No more Bush bluster. If the war on terror means anthing to you, listen up. One giant step in restoring mangled image abroad (in preparation for global diplomacy aimed at a 21st century approach to the war on terror) would be to live by example. Credibility is the name of the game in that arena.
For those among us who would be the first to decry an Obama administration that would "change our country as we know it," it might be helpful to remember just how much of that country we lost during W's reign of terror...writ of habeas corpus, presumed innocence, right to counsel and fair trial, burden or proof, not to mention even a modicum of acknowledgement of basic human rights and condemnation of torture. Sound familiar?
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old. To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database Just another walk in the park.
I simply transferred my post from a thread so long it was beginning to disappear and combined 2 responses in 1 when guess who appeared under one shot. Next time, look before you pounce...rule of the jungle, survival of the fittest and all that good stuff.
You, on the other hand, cannot bear to let a single chance pass you by when it comes to imposing your obnoxious comments where they don’t belong. Juvenile name calling...waste of time (WOT)...a new short cut for you to try to wrap you brain around. Besides, denial is your game, not mine.
Careful, your intolerance is showing, for the umpteenth million time. Zzzzzzzzzzz, so boring. No. He can walk and chew gum
This information has been up on his website since the day he announced his candidacy. Selective hearing does not make a convincing argument. The tax increase is aimed at INDIVIDUAL incomes in excess of $250,000. The tax cut applies to the rest of us. Hello….He can do both. What part of MTs are middle class workers do you not get? No he is not talking out of both sides of his mouth. He wants to reverse Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. Basically, this would reset status quo back to the day before those tax cuts went into effect. I "get around it" with the truth. Like the OP below pointed out, Obama cannot create more social programs without the majority support of Congress. That's the way democracy works. He is simply trying to restore funding for longstanding program commitments that has been stripped, diverted or discontinued over the Bush years to fund the war. Read his platform. Examine his voting record. There is no inconsistency between the two. The only one around here who is being "run" is you…by smear tactics. He is not wishy-washy either. He is not ashamed of being able to broker compromise, and that is exactly what this country needs to break this deadly gridlock in Congress. Don't you care anything about making an informed choice?
You mean O can't walk on water?! Oh no
nm
so you think the doctor is going to let me walk out and not pay?
Even if I cannot go in the room with my daughter, they are still going to expect me to pay for the visit!
I would not walk across the street to see either one of them. nm
nm
OMG...I just saw him walk on water!!...nm
//
Can't walk and chew gum?
...a mile in the shoes of the average Iraqi citizen. Bush totally destroyed their country. Last I heard, there STILL wasn't water or electricity in parts of the country that we demolished. As bad as Saddam Hussein was, at least he kept Iran out of Iraq because they were mortal enemies.
They didn't do anything to us. Bush invented fiction about WMD and AL Qaeda and started a war based on lies. He said way back in 1999 that if he ever had the chance to invade Iraq, he would.
Where I come from, that's called "premeditation." We went in and demolished their country. Bush knew IEDs would be a threat to our troops, yet he REFUSED to supply them with vehicles that would protect our soldiers from them.
If we remained concentrated on Afghanistan, we'd have caught Osama bin Laden by now. This just begs the question of WHY bin Laden suddenly lost his "importance" to Bush and Iraq suddenly became the focus after 9/11. Perhaps bin Laden is worth more to Bush politically if he is alive.
Bush gave a presidential coin to the grieving mother of a dead soldier and told her, "Don't go sell it on eBay." http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/05/bush_to_mother_dont_sell_on_eb.html
Bush used Pat Tillman as a recruiting poster boy while he was alive, and after he was killed under suspicious circumstances (http://www.house.gov/list/press/ca15_honda/SEPT06CORPTILLMAN.html), Tillman's family was told that Tillman was nothing but "worm dirt" because they weren't Christian. http://crooksandliars.com/2007/04/24/pats-worm-dirt/
KBR (Cheney's Halliburton subsidiary) provided WASTEWATER for bathing and drinking, etc. to our troops for almost TWO YEARS. Does that fall under Rumsfeld's assertion that, "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want?" or does it simply display complete contempt and disrespect for our soldiers? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/10/AR2008031002487.html
There are just so many bad things and questions surrounding the war itself. When you add Bush's contempt for our troops, his cockiness and that smirk, it's a wonder that ALL he got thrown in his face was a shoe.
In fact, he was interviewed after the "shoe" attack. A portion of it is copied and pasted below. He used the same old "al Qaeda in Iraq" excuse, and when it was pointed out that al Qaeda wasn't IN Iraq until WE got there, his answer was, "So what?"
You can see the interview at http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Bush_Im_not_insulted_by_thrown_1215.html
The question and answer where he says, "So what?" starts at approximately 2:00.
During the interview, Bush says his legacy will "take time," but includes No Child Left Behind and "52 months of uninterrupted job growth," then speaks about his role in "protecting" America after 9/11. He mentions that al Qaeda has turned out to be a problem in Iraq.
Raddatz points out that al Qaeda didn't choose to make Iraq a base to fight from until after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Bush's response? "Yeah, that's right. So what?"
I still fear the extent of the damage this man can do before Obama is sworn in -- assuming Obama IS sworn in -- (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Parowan_Prophet_Obama_wont_make_it_1214.html) (and if he isn't, it won't have anything to do with God; rather someone who is GodLESS; don't need to be a "prophet" to predict THAT).
That shoe was thrown at Bush because he has created such destruction, disdain distrust and disrespect in Iraq, as he has done in America, as well.
I can walk and chew gum at the same time, but
thanks for your sage advice and inspirational wisdom. I keep up with it all but prefer to at least wait for the swearing in and the first 100 days before even beginning to draw any conclusions or making any sort of judgments.
ITMT, just as the GOP will be watching O like a hawk and calling him out on his every move, the dems will continue to do the same with the GOP contenders. The prospect of EVER having Palin be remotely associated with a position of power in the lower 48 is what will propel her opponents to take a page out of W's book and wage our preemptive strikes whenever and whereever they can. You are dreaming to think that nobody cares about this. If they didn't, the posts would not appear, the media would not be covering it and we would not be having this conversation. FYI, I'm not the one who is scouring the internet about SP, but I am entitled to weigh in when the opportunity presents itself.
Nothing funny about staying on message and following a thread. I respond plenty when the occasion arises about all the rest and for the record, I think Blago is a disgrace to the party and to our country and, if found guilty, should do hard time. You may chose to set your sites on Chicago politics, no problem. However, I do not find that nearly as compelling at the moment as the rising death toll in Gaza, the human suffering and humanitarian crisis and the truckload of lies that is coming out of the media day in and day out, so I scour the net for the other side of the story, since I have family and friends over there. Kindly refrain from trying to tell me what my priorities should be.
I would never tell you to walk lock-step
in MY footprints, that would be blasphemy.
No, we are telling you that Jesus wants you to walk in HIS footsteps. He knows that we will wander, He knows that we will sometimes lose sight of His footsteps, but if we trust Him He will guide us back.
You don't have one iota of a clue what I've been through in my life. So, your trying to portray me as some mean spirited soul who doesn't have a clue what tough times are is very presumptious of you. I have walked some very difficult roads. I could write a book about what has happened to me that was not my fault, but I dealt with it. I received help and was grateful, and once I had a leg up I took it from there. I never once complained about what the government wasn't doing for me.
I'm not saying that the situation in Lebanon is easy or fair. However, at some point people have to take the consequences of their choices and live with them and not criticize the help they are given. If these people weren't whining while being evacuated from their country on a luxury cruisde ship with all the amenties I would have kept my mouth shut, but the audacity of people to complain about THEIR RESCUERS goes beyond being ungrateful. Now, if I was standing on a corner telling a mentally challenged homeless person to suck it up and get a job then your sermons would have been called for, but these are people who went to Lebanon with the money out of their pocket knowing full well the dangers there. I really can't believe you are comparing the dangers of Beirut, Lebanon to any American city, but then again I don't choose to walk through the worst neighbohoods in my city at night either. Anyway, there is no comparison.
Here's a prediction of what may happen in Cuba. Note how Cubans feel regarding healthcare and education in Cuba, something Americans are in no immediate danger of experiencing from our so-called free government.
so what is democracy to you...
you are in favor of letting money then run this country, to do freely anything it wants - not sure I get that at all in fact that sounds more like socialism to me - this attitude sent down from the rich that we should just be 'lucky to have jobs' and how only the poor and middleclass should suffer, you know, for the benefit of the country - we are the only ones sacrificing.
Not getting that at all...
What is in it for me, what have the rich corporations done for me, please tell me, how am I better off now.
I could sit here all day typing the problems I have right now financially, so please share how great things are now that only the poor and middle class are carrying the burdens for roadwork, childcare (you know, schools feeding kids breakfast, lunch, and even dinner most places because we dump our kids there and leave them), I could just go on and on and on...
This is the history of democracy:
Athens
450 - 500 BCE
"It is called a government of the people (demokratia) becaue we live in considertion of not the few, but of the majority." - Thucydides on Pericles' view of democracy
Evolution of Democracy
Democracy in Greece was first introduced in Athens in the 505 BCE by Cleisthenes. Previous to democracy Greek city-states were ruled by a an elite few, rich, powerful men, known as tyrants. This Oligarchy limited the power to very few people. Democracy was a government structured to serve the people. All white, male citizens had the right to vote under a democratic democracy. Unlike present democracy, citizens would convine and openly discuss and vote for elections. This type of democracy is called direct democracy. As a society it benefited the majority, which were the middle and lower classes. The middle and lower classes received a voice , giving them power. The upper class, aristrocrats, lost power through a democratic government. They no longer received more power because of thier social standing.
I try not to be nasty on this board, but I just can't believe how many people are wanting the demise of democracy and, with open arms, are accepting everything the democrats state as truth. The demise of the 2-party system will only lead to socialism or something worse. Are you ready for that?
After the town meeting in MO yesterday, I honestly believe O has blinders on. He still doesn't know why the tea parties were held. He is relying on someone to give him an accounting of why and he is going along with that. He doesn't realize that was not what the protest was about. Maybe he should have gone to one of the parties to see the truth. But no, he'll rely on others for the not-so-much-truth.
Same with the economy. How much has changed? Not much. Yet he thinks it's getting better. Well, I don't see it happening. Unemployment higher, Chrysler claiming bankruptcy, GM soon to follow. Banks still not lending. CEOs still taking their bonuses; i.e., business and politics as usual.
Sure, it's only 100 days, but for the debt we now have to shoulder, how does it get paid back when the government refuses to take payment from the banks that wanted to pay off their debt? This government WANTS to control and own all business and banking institutions, no ifs, ands, or buts.
Yesterday, DH applied for SS since he doesn't believe it will be there in a few years, so for the 40-some years he worked and paid into the system, he wants to get something back and, anyway, there is no work for him. So far this year, he worked 15 days. Son still can't find a job after a year. Yeah, there are jobs out there. NOT!
Bush was correct in saying Monday night that “Our nation is being tested in a way that we have not been since the start of the Cold War.” Unfortunately, it’s Bush’s administration that is testing us—with its relentless incompetence, attacks on our civil liberties and inability to acknowledge the bankruptcy of its policies.
If representative government were alive and well in America, President Bush would not have dared to give the speech he made Monday on the fifth anniversary of 9/11. In a blatantly partisan screed, the president ripped off a nation’s mourning for the 9/11 victims in order to justify his totally unrelated and disastrous invasion of Iraq.
The president’s shameless remarks on this solemn occasion were so rife with egregious distortions of fact and logic as to beg ridicule, let alone refutation by a free press, a sturdy political opposition party and an informed public. Sadly, those three essential pillars of a free society have been subverted by five years of willful presidential exploitation of our fears, mocking the Founding Fathers’ historic dream of a government accountable to the public.
The model for this administration is the opposite of Jeffersonian democracy, and instead increasingly invites comparison with the madness that destroyed Rome, Germany and the Soviet Union: Authoritarianism that thrives on stoking paralyzing fear of the barbarians at the gate. “We are in a war that will set the course for this new century and determine the destiny of millions across the world,” Bush said, justifying his Iraq quagmire while sidestepping the fact that Islamic extremism, as well as 15 of the 19 hijackers, was most clearly nurtured by Saudi Arabia, the bizarre oil theocracy with intimate ties to the Bush dynasty, but not former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
“Since the horror of 9/11, we’ve learned a great deal about the enemy,” continued the president. “We have learned that they form a global network of extremists who are driven by a perverted vision of Islam.” But if such a network exists, it now extends to Iraq only as a result of the U.S. invasion.
“We have learned that their goal is to build a radical Islamic empire where women are prisoners in their homes, men are beaten for missing prayer meetings and terrorists have a safe haven to plan and launch attacks on America and other civilized nations,” Bush said. Tragically, he is describing quite accurately the situation in most of post-invasion Iraq, where his great “shock-and-awe” attempt at nation-building has turned a stable secular dictatorship into a post-apocalyptic civil war, where only religious extremists and power-mad nihilists thrive.
In urging us to join him at the barricades of what he calls “the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century and the calling of our generation,” Bush cynically conflates Hussein with that deposed dictator’s sworn enemy, the religious fanatics of Al Qaeda, mere days after the Republican-run Senate Select Committee on Intelligence established yet again that the two were fundamentally at odds.
Hussein, the Senate committee announced Friday, “did not trust Al Qaeda or any other radical Islamist group and did not want to cooperate with them.”
In fact, Hussein was exactly the kind of regional strongman the United States supported, trained and propped up throughout the Cold War. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, then working for President Ronald Reagan, even infamously embraced Hussein in the ’80s because his Iraq was considered a bulwark against fundamentalist revolutionary Iran.
Now we have all but handed post-Hussein Iraq to Shiite fundamentalists trained by and allied with the Iran of the ayatollahs. On Monday, the prime minister of “liberated” Iraq, who spent years in exile under the tutelage of Iran’s ayatollahs, was back in Tehran concluding agreements on mutual security with the leader of that “rogue regime.” How bizarre that Bush’s invasion of Iraq, a country that did not have a functioning WMD program, has vastly increased the power of Iran, which, according to Bush, does. Sometimes, by accident, Bush gets it close to right. “Our nation is being tested in a way that we have not been since the start of the Cold War,” he said. Unfortunately, it is his administration that is testing us with its relentless incompetence, attacks on our civil liberties and inability to acknowledge the bankruptcy of its policies. The more his deadly failures have become evident, the shriller the rhetoric and the more his administration digs in its heels.
Peel back the lies and hyperbole from Bush’s speech and you are left with one pressing concern: If this “war on terror” is really so important to the worldwide battle for freedom, why have we allowed this democracy-mocking demagogue to lead us through it?
I don't think every American wants democracy. sm
In fact, I know they don't. There are more than a few Americans who think we deserved 9/11. Nancy Pelosi is one of them. Now look where she is.
My dear, you do know that the New Democracy is what - sm
The 'New Democracy' is what The Shining Path (Communist Party of Peru), New People's Army (Communisty Party of the Philippines), and the Maoists (Communist Party of India) are calling their cultural revolution, right?
You know, the revolution where they tried to impose a dictatorship of the proletariat through such 'democratic' things as terrorism against peasants and union workers and other 'dissidents' in their own countries?
And I'm sure you know that the goal of the 'New Democracy' is to induce a world-wide revolution as a path to what they call 'pure' communism?
You know all that, right?
Otherwise, your statement about dragging Americans 'kicking and screaming into the new democracy' would just sound uneducated and silly.
isn't democracy grand?
Yes, Chele, your comparison is kind of like how 50 million of us who voted for the other guys have had to put up with Bush for 8 years...that's democracy for you. Maybe you are the one who needs to wise up.
It is called Democracy.
Of course it is okay for the majority to elect whomever they want. Your post sounds like a case of Republican sour grapes to me.
It is the way of a democracy. I keep in touch with my senators and one...sm
lone representative. I pay attention to whether they vote in my best interest and are honest in their dealings and let them know if I disagree, and vote or not vote for them in the next election. You are naive if you think that democrats are solely responsible for this meltdown. Looking for the other party to blame is counterproductive and will help no one. Money hungry greed is what has led us to this and both parties are to blame.
HBO Special Hacking Democracy sm
Here is the link to the trailer for the HBO Special Hacking Democracy. There are also links up there to the whole thing (9 parts).
how in the world can we dictate what they do with their prisoners? You have to take a wider view of this bill. It is nothing like what you have presented here. It's a bill about democracy and a democratic nation.
Bush/Saakashvili alliance is not about democracy.
It's not rocket science. Even a 5-minute superficial read of the history of the pipeline and the below-the-radar placement of US troops in Georgia makes that abundantly clear.
Democracy Obama-style! Great post. Thanks.
.
For many reasons, the fact that Israel is a successful democracy
in the midst of tyrannical middle eastern governments. The fact that the U.S. supports Israel. The fact that Israel has turned their once arid country into a fertile landscape and have managed to become a wealthy nation despite it's geographical short-comings and to the dismay of their neighbors. Also because the palestinians have managed to paint themselves as the underdog in a battle that has long been a land dispute and not an "occupation." And I have even begun to touch on the religious and scriptural reasons for the hatred.
marks the location of current message within thread
