Home Contact Us

Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

special assistant to reagan sees the picture clearly

Posted By: gt on 2005-09-08
In Reply to:

Federal Failure in New Orleans
by Doug Bandow
_Doug Bandow_ (http://www.cato.org/people/bandow.html) , a former special
assistant to president Ronald Reagan
Is George W. Bush a serious person? It's not a question to ask lightly of a
decent man who holds the US presidency, an office worthy of respect. But it
must be asked.
No one anticipated the breach of the levees due to Hurricane Katrina, he
said, after being criticised for his administration's dilatory response to the
suffering in the city of New Orleans. A day later he told his director of
the Federal Emergency Management Administration, Michael Brown: Brownie,
you're doing a heck of a job.
Is Bush a serious person?
The most important duty at the moment obviously is to respond to the human
calamity, not engage in endless recriminations. But it is not clear that this
President and this administration are capable of doing what is necessary.
They must not be allowed to avoid responsibility for the catastrophe that has
occurred on their watch.
Take the President's remarkable assessment of his Government's performance.
As Katrina advanced on the Gulf coast, private analysts and government
officials warned about possible destruction of the levees and damage to the pumps.
A year ago, with Hurricane Ivan on the move - before veering away from the
Big Easy - city officials warned that thousands could die if the levees gave
way.
Afterwards the Natural Hazards Centre noted that a direct strike would have
caused the levees between the lake and city to overtop and fill the city
'bowl' with water. In 2001, Bush's FEMA cited a hurricane hit on New Orleans as
one of the three top possible disasters facing the US. No wonder that the
New Orleans Times-Picayune, its presses under water, editorialised: No one can
say they didn't see it coming.
Similarly, consider the President's belief that his appointee, Brown, has
been doing a great job. Brown declared on Thursday - the fourth day of flooding
in New Orleans - that the federal Government did not even know about the
convention centre people until today. Apparently people around the world knew
more than Brown. Does the head of FEMA not watch television, read a
newspaper, talk to an aide, check a website, or have any contact with anyone in the
real world? Which resident of New Orleans or Biloxi believes that Brown is
doing a heck of a job? Which person, in the US or elsewhere, watching the
horror on TV, is impressed with the administration's performance?
Indeed, in the midst of the firestorm of criticism, including by members of
his own party, the President allowed that the results are not acceptable.
But no one has been held accountable for anything. The administration set this
pattern long ago: it is constantly surprised and never accountable.
The point is not that Bush is to blame for everything. The Kyoto accord has
nothing to do with Katrina: Kyoto would have a negligible impact on global
temperatures even if the Europeans complied with it.
Nor have hurricanes become stronger and more frequent in recent decades.
Whether extra funding for the Army Corps of Engineers would have preserved the
levees is hardly certain and impossible to prove. Nor can the city and state
escape responsibility for inaction if they believed the system to be unsafe.
Excessive deployment of National Guard units in the administration's
unnecessary Iraq war limited the flexibility of the hardest-hit states and imposed
an extra burden on guard members who've recently returned from serving
overseas. But sufficient numbers of troops remained available elsewhere across the
US.
The real question is: Why did Washington take so long to mobilise them? The
administration underestimated the problem, failed to plan for the predictable
aftermath and refused to accept responsibility for its actions. Just as when
the President took the US and many of its allies into the Iraq war based on
false and distorted intelligence. Then the administration failed to prepare
for violent resistance in Iraq. The Pentagon did not provide American soldiers
with adequate quantities of body armour, armoured vehicles and other
equipment.
Contrary to administration expectations, new terrorist affiliates sprang up,
new terrorist recruits flooded Iraq and new terrorist attacks were launched
across the world, including against several friends of the US. In none of
these cases has anyone taken responsibility for anything.
Now Hurricane Katrina surprised a woefully ill-prepared administration.
President Bush and his officials failed in their most basic responsibility: to
maintain the peaceful social framework within which Americans normally live and
work together.
Bush initially responded to 9/11 with personal empathy and political
sensitivity. But his failures now overwhelm his successes. The administration's
continuing lack of accountability leaves it ill-equipped to meet equally serious
future challenges sure to face the US and the rest of the world.
This article originally appeared in the Australian on Sept. 5, 2005

Complete Discussion Below:

marks the location of current message within thread

special assistant to reagan sees the picture clearly - gt

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

But I can guarantee you he sees himself a just
@

Unlike yourself, not everyone sees
Dem party, specifically Obama, and total imperfection in the Rep party. None of us have figured everything out as perfectly as you have yet, but that does not entitle you to call anyone a liar because you are too smug in your little world to listen to what anyone else has to say. All you want to do is keep arguing just for argument sake. You aren't worth bothering with, we have bigger fish to fry.

Huckabee sees sm
the One World Government coming and what is going to happen according to bible scripture. The people that you think are trying to scare you might be trying to warn you of what is coming. It is your choice of whether you believe it or not.

This guy gets it. Sees through the phony Obama
nm

Way to go. At least he sees the change coming.nm

my doc is so awesome -- sees me for free
i am so blessed. knows i don't have insurance, doesn't bill me. says if i pay for Rx's and lab work, he won't charge me. and, unbelievably, spends at least 60 to 90 minutes with me talking -- just amazing. small office, just doc, secretary and nurse. says he's not in it to be a millionaire. (put himself thru med school, 1 of 12 kids in his family.) i even know the names of his cats and all of his hobbies. he's in his mid 50s and i hope he never retires...

I don't care what Huckabee sees
believe in separation of church and state. That is the American way - whether it is popular or not.

Don't bother to warn me about Jesus coming, I'm ready. Please stop assuming you know things you don't.

I think that Obama sees himself as Christian, but
the Muslins see him as Muslim because his father is Muslim.

If O stays silent, believe me, it is not because he takes sides, it is because now it is better to be cautious than confrontational.

If O is a powerless puppet why do you then constantly put him down and criticize him?

Since Kennedy all president are puppets pulled by very elite people, true. And these elite people picked Obama as winner soon after he declared himself a candidate, because he is so charismatic, similar to Kennedy (I heard this also in this video 'The Obama Deception'), true.

Amd yes, the Iranian people are screwed, also true.

But believe me, Obama, puppet or no puppet, till now proved himself to be a very good diplomat.

I am much more interested in the foreign politics than in the domestic stuff, that's boring.

Democratic Hawk Now Sees War as a Mistake

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 12:00 AM

Permission to reprint or copy this article or photo, other than personal use, must be obtained from The Seattle Times. Call 206-464-3113 or e-mail resale@seattletimes.com with your request.

src=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2005/11/24/2002645096.jpg

Rep. Norm Dicks voted in 2002 to back the war.

src=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2005/11/24/2002645169.jpg

JIMI LOTT / THE SEATTLE TIMES, 2003

U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, center, with military officers at ceremonies marking the opening of new facilities at Naval Station Bremerton in 2003.

Defense hawk Dicks says he now sees war as a mistake

By Alicia Mundy
Seattle Times Washington bureau

WASHINGTON � It was after 11 p.m. on Friday when Rep. Norm Dicks finally left the Capitol, fresh from the heated House debate on the Iraq war. He was demoralized and angry.

Sometime during the rancorous, seven-hour floor fight over whether to immediately withdraw U.S. troops, one Texas Republican compared those who question America's military strategy in Iraq to the hippies and peaceniks who protested the Vietnam War and did terrible things to troop morale.

The House was in a frenzy over comments by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who had called for the troops to leave Iraq in six months. In response, the White House initially likened Murtha, a 37-year veteran of the Marines and an officer in Vietnam, to lefty moviemaker Michael Moore.

Then a new Republican representative from Ohio, Jean Schmidt, relayed a message to the House that she said she had received from a Marine colonel in her district: Cowards cut and run; Marines never do.

During much of the debate, Dicks, a Democrat from Bremerton, huddled in the Democrats' cloakroom with Murtha, a longtime friend. Both men are known for their strong support of the military over the years. Now, they felt, that record was being questioned.

There was a lot of anger back there, Dicks said in an interview this week. It was powerful. I can't remember anything quite as traumatic as this in my history here.

Near midnight, he drove to his D.C. home, poured a drink and wondered how defense hawks like he and Murtha had gotten lumped in with peaceniks by their colleagues and the administration.

And he thought about all that had happened over the past couple of years to change his mind about the war in Iraq.

Voted to back Bush

In October 2002, Dicks voted loudly and proudly to back President Bush in a future deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq � one of two Washington state Democratic House members to do so. Adam Smith, whose district includes Fort Lewis, was the other.

Dicks thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and wouldn't hesitate to use them against the United States.

After visiting Iraq early in the war, Norm told me the Iraqis were going to be throwing petals at American troops, Murtha said in an interview this week.

Dicks now says it was all a mistake � his vote, the invasion, and the way the United States is waging the war.

While he disagrees with Murtha's conclusion that U.S. troops should be withdrawn within six months, Dicks said, He may well be right if this insurgency goes much further.

The insurgency has gotten worse and worse, he said. That's where Murtha's rationale is pretty strong � we're talking a lot of casualties with no success in sight. The American people obviously know that this war is a mistake.

Dicks, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, says he's particularly angry about the intelligence that supported going to war.

Without the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), he said, he would absolutely not have voted for the war.

The Bush administration has accused some members of Congress of rewriting history by claiming the president misled Americans about the reasons for going to war. Congress, the administration says, saw the same intelligence and agreed Iraq was a threat.

But Dicks says the intelligence was doctored. And he says the White House didn't plan for and deploy enough troops for the growing insurgency.

A lot of us relied on [former CIA director] George Tenet. We had many meetings with the White House and CIA, and they did not tell us there was a dispute between the CIA, Commerce or the Pentagon on the WMDs, he said.

He and Murtha tended to give the military, the CIA and the White House the benefit of the doubt, Dicks says. But he now says he and his colleagues should have pressed much harder for answers.

Norm ... has agonized

All of us have gone through a difficult period, but Norm really has agonized, Murtha said this week.

Murtha and Dicks were appointed to the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee in 1979, three years after Dicks first was elected to Congress. They rarely have disagreed, especially in their support of the military.

In October 2002, Dicks made an impassioned speech during the House debate over whether to authorize the president to send troops to Iraq without waiting for the United Nations to act.

Based on the briefings I have had, and based on the information provided by our intelligence agencies to members of Congress, I now believe there is credible evidence that Saddam Hussein has developed sophisticated chemical and biological weapons, and that he may be close to developing a nuclear weapon, Dicks said at the time.

By spring 2003, U.N. weapons inspectors said they hadn't found hard evidence of WMDs in Iraq. But Dicks remained convinced of Iraq's threat.

We're going to find things [Saddam] had not disclosed, he said shortly before the war began in March 2003. There is no doubt about that. Period. Underlined.

By June of that year, with no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons found, Dicks remained steadfast in his support for the war but called for a congressional inquiry into the intelligence agencies' work on Iraq. I think the American people deserve to know what happened and why it happened, he said at the time.

That same month, Dicks was upset when a good friend, Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, was forced into retirement after telling Congress that the secretary of defense was not sending enough troops to win the peace.

Growing doubts

On July 6, 2003, Dicks awoke to read the now-famous New York Times opinion piece by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had been sent on a CIA mission to investigate a report that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear materials in Africa.

Wilson wrote that he had found no evidence of such Iraqi intentions and criticized Bush for making the claim in his State of the Union address two months before the invasion.

That Joe Wilson article was very troubling, Dicks said.

Dicks grew somber about Iraq. Rep. Jim McDermott, who represents Seattle and had opposed the war from the start, talked with him about it.

Norm is a lot like Jack Murtha. These are guys with a somewhat different philosophy than me, McDermott said recently. This an extremely difficult time for them because they have to reassess what they were led to believe about prewar intelligence.

The White House maintains it did nothing to mischaracterize what it knew about Iraq and its weapons.

Dicks' private concerns became more public two months ago. At a breakfast fundraiser on Capitol Hill, Dicks surprised the guests with a tough talk against the war.

The White House last Friday called Dicks to gauge his support. House GOP leaders were pushing for a vote on a resolution they hoped would put Democrats on the spot by forcing them to either endorse an immediate troop withdrawal or stay the course in Iraq.

Dicks said he told the White House that their attack on Murtha was the most outrageous comment I've ever heard.

The resolution, denounced by Democrats, ultimately was defeated 403-3.

Dicks says the Pentagon should begin a phased withdrawal and leave some troops to help maintain order and train a new Iraq army. We've got to be very concerned that Iraq comes out of this whole, he said.

But he added, We can't take forever.

Some people say it takes eight to nine years to control an insurgency, Dicks said.

I don't think the American people will give eight to nine years, and I sure as heck won't.

Alicia Mundy: 202-662-7457 or amundy@seattletimes.com

German Lady Sees Obama and Recalls Hitler...
http://swordattheready.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/german-lady-sees-obama-and-recalls-hitlers-call-of-change/

Why settle for a Harvard graduate who sees a vision of a kinder world.
I didn't believe him initially. I felt he had a hidden agenda, pay back time for the wrongs done to his ancestors until I saw his family photos, mom and grandpa as white as mine. This guy was raised as a white boy. And maybe that is why he expects more from the black men (raise your kids).

Give him a chance. Listen to his speeches over the years. Research him.

Though honestly, I would vote for Lou Dobbs in a New York minute.

Ron Reagan
Is great and tells it like it is. Keep spreading the TRUTH, Ron.

An IQ of 135 is nothing special? I bet you never took
an IQ test and if you did, your score is probably judging on the substance of your posts, I would guess below 90.

Average is 90.

Non-Reagan is an idiot. sm
He's a disgrace to his father's memory and to his living mother. He knows nothing! Come on people. You can do better than this! I would accept Alan Colmes or Dan Rather, but NON REAGAN???? Unbelievable!

And Reagan?..he armed
was fighting Iran. We were in bed with Saddam, when Reagan was president...have you forgotten that? What does that make us?

When your hero, Reagan,
he apparently made you blind. Remember this when more of our infrastructure (already started with levees in Louisiana) falls apart and you wonder why there are more pot holes and you can't afford basic necessities. Look around, it's already happening.

Poverty Increases as Incomes Decline Under Bush

September 21, 2005
By Gene C. Gerard

The day after Hurricane Katrina hit, exposing much of the public to the tragic conditions of poverty in America, the Census Bureau quietly released its annual report entitled, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States. In some respects, it provided a demonstrable backdrop to the pockets of poverty common to New Orleans and other cities. It also explained why, despite President Bush's assertion last month that, Americans have more money in their pockets, many people aren't faring as well as they once did.

The report indicates that in 2004 there was no increase in average annual household incomes for black, white, or Hispanic families. In fact, this marks the first time since the Census Bureau began keeping records that household incomes failed to increase for five consecutive years. Since President Bush took office, the average annual household family income has declined by $2,572, approximately 4.8 percent.

Black families had the lowest average income last year, at $30,134. By comparison, the average income for white families was $48,977. The average pretax family income for all racial groups combined was $44,389, which is the lowest it has been since 1997. The South had the lowest average family income in 2004.

Interestingly enough, as the Economic Policy Institute notes in their analysis of the Census Bureau's report, not all families did poorly last year. Although the portion of the total national income going to the bottom 60 percent of families did not increase last year, the portion going to the wealthiest five percent of families rose by 0.4 percent. And while the average inflation-adjusted family income of middle-class Americans declined by 0.7 percent in 2004, the wealthiest five percent of families enjoyed a 1.7 percent increase.

Earnings also declined last year. This is despite the fact that Americans are working harder. Since 2000, worker output per hour has increased by 15 percent. Yet for men working full-time, their annual incomes declined 2.3 percent in 2004, down to an average of $40,798. This decrease was the largest one-year decline in 14 years for men. Women saw their earnings decrease by 1 percent, with an average income of $31,223, the largest one-year decline for women in nine years.

Women earned only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men last year. Clearly, the gender gap remains real and pervasive. In all major industry sectors, women earned less than men. In the management of companies, women earned 54 cents for every dollar earned by men; 57 cents in finance and industry; and 60 cents in scientific and technical services.

Not surprisingly, the report revealed that poverty increased last year. There were 37 million (12.7 percent) people living in poverty, an increase of 1.1 million people since 2003. This was the fourth consecutive year in which poverty has increased. In fact, since President Bush took office, 5.4 million more people, including 1.4 million children, have found themselves living in poverty. There were 7.9 million families living below the poverty level in 2004, an increase of 300,000 families since 2003.

The average income last year for a poverty-stricken family of four was $19,307; for a family of three it was $15,067, and for a couple it was $12,334. The poverty rate increased for people 18 to 64 last year by 0.5 percent. The South experienced the highest poverty rate of all regions.

The Census Bureau report also demonstrated that health insurance coverage remains elusive for many Americans. Those covered by employer-sponsored health insurance declined from 60.4 percent in 2003 to 59.8 percent in 2004. Approximately 800,000 more workers found themselves without health insurance last year. The percentage of people covered by governmental health programs in 2004 rose to 27.2 percent, in part because as poverty increased, more Americans were forced to seek coverage through Medicaid. The percentage of the public with Medicaid coverage rose by 0.5 percent in 2004.

Last year was the fourth consecutive year in which employer-sponsored health insurance coverage declined. A total of 45.8 million Americans are now without health insurance. The uninsured rate in 2004 was 11.3 percent for whites, 19.7 percent for blacks, and 32.7 percent for Hispanics. Not surprisingly, the South had the highest portion of the uninsured population, at 18.3 percent.

Although we haven't heard President Bush say it much lately, he came into office as a self-professed compassionate conservative. But as the report by the Census Bureau suggests, which was sadly symbolized by the plight of many poor residents of New Orleans, the country hasn't seen much of that compassion in the last five years.

Many Americans are working harder, earning less, and without the benefit of health insurance. It's easy to understand why the report was released a day after the largest natural disaster in a century, when much of the country was distracted.

Bush and Reagan....
Each had one known accusation...the woman who accused Bush had definite mental problems (see below) and the accusation against Reagan was in the 50's...one accusation. Clinton has had several of all kinds of sexual allegations made against him. Like I said, I know Juanita Broaddrick. Bottom line, Reagan and Bush had one isolated allegation against them...see below for the one against Bush. Not hardly the same thing at all. I did not say Clinton was morally bankrupt because he was a Democrat...he is a Democrat who happens to be morally bankrupt. Was and still is.

George W. Bush Rape Allegation

In 2002, Margie Schoedinger of Missouri City, Texas, a writer of Christian books, filed a pro se lawsuit against George W. Bush alleging that Bush had raped her in October 2000.[9]. The complaint also claims that she had been harassed, that she had been drugged and sexually assaulted numerous times by Bush and two other men purporting to be FBI agents, that her bank account had been interfered with, and that she had been threatened and beaten. There was no substantiating evidence for any of her claims. The suit also claimed Bush raped her husband, Christopher. Christopher allegedly served a year in prison after pleading no contest to assault charges against his wife. He later filed for divorce.

Many believed Schoedinger suffered from mental disorders. Among American newspapers, Schoedinger's ordeal was covered only by the local Fort Bend Star, whose editor is said to have off-handedly opined, I had heard she was a nut case. [10]

This lady later committed suicide.

no--Reagan was generalizing
it just applied to Obama. We can learn from things that people have said in the past.

If you can't spell REAGAN, I don't want you to have a gun nm
nm

man, I left out Reagan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHXq8TRejow&feature=related

Special rights
I don't believe any group of people should have special rights, but I certainly believe they should have equal rights. I do believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry, be entitled to family health insurance coverage, etc. I am not sure what special rights homosexuals are looking for, other than fair treatment. If we continue to look at them as sinners, which I cannot believe God created a whole group of people and they are all sinners because they are homosexual, they will always be thought of as outcasts, as other races were (and still are) treated in this country.

Hopefully your children will never have to make the abortion decision, but I have learned to never say never. My best friend is the daughter of an Assembly of God minister, and she had an abortion at age 16. She has never told her parents to this day (24 years later).

Thanks, TLD. That is a very special video. (nm)
nm

Well aren't you just special then.
xx

We do think it is special. Everyone has access to...sm
affordable healthcare. We have one of the highest minimum wage rates, quite exceptional since we are a very rural state, and great support taxwise for small business. Please don't come here, you would not fit in.

You obviously have no idea just how special she is...(sm)
Whether you agree with her views or not, M is one of those people who deserve respect. From what I know of her, she is well-written, intelligent, can express her views logically, and has no problem with providing documentation/proof for any discussion. Pay attention, you may learn something from her posts.

And special rights for
the sexually confused.

Former Reagan official: Is another 9/11 is in the works?

(There is NOTHING this administration could do that would surprise me. )

March 16, 2006

Is Another 9/11 in the Works?

by Paul Craig Roberts

If you were President George W. Bush with all available US troops tied down by the Iraqi resistance, and you were unable to control Iraq or political developments in the country, would you also start a war with Iran?

Yes, you would.

Bush�s determination to spread Middle East conflict by striking at Iran does not make sense.

First of all, Bush lacks the troops to do the job. If the US military cannot successfully occupy Iraq, there is no way that the US can occupy Iran, a country approximately three times the size in area and population.

Second, Iran can respond to a conventional air attack with missiles targeted on American ships and bases, and on oil facilities located throughout the Middle East.

Third, Iran has human assets, including the Shi'ite majority population in Iraq, that it can activate to cause chaos throughout the Middle East.

Fourth, polls of US troops in Iraq indicate that a vast majority do not believe in their mission and wish to be withdrawn. Unlike the yellow ribbon folks at home, the troops are unlikely to be enthusiastic about being trapped in an Iranian quagmire in addition to the Iraqi quagmire.

Fifth, Bush�s polls are down to 34 percent, with a majority of Americans believing that Bush�s invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

If you were being whipped in one fight, would you start a second fight with a bigger and stronger person?

That�s what Bush is doing.

Opinion polls indicate that the Bush regime has succeeded in its plan to make Americans fear Iran as the greatest threat America faces.

The Bush regime has created a major dispute with Iran over that country�s nuclear energy program and then blocked every effort to bring the dispute to a peaceful end.

In order to gain a pretext for attacking Iran, the Bush regime is using bribery and coercion in its effort to have Iran referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions.

In recent statements President Bush and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld blamed Iran for the Iraqi resistance, claiming that the roadside bombs used by the resistance are being supplied by Iran.

It is obvious that Bush intends to attack Iran and that he will use every means to bring war about.

Yet, Bush has no conventional means of waging war with Iran. His bloodthirsty neoconservatives have prepared plans for nuking Iran. However, an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran would leave the US, already regarded as a pariah nation, totally isolated.

Readers, whose thinking runs ahead of that of most of us, tell me that another 9/11 event will prepare the ground for a nuclear attack on Iran. Some readers say that Bush, or Israel as in Israel�s highly provocative attack on the Jericho jail and kidnapping of prisoners with American complicity, will provoke a second attack on the US. Others say that Bush or the neoconservatives working with some black ops group will orchestrate the attack.

One of the more extraordinary suggestions is that a low yield, perhaps tactical, nuclear weapon will be exploded some distance out from a US port. Death and destruction will be minimized, but fear and hysteria will be maximized. Americans will be told that the ship bearing the weapon was discovered and intercepted just in time, thanks to Bush�s illegal spying program, and that Iran is to blame. A more powerful wave of fear and outrage will again bind the American people to Bush, and the US media will not report the rest of the world�s doubts of the explanation.

Reads like a Michael Crichton plot, doesn�t it?

Fantasy? Let�s hope so.

I agree too. Former Reagan Republican here.sm
I agree with what you are saying. I voted for Bush the first time, sorry I did. 16 years of corrupt politics, lies, and scandals is hard to deal with. Clinton turned the White House into a ho house and Bush is turning it into the Reichstag. Think the country would be better off if Larry the Cable Guy was President.

Actually most of those laws were NOT done by liberals but in the REAGAN ERA sm
in an effort to cut and gut "big government". Don't blame us liberals, baby - blame your "great communicator".

Reagan's Socialist Legacy

An interesting article that expounds on several decades.......for a complete review, here's the link: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090323/scheer

Reagan's Socialist Legacy

by: Robert Scheer

Although gan's we still have a way to go to catch up with the good parts of the European system, including universal healthcare, high-quality public education and decent working conditions, we do have a system that is now as socialist in budget size as Europe's. That part I get when I listen to the right-wingers on Fox News bemoaning the reversal of the Reagan Revolution. But what I don't understand is how in the world they can blame this startling turn of events on Barack Obama.

The vast majority of money allocated so far on President Obama's watch is an extension of Bush's banking bailout, which has committed trillions to failed Wall Street conglomerates. I certainly don't want to defend the bailout and personally think the banks and stockbrokers deserve to go belly up, but what does that mess have to do with Obama, who was in college when the Reagan Revolution launched the deregulation that allowed Wall Street to run wild?

It's 4 hours 15 minutes, an HBO special...sm
Yeah Spike Lee put it together.

You have to have special license from the state....
and it is done specifically to reduce the predator population where moose and caribou populations are in danger from too many predators in the area. It is not done for sport. It is done all over our western United States to reduce predator populations.

People don't want oil drilling to disturb the caribou, but don't mind large wolf populations taking them out? As far as hard to watch videos, have you ever seen a wolf pack attack a carbiou and devour it while it is still kicking? Not pretty.

This aerial hunting practice has been used for years, and while I would not engage in it, sometimes it is necessary to control predator populations. Environmentalists sometimes make a mistake in going overboard to protect predators, then when other species are endangered by the overpopulation, things like this become necessary.

Special about Obama's Neighbors on now

Hannity's America, FNC. It's on now, but will be repeated at 11PM (CST, I think).

Flame all you want, but can you refute it? Seriously?

I saw (but didn't read) a post in passing about Alaska and its meth labs. Shoot, I grew up in Nebraska, and back in the 70s it was totally out of control. Rural areas seem to be magnets for them, regardless of who's in office, so in my opinion neither party who is in control at this time or another can't and won't stop it. It's sad, but true.

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).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8O43LxV_Xw

Gosh: Hukabee had a special on TV
I'm sorry I missed it because I as out when his program was on. I saw the tail end. I'm sure it was interesting. If anyone knows of a link or something I can go to to see his whole program, please post a link. I'd really like to see what it was all about.

Not wearing any special, but my hubby
wants to bring a cooler with some cold ones in it in case there is a long line. LOL

There's a special on PBS tonight about Lincoln

The author stated Lincoln suspended the right of habeus corpus and the constitution to justify his causes....so maybe this is why O is following along those lines.

Hope it's not on late. I can't stay awake past 8:30 anymore.

Never heard of rape charges against Reagan or GW. sm
Also, Kaye Summersby, Ike's *supposed* mistress said that they were very close but never consummated anything.

and when Ronald Reagan was prez, NANCY was

Actual entry in Reagan's diary

Beneath is an actual quote that Reagan wrote about George "W" in his

diaries, recently edited by author Doug Brinkley and published by Harper

Collins

"A moment I've been dreading. George brought his n'er-do-well son around

this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one

who lives in Florida; the one who hangs around here all the time looking

shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a

real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll

hire him as a contributing Editor or something. That looks like easy

work."

From the REAGAN DIARIES------entry dated May 17, 1986.

So, Ronald Reagan is a black liberationist
The windfall profits tax was not actually a tax on profit. Please read up on it's history. It was an excise tax which was enacted April 2, 1980, during the last year of the Carter administration. Interesting to note that it was not repealed until August 23, 1988. It stayed in effect for 7 years, 4 months and 21 days under Ronald Reagan; in other words, for 92% of his entire time in office. So does that make Ronald Reagan a Marxist/socialist black liberationist too?

Noonan (reagan speech writer) on

caught with microphone still on. Speaking with Mike Murphy, a repub talking head about SP's qualifications.

http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/thursday/nation/ny-usnoon045828642sep04,0,1097812.story

A quote from Ronald Reagan that I thought was appropriate
There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism � government. Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power. In doing so we can only assure that we will eventually be totally subject to it. When dictators come to power, the first thing they do is take away the people's weapons. It makes it so much easier for the secret police to operate, it makes it so much easier to force the will of the ruler upon the ruled.

Ronnie Reagan, the man who cut all the programs for mentally ill and sm
that is when you started seeing all the homeless people on the streets. During his reign of terror. A horrible president.

Obama apolgizes to Nancy Reagan

We all know Obama has a sense of humor. He's likeable and funny and I enjoy hearing him speak. But he really should think before he speaks, and not try to make jokes. Americans are needing issues to be solved, not seeing how funny our President elect is. This is a very serious and grave time for America and we need some reassurance that he will do what he promised on his campaign trail. He spoke of Hope through his campaign. Now we need to see the hope turn into reality. I had read a lot of articles from both liberal and conservative sources that he doesn't do well with "off the cuff" comments and I think he should stick to the speeches that are written for him.

Like I said - I like Obama. He's a good speaker. But his comment about Nancy Reagan whether you like her or not was indeed making fun of her and unecessary. He should have just said, "I've talked to the past presidents" and left it at that. By him having to state they were alive??? The public is not so stup!d that we wouldn't know he didn't mean the "dead" Presidents. I hope that's not what he thought. I'm just glad he called her to apologize.

On another note I watched the press conference he gave and I would have like to have heard a little more about what he's going to do once he gets in the white house, who he is picking for his cabinet, and what are the first things he is going to do to help Americans and what promises he gave to us that he will be able to keep and work on first. Not what kind of dog he is going to get or where his kids go to school. That does not affect American and I like many of my friends don't care. We care about issues that affect us.

Who would Jesus Whack. Oh that's charming, just really special. nm

Yes! It's not the rich & special treatment that bothers me.
He made tougher laws for drug crimes. The rich will alwys get better treatment. Paris Hilton's special treatment doesn't scare me. She isn't putting people in jail for her same offense.

How many of you would leave your 4-month-old special-needs baby to run for VP? nm

Inciting hatred is SP's special mission.
this endeavor. The more she does it, the lower those number falls. McCain is back in double-digit deficit territory again.

So I guess your okay with insulting special needs people
by calling Bush "retarded". Have you addressed the people on the other side to ask them to stop calling Bush retarded because of the lack of compassion for the people who really are special needs. My best friends brother was born with mental retardation (yes I know they use another word nowadays) but he gets offended when he hears people calling Bush retarded. But I guess your okay with that. Only on your side do you want it stopped.

You said it alright, there is ignorance in some posters.

I am not offended by any of it. You want to call Bush retarded fine (sure he's one fry short of a happy meal), you want to call people kool-aid drinkers that's fine too because they are. But you don't see me up here asking people to please stop and be nice to only one specific side.

The Jonestown tragedy (and yes it was a tragedy, just like Waco and Heavens gate and all these other cults), and I have great compassion. But that happened in 1978 - 30 years ago. Would be nice if you could use some other excuse to not want to hear people being told they are drinking the kool-aid.

By the way "drinking the kool-aid is not just specific to Jonestown. The saying "Do not drink the kool-aid" does, but the phrase "Having drunk the kool-aid" or "kool-aid drinkers" also means being a strong believer in a particular philosophy or mission - wholeheartedly or blindly believing in its virtues.

From Wikipedia - The expression also refers to the activities of the Merry Pranksters, a group of people associated with novelist Ken Kesey who, in the early 1960s, traveled around the United States and held events called "Acid Tests", where LSD-laced Kool-Aid was passed out to the public (LSD was legal in the U.S. until 1966). Those who drank the "Kool-Aid" passed the "Acid Test". "Drinking the Kool-Aid" in that context meant accepting the LSD drug culture, and the Pranksters' "turned on" point of view. These events were described in Tom Wolfe's 1968 classic "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test". However the expression is never used figuratively in the book, but only literally.

I do have to laugh at your last paragraph because you must realize that I too find myself "fortunate not to come into personal contact with people such as yourself" (whatever that means), but if it means you don't want to know me personally then I'd just say I feel the same way.

Compassion goes both ways.

My last suggestion then if you want to continue coming would be just to skip over the posts you don't like. I do that a lot and it saves on the frustrations. There are people of all cultures that come to this board and speak their minds (on both sides). Both sides insult the others and that's just the way life goes.

What about special rights for the 'morally confused?'
Talk about special privileges.