That would be great but one paragraph has me a bit leary.
Posted By: Backwards typist on 2009-02-10
In Reply to: WOW! Proud of Intel and hope other - companies will follow!
"The announcement comes less than a month after the world's largest maker of microprocessors used in personal computers said it would close plants in Southeast Asia and scale back U.S. operations under a restructuring that affects as many as 6,000 employees."
What do they know? Are they afraid O is going to put extra taxes on businesses that do business overseas (which I hope), or are they being smart? Sorry if my sarcasm shows, but this will still affect 6,000 jobs in the U.S.? Why? Need to do some digging here.
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
Great post, great insight, great analysis, thanks!..nm
nm
The last paragraph of
this article is just tooooooo good. I would LOVE to see the Bush supporters actually really "go to Iraq," and for free!!!!
|
Sacrifice? Count Me Out
If You Supported the War, Pay For It
|
by Ted Rall |
|
If America is truly on a war footing," Thom Shanker asks in the New York Times, "why is so little sacrifice asked of the nation at large?" Military recruiters are coming up short of volunteers, yet neither party is pushing for a draft. No one is proposing a tax increase to cover the $60 billion annual cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars. There are no World War II-style war bond drives, no victory gardens, not even gas rationing. Back here in the fatherland, only "support our troops" car ribbons indicate that we're at war--and they aren't even bumper stickers, they're magnetic. Apparently Americans aren't even willing to sacrifice the finish on their automobiles to promote the cause.
"Nobody in America is asked to sacrifice, except us," the paper quotes an officer who just returned from a year in rose-petal-paved Iraq. "[Symbolic signs of support are] just not enough," grumbles a brigadier general. "There has to be more," he demands. "The absence of a call for broader national sacrifice in a time of war has become a near constant topic of discussion among officers and enlisted personnel," the general claims.
Northwestern University professor Charles Moskos says: "The political leaders are afraid to ask the public for any real sacrifice, which doesn't speak too highly of the citizenry."
To which I say: Screw that. It's not my duty to suffer for this pointless war. I've been against it all along, and you can stick your victory garden where the desert sun can't penetrate.
I was among hundreds of thousands of Americans who marched against invading Iraq in early 2003. Tens of millions cheered us on. The largest mass protest movement in history (so designated by the Guinness Book of World Records) brought together pacifists, humanists and people like me. We knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We didn't believe that the same White House that propped up dictatorships in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia--that had, when it suited them, supported Saddam--could possibly be interested in liberating the people of Iraq. When we scrutinized coverage of the CIA's prewar analyses, we found that there wasn't any. There were only reports dating back to 1998, ancient history in the intelligence business. We absolutely didn't trust Dick "cakewalk" Cheney's breezy predictions.
Bush and Cheney ignored our concerns. Instead of building a solid case and bipartisan political consensus, they bullied and lied to Congress and the UN to scam us into this unwinnable war. Who can blame them? They work for ExxonMobil and Halliburton, not the American people. But they, not us, broke Iraq. It can't be fixed, it's not our fault and it's not our problem. There's no reason to relinquish our creature comforts to back their grubby little oil grab.
The most galling aspect of this fiasco is that it was entirely predictable. I know; I predicted it. Here's my column written back in July 2002:
"Most experts expect Iraq to disintegrate into civil war after an overthrow of Saddam's oppressive Ba'ath Party," I wrote. "Opinion of the United States is now at an all-time low among Muslims around the world. Going after Iraq will make matters worse. Why give radical anti-American Islamists even more political ammunition with which to recruit suicide bombers and attract the financial donations that fund their assaults?"
I'm no genius, but even I could see that this war was doomed eight months before the invasion:
"Do the Kurds deserve a homeland? Sure. Would Iraq be better off without Saddam? Probably. But if we're smart, we won't be the ones to blow over this particular house of cards. We have too much to lose and too little to gain in the mess that would certainly ensue."
Did I call that one or what?
David Hendrickson, a scholar at Colorado College, tells the Times: "Bush understands that the support of the public for war--especially the war in Iraq--is conditioned on demanding little of the public." Of course, Bush himself hasn't given up a second of vacation or a single donated dollar, much less one of his hard-partying daughters, to the "war effort." Sacrifice is a hard sell down here among the citizenry when we don't see it starting where it should start, among our leaders.
I'm already sacrificing too much for a war I always believed was stupid and wrong. I'm paying three dollars a gallon for buck-fifty gas and walking through gauntlets of over-armed National Guardboys at airports and bus stations. I'm in greater danger than ever before of getting blown up by a pissed-off fanatic. And I dread the giant tax hike we'll eventually need to pay off Bush's deficit. But these aren't enough sacrifices for Bush and his vainglorious generals, who are planning "a Civilian Reserve, a sort of Peace Corps for professionals. . . a program to seek commitments from bankers, lawyers, doctors, engineers, electricians, plumbers and solid-waste disposal experts to deploy to conflict zones for months at a time on reconstruction assignments, to relieve pressure on the military."
If you voted for Bush, here's your chance to plant your butt where your ridiculous car magnet is, smack dab in the middle of the Sunni Triangle. Good luck.
© 2005 Ted Rall
### |
|
Might we see the whole paragraph?
context, you know, to make a valid decision?
The last paragraph.
Now I know Emanuel is chief of staff and why obama picked him, makes sense.
I agree with the last paragraph, as well.
This is definitely a campaign against the First Amendment, and I believe Bush will do whatever he can to silence people who either disagree with him or who catch him in lies (a full-time job in and of itself).
Bob Geiger - see 2nd paragraph
The last paragraph is why I posted it.
I am not at all convinced that the issue of abortion is a liberal or conservative stance. I think it tends to be tied to conservative because of its religious roots, but even that is debatable. Women throughout history regardless of religion have been having abortions. I believe it simply to be your own belief that really should not be attached to a political process.
As war is always a political process, the comparison isn't really fair is it? and I really, really hope that you are not referring to the war on Iraq because there is just too much refuting evidence to continue to believe we were justified in invading Iraq in the guise that we were defending ourselves.
How can you be pro-choice in the voice of war knowing that the very nature of it kills more people than abortion ever could? Just the war in Iraq alone has probably killed more people than the abortions in the United States in the past 100 years.
Makes no sense to me.
Ho hum, lost me after second paragraph
x
Your last sentence of the third paragraph was just as...sm
uncalled for, I believe, and untrue.
I like this paragraph in your post....
'For the most part I will find people who live in other countries and are observing what is going on here to be a lot more credible because they do not have an agenda.'
Right, and they are more objective as they are far away from it all.
you should forward that last paragraph
to the White House where they seem to think terrorists can be rational and reasoned with and will play nice with us.
In one paragraph you have not only told me more than I ever wanted to know.
You have outlined and described in perfect detail the problem with why your arguments can never be recognized as anything but dividing. Gt, believe me, this is not all about you, which it always seems to end up being about in your posts. The fact that you refuse, not fail, but refuse to accept anything, any explanation, any single example of the image you project as well as your close-minedness, is illustrated in every post that you make.
I agree with the assessment in the last paragraph.sm
They will use kiddie porn and so-called domestic terrorism to limit our use of the Internet. Everything is greatly exaggerated to induce fear, and then you will allow them to slice up more of your liberties.
Yes, and regarding that final paragraph re: Iran
Seymour Hersh has yet to get it wrong, no matter how much the King George and his men attack.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact
Here's your answer, 1st paragraph, 2nd line.
...Parade Magazine ASKED the President-elect, who is also a devoted family man, to get personal and tell us what he wants for his children.
He didn't take out an ad in the newspaper. He simply answered a simple question posed to him by a reporter on assignment. If you had taken the time to read more carefully and weren't in such a hurry to slam the man, you might have noticed that.
There was nothing superficial about his response. In fact, the only superficial thing around here is your post.
The paragraph about early retirement
That's where DH is. Forced to retire because of no work (road construction). The stimulus money went to 2 cities in my state. The rest of the state got nothing towards road construction or very little.
We didn't get last year's stimulus check because we owed taxes and they put the money towards that. Now he's getting screwed out of the $250 because he wasn't retired when this happened. Never fails.
Remember that cartoon of the guy always under the grey cloud? That's us. 
Your last paragraph is absolutely correct.
The UN is definitely weak. It could be because of some of the countries that belong to it have the same ideas as Iran and NK.
I wonder when the UN is going to pay up on their lease for the NY building they occupy. Probably never because they think they are above reproach.
Once again you wasted a whole paragraph telling me how stupid I am SM
without a SINGLE FACT! I give up with you. You are just too much (or too little). Whateva!
Your 2nd paragraph is complete and utter nonsense. sm
You wrote: 'Besides, a lot of atheists who try to disprove that God ever existed will usually come to the conclusion that there is too much evidence to prove that He does exist. It usually scares the you know what out of them and they become converts.'
And you know this how? I would say show me the evidence to back up this ridiculous claim, but I already know you have none. It's your opinion/religious propaganda, and it's blantantly false. You also have it backwards. You're implying people start out being athiest, then convert to religion. It's the other way around, when religious or secular people start questioning all the improbable/impossible things the bible is overflowing with, in addition to all of its inconsistenties and outright contradictions.
Forgive me if I doubt that you're an expert on athiests, and forgive me if I doubt your critical thinking skills, because religion frowns upon that - you're not supposed to question god or think for yourself, just obey his commands, or should I say, various human interpretations of his commands...
If there was indeed
'too much evidence to prove that He does exist' then everyone would believe in him. How could anyone deny it? They couldn't. But that's just it, there is no evidence to prove it, whereas there actually IS scientific evidence to the contrary, that you apparently are unaware of or haven't investigated.
Instead, you're willing to believe something based only on 'faith.' In every other area of your life where you'd want or even *demand* facts, proof, or concrete evidence before believing something so important, with religion (some) people are all too willing to blindly accept it on faith.
BTW, an athiest doesn't have to DISprove god (you can't prove a negative, anyway), you have to prove that he *does* exist, and you can't. And wouldn't you think if he really existed, he would prove it to the entire world's satisfaction anyway and put an end to the debate and all the relious wars, conflict, genocide, misery, suffering, etc? He'd rather we kill each over it? I think not. It makes no sense.
You also wrote: 'You can say all you want, but you just can't argue with a completely changed life'
Yes, I can argue it. You changed your life because *you* wanted to change it. You! Not some mystical, magical, invisible being in the sky who cares about your every thought and action. People change their lives for the better every day, without religion. IMO, if you hadn't found religion, you would've kept looking until you found something else that worked for you, and it probably would've been a lot healthier than the brainwashing, closed-minded, divisive phenomenon that is religion.
a spokesman for M/P issued the last paragraph so not sure how reliable
that would be. Odd how they added it at the end but did not say if it was a fact. It was supposed to be an investigative article. There is no way of knowing if that is fact, it is only what the McCain people say is true.
Cannot trust anyone it seems.
oops - one paragraph made NO sense of mine..sm
That's not to say that they are not entitled to feel what they feel and they are entitled to their opinions/voice..even though I just reread my post and it could be interpreted that way (and sorry for that) -
(above is the corrected paragraph - sorry *lol*)
This paragraph is in my post...I guess you forgot to read it...nm
Actualy, my cut-and-past job didn't miss the first paragraph
but appreciate your selective reading. Nice name, BTW.
Great, great post. Thank you, Marmann! nm
x
Sure is great
Yup, I love posting the truth about the white house monster. Cant take it?? Well, I can remember some awful things the neocons said about President Clinton for eight years..What is good for the goose is good for the gander..
This is great!
Thanks for posting it. I didn't see this one before. I've only recently begun to watch his show and haven't been able to catch all of them. 
That's great! nm
This is great and I am going ...
to email this guy and tell him so.
http://www.kabc.com/mcintyre/listingsEntry.asp?ID=432586&PT=McIntyre+in+the+Morning
These were great.
Thanks. Too bad they're all true. 
This was great!
Thanks for posting the link. I liked it all but especially laughed at the terrorists loving Masterpiece Theater. :-)
Yes, great. sm
She is speaking at an A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition meeting. You know about ANSWER, right? About as anti-American as you can get. Here's a little information. Also, as Observor said, she is a racist and an antisemite. Did you not see the video of her bodyguards, in her presence, race baiting Jews?
Formed within three days of the September 11th attacks, and officially founded on September 14, 2001 by Ramsey Clark and members of the International Action Center, ANSWER was one of the first organizations formed to protest the policies of the Bush administration in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Its first major action was a September 29, 2001 Anti-War, Anti-Racist political rally and march in Washington, D.C., primarily in protest of the then-impending U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Subsequently the organization has organized rallies drawing crowds in the hundreds of thousands, including several with record-setting numbers of people. ANSWER characterizes itself as anti-imperialist, and its steering committee consists of socialists, Marxists, civil rights advocates, and left-wing progressive organizations from the Muslim, Arab, Palestinian, Filipino, Haitian, and Latin American communities. Many of ANSWER's leaders were members of Workers World Party (WWP) at the time of ANSWER's founding, and are current members of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), a Marxist-Leninist organization that formed in 2004.
we know what a great
in-the-nation's-best-interests job the courts did on the Gore (Nobel prize winner) and Bush (failure in absolutely all business ventures) decision. Clarence still seeking revenge on Anita Hill. Plus don't forget the Supreme Court justice who just happens to enjoy duck hunting with Cheney. The guy with a cloud over his head according to Fitzgerald in the Plame case. Pile in on.
This was great
First time in a long time I watched the news and I was pretty amused tonight. Subject was Barack's trip to Berlin and his speech. Republican representative said that Obama shouldn't have done it because he's not the president. They were asked well what about McCain when he went and gave a speech in Canada. Their response was "Well that was different. They are Canadians". He also said it was okay for McCain to give speech to Canadians because Canada is in North America.
When questioned further it actually came out that they (republicans) were upset because the Berlin speech made Obama look good, while McCains biggest highlight of the week was giving in interview in the dairy isle of the grocery store.
They tried to say that Barack was giving a "policy" speech, and when corrected they made up some other lame excuse (that's when it came out that they were upset because having all those people gather for his speech in Berlin made him look good).
Just goes to show you how desperate the republicans are. They had their chance to pick a better candidate than some old lame, senile guy, but this is who they chose. Now they are just mad because McCain is looking more feeble, constantly whines, and is constantly mis-speaking and getting the facts wrong (and having to be corrected in public by those closest to him). Someone said that if he would just stick to issues and not try and attack/belittle Obama every chance he got it might go a little different for him.
I just thought that was quite amusing for a change in the news.
Great! :) nm
nm
Great pic thanks
That's excellent. She sure knows her weapons. Goes to show she knows and supports Ammendment 2 of the constitution - Right to bear arm. You go girl Governor Palin. Would she now be considered the new Governator. :-)
He was great. Wish he had been more like that...
during the primaries. I like Fred.
That would be great but we all know that
some people can't see beyond their nose and some people don't have the ability to weigh the facts of what is written.
FYI, I have finally made up my mind through reading.
She was great. Try though he did, he...
couldn't trip her up and it was to his obvious great frustration. She did a better job than Obama did with O'Reilly. lol. At least she didn't say she had to figure out which faction. lol.
i just think it's great :)
that we'll have either our first black pres or first female vp. I don't know why obama only sides w/ his black side, and I don't know why you have a problem with me thinking that it's great that for once we are going to have some diversity. Sheesh
These are great
These are great strategies. I can certainly understand why he should be president. I can't wait too vote!!!!! (sorry, I just couldn't resist!!)
Jon is great. sm
His facial expressions alone make me laugh. I became a fan after watching him confront Tucker Carlson during an interview. If I find that clip, I will post it. It is not comedy, but Jon tells it like it is.
And just look at the great welcome
received after their service to our country...I'm sure Kendra is thinking of this and wondering how many people are going to feel this way towards her own hero! You hang in there Kendra, you do have a hero and God bless you, your husband and your child!
Ain't that the great
thing about America? You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.
Religious beliefs aren't legislated in a society that claims to respect freedom of religion for all. If a tourist or other person is murdered in the USA, of course that person is protected from the crime of murder, but reference was being made to the United States Constitution and the word "citizen" was used. I was merely providing the definition of "citizen" as provided by the Constitution.
Again, the ultimate decision will be between a woman and her creator. I'm willing to let God do his/her job. Why aren't you? 
This was great!
I'm still laughing! Thanks for posting this. It's nice to leave the computer with a smile on my face. Hope you have a great day.
What a great ad
Of course they wont run that. What is wrong with it? People have abortions every day, people vote so that it is legal, people protest for their right to do what they want with their body. Given that, why cant we see a commercial about it? My children have to watch Enzyte (spelling?) commercials and see sexual things on TV anytime they try to watch it. So why not? Because anything with an ounce of a moral behind it is exactly what most of society does not want to see.
That would be great. (nm)
.
LOL! That's great!!! (nm)
Great...
Just don't tell my grandkids or I'll have to tell them different. ;-)
That was great!
Of course, the right wing nuts on this board will have a field day, but I am glad to see all the holes poked in these ridiculous statements.
Thanks, JTBB!
I think it is great
that the President and his wife have a date night. Taking time out for your marriage is very important especially with as busy as you know Obama has to be with everything going on. I can't knock them for going out.
However, people are losing jobs left and right, GM filed bankruptcy, Chrysler is in bankruptcy, people are losing homes, etc. Our country is hurting and although I applaud their date night......they could have done it at little or no expense to the taxpayers. Obama continues to state that this is a time we all must sacrifice and I have yet to see those in Washington sacrificing. It is the taxpayers that continue to get screwed.
So take your wife out on a date, Mr. President......but pay for it yourself and save the taxpayers some money for once.....please!!!
I just think it's great that the
It's so hard to find your soulmate. Out of all the crooked politicians in the world, these two met and fell in love. Wow! My faith in marriage is restored.
|
