IronfootMcGurk wrote:"I would imagine that most Christians place their faith above their country ..." mbp
Dunno about "most," but Terry Jones certainly places his faith above the safety of American troops. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Internati ... 8123226530
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Afghanistan/bu ... d=11569820
Dunno about "most," but Terry Jones certainly places his faith above the safety of American troops. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Internati ... 8123226530
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Afghanistan/bu ... d=11569820
Does the Ground Zero mosque put the terrorists in more danger?]]>
IronfootMcGurk wrote:"I would imagine that most Christians place their faith above their country ..." mbp
Dunno about "most," but Terry Jones certainly places his faith above the safety of American troops. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Internati ... 8123226530
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Afghanistan/bu ... d=11569820
Dunno about "most," but Terry Jones certainly places his faith above the safety of American troops. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Internati ... 8123226530
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Afghanistan/bu ... d=11569820
Does the Ground Zero mosque put the terrorists in more danger?]]>
They didn't.
You and I know that the crazies down in Fla represent a lunatic fringe that accounts for no more than 10-25% of the population, that they have no substantial influence in government, except for some religious-righties who have gotten elected to office. The people in Afghanistan and Iran mostly don't understand the United States, and their ideas are also the product of their own lunatic fringe, who more often than not are in charge. Plus they are poor and powerless and need to hate something; they are not allowed to hate their leaders, so they hate us. Nice of us to give them the excuse, huh? I mean, besides our being infidels invading their homelands and killing their people.]]>
They didn't.
You and I know that the crazies down in Fla represent a lunatic fringe that accounts for no more than 10-25% of the population, that they have no substantial influence in government, except for some religious-righties who have gotten elected to office. The people in Afghanistan and Iran mostly don't understand the United States, and their ideas are also the product of their own lunatic fringe, who more often than not are in charge. Plus they are poor and powerless and need to hate something; they are not allowed to hate their leaders, so they hate us. Nice of us to give them the excuse, huh? I mean, besides our being infidels invading their homelands and killing their people.]]>
We've had religious killings in this country and may again.
Do you ever get the sense that human nature is not changing?]]>
We've had religious killings in this country and may again.
Do you ever get the sense that human nature is not changing?]]>
How might this relate to the WTC - mosque matter? One could say that there too, it is a question of wisdom, on both sides. Or one might see in both the demonstrations against the Islamic center and the burning of Korans a provocation to, an attack on, Muslims here and abroad.]]>
How might this relate to the WTC - mosque matter? One could say that there too, it is a question of wisdom, on both sides. Or one might see in both the demonstrations against the Islamic center and the burning of Korans a provocation to, an attack on, Muslims here and abroad.]]>
Btw- think the mosque and this wrong but wondering why libs only protect certain rights and get indignant only when Christians fo something.]]>
Btw- think the mosque and this wrong but wondering why libs only protect certain rights and get indignant only when Christians fo something.]]>
Or maybe I missed something.
If the Muslims want to build the community center and mosque, and risk violent acts against Muslims and/or the building, that is their right. If the Christians want to burn Quarans and risk violent acts against Christians, US citizens in general, and/or US military personnel, that is their right also.
I don't see inconsistency here.]]>
Or maybe I missed something.
If the Muslims want to build the community center and mosque, and risk violent acts against Muslims and/or the building, that is their right. If the Christians want to burn Quarans and risk violent acts against Christians, US citizens in general, and/or US military personnel, that is their right also.
I don't see inconsistency here.]]>
jross wrote:I think If said that it was the right of both groups to do as they plan, whatever the wisdom of doing either.
Or maybe I missed something.
If the Muslims want to build the community center and mosque, and risk violent acts against Muslims and/or the building, that is their right. If the Christians want to burn Quarans and risk violent acts against Christians, US citizens in general, and/or US military personnel, that is their right also.
I don't see inconsistency here.
Or maybe I missed something.
If the Muslims want to build the community center and mosque, and risk violent acts against Muslims and/or the building, that is their right. If the Christians want to burn Quarans and risk violent acts against Christians, US citizens in general, and/or US military personnel, that is their right also.
I don't see inconsistency here.
I'm sure you don't , you spin for ironfoot as much as you do for Obummer...
Clearly what you missed was the assertion that opposing the mosque was Un-American and the terrorists win...]]>
jross wrote:I think If said that it was the right of both groups to do as they plan, whatever the wisdom of doing either.
Or maybe I missed something.
If the Muslims want to build the community center and mosque, and risk violent acts against Muslims and/or the building, that is their right. If the Christians want to burn Quarans and risk violent acts against Christians, US citizens in general, and/or US military personnel, that is their right also.
I don't see inconsistency here.
Or maybe I missed something.
If the Muslims want to build the community center and mosque, and risk violent acts against Muslims and/or the building, that is their right. If the Christians want to burn Quarans and risk violent acts against Christians, US citizens in general, and/or US military personnel, that is their right also.
I don't see inconsistency here.
I'm sure you don't , you spin for ironfoot as much as you do for Obummer...
Clearly what you missed was the assertion that opposing the mosque was Un-American and the terrorists win...]]>
Hub City Progressive wrote:Yes, they have as much right to burn a Quran as they do an American flag. Yes, the Muslims have a right to build a mosque 2 blocks from Ground Zero. The only thing I am alluding to is the wisdom of it, and the hypocrisy. For conservatives to say they support the troops, yet they continually denigrate the religion of those we are supposed to be fighting for thus putting our troops in danger, then it needs to be called out. I mean, it was called Operation Iraqi Freedom, right? Our troops are dying to free Muslims from oppression, right? Yet, they are insulted by the citizens of the very nation that claims to support them? Am I the only one who fails to see the inconsistencies here?
How come Muslim terrorists only represent a small portion of Muslims yet a few Koran burners represent ALL conservatives?]]>
Hub City Progressive wrote:Yes, they have as much right to burn a Quran as they do an American flag. Yes, the Muslims have a right to build a mosque 2 blocks from Ground Zero. The only thing I am alluding to is the wisdom of it, and the hypocrisy. For conservatives to say they support the troops, yet they continually denigrate the religion of those we are supposed to be fighting for thus putting our troops in danger, then it needs to be called out. I mean, it was called Operation Iraqi Freedom, right? Our troops are dying to free Muslims from oppression, right? Yet, they are insulted by the citizens of the very nation that claims to support them? Am I the only one who fails to see the inconsistencies here?
How come Muslim terrorists only represent a small portion of Muslims yet a few Koran burners represent ALL conservatives?]]>
Hub City Progressive wrote:I am not simply referring to the Quran burners. I am referring to the conservative talk shows that fuel the flames by telling Muslims they can't build a mosque in this country. Not just ground zero either. Look at Tennessee. So, yes, conservatives is the accurate term here.
Oh I didn't know we'd devolve to such pathetic generalizations, have a good night you baby-killing, America hater.]]>
Hub City Progressive wrote:I am not simply referring to the Quran burners. I am referring to the conservative talk shows that fuel the flames by telling Muslims they can't build a mosque in this country. Not just ground zero either. Look at Tennessee. So, yes, conservatives is the accurate term here.
Oh I didn't know we'd devolve to such pathetic generalizations, have a good night you baby-killing, America hater.]]>
Wanna sell? Why pay ebay and paypal? Eliminate the middleperson. Sell direct, to fellow Lubbockians. Sell your services. Advertise.
Was I mistaken about what was pulled off craigslist? The personals are still there, likely as raunchy as ever. Would do some investigative journalism, but not on a full stomach.
]]>Wanna sell? Why pay ebay and paypal? Eliminate the middleperson. Sell direct, to fellow Lubbockians. Sell your services. Advertise.
Was I mistaken about what was pulled off craigslist? The personals are still there, likely as raunchy as ever. Would do some investigative journalism, but not on a full stomach.
]]>Hub City Progressive wrote:
You see? That is the massive disconnect you seem to have. Ted Kennedy's ego doesn't matter. He did not show up with an armada and demand a Senate seat. He was sent back there over and over again by the voters. So, he must have been doing something they liked.
You can have whatever personal issues you want with the man. I don't give a damn. The American people are the ones to blame for the government they have today. The people they protest are the same as the people that are telling them to go out and fight.
I will give you this. If I see a Tea Party on the news that finally tells Michelle Bachmann, or Celebrity Palin, or one of these other Republicans trying to cater to them that they are part of the problem and not part of the solution; I will start giving them a little more credibility. That is what I am waiting for.
Arch.
manbearpig: He stayed in the senate to feed his massive ego.
You see? That is the massive disconnect you seem to have. Ted Kennedy's ego doesn't matter. He did not show up with an armada and demand a Senate seat. He was sent back there over and over again by the voters. So, he must have been doing something they liked.
You can have whatever personal issues you want with the man. I don't give a damn. The American people are the ones to blame for the government they have today. The people they protest are the same as the people that are telling them to go out and fight.
I will give you this. If I see a Tea Party on the news that finally tells Michelle Bachmann, or Celebrity Palin, or one of these other Republicans trying to cater to them that they are part of the problem and not part of the solution; I will start giving them a little more credibility. That is what I am waiting for.
Arch.
I doubt any Tea Party member or Republican really gives a crap what you or anyone like you is waiting for. You are so far around the bend, there's no coming back.
Enjoy November, somehow we'll muddle along with out you on board...LOL]]>
Hub City Progressive wrote:
You see? That is the massive disconnect you seem to have. Ted Kennedy's ego doesn't matter. He did not show up with an armada and demand a Senate seat. He was sent back there over and over again by the voters. So, he must have been doing something they liked.
You can have whatever personal issues you want with the man. I don't give a damn. The American people are the ones to blame for the government they have today. The people they protest are the same as the people that are telling them to go out and fight.
I will give you this. If I see a Tea Party on the news that finally tells Michelle Bachmann, or Celebrity Palin, or one of these other Republicans trying to cater to them that they are part of the problem and not part of the solution; I will start giving them a little more credibility. That is what I am waiting for.
Arch.
manbearpig: He stayed in the senate to feed his massive ego.
You see? That is the massive disconnect you seem to have. Ted Kennedy's ego doesn't matter. He did not show up with an armada and demand a Senate seat. He was sent back there over and over again by the voters. So, he must have been doing something they liked.
You can have whatever personal issues you want with the man. I don't give a damn. The American people are the ones to blame for the government they have today. The people they protest are the same as the people that are telling them to go out and fight.
I will give you this. If I see a Tea Party on the news that finally tells Michelle Bachmann, or Celebrity Palin, or one of these other Republicans trying to cater to them that they are part of the problem and not part of the solution; I will start giving them a little more credibility. That is what I am waiting for.
Arch.
I doubt any Tea Party member or Republican really gives a crap what you or anyone like you is waiting for. You are so far around the bend, there's no coming back.
Enjoy November, somehow we'll muddle along with out you on board...LOL]]>
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/loca ... 87499.html
The Council announced Tuesday that it has invited local imams to perform Islamic invocations at the beginning of the Council meetings in September.]]>
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/loca ... 87499.html
The Council announced Tuesday that it has invited local imams to perform Islamic invocations at the beginning of the Council meetings in September.]]>
All any of those "chaplains" that legislative bodies have are purely a ploy to win votes. They should be banned, whatever the religion.
As for Republicans "protecting," that is bull. The last Republican presidency piled up another hundred years' bad feeling toward the USA and its inhabitants. 50 years from now, there will be terrorists blowing themselves up to kill Americans because of Bushwack.
And btw, after a year and a half of the Obama presidency, we have had no terrorist attacks on American soil.
Be grateful for the security that Obama provides for you. Even for benighted Republicans.]]>
All any of those "chaplains" that legislative bodies have are purely a ploy to win votes. They should be banned, whatever the religion.
As for Republicans "protecting," that is bull. The last Republican presidency piled up another hundred years' bad feeling toward the USA and its inhabitants. 50 years from now, there will be terrorists blowing themselves up to kill Americans because of Bushwack.
And btw, after a year and a half of the Obama presidency, we have had no terrorist attacks on American soil.
Be grateful for the security that Obama provides for you. Even for benighted Republicans.]]>
HAhahahahahahahhhA
Thanks fir the laugh this morning .... Whew]]>
HAhahahahahahahhhA
Thanks fir the laugh this morning .... Whew]]>
Look at pop culture, American Idol, all the fuss over a singer or actress who was not all that good or very good at all. All the hoopla about Michael Jackson. Or the latest sports superstar, Tiger Woods or Lebron James or Michael Jordan. Is it any wonder that we do no better at thinking when it comes to politics?
There is a tendency to follow the leader, to jump onto the bandwagon, to want to be part of a group, to be us against them. Sports gives us that. Politics gives us that. Natonalism gives us that. Religion gives us that. Money or the lack of it gives us that.
Group identity, sharing of values = security, a sense of home, of belonging, us against the world. No matter how unreasonable the basis for it all is.
So, no dice on the weekly poll report. The only halfway accurate polls as to voting are exit polls, and they have their problems. My advice to Obama is, forget polls, just do it. Nobody wants a poll-watcher for president. If you end up out of office and unpopular, no sweat, you get to join an elite group in American history, some of whom lost because they were too right in a wrong-leaning country. Better to be right than to be elected.]]>
Look at pop culture, American Idol, all the fuss over a singer or actress who was not all that good or very good at all. All the hoopla about Michael Jackson. Or the latest sports superstar, Tiger Woods or Lebron James or Michael Jordan. Is it any wonder that we do no better at thinking when it comes to politics?
There is a tendency to follow the leader, to jump onto the bandwagon, to want to be part of a group, to be us against them. Sports gives us that. Politics gives us that. Natonalism gives us that. Religion gives us that. Money or the lack of it gives us that.
Group identity, sharing of values = security, a sense of home, of belonging, us against the world. No matter how unreasonable the basis for it all is.
So, no dice on the weekly poll report. The only halfway accurate polls as to voting are exit polls, and they have their problems. My advice to Obama is, forget polls, just do it. Nobody wants a poll-watcher for president. If you end up out of office and unpopular, no sweat, you get to join an elite group in American history, some of whom lost because they were too right in a wrong-leaning country. Better to be right than to be elected.]]>
They now see what we saw before the election- we just didn't care about skin color.]]>
They now see what we saw before the election- we just didn't care about skin color.]]>
You can complain about healthcare, but legislation had to happen; if not now, then in four years. There will always be something to complain about in legislation and especially healthcare legislation.
Obama's conduct of the Middle East is beyond criticism, certainly by those who supported Bush. He has done pretty much what Bush would have, including announcing withdrawal from Iraq.
Overall, Obama has done about as well as it is possible for a human to do. No, the stimulus measures were not perfect, but we have the economists on board to blame for that, and economic "tuning" is always like sailing a boat--first you tack one way, then you tack another, and if you are lucky, eventually you will end up about where you wanted to be. Not that economists ever agree on much.
The new 100% tax break for business investment is a potential slam dunk for Obama. He should have done it before, except that he couldn't--it was impossible in the politics of 2009. The only reason Congress will buy it now is because of election pressure.]]>
You can complain about healthcare, but legislation had to happen; if not now, then in four years. There will always be something to complain about in legislation and especially healthcare legislation.
Obama's conduct of the Middle East is beyond criticism, certainly by those who supported Bush. He has done pretty much what Bush would have, including announcing withdrawal from Iraq.
Overall, Obama has done about as well as it is possible for a human to do. No, the stimulus measures were not perfect, but we have the economists on board to blame for that, and economic "tuning" is always like sailing a boat--first you tack one way, then you tack another, and if you are lucky, eventually you will end up about where you wanted to be. Not that economists ever agree on much.
The new 100% tax break for business investment is a potential slam dunk for Obama. He should have done it before, except that he couldn't--it was impossible in the politics of 2009. The only reason Congress will buy it now is because of election pressure.]]>
IronfootMcGurk wrote:There are two issues against Obama, the present state of the economy and the budget deficit. And moving against one hurts the other.
You can complain about healthcare, but legislation had to happen; if not now, then in four years. There will always be something to complain about in legislation and especially healthcare legislation.
Obama's conduct of the Middle East is beyond criticism, certainly by those who supported Bush. He has done pretty much what Bush would have, including announcing withdrawal from Iraq.
Overall, Obama has done about as well as it is possible for a human to do. No, the stimulus measures were not perfect, but we have the economists on board to blame for that, and economic "tuning" is always like sailing a boat--first you tack one way, then you tack another, and if you are lucky, eventually you will end up about where you wanted to be. Not that economists ever agree on much.
The new 100% tax break for business investment is a potential slam dunk for Obama. He should have done it before, except that he couldn't--it was impossible in the politics of 2009. The only reason Congress will buy it now is because of election pressure.
You can complain about healthcare, but legislation had to happen; if not now, then in four years. There will always be something to complain about in legislation and especially healthcare legislation.
Obama's conduct of the Middle East is beyond criticism, certainly by those who supported Bush. He has done pretty much what Bush would have, including announcing withdrawal from Iraq.
Overall, Obama has done about as well as it is possible for a human to do. No, the stimulus measures were not perfect, but we have the economists on board to blame for that, and economic "tuning" is always like sailing a boat--first you tack one way, then you tack another, and if you are lucky, eventually you will end up about where you wanted to be. Not that economists ever agree on much.
The new 100% tax break for business investment is a potential slam dunk for Obama. He should have done it before, except that he couldn't--it was impossible in the politics of 2009. The only reason Congress will buy it now is because of election pressure.
Little late for him to try and be pro-business.
He's like the boy with his finger in the dike, trying to hold back a flood in November.
It's going to be epic- enjoy libs...]]>
IronfootMcGurk wrote:There are two issues against Obama, the present state of the economy and the budget deficit. And moving against one hurts the other.
You can complain about healthcare, but legislation had to happen; if not now, then in four years. There will always be something to complain about in legislation and especially healthcare legislation.
Obama's conduct of the Middle East is beyond criticism, certainly by those who supported Bush. He has done pretty much what Bush would have, including announcing withdrawal from Iraq.
Overall, Obama has done about as well as it is possible for a human to do. No, the stimulus measures were not perfect, but we have the economists on board to blame for that, and economic "tuning" is always like sailing a boat--first you tack one way, then you tack another, and if you are lucky, eventually you will end up about where you wanted to be. Not that economists ever agree on much.
The new 100% tax break for business investment is a potential slam dunk for Obama. He should have done it before, except that he couldn't--it was impossible in the politics of 2009. The only reason Congress will buy it now is because of election pressure.
You can complain about healthcare, but legislation had to happen; if not now, then in four years. There will always be something to complain about in legislation and especially healthcare legislation.
Obama's conduct of the Middle East is beyond criticism, certainly by those who supported Bush. He has done pretty much what Bush would have, including announcing withdrawal from Iraq.
Overall, Obama has done about as well as it is possible for a human to do. No, the stimulus measures were not perfect, but we have the economists on board to blame for that, and economic "tuning" is always like sailing a boat--first you tack one way, then you tack another, and if you are lucky, eventually you will end up about where you wanted to be. Not that economists ever agree on much.
The new 100% tax break for business investment is a potential slam dunk for Obama. He should have done it before, except that he couldn't--it was impossible in the politics of 2009. The only reason Congress will buy it now is because of election pressure.
Little late for him to try and be pro-business.
He's like the boy with his finger in the dike, trying to hold back a flood in November.
It's going to be epic- enjoy libs...]]>
IronfootMcGurk wrote:See. There is very little to Republican logic except anger and arrogance and gloating. You cant argue with a true believer, whether they be Islamic fundamentalist, Christian fundamentalist, or Republican. As well try to communicate with a brick wall.
LOL
That's pretty funny, Mr Open-minded...LOL]]>
IronfootMcGurk wrote:See. There is very little to Republican logic except anger and arrogance and gloating. You cant argue with a true believer, whether they be Islamic fundamentalist, Christian fundamentalist, or Republican. As well try to communicate with a brick wall.
LOL
That's pretty funny, Mr Open-minded...LOL]]>
Enjoy the safety that Obama provides.
[Actually I post that last bit with a little trepidation, because sooner or later there will be a terrorist attack in the U.S. The longer we go without one, the more likely it is to occur. And frankly, the entry points to the U.S., sea ports and roadways and airports, are not all that much more safe now than they were in, say, 2006, which was not very safe at all. If it happens tomorrow, mbp, you can rib me, and Obama, about it.]
[Relative safety is possible. But it means procedures such as inspecting every imported package and shipment in detail outside our borders, and quarantining every incoming traveler for thorough physical and medical examination. Which would cost hundreds of billions, and slow travel and shipping immeasurably. Which could have the additional benefit of reducing imports and restoring a balance of trade. But alas, security to that level is a pipe dream. So we continue to have a porous border, for terrorists, drug smugglers, and illegal aliens.]]]>
Enjoy the safety that Obama provides.
[Actually I post that last bit with a little trepidation, because sooner or later there will be a terrorist attack in the U.S. The longer we go without one, the more likely it is to occur. And frankly, the entry points to the U.S., sea ports and roadways and airports, are not all that much more safe now than they were in, say, 2006, which was not very safe at all. If it happens tomorrow, mbp, you can rib me, and Obama, about it.]
[Relative safety is possible. But it means procedures such as inspecting every imported package and shipment in detail outside our borders, and quarantining every incoming traveler for thorough physical and medical examination. Which would cost hundreds of billions, and slow travel and shipping immeasurably. Which could have the additional benefit of reducing imports and restoring a balance of trade. But alas, security to that level is a pipe dream. So we continue to have a porous border, for terrorists, drug smugglers, and illegal aliens.]]]>
Yes.
While we like to talk about democracy and bringing freedom and democracy to the world, the reality was that we always sided with a brutal dictator against popular uprisings. In China, we liked Chaing K'ai Shek, and the Chinese are still upset about our use of gunboat diplomacy in China more than a hundred years ago. In Cuba, we backed Batista against Castro. In Russia, we (and European powers) sent troops onto Russian soil in opposition to the Bolsheviki. In Iran, we set up a U.S.-friendly dictator. We were satisfied to have Papa Doc and Baby Doc as dictators in Haiti, because however bad they were, they were anti-communist. In El Salvadore and Nicaragua, we contributed to blood baths as Rightist dictators fought those who sought to depose them. In Chile, the CIA helped General Pinochet take power and depose President Dr. Allende because he was a marxist. (They are still digging up bodies from Pinochet regime genocide. http://www.derechos.net/marga/papers/spain.html)
I suspect but can't prove that the CIA were working against the budding-revolution a few months ago in Thailand. Who was it that shot that renegade general as he was being intervewed? (All in the interests of stability, of course. Protecting the Thai sex trade and moneyed class in Bangkok had nothing to do with it, of course.)]]>
Yes.
While we like to talk about democracy and bringing freedom and democracy to the world, the reality was that we always sided with a brutal dictator against popular uprisings. In China, we liked Chaing K'ai Shek, and the Chinese are still upset about our use of gunboat diplomacy in China more than a hundred years ago. In Cuba, we backed Batista against Castro. In Russia, we (and European powers) sent troops onto Russian soil in opposition to the Bolsheviki. In Iran, we set up a U.S.-friendly dictator. We were satisfied to have Papa Doc and Baby Doc as dictators in Haiti, because however bad they were, they were anti-communist. In El Salvadore and Nicaragua, we contributed to blood baths as Rightist dictators fought those who sought to depose them. In Chile, the CIA helped General Pinochet take power and depose President Dr. Allende because he was a marxist. (They are still digging up bodies from Pinochet regime genocide. http://www.derechos.net/marga/papers/spain.html)
I suspect but can't prove that the CIA were working against the budding-revolution a few months ago in Thailand. Who was it that shot that renegade general as he was being intervewed? (All in the interests of stability, of course. Protecting the Thai sex trade and moneyed class in Bangkok had nothing to do with it, of course.)]]>
Libs will hide behind the safety afforded them,complain and re-write history to suit themselves.]]>
Libs will hide behind the safety afforded them,complain and re-write history to suit themselves.]]>
The sex industry is a significant part of Thailand's income. It is a regular industry, with poor rural families being forced to sell their children into sex-slavery in Bangkok. The prosperous are in Bangkok; the desperately poor elsewhere, except for the drug lords who are found in the countryside. That sharp division between rich and terribly poor, between urban and rural, is one of the things that set off the demonstrations earlier this year. For a variety of reasons U.S. interests lie in maintaining the status quo.
mbp, pack a shovel and go to central America or Chile. There are killing fields where you can dig up the decaying bones of the victims of U.S. foreign policy. Go tell their relatives that the corpses never existed.]]>
The sex industry is a significant part of Thailand's income. It is a regular industry, with poor rural families being forced to sell their children into sex-slavery in Bangkok. The prosperous are in Bangkok; the desperately poor elsewhere, except for the drug lords who are found in the countryside. That sharp division between rich and terribly poor, between urban and rural, is one of the things that set off the demonstrations earlier this year. For a variety of reasons U.S. interests lie in maintaining the status quo.
mbp, pack a shovel and go to central America or Chile. There are killing fields where you can dig up the decaying bones of the victims of U.S. foreign policy. Go tell their relatives that the corpses never existed.]]>
Hub City Progressive wrote:If you really believe that, manbearpig, then you really are a lost cause. Denial is not just a river in Egypt, sir. It is your state of being. Patriotism means being able to see your country's blessings and faults. Nationalism is when people support their country right or wrong; and history has taught us that it is extremely dangerous.
Another lost cause are the blame Americas firsters like you, you're desire to wrong in everything America is about to show your lefty buddies that you are enlightened is sickening.
It will be a pleasure assisting your ilk back to the back-benches of politics for another 30 years.]]>
Hub City Progressive wrote:If you really believe that, manbearpig, then you really are a lost cause. Denial is not just a river in Egypt, sir. It is your state of being. Patriotism means being able to see your country's blessings and faults. Nationalism is when people support their country right or wrong; and history has taught us that it is extremely dangerous.
Another lost cause are the blame Americas firsters like you, you're desire to wrong in everything America is about to show your lefty buddies that you are enlightened is sickening.
It will be a pleasure assisting your ilk back to the back-benches of politics for another 30 years.]]>
Say something unpleasant about your country, and you are labeled a communist, liberal or Democrat.
Do you see why I fear another Republican administration? They are no more than a step short of reconstituting the fascist regimes of Spain, Italy or Germany.
If you value freedom, you must vote against these extremists who want to take over America and control the mouths and wombs and pens of our citizens.
Start with the easy choices, such as Carol Morgan and Joe Heflin, then, when you get the chance, send Cronyn and Hutcherson into retirement.
You notice I said nothing about Bill White. While I prefer him to Perry, he and his campaign have made some choices that I don't like, such as IMO misleading advertising. So though I still intend to vote for him, I am not urging others to do so.]]>
Say something unpleasant about your country, and you are labeled a communist, liberal or Democrat.
Do you see why I fear another Republican administration? They are no more than a step short of reconstituting the fascist regimes of Spain, Italy or Germany.
If you value freedom, you must vote against these extremists who want to take over America and control the mouths and wombs and pens of our citizens.
Start with the easy choices, such as Carol Morgan and Joe Heflin, then, when you get the chance, send Cronyn and Hutcherson into retirement.
You notice I said nothing about Bill White. While I prefer him to Perry, he and his campaign have made some choices that I don't like, such as IMO misleading advertising. So though I still intend to vote for him, I am not urging others to do so.]]>
IronfootMcGurk wrote:In the ethical universe of mbp, and that of many Republicans, you are either with America or against it, and if you criticize your country or expose any of it's many faults with an eye to correcting them, then you become the enemy.
Say something unpleasant about your country, and you are labeled a communist, liberal or Democrat.
Do you see why I fear another Republican administration? They are no more than a step short of reconstituting the fascist regimes of Spain, Italy or Germany.
If you value freedom, you must vote against these extremists who want to take over America and control the mouths and wombs and pens of our citizens.
Start with the easy choices, such as Carol Morgan and Joe Heflin, then, when you get the chance, send Cronyn and Hutcherson into retirement.
You notice I said nothing about Bill White. While I prefer him to Perry, he and his campaign have made some choices that I don't like, such as IMO misleading advertising. So though I still intend to vote for him, I am not urging others to do so.
Say something unpleasant about your country, and you are labeled a communist, liberal or Democrat.
Do you see why I fear another Republican administration? They are no more than a step short of reconstituting the fascist regimes of Spain, Italy or Germany.
If you value freedom, you must vote against these extremists who want to take over America and control the mouths and wombs and pens of our citizens.
Start with the easy choices, such as Carol Morgan and Joe Heflin, then, when you get the chance, send Cronyn and Hutcherson into retirement.
You notice I said nothing about Bill White. While I prefer him to Perry, he and his campaign have made some choices that I don't like, such as IMO misleading advertising. So though I still intend to vote for him, I am not urging others to do so.
"Fascists" LOL
Keep complaining and being "enlightened", we''ll continue to protect you- of course, your banking on that huh?]]>
IronfootMcGurk wrote:In the ethical universe of mbp, and that of many Republicans, you are either with America or against it, and if you criticize your country or expose any of it's many faults with an eye to correcting them, then you become the enemy.
Say something unpleasant about your country, and you are labeled a communist, liberal or Democrat.
Do you see why I fear another Republican administration? They are no more than a step short of reconstituting the fascist regimes of Spain, Italy or Germany.
If you value freedom, you must vote against these extremists who want to take over America and control the mouths and wombs and pens of our citizens.
Start with the easy choices, such as Carol Morgan and Joe Heflin, then, when you get the chance, send Cronyn and Hutcherson into retirement.
You notice I said nothing about Bill White. While I prefer him to Perry, he and his campaign have made some choices that I don't like, such as IMO misleading advertising. So though I still intend to vote for him, I am not urging others to do so.
Say something unpleasant about your country, and you are labeled a communist, liberal or Democrat.
Do you see why I fear another Republican administration? They are no more than a step short of reconstituting the fascist regimes of Spain, Italy or Germany.
If you value freedom, you must vote against these extremists who want to take over America and control the mouths and wombs and pens of our citizens.
Start with the easy choices, such as Carol Morgan and Joe Heflin, then, when you get the chance, send Cronyn and Hutcherson into retirement.
You notice I said nothing about Bill White. While I prefer him to Perry, he and his campaign have made some choices that I don't like, such as IMO misleading advertising. So though I still intend to vote for him, I am not urging others to do so.
"Fascists" LOL
Keep complaining and being "enlightened", we''ll continue to protect you- of course, your banking on that huh?]]>
Again, Republicanism is all about control and authority. Except in business, where Republicans in general believe there should be no limits, not for the health of the environment, not for the health and safety of consumers. Complete turn around from the day of Teddy Roosevelt.
Especially I urge you all to vote for the opponent of Neugenbarger, Newgenbauer, whatever his name is. I'm not involved much in politics, and I don't remember who is running against Neugie, but I assure you, that person will be a better choice.]]>
Again, Republicanism is all about control and authority. Except in business, where Republicans in general believe there should be no limits, not for the health of the environment, not for the health and safety of consumers. Complete turn around from the day of Teddy Roosevelt.
Especially I urge you all to vote for the opponent of Neugenbarger, Newgenbauer, whatever his name is. I'm not involved much in politics, and I don't remember who is running against Neugie, but I assure you, that person will be a better choice.]]>
By Jim Kessler
Sunday, September 5, 2010
"We are going to lose the House and the Senate."
Those were the opening words of a memo that I faxed to my then-boss, Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), on Labor Day in 1994. Schumer was still in the House, I was his legislative director, and my prediction was based on one overarching idea: The Democratic Party had lost its way. Our national agenda had been hijacked by the parochial agendas of aggrieved special interest groups. And as a result, we were badly misfiring with the middle class.
Today, Democrats are fretting and Republicans are salivating at the prospect that 2010's midterm elections will be a repeat of 1994, when the GOP took control of both houses of Congress. A new Gallup poll shows Republicans with a 10-point lead on a generic two-party congressional ballot -- a margin unmatched in more than 60 years of polling. Several incumbent senators have lost what should have been safe primary races. House Republican Leader John Boehner has gone so far as to boast of 100 possible GOP pickups and has already begun outlining a three-point plan for his tenure as speaker.
All in all, the president's party holds some pretty bad cards -- but even so, this year needn't be like 1994. If Democrats take a close look at what happened that year, they can avoid repeating it. And if they look to another election year, 1982, they might even find inspiration in an unlikely place: President Ronald Reagan's leadership. In the run-up to that year's midterm elections, Reagan faced 10.8 percent unemployment, 6 percent inflation, a declining GDP, an approval rating barely above freezing and the indignity of having drastically increased the budget deficit over the previous year after running as a fiscal hawk. You can't get a hand much worse than that, but Reagan nonetheless managed to hold all 54 GOP Senate seats while losing only 26 House races.
Back in the summer of 1994, Democrats didn't seem to think they had such an awful hand. In the first of several major differences between the situation Democrats face now and the one they faced then, few thought Congress was going to change hands. A Gallup poll that July had Republicans ahead on a generic ballot, but by a benign five-point spread. Besides, Republicans had been in the minority in the House for more than four decades. The likelihood of them taking power seemed akin to the Cubs' chances of winning the World Series.
Unlike most people on Capitol Hill at the time, I knew from experience what defeat looked like. My previous boss, Chet Atkins, a four-term incumbent from Massachusetts, had lost in 1992 after squeaking by the previous cycle. I knew, for example, that a 43 percent approval rating in an inhospitable political climate probably meant a loss for a lazy officeholder -- even if he was ahead by 20 points some months out. As I scoured the nation's papers for polls on individual races late that summer, I saw familiar signs of doom for dozens of sitting Democrats.
The reaction to my Labor Day memo was swift. My phone rang at 11 p.m. Without so much as a hello, Schumer said: "I read your memo. I think it's right. We need a plan."
The next evening, we sat down with House Speaker Tom Foley. Schumer began by saying: "Mr. Speaker, I'm worried about the November elections. I think we could lose the House. I'm even worried about your race." Despite the fact that Schumer had been in the House almost 14 years, Foley didn't really know him (he called Chuck "Charlie," for one thing).
The speaker rolled up a magazine, unfolded his legs and began talking, launching into a story that continued for 15 minutes and involved, among many things, a ceremonial headdress he had received from a Native American tribe outside Spokane. Finally, he slapped Schumer on the leg with the magazine and said, "So, Charlie, I'm not concerned about the House or about my race." Then he left.
In all, Republicans gained 54 House seats and eight Senate seats to take control of both sides of the Capitol that fall. Foley became the first speaker to lose his seat since 1862. And it would be 14 years before Democrats again controlled both Congress and the White House.
It is understandable if much of what has followed the Democrats' return to power has inspired a sense of deja vu: In 2009, as in 1993, Democrats rode in on a wave of hope and an ambitious agenda, led by a president who desired to be above partisanship but was soon pulled into partisan fistfights. As in the early Clinton years, a potent, conservative, populist movement is gathering steam -- disaffected Perot voters back then, energized "tea partiers" today. And just as the Republicans in Foley's Congress were unified behind Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole, Boehner and Mitch McConnell have held the Republican bloc together under President Obama.
Those are the similarities. But I see five potentially decisive differences between 1994 and 2010.
Nancy Pelosi is not Tom Foley.
Pelosi is tough, strategic and clued-in; Foley was gentle, ineffectual and aloof. No one needs to tell Pelosi that Democrats face a stiff headwind -- there is no doubt that she sees polls each day from races across the country. Foley, by contrast, was so old-school that he didn't even realize he was in trouble.
John Boehner is not Newt Gingrich.
Gingrich was a revolutionary who by 1994 had already outmaneuvered and toppled Minority Leader Bob Michel and forced him into retirement. With a disciplined group of co-conspirators including Dick Armey, Tom DeLay and Bob Walker, he proceeded to nationalize the elections around his Contract With America. Boehner may be an able and respected congressional leader, but he is a country-club conservative, not a world-changer.
Charlie Rangel is not Dan Rostenkowski.
Every Congress has its scandals, but the ethics troubles that Democrats Rangel and Maxine Waters face today are isolated cases, while Rosty's scandal was emblematic of systemic corruption in the House. And Foley wouldn't have been speaker in the first place if not for the demotion (and subsequent resignation) of scandal-scarred Speaker Jim Wright in 1989. The House banking and post office scandals, involving bounced checks and postage-for-cash schemes, dragged on for months and implicated dozens of congressional Democrats.
Tom Perriello is not Jack Brooks.
Looking at the Democratic majority in 1994 is like looking at the old Politburo from the Brezhnev era: It's a tableau of gray, glassy-eyed men with liver spots. In 1994, Neal Smith, at 74 a relatively young representative from Iowa, was defeated by Republican Greg Ganske, who rode around in a 1958 DeSoto to highlight the year Smith was first elected. Ousted Texan Jack Brooks had joined the House a year before Bill Haley and the Comets recorded "Rock Around the Clock."
The Democrats of 1994 had been elected when radio was king, and they had forgotten how to run and how to raise money. Most of today's vulnerable Democrats (such as Virginia's Perriello and Ohio's John Boccieri) are young, hungry and battle-tested.
Obamacare is not Hillarycare.
Health-care reform may not be popular, but at least this Congress passed a bill. In 1994, the idea was both unpopular and a failure. This made Congress look feckless and leaderless. In addition, as pieces of the health-care bill are implemented, voters' views on the legislation may be softening.
Of course, in one crucial way things are much worse for Democrats today. The economy was tepid in 1994; it's truly awful now.
Even so, there is a model for Democrats: Ronald Reagan's triumph in 1982. What can Obama and the Democrats learn from the Great Communicator? Plenty. Reagan understood that the economy was so bad that to tout his "accomplishments" would be laughable. But though he couldn't sell the electorate on where the nation was at the time, he knew he could sell them on where he planned to take it. With the country shaken by a series of recessions and foreign policy setbacks, he rallied Americans behind his optimism ("Don't let anyone tell you that America's best days are behind her") and faith in American exceptionalism ("the last, best hope of man on Earth"). Things might look bleak today, he told voters, but blue skies lie ahead.
If Democrats are to hold on in November, they must follow Reagan's tack, sketching a vision for the future that has the United States leading the globe with the world's strongest economy -- one fueled by private-sector growth and a successful middle class. And they must resist the temptation to succumb to a populism that portrays members of the middle class as weak, powerless victims.
Reagan correctly understood that even in very difficult economic times, the American middle class is enormously resilient. This is as true today as it was in 1982. In a national poll that the Benenson Strategy Group conducted in June for Third Way, 71 percent of likely voters said they were doing better economically than the average American, and two-thirds said their personal finances were going to improve over the next five years. Americans may be skeptical about government, but they have a deep faith in their own ability to get ahead, and they want their political leaders to offer a vision that will help them do that.
Optimism wasn't Reagan's only tactic, of course. He also told people that there were only two routes to take -- his, or the one that led back to Jimmy Carter. In the process, he portrayed the Democrats as the party of pessimism, limits and the belief that, as he put it, "the United States has had its days in the sun, that our nation has passed its zenith."
Recently, Obama seems to have borrowed a page from Reagan, quipping that you put a car in D to go forward and R to go back. Linking the prospect of a Republican Congress to George W. Bush's economic ideas in this way is a promising approach: Our recent poll found that voters approved of a hypothetical candidate who supported Obama's economic policies by 15 points over one who wanted to go back to Bush's economic policies.
Now it is time to borrow another page from Reagan, by offering a more positive, powerful, muscular view of what this country can achieve.
Americans realize that the economy is in crisis, and they don't expect it to turn on a dime. But they want to know that Democrats have a vision that appeals to their highest aspirations and seeks to restore our nation's economic greatness and mantle as the most powerful economy on Earth.
Monday is Labor Day. Would I write the same memo today as I did on Labor Day in 1994? No -- Obama and the Democrats will not be caught off guard this time. If they can continue to link the possibility of a new Republican majority to a return to Bush policies, while also communicating their own vision of a new dawn for America, voters may be ready to listen.
It's tough out there, but Schumer doesn't need to dust off his old fax machine. At least not yet.
Jim Kessler is vice president for policy at Third Way, a progressive think tank.]]>
By Jim Kessler
Sunday, September 5, 2010
"We are going to lose the House and the Senate."
Those were the opening words of a memo that I faxed to my then-boss, Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), on Labor Day in 1994. Schumer was still in the House, I was his legislative director, and my prediction was based on one overarching idea: The Democratic Party had lost its way. Our national agenda had been hijacked by the parochial agendas of aggrieved special interest groups. And as a result, we were badly misfiring with the middle class.
Today, Democrats are fretting and Republicans are salivating at the prospect that 2010's midterm elections will be a repeat of 1994, when the GOP took control of both houses of Congress. A new Gallup poll shows Republicans with a 10-point lead on a generic two-party congressional ballot -- a margin unmatched in more than 60 years of polling. Several incumbent senators have lost what should have been safe primary races. House Republican Leader John Boehner has gone so far as to boast of 100 possible GOP pickups and has already begun outlining a three-point plan for his tenure as speaker.
All in all, the president's party holds some pretty bad cards -- but even so, this year needn't be like 1994. If Democrats take a close look at what happened that year, they can avoid repeating it. And if they look to another election year, 1982, they might even find inspiration in an unlikely place: President Ronald Reagan's leadership. In the run-up to that year's midterm elections, Reagan faced 10.8 percent unemployment, 6 percent inflation, a declining GDP, an approval rating barely above freezing and the indignity of having drastically increased the budget deficit over the previous year after running as a fiscal hawk. You can't get a hand much worse than that, but Reagan nonetheless managed to hold all 54 GOP Senate seats while losing only 26 House races.
Back in the summer of 1994, Democrats didn't seem to think they had such an awful hand. In the first of several major differences between the situation Democrats face now and the one they faced then, few thought Congress was going to change hands. A Gallup poll that July had Republicans ahead on a generic ballot, but by a benign five-point spread. Besides, Republicans had been in the minority in the House for more than four decades. The likelihood of them taking power seemed akin to the Cubs' chances of winning the World Series.
Unlike most people on Capitol Hill at the time, I knew from experience what defeat looked like. My previous boss, Chet Atkins, a four-term incumbent from Massachusetts, had lost in 1992 after squeaking by the previous cycle. I knew, for example, that a 43 percent approval rating in an inhospitable political climate probably meant a loss for a lazy officeholder -- even if he was ahead by 20 points some months out. As I scoured the nation's papers for polls on individual races late that summer, I saw familiar signs of doom for dozens of sitting Democrats.
The reaction to my Labor Day memo was swift. My phone rang at 11 p.m. Without so much as a hello, Schumer said: "I read your memo. I think it's right. We need a plan."
The next evening, we sat down with House Speaker Tom Foley. Schumer began by saying: "Mr. Speaker, I'm worried about the November elections. I think we could lose the House. I'm even worried about your race." Despite the fact that Schumer had been in the House almost 14 years, Foley didn't really know him (he called Chuck "Charlie," for one thing).
The speaker rolled up a magazine, unfolded his legs and began talking, launching into a story that continued for 15 minutes and involved, among many things, a ceremonial headdress he had received from a Native American tribe outside Spokane. Finally, he slapped Schumer on the leg with the magazine and said, "So, Charlie, I'm not concerned about the House or about my race." Then he left.
In all, Republicans gained 54 House seats and eight Senate seats to take control of both sides of the Capitol that fall. Foley became the first speaker to lose his seat since 1862. And it would be 14 years before Democrats again controlled both Congress and the White House.
It is understandable if much of what has followed the Democrats' return to power has inspired a sense of deja vu: In 2009, as in 1993, Democrats rode in on a wave of hope and an ambitious agenda, led by a president who desired to be above partisanship but was soon pulled into partisan fistfights. As in the early Clinton years, a potent, conservative, populist movement is gathering steam -- disaffected Perot voters back then, energized "tea partiers" today. And just as the Republicans in Foley's Congress were unified behind Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole, Boehner and Mitch McConnell have held the Republican bloc together under President Obama.
Those are the similarities. But I see five potentially decisive differences between 1994 and 2010.
Nancy Pelosi is not Tom Foley.
Pelosi is tough, strategic and clued-in; Foley was gentle, ineffectual and aloof. No one needs to tell Pelosi that Democrats face a stiff headwind -- there is no doubt that she sees polls each day from races across the country. Foley, by contrast, was so old-school that he didn't even realize he was in trouble.
John Boehner is not Newt Gingrich.
Gingrich was a revolutionary who by 1994 had already outmaneuvered and toppled Minority Leader Bob Michel and forced him into retirement. With a disciplined group of co-conspirators including Dick Armey, Tom DeLay and Bob Walker, he proceeded to nationalize the elections around his Contract With America. Boehner may be an able and respected congressional leader, but he is a country-club conservative, not a world-changer.
Charlie Rangel is not Dan Rostenkowski.
Every Congress has its scandals, but the ethics troubles that Democrats Rangel and Maxine Waters face today are isolated cases, while Rosty's scandal was emblematic of systemic corruption in the House. And Foley wouldn't have been speaker in the first place if not for the demotion (and subsequent resignation) of scandal-scarred Speaker Jim Wright in 1989. The House banking and post office scandals, involving bounced checks and postage-for-cash schemes, dragged on for months and implicated dozens of congressional Democrats.
Tom Perriello is not Jack Brooks.
Looking at the Democratic majority in 1994 is like looking at the old Politburo from the Brezhnev era: It's a tableau of gray, glassy-eyed men with liver spots. In 1994, Neal Smith, at 74 a relatively young representative from Iowa, was defeated by Republican Greg Ganske, who rode around in a 1958 DeSoto to highlight the year Smith was first elected. Ousted Texan Jack Brooks had joined the House a year before Bill Haley and the Comets recorded "Rock Around the Clock."
The Democrats of 1994 had been elected when radio was king, and they had forgotten how to run and how to raise money. Most of today's vulnerable Democrats (such as Virginia's Perriello and Ohio's John Boccieri) are young, hungry and battle-tested.
Obamacare is not Hillarycare.
Health-care reform may not be popular, but at least this Congress passed a bill. In 1994, the idea was both unpopular and a failure. This made Congress look feckless and leaderless. In addition, as pieces of the health-care bill are implemented, voters' views on the legislation may be softening.
Of course, in one crucial way things are much worse for Democrats today. The economy was tepid in 1994; it's truly awful now.
Even so, there is a model for Democrats: Ronald Reagan's triumph in 1982. What can Obama and the Democrats learn from the Great Communicator? Plenty. Reagan understood that the economy was so bad that to tout his "accomplishments" would be laughable. But though he couldn't sell the electorate on where the nation was at the time, he knew he could sell them on where he planned to take it. With the country shaken by a series of recessions and foreign policy setbacks, he rallied Americans behind his optimism ("Don't let anyone tell you that America's best days are behind her") and faith in American exceptionalism ("the last, best hope of man on Earth"). Things might look bleak today, he told voters, but blue skies lie ahead.
If Democrats are to hold on in November, they must follow Reagan's tack, sketching a vision for the future that has the United States leading the globe with the world's strongest economy -- one fueled by private-sector growth and a successful middle class. And they must resist the temptation to succumb to a populism that portrays members of the middle class as weak, powerless victims.
Reagan correctly understood that even in very difficult economic times, the American middle class is enormously resilient. This is as true today as it was in 1982. In a national poll that the Benenson Strategy Group conducted in June for Third Way, 71 percent of likely voters said they were doing better economically than the average American, and two-thirds said their personal finances were going to improve over the next five years. Americans may be skeptical about government, but they have a deep faith in their own ability to get ahead, and they want their political leaders to offer a vision that will help them do that.
Optimism wasn't Reagan's only tactic, of course. He also told people that there were only two routes to take -- his, or the one that led back to Jimmy Carter. In the process, he portrayed the Democrats as the party of pessimism, limits and the belief that, as he put it, "the United States has had its days in the sun, that our nation has passed its zenith."
Recently, Obama seems to have borrowed a page from Reagan, quipping that you put a car in D to go forward and R to go back. Linking the prospect of a Republican Congress to George W. Bush's economic ideas in this way is a promising approach: Our recent poll found that voters approved of a hypothetical candidate who supported Obama's economic policies by 15 points over one who wanted to go back to Bush's economic policies.
Now it is time to borrow another page from Reagan, by offering a more positive, powerful, muscular view of what this country can achieve.
Americans realize that the economy is in crisis, and they don't expect it to turn on a dime. But they want to know that Democrats have a vision that appeals to their highest aspirations and seeks to restore our nation's economic greatness and mantle as the most powerful economy on Earth.
Monday is Labor Day. Would I write the same memo today as I did on Labor Day in 1994? No -- Obama and the Democrats will not be caught off guard this time. If they can continue to link the possibility of a new Republican majority to a return to Bush policies, while also communicating their own vision of a new dawn for America, voters may be ready to listen.
It's tough out there, but Schumer doesn't need to dust off his old fax machine. At least not yet.
Jim Kessler is vice president for policy at Third Way, a progressive think tank.]]>