This post on Sadly, No! describes Tom Delay's recent criticism of Newt Gingritch to Bob Novak. Allow me to reprint the following quote from the post because it is a thing of beauty: "If you ask me, that whole shack full of ship-jacking sack-flappers ought to shag the frat hat, instead of flak-trapping like a bunch of jag-nap chap-braggers. And I mean ‘in bed,’ as it were." And here's what the commenters had to say:
How sad that to see national leaders disobey President Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow conservative.”
Damn! Tom DeLay earnestly discussing the importance of maintaining “a high moral tone.” That shorted out my bizarro-meter.
Damn, HTMLM, you’ve hit the horrible scumbag trifecta.
It’s like Moloch quoting Beelzebub calling Satan a douche.
Correction, HTML: Novak is not a “horrible scumbag,” but rather America’s douche bag of liberty.
Ah, Newt arrives, saviour of us liberals, to put the appropriately wacked-out face upon We-Hates-Liberalsism (or whatever fascism calls itself these days). We liberals created this powerful symbol, out of the illegitimate son of a teenage welfare mother; in the pre-1960s South, he would have barely qualified as a pleasure-boy to a gay version of Jesse Helms. We made him, we own him, and he will do our bidding: he will make right-wing extremism look even worse with his overstuffed face, bellowing bulgingly about the need for discipline as the basis of morality. Welcom back, Newt, and let us all bask in your faux (as in Faux News) intellectualism. The Big Clenis whupped you six ways to Sunday, back in the day, and now his long-suffering wife deserves the chance. Lead with your chin, man, it’s the only part of your head with substance!
Um, “takes one to know one”? I think you have to at least give some credit to the GOP for being willing to get their hands dirty researching moral decay so’s they can spot it when it turns up in our politics. That’s dedication!
I passionately want Newt GroinItch to win the Republican primary. When past quotes are quoted, the presidential election will take a humorously hysterical turn. Remember, these quotes are from twelve years ago. There’s no reason to think that GroinItch won’t top them before the election!
http://www.rusbasan.com/Humor/Newt.html
“If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for thirty days because they get infections and they don’t have upper body strength. I mean, some do, but they’re relatively rare. On the other hand, men are basically little piglets, you drop them in the ditch, they roll around in it, doesn’t matter, you know. These things are very real. On the other hand, if combat means being on an Aegis-class cruiser managing the computer controls for twelve ships and their rockets, a female may be again dramatically better than a male who gets very, very frustrated sitting in a chair all the time because males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes.”
– Adjunct Professor Newt Gingrich, Reinhardt College, January 7, 1995, “Renewing American Civilization.”
So I was thinking, as bad as Brownback is, as overrated as Giuliani is, as inconsistent as McCain is, none of them could be as bad as George W. Bush. I breathed a sigh of relief.
Amd then … Newt Gingrich returned. Like a monster from a Universal horror film, without the charm.
Newt Gingrich is a perfect example of the motormouth syndrome: diarrhea of the mouth, constipation of the brain. The guy is glib, which is why Faux News likes him, but he cannot be taken seriously.
What one so loves about Newt is his intellectual vanity. He’s like a character out of Kingsley Amis. He regularly reminds people, “I’m a teacher,” or “I’m a professor.”
PLEASE let him run. At least in the primaries. Show me a man who doesn’t relish the thought of Newt in a spirited debate with, e.g., Brownback and McCain and Mitt, and I’ll show you a man who…well, who’s wrong.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Mad Rush to '08 Elections
In his article for AlterNet.org, Steve Fraser speculates about whether the Presidential election of 2008 will be a "turning-point election." Here is what some people had to say in response:
THe truth is that American wealth is not based today on that can-do, independent American spirit, but rather on our global network of military bases, our global arms trading programs, our global loansharking programs - in general, we're a wealthy country because we steal other countries resources using the World Bank and the IMF, and when that fails, the US military. Most Americans don't want to know the truth - that their pension funds and future retirement incomes are all part of the same system. Ask yourself: what do we make within our borders that other people want to buy from us? Weapons...and what else? Cars? Noone else wants gas-guzzling SUVs. Most of the manufacturing jobs have been exported out of the country, due to the coordinated efforts of both Democrats and Republicans... Our corporate media is nothing but the propaganda arm of the empire, and they know which candidates and issues to give coverage to and which to ignore. Notice the lack of coverage of the global network of US military bases? Does ANY other country have such a network? What would the US say if the Chinese started building massive military bases in Africa, for example? We have some 900 military installations in foreign countries - now what does that have to do with 'democracy'? Somehow, I doubt that another flawed election, with rigged voter rolls and electronic Republican-owned voting machines, is going to bring much in the way of sweeping change. Locking up the entire Bush Administration for about ten years might help things out a little, however. Bush and Cheney need to be impeached - that's all there is to it.
Saddam's real sin wasn't torture and murder, in the eyes of Wall Street - it was converting all his dollars to euros, after which the value of the euro rose 30% against the dollar, after which Iraq was invaded. New rule? All Iraqi oil sales were to be denominated in dollars. Iran's massive natural gas fields and the proposed Iranian gas and oil exchange are the next target of BushCo. They've been exerting all kinds of pressure on other countries not to sign oil and gas deals with Iran, which doesn't seem to be working. Bush & Cheney have one primary agenda: control global fossil fuel supplies, and force all the trades to go through the London and New York dollar exchange. That's all they know; it's where they come from; it's who they are. The Enron mentality is still in full swing. In earlier times, such people were known as robber barons.
The question is, "Will we end the war on the middle class?" Or will the wealthy political class in the US continue to use the privilege of law-making to increase their wealth? Support for labor unions would be an alternative to the GOP rape of the public treasury.
I say, if we go to war against Iran, then we all withhold our taxes period. That will end it. No taxes, no credit, no credit, no war.... no income, no GDP and whole bunch of ticked off politicians. I like it. LOL
To answer your question, it's my sense that the "war on the middle class" has already been won, by the rich... The vast majority of U.S. citizens (and non-citizens also residing here) are POOR! We are lower class, considering what our purchasing power amounts to. And no one apart from John Edwards has even broached this subject yet.
I really wish that someone in either the Dems or the GOP would pick up and read the old party ticket for Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party. Fighting against big business and the need for regulation is just as needed now as during the last "Gilded Era"
The American public is waking up and they are getting more and more angry at the parties currently in power in this nation. This run for the White House that is now going on is a sham, and many people realize that it is. This drive by the likes of Hillary and McCain is fueled by a PR rush and money that flows to their coffers by the people who buy power, and can go on for two years, where many of the more tenable candidates have to drop out for lack of funds. It will not be the will of the people that is seen at the conventions, but the longevity of those who have the most money, which is what each party wants.
Steve Fraser has accomplished the extraordinary: Composed a 5,042 word article without mention of the only serious candidate, Dennis Kucinich. Might I suggest the serious reader check the following links, and avoid this joker of an author in the future? A Can't Lose Campaign Vote Dennis
The author ignores a very simple explanation for all of the coverage. It is easy for the press to do. Compare this to the work that would be required if the press was to actually investigate any of the myriad scandals emanating from Washington. That would take work, real digging and some hard thought. Too much of the press is intellectually lazy and like the author all to willing to write a long article composed of hypotheticals, rather than getting out, finding facts and investigating something.
Paid journalists take their orders from editors and all are paid by corporations-conglomerates that want to make money; NOT educate, liberate and challenge the status quo- Edward R. Morrow warned us 50 years ago that corporate controlled TV would dumb down the republic with entertainment and not programs of enlightenment.
If we let them off the hook with "lazy" as the pathetic excuse for their behavior, then they win. But if we call them on their "treason" then we win. Its treason what they are doing now, not laziness. Call it like it is.... WE NEED TO START FRAMING THE DISCUSSION BY CHANGING THE LANGUAGE. TREASON, LET IT RING EVERYWHERE, ON BUMPERSTICKERS, SIGNS IN YOUR YARD, DISCUSSIONS WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS, START USING THE TERM AND EVENTUALLY THEY WILL SEE IT FOR THEMSELVES.
The Libby trial and Waxman's committee over the last three weeks have essentially proven that the US is controlled by the Vice President's men, the war on Iraq was a 'Wag The Dog' operation, $8.8 billion of Iraq's cash disappeared through the CPA, $10 billion of Iraq reconstruction funds are unaccounted for, and Karl Rove is replacing US Attorneys with pro-racketeering ideological clones. CNN and Fox headlines? "Anna Nicole drives to Florida wearing a diaper and drops dead; Obama and Hilary are on vacation and coming to a free-speech zone near you, soon!"
do you really think the "powers to be" are going to let the people in this country elect anyone who will have the courage to disband the Federal Reserve, truly investigate the perpetrators of 9/11 and insure that each vote cast is counted as it was cast.
the system is so corrupt that the only possible meaningful change would be to vote out of office all incumbents. Then to institute term limits and public funding of all federal elections.
sincerely, webmaster of 911insidejob.net
THe truth is that American wealth is not based today on that can-do, independent American spirit, but rather on our global network of military bases, our global arms trading programs, our global loansharking programs - in general, we're a wealthy country because we steal other countries resources using the World Bank and the IMF, and when that fails, the US military. Most Americans don't want to know the truth - that their pension funds and future retirement incomes are all part of the same system. Ask yourself: what do we make within our borders that other people want to buy from us? Weapons...and what else? Cars? Noone else wants gas-guzzling SUVs. Most of the manufacturing jobs have been exported out of the country, due to the coordinated efforts of both Democrats and Republicans... Our corporate media is nothing but the propaganda arm of the empire, and they know which candidates and issues to give coverage to and which to ignore. Notice the lack of coverage of the global network of US military bases? Does ANY other country have such a network? What would the US say if the Chinese started building massive military bases in Africa, for example? We have some 900 military installations in foreign countries - now what does that have to do with 'democracy'? Somehow, I doubt that another flawed election, with rigged voter rolls and electronic Republican-owned voting machines, is going to bring much in the way of sweeping change. Locking up the entire Bush Administration for about ten years might help things out a little, however. Bush and Cheney need to be impeached - that's all there is to it.
Saddam's real sin wasn't torture and murder, in the eyes of Wall Street - it was converting all his dollars to euros, after which the value of the euro rose 30% against the dollar, after which Iraq was invaded. New rule? All Iraqi oil sales were to be denominated in dollars. Iran's massive natural gas fields and the proposed Iranian gas and oil exchange are the next target of BushCo. They've been exerting all kinds of pressure on other countries not to sign oil and gas deals with Iran, which doesn't seem to be working. Bush & Cheney have one primary agenda: control global fossil fuel supplies, and force all the trades to go through the London and New York dollar exchange. That's all they know; it's where they come from; it's who they are. The Enron mentality is still in full swing. In earlier times, such people were known as robber barons.
The question is, "Will we end the war on the middle class?" Or will the wealthy political class in the US continue to use the privilege of law-making to increase their wealth? Support for labor unions would be an alternative to the GOP rape of the public treasury.
I say, if we go to war against Iran, then we all withhold our taxes period. That will end it. No taxes, no credit, no credit, no war.... no income, no GDP and whole bunch of ticked off politicians. I like it. LOL
To answer your question, it's my sense that the "war on the middle class" has already been won, by the rich... The vast majority of U.S. citizens (and non-citizens also residing here) are POOR! We are lower class, considering what our purchasing power amounts to. And no one apart from John Edwards has even broached this subject yet.
I really wish that someone in either the Dems or the GOP would pick up and read the old party ticket for Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party. Fighting against big business and the need for regulation is just as needed now as during the last "Gilded Era"
The American public is waking up and they are getting more and more angry at the parties currently in power in this nation. This run for the White House that is now going on is a sham, and many people realize that it is. This drive by the likes of Hillary and McCain is fueled by a PR rush and money that flows to their coffers by the people who buy power, and can go on for two years, where many of the more tenable candidates have to drop out for lack of funds. It will not be the will of the people that is seen at the conventions, but the longevity of those who have the most money, which is what each party wants.
Steve Fraser has accomplished the extraordinary: Composed a 5,042 word article without mention of the only serious candidate, Dennis Kucinich. Might I suggest the serious reader check the following links, and avoid this joker of an author in the future? A Can't Lose Campaign Vote Dennis
The author ignores a very simple explanation for all of the coverage. It is easy for the press to do. Compare this to the work that would be required if the press was to actually investigate any of the myriad scandals emanating from Washington. That would take work, real digging and some hard thought. Too much of the press is intellectually lazy and like the author all to willing to write a long article composed of hypotheticals, rather than getting out, finding facts and investigating something.
Paid journalists take their orders from editors and all are paid by corporations-conglomerates that want to make money; NOT educate, liberate and challenge the status quo- Edward R. Morrow warned us 50 years ago that corporate controlled TV would dumb down the republic with entertainment and not programs of enlightenment.
If we let them off the hook with "lazy" as the pathetic excuse for their behavior, then they win. But if we call them on their "treason" then we win. Its treason what they are doing now, not laziness. Call it like it is.... WE NEED TO START FRAMING THE DISCUSSION BY CHANGING THE LANGUAGE. TREASON, LET IT RING EVERYWHERE, ON BUMPERSTICKERS, SIGNS IN YOUR YARD, DISCUSSIONS WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS, START USING THE TERM AND EVENTUALLY THEY WILL SEE IT FOR THEMSELVES.
The Libby trial and Waxman's committee over the last three weeks have essentially proven that the US is controlled by the Vice President's men, the war on Iraq was a 'Wag The Dog' operation, $8.8 billion of Iraq's cash disappeared through the CPA, $10 billion of Iraq reconstruction funds are unaccounted for, and Karl Rove is replacing US Attorneys with pro-racketeering ideological clones. CNN and Fox headlines? "Anna Nicole drives to Florida wearing a diaper and drops dead; Obama and Hilary are on vacation and coming to a free-speech zone near you, soon!"
do you really think the "powers to be" are going to let the people in this country elect anyone who will have the courage to disband the Federal Reserve, truly investigate the perpetrators of 9/11 and insure that each vote cast is counted as it was cast.
the system is so corrupt that the only possible meaningful change would be to vote out of office all incumbents. Then to institute term limits and public funding of all federal elections.
sincerely, webmaster of 911insidejob.net
Friday, February 23, 2007
Stab Us in Back Day
This post on MyDD today describes the netroots' frustration with the Nevada Democratic Party allowing Fox News to broadcast their Democratic primary debate in August. Here are some of the more interesting comments:
If the top of the Democratic Party really was in touch with the bottom of the Democratic Party there is no way in a hundred years that Hillary Clinton would celebrate the 10th anniversary of FOX News and accept cash from Murdoch. There is no way that Harry Reid would choose FOX News to carry the Nevada debate. Prior experience should show them that FOX News doesn't give Democrats a fair shake.... ...Reid, Hillary, and Murdoch probably all 'respect' each other and see each other as 'peers'. And that might be fine and understandable, seeing as they are all wealthy, successful, and powerful people. Nothing wrong with that. Except Murdoch runs a media empire that is ostensibly out to destroy Hillary and Reid, take away their power, and relegate them to the dustpin of history. Sorry...I'm not buying it. What we have here is as obvious as the disconnect between the family values trumpeted in FOX shows like The Simpsons and The Family Guy and the values espoused by loudmouths Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. It's a bait and switch. So...don't get me wrong...if we actually succeed in getting Nevada to drop FOX News from the debate it would be a huge move in the correct direction. It would be fantastic. It's worth trying...I guess. But sometimes it's better to choose your battles a little more carefully. If we get the higher echelons of the Democratic Party to suddenly declare FOX News a worthless propaganda outfit and to shun it...well...then I guess I've totally misjudged the state of American politics. As far as I can see, when we get up to Reid and Hillary, the distance between the parties is about as broad as the distance on the couch between James Carville and Mary Matalin.
- Booman Tribune.
You're right! We already had OJ all the time. In 1996 though, the Clintons made sure Americans would have less of a chance to tune them out. My bad.
The Clinton(s) of 7-14 years ago are not the Clintons of today. And Murdoch is a significant player. Murdoch is all about business, he's never been a rabid Clinton hater. If the Clintons see HIS way, then he will help them on the way. The UK has a longer history with Murdoch, but it's worth exploring how Blair's style, politics and FORTUNE changed after he got on-board with this news and power broker. Hillary is CLEARLY shunning us, our pro-diplomacy stance in the ME, our push for universal health care, fair trade policies -- same as Blair.
If the top of the Democratic Party really was in touch with the bottom of the Democratic Party there is no way in a hundred years that Hillary Clinton would celebrate the 10th anniversary of FOX News and accept cash from Murdoch. There is no way that Harry Reid would choose FOX News to carry the Nevada debate. Prior experience should show them that FOX News doesn't give Democrats a fair shake.... ...Reid, Hillary, and Murdoch probably all 'respect' each other and see each other as 'peers'. And that might be fine and understandable, seeing as they are all wealthy, successful, and powerful people. Nothing wrong with that. Except Murdoch runs a media empire that is ostensibly out to destroy Hillary and Reid, take away their power, and relegate them to the dustpin of history. Sorry...I'm not buying it. What we have here is as obvious as the disconnect between the family values trumpeted in FOX shows like The Simpsons and The Family Guy and the values espoused by loudmouths Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. It's a bait and switch. So...don't get me wrong...if we actually succeed in getting Nevada to drop FOX News from the debate it would be a huge move in the correct direction. It would be fantastic. It's worth trying...I guess. But sometimes it's better to choose your battles a little more carefully. If we get the higher echelons of the Democratic Party to suddenly declare FOX News a worthless propaganda outfit and to shun it...well...then I guess I've totally misjudged the state of American politics. As far as I can see, when we get up to Reid and Hillary, the distance between the parties is about as broad as the distance on the couch between James Carville and Mary Matalin.
- Booman Tribune.
Rupert Owes Bill A Big One... Clinton signed away on the Telecommunications Act that allowed all this consolidation to the point where we have 5 communications companies. It was a sweet symbiotic deal that left the people tuned into OJ all the time and Clear Channel preaching 24-7. Big money matters. Party doesn't.
Um, fact-check here: OJ was in 1993-4. The Telecommunications Act didn't pass until 1996. I guess your point is still valid, even if your facts aren't.You're right! We already had OJ all the time. In 1996 though, the Clintons made sure Americans would have less of a chance to tune them out. My bad.
The Clinton(s) of 7-14 years ago are not the Clintons of today. And Murdoch is a significant player. Murdoch is all about business, he's never been a rabid Clinton hater. If the Clintons see HIS way, then he will help them on the way. The UK has a longer history with Murdoch, but it's worth exploring how Blair's style, politics and FORTUNE changed after he got on-board with this news and power broker. Hillary is CLEARLY shunning us, our pro-diplomacy stance in the ME, our push for universal health care, fair trade policies -- same as Blair.
Jeez, and just a day after I donated to the DNC, what a letdown. We need to get Governor Dean in line on this. I mean, why should Democrats donate to our party when they are enabling the other parties propaganda wing? I seriously doubt Republicans would donate to the RNC if they began consorting with Dailykos or Mother Jones in an effort to do "outreach to liberals." What a joke.
I really think it could be effective if Chris or Matt next started a campaign to get everyone to communicate with all the candidates that debating on Fox News is unacceptable. If a few of the candidates don't debate, it will be a huge story and seriously hinder the credibility of the event.
Don't forget, Fox is the news programming delivered to our military overseas. All Fox, all the time, with all its bias...another example of Bush stacking the deck.
Something every campaign already knew even before Karl Rove reminded us of it was that you had to go after your opponent's greatest strength. Does anyone want to make the argument that having Fox News Channel to amplify their messages isn't one of the greatest strengths of Republicans? Why, then, should we not go after it and make it our own, get our messages on it, filtered or otherwise? So you think Democrats can win elections while ignoring the cable news channel with the most viewers? Rationalize it any way you want, but that attitude is just childish and unserious. Not every Fox viewer is inclined to vote Republican, and not every Fox viewer is swayed by the messages that they may not even be media-savvy enough to be aware are being foisted on them. These viewers can be persuaded to vote Democratic, and to ignore them is to say you don't want their votes. Good luck with that strategy. It's a strategy for losers. I thought we were over that.
This is a debate in a Democratic primary, so its goal isn't to persuade viewers to vote for Democrats -- only Democrats will be voting. This isn't about failing to reach out to geographic areas. It's about not being foolish enough to expect our enemies' propaganda channel to help us get a Democratic president.
Monday, February 19, 2007
How Republicans 'Support the Troops'
This recent post from The Carpetbagger Report describes the disgusting and decrepit state of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center where injured soldiers are sent to languish in neglect and squalor. Here are some of the comments:
If there is one common denominator to define Republicans, it has to be hypocrisy. They are so blatant about it, it is mind boggling. Digby really did a number on them yesterday. Read ‘’Do as I Say, Not As I Said.'’ at http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
Of course, tax cuts and war profits for Bush’s base of rich dipshits is so much more important. I see these support the troops magnets up here in Cannuckistan and it makes me want to punch out the drivers (mostly on SUVs, natch) when I see them because I suspect they are also the same assholes who constantly bitch about high taxes. It’s like they assume soldiers and their equipment are paid for by the magical mystical war fairy. The phrase “Support the troops” really irks me. Only an insane person wouldn’t “support the troops” (so insane I have trouble even imagining, though obviously the fevered brows in the GOP have no such trouble). What I hate about the GOP’s usurpation of the phrase “support our troops” is that, just like their flag-waving, it’s mere “holier than thou” posturing. As this sad story demonstrates, we clearly do not support our troops, anymore than those who ostentatiously proclaim themselves “pro life” give a damn the real lives of unfortunate people. Anymore than we care for the old people I observed this weekend living out out their days in what we euphemistically label a “rest home”. All our country wants is to put all such people out of sight and out of mind. It’s disgusting.
Anytime some right wing thug starts spouting off about “supporting the troops” or claiming the left “spits on vetrans” they need to be reminded who runs the vetrans hospitals and who cuts vetrans benefits. The ghastly evil men responsible for this shouldn’t be allowed to sleep at night.
“Supporting the troops” is a phrase that cannot be used with any legitimacy until every person serving in the theater of operations has the proper equipment, and the proper training; it also has to encompass the providing of proper post-war services and accommodations. Until then, this isn’t “supporting the troops,” it’s supporting a failed policy.
I don’t want to be all partisan about this, but there are way too many Republicans who don’t want to pay for medical care for veterans. Of course there are Republican veterans who understand how important it is, but sometimes that conflicts with their demands for “less government” or reducing spending on people. They can spend billions on military technology, but cringe when they need to spend money on human beings. I know it’s expensive, but it doesn’t matter. You don’t tell someone to fight for a country and risk death and then pretend they don’t exist after all the “fun” is over. The problem is funding for military medical centers, for infrastructure and veterans’ care, things which the Republican administration seems to think it can cut with no consequences. If you’re going to undertake a war, for God’s sake, you have to have the equipment and training and personnel on the one end, and you have to have the services for them when they return; this administration went into war with neither. They need to be held accountable for that, and if they won’t do it “voluntarily,” we need to force them.
President Bush has as much credibility and moral worth on the subject of his Iraq war as a discarded cigarette butt lying on the dirty curb of a mean street. My heart goes out to our fine men and women who have suffered from this president’s folly. Where is the Democratic office holder who is going to adopt this as his or her pet issue and run screaming with it? Tax breaks for the rich while we let our soldiers rot? I dunno, seems like a no-brainer to me.
If there is one common denominator to define Republicans, it has to be hypocrisy. They are so blatant about it, it is mind boggling. Digby really did a number on them yesterday. Read ‘’Do as I Say, Not As I Said.'’ at http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
Of course, tax cuts and war profits for Bush’s base of rich dipshits is so much more important. I see these support the troops magnets up here in Cannuckistan and it makes me want to punch out the drivers (mostly on SUVs, natch) when I see them because I suspect they are also the same assholes who constantly bitch about high taxes. It’s like they assume soldiers and their equipment are paid for by the magical mystical war fairy. The phrase “Support the troops” really irks me. Only an insane person wouldn’t “support the troops” (so insane I have trouble even imagining, though obviously the fevered brows in the GOP have no such trouble). What I hate about the GOP’s usurpation of the phrase “support our troops” is that, just like their flag-waving, it’s mere “holier than thou” posturing. As this sad story demonstrates, we clearly do not support our troops, anymore than those who ostentatiously proclaim themselves “pro life” give a damn the real lives of unfortunate people. Anymore than we care for the old people I observed this weekend living out out their days in what we euphemistically label a “rest home”. All our country wants is to put all such people out of sight and out of mind. It’s disgusting.
Anytime some right wing thug starts spouting off about “supporting the troops” or claiming the left “spits on vetrans” they need to be reminded who runs the vetrans hospitals and who cuts vetrans benefits. The ghastly evil men responsible for this shouldn’t be allowed to sleep at night.
“Supporting the troops” is a phrase that cannot be used with any legitimacy until every person serving in the theater of operations has the proper equipment, and the proper training; it also has to encompass the providing of proper post-war services and accommodations. Until then, this isn’t “supporting the troops,” it’s supporting a failed policy.
I don’t want to be all partisan about this, but there are way too many Republicans who don’t want to pay for medical care for veterans. Of course there are Republican veterans who understand how important it is, but sometimes that conflicts with their demands for “less government” or reducing spending on people. They can spend billions on military technology, but cringe when they need to spend money on human beings. I know it’s expensive, but it doesn’t matter. You don’t tell someone to fight for a country and risk death and then pretend they don’t exist after all the “fun” is over. The problem is funding for military medical centers, for infrastructure and veterans’ care, things which the Republican administration seems to think it can cut with no consequences. If you’re going to undertake a war, for God’s sake, you have to have the equipment and training and personnel on the one end, and you have to have the services for them when they return; this administration went into war with neither. They need to be held accountable for that, and if they won’t do it “voluntarily,” we need to force them.
President Bush has as much credibility and moral worth on the subject of his Iraq war as a discarded cigarette butt lying on the dirty curb of a mean street. My heart goes out to our fine men and women who have suffered from this president’s folly. Where is the Democratic office holder who is going to adopt this as his or her pet issue and run screaming with it? Tax breaks for the rich while we let our soldiers rot? I dunno, seems like a no-brainer to me.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Hillary: I'm Not Apologizing, Vote for Somebody Else
AMERICAblog takes a look at Hillary's refusal to apologize for her vote authorizing Bush to invade Iraq. There are over 450 comments. Here are a few:
If Hillary admits a mistaken vote, she will be ripped to pieces as a flip-flopper and weak on defense, and we will have 8 years of McCain or Mitt Romney. She has already said if she had the current facts, she would not make the vote. It is time to look past this, and take on the real enemies in 2008- the religious radical republican party. They have damagaged this almost beyond repair, we cannot let them do more by stupid infighting.
wow. so bascially she is saying, im not gonna say what you want, if you dont like it, vote for someone else. sounds good to me. screw you hillary.
I've been in Hillary's corner for so long it's just ridiculous, but for the last two years or so, I've become increasingly disillusioned by her absolute tone-deafness on the subject of this war. I will absolutely NOT vote for her in the primary; if she is the nominee in the general election...well...it hurts my head to think about it.
i think hillary is counting on winning the primaries by default, and now is trying to win the general election.
She's digging in like chimpy, being stubborn. No thanks. If she voted for the war 1) To look tough because she knew she's run for Pres, or 2) Because she really believed that horsehit about Iraq----well, bad decision either way. Buh bye.
Twenty-three senators were not taken in by Bush. They showed independent and solid judgment. And they were right. She made a politically calculated guess and it turned out to be wrong. Her refusal to admit she made a bad judgment is not steadfastness, it is current political management of her earlier bad judgment.
once the false flag happens, and hillary votes for war with iran, then she will have another vote she wont apologize for.
The Clintons work in tandem with the Bush Crime family, they go waaaaay back. Bush Crime Family Flowchart http://www.stewwebb.com/Bush%20C...ow% 20Chart.HTML
C'mon now. Are you saying a woman with her money and power didn't know that the Niger yellowcake was a LIE? Fool me once................. Anybody with a brain and an Internet connection could find the truth out. She LIED, just like all the rest of em.
i personally think she thought that voting for the war would help her politically, make her look tough. turns out she was wrong.
That woman is a disgrace to this nation. I do not tolerate lies and liars, no matter what party they purport to belong to.
She will NEVER apologize, she doesn't have to. The only people that matter at this point is the lobbyists and the money men. The rest of us can shove off.
the internet is growing in power by the day, in 2000 there wasnt any blogs, no netroots. in 2004, blogs werent powerful enough yet. in 2008, we have the power.
Chris, the New World Order is two-hundred years in the making. They can shut the Internet down, and probably will. They will not allow us to make the choices that are ours. Nothing will change that, even the Internet. Outside of the Internet, NOTHING has changed.
If Hillary admits a mistaken vote, she will be ripped to pieces as a flip-flopper and weak on defense, and we will have 8 years of McCain or Mitt Romney. She has already said if she had the current facts, she would not make the vote. It is time to look past this, and take on the real enemies in 2008- the religious radical republican party. They have damagaged this almost beyond repair, we cannot let them do more by stupid infighting.
wow. so bascially she is saying, im not gonna say what you want, if you dont like it, vote for someone else. sounds good to me. screw you hillary.
I've been in Hillary's corner for so long it's just ridiculous, but for the last two years or so, I've become increasingly disillusioned by her absolute tone-deafness on the subject of this war. I will absolutely NOT vote for her in the primary; if she is the nominee in the general election...well...it hurts my head to think about it.
i think hillary is counting on winning the primaries by default, and now is trying to win the general election.
She's digging in like chimpy, being stubborn. No thanks. If she voted for the war 1) To look tough because she knew she's run for Pres, or 2) Because she really believed that horsehit about Iraq----well, bad decision either way. Buh bye.
Twenty-three senators were not taken in by Bush. They showed independent and solid judgment. And they were right. She made a politically calculated guess and it turned out to be wrong. Her refusal to admit she made a bad judgment is not steadfastness, it is current political management of her earlier bad judgment.
once the false flag happens, and hillary votes for war with iran, then she will have another vote she wont apologize for.
The Clintons work in tandem with the Bush Crime family, they go waaaaay back. Bush Crime Family Flowchart http://www.stewwebb.com/Bush%20C...ow% 20Chart.HTML
C'mon now. Are you saying a woman with her money and power didn't know that the Niger yellowcake was a LIE? Fool me once................. Anybody with a brain and an Internet connection could find the truth out. She LIED, just like all the rest of em.
i personally think she thought that voting for the war would help her politically, make her look tough. turns out she was wrong.
That woman is a disgrace to this nation. I do not tolerate lies and liars, no matter what party they purport to belong to.
She will NEVER apologize, she doesn't have to. The only people that matter at this point is the lobbyists and the money men. The rest of us can shove off.
the internet is growing in power by the day, in 2000 there wasnt any blogs, no netroots. in 2004, blogs werent powerful enough yet. in 2008, we have the power.
Chris, the New World Order is two-hundred years in the making. They can shut the Internet down, and probably will. They will not allow us to make the choices that are ours. Nothing will change that, even the Internet. Outside of the Internet, NOTHING has changed.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Stupid Is As Stupid Does
Okay, this is not exactly entirely 'from the left', but there are enough good comments from both conservatives and liberals on this particular post of an incredibly dim-witted attempt at humor by Fox News. The originating blog, 'Riehl World View', will not be put in my BlogRoll (as it is a right-wing site), but the blog that directed me to it, TBogg, will. To understand the context, watch this video.
is this a new attempt at wingnut humor? lol, conservatives are such failures
Let's see, a drug addict and a transvestite in the WH. Considering how low GW has set the bar, I think it's plausible. It's good to see that Rush's 'pain' has subsided and that he's feeding himself like a pig again.
Wow, what a stinking pil of monkey poop. That might be the least funny thing I have ever seen.
But of course the left would hate it...thats what its for.I mean...you have the elitist "spoof" news The Daily Show and then you have CNN, ABC, MSNBC, etc etc. Hell, they all take cheap shots at the conservatives and you find THAT funny. Of course...your all biased. Still..all that conservative hating and your news channels still can't beat Fox. The show may not go far, but it'll be fun watching you libs get your underwear in a bunch trying to destroy it.
One wonders how someone can grow up in America, supposedly going to public school for 13 years, and be as truly stupid as some of the liberals here. A testament to our public education system, I suppose, which is why I have my children in private school.
"which is why I have my children in private school." You think that keeps them safe from the liberals? Guess what I do for a living?
is this a new attempt at wingnut humor? lol, conservatives are such failures
Let's see, a drug addict and a transvestite in the WH. Considering how low GW has set the bar, I think it's plausible. It's good to see that Rush's 'pain' has subsided and that he's feeding himself like a pig again.
Wow, what a stinking pil of monkey poop. That might be the least funny thing I have ever seen.
But of course the left would hate it...thats what its for.I mean...you have the elitist "spoof" news The Daily Show and then you have CNN, ABC, MSNBC, etc etc. Hell, they all take cheap shots at the conservatives and you find THAT funny. Of course...your all biased. Still..all that conservative hating and your news channels still can't beat Fox. The show may not go far, but it'll be fun watching you libs get your underwear in a bunch trying to destroy it.
Wingnuts just don't get comedy; they never will. Stuffy, angry people who can't accept that they aren't necesarily entitled to the privileges they demand don't really resonate with someone looking for a laugh. This is an attempted "comedy" show we're talking about. If you want to make comparisons (I know you guys prefer the dishonest ones) compare it to John Stewart or Colbert - you know, the shows Faux News is trying (pathetically) to emulate. No one will have to put forth any effort to destroy this show; it will fail all on its own, because it isn't funny to anyone with a comedy IQ any higher than AIDS jokes. Comedy is about making sharp observations about popular events, which is what the aforementioned comedians do - not making fun of the ideologically impure, simply because you don't like them. Like all Reaganite projects, this one will fail and conservatives will bark, and seethe, and whine about bias and the evil libruls trying to destroy them. Somehow this failure will be Clinton's fault.
I have to roll my eyes every time I hear some conservative whine about how Jon Stewart only makes fun of conservatives. Sure, he probably makes fun of conservatives more than he makes fun of liberals, but you know why that might be? BECAUSE YOU GUYS WERE IN CONTROL OF ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT FOR SIX FREAKING YEARS.One wonders how someone can grow up in America, supposedly going to public school for 13 years, and be as truly stupid as some of the liberals here. A testament to our public education system, I suppose, which is why I have my children in private school.
"which is why I have my children in private school." You think that keeps them safe from the liberals? Guess what I do for a living?
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
No Crony Left Behind
This recent post on Firedoglake keeps us updated on the nefarious Bush administration's virtual No Crony Left Behind program. Here are some of the more interesting comments...
in a sickening way, this post reminds me of Bush’s methodology of changing the definition of a word just as the Sheriffs come knocking at the door.
“American Capitalism” by John Kenneth Galbraith is still a great book for those interested in challenging conservative’s assumptions about the magic hands of the market. The book was written in the sixties I believe- but it shows that in fact our economic system is a long ways from the perfect model discussed by Adam Smith. . . One only has to read any newspaper about an executive leaving the corporation after losing billions with a multi-million dollar golden parachute to see how correct Galbraith was.
Wouldn’t if be nice to learn the details of how Lay and Cheney were divvying up the oil fields in Iraq on a big map, even before 9/11?
Bush’s world, no courts, just bullets.
This law would protect the big law and accounting firms and corporate management. Shareholders are just sheep, too. They are being fleeced and their investments are being driven into the ground by management. The average ’shareholder’ is about as powerful as the average voter. ‘Management’ — that’s the CEO’s and their teams of accountants, lawyers and bankers — run corporations. All they have to do is pack the board, which is easy enough to do, just nominate and elect. Most shareholders don’t attend annual meetings, they just sign their proxies. Large blocks of shares are held by pension funds and other financial mgmt outfits — how do you think those shares are voted? In fact, hijacking corporations from shareholders is an old art and is probably the model for what we see in government, the admin running the country despite the voters. To check my accuracy here, see who is really getting the lion’s share of record corporate profits. Shareholders just get enough to keep them quiet.
those that hate government should not be allowed to govern. They may participate in government, but they should not be allowed to govern.
Bush is continuing his campaign to remove all our protections and all our money in the time left to him. But, hey….he’s just trying to *pertect* us, right? If we had two nickles left in our pocket they might rub together, make a spark, and set our clothes on fire.
The plan is to cut all government services to the bone. Social security? Turn the $$$ over to the honest money men on Wall Street. SEC enforcement? The market can take care of itself (like it did in Harken, eh George?) Carpooling? Nah, turn the entire road system over to private companies. When the poor people can’t afford the tolls the rich will have less traffic to deal with. Natural disasters? FEMA did a heck of a job in NOLA. Medical care? The insurance and healthcare industries are making a bundle so what’s the problem? Of course, when giant corporations default on their pension obligations then it’s OK to ask the taxpayers to bail them out. Just not the top 1% of the taxpayers. When all is said and done the country will still be running huge deficits to finance the war machine that keeps our oil flowing out from under those pesky foreigners. And law enforcement to protect the children (i.e. totalitarian state apparatus). The damage BushCo has done cannot be undone in a decade.
Wouldn’t if be nice to learn the details of how Lay and Cheney were divvying up the oil fields in Iraq on a big map, even before 9/11?
Bush’s world, no courts, just bullets.
This law would protect the big law and accounting firms and corporate management. Shareholders are just sheep, too. They are being fleeced and their investments are being driven into the ground by management. The average ’shareholder’ is about as powerful as the average voter. ‘Management’ — that’s the CEO’s and their teams of accountants, lawyers and bankers — run corporations. All they have to do is pack the board, which is easy enough to do, just nominate and elect. Most shareholders don’t attend annual meetings, they just sign their proxies. Large blocks of shares are held by pension funds and other financial mgmt outfits — how do you think those shares are voted? In fact, hijacking corporations from shareholders is an old art and is probably the model for what we see in government, the admin running the country despite the voters. To check my accuracy here, see who is really getting the lion’s share of record corporate profits. Shareholders just get enough to keep them quiet.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/ jan-june07/equity_02-08.html If I caught the gist of the story correctly, loose groups of uber-rich investors are joining forces & pooling their immense resources so-as to buy out formerly publically-traded companies. Then they break ‘em up for all the wealth they can wring out of the pieces-parts, & simply dump the trashed remains (as well as whatever employees or investors may have been attached there-to). Am I on target if I blame repubs/Bush administration for continually loosening controls on investment schemes & scams???
I believe that Big $ is just extending their game, this time they’re doing it with a whole country. When the US is an empty husk they’ll just move on to Paraguay. We’ll stay here and life will be nasty, brutish and short. They are a parasite that kills the host.those that hate government should not be allowed to govern. They may participate in government, but they should not be allowed to govern.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The Daily Show also has the advantage in that, while the writers and host may have a liberal bias that naturally gives one the overall sense that it is a liberal show, the show's conception of itself actually doesn't have a liberal agenda or "mandate", if you will. If a democratic candidate does or says something particularly silly TDS will make fun of it, and it regularly takes the position that both sides suck. However, if you set out to make an explicitly conservative news satire, you are going to end up harping endlessly on liberals while giving a pass to conservative targets who richly deserve skewering, even from other conservatives. It's going to seem forced and agenda-ridden if it does that. I mean, is it really political satire if it isn't going to make fearless fun of the President on a regular basis? Finally, Fox News can kiss "fair and balanced" goodbye forever, to the extent it hasn't already.
The reason libs are better at humor is they've had years of rejection to practice it. Years of hanging out by the drama department cutting yourself and making snide jokes about the jocks who didn't invite you to any of their keggers gives you chops. When you're a happy, optomistic, successful person, (and for LOL - successfull is usually defined by someone who doesn't need the government to take care of them or make laws so a college will accept them,) you don't cultivate that bitter angst that so many commedians have. And lets face it - The Daily Show is funny - but they NEVER have the balls to make fun of their own kind. We conservatives don't need our own comedy show as long as the libtards keep protesting. God, you couldn't write anything as funny as a bunch of stinky, dirty, quasi-retards, spewing bumper-sticker slogans and marching around with cute little signs with pictures of Bush with horns sticking out and Hitler mustaches drawn on. That is GOLDEN! ...and let them have their little comedy shows. I think our lives as conservatives, (happy, successful, monied, self-reliant) vindicates anything they can try to do to make us feel badly.Well, I think I'm funny - but I spent years as an angry liberal. Then I got sober. People tend to want to be around happy, optomistic folks who don't try to guilt you out of your money. Nobody wants to hang with the angry "Negatarian" (my word for people so negative that they make a religion out of it,) except other angry Negatarians who have fallen into (what I call) their whirling vortex of misery.
RW, let's go over this a bit more slowly. Glenn Greenwald and tbogg are not doing the same thing. You see, Glenn Greenwald thinks rightwing nutballs are stupid and a colossal danger to the safety of the planet, so he is doing his best to convince more intelligent people to do whatever they can to stamp out rightwing nutball stupidity. Tbogg, on the other hand, thinks rightwing nutballs are stupid and is having a grand old time making fun of rightwing nutballs. Now it is true that both gentlemen think that rightwing nutballs are stupid, but let's be honest -- there are many, many people across the face of planet Earth who think rightwing nutballs are stupid. This common trait does not mean that all of these millions of intelligent people are engaged in the same schtick.
this thread is hilarious, every post golden. except templar's: "why I have my children in private school." I'm sorry that you feel so surrounded by liberals in you daily life and feel the need to censor their content from your children. If liberalism is so fucked up, why not let them see and if they're smart enough, they'll make sense of it. But the terror won't let you. Templar, you seem like a really small, impotent person.