were summarily shot with or without torture beforehand. Today's Islamofascist terrorists do not rise to the level of WWII spies. They have no conscience and no nation to fight for.
My position is that anyone who buys into terrorist rationale has a moral obligation to place themselves in the terrorists' line of fire. After all, terrorists don't care who they kill...might as well be the idiots who agree with their grievance fantasies.-
100%
willottica11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But Georgia, how do you determine innocence without a trial?
Reply
Combatanst fighting not at the behest of a sovereign nation? So the French revolution was a bunch of terrorists? They should have just remained content to be oppressed by the oligarchy?
Your position about terrorist rationale: I find reprehensible. By trying to understand the motives of terrorism, we can try to prevent future terrorists from developing. -
-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Torture is something that happens to a soldier or an innocent civilian."
Reply
No, torture is something that happens to a human being, regardless of circumstances, or uniform, or ideology.
Being opposed to torture does not make one in agreement with or even sympathetic towards terrorists.
-
-
-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 2 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%
Endoscopy11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Try again. His timetable at the very beginning was almost immediately. Then it was 18 months. and then later it was lengthened. Keep your facts straight. Also we can take anything out of context we want to. You liberals do that all the time and now you have to defend your administration and we can take all the pot shots we want true or not. We learned that from the liberals.
Reply
-
-
-
-
100%
ETproductions11 months, 2 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, 2 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 -
40%
lloydm6511 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Speaking of hate,in just a few weeks I will set out on a journey a short one I hope,but longer if need be.From that day forward when ask about Obama-Biden,I will simply say I hate them.I'm not going to call them or their children ugly names or use the terms used for President Bush.My grand daughter will be upset,she voted for Obama ,but then she voted Kerry,weird child.
Reply-
-
80%
Georgia5011 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
lloyd,
Reply
Really. They get to openly fantasize about the assassination of Bush...even produce films dramatizing it. But WE have to be little altar boys. Hypocrisy noted.
That said, what with Israel/Iran and India/Pakistan (soon to be) on his plate, I plan to offer Obama my support as an American. There'll be plenty of time for policy and philosophical disagreements, so I'm going to limit my dissent to constructive dialogue.
Yes, libs....I'll take a few rhetorical potshots now and then, all tongue-in-cheek, but President-Elect Obama will be the president of my country, too, and I want him to succeed and be safe. -
100%
vor11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"From that day forward when ask about Obama-Biden,I will simply say I hate them."
Reply
Hate is the most dangerous issue this country faces. Palin made it quite fashionable this fall. Rush Limbaugh makes his living from the notion. At least 56 million of you don't see it as a bad thing. Yet poor John McCain didn't even believe what he was having to say. He was never a willing partner in the slander.
But Sarah Palin? That's another story. I went to see one of her campaign stops local to me out of sheer curiousity. I wondered what was it that drew right wingers to her like a magnet? Sadly it is the hate they have in common. Yet oddly Palin is (by her religion) told to "hate" no one. But like you her fragile mind can't deal with the concept. It is all too ingrained. She appeared to be enjoying every moment of it, savoring the words as she spewed them out. This time it was Khalidi she referred to, the only problem being that McCain himself had contributed to the man's causes, far more than Obama. I must have been the only one in the crowd who knew this. But Sarah was only maligning Obama, he was her focus and the crowd responded in a Pavlovian manner. After this event (and long before it) I know that I will never agree with the beliefs of these people. This is evil. Pure and simple. Evil in porn heels and tight skirts perhaps but evil regardless. Some see this as our future. Yet we already survived the Middle Ages. That's where Sarah wants to take us, even further back. Back before things like science were fashionable. Back when her ancient beliefs made sense.
The same goes for the hate you feel. It is evil. No other word. You even insinuate your own flesh and blood is rotten for her beliefs. I dealt with an acquaintance who reminds me very much of your thinking. He cut his own daughter out of his will for voting for Obama. Says he will disown her. In the meantime he is holed up with his massive arsenal of guns stewing in his misery. Has been since the election. What a life that must be?
It isn't hatred I feel toward such people but pity. Sheesh, if I can survive 8 years with a timebomb like Cheney one step from the throne you can survive Obama. And you will survive, despite your foolish fears. I only hope your granddaughter forgives you one day.
-
80%
4thchance11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
DARN it, my toast has burned again...this is the fault of Bush, but not for long. It will soon be retroactive, then I can blame Obama for burning my toast, and my plugged drain, and the dent in my car, and the frost on my windshield, and my messy desk top and my empty ink cartridge and my dirty socks and my empty beer can and my..., well you get the idea. Obama is going to have so much fun being president!
Reply-
-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Glad to see you're having so much fun beating up that straw man of yours.
Reply
Most reasonable liberals don't blame Bush for such things, and you know it. Just to be clear, I don't blame Bush for 911. Could he have urged action that might have lessened the impact? Probably, but hindsight is 20/20.
The venture in Iraq was a mistake, but a lot of Democrats jumped on that particular bandwagon, so the decimation of our economy and the trashing of our international credibility rests partly on their shoulders. Bush, Cheney, and Rummy ignored the advice of experienced generals, resulting in a predictably deeper, longer and far more expensive quagmire.
Much ballyhoo is made over the 'triumph of the surge', wholly ignoring the fact that the real reason for the lessened violence was the Anbar Awakening and the Iraqi-negotiated cease-fire.
-
-
100%
reallypsst11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
O come on people we have had presidents that were dumb as a door nail,but bush takes the cake,he has been the cheney puppet for so long when he decides to exert some power on his own its a catastrophe you have to go back a little before his old man brought his presidency .those scandals were suppressed by very powerfull friends,his association with the bin laden family.If you take time to look back at his life he was a spoiled rich kid with a very powerfull old man.How do you account for a whole family in very powerfull positions ,father head of the CIA then president,first son governor of texas,than president two terms,second son governor of florida and maybe now in the senate.How did this come about by hard work or merit hell no its money and power.there are many rich political families out there and they have never reached this status.So am sure when this bush leaves office we are going to find out a lot more about his rise to power and all the secrets will be let out.In my view this man was a disappointment before he became president.
Reply -
100%
reallypsst11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
O come on people we have had presidents that were dumb as a door nail,but bush takes the cake,he has been the cheney puppet for so long when he decides to exert some power on his own its a catastrophe you have to go back a little before his old man brought his presidency .those scandals were suppressed by very powerfull friends,his association with the bin laden family.If you take time to look back at his life he was a spoiled rich kid with a very powerfull old man.How do you account for a whole family in very powerfull positions ,father head of the CIA then president,first son governor of texas,than president two terms,second son governor of florida and maybe now in the senate.How did this come about by hard work or merit hell no its money and power.there are many rich political families out there and they have never reached this status.So am sure when this bush leaves office we are going to find out a lot more about his rise to power and all the secrets will be let out.In my view this man was a disappointment before he became president.
Reply -
50%
saneman11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bush is dumb as a box of rocks. Heck, he applied for admission to law school in Texas and was denied. ROFLMAO! Not even his high powered Daddy could get him into law school. That really says it all about George Bush. Not even Capone nor the Gambino family were bigger crooks than the Bush Crime Family.
Reply
http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_fam...-
TFLComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
50%
Commodore111 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's right U nazi liberals. The days of blaming everything on Bush are almost at an end. The days of blaming everything on Obama bin Laden are upon us. And oh yes! I'm going to be just as cruel, ruthless and unforgiving as all of U anti Bush iceholes have been. Actually I'm going to be worse and I'm going to enjoy myself. Brace yourselfs MORONS!
Reply -
50%
shapaug11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What the democrats started with Bush will be just as good for Obama. lying democrats blamed Bush for everything. Democrats with the help of the liberal media lied on Bush, disrespected our country and military. Now its time to do the same thing to the bigot Obama and the lying demodops. Yes, the politics of hate is alive and well thanks to the mean spirited democrats. Let the obama and democrat congress bashing begin.
Reply -
100%
ELISHEVA111 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama is marked for blame and has been since he won the race to run. Clearly anyone with a 1/2 a brain cell would realize that nothing he does in the next 4 years will be anything but moping up the last 8 years.
Reply
He is brave for taking on this post and American's should be happy that someone is willing to try.
This is no decline it is the beginning of a whole new way to live. We should all put our thinking caps on and act as Obama has already declared: '...(with) all hands on deck...'
If all the leader can find a way to work together and the American's can be nice enough to ask for help, maybe the transition will be smooth. If we keep fighting amongst ourselves, it'll be every 'man' for himself and no one will win.
Time for all of us to take responsibility, to the degree that we are able, beginning with helping each other to help ourselves.-
-
100%
ELISHEVA111 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In Rousseau's 'Social Contract' he points out that the government should be the puppet of the people AND that it is the responsibility of the people to ensure that the government does not become a tyrannical entity.
Reply
None of the political angles have worked yet and none of them will ever work if we continue to disregard Nature and our lack of integration within that existing, (and huge) structure.
I am not kidding at all. If we want to continue to believe the illusion that we are powerless then we will end up in a fascist situation (globally,) with the agenda meeting the needs of the elite.
Part of the difficulty in our ability to manage undesirable or even intense situations is that we do not understand the power that exists within us. And not understanding that power, having no awareness of it, we have a tendency to look elsewhere for solutions.....even subconsciously.....in places where the solutions cannot be found.
Reality is not necessarily what is visible to us in our surroundings, or even in what we hold as truth. There is a higher reality where we all connect and merge into an elevated force we call humanity. (This is not where we are now...) This is a force of Nature that functions the same as the human body. All of cells, the components that comprise humanity, must be in balance or the body becomes ill and unable to act for its own preservation. That is the state of humanity right now and the ripple effect impacts each of us individually. When an individual is considering their feelings of powerlessness and hopelessness they could ask the questions: Why am I here? What purpose do I have in this life? How do I realize that purpose? What part of me does humanity need? What do I need from those other parts of humanity? How do we get there? There is power even in asking those questions. Science has done the research and we know that it only takes a small percentage of collective thought/population and that it impacts and even alter reality.
If we started exploring in this direction, both emotionally and intellectually we will discover additional strength and untapped potential forces within, that currently lay dormant.
-
-
100%
Painesright11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is so disheartening to read the back-and-forth name calling posts on a site that I assume is populated by adults. If you cannot refer to someone without calling them a name that is meant to be derogatory, then you need to work on your debating skills and your vocabulary.
Reply
If you have a difference in opinion with someone, state your point and support it with facts. If you see a problem, offer a solution.
That is the only way our country is going to move forward in the right direction.
And before you call me a *(&^%$%^& neocon, please note that I actually lived and worked in a country that has followed every progressive liberal's dream policy for the last 40 years. The citizens of that progressive country enjoy "free" gov't housing for all who need it, "free" healthcare, "free" college education, "free" daycare, 13 weeks of paid vacation per year, a very high mandatory "living wage", super strong unions (workers can't get fired in their first 2 years of employment and when a company does need to fire someone, they have to go to court and prove to the judge that the company has done everything in it's power to turn them into a good worker), where working more than 35 hours per week is not permitted (yes you read that right) and on and on.
Now, before you get too excited and start packing your bags, please note that all of this free stuff has lead to very high tax rates... for EVERYONE. The MIDDLE class tax rate is 30% on income, sales tax is 19.6%, capital gains tax 18%, social security tax is 8% and everyone pays an 11% "social contribution" tax. That list does not even begin to exhaust the complete list of taxes, such as a tax on wealth, inheritance tax, property taxes, 33% corporate tax, etc, etc. Fraud and abuse is rampant in practically every entitlement program. What a shocker that the more their gov't gives them, the more they take! -
100%
Painesright11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Continued...
Reply
That country, with all of their progressive policies, has a much higher unemployment rate, higher suicide rate, higher use of antidepressants and higher alcoholism rate than we do in the U.S. The country is financially ruined and has a declining birth rate that is not high enough to replace their current population.
Now, why would these people living on easy-street be so depressed? Because all of the "free" government programs and restrictive laws have killed their ability to be self-sufficient, productive individuals and has sent companies (IE: potential employers) running for the hills. And that is exactly what the same types of progressive programs/policies will do here.
Every citizen that I ever met in that "utopian" country would have given his right arm to be a U.S. citizen... despite what the U.N. would have you believe, most people in the world still consider the U.S. as THE land of opportunity, for now.
If I have a problem with the incoming administration, it's not because of the person leading them, but because I have seen first hand the affects of their "progressive" policies and I do not want my country to go down that same path.
Now, let the name calling begin...-
Neutral
DarkWizard11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Painesright,
Reply
You are too intellectual for this site...please leave.
Ok...that was just sarcasm. Come down off your cloud and join the fun. Most people here know that this is just good clean fun in exchanging philosophical views and some barbs. Of course, others are so wrapped up in themselves they think that everyone hangs on their every word! Then you have a stratification of IQs and writing abilities that could make a professor proud or an elementary school teacher cringe or vice-versa.
Name calling and cursing is both a psychological ploy to throw off an opponent and push their buttons. However, some do lack an adequate vocabulary to express themselves and must resort to their natural state and their verbal forte. Therefore, your post will have little affect on the bloggers here on Propeller and becomes irrelevant by default.
In other words..."you're a poopyhead!" as stated by TFL!
-
-
TFLComment removed: Hard Banned
-
SwampFox-82ndComment removed: Retracted by user
loading ...
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.